If everyone played chess would there be less gun violence?

Guns don't kill people, rappers do.

I'm a rapper and I might kill you.

Sound of the police - woo - woo - woo.

Maybe the "mass starvation" in Darfur can be remedied by benevolent hunters?  Wouldn't that be "humane"?

Today, in America, hunting is pointless, immoral, and criminal, from factory slaughtering of animals to idiotic game hunting. The advances in technology can create nutritious, delicious food without murdering animals any longer. Yet they don't, and their justifications are absurd. Just because the state of things is absurd, I'm not going to argue that it is in the least bit reasonable.

Large areas are dedicated to agriculture which provides food for the animals in the spring and summer but none after the harvest and after vegetation dies. At times, there's no place for them to go. 

Reductio ad absurdum. No one's talking about killing people. Darfur would have been a better destination for our troops than Iran, but if they had gone there I'm pretty sure it would have involved some killing. If you object to killing animals because your a vegetarian, just say so. You don't have to resort to name calling, although I'm sure you know plenty.

This is the "National Geographic" part. People rarely do animals any favors, and arguing for the benelovent nature-loving hunter as some moral hero is laughably tragic. Animals have been pushed into corners for no other reason than the over-population of people(you'd almost have to go to insects to find animals with larger numbers than the close to 7 billion people on this planet), the exploitation and destruction of the environment by people, and the relentless slaughter by people. Animals worrying about where their next meal is coming from is the only affinity they have with people, as deer usually don't go around mercy-killing for fun.

I have no idea what you're talking about with this comment. None of it makes sense.

Reminds me of Jimbo Kern on South Park....it's coming right for us! Here's a clip.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674

"Jimbo and Ned prefer to use military-grade weapons. In order to bypass certain hunting regulations, the two yell "It's coming right for us!" right before shooting an animal, whether or not their intended kill is actually doing so. Figuring to shoot at whatever species they please by exploiting a loophole, the two shout the phrase so as to make it appear that they are acting in self-defense. When tougher laws made it more difficult to do this, Jimbo and Ned continued their extensive hunting under the pretense of controlling animal overpopulation, even if the animals in question are endangered species."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Park_families#Jimbo_Kern

There are at least 50 or 60 episodes of South Park that are genius.

Take the zeroes off and you're on to something.

Qualification for TB: "Genius" for a comedy on television.

Cool, I went to work after posting this and come back to a vibrant thread..

Anyway, The point somebody made about basically how the herds need to be "thinned" because of the lack of natural predators is very shallow.  It's a strawman argument being made ignoring the fact that what should happen is that the natural predators (wolves and mountain lions) should be reintroduced and allowed to bring the ecosystem back into some semblence of natural balence.  

Then the sport hunters could continue their "hunting" but not kill but instead snap photos of the amazingly beautiful wildlife.   If people want to hunt and then use the kill for food I've got no particular problem with that.  Somebody somewhere is killing the meat most of us eating and people gotta eat, but this idea that there is great sport in shooting a projectile moving 1500ft/second at a harmless animal is just fked up in my view.   When the animals can shoot back then you've got a sport.

Quoting Tom Cruise in Collateral: "I didn't kill him. The bullets and the fall killed him." In other words, you can rationalize any argument to sound reasonable. As I understand it the US second amendment was written to provide citizens the means to rebel against an unjust government should the need arise again. Back in the day muskets were state of the art. Today that purpose is made obsolete by the military having weapons that far exceed any weapon an ordinary citizen can legally possess. Also, even hunters that eat what they kill are only supplementing their food supply. They are not relying on hunting for survival for the most part. Yet, I do find paper and clay target shooting a fun sport.

I like to shoot too.  I just don't like to kill things, particularly mammals.  But that's just me.

QFT

(Quoted For Truth)

Tryst, try keep an open mind about what electricpawn is saying. He appears to have a much better grasp of the facts than you.

and now...back to Judge Erikido23.

 Good luck reintroducing wolves and lynxes in agricultural areas.

You shouldn't judge TV by its modern incarnation!  Original comment still stands.

Theoretically and logically no, chess can not solve violence or get rid of it all together. the main issue is that poeple are corrupt and only want what they want and by any means neccesary they'll get it. But chess can channel some violence but not all of it into somthing positive. For instance if we invited a certain person that is the leader of alqueda to play chess over a war going on would be pointless. even if the U.S. won the match nothing would be stopping him to kill more poeple. so in short chess can channel some violence, not all.

There are chess boards in the jails and prisoners do play. Does chess rehabilitate them? perhaps some learn how to better calculate their future crimes!  :o

Well at least you're not denying the basic premise that the one's ought to be hunting are not the bipeds with rifles.

This idea that hunting is somehow and "evolved" familial tradition is sort of ludicrous.  The fact is hunters justify their hunting in this way AND by claiming that they're doing the ecosystem a favor.  The bottem line is that the ecosystem only needs this "favor" because mankind has decimated the natural balence.   At least yo're not pretending that this is not the case and I give you credit for that.