[Mefustae]

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?

[aldo_14]

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?

[Mobius]

(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.

[aldo_14]

(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.

Well now you're just sounding like a right old tit, aren't you?

[Janos]

(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

[Janos]

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.

[BlackDove]

(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?

[Mobius]

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?

[aldo_14]

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.

[Janos]

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

[BlackDove]

Do you at least that there are laws which restrict hunting,and what do they say?

They say you're ****ing insane.

[kode]

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.

[Mobius]

Boooooo!!!

You don't know a thing and change subject 1,000 times.

[Janos]

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

[Bobboau]

have you ever had the feeling like the whole world was against you?

[kode]

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.

[aldo_14]

Boooooo!!!

You don't know a thing and change subject 1,000 times.

Succinct.

[Mobius]

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 "****".

[Janos]

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. 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.

[Mobius]

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).