Hunting? The Big Problem

[Kovu The Lion]

So it seems people here have a problem with hunting, Basically because there seems to be certain people around the world that do it for fun.

However if you do any slight comparisons, Don't you at all do things you like to do, For FUN? Going into there eyes and yours you get the same outcome, A good time.

People say they hate hunters, because it kills things.

So what about Fishermen? They kill fish, But it seems no one..Ever..Cares..? Is it because fish are ugly and not very lovable and cuddly?

What about Slaughtering Houses, Poor cows go through the worst treatment ever probably? No one cares, We just continue to eat steak?

Lions attack and maul deer, strangle them, cut off their circulation. Then eat them, Sometimes to leave the bodies half-eaten for others to eat, Pretty much in their language "lets throw it away".

Yet when a human goes to do nearly the same thing(but mind you with a gun) to an antelope, it seems Organizations with people liking animals around the world go crazy because of the dispute.

Sure the Lion is only eating it to stay alive, But look, The antelope STILL DIED. No big difference in my own opinion, It's like commiting a crime, it doesnt matter how you did it, Something bad STILL happened.

And hey,

Lion's hunt all the time ;) Why can't I? x)
....

So I want to know from Furries/Non-Furries/Anyone on this forum.

Why do you hate/like Hunting/Fishing in general?

By the by,

If this thread gets locked, and/or deleted. Just because it causes arguments, I'd like you to delete just about every thread alongside this one in this forums.

Just because one or two people tend to ruin a good discussion for others doesnt mean I, nor others would possibly like to talk about it.

Basically meaning, I'm talking to Two people and they KNOW who they are.

EDIT: Yes I know I'm probably going to suffer stupid consequences for this, But until I see a Blantant rule saying "Omfg we can't have hunting threads D:!" I will make one.


Kovu

[Forest Freak]

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
So it seems people here have a problem with hunting, Basically because there seems to be certain people around the world that do it for fun.

However if you do any slight comparisons, Don't you at all do things you like to do, For FUN? Going into there eyes and yours you get the same outcome, A good time.

People say they hate hunters, because it kills things.

So what about Fishermen? They kill fish, But it seems no one..Ever..Cares..? Is it because fish are ugly and not very lovable and cuddly?

What about Slaughtering Houses, Poor cows go through the worst treatment ever probably? No one cares, We just continue to eat steak?

Lions attack and maul deer, strangle them, cut off their circulation. Then eat them, Sometimes to leave the bodies half-eaten for others to eat, Pretty much in their language "lets throw it away".

Yet when a human goes to do nearly the same thing(but mind you with a gun) to an antelope, it seems Organizations with people liking animals around the world go crazy because of the dispute.

Sure the Lion is only eating it to stay alive, But look, The antelope STILL DIED. No big difference in my own opinion, It's like commiting a crime, it doesnt matter how you did it, Something bad STILL happened.

And hey,

Lion's hunt all the time ;) Why can't I? x)
....

So I want to know from Furries/Non-Furries/Anyone on this forum.

Why do you hate/like Hunting/Fishing in general?

By the by,

If this thread gets locked, and/or deleted. Just because it causes arguments, I'd like you to delete just about every thread alongside this one in this forums.

Just because one or two people tend to ruin a good discussion for others doesnt mean I, nor others would possibly like to talk about it.

Basically meaning, I'm talking to Two people and they KNOW who they are.

Kovu

That kinda sums up how I feel, I was real confused yesterday when everyone seemed so against hunting.

[Aurelian]

That kinda sums up how I feel, I was real confused yesterday when everyone seemed so against hunting.

Not everybody. Do you know what the "furrie fandom" is? People from it tend to gather around anything TLK, as TLK was a large part of what created the fandom. Nobody meant to insult you for being a hunter, they were just showing a bit of discomfort for how freely you mentioed it. I know I did. Never meant to offend you, though.

I am only posting to say that I think KTL may have found a good solution to the whole hunting issue. This is the best forum to make a single thread in, so it can be discussed without it turning into a fight, per say. You could say the abortion thread is a fight, but it is watched and contained to prevent chaos. I believe it could work with hunting to, as long as specific lifestyles are not insulted. And that goes for both sides. We just need to limit it to this for now.

As for me, I am obstaining for commenting on hunting for the moment.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
When I have fun, I don't do it by bringing harm to other creatures.

There are so many other ways to enjoy yourself than hunting. Why choose one that destroys other creatures and/or their habitats?

What about Industrialization? We destroy forests, Swamps, and tens of thousands of spots to create supermarkets, residentail areas, and no one really cared to bother to stop them (only a few incidents, such as national parks and recreational centers)

I just dont see the problem for hunting if you're doing it for a living, Indians did it to sell fur for trade, meat for food,

Some people today sell the meat to others, and EVEN EAT IT, (Deer meat is good ;)) People of today also sell the fur..

[Kovu The Lion]

But do you know why we can't? Russians would rather die first then let people move onto there motherland ;)

Industrialization is essential to the process of humans, without it, we would still be cavemen, and/or rural farmers ;_:

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Of course ^_^ , but there comes a point where it gets a bit ridiculous! If every family in China today decided they wanted a car, it would use up every bit of coal we know of in the world. So actually, industrialisation could be what inevitably wipes us out, due to sheer lack of resources.

As with most things, it's not too bad, in moderation at least!

And, mmm, there are some nice Russians :p ...

Quite possibly, But in China most area's are rural, and not many places have roads and places suitable for cars(other than the urban areas) and i'm not sure but.. I think you have to be at least 18 to even drive a car there.. xD

[Titunen]

Wasn't this kind of threads supposed to be forbidden? :rolleyes:

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
It's amazing to think (assuming you're correct) that most areas are rural when there are well over a billion people living there. Certainly shows that it's not entirely necessary to industrialise anywhere near everywhere to support a huge number of people.

As for being required to be 18 to drive, that's not too different to here. We have to be 17 to start driving.

Yes but on the fact, You then have to look at there lifestyles, which .. No offense some are very poor, Most living in shacks on farms with barely anything to eat (ethiopians i'd guess?)

As for you Tit, Shouldn't you be back in your shadow hiding instead of starting things?

Better yet, Why promote spam? Such as you are doing because of your "offtopic" comment,

Try not breaking one rule while preserving another ;)

[Aurelian]

Originally posted by Titunen
Wasn't this kind of threads supposed to be forbidden? :rolleyes:

Call it an experiment for finding a solution. We just need to think about what we post before we post it, and keep it at the level of "debate". Hopefully, by keeping the subject in one controle thread, we can keep the particpints in line, and controel any flaming. As long as the mods agree and cooperate, that is.

[Pnt]

I have no problem with responsible hunting, I just ask that the person use what they kill.

On the matter of slums and poor rural areas, there may be quite a few people living in non-urban cities, but that doesn't mean it's good for the environment. Most major cities around the world have environmental rules and regulations; you can't* just dump a bottle of motor oil on the street in most cities/countries. Waste that is disposed of almost always gets treated in some way. In slums, a person isn't bound to this. Hazardous chemicals, oils, plastics, flammables, fecal matter, etc.. are some of the biggest problems in these areas.

*I edited this from "Can" to "Can't"; I intended "Can't"

[A-non-a-mus]

I'm a hunter, and I like to hunt... I don't always have to use a gun, nor arrows ... in fact sometimes I hunt winth nothing more than a hunting knife, or bare hands... it's really fun to do that accually.. and rewarding too for how mny can say "I caught this by hand"... Though, most of the time hunting doesn't require a shot to be fired. I tend to like to hunt and when I get as close as I can, instead of taking down the said creature, a close, snapshot will do... (got a few of my older photos stolen though) I also like to hunt for unique seashells and rocks when at the coast. Hunting's fun. Hide and seek is hunting too ... Hunting's fun... :p but hunting also helps enviroments, something that many against hunting tend to overlook... if we didn't hunt the enviroment would suffer too. Hunters don't hunt animals that are too thin ... only when they are plentiful...

On the topic of slaughter houses and such, well I'm sure they don't object to it, because they know if there were none then more and more would be forced to be hunters... The ratio between humans and animals is quite big, and if humans all had to hunt, it would devistate the animals' numbers... which is why we have slaughter houses in the first place... if we didn't have slaughter houses and all had to hunt, billions of human lives would be lost. We're omivores afterall, there's nutrients in meat that we need to be healthy (like vitamin b12 ... only also found in soy)

it's kind of a balance that is fragile and ever going... some will hunt others see no fun in it and therefore easily go against... like the game of tag... those who play tag like to play tag... it's fun to them.. if someone hated tag, reguardless of they not playing it will speak out against it. Tries to kill the fun for those who like it in their own reasoning...

It'll never end both ways...

as you can see, I'm open to both sides while choosing none to perticularly stand on the side of... but I just know I like to hunt and will only hunt when the prey is plentiful enough. When they arn't or I run across one, I'd still like to be able to get a good picture at least. :p

[lion_roog]

I've read that hunting helps certain animals by making sure they have land to live on in areas where human population is growing and demanding more land. Mainly in Africa, I believe. The hunting brings in money, so the villiages in the area see it as beneficial to preserve the land and the animals due to their value. Other wise the land would be threatened by human growth and certain animals killed due to their threat to farmers in the area.

[Dare]

Russia and China may appear to have a lot of space, but they also have environmental issues of their own - both are currently dealing with deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination, etc... increased industrialization has contributed to these problems...and let's not forget those countries' endangered species as well.**

Basically, they have the same problems we have where I live...and I fear they may have the same mindset as the developers I know here have as well.
"One more acre won't make a difference".
One acre turns into two, two turns into two hundred.
Industrializing rural areas may help local economies, but it's not so great for Mother Earth - it only spreads the problem.

Roog - I remember hearing something about that too...wasn't there a thread awhile back on how regulated lion hunting may actually help preserve them? *search search*

*edit*
They're talking about cloning animals for meat (cloned steak anyone?)...I wonder if they'd ever consider cloning animals for hunting?



**As I do not live in either of these countries, do not take my word for gospel...this is just what I read on the The World Factbook.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Wicked


*edit*
They're talking about cloning animals for meat (cloned steak anyone?)...I wonder if they'd ever consider cloning animals for hunting?


In the future, when we're living out in space, I would prefer my meat (or Space-meat as I like to call it) to be home grown on trees...Space-Meat-Trees...:D That way you can just go right up to the tree and pick off yourself a space-burger...Now that's an awesome future...=D

[Ciara]

or a turkey sandwish :p .. dont forget our dinner at saturday night Roog! :grrr:


(warning, dont read if you're too sensetive about this topic <.<)
for hunting, i have nothing to say, sure its mean for the animals but .. srsly i got enough to think of to actually care very much .. i got a family related person that hunt mooses, which is a certain season thing here, and we get a lot of moose heart to eat, which i dont like, its too salt, and other "inner parts" ... But i dont eat something of it, it tastes crap. I think its stupid to kill for nothing tho (nice fur or horns) or kill test animals cuz you're testing something on labs, or if the sort of animal is dying out ... but else, no ... Like the lions, we need to eat too, its just the circle of life <.<

[Dare]

Aha! I knew I wasn't hallucinating when I read the news this morning!

FDA backs safety of meat, milk from cloned animals - Q & A (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2006-12-28-cloned-qanda_x.htm)

As expected, the Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday that its scientific assessment of meat and milk from cloned animals determined they were safe for human consumption. The announcement, coming after four years of review and research, is just the beginning of what will be a year or more process of public input and discussion before these products can be sold.

FDA: Cloned animals' meat is safe (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-27-fda-cloned-meat_x.htm)

Looks like they're going ahead with it then...

I wonder when the day will come when they start growing bacon in petri dishes?

[lion_roog]

Meh...who cares if the cloned meat is safe...what matters is how it tastes...:D



Originally posted by Ciara
or a turkey sandwish :p .. dont forget our dinner at saturday night Roog! :grrr:

Your night or my night?...:p


Heh, next thing you know, they'll clone Roogs. We can each have one in each of our homes as a pet

No Way!...Then the supply will kill the demand...:browlift:

[HasiraKali]

I have no problem with hunting as long as it's not just for the sake of killing. I know that some people go hunting for fun and that's ok, it's their life. I just wouldn't do it. A lot of the hunters I know actually use most of the animals they take and it doesn't bother me as much. It's more of when things are wasted that I don't like it.

[Nephilim]

Hunting animals for food is superior to eating food for supermarkets, believe it. I think it's slightly hypocritical to do that and then ***** about hunting. :3

Though, of course, I love animals too much to lay a finger on them, personally. But hey, hunt if you wanna hunt - and culling, naturally, is needed.

(And goddammit, it's 'furry,' not 'furrie.')

[Forest Freak]

We've got alot of trophies. We've got about 5 deer heads in our house. Hell, I even got one in my room, it just has never bothered me that much. We're going out hunting tomorrow for that matter. I'm not closed minded, I understand some people have different opinions and i can respect that.

[LunarCat]

Originally posted by Pnt
I have no problem with responsible hunting, I just ask that the person use what they kill.


I agree :D

The lion hunts to survive, hunting for sport is another thing. The lion leaves his food when he is done, occasionally some cats may attempt to hide their kill for later. The vulture survives by eating the carrion left behind. It's all part of the great circle of life ;)

Hunting for sport so you can have a deer on your wall(no offense should be taken, offense wa not meant to harm anyone, it is simply my opinion) is not what i'd call the same thing. It may help with the deer population, but one has to remember that it was the humans who intruded onto their habitat and took it away. It is to my understanding that the deer population would be in a well defined ratio with the amount of habitat if the amount of land was the same. However, what needs to be done is what needs to be done.

A mountain lion, bobcat, or bear, rather any animal that does not reproduce at a steady rate, I do not approve of the hunting of it. Not because they're cute and fluffy, but because people tend to not use all of the animal. I personally have never heard of someone eating bobcat meat.

[Xinithian]

I know hunting is necessary for natural balance. However, my main concern with hunting is the sport aspect. Why would you want to kill something for fun? Why isn't it comparable, or worse, to other necessary tasks such as cleaning up roadkill? If a forest ranger was excited to see how hard a deer was hit by a car, people would think he was disturbed. Yet, usually hunters are excited to see how they killed an animal, and it's perfectly normal. Also, the food aspect is more of a luxury than a necessity. If you don't successfully kill a deer, you have the option of going to the supermarket for food, as opposed to having no other alternatives as you would centuries ago.

[Stormfury]

I believe if you kill an animal, you should eat it. People who like to hunt for game, I cannot say much for them... 'except to defile you. But I won't.

[Ciara]

Originally posted by lion_roog

Your night or my night?...:p



well your night of course! Master ... ill take my french maid suit if ya want :evilgrin:

*goes on-topic again* .... tho i have already said everything i want :hakuna:

[Aurelian]

Now this thread is heading in a direction I can agree with. Being from deep Native American herritage, I can understand the need to hunt so we can feed ourselves, and in some cases, give ourselves warm clothing. I still remember when Whitewolf(Where the heck did he go) taught me about how peole who live where he does, in Northern Canada, rely on thick leather and some furs to survive in the sub-zero atmosphere up there. I actually own a pair of buckskin boots handed down through my family. they are awsome for shoveling snow. That is acceptable in my mind. However, when I see some rich celebrity like Madona or Paris Hilton wearing a fur coat, scarf, or Boa, THAT I can get angry about. They don't need these things, they just want to look fancy. In fact, I always get antsy when all the fur store ads start popping up around Christmas on the radio and TV.

Even when hunting for food, I can not respect the act of saving trophies. What can't be, or isn't, used should be burried so the animal can rest in death. To show of the fact that one can cause death so proudly seems cold blooded to me.

Another topic, in which I had a interesting debate with Pnt on, in taxidermy. This is somthing that appals me. Why somebody would want a stuffed dead body in their house is beyond me. And the thought of actually creating it makes me shutter.

As an individual, I could not ever lay a hand on another living cerature, human or animal, unless it were in extreme self defence. If there was a lion charging at me angrily, and I found I have a gun in my hand, I could shoot the lion to save myself, but if it were a deer grazing peacefully nearby, and I planned on eating it, then no, I could never do it.

[Pnt]

Just so there's no confusion, I don't have a problem with responsible sport hunting either. As I said before, if the hunter uses what they kill, I'm fine with that. If they take the meat and hang the head on their wall, I have no problem with that either. I define responsible hunting as hunting that doesn't pose significant risk to other human beings and does not seriously degrade the environment over time.

[Dare]

Originally posted by Roquivo

As an individual, I could not ever lay a hand on another living cerature, human or animal, unless it were in extreme self defence.

*chuckles*

You just reminded me of this great commercial wherein a monk (Buddhist maybe?) uses a tissue that Kills 99.8% of bacteria. ^_^

I'm not sure I understand the appeal of having a dead animal's head hanging on my wall either, and I REALLY don't understand those little old ladies who insist on having their pet cats stuffed when they die. But then again, I don't like dolls either...I think they're going to come alive and kill me in my sleep or something...beady little eyes...watching me...
O_o

[Aurelian]

Originally posted by Wicked
*chuckles*

You just reminded me of this great commercial wherein a monk (Buddhist maybe?) uses a tissue that Kills 99.8% of bacteria. ^_^

O_o

:haha: :lol: LMAO!!! I know that commersial. The monk puts the spider from the temple back on the bush, rescues the goldfish that accidently jumped out of the fountain, Let's a butterfly out a window, then blows his nose, and his face light up like he witnessed a miricle.

It's funny you should mention it, Wicked, because the first time that I saw that commersial air, while I watching TV with my mother, I turned to her and said "Stange, I don't remember auditioing for that!"

[Forest Freak]

Well, this will probably be my last post here. I just wanted to say that this board has driven me away because of all of the anti hunting. I could get by without talking about hunting, but when it becomes that people are getting mad whenever a thread about hunting starts, well that's a bit too much. I think I'll be moving on, there may be a forum out there where I could get away with talking about the Lion King and hunting, I mean, not all Lion King fans are necesarrily that crazy about hunting as this board is. With that I leave you now, perhaps we could have done things differently and I could have learned to accept these opinions, but this board is a little too harsh for my liking, any one thing can set the place off, I think it's best that I leave, I suppose I'll never understand how highly you people consider animals, to me, that is all they are, animals.

[Ciara]

well yea, i have to admitt Lea can be too serious sometimes, even I can get annoyed at threads and posts like this that are everywhere and gets closed for like every little mistake you do ... what more, there was no rule about making a hunting thread or was it? I never had an answer ... :confused: But then i also guess everyone have their right to say their oppinion, but srsly, i didnt think this hunting thing was such a big deal Oo. Once again i dont have time to care very much about it, i see nothing wrong in hunting, its something everyone do, animals as well ... understand FF, id have left too in this case if i was in his position. What kind of welcome is this anyway Lea, whats the matter with ya all?! :vitgrr:

[Ciara]

okay, thanks then

[Aurelian]

Originally posted by Forest Freak
Well, this will probably be my last post here. I just wanted to say that this board has driven me away because of all of the anti hunting. I could get by without talking about hunting, but when it becomes that people are getting mad whenever a thread about hunting starts, well that's a bit too much. I think I'll be moving on, there may be a forum out there where I could get away with talking about the Lion King and hunting, I mean, not all Lion King fans are necesarrily that crazy about hunting as this board is. With that I leave you now, perhaps we could have done things differently and I could have learned to accept these opinions, but this board is a little too harsh for my liking, any one thing can set the place off, I think it's best that I leave, I suppose I'll never understand how highly you people consider animals, to me, that is all they are, animals.

If your talking about what happened today, (http://www.leahalalela.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8792) it had nothing to do with hunting. It had to do with a mod going out of her way to degrade a certain lifestyle and using lies to turn people against them.

FF, you are entitled to your opinion, and should not be ran out of the forum for it.

[Ciara]

what has that with the hunting to do? :thinks: or this thread at all?

[XxBlackXxParadeXx]

Originally posted by Forest Freak
Well, this will probably be my last post here. I just wanted to say that this board has driven me away because of all of the anti hunting. I could get by without talking about hunting, but when it becomes that people are getting mad whenever a thread about hunting starts, well that's a bit too much. I think I'll be moving on, there may be a forum out there where I could get away with talking about the Lion King and hunting, I mean, not all Lion King fans are necesarrily that crazy about hunting as this board is. With that I leave you now, perhaps we could have done things differently and I could have learned to accept these opinions, but this board is a little too harsh for my liking, any one thing can set the place off, I think it's best that I leave, I suppose I'll never understand how highly you people consider animals, to me, that is all they are, animals.

You shouldnt leave just because of some people dissagree with you

[Pnt]

Originally posted by Ciara
what has that with the hunting to do? :thinks: or this thread at all?

Nothing, which is why I shall bring the thread back on topic *Superhero pose*


The one thing that really bugs me about hunting in this area is how irresponsible hunters can be. During their respective seasons, I'll see hunters closer than five feet from a road hunting with loaded guns. Granted, they're almost always pointing away from the highway, but I've always figured that a loaded gun being fired with 3-5 feet of a highway is always a bad idea. Likewise, it irks me to no end to see hunters hunting towards highways, even if they're 300 yards away, as many car/deer accidents in this area are the result of an irresponsible hunter spooking a deer into traffic. So yeah, responsible hunting I'm cool with, but I do think hunters need to stay away from traffic.

[Ciara]

Originally posted by XxBlackXxParadeXx
You shouldnt leave just because of some people dissagree with you

well i would kinda have done so if i was a newbie, and had a start like this ... :eww:

[XxBlackXxParadeXx]

Originally posted by Ciara
well i would kinda have done so if i was a newbie, and had a start like this ... :eww:

:eww: i know....not very friendly of lea was it?....oh well back to the topic at hand

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Forest Freak
Well, this will probably be my last post here. I just wanted to say that this board has driven me away because of all of the anti hunting. I could get by without talking about hunting, but when it becomes that people are getting mad whenever a thread about hunting starts, well that's a bit too much. I think I'll be moving on, there may be a forum out there where I could get away with talking about the Lion King and hunting, I mean, not all Lion King fans are necesarrily that crazy about hunting as this board is. With that I leave you now, perhaps we could have done things differently and I could have learned to accept these opinions, but this board is a little too harsh for my liking, any one thing can set the place off, I think it's best that I leave, I suppose I'll never understand how highly you people consider animals, to me, that is all they are, animals.

This person, has been here for a Week, and knows EXACTLY, what happens on Lea, Every, Single, Time, Something, Happens, on this BOARDS.

Does that NOT show something? But really anyways.

Not trying to point you out bud, But you just said you couldn't lay your hand on another animal, if it was in self defence.

What happens if hunters are hunting, Bears come out, To save themselves they shoot it.. Does that make what they did wrong?

Also, To what Roq stated about a Mod.

It was not lies, What she stated was merely the "Bad side" of most Furs, Not putting anything Good made it seem that furries WERE bad, And most of the time that's the way they are seen, However she stated the Minority WERE bad,

I wish people could read. :\

[Ciara]

Originally posted by XxBlackXxParadeXx
:eww: i know....not very friendly of lea was it?....oh well back to the topic at hand

... sounded like something else before, but ok :confused:

edit: KTL also has a point on the view of lea nowadays ... <.<

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Which is it to be? Anyway, I've never met a fur as extreme as was described, and I've met over a thousand furs in my time.

Well, that's where you and I differ, because I can honestly say I have. I didn't really put any 'bad' example either, I just said things like sexually idolising animals.

Also, good job on your "unbiased" proof. A furcon site. Very unbiased indeed.


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Simply, a lot of humans have a sickening superiority complex over other species. [/B]

You know what, a lot of animals have a superiority complex over other species. ;) I don't know why you're singling humans alone out for this trait.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Hmm, not exactly. And it's not a conscious thing; a human hunter thinks, "There's a deer, let's kill it because that makes us real men!"

An animal hunter probably doesn't think much more than, "Food!"

Butchered post because this is a thread about hunting, Not furs, lets try and keep it that way ;)

Theres a lot of Animals that do infact kill for fun, I'll have to look it up but I've seen National Geographics about it,

Some Animals attack Humans/animal for other reasons than that of "Food" too ;) Most possibly due to intrusion on there lands or something...

But don't Lion's fight each other to see "who is the top dog?" and not for "Food"?

[Aurelian]

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
This person, has been here for a Week, and knows EXACTLY, what happens on Lea, Every, Single, Time, Something, Happens, on this BOARDS.

Does that NOT show something? But really anyways.

Not trying to point you out bud, But you just said you couldn't lay your hand on another animal, if it was in self defence.


You want to acuse ME of not being able to read? Point out where Forest Freak said that he wouldn't shoot an animal in self defence. I went through all 5 of his posts, and in every one, he did just the opposite. He bragged about his love for hunting. he would kill an animal running for its life, never mind one trying to kill him. You know, attacks and insults tend to have a stronger effect when you don't turn around and do exacacly what you just spoke against.

I have read all of what was said many times, and still find it biased and degrading.
And I stand by what I said about furs and perverts. That hatred leading to generalizing is part of life though. I can't count how many times I have heard people refer to all German's as Nazis(Sorry Nathalie), and all Muslims and Arabs as Terrorists(Likewise, Pheonix).My favorite is when people acuse all Native Americans as being uncivilized and savage barbarians. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...


ANYWAY, without apologizing or or outbursting, I will simply drop out of the subjest now and pretend it never existed. This has gone two far as it is, and to many innosent bystanders have already been hurt, and Lea is not the place for World War 3.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Roquivo
German's as Nazis(Sorry Nathalie),

Oh lord, you know where Nathalie's from, right? :lol:

[Kovu The Lion]

I was not accusing your Roquivo, However stating that to people in General who blurt out on things in which they have no clue about, or assume things to be right when they are actually wrong. However if you wish to take it like that then do so, I can't change you opinion on me.

He may have not stated anything, But it is sad when a person comes to this forums to talk about his love of the lion king, But then gets BASHED OUT, on his OWN INTRODUCTION THREAD, because of SOMETHING he LIKES to do.

We all have likes and dislikes, and some people hate our likes, and some people like our dislikes, But to be thrown out upon on your own thread and to be made felt of like crap on the first day, when all you want to do is talk about a liking of yours?(in this case The Lion King) and your gone in 3 days because two members( you know who you are ) make him/her feel like crap because of something they do?

He may not have stated something like you said, but you could have kept your opinions to yourself, Easily getting your point out with saying a "Hi nice to meet you" and ignoring the rest, Other than PREACHING to him on what he does is bad,

I mean thats about the same as a Christian going up to a Athiest and telling him over and over he's going to hell? Who has the right to tell a person if what he does is right or wrong? As long as it's not breaking a law, Then I don't think it's wrong, Now is it?



Just had to state that.

Kovu

[Aurelian]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Oh lord, you know where Nathalie's from, right? :lol:

I am pretty sure she is from Denmark, but she told me herself that she is German, unless that is all in my head too.

KTL, hate to break it to you, but I AM Christian, and I DO believe that all Athiests are going to Hell. And yes, I do realize that for a Christian, I am pretty unorthodox.

I never bashed Forest Freak about liking hunting. The worst I did was submit my opinion about disliking trophies in a thread he was partisipating in. I actually told him he shouldn't feel forced out because of his opinion.

[Pnt]

Guys, can we please drop this? Every thread with a bit of intelligent discussion goes this way when an unpopular opinion is stated. There's just no point for that, this is the internet, it's really not worth getting that worked up about. Remember respect and maturity, and if there's going to be a discussion about who did what, please take it somewhere else. Please, this thread needs to get back on topic and re-establish a respectful atmosphere.

So, stating what I said before:


The one thing that really bugs me about hunting in this area is how irresponsible hunters can be. During their respective seasons, I'll see hunters closer than five feet from a road hunting with loaded guns. Granted, they're almost always pointing away from the highway, but I've always figured that a loaded gun being fired with 3-5 feet of a highway is always a bad idea. Likewise, it irks me to no end to see hunters hunting towards highways, even if they're 300 yards away, as many car/deer accidents in this area are the result of an irresponsible hunter spooking a deer into traffic. So yeah, responsible hunting I'm cool with, but I do think hunters need to stay away from traffic.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Kovu: Lions don't kill each other for fun.

Perhaps not, but animals do kill other animals for fun. Or are lions suddenly somehow superior? :lol:

Also, hunters=/=uncivilised.

[Nephilim]

Why part of me not talking about lions don't you understand? :confused: I'm talking about animals killing other animals, and not to eat them.

One could also say that a civilised person wouldn't eat meat knowing the way that animals are treated in farm factories.

[Ciara]

what animal are walking around to just kill other animals for fun anyway? :confused:

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Ciara
what animal are walking around to just kill other animals for fun anyway? :confused:

Um, whales pick up seals, smash them to death against the ice, and then leave them there.

[Ciara]

um.. okey, rilly? :O

[Ciara]

i think whales are scared of seals and kill them in self defence .....

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
With whales/seals, what's to say the whale is doing it for 'fun'?

So a full grown whale, pulling a baby seal off of the shore and bashing it to death has some higher motive, something other than "for the Hell of it" behind it?


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Also, I don't eat a lot of meat for that exact reason ^_^ ...

That's very uncivilised of you. I can't believe that a civilised person would even touch meat.

[Ciara]

are you a vegetarian Neph?

and for whales, ive never heard of any animal that kills others for nothing, cuz the nature just doesnt work so, animals takes that more srsly than we humans do ... Must be something behind it that we dont know yet or something ..

[Nephilim]

Ciara: have been for... six years now? Can't really remember.

STL: So by your logic, taking a gun and putting a bullet through an animal's head, and in many cases eating it, is just horrible, and yet taking animals, keeping them in in cages too small, pumping them with drugs, searing off their beaks and so on and so forth, for their entire lives is just fine?

[Ciara]

i see ... well that one is a vegetarian can keep this going on for ever then ... however theres no real answer, so it will prolly do so anyway ...

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
No, you're mixing up what I say. There's no need to hunt animals; for goodness sake you can just go down to Tesco and get some meat if you want some!

You're missing the point here! It's much kinder to animals to give them a sudden, unexpected death, then put them through all the Hell that farm factories do. Sheesh.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
It would be kinder not to hunt them at all is my point; it's completely unnecessary!

Not entirely true (some people need meat to live), but it's the lesser of two evils.

[Pnt]

I don't understand the moral comparison that I keep seeing between humans and other animals. Every single animal that we know about on this planet at this time lacks the upper congnitive traits of humans. They do not face moral dilema of guilt, moral right and wrong, or past/future events with regards to moral stability; they just lack that structure of the brain, or a similar type of structure*. Animals do have emotions, but to the best of our knowledge, these emotions are neither complex nor involve moral cognition. They feel pain when they're hurt, they're sad when a family member die, they're happy when getting pet, etc... They do not, however, contemplate the origin of the Universe, feel guilt for eating their prey, or take comfort in the hopes of future events. Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to compare a human to another animal when it comes to complex thought processes such as right and wrong, good and bad, etc..., as the animals lack the ability to make such a choice.


*Dolphins and a few primates may [i]possibly[i] be an exception, though no structure of their brain has been found that gives them the emotional complexity of humans.


That aside, I'd much rather a deer that lived in nature it's whole life and was very quickly killed by a hunter than a cow that lived in a confined area its entire life and was taken to mass slaughter.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Who cares if most animals are not as intelligent as most humans (some animals are more intelligent than some humans which is amusing)? That doesn't make them any less important than us. You could make that same argument with a newborn baby who doesn't know any better.

Well, infanticide has been quite common throughout history, so I guess people have already beaten you to that. A new born baby has potential, whereas an animal does not.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Who cares if most animals are not as intelligent as most humans (some animals are more intelligent than some humans which is amusing)? That doesn't make them any less important than us. You could make that same argument with a newborn baby who doesn't know any better.

Well, I think it's a valid concern when making a moral comparison between humans and animals. If an animal isn't capable of a moral decision in the form that we're discussing, then it'd be irrevelant to compare the two. It'd be like comparing a Pioneer high definition TV to a bucket of water in regards to image quality; as the bucket of water is incapable of rendering an image, the comparison wouldn't make sense.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Merely opinion. Guide dogs for one are really intelligent ^_^ ...

And, Pnt, why does it matter if the animal is less capable of making a moral decision? That doesn't make it any less of a creature, it still has just as much right to be happy and enjoy life as we do...

Anyway, this isn't really on the topic...

I think it's on topic. The main argument I always hear in defense of the animals in regards to hunting is that humans have: A. a superiority complex, B. Are evil, hateful creature who kill things for fun, or C. Care more about themselves than any other creature. My point is that animals lack the ability to have a superiority complex, be evil, or care about other species, thus it's not a very fair, or logical, comparison. I personally see nothing wrong with killing a deer for food. I am an omnivore, I eat meat, along with other foods. I also feel that hunting is infinitely more humane to the animal than growing up on a massive livestock farm.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Pnt
I also feel that hunting is infinitely more humane to the animal than growing up on a massive livestock farm.

Agreed,

And chains of slaughtering houses,

If you think Hunting is cruel, Try watching a cow go through one of those, you'll soon think different..

Kovu

[SpiritWolf77]

I'm a vegetarian and personally do not like the idea of an animal having to die for any reason, but it's a sad fact of life that sometimes they do. As others have already said, there are environmental benefits to regulated hunting.

Additionally, for those of you that do eat meat but may be against hunting, have you considered that the animals you eat probably suffered a great deal to become your food (factory farm conditions generally suck) whereas a hunter's kill probably had a much more pleasant life?

Before anyone misunderstands, I'm not saying you should all stop eating meat etc. etc. I'm not a militant vegetarian and I have absolutely no issue with other people eating meat, it's just a personal choice for me. What I'm saying is, if you do eat meat, think about the comparison before you're so quick to demonize hunters.

I actually have a great amount of respect for someone who is willing and able to hunt their own food. With grocery-bought, farmed meat, it's often easy to remove yourself from the idea of it once being an animal. But a hunter has to end the life of the food he or she eats which I'd hope would foster a greater respect for the animal.

In summary: 1-Hunting for food and population control are good things. 2-If you think hunters are terrible cruel people and you're not a vegetarian/vegan, you're being kind of a hypocrite.

Edit: Whoops. I had missed the additional pages of this thread when I read it. Sorry for just repeating things a bunch of people already said.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Edit: Sorry for just repeating things a bunch of people already said.

I believe if you weren't to say anything, how would people find out how you feel about the situation?

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
In my eyes, all three of those points are true, for many hunters, and for almost all hunters.

As for animals not being able to do those things, that doesn't mean humans are excused! Humans actively do those things, whereas animals don't. Even if they could, there's nothing to say they would. Humans are not excused.



Not really. Sure, I probably wouldn't get a buzz out of watching it, but I'd rather that happen since it's necessary, instead of other animals being killed unnecessarily as well...



I disagree on both points. If you've ever taken a decent biology class, you will have studied predator-prey cycles.

Basically, for those who haven't:

1) The predator population is less than the prey's population.
2) The prey population increases because there aren't many predators.
3) The predator population increases because of the excess of prey.
4) The prey population starts to decline because there are more predators.
5) The predator's population declines because there is less prey.

And back to step 1. Humans disrupt that; that's how it works perfectly naturally and would continue to do so if humans didn't interfere!

And, no, as for being a hypocrite, that's a load of rubbish; I condone hunting much more than animals being raised for meat. That is necessary; hunting is not (usually).

First of all, I completely disagree with you that hunters are those three things. Of all the people I've met, hunters seemed to have the most respect for nature. They realize that an animal died for them to eat, they usually use every part of the animal that's realistically able to be used so as not to waste the body, and many are very concerned for the environment. If a deer is shot in the kill zone, it should go down in a matter of seconds; it doesn't suffer much. It was able to live its entire life in its natural environment instead of on a farm. Deer hunting, in this area at least, keeps the overall population to a safe number.

I don't see any defense for mass farming over hunting. Mass farming is no more necessary than hunting because, while meat may be necessary to many people, the way in which they get it is not. Hunting generates as much meat for the hunter as shopping at the supermarket does for the average consumer. As Spiritwolf said, huntind demands a respect and knowledge of the fact that an animal died for you to eat. Shopping at a store almost completely removes that. Instead of realizing that they're eating a once living creature, most people just see that slab of meat on their plate. A cheeseburger at McDonald's is a cheeseburger to most people; a venicin burger is a once living deer to a hunter.

I dunno, it just seems like your side of the debate relies upon a disdain for humans, not a concern for the animals.

[Kovu The Lion]

Hmm.. I agree with Pnt at this point, My cousins and other family parts are major rednecks, when they deer hunt, They take the head, and they do get it mounted, however they usually do rip the meat, and eat it, everytime.. Deer meat is pretty good to them so I hear,

as for hooves and other things, like tails, they use for good luck charms and things, and yeah I dont really know much :p

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
In my eyes, all three of those points are true, for many hunters, and for almost all hunters.
Do you personally know any hunters, allowing yourself to have an informed opinion on this matter? My grandfather used to hunt. He most certainly did not fit -any- of those descriptions. He's a very nice humble man, with great respect for living things.

Sidenote: It's actually false that animals do not have the ability to care about members of other species. Anyone ever owned a dog? There have also been several incidents of animals adopting orphaned young of another species, even in predator-prey relationships (the lioness and the...I believe it was, gazelle story anyone?)


Not really. Sure, I probably wouldn't get a buzz out of watching it, but I'd rather that happen since it's necessary, instead of other animals being killed unnecessarily as well...
Which part is necessary? Cattle being stuffed into little boxes? Chickens force-fed grain? Is that what you're saying is necessary? Or just that we need to have some source of meat for food? If it's the latter, wouldn't it be better to go about this in a more natural way, rather than breeding hordes of animals that spend their entire lives suffering?


I disagree on both points. If you've ever taken a decent biology class, you will have studied predator-prey cycles.

Basically, for those who haven't:

1) The predator population is less than the prey's population.
2) The prey population increases because there aren't many predators.
3) The predator population increases because of the excess of prey.
4) The prey population starts to decline because there are more predators.
5) The predator's population declines because there is less prey.

And back to step 1. Humans disrupt that; that's how it works perfectly naturally and would continue to do so if humans didn't interfere!
If you've ever taken a decent biology class, you should also understand that humans are part of this chain. What we do affects the rest of the cycle. We cannot remove ourselves from it so long as we reside on this planet. Cattle require vast amounts of land to graze on. When using farm-raised meat, you have two options: Keep the animals in small, inhumane conditions, or destroy natural land in order to create more comfortable conditions for the livestock. Granted, with human populations at the size they are, we do need to produce more animals for food, but perhaps we wouldn't need to produce quite so many if we relied on natural populations to a degree.

Additionally, nature does not always work in perfect cycles. You should have also learned that in a decent biology class. Sometimes the top predator species is wiped out, sometimes naturally, sometimes because of us. The problem Yellowstone has been having for quite some time was initially our fault. Humans wiped out the wolf populations and deer populations skyrocketed. Deer began dying of disease and starvation because their environment could not maintain such a large population increase. We had to thin out the population via hunting to prevent the -entire- population from dying out. We have been reintroducing wolves to the area, but this is a slow and difficult process and in order to keep the deer population stable, hunting is required.


And, no, as for being a hypocrite, that's a load of rubbish; I condone hunting much more than animals being raised for meat. That is necessary; hunting is not (usually).
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here because you just contradicted yourself. You just said you condone hunting more than factory farming. But you said factory farming is necessary whereas hunting is not. Hunting is not "necessary" only because factory farms exist. If you condone hunting over factory farming, then why are you condemning hunting? Wouldn't it make more sense to condone it? If more people hunted, less meat would come from factory farms. If you agree that factory farming is more cruel than hunting, but choose factory farmed meat over hunted meat, then you're just proving my point that typically, grocery-meat consumers have less respect for the circumstances that brought them their food because it's easy for them to ignore and forget what it took to get that meat. If you cared about animals as much as you claim, and honestly did not condone factory farming, then I would expect you to either 1-Not eat meat or 2-Turn to hunting for your food so that you're not supporting such a cruel system.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Sidenote: It's actually false that animals do not have the ability to care about members of other species. Anyone ever owned a dog? There have also been several incidents of animals adopting orphaned young of another species, even in predator-prey relationships (the lioness and the...I believe it was, gazelle story anyone?)

True, but to my knowledge, there is absolutely no credible scientific evidence of any animal (with the possible exception of dolphins) having the higher cognitive power of humans that allows them to face moral dilemas. The most basic, accepted explanation for dogs (again, to my knowledge) is that they assume the human family as part of their pack. I will give you that, dogs (and in some extremely exceptional cases, other animals) do care for other species, but there's no evidence showing that these animals do so through moral decision.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
So it's the humans' fault; if the wolves hadn't been wiped out there wouldn't have been the deer problem!

As I said before, this isn't about concern for the animals, it's about disdain for the humans. You get angry at the humans when they make a mistake, and you get angry when they try to fix it. It's a lose-lose situation, and it seems like you'd consider anything a human does to be bad.

By the by, you're a human being too.

[TX-101]

O...K... This is getting complicated. What's the big deal? hunting? killing?
You can find everywhere that! Where would we be if there wouldn't be cold bloody murderers on the world? there wouldnt be a natural defense on anyone, there wouldnt exist 2 big groups of animals, there wouldnt be some evolutionary important changes which made this world like we all know. Who knows what would there be. If anything wouldnt be like it should.. there would already happen something to keep this world on the way.

[TX-101]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
So you're saying you're happy that there are murderers o_O ? I didn't quite understand all of that post...

no, no. you got it wrong.
I'm saying thatour world always had killers on it. It's a part of the world we're living on. I'm not happy or sad becouse of it.

[Nephilim]

I condemn hunting far more than I condemn normal farming.

You make it sound as if they don't both end in the same thing: killing. :confused:

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Pnt
True, but to my knowledge, there is absolutely no credible scientific evidence of any animal (with the possible exception of dolphins) having the higher cognitive power of humans that allows them to face moral dilemas. The most basic, accepted explanation for dogs (again, to my knowledge) is that they assume the human family as part of their pack. I will give you that, dogs (and in some extremely exceptional cases, other animals) do care for other species, but there's no evidence showing that these animals do so through moral decision.
I think there may be evidence of that in apes, but I'm not sure about other animals. I don't think they know why that lioness adopted that gazelle, for example.


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Why did he kill them then? I don't know any offline, though I've met some online.
I don't know the specific reasons, I'd have to ask him. May've been more cost-efficient since he was raising a family of 6 kids. In the long run, gun and ammo upkeep may have been cheaper than buying store-meat. He also may have just enjoyed the experience. Both of my grandparents on my mother's side have always enjoyed traveling and being out in nature.


Simply that we require food, not that they need to be stuffed in boxes as you put it. I support free range farming ^_^ , and organic produce.
Free-range farming is a good solution to the problem. Of course with that, there's the issue of natural land loss since humane free-range farming requires far more space than factory farming. It's not as detrimental to the animals, but depending on the specific circumstances, it can be more detrimental to the environment. It's a tricky situation, in that respect.


No, humans are completely irrelevant from predator-prey cycles. If we left them alone, they would be fine! Just like they were before humans existed.
What is "them" you're referring to? Other animals? Keep in mind, we were not always an industrialized, or even a farming society. We were very much part of predator-prey cycles when we were a hunting and gathering society. We did not suddenly appear on this planet, completely removed from nature. Even now, in industrialized society, we continue to affect and be affected by natural cycles, even if it's not direct involvement in predator-prey cycles. Not to mention, not all societies on this planet are industrialized. Some are still hunter-gatherer societies, or some have drastically different societies than our own due to the conditions of their environment (i.e. the Inuit people). I'm assuming you're okay with those societies hunting since they don't have any other option.

In any case, when you say the natural populations would be just fine if we left them alone, you're assuming we don't have any effect on the environment. We build cities, we clear forests to set up farming land. We drill and mine and dig for natural resources. Even in trying to create a perfectly self-sustaining society, we still have an effect on the environment. We can't just "leave them alone."


So it's the humans' fault; if the wolves hadn't been wiped out there wouldn't have been the deer problem!
In this instance, yes. But we are not always responsible. Natural disasters and disease can also suddenly wipe out a population. And besides, it's already been done. Saying we shouldn't have wiped out the wolves doesn't change the fact that we did. It happened. And now we have to deal with the consequences. And some of those consequences are having to control the deer populations until we can fully rehabilitate the wolf populations. Hunting is necessary in this respect no matter how much you don't like it. I assume you don't like it because it involves the deaths of animals. If we didn't do it, the entire population, or most of it, would die out from disease or starvation. Would you prefer that?


Oops, I meant 'condemn'. I condemn hunting far more than I condemn normal farming. The other way around to how it came across ^_^ ...
Here's what I don't get. You don't like hunting, because you consider it unnecessary death, right? Why is raising and killing livestock different? You said because it's necessary, because we need to get our food from somewhere. What gives the livestock less of a right to live than the wild populations? If we relied entirely on hunting for our food, and some people decided to raise animals to be killed, people might consider that cruel and unnecessary. They'd say, why raise an animal just to kill it when we already have plenty of food from hunting? It's killing either way. And what you consider "necessary" is subjective.

[Dare]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
As was said earlier, apparently there is a lot of free land in China. That could potentially be used for farming.


The reason that land is free is because there's not much they can do with it, unless we figure out how to farm deserts. The land that is available for farming is already being used and/or is growing smaller due to encroaching desert and industrialization.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If we relied entirely on hunting for our food, then suddenly all the animals we have in farms would have to be discarded in some way. Plus, a lot of people may not want or be able to hunt for their food. Consider the elderly and disabled. With food from farms, we are able to avoid the problem, and it's a lot more convenient - also it provides farmers with money and a way to live!

There's two sides to that, though. For some people, hunting provides the main source of their meat, at least at certain point during the year. Hunted meat is normally less expensive and yields quite a bit of food as compared to store-bought meat. It's also usually fresher and, frankly, better tasting. Some hunters are professionals that make a living off of hunting for meat and taxidermy. Just like the farmers, these poeple need money and a way to leave as well.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If we didn't do those things; if humans weren't here, the cycles would work perfectly well.
If humans weren't here, you wouldn't be here. Not all humans are destructive either. For the record.


Why can't they simply put wolves back? Then again, they'd probably be hunted again.
It's not that simple. It's a slow process to reintroduce a population to an area. They're working on it, but it takes time and until the population is stable and large enough to keep the deer population in check, deer will need to be thinned out by hunting.


If we relied entirely on hunting for our food, then suddenly all the animals we have in farms would have to be discarded in some way. Plus, a lot of people may not want or be able to hunt for their food. Consider the elderly and disabled. With food from farms, we are able to avoid the problem, and it's a lot more convenient - also it provides farmers with money and a way to live!
Well, as I already said before, with our current population size, we do need some farming to ensure that there is enough food for everyone. I don't think farming should be removed altogether, I'm just saying that I don't see why anyone would condemn hunters since they're actually benefiting the system by not depending on farmed meat. I think it's good if part of the population that is able hunts for their food instead of relying on farming. That results in fewer farm-raised animals, and hopefully results in less factory farming and less land use.

And on the topic of China, my boyfriend is a Chinese language major and quite familiar with the country, having spent some time there and spent a lot of time studying it. The country's economy is doing well but the people are not. There is a great deal of poverty and hunger in China at the moment.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion


Pnt: But it's not necessary to live like that... They could get a different job that is necessary. We have a lack of teachers here; so it's quite annoying when you see kids without an education then you see people doing no job/unnecessary jobs.



I agree with SpiritWolf, "Necessary" is subjective.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
No. As stated in the dictionary:

1. Being essential, indispensable, or requisite.

Clearly, it's not these things, and hence it's not necessary.

It's not necessary for a person to make a living with the skills they have? Or to ensure food for their families?

And you know, it may not be necessary. Neither is the computer you're on, the car you ride in, nor the chips you eat. That light in your room isn't necessary, you could survive without out. The only thing necessary by your definition is a small bit of shelter, milk and bread, and clean water. All the rest, a person could survive without. The fact remains, though, that hunting is generally more humane than industrialized farming, and in many cases, more beneficial, if not necessary for the surrounding environment.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Heh, I have a business studies GCSE; I've studied 'needs' and 'wants'. They can quite easily just get food from the supermarket. And if you try to pull the argument of "Oh, some people aren't qualified enough to work.", then well, you could always work in a job that doesn't need any qualifications. It is not necessary. There's nothing really to be debated there.

As for you saying the things I have aren't necessary - well, I'm sure you have many of the things I have. And, I didn't choose to have all of these things. As I often say to the person whom I love, I'd be more than willing to go without food if it meant he had enough to eat, or to work 16 hours per day in the cold if it meant he had a roof over his head. Quite frankly I'm not too bothered about myself; even if I didn't have a computer or light in my room, I would strive to make the most of myself that I possibly could, and do my utmost to make a difference in this world.

You're completely missing the point, bud. Things don't need to be necessary to have a point. Hunters get their food from animals they hunt. Sure, they could go to the store, but they don't. Generally, the food they hunt is killed much more humanely, and the hunter has respect for the animals he/she kills and for those that are still living. The majority of society, however, does not have much respect for where their food comes from. They see a hamburger on a plate and that's all they think. Thus, hunters tend to be not only more respectful towards animals, they also obtain their food in a more natural way.

How is mass farming any more necessary than hunting?

[Dare]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion


And that crap about hunters having respect for animals is a load of rubbish; if they respected the animals they wouldn't want to kill them in the first place!

Thank you for that inadvertent insult.

Pnt has artfully summed up my opinion. Thank you Pnt.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Farming provides us with all the food we need. Hunting on top of that is not necessary.

And that crap about hunters having respect for animals is a load of rubbish; if they respected the animals they wouldn't want to kill them in the first place! It's just like me walking up to someone I don't know and saying "Oh, I respect you, so take this!" *Bang* Also, I've seen hunters interviewed on TV, their attitudes are disgusting! Maybe hunting is different where I live to where you live, but here it is absolutely horrible.


The hunters I know around here are generally gentle, respectful people who know quite a bit about nature. The ones I know don't take more than they need and use all they take. If a person hunts, they don't consume that meat from farming. Thus, an action that is more humane in my opinion takes the place of an action that is less humane.



My friend raised an interesting point to me a few minutes ago - what if an animal was bred that enjoyed being killed and eaten hehe :P !

Then you'd be living in a Brave New World.

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Farming provides us with all the food we need. Hunting on top of that is not necessary.

And that crap about hunters having respect for animals is a load of rubbish; if they respected the animals they wouldn't want to kill them in the first place! It's just like me walking up to someone I don't know and saying "Oh, I respect you, so take this!" *Bang* Also, I've seen hunters interviewed on TV, their attitudes are disgusting! Maybe hunting is different where I live to where you live, but here it is absolutely horrible.

My friend raised an interesting point to me a few minutes ago - what if an animal was bred that enjoyed being killed and eaten hehe :P !

It's all well and good to care for animals, but you shouldn't hate those who hunt animals. Hating a person is much worse than killing an animal.

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by DarkElf
It's all well and good to care for animals, but you shouldn't hate those who hunt animals. Hating a person is much worse than killing an animal. How is hating a person "much worse" than killing an animal? As long as you don't hurt somebody, it's ok and sometimes natural to hate somebody. You could hate me all you want, as long as you don't try to hurt me verbally or physically. But killing an animal is so vague, and in all cases, involves a degree of physical harm.

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by Xinithian
How is hating a person "much worse" than killing an animal? As long as you don't hurt somebody, it's ok and sometimes natural to hate somebody. You could hate me all you want, as long as you don't try to hurt me verbally or physically. But killing an animal is so vague, and in all cases, involves a degree of physical harm.

And look what an effect STL's (and other's) hatred had on Forest Freak.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion SW77: I'm honestly not bothered whether I'm here or not, so that's hardly a problem.

Mmm, what's to say the humans won't do the same again? Most humans don't think of the consequences of their actions.

No, they're not 'benefiting the system'; there is more than enough food for people in MEDCs at least already - and in fact if our governments weren't so stingy then there would be enough food for people in LEDCs too. And, even if people did hunt, the same amount of animals would be farmed (if not more), because farmers want to make money just like everyone else.
Ok, so how do you propose we handle this then? Should hunting be banned? Should we let the deer populations skyrocket and then die out? Should we exterminate the human race?

And FYI, your logic on farming and making money from it is a little backwards there. If the farmers continued to produce just as much meat with fewer people buying it, they would lose money. Chances are they'd reduce production numbers to prevent losses.

And Pnt's post about necessity summed up a lot of what I wanted to say. Thanks Pnt, well-said.


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Heh, I have a business studies GCSE; I've studied 'needs' and 'wants'. They can quite easily just get food from the supermarket. And if you try to pull the argument of "Oh, some people aren't qualified enough to work.", then well, you could always work in a job that doesn't need any qualifications. It is not necessary. There's nothing really to be debated there.
Are you saying everyone can just get food from the supermarket? Really? You know this for a fact?


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
And that crap about hunters having respect for animals is a load of rubbish; if they respected the animals they wouldn't want to kill them in the first place! It's just like me walking up to someone I don't know and saying "Oh, I respect you, so take this!" *Bang* Also, I've seen hunters interviewed on TV, their attitudes are disgusting! Maybe hunting is different where I live to where you live, but here it is absolutely horrible.
Right, because obviously the stereotypes you see on TV or amongst the louder of the bunch apply to the entire group. Thanks for that "open-minded" perspective.

I guess the Inuit people don't respect animals, because all of their food comes from hunting?


Originally posted by DarkElf
Hating a person is much worse than killing an animal.
Ok, that I cannot agree with. How is dislike of someone worse than ending a life? Are you saying humans have more of a right to live than animals, so much so that they have more of a right to be liked regardless of what they do, than an animal has to live? How can you make a judgment like that?

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77


Ok, that I cannot agree with. How is dislike of someone worse than ending a life? Are you saying humans have more of a right to live than animals, so much so that they have more of a right to be liked regardless of what they do, than an animal has to live? How can you make a judgment like that?

Indeed. We do have more of a right to live, I'm not saying you should go out and have absolutely no compasion for animals at all, but what I hate to see is how so many of you seem to regard animals more than humans just because they aren't "evil".

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by DarkElf
And look what an effect STL's (and other's) hatred had on Forest Freak. Nobody cursed him out, or directly insulted him. It was completely Forest Freak's decision to leave. It's not like every time he posted about something random, somebody told him, "stop posting, stupid hunter!" He could've easily just avoided hunting subjects altogether. If I joined an NRA forum, and saw that homosexuality was frowned upon by a majority, I would simply avoid topics regarding homosexuality.

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
And that crap about hunters having respect for animals is a load of rubbish; if they respected the animals they wouldn't want to kill them in the first place! It's just like me walking up to someone I don't know and saying "Oh, I respect you, so take this!" *Bang* Also, I've seen hunters interviewed on TV, their attitudes are disgusting! Maybe hunting is different where I live to where you live, but here it is absolutely horrible.

I'm a hunter, are you saying I have no respect for the animals? I respect the animals, yet some may die by my hand. What do I do when I catch one? ... usually, I eat the meat, (just one cand feed the family for weeks) the bones, neck, heart, and innards are used to make a stew, which in turn also feeds the family for weeks after. the bones, aftrer the soup, it only is left as an empty shell that is buried in the garden to fertilise the various fruit trees and vegetable plants and herbs (which in turn is eaten) ... The fur of the animal is usually used to make blankets, coats, curtains, etc.. usually these can be used, or traded for what keeps us up until the next years hunting season... is that all a waste to you?

When was the last time you went out on your own through forests? Seen the natural landmarks, the plants, the wild animals... when was the last time you spent you nights soothed to sleep by the sounds of a brook in the distance or the calls of the wild? ... (no, those 'nature sounds' CDs are nothing compared to real) I like the land, I appreciate the beautiful landscapes from the view of a mountain range with mist covering the floor. All of these are expirienced while hunting, in fact moreso when you rely on the natural land marks to keep yourself fed and alive.

To be a hunter you also have to be aware of the prey you live off of. Keeping strong track of what their numbers are, keeping their forest clean (to prevent unnessesary risk to the wildlife you hunt) etc etc... also, if we didn't hunt, do you realise how many people would be killed by animals? ... do you realise how many deer attacks there's been in california? ... All this does have to come with hunting... for if there's no management, there's no prey, and no hunting... that's why we have organisations such as the department of fish and game ( click here to see their website (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/) ) ... they do a lot to preserve wildlife and habitats...

[Ghamu]

Originally posted by DarkElf
Indeed. We do have more of a right to live, I'm not saying you should go out and have absolutely no compasion for animals at all, but what I hate to see is how so many of you seem to regard animals more than humans just because they aren't "evil".
Where does this conviction of yours come from?

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
And animal loss of life is just as bad as human loss of life. Yet another case of human superiority complex over other living species.


I completely disagree with this. I think every organism has a right to life, or to protect its life, but I would never, under any circumstances, hold an animal's life to the same level of a human's life. Why? Because I'm a human being. I care about my species and its continuity above all others. I don't go out of my way to harm other creatures, but given the choice between a dog's life or a person's life, I'd choose the person 100% of the time. That's not a superiority complex, that's nature. I look out for my own, just as every other species does.

[Pnt]

I'm not saying better, though I do realize humans are just about the best around at certain things (Intelligence, social interaction, complex communication, etc..). I'm just saying that I have no obligation to any other animal, just as no animal has any other obligation to my species. Thus, I would always choose the life of a human before the life of any other creature, or any number of creatures. That's not selfish, bud, that's how nature works. Banana slugs don't go out of their way to ensure the survival of grasshoppers unless that would somehow benefit their species. Lions won't refuse to eat a gazelle because they're concerned for the gazelle (Again, unless it somehow ensures their own safety). I think it'd be a selfish double standard to claim that humans are just another animal that's not better than any other animal, but to expect humans to act differently than any other animal and strive to ensure the continuation of other species.

The ironic thing is that this debate only lies within human society, as all other animals are incapable of this sort of discussion.

[Pnt]

There's no such thing as "Fair" in nature. We're doing what comes naturally to us --building and using tools to help us survive. We can't run 65 miles per hour, we don't have sharp claws, and our teeth are pretty useless in hunting. So, we used our brain, and it worked out for us. We're still living in nature, though. Nature is all around us, and in fact, we are all of nature. Human beings are inherently natural creatures, we came from nature. We just changed our environment to better suit our needs. If the nest of leaves and twigs a chimpanzee builds before it sleeps is natural, then so are all our tools that we have built.

[Pnt]

My point is that men are natural creatures. Thus, anything man-made is natural. I've personally never understood why some people think humans are seperated from nature.

[Pnt]

When did different start to mean "Unnatural?" But alas, this is off topic.

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by Ghamu
Where does this conviction of yours come from?

Experience.

[TX-101]

You all are going to kill each other in here... sad.

[Ghamu]

Originally posted by DarkElf
Experience.
What kind of experience(s)?

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Anon: I'm not saying you're wasting the animal, I'm saying it's unnecessary killing it in the first place... And animal loss of life is just as bad as human loss of life. Yet another case of human superiority complex over other living species.

It's unnessecary to eat? :confused:

We are connected in a big web, we are part of the cycle... if we stopped hunting alltogether, it would destroy a lot of that web... if we all stopped, then the deer would be too numerous here in California, and their supply of food will begin to dwindle, the preditors are not numerous enough to balance the population. They also would lose the fear of humans and begin to attack humans just as the deer have begun to do, resulting in loss of human life... Which in turn will result in the loss of both preditor and prey (as humans have a tendency to defend themselves) then begins to upset balance and cause many un-needed deaths of humans, and animals too.

Remember, animals don't have laws like us humans do, and we are deffinatly not going to begin bringing to court an animal that killed another of it's own kind.

Also, a gun and bow n arrow is a one-time payment that yealds a lot of food, a trip to the store is a daily payment, that only holds enough to feed one day (depending on how much is bought) ... some bank accounts are not that deep... poor money management will cause it to run dry, then it's back to hunting for your own food, or die of starvation.

Also, I agree with Pnt... if I were to have to choose between a human and an animals, I'd choose human 100% of the time too... I mean I like dogs well enough, but if I ever see a dog attack a person, I would not hesitate a moment to cut that dog's head off or blow it's brains across the floor. may be concidered cruel, but it is way more cruel, and completely heartless to stand idly by and watch a dog killing a human. Likewise, if I saw a stray, and I had an extra piece of chicken or other food, I would give it to the homeless rather than a stray. Feeding a starving dog in front of a starving homeless is also cruel. If the stay is edible in fact put it to death, cook it up, and feed the homeless with it's meat... that way you end the misery of the animal, and feed the needy... you wouldn't kill your best friends for the sake of an animal would you?

However death of an animal is not nessesary when it is just left to rot, like what pachers used to commonly do to elephants and rhinos for their tusks...

[XxBlackXxParadeXx]

:confused: ahhh i'm confused its not ok to hunt animals in the wild but its ok to get farm animals and kill them?, and preditory animals go out hunting all the time, like in big cats where the lions were slowly killing/eating a hippo but no one goes aww poor hippo those lions are evil

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by Ghamu
What kind of experience(s)?

Certain experiences to make me have opinions such as these.

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
It's unnecessary to kill more animals for food when there is already an excess is what I was saying.

yes, it is true one should only take what is nessesary an not more, but hunting is nessesary... without it more things will die, with it less will die... either way there's death


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I'm not convinced. Predator-prey cycles are pretty good, and have been working for millions of years. Why would the humans go near the deer anyway o_O ?

they're pretty good, yes, they've been working as long as they've been working, and as long as that has been humans have been hunters...

and usually in the case of deer attack, the deer go to the human more often rather than the other way around.


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
My biology teacher last year actually shared with us a good tip for resolving situations like that; push a pencil into the dog's rear end :lol: !

:gasp: :lol: ... I don't think I'd want to test that theory out :p


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
And, feeding the homeless person in front of the starving dog would also be cruel.

The dog can't fathom between what's cruel and what's morally right, the homeless can.


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I would kill myself in place of an animal in an instant however (in most situations anyway).

... and therefore harm your friends with your death? ... You have far too little an opinion of yourself I say...

[Ciara]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I would kill myself in place of an animal in an instant however (in most situations anyway).

That just doesnt make any sense ... the animal would just feel it has been saved but has soon forgot it and continues to dig in the ground again like nothing had happen. It will prolly not even have someone that's missing it if it had died. For you and your friends ... like it already has been pointed out above, jeeeez :gasp: not to sound evil or so, i do care, but someones cares too much about the animals that it scares me ...

[Pnt]

Originally posted by TX-101
You all are going to kill each other in here... sad.

Uh... we're carrying on a civil conversation.



So yeah, A-non and Ciara summed basically summed up my opinion.

Killing yourself for an animal? That's a bit far, bud.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I would kill myself in place of an animal in an instant however (in most situations anyway).

I could respect such a decision. Granted that you'd love that creature.

[Tiikeri]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
And, feeding the homeless person in front of the starving dog would also be cruel.
Actually, you'd find that if you fed a homless person in front of their starving dog, the person would feed the dog with what you gave them. I know because I've done it, I gave some guy my Steak Bake for some reason, and he split it in half and fed half to his dog.



I wouldn't kill my best friends in place of an animal, but that is because they're very special to me. I would kill myself in place of an animal in an instant however (in most situations anyway).
So, let me see if I've got this...you wouldn't kill your friends in place of an animal because it's not fair on them. But you'd kill yourself in place of an animal, yet somehow that's not unfair on your friends. oO

How does that work?

[Tiikeri]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I don't have any offline friends.
It never used to be like that :/


Tiikeri: Well, my friends aren't dying, that's one huge difference! I couldn't bring myself to kill my friends, though it would be very very difficult to kill an animal I cared about.
I see where you're coming from, I could neither pull a gun on my best friend nor could I pull a gun on a tiger. If I ever got myself into one of those predicaments, however unlikely it may be, I don't know what I'd do....probably shoot the guy who arranged it xP

Although the problem would remain, if I killed myself in place of an animal, someone would probably just kill the animal afterwards anyway, so it would be a wasted death. I do see your point though.

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Um, yeah, I've never had any offline friends. I've met people from online from time to time, but they're not offline friends; the whole notion of 'offline friends' implies that you know each other at least reasonably well and meet often offline! It's very difficult for me to do so as well. I have friends a few miles from me, but of course, I'm going to get raped if I ever meet them, so naturally I can't *Rolls his eyes at the stereotype*...

I know some of my post could be interpreted as being rude, but I mean no offense in this one, I am honestly asking you a question.

Have you ever attempted to go out and make friends, and I mean really attempted, out of every person in your school, can you honestly say you have attempted to be friends with any of them? (And I'm not talking about the *** holes you may have)

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
No, it's not necessary to kill more because there is already an excess of food, that's my point...

No, humans have not even existed as long as predator-prey cycles. Humans are very recent on this planet!

'excess' depends solely on money... if there's not enough money to buy food, it's better to catch/grow your own

That's a belief, with no proof... I believe differently...
Even if going with your way of believing, humans have been around for a long time and the predator prey system has always had humans in it as long as that... and it a part of nature as are humans. Predator-prey cycle is still around today yes? then what's the problem? ... it's still working... there's still predator and theres still prey... to remove one part would unbalance the cycle, and that's what you're pushing for... to unbalance the cycle... with the sudden decrease in predators... the prey would multiply way too fast... then disease would wipe them out... if a disease kills an animal, the meat is useless and it goes to waste... that's what I call a big waste... The animal doesn't get to live and no one can live off of it's meat... too much damage would be caused by the time other predators caught up... plus it'd make the forests incredibly dangerous both from the prey and the predator, and then for the humans to protect themselves and their loved one would have to resort back to the days of carrying a file around with them to shoot any animals that approach... is this what you want to happen?


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Why would a deer randomly walk up to a human o_O that makes no sense...

believe it or not I've seen it many times... they now have warning signs now posted on most nature trails 'beware of deer' due to it getting out of hand ... I've also once saw a whole herd of deer (most bucks) walk right through a crowded campsite.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
believe it or not I've seen it many times... they now have warning signs now posted on most nature trails 'beware of deer' due to it getting out of hand ... I've also once saw a whole herd of deer (most bucks) walk right through a crowded campsite.

If I could add something, we have the same problem around here. Deer walk up to people quite often. Contrary to what one might assume, though, you don't want a deer walking up to you. It's not one of fantasy scenes with unicorns and birds chirping in the air; if a deer gets spooked or they're in season, you can easily get very badly injured or killed by a deer (Though I realize that you probably already know that). We've had days at our paintball field where we have 150 or 200 people sitting in the staging area for hours because a buck or two decided to hang around the field. We can't shoot the deer (blanks or live rounds) because guns and large crowds don't mix (Plus, we don't want to just kill a deer unless it's being threatening or really causing problems where our park closes for the day or more), and we can't scare the deer away because if that buck wants to stay there, that buck's gonna stay there. We can't play, because that could make the bucks very angry and would be a real threat to the players' safety. So yeah, I agree, deer and people don't always mix.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by DarkElf
Indeed. We do have more of a right to live, I'm not saying you should go out and have absolutely no compasion for animals at all, but what I hate to see is how so many of you seem to regard animals more than humans just because they aren't "evil".
I don't think animals have more of a right to live than human beings, but I fail to see how it's the other way around either. Why do we have more of a right to live than animals? Who granted us this right? is this a fact or just your opinion? And give me something less vague than "certain experiences" or I'm going to assume you're just copping out of answering.


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Yes, hunting should be banned. Predator-prey cycles will take care of the deer.
I'm sorry, but you are WRONG here. You have no scientific basis for assuming that predator-prey cycles will take care of the deer. I have already explained to you, multiple times, that there are not enough predators to keep the deer population in check at the moment so if we do not thin it ourselves, the entire population will die out. I know you don't want to believe this because you think hunting is an evil terrible thing done by evil terrible people, but that doesn't change the facts. The world is not a shiny happy perfect place where all the animals live in harmony. Until the wolves are reestablished, -some- predator needs to take care of the excess deer, and guess what? We're a predatory species.


No, not true, because the government is stupid enough to say to farmers "no matter how much you produce, we'll buy it!" They're even having to pay farmers now to produce LESS. Either way the farmers are getting a good deal!
Again, do you have sources to back up this fact of yours or are you just spouting off another opinion based on your unwillingness to ever see anything good about hunting? No intelligent business owner is going to produce an incredible excess of product that they cannot sell. The -government- does not buy the meat that goes to the people, supermarkets do. And guess who buys from the supermarkets? The people@


Yes, of course everyone who can hunt can get food from the supermarket (where supermarkets exist!). If you're rich enough to buy a gun/other hunting equipment, you're bound to be rich enough to buy some food darnit!
Really? So...the Inuit people...various African societies, South American tribes who do not even use guns because they still live in natural settings without industrialization, they can all just hop over to the supermarket and buy their food? They must be really skilled at traveling long distances quickly then, seeing as they don't -have- supermarkets. What about people who live on the edge of industrialized society? I know you said it's okay when it's necessary, but what about people who have the option to live in a city with a supermarket but choose to live in a cabin somewhere and fend for themselves instead? There are quite a few people who choose to live "off the grid" and rely on hunting for food, solar power, etc. because they don't like being part of commercialized industrial society. Are they evil people for hunting when they're probably helping the environment in other ways by living more "naturally" so to speak?

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
About the deer, that's crazy, it's not even as if they're lions or tigers. I've never met a deer in reality, but it seems strange that they're that dangerous...

Bud, I live around deer, I know how they act, and I know you'll change your mind pretty damn quick about how dangerous they can be when one's standing a few feet in front of you during mating season. If a buck wants to hurt you, you're going down, and there's not much you can do about it. They don't need to be predators to be dangerous. A ticked off moose is one of the most dangerous animals on earth. Likewise, a charging elephant or a spooked hippo are far more dangerous to a person than any lion or tiger. Many times, a deer will run away when approached, but at certain times during the year, or in certain places, they'll stand their ground and mess you up.

By the by, the whole concept of "They can't help nature if they're killing animals" thing is flawed. Nature exists through a process of animals killing other animals. Humans killing other animals for food is natural.

[Ghamu]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
About the deer, that's crazy, it's not even as if they're lions or tigers. I've never met a deer in reality, but it seems strange that they're that dangerous...

They can be. They are pretty powerful animals, actually. Combine that with their sharp antlers and you have someone that can tear you open pretty badly.



Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Nope, wrong. The predator levels will rise because there is more than enough prey. Look at the steps I posted a while back.

But some areas have no "natural" predators at all. You're not claiming that predator levels will rise in them, are you? :confused:

[Ciara]

Originally posted by Ghamu
They can be. They are pretty powerful animals, actually. Combine that with their sharp antlers and you have someone that can tear you open pretty badly.

thats very true, my grandma use to have those running around in her garden. Ive been beside one almost and some of them are huge, and they're not as petable as you might think, even if they look cute and harmless ...

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
You are avoiding my point of it not being necessary though! We don't need to kill animals for more food; we already have more than enough...

Ghamu: You have to wonder why there are no predators at all though. Unless humans killed them all of course.

I know hippos and elephants are dangerous, my point was simply that there are animals out there way more dangerous than deer... I'd rather fight a deer than a hippo o_o;;; !

If you're referring to me, I'm not avoiding your point of their not being necessary. I established a while back that it doesn't need to be necessary to make it justified, and that in many cases it is necessary. So yeah, I didn't avoid it, I just don't like repeating myself.

You don't want to fight a deer. A deer will kill you if it wants to. I'd say deer during certain seasons are the most dangerous creatures in most of the areas that they inhabit, with the exception of some snakes.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Nope, wrong. The predator levels will rise because there is more than enough prey. Look at the steps I posted a while back.
So, what about areas where the wolves have been completely wiped out? Where do the predators come from? Do they appear magically?


Yes, the government does buy the meat/milk/wine e.t.c. from farmers. I have an A* grade at GCSE in geography, and one of the main topics we studied was farming. One subtopic was how the government buys as much food as farmers produce to ensure that there is no shortage! That's why we have 'food mountains', and 'milk lakes'. They actually struggle to get rid of it all!
Maybe it's different where you live then. Here, supermarkets buy the food directly from the producers. Hunting here actually reduces the overall amount of food being produced.


That's silly really; they can't claim they're helping nature either since well, they're killing it quite literally!
And...you're not? Do you eat meat? You do realize that you're killing animals too by doing that right? I know you have it in your head that hunting increases the overall number of animals dying, and I don't know how your government/market system operates, but I explained that here at least, and in most countries (since most countries have debt and resource problems, not an overabundance of food and money) that is not the case.

They're putting less of a strain on the environment by not being directly involved in industrialized society.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Are we at least agreed that hunting for the hell of it - not for food - is bad?

I have no problem with responsible hunting that is not very detrimental to the environment as long as the person uses what they kill. If someone goes hunting for sport but uses the meat for food and other parts of the animal too, then I'm cool with that. Likewise, if a farmer goes hunting to keep animals out of his crops, that's fine with me too, as long as he uses what he kills.

If that's what you mean, then yes, if not, then no.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Well, then predator species need to be reintroduced.
I feel like we're kind of going in circles here...
As I said before, they're working on it, but it's a slow and difficult process to reintroduce an animal that was wiped out of an area. Until the populations are large enough and stable, hunting needs to continue to thin out the herds.


Are we at least agreed that hunting for the hell of it - not for food - is bad?
I pretty much agree with Pnt's response on this. I have no issue with people hunting because they enjoy it so long as they use what they kill and are not hunting an animal in danger of low population.

[Pnt]

There's these things called opinions, man, deal with it. You're trying to play on the emotions of your audience without giving legitmate reason. You know that no one here condones a woman stepping on kittens.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Take for example the case of the woman from China (I think it was China anyway) who was filmed stroking a kitten, then stood on the kitten with a stiletto heel. She got pleasure from killing the animal; and you're saying that if she was then to use the animal, it would be acceptable!?!

You mean Zippo Cat?

You know, I don't believe you're as stupid as to think pretending to care for an animal moments before slowly stamping it to death and then setting it on fire, and releasing images onto the internet is the same thing as quickly killing a deer with a single bullet and then feeding yourself/family.

[A-non-a-mus]

probably because you've never tried it... You don't know the satisfaction of realizing you've went through a lot to feed your family... to be the one to bring home food for the family... you get no sense of accomplishment coming home from a store I guarantee you that... however if you do the work yourself, it feels much better... then to know you're also helping nature out, and able to feel closer to nature... I dunno why you feel so against it? ... not thinning out the herds will destroy way more, as others have already said... you're stretching things a bit far on the 'killing things for fun' thing... did you know even fruits are living things? ... no body makes a move to stop others from eating fruits and vegetables :p ...

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
no body makes a move to stop others from eating fruits and vegetables :p ...

I'm a level five vegan; I don't eat anything that casts a shadow.

[Only-now]

I admit I didn't read all of this thread...but just to throw my two cents in...

1) I don't understand why there is time being spent justifying us hunting. It is true we don't NEED it for food...we have advanced enough not to have to hunt for survival. That doesn't mean that we no longer have the right to hunt, or that it is an evil practice. For one...I don't see anything wrong with responsible hunting. I don't see any civilized country that includes a population of people who hunt blindily allowing people to kill whatever they want, whenever they want. We have regulations on those things, hunters who hunt responsibly use the meat of the animal they kill, don't kill endangered animals or over-kill animals, and are also some of the most supportive of environmental protection, as well as having a very high level of respect for the animal they are hunting. If you don't want to hunt that is fine....and you aren't required to survive...but I have to completely disagree that hunting is a bad practice morally, or for the Earth. People have pointed out many instances in which hunting (whether by human or a wild animal) is beneficial to the population, and even if it is not creating something positive...it is not negative in any way. It does not hurt the Earth..as hunting (the practice, regardless of reasons) is a natural thing.

Secondly...until you hunt...or come into close contact with it, you will not know the feeling that comes from it. I haven't hunted, but I have come in contact with it, and I can tell you of the experience first hand. I have high respect for animals...but I also recognize our difference from them, and that we are not equal to them (not saying we can treat them however we want or something..but I recognize that humans are on a different level than animals). Anyways...I have never hunted...because I didn't want to. I am not so inclined to now...but I am leaning towards trying it out because of my experience. I can tell you, there is a special feeling that comes between men I believe (not that women can't feel it..but I just feel it is more common in men). I think it is a basic natural feeling...but it is one of accomplishment, tradition, strength, and pride. You feel a bond with your fellow man...maybe because of the past..in which we had to hunt for food...but my experience was helping a friend clean a deer he shot. First time for me seeing a dead deer...but I didn't feel sick, or appauled. You get a very deep feeling. When I was helping him lift it up to skin it..and you are using your body...your muscles...to lift it...something you hunted yourself. I respected the deer...and it's death...and we did what we did. It is hard to describe the feeling...but I know that if I felt that way just from helping...I can understand the passion towards actually hunting.

Adding to what A-non said....I believe that you actually have more respect for nature when you are part of its processes. When you are not only someone who cares for a living animal..or hikes and spends time outside...but when you are actually part of the hunting cycle. When you use your skill, your mind, your body...and you become part of what your ancestors were...what nature is around you. Hunting is a valid process..and the people who do it are often more in tune with nature than those who oppose it. If you are so ignoarant to think that hunters take a great joy simply in causing death...then you are sadly mistaken....nor do I believe you have had any experience in hunting...or probably any contact with hunters in order to make this claim. People enjoy hunting.....but they don't delite in causing the animal pain...nor do they simply want to kill it. If that was the case, you could just go out in your yard and shoot stray dogs...or kill deer and leave them in the woods. That isn't how it works. In fact...my friend who shot the deer felt a little bad..so he didn't watch it die....but that doesn't overpower the good parts of hunting..nor does it make it wrong. I can tell you...that feeling is more than what a lion feels when it runs down a zebra and rips out its neck. Please don't make statements about something you have no experience in.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Ick, then the disagreement is worse than I thought. People getting pleasure out of killing things is just sick. What's even more hard to believe is that you're happy with that!

Take for example the case of the woman from China (I think it was China anyway) who was filmed stroking a kitten, then stood on the kitten with a stiletto heel. She got pleasure from killing the animal; and you're saying that if she was then to use the animal, it would be acceptable!?!

Taking pleasure in killing things is wrong, I don't care what you say - that is wrong and anyone with any respect for other creatures would see that that is wrong!
There's a term for this sort of argumentation tactic but I can't remember the exact term at the moment. The last panel of this comic, however, sums it up nicely: http://www.comicspage.com/comicspage/main.jsp?catid=1876&custid=69&file=20070107csbre-s-p.jpg&code=csbre&dir=/brewster

Nowhere did I say I think it's good for people to enjoy killing things. You're twisting my words around so it's easier to disagree with my stance. You're making my argument more black and white than it really is.

I said I think if someone enjoys hunting, and makes use of what they kill, then that's fine. Typically, hunters don't enjoy hunting because they like to kill things. They don't enjoy it because they like to watch animals suffer and die. They enjoy the process of tracking and the sense of accomplishment when they've actually managed to catch something. It draws on predatory instincts that are still hardwired into us.

There's a big difference between enjoying the process of the hunt and relishing in the death of a living thing.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
There's a term for this sort of argumentation tactic but I can't remember the exact term at the moment.

Strawman argument might be what you're thinking of.

And my view on hunting is very similar to Kiva's (Only Now). On another note, I tend to like many Naative American's views on hunting and the cycle of nature as a whole. In that respect, I can see some similarities between Native American views on hunting and some modern hunter's views on hunting. But that's going off of hunters I know personally.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by lion_roog
Strawman argument might be what you're thinking of.
Yes, thanks, that's the correct term.

[Sombolia]

Personally, I find it so hypocritical that people could be so quick to condemn hunting, but are perfectly happy to go down to the store and buy a slab of meat. How is that any better? Because you didn't kill it? Somebody still did, and I can assure you that that animal suffered a MUCH worse fate in their lifetime than an animal who lived a normal life in a wild, and died a quick death.

I'm a vegetarian going vegan, but I'm not against hunting at all, if the animal is used resourcefully (meat, using the skin for material etc - not just stuffing the animal to put on display somewhere).

[Sombolia]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion Sombolia: I have no problem with people getting meat from farms. That is necessary; hunting - as I've already said a lot before (and wonder how many more times I'll need to say it) - is not.

Does it not strike anyone else as completely wasteful to kill more animals when there is already more than enough food? Talking in MEDCs here, not LEDCs. So that takes the Inuit people, and some others out of the equation for the time being, since I'm talking about MEDCs, not LEDCs.

Hunting is necessary for some. What if you do not live close enough to a store; what if it's the only way you can support you and your family?

However, that's not really my point. I know that you have said this before, but I'm trying to address something else. Would you rather have an animal that lived a happy life die quickly; or torture an animal that has suffered his entire life to support you?

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I'm not sure of the details; Nephilim. However, that is comparable to what people are saying - not being against killing for fun.

It really is beyond me how someone could think it is perfectly fine to kill things for fun.

Ahh, I understand where you're coming from now. If a person kills something for food with their own two hands, then goddamn that's terrible, but it's perfectly alright for you to sit back and let someone else do all the killing for you, and in a much more brutal way to boot. You are no longer treating animals as animals; merely slabs of food that you can pick up at the local store.

I can't think of the exact word to describe this, but "cowardly" seems to be a pretty good one.

If you think you have such great respect for animals (though I am starting to believe you're just trolling us) you are sadly mistake. Try respecting all animals, humans included.

[Only-now]

READ ENTIRE POST! (don't want comments on the first 2 lines)

Humans ARE superior animals. Being superior does not mean we are automatically allowed to be brutal and cruel. If this were the case, we wouldn't have laws against animal cruelty, nor would we be willing to send other HUMANS to jail for breaking those laws. Also, if you look at the majority of informed and intelligent human beings (such as those on this thread) they all know that there is a distinct difference between an animal and a human being. There is a reason we don't still live in the wild, and have to suffer in the environment etc. In fact, the sole topic of this thread proves what I am saying. We don't HAVE to hunt...we have advanced enough to not need this as a tool of survival anymore. Animals in the wild do not have this luxury. They also don;t know math or science, and they don't even understand how their bodies work...or even have a concept of "being" in the first place.

Now, obviously this will be taken by StL to mean that I think we should be allowed to do w/e we want to animals without having to answer to our conscience, and that we can just use and abuse anything because we are the mighty humans. To anyone else however, they will understand that I am pointing out the obvious difference between human beings and animals. Since most people do see this difference...then you can also point out the fact that most people think it is wrong to abuse animals, or be cruel to them. Obviously that must show something...because with our superiority comes compassion....a feeling that animals have yet to show to the extent humans do...for each other or for other species. We cannot be accused of not caring about animals when we have veternarians that go to school for 8 to 12 years, and build a career helping animals. When we have companies who make medicines to cure problems with animals that normally they would have to endure. They make these drugs because they want to make money of course...but that means someone has to buy them...and why would we? Because we care about animals, about helping them....we can love them, be compassionate etc.

It isn't arrogant to say that we are superior to animals....it is fact. We are on a different level than animals..one that is higher. We are more advanced etc...but being more advanced doesn't make us evil or wrong...or less caring for the animal life. I would prefer to argue it makes us MORE compassionate to animals. If we were still hunting, and had to for food...we wouldn't have time to make medicines to cure illnesses in dogs or cats....we wouldn't care about them in that sense because they would only be food to us then.

Stop trying to use facts, or logic to support your argument. You cannot because your argument is not based on either. It is simply based on your feelings towards hunting. You can't stand the thought of killing an animal...so you don't think it is right that anyone could. Well...arguments aren't won because you FEEL you are right. Time after time I have seen you talk and say the same things over and over...and everytime they just sound more ignorant than the last time I heard them. Read what people are saying...and if you are so inclined to follow the logic, you will see that your point of view on this is just empty.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
-_-; You're at it again! I did read the whole thing, but it was like a power trip! Just because humans are more intellectual than other species, doesn't make them any better!

Just want to input one thing, I did read Kiva's post but this stands out...

Yes, It actually does.

In a fight, it's a battle of wits and/or strength, the one who is stronger/smarter will win? obviously

a person who studies more for a test will do better than someone who didn't aye?

a person who's smarter than another will get a higher IQ(I think)

But anyways.. it is the superior that always win.(In 99% of most scenarios)

Kovu

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
But humans aren't respecting other animals. It's been said countless times, and even in this thread that "humans are superior to animals", or similar things. That's just arrogant.

When a deer puts a gun to my head, then we can decide who was and was not arrogant.

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
What does that have to do with being arrogant? I would love it if suddenly certain species evolved greatly overnight. Ahhh, yes.

Hmm, makes you wonder about the whole robot thing too. One day there will be a species much more intelligent than humans if we keep up our technological developments. Then humans may well be the ones who are hunted.

Reminds me of 'The Time Machine' ^_^ ...

I'm saying, when animals truly are superior than us, to the point that they are hunting us, then you can say who was being arrogant. Until then, we humans are still the superior.

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
That has nothing to do with being arrogant. I could say "I'm the best mathematician in my college by far", and it could be true, but it's still being arrogant!

It's quite weird really; I'm an undiagnosed sufferer of inferiority complex, yet the thought of my species being superior doesn't really do anything for me. I guess I just wish everything could be equal and creatures would get the respect they deserve - not being killed for fun or anything like that.

*Erases the last part of his post, remembering what he was told on Wednesday!*

You should definitely re-read Only Now's last post. They seemed to sum it up pretty well.

I quote:


Originally posted by Only-now
It isn't arrogant to say that we are superior to animals....it is fact

[Only-now]

No...intelligence doesn't make someone automatically superior...but it is one area in which someone or something CAN be superior to another. I don't know how to better explain it to you...because in reality this is a very simple, inborn concept. We are superior to animals in most areas, not just intelligence...as intelligence can be broken up into many different areas that define us. Animals are superior to us in other ways...such as strength (most of the time), speed, etc etc. That of course, is looking at attributes in order to determine who is superior overall. Apparently you aren't really focusing on what "idea" of superior I am trying to put across. We are not EQUAL to animals...regardless of whether we are better or not...we are not on the same level as they are. Everything that makes us human sets us apart from animals...even our shortcomings to an animal, such as a lack of sharp teeth or claws etc. I tend to think, as most people do...that animals should live here on Earth with us in peace...but I also support my species...who happens to be in control of this planet. We are in charge because we are intelligent, and we used it to build cities, develop technology, and make life easier for ourselves. I see no animal on the planet that has come close to doing something this profound or different. We are the only being that has accomplished this to date...so I can't see how that does not somehow make us different than they are? I believe since we are "in charge", are so much more intelligent, and have these accomplishments...that generally we are superior to animals in the majority of ways. We live in a different level of existence than animals do...a higher level. We are above animals because we have increased all the base attributes to new levels that are not present in other creatures on this planet. Superiority can be looked at different ways...and it can apply to different areas. I do not like it however, when people try to put a human being and a dog on the same level....it just isn't true. That's why I find the term "animal RIGHTS" funny...as animals do not even have a concept of rights, or law, etc...nor do they have "rights" to begin with. We choose to support animals, we live in peace with them most of the time, we study them, and we enjoy them. The overall view towards animals by the human race is one of acceptance and compassion. I don't see how your claim that "SOME" people are bad....now degrades the entire human species. Just because one person robs a bank doesnt mean we all would. Not every dog would save a person from a burning building (that's why it is broadcasted when one does)...does that mean that since all dogs don't come to that level they shouldn't be treated with as much praise and love as a dog that did do it?

I doubt you have even met a hunter, or talked to one. You instantly say that vets are different than hunters..when both of them are human beings. I guess it would just boggle your mind if there was a veternarian that was also a hunter?

You ARE superior in the area of intelligence to others...but you can be inferior to others in other areas. That is called strengths and weaknesses. I suppose a good way to describe how we are superior to animals is that we are not even on the same level to compare one another. You can compare who writes better when both subjects know how to write, or are capable of learning it....but if you try to compare who writes better with a human and a dog...they are completely different...a dog CANNOT write, nor learn to...so the human being is automatically superior...not to mention this points to the obvious difference in us and them.

Well...if dogs eveolved over night and were just like us...well, then we wouldnt have an argument anymore...and they would be on our level...but then you wouldn't like them anymore either..because they would be like us.

Here are some definitions of superior to compare this with:
1. above the average in excellence, merit, intelligence, etc.: superior math students.
2. of higher grade or quality
3.showing a consciousness or feeling of being better than or above others

Here are some synonyms for superiority:
1) excellent, distinguished, unrivaled, first-rate, matchless

As far as I know, we are more intelligent than animals..we have a conscience and emotions that are more in depth than animals. We have skills and tools that animals do not possess. We are "unrivaled" and "matchless" in those areas and more.

~Kiva

[Forest Freak]

Originally posted by Only-now
I doubt you have even met a hunter, or talked to one. You instantly say that vets are different than hunters..when both of them are human beings. I guess it would just boggle your mind if there was a veternarian that was also a hunter?

LMAO! I know I said I was done posting here, but I just couldn't help myself after reading this. My uncle IS a vet and also goes HUNTING with us.

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If humans didn't have guns or similar hunting apparatus, and we were sent into the wild to live, we would be completely screwed. We simply can't hunt without artificial apparatus - we have poor teeth, poor claws, poor speed and poor strength.

I've proved that wrong... too late. With no hunt apparatus I have already, if only just too prove that falsehood as false. Remember a predator that lacks speed does not come to rely on speed to survive. We don't have speed, but we have a number of other strengths to greatly make up for it. You have to find that center ground yourself. We are able to adapt to nearly any situation. Something animals are incapable of. Humans 'can' and 'will' live whether or not we have any sort of hunting apparatus. If I could do it, many others can too. Thoughts that humans are too 'weak' to survive in nature, is a clear sign you don't know what we're capable of. Humans are much stronger than you give them credit for. With or without any gear we are still the most dangerous of all.

Vets who hunt are not hypocrites either... Hypocrites are those who speak against something and then do exactly what they say not to. Vets don't speak against hunting. In fact many times they support it. perhaps because they understand why we are hunters, or perhaps they realize what would happen if we all stopped... or what Only Now, Pnt and others have said previously. Instantly condemning something right off, as if judge, that is arrogance. Even with a Hippo in an area with a human, have you've ever tried putting a human in with a hippo? where does the thought come from that a human would just go into a place they knew they would die, like some animal would?

I understand where you are coming from, you like animals. Also I understand you saying if someone has a mountain of meat behind them, they should first use what they have before getting more. However, hunters are not those with a mountain of meat behind them, they hunt when they need to. Not once have you seen the good side of hunting, but you instead you describe hunters by looking at poachers.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
So you support them enjoying killing things, just you don't think "it's good". Interesting stance.
Wow, you really just epitomized that little comic I posted. I'm not going to bother repeating what I said. Go back, re-read my post, and we can continue this discussion when you stop twisting my words around to make your point easier to argue.


Also, if you look at the majority of informed and intelligent human beings (such as those on this thread) they all know that there is a distinct difference between an animal and a human being.
That's funny, Only-Now, because most intelligent, informed human beings will tell you that humans are primates, mammals, and therefore, animals.

Yes, there are distinct differences between all species of animals, and yes, we possess some rather unique abilities like verbal language (although I'm now sure how much study has been done into dolphin and whale communication at this point) and the ability to do more "advanced" thinking. But I think the confusion/debate here comes from people saying that because of these special abilities, we have more of a right to live. Which is absurd and egocentric.


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
[B]Wow, what a hypocrite.
I think perhaps the problem is not that these people are hypocrites, but that they are more open-minded then you are and actually bothering to try to understand, rather than assuming "All hunters are evil mean terrible careless people!"

Otherwise, I'm just going to keep on calling you a hypocrite for condemning hunters for killing animals, yet still eating meat. Did you know it's not 100% -necessary- for all people to eat meat? Many people can survive perfectly well on a vegetarian diet. Chances are you're one of them. Since you're so obsessed with what's "necessary" I think I'm going to assume, that by your policies of moral standards, you are a cold heartless terrible animal murderer because you still eat meat even though it's not "necessary!"

[Kovu The Lion]

I would really agree with STL in this debate if he didn't state that all hunters were infact evil, though He may have stated something in the fact that perhaps that all /aren't/.

However, I've probably said this about a hundred times now, I respect others opinions upon hunting, but when I see someone hunting Deers or Birds I could really care less, but when I do come across an african hunting article where they do infact kill Lions/Tigers/antelope whatever they decide their game of the day is. I do infact feel bad for the animals because well, They're actually more of animals I can relate to, I guess it's an opinion because I favor Lions over a Deer perhaps?

Just saying hunters in general are evil and don't know anything about how an animal feels, I think it's a little overboard to say such, most hunter's do infact try to hunt and kill with responsiblity, Using one shot and killing them instantly so they don't feel any pain, however they may sense fear before hand but that's just normal and you can't fix that from happening. I've been with people hunting, and some are just wild about it but putting their excitement in a form of something you like to do is just about the same,

When a hunter kills a game, and yells "Yeeehawww!!" for the win, it's just the same pretty much as you playing football and making a touchdown, you'll get excited for something you've done right, Though infact it may be different because you do infact kill something, but sadly thus is the way of life is it not?

Hunting is just for some people as soccer is for another, you either like it or you don't :s

But I do find hunting to be quite.. Weird on my part, mostly because I'm not sure how people can get a thrill out of killing something.. Mostly I'd feel so guilty for taking anothers lives as I feel that animals and Humans are infact equal, We just have ups and downs on our superior and inferior sides (Such as man has the ability to think, lions have the ability to hunt well)

So if I killed an animal, I'd say infact I just killed a human, just it doesnt look like one but in my view point, it's the same thing eh *Shrugs*

I'm on STL's side, and Kiva's on this at the same time, It's hard to choose a side pretty much because each argument(Debator) actually has good points and bad points, but none actually agree with what I say entirely so therefore I guess I'm on my own for this :p I think.. :x

..yeah x)

Kovu

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Yay, someone who agrees!

And, meat is a necessary part of the diet. You can get ill if you don't get the nutrients and such found in meat. Sure, you could eat tons of soya and similar things in an attempt to rectify this, but it's really not practical. Come to think of it, I don't get a huge choice what to eat anyway. I get what is served up on my plate, and I'm grateful for it.

Practical doesn't equal necessary. Think of all those poor animals that died because you won't eat beans instead of animals. Then again, think of all those poor beans that would die because you chose to save those animals. Funny thing about nature, there's not many things, with the exception of some plants, that don't kill other things for food.

I agree with Only-Now on the matter of necessity. Hunting may not be necessary, but that doesn't make it immoral.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Hmm, so you're saying killing things unnecessarily is not immoral. Interesting viewpoint I guess.

Masturbation to some is immoral, and it's not necessary ;)

but idk how that'd fit in here eh just a point. :s

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
And, meat is a necessary part of the diet. You can get ill if you don't get the nutrients and such found in meat. Sure, you could eat tons of soya and similar things in an attempt to rectify this, but it's really not practical. Come to think of it, I don't get a huge choice what to eat anyway. I get what is served up on my plate, and I'm grateful for it.
I am living proof that it is possible to survive without any meat. It is necessary for some people, because some people have trouble absorbing needed proteins and B vitamins from non-meat sources, but for most people, eating a vegetarian diet and supplementing with plant, egg, and dairy proteins/vitamins is perfectly possible.


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Hmm, so you're saying killing things unnecessarily is not immoral. Interesting viewpoint I guess.
I think the point we're trying to make is that you're being a hypocrite.

You're basically saying you eat meat because it's more convenient for you. If you feel it's that immoral to kill animals unnecessarily, then aren't you being immoral by doing the more convenient thing instead of working to preserve the lives of more animals?

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
SW77: Obviously not - I eat only what is necessary - I don't go out to kill more, since that is not necessary and is wasteful. I eat whatever is served up on my plate. Either way, the same amount of animals would die if the same amount of food was to be provided. So it's not a case of "preserv[ing] the lives of more animals". It is completely impractical for humans to hunt their food instead of farming it. It's not that it's inconvenient/convenient for me - I'm not a farmer.
You're not listening to what I'm telling you. Chances are, it is not necessary for you to eat meat, so by eating any meat at all, you are eating more than what is necessary.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If I'm to stay healthy, it is required for me to eat meat. I'm allergic to quite a lot of foods too, so I have to be quite careful. I don't think I'm allergic to any meats, could be wrong though.

And, I could turn it around and make the point that if I didn't eat meat, I would be wasting food, since there is meat available, yet I'm not eating it. So animals are being killed unnecessarily if I'm not eating meat. However they're being killed necessarily if I am eating the meat.
Are you allergic to milk, cheese, eggs, soy, or legumes?

And I still don't entirely understand your government system of buying food products, which doesn't really make sense to me. But if a significant number of people stopped eating meat they would eventually have to lower meat production because it would become to costly and wasteful to produce such an excess. So, why aren't you doing your part by not eating meat, and encouraging people you know to try vegetarian diets, and telling them they're contributing to unnecessary animal deaths if they're capable of surviving on a vegetarian diet but are still eating meat?

For that matter, do you only eat free-range food products which you know for a fact do not come from factory farms?

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
No, that's my exact point... Hunters do have food available (in MEDCs at least), just they choose not to eat it.

Yeah .. they just have to catch the said food first :p ... and what if some just choose to not support the cruelty the animals go through for store bought stuff?


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Absolutely not. An average human without any 'gear' would be completely stuffed if they were sent into the wild, with hungry predators there. Sure, there may be some humans who can hold their own against a crocodile or something with no apparatus, but you couldn't do that against a two-ton hippo or something. It's just not happening.

I've already proven we wouldn't be completely 'stuffed' as you say. With and without predators... you do realize you can easily fend off predators?... (a guy even scared off a lion using nothing but toilet-paper once [not by throwing it either, just waving it]) you couldn't do it in the same way, against a hippos because hippos are different (why you're obsessed with needing to pick on hippos, I dunno, but humans are able to both catch and kill hippos you know ...) [also they can get really close to them too without a problem... as long they don't do something dumb like throw a stone at them, or disturb them] Personally, I think that how you're viewing yourself is coming into play with how you view all others when animals are involved... I mean, you've already stated you think little of yourself, now it seems you think to little of all. .. Your hearts in the right spot, but you talk like one who's only known the city life. Try living in the wilderness a bit.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
No, no, gives me an upset stomach, and the last two aren't very high on my 'to try' list. I drink enough milk and I eat a fair amount of cheese.
Which one gives you an upset stomach? Eggs? You could sustain a perfectly healthy vegetarian diet on milk, cheese, soy, beans, and a variety of other foods. Why don't you want to try the last two? It's wrong for hunters to hunt their own meat if it's not "necessary" for them, but it's okay for you to contribute to animal deaths because you're not interested in trying soy products? Well, now, that doesn't seem very fair.


No, the government won't go back on their promise. In some cases they offer farmers money now not to produce food on say, 10% of their land, to try to cut down on the excess.
Okay, now you're contradicting yourself. You said there will always be an excess of meat because the government pays farmers to produce an excess, but now you're saying they're paying farmers extra money to reduce excess?


There is already an excess. A big excess. I would be wasting animal lives unnecessarily if I was to let the excess meat go to waste. Sure, I can't eat it all myself, but I can eat my fair share.
Well, seeing as meat tends to go bad rather quickly, you couldn't save the excess very long anyway. If a large number of people stopped eating meat, yes, a bunch of meat would go to waste right away, but then, when production numbers were reduced, it would save thousands more animals in the long run.


Yes, only free-range stuff that has special free-range lables and such. Luckily my mum takes care of that side of things ^_^ ...
Do you ever eat out?

[Only-now]

It is obvious we have traits in common with animals..as they do with us...but it is also VERY obvious that we cannot be categorized equally with them because we have a VERY vast amount of difference between them. I don't mean we shouldn't be considered mammals etc...but we are SO MUCH MORE different than ANY animal on this planet in comparison..and that is significant.

Also...we didn't always have all this "gear" and such. We started off without it...but we were given intelligence instead of strength or sharp claws....obviously it has payed off much better for us since we then built superior weapons and used superior tactics and now are in "control" of the planet.

There isn't much more to say on this topic from me, so I am just gonna read unless I see something interesting to post about. Later.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
They don't take my fancy. On the contrary to what you said - as I pointed out in my last post - by not eating meat I would be making animals die unnecessarily!

The government promised to pay farmers to produce as much as possible, and to buy the excess off them if no-one else will for a set minimum price. However, now the government has realised how stupid that was, so they're trying to pay farmers to do absolutely nothing.

I may not be able to make it so none of the meat is wasted, but I can do my best to make sure as little as possible is.

No, I don't eat out (well, perhaps very rarely). I've had KFC in the past, but not in a long time.

If your food-production system now operates on a policy of avoiding overproduction, then your entire argument about how you need to eat meat so animals are not killed unnecessarily is thrown out the window.

In a system where the food producers try to work to minimize overproduction because it is beneficial for them to do so, if the number of people who purchase their products decreases, then it is logical for them to also reduce their production so they don't lose profits.

So my argument that you are being a hypocrite by eating farmed meat while condemning hunting is entirely sound. I'm not sure why we wasted all of this time discussing a system of government operation that apparently is no longer in effect, when you originally claimed it was.

So, if you're concerned about unnecessary animal death that much, you'd better stop eating meat.

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
A-non-a-mus: You're missing the point again - if a lion or hippo or anything like that wanted to kill one person with the human having nothing but his teeth and 'claws', the human would be completely annihilated. I don't think little of everyone, just some humans absolutely disgust me - in fact a lot of humans absolutely disgust me (out of the ones I've met offline anyway). Not necessarily talking about hunters either. If you took an average person and sent them into the wild, with lions, hippos, elephants, e.t.c... with nothing but their teeth and claws, they could not survive if they came into contact with those animals. It would be stupid to even think that they could. If the elephant or another animal wanted to kill you, it would kill you. I don't really see where the argument is there - it's pretty obvious...

No, I'm not missing th point... You're missing the point... You have NO CLUE what humans are CAPABLE OF if that's all you can see of them... We've gone through much more than you give us credit for and are much stronger than you give us credit for... you know lions and other large cats, are afraid of us. If a large cat attacks, all that's needed is a surprise jump at it to send it away, and if that doesn't work, kick it real hard in the nose. If done correctly this could even have a chance of killing it off. If a Hippo were trying to kill me, it'd first have to both catch and be able to keep me from getting to a safe location why? because I am not and no one is STUPID enough to lay in from of the animal ... even a monkey can teach you that through observation... I've yet to see one of them lay before a hippo when faced with one... ... Humans are great problem solvers .. If I had to face a hippo, and it was lumbering towards me, first I would steer clear of it's initial attack. I would then, if forced to fight it, try for the most vulnerable spots, such as the eyes. Sure, a hippo can kill us with one bite, but that's only IF you LET it bite you. Impossible odds do not win a battle, you are simply neglecting to see that because you are so desperate to put down the human race. You'd be very hard-pressed to find any human who values life to so willingly let themselves die due to stupid circumstances that any natural animal can avoid.

[Sadiki]

what I think about hunting is that as long as people hunt for food not fun, it's ok. hunting just for thropies is one of those things that shouldn't be allowed and in a lot of cases it's not yet it still happens or then the amount of thropies is limited on one such as hunting lions.
I also can understand if people hunt down a bear or another wild animal that has became a maneater sinse it is a threat to the sociaty.

that's only what I think about hunting tho. And I'm sorry that I didn't read everything that said before but going through 215 post with jetlag is impossible mission so I deside to just read most of the first page. What comes about not allowing this thread I see no point for closing or deleting it sinse discussion about hunting isn't against board rules. If animals ( including humans ) had never hunt I can tell there would be very few predators in this world so hunting for food is natural thing.

[Tiikeri]

Sure, if you compare animals like lions, hippos etc purely in terms of physical strength then obviously the other animals are going to be stronger. Humans just aren't built like that, which is why we learnt to use weapons.

Humans are, and always will be the superior species. I mean think about it, see if you can name a lion or a hippo who can talk, read, write, build things, drive a car etc. Sure humans aren't physically strong, but that isn't everything.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Haha, that's stupid to think a human could beat a hippo, let alone to speak so arrogantly about it - as though it would be trivial! Hippos can run as fast as, if not faster than humans, and hippos can of course change direction *Rolls his eyes*... If you were put in an enclosed space with a hippo, it would be interesting to see how you looked after an hour...

I'm not "so desperate to put down the human race", it just really really annoys me when humans think they're everything, and can do anything. The reality is - you can't, and never will be able to. I have respect for a few humans, but most of them hate me, and I hate most of them. There's no reason why I would want most of them to succeed based on how they treat me and other creatures (even other humans). It's just quite amusing when they come out with such ridiculous things as that. In a real-life situation, pretty much any human who wasn't lucky and incredibly prepared would be completely screwed. It's quite strange that you think otherwise - I can't see where the logic is there! Sure, if you go out and face a hippo, coming out the victor, you can prove me wrong. But there is no chance in hell that is going to happen ;) ...

I don't see why a human couldn't take down a hippo without too much trouble. I mean, if both sides use what evolution gave them, the hippo will use its enormous, immensely powerful body, and humans will use technology, such as a high-velocity 55 cal. rifle, that they developed from using their brain. Though I completely fail to see the point of this current argument of hippo vs. man, it wouldn't make much sense to compare a hippo's ability to defend itself with all its natural defenses but then not allow the human anything that evolution gave us to help us survive (ie, our brains and the technology derived therein). That's like muzzling a lion's mouth, covering its paws, and severely hampering its ability to move, and then having it fight a tiger. The tiger's gonna win under those circumstances. Anyways, this current argument has very little to do with hunting.

Can we please drop the rolling of the eyes, disrespectful "Haha"'s, and calling people's arguments stupid?

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
it would be interesting to see how you looked after an hour...

It'd be interesting to see how a hippo looked after an hour in death valley... level our field, level theirs. :bleen:

Anyways, I agree with what pnt said.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
No, you claimed you could take a hippo if you were thrown out into the wild on your own. Amusing as that is, it's just not going to happen. You're not going to have rifles and such if you're thrown out into the wild on your own.

Why would I want to "Take" a hippo without any advantages of being human (ie, having technology)? I never claimed that, and if you're referring to A-non, I don't see where he did either. Regardless, this is completely irrelevant to hunting. My being able to kill a hippo with a weapon, but not being able to do under serious handicaps, does not mean that hunting is not justifiable. I really am confused now... is there a point to this?

[A-non-a-mus]

I'm confident that I can survive in the wild, and I've done it too. I am able to live with the wild. That's all I said, you brought the hippo into it. I know I can outsmart a hippo I never said I'd go attempting to take a hippo in a boxing contest.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I doubt you could live in the wild for a reasonable amount of time with nothing but your bare hands and whatever you made yourself whilst you were there.

I doubt a lion could live on its own in Antarctica for a reasonable amount of time.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by Pnt
I doubt a lion could live on its own in Antarctica for a reasonable amount of time.

Simba could. Simba can do anything! Ooh-rah !!! :bleen:

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Lions don't go around telling everyone how they're so much better than them, and how they're so much better than every other species alive.

Yeah. Because they physically can't.

If they could talk, I can see a lion being perfectly happy to brag about its title "King of the jungle." ;)

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
That cannot be proven, so cannot be stated as fact.

So stop basing your argument around the fact that they wouldn't.

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I doubt you could live in the wild for a reasonable amount of time with nothing but your bare hands and whatever you made yourself whilst you were there.

How many time have I got to say this: I've DONE that ALREADY. I'm still alive too. :p

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
How many time have I got to say this: I've DONE that ALREADY. I'm still alive too. :p

Pics or it never happened!

Actually, that's really cool. How long were you out for?

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
You can't discriminate against something for something it hasn't done.

And you can't assume that it wouldn't act like that.

Your superiority complex is really blazing: if Anon says he's done something, then take his word for it. Don't keep putting him down about it and shrugging him off.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Superiority complex haha XD , that's rich considering I have no self esteem...

That's how it comes across. You keep demanding things, and once Anon says he's actually done them, you pretty much say "Nope, probably not true, and not good enough anyway."

*shrugs*

[XxBlackXxParadeXx]

Talking about the whole "I doubt you could live in the wild for a reasonable amount of time with nothing but your bare hands and whatever you made yourself whilst you were there." thing isnt there somthing in the news about a woman who lived in the jungle for 16 years or something, oh yeah and arnt there loads of cases of ferals

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Well there's no proof that it would act in a bad way

Nor is there proof it would act in a good way.

[DarkElf]

This thread has truly gone mad when we are talking about if a lion would brag or not if it could.

[XxBlackXxParadeXx]

Meh in the end we all have our opinions and we can argue and argue but you cant really change peoples opinions

[DarkElf]

The point of this thread would be that we all have our own opinions, and there's no point in trying to change other's. As is, we'll just have to try to live with others having different opinions.

[Dare]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
XxBlack: She must have been some sort of specialist, and I doubt it was particularly dangerous there.


She wasn't a specialist...she was apparently only 8 years old when she disappeared.
For those interested...
Wild Jungle Girl Found in Cambodia (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/01/18/jungle.woman.ap/index.html)

I won't pretend to know how dangerous the jungle is there, as I've never been, but I still think it's pretty impressive that she managed to stay alive...'specially considering the talks of cholera and typhoid outbreaks in that region...being in the jungle probably helped her in that aspect though. ^_^

Eh, as I always say, never underestimate the human ability to adapt...or to be incredibly stubborn. It's a life skill.
:ayecapn:

[Broken]

I hate hunters that are unsportsmanlike. Ex: THe jerks that go out and kill something and leave it- or the ones that put 70 bullets in the animal for kicks!

I am a hunter- I butcherer and eat what I kill. And only kill what I like to eat- or know someone that likes it. I hate rabbit but my dad loves it! So I bagged one for him. I NEVER kill something and leave it, that's just... wrong. At least in my opinion.
I have been raised on guns and respect them, I understand them.
well I said mine so I guess I'm going *waves and pads off*

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
DarkElf: As I said in one of my previous posts - Innocent until proven guilty.
That's a logical fallacy. Just because it's a concept of judicial law does not mean it can be applied to everything.

Logically, the argument "If not A, than B" does not make sense. Lack of proof, or even outright disproof for one thing does not equal proof for its opposite.

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
You can turn the argument the other way around; "if not B, then A". However, you can state that "iff (if and only if) event X occurs, then event Y can occur as a consequence."

In this case, event X would be the event of a lion bragging, and event Y would be the event of the lion being discriminated against because it was bragging.

If event X does not happen, there is no reason for event Y to happen.

You gotta be joking. This doesn't even have anything to do with hunting, this has turned into another "humans suck, animals rule" thread.

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Pics or it never happened!

Actually, that's really cool. How long were you out for?

I don't have pics from that one.. but do have pics from other times here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/A-non-a-mus/Picture155.jpg) here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/A-non-a-mus/Picture153.jpg) and here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/A-non-a-mus/Picture089.jpg) all are just deer though (I did get closer, but didn't want to spook them with the camera noise...)

Thanks, I was gone for three months.


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
And, I bet it wasn't a dangerous area of the wild that posed a significant threat ;) ...

yes, because we all know there's no such thing as mountain lions, and the only black bears there are are the plush versions ... I went to the kiddie forest where raccoons and squirrels dance and sing...

I went out into the mountains... out into the region with no houses... it was out in the wild, it wasn't any 'resort'... there is quite a number of other predators there.

[Dare]

It's not just animals you need to worry about when out in the wild...actually, the elements are probably your biggest threat.

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Heh, you most likely didn't do it with no tools, or anything like that.

I most likely DID, because I DID... I know I DID because I was the person who DID ... :bleen:
you can speak of your own achievements but don't you tell others what they did or didn't do. Perhaps because you, yourself haven't done. May as well try to prove to the world no one could catch a live crocodile with their hands. (and yes I am hinting to Steve Irwin that you brought up)

On the point of other experts... tell me how often it is and how many dies, and then compare it to how many, and how often one didn't. You'll be guaranteed to find the number of surviving ones much greater than the deaths.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Heh, you most likely didn't do it with no tools, or anything like that. And, that's not dangerous compared to being in an African wilderness or something similar, with tons of deadly snakes, lions, hippos, leopards, hyenas, elephants, e.t.c...

There have been many people who claimed to be "wildlife experts" and so on who get killed by dangerous animals, or by trying to be too clever. Steve Irwin as an example, poor guy.

Not to sound mean, but no matter what he does, it won't be good enough for you, will it? He could probably wrestle a moose to the ground with his bare hands and you'd find some way to down play it. And why does it matter if he used no tools? Tools are a vital part of any human being's survival, we evolved that way. That's like stripping a deer of its speed or a lion of its teeth. All the while, this has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
There have been many people who claimed to be "wildlife experts" and so on who get killed by dangerous animals, or by trying to be too clever. Steve Irwin as an example, poor guy. Yes, because stingrays are VERY dangerous animals. It was such a freak accident, there's nothing he could've done. Off topic, but whatever.

But on the subject of hunting, I find it funny how animal's "nobility" comes into effect. If somebody killed just one tiger or lion, they would be frowned upon, but if they killed several deer not many people would care.

[Avalon]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
No, in the wild you're supposed to do everything yourself. No tools, that's cheating :p ! It's like me going into a non-calculator maths exam with a calculator just because "[humans] evolved that way".


:E Hmm that would mean that the african tribes are cheating, the groups of people in the Amazone are cheating, heck that means even chimps are cheating Oo; They all use tools crafted from nature itself; stones, branches, animal bones ect. without it they would die out :E I certinly don't see that as cheating if it can prolong the survival of your clan. So if i used a stone as a hammer or knife, would I be cheating then? Oo Just an input xP I'll get out of this thread now xD

[Kovu The Lion]

Very good accussation and argument Avalon !

[Kovu The Lion]

But what does stop you from using natural resources, such as rocks and bamboo for spears, Thus would you still not have an advantage such as tribal people did long ago?

[Avalon]

Well ofcourse not x) But I will still have tools all around me. The branches and stones can be crafted to become makeshift spears, and smaller knives the like. My biggest problem would be to make fire, but I don't need matches to conjur that, just time and patience, and some trying and failure x) And to find a shelter wouldn't be hard, the trees can be used for a lot. Yet it would be a struggle to surivive yes, even with self crafted tools, but they greatly improve my chances of survival.

If I was all my self and didn't know basic surivial skills I'd be dead after the frist day. If I was to not use basic tools at all, most humans in general would have had little chances in the wild, but still by help of the most primitive of stone and branch tools we escaped near extingtion. Tools isn't the always the fancy stuff, like conventional knives and out-door cooking kits, it is also the tools which made humans famous, forexample the stone knife or the wooden spear.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion

Pnt: No, in the wild you're supposed to do everything yourself. No tools, that's cheating :p ! It's like me going into a non-calculator maths exam with a calculator just because "[humans] evolved that way".


Wait, who says you have to do everything yourself? That makes no sense, man, humans are social animals to begin with, we wouldn't just go out into a dangerous place on our own and go fight a hippo or something. You're really warping this whole thing out of proportion and logic.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Well then people shouldn't be stupid and arrogant enough to say they can take on a hippo and be thrown out into the wild to live on their own!

That was my whole point; that is a load of rubbish and anyone with any sense could see that. It's meant to seem absurd, because it is :p !

Sure, if you had some humans with tools and so on, you could survive in the wild. Sure, if you had a gun you could kill a hippo. I'm not debating those things. But not on your own, not being entirely self-sufficient.

Wait... you mean that's what this whole thing was about... to call humans stupid and arrogant? Wow, I wish I had known that sooner, I would've just ignored it. More importantly, you shouldn't be calling members of this thread stupid or arrogant, so let's drop that kind of talk.

Regardless, humans make tools, humans use those tools. Jaguars run fast and birds fly. We're just doing what we do best. No one got us where we were except ourselves, and God if you're into that.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Well people here were being arrogant, so it was only right to make it obvious how stupid and overconfident they were being. At last, that point is proven ^_^ !



No bud, your point was not proven. I don't think a single person in this entire thread thinks your point was proven. I do think you need to watch what you say, though, you've no place on this board to be calling members stupid, arrogant, or overconfident.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I'm not allowed to say the truth? I thought in your last couple of posts you realised what I was getting at. Apparently not.

Basically, someone was bragging that they could fend off a hippo and such on their own. This is complete nonsense, and I set out to prove that (which I did, and it appeared you realised it in your last two posts, but now I'm not so sure). If it doesn't strike you as slightly absurd that a human can fight a hippo and win, on his or her own, then I really have to ask you why not?

How much time does the person have to prepare? Give me two weeks, a box of toothpicks, and a one inch shard of glass and I'll whoop that hippo right good.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Nope, the point was that someone claimed they could do it on their own, as if they were just randomly picked up and dumped into the wild. You wouldn't have any toothpicks, or any glass. You would have your hands, plus anything you made whilst you were out there. Technically it's possible (though extremely unlikely) - I wouldn't want to try it personally!

It's a heck of a lot easier when you can take things with you to do it. The reality is, if you're living in the wild, you're not going to have glass or toothpicks :p ...

Fine, give me two weeks. The toothpicks and glass are expendable, as I only intended to make a little stick figure man with a glass head.

[Pnt]

You're talking about an infeasible, and frankly, stupid situation. I'm putting this topic back on topic.



What do people think about allowing the Canadian goose to be hunted again? The numbers are pretty high up in Ohio, and they've been labeled by farmers and land owners in the area as some of the biggest problem-causing animals in the region. Personally, I don't see why they aren't considered game, as they're quite numerous in Ohio. I'm pretty sure they were protected at one point because their numbers were getting low, but they're everywhere you look in Ohio nowadays.

[Dare]

Originally posted by Pnt

What do people think about allowing the Canadian goose to be hunted again? The numbers are pretty high up in Ohio, and they've been labeled by farmers and land owners in the area as some of the biggest problem-causing animals in the region. Personally, I don't see why they aren't considered game, as they're quite numerous in Ohio. I'm pretty sure they were protected at one point because their numbers were getting low, but they're everywhere you look in Ohio nowadays.

I know they allow the hunting of them in NJ - my ex used to hunt them. I think it used to be endangered, though it's hard to tell these days since we have so many non-migratory Canada geese were we live, but maybe they're talking about a subspecies or something?


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
most if not all of whom would probably be considered more intelligent than an average person!

I do so hope you're not intentionally making a passive-aggressive statement about the intelligence of people who don't share your viewpoint.
You've accused people in this thread of being arrogant, but some of the things you've said in this thread can be construed as being arrogant as well.
Best to keep that in mind.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by Wicked
I know they allow the hunting of them in NJ - my ex used to hunt them. I think it used to be endangered, though it's hard to tell these days since we have so many non-migratory Canada geese were we live, but maybe they're talking about a subspecies or something?


All I know is that environmentalists defend these birds like crazy up here. A business I used to work for got a hefty fine for a dead Canadian goose on their property, but they don't hunt and there wasn't a gunshot wound anywhere on the goose. Luckily, they were able to take it to court and win. To my knowledge, Canadian geese are still protected in Ohio, and they're doing quite a good job at causing a whole lot of havoc around here.

[Monai]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I guess this comes back to the argument of it being unacceptable to kill animals unless you use them, and even then it's not acceptable because there is already enough food and so on. I've already argued that point to the ground - the resistance I've encountered is quite astonishing by some people, most if not all of whom would probably be considered more intelligent than an average person!

I'm against hunting where the animal is killed for sport, or where it isn't eaten, like you I suppose... but I disagree with your theory on there already being enough food. My reason is that not everyone has access to the major food sources, and so have to hunt for food to survive.

And I think the reason you've encountered resistance is because of the whole thing of your hatred of human tools. For Christ's sake, how else are people supposed to survive in the wild? I think it's good that you value animals' lives, but the way you're always saying how animals are better than humans, and how things were much better when people weren't around. Humans are animals too, we came about naturally, the simple thing is we evolved. We became smarter than other animals and we used our brain power to make up for a lack of physical strength. I'm sure this has been posted a few times before now. We created tools to help us cope, because we don't have the physical strength to fight off animals with our bare hands. I think that's what you don't get, you expect humans to go in there and fight with the comparatively small amount of physical strength we do have against the huge amount, in comparison, that animals have, and not to take any tools. Humans fight with brains, animals fight with brawn. I'm not saying animals are dumb, but humans are definitely smarter, and that's how we came up with tools, and it's because we evolved. Other animals evolved to suit their surroundings. Insects have venom to ward off predators, they got that through evolution. By your logic, you should be preaching to the insects not to sting because it's unfair to the animals who can't. While your at it, tell fish not to swim because it's unfair to the birds who can't catch them. If animals can develop their traits through evolution, and you're okay with that, surely you're okay with the tools humans invented with their brains, through evolution?

[/rant]

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion

And, it's quite strange really; most humans today wouldn't even be able to 'invent' algebra for example if we didn't have it already. Yet algebra is essential to pretty much everything we see around us. In 2007, humans have it easy because of things people did in the past. It's also annoying because there are the humans who leech off the ones who actually do come up with these new ideas and so on - and they end up benifiting just because they're human! Natural selection should mean the best will survive. But we still end up with ridiculously stupid people on the earth - humans are too good for their own good in that sense.

And you don't appreciate that?! I'm very happy in my lazy, technologically advanced lifestyle.

Once again, why should arrogance matter at all? :confused:

All that aside, please do not answer to these questions, they are rhetorical, let's continue with the topic of hunting.

[Pnt]

Bud, I still have no idea what you meant to prove. I simply wanted to bring this threat back on topic instead of continuing some incessant discussion about humans vs. hippos.

[Dare]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Ok, right, I will say it again.

It was claimed that a human could take on a hippo if placed into the wild on his own (no preparation or anything).

What I was trying to prove, is that this is a load of rubbish, and is a good example of some quite astonishing human arrogance - and how humans think they're so much better than other species, when clearly they're not!

Do you see now?

So the man vs. hippo argument was to prove how humans aren't better than other species?

What happens if we take the hippo out of the equation and replace it with something else?
:hmm:

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Ok, right, I will say it again.

It was claimed that a human could take on a hippo if placed into the wild on his own (no preparation or anything).

What I was trying to prove, is that this is a load of rubbish, and is a good example of some quite astonishing human arrogance - and how humans think they're so much better than other species, when clearly they're not!

Do you see now?

While I think that a person could potentially win regardless, as a person is so much smarter than a hippo, it seems like you'll do everything you can to leave a person's only defense, their brain, out of the equation.

As for round two, it's only fair to take all the hippos in the world and all the humans in the world and see who can make it to the moon first.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
No, they can have their brain, just they can only have tools that they make, whilst they're out there. Can't take anything with them.

And, if there was one human, and one hippo, neither of them would ever reach the moon most likely. One of the reasons humans have power is because there are so many of them! Get one of them alone and they're not so intimidating...

Wow, maybe that's because humans are social creatures that rely upon other humans for survival.

So, let me get this straight, just so we're on the same page and all.

A human can't bring a man-made tool, other members of their social group, prior knowledge of how to survive in the wild, or any time to learn anything about the wild and then he/she has to fight a hippo in its natural habitat which the human will most certainly be unadapted to. And this proves that humans are arrogant and thus hunting is bad.

[Pnt]

I see where you are coming from, and I think that is both an illogical argument and irrelevant to this thread.

[Dare]

I wonder what the hippos would think if they were reading this?
^_^

[Pnt]

They wouldn't :p

[Monai]

I don't think anyone'd be stupid enough to say a human could fight a hippo, and win, without tools. I see where you're coming from, but I just don't think people would say that, although I could be wrong.

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
It was bragged that a human could take a hippo if they were randomly dumped into the wild. That implies they would not have any tools with them, would not have anyone else and would be fighting in the wild.

Where was that? ... I didn't see anyone bragging about hippos... I saw you put the hippo in as a "oh yeah well you're nothing if you can't kill a hippo" kind of way...

It's more you see this hippo as a sort of rite of passage, where "no one is worthy to survive unless they kill a hippo" ... For you say "no one can kill one if dumped into the wild with no tools or preparations" well okay, agreed, but at the same time no one is going to be dumped into the wild and proclaim, "First thing I shall do is kill a hippo" ... that'd be as dumb as a hippo trying to attack someone in death valley... Hippos for the most part will stick to the water, so to avoid it all you need to do is steer clear of the deep waters... you do know hippo hunting was a sport in ancient Egypt right? they used self made things there too ...

If you could make your own tools, all you really need is an acacia tree, and to kill a poisonus animal, such as the arrow frog, and a big leaf.... Take a few thorns and, may want to sharpen them on a stone first, then rub the frog with it, (approx 20 -30 of these) roll the leaf into a tight tube and there you go, a way to catch food. or just a sturdy branch, rub on a stone long enough to make a sharp point and there you go, a spear... or you could just break the spines off the tree at one end, then take the branch to make a good spiked club... or from your first kill, sharpened bones make great weapons too... use the skin to make strings, start making traps etc etc...

I know I can survive, not because I'm being arrogant or over confident, it is because I did... I know how to hunt because I do, I know the meat is not wasted because I see to it that it is not...

This is the last I'll say here (and no, that doesn't mean 'you are correct' it means 'I shouldn't have to say anymore' ...)

[A-non-a-mus]

okay, I know I said I wouldn't post here anymore, but:

where did I say anything about needing a knife?.. what I described wouldn't need a knife... and in face would be just as fast without one...

and also why is the realism lacking in Africa? as there are still people living that way in Africa ... shouldn't it be more realistic happening in Africa then?

[DarkElf]

Oy! Here we go with the "Hippo Argument" again.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by DarkElf
Oy! Here we go with the "Hippo Argument" again.

Though I took part in the hippo argument, and still have absolutely no idea what the heck it's supposed to prove, I agree. This "Hippo argument" has no place in this thread, drop it and move on. Or heck, at least replace the hippo with another animal, I'm just about sick and tired of hippos.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
The realism is lacking in the situation that the human would overpower the animals on his own.

As for you and knives, it's hardly as effective using a stone as it is to using a knife. The top part snapped off one of the cues we used for pool at school, and we were left with a jagged edge to play with. We made an effort at making the end more manageable by messing about with it and a stone - and we were not successful! With a knife we easily could've got an even surface.

As for making a point with the wood, that was tried before people realised how stupid an idea that was. It was not easy at all to make a decent point with stone.

Pnt: I explained in basic English what I proved just a few posts ago. I can't put it in any simpler terms than that.

The hippo was an arbitrary part of the argument. 'Hippo' could be replaced by 'elephant' quite easily.

And I've said in plain english numerous times that this has nothing to do with hunting, to which you agreed, and yet the conversation continues. I won't lie, it's quite annoying.

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I know >_< , I was simply proving that humans are too arrogant sometimes.

We stopped discussing the original topic perhaps 100 posts ago! To be honest I don't see much point continuing since we have made zero progress since we began a month or so ago.

I still don't see the big deal with arrogance. It also has little to do with hunting.

You can say whatever you like about arrogant hunters who sometimes piss you off, but since that can not be said about every hunter, I don't see the relevance.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I've yet to meet a hunter who didn't think he or she was better than the animals. And, as I said, arrogance is one of those things that really, really bugs me.

My cousin dear hunts and he believes every animal is equal, But it's a fight for your life when hunting, The greater opponent wins.

Though if you say that when hunting is bad and everything/everyone should be equal what about sports?

The weakest lose, the strongest win, In most cases, chance and luck can make a factor on it however..

In hunting the hunter gets what he wants, the prey

In sporting the greater team gets what they want, Victory

[Tiikeri]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
arrogance is one of those things that really, really bugs me.
Does it really? I'd never have guessed....

I think we're in need of a lesson here.

Humans are, and always will be the dominant species. Nothing will change that, no matter what anyone says.

Sure, human v lion in a pure brawn fight, the lion's obviously gonna win because it has teeth and claws, both of which humans do not have. But why must you insist on basing everything on physical strength? If you stepped back and looked at the bigger picture, you'd notice that almost everything in this world is made by humans. The house you're living in, the computer you're reading this on, the cars, busses, trains we transport ourselves places on could never be built by animals as unintelligent as lions. I'm not saying non humans are stupid, but statistically, they are nothing compared to human brain power. It's time you realised that.

I posted this a few pages back, but nobody took notice, so I'm posting it again.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
But humans don't even give the animal a fair chance. They're not greater than the animal at all, just they happen to have better equipment.

Kovu, you play Runescape: It's like me going into the wilderness and fighting another level 112, but me having a whip and him having nothing. Of course I'm going to win, but it's not a fair fight. Just because I have better equipment, doesn't mean I'm greater. It's the same here.


That is true, but that 112 can always have the right to come back with full gear and PK you, Also.

Do say.. Lions give antelope a fair chance during hunting?

In Pking for games, You hunt people (Player kill) Thus, when you attack them with 10 people with you are you giving them really a fair chance?

same with Runecraft Player Killing, they have nothing and they sit there while you attacking them due to Binding Runes, etc but that's a game, it's not fair but it is the way it goes,

Same with Hunting it may not be fair, but people have been doing it for so long well, that's the way it goes and we should just learn from it and leave it, It might not be right but souly, there is nothing you can do about it :s

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion

Well, there might not be much I can do now, but thankfully after humans wipe themselves out, other animals will have a chance again ^_^ ...

Are you insane? They'll die with us :p

Their habitat's will get either too cold or too warm due to global warming. either that or they'd eat em all, because according to you it takes 10000 of years for that prey predator cycle to work, therefore they could eat all the animals in that time trust me lmao :p

along with saying, If human's didn't survive niether would some animals, Such as endangered one's who we look after, and cats and dogs, pets etc x)

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Not necessarily - animals are very adaptable =) ... In a lot of cases, much more so than humans.

And, I never said it takes 10000 years for predator-prey cycles to work around fully -_-; ...

If humans didn't survive, there would be no more global warming for a start. Things could start working their way back to normal.

When a person move's houses and locations they are moving habitats in a human point of view,

IT takes the normal male/female human to adapt to their surroundings, what's there to eat, where to buy things, in about a week or less.

It takes a cat/dog/pet more than 2 months to understand it's new surroundsings, where to go to the bathroom and where their food is ;)

I'd say human's can adapt faster to be honest,

Placing a lion in south america would kill it

[Kovu The Lion]

Hmm they could easily adapt as I've said, I'm usually cold, I went to aus and got used to the temp very easily might I say,

I think anyone can adapt to anything given about a week or less :p

[Kovu The Lion]

And Human's are animal's are they not, so therefore they may fall in place of that category

[Pnt]

I'd say that humans adapt immensely faster than almost any other animal, besides simple or single-celled organisms. We're the only known animal capable of actively adapting (ie, making concious decisions to better suit one's environment), the reason being, again, our intelligence. We can choose to make ourselves better suited to environments we encounter and then use our intelligence and tool building skill to make it happen. Likewise, as a whole, we've allowed ourselves to fly, deep dive, travel at near super-sonic ground speeds, and even leave this planet over the course of a few generations. We're the only complex species that can be seen actively evolving on a time scale that of a matter of months or years.

And an individual human would stand a much better chance in the Arctic than any other animal taken from their same general area (ie, Australia). We can make fire to keep us warm, kill animals for food and clothing, and otherwise have a marginal, but possible, chance of survival. A Kangaroo could not.

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
No, I really disagree - that's not possible. I know I couldn't go to the arctic for example and adapt so quickly - and I live in a cold place as it is! Studies have shown that some other animals are really adaptable though ^_^ ...

There you go basing everyone on yourself again... look, there's a saying that goes "what I can't do another can" ... I suggest you use it... because if you can't do something or you have not tried, doesn't mean others can't...

In your example, despite you living in a cold place, it's not as cold as the antarctic, yet it's not as cold as some places in Russia as well... yet there are people living in the antarctic

I can use your same basis and claim, well I can't skydive and never have tried it, so therefore because of that no one could possibly.. ... and yet there are people skydiving

The 'argument' as yousay being little productive is because, have you noticed that lately everyone who posted in here have posted against the same things you've been saying? yet you refuse to listen to them due to you comparing two extremes ... it's like you making the claim 'ants are strong, they can carry things many times their own weight' and we come back with the argument 'they're not strong unless they can carry a tyrantula on their own' and leave no other option ... That's the useless part, and guess what, you're the one who brought that part out... you're the one who decided, 'humans arn't strong unless they can take out a hippo' and now you turn to and blantly say 'humans can't adapt to everything because I can't adapt to living in the antarctic' ... you need to see the middle ground and stop your turning to two extremes to make a point.

[Kovu The Lion]

I have an approach

Animals Rule Humans Rule.

I havn't really heard anyone say an animal sucked tbh.

[Dyani]

Originally posted by Pnt
I'd say that humans adapt immensely faster than almost any other animal, besides simple or single-celled organisms. We're the only known animal capable of actively adapting (ie, making concious decisions to better suit one's environment), the reason being, again, our intelligence. We can choose to make ourselves better suited to environments we encounter and then use our intelligence and tool building skill to make it happen. Likewise, as a whole, we've allowed ourselves to fly, deep dive, travel at near super-sonic ground speeds, and even leave this planet over the course of a few generations. We're the only complex species that can be seen actively evolving on a time scale that of a matter of months or years.

And an individual human would stand a much better chance in the Arctic than any other animal taken from their same general area (ie, Australia). We can make fire to keep us warm, kill animals for food and clothing, and otherwise have a marginal, but possible, chance of survival. A Kangaroo could not.

I agree with your first paragraph. Humans can be as adaptable as other animals, as well have the ability to think and use tools. However, I believe that humans manipulte their environment to suit them. Thats the main event occuring nowadays. Humans change the environment around them to make them comfy in that area. However, should a human be only equipped with clothing (making him equal to an animal with thick fur) and then plonked in the middle of Antartica, he/she would not survive. Same as a Kangaroo.



Originally posted by Kovu The Lion And Human's are animal's are they not, so therefore they may fall in place of that category
Technically yes, but there are an awful lot of differences between your average rat and a human, for example. We may not know this, but as far as we know, most animals do not know they will one day die and they follow their instincts for survival. We have base instincts but we tend to supress most of them. Take the *primal* urge to have sex, for instance. Or the urge by most conquoring male lions to kill the young of the defeated?

Although I am one that would ordinarilly insist that we are animals too, (even if we are destroying the planet - you don't see a lot of rats doing that do you?), I have to agree that humans are a heck of a lot more different than other animals.


Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
I have an approach

Animals Rule Humans Rule.

I havn't really heard anyone say an animal sucked tbh.

As Orwell once said, *All animals are Equal, but some are more Equal than others*. Tis a sad fact, but its true.

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Put a hippo in an enclosed space with a human and there will only ever be one 'winner'.

Tell me, WHO's quote this is...


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If humans didn't have guns or similar hunting apparatus, and we were sent into the wild to live, we would be completely screwed.

Proved dead wrong by yours truely


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Absolutely not. An average human without any 'gear' would be completely stuffed if they were sent into the wild, with hungry predators there. Sure, there may be some humans who can hold their own against a crocodile or something with no apparatus, but you couldn't do that against a two-ton hippo or something. It's just not happening.

Your rebutal ... and basically stating "there's no way you could have because you arn't physically stronger than a hippo"

I went on to say I know how to survive in the wild and have done so... you come back: "You say you're stronger than a hippo?" so on and so forth ... like I said it's your 'rites of passage' ...

Now here's something for you, as I know you're smart and have a high IQ... come up with a way to prove humans can't survive in the wild without going to any extremes... use only the middle ground... oh, and also without basing it soley on yourself...

[Dare]

It would appear that this thread has become a battle of wills...or at least a reasonable facsimile.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
You're the one who said you could take on a hippo and made out like it would be a walk in the park ;) ...

And, I live in a pretty cold place here. Yet I would have trouble adapting in the very coldest of places.

I think that with the proper information, even an average person could get by in most cold places. There's a difference between comfort and surviving. A group of people, maybe 100 or so, especially those with proper knowledge, can would probably along in a cold environment with time. That's the beauty of humans working together, what some lack others make up, which is one survival reason why humans are social creatures. It would take animals millions of years to adapt to many of the conditions people could face with a bit of knowledge in a couple years.

I think the best support for human adaptability is that the same species of humans live to some degree on every single continent on the face of the earth (as well as under the ocean and in space for short to very extended periods of time).



Human adaptability most likely follows a normal distribution as we refer to it in statistics. It would require an extreme to adapt so easily. Perhaps several standard deviations from the mean of the distribution. In other words, to adapt so effortlessly to such an extreme condition is very, very unlikely ;) ...


How would human adaptability follow normal distribution? It doesn't rely upon numbers in any non-strictly concept sense. Anyways, if there's one thing humans excel at, it's extremes. Quit trying to play the big words game, you'd have to back that up with sources and an explanation if you expect anyone to buy it.




I know, it's really strange, especially considering this is a Lion King forum. I'd expect people to be less like the "humans rule, animals suck" type here. But, it seems it's not the case. In fact, I get a much more positive response to certain topics on forums to do with Runescape for goodness sake than here. I don't know if some people are disagreeing with me here just to be difficult, but it seems like they're always the same people. You'd think people agreed with me here on at least something!

No one here has said animals suck, don't put words in our mouth. Some debates are just more complex than Good vs Bad, Humans vs Animals, etc.. And the same people always disagree with you because, frankly, the same people probably always think you're wrong. People aren't going to just agree with you because they haven't agreed with you for a while now, if I think you're wrong and you're going to bring it into a debate, then I'm gonna say something. Don't expect me or anyone else in life to roll over because you expect us to agree with you. Frankly, I couldn't care less about disagreeing with you, I'd much rather we get back on the topic of hunting which no one seems very willing to do, so I figured I'd just state my opinion.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by lion_roog
I've read that hunting helps certain animals by making sure they have land to live on in areas where human population is growing and demanding more land. Mainly in Africa, I believe. The hunting brings in money, so the villiages in the area see it as beneficial to preserve the land and the animals due to their value. Other wise the land would be threatened by human growth and certain animals killed due to their threat to farmers in the area.

I heard this a while back. It's also beneficial to the villages because it allows them to be able to protect the surrounding areas with some of that money, which also helps them preserve their way of life. I've heard that it's also been beneficial in parts of Asia, and has contributed in part to the great panda gaining a bit more of a footing.

What I don't get is the point of protecting some animals in America (yes, again I'm referring to the Canadian Goose) after it's more than reached a safe number in many areas. Being a large game bird, it has quite a bit of nutritional value for a hunter, and it's also quite a nuisance in most areas. Personally, though, I don't see the Canadian Goose ever being unprotected again.

[Dare]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion


It's quite strange really that someone would disagree with me on everything. I could argue that grass is often green and I'd still get disagreed with by someone -_-; ...

Eh, that's the it goes sometimes...just gotta deal with it and move on.

That being said, back on topic people.
As far as hippos and whether humans may or may not be superior in various aspects, you've said your pieces/opinions ad nauseum - you're not covering any new ground except redefining the meanings of "futility", "dead horse", and "redundant".

So if you don't have anything else to say about the original thread topic, let it go...please.

[DarkElf]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Tiikeri: So what if humans have more intelligence than other animals? I swear some humans are less intelligent than most animals anyway.

I didn't ask to be born a human.

If humans didn't have all of the things they do today, most of them would die out so quickly it wouldn't even be funny. Just because some guy made an invention, loads of stupid people benifit from it? So much for natural selection. Heh, humans will use up all the resources soon enough, and kill themselves through global warming. Quite ironic that they're so 'intelligent' yet so stupid at the same time.


So what, now you're anti technology too? If so, I'd chuck that computer of your's out the window, it's a waste of electricity, in a few years when we arrogant humans are burning what little oil we have left, we will have wished you saved that electricity for a few lights. Unless of course you are trying to bring about the human apocolypse faster, and with your hate for humans, I could believe that. I can't possibly understand why you would not wish to be born human. We are so much more capeable than any animal could ever be. We live vastly longer lives than many (note I did not say all) animals, and we gain much more knowledge of this world and it's inhabitants.

This doesn't mean animals are bad. They are just what they are, animals. We are animals as well, but we are highly evolved animals, and the dominant species of the world. If you love animals, that is ok, and I can understand how it may hurt you to know there are people who sport by killing animals, but that doesn't mean you should dislike all hunters and claim that every hunter is arrogant. If someday you get out there and you see the entire world, and all it's people, and understand it in a grander scheme, then perhaps you will have a better view on all this and will be able to put us in our place. For now, there is no reason why hunting topics should be banned, if so, well then you are shuting yourself into a smaller realm instead of attempting to broaden your horizons. We are trying to understand where you are coming from, maybe it is time to try and understand where we and the "arrogant hunters" are coming from.

Opinions need not change. But banning the topic of hunting is wrong. Not all TLK fans hate hunting. And not all threads that mention hunting have to turn into arguments.

[Sadiki]

I don't see how putting human against any animal with bare hands does prove anything, I mean if we have brains to make tools to suvive of course it's allowed for us to do so. and it's not like Lionesses will just attack alone on an animal so what makes it right to attack as a pack? No strenght is not always the key to the success even in surviving, but the intelligent and that is what makes human to stay on top of the food chain.

[A-non-a-mus]

I agree with you...


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
It's quite strange really that someone would disagree with me on everything. I could argue that grass is often green and I'd still get disagreed with by someone -_-; ...

I dunno whom you mean, but likely the reason would be you have an 'arrogant disagreeance' meaning whenever you find something to disagree with, instead of taking others' views into consideration you blantly scrape for any extremes to force your own view to be the only lugitament one...

On the canadian geese: I'm sure their main concern is they don't want to risk having the same thing happen once more... though I agree, they should if the numbers returned allow hunting, just perhaps a smaller bag limit and perhaps shorter season...

On hunting: which form of hunting does everyone think is the worst/best?

[Dyani]

The worst form of hunting in the MEDCs (more economically developed countries) is when it is for sport. Fox Hunting I think is horrendous, but there are worse that barely reach the surface of society's knowledge, like keeping/breeding exotic animals to be let loose and killed by wealthy idiots. Those people that do that are scum, and when these creatures escape they are a danger to us as well as themeselves. They don't know how to feed themselves most often and go to humans for food, whom they hav no fear of. I reckon this is what causes the Beast of Bodmin or Dartmoor etc to occur, escaped exotic animals.


In LEDCs (less economically developed countries), the worst form of hunting is the traditional sort. Although people know no better and its indeed the only way they live, spearing or shooting an animal full of arrows is inhumane. I'd prefer all humanity lived like this but it can cause suffering to the individual animal.


I wouldn't have considered any form of hunting to be *best*. All end up with animals dying, most often inhumanly. However, I am not one to judge seeing as I get my meat from the shop/commercially produced.

[Hanshilo]

Ok *sigh* I love fishing yeah, but I always put the fish back once i have got the hook out of it, ok sometimes the fish dies through shock or dies becuase the hook punctures something important, mistakes like that happen, I am not to overly happy with hunting though, i can't say that it should be banned cause it would spoil others fun...

Like one of my friends mates likes shooting rabbits and skinning them for meat, ok if they banned it, he wouldn't have fun.

I dunno really... each to their own...:cheese:

[Dyani]

SimbaTheLion!!! Dude, theres a reason I havn't actually posted in this forum until now. Can you remember about a year ago when sommate simialr to this came up? I started saying how much I hated humans and gave reasons for them. I even sugguested killing humanity off for once and for all for the evil destruction they are doing!! However I was flamed understandably.

Thus I have altered the way I show my views on this matter. Whether or not I agree on their view, I can always see their point. In order to argue fairly, you must at least see/vaugly understand the other persons point of view. You may not like it but its needed before the thread turns into a flame war! See my point? ;)

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Dyani
SimbaTheLion!!! Dude, theres a reason I havn't actually posted in this forum until now. Can you remember about a year ago when sommate simialr to this came up? I started saying how much I hated humans and gave reasons for them. I even sugguested killing humanity off for once and for all for the evil destruction they are doing!! However I was flamed understandably.

Thus I have altered the way I show my views on this matter. Whether or not I agree on their view, I can always see their point. In order to argue fairly, you must at least see/vaugly understand the other persons point of view. You may not like it but its needed before the thread turns into a flame war! See my point? ;)

Your talking to a brickwall, have fun :p

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Heh, just because I'm standing up for what is right...

Understandable, I know you're going for what you think is right, and that's cool that you'd say all of humanity sucks, animals rock and what not but,

The point of debating, Which I learned in Speech and Debate, is that you look at two sides, No matter what you do, or even if you agree with them, Nod your head and say "Yeah I understand, but upon my philosophy I think.. YOURSTUFFHERE"

Just make it understood that you know what and where people are coming from on their sides, and then point out yours, if you dont do this then it becomes one sided and looks as if you get no where. It also makes you look arrogant and self-centered, which is why most people get kicked out of Speech and Debate

Just some tips I guess, Don't have to listen to em but it helps a lot when Debating , and it makes the difference between an "argument" and a "Debate" :3

[DarkElf]

I can't say I'd ever want to be anything else besides human. I think it's probably the best possible organism you could ever hope to be on Earth.

[Kovu The Lion]

If you weren't a human you wouldn't be typing that message right now.

Lol.

[Kovu The Lion]

You pretty much have said it in your other posts,

you would rather be something else other than a human :p

[Tiikeri]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Heh, just because I'm standing up for what is right...
No, you're standing up for what your messed up little brain thinks is right.

Face it STL, you're a total psycho. Sure, you're academically intelligent so don't start giving me that "I'm much more intelligent than you" ****. You are intelligent, which is why it astounds me that you could think of such wacked out crap. Wanting humans to die out, looking forward to the day we all cease to be, it's pathetic. Don't forget that you'll have died millions of years before the human race ceases to exist, so I really don't see what your point is in all of this. You're a human, and you will remain a human until your dying day, face it.

I need a cig and a pint -_-;

[Kovu The Lion]

It's called take it to PM's,

And Dani is right,

The polar caps won't melt until another good thousand or so years. You'll be dead i'm sorry to say it Simba.

So if we all can get along we can all just stfu and watch this.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8823/powerrangersjy6.gif

[Kovu The Lion]

It's 1.5 megabytes, takes a normal dial up user about 3-5 seconds to load up lol. way faster than the forum loads so x)

And doesn't matter, they would evacuate you, And force you to leave, If they don't then they'd get you and your family to sign a partiion saying you wanted to stay and knew you would die. :p

[Dare]

Originally posted by Pnt


What I don't get is the point of protecting some animals in America (yes, again I'm referring to the Canadian Goose) after it's more than reached a safe number in many areas. Being a large game bird, it has quite a bit of nutritional value for a hunter, and it's also quite a nuisance in most areas. Personally, though, I don't see the Canadian Goose ever being unprotected again.

As far as I've been able to figure out, the Canada goose is only protected in Ohio and while it is also protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, other states allow the hunting of them though it is heavily regulated.

Actually, from what I'm reading on the Ohio Fish and Wildlife site, there is a migratory Canada Goose season in Ohio...it's actually going on right now until Feb 3rd. Looks like theres a bunch of special guidelines/rules one has to follow though.
Ohio 2006-2007 hunting regulations - Canada Goose is towards the bottom and top of right column (http://www.dnr.ohio.gov/wildlife/regs/waterfowl.htm)


So yeah, they're protected, but you are allowed to hunt them at certain times with certain restrictions.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Wicked
As far as I've been able to figure out, the Canada goose is only protected in Ohio and while it is also protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, other states allow the hunting of them though it is heavily regulated.

Actually, from what I'm reading on the Ohio Fish and Wildlife site, there is a migratory Canada Goose season in Ohio...it's actually going on right now until Feb 3rd. Looks like theres a bunch of special guidelines/rules one has to follow though.

From a person in my RS clan who goes to Ohio State:



Wed Jan 24 (04:16:26pm) <Kovu> Darkxain
Wed Jan 24 (04:16:29pm) <%Darkxain> ?
Wed Jan 24 (04:16:34pm) <Kovu> is there a canada goose hunting season in ohio bro?
Wed Jan 24 (04:16:41pm) <%Darkxain> should be
Wed Jan 24 (04:16:45pm) <%Darkxain> fuckers
Wed Jan 24 (04:16:50pm) <Kovu> is that bad you think?
Wed Jan 24 (04:16:57pm) <%Darkxain> they're everywhere
Wed Jan 24 (04:17:10pm) <%Darkxain> i hate those damn geese
Wed Jan 24 (04:17:16pm) <Kovu> so you support it? :P
Wed Jan 24 (04:17:18pm) <%Darkxain> yeah


If they're everywhere tbh, yeah.

oh yea, btw proof:



-----<whois>----------------------------
? Nick: Darkxain
? Real Name: Chris
? Hostmask: darkxain@Allianceirc-26FEE04F.resnet.ohio-state.edu
? Modes: +iwrx
? Connecting from: *@rnwifi-HISIPHERETBHD00D.resnet.ohio-state.edu IPBLEEPEDOUTLOL
? Registered Nickname: Yes.
? Channels: %#thegladiatorz
? Server: irc.allianceirc.net
? Signed on at: Wednesday 24/01/2007 15:28:57
? Time idle: 1min 7secs
? Time online: 49mins 46secs
-----</whois>---------------------------

[Pnt]

Originally posted by Wicked
As far as I've been able to figure out, the Canada goose is only protected in Ohio and while it is also protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, other states allow the hunting of them though it is heavily regulated.

Actually, from what I'm reading on the Ohio Fish and Wildlife site, there is a migratory Canada Goose season in Ohio...it's actually going on right now until Feb 3rd. Looks like theres a bunch of special guidelines/rules one has to follow though.
Ohio 2006-2007 hunting regulations - Canada Goose is towards the bottom and top of right column (http://www.dnr.ohio.gov/wildlife/regs/waterfowl.htm)


So yeah, they're protected, but you are allowed to hunt them at certain times with certain restrictions.

To my knowledge, it's still completely illegal to hunt Candadian Geese in Ohio. I guess your source is credible, but I've never known this to be the case in the past. It may be a completely new law, I don't keep up on hunting regulation, but all I can say is that it's about time. These geese are getting to the point where they're over populating and overrunning some areas.


I know someone asked a while back about what my favorite/least favorite form of hunting was (I think it was Anon). Personally, I'm okay with all forms of hunting except dynamite fishing and remote controlled hunting (ie, controlling a gun from the internet). I also extremely dislike poaching, but that falls within illegal hunting practices. I have a lot of respect for bow hunters. I do a lot of archery, and I gotta say, anyone who can succeed at bow hunting really knows their stuff.

[Dare]

Originally posted by Pnt
I guess your source is credible, but I've never known this to be the case in the past.

It'd better be credible...otherwise the state of Ohio needs to update its website. ^_^

[Pnt]

Originally posted by Wicked
It'd better be credible...otherwise the state of Ohio needs to update its website. ^_^

Pfft, I wouldn't put it past Ohio to leave a website without updates for years.

Ohio has some strange laws sometimes. On the topic of hunting, you can get anywhere from $2 to $100 per head (not literal head) for certain animals presented to the game warden. Deer, muskrats (I think), certain fish, and some small game are all part of this, and it's due to overpopulation. It's also kind of funny that if you get in a car accident by hitting a deer, you're legally entitled to the body of the deer and $25 from the game warden. After 2 days, anyone passing by the road is entitled to the deer.

[A-non-a-mus]

two days? :gasp: ...the meat would be almost non-edible by then...


Originally posted by Pnt
I know someone asked a while back about what my favorite/least favorite form of hunting was (I think it was Anon). Personally, I'm okay with all forms of hunting except dynamite fishing and remote controlled hunting (ie, controlling a gun from the internet). I also extremely dislike poaching, but that falls within illegal hunting practices. I have a lot of respect for bow hunters. I do a lot of archery, and I gotta say, anyone who can succeed at bow hunting really knows their stuff.

yeah, I did ask, and I agree, bow hunting is hard.. I like to do archery too... but when hunting.. there's such a small target in the animal you have to hit or else it is useless... I like the bow... but very slim chance of me ever hitting anything with it ... I've caught a lot of tree stumps though :D

[Pnt]

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
two days? :gasp: ...the meat would be almost non-edible by then...



Not always, the meat can actually stay fresh enough for some edible uses for quite some time if taken from the inside (and far from a wound). :evilgrin:


And yush, I can't count how many tree trunks I've nabbed with a bow :p

[SpiritWolf77]

The funny thing about people who feel all humans should be exterminated is they typically never consider themselves or those they care about in that generalization. And of course don't bother to think that almost every human on the planet is someone somebody else cares about.

I think it's a lot of cowardly talk from people who aren't willing to face the depressing realities of life. They can sit there and moan about how awful humans are, and how each new human that is born is one too many, but they'd obviously never off themselves or murder their own family to cut down on the population. It's easy to wish for the death of a perfect stranger, especially when you'd never have to actually carry out the act. That doesn't take any courage whatsoever.

If all the time these people spent whining about their hatred for humanity were actually spent -doing- something about it, like devoting their lives so animal conservation programs or helping to spread the word about birth control methods, then I'd be a little more willing to believe they honestly care enough about the issue to wish death upon their own species.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77

I think it's a lot of cowardly talk from people who aren't willing to face the depressing realities of life. They can sit there and moan about how awful humans are, and how each new human that is born is one too many, but they'd obviously never off themselves or murder their own family to cut down on the population. It's easy to wish for the death of a perfect stranger, especially when you'd never have to actually carry out the act. That doesn't take any courage whatsoever.

This reminds me of something I learned about in Anthropology, and that's for every time period humans have been in existance we have abused resources and created garbage...but since there are 6 billion people alive there is a lot more of an impact than in the past when it was maybe 50 million people.

And I was thinking about human population...if every family on earth was allowed to only have one child, I do believe that would curb the world population growth and possibly reverse it after so many generations.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by lion_roog
And I was thinking about human population...if every family on earth was allowed to only have one child, I do believe that would curb the world population growth and possibly reverse it after so many generations.
Aye. Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to enforce something like that. China is an excellent example. High rates of parents simply abandoning "extra" children out of fear of disobeying the law.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Aye. Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to enforce something like that. China is an excellent example. High rates of parents simply abandoning "extra" children out of fear of disobeying the law.

Hmm...wasn't there a sci-fi movie that had to do with this subject where everyone had to be killed after a certain age to keep the population low?

[Dyani]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
The funny thing about people who feel all humans should be exterminated is they typically never consider themselves or those they care about in that generalization. And of course don't bother to think that almost every human on the planet is someone somebody else cares about.

I think it's a lot of cowardly talk from people who aren't willing to face the depressing realities of life. They can sit there and moan about how awful humans are, and how each new human that is born is one too many, but they'd obviously never off themselves or murder their own family to cut down on the population. It's easy to wish for the death of a perfect stranger, especially when you'd never have to actually carry out the act. That doesn't take any courage whatsoever.

If all the time these people spent whining about their hatred for humanity were actually spent -doing- something about it, like devoting their lives so animal conservation programs or helping to spread the word about birth control methods, then I'd be a little more willing to believe they honestly care enough about the issue to wish death upon their own species.

This is why I don't mention that detail about me any more. I don't want to be called these things, and neither will STL once he reads this. We have views, we are allowed to think them.
Its not like I think *OMG MUST KILL HUMANITY* all the time, just when humanity really does hit me as particularally stupid species because of something. For example, there has been this huge container ship crash off Cornwall in England. Ignoring all the sealife that has been damaged and covered in oil along half the coastline of this area, the newspapers are saying about these F**kups who have stole some of the cargo and actally sold it on Ebay. Its stupid things like this that annoy me.

Edit - Also, China's laws on children is working. The population is reducing. Only problem is, the idiots only want boys in the family. Hmm.. I wonder. Say we have a whole generation of boys and no girls... gee thats intelligent eh? Once again... damn humanitys idiocy.

[Dare]

Originally posted by lion_roog
Hmm...wasn't there a sci-fi movie that had to do with this subject where everyone had to be killed after a certain age to keep the population low?

Logan's Run?
In the book, you're killed at 21.
In the movie, you're killed at 30.


Originally posted by Dyani
the newspapers are saying about these F**kups who have stole some of the cargo and actally sold it on Ebay.

That doesn't make them stupid, Dyani...that just means that they have different priorities.
...well that and stupid news sells. People would rather be entertained with stupid thief stories than bummed out by environmental disasters - and that's not always because they just don't care.

As for China wanting more boys than girls...well, traditionally in many cultures a male child is considered to be more desirable - religion, earning factors, traditional gender roles, all these play into this. It doesn't make it right, but it's an idea that I've seen even here in Western culture.

Eh, ya know...whether humans do stupid things or not, we're still the only species that can recognize our stupidity and also have the capabilities to do something to fix it. Far be it for me to take the optimistic route, but sometimes you need to look past the stupid crap and take a look at the potential.



Maybe we should take this to a thread entitled "Humanity? The Big Problem".
:p

[Dyani]

Originally posted by Wicked
Logan's Run?
In the book, you're killed at 21.
In the movie, you're killed at 30.

Maybe we should take this to a thread entitled "Humanity? The Big Problem".
:p

Its either Logan's Run or Brave New World...

If we re-titled it that, trust me.. flaming would be so bad we'd all be pouring water on our moniters. :p

[Kovu The Lion]

I think I like what Sw77 said,

Usually those who hate humans or want to kill them, dont want to live themselves(duh) or just hate life(Emo in my opinion). the one's that want to live enjoy life, and could care less.

so many emo's on this boards Damn you.

and to regard your statement STL I saw a shirt that said:

"Knive's cost more thanks to Emo's, Kill Emo's, Lower the price of Knive's"

Was funny. If anything I think the people that want to die, Should just die honestly if you're going to go on so fucking much about how bad Humanity is, Why don't you either DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT or just DIE I mean seriously stop complaining about your life and get it over with. Over and over you hear people say "i'm leaving the internet, killing myself" they leave, show up the next day "i couldn't do it' when in reality they just went to sleep, went to school, came home.

Ugh Idk really

No offense to anyone in this thread, just ticked to be honest.

But hey Simba, Realize this, Because you wish death, add yourself to that 9,900.

You're bad.