a hunting section

Discussion in 'About the Forum' started by ABH1, Oct 29, 2013.

  1. Withak

    Withak aka Whitehawk!

    4,700
    2
    38
    Who is fighting? I don't call spirited debate a fight. I, for one am not upset. I enjoy a good debate. As long as everyone can keep their emotions in check, of course. :):):):)
     
  2. Brazilviking

    Brazilviking Thread Hijacker

    3,453
    7
    38
    Believe me...you don't want to see me fighting
     

  3. The censorship i was talking about refers to brazilviking's claim that "hunting doesn't belong here because some members don't like it".

    I agree that "harassment" was the wrong word in this context; i meant to refer the general behavior of those who hate hunting.
    A better word for use in this context would be slander, referring to the moralistic ad hominems.

    I agree, but there is a fine line between voicing one's opinion and trying to force one's opinion on others; a line which has sadly been crossed several times.

    To further clarify, i enjoy hearing and debating other people's ideas and viewpoints, as long as there is mutual respect and common sense amongst all parties involved.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2013
  4. Tilia

    Tilia Junior Member

    478
    0
    0
    for wild live ther is always the option that its not being killed, for animals in the bio industry not, yet a other reason i prefer animals out the wild
     
  5. Tilia

    Tilia Junior Member

    478
    0
    0
    slingshot is a english word that in almost any other languish is translated as catapult

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catapult

    if this is not satisfaction we just have to agree to disagree
     
  6. Withak

    Withak aka Whitehawk!

    4,700
    2
    38
    I believe the intent of any debate is to attempt to persuade someone to your point of view. That hardly fits in as 'forcing' your view on others. Rather to force your view on others, you have to prevent them from expressing theirs in any way and usually involves some kind of actual force. Speaking louder than someone else is nothing more than a nuisance. In the city where I work, we suffer from frequent 'protests' where people, I assume, of good intention use redirection, yelling, screaming, signs, blocking traffic - here, we call that freedom of speech - no matter how annoying they get, they are not 'forcing' their opinion on others. You are still free to believe what you want about this whole discussion. I would suggest though that you stop using words like harassment or forcing (just another form of harassment really) because I just don't see that they apply. BV expressed an opinion, just like everyone else. It was Joerg that stated he didn't want a separate hunting section on this forum, and it's his call.

    That's it for me folks, got to get on to other important stuff. It's been fun. I'll look forward to the next one. Take care.
     
  7. Tilia

    Tilia Junior Member

    478
    0
    0
    if there is no fighting there is no war
    if there is no war then the call to stop the war is non-sence
     
  8. Withak

    Withak aka Whitehawk!

    4,700
    2
    38
    That deserves one last response before I go. Yes, I do disagree. And no, I don't consider Wikipedia as an 'authority' simply because of its open-source editing allowing anyone with a computer to alter an entry. Even that article (which I have read before) notes that it is missing citations needed to make it more reliable. Just a thought.

    But that aside, we were talking about 'slingshots' from the beginning, not catapults. I try to say what I mean, and from the beginning I have meant, and continue to mean, slingshots, not the broader category of 'catapult'.
     
  9. Tilia

    Tilia Junior Member

    478
    0
    0
    right well first a good night wished to you and ill see you to morrow again, will disagree some more;)

    and i cant keep them apart because in the netherlands its called katapult, there is no other name:D

    and also its more beneficial to my side of the argument :D
     
  10. Brazilviking

    Brazilviking Thread Hijacker

    3,453
    7
    38
    So you can REMOVE their option of not being killed!!! Now I understand!

    You make things equal for both!
     
  11. Brazilviking

    Brazilviking Thread Hijacker

    3,453
    7
    38
    May I did not make my point clear. It's not "because some members don't like it". It is BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE OBJECTIVE OF THE FORUM.
    Just as that "other weapons" proposal in the past of this forum too. This is specific place.

    You cannot have a cardiology section on a dermatology forum.
     
  12. Brazilviking

    Brazilviking Thread Hijacker

    3,453
    7
    38
    Now this was a nice ending........
     
  13. Tilia

    Tilia Junior Member

    478
    0
    0
    i doubt that you do...

    they have a change to be killed or not, bio industry does not
    so who is taking the change to live away from witch animal??? thats right i guess you...

    my way animals are born free and live free till they die... weather that is of old age or a predator wolf or man

    your way the animal is born in captivity and stays there till its death and that is by slaughter

    so dont try to sit on your high horse and look down like you have superior morals mate

    which of the two animals would you rather be?

    a wild boar or a domestic meat pig?
    a beef cow or a wild buffalo??
    a soup chicken or a wild pheasant??
     
  14. Brazilviking

    Brazilviking Thread Hijacker

    3,453
    7
    38
    So your point is that there should not be any animal farm, and everybody must hunt your meat?
    It would be nice until the unlucky or unskilled hunter tries to buy other hunter's meat....and than othe one finds out that it is easier to get profit from more sales/trades/etc......
    and after a loooong evolution you have our present situation.
    And no human evolution would happen without creating our own food source industry.
    No firearm, no rubber, no pc....no forum discussion.
    I do not agree with you. You won't agree with me. It's pointless to discuss any further. Let's have a beer!
    (DON'T YOUI DARE TO SAY THAT YOU DON'T DRINK OR I.....)
     
  15. I don't think your example is in any way comparable to this scenario, because "slingshots and the slingshot channel" is a broader topic than "dermatology";

    - Dermatology forum: discuss everything related to dermatology (which does not include cardiology because it's not directly related to dermatology).

    - The slingshot forum: discuss everything related to slingshots and the slingshot channel (which includes "other weapons" and hunting with slingshots).
     
  16. Tilia

    Tilia Junior Member

    478
    0
    0
    no my option is that if people are really against killing they shouldn't eat or use animal products otherwise they are hypocrites
    if you do like meat and don't care about animal well being then they should go to the supermarket, if they like meat and are concerned about suffering they should hunt wild animals, and if they want to be sure it doesn't suffer more then necessary they should do it them self

    if you cant stand the killing don't eat meat, if you eat meat than don't criticize the killers
     
  17. Tilia

    Tilia Junior Member

    478
    0
    0
    beer sounds good to me, but i rather have a jagermeister :D
     
  18. dolomite

    dolomite Banned

    3,613
    1
    0
    Actually slander is quite the wrong word as you have to lose something of monetary value to be slandered, also slander is referring to the spoken word. What you meant(and still the wrong term) is libel. This refers to the printed word, however, there still must be lost monetary value to qualify. So I believe we're back to the term simple disagreement, sure, it's not a hotbutton word but the correct one in this context.
     
  19. ABH1

    ABH1 Member

    40
    0
    6
    Ok, interesting debate, first of all I wanted to tell all of you, that it has been prooved (wether you like it or not) that for many generations our predecesors lived of hunting mainly, therefore we are here thanks to hunting, and hunting is one of the most vital biological elements which controls bio diversity, a food chain needs at some point a predator to control a sustainable development, just imagine how the world will be if we never died... nature is not fair for all living things (in which we are included), the victory of some will be the defeat of others, thats how it works a bit like newtons law (that every effect causes an opposite action), we can improve this, but it will ALWAYS be inminent, hunting also helps farmers and other species, as if you hunt a fox, you can potentially save a rabbits life. Im not sayng hunting is right, is just good, bad and neccesary, we should treat hunting as a culture, a culture that we dont nesseserely like or agree, but that we should simply respect (just like the rest). You may notice that im in favour of this activity or section, but I could guarantee that I do not like animal pain or inhumane killing, but an animal will never like to be hunted even if killed humanely, thats the problem about arguments, they are always contradrictory, the answer always be yes and no...

    Well, how relevant is hunting to the slingshot forum? Well, after all, slingshots are weapons, weapons are specifically intended to kill, so we could obviously relate this to hunting, and consider a hunting section as an extended topic to the forum, its obvious that many people will like this idea... If not, remember, respect it, its a culture!
     
  20. Indeed, but this should be done through rational argumentation.

    That's a huge grey area;

    1. Are you saying that non-violent but powerful forms of
    individuality-repression, such as deceit, indoctrination, societal pressure and slander, are not actual force?

    2. What about calls to the use of force by proxy?; Do you believe it's
    "voicing one's opinion" to call for actions and/or the creation of laws intended to repress, violently or non-violently, people, thoughts or actions with which one disagrees?

    They're not just "being a nuisance", they're abusing their rights to infringe upon those of others.

    Any action intended to infringe upon or in any way hinder the exertion of another individual's rights is uncivil and unethical.

    What if one of their actions, for example blocking traffic, cost someone their life by holding up an ambulance?

    An individual, who believes himself to possess authority in the name of absolute morality, engaging in moralistic bigotry by using ad hominems is making use of verbal force.



    Incorrect, slander is the use of any word with the intent to damage another person's reputation.

    Slander is indeed defined as spoken, but how do you define online communications?

    https://www.google.be/?gws_rd=cr&ei=PIRxUseWNIvHsgbNl4CQBQ#q=slander
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2013