For The Thrill, Or For Food?

[Solitary]

Yes, science.  People get degrees and study the subject of managing animals.  Who'd have thought right?  
   
I'm not making an argument about whether or not hunters like to kill.  Feelings are irrelevant to managing deer.  There are preserves for deer but the vast majority of deer live outside game preserves.  Should they all be eradicated so you don't have to feel bad about some hunter shooting them.  I get that it's an emotional thing for you but where do you draw your line?  Is it ok to manage populations of any animals?  Mice?  Mosquitoes?

But that's the point I am making the argument that hunters like to kill. Did I say I felt bad, all I said is I'd like for hunters to admit they like to kill instead of all the excuses they use for doing it. It'd not an emotional thing for me, I admit I liked to shoot and kill after I was taught to and I have done it. So hunters hunt for mice, and mosquitoes now? This topic is about hunters liking to kill, show me they don't, and if they don't, show me why they don't.

 Rationalizing why they kill isn't going to do it for me even if it is for game management.  Also I'm talking about avid hunters not those that do it because it is their job that may. or may not, like it or get a thrill out of it. I draw the line with the likes of Ted Nugent! Solitary

[Solitary]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is implicated in a breaking scandal, pushing for government funding of the Chinese green energy company ENN Mojave Energy LLC, which is apparently represented by his son. Earlier, Reid was involved in a land swindle that saw him make a reported $700,000. - See Las Vegas Review-Journal, August 3, 2012 and Media Matters, October 18, 2006

Harry Reid is a Democrat.  Harry Reid was caught using his position to enrich himself.  Therefore, all Democrats use their positions in government to enrich themselves.  

One hunter did something which others didn't like.  Therefore, all hunters are crazy wacko killers.  There is no need to investigate any further, one hunter did something which may be morally wrong in some people's minds, therefore it is only morally right to condemn all hunters.  After all, we know what is going through their minds better than they do.[/q

[Solitary]

Just for the record, all I said is that hunters like to kill, I never said they shouldn't or brought up the morality of it, in fact I said I did and enjoyed it. Why would you go out and kill if you didn't like it? You job, your duty? This topic is about one thing only---why don't hunters admit they like to kill? Morality, science, politicians, emotions, and animal husbandry has been brought up about the subject of hunters like to kill. Why, it's irrelevant to the  subject "they like to kill?" Solitary

[LikelyToBreak]

When I was hunting, I never liked to actually make the kill.  I enjoyed all the other stuff though.  But, you can't convince people who are against hunting, that it is not about making the kill.  It is about being in the outdoors, enjoying the technicalities of your weapon, learning about and observing nature, being able to prepare your own food.  And keeping calm cool and collected while concentrating on bringing everything you learned together to make the shot.  For just a few seconds having a Zen like mind completely devoted to the moment.  The actually killing always broke my heart a little.

Not that a anti-hunter would ever understand that.  Nor the hunters who do actually enjoy the killing.  People think differently about the same things.  It is just the way it is.

[Solitary]

When I was hunting, I never liked to actually make the kill.  I enjoyed all the other stuff though.  But, you can't convince people who are against hunting, that it is not about making the kill.  It is about being in the outdoors, enjoying the technicalities of your weapon, learning about and observing nature, being able to prepare your own food.  And keeping calm cool and collected while concentrating on bringing everything you learned together to make the shot.  For just a few seconds having a Zen like mind completely devoted to the moment.  The actually killing always broke my heart a little.

Not that a anti-hunter would ever understand that.  Nor the hunters who do actually enjoy the killing.  People think differently about the same things.  It is just the way it is.

You can't enjoy all of those things without killing? Why do you think I'm anti hunting, the posted article was not made by me but I agree about what it said about that particular hunter. All I said is that hunters like the thrill of killing and to admit it. Also I said I had to learn to like it by making the target a non sentient creature. If it broke your heart why did you keep doing it? Just for all the things you enjoyed that could still be enjoyed without the killing. Wouldn't that have been even more fun to just enjoy nature the way it is without the broken heart? Also feeling bad after the thrill of killing is a normal reaction, but it doesn't change that the kill was thrilling or exciting like shooting a target, what this topic is about and nothing more. Solitary

[LikelyToBreak]

Solitary wrote in part:

All I said is that hunters like the thrill of killing and to admit it.

I am sorry Solitary.  I just don't get it.  I hunted because I felt it was the responsible thing to do, to help manage animal populations.  Also, if I didn't kill the animal, how could I eat it?  Preparing and eating the animal I killed was part of the enjoyment of hunting.  I felt I was getting in touch with nature and our human history.

Also, I saw myself as helping in the conservation of America, with my hunting license fees and by gladly paying the extra tax on hunting and fishing equipment.

I know it would be easier and cheaper to go to a store and buy my meat already slaughtered and butchered, but that doesn't teach me much.  And dealing with a killing something is part of getting in touch with the real world.  Not a thrill for me.  I would be lying if I said it was.  I don't think I am alone in having this view.  Sorry you can't admit that there might be something more to something then you can understand.  Eating meat only when someone else has slaughtered the animal and then condemning those who do the actual slaughtering is hypocrisy.  So, unless you are a vegan, I would say you are a hypocrite.

I am not saying that all hunters are ethical and there are none who don't get a thrill from killing.  I am saying not all hunters get a thrill from killing.  And an ethical hunter puts down the animal as quickly as they can.  Even if that means shooting through the animals face to get a brain shot.

[billhilly]

Rationalizing why they kill isn't going to do it for me even if it is for game management.

No arguing with that.

[Solitary]

Solitary wrote in part:

All I said is that hunters like the thrill of killing and to admit it.

I am sorry Solitary.  I just don't get it.  I hunted because I felt it was the responsible thing to do, to help manage animal populations.  Also, if I didn't kill the animal, how could I eat it?  Preparing and eating the animal I killed was part of the enjoyment of hunting.  I felt I was getting in touch with nature and our human history.

Also, I saw myself as helping in the conservation of America, with my hunting license fees and by gladly paying the extra tax on hunting and fishing equipment.

I know it would be easier and cheaper to go to a store and buy my meat already slaughtered and butchered, but that doesn't teach me much.  And dealing with a killing something is part of getting in touch with the real world.  Not a thrill for me.  I would be lying if I said it was.  I don't think I am alone in having this view.  Sorry you can't admit that there might be something more to something then you can understand.  Eating meat only when someone else has slaughtered the animal and then condemning those who do the actual slaughtering is hypocrisy.  So, unless you are a vegan, I would say you are a hypocrite.

I am not saying that all hunters are ethical and there are none who don't get a thrill from killing.  I am saying not all hunters get a thrill from killing.  And an ethical hunter puts down the animal as quickly as they can.  Even if that means shooting through the animals face to get a brain shot.

So now we go out and kill to be taught and be responsible and do the good thing? Killing is a good thing when it prevents disease and starving when all the money spent could do better without killing? Should we do the good thing and kill people for the same reasoning because they are human animals? Again I am not against hunting for food, only people like you that take it off topic with rationalization and won't admit they got excited and a thrill out of shooting a gun or bow and arrow to kill even if they regret it or feel bad after. I never condemned anyone for hunting or killing animals for food, don't put words in my mouth!  All I said is that hunters enjoy the excitement and thrill of killing and admit it---why is that a problem for you to admit it? And why do you bring ethics into it when the topic is about the thrill of the kill? Also, I'm not saying all hunters are sadistic either by saying they get a thrill out of killing by a clean shot. I've always wanted to shoot an elephant in the face, what could be more exciting and thrilling knowing I made it quick and painless, and I could feel good by being so considerate after by rationalizing it?    Solitary

[Plu]

I'm pretty sure LikelyToBreak has been explaining how he doesn't enjoy killing anything. Unless you know he feels better than he does himself, you should probably accept that he feels how he feels.

[LikelyToBreak]

Solitary wrote in part:

All I said is that hunters enjoy the excitement and thrill of killing and admit it---why is that a problem for you to admit it?

Because I would be lying.  Just because you think I get a thrill out of it, doesn't make it so.  And I refuse to lie just to make someone else feel better about themselves.  Sorry, but I don't believe that lying leads to a better world.

The rest of what Solitary wrote doesn't make sense to me. It seems Solitary is referring to a slippery slope type of argument.  He is also seems to be saying that as long as some hunters get a thrill out of killing, that they all do.  Which I tried to show was illogical.  If someone used this same type of argument about a race, they would justifiably be called a racist.  Why can't Solitary admit that not all hunters are the same?

[Solitary]

Solitary wrote in part:

All I said is that hunters enjoy the excitement and thrill of killing and admit it---why is that a problem for you to admit it?

Because I would be lying.  Just because you think I get a thrill out of it, doesn't make it so.  And I refuse to lie just to make someone else feel better about themselves.  Sorry, but I don't believe that lying leads to a better world.

The rest of what Solitary wrote doesn't make sense to me. It seems Solitary is referring to a slippery slope type of argument.  He is also seems to be saying that as long as some hunters get a thrill out of killing, that they all do.  Which I tried to show was illogical.  If someone used this same type of argument about a race, they would justifiably be called a racist.  Why can't Solitary admit that not all hunters are the same?

And your appeal to the audience fallacy and that saying you don't lie about how you felt at the time of actually doing the act doesn't prove you didn't enjoy it either. Also taking it out of context with a Strawman fallacy by bringing race into it doesn't either. Also, the argument I made was about hunters that get a thrill out of the kill and won't admit it when they do. I never said all hunters are the same only that they get a thrill out of the kill and won't admit it. I admit all hunters are not the same, only the ones that get a thrill out of the kill and don't admit it. Solitary

Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we'll be doing something that we don't want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn't do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible. I never said a person should not hunt, only that they get a thrill out of the kill and won't admit it.

[LikelyToBreak]

Everyone who watches car races do so because they want to see someone die in a wreck.  Anybody who watches car races who doesn't admit to wanting to watch someone die in them is a liar.  Does that make sense?  Or could it be that some people enjoy watching what technology is capable of?  Maybe they are mechanics and enjoy the pitstops more than the race itself.  Or let's just go to a broad rationalization and say all car racing fans like to watch people die.

Maybe I am the only hunter ever who didn't get a thrill out of killing an animal.  That doesn't make me a liar because I say so.  It makes me the one white crow which proves that not all crows are black.  Or maybe I am such a good liar that I lie to myself so well that I don't even know it.  Could be, after all anything is possible.  There might very well be a flying spaghetti monster who rules the universe.  Can you prove otherwise?

As far as the slippery slope I referred to, it was because of this sentence Solitary wrote:

Should we do the good thing and kill people for the same reasoning because they are human animals?

I'll let others decide if that is a slippery slope argument or not.

[Solitary]

Everyone who watches car races do so because they want to see someone die in a wreck.  Anybody who watches car races who doesn't admit to wanting to watch someone die in them is a liar.  Does that make sense?  NO! Because some do and some don't, but they do like to see the wrecks. Or could it be that some people enjoy watching what technology is capable of?  Maybe they are mechanics and enjoy the pitstops more than the race itself. Again you arguing about why some people enjoy what they watch which has nothing to do with hunters getting pleasure from the kill. Or let's just go to a broad rationalization and say all car racing fans like to watch people die. That is a non sequitur fallacy and not true unless a person is a psychopath.  I think people get a thrill out of car wrecks even if they feel bad after if someone got killed, just like people  feel bad after they get a thrill while killing and feel bad after if they have any compassion for the animal.  

Maybe I am the only hunter ever who didn't get a thrill out of killing an animal.  That doesn't make me a liar because I say so.  It makes me the one white crow which proves that not all crows are black. No, it only proves you have no idea how you feel at the moment of the kill. I never said you lied, only that you haven't really answered why you can't enjoy all the things you do in nature without the kill. Eat the game, you kill still don't explain why you don't get a thrill or enjoy it at the moment it happens. You keep making it sound like I'm against hunting or don't understand all the reasons to go hunting which has nothing to do with the killing. Or maybe I am such a good liar that I lie to myself so well that I don't even know it.  Could be, after all anything is possible.  There might very well be a flying spaghetti monster who rules the universe.  Can you prove otherwise? No! And I can't prove what are facts with logic either, only give my opinion just like you. But I can prove an argument is not so if the terms are agreed upon as facts if the argument isn't sound.  

As far as the slippery slope I referred to, it was because of this sentence Solitary wrote:

Should we do the good thing and kill people for the same reasoning because they are human animals?

I'll let others decide if that is a slippery slope argument or not.

Appeal to the gallery or poisoning the well doesn't help prove you are correct no matter how many people agree with you that are biased hunters. You don't understand it is the same argument you are using to do good by killing animals that aren't human if they will starve to death---again, this is not what the argument is about---using rationalization to justify why you hunt doesn't prove you don't get a thrill out of the kill.

Why would you feel bad after if it didn't effect you emotionally when you did it? Are you only unemotional when you fire a shot at a target or make a clean kill? You are the only hunter I have heard that doesn't get excited by the kill. So maybe you don't, but I doubt it very much you don't feel a rush of adrenalin when you fire your gun or bow and kill. I really didn't mean to get you upset, but when a person celebrates after they kill something I have a problem when they say the kill wasn't a thrill when I have yet to see a hunter that wasn't excited by his hunt only if he succeeded.  Solitary

[Eric1958]

I know there are a number of cat lovers on this forum. Over the years I've seen quite a few cats hunt shrews. A long time ago I also kept chickens and one day my cat was playing with a shrew. I was so impressed with the brave of the shrew that I picked up the cat so the little devil could escape. He ran straight into the chicken yard. It had never occurred to me that chickens might be omnivorous. I'd always assumed they were vegetarian, but no, the first chicken to spot the shrew picked him up in her beak and started running. Every chicken in the yard hot on her tail. She dropped it and a second later another chicken had it and was off.

I should have just let the cat have it. I can only imagine the horror of that shrews last minutes with 15 different chickens fighting over it.

A little off topic, I know, but it makes me laugh to remember that incident. I don't hunt, but a lot of people up here do and it's part of our nature.

[Plu]

Should we do the good thing and kill people for the same reasoning because they are human animals?

I think we call that "war".