Hi Mike. I purposefully took some time to think this thru before I answered you, so I was actually thinking about my answer instead of just knee-jerk responding to some of your comments.
Mike Johnston wrote: > > Warning! Rant mode on. > > > Oh, no in this country, P�l. We pretend they're all the > > personification of Bambi and Thumper, and Willie the Orca and we > > lovingly ascribe human characteristics to them, etc., ad nauseum. > > They're NEVER "just animals." Hollywood and the liberal media and the > > tree-huggers wouldn't LET them be! > > > > And, to SHOOT one and put it out of it's misery?! How cruel and > > heartless can you possibly be?! > First of all, the media is only liberal if you're a conservative. I'm a > liberal, and to me it looks hopelessly conservative. [Further inflammatory > comments, with great effort of will, snipped. <g>] > > Second, I hate it when you conservatives use "liberal" like it was an > epithet. It's a _description_. The word itself means tolerant, generous, > big-hearted, non-literal, and culturally broadminded. Politically it means > to be in favor of reform, inclusiveness, equality, and egalitarianism. The word liberal originally came into popular use to describe the ideological contant of the American Revolution, which espoused freedom, capitalism and individualism. Liber = free + al = pertaining to. Pertaining to freedom. > Those are BAD things? Heck no. However, the way I used the word was indeed meant to be pejorative. The reason is, I guess, the only so-called liberals I see in action are those factually anti-liberal democrats in local, state and federal government who consistently demonstrate a deeply _socialistic_ bent. The word/term has become bastardized over time... Those today who espouse those characteristics you describe seem to better fit descriptions of the Libertarians, not the Democrats NOR the Liberals. The description of the word should probably not be tied into politics so deeply, but today it seems inseparably linked thereto. > In any event, I have friends (and even a brother) who are > rabid conservatives, and I manage to maintain a modicum of respect for their > views (well, except in political arguments <g>) and like them anyway. > > Finally, it's human nature to sympathize with a suffering creature. Absolutely! > It's not > necessarily inconsistent to give money to help a doe with an arrow in its > head while at the same time tolerating the fact that other bowhunters are > traipsing about the woods molesting other deer with their bow-and-arrow > sets. You hear the words you use yourself? "Traipsing," "molesting" and "bow-and-arrow sets." In Communication 101 we were taught those were 'loaded' words, not consistent with maintaining a neutral, non-biased conversation! Each, in it's own way, is intended to diminish the subject of the sentence. Perhaps that's the way you meant it. I understand. > It's an example of a specific and the general case, of acute and > diffuse interests. Meaning, animal lovers may not be able to legally or > effectually do anything about "deer hunting" as a general case; but they may > be pleased to be able to help one specific deer. As do I, and as would each and all of the hunters I personally know. I previously pointed out that in that specific instance, all one could do to help that doe were realistic, and that she was very likely experiencing no pain. That if a vet could catch her, and remove the arrow shaft, the chances for the doe's survival are great. That's fine. It should be attempted. > In any case, most hunters I know are also conservationists, and in many > cases they are also compassionate people. Although they may kill deer, they > would still object to torturing them. Of course. I know of NO hunter who wouldn't get sick to his stomach at the thought of causing ongoing pain to any of the animals he hunts. All of the hunters I've ever known go out of their ways to assure clean, quick kills, and except for varmint, the first goal is the hunt and the end goal is food for the table. Many hunters I know donate their excess take to organizations that feed the poor and homeless. Last, I've never known any meat hunter who advocates hunting "just" for the sake of killing. That's sick propoganda from the Hollywood and media socialists. > Rant mode off, > > --Mike Me too. keith
