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

David Booth Hunts Goat


Angry Goose

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't say Sharp's hypocritical per se, more that he holds a different definition of 'for pleasure' than you do.

But for the record I agree with you Jagermeister, we have copious forms of plant protein, and a balanced vegetarian diet is far healthier in just about every way. IMHO, people eat meat because they enjoy the taste, 'for pleasure', not because it's strictly necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're grasping at straws, yes. I have to sift through what you're posting because you tend to want to move away from the argument surrounding Booth, and go into moral equivalency of natives, and fishing, and cows at meat farms, and forest fires, and your bonding experiences with your brother, and lord know what else, because you can't actually defend the charge that Booth is a trophy hunter who kills animals for pleasure.

What you try to do is use false equivocations, anecdotes about your personal experience, conflate my argument with unrelated historical anecdotes of catch and release fishing that I did, though i'm not sure how that gets Booth off the 'hook' for what he does, and in order to think you're actually making any sound points you try to level the immoral playing field instead of actually addressing the argument regarding the immorality of trophy hunting.

If you want to discuss that, great, but the rest is essentially muddying the waters.

Let me get you back on track.

Booth is a trophy hunter. His primary motivation is to seek a trophy as it provides him with pleasure to kill many different animals in order to acquire different trophies. Eating meat is secondary and inconsequential to the argument about the immorality to his primary motivations.

Go ahead, argue on his behalf now.......or are you going to continue to internalize my argument of his motivations as somehow the motivation of every hunter ever or present who are motivated differently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want me to explain to you the immorality of killing something for pleasure? It's kinda self-evident.

You don't believe that animals feel pain? You don't believe that it's immoral to cause a living thing pain for one's pleasure?

Again, these things are self-evident, which is why they aren't argued. Perhaps you haven't thought about it, but I'd ask you to.

It's not emotionalism....it's morality..something that all members of civilized society abide by, inherently, because moral differentiate between what's 'wrong' and what's 'right'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't fathom how anyone can be a meat eater and at the same time criticize the moral ethics of hunting.

This should be an eating meat vs not eating meat argument if anything. If David Booth consumes what he kills i have no problem with it what so ever. In my opinion it's a much more pure way of eating meat, as we have seen with the latest beef recall, which is the biggest recall in Canadian history.

Slaughtering animals in a massive plant like XL as fast as they possibly can, they're just asking for a disaster. Animals being disembowelled and butchered for production in the same place....think about that for a second.

Now if David Booth was a poacher, then that's a whole other story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And plants don't feel pain? If you took time and looked into it you would find that plants also have emotion and feel pain and can even sense when your going to cut it. Is that not worse since it can't even run and your attacking the poor immobile plant. How can you justify hurting something that unlike an animal can't even protect itself? You sicken me... That's like killing a crippled animal. Or do you think plants just cut and package them selves to go to the store. Morals are a cripple for society. They make people irrational and weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure animals feel pain, sure. At least the ones relevant to this post, I guess it's debatable with say microscopic organisms and such. I just don't necessarily think something is self-evidently immoral if it causes another living thing pain. To be honest I'm just playing the devil's advocate, I doubt I'd take pleasure in hunting (I've never been besides fishing). The thing is, some people feel differently, and it's pretty hard to change their minds without a logical argument. I don't think it's my place to tell others that they can't do it, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, I remember you posting how much you enjoyed bacon back in the "Bacon Shortage" thread. Remember bacon is not an essential food, it is not needed for survival, you eat it because it gives you pleasure.

So that would mean that you're okay with slaughtering a bunch of pigs (as long as somebody else kills them for you) so you can have the pleasure of eating bacon.

The amount of hypocrisy in some of your posts is astounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the fact that he is overpaid, under performing.

overpaid 3rd liner who has not reach his potential. As it seems he lacks the stuff between the ears to reach it.

guy seems to be a bit of a basket case. nothing to do with hunting. just doesn't seem to be playing with a full deck.

the fact that he has pissed off close to half the fans doesnt help him out either, guys on the bubble with me just for his crappy play, this just make me want to drive him to the airport myself.

Defend him or roast him, this board is divided. One thing we can all agree on is that we are canuck fans and this city wants a trophy and booth did little and does little to help us to get it.

Trade him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that nearly all of society has turned into a gibbering collection of ne'er-do-well nanny state loving politically correct half literate computer junkies, each completely ignorant of human history, and each picking and choosing their own little green (anti-human?) cause to save the planet; when in reality it is, in my humble opinion, the spirit of humanity that is in dire needs of saving.

The nihilist hipster personality archetype has been imprinted on several generations now, and its effect could not be more clear -- a hateful, ruthless, narcissitic, and cruel attitude towards the entirety of the human species has crept into the forefront of society.

The belief that the planet, one which has survived hundreds of ice ages, comet impacts, and uncounted other catastrophes, is somehow going to 'die' due to the actions of a single species they themselves are a member of, is at its roots a faith based religion, and nothing more.

The fact of the matter is, there is overwhelming literature, dating back to King Charles II's Royal Society and carrying on right up to the present, of dire warnings of over population and doom and gloom just over the horizon, if we don't 'get rid of those dirty stinking extra humans'. This propaganda, and this is truly all it is, is used to desensitize humanity into accepting attrocity after attrocity, perpetrated by governments on other nations, and often on their own people, all in the name of saving mother earth.

Well, I ask you this -- how about we save humanity? How about people start caring about each other? How about people start respecting the actions and interests of other fellow humans? How about we get our heads around the fact that we are all bombarded daily with anti-human propaganda that is designed to lead us to a desired conclusion; that there are 'too many humans' and we need cull the population?

************************************************************************

Here is a fun fact for you to consider:

If you were to take every single human on earth,

and give each a quarter acre to live on,

that is one full acre per family of four,

and placed them ALL in Alberta Canada,

Alberta would only be 2/3rd's full,

and the rest of the planet would be completely empty of humanity.

************************************************************************

Think about that for a moment, would you?

Now, do you believe the planet is over populated?

Or is it perhaps that you live in a crowded city, packed in like sardines (by design might I add), and given an ILLUSION that there are people everywhere, and that because it is all you can see, in all directions, that this is what the rest of the world must be like?

You have been conned.

You have been deceived.

All in order to desensitize you into accepting mass murder as a possible means of population control. Do YOU want to be first in line for the mass culling? How about your family? No? Who then. You can not have it both ways. Who is it then? The infirmed? The elderly? Nameless faceless people from other continents?

Humanity is in need of a defibrillator.

People need to start caring about others instead of telling them how to live their lives.

=/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was unaware that David Booth was out in the natural world torturing goats like some blood-crazed Dhameresque madman.

I highly doubt Booth gets his kicks out of actually taking the life of another living creature and it's fairly presumptuous (as well as downright ignorant) to assume that he gets some sort pleasure out of causing another living thing pain.

Then why the need for pictures? Posing over the dead carcass with a smile from ear to ear? It would seem that there is some pleasure derived from the kill, as anything less would mean simply killing then cleaning/eating the animal. So it's not really ignorant in making this observation - that most who don't "get kicks" out of it also don't celebrate with the need to publish the event. That's the part, for me, that says it is about ego as much as anything.

xereau: you do realize you've gone on a tangent wherein you've used derogatory labels to address society (everyone) then asked us to care about others? You've also, basically, outlined how we should live our lives then asked us not to do the same?

In letting people go about their business they invite us in to comment when they broadcast what they are doing...if they were quietly going about their business, I'd tend to agree more with you. While I do agree with the overall message of your post, caring about all living creatures can likely best lead us down that path. If we're desensitized to a dead animal that some enjoy the beauty and magnificence of, then perhaps we need to start there, in addressing that first? Of course, we do kill animals for food but the underlying need that some have to prove their point with it is what irks some and has us comment.

I may have missed your point (will re-read your post when I have more time to digest it), but that's what jumped out at me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common sense - most people use theirs when they know they're getting under people's skin....especially if some of those people are the very fans who buy tickets to see you play. The problem for me is that, in reviewing DB's Twitter feed, it seems that he enjoys the fact that he riles others up as much as the hunt itself. He boasts about losing followers every time he tweets and, at times, almost mocks those who do find the pictures disturbing vs considering their take on things (there are 2 sides to this). So it's not so much that he hunts, it's the attitude surrounding the whole thing.

So if you're truly a hunter because you love to hunt, eat what you kill and simply don't care what others think - fine. As stated, I have family members on this side of things. But to have a defiant, in your face attitude about it is something else. The ego does seem to come into play a bit and that's a contributing factor in assessing likeability.

Lay low, do your thing, post your pictures if you must but, if confronted, try to at least show a little empathy to those who are sensitive to these things. Personally, I don't see much of that....

David Booth owes us no apology but, in that, we also don't owe him our undying support (just because he's a Canuck). I've been labeled a bit of a homer (with good reason), but do base my support of the players on their overall attitude as well as their hockey skills. So this one's a struggle for me....

Hopefully, they'll get back on the ice soon and he'll light 'em up and give me reason to sway to the other side. But so far, not so much....

(and I hear there's a charity game in town....he's obviously got his aim down to a fine art in hunting....maybe time to get on the ice with his brothers and work on his on ice shot instead of proving his point out there, in the wild?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where to begin with this. First, you don't have the facts right. Plants don't feel pain. At least not like we or most sentient non human animals do. They are not sentient beings i.e they lack the prerequisite neurophysiology (nociceptors and brain) and psychology (e.g. mental life) to experience anything. Second, if plants are subject to pain in a very general sense (whatever that is), then that pain is very different than the pain we or other non human animals experience. Thirdly, morality is important. It gives us reasons for caring. And it is rational to act ethically. If you see a drowning child, the reasonable thing to do is save them if you can. The weak thing to do is miss-characterize something you obviously have no clue about.

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...