# General Discussion > Opinions >  HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

## strongvoicesforward

What person can say hunting is a sport? It is a viscious game of murder where animals do not have much of a chance.

There is no need for hunting for food anymore (except in some very remote regions of the world) and therefore it should cease to exist as an activity sanctioned by the government or even be permitted on private game reserves.

Culling to control populations also is a ridiculous argument. But, I am more than happy to entertain that discussion with debate for those who think hunting is needed for that, or any other reason.

----------


## Frank D. White

Here in Maine, away from the bigger cities and towns, many people depend on hunting and fishing to eat. There are cases where over-population leads to disease and starvation, especially with deer. Some animals seem to thrive on controled hunting. Our moose population in Maine has increased in size and become more healthy since hunting season was opened on them several years ago. The hunting and fishing here in Maine helps pay for many wildlife programs and polution control programs and provides money to set aside land to be kept wild and open to the public.I will admit, I don't hunt anymore, but hunting does have some good points and would cause a lot of problems if done away with here.

Frank

----------


## CC1

You are right..hunting is not a sport, but a way of life!

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Here in Maine, away from the bigger cities and towns, many people depend on hunting and fishing to eat. ...
> 
> Frank



Frank, I doubt they depend on them to survive. I would suggest they hunt to supplement their food. Now, if they are so rural as to where there is no grocery store within driving distance, then maybe I would accept that, but I would be willing to bet that there is some kind of stores, albeit small ones, that are near enough to shop at. 

In the day before the automobile, then I could imagine that distances to grocery stores would not be feasible to cover. But, not now. If someone doesn`t want to get in their car and drive an hour or two once or twice a week to stock up, well, then, it is a question of being lazy, not of necessity.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> ...
> 
> 1) There are cases where over-population leads to disease
> 
> 2)... and starvation, especially with deer. Some animals seem to thrive on controled hunting. 
> 
> Frank


1) What disease is a result of overpopulation?

2) Starvation is the result of the problems brought about by hunters who have destroyed the natural predators. Starvation in and of itself is not so bad for creating healthy numbers for what a land area can support. A population crash would allow for the species to come into balance with the fauna. Animals also have a self regulatory mechanism of fetal abortion and uterus absorption when food is not enough to support them in.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Some animals seem to thrive on controled hunting.
> 
> Frank



Well, I`m glad you saw fit to qualify it with "seem." With that, you can grudgingly cede that you don`t know for sure.

Here is the logic you want us to swallow, "We are killing you for your own good." 

Now, does that sound right to you? To me it doesn`t. IF that were the best answer to handle overpopulation problems, then there are 6 billion of us crowding this planet that should be elgible for some action for "our own good."

The more healthier route for the ecosystem would be for predators to be reintroduced. But, the hunters and farmers are opposed to that because they get the profits from exploitation. Less wolves, mountain lions, and coyotes killing deer means larger herds for hunting.

The fact is, hunters like the overpopulation problem. They have manipulated the ecosystem just so that would happen so that then they can scream how necessary they are since the wolves are no longer around to do their job in the system. If they didn`t like the overpopulationn problem, and still didn`t want to reintroduce the wolf, then why not let the population crash to a sustainable number that cycles naturally every few years?

Perhaps the wildlife agencies, hunting groups, NRA, and hunting paraphanalia retailors and all their lobbyists wouldn`t like it because it would mean large losses in revenue -- not so much that families in Maine going hungry.

----------


## ullvarg

I'm not a hunter, nor have I ever been out hunting, but i woud rather eat meat from a deer that's been shot in the woods than a cow that's been transported to a slawterhose and tormented befor it's killed.
Sure there's a chanse that a hunter may not make a perfect hit everytime and the animal will have to suffer a bit befor dieing, but atleast it hade the chanse to live a free life up untill it's death.

----------


## No-name

Hunting can definitely be a part of wildlife management. I live in a forrest that is managed- most of the natural predators are gone, the natural range is limited, there are roads and houses up here, and garbage that these animals feed on- and definite cycles of limits and overpopulation.

----------


## Frank D. White

many people in northern Maine are very poor and don't have resources such as food banks or welfare to help them out. Many won't accept handouts. They would rather work for their food by hunting it. All you answers are fine in a book world, but will never hold water in the world of reality. "If this" & "if that" as quick & easy solutions usually don't happen in the real world; maybe they could "if" people were perfect and did the "right" thing. That rearely seems to happen in our imperfect world.

Frank

----------


## No-name

I don't really have problems with hunting or hunters- as long as they buy tags and follow the rules which most of them do. I don't want my house or dog being shot by mistake. Ideally I want them to eat what they kill and use as much as possible.

----------


## No-name

Also re introduction of predators would solve the population control problem, but create a host of others. Our forrest is high use, high traffic, semi-urban-- far too close to too many people for wolves or grizzlys. Even the black bears, big cats and coyotes who live up here have problems. We're tightly encircled by cities and the desert and such a program would present too significant a danger to attempt.

I don't hunt, I'm just a bit too nearsighted for anything but paintball...but in this case our deer are one step from being domesticated. They are protected, counted, fostered and eventually culled when the human managers decide there are too many. It is one step away from ranching them.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> 1. I'm not a hunter, nor have I ever been out hunting, but i woud rather eat meat from a deer that's been shot in the woods than a cow that's been transported to a slawterhose and tormented befor it's killed.
> 
> 2. Sure there's a chanse that a hunter may not make a perfect hit everytime and the animal will have to suffer a bit befor dieing, but atleast it hade the chanse to live a free life up untill it's death.



1. Both are unnecessary and therefore one should not feel it is an "either or" proposition one is face with. I would not like to have to entertain thoughts on my murder either through forced drowning or asphyxiation.

2. And it could have lived longer had a hunter not put a shot in its gut allowing it to get away and die a slow painful death. It is wrong to assume that your use of the word "chance" somehow means that these animals that are injured and die slowly and or never recovered are a very small percentage of the total. 

Oh, and don`t forget, nearly 50 to 100 people are killed each year due to hunting accidents in the U.S alone -- not to mention the the other deaths that occur due to hunting paraphanalia that is left carelously around the house for kids to find or that which is used when someone is in a fit of rage at a spouse or decides to use for suicidal purposes. 

So, do we say, all those deaths which are from industry related products directly involved with hunting or of the deaths that occur while hunting are just lives sacrificed for the joy of hunting by a small part of the population? Why do you think those lives lost are justified so that a few can enjoy going into the woods and kill things that often they are too fat and out of shape to even chase after and recover after it has been wounded?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Hunting can definitely be a part of wildlife management. I live in a forrest that is managed- most of the natural predators are gone



Hunting need not be a part of wildlife management. It is not necessary. Birth control techniques can also be employed. There have been some successes in showing that salt licks can be laced with birth control chemicals to prevent ovulation.

But, even if that were not feasible, natural population crashes regulate species quite well without hunting. Again, though, through that process the exploitative industries of state and private ventures will not gain to profit.

That is one of the reasons why these businesses and agencies don`t really want to see an introduction of predators to do the job they want to keep on doing. I mean, if wolves controlled the deer, the hunters would have no reason to kill deer. Well, they would, but then they would have to admit their main reason is that they just enjoy killing things. But, that would unmask them. With the predators gone, they can smugly assert they are loving nature by helping nature by killing off parts of her. It is an absurd lie.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> ...and garbage that these animals feed on- and definite cycles of limits and overpopulation.


Oh, yes! Those hunters sure do know how to stalk and find those black bears to kill. Nothing more difficult than finding a garbage pit in the forest or near a small town and just sit behind a tree downwind from it and wait for an unsuspecting bear to come eat human waste material.

Lots of skill involved in that, and it surely must be a site to see a beer coming for breakfast because it is hungry to only be met with some lead entering through parts of its body.

I guess that is the mighty brave hunter, killing a garbage pit bear and then returning to his sofa to snap open a beer for a football game and some bragging rights to his buds. I don`t think they would like it much if when the Dominos pizza man rings the door bell and the delivery boy "bags" the man who answers the door. *"Surprise, surprise, surprise, you unsuspecting man coming in search of your dinner."*

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> ...many people in northern Maine are very poor and don't have resources such as food banks or welfare to help them out. Many won't accept handouts. They would rather work for their food by hunting it.


Well, if these people are living day to day as in the "old days" of survival, then they should think about joining the 21st century by marching out of their backwoods delapidated shacks and buses on cement blocks to the urban centers in search of a job.

That's what people in Appellatia do -- they come down from the hills to Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, or Louisville.

Again, I would really like to see some government report that shows us how many people whose survival depends on hunting. I am talking about their survival. I am not talking about a choice to remain somewhere and therefore they hunt to augment their food -- I am talking about a real need and necessity to hunt in order to live. Do you have something like that you can direct me to?

I would guess if those people in the Western Nations exist, then they are an anomaly. However, I am not talking about anomalies, like them, or like people in the Amazon or the arctic circle. I am talking about the majority of hunters. They and their "sport of hobby and pleasure" are unneeded and should be phased out. They should be made extinct through laws and regulation.

----------


## No-name

Strongvoicesforward- everything you say is correct- Hunting need not be a part of wildlife management and we could ban hunting. We could employ birth control or let animals be culled by disease or starvation. (A joke about putting little deer condoms on came to mind...) And we could re introduce the natural predators. But there are a large number of people who do enjoy hunting- who like the guns, who take the risk, who don't have a bambi complex. The truth is that we don't live among a pristine wilderness- that some of these weekend killers seek a deeper connection with the land, with the past and with traditions. They hunt for sport, for fun, for the skill involved and for the meat. Most americans eat meat- we kill and eat animals daily- but we usually have someone else raise, kill and clean our food. We also enjoy guns and accept a few hundred casualties for some kind of manly primal drive. You are not going to take their guns away and you are not going to keep them from gunning down otherwise defenseless fauna on some bloody weekend outing.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> All you answers are fine in a book world, but will never hold water in the world of reality. "If this" & "if that" as quick & easy solutions usually don't happen in the real world; maybe they could "if" people were perfect and did the "right" thing. That rearely seems to happen in our imperfect world.




Frank, do you see the logic you are putting forth here? It is one of apathy and futilism. You seem to say that it is just too hard so not lets even try. However, you do admit that the answers are "fine." You think that just because people are not perfect then the answers that are fine or that should be found in a perfect world are therefore out of reach for us to attempt implementing.

The same arguments against ending slavery were put forth: 
*Free black people in a perfect world would be fine, but this world is not perfect therefore it can't happen.*

Now, does that sound right to you? Don`t be bogged down by the contents of the formula -- look at the logic of it -- the tracks on which the argument sits upon.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I don't really have problems with hunting or hunters-


I have a problem with exploitation, causing fear, pain, misery, and death. I have a problem with frustrated hunters shooting up "no tresspassing signs," leaving litter in the forest, shooting pets, taking pot shots at livestock, using lands supported by taxes from the majority of the population who for the most part are not hunting supporters.




> ...as long as they buy tags and follow the rules which most of them do.


I wouldn`t be so quick to pronounce most of them following the rules. That would require a familiarity with the majority of them which I suspect you do not enjoy.




> I don't want my house or dog being shot by mistake. Ideally I want them to eat what they kill and use as much as possible.


And, I would suggest that during hunting seasons many dogs are killed by hunters. I am confidant that many rural town veterinarians report a large increase of gunshot injured animals during hunting season.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Also re introduction of predators would solve the population control problem, but create a host of others. Our forrest is high use, high traffic, semi-urban-- far too close to too many people for wolves or grizzlys. Even the black bears, big cats and coyotes who live up here have problems. We're tightly encircled by cities and the desert and such a program would present too significant a danger to attempt.



Yes, it would solve the problem and it makes no sense to live off the idea of accepting the dangers associated with hunting over those associated with predators nearby. 

The list of human deaths directly related to hunters and hunting and their paraphanalia far outstrips deaths of humans as a result of predator attacks.

You could easily count 50 to 1000 deaths a year based on hunting and hunting paraphanalia. Go back a hundred years and do the math and see how many deaths that adds up to. Now, go back a hundred years and see how many deaths have been caused by coyotes or wolves. You may find one or two. For mountain lions you may find 5 to 10. For bears you may find 20. Now, what pales in relationship to each other?

Wolves by nature are weary and for the most part flee at man's approach. Mountain lions by and large are the same. Coyotes, too. Bears, while after being habituated to garbage and gut piles may confront man, they, too for the most part will try to avoid encounters.

Sure, reintroduction could possibly lead to some isolated incidences, but those by and large are much fewer than the kind emanating from a barrel. 

Barring reintroduction of predators, if safety is the concern, which you put forth, then hunting should be banned since they cause more deaths than predators and prey animals can control their own populations through crashes, abortions, and uteran absorption.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> ... our deer are one step from being domesticated. They are protected, counted, fostered and eventually culled when the human managers decide there are too many. It is one step away from ranching them.


Yes, it is. But, it need not be.
Taking the value of life, empathy, and ethics into account, hunting need not be continued and could be banned. 

I think it will be a while, but voices calling for its end are becoming more numerous. It will not end overnight, but those against it are becoming stronger and are getting bolder in pushing for its end. That said, it will definitely become more expensive to continue it and politicians and agencies will face more criticism as they open hunting seasons on animals. There will come a time when a trend away from hunting will begin to gain momentum.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> But there are a large number of people who do enjoy hunting- who like the guns, who take the risk, who don't have a bambi complex.


Sabro, enjoyment is moote. It is not logical. A portion of the population enjoys dog fighting as well. That is a sport that ends in death, too. Bullfighting is another bloodsport. 

Blood sports are barbaric and do not rest on logic. Enjoyment is not a foundation to rest logic on.

It is not about having a "bambi" complex. It is about not wanting to cause harm to a creature that has done you know harm and you not having any valid reason to cause that harm. Again, enjoyment is not a valid reason.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Strongvoicesforward- everything you say is correct- Hunting need not be a part of wildlife management and we could ban hunting. We could employ birth control or let animals be culled by disease or starvation. ... some of these weekend killers seek a deeper connection with the land, with the past and with traditions.


Why should the "past" or "tradition" be a point to consider when it comes to committing unnecessary violence and causing pain? Many Africans get enjoyment knowing they are keeping their tradition of clitoral circumcision alive while they force it upon 12 year old girls. Many Pakistanis and Indians defend their traditions of honor killing for disobedient wives and children.

"Connection" Ponnections! Traditions are no reason to keep and propell anything associated with exploitation, misery, and death. They all beget themselves and which ever species performs it on another or amongst themselves is irrelevant. An animal, be it human or nonhuman, wants to not be a target for unnecessary pain because of someone's warped sense of enjoyment or desire to protect some baseless tradition.

----------


## No-name

Like I said, hunting could be banned, but it won't. Not only do some find enjoyment in it, but it is part of their history and culture. It won't happen today or anytime soon. (You can make a reasonable case that we need not eat any meat- and it would lead to more sustainable agriculture, but I just had seafood gumbo and turkey for Christmas dinner...and I definitely would not be for it.)

Hunters are up in the mountain all the time. We have not had a fatal accident in my memory- at least for the last few decades. They don't tend to shoot up people or domestic pets or our signage...and for the most part they clean up after themselves when they leave. I have concerns whenever high powered rifles are within hitting distance of my house. We have a significantly higher fatality rate with the traffic driving up and down the mountain, with the ski resorts, and even with hikers. And alcohol and guns don't mix either. So far, they have never ever bothered me. (There was a fire started at Manzanita flats from illegal ammunition a few years ago, but that person wasn't hunting.) They probably have less impact than the off highway vehicle crowd, mountain bikers, or other recreational users who do shoot up signs and leave trash.

You miss the point with predators. Predators won't and can't live in large enough numbers in the forrest where I live. We have bears, coyotes, mountain lions, foxes and bobcats- none of which poses any kind of threat to human life, but also none of which can exist in sufficient numbers to control our deer population. There isn't the room- the range that the grizzlies and wolves require. Too many people, too many cars and too much of a threat to the animals. 

Lastly when you discuss "the value of life, empathy and ethics" I am almost certain you are ascribing human values- anthropomorphising these animals. The truth is that we don't value human life and animal life equally. We don't have the same empathy and sympathy, nor do we have the same respect for the life of a squirrel as for the life of any random human. We don't stop traffic and investigate the death of a squirrel or a coyote. We don't mourn the death of thousands of insects in our radiators. Nor do we intervene in the murder of millions of rats and other "vermin." Most people consider humans and animals to be of a differing and a lesser value.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> They hunt for sport, for fun, for the skill involved and for the meat.


Oh, I didn`t know there was fun in extinguishing life, not to mention causing it to suffer before hand -- or knowing that a fawn is left motherless to die from starvation because it can`t nurse anymore. Oh, yes, all that seems fun.

Very few hunters stalk their kill. Most sit in a tree stand by a corn field or stream or some place they have put out salt licks for a few weeks to habituate an animal to coming there. Many cover themselves in deer musk and blow the mating calls of animals to lure them to them. Sure must be a lot of skill in getting those "love" calls down so that an animal interested in some companion ship can be surprised with a high velocity projectile instead. Imagine those animals' surprise at the skill of those ambushing hunters.

Sure...lots of skill in all that. I would say Michael Jordon, or any kid shooting ball works on skill in developing a great hook shot while physically exhausted. Only an elite few can do that. An overweight guy, with battery warming socks, covered in deer piss bleeting a love call, too fat to climb down quickly enough from his stand to track an animal without getting winded after 100 yards, is errrr... well....errrr.... not very skillful. 

Or perhaps in the mind of the hunter he is. After all, when they do get their kills, they do get that great shot smiling shot of them holding the head up in a life standing position for a pose so that the rack can be seen in all its glory. 

Those photographers sure are skillful, aren`t they?  :Wink:

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> We also enjoy guns and accept a few hundred casualties for some kind of manly primal drive.


Enjoyment is not valid for satisfying a primal drive when that is one which is inherantly dangerous and causes violence and helps support the paraphanalia of an industry whose products are often used to cause violence.




> You are not going to take their guns away and you are not going to keep them from gunning down otherwise defenseless fauna on some bloody weekend outing.


You are right, Sabro, it will take a long time. It is a battle. But, I think it will happen gradually. The trend has always been from one of prevalent hunting to less hunting. Less regulation to more regulation. Less banning to more banning. Time is on our side, not the hunters.

As more and more young people who have been quite receptive to animal rights move more and more into social positions of judges and legislators, you will see the hunting industry decided against and squeezed more and more and more.

Even they see this. That is why they have desperately been trying to get more and more young people involved with hunting. But, while they do get some young people hooked on it, they are not getting the majority. And those young people who are indoctrinated into the hunting culture, are by and large, those young people who do not go on to college and take up decision making posts.

It is just a matter of time before the hunter goes the way of the passenger pigion, which they themselves drove to extinction. A dieing breed indeed. The world will be better without them.

----------


## No-name

I don't hunt, so I am not the best one to stick up for hunters. In California- they don't sell too many doe tags, so bambi might be fatherless, but probably not motherless. And anyway he would be no less motherless if mom were smacked on the highway by a Peterbuilt. I don't really know if the deer feel sad or suffer when we extinguish their lives... I pretty sure they probably don't like it. but I don't ascribe to them human emotions, motivations and value. I do go fishing- although it has been years... and I never worry about all the little Nemo's I orphaned. Most would not consider the killing of an animal an act of violence. After all, here in California you can kill your pets if you want, you just have to do it humanely.

I probably run over half a dozen squirrels in the course of a year. I probably left lots of little squirrellings starving and orphaned. Although I try to avoid them, I won't flip my car over it. Nor will I trade my life for theirs... Its a value judgement. Human life is more valuable than animal life. If I can't avoid them...ka-thump...and little thought or sympathy afterwards. (Except the one I hit on my motorcycle...ewwwww.)

As to how much skill it takes to bring down a fourteen point buck... I couldn't really tell you that either. Those guys who do it feel a certain amount of pleasure and satisfaction. What you described takes skill and at least patience. I certainly wouldn't want to spend hours freezing in a blind to get one shot at a moving target some yardage away. (I'm quite nearsighted...I probably wouldn't hit it anyway.) And some do stalk and some only hunt with compound bows...I would have to go on a hunt to tell you how much skill it does or doesn't take or what the whole urge to kill an animal is all about. I don't judge their choice here- they are not hunting endagered species, nor are they doing anything illegal.

The only hunting I ever do is out on the paintball field. My quarry is equally armed and there entirely voluntarily and everyone goes home alive at the end of the day.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Like I said, hunting could be banned, but it won't. Not only do some find enjoyment in it, but it is part of their history and culture. It won't happen today or anytime soon.



History and culture is irrelevant for deciding something should be continued. Clitoral circumcision, slavery, honour killing, bride burning, are all examples of culture/traditional icons that were supported for much of the same reasons you are saying hunting should continue. Culture and traditions are not reasons based on reasoning. They are based on emtions.

I can`t predict when it will be banned or when it will just fade away. But, it will.

----------


## No-name

> History and culture is irrelevant for deciding something should be continued. Clitoral circumcision, slavery, honour killing, bride burning, are all examples of culture/traditional icons that were supported for much of the same reasons you are saying hunting should continue. Culture and traditions are not reasons based on reasoning. They are based on emtions.
> 
> I can`t predict when it will be banned or when it will just fade away. But, it will.


You seem to be equating human life and animal life and society as well as our laws does not treat them equally.

Those practices you mentioned- clitoral circumcision, slavery, honor killing, and bride burning all have humans targeted for pain, suffering and death. Three of four were never part of our history or culture. There are practices allowable on animals that would be entirely unacceptable if used on humans. We crop ears and dock tails without Fido's consent. We spay, neuter and euthanize. We turn them into burgers, belts and coats. All acceptable to most americans and legal under the law. I don't see it changing any time soon.

----------


## ullvarg

> 1. Both are unnecessary and therefore one should not feel it is an "either or" proposition one is face with. I would not like to have to entertain thoughts on my murder either through forced drowning or asphyxiation.
> 
> 2. And it could have lived longer had a hunter not put a shot in its gut allowing it to get away and die a slow painful death. It is wrong to assume that your use of the word "chance" somehow means that these animals that are injured and die slowly and or never recovered are a very small percentage of the total. 
> 
> Oh, and don`t forget, nearly 50 to 100 people are killed each year due to hunting accidents in the U.S alone -- not to mention the the other deaths that occur due to hunting paraphanalia that is left carelously around the house for kids to find or that which is used when someone is in a fit of rage at a spouse or decides to use for suicidal purposes. 
> 
> So, do we say, all those deaths which are from industry related products directly involved with hunting or of the deaths that occur while hunting are just lives sacrificed for the joy of hunting by a small part of the population? Why do you think those lives lost are justified so that a few can enjoy going into the woods and kill things that often they are too fat and out of shape to even chase after and recover after it has been wounded?


I don't know about the US situation, but here in Sweden there's usualy around 10 death's due to hunting each year, and to be alowed to hunt you need to take a clase and a serie of tests. The hunter's are not alowed to keep their rifle at home in 1 peice, thei got to pick it to peices and and stor the peices in diffrent places of the house, and there's a limit to how much amonition 1 is alowed to have in the house, so it ain't that easy for a kid to use it, think that just happens ones every other year here, but im not sure.
About the hole suicade use of a weapon, I'm all for suicade so i don't think that's a valid argument, but that's a hole difrent discution.

People wount stop eating meat, I myself don't eat massive amounts of meat but I do eat it, when i eat meet i prefer to eat something that's been hunted in the wood, because atleast here in sweden the farmanimals are raised at one end of the country and then they are transported to the other end to be slautered just because it's cheaper.

And I don't look apon hunting as a sport, I look apon it as a good alternative to slautering farmanimal to put food on the tabel, because lets face it all the people on this planet wount stop eating meet, meet consumption have stagered the last couple of years here in Sweden.

I do like to eat vegiterian alternatives, but i don't think ill ever stop eating meet entierly.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> In California- they don't sell too many doe tags, so bambi might be fatherless, but probably not motherless.


So, I am wondering about does which are accidentally killed by hunters who mistakenly have taken a shot at them (or actually did so on purpose) and those animals were killed and recoverable by the hunter. It isn`t hard to imagine and I am confidant it occurs. Being cold in a stand, bored, lots of brush and trees between the hunter and the animal, a clean view is not wholly possible and therefore neither is a clean shot, but a shot is indeed taken.

Now, what does a hunter do with a doe when he has not been issued a tag to take a doe? Does he leave it there knowing he will be fined? Does he butcher it there and just take the meat out? Hunting tags as a means to limit/control the killing is a joke.

Tags are issued for deer that are brought out. There is no limit on how many one is permitted to injure.





> And anyway he would be no less motherless if mom were smacked on the highway by a Peterbuilt.


Arguing from futility leads one to accept apathy. Both are diseases of the mind. Besides, if games just serve to jerk the topic away from the main point -- which is that hunting (i.e. not highways or vehicles) should be banned.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I don't really know if the deer feel sad or suffer when we extinguish their lives... I pretty sure they probably don't like it.


If they don`t like it like you said, then that must mean they feel something other than joy. Now, what would that be? I would call that sadness and fear. To deny that animals do not share some base emotions which we do, then one is going against a large volume of data and personal observations. Most dog owners can attest to observing feelings of sadness in their dogs. I know I can.




> but I don't ascribe to them human emotions, motivations and value.


Emotions need not be qualified as human. We do not have a monopoly on emotions. Sure, we can get more philosophical and muse on our emotions, but that is different from actually experiencing emotions. The ability to suffer and experience pain is the crucial question. Just because a being cannot give verbal communication to their suffering does not mean it should be dismissed. 

A mentally retarded person may never develope the ability to communicate their emotions, but we still accept that their ability to suffer is something to be respected. That is what is important and should be considered -- the ability to suffer.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I do go fishing- although it has been years... and I never worry about all the little Nemo's I orphaned.


Of course you can`t because you are unable to pierce the species barrier. You aren`t alone in company, though, when it comes to being unable to pierce the barrier of another group. Whites had a hard time feeling empathy towards black. Men had a hard time for feeling empathy toward women. Christians for Jews. 

It really is just the human desire to protect his/her status quo and only when a group makes demands, or a group on behalf of another group makes demands, that empathy and eventually rights are extended. It is happening with animals now and it will eventually come to realization.




> Most would not consider the killing of an animal an act of violence.


Sure, The Movement is still small now. But, not thinking killing an animal is an act of violence is only held to by those who are not witnessing it. Most city people would never consider going to a slaughter house for a date or entertainment because the idea of an evening of bleating and gargleing blood would be a pretty violent scene to behold. 

Furthermore, I know many pre-schools and kindergartens take kids on apple picking, orange picking, or potato digging excursions, but I have never heard of a preschool loading the kids up in a van to go see the stick pit at a slaughterhouse or a canned hunt killing. I guess there is an ingrained sense and a reality of knowlegde that it IS in fact violence and most people do not want to witness real violence.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Human life is more valuable than animal life.


Oh, this old argument being brought out and shakened off -- ad nausium.

It is not about one being more important than the other. It is about equal consideration of interests and respect of all life. We do not have the right to visit tyranny on other animals. That is what this hunting issue and others such as factory farming and animal experiments is about. It is not about forfeiting your life in your car by swerving so that an animal can live instead of you. It is about not choosing to target an animal for harm.

From a Universal perspective, you are no more deserving of being able to move about freely than a deer. What in the Universe makes you believe you are more important than a deer or squirrel? Where is your proof? Of course, you have none. Yours is just one based on selfish desire for your wants, not based on a universal truth.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> As to how much skill it takes to bring down a fourteen point buck... I couldn't really tell you that either. Those guys who do it feel a certain amount of pleasure and satisfaction. What you described takes skill and at least patience.



Well, at least we are being honest about it -- that these people are doing it for pleasure. 

High velocity weapon with mounted site, bathed in deer piss, sitting in a stand, having a thermos of hot chocolate (or a beer or two), hmmmm... I am wondering about skill. Many first time hunters are successful with bagging a kill. Skill -- sure, setting up an ambush could be considered skill -- I geuss. I would consider it a skill in a combat zone where lead would becoming back once I`ve compromised my position, but calling an ambush a skill when downing an animal, well, it is just that -- an ambush -- wrapped around selfish desire for pleasing the ego which wants to feel powerful by taking life.

Patience? A skill? Sure, I guess so. A guess a man asking his girlfriend for ten years to marry him and getting rejected but remaining patient for her to finally fall at his feet is also a skill. It is a skill of non-action. A kind of verbal/mental masturbation.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> ...and some only hunt with compound bows...


The bow: the weapon that causes more injured unrecovered animals as a percentage of the weapon used is an instrument which is as inhumane as anyone can get. 

State agencies which allow this weapon of choice give them up for caring nothing about the welfare of any animal. Their point is to get as much money from hunting season as possible and worrying about an animal that scrambles away with an arrow in their gut -- oh well, tough luck for the animal.

It, too, shows us the ineffectiveness of the "tag system." Why can`t when issueing tags or a bow license a simple test of marksmanship can`t be performed? Say, placing 8 of 10 arrows in a paper plate size target at 30 yards with a few branches between line of site? Then a 200 meter timed run over hilly terrain with a time limit? 

Oh, sure that would be inconceivable! It would widdle the hunters down. It would mean less license fees. It would mean less bow paraphanalia from the hunting stores bought. Why, it would mean less exploitation! Can`t have that. Exploitation has more value than a deer dieing painlessly. Commodity is championed over life. That sounds backwards to me. Why doesn`t it you?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I don't judge their choice here- they are not hunting endagered species, nor are they doing anything illegal.


I judge it. And, so do many others. So many, in fact, that hunting shows can never be aired regularly on main network outlets because it would result in a barage of mail to stations and sponsors calling for its cancellation. In fact, hunting orgs know this and would never really like to try and get their dirty little hobbies of death on national tv because they know the backlash would be quick and detrimental. Best to stay to satelite or cable subscription shows.

Fishing shows can only continue because fish don`t vocalize their pain. But, if they could scream, believe me, they, too, would not last long on tv.

Causing pain and suffering is separate from the endangered species category. Humans aren`t endagered but I wouldn`t think that hunting them should be oked. But why not? They are the most dangerous animal on the planet and surely overpopulated. Let`s keep logic pure rather than pervert it through prejudices.

That`s right, nothing is being done illegally in a general sense, but that doesn`t mean it is right. Beating your wife wasn`t illegal at one time either. Neither was owning a slave. Hindsight is always 20/20. Just imagine 100 years from now. I am happy to know that I will be viewed in respect to history with the side that championed the rights for animals that will be taken for granted by people then. 

Sure, you will say it may never happen. And you may be right. But, it was laughable to even suggest 300 years ago blacks would be free with rights, or women for that matter. Again, hindsight is always 20/20. That is the site of followers. Foresight on the other hand takes the quality of bravery to embrace the ideas of change before they have ever even been fought for.

----------


## cheryl.ak

I come from a big hunting family..and I have grown to love the taste of venison. Now, I practice archery, but just as a sport. I know I could never go out and kill an animal. I have humanized them way too much. But, since the beginning man's existence, meat was essential for survival. We are carnivores..you know, with those little canine teeth and everything. True, today we have more options and of course living as a vegetarian is possible. I don't see a problem this, it's just how you choose to live. Most of us are fortunate enough to be able to have this choice, it's almost like a luxury. I live in Wisconsin though.. and their are no natural predators around to keep the deer population in control... so deer are running out in front of cars, causing accidents, eating crops like mad. I swear, I see a dead deer on the road almost every day now..poor things. So! I am glad for hunters. 
But OK! That's my 2 cents!..
 :Relieved:

----------


## No-name

strongvoiceforward- thank you for the time you have put into your responses. However even as a non-hunter, I can't really see your point.

Again, I don't see the point in equating human life with animal life. I don't think you will see it happen in your lifetime or in a dozen lifetimes. Animal life does not equal human life. Legally and socially, they are not given the same value. We as a society eat animals and use animal products and I don't see that ending in your lifetime either. It seems like humanizing animals has it definite limits- rats and mice in your pantry probably don't have too many "rights." And does this respect for life extend only to the fuzzy and cute animals, or down to insects, like spiders, lice and bed bugs? 

And hunting has little to do with wife beating or slavery. I would not be in favor of giving my pets the same rights as humans... although I know my dog would have never voted for Bush...and as a matter of practicality it does nothing to increase a person's appreaciation or values of human life. I'm sure lots of hunters are decent family loving folk and I'm certain there are animal rights people who are not. I'm off to consume more animal products without caring whether or not my sashimi would, could, or should vocalize pain.

----------


## No-name

Depravity!
Take the survey:
http://www.depravityscale.org/phase_b/phase2_index.php

----------


## strongvoicesforward

The above link looks like an email harvesting site to me. They are tricky. Beware with the info you are giving to those kiinds of places. If it were from a respected university or government site I would be more prone to take the survey. But, to each your own.

Did you take it Sabro?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> You seem to be equating human life and animal life and society as well as our laws does not treat them equally.


No, I am not equating different lives amongst species. 

Look, from our vantage of course, a father with three kids to support driving down an icy road (and the kids are in the back seat) in the winter is perfectly justified in not swerving to miss a rabit that darts out in front of him. If it is a child that jumps out into the road then the situation gets a little murkier. I think you and I can both agree on that, right?

But that is a situation in which we are thrust into a confrontational situation without our wills of focused determination on each other. And that is a situation of imminant necessity. The concept of "might does not make right" however is quite different, and if one asserts that "might does make right" (i.e. we do with them what we wish because we can), then one is proposing a system of tyranny to rule over the animals or humans, and that is not right. 

Because of that, the principle, "the equal consideration of interests" is what should guide us in how we treat others, and more importantly, those more vulnerable than us. Just as I feel pain and wish to live, to not have my autonomy violated, and want someone to respet my interest in living without inflicted pain and the ability to exercise my autonomy, I, too, must grant that others have the same interests as I do, that they, too, want to be free from inflicted pain and not have their autonomy violated. In short, it is a version of the golden rule -- *do unto others as you would others do unto you.*

I wouldn`t want someone to come into my living room, shoot me and leave my wife and kids widowed and fatherless. I wouldn`t want to be mounted over a fireplace. I wouldn`t want to experience any of the kinds of horrors our species wantonly visites upon others. Just as I pull away and scream from the heat of a flame because of the pain, a beagle, too, screams and yelps from the pain a scientist is inflicting on it by causing it 3rd degree burns just to test some anti-bacterial drug. Might DOES not make right.

In situations that suddenly arise with a question of life and death, one can assume that one has an interest in winning out in the conflict. *But to orchestrate that conflict by visiting suffering on another is wrong.* Every part of our being screams it is wrong, that is why no one really wants to go to a slaughterhouse or look into the eyes of a lab animal. The truth is painful and therefore we seek to shield ourselves from it.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> There are practices allowable on animals that would be entirely unacceptable if used on humans. We crop ears and dock tails without Fido's consent. We spay, neuter and euthanize. We turn them into burgers, belts and coats.


Yes, and those are all practices of arrogance and the buying into the belief that "might makes right." That concept has caused untold misery on our planet for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years. Survival is one thing, exploitation and commodifying life and making death an enjoyable hobby is another -- it is wrong. 

Even though, we may speak, create symphonies and build skyscrapers, we, in fact, are still animals. It is not a question of humans doing something to animals. It is animals doing something to animals. We alone are the species that systematically regulates the murder of others for pleasure, fear, prejudices, and a host of reasons. It shows we have perverted our sense of place and abused our strengths and have wrongfully and arrogantly placed ourselves as having more universal/fundamental rights than another animal. 




> All acceptable to most americans and legal under the law. I don't see it changing any time soon.


Well, that is what The Movement is about. We have not fooled ourselves about the hard struggle that lays ahead. We are quite aware of the present situation and the future. Again, all social movements of expanding the circle of consideration and compassion have taken hundreds of years. Things have to begin somewhere.

This is the struggle that is breaking the speices barrier. It is only practical to assume it will take longer than other movements. However, it is right, and it will succeed. Of course I would like it to succeed in my lifetime, but I am sure it won`t. But, the movements that have succeeded have never let the futility of the moment hold them in a state of apathy. Would you suggest they do?

This has been the course of all social movements to win rights:

*First they laugh at you.
Then they ignore you.
Then they get angry at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.*

The Movement for Animal Rights is now in the 4th stage. I am sure it will be a long stage. But, the other three have passed by pretty quickly. The internet and technology could in fact make the movement move more quickly in the past compared to other movements.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> People won't stop eating meat, ...


We can be quite sure that by the time we die, many will still be eating meat. But, our lives are only 100 years maximum. Let`s not rule out possibilities of 300 to 400 years from now.

Here is what one of the greatest minds (with great insights and ideas of brilliance and discovery) on the topic of vegetarianism and its relativity to human survival had to say:

*"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." 
--Albert Einstein*

Great thing about "evolution" -- it is never static. That is why foresight into the future should be looked at with a very wide view and not based on the status quo of today or the prejudices one holds now. That is a hard thing to do, but it is brilliant to do so.

----------


## No-name

The "golden rule" does not extend to animals (of the non-human variety.). It is not do unto fluffy what you would have fluffy do unto you. 

And again I wouldn't want someone to flood my house with chemicals designed specifically to kill me, but to leave the furniture unaffected, but that's what we do to mice and termites. I don't want to be penned in, no matter how humanely. I don't want to be neutered, cropped, docked or shaved. I don't want specific toxins developed to end my species existence. It is what we do in our body to pathogens with antibiotics. We make a huge mistake when we anthropomorphise animals. I don't want to "break the species barrier." I regard human life more as important than any other large cute mammal, scaly reptile, pretty bird, "nuisance" insect, fish, bacterium or plant.

I don't see much of a movement. I'm not ignoring you. I'm not angry at you. I disagree with you and I see no chance of us becoming a species barrier free vegan society any time in the next millenia.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> ... lets face it, all the people on this planet won't stop eating meat, meat consumption has staggered the last couple of years here in Sweden.


 If that is the case in Sweden, then I would say that momentum is building for the vegetarian diet. Where people fall on the spectrum of their eating habbits is changing. 





> I do like to eat vegiterian alternatives, but i don't think ill ever stop eating meet entierly.


I thought the same, too. I was once, not too long ago, a very heavy meat eater and could never conceive becoming a vegetarian. People change. Well, some do. I was surprised I did. Being exposed to literature and not being afraid to examine one's life and why they believe what they do can let one come to changes more easily.

We all know the people who just don`t like debate or to change at all. Those who are least likely to listen to arguments against their views are the ones least likely to change.

----------


## No-name

Albert Einstein is a genius, but his field is theoretical physics, not anthropology or nutrition.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> We are carnivores..you know, with those little canine teeth and everything. True, today we have more options and of course living as a vegetarian is possible. I don't see a problem this, it's just how you choose to live. Most of us are fortunate enough to be able to have this choice, it's almost like a luxury.


It is almost sad, embarrassing, or laughable at best, that someone is going to point to our little nubby canines and say that these are what give us the right to inflict tryany and misery upon the other creatures of the world. That a deer has to die from gangrene in the forest because of those nubs. That a pig has to grow up, to never feel sun on its back except for the day it will be brutally slaughtered and perhaps drowned in scalding water. 

A vegetarian diet is not a luxery. It is a choice. In fact, meat is the luxery. Throughout its stage of production it has had value added to it. It is costlier for the wallet, your health, and for the environment.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I live in Wisconsin though.. and their are no natural predators around to keep the deer population in control... so deer are running out in front of cars, causing accidents, eating crops like mad. I swear, I see a dead deer on the road almost every day now..poor things. So! I am glad for hunters. 
> But OK! That's my 2 cents!..


And why are there no predators, Cheryl? That could be remedied. Being "glad" for hunters, though, does nothing to bring back the wolf -- the hunters were the ones who wiped them out in the first place.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> The "golden rule" does not extend to animals (of the non-human variety.).


And, at one time it did not extend to other humans as well. The golden rule has been consistantly expanded to include others. I know you would not like it to be, for obviously you are comfortable with the status quo of tyrany over the animals. You are benefitting from it.

But, that is what all movements are about -- changing the status quo -- upsetting the apple cart, so to speak. The Movement is doing that.

Of course, Sabro, you can deny that it is happening, but all you have to do is surf around and you will see there is a groundswell of support for serious reform in how we deal with animals. A lot of that support is for animal rights. The many animal welfare sites and orgs you see dress themselves up as Animal Welfarists, but if you were to talk to them a little, you will really see that they lean more towards Animal Rightists. They are only cloaking themselves as Animal Welfarists in order to get more of the mainstream society involved.

Animal Rights groups usually are fed membership slowly from Animal Welfarists. The trickle through the system. 

Did you know that just 2 months ago Rome past a law forbidding keeping Goldfish in bowls? Just one example of animals creeping into the legal system. It has been happening now for decades and each time more and more welfare/rights laws make their way to legislatures for votes or judges for decisions in court cases, animals are slowly but surely being recognized as "persons" with interests.

You know, Peta has only been around for about 25 years. And only since they have been around has the vegetarian movement really been organized. It wasn`t until about 10 to 15 years ago with the internet that groups have been linking up with one another all over the world. Soon, you will see people from the 80s and 90s who were raised through their formative years of visiting Peta and other animal group sites moving into positions of decision making in society. When more and more judges, politicians, professors, lawyers, etc... from this generation begin to move into those crucial positions, believe me, you will see a lot more AR legislation come cascading down. Sure, it will be a while and the animal exploitation industries will fight it (which they are trying to do so now), but it will be a real challenge to society and those people will begin demanding some drastic changes in protections for animals.

Of course, you can deny it, but the scenarios I have painted above are only a very logical outcome from a society exposed to more information about animals. The pace will quicken from what has been happening in the past.

As for you clinging to the distinction of two separate animal groups -- human and nonhuman -- well, Sabro, that is an arbitrary classification of bunching (how convenient for the exploiters) based on some sense of arrogance. The fact is, we are all animals. Don`t let that bother you too much -- for if you were in the woods for a few days, you, too would crap in the woods just like a bear would, and yours would probably not smell any better.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> And again I wouldn't want someone to flood my house with chemicals designed specifically to kill me, but to leave the furniture unaffected, but that's what we do to mice and termites. I don't want to be penned in, no matter how humanely. I don't want to be neutered, cropped, docked or shaved. I don't want specific toxins developed to end my species existence.


Well, then why are you empty of all empathy and unable to provide mercy for those who do not want the same thing to happen to them? I think not doing so is rather selfish. 

I regard a rabbit higher than a stone. I would not care if a boy walked along a street getting enjoyment from kicking a stone along the way. However, I would be appalled to see a boy doing the same thing to a rabbit. Why? I guess the boy is getting enjoyment from it. But, I would not want to be treated the same way, so I can empathise.

Now, you say the golden rule does not apply to animals. Are you saying you would just say, "tough luck, rabbit. That is how it is. You do not deserve any consideration for your life or interest in not wanting to be kicked."? The "Golden Rule" definitely does bind us to not do or approve of what this boy has done. It makes us cringe to think of it or even worse to observe it. It touches something deep down in us.

Again, that is why people don`t go to slaughterhouses for entertainment or take their kids there. That is why hunting shows can`t survive on tv. Because when the masses see that kind of stuff, they sense that a "Golden Rule" is in fact being violated and therefore do not want to be a part of it. Now, if it is thrown in front of their face, such as on tv, with a hunting program, you can bet network executives are bombarded with action to remove it. In fact, sponsors won`t even touch it. That is why those shows don`t come on -- it enrages us to feel that "The Golden Rule" is being violated.

So, as much as you want to continue denying that this rule does have animals within its borders, reality shows us that it does. It is just a matter of gettng the rights codified to protect the interests of animals. Observations of universal truths and recognizing always lag behind the laws of countries.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> We make a huge mistake when we anthropomorphise animals. I don't want to "break the species barrier." I regard human life more as important than any other large cute mammal, scaly reptile, pretty bird, "nuisance" insect, fish, bacterium or plant.


No, we make a huge mistake when we ignore the base wants, desires, and emotions that we share with animals. It breeds disrespect for life and that bleeds over into human on human violence and exploitation. 

We are not above animals. We are only different from them in some aspects of our biology and abilities. But those are only values which we have ascribed to what is important to us. The world was not made for us. It was made for all the creatures.

Why would you categorically regard a species that wars with each other and commits heinous crimes for pleasure more important than a species that does not do those things? Is it merely because you are a member of that species? Do your values rest on your membership to a fraternity of some sorts?

As for a nuisance, I would say that our hunters, trappers, land developers, and animal experimentors are more of a nuisance to the animals as we invade their homes, than they are to us.

Don`t worry, Sabro, breaking the "species barrier" will not fall to your responsibility. Others will do that. And when they do, those around at that time who think like you do now, will be dragged along screaming and kicking just like ol' Jim Crowe in the south was. But, he was swept away in the dustbin of history.

You can already see the screaming as large animal exploitation industries are fighting the assaults on them. Funny how they ignored the demands on them when The Movement first got underway. Now, they are taking it seriously. I geuss if the possibility of revolutionary change were just a pipedream, they wouldn`t be investing millions of dollars in fighting it, trying to stem its growth.

But what is great about them spending all that money, it forces consumer prices of things they produce, like meat, to go up and therefore gives thought to others to consider foregoing meat on a particular night. Oh, it is a complex war of subtleties, words, economics, and direct action campaigns. But, the impact has been felt and is being felt and will continue to be felt.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I don't see much of a movement.


Well, I would suggest you consider the membership of Peta alone. They have 850,000 members. There are many other orgs as well. Add their numbers up and believe me, The Movement which you see to not be very aware of, is quite real, alive, and active.

Animal exploitative industries are quite aware. I guess they are lucky they don`t have you as their CEO manning the helm of their ship, huh? Or they would not be understanding what was causing a drop in profit. But, then if you were their CEO, they would save the millions of dollars they spend on security (which would make it easier for more direct action activities) and lobbying against Animal Rights groups.





> I'm not ignoring you. I'm not angry at you. I disagree with you and I see no chance of us becoming a species barrier free vegan society any time in the next millenia.


Yes, we disagree. 

In the quote you are referring to about "ignoring, angry, etc," that wasn`t really directed at you in reference to me -- it was a view of the status quo and Establishment that throughout history has resisted social restructuring and change.

YOu know, though, for as long as the humane race will stay unenlightened (whatever that means), I, too, think there will always be some sort of exploitation perpetrated on to animals. After all, we now recognize universal human rights but still humans are exploited throughout the world -- so, it doesn`t seem that we should expect more in regards to animals. What is important though is that those rights are recognized and codified.

You want to dismiss that future with a "millenia" comment based on what you see. The pace of the movement and legislation being enacted around the world makes me think that is rather extreme. I would say less than half that. You won`t. Like you said, we disagree.

However, I will definitely witness in my lifetime the creep of animals into the legal system that protects them and offers stronger and stronger rules and laws for the enforecement of their welfare. That is a fact and it is already happening. The winning of animal liberation and their rights will not happen without these little victories building the foundation for their future.

I also know that those colonizing America 400 years ago would have never conceived that descendents of those they were bringing over from Africa, whipping and beating them, would ever rise to the status of such a thing as a Secretary of State. That probably was far more impossible for them to imagine in thier times, than it is in our times for us to imagine the winning of Animal Rights.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Albert Einstein is a genius, but his field is theoretical physics, not anthropology or nutrition.





One need not be an expert in a field to ALWAYS have an enlightened thought on a topic in that field. Albert Einstein was a genius as you have stated. 

Whether or not his field was anthropology or nutrition is not so important in this case. Some mathematical calculations of his, noting population growth, considering value added from grain to meat, land and other recourses needed, could have easily lead him to see that harvesting meat by investing in its production was not an efficient means of sustainment. I am sure he applied mathematics to many areas of his life and would suggest his genius bled over into other areas of his life that were topics of personal interest to him.

Here is what a lawyer and one of the great leaders/humanitarian of the world said on animal rights:

*I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being. -- Abraham Lincoln*

----------


## No-name

The golden rule has always applied to all humans- whether you followed it or not. It has never attached itself to animals- that's what my reality showed. If it did, I could never drive a car. I've seen far too much insect carnage.

As far as animal rightist being out of the mainstream, that should be rather apparent to you. Not only are they out of the mainstream, they are not significantly close. Check the number of major chains that have stopped selling meat, discount stores that don't sell leather goods or the number of TV stations that won't take advertisment from companies that use animal products or the number of states that have outlawed hunting. (Not even Rhode Island...where would you hunt in RI?)

People don't go to slaughterhouses for entertainment, but they don't go to toothpaste factories either. Aside from being bloody and disgusting, they don't seem entertaining. There are plenty of other industries that are boring too. When is the last time you went to see carrots packaged or water treatment plants.

When I was young, there was a slaughterhouse on Valley Blvd. in El Sereno that kept exotic animals in pens out front. The place smelled horrible, but my mom went there for the cuts of meat no one else wanted and I liked the giraffe and zebra.

Now there is a off the track channel I have on my satellite system- OLN the adventure channel that has non stop fishing, hunting, trapping...you can learn about the latest shotgun or how to clean a rabbit... not my cup of tea... but there it is. It's been there for years and someone must watch it. It doesn't enrage me, it just doesn't interest me.

I live in the woods. I don't need two days to crap out there, I'd do it without much prompting... but it is the middle of winter now and quite cold.

Your theoretical rabbit being kicked down the street is already dead. Real rabbits don't stay still that long. I used to have a rabbit named PJ. He was a good rabbit that was never kicked or cooked. I burried him in the woods, but it was winter and I didn't go deep enough through the snow and frozen ground and sometime before spring the coyotes dug him up and took him away.

I love animals and don't believe they should be mistreated, that when killed for food it should be done respectfully, humanely and with a minimum of suffering, and they should never be wasted. I used to give to the WWF, but they sent me a brochure to send extra money to stop the killings of dogs in Korea and other Asian countries. I believe in protecting endagered species, not in advancing my countries culinary prejudices. Dogs are not endangered.

----------


## No-name

If your Lincoln quote comes from this web site, it is acknowledged that it is likely a fraud. Read the disclaimer: http://www.all-creatures.org/quotes/...n_abraham.html

Ed. Note: There is considerable doubt that these quotes can be attributed to President Abraham Lincoln. The only references seem to be third party ones with unverifiable original references. We, and others, have found no such quote references in any of Lincoln's writings or in authoritative works on Lincoln. We have included these quotes on this site only because of their wide spread use.

----------


## No-name

Abraham Lincoln was an accomplished woodsman and an avid hunter. Even in the white house, he would occasionaly clean and cook game for visitors. His favorite meal was fricaseed chicken and white almond cake.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> The golden rule has always applied to all humans- whether you followed it or not. It has never attached itself to animals- that's what my reality showed. If it did, I could never drive a car. I've seen far too much insect carnage.



That is what the movement is about, Sabro -- extending the circle of compassion. What has always been is no indicator of what will be.

Your car analogy has been handled already, albeit in another form. It is wrong to systematically destroy life for exploitation. Death that is a result of some actions such as walking, or driving, whose goal is not to kill, is death that is resultant of benign acts without thought for exploitation.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> As far as animal rightist being out of the mainstream, that should be rather apparent to you. Not only are they out of the mainstream, they are not significantly close. Check the number of major chains that have stopped selling meat, discount stores that don't sell leather goods or the number of TV stations that won't take advertisment from companies that use animal products or the number of states that have outlawed hunting. (Not even Rhode Island...where would you hunt in RI?)



Yes, Animal Rightists are not the majority at the moment. I`m not going to argue that. But, their numbers are growing and to say that their minority status is enough to dismiss them, well...you may want to look into their successes and see some of the people or business which have bent because of their pressure.

The Abolitionists were not in the majority neither at one time. Neither were the colonists calling for independence. There is no stygma for being a minority calling for social change. 

You may want to look into some of the clothing stores that have stopped selling fur, or the fur farms which have been closed, or the testing labs that have been devastated. 

Like I said, The Movement is far from victory, but the seeds have been planted and are growing. You seem to be wanting to deny the movment just because it hasn`t succceeded yet. It is still in its formative stages. And, when those young people who have had access to a large amount of animal rights info start coming onto the scene as decision makers, there will be more drastic changes. Time is on our side in the long run. I concede you have the present and the near future. But after that.... ???

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> People don't go to slaughterhouses for entertainment, but they don't go to toothpaste factories either. Aside from being bloody and disgusting, they don't seem entertaining. There are plenty of other industries that are boring too. When is the last time you went to see carrots packaged or water treatment plants.


Yes, but if I were to suggest to a date we go to a toothpaste factory to see how it is made or a carrot packaging company to see how they are boxed, she would probably think I have some rather boring sense of entertainment value but may very well indulge it -- but if I were to suggest we go see cows in the stick pit, she would probably assume I am a psycho. It would assault her sensibilities on what is acceptable to see. That "it" is the violence and invasion of autonomy that we have a natural desire to not want to view or be a part of if in fact our survival is not dependent on it at that moment.

----------


## No-name

If driving my car meant that as a matter of course, I slaughtered a human a day, or on occasions a hundred humans in a mile, driving would not be a benign act act, it would be unacceptable.

Abraham Lincoln has one published poem called "The Bear Hunt" that you can find online. The Einstein quote is also suspect. (He was not a great mathematician.)

Leonardo Da Vinci has several records of hunts as a young man and as an older man and a few paintings and drawings of hunts. Although he was not an avid hunter, he did have a country estate for that sole purpose.

Like most people I know I still value people highly and animals just a bit less. Certain animals less than others. Again, this erasing of the species barrier- does it extend to problematic rodentia, slimy things, spiders and insects? If so, than hunters kill far fewer individuals on an objective scale than the average farmer.

I am also doubtful of claims that corporate America losing profits. Last time a checked there were fat food restaurants on every corner. WalMarts were forcing little mom and pop store into bankrupcy, Target had fur lined jackets on sale...and the NRA had four times the membership of PETA.

----------


## No-name

> Yes, but if I were to suggest to a date we go to a toothpaste factory to see how it is made or a carrot packaging company to see how they are boxed, she would probably think I have some rather boring sense of entertainment value but may very well indulge it ...


 Who are you dating? Most girls I know would think you were a nut. What if you asked her to a barbeque or to a weekend at a dude ranch? Out of the millions of wacked hunters out there, there are women... who would go hunting...and some of those would consider that a fine date.

----------


## No-name

According to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, America's 14 million hunters spend $22.1 billion each year for guns, ammunition, clothing, travel, and other related expenses.

----------


## Carlson

> What person can say hunting is a sport? It is a viscious game of murder where animals do not have much of a chance.
> 
> There is no need for hunting for food anymore (except in some very remote regions of the world) and therefore it should cease to exist as an activity sanctioned by the government or even be permitted on private game reserves.
> 
> Culling to control populations also is a ridiculous argument. But, I am more than happy to entertain that discussion with debate for those who think hunting is needed for that, or any other reason.



WOW im not even going to aruge against him... just ignorance is bliss

----------


## No-name

Carlson- I wish you would enlighten us. I'm out of ideas...

Hunting is on the decline- by about 7% every decade. Fishing still remains popular, but is also on the decline. (That's just the US. I don't know what the rest of the world is doing.)

And vegetarianism and veganism is on the rise- although the numbers are quite small.

So maybe by the time Captiain Kirk is in grade school, strongvoicesforward will be right.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Sorry if I repeat anything - there have been so many responses in a short time I don't have time to read them all!

I think hunting as sport is wrong, and I'm very glad fox hunting has recently been banned in the UK. Angling is a very popular hobby here, and I think that is cruel too. Many people I know excuse themselves by saying they put the fish back, but in my mind that is worse - I don't see it as bad if you are fishing to feed yourself, but tearing that poor animal out of the water, half-suffocating it, only to put it back seems very cruel to me.

But when hunting is someone's livelihood and is tied up in the ecology of an area, I don't think it is that simple. Compare it to fox hunting, which (despite what the countryside lobby say) was just a sport, and I don't think they are the same thing at all. Providing the kill is as humane as possible, I think hunting is preferable to factory farming, as at least a wild animal has a natural life for as long as it lasts.

Of course in my ideal world everyone would love animals as much as me, and wouldn't want to kill and eat them. But none of us lives in an ideal world, and I think we have to be realistic about what can be achieved. In this country campaigners expended their energies on something achievable, and got great results with the banning of fox hunting and cosmetic vivisection. That's better than being idealistic and trying to campaign for something that's not going to happen, IMO.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> The golden rule has always applied to all human...



Again, not so. Many of mothers or fathers have admonished a child being overtly cruel to an insect or small animal by saying, "Don`t do that. Now, how would you like it if someone did that to you?"

I remember I was so admonished. And I have heard similar stories from others. There is that base feeling in us that this rule is universal and many of parents do impart that to us.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Now there is a off the track channel I have on my satellite system- OLN the adventure channel that has non stop fishing, hunting, trapping...you can learn about the latest shotgun or how to clean a rabbit... not my cup of tea... but there it is.



Yes, "off the track," right? Of course it is. Sabro, you seem to be giving so much significance to being not 
"mainstream" that you should now apply your dismissing this since by your own admission it, too, is not mainstream.

There is a reason for this show being in this little corner of the sattlelite network. It would never be accepted by the masses. That is what I have already told you. Don`t know why you brought it up. Doing so only underlines what I had said before.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Your theoretical rabbit being kicked down the street is already dead. Real rabbits don't stay still that long.


It sure would make it easier for you if it were, so that you could dismiss the construct. Sorry for you, though, the construct is quite alive and you have not dealt with it.

An injured rabbit could stay still and the intensity of the kicks could mean that a final blow would not be on the first two or three kicks. 

Sabro, come on -- don`t get lazy. Address the construct.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

As for the Lincoln quote, I concede that it could be wrong. That doesn`t bother me. I am quite fine with jettisoning it. The argument for AR doesn`t rest on that one or any other one quote.

However, there are many quotes from famous people that do speak of rights, welfare, compassion, and kindness to animals that are against the exploitation of them.

It is true, though, that what some people may have said on the topic, may in fact conflict with what they did in their lives. At best they have stated something they had insight into or came to believe. At worst, they can be called hypocrites. Being a hypocrite, while not the best choice, still, however, does not negate the truthfullness or value of what one says.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> If driving my car meant that as a matter of course, I slaughtered a human a day, or on occasions a hundred humans in a mile, driving would not be a benign act act, it would be unacceptable.


Sabro, I know you would like to pervert the analogy into a hyperbolic state so that you can dismiss it, but the fact is you can`t. If driving your car resulted in you hitting such large objects as humans, then you would be careless, not just merely unable to see them like the hundreds of small bugs that jump up from the road side. You are taking a turn into hyberbole and that does not serve your counter argument.

You are not understanding a key part of the principle of "The equal consideration of interests." It does not mean a Utopian world where no violence takes place. It implies there is no systematic purposeful targeting of a being which results in causing it to suffer for one`s benefit (i.e. exploitation at its expense for our profit/benefit).

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Like most people I know I still value people highly and animals just a bit less. Certain animals less than others.


I won`t argue with that. I am not arguing the "value" of animals. I am arguing that animals have interests and that those interests are and can fall under universal rights that we can extend to them by codifying them. Those rights exist and they merely need to be recognized/discovered. The right to liberty and freedom was a concept that took time to discover and recognize. Just because they have not been done so for animals as of yet, in regards to our relation with them, does not mean that they will not be so in the future.

I do believe all humans have the same basic universal egalitarian rights. However, I do value my wife more than yours. That, though, in no way means your wife`s rights are any less than my wife`s rights. Why would you think they are? and why are you talking about valueing something? Respective values do not cancel rights. If that logic prevailed then someone could justify in harvesting organs from someone they value less so that the person they do value could benefit from an organ transplant.

Valuing something is different from recognizing something has rights. You are confusing the two or arguing something I am not.




> Again, this erasing of the species barrier- does it extend to problematic rodentia, slimy things, spiders and insects? If so, than hunters kill far fewer individuals on an objective scale than the average farmer.


I extend consideration to all animals with a vertibrate and central nervous systems. As for insects, personally, I give them the benefit of the doubt and choose to not target them for deliberate death. However, this is a controversial area in the realm of AR. Most probably, that will get resolved or addressed more fully once the the other animals gain rights.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I am also doubtful of claims that corporate America losing profits. Last time a checked there were fat food restaurants on every corner. WalMarts were forcing little mom and pop store into bankrupcy, Target had fur lined jackets on sale...and the NRA had four times the membership of PETA.


Sabro, did I say corporate America was "in the red?" I don`t think I did. If I did, please point it out to me and I will correct myself. What I think I said was that the AR movement is costing them some profit, therefore they are losing what they could be obtaining if they did not have to spend those sums lobbying against or creating programs or upgrading to advanced security systems to protect or fight against activists. In other words, the activists are preventing a maximization of profits. Of course the corporations pass that along to consumers in higher prices. But, also, corporations also have to pay higher insurance fees to protect against direct action.

Oh, I am sure Target gets some fur in their stores from time to time. And I am sure that if they kept it in constant stock they would be targeted and change. They are just too large to not be sensitive to a campaign that Peta could bring to bear on them. JCrew just relented to Peta after a 10 week campaign. No more fur for JCrew. Campaigners can`t be every where at once. For all I know, Target could be next in line.

I am not too sure about believing NRA`s numbers. Are they a non-profit org? If so, I may be more inclined to believe their numbers because of reporting rules to keep their status. However, I am reluctant to believe an industry whose profit relies on instruments that are designed for killing and often put to use to do so.

----------


## UFSI

Seems those who deny and alter reality can fix all the worlds ills?

 :Okashii:

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Who are you dating?


Surely no red-neck Tonya Harding type that would throw a hubcap at me.




> Most girls I know would think you were a nut.


lol! Well, I guess I will just have to reply to you with like kind. 

There is no way to verify personal assertions about our real lives when it comes to insults, so if you don`t mind, I would rather we stick to the issues.




> What if you asked her to a barbeque or to a weekend at a dude ranch? Out of the millions of wacked hunters out there, there are women... who would go hunting...and some of those would consider that a fine date.


Yes, I am sure many would enjoy a barbeque or dude ranch. My social circle is not mainly vegetarian or AR. However, of my circle, I am pretty sure not one would look at hunting as a "fine" date.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> WOW im not even going to aruge against him... just ignorance is bliss


Carlson, I would say your silence on the topic is bliss -- or perhaps your silence on the issue indicates you are bankrupt on the issue and arguments that could benefit any who may be undecided about hunting and looking in on the debate.

You offering nothing to the discussion, however, does nothing for what you believe. You isolate yourself in retreat by declaring another ignorant. Well, I geuss you showed me with your wit and repoitore, didn`t you?

We should all be so verbose as you. A lot of people would be moved by those like you, huh?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

Hi Tsyoiko,

Glad to see you share many of the same feelings of kindness and beliefs about animals as I do. I am sure we have some differences, but I, too, see fishing as a cruel sport.




> I think we have to be realistic about what can be achieved. In this country campaigners expended their energies on something achievable, and got great results with the banning of fox hunting and cosmetic vivisection. That's better than being idealistic and trying to campaign for something that's not going to happen, IMO.


Tsuyoiko, you have to remember when the campaigns agains fox hunting and vivisections were begun, victories in those campaigns was not viewed by the general public as being something that could be accomplished. It took long term dogged determination to get that victory and as for fox hunting it went against a very long tradition. Of course you know this. Saying that was not idealistic now is doing so with the benefit of hindsite.

It was only because the Hunt Saboteurers took direct action that the issues began to garner much attention and then the general public got involved.

Sabing now, thanks to the model in England, is just starting to get underway in the U.S. Good on the English for leading the way in providing a model of success that got results. Direct Action has been a great present from England.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Seems those who deny and alter reality can fix all the worlds ills?


huh?
UFSI, you aren`t a one liner warrior, are you? 

Now, tell me how what you have said adds to the discussion? Why not let the discussion move foreward unobstructed rather than giving into temptation with a trite one liner? Show some self discipline if you don`t really have anything to add on the topic.

You are more than welcome to join in, but if you can`t put a paragraph together, please stay on the sides and just observe.

----------


## No-name

The "most girls would think you are a nut" comment was in response to inviting them to a toothpaste factory on a date. Don't read anything into it- dinner and a movie or disneyland would be much better.

A brain and a central nervous system are good indicators for a sliding scale of "rights" and "liberties"... if I read you right. Insects fall into a lower category because they have a more rudimentary nervous system. That would make sense.

I don't doubt that there are 14 to 15 million hunters in the United States. That doesn't count the 40 to 60 million fishermen. Hunters kill roughly 100 million large game animals per year- that are regulated. (Those numbers I quoted weren't from the NRA, they were from the the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.) The NRA currently has about 4.3 million members. 60-65 million Americans own a total of over 200 million firearms. If you call them sick and depraved and denegrate their sport, you are less likely to convince them that it is wrong. 

By contrast according to Vegetarian Times there are roughly 12 million vegetarians in the US. At a growth rate of one million per year. That means there are about 300 million carnivores.

PETA, who has contribute to more extreme groups like ALF and ELF, remains a fringe group with far less pull than even the AARP. As long as they condone or participate in such acts as burning SUV's and Ski resorts, throwing fake blood on women wearing furs, cutting the brake lines of seafood delivery trucks, "liberating" animals that are being used for AIDS and cancer research and smokebombing swank restaurants- they will remain a fringe group.

----------


## No-name

Did You Know?
From July 1998 through the end of 2004, PETA killed over 12,400 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I don't doubt that there are 14 to 15 million hunters in the United States. That doesn't count the 40 to 60 million fishermen. Hunters kill roughly 100 million large game animals per year- that are regulated.



I doubt that hunting numbers are that large. Is the NRA a non-profit org? I don`t think they are. I may be wrong though. It is to their benefit to inflate their numbers to give them an appearance of acceptance in society. If they were a non-profit org with annaul audits of them to make sure they can keep their tax exempt status, then I may be more prone to believe those numbers. 

Now, I am not denying they have a larger membership than Peta. I am sure they do. I just don`t think it is as large as they have put forth. And, I doubt that NRA and other gun clubs added together are much larger than all the animal welfare/rights groups added together. NRA`s strength is not only their numbers, but all so the industry that is their foundation. That translates into a lot of lobbying power. AR/AW groups just do not have the monetary power of industry supporting them.

I also don`t doubt the numbers of animals killled. But, I would guess those are estimated recorded kills from tags and so forth. I would say the numbers killed are larger. Does that study take into account how many get away from a hunter with an injury?





> (Those numbers I quoted weren't from the NRA, they were from the the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.) The NRA currently has about 4.3 million members. 60-65 million Americans own a total of over 200 million firearms.



Is the IAFWA a pro-hunting agency? Is their agency receiving funds directly or indirectly from hunters? Do you have an independent report of numbers?





> If you call them sick and depraved and denegrate their sport, you are less likely to convince them that it is wrong.


Although it is not impossible, most hunters are not going to be swayed by arguments that their sport is wrong -- except for when a species is facing extinction, they will not say that hunting an animal is wrong. Yes, there have been some conversions of hunters against killing, but those are usually from personal epiphanies, not from listening in on a debate.

When I debate, I am focused on those who have not made up their mind on the issue yet. Nazism needed denegrating, and if in its early stages when people still had the freedom to criticize them, had a large group of people done so, a lot may have played out differently for millions of people caught up in its "sick" and "depraved" system of killing.

Some subscribe to a soft approach in persuading. That is fine for people who want to play the "good cop." A "bad cop" would drive people to them. It is just strategy. Both are important. Martin Luther King said that his group of non-violence was only effective because the dark shadow of the Black Panthers were standing behind him.

Personally, I feel an argument should come crashing down like an ax. It most surely will offend those benefitting and profiting with the status quo. But those who are not satisfied with the status quo, impatient for change, will be galvanized by such arguments.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> By contrast according to Vegetarian Times there are roughly 12 million vegetarians in the US. At a growth rate of one million per year. That means there are about 300 million carnivores.


I`ve heard that number before. I`ve seen different numbers as well. I am not going to argue over totals. The important thing is that the numbers are growing in percentage. That will only increase as communication gets better and better.

You know, the internet has done an awful lot in getting large amounts of info to people on animals, AR/AW issues. Flash animations created by average people, more and more documentaries, more publishing etc... has also had a great impact in making awareness and getting people against cruelty to animals and actually doing something about it -- not just feeling sorry for animals.

Look at entertainment and computers. What do you think the impact will be when if ever people are actually able to enter into some sort of 3 dimensional entertainment system with sensory perception to the image and story and be able to choose to be any character? If that technology ever developes, you can be sure Jewish groups will create a virtual Holocaust Concentration camp so that empathy for the Jewish experience could be maximized. And, you can be sure an AR group will create a slaughterhouse, hunting, and animal experimentation construct to enter into. If people can choose to experience what other people or animals experience by visiting their world through entertainment from their perspective, believe me, there will be many impressed people who will convert much more quickly and at larger rates than they have now.

Of course, this kind of entertainment may never appear, but it doesn`t seem too far fetched. If it does, then vegetarianism and AR activities will increase tenfold, if it doesn`t then, we will just slug our ways through as we have been doing. One is shorter, one is longer. Either way, AR will eventually win on many fronts for animals.

----------


## No-name

And my motivation for going to either the VR concentration camp or slaughter house would be...? I don't think it would make good entertainment.

The IAFWA is an animal rights/ anti hunting group.

----------


## No-name

I don't hunt and all your arguments have done is to persuade me that I should go hunting before I criticize it. I find fault in the foundation of your argument- that animals and people should have the same basic rights and that we should break down "the species barrier." I would be much more apt to support a hunting ban on logical and scientific reasons than what amounts to me to anthropomorphising and projecting humanity onto animals.

(Signature back...italics back...go figure.)

----------


## strongvoicesforward

Sabro, Peta is the largest AR org in the world. They enjoy large direct formal support. They have 850,000 paying members. Many more, not formal paying members, also assist them. Even more are sympathetic and informally support them through just their personal opinion of what they do to help animals. 

ALF and ELF are separate from them. Yes, there have been some links in the past with them, and believe me, the FBI has combed through those links to see if their tax exempt status should be rescinded because of those links. In every case Peta has been cleared. They continue to grow.

Yes, fringe groups within groups exist. No large org can keep control of everybody. I don`t condemn Christianity because fringe groups within it assasinate doctors at abortion clinics.

Sabro, I don`t mind either of us touching on other subjects within this subject of "hunting," but I would prefer that the whole topic isn't pulled away into a debate on PETA. And you seem to be wanting to paint ALF's and ELF's actions onto PETA. This will blow up into a whole different debate then.

As for your other comment about PETA killing approx 12,000 animals etc...

That is a story I am well aware of and have commented on ad nausium. 

Quickly: Peta admitted some wrongs in a specific case which brought this info to light. Peta has never said they are a "no-kill" org in respects to abandoned pets. This story attacking Peta is orchestrated by the CCF (Center for Consumer Freedom), which is a front group for industry interests in ranching, fast food, tobacco, Alchohol, NRA, animal testing facilities, etc... -- all foes of Peta which only banded together because they finally woke up and admitted to the threat they were beginning to realize existed from the AR people. The CCF is even against Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD). I think they were also against the Brady Bill and many other acts that are meant to protect the consumer. Probably against labeling on cigerrette packs. 

I do know that the 7 Dwarfs tobacco execs, in the 90s perjured themselves in front of congress when they raised their hands in unison and testified that they didn`t think smoking caused health risks. Yes, that was funny! wasn`t it? Thus, the media and late night commedians dubbed them the "7 Dwarfs." 

Now, if you want to keep surfing sites that quote them or use them as a source, then please do so, but those are the people who have done the most in hurting the public`s health with their products. I don`t think even ALF has killed one person yet in their almost 20 years of existence, have they? -- let alone PETA. But, those products from the CCF have.

The CCF won`t even open up all their research records on their products so that we consumers can exercise our "freedom" of choice to purchase a product on knowledge gained from their research. I guess "freedom" in their name is just a word -- not really something they want you to believe they support.

As for the 12,000 cats and dogs PETA put to sleep during those years, that is a mole hill standing next to 10 Mt. Everests stacked on top of one another in comparison to what the CCF kills for profit. That number came to light when PETA was attacked after having been invited by a county sherrif to help PTS some animals that he saw were being killed in shelters via crude gas boxes and being shot by bullets.

Peta never said they were perfect. Mistakes are made. I don`t hold any org up to perfection -- a standard none of us can attain. But, I do know that when they put an animal out of its misery, they have not commodified that life and profited from it. When a lab forces monkeys to smoke until their lungs are black and then vivisect it, or when a slaughterhouse drowns a pig by scalding water, too concerned with line speeds for profits and not want to put the pig to death before the vat of hot water fills its lungs, -- well, I, and we, if honest guides our thoughts, can clearly say the CCF industries are the monsters that make blood money for their bank accounts -- not Peta.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> And my motivation for going to either the VR concentration camp or slaughter house would be...? I don't think it would make good entertainment.


Oh, perhaps you may have no motivation to do so. Many would do so out of curiosity. Many may do so just because a friend or acquaintance asked them to. I usually read for entertainment, but I also read to satisfy curiosity or to read something an friend has asked me to read so that we could discuss it. There are many reasons for going to such a place and many people would have different motivations. I, particularly do not have any motivation to go see a slasher film, but many do. I am sure many would go see these if they were to come available.

The IAFWA is an animal rights/ anti hunting group.[/QUOTE]

lol. Fine. That makes me more prone to believeing their numbers.

----------


## No-name

I have often visited the Japanese American Heritage Museum in Los Angeles and I usually stop by the Manzanar center when I drive 395. I also want to visit the museum of tolerance in Los Angeles. I don't watch slasher films. I will leave PETA alone for the moment. Our Humane society up in the mountain does not euthanize unless the animal is sick or injured beyond hope. This creates a problem since city folks for some reason like to abandon pets up here. (Go figure.) So it takes us time to find homes for all of them. (I have ended up with four cats already.)

This is from US fish and Wildlife http://www.fws.gov/hunting/huntstat.html
Heres the Iafwa website: http://www.iafwa.org/

The only other thing I could add or ask is what do you think about the hunting of feral animals that threaten other native species and habitats such as cats and pigs in the Galapagos islands and goats at Santa Cruz Island?

----------


## No-name

Did I quote the CCF website?

----------


## Mycernius

You really see the whole hunting/animal rights in pure black and white don't you strongvoicesforward. There are no grey areas for you, unfortunately the issues of hunting does have some very grey areas.



> Starvation is the result of the problems brought about by hunters who have destroyed the natural predators. Starvation in and of itself is not so bad for creating healthy numbers for what a land area can support. A population crash would allow for the species to come into balance with the fauna. Animals also have a self regulatory mechanism of fetal abortion and uterus absorption when food is not enough to support them in.


I agree that the actions of the past have created areas where there are no predators to take care of the natural population of animals such as deer. What you seem to advocate by your crash principle is to have the animals suffer starvation and death by letting their number reach unsustainable numbers. Animals will have self abortions and uterus absorbtion, but only after the population has achieved stravation numbers. So you advocate a painful death by starvation and the local ecology damaged by overeating, taking years to regain its healthy balance. Dead animals everywhere that can cause disease within their own species is good? Maybe even driving the population towards virtual extinction? Hunting might be bad, but the ecology is mantained and regulated by man taking place of the predators that would have regulated the populations of deer and elk. We have created this problem and we must take responsiblity for it. This means trapping and killing animals to maintain the balance.



> That is one of the reasons why these businesses and agencies don`t really want to see an introduction of predators to do the job they want to keep on doing. I mean, if wolves controlled the deer, the hunters would have no reason to kill deer. Well, they would, but then they would have to admit their main reason is that they just enjoy killing things. But, that would unmask them. With the predators gone, they can smugly assert they are loving nature by helping nature by killing off parts of her. It is an absurd lie.


One reason that some areas do not want to see the reintroduction of wolves and other predators is the damaged the can do to livestock. In your wonderful black and white world wolves would eat the deer and man would live in peace with the wolf. The problem is a wolf is not going to go to all the trouble of tracking down a deer when man convienently puts sheep and cattle in big field where they cannot escape from the predators. Predators, like man, prefer easy prey. Foxes in chicken coups come to mind. The fox is just doing what it does, but the chicken farmer has lost his livelyhood. Prevention of this costs a lot. The dingo fence in Australia is an example of the expense that man will go to to stop the predators from damaging his livestock. In remote areas the reintroduction is sound, but near man it isn't. Farmers will always hate predators.
There is another good argument for hunting in regards to pest species. In the UK we have a problem with grey squirrels. They are not a native species and are major reason for the decline of our native red squirrel. The same has happened in Australia with rabbits and wild pigs. Hoofed animals are not native to Australia and cause no end of environmental damged. The only way to control these pest species is by hunting trapping and killing them, as there are no natural predators in their new environment. Or would you rather let them destroy the native fauna and flora? We are cruel, yes, but nature is worse.



> Originally Posted by sabro
> Human life is more valuable than animal life.
> 
> 
> Oh, this old argument being brought out and shakened off -- ad nausium.


It might be an old argument, but animal right activists seem to think that animals lives are more important that peoples. Bombing people is illegal, threatening people is illegal. If they want to make peole support them than they should stick to within the law. 



> *Extremists threaten care scheme* 
> Firms linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences have been targeted 
> A child care voucher scheme for employees of an animal testing laboratory has been withdrawn after threats by animal rights extremists. 
> Leapfrog Day Nurseries have confirmed their directors received a threatening letter because they run a child care scheme for Huntingdon Life Sciences. 
> The firm said threats are unacceptable but the care of children and their staff was of paramount concern. 
> The company has now withdrawn the scheme for Huntingdon Life Sciences.





> *BRITISH UNION FOR THE ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION*
> We welcome the fact that Newchurch Guinea Pig Farm is to close but this is no "victory for animal rights", as the closure seems to have been mainly due to the violent actions and harassment done by a minority rather than a realisation that animal experiments should stop. 
> The farm's owners announced the closure on Tuesday 
> In this case, there has been no fundamental shift in attitude and so guinea pigs and other animals will continue to be bred for the unethical and unscientific vivisection industry and continue to suffer in the hands of other suppliers. 
> We would prefer if the government reviewed its attitude of blind support to animal experiments and for the media to stop confusing a few violent people with the peaceful millions who reject all violence - and therefore oppose all animal experiments. 
> BUAV is opposed to violence of any kind, whether that be the violence of vivisection itself or the harassment and intimidation that some people use as a means of protest. 
> We hope to see all the farms breeding animals for experiments closing down for good, and will continue to campaign in a peaceful way, as we've always done, until this goal is achieved.


There are plenty of articles like this. Threatening people and putting them in fear of their lives does not work for them. There article above says it all. Which are you, peaceful or violent?
As for PETA. They rate the same as a dangerous religious cult in their actions IMHO. Releasing cows into the wild. Stupid idea. modern cows need man to look after them. We have bred them into milk machines. They need milking at a regular interval because if they weren't they would die. Releasing cows into the wild just ensured that the animals would die in pain as they no longer have a natural way of getting rid of the overproduction of milk. Animal rights released mink from fur farms into the UK countryside. No consideration for the fact that it is not a native animal to the UK and can cause destruction to the countryside and wild animals. Instead of trying to get the farm to shut down they have caused more suffering for animals than the hunters and farmers could ever have done via their own inconsiderate actions. Black and white thinking leads to such simple ideas, but these actions actually lead to more death and destruction than what they are trying to prevent. A more thoughtful action is needed and pros and cons weighed up. Unfortunately this seem to be too complex, not just for animal rights, but also for hunters. Balance is the key.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> ... I should go hunting before I criticize it.


That does not hold the ring of logic to it.

Here: 
*I should take cocaine before I criticize it. 
I should try drinking and driving before I criticize it.
I should try exploitning vulnerable people like women, children, and old people before I critcize it.*

Logic exists for a reason. Applying it arbitrarily in large scale sweeping manners has lead to horrible events in the world.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I find fault in the foundation of your argument- that animals and people should have the same basic rights and that we should break down "the species barrier."


Sabro, I asked you what you base the "right" you think we have to visit misery upon an animal when it is not necessary. I don`t think you have told me what you get your belief/justification from. Is it "might makes right?" or is it something else? What is it?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Our Humane society up in the mountain does not euthanize unless the animal is sick or injured beyond hope. This creates a problem since city folks for some reason like to abandon pets up here. (Go figure.) So it takes us time to find homes for all of them. (I have ended up with four cats already.)


I, too, wish most places could be non-kill shelters. That is great that the one near yours is. I hope that they aren`t in a situation where they have to refuse animals.

Glad to hear you have opened your home to helping those unfortunate ones in need of a home. -- Good on you. :)

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> The only other thing I could add or ask is what do you think about the hunting of feral animals that threaten other native species and habitats such as cats and pigs in the Galapagos islands and goats at Santa Cruz Island?



First, I will ask: What caused those animals to be in an environment they are not native to?

If humans are responsible for them being there, then humans should take responsibility to pay the costs of fixing it. That would mean paying the large sums it would take to trap those animals alive and then relocate them.

I don`t think an animal should pay with its blood for a mistake by us, and therefore we should "put back right" what we have "made wrong." Isn`t that what we try to teach our children? I don`t think we should be inconsistant with our actions when our rhettoric tells us something else.

Now, if those invasive species seem to be reaching a point of stability in those eco-systems, which some do after many years, then we should have to decide if just leaving the new balance is the better choice.

However, we don`t need to kill them. We just need to spend more money to trap them. 

Our screw up. Our responsibility to pay for it. We should rightfully feel the sting of financial loss when we have broken something. It is a good lesson for us which should cause us to take more care in order to avoid future actions that cost us.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Did I quote the CCF website?


I don`t know, did you? 

You may not have, but it sounded as if what you were quoting was either coming from the CCF or a source that was quoting the CCF. Sometimes the link is 3 or 4 back, but whenever I see those figures that you stated, I can almost always find the CCF somewhere in the string of sources, if the reporter or site lists their sources.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> You really see the whole hunting/animal rights in pure black and white don't you strongvoicesforward. There are no grey areas for you, unfortunately the issues of hunting does have some very grey areas.



Mycernius, of course I see grey areas in many areas. However, hunting falls under the area of "exploitation at the expense of pain and suffering," and therefore, I do see no compromise in that area.

You know, sometimes things are not so difficult and are rather quite easy. You refer to that as "black and white" and then act as if there always is a grey area. Well, I don`t see any grey area in slavery, rape, child abuse, etc... 

Those who profit from a particular exploitation of there target by all means want to see grey areas. It is in those grey areas that they make their money.

----------


## Mycernius

> First, I will ask: What caused those animals to be in an environment they are not native to?
> 
> If humans are responsible for them being there, then humans should take responsibility to pay the costs of fixing it. That would mean paying the large sums it would take to trap those animals alive and then relocate them.
> 
> I don`t think an animal should pay with its blood for a mistake by us, and therefore we should "put back right" what we have "made wrong." Isn`t that what we try to teach our children? I don`t think we should be inconsistant with our actions when our rhettoric tells us something else.
> 
> Now, if those invasive species seem to be reaching a point of stability in those eco-systems, which some do after many years, then we should have to decide if just leaving the new balance is the better choice.
> 
> However, we don`t need to kill them. We just need to spend more money to trap them. 
> ...


Humans are fixing the problem, and in some cases the reason these invasive species are there is because animal rights have released them into that eco-system. Like to create a problem, but are unwilling to solve it. I'm really sure they would want to part with their own money, not.
Trap them yes. And then what. Release them into a stable eco-system that they are not used to? Transports all the grey squirrels from the UK back to North America?
1. Costs would be prohibative.
2. De-stablize the eco-system they would be re-released into. Result overpopulation and starvation and a slower death
You want to have animals not suffer, but your own solutions would cause more suffering than a man putting a bullet through its head. Yes, it our screw up, or rather past generations screw-up, but your way of solving it is short sighted and does nopt take in its own problems. As I said in my previous post, and very black and white view of the problem. There is not a simple solution to this and unfortunately it will cause the death of animals, but I'm afraid that is the truth of the matter. If you do not like it then stop with the easy ideas and look at the long term problems and how to solve them in a sensible way. :Okashii:

----------


## Mycernius

Just a quick note. All game birds, rabbits and pigeon are hunted in the UK and sold onto the meat market. I think that is somewhat better than farming these animals in pens and cruel practices. At least this way they get to live a natural life; free and wild.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I agree that the actions of the past have created areas where there are no predators to take care of the natural population of animals such as deer.


Great, I am glad we agree.




> What you seem to advocate by your crash principle is to have the animals suffer starvation and death by letting their number reach unsustainable numbers. Animals will have self abortions and uterus absorbtion, but only after the population has achieved starvation numbers. So you advocate a painful death by starvation and the local ecology damaged by overeating, taking years to regain its healthy balance.


Mycernius, hunting to control populations has not been successful. Every year we hear how the deer are just over running every thing and eating the fauna up as if they were monsters -- as if they were populating the countryside like people in Manhatten, as if every car that passes a nearby road is targeted by a deer intent on causing an accident. Well, if hunting is the answer, then why haven`t the animals been brought under control? They simply haven`t.

Now, I don't know about you, but I would rather take a chance at starving to death than take a chance at being shot. I guess if I were lucky someone would get me with a clean shot, but if not, well then, I guess I have my paineful gangreene to attend to as it reeks with infection to spread throughout my body. I think that is pretty painful. And, if it just is the worse day of my life, I guess I will have been shot in the gut with an arrow and die an even more agonizing death. Yes, I would rather starve to death.

Your argument however, is a baseless one, because it isn`t likely that all the animals would border on experiencing starvation. It may be just enough for the environment. At any rate, their carcasses would be a boon for other animals such as coyotes, foxes, buzzards, racoons etc... Let those animals have their bounty from nature. In turn, that decomposing biomass will be good for the land just as bear scat is.

Deer are fast breeders -- not like pandas -- their numbers would rebound.




> Dead animals everywhere that can cause disease within their own species is good? Maybe even driving the population towards virtual extinction?


What disease are you talking about? Do you have a case study of dead animals in the forest (particulary deer) causing disease to spread amongst them and causing their widespread deaths pushing them toward "virtual extinction?" I have never heard of a situation like that. Please direct me to something like that which satisfies the gloom and doom scenario you have painted. I would be interested to read it.

Funny though, I think one animal comes to my mind that may fit your description -- humans. But, I don`t think you would think of issueing tags to hunt them in the streets of Calcutta where they are starving and a host of diseases are spread.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

[QUOTE=Mycernius]Hunting might be bad,...[quote]

Great. We agree again.





> ... but the ecology is mantained and regulated by man taking place of the predators that would have regulated the populations of deer and elk.


No, the ecology is exploited and even without predators, the ecology could still come into balance. In addition, predator animals can be reintroduced in many places.




> We have created this problem and we must take responsiblity for it. This means trapping and killing animals to maintain the balance.


No, it does not mean that. That is what the status quo has just decided to maintain. Taking responsibility for our mistakes is not putting bandaids on a problem that need to be reapplied every year during hunting season, when in fact we can restore many areas where fast rate populating species are by reintroducing predators or creating corridors so that species do not become pocketed.

Of course hunters don`T want predators to be reintroduced. It could mean the end of the joy of killing for them. Their blood hobby would just dissappear.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> One reason that some areas do not want to see the reintroduction of wolves and other predators is the damage they can do to livestock.


Well, gee, Mycernius, all businesses have their liabilities naturally occurring costs that are a part of a business. A bank needs lights to light up the office and will have to see that as a *fixed cost*. A farmer/rancher by virtue of his profession will just have to see some predation as a fixed cost. (Note: I am not saying he can`t shoot a wolf he catches in the act of attacking one of his animals.) But, wolf predation on livestock in areas where they have been re-introduced have no where near approached a number that indicated wolves have decided to target livestock as their main staple of food source. Can you show me a study that shows that? Also, can you show me a study of a wolf causing a ranch to go out of business, that their profits were so destroyed that it sent them reeling into the red and destroyed their way of life. 

I am sure ranchers are more than cushioned with profit margins to handle some predation. 




> In your wonderful black and white world wolves would eat the deer and man would live in peace with the wolf.


I never said there would not be any conflict, did I? Like I said above, shooting a wolf as they are caught attacking livestock is justifiable. Hunting them however, is just an endeavor at exploitation.




> The problem is a wolf is not going to go to all the trouble of tracking down a deer when man convienently puts sheep and cattle in big field where they cannot escape from the predators.


Sorry, but you are wrong. While some wolves do target ranch animals, many choose to target their traditional prey.




> Predators, like man, prefer easy prey.


Most predators prefer their traditional prey. Wolves for the most part are timid of human activity and while they do from time to time hunt ranch animals, they mostly stick to wild animals as a source of food. Can you show me something, like a study or report that says, "wolves prefer to hunt cows and sheep because they are easy"?

But you are right about man -- he does prefer to exploit something that is easy.




> Foxes in chicken coups come to mind. The fox is just doing what it does, but the chicken farmer has lost his livelyhood. Prevention of this costs a lot.


Most chickens are raised on factory farms now,where foxes just do not have access to them. The very few small family farms that are left around with chickens scratching in the yard are a rarity -- and those farmers do not "live or die" by what comes out of the rear end of hen. How many farmers have ever gone belly up financially because of continuous fox raids on their coops? Occassional farm losses from predation is just a fixed cost of the business, no different than electrical costs for stores. Minimizing those costs at the point where they occur is fine, however going out to hunt animals indiscriminately, not knowing which is the addicted animal to chicken coops is wrong. 




> The dingo fence in Australia is an example of the expense that man will go to to stop the predators from damaging his livestock. In remote areas the reintroduction is sound, but near man it isn't. Farmers will always hate predators.


And those costs of the fence are rightly so incurred by man. That is more appropriate than having a poisoning or hunting cull against dingos.

In places where reintroduction is not permissable because of large populations, then if deer exist in pockets of forest, then those populations should be permitted to crash and let the scavengers benefit from them rather than man going in to upset the balance that could be achieved without his interference. 

Coyotes for instance are quite capable of mixing in very close to humans and they very seldom (however there are a few incidences) ever killed man. They are weary of his animals and most farms have dogs that are more than adequate to keep coyotes at bay. Coyote have no problem in culling the young or very weak and old deer.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> The only way to control these pest species is by hunting trapping and killing them, as there are no natural predators in their new environment. Or would you rather let them destroy the native fauna and flora? We are cruel, yes, but nature is worse.


Live trapping and sterilization -- Yes. Killing is not. What the former is -- is more expensive. However, it is not cost prohibitive. Costly -- Yes. 

Nature is not cruel -- nature is just natural.

Man, carpet bombing population centers is cruel. Nothing natural in that. Man forcing a chimpanzee to smoke to death is cruel. Nothing natural in that.

I don`t know, Mycernius, I think you have stood the definition of cruelty on its head. I would rather have the natural death of a lion ambushing me and eating me within seconds, rather than fall into the grips of a government intent on torturing me for months in order to abstract some information they think I may have that could by chance be helpful to them and then snuff out my life in the most horrible manner they could imagine -- like throwing me from a helicopter into the ocean like Pinochet's henchmen in Chile did.

Do you still think nature is more cruel? If it is not death via starvation or cold, nature will deliver death to you pretty quickly. Man has devised thousands of ways, and in fact have put them to use, to visit undescribable misery upon each other for long periods of time with the intent to cause as much severe pain as possible.

YOu had better examine what the possibilities are and then you may come to a different opionion on the cruelty of man versus nature.

----------


## No-name

Mycernius- thank you for your input. I find your reasoning clear and uncluttered.

straightforward- your criticism of hunting was that it is cruel and depraved. You went on to maintain that it required little skill and that the enjoyment was only derived from the act of killing itself. You also implied that it had no value beyond the purient impulses you mentioned. Therfore it is logical to test these statements- to investigate, to research to see if what you say is actually true. As a non hunter- before I defend the sport- I have to either confirm or refute what you are saying. It is not as illogical as saying "I should try cocaine before I criticize it." (Which would endanger my health) If you said instead Merlot taste better than Port- wine drinking might be in order. You made specific statements about skill and enjoyment that now need to be tested. 

I do on rare occasion fish. (I used to go a few times a year, but it has been years since I went even once.) Albacore on the ocean, or trout from rivers. I do not do it because I enjoy inflicting pain on an animal, nor do I do it to kill the animal... I eat fish and they are difficult to eat when alive and swimming in the ocean or river- so it is necessary to hook, kill and clean these beautiful wonderful (and delicious) animals. I enjoy being on the water or beside a river- outdoors in the fresh air, and I am never disappointed if I catch nothing. There must be some skill involved because some fishermen, and it seems like most others...always catch more than I do. There is some satisfaction also in cleaning, preparing and eating something that you did not buy in some market.

As to what gave me the right? I do not know. It is not illegal- so the government has not abridged that right... It is not against my religious code, so I could say it is a God given right...it is a tradition that I learned from my Uncle, and he learned from his father, and he from his in Japan- and so on back many generations- it is a connection to my past and culture- (the Japanese are a fishing people) I could say this gives me the right. I could say I do a traditional offering to the fish, but that would be a lie...although I did go to a water blessing- so by Native American ceremony I have the right to trout fish in those waters for as long as the medicine holds. 

What gives me the "right" to eat a carrot? or the "right" to kill the pathogens in my blood that could kill me? (After all aren't their lives as important as mine?) What gives me the right to drive my squirrel killing car and pollute our shared resources? Or the right to keep my pets, to neuter them, and when they become old and sick- to euthanize them? What gives me the right to decide that mice don't belong in my pantry, or coyotes shouldn't eat my cats? Or that I should live on a mountain that is their natural territory? I don't know what gives me the right.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> It might be an old argument, but animal right activists seem to think that animals lives are more important that peoples.


Well, thanks for caustiously qualifying your remark with "seems," Mycernius -- it allows you some immunity from being outright wrong. Why not be a little bolder than hedging?

Show me where any ARists have stated or hinted that animals are more important than humans. The fact is, ARists view humans as animals, too. But, they view no animal as having more value in a universal sense. Value/importance is something that is affixed from the vantage point of a vested interest -- not any universal truth.




> Bombing people is illegal, threatening people is illegal. If they want to make peole support them than they should stick to within the law.


Sure, those things are illegal. But the point, which you don`t want to put forward, is that direct action has been employed by many throughout history which historians and the general populace after many years have justified as righteous disobedience of the law. ARists are merely taking a page from the playbook of history which whose members have utilized tactics which have proven successful for the changes they had championed.

Why do you fail to notice that and put it forward?

----------


## No-name

Also about the boy kicking the immobilized but not dead rabbit down the street... A hunter would probably not stand for this type of abuse. It would damage the meat and fur. He would shoot it with a small caliber weapon and dispatch him quickly so that both the meat and fur would be undamaged. (Although I wouldn't recommend eating a zombie bunny.)

Nature can be quite cruel (although I agree that man is far more creative in the application of cruelty). Starvation is not quick, neither is freezing to death or a hemmoragic feaver, cancer, or some parasitic infestations. There are several perfectly natural illnesses and injuries that animals and people encounter that are neither painless, nor quick. (Arthritis comes to mind.) Nature is not beyond slaughter that seems wholesale and unnatural, nor does nature give special protection to the old, helpless or innocent. Nature is also not beyond mass extinctions.

Trapping ferral animals that are damaging habitats and endangered species has proven impractical. There are programs to trap and move horses, asses, pigs, cats, rabbits and rats and other feral creatures, but in some places it has proven too slow and utterly impractical. One of the problems with these unnatural invaders is that the habitat has provided them with an unnatural advantage. I would say that at this point the endangered animals have significantly higher value than the ferral creature- and that a less effective trapping program puts these animals and their habitats at an unacceptable risk. Hunting may offer the best and fastest solution for the native animals. Trapping also presents the added problem of what to do with the animals after you catch them. Many animals die in the traps and others in transport- and some are euthanized because they have no place to go and no one to care for them.

I was sad to learn that a good number of the bears and almost all the mountain lions tranquilized and transported for getting into contact with humans- usually down in our foothills... die in transit. Last year a mountain lion attacked two mountain bikers, killing one. The lion was killed. It is sad, but the kind of thing you have to expect when we encroach on their habitat.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Threatening people and putting them in fear of their lives does not work for them. .... Which are you, peaceful or violent?


I don`t mind talking about the issues. However, making myself the issue is not the issue.

Now, I don`t mind taking the role of defending a point of view or action to forward the discussion, so that as long as we understand I am doing so as a "devil's advocate", giving a voice to the argument that you are interested in persuing.

Are you ok with that?

I think most people would be ok with that. After all, I think you are more interested in how "direct action" people reason through their actions, rather than what the personal beliefs of "strongvoicesforward" are on "direct action."

Now, I know you are referring to ALF, ELF, and SHAC -- that isn`t lost on me. But let me say right now -- I am not a member of either of those orgs and do not carry out any actions which they do. But, I am familiar with thier philosophy and think I can argue from a devil`s advocate point of view putting their side forward in the face of yours.

So, on that note, if you could offer me this one little request I would appreciate it: when I do argue their point of view, and when you reply to me, please refrain from using the pronoun "you" or "your" -- please refer to comments directed in this vein as "their" or "them." Is that fair enough?

Ok, as much as some may want to believe about the tactics of "Direct Action" not working, that is categorically false. It does work. It has in the Animal Liberation Movement and it has in all past social struggles.

Is it a violent srtuggle like you ask? Well, if you consider action against property violent, then it is. Personally, I consider action against property violence if it has the potential or goal to cause physical injury.

To say that coercion hasn`t worked, though, is being hopefully idealistic. It has. HLS has been devastated and even they admit SHAC has been instrumental in hindering their operations.

Look at the Hunt Sabateures of the U.K. Their direct action has been very instrumental over the years in beating down fox hunting. 

Many people turn down offers from animal labs, or don`t even bother applying for those research positions, noting that the flak from ARists is not worth the disruption to their personal/family lives. All that makes it more costly and harder for these businesses to operate. It slows down their pace of experiments and efficiency of the work place as the "siege mentality" takes over.

You say that this tactic has not been working -- but clearly, it has had an impact and has caused insurance companies to refuse to insure places that are targeted or for banks to refuse accounts from such places that are targeted. Of course, victory has not been achieved, but that is expected to take years.

Now, this thread is really about hunting, so I don`t want to get bogged down in this other topic here in this post. So, I hope that this comment above has been sufficient for the moment on this issue to show you that direct action does indeed work.

And, if you are still wondering, Iceland`s whole whaling fleet was destroyed due to direct action and it was not rebuilt because of the costs it would have incurred.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> As for PETA. They rate the same as a dangerous religious cult in their actions IMHO. Releasing cows into the wild. Stupid idea. modern cows need man to look after them. We have bred them into milk machines. They need milking at a regular interval because if they weren't they would die. Releasing cows into the wild just ensured that the animals would die in pain as they no longer have a natural way of getting rid of the overproduction of milk.


Yes, that is your very "humble" opinion on the matter. We agree.

Please show me where Peta, in its formal position as an org, released cows into the wild. I am very interested in seeing this and to see that their intention was that these cows go wild and live in nature.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Animal rights released mink from fur farms into the UK countryside. No consideration for the fact that it is not a native animal to the UK and can cause destruction to the countryside and wild animals. Instead of trying to get the farm to shut down they have caused more suffering for animals than the hunters and farmers could ever have done via their own inconsiderate actions.



Yes, let`s do talk about mink not being natural in the UK. They aren`t, are they? So, why even have them there in the first place other than to exploit them by raising them in horrible conditions and then having them suffocated or anally electrocuted. Nothing natural about all that, huh?

Had they not been there their presence would have never triggered the action that saw them released.




> ... these actions actually lead to more death and destruction than what they are trying to prevent.


Well, I do agree that having a non native animal imported into an area sure can lead to a lot of destruction. That tells me that it shouldn`t be permitted or allowed to continue, noting that the cultural or political environment could see them being released. If the environment were of concern to the government, then that threat would have been noted and actions to close the places would have been prompt. Obviously, the government or the mink owners were more concerned with the possible revenue from profits that could be had instead of the threat to the ecology of the surrounding area. 

I think the government has more of a responsibility to prevent ecological damage when they can identify the risks, rather than activists who are calling for change -- first peacefully and then later when their calls have been ignored more directly.




> A more thoughtful action is needed and pros and cons weighed up. Unfortunately this seem to be too complex, not just for animal rights, but also for hunters. Balance is the key.


It is not too complex. It is just a matter of the status quo not wanting to relinquish their profit making from exploitation. 

Usually, when this word "balance" is used, it is meant to mean "let us keep exploiting misery for profit in some manner that doesn`t upset the applecart too much (i.e. let us keep getting rich and having fun at the expense of another animal`s pain and suffering)."

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Instead of trying to get the farm to shut down they have caused more suffering for animals than the hunters and farmers could ever have done via their own inconsiderate actions.


What do you mean "instead of trying to get the farm to shut down"? -- that is exactly what they did/do and their goals are.

Have they through their actions caused more harm? Surely, some other animals such as birds or squirels were killed by released minks. But, to say a net total in increase of animals were killed due to their release were killed, well -- that could be up for debate -- most definitely something that can`t be decided by just declaring it so.

In the end though, the animals were only possibly able to be released there was due to the fact that they were there in the first place.

I do know that others who may have entertained thoughts in the UK of opening fur farms have probably had to think long and hard on that in the current climate. How can all that potential of future lives be calculated? I don`t think it can. But, what can be known is that the campaign against fur production in the UK has been successful. And, it wasn`t won with just all polite letter writing.

Has that production just been transferred to another location. Sure, most probably. But, the point is, the range where it is permissable has been pushed back. The world is like a chessboard -- always best to limit the number of spaces your opponent has the choice to operate on.

----------


## No-name

Don't most of the furs used in clothing come from PRC?

----------


## Mycernius

> Show me where any ARists have stated or hinted that animals are more important than humans. The fact is, ARists view humans as animals, too. But, they view no animal as having more value in a universal sense. Value/importance is something that is affixed from the vantage point of a vested interest -- not any universal truth.


Hinted! how about attacks on people for working in the medical industry, Threatening violence, not just to them, but their families as well. There is a case in the UK when one group stole a body of one family and still have not returned it,despite the company closing. Where are their moral codes? To them human rights mean less than animals.





> Sure, those things are illegal. But the point, which you don`t want to put forward, is that direct action has been employed by many throughout history which historians and the general populace after many years have justified as righteous disobedience of the law. ARists are merely taking a page from the playbook of history which whose members have utilized tactics which have proven successful for the changes they had championed.
> 
> Why do you fail to notice that and put it forward?


So you advocate this sort of action do you? I think you have revealed your true thoughts. You dislike violence against animals, but not against humans. Nuff said

----------


## No-name

I bumped the "Seven thing you should Know about PETA" thread on the American Issues subforum. Someone brought up some important concerns about the organization. My problem is that they share members with and have financially supported ALF and ELF. They do seem to regard animal life as either more important or of equal value to human life. And they seem to concentrate a disproportionate amount of effort to cute mammal type animals at the expense of slimier or insectlike life.

I still think any human life is more valuable than any given animal life. If it took the lives of a million fluffy house cats to cure one form of cancer that kills 10,000 people every year, I would consider that worthwhile. If it costs some animals lives to ensure that my human food supply is safe- I am willing to allow that to happen. I believe animal research to still be necessary. This is a "species barrier" I believe ought not to be crossed.

Now we originally began discussing hunting. Hunting is recreational- and entirely unnecessary. It is a billion dollar industry that millions of Americans enjoy and most Americans ignore. Some claim some population control necessity- which can be accomplished by less lethal, but more expensive means. Thusfar, I believe the arguments on both sides to be rather unconvincing.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Tsuyoiko, you have to remember when the campaigns agains fox hunting and vivisections were begun, victories in those campaigns was not viewed by the general public as being something that could be accomplished. It took long term dogged determination to get that victory and as for fox hunting it went against a very long tradition. Of course you know this. Saying that was not idealistic now is doing so with the benefit of hindsite.


You could be right about that, I'm not sure. My parents were very active in anti-vivisection campaigning in the early 80s, and even back then it was something that was well supported by ordinary people - the hard work was in taking on the corporations, not convincing the average man on the street. The same seems to have always been true of fox hunting, which in my experience has mostly been frowned upon by ordinary working class people. Now if you tried to ban fishing, that would be a different story.

----------


## No-name

Burning SUV's in Pasadena or ski resorts in Aspen do not convince me that animals should have the same rights as me. Ruining years of medical research or smokebombing an expensive bistro do not advance anyone's political agendas. These are not acts of protest, they are crimes and the criminals belong in prison.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> It might be an old argument, but animal right activists seem to think that animals lives are more important that peoples. Bombing people is illegal, threatening people is illegal. If they want to make peole support them than they should stick to within the law.


Again, you are stuck in the gutter of "seemism" -- show me where ARists purposely sacrificed a human life in lieu of an animal life. Show me where that is the norm. Don`t show me some anomaly of a fringe group. Show me something that definitively points to ARists, the majority of AR groups stating that animals are more important than people.

Direct Action which may involve breaking laws, is meant to hurt the system -- it is not meant to recruit supporters. Keep in mind, the U.S., and many countries came about due to direct action through breaking laws. And, that does not only include the birth of new countries -- it has involved many civil movements that were fighting their view of unjust systems which were or may not have been considered unjust by the majority of people at that time.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> the reason these invasive species are there is because animal rights have released them into that eco-system. Like to create a problem, but are unwilling to solve it.


No, Mycernius, the reason these animals are anywhere near that region is because they were imported into there. The exploitation is what set into motion the chain of events that saw them released into the wild.

Why don`t you think solving it lies at the source of the problem -- the importation of them? That is where the criticism justly belongs. Obviously the government, knowing the thread of them being released didn`t value the risk of what was facing the evironment by not shutting down the risks.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Trap them yes. And then what. Release them into a stable eco-system that they are not used to? Transports all the grey squirrels from the UK back to North America?
> 1. Costs would be prohibative.
> 2. De-stablize the eco-system they would be re-released into. Result overpopulation and starvation and a slower death
> You want to have animals not suffer, but your own solutions would cause more suffering than a man putting a bullet through its head. Yes, it our screw up, or rather past generations screw-up, but your way of solving it is short sighted and does nopt take in its own problems. As I said in my previous post, and very black and white view of the problem. There is not a simple solution to this and unfortunately it will cause the death of animals, but I'm afraid that is the truth of the matter. If you do not like it then stop with the easy ideas and look at the long term problems and how to solve them in a sensible way.


Wow! Where do I start with this?

Whatever the solution, besides killing them and forcing them to live in a cramped wire cage exposed to the elements, -- *it is definitely not cost prohibitive.* That is just a hyperbolic statement so that the industry or government that let it happen would not have to own up to the responsibility of paying for doing something humane to let the animals live. 

I am sure, solutions -- even those not requiring re-introduction, could be formed that would not cause paine to more animals. It sure isn`t rocket scientry or trying to teleport things across distances. 

No, killing them, is the easy and short sighted aproach to trying to make the problem disappear. Putting the vase back together is the hard, brave, responsible approach that respects life. That is the long term approach. The short term approach is accomplished with a bullet or just letting the industries continue on with impunity.

Yes, it is our race's screw up -- and therefore our race's responsibility to rectify the wrongs we have committed. And it isn`t past generations. Many fur farms are operating right now. You are just hinting at shrugging shoulders and shirking responsibilities.

You are wrong in that liberationists and ARists have been puttting forth easy solutions. Letting the industries continue and killing are the easy solutions. Why do you value money and commodifying life over life itself?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Just a quick note. All game birds, rabbits and pigeon are hunted in the UK and sold onto the meat market. I think that is somewhat better than farming these animals in pens and cruel practices. At least this way they get to live a natural life; free and wild.



Factory farms and slaughterhouses are indeed the worst of the two. However, there is no need to hunt anymore in most places of the world. All our nutritional requirements can be fully met through a vegetarian diet.

There is no necessity in our modern era to have to take an animal`s life to obtain our nutritional needs to survive.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I have to either confirm or refute what you are saying. It is not as illogical as saying "I should try cocaine before I criticize it." (Which would endanger my health)


 Sabro, you are assuming that hunting is not an activity with dangers involved in it? Sure it is. People are out there trudging in sometimes bad weather with weapons, not always smart enough to put the safety on, sometimes screwing around, sometimes drinking, sometimes slipping, sometimes taking aim at moving objects which are not quite clear, etc... Anytime you have a firearm as a part of an activity, there is danger. 

I would bet there are some cocaine users who do so sparingly and take caution in their dosage and usage. The point of the analogy is that both are activities done for enjoyment -- *to say one has to/should try one before one is able to criticise it is ludicrous.*

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> As to what gave me the right? I do not know.


Yes, Sabro, that is right. You do not know. 




> It is not illegal- so the government has not abridged that right...


That is an old worn out argument and is not based on reasoned thought. Just because something is not illegal, does not mean it is right to do. At one time it was legal to beat a slave or even rape your slave. The law is not a blanket litmus test for what is ethical. Do you think it is?




> It is not against my religious code, so I could say it is a God given right...


And, which God would that be, and which book or scripture do you use that you have proof is actually the word of God granting you that right? I suspect your right from your God, when looked deeply enough, is one that comes from faith, and not from any entity that has empiracle evidence for its existence or one based on reason without contradictions. Why would you think causing suffering should be left in the hands of dogma that is all muddied up?




> it is a tradition that I learned from my Uncle, and he learned from his father, and he from his in Japan- and so on back many generations- it is a connection to my past and culture- (the Japanese are a fishing people) I could say this gives me the right.


Do you think citing traditions warrants causing pain and death? Why would you cling to that logic? That logic leads cultural groups to scream that clitoral circumcision connects them to their past and culture. That logic doesn`t have the ring of truth to me. Why does it you? Please address the logic -- not the values inserted into the equations.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Also about the boy kicking the immobilized but not dead rabbit down the street... A hunter would probably not stand for this type of abuse. It would damage the meat and fur. He would shoot it with a small caliber weapon and dispatch him quickly so that both the meat and fur would be undamaged. (Although I wouldn't recommend eating a zombie bunny.)


Sabro, the analogy was one to show you that animals have an interest in not being victims of enjoyment that causes pain and suffering (i.e. exploitation). It was to highlight the Golden Rule, which even a mother seeing such an act performed would perhaps say to a chile, "Don`t do that. How would you like it if someone did that to you?"

Why do you think the analogy was about the boy being justified in his enjoyment if he just gave it a hard injuring blow, and then follow it up with a blow to put it out of its misery? You have jumped tracks.

Or, were you purposely attempting to cloud the issue?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Nature can be quite cruel (although I agree that man is far more creative in the application of cruelty). Starvation is not quick, neither is freezing to death or a hemmoragic feaver, cancer, or some parasitic infestations. There are several perfectly natural illnesses and injuries that animals and people encounter that are neither painless, nor quick. (Arthritis comes to mind.) Nature is not beyond slaughter that seems wholesale and unnatural, nor does nature give special protection to the old, helpless or innocent. Nature is also not beyond mass extinctions.



We agree.

However, at least nature does not perform its cruelty with the intent to cause pain. Pain is merely a bi-product of the tool of death. 

Humans on the other hand, seeking to cause death via pain, search out for the tools that will bring the most intense pain and terror as they can purposely with concious and malicious intent to instill. With humans in the case of seeking to be cruel, death is the bi-product of the pain and suffering that preceeds it.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Don't most of the furs used in clothing come from PRC?


A lot of it does. But, there are still many fur farms in other countries and the U.S. as well. I wouldn`t say, though, that more than 50% of all fur comes from PRC. But, they probably do have a larger piece of the fur pie in comparison to each other country separately.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Hinted! how about attacks on people for working in the medical industry, Threatening violence, not just to them, but their families as well. There is a case in the UK when one group stole a body of one family and still have not returned it,despite the company closing.


Taking direct action does not mean one is valuing life of another above another. It merely means one is taking action to affect change for something. Abolitionists taking direct action to free slaves, depriving slaveowners of peace of mind through their actions, in no way are saying that the lives of blacks are more important than whites -- even though that action has caused considerable distress amongst the slaveholders. 

Americans killing 30,000 Iraqis with overwhelming force in comparison to their losses of 2,000 + lives in order to affect change (right or wrong [not argued here]) is not a declaration that American lives are more important than Iraqi lives. Action to affect change is different than saying the lives wrapped up in the battle of change are more valuable than others. Don`t you see that?




> Where are their moral codes? To them human rights mean less than animals.


No, you are wrong. Life means more to them than distress.

Yes, while we are talking about morals: Where are the morals that causes animals to be analy electrocuted for their skins so that fashion can be trumped out on a runway and in stores? Where are the morals of causing an animal to live in a small wire cage in horrible conditions depriving it of satisfying any of its natural desires? You tell me. I am guessing those morals are somewhere snugly tucked in the wallet or a bank account.

You are concerned about the mental anguish of this deciesce person's kin, however, you feel nothing for the mental torment of these animals in a sense to move to alleviate the suffering. Keep in mind, just knowing that those animals are suffering also causes mental anguish to those who are concerned about them. Why should mental anguish over the desecration of death be more than mental anguish caused over the desecration of life concerning thousands of animals -- thousands of separate lives.

----------


## No-name

Again, people seem to have enough trouble extending that golden rule to people. I would not extend it to animals. Whether I like it or not, whenever I get behind the wheel of a car I risk "exploiting"- causing pain and suffering for my pleasure of driving- to an unfortunately high number of squirrels. If people died at this rate it would be entirely unacceptable- especially since squirrels are incapable of understanding road rules, traffic signs, cars...We would- to apply the golden rule- have to spend billions to restructure traffic to keep squirrels out of harms way. You keep avoiding the mice, rats and bugs questions, not to mention parasitic pathogens. 

You also fail to address the thousands if not millions of individual animals that farmers kill some on purpose, some as an acceptable risk, others quite by accident- in the process of growing food, and those animals that are displaced and lose habitat due to farming. Nor did you adequately answer Mycernius' question about what we should do with the North American gray squirrels should we ever actually trap all of them out of England.

About that strange logic that you say mothers would use with children when killing bugs or kicking the rabbit: I would not ever say that to my kids. I'd say "Dude don't touch that, there's something seriously wrong with that rabbit." The "How would you like someone to do that to you?" would never ever come up. I polled several mothers. Most said that they would tell them to knock it off or ask "what's wrong with you?" but none spontaneously gave the response you thought would be natural. Besides, when my boys were chowing down meat at dinner last night (Toto's- a local Mexican restaurant) I didn't say to them, "How would you like if someone killed, cooked, and prepared you into a delicious meal like this?"

The purpose of trying hunting before I criticize it would be to confirm statements that you continually make about hunting that I do not know are reasonably true: Now I have to wonder about how closely they pay attention to firearm safety, trudging around in bad weather, how often they slip, how often alcohol is involved and if they do in fact take aim at targets that are unclear. You keep prompting me to have to check your facts and the easiest way is to actually go out with hunters and observe. You remarked that it took little or no skill, so the only way to check that is to participate. This is perfectly logical if you keep making statements about hunting that need confirmation. If you don't want me to have to do hunting research, refrain from specific criticisms about what hunters do, what the experience is, and what amount of effort or skill it takes.

As to the "what gives you the right" question... you cannot logically answer that. Nothing and everything. Like I said, not prohibited by law, not against my religious code, not against my code of ethics (as it does not violate the Golden rule), conforms to my culture and traditions. I give you these and you argue back against them. Therefore I don't even have the right to eat a carrot: Just because it is legal, traditional, and does not violate my religious code does not make it right...after all clitoral mutilation fits all those parameters in Somalia. STV: this is not logical argument. It is the classical straw man tactic.

So far, I find your arguments are less and less logical and entirely unconvincing. They are based entirely on an emotional premise that centers around ascribing human feelings, emotions and value to animals. They ignore every point both Mycernius and I have brought up by giving logical fallacies and strange analogies. On the balance you have made the statement that hunting is depraved, exploitive, and morally equivalent to clitoral circumcision and slavery. (Again the straw man thing) and hunters are unskilled lazy people who enjoy the suffering and pain of others, (ad hominem) You have not backed these statements up with anything that holds water.

Can you give a simple one paragraph response without making a strange analogy to slavery, human sacrifice or body piercing, attacking hunters as unskilled drunks, or taking the "how would you feel if it was you..." jump in logic to the simple question: Why is hunting wrong?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I believe animal research to still be necessary. This is a "species barrier" I believe ought not to be crossed.


Well, you (or those who believe as you do) will go screaming and kicking as it is crossed. It will be some day. But, like we agreed, I don`t think it will be fully crossed in our lifetime. The edges will, however, be pushed back. 

If not legally, actions against those barriers will increase and it will become costly to maintain them.

----------


## No-name

Another question: Why? (re: post #124)

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Burning SUV's in Pasadena or ski resorts in Aspen do not convince me that animals should have the same rights as me. Ruining years of medical research or smokebombing an expensive bistro do not advance anyone's political agendas. These are not acts of protest, they are crimes and the criminals belong in prison.



Why do you think that illegal civil action cannot be acts of protest? Don`t you think that the Sons of Liberty carrying out the Boston Tea Party was protesting and committing a crime? I do. Why don`t you think so? Would you wished that all of them and abolitionists and Polish Jewish partisen resistant groups had been caught by the legal authorities of their countries?

You are basing all your reasoning on arbitrary fondness for the status quo, and not on logic or with history as a background in regards to alleviating oppression and exploitation.

----------


## Mycernius

> Factory farms and slaughterhouses are indeed the worst of the two. However, there is no need to hunt anymore in most places of the world. All our nutritional requirements can be fully met through a vegetarian diet.
> 
> There is no necessity in our modern era to have to take an animal`s life to obtain our nutritional needs to survive.


I do not wish to be a vegetarian. Balanced diet is the most healthy option. I have covered the argument for and against a totally vegetarian diet on another thread. I have no objections to vegetarians and I will cater for them if they visits. Why they don't cater for me is a different matter? I do not wish to live on a diet of soya, which I have pointed out you HAVE to eat if you are a vegetarian or take supplements. Soya is not a natural plant everywhere in the world. You would ruin an eco-system just to feed yourself. If so you are no better than a meat farmer. You go on about the sancity of life for all, but accept violence towards people to protect animals. You support PETA, which has admitted that it has put down animals itself. Double standards. You have no idea on how eco-systems would suffer and collapse if your ideas were put into practice. You want to protect animals at the expense of the planet and people. I suggest you take a good, long hard look at your ideas and realise that the solutions that you propose are more difficult to put into practice than you seem to think.

----------


## No-name

This is not a logical argument:



> Why do you think that illegal civil action cannot be acts of protest? Don`t you think that the Sons of Liberty carrying out the Boston Tea Party was protesting and committing a crime? I do. Why don`t you think so? Would you wished that all of them and abolitionists and Polish Jewish partisen resistant groups had been caught by the legal authorities of their countries?
> 
> You are basing all your reasoning on arbitrary fondness for the status quo, and not on logic or with history as a background in regards to alleviating oppression and exploitation.



Again, this is a load of crap. By reaching for emotional triggers, you may convince yourself that you are "alleviating opression and exploitation," but most people with just a smidgen of critical reasoning can recognize it as hooey. You can't compare the Boston Tea Party, abolition or Jewish resistance to the Nazis to the sophomoric and criminal activities of Animal Rightists.

1. It attempts to make the AR cause more noble by comparing it to noble struggles of the past. These people fought for civil liberties (for humans),for human dignity and for survival. This is an attempt at false parallel.

2. In those historical struggles, those people had exhausted all legal avenues of redress, had no other avenue to voice their opinion. AR still live in a society where freedom of expression is allowable, where there is ample media to give them voice, and a system where they can petition for redress. 

3. With little personal risk, AR targets are peripheral, powerless, and innocent. Unlike the Sons of Liberty (many of whom perished in the struggle), the Abolitionists (many of whom were hanged) or Polish resistance fighters (most of whom perished) these AR arsonists destroy private property of people without the power to effect change who are only peripherally involved in maintaining the status quo. The risk very little for a cause not widely accepted by vicimizing innocent people who have no power to affect the changes they are seeking.

Graffitti by street gangs has a more valid political message. Targets chosen for symbolic value at great risk by people who have no other options. The Sons of Liberty did not burn down the local blacksmith shop, Polish resistance fighters did not target shoe repair shops, and abolitionists did not smoke bomb restaurants. These targets would have been random, unconnected and criminal.

As for my "arbitrary fondness for the status quo" if this means my lack of moral outrage over the opression and exploitation of animals- and not humans, I will take that under consideration- while I finish my burger. I think your energy would be better spent trying to alleviate human suffering.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Again, people seem to have enough trouble extending that golden rule to people. I would not extend it to animals.


Compassion isn`t a cup with a specific limit. You think it has a limit or some finite capacity. It does not. It only requires a belief in not exploitating.

Does this make sense to you?: *White people are having too much time extending the Golden Rule to white people. I would not extend it to black people.*

Oh, and as much as you would like analogies with blacks, clitoral manipulation and other examples of exploitation to be jettisoned from the argument, it will not. It clearly outlines logical lines on which exploitation exists or has existed. I know it is embarrassing for you to align yourself with that dreaded reasoning put forth in the past, but that is the logic you have chosen. You have not dealt with the logic yet. You and Mycernius just keep trying to plug in different things into the equation and expect the logic to not be in conflict with other horrors. Address the logic.




> Whether I like it or not, whenever I get behind the wheel of a car I risk "exploiting"- causing pain and suffering for my pleasure of driving- to an unfortunately high number of squirrels.


Sabro, you are jumping off parallels in your analogy construct. You are not exploiting animals in your "driving" scenario because they are not the target of your enjoyment. At best, they are collateral damage of you taking possession of a different thing. Now, if your goal was to enjoy killing them by your car adn that was your intent and purposes for being in your car, then "yes," that would be exploitation. But, we both know, your joy is driving on the road from destination "A" to "B" or just merely feeling the wind in your hair or viewing the countryside.




> If people died at this rate it would be entirely unacceptable- especially since squirrels are incapable of understanding road rules, traffic signs, cars...We would- to apply the golden rule- have to spend billions to restructure traffic to keep squirrels out of harms way.


lol! There is your hyperbolic "strawman" argument Sabro.

But for your pleasure: The animals don`t need us to create extra special infrastructure for them. They just need us to respect their autonomy as we want others to respect our autonomy. Seeing how rich we are, however, some civic planning to give some kind of consideration to the homes of wildlife, to see that they are not total victims of our relentless greed, is not something that is so below us to extend. 

Why do you think the profit dollar is king to all considerations of life other than human? To me a concrete world of man only valuing himself, so concerned about his pressng needs that no other thing makes it onto the screen for consideration of spending funds on, is a rather glum future and environment that would await us if you were doling out funds and directing construction.




> You keep avoiding the mice, rats and bugs questions, not to mention parasitic pathogens.


I thought I did answer it when you first broached it? Didn`t I say I extend the same consideration of not exploiting animals that have a central nervouse system and brain? I thought you had acknowledged that I did. Bugs I said I would give the benefit of doubt to and not target them for exploitation.

Now, perhaps you are referring to things that seem to attack us or our sources of livelihood. Is that it?

Let`s use a bear for example. If you are hiking and a bear attacks you, you are justified in choosing to save your life by taking the life of the bear. But, likewise, the bear is also justified in taking your life for you have invaded its home.

If you have a pathogen that is destroying you, then if you have a treatment that can arrest and destroy that pathogen, then that is justified. 

Not exploiting does not mean one forfeits ones life to life when threatened by something.

Ok, so let`s look at rodents eating one`s field crops -- that food that sustains one for their life. If that loss is going to directly affect the possibility of one`s life survival, then one is justified in taking that life/lives. But keep in mind, that is different from exploitation.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Again, this is a load of crap.


Come on, Sabro. Don`t let your outrage cause you to resort to this style of retort.

I know it can be frustrating when you are left with defending a position with arguments that other depraved systems and despots had used, but please try to control little outbursts like this. It really adds nothing to your argument. 

It`s just all arm flailing.

----------


## No-name

SVF forgive me if I don't go point for point on all of this.

If I participated in an act which routinely took the lives of human beings, and I did so voluntarily with the foreknowledge that my actions would likely kill humans I would be morally and criminally liable. It would be unacceptable. That was the point of my analogy and the reason why it is relevant and not "straw." If I can't endanger and kill people like this, why should animals be forced to suffer and die? (Probing the limits of the animals = humans argument.)

The fact that humans may have limited the Golden Rule out of their own prejudices to people within their group does not mean logically that we should extend it to animals. (Or carrots for that matter.) 

As for respecting an animal's autonomy- I have no idea what that might mean. Certainly my pets- including my 18 year old cat who has taken to crapping in the middle of the living room- seem to have autonomy. And I get to clean it up. But horses do not necessarily want to be ridden, cows may not want to be milked, and pigs certainly don't want to be pork. When we take honey are we not exploiting bees? When we take eggs, are we not exploiting hens? What gives animals this autonomy? How is it stated? How protected?

I don't understand the entire paragraph about profit. The point is lost.

The termites that eat my house are not threatening my life, they are damaging my property and they will die. The mice in my pantry likewise. The squirrels on the highway aren't threatening anything, but they die anyway. I can't kill people for damaging or threatening my property, so why should animals be "exploited" like this?

If this is an argument against hunting-- again I fail to see how it is relevant. I though the whole point of hunting was to obtain meat from a kill, not to inflict pain, suffering or "enjoy" killing.

There is no need to respond to the questions I have posed. I am becoming more and more convinced that prime rib is the answer (I had cut down to chicken and fish only, 3 or 4 times a week) and less and less convinced that bambi should live.

----------


## No-name

> Come on, Sabro. Don`t let your outrage cause you to resort to this style of retort.
> 
> I know it can be frustrating when you are left with defending a position with arguments that other depraved systems and despots had used, but please try to control little outbursts like this. It really adds nothing to your argument. 
> 
> It`s just all arm flailing.


Don't get sidetracked by the "crap" thing. Your argument was flawed and illogical and I gave a point by point explanation as to why. Your answer that this is "just all arm flailing." doesn't counter the points I made in showing you why your argument was crap. 

I know it can be frustrating to try to prove to an unbelieving public that fluffy has feelings and rights and should be respected just like you and me. But the arguments I used had nothing to do with any I know of that "depraved systems and despots" have used. If the word "crap" throws you for such a loop, please substitute "dookey" or "fecal waste" instead.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Don't get sidetracked by the "crap" thing.


Oh, I am not "sidetracked," Sabro. Just merely wanting to keep the discussion from devolving into expletives.




> Your argument was flawed and illogical and I gave a point by point explanation as to why. Your answer that this is "just all arm flailing." doesn't counter the points I made in showing you why your argument was crap.


Sabro, be patient. I will catch up. Surely you can see I am trying to be thorough in addressing the posts. Just a little behind, that`s all. However, my argument is not flawed -- yours is the one that is the foundation of past systems that have used exploitation to cause tyranny, oppression, and misery. I will address your points -- you can be sure of that.






> I know it can be frustrating...


Please, coin your own expressions without resorting to lifting and copying mine. 






> ...to try to prove to an unbelieving public that fluffy has feelings and rights and should be respected just like you and me. But the arguments I used had nothing to do with any I know of that "depraved systems and despots" have used. If the word "crap" throws you for such a loop, please substitute "dookey" or "fecal waste" instead.


lol. Why post "crap" in any form?-- in any case? It is just exclamatory outrage which adds nothing to your argument.

Please go back and read previous posts and you will see how your logic is the same logic used by other systems that used exploitation to keep status quos of oppression in place. I highlighted that from time to time.

Yes, The Movement is multi-faceted. We do have a strong outreach program. More and more web pages on AR are proliferating the web. More and more books are being published on the topic. They are becoming "believers" in AR little by little.

----------


## No-name

Fair enough if you don't like the use of crap, fecal matter, or dookey, how about drivel, hog wash, garbage (pronounce it gar-BAAAge), or unsupported, emotional sentiment. And I was unaware that you invented the phrase "I know it can be frustrating." Please send me an invoice for the royalty fees I owe you.

The "movement" seems to represent a small minority of humanity...and while it may comfort you to know that there are more and more web pages , books and believers, the same can be said for white supremacists and believers in the alien genomic influence theory. There are lots of things growing on the web these days. It's impact on free speech should be enough to prevent ARists, White Supremacists, Islamacists, and Abortion Bombers from claiming that anyone has silenced their voice and that acts of terrorism, property damage and violence are somehow justifiable.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> You also fail to address the thousands if not millions of individual animals that farmers kill some on purpose, some as an acceptable risk, others quite by accident- in the process of growing food, and those animals that are displaced and lose habitat due to farming.


Sabro, do you not understand that I am debating two of you and therefore it is only reasonable to see that I get behind or that sometimes things just get burried. No failing on my part. Please do me the courtesy of granting me some time. Although I do type very fast, I do have my limits.

After reading the above quote a second time, I think I may have purposely passed it over because it was ridiculously clear about the animals dieing due to to harvesting and environmental loss. I think I was befuddled or even amused that you would bring it up.

Being a vegetarian is not about living so that life is never taken. It is about choosing to not target life for exploitation via cosumption. 

Ok, yes, it is conceded that mice are killed in fields and that land used for crop cultivation displaces land which could be used for forests or prairie (i.e. animal habitat other than field mice, etc...). But, what you are not noting is, crops going directly to feed people feed more people than what crops going to feed a cow does from its (i.e. the cow's yield after grown on the large amounst of harvested crops) harvesting. It takes more acreage to feed a cow (i.e. convert the plant calories to animal calories) in order to get the same calories from what it would take to feed people had that crop gone directly to people. There are losses due to the middle stages of value added. Calorie conversion from plant to meat has loss and therefore it is not the most efficient path of from calorie to consumer. 

It is easy to see that there is a net positive loss of land going to meat production for the same number of people that would consume the same calories. More land going to crop production to support a value added to product such as meat means more animals caught in combines because of the need for ever more larger harvesting and land use. The vegetarian choice, while not free from killing field animals, nevertheless, is the choice that chooses the least amount of killing. 




> Nor did you adequately answer Mycernius' question about what we should do with the North American gray squirrels should we ever actually trap all of them out of England


It`s a preposterous "if" situation because I doubt we ever could trap all of them. Do you know what the natural range of the N. Am. gray sq is? I am guessing that originally they were in virtually all areas East of the Mississipi. I do know now they have spread to many forested areas all the way to california. Now, that is a lot of square milage that could absorb a large number of animals. Could be done. Just a matter of respecting life and committing the funds to fixing mistakes we are responsible for and which we do have the duty to do so in a way that we don`t force other animals to pay for our mistakes.

That is just off the top of my head as a way to not resort to killing. Now, I am sure experts with enough money supporting a better way that doesn`t resort in killing could come up with even more ideas.

You know, when people crouch into nature preserves or government designated wildernesses, and then when the government wants to get tough and evict them, they don`t go in there and kill them -- even if they were crawling all over the place destroying the fauna. They take the funds and time that are needed to move them out and in many cases relocate them.

Now, they could choose to let them remain there and accept the loss of fauna. It is there choice. But killing need not be a part of the equation. Even more so when a vulnerable population group is not responsible for the predicament it finds itself in.

But, just out of curiosity, what is the status now of the gray squirrel in the UK? Are they culling it? Is that cull being protested or blocked until a final decision is being made? What are all the proposals on the table?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> About that strange logic that you say mothers would use with children when killing bugs or kicking the rabbit: -- *[Don`t do that. How would you like it if someone did that to you]* -- I would not ever say that to my kids.


I sure would. And, it was said to me when I was a child and I have heard it said on other occassions by parents to kids -- even teachers to kids.




> The *"How would you like someone to do that to you?"* would never ever come up.


Wow. That is kind of sad. So much for teaching empathy to other creatures by you and those you know. Sabro, empathy is never defined and limited to as just understanding the pains and sufferings of other humans. While all child psycologists would be alarmed at a kid, or even a family, that can`t empathise with another human, most would also be alarmed and concerned over a child and a family that also could not empathise or teach a child to do so with a vulnerable animal -- such as an injured rabbit that was unable to flee and found itself either available for kicking like a stone, or at least some care to not purposely cause it additional suffering. 




> I polled several mothers.


lol! Oh, you did, did you? That`s amusing. Well, then so did I. My results differ from yours.  :Wink: 




> Most said that they would tell them to knock it off or ask "what's wrong with you?"




Exactly, Sabro! What IS *"wrong"* with them would be a good response as well, which isn`t that far off in meaning from how I phrased it. A mother is alarmed that a kid doesn`t have some empathy if she sees them kicking a rabbit down the street no different from a stone. YOu`ve made my point. Just don`t know why you are hung up on semantics and why you are so reluctant to come out with it much sooner.

A mother questioning a child in your vein is seeking to understand and admonish through a question why a child is performing an act of cruelty on an animal as if it were an inanimate object like a stone without feeling. There is cause for alarm there and a want to see that behaviour adjusted.

It surely isn`t one of being worried that the rabbit is dirty for surely many rocks are dirt covered, too, and while one may tell a child to stop kicking a rock because it is filthy, one would probably not say so with alarm like, *"What is wrong with you?"*

The fact is, there is definitely something wrong with, or something on the verge of going terribly wrong, if a child is treating an animal as if it were an inanimate thing/object that results in its injury just for his/her pleasure.

Aren`t you aware that most depraved acts of human on human murder to satisfy pleasure (not revenge, jealousy, rage of the moment, or to obtain money or assets and insurance) are often done by people after they have practiced torturing and killing animals? Police files and court records are full of that documentation.

I think it would have been best for many if those children at a very early stage were given some thought on empathy towards animals' feelings and the pain and misery that results from the improper treatment of them. Why don`t you think so? Just a simple, "Dude, knock it off! There is something wrong with that animal," leaves a lot to go unexamined and life lesson untaught if a kid is treating an animal like a stone and kicking it down the street. Why don`t you see that?

I almost shudder to think of your children or the kids in your area from the mothers you`ve polled. Well, actually, your polled mothers basically said the same as I did -- albeit differently. That leaves you and your child with the "Dude, don`t touch that. There is something seriously wrong with that animal." 

Hmmmm... no, like the mother hinted at -- there is something wrong with the "child." No need to make the animal the scapegoat for what is lacking in the child -- a sense of empathy. 




> ...but none spontaneously gave the response you thought would be natural.


lol...and none in my poll group said anything near what you said. So much for our assertions that neither one of as can verify, huh?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> You remarked that it took little or no skill, so the only way to check that is to participate. This is perfectly logical if you keep making statements about hunting that need confirmation. If you don't want me to have to do hunting research, refrain from specific criticisms about what hunters do, what the experience is, and what amount of effort or skill it takes.


It is not perfectly logical, Sabro, for you would have to go out with every hunter to check in order to get an absolute statement that would apply to all. Even hunters will admit that a lot of their kills are due to luck. I am not saying all of them do, but many do. And because luck could be a lot of the factor in killing an animal you need not test it. But do so if you wish. It will not let you make a definitive answer anymore than just making some logical observations. A 14 year old, or even an 8 year old who never hunted before or had just one or two classes in hunting could conceivably kill a 14 point buck from the same tree stand a day after a veteran professional hunter of 30 years did the same or went home without killing anything. 

The point is, while there may be some minimal skill, it does not have to be the over riding determinant in killing an animal and that what skill it may take, is so readily attainable by most people, that it really isn`t much better than being skillful at searching out coupons in the newspaper to get the supermarket shopping costs down -- just a little patience in innertia, putting out some salt blocks, covering yourself in deer piss, making a call on a whistle to give you the perfect sound everytime, stay comfortable with battery socks, have a thermos nearby, point, aim, follow the rythom of your breathing, exhale, slowly squeeze. 

Most can do all that within a few days of training -- if not hours. Nothing requiring years to master or to get those things down. The biggest part is the deer just being fooled by the deer piss and them following the sound for companionship (i.e. walking up to or near the hunter). The hunter`s skill is just one of duplicity and ambush.

But, put a 14 year old, or even a 24 year old on a basketball court with only a day or two of instruction up next to a NBA veteran for a game of 21, they will not win 2 out of three games. They probably wouldn`t even get one game. The winning of the game is the equivelant to a kill -- not just scoring a point here or there.

But, remember, your logic still would force you to try cocaine in order to be able to criticize it. After all, you, too, have asserted that it is dangerous. In order to accept that, you`d have to be able to verify it. You see how ludicrous your logic is on this point?

----------


## No-name

So your two basic arguments against hunting from the last two really really long posts of yours are: you should empathize with animals- because psychopaths don't and hunting really doesn't take all that much skill- a couple of hours of training and some deer piss and an 8 year old is as good as a 30 year old veteran. Please correct me if I did not summarize your arguments correctly.

I find them entirely unconvincing.

----------


## Mycernius

> But, just out of curiosity, what is the status now of the gray squirrel in the UK? Are they culling it? Is that cull being protested or blocked until a final decision is being made? What are all the proposals on the table?


The Grey squirrel is classed as a pest species and there are culls in areas. They have no natural predator in the UK. They damage trees and have almost driven our native Red squirrel to extinction. They are culled and there are no protests about the fact. Some fringe groups might not like it, but they have no media attention and the general public view is indifference to the fact. It is not illegal to kill or hunt a grey. You can even by recipes for them.
Just to take your idea of trapping and sending them back to their native country we will take the feral pig in Australia as an example.
If they where to follow your ideas in trapping the pigs then several problems arise:
1. Australia is a big country. If traps were laid out the pig could be in that trap for sevearl days before being taken out. It will suffer dehydartion and sunstroke. Pigs skin is like human skin and sensistive to the sun.
2. These pigs would have to be transported back to there country of origin, which in this case in mainly the UK. To cut the distress they would most likely have to be tranqualised. This is to tranq something is to actually poison it mildly. Wrong dose and one dead pig. So a certain percentage would die from the tranqualisers.
3. Transportation. Even if you try your best they would be in small cages for hours. This, again, causes distress and animals that suffer too much will die from th amount of stress that undergo such mass transportations.
4. Once in the UK they will have to undergo quarentine prodcedures. Again being locked up in a cage for several months. More distress and anguish.
5. Once being passed they would have to go to a farm. They would not be released into the British countryside, as most of the countryside in the UK is managed. We do have wild boar in the south, but wild pigs can be dangerous, especially the boars. Look at the dogs bred for hunting these animals. tough with strong jaws.
6. A farmer wouldn't just keep them as pets, especially if there were thousands of the damn things. Instead they would be put to a practical use and used for the meat market.
So, to summerise. Your idea would take an animal out of the wild and subject it to stress and pain to end up thousand of miles from its home to be slaugtered. It is easier to pay someone to shoot the pig in its wild habitat. It is quicker and less painful for the animal in question. You'll probably argue that we can capture them and sterilise the animals. All well and good, but what do you do with the sterile animal? Release back into the wild? Stupid idea. The reason it has to be taken out of the wild is because of the damage it does to the eco-sytem. he the only way is to keep it in a farm in Australia. Again no-one will just keep thousands of pigs until the day that they die naturally. The reason: cost. Why pour money into it? Pigs are a commodity and we might as well use them for food and other by-products that they provide. As you can see a little different to your black and white view of the problem.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> So your two basic arguments against hunting from the last two really really long posts of yours are: you should empathize with animals- because psychopaths don't and hunting really doesn't take all that much skill- a couple of hours of training and some deer piss and an 8 year old is as good as a 30 year old veteran. Please correct me if I did not summarize your arguments correctly.



Then you stand corrected, Sabro. I am not against hunting for those reasons. *I am against hunting because I do not accept exploitation of life for pleasure, comfort, or convenience.* Empathy allows me to reject exploitation. I think I have said I am against the exploitation of life several times in this thread. Haven`t you caught that yet?

I question "hunting" as a sport because it lacks skill and it is more of an activity which is liken to *ambush*. And I never said an 8 year old is as good as a 30 year old veteran. I said in all possibility an 8 year old could bring down a 14 pointer on one day when a veteran couldn`t. 

Why don`t you summerize accurately and address comments directed at you, and then your posts, too, would be a little longer as well. But doing that wouldn`t allow you to evade the issues of logic and questions I have put forth to you.

Yes, my posts are long because I am being thorough in addressing you. And besides, I find myself having to repeat myself to you because you keep jumping parallels and breaking analogies. Furthermore, as for you hilarious "polling" above, it was necessary to underscore how weak and wrong it was -- except for the part where you proved my point with the mother asking her child, "What is wrong with you?"





> I find them entirely unconvincing.


Believe me, I have no illusions of convincing you. You are merely a sounding board so that others who are undecided on the issue who may look in, can see arguments against hunting. Many are undecided and many may never visit an AR forum, so therefore, this is a great way to bring the arguments to them. ARists are not passive, you know. 

It also allows debate practice so that in the future when I debate a different person, in all probability I will have heard the arguments for hunting before hand. I`ve been on other boards before this one, and to be honest, you have offered nothing but the tired old crowings of all other hunters or their supporters. Personally, I hope the hunting coalition sticks to their message because it hasn`t been working for them. Their numbers are declining and more and more people are taking the side against it, not persuing it as a hobby, or giving it up.

----------


## CC1

If I didn't know better I would swear that you are my buddy 3rdEyeDown reincarnated!

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> As to the "what gives you the right" question... you cannot logically answer that.


Of course you can`t, because the right to exploit beings, causing them pain, misery, and death , does not exist. For survival, yes -- for profit, comfort, convenience, laziness -- no.




> Nothing and everything.


You are right about the first part. The second half though, makes no sense. Are you going zen on me? Makes me think of verbal masturbation.




> Like I said, not prohibited by law,...


The law is not an indicator of what is ethically right. Law often lags behind the granting of rights. Look at that in history and even when something was legal -- we can still confidantly say it was wrong and that people of that time were wrong to do such a thing. Social change often goes against/breaks the law before the law is adjusted.




> ... not against my religious code...


lol. Personal religious codes do not guide what is right. I am sure there are some religious codes that do or have had practices that are not right. Would be a sorry world if people justified their actions by what their religious codes were. Almost too scary to even think about.




> ...not against my code of ethics (as it does not violate the Golden rule),


Sorry, it does violate the Golden Rule. You just don`t recognize it. Besides, you underscored my point on that with the mother you polled in which she said to her child in the rabbit kicking scenario, "What is wrong with you?" Remember?

Btw, I`m still laughing about your poll. Hilarious. Particularly how it backfired.





> ... conforms to my culture and traditions.


Cultures and traditions are not guideposts of right action and ethical rights emanating from them. Examples have already been given. Again, look at the logic of what "x" and "y" you place into the constructs. Logic is consistant, it doesn`t change with the values inserted.




> I give you these and you argue back against them. Therefore I don't even have the right to eat a carrot: Just because it is legal, traditional, and does not violate my religious code does not make it right...after all clitoral mutilation fits all those parameters in Somalia. STV: this is not logical argument. It is the classical straw man tactic.



Sorry, Sabro, it is you introducing the "carrot" which is a the diversion and "straw man" tactic. The argument against hunting is based on exploitation of creatures that feel pain and are capable of suffering. The ability to suffer is what cuts across all organisms with a central nervous system. Therefore, that is the total of the group which is subject to the argument and their experiences as members of the animal inhabitants of this world are comparable and fair play as analogical models to illustrate logic or the lack of logic in any given argument.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> They [*[ the arguments of Strongvoicesforward]* are based entirely on an emotional premise that centers around ascribing human feelings, emotions and value to animals.


And which emotions do you think animals don`t have? You will have a mountain of ethologists to go against when it comes to denying emotions to animals.

As for basing arguments on "emotion" for hunting, or on any aspect of exploitation of animals, it is the emotional joy of killing an animal for sport, the emotional joy of killing an animal to wear its skin for fashion and conceit, etc...

Perhaps you are underrating the "emotion" part a little too much and not giving the proper weight to the ugliness of the joy garnered through targeting an animal for death to get something from it that really is not a necessity to have.





> They ignore every point both Mycernius and I have brought up by giving logical fallacies and strange analogies.


No, Sabro, you have NOT been addressing logic. You have just been repeating the fact that animals aren`t human and are not the same as us. The thing is you are ignoring all the traits the animals share with us that lends us to see their sufferng. You still have not reconciled the backdrops of history in which systems have caused suffering and how they were defended with the same logic that permits and forces suffering upon animals.

Of course, you can continue to crow that they are not the same as us, but that argument has not been deterring many from joining the AR orgs that are calling for change in our relationships with animals.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Can you give a simple one paragraph response without making a strange analogy to slavery, human sacrifice or body piercing, attacking hunters as unskilled drunks, or taking the "how would you feel if it was you..." jump in logic to the simple question: Why is hunting wrong?


lol. Sorry, Sabro, but an opponent in a debate never gets to control his/her opponents supporting arguments. Why do you think they do? 

Like I told you before, all those examples remain for you to grapple with. You still have not addressed the logic or nonlogic which they are founded upon. Animal exploitation does not exist in a vacuum. The backdrop of history is connected to everything.

*I have already told you:* Hunting as a sport and where it is not necessary is wrong because exploitation/killing for pleasure is wrong. That is supported in different aspects by the examples which you referred to above which I had thrown out to you to explain the logic of -- which you have not done yet.

Merely saying they are not human or human life is more valuable than animal life is not the point. To cause suffering is wrong, and most normally functioning people have an inate sense to not want to cause it and to avoid it or stop it when they see it, whether it be human or non-human which is the victim of it. Whether someone is complicit in that as a consumer far removed from the place where the suffering occurs is a different part of the equation. 

"Value" is not the point either -- for the importance we attatch to our species is one from our vantage, and not a universal one. There is no evidence that says animals were specifically created for us to do with as we wish or proof of an entity that says we can. 

"Value" is also defective because some humans value other humans less and therefore would also like to exploit them. "Value" is not a benchmark to measure by. "Value" can only be justified in one`s interest to win out in a personal event in which survival is a pressng matter of a particular moment when another being is trying to deprive you of your right to life. Then, you have the right to value your right to survive in the face of the other trying to deprive you of that life/right.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I have no objections to vegetarians and I will cater for them if they visits. Why they don't cater for me is a different matter?


They don`t cater to you because doing so would mean they would have to violate the ethics that they believe to be true that exploiting animals is wrong. You don`t object to catering to them because you do not view doing anything to vegetables as wrong. In your mind, you are not put in a situation in your kitchen preparing something that calls into play questions about ethics. However, remember, they do find themselves in that situation.

Would you want them to violate their beliefs in their ethics to cater to you?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

Mycernius,

Your post #127 was pretty good, and I did address it just briefly above. However, it didn`t relate to hunting very much so I have not addressed it in its entirety. I know the last part of it was probably referring to pest invasive species, but I have already addressed that above, so I didn`t see a need to repeat myself in detail.

Would my solutions bring the world to ruin like you said? That is conjecture on your part. The world hasn`t come to ruin yet, has it -- and believe me, there has been a lot more tinkering and screwing up with the world in all these hundreds of years before me, that I think my ideas would not make it any worse. In fact, I think they would aid it. But in the spirit of fairness, that, too, is conjecture.

The only difference is, my plan would be the more costlier one in monetary terms. But, perhaps we need some practice in learning how to clean up after ourselves with some punitive costs so that we know the financial bite of screw ups. Screw ups should be painful. Those are the ones we learn from and whose lessons stick with us more. We are more likely to repeat stupidity when the costs are little or not punitive enough. A little pain goes far in creating future modifications of behaviour. 

That is not "black and white" which you seem to be fond of saying. Just deciding to kill something for convenience is the more "black and white" of the two options.

----------


## CC1

> They don`t cater to you because doing so would mean they would have to violate the ethics that they believe to be true that exploiting animals is wrong. You don`t object to catering to them because you do not view doing anything to vegetables as wrong. In your mind, you are not put in a situation in your kitchen preparing something that calls into play questions about ethics. However, remember, they do find themselves in that situation.
> 
> Would you want them to violate their beliefs in their ethics to cater to you?


Potatoes have feelings too...I don't think that we should harvest those poor potatoes just for our enjoyment...who will join me in this movement?  :Sad:

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Potatoes *[you are not my old buddy Dan Quale, are you? He had a penchant for talking about potatoes in public places. I think he had a special fondness for them.]* have feelings too...I don't think that we should harvest those poor potatoes just for our enjoyment...who will join me in this movement?


lol!

You just may be able to create a movement. But, I am sure yours will be hundreds of years behind the AR movement. Start campaigning and get in line, CC1.

But, if you don`t mind, I would like to keep the thread on track about hunting. It has already meandered off that topic from time to time about vegetarianism, fur farms, and invasive species. It is hard to keep it on topic as it is with other animal issues on the periphery, let alone Mr. Potato Head crowding in. 

So, if you could afford me this favor, I would prefer that you make a new thread for your "Potato" campaign. Fair enough?

But thanks all the same for the injection of some humor to lighten it up a little. 

But, please do feel free to jump in with your thoughts on hunting. Perhaps you will have something new or a different perspective to add, or a different argument.

----------


## Mycernius

> They don`t cater to you because doing so would mean they would have to violate the ethics that they believe to be true that exploiting animals is wrong. You don`t object to catering to them because you do not view doing anything to vegetables as wrong. In your mind, you are not put in a situation in your kitchen preparing something that calls into play questions about ethics. However, remember, they do find themselves in that situation.
> 
> Would you want them to violate their beliefs in their ethics to cater to you?


Not all vegetarians are vegetarians because they do not like hunting or the explotation of animals. Some are vegetarians because they feel it is a better way of life for them. Some just don't like meat. I don't like pork, not because I feel for the the pig, I just don't like it. I have seen vegetarians eat meat when their is nothing else for them to eat. I know one vegetarian who does not like cats. In fact she has regularly said that if it was acceptable in this country to eat cats she would eat cats. But if I visit her house I do not get a choice. I know vegetarians that will kill animals, work in the meat industry and even in slaughter houses. How am I violating their ethics?
While I do agree that some hunting is pointless and a waste of time. A man waiting for bambi to show up, shoot it and take its head as a prize is stupid and goes into the same catagory as "my cars is bigger than yours", but it is human nature. But there are some hunters than will trap and kill bambi and then take it home a butcher it and use it. They are not putting money into the farms that produce beef, chicken etc. Instead they are taking what they need, just like our ancestors. You live in a country where people can live in isolation from the rest of the world. They could live in towns and buy their meat from Sainsbury or Tesco, but they want to be more with nature. They gather and hunt what they need. To be free of our world. Would you deny these people this? Would you lock people in a cage and deny them their instincts, while letting animals follow thiers?
In fact I will put money down that if you were put in a survival situation you would hunt, trap and kill. Ethics go out of the window in a survival situation. You'll shake your head at this going "no I won't", but when it boils down to it your life is more important than any animal, especially when faced with starvation. Like it or not man is a predator, only our intelligence lets us make a chioce, but in certain situations that primitive side will come out, no matter how many times you try to deny it. Surely even you have got angry enough to want to hurt someone.

----------


## No-name

Okay, let me give this summarizing the argument thing another shot- and again correct me if I am wrong:SVF is against hunting because he does not accept exploitation of life for pleasure, comfort, or convenience. This is based upon some empathic connection with animal life. My basic argument has been that human life is inherently more valuable than animal life and that there is nothing wrong with this exploitation. (And I would add provided the purpose is not specifically to inflict suffering.) Is that accurate?

The carrot is not a strawman. It is a response to the unanswerable question: "Who gives you the right." If it is not law, tradition, culture, history or religion...how could one possibly answer the question? The counter question "Who restricts that right." is equally valid and equally unanswerable. Hence nothing that can't be argued gives me the right, and equally nothing restricts that right. (Nothing and everything is neither Zen nor mental masturbation- nor is it relatavistic ethics- unless you provide a single absolute universal standard that governs our behavior, it is the best answer I have.) Although a carrot generates nearly the same answers from the sources mentioned that a cheeseburger or side of vennison would, killing another person violates cultural, legal, traditional, historical and religious standards.

My wife and her co-workers thought the rabbit kicking question was quite funny. No one thought that kicking a living creature was okay, but all of them eat meat. I did not probe- I just asked them one at a time, "If you saw a boy kicking a live rabbit down the sidewalk, what would you say?" and universally they said they would tell the boy to knock it off. Not one volunteered that "how would you like if someone did that to you?" I'm certain that you can communicate that inflicting pain or torturing a living creature is wrong even if you dismiss the empathic substitution. 

The other reason for the difference in our polling is how you ask the question- if you are leading the people to give a certain answer- I did not, and allowed them to spontaneously generate an answer, probing only if there response was laughter, "I don't know." or an indirect answer. The follow up question was "why?"

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Not all vegetarians are vegetarians because they do not like hunting or the explotation of animals.


 That`s right. Sorry. When I had read and answered your post, since this thread's argument from my point was one of ethics, I thought you were giving your friends' situation as one that matched this thread's main point.





> While I do agree that some hunting is pointless and a waste of time.


 We agree. Whether it is some or most, is up for debate. 




> They are not putting money into the farms that produce beef, chicken etc. Instead they are taking what they need, just like our ancestors.


 Factory farming is the worst, which I clearly stated before. But both are exploitation and neither is really needed in our modern societies or even in the many rural areas.

"Just like our ancestors" however, is a strange phrase to use. Sure, nutritional needs harvested are the same. But, method of harvesting is indeed no where near like how our ancestors did it. And which ancestors are you referring to? Whichever sub group you choose will be an arbitrary choice, won`t it? Our ancestors of 50, 100, 200, 300 years ago all had different methods/tools for huntng and therefore the chances of animals not being killed as they are pitted against hunter/man also differed. 





> You live in a country where people can live in isolation from the rest of the world. They could live in towns and buy their meat from Sainsbury or Tesco, but they want to be more with nature.



 "Wants" do not make it right.





> They gather and hunt what they need. Would you deny these people this? Would you lock people in a cage and deny them their instincts, while letting animals follow thiers?



 If there is no need to cause killing and suffering, I cannot condone it. If it were preventable, then I think it should be prevented. There is nothing about locking people up in cages just by not permitting them to hunt.

Animals need to follow their urge to hunt in order to survive. After all, they can`t go to the supermarket and buy their food, can they? Humans can do that.




> In fact I will put money down that if you were put in a survival situation you would hunt, trap and kill. Ethics go out of the window in a survival situation. You'll shake your head at this going "no I won't", but when it boils down to it your life is more important than any animal, especially when faced with starvation.


 Mycernius, no where in this thread have I ever said that hunting for survival was wrong. In fact, I think I referred to some isolated places in the Arctic or the Amazon where it is a necessity. Those now are places that are not the norm of modern life. They are anomalies. Remember, this thread topic is referring to sport -- not hunting as a need to survive.

If my plane crashed in the Sahara, and I knew for a fact that thousands of hot desolate sand stretched out before me in either direction, and two lone camels walked by, and I was on the verge of loosing all strength to continue my life, I would kill one camel to survive and consume it. Consuming life, even animal life, for survival in severe situations is indeed justified. 




> Like it or not man is a predator, only our intelligence lets us make a chioce, but in certain situations that primitive side will come out, no matter how many times you try to deny it.


 Exactly Mycernius! "Certain" situations dictate when it is justified. Not enjoyment for a sport or just wanting to obtain pleasure by living in the mountains because we choose to. That is exploitation based on pleasure. AS our inteligence, like you said, lets us make a choice, it also lets us to recognize respect for life based on ethics and to understand that taking life should only be when it IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to continue our life in a battle with nature in nature just as a wolf would have to do.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Okay, let me give this summarizing the argument thing another shot- and again correct me if I am wrong:SVF is against hunting because he does not accept exploitation of life for pleasure, comfort, or convenience. This is based upon some empathic connection with animal life.
> 
> Is that accurate [position rearranged]?


Yes, Sabro, that is basically it. That is The Movement`s basic position. However, the empathetic connection to non-human animal life is a real one and is only subverted when in a survival situation, or when life has been commodified by pleasure (i.e. hobbies) or economics.





> My basic argument has been that human life is inherently more valuable than animal life and that there is nothing wrong with this exploitation. (And I would add provided the purpose is not specifically to inflict suffering.)


And I reject that argument as false because "value" is from a human perspective and that implies that the world was made for us with us at the top, and furthermore, there is no proof from a universal sense that humans are more important than animals. That is a belief based on speciesism, just as the logic of racism dictated that the lives of Whites were/are more valuable than blacks, or that Men are more important or have more inherant value than women and therefore only they should be able to vote.

But, valueing one thing over another does not mean it is permissable to exploit another. "Value" is not a license for exploitation. Like I said before, if value were a license, then people who value their race over that of another would be justified in exploiting that race. 

Humans are animals. Placing a barrier between us and non-human animals is an arbitrarily placed barrier that is not justified by anything other than the proffits we gain from exploiting them. It is only the fear of losing that profit that stands in the way of breaking that barrier down. But that fear is the same fear that resisted breaking barriers down between races amongst our own race. 

Extending the concept of rights should be done because no being that can feel pain wants to suffer, and all that do feel pain want that relieved. If we have the ability to relieve suffering, our desire not to be in the same situation, calls out to us to want to relieve that. Even though we may not act on that, our repugnance at suffering causes us to look away from it, to shield our sensibilities from it.

Furthermore, if an action targets an animal to get something from it so that one profits in someway and suffering is a result, then it, too is wrong. This would include things such as sport hunting, factory farming, fur farms, trapping, etc....

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Sabro: The carrot is not a strawman. It is a response to the unanswerable question: "Who gives you the right." If it is not law, tradition, culture, history or religion...how could one possibly answer the question? The counter question "Who restricts that right." is equally valid and equally unanswerable. Hence nothing that can't be argued gives me the right, and equally nothing restricts that right.


I stated before, Sabro, a carrot is not part of the animal group. It has no sentience or consciouse. It does not share a central nervous system that lets us observe suffering and paine. The argument for AR is one based on not exploiting because exploitation leads to suffering and pain which are things we ethically should recognize as something we should not cause. 

If you can find large amounts of studies and data and many researchers akin to ethologists in the plant realm that shows a carrot suffers and feels pain, has some sentience, a central nervous system that allows that, then maybe your carrot ruse would not be the red herring it is. Until then, it sticks out there as the strawman to just muddle the argument and act as a diversion.





> Although a carrot generates nearly the same answers from the sources mentioned that a cheeseburger or side of vennison would, killing another person violates cultural, legal, traditional, historical and religious standards.



Yes, Sabro, and all those things you have listed are constructs of the human animal for the benefit of humans. It says nothing about humans from a universal perspective as having the right to grant himself extraspecial rights and deny them to non-human animals.

I explained before why all those reasons are not right for denying animals rights and keeping them in a perpetual form of tyranny and exploitation. You have not addressed the logic. Here they are supporting another terrible thing that perverted happiness in a culture of exploitation and fear:

*A white lady marrying a black man violates cultural, legal, traditional, historical and religious standards.*

Does that logic sound something you would like to keep wearing? Now please, address the logic, that which supports the construct.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

FLASH: The first black bear killed in Rhode Island (?right state?) on the first day of the black bear hutning season was killed by an 8 year old girl.

Just heard that on The Daily Show. Sorry, didn`t catch the state, but it was an Eastern State. Wow! Lots of skill in this! I can just imagine her sitting next to a garbage heap or spreading the bait gunk to attract it. Doubt if she was walking miles over rough terrain stalking a bear. 

Skill, skill, skill and an 8 year old girl. Yeah -- lots of skill.

----------


## No-name

Well then- there is the source- the immovable impediment is the fact that I do believe humans are different than animals. I "value" human life over that of any insect, fish, reptile, mammal or other primate. Certainly we are biologically part of the animal kingdom...and physiologically we do not differ. 

But there is a difference that is not arbitrary-justified not only by our superior intellect or by our varried beliefs in a soul or spirit but also by our inherent psychological and social connection to one another. It is part of all of our religions, part of our cultures, traditions, history, and codified into our ethics, morals and laws. As clearly as the AR movement would like to erase this boundry is the fact that it exists in a large sociologically based context that is engrained and entrenched.

"Value" unfortunately _is_ a license for exploitation. It is exactly how people do justify exploitation of another race. It is exactly how we excuse collateral casualties in Iraq. It ignores the fact that we are members of a single species. Race, however is a social construct not a biological fact (although Bossel can argue convincingly otherwise). Species is a definite biologically defined classification. Although I cannot justify a differing value in terms of race, I can in terms of species. I cannot justify racism, but valuing my species above all others is perfectly and soundly based.

There is nothing particularly wrong with fear as a motivator. I fear change for no real reason. I would say that I definitely fear losing my ability to eat the foods I enjoy. That I fear my life would become unnecessarily complicated and expensive. I fear that traditions and customs that have endured for centuries would be lost, and that the next medical breakthrough will never happen because the research is no longer practical. I fear our cosmetics could become dangerous in ways we can't predict, that our food becomes not only less available due to out of control of vermin, but less safe due to the lack of testing and vector control. I fear that we would make all these changes to satisfy a minority of humans for the wrong reasons, that they will be implemented with disaterous results and that the animal world will not be any better off. That as we break down our barrier between the more easily empathized with mammals, that we also get less willing to kill pests, to manage wildlife and that we sacrifice good science for sentiment. It seems an unacceptable risk to human life and our modern lifestyle based upon questionable assumptions.

I also fear a fringe movement dictating not only the vehicle I drive, but my recreational and entertainment activities.

Although this thread is in regards to hunting (which I don't do anyway). I do eat meat (mostly fish and chicken), dairy products and eggs, support ethical vivisection, go fishing, wear leather clothing, desire to control pests for food preservation and property protection as well as vector control, enjoy zoos (but not circuses). I support others who like me keep pets, and equestrians, ranchers and farmers. I own three 4x4's- although 2 of them are small, but my daily driver is an Insight- 70mpg. I have gone skiing in the past. I hope the AR "Movement" will leave me alone.

----------


## No-name

How do you know how much skill an 8 year old girl has? Now I have to go black bear hunting to determine if she was some kind of savant or just lucky. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102402024.html

So the carrot does not have sentience or conscience? How do you know? Several ancient cultures believe that every living thing has a spirit. What determines sentience and conscience? I'm not entirely certain that my pets are self aware or that they have the intellectual capacity to justify this classification. (And they are smart pets.)

"A white lady marrying a black man violates cultural, legal, traditional, historical and religious standards." Fortunately this is no longer true in my country. (See, this is the dookie argument- again designed to associate the struggle against racism with AR. Race is an artificial category, species is not.) How about "A white lady marrying her labrador retriever?" I wouldn't want to impose my "species barrier" on their love.

----------


## No-name

Not that I support 8 year olds skipping school to kill bears (which are trophy animals- you don't eat them) --I checked the Washington Post article: The bear wasn't baited or shot at a dump. It was cold and raining. She had to score 98 on a safety test. She hit the bear twice at fifty yards. The second time it was moving..."But hunters who came later, hauling bears of their own, were astonished by Sierra's feat of marksmanship -- usually bears will start to run too fast for a hunter to get off a second shot." So apparently she had a bit of skill. (The point of which, skill or no skill- is hunting right or wrong...I have lost. Rock skipping takes little skill, but we don't ban that.)

Your screaming colorful headline sized post is unnecessary and does nothing to improve your argument. (again, this point seems off topic.)

----------


## Miss_apollo7

I like to shoot with a pistol in a shooting range (0.22 caliber mostly). I don't shoot animals since I don't like the feeling of personally killing a deer or a bird just for the fun of it. 
I know many hunters, and some have tried to convince me into shooting with them, however, I have always declined. 
I like shooting for "dead targets which have points" and just for the fun of shooting, not killing, as it trains my precision, posture, and simply for the competition – but a poor deer shouldn't be victim for my leisure time and because I happen to like shooting.

I don't have any problems of eating meat though, I couldn't live without chicken, since I love to eat chicken breast....I just don't want to kill them myself for the fun of it.....
What is very important to me is the welfare of the animals when they get slaughtered, so I don't mind continuing eating chicken, turkey, pork etc.,

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I like to shoot with a pistol in a shooting range (0.22 caliber mostly). I don't shoot animals since I don't like the feeling of personally killing a deer or a bird just for the fun of it.


Shooting targets on a range. Fine. Causing misery for fun. Not fine. You have "right thought" on the matter.




> I know many hunters, and some have tried to convince me into shooting with them, however, I have always declined.


Doesn`t surprise me. Depraved people always feel a little less guilty when they spread that guilt around a little. Knowing their world is one in which those who share their same sense of pleasure is growing smaller and smaller, it is not surprising they are trying to get more blood junkies.

Kind of reminds me of the teenager in an inner city project looking on a playground. Not content with letting the younger kids just shoot some b-ball and have fun doing what they enjoy, this dealer of misery goes over and tries to convince the kids to shoot up with him and join in on his activity -- an all too different kind of "shooting."

"There she is shooting those targets on the range. Hmmmm... Let`s try and get her to do our kind of shooting that takes an innocent life minding its own business not threatening anyone."




> I like shooting for "dead targets which have points" and just for the fun of shooting, not killing, as it trains my precision, posture, and simply for the competition | *but a poor deer shouldn't be a victim for my leisure time and because I happen to like shooting.*


Well said, Miss_apollo7.

Hunters, however, need that coup de` grace. Those "sportsmen" just need to have bloodletting and take a life. I mean, a head hanging over a mantle, bonding, story telling, and bragging rights are all on the line. A bear`s life is definitely tradable for all those things.

And if a few animals get away with serious wounds to die miserable and painful deaths from gangrene, oh well -- just tough luck. Shouldn`t have been born a bear, Ms Bear. You have to pay for me being a bad shot or not being smart enough to stand still so I can take your life without screwing it up. Why, in the end, its all your falt. Surely not mine, because the law says I can do it.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> This [the bolded following] is not a logical argument:


*Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward

Why do you think that illegal civil action cannot be acts of protest? Don`t you think that the Sons of Liberty carrying out the Boston Tea Party was protesting and committing a crime? I do. Why don`t you think so? Would you wished that all of them and abolitionists and Polish Jewish partisen resistant groups had been caught by the legal authorities of their countries?

You are basing all your reasoning on arbitrary fondness for the status quo, and not on logic or with history as a background in regards to alleviating oppression and exploitation.*

Sure it is (i.e. a logical argument). And your points below, which I will get to now in a few separate posts, have not explained why it is not logical. They only explain your opinion on what you feel is noble and which is not noble. 

I asked you some specific questions. Why didn`t you answer them? I am wondering if you didn`t answer because the answers point you in the direction of logic. 




> By reaching for emotional triggers, you may convince yourself that you are "alleviating opression and exploitation," but most people with just a smidgen of critical reasoning can recognize it as hooey. You can't compare the Boston Tea Party, abolition or Jewish resistance to the Nazis to the sophomoric and criminal activities of Animal Rightists.


"Sophomoric"!? Kind of reminds me of egging a house or soaping car windows or toilet papering a house. Now you are hyperboling downward. You had better look at some of the direct actions taken by Animal Liberationists and that should show you they are anything other than "sophomoric," -- and are not considered so by their targets.

Again, criminal activity does not mean that activity is absolutely wrong. I know you don`t want to answer the questions above, because that would make you have to admit that criminal activity conducted in many movements to alleviate tyranny and oppression was, and indeed, is permissable and judged so by historians as rightly so. Your problem in refusing to answer the question is one of you being in the status quo and fearing the loss of priviledge you get from imposing your will on another individual. Logically, no different from history.

"Emotional triggers"??? -- Yes, those were all things struggles that were taxing emotionaly, and still so when remembered by many. Nothing wrong with bringing emotions into actions to garner support. In fact, emotions are the catalysts for all struggles. The status quo sure would like people to not get emotional, that way the establishment doesn`t go through any great turmoils of change. Cotton growers sure didn`t want abolitionists getting emotional about slaves. In fact, I imagine many of them could have beaten their slaves without getting emotional about it. Emotion is what is needed. Yes, hunters don`t want ARists getting emotional when they go out to do their fun (note: emotions of fun on thier side is acceptable) bloodletting. Fur farmers don`t want ARists getting emotional when they anally electrocute mink and chinchilla or snap their necks. Why, all those ARists getting emotional and getting other people emotional could be costly, couldn`t it?





> 1. It attempts to make the AR cause more noble by comparing it to noble struggles of the past. These people fought for civil liberties (for humans),for human dignity and for survival. This is an attempt at false parallel.



There is no attempt to make anything -- reason being: because it IS a noble cause to end tyranny and oppression of beings that suffer.

Humans are animals, too. You are arbitrarily separating them based on speciesism which lies on the same logic of racism and sexism. ARists are fighting for the dignity of life. They have not separated life into parts that are beholden to the god Profit.

The parallel is accurate. Your reason for saying it isn`t is one based on an arbitrary separation of man from animals based on your perspective of value, from which, as a part of the status quo, you profit from. Surely, a slave holder in 1855 would never consider an abolitionist`s actions/arguments as noble in any sense comparable to the Sons of Liberty and the Minutemen of the Revolutionary War. Like you, they, too, would call your parallels false.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> 2. In those historical struggles, those people had exhausted all legal avenues of redress, had no other avenue to voice their opinion.



Sabro, are you saying now, then, that violence and breaking the law is not always wrong?

Why do you think all avenues other than protest and illegal actions had been exhausted? "Exhausted" is a pretty absolute word with a definitive meaning. I think you have qualified yourself into an error.

First, the colonists could have continued with sending emmissaries to Britain to get the population to sympathise with them. They could have chosen civil non cooperation. They could have still continued to petition the colonial governors in the hopes that some would push for changes with the king. There was nothing that said a new King would not have been more kind -- all they had to do was endure and wait for change and keep petitioning for it. And I am not aware of any Great Britain edict saying that civil liberties in the colonies had been ordered to be static and no requests for change could ever be floated.  Do you have a declaration like that you could point me to that closes all hopes for future change and redress? 

Believe me, I can write similar scenarios for the other struggles as well. 

Blacks engaging in Civil Disobedience resisting targeting of them in the South in the 50's and 60's sure were justified eventhough a the legal system still was open for redress to them.

When it is permissable to take direct action is a subjective decision. Sure, we have the benefit of hindsite, but those people in those eras didn`t know if the time was certainly right or not or if all avenues had indeed been exhausted. Surely they felt frustration with the system, and it is probably that which caused direct action to take form. Things just started rolling. 

Keep in mind, many in colonies felt that more time should have been given. Obviously, those persons felt that there were still some other options open to investigate.






> AR still live in a society where freedom of expression is allowable, where there is ample media to give them voice, and a system where they can petition for redress.



The Movement is multi-faceted. There are those who do continue to do what you stated. And there are those who have reached frustration and have made a subjective decision on the state of things. Like our forefathers, why would they expect their demands to be granted when the system is wedded to the structures they are calling for a dismanteling of?

Furthermore, Martin Luther King's movement was enhanced by Malcolm X and the Black Panthers standing in the shadows. Surely, the government and society saw the benefit of alienating Malcolm X and the Black Panthers if they could do so by agreeing to the demands King was making. Had the Black Panthers not been on the scene, most, even King, agreed that his movement would have been weaker.

Mahatma Ghandi was in the same situation in India. He knew well that his movement was benefitting from the other militant movements that were shaping up in the countryside. Gandi's opponent, Great Britain, surely didn`t want the violent element to start taking off and therefore did feel obligated to deal with Gandi's party.

The same is with AR. Those fringe groups that do resort to direct action make other AR groups more legitimate in the minds of the public and the government. The government/corporation therefore, is quite willing to sit down and talk to Peta about some animal matters -- but they do so because they know that to make the mainstream AR movments' members frustrated, will only push many of those members into the fringe groups. 

Now, if there weren`t laws and special tax breaks, and government contracts/grants granting millions to animal exploiters so that the government can in turn get in on the profits from that exploitation (i.e. the government was neutral and did not profit from the exploitation and was unbiased), then yes, in all probability there would not be such a large amount of suspicion and reluctance to go the pure legal way. But, as you know that is not the case and ARists have been calling for change for decades and they are just frustrated.

History and logic points to the fact it (i.e. direct action) has been successful in the past and it has always succeeded over the long run in alleviating tyranny and oppression.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> 3. With little personal risk, AR targets are peripheral, powerless, and innocent. Unlike the Sons of Liberty (many of whom perished in the struggle), the Abolitionists (many of whom were hanged) or Polish resistance fighters (most of whom perished) these AR arsonists destroy private property of people without the power to effect change who are only peripherally involved in maintaining the status quo. The risk very little for a cause not widely accepted by vicimizing innocent people who have no power to affect the changes they are seeking.



What are you talking about?

Liberationists take great personal risk. They risk incarceration and the ire of those who they oppose when defending animals. Some have been killed in the process. I think you are just irked that they are underground and refuse to come out into the open, right? Is that it? I think you mean something like when the Sons of Liberty disguised themselves as Indians in order to not have their identities revealed, right?

However, some ARists do perform open liberations with the intent of being caught. In fact they invite t.v. crews to film it and when the animals they have targeted for liberation are out of the area, they call the police as well.

For the most part, AR targets are the blood junkies who profit off of the exploitation of animals. They sabotage hunts. They have destroyed the labs that experiment on animals. They have sunk vessels which carried the persons who clubbed seals to death. They have liberated animals from fur farms and in the process destroyed the implements of those places causing many to go out of business. Those people in those incidences are not innocents. They are on the other side of the struggle i.e. those who are profiting from the exploitation. Why do you think they aren`t legitimate targets?

If you look at orgs that blow up coffee shops because they can`t fight the state, then "yes," those are innocents which are targeted. That is indiscriminate targeting. ARist Liberationists do not do that as a matter of policy. To say that a fur farmer is an innocent in the struggle would be insulting to a person who does die in a coffee shop from an indiscriminate targeting policy. To correlate those two targets in respects to each struggle is going off into left field.

You also want to make the claim that their targets are powerless, as if those targets can`t change the system. And you are right. That is the job of legislatures and the above ground ARists do focus on that avenue of approach. But they are more effective when a shadow is standing behind them, just like I explained to you before with M. L. King and the Black Panthers and Malcolm X.

But, since many insurance compannies do refuse to insure compannies that are required to be insured, it makes business very hard and expensive for the exploiters. It also keeps those with the best education and credentials from seeking employment at those places.

Believe me, a lot of the ARists actions have been quite effective in lasering in on some targets. Those targets will even admit to that.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Graffitti by street gangs has a more valid political message.



Sabro, grafitti is defacement without a civic goal. Sure, if that grafitti is being done to affect social change with some kind of vision for the future, then your statement is valid, but for the most part, acts of grafitti by street gangs are a kind of hooliganism, such as turf marking, targeting someone for a hit, professing love for someone, a desire to write random expletives, or in the case of an artist doing a mural -- a personal expression of some sorts, which may be a political message or may not be. But, for the most part, street gangs, most would agree are of the former which I described, not the latter.

Now, why do you think marking territory, targeting someone for a hit, writing random expletives, professing love for someone is a valid political message? And, which political message have you ever gotten from a street gang`s grafitti? -- something like vote for Arnold, legalize drugs, reverse the 3 strikes rule, stop the death penalty??? Please do let us know. My interest is quite piqued.






> Targets chosen for symbolic value at great risk by people who have no other options. The Sons of Liberty did not burn down the local blacksmith shop, Polish resistance fighters did not target shoe repair shops, and abolitionists did not smoke bomb restaurants. These targets would have been random, unconnected and criminal.




If blacksmith shop workers as a group were a united block calling for the continuation of all forms of repression against the colonists so that they could continue benefitting from some kind of extraspecial status they had with the King of England and the system of oppression as it was, then in all probability they would have. 

That is why your analogy is wrong. You have chosen something that not as a whole united front was not calling for the continuation of the status quo. Fur farms, animal testers, hunters, etc... are all entities who are wanting to be able to continue with the status quo of animal exploitation. That is why for the most part, THEY and those that support them are targeted and not say something like a company that makes plastic model airplanes for kids.

Now, your assertion about Polish Resistance Fighters is getting into grey areas here. They weren`t sweet little men or women in that bunch. They often visited towns in the dead of night and took vengeance on villages as a whole for some part of the population assisting the Nazis. I am sure some innocents were caught up in their dragnet. You would be hard pressed to say that no innocents were ever harmed by them or that the Patisens went to great lengths to protect all innocents before they took action on what they suspected were Nazi collaborators.

Abolitionists did not have a need to target restaurants because those were not the main instruments of oppression in slavery. They did however, target plantations and property was destroyed by them. Just the fact that a slave was helped freed by them was denying the use of property.

Yes, what you explained would have been all random targets. But, I don`t know why you are bringing that up in regards to the targets of Liberationists, who for the most part target very effectively the apparati of the animal exploitation system, their support network, and the agents that operate those systems. 

Why do you think they are not legitimate targets as compared to the person who is just working at a ceramic hobby shop? To say that those systems and their agents are no more targets than the ceramic shop worker is, is kind of insulting/unfair to the ceramic shop worker, isn`t it? I think so. Why don`t you?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I think your energy would be better spent trying to alleviate human suffering.


lol! Sabro, I can`t believe it took you so long to whip this ol' retort out that is just merely lazy thinking when one is bankrupt.

I am not the issue here. Besides, you have no way to verify anything I do to alleviate suffering in any form -- be it human, or nonhuman. You don`t know if I go to orphanages to volunteer or spend my time at a burn unit, do you? There are 24 hours in a day -- 16 of which are waking hours, which allows for a rich, rewarding, and giving life that is anything but a myopic view of what and how one wishes to bestow ones blessings on any number of multiple targets. 

I told you, compassion does not have to be economized as if it is only "one or the other" -- as if there is only enough care in our hearts to afford to one group. 

It always strikes me as odd that animal exploiters are the ones who always fear that compassion is something that is finite and must be economized. Perhaps it is that they see themselves haveing so little to spare, that they instinctively project their situation onto others. You tell me.

Furthermore, if you were to look into some backgrounds on people who jumpstarted the AR/AW movements, you will find that many of them come from agencies that were instrumental in child labor protection, womens sufferage, and the abolition movement. Do your homework if you are going to insinuate that those who help animals are somehow not in the movements to also aid humans as well.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I hope the AR "Movement" will leave me alone.


lol. Don`t worry, I think they would rather target many more in the animal exploitation world before you.

Unless of course, you work for Hunting Life Services.  :Wink:

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> So the carrot does not have sentience or conscience? How do you know? What determines sentience and conscience?


Sabro, if someone says that a carrot has sentience or a consscience, then they are under an obligation to prove what they assert. He who asserts bears the burden of proof. One does not set out to prove a negative.

That proof could be relaxed if the carrot reacted to many things like we did or related amongst themselves in ways like we do -- because we think we have sentience and conscience, we could safely grant, through much observation and seeing the similarities between their behaviour and ours, that they do have sentience and conscience.

A question regarding sentience and consience need not be answered to absoluteness before we grant it. In fact, I could deny that anyone else has sentience and consience besides myself. After all, how do I know you do? You could be a figment of my imagination as well as everything else in this world. How do I know I am not in a coma and all this is my mind shooting off an elaborate explosion of chemicals creating images that do not realy exist of people, and since they do not exist they also do not have a consience and are not realy sentience.

See how we can go with this? The question need only be answered to some basic traits that we have and can observe in other animals or things if like you said, a carrot may have sentience and consience, but, the latter has not really any observable data supported by any large number of reputable scientists/researchers. Until it is, it is your strawman argument at an attempt of diversion -- and it leads me to deny you sentience and concsience as well with my coma scenario.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Sabro: Rock skipping takes little skill, but we don't ban that.


Why should we ban rock skipping -- regardless of skill? Animals can suffer. Rocks cannot.

Besides, I told you before, which you keep forgetting (even after you summerized my beliefs recognizing what I believe), I am not supporting the banning of hunting because of the skill factor, I am against hunting as a sport because it is exploitation of life for pleasure. 







> Your screaming colorful headline sized post is unnecessary and does nothing to improve your argument. (again, this point seems off topic.)


Agreed. It really wasn`t meant to support my argument (though I think I could make it so), just a little excited to hear a topic on the news so related to what I had previous mentioned -- hence the large red print. I may go back and reduce the size.

----------


## No-name

I'm surprised that you spent so much ink without noticing that you still cling to the same Juxtoposition fallacy- without really addressing it. Placing ARists quite at random with others who are considered honorable. The dorks that are out there burning SUV's and breaking into labs are not committing civil disobedience- breaking an unjust law and forcing the consequence. They obviously didn't hang around long enough to let that happen. Also suggesting slight changes to the past and predicting how those people would respond is merely a continuation of the juxtoposition fallacy with the addition of a syntagmatic fallacy. It is not merely false and illogical. It's pretty goofy.

Gandhi didn't go around assaulting people with paint, nor did he wantonly destroy other people's property. And the actions he took- he didn't take annonymously. As to your connection between MLK and the Black Panthers- another logical fallacy in that the actions were unconnected and social change may have had nothing to do whatsoever with the Black Panther movement. And again you can't juxtipose the civil disobedience that led to the changing of America's minds with raids on medical labs and burning down ski resorts. If you want to juxtipose law breaking actions to promote change- why not embrace the suicide bombers from Islamic Jihad or the Martyrs Brigade, or the Brown Shirted fascists of the 1930's- they damaged property and broke laws to institute change. There are plenty of people who assault, vandalize, and destroy other people's property and that may also want social change that you can compare them to: Operation Rescue, The Aryan Nation, the PLO, Sinn Fein...

I think if you study MLK, you will find that the civil disobedience- which never involved annonymous acts of vandalism, breaking and entering or personal assault- exhausted every other means of communication and planned each act carefully to achieve a desired result. He was never afraid to put his face and voice to the direct actions that challenged the status quo. It is the actions of people like him that brough about the civil rights movement, not the rash of violence that was peripheral to it.

And does it matter that the idiots that were out there bombing abortion clinics probably volunteered to teach sunday school and work in the local food bank? Again connecting the ARists to good works doesn't extend backwards to justify their bad deeds.

If someone says that animals have a conscience and are sentient I guess according to you, that you bear the burden of proof. Although that is not the only reason for our "species barrier" or "speciesism" I doubt that you can prove that animals have the same type of thoughts, emotions, conscience and sentience that humans have. I don't think it is something proven or something that can be proven through casual observation. (The "negative burden of proof fallacy" is also recognized here. Requiring proof of the negative and placing the burden on the challenger rather than the proposer.)

About killing and cleaning a large mammal- Read Jon Krakaur's "Into the Wild." The young man who starves to death in Alaska (true story) manages early on to kill a Caribou, but can neither clean it properly or preserve the meat...and he slowly starves to death anyway. The fact that you would kill the metaphorical camel to survive is a bit hypocritical...who gives you the right and why is your life more important than his? On a more practical matter- what in your existence has prepared you to kill this animal and would you even know how? Do you know how to clean the camel carcass and preserve the meat? (I don't) Now all you have done in your analogy is to kill both of you in this dessert. 

Have a happy New Year. Party safely.

----------


## No-name

If you're going to kill that camel, may I suggest you bring an 8 year-old girl with you. It may increase your chance of survival.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> About killing and cleaning a large mammal- Read Jon Krakaur's "Into the Wild." The young man who starves to death in Alaska (true story) manages early on to kill a Caribou, but can neither clean it properly or preserve the meat...and he slowly starves to death anyway.


I`ve read it, Sabro. About a year and a half ago. IF my memory is correct, he did not in fact die from starvation, but rather because of toxic berries which he consumed because he had mistaken them for being edible -- either the particular ones or the season in which he ate them.

If my memory is correct, and if not, please do correct me, after being in such a weakened state because of the berries, he climbs in his sleeping bag after jotting a few lines to his family on some paper or in the margins of a book which he had extensively dog earmarked and had notes written throughout it.

Perhaps the first suspicions were that he had died from starvation, but later research suggests it was poisoning. I don`t think that his life was stated to have end because he had failed to clean and prepare the moose properly. That merely caused him to have to search out some other source of food and his mistake on what to eat was his undoing.

Besides, if he had brought a map with him, he would have seen that there were some cabins in the vicinity and he could have probably gotten food from there. His death was one caused by misdirected romanticism from fiction and a desire to escape from the constraints of civilization.

In any event, a great book to read. I enjoyed it thoroughly and finished it in one day.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> ... you still cling to the same Juxtoposition fallacy- without really addressing it. Placing ARists quite at random with others who are considered honorable


I have been asking you to explain why non-human animals and human animals should not have their suffering taken into account when it is a matter of exploitation, and all you can come up with is because we are humans and they are not -- despite admitting yourself that that is an arbitrary point at drawing a line. You draw that line because of the benefits.

I have addressed why using historical events is quite acceptable to compare with the motivations for ARist actions -- that is to alleviate suffering due to exploitation.

As for "considered" honorable, well -- that is and will ultimately be decided by historians, now, won`t it ? -- just like all other social movements. Why don`t we let that judgement rest with them. I am more than happy to do so, knowing that society in general of all movements to alleviate suffering via forcing the status quo to change, never did judge those present agitators of their times as honorable.

But, it is acknowledged for this point in time, that those of your belief and mine are on opposite ends of the spectrum. And, I also concede that my group on the spectrum of beliefs on this, is in fact the minority at the present -- but at the same time is growing. 

I don`t see it as a stygma with not being in the majority in calling for extending compassion and rights to those who are denied them. All social movements to alleviate suffering and oppression starts out as the minority. The Movement is in good company from history. Your company on the other hand is with the one that has always "denied" extending freedom from oppression from the group that has been oppressed.

----------


## No-name

The guy's name was Chris McCandless, age 22. He was down to an estimated67 pounds- the berries should have caused cramping and diarhea, but I think he was too weak and famished to even notice...It wasn't noted in his diary. The caribou (which he thought was a moose) would have given him enough meat to survive...or if he had a map- there was a rescue cabin near by with enough supplies for half a dozen people. And he had a guide to edible plants.

Krakauer made him almost heroic, but tragic.

I checked back on that other thread- the Seven things you should know about PETA- and the information is from the CCF site. (I got it from that post.) There's a lot of stuff there- even the article about PETA lobbying the local governments to change the name of Fishkill to Fishsave.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> If you're going to kill that camel, may I suggest you bring an 8 year-old girl with you. It may increase your chance of survival.


lol. I don`t know. Seeing that she is on her way to becoming a blood junkie, she may not have been patient enough during the first signs of hunger pains to wait for the camels that would eventually come, and therefore may have decided to shoot me and cannibalize me.

No, thank you. Besides, I wouldn`t have been going to whereever I was going on a hunting trip, and therefore, I wouldn`t have had any desire or need to take an 8 year old girl and her steel phalyx of death as carry on or checked in luggage.

As you may guess, I am not able to see the future, and if I could, I wouldn`t have taken that flight anyways and hence no need for her. She is useless in the scenario. No need to try and paint her in.

You, too. Have a Happy New Year!

----------


## No-name

I maintain that it is good to value humans higher than animals...that the historical, cultural, medical, legal, and traditional use of animals for companionship, entertainment, labor, study, food, clothing, and for sport is acceptable. 

Animal suffering is not equivalent to human suffering, but I never said it should not be taken into account. Hunters, ranchers, and slaughterhouses should do all they can to minimize suffering in their pursuits. Medical research should follow strict ethical standards. Pets and livestock should live in clean, safe conditions and should be treated humanely. Any needless suffering inflicted during the killing of an animal should be avoided and the most painless and quickest method should be preferred. I would prefer that if you do hunt- you practice and don't miss- a deer dying for hours from a lung shot does suffer needlessly- where as one shot cleanly through the heart may not feel anything.

The line between humans and animals is not arbitrary- it is quite distinct- and I am not the only one to draw it. Humans do things no other animals do. They are superior in intellect and creative imagination. They can act on reason and shape and impact their environments in ways that render them responsible for the consequences of their behavior.

Historically, the groups you have cited fought to "alleviate suffering from exploitation" of differing "groups." All of these groups were human. Defending humanity from suffering or exploitation is a noble cause. Defending a domesticated cow from being milked or a thanksgiving turkey from the slaughter is not. I do not consider this type of "exploitation" wrong, nor do I believe that they are necessarily suffering. (Neither are my pets, or the horses down the road.) Eating chicken is not oppresion. It is consumption. Trying to "free" them is not a "social movement" it is a fringe activity. I do not see society benefiting from the changes made by your "Movement."

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Sabro: I checked back on that other thread- the Seven things you should know about PETA- and the information is from the CCF site. (I got it from that post.) There's a lot of stuff there- even the article about PETA


I already addressed in this thread briefly the CCF as it relates to their information on PETA. Perhaps I could transfer it over there as a statement against them, but Peta doesn`t need me to defend them. Their membership is usually on an upward trend and has never showed any serious signs of dramatic decrease.

The CCF has virtually had no affect on Peta. Peta on the other hand and other ARs continuously harry the CCF costing them money and recourses every year.

The CCF is funny, though, aren`t they -- against Mothers Against Drunk Driving, against The Brady Bill, against Gun Control, etc... 

Most ARs try to spend their times focusing on animal issues. Of course, that is what the CCF doesn`t want them to do -- anything to take the focus off the billions of animals they kill in any given year. Their god Profit demands that of them.

----------


## No-name

I was just verifying that the information I gave a while back may have come second had from this organization. I have never heard of them before your mention of it- although I must have visited the site when Zauriel started that other thread back on December 10th.

I did also discover the source for the Leonardo da Vinci quote and it is from a work of fiction by Russian author Dmitry Merezhkovsky.._ Romance of Leonardo da Vinci_. Leonardo never said it, nor voiced any sentiments similar to it.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Sabro: I did also discover the source for the Leonardo da Vinci quote and it is from a work of fiction by Russian author Dmitry Merezhkovsky.. Romance of Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo never said it, nor voiced any sentiments similar to it.



Interesting. Actually, I am glad when you can find a quote is false. I, too, have often wondered about the ones that don`t cite their sources. I wish they would. I will usually quote them if I see that those attributed quotes seem to have proliferated. 

Perhaps you should make a home page debunking falsly attributed quotes. Please, by all means point out any quotes I may ever use to be false if you find them to be so.

I am curious, though, where did you find that info and eventhough it was said in Merzhkovsky`s work, how can you be sure it wasn`t said in any of his letters or works? (Not contending what you say is false on this matter -- just asking out of curiosity.)

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I maintain that it is good to value humans higher than animals...that the historical, cultural, medical, legal, and traditional use of animals for companionship, entertainment, labor, study, food, clothing, and for sport is acceptable.



Again, I state it is not about "value" that should determine our treatment toward beings, it is about respect based on the Principle of the Equal Consideration of Interests. 

All those instututions you mention above are only valued by man and in no way is there proof that the universe or the Earth was made for man, and therefore, man's right to enslave/exploit other beings is not derived from any authority other than "Might Makes Right," which is wrong because it leads to suffering -- which humans have a natural aversion to and is therefore an indication that it should not be institutionalized in any form.

Institutionalized suffering is not acceptable.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Animal suffering is not equivalent to human suffering...



It doesn`t have to be in order to demand that we don`t inflicted it for desires based on exploitation.

A brain damaged or sensory damaged person may also have have less capacity for pain or suffering, but that should not define what suffering should be permitted to be purposely placed on him/her for one`s own benefit.

However, animal suffering may indeed be more intense than human suffering. Humans can give meaning to suffering. Animals cannot and therefore their panic, pain, and sense of dispair may be much more intense than ours.

I may suffer a painful root canal, but my suffering may be mitigated knowing that there is meaning in the procedure and that the pain will be over soon. An animal on the other hand is often trapped in the intensity of the present. If a bear is trapped in a live trap, but is not picked up in a day or two to be transported to a new location, it may suffer enormously the from the feeling of being in a seemingly inescapable predicament. The bear cannot give meaning to its situation. 

Furthermore, humans can also mitigate some of their suffering through personal belief systems such as religion which may console them in times of suffering. Animals do not have that. 

Suffering is a state that no being wants to be in. However, animals have the possibility to experience much more intense suffering than we do. I am not saying they do in all situations, but I am saying that it fluctuates and one is not necessarily forever locked in a lesser ability to suffer below another.

----------


## No-name

> Again, I state it is not about "value" that should determine our treatment toward beings, it is about respect based on the Principle of the Equal Consideration of Interests. 
> 
> All those instututions you mention above are only valued by man and in no way is there proof that the universe or the Earth was made for man, and therefore, man's right to enslave/exploit other beings is not derived from any authority other than "Might Makes Right," which is wrong because it leads to suffering -- which humans have a natural aversion to and is therefore an indication that it should not be institutionalized in any form.
> 
> Institutionalized suffering is not acceptable.


"The Principle of the Equal Consideration of Interests"????? I don't remember voting for this, subcribing to this, wanting this, asking for this, approving this or even ever hearing of this. Is this the basic philosophy you Animal rightists are seeking to impose on us? It doesn't seem quite fair.

Can I still eat animals if I promise my lunch didn't suffer? (It was tofu today anyway...)

Certainly the institutions were made by man for the benefit of mankind.
I have no objection to that. It is what our meager means and resources should be used for.

----------


## No-name

The easiest way to find the source of a quote online is to use a search engine like google. There are several other sources- but google turned up a 1998 article which showed that quote at a PETA site where the attributions had been switched. The article gave the exact source including page number.

The fact that Da Vinci had a famous series of paintings and sketches based around hunting that I remember from Art History and had owned a hunting lodge led to another google based search which made me doubt the quote you use in your signature.

----------


## No-name

There is no proof that the universe and all that is in it is NOT made for mankind. This is another logical fallacy- and the burden of proof therefore falls to the one that asserts it. Most religions- even ancient anamistic ones place mankind in a special place- either as benefactor (exploiter) or as caretaker. Either way universal belief in human supremacy can be traced back to ancient beliefs and religions.

----------


## Clawn

Hunting is a natural part of life. Almost every carnivore or omnivore on the planet does it. However, capturing an animal, forcing it to reporduce, and raising those animals simply to kill them is not. I'd rather have hunting, where the animal at least has a chance for life, instead of farming, where the animals are born only to die.

However, one could argue that farming is also a form of hunting, and, therefore, is justified. I tend to not dwell on either side of the arguement. We humans need to eat to live, how we attain the food is besides the point, as long as we are assured that there is enough for tomorrow, I'm okay with whatever happened.

The deliberate torturing of an animal before killing and then consuming it is, in my opinion, sickening and should be frowned upon. As well, the killing of an animal without the intention of consuming or using part/s of the body-that couldn't be attained without the death of the animal-for a substantial cause (such as medicines or research) is wrong.

I will also say this, human rights are/should be valued by all humans above those of another, and in our point of view lesser, species(most of the time). This does not make any one animal species any less important to their ecosystem than the rest, it just means that we value our life above the life of others. I also think that most animal species think this way(again, _most_ of the time). Most of the time, cats like to be around other cats, not dogs, or whales, or ostriches. Other than during reproductive, feeding, and child rearing cases, most species tend to want one of their own species, possibly a relative, or member of the pack/herd/etc., or maybe even no other living beings at all, present.

----------


## No-name

Thank you Clawn- you seem wise for a 5 year old. Your post was unusual and a breath of fresh air. I even tire of my own voice here.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Gandhi didn't go around assaulting people with paint, nor did he wantonly destroy other people's property. And the actions he took- he didn't take annonymously.



Sabro, did I say he went around "assaulting" people? Clearly I did not. I said that the shadow of militant action that was beginning to agitate was indeed aiding his movmement. It legitimized his movment and made it one more chosen to deal with and relent to, rather than the alternative. The militants always drives the status quo to deal with the more moderate group which is around. But if the more militant group didn`t exist, that moderate group would be considered the extreme group.

Let`s say Senator X has been getting calls to meet with one AR group that has been calling his office to set up an appointment to discuss the hunting issue and explore some avenues that could be taken to work together to come to an agreement some way. Two groups are calling. Let`s say one is Peta, and the other is a well known hardline shadowy group which has committed numerous direct actions resulting in millions of dollars of damage. Now, who do you think this Senator X is going to more open to setting up a discussion with? A federally recognized tax exempt entity or the shadowy group? Now, if that shadowing group didn`t exist agitating for drastic change, i.e. marking itself on the far end of the spectrum, then Peta may be viewed as operating on the far end of the spectrum if there is nothing to compare it to.

----------


## No-name

We don't need fringe groups burning, assualting people (not Gandhi, but the ARist who throw paint and worse at women wearing fur), breaking and entering and generally causing mahem. About Sentator X...Let's change them from ALF and PETA to say Black September and the PLO. My my my- we've just justified terrorism. The reason why it's so popular is that people -some who even love animals- believe that it works. You've given me a great reason to hate PETA that I didn't have before. It's federally recognized tax exempt status should be recinded. It's too bad that humans can't learn to listen to the angels of our better nature.

Happy New Year.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

[QUOTE=sabro]


> If you want to juxtipose law breaking actions to promote change- why not embrace the suicide bombers from Islamic Jihad or the Martyrs Brigade


ARists who support Direct Action (not all do) for the most part target the facilities and those responsible for the operations of those places which exploit animals. They do not bomb coffee shops or buses with passengers not related to those facilities and those responsible for those places. ARists do not have a strategy of targeting indiscriminately. 

Those groups which you have tried to "juxtipose" with ARists operate under a different philosophy of targeting and purposely seek to cause death as a strategy of their struggle. ARists are not in the same category.

ARists are not fighting for religion, land, or power as those of your example are. ARists are fighting for social change to expand rights. Other groups which have fought for social have been abolitionists and civil rights activists -- who likewise did not fight for religion, land, or power. 

As for lawbreaking to fight for social change under institutionalized exploitation and oppression, one need look only at the U.S. and the violence done by the Sons of Liberty and other revolutionaries. Believe me, the Sons of Liberty did more than just dumping tea into Boston Harbor. But, they did dress so that when they did that action they would not be recognized -- a similarity with many fighters in today's world. 

What is apalling about the Sons of Liberty, though, is: they weren`t content with just hiding their identities -- they thought it appropriate to frame a group of people. It was only because of the kindness of these people that their forefathers could survive some terrible winters. And then, they are repaid that kindness with no appreciation and respect -- but rather a slap in the face by making them look like they had committed a crime.

So, your statement that these were people who did noble things and therefore not comparable to ARist makes me wonder, if you think framing a group of people is noble?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> We don't need fringe groups burning, assualting people (not Gandhi, but the ARist who throw paint and worse at women wearing fur), breaking and entering and generally causing mahem.


Oh, you also mean like the Sons of Liberty who assaulted loyalists and families of the King which were in the colonies, or the assasinations that Menachim Begin (sp?) did when he was young for the Jewish Israeli causes, or the Contra fringe group which America supported and taught how to wage a guerilla warfare which killed many non-combatants in rural villages? Right? Those are all fringe groups you are also talking about who used direct actions on much larger scale than ARists, huh?

Yes, sure, we don`t need them in a perfect world and certainly wouldn`t need them if causing suffering were not condoned by the state. However, the world is not perfect and all those actions from the playbook of history have been effective in causing change. ARists are merely students of history`s tactics which have been used by those whom historians now judge as "noble," while understanding that when those actions were being taken in their era, were not deemed as "noble" by the majority of those people in those societies. 

Funny, though, of all those actions, I see throwing paint on fur to be very minor in comparison with the extreme actions fringe groups have done as a result of support from the U.S. or other orgs.

Tell me, Sabro, how many people have died from ARist action? How about Xtian actions based on their belief of the Bible ( there are your noble causes -- lol)? How about civil rights oppression? How about the violent agitating in the colonies under Britain?

I think many of victims of those conflicts wish that the worst that ever would have happened to them would have been their clothes thrown paint on, a tofu pie in the face, or their work site ransacked.

Why would you prefer incarceration, torture, or death before those actions? It is quite clear to see how controlled and non physically violent, causing the less suffering as possible, the AR movement is when compared to the backdrop of history.

----------


## No-name

What you quote about the Sons of Liberty was written some hundred years afterwards and was not entirely true. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party 
and noticed that they 1. organized a successful and widely participated in boycott organized by John Hancock whose ship was siezed. 2. After the British passed the tea act which would have undercut colonial merchants and brought the tea by force into port...it's at that juncture that the tea party 3. was organized by Sam Adams. "By 9pm they had smashed 342 crates of tea in all three ships and had thrown them into Boston Harbor. They took off their shoes, swept the decks, and made each ship's first mate agree to say that the Sons of Liberty had destroyed only the tea. The whole event was remarkably quiet and peaceful." They neither did this annonymously nor did they attempt to frame anyone. It was directly related to the previous action, directed precisely at those involved, to bring about specific action. Absolutely nothing in common with ALF or ELF except that they broke laws.

Now how was the torching of this condominium project even remotely related to animal rights? Which specific change in law was it designed to change? What specific change in policy? Did it help the boycott, teach in, or other peaceful non violent protest? http://www.maximonline.com/articles/...aspx?a_id=5675
Maxim magazine called your extremist thugs "our biggest domestic terror threat" in 2004. How were the owners, workers or firefighters involved? "While ELF professes nonviolence, pure dumb luck has played a huge role in its lack of casualties. ELF prefers to call its crimes “economic sabotage,” although federal agents faced with the destruction find this preposterous. Three construction workers were reportedly sleeping at the San Diego project and escaped just as that fire spread. Many say it’s only a matter of time before ELF sets a fire or detonates a bomb that kills a hapless night watchman or a firefighter trying to put out the next row of burning SUVs."

These guys don't sound heroic, they sound pretty common, callous, cowardly and seem to share more with the 9-11 organizers than with the Sons of Liberty, Gandhi, or Polish resistance fighters. Let them run into the shadows and tilt at windmills in their imaginations...or better yet lets put them behind bars where they belong and keep all of us a bit safer.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> About Sentator X...Let's change them from ALF and PETA to say Black September and the PLO. My my my- we've just justified terrorism. The reason why it's so popular is that people -some who even love animals- believe that it works.




Be careful, Sabro, you are starting to understand the concept of logic -- values in a construct do not matter, only the logic of the construct does. But, I find it strange you want to utilize that concept of logic now when you think it forwards your argument but deny logic when it is presented to you to address or admit.

Yes, let`s do look at your little switch of terms above. I never recall any U.S. invitation to Black September to come and discuss their grievances about Israel, do you? But, we both know that the PLO has been invited to the negotiation table. Likewise, Hamas and Hezbelol (sp?) are not invited to sit at the negotiation table. Whether the PLO is viewed as bad or not is irrelevant, what is relevant to the logic of the construct is that the one not on the far end of the spectrum is not invited and the closer one to the other end of the spectrum is invited. Being "bad" is merely a judgement call dependent on the view or perspective from which judgement is being done from. However, not being on the fringe, is dependent on a relative position of other actors being present on the scene and falling at different points on the spectrum. 

Deciding to speak with one which falls further away from the fringe, which lies on the far end of the spectrum, in no way justifies the actions of the group one decides to speak with. It just merely says, "I would rather speak with you than him." In speaking with the PLO, Israel never said that justified the PLO's past actions (remember though, while Jews were agitating for a state, they also did assasinations and bombings of their opponents). What meeting with them does say however is: "Your past actions have been effective." 

Being "effective" and "justified" are not one and the same. The U.S.'s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were definitely effective and few would deny that. However, many will argue against whether it was "justified."

Please note: History is what tells one what is effective or not.

A present of logical explanation to you for New Years.  :Wink: 

Happy New Year!

----------


## No-name

> Oh, you also mean like the Sons of Liberty who assaulted loyalists and families of the King which were in the colonies, or the assasinations that Menachim Begin (sp?) did when he was young for the Jewish Israeli causes, or the Contra fringe group which America supported and taught how to wage a guerilla warfare which killed many non-combatants in rural villages? Right? Those are all fringe groups you are also talking about who used direct actions on much larger scale than ARists, huh?


The short answer: too many. Rational people should not accept or condone such tactics.

Unlike you, I never justified such action. I prefer entirely non violent protest. Animal rights groups that participate in assaults and destruction of property are the definition of fringe groups. They deserve to be regarded in the same light as street gangs and Islamic terrorist groups.

My complaint is that you continually juxtopose all these noble freedom fighters with animal rightists. It doesn't justify this kind of action or make it more noble. In all of your posts, the local Jihaddist could substitute his cause in your posts for AR and be equally valid.

Happy safe and violence free new year.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> What you quote about the Sons of Liberty was written some hundred years afterwards and was not entirely true. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party


Ha! Isn`t Wikipedia the source that makes it available for anyone to submit information? I think they also had a scandal a few weeks ago about someone playing a joke on someone and submitting information that said an acquaintance was a suspect in the Kennedy assasination. And that went throughout the world over the internet. 

Makes me wonder about the validiity of their information. Oh well... I geuss some are quite forgiving and see them as an authority on information even when they have egg on their face. Makes me wonder how much more egg on their face they have with all those other entries the average joe can submit.




> "By 9pm they had smashed 342 crates of tea in all three ships and had thrown them into Boston Harbor. They took off their shoes, swept the decks, and *made each ship's first mate agree* to say that the Sons of Liberty had destroyed only the tea. The whole event was remarkably quiet and peaceful."



Sabro, look what you quoted above from Wikipedia (snicker snicker)! What sticks out as coercion to you? *"made to agree"*???!!! Wow. I don`t know about you, but I don`t take kindly to being "made to agree" -- what is that? some kind of misnomer or verbal masturbation? Perhaps they had verbal zen back then, too, huh?

You know, I think I would agree the whole thing was peaceful, too, if people were running around with knives and hatchets laying waste to the cargo I was supposed to be watching over but obviously outnumbered. I am guessing some may have been armed with small firearms, too, though. 

Of course they destroyed only the tea. But, what would have been destroyed had the ship's sailors objected? The Sons of Liberty were not the peaceful boyscouts you are trying to make them out to be. The fact that they "made someone agree to say something" tells you that coercion was very important to them. Coercion without the threat of violence is useless.

Obviously, they didn`t ask him politely to describe what had happened -- they "made him agree" to describe it what they told him it was. Why didn`t they just leave without *making* him say anything and trust that he would describe it as the peaceful encounter it was or that only the tea had been destroyed? At any rate, they used coercion and people with knives and hatchets standing around are not ones to disagree with when they are [b]"making" you say something. 

Sabro, you are unwittingly making my points for me.






> They neither did this annonymously nor did they attempt to frame anyone.


Here, look at an eyewitness of the action by George Hewes (a participant):

*"It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin's wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination."*

Taken from (Not Wikipedia -- lol.): http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...n/teaparty.htm




> Absolutely nothing in common with ALF or ELF except that they broke laws.


EXCEPT THAT THEY BROKE THE LAW!!!? Well, that is a pretty big EXCEPT, now, isn`t it? How about that they did hide their identities? How about during the Boston Tea Party many did not wish to know the names of their cohorts? How about the fact that destruction of property was their modus of operati?

Sorry, Sabro. You are wrong, and Wikipedia with their anyone can submit anything format for reference does not make you right.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Rational people should not accept or condone such tactics.


Rational people do, and I keep giving your "noble" actions in history as examples to show you that. I think it is quite rational to commit direct action to stop violence.

You and all status quo of past Establishments have always said the same thing. It is merely a desire to not lose the status quo because you stand to lose the benefits you get from the establishment. Exploitation is ugly, but what is uglier is those in the status quo who smugly assert that people should not use tactics that could cost them (i.e. the status quo) money.

You need not bow down to god Profit. Let the poor deer live her life without a company profiting selling bows and arrows that end up in her as a gut wound after she has fled and is left to die a horrendously painful death.






> Unlike you, I never justified such action. I prefer entirely non violent protest.


Have I justified it? Or have I said the backdrop of society proves direct action is effective? 

However, I do believe direct action is justified when it is meant to alleviate suffering. If I came home and saw my neighbor's dog being kicked to death by a stranger, I would definitely intervene even if that intervention meant me having to do more than just placing myself between him and the dog. Most capable of intervening would.

You prefer non violent protest, which is fine, but can you give me any example in history where a non-violent protest was in a vaccuum with no fringe groups agitating stronger action on the periphery, and then that protest resulted in the granting of rights from the status quo?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Animal rights groups that participate in assaults and destruction of property are the definition of fringe groups.


You have no argument with me on that statement. Never said they weren`t on the fringe. They admit it as well. The fringe however, like I told you before, aids the groups that are not on the fringe whose goals are the same but whose tactics are not. The fringe gives the opposition the impetus and motivation to deal with the group that is not on the fringe as an alternative option to deal and negotiate with. The fringe pushes the others toward the negotiation table. This is all classical reasoning and understanding of basic concepts of strategy in real` politik`.

However, being on the fringe does not mean one's goals or tactics are wrong.





> They [AR groups which target property for damage] deserve to be regarded in the same light as street gangs and Islamic terrorist groups.


Sabro, which would you rather have operating in your neighborhood as a group? An AR group throwing paint on women' fur coats, or an Islamic Jihad group actively recruiting and carrying out suicide bombings in cafes and on buses? I think I can easily guess your answer or anyone`s answer on that question.

I would also prefer an AR group freeing mink operating in my area rather than gangs having turf wars for crack cocaine dealing rights.

Therefore, there is no "same light" as you wish there were.

Again, you are caught in hyperbole.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> My complaint is that you continually juxtopose all these noble freedom fighters with animal rightists. It doesn't justify this kind of action or make it more noble.



Yes, their goals at ending oppression, tyranny, and exploitation were all noble. ARists are people who feel those are all inherantly bad characteristics that should not mark our civilizations in any form. You want to cling to them for your benefit just like other elite status quos which were defeated in their application of them.

No status quo wants their opponents who are demanding change to be "juxtaposed" with others in the past whom they view as noble. Why would they? It would not be to their benefit to admit that they were noble. 





> In all of your posts, the local Jihaddist could substitute his cause in your posts for AR and be equally valid.


And in many "noble" causes throughout history, the local jihadist could substitute his cause in things such as the U.S. revolution. I quite admit that "One man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist." However, the "local Jihadist" value could not be put into the construct of the AR`s chosen tactics. ARists do not target cafes and buses. They target those related to the fields of animal exploitation. Jihadists do not target only the tools/institutions that oppress them. 

There is the concept of what is considered a legitimate target to consider. I would say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki, large population centers, were not legitimate targets.

As for ARists, and your persistant wish to consider them terrorists --- hmmm.... it is a strange terrorist org that has never killed anyone in 40 years of its existence.

Perhaps the terrorists are those going into the forests causing terror amongst the animals in their homes. A bear with a slug in its shoulder sure is running in terror. I imagine that her cubs are experiencing some terror, too, as they see her frothing in her death throes or the brave hunter coming to perform the coup de` grace. Sounds terrifying to me. Glad I am not at the other end of those terror causing animals.

btw, what do we call those who fight terrorists? --- oh yeah, that`s right: Counter terrorists, those who try to defeat those that are causing terror. Go into an animal lab and you will see a lot of researchers causing a lot of terror on beings. 




> Happy safe and violence free new year.


Thanks. You too. 

I`m sure mine will be happy and probably safe. The animals however, need a wish for non-violence more than I do. As you know, a lot of people are causing them to be "terrified."

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Now how was the torching of this condominium project even remotely related to animal rights?


I don`t know. How is it? I don`t think it was. That was an ELF action. Why are you attributing it to having something to do with AR or asking me how it does?

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> You`ve given me a great reason to hate PETA that I didn't have before.


Your newly found reason to hate Peta is merely due to you realizing you can`t think with reason and logic on the issues.




> It's federally recognized tax exempt status should be recinded.


It won`t be. The animal exploiting industries have been salivating for that for a long time and have been lobbying for that, but, Peta has time and time shown they are clearly within all the regs to retain that status. And, Peta has time and time again gone to court getting judgements against animal exploiters.

The have 850,000 members. The U.S. government is not stupid. They know it best to keep all those AR in a place where they can be observed. Rescinding that tax exempt status would probably cause many to go underground and the last thing the U.S. would want would be to drive a few hundred thousand people into underground direct action orgs. If a few thousand people have caused hundreds of millions of damage through direct action, just imagine what a few hundreds of thousands of people would do.

It is to your benefit that PETA continues as it has been. Just think of all the federal funds it would require to keep surveilance on 850,000 people suspected of going underground. Could be very taxing.




> It's too bad that humans can't learn to listen to the angels of our better nature.


Agreed. "The angels of my better nature" tell me to not go into the forests and stick an arrow into a bear which may climb a tree and require me to fill it up with arrows as if it were a pin cushion before it finally releases its frightened paws to come tumbling down, hitting branches on the way to the ground.

Do your angels tell you different? If so, I imagine that is a strange kind of angel -- surely one that isn`t on the side of "better" nature. Moreso on the side of "cold hearted" nature.

----------


## Reiku

> What person can say hunting is a sport? It is a viscious game of murder where animals do not have much of a chance.
> 
> There is no need for hunting for food anymore (except in some very remote regions of the world) and therefore it should cease to exist as an activity sanctioned by the government or even be permitted on private game reserves.
> 
> Culling to control populations also is a ridiculous argument. But, I am more than happy to entertain that discussion with debate for those who think hunting is needed for that, or any other reason.


Oh thankyouthankyouthankyou--I really needed something like this right now, so thanks for the laugh.

As someone who still remembers why humans have canine teeth--namely, to aid in tearing the muscle tissue of fuzzy little critters from their bones--let me answer your question:

Hunting is needed because if I can't hunt animals--I'll hunt _animal rights activists_.

I'm sorry, but some odd thousand years of instinct say "go out, kill something, and eat it" and repressing one's instincts causes insaity and violence--why do you think so many priests end up raping choirboys?

If they were just allowed to marry it wouldn't happen--but no, lets repress the most powerful instinct humans posess: the sex drive, and then act surprised when that need finds an outlet.

The same thing is true of hunting.

Some people are more in touch with their instincts, and genuinely posess a need to do things like hunting--refusing them that right would only cause them to act out their predatory uges in a less socially accptable fashion.

Besides, humans _are_ animals--something most animal rights activists seem to forget.

Are you appalled when you pet cat brings home a mouse?

Do you feed your dogs tofu?

Frankly, I think it's more cruel to deny an animal the chance to live according to it's instincts--forcing cows, pigs, and other animals to live on farms waiting to be slaughtered is not unlike sentancing them to nazi death camps.

At least when you hunt in the wild, the animal has a _chance_ of surviving--and even if it is killed, it is sure to have had a better life than sitting in a pen waiting for death like a condemed criminal.

I honestly can't understand how an animal rights activist thinks, considering the many (to me) obvious contradictions between the things they oppose and their stated cause of preventing cruelty to animals...

...and ultimately, the biggest contradiction:

One would think that an "animal lover" would also be a "nature lover"--interested in preserving the natural way of things...

...but animals dominating other animals in violent, even cruel ways is an everyday part of nature--including animal right's activist's fascist attempts to dominate other humans.

I _need_ to hunt...

...if you lack the stomch for it, look away--you already turn a blind eye to your own cruelty.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> There is no proof that the universe and all that is in it is NOT made for mankind. This is another logical fallacy- and the burden of proof therefore falls to the one that asserts it.


The burden of proof falls to one who asserts a positive. If someone asserts that animals were made for mankind to exploit and do with as he wishes by some supreme being, then that person must prove that. A negative is never under obligation to be proven.

Abolitionists did not have to show that "blacks had a right to not be in bondage." Rather, their argument is, "blacks have a right to freedom and the persuit of happiness under the constitution as all men do." 

Southerners lost the moral argument because their argument was one based on a negative that, "blacks did not have the right to freedom" which they tried to back up and support with reasons on how it would be too detrimental to their way of life if blacks were granted freedom. They therefore added arguments that were in the positive like, "Slavery should exist because it lets the South retain its economic success based on the industries of agriculture, and that it was their cultural heritage to be in this state of blacks serving whites." 






> Most religions- even ancient anamistic ones place mankind in a special place- either as benefactor (exploiter) or as caretaker. Either way universal belief in human supremacy can be traced back to ancient beliefs and religions.


Religion is moot on the matter. So what!? Angry Bible God is responsible in the Xtian paradigm for bringing about slavery and then regulating it. So, don`t give me the argument that religious beliefs, whether ancient or not, are some indicator of truth about human supremacy over animals -- because some have also said some humans have supremacy over other humans.

Religion has been one of the greatest forces in the world to cause suffering based on superstitions, outright lies, and a mere desire to control power and large recourses. They confer no rights. They mererly wrestle them away from the more vulnerable who are eager to give them up for some reason or who have been duped into giving them up.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Oh thankyouthankyouthankyou--I really needed something like this right now, so thanks for the laugh.


Sorry to hear you are in such need of humor at the moment, Reiku. Hope you are not in some kind of deep depressive funk.

A lot of the things you wrote about have in fact been addressed by me in the thread already. I am guessing you have not taken the time to catch up.

I don't mind backtracking over some material, although I would prefer not to and have you do the catching up with some reading, but, before I did, it would be nice to know you are going to hang around and keep coming back before I started doing that. 

Believe me, I understand someone not wanting to read almost 200 posts in order to get informed of and up to speed of the arguments, which is for the most part being carried by myself and Sabro.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Hunting is a natural part of life. Almost every carnivore or omnivore on the planet does it.


It is not a natural part of our lives now. We are a species which through ethical and moral thought on issues can choose to not cause suffering. We are a species who are naturally endowed with the ability to supress our urges. Why not honor THAT natural ability? Surely, it is there and has come about for a reason. The ability to suppress that which causes suffering is surely more noble and worthy of nurturing than the ability to cause suffering. I think so. Why don`t you?

Humans for the most part live outside of nature -- not within it. We do not live a natural life span. We do not live amongst the animals and forests giving back daily biomass to the area we have taken life to consume. 

Hunting is no longer needed. And surely hunting for sport to derive pleasure was never a natural part of life.

----------


## Mycernius

Dude, could you please stick to a sensible sized font. It looks as if you are shouting at everyone.



> Be careful, Sabro, you are starting to understand the concept of logic -- values in a construct do not matter, only the logic of the construct does. But, I find it strange you want to utilize that concept of logic now when you think it forwards your argument but deny logic when it is presented to you to address or admit.


Be careful who you accuse of this. I can find your logic twisted and warped. You had a go at sabro for insults and now you seem to want to go down to the same level. Keep it pleasant, people. :Smiling:

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Dude, could you please stick to a sensible sized font. It looks as if you are shouting at everyone.


Dude, which posts are you referring to with me and a not "sensible" sized font? All my posts are 3 point sized in Times New Roman. From my browser, they appear as the same height and width as the default font or perhaps just one milimeter larger (if that), which (i.e. the defalt font) appears to be Arial.

There was one post only: A "Flash" about a news story on an 8 year old girl that I posted in point 5 size. One post. Hardly worth scolding for "keeping" my font size down.

Just to test things, why don`t you write a short sentence in 3 point size under New Roman Times font and see what it looks like. I`d appreciate it to see what it comes up from your end on my end.

Thanks. Looking forward to seeing the test.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Be careful who you accuse of this. I can find your logic twisted and warped. You had a go at sabro for insults and now you seem to want to go down to the same level. Keep it pleasant, people.)


My hit on Sabro a few pages back was based on what I could see was a slide headed into expletives which can turn very ugly. It usually starts out small and then snow balls into the four letter variety type. I wanted to avoid that and felt it prudent to point it out at the very first hint of an onset of it (i.e. nipping it in the bud, if you will). I`m not implying that Sabro himself would have graduated to that level of insults, but if onlookers saw it who were not as disciplined as Sabro seems t be, then they may be emboldened to take it a little further with their exclamations.

It is quite fine to point out lapses of logic in a debate and to ask an opponent why he/she seems to use it in one instance but not another. That is what I had done.

Mycernius, you are more than welcome to explain with logic why you find my logic to be off, as you stated with "twisted and warped." Remember, though, logic is consistant. Use it and compare it with the backdrop of history and I don`t think you will be able to press that opinion with logic as your prosecuting tool to do so.

----------


## Reiku

> Sorry to hear you are in such need of humor at the moment, Reiku. Hope you are not in some kind of deep depressive funk.




Oh no, it's nothing like that--but I'm spending new years by myself, and it's just not a party without some good laughs.




> A lot of the things you wrote about have in fact been addressed by me in the thread already. I am guessing you have not taken the time to catch up.
> 
> I don't mind backtracking over some material, although I would prefer not to and have you do the catching up with some reading, but, before I did, it would be nice to know you are going to hang around and keep coming back before I started doing that. 
> 
> Believe me, I understand someone not wanting to read almost 200 posts in order to get informed of and up to speed of the arguments, which is for the most part being carried by myself and Sabro.


First off, let me say that I really appreciate the civility. I let myself be a bit less than polite in my earlier post, because I didn't expect a serious debate, but rather a flame war--and I'm both pleasantly suprised and a bit embarassed.

I guess I gave up hope of finding a logical debate on an internet forum a little too soon.

I have read _some_ of the posts--and can go back over them on my own. I enjoy reading, I just prefer to be sure it's something worth reading before I commmit my time to it--now that I see you are not the typical "state a strong opinion and then flame the hell out of anyone who dissagrees with it" poster, I will be happy to go back and pursue the rest of your arguments.

I noticed from one of the posts you made after mine--and I thought I had detected this sentiment in your previous statements--that you believe people have progressed past the need for hunting and that there are ethical and/or moral reasons why such a practice should be abandoned when it is possible to do so.

This is one area on which I must disagree with you.

I should make a few things clear about myself first--I wasn't always such a cynical, harshly pragmatic man.

In fact, when I was younger I supported many causes for animal rights and the environment. I believed that good and kindness was favorable in all things, and that as creatures living outside of nature it was man's duty to promote those goals even for those unfortunate animals who could not break out of the natural system as we had.

After many years of reflection, however, I have come to realize that I was wrong about this.

First off, humans are _not_ outside of nature--that's not even possible.

While we may--and I emphasize the word _may_--use tools and technology to a level that no other animal does, that does not place us outside of the natural system.

I could cite numerous examples of animals--insects primarily--that build cities, farm with both plants and livestock, and do many other things humans often consider to be soley _their_ creation, but that would be missing the point.

The point is that we were created by nature, and because of the way nature works, _everything that we do_ is also a part of that system.

We change the environment--so do other animals. We would not even be able to exist if it weren't for the plants that drasticly raised the oxygen levels in our atmosphere--causing the extinction of many life forms in the process.

There are few substances more corrosive than oxygen--it is in fact quite dangerous. But as you see, nature adapted to thrive in the presence of this once deadly pollutant.

It will do the same thing with the "pollution" we cause.

Humans hunt animals to extinction--but other species have done this too throughout history.

Which brings me to my central point:

Good and kindness is _bad_ for all forms of life.

You see, the way nature works is by constantly adapting life to the hardships it faces--then throwing in a new set of hardships for it to deal with.

How many dogs could match a wolf's ability to survive in the wild?

As you see, our "kindness" to animals makes them completely dependant on us.

But when we threaten an animal's survival?

Well, it's safe to say salmon never knew how to throw a hook before they met fishermen. But we placed them in danger--"endangered" them--and they learned from it and adapted.

As a martial artist I understand this: I was at my best when I was a child on the streets of Sacramento, defending myself from bullies and gang members. Now that I am an adult living on the central coast, my skills and level of physical fitness has decreased shockingly.

At eight years old, it took four adults to bring me down...

...if I faced those four right now, I don't know if I would survive.

It is the same with animals--by hunting them we force them to grow stronger, more intelligent, to find some way of surviving. By pampering and "caring" for them, we strip away their ability to survive.

Eventually, deer may hunt humans--and when that happnens, dogs will be threatened with extinction because we'll be too busy dodging antlers to feed them.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> First off, let me say that I really appreciate the civility. I let myself be a bit less than polite in my earlier post, because I didn't expect a serious debate, but rather a flame war--and I'm both pleasantly suprised and a bit embarassed.


I think the thread has been fairly free of flaming. Reiku, actually, I, too, am pretty impressed with this whole forum. I haven`t seen the flaming troll behaviour that exists on some boards. Maybe there is some here, but I am new, so I haven`t really seen it yet.




> I guess I gave up hope of finding a logical debate on an internet forum a little too soon.
> 
> I have read some of the posts--and can go back over them on my own. I enjoy reading, I just prefer to be sure it's something worth reading before I commmit my time to it--now that I see you are not the typical "state a strong opinion and then flame the hell out of anyone who dissagrees with it" poster, I will be happy to go back and pursue the rest of your arguments.


Great. Welcome and look forward to seeing your perspective and welcome your opinions/arguments against mine. In all probability you will have more forum members on your side than mine, so because of that I tend to get burried and behind. Be patient if it looks like it is taking me a little time to catch up in addressing your posts.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> Reiku: I noticed from one of the posts you made after mine--and I thought I had detected this sentiment in your previous statements--that you believe people have progressed past the need for hunting and that there are ethical and/or moral reasons why such a practice should be abandoned when it is possible to do so.


Yes, that is my stance. You succinctly put forth my views on it.




> This is one area on which I must disagree with you.


Disagreement is welcome. I and others looking in may get a new perspective.




> I should make a few things clear about myself first--I wasn't always such a cynical, harshly pragmatic man.


To me, "cynisism and harsh pragmatism" is something we have to fight as we grow older. It is a disease of the spirit. Why go gently into the world of being "jaded"? Surrendering to those thoughts are the easier and less noble I would suggest.

Here, look at this: It may be harshly pragmatic for me get myself off a mountain because I am healthy and can do so. But, my 12-old year son who I had took mountaineering with me has sustained an injury and with the approaching storm I cannot carry him. I have another 3 kids who would benefit from having a father to raise them should I come back healthy and alive. I figure, if I stay with my son on the mountain and try to weather through the storm until it has past and then try to get down to bring back a rescue team, I have a 70% chance to die with my son on the mountain and only a 30% chance to succeed with my other plan of rescue. If however, I choose to go now the harsh storm of the weather would probably cause undue stress on my son and that could add to his worsening situation. But, if I choose to go now, my survival is almost guaranteed, but his is maybe less than 50% with the approaching weather. Harsh pragmatics would lead me to leave my son. However, the wish to comfort him, even if I knew he were dying and staying would probably also seal my fate -- that urge to comfort my son would lead me to stay by his side. 

Please, abandon harsh pragmatics. There is something beautiful about growing older and still retaining some of that inner child of idealism in us, rather than killing it off as we make cold calculations on what profit mosts from our own selfish perspective.




> In fact, when I was younger I supported many causes for animal rights and the environment. I believed that good and kindness was favorable in all things, and that as creatures living outside of nature it was man's duty to promote those goals even for those unfortunate animals who could not break out of the natural system as we had.
> 
> After many years of reflection, however, I have come to realize that I was wrong about this.


You weren`t wrong. You were right. 

I don`t know how certain you are about your realization, but I hope this thread will lead you to reflectioin once again. I do think, though, in order to return to your ideas of your youth, it is important to give up "harsh pragmatics and cynicism." I think that that outlook on life is a yolk to carry around -- a very heavy one indeed for our spirits

----------


## No-name

Thank you Reiku for lending your voice to this...discussion. If I am going in circles it is nice to hear a different voice during this lap. It makes the journey feel for the moment as if it is going somewhere.

Wikipedia need not be mocked. It's error rate was found consistent with Encarta and Britanica by an independent study. Consulting it would have kept you from using fallacious and misattributed quotes. It also has an extensive list of logical fallacies.

"Do not say a little in many words but a great deal in a few."
--PYTHAGORAS

The quote you mentioned does not say that the Sons of Liberty fooled anyone into thinking they were indians, nor does it indicate that was the purpose for the dress up- although it may have been. The Wikipedia article you maligned indicates that they actually revealed themselves to the crew of the ship and made no attempt at passing themselves off.

I don't really have the time to go through your arguments point by point- suffice it to say that we are clearly off topic and run the risk of entering the boring zone. You have spent an inordinate amount of words justifying terrorists who inflict suffering and financial loss on others while maintaining that hunting is wrong. I maintain that the ends does not justify the means- that no goal short of human survival and imminent threat to human life, no matter how noble (or delusional) justifies such tactics.

Happy new year.
(Do animals have the capacity to experience imagined terror? Happy new year to them anyway, too.)

----------


## Reiku

> Well, if these people are living day to day as in the "old days" of survival, then they should think about joining the 21st century by marching out of their backwoods delapidated shacks and buses on cement blocks to the urban centers in search of a job.
> 
> That's what people in Appellatia do -- they come down from the hills to Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, or Louisville.


Aw ****. You know, I was really trying to give you the benifit of the doubt--but you've just proved my initial assumption true:

Like most activists--including myself back when I still was one--you are bigoted, spoiled, and horribly misinformed.

"Marching out of their backwoods dillapidated shacks" indeed--what part of "poor" did you not understand?

Not everyone is blessed with enough money to live in the 21st century--frankly it's a miracle _I_ manage to get by, and there are plenty of people out there who are poorer than me.

Not everyone can afford homes, or even rent for that matter--I myself benefit from living in a state with a housing assistance program that pays the majority of my rent, or I would still be living in a _tent_.

I say "still" living because I _was_ homeless for a time--the only apartment I could find in my price range had major plumbing problems, and was condemned--forcing me to move out with no where I could afford to go.

For the same reason, I don't own a car. Not everyone has the luxury of driving you spoiled, pompus, ass!

I've never owned a car--my parents had one for a while, but it was old and after breaking down several times it finally got to the point where the repairs cost more than they could afford, so for most of my life I have not had access to a car.

This is exactly whats wrong with the idea of animal rights activism--you sit in comfort and luxury with no idea what it is like to struggle to survive, and then decide that because _you_ can do without something, everybody else should too!

You claim to want to help animals, but you simply _DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!_

What disease is caused by overpopulation?
_ALL OF THEM!_

Overpopulation makes diseases pass like wildfire though a group of animals, and increases the chances of them getting diseases in the first place because the stress and malnutrition weakens their immune systems.

How can hunting an animal increase it's population?

_BECAUSE THE ANIMALS BIRTH RATES NATURALLY INCREASE TO COMPENSATE!_

Humans _are_ one of the natural predators of deer and other game animals--and those animals have a myriad of defenses built in to respond and work with being hunted. When you remove these natural pressures, you disrupt the balance of nature and _harm_ the animals you claim you want to protect.

I say "claim" because of this gem:

You said you would rather an animal die of starvation that be shot to death.

Obviously you have never gone hungy.

I have--and would have gladly had a double barreled shotgun rammed up my ass and fired than continue to experience the agony of my own stomach _EATING ITSELF ALIVE!_

And as if all of this wasn't enough to prove you to be an ignorant, faschist bigot...




> They _should be made extinct_ through laws and regulation.


Humans are animals too, and here you--a self proclaimed "animal rights activist"--are calling for the govenment enforced _extinction_ of a group of animals because you don't like the things they do.

What about a human animal's rights?

Even if we did all have the money to own a house and a car and drive to the grocery store and buy expensive, animal free products--_we have the right not to!_ 

YOU ARE NOT AN ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVIST!

YOU ARE AN IGNORANT, SPOILED, HITLER WANNABE!

I hope a pack of wild animals eats you alive, you disgusting waste.

[edit] Sorry for taking my voice out of the "debate" Sabro, but debating with people like this is pointless. Also, if I get banned for this post, I want everyone to know it was ******* worth it! [/edit]

----------


## No-name

Thank you Reiku. I think you have articulated something that needs to be said from a unique corner that gives it validation.

Here I am sitting trying to defend against the use terrorism...and against the theoretical boy kicking the zombie rabbit...and what his mother would be likely to say...and if animals can imagine...and if a carrot has the same rights as a cricket...what "The Principle of the Equal Consideration of Interests" is...and if the universe was made for the benifit of mankind...when all someone had to do was to say what you said. Your voice is greatly appreciated.

My gratitude Reiku- domo arigato gozaimasu...

So hunters that go and burn the houses, cars, and veggie lasagna pans of 850,000 PETA members are hereby justified because their cause is ancient and noble and they are in fact only damaging property. It will also give PETA a chance to correct the attribution of its quotes.

----------


## Reiku

No problem Sabro.

Everything in this world is covered in so many layers of bull****, sometimes you just have to stand up and call it that to be able to see clearly again.

Usually no one is willing to do that--they say "The first one over the hill gets shot"...

...but more and more, I feel like leading the charge.

----------


## ArmandV

While I have never hunted and could not bring myself to actually shoot an animal for sport, I do understand the reasons for hunting and support it.

Since man has upset the balance of nature, with natural predators killed off, hunting's purpose is to thin out animal populations (i.e. deer, etc.) so that they don't overpopulate and exhaust the food supply. As it was mentioned earlier, allowing an animal to starve to death is more cruel.

As civilization has encroached on habitats, animals often find themselves in front of a motor vehicle or electrocuted to death by climbing on telephone and power poles.

----------


## No-name

I live in the San Bernardino Mountains. We are surrounded by urban development and freeways- and although this is forrest- it is not some pristine virgin ecosystem. The area was settled by man hundreds of years ago- and about a hundred years ago, the last known grizzly was killed in the valley that it gaveits name to: Big Bear. The trees were clear cut and replaced with non native varieties. Donkeys, pigs, goats, possums and dogs were introduced. Black bears replaced the grizzlies and homes sprung up in communities across the mountain.

I've been up here for 13 years. We have had two major droughts in that time. The last one lasted six years. Early on deer began raiding garden and coming into town. It was great for tourists to see, and great for the local body shop. A highway patrol friend of mine would go out and collect the deer carcasses in the morning- often shooting the dying animal with the rifle kept in the cruisers trunk. He would clean and cure the meat in milk, whiskey and soy sauce...and share it with friends. (How's that for hunting?) 

I have seen the carcasses of many of our native animals, including deer and black bears..flattened , torn, or rotting by the side of the highway. 

There were three major fires and a massive tree die off- the bark beetles had no problem with our drought weakened, fungus infected, monoculture of trees. The squirrels, coyote, deer, mountain sheep, foxes, bobcats, mountain lions, racoons also suffered- death by human contact, by fire, and overwhelmingly by starvation. I would say that in my conversations with friends in forrest management- that the hunting that was allowed- although limited and rather ineffective- actually helped to mitigate this disaster. The deer population was managed- and areas were always kept off limits. Hunting was banned for two seasons...After just one year of normal rainfall the population is up and a minimal number of tags were issued this year (including doe tags...). 

I am not a forrest manager, nor am I a hunter. But it does seem as if in our area it performs a certain necessary function. I would have to leave it to the good judgement of the forresters as to whether we should continue to let people hunt around here. In this context, hunting seemed neither cruel or depraved.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> YOU ARE NOT AN ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVIST!
> 
> YOU ARE AN IGNORANT, SPOILED, HITLER WANNABE!
> 
> I hope a pack of wild animals eats you alive, you disgusting waste.



Wow, Reiku! I guess your hope for civility in discussion is a one way street, huh? I was looking forward to addressing your comments and thought you wanted them addressed. Looks like you were just in the mood for a rant, though. So, I will let your comments lay where they are.

I don`t know, but if you ever reconsider and would like to hear some replies to your comments, let me know by creating another post with them utilizing some self control and I will oblige you. However, I am guessing that may be a little beyond you since you came to this way of replying only after 3 posts in this thread.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> "Do not say a little in many words but a great deal in a few."
> --PYTHAGORAS



Funny you should quote Pythagoras in a thread like this. He was a strict vegetarian.  :Wink:

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> The Wikipedia article you maligned indicates that they actually revealed themselves to the crew of the ship and made no attempt at passing themselves off.


The central point is they were not acting "noble" (as you seem to be using the word) by concealing their identities and breaking the law. They were acting in a manner similar to ARists who take direct action -- i.e. not revealing themselves and breaking laws of property protection.

Why they chose to do so made up as Indians, I, too, am not sure. Technically, I would agree that they weren`t really trying to frame Indians, for common sense tells us that that would not be believed by any who encountered them, especially as they boarded the ships and did their deed. Perhaps they chose to disguise themselves as Indians because they were acing in a lawless way and viewed Indians as lawless. Either way, kind of insulting to Indians.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> I don't really have the time to go through your arguments point by point- suffice it to say that we are clearly off topic and run the risk of entering the boring zone. You have spent an inordinate amount of words justifying terrorists who inflict suffering and financial loss on others while maintaining that hunting is wrong. I maintain that the ends does not justify the means- that no goal short of human survival and imminent threat to human life, no matter how noble (or delusional) justifies such tactics.


Sabro, of course you won`t address my points. You`ve skipped over many of them and pointed questions I`ve addressed to you and pointed out problems with your logic or lack of it. You always retreat to the "I value human life more than animal life stance," which I have explained to you is not the point of the argument or a justification. You have never responded to that.

I guess I am spending more time than I should when it is obvious you won`t address specific comments other than with your indignation that animals should not be given rights.

I never said the ends justifies the means. I have said that the means of history in all conflicts fighting to relieve oppression have in some ways been adopted by ARists, and that to condemn them as they use them, would mean one would have to condemn a lot of historical action. You just want to paint some ends resulting from the same means as noble because you are still sitting on top of the ashes from those struggles that give you your benefits in the status quo now.

You still have not addressed historical backdrops in relation to logic. You tried once, but it backfired. And believe me, your writings find me fighting back yawns also -- seeing that you won`t stand still to reciprocate the courtesy in a Q&A exchange. 

I guess my replies could be as short as yours are if I, too, decided to just not address specific points and make declarations with nothing to back them up. It`s a nice short cut to brevity which you seem to value for it releases you from addressing points and explaining.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

Though, Sabro, I do have to give you credit for not getting so overly frustrated and indignant as Reiku has (and only after 3 posts) and staying disciplined to not go off on a flaming rant like his. But, seeing your discipline to not do so, it is strange to see you kind of thanking him and cogratulating him for doing so.

Do you think that will really add to the tone of the discussion in anything other than more flaming? I know we don`t agree with each other, but if I were you, I wouldn`t encourage that kind of personal bashing posting behaviour. 

Even if someone entered this forum on my side and did the same to you, I wouldn`t encourage it or congratulate it. I would have the honesty to say that style isn`t welcome in this thread, and it shouldn`t be tolerated by the forum admin. I wouldn`t let my view on the topic dictate on what is acceptable behaviour whether the poster was my allye or opponent.

After sparring with you these few days and getting a pretty good feel that you are pretty upright, kind of surprised you didn`t take the lead in saying that kind of post is not appreciated.

----------


## No-name

ArmandV- thank you also for your post. I appreciate your voice. I appreciate Reiku's energy and frankness. Sometimes a lack of civility can jar the prissy niceness out of arguement and make it real.

I'm glad Pythagorus was a vegetarian. He is better known as the father of geometry...and he is still dead. There are several advantages to vegetarianism which include health benefits and a better long term ecological and economic survivability and I would not argue against it. I am not however a vegetarian, nor do I believe that it is the "right" thing or the only way of eating. I definitely don't want it imposed on me.

Although you believe I have not responded to your "points" I feel that they have been adequately addressed and I am not certain which of your comments or questions you feel need to be answered.

I certainly don't feel that animals deserve equal rights. Even your camel eating analogy and the fact that you indicate animals like bugs with rudimentary nervous systems deserve less consideration seems to indicate some spectrum of value- not a system of equals. I place humans at one far end. In effect because of our ability to reason, to think and to manage- it kind of leaves us responsible and in charge. The fact that this fits the religious, cultural and traditional roles assigned to humanity seems to confirm this- although this is not a logical construct nor is it proof of our assigned supremecy of nature. As a practical matter- the forrest that I live can only be managed by the same humans who have already upset and impacted the natural balance of this ecosystem- certainly the coyotes, bears, and deer can't do it.

----------


## No-name

The only frustration that I have is the continued abuse of "historical backdrops" you have provided. It is the same kind of rhetoric that every extremist group uses to justify the unjustifiable. (Hence the dookie reference.) I actually gave you an enumerated argumentas to why your use was inappropriate and illogical and to why it did not support your arguments. I could repeat what I have previously written- but if it incited yawns and a lack of direct reply the first time- repeating it would be a waste of space. I am just glad you did not throw in some reference to Mother Theresa, Jesus, and Albert Schweitzwer. (any of whom or all of whom may or may not have been vegetarians.)

----------


## Reiku

As I warned you Sabro--such people really can't be debated with.

They will ignore or refute any fact you provide which runs counter to their arguments--as they are not really interested in debate as much as beating you over the head with thier opinions until you either submit or leave. Regular forum trolls are bad, but at least they are easily recognizable--by far the worst is the sort who refuses to listen and espouses illogial and bigoted opinions, all while wearing a mask of politeness to lure you in.

One's only options are to either ignore them and withdraw quietly from the debate, or simply speak the truth and leave.

As you can see, I prefer to use the "nuclear option" in such situations.

It is a good, cathartic release--and if they aren't going to listen to what you have to say, why concern yourself with making your words non-offensive?

Frankly, I find showing false politeness to be far more insulting than honestly telling someone off.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

Here is some gfunh hunting described by Jack OfConnor, formerly ggun editorh of Outdoor Life:

"A shot through the body cavity behind the diaphragm made an animal sick and miserable. Animals shot in the liver seem to be in great pain. They are reluctant to move and generally die before long, as the liver is full of blood vessels and they bleed heavily . But the animal wounded only in the abdominal cavity can, if pushed, travel a long way and is often very difficult ot recomver. On two occassions I have seen animals lose everything back of their diaphragms and yet travel. A big buck mule deer I shot dragged his stomach and intestines along the ground behind him for about 100 yards before he fell. He was dead when I got to him. 

A desert bighorn ram shot by a friend I was hunting with had his abdomen laid open by a .300 Savage bullet as he ran directly away from the hunter down a canyon. He ran out on a flat and when he jumped a barrel cactus the protruding stomach caught in the thorns and was jerked out. The ram ran between a quarter and a half mile before he fell dead."


Oh, what gfunh! Don`t think it was very fun for the animal. Wonder what it feels like to have your stomach ripped out. Obviously, Jack, seems to think it is very painful.

----------


## Reiku

I imagine it's roughly equivalent to starving--shock sets in and shuts off pain receptors after a certain point.

If anything this all just proves my point: Deer, rams, and the like are hunted by humans and other animals, and look how strong they have become. I doubt you could find a single papmered housecat that could run for half a mile with it's stomach ripped out--I doubt a human could do it either...

...that is, assuming any of this is true, and not just sensationalistic lies intended to incite shock, horror, and revulsion against hunters by manipulating the reader's emotions.

Frankly, I have my doubts--particularly due tho the vaugeness of the information and lack of any corroborating evidence.

Even if we assume that this "Jack OfConnor" is real, that he is actually a hunter, and that he actually said these things--none of which we have any evidence of--how do we know he wasn't lying?

Hunters and fishermen are known for giving sensationalistic tales of their expoits designed to entertain, but not in any way intended to be realistic or accurate.

For the record, I'm not changing my decision to cease debating with strongvoicesforward--nor has he regained my respect--but as I think it would be unfair to leave the other thread readers without an equaly strong voice for the other side of the argument, I will contine to post here.

Since I am now directing my coments at the other thread readers, who I currently have no particular reason to show either respect or disrespect, I will endevor to keep my tone civil and respectful.

I point this out only to be clear that I am not contradicting any of my previously stated beliefs, since doing so would rightly call into question my commitment to any other opinions I might state here.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

Let`s also take a look at John James Audubon, founder of the Audubon Society. Not content with just shooting an animal, his sport of hunting at times meant sicking the dogs on an animal trying to escape. Here:

gWe were anxious to procure as much sport as possible, and having observed one of the Bears, which from its size we conjectured to be the mother, we ordered the negroes to cut down a tree on which it was perched, when it was intended the dogs should have have a tug with it, while we should support them, and assist them preventing the bear from escaping by wounding it in one of the hind-legs. The surrounding woods now echoed to the blows of the ax-men. ... and in a short time it came crashing to the ground, in so awful a manner that Bruin must doubtless have felt the shock as severe as we should feel ...

The dogs rushed to charge and harrassed the Bear on all sides. We had remounted and now surrounded the poor animal. ... a cur had daringly ventured to seize the bear by the snout, and was seen hanging on to it, covered with blood, whilst a dozen or more scrambled over its back.h


James and the good olf boys just having fun hunting bears in the woods. Just a bunch of good olf folks. I guess hunters can`t hunt bears like that anymore cuz they aint got some exploited human in a lesser social status to order to cut trees down for them.

Wonder what it feels like to be terrified with a dog hanging on my face and others crawling on my back ripping at it. Doesn`t sound very fun to me. Sounds painful, sick, and depraved.

----------


## Reiku

I wonder how it feels to go after an animal that can rip a camper open like a sardine can?

To engage in mortal combat with a creature whose every breathing moment has been a fight for survival?

Frankly, I think the hunters were taking quite a risk--if the bear had chosen to attack them head on, a few dogs and bullets wouldn't have been enough to stop it before it had time to kill at least a few of the hunters. Bears are nototious for their ability to withstand damage.

As for bringing up the use of slaves--it's totally irrelavent to the issue of hunting. Slaves were also used to farm vegetables and cotton--does that make it wrong to eat carrots or wear a t-shirt today?

Of course not.

This is one of the more common ploys: Bringing up an issue that has no bearing on the argument, and presenting it as "evidence" for your case.

Slavery has as much to do with hunting as 9/11.

And you'll notice that he still isn't providing any proof of the authenticity of these quotes.

It sounds like something written back when the Audubon Society society was founded--but then, I'm writing a hardboiled detective story that has dialouge that sounds like it's from the 50's.

I don't even know for a fact that the Audubon Society was named after a person--and I was a member at one time.

If you want a piece of evidence to be taken seriously, one should provide independant verification--otherwise I could simply claim _God_ just told me hunting was okay.

----------


## Mycernius

> If you want a piece of evidence to be taken seriously, one should provide independant verification--otherwise I could simply claim _God_ just told me hunting was okay.


Funny you should say that. Read the Bible and you'll find animals being slaughtered left, right and centre, especially in the Old Testament. Lots of sacrifices in that.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

Not satisfied with the brutal killing of the mother bear, the next day finds them at the base of a tree looking up at the cubs who have fled for their lives. Their gsporth continues:

"Day dawned, and we renewed our search. Two of the remaining Bears were soon discovered, lodged in a tree about a hundred yards from the spot where the last one had been overpowered. On approaching them in a circle, we found that they manifested no desire to come down, and we resolved to try smoking. We surrounded the tree with a pile of brushwood and large branches. The flames ascended and caught hold of the dry bark. At length the tree assumed the appearance of a pillar of flame. The Bears mounted to the top branches. When they had reached the uppermost, they were seen to totter, and soon after, the branch cracking and snapping across, they came to the ground, bringing with them a mass of broken twigs. They were cubs, and the dogs soon worried them to death.

The party returned to the house in triumph."

Yes, the brave and great triumphant hunters. Lots of fun and sport in burning some cubs down from a tree so that dogs could tear them to pieces. It would be interesting to observe if any human ever had fun being killed by a pack of dogs from someone so deranged to set them on them. 

Oh, yeah. Lots of cruel fun for a depraved sport. I can almost imagine the festive atmosphere around the bonfire while those cubs were looking down on the flames and snarling dogs awaiting their fall.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

Here is what John Muir, the well respected and influential conservationist(1834-1914) who often traveled for weeks in wilderness areas of the U.S. and Canada alone never carrying a gun, and himself sometimes called gThe Father of Our National Parks,h said:

gMaking some bird or beast go lame the rest of its life is a sore thing on onefs conscience, at least nothing to boast of, and it has no religion in it.h

I`m glad to count myself in the company of a man so respected as this, whose influence is still felt, and one who felt no need or desire to kill for a sport with the blood stained haughtiness of arrogance to impose death on another for fun.

----------


## ArmandV

If the Audubon story is legit, it sounds like he was having a great time.

----------


## No-name

John Muir also accompanied hunting parties and measured their qurry: http://www.siskiyous.edu/library/sha...r/shasgame.htm He counted among his friends many avid hunters including Teddy Roosevelt. He was among the first to question the ethics of hunting publicly at a time when the practive was signigicantly more wide spread.

Bear hunting seems to have little purpose and burning cubs in a tree even less validity.

----------


## No-name

I couldn't exactly tell you if today's hunters would engage in that type of activity, if it is allowable or acceptable. The hunters I know prefer a clean kill- but that is not a large sample or definitive in any way.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

John Muir saw it for what it was, or at least what he felt it was:

hIn nothing does man, with his grand notions of heaven and charity, show forth his innate, lowbred, wild animalism more clearly than in his treatment of his brother beasts. From the shepherd with his lambs to the redhanded hunter, it is the same; no recognition of rights -- only *murder* in one way or another.h

Well said. A well respected and admired man. He had some incites that would take decades for many more people to come to agree with. Well ahead of his time like most visionaries.

----------


## No-name

No argument about John Muir. I have wandered some of the same trails- over the passes and by the same lakes...and I am thankful for his contribution to conservation.

----------


## ArmandV

> I couldn't exactly tell you if today's hunters would engage in that type of activity, if it is allowable or acceptable. The hunters I know prefer a clean kill- but that is not a large sample or definitive in any way.



I agree. I've been to a number of sports shows and talked to quite a number of hunters over the years and they do prefer clean kills and not having the animal ripped to shreds.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

So funny to see the NRA scaring the hunters (probably not as much animals are when lead is pumped into their gut) with their possible extinction because of the rising opposition to them. Here is one of their past membership drive adverts to get hunters to stampede into their org:


*---------------------------------------------------
DADDY, WHAT WAS A HUNTER?

YOU ARE IN DANGER!

Picture yourself sitting in front of a cheerful fire, telling your children or grandchildren about ...the year hunters became extinct.

Make no mistake. It could happen -- because therefs a huge wave of anti-hunting sentiment building on the horizon, ....h
-----------------------------------------------------*

Hey hunters, ...BOO! (lol. snicker snicker). You guys are seeming a little spooked about us being around. But, it is nice to know that you are taking those who are calling for your sportfs end seriously and now you are spending recourses because of us. 

You guys had better all run into the arms of papa NRA and pay your membership fees so he can see to it that your kind keeps procreating, and in the meantime, keep lobbying and fighting with your membership fees for the rights of citizens to own urban automatic assault weapons so that more Columbines can happen. The NRA is your patron saint, isnft he? or is the NRA your papa, --- eeeerrrr.... or your mama? 

BANG! Just like the wolf you wiped out in the lower 48 a century ago. Youfre gone! Well, not yet. But the future is against you as more and more turn on you and reject your reasons for your continuance. 

But, at least your end will come through tighter and tighter legislation and outright rejection -- not from the end of a barrel which you were so unkind to visit upon other lives. You can take some smug comfort in that.

----------


## No-name

What was _that?_

----------


## kirei_na_me

I have just one question after observing this thread since its start.

For strongvoicesforward:

What exactly brought you to a _Japan_-based forum? I mean, most people who come here, and spend this much time here, have some interest in Japan, which they usually make known. Since hunting is definitely not limited to Japan, I just wonder. Sure, this forum has lots of non-Japanese discussions, but usually members of this Japan-based community partake in some Japan-based discussion as well.

Even though I am definitely _NOT_ a supporter of hunting(despite being around it all my life), this thread almost seems spam-ish, in a way.

It just makes me wonder, is all...

----------


## strongvoicesforward

Hi Kirei_na_me,

I also enjoy martial arts and study Japanese as well.

Animal rights are a big interest of mine and since I found this forum and saw all the wide variety of topics, not just Japan, I saw it as a great place for expressing opinions and discussing.

I also have a strong interest in religion (de-bunking Xtianity) but just haven`t gotten around to posting on that yet. I would have probably posted in other topics by now had not the hunting thread been so active. I have some things to say about Japan, too. But, animal rights are my main passion. Have no interest in posting on Animal Rights forums because that is no fun when everyone sits around and just agrees with each other. Here everyone has a variety of opinions on animals and it isn`t being very pro-active in outreaching to others if we just talk to everyone who agrees like we do.

I think if I were spamming, I would be making numerous posts all over the place and hijacking threads. Please note that that is not my mode of operati. I respect the rules of the forum/internet ettiquette and post appropriately in the right sections. 

I am glad to see you have been following the thread since its beginning. Please don`t misunderstand honest passion for spamming. 

Have I satisfied your curiosity?

----------


## kirei_na_me

Yes, you have. I thank you very much for sharing

I hope to see you in other threads in the future, I really do.

 :Wavey:

----------


## No-name

Thank kirei_na_me, It is good to hear from you.

----------


## No-name

Strongvoiceforward has notified my by private message that he is no longer going to respond to me because I failed to take Reiku to task for calling him an ignorant Hitler wannabe. I guess that showed me. He says now that he is going to try to debunk Christianity. First attack hunting, meat eating, animal testing, and other large elements of culture in the name of Animal Rights, then defend eco-terrorist and their tactics. Now attack an ancient faith. I personnaly would prefer an old bible thumping street preacher on my corner than this person telling me self-rightously how to live, what I can eat and what I should believe based on strange analogies. I'm off to walk my Zombie Bunny in the rain. Fair well strongvoiceforward. I hope you can respond to other carniverous people of faith for a more extended period in the future.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

Years ago, before those concerned with animals began growing in numbers and organizations, on NBC there was a show titled, gSay Good-bye,h which showed a lot of animal killing scenes by hunters. When this show aired the feedback was immediate and thousands of letters poured into sponsors of the show thanking them for highlighting the cruelties in which animals are targeted for.

The hunters and their orgs were embarrassed and outraged that they should have been so exposed on national tv for their savagry. What is funny, they began sending out en-mass to their fraternity of blood junkies, requests for them to write local TV stations encouraging producers to censor the film if it were to be shown in their market. They wrote to their followers:

*gSportsmen* (snicker snicker)* should contact local TV stations, libraries, and schools in their areas and urge* (a) that these organizations not obtain copies of the film if they have not already done so and (b) if they already have the film suggest the following segments be edited out:

I. the last 50 or so seconds of the first segment in which hunters are shown clubbing baby fur seals to death.

II. the last 50 seconds of the second segment showing the shooting of prarie dogs.

III. a segment where a polar bear is tranquilized with a dart in front of her cubs.

IV. a close up of people skinning a girraffe they had just killed and were preparing to eat.h

Sure they want all that to not get on the airways to the masses who are not hunters. It exposes their cult for their sport (snicker snicker) for what it is and they know people will immediately identify it for what it is -- cruel and unnecessary, if not out right revolting. It could only damage future membership in their fraternity of pain and suffering.

To them hunting is part of the gAmericanh way and America`s heritage. Likewise, they feel trying to exert a little censorship in suppressing the truth is also part of the American way.

----------


## Reiku

Yeah, I can see why legitimate hunters wouldn't want to be misrepresented like that. A tv show that uses graphic violence, sensationalism, and portrays an isolated exaple of animal cruelty as the norm of hunting?

Gee, why would hunters feel alarmed at that?

Put it this way--why would it be bad to portray Jeffry Damer as the "norm" of humanity?

Clubbing baby seals indeed.

Better yet--lets find footage of a sociopath setting his cat on fire and use that as evidence against pet ownership.

By the way, kirei_na_me: Your suspicions were correct. I checked all of SVF's posts, and these are the only two that weren't either about animal rights or from his new anti-christianity thread were these:




> I would like to see the font style changed to a "Times New Roman" font at a 3 or 4 point size. A "Times" font is much easier on the eyes and the motion of the eye from left to right goes much more smoothly. There is a reason why all major newspapers choose the "Times New Roman" font, and that is what I just explained.
> 
> Doesn`t the following look better than the above?:
> 
> I would like to see the font style changed to a "Times New Roman" font at a 3 or 4 point size. A "Times" font is much easier on the eyes and the motion of the eye from left to right goes much more smoothly. There is a reason why all major newspapers choose the "Times New Roman" font, and that is what I just explained.
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> One more thing I would like to see is:
> 
> At the top of the main forum page menu on the right, have a list of the most recent 10 posts. That way people wouldn`t have to search for recent posts and people will click into categories that they may not be inclined to visit. This would increase discussion and broaden peoples' perspectives and interests as they visit other threads. The recent postings would always be changing so it would really give the board that "hopping and happening" image.





> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Just wanted to say "hi" to everyone before I started posting on topics that interest me. Looks like a lot of discussion going on here and am looking forward to jumping in.
> 
> I will mainly discuss vegetarianism and animal rights/welfare issues. I also enjoy religious discussion as well. That's it for now.
> 
> strongvoicesforward


He claims to be intersted in Nihingo and martial arts, but after more than 150 posts, averaging 17.53 posts a day--not one of them has been on these subjects.

I never had any doubts, but in case anyone else did:

strongvoicesforward is only here to promote his political views, not become a meaningful participant in this community

That's not spamming...

...it's _trolling_.

----------


## Maciamo

I think this thread has gone a little too far. I will therefore close it.

----------

