Post Reply
Page 43 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Redneck A-holes with guns
2 years ago  ::  May 23, 2012 - 4:00PM #421
headhuntersix
Posts: 63

May 18, 2012 -- 8:24PM, arielg wrote:


What useful purpose do you think humans serve, besides killing each other and other species by the millions?





Are you volunteering for something here?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 23, 2012 - 4:12PM #422
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 17, 2012 -- 5:17PM, arielg wrote:


Be that as it may, I've repeatedly said, mass meat production, as we increasingly know it today, fails on three counts -- environmental, public health and morals/ethics.


Hunting, while sound in general principle, also fails in many specific instances of practice. Which I've also said.



I agree that individual hunting is preferable to mass  meat production.




Thanks. 


I would also say, pastoral, family ranching of free-range, grass-fed cattle trumps "agri-industry" for the same reasons. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 23, 2012 - 6:22PM #423
arielg
Posts: 9,116

May 23, 2012 -- 4:00PM, headhuntersix wrote:


May 18, 2012 -- 8:24PM, arielg wrote:


What useful purpose do you think humans serve, besides killing each other and other species by the millions?





Are you volunteering for something here?




It was a response to  this question:


May 18, 2012 --  8:46PM, Dondiegodelavega wrote:

What useful purpose does a wolf serve to the community, besides killing other animals and even people sometimes?




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 24, 2012 - 1:34AM #424
solfeggio
Posts: 9,334

I'm not here on this planet to live up to anybody's expectations. 


And neither are wolves - or sparrows or spiders or sharks or rats or jellyfish or any other animal that humans in their not-so-infinite wisdom have deemed 'pests' or 'vermin' and can therefore be killed at will by the supposedly 'superior' humans.


No animal, including the human animal, needs to justify his/her existence to anybody.


We're just here.  We exist. 


And, if there can be any sort of excuse for our existence on this planet, it might be that we could, when our life here is done, at least TRY to leave it a little better off than how we found it.


Killing something - anything - is not the way.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 1:45PM #425
headhuntersix
Posts: 63

May 24, 2012 -- 1:34AM, solfeggio wrote:


Killing something - anything - is not the way.





Tell that to the wolves... Your defense of their right to exist is direct evidence of your opinion that killing and eating other animals is not inherently evil.  I can't begin to imagine the logical gymnastics required to arrive at the conclusion that it's only evil if humans do it, in spite of the fact that humans and animals are to have equal rights.  Wolves are more equal, I guess?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 4:31PM #426
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 29, 2012 -- 1:45PM, headhuntersix wrote:


May 24, 2012 -- 1:34AM, solfeggio wrote:


Killing something - anything - is not the way.





Tell that to the wolves... Your defense of their right to exist is direct evidence of your opinion that killing and eating other animals is not inherently evil.  I can't begin to imagine the logical gymnastics required to arrive at the conclusion that it's only evil if humans do it, in spite of the fact that humans and animals are to have equal rights.  Wolves are more equal, I guess?




I've found that anti-hunting sentiments often come from urban or suburban areas, and are likewise often couched in a fundamental lack of understanding of just how completely utilitarian and brutal wild animals and nature are. 


Now, there are plenty of reasons to oppose specific instances of how hunting might be done -- such as high-fence game farms, or going out and killing an animal just to fufill some sense of ego, or misplaced rage. 


However, the general principle of hunting is quite sound, and violates no basic principle of nature. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 5:48PM #427
arielg
Posts: 9,116

However, the general principle of hunting is quite sound, and violates no basic principle of nature.


 


Nothing violates any basic principles of nature.  Only moral principles can be violated.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 5:53PM #428
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 29, 2012 -- 5:48PM, arielg wrote:


However, the general principle of hunting is quite sound, and violates no basic principle of nature.


 


Nothing violates any basic principles of nature.  Only moral principles can be violated.




I don't think it violates moral principles either -- when properly done. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 5:57PM #429
solfeggio
Posts: 9,334

There's a fundamental difference between nonhuman animals killing some creature, and humans doing the killing of nonhuman animals.


Carnivores and obligate omnivores like wolves and lions and sharks, etc. kill because they have to in order to survive.


Humans have devised literally endless ways to use, abuse, and kill other animals.  They use animals in medical research or to test toxic chemicals; they kill them for their skins and fur; they use animals as beasts of burden, for transportation, sport, companionship, and hunting.  The most common use of our fellow animals by humans is, of course, to eat them.


Unlike carnivores and obligate omnivores, however, humans do not need to hunt or eat other animals in order to survive.


Were all humans to have followed the path of Janism, this would have been a much kinder, better world for us all.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 6:02PM #430
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 29, 2012 -- 5:57PM, solfeggio wrote:


There's a fundamental difference between nonhuman animals killing some creature, and humans doing the killing of nonhuman animals.


Carnivores and obligate omnivores like wolves and lions and sharks, etc. kill because they have to in order to survive.


Humans have devised literally endless ways to use, abuse, and kill other animals.  They use animals in medical research or to test toxic chemicals; they kill them for their skins and fur; they use animals as beasts of burden, for transportation, sport, companionship, and hunting.  The most common use of our fellow animals by humans is, of course, to eat them.


Unlike carnivores and obligate omnivores, however, humans do not need to hunt or eat other animals in order to survive.


Were all humans to have followed the path of Janism, this would have been a much kinder, better world for us all.


 




Solf, 


By rights, humans don't need to live anywhere outside of a sub-tropical climate, where no further protection from the elements is needed than our own skins, and perhaps a bed of grass and leaves to sleep on. 


In terms of bare survival, we certainly don't need automobiles, aircraft, televisions, houses with running water and electricity, computers or the Internet, and a whole list of other things many of us use every single day. 


I've already stated, in pure moral terms, vegitarianism is probably the most moral. But I don't think it's the only moral option. 


Veganism strikes me as more of an idealogy. But people should be free to live that way too. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 43 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook