I haven’t done any name-calling or threadshitting. I’ve simply been arguing against points as they’ve been put to me.
To be honest, I’m amazed at the way y’all are acting like you’ve never met anyone who is against hunting before.
Humpy, humpy, Tom said to knock it off. Trust me, I had a reply to the guy as well.
I opened a pit thread before things got bad. Had I foreseen mutantmoose’s further remarks both there and there, I’d have skipped straight ahead to the voodoo-doll-tormenting.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a strand of hair to weave into a doll, and after that I will be sacrificing a goat.
Crap on a cracker, leave a thread alone for a day…
I was simultaneously so disgusted and amused by mutantmoose’s precious little tidbit that I couldn’t even bring myself to read the rest of the thread before commenting - my apologies if I repeat what others have said over much.
“The guy above” is actually a capable 24 year old woman who’s been stalking, killing, processing, and consuming wild game for more than half her life.
You’re right mutantmoose, I DO get a kick out of shooting elk. And deer, bear, grouse and anything else that tastes good. It’s actually a huge rush that makes me feel fantastic. I love earning my meat by taking the time to accumulate the knowledge and skill required to hunt the animal AND put it into practice successfully. I like going out and busting my ass and getting wet and cold and coming home with nothing most of the season, it makes success that much sweeter.
I like processing my own game. I know without doubt that what I’m eating was processed cleanly and correctly and that none of it was wasted. Which is not to say that I don’t enjoy many of the products of the commercial meat industry with frequent regularity and heart-clogging joy. I just like my meat better.
I’m an ethical hunter but by your vitriol I’d say I lost you at “hunter” and any listing of admirable conservationist-not-a-poacher traits would whoosh right past you without fighting your ignorance.
There are a number of sane, ethical, moral, logical arguments as to why hunting is not bad, why hunting is actually good, and why hunting may actually be a noble pursuit. I believe those arguments, I live them. But what I’ve noticed when discussing hunting with folks like you is that your sticking point is the joy I glean from killing.
So let’s discuss that shall we? I do like shooting things. It’s a kick in the ass. It can be a thigh-slapping fun time shooting rodents and coyotes or the very spiritual experience of bringing down large game - either way, you’re absolutely right, I get a kick out of it, a thrill. I hunt because it’s fun.
I think hunters have too long been apologists regarding this aspect of the sport. Yeah, we’re noble conservationists, blah blah, that’s true but hunting is also FUCKING FUN and it’s fun because we’re killing animals.
That’s right, I eat fuzzy little creatures, deal with it.
Thanks, that was very well put.
Just to make a few points;
-
the smackdown by Tom wasn’t really necessary because I’ve had my fun with this thread and I think everybody understands where I’m coming from by now
-
it was also unnecessary because everything I’ve said is directly related to the thread subject - what is an animals life worth? So I haven’t hijacked the thread. Maybe I took it in a direction some people don’t like but that’s not my problem as long as I’m still on topic.
-
And Chopper:
I’m not a PETA/animal rights nutjob but I do like walking in wild places observing the animals and plants and trees. I just feel absolutely no desire whatsoever to interfere with the natural world, never mind actually kill things.
I just completely fail to even begin to understand the mindset of someone who goes out to kill something. I know that culling has to take place to prevent overpopulation but that’s more of a work-related thing. It’s a grim task that unfortunately has to be done occasionally. You, however, seem to take pleasure in the kill for some reason. I have no idea why.
A couple of weeks ago I was driving along in a van and a pigeon flew in front of me. I hit it and killed it. It was entirely accidental but I felt bad about it for days. I couldn’t imagine actually actively going out looking for things to kill. For me, it is sufficient to just wander out and observe the beauty of the natural world. Why on earth would you want to kill them?
This is the crux of your problem. You think of yourself as separate from the natural world. You are not. Humans are not. You are PART of the natural world; you are an animal residenton the planet Earth. Like all other animals, your life comes at the expense of other life forms. Like all other meat-eaters (and you’ve already said that you eat meat), your nutrition comes in part from the death of other creatures. You fool yourself into thinking this is not true because you are so divorced from the natural world. But it IS true. Pork chops, hamburgers, steak, and other forms of meat do not appear magically in your grocer’s freezer, not do they arrive there without death and suffering.
My best friend, as I may have written elsewhere, is a vegetarian; she won’t touch meat at all. I can respect her opposition to hunting because she is consistent; believing the consumption of meat by humans to be immoral, she declines to be complicit in that immoraity, to support financially–to pay to have it done for the sake of her palate and nutrition.
But I cannot respect the position that it is immoral to hunt but perfectly fine to eat meat from a supermarket position. That position goes far beyond ordinary hypocrisy; it is downright stupid.
There’s a difference between being the butcher and being the customer; being the executioner, and voting to have the death penalty legalized; for one its a job, for the other its unnecessary at best and a necessary evil at worst. To put it another way, should people be perfectly comfortable with a high school teacher with known pedophilic beliefs? You can say he’s doing it his job fine and as long as he doesnt cross the line, its ok. Or you can say that his job is teaching and just because a by-product of that is sexual arousal, that shouldnt affect his job. Most people would tend to disagree.
Whether hunters admit this or not, and its commendable that some do, what they do is rapidly becoming the minority. Unlike a century ago, most people nowadays will go through their lives without ever killing anything bigger than a bug. To purposefully arm yourself for the sole purpose of stalking a wild animal and killing it might sound great in an old fashioned, macho outdoorsman kind of way smacks of bloodlust in this day and age when you can live your whole lives without it.
Sure, maybe meat tastes better, and maybe you’re helping to cull the herd, and maybe you’re saving the animal from being eaten alive or a slow death in a slaughterhouse. All those things are commendable. But one wonders if culling, saving, and mercy is the hunter’s goal, then isnt there a better way to do it than shooting it full of lead? Its like trying to stop a river by bailing out water with a bucket: there are better ways. If you want to help cull the herd, join a conservation society. Preserving an animal’s habitat from destruction has far better implications than an annual killing spree. If you want to save the animal from pain, tranquilize it first, then shoot it. And if you think a shot in the woods is more merciful than a slaughterhouse, vote to better regulate those places and dont buy food from companies with bad humane records.
No, there isn’t. Refusing to do your own killing merely makes you more fastidious, not morally superior. I challenge you to find any widely accepted legal or philosophical documentation that having somebody perform an act for you makes you less responsible for that act.
You’re whole pedophile “analogy” doesn’t even rise to the level of being a proper red herring. That paragraph can serve as an example of poor, dishonest debating tactics.
If - despite most people being indoctrinated into the practice of meat-eating by our parents and society - merely consuming meat makes you just as bad as the hunter or butcher, does this mean you hardcore carnivores accept that vegetarians are morally superior to you?
Absolutely not. That would mean accepting their premise that meat eating is an evil act, which I do not.
I’m more interested in the mental contortions that must be involved in trying to be a meat eater while simultaneously claiming vegan-style “moral high ground.”
I’m sure only extremists say meat-eating is ‘evil’. I think the general consensus is that it is unnecessary.
Does unnecessary equate to immoral? If not, then a vegan lifestyle is not morally superior to that of a carnivore. I, for one, do not equate those two things.
Or one can look at it another way: does killing an animal for the supposed merciful or culling benefits make a hunter better than a person who doesnt do it? Because it seems as if all of the touted benefits of hunting is not to bring oneself up as a morally equal partner to one who doesnt hunt, but rather to smugly declare himself the winner in this morality ploy.
As mutantmoose said many times, why do you have to kill it? There are other ways to accomplish the supposed benefits of hunting that doesnt require shooting an animal.
The reference to pedophilia is valid in that it presupposes that there is an inherent difference in people who do a job simply to do it, and ones who delight in it in some other fashion, a fashion that would be represensible to most people. I would admit that not all hunters are bloodthirsty, but guess that many who are hide it behind a mask of moral superiority.
Besides, we’re talking about if they are bloodthirsty or not. I’m not making a judgement on whether that is morally inferior. If you’re a hunter and you’re fine with your bloodlust then I simply offer you a chance to admit it. What I do not accept is that my lack of killing is somehow less than someone’s bloodlust when that bloodlust has produced some benefits.
You’re “offering me a chance to admit it?” Oh, well that’s awfully goddamned large of you.
You seem to like words like “bloodthirsty” and “bloodlust.”
Have a look at this page, where bloodthirsty is defined. Pay particular attention to list of synonyms.
You’ll forgive me for finding your debating tactics somewhat odious when you are “giving me a chance to admit” that I’m “cruel, savage, brutal, vicious, ruthless, ferocious, murderous, heartless, inhuman, merciless, cut-throat, remorseless, warlike, barbarous, pitiless.”
If you care to stop trying to frame the debate with loaded words, we may be able to discuss this further. Otherwise, I’ve nothing more to say to you here.
Wow. And I thought mutantmoose’s arguments were stupid. Bbu by comparing me and other hunters to pedophiles, you have passed the line from propounding merely idiotic and offensive positions to averring ideas that are can be taken seriously only in the anti-matter universe.
My own belief is all animal live sacrificed all together is far less valuable then a single human life, including the pre-birth states of human life.
Fortunately for the ecosystem, yours is a minority view.
I think it depends on factors other than those you mentioned; namely, the likelihood of a given animal going man-eater & becoming a public menace, the social utility of the human involved, & the rarity of the animal in question.
Homo (vastly) outnumbers other very large sentient species (say, over 40 kg as adults) on this planet with the possible exceptions of bovids used as livestock, & canids. So the rarity argument almost always favors the animals.
Social utility of the victim is a funny thing; in practice it’s going to be defined by subjective cultural criteria. I’m skipping it for now.
Pragmatically, the reason we don’t let large animals that have tasted human flesh survive is prophylactic; we fear them becoming habituated to it. This may be superstition, leavened with a desire for vengeance; but there it is.
So as a practical matter, regardless of the justice of it, the animals tend to lose, no matter the numbers or circumstanceunless the animal is (a) in a highly wild place where humans are not expected to be (at this point, that’s the benthic depths, one quarter of the Congo, perhaps a few stretches of frigid zone, & maybe some arid deserts…) or (b) the animal is well contained (& at a zoo where anyone can fall into the pit, that presumably is not considered to applyeven though rationally the animal shouldn’t be blamed for this).
It’s stupid but it’s true.
Myself, I’d do my best to pull her out, but not at all use lethal force on the bears unless they started climbing out & menacing the other zoo patrons. Tranqs are OK.