Quote of the day—Frances Carodine

i can understand kill to eat but for sport. that like killing a tiger cause dick won’t get hard

Frances Carodine
September 11, 2012
Facebook comment.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

H/T to Miguel.

In addition to exhibiting symptoms of an obsession with Markley’s law Carodine has problems with punctuation and grammar. It must be rough to live with a mind that messed up.—Joe]

7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Frances Carodine

  1. I don’t think this one fits your definition of a violation of Markley’s Law. Tigers’ penises have long been used as an aphrodisiac, so the act of killing a tiger to ‘get your dick hard’ is a very literal and real reason that it was done. It was the early man’s little blue pill. It’s not really a compensation comment.

    Just my $.02.

  2. “It must be rough to live with a mind that messed up.—Joe]”

    Having spent 25 years of my life as a cop, dealing with the misfortunes of this class of people, Joe, I’m here to tell you they have no trouble wobbling through life. They simply refuse to associate with their educated betters, thereby guaranteeing that their progeny are also as dumb as a whistle pig.

    The bad thing about the Information Age is that we’ve made it possible for cretins to publish their idiocy to the world.

  3. It’s impossible to tell from her sentence if she is saying that shooting sports enhance one’s potency, or if shooting challenging inedible game enhances potency, or if it is a mystery to her why someone would want to do such things. I suggest that if she finds that a mystery, she should reflect on what she does for her own ego-boost, and most especially, she should look in her medicine cabinet or her handbag; I’m sure that she has some things in those places that have hurt animals that she puts on her face for the purpose of attracting someone to give her money so she does not have to actually work for money herself based on her own reason, logic, productivity and literary clarity.

  4. The context is sport– that to hunt for sport is a way to get one’s dick hard.

    Hmm, so she (or he; Frances could be a man’s name) associates killing with sexuality. I don’t know about any other hunters, but sex is the last thing on my mind when I’m hunting, shooting, cleaning, skinning, hanging a carcass, butchering it, or any of that stuff. I find the connection bizarre.

    We arose in this world as a hunter/gatherer species. You might say it’s in our blood. It is certainly written into our physiology– we still have canine teeth and we have relatively short guts. We are omnivores. To go out and actually harvest the protein we eat then, to actually work for it at the basic level, is practicing humanity in one sense. I recommend it (though if you want a sexual boost of some kind, forget hunting– good hunting requires total focus).

    It may be that men and women “hunt” each other in search of sex, but that’s another subject altogether and one that I think is over-emphasized in our “popular” culture.

  5. I think that Frances is unnecessarily down on sport hunting. Regulated sport hunting invariably leads to an increase in the numbers of game, unlike the other two forms of hunting, which are subsistence hunting (hunting for food), and market hunting (hunting to make a profit from animal parts).

    The whole tiger penis thing is market hunting, pure and simple. And the problem of hunters going after “bush meat” in Africa and causing decreases in primate populations is a subsistence hunting problem. If you look at species that have gone extinct because of hunting, or have nearly gone so, it’s invariably because of either market hunting, or subsistence hunting.

    Contrast that with the regulated sport hunting in the US: Populations of hunted species have rebounded to the point where some are more numerous than ever before, even during pre-Columbian times. This is because sport hunters spend their time and money trying to ensure that the species they like to hunt thrive. This doesn’t just benefit those species, either. It also benefits all the other species that live in the same habitat.

    Most people can’t see a distinction between those three kinds of hunting, though. So the guy who goes out after a trophy buck, but doesn’t really necessarily like venison, is vilified even though he is the one spending money out of his pocket to ensure that there is plenty of wild habitat to hunt, and healthy populations to hunt. The guy who goes out and shoots a deer to help feed his family isn’t the one spending hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on habitat preservation, or paying a ton of Pittman-Robertson excise taxes.

Comments are closed.