I hate the Eagles

Hostile;3738917 said:
If there weren't hunting seasons animals would starve to death.

I guess that is humane to some, but not to me.

RoyTheHammer;3739020 said:
Pretty easily. State wildlife agencies manage deer habitats and make sure they have ideal conditions, or as close as possible, for them to sustain their population.

Also you could look into the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.

In short, it gives money from state sales of guns and ammo to wildlife agencies to keep wildlife populations high for hunters.

So, according to you, state wildlife agencies enable deer to maintain their population (i.e. not starve to death) in order to facilitate hunting season.

Hmmmm.....
 
ScipioCowboy;3739028 said:
So, according to you, state wildlife agencies enable deer to maintain their population (i.e. not starve to death) in order to facilitate hunting.

Hmmmm.....

According to what actually goes on? Yes.. its a little more than just not starving to death though.
 
RoyTheHammer;3738460 said:
Didn't say there weren't differences.. but both needlessly make innocent animals suffer for sport and enjoyment.

Forgetting for a moment that there is a big difference between killing a dog and killing a deer, unless the hunter is incompetent the animals won't suffer much if at all
 
The30YardSlant;3739037 said:
Forgetting for a moment that there is a big difference between killing a dog and killing a deer, unless the hunter is incompetant the animals won't suffer much if at all

So you feel that if an animal suffers less than a certain amount its ok, but if it suffers more than a certain amount its not ok?

Or are you saying that there should be different standards for killing different animals? That one is more important and should be given more animal rights than another?
 
RoyTheHammer;3739042 said:
So you feel that if an animal suffers less than a certain amount its ok, but if it suffers more than a certain amount its not ok?

I think cows and pigs and deer and fish were put on this earth for me to eat. If you don't like it, go eat a damn salad. I didnt climb to the top of the food chain to eat carrots all day.

Any legitimate hunter doesnt put the animals in any more pain than a slaughter house puts livestock in

Or are you saying that there should be different standards for killing different animals? That one is more important and should be given more animal rights than another?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Do you not realize that we are supporting this position every time we send a murderer to jail? Biologically speaking, humans are just another mammal.

Human and evolutionary history have established ourselves as more important than "lesser" animals, and dogs and cats more important than livestock.
 
The30YardSlant;3739044 said:
Human history has established ourselves as more important than "lesser" animals, and dogs and cats more important than livestock.

Are you sure that's human history? Its the same for all humans in all cultures?

What exactly is the basis for giving dogs more animal rights than deer or some other innocent animal then, in your opinion? What makes it more morally right to kill a deer, but less morally ok to kill a dog? You realize in certain cultures they eat dogmeat the same as we eat beef right?
 
RoyTheHammer;3739045 said:
Are you sure that's human history? Its the same for all humans in all cultures?

Good luck finding a human who will tell you he is less significant than a deer. Even religious groups that revere certain animals (Hindus, for instance) do not believe themselves inferior to them. Besides, this is a discussion about the culture in THIS part of the world. It doesnt matter what the laws with regards to killing animals are in India for the purposes of this debate.

What exactly is the basis for giving dogs more animal rights than deer or some other innocent animal then, in your opinion?

My opinion? Because dogs are a higher, more intelligent form of life than deer. Dogs have the ability to emotionally connect with other beings, something that science does not believe cows, deer, etc. are capable of. Vick not only killed dogs, but did so in an inhumane way.

What makes it more morally right to kill a deer, but less morally ok to kill a dog? You realize in certain cultures they eat dogmeat the same as we eat beef right?

It has nothing to do with morals. It isnt immoral to kill an animal in a humane way. Humanity could not exist if not for the practice of killing animals.

As for your final argument, you also realize that there are cultures that value human sacrifice, beastiality, and just about every other act we as Americans define as obscene, "immoral" behavior. Are you prepared to argue that human sacrifice is "ok" because some kook in a third world country thinks it is?
 
The30YardSlant;3739052 said:
Vick not only killed dogs, but did so in an inhumane way.

It has nothing to do with morals. It isnt immoral to kill an animal in a humane way. Humanity could not exist if not for the practice of killing animals.

As for your final argument, you also realize that there are cultures that value human sacrifice, beastiality, and just about every other act we as Americans define as obscene, "immoral" behavior. Are you prepared to argue that human sacrifice is "ok" because some kook in a third world country thinks it is?

To clarify.. there are "civilized" cultures and countries that eat dog meat. China and South Korea to name a couple.

It has everything to do with morality. If you are killing and making an innocent animal suffer for recreation or sport, its wrong. Period.

That includes hunting, dogfighting, cockfighting, etc. You are doing it for sport, for recreation, for enjoyment, for self interest..

NOT BECAUSE ITS NECESSARY TO DO IT.

Just because one recreational activity is legal and another is deemed illegal by our government, doesn't make one right and the other wrong.


The only reason we allow hunting and not dogfighting is because we have a built in emotional attachment to certain animals in our society.

Who's to say what animals SHOULD be pets, and which SHOULD be for eating? That's purely subjective.
 
187beatdown;3734411 said:
Well it's almost time to play the puke green wearing Eagles again, and I'm getting all fired up to watch them get drilled into the ground by our own guys this week.

There only about 100,000 things I can't stand about the Eagles, but I guess the first of it has to start with this: their fans. I can't tell you just how annoying, arrogant, and idiotic this fan base is. I happen to live in the center of New Jersey where it's split between Giants and Eagles, and I can tell you that the Eagles are way way worse for me to deal with. This is a fan base that shows absolutely no respect for anyone and goes about it in the most scumbaggish way possible. These guys have never won a Superbowl, but you would be hard pressed to think that if you hung around here for about 5 seconds. Division titles, NFC Championship games are about the only things these guys can hang their hats on. They wish injury upon every player on the Cowboys, and make life hell for anyone who wants to sport silver and blue. I understand football is a harsh sport and its up to the own choice of the person, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The other thing I can't stand is disrespect for injuries when they happen. I don't think I need to tell everyone about Irvin going down and him being booed out of the stadium. Well earlier this year I watched Austin Collie get destroyed and looked near paralyzed when he was playing the Eagles. A penalty was called and the fans were booing non stop. Several minutes after the penalty had been resolved and fans could still see Collie not moving at all, boos still rained down from the Linc and it showed how disrespectful and terrible these people are.

The fans are the worst part for me, but I can go on. I HATE Donovan McNabb. Yes, I know he isn't on the Eagles anymore, but he has been a thorn in our side for over a decade and it's been terrible watching his stupid smug little face after he does anything. I can't stand the fact that in 1998 he was booed during the draft, and yet he finds it necessary to bring it up every freaking year and look to be pitied by everyone. Shortly after, he lee-ways into talking about how everyone is racist to him. Like he's had a hard life. McNabb literally went on HBO with Bryant Gumble and actually had the balls to say it's hard to be a black QB in the NFL today because of racism and mentioned Vince Young as an example (bad idea). Oh please. This guy grew up in a predominately white community and even went to college playing for SYRACUSE. Moving on. He doesn't hold himself accountable for anything that he does. If you've ever listened to his PCs, he always complains that he "needs better weapons" or "needs a defense" or some other arbitrary thing that will draw blame away from him. He was an awful leader for them, and definitely a reason that they didn't win jack in Philly. I may not have had so disdain for the Eagles if it wasn't for McNabb. He literally used to be the only reason I didn't like the team, and it was going good that I thought after he left I would let up on the hate until I realized that...

I HATE DeSean Jackson. Have you ever seen a more annoying ***** than this kid? He's so cocky in everything that he does and he gets HOF praise in Philly like he's the second coming. Let me just bring this up. He catches a long bomb against the Cowboys, and arrogantly flaunts his way into the endzone and DROPS THE BALL AT THE 1 YARD LINE. Yes, he roasted us on that play, but good grief I wanted to jump through the screen and punch his head into pieces. I can take bragging and taunting, but this guy takes it to a whole new level. I hate his little backwards struts into the endzone. Honestly it drives me insane. I hate that everyone makes him out to be some kind of god WR when in reality all he does is run straight and catch bombs. Woop dee friggin do. He's so lauded but does he show up to ever play the Cowboys? No, not really. That may change next week but the Cowboys have proven how one dimensional he is. If I may quote the little pecker, "sting they ***"

I can not will not and refuse to EVER EVER EVER give Michael Vick any kind of praise. He is playing out of his mind this year and that's all well and fine but I won't ever forgive what he did. This is a guy that killed animals for fun and money and was tossed into jail for 2 years. Let me ask you something? Who do you know that can be convicted for 2 years for a heinous crime, and then gets to come back and make millions of dollars again? Not many. I know people who go to jail for something small and can't ever find a well paying job ever again. He served his time and that's fine but he doesn't deserve what he has right now. The worst part is it makes Andy Reid look like a genius.

I HATE Jeff Lurie. I don't even think it's been a long time thing. But I look back and see how they treated a fan favorite Brain Dawkins and how they penny pinched him and it makes me sick. Bash Jerry all you want, our owner will never treat a player like Dawkins was treated. Absolutely disgusting.

Last but not least, I HATE the Philadelphia media when it comes to the Eagles. They are literally the nega-Dallas media. Everything the Eagles do is "genius" and I'm sick and tired of hearing about it. It's like they can do no wrong. They have yet to win a Superbowl yet everyone is gumdrops and lolipops over there. Let me narrow this down a bit. I HATE Howard Eskin. He is so up Andy Reid's butt it's not even funny. He will dismiss callers and hang up on them if they have one bad thing to say about the Eagles and will then go on to say how Celek>Witten, Kolb>Romo, etc. WHAT?! **** of here you troll. Granted, everyone in Philly hates that tool, but mine is a special breed. Here's what I really HATE about it. They don't do the same for the Flyers, Sixers, or Phillies. They dish out just about as much hate as there can be for non-football teams and I don't understand the imbalance. (fwiw I'm a Flyers and Phillies fan)

It's unreal how fired up I get when they play this team. My blood boils. I have such a deep rooted passion to hate this team. The smile on my face when we swept them last year went from cheek to cheek and it was a greater feeling then how well I did in school that semester. Very sad, but oh well.

I hate this team. I hate this team. I hate the freaking Eagles so so so much.

Anyone else?

Personally, I judge a team by the team and that's it. I try not to get personal with players, I stay out of their personal lives as long as they stay out of mine. As a team, I hate the eagles, not as much as I hate the Deadskins, the New Orleans Fakes, the Cheats and the Steelgirls, but I do hate them.
 
RoyTheHammer;3738928 said:
That's not true at all. In fact, most state wildlife agencies purposely control deer populations to keep them high, so that there will be plenty available for hunters.

Basically, they manage the deer for recreational purposes because they have a financial incentive to do so.


You are wrong. Herds are managed to maintain the proper carrying capacity for the land. If not hunted many animals would quickly outreach that capacity and many would starve to death. Is that better than a well place bullet? I've watched whitetail deer slowly starve to death in harsh winters right behind my house. All the while the yotes are hanging around waiting for their chance for any easy meal. Its a brutal world outside you little piece of "civilization".

Comparing dog fighting and Vick's inhumane antics to hunting is as moronic as it gets.
 
RoyTheHammer;3739007 said:
What's funny is you claim to hunt from time to time and didn't know this was ever going on.

:laugh2:


I hunt all the time and still say you are full of crap. The Federal and State land in this state is managed to remain "virgin" wilderness which is horrible whitetail habitat. If they wanted to encourage the herd to grow they would allow logging which creates edge habitat and first and second stage growth which whitetail and many other critters love. You relly should do some research.
 
Apparently the dogs Mike Vick killed were actually not found buried on the property in Virginia, they were shipped to other countries where the meat is a food staple.

It was also Elvis on the grassy knoll and he was mind probed by aliens and programmed to kill President Kennedy. Word has it he was clutching a copy of "Catcher in the Rye" in his hands. :D
 
Vtwin;3739130 said:
I hunt all the time and still say you are full of crap. The Federal and State land in this state is managed to remain "virgin" wilderness which is horrible whitetail habitat. If they wanted to encourage the herd to grow they would allow logging which creates edge habitat and first and second stage growth which whitetail and many other critters love. You relly should do some research.

Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.

Look it up and tell me what it says.. I did my research bud, and plenty of it.
 
RoyTheHammer;3738892 said:
Its not a necessity to hunt or fish for food.. for anyone. Its an interest, something people do for sport, for enjoyment.

Just because some eat what they kill doesn't mean its necessary to do it for food.

Understand?

You can't show me one hunter who hunts because its NECESSARY to feed their family. They do it for enjoyment, for sport.

If Vick ate the animals after he killed them would that have made it alright then?

RoyTheHammer;3738928 said:
That's not true at all. In fact, most state wildlife agencies purposely control deer populations to keep them high, so that there will be plenty available for hunters.

Basically, they manage the deer for recreational purposes because they have a financial incentive to do so.

RoyTheHammer;3739007 said:
What's funny is you claim to hunt from time to time and didn't know this was ever going on.

:laugh2:

RoyTheHammer;3739020 said:
Pretty easily. State wildlife agencies manage deer habitats and make sure they have ideal conditions, or as close as possible, for them to sustain their population.

Also you could look into the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.

In short, it gives money from state sales of guns and ammo to wildlife agencies to keep wildlife populations high for hunters.

RoyTheHammer;3739029 said:
According to what actually goes on? Yes.. its a little more than just not starving to death though.

RoyTheHammer;3739058 said:
To clarify.. there are "civilized" cultures and countries that eat dog meat. China and South Korea to name a couple.

It has everything to do with morality. If you are killing and making an innocent animal suffer for recreation or sport, its wrong. Period.

That includes hunting, dogfighting, cockfighting, etc. You are doing it for sport, for recreation, for enjoyment, for self interest..

NOT BECAUSE ITS NECESSARY TO DO IT.

Just because one recreational activity is legal and another is deemed illegal by our government, doesn't make one right and the other wrong.


The only reason we allow hunting and not dogfighting is because we have a built in emotional attachment to certain animals in our society.

Who's to say what animals SHOULD be pets, and which SHOULD be for eating? That's purely subjective.

Congratulations, you have just taken "talking out of your ***" to an uncommon level.
 
Hostile;3739026 said:
Good, I hate laughing alone.

Its ok.. alot of people just laugh when they have nothing of value to say on a subject because they're ignorant to what really goes on.
 
tomson75;3739241 said:
Congratulations, you have just taken "talking out of your ***" to an uncommon level.

:rolleyes:

You can look it up as well and tell me what it says.

Hunting is a business.. that's why its legal. States make good business selling guns and ammo, so they in turn give a percentage of the taxes made from selling these weapons to wildlife agencies to keep populations high of animals that hunters go after in recreation, although they are allowed to spend these monies on any species if they have enough funds.. guess that makes it ok.

Look it up and tell me im wrong..

............

To anyone else in this thread.. if you'd like to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me. I think this thread has worn out its welcome.. about 3 days ago actually ha.. and it'd be in the best interest of the board to just move on i think. There are certainly more relevant topics to discuss with the Eagles game being just a couple days away, and i appriciate those who took the time to discuss this in a rational manner.
 
RoyTheHammer;3739237 said:
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.

Look it up and tell me what it says.. I did my research bud, and plenty of it.

Lmao...so you're bringing up an act from 1937 (when a large percentage of Americans were hunting for sustenance), that is funded by a 10% tax on ammunition and firearms (paid for by hunters), and has brought 2 billion in funds over the last 50 years for the purpose of land acquisition and maintenance (which is peanuts considering hunters spend over 10 billion PER YEAR on their sport, and I'm guessing that is a low estimate)....to help argue that hunters are as cruel as dogfighters?

Do the dogfighters pay taxes on the electricity and water they use to shock and drown their animals, then use those taxes to buy them nicer digs to live in before they're beaten over the head with a shovel?

RoyTheHammer;3739245 said:
Its ok.. alot of people just laugh when they have nothing of value to say on a subject because they're ignorant to what really goes on.

While your laughing, maybe you should look up "whitetail overpopulation". Maybe you could cross-reference that with the number of deer taken every year by American hunters....

Then, you should look up "how to admit you have no idea what you're talking about".
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,007
Messages
14,506,138
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top