What's with the vitriolic attack ,i'm not talking to you Deus Vult but the moderator of the site.I believe you even reffered to me as an *******
But thats alright.Faceless communication over an electronic community makes it slightly more impersonal and dos'nt raise the hackles as much as if the insult was to my face.Did what i say offend you that much,i've never attacked anyone whilst on this site or put anyone on the offensive,i dont post pick no matter their views and only really post if i feel i have something relative to add.The post i made did'nt offend you that much,i'm inclined to believe you just took it on yourself to play the hard man and start a needless war of words.
I was'nt defending Vick,dogfighting or denigrating the points made by other posters in this thread,and it was'nt my intention to offend anyone who hunts game,merely just thinking aloud making the type of point that would be made in real conversation about the Vick case.That's what debate is all about is'nt it,weighing up the respective arguments.I did'nt expect the scorn of a hothead.
As for the garbage points you make in support of the shooting of wild animals for sport.Bringing up the point that the animals will die a natural death because of attack,disease or starvation is ludicrous.The same ridicoulous argument was made by the pro fox hunting brigade who eventually lost their case in Britain.I'm not coming from some liberal,tree hugging lefty perspective of the rank and file members of animal rights organisations but hunting and killing animals for the purpose of entertainment is wrong.But of course the morality of wild hunting and its relationship with man made laws depends largly on culture and location.Deer hunting and other forms of hunting are banned in Britain under the HUNTING ACT 2004.So all your points would'nt wash in a British court or a number of other European country's.The Europeans enacted these laws because the distinction was established between the killing of livestock like sheep and lamb reared on farms for food and nutrition which forms an integral part of the economy for many nations of the world and cruel barbaric bloodsports.
One of the other cases that was made by the hunting opposition which formed an integral part of their argument to the succesful banning in many country's was the suffering of the respective animals.The shooting of game such as foxes causes hours and in some instances days of agony for these animals, hiding underground having not been killed which counters the nonsense point you made that somehow giving them a quick bullet saves them from some inevitable slow painful death.
Deer are beautiful,peaceful,non predatorial animals.For me shooting a dear for the sport of it,is no different than shooting a horse.I wonder if you support the systematic hunting of elephants for their tusks and tigers for their fur which has threatened the existance of these animals particularly the latter in recent years.Surely the poachers have a legitimacy from an economic perspective in the deeds they carry out.Why dont you try and play the BIG man and use all your powers as a moderator and ban me after calling me an *******.
I was'nt defending Vick,dogfighting or denigrating the points made by other posters in this thread,and it was'nt my intention to offend anyone who hunts game,merely just thinking aloud making the type of point that would be made in real conversation about the Vick case.That's what debate is all about is'nt it,weighing up the respective arguments.I did'nt expect the scorn of a hothead.
As for the garbage points you make in support of the shooting of wild animals for sport.Bringing up the point that the animals will die a natural death because of attack,disease or starvation is ludicrous.The same ridicoulous argument was made by the pro fox hunting brigade who eventually lost their case in Britain.I'm not coming from some liberal,tree hugging lefty perspective of the rank and file members of animal rights organisations but hunting and killing animals for the purpose of entertainment is wrong.But of course the morality of wild hunting and its relationship with man made laws depends largly on culture and location.Deer hunting and other forms of hunting are banned in Britain under the HUNTING ACT 2004.So all your points would'nt wash in a British court or a number of other European country's.The Europeans enacted these laws because the distinction was established between the killing of livestock like sheep and lamb reared on farms for food and nutrition which forms an integral part of the economy for many nations of the world and cruel barbaric bloodsports.
One of the other cases that was made by the hunting opposition which formed an integral part of their argument to the succesful banning in many country's was the suffering of the respective animals.The shooting of game such as foxes causes hours and in some instances days of agony for these animals, hiding underground having not been killed which counters the nonsense point you made that somehow giving them a quick bullet saves them from some inevitable slow painful death.
Deer are beautiful,peaceful,non predatorial animals.For me shooting a dear for the sport of it,is no different than shooting a horse.I wonder if you support the systematic hunting of elephants for their tusks and tigers for their fur which has threatened the existance of these animals particularly the latter in recent years.Surely the poachers have a legitimacy from an economic perspective in the deeds they carry out.Why dont you try and play the BIG man and use all your powers as a moderator and ban me after calling me an *******.
