Your Mommy Kills Animals!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, I'm interested in how many of these people against hunting are also railing against fishing? After all, the same arguments apply.

Speaking for myself, I see fishing as a bigger problem since in it's case 'hunting' is done to supply the majority of the market, and we're emptying the oceans because of it.

[Verto]

Funny how hunting is one of the best things that happened to wildlife in general; billions of dollars are generated through the sales and taxes on hunting licenses and other fees associated with hunting and fishing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

that point is that they don't have to do it.

Yes, and, like I said, people don't have to buy organic food. Why can't they deal with the regular non-organic stuff?

f they don't bag anything, they've got nothing to worry about because they have a fridge full of food to go home to.

Only if they actually go to the supermarket and don't eat their meat just from hunting.

Furthermore, it is tastier. You've never had venison if you haven't had it freshly killed from a hunter's bow/gun.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

that point is that they don't have to do it.

Yes, and, like I said, people don't have to buy organic food. Why can't they deal with the regular non-organic stuff?

Sort of a counter-productive example. Eating organic is a choice or luxury, not a dependency. Just as hunting is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Eating organic is a choice or luxury, not a dependency. Just as hunting is.

So, what's your problem with it? I never said hunting is not a choice. I just happen not to care if they make that choice.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Eating organic is a choice or luxury, not a dependency. Just as hunting is.

So, what's your problem with it? I never said hunting is not a choice. I just happen not to care if they make that choice.

My point is that "hunting for food" implies a dependency on that, and when there is no dependency, it's sport hunting regardless of whether they eat it or not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My point is that "hunting for food" implies a dependency on that, and when there is no dependency, it's sport hunting regardless of whether they eat it or not.

And they also eat it... so it is also hunting for food. It is only solely hunting for sport if they leave the carcass there.

Hunting for food only implies a dependancy to you.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

My point is that "hunting for food" implies a dependency on that, and when there is no dependency, it's sport hunting regardless of whether they eat it or not.

And they also eat it... so it is also hunting for food. It is only solely hunting for sport if they leave the carcass there.

Hunting for food only implies a dependancy to you.

Didn't you, yourself, just compare it to organic food and agree that that is choice of luxury? That's what hunting is - it's frivelous and unneccesary, and done only because they like to hunt, not because they need to eat.

That makes it sport hunting. If you have a different deffinition of these terms, fine, whatever. But I think I've made my line of thinking pretty clear, and you should be able to understand the distinction I've made.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's what hunting is - it's frivelous and unneccesary, and done only because they like to hunt, not because they need to eat.

Everyone needs to eat . They simply like the taste of hunted, fresher food. Again, what is WRONG with that?

That makes it sport hunting.

It also makes it hunting for food if you eat it. You are hunting for the meat of the killed animal if you eat it, are you not?

Most hunters don't try to kill things they can't eat, right?

I think I've made my line of thinking pretty clear, and you should be able to understand the distinction I've made.

I still don't understand why it is wrong.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That's what hunting is - it's frivelous and unneccesary, and done only because they like to hunt, not because they need to eat.

Everyone needs to eat . They simply like the taste of hunted, fresher food. Again, what is WRONG with that?

That makes it sport hunting.

It also makes it hunting for food if you eat it. You are hunting for the meat of the killed animal if you eat it, are you not?

Most hunters don't try to kill things they can't eat, right?

I think I've made my line of thinking pretty clear, and you should be able to understand the distinction I've made.

I still don't understand why it is wrong.

First of all, I wasn't talking about wrong or right. I was talking about there only being sport hunting in western society.

Saying that it's hunting for food if you eat the prey is a pretty simple line of reasoning. To make a distinction between sport and food hunting you need to look at the circumstances surrounding it - the reasons they are hunting, the methods they use, and the way they go about it. Hunting for either the luxury of eating fresh meat or simply for the thrill of hunting (and whether they eat it doesn't matter if that's the reason), is frivolous and I would call it sport hunting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hunting for either the luxury of eating fresh meat or simply for the thrill of hunting (and whether they eat it doesn't matter if that's the reason), is frivolous and I would call it sport hunting.

That is what I consider a pretty simply line of reasoning. Just because it is 'frivolous' doesn't mean they aren't hunting to eat the meat... ie, hunting for food. If it was just for the 'thrill of hunting', they wouldn't just go after things that are tasty to eat. Why hunt phesant when you could go after crow or hawk?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Hunting for either the luxury of eating fresh meat or simply for the thrill of hunting (and whether they eat it doesn't matter if that's the reason), is frivolous and I would call it sport hunting.

Just because it is 'frivolous' doesn't mean they aren't hunting to eat the meat... ie, hunting for food.

Because it's frivilous, it means that it's not neccisary - they aren't "hunting to eat the meat" in the sense that they'll have no meat to eat otherwise. And as I already said, hunting for food implies a dendency. And again, as I've already said, if you don't want to share this definition - fine. But I've explained what I mean, and I think the distinction is pretty clear. You can accept what I'm saying, or you can argue it, but don't play a game of semantics and ignore the distiction I've made.

Why hunt phesant when you could go after crow or hawk?

Like I said earlier, icing on the cake.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because it's frivilous, it means that it's not neccisary - they aren't "hunting to eat the meat" in the sense that they'll have no meat to eat otherwise. And as I already said, hunting for food implies a dendency. And again, as I've already said, if you don't want to share this definition - fine. But I've explained what I mean, and I think the distinction is pretty clear. You can accept what I'm saying, or you can argue it, but don't play a game of semantics and ignore the distiction I've made.

I think the distinction you've made is idiotic, but whatever. It isn't semantics, because hunting for sport (with no hunting for food) implies that they shoot the animal and leave it there. Hunting for food implies no dependancy. It is simply what they are doing. They are hunting animals that they can eat and will eat. Why can't you admit it is both?

And you still haven't explained why it is wrong.. .which is the only reason to make a distinction, because obviously it seems that you think hunting because someone needs the food that way is justified.

[General Ludd]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I think the distinction you've made is idiotic, but whatever. It isn't semantics, because hunting for sport implies that they shoot the animal and leave it there. Hunting for food implies no dependancy.

Well, I see hunting for sport as something you do because you like to hunt. This includes doing it for 'luxury food', or doing it for a fun before-dinner activity. While hunting for food implies that's what you do for food. No if's and's or but's.

And you still haven't explained why it is wrong.. which is the only reason to make a distinction, because obviously it seems that you think hunting because someone needs the food that way is justified.

Hunting for sport is wrong because it's frivolous destruction. Hunting when there's already animals being bred, killed, and packaged for you is wrong because that means more meat gets thrown in the garbage while you're out trampsing around the forest shooting things.

And hunting in general is wrong, because our population is way too large, and our eating habits way too warped, for it to work. If every american went out and killed enough animals to stuff their face with meat three times a day and still have enough to throw away, everything would be dead in a matter of days.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, I see hunting for sport as something you do because you like to hunt. This includes doing it for 'luxury food', or doing it for a fun before-dinner activity. While hunting for food implies that's what you do for food. No if's and's or but's.

So hunting for sport is wide encompasing, but hunting for food is narrow? I see how this is. You want to make hunting 'bad', so you define it in those terms. Why can't you admit it is both without making political definiton of terms .

Hunting for sport is wrong because it's frivolous destruction. Hunting when there's already animals being bred, killed, and packaged for you is wrong because that means more meat gets thrown in the garbage while you're out trampsing around the forest shooting things.

What if people don't want the processed **** that sufficies for 'packaged meat'? You want to force them to eat inferior because YOU say so? Just because you want to be a fascist doesn't mean they have to accept it. What is the difference between them hunting deer and a company breading and killing chicken and meat? Nothing... just one guy is trying to go around the corporate meat.

And if more meat gets thrown in the garbage, then that is the company's fault for breeding too much. Not the fault of the guy that wants to get his meat fresh from the woods.

And hunting in general is wrong, because our population is way too large, and our eating habits way too warped, for it to work. If every american went out and killed enough animals to stuff their face with meat three times a day and still have enough to throw away, everything would be dead in a matter of days.

We ALREADY DO... most of us just delegate our hunting to companies. We don't have time to 'hunt', but we would prefer that kind of meat.