Internet Hunting

[Zogo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060707/sc_space/statesbanhuntingofliveanimalsovertheinternet Internet hunting being banned in more states.

should we be allowed to Internet hunt?

I can see us putting these up along the border eventually.

[dook]

that is absolutely pitiful. hunting for "sport" is already sick enough...

[|RES|arod]

They are up at the border, except you can't shoot weapons at them.

[Kersk]

internet hunting with nerf guns would own.

[koruptid]

Only if you were hunting people, though.

[}tHoL{-Bout2plucku]

"I thought this was America"

[public_slots_free.mL]

Good. This is rediculous. Buy Deer Hunter if you want to shoot animals on the computer

[Kersk]

Hooking a loaded gun up to the internet just seems like a Bad Idea (tm) to begin with, let alone this specific usage. Legality wise though, I don't see why it's banned. The morally questionable part isn't using the mouse to aim a gun, it's using a gun to kill an animal trapped in a small area just for the "sport" of it. If I made a gun that had a remote trigger than only worked within 9 feet, would that be illegal? How about 200 feet? 2000 feet? Around the world? While I might not agree with it, if you're going to ban internet hunting, it seems like you should be banning regular hunting, too.

Good Luck trying to get that to happen.

[Zogo]

"pitiful, sick, ridiculous"

why?

[VP-]

Anyone that has sat for 8 hours from before sunrise in 5 degree weather with snot-cicles dangling from your nose and chin unable to move more than a slight ass adjustment, eyes beginning to crystallize, in hopes of just seeing an elusive white tailed buck, let alone even get a shot at it, would punch any sick sonava bitch, who kills helpless animals from a fucking computer, in the face, much akin to a dane cook bee face punch.

Fucking pathetic wastes of human life.

[Kersk]

Anyone that has sat for 8 hours from before sunrise in 5 degree weather with snot-cicles dangling from your nose and chin unable to move more than a slight ass adjustment, eyes beginning to crystallize, in hopes of just seeing an elusive white tailed buck, let alone even get a shot at it, would punch any sick sonava bitch, who kills helpless animals from a fucking computer, in the face, much akin to a dane cook bee face punch.

Fucking pathetic wastes of human life....yet it is completely ok to reap pleasure and enjoyment from the act of killing a helpless animal for no other purpose than the "sport" of it as long as you are physically there?

Why does the type of trigger seem to matter so much to you? Who cares if it's a traditional gun trigger or, in this case, a computer mouse? In your mind, does enduring a few inconvenient physical hardships suddenly justify the act? So, it's fine and dandy as long as you're the one that saws the animal's head off and puts it on the wall instead of getting a neatly wrapped fedex package 3 days later? Either way, the end result is the same - you kill an animal and decorate your house with a part of its corpse. Tell me, how are they so fundamentally different? I would argue that they aren't very different at all.

Considering this, even if we are morally opposed to it, the bottom line is that Internet Hunting should be legal for as long as hunting is legal. End of story.

[Nine]

internet hunting with nerf guns would own.
Nerf Arena Blast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerf_Arena_Blast)

[Kersk]

That doesn't count. I want webcams... motorized mounted webcams, oh, and moving targets. And, uh, infinite ammo. Ok, fine. So it wouldn't really work or be that fun at all - the idea is still awesome on multiple levels though!

[Zogo]

Fucking pathetic wastes of human life.

do you also want to ban air conditioners because they make life easier?

They are up at the border, except you can't shoot weapons at them.

they now have cameras up everywhere that can be viewed online?

[Suicidal Anomaly]

that is absolutely pitiful. hunting for "sport" is already sick enough...

Hunting for sport is done as a means of population control. Believe it or not if they didn't do this many animals would end up starving when the population gets out of control. They only give out so many hunting licenses each year and depending on what you hunt you can only kill so many.

I'm not a hunter myself but I see no wrong in it. I would think this type of hunting takes away from what a real hunter gets out of the experience though.

[agi|e]

Hunting for sport is sick and twisted. If you need food and you live in the wilderness then it's OK to hunt to live. But killing animals for fun or to have a trophy head mounted on your wall is a serious sickness. Animal life is as sacred as human life and if you look at cultures like the native american indians you can see that they respected all life even if it was necessary to take a life in order to survive. There is no honor in shooting animals for recreation whether it be on a computer monitor or in the wild.

[Ke-]

Hunting for sport is sick and twisted. If you need food and you live in the wilderness then it's OK to hunt to live. But killing animals for fun or to have a trophy head mounted on your wall is a serious sickness. Animal life is as sacred as human life and if you look at cultures like the native american indians you can see that they respected all life even if it was necessary to take a life in order to survive. There is no honor in shooting animals for recreation whether it be on a computer monitor or in the wild.
Hunting for sport is done as a means of population control. Believe it or not if they didn't do this many animals would end up starving when the population gets out of control. They only give out so many hunting licenses each year and depending on what you hunt you can only kill so many.
.

[agi|e]

Isn't this a nice way to justify sport hunting. Geez I can go out and kill animals and I'm helping the planet! But why are there too many rabbits in Australia in the first place? Maybe because they were introduced as a foreign species and there's no natural predators? So now an imbalance in Nature CAUSED by humans has to be rectified by mass killings. Pretty fucking pathetic. As far as a practical solution since the damage has already been done there may be no other way to handle these situations but to authorize a hunting season. Sad but true. A testament to what happens when human arrogance interferes with the natural harmony of nature that has evolved over millions of years.

[Zogo]

and if you look at cultures like the native american indians you can see that they respected all life even if it was necessary to take a life in order to survive.

some native american cultures were very animalistic and even sacrificed children etc.

[AntioK]

Isn't this a nice way to justify sport hunting. Geez I can go out and kill animals and I'm helping the planet! But why are there too many rabbits in Australia in the first place? Maybe because they were introduced as a foreign species and there's no natural predators? So now an imbalance in Nature CAUSED by humans has to be rectified by mass killings. Pretty fucking pathetic. As far as a practical solution since the damage has already been done there may be no other way to handle these situations but to authorize a hunting season. Sad but true. A testament to what happens when human arrogance interferes with the natural harmony of nature that has evolved over millions of years.


I personally don't have any problems with hunting for sport so long as you keep and use the meat. If you're a vegan then i guess this question doesn't apply to you but where do you think that steak, chicken, or turkey came from that's sitting in your freezer right now ? Those animals were probably murdered more brutally than the ones that are hunted. Furthermore, atleast those animals in the wild have a chance at survival, the hunter could miss his shot, they could hear him walk and run the fuck away, that meat in your freezer however, those pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys never had a chance. The sole purpouse of their lives were to be born into captivity and brutally murdered in a pile of their own feces and urine and then cut into pieces and shipped out so i could enjoy my delicious steak im going to have tonight.

I won't hunt because i can't be the guy that pulls the trigger (unless im starving i guess), but i commend the hunters that have the balls to watch their meat die in front of them, before they eat it.

Internet hunting though? that's sad and pathetic.

[Zogo]

Internet hunting though? that's sad and pathetic.

why?

[agi|e]

I personally don't have any problems with hunting for sport so long as you keep and use the meat. If you're a vegan then i guess this question doesn't apply to you but where do you think that steak, chicken, or turkey came from that's sitting in your freezer right now ? Those animals were probably murdered more brutally than the ones that are hunted. Furthermore, atleast those animals in the wild have a chance at survival, the hunter could miss his shot, they could hear him walk and run the fuck away, that meat in your freezer however, those pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys never had a chance. The sole purpouse of their lives were to be born into captivity and brutally murdered in a pile of their own feces and urine and then cut into pieces and shipped out so i could enjoy my delicious steak im going to have tonight.

I won't hunt because i can't be the guy that pulls the trigger (unless im starving i guess), but i commend the hunters that have the balls to watch their meat die in front of them, before they eat it.

Internet hunting though? that's sad and pathetic.

You probably didn't notice that I excluded the killing of animals for food.

And as far as Zogo's comment on other indians sacrificing children it just shows that some indians didn't respect life. So what? It doesn't render any of my main statements invalid. This is the first time we have disagreed on a point or maybe he's playing devil's advocate here? The points I made seem pretty obvious and self explanatory.

[Zogo]

And as far as Zogo's comment on other indians sacrificing children it just shows that some indians didn't respect life. So what?

the way you said it you made it sound like all indians did..

This is the first time we have disagreed on a point

the first time ever? heh..

[AntioK]

why?

Well, its like playing a video game, except with actual living creatures, no intention to use the meat, not to mention that you sit in your nice home at a pleasant room temperature, in a chair, not having to actually hold and aim an actual rifle with your arms.

[agi|e]

the way you said it you made it sound like all indians did..



the first time ever? heh..


As far as I can see...

;)

[Kersk]

Well, its like playing a video game, except with actual living creatures, no intention to use the meat, not to mention that you sit in your nice home at a pleasant room temperature, in a chair, not having to actually hold and aim an actual rifle with your arms.Let's ignore the issue of using the meat since many "real" hunters kill just for the sport of it and subsequently make no use of the corpse. Also, the issue could be addressed by merely having this company ship the frozen corpse of the animal along with the head, yet I suspect that you would still disapprove of this method of hunting.

So, are you saying that just "holding and aiming an actual rifle with your arms" justifies the act compared to an internet hunter? I would really appreciate further explanation of this belief since it simply doesn't make any sense to me. My best guess is that you've just been ambivalent or even dishonest to yourself about the idea of hunting since it is so pervasive in our culture and so well established as a "normal" thing to do. Internet hunting, however, abstracts the concept of hunting to such an extreme degree that it appears to not be hunting at all, such that any repressed moral objections that you may have had against hunting in general are renewed and free to be voiced in the absence of strong pre-existing cultural pressures to generate "default" acceptance of this particular activity. In short, your strong opposition to internet hunting is really just a misplaced opposition to hunting in general. Obviously, that's just a guess though.

Hunting for fun is basically the grown up version of a kid pulling the wings off dragon flies just for the "sport" of it. Whether you kill an animal with a gun or a mouse that is controlling a gun, I really don't see the difference. The actions of an internet hunter are no different than those of a regular hunter, so it seems completely unreasonable to have laws prohibiting one method but not the other.

[dys]

hunt
v. hunt·ed, hunt·ing, hunts
v. tr.

1. To pursue (game) for food or sport.
2. To search through (an area) for prey: hunted the ridges.
3. To make use of (hounds, for example) in pursuing game.
4. To pursue intensively so as to capture or kill: hunted down the escaped convict.
5. To seek out; search for.
6. To drive out forcibly, especially by harassing; chase away: hunted the newcomers out of town.

Ok, so now that it's been proven that this really isnt hunting let's progress. Some people are against this idea, most of whom seem to be hunters. Although I don't hunt anymore, I know what it's like to accomplish the goal. VP- described it as vividly as possible. Pursuit in the freezing cold, the tracking of the animal, being outside, putting the effort in - all that.

The act of hunting requires some skills. Some understanding and education. Some effort. Internet hunting requires none of these. The article makes no mention of this, but are the online "hunters" required to have a hunting license? Or do the owners of this operation also acknowledge that this really isn't hunting at all?

Whether you agree with hunting or not you have to accept the fact that many people consider this to be a sport. I sure as hell wouldn't call Curling a sport, but hey - to each their own. Additionally, as Suicidal Anomaly already pointed out, hunting is a means of population control which is regulated by the conservation department. While I'm sure Agile thinks he refuted this point just wonderously, he didn't. Let's move on from this tangent in the conversation because it is an officially recognized sport whether you agree with it or not.

There is a process one must go through to gain the priviledge of hunting. They have to take safety courses. They have to learn how to identify what it is they're actually shooting. They also have to actually shoot the gun. Hunting is an outdoor activity and anything involving a gun should be taken seriously.

Internet "hunting" requires none of these. It is a way for some rich yuppy to entertain themselves without really putting any real effort into the real sport of hunting. That is why many people, many of whom just so happen to be or have been hunters, disagree with this and I am one of them. Keep in mind - i was once a hunter and have decided it just wasn't my thing.

Some people in the world claim that t.v. and radio, the internet and movies have all desensitized the upcoming generations. Let me tell you, if you're going to shoot something with the obvious intent to kill as a recreation, you sure as shit need to be standing right there in front of it while it dies. I shot a deer once and saw it stand up on it's hind two legs, let out a scream like i've never heard before and then ran a mile before it died of blood loss. That is why I don't hunt anymore and that is why people that do this internet hunting bullshit have no fucking idea the reality of it all.

[Kersk]

hunt
v. hunt·ed, hunt·ing, hunts
v. tr.

1. To pursue (game) for food or sport.
2. To search through (an area) for prey: hunted the ridges.
3. To make use of (hounds, for example) in pursuing game.
4. To pursue intensively so as to capture or kill: hunted down the escaped convict.
5. To seek out; search for.
6. To drive out forcibly, especially by harassing; chase away: hunted the newcomers out of town.

Ok, so now that it's been proven that this really isnt hunting let's progress. Some people are against this idea, most of whom seem to be hunters. Although I don't hunt anymore, I know what it's like to accomplish the goal. VP- described it as vividly as possible. Pursuit in the freezing cold, the tracking of the animal, being outside, putting the effort in - all that.

The act of hunting requires some skills. Some understanding and education. Some effort. Internet hunting requires none of these. The article makes no mention of this, but are the online "hunters" required to have a hunting license? Or do the owners of this operation also acknowledge that this really isn't hunting at all?

Whether you agree with hunting or not you have to accept the fact that many people consider this to be a sport. I sure as hell wouldn't call Curling a sport, but hey - to each their own. Additionally, as Suicidal Anomaly already pointed out, hunting is a means of population control which is regulated by the conservation department. While I'm sure Agile thinks he refuted this point just wonderously, he didn't. Let's move on from this tangent in the conversation because it is an officially recognized sport whether you agree with it or not.

There is a process one must go through to gain the priviledge of hunting. They have to take safety courses. They have to learn how to identify what it is they're actually shooting. They also have to actually shoot the gun. Hunting is an outdoor activity and anything involving a gun should be taken seriously.

Internet "hunting" requires none of these. It is a way for some rich yuppy to entertain themselves without really putting any real effort into the real sport of hunting. That is why many people, many of whom just so happen to be or have been hunters, disagree with this and I am one of them. Keep in mind - i was once a hunter and have decided it just wasn't my thing.

Some people in the world claim that t.v. and radio, the internet and movies have all desensitized the upcoming generations. Let me tell you, if you're going to shoot something with the obvious intent to kill as a recreation, you sure as shit need to be standing right there in front of it while it dies. I shot a deer once and saw it stand up on it's hind two legs, let out a scream like i've never heard before and then ran a mile before it died of blood loss. That is why I don't hunt anymore and that is why people that do this internet hunting bullshit have no fucking idea the reality of it all.I'm sorry but this is the same stuff people have been saying over and over. Mainly, the idea that somehow just the enduring the actual physical experience of hunting justifies the act of killing an animal. Also, by being removed from that experience through the use of the internet, you believe it suddenly becomes a sick and twisted activity.

You mentioned a harrowing personal account of killing a deer - do you think it would have felt a different amount of pain if you had shot it over the internet? While it may have had a profound effect on you to see it die with your own eyes instead of on a computer monitor, I would submit that it didn't comfort the deer much to have its killer directly present or not. While you may be right that internet hunting is an even more perverse form of sport hunting since it removes the hunter from that experience, I don't think it plays a significant difference in evaluating the morality of the "sport" when considering that the far worse act of killing an animal for "fun" is still present in both activities.

Also, as far as your definition goes, I thought that a common strategy of "real" hunters was to set bait in a vulnerable area, sit in some camouflaged blinds, and then just simply wait for their prey to walk right up in front of their guns. I've never heard anyone refer to this method as something other than hunting. As far as I can tell the process of internet hunting described in the article is no different than this type of "hunting" used by many people out on the field.

[dys]

Actually Kersk, you keep saying the same thing over and over again also. People have responded to your questions, and although you obviously don't agree, you're merely being devil's advocate to all the valid points people have made. You continue to argue whether hunting itself is a justifiable action. As I already said, drop that part, we're not here to debate whether hunting should be allowed or not.

My point about being desensitized was completely overlooked in your response, or perhaps misinterpreted. But again, that's because you're challenging the act of hunting itself as opposed to the actual issue here.

Nowhere did I say it became a sick and twisted event when it's done from the internet, please don't imply that I did. What I did say is that people that aren't right there to face the reality of it all are not fully aware of what they're doing. You obviously disagree with the sport of hunting, as do I, (but again to each their own) surely you're able to see what I'm saying when I say the internet "hunter" is not made fully aware of the result of their actions and if they were, then perhaps they would think twice about doing it - which is something it seems you would agree with since you obviously don't condone hunting in the first place.

As for the 'baiting' theory, I don't know the laws in all of the states, as I'm sure they differ from one to another, but I know in NY it is illegal to set up bait traps that lure the prey in. Many people have been arrested and paid very high fines for doing so.

[agi|e]

Some people in the world claim that t.v. and radio, the internet and movies have all desensitized the upcoming generations. Let me tell you, if you're going to shoot something with the obvious intent to kill as a recreation, you sure as shit need to be standing right there in front of it while it dies. I shot a deer once and saw it stand up on it's hind two legs, let out a scream like i've never heard before and then ran a mile before it died of blood loss. That is why I don't hunt anymore and that is why people that do this internet hunting bullshit have no fucking idea the reality of it all.

It's true, TV and media has desensitized the population to senseless killing. When you watch a hunting show they never talk about the suffering of the animal and I'm sure if it screamed in pain you would never see it. What do they focus on? WOW look at my cool new gun with the advanced optics! It's sad and pathetic just like the media coverage of techno-wars where killing people from aircraft is one step up from a video game.

I think your statement brings it down to reality. Even you when faced with killing a defenseless animal for sport couldn't stomach the experience. If it's necessary to obtain food to survive or if it's necessary to cull a herd then you do it. But with full awareness and respect for that life that you are taking. Where is the respect when a person sits at their computer monitor in their pajamas and clicks a mouse to kill a defenseless animal? So there's levels of how bad these scenarios are:

Worst- Internet Hunting.

Not as bad but still sick- Hunting for sport in general.

Bad (because humans created the overpopulation of a species) but necessary- Hunting to cull a herd.

Acceptable- Hunting for food to survive.

[Kersk]

Actually Kersk, you keep saying the same thing over and over again also. People have responded to your questions, and although you obviously don't agree, you're merely being devil's advocate to all the valid points people have made.For the most part, people have not directly addressed my questions, they just bring up different issues altogether such as hunting for food or population control rather than examing what it is specifically that accounts for such a vast difference in opinion between regular hunting and internet hunting. However, you did bring up the fact that with the hunter being so removed from the action, the hunter is able to distance himself from the reality of the experience. I admitted that this is indeed a factor that makes internet hunting somehow seem further morbid than traditional hunting. However, I also stated that I don't see how this distinction warrants the harsh laws and bans placed exclusively on internet hunting when it seems clear that the bulk of the moral objections lie within the actual murder of the animal, and not the location of the hunter nor the quality of the experience conveyed upon the hunter. Also, I don't really see how internet hunting is any worse than, say, hunting with a bow and arrow. I am assuming that an arrow wound is far more likely to result in a much slower and prolonged death of the animal than a bullet wound inflicted by either a physically present or internet hunter. Clearly, making the animal suffer longer is morally worse than facilitating a diminished experience of reality for the hunter, yet I am not aware of any laws that universally prohibit bow and arrow hunting.

You continue to argue whether hunting itself is a justifiable action. As I already said, drop that part, we're not here to debate whether hunting should be allowed or not.My point about being desensitized was completely overlooked in your response, or perhaps misinterpreted. But again, that's because you're challenging the act of hunting itself as opposed to the actual issue here.You are misunderstanding my position. I'm arguing that internet hunting is hunting, thus it is a key part of my discussion. However, we obviously have completely different views on that matter. You see it as a completely different issue altogether.

Nowhere did I say it became a sick and twisted event when it's done from the internet, please don't imply that I did. I apologize. However, a number of people above with similar opinions have expressed this sentiment, so I guess I was replying more to the overall opposing argument than to you directly.

What I did say is that people that aren't right there to face the reality of it all are not fully aware of what they're doing. You obviously disagree with the sport of hunting, as do I, (but again to each their own) surely you're able to see what I'm saying when I say the internet "hunter" is not made fully aware of the result of their actions and if they were, then perhaps they would think twice about doing it - which is something it seems you would agree with since you obviously don't condone hunting in the first place.While I am obviously personally opposed to all forms of hunting that have no purpose beyond "having fun", I don't necessarily feel that they should be banned by law. All I am trying to say is that it seems hypocritical for people to openly support hunting while simultaneously backing the banning of internet hunting as though it were some sort of completely foreign activity. I don't see how any of the differences brought up thus far sufficiently distinguish this method of hunting from normal methods. If hunting exclusively for sport is banned, it should be all or northing.

I'll admit that might be somewhat of an extreme position to hold, but it's what I believe. I do not feel like I'm playing the devil's advocate in this matter.

As for the 'baiting' theory, I don't know the laws in all of the states, as I'm sure they differ from one to another, but I know in NY it is illegal to set up bait traps that lure the prey in. Many people have been arrested and paid very high fines for doing so.I'll be the first to admit that I'm not exactly well versed in the art of hunting. However, from what I have seen from tv hunting shows, there is often very little "hunting" involved. It seems more like a couple of guys quietly waiting near an exposed prairie until an animal comes into view, then they blast it. I guess the bait would just expedite the process.

Worst- Internet Hunting.

Not as bad but still sick- Hunting for sport in general.

Bad (because humans created the overpopulation of a species) but necessary- Hunting to cull a herd.

Acceptable- Hunting for food to survive.Where does "internet hunting for food and culling a herd" fall into place on your scale? Still below hunting exclusively for the sport of it?

[agi|e]

Where does "internet hunting for food and culling a herd" fall into place on your scale? Still below hunting exclusively for the sport of it?


If you can afford an internet connection and shipping charges for meat to be mailed from an internet "hunt" then you have money to buy food at the market. If you are poor and hunting is cheaper than buying food then it's OK to hunt for sustenance. Your point is irrational because someone who is this poor would not have an internet connection. They would be using this money for basic necessities. You are getting ridiculous here.

As far as internet hunting to cull a herd? Since it's easier to cull a herd by conventional means (ie going out and shooting them) it's clear that anyone doing this by proxy on the internet is doing it for entertainment. There is absolutely no respect for the life that they are taking.

Should internet hunting be legal? If it was given to me to vote on I'd say no but then I would also vote to abolish all pet stores and zoos where animals are kept in cages against their will.

[Kersk]

If you can afford an internet connection and shipping charges for meat to be mailed from an internet "hunt" then you have money to buy food at the market. If you are poor and hunting is cheaper than buying food then it's OK to hunt for sustenance. Your point is irrational because someone who is this poor would not have an internet connection. They would be using this money for basic necessities. You are getting ridiculous here.So conventional hunters that are in no financial distress but still make use of the meat do not qualify for "acceptable" behavior in your view?

As far as internet hunting to cull a herd? Since it's easier to cull a herd by conventional means (ie going out and shooting them) it's clear that anyone doing this by proxy on the internet is doing it for entertainment. There is absolutely no respect for the life that they are taking.And traditional hunters are clearly not using this as an excuse to hunt for entertainment purposes, right?

[dys]

Kersk, I agree with ya on the bow and arrow aftermath point that you made.

Thanks for clarifying what I originially misinterpeted. I do see your point, and it's a good one. I guess it's my point that is a bit of a tangent. I think most people that have denounced the internet hunt that are also hunters feel as I do - that the true 'art' or 'sport' of hunting requires more effort by the one that actually shoots the gun. Incomes the dreaded analogy - would nascar fans object if the drivers were removed from the car and were allowed to drive it with a remote control and webcam in the dash? Or better yet, could some millionaire buy his car and drive it from his living room in a nascar race?

I don't necessarily feel that they should be banned by law. All I am trying to say is that it seems hypocritical for people to openly support hunting while simultaneously backing the banning of internet hunting as though it were some sort of completely foreign activity. I don't see how any of the differences brought up thus far sufficiently distinguish this method of hunting from normal methods.

While it's not a completely foreign activity, it does essentialy remove the essence of what in my opinion anyways, hunting really is - actually shooting the gun and being there to experience the outcome. That's what it is for me anyways and that's why I am against internet hunting, but I can't speak for everyone.

As for the tv shows, I couldn't tell ya. I don't think I've ever watched one because I never took them seriously. It's possible they do bait, or even more - fly a helicopter over and race their tv sponsor's vehicle over there to get the shot. I've always found it quite odd myself that they always seem to get what they go in for on tv when it's not like that "in real life".

You know what I think would be a good debate, based off your thoughts here, Kersk? Internet fishing. I wonder if people would be as adamant, whether it be for or against. I've always found it funny, and I'm a victim of the hypocrisy as well because I like to fish - how fishing doesn't seem to bother as many people as hunting. Personally, I very rarely keep the fish, but I have on occassion. But why aren't people all up in arms over fishing? Or, as mentioned, what if there was internet fishing? Is it because fish have no feet? Is it because it's not classified as meat? I could go on forever on this but I'll stop because I don't want to derail too much. Good discussion though.

[dys]

If it was given to me to vote on I'd say no but then I would also vote to abolish all pet stores and zoos where animals are kept in cages against their will.

Do you not believe that many animals brought to a zoo are there for their own good? Does it mean you don't go to the zoo? Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying and I too feel a bit of sympathy for some of the animals. But I do think, that overall, these animals have it way better then any of their kind do in the wild. I'm also curious, are you against pets as a whole then?

[Kersk]

You know what I think would be a good debate, based off your thoughts here, Kersk? Internet fishing. I wonder if people would be as adamant, whether it be for or against. I've always found it funny, and I'm a victim of the hypocrisy as well because I like to fish - how fishing doesn't seem to bother as many people as hunting. Personally, I very rarely keep the fish, but I have on occassion. But why aren't people all up in arms over fishing? Or, as mentioned, what if there was internet fishing? Is it because fish have no feet? Is it because it's not classified as meat? I could go on forever on this but I'll stop because I don't want to derail too much. Good discussion though.Interesting.

I think in my case, I'm not so opposed to fishing since every fish I have caught was either eaten or thrown back into the lake still alive. Obviously, very few people fish exclusively as a means to gather food, so most people, including me, must be doing it for additional reasons, such as enjoying it on some level as a form of entertainment. However, if someone is fishing exclusively for entertainment, then, unlike hunting, it is possible to just throw the fish back. While this may still be morally questionable, surely a few minutes of distress and a small hook wound are far smaller moral issues than outright killing an animal just for fun. So I don't really see fishing for fun as that big of a deal. Likewise, in regard to internet fishing, I don't think I would be opposed to it as long as the fish were either released or somehow shipped to the hunter as food.

[VP-]

...yet it is completely ok to reap pleasure and enjoyment from the act of killing a helpless animal for no other purpose than the "sport" of it as long as you are physically there?

Why does the type of trigger seem to matter so much to you? Who cares if it's a traditional gun trigger or, in this case, a computer mouse? In your mind, does enduring a few inconvenient physical hardships suddenly justify the act? So, it's fine and dandy as long as you're the one that saws the animal's head off and puts it on the wall instead of getting a neatly wrapped fedex package 3 days later? Either way, the end result is the same - you kill an animal and decorate your house with a part of its corpse. Tell me, how are they so fundamentally different? I would argue that they aren't very different at all.

Considering this, even if we are morally opposed to it, the bottom line is that Internet Hunting should be legal for as long as hunting is legal. End of story.


Where did I argue the legality? My only statement was that it is sickening to kill an animal from across the internet, I don't know how a human could stoop so low. And before you assume I do it for fun, and plaster animal carcasses in my house, I don't. When I hunt which is not all too often because I don't have the heart to kill an animal unless it needs to be done in order to protect it, or it's species. Such as a rabid coon, should I let it live in misery? What about an opossum with distemper, I am supposed to let it suffer? What about an over populated whitetail herd, that is overpopulated because our corn and bean fields have created a perfect breading ground for them? Do I as a human that eats from these fields, owe these animals nothing but to sit and watch them become infected by disease due to staggering overpopulation? Do I allow the population to be so high that the number deer injured and crippled along the roads approaches the number that hunters kill during a week long season? Mind you the vast majority of deer harvested by hunters do not die this slow agonizing death as you describe, and I am willing to bet, punctured lungs and death within 15 seconds is much quicker than laying crippled and starving to death due to being hit by a car.....

But alas, I am certain you will have some well written well phrased retort to what I just wrote, but I still stand firm in my statement that anyone killing an animal from the internet, and even those hunting ranches, needs a baseball bat to the skull because both of these activities are done for nothing more than "sport" and that is the entirely wrong reason to be doing it.

[Kersk]

Where did I argue the legality? My only statement was that it is sickening to kill an animal from across the internet, I don't know how a human could stoop so low. And before you assume I do it for fun, and plaster animal carcasses in my house, I don't. When I hunt which is not all too often because I don't have the heart to kill an animal unless it needs to be done in order to protect it, or it's species. Such as a rabid coon, should I let it live in misery? What about an opossum with distemper, I am supposed to let it suffer? What about an over populated whitetail herd, that is overpopulated because our corn and bean fields have created a perfect breading ground for them? Do I as a human that eats from these fields, owe these animals nothing but to sit and watch them become infected by disease due to staggering overpopulation? Do I allow the population to be so high that the number deer injured and crippled along the roads approaches the number that hunters kill during a week long season? Mind you the vast majority of deer harvested by hunters do not die this slow agonizing death as you describe, and I am willing to bet, punctured lungs and death within 15 seconds is much quicker than laying crippled and starving to death due to being hit by a car.....Yes, you have clearly shown that hunters are worthy of sainthood due to their staggering capacity for compassion. Why is it then, if we replaced the hunter with an internet controlled gun in any of those cases that you mentioned for "acceptable" hunting, that it seems like you would suddenly find the same act sickening? Wouldn't the same "compassionate" acts still be accomplished?

Furthermore, I never implied that you argued the legality side of this issue. I was merely making a conclusion that tied into the original article of this thread.



But alas, I am certain you will have some well written well phrased retort to what I just wrote, but I still stand firm in my statement that anyone killing an animal from the internet, and even those hunting ranches, needs a baseball bat to the skull because both of these activities are done for nothing more than "sport" and that is the entirely wrong reason to be doing it.Yet you feel that this doesn't apply to the vast number of conventional hunters who use "population control" as an excuse to hunt exclusively for the "sport" of it? Why not take a baseball bat to their heads, too?

[VP-]

Yes, you have clearly shown that hunters are worthy of sainthood due to their staggering capacity for compassion. Why is it then, if we replaced the hunter with an internet controlled gun in any of those cases that you mentioned for "acceptable" hunting, that it seems like you would suddenly find the same act sickening? Wouldn't the same "compassionate" acts still be accomplished?

Furthermore, I never implied that you argued the legality side of this issue. I was merely making a conclusion that tied into the original article of this thread.

Yet you feel that this doesn't apply to the vast number of conventional hunters who use "population control" as an excuse to hunt exclusively for the "sport" of it? Why not take a baseball bat to their heads, too?

No no, I actually do not feel as strongly opposed to the killing of a sick animal, or controlling population via these methods, as long as it is a game warden who is behind the "un-manned" gun, killing an animal from behind a computer is not hunting, it is murder, hunting in it's truest form (see primitive man) is a necessary method of survival, one can't survive a cold winter with fat put on from eating berries alone! hehe. I am pretty sure I am not talking in circles, so I hope that more or less clarifies my stance on "internet" killing, not hunting.

They should also be taken out back and beaten. It doesn't matter whether or not they have an excuse, they are still doing it for sport, which I don't agree with.

[FREDBEAR]

I think Kersk is playing games with you VP. He's trying to equate internet "hunting" (which is about a couple people who care nothing about hunting trying to make a quick buck on the internets) with actual hunting and at the same time goad you into bashing the concept of hunting. The more emotional you get the more you fall into his hands.



Kersk, hunters oppose this crap. Every hunter that has posted here opposes it. When it becomes illegal in every state in the union it will be because of the pressure that hunters brought to bear on their state game agencies to make it so. Not only does it make a sick mockery of the ethical codes, traditions, and self-imposed limitations that most hunters hold dearly, but it also makes us look bad by association to the general public. And it is a club that anti-hunters like yourself can use to bash us over the head.

Which reminds me, shouldn't you animal rights activists be busy blowing up university labs, freeing thousands of minks, and burning SUVs?



Agile, rank the following in terms of morally better or worse, and tell me why:
1. Internet hunting; 2. Sport hunting; 3. Ordering a pepperoni pizza instead of a vegetarian pizza.



Antiok: Hey man! Long time no see.

[Zogo]

Well, its like playing a video game, except with actual living creatures, no intention to use the meat, not to mention that you sit in your nice home at a pleasant room temperature, in a chair, not having to actually hold and aim an actual rifle with your arms.

is a bomber pilot sick at pathetic because he's just pushing a button in his comfy chair rather than fighting like a grunt on the battlefield?

The act of hunting requires some skills. Some understanding and education. Some effort. Internet hunting requires none of these.

Internet hunting requires knowledge of the internet/computers and many devices used to operate them..and a large wallet.

zigzug the caveman has no ability to hunt like I can.

The article makes no mention of this, but are the online "hunters" required to have a hunting license?

IDK.

They have to take safety courses.

not necessary..as this is a controlled environment. (the people aren't given control of killer robots that can go anywhere. although that would be cool.

They have to learn how to identify what it is they're actually shooting. They also have to actually shoot the gun. Hunting is an outdoor activity and anything involving a gun should be taken seriously.

not necessarily..there are some big game hunters people that will take rich newbs out to africa and just lure giant trophy animals out in the open for them to shoot wildly at.

[Terminotaur]

If internet hunting is being banned, why isn't the hunting of animals domesticated to be slow and easily shot (such as on the ranch Dick Cheney shot a man in the face) banned?

[agi|e]

Do you not believe that many animals brought to a zoo are there for their own good? Does it mean you don't go to the zoo? Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying and I too feel a bit of sympathy for some of the animals. But I do think, that overall, these animals have it way better then any of their kind do in the wild. I'm also curious, are you against pets as a whole then?

Zoos are prison camps for animals.

For their own good? They don't have a choice. I could put you in a cage too and say Well dys it's for your own good to be here since the world is a very dangerous place. You could go out to work and get run over by a bus or worse. So really I'm doing you a big favor by forcing you into confinement.

Better off in the wild? These animals have been doing just fine without human interference for millions of years. It's really arrogant of people to think they know what's best for another species.

Against pets? Depends on the situation. If you have the space for a dog to run it's fine. We had cats when I was young and they sometimes do OK inside but we also had kitty doors for them to go out when they wanted to.
The pet at home situation is not as bad as confining an animal to a cage obviously but it's clear that a dog with an acre of yard to play in has a higher quality of life than one who sits all day in a cramped apartment. Of course people will argue that they are better off in a cramped apartment then on death row at the ASPCA but that again is the result of pet owners not being responsible and paying for their animals birth control. (spaying or neutering)

Note: I would draw a distinction as to domesticated animals such as dogs, cats and horses because these animals have lived with humans for thousands of years. Such animals as reptiles and birds however are better off left alone in the wild. Birds especially in cages makes me sick to my stomach. I have 3 bird feeders in my yard and I like to have the birds there and still be free to come and go.

[Zogo]

If internet hunting is being banned, why isn't the hunting of animals domesticated to be slow and easily shot (such as on the ranch Dick Cheney shot a man in the face) banned?

hunting while drunk is a skill?

[agi|e]

So conventional hunters that are in no financial distress but still make use of the meat do not qualify for "acceptable" behavior in your view?

And traditional hunters are clearly not using this as an excuse to hunt for entertainment purposes, right?

The point is they don't NEED to kill for food so it's pretty clear they aren't killing because they have to. These hunters are either killing to have a tastier meal for dinner or they are killing to make money. If they are using the meat then it's better than nothing but not much.

As a former hunter maybe dys could give us a percentage of hunters who actually use their kills for food.

[Kersk]

I think Kersk is playing games with you VP. He's trying to equate internet "hunting" (which is about a couple people who care nothing about hunting trying to make a quick buck on the internets) with actual hunting and at the same time goad you into bashing the concept of hunting.I am not "playing games" - this is what I honestly believe and I am merely conveying that belief to the readers of this forum. Furthermore, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that clearly distinguishes conventional hunting from hunting over the internet. I'm sorry, but I don't consider a diminished experience of the act enough of a reason to warrant a completely separate classification for hunting over the internet.

Kersk, hunters oppose this crap. Every hunter that has posted here opposes it. When it becomes illegal in every state in the union it will be because of the pressure that hunters brought to bear on their state game agencies to make it so. Not only does it make a sick mockery of the ethical codes, traditions, and self-imposed limitations that most hunters hold dearly, but it also makes us look bad by association to the general public. And it is a club that anti-hunters like yourself can use to bash us over the head.To be sure, I find it most curious that the people who most strongly oppose hunting over the internet seem to be the conventional hunters. Perhaps it is as you say, and this legion of compassionate American hunters, brought up with long standing traditions, ethics, and morality, are being outright smeared by the unwanted association with these lowly money grubbing internet hunters. Or maybe, just maybe, regular hunters seem to oppose internet hunting so much because it so coldly exposes the core act of what hunters are actually doing out there. When they see internet hunting, they finally get a chance to see hunting without all of their corresponding internal moral justifications brought about by an entire culture composed of romanticizing the traditions and rituals of hunting. In short, they see the naked truth behind the act of shooting an innocent animal for "sport". They see that they are actually killing for personal pleasure. Thankfully, that vision frightens and disgusts them and they abhor it so strongly that they will openly voice their opposition to it and demand changes in the laws to ban it. Unfortunately, however, they appear to only be willing to carry that logic to the extent of internet hunting itself, and not to their precious and completely "normal and accepted" practices of using conventional methods to kill animals.

Hmm, I guess us anti-hunters can also use emotionally charged speech to enhance an argument. Or maybe it's an arms race that we started. Who knows. I guess the only difference is that on my side of the argument, I don't have to try nearly as hard. My hat is off to you for the surprising amount of success you guys have had with that.

Which reminds me, shouldn't you animal rights activists be busy blowing up university labs, freeing thousands of minks, and burning SUVs?While I personally feel the term "animal rights activist" is unwarranted when referring to me, I can see that from your perspective it probably fits pretty well. At this point I'd like to reiterate that I'm only opposed to killing a wild animal when it is obviously done just so a hunter can get some bizzare sense of enjoyment out of the act. If you feel that alone makes me an animal activist, then so be it. I find it somewhat ironic, however, that you should bring up the issue of violence since I have done nothing but engage in calm debate thus far. In fact, the only people who have threatened actual physical violence in this thread have been... the hunters.

Agile, rank the following in terms of morally better or worse, and tell me why:
1. Internet hunting; 2. Sport hunting; 3. Ordering a pepperoni pizza instead of a vegetarian pizza.I'll do the honors, in order of morally best to morally worst:

1. Ordering a Pep Pizza
(because it is a crime against pizza unless you have pep+sausage or pep+pineapple)

2. Internet Hunting
(because hunting over the internet does not necessarily imply hunting for fun, ie: VP-'s example of a game warden doing population control with an unmanned gun)

3. Sport Hunting
(because hunting solely for entertainment trivializes animal life, no matter how dishonest you are to yourself)

[agi|e]

Agile, rank the following in terms of morally better or worse, and tell me why:
1. Internet hunting; 2. Sport hunting; 3. Ordering a pepperoni pizza instead of a vegetarian pizza.

Worst to least worse:

1. Internet Hunting/Sport Hunting
2. Pizza with meat

One's for sport and one's for food.

I just noticed Kersk's point:

Or maybe, just maybe, regular hunters seem to oppose internet hunting so much because it so coldly exposes the core act of what hunters are actually doing out there. When they see internet hunting, they finally get a chance to see hunting without all of their corresponding internal moral justifications brought about by an entire culture composed of romanticizing the traditions and rituals of hunting. In short, they see the naked truth behind the act of shooting an innocent animal for "sport". They see that they are actually killing for personal pleasure.

Quite well said.

:)

[FREDBEAR]

Furthermore, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that clearly

distinguishes conventional hunting from hunting over the internet. I'm sorry, but I don't consider a diminished experience of the act enough of a reason to warrant a completely separate classification for hunting over the internet.

Alright I'll play along. You want to discuss the morality of the act of killing an animal to satisfy a human desire (as opposed to need), correct? I would answer that consumption of meat, wearing of leather, internet hunting as described here, and sport hunting are all morally equivalent.* A case could be made that at least the hunted animals lived out their lives in a natural environment, and died in some forest with no clue of what was about to happen to them. Seems a little less cruel than factory farming, no?

Here's a question. Why aren't you outraged about people who casually eat meat when a vegan diet and lifestyle are very doable for the average person with the will, money, and conviction to follow their moral leanings to their logical conclusion?

Perhaps it is as you say, and this legion of compassionate American hunters, brought up with long standing traditions, ethics, and morality, are being outright smeared by the unwanted association with these lowly money grubbing internet hunters. Or maybe, just maybe, regular hunters seem to oppose internet hunting so much because...

Maybe, just maybe you are here talking about internet hunting to draw attention away from your child-molesting ways. How does that feel? I told you why I and many other hunters oppose this thing. You don't need to guess.


*assuming that all are done in an ecologically sustainable and responsible manner and every effort is taken to ensure a quick and painless death

[Kersk]

Here's a question. Why aren't you outraged about people who casually eat meat when a vegan diet and lifestyle are very doable for the average person with the will, money, and conviction to follow their moral leanings to their logical conclusion?As much as you'd like me to be some extremist animal rights dude, I'm not. As I already stated, I'm only opposed to killing an animal if the purpose of its death is for entertainment. In all fairness, I think you'll find that's a pretty moderate position. Feel free to continue trying to portray me as some sort of vegetable obsessed hippy though.

Maybe, just maybe you are here talking about internet hunting to draw attention away from your child-molesting ways. How does that feel? I told you why I and many other hunters oppose this thing. You don't need to guess.Sorry if I struck a nerve.

[FREDBEAR]

Worst to least worse:

1. Internet Hunting/Sport Hunting
2. Pizza with meat

One's for sport and one's for food.



First, who says that both the internet hunters and sport hunters aren't also eating the animal they kill? I know a lot of hunters, and frequent some hunting forums, and I can't recall hearing any of them say they don't utilize at least some if not all of the meat, and usually as much of the animal as possible, in some way. I'm sure there are some out there who throw away the animal and keep the antlers, but I have no personal experience with them and I'm pretty sure they are the vast minority.

Second, Pizza with meat is food, yes. But you've set the bar higher than just food, at least for hunters. The point is they don't NEED to kill for food so it's pretty clear they aren't killing because they have to. These hunters are either killing to have a tastier meal for dinner or they are killing to make money. You don't NEED to order a pepperoni pizza instead of a vegetarian one. You do do it because you prefer the taste. You pay the pizza man to pay some guy out in Iowa to slaughter and process a pig for you.



Kersk, the position you're taking, if you think about what it really means, is not a "moderate" one. It is a typical one though. People often base their opinions on knee-jerk reactions, and its easy to demonize people who are different than you. You "kill an animal for entertainment" when you eat a plate of hot wings while watching the superbowl. The fact that you did none of the legwork in getting that meat to your quivering lips doesn't absolve you of that.


Edit- one more thing Kersk. If you think that an internet discussion of internet "hunting" might be the thing that really brings the finality and reality of killing an animal home to the hunter, you've never been hunting.

[Kersk]

You "kill an animal for entertainment" when you eat a plate of hot wings while watching the superbowl. The fact that you did none of the legwork in getting that meat to your quivering lips doesn't absolve you of that.Once again, I am not opposed to killing an animal for the purpose of eating it. Although I hope you would agree that it is highly preferable that it has a quick death. I have clearly stated where my beliefs rest, and everything you have said has done nothing but confirm some of these beliefs for me. I don't feel that it is unreasonable to say that there is a vast difference between killing an animal out of a need for food compared to killing an animal out of boredom. While I'm sure many hunters make diligent use of the corpses that they generate, you can not deny that many hunters leave their kills to rot, or, in the event of a particuarly meaningful kill, they take a part of the body to use as a trophy for later celebration of their monumental achievements. I'm sorry if you feel these kind of "knee-jerk" beliefs demonize you in any way. Perhaps you should take an objective look at what you are advocating. I know I have.

Edit- one more thing Kersk. If you think that an internet discussion of internet "hunting" might be the thing that really brings the finality and reality of killing an animal home to the hunter, you've never been hunting.Are you honestly trying to appeal to the stereotypes of "internet nerd" vs "manly hunter man" to support your argument? How quaint. What's next in your slowly increasing arsenal of subtle yet inept personal attacks? :(

[FREDBEAR]

Kersk I want to apologize for any personal attacks I have made including assuming you were a vegan or "vegetable loving hippy". I tend to come out swinging in these arguments. Can you see an element of hypocrisy in the condemnation of hunting in any form from a person who himself eats the flesh of animals? At the start of this thread you were lumping all hunting into the same boat, and advocating that it be made illegal. When I see someone doing that I know that I am either dealing with a vegan or I am dealing with the type of person who wants to make rules for other people and not follow them himself.

You said I guess the only difference is that on my side of the argument, I don't have to try nearly as hard.
I don't think you've tried hard enough. What is the moral difference between hunting, even hunting for mere sport (a practice which I feel is much more rare than you are implying), and eating meat for the pleasure of the taste when non-meat food is available?


Are you honestly trying to appeal to the stereotypes of "internet nerd" vs "manly hunter man" to support your argument?

No no, not at all. My point was that a person who has actually killed a real live animal, watched it die, gutted it, butchered it and eaten it, has already faced the reality of that act in a more intense and personal way than any silly internet news article could be. Ask Dys.

[agi|e]

First, who says that both the internet hunters and sport hunters aren't also eating the animal they kill? I know a lot of hunters, and frequent some hunting forums, and I can't recall hearing any of them say they don't utilize at least some if not all of the meat, and usually as much of the animal as possible, in some way. I'm sure there are some out there who throw away the animal and keep the antlers, but I have no personal experience with them and I'm pretty sure they are the vast minority.

Second, Pizza with meat is food, yes. But you've set the bar higher than just food, at least for hunters. You don't NEED to order a pepperoni pizza instead of a vegetarian one. You do do it because you prefer the taste. You pay the pizza man to pay some guy out in Iowa to slaughter and process a pig for you.

I don't see that you are disagreeing with any of my basic points. The morality and or necessity of breeding animals for food is an interesting topic but it's different then the one we are debating. Let's face it, the guy at his computer isn't going to eat the meat of the animal he's shooting.

[FREDBEAR]

I don't see that you are disagreeing with any of my basic points. The morality and or necessity of breeding animals for food is an interesting topic but it's different then the one we are debating. Let's face it, the guy at his computer isn't going to eat the meat of the animal he's shooting.

Well I am disagreeing with your points because I believe that its morally ok to eat meat, even if you go out in the woods and get it yourself. Heck, as far as morality alone is concerned, I'm ok with somebody humanely killing a penned animal and eating it. I'll even go so far to say that if some disabled kid with no other way wants a chance to "hunt" via this internet thing, and a quick killing shot is reasonably assured, and he plans on eating the animal he shoots, I wouldn't have a big problem with it. It's the yahoos looking for an easy way to feel big that I have a problem with, and not because "its wrong to kill animals".

[Kersk]

Can you see an element of hypocrisy in the condemnation of hunting in any form from a person who himself eats the flesh of animals? At the start of this thread you were lumping all hunting into the same boat, and advocating that it be made illegal. When I see someone doing that I know that I am either dealing with a vegan or I am dealing with the type of person who wants to make rules for other people and not follow them himself.Actually, I was originally pointing out the hypocrisy of people being perfectly content with conventional hunting, yet were, for some reason, strongly offended by the same notion of hunting when it suddenly took place with a computer mouse. While I'm pretty sure I mentioned this before, it probably will still surprise you to know that I don't feel that either conventional or internet hunting need to be made illegal. However, that doesn't mean that I have changed views on hunting for sport alone, regardless of the method used. Furthermore, I wasn't arguing in favor of banning hunting, I was only stating that it made no sense to specifically ban only one type of hunting while leaving the rest untouched. I still stand by my belief that if conventional forms of hunting are to remain unbanned, then internet hunting should likewise be unbanned. I also openly support that certain reasons for hunting are readily acceptable, such as generating food and controlling the population of a herd. However, it is still potentially conceivable to do either of these tasks with both conventional and internet-based hunting methods. Thus, it seems that if there is a legitimate way to ban types of hunting, it should be based on the various underyling motivations for hunting, rather than the current precedent of banning based exclusively on the particular method of carrying it out.

What is the moral difference between hunting, even hunting for mere sport (a practice which I feel is much more rare than you are implying), and eating meat for the pleasure of the taste when non-meat food is available?I think the topic of eating meat is outside the scope of this thread. Also, as a self-professed hunter versed in the "traditions and ethics" of our American hunting culture, I would hope that the moral distinction between hunting for food to eat and hunting exclusively for sport would be self-evident.

No no, not at all. My point was that a person who has actually killed a real live animal, watched it die, gutted it, butchered it and eaten it, has already faced the reality of that act in a more intense and personal way than any silly internet news article could be. Ask Dys.I would argue that a silly internet news article can clearly change the way we interpret things, even including such vivid past experiences as you have described. Just because my typed words can't replicate the stark reality of actually killing an animal, it doesn't make them meaningless. If I can provide a new sense of perspective to just one person regarding this manner, then isn't that justification enough for me to continue?

[FREDBEAR]

I disagree about the perceived hypocrisy. Hunters have legitimate reasons for disliking internet hunting and prefering to see it banned, and it doesn't have to have anything to do with the strict abstract morality of killing an animal. The subject of "banning internet hunting" is at its core a political topic, and not a moral one.

I think the topic of eating meat is outside the scope of this thread. Also, as a self-professed hunter versed in the "traditions and ethics" of our American hunting culture, I would hope that the moral distinction between hunting for food to eat and hunting exclusively for sport would be self-evident.


I specifically asked you for your opinion about the moral difference between killing exclusively for sport and eating meat out of mere taste preference. I know where I stand. I wasn't asking for you to instruct me, I was asking to hear your answer.

[RogueCheddar]

Hunting for sport is sick and twisted. If you need food and you live in the wilderness then it's OK to hunt to live. But killing animals for fun or to have a trophy head mounted on your wall is a serious sickness. Animal life is as sacred as human life and if you look at cultures like the native american indians you can see that they respected all life even if it was necessary to take a life in order to survive. There is no honor in shooting animals for recreation whether it be on a computer monitor or in the wild.All life is sacred? Do you really believe that?

Because usually humans have a peculiar habit of intuitively determining another animal's worth by it's looks, intelligence, and character. It is absolutely horrible to kill an animal that's smart, cute and cuddly, beautiful, or fun to play with.

So, I'm genuinely curious what your answers are to the typical questions that occur in these types of discussions. Do you own leather shoes? Leather belt?Ever eaten solely for pleasure? Morning bacon? Midnight tacos? Ever purposely squashed a harmless bug strolling by? You know the drill.

I have a strong suspicion that life really isn't the issue here. More likely you and fellow hunter-haters possess such sentiments because they kill animals you deem (probably subconsciously) life-worthy, but such merits are completely subjective and insubstantial. Like SA said, at least hunters help control the animal population. What good are your Nikes? I hope they look really fucking cool. Oh but afterall, it's just a retarded cow, right?

Of course I suppose you could be a tree fucking miracle of consistency who actually strives to conserve ALL life. Perhaps.

Oh, and a little more on topic, Kersk is right that internet hunting should be legal as long as sport/regular hunting is legal.

[agi|e]

Well I am disagreeing with your points because I believe that its morally ok to eat meat, even if you go out in the woods and get it yourself. Heck, as far as morality alone is concerned, I'm ok with somebody humanely killing a penned animal and eating it. I'll even go so far to say that if some disabled kid with no other way wants a chance to "hunt" via this internet thing, and a quick killing shot is reasonably assured, and he plans on eating the animal he shoots, I wouldn't have a big problem with it. It's the yahoos looking for an easy way to feel big that I have a problem with, and not because "its wrong to kill animals".

I never said it's immoral to eat meat. You are missing the point entirely. Again it won't happen that a computer "hunter" is ever going to eat his "kill".
Please get real. You would have to pay not just to ship the meat but also to keep it refrigerated.

[agi|e]

All life is sacred? Do you really believe that?

Because usually humans have a peculiar habit of intuitively determining another animal's worth by it's looks, intelligence, and character. It is absolutely horrible to kill an animal that's smart, cute and cuddly, beautiful, or fun to play with.

So, I'm genuinely curious what your answers are to the typical questions that occur in these types of discussions. Do you own leather shoes? Leather belt?Ever eaten solely for pleasure? Morning bacon? Midnight tacos? Ever purposely squashed a harmless bug strolling by? You know the drill.

I have a strong suspicion that life really isn't the issue here. More likely you and fellow hunter-haters possess such sentiments because they kill animals you deem (probably subconsciously) life-worthy, but such merits are completely subjective and insubstantial. Like SA said, at least hunters help control the animal population. What good are your Nikes? I hope they look really fucking cool. Oh but afterall, it's just a retarded cow, right?

Of course I suppose you could be a tree fucking miracle of consistency who actually strives to conserve ALL life. Perhaps.

Oh, and a little more on topic, Kersk is right that internet hunting should be legal as long as sport/regular hunting is legal.

I think you need to read the entire thread again carefully.

[dook]

If somebody is going to kill animals to eat them, go for it as long as the population is stable and abundant.

Killing animals for "sport"... I have a problem with this in general because it's just not sporting. Maybe if the rules were such that the bear or whatever has a 50% chance of killing the hunter instead then I'd be ok with it.