Hunting? The Big Problem

[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 ... 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.

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 !!!

[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.