Notices
Results 1 to 58 of 58

Thread: Hunting: For good or evil?

  1. #1 Hunting: For good or evil? 
    Forum Freshman Nj14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    33
    I personaly have been hunting since 2003, and never want to stop.

    Hunting is, as many of you know, under fire. Number of poeple who participate are going down. In part due to organizations like PETA and ALF. I belive this is due to lies and propagnda. As well as the ignorace of main stream people.

    Hunters themselves seem to be portrayed as drunken slobs with a manical attatued towards killing. However, i have never been drunk, and i value life, especally animals.

    Thoughts and Feelings?


    Why do you stand around agrueing about the existence of gods and the truths of man while your beloved world tears itself apart with hate, anger, ignorance and fear?

    PETAs best weapon, and greatest weakness against hunting is their ingnorance. They can say whatever they want get people to support them.

    As such, their worst enemy is a smart hunter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    what do you do with the animals you kill? I think what you do with them afterwards is the ultimate reason why hunters are either given the names of good or bad. Do you use the corpse for food and perhaps sell the fur for clothing or do you just discard it?


    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    The most important question is: are the animals you are hunting on the brink of extinction?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I reckon most would agree that if anybody has profound empathy and respect for how a trout thinks and feels, it's the sport fisher who's been wading in a stream since 6am. I'd grant the same to game hunters, sure.

    So little of hunting is about values, we should not get hung up on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman Nj14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    33
    I hunt for food

    however before i die i wish to take a lion, couger and grizzly

    those obveously would not before food

    and i wouldent even consider hunt them if they where too near to extinction
    Why do you stand around agrueing about the existence of gods and the truths of man while your beloved world tears itself apart with hate, anger, ignorance and fear?

    PETAs best weapon, and greatest weakness against hunting is their ingnorance. They can say whatever they want get people to support them.

    As such, their worst enemy is a smart hunter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    From a religious perspective (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism ect.) most animals are clearly acceptable for consumption.

    From a non-religious perspective, humans clearly evolved to be omnivorous. Reject human predation if you like, but it was probably largely responsible for the development of the human brain. Fish and eggs are thought to have been essential in fueling the growth of the energy hungry organ.

    Ask PETA how they plan to feed 6 billion people on soy. If they are really dedicated to their cause, they will be among the first volunteers to starve to death.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    PETA has no concern for humanity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    PETA just falls strongly on one side of a contradiction we all share. It's no good logically arguing for or against animal rights... though it can be done.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    What contradiction? PETA's position on animal rights is not an argument and does not lend itself to argument. It was not arrived at ny logic - it's their belief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    What contradiction? PETA's position on animal rights is not an argument and does not lend itself to argument. It was not arrived at ny logic - it's their belief.
    No, it was arrived at by empathy. Would you say that it is ok to hunt a severely mentally handicapped person? If not, why? Is it only because they are human? Is it because you do not like to inflict pain on other humans? You might say that animals are shot in the head or heart and don't suffer, but are all hunters flawless shots?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    Please learn to read and stop the illogical and dishonest application of straw man argument. I offered no judgement on hunting - mentally challenged folks such as yourself or otherwise. Try answering a question rather than posturing with yours.

    I said it was a belief, understand? As in a decision not arrived at by reasoning. That would include one derived from empathy - and I'm sure you arrived at the specific origin by reading the majority of PETa members narrow minds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    Please learn to read and stop the illogical and dishonest application of straw man argument. I offered no judgement on hunting - mentally challenged folks such as yourself or otherwise. Try answering a question rather than posturing with yours.

    I said it was a belief, understand? As in a decision not arrived at by reasoning. That would include one derived from empathy - and I'm sure you arrived at the specific origin by reading the majority of PETA members narrow minds.
    Dude, think twice before making accusations and insults. I am merely offering a glimpse at a PETA member's viewpoint. Using logic alone would have us feeding dead people to the poor. My question was not a strawman, but an honest question. Obviously you won't kill disable people, but the reason why not has something to do with PETA's position. When you look at the situation from an evolutionary psychology perspective, the issues become even more apparent. Animals can suffer and have emotions as surely as we have them. This knowledge is very much the product of reasoning and not an unfounded, self constructed belief.

    For the record, I eat meat and lots of it, including game meat.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    What contradiction? PETA's position on animal rights is not an argument and does not lend itself to argument. It was not arrived at ny logic - it's their belief.
    No, it was arrived at by empathy.
    If you believe the PETA position is arrived at by logic, you should be able to articulate the logical argument beginning with a premise, such as "All humans feel empathy" and ending with the logical conclusion "hunting is wrong." Can you do that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    Please learn to read. i made no claim that PETA's position was the product of logic. I said it was NOT arrived at by this process but was a BELIEF.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    KALSTER made clear PETA's position isn't logical. I said as much. We all did.

    Many people think that means worthless, or even wrong. Is love logical?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    What contradiction? PETA's position on animal rights is not an argument and does not lend itself to argument. It was not arrived at ny logic - it's their belief.
    No, it was arrived at by empathy.
    If you believe the PETA position is arrived at by logic, you should be able to articulate the logical argument beginning with a premise, such as "All humans feel empathy" and ending with the logical conclusion "hunting is wrong." Can you do that?
    No. We all know that "wrongness" is relative. I already said that I eat meat, including game meat, so I am not a supporter of PETA as such, but I do understand where they are coming from.

    All humans that would fall within the loose definition of "normal" experience empathy, including the most ruthless hunters probably. Whenever we feel uneasy at another's distress, we experience empathy. The perceptions of people differ though as far as who or what deserves empathy, or in terms of their emotional frame of reference. A single individual can be the most loving and caring parent on one side and a blatant and ruthless racist on the other.

    Animal and evolutionary psychology holds that animals other than ourselves do experience emotions and can suffer. This is the product of experimentation, observation and deduction. However, a person that is sympathetic to PETA's position need not know this. They recognise what they think are counterpart emotions in animals and experience unease when they think that an animal experiences distress because of an empathic reaction. The science then says that their reaction is based on sound assumptions. So for a PETA member it is wrong to hurt animals for much the same reason it is wrong to hurt other humans. As to an absolute reference frame of what is right and wrong: no fully objective one exists.


    The key, though, is to encourage understanding. Shooting down PETA members without understanding where they come from has little merit.

    What I would love to find out is what hunters think of the above. Why do they think it is ok to kill animals for sport, or even food (when they can buy beef or such from cattle that never knew what hit them when they died)? Saying that they just never think about it and kill them because they like the thrill of hunting or they like game meat is a legitimate answer.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    How sweet - "is love logical"? Pong attempts to attach a bizarre group of clowns to a noble sentiment. Neither is coprophagia necessarily logical. Nor is PETA's position regarding abortion.

    "Wrongness" (wait while I write that one down!!) is relative!! I learn so much here! Happy as i am to understand your pop psychology of the human race, I'll note that many of us live by principles, even PETA folks. That they are dramatically and clownishly off does not detract from their living to their beliefs. Suggest you consider if you have any principles.

    Animal and evolutionary psychology ("??) say animals experience pain. Do you make this stuff up or have you a comedy writer?

    You've imagined the hunters' response. I'll pass on that you consider it legitimate - NRA will rejoice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    What exactly are you playing at here? Instead of pointing and laughing, why don't you actually add something to the debate?

    Wrongness" (wait while I write that one down!!) is relative!! I learn so much here! Happy as i am to understand your pop psychology of the human race, I'll note that many of us live by principles, even PETA folks. That they are dramatically and clownishly off does not detract from their living to their beliefs. Suggest you consider if you have any principles.
    I don’t give a rat’s ass what is considered popular psychology. I only care what is the truth. I have related to you what I believe the truth to be, so why don’t you act like an adult and provide a proper considered response? We all have principles, fine. So why do you consider PATA’s as clownish?

    Animal and evolutionary psychology ("??) say animals experience pain. Do you make this stuff up or have you a comedy writer?
    Another completely useless sentence. Animals experience emotions. What is funny about that?
    Animal Psychology
    Evolutionary Psychology
    It is not exactly pop psychology, is it?

    You've imagined the hunters' response. I'll pass on that you consider it legitimate - NRA will rejoice.
    I’ve given an example of what might be a possible response. I don’t care what the NRA think either.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    kal -please stop whining when folks observe your silly pompous comments.
    Be aware please - throwing out terms of doubtful legitimacy (esp. evolutionary - read pop - psychology) are hardly useful to confirming the obvious. They just show you as a pedant. The point is that we know animals feel pain - the terms are superfluous to that fact and posting them means nothing in this context.. Got it?

    Thanks for showing your bias - figured you would sooner or later. You find PETA worthy and dismiss NRA.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    kal -please stop whining when folks observe your silly pompous comments.
    What nonsense. What is pompous about them?

    Be aware please - throwing out terms of doubtful legitimacy (esp. evolutionary - read pop - psychology) are hardly useful to confirming the obvious.
    Oh come on. I was asked to explain myself and I did. And just because you think they are doubtfull doesn't mean they are.

    They just show you as a pedant. The point is that we know animals feel pain - the terms are superfluous to that fact and posting them means nothing in this context.. Got it?
    No, you don't seem to get it. That animals feel EMOTIONS and that PETA members recognise this fact is my point. Not physical pain for goodness sake. Read and think before you post.

    Thanks for showing your bias - figured you would sooner or later.
    Some more nonsense. Who am I biased towards exactly? I told you that I eat meat, including game. You are the one that is laughing at PETA without any understanding of their viewpoint.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Maybe we should rewind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    What contradiction?
    Well, I eat beef. So I support the industry and its practices. Yet I'm also a sympathetic person - I would never drive over goslings for example.

    Do you know how the industry I support conducts slaughter? Supposedly, the animals are dead before butchery, but it doesn't work quite so in practice. We shoot into their skulls with a sort of nail gun until they collapse and can't stand up. "Down" equals "dead". It's a rushed operation. Immediately these quivering beasts are conveyed down the line for processing.

    I support this, so I should be able to do it personally, no? In fact every few years I have the opportunity, visiting rancher relatives some of whom work in slaughterhouses. I could ask to check out the killing floor and try my hand. But you just know what people would say, and what I'd feel: "What are you some kind of sicko?"

    Normal sane people may support something, in a non-participatory utilitarian sense, while recoiling from it in their hearts. In fact we're expected to recoil, and those who don't recoil, like that boy who dismembered insects or put a cat in a microwave oven, are shunned as inhumane, probably psychopaths. There's a contradiction!

    In my opinion that contradiction is not to be solved. It works better when individuals ought to "just know" right from wrong. When reason can't grasp it. We learn who the bad guys are because they - unfettered by conscience - stumble right over it.

    Why PETA supporters stand out, is they try to rationalize their position. They take normal sentiment to its logical conclusion. This is silly and futile but it's good. A common belief that people should be rational, is good for that "trap" mentioned above. Working morals may lay low, and regulate people though we're consciously oblivious or even ruled by them.

    On the other hand, the subversive and often contradictory nature of morals causes some people to split badly. So they have this logical half unconscious of the emotional. Stereotypically they're young intellectual males, impassioned with the belief everything they think is rational. In a way it's true, because "they" are just one rather detached part of the whole person. Females and older people, to generalize, see clear through the rational madman up front. Some even prefer those guys locked in their own self-denial, because they're easily manipulated. Kinda robots. I play along unless their cold logic creeps into danger zones like euthanasia, or they attack people (for being illogical) too viciously.

    Living with contradictions, we must be twisted. But hopefully not too twisted.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman Nj14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You might say that animals are shot in the head or heart and don't suffer, but are all hunters flawless shots?
    Thats the worst part to hunting, not getting a clean shot, it happend to me this year, my shot was 1 inch to low on the neck, it bled out after 2 hours of tracking it, 1 inch higher it would have droped dead.

    I will say this, that deer ran up hill, through dence brush, with a hole in its neck the size of a silver dollor, i could hear it coughing, i saw the big puddles of blood

    and in the end i have more respect for that deer then i do for some humans
    Why do you stand around agrueing about the existence of gods and the truths of man while your beloved world tears itself apart with hate, anger, ignorance and fear?

    PETAs best weapon, and greatest weakness against hunting is their ingnorance. They can say whatever they want get people to support them.

    As such, their worst enemy is a smart hunter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Nj14
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You might say that animals are shot in the head or heart and don't suffer, but are all hunters flawless shots?
    Thats the worst part to hunting, not getting a clean shot, it happend to me this year, my shot was 1 inch to low on the neck, it bled out after 2 hours of tracking it, 1 inch higher it would have droped dead.

    I will say this, that deer ran up hill, through dence brush, with a hole in its neck the size of a silver dollor, i could hear it coughing, i saw the big puddles of blood

    and in the end i have more respect for that deer then i do for some humans
    I understand your enjoyment as well. We have it in us to hunt. It is often more than just a bunch of guys feeding off of each other’s manliness. You are immersed in nature, engaged in a challenge of man vs. beast (to use a cliché), etc.

    It is definitely a difficult subject. Down here it is necessary to cull elephant herds every once in a while or they destroy the landscape and become a danger to residents on the outskirts of reserves. Elephants are considered pretty intelligent animals and have pretty advanced emotional lives, but it has to be done, no matter how unpleasant a job it is.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman Nj14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    33
    The way I see it, Peta saying its not ok to kill animals, is like me saying its not ok to kill plants, why is one life more important than another?

    most people who argue hunting is bad have never been hunting, they dont get that its not about killing, and many times nothing gets killed

    there is killing in hunting, but rarely hunting in killing

    if that makes sense
    Why do you stand around agrueing about the existence of gods and the truths of man while your beloved world tears itself apart with hate, anger, ignorance and fear?

    PETAs best weapon, and greatest weakness against hunting is their ingnorance. They can say whatever they want get people to support them.

    As such, their worst enemy is a smart hunter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Nj14
    respect
    For some reason I take solace in thinking that regardless of suffering, that deer lived and died "as a deer". As opposed to say, being paraded alive through a parking lot and given lethal injection. I'm unsure why.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    The way I see it, Peta saying its not ok to kill animals, is like me saying its not ok to kill plants, why is one life more important than another?
    Do you have a dog? Would you rather kill your dog or a lizard? What about someone else’s dog vs. a lizard? The reason you would rather kill the lizard in both cases has the same origins as the feelings PETA has towards killing animals in general. That deer you shot experienced definite terror and physical suffering before it died. PETA members don’t like that, the same as you didn’t like it. A plant is an inert, soulless thing. Subjectively it is a much lower form of life than animals.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman Nj14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    33
    so its ok to cut down trees?

    what about a bugs, they're animals, but do they have "souls" do we humans have souls (but nevermind that, to talk about that would open a whole different bag of cats)

    what about coral, plant or animal, bacteria or moss, fetus or baby?

    where is the line drawn?

    what is right, wrong or truth (yet other bag for a different forum)

    reality is, death=life

    the deer i shot was going to die, maybe in a year, maybe the next moring, maybe hit by a car, maybe starved that winter

    if its not ok to kill a wolf, because he/she feels pain and fear, is it not ok for the wolf to kill the deer because it too feels fear and pain?

    if it emotions that seperate us (make us better?) then the animals, what about elephants? they have emotions, are they equal? are they a less equal?

    the point im trying to make is, why do we need to stop killing animals, if animals kill too? how am i differernt from the animals if we all have pain and we all have fear?
    Why do you stand around agrueing about the existence of gods and the truths of man while your beloved world tears itself apart with hate, anger, ignorance and fear?

    PETAs best weapon, and greatest weakness against hunting is their ingnorance. They can say whatever they want get people to support them.

    As such, their worst enemy is a smart hunter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Nj14
    how am i differernt
    I think you mean how are you entitled? What gives you any right?

    I got there through human-human morals. Alice Walker comes to mind:

    Quote Originally Posted by Celie, in [i
    The Color Purple[/i]]I'm poor, I'm black, I may be ugly, but I'm here.
    Ultimately, what entitles us is just the arbitrary fact of our existence. Then, the domain of our entitlement is defined by arbitrary traits, like the mush we feel gazing into seal pup eyes, our thrill for the hunt, the care we take for a delicate orchid, even that craving for cheese puffs. These innate things need no rationalization, and in fact even understood through the lens of behavioral sciences, can't be justified beyond "I'm here. It is."

    Naturally the animals have every right to assert their own arbitrary natures. They're here too.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Nj14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Naturally the animals have every right to assert their own arbitrary natures. They're here too.
    it is the preditors arbitrary right to hunt the prey
    likewise it is the preys arbitrary right elude the preditor

    I am the preditor
    Why do you stand around agrueing about the existence of gods and the truths of man while your beloved world tears itself apart with hate, anger, ignorance and fear?

    PETAs best weapon, and greatest weakness against hunting is their ingnorance. They can say whatever they want get people to support them.

    As such, their worst enemy is a smart hunter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Yeah well don't go all lizard on us. You're also a broadly sympathetic social animal.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Nj14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    33
    after reading my last post, i relize it came out wrong

    ya i am a sypathetic social animal, and what i mean to say is i am a preditory sypathetic animal

    not, you know, just a mindless killer
    Why do you stand around agrueing about the existence of gods and the truths of man while your beloved world tears itself apart with hate, anger, ignorance and fear?

    PETAs best weapon, and greatest weakness against hunting is their ingnorance. They can say whatever they want get people to support them.

    As such, their worst enemy is a smart hunter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I've often thought that when kitty's got her little mouse pet, she's indulging a twisted sort of empathy, and developing a beloved insight into the hearts of mice.


    Maybe you know, Nj14: Do hunters generally like cats?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Maybe you know, Nj14: Do hunters generally like cats?
    In my experience as a hunter, I would say generally not. A hunter is more likely to have a hunting dog as a pet. The hunter would probably tend to view feral cats as a threat to game bird and rabbit populations. We used to shoot them if we came across them in the woods.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    Kal is a pop psychologist for animals - pulls BS terms evolutionary psychology out of a posterior orifice, as if they had meaning by themselves or were relevant to the discussion. Then he imagines PETA 's motivation - go read their website kal.

    Pong - you lack of conviction is compelling. Eat meat and then worry about it. Grow up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    Kal is a pop psychologist for animals - pulls BS terms evolutionary psychology out of a posterior orifice, as if they had meaning by themselves or were relevant to the discussion. Then he imagines PETA 's motivation - go read their website kal.

    Pong - you lack of conviction is compelling. Eat meat and then worry about it. Grow up.
    Ignorance + obstinate superiority complex = tripe.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    For some reason I take solace in thinking that regardless of suffering, that deer lived and died "as a deer". As opposed to say, being paraded alive through a parking lot and given lethal injection. I'm unsure why.
    I can relate.

    imo, in the end of the day; hunters who hunt for food are more humane than people
    who go buy meat from the butcher. as by doing so they support the slaughter houses.

    imo, as long as the animal lived free, either way she dies it'll be a respectful death.

    That would be my philosophy if I were a wild animal.
    Good Brother
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The truths that matter to us the most are often left half-spoken..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    yo! Jorge:

    Good Brother
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The truths that matter to us the most are often left half-spoken..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    typical moronic pong - asserting his arbitrary right to assert ignorance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Why are you trying to fail?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    poor idiotic pong. Another welfare parasite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Ask PETA how they plan to feed 6 billion people on soy. If they are really dedicated to their cause, they will be among the first volunteers to starve to death.
    I just found this interesting because it would actually be much easier, and far more efficient to feed the world without meat. We can feed many time more people with grain than we can if we have to grow animals to provide meat---beef is something like 30 pounds or grain to 1 pound of meat--very inefficient. Chicken and fish are less than 10:1 ratio, which is much better, but still pretty inefficient compared to just eating the grains.
    --
    Anyhow, hunting of some species are necessary to avoid catastrophic overpopulation and massive starvation. Deer for example, without hunting or natural predators over populate, eat damn near everything they can, including people gardens hedges etc, and will just end up starving by massive numbers.

    On the other hand, I see little reason to hunt predators unless it’s for individual animals who've demonstrated they are dangerous and getting too accustomed to living near humans. Under examination, even claims of protecting stock from big cats, wolves etc, usually aren’t necessary because takes are usually only a few percent that can be easily rolled into the business expenses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    much easier, and far more efficient to feed the world without meat... beef is something like 30 pounds or grain to 1 pound of meat...
    Cattle often graze on land unprofitable for human food cultivation. As well we supplement them with byproducts from the human food industry, like fish tails and chicken feet mashed up with corn cobs.

    Proves the point? It's a bit like saying cars are inefficient because government subsidizes roads. But we must have roads in any case, for the firetrucks etc. The way our (vegetarian) food industry works, meat will always be a profitable addition.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43 Re: Hunting: For good or evil? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Nj14
    I personaly have been hunting since 2003, and never want to stop.

    Hunting is, as many of you know, under fire. Number of poeple who participate are going down. In part due to organizations like PETA and ALF. I belive this is due to lies and propagnda. As well as the ignorace of main stream people.

    Hunters themselves seem to be portrayed as drunken slobs with a manical attatued towards killing. However, i have never been drunk, and i value life, especally animals.

    Thoughts and Feelings?
    We're so far removed as a society from the reality that to get an adequate supply of protein we must kill other animals. If you eat meat, you can't complain about people hunting. If hunters didn't hunt, you would be forced to, or you would become an herbivore (not sure if i can interchange this term with "vegaterian" but i thought i'd give it a try..lol ) and it would be much harder to obtain much needed protein sources.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    much easier, and far more efficient to feed the world without meat... beef is something like 30 pounds or grain to 1 pound of meat...
    Cattle often graze on land unprofitable for human food cultivation.
    Which only serves to mitigate some of inefficiency because they are still supplemented and provided feed from cultivated grain during the winter months.

    I have no problem with hunting, and have done so many time. I think it's even necessary to compensate for lack of predators in many places. But to think that eating animal grown meat is efficient than grain for feeding the world population is a gross distortion of reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I agree it's less efficient. But any arrangement may be proven less efficient. In any case a meat component has been profitable everywhere since prehistory so I hesitate on bright ideas.

    Personally I'm a fan of overlooked seafood. The volume of sustainable protein we can harvest out of just Antarctic krill for example, is fantastic. But are all the Americas going to eat krill paste every day? No, we're going to use it as feed and fertilizer, so we may have bacon and bananas.

    Incidentally, the price of casual sport fishing license for Western Canada is a gouge. A family outing up the ski slope costs less than digging clams or wishing for trout. I know in some countries there's no fee for casual catch. What are other poster's experiences?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman danacus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    32
    hunting for fun - dislike
    hunting for food - fair enough

    thats my oppinion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    I'm sure the hunters can't sleep now that they now you dislike their sport.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman danacus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    32
    i dont agree with killing purely for fun, but for fun and if yuor going to eat what you killed then i dont mind,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    Allow me to clarify - no one cares what you prefer or with what action you agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by danacus2
    i dont agree with killing purely for fun, but for fun and if yuor going to eat what you killed then i dont mind,
    Don't mind jorge. There is something wrong with him.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    Don't mind Kalster - he's nothig to offer but quotes from the equally pompous but more accomplished showman Sagan. Always liked his "bullions and bullions...." - what BS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by danacus2
    i dont agree with killing purely for fun, but for fun and if yuor going to eat what you killed then i dont mind,
    As long as you extend that same courtesy to the animals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53 Re: Hunting: For good or evil? 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Nj14
    Thoughts and Feelings?
    An emotional activity not led by scientific insights in almost ALL cases.

    So epic fail.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    15
    Now i am not to sure but i think that hunters change the evolution of certian species. Take a deer a hunter wants to kill the biggest dear with the biggest rack. When a significant amount of said dear are taken out of the population the ones that do mate produce smaller offsrping becasue they themselves are smaller.

    Secondly if we wanted a protien source that uses land efficiently we would eat bugs since the proces food better then most livestock in a pound for pound comparision
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    All humans that would fall within the loose definition of "normal" experience empathy, including the most ruthless hunters probably. Whenever we feel uneasy at another's distress, we experience empathy. The perceptions of people differ though as far as who or what deserves empathy, or in terms of their emotional frame of reference. A single individual can be the most loving and caring parent on one side and a blatant and ruthless racist on the other.
    I think one of the major psychological roles of hunting is teach oneself how to overcome that empathy. Anyone who's got loved ones to protect wants to be as confident as possible that, if it were necessary, they would be able to psychologically handle taking a (human) life.

    Killing an animal is a relatively harmless way to prove that to yourself. I figure, with hunting, that at least your prey has a fighting chance, not like those cows in the slaughter house. I'd rather die the death of a hunted deer than get herded into a killing factory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    39
    Eating meat is part of life.

    As long as hunting is properly restricted as to not extinct any species, then it's fine. Hunting helps keep populations at optimum levels. Over population will kill the species just as fast, if not faster then hunting. Plus it is a much more miserable death.

    There are several ways it could die:
    1. Due to overpopulation it could slowly wither away and starve/freeze to death.
    2. Get ripped apart by a predator in a long painful experience.
    3. Get shot and die in 30 seconds.

    Hunting isn't so bad, afterall.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    I find hunting repulsive and barbaric, but we are barbarians in disguise and will continue to be barbarians for several years to come, and in the meantime people who get upset by hunting and then turn around and order a big mac are either hypocrites or misinformed.

    Its like the European uproar over seal hunt in Canada.

    Let me get this straight, if 60 thousand seals out of over 5 million, live free in the wild in an ecologically balanced way, and get to be the unlucky ones and hunted down, now thats bad.

    But if however, you could somehow capture the entire 5 million seal population and cram them in industrial scale factory farms where they would live out their life in horrific conditions while dejecting industrial quantities of concentrated fecal matter that would wreak rivers and with the added 100% certainty of ending your misery by being slauthered, now that would be ok? Really?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    either hypocrites or misinformed
    Say both: willingly misinformed.

    Empathy kicks in only where observation or imagination apply. We know that, so we play a mind game. It's intellectually dishonest sure, but it's also expedient. No one can observe everything. :wink:

    Imagine if our nature was to seek all information painful to our selves.

    The seal slaughter is a pitfall because empathy demands that once a nominally compassionate human being observes it, that person must recoil and protest. Expression of humane sentiment shows you are a good person. Society depends on such evidence of the heart.

    But we can forgive a person for not looking, and so having no opinion.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •