Hunting

[Drofder2004]

The only problem with explosives is that most of them make shrapnel, which flies into various areas of your target, making it hard to get out of the meat. It would be easier to just stick with your pitchfork VATS system and spade.

Hmm, good point about the shrapnel. How about using something like gumballs or small gobstoppers. They are quite solid and yet edible. The spade is only good for helping me carry the meat back.

That would work fine, except I would question the lethality since I've never personally seen a gobstopper grenade or the effects of one going off. I would imagine it would be like molten/burned specks of candy flying into everything in all directions within 15 meters of it, and I would guess that it would be quite deadly.

With all that burning sugar, I can have myself a caramelised meat desert.
I have set my alarm for 3am (usually about the time the meat appears in London).

[Soviet]

You're using a weapon that fires a piece of metal 300 times faster than the fastest animal on Earth can travel, capable of killing almost any creature in a single hit. Furthermore, you're firing that piece of metal from a distance where the animal can't hear you, can't see you, really can't do anything but die. Plus, as if all that isn't enough, you make sure you hunt rabbits, deer, and other small game, just to be sure that you can't get hurt by them even if they are aggressive. The only difference between hunting animals for fun and tying up animals and shooting them in the head is that one is considered fun and a game.

Also, I don't condone killing people, and I hate people. People are horrible. If I don't condone that, why the hell would I support the killing of animals for any purpose other than that which nature carries out?

[Shinryu]

Can't say I approve shooting animals myself. If you have to kill a small harmless animal, at least make it challenging (Beat a rabbit with a mousepad until it falls unconcious or goes apeshit on you? )

Hmm... If I had to shoot something, it'd be Justin Bieber. I doubt anyone who matters would disapprove of that
Can't say he's got much meat to bring back though.

(Whoever takes this seriously makes my day )

[Hoogie]

Neutral: An animal may suffer more or less than hunting them.

Only the Halal way they suffer and i strongly disprove that aswell.

And the fact you say hunting can be fun proofs to me i don't have to take you seriously.

[[SoE]_Zaitsev]

We've had a discussion like this a couple of months ago and Hoogie was strong against it (And so am I).

If I were asked to go on a hunt I would decline.

But sometimes it's needed due to too much of a certain type of animals where they cause trouble. I remember an overpopulation of swines back on the 'Veluwe' in Holland a while ago.

But isn't fishing even worse than hunting ? I think it hurts pretty bad if those hooks are stuck in your throats even though I've heared lots of times that fish can't feel a thing. But yeh... Somebody has to do it since we do need our meat, difficult discussion if you ask me.

Hunting purely for fun is just not cool at all.

[Hoogie]

It's not the fact that the animals i killed i'm against. It's the way the animals die.

And "thinning out their numbers" is such bullshit.

[cianw1]

Drofder, i never know if your being serious or not killing with gumball grenades?? haha

And Soviet, in the apple v windows discussion you where saying i was using pointless info vs valid facts? it seems its the other way around now. isnt it better than the animals do not know you are there? that they are killed before knowing anything? or would you prefer us to run at them and beat them to death with our fists?

[Soviet]

I would prefer you run out there and beat them with your fists. At least then it would create a fighting chance for the helpless animals. In hunting you are taking on the actions of a predator hunting an inferior species. However, humans no longer have the necessity to hunt thanks to technology as previously mentioned.

Take a cheetah for instance, if it has eaten it doesn't go around and kill other antelope. In fact, it will hang out next to them without attacking from time to time assuming it has eaten. Any other creature in nature operates the same way, except for humans. We are the only beings that kill for purposes other than food. It isn't natural in any way and contradicts the idea of nature.

Also, thinning out their numbers is bullshit. Any ecosystem will eventually arrive at an equilibrium, regardless of circumstance. The only exception to that is human impact on an environment. Therefore, the only reason to 'thin out numbers' is to cause stability in an ecosystem we have already destabilized. In other words, we fuck up their place to live and then go out and shoot them to fix the problem.

[cianw1]

You said it yourself. they are 'helpless' animals. what fighting chance does a rabbit have against a human, regardles if the human is using fists or firearms?

Thinning numbers certainly IS NOT bs, if you were a farmer and you had an 'infestation' of rabbits on your farm; and they were digging holes over the place, making holes in your fences and eating your crops what would you do? You would be out of buisness and out of home if you didnt 'thin their numbers'.

[Soviet]

They can run away. What point are you even trying to make in that statement, if anything you're supporting my point, both through your blatant ignorance and acknowledgment of the helplessness of said animals.

That isn't hunting, that is trapping and protecting your property from an infestation. They don't go out with a gun dressed up in camo and systematically kill the nicest looking rabbits, they guard their property and their food. Also, I highly doubt you're a farmer or protecting your crops.

[Infinite]

Neutral: An animal may suffer more or less than hunting them.

Only the Halal way they suffer and i strongly disprove that aswell.

And the fact you say hunting can be fun proofs to me i don't have to take you seriously.

The fact that you have almost nothing to say back to me also proves to me that I don't have to take you seriously.

I would prefer you run out there and beat them with your fists. At least then it would create a fighting chance for the helpless animals. In hunting you are taking on the actions of a predator hunting an inferior species. However, humans no longer have the necessity to hunt thanks to technology as previously mentioned.

Take a cheetah for instance, if it has eaten it doesn't go around and kill other antelope. In fact, it will hang out next to them without attacking from time to time assuming it has eaten. Any other creature in nature operates the same way, except for humans. We are the only beings that kill for purposes other than food. It isn't natural in any way and contradicts the idea of nature.

Also, thinning out their numbers is bullshit. Any ecosystem will eventually arrive at an equilibrium, regardless of circumstance. The only exception to that is human impact on an environment. Therefore, the only reason to 'thin out numbers' is to cause stability in an ecosystem we have already destabilized. In other words, we fuck up their place to live and then go out and shoot them to fix the problem.

I agreed with this until you reached the last paragraph. Thinning out numbers is an excellent way to ensure that nature is equal, and that includes "thinning out" people. We'll be facing an overpopulation problem soon because of technology and medicine advancing, and unless we somehow find out how to create matter, we're pretty much fucked as a whole race.

[Soviet]

That's true for humans because humans don't abide by the constraints of nature. However, animals do. If there are too many animals the animals will starve or slow down reproduction to cope with the lack of resources available. I semi-agree with your point.

[Drofder2004]

Funniest thread ever, and I don't even have to post any more.

[Hoogie]

The fact that you have almost nothing to say back to me also proves to me that I don't have to take you seriously.

Already made my point so nothing else to say. I let Soviet take over cause he's a lot better in English.

[Rezil]

Already made my point so nothing else to say. I let Soviet take over cause he's a lot better in English.