Bad Will Hunting!
Happy Halloween!
Ahhh, the day where begging is rewarded with candy. Perhaps the homeless of our country are ex-Trick or Treaters who just wanted to go pro? I don't know...
For the past few hundred million years, Earth has been inhabited by human beings. Unless you're a Creationist or Intelligent Design advocate (a.k.a. dellusional or anti-science), evolution is the theory that has been most probable thus far. During man's time he's hunted and eaten other animals, and in recent generations has created a sport just for hunting.
Has evolution become ethical justification for the murder of other species?
Let me reiterate that I'm focusing mainly upon the sport of hunting rather than hunting for food & survival. Hunting for survival coincides with the natural selection, survival and maintaining of species population. The sport of hunting usually involves stupid white guys going out to the woods with weapons and shooting animals to see how big of an animal they can kill.
How can hunting be considered a sport when the supposed opponent isn't even aware of the game going on?
For example:
Deer's Perspective: Thirsty....need water Hungry.....need food Noise.....is it danger? Nasty smell......Oh, it's just Bambi's ass; too many berries (proof that all animals are amused by flatulence!) Noise....... Pain in my side.......what's going on....I'm dying....uh.....oh.......urghhhhhhhhh
Hunter's Perspective: Wife.......need to shoot deer Job....need to shoot deer Kids....need to shoot deer Pabst Blue Ribbon.....need to shoot deer Deer....AIM & FIRE!
Our topic today:
Is the sport of hunting ethical?
And for The Moose; is hunting even a "sport"? ;o)
My opinion, since I rarely have one, is that I think there should be ethical standards set for the treatment of animals, not necessarily the ones PETA sets up, but at least the acknowledgement that other species have the right to life as well, and just because we are at the top of the evolutionary hierarchy so far, doesn't give us right to enslave and murder all other species below us.
Personally, I would like to promote that all sport hunters should unknowingly be exterminated on the street just for fun; afterall, it wouldn't be any different than what they believe is sport!
And in reference to whether or not hunting is a sport, I would argue that it is NOT A SPORT. I would contend that a sport involves a game with willing participants who abide by rules and play competitively. Clearly, the animal being hunted is not willing to play, doesn't know the rules, and above all, isn't even aware that a game is being played!
What do yall think?
Ahhh, the day where begging is rewarded with candy. Perhaps the homeless of our country are ex-Trick or Treaters who just wanted to go pro? I don't know...
For the past few hundred million years, Earth has been inhabited by human beings. Unless you're a Creationist or Intelligent Design advocate (a.k.a. dellusional or anti-science), evolution is the theory that has been most probable thus far. During man's time he's hunted and eaten other animals, and in recent generations has created a sport just for hunting.
Has evolution become ethical justification for the murder of other species?
Let me reiterate that I'm focusing mainly upon the sport of hunting rather than hunting for food & survival. Hunting for survival coincides with the natural selection, survival and maintaining of species population. The sport of hunting usually involves stupid white guys going out to the woods with weapons and shooting animals to see how big of an animal they can kill.
How can hunting be considered a sport when the supposed opponent isn't even aware of the game going on?
For example:
Deer's Perspective: Thirsty....need water Hungry.....need food Noise.....is it danger? Nasty smell......Oh, it's just Bambi's ass; too many berries (proof that all animals are amused by flatulence!) Noise....... Pain in my side.......what's going on....I'm dying....uh.....oh.......urghhhhhhhhh
Hunter's Perspective: Wife.......need to shoot deer Job....need to shoot deer Kids....need to shoot deer Pabst Blue Ribbon.....need to shoot deer Deer....AIM & FIRE!
Our topic today:
Is the sport of hunting ethical?
And for The Moose; is hunting even a "sport"? ;o)
My opinion, since I rarely have one, is that I think there should be ethical standards set for the treatment of animals, not necessarily the ones PETA sets up, but at least the acknowledgement that other species have the right to life as well, and just because we are at the top of the evolutionary hierarchy so far, doesn't give us right to enslave and murder all other species below us.
Personally, I would like to promote that all sport hunters should unknowingly be exterminated on the street just for fun; afterall, it wouldn't be any different than what they believe is sport!
And in reference to whether or not hunting is a sport, I would argue that it is NOT A SPORT. I would contend that a sport involves a game with willing participants who abide by rules and play competitively. Clearly, the animal being hunted is not willing to play, doesn't know the rules, and above all, isn't even aware that a game is being played!
What do yall think?
posted by Don the "Head Chimp" at
9:50 AM
20 Comments:
Well, here is the thing. All animals are in the game 24/7/365. At least here in Colorado where they can be picked off by a number of differnet preditors. There is much science behind the lack of hunting and the spread of disease (like Chronic Wasting Disease). Most states with large game (Michigan, Dakotas, Colorado) even hire sharp shooters to kill off hundreds of deer each year because we still haven't figured out the balance yet. We take more land but don't hunt enough or provide enough open space for the displaces animals to live. As a sport, I would agree with Don, and say not a sport. However it is an activity. Like hiking hunting can get you connected with nature. I think like the Indians (Native Americans) thought, and that there is a spiritual quest and by using all the parts of the animal you are preserving a balance. Granted they didn't exactly have argiculture or McDonalds.
As a new owner of many fire arms (my wifes father, like most christians, had many guns) I'm seriously considering it. I haven't figured out if there is cheating or not. There are blinds, sents, scopes, sprawl bullets, etc which could possibly give me such an advantage that I might as well not spend any time in the cold and just go to the butcher shop. I'm thinking that I might not enjoy the gun as much as I would the bow/spear/traps. However if you consider humans to be animals (if you have ever been to the cass coridor then you like me would consider humans to be animals or at least part) then like animals we should use our assets (intellegence?) to win the battle "I eat (deer) vs. you survive" with sents and scopes. Granted it isn't much of a battle because if I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn then I'm just going to go by the drive through at Sonic Burger. So I think next year I'm going to actually try it. I've never gone and if someone is going to get $400 a head of my tax dollars, I might as well pay an extra $125, do it myself and get some awesome chili, steaks, jerky, schizlic, stew, sausage............
By
Terry, at 10:37 AM
I am going to say no. Most hunters wouldn't know evolution if it bit them on the arse. Not to mention..they're hunting animals. Who don't have a weapon. Who don't know what's going on. Obviously, "hunters" are not fully evolved yet. (Yes, I hate them.)
People get all rankled when someone wears a fur coat. But, yet, hunting is "sooo much more acceptable." And, I concur that IT IS NOT A SPORT. It's some guy with a big gun (apparently making up for something...), who goes and shoots animals who don't have a chance. If you want to think you're manly, learn how to play football. Or better yet, hockey. (Kudos to Legace for his record!)
I propose the following:
Hunters need to be thrown willy-nilly into the woods (without their guns). Then, we give the people who hate them a shotgun to go looking for their prey.
By
les, at 10:49 AM
Well thats real smart, "I hate people who kill animals so lets kill them." What a Catholic mentality - I hate people you kill babies so lets kill them. Seriously ask any Catholic why abortion is wrong. They will say because killing is wrong. Then you can go two ways with that. You can either say why is killing wrong or why do most Christians agree with war/death penalty. I like the first question, the answer usually is because no one has the right to play god. Then I like to say "so you want to make it illegal taking away someone's free will and become quilty of the same sin you would have someone else condemend for.
I (we - this blog) have never gone hunting before so I don't think any of us can even make a statement that it is or isn't hard to track and actually hit an animal with a bullet. Granted if you just drive up to Traverse City you can probably get one with your car. Animals do have advantages, example: Humans are the only animals on the planet with such a limited hearing range 20Hz - 20KHz. Most animals can hear way above and/or below that. There is also the heighted smell and eyesight. I mean by the previous argument it isn't ok to hunt deer or elk but bears and Mountain lions are fair game?
By
Terry, at 11:07 AM
Deer Folks
Technically, if I were to walk up to a "Sport" hunter on the street and shoot him in the head, I would be essentially doing the same as he does to animals in the wild but being held for murder. This is because there are very restrictive laws protecting human lives and non-restrictive laws protecting animal lives; therefore, there must be an underlying value ascribed to the lives of different species.
This leads to 2 questions:
1. Is human life worth more than animal life? and then what is the criteria for a "valuable life?"
2. Is the murder acceptable if I eat the Sport Hunter's meat, wear his flesh, and make tools out of his bones after I shoot him on the street?
The question is complicated to answer because it taps into animal rights (all animals including human beings) as well as life and differential values we ascribe to life.
(originally I was going to post about animal rights and ethics, in multiple contexts such as animals being pets, entertainment, bred for slaughter, enslaved workers, experimental use, etc.
I decided to focus upon hunting because it was more manageable, but obviously it taps into the same underlying concepts of the differential value of life and ethics based on species.
By
Don the "Head Chimp", at 11:57 AM
There are a grip of laws protecting animals. The problem is that animals can't call 911 when their relitive has been poached. I will also answer the question: yes we are more important than animals. We are the top of the food chain, there is no denying that. Also canabalism isn't a naturally occuring event (yes is happens but mostly in the insect and reptile worlds). Actually it's pretty amazing, when I was young I had hamsters and when they had babies(gummy bears) they ate all but two because its environment was to small and the animal will kill most of it's young to preserve life for the greater good. This only happens in captivity and not in the wild.
All this discussion makes me want to hunt more. I mean humans have made serious mistakes hunting(Michigan and Colorado) Wolves, Bears, Big Cats, Wolverens, etc to the brink. Deers and Elk have very few natural preditors. They are over populated even the Colorado Wildlife Association has proposed we reintroduce all the animals above back into the wild or we extend hunting season and sell more permits. It's our job to make up for our mistakes and try and fix the natural balance (in everything including our V8's, hairspray, promoscuity, etc). Next we are going to be discussing that Don and I(at least, probably many more people discussing here), having a natural intellegence advantage (intellegence being judged by IQ only and yes I know that isn't the only factor to "success" but I'm starting it so I'm making the rules if you don't like it TS) should have to give money, ideas, thoughts, time, etc to the other 90% of the world. Fuck that! Dennis Leary said it best, we only want to save the cute animals. If a deer looked like a bateria culture no one would even give a damn.
By
Terry, at 12:33 PM
Just to recap(because the previous post sounds pretty arogant - and I don't mind my arogance) I threw out 3 arguments: 1. If we are better than animals we can w/o consequence do whatever we want because we are the top. 2. If we have screwed up the balance it's our responsibilty to hunt while rebuilding the preditor populace, therefor fixing the problem. 3. If the supperior people/species lose the right to "pick on" the lesser than there should be an Atlantis for the creame de la creame therefor seperating each biological/intelegence/race from each other. There was a guy who tried that once I can't remember his name but I hear he was the biggest a-hole in history.
By
Terry, at 12:54 PM
I have a couple of comments. I am always bothered when people complain about hunters, and then turn around buy their prepackaged ground beef at the grocery store. At least the hunter knows what is involved in getting their meat. If you’re going to complain about hunters, have the decency to become a vegetarian and complain about all meat eaters in general.
As far as animal rights, value of life is relative. Why are we just debating animal life? Aren’t plants alive also? Is it wrong to eat a salad? How about bacteria? Is it wrong of me to wipe out millions of living creatures every morning when I rinse my mouth with Listerine? If you are going to argue for the value of life, you have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere about what constitutes valuable life. One argument follows that the level of consciousness should determine value, therefore humans are the most valuable, other animals next, then plants, etc. But other arbitrary arguments can be made.
Value of life is a concept invented by humans, and is determined through personal beliefs which are ultimately relative. Essentially, whether life is valuable or not depends on whether we believe life is valuable, based on our personal and societal beliefs and experiences.
By
casey, at 1:21 PM
Forgive me, I am just an angry little girl. Been that way for some time, I'm afraid.
My point in the post above was:
Hunting, (to me), isn't right. I was being ficitious in the earlier post. I am not suggesting that humans be picked off one by one; I am simply saying the fear should be instilled in them.
And, you know animals feel fear -- you can see that if you happen upon a deer as you are driving at night.
I am not a Catholic. I don't associate myself with any particular religion.
The criteria for "valuable life" is different no matter where you look. Is it someone who contributes to society? Is it someone who stays out of the way while decisions are being made? It depends on where you live in the world.
Yes, we were lucky to be born at the top of the food chain. But several hunters hunt simply for sport -- to display their prize on top of the mantle. I know many of these people. Have been on hunting (they were sold to me as "camping")trips with these people. The only thing I learned? Don't shoot 'em in the ass-region because that will spoil the meat. And, venison is disgusting.
My Godfather is a bow and arrow hunter. I have never approved of this; but that is his choice. I just do not agree with it. I do not have the power, or the soul-lessness to take a human life.
But, where is the line drawn? Where is the line drawn between needing to hunt and wanting to hunt? And what about fishing? Is that the same thing? Why is fishing more acceptable than hunting?
Even though we are "superior" to other animals; I have always held animals in higher esteem than most humans.
One other argument I have against hunting is: extinction. Several animals have become extinct, or are heading there.
Again, I don't want anyone to die. Again, I still hate what they do. Which is why I am choosing not to do it.
And, I would never go to an abortion clinic to hurt the workers. Hunting v. Abortion Clinics. Two very different sides of the political spectrum.
But nobody answered my question...
Why is it more socially acceptable to hunt than it is to sport fur? Seems very similar to me.
Now, Boys. My ideas are jumbled, due to the ADD. Also, as a woman (or maybe just as me), I tend to become intolerable and slightly emotional once a month. Where the IQ goes, the top percent can make the laws. Fine with me. Be seeing you in the office, Gentlemen. ;o)
I'll bring my Ritalin.
By
les, at 1:43 PM
Happy Halloween, Don.
By
Spanktravision, at 2:33 PM
I don't think we are talking about hunting whales to extiction for profit or hunting Cougars because they are killing ranchers profits. We are talking about legally getting a license, shooting a deer(or something), quatering it, skinning it, stuffing the head, and eating the meat. I agree about the hunting to extinction, that is just being irresponsible. There is a delicate balance in nature but we are part of that balance which by definition as hunter gatherer's gives us the right if not the responsibility to hunt as well as raise vegitable/animals for food. I have no problem with fur, expecially when it is partly covering a naked female. Grrrrrrr.
I've come to the conclusion that I am going to try hunting if I don't like it, I won't do it again. I've also decided that there is no difference between bow hunting and rifle hunting. Both are tools that fire metal objects at a high velocity. Being human means having muted senses but a greater capacity for reason, experiment, and history. Therefor I will use every advantage I can get, scope, urine, in-heat, gun powder, and ultimatly my George Foreman Lean, Mean, fat-reducing, grilling machine.
By
Terry, at 3:05 PM
Oh and I find no difference between he Abortion argument and hunting. Killing is involved, the killing of (what needs to be decided as) a lesser-than life form.
By
Terry, at 3:11 PM
Less-Lie in the lives we take
As I stated earlier, hunting for strictly pleasure is what I'm targeting as unethical.
However, the worst of the worst are the poachers who kill only for financial profit (i.e. elephants for ivory in their tusks, turtles for their shells, fox and other assorted furry creatures only for their hides & furs, etc.)
Poachers should be punished and consumers need to be educated that they are re-inforcing this unethical behavior when they purchase poached fur or fine aesthetics.
By
Don the "Head Chimp", at 3:13 PM
Terry, yes, but we must consider why something is killed as well.
By
Don the "Head Chimp", at 3:14 PM
Why must we consider the why? The why is pretty self explanitory. I can't support a child, I don't want to support a child, I want to find out if I could surive with out Kroger, I want to eat deer meat, I like the way the head looks on my wall (a lovely room of death :). The question that needs to be answered is should we.
By
Terry, at 3:37 PM
I think the answer to whether we "should" or not may be found in "why" we are murdering. (i.e. food, ego, challenge, profit, self-defense, lack of foresight, rage, etc.)
The ethics of life is definitely broader than the scope of hunting for sport.
Why do people hunt for sport? ego, challenge, displacement of aggression, etc.
Now, based upon those reasons why we may decide to answer the question of "should we hunt for sport"....
Abortion, hunting for survival, "murder", etc. are other contexts in which life is taken, and it would serve us better to pose that two-part question of "Why" and "Should" for each of them individually.
But for the sake of overloading and trying to process everything on the same plain with an over-arching answer, perhaps we "shouldn't" go there...at least on this post
By
Don the "Head Chimp", at 4:28 PM
A bunch of random comments....
Terry said: "I'm thinking that I might not enjoy the gun as much as I would the bow/spear/traps."
I would pay serious money to see Terry killing a deer with a spear! Well, not just Terry, any of you guys... its just a funny image to me. I don't know why. Are there people out there who still go spear hunting? Who am I kidding, of course there are.
Don said: "However, the worst of the worst are the poachers who kill only for financial profit (i.e. elephants for ivory in their tusks, turtles for their shells, fox and other assorted furry creatures only for their hides & furs, etc.)"
Aside from the fact that poaching is illegal, why is it less ethical to hunt for profit than to hunt for fun?
Don asked: "Is human life worth more than animal life?"
Of course. I believe that if most people were in a burning building and could either save their dog or a child who they don't know, they would save the child. Should animals have rights? Sure, but I don't see any strong arguments to support the claim that they should have rights equal to humans.
By
D a n i e l, at 8:48 PM
Terry: You amuse me. How is that Foreman grill anyway?
Don: Very well-put. I simply cannot organize my thoughts -- and when I do, I usually come out sounding like an arse.
I guess you cannot put a price on life...whether animal, human, or vegetable.
How about if we substituted paint balls for bullets in the argument involving hunters in the woods? Again, who doesn't like paintball? And, it would give the forest a nice, "festive" look. Provided you use more than the yellow ones.
By
les, at 1:22 AM
Terry Spears
Yea, I'm with Dan, I've got $100 that says Terry can't spear a deer!
Oh, and just to prevent any loop holes, the deer must be alive, un-drugged, and in good physical condition (no bullet holes) prior to nature boy Terry jumping out of the bush in his hide-skin knickers and Spear of Death.
To address Dan's comments, perhaps it was bad phrasing on my part in the difference between "fun" and "profit" in regards to ethics. You can have fun hunting for sport, survival, or for profit; the point I was trying to make is that poachers are scum who have more respect for money than life.
In regards to value difference between other species and our own (since we all are animals...), I would agree with you that I value human life over other species.
The more intriguing question is:Why?
Perhaps there is something gained when you share experiences, language, and have self-consciousness with your own species. For example, I'm pretty sure if a dog had to choose whether to run into a burning building to save his/her puppies or some random human child, the dog would choose the puppies.
I think we only value human life more than other species because of the shared experience and similarity. Theoretically, if we could communicate with animals I believe this gap in differential life value would close, perhaps not completely, I bet it would get smaller. Thus, this may imply that it may not be other species' lives that we undervalue, but whether or not we can relate to them through experience and language.
Think of whether you would save a stranger from that building or your own sister, obviously the similar genetics isn't driving you to save your sister.
Just as a note, I am focusing mainly on the justification and ethics of taking other species' life; basically the why and should we, while I feel the establishment of a hierarchy of differential value is biased by the reasons I mentioned earlier of shared experience, language, and similarity and identification within species.
By
Don the "Head Chimp", at 8:14 AM
Leslie, the Foreman Grill is doing just fine, I grilled some chicken on it just the other day. There was no fat slipping down the slope, but there was plenty of BBQ sauce (Jack Daniels BTW).
Well the friggen deer license is 125, so you goof balls are going to have to come up with at least that (exspecially because I have never actually successfully hunted anything except mice, and DCON really does most of the work).
I don't think a dog would try to save anyone but their owner, puppies would probably need some Jack Daniels in the burning building. - I'm going straight to hell for that one.
I would save my own sister before I saved a stranger - actually can you be more specific to which sister. There is no way I could carry Lisa out.
I think there is a difference between poaching and hunting because poachers hunt a specific species to the point of extinction (generally) which is very stupid.
Oh and my nickers(we call them gaiters now) are neoprene thank you very much.
By
Terry, at 10:39 AM
I think that mammals value their own species because that's the species they get it on with.
By
Doesn't Matter, at 1:35 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home