Poll: Is recreational hunting immoral?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
12
0%
0 0%
36
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Recreational hunting
#21
By the way, doesn't this discussion belong in a more appropriate forum.
Reply
#22
well, when I do recreational sports with the exception of fishing as fishing is about the ing not the fish.  I like to think I am honing in on skills that would make me more competitive.  Likewise, if I am doing recreational hunting, I am honing on my skills to hunt, which while it is not a necessity in the modern world, is still important to learn, because I rather know fish, trap, hunt, and grow than not if the times and we are forced to do it.  And not too mention, any carcass would be practice for cutting the animal, to make sure that it is cleaned correctly, etc, which are also some life skills.

 
Reply
#23
Not immoral.  Man has God given dominion over the creatures, has he not?  Nor do animals have souls.

In my limited experience, no hunter of my acquaintance is interested in seeing any animal suffer needlessly, and indeed a "clean kill" is a badge of a good hunter.

However, in my opinion, it's not sporting....dropping an unarmed target from 200 yards just means you can aim & squeeze.  You wanna do that, go to the range.  You wanna prove you're a hunter, track a bear to its den with a knife in your teeth, then I'll be impressed.

Dolts who cheat by spotlighting deer or dynamiting fish are immoral....or just a**holes.

Nobody ever argues about killing pigs, chickens, & cows...why the heck does Bambi get all the sympathy?  If hunting's immoral, then so are chicken nuggets.
Reply
#24
(07-21-2011, 08:20 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: By the way, doesn't this discussion belong in a more appropriate forum.

I think this is the appropriate forum for the discussion of the morality of any given act. :)
Reply
#25
(07-21-2011, 08:19 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I think it is unnecessary. I try to live like Native Americans in only using or consuming based on need. Fun isn't a need, but a desire, and there are more appropriate and productive ways to have fun. I love animals and nature, and we have done a shitty job as stewards of both. Maybe people will give a damn when their oxygen supply runs out, fresh water must be manufactured, and the sun is so damaging to cells that one cannot venture outside.

Yes I am a tree hugger.

Do you eat meat? I've always felt that those who eat meat but are morally opposed to hunting  are simply transferring the onus of the killing on to someone else. :) :)
Reply
#26
(07-21-2011, 08:42 PM)DesperatelySeeking Wrote: Not immoral.  Man has God given dominion over the creatures, has he not?  Nor do animals have souls.

Animals do indeed have souls or an animus.Its what gives them their get up n go. Its a matter of some debate as to whether their souls are immortal or not.
Reply
#27
(07-22-2011, 12:00 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(07-21-2011, 08:42 PM)DesperatelySeeking Wrote: Not immoral.  Man has God given dominion over the creatures, has he not?  Nor do animals have souls.

Animals do indeed have souls or an animus.Its what gives them their get up n go. Its a matter of some debate as to whether their souls are immortal or not.

Matter of some debate?

I always thought as definitively settled that animals have a mortal soul. What would be the point of having immortal souls? To be "judged" by God after they die? Like ants answering to their maker?

I agree that in the new heaven and new earth there might be animals. That's definitely not a settled question, it seems.
Reply
#28
I don't believe the matter has ever been definitively settled ,much as the debate over limbo for babies unbaptized still continues (Obviously a major gulf in terms of importance tho) . I have had the pleasure of some amusing pets over the years with interesting and distinct personalities.It would be shame to think those little,if limited personalities would never live again,if not in Heaven than at least on a renewed Earth.
Reply
#29
(07-21-2011, 08:48 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-21-2011, 08:19 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I think it is unnecessary. I try to live like Native Americans in only using or consuming based on need. Fun isn't a need, but a desire, and there are more appropriate and productive ways to have fun. I love animals and nature, and we have done a shitty job as stewards of both. Maybe people will give a damn when their oxygen supply runs out, fresh water must be manufactured, and the sun is so damaging to cells that one cannot venture outside.

Yes I am a tree hugger.

Do you eat meat? I've always felt that those who eat meat but are morally opposed to hunting  are simply transferring the onus of the killing on to someone else. :) :)

I love meat. I have nothing against killing animals if the purpose is to consume their meat, organs or use furs for clothing. What I disagree with is killing for recreation (i.e. To have fun killing something or to put a stuffed head on the wall)
Reply
#30
Recreational hunting is fine.   As stated, it does serve a purpose since deer are dangerous on the roads, eat crops (apple orchards for one - and that makes the farmers furious), and are tasty, although I realize the last part removes the recreation out of it.   Also, if someone is hunting and brings down a stag, I see no reason why that person can't make a trophy from it.

Not to mention, in the old days it kept the gunsmiths and their families living.  Of course, gunsmiths are much rarer now, thanks to big government.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)