OK, Stoid, Hunting v. free range beef

Great Debates
81

Uh, spooje… you are wrong. Both in your interpretation of my original remark, and I think in your interpretation of what justwannano was trying to say to me.

My original remark, as anyone can read for themselves, described a spectrum of attitudes, with the intensely reverent at one end, and the sadistic-described as above- at the other. I then said: "The key is to find where on the spectrum we can live with ourselves and the animals can live, too. " Now, i really can’t imagine how you can conclude from this that I am equating hunters with the pig torturers. I don’t even mention them in this passage. Or are you making the leap that because I think hunting is disgusting and I think pig torture is disgusting that I am equating the two? I think clams are disgusting and I think vomit is disgusting, but I don’t consider the two equivalent.

And Justwannano, was implying, I believe, that my memory of the film was so incredibly faulty that I could not possibly be remembering it correctly. In making the implication, he misstated what I had said. I said the film itself was probably 15 years old, and that I had seen it quite awhile ago. I also said my memory is imperfect. From these three statements he concluded, it appeared, that I was saying that my memory of a film I saw 15 years ago is really crappy. “Casablanca” is 50 years old, and I saw it last quite awhile ago. Does that mean I saw it 50 years ago?

stoid

82

Yep, Freedom, she’s just putting her blinders on and pretending I don’t exist! How amusing!

Oh, but she feels and cares more than the rest of us. She chows down on her animal flesh, but still condemns hunters, but still, she is more enlightened. More righteous. Oh yeah.

I’ll just keep on asking it: Why don’t you make that Ultimate Bleeding-Heart Choice, Stoid? Why do you eat the flesh of animals? “Because you can?”

83

Did I do that? I feel pretty confident that I didn’t. I simply expressed my opinion of the practice. **
[/QUOTE]

Well, given what you have described for us about the way we all participate in the deaths of so many beings, it would seem that none of us could ever judge anyone. But there is more to it than sheer numbers, in my view, and there is a difference between reaping the benefits of questionable practices over which you have almost no control, and directly, deliberately participating in something. Again, I am not suggesting or demanding or even pleading with anyone to stop anything. But I cannot change my opinion that to make the choice to get up early, go out in the woods, find some beautiful, gentle, wild creature having its breakfast, and kill it, is gross. (incidentally, another reason it is easier for me to deal with eating pigs and cows than deer or pheasant is because those animals would never have been born except for the fact that we intend to eat them. We gave them what life they have, without their ultimate destinaation of the dinner table, they would never have been born. Which is zero excuse for treating them like shit while they live, but anyway…)

As for the inferior/superior business, that is more supposition. Because I find certain things distasteful, or even abhorrant, doesn’t automatically mean I file them away under “inferior to me”. At the risk of igniting another firestorm, and with full warning that I will NOT get into it again except to use this as an example so don’t even bother coming after me on this because I will not discuss it, I find the military completely awful. I don’t personally understand how or why anyone would care to be a part of it, I really don’t. But that’s just me. In addition to how I personally feel about the military, I also am damn glad that somebody gets it, otherwise I’d be in deep shit. And I respect that. I even admire it, because it takes balls I will never have. But I still think its icky.

Wow. I think that has to be added to pantheon of all time greats in terms of outrageous comparisons. I applaud your boldness, sir!

“Appear to be” is key. See above.

I gotta give you props, man, you are GOOD. Although i do not feel, as I have said, that I should be able to empathize with the whole world. Therefore the rest of your argument, while excellently made, does not actually apply. Especially since, I remind you, I have not campaigned against hunting, I have not even asked hunters to stop. I have merely expressed my opinion of what they do. You have assumed the rest.

Yeah. Making entertainment out of killing. I do like the cuddly animals, and using their death to amuse, entertain, or get a sense of accomplishment strikes me as cruel, lacking in compassion, and insensitive. Getting a sense of accomplishment, amusment, or fun out of bringing death, especially when it is not necessary to do so, just offends my sensibilities.And of course, mounting dead things on your wall to show that you’ve killed them adds insult to injury.

In the case of peoples who still get their living directly from hunting, I have no problem with this. It is their living, not their sport.

84

I am an avid fly fisherman. I have taken out a lot of people for their first time to show them the ropes. One thing I have found is that they react differently to catching their first fish. Some people like it, but don’t really react strongly. But with some people, they go absolutely nuts. It is as if there is a special switch inside of them that has been flipped. If you are one of those people, then you know exactly what I mean.

I think that hunting is similar. It either speaks to your soul or it does not. I don’t think that there is a good way to convey why one does get it. It is a feeling, not an intellectual excercise.

85

ahhh…

Very impressive.

Trying to phrase you arguement in Liberalese…:slight_smile:

86

Stoid, even though you are living in this dream world where I don’t exist, I will forge ahead and comment!

Yes, I actually agree with you on this, Stoid. That is why I do not want to eat animal flesh. Since all of us eat plants, I will not stop the death of many bugs and other creatures, but I don’t have to be eating the products of the “questionable practice”, such as animals produced from factory farming. So I don’t.

Which is exactly why many vegetarians, including myself, don’t eat these animals. Because of factory farming, they are put on this planet to be made miserable. Hey - I am not in the habit of telling anyone to stop eating these animals. But I don’t see how this is “better” than a hunter going out, and killing something that was happy and free until the day it is cut down. At least those animals were happy for most of their lives.

And - I have heard many hunters insist that if they didn’t go out and kill some of these deers and other game, there would begin to be a problematic overpopulation of wild game. Eventually, not enough food to go around in the wild, starving deer, and the like. Why is killing off the “surplus” deer population more cruel and icky than creating animals who will live a miserable life in a factory farm, just so you can eat them?

Agreed.

Yes, he’s got balls. And he makes a lot of assumptions.

I do not know (since I cannot read the minds of hunters) that they enjoy the actual killing part of hunting. I suspect that many do not, it’s just part of the job of getting some food. As far as it being “necessary”, well, it is not “necessary” that you eat pigs, or chickens. It is not “necessary” that these animals be specifically bred, so you can consume them. But you do consume them, prompting their birth, and death. So why are you condemning someone else for something that is (in your view) also “unecessary”?

I agree, my asthetics indicate that mounting dead things on walls is icky. But if the hunter used all the meat, at least it was not wasteful. The ultimate insult is when the hunter does not use the meat, just wants the head for a trophy. THAT is truly horrid, IMO.

Oh, I know you’ll keep on pretending I don’t exist, Stoid. And you’ll tell yourself that I am on your “shit list”, and that’s the reason why you can conveniently ignore me now. The fact that I am a bleeding-heart vegetarian who is asking you why you cannot follow suit (since you care so much, after all) is just a coincidence. And since I am the one asking you all the questions from the viewpoint of a bleeding-heart politically correct vegetarian - well, that’s just a happy coincidence as well. You are ignoring me, so you don’t have to answer this vegetarian’s questions. You, who “feel guilty that you eat meat, but are too ‘lazy’ to stop”. Oh yeah. How conveeeeenient for you.

87

No Stoid you misunderstood
First of all you said you saw it with your own eyes leading us to believe it had some creditability. Then you said it was a film. Then you said you didn’t know who did it.
This is a debate about hunting and I will thank you to leave sensationalism out of it.
I have said before anti hunters don’t have a leg to stand on so they turn to sensationalism and you proved it with your film.

88

It seems that Stoid’s only problem with hunting is that, if you enjoy it, it’s wrong. Sounds like Catholic philosophy to me…

89

Stoid

You brought up two ends of the spectrum from your piont of view.

Well here is mine.

At one end you have someone like my neighbor. Male 50ish married three times. Kids
with two of the women.He has had to pay child support for over 20years. Now this wife
has two 13year old girls. He has worked the same job for 20years at least. He hunts to
feed himself and his family. He has no extra money because most of his kids don’t live
with him.
When he takes a vacation he hunts. On weekends during the rest of the year he fishes.
Also to feed his family.
He is so good at it his wife,and both kids have hunting licences.All shot a deer this year.
Figuring half the live weight is meat then he has about 300# of meat in his freezer.

At the other end of the spectrum you have you.
WTF are you trying to do to this poor man.
And what good is there in it for you. Does it make you feel better?At what cost?
Have a nice day.

90

Thank you. It is always so rewarding to be understood, even a little. And its “she”. I would have thought that was obvious…isn’t my whole position rather “girly”? :wink:

Actually, I don’t recall confessing to any uncertainty in this regard. I confess to weakness, an inability to wholly live by the principles I respect, but no uncertainty about why I believe as I do.

Dude. You rock. :slight_smile:

stoid

91

I consider film, a visual medium, to be seeing with my own eyes. You think I owuld stand around and watch such an act in real life? And I know who made the film, I do not recall who was responsible for the pig incident in the film, but my imperfect, not terrible, memory tells me it may have been the military.
**
[/QUOTE]

Justwannano, perhaps you would not go through life “just wanting to know” so much if you actually paid attention to anything. If you had bothered to actually read what I have written, you would never have asked these questions. I am not trying to “do” anything to anyone, I simply have an opinion about their behavior, something which I have made clear several times in this thread, I believe. I have also clearly stated that those who hunt for food, out of need, I have no quarrel with. If this guy hunts because it is the only affordable way he can provide meat for his family, then bully for him. If he does it for the pleasure of it, then I think he’s kinda gross.

Please, please, please…if you are going to disagree with me or debate me, stick to what I have really said, don’t read three sentences, decide you know where I’m coming from, and argue with what you make up in your head. It wastes your time and mine. I’m not going to keep repeating myself if you keep proving that you aren’t listening.

stoid

92

At any one time, without man’s interference, an area has just about as much life as it can handle. With man, an area holds more life than it can handle. The cause is two-fold. One: man chases animal away into smaller territories. Two: Man herds and domesticates animals. In the “wild” there could not be such a population. We create it.
Now, (1), the animals compete with each other for food that isn’t enough to sustain all of them. Hunters kill these animals who would most surely die anyway. When the population is low enough, hunting maintains that population to ensure none do starve.
(2) Creates more animal life than would otherwise occur in any one area. I don’t think its preposterous to say there are more cown alive today than ever before, or chickens, etc.

So, the question becomes…do we praise farmers for creating so many precious little lives or do we condemn them for making the space so compact, force them to own more land and spread out the herd for lower profits given the same amount of work(ahem, apratment complexes, cities, public housing, etc)? Do we condemn hunters for not letting animals breed to the point of starvation(ahem, soviet union, china, etc)? Or do we work to eliminate our growth, stagnate technology, and coexist with animals now? It is an either-or proposition, I’m afraid. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I think animals are treated above and beyond what their “cuteness” requires. I have never hurt an animal, I love them. But again, I eat them, and I would really enjoy hunting (only tried once, got one shot off at a deer and missed). I like killing animals, just like I like solving tough math problems, reading about history, drawing, writing, blah blah blah. They are just animals, higher on an evolutionary scale than plants but, in the end, not worth more effort than we already put forth for them. And they taste so yummy!

As well, I support animal drug testing. I couldn’t do that, though. But, there are people who can and by all means do. I happen to feel superior to animals both physically(some) and mentally(all). C’mon, how shocking is that?

As much as I agree with yosem. that to call hunting sick and yet to eat meat is a contradiction, I feel that arguing for morality of animals is pretty weird in itself. At least you’re not a vegan…lol. Stoid can dislike hunting all she wants, I doubt I’ll ever understand.

93

Oh, this is SOOOO funny!

Stoid: you will “ignore” me, but you will respond and quote Gaspode’s post to me? Is this not the most spineless, gutless way of NOT responding to my questions, and yet still try to get your (hypocritical and flawed) viewpoint across?

To the Fabulous Gaspode, and our esteemed Stoidela: If I had a history of spouting off self-righteous “I’m more selfless than you because of my bleeding heart liberalism”, then perhaps I would, indeed, be a hypocrite. If I had a habit of being the high-and-mighty preachy in-your-face “I’m better than you” vegetarian, then indeed, I might be a hypocrite. If I was actually serious with my comments about “I must care more because I am a vegetarian”, then indeed, I might be a hypocrite.

But no, anyone who has read my posts for over a year knows that I do not preach my vegetarianism, I do not condemn meat-eaters, I do not condemn hunters or hunting, I do not really give a damn about what other people eat. Please copy and paste a serious comment I have made anywhere, in over the year I have been here, where I seriously claimed this. My mantra has consistently been, “Don’t bug me about what I eat, and I won’t bug you.”

But this thread was different - this thread was special, and so ironic, it begged me to respond with some degree of sarcasm. And the Fabulous Gaspode, who is not privy to the history of me, my vegetarianism, my political leanings, or Stoid’s history and pattern of behavior, did not know this. Our Fabulous Gaspode cannot seem to recognize sarcasm, irony or mockery when other people write it. Perhaps that is understandable, since he has not been here that long. He does not recognize my mocking use of stereotypical politically correct “buzzwords” and slogans regarding vegetarianism - phrases I never use in a serious heartfelt context. He doesn’t recognize that. Nor can he manage to admit his own sarcasm or veiled contempt towards vegetarianism, IMO.

However, Stoid, I cannot fail to believe that you recognize my intent, and my mocking and sarcasm of your blind hypocrisy. You, who time and time again, have claimed your own superiority of intent, and selfless liberal philosophy. You, who condemn hunters, but still eat animals, because you are too “lazy” to not eat them. And here I am, (oh politically incorrect me, who has a political belief that you find so “selfish”.) And I have made a diet choice that you feel “guilty” that you are too “lazy” to adapt yourself? And yet - who is this whole thread directed at - the “holier than thou bleeding heart vegetarian” (that would be the picture Gaspode paints of me) or - uh - who is this thread directed at again? (Not me, the vegetarian. I don’t have a history of ragging on hunters, or meat-eaters.) No - this thread was brought into creation by our own caring, politically correct, deeply caring Stoid. She made some rather irritating remarks about hunting and hunters, thus prompting the ire of our hunter Dopers. Stoid, who still can’t bring herself to make that Ultimate Politically Correct Bleeding Heart stance, of vegetarianism - still feels entitled to insult and pass judgment on hunters. Is this not ironic? I think so.

Stoid - it won’t wash. You are too gutless to address me personally, but you will quote someone who does not even understand everyone’s history here, and the patterns of behavior we have established? And you will quote this person as if their (uninformed, flawed and incomplete) picture of things is the correct picture? It is not. And you know it.

So I’ll say it again: CHICKEN! ::making clucking noises:: Cluck cluck cluck! Spineless chicken!

94

Probably not, but if you have any interest in trying to, I invite you to read the Beston quote once more…this time with feeling…and a one and a two…

** “We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creatures through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, we greatly err. For the animals shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete, gifted with extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings. They are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.” – Henry Beston

**

95

I can tell you I am laughing out loud. Sorry, but I don’t take a zen approach to life. Man is a better thing than animals, and animals are better than plants, and plants are better than fungi, and fungi are better than bacteria, and so on and so forth down to rocks are just rocks and who gives a shit? It can only be poetic justice that the rocks we care so little for and give no rights to may just hurl themselves out of the sky and kill us. Or, we could just go on and be a heartless, egocentic species who can only think of value in relation to itself. Not suprising in the least.

Feel free to condemn us, though, you have every “right” to. I don’t doubt that within another twenty years “your” side will become even more prevalent because animal-friendly people shout a whole lot louder than those of us who are pretty apathetic about it.

96

What do you mean, “her side” will become more prevalent? You mean the “side” that claims such empathy about the poor animals, passing judgment on hunters, but still will eat their dead cows and dead pigs?

97

Stoid, I’m going to try a different method here, and say I agree with your conclusion, but you have the data to come to that conclusion is wrong. I agree that anybody that gets pleasure out of killing something is sick. The problem is that hunters don’t enjoy killing, they enjoy hunting. If they enjoyed killing, the would go down to the animal shelter, bring them home, and kill them. Hunting is an incredibly slow way to go about it if you enjoy killing. It’s the hunt that is the thing, the trek, the anticipation, the game to see if your skills are good enough to get the target. ** Every sporting* hunter I have ever known, has feelings of regret about the actual killing. It is a regrettable nesessity that the majestic creature has to die to complete the contest.** Most hunters have gone through the debate in their head many times, of whether the result of killing the animal outweighs the personal enjoyment of the hunt. Considering the fact that a high-velocity slug through the head is a much quicker and less painful way of dying than being torn apart by a canine pack, or slowly starving to death in its feeble old age. Also the herd will be controlled through some method whether its rifles, preditors, or over-grazed land unable to support it. Many people give up hunting entirely because even after all of that, the fact that they are the ones pulling the tigger isn’t confortable for them. The rest have decided that the benefits plus their personal pleasure and feeling of accomplishment from a successful hunt is worth it.

Rather than devideing the world into ‘me’ vs. ‘them’ and deciding that ‘them’ must be sadistic, maniaical, or stupid, realize that most people give a lot of thought to their actions and the repercusions they may have. You are not the first person in time to discover morality, so zealously preaching your personal views, with no open-mindedness at all doesn’t help anyone, and doesn’t reflect very well on you. Maybe someone who disagrees with you isn’t evil or stupid, maybe they just think differently.
*sporting used to mean somebody who is not hunting because they feel the need the food.

98

At least you kept it in “quotes”. The side that animals have some sort of rights and that deriving pleasure from killing them is sick.

99

And maybe if I’d said that , you’d have a point.

I am plenty difficult and opinionated as it is, you really don’t have to project things on to me to argue with.

As for the rest of what you say, it sounds pretty good. But I still feel that making the choice that a hunter’s need to "complete the contest’ and therefore the animal “regrettably needs to die” is an ego trip I don’t respect.

And Aynrandlover:
All I can say is that I think it is sad you feel as you do. I think it diminishes your world.

stoid

100

Yoesemitebabe
Fist off I want to apologise whole-heartedly for addressing you by the wrong handle. It was an honest mistake and I never intended to cause any offence by it. I’m sorry.
As for the thinly veiled contempt, I really can’t muster a lot of respect for those who accuse others of hypocrisy, laziness and cowardice for holding beliefs, however illogical they may appear. This is particularly so when they appear to be guilty of the same sins themselves.

My vegetarian stance has been borne out of what I have always been told, and believed.
Ignorance and a lack of understanding are part of being human. That you believed you could launch into personal attacks on others based on the ramification of their actions without making even a cursory investigation of the ramifications of your own appals me.

That a vegetarian diet is more ecology-friendly, and less cruel, (with the inclusion of factory farming) than the typical omnivorous one. And that seems to still be the case, as flowbark cites.
But as I have already stated, this doesn’t need to be the case. The suffering of these animals can be alleviated by your actions. If not you, who? If not now, when?

And, it is true that minimizing animal deaths is a partial benefit to my vegetarianism
I’ll say it again. NO IT ISN”T. Maximising animal deaths is the result of your vegetarianism.

"needling" and “mocking” one specific person’s hypocrisy is really more accurate to what I am doing.
Then take it to the Pit please. Abuse is next door along with being-hit-on-the-head-lessons. This is where I come for an argument.

And maybe you aren’t privy to all the reasons and history behind it.
Nor, at this juncture, do I care. You made a broad statement concerning the morality of your diet. I took you at your word, I refuted the implied logic. You accused others of sarcasm, hypocrisy, laziness and cowardice, I pointed out that that is something that others are guilty of that on this thread alone.

**but I don’t have to be eating the products of the “questionable practice”, such as animals produced from factory farming. So I don’t. **
That is fair enough and I do the same thing, but that is quite a leap from “I am a vegetarian to minimise animal deaths".

**The fact that I am a bleeding-heart vegetarian who is asking you why you cannot follow suit **
And I am a bleeding heart omnivore asking you why you don’t stop being vegetarian now that you know it contributes to animal deaths. Why won’t you answer me?

** And the Fabulous Gaspode, who is not privy to the history of me, my vegetarianism, my political leanings, or Stoid’s history and pattern of behavior, did not know this. Our Fabulous Gaspode cannot seem to recognize sarcasm, irony or mockery when other people write it. Perhaps that is understandable, since he has not been here that long. He does not recognize my mocking use of stereotypical politically correct “buzzwords” and slogans regarding vegetarianism - phrases I never use in a serious heartfelt context. He doesn’t recognize that. Nor can he manage to admit his own sarcasm or veiled contempt towards vegetarianism, IMO. **
I admit no sarcasm here. Scorn certainly, but not sarcasm. My contempt is far from veiled. How clear do you want me to make it : I find those who condemn others for faults they themselves display to be contemptible.
I apologise for taking what you say at face value and assuming you have the intelligence and good manners to make your feelings and beliefs known without resorting to the use of low wit like bathos and sarcasm. I assure you Yosmitebabe it is a mistake I could never make again.
I, and all other English speaking people, cannot recognise sarcasm when written by a complete stranger. By definition it requires vocal inflection or for the expounders thoughts or past experiences to be known, and with someone I have had no contact with previously this is impossible. Please don’t condemn me for not being able to accomplish that which you yourself find impossible.

**My main point is this - I find it ironic that someone who has often had the irritating and condescending habit of being “holier and more liberal, feeling, caring, bleeding heart than thou” won’t take the Ultimate Politically Correct and Bleeding-Heart choice - that of vegetarianism. I find this highly amusing and ironic. And I also find it highly amusing and ironic that this person refuses to acknowledge me. Very funny indeed. **
“Why do you see the speck of chaff that is in your brother’s eye, but don’t consider the beam that is in your own eye?”
Stoidela
I apparently misread your beliefs. I assumed that someone with feelings as obviously strong as yours about hunting would be seeking to have the activity stopped. If this is not the case then I can only say that I have great respect for anyone willing to take up an argument based only on beliefs in this forum. You at least have the guts to state that you are basing what you believe on what you believe to be right. And I accept your complements.
Hail fellow, well met!