Hunting and Furries

[Raven Song]

I know right admittedly the family only asked him to take down one impala... and it was an impala with a bad leg. So he didn't really have to do much.

[Cape_F0X]

That's very fortunate for him.

I like that the topic going to the actual hunting experience of Furries and not just the right and wrong.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

I like that the topic going to the actual hunting experience of Furries and not just the right and wrong.

Replace hunting there with any other morally questionable practice and would probably be seen differently.
e.g. I like we're talking about experiences of under-the-table business dealings rather than whether it's right or wrong. Or. I like how we're talking about refusing service to [insert minority here] instead of whether it's right or wrong.

[Cape_F0X]

Yeah, but I doubt under-the-table business or refusing service to a minority would be considered a hobby. They also don't result in trophies that only work in your bungalow.

[Leeward]

Rakuen, you keep talking about hunting (or more generally, killing non-humans) as though it should be a crime, but do you realise that by doing so, you are antagonising everyone who disagrees with you?

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Rakuen, you keep talking about hunting (or more generally, killing non-humans) as though it should be a crime, but do you realise that by doing so, you are antagonising everyone who disagrees with you?

Meh, that happens. Though I'm not sure if it's necessarily more or less antagonistic than the opposite. Does saying hunting should be accepted not antagonise those that disagree? The point is you can't please everyone. I watched a short comedy bit on some fashion magazine. They interviewed a woman who was pro-choice (that didn't come into the interview at all). Then the pro-lifers threatened to boycott the magazine so they apologised and removed the interview. Then the pro-choicers threatened to boycott the magazine.

[Cape_F0X]

It's not just about agreeing or disagreeing. There's also doing, not doing, done and considering to do something. In this case Hunting.

[Raven Song]

I agree with Rakuen. Every discussion has sides, and the more one side tries to make their point of views heard or understood, the more the other side will feel oppressed or undermined.

It's why I don't talk films with people. Because I become that person that will crush your opinion. But on a subject regarding animals, I consider myself a hypocrite because of eating meat so I don't take the comments on both side as personally...

that's just my brain by the way... ignore this whole piece... its just for my own mental satisfaction.

[Sev]

Rakuen, you keep talking about hunting (or more generally, killing non-humans) as though it should be a crime, but do you realise that by doing so, you are antagonising everyone who disagrees with you?

Meh, that happens. Though I'm not sure if it's necessarily more or less antagonistic than the opposite. Does saying hunting should be accepted not antagonise those that disagree? The point is you can't please everyone. I watched a short comedy bit on some fashion magazine. They interviewed a woman who was pro-choice (that didn't come into the interview at all). Then the pro-lifers threatened to boycott the magazine so they apologised and removed the interview. Then the pro-choicers threatened to boycott the magazine.

That's so stupid. The take home from that is that compromise just leaves everyone unhappy.

While Rakuen's view may be a bit extreme, I'm also thoroughly against hunting. If you want to shoot something, go to a range.

[Cape_F0X]

[Warning! Lame jokes are lame.]

What if I want to shoot some hoops or a movie or FPS games? I don't want to go all the way to the range just for that and it's to noisy there.

[vakie]

I agree with Rakuen. Every discussion has sides, and the more one side tries to make their point of views heard or understood, the more the other side will feel oppressed or undermined.

It's why I don't talk films with people. Because I become that person that will crush your opinion. But on a subject regarding animals, I consider myself a hypocrite because of eating meat so I don't take the comments on both side as personally...

that's just my brain by the way... ignore this whole piece... its just for my own mental satisfaction.

I refuse to ignore this and Deadpool was a boring movie. *runs to a safe distance*

I do agree with your opinion though. These issues can't be won by a single side so it results in an endless debate. As long as people are responsible and stat within the law then I'm fine with it.

[Cape_F0X]

Was not just trying to be silly with the jokes. It shows how general your statement was Sev. Everyone is so afraid to make their arrangements personal.

A personal example; I like shooting match heads at ten meters with a air rifle more than shooting X animal with Y gun at 1.5 kilometers (not that I did).

And you can't fight right or wrong, because you can't tell me what I like. (You can mention things I like.)

[Leeward]

Rakuen, you keep talking about hunting (or more generally, killing non-humans) as though it should be a crime, but do you realise that by doing so, you are antagonising everyone who disagrees with you?

Meh, that happens. Though I'm not sure if it's necessarily more or less antagonistic than the opposite. Does saying hunting should be accepted not antagonise those that disagree? The point is you can't please everyone. I watched a short comedy bit on some fashion magazine. They interviewed a woman who was pro-choice (that didn't come into the interview at all). Then the pro-lifers threatened to boycott the magazine so they apologised and removed the interview. Then the pro-choicers threatened to boycott the magazine.

That's not what I meant. I meant that saying things like hunting is as bad as dealing under the table or openly discriminating is treating everyone who has ever hunted as though they are irredeemable scum. You wouldn't say the same thing of media piracy, shoplifting or smoking weed, would you?

[Sev]

Was not just trying to be silly with the jokes. It shows how general your statement was Sev. Everyone is so afraid to make their arrangements personal.

A personal example; I like shooting match heads at ten meters with a air rifle more than shooting X animal with Y gun at 1.5 kilometers (not that I did).

And you can't fight right or wrong, because you can't tell me what I like. (You can mention things I like.)

So for all intends and purposes, what's the difference between shooting a target and shooting an animal? Do hunters gain some perverse pleasure from having killed something that wasn't even aware that its life was in danger?

[Cape_F0X]

Brutallis made this topic Furries and hunting, "Us" and hunting. He wondered how "we" feel and what "we" do, did and most likely might do when in comes to hunting.

Brutallis can take the conversation between RavenSong and I and put it in a book or paper because it's "our" experience. Not just a hunting Yes or No, which he could find somewhere else on the Internet.

But if I had to answer your question Sev; it's tradition, (men hunting for food to provide) so there is a false sense of accomplishment (I got the meat!), this is probably what people like about hunting.

[Sev]

I don't think that people hunt endangered (or dangerous) wildlife for their meat.

[Cape_F0X]

Are you pulling my tail again? Because it feels like I am not getting a point across and it's making this topic longer than it needs to be.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

That's so stupid. The take home from that is that compromise just leaves everyone unhappy.

There wasn't compromise in those examples. Compromise can work but depends on the situation. I'm not unlikely to compromise on the issue ethically unless some radical new evidence or argument is introduced but there is already a practical compromise in that I am able to get along with people that disagree.

That's not what I meant. I meant that saying things like hunting is as bad as dealing under the table or openly discriminating is treating everyone who has ever hunted as though they are irredeemable scum. You wouldn't say the same thing of media piracy, shoplifting or smoking weed, would you?

I would draw the distinction between treatment of specific actions and the treatment of people in general. People sometimes do things we absolutely disagree with but they can also do things that we do agree with and it is necessary to recognise those complexities. I think a failure to recognise that is one of the most stupid things about Rhodes Must Fall and similar movements.

More specifically I wouldn't say the same about those examples because they are different. None of those harm other beings directly. Shoplifting would be the worst as it has an economic harm in stealing but it's not harmful in the same way that assault is. Piracy is pretty much a victimless crime unless one is profiting from it. Smoking weed is not harmful to anyone at all and should be purely a personal choice.

[Sev]

That's so stupid. The take home from that is that compromise just leaves everyone unhappy.

There wasn't compromise in those examples.

What I meant is that they were trying to appease everyone.

[Leeward]

More specifically I wouldn't say the same about those examples because they are different. None of those harm other beings directly.

All right, but since you're a vegetarian and not a vegan, you still eat non-meat animal products like eggs and dairy, right?

[Rakuen Growlithe]

All right, but since you're a vegetarian and not a vegan, you still eat non-meat animal products like eggs and dairy, right?

Yes and I suppose you are planning to mention that animals are killed in those industries too. If that is the case, yes, I am aware however it's not a necessary aspect of milk or egg production and there is a difference between direct and indirect harms. Perhaps I should not consume either but for now I have not taken that step.

[Leeward]

All right, but since you're a vegetarian and not a vegan, you still eat non-meat animal products like eggs and dairy, right?

Yes and I suppose you are planning to mention that animals are killed in those industries too. If that is the case, yes, I am aware however it's not a necessary aspect of milk or egg production and there is a difference between direct and indirect harms. Perhaps I should not consume either but for now I have not taken that step.

Actually, I was going to call you a colossal hypocrite. By and large, most of the egg and dairy industry keeps their livestock in absolutely appalling conditions that suck the very life out of those poor chickens and cows, so much so that automutilation is commonplace, and this goes on until they quite literally drop drained of all energy and will to live... and only then do they get slaughtered, to be used as discount meat anyway. So unless you're paying the clear conscience tax for that "free range" label, you're actually perpetuating a cycle that causes far more suffering than hunting. How is that not more cruel than killing a wild animal or letting livestock live free and naturally before being slaughtered?

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Actually, I was going to call you a colossal hypocrite. By and large, most of the egg and dairy industry keeps their livestock in absolutely appalling conditions that suck the very life out of those poor chickens and cows, so much so that automutilation is commonplace, and this goes on until they quite literally drop drained of all energy and will to live... and only then do they get slaughtered, to be used as discount meat anyway. So unless you're paying the clear conscience tax for that "free range" label, you're actually perpetuating a cycle that causes far more suffering than hunting. How is that not more cruel than killing a wild animal or letting livestock live free and naturally before being slaughtered?

When you say "most of the industry" I'd guess most of it applies to American industry. To the best of my knowledge, European regulations are a lot better. For example, battery cages have been banned in the EU since 2012.

[Leeward]

Uh-huh. What about removing newborn calves from their dairy cow mothers? Europeans do love their cheese.

[TotemCoyote]

One thing I can share when I was training with my bow was a very interesting experience indeed. My coach was a big hunter and our range was set up with targets as well as the 3D targets ranging from a Vervet monkey to an Eland.

He asked me if I ever wanted to hunt. I said maybe one day I might consider it. He then asked me what would I consider taking down first if I got the chance and I told him something small like an Impala. He said that is the biggest mistake every new hunter makes and it has devastating results. He said that I should get a hunting permit for a Wildebeest maybe. I asked him why and he said, "It's simple. Look at an Impala. They are small and agile. You make one small rustle and spook it, you'll either scare it away or you would have taken a shot as he took off at the run, thus causing unnecessary suffering to the animal as it is not in a clear kill zone. A wildebeest gives you a MUCH bigger kill zone area to work with and they aren't as frighteningly reactive as the smaller buck."

Taking that lesson in, I learnt a lot more. Usually you will see these fancy bowhunters with these huge and overly expensive bows with all the bells and whistles. That's all good, but then take a look at their arrows and you can tell exactly what kind of a hunter they are. Huge explosive broadheads that only go halfway into the animal and cut up their insides are unfortunately the most popular and there are the proud hunters standing over their badly bloodied trophies... I can do nothing but shake my head.

I was taught that the thinner the arrow is, the better and that their is nothing better than a normal yet very sharp point with a FOB on the end. The FOB(Fletching Only Better) is like normal fletching/feathers except its round with three inserts. This makes the arrow FAR more accurate. SO put that together and you get the ultimate arrow. Simple and humble. And on a hunting basis, far more humane. See, we want the arrow to go ALL the way through the animal. Clean, no running around and cutting up. See the difference.

If people want to hunt, a lot of us still try to stick to the most humane way while others remain stuck up. I prefer just my target practice though. I'll practice on my 3D animals thank you haha.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Uh-huh. What about removing newborn calves from their dairy cow mothers? Europeans do love their cheese.

It's not good but it's also not an inherent problem with dairy, it's related to the way farming is currently done. Many things are not perfect but hopefully we can see the problem with treating direct and indirect harms as equal. That's why we distinguish manslaughter from murder. And why killing cows for beef is not equivalent to, and I've actually had people use this argument, mice being killed by a tractor that harvests wheat.

[Leeward]

I would say it's a fairly direct and intentional harm to forcibly separate a newborn and its mother. Ask any woman (or father) whose infant died or was abducted how traumatic it is (yes, cattle do experience complex emotions such as grief). Regardless, because this is standard procedure, the dairy you eat probably contains milk that a calf was denied for the sake of the marginal amount of extra profit derived from starting to milk its mother 6 months earlier. To me that's more disgusting and sadistic than eating the flesh of an animal that was killed quickly and painlessly (if done correctly in the case of game) after having lived a relatively normal life.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

To me that's more disgusting and sadistic than eating the flesh of an animal that was killed quickly and painlessly (if done correctly in the case of game) after having lived a relatively normal life.

Yet I'm guessing you still eat dairy.

[Contrast]

I once read a comic about the dairy industry, except all the cows were depicted as people. It was pretty damn disturbing.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Come on Contrast. Your hentai manga stays in the yiffy section.