NY allows little children to be taught to slaughter at age 12

[Waddy]

I see no problem with kids being able to butcher animals. I have an issue with young kids handling guns around other hunters.

Depends on how young and how mature they are for their age. There are some 12 year olds I feel safe around, and there have been some 40 year olds I haven't felt safe around. All youngsters now have to take a hunter safety course to get a license. The issue I have with hunting isn't kids; it's that hunting and drinking don't mix. Probably should say nowadays include drugs, including marijuana, with that.

 

[Waddy]

1. A hunted animal feels like they are Jews being persecuted by Nazi prison guards?
Yeah. .okay
2. Yep.. these are hunters showing their respect. And as pointed out.. hunters are the single largest and most important group in preserving, and conserving species and habitat for animals. Its simply the facts.
I linked to just three.. of hundreds of hunting groups.. that give millions of dollars and their own time.. for tens of thousands of habitat improvement and protection..
One example I linked to was about teaching young hunters who were volunteers helping to preserve and improve pollinators.
Just facts.

Good answer.
I might add; animals have always been hunted, they often hunt each other. They have no morals about it, it's instinct. Hunting is part of nature. Killing for the sake of killing out of prejudice and hate is a human trait, but not part of nature. Please don't insult the natural world by attributing traits to it that don't exist in nature.

Yes, you can point to a picture of a cow in a book and tell a youngster that's where that package of meat wrapped in plastic at the grocery store came from, and maybe the kid will understand it a little better, but when you yourself shoot and clean that rabbit for dinner you now understand it on a much deeper level. It ain't just a picture in a book no more.

Most poachers are turned in by legitimate hunters. I doubt a vegan has ever turned in a poacher. They're not usually out in the deep woods.

 

[Rich2018]

Not ALL moral stances are subjective. There are universal morals. Just because a person or culture embraces and even endorses an immoral act doesn't make it moral, except maybe in your mind. Having sex with children is universally immoral. Beating helpless women is universally immoral. Raping women is universally immoral. It doesn't matter if your culture endorses such acts; your culture is wrong. It just means your culture and your thinking are still in the dark ages.

No, there are no objective moral stances

That it a universal moral stance that all can agree on

The best you can do is to identify particular actions and even that is hard to do

Take human sacrifice, it was practices thousands of years ago, on both sides of the Atlantic and those that did it believed it to be moral
Yet the Romans, who thought, execution by crucifixion was moral as was gladiatorial "games" were outraged by it and stamped it out in Britain.

 

[Rich2018]

1. A hunted animal feels like they are Jews being persecuted by Nazi prison guards?

Another pathetic Straw Man

No, a hunted animal doesn't feel any "respect" from its hunters....

2. Yep.. these are hunters showing their respect...

Oh FFS
They're guys showing absolutely ZERO f*****g respect for their kills
They're just indulging in the glorification of the kill
They are beneath contempt

They're showing the same level of respect, that Nazi concentration camp guards showed as they poured in the Zyklon B.

 

[jaeger19]

Another pathetic Straw Man

No, a hunted animal doesn't feel any "respect" from its hunters....



Oh FFS
They're guys showing absolutely ZERO f*****g respect for their kills
They're just indulging in the glorification of the kill
They are beneath contempt

They're showing the same level of respect, that Nazi concentration camp guards showed as they poured in the Zyklon B.

1. Um.. no.. they also don;t feel persecuted from hunters either "like Nazi camp guards".
You are the one creating strawmen..and hyperbole... cripes.. hunters are not equated to Nazi guards.

2. Sure they are showing respect for their kills. Those pictures were very respectful..
Tell me exactly why they are disrespectful and what type of picture the hunters SHOULD take with the animals they kill.

Now if they were making silly pictures with the animals... which certainly some slob hunters have done.. you would have a point. But those pictures are certainly not disrespectful.

But you go ahead and explain to us all.. how hunting these animals and taking a picture with them after the hunt is
"the same as Nazi concentration camp guards pouring in Zyklon B".

Lets hear that one.

 

[Rich2018]

1. ....they also don;t feel persecuted from hunters either

Just hunted down and killed

2. Sure they are showing respect for their kills. Those pictures were very respectful..

To claim their killers show some kind of "respect" is laughably sad

Tell me exactly why they are disrespectful and what type of picture the hunters SHOULD take with the animals they kill.

Tell me why this picture from the Abu Ghraib scandal is "disrespectful

They shouldn't take any pictures, because they shouldn't glorify in what they did

Now if they were making silly pictures with the animals...

They are

But you go ahead and explain to us all.. how hunting these animals and taking a picture with them after the hunt is
"the same as Nazi concentration camp guards pouring in Zyklon B".

It's those "hunters"/killers showing their kills the same level of "respect".

 

[Waddy]

No, there are no objective moral stances

That it a universal moral stance that all can agree on

The best you can do is to identify particular actions and even that is hard to do

Take human sacrifice, it was practices thousands of years ago, on both sides of the Atlantic and those that did it believed it to be moral
Yet the Romans, who thought, execution by crucifixion was moral as was gladiatorial "games" were outraged by it and stamped it out in Britain.

Yes, there are indeed objective moral stances. As mankind makes progress, we realize that there are universal morals we should all recognize. Not having sex with children, not beating and raping women, are all now universal objective morals accepted by all advanced cultures. The subjectivity you quote, human sacrifice, crucifixion, gladiatorial games, was all in our dark age past. If you still live in that era morally, that's on you. Intelligent people, however, embrace a universal objective opposition to such immoral actions.

 

[jaeger19]

Just hunted down and killed



To claim their killers show some kind of "respect" is laughably sad



View attachment 67339389

Tell me why this picture from the Abu Ghraib scandal is "disrespectful

They shouldn't take any pictures, because they shouldn't glorify in what they did



They are



It's those "hunters"/killers showing their kills the same level of "respect".

Well.. hmmm..
Well.. I see a difference between human beings and other species.
I mean.. I see a picture of a man standing next to his prized cow that produces great calves
And I see a picture of a pimp standing next to a woman he has forced into prostitution... and I see two very different things.

It appears you see a cow.. the same as you see a woman while I don't.

However.. to go along with your example.

IF.. I the picture you presented was a picture of a man standing with an animal that he had kept in captivity.. tortured for months.. leading to the slow and painful death of that animal... then yes.. I would agree that that picture was not respectful.

However.. that's not what the hunting pictures were of. To all appearances they were pictures of people who had legally and ethically hunted an animal and were successful..

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, there are indeed objective moral stances. As mankind makes progress, we realize that there are universal morals we should all recognize. Not having sex with children, not beating and raping women, are all now universal objective morals accepted by all advanced cultures.

Nice interjection of "advanced"

So if these morals are not shared by some cultures, then they're not universal or objective are they ?

The subjectivity you quote, human sacrifice, crucifixion, gladiatorial games, was all in our dark age past. If you still live in that era morally, that's on you. Intelligent people, however, embrace a universal objective opposition to such immoral actions.

Are you familiar with the term "honor killing"
Do you know what it is ?
Do you know if the practice is restricted to the "dark age past" ?

 

[RF667799]

Another pathetic Straw Man

No, a hunted animal doesn't feel any "respect" from its hunters....



Oh FFS
They're guys showing absolutely ZERO f*****g respect for their kills
They're just indulging in the glorification of the kill
They are beneath contempt

They're showing the same level of respect, that Nazi concentration camp guards showed as they poured in the Zyklon B.

Yet, according to you none of those actions are wrong. They're nothing more than a difference of opinion by your reckoning. So why the outraged tone?

 

[Rich2018]

....I see a difference between human beings and other species.

Really?
It was you who mentioned "respect" from hunters towards animals
Please explain how their "respect" is different from that shown (or not) to other humans

I mean.. I see a picture of a man standing next to his prized cow that produces great calves

The pictures I posted were of hunters next to dead animals they'd just killed
Stop trying to move the goal posts

If the picture you presented was a picture of a man standing with an animal that he had kept in captivity.. tortured for months.. leading to the slow and painful death of that animal... then yes.. I would agree that that picture was not respectful.

However.. that's not what the hunting pictures were of. To all appearances they were pictures of people who had legally and ethically hunted an animal and were successful..

So if I posted a picture of US soldiers posing next to a dead body of men they'd killed, without any torture etc, that would be OK ?



A U.S. Army soldier from the 82nd Airborne Division with a dead insurgent's hand on his shoulder

Go on and tell us about the show of "respect" you see there.

 

[RF667799]

Really?
It was you who mentioned "respect" from hunters towards animals
Please explain how their "respect" is different from that shown (or not) to other humans



The pictures I posted were of hunters next to dead animals they'd just killed
Stop trying to move the goal posts



So if I posted a picture of US soldiers posing next to a dead body of men they'd killed, without any torture etc, that would be OK ?

View attachment 67339430

A U.S. Army soldier from the 82nd Airborne Division with a dead insurgent's hand on his shoulder

Go on and tell us about the show of "respect" you see there.

"Stop trying to move the goalposts" and then immediately change the topic to humans instead of animals. Such stupid trolling.

 

[Rich2018]

Care to comment on that picture jaeger19 ?

 

[RF667799]

Care to comment on that picture jaeger19 ?

You can't very well pursue the "Meat is Murder" idiocy with your mouth stuffed with a Big Mac.

 

[Rich2018]

Care to comment on that picture jaeger19 ?

Any time you're ready.

 

[RF667799]

Any time you're ready.

Try all caps with a bunch of exclamations. That'll get his attention.

Orrrrr.....you could try quoting him instead of yourself.

 

[Rich2018]

Any time you're ready.

"U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta immediately called the soldiers' behavior unacceptable...the actions of the soldiers were also condemned by General John Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan
US Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker said: "The actions were morally repugnant..."

U.S. soldiers posing with body parts of dead Afghans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Waddy]

Nice interjection of "advanced"

So if these morals are not shared by some cultures, then they're not universal or objective are they ?



Are you familiar with the term "honor killing"
Do you know what it is ?
Do you know if the practice is restricted to the "dark age past" ?

No, you still don't get it. Morals against child sex, beating women, and rape are universal even if only one person on the planet acts accordingly. Right and wrong isn't determined by majority rule. If something is right, it is always right. It is inherently right, intrinsically right. It is right on it's own merits. So even if every man on the planet is having sex with children, it is still morally wrong. It is still universally morally wrong. Still objectively wrong. No matter what any individual culture allows. Unfortunately, there are still some cultures living in the dark ages. That culture is simply wrong. And "honor killing" would fall under that heading. So even though a culture approves of honor killings, it is an immoral act. My God, man, how is it you don't know this already? Heads up; you're starting to embarrass yourself now. Your position is untenable. Might wanna quit digging that hole any deeper.

 

[jaeger19]

Really?
It was you who mentioned "respect" from hunters towards animals
Please explain how their "respect" is different from that shown (or not) to other humans



The pictures I posted were of hunters next to dead animals they'd just killed
Stop trying to move the goal posts



So if I posted a picture of US soldiers posing next to a dead body of men they'd killed, without any torture etc, that would be OK ?

View attachment 67339430

A U.S. Army soldier from the 82nd Airborne Division with a dead insurgent's hand on his shoulder

Go on and tell us about the show of "respect" you see there.

Well. Rich..it starts with the difference between humans and other animals.
Tell me..do you see a difference between a runway model...modeling a new leather jacket
And a runway model modeling a jacket made from human skin?
Is there a difference?
Do you see a difference between a picture of a man showing off his prize breeding cow.
And a picture of a pimp with the woman he forced into prostitution?

Answer those two question and we can continue.

 

[Marrybore]

Yes, we should resort to cannibalism. That's what hunting leads to

Stupidest statement ever...man has been hunting for millennia and cannibalism...where is that practiced these days?

Thanks, you provided just enough grasp on reality...almost none...to be released back into your own pool of naivete and judgementalism.

It's just that you keep claiming human's carnivorousness as a justification for killing and eating animals. So, with that logic, what's wrong with killing and eating humans? Is the only difference hunting is some kind of thousands-of-year-old tradition? How does that make it more just or more moral?

 

[Marrybore]

You cant eat the meat and use the skin and other products that way...which is all about NOT wasting something. It's not up to you to determine what's 'fun' for anyone but as many have told you, hunting is many many many more things than just pulling a trigger. Sorry you missed all that. Or condemn it. Luckily, your opinion wont change things in this country.

I fear you are missing things I say over and over again as well. There are many more ways to enjoy the great outdoors than hunting. If you're into stalking, try laser tag for goodness' sake. Whether or not you find the killing itself fun, what you're doing for fun involves killing, usually culminates in it. That is wrong.

 

[Marrybore]

Hmm so morally you feel you are better if you hire people to kill animals for you.
And morally if animals are to die horribly through starvation or disease by your actions..this is morally superior ?

In many ways, I think murder is worse than buying up parts of dead bodies for whatever reason from the murderer. That's not to say it's really defensible, patronising a murderer. In any case, let's be clear: do you think people should hunt purely for altruistic purposes, to put animals out of their misery? Is that what hunting means to you? Because then you may have a point.

 

[Marrybore]

Nope..because killing is a part of nature. And all humans are responsible for the death of animals. Even you..though it's obvious you have no understanding of nature. Do you think your home was built in a place where no animals lived? Every time you five on a road you drive where animals lived and traveled. The farm where you get your food. All of it effects animals lives
You don't understand and don't want to understand..but the killing is the part where you learn you are a part of nature and not just an observer.

You can't understand nature and the circle of life, without going out and killing animals? Is that what you're saying? Just watch the Lion King, for God's sake.

 

[RF667799]

In many ways, I think murder is worse than buying up parts of dead bodies for whatever reason from the murderer. That's not to say it's really defensible, patronising a murderer. In any case, let's be clear: do you think people should hunt purely for altruistic purposes, to put animals out of their misery? Is that what hunting means to you? Because then you may have a point.

Yes, let's be clear.

You are not just "buying up parts of dead bodies", as if those parts are collateral damage when you buy your meat from a store. You are directly commissioning those animal deaths. They are being killed because you are there buying their parts.

 

[RF667799]

It's just that you keep claiming human's carnivorousness as a justification for killing and eating animals. So, with that logic, what's wrong with killing and eating humans? Is the only difference hunting is some kind of thousands-of-year-old tradition? How does that make it more just or more moral?

Indeed, by your argument there would be little wrong with eating humans, so long as the killing was done by someone you hired to supply your taste.