• For it

  • Against it

78% 14 votes
22% 4 votes
  • It gets you closer to God, it's a good way to get good meat, it builds relationships, and it helps the animal population remain stable.

  • Shame on hunters for providing for themselves right? Everyone should go to the grocery store and by meat where no animals were harmed. LOL

    Posted by: mdmark
  • I have no time for ignorant activists moning about animal rights and that. Deer stalking actually helps the rest of the Deer. And likewise for other animals. However I do not support hunting endangered species. I have held a gun since I was small and don't regret shooting birds and deer.

  • Its fun, you get to kill stuff.

  • I'm fine with hunting as it is. I would not support the waste of animals or the killing of species that are not overpopulated. However, I see this as the reasoning behind regulated hunting. I support those who hunt for sustenance or fun. Neither harm the environment, nor do they go against nature, in that the animal world is full of hunting and killing for productive purposes. If you kill an animal, be respectful.

  • It's cruel because it causes animal suffering. The fact that people actually consider it a fun activity to go out and shoot an animal is sadistic. Animals are sentient beings capable of suffering, and so deserve not to have pain unjustly inflicted upon them.

  • Should only be condoned if it's for subsistence. Otherwise, it's just immoral, selfish and cruel. Inflicting harm to satisfy our animal desires makes us no better than animals. Yes, we are superior to animals; that's just more the reason why we should be benevolent towards them.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
dbushwacker says2015-04-22T08:40:33.4501704-05:00
Okay though Con, I'd like to see how you guys get along in the wilds without meat on your agenda. It's just the circle of life, I myself would like to believe that animals have souls, I have stared into the eyes of my dogs and I still think there's something there that even good Christians missed. But the fact is that it's just life and there's too many people in the world not to eat some kind of meat, after all animals aren't nearly sensitive as we are when it comes down to eating human or starving. Nothing is ever black and white people, this is why I never debate, there's too much gray in between.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-04-22T08:57:23.0324380-05:00
@dbushwacker, I did write, 'Should only be condoned if it's for subsistence.'
dbushwacker says2015-04-22T13:26:46.5743126-05:00
I really only read Dookieman.
Dookieman says2015-04-22T14:53:34.5321747-05:00
@dbushwacker "Okay though Con, I'd like to see how you guys get along in the wilds without meat on your agenda." Well, I don't live in the wild so I don't have to worry about that. "It's just the circle of life, I myself would like to believe that animals have souls, I have stared into the eyes of my dogs and I still think there's something there that even good Christians missed." What exactly do you mean by "circle of life"? Is this your argument in defense of hunting? As far as souls are concerned, my criticism of hunting was not contingent on whether nonhuman animals have souls. I think hunting is wrong because it involves intentionally causing pain to another sentient being. "But the fact is that it's just life and there's too many people in the world not to eat some kind of meat, after all animals aren't nearly sensitive as we are when it comes down to eating human or starving." I'm not saying that hunting animals is wrong in all circumstances no matter what. There may be certain situations where engaging in such an activity may be morally justified. I thought this poll was more so referring to hunting here in the U.S. and other industrialized nations. If you live in a country like the U.S., hunting is not necessary because we have grocery stores and farmer's markets that give us many options for food.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-22T14:59:13.6862839-05:00
Hunting is also useful to prevent animal populations from going higher than the carrying capacity.
dbushwacker says2015-04-23T09:39:30.4445506-05:00
@Dookieman " Is this your argument in defense of hunting?" It was a rough draft of my opinion, I kinda slack since people don't challenge me so much more. But you asked. "Well, I don't live in the wild so I don't have to worry about that." Obviously we don't all live in the wilds, and as society continues to change from an subsistence economy to an industrial one those of modern thinking may have the luxury of condemning old and seemingly cruel acts. I'm here to say that activities such as hunting must still keep a place in our world considering the perils that threaten societies including war, famine, and disease. They might not seem so relevant now, but you could probably ask any refugee or any unlucky enough to have experienced the worst and you'd find that they hadn't expected to find themselves starving or cold; or that they hadn't believe that war, disease, and famine could possibly have occurred."As far as souls are concerned, my criticism of hunting was not contingent on whether nonhuman animals have souls. I think hunting is wrong because it involves intentionally causing pain to another sentient being." Then do you consider cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, fish, or crab sentient or just deer, boar, and coyotes; are you a true vegan or are you just opposed to shooting animals in particular. Cause I have to say, hunting seems a lot more just than a slaughter house. I'd just rather prefer to keep options open to me and others than to worry too much about black and white, it's all gray anyways. "What exactly do you mean by "circle of life"? "" I was thinking in terms that every living being on earth is born (or is other words), lives, breathes, eats, dies, decomposes, fertilizes, and is consumed over the span of years. Its just the way the world works. "If you live in a country like the U.S., hunting is not necessary because we have grocery stores and farmer's markets that give us many options for food." Yet in order to have some of those products cattle must be slaughtered or fish to be caught; its as much of a hunter society as it always has been, its just made much easier.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-04-23T10:32:18.5606126-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe: Wouldn't that be culling?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-23T10:36:32.7278109-05:00
Hunting licenses are often distributed based on the size of the animal population.
Dookieman says2015-04-23T14:08:56.6679023-05:00
@dbushwacker "Obviously we don't all live in the wilds, and as society continues to change from an subsistence economy to an industrial one those of modern thinking may have the luxury of condemning old and seemingly cruel acts." Well, yes, that's true. As society progresses we do look back at history and condemn some of the practices that took place in the past. Hunting can now be considered among that list. "I'm here to say that activities such as hunting must still keep a place in our world considering the perils that threaten societies including war, famine, and disease." Again, I thought this poll was talking about hunting in the U.S. Obviously, hunting cannot be abolished everywhere around the world. That just wouldn't happen. "Then do you consider cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, fish, or crab sentient or just deer, boar, and coyotes; are you a true vegan or are you just opposed to shooting animals in particular." I'm a vegan, so, yes, I oppose causing pain or suffering to nonhuman animals when there is no serious need to. "Cause I have to say, hunting seems a lot more just than a slaughter house." Generally speaking I think you're right. While it's true the animal that is hunted has to go through the fear and pain of being shot, it most likely did not suffer as much as an animal raised on a factory farm. "I'd just rather prefer to keep options open to me and others than to worry too much about black and white, it's all gray anyways." You keep saying it's not black and white, but it is. The way we treat animals is wrong and there is no good justification for causing harm to another sentient being when you don't need to. "I was thinking in terms that every living being on earth is born (or is other words), lives, breathes, eats, dies, decomposes, fertilizes, and is consumed over the span of years. Its just the way the world works." This is more of a statement of fact rather than an argument. "Yet in order to have some of those products cattle must be slaughtered or fish to be caught; its as much of a hunter society as it always has been, its just made much easier." I was talking about eating foods that come from plants, not animals.
Anonymous says2015-04-23T14:24:31.1762927-05:00
"Then do you consider cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, fish, or crab sentient or just deer, boar, and coyotes" This is no more of a issue of personal taste than the question of what actual eye color you have. "it's all gray anyways" No, definetly black. If I cannot bring forward a rational argument for the infliction of serious pain on a sentient creature then it's as black as it gets.
dbushwacker says2015-04-23T14:41:15.6979319-05:00
@Dookieman " I'm a vegan, so, yes, I oppose causing pain or suffering to nonhuman animals when there is no serious need to." Now it makes more sense friend. "Again, I thought this poll was talking about hunting in the U.S. Obviously, hunting cannot be abolished everywhere around the world. That just wouldn't happen." I try to think of the big picture, never something so confined as ones on nation. "You keep saying it's not black and white, but it is. The way we treat animals is wrong and there is no good justification for causing harm to another sentient being when you don't need to." No you don't understand, Nothing is ever black and white, you may have the luxury of seeing sides but all there really is is that blend of gray. In one sense it may seem the terrible crime to take a life, but in another sense life is always taken in our world in order for life to survive, even those vegetables and fruits that you eat had a sort of life but are you not disturbed about eating those too. Or what or the paper you write on, was it not a tree and was it not alive. Sorry I'm getting off track, the point is that its just life and its up to you to live it to your fullest. I don't dispute your morals, I more dispute the belief that one man can be deemed evil simply because another does not understand. But @Fkkize, there are rational arguments, just look up world hunger that's all the argument I care to dispute. If you can't understand that then you have been blinded by privilege and commodity.
Anonymous says2015-04-23T14:59:43.2153249-05:00
@dbushwacker "No you don't understand, Nothing is ever black and white, you may have the luxury of seeing sides but all there really is is that blend of gray. In one sense it may seem the terrible crime to take a life, but in another sense life is always taken in our world in order for life to survive" Which is not the case. If I get a heartattack right now, who exactly survives? "even those vegetables and fruits that you eat had a sort of life but are you not disturbed about eating those too." What is life and what is not is actually an example for a gray area, but something that is not a gray area is the occurence of pain induced behaviour which plants don't show. Unless you posit that plants are sentient this has no ground. Moreover even if plants would feel pain it would still not be an argument against veganism since the production of 1 pound of meat requires multiple times more pounds of plants than just producing 1 pound of plants. "just look up world hunger" Umhh world hunger is one of the three main arguments against the consumption of meat in western civilizations. If we want to feed an ever growing population we need to refrain form cost/space/recource intensive methods. I am not sure what you mean by blinded by privilege, I am of course not proposing that we should deem everyone immoral who consumes meat on the basis that they have no means to sustain a plant based diet.
Heraclitus says2015-04-23T15:45:27.2610082-05:00
Its natural
Anonymous says2015-04-23T15:49:08.5928932-05:00
@Heraclitus Rape and extiction wars are natural, too (even chimpanses wage such wars), are they therefore good?

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.