Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mobius on October 11, 2006, 05:11:47 am
-
This Sunday I took down a fagiano:
(http://images.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://www.perugiaonline.it/uploads/fagiano.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.perugiaonline.it/fauna.html&h=204&w=250&sz=14&hl=it&start=1&tbnid=XI64TBlPjMZySM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfagiano%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dit%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG)
This is the second important kill in my Hunter-career,after the Cock I shooted at last year.
(http://images.google.it/images?q=tbn:xzYOneIGSLxgEM:http://www.ittiofauna.org/provinciarezzo/caccia/tabelle_specie/caradriformi/beccaccia/images/scolopax_rusticola03-500.jpg)
I was wondering,what do you think about animalism and animalists?
Every temptative of talking about that in Italian forums ended pretty bad,most likely due to the presence of Animalists.
But I think that here is different,a FS player kills thousands of people,as an NTF pilot he takes down civilians transports. I know it's just a game,but I don't think that you agree with what WWF members say about Hunting,if you ever paid attention on them.
Please,post here your opinion but this thread mustn't degenerate like the 9/11 one I created previously.I want to know what do you think about it.
-
If you're talking about organisations like the WWF, then i've got no problem with 'em. If you're talking about groups like PETA, then we've got a problem.
-
This thread makes me feel like I've been bukkaked with stupid.
That's what I think about it.
-
This Sunday I took down a fagiano:
(http://images.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://www.perugiaonline.it/uploads/fagiano.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.perugiaonline.it/fauna.html&h=204&w=250&sz=14&hl=it&start=1&tbnid=XI64TBlPjMZySM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfagiano%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dit%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG)
This is the second important kill in my Hunter-career,after the Cock I shooted at last year.
(http://images.google.it/images?q=tbn:xzYOneIGSLxgEM:http://www.ittiofauna.org/provinciarezzo/caccia/tabelle_specie/caradriformi/beccaccia/images/scolopax_rusticola03-500.jpg)
I was wondering,what do you think about animalism and animalists?
Every temptative of talking about that in Italian forums ended pretty bad,most likely due to the presence of Animalists.
But I think that here is different,a FS player kills thousands of people,as an NTF pilot he takes down civilians transports. I know it's just a game,but I don't think that you agree with what WWF members say about Hunting,if you ever paid attention on them.
Please,post here your opinion but this thread mustn't degenerate like the 9/11 one I created previously.I want to know what do you think about it.
Heehee, you said 'cock'.
*cough*
Ahem. (WTF is an animalist?) Firstly, any mention of FS is entirely irrelevant - FS is a game, there is no natural 'cost' measured in actions. Anyone who honestly equates altering the state of RAM-stored bits as being in any way morally relevant to pulling a trigger and actually killing a living organism is in need of professional mental help.
I think hunting is bad if not being (necessarily) done for the sake of procuring food; otherwise it's (often unmanaged, or indeed cruel) killing for the sake of fun, and I'd like to think as a species we're a wee bit beyond that. Basically, as a species - and a dominant, naturally destructive one - I think we have an obligation to manage our environment responsibly for out own sake. Hunting - killing - for fun is a pointless anachronism harking bark to the darker era of human nature and behaviour.
However, the likes of PETA - the fundamentalists who deny human nature as an apex predator - are idiots and fools. We do need to use animals - for testing medicine, clothing, and food. I just think we need to manage that use sensibly. You want to hunt a fox? (for example) Fine - just do it alone (so it's a fair 'sport'), and eat the fox when you finish. Perhaps there's a double standard in advocating the use of (say) a rabbit to test a cancer cure, whilst opposing shooting one for the sake of a quick jolly.
-
Sorry for this off-topic post, but:
But I think that here is different, a FS player kills thousands of people, as an NTF pilot he takes down civilians transports
I think this doesn't make sense. It seems like you are endorsing killing a lot of people in REAL world, since you kill them in a videogame. The difference between a videogame and real life is that in a videogame you can do what you could never do in real life. I think that nobody who played GTA (at least nobody mentally sane) would go with a shotgun shooting whoever comes in sight.
-
I think it should be legal shoot hunters ... hey it's just a sport.
-
Vee shall now hunt zee most dangerous prey of all... man. *Cocks rifle*
-
id like to go hunting. il get a few thousand nuclear warheads and shoot at squirrels from orbit :D
-
I dont agree with fox hunting as its more like a genocidal rampage, (Even though i've been once, once i said.... :nervous:) If the animals numbers are being thinned too much then let em re-populate as extinction is set for only shivans to dish out. If Pigeon hunting was a sport i could live with it for instance.
-
Eating animals is okay. Human as species is an omnivore, meaning that we naturally eat almost anything that moves (or doesn't move) and is even remotely edible.
So I have no problem with hunters as long as the prey is used as food. People eat meat anyway, I don't see any difference between meat coming from slaughterhause and meat coming from forest, at least ethics-wise. So it's okay as long as the meat is used.
Hunting animals just for fun is nuts, though. Killing animals in "Great White Hunter" style is something I do not really understand. This, however, is fun to watch: Paybaaack! (http://www.break.com/index/huntlion.html) I just wish he had mauled one of the hunters a little more. Fracking idiots, what were they thinking.
But here's something to think.
In Finland, it's a common hobby to hunt moose (or is it meese or whatever in plural... :lol:). So, in order to make the hunting more successful, an overgrown elk population is maintained in Finland. This causes many problems. For example, car vs. elk accidensts are quite common and often result in deaths and in any case, total wreckage of the car. Besides this, the animals cause havoc by eating young trees to death and causing millions of damage to forest industry.
Also, the natural predators of elk (ie. wolves) have been reduced to pitiful population as a result of hunting in old times, so it's up to hunters to keep the elk population under control - thus the overgrown size of elk population is completely conscious choice, and thus the hunters keeping the population too big are almost directly responsible for the great number of elk vs. car insidents, as well as millions of damage to the forest industry.
So, for making the hunting of elk easier for people who want to hunt, the population is kept quite big, which causes problems.
I'm definitely not against hunting elk in general, since if they weren't hunted there would be even more of them than there is now, but I just think their population should be reduced to perhaps half or even third of what it is now. It would make the hunting more of a challenge and it would reduce the collateral damage significantly.
I'm not into hunting myself, but I can understand why some people want to do it. If it's done correctly, it's all right. Killin rare animals such as elephants or gorilla just to get ivory or perhaps a stuffed gorilla into trophy room is something that almost makse me puke.
...On the other hand, so does PETA. I took a glance to their website and goddamn what morons they seem to be.
<Off-topic PETA rant - zoom if you want to read>
Eating animals is part of what humans do. Perhaps they would also want other predators to quit eating other animals. Most primates eat small animals when they get the chance. Some have more vegetarian diet, some have more predatory diet. Humans and chimpanzees have much in common in that regard, where as gorilla tend to be more vegetarian species.
Animals eat animals. Humans are animals (albeit one of the most intelligent species on Earth), thus there is no ethical barrier for eating animals IMO.
Other thing that disturbs me is that we "shouldn't use animals for testing" mantra they seem to like so much... While I can agree that testing cosmetics and other unnecessary products with animals is even more stupid than the idea of 100% denser and three times longer eyelashes, testing medical products with animals is frankly necessary, unless we want to do the tests directly on humans, and that's even more unethical IMHO.
Also, I don't think using wool clothes is bad for the sheep... :lol: And I don't think the slaughtered and eaten cows need their hides any more. In fact, since we do eat the animals, why wouldn't we use every part of them? It would be such a waste not to use perfectly good hide for leather products. Fur farming, though, is more of an ethically doubtful thing to do IMHO. It's different amongst the inuit and other people who live in environments where they really need fur clothes to survive... but decorative use is not so cool.
</rant>
-
occasionally the herd needs to be thinned for the health of the herd as well - such as deer populations in several counties in my state ... the "ZOMG you cannot kill bambi!!!" freaks go off... but seriously don't know wtfh they're talking about because if they don't allow bow hunting in city limits the deer population would get so high they'd get sick with diseases they can give to little johnny son-of-bleeding-heart-idiot
PS: original poster = insane
-
Bambis mum = valid target every time, as is thumper....... :)
Kill whatever you want, just dont wip[e them out, thats my general take on it./...... :nod:
-
I wouldn't mind going out and shooting a deer or something if I was going to eat it. Bar that, it seems rather too much like giving in to our worst instincts.
-
Its either that or let em build up, We're not Jedi or Vulcan, Its good to let off steam......:snipe: :headz: :random non-existant smiley:
-
This summer there has been the problem of the overgrown bambi population in a region of Northern Italy. The regional rulers gave away permissions to hunt bambis since they were creating a lot of problem, but people who doesn't want animal to be hunted (Mobius called them "animalists", but it seems this word doesn't exist in English, so please tell me which word is that :rolleyes:) made many sit-ins to complain about this. Result: only few hunting permissions were given at high prices, so the problem hasn't been resolved.
Also, recently there has been another similar problem. Those of you who live in Europe should have heard the history of Bruno the bear. Bruno was a bear that was freed in an Italian park, but he then went in Germany, where he caused a lot of problems (eaten sheeps etc.). When he became a threat for towns, some hunters killed him. When this happened, here in Italy there have been a lot of complains about his killing (ah, we Italians, we always find something to complain about! :doubt:).
-
The answer is really quite simple; culls should be done by professionals with training in land management, not amateurs out for a laugh. It's not unknown, of course, for culls to be unecessary or excessive for the simple purpose of economic benefit (through hunting tourists, etc) - I believe the US moose population has suffered for this reason, with widespread overexaggeration of numbers.
-
I hunted by bow once, took down a hare which we ate that evening, it's a very 'powerful' experience to end a life, I can understand why some people can get addicted to it.
The good thing about bow hunting is that it's a more 'basic' confrontation, you have to pick targets a lot more carefully, however, inexpert bowmen are as bad as inexpert riflemen, animals can be wounded and in pain if the shot isn't clean. For actual hunting, the clean kill is more important, because you are planning to eat it, and a painful death is not only unpleasant for the animal, it releases toxins that can ruin the taste of the meat.
Trophy Hunting is something else entirely and I really am not a fan of it, it's like 'Wow, that Deer must be really old to have Antlers that big, I better shoot it to prove to everyone how long it was alive for.'
-
I dont agree with fox hunting as its more like a genocidal rampage
depends on how you go about it. the traditional brittish way of doing it isn't exactly what I'd call good hunting ethics, as it stresses the animal far too much. sitting waiting and watching for them all night is an entirely different matter, however.
myself, I've only been hunting moose, which involves a lot of waiting for the game, and not much else. but it's still very exciting when you suddenly hear something close to you, and the dogs barking is coming closer... that said, I haven't killed anything yet myself, but that doesn't really matter too much to me - the act of it is more important. of course, getting a couple of kilos of meat home isn't bad at all, either.
-
most of you don't know what your talking about, you hunt an animal you develop a lot of respect for it, it's life is on the line and it puts up a lot of effort to survive, you have to track it, get inside it's head, you need to use your senses and your instincts, and it all comes down to the kill, you can't properly experience this if you aren't actual trying to kill the thing, otherwise your basically just scareing it off. it puts you into contact with nature and yourself.
I hunt rabbits and the lot in my largish yard mainly with large home made knives (many designed to be thrown), the odd shuriken, and spear like weapons, mostly to keep them away from my garden. I have had experiments with projectile weaponry, I have this thing about making my own stuff, especially weaponry, so everything I have is homebrew or at least heavily modified, so I won't use a gun unless I build it, which I've considered a few times (some of you may remember the incident with the home made slingshot).
I mostly only have a desire to hunt down herbivorous mammals but I'm not opposed to fighting any largish preditor that should happen to invade my territory (dogs mostly). I think instincts are good and should be followed.
-
Are you a mountain man?
-
You're hunting a fluffy bunny wih a spear, don't give me this 'healthy respect' ****. I'll hunt you with a tank, see how much healthy respect that requires.
-
@Ford:no, but I have respect for the lifestyle.
@aldo: hmmm.... yes... pretentious.... yes, you can go to hell. :nod:
-
My home state's a very hunting-friendly place, mostly because we have a lot of wooded land and a massive overabundance of deer (due to their natural predators, i.e. wolves, being pretty much nonexistent in the region anymore). Hell, my uncle goes bow hunting every year, and while he does have two heads hanging up on the wall of his house, he also uses the meat (by the bye, homemade deer kielbasa is quite tasty :)). I guess my point is that I see absolutely nothing wrong with having standardized, managed hunting seasons for species like deer that have no real check on them otherwise. Around my area, which is pretty much standard suburbia with a decent amount of open space, deer actually pose quite the driving hazard; I can't even count the number of times I've seen them crossing roads at night. There really isn't any other way to manage the population other than culling.
And aldo, in most of these cases, hiring a "professional manager" to deal with the problem isn't really an option; there's only so much that one or two people can do. And I don't know what stereotypes you have of hunters, but they're not a bunch of rednecks "out for a laugh." Most hunters I've met are very responsible individuals, and while they obviously enjoy the act of hunting, they also have a great deal of respect for their own and others' safety. (Cheney nonwithstanding. :p) Despite what freaks like PETA may say at whiney protests, culling events are a safe and effective way of helping to reduce overpopulation issues in inhabited areas.
-
I think instincts are good and should be followed.
Ok, but if everybody does this we'll have some problems. Rules/laws are fundamental to permit 6 billions human beings to survive without destroying the surrounding environment (animals included). Hunting/fishing is fine as long as it's regulated and not excessive. (use what you kill, don't waste it. easy :pimp:)
-
This Sunday I took down a fagiano:
(http://images.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://www.perugiaonline.it/uploads/fagiano.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.perugiaonline.it/fauna.html&h=204&w=250&sz=14&hl=it&start=1&tbnid=XI64TBlPjMZySM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfagiano%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dit%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG)
This is the second important kill in my Hunter-career,after the Cock I shooted at last year.
(http://images.google.it/images?q=tbn:xzYOneIGSLxgEM:http://www.ittiofauna.org/provinciarezzo/caccia/tabelle_specie/caradriformi/beccaccia/images/scolopax_rusticola03-500.jpg)
I was wondering,what do you think about animalism and animalists?
Every temptative of talking about that in Italian forums ended pretty bad,most likely due to the presence of Animalists.
But I think that here is different,a FS player kills thousands of people,as an NTF pilot he takes down civilians transports. I know it's just a game,but I don't think that you agree with what WWF members say about Hunting,if you ever paid attention on them.
Please,post here your opinion but this thread mustn't degenerate like the 9/11 one I created previously.I want to know what do you think about it.
Hunt if you will, but only hunt a little, eat everything you kill, don't cause unnecessary suffering and above all:
Know what you're shooting at. Seriously.
Fagiane is a pheasant and that "Cock" is Eurasian Woodcock. Unless you were hunting in wetlands.
-
My home state's a very hunting-friendly place, mostly because we have a lot of wooded land and a massive overabundance of deer (due to their natural predators, i.e. wolves, being pretty much nonexistent in the region anymore). Hell, my uncle goes bow hunting every year, and while he does have two heads hanging up on the wall of his house, he also uses the meat (by the bye, homemade deer kielbasa is quite tasty :)). I guess my point is that I see absolutely nothing wrong with having standardized, managed hunting seasons for species like deer that have no real check on them otherwise. Around my area, which is pretty much standard suburbia with a decent amount of open space, deer actually pose quite the driving hazard; I can't even count the number of times I've seen them crossing roads at night. There really isn't any other way to manage the population other than culling.
And aldo, in most of these cases, hiring a "professional manager" to deal with the problem isn't really an option; there's only so much that one or two people can do. And I don't know what stereotypes you have of hunters, but they're not a bunch of rednecks "out for a laugh." Most hunters I've met are very responsible individuals, and while they obviously enjoy the act of hunting, they also have a great deal of respect for their own and others' safety. (Cheney nonwithstanding. :p) Despite what freaks like PETA may say at whiney protests, culling events are a safe and effective way of helping to reduce overpopulation issues in inhabited areas.
And yet in Scotland we saw protests from gameskeepers that culling had decimated the deer stock by twice the required and recommended number.....
-
Bobboau is right,maybe because he knows.
Hunting is not "killing poor animals".As Bobboau said,you have respect of what you kill(the Woocock here is also called Regina del Bosco =Queen of the Wood).Another thing you don't consider is that there's not just one type of hunting.You can hunt staying immobile and wait for the birds coming fast then shoot them down or you can hunt with your dogs.That's what I do. All that bunch of **** about Hunters do not respect Nature vanish when you see an Hunter taking care of his dogs.
Another thing I'm pleased to have noticed is the lack of infos you have.That's what I wanted.You think that you need just Disney's Bambi and a few News on TV,well you are making a terrible mistake.About five years ago,with one of my friends,we wrote papers and papers of anti-animalistic revelations.I discovered that an association that probably DySkO knows,LAV=League Anti Vivisection-I don't know if I wrote it correctly-gains several million euros per year when it should be an ONLUS=an association that works for the country composed by volunteers.Volunteers that get millions per year...for what?!?I have estimated that they don't spend so much for their campaigns (no-hunting,no-fishing,no-eating-meals,no-****).An active member pays 500 Euros per year and receives just a magazine and papers to distribute when needed(ah,when I said "millions" I have considered that every member pays 50 euros per years,so....).
About at the same time I've made and distributed several other papers about of of the most terrible things animalists can do:
A LAW THAT IN SIMPLE TERMS ALLOWS THEM TO GET MILLIONS!!!!
In every Italian city they have accumulated money and signatures for a law proposal against dogfights(between dogs,not spacecrafts or airplanes :lol: ).Many hunters supported them(when you talk about dogs....)but as result we had something like this: 100,000 Euros as penalty for dogfights, around 5,000 for killing animals(!!!) and it isn't finished yet.The Animalists get this money instead of the State!!! Terrible. I was too little to prevent it,but I have promised to myself I will do everything I can to stop those b*****s(shooting them down excluded!).
-
Bobboau is right,maybe because he knows.
Hunting is not "killing poor animals".As Bobboau said,you have respect of what you kill(the Woocock here is also called Regina del Bosco =Queen of the Wood).Another thing you don't consider is that there's not just one type of hunting.You can hunt staying immobile and wait for the birds coming fast then shoot them down or you can hunt with your dogs.That's what I do. All that bunch of **** about Hunters do not respect Nature vanish when you see an Hunter taking care of his dogs.
And then I see a hunter shoot a protected animal. Point?
Another thing I'm pleased to have noticed is the lack of infos you have.That's what I wanted.You think that you need just Disney's Bambi and a few News on TV,well you are making a terrible mistake.About five years ago,with one of my friends,we wrote papers and papers of anti-animalistic revelations.I discovered that an association that probably DySkO knows,LAV=League Anti Vivisection-I don't know if I wrote it correctly-gains several million euros per year when it should be an ONLUS=an association that works for the country composed by volunteers.Volunteers that get millions per year...for what?!?I have estimated that they don't spend so much for their campaigns (no-hunting,no-fishing,no-eating-meals,no-****).An active member pays 500 Euros per year and receives just a magazine and papers to distribute when needed(ah,when I said "millions" I have considered that every member pays 50 euros per years,so....).
Use paragraphs and try to comprehend before you post. Your illiteracy and ability to misunderstand pretty much every sensible comment on this very thread is absolutely stunning. Also, it's always wonderful to try to make and spring a trap but if you don't really understand that the prey is no longer anywhere near the trap it's pretty futile to try to blow it. And it's a really stupid and childish tactic too so from this moment on I will treat every word you say with suspicion and disbelief.
About at the same time I've made and distributed several other papers about of of the most terrible things animalists can do:
A LAW THAT IN SIMPLE TERMS ALLOWS THEM TO GET MILLIONS!!!!
In every Italian city they have accumulated money and signatures for a law proposal against dogfights(between dogs,not spacecrafts or airplanes :lol: ).Many hunters supported them(when you talk about dogs....)but as result we had something like this: 100,000 Euros as penalty for dogfights, around 5,000 for killing animals(!!!) and it isn't finished yet.The Animalists get this money instead of the State!!! Terrible. I was too little to prevent it,but I have promised to myself I will do everything I can to stop those b*****s(shooting them down excluded!).
hahahahaha if the group that proposes the law gets the resultant money instead of the government then the problem is in your state, not said group
that, or you have no idea what you are really talking about. Which seems to be the way, seeing how you can compare animal right activists to greedy cheaters. And then you're offended when someone generalizes hunters.
-
the problem is in your state
:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:
I confirm that!
-
And yet in Scotland we saw protests from gameskeepers that culling had decimated the deer stock by twice the required and recommended number.....
inproperly ran culls should not taint your opinion of all culling, you should very well know that
in the US the whitetail deer is overpopulated
===================
LGM
Dogfighting is cruelty to the dogs and creates dogs that pose a danger to human's. Dogfigting is illegal in the united states - and most dogs rescued from fighting rings are untamable and have to be destroyed because they're a threat to humans.
-
And yet in Scotland we saw protests from gameskeepers that culling had decimated the deer stock by twice the required and recommended number.....
inproperly ran culls should not taint your opinion of all culling, you should very well know that
in the US the whitetail deer is overpopulated
===================
LGM
Dogfighting is cruelty to the dogs and creates dogs that pose a danger to human's. Dogfigting is illegal in the united states - and most dogs rescued from fighting rings are untamable and have to be destroyed because they're a threat to humans.
Actually, you should haved noted I agreed with hunting for the purposes of culling previously. My point was that such hunting should be professionally managed and controlled by trained gamekeepers rather than implemented as an excuse to rake in hunting-tourist pounds - something which has been seen before (I believe threatening moose rather than the deer population).*
*or the appropriate currency of your country
-
kill limits and hunting license # should be carefully controlled and strictly enforced to allow "Harvesting" of the appropriate number set by herd specialists/biologists
as long as that is roughly followed there should be no complaint with private citizens doing the hunting
-
UPDATES:two days ago I took down a Quaglia!!!!
I'm happy that most of you agree with what I think.
Of course there are many restrictions here.You can't hunt in Tuesday and Friday,and the number of birds you can kill is low,etc.
Do you know that Greenpeace received money from an Oil company time ago? Please pay attention on what the Animalists/Ambientalists do before giving them money.
-
Seriously. Stop making up words. :p
-
Look out! That Quail's coming right for you!
I'm not sure how or why Greenpeaces' funding has any bearing on this issue.
-
When you're looking for any pathetic excuse to kill a defenseless animal, you'll pull any argument you can out of your ass, even if it doesn't fit the context whatsoever.
-
if by "most of you" you mean me, then congradulations, but I think I'm the only person who took your side and I'd hardly call that "most of" the forum.
-
UPDATES:two days ago I took down a Quaglia!!!!
I'm happy that most of you agree with what I think.
Of course there are many restrictions here.You can't hunt in Tuesday and Friday,and the number of birds you can kill is low,etc.
Do you know that Greenpeace received money from an Oil company time ago? Please pay attention on what the Animalists/Ambientalists do before giving them money.
Well now you have to give a source for your last claim which has nothing to do with the debate and with ethics of hunting but however so source please.
-
See?This discussion always degenerates when someone starts offending.
Last thing before a mod locks the thread:you said that the terrible event with Greenpeace has nothing to do with hunting,right?
First,read this thread's name.Second,knowing that many people earn money with the excuse of defending Earth is pretty important in my opinion.In a few years we wil be forced to change our lifestyle due to atmospherical changes,and I hate to consider those people as "experienced on this matter",or the ones "who saved the world" in case the process is reversable.
You also don't know that most birds damage agricultural production seriously,which here led to a hunters-request in some locations.
Bears that eat sheep,economical damage and cruelty.Deers,car accidents and enormous damage.
They're pathetic.The don't eat meal but they eat eggs and fish.They don't know that fruit is composed by cells which live too.
-
See?This discussion always degenerates when someone starts offending.
Last thing before a mod locks the thread:you said that the terrible event with Greenpeace has nothing to do with hunting,right?
First,read this thread's name.Second,knowing that many people earn money with the excuse of defending Earth is pretty important in my opinion.In a few years we wil be forced to change our lifestyle due to atmospherical changes,and I hate to consider those people as "experienced on this matter",or the ones "who saved the world" in case the process is reversable.
You also don't know that most birds damage agricultural production seriously,which here led to a hunters-request in some locations.
Bears that eat sheep,economical damage and cruelty.Deers,car accidents and enormous damage.
They're pathetic.The don't eat meal but they eat eggs and fish.They don't know that fruit is composed by cells which live too.
Are you going to give the source for your oil money claim now?
And your bird comment is stupid. Of course birds damage agriculture. Agricultural areas are unnatural enviroment full of food (and pesticides). It's like putting a man into a steak tree farm and complaining that he eats too many steaks. But so what?
-
It's like putting a man into a steak tree farm and complaining that he eats too many steaks. But so what?
Is it just me, or is that analogy just a little more abstract that usual?
-
See?This discussion always degenerates when someone starts offending.
Last thing before a mod locks the thread:you said that the terrible event with Greenpeace has nothing to do with hunting,right?
First,read this thread's name.Second,knowing that many people earn money with the excuse of defending Earth is pretty important in my opinion.In a few years we wil be forced to change our lifestyle due to atmospherical changes,and I hate to consider those people as "experienced on this matter",or the ones "who saved the world" in case the process is reversable.
You also don't know that most birds damage agricultural production seriously,which here led to a hunters-request in some locations.
Bears that eat sheep,economical damage and cruelty.Deers,car accidents and enormous damage.
They're pathetic.The don't eat meal but they eat eggs and fish.They don't know that fruit is composed by cells which live too.
AFAIK we don't hunt and kill fruit for fun. For one thing, the common Granny Smith apple has an extremely underdeveloped fight-or-flight response and is very hard to effectively mount on a trophy case. (on a serious note, apples and fruit are designed by nature to be 'killed' - or eaten - in this way as a seed dispersal mechanism)
Additionally, I believe the subject of hunting for land management purposes has been brought up here, and most people accept it when necessary for land management (conservation in the absense of natural predators or posing an extreme public danger), but would like people to have the common decency not to take quite so much pleasure in killing the animals that a) are only doing what they evolved to do and b) could be killed by a wet kipper provided you had an element of surprise and a long reach.
And quite how 'oil money' (Still no proof or reference I can see for that, cite your source) matters confuses me. Of course Greenpeace and other environmental groups need money; what matters is not the source (it's good PR to donate; and are you saying Greenpeace should refuse huge donations simply because of the source) but what is done with the money. Exxon, Shell, etc could give billions to Greenpeace (or WWF, or FOE, etc), it matters not a jot unless the attitude of the recipient to that companies misdeeds changes in response. Moreso, what the **** has Greenpeace got to do with anything? Do you think people can't form their own opinions or something?
-
(to all of you against hunting)
Where do you live?In a city?A town?A farm?
Respond me and I'l tell you why you give me so pathetic answers.
Stupid,uh?You're lucky I'm not writing in my language,I would have responed differently crushing your opinions like a Icanus against a Cain.
-
(to all of you against hunting)
Where do you live?In a city?A town?A farm?
FYI; not that it is any of your ****ing business or of any relevance whatsoever, I live in a suburban town - more of a village perhaps, I'm not sure what the population qualification is - in an outlying street which lies adjacent to a golf course and several farms. My dad grew up working on his dads - my grandfathers - farm in the country nearby (maybe 10-30 miles or so?).
Respond me and I'l tell you why you give me so pathetic answers.
Stupid,uh?You're lucky I'm not writing in my language,I would have responed differently crushing your opinions like a Icanus against a Cain.
:lol:
Well now you're just sounding like a right old tit, aren't you?
-
(to all of you against hunting)
Where do you live?In a city?A town?A farm?
Completely irrelevant. IF you want to know I live in capital of my state but spend months in nature every year. I have more first-hand knowledge of nature and hunting than you might believe.
Respond me and I'l tell you why you give me so pathetic answers.
hahahahahahahahahhaha
Stupid,uh?You're lucky I'm not writing in my language,I would have responed differently crushing your opinions like a Icanus against a Cain.
hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhaha
haaahhahhahahahahahahahahhaaahhahahahhahaaahahhaha are you serious because hahahahhahahha
Seriously, do you have any concept of "logical debate"? What part of it escapes it?
Hint: personal and anecdotal evidence does not count as serious evidence against well-researched sources. Sources which are pretty much required if you make a positive claim. Ad homs, red herrings, starmans and false dilemmas do not strengthen your argument.
Do you want to have
A) a discussion about ethics of hunting (go ahead)
B) a discussion about nature conservation
-
It's like putting a man into a steak tree farm and complaining that he eats too many steaks. But so what?
Is it just me, or is that analogy just a little more abstract that usual?
It is abstract. Birds are animals and they eat what they can. If you plant a field full of hemp you shouldn't be surprised when Linnets and Sparrows swarm it and eat all the hemp they can. It's not even unnatural (unlike Colorado potato beetle, mink or rat, or Indian House Crow), it just happens. What bugs me is that OP has constantly switched argument and this agricultural pest comment was another one in long series of red herrings. If he really respects nature then he will understand it and not try to subjugate it.
-
(to all of you against hunting)
Where do you live?In a city?A town?A farm?
Respond me and I'l tell you why you give me so pathetic answers.
Stupid,uh?You're lucky I'm not writing in my language,I would have responed differently crushing your opinions like a Icanus against a Cain.
I think it's scary people like you are actually in the position to obtain guns.
How the **** do you manage to breathe?
-
Confirmed.This thread has degenerated....
I noticed(both from here and other "discussions")that who lives in a town,in a city or any other place far from a true Nature
has distorted points of views regarding Hunting and animalism. What do they know about nature? The poor infos they have come from TV programmes that sometimes aren't that precise. Also cartoons like Bambi made n entire generation filo-animalist.
It is abstract. Birds are animals and they eat what they can. If you plant a field full of hemp you shouldn't be surprised when Linnets and Sparrows swarm it and eat all the hemp they can. It's not even unnatural (unlike Colorado potato beetle, mink or rat, or Indian House Crow), it just happens. What bugs me is that OP has constantly switched argument and this agricultural pest comment was another one in long series of red herrings. If he really respects nature then he will understand it and not try to subjugate it.
You must live in a city/town ecc. or you live near a farm since yesterday.You said only wrong things.
I know perfectly that birds needs to eat something,as well as other animals. But with recent events,species of animals that shouldn't live in a certain location have moved there. One time a farmer could have no problems,but now he often asks for help.
I wrote "farm",but living in a mountain near a wood is different.
This thread isn't split in two:nature coservation and hunting aren't Paradise and Hell.
Do you at least that there are laws which restrict hunting,and what do they say?
-
Stop bringing up Bambi. It really is insulting to make this sort of inane insinuation that a childrens cartoon has been solely responsible for the shaping of a complex moral and philosophical view.
-
Confirmed.This thread has degenerated....
Gee you wonder why
I noticed(both from here and other "discussions")that who lives in a town,in a city or any other place far from a true Nature
has distorted points of views regarding Hunting and animalism. What do they know about nature? The poor infos they have come from TV programmes that sometimes aren't that precise. Also cartoons like Bambi made n entire generation filo-animalist.
That's irrelevant and fallacious. Living location has nothing at all to do with arguments and how sound they are. You are from Italy, ergo all your arguments are false.
You must live in a city/town ecc. or you live near a farm since yesterday.You said only wrong things.
I know perfectly that birds needs to eat something,as well as other animals. But with recent events,species of animals that shouldn't live in a certain location have moved there. One time a farmer could have no problems,but now he often asks for help.
I see that you only say "ur wrong" instead of actually telling what's wrong. Debating with you is like tieing yourself into a rabid, horny water buffalo. You could've said that you were talking about alien species. Unless you're backpedaling and at this point it wouldn't suprise me in the slightest.
I wrote "farm",but living in a mountain near a wood is different.
This thread isn't split in two:nature coservation and hunting aren't Paradise and Hell.
Do you at least that there are laws which restrict hunting,and what do they say?
If this thread isn't split in two then why the hell do you constantly bring up nature conservation associations when NO ONE ELSE HAS ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THEM AND IT HAS JACK **** TO DO WITH THE DEBATE IN HAND AND IT SEEMS LIKE REALLY CHEAP FALSE EQUIVALENCE BLACKPAINTING RED HERRING ATTEMPT (Still unsourced your oil money comment is)
and you'r comment reagarding hunting laws is what
-
Do you at least that there are laws which restrict hunting,and what do they say?
They say you're ****ing insane.
-
Do you at least that there are laws which restrict hunting,and what do they say?
They say you're ****ing insane.
in fact, that's exactly what they do say. and I oughta know, practically had to be an expert to get licenses for my guns.
-
Boooooo!!!
You don't know a thing and change subject 1,000 times.
-
Boooooo!!!
You don't know a thing and change subject 1,000 times.
well **** man i know but the thing is you haven't given me any meat so i'm wondering what you actually think of all this. so could you please tell me exactly what your arguments are so maybe we can get this discourse back to track? thanks in advance man also please if you could provide sources, because as you know that's an important part of any factual argument. especially the greenpeace/oil money entanglement
-
have you ever had the feeling like the whole world was against you?
-
have you ever had the feeling like the whole world was against you?
sometimes, but I make it go away by covering my ears and screaming.
-
Boooooo!!!
You don't know a thing and change subject 1,000 times.
Succinct.
-
have you ever had the feeling like the whole world was against you?
Don't really care.I have many things to do and what the others think of me is not important(since the others aren't better but much,much worse).
well **** man i know but the thing is you haven't given me any meat so i'm wondering what you actually think of all this. so could you please tell me exactly what your arguments are so maybe we can get this discourse back to track? thanks in advance man also please if you could provide sources, because as you know that's an important part of any factual argument. especially the greenpeace/oil money entanglement
The arguments of this thread are obvious-from hunting ethic we passed to animalists and nature conservation. I originally posted "what do you think about it" not "what do you think about me". The massive presence of "****" is not because of my fault.
If you don't know a thing about that famous Greenpeace scandalo then search infos about it with the Internet connections you're actually using to write only "****".
-
have you ever had the feeling like the whole world was against you?
Don't really care.I have many things to do and what the others think of me is not important(since the others aren't better but much,much worse).
well **** man i know but the thing is you haven't given me any meat so i'm wondering what you actually think of all this. so could you please tell me exactly what your arguments are so maybe we can get this discourse back to track? thanks in advance man also please if you could provide sources, because as you know that's an important part of any factual argument. especially the greenpeace/oil money entanglement
The arguments of this thread are obvious-from hunting ethic we passed to animalists and nature conservation. I originally posted "what do you think about it" not "what do you think about me". The massive presence of "****" is not because of my fault.
Oh really. "(to all of you against hunting)
Where do you live?In a city?A town?A farm? Respond me and I'l tell you why you give me so pathetic answers. Stupid,uh?You're lucky I'm not writing in my language,I would have responed differently crushing your opinions like a Icanus against a Cain."
You're not exactly trying to make this less personal.
If you don't know a thing about that famous Greenpeace scandalo then search infos about it with the Internet connections you're actually using to write only "****".
The burden of proof is on you in this one and you are supposed to show us proof. Seriously, if you don't know even this one then what the **** are you even doing here. Read this. It's wikipedia. It's pretty fancy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29) I am definitely not going to try to argument around something you pulled out of your ass so before you make your sweeping generalizations you should propably convince us that your sweeping generalizations are based on something remotely resembling reality.
-
Your post doesn't change a lot since what I say comes from Scientists who simply said that many of the restrictions applied to hunting are unfair,that hunting isn't responsable of drammatci reduction of birds,ecc.
You may not now this,but some Ambientalists(not Animalists)have started a period ofcollaboration with hunter association, saying that they both have knowledge of things most of the humanity ignore.
You can stay sat in a office 24 hours per day,you can pass your life in a city,but this doesn't allow you to say things far lightyears from the truth(it isn't referenced to someone in particular).
-
What in the name of **** is an 'Ambientalist'?
It's strange how you move from the condemnation of hunting for fun to evangelising hunting for land management, when most of us have already said we accept hunting for the purposes of environmentally required population culling, i.e. where the extinction of predators et al means a lack of culls would cause environmental damage. Anyone might think you were avoiding the issue, and it's also equally interesting that you choose not to address issues, but to launch an attack on 'credentials' under the misbegotten impression that anyone who has not directly experienced something cannot have knowledge of it (although they may be less likely to have bias).
For shame.
-
What in the name of **** is an 'Ambientalist'?
Transformation in English of "ambientalista", that means "environmentalist".
-
It's strange how you move from the condemnation of hunting for fun to evangelising hunting for land management, when most of us have already said we accept hunting for the purposes of environmentally required population culling, i.e. where the extinction of predators et al means a lack of culls would cause environmental damage. Anyone might think you were avoiding the issue, and it's also equally interesting that you choose not to address issues, but to launch an attack on 'credentials' under the misbegotten impression that anyone who has not directly experienced something cannot have knowledge of it (although they may be less likely to have bias).
For shame.
Then don't post.
What in the name of **** is an 'Ambientalist'?
Transformation in English of "ambientalista", that means "environmentalist".
Are you sure?I thought ambientalist was correct(just replace -ista with ist,-isione with -ision and most times you have a nice translation,except this time...)
:lol:
-
Then don't post.
^^^
Exactly what I mean
-
Your post doesn't change a lot since what I say comes from Scientists who simply said that many of the restrictions applied to hunting are unfair,that hunting isn't responsable of drammatci reduction of birds,ecc
You may not now this,but some Ambientalists(not Animalists)have started a period ofcollaboration with hunter association, saying that they both have knowledge of things most of the humanity ignore.
what the **** are you trying to say
seriously
OK, I state this one more time.
YOU make a claim.
I question that claim.
YOU are to prove your claim.
DO THIS. Shuddup about weird words you make up and stop using association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) and
give
me
the
source
Since you are trying to base your argument around it (argument seems to be fallacious too but whatever).
You can stay sat in a office 24 hours per day,you can pass your life in a city,but this doesn't allow you to say things far lightyears from the truth(it isn't referenced to someone in particular).
you so silly, you italian, italians always wrong :)
Do you know what ad homimen means? Are you seriously suggesting that because someone does not live in wherever you happen to live then he cannot talk about something you are talking about? Seriously, is this what you are saying? Instead of trying to engage in factual discussion we should use person's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT IRL CREDENTIALS to judge the merit of their posts?
Get the hell out of HLP discussions and never come back.
-
I'm not Italian :D
Well,I'm an Italian Citizen but I'm not 100% Italian. I'm adopted,I don't know where I come from,but the poor infos I have suggest an American origin.
UPDATE:Three more Quails!!!
-
I'm interested in where this Greenpeace claim comes from, myself, as a google search reveals absolutely bugger all and I'm beginning to suspect it was made up.
-
I found it in an article,but it was in Italian....
If you can't find it I bet the Wookie has been monopolized by "environmentalists"...
-
I found it in an article,but it was in Italian....
If you can't find it I bet the Wookie has been monopolized by "environmentalists"...
I have an article that says the moon is made of green cheese but the US covered it up to monopolize the world cracker market. Unfortunately, it is in Gaelic - and the US has deleted every english reference off the internet! :eek:!
What, you mean all of the >3bn internet pages indexed by google have been edited in a display of revisionism unparalleled in human history? If you have an article in Italian, why not, y'know, quote the pertinent facts? The date. The donator. The source of the allegation. Any Greenpeace response. For example.
-
It was from a cultural association,I don't remember its name.
Trust me.Why you don't believe me,dood?
-
It was from a cultural association,I don't remember its name.
Trust me.Why you don't believe me,dood?
Because you've provided, in between similarly un-evidenced claims and the odd insult or a peculiarly bizarre statement comparing eating fruit to killing an animal for no purpose (note; see previous statements supporting hunting where required for survival or as part of a properly controlled land management scheme), absolutely no basis for me to believe you.
And, moreso, despite supposedly having a source - even a foreign (for some of us) language one - you don't post anything concrete or substantial. I'm pretty sure any source, regardless of language, would list the donor name - for example.
-
Sorry to bring this topic up again, But it just occurred to me, If god hadn't meant for animals to be eaten, he wouldn't have made them out of MEAT. So stick that in your pipes and smoke it Veggie type people. :p
-
Sorry to bring this topic up again, But it just occurred to me, If god hadn't meant for animals to be eaten, he wouldn't have made them out of MEAT. So stick that in your pipes and smoke it Veggie type people. :p
I don't believe anyone in this thread has suggested not eating animals, or hunting for the purposes of survival.
-
So my point stands ;)
-
Meat/flesh gardens will be real in a few decades...
-
Meat/flesh gardens will be real in a few decades...
I know. I'm prepared for the day though. I've trademarked the word "Farm". I get a dollar every time the word is used. When the "Farm" concept takes off, I'll make millions!
-
God almighty, meat/flesh gardens, what a flippin novel concept.
"One sausage tree my good man"
"OK sir, that will be fifteen pounds"
"why thank you"
-
Too... many... jokes... about... "meat garden". Must... pick... best... one... UHHHHHHHHH!!
(http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/b/b5/Exploding-head.gif)
-
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/donate/vik6.jpg)Hrogar people have saying, is two types of people: one who hunts; and one who IS hunted!
Hrogar have very amusing T-shirt to this effect.
-
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/donate/vik2.jpg)Yes, is very nice shirt, Bjorn has seen it on many a peasant hunt.
Bjorn doesn't understand rage at this silly flappy-mouth angry man. If Bjorn talk with a man and man insist on logical fallacy, Bjorn split his head open with an axe and drink his steaming blood. Not keep arguing. But then, maybe this a non-hunting thing.
-
:lol: When did we hit the talk like a Viking day?
-
I dunno, but I'm worried about my nation. I don't have crush or bludgeon insurance.
-
Björn should really get his ****ing umlauts right.
-
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/donate/vik2.jpg)You not ****ing tell Bjorn how to talk, little man.
-
This entire page so far is basically spam. Get back to the topic before I start waving my own damn hammer around.
Also, Bjorn/Hrogar? You don't need to post your picture each time you post. You also only need one account. Pick one and leave the other one.
-
Animalsa are meant to be hunted, its natural selection in effect........ :D
-
You're right.
I have discovered that Woodcocks cost 50 Euros. Damnit,with the woodcock I took down last year I could have gained money for the Donations...
-
Well lock and load and kill for the sake of HLP, they're depending on your L337 skilLz. go out and kill some birdies. Anyone else in a locale presenting viable slaughter for cash oppertunities please present yourself now, and we can discuss imbersement.
-
Actually, no, it's not natural selection. I don't have a problem with people who enjoy hunting, done it myself, but only for food (personally, I find archery much more fun than the point and click technique, took a pigeon out of the air once, admittedly, I was aiming at a straw target 40m away) but a predator hunting its prey to extinction as mankind has often done, or huting prey merely as a trophy is not natural selection. The first word is fine, it IS natural.
-
To be honest, if the target can evade or defend itself, then it deserves to live, If not...... That is selective :p
Although hunting with unantural means IE bows guns etc does unbalance th esystem, its our own initiative, and no different to an otter lying on its back and bashing nuts with rocks to open them.
-
Unless Woodcocks are plugged into the Matrix though, this is unlikely :p
-
You never know..........
-
I must take some Woodcocks down for HLP. It's a good thing you will surely accept!
The bow isn't that powerful. I know its potentials,it can't always hit targets at 200m and launches a single arrow while rifles discharge dozens of submunitions. However taking a Woodcock down is always difficult(they're so fast...). My father took down a woodcock at about 60 meters. You think it's impossible but it happened...wow...
-
shooting a bird at 60 meters isn't really recommended, tbh.
-
Well, to be honest, I like the Bow because it's a challenge, it's much shorter range than a rifle, this is true, the odds of hitting with a single Yardshaft is a lot less, but I'm actually a lot better an snap-shooting than I used to be, though.
Now, all I need to do is slide down the trunk of a Mammoth..... :D
-
There were no risks,it passed rapidly near a very high tree and my father took it down.
If the humanity now uses the rifle instead of the bow...there should be a valid reason.
Personally I liked the bow,but I'm now interested on the Crossbow(not because of my campaign,of course).It's a powerful weapon and you caim aim well with it.
-
I must take some Woodcocks down for HLP. It's a good thing you will surely accept!
The bow isn't that powerful. I know its potentials,it can't always hit targets at 200m and launches a single arrow while rifles discharge dozens of submunitions. However taking a Woodcock down is always difficult(they're so fast...). My father took down a woodcock at about 60 meters. You think it's impossible but it happened...wow...
Compared to other snipe species woodcocks are pretty slow. You could hunt Common Snipe with bow. If you hit one, you're quite good.
-
I was meaning that Woococks are fast and start strange meneuvers which con confuse you.
-
Actually, the bow has some very definite advantages over the Crossbow, it's much faster and considerably more accurate. The only reason the Crossbow caught on was because it requires practically no training to use, so could be handed out to grunts, whereas Bowmen took a while to train, and in the time of pitched battles, having lots of ballistic weapons was good.
Even the common tale about a Crossbow being more powerful than a Longbow isn't true, a Yardshaft can pierce armour just as effectively as a Crossbow bolt, it not more so. The main advantage with a Bow, though, is that theres no 'Boom' to scare off everything else in the area.
-
Woodcocks are hard to shoot but compared to real snipes they're piece of cake.
-
There were no risks,it passed rapidly near a very high tree and my father took it down.
If the humanity now uses the rifle instead of the bow...there should be a valid reason.
Personally I liked the bow,but I'm now interested on the Crossbow(not because of my campaign,of course).It's a powerful weapon and you caim aim well with it.
A bows just an evolution of throwing rocks at whatever needed rocks thrown at them, So i applaud the implementation of the rifle. It makes sense :)
-
It's coming right for us!!!
-
There were no risks,it passed rapidly near a very high tree and my father took it down.
If the humanity now uses the rifle instead of the bow...there should be a valid reason.
Personally I liked the bow,but I'm now interested on the Crossbow(not because of my campaign,of course).It's a powerful weapon and you caim aim well with it.
A bows just an evolution of throwing rocks at whatever needed rocks thrown at them, So i applaud the implementation of the rifle. It makes sense :)
Not only that, but it could be argued that bow is actually the first machine.
-
I thought the Flint axe was, or some sort of spear :S, the first machine was used by the Anunuki to impregnate apes creating the human race so :P
Apologies for the above but the pub beckons........