Will God Save Us from Ourselves?

[Harbal]

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?

I don't know; I'm not setting myself up as some sort of authority on ethics, although I would say that if animals do have to be killed out of some necessity, it would be better to leave the job to qualified professionals, rather than have a free for all. The only thing I have an interest in commenting on is the practice of killing animals for sport and pleasure, which seems a totally sick minded pastime to me.

[Harbal]

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.

Okay, consider me informed of your opinion.

[promethean75]

"What about when it's invasive species, or species that are overpopulated and need to be culled?"

Like Christians, for example. U don't think people should be protected from this invasive species, Harb? Ever had one come to your door?

[Harbal]

"What about when it's invasive species, or species that are overpopulated and need to be culled?"

Like Christians, for example. U don't think people should be protected from this invasive species, Harb? Ever had one come to your door?

I've had a few Jehovah's Witnesses, but I've always released them back into the wild, as I am against killing for pleasure.

[promethean75]

Yeah JWs aren't keepers. It's the big ones like Aquinas and Descartes that u cook.

throw back the little ones and pan fry the big ones. Use tack, poise and reason and gently squeeze them

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Okay, consider me informed of your opinion.

It's yours too, apparently. The thing that you are financing, you also find "absolutely sickening." You said so. Blame yourself, if you don't like that assessment.

[Harbal]

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.

Okay, consider me informed of your opinion.

It's yours too, apparently. The thing that you are financing, you also find "absolutely sickening." You said so. Blame yourself, if you don't like that assessment.

No, my opinion was solely about your professed liking for killing things.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, consider me informed of your opinion.

It's yours too, apparently. The thing that you are financing, you also find "absolutely sickening." You said so. Blame yourself, if you don't like that assessment.

No, my opinion was solely about your professed liking for killing things.

Yes...it's so inconvenient when one's own standards rise up and bite one on the butt.

[Dubious]

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

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

Would you be starving unless you killed something like the old pioneers when there was a great deal more wildlife around? For all you sick puppies it long ceased to be a matter of survival and instead has become a badge of manliness. A real man likes to hunt, right?

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.

Are you living in some 18th century hovel or a teepee by any chance? Any malls or stores in your area? Is what you eat and wear derivative of a hunt? Do wild life photographers wear dresses?

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

My theory, as you put is as follows...which isn't a theory at all...

The creatures you hunt want to live as much as you and are as much in a state of panic as you would be when hunted or injured. It therefore stands as a kind of anomaly that the one who likes to dispense death in a forest as a manly endeavor is the one most in fear of it pleading to be saved by believing in a human who pretends to be a god demanding to be believed in.

Can a loathsome disgusting farce ever become more egregious than that!

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?

I wonder how many people there are who don't know where a steak comes from! Since you ask, how long did it take for you to find out?
Any more really stupid, stupid questions and responses? Is there any mental ability left to cause embarrassment over what you write?

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.

Another truly stupid unconsidered argument! We are meat eaters by nature, though we don't have to be. There are billions out there who eat meat. If we were all to hunt for it, whilst proving our manhood in providing for our families, there are only a few who would return from the hunt because the dumbfucks would also be shooting each other not to mention possibly deadly arguments as to who killed the animal first...not that I'd disapprove of either scenario.

Animal habitats are becoming less & less by the day, not to mention all the forest fires which have already and miserably decimated millions of animals with more of that misery on the wildlife population still to happen. In spite of all this, human deformities like yourself still enjoy hunting as a signature of manhood while at the same time being scared shitless that when you die, you'll be as dead as everything else that ever moved on the planet.

But what the hell! Sweet Jesus will come to the rescue of all those who believed in him! Nicht wahr?

[Immanuel Can]

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

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

Would you be starving unless you killed something

Yes. We are ominvores. We need meat. That means that something must be killed. The only choice is between taking personal responsibility for that, or pretending it doesn't exist, while paying others to do it.

Real men can hunt. Not all of them do. But all of them can.

Any malls or stores in your area?

For meat? That is merely buying exactly the same thing. I prefer to face the moral choices I make, and to understand what it is I am doing. Men do that.

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?

I wonder how many people there are who don't know where a steak comes from!

If you know what you are doing, then you've got nothing to say about hunting. You're doing the same thing. The difference between the hunter and you might be that he has courage and honesty about it, and you prefer to do it by proxy, and not to tell yourself what you're doing.

We are meat eaters by nature, though we don't have to be. There are billions out there who eat meat.

That's exactly right. So why are you complaining?

Animal habitats are becoming less & less by the day,

Hunters are among the most active conservationists. If you think that makes perfect sense: they want there to be plenty of game, and good places to look for it. So they are serious about the environment. So your problem is with things like industry, forestry and cities, not with hunters.

You're barking loudly, maybe; but you're not making a case.

[Harbal]

It's yours too, apparently. The thing that you are financing, you also find "absolutely sickening." You said so. Blame yourself, if you don't like that assessment.

No, my opinion was solely about your professed liking for killing things.

Yes...it's so inconvenient when one's own standards rise up and bite one on the butt.

As you don't appear to have any standards, I assume that must be an educated guess.

[Fairy]

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.

Strange that a man has to put on a dress to cook his food that he himself hunted down. Does a real man necessarily need to wear a dress while cooking his own kill?



As for the subject of what defines real men, as opposed to weak men...The Bible does not explicitly state whether Adam and Eve ate meat or not, but most sources suggest that they were vegetarians. God provided them with plenty of plant food in the Garden of Eden, and did not allow them to kill animals. Meat-eating was only permitted after the Flood, as a concession to human weakness.

[Harbal]

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.

Did Jesus do much hunting, I wonder?

Come to think of it, apart from when they put him on that cross in his underpants, he was always wearing something that resembled a dress.

[Gary Childress]

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.

Did Jesus do much hunting, I wonder?

Come to think of it, apart from when they put him on that cross in his underpants, he was always wearing something that resembled a dress.

Dresses are probably pretty comfortable. When I attended public school pretty much all the girls wore slacks, though. I suppose someone has to wear the dresses. Otherwise, how could we tell them men from the women?

\_(*_*)_/

[Harbal]

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.

Did Jesus do much hunting, I wonder?

Come to think of it, apart from when they put him on that cross in his underpants, he was always wearing something that resembled a dress.

Dresses are probably pretty comfortable. When I attended public school pretty much all the girls wore slacks, though. I suppose someone has to wear the dresses. Otherwise, how could we tell them men from the women?

\_(*_*)_/

It's easy to spot which are the men; they will be wandering round with spears, looking for things to kill.