Hunting for me = Spending time with father, deer/wild turkey tastes good. I have an uncle that goes duck hunting, he's asked me to go with but I never have. Anyone here duck hunt?
Hunting for me = Spending time with father, deer/wild turkey tastes good. I have an uncle that goes duck hunting, he's asked me to go with but I never have. Anyone here duck hunt?
I stopped because i couldn't take it when that fucking dog laughed at me.
If hunting is supposed to be about fairness, how come the animal never wins?
The animals get away rather often.
I hope that was sarcasm. There is no fairness in hunting, nor should there be. If there were fairness you would be righting "the human gets away rather often"
If hunting is supposed to be about fairness, how come the animal never wins?
The animals get away rather often.
I hope that was sarcasm. There is no fairness in hunting, nor should there be. If there were fairness you would be righting "the human gets away rather often"
I had no idea that humans often didn't escape hunting with their lives. (Asymmetrical consequences does not inherently indicate unfairness).
If hunting is supposed to be about fairness, how come the animal never wins?
The animals get away rather often.
I hope that was sarcasm. There is no fairness in hunting, nor should there be. If there were fairness you would be righting "the human gets away rather often"
I had no idea that humans often didn't escape hunting with their lives. (Asymmetrical consequences does not inherently indicate unfairness).
That's true, but then how would you describe fairness with regard to hunting? It's not like were talking about fairness between two hunters, were talking about fairness between hunter and prey.
Horrible movie. Although, it brings to mind something.
Has anyone is this thread tried hunting with a muzzle loader? I've always wanted to participate in the black powder season...
This is how my dad hunted. He used a flintlock.
His reasoning was that if you can't kill an animal with one shot, you need to go back to the range, and there's no reason to bring back more than one animal per trip.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm a vegan who's not terribly opposed to hunting and not terribly in favor of it, either. I think that people who hunt for food are doing themselves and anyone they're providing for a favor by removing dependency on industrial farming. I'm vegan largely because of my disgust with industrialized food production and how it relates to animal products, and if someone is hunting to subvert that system, (or subverting it as a byproduct of their hunting, the intention isn't necessary) more power to them.
Predictably, I think that canned hunts are pretty disgusting, and most hunting as "pest removal" is a pretty thin veil to hide behind.
I'm a vegan who's not terribly opposed to hunting and not terribly in favor of it, either. I think that people who hunt for food are doing themselves and anyone they're providing for a favor by removing dependency on industrial farming. I'm vegan largely because of my disgust with industrialized food production and how it relates to animal products, and if someone is hunting to subvert that system, (or subverting it as a byproduct of their hunting, the intention isn't necessary) more power to them.
Interesting. So if I told you that I grew up on a omnivorous diet with a significant contribution from rabbits and chickens my family raised in our backyard, and a lesser contribution from deer hunted from the wild, you wouldn't be quite as disgusted by that than if I'd grown up on supermarket meat?
Predictably, I think that canned hunts are pretty disgusting, and most hunting as "pest removal" is a pretty thin veil to hide behind.
Well, a lot of "pest removal" is meant to protect wildlife from encroaching on the industrialized farming that you called out in the first paragraph of your post, so that's a consistent position. (Although, technically, it's the farming that's encroaching on the wildlife... they were there first.)
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Pest control for hunting gophers or rabbits is a good description. "pest control" is often phrased as population control, because we eliminated predators, populations of deer can get out of control and if we don't hunt them to thin them out often disease takes hold and a lot more of them die.
It's like allowing clear cutting of a swath of forest so that a future forest fire will not be as destructive. If man didn't go around putting out forest fires it wouldn't even be necessary. Since we disrupted the natural balance, we have to engage in behavior some might find objectionable (clearcutting or population control hunting) to try and maintain some balance.
Of course, this leads to another moral conundrum - what about killing something because it tastes good? Meat isn't strictly necessary for nutrition; we eat meat for the pleasure of it. So is there really that much of a difference between killing for pleasure and killing for fun?
Morality is a spectrum. If we take as a given that killing an animal is a moral evil (which isn't necessarily a given, but we can assume it is), then its evilness is dependent on the net good that arises from it. Providing sustenance is good. Even if there are other ways to go about doing it, the act itself is good. It's sustaining life. Similarly, using a pelt to create clothing is a good, even though clothes can be made from non-animal sources.
Given that, killing an animal in order to turn it into things you need for survival is less evil than killing it because it's fun. Basically, you're making the death useful in a non-trivial way. It may still be evil in an absolute sense, but I contend that it would be less evil than killing the animal so you can mount its head on your wall.
One might take the above to mean that killing a man and eating him would be more moral than killing him and letting him rot. To a point, I suppose that would be the case, and I'd be fine with that conclusion. Still, it's possible to eat things that are virtually identical in taste and texture to human, and so I think the moral good would be pretty minute, unless there were no other animal food sources around. You can't really find non-animal food sources that taste and feel just like meat. No, fuck you, Bocaburgers don't count. Regardless, I think most people would agree that killing a person is a whole lot worse than killing an animal, so quibbling about whether the act is really evil or really, really evil is a bit silly.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Of course, this leads to another moral conundrum - what about killing something because it tastes good? Meat isn't strictly necessary for nutrition; we eat meat for the pleasure of it. So is there really that much of a difference between killing for pleasure and killing for fun?
Morality is a spectrum. If we take as a given that killing an animal is a moral evil (which isn't necessarily a given, but we can assume it is), then its evilness is dependent on the net good that arises from it. Providing sustenance is good. Even if there are other ways to go about doing it, the act itself is good. It's sustaining life. Similarly, using a pelt to create clothing is a good, even though clothes can be made from non-animal sources.
Given that the animal will be used by the ecosystem even if you leave its corpse there as carrion, though, why is it more good using it to satisfy human purposes?
"Pest control" hunting is also used to control animal populations that are not native to a given area and were introduced by our ancestors. Feral hogs come to mind.
I don't oppose hunting for food or culling an animal because of overpopulation. Trophy hunting I find creepy. Hunting cougars with hounds is not fair to the cougar or the hounds. ("HAI DOGS, you run on ahead and bark at the cougar and chase him up a tree. OH by the way, he'll gut you with one swipe if he decides to stand his ground, LOL!")
Some hunters will claim they hunt because of animal overpopulation--to make themselves look like noble Stewards of Nature, I guess--and they are usually lying. The minute you mention reintroducing wolves, suddenly they're complaining, "They'll kill so many eeeeelk, we won't be able to haaaarvest as many!" Wah wah, a native predator will be controlling the elk population. Boohoo.
LadyM on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Of course, this leads to another moral conundrum - what about killing something because it tastes good? Meat isn't strictly necessary for nutrition; we eat meat for the pleasure of it. So is there really that much of a difference between killing for pleasure and killing for fun?
Morality is a spectrum. If we take as a given that killing an animal is a moral evil (which isn't necessarily a given, but we can assume it is), then its evilness is dependent on the net good that arises from it. Providing sustenance is good. Even if there are other ways to go about doing it, the act itself is good. It's sustaining life. Similarly, using a pelt to create clothing is a good, even though clothes can be made from non-animal sources.
Given that the animal will be used by the ecosystem even if you leave its corpse there as carrion, though, why is it more good using it to satisfy human purposes?
In an individual case, I agree that there is no difference.
However, history has proven that the notion that it's okay to hunt something and then simply leave the carcass promotes waste and abuse. Bison were hunted to extinction because the only thing hunters were interested in were the tongues. Knowing the end result of uncontrolled hunting, that sort of thing is illegal, while not necessarily morally objectionable.
When I hunt gophers on my Uncle's farm, I do not recover the carcasses. However, there is no danger of over hunting seeing as humans have removed many of the traditional predators of gophers and there is a serious overpopulation of them.
Of course, this leads to another moral conundrum - what about killing something because it tastes good? Meat isn't strictly necessary for nutrition; we eat meat for the pleasure of it. So is there really that much of a difference between killing for pleasure and killing for fun?
If you want to get the full range of necessary proteins, then meat is necessary for nutrition. While it is now possible to get all of your proteins by eating different types of plants, you have to make sure you eat the full range every day, in order to get all of the different types you need.
Of course, this leads to another moral conundrum - what about killing something because it tastes good? Meat isn't strictly necessary for nutrition; we eat meat for the pleasure of it. So is there really that much of a difference between killing for pleasure and killing for fun?
Morality is a spectrum. If we take as a given that killing an animal is a moral evil (which isn't necessarily a given, but we can assume it is), then its evilness is dependent on the net good that arises from it. Providing sustenance is good. Even if there are other ways to go about doing it, the act itself is good. It's sustaining life. Similarly, using a pelt to create clothing is a good, even though clothes can be made from non-animal sources.
Given that the animal will be used by the ecosystem even if you leave its corpse there as carrion, though, why is it more good using it to satisfy human purposes?
My question was largely rhetorical.
I think that the disdain some people have against sport hunting has less to do with the consequences of the action, and more to do with assumptions they make about the mental state of the hunter. If you're a meat eater, you might dislike killing, you just don't dislike it enough for that dislike to override your love of the taste of meat. If you're a sport hunter, you are taking pleasure in the actual act of killing.
We're more comfortable with people who are merely indifferent to death than people who take pleasure in it.
Yet if you're sport hunter who also happens to use the meat and leather after the kill, then it's possible that you take pleasure in the act of killing as well as the taste of venison. Focusing, mentally, on the use of the meat afterwards allows us to turn a blind spot to the killing act itself.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Of course, this leads to another moral conundrum - what about killing something because it tastes good? Meat isn't strictly necessary for nutrition; we eat meat for the pleasure of it. So is there really that much of a difference between killing for pleasure and killing for fun?
If you want to get the full range of necessary proteins, then meat is necessary for nutrition. While it is now possible to get all of your proteins by eating different types of plants, you have to make sure you eat the full range every day, in order to get all of the different types you need.
I think his point was that us meat eaters don't eat the minimum required for nutrition. We eat lots, because its tasty.
Edit: I was beat'd by feral himself so yeah..don't read this post.
Dman on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Is there some correlation between recovering the carcasses and overhunting? Your post reads like a non-sequitur to me. o_O
It's easier to take multiple prey if you don't have to worry about transporting or using the carcass, or only a small portion of the carcass. If you planned on using every part of a bison, one would be a lot of work to recover and butcher. But if all you want is the tongue, you can kill tens or hundreds and it doesn't take much work to recover and/or transport the tongue.
I mean, if you could still only take one deer but you decided to leave the carcass behind, that's fine, but how would that be enforced? How would you prove someone shot more than one deer in the middle of the forest?
Of course, this leads to another moral conundrum - what about killing something because it tastes good? Meat isn't strictly necessary for nutrition; we eat meat for the pleasure of it. So is there really that much of a difference between killing for pleasure and killing for fun?
If you want to get the full range of necessary proteins, then meat is necessary for nutrition. While it is now possible to get all of your proteins by eating different types of plants, you have to make sure you eat the full range every day, in order to get all of the different types you need.
A single whey protein shake will shore up any gaps in your amino acid intake from a vegetarian diet.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Is there some correlation between recovering the carcasses and overhunting? Your post reads like a non-sequitur to me. o_O
It's easier to take multiple prey if you don't have to worry about transporting or using the carcass, or only a small portion of the carcass. If you planned on using every part of a bison, one would be a lot of work to recover and butcher. But if all you want is the tongue, you can kill tens or hundreds and it doesn't take much work to recover and/or transport the tongue.
I mean, if you could still only take one deer but you decided to leave the carcass behind, that's fine, but how would that be enforced? How would you prove someone shot more than one deer in the middle of the forest?
Okay, second paragraph does it for me. Yeah, the enforcement would rely on self-reporting and be very open to abuse. I'll honor that.
Isn't the OP more inline with the current comics? I would say the main reason most nerds (or similar) are down on hunting is it was not something we did. Just as we are down on the "jocks" we are down on "hunters." That is, most people are down on the extreme stereotype embodying hunter. Not so much on folks that hunt. Right?
If you want to get the full range of necessary proteins, then meat is necessary for nutrition.
...
it is now possible to get all of your proteins by eating different types of plants
so which one is it?
You don't deal well with nuance, do you? Ok, I'll rephrase it.
Meat is necessary if you want to get all your necessary proteins without having to keep track of the different types of food you eat, and the types of proteins they contain.
edit:: I'll also note that the ability to do so is a fairly recent development, what with us identifying the proteins necessary for human life, which ones aren't produced by the body, and what foods contain them. Hunting for food, however, has a long history, even back when it WAS necessary for survival.
Old proverb:
Every day a lion has to be able to outrun the slowest deer, or it goes hungry.
Every day a deer has to be able to outrun the fastest lion, or it dies.
Although, really a deer just has to be able to outrun one of his friends.
I suppose hunting could push deer onto a novel evolutionary path, like camouflage.
Meat is necessary if you want to get all your necessary proteins without having to keep track of the different types of food you eat, and the types of proteins they contain.
Look, kid, there are lots of places that have complete protein, so you don't have to "keep track of the different types of food you eat" any more than keeping track of whether you ate meat that day. Did I have any buckwheat pancakes? Did I drink any wheatgrass? Soy which is in fucking everything, etc. Or, like, anything dairy. (OT)
If you want to get the full range of necessary proteins, then meat is necessary for nutrition.
...
it is now possible to get all of your proteins by eating different types of plants
so which one is it?
You don't deal well with nuance, do you? Ok, I'll rephrase it.
Meat is necessary if you want to get all your necessary proteins without having to keep track of the different types of food you eat, and the types of proteins they contain.
edit:: I'll also note that the ability to do so is a fairly recent development, what with us identifying the proteins necessary for human life, which ones aren't produced by the body, and what foods contain them. Hunting for food, however, has a long history, even back when it WAS necessary for survival.
None of which really has any bearing on the ethics of eating meat.
Also, like I said, one whey protein shake will fill any gaps in your amino acid intake. So not only is your post irrelevant, it is also wrong.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
It's kind of like the special olympics of hunting, and takes out a huge degree of the "learn to appreciate nature" aspect which is traditionally part of hunting for many. It's like shooting your dog and calling yourself a mighty hunter.
Meat is necessary if you want to get all your necessary proteins without having to keep track of the different types of food you eat, and the types of proteins they contain.
Look, kid, there are lots of places that have complete protein, so you don't have to "keep track of the different types of food you eat" any more than keeping track of whether you ate meat that day. Did I have any buckwheat pancakes? Did I drink any wheatgrass? Soy which is in fucking everything, etc. Or, like, anything dairy. (OT)
Ok? You still have to know what those are, and have some at every meal. My only point was that for the vast majority of people, eating meat is the simplest and best solution.
Posts
Has anyone is this thread tried hunting with a muzzle loader? I've always wanted to participate in the black powder season...
If hunting is supposed to be about fairness, how come the animal never wins?
but they're listening to every word I say
well of course it wins. often they get away and can be hunted later!
actually some deer do win and end up killing humans but that's fairly rare
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
I stopped because i couldn't take it when that fucking dog laughed at me.
I hope that was sarcasm. There is no fairness in hunting, nor should there be. If there were fairness you would be righting "the human gets away rather often"
I had no idea that humans often didn't escape hunting with their lives. (Asymmetrical consequences does not inherently indicate unfairness).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
That's true, but then how would you describe fairness with regard to hunting? It's not like were talking about fairness between two hunters, were talking about fairness between hunter and prey.
This is how my dad hunted. He used a flintlock.
His reasoning was that if you can't kill an animal with one shot, you need to go back to the range, and there's no reason to bring back more than one animal per trip.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm a vegan who's not terribly opposed to hunting and not terribly in favor of it, either. I think that people who hunt for food are doing themselves and anyone they're providing for a favor by removing dependency on industrial farming. I'm vegan largely because of my disgust with industrialized food production and how it relates to animal products, and if someone is hunting to subvert that system, (or subverting it as a byproduct of their hunting, the intention isn't necessary) more power to them.
Predictably, I think that canned hunts are pretty disgusting, and most hunting as "pest removal" is a pretty thin veil to hide behind.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Interesting. So if I told you that I grew up on a omnivorous diet with a significant contribution from rabbits and chickens my family raised in our backyard, and a lesser contribution from deer hunted from the wild, you wouldn't be quite as disgusted by that than if I'd grown up on supermarket meat?
Well, a lot of "pest removal" is meant to protect wildlife from encroaching on the industrialized farming that you called out in the first paragraph of your post, so that's a consistent position. (Although, technically, it's the farming that's encroaching on the wildlife... they were there first.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's like allowing clear cutting of a swath of forest so that a future forest fire will not be as destructive. If man didn't go around putting out forest fires it wouldn't even be necessary. Since we disrupted the natural balance, we have to engage in behavior some might find objectionable (clearcutting or population control hunting) to try and maintain some balance.
Morality is a spectrum. If we take as a given that killing an animal is a moral evil (which isn't necessarily a given, but we can assume it is), then its evilness is dependent on the net good that arises from it. Providing sustenance is good. Even if there are other ways to go about doing it, the act itself is good. It's sustaining life. Similarly, using a pelt to create clothing is a good, even though clothes can be made from non-animal sources.
Given that, killing an animal in order to turn it into things you need for survival is less evil than killing it because it's fun. Basically, you're making the death useful in a non-trivial way. It may still be evil in an absolute sense, but I contend that it would be less evil than killing the animal so you can mount its head on your wall.
One might take the above to mean that killing a man and eating him would be more moral than killing him and letting him rot. To a point, I suppose that would be the case, and I'd be fine with that conclusion. Still, it's possible to eat things that are virtually identical in taste and texture to human, and so I think the moral good would be pretty minute, unless there were no other animal food sources around. You can't really find non-animal food sources that taste and feel just like meat. No, fuck you, Bocaburgers don't count. Regardless, I think most people would agree that killing a person is a whole lot worse than killing an animal, so quibbling about whether the act is really evil or really, really evil is a bit silly.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Some hunters will claim they hunt because of animal overpopulation--to make themselves look like noble Stewards of Nature, I guess--and they are usually lying. The minute you mention reintroducing wolves, suddenly they're complaining, "They'll kill so many eeeeelk, we won't be able to haaaarvest as many!" Wah wah, a native predator will be controlling the elk population. Boohoo.
In an individual case, I agree that there is no difference.
However, history has proven that the notion that it's okay to hunt something and then simply leave the carcass promotes waste and abuse. Bison were hunted to extinction because the only thing hunters were interested in were the tongues. Knowing the end result of uncontrolled hunting, that sort of thing is illegal, while not necessarily morally objectionable.
When I hunt gophers on my Uncle's farm, I do not recover the carcasses. However, there is no danger of over hunting seeing as humans have removed many of the traditional predators of gophers and there is a serious overpopulation of them.
If you want to get the full range of necessary proteins, then meat is necessary for nutrition. While it is now possible to get all of your proteins by eating different types of plants, you have to make sure you eat the full range every day, in order to get all of the different types you need.
My question was largely rhetorical.
I think that the disdain some people have against sport hunting has less to do with the consequences of the action, and more to do with assumptions they make about the mental state of the hunter. If you're a meat eater, you might dislike killing, you just don't dislike it enough for that dislike to override your love of the taste of meat. If you're a sport hunter, you are taking pleasure in the actual act of killing.
We're more comfortable with people who are merely indifferent to death than people who take pleasure in it.
Yet if you're sport hunter who also happens to use the meat and leather after the kill, then it's possible that you take pleasure in the act of killing as well as the taste of venison. Focusing, mentally, on the use of the meat afterwards allows us to turn a blind spot to the killing act itself.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
so which one is it?
I think his point was that us meat eaters don't eat the minimum required for nutrition. We eat lots, because its tasty.
Edit: I was beat'd by feral himself so yeah..don't read this post.
It's easier to take multiple prey if you don't have to worry about transporting or using the carcass, or only a small portion of the carcass. If you planned on using every part of a bison, one would be a lot of work to recover and butcher. But if all you want is the tongue, you can kill tens or hundreds and it doesn't take much work to recover and/or transport the tongue.
I mean, if you could still only take one deer but you decided to leave the carcass behind, that's fine, but how would that be enforced? How would you prove someone shot more than one deer in the middle of the forest?
A single whey protein shake will shore up any gaps in your amino acid intake from a vegetarian diet.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You don't deal well with nuance, do you? Ok, I'll rephrase it.
Meat is necessary if you want to get all your necessary proteins without having to keep track of the different types of food you eat, and the types of proteins they contain.
edit:: I'll also note that the ability to do so is a fairly recent development, what with us identifying the proteins necessary for human life, which ones aren't produced by the body, and what foods contain them. Hunting for food, however, has a long history, even back when it WAS necessary for survival.
But as to your point, I think you're on to something.
Old proverb:
Every day a lion has to be able to outrun the slowest deer, or it goes hungry.
Every day a deer has to be able to outrun the fastest lion, or it dies.
Although, really a deer just has to be able to outrun one of his friends.
I suppose hunting could push deer onto a novel evolutionary path, like camouflage.
Look, kid, there are lots of places that have complete protein, so you don't have to "keep track of the different types of food you eat" any more than keeping track of whether you ate meat that day. Did I have any buckwheat pancakes? Did I drink any wheatgrass? Soy which is in fucking everything, etc. Or, like, anything dairy. (OT)
None of which really has any bearing on the ethics of eating meat.
Also, like I said, one whey protein shake will fill any gaps in your amino acid intake. So not only is your post irrelevant, it is also wrong.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's kind of like the special olympics of hunting, and takes out a huge degree of the "learn to appreciate nature" aspect which is traditionally part of hunting for many. It's like shooting your dog and calling yourself a mighty hunter.
Ok? You still have to know what those are, and have some at every meal. My only point was that for the vast majority of people, eating meat is the simplest and best solution.