|
Brain -> RE: Palin Attended Church Event With Samurai Sword Ceremony (8/1/2009 8:11:31 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Arpig
quote:
it doesn't really matter if it is a man or a woman, people who hunt are more likely to do violent acts towards other humans, whether it is the man or a woman doing the hunting. People who hunt, in general, are more likely to be violent. If you can kill an animal you are more likely to kill a human. Bull!! Got anything to back that up, or are you just pulling a willbuer?
quote:
In terms of politics, for me it's relevant as to worthiness because in her case she will end up starting another war with Iran or North Korea, or maybe she would start another Cold War with the godless Russians. In any case, I maintain she's dangerous because she's stupid. I am not personally afraid of her, I think she's a nice lady, it is good that she has compassion in not wanting to abort a baby. But if she believes these Bible prophecies where Jesus is going to come back after some violent events in the Middle East then she is dangerous. Never mind about global warming and her not believing in global warming and destroying the planet. But that's another topic You see, here is where we differ. I don't think she is in the least bit dangerous, as I don't think she has a snowball's chance in Hell of ever being elected to a position of real power.
you're probably right that she won't get elected president but I think it's possible she could win the Republican nomination. It's unlikely she will become president but it is possible. At least with George Bush I didn't think he was not qualified
before he got the nomination, with Sarah I already believe she's not qualified.
As to the first point, I got it a little mixed up but I think I had the general idea right and this is what I came up with. By the way, saying I pulled a willburer, should I think I've been insulted? Well, I don't think I agree with him on many issues but I won't go as far as to say that I've been insulted.
Back again to the first point. I did conflate violence against animals with hunting. I guess I sort of thought hunting wild
animals was like violence against animals like dogs and Micheal Vick. But this is what I came up with below:
The Humane society of the United States
First Strike: The Connection Between Animal Cruelty and Human Violence
The First Strike campaign was created in 1997 to raise public and professional awareness about the connection between animal cruelty and other violent crime violence and to help communities identify some of the origins of violence, predict its patterns, and prevent its escalation.
http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/first_strike_the_connection_between_animal_cruelty_and_human_violence/
AND
This study examined the relationship between hunting and illegal violence among college males. Although similar on many socio-demographic characteristics such as age and social class (parents' education and occupation), hunters were more likely than non-hunters to be white and Protestant. They also were more likely to have grown up with a family member who hunted. Hunters were about twice as likely to have been violent toward nonhuman animals; however, one type of violence—killing wild or stray animals—accounted for this difference. Regarding violence toward people, hunters were more than twice as likely to have damaged or destroyed private or public property during their last year in high school but were no more likely during that year to have fought with other persons. Thus, at least for this sample, hunting related to harming animals in the wild and to property damage but not to other forms of animal abuse or violence against humans. This paper discusses possible explanations for this result and limitations of the study.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/saa/2002/00000010/00000002/art00002?crawler=true
|
|
|
|
