# Anti-hunter phrasing



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

The anti-hunting community has referred to hunting and killing animals as “murder” on more occasions than I can count. But it seems to me that only recently it’s started to also appear in headlines.

It’s a deliberate attempt to make hunting seem as cruel as possible. Besides that, the word isn’t being used properly. The very definition of murder is the illegal killing of one human by another. It’s neither illegal nor are they humans. So it can’t be murder.
Killing, yes, but not murder.

I can’t decide if I’m more annoyed with them trying to trick the general public or the fact that they’re using a word incorrectly.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Well heck, cant get pic to open for some reason. Can you post the message?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Here is the link for the picture

https://utahwildlife.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=136481&d=1562810691

As far a calling hunting or shooting a animal murder they have been doing it for years. It is just more prevalent now with the internet where you can read the comments and thing spread around faster with social media.

If you read the comments on pictures of hunters in news stories about every other animal rights person is calling the hunter a murderer.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Ray said:


> I can't decide if I'm more annoyed with them trying to trick the general public or the fact that they're using a word incorrectly.


It's both for me.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Probably best to move this out of "big game". I'm guessing most of us both enjoy hunting and believe it's ethical but this seems like a politically loaded subject that could go sideways fast. Maybe best in "everything else"?

I myself don't find the use of the term shocking or offensive. I do find it ironic but that's because I also enjoy seeing how definitions are distorted, or changed over time. 

I think there is likely a large portion of the American public, not interested in anti-hunting stances, that probably see hunting as the murder of animals. I say that to highlight how we often interchange words outside their exact definitions. 

I'm not too concerned with the current anti-hunting activist on social media. Though it is disappointing to see the phrase on a prominent headline.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Well heck, cant get pic to open for some reason. Can you post the message?


Same here, I just did a right click on it as it was trying to open and clicked on open link in a new window and the pic came up fine.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

For some reason the forum software causes problems with some pictures. 

I still have one that works fine everyplace that I post it except for the forum here. It always turns up sideways.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

https://lithub.com/in-terms-of-animal-welfare-hunting-is-more-humane-than-farming/

Soy burgers kill more deer than hunting, but for some reason it's not murder if you poison and trap animals and in hippie-dippie bizarro world it's also morally superior to waste the animals. But hey, it's not murder!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Whats super amusing about that first posted picture is the lower image shown. Its of a game called "Player Unknown's Battle Grounds", or otherwise known as PUBG. Its a hyper realistic game where 100 players are dropped on an island and you hunt and kill each other until you are (hopefully) the last man standing. 

-DallanC


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Jedidiah said:


> https://lithub.com/in-terms-of-animal-welfare-hunting-is-more-humane-than-farming/
> 
> Soy burgers kill more deer than hunting, but for some reason it's not murder if you poison and trap animals and in hippie-dippie bizarro world it's also morally superior to waste the animals. But hey, it's not murder!


That's the sort of bad faith argument hunters claim the anti-hunting lobby uses.

Where are you getting the data to support the notion that soy production kills more deer than hunting? It's definitely not provided in your link.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

I've come to learn, that aside from public lands, THIS, is the other big political issue of the outdoors. Hunter vs anti-hunter. Every outdoor story that appears on KSL, if you read the comment sections, you'll start gathering an idea on how these people think. They have a completely different view when it comes to the outdoors, wildlife, and mans place in it; and I doubt it's possible to convince them otherwise. It is perhaps, a sign of the times with all the social upheaval in our society today.

I've thought about it, and started writing an essay on it, which I thought about making a video on and putting it up on youtube, but I'm not sure i want the attention it would bring.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

backcountry said:


> That's the sort of bad faith argument hunters claim the anti-hunting lobby uses.
> 
> Where are you getting the data to support the notion that soy production kills more deer than hunting? It's definitely not provided in your link.


Backcountry you are a smart, educated man. It's easy to tell by the way you articulate yourself on here but with all due respect - lighten up man!

Jed may have mis-led a little with his soy burger comment but I sense he was being humorous about it. if you read the link it's very clear what he meant by that. I think you're delving into the fine print of what he said a little much and being overly dramatic here.

Oh wait! This is why political type convos are frowned upon here!?

Oh well, I liked the article and Jed's humorous text. I found it thought provoking. I love you both. And I'm out!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I can reconsider my approach as there was no drama or emotion whatsoever on my end. I just find the gross generalizations about either side counterproductive. I also have a real concern with how misinformation flows on the internet but that's a different thread. I spend a lot of time chatting with those who probably would fall into the category Jedidiah called "hippie-dippie bizarro world" with the aim of educating them about the benefits and histories of hunting. It should come as no surprise, given the theme of this thread, that one of the real hangups that prevents understanding and changing their minds are the stereotypes and misinformation directed at or about them. I think we have all experienced that same issue as hunters, hence my previous comment. 

I actually thought about linking a review of the same book. Thinking of buying it myself. Ironically, I chose not to link it because most of the reviews from hunters seem to indicate it ends with a solution against hunting. 

I also tend to fall into the camp that if you are going with sarcasm or humor to throw in an emoji or such. The platform is just too problematic without such cues. 

And I hope its obvious, as I try my best, its about the comment not the person. I have no hard feelings or even much of a reaction to such things outside trying to share or counter ideas.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

backcountry said:


> I can reconsider my approach as there was no drama or emotion whatsoever on my end. I just find the gross generalizations about either side counterproductive. I also have a real concern with how misinformation flows on the internet but that's a different thread. I spend a lot of time chatting with those who probably would fall into the category Jedidiah called "hippie-dippie bizarro world" with the aim of educating them about the benefits and histories of hunting. It should come as no surprise, given the theme of this thread, that one of the real hangups that prevents understanding and changing their minds are the stereotypes and misinformation directed at or about them. I think we have all experienced that same issue as hunters, hence my previous comment.
> 
> I actually thought about linking a review of the same book. Thinking of buying it myself. Ironically, I chose not to link it because most of the reviews from hunters seem to indicate it ends with a solution against hunting.
> 
> ...


There you go being all articulate again. 

I agree with you here and really appreciate what you bring to this forum. Now, back to tending to my 100% organic elk meat that I am prepping to throw into my traeger in the am and turn into delicious jerky for myself family. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

100% jealous 😯


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

You're right about my statement about the soybeans, but I will say that a person who eats soybeans isn't clear of the responsibility regarding deer being culled for those crops. Soybean production is a bigger contributor to depredation tags because of the amount of land it takes to grow them.

One thing about vegans though is that all life is supposed to be the same, and the number of actual animal lives lost as a result of farming is definitely higher than the amount that would be lost consuming a comparable amount of protein from a deer. But are rodents of less concern because they're not as cute or visible?

Edit: Thank you for being our advocate amongst the crazies.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Jed I think you're on to something with the rodent comment...

Here is what I See to be some of the causes of this anti hunting sentiment even by anti-hunting meat eaters....

1.- Young people today have had a more comfortable and sheltered upbringing than most of us did. Therefore there is a disconnect between what their grandfathers saw as normal and what they see as normal.

2.- The industrialization of food plays a huge roll in this. The protein industry puts a huge screen between their operation and the eyes of the general public. Aside from Food, Inc. and a few other documentaries, what animals go through to get to our table as food is something most people have almost zero concept of.

3.- Anthropomorphism. Nuf said!!!!

4.- Moral Ambiguity. This goes to Jed's comment about rodents. If these folks believe all life is precious, that they need to speak for those that have no voice, that hunting is cruelty, etc. Then why are Simba, Bambi and Dumbo such a concern but not Clarabelle, Porky or Foghorn Leghorn? Is it the cuteness factor? or how not so adorable they are compared to the main characters of Disney's films? Ironically enough most anti hunters are left wingers and most left wingers are fine with killing babies in the womb; but that's enough on that subject. This last statement has no place on this forum at all. I regret having posted it because it is controversial, incendiary in nature and inappropriate on this platform.

5.- Pure ignorance and/or bandwagon jumping. This might tie back into Anthropomorphism but then again this whole topic is probably rooted in it. Most anti hunters are ignorant an the subject as a whole; conservation, value or resources, population control, land stewardship, etc. Most are bandwagon jumpers and join in or say something not because they believe it but because it's the cool social topic of the day and they don't want to be labeled in a negative way by their peers. The tie into anthropomorphism is rooted in ignorance. A lot of the bandwagon people really believe that lions are exactly like Mufasa and that they educate, counsel, care and prepare their cubs for the roll of king. At least Disney got it right with Bambi. His dad wasn't there at his birth and only took him under his wing because he was a yearling buck and had to join the bachelor herd.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

That was easy to predict:



backcountry said:


> Probably best to move this out of "big game". I'm guessing most of us both enjoy hunting and believe it's ethical but this seems like a politically loaded subject that could go sideways fast. Maybe best in "everything else"?


At least we made it to post #17 before it went off the rails:



MadHunter said:


> 4.- Moral Ambiguity......Ironically enough most anti hunters are left wingers and most left wingers are fine with killing babies in the womb; but that's enough on that subject.


Really want the conversation to go into political gross generalizations that have absolutely nothing to do with hunting? The above statement is already ugly enough.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Really want the conversation to go into political gross generalizations that have absolutely nothing to do with hunting? The above statement is already ugly enough.


I know it is very ugly and I thought about it after I posted it. I will clarify that I am speaking out of my own personal experiences over many many years of dealing with this topic.

I am not in the habit of deleting my posts because they might offend someone nor will I apologize for what I believe and know based on my experiences. I can't unsay what I said just like I can't put the genie back in the bottle. This is definitely not the place for that topic but, I did not bring it up as a topic for discussion. I believe it was a good example of moral ambiguity, again based on my personal experience and accumulated knowledge. I may be completely wrong but I am a flawed human being that tries his hardest to be open minded, accepting of others as they are and I try to learn and grow as a human being.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

The sad thing about the internet today - as opposed to the magazine, print, "snail mail" news of yesteryear - is that bad information gets out and into the heads of too many people that don't think before drawing a conclusion. I guess you could call them "low information consumers". I realize that correct information also has a chance to influence these people, but unfortunately, w/r/t hunting and the killing of animals, we are in the minority and nowhere near a majority.

What is my solution? I try to be as honest about what I do as possible, and if there is ever the occasion to share some deer, antelope, elk, or any other kind of wild game with a stranger to our sport, I try to take advantage if it. If today's non-hunting folks are anything, many are concerned about where their food comes, and wild game doesn't get any more healthy! I have NEVER had anyone come away from one of these types of meals more anti than when they came in. They still may not totally agree or comprehend why I do it, but they can't argue with the health benefits and the sheer joy of eating a well-prepared steak. WARNING- make sure you know how to prepare wild game well before doing this or you just td might scare them away forever with a nasty, overcooked, gamey piece of venison or fowl.

To Jededah's point, I would have to agree that modern agriculture and human development in general has suppressed the number and diversity of wildlife far more than we as hunters have or will ever do. I have had this conversation with many that do not like hunting, but when brought to light, many in the non or anti-hunting world have never even considered this. Calm, rational conversations, not screaming or finger pointing, go a longs ways in bringing people over to our side of the argument - whether they hunt or not.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Agreed, we don't need any kind of comparison to a human analog here but let's also not get too abrasive in our criticism of each other. Tell you what though, vegan/vegetarians sure have a hard time with the "are rodents not people too?" argument. I've won over quite a few to at least not being critical of my choices in protein procurement.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

MadHunter said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> > Really want the conversation to go into political gross generalizations that have absolutely nothing to do with hunting? The above statement is already ugly enough.
> ...


The flawed human argument is no reason to knowingly bring in a non-hunting argument into a hunting forum, especially when it's one of the most (if not most) heated, divisive subject of our time.

If the comment stands without editing or isn't removed by administrators I will engage it as a hunter who happens to find serious and egregious flaws with your statement. A statement that has zero relevance to hunting.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> The flawed human argument is no reason to knowingly bring in a non-hunting argument into a hunting forum, especially when it's one of the most (if not most) heated, divisive subject of our time.
> 
> If the comment stands without editing or isn't removed by administrators I will engage it as a hunter who happens to find serious and egregious flaws with your statement. A statement that has zero relevance to hunting.


I can live with that and I will take whatever backlash comes from it. I will own up to my mistakes and face the consequences thereof. I'll take the lashes.
I owned up to my mistake and stated so on my original post.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

"Owning up to your mistake" in your original post is a cop out and inaccurate. You tried to brush it off by making a vague statement about it's inappropriateness.

So let's engage your ridiculous statement since you are standing behind it.

Your claim that "most left wingers are fine with killing babies" is the same BS garbage used by gun-rights activist who claim "most right wingers are fine with students dying in schools by gun violence". It's crappy logic and ridiculous stereotyping like this that kills any effort of reaching across the table to learn. 

Do you like it when people misrepresent your views in bad faith? 

And don't get me started on the irony of making statements about ignorance, moral ambiguity, and the other off topic claims in your original comment.

Fact is you know you could have completely ommited your comment about abortion and still made cogent argument supporting your point. But you chose to take a lazy swipe by posting a BS political stereotype that has no relevance to hunting. 

As a pro-hunter who likely falls into "left-wing" camp on certain issues I find your comments inconsistent with the guidelines on this forum and counterproductive to the community. We are a year away from primaries and posters like you are already inserting loaded politics into the conversations.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Moral Relativism: the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

Per abortion, this is an inherent reality even within Judeo-Christian history and tradition. There are disparate views on life, and therefore the very definition of "killing a baby". Catholicism teaches life at conception, ie insemination. On the other hand, Judaism teaches life at first breathe. 

There are dozens of religious organizations and groups (just in the US that have taken the time to form) that recognize this moral ambiguity within Judeo-Christian faith that support abortion rights. Most would fall into the realm between left-wing and right-wing politics. Do you think they are sincerely fine with your strawman claim that it's fine to kill babies in the womb? More likely they emphasize the Christian notion of freewill and understand the complexities facing women when pregnant. Maybe there is a sincere reason people, definitely left-wingers, emphasize pro-choice over pro-abortion terminology.

Want to get into the science of why the medical field calls them fetuses and not babies, until they are born? As a hunter, science is key to me explaining to anti-hunter friends why it's a valid conservation tool. Seems only fair to remain consistent.

But I know, gross generalizations make it easier to condemn our perceived opposition and discount their beliefs wholesale. 

Imagine if the opposition did the same thing? Oh wait, they do which is the theme of this thread. Interesting. But let's complain about them on one hand yet use the same bad faith techniques they do on the other.

(PS... that's a 5 minute effort to utterly dismantle the foundations of your statement. Want to keep talking about abortion, MadHunter, since you are the one that brought it up on a hunting forum? I could easily continue).


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Wow. That escalated quickly! 

Backcountry, you may need to take your own advice on this one regarding politics. 

In before the lock!!! Wahooooo!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I owned up to the fact that I made a horrible statement in the wrong place; forum if you will. I made it clear it was a comparative and a flawed one at that. And flawed as it may be and egregious as you may find it to be (i do to actually); it was your choice to continue to engage it.

Maybe someday we can share a better conversation over a coke/beer/coffee/tea or whatever is of your liking.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla,

I avoid inserting that level of politics into the hunting forum on the regular. It's pretty basic restraint. MadHunter chose to make random statements about abortion in a conversation about anti-hunting rhetoric and makes claims about people like me. I don't normally bring up my stance on being pro-choice as it has zero to do with hunting. But if someone chooses to misrepresent such views even after being asked to remove it then I'm going to counter that blatant misinformation. 

I will delete my replies once MadHunter deletes his random statement. I have no attachment to it being here unless he keeps his random, ill-informed attack on citizens like me.

You can't expect people to sit back and just absorb misrepresentations of their ideas and values (once again, that's the theme of this thread). If abortion is fair game to attack strangers on then it's fair game to defend oneself against such bad faith arguments. Pretty simple. I can absorb silly blows to my friends like "crazies" but won't sit by idly while MadHunter takes lazy jabs at me and roughly half the United States.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

MadHunter said:


> I owned up to the fact that I made a horrible statement in the wrong place; forum if you will. I made it clear it was a comparative and a flawed one at that. And flawed as it may be and egregious as you may find it to be (i do to actually); it was your choice to continue to engage it.
> 
> Maybe someday we can share a better conversation over a coke/beer/coffee/tea or whatever is of your liking.


I don't see that happening. I break bread with pro-lifers more than I do pro-choicers but never once would someone think it was an appropriate to make the claim you did, nonetheless stick by it (which you have done by keeping it here, even if you admit it was flawed). You chose to make the flawed comparison even though you knew it was verboten (hence your hedged mea culpa after the comment). I don't have the desire or energy to spend time with people that engage in such bad faith dialogue.

My criticism of your statement and ultimately countering it is not remotely the same as making such a problematic claim in the first place. I've expressed the why of that above.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Vanilla,
> 
> I avoid inserting that level of politics into the hunting forum on the regular. It's pretty basic restraint.


I agree it's pretty basic restraint. And you didn't show any here.

5 of the last 8 posts on this thread have been you popping off on the topic and perpetuating it. We all have our opinion on that topic, and quite frankly, the rest of us don't care what yours or mine or anyone else's is. We aren't here for that.

Again, I suggest you follow your own advice, which is actually really good advice for all of us, including you.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Disagree on this one (and you took my restrain comment out of context, ie inserting that level of politics). I have no reason to add anymore relating to the political topic but stand by the decision to counter (different than bringing it up and inserting a new topic) his ridiculous remarks. It wasn't by chance that I encouraged this thread to be moved out of "big game" in the first place once the word "murder" was used. It only took a handful of posts for someone to bring up abortion which is the exact issue I was concerned about coming up. 

But I won't stand by passively while a user here actively misrepresents the issue and the people who hold different views than their own (see below remark about Paddler) . I have no problem "perpetuating" the issue if that includes defending oneself from a wanton attack. Its simply not the same behavior or issue as bringing it up the first place. 

I've vaguely mentioned my concern about misinformation on the internet in previous threads. I am "perpertuating" the situation because letting someone like MadHunter present false narratives and misinformation is harmful to an issue many of us hold dearly. Like I said, its the exact theme of this thread. Letting that misinformation stand is ultimately more detrimental in my experience (research supports) than the negatives associated with me extending the conversation. (PS, I waited an hour and half before diving into the subject matter, that was plenty of time to edit the original remark). I believe countering these types of egregious remarks is important given the way misinformation spreads.

I could also let my friends make flippant remarks about hunting and hunters. It would be easier and less tense to just let those remarks slide but it doesn't ultimately lead to any change.

If the only change is someone reconsiders wrongly stereotyping a different view or making flippant remarks that are unrelated to the topic at hand than I am willing to absorb the negatives. 

Ironically, I didn't see too many people call me out when I stood up to Paddler's comments and approach in the past. The content of my posts now may be different but I am calling out the same bad faith and problematic style. It just happens to be calling out someone who is actively misrepresenting views and issues I support (ie pro-choice). I apply different techniques depending on the issue. 

I won't bring politics into hunting conversations and I will actively encourage others not to do so. But I will defend my views, even when they are political, when they are attacked. You haven't provided me a good reason not to do so.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You can continue to dig your heels in harder and deeper and point the finger at everyone else all you want. Or you can do what Madhunter did and admit he went out of bounds and move on. 

At this point, the only person really interested in this discussion on abortion seems to be you. You have strong feelings. Great. So do most of us, and nobody around here cares. 

To be perfectly frank.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I admitted that my comment was inappropriate and that it was a mistake. I'm not going to hide my mistake but I will admit I made it. Since you went and got all personally butt hurt about what I said because it somehow involved your personal point of view. I will present some facts about what I said. The pics I attached back up what I said. According to a YouGov poll 81% of Dems(the left) see hunting as morally wrong while 62% of the same demographic sees abortion as morally acceptable.



backcountry said:


> It only took a handful of posts for someone to bring up abortion which is the exact issue I was concerned about coming up.


This tells me you were already on edge and that you were ready to defend a personal view point as soon as it came up.



backcountry said:


> But I won't stand by passively while a user here actively misrepresents the issue and the people who hold different views than their own (see below remark about Paddler).


Based on the data I show here I did not miss-represent anything. You made a big deal about my comment miss-representing you.



backcountry said:


> I have no problem "perpetuating" the issue if that includes defending oneself from a wanton attack. Its simply not the same behavior or issue as bringing it up the first place.


Again, I did not attack you personally. You made it personal. At no point did I single you out nor did I assume anything about you as you did about me. You are the one that made it personal.



backcountry said:


> because letting someone like MadHunter present false narratives and misinformation is harmful to an issue many of us hold dearly. Like I said, its the exact theme of this thread. Letting that misinformation stand is ultimately more detrimental in my experience (research supports) than the negatives associated with me extending the conversation. (PS, I waited an hour and half before diving into the subject matter, that was plenty of time to edit the original remark). I believe countering these types of egregious remarks is important given the way misinformation spreads.


People like me? What kind of person am I? So you know all about me because I made a remark that I shouldn't have? Kindly enlighten me and everyone else for that matter on what kind of people I am. Did I ever state what my position was on the abortion topic? Or any other topic? I may disagree with you on whole slew of other things but I still thought maybe sometime we might break bread together and talk as human beings. I guess because of one thing I said on an internet forum that you didn't agree with I am a waste of your time and energy. So be it. Nothing gained and nothing lost.



backcountry said:


> I could also let my friends make flippant remarks about hunting and hunters. It would be easier and less tense to just let those remarks slide but it doesn't ultimately lead to any change.
> 
> If the only change is someone reconsiders wrongly stereotyping a different view or making flippant remarks that are unrelated to the topic at hand than I am willing to absorb the negatives.
> 
> ...


I have no idea what the Paddler remarks were nor will I spend time looking for them. Understand that this may be a hunting forum and by nature when we talk hunting we delve into politics. They may be the politics of hunting but they are politics none the less. 
As far as I am concerned this is the end of this topic.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla,

Good to know. I have no problem admitting when someone attacks me or a stance I value that I will defend myself after giving fair warning to cease and desist.

Some of this is misunderstanding though. When MadHunter stated "I owned up to my mistake and stated so on my original post" I assumed he was referring to his original post ending with "but that's enough on that subject." It was in no way clear to me that he had edited his comment to include a new statement. I just saw that. Instead I read his response that "I am not in the habit of deleting my posts because they might offend someone" as a reference to his hedged original post despite choosing to write it anyways. He also made it clear he doesn't apologize. 

If it had been clear he had edited his post the interaction would have likely been different. Given the timeline and context, I stand by my response. I don't take kindly to someone attacking me and my beliefs randomly out of left field.

Edit: See his last post. Its beyond ironic. There is zero actual accountability.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Edit: See his last post. Its beyond ironic. There is zero actual accountability.


Too long, didn't read. Except for this. And that seems to be going around. Ironic, indeed. I'm out.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

MH,
I stated, in full context, "because letting someone like MadHunter present false narratives and misinformation is harmful to an issue many of us hold dearly". The someone is you, the "like" is someone who broadcasts BS claims and misinformation.

Per misinformation, your response is an example of personal opinion inserted into a poll. The poll doesn't state anyone is "fine with killing babies in the womb", it states a percentage of Democrats voiced that abortion is "morally acceptable". Your interpretation is a misrepresentation of those facts. That is self-evident.

And BS on it being personal. When you come out swinging with such a broad, unsupported claim like "killing babies" you **** well better know you are being personal. Which I think you know given your cop out that hunting is inherently political. It's not news to highlight the "political is personal". It's why talking about anti-hunting rhetoric affects us personally. Once again, you don't get to use the tool in one situation and then condemn it in another. 

And yes, I was personally afraid someone would equate the conversation to abortion. And you did. And you just doubled down. The reason "political" issues like abortion are verboten is you personally have absolutely no clue the complex reasons folks, even hunters like myself, are pro-choice. Instead you engage in lazy, and completely fallacious arguments. 

At the end of the day claiming "pro-choice" individuals are "fine with killing babies" is more of an attack than about anything I've seen on this forum. 

Once again, I think your very comments here are an example of the problems of the anti-hunting rhetoric you are vocally against. It's done in bad faith without any fidelity to the different viewpoint. (To pre-emptively counter an obvious response, that is in no way similar to actually engaging another's actual statements in relation to their hypothesis, ie a good faith argument)


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> > Edit: See his last post. Its beyond ironic. There is zero actual accountability.
> ...


We must live under different definitions of accountability and irony. Accountability is something, for me, that is in relation to personal values. I never stated that I believe I acted against my own values or preferences. MadHunter did, hence the irony.

Hope you found something more fulfilling. Just know I'll support you defending yourself (or your beliefs) against random attacks just as much as I have my own. Even if they are political in nature.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

We shouldn’t be attacking one another, there’s already enough people attacking the hunting community.

I apologize for the post and will refrain from posting anything even remotely political henceforth.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I have read much (not all) of the back and forth between Backcountry and MH. Frankly...if the shoe fits, wear it. The left is pushing for more and more leniency when it comes to abortion, and the analogy, good or bad, fits.
Simple fact - proposed legislation and the stance of the left's leadership bear this out. Do all left-leaning individuals agree with that? Absolutely not, BUT they are the ones electing their congressional representatives and Senators, so again, if the shoe fits...

Now, to bring this around to something related to hunting, these same left-leaning representatives and Senators bring up anti-hunting/gun control legislation every Congress. Does that absolve an individual who voted for them, and who individually supports hunting, firearms, etc., of any and all responsibility if/when anti-hunting/ gun control regulations get passed? Absolutely not.

That's as political as I will get here. And like Vanilla stated, can't believe I got in before this thread was locked down tight!


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Wow missed this one. Keep it civil guys.


----------

