From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:15:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: osnome.RIGG.92Apr15091557
	<altar.703193607@sfu.ca> <RIGG.92Apr14113327@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<altar.703308469@sfu.ca>
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca's message of 15 Apr 92 03:27:49 GMT

In article <altar.703308469@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
   rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
   >The same questions can be asked of you. I quess, I enjoy a good
   >debate.  Since you say that you don't think you'll change the minds of
   >any hunters and few nonhunters read the list, why do you bother?

   Good point.  Why do we bother?  Maybe I can only speak for myself.

   First, I really don't think that I'm going to persuade you or
   anyone else who hunts.  Second, I am quite uncertain as to how
   many undecided folk really bother to read these tedious exchanges
   of ours.  I franky think not many, but I could be wrong.

I agree.  I'd also like to note that we (and others) often carry these
discussions over to email where there is cxertainly no outsiders
listening.  So we finally agree on something: to sway the undecided is
_not_ the driving force behind these discussions.

	Why do I bother?  Indeed, why am I even bothering now?  
   First of all, I get to review my thoughts on this issue, attempt
   to put them in a form that can address the kinds of remarks you
   might make, which, from my point of view are often odd and not
   frequently entertained.  I believe that it is always good to
   reassess one's views and presuppositions, to even talk to people
   who are certainly not the kinds of people that I am normally
   exposed to.  I even get to practice my quick letter writing
   and public debating skills, which might well be improved
   for some future situation where such skills hopefully can be more
   usefully applied.  And, I must admit to a certain pleasure in
   good debate even with people who stance is most objectionable
   to my own.   

I think this is probably the main reason for me.   After discussing
the issues in detail with you, I am well prepared for the occasional
cocktail party "debate" with folks far less prepared than you.

       Now, I should be too presumptious, after all,
   ethics did play some role for some people in their decision.
   Who knows, just maybe one person will give up the game, 
   and maybe "in part" because of being made more cognizant of
   the ethical issues involved in what formerly was merely a
   taken for granted, unquestioned weekend "entertainment".

Perhaps.

       Franky, I must admit to some puzzlement why you might be 
   so interest in debating with us AR folk.  Maybe it is just
   to pride yourself on resisting/rebuffing our best arguments.
   Heck, you can only bring a horse to water, you can never 
   force a drinking of even the more informed view and progressive
   outlook.

I think we could (and in fact _have_) debate which is the "more
informed view".   This comment strikes me as a very cheap shot.

   [deleted]  Given some of the almost livid hostility and
   contempt that is sometimes expressed towards us AR folk,
   I can't help wondering where this comes from? ...

The hostility and hatred is hardly onesided.  You certainly don't
believe that all the AR folks are calm rational folks who never
partake in a bit of flamethrowing, do you?

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)