Should hunting for sport be outlawed?

[Whispering 18,865]

I still don't see the difference with killing an animal because you want to eat meat (which you don't physically need) and killing an animal because you want something else to enrich your ego somehow. I genuinely don't think there's a major difference, except that hunting actually requires more effort than buying prepackaged/prepared meat around the corner.

Again: not defending hunting for sport, just expressing my annoyance at people not being able to see how their outrage because of this seems a bit hypocritical. Not off-topic in my opinion.

I don't know what to tell you if you can't see that hunting for food is different than hunting for the purpose of bragging rights. 

[Didymus 34,380]

I don't know what to tell you if you can't see that hunting for food is different than hunting for the purpose of bragging rights. 

They're different, but the result is the same: the animal is killed for no reason. Why should anyone bother to make distinctions based on that same result? To feel better about oneself, surely. Well, I don't like to do that.

[Shadow 6,697]

@SychoUnicorn

First of all, I respect where you're coming from, though I disagree on some points.

One of the reasons I think hunting for sport should be banned is that it us one of the reasons why some endangered species become that way in the first place.  If the South African nation depends on that industry, then it must apply the same logic as other nations like Finland use to control their population and then apply the ethics that Native Americans used is using everything when each animal is killed, as not to waste a life.  Though, I prefer the less hunting, the better.

South Africa ought to check other industries it could explore to improve its GDP.  

Just checking the CIA World Factbook, SA industries include:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sf.html

mining (world's largest producer of platinum, gold, chromium), automobile assembly, metalworking, machinery, textiles, iron and steel, chemicals, fertilizer, foodstuffs, commercial ship repair

Aren't there tours that focus on observation and in a zoo like fashion, allow people to see wildlife without hunting or harming them? 

 

[Whispering 18,865]

They're different, but the result is the same: the animal is killed for no reason. Why should anyone bother to make distinctions based on that same result? To feel better about oneself, surely. Well, I don't like to do that.

In other cases, they are killed to control the population of the animals in certain areas, or for food. It really isn't difficult to understand the difference in these situations. 

[Didymus 34,380]

In other cases, they are killed to control the population of the animals in certain areas, or for food. It really isn't difficult to understand the difference in these situations. 

Except that this thread is about hunting for sport and we already established multiple times that people don't need meat to survive and its health benefits are already reached by dramatically reducing the meat intake by more than 80%. Even a 100% reduction would still be maintainable for the average Westerner who is in close reach to alternative non-meat products and food supplements. We don't need animals to survive. So the random murder (and the inhumane living circumstances of animals in industry environments) of animals for purposes of food in the average Western country is not possible to defend when you shoot down hunting for sport. Unless you're a bigot.

The food thing is a ****ing laughable argument and that should be clear by now.

[Shadow 6,697]

They're different, but the result is the same: the animal is killed for no reason. Why should anyone bother to make distinctions based on that same result? To feel better about oneself, surely. Well, I don't like to do that.

Again, one ought to pick their battles, otherwise one would doom a cause before it even takes off. You're upset with the animals that died from meat consumption, I understand. But then, think of all those animals that would be saved if hunting for sport was reduced by law worldwide (knowing full well poachers disregard some hunting laws even now).

Indeed, hypocrisy here, compromise there, but if the ends justify the means, you'd at least get to a better place than you started. That's all I'm asking, saving the lives of countless species from the sport of killing. Killing is not a sport, period in my book.

[Shadow 6,697]

How is meat a necessity for humans when millions of vegetarians are living a healthy life?

Before the agriculture revolution in ancient times and the dawn of civilization as we know it today, human beings were hunters and gathers to survive.  At any one time at some part of the globe, someone or some tribe was consuming meat to survive for thousands of years. Nature has given us the means to do so with our biology.

Vegetarianism is a choice and a lifestyle if one so chooses, but It is in our DNA makeup to have the ability, built on the necessity of survival, to eat both meat and produce. If we were any other predator species, the laws of nature would still apply.

Thus that big reason why I feel targeting meat eaters is a bigger fish to fry than hunting for game which has nothing to do with our survival and completely unnecessary, thus why I think banning it has a higher chance of implementation that encouraging more than 7 billion people to give up meat for consumption.

[Didymus 34,380]

Before the agriculture revolution in and ancient times and the dawn of civilization as we know it today, human beings were hunters and gathers to survive.  At anyone one time at some part of the globe, someone or some tribe was consuming meat to survive for thousands of years. Nature has given us the means to do so with our biology.

Vegetarianism is a choice and a lifestyle if one so chooses, but It is in our DNA makeup to have the ability, built on the necessity of survival, to eat both meat and produce. If we were any other predator species, the laws of nature would still apply.

Thus that big reason why I feel targeting meat eaters is a bigger fish to fry than hunting for game which has nothing to do with our survival and completely unnecessary, thus why I think banning it has a higher chance of implementation that encouraging more than 7 billion people to give up meat for consumption.

I dislike these religio-biological theories so much

Nature didn't give us anything. There is no design, no plan, humans weren't meant to eat meat, that's complete bs. I'm not even a vegetarian, but I'm not gonna allow that fantasy to endure in so-called atheists who run along with religious logic.

Vegetarianism is as much a choice as consuming meat is. The prime reason for eating meat is habit, not instinct. It's clear to every historian, anthropologist and scientist that the earliest diets consisted mostly of nuts and yet it's a totally unpopular thing to eat in contemporary culture. The same could've gone for meat if its consumption wasn't allowed to survive through simple habits and geographical circumstances.

Also, the biological/DNA element is extemely dangerous because it would force us to allow mass rape and murder, both extremely common practices in the animal world (yes, monkeys rape female specimen with astounding frequency) and it would turn our s-xual morality upside down (it's no secret that verbal sounds of pleasure during s-x were meant to attract near humans to participate in the s-xual act since that increases the chance of healthy offspring). Biological set-ups are no excuse for free choice. If our upbringing and cultural surroundings can persuade us to ask a girl to dinner before taking her s-xually (which defies all biological laws), surely the same can persuade us to stop eating meat for no reason.

The only reason why it's more difficult to ban consumption of meat is because people are just too damn used to eating it. They like eating meat, it's tasty. That has nothing to do with instinct or the biological standard, meat was never ever that abundant in the early ages of mankind. This is an unnatural situation and people themselves are to blame for its endurance. It's as much of a brutish choice as going to hunt for an animal because its skin looks pretty.

[Born Brave 2,072]

Is America a developing country?

Do ya'll rely on tourism?

Do you watch the price of doritos soar every month?

Do NOT say an entire CONTINENT with a HISTORY of being the very VICTIMS of the slavery YOUR COUNTRY imposed needs to "get over it".

no.

No.

NO.

That is not how it works. You do not get to pull the slavery card on us. You do NOT.

America is always developing. We do rely on tourism and commerce from other countries. We don't watch the price of doritos, we watch the price of stocks. Yes I won't deny the fact we have it way easier in the United States and it makes us very spoiled at times. But I'm not sorry we worked hard to get here. We learn from our mistakes. 

BUT

I find it incredibly disturbing at the fact that a citizen of a less developed country would be okay with the practice of charging a tourist $50,000 to kill an innocent living thing. I just feel that some innovative thinking is required. Hopefully Africa can learn from it's mistakes but considering that there is a civil war there every other year my hope is faint. Best of luck to you. Someday Africa will learn that life is valuable. 

[Jjang 2,262]

To add to what @Didymus wrote...

Traditions and moral values tend to contradict each other, do I need to remind you that slavery was not always considered to be immoral? 

I'm a strong believer in the mentality that our traditions and norms should evolve with our culture. Consuming meat is not a necessity for our bodies as vegetarianism not only claims, but proves a healthy lifestyle can be achieved without it. Therefor, It's a habit rather than a natural trait that evolution provided for human beings.

You have to eat meat to get protein.

That's a myth, people.

 

[TiphEret 1,320]

I'd like to see all these outraged people being vegetarians btw. I mean, the rage over this animal seems very out of proportion compared to the non-reaction about the millions of animals getting killed every single day so you can buy your meat in your grocery store. It's annoying me.

Don't you know? The whole GGD turned vegan, we work hard on that with @Born To Slay

[Shadow 6,697]

Not a fan of your logic as well, since it is focusing on an issue to somehow dismiss another issue so we're left going nowhere with safeguarding the animals hunted for sport. Let us use that logic to get some viable solutions done.

Alright, I'd like a list of your peer reviewed sources that support your views, all these scientists you're referring to as I don't have a problem educating myself if new theories counter old ones.  Did any of them explain why we have carnivore teeth that are similar as other mammal predators? Did I not mention that we're omnivores? We have incisors to give us the ability to eat nuts and other hard shelled produce, thus it makes sense our early ancestors acquired Nuts and berries since it was easier to gather than the patience and work it would take to hunt. 

You know how natural selection works I assume, when I talk about law, design, and etc, I'm referring to what we are capable of from birth as other species aka Genetic makeup.  Could we focus on the issue at hand? I'd like to remain practical and pragmatic about this matter since I take it seriously as with other heavy issues.

I dislike these religio-biological theories so much

Nature didn't give us anything. There is no design, no plan, humans weren't meant to eat meat, that's complete bs. I'm not even a vegetarian, but I'm not gonna allow that fantasy to endure in so-called atheists who run along with religious logic.

Vegetarianism is as much a choice as consuming meat is. The prime reason for eating meat is habit, not instinct. It's clear to every historian, anthropologist and scientist that the earliest diets consisted mostly of nuts and yet it's a totally unpopular thing to eat in contemporary culture. The same could've gone for meat if its consumption wasn't allowed to survive through simple habits and geographical circumstances.

Also, the biological/DNA element is extemely dangerous because it would force us to allow mass rape and murder, both extremely common practices in the animal world (yes, monkeys rape female specimen with astounding frequency) and it would turn our s-xual morality upside down (it's no secret that verbal sounds of pleasure during s-x were meant to attract near humans to participate in the s-xual act since that increases the chance of healthy offspring). Biological set-ups are no excuse for free choice. If our upbringing and cultural surroundings can persuade us to ask a girl to dinner before taking her s-xually (which defies all biological laws), surely the same can persuade us to stop eating meat for no reason.

The only reason why it's more difficult to ban consumption of meat is because people are just too damn used to eating it. They like eating meat, it's tasty. That has nothing to do with instinct or the biological standard, meat was never ever that abundant in the early ages of mankind. This is an unnatural situation and people themselves are to blame for its endurance. It's as much of a brutish choice as going to hunt for an animal because its skin looks pretty.

 

[Didymus 34,380]

Not a fan of your logic as well, since it is focusing on an issue to somehow dismiss another issue so we're left going nowhere with safeguarding the animals hunted for sport. Let us use that logic to get some viable solutions done.

Alright, I'd like a list of your peer reviewed sources that support your views, all these scientists you're referring to as I don't have a problem educating myself if new theories counter old ones.  Did any of them explain why we have carnivore teeth that are similar as other mammal predators? Did I not mention that we're omnivores? We have incisors to give us the ability to eat nuts and other hard shelled produce, thus it makes sense our early ancestors acquired Nuts and berries since it was easier to gather than the patience and work it would take to hunt. 

You know how natural selection works I assume, when I talk about law, design, and etc, I'm referring to what we are capable of from birth as other species aka Genetic makeup.  Could we focus on the issue at hand? I'd like to remain practical and pragmatic about this matter since I take it seriously as with other heavy issues.

Well, since that's really only a half invitation, I'll rest my case and leave it here (though I still think I remained on-topic throughout). Nothing of what you wrote really contradicts or even questions any of my statements, really, and a defense of them would lead us 100% off-topic so..

I summarize my point by referring to my first post on page 1.

[Jjang 2,262]

Not a fan of your logic as well, since it is focusing on an issue to somehow dismiss another issue so we're left going nowhere with safeguarding the animals hunted for sport. Let us use that logic to get some viable solutions done.

Alright, I'd like a list of your peer reviewed sources that support your views, all these scientists you're referring to as I don't have a problem educating myself if new theories counter old ones.  Did any of them explain why we have carnivore teeth that are similar as other mammal predators? Did I not mention that we're omnivores? We have incisors to give us the ability to eat nuts and other hard shelled produce, thus it makes sense our early ancestors acquired Nuts and berries since it was easier to gather than the patience and work it would take to hunt. 

You know how natural selection works I assume, when I talk about law, design, and etc, I'm referring to what we are capable of from birth as other species aka Genetic makeup.  Could we focus on the issue at hand? I'd like to remain practical and pragmatic about this matter since I take it seriously as with other heavy issues.

 

Human digestive systems aren't ideal for eating meat & we are the only meat eating species that for the most part cannot eat raw meat without the risk of becoming sick from the bacteria it contains. The vast majority of our teeth is dull and not designed in the same pattern as other meat eating species.

Humans have been eating meat for thousands of years purely for survival, not recreation nor satisfaction. Only in certain situations would a human or group of humans have to hunt for meat. They primarily ate plants and fruits at least 95% of the time. Sometimes when they did not have sufficient crops or they did not find enough food to gather, they had to go to their last resort and hunt for meat to provide them with nutrients. Today, people eat many many times more meat than did the humans from thousands of years ago.

 

 

[Shadow 6,697]

To add to what @Didymus wrote...

Traditions and moral values tend to contradict each other, do I need to remind you that slavery was not always considered to be immoral? 

I'm a strong believer in the mentality that our traditions and norms should evolve with our culture. Consuming meat is not a necessity for our bodies as vegetarianism not only claims, but proves a healthy lifestyle can be achieved without it. Therefor, It's a habit rather than a natural trait that evolution provided for human beings.

You have to eat meat to get protein.

That's a myth, people.

 

Habit and natural trait... Sort of go hand in hand.  It's hard to develop a habit when nature didn't provide you the means.  Could fish develop the habit of walking through woods though they have gills and fins instead of arms and legs?

Myth? Is this some legend from a faraway land or was this a means of how countless people survived whether choice or otherwise?  

I really dislike this debate, because we're not talking about safeguarding animals hunted for sport, are we?  While y'all wait for society to chance age old "habits," I'd like to tackle one practical issue at a time, one being the banning of hunting for game. I think we can all agree is wrong and not humane.