How Do Feel About Killing Animals

[RankStranger]

Shiva- if your only sticking point about killing animals involves the "thrill" of it... then I can't answer that. I don't get it any more than you do. My question still stands for other folks on this topic, though.

 

Yeah, I compared killing animals with murder- the two scenarios have plenty in common to make an analogy.

[Bongo]

Everyone I told the cat story to thinks I was a monster for trying to kill it. (So I stopped telling after 2 people). Well, i wasn't a monster, i was trying to do the right thing.

No, doing the right thing would have been to catch the cat and drop it off at an animal shelter. There, they could've taken care of it and made sure it got adopted out to a good home, or put it down humanely (ie: not leaving it to die a slow, painful death, half-crushed in a ditch or on the side of the road.)

 

There wasn't anything you could do for the chipmunk, and it's extremely doubtful that anyone else would have done anything more than euthanize it. But trying to run over a cat that could possibly have been helped and healed (if it was hopping around, then it obviously wasn't injured that badly, probably no worse than a couple of broken bones) was just fucking idiotic.

 

Hey goddammit, i was thinking of the cat. I admit rescuing it didn't occur to me, but I was actually thinking that putting it out of it's misery woudl be a good thing. I thought it was destined to crawl off and die slowly and painfully. This was on a highway. I only had a split second to make up my mind. There was no pleasure in my decision.

 

But thanks for calling me a fucking idiot. Makes me love you long time.

[RankStranger]

Shiva- something didn't set well with me about your last comment, so I looked back through the thread.

 

All of this prattle over instinct and emotion are beside the point, as far as I'm concerned. If we admit that we, as humans, operate on a level above that of instinct, as though that is something laudable, it seems to me difficult, from that position, to justify our instinctual desire to kill, even when unnecessary, like a cat with a mouse. If we are indeed better than our cats, because we can choose to behave contrary to our instincts, should we not choose to let life be where it doesn't seek to harm us in any way?

 

I'm sure I've completely misunderstood this post, too... just like every single post of yours has apparently been grossly misinterpreted by half the people on this topic, but humor me.

 

It's not NECCESARY to eat meat or to kill animals for it. It's merely convenient, tasty, and nutritious. Why do you choose not to let life be where it doesn't seek to harm you in any way? Taking pleasure in eating a dead animal who unneccesarily suffered and died... are you no better than your cat?

[NotBlinded]

As for China, what we consider normal they consider taboo and vice versa. Who's to say who's right?

The screaming and yelping dog.

 

I think anything that causes the animal suffering is disgusting. I have no problem with a quick and painless death, my only problem is with the suffering of the animal.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

Taking pleasure in eating a dead animal who unneccesarily suffered and died... are you no better than your cat?

 

Wow, you are one obtuse fellow. Eating is necessary. If I don't eat this I'm gonna eat that. I can't bring a steak back to life, and I wouldn't want to, but I also don't want to be the guy who kills the cow, because doing so would give me a pronounced ill feeling. *tap tap * IS THIS THING ON??!

 

The difference between my cat's behavior and my behavior is that I am not taking pleasure in the animal's displeasure. When I eat it, the animal feels no pain or fear, it's way past that. The desire to participate in that moment of pain and fear and ultimately death, and to ultimately be the cause of it is what is foreign to me.

 

If you honestly don't see a difference, I pity your limited capacity to think.

[white_raven23]

Okay....here we go.

 

Here is a hypothetical that might clear this up a little.

 

Let's say next week, the meat production industry is shut down. All the major industry slaughterhouses have shut down. Chicken and fish too (why some folks don't consider them "meat" I don't know).

 

This means NO MORE MEAT in grocery stores, or restaurants.

 

HOWEVER!!!!!

 

Meat is not illegal or anything, it just is not widely available to the public anymore. Which means it is perfectly legal for you to hunt, fish, raise your own chickens......what have you. Even some local shops (we have several in my state) will slice up your meat for you, make sausages, make jerky, make fish candy, what have you.....BUT......

 

When the animal comes into said shop, it must already be dead. That means you have to kill it.

 

Under such a circumstance, would you do the killing so you can eat meat? Or would you simply resort to being a vegetarian?

 

I think I'd become a much more competent fisher than I am now. Even going so far as to go ice fishing. But I'm not sure about killing a land animal (fish don't really scream or anything...so that does make it easier). Guess it would depend how loudly my stomach would call for it. Can't write that off as something I'd never do. So no, I myself would not consign myself to vegetarianism.

[NotBlinded]

I'd probably eat bugs...

[jjacksonRIAB]

I'd hunt.

 

Any argument a person could make to the effect of "there is not blood on my hands because I didn't do the killing" is a cop out -plain and simple. My demand for the meat created by purchasing it has, in effect, ordered the same killing, and in the mind of a hard core anti-omnivore -if animals equal humans- then is it worse to order a person to kill a human so that I may eat his flesh? It is not a logical position to take.

 

List of fallacies:

 

Appeal to emotion - obvious

Appeal to nature - Nature is the standard to strive for. We have no natural tools and we shouldn't use "unnatural" tools (Nature=Good, Unnature=Bad). Ambiguous definition of what "Nature" is.

Appeal to force - all hunters should be shot in the face

Appeal to an archetype - the creation of a statistically insignificant archetype, IE the hunter who gets a boner from killing

Guilt by association - associating all hunters with the archetype

Hasty generalization - hunters are Christians

One-sidedness - ignoring arguments, reiterating thesis to the point of irrelevancy

[RankStranger]

Jjackson- your first paragraph sums up my position nicely.

 

Taking pleasure in eating a dead animal who unneccesarily suffered and died... are you no better than your cat?

 

Wow, you are one obtuse fellow. Eating is necessary. If I don't eat this I'm gonna eat that. I can't bring a steak back to life, and I wouldn't want to, but I also don't want to be the guy who kills the cow, because doing so would give me a pronounced ill feeling. *tap tap * IS THIS THING ON??!

 

The difference between my cat's behavior and my behavior is that I am not taking pleasure in the animal's displeasure. When I eat it, the animal feels no pain or fear, it's way past that. The desire to participate in that moment of pain and fear and ultimately death, and to ultimately be the cause of it is what is foreign to me.

 

If you honestly don't see a difference, I pity your limited capacity to think.

 

Bear with my limited capacity to think, Shiva... I won't agrue the 'obtuse' label.

 

Eating is neccesary- eating meat is NOT neccesary. I think this has been established. When you eat meat, you are taking pleasure in the death of an animal- exactly like those small-penised hunters that you're so quick to judge. The ONLY difference is that you PAID some poor slob to do the dirty work so you could eat your steak and not FEEL bad about that critter dying. Your straw-man portrait of a hunter implied that WE neccesarily get a THRILL from killing an animal. Granted, it's a different pleasure at a different moment- but it results from the same act (death and suffering). My limited capacity to think allows me to see only a hair-splitting difference between YOUR pleasure in the death of an animal and Ted Nugent's "full spiritual erection" when he hunts. Maybe you don't feel as acute a responsibility since the deed has already been done (paid for by you), but by eating that steak, you are the CAUSE of that animal's suffering, and are taking pleasure in it.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

When you eat meat, you are taking pleasure in the death of an animal-

 

Give me a break. When you enjoy your freedom as an american are you taking pleasure in the death of american soldiers? When you enjoy the look of a diamond are you taking pleasure in the broken backs of poor diamond mine workers? When you feel the sunshine on your face are you taking pleasure in the violent chemical reactions that take place inside our sun?

 

My limited capacity to think allows me to see only a hair-splitting difference between YOUR pleasure in the death of an animal and Ted Nugent's "full spiritual erection" when he hunts.

 

Ypou might want to try to broaden that narrow capacity of yours. It makes you say things that don't make sense.

 

but by eating that steak, you are the CAUSE of that animal's suffering, and are taking pleasure in it.

 

Utter bullshit. You need to work on the idea of cause and effect.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

Any argument a person could make to the effect of "there is not blood on my hands because I didn't do the killing" is a cop out -plain and simple.

 

We're talking about the difference between a german citizen who profitted mildly and unknowingly from the holocaust and Joseph Mengele who delighted in the holocaust and actively sought it's prosecution. I know, I know, I hate nazi analogies, and I'm not comparing hunters to nazis. Like I have said many many times, to the perturbation of jj, it's not really about the animals to me, but the enjoyment of the act of killing. You heard me yet?

[AtheistMommy]

As for China, what we consider normal they consider taboo and vice versa. Who's to say who's right?

The screaming and yelping dog.

 

I think anything that causes the animal suffering is disgusting. I have no problem with a quick and painless death, my only problem is with the suffering of the animal.

 

Is there such a thing as a "quick and painless death?" Sounds a bit like an absolute.

[jjacksonRIAB]

Any argument a person could make to the effect of "there is not blood on my hands because I didn't do the killing" is a cop out -plain and simple.

 

We're talking about the difference between a german citizen who profitted mildly and unknowingly from the holocaust and Joseph Mengele who delighted in the holocaust and actively sought it's prosecution. I know, I know, I hate nazi analogies, and I'm not comparing hunters to nazis. Like I have said many many times, to the perturbation of jj, it's not really about the animals to me, but the enjoyment of the act of killing. You heard me yet?

 

Appeal to Archetype topped off with an appeal to Hitler.

 

You lose.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

As for China, what we consider normal they consider taboo and vice versa. Who's to say who's right?

The screaming and yelping dog.

 

I think anything that causes the animal suffering is disgusting. I have no problem with a quick and painless death, my only problem is with the suffering of the animal.

 

Is there such a thing as a "quick and painless death?" Sounds a bit like an absolute.

 

I'd say getting your head blown off is as quick and painless as it gets. Messy though. A pint of vodka and a handful of phenobarbital, while not quick by the standard of a headshot, seems quick enough and utterly painless. I imagine jumping from a very high building is as quick as 32 ft per second per second, and speaking from experience you don't really even feel a punch in the nose the instant it's delivered, so I'm pretty sure that this nearly instant death as pretty painless, though it probably looks like it hurts like the dickens. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

 

 

Any argument a person could make to the effect of "there is not blood on my hands because I didn't do the killing" is a cop out -plain and simple.

 

We're talking about the difference between a german citizen who profitted mildly and unknowingly from the holocaust and Joseph Mengele who delighted in the holocaust and actively sought it's prosecution. I know, I know, I hate nazi analogies, and I'm not comparing hunters to nazis. Like I have said many many times, to the perturbation of jj, it's not really about the animals to me, but the enjoyment of the act of killing. You heard me yet?

 

Appeal to Archetype topped off with an appeal to Hitler.

 

You lose.

 

If you hunt, I'm sorry, there's no way to get around it, you enjoy killing animals. You may say you like being in the woods with your buddies, but that can be accomplished without killing an animal. You say you like the thrill of the hunt, but that doesn't require you to kill anything, just stalk it. You say you like meat, meat can be had without you making a vacation out of it's death. If I'm appealing to an archetype, then it's one which is pretty well defined.

 

The Mengele (not Hitler) comparison was more of a comparison of degrees to illustrate a point. I don't think that hunters are like nazis, only that there participation in hunting is comparable to the question of degrees I illustrated with the holocaust comment.

 

Please remember I'm not trying to say that hunting is absolutely morally wrong, or that everyone who does it is doing something bad. Not at all. It's the enjoyment of the act of killing, or at least the absence of an internal mechanism that finds the act of killing for the sake of sport distasteful, that I find troubling.

[jjacksonRIAB]

Give me a break. When you enjoy your freedom as an american are you taking pleasure in the death of american soldiers?

 

Faulty analogy. Freedom is an abstract concept. Food is not.

 

When you enjoy the look of a diamond are you taking pleasure in the broken backs of poor diamond mine workers?

 

Appeal to emotion and a faulty analogy. The diamond in your analogy implies aesthetics. Food is a requirement for living and is by no means an exclusively aesthetic "value". Food has inherent value.

 

When you feel the sunshine on your face are you taking pleasure in the violent chemical reactions that take place inside our sun?

 

Faulty analogy:

 

1) You are a passive agent of the sun. It will provide light for now and a long time to come whether you create demand for it or not.

2) The sun isn't alive. Shooting the sun will do no damage to it.

3) Your argument is an exaggeration of scale

4) Your usage of "violence" is a low equivocal redefinition of terms. You have used the term "violence" (of a nuclear process) to broaden the more specific version of violence we were discussing.

 

Look up supply and demand. Your purchase of meat in part creates the demand for killing animals. It's a well-known law of Economics. People do not supply others for free. The butcher is a proxy agent, and when you choose to exchange money for meat you create added demand to produce more meat.

 

Ypou might want to try to broaden that narrow capacity of yours. It makes you say things that don't make sense.

 

That has been my feeling throughout our exchange.

 

Utter bullshit. You need to work on the idea of cause and effect.

 

I hope I have demonstrated sufficently what you need to work on.

 

And now I expect a reiteration from you about how I don't "get it" or how I'm an idiot. Repetition != refutation. Show some responsibility for your statements and back them up with something at least halfway logical.

[RankStranger]

When you eat meat, you are taking pleasure in the death of an animal-

 

Give me a break. When you enjoy your freedom as an american are you taking pleasure in the death of american soldiers? When you enjoy the look of a diamond are you taking pleasure in the broken backs of poor diamond mine workers? When you feel the sunshine on your face are you taking pleasure in the violent chemical reactions that take place inside our sun?

 

My limited capacity to think allows me to see only a hair-splitting difference between YOUR pleasure in the death of an animal and Ted Nugent's "full spiritual erection" when he hunts.

 

Ypou might want to try to broaden that narrow capacity of yours. It makes you say things that don't make sense.

 

but by eating that steak, you are the CAUSE of that animal's suffering, and are taking pleasure in it.

 

Utter bullshit. You need to work on the idea of cause and effect.

 

Those analogies simply don't make sense, but that's already been addressed. See my murder/hitman analogy... it fits much better.

 

You enjoy meat- which is the direct result of the act that you find so objectionable. The fact that you're too squeamish to kill the animal that you eat (short of dire circumstances) just shows that you're a puss- a dishonest one at that, considering that you're willing to pay somebody else to kill that critter for you. IMO, the main difference between our takes on this issue is something akin to honesty. The logical end of your squeamishness is that you should abstain from meat (at least vegetarians are consistent). It's downright hypocritical to eat a dead animal if you're not willing to kill it.

[pandora]

Apparently these people enjoy the kill:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060707/sc_...overtheinternet

 

I would be scared of these people in real life.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

The analogies I afforded you were not meant to be isomorphisms of hunting. They were meant to illustrate the immutable possibility that certain results, things, conditions can be enjoyed without an explicit enjoyment of theiur constituent parts. I have learned throughout the thread that this is difficult concept for you, so I will not chide your reluctance to grasp it.

 

I have offered a one to one analogy of hunting concerning humans and no one has yet commented on it. Does this indicate that those sentiments are philosophically troubling to the hunter's camp? I don't know, and at this point I couldn't care less.

 

I have made it abundantly obvious that my position doesnt immediately villify hunters. Accordingly, anyone who has been attentive to the thread would never claim that I would not kill an animal for food. I have stated that as plainly as I can. The majority of the pomp and presumption in this thread has come decidedly from the hunters and their stewards. I defy you to quote me in abject condemnation of hunting.

 

Anyone with the literacy to discern the truth will quickly see that my only objection is an emotional one, and I have made no effort to hide this fact. For the sake of the dilatory among you, I will once again reiterate my one and only point. Killing for sport is an unfamiliar passtime to me, one which every ounce of my being rebels against.

 

Label me and my statements as you like. I call em as I see em.

[Vigile]

Any argument a person could make to the effect of "there is not blood on my hands because I didn't do the killing" is a cop out -plain and simple.

 

I don't see Shiva making that argument. It's a straw man of what he is saying. He is telling you how he personally feels, not pointing fingers of accusation at those who do the killing for him. I seem him agreeing that there is a necessity in killing, he just doesn't want to do it himself.

 

It's like saying "I like to eat, but I refuse to cook." There is no judgment leveled at the cook in this statement.

 

 

As for China, what we consider normal they consider taboo and vice versa. Who's to say who's right?

The screaming and yelping dog.

 

I think anything that causes the animal suffering is disgusting. I have no problem with a quick and painless death, my only problem is with the suffering of the animal.

 

Is there such a thing as a "quick and painless death?" Sounds a bit like an absolute.

 

What are you talking about? If you can't see the difference between dying a quick death with a bullet to the head or being tortured to death, your logical framework needs a bit of rewiring.

 

And who gives a fuck what is considered norm by the Chinese culture, what about the dogs? Would it be equally ok with you if the chinese tortured and then ate their children?

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

Well, it's nice to know that I am considered above monster status by certain members of the Hoi Polloi, but even more than that, the comfort that reason and it's flicks at morality might be recognised and enjoyed by it's vocal and deluged constituents still decorates my leisure spaces. No one wants to admit that the acceptance of their position carries with it the responsibility of poverty and pain. God bless Hollywood.

[Vigile]

You lost me there man. Am I a member of the Hoi Polloi?

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

You lost me there man. Am I a member of the Hoi Polloi?

 

Who isn't? Myself included.

 

 

Dictionary.com...

 

Hoi Polloi..p-loi)

n.

 

The common people; the masses.

 

What else are we, vigile?

[Vigile]

You lost me there man. Am I a member of the Hoi Polloi?

 

Who isn't? Myself included.

 

 

Dictionary.com...

 

Hoi Polloi..p-loi)

n.

 

The common people; the masses.

 

What else are we, vigile?

 

I'm not common god dammit

 

Just kidding man.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

You lost me there man. Am I a member of the Hoi Polloi?

 

Who isn't? Myself included.

 

 

Dictionary.com...

 

Hoi Polloi..p-loi)

n.

 

The common people; the masses.

 

What else are we, vigile?

 

I'm not common god dammit

 

Just kidding man.

 

 

Well, there's a good chance that I'm not strictly common, either. But I'd rather identify with my people, any day, than with the priveleged maniquins who's opinions adorn the world's pain with a conspicuously gaudy effluvium that only seems to sicken the socially conscious.

[pandora]

Are you using some "change my sentence into pompous-sounding gobbledy-gook" tool online?