Hunting...

[dr.chimps]

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.

[pluck]

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.

[Dr Dutch]

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....

[pluck]

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?

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Tapeworm]

Thats me all over.. unethical but valid  

 

[Natural Man]

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.

[pluck]

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.

[Natural Man]

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.

[Xerxes]

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..

[pluck]

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.

[Mr. Magoo]

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

[Dr Dutch]

People are always justifying something bad by referring to the existence of things even worse...

[pluck]

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.

[Mr. Magoo]

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?

[pluck]

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.

[pluck]

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 ?

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Natural Man]

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.

[Xerxes]

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  , 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.

[makaveli25]

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

[Mr. Magoo]

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"?

 

[Xerxes]

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.

[Nails]