Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic

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.

I didn't say that. Most of the meat I eat is farm raised, not hunted, anyway. Most farm raised animals live full lives.

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.

Why can't you just assume that? Because that would be a pretty easy assumption to make.

And by the way, are humans more deserving of survival than animals?

I do agree that it is natural to be killed for food, but it's not natural to use the weapons and tools that humans so often use.

That's why. You're expecting me to accept as fact something before you adequately demonstrate it to be the case. I'm sorry, but if you cannot demonstrate it, you cannot expect me to assume it.

Yes, and for reasons I've already addressed in this thread.

Why not? Do we not have brains that allow us to design and construct these tools? Do these tools not operate according to physical laws that enable them to function? Does the fact that we have the capacity to develop and use technology mean that we are somehow obligated to forgo its use and challenge deer to wrestling matches? Get real!

My dad had to work on a hunting show for two or three years, and he (unwillingly) learned a lot about hunting. And he thinks the exact same way I do.

There wouldn't be a problem if you had.

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we have to. Just because we can design things that makes it so easy to kill an animal, a 12 year old could do it, doesn't make it okay.

and it's hard to have an argument with someone so frustrating.

You're probably right about the farm thing, but you are not right about the difficulty. Many hunters use camouflage and hunt at a distance - they don't have to get close. Not to mention the fact that they use traps.

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?

And by the way, are humans more deserving of survival than animals?

They aren't "just" resources, they are also independent creatures who should be allowed to have proper habitats and generally go about their business. AND they can be a food resource. We shouldn't abuse that resource, and we ARE abusing it--people eat way more meat than they actually need, in fact so much that it causes increased risk of cancer.

I didn't say that. Most of the meat I eat is farm raised, not hunted, anyway. Most farm raised animals live full lives.

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.

I get how the deer or whatever has a full life. I get that some people want to eat venison. I get that there are laws that make hunting pretty humane. What I don't get is how anyone can derive fun from taking an animal's life. I'd feel horrible if I hit a deer with my car accidentally... I can't imagine intentionally trying to kill one.

If we have to kill em, we might as well enjoy ourselves.

Replace "getting hit by cars" with "dying due to overpopulation" and he's got a point.

Yeah. Just ask the Australians about the Cane Toad.

Author:	ed 'lim' smilde [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Rusty wrote: I didn't say that. Didn't say what? I didn't claim you said anything. Quote: Most of the meat I eat is farm raised, not hunted, anyway. Most farm raised animals live full lives. No, I doubt that they wait for farm animals to die of old age. Well, I assume you meant that they become fully-grown, but so do deer that are hunted. I'm pretty sure it's illegal to shoot a fawn, plus no one wants to shoot small deer anyways since they aren't worth a whole lot. In fact, I would argue that the deer are more ethically treated than farm animals, because at least they can roam free in their natural environment. Quote: And...I don't really see what vegetables have to do with hunting I just said it because they're living too, along with ants, flies, and termites that people kill. Quote: Testing things...many people volunteer to be tested. So if people are tested, animals can be tested too. I'm talking about life-and-death-type testing. A person would never do that.

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:39 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I didn't say that. Most of the meat I eat is farm raised, not hunted, anyway. Most farm raised animals live full lives. No more so than deer. Farm animals live in pens, stalls, and cages. Since deer live in the woods, it could be argued that at least their life is fuller than that of a cow or a pig. The ONLY difference is that cows, pigs, and other livestock are raised for the express purpose of being killed and eaten, whereas a deer lives free and must be hunted to be eaten. And honestly, do you really think that farm animals are allowed to die of old age before they're killed? No! As soon as they reach maturity, they are killed. In some cases, particularly with lamb and veil, they're not even allowed to reach maturity. So, I'm having a hard time understanding your definition of "full lives" when it's applied to farm animals. My suggestion to you: visit a farm where pigs, chickens, or beef cattle are raised. Quote: 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. But that is exactly what they are: food, clothing, and resources for humans to consume. Quote: 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. It's not our responsibility to prove that. If anything, it's your responsibility that they "deserve" anything. As has already been pointed out, we are talking about Nature here. Do you ask the lion if the gazelle "deserves" to live, or the grizzly bear if the salmon "deserves" to live? In short, no animal on the face of this planet "deserves" anything in the sense that you seem to use the term "deserve".

Author:	Rusty [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:
So, basically, you're avoiding the question. So I'll avoid yours until you can present some kind of answer.

Author:	ed 'lim' smilde [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:
Your last post didn't contain any questions. What question are you talking about...?

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:
I'm going to assume he means, "Why don't animals deserve to live?" That seems to be the issue he posed to Tiger. I answered your question, Rusty, by pointing out your failure to define exactly what you mean by "deserve". Your term "deserve" implies some transcendent moral value assigned to animal life that you have yet to demonstrate exists. In fact, as has already been demonstrated numerous times, Nature itself shows that no such transcendent quality exists, on account of the fact that animals hunt each other. Now, if you'd rather not continue the discussion, that's fine by me. I seriously doubt that anything you present will convince me that animals "deserve" not to be hunted. And most certainly you will not convince me that deer "deserve" not to be hunted any more than cows and pigs "deserve" not to be slaughtered.

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

Hunting http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12921	Page 4 of 5

Author:	Rusty [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:14 pm ]
Post subject:
That's not an answer. By deserve, I mean, why do we have the right to kill them, and give them no chance of survival by using guns, traps, and camouflage. Why can't you just assume that? Because that would be a pretty easy assumption to make. And by the way, are humans more deserving of survival than animals? You're saying that it's nature's way for animals to be violently killed, but do you think it's Nature's way to give us all the advantages? I do agree that it is natural to be killed for food, but it's not natural to use the weapons and tools that humans so often use.

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Why can't you just assume that? Because that would be a pretty easy assumption to make. That's why. You're expecting me to accept as fact something before you adequately demonstrate it to be the case. I'm sorry, but if you cannot demonstrate it, you cannot expect me to assume it. Quote: And by the way, are humans more deserving of survival than animals? Yes, and for reasons I've already addressed in this thread. Quote: I do agree that it is natural to be killed for food, but it's not natural to use the weapons and tools that humans so often use. Why not? Do we not have brains that allow us to design and construct these tools? Do these tools not operate according to physical laws that enable them to function? Does the fact that we have the capacity to develop and use technology mean that we are somehow obligated to forgo its use and challenge deer to wrestling matches? Get real!

Author:	Rogue Leader [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:25 pm ]
Post subject:
Rusty, you seriously need to learn something about hunting. Have you ever hunted? Have you ever even had someone explain it to you in detail? Animals cannot be hunted if they are baby animals. It is illegal, and if you do it around here on purpose, you can basically say good bye to a hunting license. Hunted animals to me would live a longer and more meaningful life than those raised on a farm. You wouldn't get separated from your family because of some farmer, your living space isn't blocked by fences... And seriously, most animals aren't defenseless. You have to sneak up very well on a deer (one cracked branch and say bye bye Bambi), and then get a good shot off of it. That's actually really hard. I can understand your feelings about animals not being treated as objects, but your views on hunting to me seem a bit uneducated. That's not a personal attack, don't take it that way. I am sure you know a lot more about another issue that I am clueless about.

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:35 pm ]
Post subject:
That's something we've been trying to point out the entire thread: a hunted deer is actually far more humanely treated than most farm animals. It lives free, and dies a relatively quick death. So then why would it be morally wrong to hunt, but okay to slaughter cows and pigs? It really doesn't make much sense.

Author:	Rusty [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:35 pm ]
Post subject:
My dad had to work on a hunting show for two or three years, and he (unwillingly) learned a lot about hunting. And he thinks the exact same way I do. You're probably right about the farm thing, but you are not right about the difficulty. Many hunters use camouflage and hunt at a distance - they don't have to get close. Not to mention the fact that they use traps. Quote: That's why. You're expecting me to accept as fact something before you adequately demonstrate it to be the case. I'm sorry, but if you cannot demonstrate it, you cannot expect me to assume it. There wouldn't be a problem if you had. Quote: Yes, and for reasons I've already addressed in this thread. So just because we can kill things, means we're better than them? And just because we're more capable of things? We're better than them in that sense, but that doesn't mean they're any less deserving of what everything deserves, which is life. Quote: Why not? Do we not have brains that allow us to design and construct these tools? Do these tools not operate according to physical laws that enable them to function? Does the fact that we have the capacity to develop and use technology mean that we are somehow obligated to forgo its use and challenge deer to wrestling matches? Get real! Just because we can do something doesn't mean we have to. Just because we can design things that makes it so easy to kill an animal, a 12 year old could do it, doesn't make it okay.

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:44 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: My dad had to work on a hunting show for two or three years, and he (unwillingly) learned a lot about hunting. And he thinks the exact same way I do. And you expect us to believe that this makes him some kind of expert, more so than people who actually do hunt? I'm sorry, but from what little I do know about hunting (from my own dad and from friends that hunt), I can't help but feel that your dad's "expertise" in this is severely questionable. Quote: There wouldn't be a problem if you had. I'm sure it would make the conversation much easier if I simply believed everyone's assumptions. Unfortunately, if an assumption must be made in order to continue a conversation, then if Genuine discussion is to ensue, then that assumption must be challenged. Quote: Just because we can do something doesn't mean we have to. Just because we can design things that makes it so easy to kill an animal, a 12 year old could do it, doesn't make it okay. I will concede to your first statement here: just because a thing can be done does not make it inherently moral to do it. Nevertheless, you're still expecting me to buy into your assumption that animals "deserve" to live. You have yet to demonstrate that they do, and in fact, Nature itself contradicts that. So until you can demonstrate that a deer "deserves" to live, you still fail to convince. All of your posts so far have been based entirely on this assumption that animals "deserve" to live. I find nothing inherent in nature to demonstrate that such a "right to live" exists within nature's realm. In fact, the whole concept of "right" exists solely within the social/political realm, which does not apply here. So once again, I challenge you: can you demonstrate any reason at all why anyone reading this thread should buy your assumption that animals have the "right" to live?

Author:	Rusty [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 11:06 pm ]
Post subject:
A right to live isn't just a political thing. I really can't see this argument being anything but a cycle. You're an ignorant, closed-minded person when it comes to your beliefs, and it's hard to have an argument with someone so frustrating.

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Nov 22, 2007 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:
Alright, Rusty. That's enough. Basically what you just did is called an ad hominem. If you cannot demonstrate your point, then you have absolutely no right to call anyone "closed-minded". My advice to you, if you are going to do this when you cannot convince someone of your point, then you need to stay off of R & P. But to answer your charge, your failure to demonstrate why I should believe your assumption is no reflection on my intelligence or willingness to consider your ideas. It proves only that you lack the ability to reasonably present your case. You were expecting me to believe your assumption without any demonstrable reason why I should. That is your failure, not mine. The problem is, Rusty, you're claiming that Nature has an inherent morality that makes killing wrong. But as has already been pointed out to you, there is no such inherent morality to Nature. If anything, Nature demonstrates the opposite: that in order for one organism to live, another organism has to die. You can claim that animals "deserve" to live (or "have a right to live") IF AND ONLY IF you can demonstrate FROM NATURE that such an inherent morality exists. You have not demonstrated that such a morality exists, and therefore you cannot make that claim. But I suspect that your "belief" in this regard is not based on observation, evidence, and reason, but on sentimentality. You don't like the fact that a deer has to die (even though you don't seem to mind that cows, chickens, and pigs die, and under even less humane conditions). You treat this "deserve" thing as if it were self-evident, and the fact that numerous people besides myself have contradicted you proves that it is not. Perhaps it is you who are being closed-minded and ignorant, not us. Quote: and it's hard to have an argument with someone so frustrating. Oh, believe me, I know. But I honestly think you need to take a good long look at yourself in this discussion, Rusty. I challenged your faulty assumption: I fail to see why that makes me the bad guy here.

Author:	Inverse Tiger [ Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:57 am ]
Post subject:
Rusty wrote: 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? They aren't "just" resources, they are also independent creatures who should be allowed to have proper habitats and generally go about their business. AND they can be a food resource. We shouldn't abuse that resource, and we ARE abusing it--people eat way more meat than they actually need, in fact so much that it causes increased risk of cancer. But people who cut out all meat live shorter (due to nutrition deficiencies) than those who keep a little meat in their diets. Of course, that leads to your other question... Rusty wrote: And by the way, are humans more deserving of survival than animals? I don't think so. And I don't think that's what this is about. In amoral physical nature, the ones more deserving of survival are merely the ones that end up surviving. It's not that we have some kind of moral superiority, it's just that we're trying to survive like any other species. When a cat kills a mouse, should the cat be considering whether it's actually more deserving of life? It's not about that, it's just that we are us. So if it comes down to getting the right nutrients so we can go about our lives or other species going about their lives, we're gonna choose in favor of ourselves. If you'd like to shorten your life for them, that's cool, man. Nothing wrong with that at all. There are several religions that see that choice as an extremely noble and holy one.

Author:	Inverse Tiger [ Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:14 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah, there are so many studies that say so many things. In the end, you just gotta piece together what makes sense to you. I like to think I'm not just picking the pieces that I want to pick; my approach to things has definitely changed based on new information that contradicted the way I had previously done things. I was a vegan once, for instance. But yeah, since I never remember to save links or references to print sources, I don't expect to change minds. BTW, there was a huge study in some Scandinavian country that pretty much demolished the cell-phone/cancer hypothesis. That idea never had more than conspiracy theories behind it anyway. But there's more than just conspiracy theories behind an excess meat/colon cancer connection. If I ever come across a good link or something, hopefully I'll remember to save it next time.

Page 4 of 5	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Rusty [ Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:04 am ]
Post subject:
Thanks for the answer, Invy. And that does make sense.

Author:	AbuGrape45 [ Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:06 am ]
Post subject:
Some of you obviously don't know much about big game hunting. So let me explain some laws. Not rules, laws: Shooting females or young animals. If it doesn't have horns or male parts and can't run 30 miles an hour, you can't kill it. There are gun restrictions. You can't use an SKS to kill a turkey, or a shotgun to kill a deer. It's bad ettiquette to cripple any animal. There are size limitations. Drop an 80 pound buck... no. You have to wear bright orange vests that make you visible. The animals you shoot don't have a completely blind eye to you. They have a perfectly fair chance. Hunters are not gun-wielding ignoramuses who kill just because they have power to. And I'll tell you another thing: Big game hunting with a bow=not possible. The animals have a better chance than you if you're shooting them with a bow.

Author:	lahimatoa [ Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:04 am ]
Post subject:
Inverse Tiger wrote: They aren't "just" resources, they are also independent creatures who should be allowed to have proper habitats and generally go about their business. AND they can be a food resource. We shouldn't abuse that resource, and we ARE abusing it--people eat way more meat than they actually need, in fact so much that it causes increased risk of cancer. Cancer? Dude, EVERYTHING is reported to cause cancer these days. My laptop will apparently give me cancer if I use it more than 3.4 hours a day. My cell phone will give me cancer. Tomatoes will give me cancer. Bunnies will give me cancer. There are always reports coming out about stuff causing cancer, and then they disappear soon after. I'd ask for a link, but I doubt I'd believe it even if you had one.

Author:	bwave [ Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:07 pm ]
Post subject:
Rusty wrote: I didn't say that. Most of the meat I eat is farm raised, not hunted, anyway. Most farm raised animals live full lives. Would you rather live your entire life within the bounds of a fence, or in a cage? There is nothing "Full" about how they live their lives. Free animals, however, are not confined to fences or cages. They can roam around, and look for food (Not this processed crap that is given to farm animals to fatten them up). Also, if an animal lives on a farm, it'll definitely die by being killed by a farmer. If it lives in the wild, it gets a chance. So theres the answer to your question.

Author:	Zoologist! [ Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:06 am ]
Post subject:
Rusty wrote: 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. Hunters wear bright orange jackets, and are only allowed to kill male grown deer. Deer have a chance. These "full-grown" farm animals you speak of aren't full grown. Animals on farms almost never die from old-age. Animals in the wild mostly die from old-age. By what you say, it's not okay to kill an animal with a free life, but it is, however, okay to capture, inject hormones, feed them their own kind, and then grind them. Sure, I'm okay with vegetarians. Don't eat meat, I'm okay with that. I myself don't eat that much meat, but I understand why there are hunters. I've gone hunting myself with an uncle. The main reason it is needed is because hunting is the most humane thing to do to deer. Rather than letting them overpopulate and starve, we keep their numbers down, yet still allow the population to grow. If deer population wasn't controlled, deer would be on the endangered species list, or at least close. Also, humans kill each other all the time. So saying that the human population isn't damaged is an inane comment. Yes it is not nearly as controlled, but it's still controlled. according to some it is ethical, and according to others it isn't, but it is still somewhat controlled.

Author:	Dark Grapefruit [ Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:32 am ]
Post subject:
I get how the deer or whatever has a full life. I get that some people want to eat venison. I get that there are laws that make hunting pretty humane. What I don't get is how anyone can derive fun from taking an animal's life. I'd feel horrible if I hit a deer with my car accidentally... I can't imagine intentionally trying to kill one.

Author:	bwave [ Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:02 am ]
Post subject:
Dark Grapefruit wrote: I get how the deer or whatever has a full life. I get that some people want to eat venison. I get that there are laws that make hunting pretty humane. What I don't get is how anyone can derive fun from taking an animal's life. I'd feel horrible if I hit a deer with my car accidentally... I can't imagine intentionally trying to kill one. I can't say that I'm sure on that one. I own a bow and arrows, but I've never been hunting. I shoot targets. I think hunting is probably sorta the same thing, but just a bigger challenge. Maybe. I dunno. Creepy old man in Futurama wrote: If we have to kill em, we might as well enjoy ourselves.

Author:	Zoologist! [ Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:34 am ]
Post subject:
Dark Grapefruit wrote: I get how the deer or whatever has a full life. I get that some people want to eat venison. I get that there are laws that make hunting pretty humane. What I don't get is how anyone can derive fun from taking an animal's life. I'd feel horrible if I hit a deer with my car accidentally... I can't imagine intentionally trying to kill one. That... I can't explain. I've gone hunting, and that still confuses me.

Author:	kevin bacon <3s bacon [ Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:32 pm ]
Post subject:
Would you rather kill a deer quickly with a gun and eat it yourself or Let it get hit by a car, suffer for a few minutes - a couple hours, and then let it rot and die because it was not hunted?

Author:	sci-fi greg [ Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:52 pm ]
Post subject:
So your logic is hunting is saving animals from being hit by cars? I don't think cars is the number one cause of death for animals.

Author:	HHFOV [ Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:26 pm ]
Post subject:
Replace "getting hit by cars" with "dying due to overpopulation" and he's got a point.

Author:	ramrod [ Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:38 pm ]
Post subject:
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote: Replace "getting hit by cars" with "dying due to overpopulation" and he's got a point. Actually, nature keeps itself in check quite fine. With diseases, shortages of food, and natural predators, nature stays regular.

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:45 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah. Just ask the Australians about the Cane Toad.

Author:	ramrod [ Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:48 pm ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Yeah. Just ask the Australians about the Cane Toad. Well, that was a bit of a different situation. They were introduced there, with no natural predators.