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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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:
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.
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:
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).
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
Is the bow an effective weapon? Most definitely. It has taken everything that currently walks the earth, and quite afew that no longer walk the earth. Almost anything hit properly with the right archery equipment will succumb sooner or later. I think a badly hit animal probably suffers less from a bowshot than from a gunshot, and in some cases may recover IF nothing vital was struck because of cleaner wound channels and less tissue damage that is dead and becomes infected.
Also the animal has a better chance of not being hit at all because the hunter cannot get within range because of the bow. I have heard many hunters say that they took up bowhunting because of the challenge over rifle hunting. The challenge..not because it was less cruel. 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.
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.
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:
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
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.
Jindy, I think I win the rant.