HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

[No-name]

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 ...

Who are you dating? Most girls I know would think you were a nut. What if you asked her to a barbeque or to a weekend at a dude ranch? Out of the millions of wacked hunters out there, there are women... who would go hunting...and some of those would consider that a fine date.

 

[No-name]

According to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, America's 14 million hunters spend $22.1 billion each year for guns, ammunition, clothing, travel, and other related expenses.

 

[Carlson]

What person can say hunting is a sport? It is a viscious game of murder where animals do not have much of a chance.

There is no need for hunting for food anymore (except in some very remote regions of the world) and therefore it should cease to exist as an activity sanctioned by the government or even be permitted on private game reserves.

Culling to control populations also is a ridiculous argument. But, I am more than happy to entertain that discussion with debate for those who think hunting is needed for that, or any other reason.

WOW im not even going to aruge against him... just ignorance is bliss

 

[No-name]

Carlson- I wish you would enlighten us. I'm out of ideas...

Hunting is on the decline- by about 7% every decade. Fishing still remains popular, but is also on the decline. (That's just the US. I don't know what the rest of the world is doing.)

And vegetarianism and veganism is on the rise- although the numbers are quite small.

So maybe by the time Captiain Kirk is in grade school, strongvoicesforward will be right.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Sorry if I repeat anything - there have been so many responses in a short time I don't have time to read them all!

I think hunting as sport is wrong, and I'm very glad fox hunting has recently been banned in the UK. Angling is a very popular hobby here, and I think that is cruel too. Many people I know excuse themselves by saying they put the fish back, but in my mind that is worse - I don't see it as bad if you are fishing to feed yourself, but tearing that poor animal out of the water, half-suffocating it, only to put it back seems very cruel to me.

But when hunting is someone's livelihood and is tied up in the ecology of an area, I don't think it is that simple. Compare it to fox hunting, which (despite what the countryside lobby say) was just a sport, and I don't think they are the same thing at all. Providing the kill is as humane as possible, I think hunting is preferable to factory farming, as at least a wild animal has a natural life for as long as it lasts.

Of course in my ideal world everyone would love animals as much as me, and wouldn't want to kill and eat them. But none of us lives in an ideal world, and I think we have to be realistic about what can be achieved. In this country campaigners expended their energies on something achievable, and got great results with the banning of fox hunting and cosmetic vivisection. That's better than being idealistic and trying to campaign for something that's not going to happen, IMO.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The golden rule has always applied to all human...

Again, not so. Many of mothers or fathers have admonished a child being overtly cruel to an insect or small animal by saying, "Don`t do that. Now, how would you like it if someone did that to you?"

I remember I was so admonished. And I have heard similar stories from others. There is that base feeling in us that this rule is universal and many of parents do impart that to us.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

Yes, "off the track," right? Of course it is. Sabro, you seem to be giving so much significance to being not
"mainstream" that you should now apply your dismissing this since by your own admission it, too, is not mainstream.

There is a reason for this show being in this little corner of the sattlelite network. It would never be accepted by the masses. That is what I have already told you. Don`t know why you brought it up. Doing so only underlines what I had said before.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Your theoretical rabbit being kicked down the street is already dead. Real rabbits don't stay still that long.

It sure would make it easier for you if it were, so that you could dismiss the construct. Sorry for you, though, the construct is quite alive and you have not dealt with it.

An injured rabbit could stay still and the intensity of the kicks could mean that a final blow would not be on the first two or three kicks.

Sabro, come on -- don`t get lazy. Address the construct.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

As for the Lincoln quote, I concede that it could be wrong. That doesn`t bother me. I am quite fine with jettisoning it. The argument for AR doesn`t rest on that one or any other one quote.

However, there are many quotes from famous people that do speak of rights, welfare, compassion, and kindness to animals that are against the exploitation of them.

It is true, though, that what some people may have said on the topic, may in fact conflict with what they did in their lives. At best they have stated something they had insight into or came to believe. At worst, they can be called hypocrites. Being a hypocrite, while not the best choice, still, however, does not negate the truthfullness or value of what one says.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

Sabro, I know you would like to pervert the analogy into a hyperbolic state so that you can dismiss it, but the fact is you can`t. If driving your car resulted in you hitting such large objects as humans, then you would be careless, not just merely unable to see them like the hundreds of small bugs that jump up from the road side. You are taking a turn into hyberbole and that does not serve your counter argument.

You are not understanding a key part of the principle of "The equal consideration of interests." It does not mean a Utopian world where no violence takes place. It implies there is no systematic purposeful targeting of a being which results in causing it to suffer for one`s benefit (i.e. exploitation at its expense for our profit/benefit).

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Like most people I know I still value people highly and animals just a bit less. Certain animals less than others.

I won`t argue with that. I am not arguing the "value" of animals. I am arguing that animals have interests and that those interests are and can fall under universal rights that we can extend to them by codifying them. Those rights exist and they merely need to be recognized/discovered. The right to liberty and freedom was a concept that took time to discover and recognize. Just because they have not been done so for animals as of yet, in regards to our relation with them, does not mean that they will not be so in the future.

I do believe all humans have the same basic universal egalitarian rights. However, I do value my wife more than yours. That, though, in no way means your wife`s rights are any less than my wife`s rights. Why would you think they are? and why are you talking about valueing something? Respective values do not cancel rights. If that logic prevailed then someone could justify in harvesting organs from someone they value less so that the person they do value could benefit from an organ transplant.

Valuing something is different from recognizing something has rights. You are confusing the two or arguing something I am not.

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 extend consideration to all animals with a vertibrate and central nervous systems. As for insects, personally, I give them the benefit of the doubt and choose to not target them for deliberate death. However, this is a controversial area in the realm of AR. Most probably, that will get resolved or addressed more fully once the the other animals gain rights.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

Sabro, did I say corporate America was "in the red?" I don`t think I did. If I did, please point it out to me and I will correct myself. What I think I said was that the AR movement is costing them some profit, therefore they are losing what they could be obtaining if they did not have to spend those sums lobbying against or creating programs or upgrading to advanced security systems to protect or fight against activists. In other words, the activists are preventing a maximization of profits. Of course the corporations pass that along to consumers in higher prices. But, also, corporations also have to pay higher insurance fees to protect against direct action.

Oh, I am sure Target gets some fur in their stores from time to time. And I am sure that if they kept it in constant stock they would be targeted and change. They are just too large to not be sensitive to a campaign that Peta could bring to bear on them. JCrew just relented to Peta after a 10 week campaign. No more fur for JCrew. Campaigners can`t be every where at once. For all I know, Target could be next in line.

I am not too sure about believing NRA`s numbers. Are they a non-profit org? If so, I may be more inclined to believe their numbers because of reporting rules to keep their status. However, I am reluctant to believe an industry whose profit relies on instruments that are designed for killing and often put to use to do so.

 

[UFSI]

Hummmm???

Seems those who deny and alter reality can fix all the worlds ills?

kashii:

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Who are you dating?

Surely no red-neck Tonya Harding type that would throw a hubcap at me.

Most girls I know would think you were a nut.

lol! Well, I guess I will just have to reply to you with like kind.

There is no way to verify personal assertions about our real lives when it comes to insults, so if you don`t mind, I would rather we stick to the issues.

What if you asked her to a barbeque or to a weekend at a dude ranch? Out of the millions of wacked hunters out there, there are women... who would go hunting...and some of those would consider that a fine date.

Yes, I am sure many would enjoy a barbeque or dude ranch. My social circle is not mainly vegetarian or AR. However, of my circle, I am pretty sure not one would look at hunting as a "fine" date.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

WOW im not even going to aruge against him... just ignorance is bliss

Carlson, I would say your silence on the topic is bliss -- or perhaps your silence on the issue indicates you are bankrupt on the issue and arguments that could benefit any who may be undecided about hunting and looking in on the debate.

You offering nothing to the discussion, however, does nothing for what you believe. You isolate yourself in retreat by declaring another ignorant. Well, I geuss you showed me with your wit and repoitore, didn`t you?

We should all be so verbose as you. A lot of people would be moved by those like you, huh?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi Tsyoiko,

Glad to see you share many of the same feelings of kindness and beliefs about animals as I do. I am sure we have some differences, but I, too, see fishing as a cruel sport.

I think we have to be realistic about what can be achieved. In this country campaigners expended their energies on something achievable, and got great results with the banning of fox hunting and cosmetic vivisection. That's better than being idealistic and trying to campaign for something that's not going to happen, IMO.

Tsuyoiko, you have to remember when the campaigns agains fox hunting and vivisections were begun, victories in those campaigns was not viewed by the general public as being something that could be accomplished. It took long term dogged determination to get that victory and as for fox hunting it went against a very long tradition. Of course you know this. Saying that was not idealistic now is doing so with the benefit of hindsite.

It was only because the Hunt Saboteurers took direct action that the issues began to garner much attention and then the general public got involved.

Sabing now, thanks to the model in England, is just starting to get underway in the U.S. Good on the English for leading the way in providing a model of success that got results. Direct Action has been a great present from England.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Seems those who deny and alter reality can fix all the worlds ills?

kashii:

huh?
UFSI, you aren`t a one liner warrior, are you?

Now, tell me how what you have said adds to the discussion? Why not let the discussion move foreward unobstructed rather than giving into temptation with a trite one liner? Show some self discipline if you don`t really have anything to add on the topic.

You are more than welcome to join in, but if you can`t put a paragraph together, please stay on the sides and just observe.

 

[No-name]

The "most girls would think you are a nut" comment was in response to inviting them to a toothpaste factory on a date. Don't read anything into it- dinner and a movie or disneyland would be much better.

A brain and a central nervous system are good indicators for a sliding scale of "rights" and "liberties"... if I read you right. Insects fall into a lower category because they have a more rudimentary nervous system. That would make sense.

I don't doubt that there are 14 to 15 million hunters in the United States. That doesn't count the 40 to 60 million fishermen. Hunters kill roughly 100 million large game animals per year- that are regulated. (Those numbers I quoted weren't from the NRA, they were from the the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.) The NRA currently has about 4.3 million members. 60-65 million Americans own a total of over 200 million firearms. If you call them sick and depraved and denegrate their sport, you are less likely to convince them that it is wrong.

By contrast according to Vegetarian Times there are roughly 12 million vegetarians in the US. At a growth rate of one million per year. That means there are about 300 million carnivores.

PETA, who has contribute to more extreme groups like ALF and ELF, remains a fringe group with far less pull than even the AARP. As long as they condone or participate in such acts as burning SUV's and Ski resorts, throwing fake blood on women wearing furs, cutting the brake lines of seafood delivery trucks, "liberating" animals that are being used for AIDS and cancer research and smokebombing swank restaurants- they will remain a fringe group.

 

[No-name]

Did You Know?
From July 1998 through the end of 2004, PETA killed over 12,400 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't doubt that there are 14 to 15 million hunters in the United States. That doesn't count the 40 to 60 million fishermen. Hunters kill roughly 100 million large game animals per year- that are regulated.

I doubt that hunting numbers are that large. Is the NRA a non-profit org? I don`t think they are. I may be wrong though. It is to their benefit to inflate their numbers to give them an appearance of acceptance in society. If they were a non-profit org with annaul audits of them to make sure they can keep their tax exempt status, then I may be more prone to believe those numbers.

Now, I am not denying they have a larger membership than Peta. I am sure they do. I just don`t think it is as large as they have put forth. And, I doubt that NRA and other gun clubs added together are much larger than all the animal welfare/rights groups added together. NRA`s strength is not only their numbers, but all so the industry that is their foundation. That translates into a lot of lobbying power. AR/AW groups just do not have the monetary power of industry supporting them.

I also don`t doubt the numbers of animals killled. But, I would guess those are estimated recorded kills from tags and so forth. I would say the numbers killed are larger. Does that study take into account how many get away from a hunter with an injury?

(Those numbers I quoted weren't from the NRA, they were from the the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.) The NRA currently has about 4.3 million members. 60-65 million Americans own a total of over 200 million firearms.

Is the IAFWA a pro-hunting agency? Is their agency receiving funds directly or indirectly from hunters? Do you have an independent report of numbers?

If you call them sick and depraved and denegrate their sport, you are less likely to convince them that it is wrong.

Although it is not impossible, most hunters are not going to be swayed by arguments that their sport is wrong -- except for when a species is facing extinction, they will not say that hunting an animal is wrong. Yes, there have been some conversions of hunters against killing, but those are usually from personal epiphanies, not from listening in on a debate.

When I debate, I am focused on those who have not made up their mind on the issue yet. Nazism needed denegrating, and if in its early stages when people still had the freedom to criticize them, had a large group of people done so, a lot may have played out differently for millions of people caught up in its "sick" and "depraved" system of killing.

Some subscribe to a soft approach in persuading. That is fine for people who want to play the "good cop." A "bad cop" would drive people to them. It is just strategy. Both are important. Martin Luther King said that his group of non-violence was only effective because the dark shadow of the Black Panthers were standing behind him.

Personally, I feel an argument should come crashing down like an ax. It most surely will offend those benefitting and profiting with the status quo. But those who are not satisfied with the status quo, impatient for change, will be galvanized by such arguments.