Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Discuss articles and commentaries from our recent issues!
BigIron
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:25 pm

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby BigIron » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:27 pm

ORIGINAL: nromn

BigIron,

Again it boils down to you disagreeing with a stance that Marc holds and doing what you can to discredit him, which is a direct contradiction to what you are telling others on how to behave and think in this thread with regards to Ted. It just so happens that difference of opinion conflicts with your profession.

So your stance should really be, tolerate everything other hunters do regardless of if you agree with their beliefs or not because to not do so gives the anti hunters more ammo against us...Unless their opinions happen to go against my profession, then the gloves are off and you can do whatever you would like to try to berate them and try get others to turn against that person as well.

So in essence, the only way I should disagree with anything Ted says or speak out against him is if I happen to be a stupid lawmaker whose brain is not functioning properly?

 
 
I most definitely disagree with Marc on numerous issues I'm certain.  I've looked at his blog site and it's filled with references to "fair chase", and he even implies on it that you are somehow less than a sporting hunter if you use elevated blinds rather than sitting on the ground with your prey. 
 
Innumerable things I disagree with him on I'm certain. 
 
But, the only thing I'm taking him to task on is his statement that guided hunts are not hunting.  Which I view as ridiculous and harmful to a vast number of hunting enthusiasts. 
 
Where have I been trying to get others to turn against Marc?  Chewing on his ass for his attack on guide hunting and Texas hunting practices is trying to get others to turn against him?  How?   
 
And what should I do, just say hey, that's ok, a guy who (by his on brag) influences thousands of folks daily should be free to re-define my profession as "not hunting", and just let it go? 
 
Nah that's where the influence comes in.  I don't want him freely influencing new hunters that way.  Not without a voice of dissent.  Like Mike said, I don't influence all that many (just a few hundred hunters a year), but Ted does.  Thank God he's not out there shitting on folks in the hunting or shooting industry like our friend Marc.   
 
And feel free to disagree with Ted. 
 
I guess you didn't read my posts.  I disagree with Ted on several issues.  Ted and I have argued very "briskly" about issues several times.  But I don't denigrate his chosen profession or him as a person.  I respect him as a hunting and gun rights activist way too much for that.
 
So yes, disagree with Ted all you want.  I do.  It's much fun.  You should come to his site and try it.  He won't kick you off, I'm living proof.

nromn
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:39 am

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby nromn » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:35 pm

El Con,

I apologize, I read your first response signed in to respond to it and saw your second response to this quote, scanned to look for the first one to reply to it and didn't see it in the mess that is this thread. So again I apologize, I thought you edited it, but I clearly see they are both there.
 
So again, it goes back to you picked out one small portion of what I had to say about my dislike for Ted, being that he is not tolerant of other points of view and you said its absolutely not true. I showed where he did in fact call names to people that don't agree with him.
 
You sidetracked and asked me about a law and if it is common sense, to which I replied, but again had nothing to do with my original point. Again, I answered because you asked. But whether I beleive it is common sense or not doesn't prove that Ted is tolerant of other viewpoints.
 
 
Again, MY ORIGINAL POINT WAS: You and other Ted supporters on this thread have told hunters they need to support everything Ted does regardless of if you agree with his viewpoint or not because anti hunters will take us down if we disagree. I said I find it ironic that you ask us who don't agree with everything Ted says to support him in everything when he does not do the same for people who don't agree with him.
 
I quoted him in which he calls anyone who agrees with the law about not discharging a firearm in Austin when a coyote is attacking their dog, "braindead". The fact that they are "nameless and faceless people" is irrelevant. It just shows he is not tolerant of someone who disagrees with him because he flat out says that if someone argues for the law about not discharging a firearm in Austin, they are stupid and braindead.
 
In fact one argument I could come up with is, is it right to discharge a firearm in Austin at a coyote who is attacking your dog when you are in a city park and there are children all around? I certainly wouldn't call someone who argues that braindead. Ted clearly states he would though. Again, NOT TOLERANT of other veiwpoints.
 
 
You even argue that he's wrong when he says the same thing you do-only in a different way. 
 
And I haven't seen anywhere in this thread where someone has said they will disagree with Ted even if they agree with him. I have seen lots of people say they don't like Ted and some stuff of his they agree with and some they don't.
 
And I have seen many people say they will not blindly support everything he does just because he happens to hunt.
 
Of course you didn't accuse me of name calling.  That would make you look like a liar. 
 
You're the one that brought it up in response to my post, which seemed to be implying that I thought you did, which is why I brought it up. And again, Ted HAS called people names. Its right in the quote you posted.
 
Anyway, I am just stating the same thing over and over trying to get you to understand. I just don't know why you are trying to deny it or split hairs by saying he didn't call out a specific person to call names and thus is tolerant of other viewpoints. When he says right in the article he isn't tolerant of someone with an opinion other than his own.

User avatar
El Conquistador
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:56 am
Location: Nebraska

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby El Conquistador » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:04 pm

ORIGINAL: nromn

El Con,

I apologize, I read your first response signed in to respond to it and saw your second response to this quote, scanned to look for the first one to reply to it and didn't see it in the mess that is this thread. So again I apologize, I thought you edited it, but I clearly see they are both there.

So again, it goes back to you picked out one small portion of what I had to say about my dislike for Ted, being that he is not tolerant of other points of view and you said its absolutely not true. I showed where he did in fact call names to people that don't agree with him.

You sidetracked and asked me about a law and if it is common sense, to which I replied, but again had nothing to do with my original point. Again, I answered because you asked. But whether I beleive it is common sense or not doesn't prove that Ted is tolerant of other viewpoints.


Again, MY ORIGINAL POINT WAS: You and other Ted supporters on this thread have told hunters they need to support everything Ted does regardless of if you agree with his viewpoint or not because anti hunters will take us down if we disagree. I said I find it ironic that you ask us who don't agree with everything Ted says to support him in everything when he does not do the same for people who don't agree with him.

I quoted him in which he calls anyone who agrees with the law about not discharging a firearm in Austin when a coyote is attacking their dog, "braindead". The fact that they are "nameless and faceless people" is irrelevant. It just shows he is not tolerant of someone who disagrees with him because he flat out says that if someone argues for the law about not discharging a firearm in Austin, they are stupid and braindead.

In fact one argument I could come up with is, is it right to discharge a firearm in Austin at a coyote who is attacking your dog when you are in a city park and there are children all around? I certainly wouldn't call someone who argues that braindead. Ted clearly states he would though. Again, NOT TOLERANT of other veiwpoints.


You even argue that he's wrong when he says the same thing you do-only in a different way. 

And I haven't seen anywhere in this thread where someone has said they will disagree with Ted even if they agree with him. I have seen lots of people say they don't like Ted and some stuff of his they agree with and some they don't.

And I have seen many people say they will not blindly support everything he does just because he happens to hunt.

Of course you didn't accuse me of name calling.  That would make you look like a liar. 
 
You're the one that brought it up in response to my post, which seemed to be implying that I thought you did, which is why I brought it up. And again, Ted HAS called people names. Its right in the quote you posted.

Anyway, I am just stating the same thing over and over trying to get you to understand. I just don't know why you are trying to deny it or split hairs by saying he didn't call out a specific person to call names and thus is tolerant of other viewpoints. When he says right in the article he isn't tolerant of someone with an opinion other than his own.

First, no one asks that anyone should support anything anyone does because they hunt.  I will ask that you support anyone's legal methods of taking game.

Ted talks about laws.  Laws are fact,not opinion.  Opinion comes into play when discussing a factual situation-like a law.  Ted's opinion is that if you support illogical laws, you are illogical.  I agree.

Back to the article.  The article is Ted's opinion, he makes a lot of comments regarding lawmakers.  He doesn't single one out, so he is hardly "name calling".  You're the one splitting hairs over this. 

I agree that any lawmaker who bases laws on non-sense is not a very intelligent individual.  I'm not tolerant of others who try to force me to adhere to their way of thinking when I am not bound to it by the laws of this country.  I am a free man.  You are too.  Stop trying to bully people into following you.

nromn
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:39 am

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby nromn » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:04 pm

BI,
 
I have read your posts that state you have different opinions than him.
 
And Im not going to tell you what to do in this instance in regards to MA's statements against fenced hunting and baiting, etc. BUT...
 
To me, saying to are going to post something someone says so that all your hunters can read it and laugh at his opinion seems to be an attempt to have others turn against MA, or "cannibalizing" or "tearing down" another hunter, which you state is wrong to do.
 
So if thats your response for his difference of opinion to your own, don't tell others on this thread to not do those very things.
 
I guess my whole point is I don't respect Ted as a person and just because he hunts does not mean I will blindly support him. Some of his takes with regards to hunting I agree with, some I don't. Same for every hunter I come across. But just because a person hunts does not mean I am going to support them and stand behind them, which it seems is the message you want to get across.
 
This is a long-assed thread and if thats not your message I apologize. I do know that intent is there by some on this thread. And I know you stated not to cannibalize or tear other hunters down, so those are responses of yours I addressed directly.
 
Anyways, I am done with this thread. Its not productive. Everyone has dug their heels in and no one is budging an inch.

nromn
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:39 am

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby nromn » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:37 pm

Ok I guess I lied. I am not quite done with this thread.
 
And when did I say I don't support someones legal method of taking game? The only thing I mentioned I don't support is launching shots at a deer in order to mame them enough to be able to slow them down so they can take a fatal shot. I have seen too many deer running on 3 legs or asses have been blasted off and are swinging around behind them as they run that are not going to be tracked down by whoever shot them and are going to die slow painful deaths to ever support someone's decision to do that. To me, hunters do have the responsibility to take the cleanest shots possible to kill the animal as humanely as possible. An honest mistake resulting in an injured animal is one thing, throwing up a hope and a prayer is another.
 
And again, Ted flat out says that anyone who supports the law that you can't shoot a firearm in Ausin is braindead. That is namecalling. You don't like to be called braindead do you? I am not splitting hairs. He flat out says it. I laid out a scenario in my last post where I think that law can be logical and is not nonsense. I don't think someone should be able to open fire in the middle of a playground full of kids at a sprinting coyote that has your dog in its jaws. So hearing that viewpoint, Ted would call me braindead and stupid. He did so flat out in the article. That IS namecalling and IS NOT splitting hairs. Tap dance around it all you want, the bottom line is that its not tolerant of someone with a different opinion than him, which was my original point that you chose to take issue with.  
 
Calling people who adhere to certain opinions braindead is namecalling. Just because he doesn't poll people in Austin until he finds someone who agrees with the law and then names that person specifically in the article does not mean he is not name calling.
 
And please explain to me how I have bullied ANYONE in this thread. I have stated my opinion. If that is bullying, then you have done it 4x as much in this thread, so why don't you stop then?

User avatar
Marc Anthony
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:37 am
Location: Illinois

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby Marc Anthony » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:11 pm

ORIGINAL: BigIron

ORIGINAL: nromn

BigIron,

Again it boils down to you disagreeing with a stance that Marc holds and doing what you can to discredit him, which is a direct contradiction to what you are telling others on how to behave and think in this thread with regards to Ted. It just so happens that difference of opinion conflicts with your profession.

So your stance should really be, tolerate everything other hunters do regardless of if you agree with their beliefs or not because to not do so gives the anti hunters more ammo against us...Unless their opinions happen to go against my profession, then the gloves are off and you can do whatever you would like to try to berate them and try get others to turn against that person as well.

So in essence, the only way I should disagree with anything Ted says or speak out against him is if I happen to be a stupid lawmaker whose brain is not functioning properly?



I most definitely disagree with Marc on numerous issues I'm certain.  I've looked at his blog site and it's filled with references to "fair chase", and he even implies on it that you are somehow less than a sporting hunter if you use elevated blinds rather than sitting on the ground with your prey. 

Innumerable things I disagree with him on I'm certain. 

But, the only thing I'm taking him to task on is his statement that guided hunts are not hunting.  Which I view as ridiculous and harmful to a vast number of hunting enthusiasts. 

Where have I been trying to get others to turn against Marc?  Chewing on his ass for his attack on guide hunting and Texas hunting practices is trying to get others to turn against him?  How?   

And what should I do, just say hey, that's ok, a guy who (by his on brag) influences thousands of folks daily should be free to re-define my profession as "not hunting", and just let it go? 

Nah that's where the influence comes in.  I don't want him freely influencing new hunters that way.  Not without a voice of dissent.  Like Mike said, I don't influence all that many (just a few hundred hunters a year), but Ted does.  Thank God he's not out there shitting on folks in the hunting or shooting industry like our friend Marc.   

And feel free to disagree with Ted. 

I guess you didn't read my posts.  I disagree with Ted on several issues.  Ted and I have argued very "briskly" about issues several times.  But I don't denigrate his chosen profession or him as a person.  I respect him as a hunting and gun rights activist way too much for that.

So yes, disagree with Ted all you want.  I do.  It's much fun.  You should come to his site and try it.  He won't kick you off, I'm living proof.


Bigiron, it's one thing to disagree with a person but to flat out lie and make up things is another. I know you went to my blog and my website and can even tell what time and from what building in Victoria TX. you typed in the search info into your computer. I even know your ISP, not that I care.

What I do care about is liable issues. When another person puts things in writing for the public to see that aren't true, that can create a problem. Now I'm going to explain somethings here in a dignified manner and you can either comprehend what I'm saying or you can continue to deny it all for the sake of wanting to sew discord among hunters, but I will not let another false statement wander around the internet that's been made-up by someone who feels the need to discredit another person for whatever reason.

1. I'm all for fair chase hunting. You act like fair chase is something to be ashamed about!

2. Never have I ever condemned anyone for hunting legally.

3. Never have I said anything here negative about outfitters or guided hunts, so that's a flat out lie.

4. Never have I said anything negative about TX. hunters, EVER.

5. Never in any of my posts on my blog do I EVER say you are less of a sporting hunter by using elevated blinds. Where do you get off making this stuff up?!

Now I'm going to be the first to put this thing to rest AGAIN, so please leave me out of your fantasy to destroy anyone whom you don't want around. The fact of the matter is, you make up things that are not said here and that's sick. Ted is a grown boy and if he wants to defend himself, he can certainly come to this thread and do so. He doesn't need YOU to be his protector. Now if you like Ted, more power to you, I won't bash you for liking him, that's your God given right. What you need to understand is people here will disagree with Ted and always have mainly because of his DELIVERY, not so much his beliefs. Please read that one more time because I want to drive that home so you don't have to make things up again.

In addition to his delivery, he must be very careful if he wants to defend hunters in America. Now PLEASE try really hard to understand this and just for once see what some of us here are saying. When a person of his exposure gets caught for doing something against the law (I don't care if he knew it or not), he is a prime target for PETA and every other non hunting organization to attack. A person in his shoes MUST be careful or he shouldn't be representing the group of people he wants to defend. It's really pretty simple! It's not bashing him, it's not picking on him, it's not making fun of him, it's just a responsibility FOR him.

So lets do everyone a favor and either drop this subject or at least converse in a respectful manner here. This is EXACTLY the kind of stuff that anti-hunters love to expose.
"A fool learns from his own mistake but a wiseman learns from a fool's mistake "

User avatar
Ben Sobieck
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:29 am

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby Ben Sobieck » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:17 pm

We're falling into a spiral of personal attacks far from the base discussion. Take the following arguments off the table:

1) You're a [blank]
2) No, you're a [blank]
3) Oh yeah? Well only a [blank] would say that.
4) You're the bigger [blank] because you said it first.

Deal? Good. Because if you can't say it in church/temple/mosque/Lambeau Field, you can't say it here.

As an aside, we did open up a webinar not long ago for forum members to directly ask Ted questions about anything. There's always the chance the stars will align again. So keep that in your back pocket.

User avatar
Marc Anthony
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:37 am
Location: Illinois

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby Marc Anthony » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:24 pm

.
"A fool learns from his own mistake but a wiseman learns from a fool's mistake "

BigIron
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:25 pm

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby BigIron » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:55 pm

1. I'm all for fair chase hunting. You act like fair chase is something to be ashamed about!

2. Never have I ever condemned anyone for hunting legally.

3. Never have I said anything here negative about outfitters or guided hunts, so that's a flat out lie.

4. Never have I said anything negative about TX. hunters, EVER.

5. Never in any of my posts on my blog do I EVER say you are less of a sporting hunter by using elevated blinds. Where do you get off making this stuff up?!



1.  Fair chase.  First, unless you are using only your fingernails, toenails, teeth, and speed you are not "fair chasing" anything.  It's preposterous to use the term "fair chase" to describe any kind of hunting where the hunter uses any tool above that which is available to the animal pursued. 

2. Yes, you have.  Specifically you have stated that if you show up just to kill and don't participate in the scouting, planning, set up etc that you are not hunting.  Marc those are your words not mine.  Please read your own posts. 
Here, I'll save you some time.  From your own mouth:
Again, he just showed up to kill the game and not hunt it. 
And
"I'll tell you what, he's merrily showing up to kill, that's all! He just said in that statement that he didn't scout, plan or pursue in fair chase the animals he shot. What a loser. That's not hunting"
 
3. Those two statements of yours above are just about as negative as you can possibly be about guides and outfitters.  Sorry, I hate being so blunt. 

4. Please refer to your statements in 2 above.  Those were said as much about me as they were about Ted.  Many hunters in Texas come to hunt with limited time and pay guides and outfitters to provide the service of setting up a hunt.  When you slam the act of guiding and outfitting (by saying that the recipient of those services is not hunting) you slam us all.

5. I don't make stuff up.  I pulled this quote directly from your website. You might not have said it.  But your web guy did.  Might wanna remove it.  It smacks of (I'm better than you because I shot mine from the ground).  If you can't see that, I can't help you.

"He holds more "Big Book" record book entries with whitetails than any other hunter known, taken with a bow and arrow! Better yet, he's taken most of his trophies from the ground, a feat no one has ever been able to match."
 
Now, as far as threats.  It's libel... not liable...

And your welcome to look for me in Victoria.  But you'd be more successful if you looked in Port Lavaca where I actually live.  If you like I can pm you my address? 

I feel real comfortable in my statements.  They're all backed up by your posts.  Thanks.

User avatar
Marc Anthony
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:37 am
Location: Illinois

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby Marc Anthony » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:08 pm

ORIGINAL: BigIron

1. I'm all for fair chase hunting. You act like fair chase is something to be ashamed about!

2. Never have I ever condemned anyone for hunting legally.

3. Never have I said anything here negative about outfitters or guided hunts, so that's a flat out lie.

4. Never have I said anything negative about TX. hunters, EVER.

5. Never in any of my posts on my blog do I EVER say you are less of a sporting hunter by using elevated blinds. Where do you get off making this stuff up?!



1.  Fair chase.  First, unless you are using only your fingernails, toenails, teeth, and speed you are not "fair chasing" anything.  It's preposterous to use the term "fair chase" to describe any kind of hunting where the hunter uses any tool above that which is available to the animal pursued. 

2. Yes, you have.  Specifically you have stated that if you show up just to kill and don't participate in the scouting, planning, set up etc that you are not hunting.  Marc those are your words not mine.  Please read your own posts. 
Here, I'll save you some time.  From your own mouth:
Again, he just showed up to kill the game and not hunt it. 
And
"I'll tell you what, he's merrily showing up to kill, that's all! He just said in that statement that he didn't scout, plan or pursue in fair chase the animals he shot. What a loser. That's not hunting"
 
3. Those two statements of yours above are just about as negative as you can possibly be about guides and outfitters.  Sorry, I hate being so blunt. 

4. Please refer to your statements in 2 above.  Those were said as much about me as they were about Ted.  Many hunters in Texas come to hunt with limited time and pay guides and outfitters to provide the service of setting up a hunt.  When you slam the act of guiding and outfitting (by saying that the recipient of those services is not hunting) you slam us all.

5. I don't make stuff up.  I pulled this quote directly from your website. You might not have said it.  But your web guy did.  Might wanna remove it.  It smacks of (I'm better than you because I shot mine from the ground).  If you can't see that, I can't help you.

"He holds more "Big Book" record book entries with whitetails than any other hunter known, taken with a bow and arrow! Better yet, he's taken most of his trophies from the ground, a feat no one has ever been able to match."
 
Now, as far as threats.  It's libel... not liable...

And your welcome to look for me in Victoria.  But you'd be more successful if you looked in Port Lavaca where I actually live.  If you like I can pm you my address? 

I feel real comfortable in my statements.  They're all backed up by your posts.  Thanks.



Yeah, I made a typo in my spelling, do you want me to point out the last seven you made? FYI, you weren't accuse of threats, juts printing lies, and that will catch up with you.

Again, you made up more lies in your "interpretation" and nowhere was anything said about guided hunts or outfitters. One more example of how you want this so bad to be about you so you'll have a reason to break up the hunting community.

Those statements I made about Ted getting busted were my opinion and again, he doesn't need you to defend him, does he? Look up in the dictionary as stated before and you'll find the definition of hunting. Better yet, just forget it. Everyone who's seen your posts knows your motives and knows what you're up to. It's just not worth it.

I'm done done with this thread as it's turning infantile.
"A fool learns from his own mistake but a wiseman learns from a fool's mistake "

PreviousNext

Return to Deer & Deer Hunting Features

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests