Should Hunting for Sport be Banned?

[Luminesa]

Dude, a .308 to the head or heart kills the deer instantly. What are you stuck up on?

That there is a line that we shouldn't cross for an easy victory.

Uhhhhhh the whole point of hunting is an easy victory, if possible.

[Sundiata]

The pain is NOT FUCKING NECESSARY.

*Prepares to sign Sunny up for an appearance on Dr. Phil*

Y'all boys in agreement?

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't kill animals in ways that are extreme because that would be immoral. I'm not saying that hunters can't ever enjoy the whole process.

[Sundiata]

That there is a line that we shouldn't cross for an easy victory.

Uhhhhhh the whole point of hunting is an easy victory, if possible.

I don't want to split hairs here but don't you think that it can get too easy at the expense of dignity: the animal, the hunter, and the sport? The extreme and completely hypothetical example I gave was using a rocket launcher to kill a deer. That wouldn't apply?

I hope that concern is clear.

[Grinning Dragon]

Also the meat will spoil faster. I too didn't realize that until my father in law who worked in slaughterhouse/meat packing plant explained the process of getting good quality meat.

Has he ever told you any horror stories, what with working in a slaughterhouse? By that I mean one of those stories that’ll make you never want to eat again. Like those dreaded cannery stories.

Or was it a good quality slaughterhouse/plant?

Yeah, he's told a fair amount of horror stories on the process of some meats being prepared and is quick to understand why some meats get recalled and basically tells what happened on the line to cause tainted meat.

[Shu Chengdu]

Has he ever told you any horror stories, what with working in a slaughterhouse? By that I mean one of those stories that’ll make you never want to eat again. Like those dreaded cannery stories.

Or was it a good quality slaughterhouse/plant?

Yeah, he's told a fair amount of horror stories on the process of some meats being prepared and is quick to understand why some meats get recalled and basically tells what happened on the line to cause tainted meat.

Please don’t share.

I knew a guy in college who worked at Denny’s and Burger King both over time and I heard some scary stories. Doesn’t compare to a meat packing plant of course but still... you can learn much from insider sources, needles to say.

[Luminesa]

Uhhhhhh the whole point of hunting is an easy victory, if possible.

I don't want to split hairs here but don't you think that it can get too easy at the expense of dignity: the animal, the hunter, and the sport? The extreme and completely hypothetical example I gave was using a rocket launcher to kill a deer. That wouldn't apply?

I hope that concern is clear.

Bruh I live in Louisiana. The law is basically, “You can own almost anything except a Gundam, you can even own a tank with the right paperwork.” Nobody here would think to use a flipping ROCKET LAUNCHER on a deer. That’s because people who hunt tend to do so with the mindset that something of that deer is going to be used (or mounted on their wall).

But the intention is NOT to make the animal suffer. Letting the animal hurt means it’s not dead, you botched the kill, and you have to dig more bullets or clean more to actually salvage what you’ve found. It’s a stupid notion to think, “But shouldn’t we take it more slowly?” No. Take it from someone who actually knows hunters.

[Sundiata]

I don't want to split hairs here but don't you think that it can get too easy at the expense of dignity: the animal, the hunter, and the sport? The extreme and completely hypothetical example I gave was using a rocket launcher to kill a deer. That wouldn't apply?

I hope that concern is clear.

Bruh I live in Louisiana. The law is basically, “You can own almost anything except a Gundam, you can even own a tank with the right paperwork.” Nobody here would think to use a flipping ROCKET LAUNCHER on a deer. That’s because people who hunt tend to do so with the mindset that something of that deer is going to be used (or mounted on their wall).

But the intention is NOT to make the animal suffer. Letting the animal hurt means it’s not dead, you botched the kill, and you have to dig more bullets or clean more to actually salvage what you’ve found. It’s a stupid notion to think, “But shouldn’t we take it more slowly?” No. Take it from someone who actually knows hunters.

I know that the intention is not to make the animal suffer. I just disagree that it's not inevitable unless extreme measures are used that would violate the dignity of the animal as well as one's own. Basically, suffering is inevitable when hunting for sport in a manner that's ethical even if you've got a perfect shot. No matter how quick the kill, in a manner that isn't completely absurd, suffering is almost inevitable. And again, if you disagree that's completely fine.

The point isn't the hypothetical rocket launcher, it's the principle that I'm trying to highlight. If you don't understand what I mean at this point, please ask. Is that principle that pertains to inevitable suffering clear? Let me know if it's not and if you disagree that's fine.

I just think it's fine to slow down if our choices are between slowing down and extreme measures.

[Kowani]

Bruh I live in Louisiana. The law is basically, “You can own almost anything except a Gundam, you can even own a tank with the right paperwork.” Nobody here would think to use a flipping ROCKET LAUNCHER on a deer. That’s because people who hunt tend to do so with the mindset that something of that deer is going to be used (or mounted on their wall).

But the intention is NOT to make the animal suffer. Letting the animal hurt means it’s not dead, you botched the kill, and you have to dig more bullets or clean more to actually salvage what you’ve found. It’s a stupid notion to think, “But shouldn’t we take it more slowly?” No. Take it from someone who actually knows hunters.

I know that the intention is not to make the animal suffer. I just disagree that it's not inevitable unless extreme measures are used that would violate the dignity of the animal as well as one's own. Basically, suffering is inevitable when hunting for sport in a manner that's ethical even if you've got a perfect shot. No matter how quick the kill, in a manner that isn't completely absurd, suffering is almost inevitable. And again, if you disagree that's completely fine.

The point isn't the hypothetical rocket launcher, it's the principle that I'm trying to highlight. If you don't understand what I mean at this point, please ask. Is that principle that pertains to inevitable suffering clear? Let me know if it's not and if you disagree that's fine.

there's a difference between "suffering is inevitable" and whatever the fuck you've been arguing

[Sundiata]

I know that the intention is not to make the animal suffer. I just disagree that it's not inevitable unless extreme measures are used that would violate the dignity of the animal as well as one's own. Basically, suffering is inevitable when hunting for sport in a manner that's ethical even if you've got a perfect shot. No matter how quick the kill, in a manner that isn't completely absurd, suffering is almost inevitable. And again, if you disagree that's completely fine.

The point isn't the hypothetical rocket launcher, it's the principle that I'm trying to highlight. If you don't understand what I mean at this point, please ask. Is that principle that pertains to inevitable suffering clear? Let me know if it's not and if you disagree that's fine.

there's a difference between "suffering is inevitable" and whatever the fuck you've been arguing

Of the many points I've made that was the central point. The major disagreement lies within the boundaries of sportsmanship and what can be considered necessary or unnecessary suffering.

Because I think that suffering is inevitable, it's my opinion that some is a necessary part of the sport.

[Japerlasa]

Bruh I live in Louisiana. The law is basically, “You can own almost anything except a Gundam, you can even own a tank with the right paperwork.” Nobody here would think to use a flipping ROCKET LAUNCHER on a deer. That’s because people who hunt tend to do so with the mindset that something of that deer is going to be used (or mounted on their wall).

But the intention is NOT to make the animal suffer. Letting the animal hurt means it’s not dead, you botched the kill, and you have to dig more bullets or clean more to actually salvage what you’ve found. It’s a stupid notion to think, “But shouldn’t we take it more slowly?” No. Take it from someone who actually knows hunters.

I know that the intention is not to make the animal suffer. I just disagree that it's not inevitable unless extreme measures are used that would violate the dignity of the animal as well as one's own. Basically, suffering is inevitable when hunting for sport in a manner that's ethical even if you've got a perfect shot. No matter how quick the kill, in a manner that isn't completely absurd, suffering is almost inevitable. And again, if you disagree that's completely fine.

The point isn't the hypothetical rocket launcher, it's the principle that I'm trying to highlight. If you don't understand what I mean at this point, please ask. Is that principle that pertains to inevitable suffering clear? Let me know if it's not and if you disagree that's fine.

I just think it's fine to slow down if our choices are between slowing down and extreme measures.

A bullet in the right place instantly kills the animal. How could one suffer when the death is instantaneous? And the animal has to be killed in an absurd manner like with a rocket launcher for it not to suffer? Literally what's the difference between getting blown up and getting shot in the heart in terms of the amount of suffering went through?

I genuinely don't understand what you're getting at here, maybe you could try explaining again?

[Sundiata]

I know that the intention is not to make the animal suffer. I just disagree that it's not inevitable unless extreme measures are used that would violate the dignity of the animal as well as one's own. Basically, suffering is inevitable when hunting for sport in a manner that's ethical even if you've got a perfect shot. No matter how quick the kill, in a manner that isn't completely absurd, suffering is almost inevitable. And again, if you disagree that's completely fine.

The point isn't the hypothetical rocket launcher, it's the principle that I'm trying to highlight. If you don't understand what I mean at this point, please ask. Is that principle that pertains to inevitable suffering clear? Let me know if it's not and if you disagree that's fine.

I just think it's fine to slow down if our choices are between slowing down and extreme measures.

A bullet in the right place instantly kills the animal. How could one suffer when the death is instantaneous? And the animal has to be killed in an absurd manner like with a rocket launcher for it not to suffer? Literally what's the difference between getting blown up and getting shot in the heart in terms of the amount of suffering went through?

I genuinely don't understand what you're getting at here, maybe you could try explaining again?

The difference between a rocket launcher and a bullet in the right place would be the degree to which a death is instantaneous. Basically, regarding comparitive pain there is a moral weight between a second and, in the extreme case of a rocket, a half second that compromises various forms of dignity: the animal, hunter, and the process.

I hope that's clear now.

[Neanderthaland]

Not in my eyes. That's vile.

It's not vile, we're literally better than them. If the targeted animal escapes then it's all in good fun.

I don't necessarily disagree with hunting. Although I think it better for it to be done out of necessity than sport.

But there is something to be said for how we treat our "lessers." The idea that we're "better than them" and so it's okay to treat them terribly, even turn a blind eye to needless suffering, is a damning incitement upon the morality of anyone who thinks it.

If you are really better then you should act better.

[Sundiata]

It's not vile, we're literally better than them. If the targeted animal escapes then it's all in good fun.

I don't necessarily disagree with hunting. Although I think it better for it to be done out of necessity than sport.

But there is something to be said for how we treat our "lessers." The idea that we're "better than them" and so it's okay to treat them terribly, even turn a blind eye to needless suffering, is a damning incitement upon the morality of anyone who thinks it.

If you are really better then you should act better.

I completely agree.

We are superior to animals and that's why we shouldn't treat them with cruelty.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

Fishing for sport is fine, why shouldn’t hunting be?
I don’t necessarily agree with it, but many poor countries in Africa make good money on it.

[Japerlasa]

The difference between a rocket launcher and a bullet in the right place would be the degree to which a death is instantaneous. Basically, regarding comparitive pain there is a moral weight between a second and, in the extreme case of a rocket, a half second that compromises various forms of dignity: the animal, hunter, and the process.

I hope that's clear now.

I mean, not really. Instant death is instant death. Most likely the animal would have no idea what's about to happen moments before the bullet strikes, as it's the case with most hunts. Something as unexpected as a sudden death takes way more than just a second to register.

And what's the deal with compromising the animal's dignity? Are you saying that because of how easy it is for a human to kill an animal with a rifle, doing so hurts the animal's dignity?

Some animals are natural preys, so what if they get hunted down by a human instead of a predator?

[Sundiata]

And what's the deal with compromising the animal's dignity? Are you saying that because of how easy it is for a human to kill an animal with a rifle, doing so hurts the animal's dignity?

Not just any rifle, but a semi-automatic rifle, even an automatic rifle, and definitely a rocket launcher.

Some animals are natural preys, so what if they get hunted down by a human instead of a predator?

Sure, I was saying before that we shouldn't hold ourselves to the moral standard of predatory non-human animals and kill any creature too gruesomely. The moral cost of doing that to me is pretty significant.

[Dylar]

And what's the deal with compromising the animal's dignity? Are you saying that because of how easy it is for a human to kill an animal with a rifle, doing so hurts the animal's dignity?

Not just any rifle, but a semi-automatic rifle, even an automatic rifle, and definitely a rocket launcher.

Okay, so first off, no hunter is going to use an RPG-7 or an MG-42 for hunting. That's just a waste of ammunition and food. But please explain to me what the matter is with using semi-automatic firearms to hunt? Furthermore what dignity are you compromising with a clean shot to the head? Or are you one of those "thrill of the hunt" types that would rather see their prey run in fear and beg for mercy before killing them?

[Violent Mike]

Dude, a .308 to the head or heart kills the deer instantly. What are you stuck up on?

That there is a line that we shouldn't cross for an easy victory.

This started with somebody making an inane statement about semiautomatic weapons and now we're here with you being the worst hunter.

And what's the deal with compromising the animal's dignity? Are you saying that because of how easy it is for a human to kill an animal with a rifle, doing so hurts the animal's dignity?

Not just any rifle, but a semi-automatic rifle, even an automatic rifle, and definitely a rocket launcher.

Semi-automatic rifles don't hurt an animal's dignity.

[Greater Cesnica]

And what's the deal with compromising the animal's dignity? Are you saying that because of how easy it is for a human to kill an animal with a rifle, doing so hurts the animal's dignity?

Not just any rifle, but a semi-automatic rifle, even an automatic rifle, and definitely a rocket launcher.

Some animals are natural preys, so what if they get hunted down by a human instead of a predator?

Sure, I was saying before that we shouldn't hold ourselves to the moral standard of predatory non-human animals and kill any creature too gruesomely. The moral cost of doing that to me is pretty significant.

Using a semi-automatic rifle has no bearing on """dignity""". I must say, I am profoundly disturbed by your arguments. I'm revolted by this notion of deliberately inflicting needless suffering, I am disgusted by you using some archaic notion of morality to let an animal suffer. You should not be let within 10 feet of a firearm, you should not be permitted to hunt. You are the type of person who would give the rest of us ethical hunters a bad reputation with your deliberate failure to follow-up, your dereliction of your moral duty to put the animal that you shot out of its misery; a misery that the animal did not bring upon itself.

I do not believe it is in the interest of my mental health to engage with you further. Please, re-evaluate your ethics and your hypothetical practices before even thinking of hunting or shooting.

[Kernen]

Because I think that suffering is inevitable, it's my opinion that some is a necessary part of the sport.

Cool, but you're wrong.

[Salus Maior]

Because I think that suffering is inevitable, it's my opinion that some is a necessary part of the sport.

Cool, but you're wrong.

Going out and chasing animals to kill them doesn't create any suffering at all?

I'm good with hunting, btw, but I'm not under the impression that it's purely a good time for all creatures involved.

[Sundiata]

That there is a line that we shouldn't cross for an easy victory.

This started with somebody making an inane statement about semiautomatic weapons and now we're here with you being the worst hunter.

Not just any rifle, but a semi-automatic rifle, even an automatic rifle, and definitely a rocket launcher.

Semi-automatic rifles don't hurt an animal's dignity.

At this point, better to be thought of as a bad hunter than a sadistic psychopath. I'm curious about your take on this, theoretically why is a semi-automatic rifle permissible and an automatic rifle not?

[Grinning Dragon]

This started with somebody making an inane statement about semiautomatic weapons and now we're here with you being the worst hunter.

Semi-automatic rifles don't hurt an animal's dignity.

At this point, better to be thought of as a bad hunter than a sadistic psychopath. I'm curious about your take on this, theoretically why is a semi-automatic rifle permissible and an automatic rifle not?

I myself don't see an issue in using a semi-auto or an automatic, as an automatic firearm is just as equally able to fire just one round, plus a quick follow up shot if need be.

[Sundiata]

Okay, so first off, no hunter is going to use an RPG-7 or an MG-42 for hunting. That's just a waste of ammunition and food.

I know, I said before exactly why I used that absurd example.

But please explain to me what the matter is with using semi-automatic firearms to hunt?

It makes wanton slaughter more feasible. Not to the extent of an RPG or an automatic rifle but it's definitely an ethical compromise compared to a rifle that isn't automatic or semi-automatic.

Furthermore what dignity are you compromising with a clean shot to the head?

In the best case scenario I don't believe the compromise is that discernible but the fact that the animal suffers, if only for one instant.

Or are you one of those "thrill of the hunt" types that would rather see their prey run in fear and beg for mercy before killing them?

No, but the overall process of hunting should absolutely be a thrilling experience, which I believe it is, if it's done artfully.

[Dogmeat]

I don't necessarily disagree with hunting. Although I think it better for it to be done out of necessity than sport.

But there is something to be said for how we treat our "lessers." The idea that we're "better than them" and so it's okay to treat them terribly, even turn a blind eye to needless suffering, is a damning incitement upon the morality of anyone who thinks it.

If you are really better then you should act better.

I completely agree.

We are superior to animals and that's why we shouldn't treat them with cruelty.

Which is why you want to "savor" their suffering. And don't want the to die too quickly or easily?

Yeah. You constantly try to have things both ways, but you can't do it with this.