Donald trumps Sons hunting photos

reply to post by TKDRL


It's not about being "superior", it's about respecting other species and pointing it out when other humans don't..

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I have to say I do like your sense of humor. Your last two posts had me in stitches.

You're not the first to tell me I'm a little twisted, and probably won't be the last.

I had someone tell me once that I had a "British" sense of humor, but I thumped him for insulting Brits like that!

Also, I am not squeemish at all. I have eaten dear, bear, rabbit, squirrel, pheasant.....and I think that is it so far either killed by myself or friends whom I was with at the time and eaten. Well...the bear was killed by my uncle.

Anyway, if the animals are not in danger then I say "what the hell"......I concede.

Fair enough. I've eaten all that and such oddball things as snakes, turtles, woodchucks (had to kill 'em for the farmers so that the cattle didn't break their legs in the den holes, and refused to waste them after I'd gone to the trouble of killing them) and "grampuses", which look like giant spring salamanders and live in rivers - they call them "hellbenders" in some places. I wasn't kidding when I said that I'd eat anything that didn't eat me first.

I won't bother endangered animals, either, unless they bother me first. Keep in mind, however, that a lot of animals listed as "endangered" in one listing or another are more endangered by the protection than they are by the hunters, because of the lack of natural enemies created by various imbalances - some times over-hunting of predators, sometimes encroachment of farming destroying habitat, that sort of thing. Vegetarians do their part to insure deaths of species the same as hunters do, because them veggies have to be grown on land that was once habitat for something else.

What is endangered "here" may not be endangered at all "over there", and may in fact constitute a nuisance and a danger - to it's own and to other species.

Balance must be had, and one way or another balance WILL be had, either through starvation or a bullet.

ETA: I'll give an example of what I mean by "over protection". My dad grew up in West Virginia. When he was growing up, it was extremely rare to see a deer around there. Through really tight conservation laws, the deer population rebounded. Now you can't hardly throw a rock off of your front porch without hitting one. I go visit there every few years, and never fail to see 15 or 20 over any ten mile stretch of road. I can recall laying on my belly in the woods and watching a herd of them for 45 minutes or an hour, and counting 34 deer in that one herd. I've seen as many as 20 grazing in someone's YARD in broad daylight. Paradoxically, WV is still hell on wheels on their conservation laws with strict limits, hard penalties, and the like, and there are few or NO natural predators left to cull those herds. Panthers are a rarity still, and Fish and Game - or whatever the equivalent is up there - claims there are NONE, in spite of the occasional sighting. Whatever, there are not nearly enough - whether none of just damned few - to cull the herds. I've also found does and yearlings laying dead of starvation in low mast years. That balance I spoke of will be reached, one way or the other. I have to think that if it weren't for the poachers, the problem would be much worse - and that if WV would revisit their laws, there might not be such a need for poaching to begin with.

Over-protection and fear of endangerment can kill just as surely as a bullet, but it does it more slowly, and with more suffering.

edit on 2012/3/16 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

The balance you talk about, I don't see that with the human population. When will that come into play? Something to think about next time someone kills another Elephant, who are not predators for humans. Of which is the whole point of this discussion, since person in question is in a photo holding up the tail of a slaughtered elephant with the knife he cut the tail off with.

reply to post by joejj


For some people sure. Some preachy people, talk down to others, acting like they are high and mighty because they don't eat meat. Life lives off of life, that is how it goes. If you choose not to hunt and or eat meat, that is your choice, doesn't make you a better person.

Some of us are not healthy without meat, I am one of them. I had a vegan girlfriend once, I gave it a shot for about 6 months, my health deteriorated rapidly, where as she seemed to do OK on the same diet.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by joejj

 

For some people sure. Some preachy people, talk down to others, acting like they are high and mighty because they don't eat meat. Life lives off of life, that is how it goes. If you choose not to hunt and or eat meat, that is your choice, doesn't make you a better person.

Some of us are not healthy without meat, I am one of them. I had a vegan girlfriend once, I gave it a shot for about 6 months, my health deteriorated rapidly, where as she seemed to do OK on the same diet.

Of course life lives off life. But eating lower on the food chain is the most ethical way to live on Earth bottom line. Does it make one person bettter than another? No. But pointing out the absurdities when people try to justify eating higher on the food chain, or even worse killing for the fun of it in the name of "conservation" doesn't make one "preachy", just pointing out facts.

As with any diet, meat or vegetarian, it's what you eat, not what you don't eat. The food for one person may not work for another, due to allergies, sensitivities, etc. If your vegan diet contained gluten, soy, corn, excessive amounts of grains, etc.and you are allergic to any of those, then you might not do well on it. If your diet consisted of french fries, bagels, and Peanut Chews, then you're really not going to do well, meat included or not. Meat is not the source for sustenance, it doesn't have anything in it you can't get from plant sources. As science has proven time and time again, a whole foods plant-based diet is the best diet for humans, plain and simple. See books like Eat To Live, The Osteoporosis Solution, etc. for more info.

reply to post by tovenar


it has to do with his justification of killing those animals. There are countless other things he can do to "preserve wildlife and habitat" than hunting; his quote is an oxymoron.

reply to post by jibeho


Slavery was legal in the U.S. 150 years ago; implying that something is ok because it's legal makes no sense, especially on this forum.

reply to post by joejj


We are top of the food chain, no matter what we eat, we are eating lower food chain foods.....

reply to post by phishfriar47


Our bodies do need protein, but it's not necessary to get it from animal flesh. All essential amino acids are found in plant foods, FYI. "Feral instinct of humans" is subjective; over 90% of the population doesn't go out and kill animals or humans to take care of some imaginary need. When one human kills another, or other species, it's behavioral not instinctual, just like when a chimpanzee kills another being, chimp or otherwise (who share 98% of our DNA). So that is a moot point. And if someone feels need to kill another being to boost morale or confidence, then someone has a psychological dysfunction, sorry to say. "It's legal". When are people going to stop using silly and absurd justifications? How many things have been "legal" in the U.S. alone since its incarnation, let alone in other societies? Slavery, cannibalism, human sacrifice... the list goes on. Just because something is "legal" makeis it ethically ok? If it becomes 'legal" tomorrow for me to hunt and kill your dog, and then eat it, with no allowance for you to defend your pets, does that make it ok? If not, then think about this: there is no difference between that and killing a family member of a group of elephants. Don't believe elephants have the capacity to grasp the same emotions and feelings as humans? (Or any other species for that matter) Look into it if you choose to, and make your own judgement of what should be "legal" and what shouldn't be.
Just stating facts and pointing out absurdities, not "enforcing my views" on you.
"DENY IGNORANCE" as the header of this site says.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by joejj

 

We are top of the food chain, no matter what we eat, we are eating lower food chain foods.....

Obviously; I'm talking about eating on the lowest end of the food chain, i.e. oxygen producing non-mobile organisms, if you want to get technical.

Originally posted by maybee
But hunting just for sport or trophy is imo pretty stupid.

I love it when people say hunting for sport. IMO more accurate statement would be "hunting for the enjoyment of killing".

You want to make Hunting into a sport than add other hunters into the mix and let them target each other.

Either wise, its just as much as a sport as going to the mall and shooting people who are unknowingly being hunted.

It must be really challenging for the hunter to shoot an animal that doesn't even know that a high velocity riffle is pointed at him. I wonder how far away he was with his sniper riffle.

There really is no valid reason on why they are killing these poor animals.

Who actually eats big cats?
It makes me physically sick to see how proud they are for the kills.

reply to post by joejj


I have always eaten a healthy balanced diet, I eat "snackfoods" once a month at most. I tried all the fancy plant protein, didn't seem to work. Maybe if i had a sit on your butt kind of job, but I do hard manual labour. Meat is an essential part of my health.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by joejj

 

I have always eaten a healthy balanced diet, I eat "snackfoods" once a month at most. I tried all the fancy plant protein, didn't seem to work. Maybe if i had a sit on your butt kind of job, but I do hard manual labour. Meat is an essential part of my health.

I don't eat anything that would be considered "fancy plant protein" (I don't even know what that would be?) I do know beans and nuts are some of the best sources, and those are two of the most simple foods available. I've been vegan for over 15 years, do plenty of manual labor, do vigorous exercise for at least one to two hours a day for at least four days a week, and am in better shape than most 20 year olds, including having as much muscle mass as I did twenty years ago when I ate meat and lifted weights. It's all about what you eat, not what you don't eat. And consuming meat is not an essential factor for anyone's health; all you need to do is a little nutritional research to see that. I've done plenty, and there isn't a single reason to eat it, but plenty of reasons not to.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by joejj

 

We are top of the food chain, no matter what we eat, we are eating lower food chain foods.....

Not to split hairs again but what about sharks, tigers, lions, crocodiles, etc, etc.? They eat plenty of humans each year. Are they still lower on the food chain than we are?

I think the poster has a point of not eating predators. Animals who eat other animals who eat meat are more prone to prion diseases I hear.

Originally posted by joejj
reply to post by havok

 

150 years ago I was free to enslave another human based on the color of his skin; being "legal" doesn't make anything ethically right.

You keep carrying on about life 150 years ago - so build a time machine and go live your fantasy. We're talking about here and now, not "150 years ago".

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by joejj
reply to post by havok

 

150 years ago I was free to enslave another human based on the color of his skin; being "legal" doesn't make anything ethically right.

You keep carrying on about life 150 years ago - so build a time machine and go live your fantasy. We're talking about here and now, not "150 years ago".

Ha, ha, ha thanks for giving me a laugh. And completely missing the point of what I was saying. I'm using it as an example, not pining away for the past. Do you wish slavery still existed? Not me. That's why I'm talking about the present time.
"DENY IGNORANCE" as the header of this site states.

Originally posted by joejj

Based of of statements made by the person in question via twitter, here's a little rebuttal to his "justification": Instead of hunting animals for fees that go to "preserve" them, how about donating the money to preserving them?
That would fare a little better in keeping species alive. Simple logic. And donate to help establish sustainable farming practices for the indigenous population. Oh, wait that's too boring for him.

So rather than culling them and keeping populations at sustainable levels, you would prefer destroying habitat in favor of farming ans watch them starve to death? Yeah. that's a great plan. Very humane. What about when the animals start starving and destroy the crops for human use by eating them? What have you got planned for that conflict? Wholesale slaughter? that's what you need to plan on, because that will be what happens, whether at the hands of the farmers killing them, or of Mother Nature starving them.

And pointing it out doesn't make someone wrong, even if they don't have countless $$ at their disposal to take inter-continental vacations that involve murdering other species in the name of "preserving animals and habitat."

Murder by definition cannot involve any species other than human. They are not charged with murder when they kill us, we cannot be charged with murder when we kill them. "Murder" is defined as an intentional, unjustifiable, homicide. They key for this discussion is "homicide". "Homicide" is the killing of another human.

"Over population" of a species is subjective; try putting those millions in his family where his mouth is and buying up and preserving the land to help prevent the government from feeling the need to cull any species. Now that would be really "preserving animals and habitat."

That leaves no room for your farming scenario then.

If he really "loves wildlife", he'd show it by protecting it, not destroying it.

I love wildlife. it's very tasty.

Originally posted by joejj

There are bodybuilders who are vegan; animal protein is not essential for muscle maintenance or building, or any form of athletic body conditioning. All essential amino acids are found in plant foods, and usually more accessible by the body.

baloney. I've have never, in my entire life, met a vegetarian who was not sickly, pale, and weak.

What the hell is a "vegan"? Someone from Vega?

Originally posted by joejj
And consuming meat is not an essential factor for anyone's health;

Speak for yourself.

I have a blood sugar issue that only regulates when I eat beef. Why? I don't know.

I've tried for 40 years to get off the "red meat". But - I'm not fond of the Bi-Polar episodes when I don't keep it regulated (without meds - diet only).

I do have it down to every 3 days.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by joejj

There are bodybuilders who are vegan; animal protein is not essential for muscle maintenance or building, or any form of athletic body conditioning. All essential amino acids are found in plant foods, and usually more accessible by the body.

baloney. I've have never, in my entire life, met a vegetarian who was not sickly, pale, and weak.

What the hell is a "vegan"? Someone from Vega?

They do tend to look different. Kind of passive and pasty.

And they still have to take supplements to prevent health issues that arise from lack of protein.

It can be done - - but there is a lot to it - - other then just not eating meat.