All Forums | General Discussion

Dog fighting vs hunting

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 4804
Posts: 158
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 121
Posted: #76

   If you eat what you kill, hunting is fine.  Just like fishing.  If you don't eat it, then it should be a crime just like dogfighting.

   It's just sad to see a thread that started off with a legitimate question turned into a race debate because of one racist a-hole.  By the way scal, will you admit that you were wrong yet, since the majority of posters on here are actually not supporting hunting like you thought they would?

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2010
Posts: 2401
Posted: #77
Quote Originally Posted by -29-:

Jelax,First of all I would like to apologize for a comment that I made towards you in another dog thread back in June. I didn't have enough blood in my alcohol stream when I posted that. The next morning when I remembered what I posted,I decided to take a break and didn't log back onto COVERS until earlier this month.

 I am both anti-dog fighting and anti-hunting as I could NEVER participate in either and I don't see much difference between the two.However if I came upon a dog fighting ring I'd do what I could to put an end to it,while if I discovered that there was going to be hunting activity at a certain location I would never think of interfering in any way.

 i just asked a friend who is an avid hunter this question and he replied,"The difference is that hunters eat what they kill and help keep deer poulations to a somewhat manageable level.If nobody hunted there would be far more car accidents (some of them fatal) due to deer in the roadways and there would also be more deer than food supply which would lead to starvation and disease.On the other hand dog fighters don't eat what they kill and their actions have absolutely zero benefit to the rest of society."

 I firmly believe that the majority of hunters do not hunt for food or to perform a civic duty but rather they just enjoy killing a beautiful creature.   I especially hate bow season when unless a hunter executes a perfect kill shot he just follows the trail of blood until the animal finally drops.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 23227
Posted: #78

Quote Originally Posted by RickeM:

I said I wanna take a room with an 8 year old kid? Notice how you are the only one making these claims?

Please read scals post, number 43 in case you forgot. You really are brain dead.



The proof is right there and you only have yourself to blame.

https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=41&sub=101045507&page=3

You also refer to black people as “fucking monkeys.”

https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=35&sub=101040308

You truly are the lowest of the low.

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2006
Posts: 28221
Posted: #79
Quote Originally Posted by Vectorfsm:

This is quite possibly the worst disaster of a thread I have seen in a long while...

Killing animals is a way of life. People will do it and you need to get over it, because you wouldn't be here if your ancestors didn't do it.

Being a fucking vegetarian doesn't help your case because killing a plant to eat it is still killing a living organism whether you consume it or not.

The thing that is fucked up about dog fighting is not that you are killing a dog---people euthanize dogs for shitty reasons all the time...the torture of the dog is not a good thing.

Slaughterhouses are not good either if the animals are raised under terrible circumstances before slaughter, but there are good-natured farmers that treat their cattle, pork and whatever justly.

The argument isn't, to kill or not to kill, it's the way in which the killing occurs.

Dog fighting is completely reckless and ridiculous...just like cockfighting is illegal as well.

Staging a poker game in your household is illegal as well, let's not forget that providing an atmosphere of illegal gaming IN ANY WAY is ILLEGAL, ON TOP of the fact that Vick and friends were torturing these dogs.



You cannot justify man's modern-day behavior because primitive man engaged in it.

Primitive man also didn't engage in the courtship of women, didn't have the institution of marriage and more than likely engaged in, very often, raping a female of their tribe (that is, sex without full consent as we look at it today) to satisfy basic biological urges. 

Of course society has evolved to prevent this crime against women, and many other sex crimes because of who we have become, what we understand about one another, what moral codes have been developed, and what science has told us. 

What I'm trying to say is that at one time, it may have been necessary to kill animals for food to maintain our survival. But in the most prosperous nation in the world, with a myriad of plant based and man made and/or cultivated protein sources, we are only eating animals for one reason: pleasure. They taste great, plain and simple.

The plant argument fails as well. We cannot say that because plants are alive, and we consume them, it is morally responsible on our part to consume the next species up the food chain ladder. 

We, as a society forbid cannibalism for obvious reasons. We believe eating the flesh of another human being is both unnecessary and immoral. I'm taking it one step down the food chain. 

If we can reasonably conclude that eating another human is immoral, then we, one day, can reach that point with animals if we have alternative food sources to supply ourselves with.

We can have an advanced code of 'food ethics' in the same way we have codified ethics for sexual relations. 

Perhaps one day there will come a time where we needn't consume any form of life, plant or otherwise, and all nutrients can be completely synthetic. If we are to get to that point, we have to start questioning why we eat animal flesh. 

The worst sin evidenced here is lifelong indifference towards this topic. The only real reason you eat meat is because everyone around you is doing it as well. Again, nutrition-wise, it largely unnecessary in this country.


I haven't even touched on the topic of 'good-natured' farmers which you noted. The factory farm IS the modern day farm in 99% of the cases and you consume meat from such inhumane slaughtering processes.

But even pointing that out, I say again, we don't even understand why we are eating animals. It is not a matter of nutrition or 'feeding our families' in this country, plain and simple.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2006
Posts: 28221
Posted: #80
Quote Originally Posted by RickeM:

Those "crimes" are hardly similar. C'mon scal. You can't really believe that.



They are on many levels. You only believe what you do because you have a conditioned affection for dogs. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 23227
Posted: #81
Quote Originally Posted by RickeM:

And 'boy' is the apropos terminology for him. 

This is Straightshitter's MO. Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist with little to no substance or sense in between. Train-ing Bra69 suffers from the same infantile libel line as well in his quest to defame without an argument. They believe that if they can discredit you sufficiently by sullying your character, then a reasonable defense of their stance doesn't matter (not that it existed anyhow).


You refer to black people as “fucking monkeys.”

 https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=35&sub=101040308

But I guess you don’t think there is anything racist about that because that’s exactly what they are to you, right?

People like you make me sick.

 

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 23227
Posted: #82
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:

What is your theory on where all the animals are going to get their food if their populations skyrocket?

Also what is your theory on how human fatalities involving vehicles and animals on the road wouldn’t go up if the animal population went through the roof?

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2006
Posts: 28221
Posted: #83
Quote Originally Posted by skimordie:

   If you eat what you kill, hunting is fine.  Just like fishing.  If you don't eat it, then it should be a crime just like dogfighting.

   It's just sad to see a thread that started off with a legitimate question turned into a race debate because of one racist a-hole.  By the way scal, will you admit that you were wrong yet, since the majority of posters on here are actually not supporting hunting like you thought they would?


I don't make any presumptions about the posters on this site nor do I expect anything from them (and that's little at best). I've heard it all, seen it all, and expect anything from covers. And if you have read the thread, this is anything BUT a race debate.

But naturally, when you see my avatar, the one brain cell you have lights up like a Christmas tree and screams RACE like a woman in labor. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2010
Posts: 2401
Posted: #84
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:

The proof is right there and you only have yourself to blame.

https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=41&sub=101045507&page=3

You also refer to black people as “fucking monkeys.”

https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=35&sub=101040308

You truly are the lowest of the low.

Straight and RickM can you please take your disagreement about who's the lowest form of human waste and PM each other instead. 

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 23227
Posted: #85
Quote Originally Posted by Jelax:

Straight and RickM can you please take your disagreement about who's the lowest form of human waste and PM each other instead. 

So, to you, hunters are as low as racists and pedophiles?

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2011
Posts: 421
Posted: #86
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:


I don't make any presumptions about the posters on this site nor do I expect anything from them (and that's little at best). I've heard it all, seen it all, and expect anything from covers. And if you have read the thread, this is anything BUT a race debate.

But naturally, when you see my avatar, the one brain cell you have lights up like a Christmas tree and screams RACE like a woman in labor. 

Scala,

Not trying to single you out here, but how can you say that you don't make any presumptions when you VERY clearly made one in your first post on this thread?

Are you just arguing just to argue, or are you really trying to make a point here?

And to address what you said to me earlier...

What you have to try to get over, in my opinion, is that killing is bad. There are 7 billion people on this planet.

 I bet if you had a button that you could press that would elevate the lifestyles of everyone to the level we enjoy in the US, no problems getting food, great medical solutions for bad health, for the most part, easy shelter, and easy opportunity to make money, you would press that button, wouldn't you?

You WOULD NOT want to do that. Based off the consumption level of our country and the rest of the Western World (Europe, Canada, Japan, US) our consumption level would IMMEDIATELY be risen ELEVEN-FOLD. 

The Earth would need to have natural resources to provide for, what would right now be the equivalent of 72 BILLION PEOPLE. The world would then be frightening, and to put it simply...it wouldn't work.

It would be a disaster.

This is what would happen if your 'don't kill any animals, create a nutrition-based food' approach that could allow us to thrive without killing any other organisms.

The fact is, animals have to feed off each other, and humans ARE NOT ALONE in the fact that virtually any species simply does not eat it's own kind.

Every aspect of our essential functions has been improved but not entirely changed, which is how it should be. You are proposing changing the very essentials of an essential function.

Think sleeping, eating, fucking and shitting. We don't sleep on rocks now, we sleep on beds. We don't often kill our own food, but we eat food that is killed. We don't take sex from our mating partners, but the mating process is not uniform. We don't often shit directly on the ground, but we still take our pants off.

Come on now, improvement is only improvement when it makes sense and is sustainable.

Over-evolving something is NOT necessarily improvement...sometimes things work the first time.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2006
Posts: 28221
Posted: #87
Quote Originally Posted by Vectorfsm:


Scala,

Not trying to single you out here, but how can you say that you don't make any presumptions when you VERY clearly made one in your first post on this thread?

Are you just arguing just to argue, or are you really trying to make a point here?

And to address what you said to me earlier...

What you have to try to get over, in my opinion, is that killing is bad. There are 7 billion people on this planet.

 I bet if you had a button that you could press that would elevate the lifestyles of everyone to the level we enjoy in the US, no problems getting food, great medical solutions for bad health, for the most part, easy shelter, and easy opportunity to make money, you would press that button, wouldn't you?

You WOULD NOT want to do that. Based off the consumption level of our country and the rest of the Western World (Europe, Canada, Japan, US) our consumption level would IMMEDIATELY be risen ELEVEN-FOLD. 

The Earth would need to have natural resources to provide for, what would right now be the equivalent of 72 BILLION PEOPLE. The world would then be frightening, and to put it simply...it wouldn't work.

It would be a disaster.

This is what would happen if your 'don't kill any animals, create a nutrition-based food' approach that could allow us to thrive without killing any other organisms.

The fact is, animals have to feed off each other, and humans ARE NOT ALONE in the fact that virtually any species simply does not eat it's own kind.

Every aspect of our essential functions has been improved but not entirely changed, which is how it should be. You are proposing changing the very essentials of an essential function.

Think sleeping, eating, fucking and shitting. We don't sleep on rocks now, we sleep on beds. We don't often kill our own food, but we eat food that is killed. We don't take sex from our mating partners, but the mating process is not uniform. We don't often shit directly on the ground, but we still take our pants off.

Come on now, improvement is only improvement when it makes sense and is sustainable.

Over-evolving something is NOT necessarily improvement...sometimes things work the first time.

I disagree with virtually every sentence of your post. 

Animals are bred on factory farms and cause more environmental degradation than anything we could do as a society to maintain a plant-based diet for all. Ironically, the same food we could use to prevent domestic and international starvation is fed to livestock, we breed, solely for the purpose of eating their meat. The ratio of the # of pounds of grain or feed necessary to produce one pound of meat is beyond outrageous.

But we'll agree to disagree. I know you're not budging on this one. 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2011
Posts: 421
Posted: #88
Scala,

On that one notion, that it takes a tremendous amount of food to produce our food, you are correct. One fricking Angus cow consumes over 50 gallons of water/day.

However, this argument isn't about whether or not our food production is the most efficient yet, because, as you know it isn't.

What this is about is whether or not it is OK to kill animals to eat them.

I think that it is. Long story short.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 1142
Posted: #89
Both excuses for killing dumb animals are for the same reasons men drive big trucks, beat their children and wives, pick fights when drunk, show off their guns, etc... small dicks and latent homosexuality!
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 7967
Posted: #90
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:

So, to you, hunters are as low as racists and pedophiles?

You're the one who fucks your own cousin yet I'm the pedophile?




 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 1142
Posted: #91

Vick is and always will be urban trash. He had a criminal record way before he killed mans best friend. Hopefully someone will break his skinny ass for karmas sake this season.

Philli football is now cursed.

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 7967
Posted: #92
And 'boy' is the apropos terminology for him. 

This is Straightshitter's MO. Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist with little to no substance or sense in between. Train-ing Bra69 suffers from the same infantile libel line as well in his quest to defame without an argument. They believe that if they can discredit you sufficiently by sullying your character, then a reasonable defense of their stance doesn't matter (not that it existed anyhow).




 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 7967
Posted: #93
StraightShooter is too dumb to understand what scal is saying in that post.

This kid just keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over.

What a tard.

You pedophile, you racist, blah, blah, blah, deal with it....


 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2011
Posts: 421
Posted: #94
Straightshooter 1-0 RickeM
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 7967
Posted: #95
Quote Originally Posted by Vectorfsm:

Straightshooter 1-0 RickeM
Uh-huh. Didn't realize we were keeping score.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 7967
Posted: #96
scalabrine 1-0 Vectorfsm


 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 643
Posted: #97
i'm really not sure how this turned in to a racist thread but whatever. 

this is for scal: as i have said, to each his own. when you make any argument or conversation all about racism, it shows your ignorance. i'm all for differing opinions but you sir, are an unadulterated racist. on top of that, you are just a terminal warrior, talking shit behind a computer with little or no consequences to what you spew out. i'll tell you what, come hunting with me anytime you wish, on my dime, and if you feel the same after, no hard feelings. open invitation. good luck to you sir in life. 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2008
Posts: 372
Posted: #98
only an uneducated moron doesn't know the difference

aka thugs
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2006
Posts: 28221
Posted: #99
Quote Originally Posted by Vectorfsm:

Scala,

On that one notion, that it takes a tremendous amount of food to produce our food, you are correct. One fricking Angus cow consumes over 50 gallons of water/day.

However, this argument isn't about whether or not our food production is the most efficient yet, because, as you know it isn't.

What this is about is whether or not it is OK to kill animals to eat them.

I think that it is. Long story short.

To your third sentence, given that you have now admitted it takes an inordinate amount of food, water and land to raise livestock, all which can be used for human consumption, you MUST take that into consideration when deciding whether animals should be bred to be slaughtered. Of course, this doesn't address hunting which I already outlined in a separate argument.
 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2006
Posts: 28221
Posted: #100
Quote Originally Posted by vandjinc:

i'm really not sure how this turned in to a racist thread but whatever. 

this is for scal: as i have said, to each his own. when you make any argument or conversation all about racism, it shows your ignorance. i'm all for differing opinions but you sir, are an unadulterated racist. on top of that, you are just a terminal warrior, talking shit behind a computer with little or no consequences to what you spew out. i'll tell you what, come hunting with me anytime you wish, on my dime, and if you feel the same after, no hard feelings. open invitation. good luck to you sir in life. 

Thanks but i'm gonna have to pass on that one...
All Forums | General Discussion
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.