"Killing is [morally] fine" Discuss

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Is Killing fine?

  • Yes

  • No

  • In self defence


Results are only viewable after voting.

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
I have also read that hundreds of thousands of animals are killed by the harvesting and processing of crops. I don't have any links handy, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was true.

The simple fact is that everything we do impacts other parts of nature. How many animals have been killed in mining coal for power, oil spills so he can drive, or materials to build the computer so he can post about coyotes rights? But somehow he thinks shooting a pest animal for killing chickens and a cat is a problem worth whining about?

When my g-pa cuts hay he usually gets a few fawns that sleep in the long grass that don't wake up in time.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
I'm not wrong, if the world stopped eating meat we would survive.
Yes...but not without killing.

Even if the whole world converted to vegetarianism, we'd still have to kill pests to protect our crops.

You acknowledge that it's OK to kill pests like mosquitoes, fleas, etc. You think a pest can't be soft and furry?

Even if there is a worldwide shift and everyone eats only plants:
When rabbits destroy your crops and threaten your ability to feed your family, you kill them. Otherwise, your crops will lead to overpopulation of rabbits to the point where you have no crops and rabbits are starving to death.

Admit when you are wrong and move on.
:hmm:
 
Last edited:

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
I have also read that hundreds of thousands of animals are killed by the harvesting and processing of crops. I don't have any links handy, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was true.

The simple fact is that everything we do impacts other parts of nature. How many animals have been killed in mining coal for power, oil spills so he can drive, or materials to build the computer so he can post about coyotes rights? But somehow he thinks shooting a pest animal for killing chickens and a cat is a problem worth whining about?

The mentality that it is ok to kill animals and shout about it is something worth talking about.

you're the one who got pissy about someone calling you British.

Eating meat is normal. If you chose not to eat meat, I don't give a shit.

I thought this thread was about killing? Or are you trying to derail your own thread since your argument has been proven invalid?

Becuase it's annoying there's no need for it, it's just general ignorance amongst americans.

Ok

It hasn't been proved invalid at all, the votes are pretty much tied at the mo.

Most pests aren't coyotes, coyotes are at the top of the pest totem pole. Rodents are nothing more than running, destructive food for other animals. Coyotes are not only problems in the country, they are problems in the city too. When I lived in Colorado, you could hear them yipping in the suburbs. Large pest populations and bountiful trash are the reasons. All these factors can lead to diseases, property destruction, pet loss, etc. And these pests will all end up getting killed, by disease, by a car, by another animal, by injury, etc. You can never protect the pests, even by letting them do what they want.

Fences help, but a fence doesn't stop 100 % of the animals 100% of the time. My mom's chickens only seem to die when they're locked up in the coop, some animals will figure out a way to food a fence be damned.

And lol to the guy that said coyote was alpha hunter. Ask a wolf or cougar if it thinks the coyote is an alpha hunter.

Cool. Interesting points, and if chicken coops fail all the time then maybe kill when they get too close would be a good way to go.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Even if the whole world was vegetarian, we'd still have to kill to protect our crops.

Seriously, you understand that we kill pests like mosquitoes, fleas, etc. You think a pest can't be soft and furry?

Even if there is a worldwide shift and everyone eats only plants:
When rabbits destroy your crops and threaten your ability to feed your family, you kill them. Otherwise, your crops will lead to overpopulation of rabbits to the point where you have no crops and rabbits are starving to death.

It's not about being soft an furry, it's about the level of intelligence of the animal, and whether or not we have the right to kill them.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
The mentality that it is ok to kill animals and shout about it is something worth talking about.



Becuase it's annoying there's no need for it, it's just general ignorance amongst americans.

Ok

It hasn't been proved invalid at all, the votes are pretty much tied at the mo.



Cool. Interesting points, and if chicken coops fail all the time then maybe kill when they get too close would be a good way to go.

I don't mean to imply they fail all the time, but they do fail. I think people have the right to protect their property, my family doesn't go out into the woods to shoot coyotes, but when coyotes breach the boundary of woods/our island of civilization, all bets are off. eventually animals learn whose territory is whose and their are less instances of contact.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Wait...

the votes are tied???

THREE people agree with you... 39 people currently agree that killing is morally fine...
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
I'm not wrong, if the world stopped eating meat we would survive.

Admit when you are wrong and move on.

sure we would survive but it wouldn't end what you are against (the killing).

we would have to devote more land to crops. doing that impacts had negitive effects on the wildlife. Even something as minor as outlawing hunting would have major negitive effects on the wildlife (look up waisting desise for deer).

even the act of plowing, harvest etc is not safe for animals.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Wait...

the votes are tied???

THREE people agree with you... 39 people currently agree that killing is morally fine...

Most people voted either No. Or that it was acceptable in self defence ;)

Only 21 people aree that it is morally fine, no caveats.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
I don't mean to imply they fail all the time, but they do fail. I think people have the right to protect their property, my family doesn't go out into the woods to shoot coyotes, but when coyotes breach the boundary of woods/our island of civilization, all bets are off. eventually animals learn whose territory is whose and their are less instances of contact.

That's understandable but there's a huge difference between going into the woods and searching out animals to kill and if an animal breaches your perimeter with the express intention of killing something on your property killing it.

sure we would survive but it wouldn't end what you are against (the killing).

we would have to devote more land to crops. doing that impacts had negitive effects on the wildlife. Even something as minor as outlawing hunting would have major negitive effects on the wildlife (look up waisting desise for deer).

even the act of plowing, harvest etc is not safe for animals.

It would be a good start. It would stop a lot of killing. I'm not saying lets do it, I'm just saying it would be a step in the right direction. I'm not arguing this is the perfect solution to all these problems.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Most people voted either No. Or that it was acceptable in self defence ;)

Only 21 people aree that it is morally fine, no caveats.

that's not your question though...

and p.s. self defense includes animals who encroach on your food, aka a coyote in the yard with animals around.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
It's not about being soft an furry, it's about the level of intelligence of the animal, and whether or not we have the right to kill them.

If they are intelligent enough to become a nuisance and defeat our protections, they become pests. They are intelligent enough to start avoiding us when we start shooting their siblings.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
It's not about being soft an furry, it's about the level of intelligence of the animal, and whether or not we have the right to kill them.

You have to approach animals on animal terms then. If an animal is threatening the livelihood of another, the problem will be resolved. One will either run away or risk being killed injured. There are a lot of examples of when killing animals goes too far, most of those perpetuated by hillbillies that are drunk. Most of these people could be prosecuted under appropriate laws, but enforcement is tough.

I think it's lame to brag about anything, killing animals is just as bad as bragging about any topic you feel makes you awesome, and it is lame and stupid to brag about something that may be illegal, as is the case for some stories I've heard of "pest control." I think it is morally wrong to seek out a "pest" species in a wild environment and exterminate it, but if that creature stumbles into our territory it is a whole new ball game.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
You have to approach animals on animal terms then. If an animal is threatening the livelihood of another, the problem will be resolved. One will either run away or risk being killed injured. There are a lot of examples of when killing animals goes too far, most of those perpetuated by hillbillies that are drunk. Most of these people could be prosecuted under appropriate laws, but enforcement is tough.

I think it's lame to brag about anything, killing animals is just as bad as bragging about any topic you feel makes you awesome, and it is lame and stupid to brag about something that may be illegal, as is the case for some stories I've heard of "pest control." I think it is morally wrong to seek out a "pest" species in a wild environment and exterminate it, but if that creature stumbles into our territory it is a whole new ball game.

I completely agree.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
That's understandable but there's a huge difference between going into the woods and searching out animals to kill and if an animal breaches your perimeter with the express intention of killing something on your property killing it.

Agree for pests, not for game hunting. If you have the appropriate license(usually released in numbers based on population data), bag it, tag it, and enjoy an organic, free range meal.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Agree for pests, not for game hunting. If you have the appropriate license(usually released in numbers based on population data), bag it, tag it, and enjoy an organic, free range meal.

That I disagree with. It shouldn't be done by people who are having fun.

My stuff is me. See how sweet my stuff is, see how sweet I am?

I disagree with this too.

If my house burns down with all my favourite stuff in it, I'm sad, not dead.
 

ro3ruaayw

Banned
Jan 16, 2011
9
0
0
Killing is only acceptable if it's for the greater good. For example, when someone killed the president, that is bad, but if someone killed Mussolini, it's not as bad.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
I disagree with this too.

If my house burns down with all my favourite stuff in it, I'm sad, not dead.

But if you saw someone encroaching on your house with a gas can and a lighter, i'm pretty sure you would attempt to stop him..
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Killing is only acceptable if it's for the greater good. For example, when someone killed the president, that is bad, but if someone killed Mussolini, it's not as bad.

Ahh interesting point, and I'd agree, but like you say "it's not as bad" you're right (IMO) it's still bad but it's not as bad. it's a necessary evil. It's never good to kill but sometimes it's better to kill that to let them live. Like killing Mussolini.