Hunting is bad

Akira · October 10, 2009

Hunting is for jumped up snobs who have to compensate for something downstairs.

Admiral Tim · October 10, 2009

for once you are right' date=' why kill innocent animals, i like pigs so i rarely eat them, but i love to eat moose
[/quote']

So moose (mooses? Meese?) are less innocent than pigs?

well i have it maybe 3 times a year, it is legal to hunt moose in newfoundland, and moose kill a lot of people here.

Cyber Altair · October 10, 2009

Brushfire · October 10, 2009

long post #1
long post #2

Atlas won. Know why? Well, it's mainly because you seem to think that if you make a long debate-able post that contains many arguments, because this is YCM no-one will try and debate against you. Surprised? You shouldn't be, and you better have a successful counter-argument or I'll be left to leave that you fail at debate.

Womi · October 10, 2009

long post #1
long post #2

Atlas won. Know why? Well' date=' it's mainly because you seem to think that if you make a long debate-able post that contains many arguments, because this is YCM no-one will try and debate against you. Surprised? You shouldn't be, and you better have a successful counter-argument or I'll be left to leave that you fail at debate.
[/quote']
OY! Lighting flames here, eh?

OMGAKITTY · October 10, 2009

long post #1
long post #2

Atlas won. Know why? Well' date=' it's mainly because you seem to think that if you make a long debate-able post that contains many arguments, because this is YCM no-one will try and debate against you. Surprised? You shouldn't be, and you better have a successful counter-argument or I'll be left to leave that you fail at debate.
[/quote']
OY! Lighting flames here, eh?

Proceed.

Amethyst Phoenix · October 10, 2009

Hunting provides food for people' date=' and regulates the population. For example, if deer were not hunted their population would explode. With the large amounts of deer, all the grass etc that deer eat would quickly be eaten up, due to the fierce competition over a suddenly strained food supply. Now the deer get to die a slow painful death from starvation, and more will perish than if we had simply gone out and killed some.
[/quote']
Wrong, without hunting the population of deer would stay where it was.
Congratulations, you failed basic math! If deer are breeding, then that = more deer. If hunters are killing that equals less deer. With me so far? So, and this is where things get really god damn complex, if you subtract deer in response to the addition of deer, it equalizes out. Thus, your statement couldn't be more wrong: the deer population would change if we didn't hunt them.

Humans are the ones that overpopulated, and we're wiping out all the other species because there's way too much of us to feed.
We're not wiping them out. There's an entire system of how many of each species we can kill, and even then we don't completely meet that, because not everyone that buys tags fills them all. There's also the fact that the harvesting of animals is spread out over a vast variety of different species. Hence, we regulate all of them instead of annihilating a few.

The deer hunters kill 90% of the time for game, not to play God with population control.
Their intent doesn't matter, it's the same effect. I highly doubt the majority of hunters are aware of the system. And we're playing God about as much as wolves and other predators are, they serve the same purpose. Also, fun fact: the 2 species most likely to survive a nuclear holocaust are cockroaches and humans. Why? Cockroaches can adapt to any environment and humans can adapt any environment to their needs. By design of nature, that is our method for living. Those that demonize us for this are going against the very nature they seek to uphold.

People talking about that crap should realize that we ourselves should be limiting ourselves to 2 children per couple so that we can slowly decrease population wise. Otherwise we'll be the ones you talked about going through a slow death via starvation.
No real response to this contention. You actually conceded here that a large boom in population causes more death than regulation, bolstering my point that it can happen to animals as well.

This then causes that whole food chain imbalance effect. So expanding upon the deer scenario, the wolves that eat them would have no food, and then the wolves would starve and die. This would also cause the rabbit population ( and other animals wolves eat) to grow out of control and repeat the deer scenario. Also, what minuscule amount of regulation the wolves were providing after the deer population boom would vanish.

On the off chance there's something present in this example's ecosystem that preys on wolves, it would die off much the same way the wolves did.
…Yeah, this is pretty much describing the impact the hunters will have on the ecosystem. >_>
Granted, this food chain domino effect could be caused by over-hunting of deer. However, we control how many we kill. Due the way our limit and tag systems are set up, we never come remotely close to killing enough to trigger this.
In addition, hunting is not mindless killing: everything is perfectly planned out by the fish and wildlife services so that we only kill enough deer to keep them under control. You know there's this fancy thing called a limit? You should learn what it means, it's a blasty blast.
It shouldn't be done in the first place, and as I said it isn't needed. National Parks do just fine without hunters. And when a hunter kills the head of a pack, all of the deer will die. Go figure.

Deer are not rendered useless when a "leader" of their group is killed. The only thing close the effect you proposed is killing a mother deer renders a fawn with her completely stunned and an easy target for all predators. This is why (if you're trying to harvest veal) you shoot the mother first: the fawn will just sit there confused. If you were to shoot the fawn first, the mother abandons it because it knows it will only endanger itself by attempting to help.

Wolves have strong pack mentalities, deer do not. They are perfectly capable of operating by themselves, as well as in a group of other deer.

As for the topic of national parks, those are the exception. They are carefully managed, and the populations manipulated so that everything is balanced without hunters. Instead of killing the deer for example, they merely transport them to another park if the population grows to high. National Parks do not prove your argument whatsoever, as they are not unmanaged wilderness. They are managed to have the same base effect as hunting. However, do to meticulous micro management, population control is necessary much less frequently. Thus it is an affordable venture to relocate deer to other national parks, or (if there is no room in another) release them into the wild (huntable lands).

Contrary to popular, disney spoon-fed belief, the majority of the animals we hunt do not have families, nor can they experience complex emotions. Fear and contentment on the basest scale imaginable is all a deer can fathom. They operate solely on instinct. Ironically enough, the same people that made the bambi movie that radical environmentalists enjoy throwing out so often also made a movie called The Lion King. I suggest you go watch that, and pay particular attention to the circle of life concept. Even the authors of the work you use as one of your primary weapons in this argument know better.
You do know Disney doesn't have the same staff for everything, and that anyone using Bambi as a reference was most likely kidding, right? >.>

A lot of people wholeheartedly believe the ideas presented in Bambi, and actually use it as their primary argument. You'd be surprised how many times this has been the case when I've argued this topic with.....I suppose I'd call them radical environmentalists to be politically correct, although earthmuffins or treehuggers is another valid term.

There's also the fact that a bullet is relatively painless to them. It's not like we're clubbing them to death or slitting their throats like the pigs you buy from the grocery store.
I went out and shot some people today. I didn't stab them though so it's all good.

Taking my point out of perspective. One of the main arguments against hunting is that it's inhumane and a painful death for the hunted. This point is meant to illustrate that it is quite the opposite, and to point out that the grocery store meat always thrown as an alternative to hunting comes from much less humane sources.

Also, school shooting etc are not linked to video games, they're the result of a combination of idiot parents who cannot properly educate or pay attention to their children and severe mental and emotional issues either due to a mental illness or their peers being brutal asshats to them. Video games are also becoming rather widespread, to the point that this becomes as silly as saying wearing a hat or playing sports caused them to do it. Video games are merely the media's favorite and most convenient scapegoat to cover up poor parenting. God forbid people have flaws; to save their self esteem we must demonize a hobby enough people are uninformed about that they'll believe any bullshit we spew!
I agree with this to an extent. It isn't always poor parenting though and it isn't never the result of video games. The reasons for shootings vary. But this topic is really unrelated, so whatever.

I just threw this in here as a response to an argument early on ( I believe it was Bloodrun who made it?) that blamed video games for violence when someone suggested them as an alternative to hunting. In hindsight I shouldn't have placed it in the middle of my primary argument, but oh well.

Also, about those rangers. It's illegal to interfere with hunters hunting, so technically they were stupidly breaking the law they're supposed to be upholding, and died to a stupid mistake resulting in an accident. How the hell they became rangers when they're idiotic enough to run in front a gun aimed at a creature it's perfectly legal to kill is beyond me.
LOL

They were telling hunters to stop killing off endangered species(or population control, as you wish to call it). And the hunters going to their houses and shooting them isn't exactly them jumping in front of a bullet. Shut up.

I in no way advocate the killing of endangered species. I suggest you word your posts better. Here's yours: "kitty blindly supports hunting out of fear for the hunters and their guns they are not afraid to use when necessary. ignorant hunters have even killed some rangers trying to get them to stop killing innocent animals at times." This is vague as funk, and no where does it mention endangered, nor does it specify the circumstances. The most common scenario I could think of, would be rangers trying to stand between them and the deer they were hunting as some form of protest. Any misunderstandings are the direct result of your poorly written post.

Endangered Species are the result of over-hunting in areas where it is not properly managed. I do not claim our system is flawless, as it is obviously not do to these oversights. However, we quickly catch these before they have gone extinct (last species this happened to was the messenger pigeon) and work to revitalize them. For example, the wolves in Montana were endangered, and we were not allowed to hunt them for years. Now, they've made a huge come back, and we will soon be allowed to hunt them again. I believe the percentage of the population we are allowed to kill is around 7%. Studies show that we could kill up to 30% of the wolf population and not cause any significant impact on them.
Also, Kitty said she doesn't hunt because she's afraid of guns, not because hunters are using scare tactics or winning her support via fear. Don't twist her words around like some idiotic reporter.
You obviously missed what that part of my sentence really meant. Responding is pointless.

No matter the deeper meaning, you did take her statements entirely out of context. TO continue to deny this is pointless.
tl;dr version: You're all uninformed idiots who are whining about things you don't understand in the least, under the banner of morals you're not even upholding via said whining.
tl;dr version: You're an elitist idiot who thinks hunters are some sort of Keystone predator in environments that did just fine without them and should consider learning about topics before making a giant rant of stupidity about it.

You have consistently demonstrated your lack of knowledge in multiple fields. You have no grounds or right to suggest I need to learn more when you fail to grasp the basest of concepts regarding wildlife management. I never suggested they were better than other people.

If you'd like to bring up the fact that I suggested wolves alone could not regulate deer effectively on their own, you would once again showcase your ignorance. One predator can't effectively control it by themselves, because if they could then the presence of any other predators would cause the eventual extinction of the prey. Thus, humans, wolves, and hawks are but a few pieces of the puzzle of predators that work together to regulate the lower rungs of the food chain. Humans are unique in that we can adjust how many we kill, and thus compensate for other predators by increasing or decreasing our efforts as the situation calls for it. So in way, humans are definitely a superior regulating force. Not an exceedingly more important and absolutely necessary one, but superb regardless.

On the somewhat likely chance this really is some fail attempt at subtly insulting Prince Hunter, I advise you to get a life and stop poking the metaphorical bear >_>
This jab at Hunter wasn't exactly fail and one could easily assume OMG is far better off socially than Hunter. Just super saiyan.

Fail was in regards to the attempt to be subtle. I stated no opinion, nor do I have one, on which of the two is a better person in any aspect. I merely stated that it's not wise to fruitlessly piss off someone in power, because the only thing he'd gain from it is a negative repercussion. When I stated to "Get a life" I was implying there are numerous better things he could be doing with his time than engage in futile and pointless attempts

long post #1
long post #2

Atlas won. Know why? Well' date=' it's mainly because you seem to think that if you make a long debate-able post that contains many arguments, because this is YCM no-one will try and debate against you. Surprised? You shouldn't be, and you better have a successful counter-argument or I'll be left to leave that you fail at debate.
[/quote']

You're looking at the principle of the matter rather than the actual points presented to determine who "Won", as well as assuming I'm caught offguard in the least.

I don't think no one will respond, in fact I've had counterarguments presented several times and responded them, here on YCM.

If you have some personal vendetta against me for my long posts when I argue, I suggest you leave that at home before you cast judgment.

If not, and you were merely pointing out "If Amethyst has no response, Atlas wins." then allow me to be the first to say "No sheet, Sherlock". However, that is clearly not the case, which should be painfully obvious by now, due to the presence of the very post you're currently reading.

Womi · October 10, 2009

...and the flames grow.....<.

fenrir · October 10, 2009

...and the flames grow.....<.<

Get the fan.

This is getting interesting. :3

Amethyst Phoenix · October 10, 2009

...and the flames grow.....<.<

Get the fan.

This is getting interesting. :3

Whoosh Whoosh!

Womi · October 10, 2009

And there is the fan. ---<.

OMGAKITTY · October 10, 2009

Can we haz official hunting debate thread nao?

Womi · October 10, 2009

lol, if I think of the fact that we have an Official thread for official threads, an official hunting thread isn't far away anymore.

~ P O L A R I S ~ · October 10, 2009

If I may step in for Atlas here with Polaran purple. Ah, funk it, I don't need permission, let's rock.

Hunting provides food for people' date=' and regulates the population. For example, if deer were not hunted their population would explode. With the large amounts of deer, all the grass etc that deer eat would quickly be eaten up, due to the fierce competition over a suddenly strained food supply. Now the deer get to die a slow painful death from starvation, and more will perish than if we had simply gone out and killed some.
[/quote']
Wrong, without hunting the population of deer would stay where it was.
Congratulations, you failed basic math! If deer are breeding, then that = more deer. If hunters are killing that equals less deer. With me so far? So, and this is where things get really god damn complex, if you subtract deer in response to the addition of deer, it equalizes out. Thus, your statement couldn't be more wrong: the deer population would change if we didn't hunt them.

I think Atlas' point was that starving because another deer eats your food and getting shot in the face will result in the same outcome, the deer dies. Trying to save deer by killing deer seems a tad futile am I wrong?

Humans are the ones that overpopulated, and we're wiping out all the other species because there's way too much of us to feed.

We're not wiping them out. There's an entire system of how many of each species we can kill, and even then we don't completely meet that, because not everyone that buys tags fills them all. There's also the fact that the harvesting of animals is spread out over a vast variety of different species. Hence, we regulate all of them instead of annihilating a few.

If you have to tell us of these systems, whose to say that anyone who happens to go into the woods with a gun adheres to them?

The deer hunters kill 90% of the time for game, not to play God with population control.

Their intent doesn't matter, it's the same effect. I highly doubt the majority of hunters are aware of the system. And we're playing God about as much as wolves and other predators are, they serve the same purpose. Also, fun fact: the 2 species most likely to survive a nuclear holocaust are cockroaches and humans. Why? Cockroaches can adapt to any environment and humans can adapt any environment to their needs. By design of nature, that is our method for living. Those that demonize us for this are going against the very nature they seek to uphold.

Alright, you raise a fair point, but you can't deny the fact that humans are much more threatening to a species than bears or wolves. The species we've driven to extinction are proof, we could easily do it again. Humans are different due to their advancements in technology and potential compared to normal predators. Fun fact by the way.

People talking about that crap should realize that we ourselves should be limiting ourselves to 2 children per couple so that we can slowly decrease population wise. Otherwise we'll be the ones you talked about going through a slow death via starvation.

No real response to this contention. You actually conceded here that a large boom in population causes more death than regulation, bolstering my point that it can happen to animals as well.

Not really, this is because humans don't have regulatory predators already like deer do. We're at the top of the food chain. We're the only regulation we have, and we don't tend to kill eachother nearly enough, surprisingly, so forces like population overload have to interfere. With deer, it's a different situation.

This then causes that whole food chain imbalance effect. So expanding upon the deer scenario, the wolves that eat them would have no food, and then the wolves would starve and die. This would also cause the rabbit population ( and other animals wolves eat) to grow out of control and repeat the deer scenario. Also, what minuscule amount of regulation the wolves were providing after the deer population boom would vanish.

On the off chance there's something present in this example's ecosystem that preys on wolves, it would die off much the same way the wolves did.

…Yeah, this is pretty much describing the impact the hunters will have on the ecosystem. >_>

Granted, this food chain domino effect could be caused by over-hunting of deer. However, we control how many we kill. Due the way our limit and tag systems are set up, we never come remotely close to killing enough to trigger this.

Just because we don't kill enough deer to make a threatening impact now doesn't mean we won't when our population grows more. While we grow in population, hunting of deer will have no new reason to decrease, and will most certainly increase.

In addition, hunting is not mindless killing: everything is perfectly planned out by the fish and wildlife services so that we only kill enough deer to keep them under control. You know there's this fancy thing called a limit? You should learn what it means, it's a blasty blast.

It shouldn't be done in the first place, and as I said it isn't needed. National Parks do just fine without hunters. And when a hunter kills the head of a pack, all of the deer will die. Go figure.

Deer are not rendered useless when a "leader" of their group is killed. The only thing close the effect you proposed is killing a mother deer renders a fawn with her completely stunned and an easy target for all predators. This is why (if you're trying to harvest veal) you shoot the mother first: the fawn will just sit there confused. If you were to shoot the fawn first, the mother abandons it because it knows it will only endanger itself by attempting to help.

Wolves have strong pack mentalities, deer do not. They are perfectly capable of operating by themselves, as well as in a group of other deer.

As for the topic of national parks, those are the exception. They are carefully managed, and the populations manipulated so that everything is balanced without hunters. Instead of killing the deer for example, they merely transport them to another park if the population grows to high. National Parks do not prove your argument whatsoever, as they are not unmanaged wilderness. They are managed to have the same base effect as hunting. However, do to meticulous micro management, population control is necessary much less frequently. Thus it is an affordable venture to relocate deer to other national parks, or (if there is no room in another) release them into the wild (huntable lands).

Alright man, you're lacking a little foresight here. You don't seem to realize that just because we can coexist with deer while hunting them now doesn't mean we'll be able to later. If there were only 5 humans and a billion dear, we wouldn't pose much of a threat to the deer's population, but our rate of growth and current population are obviously much larger than those of deer.

Contrary to popular, disney spoon-fed belief, the majority of the animals we hunt do not have families, nor can they experience complex emotions. Fear and contentment on the basest scale imaginable is all a deer can fathom. They operate solely on instinct. Ironically enough, the same people that made the bambi movie that radical environmentalists enjoy throwing out so often also made a movie called The Lion King. I suggest you go watch that, and pay particular attention to the circle of life concept. Even the authors of the work you use as one of your primary weapons in this argument know better.
You do know Disney doesn't have the same staff for everything, and that anyone using Bambi as a reference was most likely kidding, right? >.>

A lot of people wholeheartedly believe the ideas presented in Bambi, and actually use it as their primary argument. You'd be surprised how many times this has been the case when I've argued this topic with.....I suppose I'd call them radical environmentalists to be politically correct, although earthmuffins or treehuggers is another valid term.

I've yet to see people use Bambi as a serious part of their argument, and if they are, I've no reason to assert against their being idiotic, so we'll just leave it at that.

There's also the fact that a bullet is relatively painless to them. It's not like we're clubbing them to death or slitting their throats like the pigs you buy from the grocery store.

I went out and shot some people today. I didn't stab them though so it's all good.

Taking my point out of perspective. One of the main arguments against hunting is that it's inhumane and a painful death for the hunted. This point is meant to illustrate that it is quite the opposite, and to point out that the grocery store meat always thrown as an alternative to hunting comes from much less humane sources.

It's not an argument we're using. Sure, telling us what we're saying makes countering easier, but you're still telling us what we're saying. ;)

Also, school shooting etc are not linked to video games, they're the result of a combination of idiot parents who cannot properly educate or pay attention to their children and severe mental and emotional issues either due to a mental illness or their peers being brutal asshats to them. Video games are also becoming rather widespread, to the point that this becomes as silly as saying wearing a hat or playing sports caused them to do it. Video games are merely the media's favorite and most convenient scapegoat to cover up poor parenting. God forbid people have flaws; to save their self esteem we must demonize a hobby enough people are uninformed about that they'll believe any bullshit we spew!

I agree with this to an extent. It isn't always poor parenting though and it isn't never the result of video games. The reasons for shootings vary. But this topic is really unrelated, so whatever.

I just threw this in here as a response to an argument early on ( I believe it was Bloodrun who made it?) that blamed video games for violence when someone suggested them as an alternative to hunting. In hindsight I shouldn't have placed it in the middle of my primary argument, but oh well.

This is only the middle? sheet dude. I've got stuff to do. School shootings and their influences aren't exactly related to the point here though.

Also, about those rangers. It's illegal to interfere with hunters hunting, so technically they were stupidly breaking the law they're supposed to be upholding, and died to a stupid mistake resulting in an accident. How the hell they became rangers when they're idiotic enough to run in front a gun aimed at a creature it's perfectly legal to kill is beyond me.

LOL

They were telling hunters to stop killing off endangered species(or population control, as you wish to call it). And the hunters going to their houses and shooting them isn't exactly them jumping in front of a bullet. Shut up.

I in no way advocate the killing of endangered species. I suggest you word your posts better. Here's yours: "kitty blindly supports hunting out of fear for the hunters and their guns they are not afraid to use when necessary. ignorant hunters have even killed some rangers trying to get them to stop killing innocent animals at times." This is vague as f***, and no where does it mention endangered, nor does it specify the circumstances. The most common scenario I could think of, would be rangers trying to stand between them and the deer they were hunting as some form of protest. Any misunderstandings are the direct result of your poorly written post.

Endangered Species are the result of over-hunting in areas where it is not properly managed. I do not claim our system is flawless, as it is obviously not do to these oversights. However, we quickly catch these before they have gone extinct (last species this happened to was the messenger pigeon) and work to revitalize them. For example, the wolves in Montana were endangered, and we were not allowed to hunt them for years. Now, they've made a huge come back, and we will soon be allowed to hunt them again. I believe the percentage of the population we are allowed to kill is around 7%. Studies show that we could kill up to 30% of the wolf population and not cause any significant impact on them.

Atlas was joking earlier about the rangers in post #41. Uncharacteristic all caps or all-lowercase is a key clue to a person's joking. But yeah, there's no real reason why rangers should be able to enforce certain hunters, as hunters have guns and are often unruly. The percentage of population of a species that we're allowed to kill, even if enforceable now, won't be long-term.

Also, Kitty said she doesn't hunt because she's afraid of guns, not because hunters are using scare tactics or winning her support via fear. Don't twist her words around like some idiotic reporter.

You obviously missed what that part of my sentence really meant. Responding is pointless.

No matter the deeper meaning, you did take her statements entirely out of context. TO continue to deny this is pointless.

Semantics're a bore, let's keep to the point.

tl;dr version: You're all uninformed idiots who are whining about things you don't understand in the least, under the banner of morals you're not even upholding via said whining.

tl;dr version: You're an elitist idiot who thinks hunters are some sort of Keystone predator in environments that did just fine without them and should consider learning about topics before making a giant rant of stupidity about it.

You have consistently demonstrated your lack of knowledge in multiple fields. You have no grounds or right to suggest I need to learn more when you fail to grasp the basest of concepts regarding wildlife management. I never suggested they were better than other people.

If you'd like to bring up the fact that I suggested wolves alone could not regulate deer effectively on their own, you would once again showcase your ignorance. One predator can't effectively control it by themselves, because if they could then the presence of any other predators would cause the eventual extinction of the prey. Thus, humans, wolves, and hawks are but a few pieces of the puzzle of predators that work together to regulate the lower rungs of the food chain. Humans are unique in that we can adjust how many we kill, and thus compensate for other predators by increasing or decreasing our efforts as the situation calls for it. So in way, humans are definitely a superior regulating force. Not an exceedingly more important and absolutely necessary one, but superb regardless.

You, time and time again, have failed to grasp the concept of us being more dangerous to other species' populations as ours grows. Please do.

On the somewhat likely chance this really is some fail attempt at subtly insulting Prince Hunter, I advise you to get a life and stop poking the metaphorical bear >_>

This jab at Hunter wasn't exactly fail and one could easily assume OMG is far better off socially than Hunter. Just super saiyan.

Fail was in regards to the attempt to be subtle. I stated no opinion, nor do I have one, on which of the two is a better person in any aspect. I merely stated that it's not wise to fruitlessly piss off someone in power, because the only thing he'd gain from it is a negative repercussion. When I stated to "Get a life" I was implying there are numerous better things he could be doing with his time than engage in futile and pointless attempts

He wasn't trying to be subtle, he's just making fun. Taking jokes seriously is another weakness of yours you're displaying along with your lack of foresight. Lighten up brother.

fenrir · October 10, 2009

-sits back, grabs BBQ chips/Coka-Cola-

Well played Polaris, now, to wait for AP's post. :3

Amethyst Phoenix · October 11, 2009

My responses in bold

If I may step in for Atlas here with Polaran purple. Ah' date=' f*** it, I don't need permission, let's rock. [/color']

Hunting provides food for people' date=' and regulates the population. For example, if deer were not hunted their population would explode. With the large amounts of deer, all the grass etc that deer eat would quickly be eaten up, due to the fierce competition over a suddenly strained food supply. Now the deer get to die a slow painful death from starvation, and more will perish than if we had simply gone out and killed some.
[/quote']
Wrong, without hunting the population of deer would stay where it was.
Congratulations, you failed basic math! If deer are breeding, then that = more deer. If hunters are killing that equals less deer. With me so far? So, and this is where things get really god damn complex, if you subtract deer in response to the addition of deer, it equalizes out. Thus, your statement couldn't be more wrong: the deer population would change if we didn't hunt them.

I think Atlas' point was that starving because another deer eats your food and getting shot in the face will result in the same outcome, the deer dies. Trying to save deer by killing deer seems a tad futile am I wrong?

Not so. Exponentially more deer would die from the starvation effect. Plus the ones alive would be sickly from malnourishment. The grass etc would most likely not grow back, at least not in the same capacity. I take it you're familiar with how the old herders would switch the field their livestock grazed in each year? This is because if they didn't, overgrazing would occur. Overgrazing damages the roots etc of the plants, causing them to not grow back, or grow back less the next season. So, it's essentially cross-species utilitarianism: the most benefit for the most amount of deer. Sure some will die, but the hard reality is that it's simply unavoidable. We could spend massive amounts of money to do the national park thing of transporting deer between locales to keep their numbers ideal in each reason, but the cost and the fact that none are being taken out of the equation, would result in us paying ridiculous amounts to juggle an increasingly massive amount of deer right before the same starvation effect occurred. While it may not be the most pretty way of dealing with the issue, hunting is the most efficient, humane way.

Also, let's assume you're perfectly right and we'd lose the same number to starvation as hunting. Then, the only difference would be a quick humane death versus a slow painful one, healthier deer, and food and sport for humans.

No matter which way you slice it, hunting (when we do it right, which we are) is a very safe and beneficial system to both parties on a grand scale. There's a small amount of afflicted parties in any system. In this case, it's the few deer that die and the humans that are opposed to their killing.

Humans are the ones that overpopulated, and we're wiping out all the other species because there's way too much of us to feed.

We're not wiping them out. There's an entire system of how many of each species we can kill, and even then we don't completely meet that, because not everyone that buys tags fills them all. There's also the fact that the harvesting of animals is spread out over a vast variety of different species. Hence, we regulate all of them instead of annihilating a few.

If you have to tell us of these systems, whose to say that anyone who happens to go into the woods with a gun adheres to them?

While the majority of hunters do adhere to these rules, it would be silly to say there are not a percentage who disregard them. However, to put it frankly, this is not an issue. I realize the previous statement may sounds absolutely ridiculous, but just listen to my explanation before you make up your mind. If you recall, in one of my first arguments, I stated that we have a limit etc that is set up so we don't kill too many. The simple fact is (let's take the wolf hunting policy I presented further down the road as an example of this as well) our systems aren't set up to kill as many as possible without utterly devastating them. There's actually a significant buffer if you will. We're going to be allowed to hunt under 10% of the wolves as a maximum, although technically they'd be perfectly fine if we killed 30%. The point I'm trying to make here, is that we leave a large amount of room for error. Think of it as a buffer for any negative impact due to questionable morality.

The deer hunters kill 90% of the time for game, not to play God with population control.

Their intent doesn't matter, it's the same effect. I highly doubt the majority of hunters are aware of the system. And we're playing God about as much as wolves and other predators are, they serve the same purpose. Also, fun fact: the 2 species most likely to survive a nuclear holocaust are cockroaches and humans. Why? Cockroaches can adapt to any environment and humans can adapt any environment to their needs. By design of nature, that is our method for living. Those that demonize us for this are going against the very nature they seek to uphold.

Alright, you raise a fair point, but you can't deny the fact that humans are much more threatening to a species than bears or wolves. The species we've driven to extinction are proof, we could easily do it again. Humans are different due to their advancements in technology and potential compared to normal predators. Fun fact by the way.

People talking about that crap should realize that we ourselves should be limiting ourselves to 2 children per couple so that we can slowly decrease population wise. Otherwise we'll be the ones you talked about going through a slow death via starvation.

No real response to this contention. You actually conceded here that a large boom in population causes more death than regulation, bolstering my point that it can happen to animals as well.

Not really, this is because humans don't have regulatory predators already like deer do. We're at the top of the food chain. We're the only regulation we have, and we don't tend to kill eachother nearly enough, surprisingly, so forces like population overload have to interfere. With deer, it's a different situation.

This then causes that whole food chain imbalance effect. So expanding upon the deer scenario, the wolves that eat them would have no food, and then the wolves would starve and die. This would also cause the rabbit population ( and other animals wolves eat) to grow out of control and repeat the deer scenario. Also, what minuscule amount of regulation the wolves were providing after the deer population boom would vanish.

On the off chance there's something present in this example's ecosystem that preys on wolves, it would die off much the same way the wolves did.

…Yeah, this is pretty much describing the impact the hunters will have on the ecosystem. >_>

Granted, this food chain domino effect could be caused by over-hunting of deer. However, we control how many we kill. Due the way our limit and tag systems are set up, we never come remotely close to killing enough to trigger this.

Just because we don't kill enough deer to make a threatening impact now doesn't mean we won't when our population grows more. While we grow in population, hunting of deer will have no new reason to decrease, and will most certainly increase.

The limit does not increase with our population. The limit is based solely upon the state of deer, the state of humans taken entirely out of the equation. We do have several alternatives, such as cows, chickens, fish, pigs, etc that provide for the vast majority of our food. The simple fact of the matter, is that hunting of game animals is not based around feeding people. It is based around making sure the deer population is at a healthy amount. I'll use a very simple metaphor here: Extreme hot and extreme cold. Both deliver burns, which are harmful. But, when you mix hot and cold (here representing birth and death) you get warmth (fittingly, representing life). Everything must be balanced. We cannot have wanton decimation of life, but on the same note we cannot have massive bursts of new life. When you look at it from this perspective, this is a very mutual relationship predator has with prey. It's the harmony of nature.

In addition, hunting is not mindless killing: everything is perfectly planned out by the fish and wildlife services so that we only kill enough deer to keep them under control. You know there's this fancy thing called a limit? You should learn what it means, it's a blasty blast.

It shouldn't be done in the first place, and as I said it isn't needed. National Parks do just fine without hunters. And when a hunter kills the head of a pack, all of the deer will die. Go figure.

Deer are not rendered useless when a "leader" of their group is killed. The only thing close the effect you proposed is killing a mother deer renders a fawn with her completely stunned and an easy target for all predators. This is why (if you're trying to harvest veal) you shoot the mother first: the fawn will just sit there confused. If you were to shoot the fawn first, the mother abandons it because it knows it will only endanger itself by attempting to help.

Wolves have strong pack mentalities, deer do not. They are perfectly capable of operating by themselves, as well as in a group of other deer.

As for the topic of national parks, those are the exception. They are carefully managed, and the populations manipulated so that everything is balanced without hunters. Instead of killing the deer for example, they merely transport them to another park if the population grows to high. National Parks do not prove your argument whatsoever, as they are not unmanaged wilderness. They are managed to have the same base effect as hunting. However, do to meticulous micro management, population control is necessary much less frequently. Thus it is an affordable venture to relocate deer to other national parks, or (if there is no room in another) release them into the wild (huntable lands).

Alright man, you're lacking a little foresight here. You don't seem to realize that just because we can coexist with deer while hunting them now doesn't mean we'll be able to later. If there were only 5 humans and a billion dear, we wouldn't pose much of a threat to the deer's population, but our rate of growth and current population are obviously much larger than those of deer.

I believe I presented an argument that would serve as a response to this further up in this post (the responses to you in bold), so if it's alright with you, I'll just leave it at that to avoid unneeded redundancy.

Contrary to popular, disney spoon-fed belief, the majority of the animals we hunt do not have families, nor can they experience complex emotions. Fear and contentment on the basest scale imaginable is all a deer can fathom. They operate solely on instinct. Ironically enough, the same people that made the bambi movie that radical environmentalists enjoy throwing out so often also made a movie called The Lion King. I suggest you go watch that, and pay particular attention to the circle of life concept. Even the authors of the work you use as one of your primary weapons in this argument know better.
You do know Disney doesn't have the same staff for everything, and that anyone using Bambi as a reference was most likely kidding, right? >.>

A lot of people wholeheartedly believe the ideas presented in Bambi, and actually use it as their primary argument. You'd be surprised how many times this has been the case when I've argued this topic with.....I suppose I'd call them radical environmentalists to be politically correct, although earthmuffins or treehuggers is another valid term.

I've yet to see people use Bambi as a serious part of their argument, and if they are, I've no reason to assert against their being idiotic, so we'll just leave it at that.

I believe it's safe to say we are all in agreement here then.

There's also the fact that a bullet is relatively painless to them. It's not like we're clubbing them to death or slitting their throats like the pigs you buy from the grocery store.

I went out and shot some people today. I didn't stab them though so it's all good.

Taking my point out of perspective. One of the main arguments against hunting is that it's inhumane and a painful death for the hunted. This point is meant to illustrate that it is quite the opposite, and to point out that the grocery store meat always thrown as an alternative to hunting comes from much less humane sources.

It's not an argument we're using. Sure, telling us what we're saying makes countering easier, but you're still telling us what we're saying. ;)

I'm not saying you two in particular are. This wasn't really a counter per se, merely another point to further my overall argument. True it would have had a bigger impact if that had been one of your arguments, but it still serves a purpose.

Also, school shooting etc are not linked to video games, they're the result of a combination of idiot parents who cannot properly educate or pay attention to their children and severe mental and emotional issues either due to a mental illness or their peers being brutal asshats to them. Video games are also becoming rather widespread, to the point that this becomes as silly as saying wearing a hat or playing sports caused them to do it. Video games are merely the media's favorite and most convenient scapegoat to cover up poor parenting. God forbid people have flaws; to save their self esteem we must demonize a hobby enough people are uninformed about that they'll believe any bullshit we spew!

I agree with this to an extent. It isn't always poor parenting though and it isn't never the result of video games. The reasons for shootings vary. But this topic is really unrelated, so whatever.

I just threw this in here as a response to an argument early on ( I believe it was Bloodrun who made it?) that blamed video games for violence when someone suggested them as an alternative to hunting. In hindsight I shouldn't have placed it in the middle of my primary argument, but oh well.

This is only the middle? s*** dude. I've got stuff to do. School shootings and their influences aren't exactly related to the point here though.

I'm very aware of this, and I apologize for any confusion. As I told Atlas, this was in response to another line of conversation on the first page that was never really wrapped up to my satisfaction.

Also, about those rangers. It's illegal to interfere with hunters hunting, so technically they were stupidly breaking the law they're supposed to be upholding, and died to a stupid mistake resulting in an accident. How the hell they became rangers when they're idiotic enough to run in front a gun aimed at a creature it's perfectly legal to kill is beyond me.

LOL

They were telling hunters to stop killing off endangered species(or population control, as you wish to call it). And the hunters going to their houses and shooting them isn't exactly them jumping in front of a bullet. Shut up.

I in no way advocate the killing of endangered species. I suggest you word your posts better. Here's yours: "kitty blindly supports hunting out of fear for the hunters and their guns they are not afraid to use when necessary. ignorant hunters have even killed some rangers trying to get them to stop killing innocent animals at times." This is vague as f***, and no where does it mention endangered, nor does it specify the circumstances. The most common scenario I could think of, would be rangers trying to stand between them and the deer they were hunting as some form of protest. Any misunderstandings are the direct result of your poorly written post.

Endangered Species are the result of over-hunting in areas where it is not properly managed. I do not claim our system is flawless, as it is obviously not do to these oversights. However, we quickly catch these before they have gone extinct (last species this happened to was the messenger pigeon) and work to revitalize them. For example, the wolves in Montana were endangered, and we were not allowed to hunt them for years. Now, they've made a huge come back, and we will soon be allowed to hunt them again. I believe the percentage of the population we are allowed to kill is around 7%. Studies show that we could kill up to 30% of the wolf population and not cause any significant impact on them.

Atlas was joking earlier about the rangers in post #41. Uncharacteristic all caps or all-lowercase is a key clue to a person's joking. But yeah, there's no real reason why rangers should be able to enforce certain hunters, as hunters have guns and are often unruly. The percentage of population of a species that we're allowed to kill, even if enforceable now, won't be long-term.

My apologies for missing that. It will be long-term by the way( if the odd lack of any support for this assertion seems confusing, it's because I completely forgot to respond to this statement before reading over my post preview. Later on I provide an explanation, so just be patient for now).

Also, Kitty said she doesn't hunt because she's afraid of guns, not because hunters are using scare tactics or winning her support via fear. Don't twist her words around like some idiotic reporter.

You obviously missed what that part of my sentence really meant. Responding is pointless.

No matter the deeper meaning, you did take her statements entirely out of context. TO continue to deny this is pointless.

Semantics're a bore, let's keep to the point.

Anyway I can discredit my opponent makes their argument look a slight bit worse. I prefer to get any edge I can. However I agree this line of discussion need not be dragged out any further.

tl;dr version: You're all uninformed idiots who are whining about things you don't understand in the least, under the banner of morals you're not even upholding via said whining.

tl;dr version: You're an elitist idiot who thinks hunters are some sort of Keystone predator in environments that did just fine without them and should consider learning about topics before making a giant rant of stupidity about it.

You have consistently demonstrated your lack of knowledge in multiple fields. You have no grounds or right to suggest I need to learn more when you fail to grasp the basest of concepts regarding wildlife management. I never suggested they were better than other people.

If you'd like to bring up the fact that I suggested wolves alone could not regulate deer effectively on their own, you would once again showcase your ignorance. One predator can't effectively control it by themselves, because if they could then the presence of any other predators would cause the eventual extinction of the prey. Thus, humans, wolves, and hawks are but a few pieces of the puzzle of predators that work together to regulate the lower rungs of the food chain. Humans are unique in that we can adjust how many we kill, and thus compensate for other predators by increasing or decreasing our efforts as the situation calls for it. So in way, humans are definitely a superior regulating force. Not an exceedingly more important and absolutely necessary one, but superb regardless.

You, time and time again, have failed to grasp the concept of us being more dangerous to other species' populations as ours grows. Please do.

I entirely grasp it. However, (although it's a bit cliched, it still stands) with great power comes great responsibility. We're not necessarily a threat, though we do have massive power. It's not our potential for destruction or potential for creation and preservation that matters. It's which we work to realize. Hunters and The Wildlife Services as a whole work for the preservation/conservation of our world. We shouldn't restrain ourselves and live in fear of what we might do. We must take control of it and use it for the betterment of all species.

On the somewhat likely chance this really is some fail attempt at subtly insulting Prince Hunter, I advise you to get a life and stop poking the metaphorical bear >_>

This jab at Hunter wasn't exactly fail and one could easily assume OMG is far better off socially than Hunter. Just super saiyan.

Fail was in regards to the attempt to be subtle. I stated no opinion, nor do I have one, on which of the two is a better person in any aspect. I merely stated that it's not wise to fruitlessly piss off someone in power, because the only thing he'd gain from it is a negative repercussion. When I stated to "Get a life" I was implying there are numerous better things he could be doing with his time than engage in futile and pointless attempts

He wasn't trying to be subtle, he's just making fun. Taking jokes seriously is another weakness of yours you're displaying along with your lack of foresight. Lighten up brother.

Just taking precautions. I find that it's prudent to include a response to a thread's potential hidden meaning, so that if it was just a troll thread my post isn't entirely a waste. I assure you I do have a sense of humor ^^

As for the lack of foresight, I believe I have quelled any doubts you had of foresight. Not to sounds rude, but may I suggest you didn't perceive it? I understand how you might come to that conclusion though: all of the actions I've advocate take place and have benefits in the short term at first glance. However, hunting is one of those rare cases where it's the best option in the short-term and the long term.

staticrevenger · October 11, 2009

My responses in bold

If I may step in for Atlas here with Polaran purple. Ah' date=' f*** it, I don't need permission, let's rock. [/color']

Hunting provides food for people' date=' and regulates the population. For example, if deer were not hunted their population would explode. With the large amounts of deer, all the grass etc that deer eat would quickly be eaten up, due to the fierce competition over a suddenly strained food supply. Now the deer get to die a slow painful death from starvation, and more will perish than if we had simply gone out and killed some.
[/quote']
Wrong, without hunting the population of deer would stay where it was.
Congratulations, you failed basic math! If deer are breeding, then that = more deer. If hunters are killing that equals less deer. With me so far? So, and this is where things get really god damn complex, if you subtract deer in response to the addition of deer, it equalizes out. Thus, your statement couldn't be more wrong: the deer population would change if we didn't hunt them.

I think Atlas' point was that starving because another deer eats your food and getting shot in the face will result in the same outcome, the deer dies. Trying to save deer by killing deer seems a tad futile am I wrong?

Not so. Exponentially more deer would die from the starvation effect. Plus the ones alive would be sickly from malnourishment. The grass etc would most likely not grow back, at least not in the same capacity. I take it you're familiar with how the old herders would switch the field their livestock grazed in each year? This is because if they didn't, overgrazing would occur. Overgrazing damages the roots etc of the plants, causing them to not grow back, or grow back less the next season. So, it's essentially cross-species utilitarianism: the most benefit for the most amount of deer. Sure some will die, but the hard reality is that it's simply unavoidable. We could spend massive amounts of money to do the national park thing of transporting deer between locales to keep their numbers ideal in each reason, but the cost and the fact that none are being taken out of the equation, would result in us paying ridiculous amounts to juggle an increasingly massive amount of deer right before the same starvation effect occurred. While it may not be the most pretty way of dealing with the issue, hunting is the most efficient, humane way.

Also, let's assume you're perfectly right and we'd lose the same number to starvation as hunting. Then, the only difference would be a quick humane death versus a slow painful one, healthier deer, and food and sport for humans.

No matter which way you slice it, hunting (when we do it right, which we are) is a very safe and beneficial system to both parties on a grand scale. There's a small amount of afflicted parties in any system. In this case, it's the few deer that die and the humans that are opposed to their killing.

Humans are the ones that overpopulated, and we're wiping out all the other species because there's way too much of us to feed.

We're not wiping them out. There's an entire system of how many of each species we can kill, and even then we don't completely meet that, because not everyone that buys tags fills them all. There's also the fact that the harvesting of animals is spread out over a vast variety of different species. Hence, we regulate all of them instead of annihilating a few.

If you have to tell us of these systems, whose to say that anyone who happens to go into the woods with a gun adheres to them?

While the majority of hunters do adhere to these rules, it would be silly to say there are not a percentage who disregard them. However, to put it frankly, this is not an issue. I realize the previous statement may sounds absolutely ridiculous, but just listen to my explanation before you make up your mind. If you recall, in one of my first arguments, I stated that we have a limit etc that is set up so we don't kill too many. The simple fact is (let's take the wolf hunting policy I presented further down the road as an example of this as well) our systems aren't set up to kill as many as possible without utterly devastating them. There's actually a significant buffer if you will. We're going to be allowed to hunt under 10% of the wolves as a maximum, although technically they'd be perfectly fine if we killed 30%. The point I'm trying to make here, is that we leave a large amount of room for error. Think of it as a buffer for any negative impact due to questionable morality.

The deer hunters kill 90% of the time for game, not to play God with population control.

Their intent doesn't matter, it's the same effect. I highly doubt the majority of hunters are aware of the system. And we're playing God about as much as wolves and other predators are, they serve the same purpose. Also, fun fact: the 2 species most likely to survive a nuclear holocaust are cockroaches and humans. Why? Cockroaches can adapt to any environment and humans can adapt any environment to their needs. By design of nature, that is our method for living. Those that demonize us for this are going against the very nature they seek to uphold.

Alright, you raise a fair point, but you can't deny the fact that humans are much more threatening to a species than bears or wolves. The species we've driven to extinction are proof, we could easily do it again. Humans are different due to their advancements in technology and potential compared to normal predators. Fun fact by the way.

People talking about that crap should realize that we ourselves should be limiting ourselves to 2 children per couple so that we can slowly decrease population wise. Otherwise we'll be the ones you talked about going through a slow death via starvation.

No real response to this contention. You actually conceded here that a large boom in population causes more death than regulation, bolstering my point that it can happen to animals as well.

Not really, this is because humans don't have regulatory predators already like deer do. We're at the top of the food chain. We're the only regulation we have, and we don't tend to kill eachother nearly enough, surprisingly, so forces like population overload have to interfere. With deer, it's a different situation.

This then causes that whole food chain imbalance effect. So expanding upon the deer scenario, the wolves that eat them would have no food, and then the wolves would starve and die. This would also cause the rabbit population ( and other animals wolves eat) to grow out of control and repeat the deer scenario. Also, what minuscule amount of regulation the wolves were providing after the deer population boom would vanish.

On the off chance there's something present in this example's ecosystem that preys on wolves, it would die off much the same way the wolves did.

…Yeah, this is pretty much describing the impact the hunters will have on the ecosystem. >_>

Granted, this food chain domino effect could be caused by over-hunting of deer. However, we control how many we kill. Due the way our limit and tag systems are set up, we never come remotely close to killing enough to trigger this.

Just because we don't kill enough deer to make a threatening impact now doesn't mean we won't when our population grows more. While we grow in population, hunting of deer will have no new reason to decrease, and will most certainly increase.

The limit does not increase with our population. The limit is based solely upon the state of deer, the state of humans taken entirely out of the equation. We do have several alternatives, such as cows, chickens, fish, pigs, etc that provide for the vast majority of our food. The simple fact of the matter, is that hunting of game animals is not based around feeding people. It is based around making sure the deer population is at a healthy amount. I'll use a very simple metaphor here: Extreme hot and extreme cold. Both deliver burns, which are harmful. But, when you mix hot and cold (here representing birth and death) you get warmth (fittingly, representing life). Everything must be balanced. We cannot have wanton decimation of life, but on the same note we cannot have massive bursts of new life. When you look at it from this perspective, this is a very mutual relationship predator has with prey. It's the harmony of nature.

In addition, hunting is not mindless killing: everything is perfectly planned out by the fish and wildlife services so that we only kill enough deer to keep them under control. You know there's this fancy thing called a limit? You should learn what it means, it's a blasty blast.

It shouldn't be done in the first place, and as I said it isn't needed. National Parks do just fine without hunters. And when a hunter kills the head of a pack, all of the deer will die. Go figure.

Deer are not rendered useless when a "leader" of their group is killed. The only thing close the effect you proposed is killing a mother deer renders a fawn with her completely stunned and an easy target for all predators. This is why (if you're trying to harvest veal) you shoot the mother first: the fawn will just sit there confused. If you were to shoot the fawn first, the mother abandons it because it knows it will only endanger itself by attempting to help.

Wolves have strong pack mentalities, deer do not. They are perfectly capable of operating by themselves, as well as in a group of other deer.

As for the topic of national parks, those are the exception. They are carefully managed, and the populations manipulated so that everything is balanced without hunters. Instead of killing the deer for example, they merely transport them to another park if the population grows to high. National Parks do not prove your argument whatsoever, as they are not unmanaged wilderness. They are managed to have the same base effect as hunting. However, do to meticulous micro management, population control is necessary much less frequently. Thus it is an affordable venture to relocate deer to other national parks, or (if there is no room in another) release them into the wild (huntable lands).

Alright man, you're lacking a little foresight here. You don't seem to realize that just because we can coexist with deer while hunting them now doesn't mean we'll be able to later. If there were only 5 humans and a billion dear, we wouldn't pose much of a threat to the deer's population, but our rate of growth and current population are obviously much larger than those of deer.

I believe I presented an argument that would serve as a response to this further up in this post (the responses to you in bold), so if it's alright with you, I'll just leave it at that to avoid unneeded redundancy.

Contrary to popular, disney spoon-fed belief, the majority of the animals we hunt do not have families, nor can they experience complex emotions. Fear and contentment on the basest scale imaginable is all a deer can fathom. They operate solely on instinct. Ironically enough, the same people that made the bambi movie that radical environmentalists enjoy throwing out so often also made a movie called The Lion King. I suggest you go watch that, and pay particular attention to the circle of life concept. Even the authors of the work you use as one of your primary weapons in this argument know better.
You do know Disney doesn't have the same staff for everything, and that anyone using Bambi as a reference was most likely kidding, right? >.>

A lot of people wholeheartedly believe the ideas presented in Bambi, and actually use it as their primary argument. You'd be surprised how many times this has been the case when I've argued this topic with.....I suppose I'd call them radical environmentalists to be politically correct, although earthmuffins or treehuggers is another valid term.

I've yet to see people use Bambi as a serious part of their argument, and if they are, I've no reason to assert against their being idiotic, so we'll just leave it at that.

I believe it's safe to say we are all in agreement here then.

There's also the fact that a bullet is relatively painless to them. It's not like we're clubbing them to death or slitting their throats like the pigs you buy from the grocery store.

I went out and shot some people today. I didn't stab them though so it's all good.

Taking my point out of perspective. One of the main arguments against hunting is that it's inhumane and a painful death for the hunted. This point is meant to illustrate that it is quite the opposite, and to point out that the grocery store meat always thrown as an alternative to hunting comes from much less humane sources.

It's not an argument we're using. Sure, telling us what we're saying makes countering easier, but you're still telling us what we're saying. ;)

I'm not saying you two in particular are. This wasn't really a counter per se, merely another point to further my overall argument. True it would have had a bigger impact if that had been one of your arguments, but it still serves a purpose.

Also, school shooting etc are not linked to video games, they're the result of a combination of idiot parents who cannot properly educate or pay attention to their children and severe mental and emotional issues either due to a mental illness or their peers being brutal asshats to them. Video games are also becoming rather widespread, to the point that this becomes as silly as saying wearing a hat or playing sports caused them to do it. Video games are merely the media's favorite and most convenient scapegoat to cover up poor parenting. God forbid people have flaws; to save their self esteem we must demonize a hobby enough people are uninformed about that they'll believe any bullshit we spew!

I agree with this to an extent. It isn't always poor parenting though and it isn't never the result of video games. The reasons for shootings vary. But this topic is really unrelated, so whatever.

I just threw this in here as a response to an argument early on ( I believe it was Bloodrun who made it?) that blamed video games for violence when someone suggested them as an alternative to hunting. In hindsight I shouldn't have placed it in the middle of my primary argument, but oh well.

This is only the middle? s*** dude. I've got stuff to do. School shootings and their influences aren't exactly related to the point here though.

I'm very aware of this, and I apologize for any confusion. As I told Atlas, this was in response to another line of conversation on the first page that was never really wrapped up to my satisfaction.

Also, about those rangers. It's illegal to interfere with hunters hunting, so technically they were stupidly breaking the law they're supposed to be upholding, and died to a stupid mistake resulting in an accident. How the hell they became rangers when they're idiotic enough to run in front a gun aimed at a creature it's perfectly legal to kill is beyond me.

LOL

They were telling hunters to stop killing off endangered species(or population control, as you wish to call it). And the hunters going to their houses and shooting them isn't exactly them jumping in front of a bullet. Shut up.

I in no way advocate the killing of endangered species. I suggest you word your posts better. Here's yours: "kitty blindly supports hunting out of fear for the hunters and their guns they are not afraid to use when necessary. ignorant hunters have even killed some rangers trying to get them to stop killing innocent animals at times." This is vague as f***, and no where does it mention endangered, nor does it specify the circumstances. The most common scenario I could think of, would be rangers trying to stand between them and the deer they were hunting as some form of protest. Any misunderstandings are the direct result of your poorly written post.

Endangered Species are the result of over-hunting in areas where it is not properly managed. I do not claim our system is flawless, as it is obviously not do to these oversights. However, we quickly catch these before they have gone extinct (last species this happened to was the messenger pigeon) and work to revitalize them. For example, the wolves in Montana were endangered, and we were not allowed to hunt them for years. Now, they've made a huge come back, and we will soon be allowed to hunt them again. I believe the percentage of the population we are allowed to kill is around 7%. Studies show that we could kill up to 30% of the wolf population and not cause any significant impact on them.

Atlas was joking earlier about the rangers in post #41. Uncharacteristic all caps or all-lowercase is a key clue to a person's joking. But yeah, there's no real reason why rangers should be able to enforce certain hunters, as hunters have guns and are often unruly. The percentage of population of a species that we're allowed to kill, even if enforceable now, won't be long-term.

My apologies for missing that. It will be long-term by the way( if the odd lack of any support for this assertion seems confusing, it's because I completely forgot to respond to this statement before reading over my post preview. Later on I provide an explanation, so just be patient for now).

Also, Kitty said she doesn't hunt because she's afraid of guns, not because hunters are using scare tactics or winning her support via fear. Don't twist her words around like some idiotic reporter.

You obviously missed what that part of my sentence really meant. Responding is pointless.

No matter the deeper meaning, you did take her statements entirely out of context. TO continue to deny this is pointless.

Semantics're a bore, let's keep to the point.

Anyway I can discredit my opponent makes their argument look a slight bit worse. I prefer to get any edge I can. However I agree this line of discussion need not be dragged out any further.

tl;dr version: You're all uninformed idiots who are whining about things you don't understand in the least, under the banner of morals you're not even upholding via said whining.

tl;dr version: You're an elitist idiot who thinks hunters are some sort of Keystone predator in environments that did just fine without them and should consider learning about topics before making a giant rant of stupidity about it.

You have consistently demonstrated your lack of knowledge in multiple fields. You have no grounds or right to suggest I need to learn more when you fail to grasp the basest of concepts regarding wildlife management. I never suggested they were better than other people.

If you'd like to bring up the fact that I suggested wolves alone could not regulate deer effectively on their own, you would once again showcase your ignorance. One predator can't effectively control it by themselves, because if they could then the presence of any other predators would cause the eventual extinction of the prey. Thus, humans, wolves, and hawks are but a few pieces of the puzzle of predators that work together to regulate the lower rungs of the food chain. Humans are unique in that we can adjust how many we kill, and thus compensate for other predators by increasing or decreasing our efforts as the situation calls for it. So in way, humans are definitely a superior regulating force. Not an exceedingly more important and absolutely necessary one, but superb regardless.

You, time and time again, have failed to grasp the concept of us being more dangerous to other species' populations as ours grows. Please do.

I entirely grasp it. However, (although it's a bit cliched, it still stands) with great power comes great responsibility. We're not necessarily a threat, though we do have massive power. It's not our potential for destruction or potential for creation and preservation that matters. It's which we work to realize. Hunters and The Wildlife Services as a whole work for the preservation/conservation of our world. We shouldn't restrain ourselves and live in fear of what we might do. We must take control of it and use it for the betterment of all species.

On the somewhat likely chance this really is some fail attempt at subtly insulting Prince Hunter, I advise you to get a life and stop poking the metaphorical bear >_>

This jab at Hunter wasn't exactly fail and one could easily assume OMG is far better off socially than Hunter. Just super saiyan.

Fail was in regards to the attempt to be subtle. I stated no opinion, nor do I have one, on which of the two is a better person in any aspect. I merely stated that it's not wise to fruitlessly piss off someone in power, because the only thing he'd gain from it is a negative repercussion. When I stated to "Get a life" I was implying there are numerous better things he could be doing with his time than engage in futile and pointless attempts

He wasn't trying to be subtle, he's just making fun. Taking jokes seriously is another weakness of yours you're displaying along with your lack of foresight. Lighten up brother.

Just taking precautions. I find that it's prudent to include a response to a thread's potential hidden meaning, so that if it was just a troll thread my post isn't entirely a waste. I assure you I do have a sense of humor ^^

As for the lack of foresight, I believe I have quelled any doubts you had of foresight. Not to sounds rude, but may I suggest you didn't perceive it? I understand how you might come to that conclusion though: all of the actions I've advocate take place and have benefits in the short term at first glance. However, hunting is one of those rare cases where it's the best option in the short-term and the long term.

Interesting chronicle, sibling.

Amethyst Phoenix · October 11, 2009

[spoiler=Large quote for the purposes of overused meme]
My responses in bold

If I may step in for Atlas here with Polaran purple. Ah' date=' f*** it, I don't need permission, let's rock. [/color']

Hunting provides food for people' date=' and regulates the population. For example, if deer were not hunted their population would explode. With the large amounts of deer, all the grass etc that deer eat would quickly be eaten up, due to the fierce competition over a suddenly strained food supply. Now the deer get to die a slow painful death from starvation, and more will perish than if we had simply gone out and killed some.
[/quote']
Wrong, without hunting the population of deer would stay where it was.
Congratulations, you failed basic math! If deer are breeding, then that = more deer. If hunters are killing that equals less deer. With me so far? So, and this is where things get really god damn complex, if you subtract deer in response to the addition of deer, it equalizes out. Thus, your statement couldn't be more wrong: the deer population would change if we didn't hunt them.

I think Atlas' point was that starving because another deer eats your food and getting shot in the face will result in the same outcome, the deer dies. Trying to save deer by killing deer seems a tad futile am I wrong?

Not so. Exponentially more deer would die from the starvation effect. Plus the ones alive would be sickly from malnourishment. The grass etc would most likely not grow back, at least not in the same capacity. I take it you're familiar with how the old herders would switch the field their livestock grazed in each year? This is because if they didn't, overgrazing would occur. Overgrazing damages the roots etc of the plants, causing them to not grow back, or grow back less the next season. So, it's essentially cross-species utilitarianism: the most benefit for the most amount of deer. Sure some will die, but the hard reality is that it's simply unavoidable. We could spend massive amounts of money to do the national park thing of transporting deer between locales to keep their numbers ideal in each reason, but the cost and the fact that none are being taken out of the equation, would result in us paying ridiculous amounts to juggle an increasingly massive amount of deer right before the same starvation effect occurred. While it may not be the most pretty way of dealing with the issue, hunting is the most efficient, humane way.

Also, let's assume you're perfectly right and we'd lose the same number to starvation as hunting. Then, the only difference would be a quick humane death versus a slow painful one, healthier deer, and food and sport for humans.

No matter which way you slice it, hunting (when we do it right, which we are) is a very safe and beneficial system to both parties on a grand scale. There's a small amount of afflicted parties in any system. In this case, it's the few deer that die and the humans that are opposed to their killing.

Humans are the ones that overpopulated, and we're wiping out all the other species because there's way too much of us to feed.

We're not wiping them out. There's an entire system of how many of each species we can kill, and even then we don't completely meet that, because not everyone that buys tags fills them all. There's also the fact that the harvesting of animals is spread out over a vast variety of different species. Hence, we regulate all of them instead of annihilating a few.

If you have to tell us of these systems, whose to say that anyone who happens to go into the woods with a gun adheres to them?

While the majority of hunters do adhere to these rules, it would be silly to say there are not a percentage who disregard them. However, to put it frankly, this is not an issue. I realize the previous statement may sounds absolutely ridiculous, but just listen to my explanation before you make up your mind. If you recall, in one of my first arguments, I stated that we have a limit etc that is set up so we don't kill too many. The simple fact is (let's take the wolf hunting policy I presented further down the road as an example of this as well) our systems aren't set up to kill as many as possible without utterly devastating them. There's actually a significant buffer if you will. We're going to be allowed to hunt under 10% of the wolves as a maximum, although technically they'd be perfectly fine if we killed 30%. The point I'm trying to make here, is that we leave a large amount of room for error. Think of it as a buffer for any negative impact due to questionable morality.

The deer hunters kill 90% of the time for game, not to play God with population control.

Their intent doesn't matter, it's the same effect. I highly doubt the majority of hunters are aware of the system. And we're playing God about as much as wolves and other predators are, they serve the same purpose. Also, fun fact: the 2 species most likely to survive a nuclear holocaust are cockroaches and humans. Why? Cockroaches can adapt to any environment and humans can adapt any environment to their needs. By design of nature, that is our method for living. Those that demonize us for this are going against the very nature they seek to uphold.

Alright, you raise a fair point, but you can't deny the fact that humans are much more threatening to a species than bears or wolves. The species we've driven to extinction are proof, we could easily do it again. Humans are different due to their advancements in technology and potential compared to normal predators. Fun fact by the way.

People talking about that crap should realize that we ourselves should be limiting ourselves to 2 children per couple so that we can slowly decrease population wise. Otherwise we'll be the ones you talked about going through a slow death via starvation.

No real response to this contention. You actually conceded here that a large boom in population causes more death than regulation, bolstering my point that it can happen to animals as well.

Not really, this is because humans don't have regulatory predators already like deer do. We're at the top of the food chain. We're the only regulation we have, and we don't tend to kill eachother nearly enough, surprisingly, so forces like population overload have to interfere. With deer, it's a different situation.

This then causes that whole food chain imbalance effect. So expanding upon the deer scenario, the wolves that eat them would have no food, and then the wolves would starve and die. This would also cause the rabbit population ( and other animals wolves eat) to grow out of control and repeat the deer scenario. Also, what minuscule amount of regulation the wolves were providing after the deer population boom would vanish.

On the off chance there's something present in this example's ecosystem that preys on wolves, it would die off much the same way the wolves did.

…Yeah, this is pretty much describing the impact the hunters will have on the ecosystem. >_>

Granted, this food chain domino effect could be caused by over-hunting of deer. However, we control how many we kill. Due the way our limit and tag systems are set up, we never come remotely close to killing enough to trigger this.

Just because we don't kill enough deer to make a threatening impact now doesn't mean we won't when our population grows more. While we grow in population, hunting of deer will have no new reason to decrease, and will most certainly increase.

The limit does not increase with our population. The limit is based solely upon the state of deer, the state of humans taken entirely out of the equation. We do have several alternatives, such as cows, chickens, fish, pigs, etc that provide for the vast majority of our food. The simple fact of the matter, is that hunting of game animals is not based around feeding people. It is based around making sure the deer population is at a healthy amount. I'll use a very simple metaphor here: Extreme hot and extreme cold. Both deliver burns, which are harmful. But, when you mix hot and cold (here representing birth and death) you get warmth (fittingly, representing life). Everything must be balanced. We cannot have wanton decimation of life, but on the same note we cannot have massive bursts of new life. When you look at it from this perspective, this is a very mutual relationship predator has with prey. It's the harmony of nature.

In addition, hunting is not mindless killing: everything is perfectly planned out by the fish and wildlife services so that we only kill enough deer to keep them under control. You know there's this fancy thing called a limit? You should learn what it means, it's a blasty blast.

It shouldn't be done in the first place, and as I said it isn't needed. National Parks do just fine without hunters. And when a hunter kills the head of a pack, all of the deer will die. Go figure.

Deer are not rendered useless when a "leader" of their group is killed. The only thing close the effect you proposed is killing a mother deer renders a fawn with her completely stunned and an easy target for all predators. This is why (if you're trying to harvest veal) you shoot the mother first: the fawn will just sit there confused. If you were to shoot the fawn first, the mother abandons it because it knows it will only endanger itself by attempting to help.

Wolves have strong pack mentalities, deer do not. They are perfectly capable of operating by themselves, as well as in a group of other deer.

As for the topic of national parks, those are the exception. They are carefully managed, and the populations manipulated so that everything is balanced without hunters. Instead of killing the deer for example, they merely transport them to another park if the population grows to high. National Parks do not prove your argument whatsoever, as they are not unmanaged wilderness. They are managed to have the same base effect as hunting. However, do to meticulous micro management, population control is necessary much less frequently. Thus it is an affordable venture to relocate deer to other national parks, or (if there is no room in another) release them into the wild (huntable lands).

Alright man, you're lacking a little foresight here. You don't seem to realize that just because we can coexist with deer while hunting them now doesn't mean we'll be able to later. If there were only 5 humans and a billion dear, we wouldn't pose much of a threat to the deer's population, but our rate of growth and current population are obviously much larger than those of deer.

I believe I presented an argument that would serve as a response to this further up in this post (the responses to you in bold), so if it's alright with you, I'll just leave it at that to avoid unneeded redundancy.

Contrary to popular, disney spoon-fed belief, the majority of the animals we hunt do not have families, nor can they experience complex emotions. Fear and contentment on the basest scale imaginable is all a deer can fathom. They operate solely on instinct. Ironically enough, the same people that made the bambi movie that radical environmentalists enjoy throwing out so often also made a movie called The Lion King. I suggest you go watch that, and pay particular attention to the circle of life concept. Even the authors of the work you use as one of your primary weapons in this argument know better.
You do know Disney doesn't have the same staff for everything, and that anyone using Bambi as a reference was most likely kidding, right? >.>

A lot of people wholeheartedly believe the ideas presented in Bambi, and actually use it as their primary argument. You'd be surprised how many times this has been the case when I've argued this topic with.....I suppose I'd call them radical environmentalists to be politically correct, although earthmuffins or treehuggers is another valid term.

I've yet to see people use Bambi as a serious part of their argument, and if they are, I've no reason to assert against their being idiotic, so we'll just leave it at that.

I believe it's safe to say we are all in agreement here then.

There's also the fact that a bullet is relatively painless to them. It's not like we're clubbing them to death or slitting their throats like the pigs you buy from the grocery store.

I went out and shot some people today. I didn't stab them though so it's all good.

Taking my point out of perspective. One of the main arguments against hunting is that it's inhumane and a painful death for the hunted. This point is meant to illustrate that it is quite the opposite, and to point out that the grocery store meat always thrown as an alternative to hunting comes from much less humane sources.

It's not an argument we're using. Sure, telling us what we're saying makes countering easier, but you're still telling us what we're saying. ;)

I'm not saying you two in particular are. This wasn't really a counter per se, merely another point to further my overall argument. True it would have had a bigger impact if that had been one of your arguments, but it still serves a purpose.

Also, school shooting etc are not linked to video games, they're the result of a combination of idiot parents who cannot properly educate or pay attention to their children and severe mental and emotional issues either due to a mental illness or their peers being brutal asshats to them. Video games are also becoming rather widespread, to the point that this becomes as silly as saying wearing a hat or playing sports caused them to do it. Video games are merely the media's favorite and most convenient scapegoat to cover up poor parenting. God forbid people have flaws; to save their self esteem we must demonize a hobby enough people are uninformed about that they'll believe any bullshit we spew!

I agree with this to an extent. It isn't always poor parenting though and it isn't never the result of video games. The reasons for shootings vary. But this topic is really unrelated, so whatever.

I just threw this in here as a response to an argument early on ( I believe it was Bloodrun who made it?) that blamed video games for violence when someone suggested them as an alternative to hunting. In hindsight I shouldn't have placed it in the middle of my primary argument, but oh well.

This is only the middle? s*** dude. I've got stuff to do. School shootings and their influences aren't exactly related to the point here though.

I'm very aware of this, and I apologize for any confusion. As I told Atlas, this was in response to another line of conversation on the first page that was never really wrapped up to my satisfaction.

Also, about those rangers. It's illegal to interfere with hunters hunting, so technically they were stupidly breaking the law they're supposed to be upholding, and died to a stupid mistake resulting in an accident. How the hell they became rangers when they're idiotic enough to run in front a gun aimed at a creature it's perfectly legal to kill is beyond me.

LOL

They were telling hunters to stop killing off endangered species(or population control, as you wish to call it). And the hunters going to their houses and shooting them isn't exactly them jumping in front of a bullet. Shut up.

I in no way advocate the killing of endangered species. I suggest you word your posts better. Here's yours: "kitty blindly supports hunting out of fear for the hunters and their guns they are not afraid to use when necessary. ignorant hunters have even killed some rangers trying to get them to stop killing innocent animals at times." This is vague as f***, and no where does it mention endangered, nor does it specify the circumstances. The most common scenario I could think of, would be rangers trying to stand between them and the deer they were hunting as some form of protest. Any misunderstandings are the direct result of your poorly written post.

Endangered Species are the result of over-hunting in areas where it is not properly managed. I do not claim our system is flawless, as it is obviously not do to these oversights. However, we quickly catch these before they have gone extinct (last species this happened to was the messenger pigeon) and work to revitalize them. For example, the wolves in Montana were endangered, and we were not allowed to hunt them for years. Now, they've made a huge come back, and we will soon be allowed to hunt them again. I believe the percentage of the population we are allowed to kill is around 7%. Studies show that we could kill up to 30% of the wolf population and not cause any significant impact on them.

Atlas was joking earlier about the rangers in post #41. Uncharacteristic all caps or all-lowercase is a key clue to a person's joking. But yeah, there's no real reason why rangers should be able to enforce certain hunters, as hunters have guns and are often unruly. The percentage of population of a species that we're allowed to kill, even if enforceable now, won't be long-term.

My apologies for missing that. It will be long-term by the way( if the odd lack of any support for this assertion seems confusing, it's because I completely forgot to respond to this statement before reading over my post preview. Later on I provide an explanation, so just be patient for now).

Also, Kitty said she doesn't hunt because she's afraid of guns, not because hunters are using scare tactics or winning her support via fear. Don't twist her words around like some idiotic reporter.

You obviously missed what that part of my sentence really meant. Responding is pointless.

No matter the deeper meaning, you did take her statements entirely out of context. TO continue to deny this is pointless.

Semantics're a bore, let's keep to the point.

Anyway I can discredit my opponent makes their argument look a slight bit worse. I prefer to get any edge I can. However I agree this line of discussion need not be dragged out any further.

tl;dr version: You're all uninformed idiots who are whining about things you don't understand in the least, under the banner of morals you're not even upholding via said whining.

tl;dr version: You're an elitist idiot who thinks hunters are some sort of Keystone predator in environments that did just fine without them and should consider learning about topics before making a giant rant of stupidity about it.

You have consistently demonstrated your lack of knowledge in multiple fields. You have no grounds or right to suggest I need to learn more when you fail to grasp the basest of concepts regarding wildlife management. I never suggested they were better than other people.

If you'd like to bring up the fact that I suggested wolves alone could not regulate deer effectively on their own, you would once again showcase your ignorance. One predator can't effectively control it by themselves, because if they could then the presence of any other predators would cause the eventual extinction of the prey. Thus, humans, wolves, and hawks are but a few pieces of the puzzle of predators that work together to regulate the lower rungs of the food chain. Humans are unique in that we can adjust how many we kill, and thus compensate for other predators by increasing or decreasing our efforts as the situation calls for it. So in way, humans are definitely a superior regulating force. Not an exceedingly more important and absolutely necessary one, but superb regardless.

You, time and time again, have failed to grasp the concept of us being more dangerous to other species' populations as ours grows. Please do.

I entirely grasp it. However, (although it's a bit cliched, it still stands) with great power comes great responsibility. We're not necessarily a threat, though we do have massive power. It's not our potential for destruction or potential for creation and preservation that matters. It's which we work to realize. Hunters and The Wildlife Services as a whole work for the preservation/conservation of our world. We shouldn't restrain ourselves and live in fear of what we might do. We must take control of it and use it for the betterment of all species.

On the somewhat likely chance this really is some fail attempt at subtly insulting Prince Hunter, I advise you to get a life and stop poking the metaphorical bear >_>

This jab at Hunter wasn't exactly fail and one could easily assume OMG is far better off socially than Hunter. Just super saiyan.

Fail was in regards to the attempt to be subtle. I stated no opinion, nor do I have one, on which of the two is a better person in any aspect. I merely stated that it's not wise to fruitlessly piss off someone in power, because the only thing he'd gain from it is a negative repercussion. When I stated to "Get a life" I was implying there are numerous better things he could be doing with his time than engage in futile and pointless attempts

He wasn't trying to be subtle, he's just making fun. Taking jokes seriously is another weakness of yours you're displaying along with your lack of foresight. Lighten up brother.

Just taking precautions. I find that it's prudent to include a response to a thread's potential hidden meaning, so that if it was just a troll thread my post isn't entirely a waste. I assure you I do have a sense of humor ^^

As for the lack of foresight, I believe I have quelled any doubts you had of foresight. Not to sounds rude, but may I suggest you didn't perceive it? I understand how you might come to that conclusion though: all of the actions I've advocate take place and have benefits in the short term at first glance. However, hunting is one of those rare cases where it's the best option in the short-term and the long term.

Interesting chronicle, sibling.

funking called it about 2 seconds in.

~ P O L A R I S ~ · October 11, 2009

Apart from not being as optimistic that we'll be able to maintain control of hunters as out numbers go up, it looks like we're pretty much in agreement here.

As for what we disagree upon, I acknowledge that it's possible that deer and humans can live alongside eachother, mutually beneficial to eachother until the end, as there's no real way of telling what the future holds. I just that I don't find it all that likely.

At this point in the game, we've reached an Atheist-Christian-style stalemate, as we can't prove what the future holds anymore than whether there's a God or whether there's a small celestial teapot too small to be observed by our most powerful telescopes in the rings of Saturn, impervious to any damage it might've taken. Further debate's rather futile at this point. All we can do is measure educated guesses, we can't reach a conclusion. I can't see your end of the board, you can't see mine.

I believe we've reached a resolution. ^____^

Interesting chronicle' date=' sibling.
[/quote']

Did you know, that once upon a time in a magical setting of mysticality, there lived children so magnificent that they could read books? WHOLE books. Not just segments. And then they could read other books afterwards too! And more after that! Conversely, in reality, there lived children who couldn't read more than 5 pages of debate.

Amethyst Phoenix · October 11, 2009

Apart from not being as optimistic that we'll be able to maintain control of hunters as out numbers go up' date=' it looks like we're pretty much in agreement here.

As for what we disagree upon, I acknowledge that it's possible that deer and humans can live alongside eachother, mutually beneficial to eachother until the end, as there's no real way of telling what the future holds. I just that I don't find it all that likely.

At this point in the game, we've reached an Atheist-Christian-style stalemate, as we can't prove what the future holds anymore than whether there's a God or whether there's a small celestial teapot too small to be observed by our most powerful telescopes in the rings of Saturn, impervious to any damage it might've taken. Further debate's rather futile at this point. All we can do is measure educated guesses, we can't reach a conclusion. I can't see your end of the board, you can't see mine.

I believe we've reached a resolution. ^____^

[b'] Same. And the teapot is real. It plays checkers with me and God every Sunday ^^ [/b]

Interesting chronicle' date=' sibling.
[/quote']

Did you know, that once upon a time in a magical setting of mysticality, there lived children so magnificent that they could read books? WHOLE books. Not just segments. And then they could read other books afterwards too! And more after that! Conversely, in reality, there lived children who couldn't read more than 5 pages of debate.

[spoiler=*opens internet strategy guide*]

*ahem* OH SNAP!

staticrevenger · October 11, 2009

Interesting chronicle' date=' sibling.
[/quote']

Did you know, that once upon a time in a magical setting of mysticality, there lived children so magnificent that they could read books? WHOLE books. Not just segments. And then they could read other books afterwards too! And more after that! Conversely, in reality, there lived children who couldn't read more than 5 pages of debate.

tl;dr please. I'm having trouble comprehending this mass amount of text.

fenrir · October 11, 2009

Interesting chronicle' date=' sibling.
[/quote']

Did you know, that once upon a time in a magical setting of mysticality, there lived children so magnificent that they could read books? WHOLE books. Not just segments. And then they could read other books afterwards too! And more after that! Conversely, in reality, there lived children who couldn't read more than 5 pages of debate.

tl;dr please. I'm having trouble comprehending this mass amount of text.

i c wut u did thar

$~/Coolio Prime\~$ · October 11, 2009

sorry, no font effects on my end, just more splicing

Hunting provides food for people' date=' and regulates the population. For example, if deer were not hunted their population would explode. With the large amounts of deer, all the grass etc that deer eat would quickly be eaten up, due to the fierce competition over a suddenly strained food supply. Now the deer get to die a slow painful death from starvation, and more will perish than if we had simply gone out and killed some.
[/quote']
Wrong, without hunting the population of deer would stay where it was.
Congratulations, you failed basic math! If deer are breeding, then that = more deer. If hunters are killing that equals less deer. With me so far? So, and this is where things get really god damn complex, if you subtract deer in response to the addition of deer, it equalizes out. Thus, your statement couldn't be more wrong: the deer population would change if we didn't hunt them.
Oh god that's pathetic. My dear boy, have you ever heard of a creature of myth that does that exact job known as the "wolf"? No? Well, the fact that hunters are wiping them out too might be a reason why. >_>

Humans are the ones that overpopulated, and we're wiping out all the other species because there's way too much of us to feed.
We're not wiping them out. There's an entire system of how many of each species we can kill, and even then we don't completely meet that, because not everyone that buys tags fills them all. There's also the fact that the harvesting of animals is spread out over a vast variety of different species. Hence, we regulate all of them instead of annihilating a few.
Which is why the increase in human life can correspond with dozens of species going extinct, amirite? Whether we try to conserve or not, we're scraping Earth's resources dry at out current population. Hunting is an unneeded factor that animals in nature fill.

The deer hunters kill 90% of the time for game, not to play God with population control.
Their intent doesn't matter, it's the same effect. I highly doubt the majority of hunters are aware of the system. And we're playing God about as much as wolves and other predators are, they serve the same purpose. Also, fun fact: the 2 species most likely to survive a nuclear holocaust are cockroaches and humans. Why? Cockroaches can adapt to any environment and humans can adapt any environment to their needs. By design of nature, that is our method for living. Those that demonize us for this are going against the very nature they seek to uphold.
I'm sure most hunters are unaware of that, they're killing just kill. Let's ignore the psychological issues people like that have and focus on the fact that if that were so it would explain why so many of them pick off a few extra deers or so when no one can regulate them. And Fun Fact: Humans have caused the most devastation towards the Earth than any other creature! Your ability to change the environment doesn't mean it's always in a good way.

People talking about that crap should realize that we ourselves should be limiting ourselves to 2 children per couple so that we can slowly decrease population wise. Otherwise we'll be the ones you talked about going through a slow death via starvation.
No real response to this contention. You actually conceded here that a large boom in population causes more death than regulation, bolstering my point that it can happen to animals as well.
I never denied that, you seem to be missing my entire point here. You know how you said deer would grow too large and eat all of the grass if humans weren't there to put a stop to it? Apply that to humans growing to large and taking out deer. Because that's what has happened to various creatures already.
This then causes that whole food chain imbalance effect. So expanding upon the deer scenario, the wolves that eat them would have no food, and then the wolves would starve and die. This would also cause the rabbit population ( and other animals wolves eat) to grow out of control and repeat the deer scenario. Also, what minuscule amount of regulation the wolves were providing after the deer population boom would vanish.

On the off chance there's something present in this example's ecosystem that preys on wolves, it would die off much the same way the wolves did.
…Yeah, this is pretty much describing the impact the hunters will have on the ecosystem. >_>
Granted, this food chain domino effect could be caused by over-hunting of deer. However, we control how many we kill. Due the way our limit and tag systems are set up, we never come remotely close to killing enough to trigger this.
I acknowledged the faults about this logic later on in the debate, I believe.
In addition, hunting is not mindless killing: everything is perfectly planned out by the fish and wildlife services so that we only kill enough deer to keep them under control. You know there's this fancy thing called a limit? You should learn what it means, it's a blasty blast.
It shouldn't be done in the first place, and as I said it isn't needed. National Parks do just fine without hunters. And when a hunter kills the head of a pack, all of the deer will die. Go figure.

Deer are not rendered useless when a "leader" of their group is killed. The only thing close the effect you proposed is killing a mother deer renders a fawn with her completely stunned and an easy target for all predators. This is why (if you're trying to harvest veal) you shoot the mother first: the fawn will just sit there confused. If you were to shoot the fawn first, the mother abandons it because it knows it will only endanger itself by attempting to help.
I was kind of expanding out to other deer-like creatures being hunted into low numbers there that do depend on pack leaders. This may be true for deers too and your ignorance on the subject may only prove how much of an impact one deer's death can have, but I'll take your word for it. And talking about a hunter tactic that involves killing off the next generation of deer doesn't exactly help your argument.

Wolves have strong pack mentalities, deer do not. They are perfectly capable of operating by themselves, as well as in a group of other deer.

I thought we weren't using Bambi as part of our arguments.

As for the topic of national parks, those are the exception. They are carefully managed, and the populations manipulated so that everything is balanced without hunters. Instead of killing the deer for example, they merely transport them to another park if the population grows to high. National Parks do not prove your argument whatsoever, as they are not unmanaged wilderness. They are managed to have the same base effect as hunting. However, do to meticulous micro management, population control is necessary much less frequently. Thus it is an affordable venture to relocate deer to other national parks, or (if there is no room in another) release them into the wild (huntable lands).

If you truly think wildlife randomly has a deer population sky rocket so much, how is it that the forest ecosystem has been surviving for so long in areas that completely lacked human?

Contrary to popular, disney spoon-fed belief, the majority of the animals we hunt do not have families, nor can they experience complex emotions. Fear and contentment on the basest scale imaginable is all a deer can fathom. They operate solely on instinct. Ironically enough, the same people that made the bambi movie that radical environmentalists enjoy throwing out so often also made a movie called The Lion King. I suggest you go watch that, and pay particular attention to the circle of life concept. Even the authors of the work you use as one of your primary weapons in this argument know better.
You do know Disney doesn't have the same staff for everything, and that anyone using Bambi as a reference was most likely kidding, right? >.>

A lot of people wholeheartedly believe the ideas presented in Bambi, and actually use it as their primary argument. You'd be surprised how many times this has been the case when I've argued this topic with.....I suppose I'd call them radical environmentalists to be politically correct, although earthmuffins or treehuggers is another valid term.

Did anyone in this thread actually try passing it off as a valid argument? If so: O_0

There's also the fact that a bullet is relatively painless to them. It's not like we're clubbing them to death or slitting their throats like the pigs you buy from the grocery store.
I went out and shot some people today. I didn't stab them though so it's all good.

Taking my point out of perspective. One of the main arguments against hunting is that it's inhumane and a painful death for the hunted. This point is meant to illustrate that it is quite the opposite, and to point out that the grocery store meat always thrown as an alternative to hunting comes from much less humane sources.

I might have misread you there so I'll check before countering? Did you just say using the dead animal as a food source rather than simply killing it is less humane?

Also, school shooting etc are not linked to video games, they're the result of a combination of idiot parents who cannot properly educate or pay attention to their children and severe mental and emotional issues either due to a mental illness or their peers being brutal asshats to them. Video games are also becoming rather widespread, to the point that this becomes as silly as saying wearing a hat or playing sports caused them to do it. Video games are merely the media's favorite and most convenient scapegoat to cover up poor parenting. God forbid people have flaws; to save their self esteem we must demonize a hobby enough people are uninformed about that they'll believe any bullshit we spew!
I agree with this to an extent. It isn't always poor parenting though and it isn't never the result of video games. The reasons for shootings vary. But this topic is really unrelated, so whatever.

I just threw this in here as a response to an argument early on ( I believe it was Bloodrun who made it?) that blamed video games for violence when someone suggested them as an alternative to hunting. In hindsight I shouldn't have placed it in the middle of my primary argument, but oh well.

Bloodrun isn't one of the brightest bulbs. Just saying. >_>

Also, about those rangers. It's illegal to interfere with hunters hunting, so technically they were stupidly breaking the law they're supposed to be upholding, and died to a stupid mistake resulting in an accident. How the hell they became rangers when they're idiotic enough to run in front a gun aimed at a creature it's perfectly legal to kill is beyond me.
LOL

They were telling hunters to stop killing off endangered species(or population control, as you wish to call it). And the hunters going to their houses and shooting them isn't exactly them jumping in front of a bullet. Shut up.

I in no way advocate the killing of endangered species. I suggest you word your posts better. Here's yours: "kitty blindly supports hunting out of fear for the hunters and their guns they are not afraid to use when necessary. ignorant hunters have even killed some rangers trying to get them to stop killing innocent animals at times." This is vague as f***, and no where does it mention endangered, nor does it specify the circumstances. The most common scenario I could think of, would be rangers trying to stand between them and the deer they were hunting as some form of protest. Any misunderstandings are the direct result of your poorly written post.

You could have asked for clarification before trying to relate every single thing somebody said in direct relation to deer. I didn't actually expect someone to try making an argument about anything in this thread.

Endangered Species are the result of over-hunting in areas where it is not properly managed. I do not claim our system is flawless, as it is obviously not do to these oversights. However, we quickly catch these before they have gone extinct (last species this happened to was the messenger pigeon) and work to revitalize them. For example, the wolves in Montana were endangered, and we were not allowed to hunt them for years. Now, they've made a huge come back, and we will soon be allowed to hunt them again. I believe the percentage of the population we are allowed to kill is around 7%. Studies show that we could kill up to 30% of the wolf population and not cause any significant impact on them.

Sounds like the only problems being cause here are from hunting in the first place.

Also, Kitty said she doesn't hunt because she's afraid of guns, not because hunters are using scare tactics or winning her support via fear. Don't twist her words around like some idiotic reporter.
You obviously missed what that part of my sentence really meant. Responding is pointless.

No matter the deeper meaning, you did take her statements entirely out of context. TO continue to deny this is pointless.

But the deeper meaning is oftentimes the only thing that's supposed to matter when there is one. The plain to see one is there for no means other than to serve as a mask of sorts.

tl;dr version: You're all uninformed idiots who are whining about things you don't understand in the least, under the banner of morals you're not even upholding via said whining.
tl;dr version: You're an elitist idiot who thinks hunters are some sort of Keystone predator in environments that did just fine without them and should consider learning about topics before making a giant rant of stupidity about it.

You have consistently demonstrated your lack of knowledge in multiple fields. You have no grounds or right to suggest I need to learn more when you fail to grasp the basest of concepts regarding wildlife management. I never suggested they were better than other people.

Wildlife management is a cute little title to give to destroying ecosystems. Stop saying I'm the ignorant one when the time before humans and before humans were everywhere is proof enough that the only thing screwing over nature is us.

If you'd like to bring up the fact that I suggested wolves alone could not regulate deer effectively on their own, you would once again showcase your ignorance. One predator can't effectively control it by themselves, because if they could then the presence of any other predators would cause the eventual extinction of the prey.

You act like this is ridiculous when hunting is an advocate of this very theory. Many fish have died off on account of fishing in places with very predominant predators.

Thus, humans, wolves, and hawks are but a few pieces of the puzzle of predators that work together to regulate the lower rungs of the food chain. Humans are unique in that we can adjust how many we kill, and thus compensate for other predators by increasing or decreasing our efforts as the situation calls for it. So in way, humans are definitely a superior regulating force. Not an exceedingly more important and absolutely necessary one, but superb regardless.

I'll have you know that I agree to diminishing species that grow too large, but hunters merely spring at the chance to kill whatever is in abundance and can still get off with killing far less abundant creatures. And humans should look at themselves and realize that we've grown far too large.

On the somewhat likely chance this really is some fail attempt at subtly insulting Prince Hunter, I advise you to get a life and stop poking the metaphorical bear >_>
This jab at Hunter wasn't exactly fail and one could easily assume OMG is far better off socially than Hunter. Just super saiyan.

Fail was in regards to the attempt to be subtle. I stated no opinion, nor do I have one, on which of the two is a better person in any aspect. I merely stated that it's not wise to fruitlessly piss off someone in power, because the only thing he'd gain from it is a negative repercussion. When I stated to "Get a life" I was implying there are numerous better things he could be doing with his time than engage in futile and pointless attempts

He seemed to be doing it for fun, and he had fun doing so. I don't see anything wrong with it, especially when Hunter probably won't respond with anything too harsh.

long post #1
long post #2

Atlas won. Know why? Well' date=' it's mainly because you seem to think that if you make a long debate-able post that contains many arguments, because this is YCM no-one will try and debate against you. Surprised? You shouldn't be, and you better have a successful counter-argument or I'll be left to leave that you fail at debate.
[/quote']

You're looking at the principle of the matter rather than the actual points presented to determine who "Won", as well as assuming I'm caught offguard in the least.

I don't think no one will respond, in fact I've had counterarguments presented several times and responded them, here on YCM.

If you have some personal vendetta against me for my long posts when I argue, I suggest you leave that at home before you cast judgment.

If not, and you were merely pointing out "If Amethyst has no response, Atlas wins." then allow me to be the first to say "No s***, Sherlock". However, that is clearly not the case, which should be painfully obvious by now, due to the presence of the very post you're currently reading.
Honestly. People just noticing large posts and assuming victory on account of that are annoying.

Altαir · October 11, 2009

I have one thing to say...

tl;dr

Amethyst Phoenix · October 11, 2009

Responses in bold.

sorry' date=' no font effects on my end, just more splicing

Hunting provides food for people' date=' and regulates the population. For example, if deer were not hunted their population would explode. With the large amounts of deer, all the grass etc that deer eat would quickly be eaten up, due to the fierce competition over a suddenly strained food supply. Now the deer get to die a slow painful death from starvation, and more will perish than if we had simply gone out and killed some.
[/quote']
Wrong, without hunting the population of deer would stay where it was.
Congratulations, you failed basic math! If deer are breeding, then that = more deer. If hunters are killing that equals less deer. With me so far? So, and this is where things get really god damn complex, if you subtract deer in response to the addition of deer, it equalizes out. Thus, your statement couldn't be more wrong: the deer population would change if we didn't hunt them.
Oh god that's pathetic. My dear boy, have you ever heard of a creature of myth that does that exact job known as the "wolf"? No? Well, the fact that hunters are wiping them out too might be a reason why. >_>

Wolves are making a comeback, as stated before. If you'd like to make some snide remark about "So we brought them back to kill them again? That's a good idea...", the season will kill a maximum of around 7%, and it's projected we can kill 30% and make no real impact on them. These stats are for Montana, to clarify. I believe I've already stated that ecosystems are set up for and/or adapt to how many predators there are. Wolves alone don't properly regulate every single environment they happen to waltz into. Also there's the fact the population was low until recently...

Oh, and the fact that we had the wisdom to let wolves re-surge (as we have done for many species with low populations) shatters your "mindless killing, killing, and more killing" false stereotype you seem to base your argument around.
[/b]

Humans are the ones that overpopulated, and we're wiping out all the other species because there's way too much of us to feed.
We're not wiping them out. There's an entire system of how many of each species we can kill, and even then we don't completely meet that, because not everyone that buys tags fills them all. There's also the fact that the harvesting of animals is spread out over a vast variety of different species. Hence, we regulate all of them instead of annihilating a few.
Which is why the increase in human life can correspond with dozens of species going extinct, amirite? Whether we try to conserve or not, we're scraping Earth's resources dry at out current population. Hunting is an unneeded factor that animals in nature fill.

rite? = no. If I'm understanding you right, you're saying the increase in human life will equal more killing via hunting? False: Hunting is not based on human population, rather on animal population. Food and sport are secondary and tertiary functions of a system which is primarily designed to keep the deer population at a healthy medium. It is adjusted as needed based solely on the deer.

Animals in nature don't fill it completely all of the time. Humans are the best option, because we can make rational decisions and adjust our killing rate etc to fit the situation. Thus, we are the only species that can effectively co-exist prey-wise with any predator, because we can adjust our hunting quotas to nicely complement theirs, or pick up any slack. Furthermore, out of all the ways man impacts the environment in a resource taking way, hunting is of the least effect.

I don't think you grasp that we're killing the amount that needs to be killed, not killing more after nature has run it's course. Humans are a part of nature.
The deer hunters kill 90% of the time for game, not to play God with population control.
Their intent doesn't matter, it's the same effect. I highly doubt the majority of hunters are aware of the system. And we're playing God about as much as wolves and other predators are, they serve the same purpose. Also, fun fact: the 2 species most likely to survive a nuclear holocaust are cockroaches and humans. Why? Cockroaches can adapt to any environment and humans can adapt any environment to their needs. By design of nature, that is our method for living. Those that demonize us for this are going against the very nature they seek to uphold.
I'm sure most hunters are unaware of that, they're killing just kill. Let's ignore the psychological issues people like that have and focus on the fact that if that were so it would explain why so many of them pick off a few extra deers or so when no one can regulate them. And Fun Fact: Humans have caused the most devastation towards the Earth than any other creature! Your ability to change the environment doesn't mean it's always in a good way.

They're killing for sport and to feed their families. Many of those with lower incomes can supplement their food stores. Killing for sport has always been a healthy activity, beneficial for humans and game animals, as well as being a wholesome past-time. Anyone who hunts does not have some mental problem.

If they do pick off a few extra, it doesn't matter. I believe I explained the "buffer" in one of my responses to Polaris, in which the limit is actually very far from the acutally maximum limit we can safely kill. Any extra deaths fail to impact them in a significant way.

Also, your fun fact is an inconsequential argument. Humans are the only animal that can cause damage to the environment. I was thinking of suggesting animals that are introduced to foreign environments, but then I realized you would completely ignore that and say humans are responsible for introducing them. It's akin to saying bats fly more than any other mammal: they're the only ones that can, so a distinction such as "most" is meaningless.

People talking about that crap should realize that we ourselves should be limiting ourselves to 2 children per couple so that we can slowly decrease population wise. Otherwise we'll be the ones you talked about going through a slow death via starvation.
No real response to this contention. You actually conceded here that a large boom in population causes more death than regulation, bolstering my point that it can happen to animals as well.
I never denied that, you seem to be missing my entire point here. You know how you said deer would grow too large and eat all of the grass if humans weren't there to put a stop to it? Apply that to humans growing to large and taking out deer. Because that's what has happened to various creatures already.

Last creature to be killed off by humans was the messenger pigeon. We've certainly refined our methods since then. We don't solely target deer. We kill exponentially more cows chickens, fish.....screw it, you can go actually read my debate with Polaris and consider my arguments there instead of wasting time with points I've already countered causing me to regurgitate every argument I made in response to him.

Also, we don't increase how many deer killed as our population increases.

This then causes that whole food chain imbalance effect. So expanding upon the deer scenario, the wolves that eat them would have no food, and then the wolves would starve and die. This would also cause the rabbit population ( and other animals wolves eat) to grow out of control and repeat the deer scenario. Also, what minuscule amount of regulation the wolves were providing after the deer population boom would vanish.

On the off chance there's something present in this example's ecosystem that preys on wolves, it would die off much the same way the wolves did.
…Yeah, this is pretty much describing the impact the hunters will have on the ecosystem. >_>
Granted, this food chain domino effect could be caused by over-hunting of deer. However, we control how many we kill. Due the way our limit and tag systems are set up, we never come remotely close to killing enough to trigger this.
I acknowledged the faults about this logic later on in the debate, I believe.

I disproved those supposed faults later in the debate, I believe.
In addition, hunting is not mindless killing: everything is perfectly planned out by the fish and wildlife services so that we only kill enough deer to keep them under control. You know there's this fancy thing called a limit? You should learn what it means, it's a blasty blast.
It shouldn't be done in the first place, and as I said it isn't needed. National Parks do just fine without hunters. And when a hunter kills the head of a pack, all of the deer will die. Go figure.

Deer are not rendered useless when a "leader" of their group is killed. The only thing close the effect you proposed is killing a mother deer renders a fawn with her completely stunned and an easy target for all predators. This is why (if you're trying to harvest veal) you shoot the mother first: the fawn will just sit there confused. If you were to shoot the fawn first, the mother abandons it because it knows it will only endanger itself by attempting to help.
I was kind of expanding out to other deer-like creatures being hunted into low numbers there that do depend on pack leaders. This may be true for deers too and your ignorance on the subject may only prove how much of an impact one deer's death can have, but I'll take your word for it. And talking about a hunter tactic that involves killing off the next generation of deer doesn't exactly help your argument.

It was a valid example to further my point. Very few hunters are going for veal, considering they'd rather have more meat from a full grown deer anyway. Also, the "buffer" in place once again saves the day from any larger impact killing of fawns might cause.

Wolves have strong pack mentalities, deer do not. They are perfectly capable of operating by themselves, as well as in a group of other deer.
I thought we weren't using Bambi as part of our arguments.

What does bambi have to do with wolves and pack mentality again?

As for the topic of national parks, those are the exception. They are carefully managed, and the populations manipulated so that everything is balanced without hunters. Instead of killing the deer for example, they merely transport them to another park if the population grows to high. National Parks do not prove your argument whatsoever, as they are not unmanaged wilderness. They are managed to have the same base effect as hunting. However, do to meticulous micro management, population control is necessary much less frequently. Thus it is an affordable venture to relocate deer to other national parks, or (if there is no room in another) release them into the wild (huntable lands).
If you truly think wildlife randomly has a deer population sky rocket so much, how is it that the forest ecosystem has been surviving for so long in areas that completely lacked human?

The predators most likely adapted to the situation to make room for humans when humans arrived, thus re-balancing the ecosystem. Also, due to lack of human presence, how can you prove it wasn't in the process of sky-rocketing and we showed up in time to save it?

Contrary to popular, disney spoon-fed belief, the majority of the animals we hunt do not have families, nor can they experience complex emotions. Fear and contentment on the basest scale imaginable is all a deer can fathom. They operate solely on instinct. Ironically enough, the same people that made the bambi movie that radical environmentalists enjoy throwing out so often also made a movie called The Lion King. I suggest you go watch that, and pay particular attention to the circle of life concept. Even the authors of the work you use as one of your primary weapons in this argument know better.
You do know Disney doesn't have the same staff for everything, and that anyone using Bambi as a reference was most likely kidding, right? >.>

A lot of people wholeheartedly believe the ideas presented in Bambi, and actually use it as their primary argument. You'd be surprised how many times this has been the case when I've argued this topic with.....I suppose I'd call them radical environmentalists to be politically correct, although earthmuffins or treehuggers is another valid term.
Did anyone in this thread actually try passing it off as a valid argument? If so: O_0

No, but I'd rather disprove it ahead of time rather than wasting a gigantic post of responses to some bambi ridden argument. Think of it as debate insurance.

There's also the fact that a bullet is relatively painless to them. It's not like we're clubbing them to death or slitting their throats like the pigs you buy from the grocery store.
I went out and shot some people today. I didn't stab them though so it's all good.

Taking my point out of perspective. One of the main arguments against hunting is that it's inhumane and a painful death for the hunted. This point is meant to illustrate that it is quite the opposite, and to point out that the grocery store meat always thrown as an alternative to hunting comes from much less humane sources.
I might have misread you there so I'll check before countering? Did you just say using the dead animal as a food source rather than simply killing it is less humane?

No, I was referring to method of death. Both farm raised and game animals are both used as food. The only animal I really referred to is pigs, which usually have their throats cut, which is a much more painful way to die than a bullet. I suppose any sort of poultry (such as chickens) that killed via decapitation would also qualify, considering the possibility of that whole "vital functions part of brain stem surviving and chicken living headless for a little bit" thing happening. That has got to be utter hell to endure.

Also, school shooting etc are not linked to video games, they're the result of a combination of idiot parents who cannot properly educate or pay attention to their children and severe mental and emotional issues either due to a mental illness or their peers being brutal asshats to them. Video games are also becoming rather widespread, to the point that this becomes as silly as saying wearing a hat or playing sports caused them to do it. Video games are merely the media's favorite and most convenient scapegoat to cover up poor parenting. God forbid people have flaws; to save their self esteem we must demonize a hobby enough people are uninformed about that they'll believe any bullshit we spew!
I agree with this to an extent. It isn't always poor parenting though and it isn't never the result of video games. The reasons for shootings vary. But this topic is really unrelated, so whatever.

I just threw this in here as a response to an argument early on ( I believe it was Bloodrun who made it?) that blamed video games for violence when someone suggested them as an alternative to hunting. In hindsight I shouldn't have placed it in the middle of my primary argument, but oh well.
Bloodrun isn't one of the brightest bulbs. Just saying. >_>

Agreed.

Also, about those rangers. It's illegal to interfere with hunters hunting, so technically they were stupidly breaking the law they're supposed to be upholding, and died to a stupid mistake resulting in an accident. How the hell they became rangers when they're idiotic enough to run in front a gun aimed at a creature it's perfectly legal to kill is beyond me.
LOL

They were telling hunters to stop killing off endangered species(or population control, as you wish to call it). And the hunters going to their houses and shooting them isn't exactly them jumping in front of a bullet. Shut up.

I in no way advocate the killing of endangered species. I suggest you word your posts better. Here's yours: "kitty blindly supports hunting out of fear for the hunters and their guns they are not afraid to use when necessary. ignorant hunters have even killed some rangers trying to get them to stop killing innocent animals at times." This is vague as f***, and no where does it mention endangered, nor does it specify the circumstances. The most common scenario I could think of, would be rangers trying to stand between them and the deer they were hunting as some form of protest. Any misunderstandings are the direct result of your poorly written post.
You could have asked for clarification before trying to relate every single thing somebody said in direct relation to deer. I didn't actually expect someone to try making an argument about anything in this thread.

And Brushfire said I was the one who was supposedly surprised......

Endangered Species are the result of over-hunting in areas where it is not properly managed. I do not claim our system is flawless, as it is obviously not do to these oversights. However, we quickly catch these before they have gone extinct (last species this happened to was the messenger pigeon) and work to revitalize them. For example, the wolves in Montana were endangered, and we were not allowed to hunt them for years. Now, they've made a huge come back, and we will soon be allowed to hunt them again. I believe the percentage of the population we are allowed to kill is around 7%. Studies show that we could kill up to 30% of the wolf population and not cause any significant impact on them.
Sounds like the only problems being cause here are from hunting in the first place.

We made mistakes, learned from them, and fixed them. That's how we learn: trial and error.

Also, Kitty said she doesn't hunt because she's afraid of guns, not because hunters are using scare tactics or winning her support via fear. Don't twist her words around like some idiotic reporter.
You obviously missed what that part of my sentence really meant. Responding is pointless.

No matter the deeper meaning, you did take her statements entirely out of context. TO continue to deny this is pointless.
But the deeper meaning is oftentimes the only thing that's supposed to matter when there is one. The plain to see one is there for no means other than to serve as a mask of sorts.

I know that >_>

To be honest I didn't catch it as a joke the first time though, assuming you were one of the people that write horribly on the internet.

Once again, point has been resolved in my debate with Polaris.

tl;dr version: You're all uninformed idiots who are whining about things you don't understand in the least, under the banner of morals you're not even upholding via said whining.
tl;dr version: You're an elitist idiot who thinks hunters are some sort of Keystone predator in environments that did just fine without them and should consider learning about topics before making a giant rant of stupidity about it.

You have consistently demonstrated your lack of knowledge in multiple fields. You have no grounds or right to suggest I need to learn more when you fail to grasp the basest of concepts regarding wildlife management. I never suggested they were better than other people.
Wildlife management is a cute little title to give to destroying ecosystems. Stop saying I'm the ignorant one when the time before humans and before humans were everywhere is proof enough that the only thing screwing over nature is us.

Wildlife management preserves ecosystems. You seem to have some odd hatred for humans and want to blame them for anything bad in the world. You may as well have saved some time and written "NO U" instead of the statement above. Also, I'd love to see the magical scrying orb you used to see how things were before the dawn of humanity.

If you'd like to bring up the fact that I suggested wolves alone could not regulate deer effectively on their own, you would once again showcase your ignorance. One predator can't effectively control it by themselves, because if they could then the presence of any other predators would cause the eventual extinction of the prey.
You act like this is ridiculous when hunting is an advocate of this very theory. Many fish have died off on account of fishing in places with very predominant predators.

We're not arguing fishing. Since I don't have as much knowledge of fish, I'd prefer not to get into it and make an ignorant fool out of myself like you're doing now.

We don't advocate humans being the only regulators. We work alongside other predators, and adjust our methods to work in tandem with them.

Thus, humans, wolves, and hawks are but a few pieces of the puzzle of predators that work together to regulate the lower rungs of the food chain. Humans are unique in that we can adjust how many we kill, and thus compensate for other predators by increasing or decreasing our efforts as the situation calls for it. So in way, humans are definitely a superior regulating force. Not an exceedingly more important and absolutely necessary one, but superb regardless.
I'll have you know that I agree to diminishing species that grow too large, but hunters merely spring at the chance to kill whatever is in abundance and can still get off with killing far less abundant creatures. And humans should look at themselves and realize that we've grown far too large.

HUNTING IS NOT BASED ON HUMAN POPULATION IT IS BASED SOLELY ON CONSERVATION. Got it memorized?

Everything is planned out in advance, we have a buffer in place, and the idea is if every single tag is filled the population will be fine.

Stop referring to it as it's random devastation being unleashed in extreme amounts. You know little to nothing of how it truly works and have proved numerous times that your mind is saturated with fallacies and misconceptions.
On the somewhat likely chance this really is some fail attempt at subtly insulting Prince Hunter, I advise you to get a life and stop poking the metaphorical bear >_>
This jab at Hunter wasn't exactly fail and one could easily assume OMG is far better off socially than Hunter. Just super saiyan.

Fail was in regards to the attempt to be subtle. I stated no opinion, nor do I have one, on which of the two is a better person in any aspect. I merely stated that it's not wise to fruitlessly piss off someone in power, because the only thing he'd gain from it is a negative repercussion. When I stated to "Get a life" I was implying there are numerous better things he could be doing with his time than engage in futile and pointless attempts
He seemed to be doing it for fun, and he had fun doing so. I don't see anything wrong with it, especially when Hunter probably won't respond with anything too harsh.

Trolling = violation of the rules. If Hunter felt like it he could easily hit him with a warning, which is generally something to avoid.
long post #1
long post #2

Atlas won. Know why? Well' date=' it's mainly because you seem to think that if you make a long debate-able post that contains many arguments, because this is YCM no-one will try and debate against you. Surprised? You shouldn't be, and you better have a successful counter-argument or I'll be left to leave that you fail at debate.
[/quote']

You're looking at the principle of the matter rather than the actual points presented to determine who "Won", as well as assuming I'm caught offguard in the least.

I don't think no one will respond, in fact I've had counterarguments presented several times and responded them, here on YCM.

If you have some personal vendetta against me for my long posts when I argue, I suggest you leave that at home before you cast judgment.

If not, and you were merely pointing out "If Amethyst has no response, Atlas wins." then allow me to be the first to say "No s***, Sherlock". However, that is clearly not the case, which should be painfully obvious by now, due to the presence of the very post you're currently reading.
Honestly. People just noticing large posts and assuming victory on account of that are annoying.

This comment is directed at me, correct?

Where the hell is this idea that I think I auto win by making a large post coming from?

My policy is quantity < quality, and if you can produce a large quantity of quality all the better.

Sign In

Hunting is bad

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived