# I remember when "kilt him a bar, when he was only 3" was something to be admired **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 25, 2005, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827 "2005-10-25T16:07:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/141 "2005-10-27T18:41:58Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yeah, I read it, and it seemed (and still seems) to imply that you think that moral issues shouldn’t be legally regulated except for the issues most people agree on. And that sounds crazy to me. > > By that reasoning, it would have been inappropriate to mandate equal civil rights for blacks, because there wasn’t a 90% majority of the population that agreed that blacks were morally entitled to them. (Same for legislating equal rights for gays these days.) Similarly, there are probably large super majorities of people who would consider it immoral to say “Mom, go fuck yourself” or “Jesus Christ was a bastard and his mother was a whore”, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to make a law prohibiting such remarks. I think you’re missing a distinction that I did make here. I said not a majority but a large super majority, and for this very reason. Event though at times a majority of people may have supported the following causes, I doubt 90% of the people in this country every supported slavery, or oppose gay rights to marry, or who thought those above statements should be banned (and as to the last, even if they did the 1st Amendment covers that one). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/142 "2005-10-27T19:32:36Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > I think you’re missing a distinction that I did make here. I said not a majority but a large super majority Yup, I caught that: > [@Kimstu](#): > > Similarly, there are probably large super majorities of people who would consider it immoral to say […] It still does not make sense to me to try to use an arbitrary percentage----whether 90%, 95%, 81.7%, or any other arbitrary number—to distinguish between moral issues that can be addressed in law and moral issues that have to remain private. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/143 "2005-10-27T19:57:41Z")
> [@Exgineer](#): > > I’m not even going to bother to address the flagrant stupidity required to equate the enslavement of human beings with the hunting of animals. Any person with at least moderately subnormal intelligence (i.e. not you) can see how that’s not worth discussing. This is way out of line. **Amarone** was not equating slavery with hunting. In fact, he or she explicitly said so. He was demonstrating that your argument was illogical by applying it to another set of facts. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/144 "2005-10-27T20:03:42Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yup, I caught that: > It still does not make sense to me to try to use an arbitrary percentage----whether 90%, 95%, 81.7%, or any other arbitrary number—to distinguish between moral issues that can be addressed in law and moral issues that have to remain private. Hmmm. I understand what you’re saying. How about if I put it this way: Moral issue upon which the vast majority of the population agree are things that deserve to be codified as law, while moral issues upon which there is a large disagreement are subjective and should remain the business of each individual to determine for themselves? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/145 "2005-10-27T20:17:59Z")
Not sure that really helps—then we’re just stuck with the question “How big is a vast majority?” I’m more comfortable drawing the distinction between public and private morality on the grounds of “compelling state interest”. If a moral issue has a significant impact on society, then it’s subject to legislation even if we don’t have “a vast majority” agreeing about it. On the other hand, if it’s confined to personal and private life, then it’s off-limits to legislation even if there’s 100% agreement. Yes, there are gray areas about how you determine “compelling state interest”, but IMHO it’s still better than trying to establish a quantitative guideline like “vast majority”. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/146 "2005-10-27T20:29:15Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Bullshit. It’s not different at all. Hunting is the method that predators use to catch their prey. If you admit that humans are predators, than you are admitting that hunting behavior is genetic. You’re playing word game simply because you can’t admit that you’re wrong. Grow up a bit and learn that sometimes you make mistakes, and it’s ok to say “You know what? I was wrong”. > > Again, not really. As someone else pointed out, nowadays most people just pay someone else to kill and butcher their meat for them. The need hasn’t changed, just the delivery method. God you’re a fucking neanderthal moron. I never suggested that the need for meat had changed. In fact, you’re making my point for me. Because you are correct that “the delivery method” has changed. And the fact that it has changed means that the vast majority of people in the United States don’t need to wander the forests killing animals for meat. Your argument stands up only if you equate raising beef cattle, hogs and chicken on farms with hunting. > [@Weirddave](#): > > Why should I address it? It’s meaningless. The results are exactly the same. Trigger pulled, animal dead. Tell me, if eating the meat is moral and not eating it isn’t, what percentage of the animal dressed out tips the act over your mythical morality line? 10%? 30%? 50%? How about if I just eat the liver? Do I have to tan the hide and make moccasins to qualify, or is taking the tenderloin and a haunch enough? How about if I have the body mounted and stuffed and take it around to schools to educate children, but don’t eat the meat because I’m a vegetarian, is that moral? I haven’t addressed the “distinction” because it’s stupid and meaningless. What _i_ personally think is moral is irrelevant to the argument. I was addressing not the morality of hunting, but your juvenile claim that the question of hunting for sport is not, in and of itself, a moral issue. Exactly how much of the animal you eat (or don’t eat), and the relationship of this to morality, are irrelevant to my argument. You seem to assume that i’m trying to make my own argument against hunting here. I’m not. I was merely addressing the stupidity of your particular claims about whether or not hunting for sport is a topic that is susceptible to moral claims and arguments. > [@Weirddave](#): > > Jesus, you are a simple sort. You consistently demonstrate the inability to grasp any concept that is more nuanced than an ice cube. What is so hard for you to understand? Morals exist on more than one level. Their are societal morals, things that a vast majority of the people in America say are WRONG, capital W, You-can’t-do-this wrong. These are things that we pass laws about to punish people who do them. Then there are personal morals, which should form the basis for each individual’s behavior, but which one individual has no right to impose upon another individual. It’s a stunningly simple concept, why is it so fucking hard for you to see? It’s not contradictory at all, and it’s not a misunderstanding of the nature of morality at all. Denying that morals exist on several levels is not just a misunderstanding of their nature, it’s a frightening level of ignorance, the kind that leads to the terrifying moral absolutism of a dictator or a fanatic. I never denied that morals exist on several levels. A rudimentary course in reading, once you extract your fat head from your arse, would have made that clear to your simple-minded self. Let’s look at the implications of your idiocy more closely. You say: > [@Weirddave](#): > > Their are societal morals, things that a vast majority of the people in America say are WRONG, capital W, You-can’t-do-this wrong. These are things that we pass laws about to punish people who do them. So, is it your argument that, as long as enough people agree about something to pass a law about it, this is a societal moral and not an individual one? What about drugs? We’ve passed laws that forbid drug use, and yet why should it be anyone else’s business if i want to toke up now and again? Why shouldn’t this be as personal a choice as, say, abortion or same sex marriage? And you contradict yourself. In an earlier post, you say that sex, homosexuality, and marriage are issues of personal morality. Yet there are plenty of people who believe that we should pass laws against same sex marriage, and anti-same sex marriage initiatives passed on ballots in, i think, 11 states during the last federal election. If the rednecks of America manage to swing enough votes to pass laws against gay marriage, does that automatically remove the issue from the realm of “personal morality” and make it an issue of societal morality that gay folk are just gonna have to live with? > [@weirddave](#): > > Then there are personal morals, which should form the basis for each individual’s behavior, but which one individual has no right to impose upon another individual. But your assertion of what constitute societal morals and what constitutes personal morals does not constitute any sort of logically coherent system. It’s a set of arbitrarily designed categorizations drawn up by you and you alone. You said earlier that: > [@weirdave](#): > > For something to truly be a moral issue, it’s got to be something that a super majority of the population would agree with, somewhere around the 90% mark. So i guess that in America around the period of the Civil War, the question of slavery was not a “truly…a moral issue.” > [@weirddave](#): > > I doubt 90% of the people in this country ever supported slavery. Maybe not, but around the time of the Civil War there’s also no way that anywhere close to 90% of the American population would have supported the abolition of slavery either. Hell, i’m not sure what the actual numbers are (or if they’re even knowable), but i’d be willing to bet that well under 90% of _Northerners_ in 1860 would have called for the banning of slavery in the southern states. Many Northerners simply wanted to prevent the spread of slavery into new territories and states, and had no qualms about the already-existing slavery of the South. So, if you didn’t have a supermajority arguing that something was wrong (which was your original argument, if you’ll remember), can it then be said that slavery back then was merely an issue of personal morals, something that no-one had the right to judge anyone else about? > [@Weirddave](#): > > Really? Those people who said flat out “If you hunt for sport, than you are immoral”, they weren’t judging people who hunt for sport? They are condemning others because of something that they themselves would not do. Learn to read, dickwad. Yes, they are judging them, and they are condemning them. But the word i used was “coercion.” There’s nothing wrong with disapproving of what other people do, and letting them know. But it’s a far cry from calling for them to be prevented from doing it. > [@Weirddave](#): > > Hmmm. I understand what you’re saying. How about if I put it this way: Moral issue upon which the vast majority of the population agree are things that deserve to be codified as law, while moral issues upon which there is a large disagreement are subjective and should remain the business of each individual to determine for themselves? And you accused me of authoritarian and dictatorial tendencies? Say that a “vast majority” of Americans agree that drugs are bad and should be banned. Why should the fact that the majority agrees about this stop me from doing something that hurts no-one except myself? And again we can bring up the issue of slavery. It’s certainly true that there was “large disagreement” over this issue in the antebellum years. Should slavery, then, have remained a “subjective” issue for “each individual to determine for themselves”? Ever heard the concept of “tyranny of the majority”? Read some John Stuart Mill if you haven’t. > [@Debaser](#): > > Of course it is. Why do you think your eyes are attracted to movement? Huh? So, the fact that our eyes are attracted to movement proves that we are genetically predisposed to hunting? By your logic, the eyes of non-hunting animals such as herbivores are not attracted to movement. And, as anyone who has hunted deer will know, this is far from the case. The slightest movement can be enough to send your quarry bounding off into the bush. I guess that deer must be predators, then? > [@Debaser](#): > > Not true. Look five posts up and you can see **TwistofFate** ’s rediculous idea of only allowing unemployed people to hunt. That’s coercion. I have a job and under his plan I can’t hunt bear anymore. Well, i thought that **TwistofFate** ’s suggestion was tongue-in-cheek, but i could be wrong about that. Even if it wasn’t, he’s one person in this debate, and most others here—even those who find hunting morally problematic—have not called for it to be banned. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/147 "2005-10-27T20:32:25Z")
> [@BiblioCat](#): > > 😕 You’re actually proposing they pay unemployed people to hunt bears? There’s a high unemployment rate in Western Maryland as it is - those people already hunt just to (literally) put food on the table. I can see where this might be a good idea in theory, but not in practice. > > IIRC, the way the bear hunt works is that those interested apply for the licenses, all the applications are put in… something (like a hat - I’m being a little facetious here), and then a select number are drawn out, lottery-style. Only a certain number of those who apply are given bear-hunting licenses. It’s not like some free-for-all. > For deer season, everyone who wants a deer license gets one. The bear hunt is very limited. So statistically the odds are heavily \*against \* getting this permit? Interesting. It’s becoming clearer odds wise why daddy put his 8 year old daughter into play. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/148 "2005-10-27T20:40:58Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > This is way out of line. **Amarone** was not equating slavery with hunting. In fact, he or she explicitly said so. He was demonstrating that your argument was illogical by applying it to another set of facts. Unfortunately, some people aren’t intelligent enough to understand that concept. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/149 "2005-10-27T20:40:41Z")
> [@astro](#): > > So statistically the odds are heavily \*against \* getting this permit? Interesting. It’s becoming clearer odds wise why daddy put his 8 year old daughter into play. Maybe. Nothing wrong with that. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/150 "2005-10-27T21:17:20Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > Nope. I am enjoying something that required the death of an animal as part of the process. I am not enjoying the actual act of killing the animal. > > I do not say it is immoral to hunt for food. I say it is immoral to hunt for fun. > > Nope. Nor is it immoral for a modern-day recreational hunter to enjoy going into the wilds, having a beer with his buddies etc. It’s just the enjoying of the killing bit. > > I agree - it is not less moral. I would kill an animal for food (I have worked on a cattle and sheep farm and worked in a butchers shop). I would be pretty disgusted with myself if I actually enjoyed the killing itself, though. I maintain that eating is a process of the killing. You are simply making a point of logical disconnect that you want people to adhere to out of some aesthetic sensibility you hold to. The term ‘joy’ is very nebulous. Some people enjoy being sad, some people enjoy being angry. There is nothing morally objectionable about a hunter feeling a sense of visceral satisfaction in the kill. I tend to agree about trophy hunting as I said before, it seems kind of pointless and grotesque to me, but if that trophy was gained in the process of gathering food, then I don’t see anything wrong in taking pride in it. It’s not wasting life for the sake of wasting life, and then showcasing the carcass to point out that you wasted life just cuz you could. I think that visceral satisfaction is completely healthy in the case of food acquisition, and I totally support it, I think if it’s fun, then it should be fun. You don’t know the feeling that the person had when they shot the deer. Maybe they missed hunting season last year, and they had to tighten their budget until the next hunting season, and this year they got a big buck and get to have lots of barbeques, and can be a provider for their community. I don’t see what’s so amoral about having that satisfaction. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/151 "2005-10-27T21:40:07Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > God you’re a fucking neanderthal moron. I never suggested that the need for meat had changed. > > In fact, you’re making my point for me. Because you are correct that “the delivery method” has changed. And the fact that it has changed means that the vast majority of people in the United States don’t need to wander the forests killing animals for meat. Your argument stands up only if you equate raising beef cattle, hogs and chicken on farms with hunting. Yup. Sure do. they serve the exact same purpose. > [@mhendo](#): > > What _i_ personally think is moral is irrelevant to the argument. I was addressing not the morality of hunting, but your juvenile claim that the question of hunting for sport is not, in and of itself, a moral issue. > > Exactly how much of the animal you eat (or don’t eat), and the relationship of this to morality, are irrelevant to my argument. You seem to assume that i’m trying to make my own argument against hunting here. I’m not. I was merely addressing the stupidity of your particular claims about whether or not hunting for sport is a topic that is susceptible to moral claims and arguments. And you still haven’t demonstrated how it is, on anything other than a personal level. > [@mhendo](#): > > Let’s look at the implications of your idiocy more closely. You say:So, is it your argument that, as long as enough people agree about something to pass a law about it, this is a societal moral and not an individual one? _snort_ And you lecture me about my reading comprehension. Nowhere have I said “enough people agreeing about something to pass a law about it” is any sort of an indicator of weather something is moral or not > [@mhendo](#): > > What about drugs? We’ve passed laws that forbid drug use, and yet why should it be anyone else’s business if i want to toke up now and again? Why shouldn’t this be as personal a choice as, say, abortion or same sex marriage? Gee, since I specifically used drug use as an example of something that wasn’t a moral issue for society as a whole but rather a matter of personal morals, I’d have to say that it should be. This is just sad. ElviL1ves sad. Attributing to someone something the opposite of what they have posted and then berating them for it is pathetic. I never thought I’d see the day you’d stoop to those levels. > [@mhendo](#): > > And you contradict yourself. In an earlier post, you say that sex, homosexuality, and marriage are issues of personal morality. Yet there are plenty of people who believe that we should pass laws against same sex marriage, and anti-same sex marriage initiatives passed on ballots in, i think, 11 states during the last federal election. If the rednecks of America manage to swing enough votes to pass laws against gay marriage, does that automatically remove the issue from the realm of “personal morality” and make it an issue of societal morality that gay folk are just gonna have to live with?But your assertion of what constitute societal morals and what constitutes personal morals does not constitute any sort of logically coherent system. It’s a set of arbitrarily designed categorizations drawn up by you and you alone. And again you misrepresent what I’ve said. Shame on you. > [@mhendo](#): > > You said earlier that:So i guess that in America around the period of the Civil War, the question of slavery was not a "truly…a moral issue."Maybe not, but around the time of the Civil War there’s also no way that anywhere close to 90% of the American population would have supported the abolition of slavery either. Hell, i’m not sure what the actual numbers are (or if they’re even knowable), but i’d be willing to bet that well under 90% of _Northerners_ in 1860 would have called for the banning of slavery in the southern states. Many Northerners simply wanted to prevent the spread of slavery into new territories and states, and had no qualms about the already-existing slavery of the South. Since slavery is a practice that denies one group of people their rights and freedoms, it never passes the test for being a moral issue in the first place, unless you are able to produce statistics showing that 9 out of 10 Americans supported slavery as a right and just institution. You can’t do it. Those conditions have never existed in America. Slavery was never a moral institution to begin with. > [@mhendo](#): > > So, if you didn’t have a supermajority arguing that something was wrong (which was your original argument, if you’ll remember), can it then be said that slavery back then was merely an issue of personal morals, something that no-one had the right to judge anyone else about?Learn to read, dickwad. Wow, you actually did notice that I have been talking about a super majority then. Why all these straw men about recreational drug use and same sex marriage then? You’ve just demonstrated that you knew all along what I was talking about, why the smoke and mirrors? Could it be because you realize that you’re full of shit? \ > [@mhendo](#): > > Ever heard the concept of “tyranny of the majority”? Read some John Stuart Mill if you haven’t. Gee, maybe that concept is why I have taken great pains to make it clear that a simple majority has no right to determine anything for society. Just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/152 "2005-10-27T22:35:46Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > And you still haven’t demonstrated how it is, on anything other than a personal level. And you have still to demonstrate that there is actually a logical difference between personal and societal morals in the ways that you arbitrarily conceive them. > [@Weirddave](#): > > _snort_ And you lecture me about my reading comprehension. Nowhere have I said “enough people agreeing about something to pass a law about it” is any sort of an indicator of weather something is moral or not. Huh? You said, very specifically: > [@Weirddave](#): > > Their are societal morals, things that a vast majority of the people in America say are WRONG, capital W, You-can’t-do-this wrong. These are things that we pass laws about to punish people who do them. You draw, in these sentences, a direct link between societal morals and legislation. You say that some things are societal morals, things that we all agree are wrong, and that we pass laws about. Have you, once again, resorted to the cowardly and dishonest tactic of lying about what you’ve said? I thought you would have realized by now the futility of doing this, given that we can actually go back and see your previous posts. > [@Weirddave](#): > > Gee, since I specifically used drug use as an example of something that wasn’t a moral issue for society as a whole but rather a matter of personal morals, I’d have to say that it should be. But you have made a point that you believe that societal morals are things on which a supermajority of the population agree. If someone took a poll and found that 90% of Americans supported the bans on drugs, would you not have to concede that this is not, in fact, a matter of personal morals? > [@Weirddave](#): > > This is just sad. ElviL1ves sad. Attributing to someone something the opposite of what they have posted and then berating them for it is pathetic. I never thought I’d see the day you’d stoop to those levels. If there are any low levels here, they’re the ones set by your stupidity. I’m just sorry that you can’t comprehend your own arguments, let alone anyone else’s. > [@Weirddave](#): > > And again you misrepresent what I’ve said. Shame on you. I’ve misrepresented nothing. Address the issue, if you understand it, coward. > [@Weirddave](#): > > Since slavery is a practice that denies one group of people their rights and freedoms, it never passes the test for being a moral issue in the first place, unless you are able to produce statistics showing that 9 out of 10 Americans supported slavery as a right and just institution. You can’t do it. Those conditions have never existed in America. Slavery was never a moral institution to begin with. Huh? You’re just descending into complete dribbling idiocy. While i completely agree that slavery was never a moral institution, your own emphasis on connecting societal morality with “supermajorities” makes your current position completely untenable. The fact that slavery was allowed to emerge and thrive in America suggests that there were, in fact, enough people supporting this institution. I don’t have to produce statistic showing that 9 out of 10 Americans supported slavery. You’re the one making the claim about slavery not being a moral issue. And, as you’ve previously made clear, for something to banned as immoral the banning needs a supermajority. So the burden is on you to show that there was a supermajority supporting the abolition of slavery. > [@Weirddave](#): > > Wow, you actually did notice that I have been talking about a super majority then. Why all these straw men about recreational drug use and same sex marriage then? You’ve just demonstrated that you knew all along what I was talking about, why the smoke and mirrors? Could it be because you realize that you’re full of shit? You are about the most dishonest person i’ve ever encountered on these boards. I was quite that i understood that you were arguing about a supermajority. But i was also clear that your argument had all the weight of a feather, and was simply a reflection of your own idiocies and biases. > [@Weirddave](#): > > Gee, maybe that concept is why I have taken great pains to make it clear that a simple majority has no right to determine anything for society. Just a thought. Now i’m just laughing at you. Mill’s tyranny of the majority was not just a “simple majority.” For Mill, and those who adopt a similar viewpoint, even a supermajority is not necessarily sufficient reason to ban or proscribe something. If you want to read what someone intelligent has to say about morality and its place in society, in contrast with your own drivel, i suggest you take a look at _On Liberty_, particularly the chapter “On the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual.” ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/153 "2005-10-27T22:51:13Z")
Mhendo, go fuck yourself. I am tired of you continually misrepresenting my posts, and then like the shit eating dog you are, coming back and attacking me based upon the lies that you made up in the first place. You did say one thing correct, however, my posts are there for everyone to read. What I’ve said is clear and concise. Anyone who wants to know how I feel on these matters can read what I’ve written and see how wildly different that is from the shit that you claim I said. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/154 "2005-10-27T22:55:47Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Mhendo, go fuck yourself. I am tired of you continually misrepresenting my posts, and then like the shit eating dog you are, coming back and attacking me based upon the lies that you made up in the first place. You did say one thing correct, however, my posts are there for everyone to read. What I’ve said is clear and concise. Anyone who wants to know how I feel on these matters can read what I’ve written and see how wildly different that is from the shit that you claim I said. Yes, they can. And you’re the one who will come out looking like the liar and coward that you are. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/155 "2005-10-27T23:58:46Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I maintain that eating is a process of the killing. You are simply making a point of logical disconnect that you want people to adhere to out of some aesthetic sensibility you hold to. The term ‘joy’ is very nebulous. Some people enjoy being sad, some people enjoy being angry. There is nothing morally objectionable in your opinion > [@mswas](#): > > about a hunter feeling a sense of visceral satisfaction in the kill. I think “satisfaction”, whether visceral or not, is a very different thing from actually taking enjoyment from the hunting and killing process. I can understand people gaining satisfaction from having provided for their families. In a more trivial example, I take satisfaction from the end-result of having mowed the lawn, but I do not enjoy the actual mowing itself. The people that I know that hunt (which includes all my male in-laws and my wife up until she met me) do not do so to provide for their families (they are all well-off). They do so because they enjoy it. > [@mswas](#): > > You don’t know the feeling that the person had when they shot the deer. Maybe they missed hunting season last year, and they had to tighten their budget until the next hunting season, and this year they got a big buck and get to have lots of barbeques, and can be a provider for their community. I don’t see what’s so amoral about having that satisfaction.Erek I don’t see anything amoral (or immoral, which is my accusation) about hunting to provide food. I repeat - it is killing for fun that I find objectionable. ---
**Author:** ![Marlitharn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@Marlitharn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marlitharn)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/156 "2005-10-28T00:38:54Z")
Can someone clarify for me, please, what is meant by “killing for fun?” To me, the guys in Ye Olde Frontier days who rode the Iron Horse through the Great Plains taking potshots at buffalo from the caboose were “killing for fun”. The kills weren’t used. The hunters in “Bambi” firing at everything that moved were “killing for fun” (how much meat can there possibly be on a chipmunk?). The hunters I know kill for meat, either for themselves or the local food banks. They find hunting _satisfying_, but it’s more like, “Mmm. Clean shot, good food.” than “WOOHOOO!!! Didja see the size of the hole I blew in that sumbitch! His head’s gonna look raht purty up on my wall!” ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/157 "2005-10-28T00:43:06Z")
> [@Marlitharn](#): > > Can someone clarify for me, please, what is meant by “killing for fun?” In my case I am referring to the activity of hunting where the main purpose is enjoyment of the hunting itself. Yes, the dead animal may be eaten or its death may bring other benefit, e.g. population control, but the reason the person goes hunting is because the act of hunting is what they enjoy doing. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/158 "2005-10-28T01:30:18Z")
**armarone** I simply find your idea of some kind of objective guilt over the act of killing to be insipid. I don’t agree that it shouldn’t be fun to kill. I don’t think one should kill unecessarily, but if they enjoy the killing, then that’s fine. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/159 "2005-10-28T02:13:46Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **armarone** I simply find your idea of some kind of objective guilt over the act of killing to be insipid. I don’t agree that it shouldn’t be fun to kill. I don’t think one should kill unecessarily, but if they enjoy the killing, then that’s fine. Define “unnecessarily”. I agree with your statement, but I just think that when the primary motivation is enjoyment, then that does not make the killing “necessary”. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827/160 "2005-10-28T02:22:11Z")
Yup. I get satisfaction in a kill. I enjoy the stalking, and the moment of the kill. I don’t enjoy the act of killing, for the sake of the act, but it would certainly be fair to say I get a certain amount of primal pleasure out of the accomplishment. So I guess I enjoy killing. Oooooooooo! I’m daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaangerous, and eeeeeeeeeeeevil! :rolleyes: You can’t possiblt understand unless you’ve been there, so hush. Besides, how can you possibly think you’re not complicit in the killing, if you eat meat (do you eat meat)? Your money helps pay for the slaughtering of animals. You just don’t have to watch it. I personally think the world would be better off if more people _did_ see the consequences of their choices. It’d make their appreciation for life more profound. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-remember-when-kilt-him-a-bar-when-he-was-only-3-was-something-to-be-admired/327827.md?page=9)