• No hunting

  • Hunting

31% 26 votes
69% 57 votes
  • Just playing the devil's advocate here: Hunting is the murder of an innocent life. All life is equal and that means that you shouldn't be able to take a life for convenience.

  • Unless you NEED to hunt for food. If not, then there's no reason to kill innocent animals for sport.

  • It is the murder of innocents, also known as SERIAL KILLING. Please arrest the people who think serial killing should be legal.

  • Name: brandon Teacher: Mrs.sheahan Class Period: 8th Hunting Essay What if there was a world with no deer or any animal? Well that is what hunting can cause. I know that some people like hunting, but there are many reasons why it is bad. Hunting is negligent because it can cause endangerment, it is cruel, and it is expensive. Hunting can cause a lot of endangerment. "Hunting can be while a doe is looking for food and if she dies then their baby is all alone." Said Daniel m. Ashe. People at epa.gov had said "all living passenger pigeons were killed for two reasons the trees got chopped down and the other was because they were shot for sport." Both of those things were caused by humans. Iowa department of natural resources said, "Currently the deer herd is estimated to be 200,000 but after hunting it was 100,000." "A total of 367 species of bird are endangered because of hunting." Announced by endangered species stand and also book.org. That means a lot of animals are endangered or extinct because of hunting. Hunting is truly cruel. Hunting is cruel because, " hunting accidents destroy property and injure or kill horses,cows,dogs,cats,hikers,and even other hunters." Debated by peta.org. Now that is very cruel. "Thousands of animals die as victims of this "sport" every year," this was announced by animal equality.net. "The Bears,Cougars,deer,foxes, and many other animals who are chased,trapped, and killed by dogs on (sometimes illegal) hunts." Said Jo-Anne Mcarthur. You can go to the grocery store to get meat, but it is still killing animals. Hunting is expensive. "Custom guns cost $4000 without the scope and $6,500 with scope.", said by david-e-petzal. Us.bape.com said " camo leight weight jacket $464.00 and with soutein collar they are $572.00!" I would never want to spend that much for a jacket. Fur buyer.com said " Moscow hide and fur cost 200 dollars. Wow that is a lot of money for some fur and hide. Sure you could earn all the money back by selling what you got, but with all the money it cost to get the things than it would take a very long time to get back. Hunting is way too negligent to be a good thing. It is cruel and can cause endangerment, plus it would take forever to earn all the money back because it was so expensive. Now you should keep the animals alive and not killing them by never hunting again. sites icanimal.org epa.gov iowadnr.gov peta.org peta2.com animalequality.net 7. us.bape.com 8. fieldandstream.com 9. hatland.com 10. furbuyer.com

  • If it is done for survival, then hunting is valid. However, hunting to display an animal's pelt or head is ridiculous and egoic!

  • Unless you hunt for food, killing for sport and your personal entertainment is sick. While hunting rabbits and other small animals for food is justified, because it is an act out of the need to eat as a living animal. Killing endangered species like african lions, elephants, and numberless others who I will not name just for their pelts and heads -or worse, just for your own entertainment - is inhumane and completely unnecessary. Arguments such as "They are below us" or "We are more powerful" are invalid because unless you are completely ignorant about either yourself or the species in the wild, you would know that your physical abilities are nowhere near that of a jaguar or a lion, just to name a couple. Secondly, you forget that the ill and the elderly are also significantly weaker than us, but do you go around with a gun, trying your absolute best to shoot them in the head? I'd hope not. Other arguments like "This was how humans lived prehistorically" are also ridiculous because although this may sound like a surprise to you all, we as human beings, along with all the other animal and plant species, are living in the 21st century and we no longer need to kill for food. Of course, there are still people who hunt for food and that is alright, but killing animals for their coats because it is "beautiful" is cruel and inhumane.

  • Anything that causes pain and death is bad

  • What makes us more important than animals?

  • Hunting is an inhumane way of killing animals. We are no higher or lower than any other animals. Animals mainly kill humans when humans are holding guns, or during the migration season when they're travelling with their young. How would you feel if someone came into your house who you didn't know and they shot or tried to shoot you or your family? You'd try to protect them, not say "Well, at least the human race is going down!" The human race is the largest population of animals in the world, and yet we say we need to control the animals that are nowhere near as populated.

  • I love animals and I hate seeing them get killed.

  • hunting is a popular sport that should always be aloud

  • I don't really care, as long as we have their genetic makeup.

    Posted by: reece
  • Their are several reasons why hunting should not be banned. Food, controlling the population of certain wild animals, certain manufactured goods need animal parts, some people find it fun (myself included), etc.

  • depends if you count killing chickens cause we eat them so yeah

  • It's our right.

  • All life is not equal. Human lives are less worthless than any other life.

  • Hunting keeps certain populations in check. However, there should be (and already are) restrictions on certain endangered animals.

    Posted by: gabep
  • hunting is a very fun and challenging

  • You've got to be kidding me. I apologize for not wanting to mindlessly buy pre-killed, processed, and prepackaged meat from a store. @Mister_Man, you must be a vegetarian because meat is meat and an "innocent" animal is the same as a slaughterhouse animal. Hunting is now classified as a sport due to the ability to go to a store. That shouldn't make make hunting illegal. Also, banning hunting is as bad of an infringement on people's rights as banning gay marriage. Leave hunters and gays ALONE.

    Posted by: mdmark
  • hunting is the best thing since toilet paper you cant banned this.

  • Hunting should be allowed because it has always been in human nature for our hole lives so if people take that away its like taking away history.

    Posted by: lola55
  • I like to hunt

  • Hunting is conversation

  • Hunting is a natural instinct for humans and its the same as animals in the wild, but you wouldn't try and talk a coyote into eating organic free range chicken

  • god made many deer for a reason and most people that say hunting should be banned have never been hunting

  • some people live off the land and hunting is the way to put food on the table. Just because people think that hunting is "murder" don't mean that people should give up what they like to do and stop hunting.

  • It's a way of life and a way to control safety in that are children dont get eaten

  • hunting is good. YOLO> cheese is tasty. don't eat it on sunday. moo, dgibdgibdsuibduiyssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

  • NO BANNING HUNTING THAT'S HOW SOME PEOPLE LIVE

  • hunting taists like potato cheesy dolphin chops so it is aviesly good

  • I'm sorry to say, but UNLESS you're purely a vegan, you're a being a dick when you say that hunting is inhumane, murder, or that you're concerned about the animal's pain etc. Overall, hunters are much moral and ethical. What do you think is more humane, an animal raised and killed in its natural environment, or raising an animal in squalid, cramped conditions, pumped with hormones, leaving them only to be tased, decapitated, suffocated, or something of the like? The difference is obvious. You could argue that it's cruel that hunters kill just for pleasure. But think of it this way. When you go to the grocery store, you don't HAVE to buy that steak, but you buy it because you LIKE it. Medium rare with ketchup or whatever the hell you plan to do. Then when you purchase that meat, you're essentially supporting the system that keeps animals flooding into slaughterhouses. You're supporting the cruel environment that I just described earlier. Whether you support hunting or not, it all comes down to the animals being killed for our sheer pleasure. The difference is the way in that these animals are raised and killed. I don't know about you, but I would much rather live a normal life and get shot in the head rather than a life of torture and impending doom from birth. I challenge you to go look at pictures and videos of how animals are treated on farms and slaughterhouses. Go see how much you can stomach. If that doesn't disgust you, then who's the real killer here?

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
reece says2015-09-22T16:40:14.6303682Z
@komododragon8 All life isn't equal. Matter can be more complex than its counterparts. But anyway, complexity shouldn't have anything to do with it.
reece says2015-09-22T16:41:06.2978994Z
On the other hand, it can.
komododragon8 says2015-09-22T17:32:08.1451265Z
Reece: I agree with you, but since I've got your attention what do you think makes one life form more valuable than another.
tigger2009 says2015-09-22T17:33:56.8264691Z
How do you think we fed ourselves back in the day huh?
komododragon8 says2015-09-22T17:52:54.2967146Z
Tigger: This isn't back in the day.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-22T18:14:10.1664932Z
How do you think some of us feed ourselves today?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-22T18:16:25.2009588Z
Poor and homeless are out fishing on the shorelines everyday. Its the last refuge as far as being able to get food on your own goes. Everything else involves paying the government or working for someone else all day to get by.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-22T18:18:47.2242692Z
I dont really get the deal with being against hunting anyways. I dont see how the modern food system is any more humane towards animals or the taking of animal life, certainly not more so than hunting is.
komododragon8 says2015-09-22T18:28:51.9933459Z
Freedom: You do realize I'm just playing the devils advocate here right? Also let me ask you this, what traits do you think give an organism rights.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-22T18:43:51.4639117Z
I think humans are the ones bestowing rights in the first place, so i think it only right that if youre going to bestow natural rights on anything ... You could only give those to peers ... Ones who could just as equally deem you deserving/nondeserving of those same rights, so you essentially have to establish them to have a common middleground for us to stand on together. Animals come from no position of authority over man ... So for them to be granted natural rights by us is illogical really. I think we only give every human natural rights in an effort towards equality, giving them the benefit of the doubt as far as their ability to make decisions and think on our level.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-22T18:47:16.4492257Z
I mean really, animal rights arent even truly animal rights, as much as they are actually just human restrictions. Animals exercise no respect towards one another in the wild, they do not invoke their rights there either. They dont have the ability to grant them or invoke them. They have no voice. Their totally dependent on humans to grant them too. Which further legitimizes our claim of dominance over them, really.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-22T18:54:45.8101062Z
So to answer it more specifically ... It is not just 'organisms' in general that could qualify. I think it would be up to humans to bestow rights onto an organism, and that it only seems logical that organisms on par with said humans should be given natural rights because of the fact that those same individuals youre judging over can become the judge of you.
komododragon8 says2015-09-22T18:59:23.1135198Z
So what your saying is that only organisms which have the ability to understand rights and be on par with humans should have rights? If so, what trait must this animal have on par with humans to be given rights.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-22T19:14:55.2858592Z
Oh idk. I suppose it must have the potential to one day have authority (in whole or in part) over other humans? I mean, look at the evolution of natural rights even. They don't exist so much in times where people were not given equal respect towards one another. A king can separate himself in rights from those people he has authority over. In a democracy ... Or any world where people hold more power over each other through governments. In either instance humans held claim to some authority over man. Animals have no claim to authority over a man. If you can find people willing to let an animal hold a voice of judgement over them, then let them be judged by animals. I just find that there is no reason a person would succumb to that. But I have a problem being judged by other people as my equals too, so maybe im not one to ask.
komododragon8 says2015-09-22T19:17:36.5440929Z
K
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-22T19:17:58.3842329Z
Thats kinda the whole point really. I dont think anyone likes being judged by anyone else (or any other thing, animals included). I think they only bestow those rights to one another out of necessity. Kind of like a way to create a safety for themselves. If they grant you a particular right/respect, they expect that you will honor it towards them also. I dont think animals are capable of honoring back the rights you bestow to them. Thats why they are unworthy of them.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-22T19:26:27.3062952Z
@BenjaminHaw Yeah. Wheres the sport in killing them if you grow them in cages to begin with? Farming is not better from a moral standpoint than hunting is.
chandlerrouse says2015-09-22T20:10:49.8689628Z
Yes, especially as sport
stargate says2015-09-22T20:15:42.1603767Z
Um.....How about no.
reece says2015-09-23T01:54:16.6013199Z
@komododragon8 It's potential.
komododragon8 says2015-09-23T17:41:26.8248712Z
Reece: what do you mean?
reece says2015-09-23T18:10:52.4980258Z
@komododragon8 It's capability to manipulate itself and its environment. If one life form can do more than another, then it's more... Hmmm ... Complex. "valuable" isn't the right word because that would be about relativity.
Mister_Man says2015-09-23T18:16:49.0750925Z
Complexity doesn't grant that species the right to kill other species for no reason other than "it's fun."
reece says2015-09-23T18:18:02.4734944Z
@FreedomBeforeEquality For example ants and termites aren't that valuable to us compared to an anteaters perspective.
reece says2015-09-23T18:19:00.6470131Z
@komododragon8*
reece says2015-09-23T18:25:36.0054160Z
@Mister_Man It doesn't matter, as long as we don't destroy ourselves in the process and we keep on learning and progressing. We can keep their genetic makeup in our back pocket for later.
Bullet2004 says2015-09-24T15:43:33.8438159Z
Thank you for your votes and comments this is for my school project
komododragon8 says2015-09-24T16:21:30.4328689Z
Reece: I always considered complexity to be more referencing an organisms anatomy. Insects are less complex (organs within an exoskeleton) while mammals are more (bones providing structure while skin and muscles hold everything in place).
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-24T17:21:03.5129659Z
"For example ants and termites aren't that valuable to us compared to an anteaters perspective." Sure. You could play out that chain for any animal and not find one that would be worthy of saying it should have a deciding say about a human beings life. We reserve that for our peers under the assumption that they have the potential to make the right call. Or they are at least the best equipped to to that that we know of. I wouldnt want to put my fate in hands of any lesser being. I dont think anyone does.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-24T17:27:30.3978860Z
"Complexity doesn't grant that species the right to kill other species for no reason other than "it's fun." There are no rights between species at all. So alternatively there is nothing protecting other species from being killed for fun. Theres also nothing saying they must be preserved on this earth "just for fun" either. You have to make the case that human lives are at risk if the animal is endangered. There is no case for protections if humans arent the final factor in the equation. You arent going to be able to restrict other humans without a reasonable amount of other human lives being at risk due to the killing of that animal.
reece says2015-09-24T17:41:53.6807486Z
@komododragon8 We're not only ourselves but also our environment, the universe is singular but dynamic. Do you understand?
Mister_Man says2015-09-24T19:13:55.6565384Z
@Reece - so as long as we aren't hurt, we can kill innocent animals? What makes us more important than them? We're just more intelligent. We have the same goals as any other species: repopulate, evolve and expand.
Mister_Man says2015-09-24T19:17:58.1164010Z
@FBE - you have a good point, and I agree with you that there is no higher power governing what is right and wrong, and I don't believe objective morality or objective "right" and "wrong" even exist. But with that being said, taking the life of an innocent creature has more negatives than positives, and is cruel to the animal to end it's life simply because you like it.
Mister_Man says2015-09-24T19:18:32.4994622Z
Simply because you like hunting*
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-24T19:28:51.3772622Z
"... Simply because you like it." Cruel in the animals perspective, which is lesser than that of the human doing it. Consider that it brings that human more happiness than the sadness the animal feels (or even has the capacity to feel). Again ... You have to give your anatomical peers the benefit of the doubt that they have the same capacity for happiness that you could have over something completely different. You dont have that same capacity with animals. You cant relate with them on that. People try to and mistakenly give human-esque traits to the animal in the process. Effectively showing the animal the care they should be showing toward their fellow man instead. At least then their assumptions on what that person could potentially be feeling is not as baseless.
Mister_Man says2015-09-24T19:38:19.6198910Z
Animals are still capable of feeling pain, and ending an innocent creature's life prematurely for the sake of "having fun" is detrimental to the animals' direct family/herd as well as the species altogether, even if just by a small amount. I know animals can't really think complexly about the future or consequences of things, but that doesn't mean it's okay to just kill it. There are other ways someone can make themselves happy. If the only way they're capable of feeling happy is by killing innocent animals then... Well there's something wrong with them.
Mister_Man says2015-09-24T19:39:48.2139947Z
And to clear up the confusion, I do care about my fellow man more than other species, however I care more about the life of another creature than the temporary happiness that ending it's life brings someone of my own species.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-24T19:56:30.3055724Z
Hey, the feeling you get when you get to take your son out hunting is a very lasting happiness ... I can assure you. I think youre problem is you just can't relate to what hunters might be feeling about the matter. I think if you searched online (or drove a couple blocks in Florida) and saw all the sentimentality statements about fishing for example ... Youd know what I was talking about. People talk about fishing akin to something they would leave their wife over. Thats a statement about how lasting a happiness that stuff provides.
komododragon8 says2015-09-24T20:14:22.9302973Z
Reece: I think we might be talking about different things.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-24T20:23:12.7607010Z
Your* man they really need an edit option so I can clean up after a typing frenzy.
reece says2015-09-25T02:47:33.4858894Z
@Mister_Man Yes, that's right. We're more important because we're the most complex being we know of. We have more potential than any other entity. We're the pinnacle of evolution (I'm not just talking about biological evolution)
reece says2015-09-25T02:52:01.8266497Z
@Mister_Man There's a difference between death and torture. You should look at what i said in the comment section of the 'do you fear death?' poll.
reece says2015-09-25T02:54:22.7285593Z
@Mister_Man As long as we have their genetic code.
Berend says2015-09-25T09:22:52.8663520Z
I'm against hunting unless for food. I find hunting for fun to be disgusting.
Mister_Man says2015-09-25T14:14:16.9251172Z
Well I guess I'm just a heartless human because I don't care if killing innocent things makes you happy, I don't think that's a good enough reason to take the life of an innocent creature. I don't like anything revolving around hurting or killing animals "for fun," I think it's barbaric. So that's all I really have to say on the subject.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-25T19:28:10.0669971Z
A creature is innocent. It cant be innocent or guilty of anything. To be either of those would imply that the creature was being held to some standard ... Which as far as humans go they are not. They are allowed to play the "It's in my nature" card in everything they do. You cant expect things from them the way you can a human being. Innocence, again, is one of those human qualities youre imposing unreasonably on the animal.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-25T19:31:06.2552677Z
Even when we put down dogs for biting people ... No ones there reading the infractions to the dog. They arent putting the dog down for its crimes as much as they are taking measures to ensure it doesnt happen again. Its life and its decisions dont need to be explained to it ... It doesnt need to know about its guilt in the matter beforehand. It cant be found guilty!
Mister_Man says2015-09-25T20:05:22.3069648Z
In my eyes, "innocent" means living "naturally." Not killing things for fun, but for actual reasons - food, resources, etc. You have a point, and I agree to an extent, but naturally existing and living on instincts is, in my eyes, what innocence truly is.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T14:19:41.3180159Z
And how is anything about hunting unnatural to human behavior? The couch/tv/grocery store life hasnt evolved us past our instincts ... We are like domesticated house cats. The urges are still there ... Even though we eat processed kibble and sleep on the couch all day (figuratively speaking of course). Still gonna kill a mouse or bird every once in awhile.
Mister_Man says2015-09-28T14:26:15.3035924Z
Killing animals for food is necessary, and that's understandable. However it isn't "in our nature" to kill animals for no reason other than "it's fun." There has always been a rational reason to kill animals, until recently when people decided to do so for fun.
Mister_Man says2015-09-28T14:33:11.7848015Z
It's all how we're raised. If you live in the outback, you were most likely raised to hunt (and eat) a lot of things, where it's somewhat necessary for survival. However if it were really in our instincts, we wouldn't be having this argument. When I see a bird or raccoon or deer or spider, I don't think "oh wow I should kill that thing," if anything I think "oh wow I should take a picture" or something. I don't see any rational reason to kill something else, and I don't "feel inclined" to, nor does it feel instinctual to. Even for "harmful" animals like black widows or wolves, if I see one I either keep my distance or (in the instance of spiders or wasps or something) catch them and set them free if they're in my house.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T14:42:23.7858167Z
"However it isn't "in our nature" to kill animals for no reason other than "it's fun." I contend that it is. In fact the amount of animals you slay on a daily basis so that you can have all your creature comforts in your home is insane. All out of your need to have fun. Your yard probably took out 10-20 trees (habitats) when they built it. You had to have an extra space for a den for you and your family to have fun in. Then you decided you needed a car to get out with your friends and have some more fun ... Which involved massive amounts of mining, chemicals, factories, and other miscellaneous destruction ... All in the name of fun. Not one person who logs on this site is innocent to taking life. Youve just separated yourself enough from it to try and say youre on some lofty perch ... Its a lie. It is absolutely in our nature to be more concerned with our own fun than that of every animal out there. They are sacrificial.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T14:42:46.9054613Z
"However it isn't "in our nature" to kill animals for no reason other than "it's fun." I contend that it is. In fact the amount of animals you slay on a daily basis so that you can have all your creature comforts in your home is insane. All out of your need to have fun. Your yard probably took out 10-20 trees (habitats) when they built it. You had to have an extra space for a den for you and your family to have fun in. Then you decided you needed a car to get out with your friends and have some more fun ... Which involved massive amounts of mining, chemicals, factories, and other miscellaneous destruction ... All in the name of fun. Not one person who logs on this site is innocent to taking life. Youve just separated yourself enough from it to try and say youre on some lofty perch ... Its a lie. It is absolutely in our nature to be more concerned with our own fun than that of every animal out there. They are sacrificial.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T14:44:35.7331541Z
I mean youre easily killing more animals now ... Sitting at home with the lights on than some guy whos in a hide in the woods about to shoot a deer. Thats for real.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T14:44:58.3691894Z
I mean youre easily killing more animals now ... Sitting at home with the lights on than some guy whos in a hide in the woods about to shoot a deer. Thats for real.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T14:46:15.7466774Z
You save one gecko or a butterfly every once in awhile and that gives you the warm and fuzzy you need to say youre above all that? Thats the separation im talking about.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T14:46:40.8475601Z
You save one gecko or a butterfly every once in awhile and that gives you the warm and fuzzy you need to say youre above all that? Thats the separation im talking about.
Mister_Man says2015-09-28T14:56:14.2525157Z
You have a point, but at the same time, we're still using the animals. Even if it is for comfort and security, we're using what we can of the animals. To kill an animal and not use the remains for anything is more cruel, in my eyes.
mdmark says2015-09-28T15:05:46.7988457Z
Only unethical hunters leave the animals. I agree that unethical hunting should be fined but you cannot classify all hunters as unethical. 99% of hunters eat the animal.
Mister_Man says2015-09-28T15:22:00.4304049Z
@mdmark - I completely agree, if you use the animals for reasonable purposes, it's understandable. However just killing the animal for fun, and not using it's body for resources is unethical and should be banned.
mdmark says2015-09-28T15:30:57.6701612Z
Then you need to be more specific. Instead of saying that all hunting should be banned you should state that unethical hunting should. As @freedombeforeequality and I have said, almost all hunters are ethical and try and kill the animal with as little pain for it as possible and then eat the meat. Banning hunting for everyone is like a teacher giving an entire class extra work because of one class clown.
Mister_Man says2015-09-28T15:35:53.7894630Z
If you actually read what I said.... You would see that I'm against killing for fun. The comment I posted right before yours was "To kill an animal and not use the remains for anything is more cruel..." Soooooooooooo yeah.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T15:37:22.0480436Z
Most do bring it to get the meat processed and keep the head/horns at times. There are services all over that will process the animals you bag and package the meat for you. Even so ... If you left the thing ... It isnt going to any more a waste than what you did when you displaced other wildlife. Circle of life. The thing is going to get used by something one way or another on this earth regardless of what you do with it. I take it as a hit to our own efficiency if we arent the ones making full use of it. I suppose you could fine for that, on those grounds. Killing for sport in general should not be punished with more of a fine than it already imposes, the tax for a hunting license and all the taxes imposed on the gear it requires etc. They arent doing this freely. They are already having to pay for their ability to hunt. Taxes on ammo and firearms to be included. Its an expensive hobby ... They certainly arent going off killing scott-free.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T15:37:44.6996792Z
Most do bring it to get the meat processed and keep the head/horns at times. There are services all over that will process the animals you bag and package the meat for you. Even so ... If you left the thing ... It isnt going to any more a waste than what you did when you displaced other wildlife. Circle of life. The thing is going to get used by something one way or another on this earth regardless of what you do with it. I take it as a hit to our own efficiency if we arent the ones making full use of it. I suppose you could fine for that, on those grounds. Killing for sport in general should not be punished with more of a fine than it already imposes, the tax for a hunting license and all the taxes imposed on the gear it requires etc. They arent doing this freely. They are already having to pay for their ability to hunt. Taxes on ammo and firearms to be included. Its an expensive hobby ... They certainly arent going off killing scott-free.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T15:57:52.2409007Z
"Banning hunting for everyone is like a teacher giving an entire class extra work because of one class clown." That actually works though ... If youre inciting the students to punish the clown. We dont want to promote vigilantism either though. Like those people who ruined the lives of that doctor and all of his staff over a lion he killed. Fines or taxes work just fine to repay any cost for an animal that you can make up.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-09-28T15:58:15.8909555Z
"Banning hunting for everyone is like a teacher giving an entire class extra work because of one class clown." That actually works though ... If youre inciting the students to punish the clown. We dont want to promote vigilantism either though. Like those people who ruined the lives of that doctor and all of his staff over a lion he killed. Fines or taxes work just fine to repay any cost for an animal that you can make up.
Mister_Man says2015-09-28T16:19:46.0201652Z
I like what you have to say about their bodies not going to waste, as other animals will eat them or whatever, but that still doesn't change the fact that you prematurely ended something's life because you find it fun. Like I've said, if you use the parts of the animal for something necessary, clothing, food, etc, then I have very little wrong with that. I mean you go to prison for decades and have your life ruined for killing a human, but killing an animal warrants no repercussion? I don't think humans are any more special than any other animals. I'm happy but also displeased that the doctor's life was ruined. He deserves it for killing an innocent animal, but at the same time he's a doctor, and his duty is to save lives of other humans. In the end all I have to say about that is tough sh*t, you kill something for fun, then your life isn't more valuable than the animal.
mdmark says2015-09-28T19:05:20.7814963Z
@mister_man, until it is proven that animals are also self conscious like we are then yes we are to be thought of as "better".
swagking8 says2015-10-28T21:43:54.6212910Z
It's like saying don't get any hamburger from the store, we don't want to kill anymore cows
Mister_Man says2015-10-30T03:35:15.8728507Z
@mdmark - "better" as in more evolved and advanced, I agree. However I don't think any species has any "priority" over another because they're more advanced. Animals feel pain, animals are scared, happy, sad, etc. To say you should be able to kill them for fun because they aren't as advanced is barbaric and pathetic.
unicorn4ever says2015-11-21T11:19:38.0331340Z
Unless you hunt for food, killing for sport and your personal entertainment is sick. While hunting rabbits and other small animals for food is justified, because it is an act out of the need to eat as a living animal. Killing endangered species like african lions, elephants, and numberless others who I will not name just for their pelts and heads -or worse, just for your own entertainment - is inhumane and completely unnecessary. Arguments such as "They are below us" or "We are more powerful" are invalid because unless you are completely ignorant about either yourself or the species in the wild, you would know that your physical abilities are nowhere near that of a jaguar or a lion, just to name a couple. Secondly, you forget that the ill and the elderly are also significantly weaker than us, but do you go around with a gun, trying your absolute best to shoot them in the head? I'd hope not. Other arguments like "This was how humans lived prehistorically" are also ridiculous because although this may sound like a surprise to you all, we as human beings, along with all the other animal and plant species, are living in the 21st century and we no longer need to kill for food. Of course, there are still people who hunt for food and that is alright, but killing animals for their coats because it is "beautiful" is cruel and inhumane.
Rohan1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0p says2016-03-10T06:01:11.5321704Z
What makes us more important than animals?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2017-05-27T12:24:41.0818037Z
Answer: The ability to be able to ask questions like that is what makes us more important.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.