Is Hunting for Fun Immoral? Discussion.

[toxictaipan]

Oh yes because you have contributed so much your "intellect" ...

That means a lot coming from someone who resorts to name calling and personal attacks.

 

[calisupra2nr]

I'm a scientist, calis, and as intriguing as that article is, it's A) theory, not fact; and B) largely irrelevant to the matter of morality. At least from your quoted source, Sussman doesn't advocate refraining from eating meat.

Perhaps, it even strengthens the argument for morality. Not to claim correlation as causation, but we are better off now than we were 800,000 years ago. You can make a strong case that the average vegetarian's lifestyle is healthier than the meat-eater's, but there's still an enormous respect due to the hunters that existed in our history, even if they were pea brains.

I don't mind vegetarian/vegan habits based on health at all, and I actually respect them greatly (I have many vegetarian meals every year, either by myself or with my brother/his girlfriend)...However, the reality is that playing campus crusader for Thumper, Bambi, Simba, and every other cute, cuddly Disney animal is often an activity derived from ignorance, or "head-in-the-clouds"-itis.

And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying: there are animals that would kill you if given the chance. They may not be the common kind that waynegg hunts, but they're every bit "hunted."

Obviously it is theory, but it is relevant to the fact that people said we have always hunted in this thread when it is most likely not the case. So even if we did it then, we have new technologies, agricultures now that mean we can move on. Like I said, the people that think hunting is moral or even correct, are the same people that would have thought our Earth was flat, because its all they know. You may be a scientist but it does not mean you are enlightened. I know you continue to reference Disney characters as if I am some white knight for cute little bunnies, but I would fight for anything (including a human) that is innocent and being taken advantage of or being destroyed. But please explain how that is ignorance or how doing the right thing is "head-in-the-cloud"itis?

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

That means a lot coming from someone who resorts to name calling and personal attacks.

Haha you have no idea what your talking about...if I was actually trying to put forth a legitimate argument, I would follow the appropriate rules (which state when you resort to those said tactics, you are discredited). In fact, I was not arguing but demolishing the scum. I can say or do whatever I want when it comes to that, so do not lecture me on how to put forth an argument...This isn't an argument, its an atrocity of antique humans trying to justify their lifestyles.

 

[Cyrus]

Re Calis: I'm not claiming to be some enlightened scholar - I'm simply coming from a rudimentary understanding of things.

As for you? It's an ignorant action to white knight where there is neither good nor evil to be found. The methods I choose to sustain my life are what they are: methods of of sustenance, and nothing more or less. Either plants, animals, or animal by-products have to give in order to secure my life, and it just so happens that I choose all three (like a vast majority of the world population, including the most educated in the history of the world).

Bwahahaha, that's still so adorable though: "demolishing the scum"? Yeah I'm getting demolished, all right...Getting demolished by your sense of humor! :lol:

 

[Nobodys]

Wait wait... I have a new question... if pokemon would real, would you eat them?

I think it's kinda weird they talk about barbecuing Magikarp, but wouldn't hurt pokemon like say, Tauros or something. Would you barbecue pikachu?

I'm a scientist, calis,

No that's a professor coat, not a lab coat ;p

 

[ryanvergel]

What are you literally talking about kid? Creative writing and philosophy have nothing to do with you not having an idea of anthropologic concepts... You said so yourself, 200k years ago we were hunter and gatherer, and then you come in and essentially use that as your logic...How could I not think you are clinically insane? You call me pathetic yet you say we hunt for pleasure because it gets us girls and thats how we become men? How am I not supposed to think you are some rural hick with screwed concepts on what is real? You provide nothing but insult to injury with your statements and I can easily disprove nearly every "scientific" argument you made (which were little to none) by directing you to a scholastic textbook concerning modern humans and paleoanthropolgy.

Ok so your immoral? Congrats the sooner you are gone the healthier this planet will be...

No, I said 20000. Only 4 zeroes, buddy. Not 5.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

All the good threads get locked because of idiots.

This is why HeyTrainer is better....

Emphasis added.

QFT.

 

[waynegg]

I have an uncle who likes to hunt and he barely graduated high school.

What are you trying to say? Hunters are uneducated hicks? I have a college education and enjoy hunting. The two don't correlate you jerk!

Our brains did not expand because of our "hunting" practices.

Actually... they did. Man's need to eat, and thereby hunt, made the development of tools a necessity. This development is THE contributing factor accredited with the turning point of mankind from being a wild animal to becoming self aware and educated. You need to take the same Anthropology 101 course, so I guess you and Ryan can be study buddies (lol).

You (as a **** sapien) are far more insightful and advanced than to practice some barbaric ritual.

But we sure are physically weak and mushy now as a result.

In fact eating meat in general is just terrible for your health, the ecosystem, and the animals in general.

Our bodies are designed to eat meat as part of our diet. The statement is 100% false all the way down to the environmental bs. And hunting doesn't cause any of your perceived environmental nightmare. You are ill informed on the subject so I would suggest not debating it. You will lose. Hunters are some of te most environmentally conscious people on the planet.

Oh and going back through the above bold statement just shows how trash you are. I love how since we have "natural" rights (which are inherently based off religous BS), other living things have no rights... Let me guess, god placed us on this earth above all other living things. You must be some sort of bible pusher that does not realize it or is in disguise.

what- are you trying to say it is archaic and primitive to believe in a God? A one Creator? I can prove the statistical preponderance of the Existence using the scientific principles you cling to as your excuse to not believe...

This is 2009, we do not do that anymore, so how doing it for pleasure is EVEN A QUESTION is beyond everything that will make the human race advance. People that say look at our ancestral DNA are just fools...
It is stagnant and destructive and I refuse to tolerate it in the least bit, especially from someone so blind.

You claim to love the environment... yet you are so pompous and full of yourself you can't see the forest for the trees. The global deforestation, ozone depletion, pollution is caused not by men who prefer to live more self sufficient lives like people who hunt, but by people like you who prefer to drive to the store and buy your prepackaged box of crap to eat. The hunter wants to preserve, and works steadily to improve, the environment so it will be here for many generations to come. Your self righteous consumerism will be the death of us all.

This isn't an argument, its an atrocity of antique humans trying to justify their lifestyles.

...And of the self assured new model spouting nonsense as they can't see past the tips of their own nose.

comparisson:

Hunters- self sufficient. Are more likely to purchase food from a farmer's market and items which require no packaging. Not dependent on someone else to do for them. Leave very little carbon footprint as a result.

Weenies- totally depend on others for all of their needs. More likely to purchase prepacked items. Will take convenience over self reliance every time. Leave a huge carbon footprint as a result.

Yes- you are just sooo forward in your thinking and how you conduct you life with all the modern doodads that waste so much energy and resources as a result. Your kind is pushing us ever closer to a world which resembles the city planet Coruscant from Star Wars...

 

[calisupra2nr]

Re Calis: I'm not claiming to be some enlightened scholar - I'm simply coming from a rudimentary understanding of things.

As for you? It's an ignorant action to white knight where there is neither good nor evil to be found. The methods I choose to sustain my life are what they are: methods of of sustenance, and nothing more or less. Either plants, animals, or animal by-products have to give in order to secure my life, and it just so happens that I choose all three (like a vast majority of the world population, including the most educated in the history of the world).

Bwahahaha, that's still so adorable though: "demolishing the scum"? Yeah I'm getting demolished, all right...Getting demolished by your sense of humor! :lol:

You are smart enough to sustain yourself in a way that does not ruin another beings life are you not? Can you make yourself a salad or buy fresh vegetables, fruits, make veggie burgers, etc? Do we have the engineered foods to get all of nutrients without eating meat? The answer to all of these should be yes, so there is no excuse for doing it any other way with the exception of blind tradition and ignorance.

What are you trying to say? Hunters are uneducated hicks? I have a college education and enjoy hunting. The two don't correlate you jerk!

Usually college education implies being forward thinkers, but in your case clearly not.

Actually... they did. Man's need to eat, and thereby hunt, made the development of tools a necessity. This development is THE contributing factor accredited with the turning point of mankind from being a wild animal to becoming self aware and educated. You need to take the same Anthropology 101 course, so I guess you and Ryan can be study buddies (lol).

Please, I currently am in ANTH 200, seriously do not lecture me on what you think you know. Tools are A PART the accredited turning point, but we did not dev tools to hunt. In fact the first tools were developed far before we developed an omnivorous diet. There are other primates that use tools (all are herbivores mind you) yet they are not as advanced as the human race. This is just a sad excuse to justify your old fashioned practices.

But we sure are physically weak and mushy now as a result.



Our bodies are designed to eat meat as part of our diet. The statement is 100% false all the way down to the environmental bs. And hunting doesn't cause any of your perceived environmental nightmare. You are ill informed on the subject so I would suggest not debating it. You will lose. Hunters are some of te most environmentally conscious people on the planet.

Wow, just wow. You sound like every other rural farmer who wants to keep their profits. Try looking outside of your box for answers and they are everywhere. Here is one published by a world climate organization, there are plenty of other studies by accredited institutions also and since you believe the American way, they are done by Harvard, Stanford and Duke.
Climate-change experts have warned of the high carbon cost of meat for several years.

Beef is particularly damaging. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is released from flatulent cows and by manure as it decays. Furthermore, to produce a kilogram of beef (2.2 pounds), farmers also have to feed a cow 15 kg of grain and 30 kg of forage. Grain requires fertiliser, which is energy intensive to produce.

Stehfest has now weighed the economic impact of beef and other meats against the cost of stabilising carbon dioxide levels at 450 parts per million – a level that some scientists say is needed to help prevent dangerous droughts and sea level rises.

If eating habits do not change, Stehfest estimates that emissions would have to be cut by two-thirds by 2050, which is likely to cost around $40 trillion.

If, however, the global population shifted to a low-meat diet – defined as 70 grams of beef and 325 grams of chicken and eggs per week – around 15 million square kilometres of farmland would be freed up. Vegetation growing on this land would mop up carbon dioxide. It could alternatively be used to grow bioenergy crops, which would displace fossil fuels.

As for the health and the human body, I have personally heard over 25 doctors address meat and the human digestive system. Meat is certainly tolerated and digested by our bodies, but it is not healthy by any means. Red meat is a leading cause of colon cancer as it festers in the intestine and causes a build up of bacteria that spur the growth of mutated cells. Chicken is obviously a better approach than red or pork, but it still contains fatty glycerides that attach to polyps within the intestine causing slower digestive processes which indirectly trigger other health problems. I could write you a book on health matters and for you to try and sound like your right and I am wrong, is just ridiculous to the unth degree.


what- are you trying to say it is archaic and primitive to believe in a God? A one Creator? I can prove the statistical preponderance of the Existence using the scientific principles you cling to as your excuse to not believe...

Umm god is debatable on all sides, no one can prove anything. I am saying that the Judeo-Christian stuff is a little out dated and a little close minded similar to saying that hunting is relevant in today's age.

You claim to love the environment... yet you are so pompous and full of yourself you can't see the forest for the trees. The global deforestation, ozone depletion, pollution is caused not by men who prefer to live more self sufficient lives like people who hunt, but by people like you who prefer to drive to the store and buy your prepackaged box of crap to eat. The hunter wants to preserve, and works steadily to improve, the environment so it will be here for many generations to come. Your self righteous consumerism will be the death of us all.

I am concious all of parts of the environment...never did I say otherwise. I believe in gardening and trying to go the most natural route possible. You have no idea what I eat and even if I do drive to a store such as whole foods to be a packaged box of pasta, that is certainly not the downfall or death of anyone. You sound self righteous by saying that anyone who does not hunt is destroying the environment. Do you drive a car? Hopefully not if you are so much more concious than I am. I admire the fashion to provide for yourself and I would much rather have people hunt their own food than go to a grocery store and buy it so don't get me confused.

...And of the self assured new model spouting nonsense as they can't see past the tips of their own nose.

comparisson:

Hunters- self sufficient. Are more likely to purchase food from a farmer's market and items which require no packaging. Not dependent on someone else to do for them. Leave very little carbon footprint as a result.

Weenies- totally depend on others for all of their needs. More likely to purchase prepacked items. Will take convenience over self reliance every time. Leave a huge carbon footprint as a result.

Yes- you are just sooo forward in your thinking and how you conduct you life with all the modern doodads that waste so much energy and resources as a result. Your kind is pushing us ever closer to a world which resembles the city planet Coruscant from Star Wars...

My responses are in bold. You are clearly stagnant in your beliefs and way of life so proving you wrong is going to be impossible because of your combination arrogance/ignorance. Trust me, if this were even before the 1800's I would agree with what you are saying and that we should hunt to provide for ourselves. Unfortunately our technology evolves so fast that mindsets rarely keep up and in your case are still in those 10,000 B.C. time frame. We have other ways to eat other than ending another creatures life and you are just being too confounded to even realize it. You say you are concious and want the most for the environment yet you can not even grasp the most important concept of life. You end one's life (that forever will be gone) to sustain yourself because of what? It is your human right to sustain yourself and human rights take precedent over others? False, that right died when technology and argicultural engineering allowed to us to choose a different path, and you are stuck in the barbaric. Say what you want but try going into a big metro area and preaching that and you will see your viewpoint is dying and as you are mortal, it will vanish with you. I can only thank you for atleast taking the lesser of two evils and providing for yourself rather than buying into all of the industrial nonsense that is plaguing our atmosphere and world. Beyond that, we are through.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

As a side note, I know this is beyond hunting for pleasure and morality. I am addressing key issues that are relevant as hunting for pleasure is inherently evil anyways.

 

[waynegg]

Usually college education implies being forward thinkers, but in your case clearly not.

Sometimes you must regress to progress. Going back to simpler means of living work to permanently and immediately change the environment for the better than an technology will.

Please, I currently am in ANTH 200, seriously do not lecture me on what you think you know. Tools are A PART the accredited turning point, but we did not dev tools to hunt. In fact the first tools were developed far before we developed an omnivorous diet. There are other primates that use tools (all are herbivores mind you) yet they are not as advanced as the human race. This is just a sad excuse to justify your old fashioned practices.

Then you need to go back to 101 and study the other theories. That is, after all, all they are.

Chimpanzees have developed tools and they are far from herbivores. The one study which you pointed to saying tools were developed for means other than hunting does not contradict the thousands of studies which predate it.

Wow, just wow. You sound like every other rural farmer who wants to keep their profits. Try looking outside of your box for answers and they are everywhere. Here is one published by a world climate organization, there are plenty of other studies by accredited institutions also and since you believe the American way, they are done by Harvard, Stanford and Duke.
Climate-change experts have warned of the high carbon cost of meat for several years.

Beef is particularly damaging. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is released from flatulent cows and by manure as it decays. Furthermore, to produce a kilogram of beef (2.2 pounds), farmers also have to feed a cow 15 kg of grain and 30 kg of forage. Grain requires fertiliser, which is energy intensive to produce.

Stehfest has now weighed the economic impact of beef and other meats against the cost of stabilising carbon dioxide levels at 450 parts per million – a level that some scientists say is needed to help prevent dangerous droughts and sea level rises.

If eating habits do not change, Stehfest estimates that emissions would have to be cut by two-thirds by 2050, which is likely to cost around $40 trillion.

If, however, the global population shifted to a low-meat diet – defined as 70 grams of beef and 325 grams of chicken and eggs per week – around 15 million square kilometres of farmland would be freed up. Vegetation growing on this land would mop up carbon dioxide. It could alternatively be used to grow bioenergy crops, which would displace fossil fuels.

As for the health and the human body, I have personally heard over 25 doctors address meat and the human digestive system. Meat is certainly tolerated and digested by our bodies, but it is not healthy by any means. Red meat is a leading cause of colon cancer as it festers in the intestine and causes a build up of bacteria that spur the growth of mutated cells. Chicken is obviously a better approach than red or pork, but it still contains fatty glycerides that attach to polyps within the intestine causing slower digestive processes which indirectly trigger other health problems. I could write you a book on health matters and for you to try and sound like your right and I am wrong, is just ridiculous to the unth degree.

You sound just like every other self assured dumb-a college kid that thinks they know everything while actually knowing little, I have ever met. And why shouldn't rural farmers want to keep their profit? Do you think they are feeding you, along with the rest of this largely helpless nation, for free?

The beef production has nothing to do with hunting. The cows also would have those emissions whether they were ranched or not. That's a fruitless argument.

Stehfest is just one source and doesn't even imagine the whole climate change thing could even remotely be a normal natural thing even though we have evidence of it happening numerous times. Any study can be made to arrive a t the results you want. In this example they wanted to prove what "greenhouse emissions" were and how they "negatively" impact our environment and they did. Only problem with that- the earth has gone through many sudden, drastic climate changes which can only be theorized as to what caused them.

And the farmland you claim would be freed up- the green green grass- what do you think that would be used for instead? Shopping malls, road ways, neighborhoods, and other concrete and steel based structures which have been proven to directly warm and pollute the environment around them. Great idea!

For every 25 doctors you dredge up that renounce meat, i can find another 25 doctors which promote it. There are pros and cons each way and neither is all the way correct.

Umm god is debatable on all sides, no one can prove anything. I am saying that the Judeo-Christian stuff is a little out dated and a little close minded similar to saying that hunting is relevant in today's age.

The more things change the more they stay the same. The teachings of the Bible, Tanakh, Kuran, etc. are just as relevant today as they have ever been. And I can prove exactly what I claim. Your side-stepping the issue doesn't change that. Either take me up on the challenge by stating your "fact" and we will debate or move on.

I am concious all of parts of the environment...never did I say otherwise. I believe in gardening and trying to go the most natural route possible. You have no idea what I eat and even if I do drive to a store such as whole foods to be a packaged box of pasta, that is certainly not the downfall or death of anyone. You sound self righteous by saying that anyone who does not hunt is destroying the environment. Do you drive a car? Hopefully not if you are so much more concious than I am. I admire the fashion to provide for yourself and I would much rather have people hunt their own food than go to a grocery store and buy it so don't get me confused.

Of course I drive a car. There is no way around it in today's society. To admonish me for such is ridiculous. But I do in my every day life live as naturally as possible without being Amish.

What I am saying is that by purchasing the mass marketed convenience you brag about (iPhone, convenienly packaged foods, consumer elctronics, and all your nonsensical don't need its) you are damaging the environment DIRECTLY en masse by doing so. And I didn't have to make any assumptions there. You came out and said it in a previous post, and then tried to put down hunters and anything you see as hickish by talking about the damage they are doing to the environment. It's laughable how much of a fool you are!

As a side note, I know this is beyond hunting for pleasure and morality. I am addressing key issues that are relevant as hunting for pleasure is inherently evil anyways.

Just because your narrow minded beliefs prompt you to say that something is inherently evil does not make it so. If you have never hunted, you have nothing to reference from personal experience and thus your statement is negated in much the same way as someone who has never eaten a brussel sprout claiming they hate brussel sprouts. There is nothing wrong with hunting to feed your family naturally as a choice and to enjoy it while you are hunting.

 

[Benzo]

Calis- I have left this thread a while ago due to the insults that are being posted by people in this thread. I simply made my statement ( I disagree with hunting animals for fun), made a comparison to the act ( which was then misconstrued and taken out of context)- and I only now see one thing in this thread that IMO- people will result to insulting others because you do not agree with them. If humanity is so advanced, then insulting others because of an opinion is NOT proving that they are as advanced as they claim. As a society, insults are not acceptable behavior to the general public for those who have a good understanding of basic respect for others. So, Calis- I think that this thread will continue to be in the "state of continuous onslaught of insults"- thus setting the MORAL level of respect for others back to the dark ages. I agree with your statement that hunting for pleasure is inherently evil anyways-
so, now that I have posted on this thread again- others are now free to post their disgust at my opinion and insult me even more- that is why I left this thread, I have respect for myself that I will not be around a group of people who resort to insulting others for stating their opinion because they disagree with me. And toxic- no, I will not answer to your request that I show you how I came to the conclusion that I believe someone stated that I think that killing is funny- is it possible that someone misconstrued one of your posted replies that they could come up with making that conclusion? I believe so, because I would not have said that if I did not think that that was what someone was implying. So pick apart everything I have said- take it how you want to understand it- I am sure there are more insults you can throw in my direction because even insulting others is a form of heartlessness( oh wait- I might get asked to prove how that statement is true)( yet again, why bother- I said it is a FORM OF HEARTLESSNESS), making it easier for me to say this: hunting for fun-heartless (IMO) people who hunt for fun and insult others- heartless- I suppose that insults do have a connection to hunting for fun; HEARTLESS-

 

[DarthPika]

To all who say hunting is some how immoral, and how animals are actually "smarter" than us about such matters... Did you ever stop to consider that hunting is PERFECTLY natural? Tigers hunt, lions hunt, heck, given the chance a house cat will hunt. We're animals as well. Why shouldn't we be able to hunt? Because we should know better not to take a life? Please... give me a better argument than that. Dolphins are highly intelligent, yet they hunt, sometimes just for pleasure.

You people need to get over your selves and realize that hunting is natural. So is death. Why aren't humans hunted by anything? Because we're able to out smart them most of the time. You put stupid humans with a few hungry lions and I think you'll find the lions would hunt the humans.

Now, can we PLEASE have a more civil argument here? It was quite enjoyable until some people started resorting to pathetic arguments based on criticizing the intelligence/morals of others.

 

[ryanvergel]

It is impossible to make people understand their ignorance; for it requires knowledge to perceive it and therefore he that can perceive it hath it not.

Someone like calis is displaying obvious invisible ignorance. Resorting to petty namecalling, and refusing to engage in discussions without being dismissive and slanderous, and an unwillingness to separate people from their ideas shows that calis doesn't really want to debate or better himself or exchange knowledge or ideas, he wants a platform to spout off negative comments about people he already has a bias against (Cryus and myself, whom he constantly refers to as 'trash' and 'pigs' the like- I love being referred to an animal, how ironic!).

Just ignore the posts he's making.

 

[evil psyduck]

Originally Posted by calisupra2nr
Wow, just wow. You sound like every other rural farmer who wants to keep their profits. Try looking outside of your box for answers and they are everywhere. Here is one published by a world climate organization, there are plenty of other studies by accredited institutions also and since you believe the American way, they are done by Harvard, Stanford and Duke.
Climate-change experts have warned of the high carbon cost of meat for several years.


Beef is particularly damaging. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is released from flatulent cows and by manure as it decays. Furthermore, to produce a kilogram of beef (2.2 pounds), farmers also have to feed a cow 15 kg of grain and 30 kg of forage. Grain requires fertiliser, which is energy intensive to produce.

And this is why i eat as much meat as possible. To keep down the methane gas and help the environment. :biggrin:

 

[DarthPika]

I would just like to point out that Methane released by cows is near irrelevant compared to CO2 if you're going to talk about Global Warming.

It's a bad argument to resort to this as why we shouldn't eat meat/hunt/etc.

 

[nnaann]

I would just like to point out that Methane released by cows is near irrelevant compared to CO2 if you're going to talk about Global Warming.

It's a bad argument to resort to this as why we shouldn't eat meat/hunt/etc.

I read a couple of years ago that livestock emissions contribute to 18% of greenhouse gases given off - more than transportation. It is a problem.

Anyway, what are people's opinions on illegal hunting, as apposed to sustainable ( this hasn't been talked about yet ). Regardless of whether people do that here, it still goes on and lots of species have become extinct in the past from it.

 

[Qwachansey]

Originally Posted by calisupra2nr
Wow, just wow. You sound like every other rural farmer who wants to keep their profits. Try looking outside of your box for answers and they are everywhere. Here is one published by a world climate organization, there are plenty of other studies by accredited institutions also and since you believe the American way, they are done by Harvard, Stanford and Duke.
Climate-change experts have warned of the high carbon cost of meat for several years.


Beef is particularly damaging. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is released from flatulent cows and by manure as it decays. Furthermore, to produce a kilogram of beef (2.2 pounds), farmers also have to feed a cow 15 kg of grain and 30 kg of forage. Grain requires fertiliser, which is energy intensive to produce.

And this is why i eat as much meat as possible. To keep down the methane gas and help the environment. :biggrin:

The more beef people eat, the more beef people raise.

Do Ash and his friends eat Pokemon? I don't think so. We'd be better off in harmony with animals rather than against them.

 

[evil psyduck]

The more beef people eat, the more beef people raise.

Guess i better start eating even more beef.

 

[Benzo]

I will agree with darthpika- this thread was enjoyable until people started resorting to pathetic arguments based on criticizing the intelligence/morals of others. Hunting for food- IMO, cool with me. Hunting for purposeful population control of the animal(because the side effects of over population are harmful in some way, out weighing the animals existence in the over populated state)- IMO-cool with me. I would like an "expert" explain to me how someone develops the desire to hunt and kill an animal to derive pleasure from that action. NO OPINION- actual facts supporting it. So, I think that it is fair that I have agreed to two of the three reasons for hunting based on the logical needs to do so.
1: for food- agree
2: overpopulation- agree
3:for pleasure- DISAGREE
so, I guess since that there is more to this thread then the morals of the subject, I would rather stick with the best 2 out of three because imo, 66.33% out wieghs the smaller % of those who hunt for pleasure (agian, imo so as to not have to justify my calculations for the sake of more insults and "fact based opinions" being thrown at me.)

 

[waynegg]

I read a couple of years ago that livestock emissions contribute to 18% of greenhouse gases given off - more than transportation. It is a problem.

Anyway, what are people's opinions on illegal hunting, as apposed to sustainable ( this hasn't been talked about yet ). Regardless of whether people do that here, it still goes on and lots of species have become extinct in the past from it.

I report poachers every time I see them. I caught some kids whole sale killing seagulls last year when they were supposedly duck hunting and they lost their guns, all their hunting gear, their truck, money in fines, and for a few days their freedom.

That's what I think of illegal hunting.

1: for food- agree
2: overpopulation- agree
3:for pleasure- DISAGREE

Then could you also agree that it's ok to have a pleasurable time wile doing 1 or 2, or does it have to be a somber pain staking endeavor?

 

[Mitsuhoney]

Calis- I have left this thread a while ago due to the insults that are being posted by people in this thread.

Ditto


Calis - Some really cool stuff you've posted - makes a lot of sense. I'll never get the hunting for fun line.

 

[Benzo]

ok waynegg, I can agree that people who hunt for pleasure are entitled to do so, it is with in our rights through freedom to do so. And yes, there are restrictions placed on that freedom. (state laws, etc....) but the moral issue of it: I do not agree. As for eating the hunted food? since morals are connected to religion, the bible does say that gluttony ( over eating for pleasure/excess) is immorally wrong.I don't take pleasure in eating food since that is for sustaining life, I do take pleasure in the taste. As for #2, if hunting for population control is the purpose with no pleasure attached-fine by me.