How do you feel about people who kill animals for the sheer fun of it?

Actually he is correct on that one, and it doesn't matter if you disagree with it or not, it still a fact.

You asked a question, we explained it to you, no go in peace...

That's your view only, and it's not the subject of the thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you want to understand hunters' psychology, ask them on a hunters' forum...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, I would. But animals aren't humans.

It's obvious we engage in hunting-like behavior even if it isn't hunting, we like similar games. Perhaps we disguise this behavior in other forms, but it's still there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

as long as the animal doesn't go to waste, I have no problem with it. Here in MI, you can get extra deer licenses so you can kill and kill. The meat that you don't keep is usually donated to homeless shelters.

And safari meat is given to the people who live there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My dad and siblings hunted together because it was fun. My husband and daughter fish together because its fun. Its bonding for them.

 

But I am responding to your argument. We seem to have had a deep need to be violent toward each other for a million years. That justifies, well, pretty much anything.

 

Did they eat their catches? or throw back the fish?

Or did they just shoot things and leave them there on the forest floor?

 

ate it, but they enjoyed the hell out of the entire hunt/fishing expedition.
Isn't this thread about people who enjoy killing animals?

 

The behaviour is wrong, because as conscious normal humans, they know better.

If you feel a need to hunt something, take up a sport that is similar enough to hunting to make you feel better. Like archery or something. Or a computer game.

 

What do you mean, "know better?" What's to know?

Those are simulations. They can hardly compare to the experience of hunting.

 

That's not correct. Very generally, my definition of when something is wrong is if it hurts somebody (or someone) who never did a single bad thing to hurt anybody, for no practical reason at all. There are caveats and tweaks to that, but that's the most general definition that I have. It's not to do with an emotional response. Try to avoid making assumptions about people's basis of reasoning.

 

hunting is more ethical than getting plastic wrapped meat at a supermarket that came from a slaughterhouse

 

Why, then, can't you prove it? Don't just elaborate on a whole lotta nonsense and go into some silly ethereal tangent that no one except yourself could possibly appreciate. Show us actual proof that right/wrong is not universal. Go ahead. Do it.

REMINDER: the fact that people act differently in the same situation isn't proof. It just means that some people are more willing to violate what is right when given the opportunity and allow their selfishness to overtake their principles.

 

You need to reread the thread, particularly the part that acknowledges and excuses those who hunt for food/clothing. You didn't understand it. And what you just said doesn't have much to do with the passage you just quoted. Next...

 

No it's about people kill for the sheer fun of it.

Sheer means there is no other reason.

 

Why is hurting people "wrong"? Is it wrong like the theory of phlogiston is wrong?

 

I also want to add something, to those who continually fight back with "BUT THEYRE DOING IT TO EAT."

-- The reason that people kill what they eat is because it is illegal to not eat it. --

 

No its not. if you get a deer license you can shoot it and leave it.

 

I eat meat for the sheer fun of it. Do you eat meat? And if you do, why haven't you replaced it with something less meaty?

 

Then I'm not understanding this part.

 

Leave it to rot? No? At least that's not the rule in the majority of our country. In most states you gotta salvage all meat to to within a certain fraction of the trimmings.