Hunters are 'serial killers'.

[Husar]

Should they? Yes. Will they? No.

I don't doubt that you would, but I think noone should.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Nothing Wrong with Hunting and Takingthe Meat, or hunting and taking BOTH The Meat and the Trophy, like the head,rack, or fur from a bear,for example, but people who just kill a animal/animals and just leave them there, something wrong. If you going to hunt something, take the meat. there's other hungry people who would kill for that Hundreds/thousands of pounds of meat you leave in the forest then..

[Csargo]

I wonder what they say about people like us?











Not like we really care though.

[Prodigal]

It'd be interseting to consider when it was that hunting got a bad name...For example, Buffalo, they were killed to stop people making a "living" off them. Strikes me that there are "bad" forms of hunting.

I would expand upon this point but She Who Must Be Oybeyed speaks

[caravel]

These people regard animals as equals and regard the killing of an animal in exactly the same way as the killing of a human. In view of this I believe these people should be despatched to Africa immediately, where the Wildebeest community have great need of their services. These people could become animal lawyers, animal judges or animal police, bringing all those guilty lions and crocs to justice, using only humane means of course.

typos again...

[Aenlic]

These people regard animals as equals and regard the killing of an animal in exactly the same way as the killing of a human. In view of this I believe these people should be despatched to Africa immediately, where the Wilderbeest community have great need of their services. These people could become animal lawyers, animal judges or animal police, bringing all those guilty lions and crocs to justice, using only humane means of course.

OK, now that is funny. I have this image of a dread-locked, blonde unwashed young primitivist animal rights activist standing up as the hyenas approach, saying "I object!" and another one standing up after the hyenas rip the first guy into meaty bits, saying "I believe that was hyena for 'overruled!'"

[caravel]

Yes I can quite imagine sending one into a river to serve a summons to a croc. Ouch...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

The administrator and moderators wish to point out that we under no circumstances find the death of a human being a cause for celebration, despite the fact that the death of a hunter would spare the lives of hundreds of animals.

That's magnamimous of them, isn't it? I mean, the chap's death prevented the death of hundreds of animals, and they still aren't celebrating. Very restrained.

[caravel]

We would like to inform hunters or anti Animal Rights readers that we are a private community of Animal Rights Supporters.
Any hunter or anti Animal Rights will be banned and deleted asap.
Further we gather details as email and IP of these members and send complains to there providers.
Please realize that trolling and spamming online boards is illegal in many countries.

There you have it, unless you're "one of them" don't even think about registering! They're not open to debate. This is a 'private cult community'. They'll be outside your house with their placards, chanting, dressed as cows, foxes or badgers... before you can say "release a load of mink".

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Then of course they'll burn you out.

[Crazed Rabbit]

IP and email registering, eh? There are ways around that.

Crazed Rabbit

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Correct Crazed

That is Sad. Really Sad. I like to ask one of them if they are worried that someone/someones will come to their Fourm to Debate with them?

[Hepcat]

I would imagine that any attempt at a debate would be met with a wave of insults, rantings and usual anarchist rubbish. You may as well ask the animals for their opinions because you would get a much more reasoned statement.

For example:
"So Mr duck, what is your opinion of hunting and the effects on the ecology. There are those who claim that murdering animals should be a crime. What do you say to that?"
Quack

There, that is much more sensible than anything the Greens have to say.

[doc_bean]

See how much they respect the 'rights' and integrity of their favourite animals !

Liberty or death ? Not for cats !

[Aenlic]

These Green nutjobs give anarchism a bad name.

I somehow missed all of the anti-anarchism posts. I feel obligated to correct some misconceptions.

Anarchism as a political system is not the same thing as anarchy used as another word for chaos. The far too common misconception that anarchism = no order and no government is a sad result of the word anarchy having come to mean violent every-man-for-himself chaos. Thus Lemur's comment about Road Warrior. I can understand why people make that error. Anarchy in common usage has come to mean lack of government, lack of order, lack of society. By that isn't anything resembling anarchism as a political system. It doesn't mean violent chaos. It doesn't mean a bunch of snot-nosed punk rockers who just want to be obnoxious and have no rules.

Also, anarchism - and I'm going to repeat again, this is in the usage of anarchy as a political system not the misconception of it meaning no goverment and no order - does not mean anti-society. In fact, anarchism is all about society. See the first quote in my sig. That sums up the anarchist view. Society is good. Government is bad. But government is a necessary evil. How do anarchists deal with that? By reversing the hierarchy. Instead of rule from the top down as in most political systems including so-called "representative" democracy, anarchism - as a political system, not as a another word for chaos - is all about rule from the bottom up. The essence of anarchist political theory is democracy and freedom. See the second quote in my sig by the so-called "father" of anarchist thought.

And communism is no more or less utopian and idealistic than free market capitalism. Show me a true free market and I'll show you a capitalist economy in which one corporation or a cartel of companies which has not yet managed to drive all of its competitors out of business so it can eliminate the costs of a free market and profit from a monopoly or price fixing or laws protecting it from a free market. Free markets are purely transitory, they can't be the end product of a system which encourages and even rewards the elimination competitors. Any corporation which says it prefers a free market over a monopoly is lying.

If you are still confused over why anarchism is not the same thing as anarchy=chaos, then feel free to read this Anarchist FAQ.

[Hepcat]

But it won't work. Give me an example of somewhere where anarchists have enacted an effective government.

[Aenlic]

Anarchists and communists ran Barcelona for 3 years from 1936-1939. That's considerably longer than Italy ever managed to keep a government going up until the 1990's. And Italy didn't have to worry about being smashed between the twin hammers of the Republican Army Stalinists and Franco's Falangist fascists. They were finally betrayed by the Stalinists and defeated militarily by Franco's overwhelmingly larger army.

If you want to learn more about the anarchists in Catalonia, you can read a book which fondly remembers it all by someone who was there during that period. The book is called Homage to Catalonia, written by Eric Arthur Blair under his pen name, George Orwell.

And while you're at it, please give me an example of a free market capitalist government and economy which has survived the advent of corporate capitalism and remained a free market. It must have no trade barriers, no protectionism, no regulation and no monopolies. Also, be sure to include one which doesn't have any taint of those evil socialists. Taint in this case being any socialist-inspired, non-capitalist theory, such as...

Paid holidays
Sick pay
Vacations
Overtime
Profit sharing
Child labor laws
Workplace safety rules
Retirement
Pensions

Or any of hundreds of other ideas which didn't exist prior to the agitation of the late 19th century socialists and which were only forced upon capitalists by more than a hundred years of struggle, sometimes violent, by socialist-inspired activists and socialist-inspired trade unions.

Ready. Begin.

[King Henry V]

See how much they respect the 'rights' and integrity of their favourite animals !

Liberty or death ? Not for cats !

I just love the unrelenting BS that these people write:

We don't have pets in our home. We have a family of companion animals. What is the rationale of your position? What would you offer as a resolution to the negative consequences of not having any means of population control for these animals? They are not able to consider these consequences themselves, let alone resolve them. That's our responsibility. Really, this is quite serious.

Companion animals have the right to a comfortable, dignified, quality life and it is our responsibility to provide that. You use the expression "wipe out." Do you believe spaying/neutering is some form of passive biocide/genocide? If so, consider the active extermination of those poor animals who have spent their last hours of life pressed against the cage doors waiting for some one to take them to a home and care for them.

Who is to blame for that? If you want a really poignant answer, ask those who are in the position of having to deal with this miserable situation on a routine basis. The grief they feel provides them with a ready answer, I'll tell you that! Please reconsider your position, Carrot. If you can't, then you and others who oppose spaying/neutering: Get busy and find all these innocent victims a home!

Sounds like an ironic caricature of the worst type PC word wrangling, yet the funniest thing is that it's true!

Hey, who wants to have some fun and form a kind of alliance to go and annoy these snotty nosed greenies?

[Redleg]

Anarchists and communists ran Barcelona for 3 years from 1936-1939. That's considerably longer than Italy ever managed to keep a government going up until the 1990's. And Italy didn't have to worry about being smashed between the twin hammers of the Republican Army Stalinists and Franco's Falangist fascists. They were finally betrayed by the Stalinists and defeated militarily by Franco's overwhelmingly larger army.

Not an adequate model of effective government. Two committing political philisophies united under a common cause of survival. With the outside pressure being applied against both groups the cohesion initially could be stated to come from the common cause of both groups. The pressure being applied by both groups probably shortern the time before betrayal between the two groups running Barcelona would of eventually come about. That anarchists achieved a foothold into government is noted, but as an effective government the time and situation does not provide enough evidence.

And while you're at it, please give me an example of a free market capitalist government and economy which has survived the advent of corporate capitalism and remained a free market. It must have no trade barriers, no protectionism, no regulation and no monopolies. Also, be sure to include one which doesn't have any taint of those evil socialists. Taint in this case being any socialist-inspired, non-capitalist theory, such as...

Paid holidays
Sick pay
Vacations
Overtime
Profit sharing
Child labor laws
Workplace safety rules
Retirement
Pensions

No such model exists in the current modern world, nor would it survive for long if one was able to come about. The people will never stand for a government that does not at least attempt to look at for the interests of the people. A classic examble that the Republicians should have at least learned given the recent election cycle.

Or any of hundreds of other ideas which didn't exist prior to the agitation of the late 19th century socialists and which were only forced upon capitalists by more than a hundred years of struggle, sometimes violent, by socialist-inspired activists and socialist-inspired trade unions.

Ready. Begin.

The best models of mixs of governmental types can be found in the West. A mix of capitialism and socialism. The optimum (SP) mix for each country is an ongoing legislative process in most countries that use this model.

The different forms of anarchism have some uses - but as an overall effective governmental model for running a nation - it is a non-proven model, and the attempts at implementing such a model have all ended in failure.

[Prodigal]

Oh well, we have rifles, an eagle has wings and claws, isn't that kind of unfair towards a rabbit as well?
Should hunters jump onto the deer and bite through their throats?

True, but the eagles did grow them themselves. Sure humans used what they have to invent weapons, however your average person couldn't design & manufacturer a scope or rifle, now if you were hunting with a bow, or a spear, making your own traps. Those are things that a great many people could achieve, of course most wouldn't be unable to use a bow, & your average obese bloke probably wouldn't have a snowballs chance with a spear either.

I don't agree with the green gestapo, but I really cannot get along with the hunting ethic where the only real skill requirement is money & the ability to load, point, & pull a trigger, (although in saying that...I can think of two video clips...One guy missing a stationary deer in the open 5 or 6 times, & another with a deer beating six shades out of a guy with a gun...In either case its probably time they considered putting themselves up for a darwin award).

So to conclude, when you've missed, when you see the gleam in the savage herbivore's eye, teeth seem like a pretty good next move.

Dunno if this allowed, but the latter vid's on thatvideosite and is titled "did you just try to ******* shoot me!"

[Husar]

Do you also plant your own groceries and bake your own bread?
Why is using a gun worse than using a bow?
Only because it's easier?
Did you also build you house yourself using only tool you had built yourself? So you have floating water? And did you build your computer yourself?
If not, then that would be unfair and unnatural if I understood you correctly.

[Avicenna]

Time for Borat to invade their website, I say.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't agree with the green gestapo, but I really cannot get along with the hunting ethic where the only real skill requirement is money & the ability to load, point, & pull a trigger,

There's a lot more to it than that, you know.

Crazed Rabbit

[AntiochusIII]

This reminds me of Animal Farm and the Church of Euthanasia.

"DEATH TO ALL HUMANS!!!"

[Aenlic]

Not an adequate model of effective government. Two committing political philisophies united under a common cause of survival. With the outside pressure being applied against both groups the cohesion initially could be stated to come from the common cause of both groups. The pressure being applied by both groups probably shortern the time before betrayal between the two groups running Barcelona would of eventually come about. That anarchists achieved a foothold into government is noted, but as an effective government the time and situation does not provide enough evidence.

I'm not sure what to make of this. The anarchists and the communists were the same group. Anarchism dealt with the political structure and communism with the economic structure. They weren't two separate competing groups within Barcelona. They acheived a more stable government than Italy managed for almost 50 years after WWII.

No such model exists in the current modern world, nor would it survive for long if one was able to come about. The people will never stand for a government that does not at least attempt to look at for the interests of the people. A classic examble that the Republicians should have at least learned given the recent election cycle.

And yet, free market capitalism is the reason given for why anarchist socialism must fail. So if free market capitalism doens't exist, then the argument against anarcho-socialism is inherently without merit.

The best models of mixs of governmental types can be found in the West. A mix of capitialism and socialism. The optimum (SP) mix for each country is an ongoing legislative process in most countries that use this model.

Indeed. Which is why anarchism does not preclude individual entrepreneurship. As is made quite clear in that Anarchism link I posted.

The different forms of anarchism have some uses - but as an overall effective governmental model for running a nation - it is a non-proven model, and the attempts at implementing such a model have all ended in failure.

Since it existed as a living government system for 3 years in practice in the modern world, and as you've admitted, a purely capitalist-run government and economy can't exist in the modern world. That begs the question. Which is more viable?

And as for attempts at implementing the model ending in failure, what caused the failure? Was it the system or was it something outside local control, such as a massive civil war with a well-funded and internationally-supported fascist army bearing down on one side and less well-funded but almost as large Stalinist army bearing down on the other side? Saying that anarchism failed in Barcelona therefore it is flawed is the equivalent of saying "the crops failed, therefore you're a bad farmer" when it could have been the weather or an infestation of pests.

[Redleg]

I'm not sure what to make of this. The anarchists and the communists were the same group. Anarchism dealt with the political structure and communism with the economic structure. They weren't two separate competing groups within Barcelona. They acheived a more stable government than Italy managed for almost 50 years after WWII.

Here is the point. The political model is invalid, since it was not allowed to fully function. The stablity of the two intermix idealogical values were not tested. Combaring it to an unstable western form of government weakens the postion if more so.

And yet, free market capitalism is the reason given for why anarchist socialism must fail. So if free market capitalism doens't exist, then the argument against anarcho-socialism is inherently without merit.

That was not my point, nor did I state that. I would use the failure of Communism as an economic model on the national scale and the no valid anarchist-communism mix having been successful on the national level. I would give the Barcelona credit as a valid small scale attempt that did not fully prove or disprove the model because of outside pressures. I see anarchism and communism as two competing models that might or might not mix well on the governmental level.

Indeed. Which is why anarchism does not preclude individual entrepreneurship. As is made quite clear in that Anarchism link I posted.

Good thing I never claimed that it did.

Since it existed as a living government system for 3 years in practice in the modern world, and as you've admitted, a purely capitalist-run government and economy can't exist in the modern world. That begs the question. Which is more viable?

The social-capitialistic model has been proven successful on a large scale, the anarchist-communist model has not been proven successful on a large scale, and the success of the Barcelona model is somewhat questionable considering the outside pressure applied that allowed it to maintain cohesion for the short term, and the collaspe due to the outside source means we can not determine if it would of eventually been successful or not.

And as for attempts at implementing the model ending in failure, what caused the failure? Was it the system or was it something outside local control, such as a massive civil war with a well-funded and internationally-supported fascist army bearing down on one side and less well-funded but almost as large Stalinist army bearing down on the other side? Saying that anarchism failed in Barcelona therefore it is flawed is the equivalent of saying "the crops failed, therefore you're a bad farmer" when it could have been the weather or an infestation of pests.

This is the unkownn quality of the model. It was doomed to failure because of the political pressures of the time, and the direct military pressure applied by the conflict in which it developed in. It seems you are attempting an arguement that I did not state. I clearly stated this sentence.
The different forms of anarchism have some uses - but as an overall effective governmental model for running a nation - it is a non-proven model, and the attempts at implementing such a model have all ended in failure.

If the pests ruined each of my attempts at farming with a new technique of dry land farming - I would have still failed in using the farming method that I was attempting now wouln't I, because I was not successful in the attempt.

[Prodigal]

There's a lot more to it than that, you know.

Crazed Rabbit

True, & I've been a member of a rifle club & can shoot reasonably well, I'm also a member of an archery club, the fact is its easier to shoot something with a rifle than a bow, I personally feel that if you are going to hunt for sport, (not food, please note, if killing something decides whether you eat or not, then it would be foolish not to use the best tools you can lay hands on), then make it a challenge for yourself, & when I mention bows, I am not talking the ones with counterweights, laserscopes & all the other bits & bobs I'm talking about a bow, a normal bog standard piece of wood with a string. Of course if you're going to hunt a bear then forget the above, & grab a .50

Regarding building my own house and stuff, I don't have to hunt to live, if I did I'd get some high explosive & go out fishing, before heading back to check the traps.

[Aenlic]

Here is the point. The political model is invalid, since it was not allowed to fully function. The stablity of the two intermix idealogical values were not tested. Combaring it to an unstable western form of government weakens the postion if more so.

That was not my point, nor did I state that. I would use the failure of Communism as an economic model on the national scale and the no valid anarchist-communism mix having been successful on the national level. I would give the Barcelona credit as a valid small scale attempt that did not fully prove or disprove the model because of outside pressures. I see anarchism and communism as two competing models that might or might not mix well on the governmental level.

Good thing I never claimed that it did.

The social-capitialistic model has been proven successful on a large scale, the anarchist-communist model has not been proven successful on a large scale, and the success of the Barcelona model is somewhat questionable considering the outside pressure applied that allowed it to maintain cohesion for the short term, and the collaspe due to the outside source means we can not determine if it would of eventually been successful or not.

This is the unkownn quality of the model. It was doomed to failure because of the political pressures of the time, and the direct military pressure applied by the conflict in which it developed in. It seems you are attempting an arguement that I did not state. I clearly stated this sentence.
The different forms of anarchism have some uses - but as an overall effective governmental model for running a nation - it is a non-proven model, and the attempts at implementing such a model have all ended in failure.

If the pests ruined each of my attempts at farming with a new technique of dry land farming - I would have still failed in using the farming method that I was attempting now wouln't I, because I was not successful in the attempt.

I suppose part of the problem in this discussion is I don't understand where you are coming from in regards to anarchism and communism being two competing models. I don't get that. Anarchism is a political system. Communism is an economic system. The two aren't competing. There are anarcho-capitalists, there are parliamentary-communists, and so on. In Barcelona, the anarchists ran the city and surrounding countryside using communism as the economic model.

You still seem to be implying that anarcho-communism is not valid because all attempts at implementing it have "ended in failure" without recognizing that the failure in Barcelona had nothing to do with the implementation but was due to other factors. Thus my use of the farm analogy.

We do agree that it is an unproven model, at least in part. But that can't be stretched to claim that it must fail. The most that can be said, using real-world evidence as the only standard, is that anarcho-communism might or might not work and that when it was tried, that one time, it was overrun by outside forces. Whereas, democratic free market capitalism has been proven to be a failure in implementation time and again for several centuries , requiring large infusions of socialist theory in order to make it palatable and for it to function in the real world. So, my stance is that of the two, anarcho-communism has not been proven to be a failure while democratic capitalism has failed.

But again, I fully recognize that anarchism and communism are essentially utopian because they haven't been tried on a large scale or long term. Let's not get into an argument about Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism being communism, though. They bear more resemblance to a centrally-controlled capitalism than to communism. The argument against trying to mix a centralized totalitarian political system with communism got Mikhail Bakunin kicked out of the First Communist International by Marx. I side with Bakunin. For communism to work it must be deeply rooted in democratic ideals, especially individual freedoms and as weak a central government as possible - thus the mixture of communism with an anarchist political leaning.

I also feel that free market capitalism has been proven to be utopian and unrealistic since it has never been implemented without ending up strongly mixed with socialist theory. So, of the two, it seems to me to be more sensible to choose the system which hasn't been proven to be unviable in the modern world; and that would be anarchism and socialism/communism, which is otherwise known as anarcho-communism or anarcho-sydicalism or libertarian socialism, and so on.

While we wait for our utopian dreams to manifest, you and I can at least agree that in the meantime a middle ground seems to work best. Our only argument being how far along the scale from one end to the other to place the marker.

[Redleg]

I suppose part of the problem in this discussion is I don't understand where you are coming from in regards to anarchism and communism being two competing models. I don't get that. Anarchism is a political system. Communism is an economic system. The two aren't competing. There are anarcho-capitalists, there are parliamentary-communists, and so on. In Barcelona, the anarchists ran the city and surrounding countryside using communism as the economic model.

You still seem to be implying that anarcho-communism is not valid because all attempts at implementing it have "ended in failure" without recognizing that the failure in Barcelona had nothing to do with the implementation but was due to other factors. Thus my use of the farm analogy.

We do agree that it is an unproven model, at least in part. But that can't be stretched to claim that it must fail. The most that can be said, using real-world evidence as the only standard, is that anarcho-communism might or might not work and that when it was tried, that one time, it was overrun by outside forces. Whereas, democratic free market capitalism has been proven to be a failure in implementation time and again for several centuries , requiring large infusions of socialist theory in order to make it palatable and for it to function in the real world. So, my stance is that of the two, anarcho-communism has not been proven to be a failure while democratic capitalism has failed.

But again, I fully recognize that anarchism and communism are essentially utopian because they haven't been tried on a large scale or long term. Let's not get into an argument about Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism being communism, though. They bear more resemblance to a centrally-controlled capitalism than to communism. The argument against trying to mix a centralized totalitarian political system with communism got Mikhail Bakunin kicked out of the First Communist International by Marx. I side with Bakunin. For communism to work it must be deeply rooted in democratic ideals, especially individual freedoms and as weak a central government as possible - thus the mixture of communism with an anarchist political leaning.

I also feel that free market capitalism has been proven to be utopian and unrealistic since it has never been implemented without ending up strongly mixed with socialist theory. So, of the two, it seems to me to be more sensible to choose the system which hasn't been proven to be unviable in the modern world; and that would be anarchism and socialism/communism, which is otherwise known as anarcho-communism or anarcho-sydicalism or libertarian socialism, and so on.

While we wait for our utopian dreams to manifest, you and I can at least agree that in the meantime a middle ground seems to work best. Our only argument being how far along the scale from one end to the other to place the marker.

The optim mix is to allow the people to decide which economic/political system works best for them. There is a reason why countries with a democratic capitalistic socialistic mix of government are currently more successful then other models. The Chinese with their mix of capitalist/marxism could also be on the right tract, but the lack of personal freedom forces me to discount that as a model that I wish to live under.

As you probably noticed I am not a free market captialist. But believe in the what some have called social-capitalist economic model. The mix of the two to be decided by the people in a democracy form of government.

[Aenlic]

The optim mix is to allow the people to decide which economic/political system works best for them. There is a reason why countries with a democratic capitalistic socialistic mix of government are currently more successful then other models. The Chinese with their mix of capitalist/marxism could also be on the right tract, but the lack of personal freedom forces me to discount that as a model that I wish to live under.

As you probably noticed I am not a free market captialist. But believe in the what some have called social-capitalist economic model. The mix of the two to be decided by the people in a democracy form of government.

Agreed for the most part. In the end for me, maximizing democracy is the most important. The economic system tends to take care of itself when the people are able vote for the own self-interests and attain an education beyond the bare-minimum. I have problems with capitalism; but mostly from the standpoint of being extremely suspicious of corporate capitalism. In and of itself, capitalism can be positive. It's just when institutionalized greed, in the form of corporations which are inherently devoid of ethical considerations and responsibilities to society, gets in the mix that I find capitalism to be the most unpalatable.

China is an interesting subject, as well. It's possible that the huge economic drive in China might somehow overcome the totalitarian political situation; but I'm not particular hopeful in that regard. I think it'll take at least one new generation coming into power there for the old guard and the old Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist "dictatorship of the proletariat" mindset to finally fade away. We'll see.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Aenlic, do you have a recommended reading list for your philosophy? I know Bakunin, but would appreciate some other authors on the subject. It seems to me to be worth understanding more fully.