The Art of Killing--for Kids

[Armor_of_Light]

Thanks for the encouragement. Once I gave up meat, and found delicious plant-based alternatives, there is really nothing to miss. I invite you to take a serious look at the following article: nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/the-myth-of-sustainable-meat.html

I did read this article…and it (in a rounabout way) touches on my very first post on this thread way back on page one I think. The original question was about hunting and kids…I sais something like “hunting is more ethical than supporting the meat industries”. I’m not sure in all the hoopla if anyone has asked you this question. Do you agree that hunting is more ethical that industrial harvesting of animals? This is based on the supposition that ethics and morals have applicable degrees depending on circumstances.

 

[spencelo]

I did read this article…and it (in a rounabout way) touches on my very first post on this thread way back on page one I think. The original question was about hunting and kids…I sais something like “hunting is more ethical than supporting the meat industries”. I’m not sure in all the hoopla if anyone has asked you this question. Do you agree that hunting is more ethical that industrial harvesting of animals? This is based on the supposition that ethics and morals have applicable degrees depending on circumstances.

Yes, as a general matter, I think hunting is less problematic than food production (especially factory-farming).

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Since I’m not a theist, you apparently believe that excuses you from taking responsibility for unethical behavior; how convenient. You know what you did was wrong, and if you believe the morality that you claim to adhere, then you should do the right thing and unequivocally withdraw your dishonesty charge. Or is unethical behavior no longer unethical when directed at nontheists?

…and I’ve been trying to follow this as well. Might I suggest that your use of “have to” is the source for the confusion. DCNBILL is as honest as the day is long.

 

[DCNBILL]

Since I’m not a theist, you apparently believe that excuses you from taking responsibility for unethical behavior; how convenient. You know what you did was wrong, and if you believe the morality that you claim to adhere, then you should do the right thing and unequivocally withdraw your dishonesty charge. Or is unethical behavior no longer unethical when directed at nontheists?

You seem intent on continuing to misrepresent things even to the point of absurdity, do you not know that others are reading these posts?

I stated that you could not believe in a common morality. Please check back to the post to confirm.

I stated therefore** your accusation** that I was acting immorally is groundless. If I am typing too fast for you to read just let me know.

I did not address the concept that the statement I made is anything but truth, because that is self evident. Go back and with the “blind eyes of justice” (I hope that a future lawyer would understand that phrase) read what you posted and decide for yourself.

Note that I think that you will do very well in the business of law you have an interesting concept of honesty.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Here’s one: hunting inflicts suffering, pain and death on sensitive creatures when there’s no need to do so.

I think hunting is not a “sport” in the sense that it can be compared to football or tennis. It is different in a qualitative way from any kind of game. I disagree with the conclusion that in all cases there’s “no need” to hunt.

Others have posted that some are hunting to feed their families in tough economic times. I have family that do so too.

If you hunt, you have more understanding about the millions of hamburgers people eat in fast food restaurants than the average citizen. Certainly, the steer that gave up the Big Mac had a much sorrier life than the venison in the hunter’s freezer–that lived a natural life in the wild until it met it’s end. Which animal suffered more? I honestly don’t know. But I’m not about to pass judgment or do the “superior dance” over conscientous hunters when our society has created an industry out of making animals suffer for an entire lifetime, just to end up in under cellophane in a supermarket.

If you really feel strongly about un-needed animal suffering, you should ONLY eat food you hunt and kill for yourself, IMO. Maybe everyone should hunt for their own meat, and put the industry out of business. Far fewer animals would suffer, and those that did would suffer for a far shorter time.

And what about eco-systems where animal populations are actually harming the environment (i.e. other animals and plants) because of a lack of predation. Some animal populations are out of control. Would it not make sense to control, for example, the deer population through managed hunts for the sake of protecting the environment? That would not be needless killing. In addition, many communities that arrange such managed hunts also ask hunters to donate their deer or other animals to the poor. In that sense, hunting becomes an activity that actually lessens human suffering. That is a positive moral good.

Also, I would like to point out that real hunters try to take animals with the absolute minimum of suffering necessary. No one feels worse about needless suffering than the hunter who is there to witness it. It is not the goal of a hunter to inflict suffering and pain on a creatures–whether or not the creature is sensitive (BTW - not sure how you guage the sensitivity of an animal). The goal of a good hunter is to take animals cleanly and quickly, in a humane way, and to use that animal for good. Anyone out there doing something else is not really hunting, and it would be unfair to condemn the activity based solely upon those who abuse it, just as it would be unfair to judge democracy based upon politicians who abuse their elected positions.

Just my two cents.

Peace,
Robert

 

[spencelo]

…and I’ve been trying to follow this as well. Might I suggest that your use of “have to” is the source for the confusion. DCNBILL is as honest as the day is long.

I don’t see any basis for confusion. My original statement asserted the conclusion that those against animal cruelty must also be against hunting, and on that basis, the charge of “intellectual dishonesty” was flung apparently because I did not phrase my statement in a stylistically approved manner.

If DCNBILL was confused about my statement, then he could have asked me to clarify, and I would have been happy to be more precise for him – though I do not understand why such precision is necessary in the first place. But no, the charge of intellectual dishonesty was shot from the hip, then inadequately defended. Now all attempts to substantiate the original dishonesty charge have been abandoned in light of my refutations, and what does he do? Does he do the ethically right now by withdrawing the charge? No, his response is to claim that, as a nontheist, I cannot ground an accusation of unethical behavior, a position that would allow Catholics to evade responsibility mistreating nontheists. Thus his unethical behavior gets a free pass.

 

[spencelo]

You seem intent on continuing to misrepresent things even to the point of absurdity, do you not know that others are reading these posts?

I stated that you could not believe in a common morality. Please check back to the post to confirm.

I stated therefore** your accusation** that I was acting immorally is groundless. If I am typing too fast for you to read just let me know.

I did not address the concept that the statement I made is anything but truth, because that is self evident. Go back and with the “blind eyes of justice” (I hope that a future lawyer would understand that phrase) read what you posted and decide for yourself.

Note that I think that you will do very well in the business of law you have an interesting concept of honesty.

I’m merely pointing out your absurdity, and your unethical behavior. Launching false charges of intellectual dishonesty is wrong, a view that I know you accept. I also know you realize that your dishonesty charge was made in error, and so the appropriate corrective is to withdraw it and make an unequivocal apology. But rather than do the right thing, you hide behind the excuse – i.e., rationalization – that appropriate ethical action is unnecessary because I’m a nontheist. That, sir, is the absurdity.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

I don’t see any basis for confusion. My original statement asserted the conclusion that those against animal cruelty must also be against hunting, and on that basis, the charge of “intellectual dishonesty” was flung apparently because I did not phrase my statement in a stylistically approved manner. If DCNBILL was confused about my statement, then he could have asked me to clarify, and I would have been happy to be more precise for him – though I do not understand why such precision is necessary in the first place. But no, the charge of intellectual dishonesty was shot from the hip, then inadequately defended. Now all attempts to substantiate the original dishonesty charge have been abandoned in light of my refutations, and what does he do? Does he do the ethically right now by withdrawing the charge? No, his response is to claim that, as a nontheist, I cannot ground an accusation of unethical behavior, a position that would allow Catholics to evade responsibility mistreating nontheists. Thus his unethical behavior gets a free pass.

I was kind of confused by the “if-then” statement in that post. I’m no student of logic, but it is a fallacy to start with a conclusion, correct? There have been a multitude of posts here stating that hunting is not cruel or an intrinsic evil and that is our position (as catholics). We do share some of the same lines of thought however… “If you are pro-life, then you must be anti-euthenasia” and such. Anyways- I hope you and the good Deacon can patch things up. Blessed are the peace makers.

I’m heading home now, so carry on…

Good weekend to you all!

 

[spencelo]

I was kind of confused by the “if-then” statement in that post. I’m no student of logic, but it is a fallacy to start with a conclusion, correct? There have been a multitude of posts here stating that hunting is not cruel or an intrinsic evil and that is our position (as catholics).

No, it is not a fallacy to start with a conclusion; the conclusion can be stated before the premises.

 

[nickybr38]

Wow we’ve had an interesting journey here.

So to summarize:

Hunting is better then factory farming.

Which would mean there are LEVELS of morality. I’m guessing black, white and grey. So hunters, instead of being crazed psychopaths, are actually just morally confused.

Yay! Glad we got that all covered.

Now, spencelo, what about in regions where plants CANNOT be grown for the majority of the year. If there was no plant food and the human is faced with the choice of killing an animal for food or dying of hunger… would it be morally correct for him to kill the animal?

 

[Slaney]

I do swat the odd fly though & the occasional wasp that seems to think I’m a pin-cushion

 

[Actaeon]

Do you recognize that animals can feel pain and suffer? If so, then you can’t deny that they are sentient.

I have a question for you, spencelo, and perhaps it has already been asked… but are you a vegetarian?

 

[nickybr38]

I have a question for you, spencelo, and perhaps it has already been asked… but are you a vegetarian?

He’s Vegan.

 

[Crescentinus]

Sounds like you are on the list buddy.

Spence- You know I’m just kidding around with you. This thread reminds me of every discussion with my ex wife on any topic.

I swear, Spence had underestimated my intellect. All because i told him that his argument got wrecked and I gave him constructive criticism.

 

[Crescentinus]

He’s Vegan.

And the way he posts is very telling in his veganism.

 

[Dale_M]

Are you against animal cruelty? You have to say ‘no’ if you think hunting is okay.

I disagree with that assertion.

I am not sure where you live, but here in Iowa we long ago eliminated any predators which would pose a threat to humans or livestock. As a result, the species the predators had previously consumed have no check on their population. Humans have to do the hunting which the predators previously did. Otherwise the populations would increase unchecked and starvation would be routine. Starvation is a slow and painful death. A gunshot is humane in comparison.

The Department of Natural Resources monitors the population of wild animals to make sure that starvation does not occur and so that over-hunting does not occur.

 

[Dale_M]

I am not in the habit of quoting 19th century poets, but some lines from Tennyson come to mind whenever I read this thread,

• Who trusted God was love indeed
  And love Creation’s final law
  Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
  With ravine, shriek’d against his creed *

Wild animals suffer. It is an inescapable fact of the natural world. As humans, we have a duty to not unnecessarily add to that suffering. Hunting, done responsibly and respectfully, does not unduly add to the suffering of wild animals.

 

[shipwrkd]

Spence, since a major portion of this thread seems to be concerned with cruelty and whether plants or fish can feel pain, what’s your take on a mouse infestation. If a hoard were trying to eat your vegies, would you do the humane thing and let them or would you do what most people do and buy either poison or mousetraps and cruelly dispatch of them. Just wondering where you would draw your line?

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Spence, since a major portion of this thread seems to be concerned with cruelty and whether plants or fish can feel pain, what’s your take on a mouse infestation. If a hoard were trying to eat your vegies, would you do the humane thing and let them or would you do what most people do and buy either poison or mousetraps and cruelly dispatch of them. Just wondering where you would draw your line?

and I’d like to add, does Spence think the relentless human attempt to exterminate yersinia is immoral?

Westerby

 

[Corki]

What do posters on here think about hunting, which is a recreational activity? Is it okay to encourage kids to hunt? I wrote a blog post on this matter: animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/the-art-of-killing-for-kids-2/

Would welcome any thoughts.

I come from a long line of hunters. We always eat what we hunt. Right down the road from me is a business that dresses the meat from the hunters’ outings. While hunting can be enjoyable, it is not strictly a recreational activity. Most kids here learn to hunt by the time they are 10 or 12. For most kids, I believe this is a very good thing for a variety of reasons.

1. kids learn that all food doesn’t come from Kroger’s.
2. kids learn skills to be self-sufficient
3. kids learn firearm safety
4. kids learn to respect the environment
5. kids learn about responsible maintenance of animal populations
6. kids spend time outdoors unconnected to thier ipods and video games
7. most kids hunt with their dads (though I know same dead-eye girlie girls too)

BTW, with the exception of #3, all of the above apply to fishing too.