Okay Drayson, I shall spell it clear and simple English so that you can understand with little to no difficulty:
I stated it's difficult to hear Kas talk about stealing while supporting killing. I never stated that Kas was stealing, or even that his opinion was invalid.
You are stating and I quote:
Kas, a lot of what you say would mean more if you didn't think shooting animals was right...
But when you're berating us for downloading music, while cleaning the shotgun you use to kill things, it really takes away from the effect.
Unless there is a hidden meaning here I'm not grasping, this means that you won't listen to what he's saying because he hunts.
That is wrong, fallacious, and an inappropriate way to view things when, in all actuality, he is making sense from his point of view. He thinks it's stealing, he's not trying to lecture you or anything, he is saying he thinks it's stealing.
I don't care if he's shot one of everything in the forest and lines his rooms with their carcasses...if he thinks stealing is wrong that's a valid concern.
I'll explain what this means basically:
Just because you don't like one of his actions doesn't mean that every opinion of his is strangely off, invalid, and wrong. He likes to hunt, you don't, leave it at that it's over. What does his desire to hunt have to do with his opinion on music sharing? You're bringing that up to detract from the main issue.
I'm saying the opposite. Where you get your ideas from, I don't know. No, I would not listen to Stalin protest murder while cleaning the proverbial knife he had used to comit that act.
So if he said that murder was wrong, and he committed murder, then in your opinion murder would be OK because it's the opposite of what he stated?
Murder is wrong no matter who says it.
Theft is wrong no matter who says it, contesting it just makes it seem as though you endorse theft yourself.
Uhh... sure. Whatever.
Kas supports killing, but not stealing. That sounds like skewed morals to me.
He supports the hunting of animals in the wild.
He doesn't support the idea of running a man down in an alley and gunning him to death (That I know of).
But hypothetically, even if he did...his opinion would STILL be valid if he said that theft was wrong.
You're taking hunting a wild animal that probably has no objections to killing you as some kind of unadulterated murder. I'm certain you've eaten a steak or a cheeseburger at one point in your life. By your set of morals you would be even worse because you won't even do the dirty deed yourself. You just want to reap in the benefits from it.
But again, what does his idea of hunting, not killing necessarily, just hunting (Which man and animals have done since day one) have to do with his ideas of theft?
You don't get it. If Ghandi had supported killing animals, no one would have listened to him when he said not to kill the British. It would be like listening to a vegitarian talk about his last hunting trip.
...?
If Ghandi supported hunting to survive...he'd somehow no longer be a pacifist? That makes a lot of sense. Seeing as you don't wage war when you hunt...you kill only what you need to survive.
I find it funny that on your website, you posted a defense of the Palestinians against the Israelis, who kill quite frequently for religious fervor. This is kind of hypocritical. Kas hunts because of his morals, and they kill civilians for their morals...are people only wrong when it suits you then?
As a matter of fact, some people do care who kills and who does not. And Kas does not steal, perhaps, but if he DID and talked about how it was wrong to do so, his opinion would be invalid.
Kas admonishes stealing, but supports killing. That's my point.
If you're going to try and argue a case, at least @#%$ make sense
Opinions are only invalid if they're lies, not if you disagree with their other actions. He said stealing was wrong, that has absolutely nothing to do with what he does with a gun.
