Anti Hunters...

[FrontSight]

After a loooong back & forth with an anti on you tube, I have learned the following:

1. They hate themselves,

2. They hate you & I,

3. They hate ALL humans,

4. They suffer from Reaction Formation, which means they have very, very violent desires, and they know it is wrong, so they disguise it with excuses of doing it for a good cause. Such as "I want to kill hunters because they kill innocent animals",

5. They are some really sick, twisted individuals, and need psychiatric help.


Watch your backs out there, boys & girls; they walk amongst us.

And they don't only want our heritage & rights destroyed; they want all human existence destroyed.

[SKULLANDCROSSBONES65]

G'day. They are usually hypocrites also.
They will call a pest dis-terminator.
They eat meat.
They wear products made from leather.
They use fly/insect spray.
They burn incense.
They breath, breed and spread their lies.

[orangello]

"They eat meat.
They wear products made from leather.
They use fly/insect spray.
They burn incense."

MMMMMMkay, I eat very little meat (occasional sushi only); i am wearing leather shoes and belt, i use bug spray of various kinds (ants like veggies), and i burn incense. I have nooooo problem with hunting, and plan to do some this winter. I will make sure that somebody eats whatever i kill (unless it is a possum). I think there should be an interweb site that allows poor shots to donate to the ammunition fund of proven deer killers to get the deer population down.

I do wonder though, what the heck does my love of incense (esp. nag champa) have to do with a stance on hunting?

[SigP6Carry]

I'm wondering what the point of such a malicious and insensitive post is. I mean... people disagree with you, and you happened to have a personally tiff with one on the world's most unintellectual website ever made... so you make a slanderous post to make fun of them? It's true, there are people out that that seem to value the lives of animals over that of humans. And there's also people out there that seem to value the lives of criminals over law abiding citizens. And there's people out there that seem more concerned with the safety of people in other nations than our own.

But you're stuck in a rhetorical rut with these arguments. I personally hold a disdain for people that hunt for trophies and "for the thrill of the hunt" but don't utilize their kill for anything other than bragging rights, it's a complete waste to kill an animal and not use its meat.

I'm a vegetarian, I burn incense, I wear leather occasionally (actually, it's a belt, boots and jacket that are holder overs from my meat eating days) and I intentionally try to avoid leather holsters, as well.

But, by simply slandering everyone who has this type of view, you're starting to sound like a right-wing nutjob. You sound like the type of person who says Obama isn't American because he eats his burger without ketchup, or uses his use of spicy Dijon mustard as a means to paint him as a snob. Conversely, you sound exactly like the left-wing nutjobs who use examples of crazy people shooting people out of "misogynist" ideals to help to convey how "it's absurdly easy to buy a gun."

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that the way that you're saying what you're saying is wrong. In order to effectively argue (and arguing shouldn't be what goes on, you should debate), you and your opponent must see each other eye to eye on what goes on, not slander each other on the internet's cesspool and then brag about it on forums.

Point being: grow up and learn to talk to people and tolerate people.

[FrontSight]

I'm wondering what the point of such a malicious and insensitive post is. I mean... people disagree with you, and you happened to have a personally tiff with one on the world's most unintellectual website ever made... so you make a slanderous post to make fun of them? It's true, there are people out that that seem to value the lives of animals over that of humans. And there's also people out there that seem to value the lives of criminals over law abiding citizens. And there's people out there that seem more concerned with the safety of people in other nations than our own.

But you're stuck in a rhetorical rut with these arguments. I personally hold a disdain for people that hunt for trophies and "for the thrill of the hunt" but don't utilize their kill for anything other than bragging rights, it's a complete waste to kill an animal and not use its meat.

I'm a vegetarian, I burn incense, I wear leather occasionally (actually, it's a belt, boots and jacket that are holder overs from my meat eating days) and I intentionally try to avoid leather holsters, as well.

But, by simply slandering everyone who has this type of view, you're starting to sound like a right-wing nutjob. You sound like the type of person who says Obama isn't American because he eats his burger without ketchup, or uses his use of spicy Dijon mustard as a means to paint him as a snob. Conversely, you sound exactly like the left-wing nutjobs who use examples of crazy people shooting people out of "misogynist" ideals to help to convey how "it's absurdly easy to buy a gun."

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that the way that you're saying what you're saying is wrong. In order to effectively argue (and arguing shouldn't be what goes on, you should debate), you and your opponent must see each other eye to eye on what goes on, not slander each other on the internet's cesspool and then brag about it on forums.

Point being: grow up and learn to talk to people and tolerate people.

Ok, Thomme, have it your way. But don't say I didn't warn you when one of these nutjobs slashes your tires or burns down yout hunting cabin or worse.

Because I've done my part to fill you in on what I have learned about how insane these people are, wishing death and cancer to all humans on earth (not just hunters), in every single one of his 50 or so messages to me.

Maybe if you read some of his messages you'd understand...I'll gladly post or pm you some of them if you'd like to see what I mean in more detail.

[SigP6Carry]

I'm just saying that using one psycho on Youtube (the comments on this site should never inspire anyone to ever say or do anything, youtube is full of the lowest-common denominator of the internet) is not a means to typecast an entire idealogical spectrum. I don't believe in hunting, but, hey: do what you want. I'll admit, I've done small game hunting and fishing, but I don't anymore. We have different opinions and we have different means of expressing ourselves, but by lowering yourself to his level, you're also lowering the perception of your cause.

PS. I am currently enjoying soy-hotdogs on whole-wheat buns with pita chips and barbacue sauce with grean tea. Does that make me a nutjob?

[ganai]

After a loooong back & forth with an anti on you tube, I have learned the following:

1. They hate themselves,

from an to they very quickly.

There are people who are anti-hunter but pro 2nd amendment, so lets not group all anti-hunters as lunatics, cause they aren't, and it hurts our cause

[FrontSight]

I'm just saying that using one psycho on Youtube (the comments on this site should never inspire anyone to ever say or do anything, youtube is full of the lowest-common denominator of the internet) is not a means to typecast an entire idealogical spectrum. I don't believe in hunting, but, hey: do what you want. I'll admit, I've done small game hunting and fishing, but I don't anymore. We have different opinions and we have different means of expressing ourselves, but by lowering yourself to his level, you're also lowering the perception of your cause.

Ohhh, believe me, I would need a back hoe and a couple of weeks of digging to lower myself to his level.

And actually I'm not just using this one example. I'm compiling several examples, all the way back to my Psych 101 class, and to "friends" I have known who have said similar things.

Reaction Formation; it's a real disorder, and it's ugly.

Here, this is an example of his feelings:

As a whole, the human race is worthless. There are many humans who prefer animals over humans. Humans are the most destructive species on the planet and there is nothing you can say or do to prove that I am wrong. I look at the world. I don't see animals destroying it and yet you value human life when humans are the reason why the planet is going to $&#@? Animals are far better creatures. You love to kill for sport, you are a sick person, not me. I see humans for what they are.

Humans like you or strangers I don't know or children, I don't care if all of you get cancer and die slow and horrible deaths and guess what, that is my right to feel like that and you cannot do #$*& about it you @#$&^.

I go with the side that doesn't #$^@* the planet up and rape each other and kill each other for sport, the animals. You only care about humans because you are human. You are a typical arrogant worthless and selfish human piece of #%$#. It's funny because you stick up for humans and yet they would not care if you got killed tomorrow. How #^%#ing funny is that. Keep sticking up for a species that causes destruction on the planet and a species that kills animals for sport and a species that kills each other for the stupidest reasons. HAHAHAHAHAH!

I look at the world and it tells me how much of a destructive and worthless species us humans are. What planet are you living on? You only care about humans because you are human. You cannot deny humans are *^$#ing this planet up and you want me to think human life is more important than an animal's? Kill yourself. You are a typical human ignorer. Thinking that the human species is a good one and one that it is gonna save the world. You ignore facts and truth. Wake up and face reality. Animals are doing FAR less damage to this planet than animals. Who causes wars? Who were involved in the iraq war where many humans died? Humans you piece of %#$, not animals. Intelligence doesn't mean superiority. A tiger is more superior to you because he can run faster, he is much stronger, and he will rip your throat out. A human like you is a worthless and gutless coward cuz you use a gun to kill animals.

Yes I am human but that does not mean I have to give a &*% about other humans just cuz I'm human. You must live in a little bubble. You can't deny all of the horrible things humans do. I hope cancer kills you and everyone you care about. You kill animals for sport and you think I need help cuz I don't give a *^*% for my fellow humans. %$^ off and die.

Yup. This is the mind of the anti hunter, i.e. a Reaction Formation disorder sufferer. These are the people that we are up against. If this doesn't make you realize that there is something very wrong with them, then nothing will.

So as I said in my first post, watch your backs out there, boys & girls. These people are dangerous & hate all humans.

[FrontSight]

from an to they very quickly.

There are people who are anti-hunter but pro 2nd amendment, so lets not group all anti-hunters as lunatics, cause they aren't, and it hurts our cause

This one pyscho was just the final catalyst that made me decide to post...there have been many before him.

[FrontSight]

you can argue on youtube?

Yes, maybe not intelligently, but yes. And more importantly, you can get a very good insight into how deranged their minds are.

[SigP6Carry]

Psych 101, aye? So, you learned about reaction formation... yet you're actually misusing it. Reaction formation for someone who has secret violent tendencies and rage issues would rather be trying to ban all guns and saying that anyone with a gun is a killer. You're merely dealing with a pita freak with transference issues. See, I took Psych 101, too. Actually, it was Psych 1110. Now, I'd think "I hope he doesn't have a degree in psychology" or something like that, but from the way you seemed to have failed to read my posts and your own use of transference and over generalization, I assume you don't. I, could, from their point of view using the same arguments say "you have sexual attraction to animals, that's why you hunt them. You suffer from reaction formation."

You want people to be tolerant of you? Be tolerant of them. Who cares that there are people out there who don't want you to hunt? Who cares that there are people out there that want to hunt? Who cares that there are vegetarians? Who cares that some people eat meat? Everyone needs to stfu and tolerate eachother.

edit: if you're going to have that type of view of everyone who is anti-hunting, I'm going to have this view of every republican: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Ba...care_in_Denver

[ganai]

This is the mind of the anti hunter

again with the generalization. It is the expression of a SINGLE self described anti hunter.

how about "this is the mind of the pro-gun"? Do we have one mind here?

If you want to make the case that people are only anti-hunter as a result of being a 'Reaction Formation disorder sufferer', then you've got a lot of work ahead of you.

[FrontSight]

Psych 101, aye? So, you learned about reaction formation... yet you're actually misusing it. Reaction formation for someone who has secret violent tendencies and rage issues would rather be trying to ban all guns and saying that anyone with a gun is a killer. You're merely dealing with a pita freak with transference issues. See, I took Psych 101, too. Actually, it was Psych 1110. Now, I'd think "I hope he doesn't have a degree in psychology" or something like that, but from the way you seemed to have failed to read my posts and your own use of transference and over generalization, I assume you don't. I, could, from their point of view using the same arguments say "you have sexual attraction to animals, that's why you hunt them. You suffer from reaction formation."

You want people to be tolerant of you? Be tolerant of them. Who cares that there are people out there who don't want you to hunt? Who cares that there are people out there that want to hunt? Who cares that there are vegetarians? Who cares that some people eat meat? Everyone needs to stfu and tolerate eachother.

edit: if you're going to have that type of view of everyone who is anti-hunting, I'm going to have this view of every republican: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Ba...care_in_Denver

Well, lemme just say that I hope you didn't pay a lot for your degree, because if you did then they owe you some money back. A classic reaction formation is an animal rights activist, who states that they wish hunters and researchers would die a horrible death. One of the earliest, if not THE earliest documented example, was a letter to a researcher who used animals, wishing that he would die a horrible death, and that the author would laugh long & hard when he heard of this. Sound familiar?

So maybe you should look at your text books again...?

And let me add that I didn't start being intolerable towards him; it was the other way around. Not that it probably means much to you.

And also that I keep telling this guy that instead of wishing death to all humans because of our shortcomings, that maybe he should work on trying to fix the problems in a positive way, through peaceful teachings. I would think that's pretty tolerant of me.

So I'm not sure why you assume so much to the contrary.

And lastly, please explain how you can justifiably bring republicans vs democrats into this discussion?? Did I say he is a democrat, or that I am a republican? No, I didn't.

So, please, try to stick to the topic at hand, if possible.

again with the generalization. It is the expression of a SINGLE self described anti hunter.

how about "this is the mind of the pro-gun"? Do we have one mind here?

If you want to make the case that people are only anti-hunter as a result of being a 'Reaction Formation disorder sufferer', then you've got a lot of work ahead of you.

Actually, no, I don't have MUCH work to do in that regard; see my citing of the first documented example. Maybe I'll grant you that not all anti hunters are reaction formation cases, but this guy, as well as oooohhh so many of them - as evidenced by their violent acts of car bombings and arson - most certainly are.

[davlandrum]

These are the people that we are up against.

Actually, that is THE PERSON that YOU are up against.

Don't try and out-crazy the crazies, or out-shout the shouters. Not a winnable game.

Kid on campus handing out fliers asked me if I wanted to save the wildlife. I told him "Of course. Every time I buy a gun or ammo, I donate to wildlife." He was obviously confused, so I told him to look up the Pittman-Robertson Act next time he was on his computer...

[SigP6Carry]

I'm sorry, scrap. I'm not sure how much you paid for your degree, but you apparently never learned how 1000-level courses work. My degree that I'm currently working on is in Women's Literature and Women and Gender Studies. I also study a lot of Post Colonialism and race relations. Unfortunately, in my studying, I learned that ALOT of people make vague generalization based on there personal experiences, just as you are.

You see, someone working on Animals in a lab feeling like **** about it and wanting to kill themselves over it would be, most likely, an issue of them liking animals and feeling bad that they were treating animals so poorly. I know I've got my old psych book somewhere, but I don't need it to know that you're also the type of person who lives by racist values, even though he/she says that he/she is not racist.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go buy a bottle of Irish Creme and watch "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and clean my revolver.

PS. "Where reaction-formation takes place, it is usually assumed that the original, rejected impulse does not vanish, but persists, unconscious, in its original infantile form." Your subject is stating conscious impulses.

PPS. I gotta admit, I hate people like that just as much as you, but I don't hate all "anti" hunters based because of a specific person. What you're saying is the exact same mindset that promotes racism.

[FrontSight]

Actually, that is THE PERSON that YOU are up against.

I have to disagree with you.

All of us who enjoy hunting are all up against this exact same person, multiplied in the tens of thousands.

To deny or dismiss that this is exactly the type of mind that is trying to destroy hunting is to disarm ourselves against it.

Burying your head in the sand will only make it easier for them to chop it off.

So learn as much as you can about your adversary, or you go unprepared. And that is unacceptable, in my opinion.

[FrontSight]

I'm sorry, scrap. I'm not sure how much you paid for your degree, but you apparently never learned how 1000-level courses work.

Um, ok, whatever, I majored in Accounting, so no, I don't know how 101 vs 1000 level works, and so i thought you meant that you majored in Psych and had a degree in it. But, um, ok, whatever...

My degree that I'm currently working on is in Women's Literature and Women and Gender Studies. I also study a lot of Post Colonialism and race relations. Unfortunately, in my studying, I learned that ALOT of people make vague generalization based on there personal experiences, just as you are.

OK, well, again, I could list all of the specific past experiences I have had in this area, if you'd like, so as to prove that I am not just making vague generalizations. I just figured I'd spare everyone the details, tho...

You see, someone working on Animals in a lab feeling like **** about it and wanting to kill themselves over it would be, most likely, an issue of them liking animals and feeling bad that they were treating animals so poorly.

I believe you misread what I wrote, and you obviously don't know the example I am citing. The letter went to a person who was an animal researcher, from someone who wished that the researcher would die a horrible death, because he deserved it, since he caused animals to suffer. See the correlation?

If not then let me elaborate: This is an actual documented case of reaction formation. The letter writer had violence in his heart, knew it was wrong & socially unacceptable, and therefore uses the excuse of wishing violence on others "for a good cause".

I know I've got my old psych book somewhere, but I don't need it to know that you're also the type of person who lives by racist values, even though he/she says that he/she is not racist.

Like, what?? Really, for REAL, really? Where the heck did you get that from? Racist?? Have you already been hitting the irish creme tonight, maybe?

[ZeroJunk]

I think I will go find a vegeterian forum and explain the finer points of cooking venison.

[ganai]

as evidenced by their violent acts of car bombings and arson - most certainly are.

I don't really follow animal liberation 'terrorism' very closely, but my understanding is that they are careful to make sure no humans are ever injured. And surely the people who carry out such actions are a small percentage of people who hold anti-hunter views?

So again, i'm back to saying you are grossly misrepresting a group of people based on the words/actions of a very few. Which I think is what is taken as a parallel to racism.

[FrontSight]

but my understanding is that they are careful to make sure no humans are ever injured.

Soooo, that means that it's ok, and that they are not violent?

And what about the humans that are injured and killed through the loss of possible cures for diseases? That sounds like they are injuring people to me...

And what about the millions of dollars in damages to personal property, the higher insurance costs, the firemen who risk their lives to put out these fires & search for survivors, the trauma caused by having your workplace burnt to the ground, etc etc etc? These are not injuries to humans?? Where do you get your logic from?

I'm not one to just accuse people of things, but it sounds like you actually support or sympathise with them...?

And surely the people who carry out such actions are a small percentage of people who hold anti-hunter views?

Sounds like speculation to me. And also incorrect based on the actual numerous discussions I have had. Dig deep enough, and most of them actually have expressed a sincere desire for violence against those who injure animals.

So again, i'm back to saying you are grossly misrepresting a group of people based on the words/actions of a very few. Which I think is what is taken as a parallel to racism

So again, I am saying that I am speaking from personal, precise experience over many years and many discussions, as well as from the many published studies and documentaries.

So no, I am not "grossly misrepresenting a group based on the words/actions of a very few."


I'm actually very surprised that more people are not aware of this. And therefore it is high time that my fellow hunters were made aware of what is out there.

[davlandrum]

All of us who enjoy hunting are all up against this exact same person, multiplied in the tens of thousands.

To deny or dismiss that this is exactly the type of mind that is trying to destroy hunting is to disarm ourselves against it.

Burying your head in the sand will only make it easier for them to chop it off.

I do not bury my head in the sand, and do recognize that there is a strong anti-hunting faction that would love to shut us down.

What I meant, and did not communicate well (or at all), is that obvious lunatics like this one are not going to influence the argument for or against. It is slick, media savy folks who are able to come across as reasonable. This particular individual would have as much chance of gaining a convert as the guy on the corner ranting that "the end was coming".

[SigP6Carry]

scrap: racism is founded on the idea that a single person reflects an entire race of people and are all the same and/or inferior. Thusly, you're applying racist rhetoric towards anti-hunter activists.

I once dated a girl for 3 years who was a vegetarian (my vegetarianism has nothing to do with her) pre-law student who attended protests and demonstrations. When we'd hang out with her friends, debates would frequently spark up regarding gun control, hunting, animal rights and all that, and we would civilly debate, face to face, making points with one and other. The discussions were intellectual and fulfilling, but I also met that kind of anti-gun/anti-hunter type people that you're talking about.

Now, I want you to read this article and tell me how it makes you feel:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/op...%20risk&st=cse

because they're doing the same thing to us that you're doing to anti-hunters.

Edit: I would like to add that a friend of mine was actually arrest for being a domestic terrorist at a protest. Apparently, if you cross state lines to attend a protest that costs a company a certain amount of money due to loss of business, you're considered a domestic terrorist. This is a clear violation of the first amendment, which guarantee the right to peaceful protest, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It's interesting that you all fight so hard for the 2nd amendment and they all fight so hard for the 1st amendment, except they're the ones that are actually considered criminals and terrorists.

edit: also, scrap, sorry for misreading the part about the scientist, that one's my bad. I just misread it.

[FrontSight]

What I meant, and did not communicate well (or at all), is that obvious lunatics like this one are not going to influence the argument for or against. It is slick, media savy folks who are able to come across as reasonable. This particular individual would have as much chance of gaining a convert as the guy on the corner ranting that "the end was coming".

I see what you mean. But nut jobs like this actually DO influence the rest of society.

I.E. the leader of PETA...it has been proven that she is as insane as this guy, and that her organization has funded the eco-terrorist group Animal Liberation Front, which firebombs research centers.

And yet her organization takes in millions of dollars and has tens of thousands of "normal" members who don't have a clue about how insane she is and how dangerous her organization is.

So it is very important that we don't dismiss the crackpots; they are exactly one of the most dangerous sect of the group both in terms of violence and in inflluence.

[ganai]

Soooo, that means that it's ok, and that they are not violent?

No, I think that it shows that 'they', even the convicted ones, are not of one mind with the fellow you quoted:

...I don't care if all of you get cancer and die slow and horrible deaths and guess what, that is my right to feel like that...

And yes, I am speculating, but do you have some references with hard numbers on these violent anti-hunting people out to do hunters harm?

Are there cases of these anti-hunters having murdered hunters?

[2damnold4this]

scrap: racism is founded on the idea that a single person reflects an entire race of people and are all the same and/or inferior. Thusly, you're applying racist rhetoric towards anti-hunter activists.

No, it's not. He might be stereotyping anti-hunter activists but racism according to the OED is "The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race."

I have no problem with someone who doesn't hunt for whatever reason. I do have a problem when someone tells me I shouldn't hunt.