4 ms·

I am pro-hunting. But this isn’t a good argument. 1) equivocating hunting with breathing? One is necessary for life, the other is done by less than a quarter o

I am pro-hunting. But this isn’t a good argument. 1) equivocating hunting with breathing? One is necessary for life, the other is done by less than a quarter of people, and for most of them it’s just a hobby. 2) slavery has also been done probably since humanity began millions of years ago, so that clearly is not sufficient for something shoulding be legal.

carlosjobim 2y ago
Hunting is just as necessary for life as breathing. Domestication of animals and agriculture are the unnatural ways that man has invented. So banning it is banning the most natural human behaviour. All other predators do nothing except hunt, breathe, drink, sleep and mate. And they don't keep slaves. There's a lot of people who never drink water, but drinking water is still essential and shouldn't be outlawed.
- mathieuh 2y ago
  That doesn't make any sense. What makes hunting any more natural than agriculture? Isn't exerting control over our environment one of the defining characteristics of humanity?
  - Drakim 2y ago
    That's an odd view, were hunter-gatherers less human than us?
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    It is more natural because creatures in nature do it. Together with mating, hunting is one of the foundations of life itself for the predator or omnivore class of animals. All the behaviours that we have in common with other mammals are natural and eternal. They can never be legislated away, even though many have tried and they have died. Including kings trying to ban hunting certain game for commoners and having them for themselves.
    - adolph 2y ago
      "Creatures in nature" also "farm" and have symbiotic and/or co-evolutionary relationships with other species. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20630-zoologger-the-first-non-human-meat-farmers/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20630-zoologger-the-f...
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
        That's an uninteresting reach, isn't it?
        adolph 2y ago
        >>> What makes hunting any more natural than agriculture? >> It is more natural because creatures in nature do it. > "Creatures in nature" also "farm" Thus "hunting" is not "more natural" than agriculture and domestication of other species. If you don't find it interesting that non-human life has been performing behaviors humans think unique to themselves, well that's your problem.
    - hombre_fatal 2y ago
      > It is more natural because creatures in nature do it. All the behaviours that we have in common with other mammals are natural and eternal. They can never be legislated away We outlaw all sorts of things that can be found in nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)
  - lukas099 2y ago
    Additionally, “natural” =/= “necessary to life”. Millions if not billions of people have the means to hunt if they wanted to, yet choose not to. And they are just fine.

carlosjobim 2y ago

Hunting is just as necessary for life as breathing. Domestication of animals and agriculture are the unnatural ways that man has invented. So banning it is banning the most natural human behaviour. All other predators do nothing except hunt, breathe, drink, sleep and mate. And they don't keep slaves. There's a lot of people who never drink water, but drinking water is still essential and shouldn't be outlawed.

mathieuh 2y ago
That doesn't make any sense. What makes hunting any more natural than agriculture? Isn't exerting control over our environment one of the defining characteristics of humanity?
- Drakim 2y ago
  That's an odd view, were hunter-gatherers less human than us?
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  It is more natural because creatures in nature do it. Together with mating, hunting is one of the foundations of life itself for the predator or omnivore class of animals. All the behaviours that we have in common with other mammals are natural and eternal. They can never be legislated away, even though many have tried and they have died. Including kings trying to ban hunting certain game for commoners and having them for themselves.
  - adolph 2y ago
    "Creatures in nature" also "farm" and have symbiotic and/or co-evolutionary relationships with other species. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20630-zoologger-the-first-non-human-meat-farmers/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20630-zoologger-the-f...
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      That's an uninteresting reach, isn't it?
      - adolph 2y ago
        >>> What makes hunting any more natural than agriculture? >> It is more natural because creatures in nature do it. > "Creatures in nature" also "farm" Thus "hunting" is not "more natural" than agriculture and domestication of other species. If you don't find it interesting that non-human life has been performing behaviors humans think unique to themselves, well that's your problem.
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    > It is more natural because creatures in nature do it. All the behaviours that we have in common with other mammals are natural and eternal. They can never be legislated away We outlaw all sorts of things that can be found in nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)
- lukas099 2y ago
  Additionally, “natural” =/= “necessary to life”. Millions if not billions of people have the means to hunt if they wanted to, yet choose not to. And they are just fine.