How do I break it to my family that I want to get into hunting?
Both parents are pretty anti-gun in general. Family never owned a gun. Only thing we had was a pump air rifle for squirrels that were getting fucking with our roof. Once my dad figured out it was raccoons, he stopped shooting squirrels and used have-a-heart traps on the coons. Mom went insane when my dad bought me a toy revolver watergun when I was little.
I'm moved out now and in college. I participated in a trapping seminar at my university and helped skin a coyote. Saw raccoons, beavers, and opossums get skinned as well. Pretty much all of the subconscious anti-hunting sentiments I had before are gone. I'll at least be buying my own air rifle for squirrel hunting next fall. Hopefully I can get my hands on a rifle too.
How do I tell my parents? Do I even mention it? I'm sure a few of you guys have gone through something similar.
man the fuck up dude, are you 15? Just drop it in nuclear way, "mom, dad I bought a rifle and I'm start hunting with it."
If you're afraid of them fucking your money up, just wait until you finish college and then leave anyways.
Just get a gun and go hunting sometime. Keep hunting until you get something. Take picture of yourself naked, holding the gun with both arms outstretched above your head, snarling and covered in blood next to the flayed carcass strung from a tree. Make a postcard for them with it.
They've got this idea that all hunting is about is killing. Like you have to enjoy killing to like hunting, or to even want to hunt. They're not cool with hunting at all, even when eating the damn kill because there is other food readily available that didn't require you killing anything.
Are your parents vegans?
If not tell them to stop being fucking hypocrites and let you go shoot some deer, which are over-populated anyway.
Ask them why a deer's life is more valuable than a cow's.
there's food that doesn't involve hurting animals senpai
and no I don't wear leather (or well, I still use the leather products I bought before I came to this realisation but I'm not buying any new)
Nah, no place to store. Can't even keep a non-cooking knife longer than 3 inches in my car on campus. I'll be moving off campus next semester though, so I'll have a place then.
I go to one of those schools, but I've got a personal rule of not meeting up with people. Thanks though. Always nice to see fellow Alabamians on here
Oh, but they are cool with OTHER people doing the killing of cows and pigs they eat as long as their hands aren't dirty. Remind them that that cow still had to get killed for them.
They're like the German citizen in ww2 enjoying their new gold necklace, not wanting to know where it came from, ignoring their own complicity.
I've had this conversation with my dad before. I mentioned I wouldn't turn down the opportunity to slaughter my own pig or chicken. He said he wouldn't. He says that society has evolved beyond that, that he'd rather let someone else do it since he doesn't absolutely HAVE to in order to survive.
I wish he'd just say he would feel bad about killing the animal instead of using worse, more illogical excuses like that.
Sorry, not trying to be unfriendly. I really do appreciate the offer, but I generally don't feel comfortable meeting up with people like that. You should save it for a family member or friend. I wouldn't have a place to keep it anyways. Seriously though, thanks.
you realise it takes a ridiculously much more farm land to feed animals stacked on top of each other and then feed humans those animals instead of just feeding humans directly, I think livestock requires like four times as much farmland today? It's inefficient as hell
read above, It's nowhere near perfect, no but I'm doing what I can, and hunting for fun and eating animal products is very easy not to do
also I'm not sure what point you're trying to make
allright I'm with you now and I agree, it's impossible (well, practically) to be a 100% vegan though it's really a pointless discussion. I mean the difficulty in avoiding stuff that's hard is not a justification for deliberately doing the things which are simple to avoid
You sound like a raging faggot trying to get daddy's approval for sucking dick. If you can't tell your family what your interests are then there's something wrong with you. Not everyone has the same interests and every normal person knows this, just tell them faggot.
Do you not understand that hunting is an accounted for and necessary part of an area's conservation efforts?
My family helps maintain healthy populations of multiple species in Arkansas, and without hunters, or the revenue hunting licenses bring in, that wouldn't be possible. There's simply not enough space or food for animals to be left unchecked, one species would simply outperform all the others and crowd them out. Even being constantly hunted, wild hogs are an enormous problem in this area.
Those motherfuckers are too smart for their own good. You can't use a normal trap because the ones you miss will just learn better and not get caught next time. You can't just shoot them because they'll move five miles down the road and fuck up someone else's property.
You've got to catch the whole group, then take them all, as cruel as it sounds. Otherwise they just keep fucking up the local wildlife and land, and ruining all agriculture for miles. Hell, it's not even legal to leave them alive, in most places.
Because there's no alternative? Would you have the government pay to move them somewhere else? If so, where?
Would you have the average person adopt a wild animal? Just not do anything, THEN finally react once roads become uncrossable due to deer, or hogs destroy acres of farmland, or zebra mussels destroy every dam in the country?
The only humane option is to allow people who're willing to pay maintenance fees for public land and conservation efforts do the necessary work of culling species that humans unintentionally fostered the explosive growth of while not wasting the animal's life entirely.
In all honesty, animal shelters that're forced to put animals down due to necessity and cost are more inhumane, as they needlessly drag out the life of an animal that's scared and afraid and likely both sick and a health hazard, then throw them into a garbage to be dumped in a landfill once their allotted time is up.
I understand the love of animals. I really do. I love them as well, and I fully respect the wishes and feelings of people who don't have it in them to take the life of a living thing, but to call something done out of respect for nature and is necessary to keeping it in check "for no reason", and to condemn those who do it, is just ignorant.
"Feral hogs compete directly with livestock as well as game and nongame wildlife species for food. However, the main damage caused to livestock and wildlife is indirect destruction of habitat and agriculture commodities. Rooting and trampling activity for food can damage agricultural crops, fields, and livestock feeding and watering facilities. Often wildlife feeders are damaged or destroyed. They also destabilize wetland areas, springs, creeks and tanks by excessive rooting and wallowing. In addition to habitat destruction and alteration, hogs can destroy forestry plantings and damage trees. While not active predators, wild hogs may prey on fawns, young lambs, and kid goats. If the opportunity arises, they may also destroy and consume eggs of ground nesting birds, such as turkeys and quail."
"The feral hog has managed to survive, adapt, and increase their numbers despite attempts at population control. While it is possible to keep the population in check with continuous control, it is highly unlikely to eradicate a hog population within an established range."
-Texas Wildlife and Parks Department
It's several people's jobs to properly calculate how many animals the area can sustain, how many have been recorded and understood to be born, and dole out the number of them that can be hunted that season so that the ones who aren't hunted don't go hungry. Hunting is not the government sanctioning of every hillbilly with a gun running out into the woods to shoot anything that moves. You can go to jail for taking game that isn't properly tagged with the limited ones you get with your license each year.
>personal rule of not meeting up with people
lulz, so you don't talk to anyone in your classes or at a cafe, or in the library? WTF does that even mean, you have a personal rule of not meeting people?
Public places are amazing things. It's like you're meeting someone for the 1st time yet you know a little about them. Fuck, I'm asocial as hell and even I've done it.
And it's awesome to say "nah, you're really not what I thought you were" and walk away.
If you are of age OP, just go for it mate.
I wouldn't tell your parents, mine have always been pretty supportive of conservation in general but I have had friends that have run into similar problems.
A lot of needless drama could be avoided by not telling them right away. After some years and a lot of experience you'll gain a presence of mind about your new lifestyle and you'll be able to talk openly about it while keeping a cool head. This is the time to mention it in passing to your parents.
Overall, hard line anti-hunters will not easily be made to see reason. They are intellectually compromised and aggressive. These people should generally be avoided.
You know most ranges will offer you a safe/locker for storage of your firearms at a pretty reasonable rate. Be friendly with your range officer and get in good with everybody it'll make your life a lot easier.
>Tfw single mother adamantly refused to even let me consider a military role that even remotely involved me touching a gun, despite having no problems with guns, "because then you might get shot"
>Asserted myself and never regretted it
Just accept their influence over your life, then once you're no longer dependent on them for anything let them know your decision, since it's your life now.
I'm a little iffy with leaving my property at a mate's place. If you go this route, have him lock it in a safe or locker please. Can you really be sure your friend is as responsible as you are? Are you aware of the kind of company they keep? etc. Firearms are burglarized all the time, and at the end of the day if it's your property it's your problem in the eyes of the law.
You should keep in mind that your mother probably just wants what's best for you in her eyes. Women do tend to get a bit carried away with cucking your shit right up but you probably don't have kids so you don't really know what it's like to be that concerned about somebody.
If you ever have kids of your own, make sure to not make the same mistake and have your kids resent you for it.
I realized that, and letting her know I understood and all that touchy-feely shit was what eventually got her to let it go, but she nearly had an aneurysm after my AF pilot brother went through SERE and she found out what it entailed, so while I don't regret asserting myself and taking control of my future, I do regret making her worry and be afraid for me.
Just demand a little respect man. You should always be kind to your parents, as long as they weren't absolute shit. My parents were never abusive or anything but they sucked. They limited me to insane levels and they taught me nothing about real life.
Now I am polite to them and do I visit them sometimes. But I do what I want and they still don't approve of my lifestyle (which is not degenerate; I have a wife and a dog but apparently too many tattoos and motorcycles and guns.) I will never understand where they get off not accepting who I am, but I deal with it because I am the reasonable one.
I'll admit I know little to nothing about "conservation hunting" (which isn't really what op was talking about at all(which is what my initial attack was on so now I'm really arguing for something I don't really have a stand on))
And I will then trust you that it's necessary, but I then it's just a matter of will and money, since I'm sure there are actual other options. Sure it's practically impossible to turn around in one day, just like the whole world going vegan in one day, It's a slow change. It still doesn't make it _right_ to kill them
And also it's a man-made problem
if you're asking for another solution I don't have it. I'm just trying to point out a problem with it
I guess trapping and sterilizing would be a lot better as an example (though more costly and resource demanding), now that I read about it hunting doesn't really even seem very effective.
Also this really only applies to feral hogs and other problems like it, releasing animals not native to eco-systems that start to ruin it is our fault and we have to fix it but otherwise there's no real argument for hunting. I was generalizing in favor for my argument but now you're doing it too ;)
I see what you mean under these very specific circumstances yes but not otherwise
Sorry man. You missed out. It was a good rifle but one I'd never use because I live far from Alabama now and I was never going to come back and get it because I don't hunt anymore.
Anyway I took your advice and offered it up on Facebook and my little cousin already called dibs on it, so I can't take that back now.
Dumbest logic for not hunting I've ever heard.
Hunted animals live a more natural life and harvested in more humane ways than farms. On top of that the meat is fresher and you actually know where it came from. It cost less and you get to choose what happens with the left overs rather than knowing they're going to be ground up into some shitty cat or dog food that will slowly cause whatever poor faggot that buys it medical bills because they don't know any better than to buy cheap pet food.
our ancestors shat in caves, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it now
it's not in our "nature", and also what the fuck does that even mean, you think humans are globs of meat with absolutely zero impulse control? Are you the same jackass making like ten posts right now
literally what lol
yeah I take that post back, horribly phrased. I meant good ethics are based on logic
The only reason you're here with the brain and body you have now is because your ancestors for millions of years were extremely good hunters. Everything needs to die for something else to live, that is the cycle and balance of the earth and ecosystem that we live in. Meat is an important and natural part of the human diet for brain and muscle development and overall nutrition. If you have your own ethical reasons for not eating meat that's totally fine but don't try and push them on other people who are just doing what they have evolved to do. Finally, hunting is a far more ethical and humane way of procuring meat and animal products. The animal has lived a natural, healthy life in the woods before dying quickly after a few moments of being startled, rather than being grown on a crowded filthy farm, being dragged terrified into a slaughterhouse with dozens of others and dying in fear. Just my two cents.
Why the hell do you want to kill innocent animals? What, is the damage the human race is doing to the natural world not enough for you? The fuck is wrong with you?
I grew up in the countryside. I killed animals when I needed to because I didn't have a fucking choice. I live in city now because I don't need to do things like that. I don't need to drive an expensive car for a hour and a half every day to work because I can walk there. I live a life free of the bullshit people call "the real america" and it sickens me that fuckers like you idolize it so much you're willing to kill.
Do yourself a favour, buy a gun and make your first kill yourself.
I think wanting to be self-sufficient and to understand and respect where the food he eats comes from is a good goal. If he wants to hunt just for the thrill or to kill animals then it's a different story. And the environmental damage humanity is causing to the earth through logging and carbon emissions is far removed from hunting. Animals killing other animals for food has been a thing for a pretty long time.
No, meat is not an important part of our diet, we can manage fine without it.
And no it's not like i blame my ancestors for eating meat lol, and yes you're correct it helped us grow the brains we have, but things have changed, we no longer have a need for meat and there's a lot of evidence actually suggesting we are more healthy on a plant-based diet. The literal only reason you eat meat is because you feel like it. We're not carnivores, we're omnivores.
Killing an animal is still never "humane" since you do it for pleasure and have no actual need for it. You're still taking it's life, and if you actually go by this you'd be vegan outside of the animals you hunt personally
you could start by having an actual argument lol, you're just being an over-defensive twat spouting out ad hominems
some animals kill their own babies and eat their own shit, looking for ethical role models in nature is not a good idea
this isn't a question that can be answered in three lines and you know it, the closest thing I'd get is the definition I provided.. Good ethics are based on logic
I don't even know what to say other than that you're simply wrong, OP clearly doesn't want to get into conservation hunting
There's also a discussion wether most conservation hunting is actually necessary
only hedonists want to kill animals. so come out as a hedonist.
>ancestors shat in caves
first, its has always been a terrible idea to shit where you sleep, second no archeological evidence is found to back up that statement
tird, observation of primates suggests our ancestors shat in rivers
evolution has this nice quirk of letting us produce endorphines whenever we perform actions that pove beneficial to our ancestors survival
that includes sex, long distance running and among a lot of other stuff the kill during a hunt.
you don't have to fuck everything that moves, but you know it'd feel good, same thing with hunting.
you get my point, should go on witchhunts because our ancestors did it?
>you don't have to fuck everything that moves, but you know it'd feel good, same thing with hunting.
this supports my argument?
witchhunts where never about survival, it was about a religion that made unethical statements about the procedure about how to treat magic users.
religion on the other hand is derived from our natural pack instict.
i support that impulse control is what makes us civilised, yet my honest oppinion is that civilisation makes us unhappy as it derives us from those exact stimuli that evolution put in place.
>No, meat is not an important part of our diet, we can manage fine without it.
The fact remains that you need a lot of the vitamins and trace elements found in meat, and getting them through a natural way with all the little components required to process and utilise them is better than taking a sterile lab-made supplement. It sucks that this is how life on earth is, but the world has just evolved to be this way. We as a species are still very much part of the earth's ecosystem, and a gigantic part of that system is animals killing and eating each other. Things haven't changed quite that much yet. Won't always be like this if humanity keeps advancing in the area of nutrition though.
At the end of the day I understand why you find it abhorrent. It's not that I'm just saying 'this is the way shit is deal with it lol'. Personally I find it really distasteful how clinical and clean consuming meat is these days for the average person. I guess that's just the point of living in a society (another person does all the shit work for you if you pay them) but it makes people really detached from what they're really eating and when confronted with the reality it can be really shocking for some, which is bizzare to me. I think an important part is respect. Hunting isn't about destroying shit and taking things for yourself.
For my part I limit the amount of meat that I eat and always take every opportunity to learn about animal products and experience the way they're made. If I want to use them I better make damn sure I'm aware of how they were procured and what was sacrificed to do so. I fucking love animals man.
The only reason there are 'too many' of certain species is because we've reduced the natural countryside to a fraction of the original amount and build urban concrete environments all over the fuckin shop, or otherwise from our influence (such as the introduction of invasive species to certain areas)
I'm pro hunting but don't think for a second people actually buy the 'no alternative'. The alternative is to tackle the idea that the only healthy economy is a growing economy, and by extension reuse the already tainted hardscapes we have everywhere and protect the natural environment.
Species managed their populations independently for thousands, millions, of years. Don't you think before the 'hunter' came along deer populations weren't able to find a natural equilibrium within the ecosystem?
>Don't you think before the 'hunter' came along deer populations weren't able to find a natural equilibrium within the ecosystem?
The problem is, we reduced the "natural hunter", that is the apex predators', population to a fraction of it's natural equilibrium, without tem humans have to fill their role to reduce herbivore population to a reasonable level.
stepping back and letting them reproduce uncontrolled would mean a rise in population of dangerous predators and thus an increase in human deaths
Your argument holds some but not a lot of water.
Yes we reduce apex predators, but allowing apex predators' population to rise to a natural equilibrium with their prey species, coupled with safeguarding natural land would solve the problem almost completely.
As for an increase in human deaths, well you just have to look at the statistics. Animal maulings/deaths are almost nothing in comparison to cancer, heart disease associated with poor diet/drinking/smoking, motoring fatalities, and of course people-on-people crime.
What I'm driving at is saying hunting is necessary to control species is a REACTIVE measure to the problem, and instead we should be putting in place preventative measures.
I have the exact same problem with forestry 'management'. Like, don't you think forests did just fine managing themselves for millenia before we started fucking with shit? The only reason we need to manage them is because of our influence in the first place!
And it's the same with hunting.
it feels good and keeps the herbivore population in check, as we eradicated the predator population that is supposed to do that
And meat tastes good.
In my books it is totally justified.
go extinct, vegans.
to justify my argument about an increase in human deaths:
predators are teritorial, the size of that teritory is determined by the number of game in it, if there's enough game the teritory will shrink, it there's not enough game it will grow. a smaller teritory means that there can be a bigger number of predators as there is a bigger number of teritorys.
if u keep that in mind imagine hiking through a densly populated (with game) forest, in the time you would now pass half of a wolfpacks teritory you now pass through 3 packs' teritories. Combine that with the fact that a human is easier prey than a deer the likelyhood of beeing attacked by a predator increases.
>the wild is full of dangerous stuff, survive it by not beeing there
its easy, a forest in natural hunter/prey equilibrium is more likely to be the death of /out/ist like us
you can live your whole life without seeing a wolf in the wild if u stay in civilisation, but thats the deal, staying in civ. means you are nor killed by an animal, you pay for that with an unhealthy diet, drinking and smoking, all of which fuck up your brain chemistry that is trying to tell you: 'be out there and kill stuff'
i don't like rape
aslo the consequences of hunting is feeling good and having multiple nice meals, consequences of raping are prison or beeing lynched, so... you agree with me?
if not keep in mind that eating free roaming deer that lead a good life means i don't support the massproduction of supermarket meat.
>aslo the consequences of hunting is feeling good and having multiple nice meals, consequences of raping are prison or beeing lynched, so... you agree with me?
le morals are subjective right?? They're not.
Sure you feel good but another consequence is that an animal that wanted to live dies for your tastebuds to be pleased (don't tell me that's a fair trade) and a consequence of you raping someone is that, gee I dunno someone actually gets raped against their will? An extension of the logic you're using would be that even though you're not ok with rape personally you would be ok with people thinking rape is normal
If your actions have impact on another sentient being it's no longer a personal choice, since it doesn't only affect you
>if not keep in mind that eating free roaming deer that lead a good life means i don't support the massproduction of supermarket meat.
you still have the choice of not doing any harm at all which makes this argument pointless
Wait, Animals don't have a right to continue living. That is a privilege I will allow while I am satiated. You cannot apply human rights to Animals, The animal you slay for meat does not ponder the removal of it's own existence, it just operates on feedback mechanism. I do believe Animals have a right to not be treated with cruelty by those with the presence of mind to know it's wrong. Aside from that it comes down to sustainability and preservation of the species/ what I feel like eating.
gee whiz someone read ayn rand
by this logic it would be ok to randomly execute severely mentally disabled people.
No of course they shouldn't have the exact same rights as humans, but you cannot argue that animals don't care wheter they live or die? Of course they want to live and you rob them of that only for your tastebuds to be pleased, which is not anywhere close to ok
>I do believe Animals have a right to not be treated with cruelty by those with the presence of mind to know it's wrong.
how is it not cruel to kill something that wants to live?
you should read the wikipedia page on speciesism
Kek you talk about human rights and sustainability.
The core to that thinking is that what you take today does not compromise future generations potentials tomorrow.
We are part of this world, not apart from it. We don't have the right to dictate what has to live or not, and our thinking that we are the kings and everything else in the world is subservient to us is a fallacy that will ultimately end in our own demise when we've ripped apart the natural world to the extent where we've poisoned and wasted all our natural resources.
Hunting in itself is not wrong. In fact if we were to limit urban expansion and maintain strong, diverse and healthy natural ecosystems with healthy populations, it would allow hunting (as a sustainable method of gaining meat) to offset the horrible impact of concentrated livestock farming. As well as that it'd keep people connected to where their food comes from - the abstract presentation of food in supermarkets has disconnected us from the world we live in.
But that all starts with understanding our place in the world. As the most intelligent species we should see ourselves as the caretakers not the owners of the world.
vegetarians destroy plant life to sustain their own life. meat-eaters destroy animal life to sustain their own life. they're fundamentally no difference between the two, so if you're a vegetarian because you care about the animals, you're a massive gaylord.
Apart from livestock farming is extremely resource-intensive in comparison to veg farming. If we (1st world countries) reduced our addiction to meat we'd be able to support more people from less land, and have less climate change impact from food production to boot.
And F Y I meat eaters destroy plant life too, how do you think we feed the animals?
Dear You, "Wants" and "cares" are psychological phenomena that require a theory of mind. "I want" and "I care" are impossible to conceptualize if there is no realization of "I". As far as we can tell, the majority of animals do not possess a theory of mind. /you
what the actual fuck are you talking about
stop. reading. ayn. rand. Animals with central nervous systems are sentient beings. They want to live, they have needs and they seek to avoid pain, knowingly. Stop spouting nonsensical ayn rand crap, there's a mountain of research supporting this, it entirely nonsensical and no actual philosopher takes her seriously.
animal life is sentient whereas plant life is not, do you not understand the fundamental difference? Are you seriously arguing the point that there is no difference between killing a pig and picking a flower? And just for the sake of the argument eating animals requires the animals to eat crops in the first place which also is extremely ineffective, so you still "kill" more plants when eating animals
look what he replied to
What is your justification for eating plants? Some plants have a nervous system and 'suffer' when you rip off their leaves. We obviously have different moral frameworks; so unless you're claiming that yours is infallibly perfect and universally valid, we're likely both wrong - and so is everybody else.
This doesn't have anything to do with Ayn Rand and you will not strawman my argument with such feeble attempts at associating me with her. This is logic, and you're just going to have to face reality.
Repeating your flawed argument of "They want to live", doesn't make your argument any more valid. It just makes you come off a little bit unstable.
Allow me to elaborate just in case you're finding it difficult to keep up.
Theory of mind is a term used in psychology and neuroscience referring to the ability to conceptualize the self. The point is that in order to prevent animal suffering, we have to understand in what ways animals can and can't suffer. If an animal has no ability to understand or dread it's impending death, then it is not immoral to kill it, provided its death is free of physical and emotional suffering.
name a single plant that is sentient
I need to eat to survive which I will do and doing that on a plant based diet does the least harm possible by reasons stated above. Even though you are wrong about plans "suffering" the argument is still
it's ayn rands argument for speciesism
wants and needs are made up by hormones and chemicals in the brain, not the active thought that "I want to eat right now" it doesn't matter if they realise actively that "I am suffering", they are still suffering
animals are capable of reasoning, they know they are going to die in the slaughterhouse.
"I want" and "I care" are conscious realizations. What you are describing are sub-conscious reactions. For example, if you see a bear in the forest, you may feel a jolt of fear before you have the conscious thought "I don't want to die". These two phenomena - the jolt and the thought - are separate. You can have the latter without the former - you can be wandering through the forest, and think about bears, and then think that you don't want to die, even if the primal, reflexive reaction that you have when your body recognizes a threat is not present.
For animals, this process stops at the jolt of fear. Now, that jolt of fear can be considered to be a form of suffering for the animals, certainly. But if it can be avoided - ie by ensuring that the animal is in a stress-free environment until the moment of its death - can the animal really be said to be suffering? And if the animal cannot be said to be suffering, where is the moral conflict in eating it?
well to begin your claim doesn't really have any support
I mean now we're more or less theorizing since there's limited research on the subject but animals are capable of active reasoning, like simple counting and problem solving. There's actually a bunch of research supporting the fact that they are self-consious
Since we're both more or less thoerizing about this don't you think the only reasonable thing to do is is to give the benefit of doubt?
I guess if what you say is true then no would I agree with you but you're not describing what's actually going on right now when eating meat
>Your claim doesn't really have any support
Yes it does, it has lots.
you can also use google I presume? You've gotten this far.
>Don't you think the only reasonable thing to do is is to give the benefit of doubt?
Not when I'm right and your arguments aren't very good.
>I guess if what you say is true then no would I agree with you but you're not describing what's actually going on right now when eating meat.
I don't know what this is, but I'm glad you agree.
Thanks for the chat.
Maybe humans are too short sighted to be able to judge intelligence or sentience
it doesn't really matter in the practical sense though I will admit to needing to read more about this
>I don't know what this is, but I'm glad you agree.
It's not really an argument for not being vegan, which is about harm reduction. You're just arguing one very specific point. The act in istelf might not be inherently wrong in theory but in the practical sense it still is. It doesn't justify eating meat like it's commonly done or hunting like it's commonly done
fish and insects can actively feel pain, though of course there is gray zones like oysters and stuff. Benefit of doubt.
no I don't eat eggs but that's due to the egg industry being absolutely nasty, for example all male egg chicks are killed on birth since ther is no use for them. By buying eggs you still pay for animals to get killed. I don't really see anything inherently wrong with eating eggs though, no
Tell your hippie parents thar you're getting free range food. It's pretty bad that I live in California and have a less hippie family than that. If they bit cheaper about it, tell them to move here if they want to be around other faggots.
You still haven't pointed out the moral conflict in eating an animal you have killed.
This is a thread about hunting, if you would like to continue shifting the goal posts to extend that to all meat in general. I suggest you make a new thread.
Really though, you and your people need to stop derailing the hunting generals. I can respect your way of life and you have no reason to disrespect ours. You have even agreed with me on the point of hunting being an ethical means of harvesting meat for consumption.
You are not helping your cause by antagonising people and you aren't convincing anybody.
I appreciate your maturity in admitting when you don't know enough about a subject to continue the same line of reasoning, I think you'll do the right thing.
>Tell your hippie parents thar you're getting free range food.
This. If you shoot the animal without much pain then i think its better to shoot an animal that have been living /out/ ratherl than a /r9k/ animal
if hunting had a 100% guarantee that there would be no stress or pain to the animal killed then yes, but that's not the case, which is what I meant by saying what you talked about had no reality. Since there's always a risk that for example you miss your shot a bit, I think it's morally wrong
If you thought something was morally wrong wouldn't you tell people that? I'm not expecting people to change their minds over night of course, but if it gets people thinking then that's a good thing.
>I think it's morally wrong
do you think its morally right that if the deer arent culled they will die from starvation which is 100x as worse and prolonged than a 5km bloodtrail?
do you think its morally right that if i dont harvest a deer this year to feel morally superior that thats an equal tradeoff for the family that dies when said deer runs into them on the highway and causes a huge accident?
If you were going to eat them or they brain dead why wouldn't you? Abortion is legal, it would just be very late term and as long as you don't let anything go to waste you shouldn't feel bad, you are easing an inevitable process for them
>is a vegan
>probably eats organic
>the only fertilizer to grow organic food is manure
>the only place to get such large amounts of manure is from large-scale animal farms
Congratulations. Even being a vegan, you're still supporting large cattle and chicken farms.
the silliest thing in my oppinion is that vegans refuse to eat honey
totally ignoring that everyone would starve without human beekeepers
at least in europe, don't know how the africanised honeybee helps..
Theres no need for it to come from 'large-scale' farms.
And FYI thats not the no.1 source. The no.1 source is sewage sludge from human waste.
Meat production is not inherently bad for the environment, only in the way we do it is - too much meat and too highly concentrated.
I don't even hunt and your arguments sound ridiculous to me, you don't understand how nature works. survival of the fittest, top of the food chain etc.
that's humans btw. we won. animals belong to us. I'm fine with you not eating meat but don't preach about it being wrong in a god damn HUNTING thread
my family slaughtered our own cows, pigs, chickens and turkeys. we treated them well cared for them and gave them a good life before we harvested them.
compare that to factory farms where animals are abused and pumped full of hormones.
hunting is closer to the way we did things on our farm
people are going to eat meat, which life do you want the animal to have prior to consumption?
And YOU don't understand MY point. I never said eating meat is wrong, I said the METHOD of which we farm meat (as in highly concentrated, mechanised, dietry suppliments, poor conditions, etcetc) is. I am same anon who was promoting hunting as an alternative to industrialised meat production.
As for your point about top of the food chain, winning etc, you're completely wrong. Completely. Fucking. Wrong. We are part of the world, not separate from it. We don't own animals, no more than we own the land. Egotistical viewpoint.
>name a single plant that is sentient
Not him, but have an article.
It seems to me that, if plants can converse with one another, they are not only sentient, but also sapient.
Cruel bastard, eating things with feelings. Perhaps we should all just starve.
Fuck your pseudomorals.