I can't believe this is allowed...

Gilgamesh

sorry, was too tired to read through WWM's post,

thought there was actually a hunting forum.

no harm done, eh?

WhiteWashMan

good lad

anyway, like i said, i am neither for or against it, but youd best come up with a better arguement than, if you dont like it, dont look.

it has nothing to do with legality, after all, people under 18 here discuss porn, people discuss illegal substance, its a moral and ethic thing for some people.
hell, i have no problem with fox hunting, and i was shouted down just for saying that. i personally see no difference between fox hunting and deer hunting, but people do, and i think you should at least respect those views.
in the same way that anti hunting people should respect the right of people to shoot animals from 100 yards away for no other reason than they can...

WhiteWashMan

Gilgamesh wrote:

Porn is not illegal to a certain extent, but the point where it becomes illegal on boards is as soon as it is written in the rules, Which Dev has in place.
So live with it.

actually, its not that its not legal, more that it isnt tolerated...

Evil Phil

Maybe a disclaimer like NSFW and links to pictures instead of IMG tags. Seems like the best of both worlds to me and the NSFW model works very well.

Zaph0d

Ro: maaan! wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=216791

Has this just not been noticed by an admin yet, or is it actually allowed on boards? It's bad enough that they can discuss killing animals here, but to post pictures of the dead animals??? :rolleyes: Are you ****ing kidding?

If you think that's bad, there's a shop near where I live that displays dead animals for public view. Some have been skinned, some decapitated and most dismembered. There's blood everywhere.

It's the children I feel sorry for.

Hobbes

fade2black wrote:

You can show dead animals but you can't show a naked person. Explain that one please

I believe in the US they allow you to hunt naked women with paintballs.. you might get away with that.

oscarBravo

WhiteWashMan wrote:

we have an archery forum, i have yet to see any dead thing on that.

It's illegal to kill anything with an arrow in Ireland.

pickarooney

oscarBravo wrote:

It's illegal to kill anything with an arrow in Ireland.

Except the bishop of somewhere-or-other through one of the windows in Trinity on a specific date.

Evil Phil

pickarooney wrote:

Except the bishop of somewhere-or-other through one of the windows in Trinity on a specific date.

Technically Trinity is British soil (afaik) so it doesn't count as 'In Ireland'. This may be an urban myth though.

Peace

So you'll edit out words like sh.i.t and cu.nt which are heard in the school playgrounds but you'll aloow pictures of a dear with its brains blow out and blood splatters...

And please don't start the argument about you eat meat and burn electricity your a hypocrit... they are killing these animals for pleasure. And yes, i also disagree with sport fishing. Eat what you take.

Boards should be about whats acceptable on a society level, not whats acceptable to the Admin's of the site.

If this is allowed then should Michael Jackson jokes should be really banned from the humour board? Should dead baby jokes should be banned from the humour board?

Links to Mature Content or Rotten websites

That quote is taken from the humour board charter... so why no rotten content allowed there and rotten content on the shooting board.

Also, what happens when someone wants to start posting the result of a human being shot? Maybe just a little brain will be allowed?... maybe we could quantify how large the bullet hole could be and make an approximation in grams of how much external mass or brain matter we could allow... be it animal or human?

I'm all for the NSFW practice, but once its across the board... not just on certain subjects. You open the door to rotten content on the shooting forumn, you open it everywhere - Humanities/Humour/Art/Film

DrIndy

Evil Phil wrote:

Technically Trinity is British soil (afaik) so it doesn't count as 'In Ireland'. This may be an urban myth though.

Now now now.......

Some influential people tried to lobby that when the Free State was created, that Trinity should remain a british enclave.

This was just smoke and mirrors though........

I'm sure someone was shot with an arrow a while ago. Trinity is somewhat built as a fortress with a high railing for defensive purposes due to unrest over the past ages. They even had their own militia for a while. The Junior Dean was killed with a sword after intervening during a debate of the Philosophical society. The society was subsequently banned from trinity for over 100 years.....

stevenmu

Peace wrote:

Boards should be about whats acceptable on a society level, not whats acceptable to the Admin's of the site.

Many people do find hunting and fishing acceptable, and taking photos is a part of those sports. I would see banning them as giving in to a noisy minority, not a true reflection of how wider society feels.

muckwarrior

Peace wrote:

Eat what you take.

How do you know they don't?

Peace wrote:

Boards should be about whats acceptable on a society level,

Exactly. Hunting is acceptable on a society level.

Peace wrote:

If this is allowed then should Michael Jackson jokes should be really banned from the humour board?

I think the difference is that whether or not you find those jokes offensive, they definately are in bad taste. Hunting pictures however, while offensive to some, are not distasteful in the relevant context, i.e. a shooting forum.

Peace wrote:

Also, what happens when someone wants to start posting the result of a human being shot?

Your just being rediculous now.

Gurgle

Peace wrote:

Also, what happens when someone wants to start posting the result of a human being shot? Maybe just a little brain will be allowed

Or a link to a video where a human has his head hacked off by terrorists ?

This stuff is legal and is not age restricted, whether its hunting or international news.

If it offends you, don't look at it.

Sparks

WhiteWashMan wrote:

however, it is in bad taste according to some people.

An awful lot of things are in bad taste (or worse, are mortal sins) according to some people. Doesn't make them immoral, unethical or distasteful, except to those people. And if you don't like it, you are under no obligation to look.

this is not a 'muppet' issue, but a humanities issue, and as such, the arguement 'if you dont like, the dont look' cant apply.

On what basis is it a humanities issue? Are you saying hunting is illegal? Because it isn't. Are you saying it's immoral or unethical? Because if so, you need to be a complete vegan and decry your entire ancestry right back to the precambrian era for having the lack of ethics to have hunted and killed their food.

i dont think you or anyone here has the right to belittle other peoples heartfelt opinions (and animal cruelty is a heartfelt issue, make no mistake).

Noone belittled anyone, except for Ro:mann. As I said, had he been civil and made his point on the forum, it would have been answered civilly. Instead he came in, said that the thread aroused him sexually and was banned for being offensive. Irony, no?

Heartfelt opinions expressed civilly and with an open mind are welcome in the shooting forum. Muppetry is not.

we have an archery forum, i have yet to see any dead thing on that.

Hunting with bows is illegal in Ireland. And despite urban legend, you can't shoot people with bows from the walls of TCD.

we have a greyhound racing forum, i have yet to see hare coursing on that.

That would be because it's a racing forum.

we have a horseracing forum, i have yet to see any fox hunting on that.

That would be because it's a racing forum.

is it a shooting board, or a hunting forum, becuase i see a big difference.

It's both. Read the Charter:

This forum is for the discussion of sports shooting related subjects, including techniques, equipment and events, in all disciplines; as well as for discussion of shooting as it pertains to hunting in Ireland. Discussion of current events is also within the scope of the forum, though the scope for such discussion is restricted to the shooting-related aspects of those events only.

ive never seen any deer shot in the olympics during the shooting...

That's because you've only ever seen the olympic games in the past thirty years. At the founding of the modern games right up until comparatively recently, live animals were shot during the games (clay pigeon, for example, wasn't always shot with inanimate pigeons).

you mean you can be registered to own a gun at any age in ireland?
more absurd laws.

No, not any age. You have to be over 16. Same as for a pilot's licence. That is due to be reduced soon for training licences for olympic air rifles to bring us in line with the rest of the EU and the rest of the world (thus allowing us more of a competitive chance in the olympics), but even then it won't be a licence to own the firearm but merely to shoot it (a parent or guardian will have to have a licence to own it and be present during training/competition).
The laws governing firearms are certainly in need of a small amount of work; but the basic structure is quite sound. What's needed is merely fine-tuning to take into account changes in technology since the law was drafted in '25 and to reduce garda workload over licence renewals.

If it makes you feel any more reassured, that well-known tree-hugging peacenik liberal hippy, Minister McDowell, has stated in the Dail that the current laws on firearms are overly stringent for target shooters and need relaxing as we are of no threat to anyone or anything.

Ro: maaan!

Sparks, "civil"? You think the sentence "This thread gets me so hard" is less civil than shooting an animal? Do you?

As for the hunters doing more for animals than I've ever done... Well I think that if everyone on earth did as much and as little for animals as I did, they'd be quite happy with that.

Anyway I'm really not complaining about hunting at all here. All I have a problem with is the pictures. (Obviously I have a problem with hunting too, but I've accepted that I won't really be able to stop that.) It's just the pictures. They're completely unnecessary. As someone pointed out boards.ie has it's own rules about what's acceptable here and what's not. Certain types of jokes, content etc. All I'm really saying is that while it may be legal, it's unbelievable that this is accepted above other things that are no more offensive. I still don't understand what people get out of looking at these pictures.

The argument that you actually have to seek them out to see them doesn't really help much. It's the same for jokes in humour, but they're still banned.

And the "if you don't want to see them don't look" argument. I usually agree with that. When people were complaining about threads like "What are you listening to right now" I was telling people to just not open them if they don't want to read them. Except in that case the most used phrase in the whole thread was "it's not hurting anyone". Can't really say that here. Can you?

Sparks

Peace wrote:

And please don't start the argument about you eat meat and burn electricity your a hypocrit... they are killing these animals for pleasure.

Actually, they shoot them for meat. Ever eaten venison or rabbit Peace? Partridge? Pheasant? None of those animals are farmed like cattle are (with the exception of an experimental deer farm in the North). They're hunted. And when the National Parks find their deer populations have grown to unsustainable levels and need to carry out a cull, as is the case in Kerry and the Phoenix Park at the moment, the cull is usually carried out by hunters. And when the DSPCA finds an animal in an inaccessible location that's been badly injured, they shoot it with a rifle (and guess where they train so that they can do so as quickly and humanely as possible?)

And for the record, hunting is far sounder ecologically speaking than some more "acceptable" forms of gathering meat like animal husbandry (we've now managed to breed cattle that can't give birth naturally without dying because we want larger haunches on our cattle and larger calfs that take less time to get to marketable weight; battery chickens are infamous for the cruel conditions they're raised in and the diseases that can be spread through those conditions; and pigs in a natural habitat are now so rare that they make television series following farms that try to raise them that way) or fishing (ever eaten cod? You may be among the last humans to do so thanks to overfishing, and that's not the only species we've fished from enormous populations to near-extinction in a human lifetime).

And yes, i also disagree with sport fishing. Eat what you take.

What part of "most, if not all, Irish hunters hunt for the pot" confused you?

Boards should be about whats acceptable on a society level, not whats acceptable to the Admin's of the site.

And hunting is considered, and has been considered, acceptable on a social level for our entire history.

That quote is taken from the humour board charter... so why no rotten content allowed there and rotten content on the shooting board.

Different charters. Did you read the charter for the shooting board at all?

Also, what happens when someone wants to start posting the result of a human being shot?

I believe you're thinking of the Politics forum during the Iraq invasion now, yes?
Because oddly enough, you're not allowed hunt people in Ireland...

And can we restate something for the record please?
hunting photos aren't all photos of dead animals. They can be photos of the hunting party, they can be photos of the landscape taken by the hunter, they can be simple wildlife photos (hunters don't spend all their time in the countryside running about armed looking for something, anything, that they can shoot at, y'know).

muckwarrior

Ro: maaan! wrote:

I still don't understand what people get out of looking at these pictures.

Exactly. You just don't understand it. That doesn't make it offensive/distasteful/wrong! I don't understand homosexuals but I don't go around canvasing for pictures of them to be banned! I just stay away from the homo forum or whatever its called.

Ro: maaan!

Well that's easy enough to explain. You know the way you think of women? Well that's the way gay men think of men. What can you equate looking at dead animals to?

Sparks

Ro: maaan! wrote:

Sparks, "civil"? You think the sentence "This thread gets me so hard" is less civil than shooting an animal? Do you?

Yes.
Was I not clear on that?

As for the hunters doing more for animals than I've ever done... Well I think that if everyone on earth did as much and as little for animals as I did, they'd be quite happy with that.

I doubt it. You're sitting there, probably wearing leather shoes, I'd guess you've eaten a fair bit of chicken, fish, ham, pork, mutton, lamb, steak and other meats during your life, in a society whose economic basis was agrigarian for deceades - offhand, I'd say your mere existance was harmful to animals.

Anyway I'm really not complaining about hunting at all here. All I have a problem with is the pictures.

So you've no problem with the activity so long as you don't have to look at it?
Guess what.
I've got a cunning plan to alleviate your suffering.

All I'm really saying is that while it may be legal, it's unbelievable that this is accepted above other things that are no more offensive.

But obviously it's not offensive to the majority, or butcher shops would have blacked-out windows and would sell all their meat in anonymous looking opaque packaging, wouldn't they?

I still don't understand what people get out of looking at these pictures.

Neither do I. Doesn't mean that they don't get something out of it. I don't see what people get out of watching Eastenders either, but so long as I'm not strapped down in front of the tv like something from the Clockwork Orange and forced to watch it, I don't care.

The argument that you actually have to seek them out to see them doesn't really help much. It's the same for jokes in humour, but they're still banned.

That's not a valid argument. People looking for jokes go to Humour. They may not be looking for smutty jokes or gallows humour, but they can still encounter them. You don't encounter the hunting photos unless you actively go to the Shooting forum and seek them out. Or was there some sort of error in the Boards code that popped them up on your screen the moment you entered the shooting forum?

Except in that case the most used phrase in the whole thread was "it's not hurting anyone". Can't really say that here. Can you?

Yes, I can. Unless, of course, last night when I wasn't looking, we extended human rights to deer and rabbits.

Ro: maaan!

Sparks wrote:

And can we restate something for the record please?
hunting photos aren't all photos of dead animals. They can be photos of the hunting party, they can be photos of the landscape taken by the hunter, they can be simple wildlife photos (hunters don't spend all their time in the countryside running about armed looking for something, anything, that they can shoot at, y'know).

What if people are looking for these lovely landscape photos?

muckwarrior

Ro: maaan! wrote:

What can you equate looking at dead animals to?

I can equate it to looking at a steak on a supermarket shelf!

amp

To those outraged that while porn* and warez are not allowed on boards and pictures of dead animals are, I suggest they re-direct their vitriol towards the irish legal system and not boards.

Basically, if something is likely to get to get boards in trouble then it's not allowed.


*While some porn is not illegal, supplying it to children probably is, and boards can be accessed by children.

Sparks

Ro: maaan! wrote:

What if people are looking for these lovely landscape photos?

Then I doubt they'd be looking in a shooting forum in the first place, but more likely hiking/climbing/orienteering/photography forums, and even then I seriously doubt they'd click on a thread entitled "Hunting Photos" with no conception that there might be some photos of dead animals in it.

Ro: maaan!

Then why make such a point of it that it contains photos of lanscapes and wildlife?

Trojan

Thanks Ro: I thought this was a pretty clear cut issue until I read some of your posts. Try not to get too emotional.

WizZard

Ro: maaan! wrote:

Then why make such a point of it that it contains photos of lanscapes and wildlife?

Classic debating ploy. Nit pick when you know your main arguments are groundless.
Scenic photos are secondary, and Sparks was trying to make the point that it wasn't all dead animals.

You have made a very hysterical argument why you think these types of photos shouldn't be allowed, and it has been countered by a very convincing and mature response from Sparks.
If you can't be open minded enough to acknowledge that something you disagree with can be accepted by society at large then you shouldn't engage in discussions/debates about such.

I don't agree with the sentiment of "if you don't like it don't click on it" when it is applied in general across boards, but in this case I have to agree with it. You went to a Shooting board, and viewed a thread entitled Hunting Photos. What did you expect to find?

And by the way, certain animals also "hunt for sport", and do not eat what they kill. It is not just a human trait. However in totally natural habitats it is rare due to the scarcity of prey.

Sparks

Ro: maaan! wrote:

Then why make such a point of it that it contains photos of lanscapes and wildlife?

Because you're busy portraying the people who post there as being a cross between the Manson family of the animal world and Larry Flynt. The fact is, they're not. You read a clearly-labelled thread in a clearly-labelled forum, decided that you were offended by it's mere existance, and decided to post the comment that you did rather than attempt to engage in civil debate on the matter. You got banned for that, as the forum charter states will happen, and then started this thread rather petulently.

And frankly, I think I've made the argument as fully as is necessary here.

civdef

Sparks wrote:

Because you're busy portraying the people who post there as being a cross between the Manson family of the animal world and Larry Flynt. The fact is, they're not. You read a clearly-labelled thread in a clearly-labelled forum, decided that you were offended by it's mere existance, and decided to post the comment that you did rather than attempt to engage in civil debate on the matter. You got banned for that, as the forum charter states will happen, and then started this thread rather petulently.

And frankly, I think I've made the argument as fully as is necessary here.

What he said.

Trojan

WizZard wrote:

You have made a very hysterical argument why you think these types of photos ... that something you disagree with can be accepted by society at large then you shouldn't engage in discussions/debates about such.

...went to a Shooting board, and viewed a thread entitled Hunting Photos.

Yes, Master. I Will Shoot Hunting Photos.