From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: HUNTING NEWS
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:37:15 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>Ferrell S. Wheeler writes:
>fw> The National Shooting Sports Foundation claims that taking a 
>fw> bath is twice as dangerous as hunting because 350 people per
>fw> year drown in their bathtubs, while "only" 146 people were killed 
>fw> by hunters.  However, the 16 million licensed hunters hunt fewer
>fw> than 10 days a year on average.  Thus if the 251 million Americans 
>fw> bathe on average once a day, 83,665 people per year would
>fw> drown in bathtubs if bathing and hunting really were equally 
>fw> dangerous hunters would kill only one person every four years.
>
>From article <ya1xrkm@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
>jve> And you AR folk wonder why we don't take your propaganda seriously.
>jve> Ferrell, old friend, why on Earth do you post drivel like this?  Did
>jve> an "N"-key abuse you as a child and this is your retalliation??  (For
>jve> those that lost me, the "N"-key scrolls to the next message on most
>jve> news software on a Unix box.)  It was bad enough when Rob U. was
>jve> posting tripe like "hunter kills 12 cows," but this *really* takes the
>jve> cake.
>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.
>
>This notion is rather dimwitted, don't you think?  Would you say that
>the prevalence of such an idea among hunters reflect poorly on the
>legitimacy of animal rights arguments, or would you say that such notions
>reflect poorly on hunters?  

I'd say the view of "'Bambi'-watching" as being the problem with AR folk
is merely a shorthand way of saying that most of you lack information and
lead sheltered and urbanized lives.  I'm as yet unconvinced that such
a concept is not true, although I maintain an open mind about it.  You
also seem to be a bit humour-impaired, Russell, in seeing some need to
break this line out of the context of my joke about the "Little
Mermaid."  Oh well, like they say, "some people just don't get it." ;-)


>jve> Well, Ferrell, I'll have to bite on this one and ask just how many
>jve> times have you and your pals at _Animal Agenda_ seen "*The Little
>jve> Mermaid*?"
>jve>
>jve> You see, very few Americans spend the *entire* d-mn day from
>jve> sunup to sundown *bathing*.  Darn, I forgot to tell you to sit down
>jve> before the shock.  Are you OK?  I do hope you didn't fall down and hit
>jve> your head on something (although it could help, if not a fatal blow).
>jve> Those stats would be meaningful *only* if the entire time people spent
>jve> hunting during a *full* day were equal to the time they spent bathing
>jve> during a day.
>jve>      I admit it was a nice try, but in the future, please tell the
>jve> publishers to stick to the facts, if they want anyone other than you
>jve> AR folk to take them seriously.  Oh and, not that I'm trying to be
>jve> net.police or anything, but, you really don't need to waste bandwidth
>jve> like this.  Thanks.
>
>You're asking your opponents to stick with the facts, and yet you 
>seem to be very fond of blathering on and on about "Bambi" and 
>"Little Mermaid" movies while facetiously addressing the people 
>you're hoping to insult as, "Old Friend" or "Old Chum".

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


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

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


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

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


>If we're going to consider, as you seem intent on doing, that 
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What the hell are you talking about?  It's the _Animal Agenda_ that is
intent on comparing the amount of time, not *me*.


>hunters spend more time in the field per day than bathers spend 
>in the tub, it might also be useful to consider the sorts of 
>events that precede bathtub drownings as well as the 
>state-of-health of bathtub drowning victims. 

Huh?  I realize you had nothing with which to refute my claim that the
_Animal Agenda_ "statistics" were way the hell out on Pluto somewhere,
but is any of this relevant?  I have no need to devote the rest of my
life to studying this issue, Russell.  The literature cited was
*WRONG* and I merely felt the need to point that out (much as one
tells a child the truth about headlines on the National Enquirer such
as "Nancy Reagan gives birth to twin space alien babies" that are read
while standing in line at the grocery store).


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals