Moderator: Moderators
jindy,while no-one argues that the act of a lion smothering an antelope by crushing it's throat is cruel
Chase N. Nocks wrote:Jindy, I would give zero support for PETA to stop people eating meat. In fact I would actively fight them on the issue. Same as I would fight them on the issue of hunting and harvesting game for food and leather or pest control.
Jeff and I disagree that the wanton ending of a living creature is a cruel act. That's fine. I understand what he is saying. I don't think that protracted pain need be the only component to call an act cruel. I also think this is part of the reason that the American Indians apologised to the deer etc and thanked the animal. Because even though necessary, the taking of a life is cruel and violent. It was acknowledged AND accepted by the Indians. That is my take on it.
"Nature, red in tooth and claw", that's what Tennyson says. Nature is cruel, but it is a cruelty of balance and necessity. Yes, the new born calf that is smothered by the lion, or worse starting to be eaten alive by hyenas has suffered a cruel fate and likely a cruel death..but only nature can give cruelty dignity. The balance is that without the meal supplied by prey then the predators cubs in turn suffer the cruel death of starvation. When you hunt for food or leather or even pest control you are part of nature at that point. You only fall outside the loop of natural dignity when you deliberately fail to end that life as quickly as possible, whether it be sadistic, using inadequate equipment or not training your skills as a hunter properly.
If someone said to me that taking an animals life is cruel, I would agree but insist that I believe in scales of cruelty. I think keeping birds in cages is cruel, yet others have no problem with it at all..
It looks like you are making an argument that the use of bows is cruel because we choose to use a tool that doesn't end the life of the animal "as quickly as possible". This is of course the exact argument that is used by the Gov when they deny us the right to hunt (with a bow) kangaroos, and they put in place rules and regulations that prohibit the killing of many animals (in certain circumstances) with anything but a bullet to the head or a shot of the green dream.You only fall outside the loop of natural dignity when you deliberately fail to end that life as quickly as possible, whether it be sadistic, using inadequate equipment or not training your skills as a hunter properly.
To stand beside these extremists on one issue (and to legitimise the tactics they use) is to give them support in all their endeavors, and it isn't helpful to hunters or hunting at all.PETA and the like are for those who dream of a world with no direct human/animal interaction. No pets, no farming, no hunting, no feeding the ducks at the pond. Preferably no humans at all, actually.
But I did answer you..you just quoted it back to me. I believe I have the right to side with whomever I like, on any issue I like, the same as you. And to try and force change..the same as you. We have the right to qualify our position as well.jindydiver wrote:
You still didn't answer my question. I see that you believe that we all have the power to determine for ourselves what we see as cruel, but why would you fight against the PETA supporter who demands you stop eating meat when you tell us that we all have the right to "force change" in the face of cruelty? Is it that they are given this right when you believe in the same issue?
jindydiver wrote: I don't think the PETA supporters will reward you for your support by showing you the same consideration when it comes to their fight against hunting.
Well he was talking about nature and the violence of it, I don't think he was making a judgement just stating a fact.jindydiver wrote: Was Tennyson really talking about cruelty? Perhaps he was if you accept that the premature death of a friend can be cruel, but he wasn't talking about cruelty to animals by other animals (including humans).
I think I said that only Nature can give cruelty dignity. Yes man is an animal and is certainly a part of nature. But our complex reasoning allows us to give value and reason to the way we live and conduct ourselves. It's why most of us see value in conducting ourselves in a "civilized" way as opposed to taking what we want to get ahead. I'm not talking about giving animals the right to vote, but a reflection of a society is the way we treat other creatures and the world around us..my father said "never trust a man who's dog won't follow him", good advise but unfortunately dogs are good hearted and forgiving..so they will still follow any numbers of small spirited imbeciles.jindydiver wrote: Your claim that only "nature" can give death dignity denies man's place in nature. Just because nature has endowed man with the talents to alter his environment and develop his tools doesn't set man outside that nature. Man is just adapting well (or maybe not "adapting" at all) and is no different to any other animal.
Just as there are scales of cruelty there are also scales of intelligence. The rabbit is just doing what it's DNA tells it to do, it has a very limited means of passing on lessons and history to it's offspring and a limited learning curve for keeping itself out of harms way..it's survival strategy is high metabolism, high birth rate, many offspring...and hopefully some will make it through even the worst. The rabbit is not thinking anything except eating and mating.jindydiver wrote: When the rabbit breeds up during the wet Spring, til it's numbers are so many that in the lean Winter it's population crashes through starvation, is it thinking that maybe it's destruction of the ecosystem is denying food to other herbivores.
Does the fox, when it takes the lamb and eats only it's kidneys act outside of nature because it doesn't eat the whole lamb? Is there a moral structure the fox must adhere to if it is to justify it's killing, of course not, unless we as humans choose to impose that moral structure upon him (just as we choose to impose a moral structure upon ourselves).
Animals have always eliminated or controlled competitors. Also the pests I was mostly talking about were the introduced kind that do environmental damage to this country or compete and destroy native fauna and flora. There is a point to hunting/killing them..there is a justification..jindydiver wrote: Your inclusion of "pest control" allows humans to kill for reasons other than food, so why isn't killing "just because you want to" (your shooting the dog story) just as moral? Surely this argues that the killing itself isn't the cruel act, but the how and the why of that killing. Yet you say this...
You only fall outside the loop of natural dignity when you deliberately fail to end that life as quickly as possible, whether it be sadistic, using inadequate equipment or not training your skills as a hunter properly.
It is my belief that in most cases, yes bow shot game sufferes more than an animal that has been shot in the head by an adquate rifle cartridge. I am happy to view your arguments to the contrary. Do I think bowhunting should be banned? No. Do I go along with competency tests for hunters? Sure. Hunting ethics education? Again, yes. Do I need to state some of the obvious failed hunting shots we have probably all witnessed? Shots that should not have been taken.jindydiver wrote: It looks like you are making an argument that the use of bows is cruel because we choose to use a tool that doesn't end the life of the animal "as quickly as possible". This is of course the exact argument that is used by the Gov when they deny us the right to hunt (with a bow) kangaroos, and they put in place rules and regulations that prohibit the killing of many animals (in certain circumstances) with anything but a bullet to the head or a shot of the green dream.
Man is a part of nature and hunting is natural. Cruelty may actually be natural to human beings, I think that is a distinct posibility of the super-curious experimental mind. Look at 2 year old with pets.jindydiver wrote: There are many of us though that would argue that man is a part of nature and that our hunting is a natural part of what we are, and because of that the line defining where hunting ends and where cruelty begins is very fuzzy but certainly right down next to the lion that smothers the antelope.
I disagree that my support for anyone need be unnanomous or not at all. I do not legitimise their tacics because I do not employ their tactics. PETA are made up of more than enough fools to be helped to land on it's face. But while their opponents are also playing at being less than honest and there is a general groundswell of people that look at the planet in it's current state, and how we arrived at this point, then they will recieve the desperate ear of those that want a change... It's stupid to talk about the end of farming..but there are plenty of farming practices I'd like to see the end to. End to pets...sure I can actually see good reasons at this time to CONSIDER what they are saying but from a different perspective. eg 2 x ailes in everysupermarket loaded with pet food in a world where edible resourses (particulary the oceans) are being depleted and children are starving to death. Um..that pretty much sucks fellas. And that comes from someone who loves dogs and wants his son to have a dog.jindydiver wrote: And I believe Longclaw has it right
PETA and the like are for those who dream of a world with no direct human/animal interaction. No pets, no farming, no hunting, no feeding the ducks at the pond. Preferably no humans at all, actually.
To stand beside these extremists on one issue (and to legitimise the tactics they use) is to give them support in all their endeavors, and it isn't helpful to hunters or hunting at all.
Sorry for the long and at times disjointed rant
You said "force change", now I see you see it as "force" equals "lobby". I thought we were talking about the same PETA, the guys that use supporters money to pay for legal teams and who pay fines for members of the ELF who burn housing estates and research laboratories, the same guys who encourage their supporters to sabotage live sheep exports by contaminating their feed.Chase N. Nocks wrote:
But I did answer you..you just quoted it back to me. I believe I have the right to side with whomever I like, on any issue I like, the same as you. And to try and force change..the same as you. We have the right to qualify our position as well.
Sometimes we will be in the same camp and other times not. We don't have to agree on the issue just the right to disagree and the right, if we feel strongly enough, to lobby others to feel the same way. This does not alway lead to the smartest or fairest end result as firearms legislation is a grand example. But I guess it matters when you consider the fight over.
You are seriously saying that you think you can direct where your money might be used if you were to donate to themChase N. Nocks wrote:
I'm sure they wouldn't, they would find me too fierce an opponent on other issues, like enforced vegetarianism or vegenism. I will continue to eat meat, but choose as often as possible free range or harvested product. I would not give PETA financial support by being a member..I may donate for a very specific issue that I was sure was focused so as not to include their more idiotic claims and I would sign very specific petitions..remember many normal, non stupid people agree with some of their points, and IMO rightly so.
Sort of like believing you can tell the gov' where to spend your taxes. Was he? Or was he, in his very evocative language, just lamenting the seemingly pointless death of a friend?Chase N. Nocks wrote:Well he was talking about nature and the violence of it, I don't think he was making a judgement just stating a fact.jindydiver wrote: Was Tennyson really talking about cruelty? Perhaps he was if you accept that the premature death of a friend can be cruel, but he wasn't talking about cruelty to animals by other animals (including humans).
. That one line out of dozens in a poem makes for a great saying but it has no relevance to the argument, does it?Man might be individually more capable of reasoning than the rabbit, but as an entity of 6 billion odd we are exactly the same, we use the justifications of food and the perpetuation of our genome to justify ALL the bad things we do to our planetChase N. Nocks wrote:I think I said that only Nature can give cruelty dignity. Yes man is an animal and is certainly a part of nature. But our complex reasoning allows us to give value and reason to the way we live and conduct ourselves. It's why most of us see value in conducting ourselves in a "civilized" way as opposed to taking what we want to get ahead. I'm not talking about giving animals the right to vote, but a reflection of a society is the way we treat other creatures and the world around us..my father said "never trust a man who's dog won't follow him", good advise but unfortunately dogs are good hearted and forgiving..so they will still follow any numbers of small spirited imbeciles.jindydiver wrote: Your claim that only "nature" can give death dignity denies man's place in nature. Just because nature has endowed man with the talents to alter his environment and develop his tools doesn't set man outside that nature. Man is just adapting well (or maybe not "adapting" at all) and is no different to any other animal.
Just as there are scales of cruelty there are also scales of intelligence. The rabbit is just doing what it's DNA tells it to do, it has a very limited means of passing on lessons and history to it's offspring and a limited learning curve for keeping itself out of harms way..it's survival strategy is high metabolism, high birth rate, many offspring...and hopefully some will make it through even the worst. The rabbit is not thinking anything except eating and mating.jindydiver wrote: When the rabbit breeds up during the wet Spring, til it's numbers are so many that in the lean Winter it's population crashes through starvation, is it thinking that maybe it's destruction of the ecosystem is denying food to other herbivores.
Does the fox, when it takes the lamb and eats only it's kidneys act outside of nature because it doesn't eat the whole lamb? Is there a moral structure the fox must adhere to if it is to justify it's killing, of course not, unless we as humans choose to impose that moral structure upon him (just as we choose to impose a moral structure upon ourselves).
This is what you saidChase N. Nocks wrote:
The fox again is just doing what it does, and while IMO smarter than a rabbit, is not as smart as a human being. I'm not sure where I would have suggested that such behaviour for the fox would be outside nature, afterall I used an example of the hyenas that actually start their meal while still alive. It is hard to watch, for me impossible to watch dispassionately but I would not interfere with the hyenas. I just might try to bring the suffering of the prey to a sharper end, but that would be for my own failings or sensitivities.
I am asking you how the fox "balances" it's cruelty to the lamb if it is only eating a small part of it. It isn't like the fox "needs" to eat just the kidneys, the rest of the lamb would serve it's need for food (for itself or it's offspring) well enough without the need to kill again, and it is certainly not killing out of "necessity" yet you give it a free pass because it is "natural". But then you tell us that we are outside of nature if we don't kill for "food or leather or even pest control". Maybe it is just as "natural" for humans to kill wantonly (like the example Jeff gave of the dogs). It is certainly "natural" for humans to display gluttonous behavior just like that we see in foxes that kill just for the tastiest morsel. Sort of like people de-fining sharks.Nature is cruel, but it is a cruelty of balance and necessity. Yes, the new born calf that is smothered by the lion, or worse starting to be eaten alive by hyenas has suffered a cruel fate and likely a cruel death..but only nature can give cruelty dignity. The balance is that without the meal supplied by prey then the predators cubs in turn suffer the cruel death of starvation. When you hunt for food or leather or even pest control you are part of nature at that point. You only fall outside the loop of natural dignity when you deliberately fail to end that life as quickly as possible, whether it be sadistic, using inadequate equipment or not training your skills as a hunter properly.
Already covered this above....ButChase N. Nocks wrote:Animals have always eliminated or controlled competitors. Also the pests I was mostly talking about were the introduced kind that do environmental damage to this country or compete and destroy native fauna and flora. There is a point to hunting/killing them..there is a justification..jindydiver wrote: Your inclusion of "pest control" allows humans to kill for reasons other than food, so why isn't killing "just because you want to" (your shooting the dog story) just as moral? Surely this argues that the killing itself isn't the cruel act, but the how and the why of that killing. Yet you say this...
You only fall outside the loop of natural dignity when you deliberately fail to end that life as quickly as possible, whether it be sadistic, using inadequate equipment or not training your skills as a hunter properly.
If I knew someone who was doing what Jeff was talking about I wouldn't think it was cruel, cruelty to an individual ceases when death occurs, to argue otherwise is to give oxygen to those that would have us live only on fruit (or maybe not live at all because us humans aren't part of nature any more). I would though think that individual was not of sound mindChase N. Nocks wrote: Also a key part of that quoted sentence is "deliberately fail", if as a marksmen you are flatout trying to get an arrow into the lung area of a pig at 5 metres and you still want to go hunting, then fine. But if you want to be considered an ethical hunter you had better learn to stalk to within 1-2 metres before taking the shot. Wouldn't you agree? I also said that I don't think that for an act to be considered cruel that prolonged suffering need be involved, simply denying a life for no other reason than you CAN qualifies as cruel. Jeff disagreed, I understand why he disagrees.
I don't think either "suffer". If what happens to them is no worse than what nature can dish out to them, and it is not done to them with intentional malice it is not cruel either.Chase N. Nocks wrote:
It is my belief that in most cases, yes bow shot game sufferes more than an animal that has been shot in the head by an adquate rifle cartridge. I am happy to view your arguments to the contrary. Do I think bowhunting should be banned? No. Do I go along with competency tests for hunters? Sure. Hunting ethics education? Again, yes. Do I need to state some of the obvious failed hunting shots we have probably all witnessed? Shots that should not have been taken.
A good example of why you can't give in one inch to zealots and extremists. Because of an attempt to head off the attentions of the AL crowd the KIAA had the head shot included in the Code of Practice for kangaroos and it was written into law. Now we can never kill kangaroos with any other methods than the Code specifies even in a recreational setting (wallabies in Tas). It obviously didn't work, as you can see the AL's and PETA still want the roos to be left alive. The AL mob will wear away at everything about how we interact with animals until it is illegal to interact with animals in any aspect of our lives. They will use any tactic and subvert any ideal to get their way, and any support for them is support for the notion that my children (and yours) will be vegetarians living in mud huts (if they in fact survive).Chase N. Nocks wrote: Not familiar with kangaroo hunting policy but I have said that the should be allowed to be hunted by people who are going to utilise the animal in some way. A bullet to the head is instant lights out and is OK policy with me if we are talking about licensed Pro Roo Shooters..but even with a rifle shot to the head you can't shoot them unless licensed.
Chase N. Nocks wrote:jindydiver wrote:
Sorry for the long and at times disjointed rant
Jindy, I think I win the rant.
I think you are crazy if you think there are winners on the internet 
Well , some one is trying hard to be the winner .jindydiver wrote:
Thanks for pointing out that even without winners there are still losersCoach wrote:Well , some one is trying hard to be the winner .jindydiver wrote:
Well I guess that will be decided by the public reading this debate and their views on the subject . They will make up their own minds who is the loser between you and Chase N. Nocksjindydiver wrote:Thanks for pointing out that even without winners there are still losersCoach wrote:Well , some one is trying hard to be the winner .jindydiver wrote:
In the mean time ,, I will just read the "essays" that are being posted 
Gotta be better than reading this crap 
I went BOWHUNTING Of course I have ,did you expect anything else ? And no , they dont help anybody , do they ?jindydiver wrote:No, you have missed the point. Snide comments from the side don't help anybody.
