Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
As one who has spent much of his time defending hunting and gun owner ship I have to share this anecdote.Tony said:
First let me say that I was raised to never kill anything simply for the sport of it.
I once traveled with a freind to some rich guys house that was full of trophies including Polar bears, and exotic animals. I wasn't particularly impressed. After awhile I noticed a small deer. It looked to me to be a fawn. Why did you kill such a young dear I asked incredously. Oh, "it's not a small deer", said the proud hunter, "it's an adult miniature deer" he said. "It doesn't look like you would get much meat of it" I remarked. "I wouldn't know about that" he said, "I don't eat what I hunt."
I doubt many people in the UK give a RA....
Not even registering on the radar over here....(if true...I see "Royal sources" are denying it...)
Peter Kelly's enquiry starts today (five minutes from now), an event occupying the media almost exclusively...
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
He was coming right at us!
HarryKeogh
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 11,319
sometimes when you hand-feed tiny deer they lick your hand which is yucky, therefore the killing was justified.
Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
Dont kid yourself, that antelope wouldve killed Will and his whole family if given the chance!!!!
Why does it matter if a hunter eats the kill or not. Is that supposed to be a justification???Its not like these guys HAVE to kill these animals in order to eat.
Why does it matter if a hunter eats the kill or not. Is that supposed to be a justification???Its not like these guys HAVE to kill these animals in order to eat.
Lothian
should be banned
I use the same arguments for killing the royal family.HarryKeogh said:
Jon_in_london
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 4,989
He should have used a seven hand spear instead.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Unless you are vegetarian you are going to effectively cause the death of an animal. Killing your own food is NOT morally inferior to letting someone else kill it. As Ted says, "you have to kill it before you can grill it."Tmy said:
Killing just for the sport of it is wrong in my opinion. Killing to sustain life is not. You don't have to agree. I'm entitled to my opinion.
Unless they are vegetarian they HAVE to cause the death of animals.
Are you vegetarian?
Jon_in_london
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 4,989
Tmy said:
Indeed, perhaps they could just amputate one limb from each animal...
HarryKeogh
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 11,319
Tmy said:
i cannot find anything wrong with killing your own food.
it's probably more humane. you have this deer who gets to live in the wild and do his thing and when he is killed it's over (hopefully) before he realizes it.
seems better than living life in a cramped pen until your time is up.
plus i think vegetarians are a bit off. were omnivores by nature. plus you can't win friends with salad.
Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
Bullfop I say!! They are killing for sport whether they get the crap or not. Personally I dont care what their motives are, hunt if you like. Just spare me the "I eat what I kill" justofication. There in it for the sport. Why else do people pay thousands for hunting trips to bring home some low grade meat that they couldve purchased for a fraction of the cost.
Im not a veggie by the way.
Im going to Bovine University!!!
Im not a veggie by the way.
Im going to Bovine University!!!
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Your entitled to your opnion like anyone else.Tmy said:
You obviously don't have a taste for wild pheasent, turkey, venison, etc.
I and the hunters that I associate with DON'T spend thousands to bring home meat. And who the hell told you it was low grade?
Fresh venison is on average NOT low grade. It is true that depending on the environment some meat is not very good. Antelope grazing primarly on bitter scrub needs to be boiled to be editable. I wouldn't hunt them.
I gladly admit that sport is involved but a guy who shoots just for sport is an a**hole.
I don't feel the need to justify a damn thing and I don't know any hunters who do.
That is MY opinion. You don't have to like it or agree with it.
Cain
Straussian
Consider this...
... in relation to this (the two sentences directly follow each other in the original post):
There's hardly any point expiatiating on this silliness. Randfan helpfully reminds us that we're not obligated to agree (or even like) his opinion. Thank goodness.
... in relation to this (the two sentences directly follow each other in the original post):
There's hardly any point expiatiating on this silliness. Randfan helpfully reminds us that we're not obligated to agree (or even like) his opinion. Thank goodness.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Cain said:
I don't see how those two quotes are mutually exclusive; one can easily disagree with killing for sport but in general one can also say how a hunter does not have to justify anything to anyone.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Let's see,Cain said:
1.) I think that people who kill simply for sport are a**holes. I have stated quite clearly that this is my opinion.
2.) I don't feel the need to justify anything to anyone.
The two statements are neither contradictory nor irrational. Statement #1 is an opinion that I hold irrespective of others opinions or beliefs. Statement #2 Clarifies statement #1 in that I hold such opinions with out the need for justifying anything.
Which raises a question. What in the sam hell are you talking about?
Look, put down the dictionary. Big words won't make your argument valid. When you use esoteric words and are unable to make a coherent argument YOU look silly.
Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
Why is the other hunter and a-hole?
He enjoys the hunt. You enjoy the hunt. (At least I assume you enjoy hunting, or do you see it as a neccesary chore in orderto gather fresh meat)
If you both enjoy the hunt arent your motives really the same. The food part seems like a bonus. Perhaps one that eases your mind.
He enjoys the hunt. You enjoy the hunt. (At least I assume you enjoy hunting, or do you see it as a neccesary chore in orderto gather fresh meat)
If you both enjoy the hunt arent your motives really the same. The food part seems like a bonus. Perhaps one that eases your mind.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Thank you for the question.Tmy said:
I was raised on a farm and instilled with a sense of respect for lving things. If I failed in my duties to care for the animals that were my responsibility I was punished. Once I neglected to water the chickens on a hot summer day because I wanted to play footbal with my friends. My father punished me and then explained that it is immoral to cause animals to suffer simply to satisfy ones own selfish desires. From my scout leaders to my teachers I was always taught to minimize animal suffering and to only kill for food.
I have said repetedly that this is an opinion but it is an opinion that I hold quite strongly. And one that I am confident that I am on firm ground to hold. I simply could not justify killing a living thing to satisfy my own desires. To provide food which is a necesity (I don't buy that humans are herbivores) is quite a different thing. I concede that there is an enjoyment to the hunt and a satisfaction to a kill. That enjoyment in and of itself in my mind simply cannnot justify killing a living thing. Furthermore, anyone who would kill simply to experience that enjoyment or satisfaction is an a**hole.
I hope that I have been clear. I would gladly expound further if it is not.