Bird, so stuff like duck and phaesant? Of course I'm all for it, I ain't nuts. Hunting is noble and necessary.
Ryudo said: I'm against hunting period |
You're all for this then?
Bird, so stuff like duck and phaesant? Of course I'm all for it, I ain't nuts. Hunting is noble and necessary.
Ryudo said: I'm against hunting period |
You're all for this then?
LemonSlice said: Bird, so stuff like duck and phaesant? Of course I'm all for it, I ain't nuts. Hunting is noble and necessary.
You're all for this then? |
Nope.
If the purpose isn't to eat them than yeah it's vile.
Boutros said: If the purpose isn't to eat them than yeah it's vile. |
It's hunting. There isn't just one purpose, but the game is always eaten.
JazzB1987 said: I am for bird hunting If I am also allowed to do human hunting. |
'Race' is simply a way of categorizing the unique factors that make a group stand out. The differences between most of the 'races' amoung humans might be entirely superficial or social, but those variations do exists, thus races do (and in turn racism). A hawk and a robin both being birds doesn't mean we don't often refer to them as separate things. The differences between humans may be substantially less significant, but that doesn't make them non-existent.
I'd agree with anyone that said our categorizing of people into races encourages targeted social hate, but the simple act of categorizing isn't something most people can help. It's the foundation of our social structure (and has been since before we were even homo sapiens). What we can do is encourage the mentality that those differences are irrelevant to us as people, even if they're still there. Changing what we call it won't accomplish that.
On a side note, doesn't antisemitism usually refer to just Jews? :p It's also widely considered to be a form of racism (rather than something separate). 'Race' is a very broad term.
OT: Depends on the context. If it's not an endangered species and the end goal is to eat the bird, then while it's not something i'd personally partake in, i don't see any real issue with it (even as a sport). As a meat eater, i don't think i'm really in a position to say others. However, killing for the sake of killing is not something i can agree with. It's a waist of life.
I've always found it ironic that it's alright to kill animals for sport, but if an animal does it to a human then it becomes a huge problem. Obviously humans are biased, but hey it's a two way street folks. You reap what you sow.
Tbh, I'm against any kind of hunting unless it's done to survive.
RCTjunkie said: If it's not endangered, why not? |
because those are migrating birds. thats just not cool.
How could you kill these birds?
My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first.
generic-user-1 said:
|
I personally fail to see what migrating has to do with shooting them. If the population is still strongly intact and there's no scientific studies showing any ecological harm in hunting them, I don't see why we have to ban people from hunting them.