HOME | DD
smilelikeacid — Humans leave orphans?
Published: 2011-06-08 04:58:17 +0000 UTC; Views: 4155; Favourites: 110; Downloads: 47
Redirect to original
Description
...And you're telling me other predatory species do not leave orphans when they hunt?Yes it's easy to point the finger at the 'big bad human' for legally harvesting an animal, but when a wolf, bear, coyote kills a smaller animal or a predator it competes with, aren't they doing the exact same thing?
It's fucking retarded to put the blame on humans all of the time. Even if the other animals are "killing for survival" I don't see how that justifies 'creating orphans' when you say it's wrong for humans to do the exact same.
Trying to get me to feel sorry for the poor baby animals who are left without homes will not work. Nature is a cruel bitch. If a human takes their mommy or daddies away, I'm sure a nice predator will come and finish them off nice and quick before they suffer too much.
Temp: [link]
Related content
Comments: 138
That's why there are hunting seasons in place to avoid this. That way the young animals will be at an age where they can fend for themselves. Also in many animal species, especially mammals; the fathers don't protect or raise the young. Thus the males are targeted after the mating season.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I'm pretty sure hunting seasons are kept when the chanche of baby or pregnant animals are minimum. Wolf hunts, for example, are kept in winter.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Not to mention animals don't get a license before they hunt, and they don't follow the regulations that humans do when it comes to hunting.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
"Nature isn't cruel, she just doesn't care for you"
-IForgotWhoSaidThat
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
In fact, humans leave less orphan animals than the bears, wolves, etc themselves. Our hunting is more humane.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I thought... that animals generally attack the young... not the old?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
My view on this is that it's the circle of life when animals eat each other. When humans hunt animals, it can completely throw of the balance of nature. When it comes to hunting, I feel that you better use the whole damn animal to justify your killing (fur, meat, bones, etc; ). I understand hunting for survival, I do not understand hunting for fun or sport.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No... that's just stupid.. When an animal hunts it goes after the baby first
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
They hunt for survival
WE DO NOT
We hunt for the fun and profit
THATS NOT RIGHT THIS STAMP IS NOT RIGHT
im SO DISTURBED by this
you just want to justify yourself
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Personally I don't approve of hunting for sport but if you think that humans are the only animals that do so then you're misinformed.
For example: Cats hunt and kill for fun and don't even eat a large of the things they kill.
What really separates humans from other animals isn't the reasons why we do things but our ability to rise above all that if we wish.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I approve of killing in self defense. If there was a bear about to eat me I wouldn't be thinking about it hunting for survival- if I had a knife or a gun I'd stab or shoot it to avoid being killed myself.
It's called survival instinct. we all have it- not every hunter does it for fun and profit
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Um? No, actually humans have hunted for survival for centuries. Our ancestors were hunters and gatherers, and we have always been part of the natural balance. Only recently was hunting frowned upon in such a manner that people started calling it unnatural.
Sport hunting =/= hunting for 'fun'. Even if it's called sport hunting it still servers a purpose.
And yeah, just because my opinion differs from your uneducated one does NOT make me stupid, kid. Get over yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Humans as a species have done a lot of things. And we've also stopped doing a lot of things, because we don't need to do them anymore. Hunting (for most people) would be one of those things. Our ancestors didn't kill for trophies, so theres a bit of a difference there, pal.
If people hunted for food and happened to have fun doing it that would be one thing. Target shooting, air soft, etc is also different, as it's harmless fun.
Killing something just so you can have it's head in your den to hang your John Deere hat from is fucked up and stupid. Sport hunting is on par with being a serial killer, only it's legal. The same impulses and actions are all there, from gaining a preferred victim type, to having a special set of killing tools, to selecting the victim, stalking, enjoyment of the kill, taking a trophy, reliving the experience, having a cool down period and then going out and doing it again. I think the proportions of hunters and killers who eat their victims are about the same too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nature is a cruel bitch.
^This.
Plus, predators tend to commit infanticide when they hunt because the young are easier to catch than the fully grown, healthy adults. Seriously, some people need to watch Animal Plant.
Also(and hunters can correct me if I'm wrong) but, by the time hunting season rolls around, aren't the young born that year already able to fend for themselves without the aid of their parents? Meaning that it doesn't matter if their parents are killed, they can look after themselves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope, you're right. Hunting season doesn't swing around til after those babies are big enought to take care of themselves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wolves and bears kill to survive, not to make fur coats.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Thats called poaching...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, but some people who do it call it hunting to get off the hook.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And? Not all hunting is just for fur coats brah.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's an example, people can survive without hunting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
National parks and conservation efforts wouldn't, however. The North American model for conservation is the most effective in the world, and hunting plays a key role in it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, that's a part of preserving wildlife and conservation programs. I was talking more about individual hunting and pointing out that no matter whether hunting is considered good or bad, the reasons and methods humans choose to hunt is not exactly the same as the animals'.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They never would be exactly the same; however, they aren't very different. Humans hunt to gain resources, just like other animals. That we've become the best at it doesn't change the reasons for it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Still, a person can choose whether it is really necessary or not. Animals are driven by their instincts rather than rational choices.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What's your point? A person can choose to hunt, and continually do. The hunting seasons are coordinated to not disrupt breeding patterns, but nothing is perfect.
What are you trying to point out?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not trying to point anything out or to say whether it is bad or not, because my personal attitude is irrelevant. I'm just stating the factors that make human hunters different from animal hunters. Mere difference doesn't make something worse or better than something else.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
...So you honestly think everyone everywhere around the world can survive without hunting? Because even in Africa every starving village has a walmart right in the middle of it, right? I mean it isn't like anyone hunts for survival anymore. No one lives so far out in Alaska that they aren't exactly close to civilization, right?
And for those of us who can go to walmart doesn't exactly mean we have to. Hunters donate their kills to local homeless shelters around here on Thanksgiving so that the homeless can have a decent meal. But I suppose that's just terrible.
And we've been hunting for centuries. We can't exactly stop without causing problems in the ecosystem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course I'm not talking about everyone, but I don't think people like us, who converse through the Intenet with our own laptops need to hunt. I'm not a narrow-minded person and I realize what is going around me in the world, and I know my reasons are not going to change yours and that's fine with me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So when you say people can survive without hunting you don't mean everyone. Right then.
Well, hunting is needed because we need to thin the herd. :T
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I usually talk about people who take part in this sort of debate, because I actually don't like generalisations. Who are we to decide, how many animals there must be? Even if we are to decide, people should stop breeding as well, but try telling people that, some might throw stones at you. Besides, I don't think that thinning the herd is the motivation for hunters.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then maybe you should have said people who can or want to walk into a store and buy their meat. I don't think having computers has anything to do with rather we need to hunt or not. Honestly I'd prefer eating something that was hunted over than eating something that suffered needlessly.
Well first off we kind of have to even the number of animals to ensure that we can coexist with them peacefully. I don't like seeing deer laying half dead on the side of the road because it got hit while trying to cross. I don't like knowing that predator animals kill their prey so much that they have less prey to go after, and therefore they turn to domestic animals/livestock.
With your logic I could ask you who are we to deem it wrong after a murderer kills someone? And there are projects already set to convince people to have less kids. We can't exactly go around telling people to stop breeding (even though I'd gladly do that. I honestly don't think stupid people should be able to reproduce..)
And yeah. It is. That's the only reason we have hunting seasons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's the reason for hunting seasons, but many hunters feel like doing it for sports. Some of them hang the heads of animals like a trophy on their walls.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I like how you don't even address the other points I brought up.
And so? I wouldn't mind having the hide of something I killed. Just because they get the animal stuffed doesn't mean that they didn't eat the meat. And wouldn't you rather them do something with the kill than just to kill with no reason?
You're really grasping for straws now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nah, I just don't kill if I can survive without it, that's all. We can say that a murderer who kills people is wrong, but we shouldn't butt ourselves in other species' business. I know it's pointless to try and make someone who supports hunting to change their minds and I won't. I have my reasons to think the way I do and you have yours. I still think wolves have more reasons to hunt than people, and that people are capable to decide whether to hunt or not, that's where our debate started.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You..do realize that animals were hunted in order to give you the land your home is on, right? Rather you are directly killing them or not they are still being killed for you.
Of course wolves and other predators have more of a reason to hunt than we do. But why should that stop us?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Right because there are not people in other countries who still depend on hunting. Not all of us are lucky enough to live around the corner of a walmart, smartass.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Perhaps you shouldn't leave vague comments in a 'debate' then?
While no one in my family actually hunts I do have friends who do hunt avidly. And they say that hunting for their food is actually cheaper than stocking the freezer at the grocery store. Modern hunters also are known to give their kills to local homeless shelters, but I suppose that's bad too hm?
Besides if they're going to cull the herd why not eat their kills? That's better than wasting it, right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow, u seem 2 be so good at debating that ur hiding the comments of all ppl who shove facts in2 ur throat. Very confident indeed. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The second person I was 'debating' with had no real intentions of debating and was just backing the first person up. Notice how I didn't even bother hiding the original person's comments?
The second person didn't bring any facts what so ever, and I'm only using the feature to hide undesirable features. I wasn't aware that this was wrong.
And it isn't critique, it's debate. I wasn't aware that it called for you to butt in either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Is there any reason you linked =Yerdian to a long since dead conversation? And yes this is ~smilelikeacid . Didn't feel the need to log into my stamp account.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I realize that we've taken animals' territories and I'm not surprised when a wild animal comes into the city and I'm on the animal's side on that. And I don't get your point. Are you trying to convince me that killing someone by will is the same? No point at all. There are soldiers who died for your country, does that mean that you have indirectly killed them?
If humans are SOO smart, they can at least choose not to hunt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow you're really comparing apples to oranges here. If you're going to compare what I said to dead soldiers I'm clearly wasting my time, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't twist my words to something that simply is not comparable to attempt and make a point. If you're going to start this pathetic anti-hunter way of 'debating' our 'debate' is over. I'm still waiting for the 'lolol letz hunt hoomanz' argument.
Yes. We should just chose to ignore the fact that animals are over populating and therefore suffering. Yes, we should just allow for the poor things to suffer. Intelligence has nothing to do with still being part of nature or the fact that animal populations will do poorly without human influence. You wouldn't eradicate wolves, why do you think its a good idea to keep humans from hunting. Wolves take care of their numbers of elk/deer/etc. And we take care of our numbers of elk/deer/wolves etc. We both have our niche, so to speak.
I can't help but to wonder if you eat meat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>