Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

David Booth Hunts Goat


Angry Goose

Recommended Posts

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

It's not untenable. Your conclusion is in error because your premise is fallacious and your comprehension of the argument virtually non-existent at worst and mistaken at best.

There's in immorality aspect connected to killing for pleasure and an inherent unnecessary reason for someone who can provide themselves with more than sufficient sustenance of almost any persuasion to use the excuse that they're hunting for sustenance, which leaves the pleasure aspect back again front and center. It's inescapable. We know Booth hunts to get his rocks off, and his twitter pics and text clearly indicate as much.

By the way, he's not competing with a man, he's competing with an animal while holding almost every unfair advantage possible. That's not sporting, unless in the world of courageous hunter-warriors that is, and if so, then they're all the more pathetic.

But you keep on thinking that he's some mythic hero for taking out a helpless goat.

When I was twelve, I went hunting with my father and we shot a bird. He was laying there and something struck me. Why do we call this fun to kill this creature who was as happy as I was when I woke up this morning

Marv Levy

Hunting is not a proper employment for a thinking man.

Joesph Addison

Civilized life has altogether grown too tame, and, if it is to be stable, it must provide a harmless outlets for the impulses which our remote ancestors satisfied in hunting

Bertrand Russell

“Wildlife, we are constantly told, would run loose across our towns and cities were it not for the sport hunters to control their population, as birds would blanket the skies without the culling services of Ducks Unlimited and other groups. Yet here they are breeding wild animals, year after year replenishing the stock, all for the sole purpose of selling and killing them, deer and bears and elephants so many products being readied for the market. Animals such as deer, we are told, have no predators in many areas, and therefore need systematic culling. Yet when attempts are made to reintroduce natural predators such as wolves and coyotes into these very areas, sport hunters themselves are the first to resist it. Weaker animals in the wild, we hear, will only die miserable deaths by starvation and exposure without sport hunters to control their population. Yet it's the bigger, stronger animals they're killing and wounding--the very opposite of natural selection--often with bows and pistols that only compound and prolong the victim's suffering.”

Matthew Scully, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can never understand your side of the debate/argument because you use huge words, and undescribably fantastic vocabulary.

This means you win every single debate/argument you partake in. Because I said.

EDIT: Re-read it...nevermind, I can understand.

But still..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, how dare he not play hockey even though there is no season and he is not required to practice!

It's his life let him do whatever he wants, as long as it's legal and whadda you know, hunting mammoth goat things is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've all got our contradictions.

I see a spider in my house, I grab it, take it outside and let it go. Don't take any pleasure whatsoever in hurting anything.

But.

I see a silverfish. I stomp it. Mosquitoes - hunt and kill them mercilessly and never think twice. Find a flea on my pet - flush that bastard down the toilet...

?

I don't judge in any way my Native friends who relate to, respect and hunt animals for food and materials. There is no guilt to be felt about being a part of nature and taking what we need to survive. Instead of guilt there is respect.

I'm not going to judge David Booth either, although there is a difference in what he is doing. He does not live a land-based lifestyle (and neither do the vast majority of us, including many native people). He travels around sport hunting. I'm not going to argue that it's wrong to do so - it's just different and harder for me personally to relate to or qualify. Nevertheless, I'd certainly listen to his perspective regarding his hobby/sport (or however he wants to classify what he is doing). I'm not going to purport to know better.

When I listen to my instincts, the aspect that makes me feel uneasy is the smile on his face in that photo. Again, I'd listen to his perspective, what produces that, before I pretend to understand him (let alone judge him, which I have no interest in). I'm not stupid - of course I can make inferences. It's simply that my personal instinct wouldn't necessarily be to smile above my prey. For some reason, I wouldn't consider the life I'd just taken to be honoured by smiling - which I think is integral - to respect the life you've taken. I'm also not assuming Booth doesn't. It's just that I don't take pleasure in the hunt or the kill. Perhaps we share a different instinct in that sense - we're not all the same, are we.

People can argue that it's inhumane to eat farmed animals - they might have a point - when we look at some of the forms modern 'farming' takes, the impact can be tragic. People can argue that it is more ethical to take a wild animal, who has lived a free life, in a state of nature. They might have a point. But for some reason, barring necessity, that also strikes me as additionally tragic, particularly when we apparently have a tendency to overproduce and overconsume, which already seems to overtax nature. Then again, nature itself takes lives rather unceremoniously all the time, doesn't it?

What is the point of the hunt? It's a fair question, that there may or may not be a good answer. In the end, we are going to eat, and find all kinds of ways of doing so. Is this about eating? Should it be? Does it need to be to be justifiable? Does taking that goats life save another from starvation, or is that the goat that would have been strong enough to survive a lean winter? Who really knows? For me personally, I'm not convinced we are qualified to intervene and wouldn't take the risk were it not for the sake of necessity - it seems instinctive/natural to try to minimize our impact. But we're not all the same, are we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've all got our contradictions.

I see a spider in my house, I grab it, take it outside and let it go. Don't take any pleasure whatsoever in hurting anything.

But.

I see a silverfish. I stomp it. Mosquitoes - hunt and kill them mercilessly and never think twice. Find a flea on my pet - flush that bastard down the toilet...

?

I don't judge in any way my Native friends who relate to, respect and hunt animals for food and materials. There is no guilt to be felt about being a part of nature and taking what we need to survive. Instead of guilt there is respect.

I'm not going to judge David Booth either, although there is a difference in what he is doing. He does not live a land-based lifestyle (and neither do the vast majority of us, including many native people). He travels around sport hunting. I'm not going to argue that it's wrong to do so - it's just different and harder for me personally to relate to or qualify. Nevertheless, I'd certainly listen to his perspective regarding his hobby/sport (or however he wants to classify what he is doing). I'm not going to purport to know better.

When I listen to my instincts, the aspect that makes me feel uneasy is the smile on his face in that photo. Again, I'd listen to his perspective, what produces that, before I pretend to understand him (let alone judge him, which I have no interest in). I'm not stupid - of course I can make inferences. It's simply that my personal instinct wouldn't necessarily be to smile above my prey. For some reason, I wouldn't consider the life I'd just taken to be honoured by smiling - which I think is integral - to respect the life you've taken. I'm also not assuming Booth doesn't. It's just that I don't take pleasure in the hunt or the kill. Perhaps we share a different instinct in that sense - we're not all the same, are we.

People can argue that it's inhumane to eat farmed animals - they might have a point - when we look at some of the forms modern 'farming' takes, the impact can be tragic. People can argue that it is more ethical to take a wild animal, who has lived a free life, in a state of nature. They might have a point. But for some reason, barring necessity, that also strikes me as additionally tragic, particularly when we apparently have a tendency to overproduce and overconsume, which already seems to overtax nature. Then again, nature itself takes lives rather unceremoniously all the time, doesn't it?

What is the point of the hunt? It's a fair question, that there may or may not be a good answer. In the end, we are going to eat, and find all kinds of ways of doing so. Is this about eating? Should it be? Does it need to be to be justifiable? Does taking that goats life save another from starvation, or is that the goat that would have been strong enough to survive a lean winter? Who really knows? For me personally, I'm not convinced we are qualified to intervene and wouldn't take the risk were it not for the sake of necessity - it seems instinctive/natural to try to minimize our impact. But we're not all the same, are we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it would be good to aspire to a higher societal level, the reality is that it is impossible. We evolve so slowly as to be immeasurable. As the Bertrand Russel quote indicates (one of my favourites) there needs to be an outlet. While some of us can live in a higher playing rink, somewhere up in the clouds, and agree on a set of rules... in the end it is futile and pointless. a ridiculous gaff of self-delusion and insecure narcissism (if there is any other kind).

why? Because each and every one of us is capable of the most despicable and disgusting things imaginable - when put into the right (er... wrong) circumstance. The soviets taught us that - you would do or say anything when deprived of sleep and food, made to do outlandish physical punishments... etc etc. Not to mention the Germans and Japanese, who arguably were worse. You will cheat on your wife and kill your best friend in the wrong circumstance. period. you can be made to anyways. Everything else from that down to normal everyday life is a matter of degrees.

Our society is based on a Wittgenstein principle: it works only because we agree that it works.

Anyways, to the point: hunting, while not politically correct right now (although it is fun to play the devil's advocate on occasion ... cough cough) is quite low on the list of dastardly and evil things that people can do. And to say that this is anything but normal behaviour is ridiculous. Even sanctioned by law to be OK to do.

Now, if we all gained another 100 iq points, stopped acting like retards all the time, paid attention to the environment, actually voted and got a better government because we actually cared, and stopped paying so much attention to inane things like sport (hey wait a sec!) and hunting and tv shows and movies that don't matter at all, then we could probably outlaw hunting. because we would really have evolved. But as we all sink to the lowest level of thought anyways even if you don't want to, and some reach the highest level (or so they think, reflexive here too) of thought, obviously sports like hockey and things like hunting are enjoyable to a vast number of people. that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

While it would be good to aspire to a higher societal level, the reality is that it is impossible. We evolve so slowly as to be immeasurable. As the Bertrand Russel quote indicates (one of my favourites) there needs to be an outlet. While some of us can live in a higher playing rink, somewhere up in the clouds, and agree on a set of rules... in the end it is futile and pointless. a ridiculous gaff of self-delusion and insecure narcissism (if there is any other kind).

why? Because each and every one of us is capable of the most despicable and disgusting things imaginable - when put into the right (er... wrong) circumstance. The soviets taught us that - you would do or say anything when deprived of sleep and food, made to do outlandish physical punishments... etc etc. Not to mention the Germans and Japanese, who arguably were worse. You will cheat on your wife and kill your best friend in the wrong circumstance. period. you can be made to anyways. Everything else from that down to normal everyday life is a matter of degrees.

Our society is based on a Wittgenstein principle: it works only because we agree that it works.

Anyways, to the point: hunting, while not politically correct right now (although it is fun to play the devil's advocate on occasion ... cough cough) is quite low on the list of dastardly and evil things that people can do. And to say that this is anything but normal behaviour is ridiculous. Even sanctioned by law to be OK to do.

Now, if we all gained another 100 iq points, stopped acting like retards all the time, paid attention to the environment, actually voted and got a better government because we actually cared, and stopped paying so much attention to inane things like sport (hey wait a sec!) and hunting and tv shows and movies that don't matter at all, then we could probably outlaw hunting. because we would really have evolved. But as we all sink to the lowest level of thought anyways even if you don't want to, and some reach the highest level (or so they think, reflexive here too) of thought, obviously sports like hockey and things like hunting are enjoyable to a vast number of people. that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok Mr nihiist - this all sounds rather nietzsche - is it safe to say that the gist of your message is beyond good and evil?

if so, I'd like to take this opportunity to relay one of my favorites...(maybe relative to Booth as well)

"God is dead" Nietzche, 1882. [was killed by the madman]

Nietzsche is dead. God. 1900.

And now a goat is dead.

that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its amazing how many people chastise and belittle others for being vegetarian or supporting a partially vegetarian ideology, calling them "hippies" and so forth and all because they don't accept that, or like that, you eat meat. How immature and hypocritical is it to do the same thing back to them?

Back on point, I really don't mind if DB hunts or plays tennis or paints his freaking finger nails pink while singing Miley Cyrus tunes in his free time. But Id really rather not see the corpse of some gigantic thing that looks more like that weird ice monster that tries to kill Luke Skywalker in Star Wars than it does a goat. Which is why I wont go to DBs Twitter page any more. Problem solved guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm well aware he's not, thanks tips. But that's what differentiates a professional who always wants to get better vs. a slug. Just an FYI, the NHL ISN'T the only hockey league in the world. He just doesn't care enough and takes his job for granted. While most NHLers are playing overseas or practicing in their own little groups, this guy is staying as far away from the ice as possible, trying to look cool in front of dead animals. Good thing we have him under contract for many more years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can appreciate all the warm feelings around the camping and comradeship you felt while out with your brothers. I'm not denying that's important. But tell me, would those memories have been any less special to you had you just gone camping and spent that quality time with your brother(s) and instead of having some poor animal's head on a wall or skin on the floor, you had some great photos or videos to recall your bonding with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^In checking out his Twitter feed (which I have never bothered to do), it leans me more in the direction I was heading with this. A taunting, in your face, feel to things that I find a little obnoxious, but I'll focus on DB on ice and hope that he makes me forget. He is 27 years old and, honestly, should probably be a littl moree sensitive to the fact that some aren't cool with trophy hunts. But it's his page and we can chose not to go there, which is what I'll do. A freedom of speech thing where he's entitled to do/say whatever the hell he wants in this life. With that, we're also entitled to feel the way we do in response. Enough of my time/two cents on this though, as it changes nothing....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not untenable. Your conclusion is in error because your premise is fallacious and your comprehension of the argument virtually non-existent at worst and mistaken at best.

There's in immorality aspect connected to killing for pleasure and an inherent unnecessary reason for someone who can provide themselves with more than sufficient sustenance of almost any persuasion to use the excuse that they're hunting for sustenance, which leaves the pleasure aspect back again front and center. It's inescapable. We know Booth hunts to get his rocks off, and his twitter pics and text clearly indicate as much.

By the way, he's not competing with a man, he's competing with an animal while holding almost every unfair advantage possible. That's not sporting, unless in the world of courageous hunter-warriors that is, and if so, then they're all the more pathetic.

But you keep on thinking that he's some mythic hero for taking out a helpless goat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Nietzsche:

The whole attitude of "man versus the world” man as world denying principle, man as the standard of the value of things, as judge of the world, who in the end puts existence itself on his scales and finds it too light - the monstrous impertinence of this attitude has dawned upon us as such, and has disgusted us, we now laugh when we find, "Man and World" placed beside one another, separated by the sublime presumption of the little word " and "!

Man is not separate from this world....he is part of it, and with the gifts he's been given, one could dare say he was ordained, or at least tasked to be its steward and not its usurping destroyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...