Hunting...

[Mr. Magoo]

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

I found at least two errors in that survey. Want to guess at them or do you want me to tell you?  

[MikMaq]

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.

[makaveli25]

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.

[makaveli25]

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!

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Xerxes]

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.

[Dr Dutch]

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.

[Natural Man]

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.  

[Mr. Magoo]

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?

[Natural Man]

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.

[Dr Dutch]

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..

[Natural Man]

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.

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Dr Dutch]

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...

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Tapeworm]

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?    I'm in awe of you.

You must hunt to survive?  Did the bottom fall out of the pop-Freudian market?

[Mr. Magoo]

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

[MikMaq]

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
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.

[Dr Dutch]

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

[NarcissisticDeity]

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.   

[Tito24]

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.

[makaveli25]

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.

[Xerxes]

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?

[Tito24]

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.

[coltrane]

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.