From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: "A Very Good Opponent."
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 06:09:44 GMT

 dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) misses it all and writes:
[ I wrote this, but dreamer forgets to show such things]
>> think the actual number is about 355 degrees, which makes them a very good
>> opponent on the ground.  Traditionally, it's been too easy to get them in
>> the air, and especially with repeating shotguns.  When our forefathers

>	A "very good opponent" ... wow, if a turkey is a very good opponent,
>what's a not-so-good opponent?  A tree?  How about a barn?  Is hunting barns
>sport?  I guess they have to be alive to be sport.  Some sport.  Outwitting a
>turkey.  Sounds a little too challenging for me.

	Ever hunted turkey, David?  Naturally, the answer is "No," and hence
your ability to make a judgement call on this is very near zero.  Wild turkeys
are so far removed from the domestic fowl that it's a wonder they still have
the same name!  It's similar to comparing cape buffalo and cows.

>  Those turkeys are cunning
>ones, yes sir.  It's a wonder they're not the ones rocketing to the moon, or
>theorizing that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared.  I
>wonder if Einstein liked to hunt?  Einstein said he would "rather be torn to
>shreds" than involve himself in base, violent actions.  The question here is:
>was Einstein an unknowledgeable animal-rights fanatic and pacifist who wished
>love for all the cuddly little creatures, or a man who is at least slightly
>more evolved than they majority of those in his species?  Is someone who likes
>to hunt, even though the can acquire meat at the grocery store, more evolved?

	Neither answer is appropriate, nor are they relevant.  Our ancestors
killed quite effectively when the moon was a God, and later still when the
stars were rarefied ether.  As for Einstein, he was a great physicist.  That's
it.  So far as I know he wasn't a great hunter.  Just as his ability in
physics has no bearing here, neither does his inabilities in hunting serve
to underscore his physics abilities.  Find an argument, dreamer.  These
strawmen are barely worth my time.

>... more intelligent?  Or is looking at them like looking into the normally
>uncontrolled and aggressive and primal and instinctive man that he was for most
>of his evolution?  Is achieving the power of thought over aggressive instincts
>the next stage in human evolution? Will mankind ever become more evolved than
>it is now?  If everyone eternally accepted that hunting is more rational and
>intellectual than it is primal and instintive, would the power of thought ever
>become more powerful than the power of instinct?  Should anyone even TRY to
>achieve this?  Or is it better not to try?  Should I give in to those who say
>I'm full of shit about all of this and redefine the purpose of my existence?
>What is the purpose of being alive? 

	Find a good philosopher, dreamer, and ask the same question.  I'm not
a philospoher, but I am many other things.  Among those is a hunter, and I can
assure you that rational thought is hard at work in the woods.  As for
evolution, that theory has some limitations that this argument fails to
address.  One is that farmers provide our food, so hunting is not necessary
except when a person is unable to purchase, or afford, food from them.  Darwin
doesn't assume a market economy, nor does he assume that hunting ability is
the same as an advanced degree in survival.  While his theory is valid as a
whole, our social structures screw it up quite well.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals