" Ethics are NOT relative"

Then how can it be ethically wrong to kill a deer in one persons opinion and ethically right in anothers. That is the definition of relative. You make no sense.

Jimmy s, that is your perogative to kick that person out. It is not allowed at your camp. I cannot believe that you fail to see the light here. What you think doesnt really matter. what matters is what the individual doing the hunting and the legal system thinks. THats it. You can wine until you aare blue in the face but nothing you say makes them WRONG. THey can be dangerous and irresponsable but that doesnt make their style of hunting wrong.

Speaking of whining until you' re blue in the face, why don' t we let B&C keep running his mouth and going on his merry way. I' m sure it' s just a matter of time before he ends up shooting someone or getting thrown in jail by a game warden.

You' ve got to love that one. Good luck staying out of prison, B&C.

Yes they are. Running shots with a gun? I' d take it but I know that I could hit it. How about all those guys who don' t shoot yearlings, they taste the same to me! What about donating your deer. I' d much rather see the deer out inthe field or forest that in a soup kitchen!

Hardly!!! My logic does hold water and is genuine. I dont think that psuedo logic is an achievable state of existance. Due to the fact that logic cannot be deceiving.

I dont think you could prove my logic wrong if you tried.

Premise 1 : A set of principles of right conduct. = Ethics
Premise 2 : Wounding a deer is not illegal in NY State
Premise 3 : A person can wound a deer by hunting in any fashion legally allowed.
Premise 4 : Ethics vary from person to person.
Premise 5 : A person can ethically wound a deer by using any legal implement they wish as long as it is within the parameters of what they or their gruop deem ethically eacceptable.

IF 1 & 2 & 3 & 4, Then 5

Prove that statement wrong logically. I dont want your opinionated and unsupported rhetoric.
I feel that these premises are fair and accurate repesentations of this situation. Please create a logical statement that negates my claims. If you refute the premises I listed please explain why.
And before you refute the the part about ethics being relative please read this http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/L...93/ethics.html

Tom, I understand what you are saying. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what weapon is more effective. The argument comes into play when we talk about your shot decision. A rifle hunter will take a shot at a running deer, 70 yards away through an apple orchard. An archer will pass up a shot at a standing deer 20 yards away because there is a branch accross it' s vitals. THIS is the main reason rifle hunters injure far more deer than archery hunters.

Aught SIX. You havent really listended to me so i can understand your hesitation ot agree with me. No where did i mentioned that i do any of these things. In fact i have killed four deer in my life with 1 arrow and 5 slugs had to finish one off. I know you are whole heartedly against hunting in the manner we are talking about. Let it first be known that i have never and will never intentionally hunt this way. But i am not going to harrass a person for doing so. I may try to tell them that that isnt the way i hunt and that there are certain advantages to not dhunting that way. But I will never tell anyone they are wrong for doing so if they have not broken the law.

PLease read everything i have written and then repost. I have mentioned twice now that i choose not to hunt this way.

B&C,

I' ll tell you who I think I am to say they are wrong. Wait, let me re-fraise that. I' ll tell you who WE think WE are TO SAY THEY ARE WRONG.

WE ARE THE HUNTERS...who have to fight the battles that these people start.
WE ARE THE HUNTERS...who take pride in our traditions and take a stand against those who don' t
WE ARE THE HUNTERS...who respect those animals which we hunt, while others treat them like targets.
WE ARE THE HUNTERS...who work so hard to build a good name only to have others tear it down.
WE ARE THE HUNTERS...who are SICK AND TIRED of putting out political fires set by anti-hunters. Only to have Joe Blow " hunter" give them a fresh can of gasoline.

That is who WE ARE to tell THEM that THEY ARE WRONG!

IT' S NOT TARGET PRACTICE...IT' S HUNTING

It' s cool, bearklr, let him rant. He' s not interested in a debate; he simply wants to argue. I' ve read enough drivel for one day, so I' ll be in another thread discussing topics with hunters who actually give a hoot about the sport.

I dont believe that a gun is anymore effective than a bow to a certain range... Joe blow could walk outside with a gun and puts it cross hairs and miss.. and another joe could do the same thing witha bow an miss..doesnt make it any more effective if they miss.. you have to be practiced and shoot well to hit what you are aiming at..

WHy couldnt you put a arrow in a deer at 70 yards?? well thats b/c u arent practiced.. some people can and do.. although I dont agree with this..

I believe the only reason why there arent as many bowhunters as gun is because they are lazy.. it takes much more effort with a bow..thats why people take pot shots.. LAZINESS

accuracy has only to do with person shooting the weapon..

and IF the shot is well placed at 30 yards..You are going to get a dead deer..

I dont believe you can even compare the two B/C they are 2 totally different methods of hunting