Vegetarian?

tankz 4 yoh accolade, I write in anarkistic acronyms of a realer reality..

 

If the pedestrian does not have the right of way then no crime has been committed. If I am aiming at a turkey then you are that pedestrian. It is in that case your job to yield to my line of fire. Again, have you ever been hunting?

 

It is all hunters responsibility to remain out of the line of fire. If you decide to step into the line of fire, that is your problem.

 

dude, all cases aren't so black and white. yes i have been out with hunters, as i have already stated. have you ever been to court? the fact of the matter is, even if the pedestrian does not have the right of way, if you hit him with your car, he can still take you to court, and fault will be decided there. it may be so that no "crime" has been committed in this instance, but there is a difference between criminal court and claims court.
this is getting way off subject. so if you would like to continue this legal discussion, then we should use the hypothetical hunter/activist situation and not my analogy.

 

as i said before, that is simply not true, and through an internet search, i could find no evidence to support your argument either.

 

OK let me make it more clear for you:

1. I aim at what we are out hunting.
2. You then step into the line of fire.
3. I pull the trigger attempting to shoot whatever it is that we are hunting.
4. You get shot.
5. You die.
6. Whatever we were hunting lives another day.
7. Your family decides to sue.
8. Witnesses tell exactly what happened.
9. Judge dismisses the case and reprimands whatever half ass lawyer you family hired, because the case is unwinable and a waste of the courts time.
10. I counter-sue for my lawyers fee.
11. your parent spend the next few years trying to pay off my $100,000 lawyer.

Do you get it now?
If you don't believe me give it a shot next time you get a chance.

Moral of the story:
The first hunting rule is "stay out of the line of fire"
The 2nd hunting rule is "stay out of the line of fire"
The 3rd hunting rule is "stay out of the line of fire"

I will let you respond and then I will drop it. If you don't understand how it works then I will just have to be content with my hope that someday you will test your little theory out.

 

Don't be a Vegetarian, thats gay. Meat is suppose to be in our diet!
Meat and vegies go together Not just veggies. Fuck thats sick!

 

I don't know who taught you to hunt, but uhh you might want to go take a course or maybe just give in your guns.

You shouldn't be shooting when anybody is even close to your line of fire.

 

But in this day and age, especially in the western world where so much is availible it's pretty easy to have a healthy, if not more healthy diet with no meat.

 

gay sex

 

gay vegetarian sex

 

You also have missed the point. Or perhaps didn't read all the posts because they are so far off in left field. The idea was that as I was about to pull the trigger he stepped in the way. NOT that I decided to murder him. You just don't step into the line of fire and hope for the best. If you do, you can not expect your family to get money out of your stupidity.
Again, I was never suggesting that you can murder anyone who goes hunting with you. Only that if you are pulling the trigger as they jump in the line of fire the only reward they receive is the Darwin award. <-(google it)

 

Hey, everyone. I thought that I would throw my two cents in. I completely agree with gratefulvegan and Willy Wonka 27 on their views. The main reason that I wanted to post is because I saw something interesting that someone had posted about our evolutionary level giving us the intelligence to hunt and eat meat. I find this to be false and a very poor argument, in my opinion. If what you are saying is true, then animals on lower evolutionary levels would not be inborn with this "intelligence" to hunt. It is quite the contrary. Animals hunt other animals and have since the beginning of time. I actually believe that it is the other way around. I believe that we are born with the intelligence to distinguish right from wrong and understand that killing is immoral. Wouldn't that make more sense? Perhaps that is just me. Also, making statements like "why should I care about a turkey when there are other issues going on in the world?" is only avoiding the question. If you were to discuss how does vegetarianism compares with other issues, you would hit the nail on the head. However, in this case, I think that argument is a little irrelevant. I respect everyone's choices, and just because I decide to debate or discuss this doesn't mean that I am trying to shove my views on everyone. I hope that is realized. Good day.

By the way, jailmate is awesome. I loved how he pointed out that the taste from meat is not from meat, but rather from vegetable seasoning. I have never seen anyone point this out before, and he is much more intelligent than most of the people debating this.

 

don't you have peripheral vision? can you not survey the range before shooting?
anyway, the idea is not that you where about to pull the trigger, and i stepped in front of the gun. the original question was "would you take a bullet for a turkey?" I said, yes, i probably would. the situation has evolved into me saying, that in a hunting situation, i would yell at a turkey to scare it, then i would run toward the turkey to scare it, where by being out on the range, not directly in front of the weapon, yet maybe in the line of fire. any hunter that still fires in that situation, is not making a safe decision.

again, there is a difference between criminal and claims court. in the situation your referring to, where the hunter murdered me, and my family decided to press charges, that would take place in criminal court, in which no money is involved, unless its fines.

 

I was a vegetarian for three years until the summer before this past one when I went to oxford, UK for the summer. I didn't trust the school system to have good vegetarian food and you know, I was right! But now I'm back on the wagon... I've been vegetarian now for about three weeks but I have eaten meat twice since I started.

I returned to vegetarianism because I think meat is very unhealthy for the body. In the past three weeks I have lost 6 lbs from not eating meat alone, no work out. I also think that it has negative effects on the environment. I personally don't believe that there is much wrong with eating meat in itself but the way that we do it with factory farms and wastefully (we don't even use them all)murdering billions of animals a year it sickens me. I think that if we returned to sustainance farming and hunting then meat eating wouldn't be so bad for the world or our bodies. But even in that case I don't think anyone in this day and age should be eating meat at every meal or even everyday.

 

14 years of compassionate eating

 

i tried it for a while..i used a weird system.. i would be a veg for a month, then eat meat for a month, the a veg for two months, then eat meat for a month.. then veg for three.. and so on and so forth..
earth mama kels

 

Just out of curiosity, what's the general philosophy behind being a vegetarian?

 

OK, so I didn't notice that there are 22 pages of posts on this topic... maybe I'll read through them and answer my own question.

 

vegetarian for 10 years now, wouldn't ever go back. Anyone who choses to go vegetarian has their own reason(s) for doing so, as well as their level of commitment. Me, I see all living things as related. The soil, the air, water, fire, animals (cludin' us), and plants...all part of the same family, and deserving of the same reverance. If I am going to eat somethin', i need to be able to take it's life myself and give it thanks for sustaining me. I know I could not kill an animal, any animal, so I do not eat meat when the dirty work is done for me. Plants, I grow myself, or forage myself, and I am able to sustainably harvest them, and pay them the respect I feel is neccessary. might sound all treehugger goofball to some, guilty as charged I guess....