Heck, that chick could plug Bambi and Mr. Ed the Talking Horse right between the eyes with her cross bow for all I care.
What matters to me is: buxom blond + she-huntress aggression + tight cammo = HAWT
I’d grant her a permit to [del]plug me with her weapon of ass destruction[/del] whisper sweet nothings in my ear all night long.
Okay, everyone… your attention, for just a moment? Thank you all for coming.
The information bank is now compeletely full. We cannot accept any more donations at this time. Please go home now, and we’ll notify you if anything changes.
no, after you pointed that out my reply would have been nonsensical.
the point is- at least in my POV- is meat I take is meat I don’t buy at the store. If you disapprove of what I do and you don’t eat meat, at that point I just agree to disagree and acknowledge your viewpoint is, shall we say, logically consistent. otherwise, I have to wonder why you seem to think it’s more noble to let someone else do your killing for you.
(here I mean the general “you,” not you personally.)
It’s funny when people who pay other people to kill and harm animals for them, get angry over somebody killing an animal.
Sometimes nature exacts its own justice.
Nature always bats last.
Not really. Empathy is mostly an emotional and physiological response. To consider this reaction by meat eaters hypocritical doesn’t quite work. For example. dogs can be very empathic, and have displayed distress when another animal - even another species - is being harmed or killed. Dogs eat meat. Are dogs hypocrites?
Humans and other animals exhibit varying levels of empathy (both inter and intra species); we are hard wired for it, and it is also influenced by culture/environment. Consider it as a spectrum from high empathic to low empathic (sociopathy). I would guess most humans fall in the middle of the spectrum, so it is not surprising to see this type of “hypocritical” reaction, nor is it surprising that this is a contentious subject.
I said it’s funny, not surprising.
I think we’re pretty much in agreement.
If a dog writes an angry tweet condemning a hunter, while chowing down on Kibbles ‘n’ Bits, yeah, that dog is a hypocrite. But most dogs would be able to defend themselves against the charge of hypocrisy by pointing out that they’re really freakin’ stupid, if they were smart enough to point that out, which they’re not. This defense is unavailable to most humans.
To me, it’s not about the animal, but the mindset of the people. People who hunt like killing. I find that to be a negative personality trait. I’m not talking about those who hunt to survive, but who that hunt for sport.
On the flip side, I read some of the comments from people responding to Ricky Gervais’ Facebook post. Those people are just as disgusting, if not more so, than the smiling huntress. They have just as much bloodlust as the hunters, just aimed in a different direction.
Good point.
Yes, I’m aware of the fact that, for a lawyer, you have a very active imagination.
Thank you for this answer. It didn’t need all the forced snark, but it clarified a great deal for me.
Bolding mine.
I beg to differ.
I figured someone would. However, if you’re smart enough to offer the defense, you’re too smart to offer the defense.
Well, dogs are smart enough to avoid pointless arguments on message boards. But that’s another subject.
You’re really missing the point. An emotional, physiological response is independent of intelligence. As I said earlier, empathy isn’t always rational.
Granted, we can try to temper our actions when the response is triggered - like not sending death threats on twitter when we feel bad about seeing a dead giraffe - but the feeling itself doesn’t require a “defense”. It’s how we are wired.
Some people are so empathic towards animals they do not eat meat or utilize any animal product. Some will eat the already killed and sanitized version of meat products, but would have a hard time if they have to do their own killing. Some people don’t care much about the issue, even though they wouldn’t seek out killing animals for fun. Some people enjoy killing animals, but draw the line at killing some animals. Some go further, and have no qualms about hurting any animal, including other humans. And you find similar variations of empathy levels in non human species.
I don’t think that should be the contentious part of this debate. The biggest danger to animal welfare and conservation is habitat encroachment. If we banned hunting, how would we fund animals preserves and the cost of supporting endangered species? It’s a complex issue.
But I still consider people with low empathy levels - to the point where they enjoy killing - creepy and off putting. They are too far away from me on the empathy spectrum for me to relate to them, and studies have shown that they are more likely to harm other people (even in non criminal or non lethal situations), so I avoid personal relationships with them. I don’t seek them out to vilify, or dox them, or threaten them, but if they glorify their behavior in public, they are fair game for criticism.
The only point I’m “missing”–that is, ignoring–is the dumb, totally beside the point you’re making about emotions. Nobody’s complaining about the hypocrisy of someone who’s too tenderhearted to hunt but still eats meat. People are complaining about the hypocrisy of someone who condemns hunters but still eats meat. That’s virtually the definition of hypocrisy: condemning someone for causing a harm that you yourself benefit from. Your suggestion that irrational emotional responses are a defense against hypocrisy is to deny the idea of hypocrisy entirely.
You’re allowed to eat meat but not want to hunt. But if you do that and condemn those who kill animals, you’re a hypocrite. The fact that you’re letting your emotions guide your judgment is no defense against the charge.
Could have been worse. She could have been a urologist.
No, you’re missing the point, and re-framing my posts to suit your (emotional) agenda of insulting me rather than discussing it.
The point is, many people are conflicted about the idea of killing animals - whether by their own hand or the hand of others - even if they eat meat themselves. I’m not trying to argue about the strict definition of hypocrisy. As I said in my earlier post, calling it hypocrisy is “not quite right”, meaning it doesn’t address the science behind it or the conlicted actions that result. It’s dismissive name calling, in order to hand wave away the dilemma, rather than addressing the dilemma itself.
We (general we) have had this debate many times on this board, and it typically devolves into this type of name calling. I was trying to move past that, so we could consider possible solutions to the dilemma (cognitive empathy), and maybe even some pragmatic ideas about hunting and animal welfare we can all agree on.
But I acknowledge that this is the Pit, so it’s your right to reduce it all to flinging feces at people who don’t rationalize and/or ignore their conflicted feelings and actions exactly as you do. Carry on.
Yes, you sanctimonious twit, when you’re engaging in this sort of dimwitted backpedaling and goal-shifting, there’s not much point in treating it like genuine discussion. Sure, you’re just trying to move us past namecalling or whatever–you’re certainly not condescendingly trying to say that others Just Don’t Get the point you’re making.
Beam in your own eye, dummy.