willland Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I'm tellin' you it's the media that is generating that kind of sentiment. The media sure, but if one has eyes, let them see. A moral decline is all around us. I sure don't need the media to point out the obvious to me. Bill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted July 30, 2015 Author Moderators Share Posted July 30, 2015 Well there is hunting domestically here in the US, none of the animals are endangered, all except varmints or pests are hunted for meat. It is taxed, they raise funds for conservation and lands. In Texas, most western states, Wyoming, Montana, the mid-west, Ohio, Michagan, and others like Wisconsin, a significant percentage of the population hunt. It has been passed down from generation to generation since before the founding. Then there is fishing is that different? I don't know. Then there is people who eat beef, chicken and/or pork. Is that different, maybe a little. Veal? Farm raised duck, goose, elk, venison? Leather shoes? I have boots made out of Ostrich, American Aligator, Elephant, Sting Ray, Ant Eater, etc.,etc. Ant eater became endangered way after I got my pair. Mink coat, fox stole, beaver, coyote hood ruff, baby seal. Should it depend on how beautiful the animal, how cut, how majestic? There is mointain lion hunting legal in many, many states. Texas and Nevada advertise for them, but the bast majority of the public do not know how they are hunted. It isn't a complex issue, it is more about when, where, and how you were raised. If you have a wolf or mountain lion eating your sheep, you are going to kill it. Who was the professional athelete who had to kill a lion with a spear at age 14 as part of his culture? I dont remember a huge outcry about that, maybe because that was more of a fair fight. In places where you really have to live off the land things are seen differently. It is a matter of degree, some see a huge difference between eating a veal shank and harvesting a deer. Others maybe not so much. No. If you kill to get excited like you scored a touchdown in a football game, it's bad... period. We are not taking up the debate between vegetarians and omnivores.What if you get the thrill from catching a fish, a Marlin, or a giant blue fin?Is there a difference between the thrill a kid gets when when he/she catches their first fish and the thrill they get when they shoot their first, dove, duck or deer? Do all hunters have a mental defect, or just ones who hunt for trophys and not the meat? I didn't see a good answer from Jeff on this one, but it's totally the point I was trying to make about my childhood bee smashing escapades. What's really the difference? Is it not the same drive of any adrenaline junky trying to find their true limits? Justifying the thrill with "eating meat" is just that - a justification. If you're really trying to feed yourself, then why not just go to the supermarket where it is far more convenient to satisfy the need to eat? That's because hunters enjoy hunting. Why not just embrace it for what it is? Saying it's ok to hunt when you're going to eat the meat is akin to saying you enjoy the color red because it tastes like the wind blowing through your toenails. There is a complete absence of logical connection with these statements. Either enjoying the sport of hunting is immoral or it isn't. Or that you like auto racing because of all the cool passing, or hockey because of the strategy, or women's beach volleyball at the Olympics because of the awesome teamwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I'm tellin' you it's the media that is generating that kind of sentiment. The media sure, but if one has eyes, let them see. A moral decline is all around us. I sure don't need the media to point out the obvious to me. Bill I have eyes, care about this country, and have debated these issues for decades. If there is a perception of moral decline, I stand by my observations that it's media driven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Does it matter to the cow if she is killed by a mountain lion, a mechanical killing device at the slaughter house, or the by the farmer who raised her who is going to save that one to feed his family with?it matters to the entire conscious universe that some people create suffering for fun. If killing lion for fun is perfectly ok, how about fighting pet dogs in rings for good laughs? remmeber the cretin named Michael Vick? let's all gather on main street with dogs, beat them half to death and starve them and set them onto each other for fun. What's the difference? their going to die anyway? what does it matter how they die, or why they die? fun is fun. mike vick should get a medal and put some dog heads on his walls, right?you keep asking, "whats the differnce?" is it possible you see no distinction in motivations? should we have all those legal defintiions like manslaughter and murder and premediation if motive makes no difference in life? should we have any respect for any animal life at all? I have to wonder. i didn't know so many people had no compassion for animals. im a little sick by the thought. I don't think it should be legal to bring in the hide or head of a lion into the USA There are a lot of people who disagee with me on that. So why was this such, big, big news. Hunting in the US is legal in EVERY state in the US. It is a major source of revenue in many states, directly and indirectly. It is government supported and subsidized. People are caught all the time in the US hunting illegally. There is zome news about that. I don't really see a difference between a pwrson who buys their beef at the supermarket and a guy who raises a cow on his land, lets her roam around and eat good grass, free of chemicals, and then one day his wife says "we are running low on hamburger" and he saunters out his back door with his favorite firearm, takes aim, forms the intent and with premediation, pulls the trigger and shoots it right between the eyes. Is the difference that some animals are farm raised and others are wild? If a duck is raised on a farm it is alright to kill and eat, but not a wild one? I dont think buying meat at the supermarket gets someone off the hook for being the reason an animal is killed. Every two breasts person buys means someone, somewhere has got to got out and intentionally kill a chicken. I don't think intent has anything to do with it. When a person eats meat they do it intentionally, and the result is it kills animals. I think the difference for a lot of people is whether it is a wild animal or not. In your farm example the intent was to make food. The dentist intent was to make fun. You still see no difference? I don't want killing for fun on my soul. Edited July 31, 2015 by jo56steph74 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willland Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I'm tellin' you it's the media that is generating that kind of sentiment. The media sure, but if one has eyes, let them see. A moral decline is all around us. I sure don't need the media to point out the obvious to me. Bill I have eyes, care about this country, and have debated these issues for decades. If there is a perception of moral decline, I stand by my observations that it's media driven. That implies that myself and others are not free thinkers. If YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are included in the media, then I have to agree totally. These are the places where the moral decline is most displayed. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted July 30, 2015 Author Moderators Share Posted July 30, 2015 Does it matter to the cow if she is killed by a mountain lion, a mechanical killing device at the slaughter house, or the by the farmer who raised her who is going to save that one to feed his family with?it matters to the entire conscious universe that some people create suffering for fun. If killing lion for fun is perfectly ok, how about fighting pet dogs in rings for good laughs? remmeber the cretin named Michael Vick? let's all gather on main street with dogs, beat them half to death and starve them and set them onto each other for fun. What's the difference? their going to die anyway? what does it matter how they die, or why they die? fun is fun. mike vick should get a medal and put some dog heads on his walls, right?you keep asking, "whats the differnce?" is it possible you see no distinction in motivations? should we have all those legal defintiions like manslaughter and murder and premediation if motive makes no difference in life? should we have any respect for any animal life at all? I have to wonder. i didn't know so many people had no compassion for animals. im a little sick by the thought. I don't think it should be legal to bring in the hide or head of a lion into the USA There are a lot of people who disagee with me on that. So why was this such, big, big news. Hunting in the US is legal in EVERY state in the US. It is a major source of revenue in many states, directly and indirectly. It is government supported and subsidized. People are caught all the time in the US hunting illegally. There is zome news about that. I don't really see a difference between a pwrson who buys their beef at the supermarket and a guy who raises a cow on his land, lets her roam around and eat good grass, free of chemicals, and then one day his wife says "we are running low on hamburger" and he saunters out his back door with his favorite firearm, takes aim, forms the intent and with premediation, pulls the trigger and shoots it right between the eyes. Is the difference that some animals are farm raised and others are wild? If a duck is raised on a farm it is alright to kill and eat, but not a wild one? I dont think buying meat at the supermarket gets someone off the hook for being the reason an animal is killed. Every two breasts person buys means someone, somewhere has got to got out and intentionally kill a chicken. I don't think intent has anything to do with it. When a person eats meat they do it intentionally, and the result is it kills animals. I think the difference for a lot of people is whether it is a wild animal or not. In your farm example the intent was to make food. The dentist Brent was to make fun. You still see no difference?I don't want killing for fun on my soul. I absolutely see your point. The dentist had now other purpose than to get lion other than for his self gratification. My question is, does the same apply to deer hunters in the US? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted July 31, 2015 Author Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2015 After reading some of this it makes me want to shot the freaking lion, again ! Max wins anyway with best pic. Now that is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted July 31, 2015 Author Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2015 Manute Bol killed a lion with a spear aftet it killed some of his cows. Unlike the dentist, that was perfectly alright in my opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted July 31, 2015 Author Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2015 In many parts of the country this is called a baby goat, in Texas it is called Cabrito. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 My question is, does the same apply to deer hunters in the US? Doesn't that depend on the individual hunter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Manute Bol killed a lion with a spear aftet it killed some of his cows. Unlike the dentist, that was perfectly alright in my opinion. Self defense, defense of other animals, food need... All seem legitimate morally. Death and suffering are present in the world for numerous reasons. It pains me to see it. This is why causing such suffering for trivial reasons, unnecessary reasons, is a sin. The whole idea behind moral codes is making each of these decisions as right or wrong. Some codes, like the ancient Hebrew had, thousands of rules. Also Muslims have a lot of rules. In the 17th century philosophers declared that animals had no feeling of any kind and could therefore be abused in any way that a man found useful. Descartes,I think. You could just run your ox to death any time. That idea persists to this day in some mind. Competing with that is the Buddhist and Hindi view that all sentient beings deserve respect (or even reverence)for their feeling and suffering. These are competing moral frames. Each side no doubt claims to be right. My dogs and I prefer the Buddhist view!!lol!!! It's not a one way street. Man can be so uplifted by animals!! Edited July 31, 2015 by jo56steph74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 My question is, does the same apply to deer hunters in the US? Doesn't that depend on the individual hunter? Besides, due to the lack of natural predators (because of hunting) it is now necessary to thin the deer population in many areas. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I don't know how you ram acceptance of homosexuality down the throats of Christians. They did it here in my neighboring state of Oregon. $135,000 fine for not baking the cake for a homosexual wedding. Now if that isn't ramming it down throats I don't know what is. Some background on this, if you get all of your news from the national news media, which may or may not have reported the details: That bakery had in the past knowingly baked cakes for homosexuals. There was no issue here. Where they invoked their freedom of religion is when a gay couple wanted a cake baked FOR A WEDDING. Well, apparently these Christians felt that they couldn't do that and still be in keeping with religious beliefs. So much for freedom of association or freedom of religion. The inmates are running the asylum and unless you agree with their version of 'tolerance' you are shit out of luck. And in this case, out of business, bankrupt and no home. Wow. Christians can't even agree with Christ regarding acceptance... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) I'm tellin' you it's the media that is generating that kind of sentiment. The media sure, but if one has eyes, let them see. A moral decline is all around us. I sure don't need the media to point out the obvious to me. Bill I have eyes, care about this country, and have debated these issues for decades. If there is a perception of moral decline, I stand by my observations that it's media driven. That implies that myself and others are not free thinkers. If YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are included in the media, then I have to agree totally. These are the places where the moral decline is most displayed. Bill I don't know if you are a "free thinker" or not and am just responding to what I've witnessed. Again, this is way OT for this thread but if you think those entities display the USA's moral decay you should have been here prior to that social media being invented--Fwiw, I was talking about the rise of niche mass media disguising itself as being a reputable news outlet--When others saw their success they started to cater to those who were outraged by it and now we have more pundits and less news. Edited July 31, 2015 by Zen Traveler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willland Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Wow. Christians can't even agree with Christ regarding acceptance... And that means? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts