Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Hunting
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12921		 Page 3 of 5
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Do you know of any animals with technology, literature, art, and language? While it might be argued that certain animals possess VERY rudimentary versions of these things, not a single species has them to the degree that human beings have demonstrated. Deer do not program computers, or paint Mona Lisas, or even argue the morality of hunting.

While there might be some unknown mysterious species that might have these attributes (say, some unknown race of fish people living in Atlantis or something), they have not been observed. And if they ever do emerge, I would be completely in favor of treating them as equals. But until that time, we can only speculate about them and can draw no conclusions about other animals based on their hypothetical existence.

On the other hand, of the animals that humans do have frequent contact with, none of them have demonstrated these qualities, and until they do, the burden of proof is not on me to prove that they are not on the same level, but on those who claim that they are to prove that they are. If such creatures had the same abilities, you would think they would make some attempt to communicate with us, if for no other reason than to ask us not to hunt them.
Author:  Ju Ju Master [ Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Just because they can't do things such as write or create art doesn't mean their minds don't have the capacity to do such a thing. Perhaps it's because of physical limitations - a deer can't write without fingers and a free hand. It's still possible (and I believe fairly likely) that many species of animals are quite smart, they just don't have the potential to show it in the ways we understand.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
There's also brain size and structure. These can tell us a great deal about a particular animal's intelligence and potential for rational thought.

And please keep in mind, we are talking specifically about deer. There's not much reason why we can't compare the two species - human and deer - and draw conclusions on which has the vastly greater potential for rational thought.
Author:  furrykef [ Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I still am not sure if the capacity to reason and to create things such as art really makes us "superior"... anyway, I remember we covered this stuff before and it does kinda sound like a topic for another thread in any case, but at the same time, whether or not humans are superior is obviously important to whether or not hunting is ethical. Hmm.

- Kef
Author:  Inverse Tiger [ Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't think any kind of intellectual or even moral superiority has anything to do with if hunting is ethical. Species eat other species. It's not like it's anything personal.

We avoid cannibalism simply because people are us. It's actually an adaptive behavior not to eat within your species. It closes off a big route for disease transmission.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
To put it in a clearer way, whether there is a distinction between human beings and other animals (specifically deer) determines whether there is any moral distinction between killing a human and killing a deer. And, as I pointed out to Rusty earlier, in my own estimation, rationality is only one distinction, but one that can be better quantified than some of the other philosophical or religious concepts one could invoke.

But as pointed out before, unless human beings were to forgo the eating of meat entirely, we'd still have the ethical question of whether it is less moral to hunt a deer or slaughter a cow. Regardless of what you might make of the rational distinction between humans and deer, you do have to admit, the rational distinction between deer and cattle is somewhat reduced. If anything, it should be less moral to kill a cow, since it doesn't have much of a sporting chance.

And I do have to admit, this point isn't without some inconsistency. I'm not comfortable with the idea of killing and eating a dog, for example. But that may be on account of my own sentimental biases. Some cultures have no such taboo.

But even if we were entirely vegetarian, we'd still have the difficulty of having to kill pests that destroy crops, or predators that threaten to kill us. So in the end, when dealing with nature, we are confronted with the reality of kill or die.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:03 am ]
Post subject: 
One word about the whole "Intelligent animals that have technology" thing:

APES
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:09 am ]
Post subject: 
That was an alternate reality, Cola. And those dirty apes got darned to heck by Charlton Heston, anyway.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:11 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
That was an alternate reality, Cola. And those dirty apes got darned to heck by Charlton Heston, anyway.
No, it was the future!
Author:  Rogue Leader [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:27 am ]
Post subject: 
Hunting is just nature. Around here if there was no hunting, the deer would overpopulate, cutting off food for the entire biome. Although I do agree that not eating the meat of a deer is wasteful, but almost everyone eats the meat. Let's face it, it's delicious.

Yeah, it's kind of mean. But nature is like that. Sometimes creatures need to die in order for a larger number of animals to survive. Heck, if we didn't hunt around here, the animals would suffer MORE. Starving to death is a lot worse than a bullet.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:38 am ]
Post subject: 
I've never gone hunting. I probably never will.

Just not interested.

But I don't think those that go are murderers or anything ridiculous like that. Equating animal life to human life is just kooky.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:42 am ]
Post subject: 
This is why they invented Clay pigeons and Skeet.

I love my job.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:43 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
Equating animal life to human life is just kooky.
*looks in Dictionary under "redundant"*

It says "See redundant."

We are animals, Lahi. Just because we have the ability to walk upright and reason does not separate us from the Animal Kingdom.
Author:  Rusty [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:43 am ]
Post subject: 
Beyond the Grave wrote:
We are animals, Lahi. Just because we have the ability to walk upright and reason does not separate us from the Animal Kingdom.


Yeah, this.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:45 am ]
Post subject: 
Rusty wrote:
Beyond the Grave wrote:
We are animals, Lahi. Just because we have the ability to walk upright and reason does not separate us from the Animal Kingdom.


Yeah, this.


You sure are spammy as of late, Rusty. Try adding something to the conversation every once in a while. It's fun!

And BTG... if I shoot someone's cat in the face with a shotgun, I won't face the death penalty and/or a life sentence in prison.

If I shoot you in the face with a shotgun, I do.

There's obviously a difference.
Author:  Rusty [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:47 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:

You sure are spammy as of late, Rusty. Try adding something to the conversation every once in a while. It's fun!

And BTG... if I shoot someone's cat in the face with a shotgun, I won't face the death penalty and/or a life sentence in prison.

If I shoot you in the face with a shotgun, I do.

There's obviously a difference.


I can't if someone puts what I want to say in better words for me.


Okay, so there is a difference just because our law says so? That's ridiculous.
Author:  StrongRad [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:50 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
Rusty wrote:
Beyond the Grave wrote:
We are animals, Lahi. Just because we have the ability to walk upright and reason does not separate us from the Animal Kingdom.


Yeah, this.


You sure are spammy as of late, Rusty. Try adding something to the conversation every once in a while. It's fun!

And BTG... if I shoot someone's cat in the face with a shotgun, I won't face the death penalty and/or a life sentence in prison.

If I shoot you in the face with a shotgun, I do.

There's obviously a difference.


While I don't disagree with you, Lahi, the example of the shotgun doesn't really hold. Just because two things are treated differently in the eyes of the law does not mean that are different.
Take the 1950's. Blacks weren't allowed to eat with whites. Were blacks somehow not equal to whites?
However, since I agree with you, equating humans and animals is a bit off one's rocker, I won't resort to that strawman.

"Animals have feelings too" type people really scare me. I don't condone abusing animals (I find things like cockfighting and dogfighting absolutely appalling), but to somehow suggest that they are on the same evolutionary (or creationary, whatever) level with humans is silly.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:50 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
And BTG... if I shoot someone's cat in the face with a shotgun, I won't face the death penalty and/or a life sentence in prison.
No, but you will face prison time.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
No, but you will face prison time.


Laughable.

Maybe I'd face a fine.

And SR I appreciate you not using a strawman, but make a better counterpoint, then.
Author:  StrongRad [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:55 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
Quote:
No, but you will face prison time.


Laughable.

Maybe I'd face a fine.

I don't know, Lahi, the animal righters have found them some activist judges to side with them. In (environmental, and I assume criminal as well) law, what's been done is more important than what should be done.
Get a couple of REALLY stiff sentences for a crime against an animal, then you'll see a bunch more.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:58 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
Laughable.

Maybe I'd face a fine.
In Utah, yes you will receive a fine and probation. In New York, killing an animal(i.e. cat, dog, etc.) will land you in jail.

But that is for another time.

Toastpaint.
Author:  AbuGrape45 [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:19 am ]
Post subject: 
ramrod wrote:
netzen wrote:
I"m back, the hunting trip was a success. I have slain my first deer!!
HOOOOAHHHH!!!!
*Manly grunts*
You know, I really don't understand hunting.



"Hey! Let's go out and kill a defenseless animal, decapitate it, and put it's head on the wall! It's stylish!"

It's beside putting it's head on the wall for style. Animals make good eating, too.

Seriously. The main count you're wrong in here is saying the animals are defenseless. Any big game hunting you do, I guarantee you will not run into an animal without some adaptation that keeps them from being as defenseless as everyone would like to think they are.

Deer: Are very fast and not afraid to attack.

Bears: I think this is obvious.

Turkey: Go near a turkey, and they can be some very ferocious beasts.

Boar: Boar are more dangerous than people think. They outweigh anyone, are stronger than anyone, and much faster than humans.

Oxes: Horns. Speed.
Author:  Vitruvian Dude [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:24 am ]
Post subject: 
All right, now, I don't care one way or the other about hunting, but seriously, the whole "animals aren't defenseless" thing is, well, stupid.

Sure they can attack, but compared to the range and power of a rifle, that's almost meaningless. Unless you actually get close enough to something for it to attack you, then they are, for all intents and purposes, defenseless. Heck, you can even shoot 'em from up in a tree if you want, and last I checked, deer can't climb.
Author:  Rusty [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:42 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes. The only thing I can call acceptable hunting is bow hunting, where you're actually giving the animal some sort of chance. But I know that many hunters use these tools to make it so easy to kill an animal it's like cake. Traps, guns, everything like that. You're not giving your victim any chance whatsoever.
Author:  Inverse Tiger [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, they're defenseless. But that doesn't mean anything really. It's not about challenging the animal to a fight under the bushido code, it's about getting some meat/skins/whatever. It's the same as tearing up an entire field of defenseless corn plants for food. I don't see plants fighting back (I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL, CORN STALK!!), but they certainly are dead now. Just because hunted food can walk around doesn't really mean anything in my opinion.

There's another question here about skill I think; that hunting with a gun is just too easy. There's SOME skill involved in getting close enough to a deer to shoot it, but yeah, you basically just have to have a little patience and not be a moron. Bow hunting is more difficult, and I wasn't kidding in the second post in this thread about the dude who jumped out of a tree onto the back of a deer and wrestled it to death. Now THAT'S hunting prowess. But that doesn't mean if you're not going hand-to-hoof with a deer you shouldn't be out there. It just means you have to resist the temptation the ease of the gun provides and only shoot what you can eat.

(Note that I've never done any kind of hunting ever, but have taken an intensive wilderness survival course in which it was covered in detail)

Also I agree with Zeno way back there, even if he was kidding. Mass deer-o-cide without using it for food is a waste. Something should be eating the deer that get killed. Wolves and mountain lions for population control managers in '08!
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Inverse Tiger wrote:
There's SOME skill involved in getting close enough to a deer to shoot it,
From what I hear, that part can be pretty dang difficult...
Quote:
Also I agree with Zeno way back there, even if he was kidding.
I think they already exist. They might not provide incentive for actually hunting, but the signs say something like "Did you shoot a deer and not use the venison? Bring it to us..."
Author:  bwave [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ya know something about deer? They for some reason, dont get scared when they hear a loud droning noise.

I know this from working on the golf course mowing the greens in the morning. They would be all over this one side of the course, and they would look twice at me as I rode by them on the mower. I would literally be withing 10 feet of them, and they would run.

PRO TIP: Bring a shotgun with you when using a riding mower on a golf course.
Author:  Rusty [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
So, what, Inverse, animals are just walking sacks of resources that don't deserve a chance to live if we decide it's time for them to die?
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
Again, Rusty, if you're against hunting, are you against consuming meat, eggs, vegetables, swatting flies, fishing, making vaccines, testing stuff on animals, etc, and if not why not?
Author:  Rusty [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
I didn't say that. Most of the meat I eat is farm raised, not hunted, anyway. Most farm raised animals live full lives.

And...I don't really see what vegetables have to do with hunting. Testing things...many people volunteer to be tested. So if people are tested, animals can be tested too.

It's not that I think eating animals is in any way a HORRIBLE thing to do. But to treat them, and think of them, of things to eat, things to wear, and nothing more, is inhumane.

Not to mention the whole giving it a chance thing - I've answered a question, so I want to know why animals don't deserve a chance.
Page 3 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/