T
tabycat
Guest
Some people need to hunt to put food on the table. Being ‘sensitive’ never stopped creatures from eating people’s gardens. 
- Status
Some people need to hunt to put food on the table. Being ‘sensitive’ never stopped creatures from eating people’s gardens.
J
Jerry_Westerby
Guest
did you know that steak was brutally ripped from its plastic wrapped home and violently seared before being smothered in mushrooms?The hunters I know avoid making the animal suffer. A kill that isn’t quick is considered a ‘bad kill’.
I can respect your decision but the Church has never stated that killing animals for food is wrong so I must say this decision is your own personal feeling and not a moral absolute. Thankfully. I love steak.
C
Cristiano
Guest
Do you have and real scientific papers to reference?
N
nickybr38
Guest
Yes, and I highly approve and sometimes take part of the slaughter.
Y
yukonbrad
Guest
For many hunting is not sport but an integral part of life. Where I live hunting is a key aspect of culture for the First Nations people and a significant means of sustenence. The food bank our parish runs would have little to give needy families in terms of meat if it was not for generous donations of moose, caribou and yes even the occasional bear. For First Nations people this is a key part of their belief in community - to support those who are unable to for themselves.
I know many “down south” see hunting as cruel but what is truly cruel would be to let animals die from disease and starvation because of a lack of sufficent food resources (due largely in part to mans encrouchment and development). Here in Canada hunting is seen as a means of conservation ensuring heard sizes do not outgrow thier food supply. Hunters are required to keep logs of the animals and numbers they see in order for the conservation departments to set appropriate cull limits each year - its a matter of maintaining a resource we could easily loose.
I know many “down south” see hunting as cruel but what is truly cruel would be to let animals die from disease and starvation because of a lack of sufficent food resources (due largely in part to mans encrouchment and development). Here in Canada hunting is seen as a means of conservation ensuring heard sizes do not outgrow thier food supply. Hunters are required to keep logs of the animals and numbers they see in order for the conservation departments to set appropriate cull limits each year - its a matter of maintaining a resource we could easily loose.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
It may well be that we simply lack the knowledge at this point in our development to truly know this. Why do you accord what you believe to be “sentient” life greater respect? Is it simply because you are “sentient”? I am not sure you can actually prove that wide a range of emotions for animals. It is possible that we read our emotions into the animals reactions. You’ve accorded some forms of life greater dignity than others–I’d be currious on what basis you do this? If you were a fruitarian I’d find you position more consistent.
We believe we are different from animals–i.e. we were created in the image and likeness of God and we have immortal souls. Animals and plants were created for us. We believe this to be an objective truth and your coming here and telling us that we are just another animal (and that we should treat other animals with a respect and dignity that they don’t accord to each other or to us and that we often don’t accord to each other) isn’t going make it so.
You see yourself as different from plant life and so you kill and eat them.
We see ourselves as different from animals and plants and so we kill and eat them because they were given to us for that purpose by our creator. Why do you think you can change that fact?
Peace,
Mark
S
spencelo
Guest
Those sources are referenced in some of those links. In any case, I don’t understand why it isn’t common sense that animals have emotions - if you ever had a dog, this would be obvious.
S
spencelo
Guest
It’s because suffering–in all of its varieties–has moral significance, and being sentient is a precondition for the capacity to suffer.
alternet.org/story/150424…nal_lives,_too
psychologytoday.com/blog/…-animal-rights
uchospitals.edu/news/2011…8-empathy.html
sciencedaily.com/releases…0803212013.htm
greatergood.berkeley.edu/arti…ion_footprint/
psychologytoday.com/blog/…mal-emotions-0
S
spencelo
Guest
I believe I can draw a rational line between plants and animals, and in fact, Catholics agree with me. They are against torturing cats for fun, and some asked, “Why aren’t Catholics against torturing plants for fun?,” I’m sure they’d give the same answer as I gave you.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
No it is part of the created natural order. The word cruel means: disposed to inflict pain or suffering; conducive to injury, grief, or pain. Raising and killing animals does not in and off itself meet this definition. Some practices in factory farming, in my mind, do. But causing a cow to be born, rearing it in field with other cows, and feeding it, contrary to your assertions, does not cause pain or suffering. Neither does killing the cow. If you walked up to me and shot me dead–that would not be cruel–it would be wrong (I am after all another human being) but not cruel. Now if you held the gun to my head for an hour threatening to pull the trigger, or you shot me in the leg and stood there pointing the gun at me and threatening to kill me and my family–those things would be cruel.
Peace,
Mark
S
spencelo
Guest
S
shipwrkd
Guest
I’ve had quite a few dogs and they enjoyed hunting just as much as I do. This whole thread seems to be your opinion against everyone else, and opinions are like belly buttons…everyone has one. In my opinion, there is room for all of God’s creatures. Right next to the mashed potatoes
Now excuse me while I send a squirrel back to it’s maker for chewing on my house…but don’t worry, he won’t suffer because I’m a pretty good shot
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
The problem is we are not talking about torture which is the infliction of of intense pain (as burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. That is not what occurs when animals are raised for food. You can cite inhumane treatment, which I think we are all against, but that doesn’t make it torture.
What makes you think Catholics are for torturing plants? I think we are against all torture. The question would be given the definition of torture can a plant be tortured given our current level of knowledge.
The key is when you say “I believe”. Well we believe that we can draw a rational line between humans and animals–a line that lets us use them for food. A distinction you don’t accept–and I am fine with that–you are welcome to your beliefs–but to come here and misuse the words torture and cruelty and to accuse us of such simply for eating meat is, well I’d call it, cruel–as I think you level the charge to try and cause us grief and pain simply because we eat meat.
Peace,
Mark
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
K
Kenny_Kamel
Guest
According to Websters:
The point of my post about Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare was to show how your perspective has obviously been influenced by a specific agenda. To parse out one line and interject a blanket statement only to follow up in other posts with the basis of your personal definition of what is cruel, you’re grasping at straws.
The hunters and hunting supporters in this thread along with Hal who wrote in response to your blog have stated, quite eloquently, how they are ardently opposed to cruelty. Furthermore your arguements have been tainted by the agenda they are clearly based in.
C
Crescentinus
Guest
Something tells me that spencelo is a member of PETA.
C
Cristiano
Guest
I have dogs and I had pets most of my life, and that is why I am asking the questions. My anecdotal experience does not show that animals have emotions just hard wired reactions (e.g. fear and pain). I see that a lot of anthropomorphism in the interactions between pet owners and pets. As a scientist I have not seen any real studies that prove the presence of emotions.
S
spencelo
Guest
According to your logic, if I sawed off a conscious person’s leg as part of an unethical scientific experiment, that wouldn’t be torture (because my intent isn’t to punish, coerce, or receive pleasure). Animals raised for food are tortured in the plain sense that the suffering inflicted on them is horrendous.
I never suggested they were. Rather, I suggested that Catholics, like me, draw a line between plants and animals for the same reason I gave: because plants can’t suffer.
C
Cristiano
Guest
It might be horrendous to you but not to the animals.
S
spencelo
Guest
- Status