🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4jpql3$3ps8@acs3.acs.ucalgary.ca> powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim Powlesland) writes:
>
>"Paintball hunting", like "camera hunting", is not hunting at
>all. Rather they are pale imitations of the real thing.
>
>Hunting (not sham "hunting") requires the death of the animal, or
>at least the possibility of the death of the animal, because it
>authenticates the entire procedure and grounds it in reality.

    This is true.  The human "right" to engage in senseless slaughter
    MUST NOT BE INFRINGED.    
>
>As Ortega y Gasset states in "Meditations on Hunting":
>
>"To the sportsman the death of the game is not what interests
>him; that is not his purpose. What interests him is everything
>that he had to do to achieve that death - that is,
>hunt. Therefore what was before only a means to an end is now an
>end in itself. Death is essential because without it there is no
>authentic hunting: the killing of the animal is the natural end
>of the hunt and that goal of hunting itself, not of the
>hunter. The hunter seeks this death because it is no less than
>the sign of reality for the whole hunting process." [p.96]

   It is SO rare that one gets an opportunity to read such meaningless
   self-justifying, sheer bullcrap, and double-talk on the internet.
   Thank you for sharing that with us.  I presume the author is now
   a professional politician, used car salesman, or investment
   advisor?

   If the death is not what interests the sportsman, why not simply
   carry along a loaded gun, and then shoot the poor beast with a
   paintball or a camera?  Would that be sufficient proof that "the
   death is not what interests him"?   Why is it, that if this
   is the case, the very next sentence states that death is essential?

   Such mental flipflops are marvelous to consider, if you can contain
   your nausea and laughter.