HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

Status
Not open for further replies.
sabro said:
Don't most of the furs used in clothing come from PRC?

A lot of it does. But, there are still many fur farms in other countries and the U.S. as well. I wouldn`t say, though, that more than 50% of all fur comes from PRC. But, they probably do have a larger piece of the fur pie in comparison to each other country separately.
 
Mycernius said:
Hinted! how about attacks on people for working in the medical industry, Threatening violence, not just to them, but their families as well. There is a case in the UK when one group stole a body of one family and still have not returned it,despite the company closing.

Taking direct action does not mean one is valuing life of another above another. It merely means one is taking action to affect change for something. Abolitionists taking direct action to free slaves, depriving slaveowners of peace of mind through their actions, in no way are saying that the lives of blacks are more important than whites -- even though that action has caused considerable distress amongst the slaveholders.

Americans killing 30,000 Iraqis with overwhelming force in comparison to their losses of 2,000 + lives in order to affect change (right or wrong [not argued here]) is not a declaration that American lives are more important than Iraqi lives. Action to affect change is different than saying the lives wrapped up in the battle of change are more valuable than others. Don`t you see that?


Where are their moral codes? To them human rights mean less than animals.

No, you are wrong. Life means more to them than distress.

Yes, while we are talking about morals: Where are the morals that causes animals to be analy electrocuted for their skins so that fashion can be trumped out on a runway and in stores? Where are the morals of causing an animal to live in a small wire cage in horrible conditions depriving it of satisfying any of its natural desires? You tell me. I am guessing those morals are somewhere snugly tucked in the wallet or a bank account.

You are concerned about the mental anguish of this deciesce person's kin, however, you feel nothing for the mental torment of these animals in a sense to move to alleviate the suffering. Keep in mind, just knowing that those animals are suffering also causes mental anguish to those who are concerned about them. Why should mental anguish over the desecration of death be more than mental anguish caused over the desecration of life concerning thousands of animals -- thousands of separate lives.
 
Again, people seem to have enough trouble extending that golden rule to people. I would not extend it to animals. 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. 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. You keep avoiding the mice, rats and bugs questions, not to mention parasitic pathogens.

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. 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.

About that strange logic that you say mothers would use with children when killing bugs or kicking the rabbit: I would not ever say that to my kids. I'd say "Dude don't touch that, there's something seriously wrong with that rabbit." The "How would you like someone to do that to you?" would never ever come up. I polled several mothers. Most said that they would tell them to knock it off or ask "what's wrong with you?" but none spontaneously gave the response you thought would be natural. Besides, when my boys were chowing down meat at dinner last night (Toto's- a local Mexican restaurant) I didn't say to them, "How would you like if someone killed, cooked, and prepared you into a delicious meal like this?"

The purpose of trying hunting before I criticize it would be to confirm statements that you continually make about hunting that I do not know are reasonably true: Now I have to wonder about how closely they pay attention to firearm safety, trudging around in bad weather, how often they slip, how often alcohol is involved and if they do in fact take aim at targets that are unclear. You keep prompting me to have to check your facts and the easiest way is to actually go out with hunters and observe. 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.

As to the "what gives you the right" question... you cannot logically answer that. Nothing and everything. Like I said, not prohibited by law, not against my religious code, not against my code of ethics (as it does not violate the Golden rule), conforms to my culture and traditions. 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.

So far, I find your arguments are less and less logical and entirely unconvincing. They are based entirely on an emotional premise that centers around ascribing human feelings, emotions and value to animals. They ignore every point both Mycernius and I have brought up by giving logical fallacies and strange analogies. On the balance you have made the statement that hunting is depraved, exploitive, and morally equivalent to clitoral circumcision and slavery. (Again the straw man thing) and hunters are unskilled lazy people who enjoy the suffering and pain of others, (ad hominem) You have not backed these statements up with anything that holds water.

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?
 
sabro said:
I believe animal research to still be necessary. This is a "species barrier" I believe ought not to be crossed.

Well, you (or those who believe as you do) will go screaming and kicking as it is crossed. It will be some day. But, like we agreed, I don`t think it will be fully crossed in our lifetime. The edges will, however, be pushed back.

If not legally, actions against those barriers will increase and it will become costly to maintain them.
 
sabro said:
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
This is not a logical argument:
strongvoicesforward said:

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.
 
sabro said:
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.
 
sabro said:
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.
 
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
sabro said:
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.
 
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.
 
sabro said:
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?
 
sabro said:
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?
 
sabro said:
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?
 
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
sabro said:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 110578 times.

Back
Top