Re: OT: Wuzzy - Captain Carnivore

On Jul 27 2007 2:18 PM, James L. Hankins wrote:

"WuzYoungOnceToo" <WuzYoungOnceToo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:k9rpn4x2ng.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Since *I* and my hunting methods are the subject of this thread (did that
fact escape your notice as well?) then that would be the context for the
comments made up to this point. Furthermore, it would be those same
"artificial restraints" that you should have taken into account when
interpreting what I was saying about sensory advantages and their impact
on fffffurken's vague and nebulous "fair fight" assertion. There are
multiple elements to most hunts, some of which are advantageous to the
hunter, and others that are advantageous to the hunted.


All of which are determined by the human hunter, not the animal.

Which, as I've already explained in depth, is irrelevant (I notice you
glossed over the analogy of the fighter with one hand tied behind his
back.) How the advantage comes to be does not negate the existence of the
advantage.

I was pretty
specific about which ones I was referring to, and in no way made any
claims about being generally disadvantaged (I'm not sure that's even
meaningful in this context, but we can debate that later.) In light fo
that, your response...

"But to suggest that animals have an advantage over modern hunters is a
little nuts."

Is either disingenuous or an indication that you didn't bother to read and
comprehend what you were responding to.


That's a tough one. But, I'll go with choice "c" rather than the two
options provided by you, namely, my response was accurate and appropriate in
light of the exchange between you and fffurkin that had come before.

Except that it wasn't even close to accurate and appropriate, given either
the context (you remember the importance of context, don't you?) It's
funny that every time I give a detailed, reasoned argument illustrating
why you're wrong all you respond with is the equivalent of "Am not."

But on the subject of literacy skills, since you brought it up, I have an
observation for you, one that I think will be useful. When someone reads
this post (really any post), part of the meaning of what you post is
informed by the post to which you are responding.

A pity that you didn't take that into account when making the comment
quoted above.


Well, in fact I did.

Case in point. Your response was COMPLETELY off base given both the
context and the content of what you were responding go. Amply explained
and demonstrated...and "nuh-uh" just isn't much of a rebuttal.

And I'm not trying to be cute here, but I have noticed that you tend to
form
the meaning of your posts in a vacuum without any context to what came
before. I think that's a natural tendency (not only for you but for
everyone) since you know what you meant when you wrote the words; but
others
don't know what's in your head, so when we read the entire thread it
guides
us in trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

Nonsense. My responses in this thread (I'm not going to try to address
every thread here) have been quite clear and specific with regard to my
exact meaning, even when the context in which they've been made is taken
into account. I don't know how the meaning of comments that are the
subject of this particular sub-thread could have been made any clearer to
you or others, leading me to conclude that you were in too much of a hurry
to respond without first making sure you'd accurately read what you were
responding to. A similar result can be seen in the "Russ G. finally
vindicated" thread where you rushed to tell someone that the incident was
significant because...

"The situation here is that a specific method of cheating has been
apparently uncovered as occurring, not in the mind of Russ G., but in an
actual casino in a high stakes poker game."

..even though the story was quite clear about the fact that it had NOT
occured in a casino.

For example, your post was in response to fffurkin's claim that hunting
is
never a fair fight.

See, right off the bat you're getting it wrong. The irony is that while
presuming to lecture me on concern for context, you're getting this wrong
because you're ignoring context. ffffurken's claim about a lack of fair
fight was made in the context of a thread about me, specifically, and MY
hunting. Now, you can make all sorts of assumptions about whether or not
he was referring to hunting in general as well (if so, it would still be a
meaningless and in some cases incorrect claim), but *I* was the specific
target of his comment. That makes MY hunting methods the issue.


So all this just boils down to you claiming that you use fair methods when
you hunt (which I don't doubt)?

No, James. All this boils down to the blindingly obvious fact that
ffffurken's remards were aimed at me, and me specifically. That is made
so obvious not only by his exact words, but by the very subject of the
thread. His history bolsters that even further, but one need not be aware
of it to understand his meaning.

What fun is that?

If you're asking what fun it is to hunt in a way that makes it a challenge
then I don't think an answer is either needed or expected. If that's not
what you're asking then you'll have to clarify the question for me.

When your lead response to that is, "You're right," and
then you proceed to give an example of some perceived natural advantage
of
game animals, I don't think it comes across like you thought when you
typed
it.

See above. To anyone who was making any effort to understand what they
were reading, the fact that I took great care to be *very specific* about
what advantages I was attributing to the animals should have left little
doubt about what I was saying. Of course, if your goal is just to...as I
said before...artificially read into it something you on which you thought
you could "get" me, then there's great potential (even probability) for
interpretive error.


The ambiguity is when you attribute advantages to animals in hunting.

There's no ambiguity at all, save for what you're manufacturing due to
your refusal to acknowledge the completely clear and specific claims I've
made.

I don't think that's really an accurate thing to say.

What's not accurate? That the animals I've mentioned have sensory
apparatus that is far superior to that of humans? That their senses give
them great ability to detect an approaching human hunter before the latter
even knows about them? How is either of these things (which is all I've
claimed) inaccurate?

The animals have no (or very few) advantages...

That's funny. I've already identified them, as well as explaining WHY
they're advantages. Yet, instead of actually addressing these specifics
you continue on this vague "no they don't" tack.

...over the modern hunter.

How is this "the modern hunter" you keep going on about? What name is he
posting under? I mean, if you're not referring to me and my descriptions
of how I hunt (you know...the subject of the thread, and what ffffurken
was babbling about) then I have to wonder who the hell you ARE talking
to/about.

I think it's more accurate to
say that you give up advantages to make the hunt more appealing (which I
have quarrel with).

"Advantage" is a relative concept. But, just to be more clear, please
give me some examples of the "advantages" you think I'm giving up and,
that if I didn't give up, the animal would not have any sensory
superiority.

The fairness comes from the hunter giving the animal a chance, not from
the
animal's natural senses.

What the hell does that mean? If the animal is able to detect my presence
and avoid me altogether then that most definitely gives him a chance,
wouldn't you say?


It's a chance given to the animal by your choice as a hunter for your
personal reasons; not a chance the animal has over you because the animal
dictated it.

I do wish you'd at least adopt a consistent position, even if you're not
going to try to defend it with meaningful arguments. Originally you
claimed:

"But to suggest that animals have an advantage over modern hunters is a
little nuts. Unless you are out there hunting them with a sharp stick and
wearing a loin cloth."

An extreme example, I understand. But here you acknowledge that there are
choices I could make that would, in fact, result in an advantage for the
animal. But now you're changing up and claiming that only some
arbitrarily selected (by you) choices qualify.

And the fact that I rarely even spot deer or hogs in
woods where the ground is positively littered with their tracks and other
signs, I'd say they're much better at sensing me than I am at preventing
them from doing so. Or perhaps you're not understanding the difference
between the "hunt" and the "kill". I already pointed this out, but let me
repeat it for you just in case you missed it as well:

If/when I finally locate a legal game animal that I am willing to harvest
(simple legality is not sufficient) AND if/when I manage to get close
enough and/or in a position that allows a clear, ethical shot that I'm
confident taking then at that point, yes.....the advantage is all mine.
However, at just about every point up until that moment my relatively
dulled human senses, heavy foot, human odors, etc. put me at a decided
disadvantage. You see James, "hunting" is not just "pulling the
trigger"...at least, not for many of us. In fact that's only the tiniest
fraction of what constitutes a hunt, if in fact it ever happens at all
(usually it doesn't.)



Agree (although the point was not contested by me).

Then your entire line of argumentation is pointless. The subject is...and
always has been...the conditions under which I choose to hunt. The thread
has my name on it, ffffurken's response was to and about me. How you
manage to rationalize that the subject is instead some hypothetical
unnamed modern hunter is beyond me.

[snip] That sensory disadvantage is a large part of what makes hunting
enjoyable, and is
why...as I already pointed out...nearly all of my outings end without
even
having seen a deer or hog.

Of course that's what makes it enjoyable.

But, it's a disadvantage imposed by you as the hunter when you forego
some
or all of the modern options available to you as a hunter;

The subject is *me* and my hunting. Not some hypothetical situation in
which I'm equipped with thermal imaging equipment, noise-cancelling boots
(if such a thing existed), etc. Remind us again what it was it you were
just preaching about context?
it's not an advantage the game has.

If I have a comparative limitation it's an advantage for the game. It
doesn't matter whether the limitation is natural or artificial. If, all
other things being equal, someone offers to fist-fight you with one arm
literally tied behind his back that would be a completely artificial
limitation on his part, and it would constitute an advantage for you.

Even when you qualify it by saying "locating them under "fair chase"
conditions", that implies that you are imposing conditions on yourself as
a
hunter for the specific purpose of not giving yourself an improper
advantage
over the animal.

See above, and try...TRY, I implorse you...to remember the context and the
subject of the discussion.



I consider myself implorsed. :))

And, I'm not questioning your hunting ethics. If you consider the exchange
between you and fffurkin to be very limited to your specific hunting methods
(which I will concede is most likely given the typical exchanges you have
with him)

And overwhelmingly likely given the context and content of his remarks.

...then yes, you response doesn't support the generalization I offered.

Whew!!! Finally. I applaud and appreciate that admission.

But I'm offering that the exchange could have been construed another way by
others not personally involved in it like you two were.

Only if they completely and utterly ignored the subject line, fffurken's
direct address of me as well as the very, very specific wording of my
response.

-------- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Wuzzy - Captain Carnivore
    ... I'm generally with you on the hunting stuff. ... hunter, and others that are advantageous to the hunted. ... meaningful in this context, but we can debate that later.) ... "But to suggest that animals have an advantage over modern hunters is a ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: Wuzzy - Captain Carnivore
    ... All of which are determined by the human hunter, ... meaningful in this context, but we can debate that later.) ... he was referring to hunting in general as well (if so, ... game animals, I don't think it comes across like you thought when you ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Finding useful functions- part 1
    ... Intension does not determine extension. ... >of an animal in a context is the same as the behavior of other animals ... >context of the animals is irrelevant to control and prediction of those ... David Longley ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Re: 2 questions about Inteligent Design vs Evolution
    ... How far can you push the "keeping things in context" approach? ... about which science and religion point to opposite directions. ... us (humans) and see no major difference is the way we are and function. ... We look a lot like most animals, we ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Humanism
    ... >>It is fun to be an animal, but far from fun to be human. ... >>This is because we are living in the wrong context. ... Some humans ARE animals. ...
    (sci.archaeology)