Will God Save Us from Ourselves?

[Immanuel Can]

Selective quotations, out of all context, seem to be your thing...

In what way out of context?

My remark applied to a whole bunch of activities, not just hunting.

.but yes, I do enjoy hunting. Any real man does.

Yes, shooting defenceless animals is a real test of manliness, no doubt.[/quote]
One man goes out, kills an animal, cuts it up in his woodshed, and makes it into dinner for his family. He knows exactly what is involved in putting that meal on the table, and he weighs the terms and pays the price for doing what needs to be done.

The other man goes out to the grocers, where he pays a man to pay a man to raise a cow in captivity, then march it down a chute, put a bolt through its brain, cut it into slabs, put pieces into plastic, and send it to the store, where the man buys it and never thinks about what he does.

Another man claims to be a vegan. But his belt and shoes are made of the hides of animals that were likewise raised in captivity, butchered by others, and prepared for him in a way totally remote from the ethical implications of his choice.

Which man is the most ethical?

Again, I'll take the win.

[Immanuel Can]

Selective quotations, out of all context, seem to be your thing...but yes, I do enjoy hunting. Any real man does.

...so if someone prefers to hunt with a camera instead of a gun, he's not a real man??? Right!

He's a starving man. You can't eat pictures.

Hunting is probably the oldest male activity there is...or close to it. Any man should be able to hunt. And if he can't...well, he can always wear a dress and cook the stuff other men bring in.

A real man likes to hunt as long as he's in no danger of damage to himself in the process.

So.. hunting quail would be immoral, and hunting moose or grizzlies would be moral? That's your theory?

And what about the man who buys cow pieces at the store, a cow slaughtered by others, and never imagines the meat on his table involves an animal at all?

[Harbal]

Selective quotations, out of all context, seem to be your thing...

In what way out of context?

My remark applied to a whole bunch of activities, not just hunting.

So you enjoy killing innocent creatures for no other reason than blood lust, but it's okay because you also find pleasure in yanking fish out of the water by plunging a hook through theirs little mouths and then whizzing off on your motor bike?

One man goes out, kills an animal, cuts it up in his woodshed, and makes it into dinner for his family. He knows exactly what is involved in putting that meal on the table, and he weighs the terms and pays the price for doing what needs to be done.

But you do it because you like doing it; you said as much. Most people, the ones who don't particularly think it's fun to kill things, just go to their local supermarket and buy their dinner. It probably works out a lot cheaper, as well, all things considered.

The other man goes out to the grocers, where he pays a man to pay a man to raise a cow in captivity, then march it down a chute, put a bolt through its brain, cut it into slabs, put pieces into plastic, and send it to the store, where the man buys it and never thinks about what he does.

So you only eat what you've killed yourself, and never go to the grocer's, like the "other man"?

Another man claims to be a vegan. But his belt and shoes are made of the hides of animals that were likewise raised in captivity, butchered by others, and prepared for him in a way totally remote from the ethical implications of his choice.

Can you produce this man, so that we can verify that?

Which man is the most ethical?

The one who gets a kick out of killing things, apparently.

[Immanuel Can]

In what way out of context?

My remark applied to a whole bunch of activities, not just hunting.

So you enjoy killing innocent creatures for no other reason than blood lust,

Yet another attempt to misrepresent. No, I reject your characterization. It's what you'd like to believe; it has nothing to do with the truth agian. I like to hunt for many reasons...participating in nature, the challenge, conservation and dinner. If you had any knowledge of what hunting is, you'd understand that. But I suspect you've lived all your life where nobody hunts, and you get your food from an abattoir, the door of which you've never darkened, and you just suppress what you know: that what you are paying them to do is immeasurably worse than hunting, and a good deal less moral, overall.

But why do you enjoy paying other people to kill domestic animals? What joy do you get out of their pain, that you would pay somebody for it? Why are you supporting an action you want me to believe is immoral?

Most people, the ones who don't particularly think it's fun to kill things, just go to their local supermarket and buy their dinner. It probably works out a lot cheaper, as well, all things considered.

Cheaper, easier on their consciences...yes. It's far easier to stay removed from what you are actually creating a market for, and to imagine that food comes from plastic packages, not from the tissue of animals.

The other man goes out to the grocers, where he pays a man to pay a man to raise a cow in captivity, then march it down a chute, put a bolt through its brain, cut it into slabs, put pieces into plastic, and send it to the store, where the man buys it and never thinks about what he does.

So you only eat what you've killed yourself, and never go to the grocer's, like the "other man"?

I'm just asking you which you think is more moral. And I think you're well aware of the answer.

No, I know you are.

[Gary Childress]

I like to hunt for many reasons...participating in nature, the challenge, conservation and dinner. If you had any knowledge of what hunting is, you'd understand that. But I suspect you've lived all your life where nobody hunts, and you get your food from an abattoir, the door of which you've never darkened, and you just suppress what you know: that what you are paying them to do is immeasurably worse than hunting, and a good deal less moral, overall.

But why do you enjoy paying other people to kill domestic animals? What joy do you get out of their pain, that you would pay somebody for it? Why are you supporting an action you want me to believe is immoral?

My dad was a hunter also, very old school--one shot one kill. He didn't believe in putting animals through misery so he made every effort to wait until he had the best shot and could take them down. He hunted with a bolt action rifle. I can definitely appreciate responsible hunting and responsible hunters and I'm sure most are. The concern for me with domestic livestock is to minimize their suffering as well. Putting them through horrendous treatment through factory farming is a big problem. Other than the concern of reducing suffering, I don't have a great deal of issue with hunting or with farming livestock.

[Harbal]

My remark applied to a whole bunch of activities, not just hunting.

So you enjoy killing innocent creatures for no other reason than blood lust,

Yet another attempt to misrepresent. No, I reject your characterization. It's what you'd like to believe; it has nothing to do with the truth agian. I like to hunt for many reasons...participating in nature, the challenge, conservation and dinner. If you had any knowledge of what hunting is, you'd understand that. But I suspect you've lived all your life where nobody hunts, and you get your food from an abattoir, the door of which you've never darkened, and you just suppress what you know: that what you are paying them to do is immeasurably worse than hunting, and a good deal less moral, overall.

But why do you enjoy paying other people to kill domestic animals? What joy do you get out of their pain, that you would pay somebody for it? Why are you supporting an action you want me to believe is immoral?

Most people, the ones who don't particularly think it's fun to kill things, just go to their local supermarket and buy their dinner. It probably works out a lot cheaper, as well, all things considered.

Cheaper, easier on their consciences...yes. It's far easier to stay removed from what you are actually creating a market for, and to imagine that food comes from plastic packages, not from the tissue of animals.

The other man goes out to the grocers, where he pays a man to pay a man to raise a cow in captivity, then march it down a chute, put a bolt through its brain, cut it into slabs, put pieces into plastic, and send it to the store, where the man buys it and never thinks about what he does.

So you only eat what you've killed yourself, and never go to the grocer's, like the "other man"?

I'm just asking you which you think is more moral. And I think you're well aware of the answer.

No, I know you are.

There is no moral credit in getting enjoyment out of killing animals.

[promethean75]

Comedian Ron White on deer hunting.

https://youtu.be/dN7Uy17Z6oE

"When that deer looked up to lick the salt sucker i'd hung from the danged 'ol tree.... caught him right above the eye."

[Immanuel Can]

So you enjoy killing innocent creatures for no other reason than blood lust,

Yet another attempt to misrepresent. No, I reject your characterization. It's what you'd like to believe; it has nothing to do with the truth agian. I like to hunt for many reasons...participating in nature, the challenge, conservation and dinner. If you had any knowledge of what hunting is, you'd understand that. But I suspect you've lived all your life where nobody hunts, and you get your food from an abattoir, the door of which you've never darkened, and you just suppress what you know: that what you are paying them to do is immeasurably worse than hunting, and a good deal less moral, overall.

But why do you enjoy paying other people to kill domestic animals? What joy do you get out of their pain, that you would pay somebody for it? Why are you supporting an action you want me to believe is immoral?

Most people, the ones who don't particularly think it's fun to kill things, just go to their local supermarket and buy their dinner. It probably works out a lot cheaper, as well, all things considered.

Cheaper, easier on their consciences...yes. It's far easier to stay removed from what you are actually creating a market for, and to imagine that food comes from plastic packages, not from the tissue of animals.

So you only eat what you've killed yourself, and never go to the grocer's, like the "other man"?

I'm just asking you which you think is more moral. And I think you're well aware of the answer.

No, I know you are.

There is no moral credit in getting enjoyment out of killing animals.

"Credit"? What do you mean? Who's looking for credit?

But if it's "discreditable" to you, why do you do it?

[Harbal]

Yet another attempt to misrepresent. No, I reject your characterization. It's what you'd like to believe; it has nothing to do with the truth agian. I like to hunt for many reasons...participating in nature, the challenge, conservation and dinner. If you had any knowledge of what hunting is, you'd understand that. But I suspect you've lived all your life where nobody hunts, and you get your food from an abattoir, the door of which you've never darkened, and you just suppress what you know: that what you are paying them to do is immeasurably worse than hunting, and a good deal less moral, overall.

But why do you enjoy paying other people to kill domestic animals? What joy do you get out of their pain, that you would pay somebody for it? Why are you supporting an action you want me to believe is immoral?

Cheaper, easier on their consciences...yes. It's far easier to stay removed from what you are actually creating a market for, and to imagine that food comes from plastic packages, not from the tissue of animals.
I'm just asking you which you think is more moral. And I think you're well aware of the answer.

No, I know you are.

There is no moral credit in getting enjoyment out of killing animals.

"Credit"? What do you mean? Who's looking for credit?

Not you, I hope, because to get pleasure from killing is morally reprehensible.

But if it's "discreditable" to you, why do you do it?

I don't do it.

[Immanuel Can]

...to get pleasure from killing is morally reprehensible.

So you, paying somebody to kill cattle or sheep or rabbit, and keeping yourself distant from what you're actually doing, then enjoying your steak, or lamb, or rabbit, or whatever, is even more "morally reprehensible." That seems perfectly obvious. Your pleasure is a result of a paid killing you have caused.

[Harbal]

...to get pleasure from killing is morally reprehensible.

So you, paying somebody to kill cattle or sheep or rabbit, and keeping yourself distant from what you're actually doing, then enjoying your steak, or lamb, or rabbit, or whatever, is even more "morally reprehensible." That seems perfectly obvious. Your pleasure is a result of a paid killing you have caused.

My participation contributes to the killing of animals, and the moral implications of that are debatable. If you think the fact that I do not personally kill what I eat is a great moral wrong, I disagree with you, but I accept it is your prerogative to make that judgement. I do believe that human beings are naturally carnivorous, so I do not think that the killing and eating of animals is wrong, per se, but it depends on the circumstances. It is, however, my opinion that killing for personal pleasure is a particularly sick character flaw.

This is all hypothetical, of course; I don't for a moment believe that you do actually go hunting, or ride motor bikes, for that matter, but I wouldn't put fishing past you.

[Immanuel Can]

...to get pleasure from killing is morally reprehensible.

So you, paying somebody to kill cattle or sheep or rabbit, and keeping yourself distant from what you're actually doing, then enjoying your steak, or lamb, or rabbit, or whatever, is even more "morally reprehensible." That seems perfectly obvious. Your pleasure is a result of a paid killing you have caused.

My participation contributes to the killing of animals, and the moral implications of that are debatable.

Your desire for animal pleasure creates the only reason for the slaughter or those animals. If you didn't eat them or wear their skins, the death toll would be proportionally reduced, as the market would be that much less lucrative for slaughter. And now you want to excuse your actions as if they were "debatable."

You evil, evil man.

[Harbal]

So you, paying somebody to kill cattle or sheep or rabbit, and keeping yourself distant from what you're actually doing, then enjoying your steak, or lamb, or rabbit, or whatever, is even more "morally reprehensible." That seems perfectly obvious. Your pleasure is a result of a paid killing you have caused.

My participation contributes to the killing of animals, and the moral implications of that are debatable.

Your desire for animal pleasure creates the only reason for the slaughter or those animals. If you didn't eat them or wear their skins, the death toll would be proportionally reduced, as the market would be that much less lucrative for slaughter. And now you want to excuse your actions as if they were "debatable."

You evil, evil man.

Anyone is free to come to their own conclusions about the moral implications of my eating meat that I have not killed myself. If you want to make an issue of that, you are perfectly entitled to do so. The issue that bothers me is the hunting and killing of animals for sport, and sheer pleasure, which, in my opinion, is absolutely sickening.

[Flannel Jesus]

Anyone is free to come to their own conclusions about the moral implications of my eating meat that I have not killed myself. If you want to make an issue of that, you are perfectly entitled to do so. The issue that bothers me is the hunting and killing of animals for sport, and sheer pleasure, which, in my opinion, is absolutely sickening.

What about when it's invasive species, or species that are overpopulated and need to be culled? Can a society promote "hunting seasons", where people can hunt them for sport for agreeable reasons like this?

[Immanuel Can]

My participation contributes to the killing of animals, and the moral implications of that are debatable.

Your desire for animal pleasure creates the only reason for the slaughter or those animals. If you didn't eat them or wear their skins, the death toll would be proportionally reduced, as the market would be that much less lucrative for slaughter. And now you want to excuse your actions as if they were "debatable."

You evil, evil man.

Anyone is free to come to their own conclusions about the moral implications of my eating meat that I have not killed myself.

It's your own moral implications, if only you realized it. If to kill an animal is bad, then to pay somebody to kill an animal, while shielding your own tender ethical awareness from your dirty deed, so you don't have to be "absolutely sickened" by your own actions, is even more reprehensible. At least for former has the advantage of being a self-aware choice; the latter is merely a lie told to oneself, an exercise in outright hypocrisy and blank refusal to accept the same moral judgement one hopes to foist on others.

Naughty, naughty.