Is Hunting morally OK or an unnecessary evil?

[Kerozine]

I approve of all hunting, despite never having gone hunting.

 

[.Shane.]

I think that allowing hunting is a good idea, because it encourages people to maintain near-wild areas for their sporting. Some of the best environmentalists are hunters, since they're protecting their sport.

Excellent point!

 

[Mad Man]

Morally OK, straight from the word of God.

Is it OK with GOD if we eat aliens?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Why? All they do is cause damage.

Technically so do humans. We constantly alter the world to our liking - which is basically the same as a deer 'causing damage' it's own habitat.

 

[cardgame]

And humans are humans.

 

[Bei1052]

Too many closeted PETA members around here.

 

[warpus]

Hunting for sport seems kind of old-fashioned to me - kind of like smoking indoors, allowing your kids to run around with plastic bags around their heads, calling your secretary "sweetheart", etc.

Hunting cause you need to feed your family? Go right ahead!

 

[Counterclaw]

How is voicing your opinion 'telling other humans what to do?'

Obviously you don't believe in democracy.

Eitehr that or you didn't really think it through before you posted.

I didn't object to you voicing your opinion or ask you not to voice it.
I just thought that it was funny that you said you weren't arrogant enough
to dictate behavior to animals, but then said you would ban hunting for sport.
Banning someone is telling them what to do (or what not to do). Perhaps
you forgot you posted that part.

 

[Ecofarm]

So we should have no laws based on morals?

Interesting. I'm assuming then that you support one's freedom to commit child-rape and murder? I'm sure you wouldn't want to tell them what they cannot do? I'm being facetious, of course, to prove a point.



And btw, telling someone what not to do and telling them what to do are different things. It doesn't help to confuse the subject right from the git go. Obstructionism is bad, mkay?

Ahh this is right amount of moderation I was looking for.

Taking the established mainstream view... hook, line and sinker = moderation? That wasn't moderation, it was mundane and completely ordinary... without variance in opinion from established law at all. He basically said "I agree 100% with the establishment" and you respond "nice moderation"? Why don't I see his comments being called "moderate" when he holds a solid 'established law and order' position on other stuff? Weird.

Or you were joking? That seems a bit highbrow.

 

[Counterclaw]

Is it OK with GOD if we eat aliens?

That depends on whether or not they chew the cud or have cloven feet!

 

[ComradeDavo]

I didn't object to you voicing your opinion or ask you not to voice it.
I just thought that it was funny that you said you weren't arrogant enough
to dictate behavior to animals, but then said you would ban hunting for sport.
Banning someone is telling them what to do (or what not to do). Perhaps
you forgot you posted that part.

I believe in democracy. If I were democratically elected I would ban hunting for sport. If people didn't like that then they could elect someone else. Don't really see whats arrogant here.

 

[Leonel]

For food is okay. Especially if you have a limited income and live out in the wilderness like in Alaska or the Midwest.

 

[Counterclaw]

So we should have no laws based on morals?

Interesting. I'm assuming then that you support one's freedom to commit child-rape and murder? I'm sure you wouldn't want to tell them what they cannot do? I'm being facetious, of course, to prove a point.



And btw, telling someone what not to do and telling them what to do are different things. It doesn't help to confuse the subject right from the git go. Obstructionism is bad, mkay?

I didn't say that at all. You just pulled that out of your hat, because that's what
you wanted to argue with. I just think that if it's "arrogant" to tell animals what to do,
it's arrogant to tell someone to refrain from hunting (which would be telling them what to do). Maybe you can explain why it's arrogant in the case of the former, but not in the latter.

 

[Counterclaw]

I believe in democracy. If I were democratically elected I would ban hunting for sport. If people didn't like that then they could elect someone else. Don't really see whats arrogant here.

Fair enough. That isn't how you put it in your earlier post, but I'll accept that. I would vote against you.

 

[Perfection]

Technically so do humans. We constantly alter the world to our liking - which is basically the same as a deer 'causing damage' it's own habitat.

Humans cause damage, but they also do useful awesome things, what useful awesome things do deer do?

 

[rhawn]

If you go hunting to satify a primal desire to kill, that's acceptable. Its better than killing people.

 

[cardgame]

I believe in democracy. If I were democratically elected I would ban hunting for sport. If people didn't like that then they could elect someone else. Don't really see whats arrogant here.

Better let people know that you would ban hunting for sport, though. Instead of not mentioning it at all and then just banning it.

 

[warpus]

I would make hunting legal only if the animals are also armed.

If it's supposed to be a game, it should at least be fair.

 

[MobBoss]

I would make hunting legal only if the animals are also armed.

If it's supposed to be a game, it should at least be fair.

Animals have much more sensitive and acute senses. And some, like bears, have quite the arsenal of natural weaponry.

If the bear finds you without a gun, do you think its going to fight with one paw tied behind its back?

No?

Well, then.

 

[Counterclaw]

Animals have much more sensitive and acute senses. And some, like bears, have quite the arsenal of natural weaponry.

If the bear finds you without a gun, do you think its going to fight with one paw tied behind its back?

No?

Well, then.

I agree with MobBoss. Or consider the recent Chimpanzee attacks. People who try to deal diplomatically with wild animals sometimes end up dead or missing limbs.