The Official Hunting Thread

[Sinister Intents]

Hey! I'm out in the woods right now! All my camouflage compromised because it started snowing heavily. I'm green and brown on a background turning more and more white!

I hope to get a deer this year

Anyone else go hunting?

[The Disillusionist]

I used to go, but haven't been able to in a few years.

Also, deer are primarily colorblind, so camouflage isn't as important as you might think, though it's still important. Scent is more important. Never stalk in a downwind direction. You probably already knew that, but I figured I'd add it anyway...

[Sinister Intents]

Colour matters when the snow makes you more visible and all my hunting clothes and myself are properly washed.

I got to hear two buck clash antlers but I only have doe tags and bear.

I probably won't kill anything

[The Feral Underclass]

Fuck this thread.

Get a life you weirdos.

[Hrafn]

Fuck this thread.

Get a life you weirdos.

Well, they may not be getting lives, but at least they're taking them.

[The Disillusionist]

Possibly not, but that's what makes hunting worthwhile (besides getting to spend some time in nature)... it's not easy.

I have no tolerance for those people who go out with thousands and thousands of dollars in fancy, hightech hunting equipment only to gut shoot a deer and lose its trail, so it can suffer and die in a bush somewhere. I'm a traditionalist, I think that the less help you have, the better of a hunter you need to be.

[synthesis]

Never stalk in a downwind direction. You probably already knew that, but I figured I'd add it anyway...

I figured that out in New York in the late 70's.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/a4/d3/a4d3fc7f8f02345c5552e127d2681ad0.jpg?itok=4QdjJ1pk

:ninja: #themostdangerousgame

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, they may not be getting lives, but at least they're taking them.

Seriously though, what kind of person actually enjoys going and tracking down and killing other living beings...Like, who do you have to be to actually like that...

[Sinister Intents]

I don't really enjoy hunting but I have to so we can eat, we're financially fucked and I have 6 12 gauge slugs so I'm gonna get a deer or two for meat. My parents are also insisting on it. I've also been turned down for every job I've applied for

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't really enjoy hunting but I have to so we can eat, we're financially fucked and I have 6 12 gauge slugs so I'm gonna get a deer or two for meat. My parents are also insisting on it. I've also been turned down for every job I've applied for

But you can afford to pay for guns, ammunition and fuel to drive to the wilderness?

And if that was really the case, why would you make an "Official Hunting Thread" and discuss your outfit and methods of tracking down animals for you to kill. That doesn't come across as someone who is only having to do this because they're hungry.

[Lord Testicles]

Seriously though, what kind of person actually enjoys going and tracking down and killing other living beings...Like, who do you have to be to actually like that...

A normal human being in it's natural environment? Considering as a species that's what we've spent most of our time on this planet doing?

[consuming negativity]

i don't enjoy waking up way early in the morning either but i do like not getting screwed over and missing all of my obligations for the day

if you're going to eat meat you may as well hunt for it so that your meat comes from an actual animal in the woods that does animal things until it is killed rather than a cow/pig/chicken that gets tortured in a dark, dirty building by depressed, borderline-sociopathic underpaid workers for a fraction of its natural lifespan

and if you're going to hunt you may as well enjoy the process where you can rather than flagellating yourself about it

that said, i don't hunt. i don't have the time or the money to be able to do it. but i do like to get the meat from relatives who hunt when they hunt. i suck at shooting anyway, to be honest. i'd gladly take up a musket and bayonet and kill fascists in the name of the cause but.... wait, what do you mean we don't use those anymore

[Sinister Intents]

But you can afford to pay for guns, ammunition and fuel to drive to the wilderness?

I hunt the tiny land my neighbor own, and the guns and ammo I have a acquired from my grandfather's death.

I live in poverty dude

[Creative Destruction]

i was waiting till we moved to Norway to start hunting again, but that's out of the picture now. because of that, i'm probably only going to get to hunt the chances i go to Texas to visit family. i don't know what it's like up in Oregon and don't really have the time to try.

eta. ignore all the blowhard moralizing that has already come to this thread and, i'm sure, there will be more to come.

[The Feral Underclass]

A normal human being in it's natural environment? Considering as a species that's what we've spent most of our time on this planet doing?

I don't really understand. Are you saying we should go back to a hunter-gatherer society?

There's no such thing as "normal human being." Human history moves us forward. We don't walk around bare-footed talking in grunts and living in caves, do we? So what is "normal"?

[The Feral Underclass]

I hunt the tiny land my neighbor own, and the guns and ammo I have a acquired from my grandfather's death.

I live in poverty dude

Be that as it may, you clearly enjoy doing it.

[Creative Destruction]

Be that as it may, you clearly enjoy doing it.

it's possible she just enjoys being in natural surroundings and hunting is the thing she has to do in order to feed her family.

come off it.

[The Feral Underclass]

it's possible she just enjoys being in natural surroundings and hunting is the thing she has to do in order to feed her family.

come off it.

If hunting was such an incidental part of MS's need to survive, why would she make a thread called Official Hunting Thread and then start talking about the kind of outfits she's going to wear, talking about how she "hopes to get a dear."

I "hope" to be able to buy carrots when I go to the supermarket, you know, to survive, but I don't make the Official Carrot Buying Thread and talk about what clothes I'm going to wear as if it were a party, do I?

[Creative Destruction]

If hunting was such an incidental part of MS's need to survive, why would she make a thread called Official Hunting Thread and then start talking about the kind of outfits she's going to wear?

because there are others who may be into it for the same reasons she is. what you wear matters to some extent when you hunt, so it's nice to get tips when the goal is to hunt.

[Creative Destruction]

I "hope" to be able to buy carrots when I go to the supermarket, you know, to survive, but I don't make the Official Carrot Buying Thread do I?

do you need some strategy in order to buy carrots? no. this is some disingenuous bullshit you're pulling here.

[The Feral Underclass]

because there are others who may be into it for the same reasons she is. what you wear matters to some extent when you hunt, so it's nice to get tips when the goal is to hunt.

Oh for pity sake, if this was really about living in poverty and having to hunt to survive, that's what the thread would have been about.

[The Feral Underclass]

do you need some strategy in order to buy carrots? no. this is some disingenuous bullshit you're pulling here.

I think you must be talking about a different thread, because as far as I can see, the OP consisted of this:


"Hey! I'm out in the woods right now! All my camouflage compromised because it started snowing heavily. I'm green and brown on a background turning more and more white!

I hope to get a deer this year

Anyone else go hunting?"


You're the one who is trying to retroactively make this thread more legitimate and you say I'm being disingenuous?

[Creative Destruction]

Oh for pity sake, if this was really about living in poverty and having to hunt to survive, that's what the thread would have been about.

there's strategy involved in living in poverty; hunting, for some, is part of that strategy. there's no doubt trophy hunters, and fuck those guys, but that's not what the thread is about. you're not making a grand political statement or taking some brave stance here. fuck off.

[Sinister Intents]

Be that as it may, you clearly enjoy doing it.

The first deer I killed I cried for weeks and still haven't gotten over it. You never get over the horror of a botched kill. The first deer I killed I shot its front legs and watched it suffer. That fucking hurts you douche, I don't like it at all. Neither do I like the gutting process, its stinks, its gory, it's disgusting and you never forget that shit you fuck. The horrible memories fucking stay with you.

I hunt now because I fucking have to because I'm down to having to live on $300 for the rest of the winter. All my money was consumed by business bills and car payments.

I'm sure you have a cushy job and money in the bank.

[Creative Destruction]

I think you must be talking about a different thread, because as far as I can see, the OP consisted of this:




You're the one who is trying to retroactively make this thread more legitimate and you say I'm being disingenuous?

i'm not "retroactively" making it "legitimate" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.) and you're comparing going to the store to hunting. yeah, i'm calling you disingenuous.

[The Feral Underclass]

there's strategy involved in living in poverty; hunting, for some, is part of that strategy. there's no doubt trophy hunters, and fuck those guys, but that's not what the thread is about. you're not making a grand political statement or taking some brave stance here.

You're fucking insane. If that was what the thread was about, then why wasn't that stated in the OP and the thread title? I mean, I know RevLeft is lacking sometimes, but do we really have to start deciphering the meaning of threads now?


fuck off.

Why don't you make me, tough guy.


i'm not "retroactively" making it "legitimate" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.)

Wait, how do you know you're not doing it if you don't know what I mean...? Put simply, what it means is: You're talking out of your arse.

[Lord Testicles]

I don't really understand. Are you saying we should go back to a hunter-gatherer society?

There's no such thing as "normal human being." Human history moves us forward. We don't walk around bare-footed talking in grunts and living in caves, do we? So what is "normal"?

I'm not saying we should regress back into a hunter-gatherer society. What I'm trying to point out is that we've spent a lot of time hunting animals, there's probably a reason for this and I can't imagine that we'd have spent so long doing so if it was wildly abnormal behaviour.

While human history moves on and while society changes and humans change the environment around them, our brains are the same product of chaotic evolution that emerged 40,000 odd years ago.

[Quail]

I think it's pretty sickening to take pleasure in killing other animals, and it's a mindset I just don't understand at all. I find it a bit jarring for leftists to advocate respect for and ethical treatment of all humans and then relish the suffering and deaths of animals... But whatever.

[synthesis]

It seems like this forum has gotten a lot more aggressive in the last six months - is this all in my head, or am I missing something?

[The Feral Underclass]

The first deer I killed I cried for weeks and still haven't gotten over it. You never get over the horror of a botched kill. The first deer I killed I shot its front legs and watched it suffer. That fucking hurts you douche, I don't like it at all. Neither do I like the gutting process, its stinks, its gory, it's disgusting and you never forget that shit you fuck. The horrible memories fucking stay with you.

I hunt now because I fucking have to because I'm down to having to live on $300 for the rest of the winter. All my money was consumed by business bills and car payments.

I'm sure you have a cushy job and money in the bank.

You're full of shit.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It doesn't seem all that shocking to me, at least she's eating it and not just doing it for kicks.

[The Feral Underclass]

It seems like this forum has gotten a lot more aggressive in the last six months - is this all in my head, or am I missing something?

This thread is aggressive, not necessarily RevLeft, unless you've noticed something I haven't.

[Lord Testicles]

I think it's pretty sickening to take pleasure in killing other animals, and it's a mindset I just don't understand at all. I find it a bit jarring for leftists to advocate respect for and ethical treatment of all humans and then relish the suffering and deaths of animals... But whatever.

I don't think many people really take pleasure in the kill as much as the hunt itself and what it produces. I imagine if they were taking pleasure in the kill then they wouldn't try and achieve a clean kill. Some probably do but what can you do? some people are fucked.

[RA89]

OP is hunting for food, not for a trophy. What's the big deal, is this a PETA forum?

How is this any worse than meat solid in stores? At least this meat will be free range, free from hormones etc.

Good luck mate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5vSia_tLeI - I feel this is relevant

[Sinister Intents]

You're full of shit.

Prove it. Why don't you come visit me and I'll hand you a shotgun and we'll see how you do in the woods getting a deer

[The Disillusionist]

I'm dirt poor as well, and have absolutely no problem with hunting. However, I personally believe that it's best to be a vegetarian unless you hunt the animal yourself, because otherwise you are too disconnected from the process, you don't really see the emotional and ecological impact of your actions. And it's healthier, because store-bought meat is really not good for you, though to be fair, store bought vegetables aren't much better...

I also don't believe in trophy hunting, or not eating anything you kill.

But it's true that humans have been eating animals from the beginning of our existence, and hunting has been a sport for almost as long. The pleasure is not in killing the animal, few hunters other than those rich trophy hunting assholes (Dick Cheney comes to mind) really relish killing or making the animal suffer, the pleasure is in completing a task and reaping the resource rewards for said task. A single deer can feed a family of four for almost a year.

I plan on going hunting in the future, and I would go hunting even if it wasn't 100% necessary, and I won't apologize for that, or for having gone in the past. However, I do understand where people are coming from in their opposition, and there is a problem with unethical hunters that needs to be dealt with.

Finally, I find it kinda funny that when I talk about pacifism in a human context, everyone jumps all over me for it, and yet everyone jumps all over hunting as well. So it's better to kill a human than an animal, as long as that human politically disagrees with you? Is that what makes animals wrong to kill, they aren't smart enough to disagree with you?

[Creative Destruction]

I think it's pretty sickening to take pleasure in killing other animals, and it's a mindset I just don't understand at all. I find it a bit jarring for leftists to advocate respect for and ethical treatment of all humans and then relish the suffering and deaths of animals... But whatever.

who the fuck is relishing the suffering and death of animals in this thread?

[The Feral Underclass]

Prove it.

:rolleyes:


Why don't you come visit me and I'll hand you a shotgun and we'll see how you do in the woods getting a deer

What is the ridiculous macho posturing? Do you think I give a fuck whether I'm competent at hunting deers?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You know the farmer growing all those vegetables has to kill a shitload of thieving animals in order to get the crop to market so you can buy it right? Including deer probably.

[The Feral Underclass]

who the fuck is relishing the suffering and death of animals in this thread?

Lantz and Mistress Sinistra to name two.

[Lord Testicles]

You know the farmer growing all those vegetables has to kill a shitload of thieving animals in order to get the crop to market so you can buy it right? Including deer probably.

Indeed, that's why we've invented all of those helpful biocides.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

As long as it happens further up the chain its got nothing to do with me apparently :p

[Creative Destruction]

Lantz and Mistress Sinistra to name two.

except they haven't. you're being hysterical.

[Creative Destruction]

lol...


What is the ridiculous macho posturing?


Why don't you make me, tough guy.

good lord. shut up, you insufferable moron.

[The Disillusionist]

except they haven't. you're being hysterical.

To be fair, this kind of response is very common when people feel strongly about something. That''s why it's impossible to reason with those people who stand in front of abortion clinics, because morally, they've already made up their minds. You can't really pursuade them, so the only option is to attempt to at least understand their positions.

[The Feral Underclass]

lol...





good lord. shut up, you insufferable moron.

I know you lack basic social skills, but usually if you engage someone in a conversation it's customary for them to respond. In future, if you don't want me to engage you in a conversation, don't talk to me. You're the one who started talking to me.

Also, for the record, that wasn't really macho-posturing. You can't tell someone to fuck off and then expect them not to react.

Btw, my commiserations to your poor fucking wife.

[The Feral Underclass]

To be fair, this kind of response is very common when people feel strongly about something. That''s why it's impossible to reason with those people who stand in front of abortion clinics, because morally, they've already made up their minds. You can't really pursuade them, so the only option is to attempt to at least understand their positions.

The basis of this thread was to celebrate hunting. rednoise's insane nonsense notwithstanding, you and Mistress Sinistra engaged in a conversation that was only about poverty and food after you were challenged. Before that it was outfits and top-tips.

If the purpose of this thread was how to survive with hunting when living in poverty, that's what the thread would have been about. If the thread was about supporting each other in poverty, that's what the thread would have been about.

Sure, it's what the thread is about now, but only because y'all were called out and are scrambling for justifications.

[Creative Destruction]

I know you lack basic social skills, but usually if you engage someone in a conversation it's customary for them to respond.

You might want to step away from the keyboard, commando, and re-examine how you're handling yourself in this thread, before you accuse someone of lacking "basic social skills."


Btw, my commiserations to your poor fucking wife.

Mine to anyone who actually has the misfortune to deal with you in any capacity.

[Loony Le Fist]

TFU, I don't know how you walk down the street without getting backhanded. :laugh:

I know I've been pretty tempted.

[synthesis]

Finally, I find it kinda funny that when I talk about pacifism in a human context, everyone jumps all over me for it, and yet everyone jumps all over hunting as well. So it's better to kill a human than an animal, as long as that human politically disagrees with you? Is that what makes animals wrong to kill, they aren't smart enough to disagree with you?

I actually think this is pretty interesting as well.

(That's despite the fact that I think this is a very reductive view on the theoretical basis of people's opposition to pacifism.)

[Creative Destruction]

The basis of this thread was to celebrate hunting.

it's nice that you have insight into MS's mind without even knowing her, based on a very brief OP.

[The Feral Underclass]

You might want to step away from the keyboard, commando, and re-examine how you're handling yourself in this thread, before you accuse someone of lacking "basic social skills."

You seem to be continuing your conversation with me...

My handling of this thread is to criticise hunting and to call out bullshit justifications. I have done that and don't see any reason to stop doing that.


it's nice that you have insight into MS's mind without even knowing her, based on a very brief OP.

It's called basic reasoning. Someone who wants to start a thread about a topic usually doesn't start the thread discussing something completely different.

It also seems odd that you should criticise me for apparently taking MS's meaning for granted, when you seem perfectly comfortable deciding what she means...

[consuming negativity]

well now that this has been thoroughly derailed, @TFU: what is it that bothers you so much about this thread and the positions that you think rednoise and SI are taking? it seems to me, like i said on page one, that you're upset that they are talking about hunting but "celebrating" (see: not demeaning) it or... not flagellating themselves over the fact that they choose to hunt

but why should they? i gave a good critique of the meat industry and additionally talked about the benefits of hunting and why it should be chosen over supermarket meat. why shouldn't they feel the way they do about hunting?

and additionally i don't see why anybody should demean themselves for doing what is necessary for their own survival. i don't see any reason why SI's feelings are invalid here, especially given what we know about her now that she's been pushed to talk about her poverty to justify what she's doing. as if it even matters. y'all really love to tear into each other here and make the most severe personal attacks, and honestly, that bothers me a lot more than the idea that someone is shooting a deer and not crying themselves to sleep over it.

[Creative Destruction]

To be fair, this kind of response is very common when people feel strongly about something. That''s why it's impossible to reason with those people who stand in front of abortion clinics, because morally, they've already made up their minds. You can't really pursuade them, so the only option is to attempt to at least understand their positions.

i understand their view and their warped sense of ethics and what ethics are.

[The Feral Underclass]

TFU, I don't know how you walk down the street without getting backhanded. :laugh:

Because I'm 6'3 and built like a house.

[Creative Destruction]

You seem to be continuing your conversation with me...

Yeah, well, there are some trains that are fun to see careen of their tracks.


My handling of this thread is to criticise hunting and to call out bullshit justifications. I have done that and don't see any reason to stop doing that.

So far, you've just made a hysterical show of yourself. You've provided no counter reasoning. "Calling out" is fine, and whatever, but it's completely meaningless when an argument or counter-reasoning isn't being provided as well. You're just being an annoying shithead otherwise.


It's called basic reasoning.

Which you apparently lack, even the slightest semblance of.


Someone who wants to start a thread about a topic usually doesn't start the thread discussing something completely different.

So, instead of just asking for the motivation, you decide to attach motivations -- which only have their basis in your fevered mind -- onto the OP. That's some great "basic reasoning"


It also seems odd that you should criticise me for apparently taking MS's meaning for granted, when you seem perfectly comfortable deciding what she means...

I didn't decide what she means. I took her OP at face value, and knew that it wasn't celebratory. In fact, she appears rather frustrated... hunting in the snow when you have dark camo is sort of a shitty situation to be in. Which is kind of funny, because you are apparently pride on not knowing anything about hunting. If you did, you wouldn't have seen the scenario as "celebratory."

[The Disillusionist]

The basis of this thread was to celebrate hunting. rednoise's insane nonsense notwithstanding, you and Mistress Sinistra engaged in a conversation that was only about poverty and food after you were challenged. Before that it was outfits and top-tips.

If the purpose of this thread was how to survive with hunting when living in poverty, that's what the thread would have been about. If the thread was about supporting each other in poverty, that's what the thread would have been about.

Sure, it's what the thread is about now, but only because y'all were called out and are scrambling for justifications.

I'm not making anything about poverty. As I said, I happen to be dirt poor, but I would hunt if I wasn't poor, and I would hunt even if I didn't need the meat to survive. I'm surviving without it now, and I was surviving without it the last time I went hunting.. I still hunt because it's an excellent dietary supplement, and it saves a lot of money on food, money which I can better use for other things.

I'm not justifying or apologizing for anything.

[The Feral Underclass]

well now that this has been thoroughly derailed, @TFU: what is it that bothers you so much about this thread and the positions that you think rednoise and SI are taking? it seems to me, like i said on page one, that you're upset that they are talking about hunting but "celebrating" (see: not demeaning) it or... not flagellating themselves over the fact that they choose to hunt

Well, put bluntly, what firstly bothered me was the apparent nonchalant indifference in killing animals, as if what one wears to do it is the basis of a discussion on hunting. Then what bothered me was the subsequent insane justifications and re-interpretations that rednoise spewed, as if we are stupid enough to fall for it, not to mention MS's usual emotionalised bullshit. And then when you call out bullshit, I suddenly get told to fuck off and am called a moron...

Welcome to RevLeft.


but why should they? i gave a good critique of the meat industry and additionally talked about the benefits of hunting and why it should be chosen over supermarket meat. why shouldn't they feel the way they do about hunting?

I think it is fundamentally problematic for human beings to take enjoyment from tracking and killing other living beings. That's not to mention the animal liberation views that compel me to find this whole thread contemptuous.


and additionally i don't see why anybody should demean themselves for doing what is necessary for their own survival

Me neither. I just question the veracity of that claim in this thread. I just don't believe MS and I think rednoise is an idiot, so yeah.


i don't see any reason why SI's feelings are invalid here, especially given what we know about her now that she's been pushed to talk about her poverty to justify what she's doing. as if it even matters. y'all really love to tear into each other here and make the most severe personal attacks, and honestly, that bothers me a lot more than the idea that someone is shooting a deer and not crying themselves to sleep over it.

I'm not really going to get into "MS" as a person. This forum has taken up too much time on that tedious subject. What we do and do not know about her is a matter for discussion. Many people here seem to be convinced by her, I am not.

[Creative Destruction]

Well, put bluntly, what firstly bothered me was the apparent nonchalant indifference in killing animals, as if what one wears to do it is the basis of a discussion on hunting. Then what bothered me was the subsequent insane justifications and re-interpretations that rednoise spewed, as if we are stupid enough to fall for it, not to mention MS's usually emotionalised bullshit. And then when you call out bullshit, I suddenly get told to fuck off and am called a moron...

That's an nice, warped re-interpretation of the thread, but isn't actually what happened.


I think it is fundamentally problematic for human beings to take enjoyment from tracking and killing other living beings.

No one has said that they enjoyed killing animals. This is your own invention.


Me neither. I just question the veracity of that claim in this thread. I just don't believe MS and I think rednoise is an idiot, so yeah.

lol, given that this is completely based on your misunderstanding of the motives of the OP, this is a riot.

[Creative Destruction]

Getting this thread back on track:

I haven't hunted up in the PNW since we moved here. In Texas, we mostly trapped small game and killed a deer, which lasted us through a season or so. I imagine trapping game is the same in Oregon, but I think elk exist up here more than deer do. Does anyone know if field dressing an elk is much different than field dressing a deer?

[The Feral Underclass]

we mostly trapped small game and killed a deer, which lasted us through a season or so.

You did this because you are living in poverty?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not making anything about poverty. As I said, I happen to be dirt poor, but I would hunt if I wasn't poor, and I would hunt even if I didn't need the meat to survive. I'm surviving without it now, and I was surviving without it the last time I went hunting.. I still hunt because it's an excellent dietary supplement, and it saves a lot of money on food, money which I can better use for other things.

I'm not justifying or apologizing for anything.

So you do it for enjoyment then?

[Creative Destruction]

You did this because you are living in poverty?

yeah, when i was growing up. that was the meat we ate, and the veggies we got were from our garden.

which reminds me, were you the same idiot who tried saying that having a garden and living off-grid was a petit-bourgeois fantasy or some dumb bullshit like that?

[The Feral Underclass]

yeah, when i was growing up. that was the meat we ate, and the veggies we got were from our garden.

Was last season your childhood?


which reminds me, were you the same idiot who tried saying that having a garden and living off-grid was a petit-bourgeois fantasy or some dumb bullshit like that?

No.

[Lord Testicles]

Did you know that the worlds funniest joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_funniest_joke) involves hunting?



Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says "Calm down. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a gun shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says "OK, now what?"

[Creative Destruction]

Was last season your childhood?

i haven't hunted in quite a few years. in fact, probably the last time i did was before i left home. did you not read my post correctly? that seems to a be a running theme with you.

my wife and i are running up on money issues and the grocery store is expensive when it's possible to have a garden and hunt, which is the motivation to start doing so next year.

[Creative Destruction]

Did you know that the worlds funniest joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_funniest_joke) involves hunting?



lol

[RedWorker]

Why are non-human animals being murdered for entertainment, and this being promoted, even to the degree that it is being said that it should be accepted or tolerated?

[consuming negativity]

Well, put bluntly, what firstly bothered me was the apparent nonchalant indifference in killing animals, as if what one wears to do it is the basis of a discussion on hunting. Then what bothered me was the subsequent insane justifications and re-interpretations that rednoise spewed, as if we are stupid enough to fall for it, not to mention MS's usual emotionalised bullshit. And then when you call out bullshit, I suddenly get told to fuck off and am called a moron...

Welcome to RevLeft.

I think it is fundamentally problematic for human beings to take enjoyment from tracking and killing other living beings. That's not to mention the animal liberation views that compel me to find this whole thread contemptuous.

Me neither. I just question the veracity of that claim in this thread. I just don't believe MS and I think rednoise is an idiot, so yeah.

I'm not really going to get into "MS" as a person. This forum has taken up too much time on that tedious subject. What we do and do not know about her is a matter for discussion. Many people here seem to be convinced by her, I am not.

It is certainly problematic for people to not have feelings for animals; it is representative either of a mental health issue affecting the ability to empathize or it is representative of an ignorance of the fact that animals are fundamentally like us, that we are also animals, and that their lives are inherently valuable. But this is demonstratably not true in the case of SI, and furthermore, SI's "emotionalized bullshit" was in direct response to her realizing that you were accusing her of lacking empathy or being ignorant, neither of which are true. In other words you hurt her feelings by assuming the worst possible scenario about her even when she herself has dispelled this accusation in the only way that she can reasonably be expected to do so. You're right that this forum spends entirely too much time talking about SI's persona, but your responses in this thread are by your own admission directed at SI because you "don't believe her"..? Well, you can believe what you'd like, but even if everything we know about SI is false that doesn't give you any grounds to be rude to them, because they're still a real person who has real emotions and is just as deserving of compassion as any deer.

[Creative Destruction]

Why are animals being murdered for entertainment? and this being promoted

you'd have to ask the people who are "murdering" animals for entertainment. and who's promoting killing animals for entertainment, in this thread?

[The Feral Underclass]

i haven't hunted in quite a few years. in fact, probably the last time i did was before i left home. did you not read my post correctly? that seems to a be a running theme with you.

Unfortunately I don't have a running knowledge of your family history.


my wife and i are running up on money issues and the grocery store is expensive when it's possible to have a garden and hunt, which is the motivation to start doing so next year.

Why not just have the garden? You don't need meat to survive if you have other food sources.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, you can believe what you'd like, but even if everything we know about SI is false that doesn't give you any grounds to be rude to them, because they're still a real person who has real emotions and is just as deserving of compassion as any deer.

I have no compassion for people who consistently attempt to manipulate others and that's all I've ever seen from her.

[Creative Destruction]

Unfortunately I don't have a running knowledge of your family history.

you didn't need that to read my post correctly.


Why not just have the garden? You don't need meat to survive if you have other food sources.

you might as well ask why we don't live off soylent, instead of growing a garden. because we eat meat. it's a source of healthful, extendable protein that is easy to cook, lasts a while under the right conditions and makes for enjoyable meals, without having to spend a lot on it.

tbqh, if this lab-grown meat gets off the ground and becomes cheaper than hunting, i'd opt for that. i enjoy sitting in nature, but i don't particularly enjoy having to keep sharp attention on an act that i have to do, rather than something i want to do... like observe the weather or something. and dressing the animal is sort of a trial, then butchering the animal, processing the meat, etc. it's labor intensive and tiring.

[Lord Testicles]

you'd have to ask the people who are "murdering" animals for entertainment. and who's promoting killing animals for entertainment, in this thread?

I am.

I think we should corner animals, especially the cute and fluffy ones and throw sharpened sticks at them whilst laughing raucously at their pain.

[The Disillusionist]

So you do it for enjoyment then?

"I still hunt because it's an excellent dietary supplement, and it saves a lot of money on food, money which I can better use for other things." -Lantz

But sure, I have fun on my hunting trips too. I get to spend time in nature, and shooting my gun is always fun, though I just put a new sight on it, and so I need to get it properly adjusted. My hunting rifle is an old World War II Russian surplus rifle (cost me 99 bucks), so I've put a lot of work into accurizing and restoring it.


http://assets.amuniversal.com/e6530de06364012ee3c300163e41dd5b

[Creative Destruction]

I am.

I think we should corner animals, especially the cute and fluffy ones and throw sharpened sticks at them whilst laughing raucously at their pain.

lol

[The Feral Underclass]

you didn't need that to read my post correctly.

Sigh.


you might as well ask why we don't live off soylent, instead of growing a garden. because we eat meat. it's a source of healthful, extendable protein that is easy to cook, lasts a while under the right conditions and makes for enjoyable meals, without having to spend a lot on it.

Red meat isn't "healthful" (sic), it's actually really unhealthy or unhealthful if you prefer. And I don't know what "extendable" (sic) protein is.

You can get protein from diary, eggs (if you must) and vegetables.

Just because their flesh is easy to cook and you like the taste of it isn't a justification for killing something. I mean, that's no different to saying you enjoy hunting.

[The Disillusionist]

I am.

I think we should corner animals, especially the cute and fluffy ones and throw sharpened sticks at them whilst laughing raucously at their pain.

I beat a baby deer to death with my brass knuckles once, but it was ridiculously impractical, so I resolved to only use my 'knucks on humans from then on out, as they were intended to be used.

[Lord Testicles]

Just because their flesh is easy to cook and you like the taste of it isn't a justification for killing something.

Does that reasoning extend to plants?:p

[The Feral Underclass]

"I still hunt because it's an excellent dietary supplement, and it saves a lot of money on food, money which I can better use for other things." -Lantz

Red meat isn't an excellent dietary supplement. Animal fat is one of the main courses of heart disease and other metabolic disorders such as hypertension which can lead to stroke and other arterial diseases.

If it saves a lot of money, then perhaps you are spending too much money on meat and you could supplement that with cheaper vegetables. I don't really buy the argument that going out and hunting animals is cheaper than buying vegetables -- if it's saving you so much money, then why were you spending so much money on meat in the first place and how is buying some potatoes more expansive than buying and servicing guns and buying ammo and fuel?

[Creative Destruction]

Red meat isn't "healthful" (sic), it's actually really unhealthy or unhealthful if you prefer.

if it's overly fatty, like cow is, then yeah. you're right. deer meat (and i imagine elk meat) is lean and a lot more healthy. of course, everything in moderation is best and you should eat it with veggies, which i do. small animals are generally "white meat" and have about the same nutritional qualities as chicken.


And I don't know what "extendable" (sic) protein is.

it can flesh out a nutritious meal (no pun intended) at little cost.


You can get protein from diary, eggs (if you must) and vegetables.

meat is a better, more concentrated source of protein and nutrition (iron, etc.) than just eating all of that by themselves.


Just because their flesh is easy to cook and you like the taste of it isn't a justification for killing something. I mean, that's no different to saying you enjoy hunting.

it's a world of difference. as i explained above, i don't particularly enjoy the act of hunting itself. the hunt is labor and time intensive, but the nutritional benefits pay off several times over, in addition to having an enjoyable meal. trying to conflate the two is completely dishonest.

[Creative Destruction]

Animal fat

deer, elk, etc., i.e., animals that are usually hunted, are lean meats.

[consuming negativity]

I have no compassion for people for consistently attempt to manipulate other people.

Don't you think that people who "consistently attempt to manipulate other people" do so for a reason, though? Or do you take the Christian standpoint of thinking that some people are just "bad people" who deserve no compassion? Because I think that's a bit low-brow for someone like you who is both intelligent and empathetic.

e: alright, quail is making us shut up, but you can send me a pm if you really want to continue this uh discussion

[Quail]

Yikes guys, if the thread gets personal I'll have to close it (or ask someone else to). Play nice.

---

I think glorifying hunting is taking pleasure in the deaths of animals. Taking pleasure in the "end product" of hunting, i.e., a dead animal, is still taking pleasure in its death because in order for you to enjoy eating the animal you have to kill it.

I find it really unnerving too that in order to piss of veg*ns people think it's cool to make graphically violent jokes about abusing animals? It's like the equivalent of trying to piss off feminists by making a rape joke. Maybe it seems funny to you but I think it just means you're a bit fucked up.

[The Feral Underclass]

deer, elk, etc., i.e., animals that are usually hunted, are lean meats.

It may be healthier than beef or pork, but it's still high in saturated fat and cholesterol. Eating red meat isn't healthy for you.

[Quail]

lol sorry I somehow made the same post like 8 times. wtf

[Creative Destruction]

lol

[Creative Destruction]

It may be healthier than beef or pork, but it's still high in saturated fat and cholesterol. Eating red meat isn't healthy for you.

if it's the only thing you eat, it isn't. but, just as well, if you only eat potatoes, then you'll end up with a busted liver.

[The Feral Underclass]

it can flesh out a nutritious meal (no pun intended) at little cost.

So can potatoes.


meat is a better, more concentrated source of protein and nutrition (iron, etc.) than just eating all of that by themselves.

Red meat contains protein, iron, B-vitamins and selenium. All of these things can be found in non-meat foods.

I mean, what is it that you need a "concentrated source of protein" for exactly that you can't get from vegetables? Are you a body builder? If so, then you can get sources of protein to build muscle in other/better ways than meat.


it's a world of difference. as i explained above, i don't particularly enjoy the act of hunting itself. the hunt is labor and time intensive, but the nutritional benefits pay off several times over, in addition to having an enjoyable meal. trying to conflate the two is completely dishonest.

You're really overstating the nutritional benefits of meat, which are pretty negligible.


if it's the only thing you eat, it isn't. but, just as well, if you only eat potatoes, then you'll end up with a busted liver.

People who eat red meat are more likely to die of coronary heart disease than those who don't.

[synthesis]

I find it really unnerving too that in order to piss of veg*ns people think it's cool to make graphically violent jokes about abusing animals? It's like the equivalent of trying to piss off feminists by making a rape joke. Maybe it seems funny to you but I think it just means you're a bit fucked up.

I think in general (not referring to anyone in this thread specifically) sometimes it can hard to resist provoking people who come across as self-righteous.

[The Disillusionist]

Yikes guys, if the thread gets personal I'll have to close it (or ask someone else to). Play nice.

---

I think glorifying hunting is taking pleasure in the deaths of animals. Taking pleasure in the "end product" of hunting, i.e., a dead animal, is still taking pleasure in its death because in order for you to enjoy eating the animal you have to kill it.

I find it really unnerving too that in order to piss of veg*ns people think it's cool to make graphically violent jokes about abusing animals? It's like the equivalent of trying to piss off feminists by making a rape joke. Maybe it seems funny to you but I think it just means you're a bit fucked up.

My graphically violent joke wasn't intended to piss off vegans, it was intended to piss off hypocrites who value animal lives more than human lives (not directed at you). If you find the thought of beating a deer to death with brass knuckles any more offensive than beating a person to death with brass knuckles, I would say that you are every bit as screwed up as I am.

Also, equating taking pleasure in meat or in hunting as a whole with taking pleasure in death seems like a stretch to me. I don't think anyone is glorifying anything, we've approached this topic very realistically, in my opinion.

[The Feral Underclass]

My graphically violent joke wasn't intended to piss off vegans, it was intended to piss off hypocrites who value animal lives more than human lives (not directed at you). If you find the thought of beating a deer to death with brass knuckles any more offensive than beating a person to death with brass knuckles, I would say that you are every bit as screwed up as I am.

But the framework in which you understand this is predicated on some kind of moralism that I don't think any one here practices. I'm opposed to unnecessary violence, but support necessary violence without prejudice.

I object to the killing of animals because it is unnecessary. The basis for doing that, as seen in this thread, is that flesh is easier to cook and tastes nice. That's not justification to use violence.

If we are talking about a revolution, then there is justification to use violence.

[The Disillusionist]

But the framework in which you understand this is predicated on some kind of moralism that I don't think any one here practices. I'm opposed to unnecessary violence, but support necessary violence without prejudice.

I object to the killing of animals because it is unnecessary. The basis for doing that, as seen in this thread, is that flesh is easier to cook and tastes nice. That's not justification to use violence.

If we are talking about a revolution, then there is justification to use violence.

Sure, but "necessary" and "unnecessary" are, for the most part, every bit as arbitrary as "moral" and "immoral". It's necessary and ok to kill some 18 year old kid because his upbringing led him on a path that was hardly his own, but it's not ok or necessary to kill a deer because you can eat that animal and save some money?

Hunting is entirely a personal, moral decision. I made my decision knowing what the consequences would be, and that's why I don't see the need to justify or apologize for my decision. The consequences are my own. Of course, in the case of mass exploitation or the killing of highly intelligent animals I would disagree. That's why I set rules, I don't believe in hunting if you aren't going to eat an animal, I don't believe in trophy hunting, I don't believe in taking a shot if you could miss or maim an animal, and I don't like to buy storebought meat because, as I said, it separates the product from the process.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sure, but "necessary" and "unnecessary" are, for the most part, every bit as arbitrary as "moral" and "immoral".

Not really. You can judge the necessity of something through objective analysis.


It's necessary and ok to kill some 18 year old kid because his upbringing led him on a path that was hardly his own,

Why is that necessary?


but it's not ok or necessary to kill a deer because you can eat that animal and save some money?

Is killing a deer the only way you can eat and save money? Or course it isn't. But these aren't really the reasons you're doing it, these are just justifications. You want to eat this animal and you want to save money this way because of it. It has nothing to do with necessity, but with your desires.


Hunting is entirely a personal, moral decision.

Yes, and it's the wrong one.

[Sinister Intents]

*smashes face into wall repeatedly seeing how this thread became partly about me*

[Lord Testicles]

I find it really unnerving too that in order to piss of veg*ns people think it's cool to make graphically violent jokes about abusing animals? It's like the equivalent of trying to piss off feminists by making a rape joke. Maybe it seems funny to you but I think it just means you're a bit fucked up.

No it's not.

Would an abattoir be comparable to genocide or mass rape?

How are the two even comparable?

[Creative Destruction]

So can potatoes.

They can, but so can meat.


Red meat contains protein, iron, B-vitamins and selenium. All of these things can be found in non-meat foods.

I mean, what is it that you need a "concentrated source of protein" for exactly that you can't get from vegetables? Are you a body builder? If so, then you can get sources of protein to build muscle in other/better ways than meat.

Nope, not a body builder. But, again, meat is a healthy, tasteful source of all of this as well, and cheap, too, provided you know how to hunt, dress and process the meat yourself. Which I have the skills to do.


You're really overstating the nutritional benefits of meat, which are pretty negligible.

You're overstating the nutritional benefits of vegetables compared to meat. It's not any more "negligible" than any other food, except for maybe highly-processed and over-sugared foods you get at the supermarket.


People who eat red meat are more likely to die of coronary heart disease than those who don't.

"Red meat" in this context is usually assumed to mean beef and pork. Not venison. Not all red meat is the same or has the same nutritional values. Venison is higher in iron, vitamins B12 and B6, which cut down the coronary disease risk. Venison isn't high in saturated fat, either, and is low in cholesterol.

[Quail]

I don't see how it's that different.

A argues that animals should not be treated as objects for human consumption -> B makes a joke about the abuse of animals.
C argues that women should not be treated as objects for male consumption -> D makes a joke about the abuse of women.

I think there are parallels that can be drawn between the way that humans treat animals and the way that some humans treat marginalised groups of humans.

[Creative Destruction]

I find it really unnerving too that in order to piss of veg*ns people think it's cool to make graphically violent jokes about abusing animals? It's like the equivalent of trying to piss off feminists by making a rape joke. Maybe it seems funny to you but I think it just means you're a bit fucked up.

did you see the joke? it didn't have anything to do with killing animals other than the fact the two people in the joke were hunters.

eta. nevermind, i see the joke you're referring to.

[Lord Testicles]

I don't see how it's that different.

A argues that animals should not be treated as objects for human consumption -> B makes a joke about the abuse of animals.
C argues that women should not be treated as objects for male consumption -> D makes a joke about the abuse of women.

Yeah, but I don't see how the subject matter is comparable.


I think there are parallels that can be drawn between the way that humans treat animals and the way that some humans treat marginalised groups of humans.

I'm not really sure any meaningful comparison can be made. How is the death of an animal and the death of human comparable other than the fact that an organism has stopped functioning, in which case why not also extent that logic to other organisms?

[Creative Destruction]

Not really. You can judge the necessity of something through objective analysis.

Objective analysis is that we don't really have to eat vegetables, either. We are at a point where there are meal replacement products out there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_%28drink%29) that don't necessitate the same amount of inputs and environmental degradation (including clearing of habitats that animals reside in) that growing a ton of vegetables requires (I've participated in "organic" as well as "in-organic" agriculture, and one is definitely not much better than the other in this regard.) Hell, we could have those, plus some vegan vitamins and -- voila -- no need to eat food whatsoever.

We could all be Neo.

[Creative Destruction]

I think glorifying hunting is taking pleasure in the deaths of animals.

"Glorifying" is being used as a loaded word, with respect to this thread. No one is "glorifying" the deaths of animals. We're not talking about taking animals as trophies or reminiscing hunting experiences, sharing pictures of animals we've killed, etc.



Taking pleasure in the "end product" of hunting, i.e., a dead animal, is still taking pleasure in its death because in order for you to enjoy eating the animal you have to kill it.

This doesn't logically wash. One thing doesn't rely on the other. Meat, for many (perhaps most) people, is an objectively satisfying taste. That does not logically mean they take pleasure in the act of killing the animal.

[Quail]

Yeah, but I don't see how the subject matter is comparable.



I'm not really sure any meaningful comparison can be made. How is the death of an animal and the death of human comparable other than the fact that an organism has stopped functioning, in which case why not also extent that logic to other organisms?

I don't think there's much point responding to this, but anyway...

They both relate to the systemic abuse of sentient beings, and that abuse being dismissed or ridiculed by people who either lack empathy and compassion or are being wilfully ignorant. There is plenty of evidence that animals feel pain, suffer and have empathy for others. I don't understand why that can be dismissed so readily simply because people enjoy inflicting violence on them.

[Creative Destruction]

I don't think there's much point responding to this, but anyway...

They both relate to the systemic abuse of sentient beings, and that abuse being dismissed or ridiculed by people who either lack empathy and compassion or are being wilfully ignorant. There is plenty of evidence that animals feel pain, suffer and have empathy for others. I don't understand why that can be dismissed so readily simply because people enjoy inflicting violence on them.

Anthromoporhizing non-human animals gets you no where. They have no way to conform to our ethical systems, except, ironically, through domestication, so it does not make sense to apply them in the first place. Obviously, taking actual pleasure in hurting other things, in younger years at least, is a sign of mental illness, but this doesn't apply to hunting necessarily. It presupposes that the hunter is necessarily taking enjoyment in the act of killing the animal, which, as I pointed to above, isn't logical or necessarily true. To try to do so is emotionalism and isn't rational thinking at all.

More over, the nature of "pain" that animals experience is nebulous and not well studied. It's unclear that they process it in the same way we process the experience that we know as pain. There is mounting evidence that plants feel "pain," as well as other experiences, in their own way. (http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants) If you're being consistent in trying to apply human ethics to non-human animals, you'd need to do the same to plants in light of research.

[Sinister Intents]

I expected this thread to be more about people's experiences out in the wilderness and such rather than a debate mixed with a blatant attack on me with accusations that I enjoy murdering creatures.

When I was out in the woods today it was so beautiful out and so quiet and all you could hear was the snow falling. I heard crows off in the distance. Perhaps I'll post picks

[synthesis]

We're not talking about taking animals as trophies or reminiscing hunting experiences, sharing pictures of animals we've killed, etc.

What would be wrong with this? The animal's already dead, whether its death is "glorified" or not.

[Creative Destruction]

What would be wrong with this? The animal's already dead, whether its death is "glorified" or not.

I just think it actually is unnecessary and I'm personally uncomfortable with it. I never took pride in what I've killed, never felt the need to gloat how many points the animal had, or whatever, beyond plainly stating how much meat we were able to put away in a season.

I also naturally just kind of rain on people's parades, so..

[Quail]

I'm sensing that nobody actually gives a fuck, so I'm not going to bother responding further. Justify your animal abuse to yourselves however you see fit. Deny their ability to experience pain and suffering, bring out the old "but plants feel pain too!" strawman, whatever makes you feel better about yourselves. All of these arguments have come up in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t170466/index.html) and probably countless others so if anyone is actually interested have a look there.

[Loony Le Fist]

Because I'm 6'3 and built like a house.

So is everyone else on the Internet.

[Loony Le Fist]

Deny their ability to experience pain and suffering, bring out the old "but plants feel pain too!" strawman, whatever makes you feel better about yourselves.

Experience of pain and suffering is the metric here? So if someone doesn't have the ability to experience pain and suffering it's okay to cause them bodily harm?

[BIXX]

Experience of pain and suffering is the metric here? So if someone doesn't have the ability to experience pain and suffering it's okay to cause them bodily harm?
If they can't suffer (which has just as much to do with emotional pain as physical pain) then I don't they'd care if you just them, so maybe? Idk, context is kinda important here. As far as I know, there is no one who cannot suffer though so your hypothetical is fucking stupid.

[Loony Le Fist]

If they can't suffer (which has just as much to do with emotional pain as physical pain) then I don't they'd care if you just them, so maybe? Idk, context is kinda important here. As far as I know, there is no one who cannot suffer though so your hypothetical is fucking stupid.

There are medical conditions that prevent people from feeling pain. If pain and suffering is the metric then it would be justified to cause injury to those individuals since they cannot suffer. Certain drugs also prevent this.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anthromoporhizing non-human animals gets you no where. They have no way to conform to our ethical systems, except, ironically, through domestication, so it does not make sense to apply them in the first place. Obviously, taking actual pleasure in hurting other things, in younger years at least, is a sign of mental illness, but this doesn't apply to hunting necessarily. It presupposes that the hunter is necessarily taking enjoyment in the act of killing the animal, which, as I pointed to above, isn't logical or necessarily true. To try to do so is emotionalism and isn't rational thinking at all.

Do you mean anthropomorphising?

I think we need to be clear what anthropomorphism is: "Anthropomorphism, or personification, is attribution of human form or other characteristics to anything other than a human being. Examples include depicting deities with human form and ascribing human emotions or motives to forces of nature, such as hurricanes or earthquakes."

Identifying that non-human animals experience a broad range of sensations and emotions is not "anthropomorphising." Neither is arguing that our human behaviour towards them should be governed by an ethical system. No one is suggesting that we should treat non-human animals like humans, or that we can transform them into humans.

But just because non-human animals are not human doesn't mean our behaviour towards them shouldn't be guided with the same principles of compassion that we would use when interacting with human beings. Why? Because building a world based upon compassion is more productive to a healthy, reasonable and progressive society than one that is not.

Our ethical frameworks are not constructed based upon how something can "conform" or "understanding" those frameworks. They are constructed because we value them. As communists, do we not believe that compassion, reason, progress is a better framework for society to operate in rather than cruelty, indifference, selfishness? If not, why not?

The only argument that I can see that says we shouldn't is that non-human animals are not human. But this argument relies upon a framework that basis itself on ideas of supremacy, dominance and difference. How is it conducive to a progressive society that an aspect of people's reasoning is that we can dominate other living creatures simply by virtue of being different? That view point comes from really sinister aspects of human history and it is necessary to reflect on it.


More over, the nature of "pain" that animals experience is nebulous and not well studied. It's unclear that they process it in the same way we process the experience that we know as pain.

Pain management in animals is a veterinary speciality. The idea that it is "nebulous" is just wrong. Most non-human animals experience pain in pretty much exactly the same way as humans. Their inability to conceptualise or articulate that pain is irrelevant to their experience of it as a sensation.


If you're being consistent in trying to apply human ethics to non-human animals, you'd need to do the same to plants in light of research.

Plants aren't sentient or sapient. They have no ability to conceptualise their existence, nor do they have pain receptors or a nervous system. They aren't "alive" in the same way as animals are. The "intelligence" that's spoken about in that article isn't really intelligence in the same way that you can measure it in animals, i.e, problem solving, awareness, language, social structure, it is simply basic auto-reactions to environmental situations.

Applying an ethical framework to the treatment of plants would be redundant.

[The Feral Underclass]

So is everyone else on the Internet.

I used to live in the same house as Skinz and I've known Quail personally through living in the same city, getting wasted and doing politics together for about six years...So...Better luck next time, chump.


Experience of pain and suffering is the metric here? So if someone doesn't have the ability to experience pain and suffering it's okay to cause them bodily harm?

Some people think that being able to see beyond binary is a mark of intelligence. I tend to agree with them.

It's not one or the other is it. It's not feel pain and be treated nice and not feel pain and not be treated nice. The issue here is whether non-human animals and human beings should be treated equally, with pain and suffering being a measure of why that should be true. Even if a human or non-human weren't able to feel pain and experience suffering, that doesn't mean the same framework of equality shouldn't apply, but it should definitely apply since they can.

[RedWorker]

I eat meat but admit it's wrong. Others can't admit the same because it would stress them too much, so they fabricate all these little defense mechanisms.

[The Feral Underclass]

I eat meat but admit it's wrong. Others can't admit the same because it would stress them too much, so they fabricate all these little defense mechanisms.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery :p

[Os Cangaceiros]

Haven't been hunting in a while, since I was around 17 or 18 (I'm 26 now). Was never that big a fan of it, involved a ton of patience that I just don't have, in a usually wet & freezing environment. I remember going mountain goat hunting in the mountains with a friend of mine, and she had a good number of open shots on some goats but could never actually shoot them because they were always perched on the precipice of massive gorges, and shooting them would send them tumbling down the mountainside. Thinking back on it, I think that was the last time I went hunting, actually, although I didn't have a gun for that one, I just went for the hike. I shot an annoying squirrel with a 12 gauge shotgun and fed it too eagles over the summer, but I don't think that counts as "hunting".

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was also not really a big fan of field dressing game, doesn't suite my lazy disposition. I have plenty of experience with it, though, as the result of getting roped into my father's deer projects, most of which were crimes of opportunity which sometimes involved him firing a rifle out of our house window at some deer that had wandered into our yard, in true hillbilly fashion. Many memories of helping carve some dead deer up in the gear shed, with the smell of blood and viscera everywhere. One of those smells you don't forget.

[human strike]

I expected this thread to be more about people's experiences out in the wilderness and such rather than a debate mixed with a blatant attack on me with accusations that I enjoy murdering creatures.

Seriously? As soon as I saw your OP I fully anticipated this response. I suppose hunting is normal where you are, but for a lot of people it's not normal or ok. Perhaps a little more sensitivity is required? I grew up in a semi-rural area and used to fish a lot and even hunted rabbit on one occasion, but for probably most people on this forum even that is quite alien. To be honest, I don't blame people for finding it weird.

The point that's already been made about how if you're going to insist on eating meat it might as well be hunted meat is a good one though.

[Art Vandelay]

Hunting is boring as fuck. I grew up in a big family of hunters (geese, deer, elk) and it's one of the most tedious things I've ever done. I never enjoyed the whole nature aspect of it either, since I knew we were laying out there to eventually blow a hole through something and gut it. Even before I stopped eating meat, I never liked it. As a kid growing up, I'd always choose to spend a day at the gun range with my dad (who could never hurt a fly) over bogging through the wilderness with my grandpa, who would inevitably make me drag back some goose carcass.

Seriously, as someone who grew up with it, there are much cheaper ways to supplement your diet than hunting; paying for gas, camo, bullets, guns/repairs, lisences, etc...ain't cheap, or at least it isnt here in Canada.

[The Disillusionist]

Condemning hunting as immoral is a highly ethnocentric viewpoint. To condemn hunting is to condemn the vast majority of people who live today and who have ever lived. Exclusive veganism and vegetarianism, though I have nothing against them, are primarily western, capitalist luxuries.

Speaking from an anthropological viewpoint, humans hunt for the same reason lions, tigers, and bears (oh my) hunt, it's an evolutionarily stable strategy. Excluding capitalist/industrial societies, humans will very rarely pursue a foraging opportunity that isn't beneficial. Humans who didn't hunt weren't as likely to survive, and so that cultural strategy died out in the vast majority of the world very early. Even native agricultural societies supplemented their diets with meat and fish over the winter, to help stretch their stored crops.

Also, as somebody on this thread stated (sorry, I can't remember who, I think it was Red Noise), it is impossible to assign human moral values onto animals. Are predators immoral now, because they too eat meat?

Humans are naturally omnivores, meaning that, like our closest evolutionary cousins: chimps and bonobos, we are evolved to eat pretty much anything, including meat. If we were naturally vegan, our skulls and teeth would be shaped much more like those of a gorilla, with much stronger, larger teeth and much more powerful jaw muscles, possibly attached to a ridge (sagittal crest) on the top of our skulls, as gorilla's jaw muscles are.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, much of the plant matter we eat today is actually unnatural to our evolutionarily intended diet, because without some means of cooking it, our teeth and jaws just wouldn't really be equipped to eat it efficiently.

[The Feral Underclass]

Condemning hunting as immoral is a highly ethnocentric viewpoint.To condemn hunting is to condemn the vast majority of people who live today and who have ever lived. Exclusive veganism and vegetarianism, though I have nothing against them, are primarily western, capitalist luxuries.

Well, I haven't condemned it as immoral. I've condemned it as unnecessary and regressive.

The view may be "ethnocentric," but I'm not a cultural relativist and just because cultures around the world do it, doesn't make it any less unnecessary or regressive.

Now if someone needs to hunt, and I mean absolutely cannot survive without killing an animal and eating it, then that is a different situation altogether. But we are not talking about that situation and I'm sorry if this strikes as rude, I just don't buy the argument that you need to hunt and kill animals in order to live. For a start that would imply that you only eat meat and you have no other source of food. Is that what you're saying?


Speaking from an anthropological viewpoint, humans hunt for the same reason lions, tigers, and bears (oh my) hunt, it's an evolutionarily stable strategy. Excluding capitalist/industrial societies, humans will very rarely pursue a foraging opportunity that isn't beneficial. Humans who didn't hunt weren't as likely to survive, and so that cultural strategy died out in the vast majority of the world very early. Even native agricultural societies supplemented their diets with meat and fish over the winter, to help stretch their stored crops.

Our society has and should, and I hope will continue, to develop methods and solutions to problems like having to hunt for food and live in caves and dying of curable diseases. Our objective as humans should be to change and progress; to strive to better ourselves and our environment, not fetishise some primitive natural state with absolute indifference to how our behaviour relates to our existence on the plant.


Also, as somebody on this thread stated (sorry, I can't remember who, I think it was Red Noise), it is impossible to assign human moral values onto animals. Are predators immoral now, because they too eat meat?

I have addressed this argument. And there is a fundamental difference between humans and other predators -- We can think. Other animals also rape, commit incest and infanticide. Yet we have no problem attributing ethical frameworks to those things, so...


Humans are naturally omnivores, meaning that, like our closest evolutionary cousins: chimps and bonobos, we are evolved to eat pretty much anything, including meat. If we were naturally vegan, our skulls and teeth would be shaped much more like those of a gorilla, with much stronger, larger teeth and much more powerful jaw muscles, possibly attached to a ridge (sagittal crest) on the top of our skulls, as gorilla's jaw muscles are.

Humans also "naturally" don't have wings, yet we have invented aeroplanes. Humans also "naturally" don't use central heating to warm our homes, or ovens to cook our food. Humans don't "naturally" use antibiotics to kill bacteria or insert metal pins to fix broken bones, yet here we are living in a human world shaped by our intellect and our pursuit for progress.

Nothing humans do is "natural"? What is "natural" for a human being changes constantly and is not some fixed concept. Yeah, we have teeth that can chew through meat, but we also have a brain that can conceptualise our existences.


From an evolutionary viewpoint, much of the plant matter we eat today is actually unnatural to our evolutionarily intended diet, because without some means of cooking it, our teeth and jaws just wouldn't really be equipped to eat it efficiently.

The implication that we should regress back into this romanticised "nature" is reactionary.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

the only argument that youve offered as to why hunting is so reproachable is to, very rudely, question the mental state of people who relish in the suffering of animals. and it has been explained in this thread that hunting doesnt necessarily have anything to do with that. i think you know that your argument about sadism doesnt hold any water. so i ask, what is so regressive about it? who is being harmed? furthermore, your argument that mistress sinistra doesnt need to hunt in order to survive because she must consume other foods as well is clearly fallacious. just because she can afford something to supplement her diet of game meat doesnt mean she can afford to forgo the meat. not that i think she owes you any explanation. to be quite fucking honest i think that the way youre badgering her over her dietary needs or choices is incredibly rude and callous and unecessary

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well, I haven't condemned it as immoral. I've condemned it as unnecessary and regressive.

The view may be "ethnocentric," but I'm not a cultural relativist and just because cultures around the world do it, doesn't make it any less unnecessary or regressive.

could you expound on this please?
people dont do it purely as a cultural practice or tradition, but as a means of basic subsistence. all over the world. is it unnecessary and regressive for natives in the frozen tundra to hunt/fish for meat? are they supposed to try to thaw out the ground and grow some carrots?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Seriously, as someone who grew up with it, there are much cheaper ways to supplement your diet than hunting; paying for gas, camo, bullets, guns/repairs, lisences, etc...ain't cheap, or at least it isnt here in Canada.

ive never hunted but i thought the same thing when i read this thread. although i do know that fishing is a very cost effective way to get food

[Creative Destruction]

well, in the United States, it's pretty easy and cheap to hunt. guns are inexpensive (even good "hunting" guns), ammo is cheap (or you probably always have family that has ammo anyway), gas isn't bad if you go in with someone else (some places -- like Portland metro -- have public transportation that goes into the wilderness). licenses are the biggest expense annual, but if you spend your time tracking larger game (or larger small game, etc.), the meat per pound, with everything in consideration, is cheaper than buying from the grocery store. again, also, provided that you know how to dress and process the animal yourself. if you take it to a butcher and a processor, the cost will get a little bit nearer toward grocery store prices in some instances.

[synthesis]

I wonder if there are any arguments that seek to justify hunting that could not also be used to justify poaching.

[Creative Destruction]

I wonder if there are any arguments that seek to justify hunting that could not also be used to justify poaching.

Poaching is just illegal hunting, so the same reasons used for hunting could be used for poaching, as well. But that largely misses the point. Most people who hunt for food largely aren't poaching, and those that are, aren't poaching in a way that threatens the existence of species (largely because there are so few poachers -- and, also, "poaching" could also be defined as someone hunting on someone else's land... so poaching laws, to some measure, are about protecting property.) Hunting regulations, even in the last 20 years, have been fine tuned to such an extent where it simply isn't worth it, if your aim is for food. The regulations have also done a good job between meeting those needs and implementing conservationist goals, at least in the United States. As it stands, poaching is largely done for two reasons: to extract certain parts of the animal that may catch a high price on the market; or rich people looking to trophy hunt "exotic" animals and can afford to bribe officials in order to do so, as often happens in Africa. These two things have no regard for conservationism or preservation of the species, which are important considerations to have.

[synthesis]

Poaching is just illegal hunting, so the same reasons used for hunting could be used for poaching, as well. But that largely misses the point. Most people who hunt for food largely aren't poaching, and those that are, aren't poaching in a way that threatens the existence of species (largely because there are so few poachers -- and, also, "poaching" could also be defined as someone hunting on someone else's land... so poaching laws, to some measure, are about protecting property.) Hunting regulations, even in the last 20 years, have been fine tuned to such an extent where it simply isn't worth it, if your aim is for food. The regulations have also done a good job between meeting those needs and implementing conservationist goals, at least in the United States. As it stands, poaching is largely done for two reasons: to extract certain parts of the animal that may catch a high price on the market; or rich people looking to trophy hunt "exotic" animals and can afford to bribe officials in order to do so, as often happens in Africa. These two things have no regard for conservationism or preservation of the species, which are important considerations to have.

This kind of seems like a long way to go to distinguish the two.

[The Feral Underclass]

people dont do it purely as a cultural practice or tradition, but as a means of basic subsistence.

So people keep saying, but how many societies exist on the planet in which meat is the exclusive food group?

In any case, as I've said repeatedly, if someone's existence literally depends on an animal dying and being eaten then that at least is a justification and of course no one has any right to cast a negative judgement on that. But as far as I can see that's not what we're talking about in this thread. No one here is going to starve to death if they don't hunt and kill a deer.

[Creative Destruction]

This kind of seems like a long way to go to distinguish the two.

Welcome to context, cricket!

[Creative Destruction]

I have addressed this argument. And there is a fundamental difference between humans and other predators -- We can think. Other animals also rape, commit incest and infanticide. Yet we have no problem attributing ethical frameworks to those things, so...

We have no problem attributing ethical frameworks to those things because they are two way streets. We have established ethical standards that people know to abide by, and have established (through our institutions and civil society) that humans have responsibilities to abide by those frameworks. Animals have no such thing, and it is not clear at all that we should necessarily extend those frameworks to cover animals that have no conception of how our ethical frameworks work.

Feeling simple empathy or compassion, as is the case for some animals, does not make up an ethical framework, least of all, an ethical framework that humans abide by. And simply because we can think does not automatically mean it is unethical to hunt other animals or that any ethics we apply to ourselves are valid when applying them to other animals. That's a huge logical leap for which there has been no justification presented in between. It is basically, "Step 1: Think, Step 2: ????, Step 3: Profit!"

As to your previous argument that we are looking to build a more "compassionate" world; yes, communists want do that and seek frameworks to do so. Communists are humanists, though. "Animal rights" and all that comes with it are not necessary for a more "compassionate" world from a communist perspective. This is an argument separate from communism and compassion where it regards humans.

As to "pain," just because there is a vet practice dedicated to animal pain management says very little about how animals experience pain, and if it is on the same level that we do, which is an emotional experience. In fact, there is a lack of evidence that other animals experience what we've termed as pain in the way that we, as humans, experience pain. There are approximations we make based on what we think are analogues. But, actually, it seems that the experience of "pain" in other animals may more closely mirror that of the experience that plants do, as laid out in the interview I posted earlier: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123719.htm

What it comes down to is this: we see behaviors that we view as similar to ours when we experience pain. But this is just apophenic at this point. It's inconclusive regarding the question, and the evidence we have matches up to the same evidence we now have regarding whether plants feel pain.

Even if animals felt or experienced or were aware of pain like we are, that still does not necessarily mean we logically extend our ethical frameworks to them, because ethical frameworks are more than evaluating pain caused. It is about constructing rules and guidelines based on the whole of human experience, including with what responsibilities we expect of one another, or what rights we should implement for everyone (or who gets rights, who doesn't, and what rights, if any, anyone gets.) It'd be an interesting argument to make, to be sure, but no vegan or vegetarian activist has made such an argument, based on an honest evaluation of what we know scientifically or what we know as "ethical frameworks." Right now, we're just at a point of deciding what we will and won't tolerate based, basically, on how we feel about a particular animal (or plants! -- which isn't to say that I don't agree with this mode of how we dole out "animal rights." I have no problem with doing away with lab animals, or even doing away with hunting itself, as I've said before.)

Aside from all of that, the ethical framework you're trying to push here -- no harm to animals whatsoever -- is still hypocritical when you take into consideration that the removal and clearing of lands for us to cultivate plants harms animals, in removing and clearing habitats, messing with other animals own hunting or foraging spots, screwing with migratory patterns, so on and so forth. The entirety of human civilization has, to some great measure, harmed non-human animals, and the proposed solution of "Just eat more vegetables!" marks the argument with hypocrisy and being untenable, logically. The only way to be consistent in this argument is if you were also arguing for a huge reduction in the human population and a reversion to only being foragers, living off of wild plants. Which is, of course, completely reactionary.

[Atsumari]

Once you see the problem of overpopulation of animals like in the place I grew up, then the question becomes more than the morality of human predators since overpopulation causes shit like the depletion of resources and threatens forest growth. The deer density in Pennsylvania is 39 animals per square kilometer, which is about ten times higher than the deer density in the 1700s. Unless you can provide a solution of population control without having to resort to moralism, then I will gladly take the vegetarians/vegans seriously.

[The Feral Underclass]

We have no problem attributing ethical frameworks to those things because they are two way streets. We have established ethical standards that people know to abide by, and have established (through our institutions and civil society) that humans have responsibilities to abide by those frameworks. Animals have no such thing, and it is not clear at all that we should necessarily extend those frameworks to cover animals that have no conception of how our ethical frameworks work.

Feeling simple empathy or compassion, as is the case for some animals, does not make up an ethical framework, least of all, an ethical framework that humans abide by. And simply because we can think does not automatically mean it is unethical to hunt other animals or that any ethics we apply to ourselves are valid when applying them to other animals. That's a huge logical leap for which there has been no justification presented in between. It is basically, "Step 1: Think, Step 2: ????, Step 3: Profit!"

As to your previous argument that we are looking to build a more "compassionate" world; yes, communists want do that and seek frameworks to do so. Communists are humanists, though. "Animal rights" and all that comes with it are not necessary for a more "compassionate" world from a communist perspective. This is an argument separate from communism and compassion where it regards humans.

As to "pain," just because there is a vet practice dedicated to animal pain management says very little about how animals experience pain, and if it is on the same level that we do, which is an emotional experience. In fact, there is a lack of evidence that other animals experience what we've termed as pain in the way that we, as humans, experience pain. There are approximations we make based on what we think are analogues. But, actually, it seems that the experience of "pain" in other animals may more closely mirror that of the experience that plants do, as laid out in the interview I posted earlier: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123719.htm

What it comes down to is this: we see behaviors that we view as similar to ours when we experience pain. But this is just apophenic at this point. It's inconclusive regarding the question, and the evidence we have matches up to the same evidence we now have regarding whether plants feel pain.

Even if animals felt or experienced or were aware of pain like we are, that still does not necessarily mean we logically extend our ethical frameworks to them, because ethical frameworks are more than evaluating pain caused. It is about constructing rules and guidelines based on the whole of human experience, including with what responsibilities we expect of one another, or what rights we should implement for everyone (or who gets rights, who doesn't, and what rights, if any, anyone gets.) It'd be an interesting argument to make, to be sure, but no vegan or vegetarian activist has made such an argument, based on an honest evaluation of what we know scientifically or what we know as "ethical frameworks." Right now, we're just at a point of deciding what we will and won't tolerate based, basically, on how we feel about a particular animal (or plants! -- which isn't to say that I don't agree with this mode of how we dole out "animal rights." I have no problem with doing away with lab animals, or even doing away with hunting itself, as I've said before.)

I can only infer from this that you accept humans have a responsibility to live by an ethical framework, but only if it is mutually beneficial. So does that mean you don't rape people only because you don't want to be raped?

It is true that non-human animals (at least as far as we know) don't have ethical systems that govern their behaviour, but this is because their brains aren't developed enough to conceptualise it. The fact is that we live on a planet with other living creatures and we cannot pretend that our existence on the planet is an exclusive one. Our existence is inevitably linked to that of non-human animals. We can't escape making decisions about our relationships with them.

It is not consistent for a communist society to preach compassion and then exploit animals. It is inconsistent to claim that compassion should be a principle, but only for humans. Especially when you consider that this inconsistency is justified based on ideas of superiority, dominance and difference. It is not a productive or progressive state of affairs that in a communist society human beings attribute a whole aspect of their behaviour to concepts like that. How can we be a compassionate society if we seek to use other living creatures unnecessarily for our pleasure based on the notion that we are different and therefore superior, and therefore entitled to dominate? How do those ideas correlate in any way with a principle of compassion?

On the issue of pain, morphine is used to relieve severe pain in mammals, so this should be an indication of how similar a huge section of the animal kingdom responds and experiences pain. It is simply disingenuous to try and bring animals' experiences of pain into question. There is absolutely no doubt, certainly not in veterinary medical education, that the pain experienced by animals is extremely similar to that of humans, which is why their pain management essentially mimics our own.

In any case, whether animals feel pain is only an incidental aspect of my argument, which cannot be reduced down to this one single thing. Even if animals felt a tickling sensation when they were being dragged by their broken legs through an abattoir, my argument wouldn't alter in any way. Ultimately, the nature of our society will be reflected in how we treat the planet and everything in it, not just how we treat each other. We cannot separate ourselves from these tings.

To give some background on my animal liberation views (I'm not an "animal rightist," which you inaccurately described my views as), I should mention a book by Charles Patterson called Eternal Treblinka. It very expertly charts the history of human relationships with non-human animals and the development of our treatment and domestication of them alongside human development of our treatment of each other. It convincingly draws relationships between the methods we use to exploit and kill non-human animals and the methods we use to exploit and kill humans. These two things, in his view, have gone hand in hand.

What some detractors will argue is that he is trying to compare the slaughter of animals with something like the holocaust and that's not what he's doing. What he does is highlight facts, such as how the architects of Crematorium II and III in Birkenau used the blue prints of abattoirs to design the layout, specifically the tunnel between the undressing rooms and the gas chamber, which was an exact design of a tunnel used to push cattle to their deaths. He also highlights how many of the men we know about who worked in the Crematoriums and perpetuated "special actions" against Jews in Eastern Europe came from farming and meat industry jobs. He also highlights how human beings, throughout history, in order to justify the slaughter of human beings first set about turning those people into representations of animals in order to dehumanise them and to somehow legitimise their slaughter (Rwanda being a contemporary example). Is this just coincidence? Well maybe. But I think it would be foolish to dismiss it entirely. There has to be some serious reflection on these relationships (as a whole, not just the examples I gave) and their implication to human society, the conclusion of which is that our behaviour towards each other is inextricably linked to our behaviour to all living creatures. The history of humans and the history of non-human animals goes hand in hand and therefore the nature of our future society has to take into consideration that relationship -- we cannot divorce ourselves from it. Our behaviour towards non-human animals is evidently reflected in our relationship with each other.


Aside from all of that, the ethical framework you're trying to push here -- no harm to animals whatsoever -- is still hypocritical when you take into consideration that the removal and clearing of lands for us to cultivate plants harms animals, in removing and clearing habitats, messing with other animals own hunting or foraging spots, screwing with migratory patterns, so on and so forth. The entirety of human civilization has, to some great measure, harmed non-human animals, and the proposed solution of "Just eat more vegetables!" marks the argument with hypocrisy and being untenable, logically. The only way to be consistent in this argument is if you were also arguing for a huge reduction in the human population and a reversion to only being foragers, living off of wild plants. Which is, of course, completely reactionary.

I'm not "pushing" an ethical framework, I am simply arguing that there is no reason why we shouldn't apply our ethical frameworks to non-human animals when we consider the alternative is to practice behaviour predicated on principles of difference, supremacy, entitlement and dominance.

I've not said that animals should not be "harmed whatsoever." I've also not argued that the sum of the solution is "eat more vegetables." The issue of overpopulation etcetera are important ones, but they are not beyond the realm of a solution (that doesn't involve anything as remotely dramatic as murdering half the human population) as and when those problems arise. Human beings need to protect themselves and fight for their survival, and no ethical framework should stop that, but that doesn't alter the need to reassess our behaviour and our relationship with other living beings we share a planet with.

[TC]

A normal human being in it's natural environment? Considering as a species that's what we've spent most of our time on this planet doing?

We are not "as a species" anything but a collection of individuals, individuals organized into institutions, and relations between individuals. Humans historically have raped, murdered, cannibalized, waged war, enslaved, systematically oppressed most other people, etc. None of these phenomena are 'natural' or 'unnatural', they are social, and as highly intelligent social beings, if anything is in our nature, actively shaping our own way of life and morally reflecting on our choices and our societies is in our nature.

"A normal human being in it's natural environment" is an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy that was is natural (or what is) is what ought to be. This is not a credible solution to the question of how we ought to conduct ourselves since it presumes that the inquiry can be avoided by pointing simply to how we do conduct ourselves - which is to say, answering a different question than the one posed.

[TC]

Also this thread is highly useful for offering a quick guide to who is a psychopath here.

If you find killing an innocent being to be a form of enjoyable recreation, you are not a moral person.

This is of course not applicable to *true* subsistence hunters who literally choose between killing and dying - but unless you're living in the Amazon or Arctic, and you have access to the internet, that is almost certainly not you.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also this thread is highly useful for offering a quick guide to who is a psychopath here. You haven't received a "who's a psychopath on revleft" guide before this thread? Wow. You must not read many revleft threads.

[PhoenixAsh]

Whether somebody is a moral person based on killing animals for fun depends on what is subjectively classified and categorized as good and evil.

The idea that killing a living being is evil is dependend on a huge set of factors that establish evil and good in relation to the act.

Questions such as: But what if that living being will cause innumerable suffering? What if that living being is about to kill several other human beings...or even one human being?

That humans have a huge influence on their social behaviour and can and have the ability to change certain ways they do things...does not mean they should or that it is wrong to not do so.


*

That said...

I don't usually frequent the non-political forum. This thread popped up. I don't get hunting as a sport. I don't consider it a sport. It is not a sport. Nobody can even argue that it is a sport.

I don't get trophy hunting. Killing for the reason of killing says a lot about somebodies position in life.

*

I however do get hunting for food. I don't see it as evil. Nor do I see hunters who hunt for food as psychopaths. Whether that is in western society or out in the wilderness.

I also understand that in our manifactured society and way of living with artificial environments disallow normal natural development for all kinds of reasons and that in order to maintain balance in these artificial environments hunting sometimes becomes a real necessity. To maintain that this is not the case means somebody doesn't understand how our artifically confined and constructed "nature' functions.

[The Feral Underclass]

Whether somebody is a moral person based on killing animals for fun depends on what is subjectively classified and categorized as good and evil.

The idea that killing a living being is evil is dependend on a huge set of factors that establish evil and good in relation to the act.

Questions such as: But what if that living being will cause innumerable suffering? What if that living being is about to kill several other human beings...or even one human being?

That humans have a huge influence on their social behaviour and can and have the ability to change certain ways they do things...does not mean they should or that it is wrong to not do so.

*

That said...

I don't usually frequent the non-political forum. This thread popped up. I don't get hunting as a sport. I don't consider it a sport. It is not a sport. Nobody can even argue that it is a sport.

I don't get trophy hunting. Killing for the reason of killing says a lot about somebodies position in life.

*

I however do get hunting for food. I don't see it as evil. Nor do I see hunters who hunt for food as psychopaths. Whether that is in western society or out in the wilderness.

I also understand that in our manifactured society and way of living with artificial environments disallow normal natural development for all kinds of reasons and that in order to maintain balance in these artificial environments hunting sometimes becomes a real necessity. To maintain that this is not the case means somebody doesn't understand how our artifically confined and constructed "nature' functions.

Whether someone is evil or good aren't really important questions when we are discussing psychopathic tendencies. The criteria for a medical diagnosis of psychopathy or psychopathic behaviour isn't necessarily enjoyment in killing non-human animals. However, taking pleasure from the act of hunting down and taking the life of another living being without any kind of reflection, remorse or shame is indicative of tendency towards that kind of personality. These kinds of behaviours in young people could also be an indication towards violent behaviour as adults in accordance with Macdonald's triad. Encouraging young people to enjoy killing is not a healthy dynamic to set, in fact it could have terrible consequences.

The question that you ask in judging the legitimacy of the moral question on killing is an interesting one, but does not really relate to the topic of psychopathic behaviour. Necessity will always trump morality, but the fundamental difference between killing for pleasure and killing for necessity is that they're invariably dependent on different thought processes. Someone who kills something to survive is not doing it as a consequence of an absence of insight, guilt or shame that any self-possessing, well-adjusted adult would feel as a consequence of taking the life of something, it is something done in order to maintain their existence.

I think one important example to look at is that of the Cherokee (and it is similar in other hunter-gatherer peoples) who would pray for forgiveness every time they killed a animal. Great care and respect was afforded the animal before and after it had been hunted. These cultural traditions were tied heavily to their practices and while I don't agree with them, there is a profound difference between this process of killing for necessity, done so in a way that understands the gravity of what they had done, and doing it for sport, or even doing it for necessity without any thought or regard for their actions.

The point here is that our relationship with non-human animals must be something that we assess, understanding the nature and ideas that we use to govern that relationship. I'm not saying we should ask for forgiveness from god for killing a non-human animal (I don't think we should be killing animals at all), but I do think we should take the principle of reflecting on our actions, rather than being indifferent or pleasured at the destruction and dominance we enact on the world. If people cannot see the inherent benefit of doing that -- for anything we do -- then I think that is a real political and social problem. I don't think it is a reflection of a healthy society that indiscriminate killing is done for pleasure or so-called necessity without any consideration for the implications of it.

[Sinister Intents]

My parents pressure me into hunting

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

any psychiatrists or psychologists here qualified to assess the mental health of everybody who hunts or fishes?

[Loony Le Fist]

Plants aren't sentient or sapient. They have no ability to conceptualise their existence, nor do they have pain receptors or a nervous system.


Not necessarily. While they may lack the specialized structures for feeling pain in a specific way, they do sense injury. Plus you are mixing up sentience, sapience and sensing of pain.

I'd really like to hear you try and justify why you think animals are somehow superior to plants.



They aren't "alive" in the same way as animals are.


I'm going to pull the popcorn out while you elaborate on this position. You have to define what alive means. Not even biologists can really give you a concrete definition here.



The "intelligence" that's spoken about in that article isn't really intelligence in the same way that you can measure it in animals, i.e, problem solving, awareness, language, social structure, it is simply basic auto-reactions to environmental situations.


Problem solving? Like roots foraging for food? Perhaps you should reference the other thread where I brought this up and we had nearly the same discussion.



Applying an ethical framework to the treatment of plants would be redundant.

Vegetarians, I love you. I'm not going to judge you for eating certain categories of organisms if you won't judge me for eating another category. :grin:

[The Disillusionist]

I wasn't bringing in evolution in order to use the naturalistic fallacy. You can't ignore every aspect of human evolution by bringing in the naturalistical fallacy. "Oh, evolution designed me to not want to die? Well, I'll show it, I'll jump off a bridge." My overall point with the evolution is that humans are animals, animals evolved to eat anything, and meat/fish has been a significant part of our diet since forever, and so the rejection of hunting on any kind of assumption that it is unhealthy or unnatural in any way is misguided.

The equation of rape and torture with hunting is just downright ridiculous. To suggest that hunters are equal to rapists and murderers just because they hunt is bigoted to the extreme.

But, anyway, to sum up this thread: The opposition to hunting has no real basis in any real aspect of life, it doesn't stand on a logical level, a practical level, an evolutionary level, or even a moral level, because morality in this case is entirely subjective.

However, people continue to disagree, because they've made the personal, moral choice to oppose hunting. Good for them, but it doesn't matter, because the rest of us don't have to submit to their decisions, because we've made our own personal decisions to continue hunting. This isn't a vote (and even if it was, those opposed to hunting would lose by a vast majority). Hunting will never go away, and hunters are not "sociopaths".

Inflammatory rant of the day: It seems to me that a lot of the most militant vegetarians I've ever met were the kind of pampered yuppies who had absolutely no problem making a trip to the local organic whole foods store every day on their thousand dollar custom-made bicycles to spend 300 dollars on a head of cabbage, a package of tofu, and some crappy wine which they will then pretend is the greatest edible substance on earth. Have you ever seen a yuppie eat expensive food? They make complete asses of themselves, as if biting into a piece of oily cabbage somehow brought on multiple orgasms...The whole charade is a shallow exercise in Upper/Middle class hedonism, but they still love to see themselves as being morally superior to everyone else. That kind of faux-morality is a luxury of wealth.

[The Disillusionist]

Whether someone is evil or good aren't really important questions when we are discussing psychopathic tendencies. The criteria for a medical diagnosis of psychopathy or psychopathic behaviour isn't necessarily enjoyment in killing non-human animals. However, taking pleasure from the act of hunting down and taking the life of another living being without any kind of reflection, remorse or shame is indicative of tendency towards that kind of personality. These kinds of behaviours in young people could also be an indication towards violent behaviour as adults in accordance with Macdonald's triad. Encouraging young people to enjoy killing is not a healthy dynamic to set, in fact it could have terrible consequences.

The question that you ask in judging the legitimacy of the moral question on killing is an interesting one, but does not really relate to the topic of psychopathic behaviour. Necessity will always trump morality, but the fundamental difference between killing for pleasure and killing for necessity is that they're invariably dependent on different thought processes. Someone who kills something to survive is not doing it as a consequence of an absence of insight, guilt or shame that any self-possessing, well-adjusted adult would feel as a consequence of taking the life of something, it is something done in order to maintain their existence.

I think one important example to look at is that of the Cherokee (and it is similar in other hunter-gatherer peoples) who would pray for forgiveness every time they killed a animal. Great care and respect was afforded the animal before and after it had been hunted. These cultural traditions were tied heavily to their practices and while I don't agree with them, there is a profound difference between this process of killing for necessity, done so in a way that understands the gravity of what they had done, and doing it for sport, or even doing it for necessity without any thought or regard for their actions.

The point here is that our relationship with non-human animals must be something that we assess, understanding the nature and ideas that we use to govern that relationship. I'm not saying we should ask for forgiveness from god for killing a non-human animal (I don't think we should be killing animals at all), but I do think we should take the principle of reflecting on our actions, rather than being indifferent or pleasured at the destruction and dominance we enact on the world. If people cannot see the inherent benefit of doing that -- for anything we do -- then I think that is a real political and social problem. I don't think it is a reflection of a healthy society that indiscriminate killing is done for pleasure or so-called necessity without any consideration for the implications of it.

This is exactly what I was saying about preferring to hunt rather than buying meat from the store, because it restores the link between the process and the product, and allows for better reflection upon my actions and the consequences. I learned to think that way from other hunters. Respect for the animal being killed is not exclusive to native peoples, any good hunter should have that same respect, and a good portion of them do. The rest of them, the ones who don't have that respect, are the ones who ruin it for everyone else (and they're also usually the ones causing accidents).

[The Feral Underclass]

This is exactly what I was saying about preferring to hunt rather than buying meat from the store, because it restores the link between the process and the product, and allows for better reflection upon my actions and the consequences. I learned to think that way from other hunters. Respect for the animal being killed is not exclusive to native peoples, any good hunter should have that same respect, and a good portion of them do. The rest of them, the ones who don't have that respect, are the ones who ruin it for everyone else (and they're also usually the ones causing accidents).

Respecting an animal that you've killed isn't a justification for killing it. The purpose of bringing up the cultural traditions of the Cherokee was to highlight that a thought process of reflection has existed in terms of how we understand a relationship with other living beings. That reflection should move beyond killing things...That's the point.

[The Feral Underclass]

Not necessarily.

Identify to me any genus of plant that has sentience or sapience.


While they may lack the specialized structures for feeling pain in a specific way, they do sense injury. Plus you are mixing up sentience, sapience and sensing of pain.

In order to sense something you have to have an awareness of it. Plants don't have an "awareness" of anything, their responses are automated. They happen irrespective of any decision making process of "sensation."


I'd really like to hear you try and justify why you think animals are somehow superior to plants.

Why would I do that?


I'm going to pull the popcorn out while you elaborate on this position. You have to define what alive means. Not even biologists can really give you a concrete definition here.

Well, anyone who has studied biology can tell you that's not true. There are basic criteria for life, but if you compare how an animal experiences those things compared to a plant it's very evident how they are different.


Problem solving? Like roots foraging for food? Perhaps you should reference the other thread where I brought this up and we had nearly the same discussion.

I don't really have a interest in participating in this discussion with you, so I have no intention of searching for other examples of it.


Vegetarians, I love you. I'm not going to judge you for eating certain categories of organisms if you won't judge me for eating another category. :grin:

Yeah, I'm not a vegetarian.

[PhoenixAsh]

Whether someone is evil or good aren't really important questions when we are discussing psychopathic tendencies.

Agreed.

But good and evil are important to establish morality. And that was what I was adressing.


The criteria for a medical diagnosis of psychopathy or psychopathic behaviour isn't necessarily enjoyment in killing non-human animals. However, taking pleasure from the act of hunting down and taking the life of another living being without any kind of reflection, remorse or shame is indicative of tendency towards that kind of personality.

Psychopathic tendiencies are classified these days as anti-social personality disorders. The classification of psycho and sociopathy are only used as informal classifications with respect to criminal, and most often violent ones, tendencies. Psychopathy is the lack of empathy. And in the psychological classification hierarchy it is most commonly refered to to lack of empathy within the species. Killing animals for "sport" doesn't mean somebody lacks empathy, remorse and responsibility for their actions.

As it stands now the occurance of the potential for Psychopathy (and so not actual psychopathy) is less than 1.5% over the entire population (male and female).

The MacDonald triad also reflects on small animals, usually and predominantly pets or animals of convenience. It does not list hunting as an activity as being part of the precursor (as far as I am aware).

VICAP used the MacDonals triad. Which has its fair share of criticism.

Bedwetting beyond the age of five is indicative as one of the other three sets of behavioral patterns in the triad as a precursor to psychopathy.

Now...I won't deny any link between pyshopathy and torturing animals. There obviously is one. That link is a functional expression though. And there is an equal link between childhood abuse and animal torture...not to mention between childhood abuse and psychpathy.

That act of torturing and killing small animals usually serves the feeling of regaining a sense of lost power. In some rare cases the act is practice for killing human victims.

This leads to the conclusion that violence to animals is not a precursor to psychopathic behaviour but rather an expression of it. Teaching young children to enjoy hunting is not a factor of risk for developing pshychopathy. Rather it is the other way around

It is however undeniably so that killing of animals is used as a means to desensitise people to the act of killing. It is used in a whole range of special forces trainings for that same reason.

And so I do agree with what you write later...that teaching young children to hunt for pleasure is problematic.





These kinds of behaviours in young people could also be an indication towards violent behaviour as adults in accordance with Macdonald's triad. Encouraging young people to enjoy killing is not a healthy dynamic to set, in fact it could have terrible consequences.


Well I agree on the last part...



The question that you ask in judging the legitimacy of the moral question on killing is an interesting one, but does not really relate to the topic of psychopathic behaviour. Necessity will always trump morality, but the fundamental difference between killing for pleasure and killing for necessity is that they're invariably dependent on different thought processes. Someone who kills something to survive is not doing it as a consequence of an absence of insight, guilt or shame that any self-possessing, well-adjusted adult would feel as a consequence of taking the life of something, it is something done in order to maintain their existence.

Well the topic I was adressing wasn't really psychopathic behaviour but the question of morality...and we completely agree on necessity trumping morality.

I don't however think necessity and survival are the same thing here as I do see value in hunting for food in societies where there are other means of sustenance available.

I know from your position on meat as part of a diet...we differ on opinion. But from my perspective there is no qualitative difference between raising a cow for dietary purposes or hunting a deer for the same reason...with that difference that I think the quality of life the deer has is way better than that of the cow considering the way current food production has an abysmal disregard for the animals.




I think one important example to look at is that of the Cherokee (and it is similar in other hunter-gatherer peoples) who would pray for forgiveness every time they killed a animal. Great care and respect was afforded the animal before and after it had been hunted. These cultural traditions were tied heavily to their practices and while I don't agree with them, there is a profound difference between this process of killing for necessity, done so in a way that understands the gravity of what they had done, and doing it for sport, or even doing it for necessity without any thought or regard for their actions.

The same goes for Buddhists when they eat meat. (Do buddhist eat meat? Yes...they do. one of the Buddha's ate meat and said there was nothing wrong with eating meat as long as you showed empathy with the animal and as long they themselves did not kill the animal there will be no negative karmic consequences...thoise would belong to the butcher. Very convenient...but I digress).



The point here is that our relationship with non-human animals must be something that we assess, understanding the nature and ideas that we use to govern that relationship. I'm not saying we should ask for forgiveness from god for killing a non-human animal (I don't think we should be killing animals at all), but I do think we should take the principle of reflecting on our actions, rather than being indifferent or pleasured at the destruction and dominance we enact on the world. If people cannot see the inherent benefit of doing that -- for anything we do -- then I think that is a real political and social problem. I don't think it is a reflection of a healthy society that indiscriminate killing is done for pleasure or so-called necessity without any consideration for the implications of it.

Yes. I think we both do agree completely on this even though we disagree on our dietary choices and how animals feature into them.

[The Disillusionist]

Respecting an animal that you've killed isn't a justification for killing it. The purpose of bringing up the cultural traditions of the Cherokee was to highlight that a thought process of reflection has existed in terms of how we understand a relationship with other living beings. That reflection should move beyond killing things...That's the point.

Why? The Iroquois believed in reincarnation, so they would treat animals with respect, and treat their remains with respect, for the purpose of getting future cooperation from those animals' spirits in future hunting endeavors. A huge portion of their belief system was built around continuing hunting, not moving beyond it.

Just because native societies reflected on the spirit of the animal and the process of hunting doesn't mean that they were somehow expressing some kind of subconscious guilt that you've arbitrarily decided that they should have felt... And just because you've decided that hunting is wrong doesn't mean you've achieved some higher stage of reflectivity "beyond" what they did.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why?

I've already explained why, twice.


Just because native societies reflected on the spirit of the animal and the process of hunting doesn't mean that they were somehow expressing some kind of subconscious guilt that you've arbitrarily decided that they should have felt... And just because you've decided that hunting is wrong doesn't mean you've achieved some higher stage of reflectivity "beyond" what they did.

Nothing is arbitrary about my views, nor have I made pronouncements about my stages of "reflectivity."

If you're going to respond to things I say, do so in a holistic, serious and honest way, otherwise don't bother.

[The Disillusionist]

I've already explained why, twice.

Nothing is arbitrary about my views, nor have I made pronouncements about my stages of "reflectivity."

If you're going to respond to things I say, do so in a holistic, serious and honest way, otherwise don't bother.

Your views are entirely arbitrary, and you have yet to explain why in any meaningful way that isn't reliant almost entirely on opinion and speculation.

[The Feral Underclass]

Your views are entirely arbitrary, and you have yet to explain why in any meaningful way that isn't reliant almost entirely on opinion and speculation.

Could you summarise what my position is and what precisely you feel is not explained or substantiated?

[Loony Le Fist]

Identify to me any genus of plant that has sentience or sapience.


You gotta define sentience and sapience first.



In order to sense something you have to have an awareness of it. Plants don't have an "awareness" of anything, their responses are automated. They happen irrespective of any decision making process of "sensation."


Define awareness.



Why would I do that?


Because otherwise your position has no leg to stand on. Though it's up to you.



Well, anyone who has studied biology can tell you that's not true. There are basic criteria for life, but if you compare how an animal experiences those things compared to a plant it's very evident how they are different.


Great. Define what you mean by alive.



I don't really have a interest in participating in this discussion with you, so I have no intention of searching for other examples of it.


I can understand that.



Yeah, I'm not a vegetarian.

That's up to you.

[The Feral Underclass]

You gotta define sentience and sapience first.

They've already been defined.


Define awareness.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aware


Because otherwise your position has no leg to stand on.

The foundation of my argument isn't how I compare the superiority of a plant with an animal. Suggesting it is only demonstrates what a colossal idiot you are.

For a start I reject the premise of your question, so now what are you gonna do?


Great. Define what you mean by alive.

To qualify something as alive it has to fulfil all or most of the following criteria: Homeostasis, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, reproduction and a structure composed of one or more cells...A cursory Google search would have revealed this to you.

[Loony Le Fist]

They've already been defined.

I'm not looking for dictionary definitions. I'm curious what they mean to you.



The foundation of my argument isn't how I compare the superiority of a plant with an animal. Suggesting it is only demonstrates what a colossal idiot you are.


I'll let your insult slide, since it's just your crutch for you having no foundation to your argument. In fact, you don't even have an argument. Just vitriol and socialization issues that you are venting onto me for some reason. It isn't my fault you hate people. Maybe they would be a bit nicer if you weren't such a condescending little prick.



For a start I reject the premise of your question, so now what are you gonna do?


So what exactly are you claiming?



To qualify something as alive it has to fulfil all or most of the following criteria: Homeostasis, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, reproduction and a structure composed of one or more cells...A cursory Google search would have revealed this to you.

Nice. You arrogantly assume that my question was due to my lack of knowledge. Any asshole can use Google to look up a definition. I have my definition of life that is an amalgam of several sources. I was curious about how you were defining it to better understand your position.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not looking for dictionary definitions. I'm curious what they mean to you.

Why would my definition be different to their actual definition?


I'll let your insult slide, since it's just your crutch for you having no foundation to your argument. In fact, you don't even have an argument. Just vitriol and socialization issues that you are venting onto me for some reason. It isn't my fault you hate people. Maybe they would be a bit nicer if you weren't such a condescending little prick.

I'm fairly confident you don't even understand my argument, so I'm not really sure how you can lecture me about what it is and is not founded upon.

And for the record, in case you haven't understood me already, and so others can make their minds up about you, my contempt for you stems from nothing except your malicious attempts to propagate the rumour that I am a paedophile. It is therefore unfathomable to me that you have the audacity to criticise me for being rude. You behave in that way towards me and then pompously expect me to be nice to you? What the fuck is wrong with your mind?

You are nasty, spiteful piece of shit who barely deserves the attention I am giving you, let alone my politeness. Frankly, you can go fuck yourself.


So what exactly are you claiming?

I've not claimed anything. You're the one who asked me to explain why an animal was more superior than a plant, like some moron. It's a stupid question and has nothing to do with anything.


Nice. You arrogantly assume that my question was due to my lack of knowledge. Any asshole can use Google to look up a definition. I have my definition of life that is an amalgam of several sources. I was curious about how you were defining it to better understand your position.

Your question was due to a lack of knowledge. If you knew what the basic criteria for life were, you wouldn't have asked me and your intervention here might have been a little more sophisticated than asking me to define "awareness" for you.

[TC]

Whether somebody is a moral person based on killing animals for fun depends on what is subjectively classified and categorized as good and evil.

This statement assumes that morality is determined by "what is subjectively classified and categorized as good and evil". I disagree both that morality depends on subjective classification (lots of people in the 19th century classifying slavery as morally good didn't make it morally good) or that morality needs to be conceptualized in terms of good and evil (rather than say, morally permissible and impermissible).


The idea that killing a living being is evil is dependend on a huge set of factors that establish evil and good in relation to the act.

Questions such as: But what if that living being will cause innumerable suffering? What if that living being is about to kill several other human beings...or even one human being?

No one I think is saying that killing is always wrong. I'm saying that recreational hunting is wrong. If something is about to kill another and killing it is the only way to prevent that from occurring, then thats not recreational killing thats self-defense or defense of a third party, which makes it a morally excusable act.


That humans have a huge influence on their social behaviour and can and have the ability to change certain ways they do things...does not mean they should or that it is wrong to not do so.

No one is making that claim. Rather that humans have the ability to make choices is a rebuttal against against the naturalistic fallacy position that if humans kill in nature it must be good or acceptable or blameless.

[Lord Testicles]

In order to sense something you have to have an awareness of it. Plants don't have an "awareness" of anything, their responses are automated. They happen irrespective of any decision making process of "sensation."


It wasn't that long ago that people used to make the same claims about animals until we came to understand them better.

This (http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1og25/PlantsADifferentPers/resources/74.htm), for example, claims that "at least four known species of plants exhibit self awareness."

[The Feral Underclass]

It wasn't that long ago that people used to make the same claims about animals until we came to understand them better.

This (http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1og25/PlantsADifferentPers/resources/74.htm), for example, claims that "at least four known species of plants exhibit self awareness."

Plants don't understand themselves or their environment, they don't have the capacity to do so. The "choices" that article talks about are based on what? An ability to conceptualise the alternative because of some self-possessing ability to rationalise their existence? No, it's because of some automated biological requirement that happens irrespective of anything else.

It's certainly fascinating to think of some kind of pseudo-nervous system that can make a determination of when to respond to environmental stimuli, but I don't consider that to be "self-awareness." That's not a phrase the article uses either.

Also, do any of those four plants include any fruit or vegetables?

[Lord Testicles]

Plants don't understand themselves or their environment, they don't have the capacity to do so.The "choices" that article talks about are based on what? An ability to conceptualise the alternative because of some self-possessing ability to rationalise their existence? No, it's because of some automated biological requirement that happens irrespective of anything else.

You could easily argue that the majority of humans don't understand their environment, I doubt an orca in sea-world understands it's environment but we're not talking about understanding, we're talking about awareness. Plants like the Cuscuta plant demonstrate an awareness of their surroundings and when presented with a choice they have even have shown the ability to "choose" the host plant which will be most beneficial to it.

What informs that choice? I certainly don't know and I don't know if anyone else presently does either.


It's certainly fascinating to think of some kind of pseudo-nervous system that can make a determination of when to respond to environmental stimuli, but I don't consider that to be "self-awareness." That's not a phrase the article uses either.

The article does use that phrase but I wouldn't know if it's the correct phrase to use. It states that some plants have been shown to be able to differentiate between themselves, other plants and plants which are genetically identical. Is that not a rudimentary form of self-awareness?


Also, do any of those four plants include any fruit or vegetables?

It would seem at least one is (the humble pea) but unfortunately it doesn't list them. The entire quote is:


At least four know species of plants exhibit self-awareness. For example, the sea rocket, an angiosperm with diminutive lavender flowers can distinguish between plants that are related to it and those that are not related to it, giving preferential treatment to relatives (siblings). When the sea rocket detects unrelated plants (including those of the same species) growing within close proximity, it aggressively sprouts nutrient-grabbing roots to deprive them of minerals. If relatives are in close proximity, the sea rocket refrains from growing nutrient-grabbing roots towards their direction. Furthermore, plants have even been shown to differentiate between themselves and another even when the other is taken from a cutting sharing the exact same DNA based on a study made at Ben Gurion University of the Negev In Israel that involved pea plants. When a pea plant with two root systems was planted in a pot they "grew significantly more and longer roots on the non-self side." When pea plants with two roots and two shoots were physiologically separated and planted in the same pot, each grew additional and longer roots directed at the other. They recognized that the other's root system belonged to another plant despite their identical DNA. This was likely due to "physiological coordination between roots belonging to the same plant... based on internal pulsing of hormonal and electrical signals [that] desynchronise[d] when the plants [were] separated".

[The Feral Underclass]

You could easily argue that the majority of humans don't understand their environment

Really? I'm not sure that's true. Most adult humans know where they are at any given time. They can conceptualise their surroundings and understand them...


I doubt an orca in sea-world understands it's environment but we're not talking about understanding, we're talking about awareness. Plants like the Cuscuta plant demonstrate an awareness of their surroundings and when presented with a choice they have even have shown the ability to "choose" the host plant which will be most beneficial to it.

I'm not really sure how this information alters my view. A plant can "choose" a host plant in so much as its biologically designed to make automated responses to stimuli. Self-awareness requires an ability to have knowledge and perception. An Orca doesn't have self-awareness either, by the way.


What informs that choice? I certainly don't know and I don't know if anyone else presently does either.

But for me, I think it's safe to say it's not knowledge or perception. It's not a conceptualisation or itself or its surroundings.


The article does use that phrase but I wouldn't know if it's the correct phrase to use. It states that some plants have been shown to be able to differentiate between themselves, other plants and plants which are genetically identical. Is that not a rudimentary form of self-awareness?

I can't see where it says any of that. But no I don't think it's a form of self-awareness, rudimentary or otherwise. To have even the most basic of self-awareness it would be require, as a bare minimum, knowledge of its existence.


It would seem at least one is (the humble pea) but unfortunately it doesn't list them. The entire quote is:

Well, I can safely say I am a devourer of the humble pea.

[PhoenixAsh]

But life doesn't exist so the points are mood:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-does-not-really-exist/

Plus I swear that one time I used Shrooms....the grass was screamimng when I stepped on it and the tree was yelling at me to walk tippy-toes carefully back to the sidewalk. It is a long story...especilly because it took me ages to get off the lawn...but it ended with me in an emergency room needing stitches (so it is bound te be a good story too).

****


Back to the serious debate...

[PhoenixAsh]

This statement assumes that morality is determined by "what is subjectively classified and categorized as good and evil". I disagree both that morality depends on subjective classification (lots of people in the 19th century classifying slavery as morally good didn't make it morally good) or that morality needs to be conceptualized in terms of good and evil (rather than say, morally permissible and impermissible).


Sorry....I took very long to reply and overlooked the thread for a while.

Technically morality is a code of conduct of approved or disapproved sets of behaviour. These are usually classified as what is seen as good or bad (or some derivitate of these) based on the agreement of the culture. Morality is highly subjective and dependend on what the culture or group thinks should be approved, disapproved or...if you wish...permissable and impermissable.

I am not really up to speed about the philosophies regarding morality though....and I am aware that there are systems in which there is theorized about absolutes in morality.



No one I think is saying that killing is always wrong. I'm saying that recreational hunting is wrong. If something is about to kill another and killing it is the only way to prevent that from occurring, then thats not recreational killing thats self-defense or defense of a third party, which makes it a morally excusable act.

I am not saying I disagree. But the idea is that recreational hunting is wrong because of a set of morals/values about killing. These morals and values are not absolute...and they do not hinge on the act of killing but on the specific intent behind the act of killing.



No one is making that claim. Rather that humans have the ability to make choices is a rebuttal against against the naturalistic fallacy position that if humans kill in nature it must be good or acceptable or blameless.

Fair enough. I think we agree on this.

[Lord Testicles]

Really? I'm not sure that's true. Most adult humans know where they are at any given time. They can conceptualise their surroundings and understand them...


It depends on how deep an understanding you want. Sure, most people can conceptualise a basic understanding of their surroundings but I don't think most people (including myself) really understand their surroundings. I know I'm standing on the pavement but I don't know the atomic structure of that pavement, I don't understand the electro-magnetic forces that hold those atoms in place. I don't really understand why I can stand on the pavement but I would sink in the mud.


I'm not really sure how this information alters my view. A plant can "choose" a host plant in so much as its biologically designed to make automated responses to stimuli.

Well all you can safely say is that "A plant can "choose" a host plant based on responses to stimuli".

A statement which is true for most life. A human also makes choices based on responses to stimuli.

I don't know how you've come to the conclusion of automated response (what's to suggest it's automated?) and I have no idea what "biologically designed" means.


Self-awareness requires an ability to have knowledge and perception. An Orca doesn't have self-awareness either, by the way.

Do you believe that any animal other than humans are self-aware?


I can't see where it says any of that. But no I don't think it's a form of self-awareness, rudimentary or otherwise. To have even the most basic of self-awareness it would be require, as a bare minimum, knowledge of its existence.

It's on the next page. If you wanted to test if something like a sea rocket was aware of it's existence, how would you go about it? Serious question.


Well, I can safely say I am a devourer of the humble pea.

Nothing wrong with that.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life...