Killing Animals for "Sport"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marfran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vz71 said:
Justify or reinforce is of little difference here.
You are still interpreting the CCC to say something that enforces your lifestyle choice.

And yes, I do not use lifestyle choice in a derogatory manner.
You will see quotes around it when that happens.
Click to expand...
VZ,

4Elise is not acting in a way that is contrary to the Faith. As we have discussed in previous threads, the CCC on the matter is subejctive, which means it remains a matter of prudential judgement.

If 4E decides not to eat meat based on that, it is not contrary to the Faith. It is really no different in my use of prudential judgement on the CCC to reinforce my lifestyle as a hunter and keeping chickens.

We can debate specifics, but this really is an area where one can ‘agree to disagree’, and 4Elise has done a great of both.
 
Brendan said:
4Elise is not acting in a way that is contrary to the Faith. As we have discussed in previous threads, the CCC on the matter is subejctive, which means it remains a matter of prudential judgement.
Click to expand...
I never said the actions were contrary to the faith.
The CCC is indeed ambiguous on the matter.
Brendan said:
If 4E decides not to eat meat based on that, it is not contrary to the Faith.
Click to expand...
No, if one uses the CCC to back a given choice, then you necessitate the contrary viewpoint being outside the catechism.

As soon as one says “I believe…because the CCC says…” then those that do not are placed outside of what the CCC says.
 
TheWalsh said:
My dear ridgerunner, your nickname should tell you what I mean by confined. Remember the song that said, don’t fence me in? The deer are ridgerunners, the cows are fenced in.
Click to expand...
Deer are not fenced in, except on game ranches. Cattle generally are. It may be observed, however, that cattle adopt “territories” which, if a ranch is the right size for their numbers, are all they seek. No normal fence can actually hold cattle. Ranch fences are normally five strand barbed wire, with the top wire about five feet above the ground, and cattle can break through them easily. Most can jump over them if they want to. Even half-grown calves can. Small calves can usually get between the wires. They just don’t, unless the food supply runs short. If one has a “paddock” system, they are waiting at the gate to the next paddock right on time, and go to the right gate. They are very much creatures of habit. If the food supply is adequte, they won’t roam beyond what they have learned is their “territory”. So they’re really not quite “confined”, much more than a farm dog is “confined” to the territory it stakes out for itself around the owner’s house. Interesting when a new cow or bull is added to a herd. The very first thing it does is make the round of the fence lines, to learn what the “territory” of this group is. Then it goes to the herd and figures out what the “pecking order” is.

Bison are different. They’re migratory, and will go through fence after fence after fence for miles in doing it, as many an unaware admirer of bison has learned to his sorrow. So they have to be either put on a huge range or truly “confined” by extremely strong fences; usually cyclone fences 10-15 feet high. Deer require the same kind of fence, but more because of their jumping ability than their strength. If cattle really wanted out, they would require the same kind of fence.

“Confined” to me means “can’t escape”, not “doesn’t care to escape”.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Bison are different. They’re migratory, and will go through fence after fence after fence for miles in doing it, as many an unaware admirer of bison has learned to his sorrow. So they have to be either put on a huge range or truly “confined” by extremely strong fences; usually cyclone fences 10-15 feet high. Deer require the same kind of fence, but more because of their jumping ability than their strength. If cattle really wanted out, they would require the same kind of fence.
Click to expand...
My great uncle had to go on a (“canned” ;)) buffalo hunt after some of his got out.
 
bigfootbob said:
My great uncle had to go on a (“canned” ;)) buffalo hunt after some of his got out.
Click to expand...
Yup. Every now and then someone around here will become enamored of buffalo, or want to sell them for that market. Buffalo don’t even feel obliged to charge or jump a fence, they just walk through like they are made of kite string. Maybe the worst case of it I saw was a guy who had a pretty sizeable ranch. Had longhorns and liked them, then bought a bunch of buffalo out of Oklahoma. Ended up 20 miles away before they could get them in a pen sufficient to hold them. Got into the deep hills.

Unlike cattle, they won’t “head” either.

I am sure your uncle had a major mess on his hands. They’re not all that kindly an animal, either.
 
Brendan said:
VZ,

4Elise is not acting in a way that is contrary to the Faith. As we have discussed in previous threads, the CCC on the matter is subejctive, which means it remains a matter of prudential judgement.

If 4E decides not to eat meat based on that, it is not contrary to the Faith. It is really no different in my use of prudential judgement on the CCC to reinforce my lifestyle as a hunter and keeping chickens.

We can debate specifics, but this really is an area where one can ‘agree to disagree’, and 4Elise has done a great of both.
Click to expand...
Thank you Brendan :thankyou:
 
vz71 said:
Sure we do.

Yes, it can be. You need to answer for what happens to the kill after the hunt to decide the morality involved.

Again, the answer is yes. These are perfectly justifiable.
The question has to do with what is done to the prey once the hunt is finished.

It doesn’t have to serve any purpose at all.
The qualifier is the question of wasting the kill or providing for a need.
Click to expand...
So the ends always justify the means? So we can say it is perfectly moral to satisfy blood lust if the animals killed are used? Isn’t this advocating a love of and a culture of violence?
 
bigfootbob said:
No, of course not.
It is not blood lust. :mad:

No. Give me an example of how it does.
Click to expand...
Are you calling me mad?🙂

I was responding to someone else’s post which said to the effect tha it is fine to kill for the thrill a long as the killed animal’s body is not wasted. If we induge in our baser instincts, like the thrill of the chase and the kill, we demean ourselves. If we tell everyone including kids that it is alright, then what are we doing? We are saying a violent act for no good purpose is ok as it is not aganst the law.
 
vz71 said:
Justify or reinforce is of little difference here.
You are still interpreting the CCC to say something that enforces your lifestyle choice.

And yes, I do not use lifestyle choice in a derogatory manner.
You will see quotes around it when that happens.
Click to expand...
So then apparently this is intended to be degrading to my choice to eliminate meat, dairy, eggs, leather, fur - I guess there is little that I can respond with that would not sound defensive - so perhaps I should avoid responding to these posts - since there doesn’t seem to be mutual respect.
 
severus68 said:
Are you calling me mad?🙂

I was responding to someone else’s post which said to the effect tha it is fine to kill for the thrill a long as the killed animal’s body is not wasted. If we induge in our baser instincts, like the thrill of the chase and the kill, we demean ourselves. If we tell everyone including kids that it is alright, then what are we doing? We are saying a violent act for no good purpose is ok as it is not aganst the law.
Click to expand...
No I am not calling you mad.🙂 I don’t think most normal people kill for the “thrill.” Hunting just because you are a bloodthirsty guy that kills for the sake of killing is wrong in my opinion.
 
bigfootbob said:
No I am not calling you mad.🙂 I don’t think most normal people kill for the “thrill.” Hunting just because you are a bloodthirsty guy that kills for the sake of killing is wrong in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that’s all I was saying.🙂
 
vz71 said:
I never said the actions were contrary to the faith.
The CCC is indeed ambiguous on the matter.

No, if one uses the CCC to back a given choice, then you necessitate the contrary viewpoint being outside the catechism.

As soon as one says “I believe…because the CCC says…” then those that do not are placed outside of what the CCC says.
Click to expand...
You are right - this was part of Carl’s post:
There is a much stronger argument that veganism is contrary to the faith,
Click to expand...
 
I don’t think it is ethical to kill animals just for sport. But if you’re going to use the meat or other parts for something then it would be ethical.
 
Holly3278 said:
I don’t think it is ethical to kill animals just for sport. But if you’re going to use the meat or other parts for something then it would be ethical.
Click to expand...
Would it be ethical to kill animals for sport, for the thrill and try to justify itby donating the meat? Here the motivation is the thrill and the donation is a consquence.
 
severus68 said:
Would it be ethical to kill animals for sport, for the thrill and try to justify itby donating the meat? Here the motivation is the thrill and the donation is a consquence.
Click to expand...
And this is exactly what a lot of hunters do. (None, on this thread. I am talking about the secular hunting populace.) This exact strategy/behavior is uncovered in Matthew Scully’s book ***“Dominion.” ***Matthew Scully is a Catholic. He is also a conservative Republican. He did a lot of research for this book including joining hunting clubs, going to Safari Club conventions, etc. You will find some quotes in this book from some prominent hunters, and others in the hunting industry, who are concerned about the “image” of hunters and the continuation of the “sport.” Hunters are advised to “donate” meat to pantries, and make other contributions to peoples of African and other third world nations where they hunt, to improve and polish the image of hunters/hunting, all in the name of PR for the “sport.”
 
severus68 said:
You have said more than once that it is fine to do this.
Click to expand...
I think what he’s saying is, some “sport hunting” is immoral, but most isn’t, and that you can’t condemn all sport hunting because of the bad hunters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top