RennsportPhotography wrote:
Some people like to fish and hunt, some do not.

Why does the OP feel his POV is superior to those with a different view? Rather intolerant and judgmental IMO. I put this in the same category as the NYC Mayor's war on 16 oz drinks, much ado about nothing.

Shark, bear, deer or skunk species does not make much of a difference.

I am having a hard time feeling outraged by people doing what they have for ages and having a good time and keeping people employed.

Well, would you like to be hunted and killed for sport?  Even hunted, caught and released?

Because I sure wouldn't.  Maybe that's intolerant and judgmental, but I think that kind of thing could ruin my whole day.

Lumatic wrote:
Goddamn people and their egos.

Now ask me how I really feel.

/rant

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

John Jebbia wrote:
Found it.. it was a clam. 450yrs..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306076,00.html

omg a clam?! what is this world coming to?!

Christopher Hartman wrote:

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

No one is without an ego.  The variables lie in how we express them.

Lumatic wrote:

Well, would you like to be hunted and killed for sport?  Even hunted, caught and released?

Because I sure wouldn't.  Maybe that's intolerant and judgmental, but I think that kind of thing could ruin my whole day.

Yes, it is intolerant and judgemental. For many years, I fished tournaments all over. Some I release, some I eat. You think your opinion on the matter is the one that everyone should have - that makes you intolerant.

Lumatic wrote:

Well, would you like to be hunted and killed for sport?  Even hunted, caught and released?

Because I sure wouldn't.  Maybe that's intolerant and judgmental, but I think that kind of thing could ruin my whole day.

Because apparently a human life is the only life worth anything. Don't ask me to explain any intellectual reasoning behind that. I can't.

Lumatic wrote:
Well, would you like to be hunted and killed for sport?  Even hunted, caught and released?

Because I sure wouldn't.  Maybe that's intolerant and judgmental, but I think that kind of thing could ruin my whole day.

Are you a vegetarian?

P O T T S wrote:

Yes, it is intolerant and judgemental. For many years, I fished tournaments all over. Some I release, some I eat. You think your opinion on the matter is the one that everyone should have - that makes you intolerant.

As I said.  It makes me intolerant of killing for sport.  Likewise for catching and releasing.  I wouldn't like it any more than the animals would. 

Again - would you?

JessieLeigh wrote:

Are you a vegetarian?

No.

I don't kill vegetables for sport, either.  I eat what I kill. 

Kelli wrote:

Because apparently a human life is the only life worth anything. Don't ask me to explain any intellectual reasoning behind that. I can't.

And you call yourself a human. 

Lumatic wrote:

No.

I don't kill vegetables for sport, either.  I eat what I kill. 

I just find it a little interesting that you make comments like this:

Lumatic wrote:
Well, would you like to be hunted and killed for sport?  Even hunted, caught and released?

But you hunt for food... Do you think the animals you hunt for food enjoy it? Why is that a valid reason to look down your nose at people that hunt for sport when it's pretty logical to assume that the animals you hunt for food feel just as bad about the situation you put them in as the animals in these situations?

Personally, I think hunting for food or sport, within the legal limits of the laws made to ensure that animal populations are protected, is perfectly acceptable... And see this entire argument a bit laughable.

Lumatic wrote:
As I said.  It makes me intolerant of killing for sport.  Likewise for catching and releasing.  I wouldn't like it any more than the animals would. 

Again - would you?

I have no issues being the top of the food chain.

Catch and release hunting is virtually impossible. Catch and release fishing most often is. In most bass tournaments, there are huge penalties for bringing dead fish to the scales.

Have you ever eaten shark? It's very good. Often, round, white flakey "scallops" are really shark or skate (same family). They use a tube to punch out the shape from filets. 

What you will find is that most outdoors people, hunters and fishers, are often some of the most active conservationists. Not enviromentalists, which is entirely different. I am guessing you probably dont like Ted Nugent's line, "You have to kill it to grill it."

Kelli wrote:
One time a guy was bragging to me that he tortured a squirrel to death. I got pissed off about it and another guy tried to make me feel better by saying, " Toronto is over-populated with squirrels anyways. " I told him " Toronto is also over-populated with assholes, what should we do about that? "

People that torture animals have a greater potential to eventually harm people.  They are dangerous.

Lumatic wrote:



No one is without an ego.  The variables lie in how we express them.

are you a vegetarian? Do you allow yourself to associate with people that consume animals?

Lumatic wrote:

No.

I don't kill vegetables for sport, either.  I eat what I kill. 

I'm confused...so...you ARE ok with people killing animals?

They didn't catch and kill a shark and dump it.  The body IS being used for something worthwhile (perhaps not to me or you, but someone is putting it to use)...so what exactly is the problem?

I have a feeling you don't really give a shit about the shark.  You're just upset that these guys are being praised for their catch.  Their egos are being stroked while yours goes unnoticed.

JessieLeigh wrote:
I just find it a little interesting that you make comments like this:


But you hunt for food... Do you think the animals you hunt for food enjoy it? Why is that a valid reason to look down your nose at people that hunt for sport when it's pretty logical to assume that the animals you hunt for food feel just as bad about the situation you put them in as the animals in these situations?

Personally, I think hunting for food or sport, within the legal limits of the laws made to ensure that animal populations are protected, is perfectly acceptable... And see this entire argument a bit laughable.

Yeah, except I don't hunt for food.  I don't have a reason to.  If I had to live off the land and needed to eat, then I'd hunt.  And of course they wouldn't enjoy it.  Whether or not anything would enjoy being killed isn't what set me off, that was in response to the question of morality.

Earlier in the thread, I brought up hunters who, when they kill, honor the animal for providing them with food.  That is not the intent of sport hunting.  Hunting for population control is now necessary for some species because of human encroachment.  That is also not the intent of sport hunting, even though it utilizes sport hunting.  The purpose of both of those activities is to maintain a balance in context and there's a reason for them.

I'm not talking about hunters who live off the land, understand conservation or any of that.  Those people don't celebrate world records and they don't sensationalize death - at least the ones that I know.  Sport hunting for its own sake is out of balance with nature.  It's entirely ego-driven (which I alluded to in the OP), and it's entirely unnecessary apart from that.  It doesn't feed anyone and, especially when unchecked, it's potentially destructive to the entire ecosystem of which we're a part. 

So yeah, I look down my nose at people whose actions have the potential to needlessly affect me, everyone and everything else, no problem with that at all.  Like I said earlier, this is not about the shark, it's about not understanding life.  The focus of this story on the sensational nature of the kill is a symptom of that.

I also look down at rapists, molesters, and crooked politicians.  Not too many people fault me for that, but to me, sport hunting is the same thing relative to the Earth.

Lumatic wrote:
I also look down at rapists, molesters, and crooked politicians.  Not too many people fault me for that, but to me, sport hunting is the same thing relative to the Earth.

I have no respect or understanding of people that make these types of value assessments.

I believe this type of thinking has potential to be harmful and dangerous.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I have no respect or understanding of people that make these types of value assessments.

I believe this type of thinking has potential to be harmful and dangerous.

You go right ahead.  But unless you're a rapist, a molester or a crooked politician, I'm not interfering with your ability to live for no good reason.

Lumatic wrote:
You go right ahead.  But unless you're a rapist, a molester or a crooked politician, I'm not interfering with your ability to live for no good reason.

You're suggesting that sport hunters are no better than them.

I feel that is crazy talk.  It's dangerous. I do not trust people like you.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
You're suggesting that sport hunters are no better than them.

I feel that is crazy talk.  It's dangerous. I do not trust people like you.

They kill for ego and nothing more.

I equate that to raping the Earth.

Lumatic wrote:

They kill for ego and nothing more.

I equate that to raping the Earth.

I understand what you're saying.  I think it's dangerous.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I understand what you're saying.  I think it's dangerous.

Yeah, it's a dangerous world.  Look what happened to the shark.

Lumatic wrote:

And you call yourself a human. 

Reluctantly.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

People that torture animals have a greater potential to eventually harm people.  They are dangerous.

He didn't just torture the animal, he took great pride in bragging about it. You should've seen the smirk on his face. Psychotic individual.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Hey, that's a shot of 10-time breech event gold medal winner, Bruce Finner!

You can't see the judges' boat off-camera, but they gave him 9.7's and 9.8's across the board except for the Russian judge.  Almost cost him the event that year.

Allen Carbon wrote:

1. Fishing and killing seals and dolphins are not the same. They aren't fish. You can't fish something that's not a fish. It's like bringing killing tigers into the equation. In fact it is, they are mammals.
2. No, my view was not at all the view of the people who killed elephants and rhinos.
Give me one shred of evidence that even remotely supports that. Otherwise it is just shallow accusations.

So its okay because sharks aren't fish?   What kind of logic is that?   You can fish non fish.  The point is sharks are not liked like dolphins or whales or other sea animals.   Does that give us the right to destroy them?   If we eat the shark, fine but the ideal of sport fishing is disgusting to me.   As is the ideal of hunting lions, tigers and other animals purely for sport.   Not getting what being a mammal has to do with the debate.   Hunting them for sport is wrong.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

So its okay because sharks aren't fish?   What kind of logic is that?   You can fish non fish.  The point is sharks are not liked like dolphins or whales or other sea animals.   Does that give us the right to destroy them?   If we eat the shark, fine but the ideal of sport fishing is disgusting to me.   As is the ideal of hunting lions, tigers and other animals purely for sport.   Not getting what being a mammal has to do with the debate.   Hunting them for sport is wrong.

My father is a hunter and he always refers to it as a sport. I never understood that. Don't sports have equal opportunity? I don't know what's equal about a deer in the woods up against a man with a gun.

"Men hunt I think maybe because they have something wrong with their own equipment and they need something else to shoot." Pamela Anderson

Kelli wrote:

My father is a hunter and he always refers to it as a sport. I never understood that. Don't sports have equal opportunity? I don't know what's equal about a deer in the woods up against a man with a gun.

"Men hunt I think maybe because they have something wrong with their own equipment and they need something else to shoot." Pamela Anderson

No, there are many sport that are not "equal opportunity". Surfing is a sport, as is golf, as is running. All sports are not one team or person against another.

Lumatic wrote:

Allen Carbon wrote:
1. It's not paraphrasing when your using quotations. So yeah. Syntax isn't my issue. It's yours. You're the one that brought it up. Maybe practise what you preach?

Well, you're right that paraphrasing doesn't require quotation marks.  You're wrong about syntax, since your paraphrasing below still misses the point, even though I placed much emphasis on it in my previous post.  So I guess we both miss on that point.

Allen Carbon wrote:
So you admit that the part i highlighted wasn't a small part? that was the whole point of me bring up that.

I mean really how many times will you push this thing that I can't comprehend when all i've been doing is answering your points? lol

What part, about the research?  Well, I'm not going to revisit it anymore, because it looks like you don't get that research isn't what I'm getting at.  Or, maybe don't want to, I don't know.  Either way, you're trying to articulate what you think I'm saying below and still missing, so what else can I assume about your comprehension?  Either you can't or won't grasp it, or you're just not paying attention because you're fixed on this research thing, which isn't the issue of this thread.

Allen Carbon wrote:
But I am right. You have never been on a boat let alone touch a fish before.
Evidently?
Ha!
once again.

Allen Carbon wrote:
Your entire argument is inherently flawed.

Your argument was that you are angry that this man killed a Fish for sport.
My argument points out that he didn't kill the fish for sport. That the fish died for research.
You try and bring up that the killing of said fish was never the point. You then proceed to attack my comprehension. That it was always about the significance of life.
I merely pointed out that your initial point was about the fish.
You said that it was a little bit of it
I said that it was 3 paragraphs
You said I needed to check my comprehension again? and when you realize that I was right about the fish not needing to die but they killed it for research not for sport you went on about how I would feel having things in my mouth.

Now that is paraphrasing.

Yes, it is.  Inaccurately, though I suppose that was on purpose.  Obviously, further discussion between us on this topic is pointless, as mentioned.


Assuming that's an actual question, the answer is that this story made me angry, but I'm not at all an angry person.  Further, the only angry post in this thread was the OP - everything else, while pointed and emphatic, was not.  I don't even think I've ever posted an angry rant thread, or if I have it was too long ago for me to remember.

I have nothing against you either, I don't know you from Adam.  I do, however, find your continual leaps to false conclusions and condescending attitude - further evidenced by this quote above - entirely off-putting in the context of this thread.

cute.