Bloodsports/Hunting for fun

[Storm]

LOL! You claim an appeal to numbers then refute it with...an appeal to numbers...dear me. poor.

Hardly. I was refuting your argument that looking down on hunters is unfashionable.

 

[frg001]

BTW, the Aztecs aren't extinct, either. Wiki: Aztec

Well you learn something new every day.

 

[frg001]

Hardly. I was refuting your argument that looking down on hunters is unfashionable.

Er no.
You dismissed my argument by saying that it was fashionable to look down on hunters. Not something I have ever said....

Anyway, decrying hunters is pretty faddish atm, which makes your ridiculous argument moot.

classic appeal to numbers.

 

[Storm]

*sighs* Different ways of saying the same thing. I'll phrase my posts as I please, thank you.

 

[Father Heathen]

So are slaughter houses more ethical than hunting? How? And is there a rational argument against hunting in particular (or meat consumption in general), or merely an emotional, knee jerk reaction?

 

[frg001]

So are slaughter houses more ethical than hunting? How? And is there a rational argument against hunting in particular (or meat consumption in general), or merely an emotional, knee jerk reaction?

Not particularly. As I have admitted, it is often kinder to hunt, or even farm and kill your own meat. And if I had the inclination I would be tempted to do it.

My question (from memory) was if the 'enjoyment' of the hunt and kill, was immoral, not the action. For me it is that base human emotion that most of us have. I took my jack russell terrier hunting for wild rats and rabbits when I was very young (12,13,14), and I know I did it because I wanted to see it catch one and kill it. I still to this day feel ashamed about that. But many people do not regard this as immoral. I find it so nowadays as an adult.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Because we dont need to and we're destroying the balance of our environment because we somehow think we're better for shooting a defenseless animal. Real hunting would be to track and kill animals with zero range weapons. There is no pride to be had in shooting an animal at a distance. It doesn't even know its about to die. Hunting gives the animal a chance to defend itself, killing is simply taking its life like 99% of people do these days.

This is BS. 99% of hunters are not like that and I'm sure you pulled that number out of the air. You have no idea my method of hunting or the amount of skill involved or even what effect it has on my environment. In truth, it sounds like you know nothing about hunting at all and are only spouting out emotional conclusions based on what you assume happens when hunting.

 

[darkendless]

You're right. Much can be made synthetically. However, when animals become a threat to humans and their property, this is another suitable justification for hunting, in my opinion.

.

Hmm... i don't kmow here. Remeber, its not our land. We live in the habitat of the animals. In Africa if you build a farm in the forest, is the Lion encroaching on your land, or are you encroaching on their habitat?
In Australia we have a problem with bull sharks, but is the water our land? Can we justify killing them? No, we're food for them, they do not discriminate. If we don't want to get bitten we should stay out of the water.
We should only hunt to sustain populations (eg. Deer in the USA i think Lilithu spoke about, kangaroos over here) and not for the thrill, or because we can.

 

[darkendless]

This is BS. 99% of hunters are not like that and I'm sure you pulled that number out of the air. You have no idea my method of hunting or the amount of skill involved or even what effect it has on my environment. In truth, it sounds like you know nothing about hunting at all and are only spouting out emotional conclusions based on what you assume happens when hunting.

I was born in New Zealand on a farm south of Gisborne in the north island. We slaughtered about 300 possums a night to control the population, i hated it, but we had to do it. I take no pleasure in taking the life of another living thing that is being killed because there are too many. So you're incorrect. We used to hunt pheasants in winter. I was too young but i used to carry the ammo. Im fully aware of what hunting is like. As i've said in the post above, hunting should be used only as a means for food or population control, even though we now need population control because of hunting.
To be honest i don't care how skillful you are, the simple fact is what makes you so damn sure its your right to take a life? Are you better than them and therefore deserve to take their life? Unless you're defending yourself or hunting for food then i really do feel sorry for you.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

To be honest i don't care how skillful you are, the simple fact is what makes you so damn sure its your right to take a life? Are you better than them and therefore deserve to take their life? Unless you're defending yourself or hunting for food then i really do feel sorry for you.

But what you said was:

Because we dont need to and we're destroying the balance of our environment because we somehow think we're better for shooting a defenseless animal. Real hunting would be to track and kill animals with zero range weapons. There is no pride to be had in shooting an animal at a distance. It doesn't even know its about to die. Hunting gives the animal a chance to defend itself, killing is simply taking its life like 99% of people do these days.

Why is there no pride in hunting an animal at a distance? You think all hunters site in on a deer standing on a ridge a hundred yards away? When I hunted I used a 16 guage shotgun with dove shot to shoot rabbits at a distance that were running at full speed. This took skill and I'm proud to say I could do it well. The rabbits were for food and not trophies.

Then you say that 99% of hunters are simply killing to take a life. That's BS. If you want to speak for New Zealand go ahead but I suggest strongly that you say NEW ZEALAND HUNTERS ARE 99% KILLERS and leave the rest of us out of your generalizations.

 

[lilithu]

Don't be absurd. Of course I am aware they are still around. However their practice stemmed from a time when they needed to hunt to live. Yes it is still a part of some of their so called spirituality, but that isn't really the point I ever intended to make. Neither would I say spiritual reasons is a particularly good excuse in this day and age, and thus why I mentioned an extinct race.

Right, your point is that you think you have the right to decide how other cultures should live and whether or not their spirituality is a valid enough reason to let them do what they believe is right. Everyone should adopt your idea of progress. How typically colonial of you. Oh, let's do civilize these savages. :areyoucra

I disagree. Someone who has decided that it is not moral has *thought* about it, especially when the default stance is that it is legal, and acceptable.

I repeat, you are assuming that the person who decides that it's not immoral has not thought about it. ie - you're assuming that anyone who thinks about it would agree with you and thus anyone who disagrees has not thought about. It's an effective way to make yourself feel superior, but delusional, nonetheless.

By the way I regard the use of the stupid sarcasm, rolleyes etc emoticons as quite a ridiculous and condescending way to express yourself in a debate.

By the way, I don't care. :sarcastic:areyoucra If only your contempt and condescension were somehow more intelligent by your foregoing the smileys.

Remeber, its not our land. We live in the habitat of the animals.

I don't agree. It is quite "natural" for new species to come into a habitat and cause even severe disruptions. It happens even without us. Climates change, migration patterns shift... Do you make a moral judgment when a species of bear wanders into a habitat where they weren't before?

I have the impression that you view what other animals do as "natural" while what we humans do is "unnatural." That ignores the fact that we humans ARE animals. When a farmer in Brazil burns down rainforest in order to grow cattle, he is doing what other animals do; he is trying to survive and feed his young. That doesn't mean that I think the rapid deforestation of the rainforest is ok. We are losing biodiversity and wreaking havoc on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which if left unchecked will result in an ecological meltdown. I agree we have to preserve habitat. But we have to do it while also recognizing that humans have an equal right to live on this planet - not more, and not less.

The land doesn't belong to the animals. It doesn't belong to us. We all exist in an interdependent web. Humans are not separate from that web.

To be honest i don't care how skillful you are, the simple fact is what makes you so damn sure its your right to take a life? Are you better than them and therefore deserve to take their life?

Do you think the tiger asks these questions when it hunts? I don't think I'm better than other animals, even tho I eat some of them. Nor would I think that a tiger thought it was better than me if ever I encountered one and it decided that I was lunch.

 

[rojse]

killing is simply taking its life like 99% of people do these days.

I would hesitantly say that to go hunting, you need to take the life of an animal, otherwise, you haven't really succeeded, have you?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I would hesitantly say that to go hunting, you need to take the life of an animal, otherwise, you haven't really succeeded, have you?

The distinction he made was that he believed 99% of hunters were killing without using the art of hunting. I agree that putting out bait and shooting a deer who comes out to feed is not hunting. Shinning a spotlight on rabbits and shootting them while there frozen is not hunting. What I was disagreeing with was his percentage and the fact that he was insulting many legitimate hunters all over the world.

 

[darkendless]

I don't agree. It is quite "natural" for new species to come into a habitat and cause even severe disruptions. It happens even without us. Climates change, migration patterns shift... Do you make a moral judgment when a species of bear wanders into a habitat where they weren't before?

I have the impression that you view what other animals do as "natural" while what we humans do is "unnatural." That ignores the fact that we humans ARE animals. When a farmer in Brazil burns down rainforest in order to grow cattle, he is doing what other animals do; he is trying to survive and feed his young. That doesn't mean that I think the rapid deforestation of the rainforest is ok. We are losing biodiversity and wreaking havoc on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which if left unchecked will result in an ecological meltdown. I agree we have to preserve habitat. But we have to do it while also recognizing that humans have an equal right to live on this planet - not more, and not less.

The land doesn't belong to the animals. It doesn't belong to us. We all exist in an interdependent web. Humans are not separate from that web.


Do you think the tiger asks these questions when it hunts? I don't think I'm better than other animals, even tho I eat some of them. Nor would I think that a tiger thought it was better than me if ever I encountered one and it decided that I was lunch.

Humans come along and kill everything, there is usually none or very litle coexistance. Over here there was a report on TV finding that humans were responsible for the extinction of over 200 natural species in 10 years.

A tiger hunts to survive, humans often hunt to be rid of an inconvenience.