HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

[strongvoicesforward]

Not all vegetarians are vegetarians because they do not like hunting or the explotation of animals.

That`s right. Sorry. When I had read and answered your post, since this thread's argument from my point was one of ethics, I thought you were giving your friends' situation as one that matched this thread's main point.

While I do agree that some hunting is pointless and a waste of time.

We agree. Whether it is some or most, is up for debate.

They are not putting money into the farms that produce beef, chicken etc. Instead they are taking what they need, just like our ancestors.

Factory farming is the worst, which I clearly stated before. But both are exploitation and neither is really needed in our modern societies or even in the many rural areas.

"Just like our ancestors" however, is a strange phrase to use. Sure, nutritional needs harvested are the same. But, method of harvesting is indeed no where near like how our ancestors did it. And which ancestors are you referring to? Whichever sub group you choose will be an arbitrary choice, won`t it? Our ancestors of 50, 100, 200, 300 years ago all had different methods/tools for huntng and therefore the chances of animals not being killed as they are pitted against hunter/man also differed.

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.

"Wants" do not make it right.

They gather and hunt what they need. Would you deny these people this? Would you lock people in a cage and deny them their instincts, while letting animals follow thiers?

If there is no need to cause killing and suffering, I cannot condone it. If it were preventable, then I think it should be prevented. There is nothing about locking people up in cages just by not permitting them to hunt.

Animals need to follow their urge to hunt in order to survive. After all, they can`t go to the supermarket and buy their food, can they? Humans can do that.

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.

Mycernius, no where in this thread have I ever said that hunting for survival was wrong. In fact, I think I referred to some isolated places in the Arctic or the Amazon where it is a necessity. Those now are places that are not the norm of modern life. They are anomalies. Remember, this thread topic is referring to sport -- not hunting as a need to survive.

If my plane crashed in the Sahara, and I knew for a fact that thousands of hot desolate sand stretched out before me in either direction, and two lone camels walked by, and I was on the verge of loosing all strength to continue my life, I would kill one camel to survive and consume it. Consuming life, even animal life, for survival in severe situations is indeed justified.

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.

Exactly Mycernius! "Certain" situations dictate when it is justified. Not enjoyment for a sport or just wanting to obtain pleasure by living in the mountains because we choose to. That is exploitation based on pleasure. AS our inteligence, like you said, lets us make a choice, it also lets us to recognize respect for life based on ethics and to understand that taking life should only be when it IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to continue our life in a battle with nature in nature just as a wolf would have to do.

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

Is that accurate [position rearranged]?

Yes, Sabro, that is basically it. That is The Movement`s basic position. However, the empathetic connection to non-human animal life is a real one and is only subverted when in a survival situation, or when life has been commodified by pleasure (i.e. hobbies) or economics.

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.)

And I reject that argument as false because "value" is from a human perspective and that implies that the world was made for us with us at the top, and furthermore, there is no proof from a universal sense that humans are more important than animals. That is a belief based on speciesism, just as the logic of racism dictated that the lives of Whites were/are more valuable than blacks, or that Men are more important or have more inherant value than women and therefore only they should be able to vote.

But, valueing one thing over another does not mean it is permissable to exploit another. "Value" is not a license for exploitation. Like I said before, if value were a license, then people who value their race over that of another would be justified in exploiting that race.

Humans are animals. Placing a barrier between us and non-human animals is an arbitrarily placed barrier that is not justified by anything other than the proffits we gain from exploiting them. It is only the fear of losing that profit that stands in the way of breaking that barrier down. But that fear is the same fear that resisted breaking barriers down between races amongst our own race.

Extending the concept of rights should be done because no being that can feel pain wants to suffer, and all that do feel pain want that relieved. If we have the ability to relieve suffering, our desire not to be in the same situation, calls out to us to want to relieve that. Even though we may not act on that, our repugnance at suffering causes us to look away from it, to shield our sensibilities from it.

Furthermore, if an action targets an animal to get something from it so that one profits in someway and suffering is a result, then it, too is wrong. This would include things such as sport hunting, factory farming, fur farms, trapping, etc....

[strongvoicesforward]

Sabro: 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.

I stated before, Sabro, a carrot is not part of the animal group. It has no sentience or consciouse. It does not share a central nervous system that lets us observe suffering and paine. The argument for AR is one based on not exploiting because exploitation leads to suffering and pain which are things we ethically should recognize as something we should not cause.

If you can find large amounts of studies and data and many researchers akin to ethologists in the plant realm that shows a carrot suffers and feels pain, has some sentience, a central nervous system that allows that, then maybe your carrot ruse would not be the red herring it is. Until then, it sticks out there as the strawman to just muddle the argument and act as a diversion.

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.

Yes, Sabro, and all those things you have listed are constructs of the human animal for the benefit of humans. It says nothing about humans from a universal perspective as having the right to grant himself extraspecial rights and deny them to non-human animals.

I explained before why all those reasons are not right for denying animals rights and keeping them in a perpetual form of tyranny and exploitation. You have not addressed the logic. Here they are supporting another terrible thing that perverted happiness in a culture of exploitation and fear:

A white lady marrying a black man violates cultural, legal, traditional, historical and religious standards.

Does that logic sound something you would like to keep wearing? Now please, address the logic, that which supports the construct.

[strongvoicesforward]

FLASH: The first black bear killed in Rhode Island (?right state?) on the first day of the black bear hutning season was killed by an 8 year old girl.

Just heard that on The Daily Show. Sorry, didn`t catch the state, but it was an Eastern State. Wow! Lots of skill in this! I can just imagine her sitting next to a garbage heap or spreading the bait gunk to attract it. Doubt if she was walking miles over rough terrain stalking a bear.

Skill, skill, skill and an 8 year old girl. Yeah -- lots of skill.

[No-name]

Well then- there is the source- the immovable impediment is the fact that I do believe humans are different than animals. I "value" human life over that of any insect, fish, reptile, mammal or other primate. Certainly we are biologically part of the animal kingdom...and physiologically we do not differ.

But there is a difference that is not arbitrary-justified not only by our superior intellect or by our varried beliefs in a soul or spirit but also by our inherent psychological and social connection to one another. It is part of all of our religions, part of our cultures, traditions, history, and codified into our ethics, morals and laws. As clearly as the AR movement would like to erase this boundry is the fact that it exists in a large sociologically based context that is engrained and entrenched.

"Value" unfortunately is a license for exploitation. It is exactly how people do justify exploitation of another race. It is exactly how we excuse collateral casualties in Iraq. It ignores the fact that we are members of a single species. Race, however is a social construct not a biological fact (although Bossel can argue convincingly otherwise). Species is a definite biologically defined classification. Although I cannot justify a differing value in terms of race, I can in terms of species. I cannot justify racism, but valuing my species above all others is perfectly and soundly based.

There is nothing particularly wrong with fear as a motivator. I fear change for no real reason. I would say that I definitely fear losing my ability to eat the foods I enjoy. That I fear my life would become unnecessarily complicated and expensive. I fear that traditions and customs that have endured for centuries would be lost, and that the next medical breakthrough will never happen because the research is no longer practical. I fear our cosmetics could become dangerous in ways we can't predict, that our food becomes not only less available due to out of control of vermin, but less safe due to the lack of testing and vector control. I fear that we would make all these changes to satisfy a minority of humans for the wrong reasons, that they will be implemented with disaterous results and that the animal world will not be any better off. That as we break down our barrier between the more easily empathized with mammals, that we also get less willing to kill pests, to manage wildlife and that we sacrifice good science for sentiment. It seems an unacceptable risk to human life and our modern lifestyle based upon questionable assumptions.

I also fear a fringe movement dictating not only the vehicle I drive, but my recreational and entertainment activities.

Although this thread is in regards to hunting (which I don't do anyway). I do eat meat (mostly fish and chicken), dairy products and eggs, support ethical vivisection, go fishing, wear leather clothing, desire to control pests for food preservation and property protection as well as vector control, enjoy zoos (but not circuses). I support others who like me keep pets, and equestrians, ranchers and farmers. I own three 4x4's- although 2 of them are small, but my daily driver is an Insight- 70mpg. I have gone skiing in the past. I hope the AR "Movement" will leave me alone.

[No-name]

How do you know how much skill an 8 year old girl has? Now I have to go black bear hunting to determine if she was some kind of savant or just lucky. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102402024.html

So the carrot does not have sentience or conscience? How do you know? Several ancient cultures believe that every living thing has a spirit. What determines sentience and conscience? I'm not entirely certain that my pets are self aware or that they have the intellectual capacity to justify this classification. (And they are smart pets.)

"A white lady marrying a black man violates cultural, legal, traditional, historical and religious standards." Fortunately this is no longer true in my country. (See, this is the dookie argument- again designed to associate the struggle against racism with AR. Race is an artificial category, species is not.) How about "A white lady marrying her labrador retriever?" I wouldn't want to impose my "species barrier" on their love.

[No-name]

Not that I support 8 year olds skipping school to kill bears (which are trophy animals- you don't eat them) --I checked the Washington Post article: The bear wasn't baited or shot at a dump. It was cold and raining. She had to score 98 on a safety test. She hit the bear twice at fifty yards. The second time it was moving..."But hunters who came later, hauling bears of their own, were astonished by Sierra's feat of marksmanship -- usually bears will start to run too fast for a hunter to get off a second shot." So apparently she had a bit of skill. (The point of which, skill or no skill- is hunting right or wrong...I have lost. Rock skipping takes little skill, but we don't ban that.)

Your screaming colorful headline sized post is unnecessary and does nothing to improve your argument. (again, this point seems off topic.)

[Miss_apollo7]

I like to shoot with a pistol in a shooting range (0.22 caliber mostly). I don't shoot animals since I don't like the feeling of personally killing a deer or a bird just for the fun of it.
I know many hunters, and some have tried to convince me into shooting with them, however, I have always declined.
I like shooting for "dead targets which have points" and just for the fun of shooting, not killing, as it trains my precision, posture, and simply for the competition – but a poor deer shouldn't be victim for my leisure time and because I happen to like shooting.

I don't have any problems of eating meat though, I couldn't live without chicken, since I love to eat chicken breast....I just don't want to kill them myself for the fun of it.....
What is very important to me is the welfare of the animals when they get slaughtered, so I don't mind continuing eating chicken, turkey, pork etc.,

[strongvoicesforward]

I like to shoot with a pistol in a shooting range (0.22 caliber mostly). I don't shoot animals since I don't like the feeling of personally killing a deer or a bird just for the fun of it.

Shooting targets on a range. Fine. Causing misery for fun. Not fine. You have "right thought" on the matter.

I know many hunters, and some have tried to convince me into shooting with them, however, I have always declined.

Doesn`t surprise me. Depraved people always feel a little less guilty when they spread that guilt around a little. Knowing their world is one in which those who share their same sense of pleasure is growing smaller and smaller, it is not surprising they are trying to get more blood junkies.

Kind of reminds me of the teenager in an inner city project looking on a playground. Not content with letting the younger kids just shoot some b-ball and have fun doing what they enjoy, this dealer of misery goes over and tries to convince the kids to shoot up with him and join in on his activity -- an all too different kind of "shooting."

"There she is shooting those targets on the range. Hmmmm... Let`s try and get her to do our kind of shooting that takes an innocent life minding its own business not threatening anyone."

I like shooting for "dead targets which have points" and just for the fun of shooting, not killing, as it trains my precision, posture, and simply for the competition �| but a poor deer shouldn't be a victim for my leisure time and because I happen to like shooting.

Well said, Miss_apollo7.

Hunters, however, need that coup de` grace. Those "sportsmen" just need to have bloodletting and take a life. I mean, a head hanging over a mantle, bonding, story telling, and bragging rights are all on the line. A bear`s life is definitely tradable for all those things.

And if a few animals get away with serious wounds to die miserable and painful deaths from gangrene, oh well -- just tough luck. Shouldn`t have been born a bear, Ms Bear. You have to pay for me being a bad shot or not being smart enough to stand still so I can take your life without screwing it up. Why, in the end, its all your falt. Surely not mine, because the law says I can do it.

[strongvoicesforward]

This [the bolded following] is not a logical argument:

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.

Sure it is (i.e. a logical argument). And your points below, which I will get to now in a few separate posts, have not explained why it is not logical. They only explain your opinion on what you feel is noble and which is not noble.

I asked you some specific questions. Why didn`t you answer them? I am wondering if you didn`t answer because the answers point you in the direction of logic.

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.

"Sophomoric"!? Kind of reminds me of egging a house or soaping car windows or toilet papering a house. Now you are hyperboling downward. You had better look at some of the direct actions taken by Animal Liberationists and that should show you they are anything other than "sophomoric," -- and are not considered so by their targets.

Again, criminal activity does not mean that activity is absolutely wrong. I know you don`t want to answer the questions above, because that would make you have to admit that criminal activity conducted in many movements to alleviate tyranny and oppression was, and indeed, is permissable and judged so by historians as rightly so. Your problem in refusing to answer the question is one of you being in the status quo and fearing the loss of priviledge you get from imposing your will on another individual. Logically, no different from history.

"Emotional triggers"??? -- Yes, those were all things struggles that were taxing emotionaly, and still so when remembered by many. Nothing wrong with bringing emotions into actions to garner support. In fact, emotions are the catalysts for all struggles. The status quo sure would like people to not get emotional, that way the establishment doesn`t go through any great turmoils of change. Cotton growers sure didn`t want abolitionists getting emotional about slaves. In fact, I imagine many of them could have beaten their slaves without getting emotional about it. Emotion is what is needed. Yes, hunters don`t want ARists getting emotional when they go out to do their fun (note: emotions of fun on thier side is acceptable) bloodletting. Fur farmers don`t want ARists getting emotional when they anally electrocute mink and chinchilla or snap their necks. Why, all those ARists getting emotional and getting other people emotional could be costly, couldn`t it?

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.

There is no attempt to make anything -- reason being: because it IS a noble cause to end tyranny and oppression of beings that suffer.

Humans are animals, too. You are arbitrarily separating them based on speciesism which lies on the same logic of racism and sexism. ARists are fighting for the dignity of life. They have not separated life into parts that are beholden to the god Profit.

The parallel is accurate. Your reason for saying it isn`t is one based on an arbitrary separation of man from animals based on your perspective of value, from which, as a part of the status quo, you profit from. Surely, a slave holder in 1855 would never consider an abolitionist`s actions/arguments as noble in any sense comparable to the Sons of Liberty and the Minutemen of the Revolutionary War. Like you, they, too, would call your parallels false.

[strongvoicesforward]

2. In those historical struggles, those people had exhausted all legal avenues of redress, had no other avenue to voice their opinion.

Sabro, are you saying now, then, that violence and breaking the law is not always wrong?

Why do you think all avenues other than protest and illegal actions had been exhausted? "Exhausted" is a pretty absolute word with a definitive meaning. I think you have qualified yourself into an error.

First, the colonists could have continued with sending emmissaries to Britain to get the population to sympathise with them. They could have chosen civil non cooperation. They could have still continued to petition the colonial governors in the hopes that some would push for changes with the king. There was nothing that said a new King would not have been more kind -- all they had to do was endure and wait for change and keep petitioning for it. And I am not aware of any Great Britain edict saying that civil liberties in the colonies had been ordered to be static and no requests for change could ever be floated. Do you have a declaration like that you could point me to that closes all hopes for future change and redress?

Believe me, I can write similar scenarios for the other struggles as well.

Blacks engaging in Civil Disobedience resisting targeting of them in the South in the 50's and 60's sure were justified eventhough a the legal system still was open for redress to them.

When it is permissable to take direct action is a subjective decision. Sure, we have the benefit of hindsite, but those people in those eras didn`t know if the time was certainly right or not or if all avenues had indeed been exhausted. Surely they felt frustration with the system, and it is probably that which caused direct action to take form. Things just started rolling.

Keep in mind, many in colonies felt that more time should have been given. Obviously, those persons felt that there were still some other options open to investigate.

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.

The Movement is multi-faceted. There are those who do continue to do what you stated. And there are those who have reached frustration and have made a subjective decision on the state of things. Like our forefathers, why would they expect their demands to be granted when the system is wedded to the structures they are calling for a dismanteling of?

Furthermore, Martin Luther King's movement was enhanced by Malcolm X and the Black Panthers standing in the shadows. Surely, the government and society saw the benefit of alienating Malcolm X and the Black Panthers if they could do so by agreeing to the demands King was making. Had the Black Panthers not been on the scene, most, even King, agreed that his movement would have been weaker.

Mahatma Ghandi was in the same situation in India. He knew well that his movement was benefitting from the other militant movements that were shaping up in the countryside. Gandi's opponent, Great Britain, surely didn`t want the violent element to start taking off and therefore did feel obligated to deal with Gandi's party.

The same is with AR. Those fringe groups that do resort to direct action make other AR groups more legitimate in the minds of the public and the government. The government/corporation therefore, is quite willing to sit down and talk to Peta about some animal matters -- but they do so because they know that to make the mainstream AR movments' members frustrated, will only push many of those members into the fringe groups.

Now, if there weren`t laws and special tax breaks, and government contracts/grants granting millions to animal exploiters so that the government can in turn get in on the profits from that exploitation (i.e. the government was neutral and did not profit from the exploitation and was unbiased), then yes, in all probability there would not be such a large amount of suspicion and reluctance to go the pure legal way. But, as you know that is not the case and ARists have been calling for change for decades and they are just frustrated.

History and logic points to the fact it (i.e. direct action) has been successful in the past and it has always succeeded over the long run in alleviating tyranny and oppression.

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

What are you talking about?

Liberationists take great personal risk. They risk incarceration and the ire of those who they oppose when defending animals. Some have been killed in the process. I think you are just irked that they are underground and refuse to come out into the open, right? Is that it? I think you mean something like when the Sons of Liberty disguised themselves as Indians in order to not have their identities revealed, right?

However, some ARists do perform open liberations with the intent of being caught. In fact they invite t.v. crews to film it and when the animals they have targeted for liberation are out of the area, they call the police as well.

For the most part, AR targets are the blood junkies who profit off of the exploitation of animals. They sabotage hunts. They have destroyed the labs that experiment on animals. They have sunk vessels which carried the persons who clubbed seals to death. They have liberated animals from fur farms and in the process destroyed the implements of those places causing many to go out of business. Those people in those incidences are not innocents. They are on the other side of the struggle i.e. those who are profiting from the exploitation. Why do you think they aren`t legitimate targets?

If you look at orgs that blow up coffee shops because they can`t fight the state, then "yes," those are innocents which are targeted. That is indiscriminate targeting. ARist Liberationists do not do that as a matter of policy. To say that a fur farmer is an innocent in the struggle would be insulting to a person who does die in a coffee shop from an indiscriminate targeting policy. To correlate those two targets in respects to each struggle is going off into left field.

You also want to make the claim that their targets are powerless, as if those targets can`t change the system. And you are right. That is the job of legislatures and the above ground ARists do focus on that avenue of approach. But they are more effective when a shadow is standing behind them, just like I explained to you before with M. L. King and the Black Panthers and Malcolm X.

But, since many insurance compannies do refuse to insure compannies that are required to be insured, it makes business very hard and expensive for the exploiters. It also keeps those with the best education and credentials from seeking employment at those places.

Believe me, a lot of the ARists actions have been quite effective in lasering in on some targets. Those targets will even admit to that.

[strongvoicesforward]

Graffitti by street gangs has a more valid political message.

Sabro, grafitti is defacement without a civic goal. Sure, if that grafitti is being done to affect social change with some kind of vision for the future, then your statement is valid, but for the most part, acts of grafitti by street gangs are a kind of hooliganism, such as turf marking, targeting someone for a hit, professing love for someone, a desire to write random expletives, or in the case of an artist doing a mural -- a personal expression of some sorts, which may be a political message or may not be. But, for the most part, street gangs, most would agree are of the former which I described, not the latter.

Now, why do you think marking territory, targeting someone for a hit, writing random expletives, professing love for someone is a valid political message? And, which political message have you ever gotten from a street gang`s grafitti? -- something like vote for Arnold, legalize drugs, reverse the 3 strikes rule, stop the death penalty??? Please do let us know. My interest is quite piqued.

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.

If blacksmith shop workers as a group were a united block calling for the continuation of all forms of repression against the colonists so that they could continue benefitting from some kind of extraspecial status they had with the King of England and the system of oppression as it was, then in all probability they would have.

That is why your analogy is wrong. You have chosen something that not as a whole united front was not calling for the continuation of the status quo. Fur farms, animal testers, hunters, etc... are all entities who are wanting to be able to continue with the status quo of animal exploitation. That is why for the most part, THEY and those that support them are targeted and not say something like a company that makes plastic model airplanes for kids.

Now, your assertion about Polish Resistance Fighters is getting into grey areas here. They weren`t sweet little men or women in that bunch. They often visited towns in the dead of night and took vengeance on villages as a whole for some part of the population assisting the Nazis. I am sure some innocents were caught up in their dragnet. You would be hard pressed to say that no innocents were ever harmed by them or that the Patisens went to great lengths to protect all innocents before they took action on what they suspected were Nazi collaborators.

Abolitionists did not have a need to target restaurants because those were not the main instruments of oppression in slavery. They did however, target plantations and property was destroyed by them. Just the fact that a slave was helped freed by them was denying the use of property.

Yes, what you explained would have been all random targets. But, I don`t know why you are bringing that up in regards to the targets of Liberationists, who for the most part target very effectively the apparati of the animal exploitation system, their support network, and the agents that operate those systems.

Why do you think they are not legitimate targets as compared to the person who is just working at a ceramic hobby shop? To say that those systems and their agents are no more targets than the ceramic shop worker is, is kind of insulting/unfair to the ceramic shop worker, isn`t it? I think so. Why don`t you?

[strongvoicesforward]

I think your energy would be better spent trying to alleviate human suffering.

lol! Sabro, I can`t believe it took you so long to whip this ol' retort out that is just merely lazy thinking when one is bankrupt.

I am not the issue here. Besides, you have no way to verify anything I do to alleviate suffering in any form -- be it human, or nonhuman. You don`t know if I go to orphanages to volunteer or spend my time at a burn unit, do you? There are 24 hours in a day -- 16 of which are waking hours, which allows for a rich, rewarding, and giving life that is anything but a myopic view of what and how one wishes to bestow ones blessings on any number of multiple targets.

I told you, compassion does not have to be economized as if it is only "one or the other" -- as if there is only enough care in our hearts to afford to one group.

It always strikes me as odd that animal exploiters are the ones who always fear that compassion is something that is finite and must be economized. Perhaps it is that they see themselves haveing so little to spare, that they instinctively project their situation onto others. You tell me.

Furthermore, if you were to look into some backgrounds on people who jumpstarted the AR/AW movements, you will find that many of them come from agencies that were instrumental in child labor protection, womens sufferage, and the abolition movement. Do your homework if you are going to insinuate that those who help animals are somehow not in the movements to also aid humans as well.

[strongvoicesforward]

I hope the AR "Movement" will leave me alone.

lol. Don`t worry, I think they would rather target many more in the animal exploitation world before you.

Unless of course, you work for Hunting Life Services.

[strongvoicesforward]

So the carrot does not have sentience or conscience? How do you know? What determines sentience and conscience?

Sabro, if someone says that a carrot has sentience or a consscience, then they are under an obligation to prove what they assert. He who asserts bears the burden of proof. One does not set out to prove a negative.

That proof could be relaxed if the carrot reacted to many things like we did or related amongst themselves in ways like we do -- because we think we have sentience and conscience, we could safely grant, through much observation and seeing the similarities between their behaviour and ours, that they do have sentience and conscience.

A question regarding sentience and consience need not be answered to absoluteness before we grant it. In fact, I could deny that anyone else has sentience and consience besides myself. After all, how do I know you do? You could be a figment of my imagination as well as everything else in this world. How do I know I am not in a coma and all this is my mind shooting off an elaborate explosion of chemicals creating images that do not realy exist of people, and since they do not exist they also do not have a consience and are not realy sentience.

See how we can go with this? The question need only be answered to some basic traits that we have and can observe in other animals or things if like you said, a carrot may have sentience and consience, but, the latter has not really any observable data supported by any large number of reputable scientists/researchers. Until it is, it is your strawman argument at an attempt of diversion -- and it leads me to deny you sentience and concsience as well with my coma scenario.

[strongvoicesforward]

Sabro: Rock skipping takes little skill, but we don't ban that.

Why should we ban rock skipping -- regardless of skill? Animals can suffer. Rocks cannot.

Besides, I told you before, which you keep forgetting (even after you summerized my beliefs recognizing what I believe), I am not supporting the banning of hunting because of the skill factor, I am against hunting as a sport because it is exploitation of life for pleasure.

Your screaming colorful headline sized post is unnecessary and does nothing to improve your argument. (again, this point seems off topic.)

Agreed. It really wasn`t meant to support my argument (though I think I could make it so), just a little excited to hear a topic on the news so related to what I had previous mentioned -- hence the large red print. I may go back and reduce the size.

[No-name]

I'm surprised that you spent so much ink without noticing that you still cling to the same Juxtoposition fallacy- without really addressing it. Placing ARists quite at random with others who are considered honorable. The dorks that are out there burning SUV's and breaking into labs are not committing civil disobedience- breaking an unjust law and forcing the consequence. They obviously didn't hang around long enough to let that happen. Also suggesting slight changes to the past and predicting how those people would respond is merely a continuation of the juxtoposition fallacy with the addition of a syntagmatic fallacy. It is not merely false and illogical. It's pretty goofy.

Gandhi didn't go around assaulting people with paint, nor did he wantonly destroy other people's property. And the actions he took- he didn't take annonymously. As to your connection between MLK and the Black Panthers- another logical fallacy in that the actions were unconnected and social change may have had nothing to do whatsoever with the Black Panther movement. And again you can't juxtipose the civil disobedience that led to the changing of America's minds with raids on medical labs and burning down ski resorts. If you want to juxtipose law breaking actions to promote change- why not embrace the suicide bombers from Islamic Jihad or the Martyrs Brigade, or the Brown Shirted fascists of the 1930's- they damaged property and broke laws to institute change. There are plenty of people who assault, vandalize, and destroy other people's property and that may also want social change that you can compare them to: Operation Rescue, The Aryan Nation, the PLO, Sinn Fein...

I think if you study MLK, you will find that the civil disobedience- which never involved annonymous acts of vandalism, breaking and entering or personal assault- exhausted every other means of communication and planned each act carefully to achieve a desired result. He was never afraid to put his face and voice to the direct actions that challenged the status quo. It is the actions of people like him that brough about the civil rights movement, not the rash of violence that was peripheral to it.

And does it matter that the idiots that were out there bombing abortion clinics probably volunteered to teach sunday school and work in the local food bank? Again connecting the ARists to good works doesn't extend backwards to justify their bad deeds.

If someone says that animals have a conscience and are sentient I guess according to you, that you bear the burden of proof. Although that is not the only reason for our "species barrier" or "speciesism" I doubt that you can prove that animals have the same type of thoughts, emotions, conscience and sentience that humans have. I don't think it is something proven or something that can be proven through casual observation. (The "negative burden of proof fallacy" is also recognized here. Requiring proof of the negative and placing the burden on the challenger rather than the proposer.)

About killing and cleaning a large mammal- Read Jon Krakaur's "Into the Wild." The young man who starves to death in Alaska (true story) manages early on to kill a Caribou, but can neither clean it properly or preserve the meat...and he slowly starves to death anyway. The fact that you would kill the metaphorical camel to survive is a bit hypocritical...who gives you the right and why is your life more important than his? On a more practical matter- what in your existence has prepared you to kill this animal and would you even know how? Do you know how to clean the camel carcass and preserve the meat? (I don't) Now all you have done in your analogy is to kill both of you in this dessert.

Have a happy New Year. Party safely.

[No-name]

If you're going to kill that camel, may I suggest you bring an 8 year-old girl with you. It may increase your chance of survival.

[strongvoicesforward]

About killing and cleaning a large mammal- Read Jon Krakaur's "Into the Wild." The young man who starves to death in Alaska (true story) manages early on to kill a Caribou, but can neither clean it properly or preserve the meat...and he slowly starves to death anyway.

I`ve read it, Sabro. About a year and a half ago. IF my memory is correct, he did not in fact die from starvation, but rather because of toxic berries which he consumed because he had mistaken them for being edible -- either the particular ones or the season in which he ate them.

If my memory is correct, and if not, please do correct me, after being in such a weakened state because of the berries, he climbs in his sleeping bag after jotting a few lines to his family on some paper or in the margins of a book which he had extensively dog earmarked and had notes written throughout it.

Perhaps the first suspicions were that he had died from starvation, but later research suggests it was poisoning. I don`t think that his life was stated to have end because he had failed to clean and prepare the moose properly. That merely caused him to have to search out some other source of food and his mistake on what to eat was his undoing.

Besides, if he had brought a map with him, he would have seen that there were some cabins in the vicinity and he could have probably gotten food from there. His death was one caused by misdirected romanticism from fiction and a desire to escape from the constraints of civilization.

In any event, a great book to read. I enjoyed it thoroughly and finished it in one day.

[strongvoicesforward]

... you still cling to the same Juxtoposition fallacy- without really addressing it. Placing ARists quite at random with others who are considered honorable

I have been asking you to explain why non-human animals and human animals should not have their suffering taken into account when it is a matter of exploitation, and all you can come up with is because we are humans and they are not -- despite admitting yourself that that is an arbitrary point at drawing a line. You draw that line because of the benefits.

I have addressed why using historical events is quite acceptable to compare with the motivations for ARist actions -- that is to alleviate suffering due to exploitation.

As for "considered" honorable, well -- that is and will ultimately be decided by historians, now, won`t it ? -- just like all other social movements. Why don`t we let that judgement rest with them. I am more than happy to do so, knowing that society in general of all movements to alleviate suffering via forcing the status quo to change, never did judge those present agitators of their times as honorable.

But, it is acknowledged for this point in time, that those of your belief and mine are on opposite ends of the spectrum. And, I also concede that my group on the spectrum of beliefs on this, is in fact the minority at the present -- but at the same time is growing.

I don`t see it as a stygma with not being in the majority in calling for extending compassion and rights to those who are denied them. All social movements to alleviate suffering and oppression starts out as the minority. The Movement is in good company from history. Your company on the other hand is with the one that has always "denied" extending freedom from oppression from the group that has been oppressed.

[No-name]

The guy's name was Chris McCandless, age 22. He was down to an estimated67 pounds- the berries should have caused cramping and diarhea, but I think he was too weak and famished to even notice...It wasn't noted in his diary. The caribou (which he thought was a moose) would have given him enough meat to survive...or if he had a map- there was a rescue cabin near by with enough supplies for half a dozen people. And he had a guide to edible plants.

Krakauer made him almost heroic, but tragic.

I checked back on that other thread- the Seven things you should know about PETA- and the information is from the CCF site. (I got it from that post.) There's a lot of stuff there- even the article about PETA lobbying the local governments to change the name of Fishkill to Fishsave.

[strongvoicesforward]

If you're going to kill that camel, may I suggest you bring an 8 year-old girl with you. It may increase your chance of survival.

lol. I don`t know. Seeing that she is on her way to becoming a blood junkie, she may not have been patient enough during the first signs of hunger pains to wait for the camels that would eventually come, and therefore may have decided to shoot me and cannibalize me.

No, thank you. Besides, I wouldn`t have been going to whereever I was going on a hunting trip, and therefore, I wouldn`t have had any desire or need to take an 8 year old girl and her steel phalyx of death as carry on or checked in luggage.

As you may guess, I am not able to see the future, and if I could, I wouldn`t have taken that flight anyways and hence no need for her. She is useless in the scenario. No need to try and paint her in.

You, too. Have a Happy New Year!

[No-name]

I maintain that it is good to value humans higher than animals...that the historical, cultural, medical, legal, and traditional use of animals for companionship, entertainment, labor, study, food, clothing, and for sport is acceptable.

Animal suffering is not equivalent to human suffering, but I never said it should not be taken into account. Hunters, ranchers, and slaughterhouses should do all they can to minimize suffering in their pursuits. Medical research should follow strict ethical standards. Pets and livestock should live in clean, safe conditions and should be treated humanely. Any needless suffering inflicted during the killing of an animal should be avoided and the most painless and quickest method should be preferred. I would prefer that if you do hunt- you practice and don't miss- a deer dying for hours from a lung shot does suffer needlessly- where as one shot cleanly through the heart may not feel anything.

The line between humans and animals is not arbitrary- it is quite distinct- and I am not the only one to draw it. Humans do things no other animals do. They are superior in intellect and creative imagination. They can act on reason and shape and impact their environments in ways that render them responsible for the consequences of their behavior.

Historically, the groups you have cited fought to "alleviate suffering from exploitation" of differing "groups." All of these groups were human. Defending humanity from suffering or exploitation is a noble cause. Defending a domesticated cow from being milked or a thanksgiving turkey from the slaughter is not. I do not consider this type of "exploitation" wrong, nor do I believe that they are necessarily suffering. (Neither are my pets, or the horses down the road.) Eating chicken is not oppresion. It is consumption. Trying to "free" them is not a "social movement" it is a fringe activity. I do not see society benefiting from the changes made by your "Movement."

[strongvoicesforward]

Sabro: I checked back on that other thread- the Seven things you should know about PETA- and the information is from the CCF site. (I got it from that post.) There's a lot of stuff there- even the article about PETA

I already addressed in this thread briefly the CCF as it relates to their information on PETA. Perhaps I could transfer it over there as a statement against them, but Peta doesn`t need me to defend them. Their membership is usually on an upward trend and has never showed any serious signs of dramatic decrease.

The CCF has virtually had no affect on Peta. Peta on the other hand and other ARs continuously harry the CCF costing them money and recourses every year.

The CCF is funny, though, aren`t they -- against Mothers Against Drunk Driving, against The Brady Bill, against Gun Control, etc...

Most ARs try to spend their times focusing on animal issues. Of course, that is what the CCF doesn`t want them to do -- anything to take the focus off the billions of animals they kill in any given year. Their god Profit demands that of them.