Hunting?

[fug]

Do you support hunting, or are you against hunting?
Should hunting be forbidden?

[khad]

Yes, and please eat what you kill.

[Ostrinski]

This thread again.

I say yes, meat tastes good. I don't think you should be personally reprehended from hunting unless, you know, you're killing everything in the god damn community like Honecker.

Even if I think that killing animals for the sake of enjoyment is certainly not my thing, and even a bit disturbing to me, I don't think it's something worthy of legislation.

[Lynx]

Hunting is regulated. What more do you want?

[fug]

I don't really enjoy killing animals, that's not what hunting is all about, I helped deer survive many winters and never shot any in my life. Of course ducks and pheasants are something else...

[The Jay]

I am supportive, just don't kill anything that is self-conscious.

[#FF0000]

I am supportive, just don't kill anything that is self-conscious.

I am pretty sure it was recently ascertained that animals are self-conscious.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hunting is one of the means by which we can draw benefit from the commons of nature. Who would deny people that opportunity, but some kind of twisted authoritarian?

[Catma]

I am pretty sure it was recently ascertained that animals are self-conscious.

It's kind of self evident to anyone who spends any amount of time with different types of animals that they possess a wide variety of capacities for intelligence, both within and across species. A term like "self-conscious" is basically meaningless. If you need it to justify killing animals, whatever.

[#FF0000]

I'm still fine with hunting though. People who hunt for sport are almost uniformly assholes though. If you can afford all the things you need to hunt but then you can almost certainly afford to get your kill processed.

[Catma]

Yes, I don't mind hunting either. I don't respect hunters though until they are using at least a bow, preferably a rock or better yet their bare fists.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, I don't mind hunting either. I don't respect hunters though until they are using at least a bow, preferably a rock or better yet their bare fists.

Good thing a rifle is more useful for hunting than your respect. I don't buy into this macho nonsense that a hunt kill is somehow more "deserved" if it is done with more primitive, dangerous, unreliable means.

If I want to hunt, I'll do it with firearms or failing that, a crossbow. I'm good with long-arms, and skill is vital to a quick and merciful kill.

[#FF0000]

Yes, I don't mind hunting either. I don't respect hunters though until they are using at least a bow, preferably a rock or better yet their bare fists.

I can punch the shit out of a bear let me tell you.

But really I'm actually a little unsure of bow-hunters. Like Noxion said, guns do the job better and, hopefully, without pain.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I can punch the shit out of a bear let me tell you.

But really I'm actually a little unsure of bow-hunters. Like Noxion said, guns do the job better and, hopefully, without pain.

I dunno, I think pistol hunters may be worse. At least a bow can be used at a distance greater than 30-50 metres. Pistol hunting involves getting closer to the target, increasing the chance of spooking it. If it's big game, getting closer makes you a potential Darwin Award candidate.

[Catma]

I suppose a gun does provide a more humane kill than a bow.

Then again I don't understand the point of hunting at all.

[Prometeo liberado]

I can punch the shit out of a bear let me tell you.
I like to talk a lot of shit to sea turtles. I kinda feel they have it comin'.
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4579891834521380&pid=1.7&w=222&h=147&c=7&rs=1

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I like to hunt. Contrary to popular belief, it's extremely rare for someone to go out and wantonly kill everything ... at least in my experience. You're allowed 3 bucks and 3 does per season in Louisiana, but I don't know anybody who actually kills 6 deer in a season. Most people I know that hunt there won't shoot a doe. And, fuck, for one person, a single buck will provide enough deer meat for a year provided you don't eat it every single day. And if you get a hog, too, you can mix the meat and make it last longer (and taste better and make sausage!!).

Hunting for sport is barbaric. Food is totally fine. I don't like taking heart/lung-shots, though. It's too easy to maim the animal and cause it severe pain, and they can run/be in pain for a while before they die if you don't hit the heart dead on. Much rather take a headshot ...


[edit]
I should also mention that regions survey game populations and change hunting regulations based on that and how many hunters they expect to be active. If they decide the deer (or whatever) population is being negatively impacted, they'll reduce the amount you're allowed to take or disallow the hunting of a certain species until the population rebounds (if it's bad enough), or whatever.

[StalinInAScarf]

Hunting is great. Nothing like walking 15 miles in the bush with a pack and shotgun hoping to God you're not hallucinating, and that is indeed a squirrel after many hours of circle jerking about.

Me: 0
Squirrels: 24

Eat what you kill, and I am fine with it.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

humans, like most mammals, hunt naturally.
personally, I think meat-eating is much like mysticism: it occurs naturally, it's understandable (especially when you have nothing else), but it ultimately could and should be shed in a sustainable society of plenty.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

humans, like most mammals, hunt naturally.
personally, I think meat-eating is much like mysticism: it occurs naturally, it's understandable (especially when you have nothing else), but it ultimately could and should be shed in a sustainable society of plenty.
To paraphrase Emma Goldman, "If I can't eat bacon, I don't want to be a part of your revolution"

[cantwealljustgetalong]

well, then. have fun up against the wall.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Keep yr Veganism out of my Marxism. It alienates ordinary people.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

well, then. have fun up against the wall.

Do you have any idea of the considerable authoritarian apparatus that would be necessary to enforce a ban on hunting? And how long before that apparatus gets turned on others? Perhaps those who like wearing leather (like me) or eating home-reared meat.

Where will it end? In tears, most likely.

[Quail]

I think killing things for fun is kind of fucked up so no, I don't "support" hunting. I don't think a ban would be practical as long as people had the means to hunt though.

In the UK fox hunting is banned, but (surprise surprise) it happens anyway because it's only people with money who can afford to participate. Despite the hunters breaking the law, the police are happy to protect them from sabs who try to protect the foxes. Fox hunting is particularly cruel and fuck anyone who would want to do it.

[Comrade #138672]

I'm opposed to hunting for recreation, but when it's out of necessity then so be it. At least respect the ecosystem.

[The Jay]

Keep yr Veganism out of my Marxism. It alienates ordinary people.

I'm Emmanuel Goldstein and I support this message.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Killing something that lives in the wild like a deer or catfish so you can have a nice meal is a lot less fucked up then all the subliminally sadomasochistic, male sexual-entitlement enforcing violence that exists in literally all mass media.

[aty]

I hunt moose! There are a lot of moose here and if you shoot one you get a lot of great meat.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Do you have any idea of the considerable authoritarian apparatus that would be necessary to enforce a ban on hunting?

yes, I do. I like to call it "the dictatorship of the proletariat." it'll probably have more important things to do than taking care of anyone who trots out that tired Goldman quote, however.

but if you're really serious about building about a sustainable economy that won't melt the atmosphere, there's going to have to be a significant cutback on meat consumption.


Keep yr Veganism out of my Marxism. It alienates ordinary people.
unlike atheism, revolutionary violence, advocation of dictatorship, dialectics, abolishing private property, and the withering away of the state. again, it's not going to be instant, but moving away from animal food sources in a big way will certainly be necessary for running the socialist economy. doesn't mean it will end up like Star Trek, but my point stands.

mysticism is the best parallel: in a land of scarcity, it is 100% natural that people would cling to it, mostly out of need. once everyone has something to eat, hunting will seem as foolish and unnecessary as projecting a god onto the sky.

[Thirsty Crow]

Do you support hunting, or are you against hunting?
Should hunting be forbidden?
What's up with this support or ban attitudes?

Why would a society wish to ban hunting? Of course, that doesn't mean that unregulated hunting is to be allowed - but that is an altogether different matter.

Regulated here implies concern for hunting a species to extinction at a given area and a general understanding of the workings of the ecosystem in question (I admit, I'm not expert on the complexities of the effect of huntng on ecosystems).


humans, like most mammals, hunt naturally.
personally, I think meat-eating is much like mysticism: it occurs naturally, it's understandable (especially when you have nothing else), but it ultimately could and should be shed in a sustainable society of plenty.
I think your conclusion is much like mysticism actually.

A sustainable society of plenty implies that meat production has ben reorganized on a world basis in order to conform to the demands of the said mode of production (anyway, society of plenty = communism).

You seem to assume either that: a) meat production cannot be reorganized in such a way or b) that it is inherently, indeed, mystically wrong to eat meat.

b) would make you a moralist since clearly you do not advocate cutting down on meat production and therefore consumption, but a total ban.

So, let me ask you, why would you ban meat production and consumption?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

So, let me ask you, why would you ban meat production and consumption?

uhm, because I wouldn't? I didn't say I'd ban religion either. I think it could and should be phased out; it doesn't follow that I think a ban is a good idea.
damn, for all the flak veggies get about being preachy and sensitive, meat-heads always seem spring-loaded for an argument.

[Thirsty Crow]

uhm, because I wouldn't? I didn't say I'd ban religion either. I think it could and should be phased out; it doesn't follow that I think a ban is a good idea.
damn, for all the flak veggies get about being preachy and sensitive, meat-heads always seem spring-loaded for an argument.
I didn't get my fair bite today ;)

How do you suppose that "phasing out" would happen, especially considering the fact that huting nowadays is most of all a recreational activity?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

it could be shed along with the other cultural artifacts of class society and artificial scarcity. precisely because most hunting is done for recreation, I think it's safe to assume that it is mostly a product of what Brodiga was talking about: the "subliminally sadomasochistic, male sexual-entitlement enforcing violence that exists in literally all mass media." I would extend that to the culture of all class society.

if that can't be tempered and this chauvinist-dominating drive is an unshakable part of 'human nature' or something equally nebulous, then there is no hope for socialism in general.

[canadian_worker]

Hunting for food that you will process and feed your family with is a great experience, I'm not so keen about trophy hunting.

[The Jay]

yes, I do. I like to call it "the dictatorship of the proletariat." it'll probably have more important things to do than taking care of anyone who trots out that tired Goldman quote, however.

but if you're really serious about building about a sustainable economy that won't melt the atmosphere, there's going to have to be a significant cutback on meat consumption.

The DotP wasn't meant to be authoritarian. There are plenty of threads that explain this. Use the search function.


unlike atheism, revolutionary violence, advocation of dictatorship, dialectics, abolishing private property, and the withering away of the state. again, it's not going to be instant, but moving away from animal food sources in a big way will certainly be necessary for running the socialist economy. doesn't mean it will end up like Star Trek, but my point stands.

mysticism is the best parallel: in a land of scarcity, it is 100% natural that people would cling to it, mostly out of need. once everyone has something to eat, hunting will seem as foolish and unnecessary as projecting a god onto the sky.

The only things in that list that are necessary to be a socialist are: the elimination of private property and the elimination of the state. The rest are either specific to a certain type or just add-ons that someone arbitrarily associated with the movement. The rest of the comment requires proof and is just speculation.

[Thirsty Crow]

it could be shed along with the other cultural artifacts of class society and artificial scarcity. precisely because most hunting is done for recreation, I think it's safe to assume that it is mostly a product of what Brodiga was talking about: the "subliminally sadomasochistic, male sexual-entitlement enforcing violence that exists in literally all mass media." I would extend that to the culture of all class society.

if that can't be tempered and this chauvinist-dominating drive is an unshakable part of 'human nature' or something equally nebulous, then there is no hope for socialism in general.
You're evading the question.

I asked how do you suppose that phasing out could happen. I didn't ask, for obvious reasons, whether you think it could happen.

And the manouvre you're making here, lumping all of the culture in capitalism under a very limited and vague notion of a "subliminally sadomasochistic, male sexual-entitlement enforcing violence". I would actually love to see how Angela Carters novels fit into this picture.

Anyway, I've got zero evidence in support of your claim. You can provide some on why should recreational hunting be considered as "subliminally sadomasochistic...." or indeed undesirable, or you can provide a rational explanation of the possibility you acknowledge.

And to suppose that hunting is related to something that poses a grave threat to a revolutionary working class movement is...I don't know, very weird.

But vague assertions won't suffice.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

The DotP wasn't meant to be authoritarian…The only things in that list that are necessary to be a socialist are: the elimination of private property and the elimination of the state. The rest are either specific to a certain type or just add-ons that someone arbitrarily associated with the movement.

ah, the anarchist/Leninist argument. when you examine the Paris Commune, the 1848 uprisings, the betrayal of the Second International, the revolutionary success of the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution, the ruthless crushing of every anarchist movement ever by better-organized forces, and the imperialist overthrow of Allende, that violence and revolutionary dictatorship are necessary. "use the search function" on history.

[The Jay]

ah, the anarchist/Leninist argument. when you examine the Paris Commune, the 1848 uprisings, the betrayal of the Second International, the revolutionary success of the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution, the ruthless crushing of every anarchist movement ever by better-organized forces, and the imperialist overthrow of Allende, that violence and revolutionary dictatorship are necessary. "use the search function" on history.

Sure, you can think that. Just don't try to force your "socialism" on me and we'll get along fine.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

But vague assertions won't suffice.

pot to kettle: black



You're evading the question.

I asked how do you suppose that phasing out could happen. I didn't ask, for obvious reasons, whether you think it could happen.


naturally fading out upon material/cultural changes is the only way it could really happen. I don't think prohibition would work. to carry the metaphor further, it's about as likely as mysticism withering away, i.e. not bloody likely.


And the manouvre you're making here, lumping all of the culture in capitalism under a very limited and vague notion of a "subliminally sadomasochistic, male sexual-entitlement enforcing violence". I would actually love to see how Angela Carters novels fit into this picture.

nice reference! personally, I'd like to see how David Foster Wallace and Chuck Klosterman books fit into all of this.


Anyway, I've got zero evidence in support of your claim. You can provide some on why should recreational hunting be considered as "subliminally sadomasochistic...." or indeed undesirable, or you can provide a rational explanation of the possibility you acknowledge.

do I really have to explain why shooting animals for fun (i.e. not for food) is sadomasochistic?



And to suppose that hunting is related to something that poses a grave threat to a revolutionary working class movement is...I don't know, very weird.

it's analogous in this way: it is something that is as close to a human universal that we know of, yet can potentially be overcome given the right conditions. I think that would be a desirable thing, but the chances are slim. that's where the metaphor ends.

alright, I'm done here.

[cynicles]

Meat eating ain't going anywhere, period.

[#FF0000]

I dunno, I think pistol hunters may be worse. At least a bow can be used at a distance greater than 30-50 metres. Pistol hunting involves getting closer to the target, increasing the chance of spooking it. If it's big game, getting closer makes you a potential Darwin Award candidate.

It's not uncommon for a bear hunter to be less than 20 yards from their quarry.

That's what partners with backup rifles are for.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm not OK with people hunting bears. Bears are noble.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Couldn't that also describe communists, though?

[The Jay]

Couldn't that also describe communists, though?

No, machines don't have emotion. We feel glee while doing so.

[Ostrinski]

Move to enact some type of punishment on those who hypothetically espouse violence upon others of this forum. It happens way too much.

[The Jay]

We weren't. I think that you misread.

[Yazman]

MODERATOR ACTION:


godless killing machines

You've been warned for this before, you're lucky it was quite a while ago or else this post would have gotten you an infraction.

Make posts that contribute to the topic in a meaningful way or don't post at all.

"LOL THIS IS A GOOD JOKE OPPORTUNITY" is not contributing. If you just want to post that kind of thing, go to Chit Chat.

This post constitutes a warning to #FF0000.

[smellincoffee]

I've never hunted, but I'd be interested in trying it. Nice and primal, plus I'd get to learn to use the tool that is a rifle.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I've never hunted, but I'd be interested in trying it. Nice and primal, plus I'd get to learn to use the tool that is a rifle.
Go for it!



Don't close the eye you aren't using for the scope. Wear an eyepatch. Closing it strains the other eye. Touch the trigger with the tip of your finger and pull it straight back. Otherwise, you'll pull the gun and throw your shot off. Shoot at the top of your breath, just before you exhale. It's when you're the most still. It's probably best for you to use a bipod in the beginning, or if you aren't strong enough to hold the rifle steady for long periods of time, or you don't have a blind or something to sit in with a shelf that you can rest the rifle on. You'll be out there for hours sometimes, and everybody gets tired. Always try to go for a headshot - a heart/lung shot is likely to just maim the animal and kill it slowly rather than immediately kill it unless you're dead-on. You probably aren't depending on that animal for survival, so you can wait for a headshot. Plus, with a headshot, no meat is destroyed and none of the skin is destroyed, so you can tan it if you want (without sewing a bullet hole closed).



Also, a .22LR is a deadly, underrated round that is extremely accurate under 100 yards. Don't listen to the macho fucktards that use caliber as a dick extension. Get decent rounds, not plinker bulk boxes from Wal-Mart. The CCI Stinger rounds are excellent and high quality. Wal-Mart usually sells these, too. It's illegal to hunt deer with a rimfire .22 (as opposed to a centerfire .22, like an AR-15 round) in most areas, though, so just keep it for squirrel or other small game.


An awesome all-around caliber is the classic .30-06. Honestly, you can find light loads and heavy loads and medium loads for any damn situation. Hornady makes awesome polymer-tip rounds that are flat and only shoot short of the hipster 7-mags and other macho rounds by 20 yards, or something like that. If you learn the caliber, the load, and your gun well, that difference won't matter because you'll be able to compensate. Also, you don't want to try to shoot something at the distances it will actually drop by a significant amount, because like the heart/lung shots, unless you're a fucking Marine sniper, you'll probably maim the animal on accident instead of kill it, or just miss and scare everything away within a mile of you.