Hunting Debate

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Anmon Techno that.. that moved me. But seriously people are not just all hard and all soft, some hard hunting bastards who blow an animals brains out, will go to pieces over a little baby and be soft as a teddy bear with them, while others who love soft fluffy animals won't bat an eyelash over aborted babies.

I do not wish to segway into debating abortions but think a better example should have been used.

Those who advocate life would advocate for the life of anything, as much as it is humanly possible.

Unless you have a split personalty like those folks at the mental ward.

The catch 22 is that we are humans and we must eat other life forms or die. So you must kill animals or plants to survive because that is how nature is set up.

The thing is to make the killing as swift as possible so that conscious animals do not suffer at lot in the process. And do not kill things that you can get away with not killing. Humans included of course.

I killed some cockrouches once but they do not really belong here in this environment or our houses, they were designed to live in a topical forest but were transported here by human activity.

Sometimes you must do what you must do. We must make sure we can eat and feed a family. And we have permission to do that by Nature and should not get all self-rightious about those who must do what they must do to survive.

BUT ( always beware of the buts ).

We have an alternative method for hunting in our culture, such as making a killing in the stock market, etc. To close a business deal and to bag a big client ( a big fish ). We go hunting for employment and when in business we often try to capture buyers with our advertising "traps". Money is the "game" that puts the food on the table in our modern world. The other way is primitive and has become nearly obsolete in our citified way of life.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Until there is no stretch of even sorta wilderness on the continent, getting protein from a natural environment is never obselete.

[Anmon]

The sooner we return to a hunter gatherer society the better,.
To hell with civilisation, its just not worth having.
Bring back the hunt!

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Wrong, he studies group behaviors too, like, for example, men that cheat once have a much higher chance of doing it again then men that never cheated. Or that if you go on diets, loose alot of weight, there is a very good chance you'll gain it back. Those are group trends.

But they’re not trends in group behaviours; they’re trends in individual behaviours within a group. In other words, he’s looking at how one particular individual in a group will act based on his particular past actions, rather than looking at how society as a whole will progress based on its past actions.

Quote by: Matt Ok, it is unstustainable because (this is looking at it from a humans prespective....just to be clear): A) Deer hunting in places where the populations have been very high have only been semi-successful, some have not been successful at all

Then feel free to introduce wolves to work alongside the hunters.

Quote by: Matt B) Hunting is slowly going the way of the dodo bird, so in 50 years or so there wont be enough hunters to even attempt keeping the populations down.

Still no proof.

Quote by: Matt Natural predators are better because: A) They were meant to keep deer populations in check

That falsely assumes that there was intent behind the development of wolves.

Quote by: Matt B) They are not being destructive towards wilderness

Hunters aren’t necessarily going to be destructive to the wilderness either.

Quote by: Matt C) (this is from the deer's prespective) They will kill less deer

No. ONE wolf will kill less deer than ONE hunter. A group of wolves sufficient to keep the population of deer under control will kill MORE than a group of hunters sufficient to keep the population of deer under control.

Quote by: Matt D) They go after the weaker or sick deer

Which is why they will have to kill more deer in order to control the population.

Quote by: Matt When they are on their deathbed it wouldn't be the same 'will to live'.

You can’t prove that since, as we’ve already seen, you don’t have access to a deer’s mind.

Quote by: Matt Yes, they are, but in most areas the population of deer isn't overpopulated. When we are talking about hunting deer, I am not only talking about the places they are overpopulated, but also the places they are not overpopulated. If I just stuck to the latter one, my opinion would be easier to prove, though I'm not, because if we are talking about deer, it should be conclusive. Though you are only focussing on the few places they are really overpopulated.

Of course I am. I’m using an example to dispute the argument that all hunting is wrong or unnecessary.

Quote by: Matt No, actually not. When people are trying to keep populations down of certain animals, most times they do big culls all at once and kill many more deer then a wolf pack would probably in a years period. The wolves and cougars (over a couple year period) would get the deer populations back down to better levels, and the deer would not be starving in the places where they are overpopulated. They wouldn't try to get the deer populations down to what 'humans think is good' (which usually means if someone sees two deer on their lawn...its too many), they would get them down to a level which would be healthy for the wolves and cougars and the deer. They would kill less deer. Also, while lying in bed last night I was thinking about something. Are deer really overpopulated...or are they overpopulated because they interfere with us by eating our gardens and walking on the highway? The reason alot of them are starving is because we have taken away alot of their habitat, and with that their food sources. We have given them much less area to forage for food, and that is one of the reasons they are starving in some areas. I agree their populations seem high in some areas, but is it overpopulation?

Yes, because them straying onto human land is an indication that their own habitat is not sufficient for them. Hence, they are overpopulated.

[Anmon]

=Matt;497980] At least we think outside the box and aren't stuck in the 19th century

Better than dreamland.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy But they’re not trends in group behaviours; they’re trends in individual behaviours within a group. In other words, he’s looking at how one particular individual in a group will act based on his particular past actions, rather than looking at how society as a whole will progress based on its past actions. Then feel free to introduce wolves to work alongside the hunters. Still no proof. That falsely assumes that there was intent behind the development of wolves. Hunters aren’t necessarily going to be destructive to the wilderness either. No. ONE wolf will kill less deer than ONE hunter. A group of wolves sufficient to keep the population of deer under control will kill MORE than a group of hunters sufficient to keep the population of deer under control. Which is why they will have to kill more deer in order to control the population. You can’t prove that since, as we’ve already seen, you don’t have access to a deer’s mind. Of course I am. I’m using an example to dispute the argument that all hunting is wrong or unnecessary. Yes, because them straying onto human land is an indication that their own habitat is not sufficient for them. Hence, they are overpopulated.

I disagree, I've watched Dr. Phil many times. He does look at society trends, like, for example, the divorce rate is going up every year. That is a society trend.

The hunters will go kill the wolves, so I can't go just introduce them myelf. Laws have to be put in place so no wolves or cougars can be hunted.

I love how you are quoting half my sentences, and leaving the other half out. What, you cut the other half out because when the two parts of the sentence are together they make sense?

I gave you proof, you seem to look over common sense trends and seem to think people caring about animals will just dissapear....

There was intent behind wolves, and cougars. God made them partly to keep the prey animals in healthy numbers, like deer. Humans were not meant to do that.

No, but they are alot of the times.

Have you even read a word I have said? Wolves and cougars would kill less deer in a years period then hunters would, and they (cougars and wolves) would slowly get the population down to levels where no deer are starving. Humans however would want to get the population down so there are no deer in the parks, on their lawns, ect., and probably push the deer to levels lower then what it was before white man. So humans would kill more deer then natural predators.

The reason deer are overpopulated is because humans have killed most of their natural predators off. The reason deer have more dense populations is because we have started to cram the populations into smaller places with are developement, and the smaller regions cannot support all those deer, therefore some are starving. We caused the entire problem.

Again, I never said all. I don't view hunting in Africa bad if people need the food, for example.

No, that doesn't mean that. They would normally roam in almost every place where we live (they were here first), and when they start wondering where we live for food (eg. lawns), it shows you we have taken over and are encrouching on their turf.

How is hunting necessary when natural predators can be re-introduced? In no way have you proven it's necessary.

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon Better than dreamland.

Better then hickville

[Anmon]

Quote by: Matt Better then hickville

hickville is still better than dreamland flopsey.

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon hickville is still better than dreamland flopsey.

You make me feel better eveytime you post some non-sense. It is such a clear sign to what is truly happenning.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt I disagree, I've watched Dr. Phil many times. He does look at society trends, like, for example, the divorce rate is going up every year. That is a society trend.

But I very much doubt he’s ever said every societal trend will continue indefinitely simply based on it being a trend. The fact that he says past behaviour can be used to predict future behaviour on an individual level and also happens to mention societal trends does not mean that the former observation applies to the latter field of study.

Quote by: Matt I love how you are quoting half my sentences, and leaving the other half out. What, you cut the other half out because when the two parts of the sentence are together they make sense?

If the premise is false, the conclusion is also.

Quote by: Matt I gave you proof, you seem to look over common sense trends and seem to think people caring about animals will just dissapear....

You saying that you believe a trend will continue doesn’t constitute proof that it will.

Quote by: Matt There was intent behind wolves, and cougars. God made them partly to keep the prey animals in healthy numbers, like deer. Humans were not meant to do that.

So your argument is based on religion. That speaks for itself.

Quote by: Matt No, but they are alot of the times.

Then you can pass a law against it. Still no reason to ban hunting itself.

Quote by: Matt Have you even read a word I have said? Wolves and cougars would kill less deer in a years period then hunters would, and they (cougars and wolves) would slowly get the population down to levels where no deer are starving. Humans however would want to get the population down so there are no deer in the parks, on their lawns, ect., and probably push the deer to levels lower then what it was before white man. So humans would kill more deer then natural predators.

If the deer are straying out of their habitat onto ours, then the wolves are clearly not keeping them under control.

Quote by: Matt The reason deer are overpopulated is because humans have killed most of their natural predators off. The reason deer have more dense populations is because we have started to cram the populations into smaller places with are developement, and the smaller regions cannot support all those deer, therefore some are starving. We caused the entire problem.

And we can solve it by keeping the deer population under control.

Quote by: Matt Again, I never said all. I don't view hunting in Africa bad if people need the food, for example.

Your OP asked why hunting in the Western world is necessary.

Quote by: Matt No, that doesn't mean that. They would normally roam in almost every place where we live (they were here first), and when they start wondering where we live for food (eg. lawns), it shows you we have taken over and are encrouching on their turf.

Our property is no longer their habitat; it’s ours. If they destroy our property, we have every right to stop them.

Quote by: Matt How is hunting necessary when natural predators can be re-introduced? In no way have you proven it's necessary.

It’s necessary to keep the deer population under control, and hunting is a perfectly valid way of doing this.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Matt You make me feel better eveytime you post some non-sense. It is such a clear sign to what is truly happenning.

lol whatever flopsey whatever

[Matt W]

Matt & Anmon, drop the personal comments. This is a debate. Do so.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy But I very much doubt he’s ever said every societal trend will continue indefinitely simply based on it being a trend. The fact that he says past behaviour can be used to predict future behaviour on an individual level and also happens to mention societal trends does not mean that the former observation applies to the latter field of study. If the premise is false, the conclusion is also. You saying that you believe a trend will continue doesn’t constitute proof that it will. So your argument is based on religion. That speaks for itself. Then you can pass a law against it. Still no reason to ban hunting itself. If the deer are straying out of their habitat onto ours, then the wolves are clearly not keeping them under control. And we can solve it by keeping the deer population under control. Your OP asked why hunting in the Western world is necessary. Our property is no longer their habitat; it’s ours. If they destroy our property, we have every right to stop them. It’s necessary to keep the deer population under control, and hunting is a perfectly valid way of doing this.

He has never said all trends, but he does comment that most trends that have been happening for a while will continue.

No, the conclusion makes the sentence make sense, and by cutting out half the sentence, I guess you don't want it to make sense so it is easier to comment on.

How is my arguement based on religion? Look at my previous posts. It is based on what is better for nature and the animals.

Do you understand what 'population control' is? If some deer come onto 'our' land, that does not mean the cougars and wolves are not doing a good enough job. It means the deer are just moving about grazing, like they would have before we came here. You can't expect an animal to say "Oh, this is human land, I better go back into the bush".

Deer eating our gardens or walking in the local park does not mean they are overpopulated. So if we re-introduce wolves and cougars, they bring them down to levels where no deer is starving, everything is good, even if they go eat our gardens or walk around in the local park. Since, if you remember, the meaning of the word overpopulated, deer would no longer be technically overpopulated, since they aren't starved.

They don't know it is our property, do they? They would normally roam around across North America, and we are restricting them greatly. So we should not kill them just because they are on 'our' property. Unless you believe deer have the mental capacity we do, then they would know, and it would be then illegal to hunt them.

Hunting may sometimes work at keeping the population down of deer, but it is no way necessary. See dictionary meaning:

being essential, indispensable, or requisite: a necessary part of the motor.

Hunting is not necessary, since I have proven re-introducing natural predators could work too (it may be more money, but it would work).

[Anmon]

Quote by: Matt Hunting is not necessary, since I have proven re-introducing natural predators could work too (it may be more money, but it would work).

Thats not the point Matt, people enjoy hunting, you have no right to stop them, no matter what you think is right or wrong.

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon Thats not the point Matt, people enjoy hunting, you have no right to stop them, no matter what you think is right or wrong.

Yes it is the point. Thats fine if people enjoy it, and I know a law wont get passed in the next year banning hunting. All I'm trying to do is prove it is unnecessary and un-needed. It is basically a 1 on 1 debate now, unless someone else joins in. No one has proven that it is needed, since population control could happen in another manner.

My goal by starting this wasn't trying to ban hunting, it was just proving the point that hunting is not needed.

So unless someone can prove it is necessary and needed, I guess I win.

[Anmon]

you guess wrong.

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon you guess wrong.

Please proove it.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Matt Please proove it.

Prove it?
Millions of people world wide enjoy shooting animals birds etc, for sport or food, thats proof enough.
I win.

[sdbest]

Quote by: Anmon Prove it? Millions of people world wide enjoy shooting animals birds etc, for sport or food, thats proof enough. I win.

You believe that killing for fun is a good thing? Millions of people world wide doing something isn't necessarily a justification for anything. Millions of people believe Vishnu created the world, but that doesn't necessarily mean Vishnu is real or created the world. Ask a Christian.

In my view, killing for enjoyment is a mental illness. Only someone with a psychological disorder could take pleasure in killing.

[Anmon]

Quote by: sdbest You believe that killing for fun is a good thing? Millions of people world wide doing something isn't necessarily a justification for anything. Millions of people believe Vishnu created the world, but that doesn't necessarily mean Vishnu is real or created the world. Ask a Christian. In my view, killing for enjoyment is a mental illness. Only someone with a psychological disorder could take pleasure in killing.

I take any pleasure in killing something thats a pest, or if its for food, I don't hunt for sport, or because I get great pleasure simply from killing.