|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2016 9:14:21 GMT -5
An evil act (killing that animal) doesn't have to be identically evil to another evil act (the Stanford rape) to still be evil.
IMHO, of course.
Does, say, Michael Vick get a pass because his depravity was limited to dogs rather than people?
Not that Immanuel Kant was some sort of omniscient observer, but his declaration that “He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals" comes to mind here. He's hardly the only great thinker who has concluded as much.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 8, 2016 9:32:02 GMT -5
An evil act (killing that animal) doesn't have to be identically evil to another evil act (the Stanford rape) to still be evil. IMHO, of course. Does, say, Michael Vick get a pass because his depravity was limited to dogs rather than people? Not that Immanuel Kant was some sort of omniscient observer, but his declaration that “He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals" comes to mind here. He's hardly the only great thinker who has concluded as much. We can agree to disagree then, as I don't see anything evil about killing an animal, for either food or sport, unless the killing was done via torturous means. Millions of chickens, cows, and pigs are killed every year so that meat can be eaten, yet few consider those killings "evil", and I don't consider a hunter putting a bullet into a deer to be evil either, especially if they are going to eat the venison. As for Michael Vick, I would probably put those into the category of "extreme cruelty". He forced animals to fight each other to the death, allowing them to repeatedly injure the other to achieve said death. In regard to Kant, "treatment", to me, indicates a long-term pattern, not a one-time event. Have I ever swatted one of my cats? Sure, usually when one of them bites or scratches me out of the blue, as when I'm petting them and they take a swipe at me or get their teeth around a finger and bite. Do I ever walk up to any of my cats and strike them for no reason? Nope, and I don't do the same to either of my children. Is my heart hardened towards men because I occasionally smack one of my cats on the rear for biting me? Probably not. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2016 9:34:50 GMT -5
Yeah, we'll just have to disagree. Killing purely for fun reflects, to me, moral vacancy.
I'm not a big fan of the Texas veterinarian who killed a cat by putting an arrow through its head, though since she (AFAIK) didn't do it on a regular basis, I guess I'm just being ridiculous. I'll bet she had fun, which I gather is all that we should care about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jun 8, 2016 10:05:15 GMT -5
I can't tell the difference between 23 skidoo, Heinz 57 and 2Pac. I'm old. Come on, not that old...  |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jun 8, 2016 10:12:18 GMT -5
Yeah, we'll just have to disagree. Killing purely for fun reflects, to me, moral vacancy. I'm not a big fan of the Texas veterinarian who killed a cat by putting an arrow through its head, though since she (AFAIK) didn't do it on a regular basis, I guess I'm just being ridiculous. I'll bet she had fun, which I gather is all that we should care about. Killing and cruelty are not necesseraly mutual on this : I live on an island massivly overcrowded with common dears. In october we hunt for 3 weeks to somewhat regulate a population that has no more predators. I don't do it because I need the meat to eat (though I'll eat what I kill if I do), but I certainly don't do as any sort of entertainment. It's actually quite difficult and I feel a little heartbroken when pulling the trigger. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jun 8, 2016 10:14:07 GMT -5
I have no interest in the movie because I find that McCarthy gal about as funny as a prolapsed rectum, but it's a movie. What?!!! You didn't enjoy the Ren and Stimpy show?!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2016 10:18:57 GMT -5
Yeah, we'll just have to disagree. Killing purely for fun reflects, to me, moral vacancy. I'm not a big fan of the Texas veterinarian who killed a cat by putting an arrow through its head, though since she (AFAIK) didn't do it on a regular basis, I guess I'm just being ridiculous. I'll bet she had fun, which I gather is all that we should care about. : I live on an island massivly overcrowded with common dears. In october we hunt for 3 weeks to somewhat regulate a population that has no more predators. I don't do it because I need the meat to eat (though I'll eat what I kill if I do), but I certainly don't do as any sort of entertainment. It's actually quite difficult and I feel a little heartbroken when pulling the trigger. No, they're not. I agree. But, again, it's the entertainment factor I find objectionable & for that matter loathsome. If one is killing something for fun, one is ... an interesting person, in sort of the way that World War II was an interesting event. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jun 8, 2016 10:27:02 GMT -5
Killing and cruelty are not necesseraly mutual on this : I live on an island massivly overcrowded with common dears. In october we hunt for 3 weeks to somewhat regulate a population that has no more predators. I don't do it because I need the meat to eat (though I'll eat what I kill if I do), but I certainly don't do as any sort of entertainment. It's actually quite difficult and I feel a little heartbroken when pulling the trigger. No, they're not. I agree. But, again, it's the entertainment factor I find objectionable & for that matter loathsome. If one is killing something for fun, one is ... an interesting person, in sort of the way that World War II was an interesting event. Wher it becomes less black and white then how you present it is that when you hunt, whether it is because you need the food, regulating the animal population or whatever other decent reason I can't think of as of right now, there is the hunt. Whether you have good moral reasons to hunt, the act of hunting induces natural thrills, whether you accept those or not, there will be some level of excitment triggered. So while I'm not looking forward hunting, I must confess I know I may have a good time. The killing still remains not neutral... |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 8, 2016 10:37:34 GMT -5
I can't tell the difference between 23 skidoo, Heinz 57 and 2Pac. I'm old. Come on, not that old... Hey, I'm Canadian! To me, 23 ski-doos is this !  |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jun 8, 2016 14:31:41 GMT -5
Oh, and BTW, isn't it lovly that the first member to defend the point of view that valid women insecurities shouldn't be evaluated by third parties such as our very own bunch of white males is one heralding a Cerebus avatar?  |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jun 8, 2016 20:02:21 GMT -5
No, they're not. I agree. But, again, it's the entertainment factor I find objectionable & for that matter loathsome. If one is killing something for fun, one is ... an interesting person, in sort of the way that World War II was an interesting event. Wher it becomes less black and white then how you present it is that when you hunt, whether it is because you need the food, regulating the animal population or whatever other decent reason I can't think of as of right now, there is the hunt. Whether you have good moral reasons to hunt, the act of hunting induces natural thrills, whether you accept those or not, there will be some level of excitment triggered. So while I'm not looking forward hunting, I must confess I know I may have a good time. The killing still remains not neutral... "The killing was fun, it was the death I couldn't handle." - a very rough paraphrase from memory of Joel in an old Northern Exposure episode in which Chris and Holling take the doctor hunting, he has fun, but then shoots a bird, freaks out and rushes it back to his office to operate. |
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Jun 9, 2016 5:09:34 GMT -5
An evil act (killing that animal) doesn't have to be identically evil to another evil act (the Stanford rape) to still be evil. IMHO, of course. Does, say, Michael Vick get a pass because his depravity was limited to dogs rather than people? Not that Immanuel Kant was some sort of omniscient observer, but his declaration that “He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals" comes to mind here. He's hardly the only great thinker who has concluded as much. We can agree to disagree then, as I don't see anything evil about killing an animal, for either food or sport, unless the killing was done via torturous means. Millions of chickens, cows, and pigs are killed every year so that meat can be eaten, yet few consider those killings "evil", and I don't consider a hunter putting a bullet into a deer to be evil either, especially if they are going to eat the venison. What does lion taste like, I wonder? I'll only consider hunting a sport when the animals are given rifles as well. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 9, 2016 9:57:20 GMT -5
So ... no sit-ins in the '60s at segregated lunch counters? At some point, it seems to me, the fear of violence becomes extremely counter-productive (no pun intended). After all, the triumph of nonviolent protest, per Gandhi, King, etc., has always depended to a considerable degree on weakness -- including the tendency to respond violently -- by the people or entity being targeted. Simply boycotting, say, a whites-only Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, N.C., wouldn't have had nearly the impact that showing up, being refused service & being mistreated by segregationist goons had. You're missing my point entirely. Going back to your previous reply, I was speaking specifically about the situation with the hunting dentist and other trophy hunters, not all protests. The situations you mentioned above were a social justice issue and were completely justified in order to affect change for a segment of the population that was being discriminated against, just as protests at courthouses in support of gay marriage were. Those are issues affecting the lives of citizens of the US, and discrimination, in any form, is always wrong. The one I mentioned was because some folks got really upset about an animal being killed, so they started making death threats against him as well as threatening to shut down his business because they didn't like something he did. In addition, your mentioning the Stanford rapist in response to a post I made about hunters worries me, as though you're suggesting that the legal act of shooting an animal is somehow equal with the heinous and criminal act of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. I want to start off by commending everyone for dealing with a topic that was bound to cause disagreements in a reasonable and adult fashion. One minor quibble with your comment above though, you mention the "legal act of shooting an animal" in regards to hunting in general, which is quite true when done in the proper season and with the proper permits. In reference to the dentist & lion in Africa, however, it wasn't legal as the lion was on wildlife preserve and was supposed to be off-limits. I realize you may not have meant to say that the killing of the lion was legal, but I just wanted to clarify. As to my feelings about hunting in general, I understand the need to use it as a tool to control certain wild game populations, but it's not something that I've ever wanted to do. I'm far too soft hearted where animals are concerned. I accidentally ran over a squirrel many years ago (he ran directly under the car and I had no chance to stop or swerve) and I still feel bad about it. Still nothing justifies death threats to the dentist, but the investigation of possible charges and public protests at his business are clearly fair game, so to speak. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jun 9, 2016 12:29:04 GMT -5
Something a lot more mundane than the weighty issues discussed so far in this thread, but it does make me SMH at least once a week -
The parking garage for the office building where I work is across the street. There's a crosswalk in the middle of the block with a traffic light that's activated only when someone presses the button. It's a full green-yellow-red traffic light just like the ones at intersections. But every few days I see someone drive right thru the red light as soon as the pedestrians have passed. Even though the light at the end of the block is also red and they can only go a few feet forward, they're willing to risk a ticket rather than wait until the light turns green. Once I saw someone do it with a police car in the next lane, and the cop immediately turned on his lights and pulled them over. The rest of them suffer no consequences except the sight of me shaking my head as I walk away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 9, 2016 12:29:34 GMT -5
You're missing my point entirely. Going back to your previous reply, I was speaking specifically about the situation with the hunting dentist and other trophy hunters, not all protests. The situations you mentioned above were a social justice issue and were completely justified in order to affect change for a segment of the population that was being discriminated against, just as protests at courthouses in support of gay marriage were. Those are issues affecting the lives of citizens of the US, and discrimination, in any form, is always wrong. The one I mentioned was because some folks got really upset about an animal being killed, so they started making death threats against him as well as threatening to shut down his business because they didn't like something he did. In addition, your mentioning the Stanford rapist in response to a post I made about hunters worries me, as though you're suggesting that the legal act of shooting an animal is somehow equal with the heinous and criminal act of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. I want to start off by commending everyone for dealing with a topic that was bound to cause disagreements in a reasonable and adult fashion. One minor quibble with your comment above though, you mention the "legal act of shooting an animal" in regards to hunting in general, which is quite true when done in the proper season and with the proper permits. In reference to the dentist & lion in Africa, however, it wasn't legal as the lion was on wildlife preserve and was supposed to be off-limits. I realize you may not have meant to say that the killing of the lion was legal, but I just wanted to clarify. As to my feelings about hunting in general, I understand the need to use it as a tool to control certain wild game populations, but it's not something that I've ever wanted to do. I'm far too soft hearted where animals are concerned. I accidentally ran over a squirrel many years ago (he ran directly under the car and I had no chance to stop or swerve) and I still feel bad about it. Still nothing justifies death threats to the dentist, but the investigation of possible charges and public protests at his business are clearly fair game, so to speak. DE, I believe that it was actually legal... There are reports that Cecil the lion was lured out of the wildlife sanctuary by the guides organizing the hunt. Charges against the dentist were dropped (if they were ever raised, I haven't checked) because he had all the required permits and so this act, no matter how much we may disapprove of it, won't land the guy in jail. Trophy hunting is an activity I disapprove of mightily. Perhaps a hunter could explain why it's all right, but personally I see a world of difference between hunting for meat (even if one enjoys the hunt itself) and hunting to get a lion's pelt in one's living room. As for western hunters who justify killing a giraffe by saying they ate it or gave the meat to a local village, I can only say this : if you truly hunted for meat, you'd go for deer in your local Virginia. As for the villagers in Zimbabwe, they're fully capable of hunting their own giraffe if they need one. |
|
