Handicapped hunters

D

Dr Lou Natic

Unnecessary Surgeon
Registered Senior Member
Nothing, NOTHING and I mean NO THING pisses me off more than handicapped hunters. Its just disgusting, its enough to send me into a blind rage. If I saw a handicapped hunter wheeling about in the wilderness I would fuck them up beyond recognition :mad: rrrrgh!
Words can't describe how wrong it is, these pictures make it clear though;
huntcollage.jpg

collage2.jpg

cpic.jpg


Is anyone going to dare try and defend this behaviour?
 
Dr. Lou: Please explain how handicapped hunting is morally different from 'regular' hunting.
 
I think hunting itself is wrong. Unless you're using your bare hands. Using a weapon gives you an unfair and unnatural advantage. Bet they wouldn't like it if that Zebra had a Mac-10 on him.

I can't see anything wrong with disabled people hunting if abled people can. But I would've thought they'd have been able to relate to the animal they're about to kill. The animal is disadvantaged compared to the guy with the rifle...much like the disabled guy is disadvantaged over abled people
 
I would agree with Thor... well, but I would use weapons for hunting, something like a knife or a spear, after all, some animals have big claws or teeth, which humans no longer posses or never had at all.
But really, what is the point of some guy in his wheelchair sitting around the whole day with a high-precision, scoped and relatively static rifle. That is no sport and sure as hell no fight for survival, it is an unfair and unjust slaughtering.
 
I don't think any distinction can be made between handicapped hunting and regular hunting, but for the benefit of the thread I think I'll point out that Dr. Lou has this hang-up about genetics and evolution, he probably thinks that handicapped people should be murdered at birth or something, so he thinks its wrong for them to kill animals which may otherwise be prime examples of their species. It hurts his sense of eugenic order.
 
Well, you know, the wolf and mountain lion populations in the US have suffered, so I can see a role for the hunter in maintaining an ecological balance. There are too many deer out there. Far better would be to reintroduce the wolf like they did in yellowstone. I can't see the pics, but why is it supposed to be wrong? Handicapped people need hobbies, too.
 
Thor said:
I think hunting itself is wrong. Unless you're using your bare hands. Using a weapon gives you an unfair and unnatural advantage. Bet they wouldn't like it if that Zebra had a Mac-10 on him.

I can't see anything wrong with disabled people hunting if abled people can. But I would've thought they'd have been able to relate to the animal they're about to kill. The animal is disadvantaged compared to the guy with the rifle...much like the disabled guy is disadvantaged over abled people
Click to expand...
It's a little silly to say that it's 'unnatural' for humans to use weapons to kill animals, since we evolved specifically to make and use tools. If anything, it would be unnatural for us to not use weapons.

That being said, I don't really see what the point of hunting is. I mean, you have a gun. How hard is it to kill the animal? Why bother?
 
Well, I admit that the picture of the guy with the turky looks a litte...um...not quite right.
 
SpyMoose said:
...he thinks its wrong for them to kill animals which may otherwise be prime examples of their species. It hurts his sense of eugenic order.
Click to expand...

Dr Lou Natic said:
Exactly spymoose, thankyou.
Click to expand...
The thing is, if you really want to go by natural selection, then it's never really wrong for one animal to kill another under any circumstances. According to natural selection, the only justification that you need for killing something is your ability to do it. You're better adapted than it is, so you're more evolutionarily successful and it's going to die. If it deserved to live, then you wouldn't be able to kill it. Evolution is all about survival of the fittest, with the fittest being by definition anyone who survives. A crippled guy in a wheelchair with a rifle might not be an ideal specimen of humanity, but his intellect and ability to use tools (like a gun and a wheelchair) still puts him evolutionarily ahead of some hapless dear that he runs into in the forest.

Of course it sucks for the deer that there's another species so far ahead of it that even the crippled members of its race can easily kill them, but evolution doesn't really care about hurt feelings.
 
But I'm not allowed to kill the guy in the wheelchair, thats the problem. Thats the glitch in the system. This damn shit called law fucks up the natural balance. Within our own species survival of the species should be occuring. Its not supposed to be species vs species. No other species is ganging up to take on the world. The species are in harmony with eachother. Within a species should be conflict making sure only the best individuals survive.
Without the species as a whole nurturing these gimps they'd be fucked. If their family could look after them while my family, some other family a bear and 4 lions were all out for the gimp's head then more power to them, but I doubt they could protect him from that onsluaght. Which means he shouldn't be alive.
His family didn't invent wheelchairs or guns. It isn't fair that we as a species have joined forces, ofcourse we're going to outcompete the other animals, they're busy competing with members of their own respective species. We aren't "so far ahead" of any species alive today. We all evolved together. What we are is soft, we stopped behaving the way the animal we are is supposed to behave, and became a burden on the biosphere as a result.
 
Dr. Lou, you seem to be missing the point here. Evolution says that the fittest survive – and that by definition those who survive are the fittest. Evolutionarily the guys in wheelchairs deserve to be alive – and they'll keep deserving to be alive up until they die, at which point they won't. How you stay alive, whether or not someone helps you, what tools you use, etc. doesn't matter. It's a binary system: alive/not alive. There are not other considerations.

You can't say that according to evolution someone who's alive doesn't deserve to be alive, because the simple fact that they aren't dead yet clearly indicates that they do, in fact, deserve to live from an evolutionary standpoint.

Now, you may very well have some sort of 'ideal human' idea in your head that you think all people should try to evolve toward – everyone being fit, smart, healthy, etc. But that doesn't have anything to do with natural selection. One of the biggest misconceptions that people have about evolution is that it's about 'improving' species some how, that it directs species to be 'better' than they are. It isn't about that at all. Natural selection/evolution isn't about directing species toward ideals, it's just about things dying or not.
 
... I hate being told how evolution works...
I understand all that and already did.
Something you need to understand;
Theres a long string of circumstances that lead to those wheelchair people being able to shoot those animals. It is those circumstances I don't like. Natural selection is what it is, i understand that, but from an aesthetic point of view this recent trend is sickening.
I guess you probably didn't approve of the holocaust? You'd be a little narked if someone killed your children? Ok now we're in the ball park.
I'm not saying natural selection... you know what, I don't even know what it is you're trying to imply that I am saying.
What I am saying is this is fucking wrong, when compared to how natural selection has been going for millions of years this recent twist is very unnatractive and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Traditionally organisms needed to be capable of survival, and falling short would invariably get you taken out of the genepool, even cooperative social animals, they themselves would instinctually banish any individual that was a hinderance to the unit. This is how it has worked since the beginning of time, only very recently have inferior organisms been carried through the guantlet of natural selection.
Of course, technically, they made it through natural selection, and from a scientific viewpoint we don't need to know anymore. But we do know more, and what we know should plague our consciences. Its not right, that we should keep these incompetent lumps of flesh alive so they can pull the trigger on an otherwise prime example of its species that could have produced magnificent healthy offspring that would have got to work assisting their native eco-system.
Honestly, if the pictures don't turn your stomach I guess you'll never understand.
But for the record, I know exactly what natural selection means and I get what your saying and was already in agreement.
The fact you dwell on that indicates to me you don't see natural selection on earth but rather became familiar with the premise to pass an exam. There's a way it predictably works, a flowing balance, humans just totally ruin it with their antics.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
Without the species as a whole nurturing these gimps they'd be fucked.
Click to expand...

That's why we're a social species, Dr. Lou, if we work together we can all have much better lives than if it were every man for himself. Imagine the world of shit you'd be in if you didn't have the labor of everyone in our society propping you up. You wouldn't have any leisure time to just be sitting in a nice comfy chair posting on an internet forum, you'd be too consumed with sustenance farming, and defending yourself from bandits. Just because a cripple can't walk or hear or see doesn't mean he can't contribute to society, as there sure as hell is a lot more to our society than just running and seeing.

Your ideas about natural selection are, as always, childishly simple. It's about a lot more than who can beat the shit out of who; and you can't go outside the natural order, there's simply no way to go into some sort of "Supernatural" selection. All we've done is waited the scale by which we are judged to be fit for survival, and that works to everyone's benefit, and it just so happens to be our unique key adaptation, the one that's taken us this far.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
Its not right, that we should keep these incompetent lumps of flesh alive so they can pull the trigger on an otherwise prime example of its species that could have produced magnificent healthy offspring that would have got to work assisting their native eco-system.
Honestly, if the pictures don't turn your stomach I guess you'll never understand.
Click to expand...

Ok, first off all hunters kill prize examples of other species, so I'm not entirely so sure why it's such a tragedy when a guy in a wheelchair does it.

Second, why would you characterize someone in a wheel chair as being a "worthless lump of flesh"? Had it occurred to you that mankind has moved far beyond the ages when being able to walk was a nasality for survival? We don't NEED to stalk or hunt or run all over the damn place, and that's why people in wheelchairs are largely able to live fairly normal and uneventful lives. If we were still in a tribal society where only those men who could run 50 miles and kill a buffalo with a spear were able to survive and help keep society running then I think I could understand why we might kill clearly handicapped people at birth, but as it stands there's just no reason for it. We've changed our world such that we don't need our legs, or really most of the full faculties that we're usually born with, and that's a testament to our success as a species, and nothing to get upset over.

Despite what you may think that you know about evolution, it doesn't require that we all try to live up to some sort of idiotic and arbitrarily chosen ideal of the perfect caveman, it demands that we adapt to our surroundings, and being that we are in control of our surroundings I guess that means we control how we have to adapt, as well, and for the time being legs are handy, but not required, and we can keep it that way as long as it suits us.
 
the "fitest" now just means the person most able to get into a fertile girl or the girl most able to carry a child to term

even CARING for the child doesnt matter anymore as sociaty will take it away if you cant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top