Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: claymore on September 28, 2011, 02:14:01 AM
-
is for FAGS !! watch this queen scream like a little girl HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
They should be ashamed killing those animals. Hunters should go to hell...
-
They should be ashamed killing those animals. Hunters should go to hell...
agree, branch warren should be shot like the unclean person he is.
-
Going out sat for turkey. ;)
-
agree, branch warren should be shot like the unclean person he is.
x2
"1"
-
is for FAGS !! watch this queen scream like a little girl HAHAHAHAHAHAHA http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ba_1317191996
Epic bullshit, the guys almost get killed and you act like he's a little bitch?
Seriously that guy got balls, way bigger than your keyboard warrior shit.
Now don't get me wrong I despise hunting for sport if you don't eat the meat, but long as the body is consumed it's more than fine. Seriously you vag's have got some serious issues. Men hunted for thousands of years, men turned to complete pussy the second they turned into farm animals.
P.s. always get kids ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
All meat comes from dead animals etc, wild ones had a better life than farmed ones etc, necessary population control etc, but how anyone would want to go kill one is hard for me to grasp. If I didn't kill it with the first shot or if it ran off wounded, I'd feel terrible.
-
A lot of pet f@gs on getbig. I don't hunt myself but I see nothing wrong with a man going out and killing a couple of deer once or twice a year. As long as they use the meat I really don't see what's wrong with it. All the people that complain about it do you eat meat? If you do shut your damn mouth you think those delicious steaks you eat grow on trees?
Some of the hunters get a bit annoying with all the sprays and different gimmicks they use. As long as they use to the meat who cares. A lot of guys will bring their kills to friendly kitchens and have it packaged up so needy people can have some meat for the winter.
-
You ignorant dickheads dont know shit. I dont hunt but it is very necessary for many reasons. I would be willing to bet any hunter is more respectful to animals and the environment then any of you fags..
Generation pussification.
-
haha @ the last two responses
-
I don't do it, but it does bring in a lot of Money here in Africa on game farms. Hunters pay thousands of dollars to shoot/kull game (Kulling happens when the animals get too overpopulated for the food supply). A lot of the money gets ploughed back into preserving animals, So ironically it is good for conservation... like everything nowadays even the animals have to add value to survive.
-
I love the argument that hunting is necessary for overpopulation of a certain species.
What about darwinism and evolution? Humans are totally placing their hands into something they should not be. They are interfering with nature.
-
Fucking sadistic cowards. These guys deserve to be hunted, tortured and then shot.
How could you get pleasure out of killing a beautiful animal like that?
-
I don't do it, but it does bring in a lot of Money here in Africa on game farms. Hunters pay thousands of dollars to shoot/kull game (Kulling happens when the animals get too overpopulated for the food supply). A lot of the money gets ploughed back into preserving animals, So ironically it is good for conservation... like everything nowadays even the animals have to add value to survive.
What you just said is kinda ironic, the reality is the system you mentioned is more intune to with our traditional way of life than what is considered normal. Hunters understand the food chain just as well as any biologist.
For thousands of years men have worship animals, the hunt and everything involved in it. You act like these guys are blood thirsty nuts, the reality is the guys dedicate large amounts of time tracking an animal, you cannot be a successful hunter if you cant respect the pray. Again this may sound like some hokey pokey animalism to you, and that's the point it is. People that hunt believe in animalism because the respect the truth that even we are animals and are merely part of the food chain, not the top.
-
I love the argument that hunting is necessary for overpopulation of a certain species.
What about darwinism and evolution? Humans are totally placing their hands into something they should not be. They are interfering with nature.
I hear what you're saying but for eg. Elephants can build up into huge numbers tear down all the trees and too many Impala (type of antelope) eat all the grass so it impacts the whole food chain and all the animals starve. Fair enough you could just let that happen naturally. But why not let some rich tourist come shoot the excess game and the thousands of dollars generated get fed back into conservation?
-
I love the argument that hunting is necessary for overpopulation of a certain species.
What about darwinism and evolution? Humans are totally placing their hands into something they should not be. They are interfering with nature.
Because we are part of nature, why the fuck to you think people go into the woods to be with gods over the wild.
Read or watch into the wild, you fools don't know shit about being a man.
-
haha @ the last two responses
No doubt.
The question is simple: Why do YOU go hunting? Why does an individual choose to do it?
Presumably the answer is: "I like killing things." Otherwise you'd let someone else control the deer population and provide the meat.
No one ever just says they like killing animals.
-
agree, branch warren should be shot like the unclean person he is.
x 3 :)
-
No doubt.
The question is simple: Why do YOU go hunting? Why does an individual choose to do it?
Presumably the answer is: "I like killing things." Otherwise you'd let someone else control the deer population and provide the meat.
No one ever just says they like killing animals
I just like killing animals
-
Oh brother. We got a bunch of homos that have no problem eating a steak that was tortured at the slaughter house, but think its barbaric to harvest a deer in the woods that would most likely end up in the back seat of your minivan.
-
I just like killing animals
Wow, someone should give you a spear and an adult lion out of Africa to play with. ::)
-
I just like killing animals
At last. It's not something I'd enjoy myself but at least you're not trying to cloak it in some mystical nonsense or bs heroism about how it's more honest than buying a steak.
-
Oh brother. We got a bunch of homos that have no problem eating a steak that was tortured at the slaughter house, but think its barbaric to harvest a deer in the woods that would most likely end up in the back seat of your minivan.
???
It's not about deers.
-
I hear what you're saying but for eg. Elephants can build up into huge numbers tear down all the trees and too many Impala (type of antelope) eat all the grass so it impacts the whole food chain and all the animals starve. Fair enough you could just let that happen naturally. But why not let some rich tourist come shoot the excess game and the thousands of dollars generated get fed back into conservation?
This is evolution at work though. The elephants get overpopulated, which sends a chain reaction out. Perhaps the animals that become starved bc of the lack of grass become omnivorous over time? They are forced to survive on something other than grass. (using your example). This is evolution.
We are manipulating things that aren't meant to be manipulated.
-
Because we are part of nature, why the fuck to you think people go into the woods to be with gods over the wild.
Read or watch into the wild, you fools don't know shit about being a man.
Epic cavemanesque statement.
Read a book and refine yourself.
-
I just like killing animals
Something went wrong with this lad's childhood. My guess is daddy beat mommy or the kids.
-
Wow, someone should give you a spear and an adult lion out of Africa to play with. ::)
Somebody should give me a spear and you to play with :D
-
Epic cavemanesque statement.
Read a book and refine yourself.
I'm a fan I didn't say I couldn't read. Only a guy with the emotional maturity of a child would refuse a viable option.
Anyhow I didn't need to read or watch it to get it, I lived it long before that movie came out.
-
If I lived in the wild with no gun, I'm sure a bear would kill me and eat me too, an wouldn't have second thoughts about it, he would have second servings tho Cus I'm all muscle ;D
-
Somebody should give me a spear and you to play with :D
I take that speer from you and impale you, Vlad Tepes approved. ;)
-
bears are not dangerous
-
bears are not dangerous
Rofl go find a video of a grizzly attack :-X
-
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRG4wImk-0pb7D7P0FU8sZ4jH4DWda9Qu3Dbi2_h5wAuLqcVPCL)
-
This is evolution at work though. The elephants get overpopulated, which sends a chain reaction out. Perhaps the animals that become starved bc of the lack of grass become omnivorous over time? They are forced to survive on something other than grass. (using your example). This is evolution.
We are manipulating things that aren't meant to be manipulated.
The way it is now the animals must earn money or face extinction. Africa is not like the Lionking.
-
I'm a fan I didn't say I couldn't read. Only a guy with the emotional maturity of a child would refuse a viable option.
Anyhow I didn't need to read or watch it to get it, I lived it long before that movie came out.
Lay off the drugs. For the sake of this board, your family, and your friends.
And again, please heed my advice and start reading more. Pick up a good book and intellectualize yourself. You come across on here as a supreme moron.
-
Lay off the drugs. For the sake of this board, your family, and your friends.
And again, please heed my advice and start reading more. Pick up a good book and intellectualize yourself. You come across on here as a supreme moron.
How about no? I'm sorry bit I'm smarter dan uz :-*
-
The way it is now the animals must earn money or face extinction. Africa is not like the Lionking.
Lol. I picture African animals attending meetings in suits. Is it more like: Earn money for certain people or the people will knock 'em off/ bulldoze their habitat/ make money off the land in other ways? I'm sure if you took the humans out of the equation, the need for the animals to make money would be similarly removed.
-
I love the argument that hunting is necessary for overpopulation of a certain species.
What about darwinism and evolution? Humans are totally placing their hands into something they should not be. They are interfering with nature.
If any of you guys eat meat what argument do you actually have. They have set limits on the amount of game a hunter is allowed to take. There's no risk of deer ever becoming endangered so what's the problem. If you don't like it don't do it. What right do you have to tell other people they can't do it. Pussification of the American male continues!
-
If any of you guys eat meat what argument do you actually have. They have set limits on the amount of game a hunter is allowed to take. There's no risk of deer ever becoming endangered so what's the problem. If you don't like it don't do it. What right do you have to tell other people they can't do it. Pussification of the American male continues!
No one is arguing about where meat comes from. Just admit that you like killing things or you'd choose not to do it.
-
Lol. I picture African animals attending meetings in suits. Is it more like: Earn money for certain people or the people will knock 'em off/ bulldoze their habitat/ make money off the land in other ways? I'm sure if you took the humans out of the equation, the need for the animals to make money would be similarly removed.
;D haha yeah, too many people below the bread line, they will just kill the wild animals for food if they're not protected. Poaching is already out of hand on game farms, Rhinos being killed for their horns etc. If the game farms/reserves arn't profitable from hunting/tourism the land will just be used for cattle.
-
No one is arguing about where meat comes from. Just admit that you like killing things or you'd choose not to do it.
Who gives a flying fuck if you kill animals! They get eaten by other animals anyway! I like to fish is that wrong because I'm killing the fish cooking and eating it. If a man goes out kills a buck takes it home uses the whole thing to make steaks and sausage wtf is wrong with that. People don't do it just to kill something. It's a sport you have to hunt it down and track it first.
-
If we weren’t meant to eat animals then why are they made out of meat? :D
-
Who gives a flying fuck if you kill animals! They get eaten by other animals anyway! I like to fish is that wrong because I'm killing the fish cooking and eating it. If a man goes out kills a buck takes it home uses the whole thing to make steaks and sausage wtf is wrong with that. People don't do it just to kill something. It's a sport you have to hunt it down and track it first.
A lot cheaper and cleaner than mcdonalds.
-
Who gives a flying fuck if you kill animals! They get eaten by other animals anyway! I like to fish is that wrong because I'm killing the fish cooking and eating it. If a man goes out kills a buck takes it home uses the whole thing to make steaks and sausage wtf is wrong with that. People don't do it just to kill something. It's a sport you have to hunt it down and track it first.
When the animal has a gun too, then it's a sport. Otherwise it's just shooting.
If hunters didn't enjoy hunting, they wouldn't go hunting. But they always make with the same rationalizations as if they're doing it out of some noble motive. They just enjoy it. It would be refreshing to hear them simply say so point blank.
-
Have any of you anti hunters actually seen what goes on in a slaughter house. It's disgusting the animal has absolutely no chance. They're treated very inhumanely. Why don't you go bitch about that. Give up eating meat if your so against killing animals. When an animal is killed in the wild at least it has a chance to escape. It dies in it's own habitat not some shitty nasty slaughter house. Most hunters try to make the kills quick and painless.
Slacked jawwed F#ggots around here!
-
Yes hunting is immoral, it's much better when the animals are slaughtered systematically by big companies so I don't have to see it. ::)
-
Hunters give more to the conservation of America than any other group. Look at all the magazines field and stream there's a million others. They all give plenty of money to these groups!
-
Have any of you anti hunters actually seen what goes on in a slaughter house. It's disgusting the animal has absolutely no chance. They're treated very inhumanely. Why don't you go bitch about that. Give up eating meat if your so against killing animals. When an animal is killed in the wild at least it has a chance to escape. Most hunters try to make the kills quick and painless.
Slacked jawwed F#ggots around here!
I don't work in an abattoir because I wouldn't enjoy killing animals. I don't go hunting because I wouldn't enjoy killing animals. Now, care to guess why some people choose to go hunting?
Stop squirming. You're making a spectacle of yourself. Just admit to it already.
-
Who gives a flying fuck if you kill animals! They get eaten by other animals anyway! I like to fish is that wrong because I'm killing the fish cooking and eating it. If a man goes out kills a buck takes it home uses the whole thing to make steaks and sausage wtf is wrong with that. People don't do it just to kill something. It's a sport you have to hunt it down and track it first.
Some "sport".
Do it with a spear and nothing else. That's a sport you moron.
I love these "sport hunters" that pay money to go to a fenced in ranch to "hunt" with their high powered guns with scopes, etc.
Most hunters nowadays are of low intelligence and make up for their low self esteem due to their inability to produce a good income with going out and "hunting" something. See Makaveli 25 (glorified hospital janitor)
-
Some "sport".
Do it with a spear and nothing else. That's a sport you moron.
I love these "sport hunters" that pay money to go to a fenced in ranch to "hunt" with their high powered guns with scopes, etc.
Most hunters nowadays are of low intelligence and make up for their low self esteem due to their inability to produce a good income with going out and "hunting" something. See Makaveli 25 (glorified hospital janitor)
What is Sarah Palin shooting a wolf from a helicopter?
-
And let's not forget all the "calls", "scents" and the like.
Yeah, "sport". ::)
-
What is Sarah Palin shooting a wolf from a helicopter?
What is Sarah Palin doing anything? ;D
-
Some "sport".
Do it with a spear and nothing else. That's a sport you moron.
I love these "sport hunters" that pay money to go to a fenced in ranch to "hunt" with their high powered guns with scopes, etc.
Most hunters nowadays are of low intelligence and make up for their low self esteem due to their inability to produce a good income with going out and "hunting" something. See Makaveli 25 (glorified hospital janitor)
Shut your little whore mouth Coltrane. You're a little sissy whiny bitch. I guarantee you eat meat at least once a day. But it's wrong for a man to go out once a year and kill a deer? That's the most hypocritical thing there is! You're a coward!
-
Bunch of hypocrite twats on here...
SO hunting is bad...but buying a steak or chicken breast from your nearby Costco is ok? Do you know the conditions these farm raised animals are living in? Hmm...or even how they are slaughtered?
What about all of the animals that are killed by combine harvesters each year? Hmm...
Hunting is necessary. In illinois something like 70,000 deer were harvested by hunters in one season.
Just in one fucking state...now think about all of those deer reproducing and in 2 years that number quadruples. You'd have a lot of accidents where people run them over, possibly killing themselves in the car or other people. Fucking up crop harvests...etc.
BUt that makes too much sense for hypocrite liberal bitches who are anti hunting.
What about the fact that the human society euthanizes more animals than it takes in?
-
You ignorant dickheads dont know shit. I dont hunt but it is very necessary for many reasons. I would be willing to bet any hunter is more respectful to animals and the environment then any of you fags..
Generation pussification.
kh300 owning the fuck out of the internet bitches on here
-
Shut your little whore mouth Coltrane. You're a little sissy whiny bitch. I guarantee you eat meat at least once a day. But it's wrong for a man to go out once a year and kill a deer? That's the most hypocritical thing there is! You're a coward!
Aww.. did I ruffle your feathers "makaveli 25"?
Maybe you should go load up one of your guns you rave about and go shoot something. That'll make it all better. Make you feel better about yourself.
-
Bunch of hypocrite twats on here...
SO hunting is bad...but buying a steak or chicken breast from your nearby Costco is ok? Do you know the conditions these farm raised animals are living in? Hmm...or even how they are slaughtered?
What about all of the animals that are killed by combine harvesters each year? Hmm...
Hunting is necessary. In illinois something like 70,000 deer were harvested by hunters.
Just in one fucking state...now think about all of those deer reproducing and in 2 years that number quadruples. You'd have a lot of accidents where people run them over, possibly killing themselves in the car or other people. Fucking up crop harvests...etc.
BUt that makes too much sense for hypocrite liberal bitches who are anti hunting.
What about the fact that the human society euthanizes more animals than it takes in?
Easy killer. I love eating meat. I just don't have any blood lust. I get all my meat from the butcher. As Tape argues, if you like hunting fine, admit it. Don't cloak your enjoyment of hunting in some lame ecological guise.
-
Easy killer. I love eating meat. I just don't have any blood lust. I get all my meat from the butcher. As Tape argues, if you like hunting fine, admit it. Don't cloak your enjoyment of hunting in some lame ecological guise.
Bingo.
x2.
-
Yes hunting is immoral, it's much better when the animals are slaughtered systematically by big companies so I don't have to see it. ::)
I'm not even against hunting. It's just not something I'd enjoy. I've had it up to here with the hunter's excuses tho. It's always the same. Just once:
Q: So, how come you go hunting?
A: 'Cuz I enjoy it. I like killin'. Makes me feel like a big man.
Alrighty then.
-
coltrane laying the smackdown here
just so you guys know, the hypocritical shout isn't a valid objection. That's an objection to the person, not what the person says.
Person X makes argument Z. To disprove the argument, you must disprove Z. Calling the person a hypocrite is only against Person X while leaving argument Z untouched. How many times do I have to explain this on this site.
-
Aww.. did I ruffle your feathers "makaveli 25"?
Maybe you should go load up one of your guns you rave about and go shoot something. That'll make it all better. Make you feel better about yourself.
Let me guess you're afraid of guns to. You probably don't believe in the right to self defense right? I got you figured out man ;D Little bitch.
Like I said before hunters do more for the enviorment and conservation than any other group out there. So what they kill an animal or two once a year. Who gives a shit. Get the sand out of your pussys! Hunting is a good tradion to past down to your kids! It's a good manly skill to have. A f@ggot like Coltrane who was probably raised by woman wouldn't understand that!
-
Let me guess you're afraid of guns to. You probably don't believe in the right to self defense right? I got you figured out man ;D Little bitch.
Like I said before hunters do more for the enviorment and conservation than any other group out there. So what they kill an animal or two once a year. Who gives a shit. Get the sand out of your pussys! Hunting is a good tradion to past down to your kids! It's a good manly skill to have. A f@ggot like Coltrane who was probably raised by woman wouldn't understand that!
Not afraid of guns one bit. Well trained with a glock 9. And I absolutely believe in self defense. That has nothing to do with this argument.
Lunch time. Adios "hunters"
-
coltrane laying the smackdown here
just so you guys know, the hypocritical shout isn't a valid objection. That's an objection to the person, not what the person says.
Person X makes argument Z. To disprove the argument, you must disprove Z. Calling the person a hypocrite is only against Person X while leaving argument Z untouched. How many times do I have to explain this on this site.
Laying the smack down ;D here comes the biggest fairy liberal commie pussy of them all Mr. Magoo!
-
If you don't like hunting don't fucken do it! I don't get your arguments do you want it to be illegal or you just don't understand it and like to make fun of it?
-
I just like killing animals
This is the only valid argument to hunt...unethical but valid.
-
Let me guess you're afraid of guns to. You probably don't believe in the right to self defense right? I got you figured out man ;D Little bitch.
Like I said before hunters do more for the enviorment and conservation than any other group out there. So what they kill an animal or two once a year. Who gives a shit. Get the sand out of your pussys! Hunting is a good tradion to past down to your kids! It's a good manly skill to have. A f@ggot like Coltrane who was probably raised by woman wouldn't understand that!
Sometimes I think you're a troll, nobody can be as dumb as you. How old are you?
Where is the evidence that hunters do more for the environment than any non-hunter group? That seems like a bold statement and a large leap to make. Please back it up, not by what you guess to be true, or believe to be true, but by what is in fact true.
Hunting is a good tradition to pass down to my kids? Seriously? Would you agree that torturing puppies is also a good tradition? What if I really enjoyed the taste of puppies?
-
Yes hunting is immoral, it's much better when the animals are slaughtered systematically by big companies so I don't have to see it. ::)
immoral too..
-
I'm not even against hunting. It's just not something I'd enjoy. I've had it up to here with the hunter's excuses tho. It's always the same. Just once:
Q: So, how come you go hunting?
A: 'Cuz I enjoy it. I like killin'. Makes me feel like a big man.
Alrighty then.
I've never gone hunting actually but I see no problem with it as long as the animal is killed quickly and eaten, just hunting to kill something is kind of weird IMO.
I enjoy survival shows on TV where they hunt animals for food, I would like to try that sometime. I mean, is there really any difference to going fishing? A lot of people do that and I can't remember seeing anyone react this negatively to that ???.
-
if it wasent for hunting and fishing we wouldent be here now. .....man evovled because of hunting and fishing
-
I've never gone hunting actually but I see no problem with it as long as the animal is killed quickly and eaten, just hunting to kill something is kind of weird IMO.
I enjoy survival shows on TV where they hunt animals for food, I would like to try that sometime. I mean, is there really any difference to going fishing? A lot of people do that and I can't remember seeing anyone react this negatively to that ???.
fishing is immoral too..
-
Easy killer. I love eating meat. I just don't have any blood lust. I get all my meat from the butcher. As Tape argues, if you like hunting fine, admit it. Don't cloak your enjoyment of hunting in some lame ecological guise.
I've been pheasant hunting once last year.
I know plenty of deer, hog, bird ...etc hunters.
The ecological issue is fact. It's hypocritical of any meat eater to denounce hunting because we all pay somebody else to kill for us.
That's the bottom line.
-
Let me clarify my position.
Ethical hunting is ok where it's a clean kill and the animal doesn't suffer.
Wounding an animal to see it die a slow death is a whole different issue which is fucked up.
Sure there are some people who think hunting gives them bigger balls, but that is a small percentage of hunters.
Everyone I know who hunts (me included) doesn't do it for a stupid gratification of watching an animal die.
-
I've never gone hunting actually but I see no problem with it as long as the animal is killed quickly and eaten, just hunting to kill something is kind of weird IMO.
I enjoy survival shows on TV where they hunt animals for food, I would like to try that sometime. I mean, is there really any difference to going fishing? A lot of people do that and I can't remember seeing anyone react this negatively to that ???.
some people argue that inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering is a bad thing. Hunting is no longer necessary but does inflict pain and suffering. There are other ways for us to get protein, calories, B12, etc etc. Therefore hunting is a bad thing.
Most people who agree with what I just typed also apply it to all animals that can feel pain. The fish issue, from what I've heard from fish-eating vegetarians, is that fish can't feel pain, so there is no infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering. Some object to that line of thought. But that's the argument.
-
fishing is immoral too..
There are no morals. :o
-
This is the only valid argument to hunt...unethical but valid.
Thats me all over.. unethical but valid :D
-
I've been pheasant hunting once last year.
I know plenty of deer, hog, bird ...etc hunters.
The ecological issue is fact. It's hypocritical of any meat eater to denounce hunting because we all pay somebody else to kill for us.
That's the bottom line.
Wow, is that garbled logic. But hey, if it makes sense in your head, cool.
-
And let's not forget all the "calls", "scents" and the like.
Yeah, "sport". ::)
Another stupid comment by an ignorant fuck who knows nothing.
The reasons why calls and scents are necessary to get your game within shooting range is because it's next to impossible to sneak up on an animal. Deer can smell humans from over a mile away. Coyotes can hear/smell you from over a mile away. You can not just sneak up on an animal and kill it like fucking Rambo.
-
Everyone I know who hunts (me included) doesn't do it for a stupid gratification of watching an animal die.
But you do it for the gratification of killing an animal, or you wouldn't do it.... ::)
-
Wow, is that garbled logic. But hey, if it makes sense in your head, cool.
When you buy a steak or chicken breast from the grocery store you paid someone else to do the killing for you.
Explain how that's garbled?
-
Let me clarify my position.
Ethical hunting is ok where it's a clean kill and the animal doesn't suffer.
Wounding an animal to see it die a slow death is a whole different issue which is fucked up.
Sure there are some people who think hunting gives them bigger balls, but that is a small percentage of hunters.
Everyone I know who hunts (me included) doesn't do it for a stupid gratification of watching an animal die.
Thats the key of your post. But how much hunting do you really think is not painful? I don't mean lying out in the field for hours because the hunter can't find the deer. I mean the infliction of pain and suffering (for any duration of time) that is unnecessary. If you think a quick spike of intense pain (as the bullet hits) is okay but lying out in the field for hours suffering is bad, then you need to come up with a dividing line for when, how long, etc the pain and suffering is permissible. Seems rather arbitrary.
-
When you buy a steak or chicken breast from the grocery store you paid someone else to do the killing for you.
Explain how that's garbled?
sigh...
just so you guys know, the hypocritical shout isn't a valid objection. That's an objection to the person, not what the person says.
Person X makes argument Z. To disprove the argument, you must disprove Z. Calling the person a hypocrite is only against Person X while leaving argument Z untouched. How many times do I have to explain this on this site.
-
Thats me all over.. unethical but valid :D
;D
-
everything nature produces, is NATURAL, thus all human behaviors are natural. Pollution is natural, species disapearing because of other species is natural, and so on.
There s nothing "non natural" , everything that exists is natural, because everything is spawned by nature itself.
There's only death, and life. And both are natural.
-
sigh...
Ok let me put into your valid argument terms.
People who denounce hunting/killing of animals are hypocrites because they are paying somebody else to kill an animal for their consumption.
This is exactly what happens when you buy a steak from the meat fridge at the grocery store, buy a hamburger...etc.
-
What you just said is kinda ironic, the reality is the system you mentioned is more intune to with our traditional way of life than what is considered normal. Hunters understand the food chain just as well as any biologist.
For thousands of years men have worship animals, the hunt and everything involved in it. You act like these guys are blood thirsty nuts, the reality is the guys dedicate large amounts of time tracking an animal, you cannot be a successful hunter if you cant respect the pray. Again this may sound like some hokey pokey animalism to you, and that's the point it is. People that hunt believe in animalism because the respect the truth that even we are animals and are merely part of the food chain, not the top.
I enjoy plinking and target shooting once in a while with air rifles (.177 .22 no lower than 800fps at muzzle) and am not interested in hunting larger animals even if i own a .22 lr too. I could hunt small game -squirrels, rabits, birds- but there s no point in it as i dont need the food.
Fact is if tomorow you need to hunt for survival, most people in occident wouldnt last a week cause the only thing they know is to open their fridge or use a computer's mouse. They couldnt face life and death situation. In these situations the people who know how to shoot guns sunddenly become the rarest ressource available if shit seriously hits the fan. They become useful to the survival of those who cant get their food by themselves.
Hunting, using traps and fishing are great healthy hobbies just like physical training, maybe the greatest and most useful of them all.
But i agree killing animals when you dont eat them is moronic.
In the uk lots of people hunt small game especially grey squirrels which are threatening the red squirrel, they cook them and eat them every week end.
-
some people argue that inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering is a bad thing. Hunting is no longer necessary but does inflict pain and suffering. There are other ways for us to get protein, calories, B12, etc etc. Therefore hunting is a bad thing.
Most people who agree with what I just typed also apply it to all animals that can feel pain. The fish issue, from what I've heard from fish-eating vegetarians, is that fish can't feel pain, so there is no infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering. Some object to that line of thought. But that's the argument.
What about the economic aspect of it? One might say that the meat from a deer is expensive, killing it and conserving the meat over a period of time I bet you could save a ton of cash. I really don't see how it's so much better having someone else do the killing for you..
-
Thats the key of your post. But how much hunting do you really think is not painful? I don't mean lying out in the field for hours because the hunter can't find the deer. I mean the infliction of pain and suffering (for any duration of time) that is unnecessary. If you think a quick spike of intense pain (as the bullet hits) is okay but lying out in the field for hours suffering is bad, then you need to come up with a dividing line for when, how long, etc the pain and suffering is permissible. Seems rather arbitrary.
I don't necessarily agree nor like the fact that animals must suffer but it's almost necessary and unescapable fact of killing.
Even in the slaughterhouses when the guy with the "stun gun" instrument that kills the cows, misses on occasion or the cow doesn't die right away and spasms wildly. That is in a more or less controlled killing environment, so it's hard to draw a line.
-
Ok let me put into your valid argument terms.
People who denounce hunting/killing of animals are hypocrites because they are paying somebody else to kill an animal for their consumption.
This is exactly what happens when you buy a steak from the meat fridge at the grocery store, buy a hamburger...etc.
I really thought you would catch on faster than this.
Want to hear a valid logical objection to your post? Here it is: "So What? I don't care if they are hypocrites. Hunting is still immoral and therefore wrong."
That's why the hypocrite claim is silly. The conclusion "Hunting is immoral" is still valid even if I admit that everybody who buys meat in a grocery store are hypocrites. Them being hypocrites has nothing to do in disproving the claim "Hunting is immoral".
Try again Nancy
-
People are always justifying something bad by referring to the existence of things even worse...
-
What about the economic aspect of it? One might say that the meat from a deer is expensive, killing it and conserving the meat over a period of time I bet you could save a ton of cash. I really don't see how it's so much better having someone else do the killing for you..
When you compare it price of beef, venison is much less expensive.
When you buy a steak or big cut of meat that you're not going to eat the same day, you're still paying to keep it cold/frozen in your fridge as well.
-
I don't necessarily agree nor like the fact that animals must suffer but it's almost necessary and unescapable fact of killing.
Even in the slaughterhouses when the guy with the "stun gun" instrument that kills the cows, misses on occasion or the cow doesn't die right away and spasms wildly. That is in a more or less controlled killing environment, so it's hard to draw a line.
I don't think you understood my posts. Go back and reread them. You need to explain why animals "must" suffer. Why must we kill them? Is killing animals the only source for protein? Is it the only source for calories? Etc etc. Some would argue that killing animals isn't necessary. They would object to mr. stun gun because he's inflicting pain and suffering (it's painful to be hit with a stun gun...would you agree?) that is not necessary (that specific cow does not need to die). They would object to mr. stun gun even if he never missed or if the cow did die right away.
Following along yet?
-
People are always justifying something bad by referring to the existence of things even worse...
I'm not justifying anything. I don't need to, I'm posting in this thread so the anti hunters can see the hypocrisy of their position.
-
I don't think you understood my posts. Go back and reread them. You need to explain why animals "must" suffer. Why must we kill them? Is killing animals the only source for protein? Is it the only source for calories? Etc etc. Some would argue that killing animals isn't necessary. They would object to mr. stun gun because he's inflicting pain and suffering (it's painful to be hit with a stun gun...would you agree?) that is not necessary (that specific cow does not need to die). They would object to mr. stun gun even if he never missed or if the cow did die right away.
Following along yet?
Because animals are a source of food. Simple.
I'm higher on the food chain than a deer or chicken.
Why must the victims or animal attacks suffer ?
-
What about the economic aspect of it? One might say that the meat from a deer is expensive, killing it and conserving the meat over a period of time I bet you could save a ton of cash. I really don't see how it's so much better having someone else do the killing for you..
I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. The people I referred to in my original post to you would say "I don't think having someone else do the killing for me is justifiable either." So the fact that killing a deer is cheaper than buying beef in the grocery store is irrelevant. They would say both are unjustified because it involves the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering.
-
No one is arguing about where meat comes from. Just admit that you like killing things or you'd choose not to do it.
Again these people who "like killing animals" are pretty useful when there s no electricity, no food stocks to buy, no police and no rules anymore. Think twice about it moron.
When the animal has a gun too, then it's a sport. Otherwise it's just shooting.
If hunters didn't enjoy hunting, they wouldn't go hunting. But they always make with the same rationalizations as if they're doing it out of some noble motive. They just enjoy it. It would be refreshing to hear them simply say so point blank.
how old are you seriously? another kid raised by a single mom surrounded only by microwaves playstations and TV since birth obviously... Tomorow you have to hunt to survive, you wont cause it's "immoral" and will simply let yourself die? Seriously get lost you little child.
You re not a Man, you re not in connection with nature and its meaning, you re a pole smoker.
-
When you compare it price of beef, venison is much less expensive.
When you buy a steak or big cut of meat that you're not going to eat the same day, you're still paying to keep it cold/frozen in your fridge as well.
Ok, I'm not good with meat prices, I'm a poor student I barely eat any good meat ;D, but wouldn't my argument be good enough for other types of meat? I mean powering your freezer, lets be honest, you would probably have your freezer on anyways, and have some store bought meat/food there.
-
Sometimes I think you're a troll, nobody can be as dumb as you. How old are you?
Where is the evidence that hunters do more for the environment than any non-hunter group? That seems like a bold statement and a large leap to make. Please back it up, not by what you guess to be true, or believe to be true, but by what is in fact true.
Hunting is a good tradition to pass down to my kids? Seriously? Would you agree that torturing puppies is also a good tradition? What if I really enjoyed the taste of puppies?
I would love to give you a real good slap in the face sometime you think you're so brilliant. Your arguments are complete garbage. How can you compare an American tradition like hunting to killing puppies ??? You're a batshit crazy liberal twat.
http://www.ducks.org/hunting/du-and-hunting/hunters-do-more-for-wildlife (http://www.ducks.org/hunting/du-and-hunting/hunters-do-more-for-wildlife)
-
Because animals are a source of food. Simple.
I'm higher on the food chain than a deer or chicken.
Why must the victims or animal attacks suffer ?
you need to think about the language that you are using. You said first that killing animals is "necessary". Now you are saying they are a source of food. If you want to prove that killing animals is "necessary" you must prove that animals are the ONLY source of food. But animals aren't the ONLY source of food. So why is killing animals "necessary"?
::)
-
I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. The people I referred to in my original post to you would say "I don't think having someone else do the killing for me is justifiable either." So the fact that killing a deer is cheaper than buying beef in the grocery store is irrelevant. They would say both are unjustified because it involves the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering.
But how could a meat eater make that argument? ??? IMO that argument is only something vegetarians/vegans can make.
-
(http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/images/2009/branch_warren_interview_f.jpg)
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs136.ash2/40153_108510769214488_100001666961188_74855_3091420_n.jpg)
-
I would love to give you a real good slap in the face sometime you think you're so brilliant. Your arguments are complete garbage. How can you compare an American tradition like hunting to killing puppies ??? You're a batshit crazy liberal twat.
http://www.ducks.org/hunting/du-and-hunting/hunters-do-more-for-wildlife (http://www.ducks.org/hunting/du-and-hunting/hunters-do-more-for-wildlife)
I found at least two errors in that survey. Want to guess at them or do you want me to tell you? ::)
-
What about the economic aspect of it? One might say that the meat from a deer is expensive, killing it and conserving the meat over a period of time I bet you could save a ton of cash. I really don't see how it's so much better having someone else do the killing for you..
I know families that have hunted meat as there only source of protein, even I myself will be putting on some muscle mass with fresh meat myself. There's a big difference from rick pricks like dick chaney sport hunting, and someone like my dad, who is far far far far far far far more in touch with nature than most of this forum will ever be. Seriously when an a company wants to build a dam the first people to object are the hunters.
Its clear most of the people that think hunting is wrong really have no exposure. If morality was the issue, I wouldn't let people have the privilege of eating meat without killing it themselves. Otherwise your an extreme hypocrit. Again if you spend days upon days waiting for nature to provide you a kill, and actually had to clean up the mess that a dead deer creates, you'd never ever think it's all about killing.
P.S. where I live hunting is done 3 months of the year, the other nine of the year these people are still in the woods, it's a lifestyle where I live, don't act like you can begin to understand the knowledge of these peoples.
-
But how could a meat eater make that argument? ??? IMO that argument is only something vegetarians/vegans can make.
Exactly how can a meat eater criticize a hunter. Only thing they're not doing is pulling the trigger themselves.
-
I know families that have hunted meat as there only source of protein, even I myself will be putting on some muscle mass with fresh meat myself. There's a big difference from rick pricks like dick chaney sport hunting, and someone like my dad, who is far far far far far far far more in touch with nature than most of this forum will ever be. Seriously when an a company wants to build a dam the first people to object are the hunters.
Its clear most of the people that think hunting is wrong really have no exposure. If morality was the issue, I wouldn't let people have the privilege of eating meat without killing it themselves. Otherwise your an extreme hypocrit. Again if you spend days upon days waiting for nature to provide you a kill, and actually had to clean up the mess that a dead deer creates, you'd never ever think it's all about killing.
P.S. where I live hunting is done 3 months of the year, the other nine of the year these people are still in the woods, it's a lifestyle where I live, don't act like you can begin to understand the knowledge of these peoples.
Great post. You use logic! I agree with everything you say here!
-
But how could a meat eater make that argument? ??? IMO that argument is only something vegetarians/vegans can make.
I think a meat eater (who says hunting is immoral yet buys meat in a grocery store) would say something like "We should reduce unnecessary pain and suffering, and by buying my meat only in a grocery store where meat already is, instead of killing it myself, I reduce unnecessary pain and suffering"
Yes they could reduce pain and suffering further if they didn't buy meat at all, but I assume something along those lines would be what a meat eater who was against hunting would say. That's my best guess. One could call them a hypocrite, but I've already shown the faults of doing that.
-
We started as hunter-gatherers ourselves, we ARE animals, ANIMALS kill ANIMALS, we are smarter so it can be done easily, survival of the fittest. I don't see anything wrong with it at all. Maybe that's just me.
-
An animal can have fear and pain, a plant can not. Although never 100% certain, it makes sense to assume that because the purpose of fear/pain is to move away from the source, and plants are not able to do this. Another point is that a plant has no nervous system.
Vegetarian food can provide complete nutricion for a human being. A human being has to eat to live.
From the above it's valid to say that one should not kill animals, because the alternative, plants, is the more ethical alternative if there must be something killed for food.
I do not eat meat. If I would die without eating meat in a situation, I would eat it for sure.
-
I don't think you understood my posts. Go back and reread them. You need to explain why animals "must" suffer. Why must we kill them? Is killing animals the only source for protein? Is it the only source for calories? Etc etc. Some would argue that killing animals isn't necessary. They would object to mr. stun gun because he's inflicting pain and suffering (it's painful to be hit with a stun gun...would you agree?) that is not necessary (that specific cow does not need to die). They would object to mr. stun gun even if he never missed or if the cow did die right away.
Following along yet?
you re disapointing here.
The suffering animals feel depends of the structure of their brain, it means that, considering none of them but humans have prefrontal lobes, no animal on earth "feel" suffering the same way humans do with their more evolved brain. Which basically means there are different kind of sufferings, which are felt completely differently because the biology, the phisiology of our brains and hence the way we feel suffering is DIFFERENT.
An animal can have fear and pain, a plant can not. Although never 100% certain, it makes sense to assume that because the purpose of fear/pain is to move away from the source, and plants are not able to do this. Another point is that a plant has no nervous system.
Vegetarian food can provide complete nutricion for a human being. A human being has to eat to live.
From the above it's valid to say that one should not kill animals, because the alternative, plants, is the more ethical alternative if there must be something killed for food.
I do not eat meat. If I would die without eating meat in a situation, I would eat it for sure.
Fear just like suffering, in other animal species aside humans, are different than the ones humans can feel because they only have underdeveloped limbic systems and cortexes. They dont have our prefrontal lobes and neo cortexes, they cannot physically, materially, feel fear and pain the same way we do.
Hunting chimps would be inhumans as they re the closest to having brains like ours. But every other animal species just dont feel fear or death the way we do. You re comparing apples and oranges and it's sheer ignorance.
As for plants... they develop strategies of survival to fight other plants and ominate them too...
Also people who hunt or fish, respect animals, nature, waaay more genuinely than those who only eat meat coming from the supermarket and who pretend to be the most "human" lifeforms on earth. In fact they re just ignorant kids, pussies who need to grow up.
-
We started as hunter-gatherers ourselves, we ARE animals, ANIMALS kill ANIMALS, we are smarter so it can be done easily, survival of the fittest. I don't see anything wrong with it at all. Maybe that's just me.
think about the word "unnecessary" in "we should reduce unnecessary pain and suffering". It was once necessary (because if we didn't, we as humans would have sacrificed something morally comparable, namely, our lives. Now we no longer have that danger). So is it really any longer necessary to inflict pain and suffering on animals?
-
think about the word "unnecessary" in "we should reduce unnecessary pain and suffering". It was once necessary (because if we didn't, we as humans would have sacrificed something morally comparable, namely, our lives. Now we no longer have that danger). So is it really any longer necessary to inflict pain and suffering on animals?
99.9 % of hunters or fishermen on earth hunt or fish to eat the fucking food afterwards, what are you complaining about anyway. That's pointless.
The example you consider a norm of humans killing animals for sport are less than 0.0000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000001 % of human population. dont confuse the two.
Also on a side note, most of the cosmetics you pansies use to gel your hair or clean your skin are full of byproducts coming from the killing of animals, too.
-
Fear just like suffering, in other animal species aside humans, are different than the ones humans can feel because they only have underdeveloped limbic systems and cortexes. They dont have our prefrontal lobes they cannot physically, materially, feel fear and pain the same way we do.
Hunting chimps would be inhumans as they re the closest to having brains like ours. But every other animal species just dont feel fear or death the way we do. You re comparing apples and oranges and it's sheer ignorance.
As for plants... they develop strategies of survival to fight other plants and ominate them too...
The fact that plants have survival strategies has nothing to do with the point I made: fear and pain.
And your argument about fear doesn't apply to pain.
I agree btw that's it's more unethical to kill a chimp than to kill a fish. But most ethical is to kill a lettuce..
-
The fact that plants have survival strategies has nothing to do with the point I made: fear and pain.
And your argument about fear doesn't apply to pain.
I agree btw that's it's more unethical to kill a chimp than to kill a fish. But most ethical is to kill a lettuce..
ethics are just one part of life, in combination with others. Those with the most developed ethics are monks who need normal people to feed them because they re too busy thinking about the meaning of life...
It's easier to use ethics when you live in a first world country and have been spoonfed by your mommy from day one.
Hunters are way more ethical than you, because if some day you need them to hunt for food to feed you cause you simply cant do it by yourself, they ll help you survive.Would / Will you consider them unethical that day? They d let you gather plants to insure your own survival with a big smile on their faces and one day later you d come back asking for meat. Get the picture?
You re making 0 valid points in this thread, just talking out of your ass.
-
you re disapointing here.
The suffering animals feel depends of the structure of their brain, it means that, considering none of them but humans have prefrontal lobes, no animal on earth "feel" suffering the same way humans do with their more evolved brain. Which basically means there are different kind of sufferings, which are felt completely differently because the biology, the phisiology of our brains and hence the way we feel suffering is DIFFERENT.
Let me explain why this isn't a valid objection. I never said we should reduce unnecessary pain and suffering if and only if their pain is similar to how humans feel pain. There mere fact that they feel pain is in and of itself sufficient to warrent the need to reduce unnecessary pain. For you to object to me, you would have to prove that animals do not feel pain at all. And that will be one tough argument to make (I've heard it made before). Here is a similar case, consider a 2 year old child. Their brain is not as developed as mine is. They do not feel pain in exactly the same way that I feel pain. That does not mean I am allowed to inflict pain on the 2 year old child. The mere fact that the 2 year old can feel pain at all is sufficient to warrent me to deter from inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on that child. Brain development is irrelevant.
-
With mentioning the option to apply Kant's categorical imperative to this matter I shall leave this thread and wish you all a good workout...
-
99.9 % of hunters or fishermen on earth hunt or fish to eat the fucking food afterwards, what are you complaining about anyway. That's pointless.
The example you consider a norm of humans killing animals for sport are less than 0.0000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000001 % of human population. dont confuse the two.
You really don't know the meaning of the word "necessary" do you. Is it necessary for 99.9% of hunters or fisherman to inflict pain and suffering for food? Not is it sufficient. Is it necessary? Is there really no way at all for those 99.9% of hunters or fisherman to get calories, protein, etc etc except by killing and inflicting pain and suffering. Think about what that means. It doesn't matter IF they eat the food. I'm asking is that the ONLY way they can have food to eat.
-
Again these people who "like killing animals" are pretty useful when there s no electricity, no food stocks to buy, no police and no rules anymore. Think twice about it moron.
how old are you seriously? another kid raised by a single mom surrounded only by microwaves and TV obviously... Tomorow you have to hunt to survive, you wont cause it's "immoral" and will simply let yourself die? Seriously get lost you little child.
You re not a Man, you re not in connection with nature and its meaning, you re a homo.
How could you possibly know I had a microwave and a television when growing up? :o I'm in awe of you.
You must hunt to survive? Did the bottom fall out of the pop-Freudian market?
-
With mentioning the option to apply Kant's categorical imperative to this matter I shall leave this thread and wish you all a good workout...
that's really irrelevant here because the categorical imperative only applies to rational beings, this is what Kant said separates us from animals. Kant did discuss the killing of animals and he found it permissible because human beings are rational and animals are not. HOWEVER, he did object to the mistreatment of animals (abuse, etc) because he thought it would serve as a model of how to treat humans. As in "if we allow the torture of animals, that might lead some to believe that torture of humans is okay, so we should prevent the torture of animals."
Never thought I'd be able to discuss Kant on getbig haha
-
The fact that plants have survival strategies has nothing to do with the point I made: fear and pain.
And your argument about fear doesn't apply to pain.
I agree btw that's it's more unethical to kill a chimp than to kill a fish. But most ethical is to kill a lettuce..
The pain felt is equal whether they die in the wild, or whether its in a slaughter house. The suffering however in a slaughter house is much greater. IF your saying just eating meat period is wrong GOTO ANOTHER THREAD THIS IS ABOUT HUNTING.
Anyhow back to hunting. A good kill is relatively painless. If you think it's all about some redkneck jack off going yeehaw and firing off 15-20 rounds your nuts. You want a one shot kill for three reasons. First off you don't wanna spend a day chasing down a dieing animal, than once you finally caught it miles away from your truck you have to do a mercy kill not something you want to do :-\
Second you don't want the meat riddled with lead :-X
Third the most disgusting smell imaginable is when you hit a animals gut bag, between the clean up and the lose of meat it's not a viable option ever. So just so were clear you want a one shot kill, anything more is usually a waste of time/meat.
You're thinking far to much about the 10 seconds when the shot is fired, hunting is about the hours and hours of searching, and then the hours and hours of clean up/ prep work.
-
I think the CI can be used perfectly in this case, although Kant originally limited the use to rational beings.
And now I'm gonna go. It's legs day, followed by a mixed soy/peas protein shake, which tastes awful but is very ethical
-
It doesn't matter if people hunt for food or for sport , because if people hunt for sport a host of different animals and insects will reap the benefits of the kill and the carcass will NOT go to waste , the ' food ' isn't going to waste even if the hunter doesn't eat it
I don't hunt , never had the desire but respect hunters.
-
theres a big difference between hunting for fun and for survival, i fucking hate the american pricks who pose proudly on a photo with a big dead animal as if they killed it themselves with their bare hands. these people disgust me. people like branch warren, scum of the earth.
-
theres a big difference between hunting for fun and for survival, i fucking hate the american pricks who pose proudly on a photo with a big dead animal as if they killed it themselves with their bare hands. these people disgust me. people like branch warren, scum of the earth.
I agree with you it's pretty annoying to see that but I know a lot of good people who are hunters who really have respect for animals and nature.
-
think about the word "unnecessary" in "we should reduce unnecessary pain and suffering". It was once necessary (because if we didn't, we as humans would have sacrificed something morally comparable, namely, our lives. Now we no longer have that danger). So is it really any longer necessary to inflict pain and suffering on animals?
If you kill an animal and eat it, that means you have replaced the meat you were going to buy in the store right? So if no additional animals are killed in the big slaughterhouses because of you not buying meat during that period, doesn't that make it equal? You get my point? Total number of animals killed are the same, if no one hunted, then more people would buy meat, and more animals would be killed by the industry. No?
-
I agree with you it's pretty annoying to see that but I know a lot of good people who are hunters who really have respect for animals and nature.
thats true, MikMaq had good post about it.
-
I guess I don't mind the notion of hunting to survive.
It's when I see a "hunter" using a scope with pinpoint accuracy and scents and calls etc. And then, after he nabs his "prize" he gets a good picture of him with it, as if he's accomplished some ungodly difficult task. And then the bragging begins.." i bagged an 8-point buck!" .. but what they forgot to tell you is that they used a granade and rocket launcher to do so. It's not a "sport" anymore.
The true real hunters are the people of Africa or the like.. like the Bushmen and their hunting with spears etc. THOSE are the real hunters. They hunt because they HAVE to.
-
All you hunting dipshits: Go to the other thread with the video showing the hunter shooting a leopard. Nice "sport" you got there.
Fucking dumb reckneck "sport" hunter.
-
:-\
-
All you hunting dipshits: Go to the other thread with the video showing the hunter shooting a leopard. Nice "sport" you got there.
Fucking dumb reckneck "sport" hunter.
::) Every hunter is a dumb redneck retard. I get so sick of that pathetic rhetoric.
-
Arnold likes to fool around with rednecks too...I gues this guy's a hunter as well...
-
::) Every hunter is a dumb redneck retard. I get so sick of that pathetic rederick.
You prove your intelligence everytime you post.
-
Hunters are all retard rednecks ::) Stupid fucken thing to say. F*ggots like Coltrane need to be smacked into their place.
-
:D
-
;D
-
All you hunting dipshits: Go to the other thread with the video showing the hunter shooting a leopard. Nice "sport" you got there.
Fucking dumb reckneck "sport" hunter.
Your basing an argument based on the most retarded examples possible, what next a guy taking a AK47 on a Zebra ::)
Most people I know that hunt got life figured out to a tea, STEP1 Get as deep into the woods as you can to avoid people like yourself, and work from there ;D
-
Boy, you really showed me there, didn't ya "Makaveli25"? ::)
Don't you have some hospital floors to mop or something? Or a fat pig of a girlfriend to try to get hard for?
-
Boy, you really showed me there, didn't ya "Makaveli25"? ::)
Don't you have some hospital floors to mop or something? Or a fat pig of a girlfriend to try to get hard for?
Aw I hurt the little sissies feelings ;D Don't worry the big bad men who hunt will stay away from you I promise. We don't want to hurt your feelings anymore. I know how manliness scares your kind.
-
All you hunting dipshits: Go to the other thread with the video showing the hunter shooting a leopard. Nice "sport" you got there.
Fucking dumb reckneck "sport" hunter.
So you are pure vegan? If not, shut the fuck up.
-
So explain to us just what you do at your "job" everyday "Makaveli25"?
I'm kinda curious what a mental giant such as yourself does all day.
-
Isn't a Sniper in the military the same as a hunter?
-
So explain to us just what you do at your "job" everyday "Makaveli25"?
I'm kinda curious what a mental giant such as yourself does all day.
::)
Like the poster above you said if you eat meat at all just shut the fuck up bro. You really don't have an argument.
-
No please... go ahead "makaveli25"... please post your "work" schedule. haha..
Now go mop a floor, redneck.
-
No please... go ahead "makaveli25"... please post your "work" schedule. haha..
Now go mop a floor, redneck.
"redneck" yawn.
I'm just and ordinary guy.
-
Epic bullshit, the guys almost get killed and you act like he's a little bitch?
Seriously that guy got balls, way bigger than your keyboard warrior shit.
Now don't get me wrong I despise hunting for sport if you don't eat the meat, but long as the body is consumed it's more than fine. Seriously you vag's have got some serious issues. Men hunted for thousands of years, men turned to complete pussy the second they turned into farm animals.
P.s. always get kids ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
"Men hunted for thousands of years"...Very true my friend, but not with shotguns and assault rifles, if these guys were using spears, traps and rocks maybe they would get some respect, but standing 100 yads away from something and shooting a bullet or multiple bullets at it is how you say....PUSSY !! Put these guys in a pit, just like in roman times and give them every weapon known to man, except guns and every last one of them would get MAULED beyond belief !! HAHAHAHAHAHA The true ALPHA male no longer exist :'(
-
Actually, you're quite humble.
I'll leave you alone.
I'm just an animal lover. That's all.
-
the way the animals are killed in slaughterhouses is messed up and I am also against hunting.
I am not against hunting for eating; I am against hunting when some jack off wants to feel like a big man. I don't agree with the "sport" of hunting.
-
the way the animals are killed in slaughterhouses is messed up and I am also against hunting.
I am not against hunting for eating; I am against hunting when some jack off wants to feel like a big man. I don't agree with the "sport" of hunting.
My thoughts exactly.
There is no need to put an animal into more pain than is necessary... and especially not for human gloat.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Mahatma Gandhi
-
yankees hunt for fun.
us country boys gotta have something to eat post workout.
-
My thoughts exactly.
There is no need to put an animal into more pain than is necessary... and especially not for human gloat.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Mahatma Gandhi
I just don't see the point of killing an animal so you can mount its head on your wall to appear like a big man to your gf or something.
Primitive man killed to feed his family and himself.
-
Hunt if you're going to eat your kill otherwise please shoot yourself.
-
how about these mother fuckers? I want to skin them alive.
-
I don't have any problem with hunting (I really don't give a fuck ) but except for a few Indians that still hunt for food, most hunters in the U.S. hunt for recreation for the pleasure of stalking and killing animals , so stop with that bullshit ,''I hunt for the meat'' '' “I hunt to interact with nature.” blah , blah ........................ ..
-
how about these mother fuckers? I want to skin them alive.
WTF? how about killing the animals first?
-
how about these mother fuckers? I want to skin them alive.
That's worse than the chainsaw video WTF?
-
Its weird, I had no problem watching the mexican chainsaw video, but I refuse to watch the above video.
-
i have never personally have hunted anything in my life, but i do wanna go to africa for a big game cat and canada for a moose to stuff them and put them in my cabin.... ill be selling some of the meat her on getbig when its all grinded down to burger size patties.
the closest i got to killing anything was a chicken that my grandmother made me break its neck on the farm back in the days when i went to visit her.
-
That's worse than the chainsaw video WTF?
i feel more sorry for the animals than the drug dealing scumbags that get beheaded. chinese are savages that are good at math.
-
Its weird, I had no problem watching the Mexican chainsaw video, but I refuse to watch the above video.
I actually watched that video a few months ago, could not stop thinking about it :-[
and will not watch that damn Mexican chainsaw video.
Gooks suck ~!
-
I actually watched that video a few months ago, could not stop thinking about it :-[
and will not watch that damn Mexican chainsaw video.
Gooks suck ~!
have you seen the video that swede posted a while back of the teens that picked up some old guy took him to the woods and beat him to death with a hammer and repeatedly stabbed him with a screwdriver?
i felt bad for that guy because he didnt do anything wrong, on the other hand these drug runners know exactly what will happen if they slip up
-
have you seen the video that swede posted a while back of the teens that picked up some old guy took him to the woods and beat him to death with a hammer and repeatedly stabbed him with a screwdriver?
i felt bad for that guy because he didnt do anything wrong, on the other hand these drug runners know exactly what will happen if they slip up
no, I can not watch that stuff................men in thongs turns my stomach enough.
-
I appreciate that fact that you butthurt anti hunting fellas love animals. I to love animals I consider my dogs my best friends they're part of my family. A guy going out once a year with his son or other buddies to kill a couple of bucks isn't a huge deal though. You guys point out the worst people! I don't like the guys who go to Africa and kill lions and animals like that for fun it doesn't make much sense to me.
Hunting deer and smaller game in North America shouldn't hurt your feeling so much. You see how many of those deer get hit by cars. There's to many of them! Any where I've lived in the country I see tons of deer running around in populated areas. They're just animals! As long as you don't torture them or kill them for the hide only who cares. A lot of great men through the ages have been hunters.
This is the last post I'm gonna make in this thread. Sorry Coltrane for taking personal shots at you and Mr. Magoo to. I'm sure I will be disagreeing with you in many other threads we can keep it civilized.
I've never actually been hunting I love to fish. I really enjoy being in the outdoors out in the woods. A lot of hunters enjoy the peace, serenity, and beauty the outdoors offer. They're not a bunch of cold blooded killer. My buddies step dad would trade deer sausage and steaks for the trout my dad would catch. It was really awesome!
-
I appreciate that fact that you butthurt anti hunting fellas love animals. I to love animals I consider my dogs my best friends they're part of my family. A guy going out once a year with his son or other buddies to kill a couple of bucks isn't a huge deal though. You guys point out the worst people! I don't like the guys who go to Africa and kill lions and animals like that for fun it doesn't make much sense to me.
Hunting deer and smaller game in North America shouldn't hurt your feeling so much. You see how many of those deer get hit by cars. There's to many of them! Any where I've lived in the country I see tons of deer running around in populated areas. They're just animals! As long as you don't torture them or kill them for the hide only who cares. A lot of great men through the ages have been hunters.
This is the last post I'm gonna make in this thread. Sorry Coltrane for taking personal shots at you and Mr. Magoo to. I'm sure I will be disagreeing with you in many other threads we can keep it civilized.
::)
-
I never leave home without my Genuine leather lifting belt
(http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/214876985/Leather_Lifting_Belt_Tan_4_.jpg)
-
I don't have any problem with hunting (I really don't give a fuck ) but except for a few Indians that still hunt for food, most hunters in the U.S. hunt for recreation for the pleasure of stalking and killing animals , so stop with that bullshit ,''I hunt for the meat'' '' “I hunt to interact with nature.” blah , blah ........................ ..
Aren't you like a mexican or some shit how the fuck do you know what we do?
-
Yeah, let's ban hunting. That way the already overpopulated deer and elk herds can grow even larger and then starve during brutal winters when their populations overwhelm their ecosystems. ::)
There is a good reason that there is still regulated hunting...it is to keep the animal populations in check. As we've continued to increase the size of our developed cities and towns and farms and ranches, there is less land for these animals to graze. The herds need to be responsibly culled, something that used to be done by predators, which are too few to do the job. (And, if you want to argue for allowing predators to be reintroduced into all of these environments with no checks, take a look at what is happening in Yellowstone with the reintroduction of the wolf. They are reproducing at an increasing rate and are moving out into ranches where the domestic livestock is easy prey.)
I definitely don't agree with those who hunt only for sport, who just want a trophy. Much better if they take the meat so the animal doesn't die in vain. If you don't want the meat, donate it to a homeless shelter. I am sure those people would love some wild game as a change from their regular fair.
-
Yeah, let's ban hunting. That way the already overpopulated deer and elk herds can grow even larger and then starve during brutal winters when their populations overwhelm their ecosystems. ::)
There is a good reason that there is still regulated hunting...it is to keep the animal populations in check. As we've continued to increase the size of our developed cities and towns and farms and ranches, there is less land for these animals to graze. The herds need to be responsibly culled, something that used to be done by predators, which are too few to do the job. (And, if you want to argue for allowing predators to be reintroduced into all of these environments with no checks, take a look at what is happening in Yellowstone with the reintroduction of the wolf. They are reproducing at an increasing rate and are moving out into ranches where the domestic livestock is easy prey.)
I definitely don't agree with those who hunt only for sport, who just want a trophy. Much better if they take the meat so the animal doesn't die in vain. If you don't want the meat, donate it to a homeless shelter. I am sure those people would love some wild game as a change from their regular fair.
Elk burgers at FUDDRUCKERS are damn good, and i also had buffalo burgers at buffalo bill ranch in Denver colorado... good eating
-
I find it quite ironic when hunting threads pop up here and so many bb are against it, yet most here consume more meat than normal humans.
I hunt for recreation and for meat. I mainly hunt deer and venison is a great lean protein. We have 2 deep freezers and we eat the venison year around. I'm not a fan of a lot of the 'canned' hunts or African safari hunts but I don't look down on them. As with all sports there's bad apples in it.
-
I actually watched that video a few months ago, could not stop thinking about it :-[
and will not watch that damn Mexican chainsaw video.
Gooks suck ~!
I cant stand when animals get abused :'( :'(
-
I've shot several spotted fawns and just left em' laying.
-
I've shot several spotted fawns and just left em' laying.
Mortally wounded, but still alive to suffer the full brunt of death by blood-loss, or dead where they drop?
-
Mortally wounded, but still alive to suffer the full brunt of death by blood-loss, or dead where they drop?
got one with a 22 coming out of the womb. the other a longbow. the second ran quite a ways
-
If you kill an animal and eat it, that means you have replaced the meat you were going to buy in the store right? So if no additional animals are killed in the big slaughterhouses because of you not buying meat during that period, doesn't that make it equal? You get my point? Total number of animals killed are the same, if no one hunted, then more people would buy meat, and more animals would be killed by the industry. No?
I hope I don't seem obsessed but I try to respond to every post directed at me. Plus I've had the hunting argument many times before.
But I will say this to your post, I think I do get your point, and you're right, a meat eater who hates hunting yet buys dead animals in the grocery will have to paddle fast (as they say) to make that action justified using the "we shouldn't inflict unnecessary pain" argument.
At the worst, they would just be a hypocrite, but their claim that "Hunting is immoral" could still be true. Don't make the mistake (like many others have in this thread) of thinking Person A being a hypocrite has anything to do with the truth/falsity of Argument Z that person A made.
But yea you are right that the meat eating anti-hunter while claiming NOT to be a hypocrite has a lot of arguing to do, I will just say that it would be easier for the anti-hunting person to resort back to a pure vegan or vegetarian stance and argue from there.
Does that make any sense?
-
I love these homo girls that cry about killing bambi in between bites of their hamburger. The vegen queers fail to realize that every time grain is harvested in a field for their veggie diet animals are killed by the plow. You anti hunting queens need to get over it. If it bugs you so much stick to your high protein, man meat diets.
-
I love these homo girls that cry about killing bambi in between bites of their hamburger. The vegen queers fail to realize that every time grain is harvested in a field for their veggie diet animals are killed by the plow. You anti hunting queens need to get over it. If it bugs you so much stick to your high protein, man meat diets.
is this another hypocrite argument?
If there is less unnecessary pain and suffering through the harvesting of grain, than by the factory farms or killing in the wild, then won't you agree that we need to persue the former and not the latter? You do accept that we should, as best as we can, try to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering? Or do you think pain and suffering is a good thing?
I'm typing this post while eating a hamburger patty along with some almonds. I'm being a hypocrite. I have contributed to the pain and suffering of a being that can feel pain that was completely unnecessary. I didn't have to eat this burger in front of me, there are other forms of calories that could keep me full for the rest of tonight. I have contributed to an immoral action. But I still believe that we have a moral duty to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering. That's still true despite what I do. I can smoke all the cigarettes that i want and still say "Smoking is unhealthy", and if somebody says "You're a hypocrite, you smoke!" then i could reply "so what? I'm a hypocite, but smoking is still unhealthy despite what I personally do"
-
is this another hypocrite argument?
If there is less unnecessary pain and suffering through the harvesting of grain, than by the factory farms or killing in the wild, then won't you agree that we need to persue the former and not the latter? You do accept that we should, as best as we can, try to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering? Or do you think pain and suffering is a good thing?
I'm typing this post while eating a hamburger patty along with some almonds. I'm being a hypocrite. I have contributed to the pain and suffering of a being that can feel pain that was completely unnecessary. I didn't have to eat this burger in front of me, there are other forms of calories that could keep me full for the rest of tonight. I have contributed to an immoral action. But I still believe that we have a moral duty to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering. That's still true despite what I do. I can smoke all the cigarettes that i want and still say "Smoking is unhealthy", and if somebody says "You're a hypocrite, you smoke!" then i could reply "so what? I'm a hypocite, but smoking is still unhealthy despite what I personally do"
LOL magoo if your against pain and suffering then you should be hunting and not buying your food from the super market.
you ever see how the cows and chickens we eat from the market live?
you ever see how the wild animals live?
you tell me which one has a better life?
it is hypocritical for a meat eater to chastise a hunter for hunting b/c the feel they are against unnecessary pain and suffering...EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL.
-
LOL magoo if your against pain and suffering then you should be hunting and not buying your food from the super market.
you ever see how the cows and chickens we eat from the market live?
you ever see how the wild animals live?
you tell me which one has a better life?
it is hypocritical for a meat eater to chastise a hunter for hunting b/c the feel they are against unnecessary pain and suffering...EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL.
Do I REALLY have to explain why the "You're a hypocrite!" is stupid statement to make AGAIN? Are people on here really that stupid? Good lord, I've done it 4 times in this thread I think and people are still using that line like it is some valid logical objection that proves the position of said hypocrite to be false. IT DOESNT.
If I was CONSISTENT then I wouldn't buy meat at all. I think it is morally desireable to not buy meat at all. Why? Because it prevents unnecessary pain and suffering. I shouldn't be eating meat at all. My personal actions have nothing to do with the truth/falsity of my argument.
-
Do I REALLY have to explain why the "You're a hypocrite!" is stupid statement to make AGAIN? Are people on here really that stupid? Good lord, I've done it 4 times in this thread I think and people are still using that line like it is some valid logical objection that proves the position of said hypocrite to be false. IT DOESNT.
If I was CONSISTENT then I wouldn't buy meat at all. I think it is morally desireable to not buy meat at all. Why? Because it prevents unnecessary pain and suffering. I shouldn't be eating meat at all. My personal actions have nothing to do with the truth/falsity of my argument.
first of all i didnt read the 7 pages, i have better shit to do during the day.
second a person who eats meat but is against hunting BC THE FEEL IT CAUSES AGGREGIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING TO THE ANIMAL...IS BEING HYPOCRITICAL...
look at how animals raised for food live and how animals that live in the wild live...tell me which one is subject to unnecessary pain and suffering more.
if you disagree then just bump your old posts
-
first of all i didnt read the 7 pages, i have better shit to do during the day.
second a person who eats meat but is against hunting BC THE FEEL IT CAUSES AGGREGIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING TO THE ANIMAL...IS BEING HYPOCRITICAL...
look at how animals raised for food live and how animals that live in the wild live...tell me which one is subject to unnecessary pain and suffering more.
if you disagree then just bump your old posts
You're completely right in your entire post. 100% right. Everything you said is right on the money. But you know the real kicker? Nothing in your post disproves my argument that "It is immoral for a person to hunt" or "It is immoral for a person to eat meat". I personally don't see why you typed that post, I admitted to being a hypocrite while typing my previous post. But despite my hypocrisy, my argument still goes unchallenged. I myself, have been attacked. I've been called out (I called myself out) for being a hypocrite. But my argument still stands. See my point?
-
first of all i didnt read the 7 pages, i have better shit to do during the day.
second a person who eats meat but is against hunting BC THE FEEL IT CAUSES AGGREGIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING TO THE ANIMAL...IS BEING HYPOCRITICAL...
look at how animals raised for food live and how animals that live in the wild live...tell me which one is subject to unnecessary pain and suffering more.
if you disagree then just bump your old posts
I should say they are against it and feel that other shouldnt hunt b/c it causes unnecessary pain and suffering for the animal...
-
You're completely right in your entire post. 100% right. Everything you said is right on the money. But you know the real kicker? Nothing in your post disproves my argument that "It is immoral for a person to hunt" or "It is immoral for a person to eat meat". I personally don't see why you typed that post, I admitted to being a hypocrite while typing my previous post. But despite my hypocrisy, my argument still goes unchallenged. I myself, have been attacked. I've been called out (I called myself out) for being a hypocrite. But my argument still stands. See my point?
what do you base your idea on?
arent you an atheist?
-
what do you base your idea on?
arent you an atheist?
I won't go into religion but I will restate my argument in simpler terms so it's easier to understand.
Premise 1: Unnecessary pain and suffering is a bad thing
premise 2: If we can prevent unnecessary pain and suffering without sacrificing something morally relevant, we ought, morally, to do it.
Hunting (I should also add that "Eating meat" falls under this category too) is unnecessary in the sense that we do not NEED to kill animals in order to get protein, calories, etc etc. Yes it is ONE way, but it is not the ONLY way. So it is unnecessary.
I think most would agree that animals DO suffer pain. We CAN prevent unnecessary pain and suffering (by not hunting) without sacrificing something morally relevant (give up a little flavor enjoyment to prevent a great deal of pain and suffering).
Therefore, we ought, morally, to stop hunting.
-
Well, religion is relevant b/c an atheist morals are not bound to anything other than opinion so....if youre an atheist your argument changes with perspective(culture, subculture, situation etc.)
your argument is not valid b/c we have a different idea of unnecessary.
Killing animals is necessary b/c in order to eat them and get the nutrients that you miss from meat substitutes which saves money and time.
hunting is a way of killing animals
therefore hunting is necessary...
I can make logical arguments as well ;)
First of all, the first half of your post is making a philosophical argument that's very debateable which is moral relativism (as well as divine command theory which is another debatable issue). So don't accept moral relativism or moral subjectivism as objectively true (see the irony?)
Second of all, you need to differentiate between what is a necessary condition and what is a sufficient condition. What is necessary are things like calories and protein, etc. We need those to stay alive and grow, correct?. Now let's think about how we can get those. One way is meat. Therefore meat is a sufficient condition for calories, protein, etc. However there are other ways to get protein, calories, etc. Let's give the example of eating legumes. Now combining legumes results in the same amino acid profile that meat does (I can hunt (no pun intended) for my human nutrition textbook if you really want the data for this). So legumes is a different way of getting protein and calories etc. So animal meat is not a necessary condition. So hunting is not necessary.
-
First of all, the first half of your post is making a philosophical argument that's very debateable which is moral relativism (as well as divine command theory which is another debatable issue). So don't accept moral relativism or moral subjectivism as objectively true (see the irony?)
Second of all, you need to differentiate between what is a necessary condition and what is a sufficient condition. What is necessary are things like calories and protein, etc. We need those to stay alive and grow, correct?. Now let's think about how we can get those. One way is meat. Therefore meat is a sufficient condition for calories, protein, etc. However there are other ways to get protein, calories, etc. Let's give the example of eating legumes. Now combining legumes results in the same amino acid profile that meat does (I can hunt (no pun intended) for my human nutrition textbook if you really want the data for this). So legumes is a different way of getting protein and calories etc. So animal meat is not a necessary condition. So hunting is not necessary.
I modified the post but i think it got lost the disagreement in terms of "unnecessary" is in terms of pain and suffering not in terms of our bodies needs.
in regards to the first part, no its really not what we end up with is that atheist "morals" are based on individual situations ie culture and subculture. We can go round and round all day long but we will inevitably end up here.
-
I modified the post but i think it got lost the disagreement in terms of "unnecessary" is in terms of pain and suffering not in terms of our bodies needs.
in regards to the first part, no its really not what we end up with is that atheist "morals" are based on individual situations ie culture and subculture. We can go round and round all day long but we will inevitably end up here.
I was using "necessary" in the sense of necessary for our survival. Up to the point of sacrificing something morally relevant was my threshold. For example, if a family of 4 in africa would starve unless they killed an animal to eat (because they, unlike us, don't have easy access to legumes, vegetables, etc etc) then it would be morally permissible because if they starved to death to save the animal, then they would have scarified something morally relevant, namely, their lives. Does that explain any better?
And I can disprove the 2nd part of your post by showing it to be logically inconsistent. You're accepting as objectively true, that all theories surrounding moral theories are subjective? Think about that for a minute. That in and of itself cannot be objectively true by definition. :P There would have to be some moral truths (at least one) and that would defeat the argument "all theories of morality are subjective"
-
I was using "necessary" in the sense of necessary for our survival. Up to the point of sacrificing something morally relevant was my threshold. For example, if a family of 4 in africa would starve unless they killed an animal to eat (because they, unlike us, don't have easy access to legumes, vegetables, etc etc) then it would be morally permissible because if they starved to death to save the animal, then they would have scarified something morally relevant, namely, their lives. Does that explain any better?
And I can disprove the 2nd part of your post by showing it to be logically inconsistent. You're accepting as objectively true, that all theories surrounding moral theories are subjective? Think about that for a minute. That in and of itself cannot be objectively true by definition. :P There would have to be some moral truths (at least one) and that would defeat the argument "all theories of morality are subjective"
give me one moral truth that is not subjective for an atheist...
ahhh I see so your moral objections are on a sliding scale then?
you mean like your morals change with the situation?
hmmm, where have I heard that before?
-
Believing as an atheist that God doesnt exists, is just another belief.
Did you even read the Bible...or are you just like most of the atheists repeating like a parrot what your -now divorced- parents told you...
-
give me one moral truth that is not subjective for an atheist...
ahhh I see so your moral objections are on a sliding scale then?
you mean like your morals change with the situation?
hmmm, where have I heard that before?
You didn't notice the paradox did you? Imagine that it is true that "All statements regarding moral theories of subjective". Let's call that true statement, Statement A. Well let's see. Statement A is in and of itself a statement about moral theories. However, if statement A is true, then by definition of Statement A being true, Statement A has to be false. Get it yet? So the claim that moral subjectivism is objectively true cannot be possible.
-
You didn't notice the paradox did you? Imagine that it is true that "All statements regarding moral theories of subjective". Let's call that true statement, Statement A. Well let's see. Statement A is in and itself a statement about moral theories. However, if statement A is true, then by definition of Statement A being true, Statement A has to be false. Get it yet? So the claim that moral subjectivism is objectively true cannot be possible.
I understand your premise...but that doesnt change the idea that for an ATHEIST morals are based on situations like culture, subculture, situation etc....
for religious ppl their morals dont change or shouldnt I should say with situation, culture and subculture.
a christian in the US holds pretty much the same views as a christian in africa.
An atheists whos "morals" are embedded in their opinion which is imbedded very much in their culture can differ greatly from culture to culture...
-
I understand your premise...but that doesnt change the idea that for an ATHEIST morals are based on situations like culture, subculture, situation etc....
for religious ppl their morals dont change or shouldnt I should say with situation, culture and subculture.
a christian in the US holds pretty much the same views as a christian in africa.
An atheists whos "morals" are embedded in their opinion which is imbedded very much in their culture can differ greatly from culture to culture...
Now you're moving into the divine command theory. Religious people get morals from religious text (Killing is wrong because the Bible says Killing is wrong and God wrote the Bible, etc). I could go into that for hours but I think it's important to remind ourselves that being an atheist does not disprove my argument in my previous post that I spelled out. Even if it did, I could just easily say I'm a christian to make it valid, right? If an atheist said that inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on children is immoral, he wouldn't be wrong (and therefore the act would not be immoral) solely because he's an atheist, right? It could still be agreed upon by reason (not religion)
-
Now you're moving into the divine command theory. Religious people get morals from religious text (Killing is wrong because the Bible says Killing is wrong and God wrote the Bible, etc). I could go into that for hours but I think it's important to remind ourselves that being an atheist does not disprove my argument in my previous post that I spelled out. Even if it did, I could just easily say I'm a christian to make it valid, right? If an atheist said that inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on children is immoral, he wouldn't be wrong (and therefore the act would not be immoral) solely because he's an atheist, right? It could still be agreed upon by reason (not religion)
but again an atheist in another culture may disagree with him b/c that culture doesnt deem it wrong...see my point?
You never qualified "unnecessary pain and suffering" we all may have different ideas of what that means...
I understand your use of it for the terms of our bodies but not in the first premise.
I dont see shooting an animal with a clean shot that kills it instantly as unnecessary pain and suffering.
Killing an animal with a well placed shot does not cause unnecessary pain and suffering.
when hunting you can make a well placed shot.
hunting does have to cause unnecessary pain and suffering...
you have to define the "unnesseary pain and suffering" in your premise or it leaves it open to THIS!!!
-
how about these mother fuckers? I want to skin them alive.
hollyshit
-
Its weird, I had no problem watching the mexican chainsaw video, but I refuse to watch the above video.
x2 agree it's weird, maybe because animals are always innocent, people are not..
-
but again an atheist in another culture may disagree with him b/c that culture doesnt deem it wrong...see my point?
You never qualified "unnecessary pain and suffering" we all may have different ideas of what that means...
I understand your use of it for the terms of our bodies but not in the first premise.
I dont see shooting an animal with a clean shot that kills it instantly as unnecessary pain and suffering.
Killing an animal with a well placed shot does not cause unnecessary pain and suffering.
when hunting you can make a well placed shot.
hunting does have to cause unnecessary pain and suffering...
you have to define the "unnesseary pain and suffering" in your premise or it leaves it open to THIS!!!
I still don't understand your point. I think we as humans can, by reason, agree to premise #1 and premise #2 in my argument I spelled out earlier. I don't see how religious belief can affect the truth/falsity of accepting those premises. It seems irrelevant. Not all Christians agree to certain morals beliefs. For example, I know some that think gay marriage should be legal, others think it should be outlawed (depending upon their views about the role of government, not about the morality of the marriage itself). Also, some Baptists may be against certain kind of christian music that other Christians do not find objectionable. I think we can find moral truths by reason and accept those reasons upon reflection. I reject the idea that religion is somehow relevant to the truth of premises. If person B in, say, Germany rejected my premises for my argument, I would try to spell out my argument more clearly, give examples, etc etc. It does not matter if person B is a christian or not or religious or not. Yes person B may originally disagree with my premises intuitively (whether he is a baptist, methodist, buddhist, etc) but if my reasons are good enough for accepting premises #1 and #2 in my argument, then, by reason, he can come to accept them. Him, originally objecting, does NOT disprove the truth of my premises. Understand?
This post is getting too long, I'll reply in a different one about what I mean by unnecessary pain and suffering
-
You never qualified "unnecessary pain and suffering" we all may have different ideas of what that means...
I understand your use of it for the terms of our bodies but not in the first premise.
I don't see shooting an animal with a clean shot that kills it instantly as unnecessary pain and suffering.
Killing an animal with a well placed shot does not cause unnecessary pain and suffering.
when hunting you can make a well placed shot.
hunting does have to cause unnecessary pain and suffering...
you have to define the "unnesseary pain and suffering" in your premise or it leaves it open to THIS!!!
Premise 1 of my argument was my anchor to the entire argument. "Unnecessary pain and suffering is a bad thing". I think most people would accept this as true. The premise that takes a big jump is premise#2 which most might find difficult to accept. First I'll talk about pain and suffering being unnecessary. This is pain and suffering that is contingent, and not required in order to preserve the conditions for my own existence. For example, the mental pain and suffering of coming to grips that hunting animals is immoral might be necessary in order for me to grow as a person or in order for me to exist as a rational being (coming to grips with certain beliefs through mental anguish is entailed in my existence as a rational person).
I'll also give a more basic example of necessary pain and suffering. Imagine a 3 year old child who stepped on a nail and had to get a shot (or any scenario where something happened and as a result the child had to get a shot). The shot is needed in order to preserve the condition of the child. The condition of existence and being. If the child did not get the shot, then they would get infected or die (which would cause a lot more pain and would be a sacrifice of something morally relevant, his life). So we give the child the shot to save his life, most would agree the shot is necessary to preserve the condition of existence and being as a rational (in this case future rational) human being. So the mere fact that the child receives pain and suffering from the shot is not in and of itself a sufficient condition to not do the act that would result in pain and suffering.
Now consider the scenario in the above paragraph to this one. Imagine I went over to the child and kicked him in the face. Let's say I didn't kick him extremely hard. Let's imagine that we could quantify pain levels. The shot (we imagine) resulted in, say, 100 units of pain. The kick resulted in say, 100 units of pain also. Although both actions resulted in the same amount of quantified pain, the former (the shot) was not deemed impermissible because in an important sense it was necessary to preserve the condition of existence. However the kick to the face which resulted in 100 units of pain IS deemed impermissible. Why? Because those 100 units of pain was not needed to preserve any condition of existence. The kick was unnecessary. That is why act A (The shot) is permissible while act B (the kick) is impermissible, although the result in both was the same (100 units of pain).