Stop the killing of animals

[Dawnwing]

For vone, ah'm talkin' more aboot 'umanz 'untin' for zport, becauze ze animal looked at zem funny, or for food vhen zey are very far from ztarvin' (like viz eatin' pufferfizh) iz vron'.

If someone hunts an animal only to put the head on their wall, I'm against it.  But if they use the meat, I don't have a problem with that.  With the "far from starving", you could say the same about the beef and such that you pick up in stores.  Now, if you're talking about not eating meat at all, just being vegetarian, that's one thing, and a different discussion.  I don't argue that everyone has to eat meat.  But if you're fine with meat from the store, but not from the wild, I don't understand why that's considered so much "worse".  The only thing that's different is the type of animal and the place it came from, and the fact that the person had to work a little harder to get it.

An' vid ye be zae quick tae encourage 'untin' if ye vere bein 'unted yerzelf, or per'apz yer family an' friendz bein' 'unted? 'ov aboot a baby ziblin'?

This is irrelevant.  When a wolf kills a deer, would you ask the wolf how it would feel if it were the one being hunted?

For tvo, aboot ze protectin', ah mean protectin' viz zeir natural defenzez (clavz, teez, beakz, pavz an' vot nae) iz okay, but nae uzin' ztuff like gunz, inzecticide, an' trapz. Animalz dinnae 'ave zat ztuff, an' vizoot it 'umanz vid become aboot az "fearzome az 'antz. Vizoot zeir gunz an' toolz, 'umanz vid be Tiger food.

Just like tigers have teeth and claws, intelligence is our natural defense - and that's why we have guns and traps.  Taking those away would be just like taking away the tiger's claws and teeth - the tiger wouldn't be quite as fearsome or effective without those.   

[Kitsune]

This whole thing is just confusing.

[Blaggut]

never hunted myself, but i think it is also fine to stuff deer as long as you dont kill too many and damage the population count. hunting for food is fine. abuse of animals, thats not good. hunting because of over population is actaully GOOD for the species, becuase to much; they alll eat the same thing right, too many in the wild = to much of that food source being devoured, and they all starve.

[HeadInAnotherGalaxy]

Dawnwing ye zeemed tae 'ave mizzed me point entirely.

But if you're fine with meat from the store, but not from the wild, I don't understand why that's considered so much "worse".  The only thing that's different is the type of animal and the place it came from, and the fact that the person had to work a little harder to get it.

Vot ah conzider "vorze" or "bad, iz eatin' zomezin' like pufferfizh an' ztuff like zat (vhich ah believe comez up tae aboot $100 or more  for vone zervin' in ze reztaurantz zat it can be gotten at), becauze, for vone zin', zey 'ave plenty o' ozer zeafood tae eat an' are uzually eatin' it zolely becauze tiz rare or expenzive. Ah never zaid anyzin' aboot it bein' nae fine tae get meat from ze vild. Zat iz 'ov every ozer creature getz it'z food, an' ah'm fine viz zat. Vot ah'm nae fine viz iz (az ah ztated above) eatin' ztuff like pufferfizh, vhere tiz rarely if ever eaten for ze zole purpoze o' keepin' vone from ztarvin'.

This is irrelevant.  When a wolf kills a deer, would you ask the wolf how it would feel if it were the one being hunted?

Tiz nae irrelevant at av. Ze volf killz ze deer tae eat, zae it doeznae ztarve. zat iz 'ov it zhould alvayz be. Zere'z nay reazon tae ask ze volf aboot zat queztion, an' zae yer ztatement itzelf iz irrelevant.

To switch around your way of looking at things: if humans are so similar to animals, then what's wrong with humans hunting?

Zae ah zhav repeat mezelf. Vid ye be zae quick tae encourage 'untin' if ye vere ze vone bein' 'unted? If zere vaz a creature or tvo oot zere zat 'unted 'umanz (vhich ah'm azzumin' ye are), an' yerzelf or yer family an' friendz or a baby ziblin' vaz bein' 'unted? An' dinnae bruzh it off by zayin' zat tiz irrelevant, becauze tiz nae. Vid ye be zae quick tae zay zat 'untin' iz okay if ye vere ze vone bein' 'unted? If ye vere conztantly 'avin' tae dae ztuff like 'ide zomevhere tae avoid zomezin' zniffin' ye oot an' devourin' ye? If every day ye vid 'ave tae conztantly 'ave tae be lookin' over yer zhoulder an' vot nae, makin' zure zat nozin' vaz ztalkin' ye, aboot tae jump on ye an' rip oot yer flezh before continuin' on viz ze rezt o' yer 'ouze'old?

Just like tigers have teeth and claws, intelligence is our natural defense - and that's why we have guns and traps.  Taking those away would be just like taking away the tiger's claws and teeth - the tiger wouldn't be quite as fearsome or effective without those.  

Zae like ah zaid, 'umanz vid be bazically az fearzome az antz vizoot zeir toolz an' veaponz. Ozer creaturez uze zeir intelligence az vell, like birdz uzin' tvigz an' variouz ozer natural ztuff tae build zeir neztz; zae yer argument becomez invalid. Take avay everbeazt'z intelligence, an' 'umanz vid be left viz practically nozin'. Ze Tiger vid ztill 'ave it'z teez an' clavz, ze batz viz ztill 'ave zeir zonar/echolocation zin'y, ze fizh an' ozer aquatic creaturez vid ztill 'ave zeir finz an' ozer zvimmin' zin'z, but 'umanz vid be nozin' more zan antz, or probably even lezz.

Gettin' pazt zat, if 'umanz 'ave tae uze toolz, ah vid be fine if, an' only if, zey uzed natural zin'z an' kept zem natural, like ze birdz uzin' tvigz. After ze bird iz done viz it'z nezt, ze nezt gaez back tae bein' tvigz until anozer creature findz a uze for zem, like termitez. In ozer vordz, nay manufactured ztuff. Nay fancy 'ouzez or electronicz or anyzin' like zat. Vhen a gun or zomezin' like it iz dropped on ze ground, it takez a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon' time for it tae decompoze, if it ever doez. Meanvhile ye 'ave ziz hunk o' metal juzt zittin' zere bein' very little uze for anybeazt.

never hunted myself, but i think it is also fine to stuff deer as long as you dont kill too many and damage the population count. hunting for food is fine. abuse of animals, thats not good. hunting because of over population is actaully GOOD for the species, becuase to much; they alll eat the same thing right, too many in the wild = to much of that food source being devoured, and they all starve.

Zae zen ye vid be fine viz doin' zat viz 'umanz? 'untin' an' killin' zem an' zen ztuffin' zem an' puttin' zem in yer den, juzt az long az ye dinnae damage ze 'uman population taae much? An' ye are vron' aboot 'untin' becauze o' overpopulation. Nature can take perfect care o' itzelf, juzt zae long az 'umanz dinnae interfere.

[Dawnwing]

I'm not trying to be rude, but you could you please retype that without the z's and dialect?  It's extremely difficult to read, so I'm not 100% sure what you're saying, and therefore I can't really respond.

[phoenixfoden]

I can read it well enough,he has a few good points too.

Mabey someone can build a weasel to english translator 

[Brinty]

If every day ye vid 'ave tae conztantly 'ave tae be lookin' over yer zhoulder an' vot nae, makin' zure zat nozin' vaz ztalkin' ye, aboot tae jump on ye an' rip oot yer flezh before continuin' on viz ze rezt o' yer 'ouze'old?

If the population of animals is not controlled many diseases such as rabies and mange will spread, also their wouldn't be enough food for all of them so some would die of hunger. I trap and hunt but that doesn't mean I hate animals. In fact I never kill an animal without reason. Before you decide to go vegetarian think of how many mice die when a field is plowed. therefore I will not sine the petition.

HIAG: I do not no of a hunting season other then woodchuck (They are very destructive) that allows you to hunt constantly. There is a 3 week deer season once a year here.

[SPSF kodachorm otter7486]

cant I hunt to much to stop

[Rusvul]

Okay. I'm not going to say that humans shouldn't ever kill animals for any reason whatsoever. But-

Food: It's perfectly reasonable for people to kill animals so that they can eat. But killing animals because you like to eat them, rather than because you have to, that's not quite right. And factory farms- That goes beyond the natural hunter-prey thing, even beyond raising animals for food- The animals never even have a chance. They're treated like non-sentient lumps of burger. They're treated like their lives are nothing, like they're completely insignificant. Like, just because they're not human, they can't feel anything at all.

Protection: It's reasonable for humans and animals, both, to protect themselves and their family. Dawnwing, last page you made a point, in response to Hiag, along the lines of "People can defend themselves too." Yes, indeed they can. But what are we defending, and why do we have to defend it? We're defending places we took from animals, with no regard for their life, killing them in their thousands to build our houses. We take over everything, utterly demolish everything, and then kill any animal that comes near us, because it's a 'pest' or a 'threat'. Wildlife never has a chance. I doubt anyone can find a reasonable way to argue that humans are reasonable, and it's the animals fault. At least, not without making a blank assumption that humans are better than animals. That our lives are worth more than theirs.

Why do people think that's the case?

[Jukka the Sling]

What's wrong with killing animals? Survival of the fittest, right?

[Rusvul]

What's wrong with killing animals? Survival of the fittest, right?

Survival of the fittest doesn't apply. Fox versus hunter, right? No matter how good that fox is at hiding and/or fighting, the hunter has a gun. The hunter will kill the fox. It's not about how fit the fox is, the hunter can overpower him no matter what.

The idea of 'survival of the fittest' centers around the fact that the fittest survive. When humans are around, nobody survives except the humans. That doesn't make humans the fittest, it makes us cheaters. An animal has to be good at fighting, running, or hiding to overpower/escape from a predator. A human doesn't have to be any of those things, they just have a pistol, and then, bam, they can kill almost any animal. Guns are something of a feat, but a race-wide one. With humans, it's not 'survival of the fittest' as much as 'survival of whoever has the smartest entity in their race' which is an entirely different thing, and not one that promotes... much of anything.


Also, if you would care to take the time to read my previous post, I have stated quite a few reasons that could apply to your question.

[Jukka the Sling]

Okay, I've read your other post. And here's something you should rethink.

At least, not without making a blank assumption that humans are better than animals. That our lives are worth more than theirs.

Why do people think that's the case?

Do you honestly think that the life of an animal is equal in value to the life of a human? Seriously? Imagine you see a small child drowning in a lake. In the same lake you also see a baby fox drowning. They are an equal distance from you and you can save one or the other. Which one would you save?

[Rusvul]

Do you have to give me such an awful question? But probably the human. A creature is more drawn to one of its own race, more likely to save them. If you're a fox in the same situation, you'd save the fox kit.

Also, your question could be viewed as largely irrelevant. Just because a human would save the human baby doesn't mean our lives are worth more. Just because I'd save one of my own race doesn't make the fox's choice to save one of his race any less valid.

A fox would save a fox, a human would save a human. That doesn't at all impact how much a fox's life is worth compared to a human's.

A fox can feel pain, fear, sadness. It may not be able to have an intelligent thought, but that doesn't mean it isn't alive, that doesn't mean it doesn't feel.
Anything of the Kingdom Animalia deserves to be treated with respect. In nature, all animals were and are. With the coming of humanity, that's changed. Factory farms. The like. And it's not nescessarily in our nature, think of the Native Americans. They lived in a way where they didn't disrupt nature, they lived with it. They took a path that was already there, rather than forging their own, and obliterating the world.

[Blaggut]

I'd go for the fox. Their cute and my fav animal. nd babies slobber. I'm not trying to be mean, just what I'd do. Maybe its cuz I have THE BEST SMARTEST CUTEST NOT EXACTLY MOST OBIENTE CHEeSE AND ICECREAM LOVING DOG IN THE GALAXY! (Oh and loving) (she's a boxer  )

But when you think about it... Everything is natural. Spoiler cuz I don't have much room.

nature

Steel: Just a mix of elements making a stronger and more efficient thingy. Homes: A more efficient living area. Guns: A more efficient hunting/survival tool. Mass farms: A more efficient way of getting food, with less work. Laws: Way of restraining humans in a "civilized" envirment. Factories: Better way of creating things. Overview: Humans created these things from sticks and flint. They got the pure elements and made steel. Used the steel to make factories. Used trial and error to make fire and steam. Combined their findings to make guns homes and factories. I proved it with barrels, gun powder, pullies, and electrons. It's not nature and modern day things, it's slightly more civilized area and less civilized area. Findings: Everything is natural. Even laser guns, flying cars, and DNA extractors.

[close]

[Rusvul]

Natural
1. Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by mankind

Mass farms are cruelty. There's no way to argue against that, unless you're saying that its okay to live your entire life in a tiny box, with no speck of freedom or respect.
All the things you've stated as nature, they're things that humans have extorted from nature, and used in a selfish way. Do guns, steel, houses, benefit anyone except humans? No. In fact, they hurt everything that isn't human.
Mass destruction and greed aren't natural things, a fox won't take because he wants something. Only if he needs it.