# Matt Hughes defends hunting hobby - " The law and the bible say I can"



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

> They can think whatever they want. But as far as, by the law, I’m right. You can’t see anything in the Bible [that says I'm wrong]. By the law and by the Bible, I’ve not done anything wrong. And if I haven’t conflicted with either one of those, I can live my life the way I want to. That’s my answer. When you go to Africa, I had to pay to shoot these animals. But, when you kill an animal, you get the hide and the horns. All the meat stays with the outfitter and it feeds the people there. So I wasn’t entitled to any of the meat. I shot six animals: kudu, gemsbok, eland, red hartebeest, black wildebeest, blue wildebeest. [My son] shot a kudu, gemsbok, zebra, impala, and bushbuck. So, we had a great time. It was a great bonding moment. He’s 13 years old, so of course he’s never going to forget this. And he can’t wait to go back to Africa sometime.”
> 
> Avid huntsmen, Matt Hughes, recently took part in MMAFighting.com’s “The MMA Hour.”
> 
> ...












http://www.bjpenn.com/hughes-defends-hunting-practices-the-law-the-bible-say-i-can-ufc-news/

Matt trying to tell us he went all the way to Africa to help out the locales, lol. Sure you did Matt. You went to Africa because you're a twisted fck who enjoys killing beautiful animals.

I'd shove his gun up his own ass and pull the trigger till it goes click click.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Well if the law says he's not doing anything wrong, then, well.....

I guess that's all there is to it.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> Well if the law says he's not doing anything wrong, then, well.....
> 
> I guess that's all there is to it.


Not sure if serious.


----------



## footodors (Aug 26, 2007)

liberal whiner alert!!!!
liberal whiner alert!!!!
liberal whiner alert!!!!


----------



## knowbody (Oct 27, 2012)

It isn't like Hughes is a poacher so I don't think it is fair to blast him, but killing animals is something I have no interest in at all (it repulses).


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

GrappleRetarded said:


> Not sure if serious.


What is there to be confused about?

If it's hunting season, then he's done nothing wrong and quite frankly, unless you're a vegetarian you really don't have the room to criticize him considering what goes in a slaughter house is much, much worse than putting a bullet in a deer's head and being done with it, from that quote it sounds like they fed the people the animal. Which I have no problem with.

I'm not sure how hunting is looked at in Manchester but in North Carolina it's quite common.


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

I don't really have problems with people hunting, but I just hate when they do it and waste all the food. I hope some village was able to benefit from all the hunting he did in Africa, since its not like he can take the meat home.

The difference between someone like Brock who is a hunter, he eats everything he kills.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

Oh no! A hunter has killed a non-endangered animal legally and with a minimum of suffering! What a monster!

Or this could just be liberal whining bs. I'm betting on the latter.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

I hope Hughes experiences a hunting "accident" sometime soon. Meaning I hope someone he hunts with accidently shoots him in the neck.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> What is there to be confused about?
> 
> If it's hunting season, then he's done nothing wrong and quite frankly, unless you're a vegetarian you really don't have the room to criticize him considering what goes in a slaughter house is much, much worse than putting a bullet in a deer's head and being done with it, from that quote it sounds like they fed the people the animal. Which I have no problem with.
> 
> I'm not sure how hunting is looked at in Manchester but in North Carolina it's quite common.


Hughes wasn't hunting these animals for food or to feed the locales, (even though he implies that's what he went over for). That wasn't his intention. His goal was to fly over to Africa and kill some exotic animals....for pleasure. Nothing else. He killed those animals because he finds it fun to kill them.

I have no problem with folk hunting as a means for food and to survive, what I do have a problem with, are sick human beings who kill animals for pleasure and their own satisfaction.

What kind of sick freak looks at some of those beautiful animals and says to themselves; "I'd love to put a bullet through it's head, just for fun!".

I'm an animal lover, so seeing things like this go on disgust me really. If you're hunting for food, or for over population issues then there is no problem what so ever. Killing those creatures for fun?

Get the fck outta here with that shit.

Oh and Lyoto - it's Manchestorrrrrr


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

I'm not against hunting if you eat the meat and use parts of the animal for clothing or materials or whatever, and it's during the legal season to hunt them. Population control is also important. 

In fact, the only time I'm against "hunting", is when a mountain lion or a bear or something kills someone out in the woods, and they go off and kill the animal. You're hiking in THEIR hunting territory, you are in THEIR eating habitat, and YOU get eaten, tough shit, you just got eaten, not the animals fault. It was the stupid human who decided to go on a hike in the middle of mountain lion territory, that's just one less dumbass running around this planet and I feel zero sadness for him/her. If you go out hunting for bear, and a bear chews you up and you die, then that was the risk you took going out there hunting that bear, you'll be as missed by me as much as I would miss that bear.

In other words, if they ate the meat and used the parts and it was during a legal time for him to be hunting those animals, and there's actual reason to be doing it, it's not a big deal.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

GrappleRetarded said:


> I have no problem with folk hunting as a means for food and to survive, what I do have a problem with, are sick human beings who kill animals for pleasure and their own satisfaction.
> 
> What kind of sick freak looks at some of those beautiful animals and says to themselves; "I'd love to put a bullet through it's head, just for fun!".
> 
> ...


Well said, I could not agree more.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

Hey, who's the poster that anon plus repped me for getting The Big Lebowski Jesus reference in the op?

I need to rep you back bro! Big Lebowski fans gotta stick together!


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

GrappleRetarded said:


> Hughes wasn't hunting these animals for food or to feed the locales, (even though he implies that's what he went over for). That wasn't his intention. His goal was to fly over to Africa and kill some exotic animals....for pleasure. Nothing else. He killed those animals because he finds it fun to kill them.


Except he did feed the locals. You are attributing other motives to him. You can only judge a man by his actions - not his thoughts because you only know one of the two. He says the he flew over their to hunt and help out the locals. He did that. 

Almost everyone is an animal lover of one kind or another. Some as pets, others as friends, some as food, and a few special ones as significant others. Most of all of those types eat meat. Unless you are truly barbaric you tend to kill your food before you eat it.

So what makes this worse than a slaughterhouse or killing a deer? Nothing.


----------



## TheNinja (Dec 10, 2008)

Hunting is a Mans sport. So many guys these days are such little panzies and whine about it:thumbsdown: Oh... The poor little Bambi!! Grow some some balls sissy boy, and let go of your mammas teed while your at it:thumb02:


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

I cant debate my side of the argument so i have to insult other members of this board to show everyone im cool. - M.D

Lets not get a head of our selves...i was half joking, my coolness is obvious. - Joabbuac


----------



## dsmjrv (Jan 27, 2010)

Pussies who whine about hunting anger me

Sent from my MB860 using VerticalSports.Com App


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

deadmanshand said:


> Except he did feed the locals. You are attributing other motives to him. You can only judge a man by his actions - not his thoughts because you only know one of the two. He says the he flew over their to hunt and help out the locals. He did that.
> 
> Almost everyone is an animal lover of one kind or another. Some as pets, others as friends, some as food, and a few special ones as significant others. Most of all of those types eat meat. Unless you are truly barbaric you tend to kill your food before you eat it.
> 
> So what makes this worse than a slaughterhouse or killing a deer? Nothing.


You can judge a man by his actions, and after the terrible reputation (personality wise) Hughes has built over the years for being a piece of shit, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Hughes went over to Africa just to kill for fun. 

He fed the locales (or says he did) because it doesn't make him look as bad in the public eye. He covered his tracks quite well. But putting two and two together, I think it's quite obvious Hughes didn't go on a journey to the other side of the world just to help out a few of the natives. He went over there to kill for fun.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

GrappleRetarded said:


> You can judge a man by his actions, and after the terrible reputation (personality wise) Hughes has built over the years for being a piece of shit, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Hughes went over to Africa just to kill for fun.
> 
> He fed the locales (or says he did) because it doesn't make him look as bad in the public eye. He covered his tracks quite well. But putting two and two together, I think it's quite obvious Hughes didn't go on a journey to the other side of the world just to help out a few of the natives. He went over there to kill for fun.


Being considered a dick and a raging bible thumper does not automatically equate to "killing for fun". It doesn't surprise me that you screwed up adding two and two. You see you missed a vital thing. Where and how he grew up.

He grew up in a rural community on a farm. In almost every rural community in the United States hunting is seen as a perfectly fine hobby. These people tend to be educated about hunting - including more than the how but the why of it. The biggest of these? Not wasting meat.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

TheNinja said:


> Hunting is a Mans sport. So many guys these days are such little panzies and whine about it:thumbsdown: Oh... The poor little Bambi!! Grow some some balls sissy boy, and let go of your mammas teed while your at it:thumb02:


How about I shove my balls down your mammas throat and slap her titties some whilst I t-bag her.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

GrappleRetarded said:


> You can judge a man by his actions, and after the terrible reputation (personality wise) Hughes has built over the years for being a piece of shit, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Hughes went over to Africa just to kill for fun.
> 
> He fed the locales (or says he did) because it doesn't make him look as bad in the public eye. He covered his tracks quite well. But putting two and two together, I think it's quite obvious Hughes didn't go on a journey to the other side of the world just to help out a few of the natives. He went over there to kill for fun.


The actual kills/animals were used for food and the materials will be used as well for various things. So, is it the actual death of the animals you are upset about, or just the reason you think Hughes did it?

I mean, even if his reasoning for doing it was his own (for fun), and say he used giving the meat to locals/using materials as a smoke screen so that he would look better, it still makes the actual hunt/kills worth while and feeds people/gives them materials to use to better their life.

Just curious as to which you are actually upset at.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

deadmanshand said:


> Attempt number two at starting an argument today and attempting to defend your little buddy Grappleretarded at the same. Bravo. Killing two birds with one stone.
> 
> Killing for fun is human nature. Violence is part of us. It's why we do things like go to war, hunt animals, and participate in blood sports.


I barely even know Grappleretarded :laugh: I think as a species we have risen above that shit, nobody goes to war for fun, most people hunt or support hunting for food...and the only blood sports around now tend to leave both participants alive.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

M.C said:


> The actual kills/animals were used for food and the materials will be used as well for various things. So, is it the actual death of the animals you are upset about, or just the reason you think Hughes did it?
> 
> I mean, even if his reasoning for doing it was his own (for fun), and say he used giving the meat to locals/using materials as a smoke screen so that he would look better, it still makes the actual hunt/kills worth while and feeds people/gives them materials to use to better their life.
> 
> Just curious as to which you are actually upset at.


Obviously the reasoning behind why I think Hughes did it.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

dsmjrv said:


> Pussies who whine about hunting anger me
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using VerticalSports.Com App


Is Dan Hardy a *****?


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

GrappleRetarded said:


> Obviously the reasoning behind why I think Hughes did it.


Okay, so the actual hunting of the animal is justified because they were used properly to help locals, right? Regardless of Hughes own personal reason, the hunt was great for the people and helped them substantially.

Personally, it sounds like Hughes did something he enjoys (hunting, many people enjoy hunting, perfectly nice people who just enjoy the hunt for fun) without breaking any laws, it was during legal hunting season or whatever, and all of the materials were used properly to help others.

I don't see the problem on Hughes part, he likes to hunt and enjoys it and he did it legally during a proper period and used all the materials to help local people and fed them.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

M.C said:


> Okay, so the actual hunting of the animal is justified because they were used properly to help locals, right? Regardless of Hughes own personal reason, the hunt was great for the people and helped them substantially.
> 
> *Personally, it sounds like Hughes did something he enjoys (hunting, many people enjoy hunting, perfectly nice people who just enjoy the hunt for fun)* without breaking any laws, it was during legal hunting season or whatever, and all of the materials were used properly to help others.
> 
> I don't see the problem on Hughes part, he likes to hunt and enjoys it and he did it legally during a proper period and used all the materials to help local people and fed them.


That's where we both agree to disagree. I don't think hunting for fun is fine. I think it's morally wrong and no human being should hunt for their own personal satisfaction or pleasure. I just straight up don't agree with it, it actually sickens me.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

> Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling.... You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.


And he's not exactly unique among career soldiers. Most hunting done in the 1st World is trophy hunting. And blood sports are big around the world in a hundred different forms. Muay Thai, TKD, Boxing, MMA, bull fighting, cock fighting, dog fighting, hockey... humans like violence and humans like blood.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

GrappleRetarded said:


> That's where we both agree to disagree. I don't think hunting for fun is fine. I think it's morally wrong and no human being should hunt for their own personal satisfaction or pleasure. I just straight up don't agree with it, it actually sickens me.


Even if it's in perfectly legal hunting season, thus keeping population control and eating the animal? Just because you're hunting and having fun doing it doesn't mean you don't feel anything for the animal or don't respect it, most people when they hunt use the food/material, and they enjoy it greatly at the same time.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

deadmanshand said:


> Yet you team up with him every chance you get. Maybe an unrequited crush?
> 
> And you are living in a dream world if you think we - as a species - will ever rise above that. Violence is part of us. Nothing will ever change that. No social evolution. No magnificent breakthrough. Nothing.
> 
> Plenty of people go to war for fun. General James N. Mattis of the U.S. Marine Corps - a general who has multiple commendations for empathy and humanitarian works - said the following in an interview.


I dont team up with him....i was joking anyway, I don't really think someone should shoot you.

Anyone who kills for fun is morally corrupt, i don't care if they have also done some good, Jimmy Savile raped kids...but hey, he raised a bunch of money for them too - so its OK right? 

No...your General is a corrupt person, no good will change that.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

deadmanshand said:


> Yet you team up with him every chance you get. Maybe an unrequited crush?
> 
> And you are living in a dream world if you think we - as a species - will ever rise above that. Violence is part of us. Nothing will ever change that. No social evolution. No magnificent breakthrough. Nothing.
> 
> ...







A great scene from a great film. Whilst it may be true that many human beings are violent by nature, there comes a point where you have to draw a line between going too far and extreme cases of violence.

Also, you're getting quite paranoid about myself and Jobbuac. We don't team up together, and as he said earlier, we barely even know each other. Just happens to be that we seem to share quite a few similar view points on certain topics.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Honestly, on this issue i would say it might be something to do with people from the UK - Hunting for enjoyment is a lot more frowned upon over here.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

GrappleRetarded said:


> A great scene from a great film. Whilst it may be true that many human beings are violent by nature, there comes a point where you have to draw a line between going too far and extreme cases of violence.


I wouldn't call that a great film. Everyone has to draw that line. Hunting isn't that line. It's why it's legal and considered helpful in many communities. An extreme case of violence is ****, murder, assault with a deadly weapon... not deer hunting.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

deadmanshand said:


> And that is the comment of someone who has never known someone who deserved death. I know this will offend you - and probably GrappleRetarded - but not all killing is wrong. If you kill an animal for the meat and enjoy yourself while doing it - that's not wrong. If you kill someone who is a threat to others - that is not wrong.
> 
> That General is one of the most highly regarded men in the United States military by his men. For being fair and empathetic to their and the civilians needs. There is at least one story of him personally going to the home of a civilian who had been caught in the crossfire and talking to the man's widow personally. Is that a corrupt man? I don't think so.



I didnt say it was wrong to kill, just that you must be sick to enjoy the act...something must be wrong in the mind. General is corrupt inside for sure.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

Joabbuac said:


> I didnt say it was wrong to kill, just that you must be sick to enjoy the act...something must be wrong in the mind. General is corrupt inside for sure.


We'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Joabbuac said:


> I dont team up with him....i was joking anyway, I don't really think someone should shoot you.
> 
> Anyone who kills for fun is morally corrupt, i don't care if they have also done some good, Jimmy Savile raped kids...but hey, he raised a bunch of money for them too - so its OK right?
> 
> No...your General is a corrupt person, no good will change that.


There's a very clear reason why in 2012, when we can go into a store and pick up a wide verity of food (much of which isn't meat) and already hunted/sliced meat so we don't have to do it, we still choose to go out of our way to hunt/fish/kill animals to eat. It's in our nature, it's part of what we do naturally, so much so that even when we have piles of already hunted/killed meat at a store, many of us go kill animals and eat them anyways, it's just part of our nature.

I fish all the time, I cut their heads off, rip their guts out then cook and eat them. I don't do it cause I need food, I have a store nearby that I can buy already set fish/meat/non-meat products, I do it because I get a primal excitement when doing it, when catching fish and bringing it home to eat, it's in our nature, it's part of who we are as a race. When a fish bites your hook, there's a level of excitement that is unique because it comes from your natural instinct to hunt, and I am sure it is probably the same when you land a shot on a legal animal during legal hunting season.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

deadmanshand said:


> And that is the comment of someone who has never known someone who deserved death. I know this will offend you - and probably GrappleRetarded - but not all killing is wrong. If you kill an animal for the meat and enjoy yourself while doing it - that's not wrong. If you kill someone who is a threat to others - that is not wrong.
> 
> That General is one of the most highly regarded men in the United States military by his men. For being fair and empathetic to their and the civilians needs. There is at least one story of him personally going to the home of a civilian who had been caught in the crossfire and talking to the man's widow personally. Is that a corrupt man? I don't think so.
> 
> ...


Shutter Island is a great film. It's very thought provoking and much deeper than it appears on the surface - which is just another thriller type film (and a good one at that).

Hunting for the wrong reasons is where to draw the line. As I said earlier, hunting for food or for other ethical issues which affect your well-being is fine and perfectly acceptable.

How ever, any human beings that gain satisfaction from randomly killing animals (not for food) indicates that there is a problem with that persons mind set. It's just wrong.


----------



## duckyou666 (Mar 17, 2011)

GrappleRetarded said:


> Hughes wasn't hunting these animals for food or to feed the locales, (even though he implies that's what he went over for). That wasn't his intention. His goal was to fly over to Africa and kill some exotic animals....for pleasure. Nothing else. He killed those animals because he finds it fun to kill them.
> 
> I have no problem with folk hunting as a means for food and to survive, what I do have a problem with, are sick human beings who kill animals for pleasure and their own satisfaction.
> 
> ...


Otay? Ummm..., all he kept was the hide and antlers. The meat stayed there, where it went to feed the locals. I've hunted in Africa so I know first hand that is what happens.

You have no problem with someone hunting to feed themselves but you do have a problem with someone hunting to feed others? What kinda sense does that make?


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

M.C said:


> There's a very clear reason why in 2012, when we can go into a store and pick up a wide verity of food (much of which isn't meat) and already hunted/sliced meat so we don't have to do it, we still choose to go out of our way to hunt/fish/kill animals to eat. It's in our nature, it's part of what we do naturally, so much so that even when we have piles of already hunted/killed meat at a store, many of us go kill animals and eat them anyways, it's just part of our nature.
> 
> I fish all the time, I cut their heads off, rip their guts out then cook and eat them. I don't do it cause I need food, I have a store nearby that I can buy already set fish/meat/non-meat products, I do it because I get a primal excitement when doing it, when catching fish and bringing it home to eat, it's in our nature, it's part of who we are as a race. When a fish bites your hook, there's a level of excitement that is unique because it comes from your natural instinct to hunt, and I am sure it is probably the same when you land a shot on a legal animal during legal hunting season.



Lets just make it clear i have no problem with hunting, its obviously something that is needed to survive. But you make good points it probably is exciting but so are a lot of things i would consider wrong...

I get a primal excitement from landing punches in training, feels great - but we are both willing - having your fun at the expense of another life will never sit right with me, its not something i would feel right to do myself. 

Ive fished...its alright, when you catch something. Put it in your net, count them up at the end then let them go - you get your hunting buzz.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

As a die-hard Vegan ....

Killing for food, I can live with. It's what we've done for centuries, I'm not over the moon people still do it but I tolerate it.

Killing for fashion (ie. fur etc), Jewellery (eg. Ivory) or just to have a head to hang on your wall is unnecessary killing, it's senseless, in terms of fashion it's superficial and I class it as senseless and moronic on the humans part.

Matt Hughes I don't have a lot of time for as a person, but I think he's within his rights to do what he did.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

TheNinja said:


> Hunting is a Mans sport. So many guys these days are such little panzies and whine about it:thumbsdown: Oh... The poor little Bambi!! Grow some some balls sissy boy, and let go of your mammas teed while your at it:thumb02:


No. Football is a man's sport. MMA is a man's sport. Hunting for fun is for the weakest of the weak. In a sport, both sides know they're in the game. Taking a gun and shooting an innocent creature for fun has nothing to do with being a "man". I feel sorry for you and your values.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

rygu said:


> No. Football is a man's sport. MMA is a mans sport. Hunting for fun is for the weakest of the weak. In a sport, both sides know they're in the game. Taking a gun and shooting an innocent creature for fun has nothing to do with being a "man". I feel sorry for you and your values.


I *LOVE* you! This is so my view. Well said!


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Joabbuac said:


> Lets just make it clear i have no problem with hunting, its obviously something that is needed to survive. But you make good points it probably is exciting but so are a lot of things i would consider wrong...
> 
> I get a primal excitement from landing punches in training, feels great - but we are both willing - having your fun at the expense of another life will never sit right with me, its not something i would feel right to do myself.
> 
> Ive fished...its alright, when you catch something. Put it in your net, count them up at the end then let them go - you get your hunting buzz.


And it's fine that you personally would not get excited out of it, countless others do, and just because they do does not mean they are "morally corrupt", it's part of our natural instincts, many of us don't feel bad about it because of how we naturally feel, not because we are sickos who are morally corrupt. 

Unless you are calling nature "morally corrupt", there's no moral corruption or moral weakness or whatever, it's just what humans do as animals, as big apes, our ape cousins tend to eat things alive a lot of the time, just be happy we have evolved passed that into at least making sure our meal is dead before we eat it.

Disagreeing with it personally is one thing, calling people who do it for fun (because it's natural to do so) morally corrupt is another.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

GrappleRetarded said:


> Shutter Island is a great film. It's very thought provoking and much deeper than it appears on the surface - which is just another thriller type film (and a good one at that).
> 
> Hunting for the wrong reasons is where to draw the line. As I said earlier, hunting for food or for other ethical issues which affect your well-being is fine and perfectly acceptable.
> 
> How ever, any human beings that gain satisfaction from randomly killing animals (not for food) indicates that there is a problem with that persons mind set. It's just wrong.


If you found it thought provoking more power to you. I found it simply boring. Exceedingly well made but nothing particularly thought provoking about it. I don't care for twist ending movies where I can see the ending coming a mile away.

Anyways the article you linked too involved a man hunting, keeping a trophy, and giving the meat to people less fortunate than himself. What is wrong about that?

And, let me address a thought that has popped more than a few times here, a hunter's enjoyment does not come from killing the animal. It is not a pop at the death of it. It is enjoyment of the hunt itself. The experience rather than the kill. Most of the hunters I have known love animals. They respect them.

You guys cannot tell me you honestly believe they are going into the woods solely to pop a hard on when the deer dies? If so you've never been hunting and don't know anyone who has.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

M.C said:


> Disagreeing with it personally is one thing, calling people who do it for fun (because it's natural to do so) morally corrupt is another.


Ahh dont take that to hard, i just couldnt think of a better word to express my self.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Joabbuac said:


> Ahh dont take that to hard, i just couldnt think of a better word to express my self.


I'm not taking it hard, you'd be surprised how many groups of people I think believe in immoral things and say it to their face, I'm just making a debate/discussion out of it (as I would telling them I think their beliefs are immoral, it's all just for debate/discussion). :thumbsup:


----------



## HaVoK (Dec 31, 2006)

Been a hunter and gun owner my entire life. Also served my Country for over a decade. My Right, my business. Although, I do not kill anything I am not willing to feed my family with. But that is a personal choice. I certainly do not demonize those who do it for sport. That is their business, and their Right.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

HaVoK said:


> Been a hunter and gun owner my entire life. Also served my Country for over a decade. My Right, my business. Although, I do not kill anything I am not willing to feed my family with. But that is a personal choice. I certainly do not demonize those who do it for sport. That is their business, and their Right.


I'm not a hunter, gun owner, or military and I agree with everything you just said.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

I live in Western NY. A lot of people hunt. Not the dumb hunting clubs they do in more populated areas. But actual hunting. I'm not a hunter, but many of the people I associate with are. I fish a little bit. I see nothing wrong with hunting. Around here whitetails are overpopulated because of loss of predators. Hunting basically helps prevent over-population. 

I see nothing wrong with hunting. Real hunting..


----------



## RedRocket44 (Sep 18, 2011)

I'm not a hunter, but I do love to fish. I don't live near a lot of lakes, but I do go on a weekly fishing trip each year, and I try to get out on a few weekends well. I love the idea of catching my own meal -- I think it's something that is under appreciated in this day and age.

I have nothing against hunters who track their mark/kill. And much more respect if said hunter actually hunting for the meat, instead of just for sport. Still, I don't get all uptight about people hunting for sport.

What I do hate is so called "hunting", where some "guide" on a Safari drives 300m away from an elephant or some other animal, puts a rifle in some idiots hands, and they go on a shooting spree and kill everything in sight.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

RedRocket44 said:


> What I do hate is so called "hunting", where some "guide" on a Safari drives 300m away from an elephant or some other animal, puts a rifle in some idiots hands, and they go on a shooting spree and kill everything in sight.


Yeah. That shit is stupid. Those are the people who are flat killing to give themselves a rush.


----------



## Fedornumber1! (Jun 18, 2008)

Matt should go hunting with Dick Cheny


----------



## RedRocket44 (Sep 18, 2011)

Fedornumber1! said:


> Matt should go hunting with Dick Chenny


That's something that nobody should have to endure.

You'd either be worried about getting shot at, or worried that Chaney will have a heart attack.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Well good....Matt Hughes knows he doesn't have to answer to anyone when it comes to hunting...which is pretty rare in our Draconian society.

But unfortunately, he does have to be forever annoyed by the moral police and the antagonistic bedwetting babies.


Kind of weak that he had to pay to shoot those things though....who the hell decided that?


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

Roflcopter said:


> Well good....Matt Hughes knows he doesn't have to answer to anyone when it comes to hunting...which is pretty rare in our Draconian society.
> 
> But unfortunately, he does have to be forever annoyed by the moral police and the antagonistic *bedwetting babies*.


Oh Rofl, you are a funny guy. Would it be suitable for you if I came and put a bullet in one of your family members because I found it fun?


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

No. Shoot a deer.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

.....


----------



## 3DLee (Aug 30, 2006)

I live in south central... Kentucky that is. We hunt. I have never heard anyone in person tell me that they thought hunting was immoral. It's just what people do here. Do they typically eat the meat? Yeah, Id say so. I'm a hunter. I've killed deer and cleaned them and ate the meat. But I can buy meat at a grocery store. I enjoy the sport. It takes a lot to out smart the instincts of an animal. You have disguise your scent, camouflage your appearance, and be very quiet. I think its just a different mindset when you grow up hunting. It's not thought of in a cynical manner. It's just kind of staying in touch with our primal man. Kind of like going back in time... with a gun lol. Matt is very clear. I think that hes very clear with the fact that he hunts for the sport. He does eat the meat of the animals that he can. But, in Africa, the meat stays with the hunting lodge and is shared with the local community. These animals aren't endangered. It's perfectly fine to hunt them.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

Ppl who hunt for fun can put their riffles in the arse and pull the trigger. That's sounds like real fun (i'd lol)!


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

You could always use a spear if you are REALLY badass.

I wouldn't though.


My biggest problem with hunting..and the main reason I don't do it is not so much killing and cleaning the animals...it's the idiots that are out there hunting with you...some inebriated at that.


----------



## Fieos (Mar 26, 2007)

This thread cracks me up.


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

M.C said:


> I'm not against hunting if you eat the meat and use parts of the animal for clothing or materials or whatever, and it's during the legal season to hunt them. Population control is also important.
> 
> In fact, the only time I'm against "hunting", is when a mountain lion or a bear or something kills someone out in the woods, and they go off and kill the animal. You're hiking in THEIR hunting territory, you are in THEIR eating habitat, and YOU get eaten, tough shit, you just got eaten, not the animals fault. It was the stupid human who decided to go on a hike in the middle of mountain lion territory, that's just one less dumbass running around this planet and I feel zero sadness for him/her. If you go out hunting for bear, and a bear chews you up and you die, then that was the risk you took going out there hunting that bear, you'll be as missed by me as much as I would miss that bear.
> 
> In other words, if they ate the meat and used the parts and it was during a legal time for him to be hunting those animals, and there's actual reason to be doing it, it's not a big deal.


My understanding is they do that so that the animal doesn't start to see humans as a food source and start seeking out humans for food.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

I think the idea is that in this circumstance, the consequence and harm of the hunting wasn't bad at all. No harm was really done, yes, animals were killed, but one assumes, they endured minimal suffering.

The issue is just simply what a nob Matt Hughes is.

Here's a guy who's basically incapable of having a meaningful moment in an Africa on a safari, without killing animals, and, incapable of bonding with his son properly without killing animals.

Secondly, his justification reeks of nobbery. 'The bible say it and the law say it, it must be fine'
Yes Matt, because we all know our morality only comes from somewhere outside ourselves and needs to be written down and directed to us.

If Matt was living in the 1800s he would say the same thing about slavery. Nob.

(no I'm not equaling slavery to hunting)


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

rygu said:


> Oh Rofl, you are a funny guy. Would it be suitable for you if I came and put a bullet in one of your family members because I found it fun?


Killing a human for fun is illegal or taboo in all but the most uncivilized of cultures. Folks are getting up in arms rather quickly to this topic. I think a lot of you need to use the "preview post" button more so you can read the hate you're spewing before you post it on a forum. Especially when it is in an attempt to decry violence...


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Life B Ez said:


> My understanding is they do that so that the animal doesn't start to see humans as a food source and start seeking out humans for food.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3


I've heard that too, in which case they should put up a sign "don't hike here, you will be eaten, dummies". 

More importantly, if a mountain lion eats your face, he already saw you as food. They are meat eating, hunting predators, if you hike in their hunting grounds expect to get eaten.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

rygu said:


> Oh Rofl, you are a funny guy. Would it be suitable for you if I came and put a bullet in one of your family members because I found it fun?


There is a big difference between hunting a deer and killing a person. The deer tastes much better. People's diets are terrible.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Iuanes said:


> I think the idea is that in this circumstance, the consequence and harm of the hunting wasn't bad at all. No harm was really done, yes, animals were killed, but one assumes, they endured minimal suffering.
> 
> The issue is just simply what a nob Matt Hughes is.
> 
> ...



Well...what else is there to do in Africa?

The place is a shithole.




deadmanshand said:


> There is a big difference between hunting a deer and killing a person. The deer tastes much better. People's diets are terrible.


If diet determined how you taste, pigs would be the worst tasting thing on the Earth.


And while I don't eat pork....people certainly do love it.


----------



## 2zwudz (Apr 9, 2007)

WOW people slow down. Back to MMA. We have some good fights coming up!!! Lets enjoy them.
Mark


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

Roflcopter said:


> If diet determined how you taste, pigs would be the worst tasting thing on the Earth.
> 
> And while I don't eat pork....people certainly do love it.


It's the chemical additives and the deplorable lack of research into proper sauces and rubs for human flesh. Pork is a good substitute but it doesn't help in this season. I just keep seeing Election coverage and thinking that some people would be better off as a steak.


----------



## Hawndo (Aug 16, 2009)

I don't think I've seen so many insults thrown around in a thread before. People I consider pretty decent posters are stooping to pretty low levels. 

I just personally can't see how killing an animal purely for fun can be accepted. What he done in Africa I find fine as he enjoyed it and the locals got fed/paid. But anyone who kills an animal for fun and doesn't put it to good use is a horrible, horrible person.

very drunk will maybe repost when sober if this doesn't make sense.**


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Hawndo said:


> I don't think I've seen so many insults thrown around in a thread before. People I consider pretty decent posters are stooping to pretty low levels.
> 
> I just personally can't see how killing an animal purely for fun can be accepted. What he done in Africa I find fine as he enjoyed it and the locals got fed/paid. *But anyone who kills an animal for fun and doesn't put it to good use is a horrible, horrible person.*
> 
> very drunk will maybe repost when sober if this doesn't make sense.**


:laugh:

What gets me is the melo-drama.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Animals breathe, feel emotions, have a brain and a pulse. So I can't comrehend sport killing for the life of me!


----------



## St.Paul Guy (Mar 8, 2011)

I hunt deer, duck, and pheasant regularly, but I have no interest in killing animals like this for kicks. Everything I kill, I eat. Not sure where the puts me on the Matt Hughes dickhead scale...

Matt Hughes is an ass. We all knew that already... can we move on?


----------



## Hawndo (Aug 16, 2009)

Roflcopter said:


> :laugh:
> 
> What gets me is the melo-drama.


What's not horrible about needlessly ending the life of something?  Maybe it is just different cultures but to me it is pointless cruelty.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

LizaG said:


> Animals breathe, feel emotions, have a brain and a pulse. So I can't comrehend sport killing for the life of me!


Go read an article about the Westboro Baptist Church and realize that just meeting your criteria doesn't make a life precious.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

LizaG said:


> Animals breathe, feel emotions, have a brain and a pulse. So I can't comrehend sport killing for the life of me!


Probably the single largest reason is population control. If hunters didn't hunt and kill things on a regular basis, you'd have wild animals everywhere, do you know how many car accidents you'd have from people hitting animals? How many animals going into your neighborhoods eating your dogs and cats, or even you? The reason you don't have animals doing these things much at all is because of hunting, without it our cities/civilizations would be riddled with wild animals.

The hunters that you can't comprehend are the reason why you don't have a bobcat killing your dog during the night. Yes, they enjoy the hunt and it's for sport (normally), but it's an important part of our society and it keeps a balance so that we have homes without having to check for wild predators every time we want to go shopping.

Obviously there are other reasons people enjoy it/find it useful, but that's the largest one that impacts our day to day lives, and it is an important one.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

LizaG said:


> Animals breathe, feel emotions, have a brain and a pulse. So I can't comrehend sport killing for the life of me!


So do IRS auditors.




Hawndo said:


> What's not horrible about needlessly ending the life of something?  Maybe it is just different cultures but to me it is pointless cruelty.


It's not cruelty.


They aren't waterboarding the beasts...they are shooting them dead.

Animal lives have no relevancy...if they run into a dude with a rifle it's just their time to go....much like if a tree fell on them, or they get eaten by a bear or something.


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

Most hunters nowadays do it for fun and as a hobby. They don't actually need the meat to survive like hunting use to be. 

Maybe deal with people having 3, 4, 5+ kids, that's where the problem is these days, and the need for population control on animals. Apply the same population control to the women pumping out kid after kid and giving a reason to destroy this place.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

In America at least...the growth rate isn't anything that's remotely out of control.

It's pretty stable.


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

Roflcopter said:


> In America at least...the growth rate isn't anything that's remotely out of control.
> 
> It's pretty stable.


Not yet. Just wait until it turns into China, and it's far to late. Suburbs are already pushing into the forests here, when 10 years ago they were pristine.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Except it won't...because the growth rate is stable...and has been for the last 100 years.


Year by year, the rate isn't even positive all the time. In 2009 we had a growth rate of negative 8...

China in the last 5 years hasn't dropped below 6, and is at an average of around 10.


The US's current rate is 2 and it's not trending upward.



The reason the suburbs are pushing out is because the whites continue to move away from the city to get away from all the stinkin' minorities....I mean...because they get tired of city life.....that white flight thing stopped like 20 years ago...according to history. America isn't even like that anymore.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

box said:


> Maybe deal with people having 3, 4, 5+ kids, that's where the problem is these days, and the need for population control on animals. Apply the same population control to the women pumping out kid after kid and giving a reason to destroy this place.


Hmm... interesting proposition. Control population growth by hunting of people. Lower funeral costs because barbecues are cheaper and creating jobs for people in the sauce and grill business. Oh and we could have Ted Nugent announce hunting season every year!

I like how you think, sir.:serious01:


----------



## Soakked (Feb 5, 2007)

I'm sure some will disagree but I feel man has a right to hunt, especially overpopulated game. Hunting is in our blood, and as long as it isn't done simply as sport or isn't endangered then so be it. 

Hunters respect that animal more by killing it in it's natural habitat as opposed to those (myself included) that simply purchase the already killed and neatly packaged product in our local supermarket. Not only that but it feeds their families and maybe neighbors if the animal is large enough and the community tight enough. 

Most Natives use all parts of the animal so that none of it goes to waste. Most hunters that I have dealt with do the same. Is it all done for necessity? Of course not, I'm sure the adrenaline rush and primal instinct has a large part to do with it, but respect is given to the animal nonetheless.

I just wanted to add that I do not respect game hunting for the thrill of the kill only. To me that's a waste and not respecting the sentient beings.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

If a hunter eats what he kills or uses it then I have no problem with that at all.

I'm not totally sure how I feel about the whole African thing as I've seen numerous documentaries showing that if people didn't pay to go and hunt there, many of the animals would be extinct now and the community would be a lot hungrier and poorer.

This Louis Theroux one shows a good amount from both sides:


----------



## QQaaQQ (Jan 28, 2012)

Killing anything for entertainment is immoral.

Killing for food is not.

I have spoken.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

QQaaQQ said:


> Killing anything for entertainment is immoral.
> 
> Killing for food is not.
> 
> I have spoken.


What if killing for food is entertaining?


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

I see no way people who eat meat can say hunting is immoral. 

If you eat meat then do you have a problem with slaughter houses? That house animals cramped up in small places only to stand in line to be knocked silly. That is OK? But hunting is some how wrong? 

Makes no sense to me really.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> What if killing for food is entertaining?


ZING! :thumb02:


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

deadmanshand said:


> I wouldn't call that a great film. Everyone has to draw that line. Hunting isn't that line. It's why it's legal and considered helpful in many communities. An extreme case of violence is ****, murder, assault with a deadly weapon... not deer hunting.


Dude lets not pretend hunting in africa has anything to do with population control of animals for a continent of starving people. 
Bottom line is Hughes went to africa to kill animals because he likes killing animals. You guys in the states have laws that allow it etc so you think its fine, but the reality is people who hunt enjoy killing animals. Anyone who enjoys killing animals to me is a sick souless ****er. Im sorry but thats how I see killing animals. I might respect you as a tough dude and ex fighter but if you would tell me that you enjoy going out killing deer etc, a beautiful animal, I would tell you you are a sick heartless ****er. 

I can only tolerate the killing of animals if they are somehow causing a problem to your farm, health or whatever. But again we are talking about africa here. Stick another 10mil animals there and you still won't have enough. Hughes went to kill for pleasure simple as that lets not try and dance around it.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> I see no way people who eat meat can say hunting is immoral.
> 
> If you eat meat then do you have a problem with slaughter houses? That house animals cramped up in small places only to stand in line to be knocked silly. That is OK? But hunting is some how wrong?
> 
> Makes no sense to me really.


Because there is a huge difference in actually doing the killing yourself and picking up a vacuum packed packet of bacon in the store. You are physically taking a life in the first. Out of site out of mind.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> Because there is a huge difference in actually doing the killing yourself and picking up a vacuum packed packet of bacon in the store. You are physically taking a life in the first. Out of site out of mind.


Not really...if anything it's even more hypocritical and gutless.


You cry about the "respect" of wild(or domesticated) beasts yet benefit from it.



It reminds me of those people who cry about sweatshops in China and yet buy Jordan's whenever they come out.



Seriously, people are really stupid.


In all of their self-righteousness, they somehow feel a need to justify everything they and other people do like anyone actually gives a ****.


"WELL IM GONNA EAT DIS HERE PIG! SO ITS OKAY TO SLICE IT'S THROAT HERPA"



Obviously that pig had no intrinsic value to you when you put it on your griddle without batting an eyelash.


Which is fair, because it's a pig. It has no value whatsoever other than the monetary value set by humans.

And with respect to that, shut the **** up about heartless ****ers and other such inanities.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> Because there is a huge difference in actually doing the killing yourself and picking up a vacuum packed packet of bacon in the store. You are physically taking a life in the first. Out of site out of mind.


I don't really think it matters as well. Hunters give us meat, we eat it. An animal loses it's life either way.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Really, the only LOGICAL complaint that should ever spawn from someone hunting for sport, is the fact that someone could've eaten that meat and now it went bad.


But considering deer and rabbit meat isn't really that popular in this country, even that is rather weak.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Roflcopter said:


> Not really...if anything it's even more hypocritical and gutless.
> 
> 
> You cry about the "respect" of wild(or domesticated) beasts yet benefit from it.
> ...


Oh yeah dude Im stupid and insane because I dont believe in going out putting a bullet in an animals head and getting pleasure out of doing that. 

If you think Im a hypocrite because I eat meat, but I have a problem with shooting things then your a ******* moron. One of those tea party gun toting morons that say the most bone thick ignorant things that make the rest of the world think that maybe you are simpletons, which obviously you are. 

There is the food chain in nature where the strongest being eats from the top down. That is nature and that is life. 
Going and shooting things for pleasure is not the natural food chain, its for horrible simpletons like Matt Hughes who is a famed bully and all around piece of shit, never mind his fighting skills. You are obviously in that bracket of the complete bone thick asshole.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Rauno said:


> I don't really think it matters as well. Hunters give us meat, we eat it. An animal loses it's life either way.


Nah theres a difference dude because when was the last time you bought a packet of bacon and visualised a pig getting slaughtered, screaming and blood everywhere? Probably never, but thats what you gotta do and see if you are killing the pig yourself. I dont think you can tell me that all the people who eat bacon are capable of slitting a pigs throat and so on? 
A lot of people would probably vomit. 

You also grow up eating like 95% of the world does, which involves meat and so on. 
When you get to the age where you understand what goes on you have a choice of going vegan or maybe not eating veal, foie gras etc, things plainly against animals. Going vegan is extremely difficult because of the way society is. Its only the last 10 years restaurants etc have veg options and products on our shelves are free from animal products whether that be monosodium glutamate or whatever


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> Nah theres a difference dude because when was the last time you bought a packet of bacon and visualised a pig getting slaughtered, screaming and blood everywhere? Probably never, but thats what you gotta do and see if you are killing the pig yourself. I dont think you can tell me that all the people who eat bacon are capable of slitting a pigs throat and so on?
> A lot of people would probably vomit.
> 
> You also grow up eating like 95% of the world does, which involves meat and so on.
> When you get to the age where you understand what goes on you have a choice of going vegan or maybe not eating veal, foie gras etc, things plainly against animals. Going vegan is extremely difficult because of the way society is. Its only the last 10 years restaurants etc have veg options and products on our shelves are free from animal products whether that be monosodium glutamate or whatever


I didn't read the whole discussion but.. i could never kill an animal, heck i wouldn't be able to hurt one. But i'm not going to critisize people who hunt animals in order to provide food to the rest or themselves.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Rauno said:


> I didn't read the whole discussion but.. i could never kill an animal, heck i wouldn't be able to hurt one. But i'm not going to critisize people who hunt animals in order to provide food to the rest or themselves.


Neither would I dude, not at all its part of life for many people. I would criticize people who are killing for pleasure which is what Hughes was doing.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Maybe if you knew anything about this food chain you thought you knew about you'd know that animals killing other animals that they don't necessarily eat is not non-existant.

Secondly, as far as what you don't believe in...who really gives a shit?


Is it really any of your business? The answer is no.

Unless you happen to be a farmer and own a cow that some maniac decides to shoot for whatever reason.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Sure no one gives a shit what I think, but this is a discussion forum and listening to hughes saying he can go to africa and shoot animals for sport because the bible of all things doesn't say he can't makes me want to express my opinion which im entitled to do. 
The hughes line about feeding the people is horseshit, cant one of the natives not go and shoot the animals if they are hungry? No they cant because its against the law for locals to do it, and they can't afford to do it either
In my country people get up on horses take packs of dogs and hunt down foxes to kill them for sport, its the same shit really, killing animals for sport and fun which is wrong. 
The King of Spain recently had a photo taken standing over an elephant which he shot in africa which he shot for sport. He got destroyed around the world for it and lost a huge amount of respect and credibility.

And to your point about animals not killing to eat, your forgetting that we are a lot more developed then animals just killing shit for the sake of killing to mark there territory or whatever. We have brains dude, and we can think!!


----------



## BlueLander (Apr 11, 2010)

With all due respect, it sounds like you don't have a problem with the aspect of hunting, nor the feeding of many African locals. It seems like you really just dislike Hughes, and even moreso dislike the fact that he enjoyed this.

This reminds me of the Penguin episode from Futurama


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

BlueLander said:


> With all due respect, it sounds like you don't have a problem with the aspect of hunting, nor the feeding of many African locals. It seems like you really just dislike Hughes, and even moreso dislike the fact that he enjoyed this.
> 
> This reminds me of the Penguin episode from Futurama


nah dude totally wrong. I think hughes is one of the greatest fighters of all time. I read his book and he's a prick but i have huge respect for his achievements in the cage. 
I cant make my point any more clear, killing animals for sport and fun is wrong. We as developed human being know better then that and we don't need a book written 2000 years ago to tell us what is right and wrong


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> Because there is a huge difference in actually doing the killing yourself and picking up a vacuum packed packet of bacon in the store. You are physically taking a life in the first. Out of site out of mind.


I really don't understand what this means?

So because someone who wants to hunt is taking the life it is a problem? But gathering hundreds of unaware animals in a dirty factory for slaughter is fine? Because you only see a package in the store? I don't get it? 

One way an animal has free reign of the country to run. Where it actually takes quite a lot of knowledge know-how to be able to get a good shot on an animal. Other way animals are raised on a farm and fattened up, living in non-natural places waiting to stand in a line to be slaughtered. 

One way seems pretty inhumane and it isn't hunting.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> nah dude totally wrong. I think hughes is one of the greatest fighters of all time. I read his book and he's a prick but i have huge respect for his achievements in the cage.
> I cant make my point any more clear, killing animals for sport and fun is wrong. We as developed human being know better then that and we don't need a book written 2000 years ago to tell us what is right and wrong


The many bibles in the world are garbage, that's about the only thing I can agree with in your argument.

You do realize that people who hunt don't just leave the meat and stuff lying around, right? They use the food/material that is left behind? Why does it matter if they enjoy it or not? If they are using the animal, what is the problem?

Also, you realize that it isn't the "kill" that excites them, it's the hunt, right? It's being out in the woods with a gun, tracking an animal, finding it, making sure to do all the things right and get the shot off. The actual death of the animal isn't what they have fun doing, it's the hunt that leads up to the death and the death is the end result, in which they use the meat/materials so it doesn't go to waste.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> Neither would I dude, not at all its part of life for many people. I would criticize people who are killing for pleasure which is what Hughes was doing.


I think M.C nailed it. It's not the kill that excites them, rather catching their prey and the hunt itself. 

Only hunters i dispise are the scums of earth that do elephant poaching etc.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

M.C said:


> The many bibles in the world are garbage, that's about the only thing I can agree with in your argument.
> 
> You do realize that people who hunt don't just leave the meat and stuff lying around, right? They use the food/material that is left behind? Why does it matter if they enjoy it or not? If they are using the animal, what is the problem?
> 
> Also, you realize that it isn't the "kill" that excites them, it's the hunt, right? It's being out in the woods with a gun, tracking an animal, finding it, making sure to do all the things right and get the shot off. The actual death of the animal isn't what they have fun doing, it's the hunt that leads up to the death and the death is the end result, in which they use the meat/materials so it doesn't go to waste.


You make a fair point. I see hughes behind that massive beast and Im thinking it does not take a lot of 'hunting' on the open plains of africa to kill that. Same with the point I made about the king of spain, he wont be eating that elephant. So not everyone is in it for the hunt like you say, there are plenty of people in it for the killing. How much hunt is involved with an elephant? 
Theres a neighbour of mine who is constantly shooting his rifle in his garden, he has a couple of acres of land now, but he has no crops/veg planted etc but spends his afternoon shooting hares and rabbits and I suppose whatever else is in the line of sight. Unless he is eating rabbit 7 days a week this guy likes killing and it seems to me theres plenty of people like that around


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> Dude lets not pretend hunting in africa has anything to do with population control of animals for a continent of starving people.
> Bottom line is Hughes went to africa to kill animals because he likes killing animals. You guys in the states have laws that allow it etc so you think its fine, but the reality is people who hunt enjoy killing animals. Anyone who enjoys killing animals to me is a sick souless ****er. Im sorry but thats how I see killing animals. I might respect you as a tough dude and ex fighter but if you would tell me that you enjoy going out killing deer etc, a beautiful animal, I would tell you you are a sick heartless ****er.
> 
> I can only tolerate the killing of animals if they are somehow causing a problem to your farm, health or whatever. But again we are talking about africa here. Stick another 10mil animals there and you still won't have enough. Hughes went to kill for pleasure simple as that lets not try and dance around it.


*Hunters do not enjoy the killing.* Let me repeat this. *Hunters do not enjoy the killing.* It's about the challenge - the tracking, the patience, the skill of the shot. They make the kill cleanly, take a trophy of the trip, and use the animal appropriately*. They feed their families or in some places they give the meat to homeless shelters. Very, very few people go and shoot animals because it gets them hot.

What you are doing is projected an attitude and moral state over an entire culture which you have no firsthand experience of. From what I gather your British. Hunting for the British means a fox hunt where it is killing for sport. It's a massive hunt to murder a fox. No one eats the flesh. No one gets anything besides some rich bastard on a horse.

That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing actual hunters. People that I have known all of my life. My roommate is a hunter. He's not a heartless sociopath. A goober maybe but not heartless (Hey, ArcherCC!). My fiance has hunted and she is the most soft hearted person I have ever known. She cried when the dog died in I Am Legend. 

*Note: Shake That Bear is not an appropriate use of a hunting kill.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Im Irish, but yeah we have(had) the hunt also. Maybe I do misunderstand the whole philosophy of hunting regarding the skills tracking etc involved. That is a debatable point I agree, but there is skill in the fox hunt also, that skill doesn't mean anything to the poor fox though who is getting chased down scared shitless and eventually dies by being shot if the owners can manage to keep the dogs from ripping it apart. 
Seeing the picture of that animal and hughes and the size of those creatures he killed probably driving round in the back of a safari jeep what is your opinion of what he has done there?


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> Im Irish, but yeah we have(had) the hunt also. Maybe I do misunderstand the whole philosophy of hunting regarding the skills tracking etc involved. That is a debatable point I agree, but there is skill in the fox hunt also, that skill doesn't mean anything to the poor fox though who is getting chased down scared shitless and eventually dies by being shot if the owners can manage to keep the dogs from ripping it apart.
> Seeing the picture of that animal and hughes and the size of those creatures he killed probably driving round in the back of a safari jeep what is your opinion of what he has done there?


The kill was legal, clean, the target wasn't endangered, and the meat was given to people who needed it. I don't see a problem here and I hate Matt Hughes. I have met the man and read his book but I just can't find anything about this to get up in arms about.

It comes down to this - if you eat meat you have no high ground or moral authority to condemn hunters. None. It is complete hypocritical bleeding heart bs. The only difference between hunting your meat and buying it in a store is honesty. The hunter doesn't bs himself about what he is doing. That's why he respects the animals he kills.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> I really don't understand what this means?
> 
> So because someone who wants to hunt is taking the life it is a problem? But gathering hundreds of unaware animals in a dirty factory for slaughter is fine? Because you only see a package in the store? I don't get it?
> 
> ...


Well take this example as the point im trying to make

Imagine you are a politician signing off the order to send a drone into some al quieda hotspot to drop some bombs and kill some terrorists. Your doing it from your nice office, you dont see who is going to get killed or the collateral damage, the lives that will get destroyed. 
If that politician was actually on the ground walked around the target area saw the people and so on that were going to die aside from the terrorists he would probably have a different opinion on sending that drone strike. Suddenly he has the image of the families that are dead. Thats what I mean about out of sight, out of mind. 

I had a construction project in the philippines where its custom to put pigs blood on the site for good luck and also fatten up a pig on the site and kill it at the end of the project and eat it. I was up in the building one day and I start hearing this horrible screaming from the pig because the workers were killing it to eat that night. Blood letting which takes quite a while all the time the pig screaming wildy. I had to get as far away from the site as possible and I didnt eat any bacon for a few months. The point is when that shit happens right in front of you your visual and hearing senses pic it up and it has a much greater effect on you


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

English people suddenly taking a stand against hunting after killing every single big game animal in their entire country... lel

I kind of understand though. To the British hunting means going out and just indiscriminately killing everything that moves and using nothing but the pelt to make hats and leaving the rest to rot. 

For Americans and us Canadians, it means paying huge taxes and levies to fund conservation efforts, only hunting during season, and only on animal populations that can sustain it. 

If you want to get bent out of shape over something, take a look into our fishing industry. Now THAT is shameful. But fish aren't cute, I guess.

This is like British people whining about American 'imperialism'.

I like you GR, but this thread is ass. You remind me of my cousins who all live in the UK still. Constantly criticizing other countries because the UK finally decided to grow a conscience like 30 years ago, but only after they were no longer capable of abusing anyone anyway. It would mean something if you guys had had this kind of change of heart when you were still relevant on the world stage.

Edit: From reading through this thread, this is clearly a case of the old: If you want a strong opinion on something, ask someone who knows nothing about it.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

What does you not wanting to see the act make a difference when we are talking what is humane or not? 

You don't have to slaughter cows. 
You don't have to hunt in the woods. 

What does it have to do with the actual act that is being done?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Deadman, the kill was clean and legal but so what? The animal was killed for the enjoyment of Matt Hughes and the pleasure of his son. He paid so he could kill those animals which I reckon if you gave me a gun and sent me to africa I could kill without any hunting training and no skill. Point, aim, kill. 
I find it hard to see the skill in that to be honest in those particular circumstances and find it hard to see the justification for matt hughes killing that beast(s) or the king of spain killing those elephants a few months ago. 

I also know that in the US and Canada people hunt with hounds and have done for hundreds of years, its was never just england and ireland. Thats a pretty standard tradition right? Again chasing shit down and ripping it apart, with the hounds often getting killed during the hunt too. Seems like a lot of death and pain for some animals in order for people to have some enjoyment and test their skills. 

And there is a big difference between taking the life of an animal because you gotta eat and taking the life of animal when its for your own sport whether you eat it or not afterwards. 

This argument has been going on for the last 30-40 years and I dont expect people who have grown up with the tradition of hunting to agree with me. I just think people who go out to kill animals for sport and enjoy putting that animal through fear, chase, pain etc are soulless to a degree. I doubt the animal cares if the guy chasing it down to takes it life has respect for it. If someone was chasing me down to kill me I certainly wouldnt give a shit. 
We are never gona agree on this, good debate anyway...


----------



## Hendo (Mar 2, 2007)

lol at people who still read that fairy tale. Talking snake. No evolution planet earth is 5000 years old. People doing magic. Ur all crazy in my book now lol


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> Deadman, the kill was clean and legal but so what? The animal was killed for the enjoyment of Matt Hughes and the pleasure of his son. He paid so he could kill those animals which I reckon if you gave me a gun and sent me to africa I could kill without any hunting training and no skill. Point, aim, kill.


The fact that you say that tells me that you have never hunted. It is much harder than it looks. Hunting is a father/son activity in farming communities like the one Hughes grew up and lives in.



DonRifle said:


> I find it hard to see the skill in that to be honest in those particular circumstances and find it hard to see the justification for matt hughes killing that beast(s) or the king of spain killing those elephants a few months ago.


What Hughes did and what the King of Spain did are completely different.



DonRifle said:


> I also know that in the US and Canada people hunt with hounds and have done for hundreds of years, its was never just england and ireland. Thats a pretty standard tradition right? Again chasing shit down and ripping it apart, with the hounds often getting killed during the hunt too. Seems like a lot of death and pain for some animals in order for people to have some enjoyment and test their skills.


Hounds here are used for tracking prey. Not killing them. And the hounds themselves are rarely injured much less killed. You really have no idea how people hunt. You literally are arguing against something you have no practical knowledge of.



DonRifle said:


> And there is a big difference between taking the life of an animal because you gotta eat and taking the life of animal when its for your own sport whether you eat it or not afterwards.


No there isn't. If the animal is legal, the kill is clean, and the meat used properly there is nothing wrong with it. Except in the minds of people who will gladly eat a cheeseburger but cry when they hear that a deer's been shot. 



DonRifle said:


> This argument has been going on for the last 30-40 years and I dont expect people who have grown up with the tradition of hunting to agree with me. I just think people who go out to kill animals for sport and enjoy putting that animal through fear, chase, pain etc are soulless to a degree. I doubt the animal cares if the guy chasing it down to takes it life has respect for it. If someone was chasing me down to kill me I certainly wouldnt give a shit.
> 
> We are never gona agree on this, good debate anyway...


The problem is your side of the argument has no basis. No knowledge of the subject. No experience with the people you condemn so freely.


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

My cat is a terrible person. She thoroughly enjoys maiming squirrels, mice, birds, snakes and occasionally baby rabbits. I've watched her toy with them, handicapping limbs to watch them attempt an escape, only to pounce once more when they have a notion of safety. Even worse, she usually loses interest once she crushes their throats or eviscerates them and they quit making noise or putting up a fight! 

She does however usually offer up her gruesome carcass trophy to me, her overlord/god. This flatters my massive ego and thus I allow her to sleep in my home and use the magic sand box of disappearing poop. Maybe Matt Hughes just wants a warm place to stay where he can also hide his poo in the laundry room?


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

evilappendix said:


> My cat is a terrible person. She thoroughly enjoys maiming squirrels, mice, birds, snakes and occasionally baby rabbits. I've watched her toy with them, handicapping limbs to watch them attempt an escape, only to pounce once more when they have a notion of safety. Even worse, she usually loses interest once she crushes their throats or eviscerates them and they quit making noise or putting up a fight!
> 
> She does however usually offer up her gruesome carcass trophy to me, her overlord/god. This flatters my massive ego and thus I allow her to sleep in my home and use the magic sand box of disappearing poop. Maybe Matt Hughes just wants a warm place to stay where he can also hide his poo in the laundry room?


There is no more room in the thread. The awesome of this post has filled it.

/end thread


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

deadmanshand said:


> /end thread


Best part of this thread so far!


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

ZING!


We are just going round and round in circles here guys.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

No I havent hunted but I have shot weapons, and while I think there maybe plenty of skill in tracking a deer and being quiet enough to sneak up on it and get your shot off is not easy. However we are talking about open african plains where hunters drive around in jeeps. Your going to tell me that takes a high skill level with such a big target and guides finding them for you? I don't have to be a hunter to form an opinion on that

And dogs do get killed during hunting there has been plenty of incidents if you look online, in fact a case has been filed about it as you can see here.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/ne...iled-wisconsin-over-using-dogs-hunting-wolves

I read also the average hunting dog dies between 5-7 years of age, they are trained with shock collars
Hounds are used for tracking prey with often the hunter far behind on his GPS. Your saying that when the hounds corner the animal, the just stand there and wait for the hunter to come? They don't attack the prey and the prey (bear, wolf etc) doesn't attack the dogs? 
Seems highly unlikely to me

Can you imagine deadman getting chased down for 10 miles with a bunch of people and dogs hunting to kill you? Can you imagine the trauma that presents for an animal and what a horrible experience that is for them? Would you do that to your dog? 

I dont need experience in being cruel to and killing animals for my argument to have a basis.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> No I havent hunted but I have shot weapons, and while I think there maybe plenty of skill in tracking a deer and being quiet enough to sneak up on it and get your shot off is not easy. However we are talking about open african plains where hunters drive around in jeeps. Your going to tell me that takes a high skill level with such a big target and guides finding them for you? I don't have to be a hunter to form an opinion on that
> 
> And dogs do get killed during hunting there has been plenty of incidents if you look online, in fact a case has been filed about it as you can see here.
> 
> ...


No your powers of imagination are clearly a superior basis for an argument.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

This needs closing, it's just opinion followed by shutdown and/or insult for 12 pages.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

LizaG said:


> This needs closing, it's just opinion followed by shutdown and/or insult for 12 pages.


I think most of us are just having fun. No one's opinion on hunting pro or con is being changed by a thread on the internet. 

People who hate hunters should just go on a hunt and see what it's actually like. And people who hate hippies should go to burning man and get laid.


----------



## BlueLander (Apr 11, 2010)

Even though this thread kinda swayed away from the original topic, I'll admit I am interested in it. Plus people are debating respectfully, something I never see on forums these days. I'll gladly continue to enjoy this debate if it stays open :thumb02:


----------



## BobbyD (Apr 27, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> I had a construction project in the philippines where its custom to put pigs blood on the site for good luck and also fatten up a pig on the site and kill it at the end of the project and eat it. I was up in the building one day and I start hearing this horrible screaming from the pig because the workers were killing it to eat that night. Blood letting which takes quite a while all the time the pig screaming wildy. I had to get as far away from the site as possible and I didnt eat any bacon for a few months. The point is when that shit happens right in front of you your visual and hearing senses pic it up and it has a much greater effect on you


Nobody likes to hear an animal scream or wail but to have to run away and swear off bacon for months??? You should go full vegan. Seriously, you don't deserve meat.

You'd rather buy your meat from the market but you're just as guilty as the guy killing those animals. Just like the drone operator in your analogy, you have blood on your hands like it or not. And for you to bitch about hunters killing animals, is pure hypocrisy.

Rather than eat meat from an animal that has lived a free and completely natural life in the wild, you'd rather eat an animal that lived it's short miserable life in a cage, walking around in its own feces, eating genetically engineered food filled with hormones and vaccines. Because God forbid you should have to see some blood.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> No I havent hunted but I have shot weapons, and while I think there maybe plenty of skill in tracking a deer and being quiet enough to sneak up on it and get your shot off is not easy. However we are talking about open african plains where hunters drive around in jeeps. Your going to tell me that takes a high skill level with such a big target and guides finding them for you? I don't have to be a hunter to form an opinion on that


Why have knowledge of something when you can imagine it based off of no information what so ever?



DonRifle said:


> And dogs do get killed during hunting there has been plenty of incidents if you look online, in fact a case has been filed about it as you can see here.
> 
> http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/ne...iled-wisconsin-over-using-dogs-hunting-wolves
> 
> ...


I didn't say it never happened but more dogs are killed crossing roads than they are in hunts. Are drivers now immoral? Also that article covers people using dogs to hunt wolves that are attacking and killing livestock.

Let's see... most hunting dog breeds only live 5-7 years so that would explain their utterly inhumane life span. Shock collars aren't set to cause pain - only a physical jolt. The hounds are indeed trained to corner the prey and that's it. Occasionally an animal does attack the dogs but most are content to try and get away from them.



DonRifle said:


> Can you imagine deadman getting chased down for 10 miles with a bunch of people and dogs hunting to kill you? Can you imagine the trauma that presents for an animal and what a horrible experience that is for them? Would you do that to your dog?
> 
> I dont need experience in being cruel to and killing animals for my argument to have a basis.


I could but it's not the same for an animal because it's a god damned animal. As much as you would like to think animals have a full range of emotions and experience things the way we do - they do not. At all. From prey to pet they do not. 

Your whole argument is based off of nothing. You have no knowledge of what you speak and claim with a straight face that you don't need knowledge to know it's wrong. Bull shit. That is ignorance in its finest form. Admitting that you know nothing and proclaiming yourself happy to be so uneducated.



RearNaked said:


> I think most of us are just having fun. No one's opinion on hunting pro or con is being changed by a thread on the internet.
> 
> People who hate hunters should just go on a hunt and see what it's actually like. And people who hate hippies should go to burning man and get laid.


I think a large number of people are just getting disgusted. I agree with the going hunting thing though but how is going to Burning Man going to make someone stop hating hippies? It's one of my main arguments for why hippies should be exterminated*!

*Or at least moved to Canada


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

deadmanshand said:


> Why have knowledge of something when you can imagine it based off of no information what so ever?
> 
> *I see you avoided that one nicely*
> 
> ...


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

BobbyD said:


> Nobody likes to hear an animal scream or wail but to have to run away and swear off bacon for months??? You should go full vegan. Seriously, you don't deserve meat.
> 
> You'd rather buy your meat from the market but you're just as guilty as the guy killing those animals. Just like the drone operator in your analogy, you have blood on your hands like it or not. And for you to bitch about hunters killing animals, is pure hypocrisy.
> 
> Rather than eat meat from an animal that has lived a free and completely natural life in the wild, you'd rather eat an animal that lived it's short miserable life in a cage, walking around in its own feces, eating genetically engineered food filled with hormones and vaccines. Because God forbid you should have to see some blood.


Your happy to be around an animal screaming wildly for 15-20 minutes? 
I don't deserve meat because Im not happy to be around that? Bit of a twisted form of logic if you ask me. 
My argument is simple, if animals need to be killed for food so be it, its the food chain as nature intended it as far as Im concerned. However as I have stated many times already i dont agree with killing animals just for sport and pleasure which is what I see happening in this hughes instance. He paid money to fly to africa to kill animals and bond with his son while killing animals. Large animals on open plains. 
He wasnt going out of his cabin to score dinner for the family, he wasn't clearing up vermin or doing anyone a favour.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Smh at the whole conversation. Some people are against drinking, some people are against eating meeat all together. You are against hunting? Alright, whatever. But you do things people feel strongly against aswell, so you can sit back and judge people or you can leave them to it.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

The vast majority of animals if not all of them kill other creatures, normally in very bloody, horrific ways and our ape cousins tend to kill and eat things that are still alive. 

Our hunting is far more "humane" than any other animal's hunting, and since hunters eat/use the dead animal for resources/food, what is the problem? That people have fun doing it? That's called human nature.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

One big issue there, Don. I don't hunt. I don't like guns. I have hunted before. It was an experience but not one I care to repeat. I can judge it without condemning or condoning.

Animals don't experience those emotions in anyway you would understand. This is science here. Plenty of studies into the emotional capabilities of animals. You are literally, scientifically wrong.

You are just gut reacting to something you have no knowledge of and are resorting to insulting and condemning people with an opposing view.



DonRifle said:


> He wasnt going out of his cabin to score dinner for the family, he wasn't clearing up vermin or doing anyone a favour.


Except for those poor people he gave the meat to but let's not complicate this with "knowledge".


----------



## BlueLander (Apr 11, 2010)

> If your telling me animals dont experience emotions like fear, sadness and happiness


I don't think he's denying that. But using an example of a group of humans chasing another human as I believe you used earlier, is no where near the same scale of emotions, fear, and such as that of an animal.

And even I don't enjoy hunting animals at all and consider myself a major animal lover.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Scientific research over the last ten years is heavily towards animals experiencing a range of emotions. Obviously emotion hard to prove because they can't speak to us and this is one of the biggest arguments of those who say they dont experience emotions. You can research that pretty fast if you care to online.

Its pretty clear to me that when a dog is happy he wags his tail and when he is unhappy his tail goes between his legs. When a cat swishes his tail he is not happy and so on...thats animal emotion at the most basic level we see every day. 

MC I think we have more capacity as humans to understand things like cruelty, we are not cave men anymore. Maybe it is human nature to do things like that, but then they bring in a lot of laws around the world to combat things that are human nature. Human nature doesnt make it good. Greed for example put the world into an economic spin for the last 5 years and that is human nature that has now (banking) had various laws applied to it.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> Scientific research over the last ten years is heavily towards animals experiencing a range of emotions. Obviously emotion hard to prove because they can't speak to us and this is one of the biggest arguments of those who say they dont experience emotions. You can research that pretty fast if you care to online.
> 
> Its pretty clear to me that when a dog is happy he wags his tail and when he is unhappy his tail goes between his legs. When a cat swishes his tail he is not happy and so on...thats animal emotion at the most basic level we see every day.
> 
> MC I think we have more capacity as humans to understand things like cruelty, we are not cave men anymore. Maybe it is human nature to do things like that, but then they bring in a lot of laws around the world to combat things that are human nature. Human nature doesnt make it good. Greed for example put the world into an economic spin for the last 5 years and that is human nature that has now (banking) had various laws applied to it.


We have more capacity of thought, but that doesn't stop an astonishingly large amount of people from doing it anyways, because it's human nature. You're telling people that because they are acting like humans, they are cruel to animals or whatever. Well, if acting like humans is cruel to animals, maybe we are cruel to animals? So is every other species of animal in the whole entire world.

There's a serious reason why such a large group of people still hunt and kill animals when it's not necessary, and that reason isn't because we have twisted morals, it's because it's in our nature to do so. In fact, quite the opposite - we know that hurting animals for no reason is wrong that's why there are laws against it. Hunting, however, is a part of our natural instincts and we have created a system that allows for it while proving a service bonus (population control, materials, food) and in a quick way so the animal doesn't suffer much.

People have hunted animals since the beginning of our existence, that isn't going away. Just be glad we have put in place a current system that keeps the animal from suffering, keeps things so that we don't overkill (except for poachers which is illegal), and that we make good use of the animal after it's dead.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Don, what you're saying regarding greed in economics etc. is basically like saying we should change something that every human being in history has experienced and performed. Hunting to me would probably be more humane than raising an animal to eat, or even killing a fly. People want to hunt and if they own the free land to do so, you can't say anything against them. There are animals that would be in over population if hunting never existed.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> There are animals that would be in over population if hunting never existed.


So you're suggesting if humans didn't exist, the world would be overpopulated by animals? If so, define overpopulated if you don't mind.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

rygu said:


> So you're suggesting if humans didn't exist, the world would be overpopulated by animals? If so, define overpopulated if you don't mind.


The reason you don't run into deers with your car everytime you go into town is because people hunt deer and keep the population down (this happens a lot even with all the hunting). The reason bobcats don't sneak into your yard at night and eat your dog, is because people hunt them.

Hunting is a vital reason for why our cities/civilizations can live in peace without worry of being attacked by a wild animal when we leave the house, why our pets aren't getting eaten. This is especailly a problem in rural areas where people live, and they have deer/bears/bobcats and other types of animals running amok even with all the hunting that takes place.

You just don't have to do the hunting, you reap the benefits of it everyday, though.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> Scientific research over the last ten years is heavily towards animals experiencing a range of emotions. Obviously emotion hard to prove because they can't speak to us and this is one of the biggest arguments of those who say they dont experience emotions. You can research that pretty fast if you care to online.
> 
> Its pretty clear to me that when a dog is happy he wags his tail and when he is unhappy his tail goes between his legs. When a cat swishes his tail he is not happy and so on...thats animal emotion at the most basic level we see every day.


I said they did not experience the emotions in the way you understand them and they do not. All the research supports that. They do experience emotional responses. So do plants as a matter of fact.

That is actually you misinterpreting behavioral clues from the animals. It's called anthropomorphisizing. Where in you attribute human traits to the creatures, objects, or places that do not actually have them. Any animal behavior specialist will tell you that your basic understanding of why they are doing the things they are is wrong.

Now - before you spew any more animal cruelty comments my way - I love animals. I have had multiple dogs, cats, ferrets, lizards, and one lovable miniature pot bellied pig named Mr. Pibb. I am in the process of talking my fiance into letting me get a hedgehog since we can't have dogs where we live. Next to my computer I have pictures of my first dog - a Doberman Pinscher named Eva. I loved that dog. One of my first memories is lying in bed with her curled up next to me.

But I still understand that they aren't human. Animals have their own role to play just as we do. Taking them as food or companion is equally natural for us.

And I'm done here. You aren't interested in learning. All you want to do is condemn others like a preacher denouncing heretics. Fine. But I don't have to listen and I am choosing to exercise that right.


----------



## BobbyD (Apr 27, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> Your happy to be around an animal screaming wildly for 15-20 minutes?


We're they raping it or slaughtering it??? It doesn't take 15-20 minutes to kill a pig.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> Scientific research over the last ten years is heavily towards animals experiencing a range of emotions. Obviously emotion hard to prove because they can't speak to us and this is one of the biggest arguments of those who say they dont experience emotions. You can research that pretty fast if you care to online.
> 
> Its pretty clear to me that when a dog is happy he wags his tail and when he is unhappy his tail goes between his legs. When a cat swishes his tail he is not happy and so on...thats animal emotion at the most basic level we see every day.


Why is this relevant information?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

MC yes fair enough. 

Deadman, yes I read about that term, but at some point you have to put some logic together. 
I used to have a jack russell that rubbed his behind on the floor all the time, so we had to take him to the vet every six months or so to get his anal glands cleaned. Not a pleasant process at all for the little fella. Each time we pulled into the driveway of the vet he would start going frantic and once he was up on the examination table he would lose his hair like crazy and start foaming at the mouth. That was the only time he would ever get like that, and for me its a very blatant example of fear in an animal and will do as my own sample of scientific research. Im sure it varies animal to animal but for me that argument you mention doesn't work at all because I have seen to much varying emotions in that jack russell I could give examples of all day. 

Bobby its a ritual they do there of bleeding out the pig


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Because the Bible says you can. Hahah.
The Bible also says that slavery is okay, Matt. Read Leviticus.
But I'm sure Matt's okay with slavery too.

On a side note, I can see both sides of the issue. I don't hunt, nor will I ever, but I won't comdemn people who hunt for subsistence, population control, and other ecologically beneficial factors. But hunting for sport? Not a fan. We share the earth with these animals, I think we should show them some respect.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Ari said:


> Because the Bible says you can. Hahah.
> The Bible also says that slavery is okay, Matt. Read Leviticus.
> But I'm sure Matt's okay with slavery too.
> 
> On a side note, I can see both sides of the issue. I don'te hunt, nor will I ever, but I won't comdemn people who hunt for subsistence, population control, and other ecological beneficial factors. But hunting for sport? Not a fan. We share the earth with these animals, I think we should sho them some respect.


Matt's a Christian and in the Christian book of the New Testament, slavery is sort of frowned upon.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Roflcopter said:


> Matt's a Christian and in the Christian book of the New Testament, slavery is sort of frowned upon.


There are multiple verses in the King James Bible that not only supports slavery, but condones the beating of slaves. The Christian religion and more importantly "scriptures" written in the word of that religion's "God" is absolutely stocked with the beating of slaves, gay people and women, along with **** and murder, some new testament, some old testament. Both are the word of God and are equally legitimate. 

Read the bible or do a quick Google search on "King James Bible and slavery", the first link alone is sufficient.

edit - I'm not trying to start a religious debate, please don't come back to me with a big debate on it, I'm more than happy to debate religion in the debate section, I'm just pointing out that if you do a quick google search, you can find multiple verses of the bible condoning slavery.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Smh at the whole conversation. Some people are against drinking, some people are against eating meeat all together. You are against hunting? Alright, whatever. But you do things people feel strongly against aswell, so you can sit back and judge people or you can leave them to it.


Seriously. Different people do and like different things.

If it's a legal behavior, you should address your complaints to your government, not other citizens who are simply exercising their rights.

There are enough things we aren't 'allowed' to do as it is. Do you guys really want to add more things to the list?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

rygu said:


> So you're suggesting if humans didn't exist, the world would be overpopulated by animals? If so, define overpopulated if you don't mind.


Overpopulation in the animal kingdom is very strong, and can lead to extixion in many cases.

Humans have to kill a few wolves to save a few sheep.

But regardless, that's not even the issue. People use phrases like inhumane when that's all the race has ever known. The guy with the biggest sabretooth tiger on his cave floor got the best cave hoe. It's natural order. The reason humans are on top is because we are by a mile the most intelligent predator. Something that can come along with that is killing a weaker species. I dont hunt, and I probably wouldnt, but regardless, people do it and its down to them.


----------



## Calibretto9 (Oct 15, 2006)

GrappleRetarded said:


> Hughes wasn't hunting these animals for food or to feed the locales, (even though he implies that's what he went over for). That wasn't his intention. His goal was to fly over to Africa and kill some exotic animals....for pleasure. Nothing else. He killed those animals because he finds it fun to kill them.
> 
> I have no problem with folk hunting as a means for food and to survive, what I do have a problem with, are sick human beings who kill animals for pleasure and their own satisfaction.
> 
> ...


Gotta spread some rep around but I'd rep you for that post if I could. I completely agree.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

M.C said:


> There are multiple verses in the King James Bible that not only supports slavery, but condones the beating of slaves. The Christian religion and more importantly "scriptures" written in the word of that religion's "God" is absolutely stocked with the beating of slaves, gay people and women, along with **** and murder, some new testament, some old testament. Both are the word of God and are equally legitimate.
> 
> Read the bible or do a quick Google search on "King James Bible and slavery", the first link alone is sufficient.
> 
> edit - I'm not trying to start a religious debate, please don't come back to me with a big debate on it, I'm more than happy to debate religion in the debate section, I'm just pointing out that if you do a quick google search, you can find multiple verses of the bible condoning slavery.


That's nothing to do with religion and all to do with the period it was written in. Take any 3000 year old book like the Old Testament and it will seem pretty out of touch most likely. Even the New Testament is just a little less than 2000 years old. 

Obviously, using the Bible to justify hunting is moronic. There are plenty of legitimate justifications for hunting the way we do it here in North America. But I'll agree that Europeans shouldn't be allowed to hunt because history has shown they aren't responsible enough to do it humanely or sustainably.

If this thread's shown anything it's that there are a lot more open atheists here than Sherdog, which is nice to see. Gives hope that one day people will put aside all these appeals to emotion and start letting logic inform their opinions. One step at a time though.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

RearNaked said:


> That's nothing to do with religion and all to do with the period it was written in. Take any 3000 year old book like the Old Testament and it will seem pretty out of touch most likely. Even the New Testament is just a little less than 2000 years old.
> 
> Obviously, using the Bible to justify hunting is moronic. There are plenty of legitimate justifications for hunting the way we do it here in North America. But I'll agree that Europeans shouldn't be allowed to hunt because history has shown they aren't responsible enough to do it humanely or sustainably.
> 
> If this thread's shown anything it's that there are a lot more open atheists here than Sherdog, which is nice to see. Gives hope that one day people will put aside all these appeals to emotion and start letting logic inform their opinions. One step at a time though.


3000 years old? Is this Kent Hovind? 

But yeah I agree. I'd consider the bible to be somewhat of a guide to good living in the BCs, and since social stigmas and ethicate has changed greatly since then, it's not really something to stick to for rules and allowances etc.


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

I had no idea people were so against hunting until Hughes got a ton of backlash before and Hardy came out and said some shit. I don't get it. It's all regulated, he does it the right way. Plenty of illegal hunting out there to get upset about. It's not like he is pulling the pickup truck over and shooting a unicorn. He is doing it the right way.


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

Again, Hughes isn't a douche just because he killed animals. He's a coward cause he needs to kill animals to get off and his justification comes from an appeal to bullshit sources. 

If he simply said, 'I like killing animals, if I can do it I will", or something to that extent, I would have respected his position much more.

Saying its legal and approved by the Bible is a cowardly cop-out and basically says to me that Hughes has no self-determination in terms of his ethics.


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

Iuanes said:


> Again, Hughes isn't a douche just because he killed animals. He's a coward cause he needs to kill animals to get off and his justification comes from an appeal to bullshit sources.
> 
> If he simply said, 'I like killing animals, if I can do it I will", or something to that extent, I would have respected his position much more.
> 
> Saying its legal and approved by the Bible is a cowardly cop-out and basically says to me that Hughes has no self-determination in terms of his ethics.


I think he was responding to the people who said un-Chirstian to hunt. People were actually saying that he is going against his faith by hunting. So IMO his response was geared towards those people. That is why he brought up the bible and the law.


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

I listened to the broadcast and the part where he mentions the law and the bible was prompted by a question by Ariel that has no mention of Christian values or criticisms.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> 3000 years old?





> Numerous modern scholars believe that the first five books of the Bible, the section aptly named "Pentateuch," were written at some point during the 15th century B.C.E. Though the authorship of the books is disputed, some believe there was a single author whilst others defend the idea of multiple authors, the conceptualized timeline for the scripting of these foundational books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, is widely accepted by numerous groups.
> 
> It is believed that Moses wrote at least some of the book of Exodus, and the Exodus took place around 1446 B.C.E so it can rightly be inferred that at least some, if not all, of the Pentateuch was written during this time. The authorship of the complete first five books of the Bible, however, complicates the conception of time in regard to their creation. Scholars have debated the number of authors for numerous years, and these scholars have come to a somewhat generalized agreement that the Pentateuch was authored by four varying authors. This means that the Pentateuch was written at four different points in time. Regardless, most schoalrs are still obliged to agree that the Old Testament first began taking shape roughly around the time of the Jewish exodus from Egypt, 1446 B.C.E.



My bad. Shit that thing is old.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

If it was written in the 15th century BCE the Bible is only about 3500 years old. The original statement wasn't that far off.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Iuanes said:


> I listened to the broadcast and the part where he mentions the law and the bible was prompted by a question by Ariel that has no mention of Christian values or criticisms.


I did see people in forums and media article comments arguing that the Bible doesn't necessarily condone hunting for the simple thrill of killing the animal. I'm sure he also got a dose of these on his twitter and blog.

But I think he mainly brought it up because he is a christian (at least by his own reckoning) and for him it is important to state the principles he lives by and justify his actions with them. Of course he is using his own interpretation of the bible and it is a lengthy, diverse document with many translations and metaphorical, parable-laden language that can be used to support practically any philosophy so to me that's like saying he lives by The Game of Thrones' series laws. Actually its even sillier because the bible was written by a bunch of different authors that frequently contradicted each other. Hell, the old testament is like a whole different version of god, before he decided to go PG-13.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

HexRei said:


> Hell, the old testament is like a whole different version of god, before he decided to go PG-13.


Hey... he had to give up his wild ways after he had the kid.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

deadmanshand said:


> If it was written in the 15th century BCE the Bible is only about 3500 years old. The original statement wasn't that far off.


The old testimate is written BC. The New Testiment was put together not that long after Jesus died.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> The old testimate is written BC. The New Testiment was put together not that long after Jesus died.


And? The Bible part 1 is 3500 years old and the Bible part 2 is 2000 years old.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> The old testimate is written BC. The New Testiment was put together not that long after Jesus died.


They are both "the bible". You cannot have the new testament without the old testament, the stories entwine and are combined, the new testament got the 10 commandments from the old testament, stories that start in the old testament finish off in the new one, they are combined as one.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

The point, of course, that we are getting away from is that due to it being that old, the 'the bible says it's OK' argument is just moronic.

While at the same time the 'yeah but the Bible says slavery is OK' argument is just as flawed because they both ignore the fact that the Bible doesn't really have any authority today because we live in an utterly different world than we did then, but also that things being in the Bible which we don't agree with cannot be used to attack Christians because they were typically things which were accepted by all cultures and religions of the period.

It's funny also to see that desert-dwelling religions all practice circumcision (no water for a bath) the wearing of beards (no water for a shave) and the limiting or prohibition of alcohol (no water to replace the water you lose drinking alcohol). Jews and Muslims will defend these 'religious' beliefs which are actually just survival tactics for living in the desert

At the end of the day, the central teachings of the Bible are all pretty solid rules for living a good life: don't bang your neighbor's wife, don't kill people, don't steal shit. And this is from a former preachy annoying atheist who now is just a quiet condescending atheist.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

RearNaked said:


> The point, of course, that we are getting away from is that due to it being that old, the 'the bible says it's OK argument is just moronic'.
> 
> While at the same time the 'yeah but the Bible says slavery is OK' argument is just as flawed because they both ignore the fact that the Bible doesn't really have any authority today because we live in an utterly different world than we did then, but also that things being in the Bible which we don't agree with cannot be used to attack Christians because they were typically things which were accepted by all cultures and religions of the period.
> 
> ...


It can be used against Christian morality in a debate on religion (this thread or post isn't, just saying) because they claim to get their morals from a book that condones slavery, ****, and the beating of women and murder of gay people, which is highly immoral, thus their source of morality in and of itself is highly immoral.

Also, the "central teachings" cross over many volumes riddled with murder, ****, slavery, stoning your children to death, and quite a few other horrific things. The Christian novels are some of the very worst moral codes a human being can go by, including eternal torture and suffering for people who commit finite crimes, which is also highly immoral.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

All in all, Hughes should have just skipped the religious angle and said 'the day they make this type of hunting illegal, I'll stop doing it' and the people pulling their hair out could go devote their time to something more productive, like trying to get big game hunting banned... in Africa. 

Of course, that would be hard. Calling Matt Hughes, the greatest welterweight champion of all time, a 'coward' is much easier.


----------



## limitufc (Oct 3, 2008)

If a politician writes on a piece of paper, that hunting is illegal, and it is signed by a bunch of other politicians, then it is illegal.

How dare you hunt an animal in the King's forest!

Everything in this forest is property of the king!

peasant: I have said no oath to him....

politician: it matters not....he is your king....


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

RearNaked said:


> All in all, Hughes should have just skipped the religious angle and said 'the day they make this type of hunting illegal, I'll stop doing it' and the people pulling their hair out could go devote their time to something more productive, like trying to get big game hunting banned... in Africa.
> 
> Of course, that would be hard. Calling Matt Hughes, the greatest welterweight champion of all time, a 'coward' is much easier.


Honestly, Hughes didn't have to say anything. Isn't he officially retired? Point being, he was doing something legal that he can't get into trouble for, and he has no need to keep his reputation going or explain himself as he's not even fighting/in the spotlight anymore.

Anywho, I've explained my opinion on it - he didn't do anything wrong, it was legal and all the meat/materials gathered from the animals were eaten and used, and it was done in a civil manner, I see no issues here.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Oh..this transposed into an even bigger shitstorm.


Yawn.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Don't have to feel fine about animals being killed for sport. However, I would feel just fine punching somebody calling me a pussie for defending this point. No remorse at all.


----------



## Ryankmfdm (Sep 24, 2010)

A real man would kill those animals with his bare hands.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

Ok guys, If you'd like to continue the debate on hunting and its morality please start a hunting thread in the debate section (if there isn't one already).

But this thread has more than ran its course.



here: http://www.mmaforum.com/debate-club/106435-hunting.html#post1642918


----------

