What are your thoughts on hunting?

[Rogue planet]

snip

I think both hunting and industrial slaughter are equally inhumane. How does hunting add to the dead animals? The slaughter house will continue the slaughter whether you hunt or not. When the store doesn't sell all it's meat they throw it in the trash and don't give it a second thought, they don't call up the slaughterhouse and tell them to shut down their machines. "what if I went out to hunt a pheasant and didn't get one that day" again, you say this as if there is a direct correlation to how much animals are killed by hunting and how much are killed in the slaughterhouse. "I'm taking a stand against the systematic slaughter of animals by going out and shooting even more animals unnecessarily."

I said I would support a full transition to hunting over industrial slaughter because it's a far more environmentally friendly method of acquiring meat, but the way our society is built means no it's not going to happen, and yes there are battles too big. I'm not talking about getting a few more free range eggs sold, I'm talking about the complete halt of all meat processing. That's what I want to see, and that's why I said it's too big of a goal.

"Have you ever been hunting before, it's not too exciting" then why does anybody do it? It's clearly a hobby, because it's clearly not a necessity. You even say in the second part of your post that the whole purpose of it is because it's a sport which completely contradicts your previous point. If it's sport you're after then there are plenty of other alternatives that don't require slaughter, and that's why people take issue with it.

It's a far more effective strategy to actually participate in politics. I don't agree with it, I'll vote for people who don't agree with it, but not enough to pay more. If I commit every resource into a single section of politics then other things I care about.

How?

Who said anything about politics?



If you have no issue with eating meat, then by all means, hunt your food. That's your decision, and whilst I may not agree with it, go and do you your thing. But please do not pretend that you're doing a favour to the environment, or that you're somehow helping animals or taking a stand against the meat industry, because you aren't

 

[Oloolooloo!]

Who said anything about politics?

What exactly is the point of eating free-range chicken? To make a statement you don't support the meat industry? How is that statement not part of politics, a statement showing your opinion on a social issue?

If you have no issue with eating meat, then by all means, hunt your food. That's your decision, and whilst I may not agree with it, go and do you your thing. But please do not pretend that you're doing a favour to the environment, or that you're somehow helping animals or taking a stand against the meat industry, because you aren't

Who said anything about doing a favor to the environment, helping animals, or taking a stand against the meat industry? You need to re-read my first post in this thread. I never argued sport hunting helps the environment, helps animals, or takes a stand to the meat industry, nor will I ever. I argue that we have as much right to kill a deer as the natural world does. What makes us not part of nature? Are we just that much of an apex predator? We still breathe. We still eat. We still die. We are not gods to the other species of this planet. What makes a wolf allowed to take the lives of deer, but not us?

Hunting is unsuccessful quite often. After all, if you got a kill every time, then there's no fun, and the only people who would hunt would be blood-thirsty psychopaths. Deer are faster than a human, much more alert, and intelligent enough to know when something's trying to kill it. Guns do not mean we can walking into a forest with a machinegun ripped off a helicopter and lay waste to every living thing within 1000 meters in the amount of time it takes to unload a clip. Not only are guns hard to handle for accurate shooting unless the shot is stable, the shoot is properly ranged, ect. but hunters rarely take massive machineguns to the forests. It's rare they even take ARs. Hunting specific weaponry is far less effective than you would imagine, assuming the hunter is even using a modern firearm. Classic weaponry such as lever-actions or even black powder rifles give hunters challenge, if they aren't using a straight up bow and arrow.

Besides, why should deer not be killed? They are vastly overpopulated, public property destroyers, and get violent when cornered. There is no possibility of domesticating deer without generations of selective breeding, and that's assuming that we can replace every deer in the wild with a domesticated counterpart. They are not saints, and do not want to be. What ethics would protect these creatures? please say "cause killing things is wrong, I have an amazing rebuttal".

EDIT: You never said how, by the way. I guess that means you don't have any argument to back up your claims of "Eating shot game makes people assholes", unless you want to prove me wrong.

 

[Rogue planet]

What exactly is the point of eating free-range chicken? To make a statement you don't support the meat industry? How is that statement not part of politics, a statement showing your opinion on a social issue?

I wasn't talking about myself.

Who said anything about doing a favor to the environment, helping animals, or taking a stand against the meat industry? You need to re-read my first post in this thread. I never argued sport hunting helps the environment, helps animals, or takes a stand to the meat industry, nor will I ever. I argue that we have as much right to kill a deer as the natural world does. What makes us not part of nature? Are we just that much of an apex predator? We still breathe. We still eat. We still die. We are not gods to the other species of this planet. What makes a wolf allowed to take the lives of deer, but not us?

I need to re-read your first post? I wasn't even directing anything at you mate apart from "who said anything about politics" when I said I can choose not to participate, I meant in consuming and purchasing meat, not remaining politically apathetic.

We defied nature the moment we started using tools pal; you're a good example of exactly what I'm complaining about. You are not being "one with nature" when you pull a trigger on your gun. You don't need to hunt animals to survive. You can go to the store and buy your meat from animals that have been born and bred in captivity and their sole purpose is to die for our benefit. It's a fact of modern life and the morality of that is a different discussion. What you are doing is going out and killing an animal that would have otherwise led a free life, you are just causing more death for the sake of your hobby or preference, and not out of hunger or necessity.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your argument about the effectiveness of weapons. If anything the systematic slaughter is more humane in that respect because it's a sure and instant death. When you start hunting and hit, but fail to kill, you're bringing about a painful death; and sometimes it'll be able to get away and die later. You got a kill, but you lost the animal so it died for nothing. Not to mention all the people that just hunt for fun and don't even use their kill, which there are plenty of.

Besides, why should deer not be killed? They are vastly overpopulated, public property destroyers, and get violent when cornered. There is no possibility of domesticating deer without generations of selective breeding, and that's assuming that we can replace every deer in the wild with a domesticated counterpart. They are not saints, and do not want to be. What ethics would protect these creatures? please say "cause killing things is wrong, I have an amazing rebuttal".

Yeah it's 'cause I think killing is wrong. That's it. "they are not saints and get violent when cornered." hahaha sounds like a typical inner city youth let's have them put down also. I know they're overpopulated, I know they need culling. The result of humanity's impact on the ecosystem, of course, but again that's a different matter. I was never specifically talking about deer anyway; I'm more concerned about the many species that are threatened and the fact that in the past other species have gone extinct as the direct result of hunting.

EDIT: You never said how, by the way. I guess that means you don't have any argument to back up your claims of "Eating shot game makes people assholes", unless you want to prove me wrong.

Clearly I wasn't serious. I even said that before, but looks like you got upset by it.


Going to the store to buy your meat? Your choice, I respect that.

Going out to hunt animals? I don't agree with it because you're killing extra animals when we've already got plenty grinding up in the machines to meet your needs. But again, that's your choice.

The thing that really gets to me is this pretentious attitude a lot of people have about hunting. That it's more romantic, more natural. There is nothing natural about going out and shooting animals. You aren't being more like the native Americans. You aren't somehow better than a guy who goes to McDonalds. If anything I have more respect for a guy in Maccy's because he's just hungry; and not getting a thrill out of shooting stuff. That's all it is, a hobby for people who are trigger happy.

 

[Oloolooloo!]

This is a really long post, so have some spoiler tags. One for each counterpoint.
1

Spoiler:

I wasn't talking about myself.

Does it matter? After all, you're representing these people.

2

Spoiler:

I need to re-read your first post? I wasn't even directing anything at you mate apart from "who said anything about politics" when I said I can choose not to participate, I meant in consuming and purchasing meat, not remaining politically apathetic.

So talking about politics...isn't politics. And not reading what an opponent says means their arguments don't exist. Makes sense.

3

Spoiler:

We defied nature the moment we started using tools pal; you're a good example of exactly what I'm complaining about. You are not being "one with nature" when you pull a trigger on your gun. You don't need to hunt animals to survive. You can go to the store and buy your meat from animals that have been born and bred in captivity and their sole purpose is to die for our benefit. It's a fact of modern life and the morality of that is a different discussion. What you are doing is going out and killing an animal that would have otherwise led a free life, you are just causing more death for the sake of your hobby or preference, and not out of hunger or necessity.

I never argued sport hunting helps the environment, helps animals, or takes a stand to the meat industry, nor will I ever. I argue that we have as much right to kill a deer as the natural world does.

Please, read my posts. Having to quote myself is redundant.

If you notice, "putting something in quotations" doesn't actually make it derived from the other side's argument. Being "one with nature" isn't something that guns do, because guns don't make you part of nature. The concept of nature doesn't actually have anything to do with the point of hunting. Sure, hunting has plenty to do with nature, but that's not why you hunt. Besides, would you rather we not use tools? Tools give us medicine, education, transportation, entertainment, the ability to do good! Certainly we can do better than slaughterhouses and firearms, but in order to solve these problems we need to use tools. We create these problems, we can fix them, and we fix problems not created by tools as well. That's a potential net gain.

4

Spoiler:

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your argument about the effectiveness of weapons. If anything the systematic slaughter is more humane in that respect because it's a sure and instant death.

Seriously, read other people's posts!

Hunting for sport is not "I'm so glad I get to shoot something" but imagine it as the excitement of the hunt. You wouldn't be into the trophy of a sports event if it was just handed to you, you'd like to work to get it at least, and hunting is just like that: work. Sure, calls can make it easier, but the forests aren't exactly tripping over deer. Just how fishing can be seen as a 'sport'; it's not the holding of the fish that is the sport, it's the struggle to succeed that is the sport. Much like it's the struggle to find the deer, track it (don't make sound by the way) and succeed.

More on the "systematic slaughter" piece in my later points.

5

Spoiler:

When you start hunting and hit, but fail to kill, you're bringing about a painful death; and sometimes it'll be able to get away and die later. You got a kill, but you lost the animal so it died for nothing. Not to mention all the people that just hunt for fun and don't even use their kill, which there are plenty of.

I completely agree with making hunting humane, but your logic is so flawed I have to correct it.

When you start hunting and hit, but fail to kill, you're bringing about a painful death; and sometimes it'll be able to get away and die later.

First off, anyone who has gotten shot before will know that being hit doesn't mean you're going to die if you don't get medical treatment. It's often safer to leave the bullet in than operate to remove it. Your body can have a bullet lodged inside for years with minimal health side effects. If it actually does become a problem, then and only then should surgery be considered.

Pain, from bullets? That would only be in the grounds of inhumane torture if with a serious wound such as a fractured limb, which would mean the prey is already immobilized and has a quick death in front of them. A bullet to say the thigh is certainly painful, but not crippling in the sense of lashing someone with a whip. And if you miss you prey so bad you only wound them, you need to stop hunting and go to the range. If you're hunting for sport because you're a trigger happy psychopath that likes killing animals for the sole sake of killing them, you probably shouldn't be hunting. Or own a gun.

You got a kill, but you lost the animal so it died for nothing.

If the animal died for nothing, then there wouldn't be a point in killing it. Hunters kill animals. Either they're all trigger happy psychopaths, or they have some other reason for hunting.

6

Spoiler:

Yeah it's 'cause I think killing is wrong. That's it. "they are not saints and get violent when cornered." hahaha sounds like a typical inner city youth let's have them put down also. I know they're overpopulated, I know they need culling. The result of humanity's impact on the ecosystem, of course, but again that's a different matter. I was never specifically talking about deer anyway; I'm more concerned about the many species that are threatened and the fact that in the past other species have gone extinct as the direct result of hunting.

WOAH! WTF!?!?!? I seriously hope that's what you think I'm saying, and not what you're saying. First off, here's what I said:

They are vastly overpopulated, public property destroyers, and get violent when cornered.There is no possibility of domesticating deer without generations of selective breeding, and that's assuming that we can replace every deer in the wild with a domesticated counterpart. They are not saints, and do not want to be. What ethics would protect these creatures?

Notice that there are a few key differences between blacks (we all know you meant black people) and deer you missed. At least, I hope you missed. Please tell me you missed these.

1. Blacks are not vastly overpopulated.
2. Not all blacks destroy public property.
3. I prefer to set the bar for black people higher than "domesticated". Hopefully you know why.
4. Not all blacks don't care about ethics.

Okay, now that that's out of the way, let's look at the rest of your statement.

I know they're overpopulated, I know they need culling. The result of humanity's impact on the ecosystem, of course, but again that's a different matter.

Ah, the passive-aggressive approach? You seriously don't want people to have any tools, do you? I can tell you though, that it sure was because of humanity hunting the deer's natural predators that they are now overpopulated. That's a specific kind of hunting called poaching. Do we need to explain poaching again? Let's see...

I was never specifically talking about deer anyway; I'm more concerned about the many species that are threatened and the fact that in the past other species have gone extinct as the direct result of hunting.

I guess we do need to go poaching.

Poaching is when hunting has a negative ecological fallout from hunting. Usually it's considered illegal, but unfortunately it's often regulated by morals. Threatening a species or worse is certainly poaching, and thus you're right to be worried about it. But remember, hunting is not poaching. That's why I used the deer example; even you agree deer need to be culled. And there are other species out there that can be hunted when overpopulated. There is never an equilibrium in nature. Animal populations in an environment considered stable still fluctuate, sometimes to points that hunter can hunt without poaching. What do you think the point of hunting seasons are? It's when an animal population is generally far above what is needed to be comfortable.

7

Spoiler:

Going to the store to buy your meat? Your choice, I respect that.

Going out to hunt animals? I don't agree with it because you're killing extra animals when we've already got plenty grinding up in the machines to meet your needs. But again, that's your choice.

Again, if the point of hunting is to kill as many animals as possible then you shouldn't be hunting.

8

Spoiler:

The thing that really gets to me is this pretentious attitude a lot of people have about hunting. That it's more romantic, more natural. There is nothing natural about going out and shooting animals. You aren't being more like the native Americans. You aren't somehow better than a guy who goes to McDonalds. If anything I have more respect for a guy in Maccy's because he's just hungry; and not getting a thrill out of shooting stuff. That's all it is, a hobby for people who are trigger happy.

Romantic? Natural? Ha!

I think you have met some really stupid hunters in the past that are coloring your views of every hunter that exists. Anyone who supports hunting because they think it's romantic or gets them in touch with nature is an idiot. It's the challenge, the sport, that's the reason people hunt. not because it's a chance to kill something. If there are more productive ways for people to have challenge, then it's called poaching.

9

Spoiler:

Clearly I wasn't serious. I even said that before, but looks like you got upset by it.

I eat Game thats been shot so am I a posh "asshole"?

Yep

So this was sarcastic? I couldn't tell by your tone of voice. Mostly because it's text. Nice try though.

BTW, baiting others to win a debate? That's low, man. It's hard to claim morals back your argument and then act like you do to others.

10

Spoiler:

I'd respect you if you were to at least try and not bring up points already answered without presenting new evidence, even more if you were to admit you don't have an argument.
In fact, I'd even like you and say your heart's in the right place, trying to put your ethics above the debate.
I don't like you.
I don't have any reason to like you.
But more importantly, I no longer respect what you say.
There's more to debates than being skilled.
You need to ask yourself why if you want to take something from this debate.
I can't make you ask yourself, I can try, but I can't make you.
This is me trying.

Please.

 

[Rogue planet]

snip

1. I represent nobody other than myself. 2. I made that statement because you thought I was directing a specific sentence at you when I wasn't.

3. I believe you were the one who made the link to natural order by saying "If wolves can kill a deer, why can't I?" but your little anecdote about tools seems to suggest the opposite. We're not like wolves, I think you're smart enough to realise that; so why the make the connection? You're just making a non-sensical appeal to the natural order of things, when our higher level of thinking and use of tools means we can't place ourselves on that level. That was why I brought it up, I didn't think I needed to spell it out that plainly.

4. So you admit it's just a hobby. Great.

5. "Pain, from bullets?" This is golden, but ultimately you're saying nothing here apart from "It's not that bad getting shot, promise!" Good one.

6. I was clearly poking fun at your choice of description. No... I wasn't talking about black people... not all urban populations are predominantly black you know. Nice try though.
Hunting seasons are not quite when it's deemed far above "comfortable" so no need to feel threatened about these extremely aggressive deer you've been talking about. It's when they're most ample in number, yes, not "above comfortable levels" Okay I didn't differentiate between hunting and poaching, I'll give you that. That's not to say that species aren't hunted until it's low enough in number to be deemed poaching.

7, 8. Again, you say it's the sport. So the whole idea that it's for food and with the intention of using the carcass can be thrown out the window then? Good. To quote a wise man: "Please, read my posts. Having to quote myself is redundant."
I said in my previous post that it's clearly just a hobby and not anything more. That much is obvious, I was complaining about the people that try and dress it up as something else. But you're not counting yourself among them.

So here's a bigger complaint; why don't you go and get your adrenaline rush elsewhere and stop killing things? But then again, caring about sentient life is clearly not your specialty; you made that clear earlier with your mocking "I suppose you'll say killing is bad." I'm not going to say all hunters are trigger hungry psychopaths because that would be a bit too extreme, but it's a big part of the gun loving culture and I'm not a big fan of that myself.

9. Previous post "jokes aside"

10. Nice poem

 

[They call me Brandon Lee]

Hunting for food is cool in my book. If you hunt for taxidermy please consume the critter you killed, if you're hunting for sport you've just wasted a perfectly good life, congratulations.

I'd probably never do it but yeah, I actually prefer people eating hunted meat over meat at the store because at least you know it lived a good life where it could basically do anything it wanted to