Quote:
Quote by: another day  No it's not really about hunting. Once again your just trying to push the message that it's wrong for people to eat meat. But if you are questioning whether hunting or raising and slaughtering farm animals is more humane, there is no debate, hunting is a more humane way of getting meat.
The animals get to live their natural lives in the wild until they get killed by a predator (man)... That's a perfectly natural life for a wild animal..On the other hand you have animals that are raised from birth to death in cramped cages, for the sole purpose of being slaughtered for meat. You honestly don't see how hunting is much more natural and humane?
As for "no animal exists to feed you"... that is ridiculous. Everything exists to nurture everything else. For you to live, something else must die, whether it be a plant or an animal. There is nothing wrong with killing something else to survive. It's the law of nature.
The problem here lies in the perverse detachment from nature that these so-called animal lovers and "nature lovers" have. They have become so detached from nature and so firmly within their human society that they personalize and humanize WILD animals... they see nature not as something they are living in, but as an outside world that you "go to"... the forest for example. They don't live with nature, they live in a world outside it, and see nature as something detached from themselves. They would be the first ones to die in a survival situation because they would be too squeamish and sentimental to kill and eat other animals to survive. It's really a form of neurosis, stemming from the modern man's corrupted mind.
As for your "man is not a natural predator" garbage, it's the same misunderstood version of reality your spewing. Man is a natural predator by the very virtue that we hunt and kill things. There can be no such thing as "unnatural" if it exists in reality.
Our only responsibility is to be prudent in ensuring the future of all species that we hunt, by limiting the numbers killed. I also think we should ban the waste of meat from hunting, so "trophy" hunting would be outlawed.
Could we survive without eating meat? Probably.
But 1.) You would have to outlaw not only hunting, but raising and farming animals, as well as selling or consuming meat. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that would be? A war on drugs times a million.
2.) Why should we? Animals taste good and nurture our bodies with much needed protein, iron and other nutrients. The fact that you liek to attach emotional feelings to wild animals as a result of watching too many Disney movies with talking deer, doesn't mean it's virtuous to reject the way of nature. There is no sentimentality in nature. Lions eat buffalo alive, chewing on their legs and backs while the animal is still completely alive. Sure we should as humans try to make their deaths as painless as possible, but you still haven't presented a case for WHY we should reject eating meat. |
This is not a debate where we are justifying hunting because it is more humane then factory farms. This debate is about hunting, not comparing it to anything else, and not turning it into a vegetarian debate.
By saying that 'no animal exsists to feed you' means that it may end up on your dinner plate, sure, but its life purpose is NOT to feed you.
I am an animal lover, I do not live in the suburbs or the city, I live in the woods. I live with nature, I watch it and live with it every day. I realize that an animal isn't replaceable, that it has its own personality. I don't have a corrupted mind at all, I learn from the real animals, not from the Disney ones
This is not a debate about why people should reject eating meat, if you want me to go into I can, but not in this thread. This thread is about hunting.
Quote:
Quote by: The Bacon Guy So again we go from "hunters" to "most hunters".
And like I said, if we want to curb the deer population, killing off the larger bucks who are likely to mate more wouldn't be a bad idea.
And it will only happen if we go to the trouble of introducing, monitoring and protecting the predator species in question. Why bother with all that when we can have fun killing the deer ourselves?
If that's the case, then we're obviously not killing enough of them...the deer, that is; not the people.
Only if society progresses towards your own particular concept of civilization. I see no reason to believe that it will.
An ecological definition would be the point at which the population of an organism exceeds its habitat's ability to provide sufficient resources. Another definition would be the point at which the population of an organism is large enough for it to cause problems to humans. Either definition is acceptable to me. |
Well, hunters here go after the biggest ones, sorry to assume other hunters do accross the country.
It will progress that way...it is just a matter of time. Past history shows you that. 100 years ago there would be very few of me, now there are many more. Look at the difference between how we treat dogs now and how we did 50 years ago. Look at how people are caring about animals enough to donate to SPCAs, hardly ever happened back when. Look at the swing to vegetarinism...becoming much more popular. Look at the animal abuse laws now....and a 100 years ago. The ones in Canada are just being updated now. Less people are hunting now then 100 years ago.
The trend shows you people are becoming more compassionate and caring towards animals.
The population of humans is large enough to cause problems to all other creatures.
Reasons to hunt: Its fun murdering innocent animals, and you get some meat you never needed. It also keeps the popualtions down of deer...yeah right. Better reasons?
Its been said that men that hunt are compensating for something else ....