HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

[strongvoicesforward]

You seem to be equating human life and animal life and society as well as our laws does not treat them equally.

No, I am not equating different lives amongst species.

Look, from our vantage of course, a father with three kids to support driving down an icy road (and the kids are in the back seat) in the winter is perfectly justified in not swerving to miss a rabit that darts out in front of him. If it is a child that jumps out into the road then the situation gets a little murkier. I think you and I can both agree on that, right?

But that is a situation in which we are thrust into a confrontational situation without our wills of focused determination on each other. And that is a situation of imminant necessity. The concept of "might does not make right" however is quite different, and if one asserts that "might does make right" (i.e. we do with them what we wish because we can), then one is proposing a system of tyranny to rule over the animals or humans, and that is not right.

Because of that, the principle, "the equal consideration of interests" is what should guide us in how we treat others, and more importantly, those more vulnerable than us. Just as I feel pain and wish to live, to not have my autonomy violated, and want someone to respet my interest in living without inflicted pain and the ability to exercise my autonomy, I, too, must grant that others have the same interests as I do, that they, too, want to be free from inflicted pain and not have their autonomy violated. In short, it is a version of the golden rule -- do unto others as you would others do unto you.

I wouldn`t want someone to come into my living room, shoot me and leave my wife and kids widowed and fatherless. I wouldn`t want to be mounted over a fireplace. I wouldn`t want to experience any of the kinds of horrors our species wantonly visites upon others. Just as I pull away and scream from the heat of a flame because of the pain, a beagle, too, screams and yelps from the pain a scientist is inflicting on it by causing it 3rd degree burns just to test some anti-bacterial drug. Might DOES not make right.

In situations that suddenly arise with a question of life and death, one can assume that one has an interest in winning out in the conflict. But to orchestrate that conflict by visiting suffering on another is wrong. Every part of our being screams it is wrong, that is why no one really wants to go to a slaughterhouse or look into the eyes of a lab animal. The truth is painful and therefore we seek to shield ourselves from it.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

There are practices allowable on animals that would be entirely unacceptable if used on humans. We crop ears and dock tails without Fido's consent. We spay, neuter and euthanize. We turn them into burgers, belts and coats.

Yes, and those are all practices of arrogance and the buying into the belief that "might makes right." That concept has caused untold misery on our planet for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years. Survival is one thing, exploitation and commodifying life and making death an enjoyable hobby is another -- it is wrong.

Even though, we may speak, create symphonies and build skyscrapers, we, in fact, are still animals. It is not a question of humans doing something to animals. It is animals doing something to animals. We alone are the species that systematically regulates the murder of others for pleasure, fear, prejudices, and a host of reasons. It shows we have perverted our sense of place and abused our strengths and have wrongfully and arrogantly placed ourselves as having more universal/fundamental rights than another animal.

All acceptable to most americans and legal under the law. I don't see it changing any time soon.

Well, that is what The Movement is about. We have not fooled ourselves about the hard struggle that lays ahead. We are quite aware of the present situation and the future. Again, all social movements of expanding the circle of consideration and compassion have taken hundreds of years. Things have to begin somewhere.

This is the struggle that is breaking the speices barrier. It is only practical to assume it will take longer than other movements. However, it is right, and it will succeed. Of course I would like it to succeed in my lifetime, but I am sure it won`t. But, the movements that have succeeded have never let the futility of the moment hold them in a state of apathy. Would you suggest they do?

This has been the course of all social movements to win rights:

First they laugh at you.
Then they ignore you.
Then they get angry at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

The Movement for Animal Rights is now in the 4th stage. I am sure it will be a long stage. But, the other three have passed by pretty quickly. The internet and technology could in fact make the movement move more quickly in the past compared to other movements.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

People won't stop eating meat, ...

We can be quite sure that by the time we die, many will still be eating meat. But, our lives are only 100 years maximum. Let`s not rule out possibilities of 300 to 400 years from now.

Here is what one of the greatest minds (with great insights and ideas of brilliance and discovery) on the topic of vegetarianism and its relativity to human survival had to say:

"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

Great thing about "evolution" -- it is never static. That is why foresight into the future should be looked at with a very wide view and not based on the status quo of today or the prejudices one holds now. That is a hard thing to do, but it is brilliant to do so.

 

[No-name]

The "golden rule" does not extend to animals (of the non-human variety.). It is not do unto fluffy what you would have fluffy do unto you.

And again I wouldn't want someone to flood my house with chemicals designed specifically to kill me, but to leave the furniture unaffected, but that's what we do to mice and termites. I don't want to be penned in, no matter how humanely. I don't want to be neutered, cropped, docked or shaved. I don't want specific toxins developed to end my species existence. It is what we do in our body to pathogens with antibiotics. We make a huge mistake when we anthropomorphise animals. I don't want to "break the species barrier." I regard human life more as important than any other large cute mammal, scaly reptile, pretty bird, "nuisance" insect, fish, bacterium or plant.

I don't see much of a movement. I'm not ignoring you. I'm not angry at you. I disagree with you and I see no chance of us becoming a species barrier free vegan society any time in the next millenia.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

... lets face it, all the people on this planet won't stop eating meat, meat consumption has staggered the last couple of years here in Sweden.

If that is the case in Sweden, then I would say that momentum is building for the vegetarian diet. Where people fall on the spectrum of their eating habbits is changing.

I do like to eat vegiterian alternatives, but i don't think ill ever stop eating meet entierly.

I thought the same, too. I was once, not too long ago, a very heavy meat eater and could never conceive becoming a vegetarian. People change. Well, some do. I was surprised I did. Being exposed to literature and not being afraid to examine one's life and why they believe what they do can let one come to changes more easily.

We all know the people who just don`t like debate or to change at all. Those who are least likely to listen to arguments against their views are the ones least likely to change.

 

[No-name]

Albert Einstein is a genius, but his field is theoretical physics, not anthropology or nutrition.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

We are carnivores..you know, with those little canine teeth and everything. True, today we have more options and of course living as a vegetarian is possible. I don't see a problem this, it's just how you choose to live. Most of us are fortunate enough to be able to have this choice, it's almost like a luxury.

It is almost sad, embarrassing, or laughable at best, that someone is going to point to our little nubby canines and say that these are what give us the right to inflict tryany and misery upon the other creatures of the world. That a deer has to die from gangrene in the forest because of those nubs. That a pig has to grow up, to never feel sun on its back except for the day it will be brutally slaughtered and perhaps drowned in scalding water.

A vegetarian diet is not a luxery. It is a choice. In fact, meat is the luxery. Throughout its stage of production it has had value added to it. It is costlier for the wallet, your health, and for the environment.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I live in Wisconsin though.. and their are no natural predators around to keep the deer population in control... so deer are running out in front of cars, causing accidents, eating crops like mad. I swear, I see a dead deer on the road almost every day now..poor things. So! I am glad for hunters.
But OK! That's my 2 cents!..

And why are there no predators, Cheryl? That could be remedied. Being "glad" for hunters, though, does nothing to bring back the wolf -- the hunters were the ones who wiped them out in the first place.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The "golden rule" does not extend to animals (of the non-human variety.).

And, at one time it did not extend to other humans as well. The golden rule has been consistantly expanded to include others. I know you would not like it to be, for obviously you are comfortable with the status quo of tyrany over the animals. You are benefitting from it.

But, that is what all movements are about -- changing the status quo -- upsetting the apple cart, so to speak. The Movement is doing that.

Of course, Sabro, you can deny that it is happening, but all you have to do is surf around and you will see there is a groundswell of support for serious reform in how we deal with animals. A lot of that support is for animal rights. The many animal welfare sites and orgs you see dress themselves up as Animal Welfarists, but if you were to talk to them a little, you will really see that they lean more towards Animal Rightists. They are only cloaking themselves as Animal Welfarists in order to get more of the mainstream society involved.

Animal Rights groups usually are fed membership slowly from Animal Welfarists. The trickle through the system.

Did you know that just 2 months ago Rome past a law forbidding keeping Goldfish in bowls? Just one example of animals creeping into the legal system. It has been happening now for decades and each time more and more welfare/rights laws make their way to legislatures for votes or judges for decisions in court cases, animals are slowly but surely being recognized as "persons" with interests.

You know, Peta has only been around for about 25 years. And only since they have been around has the vegetarian movement really been organized. It wasn`t until about 10 to 15 years ago with the internet that groups have been linking up with one another all over the world. Soon, you will see people from the 80s and 90s who were raised through their formative years of visiting Peta and other animal group sites moving into positions of decision making in society. When more and more judges, politicians, professors, lawyers, etc... from this generation begin to move into those crucial positions, believe me, you will see a lot more AR legislation come cascading down. Sure, it will be a while and the animal exploitation industries will fight it (which they are trying to do so now), but it will be a real challenge to society and those people will begin demanding some drastic changes in protections for animals.

Of course, you can deny it, but the scenarios I have painted above are only a very logical outcome from a society exposed to more information about animals. The pace will quicken from what has been happening in the past.

As for you clinging to the distinction of two separate animal groups -- human and nonhuman -- well, Sabro, that is an arbitrary classification of bunching (how convenient for the exploiters) based on some sense of arrogance. The fact is, we are all animals. Don`t let that bother you too much -- for if you were in the woods for a few days, you, too would crap in the woods just like a bear would, and yours would probably not smell any better.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

And again I wouldn't want someone to flood my house with chemicals designed specifically to kill me, but to leave the furniture unaffected, but that's what we do to mice and termites. I don't want to be penned in, no matter how humanely. I don't want to be neutered, cropped, docked or shaved. I don't want specific toxins developed to end my species existence.

Well, then why are you empty of all empathy and unable to provide mercy for those who do not want the same thing to happen to them? I think not doing so is rather selfish.

I regard a rabbit higher than a stone. I would not care if a boy walked along a street getting enjoyment from kicking a stone along the way. However, I would be appalled to see a boy doing the same thing to a rabbit. Why? I guess the boy is getting enjoyment from it. But, I would not want to be treated the same way, so I can empathise.

Now, you say the golden rule does not apply to animals. Are you saying you would just say, "tough luck, rabbit. That is how it is. You do not deserve any consideration for your life or interest in not wanting to be kicked."? The "Golden Rule" definitely does bind us to not do or approve of what this boy has done. It makes us cringe to think of it or even worse to observe it. It touches something deep down in us.

Again, that is why people don`t go to slaughterhouses for entertainment or take their kids there. That is why hunting shows can`t survive on tv. Because when the masses see that kind of stuff, they sense that a "Golden Rule" is in fact being violated and therefore do not want to be a part of it. Now, if it is thrown in front of their face, such as on tv, with a hunting program, you can bet network executives are bombarded with action to remove it. In fact, sponsors won`t even touch it. That is why those shows don`t come on -- it enrages us to feel that "The Golden Rule" is being violated.

So, as much as you want to continue denying that this rule does have animals within its borders, reality shows us that it does. It is just a matter of gettng the rights codified to protect the interests of animals. Observations of universal truths and recognizing always lag behind the laws of countries.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

We make a huge mistake when we anthropomorphise animals. I don't want to "break the species barrier." I regard human life more as important than any other large cute mammal, scaly reptile, pretty bird, "nuisance" insect, fish, bacterium or plant.

No, we make a huge mistake when we ignore the base wants, desires, and emotions that we share with animals. It breeds disrespect for life and that bleeds over into human on human violence and exploitation.

We are not above animals. We are only different from them in some aspects of our biology and abilities. But those are only values which we have ascribed to what is important to us. The world was not made for us. It was made for all the creatures.

Why would you categorically regard a species that wars with each other and commits heinous crimes for pleasure more important than a species that does not do those things? Is it merely because you are a member of that species? Do your values rest on your membership to a fraternity of some sorts?

As for a nuisance, I would say that our hunters, trappers, land developers, and animal experimentors are more of a nuisance to the animals as we invade their homes, than they are to us.

Don`t worry, Sabro, breaking the "species barrier" will not fall to your responsibility. Others will do that. And when they do, those around at that time who think like you do now, will be dragged along screaming and kicking just like ol' Jim Crowe in the south was. But, he was swept away in the dustbin of history.

You can already see the screaming as large animal exploitation industries are fighting the assaults on them. Funny how they ignored the demands on them when The Movement first got underway. Now, they are taking it seriously. I geuss if the possibility of revolutionary change were just a pipedream, they wouldn`t be investing millions of dollars in fighting it, trying to stem its growth.

But what is great about them spending all that money, it forces consumer prices of things they produce, like meat, to go up and therefore gives thought to others to consider foregoing meat on a particular night. Oh, it is a complex war of subtleties, words, economics, and direct action campaigns. But, the impact has been felt and is being felt and will continue to be felt.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't see much of a movement.

Well, I would suggest you consider the membership of Peta alone. They have 850,000 members. There are many other orgs as well. Add their numbers up and believe me, The Movement which you see to not be very aware of, is quite real, alive, and active.

Animal exploitative industries are quite aware. I guess they are lucky they don`t have you as their CEO manning the helm of their ship, huh? Or they would not be understanding what was causing a drop in profit. But, then if you were their CEO, they would save the millions of dollars they spend on security (which would make it easier for more direct action activities) and lobbying against Animal Rights groups.

I'm not ignoring you. I'm not angry at you. I disagree with you and I see no chance of us becoming a species barrier free vegan society any time in the next millenia.

Yes, we disagree.

In the quote you are referring to about "ignoring, angry, etc," that wasn`t really directed at you in reference to me -- it was a view of the status quo and Establishment that throughout history has resisted social restructuring and change.

YOu know, though, for as long as the humane race will stay unenlightened (whatever that means), I, too, think there will always be some sort of exploitation perpetrated on to animals. After all, we now recognize universal human rights but still humans are exploited throughout the world -- so, it doesn`t seem that we should expect more in regards to animals. What is important though is that those rights are recognized and codified.

You want to dismiss that future with a "millenia" comment based on what you see. The pace of the movement and legislation being enacted around the world makes me think that is rather extreme. I would say less than half that. You won`t. Like you said, we disagree.

However, I will definitely witness in my lifetime the creep of animals into the legal system that protects them and offers stronger and stronger rules and laws for the enforecement of their welfare. That is a fact and it is already happening. The winning of animal liberation and their rights will not happen without these little victories building the foundation for their future.

I also know that those colonizing America 400 years ago would have never conceived that descendents of those they were bringing over from Africa, whipping and beating them, would ever rise to the status of such a thing as a Secretary of State. That probably was far more impossible for them to imagine in thier times, than it is in our times for us to imagine the winning of Animal Rights.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Albert Einstein is a genius, but his field is theoretical physics, not anthropology or nutrition.

One need not be an expert in a field to ALWAYS have an enlightened thought on a topic in that field. Albert Einstein was a genius as you have stated.

Whether or not his field was anthropology or nutrition is not so important in this case. Some mathematical calculations of his, noting population growth, considering value added from grain to meat, land and other recourses needed, could have easily lead him to see that harvesting meat by investing in its production was not an efficient means of sustainment. I am sure he applied mathematics to many areas of his life and would suggest his genius bled over into other areas of his life that were topics of personal interest to him.

Here is what a lawyer and one of the great leaders/humanitarian of the world said on animal rights:

I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being. -- Abraham Lincoln

 

[No-name]

The golden rule has always applied to all humans- whether you followed it or not. It has never attached itself to animals- that's what my reality showed. If it did, I could never drive a car. I've seen far too much insect carnage.

As far as animal rightist being out of the mainstream, that should be rather apparent to you. Not only are they out of the mainstream, they are not significantly close. Check the number of major chains that have stopped selling meat, discount stores that don't sell leather goods or the number of TV stations that won't take advertisment from companies that use animal products or the number of states that have outlawed hunting. (Not even Rhode Island...where would you hunt in RI?)

People don't go to slaughterhouses for entertainment, but they don't go to toothpaste factories either. Aside from being bloody and disgusting, they don't seem entertaining. There are plenty of other industries that are boring too. When is the last time you went to see carrots packaged or water treatment plants.

When I was young, there was a slaughterhouse on Valley Blvd. in El Sereno that kept exotic animals in pens out front. The place smelled horrible, but my mom went there for the cuts of meat no one else wanted and I liked the giraffe and zebra.

Now there is a off the track channel I have on my satellite system- OLN the adventure channel that has non stop fishing, hunting, trapping...you can learn about the latest shotgun or how to clean a rabbit... not my cup of tea... but there it is. It's been there for years and someone must watch it. It doesn't enrage me, it just doesn't interest me.

I live in the woods. I don't need two days to crap out there, I'd do it without much prompting... but it is the middle of winter now and quite cold.

Your theoretical rabbit being kicked down the street is already dead. Real rabbits don't stay still that long. I used to have a rabbit named PJ. He was a good rabbit that was never kicked or cooked. I burried him in the woods, but it was winter and I didn't go deep enough through the snow and frozen ground and sometime before spring the coyotes dug him up and took him away.

I love animals and don't believe they should be mistreated, that when killed for food it should be done respectfully, humanely and with a minimum of suffering, and they should never be wasted. I used to give to the WWF, but they sent me a brochure to send extra money to stop the killings of dogs in Korea and other Asian countries. I believe in protecting endagered species, not in advancing my countries culinary prejudices. Dogs are not endangered.

 

[No-name]

If your Lincoln quote comes from this web site, it is acknowledged that it is likely a fraud. Read the disclaimer: http://www.all-creatures.org/quotes/lincoln_abraham.html

Ed. Note: There is considerable doubt that these quotes can be attributed to President Abraham Lincoln. The only references seem to be third party ones with unverifiable original references. We, and others, have found no such quote references in any of Lincoln's writings or in authoritative works on Lincoln. We have included these quotes on this site only because of their wide spread use.

 

[No-name]

Abraham Lincoln was an accomplished woodsman and an avid hunter. Even in the white house, he would occasionaly clean and cook game for visitors. His favorite meal was fricaseed chicken and white almond cake.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The golden rule has always applied to all humans- whether you followed it or not. It has never attached itself to animals- that's what my reality showed. If it did, I could never drive a car. I've seen far too much insect carnage.

That is what the movement is about, Sabro -- extending the circle of compassion. What has always been is no indicator of what will be.

Your car analogy has been handled already, albeit in another form. It is wrong to systematically destroy life for exploitation. Death that is a result of some actions such as walking, or driving, whose goal is not to kill, is death that is resultant of benign acts without thought for exploitation.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

As far as animal rightist being out of the mainstream, that should be rather apparent to you. Not only are they out of the mainstream, they are not significantly close. Check the number of major chains that have stopped selling meat, discount stores that don't sell leather goods or the number of TV stations that won't take advertisment from companies that use animal products or the number of states that have outlawed hunting. (Not even Rhode Island...where would you hunt in RI?)

Yes, Animal Rightists are not the majority at the moment. I`m not going to argue that. But, their numbers are growing and to say that their minority status is enough to dismiss them, well...you may want to look into their successes and see some of the people or business which have bent because of their pressure.

The Abolitionists were not in the majority neither at one time. Neither were the colonists calling for independence. There is no stygma for being a minority calling for social change.

You may want to look into some of the clothing stores that have stopped selling fur, or the fur farms which have been closed, or the testing labs that have been devastated.

Like I said, The Movement is far from victory, but the seeds have been planted and are growing. You seem to be wanting to deny the movment just because it hasn`t succceeded yet. It is still in its formative stages. And, when those young people who have had access to a large amount of animal rights info start coming onto the scene as decision makers, there will be more drastic changes. Time is on our side in the long run. I concede you have the present and the near future. But after that.... ???

 

[strongvoicesforward]

People don't go to slaughterhouses for entertainment, but they don't go to toothpaste factories either. Aside from being bloody and disgusting, they don't seem entertaining. There are plenty of other industries that are boring too. When is the last time you went to see carrots packaged or water treatment plants.

Yes, but if I were to suggest to a date we go to a toothpaste factory to see how it is made or a carrot packaging company to see how they are boxed, she would probably think I have some rather boring sense of entertainment value but may very well indulge it -- but if I were to suggest we go see cows in the stick pit, she would probably assume I am a psycho. It would assault her sensibilities on what is acceptable to see. That "it" is the violence and invasion of autonomy that we have a natural desire to not want to view or be a part of if in fact our survival is not dependent on it at that moment.

 

[No-name]

If driving my car meant that as a matter of course, I slaughtered a human a day, or on occasions a hundred humans in a mile, driving would not be a benign act act, it would be unacceptable.

Abraham Lincoln has one published poem called "The Bear Hunt" that you can find online. The Einstein quote is also suspect. (He was not a great mathematician.)

Leonardo Da Vinci has several records of hunts as a young man and as an older man and a few paintings and drawings of hunts. Although he was not an avid hunter, he did have a country estate for that sole purpose.

Like most people I know I still value people highly and animals just a bit less. Certain animals less than others. Again, this erasing of the species barrier- does it extend to problematic rodentia, slimy things, spiders and insects? If so, than hunters kill far fewer individuals on an objective scale than the average farmer.

I am also doubtful of claims that corporate America losing profits. Last time a checked there were fat food restaurants on every corner. WalMarts were forcing little mom and pop store into bankrupcy, Target had fur lined jackets on sale...and the NRA had four times the membership of PETA.