Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 244

Thread: HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

  1. #126
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    Burning SUV's in Pasadena or ski resorts in Aspen do not convince me that animals should have the same rights as me. Ruining years of medical research or smokebombing an expensive bistro do not advance anyone's political agendas. These are not acts of protest, they are crimes and the criminals belong in prison.

    Why do you think that illegal civil action cannot be acts of protest? Don`t you think that the Sons of Liberty carrying out the Boston Tea Party was protesting and committing a crime? I do. Why don`t you think so? Would you wished that all of them and abolitionists and Polish Jewish partisen resistant groups had been caught by the legal authorities of their countries?

    You are basing all your reasoning on arbitrary fondness for the status quo, and not on logic or with history as a background in regards to alleviating oppression and exploitation.
    [up]"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
    --Albert Einstein[/up]

  2. #127
    The Hairy Wookie Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    51
    Posts
    914


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Factory farms and slaughterhouses are indeed the worst of the two. However, there is no need to hunt anymore in most places of the world. All our nutritional requirements can be fully met through a vegetarian diet.

    There is no necessity in our modern era to have to take an animal`s life to obtain our nutritional needs to survive.
    I do not wish to be a vegetarian. Balanced diet is the most healthy option. I have covered the argument for and against a totally vegetarian diet on another thread. I have no objections to vegetarians and I will cater for them if they visits. Why they don't cater for me is a different matter? I do not wish to live on a diet of soya, which I have pointed out you HAVE to eat if you are a vegetarian or take supplements. Soya is not a natural plant everywhere in the world. You would ruin an eco-system just to feed yourself. If so you are no better than a meat farmer. You go on about the sancity of life for all, but accept violence towards people to protect animals. You support PETA, which has admitted that it has put down animals itself. Double standards. You have no idea on how eco-systems would suffer and collapse if your ideas were put into practice. You want to protect animals at the expense of the planet and people. I suggest you take a good, long hard look at your ideas and realise that the solutions that you propose are more difficult to put into practice than you seem to think.

  3. #128
    Banned
    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    This is not a logical argument:
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward

    Why do you think that illegal civil action cannot be acts of protest? Don`t you think that the Sons of Liberty carrying out the Boston Tea Party was protesting and committing a crime? I do. Why don`t you think so? Would you wished that all of them and abolitionists and Polish Jewish partisen resistant groups had been caught by the legal authorities of their countries?

    You are basing all your reasoning on arbitrary fondness for the status quo, and not on logic or with history as a background in regards to alleviating oppression and exploitation.

    Again, this is a load of crap. By reaching for emotional triggers, you may convince yourself that you are "alleviating opression and exploitation," but most people with just a smidgen of critical reasoning can recognize it as hooey. You can't compare the Boston Tea Party, abolition or Jewish resistance to the Nazis to the sophomoric and criminal activities of Animal Rightists.

    1. It attempts to make the AR cause more noble by comparing it to noble struggles of the past. These people fought for civil liberties (for humans),for human dignity and for survival. This is an attempt at false parallel.

    2. In those historical struggles, those people had exhausted all legal avenues of redress, had no other avenue to voice their opinion. AR still live in a society where freedom of expression is allowable, where there is ample media to give them voice, and a system where they can petition for redress.

    3. With little personal risk, AR targets are peripheral, powerless, and innocent. Unlike the Sons of Liberty (many of whom perished in the struggle), the Abolitionists (many of whom were hanged) or Polish resistance fighters (most of whom perished) these AR arsonists destroy private property of people without the power to effect change who are only peripherally involved in maintaining the status quo. The risk very little for a cause not widely accepted by vicimizing innocent people who have no power to affect the changes they are seeking.

    Graffitti by street gangs has a more valid political message. Targets chosen for symbolic value at great risk by people who have no other options. The Sons of Liberty did not burn down the local blacksmith shop, Polish resistance fighters did not target shoe repair shops, and abolitionists did not smoke bomb restaurants. These targets would have been random, unconnected and criminal.

    As for my "arbitrary fondness for the status quo" if this means my lack of moral outrage over the opression and exploitation of animals- and not humans, I will take that under consideration- while I finish my burger. I think your energy would be better spent trying to alleviate human suffering.

  4. #129
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    Again, people seem to have enough trouble extending that golden rule to people. I would not extend it to animals.
    Compassion isn`t a cup with a specific limit. You think it has a limit or some finite capacity. It does not. It only requires a belief in not exploitating.

    Does this make sense to you?: White people are having too much time extending the Golden Rule to white people. I would not extend it to black people.

    Oh, and as much as you would like analogies with blacks, clitoral manipulation and other examples of exploitation to be jettisoned from the argument, it will not. It clearly outlines logical lines on which exploitation exists or has existed. I know it is embarrassing for you to align yourself with that dreaded reasoning put forth in the past, but that is the logic you have chosen. You have not dealt with the logic yet. You and Mycernius just keep trying to plug in different things into the equation and expect the logic to not be in conflict with other horrors. Address the logic.


    Whether I like it or not, whenever I get behind the wheel of a car I risk "exploiting"- causing pain and suffering for my pleasure of driving- to an unfortunately high number of squirrels.
    Sabro, you are jumping off parallels in your analogy construct. You are not exploiting animals in your "driving" scenario because they are not the target of your enjoyment. At best, they are collateral damage of you taking possession of a different thing. Now, if your goal was to enjoy killing them by your car adn that was your intent and purposes for being in your car, then "yes," that would be exploitation. But, we both know, your joy is driving on the road from destination "A" to "B" or just merely feeling the wind in your hair or viewing the countryside.

    If people died at this rate it would be entirely unacceptable- especially since squirrels are incapable of understanding road rules, traffic signs, cars...We would- to apply the golden rule- have to spend billions to restructure traffic to keep squirrels out of harms way.
    lol! There is your hyperbolic "strawman" argument Sabro.

    But for your pleasure: The animals don`t need us to create extra special infrastructure for them. They just need us to respect their autonomy as we want others to respect our autonomy. Seeing how rich we are, however, some civic planning to give some kind of consideration to the homes of wildlife, to see that they are not total victims of our relentless greed, is not something that is so below us to extend.

    Why do you think the profit dollar is king to all considerations of life other than human? To me a concrete world of man only valuing himself, so concerned about his pressng needs that no other thing makes it onto the screen for consideration of spending funds on, is a rather glum future and environment that would await us if you were doling out funds and directing construction.


    You keep avoiding the mice, rats and bugs questions, not to mention parasitic pathogens.
    I thought I did answer it when you first broached it? Didn`t I say I extend the same consideration of not exploiting animals that have a central nervouse system and brain? I thought you had acknowledged that I did. Bugs I said I would give the benefit of doubt to and not target them for exploitation.

    Now, perhaps you are referring to things that seem to attack us or our sources of livelihood. Is that it?

    Let`s use a bear for example. If you are hiking and a bear attacks you, you are justified in choosing to save your life by taking the life of the bear. But, likewise, the bear is also justified in taking your life for you have invaded its home.

    If you have a pathogen that is destroying you, then if you have a treatment that can arrest and destroy that pathogen, then that is justified.

    Not exploiting does not mean one forfeits ones life to life when threatened by something.

    Ok, so let`s look at rodents eating one`s field crops -- that food that sustains one for their life. If that loss is going to directly affect the possibility of one`s life survival, then one is justified in taking that life/lives. But keep in mind, that is different from exploitation.

  5. #130
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    Again, this is a load of crap.
    Come on, Sabro. Don`t let your outrage cause you to resort to this style of retort.

    I know it can be frustrating when you are left with defending a position with arguments that other depraved systems and despots had used, but please try to control little outbursts like this. It really adds nothing to your argument.

    It`s just all arm flailing.

  6. #131
    Banned
    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    SVF forgive me if I don't go point for point on all of this.

    If I participated in an act which routinely took the lives of human beings, and I did so voluntarily with the foreknowledge that my actions would likely kill humans I would be morally and criminally liable. It would be unacceptable. That was the point of my analogy and the reason why it is relevant and not "straw." If I can't endanger and kill people like this, why should animals be forced to suffer and die? (Probing the limits of the animals = humans argument.)

    The fact that humans may have limited the Golden Rule out of their own prejudices to people within their group does not mean logically that we should extend it to animals. (Or carrots for that matter.)

    As for respecting an animal's autonomy- I have no idea what that might mean. Certainly my pets- including my 18 year old cat who has taken to crapping in the middle of the living room- seem to have autonomy. And I get to clean it up. But horses do not necessarily want to be ridden, cows may not want to be milked, and pigs certainly don't want to be pork. When we take honey are we not exploiting bees? When we take eggs, are we not exploiting hens? What gives animals this autonomy? How is it stated? How protected?

    I don't understand the entire paragraph about profit. The point is lost.

    The termites that eat my house are not threatening my life, they are damaging my property and they will die. The mice in my pantry likewise. The squirrels on the highway aren't threatening anything, but they die anyway. I can't kill people for damaging or threatening my property, so why should animals be "exploited" like this?

    If this is an argument against hunting-- again I fail to see how it is relevant. I though the whole point of hunting was to obtain meat from a kill, not to inflict pain, suffering or "enjoy" killing.

    There is no need to respond to the questions I have posed. I am becoming more and more convinced that prime rib is the answer (I had cut down to chicken and fish only, 3 or 4 times a week) and less and less convinced that bambi should live.

  7. #132
    Banned
    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Come on, Sabro. Don`t let your outrage cause you to resort to this style of retort.

    I know it can be frustrating when you are left with defending a position with arguments that other depraved systems and despots had used, but please try to control little outbursts like this. It really adds nothing to your argument.

    It`s just all arm flailing.
    Don't get sidetracked by the "crap" thing. Your argument was flawed and illogical and I gave a point by point explanation as to why. Your answer that this is "just all arm flailing." doesn't counter the points I made in showing you why your argument was crap.

    I know it can be frustrating to try to prove to an unbelieving public that fluffy has feelings and rights and should be respected just like you and me. But the arguments I used had nothing to do with any I know of that "depraved systems and despots" have used. If the word "crap" throws you for such a loop, please substitute "dookey" or "fecal waste" instead.

  8. #133
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    Don't get sidetracked by the "crap" thing.
    Oh, I am not "sidetracked," Sabro. Just merely wanting to keep the discussion from devolving into expletives.

    Your argument was flawed and illogical and I gave a point by point explanation as to why. Your answer that this is "just all arm flailing." doesn't counter the points I made in showing you why your argument was crap.
    Sabro, be patient. I will catch up. Surely you can see I am trying to be thorough in addressing the posts. Just a little behind, that`s all. However, my argument is not flawed -- yours is the one that is the foundation of past systems that have used exploitation to cause tyranny, oppression, and misery. I will address your points -- you can be sure of that.



    I know it can be frustrating...
    Please, coin your own expressions without resorting to lifting and copying mine.



    ...to try to prove to an unbelieving public that fluffy has feelings and rights and should be respected just like you and me. But the arguments I used had nothing to do with any I know of that "depraved systems and despots" have used. If the word "crap" throws you for such a loop, please substitute "dookey" or "fecal waste" instead.
    lol. Why post "crap" in any form?-- in any case? It is just exclamatory outrage which adds nothing to your argument.

    Please go back and read previous posts and you will see how your logic is the same logic used by other systems that used exploitation to keep status quos of oppression in place. I highlighted that from time to time.

    Yes, The Movement is multi-faceted. We do have a strong outreach program. More and more web pages on AR are proliferating the web. More and more books are being published on the topic. They are becoming "believers" in AR little by little.

  9. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Fair enough if you don't like the use of crap, fecal matter, or dookey, how about drivel, hog wash, garbage (pronounce it gar-BAAAge), or unsupported, emotional sentiment. And I was unaware that you invented the phrase "I know it can be frustrating." Please send me an invoice for the royalty fees I owe you.

    The "movement" seems to represent a small minority of humanity...and while it may comfort you to know that there are more and more web pages , books and believers, the same can be said for white supremacists and believers in the alien genomic influence theory. There are lots of things growing on the web these days. It's impact on free speech should be enough to prevent ARists, White Supremacists, Islamacists, and Abortion Bombers from claiming that anyone has silenced their voice and that acts of terrorism, property damage and violence are somehow justifiable.

  10. #135
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    You also fail to address the thousands if not millions of individual animals that farmers kill some on purpose, some as an acceptable risk, others quite by accident- in the process of growing food, and those animals that are displaced and lose habitat due to farming.
    Sabro, do you not understand that I am debating two of you and therefore it is only reasonable to see that I get behind or that sometimes things just get burried. No failing on my part. Please do me the courtesy of granting me some time. Although I do type very fast, I do have my limits.

    After reading the above quote a second time, I think I may have purposely passed it over because it was ridiculously clear about the animals dieing due to to harvesting and environmental loss. I think I was befuddled or even amused that you would bring it up.

    Being a vegetarian is not about living so that life is never taken. It is about choosing to not target life for exploitation via cosumption.

    Ok, yes, it is conceded that mice are killed in fields and that land used for crop cultivation displaces land which could be used for forests or prairie (i.e. animal habitat other than field mice, etc...). But, what you are not noting is, crops going directly to feed people feed more people than what crops going to feed a cow does from its (i.e. the cow's yield after grown on the large amounst of harvested crops) harvesting. It takes more acreage to feed a cow (i.e. convert the plant calories to animal calories) in order to get the same calories from what it would take to feed people had that crop gone directly to people. There are losses due to the middle stages of value added. Calorie conversion from plant to meat has loss and therefore it is not the most efficient path of from calorie to consumer.

    It is easy to see that there is a net positive loss of land going to meat production for the same number of people that would consume the same calories. More land going to crop production to support a value added to product such as meat means more animals caught in combines because of the need for ever more larger harvesting and land use. The vegetarian choice, while not free from killing field animals, nevertheless, is the choice that chooses the least amount of killing.

    Nor did you adequately answer Mycernius' question about what we should do with the North American gray squirrels should we ever actually trap all of them out of England
    It`s a preposterous "if" situation because I doubt we ever could trap all of them. Do you know what the natural range of the N. Am. gray sq is? I am guessing that originally they were in virtually all areas East of the Mississipi. I do know now they have spread to many forested areas all the way to california. Now, that is a lot of square milage that could absorb a large number of animals. Could be done. Just a matter of respecting life and committing the funds to fixing mistakes we are responsible for and which we do have the duty to do so in a way that we don`t force other animals to pay for our mistakes.

    That is just off the top of my head as a way to not resort to killing. Now, I am sure experts with enough money supporting a better way that doesn`t resort in killing could come up with even more ideas.

    You know, when people crouch into nature preserves or government designated wildernesses, and then when the government wants to get tough and evict them, they don`t go in there and kill them -- even if they were crawling all over the place destroying the fauna. They take the funds and time that are needed to move them out and in many cases relocate them.

    Now, they could choose to let them remain there and accept the loss of fauna. It is there choice. But killing need not be a part of the equation. Even more so when a vulnerable population group is not responsible for the predicament it finds itself in.

    But, just out of curiosity, what is the status now of the gray squirrel in the UK? Are they culling it? Is that cull being protested or blocked until a final decision is being made? What are all the proposals on the table?

  11. #136
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    About that strange logic that you say mothers would use with children when killing bugs or kicking the rabbit: -- [Don`t do that. How would you like it if someone did that to you] -- I would not ever say that to my kids.
    I sure would. And, it was said to me when I was a child and I have heard it said on other occassions by parents to kids -- even teachers to kids.

    The "How would you like someone to do that to you?" would never ever come up.
    Wow. That is kind of sad. So much for teaching empathy to other creatures by you and those you know. Sabro, empathy is never defined and limited to as just understanding the pains and sufferings of other humans. While all child psycologists would be alarmed at a kid, or even a family, that can`t empathise with another human, most would also be alarmed and concerned over a child and a family that also could not empathise or teach a child to do so with a vulnerable animal -- such as an injured rabbit that was unable to flee and found itself either available for kicking like a stone, or at least some care to not purposely cause it additional suffering.

    I polled several mothers.
    lol! Oh, you did, did you? That`s amusing. Well, then so did I. My results differ from yours.

    Most said that they would tell them to knock it off or ask "what's wrong with you?"


    Exactly, Sabro! What IS "wrong" with them would be a good response as well, which isn`t that far off in meaning from how I phrased it. A mother is alarmed that a kid doesn`t have some empathy if she sees them kicking a rabbit down the street no different from a stone. YOu`ve made my point. Just don`t know why you are hung up on semantics and why you are so reluctant to come out with it much sooner.

    A mother questioning a child in your vein is seeking to understand and admonish through a question why a child is performing an act of cruelty on an animal as if it were an inanimate object like a stone without feeling. There is cause for alarm there and a want to see that behaviour adjusted.

    It surely isn`t one of being worried that the rabbit is dirty for surely many rocks are dirt covered, too, and while one may tell a child to stop kicking a rock because it is filthy, one would probably not say so with alarm like, "What is wrong with you?"

    The fact is, there is definitely something wrong with, or something on the verge of going terribly wrong, if a child is treating an animal as if it were an inanimate thing/object that results in its injury just for his/her pleasure.

    Aren`t you aware that most depraved acts of human on human murder to satisfy pleasure (not revenge, jealousy, rage of the moment, or to obtain money or assets and insurance) are often done by people after they have practiced torturing and killing animals? Police files and court records are full of that documentation.

    I think it would have been best for many if those children at a very early stage were given some thought on empathy towards animals' feelings and the pain and misery that results from the improper treatment of them. Why don`t you think so? Just a simple, "Dude, knock it off! There is something wrong with that animal," leaves a lot to go unexamined and life lesson untaught if a kid is treating an animal like a stone and kicking it down the street. Why don`t you see that?

    I almost shudder to think of your children or the kids in your area from the mothers you`ve polled. Well, actually, your polled mothers basically said the same as I did -- albeit differently. That leaves you and your child with the "Dude, don`t touch that. There is something seriously wrong with that animal."

    Hmmmm... no, like the mother hinted at -- there is something wrong with the "child." No need to make the animal the scapegoat for what is lacking in the child -- a sense of empathy.


    ...but none spontaneously gave the response you thought would be natural.
    lol...and none in my poll group said anything near what you said. So much for our assertions that neither one of as can verify, huh?

  12. #137
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    You remarked that it took little or no skill, so the only way to check that is to participate. This is perfectly logical if you keep making statements about hunting that need confirmation. If you don't want me to have to do hunting research, refrain from specific criticisms about what hunters do, what the experience is, and what amount of effort or skill it takes.
    It is not perfectly logical, Sabro, for you would have to go out with every hunter to check in order to get an absolute statement that would apply to all. Even hunters will admit that a lot of their kills are due to luck. I am not saying all of them do, but many do. And because luck could be a lot of the factor in killing an animal you need not test it. But do so if you wish. It will not let you make a definitive answer anymore than just making some logical observations. A 14 year old, or even an 8 year old who never hunted before or had just one or two classes in hunting could conceivably kill a 14 point buck from the same tree stand a day after a veteran professional hunter of 30 years did the same or went home without killing anything.

    The point is, while there may be some minimal skill, it does not have to be the over riding determinant in killing an animal and that what skill it may take, is so readily attainable by most people, that it really isn`t much better than being skillful at searching out coupons in the newspaper to get the supermarket shopping costs down -- just a little patience in innertia, putting out some salt blocks, covering yourself in deer piss, making a call on a whistle to give you the perfect sound everytime, stay comfortable with battery socks, have a thermos nearby, point, aim, follow the rythom of your breathing, exhale, slowly squeeze.

    Most can do all that within a few days of training -- if not hours. Nothing requiring years to master or to get those things down. The biggest part is the deer just being fooled by the deer piss and them following the sound for companionship (i.e. walking up to or near the hunter). The hunter`s skill is just one of duplicity and ambush.

    But, put a 14 year old, or even a 24 year old on a basketball court with only a day or two of instruction up next to a NBA veteran for a game of 21, they will not win 2 out of three games. They probably wouldn`t even get one game. The winning of the game is the equivelant to a kill -- not just scoring a point here or there.

    But, remember, your logic still would force you to try cocaine in order to be able to criticize it. After all, you, too, have asserted that it is dangerous. In order to accept that, you`d have to be able to verify it. You see how ludicrous your logic is on this point?

  13. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    So your two basic arguments against hunting from the last two really really long posts of yours are: you should empathize with animals- because psychopaths don't and hunting really doesn't take all that much skill- a couple of hours of training and some deer piss and an 8 year old is as good as a 30 year old veteran. Please correct me if I did not summarize your arguments correctly.

    I find them entirely unconvincing.

  14. #139
    The Hairy Wookie Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    51
    Posts
    914


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    But, just out of curiosity, what is the status now of the gray squirrel in the UK? Are they culling it? Is that cull being protested or blocked until a final decision is being made? What are all the proposals on the table?
    The Grey squirrel is classed as a pest species and there are culls in areas. They have no natural predator in the UK. They damage trees and have almost driven our native Red squirrel to extinction. They are culled and there are no protests about the fact. Some fringe groups might not like it, but they have no media attention and the general public view is indifference to the fact. It is not illegal to kill or hunt a grey. You can even by recipes for them.
    Just to take your idea of trapping and sending them back to their native country we will take the feral pig in Australia as an example.
    If they where to follow your ideas in trapping the pigs then several problems arise:
    1. Australia is a big country. If traps were laid out the pig could be in that trap for sevearl days before being taken out. It will suffer dehydartion and sunstroke. Pigs skin is like human skin and sensistive to the sun.
    2. These pigs would have to be transported back to there country of origin, which in this case in mainly the UK. To cut the distress they would most likely have to be tranqualised. This is to tranq something is to actually poison it mildly. Wrong dose and one dead pig. So a certain percentage would die from the tranqualisers.
    3. Transportation. Even if you try your best they would be in small cages for hours. This, again, causes distress and animals that suffer too much will die from th amount of stress that undergo such mass transportations.
    4. Once in the UK they will have to undergo quarentine prodcedures. Again being locked up in a cage for several months. More distress and anguish.
    5. Once being passed they would have to go to a farm. They would not be released into the British countryside, as most of the countryside in the UK is managed. We do have wild boar in the south, but wild pigs can be dangerous, especially the boars. Look at the dogs bred for hunting these animals. tough with strong jaws.
    6. A farmer wouldn't just keep them as pets, especially if there were thousands of the damn things. Instead they would be put to a practical use and used for the meat market.
    So, to summerise. Your idea would take an animal out of the wild and subject it to stress and pain to end up thousand of miles from its home to be slaugtered. It is easier to pay someone to shoot the pig in its wild habitat. It is quicker and less painful for the animal in question. You'll probably argue that we can capture them and sterilise the animals. All well and good, but what do you do with the sterile animal? Release back into the wild? Stupid idea. The reason it has to be taken out of the wild is because of the damage it does to the eco-sytem. he the only way is to keep it in a farm in Australia. Again no-one will just keep thousands of pigs until the day that they die naturally. The reason: cost. Why pour money into it? Pigs are a commodity and we might as well use them for food and other by-products that they provide. As you can see a little different to your black and white view of the problem.

  15. #140
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    So your two basic arguments against hunting from the last two really really long posts of yours are: you should empathize with animals- because psychopaths don't and hunting really doesn't take all that much skill- a couple of hours of training and some deer piss and an 8 year old is as good as a 30 year old veteran. Please correct me if I did not summarize your arguments correctly.

    Then you stand corrected, Sabro. I am not against hunting for those reasons. I am against hunting because I do not accept exploitation of life for pleasure, comfort, or convenience. Empathy allows me to reject exploitation. I think I have said I am against the exploitation of life several times in this thread. Haven`t you caught that yet?

    I question "hunting" as a sport because it lacks skill and it is more of an activity which is liken to ambush. And I never said an 8 year old is as good as a 30 year old veteran. I said in all possibility an 8 year old could bring down a 14 pointer on one day when a veteran couldn`t.

    Why don`t you summerize accurately and address comments directed at you, and then your posts, too, would be a little longer as well. But doing that wouldn`t allow you to evade the issues of logic and questions I have put forth to you.

    Yes, my posts are long because I am being thorough in addressing you. And besides, I find myself having to repeat myself to you because you keep jumping parallels and breaking analogies. Furthermore, as for you hilarious "polling" above, it was necessary to underscore how weak and wrong it was -- except for the part where you proved my point with the mother asking her child, "What is wrong with you?"



    I find them entirely unconvincing.
    Believe me, I have no illusions of convincing you. You are merely a sounding board so that others who are undecided on the issue who may look in, can see arguments against hunting. Many are undecided and many may never visit an AR forum, so therefore, this is a great way to bring the arguments to them. ARists are not passive, you know.

    It also allows debate practice so that in the future when I debate a different person, in all probability I will have heard the arguments for hunting before hand. I`ve been on other boards before this one, and to be honest, you have offered nothing but the tired old crowings of all other hunters or their supporters. Personally, I hope the hunting coalition sticks to their message because it hasn`t been working for them. Their numbers are declining and more and more people are taking the side against it, not persuing it as a hobby, or giving it up.

  16. #141
    Banned CC1's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-06-04
    Location
    Uruma City, Okinawa
    Age
    50
    Posts
    212


    Country: Japan



    If I didn't know better I would swear that you are my buddy 3rdEyeDown reincarnated!

  17. #142
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    As to the "what gives you the right" question... you cannot logically answer that.
    Of course you can`t, because the right to exploit beings, causing them pain, misery, and death , does not exist. For survival, yes -- for profit, comfort, convenience, laziness -- no.

    Nothing and everything.
    You are right about the first part. The second half though, makes no sense. Are you going zen on me? Makes me think of verbal masturbation.

    Like I said, not prohibited by law,...
    The law is not an indicator of what is ethically right. Law often lags behind the granting of rights. Look at that in history and even when something was legal -- we can still confidantly say it was wrong and that people of that time were wrong to do such a thing. Social change often goes against/breaks the law before the law is adjusted.

    ... not against my religious code...
    lol. Personal religious codes do not guide what is right. I am sure there are some religious codes that do or have had practices that are not right. Would be a sorry world if people justified their actions by what their religious codes were. Almost too scary to even think about.

    ...not against my code of ethics (as it does not violate the Golden rule),
    Sorry, it does violate the Golden Rule. You just don`t recognize it. Besides, you underscored my point on that with the mother you polled in which she said to her child in the rabbit kicking scenario, "What is wrong with you?" Remember?

    Btw, I`m still laughing about your poll. Hilarious. Particularly how it backfired.



    ... conforms to my culture and traditions.
    Cultures and traditions are not guideposts of right action and ethical rights emanating from them. Examples have already been given. Again, look at the logic of what "x" and "y" you place into the constructs. Logic is consistant, it doesn`t change with the values inserted.

    I give you these and you argue back against them. Therefore I don't even have the right to eat a carrot: Just because it is legal, traditional, and does not violate my religious code does not make it right...after all clitoral mutilation fits all those parameters in Somalia. STV: this is not logical argument. It is the classical straw man tactic.

    Sorry, Sabro, it is you introducing the "carrot" which is a the diversion and "straw man" tactic. The argument against hunting is based on exploitation of creatures that feel pain and are capable of suffering. The ability to suffer is what cuts across all organisms with a central nervous system. Therefore, that is the total of the group which is subject to the argument and their experiences as members of the animal inhabitants of this world are comparable and fair play as analogical models to illustrate logic or the lack of logic in any given argument.

  18. #143
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    They [[ the arguments of Strongvoicesforward] are based entirely on an emotional premise that centers around ascribing human feelings, emotions and value to animals.
    And which emotions do you think animals don`t have? You will have a mountain of ethologists to go against when it comes to denying emotions to animals.

    As for basing arguments on "emotion" for hunting, or on any aspect of exploitation of animals, it is the emotional joy of killing an animal for sport, the emotional joy of killing an animal to wear its skin for fashion and conceit, etc...

    Perhaps you are underrating the "emotion" part a little too much and not giving the proper weight to the ugliness of the joy garnered through targeting an animal for death to get something from it that really is not a necessity to have.



    They ignore every point both Mycernius and I have brought up by giving logical fallacies and strange analogies.
    No, Sabro, you have NOT been addressing logic. You have just been repeating the fact that animals aren`t human and are not the same as us. The thing is you are ignoring all the traits the animals share with us that lends us to see their sufferng. You still have not reconciled the backdrops of history in which systems have caused suffering and how they were defended with the same logic that permits and forces suffering upon animals.

    Of course, you can continue to crow that they are not the same as us, but that argument has not been deterring many from joining the AR orgs that are calling for change in our relationships with animals.


  19. #144
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    Can you give a simple one paragraph response without making a strange analogy to slavery, human sacrifice or body piercing, attacking hunters as unskilled drunks, or taking the "how would you feel if it was you..." jump in logic to the simple question: Why is hunting wrong?
    lol. Sorry, Sabro, but an opponent in a debate never gets to control his/her opponents supporting arguments. Why do you think they do?

    Like I told you before, all those examples remain for you to grapple with. You still have not addressed the logic or nonlogic which they are founded upon. Animal exploitation does not exist in a vacuum. The backdrop of history is connected to everything.

    I have already told you: Hunting as a sport and where it is not necessary is wrong because exploitation/killing for pleasure is wrong. That is supported in different aspects by the examples which you referred to above which I had thrown out to you to explain the logic of -- which you have not done yet.

    Merely saying they are not human or human life is more valuable than animal life is not the point. To cause suffering is wrong, and most normally functioning people have an inate sense to not want to cause it and to avoid it or stop it when they see it, whether it be human or non-human which is the victim of it. Whether someone is complicit in that as a consumer far removed from the place where the suffering occurs is a different part of the equation.

    "Value" is not the point either -- for the importance we attatch to our species is one from our vantage, and not a universal one. There is no evidence that says animals were specifically created for us to do with as we wish or proof of an entity that says we can.

    "Value" is also defective because some humans value other humans less and therefore would also like to exploit them. "Value" is not a benchmark to measure by. "Value" can only be justified in one`s interest to win out in a personal event in which survival is a pressng matter of a particular moment when another being is trying to deprive you of your right to life. Then, you have the right to value your right to survive in the face of the other trying to deprive you of that life/right.


  20. #145
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    I have no objections to vegetarians and I will cater for them if they visits. Why they don't cater for me is a different matter?
    They don`t cater to you because doing so would mean they would have to violate the ethics that they believe to be true that exploiting animals is wrong. You don`t object to catering to them because you do not view doing anything to vegetables as wrong. In your mind, you are not put in a situation in your kitchen preparing something that calls into play questions about ethics. However, remember, they do find themselves in that situation.

    Would you want them to violate their beliefs in their ethics to cater to you?

  21. #146
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Mycernius,

    Your post #127 was pretty good, and I did address it just briefly above. However, it didn`t relate to hunting very much so I have not addressed it in its entirety. I know the last part of it was probably referring to pest invasive species, but I have already addressed that above, so I didn`t see a need to repeat myself in detail.

    Would my solutions bring the world to ruin like you said? That is conjecture on your part. The world hasn`t come to ruin yet, has it -- and believe me, there has been a lot more tinkering and screwing up with the world in all these hundreds of years before me, that I think my ideas would not make it any worse. In fact, I think they would aid it. But in the spirit of fairness, that, too, is conjecture.

    The only difference is, my plan would be the more costlier one in monetary terms. But, perhaps we need some practice in learning how to clean up after ourselves with some punitive costs so that we know the financial bite of screw ups. Screw ups should be painful. Those are the ones we learn from and whose lessons stick with us more. We are more likely to repeat stupidity when the costs are little or not punitive enough. A little pain goes far in creating future modifications of behaviour.

    That is not "black and white" which you seem to be fond of saying. Just deciding to kill something for convenience is the more "black and white" of the two options.

  22. #147
    Banned CC1's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-06-04
    Location
    Uruma City, Okinawa
    Age
    50
    Posts
    212


    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    They don`t cater to you because doing so would mean they would have to violate the ethics that they believe to be true that exploiting animals is wrong. You don`t object to catering to them because you do not view doing anything to vegetables as wrong. In your mind, you are not put in a situation in your kitchen preparing something that calls into play questions about ethics. However, remember, they do find themselves in that situation.

    Would you want them to violate their beliefs in their ethics to cater to you?
    Potatoes have feelings too...I don't think that we should harvest those poor potatoes just for our enjoyment...who will join me in this movement?

  23. #148
    I'm back. strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by CC1
    Potatoes [you are not my old buddy Dan Quale, are you? He had a penchant for talking about potatoes in public places. I think he had a special fondness for them.] have feelings too...I don't think that we should harvest those poor potatoes just for our enjoyment...who will join me in this movement?
    lol!

    You just may be able to create a movement. But, I am sure yours will be hundreds of years behind the AR movement. Start campaigning and get in line, CC1.

    But, if you don`t mind, I would like to keep the thread on track about hunting. It has already meandered off that topic from time to time about vegetarianism, fur farms, and invasive species. It is hard to keep it on topic as it is with other animal issues on the periphery, let alone Mr. Potato Head crowding in.

    So, if you could afford me this favor, I would prefer that you make a new thread for your "Potato" campaign. Fair enough?

    But thanks all the same for the injection of some humor to lighten it up a little.

    But, please do feel free to jump in with your thoughts on hunting. Perhaps you will have something new or a different perspective to add, or a different argument.

  24. #149
    The Hairy Wookie Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    51
    Posts
    914


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    They don`t cater to you because doing so would mean they would have to violate the ethics that they believe to be true that exploiting animals is wrong. You don`t object to catering to them because you do not view doing anything to vegetables as wrong. In your mind, you are not put in a situation in your kitchen preparing something that calls into play questions about ethics. However, remember, they do find themselves in that situation.

    Would you want them to violate their beliefs in their ethics to cater to you?
    Not all vegetarians are vegetarians because they do not like hunting or the explotation of animals. Some are vegetarians because they feel it is a better way of life for them. Some just don't like meat. I don't like pork, not because I feel for the the pig, I just don't like it. I have seen vegetarians eat meat when their is nothing else for them to eat. I know one vegetarian who does not like cats. In fact she has regularly said that if it was acceptable in this country to eat cats she would eat cats. But if I visit her house I do not get a choice. I know vegetarians that will kill animals, work in the meat industry and even in slaughter houses. How am I violating their ethics?
    While I do agree that some hunting is pointless and a waste of time. A man waiting for bambi to show up, shoot it and take its head as a prize is stupid and goes into the same catagory as "my cars is bigger than yours", but it is human nature. But there are some hunters than will trap and kill bambi and then take it home a butcher it and use it. They are not putting money into the farms that produce beef, chicken etc. Instead they are taking what they need, just like our ancestors. You live in a country where people can live in isolation from the rest of the world. They could live in towns and buy their meat from Sainsbury or Tesco, but they want to be more with nature. They gather and hunt what they need. To be free of our world. Would you deny these people this? Would you lock people in a cage and deny them their instincts, while letting animals follow thiers?
    In fact I will put money down that if you were put in a survival situation you would hunt, trap and kill. Ethics go out of the window in a survival situation. You'll shake your head at this going "no I won't", but when it boils down to it your life is more important than any animal, especially when faced with starvation. Like it or not man is a predator, only our intelligence lets us make a chioce, but in certain situations that primitive side will come out, no matter how many times you try to deny it. Surely even you have got angry enough to want to hurt someone.

  25. #150
    Banned
    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Okay, let me give this summarizing the argument thing another shot- and again correct me if I am wrong:SVF is against hunting because he does not accept exploitation of life for pleasure, comfort, or convenience. This is based upon some empathic connection with animal life. My basic argument has been that human life is inherently more valuable than animal life and that there is nothing wrong with this exploitation. (And I would add provided the purpose is not specifically to inflict suffering.) Is that accurate?

    The carrot is not a strawman. It is a response to the unanswerable question: "Who gives you the right." If it is not law, tradition, culture, history or religion...how could one possibly answer the question? The counter question "Who restricts that right." is equally valid and equally unanswerable. Hence nothing that can't be argued gives me the right, and equally nothing restricts that right. (Nothing and everything is neither Zen nor mental masturbation- nor is it relatavistic ethics- unless you provide a single absolute universal standard that governs our behavior, it is the best answer I have.) Although a carrot generates nearly the same answers from the sources mentioned that a cheeseburger or side of vennison would, killing another person violates cultural, legal, traditional, historical and religious standards.

    My wife and her co-workers thought the rabbit kicking question was quite funny. No one thought that kicking a living creature was okay, but all of them eat meat. I did not probe- I just asked them one at a time, "If you saw a boy kicking a live rabbit down the sidewalk, what would you say?" and universally they said they would tell the boy to knock it off. Not one volunteered that "how would you like if someone did that to you?" I'm certain that you can communicate that inflicting pain or torturing a living creature is wrong even if you dismiss the empathic substitution.

    The other reason for the difference in our polling is how you ask the question- if you are leading the people to give a certain answer- I did not, and allowed them to spontaneously generate an answer, probing only if there response was laughter, "I don't know." or an indirect answer. The follow up question was "why?"

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Spain's Blood Sport Culture of Bullfighting
    By strongvoicesforward in forum European Culture & History
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 16-10-19, 01:46
  2. A Cruel Method of Dealing with Katrina's Pets
    By Horizon in forum Nature, Environment & Ecology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 24-11-05, 13:14

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •