Trophy Hunting Good?!

[notimportant1234]

Benny sayed it was no difference , I want some arguments for that.

[Amarok]

Benny sayed it was no difference , I want some arguments for that.

Their is a clear difference but like Symbolism , Gender issues, and White nationalism Benny does not get it.

[notimportant1234]

Benny sayed it was no difference , I want some arguments for that.

Their is a clear difference but like Symbolism , Gender issues, and White nationalism Benny does not get it.

It is one thing to state your opinion but enitrely wrong to judge people from a subjective point of view on a matter.

[Aroura]

If animals kill each other for food, how is it that men is imoral for  killing an animal for food ?

Animals also rape each other.  Does that make rape moral? Animals kill their own kind.  Does that make murder moral?
Animals don't have morals or philosophy.  Humans do.

[notimportant1234]

If animals kill each other for food, how is it that men is imoral for  killing an animal for food ?

Animals also rape each other.  Does that make rape moral? Animals kill their own kind.  Does that make murder moral?
Animals don't have morals or philosophy.  Humans do.

That was not the point , but be my guest and show me how it is imoral to kill animals for food ?

[Aroura]

Their is a clear difference but like Symbolism , Gender issues, and White nationalism Benny does not get it.

It is one thing to state your opinion but enitrely wrong to judge people from a subjective point of view on a matter.

He didn't state it subjectively.  As a matter of fact, he said it wasn't immoral if there was a necessity for meat, such as dietary requirements.  I would also add that those who live where one must hunt to survive.

It is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering.  Most people would agree on that, at least to some extent.
That's why we hate trophy hunting, including you, because it is unnecessary, no other reason.  Someone is killing an animal for no good reason.  And in most of the developed world, you don't need to eat them either.  You like eating them, but you don't need to.  So it starts to look the same.  It causes unnecessary suffering.

---

Animals also rape each other.  Does that make rape moral? Animals kill their own kind.  Does that make murder moral?
Animals don't have morals or philosophy.  Humans do.

That was not the point , but be my guest and show me  how it is imoral to kill animals for food ?

See above.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

My brain can't calculate how a coward with a gun shooting at an animal from far away can even be considered a hunter. I agree with Min, pussy shits like that just want to feel like a big man. If you want to hunt for sport use your bare hands, make weapons from sticks and stones, or set traps, now that would be impressive. Benny gave a good point though, at least it's possible to profit off of these fragile egos so that the younger animals can survive. It's very sad though, I think after many years the only animals that will manage to survive will be dogs, cats and possibly other animals with demand on their meat.

[notimportant1234]

It is one thing to state your opinion but enitrely wrong to judge people from a subjective point of view on a matter.

He didn't state it subjectively.  As a matter of fact, he said it wasn't immoral if there was a necessity for meat, such as dietary requirements.  I would also add that those who live where one must hunt to survive.

It is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering.  Most people would agree on that, at least to some extent.
That's why we hate trophy hunting, including you, because it is unnecessary, no other reason.  Someone is killing an animal for no good reason.  And in most of the developed world, you don't need to eat them either.  You like eating them, but you don't need to.  So it starts to look the same.  It causes unnecessary suffering.

---

That was not the point , but be my guest and show me  how it is imoral to kill animals for food ?

See above.

Yeah but there is another side to this , many animals are raised just for the purpose of supplying meat , without that purpouse they wouldn't have existed ( I'm not reffering to the species ) , that puts a sign question above the imorality of killing animals .

[Aroura]

He didn't state it subjectively.  As a matter of fact, he said it wasn't immoral if there was a necessity for meat, such as dietary requirements.  I would also add that those who live where one must hunt to survive.

It is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering.  Most people would agree on that, at least to some extent.
That's why we hate trophy hunting, including you, because it is unnecessary, no other reason.  Someone is killing an animal for no good reason.  And in most of the developed world, you don't need to eat them either.  You like eating them, but you don't need to.  So it starts to look the same.  It causes unnecessary suffering.

---

See above.

Yeah but there is another side to this , many animals are raised just for the purpose of supplying meat , without that purpouse they wouldn't have existed ( I'm not reffering to the species ) , that puts a sign question above the imorality of killing animals .

What?

So, if I cause something to exist, then anything I do to it at that point is acceptable??

Or if not, what exactly is your point because I'm not getting it.

(also note I used subjective wrong.  Yes, I think he is saying, and I know I am saying that it is subjectively immoral, because it depends on the circumstances. We are not stating it objectively).

---

Another side note:
I ate meat. I've made all these argument myself in the past.
We raise them for this purpose.
We are omnivorous by nature.
I've killed my own meat. I grew up on a farm. We slaughtered our own chickens and turkeys, and had our pigs and rabbits slaughtered.

None of these arguments stand up to any scrutiny once you actually look at them.

[notimportant1234]

What?

So, if I cause something to exist, then anything I do to it at that point is acceptable??

Or if not, what exactly is your point because I'm not getting it.

(also note I used subjective wrong.  Yes, I think he is saying, and I know I am saying that it is subjectively immoral, because it depends on the circumstances. We are not stating it objectively).

---

Another side note:
I ate meat.  I've made all these argument myself in the past.
We raise them for this purpose.
We are omnivorous by nature.
I've killed my own meat.  I grew up on a farm.  We slaughtered our own chickens and turkeys, and had our pigs and rabbits slaughtered.

None of these arguments stand up to any scrutiny once you actually look at them.

Well , not everything , cruelty against animals is just plane wrong and irational. But for the pourpouse of getting food it gets more complicated.

1. As you sayed , we are omnivourous by nature soo than imorality is questioned again. Of course we are counciouss beeings but that just lets us decide for ourselfs if we want to eat meat or not, it can't be imoral because of that .

2 As for the unnecesary suffering there are ways to kill an animal without makeing him suffer, many people don't do that but that isn't the point.

3 Every life form on this planet has a pourpouse, soo how can we be sure that some animals aren't ment just for our nourishment ?

Edit: I'm just trying to say that in order for something to be imoral it needs to have some well estabileshed reasons.