Why can't you just answer the question? It's hypothetical, it's not to be taken seriously as cannibalism.

There are people who will shout "ZOMG SUPERMARKET!!" type things at hunters. I often wonder why a dude two cubicles over from me (who gardens) uses the "SUPERMARKET!" argument against hunters.

The meat you get in a supermarket is likely to have a lot more cruelty behind it than hunted meat, too. At least the hunted animals got a lifetime of freedom before ending up dinner.

I don't already know the answer. I want to know if Didy divides things solely on if they are rational or not.

I don't know about Dids, but if I absolutely had to, I'd like to think I would.
I know I'd kill another person to protect my life. I'd say the whole not starving would probably fall under "protect my life".

I don't already know the answer.

And I pretty much know the answer to that.

Humans are rational creatures. Deer are not. Big difference.

So here's a good question for you: if you're so convinced that there should be no distinction between rational creatures and lesser ones, have you ever stepped on a cockroach? Have you ever killed a bee? Or a fly? If so, then you are just as guilty as those you dislike because they kill deer.

If you replace the words "Deer," "Humans," and the second use of "Rational Creatures" and "Lesser ones" with minorities, you get the propaganda every dictator, who ever wanted to commit a genocide against a particular race, has ever used.

Just pointing that out.

No, rationality is not the only distinction between humanity and lesser animals. Nevertheless, it is a significant one. As stated before, some of the most brilliant minds in history will concur that there is a distinction between human beings and other animals on the basis of that.

Rusty, did you just PWN yourself?

Look, you can tell me that every person in the world believes something, I'm not going to just cave in because the majority of them think something different than I do.

But Cola, we're not talking about deer. We're talking about the distinction between different types of people entirely. The fact is, every hunter that argued that one being or another was lesser on account of being a different species is demonstrably wrong in that regard anyway.

Still so very easy to switch words to make it seem like propaganda.

Cola, this isn't a word game. If we were playing word games, we could just as easily replace "deer" with "ice cream bars" and "lesser animals" with "Jello Pudding Pops". But we're not. It is a discussion with clearly defined terms, here. The term "lesser animals" does not include "minorities" as a potential referent. Only someone insane would take that direction. That has already been established.

Rationalizing someone's thought process is a logical fallacy. I forget exactly what it's called, but you can't just say, "You're only saying that because you believe ______." I have my reasons for believing as I do. Nevertheless, there are others who do not believe everything that I do who would concur with my conclusions.

Our national laws, for one thing. It is not a crime punishable by death to hunt and kill an animal (although doing so without a license or under the wrong conditions can incur fines). But it is a crime to kill another human being.

Once again, I do have to point out that your hypothetical extreme situations, by which you hoped to trap me into contradicting myself, are irrelevant. The rational distinction between human beings as a whole and lesser animals still remains. Religious biases not withstanding.

I'm not trying to trap you. I'm trying to understand some people condone, and endorse, the killing of animals that, without us, would live.

In the whole, I guess it's necessary, but that doesn't mean it's right.

1. Too many deer.
2. Peoples without food.
3. ????
4. Non-profit!

In other words, I propose a program, government or otherwise, that provides incentives for people to hunt deer and donate the meat to the homeless or whoever.

Also, deer jerky = most delicious.