Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dairygirl4u2c

Palin

Recommended Posts

Tinkerlina
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1660331' date='Sep 20 2008, 11:43 PM']So long as you understand that opinion is your own morality that hunters are not bound to everything is cool.[/quote]

Explain? I don't totally catch what you're saying? Sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
i didn't include the aerial hunting thing, cause i'm not aware of any abuses. hunting is okay, and hunting from a plane is essentially teh same thing except there's a plane.

i am a little uncomfortable with the idea that there's less of a fair hunt, but it's really not a big deal at all. i'd consider doing it myself.

just as long as they're not chasing them down and wearing em out and then shooting them. i think i heard that happened a couple times, but i'm not sure that's soemthing attributable to her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tinkerlina
[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1660395' date='Sep 21 2008, 01:46 AM']i didn't include the aerial hunting thing, cause i'm not aware of any abuses. hunting is okay, and hunting from a plane is essentially teh same thing except there's a plane.

i am a little uncomfortable with the idea that there's less of a fair hunt, but it's really not a big deal at all. i'd consider doing it myself.

just as long as they're not chasing them down and wearing em out and then shooting them. i think i heard that happened a couple times, but i'm not sure that's soemthing attributable to her.[/quote]

I'm personally against hunting but I don't expect the gov to take a stance...but I truly do feel aerial hunting is grossly unnecessary and unfair. Actually, it has been illegal for like 30 years in the US but there is some loophole about "wildlife management" that allows Alaska to continue to use aerial hunting. It's a major issue for me-I wish there were a candidate who shared my views of respecting all human life (including taking an anti death penalty stance) as well as all animal life, or at least promoting animal welfare. It's like if I agree with a candidate on one issue they have to have some major issue they support that is completely objectionable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KnightofChrist
Wolfs often attack and kill livestock of hard working farmers which is why Alaska supports aerial 'hunting' wolves. The state doesn't support it for some stupid heartless reason but to protect the welfare of its people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tinkerlina
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1660404' date='Sep 21 2008, 02:31 AM']Wolfs often attack and kill livestock of hard working farmers which is why Alaska supports aerial 'hunting' wolves. The state doesn't support it for some stupid heartless reason but to protect the welfare of its people.[/quote]

From what I've read it doesn't sound like most of the state of Alaska supports aerial hunting. The last governor vetoed the 2000 bill that allowed it but was overrode by state legislature. The Department of Fish and Game Commissioner in Alaska even spoke out against it. I understand that people need to protect their livestock and I'm not saying that this is done out of sheer mindless cruelty, but I do think it is the wrong answer and causes a lot of needless suffering. ETA: Protection of livestock was not, as far as I know, cited as a reason for allowing aerial wolf and bear hunting. It was theoretically to protect Caribou/Moose so that they could be hunted by the "rural poor" and there was much lobbying by the NRA and other special interest groups involved. State voters actually voted against propositions to allow/expand aerial hunting in 1996 and 2000. Edited by Tinkerlina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KnightofChrist
Look Alaska is a big place planes are needed to go long distances, all aerial hunting is is shooting the animal from the air, instead of the ground. Your making a big deal out of nothing. Only big difference in normal hunting and aerial hunting is a plane so what? There's actually nothing morally wrong with either so long as it is done for a good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tinkerlina
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1660417' date='Sep 21 2008, 03:06 AM']Look Alaska is a big place planes are needed to go long distances, all aerial hunting is is shooting the animal from the air, instead of the ground. Your making a big deal out of nothing. Only big difference in normal hunting and aerial hunting is a plane so what? There's actually nothing morally wrong with either so long as it is done for a good reason.[/quote]

Sorry, but I don't think it's "nothing." Taking a life is always an issue in my book and I have yet to see any convincing evidence that this is warranted. Obviously you disagree with me on the fundamental issue, which I respect, but it is important to note that the majority of Alaskan individuals voted against reintroducing aerial hunting and the bill itself has a very tenuous legal basis, as aerial hunting was outlawed by Congress in 1972. Additionally, aerial hunting almost always fails to produce a painless, or even relatively painless death for the animal hunted. It is considered unethical by many hunters because there is no "level playing field" so to speak. My basic point in all that I've said is that there are many animal welfare and environmental issues with Palin that disturb me. I totally understand what you're saying about hunting being warranted in some cases although I don't necessarily agree with it. But in either case, I think it's definitely our responsibility to protect our fellow creatures and the welfare of all life on the planet to whatever extent we are able.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KnightofChrist
[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1660418' date='Sep 21 2008, 02:18 AM']Sorry, but I don't think it's "nothing." Taking a life is always an issue in my book and I have yet to see any convincing evidence that this is warranted. Obviously you disagree with me on the fundamental issue, which I respect, but it is important to note that the majority of Alaskan individuals voted against reintroducing aerial hunting and the bill itself has a very tenuous legal basis, as aerial hunting was outlawed by Congress in 1972. Additionally, aerial hunting almost always fails to produce a painless, or even relatively painless death for the animal hunted. It is considered unethical by many hunters because there is no "level playing field" so to speak. My basic point in all that I've said is that there are many animal welfare and environmental issues with Palin that disturb me. I totally understand what you're saying about hunting being warranted in some cases although I don't necessarily agree with it. But in either case, I think it's definitely our responsibility to protect our fellow creatures and the welfare of all life on the planet to whatever extent we are able.[/quote]

While I respect you, your personal opinion on hunting is not binding to anyone. It is merely your opinion and only opinion. Reducing the number of wolves which kill the livestock and endanger the lives of children is necessary. The vast majority of all hunting methods will not be painless for the animal being hunted. It doesn't matter who many people are against hunting, or even aerial hunting, so long as it is done for good reason it is morally acceptable.

You've made your opinion known, it is not binding to anyone. Let us now stop this non-topic debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jckinsman
[quote name='MilesJesu' post='1660036' date='Sep 20 2008, 08:30 AM']My apologies, I am a little slow sometimes and digressed from the subject at hand.

Peace,

MilesJesu[/quote]
Apology accepted! :saint:
....but you must realize that we should not EVER use our brains on any given topic ,on anything remotely moral,spiritual or anything that may make a lick of sense to anyone that may have any part of thier brain still functioning left out there. When you take them down that "rabbit trails",it may confuse them and make them think something other then what the local news station may tell them. So please do not confuse us "stupids" out here and just make a list of the "terrible things about Palin" :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jckinsman
[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1660125' date='Sep 20 2008, 01:50 PM']this will sound werid, and it is. but i'm just making hte point.

if someone says "i'm going to go on a killing rampage" then you should say "don't kill anyone... but if you're going to, then kill as few people as possible."

you're not doing anything wrong by telling them that.

in fact,,,, as per the contraceptive stuff,,,, one might say "the ends means" stuff might not even be applicable. you're not doing anything inhernetly wrong by mitigating the wrongness. (i suppose one might argue that contraceptives is only confounding the problem?)

if you're going to commit grave sin, do it in a wisest way possible.[/quote]
If someone said I'm going on a killing Rampage I would call the police...but that's just me the wacko-non-contraceptive using mother of six. :annoyed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jckinsman
[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1660086' date='Sep 20 2008, 11:57 AM']i mean,,, i used to tend towards saying hte ends never justify the means. i felt like a fool though, and knew i was only trying to rationalize my religious principles. i mean,,, i admit i still feel a bit uncomfortable beating people up, torturing, allowing innocents to die. but,,, i don't feel nearly as uncomfortable as the alternatives. i think the only reason i might feel weird,,, whatever my stance,,, is because it is a tough situation, i can admit that.
but for me, to be honest and to me to be common sensical... there are exceptions to every rule (well, as long as the rule is stated vaguely enough like msot are)[/quote]
Connect this to the thread topic for me. :smokey:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jckinsman
[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1660278' date='Sep 20 2008, 07:50 PM']I know she's a popular pro life candidate and I am extremely pro life. However, I find Palin aggregiously offensive. She's married to a commerical fisherman-commerical fishing is cruel and horrible for the environment. I also find it astounding and horrifying that she so strongly supports and promotes aerial wildlife hunting. Sickening. It's so hard to vote! -Katie[/quote]
Katie, Please rest assured that the fish that you get in the store or resturants are not abused. These fisherman serve a purpose. I do not approve of abuse, at all, in any form ,to anything, or anyone. Define abuse though? I would think that the netting of fish is much more abusive and aggressive then the commercial fishing industry. As far as aerial hunting goes,we don't live there to know the circumstances. Hunting and consuming the animal is not an evil ,destroying human life is. So really is it "hard to vote"?....don't get so sick over it,it's pretty clear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tinkerlina
[quote name='jckinsman' post='1660430' date='Sep 21 2008, 04:46 AM']Katie, Please rest assured that the fish that you get in the store or resturants are not abused. These fisherman serve a purpose. I do not approve of abuse, at all, in any form ,to anything, or anyone. Define abuse though? I would think that the netting of fish is much more abusive and aggressive then the commercial fishing industry. As far as aerial hunting goes,we don't live there to know the circumstances. Hunting and consuming the animal is not an evil ,destroying human life is. So really is it "hard to vote"?....don't get so sick over it,it's pretty clear![/quote]

Commercial fishing does involve netting fish to a massive extent and it also often hurts other marine life as the nets are cast extremely wide to catch the highest number of fish possible. and With regard to voting, my issue with Palin isn't hunting in general, it's the many animal and ecoligcal issues. I agree that destroying human life is evil and it is an extremely important issue to me too. -Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tinkerlina
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1660421' date='Sep 21 2008, 03:31 AM']While I respect you, your personal opinion on hunting is not binding to anyone. It is merely your opinion and only opinion. Reducing the number of wolves which kill the livestock and endanger the lives of children is necessary. The vast majority of all hunting methods will not be painless for the animal being hunted. It doesn't matter who many people are against hunting, or even aerial hunting, so long as it is done for good reason it is morally acceptable.

You've made your opinion known, it is not binding to anyone. Let us now stop this non-topic debate.[/quote]

I'm willing to stop the debate as much as you are but please understand that I never insinuated in any way, shape or form that anyone was "bound" to my opinion-isn't the point of a thread like this to get a discussion going and give our opinions? No one reading or participating in this is bound to my, your or anyone else's opinion-the topic of the thread is Palin and I came here to throw in my two cents just like everyone else, nothing more. -Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
knight's tone seems like... "it's not binding on anyone. the hunting is needed, therefore you're pretty much objectively wrong, but go ahead and think what you want. you're entitled to your opinion."
while i disagree with tinker, i can totally see what she thinks. i personally don't see hunting from a plane as a big deal, but i can see how it's seen as unfair and unethical. the oppositino certainly deserves more credit here than knight is conveying.
i can see how knight might plausibly be hard line on it... but it's like he's hard line on so much he loses his credibility.



[quote name='jckinsman' post='1660425' date='Sep 21 2008, 03:19 AM']If someone said I'm going on a killing Rampage I would call the police...but that's just me the wacko-non-contraceptive using mother of six. :annoyed:[/quote]

that's a nice way to dodge the issue (which is usually how the religious rationalizaers tackle this issue. the fact they're dodging it,,,, and not willing to concede that they're essentially arguing that they'd be willing ot allow people to die just shows to show they are rationalizers and probably don't really believe what they say). i concede it wouldn't be very often that you'd have the chance to talk mitigation into someone,,, but it's plausible, and therefore not talking mitigation when you had the chance, would be morally wrong.
it's just an analogy anyways, the point is soemtimes you gotta do what's normamly wrong for the greater good.

allowing millions to die instead of beating up the person who knows the info,,, is morally wrong. while i just knocked knight for being a hardliner.... i htink this situation warrants being a hardliners on- it's morally wrong no if's and's or but's.
i can see how you'd have diffuculty with the issue.... it's analogous to, who likes to shoot someone in a just war? no one,,, it'd feel bad, but it's the morally right thing to do. feelings are not the basis here--- rationality is. oding that wrongness i described is morally wrong, and irrational. Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...