Bloodsports/Hunting for fun

[lilithu]

And exactly what is the difference between hunting your own meat rather than buying the sorry excuse they call meat at the grocery store?

The difference, my dear Apex, as Father Heathen has already mentioned, is that if you are a skilled hunter (or are getting meat from a skilled hunter), the animal has lived most of its life free and then had a quick death. In contrast, if you get your meat at the grocery store, the animal has lived its entire life in a factory farm, crowded by other animals, standing in its own filth, and then is led to its demise via an assembly line, where it can smell the fear of the previous animals who have passed thru, is frightened out of its wits, and too often not properly killed by the over-worked factory employees who will let a semi-conscious cow go on to be strung up, disemboweled, and skinned alive because they can't fall behind schedule. (I'm not placing all the blame on the workers, as they have to earn a living and know they will be punished if they slow things down.) That is the difference.

"Yeh killing this deer makes me more connected man" - Call it a sport or not, it's a crock of BS...Seems a very negative way of improving your connection, by the needless ending of another sentient beings life.

Wow, you just derisively dismissed a large part of Native American spirituality. How absolutely arrogant.

Sorry to dig this old thread up, but I was just perusing my old posts, and I was very interested at the final outcome...
It seems that a far higher percentage of atheists or agnostics find hunting for fun unethical, than religious folk...

Kind of a poke in the eye to those who claim religion makes you more moral...

That's assuming that your position is actually more moral. I find it to be simply more emotional and less logical. Kind of a poke in the eye to those who claim anti-religionists are more rational.

And btw, I did not vote in your poll because I found the options to be inadequate.

 

[Apex]

The difference, my dear Apex, as Father Heathen has already mentioned, is that if you are a skilled hunter (or are getting meat from a skilled hunter), the animal has lived most of its life free and then had a quick death. In contrast, if you get your meat at the grocery store, the animal has lived its entire life in a factory farm, crowded by other animals, standing in its own filth, and then is led to its demise via an assembly line, where it can smell the fear of the previous animals who have passed thru, is frightened out of its wits, and too often not properly killed by the over-worked factory employees who will let a semi-conscious cow go on to be skinned alive because they can't fall behind schedule. (I'm not placing all the blame on the workers, as they have to earn a living and know they will be punished if they slow things down.) That is the difference.

I agree. Darkendless made it sound as if it is better to buy your meat rather than hunt it your self.

 

[darkendless]

First of all, we're already destroying the balance of our environment. In North America, with which I am most familiar, habitat destruction has led to a decline of predator species such as wolves. At the same time, well-intentioned but cotton-headed humans are feeding the deer in their back yards, which has led to an explosion in the deer population. Hunting, when regulated by the Dept of Fish and Game, means that humans take the place of the wolves and brings the deer population back into balance.

Secondly, I would sooooooo much rather that the animal be shot (cleanly) when it doesn't know it's about to die than have it struggle in fear in close-range "combat." I really do not understand your logic here.


Who says toast is better for you than bacon? (I don't eat pork bacon btw. I just don't agree with your statement.)

Same in Australia, at present we have to kill Kangaroos in their hundreds because we knocked out their predators by hunting them and they wiping out plants everywhere in the NT. Its disgusting and people who defend hunting are just as bad (not suggesting that you are one of these people just saying). They simply don't care because its not their life at stake.

Hunting has lost its worth, there is no prestige to be had by simply shooting a helpless animal. Look at the big cats that have been hunted to near extinction, or killed for encroaching on human land. I was at Taraunga zoo in Sydney and a poster there said Lions have been hunted in the wild from 20000 to 2000 in a bit over a decade. Thats ******* disgusting. I say, if we have to kill an animal like a lion, do it in combat and make it worthwhile. Its pathetic that we kill such majestic animals because we want to, and because we can. If the lion snares you, than good riddence, the lion didn't deserve to die in the first place so the hunter got what they deserved.

 

[lilithu]

Same in Australia, at present we have to kill Kangaroos in their hundreds because we knocked out their predators by hunting them and they wiping out plants everywhere in the NT. Its disgusting and people who defend hunting are just as bad (not suggesting that you are one of these people just saying). They simply don't care because its not their life at stake.

Hunting has lost its worth, there is no prestige to be had by simply shooting a helpless animal. Look at the big cats that have been hunted to near extinction, or killed for encroaching on human land. I was at Taraunga zoo in Sydney and a poster there said Lions have been hunted in the wild from 20000 to 2000 in a bit over a decade. Thats ******* disgusting. I say, if we have to kill an animal like a lion, do it in combat and make it worthwhile. Its pathetic that we kill such majestic animals because we want to, and because we can. If the lion snares you, than good riddence, the lion didn't deserve to die in the first place so the hunter got what they deserved.

Hunting lions IS disgusting. I'm adamantly opposed to hunting any animal that is endangered, and also opposed to hunting if the animal is not going to be eaten.

But I see nothing wrong with hunting the kangaroos that are now overpopulated because of the absence of predators. Just as I see nothing wrong with hunting deer in the U.S. In fact, I fully support it. It provides meat in a far more humane way that factory farming, keeps the deer population in check, and the money collected from the hunting licenses go to fund our national and state parks.

 

[darkendless]

Hunting lions IS disgusting. I'm adamantly opposed to hunting any animal that is endangered, and also opposed to hunting if the animal is not going to be eaten.

But I see nothing wrong with hunting the kangaroos that are now overpopulated because of the absence of predators. Just as I see nothing wrong with hunting deer in the U.S. In fact, I fully support it. It provides meat in a far more humane way that factory farming, keeps the deer population in check, and the money collected from the hunting licenses go to fund our national and state parks.

At the moment there's nothing wrong with deer hunting because at the moment there's too many of them. I bet they said the same thing about lions, elephants, and about 1500 other species no one bothers about. Then again, deer and kangaroo provide good meat for eating whereas, many exotic animals do not. They simply killed them to show how great humans are

 

[dawny0826]

How do you justify it? Everything other than food an animal would traditionally be used for is avaliable synthetically these days, so there is no need to kill one. If you have to yes, but a lot of people who hunt mistake the word need, where amore appropriate word would be want.n

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.

I don't hunt, so it's not something that I have to worry about. Those that I know who do hunt, primarily hunt deer and they utilize the animal for food, sharing with others. I don't see anything wrong with this, even the enjoyment of the hunt.

 

[frg001]

The difference, my dear Apex, as Father Heathen has already mentioned, is that if you are a skilled hunter (or are getting meat from a skilled hunter), the animal has lived most of its life free and then had a quick death. In contrast, if you get your meat at the grocery store, the animal has lived its entire life in a factory farm, crowded by other animals, standing in its own filth, and then is led to its demise via an assembly line, where it can smell the fear of the previous animals who have passed thru, is frightened out of its wits, and too often not properly killed by the over-worked factory employees who will let a semi-conscious cow go on to be strung up, disemboweled, and skinned alive because they can't fall behind schedule. (I'm not placing all the blame on the workers, as they have to earn a living and know they will be punished if they slow things down.) That is the difference.

I understand the difference, and I admit that food caught by a skilled hunter is generally kinder... But you and others are missing the point I intended originally...Is it morally wrong to do it for the simple fact you enjoy doing it?
There is a survival type program presented by a guy called Ray Mears. He is a very skilled survivalist, and hunter. Much as I dislike hunting, the way he does it does not appear to be out of enjoyment for the kill, but out of necessity when living wild, and with utmost reverence to the animal. Again, I am more referring to people who go hunting, for the thrill of the chase and kill.

Wow, you just derisively dismissed a large part of Native American spirituality. How absolutely arrogant.

Wow, what an utterly ridiculous conclusion, I thought you were more intelligent.
Maybe I also dismiss the entire Aztec spiritual culture because I believe human sacrifice is wrong too.
I am not including a culture that hunted out of necessity. The average Sioux couldn't exactly pop down to the local Delicatessen for a few slices of garlic sausage!

That's assuming that your position is actually more moral. I find it to be simply more emotional and less logical. Kind of a poke in the eye to those who claim anti-religionists are more rational.

Nope. Whether the position is right or wrong, it means that the atheist is more likely to think about whether it is right or wrong. I personally(from experience) believe that many devoutly religious people simply regard non-humans as produce.

And btw, I did not vote in your poll because I found the options to be inadequate.

Fair enough.

 

[Azakel]

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.

And the reason way these animal become a threat is because humans move in and build homes and stuff around where these animals live. So now where are these animal suppose to go?

 

[lilithu]

I understand the difference, and I admit that food caught by a skilled hunter is generally kinder... But you and others are missing the point I intended originally...Is it morally wrong to do it for the simple fact you enjoy doing it?
There is a survival type program presented by a guy called Ray Mears. He is a very skilled survivalist, and hunter. Much as I dislike hunting, the way he does it does not appear to be out of enjoyment for the kill, but out of necessity when living wild, and with utmost reverence to the animal. Again, I am more referring to people who go hunting, for the thrill of the chase and kill.

As I said previously, I don't begrudge the tiger enjoying the thrill of the chase, so I don't see why I should begrudge the human hunter either. They enjoy exercising their skill. Yes, there are a few idiots who have no skill and go to hunting parks where they get to shoot defenseless animals who've been released there just for these idiots. (Cheney comes to mind.) But that's the practice I would condemn, rather than trying to read someone's mind as to whether or not they enjoy the killing part. As for real hunters, as long as they pay their licenses and eat the meat, they are fine with me, whether or not they do it for enjoyment, necessity, or spiritual practice or a little of each.

Wow, what an utterly ridiculous conclusion, I thought you were more intelligent.
Maybe I also dismiss the entire Aztec spiritual culture because I believe human sacrifice is wrong too.
I am not including a culture that hunted out of necessity. The average Sioux couldn't exactly pop down to the local Delicatessen for a few slices of garlic sausage!

You seem to think that Native Americans are extinct or something. That's probably even more insulting than dismissing their spirituality. I know Native Americans who hunt for this very reason, brainiac. In fact, Storm probably asked you that question because she knows some too.

Nope. Whether the position is right or wrong, it means that the atheist is more likely to think about whether it is right or wrong.

And you assume that just because people disagree with you (in the poll) that means they haven't thought about it. There have been several quite rational reasons presented for why hunting is not only ok, but good whereas your argument boils down to that you feel it's wrong. And you think that because you feel that way, it makes you more moral. :sarcastic

 

[lilithu]

At the moment there's nothing wrong with deer hunting because at the moment there's too many of them. I bet they said the same thing about lions, elephants, and about 1500 other species no one bothers about. Then again, deer and kangaroo provide good meat for eating whereas, many exotic animals do not. They simply killed them to show how great humans are

I'm not sure about elephants, but there would always have been far fewer lions than deer or kangaroo because lions are predators/carnivores and deer/kangaroo are prey/herbivores. The natural balance of things supports fewer predators than prey. Even tho we are omnivores, I see the human hunter as basically a predator.

I agree with you that killing lions and elephants for the "fun" of it is disgusting. More than the fact that it's done purely for "sport" it also decreases species diversity on the planet, which hurts all of us, human and animal alike.

 

[frg001]

As I said previously, I don't begrudge the tiger enjoying the thrill of the chase, so I don't see why I should begrudge the human hunter either. They enjoy exercising their skill. Yes, there are a few idiots who have no skill and go to hunting parks where they get to shoot defenseless animals who've been released there just for these idiots. (Cheney comes to mind.) But that's the practice I would condemn, rather than trying to read someone's mind as to whether or not they enjoy the killing part. As for real hunters, as long as they pay their licenses and eat the meat, they are fine with me, whether or not they do it for enjoyment, necessity, or spiritual practice or a little of each.

At least I know where you stand. For me, it is immoral.

You seem to think that Native Americans are extinct or something. That's probably even more insulting than dismissing their spirituality. I know Native Americans who hunt for this very reason, brainiac. In fact, Storm probably asked you that question because she knows some too.

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.

And you assume that just because people disagree with you (in the poll) that means they haven't thought about it. There have been several quite rational reasons presented for why hunting is not only ok, but good whereas your argument boils down to that you feel it's wrong. And you think that because you feel that way, it makes you more moral. :sarcastic

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.
. 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.

 

[Storm]

Nope. Whether the position is right or wrong, it means that the atheist is more likely to think about whether it is right or wrong. I personally(from experience) believe that many devoutly religious people simply regard non-humans as produce.

Then your experience is ridiculously limited.

 

[Storm]

At least I know where you stand. For me, it is immoral.

OK. For me, it isn't, so long as it's done right.

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.

The Sioux aren't extinct, they just go by their real names now. They are the Lakota and Dakota nations.

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.

Or, they haven't given a lick of thought, they just assume their squeamishness is indicitive of some sort of moral superiority.

. 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.

Some people like smilies. Cope.

 

[bosniak]

hunting is fun! try it!

 

[frg001]

OK. For me, it isn't, so long as it's done right.

That's your perogative

The Sioux aren't extinct, they just go by their real names now. They are the Lakota and Dakota nations.

I was referring to the Aztecs.

Or, they haven't given a lick of thought, they just assume their squeamishness is indicitive of some sort of moral superiority.

In what world can someone have a positive view on a subject without "giving it a lick of thought"?

Some people like smilies. Cope.

I cope, don't worry honey.
Smilies are fine. But I regard the use of rolleyes, sarcasm as rude. Just like you probably regard the above sentence which in normal circumstances I would never use.
Just because a debate is online, in a forum, doesn't mean you should do things that are equated to something in real life that you would not do. If someone rolled their eyes at me as part of a response in a debate, I would dismiss that person as rude, stupid or just plain ignorant.

 

[Storm]

That's your perogative

Yeah, I know.

I was referring to the Aztecs.

Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry about that.

In what world can someone have a positive view on a subject without "giving it a lick of thought"?

Assumptions of moral superiority require no reflection.

I cope, don't worry honey.
Smilies are fine. But I regard the use of rolleyes, sarcasm as rude. Just like you probably regard the above sentence which in normal circumstances I would never use.
Just because a debate is online, in a forum, doesn't mean you should do things that are equated to something in real life that you would not do. If someone rolled their eyes at me as part of a response in a debate, I would dismiss that person as rude, stupid or just plain ignorant.

Your loss.

 

[frg001]

Assumptions of moral superiority require no reflection.

They do if they are against the legal and normal trend

Your loss.

Not really. It just makes me respect the individual a little less each time.

 

[Storm]

They do if they are against the legal and normal trend

What is that, an appeal to numbers in reverse? An assumption is an assumption.

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

Not really. It just makes me respect the individual a little less each time.

Yeah, really. There are plenty of posters here who use smilies and are more than worth listening to.

 

[Storm]

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

 

[frg001]

What is that, an appeal to numbers in reverse? An assumption is an assumption.

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

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

Yeah, really. There are plenty of posters here who use smilies and are more than worth listening to.

Like I said, smilies are fine.