Prairie Rose: I think you need to read my post again. I specifically said that I don’t think it’s a sin and mentioned that there are fools out here who do think it is. That’s part of what the victims have to face–prejudice from society. I’ve heard that part of the ordeal called “the second raping of the victim.”
Eris:
And if you did not enjoy it, would you do it?? I believe the honest answer is no, of course not. Anyone who owns a computer has no need to go out and kill their own lunch.
I have said repeatedly the following, and I will say them again:
-
I freely confess that were I forced to eviscerate my entree personally, I would instantly become a vegetarian. I am deeply squeamish and extremely picky about what I eat, and I am quite certain I could never eat anything I had known in life. Or even seen pre-butchering, for that matter. I need it cut up, cleaned, and packaged neatly, yep, I sure do.
-
I have no objection to killing animals for food. Obviously, since I happily pay others to do it on my behalf. And I am pleased that others are willing to do it for me, in a way not dissimilar to my gratitude that others are willing to join the military and protect me.
-
However, I do not like the military mind, I do not like what the military does, and it is unimaginable to me how anyone, not faced with immediate threat, would choose to serve in the military. And those people who do make that choice, much as I respect it, are not people with whom I would choose to hang.
In a very similar fashion, anyone who ENJOYS the killing of animals, and chooses to undertake it without any real need to do so, is not really my kinda person, ya know? I don’t hang with people who LIKE TO KILL, who take PLEASURE IN DOING SO.
I am lucky that I am able to indulge my carnivorous nature without having to “take responsibility” for it, and I know it. That doesnn’t mean I have to like you because you LIKE “taking responsibility” for it, now does it?
Nope. You icky.
Stoidela
Geez, Stoidela, you have just set yourself up as the most unlikeable person anyone has ever seen. Those who kill so that you can eat meat and those who are willing to kill so that you can enjoy your privileged American life are beneath you, huh?
Lawrence:
No, not at all. I never said anyone was “beneath” me, nor did I imply it. I just don’t have enough in comon with such people, and these are the kinds of things that bespeak a very different world view than mine. Therefore, it’s unlikely that we would ever enjoy one another’s company- at least, not enough to make friendship likely.
And if my attitudes on these two topics make me the “most unlikeable person anyone has ever seen”, I can only assume that “anyone” has led a very sheltered life.
Besides which, I don’t participate in debate boards with the goal of having everyone like me. (although it’s certianly not unheard of, depending on the board and the topics) I have more than enough people who like me a great deal in my “real” life. I debate because it’s fun. I like to challenge, be challenged, and battle over ideas. Being liked is beside the point.
Stoidela
There’s a lot more to hunting than killing. I’ve gone hunting dozens of times in my 36 years on Earth and I’ve never managed to kill anything (unless you count fish). Yes, I’ve enjoyed all my hunting trips even though I didn’t get to kill anything. If I did manage to bring down a buck with a clean shot, I’m sure it would be quite thrilling, but it would only be a small portion of the total enjoyment I’ve gotten from this activity.
Papabear: I’ve had the same lack of results you’ve had whilst hunting. What do you say we start the Straight Dope Orienteering Society?
Papbear:
Then why don’t you just go camping?
Oh, that’s right…you are trying to get the “thrill” of “bringing down a buck”.
The thrill of watching a beautiful animal collapse in pain and death. Bitchen.
yech.
Stoidela
That’s preposterous. Even being a vegetarian, I can recognize that it is orally defensible both to eat meat and to object to the cruelty found in modern factory farming methods.
Dang! You folks are still carryin’ on! I thought you would learn to make nice with each other while I was gone. I wonder why no one has bothered with my “Why or why not?” question (see above).
To Radar Ralf:
I looked up your question, why keep Nuclear arms (or a gun. I assume that this was meant to be a meaphor for the gun debate.) It is always better to negotiate from a position of power. THis does not mean that you should use the power indiscriminately. But it is better to have it than not. I would rather have the gun and have the decision to use or misuse it, than to be unarmed and hope that the thug breaking into my house makes the right decision.
On the hunting debate: My father owned a hunting store. I knew thousands of hunters. I have killed all kinds of animals. Am I pro hunting? Yes. Do I hunt? No, can’t stand to kill anything. Not even fish. If you don’t like to hunt, then don’t. But don’t infringe on the lives of others.
But feel free to infringe on the lives of animals.
Stoidela
“don’t infringe on the rights of animals”
That is a much different discussion. Are animals the moral equivalent of people?
I dunno. I haven’t thought that one all the way out yet. There is something distastefull about hurting any living creature, but then, that is kind of how the world was set up.
I guess my point is, until I do get it figured out, I am not going to advocate for the cessation of hunting.
The clause up to the comma does not modify “the people,” grammatically. And in every single court case you care to look up, “the people” has been held by the Supreme Court to mean all the people. Not some of the people, not a few people, all the people. Unless you can come up with some compelling, legally sound reason why the courts should interpret “the people” to mean something other than what they’ve held it to mean in every single other instance, you’re just pissing in the wind.
I’m sick and tired of people bleating “well-regulated milita! well-regulated militia!” as if they hold some sort of trump card. Sorry, folks, but legally and Constitutionally, it doesn’t wash. ]] PLD
Exactly – the business about the militia that so many take refuge in does not condition the right – it is what we call mere “precatory” language.
And, FTR, I HATE guns. But that has no bearing on how the constitution should be read.
Yes.
(See the end of the “dogs and cats” discussion)
Stoidela
Stoidela, I read your long post on the cats vs. Dogs thread. I think I need to clarify the question.
If animals are the moral equivalent of humans then killing them is murder. In your post you said that killing animals for food was OK if the animal did not suffer. This would seem to contradict your position on this thread.
So if one kills Bambi, are they a murderer, or does it depend on how much Bambi suffers?
Thor:
Good point.
No, I dont’ consider it murder. I consider it the natural workings of the food chain. But I consider the way we treat animals to be torture, and morally indefensible.
As for Bambi, and hunting in general (sigh) - I think it’s alright as long as the animals being hunted are in NO danger of extinction whatsoever, and they are being hunted for food. But this doesn’t change the fact that I think hunting is disgusting and I have no use for the people who do it.
Stoidela
–Stoidela
Well guess what- you’re hanging with them right here, right now, on this board.
In asking how/why anyone would choose to serve in the military, perhaps you can wrap your brain around the notion of “civic duty”.
You have many rights and privileges that have been fought for and won in blood; that have been reaffirmed again and again in the blood of those who came after…
Some of us were taught to respect and honor the sacrifices others have made, and to show that respect and honor by putting on a uniform and serving our time, as repayment to the society and people that have made so much possible for us.
Your decision not to serve is your own, of course, and I respect it.
Your statement that you respect the choice of those who choose to serve, while generally being at odds with the tone of the rest of your statement, is appreciated.
But your closing words, about those sort of people not being the sort that you would like to associate with, does have the ring of elitism, or snobbery.
Whether you intended this or not, I don’t know; but some of the finest men and women in this country have worn a uniform.
Whether they are police officers, firefighters, paramedics; soldies, sailors, airmen or Marines, these people serve their country, their state, their communities, their people, with honor, courage and integrity.
They give freely and often, and when called upon, make the ultimate sacrifice; not for medals or parades, or for special holidays that no one remembers or recognizes, but to:
Try not to set yourself too high above them.
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
*"…from 73 Easting."
–Stoidela
Well guess what- you’re hanging with them right here, right now, on this board.
In asking how/why anyone would choose to serve in the military, perhaps you can wrap your brain around the notion of “civic duty”.
You have many rights and privileges that have been fought for and won in blood; that have been reaffirmed again and again in the blood of those who came after…
Some of us were taught to respect and honor the sacrifices others have made, and to show that respect and honor by putting on a uniform and serving our time, as repayment to the society and people that have made so much possible for us.
Your decision not to serve is your own, of course, and I respect it.
Your statement that you respect the choice of those who choose to serve, while generally being at odds with the tone of the rest of your statement, is appreciated.
But your closing words, about those sort of people not being the sort that you would like to associate with, does have the ring of elitism, or snobbery.
Whether you intended this or not, I don’t know; but some of the finest men and women in this country have worn a uniform.
Whether they are police officers, firefighters, paramedics; soldies, sailors, airmen or Marines, these people serve their country, their state, their communities, their people, with honor, courage and integrity.
They give freely and often, and when called upon, make the ultimate sacrifice; not for medals or parades, or for special holidays that no one remembers or recognizes, but to:
Try not to set yourself too high above them.
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“…from 73 Easting.”
Sorry for the double post.
Stoidela
Member posted 06-07-99 04:15 PM
quote:
If you don’t like to hunt, then don’t. But don’t infringe on the lives of others.
-----(quote line truncated)
But feel free to infringe on the lives of animals.
[/quote]
well, Stoi, I did notice you refer just above to the food chain and the natural order of things. Humans are naturally omnivores. That means that, by nature, humans eat both plant and animal. Why should it be wrong to enjoy one’s nature?