Lets justify Hunting for sport!:)

[happyhunter123]

Perhaps we could discuss with thelacs, just how they see, "The Greater Good", .

A lot of things have been done by the LACS for the 'greater good' I feel.

 

[VoR]

VOR: Ok I see, your view on discussion. 'Great' you felt on sharing that. This is a debate, where opinions do not agree and are shared.

Can anyone translate this in to English for me please?

 

[Nicnac]

AnaV vacillates between excellent English and English written using a foreign sentence structure - more than one person?

 

[Alec Swan]

I've suspected all the way through this, that AnaV has many of her replies written for her. The exceptions being when direct questions are asked of her sponsors, and then we're greeted by silence. Can't think why, can you?

Alec.

 

[Countryman]

There is a couple of well known repute in Wales who spend their time annoying the local hunts. The man has English as his first language while the woman doesn't. Hmmmm.

 

[AnaV]

Alec; I have been in contact with the League Against Cruel Sports. Just to let you know I am on the case, consequently you need not worry your little cotton socks over my absence.
Now, as I await further information, may I remind you of the topic at hand? Killing animals for sport. Yes not for consumption. Killing other animals just because we have the 'know how.'

Nicnac & VOR; This is not a lesson of language nor literature, yet you are using it as invasion to the subject. Why? If we are to take that route, I have far a greater collection of remarks to make as to the 'english' I have had the joy of reading on this thread.

 

[happyhunter123]

Alec; I have been in contact with the League Against Cruel Sports. Just to let you know I am on the case, consequently you need not worry your little cotton socks over my absence.

Listen AnaV, don't expect the LACS to tell you the truth. They've been trying to cover up the terrible treatment of those deer for years.
Besides, they desperately need your cash!

 

[Nancykitt]

Now, as I await further information, may I remind you of the topic at hand? Killing animals for sport. Yes not for consumption. Killing other animals just because we have the 'know how.'

No, please, no - no more! We have thoroughly exhausted the 'topic at hand'. We've been through every conceivable argument, we've explored the thing inside out, upside down, back to front - but, as has already been pointed out, you'd already decided on the 'answer' to your question before you'd posted the topic. When you asked at one point 'why kill the deer' and I pointed out that they are consumed by humans, it may have put a spanner in the works for you but you seem to have dealt with this merely by repeating yourself.

Do your research on Baronsdown and consider the dreadful irony of how an organisation supposedly formed to tackle so-called 'cruelty' ended up causing so much suffering to these wonderful animals.

 

[Alec Swan]

Alec; I have been in contact with the League Against Cruel Sports. Just to let you know I am on the case, consequently you need not worry your little cotton socks over my absence.

.........

You've "Been in contact with the league". Excellent, I will sit and await your research. It will make for fascinating reading.

Whilst you have the attention of those who advise you, perhaps you could enquire of them how they would explain the balance between a creature which stands a very good chance of escape, and one which is trapped and committed to a life where it will be highly unlikely to reach any more than 60% of its more usual body weight, and why such wretches have to endure the agonies of a diseased death, and and at the hands of those with no principles.

Just a thought.

Alec.

 

[AnaV]

Nancykitt; We do not need to eat deer. I cannot stress how simple it is. Why bother? Killing other animals just because we can, no real reason. We will not starve from not slaughtering them.

Alec; Yes I have been in touch and awaiting their further response. I do not give them money, for have only recently become a member. I have no say on the baronsdown situation for have no real perspective of what is going.

 

[Nancykitt]

Nancykitt; We do not need to eat deer. I cannot stress how simple it is. Why bother? Killing other animals just because we can, no real reason. We will not starve from not slaughtering them.

But, according to you, we do need to eat meat.
So do we need to eat beef? Pork? Chicken?
What makes one type of meat OK and another not?
Is it that the deer is wild? If so, are you advocating eating factory farmed meat, with most animals having had a thoroughly miserable existence, rather than 'free range' food?

I do eat meat and I enjoy it. I am very careful about what I buy and eat.
But my daughter has been vegetarian for 23 years and is fine.
So do you NEED to eat meat?
Of course not. You just make up the rules as you go along.

As for 'why bother'?, I suggest you do some serious research into wildlife management.

I'm just repeating myself now. Can you not see that this is going nowhere? You have absolutely no interest in anything I, or other like-mended people here, have to say.

 

[maccachic]

Nancykitt; We do not need to eat deer. I cannot stress how simple it is. Why bother? Killing other animals just because we can, no real reason. We will not starve from not slaughtering them.

Alec; Yes I have been in touch and awaiting their further response. I do not give them money, for have only recently become a member. I have no say on the baronsdown situation for have no real perspective of what is going.

HAHAHAHAHA I almost fell off my chair - hypocrite much? Are you really saying one life is different from another??

Oh no I get it there is already dead animals in the supermarket so why kill wild ones everyone knows the ones at the supermarket are already born dead right.

 

[Nancykitt]

Sorry, that should have said 'like minded' rather than 'like mended'.
But I actually quite like it.

 

[AnaV]

We do not need to eat deer.

 

[Vulpinator]

We do not need to eat deer.

AnaV

Why I must say you must have nothing in your life to do other than cause nuisance to people with opposing views to you. nuisance value 0 knowledge of the countryside 0 spelling and grammar 0 maybe you should take up dancing in sure your tango would get a 1 from Craig Revell Hallwood

Please go and audition and leave us small minded simple folk to witter on about the things we know nothing about

 

[Nancykitt]

And once again the point is missed.
Apparently we don't need to eat deer. But personally, I like venison.
We don't need to eat beef. But I love a nice piece of fillet steak.
We don't need to eat chicken. But a nice (free range) roast chicken dinner often hits the spot.
We don't need to eat pork. But our home-cured bacon is truly wonderful.

AnaV, what sort of meat DO we NEED to eat? And if you have a theory behind this - eg, we need to eat lamb/beef/chicken but not pork/goat/deer/whatever - where is the research to back up your theory?

You can say 'I choose not to eat deer' in the way that I, personally, choose not to eat certain types of meat. But you can't possibly justify by saying we don't 'need' to eat deer.

Does a deer have more of a right to life than a pig/cow/lamb etc?
Who decides?

 

[Littlelegs]

It's really very simple from ops pov. Which animals have a right to life & which can die for a humans benefit, is no doubt based on how cute op finds them, & how many pretty pictures she has seen. Deer, foxs, bunny rabbits etc are all very cute filmed in their natural habitats. Whereas adult cows in a barn are pretty stinky. Also, the former have been portrayed well in films (bambi, fox & the hound, watership down). I assume their is no rational explanation of ops logic, as that would imply the ability for rational thought, which we can safely say is lacking.

 

[JDee]

If you had such an awful problem with deer ticks and Lymes disease in the UK as I'm now having to contend with in New England thanks to an out of control deer population you'd be begging the hunts to go out and kill them
Just because an animal is 'wild' doesnt mean that its population shouldnt be controlled

 

[Nancykitt]

We will not starve from not slaughtering them.

And here's the irony, AnaV - lots of deer WOULD STARVE if we didn't 'slaughter' them.

Starvation - not a nice way to go at all...

 

[arizonahoney]

We do not need to eat deer.

I'm starting to suspect you're a chatbot, not a real person.

 

[Alec Swan]

ArizonaH, you have a point. AnaV's posts are strangely robotic, aren't they?

As I have no chance of facing our OP, F2F, so I have to consider her(?) a person who's up to mischief. Nothing more, or less.

Alec.

 

[bubbilygum]

I'm starting to suspect you're a chatbot, not a real person.

this would genuinely be the most logical explanation for all this...

 

[AnaV]

I respect cows, pigs and sheep as much as any other animal for those of you-weird and wonderful ones-who think different of me. I am however, a realist and humans still have to consume some good source of protein as intended by nature.

There is no use reasoning with people like yourselves. Do continue to (yes) slaughter animals for no need and live a content, life with no morals, knowing your offspring shall see an end to the little humanity there is.

Good riddance to you small minded, backward people.

 

[bubbilygum]

I respect cows, pigs and sheep as much as any other animal for those of you-weird and wonderful ones-who think different of me. I am however, a realist and humans still have to consume some good source of protein as intended by nature.

There is no use reasoning with people like yourselves. Do continue to (yes) slaughter animals for no need and live a content, life with no morals, knowing your offspring shall see an end to the little humanity there is.

Good riddance to you small minded, backward people.

You KNOW there are sources of protein other than meat. You KNOW people don't need to eat meat to survive. Your belligerence is astonishing and tiresome. How you can continue with this completely opinion based argument, based entirely on your own ideas of what you think is right and wrong with no evidence to support your claims whatsoever, is frankly impressive. By eating meat YOU PARTAKE IN THE NEEDLESS SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS, so stop being so pedantic. I equally partake in this, I have no qualms with this, but I am fully aware that meat eating is a choice I have made, I respect livestock and equally respect the farmers, slaughtermen and butchers involved in this trade.

Good riddance to you also, AnaV. I am annoyed with myself for becoming drawn in by your mindless nonsense yet again.

 

[happyhunter123]

There is no use reasoning with people like yourselves.

Says the one who never listened to anyone else's view, because they were (arrogantly) so certain of their own. AnaV, you clearly did not come here looking for a calm and considered debate, no matter how hard we tried.

Do continue to (yes) slaughter animals for no need and live a content, life with no morals, knowing your offspring shall see an end to the little humanity there is.

You know nothing more of the topic of conversation than you did when you started, and you still don't understand. Oh well. What difference is it going to make? I have plenty of morals, whatever you think! And I'm not backward either

I think we 'reasoned' quite well.

 

[VoR]

Now AnaV, you earlier in this thread accused me of going 'off the point', abusing people of whom you have no knowledge of their true morals, education, beliefs, occupation and standing in a community has nothing to do with 'Justifying hunting as a sport' does it?

I am sorry, you are hilarious in your support right here of bigoted and generalised opinions.

 

[Nancykitt]

At least the vegans can claim to divorce themselves completely from the slaughter of animals. What we have here is someone who has decided that it's perfectly OK to kill certain animals because we apparently need 'some good source of protein', but not acceptable to kill others, presumably at the poster's discretion.
Actually, it's worse than that - it seems it is perfectly acceptable to raise and slaughter certain animals (possibly with limited attention to their welfare) while at the same time being utterly barbaric to kill others.

Nuff said. It's been good fun at times, but the sheer illogicality of the OP's 'argument' in this thread has left me shaking my head.

 

[AnaV]

VOR;
Abusing other people? Nothing of the sort.


Nancykitt;
I did leave but felt it necessary to point this out.

Slaughtering animals for consumption; involves animals being raised in good conditions, slaughtered the same pain free way (in well run abbattoirs) and in the end killed for an actual reason-necessary consumption .

Slaughtering animals whilst hunting; involves the killing of animals and in the end for no reason.

Still hard to grasp in your narrow mind?

 

[Alec Swan]

VOR;
.....

Nancykitt;
I did leave but felt it necessary to point this out.

Slaughtering animals for consumption; ....... and in the end killed for an actual reason-necessary consumption .
.......

Still hard to grasp in your narrow mind?

I feel quite sure that with your moral and high handed stance, that you'll actually doubt the need for the slaughter of animals for consumption. Only the narrow minded would fail to grasp the concept of vegetarianism. I find the two parts of your post strangely at odds with each other.

Whilst we have your gracious attention, could you let us know how your enquiries with the lacs went, specifically the questions posted about Baronsdown Wood? You did say that you'd make enquiries, and report back.

As a matter of further interest, you did claim to be a member of that body. Could you enquire, is membership open to all?

Alec.

 

[AnaV]

Alec;

I have spoken to the Supporter Group Relations Officer, who informed me that the deer at Baronsdown wood are free to roam in and out of their 'sanctuaries.' Therefore he means they are not trapped. Whether this is as true as he makes out I have not a clue for I have not been down there to witness it yet. Thus, if I find I have been misinformed incorrect data I shall discontinue my support for them.