The Art of Killing--for Kids

[maryjk]

Okay, let’s discuss the meaning of “cruelty.” If I kicked your dog hard, would that be cruel?

Intentionally kicking a dog to cause pain is not the same as hunting.

(Does anyone else feel like we have been here before? )

 

[pnewton]

Here is a Catholic response to the topic:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=44460&highlight=hunting

Does this exclude sport hunting? If a hunter were merely shooting an animal for the “pleasure” of watching it suffer and die, yes. But the vast majority of hunters don’t do that. Some use the meat and skins of the animals. Others are helping to preserve the balance of nature by using carefully-regulated licensing procedures to thin out animal overpopulation. All responsible hunters take care not to leave a wounded animal, injured by a badly-aimed shot, to suffer but make sure to try to track it down and end its suffering.

In short, the Church does not oppose sport hunting.

 

[Crescentinus]

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion that my argument has been “wrecked” to the point of “sheer recklessness” – obviously I disagree. But there’s no need to cast aspersions about my character by suggesting that I pushing some nefarious “agenda.”

I’ve seen it happen here and to that other thread of yours. It’s not my opinion, but a fact. Your denial is very telling, sir.
You want to know why people have been saying that you have some agenda? It’s because your posts come across as that of a militant vegan. Even if you’re not a militant vegan, your posts tend to say something else. The way you argue and your own arguments tend to come from militant vegans rather than the non-militant vegans.

 

[spencelo]

However, I have no respect for vegan activism which attempts to foister on others their opinion. It is none of vegan’s business if another person choices to hunt and teach their kids to hunt.

This is a discussion forum, one that allows people with diverse opinions to state them to be discussed. If you have a problem with my doing so, then take it up with this website, which I’m grateful for allowing the free exchange of ideas. But since you’re here interacting with my opinions, it’s odd that you would object to my posting them.

 

[spencelo]

I’ve seen it happen here and to that other thread of yours. It’s not my opinion, but a fact. Your denial is very telling, sir.
You want to know why people have been saying that you have some agenda? It’s because your posts come across as that of a militant vegan. Even if you’re not a militant vegan, your posts tend to say something else. The way you argue and your own arguments tend to come from militant vegans rather than the non-militant vegans.

First, since I do not support violence, I’m not a “militant” vegan, and I’d like to know your evidence for suggesting that I advocate violence.

Second, again, your “secret agenda” charge is patently ridiculous. This is a discussion, and my only agenda on here is to discuss topics that interest me. If people are persuaded of my view of things, great, but if not, that’s fine too. For you to cast aspersions on my character is both unethical and mean-spirited.

Third, about my manner of arguing, I have not engaged in any personal attacks, insults, mean-spirited insinuations, or other unethical behavior. I’ve merely focused on what people have said – their statements and arguments. It’s unethical of you to imply, by suggesting I’m a "militant vegan,’ that my manner of argumentation suggests that I advocate violence.

 

[spencelo]

Intentionally kicking a dog to cause pain is not the same as hunting.

The two are not the same – intentionally kicking a dog to cause pain inflicts far less harm than intentionally stalking and killing prey. Can you explain why the former act is cruel?

 

[Crescentinus]

First, since I do not support violence, I’m not a “militant” vegan, and I’d like to know your evidence for suggesting that I advocate violence.

Second, again, your “secret agenda” charge is patently ridiculous. This is a discussion, and my only agenda on here is to discuss topics that interest me. If people are persuaded of my view of things, great, but if not, that’s fine too. For you to cast aspersions of my character is both unethical and mean-spirited.

Third, about my manner of arguing, I have not engaged in any personal attacks, insults, mean-spirited insinuations, or other unethical behavior. I’ve merely focused on what people have said – their statements and arguments. It’s unethical of you to imply, by suggesting I’m a "militant vegan,’ that my manner of argumentation suggests that I advocate violence.

By “militant vegan”, I do not mean violent vegan. I am talking about those types of vegans who love shoving their views down people’s throats and have been known to do just about every means in converting people short of violence. Violent vegans on the other hand, are those who do just about every means in converting people, including violence. Keep that in mind.

Sadly for you, it’s the opposite of ridiculous. The way you worded your arguments tend to prove this. So you’re not a militant vegan. But, the way you word your arguments and even at least some of your arguments tend to have come from militant vegans rather than the pacifist vegans. If you wanted a good discussion like what you’re saying, then please use arguments that do not come from militant vegans and word your arguments in the way that would cause an intelligent discussion if you want to express your side. Otherwise, you will not get the type of discussion that you wanted.

Let’s see. Using weak examples, weak analogies, annoying insinuations and heavy amounts of rhetoric does not help your arguments. Yes, you did not go for ad hominems. But, using weak analogies still does not help your case nor your discussion.

 

[spencelo]

By “militant vegan”, I do not mean violent vegan. I am talking about those types of vegans who love shoving their views down people’s throats and have been known to do just about every means in converting people short of violence. Violent vegans on the other hand, are those who do just about every means in converting people, including violence. Keep that in mind.

Explain to me the difference between putting forth views on a discussion forum, so that they can be discussed, and “shoving views down people’s throats.” If doing the former counts as “shoving views down people’s throats,” then I guess I’m guilty.

I suppose Christians who frequently try to convert people to Christianity, short of using violence, qualify as militant Christians in your view?
Crescentinus;9799728:

Sadly for you, it’s the opposite of ridiculous. The way you worded your arguments tend to prove this. So you’re not a militant vegan. But, the way you word your arguments and even at least some of your arguments tend to have come from militant vegans rather than the pacifist vegans. If you wanted a good discussion like what you’re saying, then please use arguments that do not come from militant vegans and word your arguments in the way that would cause an intelligent discussion. Otherwise, you will not get the type of discussion that you wanted.

The “way I word” my arguments? I don’t know what you’re talking about since you don’t provide any example. I’m sorry that my writing style isn’t to your liking, but it’s how I write – room for improvement, I know. As for using arguments that come from so-called “militant vegans,” I’m using ones that I find compelling. Are you telling me I’m only allowed to put forth arguments that you approve of for discussion purposes? Again, your complaint is ridiculous.

Let’s see. Using weak examples, weak analogies, annoying insinuations and heavy amounts of rhetoric does not help your arguments. Yes, you did not go for ad hominems. But, using weak analogies still does not help your case nor your discussion.

So you think my arguments and analogies are weak, okay. I don’t know why that entitles you to suggest that I’m a “militant” vegan or that I have some creepy “agenda.”

 

[spencelo]

Not so. What’s the difference between holding a cat by the tail (cruel) and deliberately inflicting terror, pain and death on prey (not cruel)? The two examples share the following features:

1. the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering;
2. the action undertaken is taken for a recreational purpose.

(1) and (2), in my view, implies that the action of holding a cat by the tail is cruel. If so, then they should also imply that hunting is cruel. The only way to deny this conclusion is to deny that (1) and (2) implies that my action towards the cat the is cruel. Do you?

 

[spencelo]

double

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Spencelo-

This ‘discussion’ has been beaten cruelly to death for your pleasure. Like clubbing a baby seal…Time to end it. It has been hilarious at times though.

 

[nickybr38]

First, since I do not support violence, I’m not a “militant” vegan, and I’d like to know your evidence for suggesting that I advocate violence.

You do, actually. You support killing all predators and wiping out entire species. That IS violence, no matter how it’s dressed up.

In reality you’re no better then hunters, in a way you’re far worse. Hunters, at least, have this concept of respecting life and NOT making a species go extinct (most of them anyway, there are the rare few who hunt animals to extinction). You, on the other hand, would deliberately wipe out many species from the face of the planet because they do not act according to your morals.



I’m sorry but I just can’t get around that and I can’t say you’re non-violent when you espouse that viewpoint.

 

[nickybr38]

Spencelo-

This ‘discussion’ has been beaten cruelly to death for your pleasure. Like clubbing a baby seal…Time to end it. It has been hilarious at times though.

Hee. Like clubbing a baby seal eh? I dunno, it was fun! Kept me busy yesterday which was nice.

 

[Crescentinus]

Hee. Like clubbing a baby seal eh? I dunno, it was fun! Kept me busy yesterday which was nice.

It did keep me busy earlier.
It’s also very entertaining.

 

[Crescentinus]

Explain to me the difference between putting forth views on a discussion forum, so that they can be discussed, and “shoving views down people’s throats.” If doing the former counts as “shoving views down people’s throats,” then I guess I’m guilty.

I suppose Christians who frequently try to convert people to Christianity, short of using violence, qualify as militant Christians in your view?

The “way I word” my arguments? I don’t know what you’re talking about since you don’t provide any example. I’m sorry that my writing style isn’t to your liking, but it’s how I write – room for improvement, I know. As for using arguments that come from so-called “militant vegans,” I’m using ones that I find compelling. Are you telling me I’m only allowed to put forth arguments that you approve of for discussion purposes? Again, your complaint is ridiculous.

So you think my arguments and analogies are weak, okay. I don’t know why that entitles you to suggest that I’m a “militant” vegan or that I have some creepy “agenda.”

And here is where I strike again.
There’s a clear-cut difference between having a simple and intelligent discussion on one hand and shoving views down people’s throats on the other.
The difference is that shoving views down people’s throats has plenty of weak rhetoric, weak comparisons, idiotic analogies and annoying insinuations behind it whereas discussions generally do not have that.

Also, the way you talk here regarding veganism is sadly predictable.
You insinuated that Christian missionary activity is militant. Yes, it is. You have no idea that there is a difference between Christian missionary activity and militant veganism. The difference is that Christian missionary activity rarely goes short of using violence at all. Sure, there are instances of that happening but those are more the exception than the rule. As for militant veganism, the opposite is true. Hence, me stating the differences between certain types of vegans.

Why provide an example when there’s pages (literally) of your replies on this and similar threads of yours which do this? Your insinuation that Christian missionary activity is similar to militant veganism is an example of this. The funny thing is, you had provided examples for this and you didn’t even realize it. No wonder your arguments have been destroyed much like a boss monster in a MMORPG.
Before using compelling arguments, try checking the arguments first. For instance, the comparison between meat eating and the Holocaust is a fallacy which had been wrecked over and over again, at times to the point of sheer recklessness.

The way you argue does comes across as that of a militant vegan who decides to convert people into veganism rather than someone seeking a discussion on a topic, sadly.

 

[spencelo]

You do, actually. You support killing all predators and wiping out entire species. That IS violence, no matter how it’s dressed up.

Actually, my views about predators are far more nuanced than you describe, and you don’t appear to understand it. As far as being “militant,” that’s absolutely false: I do not – nor have I ever – encouraged the use of violence to change someone’s mind, which what the term suggests.

 

[spencelo]

And here is where I strike again.
There’s a clear-cut difference between having a simple and intelligent discussion on one hand and shoving views down people’s throats on the other.
The difference is that shoving views down people’s throats has plenty of weak rhetoric, weak comparisons, idiotic analogies and annoying insinuations behind it whereas discussions generally do not have that.

Also, the way you talk here regarding veganism is sadly predictable.
You insinuated that Christian missionary activity is militant. Yes, it is. You have no idea that there is a difference between Christian missionary activity and militant veganism. The difference is that Christian missionary activity rarely goes short of using violence at all. Sure, there are instances of that happening but those are more the exception than the rule. As for militant veganism, the opposite is true. Hence, me stating the differences between certain types of vegans.

Why provide an example when there’s pages (literally) of your replies on this and similar threads of yours which do this? Your insinuation that Christian missionary activity is similar to militant veganism is an example of this. The funny thing is, you had provided examples for this and you didn’t even realize it. No wonder your arguments have been destroyed much like a boss monster in a MMORPG.
Before using compelling arguments, try checking the arguments first. For instance, the comparison between meat eating and the Holocaust is a fallacy which had been wrecked over and over again, at times to the point of sheer recklessness.

The way you argue does comes across as that of a militant vegan who decides to convert people into veganism rather than someone seeking a discussion on a topic, sadly.

There’s no point is engaging you further, since you apparently think it’s ethical to cast aspersions on my character simply because my arguments and phraseology are not up to your intellectual standards. In other words, because I’ve allegedly committed too many fallacies and my rhetorical skills are “weak,” that apparently makes me a “militant” vegan. I leave other readers the task of digesting your nonsensical remarks – no doubt there will many more of them.

 

[nickybr38]

Actually, my views about predators are far more nuanced than you describe, and you don’t appear to understand it. As far as being “militant,” that’s absolutely false: I do not – nor have I ever – encouraged the use of violence to change someone’s mind, which what the term suggests.

No. I really don’t understand wiping species out to save other species suffering. I don’t understand advocating for the death of things because they do not act according to your morals NOR do I understand expecting animals to act with morality (they don’t, by the way).

 

[spencelo]

No. I really don’t understand wiping species out to save other species suffering. I don’t understand advocating for the death of things because they do not act according to your morals NOR do I understand expecting animals to act with morality (they don’t, by the way).

Yes, it’s clear you don’t understand my views, so it’s no surprise that you distort them. I can only hope that my posts here have been somewhat educational.

 

[SamH]

Yes, it’s clear you don’t understand my views, so it’s no surprise that you distort them. I can only hope that my posts here have been somewhat educational.

No need to distort them, they fail on their own merit.