This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Mamba24's Profile

Mamba24's Avatar Joined about 3 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Mamba24

More Discussions by Mamba24

Latest Comments by Mamba24

Go to: Before Wolves May Be Hunted, Science, Faith and Politics Clash

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by Mamba24

"I have a question for you: Why do you think there's nothing wrong with hunting wolves?"

-For the same reason I don't think there's anything wrong with hunting Elk, Deer, antelope, or any other big game animal. Humans are animals. Animals hunt other animals. It's natural. WHY do you think there is something wrong with hunting??

"You mention "traditional, ethical hunting", which to me is an oxymoron,".......

-An oxymoron? Sorry I don't see the oxymoron you are referring too.....Do you know what an oxymoron is?

"but I nonetheless acknowledge the difference between drunken rednecks with shotguns and people who have a degree of respect for the animals they hunt, the environment, etc, whether that's because they are part of a hunter/gatherer culture or because they are simply intelligent."

-Yes because believe or not there are codes and regulations hunters have to abide by, like you can't be driving around drinking beers and shooting out of the vehicle. All hunters have to take and pass a hunter safety education course, where they teach proper hunting techniques and ethics. Make sure you take a good shot and put the animal down so they don't have to suffer more than necessary. If you take a bad shot and only wound it, and then it gets away, then it's suffering pain inflicted by you. That's considered unethical hunting. So yeah, it's not just a bunch of rednecks out there.

"I must first point out that, probably similar to others on this site, I find tradition a poor substitute for ethics, and tradition alone an insufficient justification for any practice that may cause harm- which hunting certainly can do."

-Well first off, it's not a "substitution" for ethics, ethics isn't being substituted. Cultures all over the world practice hunting, some egalitarian societies consider it an art-form. I'd like to know what "harm" you are referring to that hunting supposedly causes. So by your opinion, are some hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa, that rely almost entirely on hunting......causing harm?

"From this basis I must point out that wolves are a very intelligent, complex social species, quite different from the bears and mountain lions that you might also choose to kill, and it seems to me that any species with high levels of sociality and intelligence should be given a particularly strong leniency before we as humans feel justified to kill them."

-Yes they are intelligent creatures..........so that means that they can't be killed? So any species that has a certain degree of intelligence is therefore off-limits? Because by your logic it's "unjustifiable"? Hunting is a part of nature silverwolf, animals kill and eat each other, always have. There's a difference between ethical hunting and torture. And no, you can't kill mountain lions, and most people don't hunt bear.(out of the few kinds that you can hunt)

"However, this kind of wolf hunting can't at all be described as traditional or ethical either. How is killing such an animal, not out of self-defense and of course not out of hunger, traditional or ethical? Wolves are apex predators like us; their "natural" role is not that of prey any more than ours is."

-So according to your opinion, the only ethical and justifiable kind of hunting is either out of self-defense or hunger? Are you kidding me? Just for your information, lot's of hunters DO eat the animals they kill. What's your position on cattle farms then? Most of these animals are fed and raised only to be slaughtered. Where do you think the regular beef you buy at the store comes from? Or are cows not intelligent enough to be on the don't touch list? In my opinion, hunting in the wild is even more ethical than raising and slaughtering cattle. At least there is a fair pursuit, where the prey has a chance to escape and survive, kind of like how nature works. And now your saying that wolves can't be hunted because their natural role is that of a predator, as if there is some big natural law book you're quoting from. You're going to have to use an actual argument if you're going to convince me of your position. Making stuff doesn't cut it, and yes I know wolves are natural predators, and they still are.

"And whether you like it or not, ranching interests such as the Cattlemen's Beef Association and so-called hunter's rights organizations like the Anti-Wolf Foundation do take it upon themselves to demonize these animals at every turn, and stand to lose quite a bit if wolves are allowed to simply be left alone by humans until (and if) they begin to reclaim territory where humans actually live and not merely rural ranches populated by bloated cattle."

-And whether you like it or not, a lot of the wolves that are in these territories........aren't even native to those places....a lot the wolf populations were placed there from Canada. And yes I know there are extreme radical groups out there, and they need to checked. Fish and Game isn't going to allow the wolf population to be wiped out. There is reasonable people that manage these things, it's good to fight the radical groups and pay attention to them, but I wouldn't get all worked up over them.

"Similarly, elk and deer hunters must adjust their behavior and limits to return to the original, wolf-included equilibrium, and not the relatively new artifice of humans replacing wolves as apex predators of deer and elk, and often weakening the gene pool by targeting stronger and healthier prey rather than sick or older animals."

-You don't think wildlife agencies know this stuff? Are you really so worried about the gene pool weakening from killing all the stronger and game trophies? LOL Wow. It's the healthy and strong that have the best chance of passing on their genes buddy.....

"I'm not saying there's not good argument that could be made for a "hunt" (though I haven't heard one yet), only that careful consideration must be taken before making such decisions, and that the interests of hunters and ranchers should not necessarily be taken for granted."

-How about that it's a natural part of life? Animals hunt and kill other animals......I haven't heard any reasonable arguments against hunting from you yet....

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:25:40 UTC | #926843

Go to: Before Wolves May Be Hunted, Science, Faith and Politics Clash

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by Mamba24

Are any of you guys who are posting here even hunters? Do you have any knowledge of wildlife policies? 800 wolves in ONE state is not a small number. Even one wolf can cause havoc on other wildlife forms, now consider that they travel in packs......No one is saying that we should wipe out the wolves, they do play a role in keeping Elk and Deer populations down, as well as other ecological benefits. But you shouldn't put so much doubt in Fish and Game or other Wildlife agencies. They will only put out a limited number of wolf tags. I live in Montana, we had a wolf hunting season and It was very successful, I don't even think all the tags were filled and they considered extending the season another couple weeks before they decided against it. There's nothing wrong with hunting wolves as long as we make sure we don't over-hunt them and manage the wolf population. I think my state has done a great job at managing our wolf population and keeping it at a healthy population level. As for you guys saying that people just want to hunt wolves for "financial" purposes, I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about. Most people don't hunt for "financial" purposes, it's not about money, it's about their love for the outdoors and traditional ethical hunting. Hunters aren't just mindless barbarians who just want to wipe everything out. Hunting is apart of our nature, we've been doing it for million of years, going back to Homo Erectus possibly. "Ukvillafan" says that humans don't even need to eat meat........Really? So we should all become vegetarians because killing other animals(which is completely natural) is bad? I assure you that it's not as simple as "people just wanting to kill wolves just so we can kill more of our domesticated stocks". It's true for some people, mainly farmers, and there's nothing wrong with their opinion, but most hunters don't own farms or livestock. We can manage wolf populations at a healthy level that works for everyone. I think the fact that this Native American group had to resort to religion, just shows a lack of real argument on their part.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:49:05 UTC | #926829

Go to: Would The World Be Better Off Without Religion?

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by Mamba24

I can't stand Dinesh D'souza.

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:30:35 UTC | #892125

Go to: Why 9/11 was good for religion

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 65 by Mamba24

@ Robert Howard

-Oh your previous post about me demolishing your faulty argument? LOL Yeah I got the sarcasm there. But I don't really care about that post, I'm more interested in your original post about how science is just as fundamental, if not more than religion. So either you have a counter-argument to my post, or you just have more sarcastic responses to which I'm not really interested in hearing. Once again, the mamba.

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:03:05 UTC | #869477

Go to: Why 9/11 was good for religion

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 64 by Mamba24

@ Robert Howard

-Really? Didn't look at all sarcastic to me...lol So either your terrible at making your real intentions known, or you're just making excuses. But if you were truly just being sarcastic, I will take your word for it. All in all, it makes for a good example for people to read who think that both science and religion are on equal grounds, and that neither are very good at explaining the natural world and universe. (for which they would be very wrong)

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:57:17 UTC | #869473

More Comments by Mamba24