I can't believe this is allowed...

Kingsize

i guess theres an air of arrogance about it,
I dont eat meat & dont agree with
cruelty to animals
but i do agree that in hunting its you against the animal,so i guess the prey gets a "sporting chance" -rightly or wrongly it has a better chance of getting away than an abbatoir bound sheep or whatever.
billy connoly was right hunting is just ugly people killing beautiful animals.

rsynnott

Kingsize wrote:

i guess theres an air of arrogance about it,
I dont eat meat & dont agree with
cruelty to animals
but i do agree that in hunting its you against the animal,so i guess the prey gets a "sporting chance" -rightly or wrongly it has a better chance of getting away than an abbatoir bound sheep or whatever.
billy connoly was right hunting is just ugly people killing beautiful animals.

The point really isn't the killing of the animal; that happens a lot anyway. The point is people getting PLEASURE out of killing (and in some cases torturing) the animal, and then posting pictures, like some twisted pornography. There's something wrong with these people.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

There's something wrong with these people.

According to you. According to many others there’s something wrong with these people vegans, and vegetarians are just a little odd.

Isn’t the World a wonderfully diverse thing?

Feel free to call back when your opinion is actually worth something more than just an opinion. Then you can state it as fact.

Sparks

(and in some cases torturing)

Care to back that one up with an example?

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

According to you. According to many others there’s something wrong with these people vegans, and vegetarians are just a little odd.

Isn’t the World a wonderfully diverse thing?

Feel free to call back when your opinion is actually worth something more than just an opinion. Then you can state it as fact.

Vegans are odd in that they're espousing a somewhat impractical ethical point of view. My problem is the people getting pleasure out of killing and causing pain. If you ask someone straight out do they think it's good, or even okay, to get pleasure out of causing pain and death, they will probably say no. Looks like a step on the slippery slope to getting a rush out of shooting the neighbohr, or torturing them. :rolleyes: I just can't see what GOOD it does anyone, really. And it certainly does harm, to the animal, and more significantly to the perpetrator.

rsynnott

Sparks wrote:

Care to back that one up with an example?

Fox hunting, plus the various blood sports. (I realise that not all hunters by any means are into this stuff, but some certainly are).

StupidLikeAFox

why is this issue even being debated?

There is something on the internet which displeases/upsets/disgusts someone
Boo-freakin-Hoo
Deal with it!!

Sparks

rsynnott wrote:

Fox hunting, plus the various blood sports. (I realise that not all hunters by any means are into this stuff, but some certainly are).

Fox hunting (the kind you do with hounds) isn't covered by the shooting forum. Fox hunting with rifles is, but I don't think you can call putting a large-calibre rifle round through a fox (killing it instantly) "torture".

DarkPassage wrote:

You're the shooting forum mod aint you, why not post the pics from your friend who went hunting in Dunblane ?

You mean the guy who lied on his firearms licence application form (which wasn't checked - a single phone call that might have saved sixteen children), had been thrown out of several rifle clubs (and was going to be thrown out of the one he was in at the time of the shooting), was signed off on by the scottish police despite several irregularities on his firearms licence, and who would have been up on assault charges had the woman involved picked up the phone, thus preventing the shooting in the school? Or are you talking about one of the other million or more legitimate shooters in the UK, all of whom were tarred with the same brush as one paedophile nutjob by a public who wouldn't know an olympic rifle if you hit them over the head with it?

John

DarkPassage wrote:

Have been around these part a few years and heard you again and again defending shooting as a sport, quote a 'Sport'

Just like all the boxers who are harbouring all those violent husbands and all those F1 racers who are the cause of all the carnage on the roads.

its only one step from killing animals to killing people.

I think you'll find it's a bloody big step. I think very few people who would kill an animal would kill a human (even if the reverse is not true).

Sparks

DarkPassage wrote:

I mean the guy who had a firearms fetish.

I think you're thinking of Hungerford, not Dunblane. Hamilton's defining feature was his paedophile tendencies, not the fetish for guns and Walter Mitty tendencies that Ryan displayed. (And btw, had Ryan been reported by the neighbours he shot at with an air rifle, or by his work after they disciplined him for showing up with a pistol in his belt and a knife in his boot, then the sixteen people shot dead by him in Hungerford would still be alive). The problem in both cases wasn't the guns; nor was it the system of laws in place; it was simply and tragicly that people didn't apply the laws.

Have been around these part a few years and heard you again and again defending shooting as a sport, quote a 'Sport', yet here you are showing your true colours defending killing,

Shooting sports and sport shooting are about as far apart as american football and golf. Both take place outdoors, on grass type surfaces, with lots of money and spectators, and both use balls. Same as target shooting and hunting both use firearms. But you'll find the differences are more vast and fundamental than you currently know. However, the degree of misunderstanding and vitriol that gets pointed our way is the same.

And yes, I'll defend hunting if done safely and humanely. I happen to like eating meat, both because of the taste and because I don't like my physiology suffering because of a lack of required nutrients that we evolved consuming from meat. And frankly, the NARGC are worth a lot more than the "animal rights" groups in terms of how many animals and species they save. You may not like hunting; you may never wish to hunt (same as myself); but you have to acknowlege that those who do hunt are also the most active conservationists in the country in both the amount of time volunteered and money spent. To do otherwise is offensive. And we wouldn't want to offend people, now would we?

its only one step from killing animals to killing people.

Pretty much every army in the world disagrees with you and has the research proving that you're wrong. Soldiers prior to WW1 were trained to shoot at bullseye targets like those that olympic shooters shoot at. Many were hunters before the war. And universally, the first time they had to shoot at a living breathing person, they couldn't bring themselves to do it until it was a case of shoot or be shot - and even then, new units suffered horrible casualty rates because they couldn't open fire even when it was a life-or-death situation. End result was that armies radically changed their training - today, they train people to kill people because if they don't, soldiers can't pull the trigger.
And the way they train them is nothing like the way target shooters and hunters are trained. Their training is completely the opposite of everything that hunters and target shooters learn from day one.

Check all the other sport forums and see how many involve death :rolleyes:

Boxing, and indeed all the martial arts, flying, racecar driving, bicycling and motorbike racing, gliding, hangliding, paragliding, sailing, scuba diving, rock climbing, skiing, oh, and fishing. That's thirty seconds worth of typing, I could go on, but I trust my point is made? At least with hunting, it's an animal that's killed, not a human. Only fishing in the above list can say that. Boxing and martial arts kill participants (in fact most of the martial arts are designed to kill opponents, we just don't do that anymore). All kinds of flying will kill participants if they make a bad mistake or are just unlucky. Same with racing and sailing (though racing can kill spectators as well - in fact, it's still illegal in Switzerland because of that, though they happily have target shooting as a national sport the way we have GAA).

WizZard

Isn't it time this thread got moved to humanities?

Kingsize

Boxing, and indeed all the martial arts, flying, racecar driving, bicycling and motorbike racing, gliding, hangliding, paragliding, sailing, scuba diving, rock climbing, skiing, oh, and fishing.

none of these sports are based on killing people, the fact that people get killed partaking in them is just a sad fact of life.the object of hunting is to kill theres the difference & while i dont like it myself i agree that its not illegal & that people should ignore it or campaign against it but not censor it.
having said that there does seem to be a double standard on boards ,when somebody can display a picture of a freshly killed animal, or indeed discuss their genital warts in detail but not post a picture of a nipple???

WhiteWashMan

its totally allowable, if that nipple is on a dead animal....

bounty

everyone knows that nipples are evil, and the fabric of space will tear apart and we will all die horrible deaths if nipples are allowed

btw heres a nipple

Sparks

Kingsize wrote:

none of these sports are based on killing people

Except for boxing and the martial arts and fencing and javelin throwing and the discus and archery and darts - all of which evolved from martial backgrounds. Scratch the surface of just about any sport we do and you find not-so-sporting roots to it. You don't even want to know how polo originated...

the object of hunting is to kill

For food, yes. If there's a way to get meat without killing, you might want to let us in on it!

having said that there does seem to be a double standard on boards ,when somebody can display a picture of a freshly killed animal, or indeed discuss their genital warts in detail but not post a picture of a nipple???

Pornography laws rarely make sense when looked at in that light.
Looked at in the light of these images being available to anyone regardless of age though, and it's a different story. But the demographics of the boards.ie posters (predominantly young single men) and the demographics of pornography fans (predominantly young single men) are so in tune that it's not ever going to be a popular choice. It is, however, a legal requirement.

Kingsize

I was only pointing out that killing is not the the object of the modern day sports mentioned by somebody else
look back far enough into history & youll see that murder was an everyday occurence

the object of hunting as a sport is surely not to kill for food but for sport.
most meat eaters do not hunt for their food they go to the butchers & they dont have to kill anything- im not saying i agree with it but thats the truth.


it is also possible to live a normal healthy & long life without ever eating meat.

point taken about the porn i was just raising a point which was touched on by somebody else earlier in the thread,i would hate to see this forum turned into a free for all but perhaps other peoples sensitivities should be taken into account too.personally i find people bragging about the animals they have killed a bit more disturbing than any of the hunting photos ive seen.

also by saying that hunting is legal therefore post any pics you like is setting a scary precedent for all kinds of sick FUKKERS to post their dead cat/harecoursing/cock fighting/whatever pics in the hunting forum.

daskraut

Ro: maaan! wrote:

What point? It's your point that lacks sense. Legality has nothing to do with it. It's wrong, offensive, senseless, brutal, and serves no purpose.

you think its wrong but others dont!! i dont really like it but thats life get on wit it...

The Corinthian

Boards is an Irish public Website and so it must follow not only the laws but also the sensibilities of the majority of Ireland. This is why pornography and scenes of extreme violence (such as the Nick Berg beheading video) have been removed in the past. Given this, some potentially offensive material has not been removed, such as images of the dead in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, even though some people may find them too graphic or offensive, because the majority of Society did not.

From what I’ve seen of the threads in question the images are not graphic - certainly to the point that they would offend sensibilities of the majority. They do, however, offend the sensibilities of a minority, not because of their race, gender, sexual orientation or creed, but because of their ideology.

What these complainants seem not to understand is that this is simply their opinion, but that is all it is. It is not a fact that killing animals is wrong. It is not a fact that eating animals is wrong. These are simply opinions, based upon one political outlook, which they are welcome to debate on the boards dedicated to such debate, but until then Boards is simply following the laws and mores of the Society that we live in.

And finally, if they don’t like it, given that ultimately Boards.ie is a private company, they can fúck off and go elsewhere to whine.

Kingsize

It is not a fact that killing animals is wrong

thats your opinion you dont speak for the majority of irish people no more than i do i agree the images were not graphic but i think you are missing the point.what makes one persons gripe any different than another's?what constitutes a whiNE???

some people are obviously offended by this
regardless of how ridiculous their arguement is telling them to FUKK off is a cop out.

The Corinthian

Kingsize wrote:

thats your opinion you dont speak for the majority of irish people no more than i do i agree the images were not graphic but i think you are missing the point.what makes one persons gripe any different than another's?

Let me explain it to you - it is not a fact that killing or eating animals is wrong. Some are of the opinion that it is wrong, and some are of the opinion that it is not. However, it is because of this, that it cannot be called a fact, which is what a number of people here have claimed.

what constitutes a whiNE???

It’s a general moral indignation based on a hysterical and emotive assumptions to an issue.

Alternatively you can read back on some of your own previous posts.

some people are obviously offended by this
regardless of how ridiculous their arguement is telling them to FUKK off is a cop out.

Not so much a cop out as a limit on one’s patience. You can’t expect me or anyone else to suffer fools gladly indefinitely.

Kingsize

you can not say that its a FACT that killing an animal is not wrong
its a fact based on an opinion .
i wasnt even one of the complainants but you obviously dont care about peoples opinions because they differ to yours not because they are "based on hysterical and emotive assumptions"

its a FACT that a lot of the content boards.ie is also based on hysterical and emotive assumptions & i would argue that the boards would not survive/or be half as good without it.
what it can do without is biased moderators & a feedback forum that takes sides & p-isses all over peoples beliefs & insults people rather than adressing the issues raised.
"Let me explain it to you" nobody is forcing you to get involved- if you cant do it properly or without such a biased patronising manner may i suggest you give it up or let somebody else get involved.

The Corinthian

Kingsize wrote:

you can not say that its a FACT that killing an animal is not wrong

But I didn’t say that. Read over it again. If you still don’t understand, ask a grown up.

its a FACT that a lot of the content boards.ie is also based on hysterical and emotive assumptions & i would argue that the boards would not survive/or be half as good without it

Absolutely, but this is the Feedback board, not the Humanities or Politics board. This is not a place to discuss whether it is right or wrong to kill animals. Take it there, as has been suggested repeatedly.

what it can do without is biased moderators & a feedback forum that takes sides & p-isses all over peoples beliefs & insults people rather than adressing the issues raised.

Again I suggest you take it to the Humanities or Politics board and you can whine all you want there about your beliefs.

"Let me explain it to you" nobody is forcing you to get involved- if you cant do it properly or without such a biased patronising manner may i suggest you give it up or let somebody else get involved.

Oddly the same could be said for you - so what’s your point?

Kingsize

my problem is not with the hunting board its with your atitude thats my point

WizZard

But is the original issue not resolved?

ie.
Question: I can't believe it's allowed, is it?
Answer: Yes, since it's not against boards policies, and doesn't offend the sensibilities of the majority of users.

Question #2: But why, I think it's bad!
Answer #2: Well, that's your opinion. Thanks, bye.

Question #3: Ha, cruel carnivore! I think you're wrong, so there.
Answer #3: ...?

The Corinthian

Kingsize wrote:

my problem is not with the hunting board its with your atitude thats my point

Diddums. That's your problem - as you put it yourself nobody is forcing you to get involved.

Kingsize

i think its ultimately your problem too but you'll never agree with me because you are far too superior i'll bet youre a real hit with the ladies too
you're right _-i can walk away from this & im going to

Trojan

4. ...
5. Profit!!!

Kingsize wrote:

you're right _-i can walk away from this & im going to

About time too.

Kingsize

how to win friends & influence people

Trojan

Influencing people right over to the Ignore button I believe.

The Corinthian

Kingsize wrote:

i think its ultimately your problem too but you'll never agree with me because you are far too superior i'll bet youre a real hit with the ladies too
you're right _-i can walk away from this & im going to

That's shown me :rolleyes: