The only people I seem to alienate [by my hunting] are close-minded folks that can't see past their flawed arguments.
No doubt people have put forth flawed arguments. But the following is what folks are trying to say to you, and there is no logical flaw in the following argument.
A. It is morally wrong to deliberately cause unnecessary pain to any sentient being (including, as a minimum, those beings with functioning central nervous systems).
B. Hunting deliberately causes pain to sentient beings with functioning central nervous systems.
C. Hunting is not necessary (for one's survival or one's health).
D. Therefore it is morally wrong to hunt.
The logic is rock solid. You can disagree only with the statements leading to the conclusion. One such defense of hunting is that animals don't feel pain (we heard this just last week, believe it or not).
If you want to argue that hunting is not morally wrong, you need to state with which of the above statements you disagree. Stating that others have flawed arguments is merely obfuscation.
And even if you disagree, it would be smart of you to stop saying that others are using flawed arguments.