it's almost subliminal.

hey, Dick is on the pro-choice side of that debate.

You mean Dick believes in a hunter's right to choose?

Well, that's totally legitimate! After all, we don't want the government on our property telling us what we do with it.

Besides, a dove isn't even a human being, it's just a blob of tissue.

You can't legislate morality!

the government cant do a lot of things but that doesnt stop them...

yay for doves!!that are alive!!and not being shot at!!!!

a sign of the times, if this passes

JDawe's comment is hilarious, and honestly, a good point.

I voted Yes, because my step father told me Doves make great stew (his father hunts them in other states, he's a big time hunter. He gets all his meat that way) and second, because they're obnoxious, and wake me up in the morning. Songbird? Whatever, it's a terrible song then.

I really don't know how I feel about it. I'm half vegetarian (I eat meat if I'm at someone's house and they offer it). But, It's not because it's cruel to kill animals. It's mostly due to health reasons, and the fact current Cattle/Chicken/Hog farming is inefficient.

c'mon cory "i hear they make good stew?" and "i don't like the way they sound" aren't really the best arguments one can make on a blog about veganism... i mean, they find the idea of any senseless killing of an animal offensive.

and i am kind of inclined to agree when it's based on not liking the way they sound?

s. american agriculture season in 2008 ;)

"i mean, [vegans] find the idea of any senseless killing of an animal offensive."

Silence and good stew seem sensible to me. No offense.

But in all seriousness, an argument, good or bad, is the same argument no matter where it's made. No pun intended, but I really don't want to see this blog become the sacred cow of G-RAD.

an argument is an argument is an argument, sure. but the venue IS important. different situations demand different approaches. i respect cory's honesty - but at the same time one would hope you would come in with something a little stronger than:

"i think its ok for people to kill this animal because i, personally, find it annoying. and sometimes it disrupts my sleep" (paraphrasing wildly)

in about the worst possible place you could say something like that. i would be totally in to hearing any kind of point that advocated the passing of 3 that wasn't based in undeniably cruel logic. some sort of science would be nice. i mean, i eat meat and i kind find that hard to take.

and actually, i think i find the argument that they might taste good to be more justifiable than "they annoy me." but maybe they are the same?

Sorry, it was a bit of a joke. Especially the sound part.

Really though, I don't see why the birds are protected. If people want to shoot them, and they're not in short supply, why not? As long as they're eating the bird, it should be fine, right? It's better than buying ground beef made from Cattle pumped with crap, and forced to lay in one spot.

Sorry Vegans.

By the way, I heard S. American Agriculture broke up. But, they probably will form under a new name.

awww, bummer! i liked them, actually.

jdawe hunkered down, slobbered a little bit, rolled its eyes, supressed years of aggravated cognitive dissonance still deeper, and then typed, "You can't legislate morality!"

Indeed. As well you shouldn't legislate nonsensical, pointless immorality.

Kudos for the good sense of the people of Michigan for voting no on 3.