[online poker player]

Okay,

I will most likely get banned for this post, since I'm guessing at least half the people on this forum are hunters, and the other half probably strongly support it even if they don't do it, but, meh what the heck, here goes regardless...

Here's what has been on my mind, and bothering me for over 12 years now, ever since I was first introduced to rifles when I turned 10 (which I became quite decent at shooting PAPER TARGETS with (I got to sharpshooter bar-1 very easily, and probably would have progressed further in the ranks if I hadn't quit shooting when I was 11 when I went off to junior high, and became more interested in playing sports and video games with my junior high school friends, and quit going to the range every saturday to shoot)).

Hunting.

Well... not just any old hunting...

Hunting SMART animals. I am talking about animals that are basically as intelligent and emotional as your pet cat or dog.

For example: This is how I evaluate the "ethics" or "morals" of slaying animals:

I weigh the benefit to myself of the animal dying against what the animal that is about to die is going to lose when it dies.

Here are a couple of examples:

Let's say I see a black widow crawling around my bedroom.

Here is how I will determine if it is "okay" to kill it:

1. I weigh the benefit that I gain by smashing it with my shoe:

The benefit is

a) I don't have to spend like 5 minutes trying to figure out how to get a sheet of cardboard and a plastic cup and trap it and take it outside without killing it and set it free, which wastes 5 minutes of my life (time which is valuable to me, since I only have about a 60-80 year lifespan, and as a highly intelligent animal, relatively speaking, 5 minutes is actually "worth something" to me, in my opinion.

b) I don't have to get bitten by the damned thing.

2. What does the spider lose upon it's death?

Well, it's life, obviously. But let's examine further. Is a black widow spider's life worth a lot? Actually, from a medical/phsychological/physiolical analysis, no, it's life is basically worth nothing. The reason is simple:

The spider has no emotions, or self awareness. It is never sad, and it is never happy, and it doesn't even understand the concept of being alive, or that it will die, or anything like that. It is completely oblivious to life, and has no capability to enjoy life in any way shape or form. It basically just has DNA that has it where, when it develops into a fully grown spider, it has the capability to keep itself alive long enough to reproduce, given it's typical living habitat, but nothing else. It doesn't have any fun in life or enjoy life in any way shape or form at all. So killing it really doesn't mean anything. It's like stepped on a crumpled soda can. It is meaningless. It isn't "bad" as far as I'm concerned.

end result: The spider dies. It loses nothing, as it's life is totally worthless, and I gain 5 minutes of extra free time for my limited lifespan to do with as I please, and the satisfaction of knowing I won't get a big painful spider bite when I go to sleep.


or another example:

Let's say I go fishing...

Fish are extraordinarily stupid animals. They can be fairly large in size, but don't let this fool you. They are EXTREMELY dumb. Although not QUITE as stupid as insects, they are NEARLY as dumb, and again, they do not have the capacity to enjoy life in any way. They do not have emotions or have any grasp of the concept of loss of family members, or sentimental value, or anything like that. They are never happy, never sad, they don't enjoy life. When they die, they die, and they don't really lose anything, because, as with the spider, life is basically worthless for them, as they are not able to enjoy it at all, due to not having enough brainpower.

So....

Should I go fishing?

Well, if I want to eat some fish, then sure, since;

a) I BENEFIT in that I get to eat yummy fish for dinner without having to waste my money buyin fish from the supermarket.

b) The fish does not "lose" anything, because it's life is completely worhtless, since it can't enjoy it.

So end result on the ethics/morals scale works out to:

end result: The fish get's caught and eaten for dinner.



But now let's take a different example:

Let's say you go bear hunting.

Bears are smart. They have emotions. They get happy. They get sad. They have fun in life. They have family bonds with their offspring. They have a solid grasp of life, and emotions, and have just as much ability to enjoy life as your pet dog or cat.

So now let's say you go out hunting, and you blow some bear's brains out.

Worse yet, let's say you don't even plan on eating it. You just want to sit behind it and have your photo taken with you holding the dead bear's head propped up on your knee to frame and put on your wall or something.

I don't understand how this can be thought of as "ok."

To me, this isn't really different than if you took a dog out into the wild, and let it run around in the grass, and then busted out the old hunting rifle and blew it away. I mean... wth?



And let's look further passed that even:

Let's take an even more complex argument, dealing with hunting, and analyze it:

Let's examine hunting, where you aren't just trophy hunting, but, instead have an actual genuine excuse of "I am going to eat it for dinner."

But let's say it is still an intelligent emotional animal, that enjoys life. Like a deer or something. Not a fish, or an insect, where when it dies, it doesn't matter, since it had no emotions, and no ability to enjoy life at all, but rather, an intelligent animal that has fun in life, and enjoys being alive.

Now, you still have the seemingly flawless excuse here to hunt it:

Quite simply, this:

Here is what you would say to me, if I asked you why you hunted deer (which you were going to eat after killing it):

"Do you eat cheeseburgers? Or steak?"

I say: "Yes, I do."

You say: "Well, that meat comes from cows. They are large mammals, most likely capable of basic emotions, and have the ability to have some, even if small, amount of fun and enjoyment and satisfaction out of their lives. But yet you are willing to let them get slaughtered, so that you can eat them. And now I want to eat some deer meat for dinner, and you think this is different? Don't be hypocritical sir."

Now, upon first glance, it would appear that I have been checkmated in this argument, logically speaking, however, let us examine further...

We did overlook one particular little detail, in my opinon:

And that detail isn't the fact that the animal has to die in order for us to eat it for dinner.

No.

The missing detail is the fact that you clearly ENJOY THE ACT OF KILLING THE ANIMAL.

How do I know this? Well, very simple: if you didn't, you would instead just go buy the meat from the store, instead of killing it yourself with a gun. The reason you went out all the way into the woods, spending a bunch of money on gasoline, and ammo, and hunting gear and so forth that more than outcosts the cost of buying the meat at a store vs the "free" meat from your kill is simply that you ENJOY the actual DOING of the kill. You like to point a gun at an intelligent animal, and end it's life, which it, until it died, was enjoying to some extent.

This, I think examined in the brutally honest and logical manner in which I examined it, is pretty messed up. It means you actually ENJOY ending the life of a relatively smart, life-enjoying, emotional animal. I am not so sure this is something to be proud of. Rather, I think when stated like that, it is pretty tough to consider it anything other than quite seriously messed up.

And we can't even use the excuse that you don't enjoy the actual ending of the life of the animal, but rather, you enjoy the other things that go with the shooting of the animal (aiming at a possibly moving target, and having to aim very well and hit it etc, which one could say is the same thing as why I enjoyed target shooting, or bowling, that, simply, aiming is fun!)

However even this excuse fails miserably, due to the fact that you can just go to a moving-sillhouette range and shoot at those, which is the same thing, as far as the actual act of aiming and shooting, as in hunting real animals, or skeet shooting or whatever. There are clearly alternatives that require the same aiming and hand-eye coordination with your hunting rifle, where you don't have to end an intelligent, life-enjoying animal's life.

So in the end, as I said before, we can determine that it really is simply that as a hunter, if you are shooting big game, you genuinely enjoy the actual act of ending an intelligent, emotional animal's life. An animal that was having fun and enjoying it's life. You liked the actual ACT of ending it's life SO MUCH that you decided to go ahead and do it yourself, rather than let it be done for you, and go pick up the meat at the supermarket, and avoid what SHOULD BE something that is NOT fun (the actual act of ending the animal's life).


Now, I am not attacking anyone here, although I am sure it really does look like I am.

The reason this isn't an attack on any of you guys who are hunters is this:

I think those of you who are hunters, or at the very least, the VAAAST majority of you who are hunters, either:

1. Never really thought about it like this. Just simply never gave any thought to it. You just sorta go out and do it, because your friends do it, and nothing is on TV, and you are bored, and your gun is sitting out in the garage, and you wanna shoot it, and it didn't pop into your head that you could just go shoot at sillhouettes or even moving sill's to get the full effect in terms of the fun of aiming that goes with hunting live animals, so you just go out there and kill a deer, haul it home, cut it up, cook it, and eat it with your family. And not a second thought about it. Thus, I will accept ignorance as a fair excuse here (and I honestly don't mean this in a "mean" or "condescending" way, because I am just about 100.0% sure there are MANY many many things that I PERSONALLY do in MY OWN life that are quite "messed up" just like hunting big game is, that I simply do, not because I want to do messed up stuff, but rather, because I never took the time to REALLY thoroughly think it through and logically analyze what exactly it was I was doing, and why it was messed up.

2. You actually do not enjoy the killing part of hunting. But, either your buddies, or your dad, or brother, or whomever always want to go out hunting with you likes hunting a lot, and you like going out and spending some time together with them, so, you just suck it up, and try to enjoy the whole experience, and although the actual putting the animal to death part you do not enjoy, and actually find to be distrubing and not very cool or fun, you do it anyway, because it is overall worth it to you, given that you got to spend a good day of fun times chatting with your buddy or family member or loved one out in the great outdoors, so it in the end is something you are willing to do, and that's the end of that pretty much.

So no, I am not attacking anyone here, and I actually understand WHY it is that people still go out and hunt big game, and other intelligent animals that clearly do have emotions, and do enjoy their lives, just like your pet cats or dogs or horses.

But, I just wanted to put my analysis out on my stance on the morals and ethics, in my personal opinion, on hunting big game (or animals of similar intelligence), just to give some of you guys something to think about.

I'm not asking any of you not to hunt any more, nor am I saying you guys are "bad people" because you hunt (because of the two big reasons I stated above). I am simply saying, if you analyze it carefully the way I did, I think most people, from an unbiased perspective would have to agree that killing big game or other intelligent animals via hunting, is not something that SHOULD normally be very fun for a normal human being. The ending of an animal of that type's life should not be something that is FUN for you to do. Not when you consider that it is really often no different at all from shooting a dog, or a cat, or a horse to death, in terms of the intelligence of the animal being killed, and how much the said animal enjoyed its life before you killed it.

I have wanted to make this post for quite a while, but I always decided not to, but it's 3:30 am, and what the heck, here it goes, I'll post it now I guess.

I am fully aware that I am about to get yelled at by about 10,000 people in the next few days about this lol. Oh well, I still think if you didn't SKIM this post I made, and actually read the WHOLE THING all the way through, it would be quite tough to argue that I am not correct in my analyses here.

-opp


Edit:

Oh, forgot to mention one last crucial argument:

For those who present the rebuttal that it is actually not the kill itself that you enjoy, but rather, the whole thing about getting out into the outdoors and wildlife, and setting up, and sitting quietly and patiently, and scanning to find the animal, and then waiting for that perfect shot to line up for you and all that, something which can't really be replicated by sillhouette or even mobile sil shooting at the range, you are still overlooking one clear alternative solution:

Photography.

Yes. It sounds ridiculous, but think about it. What if instead of putting a big scope on your hunting rifle, you put it on your camera? This would be EXACTLY the same thing, except, instead of the finish being, as you put it, the kill, which you do not even enjoy, since as you said, this isn't the part of hunting that you enjoy, you instead do not have it end with the intelligent, emotional animal, that enjoy's its life, dying, but rather, the animal lives, and you have a perfect photograph of it to take home with you.

Problem solved?

And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

I think I just won this argument. No?

[dmazur]

I would try very hard to rationalize hunting as a legal, sanctioned form of wildlife population control. Considering that most of the natural predators are gone, game animals can quickly reach levels that exceed available food.

There are many animals, like the nutria, that state officials would love to have accepted as a game animal, so people would spend time reducing their numbers!

I agree that I can't understand trophy hunters. That doesn't mean they're wrong. I just don't think that way. For me it's venison as the goal. Side benefits are time enjoying the outdoors (including freezing my ass off), and the challenge of trying to find a deer and get a decent shot.

I also can't understand anyone who enjoys killing. There are probably a few who do. I don't believe I'm one of them.

I didn't used to understand varmint hunting. It seemed pointless. Then I talked to a rancher who absolutely hated PD's, and what they did to his stock. So, with encouragement, I'm getting into shooting PD's. This is, by the way, excellent practice for deer hunting. (Really good practice if you use the same rifle...)

I would venture to guess that most hunters don't really enjoy the act of killing. If so, it would be a lot easier to shoot neighborhood cats than spend hundreds (or thousands) of dollars on a chance of getting some venison. Also, most hunters I've asked say they enjoy hunting even if they are unsuccessful. So the answer must be something other than simply killing.

So, my reply isn't as long as your smart animal question, but I think I touched on a few of your points. I believe the answer to "Why do we hunt?" is far more complex than "Because we like killing."

Simply put, I believe that is a simplistic view, unfair in its narrowness. If I had your question stuck in my mind, I would examine possible answers more carefully.

[PTK]

I like meat, I like leather, I like fur. What more reason do I need to hunt any legal animal?

I believe the answer to "Why do we hunt?" is far more complex than "Because we like killing."

Indeed it is.

[HK G3]

Where's the tl;dr version?

[CajunBass]

I'm not asking any of you not to hunt any more,

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time reading books online so I did just skim what you wrote. I gather you don't like hunting. In that case, don't hunt. I won't try to make you. You don't try to make me stop.

Deal?

I will add this. If I hunted because I "enjoy" killing, I'd be one really unhappy hunter. :neener:

[Deus Machina]

I think of it this way: if you aren't going to make a thorough use of the animal, or it will prevent harm to you, you shouldn't kill it.

I kill roaches and spiders without remorse, because they can bring about harmful things. Plus, I hate them with a passion.

Killing a lion and making a rug of it isn't worth it. Killing a deer and eating it and using the hide is, and if you want to mount the head, that's your thing.

I'm not a hunter--I personally don't believe in enjoying the act of killing. Hunting, to me, would be stalking a deer and jumping out of the trees at it with a knife.

But it does help the wildlife, to an extent. Even when the numbers are level, the living animals can live fatter and healthier.

But to feed you and yours, hunting's alright. Hell, I've met people dumb enough that I could morally classify them as a food animal. :D

[online poker player]

Edit:

Oh, forgot to mention one last crucial argument:

For those who present the rebuttal that it is actually not the kill itself that you enjoy, but rather, the whole thing about getting out into the outdoors and wildlife, and setting up, and sitting quietly and patiently, and scanning to find the animal, and then waiting for that perfect shot to line up for you and all that, something which can't really be replicated by sillhouette or even mobile sil shooting at the range, you are still overlooking one clear alternative solution:

Photography.

Yes. It sounds ridiculous, but think about it. What if instead of putting a big scope on your hunting rifle, you put it on your camera? This would be EXACTLY the same thing, except, instead of the finish being, as you put it, the kill, which you do not even enjoy, since as you said, this isn't the part of hunting that you enjoy, you instead do not have it end with the intelligent, emotional animal, that enjoy's its life, dying, but rather, the animal lives, and you have a perfect photograph of it to take home with you.

Problem solved?

And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

I think I just won this argument. No?



K, now I'll go to sleep. It's after 4am lol, even most of the online poker world is snoozing at this hour. Jeez I'm tired I probably should have gone to bed 2 hours ago in retrospect. Woops.

[Eleven Mike]

Do you really expect folks to read all that?

[online poker player]

Actually,

I expect that about 90-95% of the people who enter this thread will NOT in fact "read all that" to be honest.

However, ironically, the 5-10% of the people who DO read all that are probably the only ones who would genuinely take into consideration some of the more noteable points I made (particularly the last thing I mentioned in the "edit" section at the bottom of my post)(regardless of whether it actually changed their minds or not, it would at least give them something potentially fairly thought provoking to ponder about). The 90+% that wouldn't ever consider doing something as obscene as reading a whole 2 pages worth of text probably wouldn't care much to ponder or enjoy any of the things I bring up, or analyze in the posts anyway, so it all works out I guess.

Okay, goodnight for real this time.

[Jorg]

it would be quite tough to argue that I am not correct in my analyses here.
Not really, but it would seem to be fruitless as anyone who wasted that much time with such a rant is likely to be dissuaded by a different opinion.

I think I just won this argument. No?
Nope. Your argument is poorly constructed and based on assumptions that simply aren't true in every case.

[Shung]

hum..... just a question..

What life is more worth it to live ?

Being fenced and fed all day long to grow up quicly, maybe without seeing something else than your hangar, to end up butchered and eaten ?

(like a grown up meat cow)

Or living like a wild animal, and being, at one moment in its life, killed, without knowing when and why it happends... just like it will happend when hunted by another animal..?


(like a hunted deer for example..)

Well.. in my opinion, eating game is 10x times more respectfull for the animals than eating grown up meat cows...

[peyton]

Don't think we are so closed minded that an opposing arguement can be voiced. I was taught how to hunt and I in turn made sure my children had the opportunity. It is not the kill, it is the "whole package" A simple example in this age of computer games and no time to spend with your kids. My wife agreed to let me go deer hunting during Christmas time frame and asked me if any of the kids were invited. I mentioned I was going hunting and who wanted to join me. My daughter who hardly ever gets here head away from the computer said yes. We had a blast!! It rained, we sat around the bunkhouse and played cards with the other hunters and their sons (she was a big hit to say the least). We did not see a deer all week. Time has past yet she still remembers the GREAT Time she had. I will treasure the memories.

[CajunBass]

Photography.

Nope. I do that too. It's not the same. Photography is taking pictures. It has a lot of the same elements of the hunt, but it's not a "hunt." To "hunt" one must have the opportunity to make a kill.

Killing something is not hunting. I could shoot squirrels and even deer off my front deck. That is not hunting. That is killing.

Just as hunting and killing are two different things, so too are hunting and taking pictures.

Just not the same. Sorry.

[Joe Cool]

I don't have the time right now to rebut each part of your post point by point but consider these two practical points:
1. The deer herd in the Northeast needs to be thinned out - just as many will likely starve in the winter. Tags are allotted according to the size of the deer herd. Most hunters enjoy the venison too!
2. The farms that grow the vegetables and food we all eat are happy to have hunters thin out the deer, groundhogs and any other critters that would otherwise impact their crop yields.

Others may have already pointed this out, but photographing them, which is also enjoyable does not address points 1 and 2 above.

[kevindsingleton]

And, he's old enough to vote.

[doubleg]

Animals have the right.........
















To be delicious.

[mainmech48]

I'd ask the OP to explain his reasoning as to how delegating the act of killing an "emotional, intelligent animal" to some unknown third party is more 'moral' than doing it one's self?

IMHO, taking any hypothetical Karmic consequences involved with being an omnivore upon one's self is more honest, moral and ethical than pretending that paying someone else to do it for you somehow negates any personal responsibility in the act of killing for food.

[General Geoff]

Your argument is centered around the difference between emotional critters and not-so-emotional critters.


The only reason that mammals may seem to have more "emotion" than a spider is because they have a far more complex endocrine system and thus display more variance in their behaviour. This should not be confused with genuine emotion, in the way that humans emote. Yes there are parallels (mainly due to the fact that human emotion is rooted in that same endocrine system), but humans display much deeper emotion due to the ability to reason and rationalize, and contemplate one's own (and others') existence.

Do you really think a bear cares about humans? Or any other animal except perhaps for its offspring? When a bear gets hungry, it will not hesitate to kill another animal for food. The only reason bears don't routinely kill people as their food of choice is because they recognize that humans can be a powerful adversary if using tools (our trademark in the food chain heirarchy). They'd rather go after easier prey.

So your argument that hunting and killing mammals is wrong based on the animals' emotion is rather flawed. Domesticated pets only act the way they do because they're, well, domesticated. If you can successfully domesticate a bear, well then fine, I'll concede and say you shouldn't kill that particular bear. But in the wild, it's survival of the fittest. I see no reason why hunting is morally objectionable whatsoever.

[30 cal slob]

this thread is making me hongree.

[fixyurgun]

So it's OK with you if we shoot unintelligent mammals ?

[Bowman140]

Look, I think I speak for many of us when I say that I don't hunt because I like killing. I hunt because I love deer meat, and deer meat tends to be healthier than most meats because of the low fat content. If I enjoyed killing, I would sit on my back porch all day and kill deer, squirls, and rabbits to my hearts content. But I don't, I would rather sit in a deer stand all season for the chance at one or two deer so I can fill my freezers up.

[everallm]

My 2 cents,

Hunt for safety OK
Hunt for eats OK

Hunt for vanity Not OK
Canned Hunts Not OK

[robert garner]

Didn't you watch Jurrasic Park? The T-rex didn't want to be fed , he wanted to hunt. Now I could probably have as much fun hunting sunken treasure ships, but it wouldn't be as rewarding.
robert

[TexasRifleman]

And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

And this is the fundamental flaw.

Where my friend do you think the meat in the market comes from?
You admit that the human body is CLEARLY designed to be fueled by meat so you're out of the vegan game.

There is a connection with Nature, with God, with the Animal when you take your own game in the field and you eat it.

There is much more cruelty in wholesale slaughterhouses, and much less connection to the land and Nature. None at all in fact. The animals there face a much worse death than at my hands in a field somewhere.

What you are missing most is a belief in God and the belief that God put the animals here for our use as food, as clothing, as building materials and that God intended all along for us to use animals in this way.

Without that there are many things you will never understand, hunting is pretty far down the list frankly.

Oh well, I still think if you didn't SKIM this post I made, and actually read the WHOLE THING all the way through, it would be quite tough to argue that I am not correct in my analyses here.


Well, besides being quite arrogant you're completely wrong.

Genesis 1:26 gives me the correct answer:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:30

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

[holepuncher]

I like the OP's writing style. Made for an interesting read.

I do not hunt and really have nothing against those who do. I do however have a problem with calling hunting a sport. Sport is competition. There is no competition in hunting. A hunter may hide himself in a hidden shelter, use decoys and scents to attract their prey and take the animal from 200 yds with a scoped high powered rifle. Odds are highly favorable that the hunter wins the "competition".

[dogmush]

Actually, while it might be [well] thought out, your argument has a lot of holes in it. Including, but not limited to;

*There's no overwhelming evidence that fish don't enjoy life.

*You're projecting your emotions to other people.

*You're a predator (albit not a good one), the fact that you let others do the actual killing doesn't make you less responsable for that death.

*Hunting is about a lot more then the actual killing of the animal.


You make a big deal out of the supposed enjoyment of the act of killing, completley neglecting that for a lot of folks, (or at least me) It's more taking responsbility for myself then anything else. In a couple of ways. First, if need be I can feed me and mine. If the store dissappears tommorrow, I can still get meat. If you think shooting silluettes makes you a hunter, I can only say try it. Those pesky animals can be pretty hard to find. Second, if someone is going to kill for me, I should at least be able to do it myself. By never having killed for food, you don't actually know anything about the morals of doing it.

Speaking only for myself, I am always a little sad when I shoot an animal. Be it a pigeon I'm clearing out of a warehouse, or a moose I'm going to eat. The stalk is challenging, and I enjoy that, but the actual watching the animal die I'm not that fond of. It's needed to continue my life, but it's not actually that much fun.

I would suggest you find someone to take you hunting at least once. You might very well find that there's some thinking you have yet to do on the subject.

[TexasRifleman]

. I do however have a problem with calling hunting a sport.

From the dictionary, several in fact:

"Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. "

"An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature,"

"to amuse oneself with some pleasant pastime or recreation."

So, a thing does not always have to be competitive to be considered sport.

YOU may want to define it that way and that's fine, but the dictionary disagrees with you.

[doc2rn]

Do you grow vegetables in your garden as plants to look at or to eat? Same goes for hunting you shoot it to eat it.
If I want to make a stew and there are 20 squirrels in the back yard you can bet some of them are going in the pot, along with the vegetables they ate from my garden and then some.
Why waste time, gas, and wear-n-tear on my vehicle to do something I can accomplish in my own backyard? Just like the Pope said people are wasting resources by buying preprocessed/ packaged food.

[Shung]

What you are missing most is a belief in God and the belief that God put the animals here for our use as food, as clothing, as building materials and that God intended all along for us to use animals in this way.

I for once believe that "God" should be left aside of that matter (mainly because God doesnt exist, but that is another matter ;) ). There are plenty of better arguments to bring in..

[holepuncher]

"Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. "

"An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature,"

"to amuse oneself with some pleasant pastime or recreation."

So is having sex or reading or knitting or remodeling the kitchen a sport?

[dewage83]

Quit rationalizing the fact that you like hunting. Give him reasons why you should hunt. Everyones on the defensive.

To the OP= I do like your method of reasoning, but like all reason it can be flawed. I did read the whole thing and I actually enjoyed it. (maby because I'm not a hunter) I think you did sound way to condecending to make people actually listen to your points of argument. If your post was more objective you might have had more of a chance. Good post weither I agree with the point or not.

[TexasRifleman]

So is having sex or reading or knitting or remodeling the kitchen a sport?

You arguing with me or the Dictionary? I didn't write the dictionary, I just use it. We communicate in a common language. If we all decide to use our own words with no common agreement as to what they mean there is no such thing as communication so, for now, hunting IS a sport; by definition.

Quit rationalizing the fact that you like hunting. Give him reasons why you should hunt. Everyones on the defensive.

Why? The OP made it very clear he believes himself to be 100% right and offers no dialogue on the subject at all, merely the publishing of his "manifesto". So, everyone else feel free to publish THEIR manifestos on hunting.

The OP made it clear there is to be no debate.

[kevindsingleton]

<Quote>So is having sex or reading or knitting or remodeling the kitchen a sport? </Quote>

Around my place, it certainly is! ;) You do not want to face me in a knit-off!

[jrfoxx]

And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

Maybe where you live, but I cant find rabbit, pheasant, bear, deer, elk, moose, etc at any of the stores here, and to me they taste WAY better than any cow or pig, so no, you are not correct, and have not won the arguement as you state.

I wont bother with any of your other arguments, as I have already shown, IMHO, that what you claim is "truth" may be accurate for some but is no where NEAR universal.

Also, all of what you give seems to be opinion and emotion, not proven scientific fact.I personally feel you are overestimating the emotional capability, intelligence, and general awareness of the animals that you are trying to make out to be so highly developed and near-human like.

But, you are free to think and feel however you wish.doesnt bother me onew bit. you are free to hunt, or not hunt as you please, and are free to decide wha tyou feel its ok to kill and when, and what isnt. If thats how you want to do things, then go for it.whatever works for you is fine by me.You think what you want, and I'll think what I want.You feel what you want, and I will too.you beleive what you want, and I will continue with my beleifs.No problems at all, whatsoever, unless you try to FORCE you feelings, ideas, beliefs, etc on me. thne we have an issue, as I dont presume to do that to otheres, and I expect others to treat me the same. The great thing about America, is we are all free to think, feel, and beleive whatever we want, and as long as we all agrre to agree to disagrre and leave it at that, things are just dandy, and everybody is happy.

ps-the above is not to imply that you are trying to "force" or even "push" your beliefs on me, as I dont beleive you are by the way you wrote the OP, so it's all good for me.

I hunt (or used to, bad knees has pretty much killed it except on RARE occasion) for many reasons, and "just to kill" isnt one of them.

[hacksaw]

LIke someone on this board says in their sig line..
"If we weren't supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be made of meat"
I think an ethically conducted hunt is much more meaningful to the hunterand most of the game animalsare better for you than beef.

Whats not to like?

[MrRezister]

I can't remember every point made by opp off the top of my head, and I don't really want to do a point/counterpoint type of thing anyway, so just to hit the highspots:

1) How do you know that a fish is less intelligent than a deer? The correct answer is "you don't", but you think it is so, thus it is oh-so-easy to justify yanking said fish from his natural habitat, chopping it into bloody pieces and munching away. Claiming any sort of moral highground based upon your perception of intellect and/or emotion is great when it comes to making you feel good about what you do, but that is no basis for condemning the actions of others.

2) A large portion of your argument seems to be based on the idea that it would be worse for me to kill an animal while enjoying the kill than if I did not enjoy it. Why? Isn't the result the same (i.e. animal dead, family fed) regardless of how I feel? Does a lion enjoy stalking, running down, tripping, killing, and eating a gazelle? How do you know? If she did enjoy it, would that make her eeeeevil?

3) Biology teaches me that the human animal should be an omnivore and a predator. As such, it's reasonable to expect that we've spent a long time killing and eating animals that may or may not have been intelligent, and we started doing so long before the firearm was invented. Could we live without munching the meats of various intelligent creatures? Probably. Does that mean that we should? Why? Because some people are queasy at the thought of killing animals who are capable of understanding that they are dying? The fact that you have a brain developed enough to exhibit a conscience doesn't make the food chain go away.

4) Did you know that plants talk to one another (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070614-plants.html)? Just how smart are they? Consider that the next time you order a salad instead of a steak.

[JWarren]

A few interesting posts on this thread.

I'll see if I can express myself my first cup of coffee...


I'll express my own standard for the ethics of hunting from the perspective of being a hunter myself.

First, I make a distinction between act of Hunting and the act of Sportsmenship.

Obviously, there is practically none who are wholely one aspect. I know Sportsmen who are also hunters and vice-versa. I, however, am a hunter.

So what do I mean by this distinction?

To me, a hunter focuses on the end result: taking the game. End of story. The challenge of the hunt is not a primary concern. The taking of a trophy is not a prime concern. Filling a freezer with meat, however, is a prime concern. Population control of the herd is a prime concern.

For me, I know how many animals I will use over the year, and I will hunt until I meet that amount. Typically, I put my rifle away when I hit that number. If I do go back hunting that season, I usually just carry a book and hope that I get a show from my deer stand or just enjoy the peacefulness of the woods.

Over 30 years of hunting, I've only mounted one deer. I mounted him because he was the "Bull of the herd" and my father and I had seen evidence of him for over 5 years before he was taken. As it turns out, he was taken at the end of his prime (based upon jawbone analysis), and it seemed fitting to mount him.

I don't fault hunters that take trophies. After all, both my mother and father have trophy mounts. I just tend to take out the non-trophies and hope that the gene pool of our herds are strengthened by those that I let pass by.

Perhaps one day, trophies will be the norm rather than the exception to the rule on our land due to that action. Who knows.


However, being a "Hunter," I am not concerned with the challenge of the hunt. So no-- I am not going to hide behind a tree and jump out with a knife as someone on this thread suggested. After all, THAT sounds like more suffering for an animal than I am willing to deliver.

As a "Hunter," my primary goal in taking the shot is that the animal can be taken down in the most effecient manner as I can. I don't take "iffy" shots, and I want to be certain that the animal suffers as little as possible in the act. While none can insure or predict the results, I am lucky in that I've not had a deer run in my entire hunting life.

I will use the best and most effective tools to ensure the kill quick and painless. I've no interest in the challenge or what some would call a "Fair Chance."


Second, I concern myself with population management. Unlike many on this thread, I have seen with my eyes deer who have starved to death in a particularly harse Winter. I have seen herds become overcrowded for the territory that they roam. For that reason, our land is part of a State program that analyzes our herds and tells us annually which and how many deer to take from the herd.

For me, I consider a swift, merciful death far more humane than a slow, starving one.


Third, I don't find myself overly aggressive towards "nuisance" animals. If we can co-exist, so be it. My wife is more likely to feed a racoon or possum that starts coming in our yard that I am to shoot it. I do, however, remove anything that would be a treat to my Jack Russell Terriers. That includes a pack of 8-10 coyotes that have been coming in my yard over the last few months. This also includes a multitude of cottonmouth moccasins and quite a few rattlesnakes that I encounter over the warm months.


Forth, many will say that hunting is unneeded because we can buy meat in stores. I consider this a disengenuous arguement. There are plenty of things that those same people CAN do should they choose it. For me, I love venision. I've yet to see any in my local supermarket. If it were in the supermarket, I would likely pay a premium for the meat, and I would still have to wonder about what hormones and such have been injected into the meat.

I see those that criticize hunting and who still eat meat as hypocritical. They want to enjoy the meat, but do not have the stomach to deal with how they got it. I can think of little that is more disturbing to me than the idea of a slaughter house where animals are crowded in and put down with a bolt in their head. And yet, that's how you get your Big Mac. No, those that eat meat while simutaneously criticize hunting are simply emotional cowards who try to not see the blood on their own hands because they let someone else do it for them.

Now, I am not finding fault in non-hunters who eat meat. I AM finding fault in non-hunters who eat meat AND criticize hunting.


Even without my overpowering concern with "Challenge," I consider my taking a game animal out in the woods as a more dignified process. The animal lived its life in its environment and free and by its own terms. It likely lived a full life and spread its genes for future generations. It was not raised in a pen with its only purpose in life to be slaughtered.




Finally, addressing "Enjoying Killing:"

No. I can't say that I enjoy killing. I am not ashamed to say that I shed a few tears over the last deer I killed. And that is not an isolated event. For me, there is no rejoicing and no thrill of the kill. There is just the task of loading, cleaning and processing the meat.

Because of this lack of enjoyment in the taking of the game, I--as I mentioned above-- typically stop hunting when my quota for the year has been reached. I lose my motivation once the need has been filled. Eventually, I plan to get a nice camera to take to my stands when I've reached the quota.


I hope that gives some explaination.


-- John

[BryanP]

And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

I'm not a hunter, but this argument doesn't pass muster. You say you don't like killing animals that "are as smart as your pet cat or dog." If that's the case then buying the meat at the market is just as bad.

[PercyShelley]

Consider this from a worldwide energetics/opportunity costs perspective.

There is only so much surface area on this planet. Barring a few exotic deep-sea vent communities, all life on earth requires sunlight at the very base of the food pyramid. There is a (more or less) fixed amount of sunlight falling upon a fixed amount of space.

Furthermore, there is a (again, more or less, ignoring cometary impact) fixed amount of water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and other chemicals essential to life.

Because there is a finite amount of space, energy and material for life there is also a fixed upper limit on the amount of life that this planet can support. Ipso facto, the existence of one form of life is preventing the existence of another form of life that would otherwise use that energy, space and material.

That is to say; even the strictest vegan is still displacing other animal life.

Consider the food that they do eat; it has to come from somewhere, almost certainly a farm. That farm represents an enormous detriment to any animal life in the immediate vicinity that doesn't happen to eat whatever is being farmed there, and anything that does happen to eat whatever is being farmed there will probably be heavily (read: lethally) discouraged from doing so. Even if you subsist upon wild berries you're still eating food that would have otherwise gone to something else. It is trivial to calculate the exact load; but I'll put it this way; the amount of food it takes to feed one human being could feed a whole lot of endangered songbirds.

Your very existence is quietly, but surely snuffing out the lives of countless animals everywhere, no matter how you cut it. An aversion to killing animals is actually only an aversion to the immediate killing of animals. Why should it matter if you directly hunt them or passively preclude their lives? The end result is the same.

It is no surprise, therefore, that some forms of life directly take the energy and material from other forms of life to sustain their own; there's only so much of that to go around, you've got to get it somehow. Does anyone happen to recall the carbon isotope ratio studies on early hominid skulls? I suspect a non-trivial percentage of our forebearers' daily sustenance came from meat; if not by Olduvai then certainly by Clovis (they didn't make those pretty flint spearpoints just to look at). To hunt with a projectile weapon is ancient human birthright.

[Ed4032]

You must live alone.

[Onmilo]

And have a lot of free time on your hands,,,,,,,,

Go spend some time alone in the deep woods, get together and commune with the bears and the wolves and the coyotes and the cougers.

Those intelligent animals will be happy to remind you that they will eat you in a heartbeat if given the chance.

Wild animals are not your friends and we didn't get to the top of the food chain being meek.
Things die, people eat, simple as that.

[XDKingslayer]

I weigh the benefit to myself of the animal dying against what the animal that is about to die is going to lose when it dies.

Let's take your line of thinking and run with it shall we?

If the hunter kills the animal it's usually quick. It's usually relatively humane. Usually, all the animal is used in one form or another. The hunter also follows laws and bag limits that are designed to maintain a proper, and most important a health population.

If the hunters didn't kill the animals and they were left to their own devices they will overpopulate due to a lack of natural predators. They will then start dieing horrible, slow, painful, inhumane deaths due to disease caused by that very same over-population.

Please take a look at chronic wasting disease in deer as a very good example.

If the hunter kills the deer it loses it's life quickly. If the hunter doesn't kill the deer it still dies but now it suffers. Even in a healthy population an animals natural death is now where near as quick and relatively painless as a hunter's kill. They usually end up starving to death because they are too unhealthy to find food due to old age.

As far as enjoying it? Yes, I do enjoy it. I enjoy hunting. I enjoy fishing. I enjoy every last aspect of either one. I would even say that I enjoy the killing. I enjoy it because I know what that animal faces if I didn't. I enjoy the process of putting food on the table and supporting my family.

[Blakenzy]

I appreciate the OP's view. I think he made some logical points. However, all animals were put here for our use and amusement. Saying that killing an "intelligent" animal is wrong, solely because it has the ability to experience pleasure isn't enough to condemn the act of hunting for the sake of hunting.

Discussing philosophical issues on the net is an exercise in futility...
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/0/00/Internet_argument.png

[Harvster]

The real flaw in your argument comes from the fact that you eat meat. Now, I know you break this down into the act of killing as the enjoyable part. Well maybe some people do enjoy that part. But maybe the guy at the slaughterhouse loves being cruel to the cows (videos have been taken of folks at slaughterhouses abusing the animals) and if you enjoy your burger you are basically helping to cause the suffering and deaths of those delicious bovines. As an example, in the Roman Colosseum the used to watch gladiators kill people, animals eat people, and other fun things. You seem to be like the throngs in attendance there. You are not doing the killing but are enjoying the benefits of others who are. And, they in fact would not be doing it if not for the rest of the people enjoying the show or the hamburgers in our case today. One more example: you and I are buddies and we are walking down the alley. We see an intelligent animal enjoying life and you say "boy I sure would like some of that money in her purse." I say "OK" and shoot her dead and take her purse. As we are splitting up the money the cops walk around the corner. I go on trial for murder. Care to guess what you go on trial for?

[Z71]

Just a human take on hunting.

Human society is warped. We exist in a constantly changing social structure. Hunting for the average person now consists of going to the grocery store or eating at a resturant.

Just remember, if any animal gets hungry enough it will do it's level best to eat something! A homosapian is just another animal.

Society is a human thing, constantly changing. Human values change too. What was normal and proper 100 years ago, may be frowned on today. However, the basic rules of nature never really change.

Homosapians like to think of themselves as "above animals", "above the rules of nature". Not true. Those thougts are a product of the social stucture we have created for ourselves.

A middle ground exists if you choose to take advantage of it. Hunting and fishing is rapidly becoming a lost art as societys "morals" change.

If you think about it, crime is a form of hunting. Criminals being the predators, victims being the prey. Homosapians by nature are preditors. The balance between human society and natures society has gone way out of whack!

I imagine natural selection will sort it out eventually.

[MedWheeler]

I think people try sometimes too much to dissociate humankind from the animal kingdom. We are, in fact, all animals. Our species, by our own definition, has merely "evolved" more with developmental advantages blessed to us by our Creator. However, it is my firm belief that many "animal" instincts and traits remain, despite our best efforts, individually, and as a society, to suppress them. Some do us well, such as developing tools, machines, and infrastructure, and developing a moral code to live by. Others do us poorly, such as aggression and predatism (not sure if that's a word, but you get my point.) The traits we try to suppress include those that have us robbing and raping others; things that are common in most other species in the mammalian world. Suppressing them makes our society easier to live in, but it goes counter to two million years of implanted instinct.
It is our own choice to set standards, such as respect for property of others, the practice of pair-bonding, and age limits for sexual encounters. These are defined by us, not by genetics (some will state: "no, they're defined by God." I submit that our purposeful decision to believe in God still comes from within ourselves, and not by instinct.)
That being said, our hunting practices, loosely put, are comprised of two major components: an animal instinct to dominate (and consume, in most cases) the "lesser" species in which we come in contact, and our developed sense of tool-making, tactics, and industry to go about it in the way we do.

Edit: Z71 posted his entry at the same time, and seems to have said pretty much the same thing..
Oh, and I don't hunt. Not because I have no objections to it. Just never did..

[alex_trebek]

Just because a black widow/fish doesn't express emotion the same way a deer does, does not mean they don't feel the same emotion necessarily. I agree that insects are lower forms of life compared to more complex species, but insects perform very important environmental services (just like almost everything else). So their life is not as worthless as you would believe. That said, I still kill them when I see them in my home.

Deer aren't sentient, like humans are. I think you are anthropomorphizing some of these animals a little too much.

Lets face a fact of life, everything you see around you has an expiration date. In other words, everything and everyone is dying. It is not like the deer would live forever, if a hunter never came around. More than likely a deer would starve, or die slowly from disease, or get hit by a car. Let me pose this question, would you rather be shot through the heart, or starve to death? Given this, how is hunting not mercy, to at least a small degree?

Also you made mention of buying meat at the store. Let me use an analogy here. Do you rely on police/others to protect you because you choose not to spend the time or money to invest in self protection? Personally I choose not to rely on others for my protection, it is something I will help myself with.

Same goes for buying meat, you are not willing to do the job yourself so you ask someone else to. Nothing morally wrong with this really, just don't question those that choose to be more self-reliant.

Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you think animals are killed in a slaughterhouse? While I don't have much experience with slaughterhouses, I would be willing to bet that hunting is much more humane.

Last point, have you ever hunted with a dog? The first thing you notice if you ever hunt with a dog, is the mentality of that animal changes. The dog is now doing what it was born to do, and part of you wonders if it was crime against nature to ever lock the dog up in a house. When hunting with one, you are reliving an inter-species connection that is thousands of years old. I think there is something to be said about this, could just be me though.

[qwert65]

To the OP, I'll go out onb that limb with you and say that most higher mammals have emotions (I've got two years left before I get my DVM)

Your argument is incorrect however, Animals exactly like people do what benefits them-not other species(well we do but we're way smarter/in a position of power) When my dog shows me loyalty and love it is because in his view I am a member of his pack. I encourage you to study wolves-they help each other even in the hard times. It's been well documented that wolves will even bring back food from a kill to injured/old wolves that cannot hunt(if food is plentiful) The wolf does this because they are family and packmates. That same wolf finding an old wolf from a different pack will not hesitate to kill it (and eat it if hungry)

Is this wrong? If the wolf can think and has emotions than he must be held accountable. Is the wolf a murderer? No, he's just trying to survive.

Lets look at domestic dogs there are countless stories of heroism by dogs who had nothing to gain by doing it(sometimes noit even knowing the person) Some of those same dogs will kill other dogs/humans who pose danger to their families. Is this wrong? no the dog is only doing what he thinks is correct ie HIS family is important screw everything else.

Farm animals although bred to be dumber will still care for each other esp. if allowed to go feral. They don't leave grass for other species though why because they are looking out for themselves.

My POINT is this we are all animals and we all want to survive. Humans are the only animals that think ahead(cept for chimps and dolphins) EVERY species will try to survive. the deer and bear will do what they need to do and we do what we need to do. The fact that we have people who do our butchering for us does not change this concept. In fact assuming a good shot the wild animal lived a better life. As has been pointed out if you went to live in the woods and break your leg the wildlife will not hesitate to eat you nor should they as when you get hungery you would eat them. Does that make sense?

[rc109a]

I think that if you try and break down hunting to one reason and use that as justification as to why you hunt, then that just does not work. It is the sum of the entire event that makes it enjoyable. Things like the outdoors, being with friends, the thrill of the hunt, the thrill of the actual kill, the prep of the animal, and the eating. It all adds up. As far as the argument of intelligence or not, all animals posses some forms of intelligence. It does not matter when it comes down to hunting. Heck if dolphins (the mammal not the fish) were found to tast good, then I bet a lot of people would eat them too. If you don't like hunting, then good on you. you made a decision hopefully on your own. If you like to hunt, then the same goes as well. I for one will continue to hunt because I can and I love it.

[Drgong]

Deer actually kill a number of people and do much property damage as they are heavily overpopulated.

Most hunters I find enjoy getting out in the woods with friends more then anything else, that and they enjoy the task of putting food on the table.

I have no problem with people who hunt for food or hunt pest animals (for example, many horse and cow farmers will be more then happy for you to get rid of groundhogs as they are pests for them) Though I never understood hunting for a Trophy*.

*Unless its a african Safari... :evil:

[hso]

Declare victory and withdraw from the field?

You've neglected the point that there are still people that don't lead a comfy suburban existence who actually still hunt to put meat on the table.

[WSM MAGNUM]

Problem solved?

And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

I think I just won this argument. No?


No, you did`nt win the argument. You only reflected emotions that humans feel towards animals. Animals do not have the intelligence like humans do. I don`t care what scientists think or some animal rights activists think.

You say to buy the meat from the meat market. Well, how do you think the meat market got it? Hunters had to kill the animal in order for the meat market to sell it.

Hunting is an important way to stabilize wildlife. It says in the bible that animals were put here for humans to use. It is not the sole purpose, but they were put here for humans to hunt. If you don`t believe me ask someone that knows the bible to look it up for you. I don`t remember what section it was in.

[auschip]

So is having sex or reading or knitting or remodeling the kitchen a sport?

None of those have rules that must be followed. If my wife is knitting a sweater and the pattern says K2P4 and she K4P2 she can't get a ticket. If I remodel my kitchen and decide I want to use 18 different colors of granite, I won't get a fine. If I hunt and break the rules (either state or Fed), I can go to jail, get fined, loose my license, etc.

With regard to the OP, you assume facts not in evidence. You are projecting feelings on the animals that haven't been proven exist. How do you know that these animals are experiencing the feelings you are attributing to them? What makes you sure that the spider you so callously smashed wasn't heading out to the web in the kitchen to hang with some of his buddies and chase a little silky tail, when you judged him as unfeeling? You can't be certain that a bear has feelings of joy, or that a fish has a worthless life. This negates the entire premise of your arguement.

Of course, the biggest hypocrisy in the thread, was that you can still buy the meat in stores. The fact that it is available, and people don't buy it effectively proves you are wrong. Looking at it on a purely economic level, it would be much cheaper to purchase the meat and then sit in front of the computer all day. Instead, people choose to go out and experience everything that comes with hunting.

While you believe this shows that we hunters "Like killing", it would only be true if we killed everything we saw with no regard to quality of animal, age, sex, etc. This however isn't the case. We don't indiscriminately kill each animal we see. In fact, if you talk to hunters regularly, you would note that many if not most are very selective about what they do kill. Slaughterhouses, on the other hand, are not. Therefore, following your logic, you actively support indiscriminate killing, since you purchase meat from the store.

Hyperbole aside, you can see that once we follow your logic completely, we see that it doesn't hold.

[holepuncher]

Whether its sport or not, or to put food on the table or if you can get a ticket for breaking the rules I think its clear that some like the kill immensely. There are clearly many examples of this on this site. I'll bet in the last year you can find 100 or more posts of someone pointing a gun at an animal for the fun of it and killing it for no reason.

[JWarren]

OPP,

I actually did read your entire post-- along with every response on this thread.

Just a couple comments beyond my rebuttal....


I think I just won this argument. No?

Wrong. On many levels. As HSO pointed out, you have chosen to declare yourself victor. Classic arrogance. That clearly shows that you are not interested in trying to re-think your own position. Perhaps you think that you will bring your superior enlightenment to the unthinking masses....

Perhaps you do. But it insinuates that you have a firmly established albeit ignorant position and are seeking to engage us as an effort to sway us to your immovable position.

I don't work well with persons that rapid fire their points AT me and then declare themselves a victor. That manner of arrogance puts you one step away from the distinction of being the first person that I've ever put on my "Ignore List" on THR.


Problem solved?

My friend, I only see ONE person on this thread that seems to have a problem with the topic at hand.




-- John

[JohnBT]

"I think I just won this argument. No?"

No. I'm sorry, but that's just about the funniest bunch of "logic" I've seen in many a year.

I suggest taking an introductory logic class at the local college or community college.

John

[wheelgunslinger]

I like your writing style as well.

As a hunter, I would have to make a couple of points you may have not considered.

Many hunters, including myself, engage in hunting for the spiritual and emotional benefit of engaging in a task that involves their primal self. There is no substitute for it, including using a camera. The stakes are high and the instincts only seem to activate during a genuine experience that can't be had from behind a camera shutter.
Sure, people have a good time in blinds, over bait piles or scents, and overlooking food plots. But, I would argue it's not the same as what I experience with an archery hunt on the ground and slipping into a spot on the food chain.
To make a reference to your own life, it's like the difference between online and real poker. Sure, you can play online, upload a cool avatar, post on boards, make a big haul, and generally rule the virtual roost. But, playing in person, you are immersed in the entirety of the experience.
I can go buy meat in the grocery store, and you can play poker with your mother for chex-mix or to see who does the dishes.

I think that what you are lacking in this argument is the component of life that comes with experience. Doing the quick math, I figure you're about 21 or 22 now.
By 22 years of age, there are men who have fought in wars, done prison time, gotten a PhD, traversed the world, and accomplished various other great things. Experience out there gives you a well rounded perspective and makes the difference between thinking you've got it all figured out and realizing you don't know jack.
If you want to understand life, go play some poker in person and get to know yourself through the people you meet.
You are a sharp young guy and you have too much potential to spend it behind a monitor making fake wins and posting poor arguments.

[armoredman]

I see only one thing - the ultimate goal of Walt Disney, to "humanize" animals with the singing dancing talking animals of his movies, to the point that people actually waste time worrying about the hunted animal's emotions! Also, the OP makes several global statements which easily disprovable, such as buy meat at the market. There are families in the United States who get meat through hunting only, and cannot afford to shop at the "market". Piggly Wiggly is not everywhere. In many other places in the world, this is far more true. To tell these people to "consider the animals' feelings" is pure rubbish. They consider the needs of thier family, and starving your children so you can watch the deer frolic is insane.
I am not a successful hunter, been skunked every time I went, and I do my hunting at the supermarket. I can afford it at this time. I support hunting as both method of providing meat, and as a method of controlling animal populations, as over population can be caused by the removal of many predators from the food chain. It is a highly skilled sport in it's purest form, and a productive one. It is both relaxation, and production of a natural resource.
Protect the singing dancing talking animals all you want - nature is not cuddly cute furry types wanting to be your friend. Nature is tooth and claw, blood and death - how many deer die of old age, do you suppose?

[Bud Tugly]

I went through a slaughterhouse many years ago. I've been to large commercial feed lots for hogs and beef cattle. I've also been through a commercial poultry egg farm where 5 chickens were kept in each tiny cage for their entire lives.

IMO the way we raise most animals for meat is designed for efficiency but treats the animals as if they were a cog in a machine rather than a living entity. The animals have no chance for anything approaching a "normal" life, seldom even see the sun or breathe fresh air, and are totally doomed to their fate.

Compare that to game animals in the wild. They live free, and if they are smart and wily enough they will live out their entire existence as nature intended. I'd rather live as a deer running free than a steer in a feedlot.

We are omnivores and were designed to have meat as part of our diets. IMO eating meat from a supermarket is FAR less ethical than hunting game in the wild.

[pbearperry]

Everyone is not meant to hunt.We are all different.I have hunted whitetail deer for many years.I have only killed one black bear and I did it mainly because while deer hunting it ran into me and scared me so I shot it.I tried eating it and I thought it tasted horrible so I would never shoot another one on purpose.I have shot many deer and I must tell you they all get eaten.Lately,the last few times I have approached the dead deer,I have felt some remorse and there very well may come a time I will drop the gun for a camera.Bye the way,when I shot the bear ,they were also in season and I tagged it.

[JWarren]

pbearperry,

The greatest difference between what you just wrote in post #60 and the Original Post is that it seems that you would be considering an individual and personal decision without attempting to impose that view on others or export value judgements. Nor are you making asinine and flawed arguements to support what would be a personal choice for you.

I can live with that.


-- John

[ImARugerFan]

Longest troll post ever.

[Vibe]

There are lots of things in this world that are "necessary" in order to be successful, or even prepared. Taking the life of another life form is one of those things. I don't particularly like that part of hunting -as in taking pleasure in it. I have learned to like the quest though - the end necessity helps me through some of the more unpleasant parts. Taking game for meat, is good experience for staying alive. Should the situation arise when you HAVE to resort to that method with no other options - being prepared and practiced will definitely help. Being unprepared can be fatal. The "smarter" the game the better the practice for the (hopefully never going to happen) disaster situation when you find yourself as the hunted and it's either you or the other guy.
So if and when the disaster situation arises - who are you going to seek out in order to help you remain alive? The hunter, or the vegetarian photographer who faints at the sight of blood?

[Bud Tugly]

I wouldn't consider the OP a troll. Rather smug and arrogant about his opinions (which I disagree with), but nothing like some trolls I've encountered on other boards.

The universe of gun owners includes hunters, sporting shooters (clay, paper, etc.), self-defense, and collectors. Many of us may fit into all those categories, but others fit into only 1 or 2.

As long as our discussions remain respectful, there certainly should be room for differing opinions.

[Justin]

I stopped reading when you claimed that deer are intelligent.

[32winspl]

I hunt. Why? Must be the whole thing, the woods, the comeraderie, the meat, and probably even at some level, the killing. Deer, rabbits, doves. I've never gotten emotional after killing birds, rabbits, squirrels, but have always teared up after killing a deer.
The last several years, I've hunted less and less. It's not the killing that has begun to keep me from pulling the trigger, it's the certain knowledge that If I take the shot, I'm going to have to gut it. For whatever reason, the older I get, the more that grosses me out. The last 2 years, that thought alone kept me from dropping the hammer. Had a really nice buck shown up these last couple hunts, I'd probably have shot him, but mostly I see and have taken does.
I am all for hunters and hunting. Oddly enough, I'd still like to go on a moose and bison hunt. That'd be a freezer full. Maybe I'm just getting burned-out on deer.

[JWarren]

On second thought, I think you indeed have made my "Ignore List."

From Profile:

What I do for the RKBA and other civil liberties:

Officially, nothing, but I have always been very "pro gun" despite not being a redneck, lol

You really are full of opinions, aren't you?


-- John

[joop]

op:

Here's my rebuttal:
- If you really cared about the animal's welfare, you wouldn't eat meat AT ALL, not even farmed meat.
- Animals in nature die from starvation, predators, and diseases. An old deer dying from a single shot now seems to be more humane rather than starving slowly or being eaten alive, doesn't it?
- Don't forget that humans are also predators, we are not separate from nature, as much as corporations, government, and religion would have you believe.
- And yes, it seems like deer really are overpopulated. I know around Washington the stupid morons at the WDFW were laying out hay for the deer in order to prevent starvation (instead of letting us hunt more!).

[ArmedBear]

That's an awfully long post, all to come to the same conclusion as everyone seems to, if he feels uncomfortable with facing where his meat comes from.

And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

Actually, that's a pretty silly reason not to hunt. Don't hunt if you don't want to, but that's hardly an "argument" for or against anything.

What I came around to, since I bought meat at the market but was unwilling to kill it myself, was that I was a weak-minded individual who wouldn't face the reality of what I was eating.

Now, I face that reality. Is it "fun"? That's not the best word, really.

My dogs seem to think that anything that exercises their primal urges and instincts is "fun". Hunting is about like that. I was less truly human when I was unwilling to hunt -- no other species with hunting in its evolutionary makeup has these "issues" BTW. I got a degree in Ecology, Behavior and Evolution, but for a while I wouldn't face what I learned about nature and myself. It's a common thing, especially among people whose only jungle is made of concrete.

Furthermore, birds and fish are pretty similar in terms of their levels of consciousness (provided you don't hunt African Grey Parrots or something).

So you're just talking about "big game" like deer, elk, buffalo, etc.? How are these animals different from cows? They're really not.

If you want to buy "meat from the store", it isn't because you can somehow justify slaughtering a cow more than a deer, it's because you're too weak to face the reality of your existence as a carnivore. You're happy to live in denial, and to let some poor illegal alien kill your meat for you until he's thrown out into the street because he chopped his arm off. Sounds morally superior to me...:rolleyes:

"Fast Food Nation" made me start hunting. No ****.

[Sergeant Sabre]

And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

What about all of the "intelligent" animals like pigs (smart as dogs, right?) crowded into filthy pens 24/7 their entire life, then herded off to be slaughtered with no chance of escape?
http://www.marlerblog.com/pigFarm01.jpg
http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/pig-slaughter-05.jpg

I'd rather take an "intelligent" animal that lived a natural life in the natural world, and had plenty of opportunity to escape me. I am a predator, they are prey. It's the natural order of things. It has been for hundreds of millions of years and will be for hundreds of millions more.

That said, I eat store-bought meat and I'm very glad that it's available. My point is that the notion that hunting is "wrong" and agriculture is "right" just doesn't jive. You've never read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, have you?

I think I just won this argument. No?

No. I absolutely, unequivocally, unarguably, completely, dominated this argument.

See? I can do it, too.

do however have a problem with calling hunting a sport. Sport is competition

I hate this argument. From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:


Main Entry:
2sport
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century

1 a: a source of diversion : recreation b: sexual play c
(1): physical activity engaged in for pleasure
(2): a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in2 a: pleasantry, jest b: often mean-spirited jesting : mockery, derision3 a: something tossed or driven about in or as if in play b: laughingstock4 a: sportsman b: a person considered with respect to living up to the ideals of sportsmanship <a good sport> <a poor sport> c: a companionable person5: an individual exhibiting a sudden deviation from type beyond the normal limits of individual variation usually as a result of mutation especially of somatic tissue

Nothing in there about competition. The notion of "sport" as two teams competing at a game is very modern. "Sport" is any activity engaged in for recreation. Hunting is a sport. (Off topic: And NASCAR is a sport too, by the definition of the word)

[waverace]

Fairly well written and thought out version of YOUR opinion , we must all realise that this is HIS opinion and thats fine in my book , just as anyone who says that they enjoy hunting has the right to their opinion .
I personally dont like the act of killing , Ive taken several ground squirrells ,rabbits and raccoons and it makes me sad .
I have a chance to go on a coyote hunt at some stage and although it will be fun to go out with my buddies , I'm not sure if I will enjoy the killing part .
I love venison and elk steaks but I also enjoy seeing them alive in the wild , so I probably wont ever go and kill one .
My main concern as far as the animals are concerned is that many hunters are not good shots and quite often wound the animal (pain they can feel) and they die a slow and painfull death on the other hand a well placed shot that drops the animal on the spot I have no problems with.
Something I have considered doing is taking an empty rifle out on the hunt , that way I get the thrill of the hunt , the stalking , the tracking and finally taking a bead on the animal when I then pull the trigger I will know in my own mind IF it would have been a good shot without the chance that it would not have been .
final thought in MY opinion if its legal and the animal is used , a pest or a danger then its fine by me .

[conwict]

You posited your argument fairly well...but...here are the problems with it.

a) You are projecting exclusively human notions onto a process that's millions or billions of years old, the consumption of one life form by another for energy. There IS no moral code in nature. Get that in your head.

b) Where did you get the idea that animals have "emotions" in the same way as humans? Read "Cesar's Way," by dog lover/expert Cesar Milan. He will hammer it into your head that dogs don't have "emotions" or "personalities."

c) Arguably, your "I don't relish the thought of meat animals like cows dying for my sustenance so it's okay" argument is TOTAL BS. Think of it this way. Does it make it ok that someone who murders humans (or orders it, like Hitler perhaps) "Didn't enjoy the thought of killing?" Obviously I've established that animals are not humans, but as a moral argument that one falls stunningly flat.

d) The life of an animal is much more important than the way it dies. Hate to break it to you, but there ain't no hospice in nature. Most animals don't die of old age, or even if they do it's painful and ugly. Thus, both the domesticated cow and the wild deer will die violent deaths at the hands of humans, but which one had a better life? Arguably it is much more moral to kill an animal in the wild for food than to go get one in the grocery store.

[conwict]

The missing detail is the fact that you clearly ENJOY THE ACT OF KILLING THE ANIMAL.

In nature the acts of killing and eating are not divorced. If you enjoy eating, you enjoy killing - you just don't know it.

(deep breath...) One of the reasons hunters enjoy hunting is because it puts them back in the primal cycle of life that doesn't have exigencies like morals or rules (in the usual sense). They enjoy it for the same reason that you enjoy eating a cheeseburger for the most part...they are just (trust me on this) MORE IN TOUCH WITH NATURE...

[mbt2001]

This argument was a waste of time. You cannot say that you made logical points on hunting animals with emotions... WTH difference do emotions make? I also like the way that you can easily justify taking the life of a black widow because you have deemed it's life as worthless. Quick study. Do black widows "defend" themselves by biting? Yes. Then they clearly recognize that they are alive and want to stay that way. Do fish fight to get away from the fisherman? Yes, then again they clearly recognize that they are alive. You certainly cannot say one way or the other what fish think, feel, experience.

Even if animals do have feelings, emotion, et cetera; why should I give a hoot about it? If they do not die so that I can eat, then I will die.

Further to all the other so called points you made, hunting is clearly one of the most natural and demonstrable processes on earth. So Lions can do it, but I cannot do it unless I admit I am a "killer". Ok, then I am. And so are you. We HAVE TO KILL TO EAT. THAT IS THE SYSTEM. HIGH MINDED ARGUMENTS WILL NOT EXTEND OUR RAPIDLY FADING LIVES ESPECIALLY IF WE STARVE TO DEATH MAKING THEM. You are a killer... You drive on roads that were animal habitat, living in a house that was animal habitat, with Orkin coming and killing insects and vermin, eating meat that was killed, eating dead plants........ et cetera et cetera.

Boil it down to the below and try to refute either option one or two, as it applies to you.

1.) if we evolved, and there is no god and so on... Then might makes right, stfu I am higher up on the chain I have a right to do this.

2.) There is a God, we didn't evolve; we were given dominion over the earth; in which case I, likewise have a right to do it.

Edit - There are versions of point 2, but basically they all add up to:

____ scriptures said it was OK and since _____ is God or a God or has the authority to impose obligations in some manner, then we are (at least) free (if not duty bound) to comply with said action and other implied actions.

"conservation" / "responsibility" / "stewarship" arguments; Presume them to apply.

[online poker player]

Well,

I just woke up about 20 minutes ago, and have been reading all the replies that have built up here.

I have to eat breakfast (which will contain some meat by the way, lol, but I'll touch more on that AFTER breakfast when I have the time) so I won't post my replies to the counter-arguments that a lot of you guys put up, until after I eat.

But then I will, because I actually do have answers to a lot of your counter-arguments/counter-questions.

As for my original post, I agree that I should not have put in that little annoying line of "I don't see how I can be wrong here... right?" or whatever it was I said like that near the end, but it was 4am, and I didn't use my best judgement. I agree that that part was out of line.

Anyway, I'm going to eat breakfast, and then I will address some of the counter-arguments that a lot of you guys came up with (a couple of which I will flat out say "YOU ARE CORRECT" about, but many of which I will have my own counter-arguments and alternate opinions on.

Okay brb.....

[Harve Curry]

online poker player ,
Obviously you are a young man, with a potential to be a very good shot by your own testimony. Plus you are a thinker. But you like to sit for hours twidling your thumbs on video games. Writing long winded drivel on a forum you just joined being critical of others, and you choose that way to introduce yourself. I was going to suggest you join the military in hopes of using your shooting skills to help our men over there. Charachter and productivity counts.

[brighamr]

A couple of things for the OP to ponder regarding hunting:

Bears are smart. They have emotions. They get happy. They get sad. They have fun in life. They have family bonds with their offspring. They have a solid grasp of life, and emotions, and have just as much ability to enjoy life as your pet dog or cat.

How many bears have you talked to to confirm this? How exactly does one determine animal emotions?

As for hunting, here's a good example: It's November, and it looks like the winter is going to be pretty dang hard for muley's (herd is too big, and under 4 feet of snow food is hard to find). I can hunt, kill, and eat the muley... or I can let it starve itself to death.

Do muley's have emotions? Would you prefer the muley to be depressed, angry, fatigued and eventually die from lack of food? Or would you prefer for the Muley to live a good life, then be humanely killed before it has to go through pain and suffering?

I'll admit, I'm not about to kill my dog for food. However, ducks, geese, deer, elk, sheep, etc are all fair game.

One other thing to consider: ENJOY THE ACT OF KILLING THE ANIMAL

Have you ever hunted? If not, how can you make this statement? I've hunted several trips without killing anything. I enjoyed my time in the outdoors, living naturally for a week, spending time with family and hearing tales of times past.

When I kill an animal, I do not jump up and down waving my arms with a smile of glee. Instead, I immediately check to make sure the animal is dead (no suffering), then I commense to clean, dress, and pack it to ensure preservation of as much meat as possible. I do enjoy eating the animal, but the actuall "KILL" as you put it, is not necessarily the highlight of my trip.

[Wheeler44]

The only thing I hunt is TROLLS.

[j-easy]

i don't see a deer any different than a cow

[Vern Humphrey]

I think of it this way: if you aren't going to make a thorough use of the animal, or it will prevent harm to you, you shouldn't kill it.
I used to live in Virginia, near PETA headquarters. They published a letter in the paper, claiming that "70% of deer killed by hunters are wasted!" And went on to show the hide, bones, intestines and so on weren't eaten by hunters.

Well, gee. Under those criteria, 100% of deer that die naturally are "wasted."

[Vibe]

They published a letter in the paper, claiming that "70% of deer killed by hunters are wasted!" And went on to show the hide, bones, intestines and so on weren't eaten by hunters.
Same could be said for cattle and pigs and any other animal food source. True, much of the non meat carcass gets processed into other items like leather and animal feedstock. But neither the farmer or the butcher actually EAT it.

[ArmedBear]

I don't eat hides, but I do have one thrown over a couch. It's not wasted, not at all.

[Vern Humphrey]

Ah, but the truth is nothing to be respected by PETA. If it were, they'd be hunters, themselves.

After all, when the dogs and cats they pick up get bothersome, they give 'em a shot and throw the carcasses in the dumpster.

[online poker player]

I will start off first with this one, as it deals with the thing I think I was the most "wrong" about doing/saying:

Quote:
it would be quite tough to argue that I am not correct in my analyses here.

Not really, but it would seem to be fruitless as anyone who wasted that much time with such a rant is likely to be dissuaded by a different opinion.


Quote:
I think I just won this argument. No?

Nope. Your argument is poorly constructed and based on assumptions that simply aren't true in every case.

I definitely agree that I should NOT have written these specific lines in my original post. It was about 4 am, and I had a bit of a lapse in judgement when I wrote the "I'm soooo right about this" type lines. I agree that they were out of line, and do not belong in the post. I appologize (really).



Quote:
Photography.

Nope. I do that too. It's not the same. Photography is taking pictures. It has a lot of the same elements of the hunt, but it's not a "hunt." To "hunt" one must have the opportunity to make a kill.

Killing something is not hunting. I could shoot squirrels and even deer off my front deck. That is not hunting. That is killing.

Just as hunting and killing are two different things, so too are hunting and taking pictures.

Just not the same. Sorry.

I can't say I agree here. I do think that, as far as everything OTHER than the killing of the animal, at the end of a long, drawn out hunting session, loom-lense photography is essentially IDENTICAL. Here is why. You would be doing the same stuff. You put on your outdoor gear. You set up your spot to sit and wait, or if you aren't doing that type of hunting, but rather just quietly wanderind around and looking for stuff, and then lie or kneel down and take aim etc, or use the animal-call devices, or all the stuff you have to do when you hunt, you can and should do ALL of that same stuff for the zoom-lense photography. Then, you point the zoom-lense camera at the animal you are about to "hunt" (or in this case take a picture of), and hell, if it makes it more fun, you can even mount the camera on an unloaded hunting rifle, and rig the camera shutter-pull up with a cord to the trigger of your hunting rifle, so that when you pull the trigger of your gun, this action snaps the photo. And best of all, you can have crosshairs on your zoom-lense, with a small red dot in the middle of the crosshairs, and have it where, when you tok the photo, it will show a little red dot on the animal where you WOULD HAVE shot it, had you been using bullets instead of a camera. So it really does give you all the fun and enjoyment, and everything that goes with the "intangibles" of hunting, if you do it like this, without actually have to go through with the not-fun part of killing and animal that you probably should, as a normal human being, not find "fun" to end the life of.


I can't remember every point made by opp off the top of my head, and I don't really want to do a point/counterpoint type of thing anyway, so just to hit the highspots:

1) How do you know that a fish is less intelligent than a deer? The correct answer is "you don't", but you think it is so, thus it is oh-so-easy to justify yanking said fish from his natural habitat, chopping it into bloody pieces and munching away. Claiming any sort of moral highground based upon your perception of intellect and/or emotion is great when it comes to making you feel good about what you do, but that is no basis for condemning the actions of others.

2) A large portion of your argument seems to be based on the idea that it would be worse for me to kill an animal while enjoying the kill than if I did not enjoy it. Why? Isn't the result the same (i.e. animal dead, family fed) regardless of how I feel? Does a lion enjoy stalking, running down, tripping, killing, and eating a gazelle? How do you know? If she did enjoy it, would that make her eeeeevil?

3) Biology teaches me that the human animal should be an omnivore and a predator. As such, it's reasonable to expect that we've spent a long time killing and eating animals that may or may not have been intelligent, and we started doing so long before the firearm was invented. Could we live without munching the meats of various intelligent creatures? Probably. Does that mean that we should? Why? Because some people are queasy at the thought of killing animals who are capable of understanding that they are dying? The fact that you have a brain developed enough to exhibit a conscience doesn't make the food chain go away.

4) Did you know that plants talk to one another? Just how smart are they? Consider that the next time you order a salad instead of a steak.

1. I don't "know" that a fish is less intelligent, and emotional, than say, a bear, or a dog, or a dolphin, or a human being. Just like I don't "know" that the earth is round, or that the earth orbits the sun, and not the other way around. However, scientifically speaking, much in the same way that, given what we can observe and deduce with our eyes and methods of scientific measurement to determine that the earth in our OPINION is round, and does orbit the sun (even though in reality this could be false. It is possible that every single human being on earth was born with a brain abnormality that causes us to hallucinate, and all the things any of us "see" in our lifetime is just a big hallucination, and in reality we are all just little plant-like things, stuck to the sea floor on some other planet, not even earth, hallucinating about life, meaning all this stuff about earth being round might not even be true, since heck, it might just be a hallucination for all we know. We can't be 100% sure of ANYTHING. We really COULD be inside "The Matrix" for all we know. However, just because we can't be 100.0% sure of anything, we can do the next best thing, and that, in my opinion, is to go with whatever SEEMS TO BE MOST LOGICAL given what we are observing. Sure, we might be in the matrix, and all this stuff is meaningless and moot, but maybe not. Maybe (and in my opinion MOST LIKELY) what we see is really the real deal, and not some hallucination, or matrix. And if this is the case, then I personally do believe, scientifically speaking, based on scientific experiments and observations, yes, mammals with larger more complex and intelligent brains are certainly capable of emotions, some moreso than others (dolphins, or border collies for example are non-human animals that, while not human, and not nearly as intelligent as us, still most definitely, given what we've seen, from a scientific standpoint, have emotions. Quite complex emotions too. They, from a scientific standpoint, really do enjoy aspects of their lives, and not enjoy other aspects of their lives. Their lives aren't just a big joke, and worthless, because they can't comprehend emotion, or any of the things in life that make it interesting at all or worth living. Unlike fish, or most birds, or insects, which are actually really too stupid, lacking too much brainpower, to actually have any real emotions, or enjoy life. Their brains simply aren't complex enough. Now, like I said, sure I "could" be wrong about this, but given what I've seen, from a scientific analysis, I am more than 99% sure I am correct about this specific issue, or at least VERY very near being completely correct about this specific issue.

2. Okay. I am a psychology student. I personally think it does matter (QUITE A BIT) as to whether or not you ENJOY the act of killing an intelligent animal, that was enjoying it's life prior to you ending it's life. The reason is that, if you actually enjoy the SPECIFIC action of ending it's life (not talking about all the other stuff and intangibles and whatnot that go along with it. but the KILL specifically), if that actually envokes a feeling of "fun" or genuine "enjoyment" then yes, psychologically speaking, this is not so good. It does share, psychologically speaking, a minor relation to those who ENJOY beating a PERSON (human being) up randomly, or even murdering someone, just for fun. Now, obviously it is not anywhere near that level, sort of like how saying to your sister "Oh come onnn, you lost my Asimov book? What the heck Steph? Ughhh!! You idiot!!!!!" is NOT anywhere near being on the same level as saying "Steph... you lost my Asimov book. You are dead to me now. I will no longer ever speak to you again. You are a cu**" Both might have been "bad" to say to your sister, but one is clearly FAR worse than the other. Similarily, enjoying murdering a human, or beating the living crap out of someone randomly for no reason whatsoever is FAR worse than enjoying the kill part of a hunt, but they are both, from a psychological aspect "bad" to some extent (one to a much more severe extent than the other), in that neither of these things should be ENJOYABLE for a psychologically normal person.

3. This is a very tricky subject that would simply take too long for me to fully discuss (it would take more than 10 pages for me to fully voice my thoughts on this specific topic).

4. I am of the opinion that this is, to put it simply bull sh**. I think the word "talk" was VERY very very horribly missused. Personally I find this to be hogwash. Plants do not have brains or emotions. They do not enjoy their life. They are incapable of it, much like insects, or many other animals, such as many types of fish and birds, and reptiles, etc (which do have brains, but not brains that are developed enough to be able to enjoy life to any extent, due to not having the capacity of emotion, or ability to have fun, or lack thereof).



Quote:
And if you still just HAAAVE to have that meat, obviously they sell it at the market.

I'm not a hunter, but this argument doesn't pass muster. You say you don't like killing animals that "are as smart as your pet cat or dog." If that's the case then buying the meat at the market is just as bad.

I am of the opinion that different animals are more intelligent than others, and more capable of enjoying life than others. I have stated previously my stance on how many insects, reptiles, birds, and fish do not have the mental capacity to get any fun or enjoyment out of being alive. They quite simply aren't smart enough.

Thus, when I eat meat, I weigh the ethics out on my personal ethics-scale. I look at what I gain from the animal's death versus what the animal loses when it dies.

Cow meat is the "grayest" meat for me. It is very borderline. Cows are surprisingly dumb mammals, considering their size, and are only just barely able to comprehend the most vague and slight emotions, and get only the most vague and minor "fun" or enjoyment out of their life. Due to the fact that theey only very slightly have any emotions or fun at all in life, or capacity to grasp life and have it be of any value to them, (they do have SOME very minor ability to do this, but like I said VERY minor, they are extraordinarily stupid animals, deceptively so, considering their size, and that they are mammals (many varmint for example are considerably more intelligent, and have more fun and enjoy life more than cows for example, much to many people's surprise, (this being an opinion based on scientific phsychological studies on this matter (I'm a psychology major and I've studied this specific topic before, and many similar ones)), so given how much meat and leather a single cow gives off, and how little ability it has for emotions and fun, it just BARELY tips the scales in favor of me being willing to feel that, morally speaking, I can eat it, guilt free.

Chicken, and fish, those are a joke. I'll eat that all day without even a flinch or second thought. They do not enjoy life AT ALL to any capacity whatsoever. They are COMPLETELY emotionless, and their lives are totally worthless. They are good for eating. You aren't really taking anything from them when you end their lives, from a scientific, psychological standpoint.

Pigs however, are an example of a type of meat I REFUSE to buy from the market, or eat. And I do not like the fact that people eat pork. This is because pigs are DEFINITELY smart enough, and emotional enough that killing them for their meat is NOT okay, as far as I'm concerned, when I take out the moral/ethical balancing scale. They lose far too much when you take their life, in comparison to what you gain by taking their life in food and whatnot.

So yes, I ALWAYS weigh it out in my head, as far as whether or not the meat I am eating is morally okay to be eating or not. Just like I won't eat dog meat, or bear meat, or cat meat, or horse meat, I won't eat pig meat. There are quite a large number of mammals that I am not okay with eating the meat of, because they are simply too smart, and enjoy their lives too much, and I don't feel it is okay for me to be eating their meat, morally speaking, due to the fact that chicken, fish, beef, etc are fine meat alternatives that ARE morally okay, when I weigh it out, particularly fish and chicken (cows, as I discussed before are the furthest into the "gray area" morally speaking as far as meat I'm willing to eat.

[online poker player]

I think that what you are lacking in this argument is the component of life that comes with experience. Doing the quick math, I figure you're about 21 or 22 now.
By 22 years of age, there are men who have fought in wars, done prison time, gotten a PhD, traversed the world, and accomplished various other great things. Experience out there gives you a well rounded perspective and makes the difference between thinking you've got it all figured out and realizing you don't know jack.
If you want to understand life, go play some poker in person and get to know yourself through the people you meet.
You are a sharp young guy and you have too much potential to spend it behind a monitor making fake wins and posting poor arguments.

To clarify:

1. Yes, I am 22 years old as of two months ago. I am a senior in college, and I am majoring in psychology, and getting a minor in creative writing. I agree that, given that we only live once, we should, if we are physically able to do so, go out and experience life. Sitting around the house for your whole life, if you are able to do something else, is quite an awful way to waste the 60-80 years we get to live on this planet. I most definitely agree.

2. Unfortunately I am slowly (been about 9 and a half months now) recovering from some medical problems that have kept me pretty much completely immbile, and unable to leave my house for the past 9.5 months (an entrapped nerve in my pelvis, it's a long story, but basically it keeps me from going ou and about until they manage to fix me up, due to what I can only describe as a pain akin to being stabbed in the crotch by a white-hot kitchen knife repeatedly if I try to do anything other than lie down, or stand up (I cannot sit upright, only lie or stand, and I cannot walk for more than a bief distance, otherwise I am crippled to the ground in pain) Fortunately I have been getting a bit better over the past few months, and I am now able to at least get a bit of exercise in my swimming pool, by exercising my arms in the pool to get some cardio going etc, and the pain is at about half the level it was in December (which is still terrible, but an improvement) and the doctors are going to try a new treatment on me that they think has about a 70-75% chance of curing me of my pain, the procedure of which I will have done on July 28th (they will stick an electrode into my back and try to manipulate the nerve that is causing my problems electrically).

So pretty much I am forced to be around the house all day, as I can't go out and about (though I desperately wish I could, as I used to go out all the time with my friends, to the beach, or the movies, or parties, etc, and now I currently cannot until I'm fixed up). Because of this I mainly spend my time:

1. Writing my book (I am working on my second book. I find it very eenjoyable, and hope to make a career out of it. (Don't worry, I write fiction novels, such as sci-fi/mystery/thrillers etc, not anti-hunting books or anything, lol).

2. Reading books. I like to read, as, when forced to remain in my house, it is one of the more fun activities for me, and additionally, I find that it helps me write better, because it introduces me to many of the various different styles of writing, as well as opens up my vocabulary a bit.

3. Watching movies. I like movies, particularly if they are good (and I am a VERY harsh critic when it comes to this), so I watch movies that I order through netflix sometimes.

This is pretty much what I do, given my circumstances. That and eat, sleep, and exercise my upper body in my swimming pool.

Except of course for the one last thing that I also do... (online poker)

Maybe to your surprise, I have in fact played poker in person (in "real life") QUITE A BIT. I used to play at least once a week with my college friends in a home game, and I also, back in freshman and a bit of sophomore year played poker in casinos as well. However, I quit playing poker in person, in "real life" once it was no longer fun for me. I still partied with my friends, and went to movies with them, or to the beach, or hung out, and so forth, but I completely quit playing live poker by about 1/3rd of the way through sophomore year of college (2005) due to the fact that I no longer enjoyed poker at all. I simply had played far too much of it at that point (online) in terms of how many hands I had played, and because of this, the thrill of it was pretty much entirely gone. When I played poker, I would only strictly focus on playing optimally, and mathematically speaking, exploit my opponents as optimally as possible to squeeze out as much longterm profit as possible. The simple relaxed joy of just sitting around, and tossing in a few chips to see if I hit a royal flush or whatever was gone. I no longer thought of it as fun. It had become "strictly business" as one might put it, and so I didn't play live poker any more, since at only 30-35 hands per hour, I simply could make a LOT more money playing online, and since I no longer enjoyed poker at all, I didn't bother playing it live, because, I figured, if I was going to do something I didn't enjoy, simply because it earned me an absurd amount of money (for a teenage college kid) then I might as well do it where I could maximize the earnings (online).

Online I typically play a minimum of 12 tables simultaneously, but I often play 20 or more tables simultaneously (depending on what I am playing, and what mood I am in). I am very good at it, and have played more than 2 million (getting closer to 3 million hands) online in the past few years. It makes me a LOT of money, even when I only play it for a few hours a day, a few days a week. And it earns me more and more money as time passes, because, the more I make, the larger my playing-bankroll gets (even taking into consideration the money withdrawal I make from the poker sites) and thus the higher the stakes I can play safely with less than a 0.00001% risk-of-ruin from a statistics and probability standpoint, given my longterm winrate, and the variance of poker, in terms of standard deviation. And the higher the stakes, the higher my longterm winrate gets, because it gets amplified (since for example, when I maintain a longterm winrate of averaging 12 big blinds per 100 hands at $50 max-buyin no limit hold'em, I make a lot less money 16-tabling that than I do just 12-tabling $600 max-buyin no limit hold'em with a longterm winrate of averaging 7.5 big blinds per 100 hands, since in the $50 tables, playing 16 tables simultaneously, my longterm winrate works out to about $80 per hour (it is around 80-90 hands per hour per table times 16 tables) versus at the $600 tables, playing 12 tables simultaneously is earning me about $450 an hour ( in the LONG RUN (over a short span of just a few tens of thousands of hands, like, just a week or two or even a month of play, even with a strong longterm winning winrate that I have, variance can be signficant enough that you have a losing week or month on rare occasions, however over the course of 500,000 hands, or a million hands, or in my case around 3 million hands, you longterm winrate converges to pretty much what it "should be" given how well you are playing (in my case about 7.5 big blind per 100 hands would be my winrate at $3/$6 no limit with $600 max-buyin) so in the longrun this is your real winrate (You don't just sit down for 5 minutes, lose $200 an say "so I guess I have a winrate of negative $200 an hour", no it takes hundreds of thousands of hands of poker before your sample size statistically means anything, due to how strong a factor variance is in poker over smaller sample sizes, since as you know, there are elements of luck involved in each and every hand, in addition to the element of skill (which shows itself in the longrun in that if you play badly in the long run you lose, and if you play very well, in the long run you win).

So I think this might suffice to give my answer to a few of the questions or rebuttals that some of you have put up for me hopefully.

-opp

[Eleven Mike]

Do you really expect folks to read all that?
I expect that about 90-95% of the people who enter this thread will NOT in fact "read all that" to be honest.

However, ironically, the 5-10% of the people who DO read all that are probably the only ones who would genuinely take into consideration some of the more noteable points I made (particularly the last thing I mentioned in the "edit" section at the bottom of my post)(regardless of whether it actually changed their minds or not, it would at least give them something potentially fairly thought provoking to ponder about). The 90+% that wouldn't ever consider doing something as obscene as reading a whole 2 pages worth of text probably wouldn't care much to ponder or enjoy any of the things I bring up, or analyze in the posts anyway, so it all works out I guess.

Actually, no. I am perfectly willing to ponder weighty matters. But if you want to compete for anyone's time, you should state your thoughts more succinctly.

Secondly, I do not read long passages online, although I am happy to do so in print. So there you go.

[JohnBT]

" It is possible that every single human being on earth was born with a brain abnormality that causes us to hallucinate, and all the things any of us "see" in our lifetime is just a big hallucination, and in reality we are all just little plant-like things, stuck to the sea floor on some other planet, not even earth, hallucinating about life, meaning all this stuff about earth being round might not even be true, since heck, it might just be a hallucination for all we know."

I think you need to try and get a grip on reality. Just some friendly advice. You know, even if what you say is true, we still have to live here in this great big hallucination. You can sit and continue to stare at your navel or you can accept life for what it is and enjoy it.

John

[online poker player]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by ME
Do you really expect folks to read all that?

I expect that about 90-95% of the people who enter this thread will NOT in fact "read all that" to be honest.

However, ironically, the 5-10% of the people who DO read all that are probably the only ones who would genuinely take into consideration some of the more noteable points I made (particularly the last thing I mentioned in the "edit" section at the bottom of my post)(regardless of whether it actually changed their minds or not, it would at least give them something potentially fairly thought provoking to ponder about). The 90+% that wouldn't ever consider doing something as obscene as reading a whole 2 pages worth of text probably wouldn't care much to ponder or enjoy any of the things I bring up, or analyze in the posts anyway, so it all works out I guess.

Actually, no. I am perfectly willing to ponder weighty matters. But if you want to compete for anyone's time, you should state your thoughts more succinctly.

Secondly, I do not read long passages online, although I am happy to do so in print. So there you go.

That's fine.

Whatever floats your boat.

[online poker player]

" It is possible that every single human being on earth was born with a brain abnormality that causes us to hallucinate, and all the things any of us "see" in our lifetime is just a big hallucination, and in reality we are all just little plant-like things, stuck to the sea floor on some other planet, not even earth, hallucinating about life, meaning all this stuff about earth being round might not even be true, since heck, it might just be a hallucination for all we know."

I think you need to try and get a grip on reality. Just some friendly advice. You know, even if what you say is true, we still have to live here in this great big hallucination. You can sit and continue to stare at your navel or you can accept life for what it is and enjoy it.

John


I am pretty sure you didn't read the part that I will now put in BOLD for you...

I don't "know" that a fish is less intelligent, and emotional, than say, a bear, or a dog, or a dolphin, or a human being. Just like I don't "know" that the earth is round, or that the earth orbits the sun, and not the other way around. However, scientifically speaking, much in the same way that, given what we can observe and deduce with our eyes and methods of scientific measurement to determine that the earth in our OPINION is round, and does orbit the sun (even though in reality this could be false. It is possible that every single human being on earth was born with a brain abnormality that causes us to hallucinate, and all the things any of us "see" in our lifetime is just a big hallucination, and in reality we are all just little plant-like things, stuck to the sea floor on some other planet, not even earth, hallucinating about life, meaning all this stuff about earth being round might not even be true, since heck, it might just be a hallucination for all we know. We can't be 100% sure of ANYTHING. We really COULD be inside "The Matrix" for all we know. However, just because we can't be 100.0% sure of anything, we can do the next best thing, and that, in my opinion, is to go with whatever SEEMS TO BE MOST LOGICAL given what we are observing.

[11c2v]

You're funny! What I enjoy most is your attempt to sound as intelligent as the animals I hunt!:D

[buck460XVR]

I'm trying to figure out why a guy that doesn't hunt and by his own admission doesn't shoot firearms would even join a gun forum other than to stir the pot and criticize folks and a subject he don't know anything about. Your original and subsequent posts in this thread kinda cements that thought. The assumption that you are correct about everything you say and the declaration of how great you are at everything shows just how naive and foolish you are. Using your attitude I can clearly say that I know for a fact that online poker is the biggest waste of time that has ever been created and only someone with no friends and no life would spend the time and effort it takes to play one hand on line....much less three million. Just like you, I know I am correct in my own mind and I have already won this debate.:D

Pokerboy.......I'm sorry that life has thrown you a curve and your health has been a issue of late....but don't try to make yourself feel better by demeaning others.

BTW.......with the advent of science, man doesn't need to have conventional sex to have children and continue the species anymore either.......maybe you should try and talk the world outta that too.

[Vern Humphrey]

However, just because we can't be 100.0% sure of anything, we can do the next best thing, and that, in my opinion, is to go with whatever SEEMS TO BE MOST LOGICAL given what we are observing.
What seems logical and what is logical are two different things.

A superficial assemblage of selected facts gathered to represent a pre-conceived point is hardly logic.

[Eleven Mike]

In before the lock.

I am morally opposed to the exploitation of vegetables for human consumption. Your thoughts?

[Vern Humphrey]

Do you know that 95% of corn harvested for human consumption is wasted?!?:what:

The stalks and cobs are thrown away!!:eek:

[the lone gunman]

Most hunters I know, including myself, spend more time preserving wildlife than our actual Harvest of game.By that I mean , planting food plots, feeding deer and turkey in the winter, helping to stock fish, 30 years ago in Pa. you could not find a turkey to save your life. now there are many, All due to hunters efforts to preserve game. As to the one deer or turkey I kill each year, I have saved hundreds from starvation.

[TimboKhan]

You want the honest truth? While humans are omnivores, I believe that we are also predators. The predatory instinct is what drives me to hunt.

Do I enjoy the killing? Yes, I do. This is not to say that I am some bloodthirsty dude that walks around snuffing the life out of everything I see while giggling like a schoolgirl. I guess what it boils down to is that after a kill, I feel a certain reverence for and connectedness with nature. I, the predator, have succeeded in killing the prey. I believe this touches on what is basically a primal instinct, more alive in some than others. If you are hungry enough, all humans will kill to eat. Society has progressed enough that most of us here in the US don't strictly have to hunt to eat, but there are still a good portion of us that feel driven to hunt and I believe that we all possess the ability to kill when we have to.

This isn't to say that I buy into that whole "spirit of the wild" malarkey. I love the outdoors, but I don't feel some spiritual connection with my dead Elk anymore than a bear would. I simply feel exultant that my place atop the food chain is clear, well-defined and fulfilled. That's what makes me feel connected to nature. My reverence comes from knowing that I have taken a life. Elk, bear, deer, rabbit, pheasant or whatever, it is dead at my hands and deserves at least my respect. I think it is that sense of respect that seperates randomly killing stuff and hunting, truth be told. I say that because I have had to kill the odd animal in self-defense or out of mercy, and I don't enjoy it at all. Having to shoot a vicious dog or an injured cow or whatever just makes me sad.

Have I had good times on hunts where nothing has been killed? Yes, I have. Hunting is more than just killing. It's about camraderie with my friends, it's about roughing it and going against the elements for a few days, it's about getting out of my urban environment to someplace quiet, it's about the fresh air. That being said, I would be lying if I said that good times or not, there is always an underlying sense of disappointment when the target game animal isn't killed.

[Vern Humphrey]

In the '40s, there were virtually no deer in many states, no turkeys, no bears. Arkansas was an example -- our Black bear restoration plan is the most successful large carnivore recovery ever.

Our woods are full of deer, bear, turkeys -- and even mountain lions (although the Department of Fish and Game won't admit it.)

[online poker player]

I'm trying to figure out why a guy that doesn't hunt and by his own admission doesn't shoot firearms would even join a gun forum other than to stir the pot and criticize folks and a subject he don't know anything about. Your original and subsequent posts in this thread kinda cements that thought. The assumption that you are correct about everything you say and the declaration of how great you are at everything shows just how naive and foolish you are. Using your attitude I can clearly say that I know for a fact that online poker is the biggest waste of time that has ever been created and only someone with no friends and no life would spend the time and effort it takes to play one hand on line....much less three million. Just like you, I know I am correct in my own mind and I have already won this debate.

Pokerboy.......I'm sorry that life has thrown you a curve and your health has been a issue of late....but don't try to make yourself feel better by demeaning others.

BTW.......with the advent of science, man doesn't need to have conventional sex to have children and continue the species anymore either.......maybe you should try and talk the world outta that too.

Yikes, you definitely were not spot-on at all with this post. I have bolded FIVE different things you said that are all very illogical, or wrong, in my opinion:

1. Actually by my own admission, I clearly stated that I do own and shoot firearms, and I am actually a very good shot. I have shot more than 20,000 rounds of rifle ammo in my life, and used to shoot competitively at age 10-11.

2. Although I refuse to go hunting, this doesn't mean I know nothing about it. A LOT of my friends, and people I know, hunt, and they have on MANY occasions given me detailed accounts about their hunting trips. Sure, I would know a lot more about it if I did it myself, but I certainly don't just not know ANYTHING about it.

3. I DEFINITELY do not declare myself to be great at everything. In fact I am horrible at many things, and not very good at most things. There are a few things I am good at, a few things I am bad at, and a ton of things I am mediocre at. Just like most people. I'm not some super-human, and never claimed to be. I also did appologize for my "I think I'm right? Yes?" line that I put in my original post, which I admitted was both wrong, as well as foolish and silly.

4. Ok.

This is probably the worst thing you said.

Over the past few years online poker has been, quite literally my JOB. As in, something I made money at (a LOT of money at) every single year, and had to pay TAXES on, as in, actual income tax, to the U.S. government. I made more than $400,000 a year in both of the past two years, and have made more than $1,000,000 since I began playing online 4 years ago. I on average play about 1,000 hours, give or take a few hundred hours, per year. I typically play about 4 or 5 hours a day, on weekdays, and 0 hours a day on friday nights, saturdays, and sundays.

If you think making more than 1.2 million dollars in the past few years, playing 4-5 hours a day, on weekdays, is "the biggest waste of time that has ever been created" then, I'm sorry but, I simply cannot agree at all with this specific opinion of yours.

5. I am not making this stuff to "demean others." I clearly stated in the original post that I wasn't attacking anyone who is a hunter, nor trying to make them stop hunting. I was simply stating my personal view on the topic, because I think maybe some people might find it somewhat interesting (and others might not, and they can obviously choose to not read it if they don't) and so I wrote this just to give some people, who find my opinion on the topic to be somewaht interesting, something to have fun with. So now, I'm not being demeaning, I'm just trying to provoke a bit of fun thinking about an interesting subject that SOME people enjoy thinking/discussing. That's all.

Is this fair?

[JShirley]

as a highly intelligent animal

Ironic in a post full of logical flaws.

Guys, if there's a trolling post, don't call the poster a troll, just notify staff.

John