Got to be a better way to deal with overpopulated deers... which is caused by people breeding them for whatever reasons in the first place
And they say golf is a harmless sport. Well, you're definitely on the right track by giving up packaged meat. The rest... well, I guess you won't know for sure until you see that animal in your crosshairs. As for "depopulating the deer overpopulation"... Please, let's not hide behind circuitous excuses. Either you're a hunter or you're not.
Not as much though... Population is increasing at such high rates. My bro is a bow hunter, so I know the deer population problem.... deer population has sprung up too high for it too be naturall.. Though i have faith that nature can adapt to this... Edit: Oh, and we hunted their predators to extinction...
Statements like that just make you sound like a little kid and don't do much for your argument. Animals follow their base instincts - such as the desire for sex - without considering the ethics of their behaviour. Our ability to make moral judgements is what sets us apart from them. Thus, your desire to pander to your base instincts is a step backwards, not forwards. Just because something is 'natural', it doesn't make it right.
Hunting for food and sexually abusing women are two different things. Hunting is what brought you and me here today. Without hunting, humans wouldnt have aquired such high intellect. Trying to change the course of nature is not right.
Not in this context they're not. You're defending hunting on the basis that it's following a primal instincts. Fucking a female regardless of her wishes is also a base instinct. I suggest you go chuck that computer in the bin then. Oh, and maybe discard your clothes while you're at it.
If you want to get into the philosophy of it, check out 2001: A Space Odyssey. The story is that millions of years ago, primates learned to use tools to hunt & kill, and this made them the dominant species on earth. But in the end, these same tools and instincts were their undoing. Only by coming full circle, back to simplicity, can humans complete the cycle of evolution.
Why is everybody so desperately trying to prove that millions of years ago our ancestors were hunters. Ok, so what if they were, but that was then, and now is now. Humans are not only physical creatures, but also spiritual beings, and I think we evolved in that sense, too. We are different now, and by doing the same thing they did millions of years ago, we are not evolving anymore, we are stagnating. We have a choice , they didn't have that choice then, now we say we are wiser, but we refuse to do anything different from what the primates did back then; now, how is this evolution?
Not unless you came onto the veggie forums just to be disruptive and insulting ... ... which by the way, you're doing very well. So hold on ... you come here with a seemingly belligerent attitude, start a post about how you're going to murder animals through hunting, and now you question whether or not you can? Isn't it? It's certainly not part of the superego ... secret desires and such belong to the id, and the id is the "animalistic" and primitive part of man. All of those little desires are very well human instinct, and they vary from person to person. But you can't just "deny" that they don't exist; it's a fact that they do. Where were you? A couple of people just came on here and started a post on the VEGGIE forums about HUNTING, and I wouldn't say they did it in the nicest way possible; it's insulting the way Colours alone even just made his first post. If Colours wants to talk about hunting, he can pack up shop and take it elsewhere; it seems like he's here just to ruffle up some feathers. There is another way to "depopulate the deer overpopulation." It's called: stay the heck out of the woods. It will depopulate with famine or sickness. And if you hunters are so intent on following "Nature's way," realize this: hunting for sport is MAN'S way, not Nature's. (1) Hunting for food satisfies the desire called hunger. Taking a woman satisfies the desire for pleasure. Both of them are desires that EVERY person has, and if you are acting with no morals whatsoever, it is a simple given that you're going to go fulfill those desires. (2) That's ridiculous; you say "hunting" is the reason why we are here and alive? Please! We are omnivores; that means we can survive on plants alone if we have to! As nomads during the stone age, humans walked around and ate berries! We survived just fine then! (3) So you attribute high intellect to HUNTING?! I don't see any tyrannosaurus rex's doing calculus! That's absurd! There is no correllation between hunting and intellect! Exactly. Who cares if we were hunters to begin with? If you stay a hunter, all it means is that you're a lesser-evolved human than everyone else; it means, quite literally, that you're just inferior. You haven't developed a sense of morality, nor has your brain developed very far for a human. That's what sets humans apart from animals: Our morality and our intelligence. For a hunter (who has neither), I argue that you haven't acquired the basic things needed to be a human, and you are just an animal in a human body.
i totally do not agree with hunting. it's one thing if you NEED to for survival.....but the fact is that most of us don't. we live in a progressive world (in some senses) where it's easier than ever before to live a healthy life without having to resort to harming or taking the life of other beings.......why would anyone WANT to that? My father hunts....i am repusled by it personally......he has deer that come into his backyard in the mornings and when he sees them he summons everyone in the house to come and "look at the beautiful deer grazing in the yard...but shhh be quiet so as not to frighten them" then on saturday he goes and hunts them (and no he doen't NEED to, he does it for sport or rather, a good time)
Hikky, you just recently decided to become a vegetarian so do not act like your morals are so much more developed than those who still eat meat. And dont act like this is YOUR forum, this is vegetarian forum, and my post had to do with my thoughts on going back to meat eating. Youre the one who started the personal attacks, anyway, remember? And humans could not have evolved in such a way had they not consumed proteins and nutrients found in meat.
If i hunted i certainly wouldnt do it for sport, either. I would hunt with a friend on occasion, and if i got anything i would eat it for as long as it lasted, then i would go on with my normal vegetarian diet.
Alright, listen, Colours. I apologize for the personal attacks. I don't want to start fighting and getting into personal bashing. It won't solve anything. So, I apologize. But I want you to understand something. You have come onto a board where certain beliefs and viewpoints reign dominant, and you have openly disagreed with them, just for the sake of disagreeing with them. You could have picked any other place to disagree, so why did you pick the one place where it would cause the most controversy? According to the existentialist Jean Paul Sartre, every action that a person takes is an example of what they think every other person should be. While I don't expect you to agree with that, bear this in mind: You have come to a forum to express ideas that are literally insulting to the people that the board was created for, and you've stated your ideas in a clearly belligerent and controversy-provoking manner. Your conduct, whether you realize it or not, serves an example to other people. When you post like that, how can you expect people to NOT be angry with you? You say this is not MY forum, and that's both accurate and inaccurate. This forum was created for vegetarians and vegans (among which I number) for discussing veggie-related issues. The board is home to recipies and is a place for beginners to learn more about vegetarianism. It is not a place for meat-eaters to go and challenge the vegetarian ethics. You may disagree, but consider this example: On the atheism/agnosticism boards, there are a wealth of Christians and other religious people who go there JUST to start controversy and challenge beliefs. The problem has gotten WAY out of hand, and a lot of atheists and agnostics dislike even going to those boards (which were created for THEM and not for challengers) because it's out of control. There is a similar problem on the Christianity board, where atheists are going to start even more problems with them. Each of these groups has their own separate board, so why do they not stay on those boards? Because they have a personal problem with the other side, and they want to go and start some havoc. Each of those boards is for a different religion, and there is a board for lack of religion. The problem is also apparent on these boards. And this board is for vegetarians and vegans, NOT for meat eaters as well. Almost daily, it seems, meat-eaters are coming onto these boards and making both posts and threads that are flat-out insulting to the people who the board was made for. And your thread is no exception to this trend. But this is not a meat-eating board; your opinions and decisions about meat-eating aren't really relevent (and aren't really welcome, either), in the same way that atheist opinions and decisions aren't relevant on a Christianity board. I'm sure there are other boards on other forums where you can go to talk about meat-eating decisions and not cause controversy. All we want is for people who DON'T have similar ideas (such as yourself) to stop challenging our ideas in ways that are only going to provoke argument and not logical discussion. So, please keep that in mind; your presence is WELCOME, so long as you don't bash veggies and make threads designed to start arguments and anger people. Okay? That kind of presence is not what any of us want to deal with, despite the fact that we constantly have to. And we get angry because we're tired of it, you know what I'm saying? There was another person on this board that said something similar. Doctor Atomik, was it you I had an argument with over this? =P Either way ... it is not the meat that is responsible for the growth of the brain, nor is it the hunting that is responsible. It is the protein which is responsible, and high amounts of higher-quality protein can be found in soybeans, in the cannabis plant, and I'm sure there are a variety of other plants that have a lot of high-quality protein. So don't think that humans have "meat" or "hunting" to thank for their intellectual capacity. Humans could have just as much intelligence (if not more!) if they stuck to a herbivorous diet and ate soy and cannabis. But regardless, your statement is false. Humans COULD have evolved in the same way if they hadn't consumed proteins and nutrients found in meat. It just might have taken longer, that's all. Why would you hunt, if not for sport? For necessity? "I would hunt with a friend on occasion," that right there is hunting for sport. You would eat it for as long as it lasted, but that's just part of being a good sportsman. Hunting because you need to survive is hunting out of necessity. Since you would be hunting "on occasion," and since you do not need to hunt to survive (since you could always get a job and vegetables at the store), you do not need to hunt to survive. Therefore, you are not hunting out of necessity, you are only hunting "on occasion" because you feel like it. And that is sport hunting. You don't have to be a hardcore and devoted hunter to sport hunt. In the same way, I don't have to be a hardcore and devoted football player to play some football. But because I'm not playing football out of necessity for survival, I am "sporting," or I'm playing a sport, just for the sport of it. Similarly, you would be doing the same with hunting. Hunting for the sake of hunting is called "sport hunting," so you would be sport hunting. Either way, I do apologize for personal attacks, but please understand that your original thread is pretty insulting, given where it was posted and how you posted it. I know I'm not the only one who was offended by your statement; just look at the first page, most of the responses are equally offensive. So don't expect us to not personally attack you when you are, in essence, personally attacking all veggies here on this board.
hello intersting people...i have some views on hunting. i don't eat meat...becuase i decided when i found out how it came to be on my plate...i wouldn't have had a problem if i knew someon had hunted the thing and laid it down for dinner. but being arund lots of farms as akid i saw first hand the sickness of the animlas and their treatment...the smell was enough to make me stop eating meat.. anyway. i also totally 'get' the hunting thing...i've nevr done it becuase of several reasons..one is that the animlas rea generally bred for hunting..and not actualy wild things polluting the countryside...the hunters breed them specifically for release and the hunt..so that story is bollocks for one...that the animlas are pests... Two. one of my guardians as a child went on a sabotage and the lead horseman rode into the sabotagees and gave him brain damage...thats a total outrage. these expreiences made me decidee fr myself that hunting is a fictitious blod sport, sold as countryside heritage.... My frineds who were brought up on farms and hunting families have all as they grew older, slowly developed to change their view and either turn vegitarian or stop hunting...ths iss good becuase it shows that this is the last generation of traditionalist hunters to exist...they are certainly a dying breed and its also not very 'cool' to be one of them. this might be for instance why certain individuals take up on 'hunting' or 'meat eating' to be controversial for the sake of it. i have found this also to be true.... but aside from those few who use these issues as ways of asserting their 'rebelliousness' i'd consider myself mor e of a rebl with a cuase..i've had this conviction from a young age, and wearly experiences...and think that although the 'thrill of hunting' is a natrual and adrenaline fever experience...the way we live today..its as old and cruel as bear baiting, cock fighting, bull fightng... animals are treated atrociously by humans and it shows an obvious blatant...undeniable feature of human twisted nature if an induvidual feels the need to hurt, take advantage of something that is literally, factually, smaller, less intelligent, helpless by comparison to the individual. if they decide to treat that animla without the natral consideration a more higly developed creature should, and instead use their 'wekness' a s an oppotunity for a bloodsport...that is their...ignorant desicion. in lots of cultures animals are esteemed as incrantions of great spirits..virtuous and imbedded with certain talents..respectable finesse in areas of their design...it is countries like europe or others reminiscent of empirical days that continue to hang on to the notion that animals are creatures there to be taken advantage of. they are, less developed and vulnerable to us..the way that we treat them is indicative of how we are psychologically, when given something like that..how we respond to something that needs our protection...? we forget they feed us relentlessly, help trasmute the air we breathe and basically serve us as higher beings...if we are gods to the animals what are we teaching them?..basicaly that they are worthless slaves...that reflects to me the deep ly rooted suspicon of humaity that we are that way to some higher being to ourselves...taking it out on something lower than us is the blatant teller of that..and shows just how lacking we are in other areas of life than the sunday roast...
I respect hunters. I don't agree with them, but I think it's better than some of the breeding places. At least these animals had a chance to really live, as opposed to being born locked in cages and dying inside a barn. I have a problem with people who shoot things soley to put their heads on the wall, but I don't have a problem with people who hunt for their food.
lol. i like you're quote.. hunters though....aren;t hunting for food anymore..its just a sport....for fun...and they breed the animlas for it. they breed pheasants, rabbits, dogs, for the sport...they keep them in tiny cages and when they want a hunt they let some go and chase after them...when the dogs get old they aren't let into loving farmers homes...they are killed...and fed to the next lot of dogs...the hunters are not telling the truth about animals being pests or food....they just do it for the thrill of it...and thats an old old old...tradition that we should have grown out of by now!
I have to agree with the hunters here - I used to be a veggie, and the basic moral decision that led me to become a veggie also led to me hunting. I think we can all agree that it's much better to shoot and kill an animal that has lived a natural life, than to eat the product of a factory farming system that's lived its whole life in a dark cage. Eating free range &c. is somewhere in between. As discussed elsewhere on this board, vegetarianism is about deciding that a certain level of animal suffering cannot be justfied for your benefit. For example, veggies think that to kill an animal is too much, but to keep it for milk/eggs is alright. Vegans don't agree with either, but don't mind (perhaps implicitly) pest control &c.. I Another key aspect of vegetarianism is that many people are simply disgusted by the very idea of killing an animal; they see animals as our freinds, not meat. As far as I can tell, a lot of vegetarians became veggies when they realized what goes on in the slaughterhouse - the idea of paying other people to do things that one couldn't face doing oneself is morally suspect. So, my logic is that, IF you're going to eat meat, then the most moral thing you can do is try to 1) kill as much as possible yourself, so that you are fully involved in the moral situation - you can't kid yourself about where that chicken fillet came from. 2) eat as much wild game as possible, so that the only potentialy immoral act you commit is killing the animal, rather than condoning factory farming. 3) raise (and kill ;-) as much of your own meat as you can - the next best thing to wild meat is an animal you've raised (kindly!) yourself. This is the programme I'm carrying out at the moment - I killed my first pigeon last week, and it was delicious; the most satisfying meal I've ever eaten. I'm not trying to say that you should all do what I do; far from it - I deeply respect your commitment to animals. However, I value an animals life slightly differently to you, and see the world a little differently too. So I'm trying to help you understand how deciding to kill lots of animals can in fact be a decision motivated entirely by love of animals, and a desire to treat them as well as possible.
