If you accept that Australian farmers need to raise cattle (which can be argued either way) then yes, the helicopter stampedes are a form of hunting. Yet, they are the only efficient way to _farm_ cattle, as well. In any case, once you accept they need cattle, they _need_ this form of hunting. Still, as the general setting is one of a farm, I am unsure how to coin it.
Very good point, thanks:)
And yes, I mean that.
So to rephrase "hunt on small scale for fun and with guns. along with a fair chance to just maim, not kill". Does not sound as snappy, though:p
Unless we are talking spear-fishing, I'd say that fishing is not hunting. Still, farmed fish that are electrocuted would prolly suffer less than fish crushed to death in giant nets.
As I said: Keeping population down when there is a lack of predators is totally fine. And obviously, it would be a waste not to eat the animals. But in this case, the motivation to hunt is to maintain a certain level. Not to shoot and feed on the animal because there are no gentler alternatives.
> What does it matter that one doesn't need to hunt for food if one wants to hunt for food?
Arguing about _wanting to_ is something else, entirely. I answered an argument that people _need_ to _hunt_ for _food_. When I call bullshit on that, you evade into the "want" department.
You can not argue that way. If you want to tell me I am right about _need_ and we should argue about cost/benefit of _want_, OK.
> The only difference is you want to decide what people should want to do.
No. The difference is that _one_ of the examples you made involves hurting other sentient beings. This fact changes the "let people do what they want" situation into a "let people do what they want, but minimize negative impact on others" one.
Also, neither video games nor web sites per se are a need. Food is. By claiming that hunting is for food, people deliberately pull something from the realm of "want" into the realm of "need". When I call bullshit on that, claiming that "want" is "want" may be true, but is hardly a logical answer to what I said.
It's nothing personal, but I feel reminded of arguing with children or religious zealots, atm.
If your claim of overpopulation of deer in your area is scientifically sound, I have no problems with that. Matter of fact, German foresters are also charged with shooting deer for the very same reasons.
None of what you said shows a need to _hunt_ for _food_, though.
Merely a need to keep the rest of the infrastructure in shape. Also, in theory trapping areas would work; if cruel.
Against hunting. Farms are farms, gardens are gardens; controlled environments where we can minimize harm and pain. Hunting is shooting at things and waiting til they die.
enjoyment - not a need connectedness with nature - not a need (and whatever you mean by that) knowing what's actually *in* their food - no need to _hunt_ tradition - not a need
> Just because you don't see a reason doesn't mean there aren't any.
To quote myself: I dare you to list a single _need_ to _hunt_ for _food_ other than survival.
I am always amazed when people jump onto things and pound them when I said _nothing_ of the kind. Strawman much?
> Obviously there isn't enough game to go around, but it is a superior option for eater and the eaten than taking part in industrial farms.
Obviously. The only options are free-roaming animals who are happy living on pure awesome until you come along and take them out with a single shot; instantly killing them, not disturbing any other animals, etc. The other option is a combined nursery/force-feeder/meat-grinder.
Concepts like letting the animals live happily, sheltering them, protecting them from predators and then killing them swiftly, precisely and without pain do not exist.
Now that we have this settled, I hope you go on defending hunting.
> But it would be good for us if we had to slaughter our own meat.
Agreed. Matter of fact, I might be able to skin & prepare a deer at some point. Not kill or disembowel though, so I get of easy. Why am I doing this? Because I think I should know what is involved in making food out of a living, feeling being. Food is necessary and meat is a natural food so I try not to worry too much about the whole thing, but it's still good to _know_.
> We in the US are a bunch of hypocrites - except for maybe the PETA nuts.
I am German, but that hardly matters; we have hypocrites, too. Is it OK to kill/harm humans to "save" animals? Dunno.
It was nice and refreshing to see that some religious people are just trying to live their lifes like they see fit without making everyone else miserable.
If all the extremists, no matter what kind, were to be totally ignored, the world might be a better place.
Other than regulated government-employed hunters that regulate population _based on facts_, there is no need for hunters.
Matter of fact, the German word "Jaeger" is all but unused, these days. We have foresters who keep the wood tracks, mark ill trees and the like. Also, they have a gun to keep deers down (they are an actual problem here) and if push comes to shove take out the one rabbid animals that happens to be lose every few years.
The point of plausible deniability is that you can plausibly deny having more data on that disk.
Obviously, they will try real hard to get at whatever might be in there. And obviously, if you decide that it's in your best interest to give up all keys and offsets because they will kill your family if you don't and they _still_ think you are hiding stuff.... Tough luck. But that is what OP wants, downsides and all.
Obviously, they will try real hard to get at whatever is in there. And obviously, if you decide that you will give up all keys and offsets because they will kill your family if they don't and they _still_ think you are hiding stuff.... Tough luck. But that is what OP wants, downsides and all.
Slashdot Mirror
You are the umpteenth person to try to twist the "need" into a "want" debait (sic). At least you are doing so directly.
And bears to eat the wolves. Then, laser sharks. With lasers!
Sex slaves? They are in it for our organs! Namely, spleens!
If you accept that Australian farmers need to raise cattle (which can be argued either way) then yes, the helicopter stampedes are a form of hunting. Yet, they are the only efficient way to _farm_ cattle, as well. In any case, once you accept they need cattle, they _need_ this form of hunting. Still, as the general setting is one of a farm, I am unsure how to coin it.
Very good point, thanks :)
And yes, I mean that.
So to rephrase "hunt on small scale for fun and with guns. along with a fair chance to just maim, not kill". Does not sound as snappy, though :p
Unless we are talking spear-fishing, I'd say that fishing is not hunting. Still, farmed fish that are electrocuted would prolly suffer less than fish crushed to death in giant nets.
As I said: Keeping population down when there is a lack of predators is totally fine. And obviously, it would be a waste not to eat the animals. But in this case, the motivation to hunt is to maintain a certain level. Not to shoot and feed on the animal because there are no gentler alternatives.
> What does it matter that one doesn't need to hunt for food if one wants to hunt for food?
Arguing about _wanting to_ is something else, entirely. I answered an argument that people _need_ to _hunt_ for _food_. When I call bullshit on that, you evade into the "want" department.
You can not argue that way. If you want to tell me I am right about _need_ and we should argue about cost/benefit of _want_, OK.
But don't try circular/evasive arguments.
> The only difference is you want to decide what people should want to do.
No. The difference is that _one_ of the examples you made involves hurting other sentient beings. This fact changes the "let people do what they want" situation into a "let people do what they want, but minimize negative impact on others" one.
Also, neither video games nor web sites per se are a need. Food is. By claiming that hunting is for food, people deliberately pull something from the realm of "want" into the realm of "need". When I call bullshit on that, claiming that "want" is "want" may be true, but is hardly a logical answer to what I said.
It's nothing personal, but I feel reminded of arguing with children or religious zealots, atm.
If your claim of overpopulation of deer in your area is scientifically sound, I have no problems with that. Matter of fact, German foresters are also charged with shooting deer for the very same reasons.
None of what you said shows a need to _hunt_ for _food_, though.
Merely a need to keep the rest of the infrastructure in shape. Also, in theory trapping areas would work; if cruel.
Bottom line: No _need_ to _hunt_ for _food_.
> Are you arguing against hunting or gardens?
Against hunting. Farms are farms, gardens are gardens; controlled environments where we can minimize harm and pain. Hunting is shooting at things and waiting til they die.
enjoyment - not a need
connectedness with nature - not a need (and whatever you mean by that)
knowing what's actually *in* their food - no need to _hunt_
tradition - not a need
> Just because you don't see a reason doesn't mean there aren't any.
To quote myself: I dare you to list a single _need_ to _hunt_ for _food_ other than survival.
Shooting an animal and letting it die more or less swiftly crueler than bolt-shooting their head and opening a vein while they are knocked out.
Everything else you said is setting up a strawman. I did not state anything of the kind and won't fall for it.
As an aside, strawmen arguments seem to be popular trying to twist ways around my parent post. Hint: there is no logical way around it.
Finally, need != want. That is so unbelievably obvious.....
> "Modern society" isn't vegetarian.
I am always amazed when people jump onto things and pound them when I said _nothing_ of the kind. Strawman much?
> Obviously there isn't enough game to go around, but it is a superior option for eater and the eaten than taking part in industrial farms.
Obviously. The only options are free-roaming animals who are happy living on pure awesome until you come along and take them out with a single shot; instantly killing them, not disturbing any other animals, etc. The other option is a combined nursery/force-feeder/meat-grinder.
Concepts like letting the animals live happily, sheltering them, protecting them from predators and then killing them swiftly, precisely and without pain do not exist.
Now that we have this settled, I hope you go on defending hunting.
> But it would be good for us if we had to slaughter our own meat.
Agreed. Matter of fact, I might be able to skin & prepare a deer at some point. Not kill or disembowel though, so I get of easy.
Why am I doing this? Because I think I should know what is involved in making food out of a living, feeling being. Food is necessary and meat is a natural food so I try not to worry too much about the whole thing, but it's still good to _know_.
> We in the US are a bunch of hypocrites - except for maybe the PETA nuts.
I am German, but that hardly matters; we have hypocrites, too. Is it OK to kill/harm humans to "save" animals? Dunno.
If I tell you that I solved N=NP while we are taking a leak, is it news?
Read: No one cares about where they said it. They don't even care _who_ said it. They care about _what was said_.
Fuck kidneys, they are out for our spleen!
Yes. Next question.
Also, you can pay per click or per view with Google Ads. If you pay for views and the ad is displayed for three seconds or more, you pay.
We would not descent on a planet running on acid (unlikely as acid is chemically reactive, water is not).
They would prolly not travel a gazillion frolwotshs just to die in our water. Presumably, they have their own.
It was nice and refreshing to see that some religious people are just trying to live their lifes like they see fit without making everyone else miserable.
If all the extremists, no matter what kind, were to be totally ignored, the world might be a better place.
> Why can't I buy beer on Sunday?
What the fuck? Where do you live? Serious question.
Lots of people pointed out wires, fuel tanks, baggage, travellers who are afraid enough as it is etc.
But I have to say this:
GEEKGASM!
Do want. I would need to fly alone as my gf would never ever join me but what the heck. Worth it! 50% mark-up on the price? Still, I will go!
Or they will, like, shoot at the stuff that is not as clearly marked and elsewhere.
Those people talk amongst each other. The location of the cameras and the design of the targets would be well-known soon.
> Why "hunters" need guns?
Other than regulated government-employed hunters that regulate population _based on facts_, there is no need for hunters.
Matter of fact, the German word "Jaeger" is all but unused, these days. We have foresters who keep the wood tracks, mark ill trees and the like. Also, they have a gun to keep deers down (they are an actual problem here) and if push comes to shove take out the one rabbid animals that happens to be lose every few years.
> I'm all for hunting for food.
Why? Other than in survival scenarios, that is.
I dare you to list one single reason why a modern society _needs_ to _hunt_ for _food_. There are none.
FWIW, I agree with the rest of your post. Maybe you even meant to say the same thing I just said, I am not 100% sure. If that's the case: Sorry :)
I think you mean one guy one cup. Google at your own risk.
Can they prove it? No.
The point of plausible deniability is that you can plausibly deny having more data on that disk.
Obviously, they will try real hard to get at whatever might be in there. And obviously, if you decide that it's in your best interest to give up all keys and offsets because they will kill your family if you don't and they _still_ think you are hiding stuff.... Tough luck. But that is what OP wants, downsides and all.
Can they prove it? No.
The point of plusible deniability ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability ) is that you can plusibly deny havingmore data on it.
Obviously, they will try real hard to get at whatever is in there. And obviously, if you decide that you will give up all keys and offsets because they will kill your family if they don't and they _still_ think you are hiding stuff.... Tough luck. But that is what OP wants, downsides and all.