Forums
back to main | back to forum | view rules
Craigslist Flagging
davidmk Posted at 2009/01/09 3:03pm reply to

davidmk
Posts: 4
message
Hello,
I wrote the Craigslist help board about this and they said it was okay.  Flagging as prohibited the hunting posts in the Sporting Goods category is what I am talking about.  
It requires multiple flags for a post to come down.  Many people post wanting to hunt or to offer hunting.  These posts I flag.  I also flag posts for any weapon including bows.  If you are bored sometime go there and do some flagging.  Thanks.
David
FATX Posted at 2009/01/09 3:45pm reply to

FATX
Posts: 74
message
Don't be a dick. You're no better than the christians who go through flagging personal adds. Also, weapons do not equate to hunting.
davidmk Posted at 2009/01/09 4:40pm reply to

davidmk
Posts: 4
message
Uhhh, so not wanting animals to be killed is being a dick?  Is that what Craigslist is for?  
The personals are within the guidelines where the hunting is not.
FATX Posted at 2009/01/09 6:27pm reply to

FATX
Posts: 74
message
Yes. You are not going to stop someone from their ultimate goal, you only serve in disrupting the free flow of information. Censorship homeslice. People flag posts on CL for arguing that the Longhorns do not belong in the number one spot in the BCS polls for christ's sake. People already look at vegans as humorless, holier than all dicks. Don't add to it
kayla Posted at 2009/01/09 7:12pm reply to

kayla
Posts: 485
message
i really don't think this is that big of a deal.  of course it's not going to stop people from hunting, but if it causes them a bit of irritation, so be it.
davidmk Posted at 2009/01/10 8:51am reply to

davidmk
Posts: 4
message
Craigslist has nothing to do with a free flow of information or freedom of speech.  It is a private company with rules set in its Terms of Use.  If you do not follow them then you are not allowed to post.  
The Sporting Goods category is for private sellers to sell sporting goods.  It is for nothing else.  It is not a difficult concept. Business entities cannot sell services in the For Sale section either.  Weapons and weapon related items are prohibited as well.
What makes Craigslist work is community moderation through flagging inappropriate posts.  The place would be a disaster without it.

David
davidmk Posted at 2009/01/10 9:20am reply to

davidmk
Posts: 4
message
This will be my last post on this thread.  
History is made and changed through protest.  It is not the only thing that has made history, but it has made a lot of it.  If people did not protest because they were worried they would be considered a dick than this world would be much worse off.  When you stand up for what you believe you may have some disagree or make others angry.  It is the price to pay.
This is in regards to animal rights, human rights, peace, the environment and on and on.  
Now I am out to change history and flag some posts on Craigslist.
David
Gabriel Posted at 2009/01/10 9:40am reply to

Gabriel
Posts: 833
message
Personally I have no problem with the flagging.  It's not a very effective means of accomplishing anything, but it may work to prevent some sales of hunting equipment.  If it's cool with craigslist, then I say go for it.  I wouldn't worry too much about what anyone thinks about it.  

You probably are not impacting hunters that much.  I doubt any of them will become vegans or cease hunting because their posts were flagged.  It takes something stronger than that, and real lasting change occurs independently of this sort of thing.  Potlucks with delicious vegan food, discussions, genuine compassion for animals, and being a good personal example are the fastest ways for moving people to change their ways.  Sometimes discussions can get heated and become arguments, but they can still be effective.  I have seen some pretty unlikely people become veg*n and stay that way, but it was exposure to other friendly vegans and their ideas that helped them to realize that it was even an option.  Limiting their actions, on the other hand, will have few long-term consequences.
FATX Posted at 2009/01/10 2:18pm reply to

FATX
Posts: 74
message
If it is against the terms of use, so be it. I buy most of my items from CL but I am not a guru by any means. If you really want to be of use flag the Realtor motherfuckers who advertise apartments as houses and fuck with the search tags. They never go away.

What annoys me is the I am right you are wrong attitude. Moral police of all ilks run in the same circle of hell. Protesting, spreading info is all good and fuzzy in my book. Get the info flowing. I didn't come to veganism via ethics, so feel free to cast thy stone, I came via health. The ethics have rubbed off on me a bit but I really don't see hunters as evil or ranchers as the spawn of satan.

I'm sure there is something more productive than scouring the pages of CL for potential animal killers. Gardening? Martial arts? Knitting?
MachoBSrantLover Posted at 2009/01/10 2:47pm reply to

MachoBSrantLover
Posts: 1
message
I'm just happy to see vegans calling each other dicks--we need much more of that!  Now go do some kung fu dickweeds!!!
FATX Posted at 2009/01/10 8:32pm reply to

FATX
Posts: 74
message
>Now go do some kung fu dickweeds!!!


digyer Posted at 2009/01/15 3:06pm reply to

digyer
Posts: 9
message
Great idea, david! I'm going to make an effort to do that, too, now that I know you're doing it.

Here's what it will accomplish: when a post gets flagged, the poster feels rejected. Hunters almost never feel anything but supported in this world, and a feeling of rejection might keep them from pursuing it, as vigorously or at all. Especially if it's just an "all the cool kids are doing it" kind of thing and they don't really care that much about doing it.

Also, it's human nature today that the harder something is to do, the fewer people will do it. So the more times they have to re-post, the less likely they will because it takes time and effort. So it might take them longer to find someplace to hunt, if at all. That saves innocent animal lives. And that is important.

I'm not saying this should be a major focus of anti-hunting activism, but if you're not doing anything constructive anyway, flag a few hunting posts and save a life.

And if only I had the time to tell you how the govt endangers innocent human lives bigtime to protect hunters (who the govt profits from)...

FatX: To say that you don't see hunters or ranchers as evil is either because you share their general ethics, or you don't know any. I have had to live among them for MANY years and I would rather have satan as a neighbor. Not surprisingly, they are corrupt and abusive in every facet of their lives. Even if I still thought animals were expendable toys, I would despise hunters and ranchers. Also not surprisingly, many of them are in law enforcement.

Does anybody know if there is any type of study that quantifies the personalities, interests, background, etc. of hunters?  I would think it would be valuable info for marketers.
DRiot Posted at 2009/01/15 3:17pm reply to

DRiot
Posts: 201
message
If you're on Craigslist, you should follow CL rules - meaning flag only when appropriate as defined by THEIR rules, and/or use your judgement on those that are borderline.

Flagging according to personal beliefs is unfair, whether you're flagging people because of their religion, diet, ethnicity, etc. Though many of us see killing animals just as bad as killing, say, children, the law does not currently prohibit these particular actions (those that you've referred to), thus, following CL's rules is appropriate in this scenario, IMHO.

FATX Posted at 2009/01/16 3:04am reply to

FATX
Posts: 74
message
>FatX: To say that you don't see hunters or ranchers as evil is either because you share their general ethics, or you don't know any. I have had to live among them for MANY years and I would rather have satan as a neighbor. Not surprisingly, they are corrupt and abusive in every facet of their lives. Even if I still thought animals were expendable toys, I would despise hunters and ranchers. Also not surprisingly, many of them are in law enforcement.

Yep. Your manner suggests that of an authority. I grew up on a cattle ranch in the Midwest. Considering all of the ethics and the ways of the world are not divided into vegan/not vegan, I will assume I share some morals with ranchers/hunters and some morals with broadly generalizing vegans such as yourself.

May I suggest a course in General Semantics, digyer? It helps ease the pain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics
Ross Posted at 2009/01/16 8:03am reply to

Ross
Posts: 4574
message
In the grand scheme of things, I don't see hunters as much of an issue compared to factory farming and the fact that most people will never know what is required to get food on their plate.

I DO really take issue with hunters taking such pleasure out of killing something, but at least (assuming they eat what they kill) hunters are doing it themselves rather than letting someone else do it behind the scenes, even if they often do it in a really cheap manner(in blinds with feeders). There is merit behind the idea of population control with whitetail deer in the area, but I think one thing that often negates that issue is that hunters rarely go for the sickly deer of the pack, typically going for the trophy buck, effectively weakening the gene pool. I would prefer for there to be natural predators for this job(which we've killed off), but that's another issue in keeping with human comfort.

On the issue of flagging posts on craigslist, I think it's fine if it's against the site's rules.
kayla Posted at 2009/01/16 9:36am reply to

kayla
Posts: 485
message

>
>I DO really take issue with hunters taking such pleasure out of killing something, but at least (assuming they eat what they kill) hunters are doing it themselves rather than letting someone else do it behind the scenes, even if they often do it in a really cheap manner(in blinds with feeders). There is merit behind the idea of population control with whitetail deer in the area, but I think one thing that often negates that issue is that hunters rarely go for the sickly deer of the pack, typically going for the trophy buck, effectively weakening the gene pool. I would prefer for there to be natural predators for this job(which we've killed off), but that's another issue in keeping with human comfort.
>

somewhat related article:  http://www.livescience.com/animals/090106-reverse-evolution.html
Gabriel Posted at 2009/01/21 11:52pm reply to

Gabriel
Posts: 833
message
There are more humane ways of population control than killing animals.  One idea that has been explored is contraception for deer and other animals whose populations have exploded.  Here's one article from a few years back that presents a way of slowing down the growth that doesn't involve killing.  The method is far from perfect and needs to be improved upon, but I think it is without a doubt superior to hunters "controlling" the population by killing innocent animals.  

http://audubonmagazine.org/webstories/deer_birth_control.html

digyer Posted at 2009/01/22 12:47pm reply to

digyer
Posts: 9
message
>There are more humane ways of population control than killing animals.  One idea that has been explored is contraception for deer and other animals whose populations have exploded.  Here's one article from a few years back that presents a way of slowing down the growth that doesn't involve killing.  The method is far from perfect and needs to be improved upon, but I think it is without a doubt superior to hunters "controlling" the population by killing innocent animals.  
>
>http://audubonmagazine.org/webstories/deer_birth_control.html
>

Exactly right, Gabriel. Hunting actually increases the population, I think. For one thing, "baiting" (putting out food for animals to make it more convenient to kill them) is allowed. If left to "nature", there would only be as many deer as their natural food sources could sustain. These large amounts of artificial food sources help make the population as a whole stronger and able to reproduce better.

But you have to go through bureaucratic red tape to put out contraceptives--you're a criminal (albeit only Class C Misdemeanor, as far as I can tell) otherwise.

Here's the statute from Parks & Wildlife Code, Ch. 61.023:

"APPLYING CONTRACEPTIVES TO WILDLIFE RESOURCES.  No person may intentionally apply  contraceptives to any vertebrate wildlife resource unless the person first obtains written authorization from the department."

That is not the thinking or behavior of people who are genuinely worried about population control. The govt allows it because it makes them a profit. And the people who experience death, injury, or property damage because of deer collisions--well, that's just the price we have to pay for our govt to get rich."

Also, I discovered that the govt doesn't even care about protecting innocent PEOPLE from hunters. I think a scenario will most easily explain this.

Let's say you live in an area where hunting is allowed, and your house is 10 feet from  your property line. The person who owns the property on the other side of your property line can let anyone hunt on their land. The hunter can stand right at the fence line (as long as they're on the other person's property) and can point or shoot their guns in any direction they want to. Technically, they can't shoot over your property line, but the statute is written so that there is nothing you can do until they have actually shot, which means property damage or personal injury/ death has already happened.

If safety of innocent people was a concern, there could easily be laws about having to hunt a certain distance from property lines, hunting a certain distance from property lines where there is a residence on the other side, or a law against even pointing a gun in the direction of someone else's property (if you're not a certain distance away). But there is NOTHING to prevent injuries and deaths--just 1 token law that might be useful AFTER the damage has been done.

Here's the relevant text of the statute.
DISCHARGE OF FIREARM ACROSS PROPERTY LINE.  
(a)  In this section, "firearm" has the meaning assigned by Section 62.014(a).

(b)  A person commits an offense if:

(1)  the person, while hunting or engaging in recreational shooting, knowingly discharges a firearm; and

(2)  the projectile from the firearm travels across a property line.

That last part about the projectile makes prosecution much harder because you have to prove a projectile traveled across the property line. The only 2 ways I can think of to prove that is to find the projectile or have video of the projectile going over the property line. Do you know how hard it would be to definitively get a moving bullet on video? And if the violator was able to sneak across the property line and retrieve their projectile before you can find it, you have no case. So about the only way this section would be helpful is if the bullet got stuck in some object it damaged, or some person.

But let's be honest: if you're too poor to afford enough land for a buffer zone around your house, you deserve to be terrorized, tortured with regular gunfire, and/or shot. And if you're dumb enough to put your house near a property line, you also deserve the same.

The contraceptives chapter is here:
http://tinyurl.com/cqyr7f
[scroll down to Sec. 61.023]

The DISCHARGE OF FIREARM ACROSS PROPERTY LINE chapter is here:
http://tinyurl.com/botqwu
[Scroll down to Sec. 62.0121]
Gabriel Posted at 2009/01/25 12:17pm reply to

Gabriel
Posts: 833
message
I can understand the contraceptive legislation with regard to protecting certain species of animals that are in danger of disappearing completely, and I don't think that just anyone should be able to do it either.  It should be done by someone that is licensed and/or certified in some way so that it doesn't hurt any animal and so that other species are minimally impacted.  Caution is probably a good thing in this case, but it also shouldn't be too difficult to use the contraception properly if it's needed.  In any case, the law is too vague right now.

The firearm legislation, on the other hand, seems to protect the hunter/shooter and does not seem to take the adjoining landowner into account.  
Post a comment
0 users logged in: