Jump to content


Photo

Should hunting be illegal?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
111 replies to this topic

#101 Misty

Misty

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationThe Kitchen In Gander's Serbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

2   

Posted 16 November 2015 - 07:24 PM

I hate to repeat myself, I really do:

 

If you're going to argue hunting for sport should be illegal, then you need to ground that in some sort of ethical framework which likely demonstrates that in some way animals have feelings or desires that are significant enough to not be superseded by human desires. 

 

If you're going to go at it from an endangered animal perspective, you probably have to in some way demonstrate that it is bad for humans as a species to have a animal go the way of the dodo.  

 

Otherwise, why should any human care that it bothers an individuals feely weelies that fluffy animals get killed in brutal and gruesome ways regularly?


  • Phenomiracle and Hoff like this

tumblr_nppka9tuR81tgmuxgo1_r3_500.jpg

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'

'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'

'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

 

Go Ask Me Questions On Ma Question Time and Vote for the Next One!


#102 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Keeper of the Beasts

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,873 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 01:01 AM

I hate to repeat myself, I really do:

 

If you're going to argue hunting for sport should be illegal, then you need to ground that in some sort of ethical framework which likely demonstrates that in some way animals have feelings or desires that are significant enough to not be superseded by human desires. 

 

If you're going to go at it from an endangered animal perspective, you probably have to in some way demonstrate that it is bad for humans as a species to have a animal go the way of the dodo.  

 

Otherwise, why should any human care that it bothers an individuals feely weelies that fluffy animals get killed in brutal and gruesome ways regularly?

I mean you cant prove to me that you have feelings but id rather believe it then not and don't take it on my own mighty judgement that you don't simply because I can.

 

the fact of the matter is animals have never been proven to not have souls.  we just take our own word for it that they don't.  and that uncertainty and doubt alone should be enough to make you reconsider.


Edited by retroluffy13, 17 November 2015 - 01:03 AM.

  • Tale likes this

 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.


#103 Hoff

Hoff

    Crack Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 07:13 AM

I mean you cant prove to me that you have feelings but id rather believe it then not and don't take it on my own mighty judgement that you don't simply because I can.

 

the fact of the matter is animals have never been proven to not have souls.  we just take our own word for it that they don't.  and that uncertainty and doubt alone should be enough to make you reconsider.

 

Feelings are chemical reactions. They can be proved or disproved. On another note unless animals are proven sentient I don't much care what happens to them either unless it has a negative impact on humanity.

 

It might be best instead of souls to say free will. I feel like some might attack you at a religious perspective. Either way animals behavior is either the result of their instincts combined with their environment or a trained behavior neither of which is free will.


w7hQcQE.jpg

 

<3 Opeye


#104 GintaMan

GintaMan

    Rock Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,192 posts
  • LocationSniper Island

Posted 17 November 2015 - 10:00 AM


If you're going to go at it from an endangered animal perspective, you probably have to in some way demonstrate that it is bad for humans as a species to have a animal go the way of the dodo.  

 

That's exactly my untold point about sport hunting (because I think it is obvious that I am okay with hunting as long as it is a way to survive and does not damage the ecosystem). We actually need to think about sustaining the environment so that we can live alongside a healthy flora and fauna. Sport hunting stems from the thinking that nature is unlimited and we can conquer it anytime we want. 

 

I don't really humanize animals. I even tell people not to humanize dogs because what they're doing is torture for the animal (insert Cesar Milan episodes here). What I do know is that humans are locked in a life or death battle. Having a sustainable healthy environment is key to us surviving. 


"To have a dream is to struggle with reality."

 

Have a taste of my pIMP Slap!

 

tiM4Zrr.gif

 

"The Old Man of the North"

 

http://38.media.tumb...EcNV1r1vglf.gif

 

Chairman Emeritus, OMF Butt Stuff Appreciation Association

Almighty Bishop of the Church of Escanor, Gawd of the Sun


#105 Misty

Misty

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationThe Kitchen In Gander's Serbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

2   

Posted 17 November 2015 - 11:17 AM


I mean you cant prove to me that you have feelings but id rather believe it then not and don't take it on my own mighty judgement that you don't simply because I can.

 

Can, actually.  And yes, Hoff is correct to suggest that free will and higher brain function is what I am getting at with my statement not the ability to love.  Suffering needs to be possible in a very real sense. 

 


the fact of the matter is animals have never been proven to not have souls. we just take our own word for it that they don't. and that uncertainty and doubt alone should be enough to make you reconsider.

 

I'm not talking about souls and unless you can demonstrate that they have them, one is never called upon to prove a negative.  It isn't enough to make me reconsider. I like meat and my extended family likes sport hunting. Humans like cars and tiger skin rugs and unless you give a very compelling ethical argument for why they aren't little more than objects to be acted upon, I don't think anyone is going to cease acting upon them nor do I think they should be compelled to.

 


That's exactly my untold point about sport hunting (because I think it is obvious that I am okay with hunting as long as it is a way to survive and does not damage the ecosystem). We actually need to think about sustaining the environment so that we can live alongside a healthy flora and fauna. Sport hunting stems from the thinking that nature is unlimited and we can conquer it anytime we want.

 

A: It isn't conquer at any time we want. It is conquered. Past tense.  We won, sucks to be them. 

B: Sports hunting stems from a very primal desire of man vs. nature survivor instincts and a need to keep certain populations down.  <--not every hunt is for a Bali tiger, some of them are just to keep the fucking booming deer population in check. 

 

C: Please provide evidence to the ecosystem being unable to function without tigers, bears, lions, and otters (OH MY! ,,,couldn't resist).  I don't doubt it has impact, I just currently am uncertain this impact is enough to say that hunting such creatures for sport should be banned.  


tumblr_nppka9tuR81tgmuxgo1_r3_500.jpg

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'

'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'

'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

 

Go Ask Me Questions On Ma Question Time and Vote for the Next One!


#106 Hoff

Hoff

    Crack Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 11:36 AM

Having a sustainable healthy environment is key to us surviving. 

 

 

I'm not sure if you mean healthy for our sakes in literal terms(As in making sure bees survive so we don't all die off) or if you mean in a more emotional way that a healthy environment lends value to living. 

 

 

Need to know that before I can say anything further though.


w7hQcQE.jpg

 

<3 Opeye


#107 GintaMan

GintaMan

    Rock Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,192 posts
  • LocationSniper Island

Posted 17 November 2015 - 01:16 PM


A: It isn't conquer at any time we want. It is conquered. Past tense.  We won, sucks to be them. 
B: Sports hunting stems from a very primal desire of man vs. nature survivor instincts and a need to keep certain populations down.  <--not every hunt is for a Bali tiger, some of them are just to keep the fucking booming deer population in check. 
 
C: Please provide evidence to the ecosystem being unable to function without tigers, bears, lions, and otters (OH MY! ,,,couldn't resist).  I don't doubt it has impact, I just currently am uncertain this impact is enough to say that hunting such creatures for sport should be banned.  

 

A. Well I would not want to pull the "I have seen how at times man can't conquer nature/animals" kind of argument, but in many cases, there are still times when man has not triumphed over nature. I'm from a shitty third world country so it's not an exaggeration. Haha!

 

B (and C). Well in some cases of the world, that need to put the populations down stemmed from man laying waste to some species of predators, leading to increased herbivore populations upsetting the flora balance. Meaning, we created the problem in the first place. 
 

 

There are a lot of studies, though I am kind of skeptical at some of them, humanizing the animals and such. 

 

That man vs nature survivor instinct can be achieved without sport hunting though. I would understand if you were camping and you were out to feed yourself (because your supplies ran out), eating wild game is legit. I experienced that, having to hunt a wild boar myself. And I don't understand why people would want to kill one and then put up a trophy to show that they triumphed. I found it more natural to eat it, since that's what my primal instinct tells me. 

 

But if you want the thrills of a fight, I'd daresay, sign up for a war. Survivor instincts should go waaaaaay up!  :banana:


Edited by GintaMan, 17 November 2015 - 01:22 PM.

"To have a dream is to struggle with reality."

 

Have a taste of my pIMP Slap!

 

tiM4Zrr.gif

 

"The Old Man of the North"

 

http://38.media.tumb...EcNV1r1vglf.gif

 

Chairman Emeritus, OMF Butt Stuff Appreciation Association

Almighty Bishop of the Church of Escanor, Gawd of the Sun


#108 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,863 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 17 November 2015 - 01:32 PM

Feelings are chemical reactions. They can be proved or disproved. On another note unless animals are proven sentient I don't much care what happens to them either unless it has a negative impact on humanity.

 

It might be best instead of souls to say free will. I feel like some might attack you at a religious perspective.

What do you mean sentient. 

 

Also it hasn't been proven humans have free will as well.

Either way animals behavior is either the result of their instincts combined with their environment or a trained behavior neither
of which is free will.

 

You can delete the word animal and put in human.


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#109 Misty

Misty

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationThe Kitchen In Gander's Serbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

2   

Posted 17 November 2015 - 01:44 PM


A. Well I would not want to pull the "I have seen how at times man can't conquer nature/animals" kind of argument, but in many cases, there are still times when man has not triumphed over nature. I'm from a shitty third world country so it's not an exaggeration. Haha!


 

Sure, and once every few years a bear manages to eat a drunk college student where I'm from. (Wish I were kidding.) But ,ultimate point is that animals are no longer a threat to us as a species. Sucks to be you and sucks to be the drunk college student who gets eaten by a bear, but the rest of us aren't really frightened that the bears are going to win. 

 

There is also a distinction I must draw here and now between animals and all of nature. Truly, humanity often gets their collective asses kicked by hurricanes and earth quakes and such things could if the correct set of circumstances worked out, destroy us.  But the dolphins ain't part of that.

 


B (and C). Well in some cases of the world, that need to put the populations down stemmed from man laying waste to some species of predators, leading to increased herbivore populations upsetting the flora balance. Meaning, we created the problem in the first place.

 

Calling it a problem is very strange to me. If by mere existence you mean we created a problem, then sure. But that seems ridiculous...back then the bears tried to eat us or our farm animals. They had to be dealt with our WE would not survive.  <--I don't like humans that much, but I like them a hell of a  lot in the context of me getting to exist.

 


That man vs nature survivor instinct can be achieved without sport hunting though. I would understand if you were camping and you were out to feed yourself (because your supplies ran out), eating wild game is legit. I experienced that, having to hunt a wild boar myself. And I don't understand why people would want to kill one and then put up a trophy to show that they triumphed. I found it more natural to eat it, since that's what my primal instinct tells me.

 

Your ability to understand is neither here nor there. Some people enjoy that sort of thing and you're going to need a damn good argument to say they should forgo that pleasure.  Also, it isn't usually a problem to eat the animal and also put it up for show. That's the magic of taxidermy. 

 


But if you want the thrills of a fight, I'd daresay, sign up for a war. Survivor instincts should go waaaaaay up! :banana:

 

We want the thrill of a fight without the chance of death being very real.  Still, your joke is taken. 

 

Right right, looked at your study, and here's the little queer problem I see. The fact that the predators are dying is allowing game animals to take over by eating too many trees...game animals are named game animals because of well...yeah, hunting.  SO really this study could be taken as further proof that hunting is necessary. 

 

Just because the wolves aren't about to manage the eco system doesn't mean we aren't.  This study would only seem to agree that humans hunting is necessary at this point. 


What do you mean sentient.



Also it hasn't been proven humans have free will as well.

 

It has been proven that they have higher brain power and the ability to choose against their own survival instincts. Animals haven't had either of these functions demonstrated at least currently. 

 


You can delete the word animal and put in human.

 

Can't.  And pretend it were true, humans kill each other all the time and that seems alright.  So really you'd be asking that animals were treated better than humans treat each other. 


  • Hoff likes this

tumblr_nppka9tuR81tgmuxgo1_r3_500.jpg

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'

'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'

'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

 

Go Ask Me Questions On Ma Question Time and Vote for the Next One!


#110 GintaMan

GintaMan

    Rock Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,192 posts
  • LocationSniper Island

Posted 17 November 2015 - 02:07 PM


There is also a distinction I must draw here and now between animals and all of nature. Truly, humanity often gets their collective asses kicked by hurricanes and earth quakes and such things could if the correct set of circumstances worked out, destroy us.  But the dolphins ain't part of that.

 

And I agree with that. That's why I said sport hunting stems (or a branch of) from this assumption that we are the conquerors of nature (if you go back to my original post, nature is the exact word I used). So I was just laying down that this trophy hunting of animals stems from this sense of triumph and dominance we have over nature. So, point well taken, and I'm sorry if I did not make my self clear at that point. :(
 


Your ability to understand is neither here nor there. Some people enjoy that sort of thing and you're going to need a damn good argument to say they should forgo that pleasure.  Also, it isn't usually a problem to eat the animal and also put it up for show. That's the magic of taxidermy. 

 

I would not want to assume that you're mocking me with that first line, but I'll let it slide since we're fellow OMF members here. I understand that it is somehow irritating to meet an opposing view. I am actually posing a question, I am legitimately interested by how people think that it is fun to put up a trophy of an animal who was killed for the "thrill." 

 

People talk about surviving the hunt as the thrill, but I don't see them as surviving the hunt unless they were  hunting to actually live. Do you get what I mean? It's not as if a bear attacked you and then you killed it kind of survival thing, people actually enjoy going to a place to solely kill a bear that did not even sense that somebody was actually scoping it. I mean, if you want the  thrill, fight the bear and survive! (LOL the last part was me kidding, but I sure do hope I got my point across). I'm just legitimately interested and not posing an end-all argument.

 

 

 


Right right, looked at your study, and here's the little queer problem I see. The fact that the predators are dying is allowing game animals to take over by eating too many trees...game animals are named game animals because of well...yeah, hunting.  SO really this study could be taken as further proof that hunting is necessary. 

 

Yes, so that gets me to my point -- hunting using a "trophy" mentality is the one that I am iffy about. I would love to help in hunting to control a population and have those pelt and meat given to needy people or a nearby poor community for example. I do apologize if I somehow have a wrong idea about "sport hunting" because I have this mental image of people killing just for fun. We might be looking at it from different perspectives since in our country, we'd rather eat what we hunt (yep, if ever there were bears, or an abundant population of lions, we would eat them, LOL). 

I don't judge people who hunt as a duty to the environment and to our species. I judge people who hold their guns, point it at a creature that they certainly can defeat and say that "it was fun killing it." That's why I said that if they genuinely want a survival experience, try to fight the most dangerous creature -- a fellow man. 

Thanks for debating Misty. Really appreciate other people's point of view. It makes my world bigger. Haha!  :D


Edited by GintaMan, 17 November 2015 - 02:30 PM.

"To have a dream is to struggle with reality."

 

Have a taste of my pIMP Slap!

 

tiM4Zrr.gif

 

"The Old Man of the North"

 

http://38.media.tumb...EcNV1r1vglf.gif

 

Chairman Emeritus, OMF Butt Stuff Appreciation Association

Almighty Bishop of the Church of Escanor, Gawd of the Sun


#111 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Keeper of the Beasts

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,873 posts

Posted 17 November 2015 - 11:57 PM


Can, actually.  And yes, Hoff is correct to suggest that free will and higher brain function is what I am getting at with my statement not the ability to love.  Suffering needs to be possible in a very real sense. 
 
 
 
 
I'm not talking about souls and unless you can demonstrate that they have them, one is never called upon to prove a negative.  It isn't enough to make me reconsider. I like meat and my extended family likes sport hunting. Humans like cars and tiger skin rugs and unless you give a very compelling ethical argument for why they aren't little more than objects to be acted upon, I don't think anyone is going to cease acting upon them nor do I think they should be compelled to.
 
 
 
 
A: It isn't conquer at any time we want. It is conquered. Past tense.  We won, sucks to be them. 
B: Sports hunting stems from a very primal desire of man vs. nature survivor instincts and a need to keep certain populations down.  <--not every hunt is for a Bali tiger, some of them are just to keep the fucking booming deer population in check. 
 
C: Please provide evidence to the ecosystem being unable to function without tigers, bears, lions, and otters (OH MY! ,,,couldn't resist).  I don't doubt it has impact, I just currently am uncertain this impact is enough to say that hunting such creatures for sport should be banned.

yes they are. feelings. soul. its the same thing. otherwise Christians and jews alike wouldn't have spent years convincing people animals had no souls.

i mean i can prove it with pure logic. a dog wants a streak. want is a feeling. the dog thought about the food and reacted. when i threatened to take it away the dog got mad and growled, showing me it was wiling to fight for its food. it tried to uses a manipulative tactic on me because it understood that in that moment it growled i wuld feel something.

besides. you once told memental pain was the same thing as physical pain as far as the brain was concerned. so yeah. if i kick a dog it gets hurt and feels pain.

other

Edited by retroluffy13, 17 November 2015 - 11:57 PM.

 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.


#112 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,550 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 01 December 2015 - 02:40 PM


I'm not talking about souls and unless you can demonstrate that they have them, one is never called upon to prove a negative.  It isn't enough to make me reconsider. I like meat and my extended family likes sport hunting. Humans like cars and tiger skin rugs and unless you give a very compelling ethical argument for why they aren't little more than objects to be acted upon, I don't think anyone is going to cease acting upon them nor do I think they should be compelled to.

 

"... one is never called upon to prove a negative"

"... give a very compelling ethical argument for why they aren't little more than objects to be acted upon"


  • NGEFan likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users