Certain experiences to make me have opinions such as these.Originally posted by Ghamu
What kind of experience(s)?
Thanks: 0
Certain experiences to make me have opinions such as these.Originally posted by Ghamu
What kind of experience(s)?
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 deathOriginally posted by SimbaTheLion
It's unnecessary to kill more animals for food when there is already an excess is what I was saying.
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...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 ?
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!
The dog can't fathom between what's cruel and what's morally right, the homeless can.Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
And, feeding the homeless person in front of the starving dog would also be cruel.
... and therefore harm your friends with your death? ... You have far too little an opinion of yourself I say...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, jeeeezOriginally posted by SimbaTheLion
I would kill myself in place of an animal in an instant however (in most situations anyway).
Uh... we're carrying on a civil conversation.Originally posted by TX-101
You all are going to kill each other in here... sad.
So yeah, A-non and Ciara summed basically summed up my opinion.
Killing yourself for an animal? That's a bit far, bud.
I could respect such a decision. Granted that you'd love that creature.Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I would kill myself in place of an animal in an instant however (in most situations anyway).
♩ "Summer's going fast, nights growing colder.
Children growing up, old friends growing older.
Freeze this moment a little bit longer.
Make each sensation a little bit stronger." ♩
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.Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
And, feeding the homeless person in front of the starving dog would also be cruel.
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
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).
How does that work?
It never used to be like that :/Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I don't have any offline friends.
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 xPTiikeri: 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.
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.
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.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*...
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)
'excess' depends solely on money... if there's not enough money to buy food, it's better to catch/grow your ownOriginally 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!
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?
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.Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Why would a deer randomly walk up to a human o_O that makes no sense...
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.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.
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 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'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.Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Yes, hunting should be banned. Predator-prey cycles will take care of the deer.
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@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!
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?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!
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.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...
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.
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
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...
But some areas have no "natural" predators at all. You're not claiming that predator levels will rise in them, are you?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.
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 ...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.
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.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;;; !
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.
So, what about areas where the wolves have been completely wiped out? Where do the predators come from? Do they appear magically?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.
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.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!
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.That's silly really; they can't claim they're helping nature either since well, they're killing it quite literally!
They're putting less of a strain on the environment by not being directly involved in industrialized society.
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.Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Are we at least agreed that hunting for the hell of it - not for food - is bad?
If that's what you mean, then yes, if not, then no.
I feel like we're kind of going in circles here...Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Well, then predator species need to be reintroduced.
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.
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.Are we at least agreed that hunting for the hell of it - not for food - is bad?
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.
You mean Zippo Cat?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 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.
Posting Permissions
