KILLIN' CRITTERS WITH YA BARE HANDS

"Godwin's law" is an internet adage, which asserts that any online discussion that goes on for long enough will eventually see one or a number of participants comparing their opponents and/or their philosophies to Hitler or Nazism, regardless of the topic.

Similarly, given sufficient time and desperation among one’s opponents, any discussion about the validity of hunting as a 21st century activity, is apt to conclude with an example of what I’ve come to refer to, with considerable pretension I confess, as “Mallard’s law”.

Mallard’s law is a social media discussion adage, which asserts that if a discussion about hunting goes for long enough, someone will claim, “if you were serious about hunting being natural for humans, you'd chase-down your victim and kill it with your bare hands!”

Australian Andrew Ucles has made a name for himself harvesting meat armed with
nothing more than his bare hands and a troubling contempt for personal hygiene. 

It’s a common rejoinder that is as vacuous as it is insincere and it deserves to be challenged on at least two fronts. 

Before I get into that, however, it behoves me to declare my position regarding online arguments about hunting, to wit: they are a complete waste of time and energy.

For the most part, arguing with anti-hunters on social media does the cause more harm than good. If you are one of ‘those people’ who would regale me with the story of the Anti you won-over in debate with your cogent arguments, don’t bother, as I'm going to tell you that you were not discussing hunting with the class referred to as anti-hunters.

No Anti was ever won-over by logic, reason or moderation. Those who are, are vacillators; people who feel uncomfortable about your hunting, but are willing to concede that when conducted responsibly, to put food on the table or to control species devastating native fauna for instance, hunting might be OK.

Such people are not anti-hunters. They are simply people who are challenged by the notion of hunting.

This is often the result of swallowing true anti-hunter propaganda, but just as frequently it results from watching appallingly inappropriate YouTube videos posted by irresponsible yobbos who arrogantly reserve the right to do whatever they please, regardless of the broader consequences.

Such idiots are every bit the enemy of responsible hunters true anti-hunters are!

But back to “Mallard’s law”...

It is futile to engage in any sort of defence of the use of arms to take quarry, because in doing so one accepts the proposition that there are reasons for, and ways of killing animals, that one’s opponent will consider acceptable.  

This simply isn’t true of the inveterate anti-hunter, short of the mercy-killing of a beloved pet after a long and happy life. ‘Happy’, that is, as defined by the animal’s owner and advocate.

Rather than engaging in a futile attempt to defend mankind’s use of evolving technologies of varying efficiency for the past million years or so, one should ask a simple question:

“So if I chase-down an animal, lure it with food or ambush it in the manner of other species, you’re happy for me to throttle it to death, skin and eat it, is that correct?"

The answer of course, will be a resounding “NO!”  So why bother posing the proposition?

Because it is not the anti-hunter’s opinion that will determine whether hunting continues to be a legal activity in Australia. Our future rides on the will of the general public, the vast majority of which hold no strong views either for or against hunting.

  

Our objective should be to demonstrate to the public that the anti-hunters’ claims of concern for human technological advantage etc., are simply a smokescreen. 

We should aim to demonstrate the truth, which is that anti-hunters do not believe it is acceptable to kill any animal, anytime, anywhere for any purpose and therein lays the common thread of deception in all their arguments. 

When we demonstrate the truth of the anti-hunters’ philosophy that no matter what the animal may be, it deserves always and eternally to live free from fear of human predation, we stand to give the general public a 'stake' in the debate.

We reveal the adversary as someone who is equally, yet surreptitiously offended by Jane & John Citizen who love to gather around the barbeque with friends.

  

This is the truth we need to reveal to the public, because while people who don’t hunt may be unconcerned and even at times pleased to applaud a little hunter bashing, they will not wear crazy vegans and animal rights extremist types criticising them for their love of sausages, pies and a bit of steak occasionally. 

I’ve spoken often about the significance of stakeholdership in public debate. Ignored, it will always work against us. Acknowledged and exploited, it stands to be one of our most effective tools.   

In all statements and arguments of our opponents, we should be searching for the stakeholder angle with a view to identifying the components of claims and allegations, which also have implications for the wider community.

It’s not as difficult as it may seem. 

As with the example above, it can be as simple as demonstrating that an opponent’s participation in a debate and their complaints about hunters’ use of modern technologies, are utterly insincere.

  

In the case of disciples of Ingrid E. Newkirk (PETA), it may be as simple as posing the question:

“Isn’t it true you vehemently oppose ownership of pets of any kind, considering pet ownership an act of cruelty and oppression?” 

Thus we immediately identify PETA as the enemy of everyone who has a ‘stake’ in the ownership of dogs, cats and goldfishes.

The point being that the examples I’ve provided do not pivot on a defence of hunting, which in my view we have been wedded to for far too long.

The defence of hunting, no matter how erudite, will appeal only to those with a stake in hunting. Whereas to undermine the credibility of an opponent by revealing the ramifications of their philosophies for the wider community, has the potential to impact on those with no stake in hunting at all, but nonetheless may have some sway in its future.

It is time to adopt a more studied approach to public debate.

Rather than relying almost exclusively on attempts to sway public opinion with statistics and obvious truths the community simply has no stake in thinking about, the emphasis should be reversed.

We should become proficient in the art of tasking our critics to prove their often totally ludicrous statements and claims, one example of which is explored in some detail in Semi-Automatic Placebo Policy.

Becoming proficient in these debating tactics need not be a chore. 

The Antis’ arguments against hunting are comparatively few and routinely recycled.  If a club were to sift through interviews posted online, noting the best and worst of the their arguments, a mock debate aimed at practicing various forms of rebuttal might be organised, perhaps as a fundraiser in place of the traditional trivia night.

In fact if people reading this article were to leave examples of the Antis’ usual arguments, both challenging and inane, in the comments section below, it might go some way to developing a resource that budding advocates can sharpen their debating skills on.

The days when labeling opponents communists, vegan idiots or drugfucked hippies could be considered a valid form of rebuttal - if they ever existed - have long past. 

Whatever technique one employs in public discourse, unless it is delivered with an easy smile, politeness and even a little charm, it is destined to fail. 

As gay conservative anti-new-age-authoritarian commentator and Breitbart journalist Milo Yiannopoulos often says, "provided one is witty and charming, one can get away with saying anything!"
And let the record show, he does!    

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

©gmallard2016 all rights reserved

Follow the Hunters' Stand on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/killing-critters-with-ya-bare-hands.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.


If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. 

All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.