Erron
What To Say To A Vegetarian?
Moderator: Moderators
What To Say To A Vegetarian?
For someone who keeps getting stick from them when I mention hunting, what do you suggest? I prefer humour, myself, but have run low on jokes.
Erron
Erron
hard line approach......unless your a vegan, you probably use stuff made from animal products every day. leather shoes?
defensive......... i only hunt 'problem species, that have been introduced, which do more harm to the surrounding habitat than humans.
humourous...........it's ok, most of the time i miss and the bastards throw my arrows back at me!
subject change.........so... nice weather were having eh? or did you catch that meg ryan movie last night?
and last of all. and this one should only be used before attempting suicide-
the "i give up" answer......... i'm so sorry, i have seen the error of my ways and am currently burning all my tools of evil. please forgive me!
hope this helps
cheers
buford
defensive......... i only hunt 'problem species, that have been introduced, which do more harm to the surrounding habitat than humans.
humourous...........it's ok, most of the time i miss and the bastards throw my arrows back at me!
subject change.........so... nice weather were having eh? or did you catch that meg ryan movie last night?
and last of all. and this one should only be used before attempting suicide-
the "i give up" answer......... i'm so sorry, i have seen the error of my ways and am currently burning all my tools of evil. please forgive me!
hope this helps
cheers
buford
Stupid TV! Be more funny!
-
Glenn Newell
Years ago I was at a party and a head wanking vegetarian came into the kitchen and remarked the she found it offencive that we were cooking meat. I told her that the meat I was serving was clean organic meat, she asked me what type of meat was it and I told her that it was venison and I had killed it last week, with that she flew into a rage and stopped the party, even years later people remind me of that night and have a laugh about it...Glenn...
I generally tell them that I'll turn veggie when my eyes migrate to the sides of my head, I have to rechew my food when it's NOT alcohol related, and all my teeth flatten off to grind plant matter. And lately with the "mad cow" fiasco, I tell them that so far no was has contracted
"mad moose" disease.
RC
"mad moose" disease.
RC
That which doesn't kill me better run for cover...
Buford stole my 'leather shoe' line!
I actually didn't eat red meat for 12 years. Was a habit in the end, one I broke when I won a red deer hunt and figured if I got one I was going to eat it so I'd better get in training. My first taste of steak in 12 years I said to my wife "what have I been doing? This is GREAT!' Ah, the follies of youth. Ok so I was in my 30s by then.
You know, I don't have a problem with anyone's eating habits as long as they keep them to themselves. I never tried to 'convert' anyone to stop eating red meat because I reckon life is about choices. As long as your choice doesn't affect anyone else - go for it. Do unto other, etc.
I actually have more of a problem with people who do eat meat and are down on you because you hunt. That hypocrisy riles me. Meat doesn't actually grown in the supermarket freezer!
Lindsay
I actually didn't eat red meat for 12 years. Was a habit in the end, one I broke when I won a red deer hunt and figured if I got one I was going to eat it so I'd better get in training. My first taste of steak in 12 years I said to my wife "what have I been doing? This is GREAT!' Ah, the follies of youth. Ok so I was in my 30s by then.
You know, I don't have a problem with anyone's eating habits as long as they keep them to themselves. I never tried to 'convert' anyone to stop eating red meat because I reckon life is about choices. As long as your choice doesn't affect anyone else - go for it. Do unto other, etc.
I actually have more of a problem with people who do eat meat and are down on you because you hunt. That hypocrisy riles me. Meat doesn't actually grown in the supermarket freezer!
Lindsay
"So long as the new moon returns in heaven a bent, beautiful bow, so long will the fascination of archery keep hold of the hearts of men."
Maurice Thompsen, 1878.
Maurice Thompsen, 1878.
I have spent a bit of time in slaughterhouses and it had an effect on me, if people think that that nice bit of meat in the tray is a better way than me shooting an animal then they are illinformed.
People think hunting is cruel, I have seen worse. But very few people go into slaughterhouses.
I sometimes think that vegaterians are just missinformed, but it is their choice and if they feel compelled to force me to to listen to their logic of why meat is bad, they should listen to mine. Intrestingly research is showing that game meat is full of good fats and will help prevent heart and cardiovascular diseases.
Deer eat grass, grass gets made to meat I eat the meat, saves a bit of work.
It takes less energy to make a kilo of meat than a kilo of rice and enviornmentally the rice is far worse because of the huge amounts of water it needs.
People think hunting is cruel, I have seen worse. But very few people go into slaughterhouses.
I sometimes think that vegaterians are just missinformed, but it is their choice and if they feel compelled to force me to to listen to their logic of why meat is bad, they should listen to mine. Intrestingly research is showing that game meat is full of good fats and will help prevent heart and cardiovascular diseases.
Deer eat grass, grass gets made to meat I eat the meat, saves a bit of work.
It takes less energy to make a kilo of meat than a kilo of rice and enviornmentally the rice is far worse because of the huge amounts of water it needs.
I think modern agricultural practices are beginning to work in our favour. I meet people all the time who, like myself, are concerned about the rubbish that is fed to cattle, chicken, fish and so forth.
None of these supermarket meats taste anything like their wild cousins - and its a growing concern.
During the year Landline ran a feature story about some tuna producer that has finally taught his tuna to eat pellets. Aparently this has been a major stumbling block for the industry as the fussy buggers usually don't eat anything but fresh pilchards. Landline portrayed it as a breakthrough - but to me its just another animal to be raised on ground up horse carcasses and the disolved remains of dingleberries formally resident near the back of some sheep's ****.
Wild game, organic and home grown meats are hopefully making a comeback.
Normally by the time I reach the end of my sermon the vegetarians have left the room (so too most of the meat eaters).
MarkP
None of these supermarket meats taste anything like their wild cousins - and its a growing concern.
During the year Landline ran a feature story about some tuna producer that has finally taught his tuna to eat pellets. Aparently this has been a major stumbling block for the industry as the fussy buggers usually don't eat anything but fresh pilchards. Landline portrayed it as a breakthrough - but to me its just another animal to be raised on ground up horse carcasses and the disolved remains of dingleberries formally resident near the back of some sheep's ****.
Wild game, organic and home grown meats are hopefully making a comeback.
Normally by the time I reach the end of my sermon the vegetarians have left the room (so too most of the meat eaters).
MarkP
-
Dennis La Varenne
- Posts: 1776
- Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 10:56 pm
- Location: Tocumwal, NSW. Australia
Erron,
Do you remember that signature used by our mate from UNZUD who's name I just forget for the moment. It went something like -
If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?
A comment like that throws vegos out of gear for awhile.
However, the fair dinkum vegos who do it for religious reasons and are strict about it, I have no problems with. They are not hypocrites like most of the latter-day fashion vegos you run into.
The superior health argument is frogshit and always has been.
We get heart disease because, unlike in ancient times, we live long enough to develop a naturally occuring disease which is related to age and is exacerbated by certain lifestyles.
All humans get heart disease to varying degrees as they get older. It is not avoidable. It is only ameliorable. Everybody gets hardened arteries regardless of cholesterol levels.
Cholesterol causes the roughened arterial wall surfaces which causes the clots, and both of which cause the blockages. The single best way of keeping your bad cholesterol (low density lipoproteins) is to eat the meat of fish. It is far more quickly effective than vegetables and puts lots of good cholesterol (high density lipoproteins) into your system which mop up the LDLs and removes them.
Vegetables and fruit are excellent for a whole range of body maintenance processes, but as a reason for not eating meat it is one of the weakest arguments.
What is really behind the vego argument is the anti-vivisectionist agenda. Vegetarianism and its supposed benefits are used in support of the case against the use of animals for human purposes.
It is not about whether hunted meat is better or worse than farmed animal meat, or the relative humaneness of the animal's dispatch.
To the true-grit vego, no involvement with any animal for human purposes is ever acceptable under any circumstances at any time or for any reason unless it is for the direct benefit of the individual animal.
That's where most of us miss the point of vegetarianism. Think of those implications and a veil will lift when you next encounter a vego.
They are the black paint which contaminates the ecological green and darkens it.
Dennis La Varenne
Do you remember that signature used by our mate from UNZUD who's name I just forget for the moment. It went something like -
If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?
A comment like that throws vegos out of gear for awhile.
However, the fair dinkum vegos who do it for religious reasons and are strict about it, I have no problems with. They are not hypocrites like most of the latter-day fashion vegos you run into.
The superior health argument is frogshit and always has been.
We get heart disease because, unlike in ancient times, we live long enough to develop a naturally occuring disease which is related to age and is exacerbated by certain lifestyles.
All humans get heart disease to varying degrees as they get older. It is not avoidable. It is only ameliorable. Everybody gets hardened arteries regardless of cholesterol levels.
Cholesterol causes the roughened arterial wall surfaces which causes the clots, and both of which cause the blockages. The single best way of keeping your bad cholesterol (low density lipoproteins) is to eat the meat of fish. It is far more quickly effective than vegetables and puts lots of good cholesterol (high density lipoproteins) into your system which mop up the LDLs and removes them.
Vegetables and fruit are excellent for a whole range of body maintenance processes, but as a reason for not eating meat it is one of the weakest arguments.
What is really behind the vego argument is the anti-vivisectionist agenda. Vegetarianism and its supposed benefits are used in support of the case against the use of animals for human purposes.
It is not about whether hunted meat is better or worse than farmed animal meat, or the relative humaneness of the animal's dispatch.
To the true-grit vego, no involvement with any animal for human purposes is ever acceptable under any circumstances at any time or for any reason unless it is for the direct benefit of the individual animal.
That's where most of us miss the point of vegetarianism. Think of those implications and a veil will lift when you next encounter a vego.
They are the black paint which contaminates the ecological green and darkens it.
Dennis La Varenne
Dennis La Varénne
Have the courage to argue your beliefs with conviction, but the humility to accept that you may be wrong.
QVIS CVSTODIET IPSOS CVSTODES (Who polices the police?) - DECIMVS IVNIVS IVVENALIS (Juvenal) - Satire VI, lines 347–8
What is the difference between free enterprise capitalism and organised crime?
HOMO LVPVS HOMINIS - Man is his own predator.
Have the courage to argue your beliefs with conviction, but the humility to accept that you may be wrong.
QVIS CVSTODIET IPSOS CVSTODES (Who polices the police?) - DECIMVS IVNIVS IVVENALIS (Juvenal) - Satire VI, lines 347–8
What is the difference between free enterprise capitalism and organised crime?
HOMO LVPVS HOMINIS - Man is his own predator.
-
Griffo
-
trash boss
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:20 pm
- Location: mt isa
Agree with all re Dennis' comments. Always a sound, fact-based post from you, mate.
MarkP, I reckon you are right. When we were in Coffs we got on to a good bloke down Grafton way who has a certified organic beef and olive property - actually went and picked olives for him for a day. Now that is too much like hard work for this desk jockey! Anyway, his steaks were among the best of I have had and his snags actually tasted like meat, not floor sweepings. Sure, they cost more, but when you know they are nothing but beef raised on grass with no chemicals involved, plus its jsut tastes better, I'd rather pay the extra $! Experience overseas, especially Europe, where organic produce is readily available in supermarkets, show that when consumers are exposed to food that not only tastes better but is chemical free, they go for it. As consumers we should take the time to find out where what we eat comes from and what methods are used to raise it, and support organic, free range, etc, wherever we can.
I reckon the best example is eggs - how much better are the rich-yellow-yoked eggs from free range hens than the insipid batter version?
Lindsay
MarkP, I reckon you are right. When we were in Coffs we got on to a good bloke down Grafton way who has a certified organic beef and olive property - actually went and picked olives for him for a day. Now that is too much like hard work for this desk jockey! Anyway, his steaks were among the best of I have had and his snags actually tasted like meat, not floor sweepings. Sure, they cost more, but when you know they are nothing but beef raised on grass with no chemicals involved, plus its jsut tastes better, I'd rather pay the extra $! Experience overseas, especially Europe, where organic produce is readily available in supermarkets, show that when consumers are exposed to food that not only tastes better but is chemical free, they go for it. As consumers we should take the time to find out where what we eat comes from and what methods are used to raise it, and support organic, free range, etc, wherever we can.
I reckon the best example is eggs - how much better are the rich-yellow-yoked eggs from free range hens than the insipid batter version?
Lindsay
"So long as the new moon returns in heaven a bent, beautiful bow, so long will the fascination of archery keep hold of the hearts of men."
Maurice Thompsen, 1878.
Maurice Thompsen, 1878.
-
Dennis La Varenne
- Posts: 1776
- Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 10:56 pm
- Location: Tocumwal, NSW. Australia
Thank you all.
Trash boss makes some good points in referring to the fact that many hunters eat what they shoot (some do not, or not all of what theyshoot is always edible) which really goes to the heart of the morality of why we do what we do.
It will be one of the most important arguments we have which will keep us bowhunting legally.
Unlike North America which seems to have a long tradition going back to early frontier settlement times where people HAD to survive on what they hunted, our country was settled differently and agriculture seemed to be more prevalent and its products more available from earliest times than what seems to be the case with the North American settlers. (Yes, I know the first settlers at Port Jackson in 1788 nearly starved without the help of local Aboriginals.)
That tradition of using what you kill from hunting seems to have become a more widespread hunting ethic over there than here, and in many States and Provinces it is actual law that you cannot leave a hunted animal in the field.
Contrastingly however, they seem to hunt native species where we hunt pest animals (often in plague proportions) principally on the basis of pest destruction , and no State will allow the legal hunting of native animals with a bow that I know of.
That nothwithstanding, the animal rights people do not consider even the eating of hunted animals a reasonable argument. Animals are alternative people to them who have human rights which they have appointed themselves the guardians of.
I know that beggars belief, but it is true unfortunately. It is well past the anti-cruelty stage of thinking, and to which most of us subscribe also. (I presume that all of us here are against inflicting pain and suffering on animals recklessly or carelessly, and that we do our utmost to kill animals with little or no pain or suffering.)
Our best chance is to convince the fairly disinterested general public of the morality of our position and that we can demonstrate that our equipment can kill animals humanely. Most people for the time being at least, will tolerate hunting if it is for food or as a food supplement.
They will not tolerate hunting for trophies and this must not be used as any kind of argument in this kind of situation. In their eyes, it makes us thrill killers, and that is a difficult accusation to defeat.
Personally, I will never put in any kind of claim for a trophy ever again. I did it once only. I will only ever keep personal mementos of a good hunt. It is also one of the reasons I do not keep a photoalbum. It is a personal thing. I have the best memories in my head and only I keed to know about them.
But this is all going off at a tangent. I was being a bit flippant at the start of my original post when I commented on the entirely apposite remark from our NZ friend whose name I am embarrassed to say I cannot remember still.
In my own case, I never justify my hunting to these people. It is not ever justifiable ever to them.
To do so is to fall into the trap of leaving yourself open to answering the well set-up questions of which they have ususally been well briefed and supplied with all the standard hunting answers which they can expect from us, and their inevitable retorts.
I simply tell them I am a hunter and I hunt and will continue to do so so long as it is legal and probably a bit longer, and that the hunting relationship with animals is the proper relationship between us and them, and then leave it at that, refusing to continue the debate.
I have sometimes demanded from them the reasons why they do not hunt and often find that they are no better equipped to counter my questioning other than from the same perspective of a fundamental belief which I have in similar degree from an opposite perspective.
Te difference between us is that I have no intention of ever compelling my beliefs upon them.
The cruelty arguments can usually be gotten around. They only quote someone else's secondhand reports. I can quote my own first hand accounts of what I do and the lengths I go to to kill an animal humanely - that is, the way in which I would prefer to die from arrow wound if it were to happen to me.
Saying that one thing often takes a lot of wind from their sails because they always come out with the criticism of "How would you like someone to do it to you?" The above is the best answer I can give.
The other argument which often comes out is that of it being no longer necessary to hunt for food and therefore there is no moral justification. It is a good point if you agree also that all of the indigenous cultures of the world which have hunting as a fundamental part of their culture which they are trying to desperately maintain are likewise lacking in justification on the same basis.
If you allow this for those people, you cannot disallow it for others on the basis of a crueltly argument since if it is cruel and unnecessary to hunt, it is cruel to hunt for all because the same outcome results.
No-one on this planet can deny the hunter/gatherer origins of those of us of European ancestry. Is our desire to maintain a link with our common (with all other peoples) heritage deniable on the basis that we are white? Are our hunting tools somehow more inhumane? Would animals hunted by indigenous peoples suffer less because of they are hunted by them and not us?
What really matters is that an animal lives well and dies quickly, and that the herd survives well. This is a very different ballgame.
Regards all, I have taken a bit of your time again, it seems.
Dennis La Varenne
Trash boss makes some good points in referring to the fact that many hunters eat what they shoot (some do not, or not all of what theyshoot is always edible) which really goes to the heart of the morality of why we do what we do.
It will be one of the most important arguments we have which will keep us bowhunting legally.
Unlike North America which seems to have a long tradition going back to early frontier settlement times where people HAD to survive on what they hunted, our country was settled differently and agriculture seemed to be more prevalent and its products more available from earliest times than what seems to be the case with the North American settlers. (Yes, I know the first settlers at Port Jackson in 1788 nearly starved without the help of local Aboriginals.)
That tradition of using what you kill from hunting seems to have become a more widespread hunting ethic over there than here, and in many States and Provinces it is actual law that you cannot leave a hunted animal in the field.
Contrastingly however, they seem to hunt native species where we hunt pest animals (often in plague proportions) principally on the basis of pest destruction , and no State will allow the legal hunting of native animals with a bow that I know of.
That nothwithstanding, the animal rights people do not consider even the eating of hunted animals a reasonable argument. Animals are alternative people to them who have human rights which they have appointed themselves the guardians of.
I know that beggars belief, but it is true unfortunately. It is well past the anti-cruelty stage of thinking, and to which most of us subscribe also. (I presume that all of us here are against inflicting pain and suffering on animals recklessly or carelessly, and that we do our utmost to kill animals with little or no pain or suffering.)
Our best chance is to convince the fairly disinterested general public of the morality of our position and that we can demonstrate that our equipment can kill animals humanely. Most people for the time being at least, will tolerate hunting if it is for food or as a food supplement.
They will not tolerate hunting for trophies and this must not be used as any kind of argument in this kind of situation. In their eyes, it makes us thrill killers, and that is a difficult accusation to defeat.
Personally, I will never put in any kind of claim for a trophy ever again. I did it once only. I will only ever keep personal mementos of a good hunt. It is also one of the reasons I do not keep a photoalbum. It is a personal thing. I have the best memories in my head and only I keed to know about them.
But this is all going off at a tangent. I was being a bit flippant at the start of my original post when I commented on the entirely apposite remark from our NZ friend whose name I am embarrassed to say I cannot remember still.
In my own case, I never justify my hunting to these people. It is not ever justifiable ever to them.
To do so is to fall into the trap of leaving yourself open to answering the well set-up questions of which they have ususally been well briefed and supplied with all the standard hunting answers which they can expect from us, and their inevitable retorts.
I simply tell them I am a hunter and I hunt and will continue to do so so long as it is legal and probably a bit longer, and that the hunting relationship with animals is the proper relationship between us and them, and then leave it at that, refusing to continue the debate.
I have sometimes demanded from them the reasons why they do not hunt and often find that they are no better equipped to counter my questioning other than from the same perspective of a fundamental belief which I have in similar degree from an opposite perspective.
Te difference between us is that I have no intention of ever compelling my beliefs upon them.
The cruelty arguments can usually be gotten around. They only quote someone else's secondhand reports. I can quote my own first hand accounts of what I do and the lengths I go to to kill an animal humanely - that is, the way in which I would prefer to die from arrow wound if it were to happen to me.
Saying that one thing often takes a lot of wind from their sails because they always come out with the criticism of "How would you like someone to do it to you?" The above is the best answer I can give.
The other argument which often comes out is that of it being no longer necessary to hunt for food and therefore there is no moral justification. It is a good point if you agree also that all of the indigenous cultures of the world which have hunting as a fundamental part of their culture which they are trying to desperately maintain are likewise lacking in justification on the same basis.
If you allow this for those people, you cannot disallow it for others on the basis of a crueltly argument since if it is cruel and unnecessary to hunt, it is cruel to hunt for all because the same outcome results.
No-one on this planet can deny the hunter/gatherer origins of those of us of European ancestry. Is our desire to maintain a link with our common (with all other peoples) heritage deniable on the basis that we are white? Are our hunting tools somehow more inhumane? Would animals hunted by indigenous peoples suffer less because of they are hunted by them and not us?
What really matters is that an animal lives well and dies quickly, and that the herd survives well. This is a very different ballgame.
Regards all, I have taken a bit of your time again, it seems.
Dennis La Varenne
Dennis La Varénne
Have the courage to argue your beliefs with conviction, but the humility to accept that you may be wrong.
QVIS CVSTODIET IPSOS CVSTODES (Who polices the police?) - DECIMVS IVNIVS IVVENALIS (Juvenal) - Satire VI, lines 347–8
What is the difference between free enterprise capitalism and organised crime?
HOMO LVPVS HOMINIS - Man is his own predator.
Have the courage to argue your beliefs with conviction, but the humility to accept that you may be wrong.
QVIS CVSTODIET IPSOS CVSTODES (Who polices the police?) - DECIMVS IVNIVS IVVENALIS (Juvenal) - Satire VI, lines 347–8
What is the difference between free enterprise capitalism and organised crime?
HOMO LVPVS HOMINIS - Man is his own predator.
-
sticshooter
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:44 am
- Location: franklin
-
sticshooter
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:44 am
- Location: franklin