Hunting is bad

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Killing something for the sheer sport of it is mindless killing. You're trying to label the entirety of hunting as a clever means of population control when events nowadays and the extinction of countless animals on account of humans proves otherwise.

 

It is just that: a clever and efficient system for the betterment of nature' date=' beneficial to both parties. Humans are wardens of the earth. It is our duty to keep the balance. Extinction point is moot due to improvements to our conservation methods. It's not for the sheer sport. There's meat etc, and the fact that if anyone is doing it out of sheer sport, they contribute to a good cause, albeit unknowingly. You're not entirely wrong about humans screwing nature up: people like you who try to interfere and tear down a well thought out system, throwing nature into a state of entropy. Having the gall to call yourselves environmentalists is a sick joke. [/b']

I totally called myself an environmentalist, totally. And it's rather silly to call ourselves wardens when the only ones committing crimes are ourselves. Once more I'm going to say (though you repeatedly miss the fact) that if nature was inherently flawed and always needed people to swoop in and pick up the slack of predators at random points that there wouldn't be any nature.

 

Again it is us solving the problems we made in the first place.

 

Ah, so if we fix the problems we cause we're still bad? Would you prefer we just stop caring and let you proceed to destroy our world? Protecting nature is truly becoming a thankless job. We learn through trial and error, and fix any wrongs we might unintentionally cause.

You're killing to solve the effects of killing. Overall, that's merely balancing out things out by shrinking the amount of animals on both sides. Reintroducing predators into areas they were hunted into extinction in is a better solution.

 

Once again you're labeling the only purpose of hunting as population control. Hunting for the most part works in ratios, and our population has grown to a point that the ratio has been terribly offset.

 

This is just a flat out fallacy.

Try adding points instead of declaring something one way or another. A lot of animals are driven to dangerously low numbers because of something they are sought after for. As the amount of people increase so would people interested in that item. This can be related to the issue of forests dying off because of the heavy increase of people in relation to the need for paper.

 

And don't rewrite the definition of hunting and call people fools and idiots for having differing opinions. If you really want to discuss this as a serious topic, let's stray from insulting people during it. I know I'm guilty of this too(though in response), I just think it should end here.

 

I'm not rewriting the definition. Hunting has been this way for a long time. You're the ones twisting it. That or you're too blind to see it.

Hunting's definitions vary, so I would assume that what the main topic's outer point was about was the general terms combined into the meaning "pursuing animals with the intent to kill".

 

If nature was inherently flawed to over populate it wouldn't exist. >_>

 

Once again, you disregard that humans are a part of nature. We've part of nature. It isn't flawed to overpopulate, unless you take us out of the equation. As for before humans, you cannot provide accurate reports on the ecology and food chain to back up your claims, not to mention nature adapted to humans, just like it adapted to amphibians, reptiles, birds, and other mammals before us.

Of course areas where humans developed are exempt from this logic. But the places we migrated to that were doing fine before our arrival lost many creatures as a result of hunting. Once again, you think that us being a part of nature means we encompass all of it.

 

Another repeat here that if hunting is only useful out of livestock in trying to negate the effects of hunting, we should simply rebalance the ecosystem by introducing predators into them and leaving it at that. This has been done at a National Park on the brink of destruction due to hunting and it has been fine since.

 

And which national park was this? Also, we can't just juggle predators back and forth globally.

Yellowstone. And no, the predators would eventually settle in on their own and things would be fine. They wouldn't be something that needed to be altered and managed thoroughly like hunting.

 

I don't exactly agree with some farm methods either. I've removed some moot points in this argument (Bambi, Bloodrun, I mentioned this in another topic, etc.) for the sake of space, you okay with me removing this one since there isn't really and argument here?

 

If farms are less humane, why do you support them over hunting? As I read your arguments, I'm coming to the conclusion that you would agree with hunting, but you refuse to because you hate the fact that it serves the purpose of being a sport in addition to its other more important purposes, most likely due to what you perceive as human arrogance or some such. Essentially, you hate a perfectly good system because of the fact that people can kill for sport and benefit nature at the same time. The fact that you'd have this done away with simply because you don't find it pretty and refined showcases your own arrogance, in that you can't have anything conflict with your little perfect happy fantasy land.

Did I say I approved of farms either? Stop over reading what I say and assuming my thoughts then proceed to say that "showcases my arrogance", it's pretty ironic.

 

Also, I refuse to cut this entire section from my argument. While we're apparently in agreement on the farms/grocery store points, it would also take out one of the arguments for hunting: that is a humane death. I refuse to concede a point because I failed to closely read what you wished to eliminate.

Yeah, the thing is that I don't care about the method of death. I said "I killed someone with a gun instead of a knife." in the first place because it's a different part of hunting that I disagree with, it's simply poor in theory.

 

Predators don't adapt like you're saying hunters do. They simply try and kill as much as they can and it all works out. And the fact that humans haven't been in areas for thousands of years without them getting effed over is proof enough.

 

You cannot prove that those areas were not "effed over" several times before, or on the brink of being effed over before humans arrived.

So you're saying they could've become barren wastelands and then of gone back to being full of life. If that's the case, why would it matter if creatures were allowed to overpopulate and then wipe out an ecosystem if it would simply respawn itself.

 

And let's assume they were fine. In that case, it's entirely plausible that humans adapted the ecosystem (or it adapted to them) so that it could continue on a healthy course with the addition of humans. You appear to be somewhat xenophobic.

Adapting ourselves to our surroundings doesn't always mean you have to hunt there.

 

Based on all the points you've presented before this, by your logic, we should eliminate wolves and other similar predators in favor of humans, because we can kill the right amount and they kill as many as they possibly can. To put it quite simply, your logic fails.

Humans don't act like drones. They don't follow every rule to the letter. A system like that would eventually fail, and it's better to let nature do what it can because a wolf's urge to succeed is counteracted by the percentage of them that ultimately fail.

 

This is starting to be a lot of repeating of points since our various arguments start coming around towards the same issue. Yes, adjusting this buffer seems like it would work. But principles at question here are hunters that work against the system and the fact that this is a needless activity. If there is a mass fluctuation of a creature humans should attempt to stop it. If they're fine as is they shouldn't hunt them unless it's for a good purpose.

 

They are fine as is: with us hunting them. Also, I highly doubt you understand the buffer argument, because you refuse to read my conversations with Polaris.

I acknowledged the flaw here in the response above. And just explain it again, Polaris shouldn't of butted into this argument in the first place. >:[

 

This implies that there is always a slightly extra amount of animals in an area. That would mean that the area would've died off long ago due to overpopulation, or that the main predators were hunted off. It seems to me that hunting is the solution to hunting here…

 

There is not an extra. There aren't exact numbers for fine, too many, and too few. We kill enough to stay below the too many zone, while still remaining a healthy distance from the too few spectrum.

Is this the buffer argument? Because if so, my counter argument is now two responses up from this.

 

Of course hunters who kill for food supply and substance aren't at fault. However, it isn't exactly a healthy sport for "game" animals when they end up dead. Hunting for those kind of people who enjoy the achievement of killing animals doesn't seem right to me, no matter how accepted it has become in society.

 

You're looking at the small picture. We can either kill some game animals (that is the official term for animals harvested exclusively via hunting), or we can not do anything and let them all die out. The greatest benefit for the greatest number of deer, and people too.

So you meant the health of the game animals population-wise? Okay, then these last four arguments are all beginning to centralize around one point. The idea that humans are able to regulate the population more efficiently because they have far more influence. But this is wrong in the fact that predators push their influence as far as they can and it ends up evening itself out. The fact that humans can go too far means that for the most part we are an inferior form and the only reason hunting has been incorporated into wildlife despite its possibility to fail is because all in all some humans just <3 shooting things.

 

A) Your ignorance of the facts is too great. You have demonstrated you don't know the topic, and are plagued by common misconceptions.

I'm using all of life as an example and you're saying it doesn't count. >_>

 

B) You refuse to read my arguments with Polaris (out of sheer laziness) and thus you bring up points already disproved, and don't understand my arguments, causing you to guess what I mean. In other words, insufficient knowledge of the debate. Also, it's hard to take you seriously when you refuse to read the entire discussion and childishly whine that you don't feel like it when this is brought up.

While this is partly out of laziness, my arguments aren't going to be exact duplicates of what he says despite the fact that you generalize and add things onto what I say and you should therefore be making different responses. I'm not going to read into each individual argument you have when you could easily explain a term in one or two sentences.

 

C) You're blinded by hatred for hunting, simply because it has sport components that involve death. The best and healthiest solution isn't always the lollipops and rainbows one.

The fact that hunting is an essence twisted hasn't been an important part of what I say, it's merely the reason you're trying to force hunting so far and why you constantly bring up the humanity issue.

 

D) All of your ideas would cause the environment to grow unstable and collapse. If there's any threat to nature, it's people that think like you do. You tread a path that leads to downfall of nature under the banner of "helping" it.

This is the most ironic thing you've said thus far.

 

I have adequately disproved your arguments several times over. If you wish to engage in the monotony of arguing the same points over and over, I really wish you would find someone else to disprove your flawed logic ad infinitum. It's starting to get boring.

 

If you'd like to throw the same argument out again and be promptly disproven once more, be my guest.

One problem there. "At a time when our aesthetics our shown to be false, we merely cling to them even more." I've learned to apply this trait to myself and can admit when I'm wrong. If you can make a decent argument that can convince me that hunting is actually the superior method, then I would believe so. The fact that you keep turning things into circular debates doesn't exactly mean it's me bringing up the same facts and having them disproved again, it may be that you didn't efficiently disprove them. ALSO BORING YOU ARENT WILLING TO DO THIS UNTIL THE END OF TIME WOW WHAT SHEER LAZINESS. QUIT WHINING SO MUCH.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Atlas is a funking tank.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

[spoiler=@OMGAKITTY]

 

Trolling = violation of the rules. If Hunter felt like it he could easily hit him with a warning' date=' which is generally something to avoid. [/b']

 

I am well within the rules with this thread. Who said I was trolling? Perhaps I truly feel hunters are bad people. And mods hardly need a valid reason to slap someone with a warn or a ban. After all, "Dark is Dark. Too much Dark = ban, amirite?"

 

I'm not accusing you of trolling, the entire mini argument was an entirely conditional "If this is true then..." one.

 

I said likely, because I don't need someone like Altair coming in and scoffing at my assertion that it's unlikely.

 

1 post like this one to explain things to you, is better than having someone whine at me an entire thread about some insignificant detail.

 

I'm sorry for any confusion.

 

 

 

 

[spoiler=@Cyber Altair]

 

I swear on the grave of Frunk that anyone that continues this argument will regret it. If tis' not a troll post don't post it.

 

I'll continue this argument if I damn well please' date=' because, frankly, your opinion has a net worth of zero to me.

 

 

 

[spoiler=@Atlas']

Since your last assertion was to make one large argument to convince you, may I craft a speech in favor of hunting rather than replying to your individual points again, or would you prefer I continue to offer counter arguments in direct continuity of our previous quote pyramids?

 

 

 

[Womi]

Your debate is annoying...<_<

 

Where in the world is hunting legal?

[Amaterasu]

Where I live hunting is legal. You just need a permit.

[OMGAKITTY]

I don't understand why hunters can't just play "Duck Hunt"...its more fun anyway.

[Amaterasu]

My zapper is broken.

[Darkest Hour]

I don't mind hunting. I hate overhunting though.

 

I miss the Grizzly Bears. They were my favorite hiker-mauling misrepresentated creature.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Yes.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

Yes.

 

....Gonna have to be more specific there XD

 

 

I'd much to prefer to just type out a brand new argument instead of continuing to argue in circles, because it's obviously not getting through to you, and is getting the discussion nowhere.

 

However, I'm not going to do it until I get an answer, because I know if I don't get your express consent to that, you'll immediately say you win because I didn't respond to your exact arguments in our giant quote pyramid.

[The Nightmare Anatomy]

I don't mind hunting. I hate overhunting though.

 

I miss the Grizzly Bears. They were my favorite hiker-mauling misrepresentated creature.

 

Grizzly Bears are not extinct >.>

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Yes.

 

....Gonna have to be more specific there XD

 

 

I'd much to prefer to just type out a brand new argument instead of continuing to argue in circles' date=' because it's obviously not getting through to you, and is getting the discussion nowhere.

 

However, I'm not going to do it until I get an answer, because I know if I don't get your express consent to that, you'll immediately say you win because I didn't respond to your exact arguments in our giant quote pyramid.

[/quote']

Yes, just make out a new argument, that one was tainted by general irrelevance. It will be easier to get through to you, and I wouldn't of declared victory when that was indeed what I wanted you to do.

[Darkest Hour]

I don't mind hunting. I hate overhunting though.

 

I miss the Grizzly Bears. They were my favorite hiker-mauling misrepresentated creature.

 

Grizzly Bears are not extinct >.>

They aren't as numerous I meant. I live in MONTANA and I've never seen one, except in a bar where there in a glass case, stuffed.

[PrometheusMFD]

I don't mind hunting. I hate overhunting though.

 

I miss the Grizzly Bears. They were my favorite hiker-mauling misrepresentated creature.

 

Grizzly Bears are not extinct >.>

They aren't as numerous I meant. I live in MONTANA and I've never seen one' date=' except in a bar where there in a glass case, stuffed.

[/quote']

 

Really? Cuz I live in Iowa and I've seen three wild ones. And a cougar (which we shot because it was either kill it or die)

 

Hunting is the only real sport, everything else is just games

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Wait. Wait, wait, wait wait wait. No dropping the gigantic quote pyramid. That wasn't part of the deal. D:

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

These vast pyramids are consuming far too much of our land, and attracting the attention of those filthy Nubians.

[OMGAKITTY]

I don't mind hunting. I hate overhunting though.

 

I miss the Grizzly Bears. They were my favorite hiker-mauling misrepresentated creature.

 

Grizzly Bears are not extinct >.>

They aren't as numerous I meant. I live in MONTANA and I've never seen one' date=' except in a bar where there in a glass case, stuffed.

[/quote']

 

Really? Cuz I live in Iowa and I've seen three wild ones. And a cougar (which we shot because it was either kill it or die)

 

Hunting is the only real sport, everything else is just games

 

Why would you shoot an older woman who just wants to have relations with younger men? I hardly believe it was a life-or-death situation.

These vast pyramids are consuming far too much of our land' date=' and attracting the attention of those filthy Nubians.

[/quote']

 

+1

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

These vast pyramids are consuming far too much of our land' date=' and attracting the attention of those filthy Nubians.

[/quote']

 

A valid point, but you forget that Pyramid interiors are just as good as any bare land, except layered, basically multiplying the land of the space they occupy. We should really just be enslaving the Nubians to help make more Pyramids for us anyhow. We still have that dominatrix of yours don't we?

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

I had to lay her off cause of, yknow, this recession crap.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

...

 

That's the last straw. It hurts every bone in my body to do this, but this's what's been come to. This is the harsh reality you created. I've let a lot slide in this relationship, but you've gone to far. I'M LAYING DOWN THE GAUNTLET. >=(

 

Don't even bother Twittering me Atlas. You can't. Not after this.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

But…who will I tweet to when I make some yummy sandwiches? :[

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Well, I guess that's for you to...

 

Yummy sandwiches you say? You're making me an emotional wreck Atlas, I just don't think I can forgive you for...OH I DOANNO ANYMORE ATLAS! I just, I just, I'M SCARED ATLAS, SCARED OF WHAT WE LOST, SCARED OF HOW QUICKLY THINGS JUST GO DOWN THE DRAIN WITH YOU. Gone and gone forever. AND YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T EVEN CARE. :( I JUST DONT KNOW IF I CAN TRUST YOU ATLAS I JUST...IT'S HARD FOR ME ATLAS.

[OMGAKITTY]

Well' date=' I guess that's for you to...

 

Yummy sandwiches you say? You're making me an emotional wreck Atlas, I just don't think I can forgive you for...OH I DOANNO ANYMORE ATLAS! I just, I just, I'M SCARED ATLAS, SCARED OF WHAT WE LOST, SCARED OF HOW QUICKLY THINGS JUST GO DOWN THE DRAIN WITH YOU. Gone and gone forever. AND YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T EVEN CARE. :( I JUST DONT KNOW IF I CAN TRUST YOU ATLAS I JUST...[b']IT'S HARD FOR ME ATLAS.[/b]

 

Its hard for me too. ;)

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Huh? Oh yeah baby sure, sure. I care about you and all that stuff, I respect you!

 

 

 

go away my little kitty princess, you can get a piece of the atlas when my wife is done naggin

[Guest PikaPerson01]

This whole thread is a huge bag of tl;dr, so I'll just say that:

 

Those who live a billion million miles away in the middle of nowhere and use hunting as their primary source of sustenance, yeah that's fine I guess. Those who just get bored one day and decide to shoot lesser beings and then just have them stuffed or w/e... yeah, those bastards can go die in a fire please.