From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: HUNTING NEWS
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:57:45 GMT


John S. Van Etten:
jve> It's a common notion among certain hunters that AR folk have come
jve> up with their convoluted values (no offense anybody) from watching the
jve> film "Bambi" too many times, and actually starting to *believe* it.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> This notion is rather dimwitted, don't you think?  Would you say that
rl> the prevalence of such an idea among hunters reflects poorly on the
rl> legitimacy of animal rights arguments, or would you say that such notions
rl> reflect poorly on hunters?  

From article <tl1x4a@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> I'd say the view of "'Bambi'-watching" as being the problem with 
jve> AR folk is merely a shorthand way of saying that most of you lack 
jve> information and lead sheltered and urbanized lives.  I'm as yet 
jve> unconvinced that such a concept is not true, although I maintain 
jve> an open mind about it.  

I'm sure there are some AR advocates who lead sheltered and 
urbanized lives, just as I'm sure there are many anti-AR 
advocates who invoke silly, ad-hominem arguments in lieu of 
sticking with provable facts and rigorous arguments that are 
pertinent to the issues-at-hand. 

jve> You also seem to be a bit humour-impaired, Russell, in seeing 
jve> some need to break this line out of the context of my joke about 
jve> the "Little Mermaid." Oh well, like they say, "some people just 
jve> don't get it." ;-) 

Do you really think you can accurately judge my sense of humor by my 
unwillingness to laugh at such a moronic "joke"?  Why don't you 
post your "Bambi" invectives to rec.humor.funny to see if the 
moderator shares your sense of humor? 

rl> You're asking your opponents to stick with the facts, and yet you 
rl> seem to be very fond of blathering on and on about "Bambi" and 
rl> "Little Mermaid" movies while facetiously addressing the people 
rl> you're hoping to insult as, "Old Friend" or "Old Chum".

jve> My but you *are* grumpy today. :-)  Old friend.

Not really.

rl> Unless you have reason to believe that animal rights concerns do, 
rl> indeed, arise from watching such movies, your continuing 
rl> promotion of such an idea strikes me as the product of shabby 
rl> thinking at best and outright dishonesty at worst.  As you say, 
rl> there's no need to waste bandwidth on such drivel.  

jve> Please reread what I wrote, after you get calmed back down.  You're
jve> quite fond of the term "strawman," as I recall.  Now where did I
jve> promote such an idea?  I believe I merely asked a question, after
jve> stating a "misconception" of "certain" other hunters.  This attempt to
jve> circumvent the erroneous information that Ferrell posted is amusing,
jve> at best.

Yep, you asked a question all right.  Do you still enjoy watching 
child porno movies before you go out hunting? I'm not convinced that 
you don't, but I'm willing to keep an open mind, just like you.

rl> Let's get back to the main argument:
rl>
rl> Would you mind explaining to me why you think the National Shooting
rl> Foundation is reasonably justified in claiming that bathing is twice
rl> as dangerous as hunting?  

jve> Just so you kiddies know, the National Shooting Foundation 
jve> *didn't* claim that "bathing is twice as dangerous as hunting." 
jve> They claimed that a person was twice as likely to die by drowning 
jve> in a bathtub than by being killed in a hunting accident.  Those 
jve> are the facts, plain and simple.  It's the bullsh-- propaganda 
jve> that was posted that misquoted their position.  And you and 
jve> Ferrell have yet to convince me that it was an oversight and not 
jve> just a blatant *lie*.  

The National Shooting Foundation claim sounds like a crock to me.  

It would be silly to argue that a man who never ventures out of 
mid-town Manhattan would be x-times more likely to die from a
bathtub drowning than from a genuine hunting accident.  The fact 
that hunting might be thoroughly safe or thoroughly unsafe would 
have no bearing on our calculation of 'x', since the man will 
simply never be exposed to the risk.  

On the other hand, I suspect that anyone who spends anytime near 
a hunting area when hunters are about is far more likely to die 
from a hunter's bullet than from a bathroom accident.  Could you tell
me how many hunters were involved in bathtub drownings last year vs 
the number that were involved in human shootings?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals