Hunting

[Tony]

Do you believe people should have the right to hunt for food?

[Kronos]

Absolutely, provided that the methods of harvest are as humane as possible.

[F9]

You are asking OIers?Or you put it here considering hunting to be OI?
Anw, hunting for food is totally acceptable.People have to feed, and meat is one of the best things to eat.
Even that i find hunting and killing animals for fun stupid, hunting to eat is something normal, its definitely not an "opposing ideology".

Fuserg9:star:

[Jack]

I support the right to arm bears.

[The Accomplice]

I think it is totally acceptable if your reasons for hunting are to nourish your body. There is nothing wrong with that, because your trying to survive just like any other creature on this planet.

[FreeFocus]

I certainly disagree with hunting as a "sport," but hunting for sustenance is acceptable.

[fiddlesticks]

Do you believe people should have the right to hunt for food?


Yes, however I don't think it is right to kill an animal and waste it's carcass. If one must kill something, people should use every usable part of it, skin and meat!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As long as you eat what you kill, I don't see the problem.

[Il Medico]

Yes, however I don't think it is right to kill an animal and waste it's carcass. If one must kill something, people should use every usable part of it, skin and meat!
I completely agree with this. If your going to hunt it should be for food and you should use every part of the animal. I think hunting as a sport is not a thing people ought not do. But I can't make that decision for anyone.

[fiddlesticks]

I completely agree with this. If your going to hunt it should be for food and you should use every part of the animal. I think hunting as a sport is not a thing people ought not do. But I can't make that decision for anyone.

People who hunt for sport may just be would-be serial killers who are aware of their disease and keep it under control by killing animals instead of people, thus doing society a favor. Or not...just a thought

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Unless alternative food sources are limited, no, I don't think people should have the right to hunt. Perhaps they should. However, others should maintain the right to hunt them for their harm to creatures deserving of moral consideration.

[MikeSC]

Unless alternative food sources are limited, no, I don't think people should have the right to hunt.

I tentatively agree with this- tools made it so we could eat meat, tools can make meat unnecessary. This isn't possible for everybody right now, because of the markets, because of poverty, because of social factors, etc.

I'm no scientist though, if we need to hunt at all to maintain ecologies, if we can't engineer a self-sustaining ecology, then we should if done as humanely as possible. Definately not the kind of fox-hunting the Tories are planning to re-introduce when they get in, I'm universally against that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Unless alternative food sources are limited, no, I don't think people should have the right to hunt. Perhaps they should. However, others should maintain the right to hunt them for their harm to creatures deserving of moral consideration.

And doubtless the hunters would reserve the right to defend themselves (with deadly force) from the more wild-eyed members of the tofu-munching brigade.

I predict that the militant veggies will get their arses kicked, because at the end of the day most people give a more of a damn about humans than animals. And so it should be.

[Vanguard1917]

While having to hunt for your survival in this day and age should be seen as unacceptable (what with the great achievements that have taken place in mass agriculture, factory farming and so on), hunting for the sake of fun and adventure is perfectly fine and is indicative of a healthy human relationship with the natural world.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't hunt, but I fish--which is much the same thing. I eat what I catch. Nothing wrong with that.

[Pogue]

If you need to hunt animals for food then its fine. 90% of the world however doesn't have to do this.

[piet11111]

hunting is OK with me if its done in a sustainable way so that there wont be too many or not enough animals or when necessary to feed oneself.

if people want to hunt they have the right to do so without senseless restrictions posed on them.

[Ele'ill]

Do you believe people should have the right to hunt for food?

People should have the right to hunt for food. They should not have the right to hunt for sport. The wildlife 'conservation' and forestry people should not act as lobbyists for the gun nuts and logging groups.

The issue ends up being about 'humans on their own land' defending it (hunting) from predators such as wolves or black bears, eagles, hawks etc.

We deny other top predatory species the natural right to hunt yet stomp and whine about our rights.

Play fair.

[danyboy27]

hunting has a sport is okay, then again you have to eat what you kill, even if it mean having truckload of deer meat in a big motherfucking refregirator.

a lot of people like to hunt where i live, but at least they eat what they kill.

there is nothing wrong with having fun hunting annimals, i dont think the deer is gonna feel the difference between being hunted by a wolve or a human.

we got opposable thumbs, so we kill more efficiently than wolves.

[Ele'ill]

there is nothing wrong with having fun hunting annimals, i dont think the deer is gonna feel the difference between being hunted by a wolve or a human.


What about the difference between being hunted and not being hunted at all?

[Mindtoaster]

People should have the right to hunt for whatever reason they want, as long as the natural ecology of the area is not threatened by it

[danyboy27]

What about the difference between being hunted and not being hunted at all?

excuse me? wolves hunt, they dont have gun but they do hunt, they get their pack together and go after the weaker one, or at least the one they can get.

we dont have the physical capabilities to do like them and run after deers, our bodies being relatively week we need tool, bows, gun, etc etc.

when a human hunt a deer, he go hide and trick him to come, then he kill him. if the hunter done his job correctly, the poor thing would not even realize what happened before he dead.

for the wolves on the other hand, they go track their prey until exaustion, once the prey is exausted they fall on them and cut their throat out with their claws.

now be honest and tell me what the worst.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I am completely opposed to hunting as a sport or for fun, but I don't see any reason why people can't hunt for food. It's been a basic part of survival since the start of the human race. It's true, though, that most of the world's population does not need to hunt for their food. Unless there is a need, it shouldn't happen.

Spetnaz, wolves attacking deer may seem cruel - it is cruel, but that is part of nature. The difference is that they have to hunt to stay alive. We won't die by not hunting deer.

[danyboy27]

Spetnaz, wolves attacking deer may seem cruel - it is cruel, but that is part of nature. The difference is that they have to hunt to stay alive. We won't die by not hunting deer.

wait... i can go to a supermarket buy a meat i dont know shit about but i cant kill my own food?

what the real difference?

[Bud Struggle]

wait... i can go to a supermarket buy a meat i dont know shit about but i cant kill my own food?

what the real difference?

Yea, let's have "nice people" kill our food for us. A Purdue chicken is as much alive as a wild turkey--but we need Frank Perdue to kill it for us unless we can prove we need to kill the turkey--exactly why? And exactly which Commissar of the Supreme Soviet do we need to prove this too?

The hammer (and sycle) comes down! :D

[danyboy27]

Yea, let's have "nice people" kill our food for us. A Purdue chicken is as much alive as a wild turkey--but we need Frank Perdue to kill it for us unless we can prove we need to kill the turkey--exactly why? And exactly which Commissar of the Supreme Soviet do we need to prove this too?

The hammer (and sycle) comes down! :D

i know, its funny how some people dont really care about freedom when it suit them.

[Bud Struggle]

i know, its funny how some people dont really care about freedom when it suit them.

A turkey dinner is a turkey dinner: no matter if Frank Perdue, Stalin or I kill the turkey.

And Demo what's these no hunting guys VOTING! ;) :D

[Ele'ill]

excuse me? wolves hunt, they dont have gun but they do hunt, they get their pack together and go after the weaker one, or at least the one they can get.

Yes. Its rough being a predator.

Which is why we can't have droves of humans running through fields and forest with rifles hunting deer and wolves for fun. Not practical.





we dont have the physical capabilities to do like them and run after deers, our bodies being relatively week we need tool, bows, gun, etc etc.

This is true that in order to kill a deer we would normally need a tool such as a bow or rifle.




when a human hunt a deer, he go hide and trick him to come, then he kill him. if the hunter done his job correctly, the poor thing would not even realize what happened before he dead.

Yes, but this isn't what happens. This isn't a perfect world and when people hunt for sport they hunt more frequently and with less ethics.



for the wolves on the other hand, they go track their prey until exaustion, once the prey is exausted they fall on them and cut their throat out with their claws.

The wolves then take the deer back to their house and mount its head on a wall as a trophy next to all of the other animals. :rolleyes:

The difference is sport vs survival.


now be honest and tell me what the worst.

Failed logic. Apples to cucumbers.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

And doubtless the hunters would reserve the right to defend themselves (with deadly force) from the more wild-eyed members of the tofu-munching brigade.

I predict that the militant veggies will get their arses kicked, because at the end of the day most people give a more of a damn about humans than animals. And so it should be.

Vegetarians and non-vegetarians are just average people. Depending on the numbers, which favor meat eaters, individuals will enforce their viewpoint. Issues involving the justification of a killing aren't resolvable by simply respecting the viewpoints of others. If morality based vegetarianism became the norm, it wouldn't surprise me to see it legally enforced.

I'm not sure I agree with legal enforcement of morality even in the case of protecting human rights. However, individuals might still act against others on the basis of personal morality.

I'm fairly respectful of the ability of others to kill and eat animals considering my feelings toward the subjects. I place a value of personal freedom that may be disproportionately high. It's hard to say. I do know it's difficult to condemn someone who believes animals deserve rights for defending those rights through violence. The same could be said for abortion. I am pro-choice. But given the position people hold (which I disagree with), it is consistent for them to act violently.

I think technological advances are probably the best cooperative solution. That way nobody loses if we grow meat or something. Either way, I'm a pretty apathetic person. As long as you kill things far enough away from me, it's not a big deal.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

wait... i can go to a supermarket buy a meat i dont know shit about but i cant kill my own food?

what the real difference?

I didn't think you were talking about wanting to eat the meat. I thought you were talking about hunting for fun. And that wasn't what I was saying. You were asking the difference between a human hunting deer and a wolf hunting deer - I replied by saying that it was different because the animal has more of a need to hunt, whereas it is not necessary for a person to do the same thing.

[Ele'ill]

wait... i can go to a supermarket buy a meat i dont know shit about but i cant kill my own food?

what the real difference?

There are problems with BOTH. An Unregulated food manufacturing/processing industry is just as dangerous as unregulated hunting.

[danyboy27]

Yes. Its rough being a predator.

Which is why we can't have droves of humans running through fields and forest with rifles hunting deer and wolves for fun. Not practical.

there is many many many things that arnt practical these day, but people still practice them, wether it is for personnal satisfaction or pleasure, dont you dare telling me what i should and shouldnt do for fun.






Yes, but this isn't what happens. This isn't a perfect world and when people hunt for sport they hunt more frequently and with less ethics.

any evidences that hunter are evil unhetical peoples?




The wolves then take the deer back to their house and mount its head on a wall as a trophy next to all of the other animals. :rolleyes:

what wrong with being proud of something we done? people do that usually beccause they worked hard to get their prey, its purely symbolic.




The difference is sport vs survival.


camping is also an activity of survival but peple do it every day :D
so what, you are gonna sya i should not do camping beccause we now have houses and its impractical to have drove of camper going to the wood to have a survival experience?

[danyboy27]

I didn't think you were talking about wanting to eat the meat. I thought you were talking about hunting for fun. And that wasn't what I was saying. You were asking the difference between a human hunting deer and a wolf hunting deer - I replied by saying that it was different because the animal has more of a need to hunt, whereas it is not necessary for a person to do the same thing.

one can hunt a deer for fun, not eating the meat and giving it away to some folks of his family has a gift.

there is nothing wrong with people hunting for fun, has long this person do it correctly and use every part of the animal. Unless the hunter is a gerk, after 3 hour waiting for the damn animal you want to make it count.

we are predators, we like to draws funny pictures and talks politics, have many idea on a subject, but we are predator.

[Ele'ill]

there is many many many things that arnt practical these day, but people still practice them,

And this is not ok with me.



wether it is for personnal satisfaction or pleasure, dont you dare telling me what i should and shouldnt do for fun.

So you're from the school of thought that people should be able to do whatever they want because the fall-out or wide spread consequences don't matter so long as you don't have to deal with them personally and intimately.

That's pretty selfish to not give it a second thought like that.





any evidences that hunter are evil unhetical peoples?

Stop putting words in my mouth. When and if hunters wipe out entire species and ecosystems its beyond irresponsible and its beyond unethical. Its ecocide- because its entirely preventable but wasn't prevented because some people wanted to have fun.




what wrong with being proud of something we done? people do that usually beccause they worked hard to get their prey, its purely symbolic.

Whether its wrong or right is not applicable here as the varying scenarios could play out in any manner of a hundred or so ways. I disagree with hunting for sport. Trophy hunting is unethical. If you kill a deer because you 'have' to eat and decide to take a trophy- fine. But even then I feel its necessary.





camping is also an activity of survival but peple do it every day :D

:rolleyes:

Lets go down this road. Most people couldn't survive for two weeks in the woods living out of an RV let alone in a tent or makeshift shelter. They'd trash the place, burn down the forest or die. That is not survival. The majority of people are incompetent and out of their league when they enter the forest.



so what, you are gonna sya i should not do camping beccause we now have houses and its impractical to have drove of camper going to the wood to have a survival experience?

Camping- Unless you're a serial killer - does not involve taking another creature's life.

Hunting- on the other hand - does involve taking another creature's life.

Both camping and hunting when unregulated are dangerous to the ecosystem.

One involves massive direct killing the other involves massive destruction and indirect killing.

Again- when unregulated and done for recreation or 'fun' - both are dangerous.

:)

[danyboy27]

did i mentionned somewhere that i was praising uncontrolled hunting..wait..no.

like every leisure, hunting is currently regulated there is time you can hunt and time you cant, you need a permit, certain techniques such has flashlight hunting are illegal and you can get a pretty heavy fine if you do such.

all i was saying is that there is nothing wrong with hunting has a sport

if you dont like umpractical thing, then you dont like 99% of the beautyful thing in life, aestetics and art, music all that is not necessary with survival, its not really practical to put ressources in that, but we do it.

most of the furnitures made in the 19th century where not really practical but god this was a time where people really had a certain degree of craftmanship.

[Ele'ill]

did i mentionned somewhere that i was praising uncontrolled hunting..wait..no.

like every leisure, hunting is currently regulated there is time you can hunt and time you cant, you need a permit, certain techniques such has flashlight hunting are illegal and you can get a pretty heavy fine if you do such.

regulated

:laugh::laugh:


all i was saying is that there is nothing wrong with hunting has a sport

And all I was saying is that I completely disagree.


if you dont like umpractical thing, then you dont like 99% of the beautyful thing in life, aestetics and art, music all that is not necessary with survival, its not really practical to put ressources in that, but we do it.

I don't like a LOT of the current trends in this world in regards to manufacturing - industry - labor - environment. Nothing inherently wrong with its existence.


I understand that English isn't your first language. English is my language and I still flub it often. Now to the point - Do you take sleeping pills before you come onto this forum to type? Your logic is.. off. Way off.




most of the furnitures made in the 19th century where not really practical but god this was a time where people really had a certain degree of craftmanship.

Humans have lived through ages of over consumption and excess and are now starting to realize that they can't live like this any more -

Even if its fun.

[Radical]

I think we are all evil for eating animals. Including myself.

We dont eat humans because modern philosophy tells us it is wrong. Eating animals and humans is both the same when it comes to morals. Both life-forms suffer and feel pain just the same.

You wouldent shoot a child in the head due to you beleving it was wrong taking an innocent life. Yet you'd be happy shoot an innocent animal because society tells you its ok.

If humans should have the right to hunt animals for whatever they want, they should also have the right to hunt humans for whatever they want.

[danyboy27]

regulated

:laugh::laugh:


you obviously dont know shit about hunting. Forest guard are arresting people every year for various infraction, ranging from unthorized hunting to the use of illegal weapon for the purpose for hunting. and by hunting i mean the real hunt that is happening in the wood, not that barbarian stupid and lame organized hunting for tourist in an open field with a half drugged animal in the middle.

its not beccause a fews idiots are doing illegaL hunt for profit that we shopuld stop all hunter from exercing their passion. you dont ban fork beccause 3 guy a year use them to kill people.




And all I was saying is that I completely disagree.



fine then! i disagree with you too :D


regulated

I understand that English isn't your first language. English is my language and I still flub it often. Now to the point - Do you take sleeping pills before you come onto this forum to type? Your logic is.. off. Way off.


stop insulting me, i understand we disagree on that issue but its completly unecessary to insult me, back off you tofu eater.





Humans have lived through ages of over consumption and excess and are now starting to realize that they can't live like this any more -

Even if its fun



hunting is necessary in certain place to regulate the ecosystem, for exemple where i live they are putting incentives to hunt a particular bird during the autumn and spring, mainly beccause they are too much and are slowly destroying the ecosystem beccause they dont have any predator beside us, the types of species that can be hunted depend a lot on this critera, and if for some ramdom reason the deer become more rare quota permitted are being decreased.

we are a part of the ecosystem, no matter of you like it or not our role od dominant predator is really important.

[danyboy27]

I think we are all evil for eating animals. Including myself.

We dont eat humans because modern philosophy tells us it is wrong. Eating animals and humans is both the same when it comes to morals. Both life-forms suffer and feel pain just the same.

You wouldent shoot a child in the head due to you beleving it was wrong taking an innocent life. Yet you'd be happy shoot an innocent animal because society tells you its ok.

we dont eat human beccause our social awareness is highly developed, and most people dont eat dolphin or whales beccause of that verry reason too.

of course there is exception, some people east whales, but some people eat human too.

beside humans, whales and dolphin are also having sex just for the sake of it, outside of the whole reproductive objective, it just show how evolued they are.

[Bud Struggle]

I think we are all evil for eating animals. Including myself. Persona opinion. Nice and all, but it counts for nothing in the long run.


We dont eat humans because modern philosophy tells us it is wrong. Eating animals and humans is both the same when it comes to morals. Both life-forms suffer and feel pain just the same. No offense, but eating another human isn't the same as eating a chicken. You are over the top here.


You wouldent shoot a child in the head due to you beleving it was wrong taking an innocent life. Yet you'd be happy shoot an innocent animal because society tells you its ok. I eat chicken becase my stomich tell me it's OK--not society. Animals are fluffy and all of that--but they aren't in the human club.


If humans should have the right to hunt animals for whatever they want, they should also have the right to hunt humans for whatever they want. PM me your address--I'll be righ over with my blunderbuss.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think we are all evil for eating animals. Including myself.

Really? I don't think the issue is as cut and dried as you seem to think. For starters, what definition of "animal" are you using? If it's the scientific definition, then committing "evil" is pretty much unavoidable for every human on the planet, since "animal" in this case means a multicellular organism, usually mobile, the cells of which are not encased within a rigid cell wall (as in plants and fungi) and which derives its energy from other organisms, distinguishing it from autotrophs such as plants. Which kind of renders the word "evil" meaningless.


We dont eat humans because modern philosophy tells us it is wrong.I'm pretty sure that cannibalism was far from a universal feature of pre-modern societies as well.


Eating animals and humans is both the same when it comes to morals.Wrong. In most cultures it is perfectly acceptable to eat animals, whereas cannibalism only happens in dire circumstances, or much more rarely, as a ritualistic practice.


Both life-forms suffer and feel pain just the same.Wrong again. The suffering of a cow cannot be compared to the suffering of a human being


You wouldent shoot a child in the head due to you beleving it was wrong taking an innocent life. Yet you'd be happy shoot an innocent animal because society tells you its ok.That's because humans, including vulnerable individuals such as children, have a much greater value to human society (as well as human individuals) than animals do.


If humans should have the right to hunt animals for whatever they want, they should also have the right to hunt humans for whatever they want.Animals cannot participate in human society, therefore they cannot have "rights" in the commonly understood sense of the term.

[Phalanx]

Humans have lived through ages of over consumption and excess and are now starting to realize that they can't live like this any more -

Even if its fun.

Governments for the most part nowadays regulate hunting in a way that most species populations aren't threatened. There's plenty of other ways we live to excess, eg. eating beef from factory farms and wanton consumerism. Personally I think hunting is one of the most responsible ways for one to get meat, and yes, when you see a big buck, it's fun as hell. But that's just a normal biological reaction when you realize that humans have been hunting far longer than they've been worrying about how cute that fawn might be.

[MikeSC]

Wrong again. The suffering of a cow cannot be compared to the suffering of a human beingHow come? Animals have pain receptors and so on.

I'm not interested in getting into a huge debate, though I share the idea that we shouldn't be inflicting pain on weaker things when it's not necessary, whether it's as bad as doing it to a human is not relevant. But this isn't really a discussion for us- if communism is ever realized, then this is a solvable issue. Those people in the future will be as alien to us as we are to feudal peasants, just because people have been socialised into thinking it's completely fine to kill things doesn't mean it will be that way forever.

No point in getting into a huge argument, all of us here will be worm-food by then.

[Ele'ill]

you obviously dont know shit about hunting.

I know obviously!


:rolleyes:


Forest guard are arresting people every year for various infraction, ranging from unthorized hunting to the use of illegal weapon for the purpose for hunting. and by hunting i mean the real hunt that is happening in the wood,

Its for the same reason that sometimes cops let you go through a stop sign and sometimes they don't. Money via fines.

Its not the semantics of hunting. Its hunting and mass hunting of certain species to the point of extinction.






not that barbarian stupid and lame organized hunting for tourist in an open field with a half drugged animal in the middle.

I am surprised that you acknowledged its existence.


its not beccause a fews idiots are doing illegaL hunt for profit that we shopuld stop all hunter from exercing their passion. you dont ban fork beccause 3 guy a year use them to kill people.

A few. :lol:
Sometimes it takes a revolutionary mind to see into the future or look into the past and realize that a group of people's passions may not be ethical or necessary.




stop insulting me, i understand we disagree on that issue but its completly unecessary to insult me, back off you tofu eater.

Diphenhydramine.






hunting is necessary in certain place to regulate the ecosystem

Fail.

Why would a self sustained ecosystem need intervention?

I'll answer for you- Because humans have previously done something to fuck it up. Mainly hunt wolves or other predators out of that particular geographical location so there's a sudden boom in the population of other species- Coupled with the increasing presence of urban sprawl encroaching in on previously untouched habitat.

This said- I am not denying that there is a deer overpopulation due to human meddling.













we are a part of the ecosystem, no matter of you like it or not our role od dominant predator is really important.

But we're not a dominant predator.

[Bud Struggle]

But we're not a dominant predator.

Doo do do do
Doo do do do

Watch the sign post up ahead--we're entering the

TWILIGHT ZONE!:w00t:

[Ele'ill]

Doo do do do
Doo do do do

Watch the sign post up ahead--we're entering the

TWILIGHT ZONE!:w00t:

Viruses and bacteria kill more organisms than we do but they're not considered to be a top predator either.

Why do you think this is?

[Bud Struggle]

Viruses and bacteria kill more organisms than we do but they're not considered to be a top predator either.

Why do you think this is?

Human beings are predators.

[Ele'ill]

Human beings are predators.

Then so are viruses.

Yes, I know we're predators. I don't think we're a top predator. Mainly because we don't try. It no longer interests us.

[ArrowLance]

While I am against the killing of animals for food or sport. I am not willing to remove the liberty to do this. However, I am against the raising of animals on large farms for the sake of slaughter. It is a waste of grain, and the animals are often mistreated. I can not see how the grain could be used in such a manner while people are still hungry in other areas.

[fiddlesticks]

Viruses and bacteria kill more organisms than we do but they're not considered to be a top predator either.

Why do you think this is?


I consider them to be predators, as are all animals. Even herbivores, because plants die in order to feed them, correct?

Creatures prey on eachother, this is just the nature of existence.

[Mindtoaster]

While I am against the killing of animals for food or sport. I am not willing to remove the liberty to do this. However, I am against the raising of animals on large farms for the sake of slaughter. It is a waste of grain, and the animals are often mistreated. I can not see how the grain could be used in such a manner while people are still hungry in other areas.

Its not wasting grain.

We have way more then enough food to feed the entire world, it just isn't distributed.

[Phalanx]

No, it's not a waste of grain, because livestock feed is usually inedible to humans, but the cattle industry has done untold damage to the worldwide ecosystem. It's the main reason the Amazon is disappearing and why land in the western US has been ravaged. Because ranchers need more and more land for grazing, that leaves less and less for wildlife to thrive in.

Ecologically speaking, it would be best if we were all vegetarians, or at least hunted responsibly. Providing beef to 6.5 billion people is absolutely unsustainable.

[Communist Theory]

I am Native American and Bear Clan which means I'm not supposed to kill or eat bears.
But I have done both.
Should I be restricted?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Here is a question. Let's ignore hunting. Many vegetarians, myself included, hold oppositions to medical testing on animals.

Can someone defend medical testing on animals as legitimate while maintaining that medical testing on humans is illegitimate? I don't see how it can be done.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Here is a question. Let's ignore hunting. Many vegetarians, myself included, hold oppositions to medical testing on animals.

Can someone defend medical testing on animals as legitimate while maintaining that medical testing on humans is illegitimate? I don't see how it can be done.

We perform medical testing on humans, it's just that the testing has to meet different ethical standards.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

We perform medical testing on humans, it's just that the testing has to meet different ethical standards.

Yes, but I don't see why. If animals do feel pain, they get some sort of consideration, generally.

Let's assume causing harm to animals can be legitimate. What makes certain ethical standards we have for humans legitimate? What makes them legitimate only for humans?

Why can I do a test to see the response to isolation and electric shock treatment for cancer, say, on a mouse but not a human? The humans are the target of the treatment. It will be more beneficial to do it to humans, and they could be randomly selected so it wouldn't be "unfair."

I can see how we might justify doing harm to animals. I can also see how we might argue against it. I can't see how we can pick either choice and make a distinction that gives humans special treatment.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why can I do a test to see the response to isolation and electric shock treatment for cancer, say, on a mouse but not a human? The humans are the target of the treatment. It will be more beneficial to do it to humans, and they could be randomly selected so it wouldn't be "unfair."

Because the mouse has no agency worth speaking of. Humans tend to do more than simply get upset if you perform experiments on them without their consent.


I can see how we might justify doing harm to animals. I can also see how we might argue against it. I can't see how we can pick either choice and make a distinction that gives humans special treatment.How about, "what's good for my species is good for me"?

[danyboy27]

I know obviously!

nice





Its for the same reason that sometimes cops let you go through a stop sign and sometimes they don't. Money via fines.

Its not the semantics of hunting. Its hunting and mass hunting of certain species to the point of extinction.



Hunter will generally say that they agree with that concept. nobody benefit from the inxtinction or total extermination of a species.






I am surprised that you acknowledged its existence.
.
tanks for insinuating i am an ignorant fuck. hope your trip to imaginationland was fun





Diphenhydramine.



I
Fail.

Why would a self sustained ecosystem need intervention?

I'll answer for you- Because humans have previously done something to fuck it up. Mainly hunt wolves or other predators out of that particular geographical location so there's a sudden boom in the population of other species- Coupled with the increasing presence of urban sprawl encroaching in on previously untouched habitat.

This said- I am not denying that there is a deer overpopulation due to human meddling.



of course the ecosystem is fucked up by our presence! but that not a reason to stop trying to regulate it in order to avoid further inxtinctions!

did i mentionned that the kangoroo population is fucking up australia ecosystem? i know you probably find those little bugger cute but if we let them continue eating all the fucking flora a lot of species gonna die.

and wtf are you talking about? we are the dominant specie in the whole food chain! name me something that is over us, beside a fews mortal bacteria, viruses, mythics creatures like vampires, aliens, Unicorn, dragon and dinausaurs

[MikeSC]

and wtf are you talking about? we are the dominant specie in the whole food chain! name me something that is over us, beside a fews mortal bacteria, viruses, mythics creatures like vampires, aliens, Unicorn, dragon and dinausaurs

I think the point is that humans don't have to be restrained within any kind of food chain. If we're in it, we're in it where we want to be not where we need to be.

[Ele'ill]

nice

:laugh:






tanks for insinuating i am an ignorant fuck. hope your trip to imaginationland was fun

I was ribbing you because you are very strong on your opinions. It was more of a compliment.





of course the ecosystem is fucked up by our presence! but that not a reason to stop trying to regulate it in order to avoid further inxtinctions!

Its fucked up because we've fucked it up. And every time we meddle with it and try to 'fix it' its with the incentive that there will be some form of economic gain from doing so- and thus we fuck it up even harder than the last time.

We're not REALLY trying to fix it.


did i mentionned that the kangoroo population is fucking up australia ecosystem? i know you probably find those little bugger cute but if we let them continue eating all the fucking flora a lot of species gonna die.

No, I hate the fuckers. I think they are hideous.

Sure there are certain organizations that are doing things right. They're few and far between.


and wtf are you talking about? we are the dominant specie in the whole food chain! name me something that is over us, beside a fews mortal bacteria, viruses, mythics creatures like vampires, aliens, Unicorn, dragon and dinausaurs

*Edit: Unicorns aren't mythic. They exist.

The argument wasn't that we weren't the dominant species in the food chain.

It was that we are a 'top predator'.

[danyboy27]

i think we are a dominant predator, its true we are omnivorous and we basicly eat anything we can grab, but we are predator of certain species.

sparrow are predator, they eat mosquitoes and worms, they are cute and all that, but they still predator of that species.


ants are predator too :D

lets take a look at wikipedia :D

In ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecology), predation describes a biological interaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_interaction) where a predator (an organism that is hunting) feeds on its prey, the organism that is attacked.

lets see the benefit of predation:
Predators may increase the biodiversity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity) of communities by preventing a single species from becoming dominant. Such predators are known as keystone species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species) and may have a profound influence on the balance of organisms in a particular ecosystem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem).

basicly, that why i support hunting.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Because the mouse has no agency worth speaking of. Humans tend to do more than simply get upset if you perform experiments on them without their consent.

How about, "what's good for my species is good for me"?

The "what's good for my species is good for me" makes sense. However, it seems like it would also justify slavery so-long as that slavery was sustainable. I'd like to think that the reason slavery is seen as unethical isn't simply that other races utilized political power to enforce their moral viewpoint on us. I'd like to think there is actually something wrong with slavery.

I just don't see how arbitrary generalizations based on what "category" one is in can be seen justified.

Perhaps you are saying that if I could sustain a society where everyone of my hair color gets advantages, an unequal society, I should do it? I'd like to reject this kind of hard-line ethical egoism, though.

If you are operating from the kind of self-interested perspective I've just mentioned, I'm arguing in the wrong way. I assumed you though that the rightness or wrongness of actions was determined by something other than simple self-interest. If this is not the case, I'm not sure I don't agree with you. I was operating under the assumption that there was some sort of universal rightness or wrongness of killing animals - or doing anything.

If you are assuming a sort of subjective ethical code, or objective, it doesn't matter, I can't understand how anything but Randian-style egoism can avoid the logical inconsistency in eating meat.

You may have a legitimate way to avoid this problem within the framework of morality or ethics existing. However, I either continue to miss the point or it is something that is subjectively different between us or you've yet to communicate.

[redSHARP]

i support hunting as long as you use the meat and skin and other parts; not as a "trophy".

i would like to see how the native American northeast tribes used all of the deer carcass. apparently they could use up to 90% of the carcass, or so i heard.

[danyboy27]

i support hunting as long as you use the meat and skin and other parts; not as a "trophy".

i would like to see how the native American northeast tribes used all of the deer carcass. apparently they could use up to 90% of the carcass, or so i heard.

what the difference between having a deer head on your wall and having a necklace made of deer bones?.

i mean, natives used to do that, make beautiful object and weapon with the bones of killed annimals...

[FreeFocus]

what the difference between having a deer head on your wall and having a necklace made of deer bones?.

i mean, natives used to do that, make beautiful object and weapon with the bones of killed annimals...

The difference is that most sport hunters do not actually eat the meat, they merely take a life to stroke their egos.

[SocialPhilosophy]

The difference is that most sport hunters do not actually eat the meat, they merely take a life to stroke their egos.


that is not true. i went on a hunt in Alaska.. two Novembers ago to help feed the local natives who had a hard winter the year before. i had fun, and i suported a good cause (and got a nice trophy :D)

[Bud Struggle]

The difference is that most sport hunters do not actually eat the meat, they merely take a life to stroke their egos.

But that is the hunter's personal freedom to do so. While I do think sport killing with out eating the kill is wrong--a greater wrong would be to take away someone's freedom to do what he wants.

[SocialPhilosophy]

But that is the hunter's personal freedom to do so. While I do think sport killing with out eating the kill is wrong--a greater wrong would be to take away someone's freedom to do what he wants.


but when do you draw the line between freedom and actually harming someones life indirectly? as in, hunting something to extinction.

[Bud Struggle]

but when do you draw the line between freedom and actually harming someones life indirectly? as in, hunting something to extinction.

I think society is capable of making a good distinction. Certainly hunting cheetah's shouldn't be allowed because cheetah's are a common resource and enjoyment for all humanity and there are relatively few left on earth. On the other hand deer are common and plentiful and actually need to be thinned out (as they once were by their now largely missing natural predators) and should be hunted to prevent starvation and illness in the herds.

[SocialPhilosophy]

I think society is capable of making a good distinction. Certainly hunting cheetah's shouldn't be allowed because cheetah's are a common resource and enjoyment for all humanity and there are relatively few left on earth. On the other hand deer are common and plentiful and actually need to be thinned out (as they once were by their now largely missing natural predators) and should be hunted to prevent starvation and illness in the herds.

well what if whitetail sport hunters go out and kill off all the deer of good genes that grow to be fat and strong, decent crop willing?

Do you know what happened to the deer population in America during the depression? the deep population was down to a scant three hundred thousand. mostly due to over hunting by people just trying to survive. now, numbers range into the 30 million. by setting some regulations, and conserving the population, the deer are better able to cope with hunting, and we as humans have more food. slight curtailing of freedoms in this case, benefit more people.