Killing Animals for "Sport"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marfran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is important in grammar not to confuse the active and passive voices.

Just because people have responsibilities does not mean that animals have rights.

Two totally different things.

Responsibilities are totally different from the object of our responsibilities having rights.

You can look up “rights versus responsibilities”.

Here are a few things to read

sixthcolumn.blogspot.com/2005/03/rights-versus-responsibilities.html
 
fultonfish said:
The whole issue of animal rights generates from Marxist notions intended to water down human rights and sow confusion among well-meaning, but not critically-thinking Christians. Which leads to reduced regard for human life. Which leads to the idea of the state owning the individual. Which leads to abortion, euthanasia, and ultimately to the death camps [gulags]. Which takes us right to the death panels and the sneaky way that the weakest among us will be given the pain pill under the upcoming nationalized health care.

Some might even say it’s a seamless garment.
Click to expand...
What has Marxism to do with what the subject matter of this thread? How does caring for animals equate with not carrying for people. I think you have made an enormous jump in your thinking with what you have posted above.
 
fultonfish said:
The whole issue of animal rights generates from Marxist notions intended to water down human rights and sow confusion among well-meaning, but not critically-thinking Christians. Which leads to reduced regard for human life. Which leads to the idea of the state owning the individual. Which leads to abortion, euthanasia, and ultimately to the death camps [gulags]. Which takes us right to the death panels and the sneaky way that the weakest among us will be given the pain pill under the upcoming nationalized health care.

Some might even say it’s a seamless garment.
Click to expand...
Your seamless garment has many leaps of logic that do not have to be made. This false dichotomy has been mentioned several times and remains just as false. It is a false leap in logic from saying that Marxism embraces both animal rights, abortion, euthanasia and death camps to saying that embracing animal rights means also accepting abortion, euthanasia and death camps.

This thread is not on abortion or any life issue. This muddying of the waters with these issues does nothing but confuse.
 
I never would have believed that what to me is so innocuous a topic (hunting) would have turned into a thread this long. Oh well, what do I know?
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I never would have believed that what to me is so innocuous a topic (hunting) would have turned into a thread this long. Oh well, what do I know?
Click to expand...
Some believe it to be a sin.
And apparently cannot be convinced otherwise.

Being at loggerheads tends to grow threads.
 
vz71 said:
Some believe it to be a sin.
And apparently cannot be convinced otherwise.

Being at loggerheads tends to grow threads.
Click to expand...
Who on this thread has said hunting (for other than sport alone) is a sin?

I think even the hunters have agreed that to hunt only for sport is wrong.
 
bigfootbob said:
How much more does that stuff cost? Do you feed it to your dog(s)? By the way, it is supposedly healthier to eat dog food then what most americans eat.😃 Maybe I shouldn’t wander so much from the original topic…
Click to expand...
Killing animals for "sport" morphs into ***Dog Food? Healthier than What Most Americans Eat? *** How did that happen?? A gal can’t even take a vacation around here!!!

I think you might be right bigfootbob–about the unhealthy food that Americans eat, however the pet food isn’t very healthy either–that’s why I make my own pet food from whole ingredients.

And dogs are technically omnivores, not carnivores (and can eat a vegetarian diet). Cats are obligate carnivores–and until someone proves me wrong–because of their physiology–they MUST eat meat. Yes I feed my cats, big and small–MEAT–because that is their natural diet. (What is natural, and most healthful for humans is another issue.)
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I never would have believed that what to me is so innocuous a topic (hunting) would have turned into a thread this long. Oh well, what do I know?
Click to expand...
The topic is hunting for “sport,” for the "game of it. Which connotes a reason other than for food, conservation, pest control–reasons that can be shown to have merit. If you abuse ***anything ***it can turn into something other than the original intent, and can morph into a darkness. Hunting for “sport,” as opposed to any need, is a relatively new phenomenon in our modern world. Is it really so benign???
 
Marfran said:
Killing animals for "sport" morphs into ***Dog Food? Healthier than What Most Americans Eat? *** How did that happen?? A gal can’t even take a vacation around here!!!

I think you might be right bigfootbob–about the unhealthy food that Americans eat, however the pet food isn’t very healthy either–that’s why I make my own pet food from whole ingredients.

And dogs are technically omnivores, not carnivores (and can eat a vegetarian diet). Cats are obligate carnivores–and until someone proves me wrong–because of their physiology–they MUST eat meat. Yes I feed my cats, big and small–MEAT–because that is their natural diet. (What is natural, and most healthful for humans is another issue.)
Click to expand...
Yes, dogs are happy on a egtarian diet They have not found a way ,yet:) to feed a cat a vegetarian diet. We have meandered off point.
 
vz71 said:
Some believe it to be a sin.
And apparently cannot be convinced otherwise.

Being at loggerheads tends to grow threads.
Click to expand...
Hunting for purely for sport is wrong in accordace with the teachings of the Church as it causes needless suffering.
 
Marfran said:
Killing animals for "sport" morphs into ***Dog Food? Healthier than What Most Americans Eat? *** How did that happen?? A gal can’t even take a vacation around here!!!

I think you might be right bigfootbob–about the unhealthy food that Americans eat, however the pet food isn’t very healthy either–that’s why I make my own pet food from whole ingredients.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that’s mostly my fault… Did you have a nice vacation? (yes I know… Sport hunting… to vacations…:o)
 
bigfootbob said:
:eek:Was it just for sport, or did you eat the seashells?😛
Click to expand...
Thanks for reminding me to take my Calciium vit.D tab and my fish oil cap. Yuck! ( bet a lot of fish had to die to get all the oil in this huge jar of gels)😃
 
4elise said:
Who on this thread has said hunting (for other than sport alone) is a sin?

I think even the hunters have agreed that to hunt only for sport is wrong.
Click to expand...
I am uncertain I have read where there is even agreement about what exactly hunting for sport actually means.

Some assume it means just shooting an animal and leaving it to rot, others believe it otherwise. There is a big difference there.

I have always assumed hunting to be a sport, and as such hunters were by default hunting for sport. The processing and using of the animal was simply assumed to be part of the sport. Just as the preperation is.
 
vz71 said:
You are assuming a lot more then is actually written into the CCC.
Click to expand...
Exactly right.

Twisting, stretching, and bending the wording of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is right at the crux of the issue.

Killing an animal for food differs from killing an animal for “sport” because the “sport killer” inflicts greater pain on the animal, so says one of the animal rights people. But does not explain how the pain is a function of the intent of the hunter.

On top of which animals are alleged to have rights, which is a twist on the idea that people have a responsibility to be humane to animals. A responsibility for one person does not translate into the rights of an animal.

People have certain rights because they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. However, Genesis states that animals are subject to the authority of people, and therefore, animals are inferior and people are superior.

People have rights because they are made in the image and likeness of God; animals are not made in the image and likeness of God.

The rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (although I kind of favor the original which was life, liberty and property (which is the fruit of a person’s labor).

Medical care is not one of the enumerated rights, because the enumerated rights are inherent, whereas the alleged right of medical care requires confiscation of the labor of a person to provide the medical care.

In any event, animals and people are two totally different creatures.

Animals don’t have rights and it is unethical and immoral to claim that animals do have rights.
 
fultonfish said:
Exactly right.

Twisting, stretching, and bending the wording of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is right at the crux of the issue.

Killing an animal for food differs from killing an animal for “sport” because the “sport killer” inflicts greater pain on the animal, so says one of the animal rights people. But does not explain how the pain is a function of the intent of the hunter.

On top of which animals are alleged to have rights, which is a twist on the idea that people have a responsibility to be humane to animals. A responsibility for one person does not translate into the rights of an animal.

People have certain rights because they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. However, Genesis states that animals are subject to the authority of people, and therefore, animals are inferior and people are superior.

People have rights because they are made in the image and likeness of God; animals are not made in the image and likeness of God.

The rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (although I kind of favor the original which was life, liberty and property (which is the fruit of a person’s labor).

Medical care is not one of the enumerated rights, because the enumerated rights are inherent, whereas the alleged right of medical care requires confiscation of the labor of a person to provide the medical care.

In any event, animals and people are two totally different creatures.

Animals don’t have rights and it is unethical and immoral to claim that animals do have rights.
Click to expand...
Health care might not be a “right”, but those who have the means and/or ability are responsible for providing for those that do not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top