http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/fo...Fm%2F6581059021


There's a picture of a dead buffalow, Grace. It's not all bloody. though.

oh, and a dead Impala....and Pronghorn....and kudu.....and elephant......(It is from a firearms and hunting site, remember. I thought it a interesting discussion)

Sometimes I regret showing you how to post links.

I think phrasing the argument in terms of "What's best for the animals?" is a huge tactical and strategic error in terms of the politics.

You are reduced to arguing that shooting and killing them is what's best for animals. The average person doesn't think critically enough to come to terms with something that sounds so counter-intuitive and silly.

It doesn't just sound counter-intuitive and silly it is if you critically think about it. Unless you can give me a scenario where shooting and killing people is what's best for them too?

A critical thinker understands that people and animals aren't the same.

I understand that the argument is often used nonetheless, ie: sometimes what is best for people is to kill some of them.

I never said they were the same. But for the sake of argument, I'll stick with the furry animals. How could shooting and killing animals be what's best for them? Isn't it more apt to say
Shooting and killing animals are what's best for humans?

Natural selection can be said to benefit a species, yes?