Hunters Are Awesome

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The analogy was that there are plenty of examples of things that are legal yet still totally wrong. If I give you an example of one of those things, it doesn't mean I'm saying that the thing is the exact same thing. It means I'm saying here is an example of another thing that is legal that is wrong (immoral).

You guys are the ones who are totally hypocritical. If there is an activity that you are ok with, then your justification for the activity being ok is that the activity is legal or it's been around for a long time. But if it's an activity that you're not ok with, then whether it's legal is irrelevant. Even if your views are correct and mine are wrong, your debating skills definitely need work. You can't justify something as being ok because it's legal or because it's been around for a long time, if you're not going to use that same reasoning for other activities that you disapprove of.

that simply isn't true. some people sport hunt. i don't. it's not my thing. i don't think it should be made illegal because i personally don't understand it. it's like marijuana. i would never use it, even if i wanted to, because it's illegal. however, if they made it legal (which i think they should) i still wouldn't use it, because i'm just not interested. but i think everyone should be free to decide for themselves. just like hunting. because it's legal, you still don't have to engage. if the wolf hunting causes a decline in numbers, they'll halt it again-but other hunting would continue.
and it's got nothing to do with debating skills. hell, romney 'won' a debate-it meant nothing because his ideas are still bad. besides, each activity must be judged on its own merits. and sometimes it is easiest to just say, hey, it's legal.
and you're the one who initially brought up legalities-that wolf hunting should be illegal, because you disapprove. but now you're rambling on about hypocrisy and legality. yeesh.