Being assertive when new co-worker says "All hunters are murderers"

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mattpegher
Well Vic your only following nature, the vast majority of a preditors prey are the young or injured. Some might see that as cruel but nature makes no such arbitrary judgements.

Exactly my point! This is nature. Humans would not be intelligent if we were herbivores and our only prey was grass.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mattpegher
What most vocal vegitarians or vocal beleivers in any morality issue fail to realize is that life is not so simple. The only way to not contribute to the death of another living thing is not to be born. Every aspect of life requires the death of other species. Ignoring the microscopic. Even having a place to live, cloths on our backs and minimal tools for life require the distruction of some nature enviroment including the death of both plant and animal life, although we are barely aware of it. Much of that is plant life, non-vertibrate or small animal. Millions of animals are killed each year in the harvesting of crops. Millions more on our roads and highways. So to say that a vegitarian does not contribute to the death toll is blindly self-rightous.

As for the Omnivorous human species, technology will some day be able to full replace animal products with synthetics but that day is not here. Current studies still show growth and developement deficits in children who are deprived of animal products.

As for hunting, the ability of some to eat meat without the stomach to kill it themselves is a weakness, both moral and constitutive. While in med school, we were required to disect human cadavers and many of the class were ill prepaired to not the similarity of human muscle tissue to the flank steak they were used to eating. Needless to say many avoided roast beef for some time.

The current population of deer in the US is 50 times that of 100 years ago. This not only leads to disease in the population but danger to humans in the form of collisions with deer and the explosive rise in lyme disease. Our role in wild life management requires that we control the population and unless the veggies want to run arround gluing condoms on buck penises, I suggest they stay out of the hunting discussion.

Excellent post :thumbsup:


Think of Vic at the Bodies exhibit in Seattle looking at cross-sections of a human thigh and yelling "hambone! hambone!" while my GF embarassingly tries to shut me while laughing at the same time. 😀
Or a few months ago, my boss took me and some co-workers out to nice dinner at a fancy restaurant. One of my co-workers eats meat but is squeamish about it (says she doesn't like to be reminded that it was once a living animal). So I ordered the lamb chops rare, saying that I felt like "eating something that had died young." :evil:

This reminds me of college... The cafeteria made absolutely terrible food. We had steak one night, and it was ridiculously underdone. We're all just poking at it, thinking we'll probably get botulism if we eat it, but at least it's fun to play with. My country friend picks his up in both hands and wrings it like a dishtowel, sends blood pouring out of it. His girlfriend was with us, real squeamish type, starts vomiting right there.

Good times.

Back on topic: vegetarians are fine. Militant vegetarians are awful. Vegans are the worst. And have you noticed how every vegan has at least 3 pairs of leather Birkenstocks?

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: torpid


Leopard seals.

That likes saying that after a bed breaks from you jumping on it, you break beds for fun.
You jump on the bed, fall on the bed, bounce around on the bed for fun. But sometimes you accidentally break the bed.
I highly doubt there is any intent to kill on the leopard seals part. Just an intent to play, not realizing that their toy is a living feeling creature. And then when they break it, and it dies, they find something else to play with.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: torpid


Leopard seals.

That likes saying that after a bed breaks from you jumping on it, you break beds for fun.
You jump on the bed, fall on the bed, bounce around on the bed for fun. But sometimes you accidentally break the bed.
I highly doubt there is any intent to kill on the leopard seals part. Just an intent to play, not realizing that their toy is a living feeling creature. And then when they break it, and it dies, they find something else to play with.

They thrash it around and rip it completely to shreds, blood and guts everywhere. It's no accident.

 

[sdifox]

But hunting is murder... you are shooting something to kill it, it is premeditated. What is the issue?

PS, I am on a strictly meat diet, just in case you think I am PETA.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: sdifox
But hunting is murder... you are shooting something to kill it, it is premeditated. What is the issue?

PS, I am on a strictly meat diet, just in case you think I am PETA.

It's not human. Murder is only the act of killing humans.

 

[mattpegher]

Example of percieved cruelty of animals with their prey abound, including many examples of play behavior and other killing without appearent gain. As far as we know, humans are the only species that actually questions it's own actions and the consequences there of. Fortunately some of us can look beyond the imediate and postulate the butterfly effect.

 

[mattpegher]

To debate the complete definition of murder is useless. Even when it is a human the definition can be blurred. If I kill premeditated a specific individual, it is considered murder. If I go into a bank with the intent to rob but use a gun and I end up shooting someone even though that was not my intension is it still murder. If I get drunk and "loose my ability to reason" and kill someone driving home, is it murder or is it manslaughter. If I join the army and go to Iraq and enter a suspected terrorist compound and shoot the first guy I see with a gun is it murder, do i have to wait for him to shoot at me. If I intensionally drive on a road and hit a deer is it murder. If I pay someone to kill a cow so I can eat it am I an accomplice to murder. If my immune system kills a virus that may or may not have harmed me is it murder.

Evil is a relative term, created by man to describe actions that he finds detrimental to his survival or happiness. Yes Virginia you can be just a little bit pregnant.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: JEDI
My first thought was:
WTF r u talking about? How stupid and ignorant are you?

But that satement wasnt assertive. it was aggressive.

My next thought was changing the conversation or just walking away.
But that's passive to me wanting to express my opinion that he's wrong.

So what's the assertive thing to say?

Say "better a quick death by rifle than a slow agonizing one by starving to death because you keep eating all their food you sick sick hypocritical man"!!!

 

[playstation3]

"whats up, killer?"

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: mattpegher
To debate the complete definition of murder is useless.

The definition is not all that mutable. What is debated is whether a particular act fits the definition or not. Killing animals never fits the definition of murder. Killing people sometimes does, sometimes not. If the definition were mutable then we would never be able to have a viable justice system because courts could just decide that murder doesn't mean what it did the last time they had a case where one dude killed another.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: sdifox
But hunting is murder... you are shooting something to kill it, it is premeditated. What is the issue?

PS, I am on a strictly meat diet, just in case you think I am PETA.

It's not human. Murder is only the act of killing humans.

I see, it's the choice of word that is the problem. What would be the appropriate word? Maybe Killer?

 

[ch33zw1z]

My comeback: "more for me"

 

[txrandom]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: txrandom
The Ring-Necked Pheasant would be extinct in America if it weren't for hunters. ~ 60-70% of the males are killed each year. If males weren't kept in check, the females would starve to death in the winter.

Would you rather the species just die out in America?

Are they native to America? Is this where the first Ring-Necked Pheasants were found?

Nope, does that mean we should let them die out then? How is that any worse?

 

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: mattpegher
To debate the complete definition of murder is useless.

The definition is not all that mutable. What is debated is whether a particular act fits the definition or not. Killing animals never fits the definition of murder. Killing people sometimes does, sometimes not. If the definition were mutable then we would never be able to have a viable justice system because courts could just decide that murder doesn't mean what it did the last time they had a case where one dude killed another.

Ah, but our justice system does not use absolutes or definitions to determine whether an act is murder. They have these definition somewhat worked out but the charges are determined by the prosecuters office then modified to what they think a jury will find. The jury gets instructions which are supposed to guide them in order to determine if the criteria are met for the charges levied.

My statement is that the ethics of killing another living thing are subjectively determined by the circumstances or justifications and an arbitrary classification of the level of complexity and or intelligence of the being.

Definitions of such things assume no mitigating circumstances, and are never complete enough to be absolute. But to follow your thoughts, i agree man created a word for a deed which we defined as killing with premeditation another human being and by our own definition killing an animal whether it be for food/clothing or just for pleasure will never fit that definition. It is only in question when a human has been killed.

I personally like the commercial of the monk who sneezes into an antibiotic kleenix killing all the microbes in his sputum, and feels quilty. It reminds us that the morality of killing is based on necessity.

Bugs on our windshield - hardly avoidable in modern world
Plants to eat, lawn to cut, trees for lumber - very difficult to avoid
Animals killed for food - currently still necessary to the species as a whole- may change in future
Humans - in defense of self or others when not avoidable
ah but canabalism was quite accepted and questionably justified in certain societies in the past

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Excelsior

No, some do it for fun.

Example?

I've seen programs about dolphins and orangutans, where they showed them killing other animals for the fun of it. It served no real purpose.

Unlike lower forms of animals that follow predictable patterns and only spend the energy for the bare essentials, higher forms of animals tend to be willing to spend energy on things which give them enjoyment, yet serve no real purpose.

I think there's always going to be an underlying instinctual desire driving the curiosity and things that you enjoy. Even with humans, there's a desire to fight or compete. Look at sports, for example, they often simulate battle. People like watching that stuff, and young boys often like to wrestle and play fight. Animals play fight, too.

 

[flashbacck]

Originally posted by: Platypus


Better yet, don't waste your time.

QFT. Why do you feel the need to correct him? You've got better things to do!

but, if you do want to egg him on, just wear one of those "For Every Animal You Don't Eat, I'll Eat 3" t-shirts.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Excelsior

No, some do it for fun.

Example?

I've seen programs about dolphins and orangutans, where they showed them killing other animals for the fun of it. It served no real purpose.

Unlike lower forms of animals that follow predictable patterns and only spend the energy for the bare essentials, higher forms of animals tend to be willing to spend energy on things which give them enjoyment, yet serve no real purpose.

That reminds me of the monkeys typing shakespeare experiment, where they sat monkeys in front of a typewriter and found that the monkeys preferred the look or feel of hitting certain keys more than others and thus were likely to never make shakespeare because after 20 minutes they had just typed almost nothing but the letter G (something like that).

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Excelsior

No, some do it for fun.

Example?

I've seen programs about dolphins and orangutans, where they showed them killing other animals for the fun of it. It served no real purpose.

Unlike lower forms of animals that follow predictable patterns and only spend the energy for the bare essentials, higher forms of animals tend to be willing to spend energy on things which give them enjoyment, yet serve no real purpose.

That reminds me of the monkeys typing shakespeare experiment, where they sat monkeys in front of a typewriter and found that the monkeys preferred the look or feel of hitting certain keys more than others and thus were likely to never make shakespeare because after 20 minutes they had just typed almost nothing but the letter G (something like that).

lol

Monkeys really do have a mind of their own. It's funny watching them do things, because they're so human like. Not everything they do makes logical sense, they do things for enjoyment.

This one smokes

 

[Bryophyte]

Originally posted by: txrandom

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: txrandom
The Ring-Necked Pheasant would be extinct in America if it weren't for hunters. ~ 60-70% of the males are killed each year. If males weren't kept in check, the females would starve to death in the winter.

Would you rather the species just die out in America?

Are they native to America? Is this where the first Ring-Necked Pheasants were found?

Nope, does that mean we should let them die out then? How is that any worse?

If they were brought here by humans from another continent, then we absolutely should let them die out. They don't belong here.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Bryophyte

Originally posted by: txrandom

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: txrandom
The Ring-Necked Pheasant would be extinct in America if it weren't for hunters. ~ 60-70% of the males are killed each year. If males weren't kept in check, the females would starve to death in the winter.

Would you rather the species just die out in America?

Are they native to America? Is this where the first Ring-Necked Pheasants were found?

Nope, does that mean we should let them die out then? How is that any worse?

If they were brought here by humans from another continent, then we absolutely should let them die out. They don't belong here.

Cats are one example of this. Should they die out? They aren't native AND they kill off the native animals when their irresponsible owners let them roam at night.

 

[adairusmc]

I hunt some animals that I do not eat, to do my part to keep the population in check. So far I have killed 7 cougar in the past 5 years, and have not eaten one ounce of the meat. Makes for great wallpaper when the hide gets back from the taxidermist. I also regularly hunt coyotes, but I dont keep the hides or anything, I just take the ears in for the bounty.

I could kill 100 of them without tags and I would probably get a letter of appreciation from Fish and Game. Those damn things are everywhere here, and it is all because the banned hunting them with dogs years ago. The worst part is that they are not afraid of people any longer.

 

[Bryophyte]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
If they were brought here by humans from another continent, then we absolutely should let them die out. They don't belong here.

Cats are one example of this. Should they die out? They aren't native AND they kill off the native animals when their irresponsible owners let them roam at night.

If they are feral (not pets), then yes. This is one of the main reasons the Humane Society spays/neuters strays before allowing them to be adopted. It is also the reason so many are euthanized each year. We cannot allow them to breed indiscriminately and decimate native wildlife.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Bryophyte

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
If they were brought here by humans from another continent, then we absolutely should let them die out. They don't belong here.

Cats are one example of this. Should they die out? They aren't native AND they kill off the native animals when their irresponsible owners let them roam at night.

If they are feral (not pets), then yes. This is one of the main reasons the Humane Society spays/neuters strays before allowing them to be adopted. It is also the reason so many are euthanized each year. We cannot allow them to breed indiscriminately and decimate native wildlife.

:thumbsup:

 

[3NF]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mattpegher
Well Vic your only following nature, the vast majority of a preditors prey are the young or injured. Some might see that as cruel but nature makes no such arbitrary judgements.

Exactly my point! This is nature. Humans would not be intelligent if we were herbivores and our only prey was grass.

Humans are intelligent because we were genetically designed as such, along with the purpose to eat meat, veggies, etc. It's just as possible to genetically engineer us to eat grass, and still be intelligent, but there is no pleasure in that for us.