The Art of Killing--for Kids

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spencelo said:
Hunters typically do not hunt the old and sick, but the young and healthy. If hunters truly cared about leaving animals to die of “old age and infirmity,” they would just go after the really sick ones - perhaps first with a tranquilizer and then lethal injection. But no, hunters want to stalk their prey, for hours and hours–because that’s apparently fun.

psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200907/stalking-hunting-stress-and-emotion
Click to expand...
Young and healthy animals either get killed or become old and sick animals. That’s the law of nature.

As long as rules are followed to preserve the young and the females, which hunting laws do, there is no reason not to advance the process for some of them.

BTW, I do not myself hunt. I do not find fun in standing in the freezing muck, waiting for a creature that will probably smell me before I see it. But it is a valuable survival skill, and IMNAAHO, good for kids to develop.

ICXC NIKA
 
SamH said:
So you are letting all these animals die horrible deaths while lecturing others on how they could prevent it from happening?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Of course, the fact that I don’t do X doesn’t mean what I say about X isn’t right.
 
I wonder how many hunters worried about being the prey instead of the predator when hunting in cougar or bear lands. That has been on the back of my mind more than once when finding remains of dead animals, sometime holding a rifle does not make you feel in complete control. 😊
 
Cristiano said:
I wonder how many hunters worried about being the prey instead of the predator when hunting in cougar or bear lands. That has been on the back of my mind more than once when finding remains of dead animals, sometime holding a rifle does not make you feel in complete control. 😊
Click to expand...
There is no good reason for hunters to go looking for “prey” in the first place.
 
spencelo said:
Of course, the fact that I don’t do X doesn’t mean what I say about X isn’t right.
Click to expand...
And it doesn’t mean that you are right either. The article you linked talks about the effect on animals when humans stalk them. What about when other animals stalk them? Does that have a different effect on the animal? I suggest you also study the other side of the argument. It might give you a little more insight. Animals are much crueler to each other that hunters are to them.
 
spencelo said:
There is no good reason for hunters to go looking for “prey” in the first place.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of good reasons. You just have no clue of the why and so you say that there are no reasons. For example here in several areas of Texas hunters are now paid by the tail for each wild boar or feral pig that they kill. I personally prefer to go and hunt a pig rather than buying pork at the butcher store.
 
MaryBernard said:
And it doesn’t mean that you are right either. The article you linked talks about the effect on animals when humans stalk them. What about when other animals stalk them? Does that have a different effect on the animal? I suggest you also study the other side of the argument. It might give you a little more insight. Animals are much crueler to each other that hunters are to them.
Click to expand...
Suppose a man regularly rapes and beats his girlfriend, and one day, a neighbor decides to do the same - but with more “gentleness.” Are the neighbor’s actions okay if he says: “The boyfriend is always much crueler?”
 
spencelo said:
Suppose a man regularly rapes and beats his girlfriend, and one day, a neighbor decides to do the same - but with more “gentleness.” Are the neighbor’s actions okay if he says: “The boyfriend is always much crueler?”
Click to expand...
This is a logical fallacy because you are stating that something is intrinsically wrong to prove that the extension of that behavior is intrinsically wrong. I would assume that any intelligent person would affirm that an animal killing another animal is performing an act that is morally neutral, that the extrapolation is not automatically intrinsically wrong.
 
spencelo said:
Suppose a man regularly rapes and beats his girlfriend, and one day, a neighbor decides to do the same - but with more “gentleness.” Are the neighbor’s actions okay if he says: “The boyfriend is always much crueler?”
Click to expand...
Do you really not see that there is a difference between humans and animals? We’re not talking about humans with an immortal soul. There’s a difference.
 
This is what happens when people live a life completely divorced from the land. They lose all perspective.

Just look at the damage done by the city-dwelling lawmakers in the UK, who have no concept of what life is like in the country, and yet they feel, somehow, that they are more informed than their country cousins and have passed some of the most idiotic laws ever heard of. (like: you will be fined if your dog tries to chase a rabbit.)

And on a related topic: Whatever you read in “Psychology Today,” believe the exact opposite.
 
JoeMike said:
This is what happens when people live a life completely divorced from the land. They lose all perspective.

Just look at the damage done by the city-dwelling lawmakers in the UK, who have no concept of what life is like in the country, and yet they feel, somehow, that they are more informed than their country cousins and have passed some of the most idiotic laws ever heard of. (like: you will be fined if your dog tries to chase a rabbit.)

And on a related topic: Whatever you read in “Psychology Today,” believe the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
You are citing something quite interesting. In the UK the obsession of having cats as pets has affected the bird population in a critical manner.
 
spencelo said:
Suppose a man regularly rapes and beats his girlfriend, and one day, a neighbor decides to do the same - but with more “gentleness.” Are the neighbor’s actions okay if he says: “The boyfriend is always much crueler?”
Click to expand...
Morally and legally no.

But animals commit what are in human terms forcible rape, homicide, and sometimes infanticide frequently. But we do not apply these terms to animal behaviors for a reason.

I guess part of the question hinges on whether or not humans really are part of the animal kingdom. If we are then… moral philosophy will have to reconcile with that. Meat eating theoretically began in Genesis with the fall of man. As I understand it at least. But that is not the origin of meat eating and predation according to the life sciences like biology. Predation and competition partly drive evolution. The success of man in the animal kingdom arguably has less to do with his benevolence than with his superior intelligence that builds technology that has proven so successful in predation and competition.

We can’t appeal to the paradise and narrative of Genesis and then damn it as myth at the same time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top