sirwilliam Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I eat meat because my body is designed to eat meat. Seems like a good enough reason to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwilliam Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I'm wondering if any of the people complaining about Booth killing this goat have ever killed a spider or ant before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Heh, we probably wouldn't complain if mountain goats had 300 babies at a time, could be found in every house in every corner of the globe, and tried to drop on your head without warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwilliam Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 A goat and a spider are both animals no? Why hold a goats life as more valuable than that of a spiders? At least by killing the goat he has a trophy, a spider would just be flushed down the toilet and forgotten about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 A goat and a spider are both animals no? Why hold a goats life as more valuable than that of a spiders? At least by killing the goat he has a trophy, a spider would just be flushed down the toilet and forgotten about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckCup1316 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Anthony Del Fiacco@adelfiacco10 I can't believe David Booth killed the Luckdragon. We will never forget you, Falcor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 these pics he takes like the bear one and this goat one make me sick is he trying to be a big man on twitter was a loser i hope he pisses off a grizzly one day hope karma kicks his ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester@wraiths.ca Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 which doesn't necessarily imply (look up what a necessary condition is) I eat human beings. That point has already been made by me so it doesn't need any further clarification. Your insistence on the issue only shows that you are trying to make an argument out of nothing (which demonstrates a lack of reasoning on your part as well). In turn, you've been added to my wall of shame. /end discussion on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Now look what he's done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckCup1316 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I think since humans are not on the IUCN Redlist or yellow list then hunting them should be fine too. If this forum isn't proof enough that the human race could use a little thinning out. Where's Hannibal when you need him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeDreamOfStanley Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Now look what he's done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 poor snuffy haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brob89 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Besides the point: The absence of hockey does bizarre things to us Canucks fans. Speaking more to the point: Whether or not any of us support, condone, or practice trophy hunting or eating non-human animals (first time I've heard this phrase, but then, I apparently lack the required Masters in Philo/Animal Ethics to be familiar with this term) is not really DB's problem in the same way that it's not our problem that he would desire that we call Jesus "Lord." This seems to be a case of us expecting DB to live according to values that he does not share; and even furthermore; values that his society clearly does not share. He has acted perhaps brutishly by some estimations, but legally, and for us to so mercilessly berate him on internet is frankly, kind of embarrassing... and bullyish. Is it right for us to expect a law abiding individual to set a standard higher than either the law of the land or his own personal standards? I think not. That seems to be infringing on his freedom. If we want to discuss Peter Singer essays or discuss the different aspects of animal ethics, that's one thing (although not really a canucks talk thing). But we seriously need to figure out how to be more gracious with people who hold to values different from our own... even when we're interacting on a medium like an internet forum where we need not fear real life repercussions. Perhaps if we were more gracious with the disagreeable aspects of other people's life choices, they might be more inclined to allow us to use funny word choices without mocking us mercilessly. P.S. To say that something is not necessarily entailed (ie. cannibalism) is not this same thing as saying something necessarily not entailed... it leaves the door open... it remains possibly entailed. There are certainly better ways to phrase your food choices. But then again, I say funny sounding things too. Including possibly (or probably), the above post. So like seriously, what's up with Luongo? Is he getting traded or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velocity Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 "I'm wondering if any of the people complaining about Booth killing this goat have ever killed a spider or ant before..." POACHERS Defenceless animals DID NOT EAT! PAIN and suffering can afford other food (sarcasm hopefully aparent) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armada Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 "I'm wondering if any of the people complaining about Booth killing this goat have ever killed a spider or ant before..." POACHERS Defenceless animals DID NOT EAT! PAIN and suffering can afford other food Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Humor me this: Is it considered "hunting" when man, atop the food chain, destroying the planet daily, kills a defenseless animal with an engineered weapon for any reason other than mercy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane42 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Now that it has dawned on the meat eating, anti Booth crowd that their position is untenable on account of hypocrisy (my compliments, it ain't always easy rubbing two brain cells together), the discussion has deftly turned to the question of public perception. Among his alleged shortcomings, he: - takes trophies (Men competing with one another? You don’t say.) - enjoys doing it (Is there an opposite aspect to hobby?) - partakes in a “rich man’s sport” ($ and surroundings underlie our choices. Revelation?) - shares his experiences with interested observers (Note the emphasis.) By my rough estimate slightly over 50% of the respondents here are either pro Booth or indifferent to the affair. Given that CDC is mostly young--cradle to school PC edumacated crowd--it is safe to say that a comfortable majority of Canuck Nation see this as a non issue. And yes, the Canucks cater to more than the lower mainland since they market themselves as a provincial team. If the activity in question is inherent in the behavior of man since time immemorial, and presently legal, then one would be well advised to check the source of your own negative perception. Was your upbringing that comfy; devoid of contact with nature and all that goes on? Bellyaching of few sports newsreaders, or net moral relativists, that persuasive? Is it not interesting that while our society is inundated with advertising extolling our individuality (think the use of T-shirts in commercials, among countless others), genuine differences are being mercilessly expunged by PC pressure tactics everywhere one looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwilliam Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 This seems to be a case of us expecting DB to live according to values that he does not share; and even furthermore; values that his society clearly does not share. He has acted perhaps brutishly by some estimations, but legally, and for us to so mercilessly berate him on internet is frankly, kind of embarrassing... and bullyish. Is it right for us to expect a law abiding individual to set a standard higher than either the law of the land or his own personal standards? I think not. That seems to be infringing on his freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkeeterHansen Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Now look what he's done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.