The Most Dangerous Game

[HNJhack]

yo!!! the story wasn't all that bad. and yes it is both. but that is my opinion based on the way i was raised in this society.
that is what will determine the answer. where when and how you where raised and what went on during that time. ^_^

[Anticrombie0909]

Wow, gone for one day and there's 30 responses waiting for me. Ok, I think that it would have been murder in the story, but if Rainsford agreed to it, it would be hunting. So, hypothetically, say there was a reward...one million dollars if he could survive for three days. If Rainsford took on the quest willingly, I think he would have given Zaroff rights to do with him as he would. But in this situation, killing another man in these circumstances, it should be considered murder.

And stop saying that the discussion is stupid. If you actually stopped to think about it, you'd see there actually are deep insights into this topic.

[makaveli121212]

your talking hypothetically here with the money...how can you say A) that it isnt hunting and B) that it isnt murder

[Anticrombie0909]

I'm saying in the story it was murder, but under a different set of circumstances it could be considered hunting.

[makaveli121212]

what?! what the hell are you talking about, how is it not hunting...his prey is out running in the wild, he hunts it down and tries to kill it...it doesnt matter if its a deer or a man

...hey isnt that the book where he finds the man hiding on the first day, and could have shot him, but didnt because it was too easy...im not saying it has any particular relevance, but...

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

Above poster obviously didn't read my post.

When you go hunting and you see a deer, do you wait three days before you decide to shoot the bastard? nope, you'd shoot him probably no later than a couple seconds after you see it. the man was given three days. He could've escaped, but he didn't. In a way, he led himself to his demise. because he WAS given three days but then he was a bastard and got killed. he wasn't dying willingly, he was just an idiot.

[VxDx]

GAHHH you're so dumb. It's hunting, because he was being hunted. There's no debate. He was being stalked by someone who has the intent to kill. That is hunting. It's murder because one person is killing another. It doesn't matter if there was money, or he was given three days.

There's no deep insight in that story. There's no relevance at all. It's a terribly predictable story.

[IAMTHEEVILBEAN]

I hate that story

I read it this year

I think its mystery/psycho

[makaveli121212]

Above poster obviously didn't read my post.

When you go hunting and you see a deer, do you wait three days before you decide to shoot the bastard? nope, you'd shoot him probably no later than a couple seconds after you see it. the man was given three days. He could've escaped, but he didn't. In a way, he led himself to his demise. because he WAS given three days but then he was a bastard and got killed. he wasn't dying willingly, he was just an idiot.

are you saying its hunting or murder...becuase hunting is seaking out your objective...thats it, not even necissarily killing it either...i can hunt for my socks in my dresser...

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

I typed out that entire paragraph to justify my point of view. my point of view is that in this situation, it's more considered murder than hunting. but logically it's both.

[makaveli121212]

how can it be more murder than hunting, thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard...its like saying i love you more than i like you...i loathe you more than i hate you...logic says those things are stupid, kinda like this thread...its both, get over it

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

I'm not here to start an argument *which is what you seem to be trying to do*. But here's a question for you? What's the name of the board that this thread is in? Here's the answer for you too. IT's called CRITICAL thinking. For god's sake everyone knows that it's both, even the person who started the thread did. BUT he wants to see what we have to say to back up our answers. Meaning REASONING and PERSONAL OPINIONS. If you've got a problem with what I think then let's play hangman, try to guess what I've got to say to you:

I DON'T GIVE A FLYING F _ CK

[VxDx]

hahaha you're so zany. just because it's in critical thinking doesn't mean that there is some hidden truth that you must find. It's both, and that has been backed up numerous times.

Makaveli posted his reasoning and personal opinion. If it's so obvious that it is both, why bother posting anything at all?

and if you don't give a fuck then why are you posting in response to what he said?

[makaveli121212]

the thing is, which i stated form the beginning, that this shouldnt even be in, whats the name of this forum...IT's called CRITICAL thinking...for god's sake everyone knows its both...well then what must be thought about critically...the point is there is no critical thinking in this thread, so there should be no thread about it...

...but i suppose you were thinking critically when you said its more murder than hunting

[tristia]

i personally think half the problem is that its being called hunting... its more game... or sport... which in essence is hunting, but its for the pure enjoyment of it, not for any other reason at all... thats also why its considerd murder, cuz hes doing it for the fun of it... not for any other reason for then the pure amusement and enjoyment of the chase...

that would also explain why he didnt kill him when he first saw himit would ruin the whole point of the game... now that i think about it, thats probably why the book isn't names "the most dangerous hunt" lol... this guy isn't huntign at all, hes gaming, lol.

i dunno, its both... as has been said many a time already