WHY I QUIT HUNTING
in [Vegetarian]
|
From: dh on 18 Jun 2008 12:19 On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:24:27 GMT, usenet(a)mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote: >In article <fv52jh$hl8$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net>, > "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> posted: >> >> WHY I QUIT HUNTING >> >> Published by cyrano2 at 8:30 pm under Animal Liberation, Cruel Idiots, >> Empathy Deficient, Exploitation, Moral Cowardice, Moral Rot, Speciesism >> >> BY WAY OF PREFACE TO A PERSONAL STORY >> >> Man is a creature of astonishing contradictions and enormous moral range. >> The same species that produces fools, knaves, cowards, a massive number >> of mediocrities, and assorted monsters of depravity, also gives us geniuses, >> saints, and heroes of exemplary virtue. The spread of behavior is so vast as >> to be almost incomprehensible. But maybe the most interesting thing about >> humans is their capacity to travel from one point of the moral spectrum to >> another, from evil to good, and from good to indifference and often tacit >> acceptance of evil. >> >> Modern-day hunters and people who callously use animals for vanity and >> or "recreation" (remember Michael Vick) fall into an especially troublesome >> category. So do advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights". They want to abolish human hunting, leaving wildlife population control to completely inhumane agents such as starvation, disease and non-human predators. Things like that cause more suffering for the prey animals, especially for baby animals and the very young. As yet we have no reason to accept that method over human hunting which causes less suffering and attempts to maintain the optimum population for the area, in complete contrast to the misnomer advocates' suggested methods which give no consideration to such things at all.
From: Jeff Matz on 18 Jun 2008 15:41 Rudy Canoza wrote: > Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, dumber than my cat - lied and presented no > challenge: >>>> Modern-day hunters and people who callously use animals for vanity and >>>> or "recreation" (remember Michael Vick) fall into an especially >>>> troublesome >>>> category. >> >> >> So do advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights". They want to >> abolish human hunting, leaving wildlife population control to completely >> inhumane agents such as starvation, disease and non-human predators. > > > Irrelevant. Hardly. > You are not doing something "nice" for wild animals by > killing them in the place of other things that might kill them. On the contrary. We are doing something better by having people "legaly) hunt and EAT the critters that taste great, then letting them starve to death by over population, or be eaten alive by larger wild critters. If hunting was bad, then how did we evolve?
From: Jeff Matz on 20 Jun 2008 09:53 Rudy Canoza wrote: > Jeff Matz wrote: > >> dh@. wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Goo wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Jeff Matz wrote: >>>> >>>>> Goo wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jeff Matz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> dh pointed out: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So do advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights". They >>>>>>>>> want to >>>>>>>>> abolish human hunting, leaving wildlife population control to >>>>>>>>> completely >>>>>>>>> inhumane agents such as starvation, disease and non-human >>>>>>>>> predators. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hardly. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, completely - it is completely irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hunting and gathering is still a part of everyday life in EVERY >>>>> civilization known to man. >>>> >>>> >>>> Irrelevant. It still isn't doing anything "nice" for the animals >>>> killed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> You are not doing something "nice" for wild animals by killing >>>>>>>> them in the place of other things that might kill them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I sure as hell am! >>>> >>>> >>>> No, you aren't. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I LOVE killing the over populated creatures that destroy crops, and >>>>> make a naughty in my yard. >>>> >>>> >>>> That may be, but it isn't doing anything "nice" for the animals you >>>> kill. >>> >>> >>> >>> Most likely you don't even know what kind of animals he's talking >>> about for one thing Goober, and even if you do--which you almost >>> certainly do not--you don't know how they would die if he didn't kill >>> them, so you don't know enough to even think about it. How does >>> he kill them, Goo? >> >> >> >> SWIFTLY! > > > No. You don't even hunt. You're the most obvious poseur ever. > > >> EVIL death they would have via "nature." > > > No. There is nothing "evil" about a wolf killing a deer. While I think it's rightous, the deer is most likely terrified fopr quite some time before it finally dies at the teeth of a pack of wolves. > You really are a stupid fuckwit. Coming from you, that's a compliment.
From: Jeff Matz on 20 Jun 2008 11:04 Rudy Canoza wrote: > Jeff Matz wrote: > >> Rudy Canoza wrote: >> >>> Jeff Matz wrote: >>> >>>> dh@. wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Goo wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Jeff Matz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Goo wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jeff Matz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> dh pointed out: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So do advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights". >>>>>>>>>>> They want to >>>>>>>>>>> abolish human hunting, leaving wildlife population control to >>>>>>>>>>> completely >>>>>>>>>>> inhumane agents such as starvation, disease and non-human >>>>>>>>>>> predators. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hardly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, completely - it is completely irrelevant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hunting and gathering is still a part of everyday life in EVERY >>>>>>> civilization known to man. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Irrelevant. It still isn't doing anything "nice" for the animals >>>>>> killed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are not doing something "nice" for wild animals by killing >>>>>>>>>> them in the place of other things that might kill them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I sure as hell am! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you aren't. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I LOVE killing the over populated creatures that destroy crops, >>>>>>> and make a naughty in my yard. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That may be, but it isn't doing anything "nice" for the animals >>>>>> you kill. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Most likely you don't even know what kind of animals he's >>>>> talking about for one thing Goober, and even if you do--which you >>>>> almost >>>>> certainly do not--you don't know how they would die if he didn't kill >>>>> them, so you don't know enough to even think about it. How does >>>>> he kill them, Goo? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> SWIFTLY! >>> >>> >>> >>> No. You don't even hunt. You're the most obvious poseur ever. >>> >>> >>>> EVIL death they would have via "nature." >>> >>> >>> >>> No. There is nothing "evil" about a wolf killing a deer. >> >> >> While I think it's rightous, > > > From the animals' perspective, it isn't that, either. It isn't > righteous or evil or any other human moral value. It just is what it is. > > >> the deer is most likely terrified fopr quite some time before it >> finally dies at the teeth of a pack of wolves. > > > No, it most likely is not. Egads, but yer a dumb twit. > But it doesn't matter even if it is. It still doesn't make it "better" > for you to kill the deer rather than the wolf killing it. Sure it does. It dies instantly without knowing what hit it. And I get another nice rack to hang on my wall... not to mention all that great meat to eat.
|
Pages: 1 Prev: Over The Top Ridiculous Milk Production Next: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs |