[Closed] dig out the pitchforks.....

Read some of the comments on the support Facebook page there. I do love a fair and balanced argument, especially from the guy who posted "I hope someone murders your kids"....... Classy

I'm pretty sure everyone has an opinion, but it's not like she was hunting illegally as an ivory poacher. Unless she has walked into someone's garden and shot their dog, I'm finding it hard to see what there is to get so upset about. If there wasn't a market for what she's doing, then surely it wouldn't be happening.

Just seems to be another excuse for keyboard warriors to have a bloody good moan about when last week they probably wouldn't have cared.... . Oh look, there's a bandwagon, everyone on!

I've been complaining about hunting for pleasure for decades!

Molgrips, I was not referring to arable farmland. Which is often a chemical fed monoculture but pasture. Without a managed grazing regime by different types of livestock habitats for loads of invertebrates birds reptiles and small mammals would be lost to succession. Yes this would lead to new habitats for other species some would win others would be wiped out. Farming methods have a great impact on conservation and have often been dictated by the CAP which has a lot to answer for. Recent changes however in the CAP have encouraged farmers to preserve habitats by changing the way subsidies are paid. The point I was making is if we stopped farming, hunting, fishing then what do you think would happen to our countryside? Who is going to pay for its management/preservation? Who is going to provide a rural economy?

I'm finding it hard to see what there is to get so upset about.

If there wasn't a market for what she's doing, then surely it wouldn't be happening

Just seems to be another excuse for keyboard warriors to have a bloody good moan about when last week they probably wouldn't have cared.... . Oh look, there's a bandwagon, everyone on

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2010/aug/21/michael-holden-all-ears

This struck such a chord with me that I cut it out and kept it. Seems appropriate now.

The point I was making is if we stopped farming, hunting, fishing then what do you think would happen to our countryside?

It'd turn into a vast empty wilderness. Which would be bloody fantastic.

Well we could get rid of gates stopping us on descents, but we would be buggered for a pint or something to eat in a country pub because they would have closed because all the country folk would have moved away. Every area in the countryside is managed by man to some extent the health of our habitats is dependant on it.

We do need agriculture of course. But we need it for food, not for nature's sake. Nature would rather we **** off back to Africa I'm sure.

Have a read of Nature's Keepers; The new science of nature management, by Stephen Buudiansky. You might enjoy it.

Ob bollocks they are a stupid troll wanting a response and i just bit ....no one is this stupid are they

Charming, when people disagree with you at work, do you just shout "TROLL" the flounce off to the toilet crying?

I don't buy the 'hypocrisy' argument - the logical extension of which being that one is unable to condemn, say, the trade in powdered rhino horn simply because you had a chicken sandwich for lunch. 😕

Yes, the farming industry inflicts [i]far[/i] more cruelty than a bunch of over-wedged sports-hunters could ever manage (which is why it is beholden upon consumers to exercise choice as regards livestock welfare). And for sure, the actual "reasons" don't make any difference to the animal involved - & we can argue the philosophical toss about whether my enjoyment of roast lamb is equivalent to shooting a bull elephant (+ mandatory gloating photo)... although, IMO, the simple fact of actually consuming the thing (i.e. utility) [i]is[/i] different. I enjoy roast lamb, and I accept what is involved in getting it to my plate - [i]so that I can eat it[/i]. Because, whatever the vegetarian possibilities, we are by ancestry an omnivorous animal & many of us still behave as such.

Furthermore, the meat I eat comes from animals that are unlikely to go extinct anytime soon*. The equivalence made between elephants and pheasants is simply bizarre. Whatever the merits of controlled hunting of (localised) healthy populations, the general picture for African/Asiatic big cats, elephants etc [i]at a species level[/i] is grim indeed. And last time I checked, that wasn't true of pigs, cattle, sheep, chickens... or pheasants. Trophy hunters ain't interested in bagging the commonplace - and even when, say, lions are bred for the purpose of canned hunting, it's still the perceived rarity/exotic nature of the experience that draws the paying shooters - i.e. it goes [i]waaay[/i] beyond simply utility. It's nonsense to suggest that meat-eaters have no right to find such activity objectionable.

(*there is a related issue here, as per ninfan's post, about the global sustainability of meat-consumption... but that's another thread.)

This is contradicted

the logical extension of which being that one is unable to condemn, say, the trade in powdered rhino horn simply because you had a chicken sandwich for lunch

Yes, the farming industry inflicts far more cruelty than a bunch of over-wedged sports-hunters could ever manage

I do not buy the so called purpose/utility argument. You say this:

(i.e. utility)

You and the other farming apologists are just making up moral justification for your own preferences.

Because their is ample cheap accessible nutrition (in the west), then eating meat is facilitating the death of animals for your own pleasure. It is morally, exactly, equivalent to killing an animal just for pleasure the pleasure of bragging rights.

And for sure, the actual "reasons" don't make any difference to the animal involved

No, but it makes a difference to us.

A few hundred years ago, it was entirely normal and popular to watch bear baiting or dogfighting. Now these things are frowned upon, and illegal. This is progress, and I hope that one day we'll have eradicated the desire to kill for fun completely. For the sake of our development as the human race.

molgrips,

eradicated the desire to kill for fun

I can't really argue with that thm. I wish I could face vegetarianism.

However - we may have a place in killing certain species due to having previously eradicated apex predators..

This is progress

Indeed.

This is contradicted

Not necessarily - the point being that it's possible to raise livestock in far 'better' fashion (better even than the market will allow, but that's another thread again) than is often employed. The [i]salient[/i] point being that I can happily scoff a (decently procured, of course) chicken sandwich in the knowledge that my hardwired gratification at eating it is unlikely to see off the species for some spurious end (i.e. using it as an aphrodisiac).

I simply dislike the gloating involved in trophy-hunting - you might view that as some kind of double-standard, but IMO, that's rather like claiming that big game (& big heap status) shooting is identical to rough shooting for the pot. It simply isn't.

It is morally, exactly, equivalent to killing an animal just for pleasure the pleasure of bragging rights.

I certainly won't defend many conventional farming practices, whether modern or ancient, (and I come from a very long line of Somerset farmers). But I would suggest that the pleasure obtained from eating an animal is of somewhat different order & category from the pleasure of bragging rights. "If you have to kill it, eat it" is not the guiding ethos of industrial-scale shoots - but I know what I have the greater respect for. We will simply have to disagree on values.

I need no justification in my choice to eat meat. I can eat meat and still believe in animal welfare. There is no contradiction. If your a vegetarian where dose your moral high ground stop? Do you have a pet dog/cat, what the f***k do you feed that. Do you know that animal based stearic acid is used in the production of bike tyres as it helps them hold their shape. Animals are a resource we use them, its our responsibility to use them responsibly. Fact of life. Chickens may disagree

You and the other farming apologists are just making up moral justification for your own preferences.

Because their is ample cheap accessible nutrition (in the west), then eating meat is facilitating the death of animals for your own pleasure. It is morally, exactly, equivalent to killing an animal just for pleasure the pleasure of bragging rights.

Good man. Just finished my kitten sandwich. Very nice it was as well. Nighty night. Frosty ride tomorrow. Super. After a bacon butty obviously

Vanity killing. Horrible people.

If somebody wants to pay big bucks to shoot big game that has been bred for hunting (in any sense) so what. I don't see the pleasure in it or the point, in this instance its not been done for conservation management.

I'm not really an Animal rights type as I find the whole movement ****ing irritating when it comes to animal research.

However, would you condone the hunting of bonobo's that have been bred for hunting? If yes, please explain why, make sure to include why bonobos are radically different from human beings.

CountZero

Countzero, I don't agree with a lot of veggies simply because an omnivore diet (with a very small amount of meat, in certain geographical areas) is in many cases the most green diet available when you take into account of the fact that not all farming is available for arable land.

Having said this however you're argument falls flat when you consider that there would be no more sheep bred to die if we stopped eating meat.

far better than using man-made materials?

Not really, I bet we can make synthetic clothing that's greener than animal derived clothing and I bet once we start 3d meat printing meat at an industrial scale.....then it will be greener than organic, free range and factory farmed meat. It will hopefully mean that cattle farming in the amazon basin stops.

Count Zero, you misunderstand me entirely. I am not a vegan, or a veggie or a pescatarian.
I eat meat, lots of it, I also hunt for food, although as far as I know, I have only ever willfully killed something that I intend to eat.
I am simply arguing that because I [b]choose[/b] to do all these things, then I have no moral superiority over someone who shot a lion for fun.

I really enjoy eating meat. I really enjoy shooting birds, bunnies and deer.

So whilst I do not have the desire to shoot bonobo, lion, giraffe or horse, and I would feel that it is "wrong" (whatever that means), but I would say, despite not believing in god* [b]"Let he is without sin, cast the first stone"[/b]

* (as some of you will have experienced in previous religion threads I am a bit of a frothing Dawkins-ite.)

My feeling is that many of you here who condemn the big game hunters are reacting [b]first[/b] to the emotional response. That response then drives the need to morally justify your own actions, hence the "double standard" of condoning farming/hunting for food etc, but not hunting for "sport".

But I clearly and strongly feel, as stated before, that if we are convinced that we nutritionally do not need meat, then surely the eating of meat is only for pleasure. I am not making a value judgement as to whether it is right or wrong, it is just a fact.

Hence all you meat eaters (including me) should examine your own moral conscience before elevating your moral stance above the hunters. (I'm not defending them BTW, I just do not feel morally able to condemn them..)
[b]Those in glass houses, should not throw stones.[/b]

I am not claiming any moral superiority over anyone I just dont understand the thought process that the woman has, she has travelled thousands of miles, then with a bloody big gun has shot a Lion and is looking all smug in the photo as if she has done something remarkable.

Killing something then eating it has a very long precedent as an intrinsic part of human behaviour and is tied up with our survival instinct. It might no longer be necessary for us in the western world but it's still quite ingrained in our culture.

Whereas killing stuff solely because you like killing stuff is just the behaviour of a weirdo/arsehole, especially when you enjoy killing the most magnificent and rare creatures you can get (and there's not even the skill/sport of proper stalking/hunting involved).

Good debate, this.

Does no-one have a view on the relative worth of a chicken's life vs that of an elephant, say?

grum, I disagree, I would suggest that killing for the sake of it is as much a part of human behaviour as killing for food. We have the instinct to kill. After you kill it then the instinct to eat takes over.
The fox kills all the hens in the hen house..

It is a bit like sex for fun, it isn't necessary but we have evolved to do it for a complex set of reasons.

Anyway I think you are mixing instinct with reason to support your argument.
We are like an onion with layers, the lowest layers are instinct, the higher layers are reason and higher thought.

Lower: Killing for food (or possibly for fun) is instinct
Higher: Deciding the morals of killing are reason.

So I do not see that you can justify killing for food, as an instinct, but berate killing for fun as a reasoning process.

I think killing for fun and food are both instinct.
I think we, in a civilized society, can reason them both away, and will do I am sure. Killing for food has not yet caught up with killing for fun on our moral compass, but it will. (I hope not in my lifetime as I love a good venison steak).

I still maintain that those of you that justify meat eating are just defending your own tastes, morally they are equivalent (mores the pity).

molgrips- Does no-one have a view on the relative worth of a chicken's life vs that of an elephant, say?

Or an ant/fly over a lion? If the fly is pissing you off you kill it(I do enjoy a good bit of sport with a fly and get a tingle out of winning). Similarly if the Lion is pissing you off (ie eating your livestock children), would you also kill it, would you get a thrill out of winning?

I would suggest that killing for the sake of it is as much a part of human behaviour as killing for food.

Nonsense. 😕

Hunting comes out of a utilitarian need to catch animals to provide food. People found they enjoyed the sport of the hunt too.

Some bellend being provided with a tame lion in a pen to kill in cold blood purely so they can pose gloating over its dead body is a complete distortion of the purpose of hunting.

I still maintain that those of you that justify meat eating are just defending your own tastes, morally they are equivalent (mores the pity).

My wife doesn't eat meat and feels the same contempt for this woman that I do.

well people do it, so it s apart of human behaviour, it's just something your learned responses do not like. If you had been raised to kill things for fun for some cultural reason then you might think differently.

So is rape, bestiality and paedophilia then.

Except that getting food is a required process for survival, and throughout much of our history we've done that through hunting. Trying to compare that to killing for fun is just nonsense.

Yes we don't all need to eat meat now and we should eat a lot less of it, but eating meat at least has utilitarian roots, whereas killing for fun only has roots in enjoying things being murdered.

My wife doesn't eat meat and feels the same contempt for this woman that I do.

Well that fits my argument perfectly. If you do not eat meat then you have every reason to feel morally superior over the Lion killer.

😕

Not really - she still eats dairy products which arguably cause more death and suffering to animals than the meat industry. Especially if you buy ethically reared meat. 😉

Even being vegan has it's own ethical issues - soy and quinoa are ethically dubious in some ways.

Anyway - it's not about being able to feel morally superior - I'm not suggesting I'm morally superior to the woman in the OP, I just think she's an arsehole for enjoying killing things. And I think the idea that you had to be ethically pure before you're allowed to criticise anything is nonsense.

I don't think eating meat is great either, but that doesn't stop her being an arsehole.

Grum, I don't think I ever disagreed about her arsehole status, but I just think it is important to understand the debate.
The point is, in the moral scheme, you and I are arseholes too, there is no need to eat meat other than taste pleasure, and hence no excuse to take the life of another creature just for our own pleasure.

Killing -> Eating -> Pleasure = dubious but debatable morally
Killing -> Pleasure -> Eating -> Pleasure = more dubious, but still debatable

Killing -> Pleasure and nothing else = Arsehole Look At My Awesome Penis Substitute Weapon.

DD,
I see it as this:

Killing -> Eating -> Pleasure = [s]dubious but debatable morally[/s] arsehole
Killing -> Pleasure -> Eating -> Pleasure = [s]more dubious, but still debatable[/s] arsehole

Killing -> Pleasure and nothing else = Arsehole Look At My Awesome Penis Substitute Weapon.

I imagine over time this argument will take precedence and peoples moral conscience over eating meat will change, such that pictures of people killing and cooking bunnies on african safari will raise similar levels of disdain..

I don't take a moral high ground over the woman. she is a human and we as humans use animals for our own uses. I don't take pleasure in the act of killing (except wasps, but that is a survival thing for me), I have blasted birds out the sky and little bunnys, bashed fish in the head. I have greatly enjoyed the act of hunting, but always feel a bit remorseful about taking the life. I don't lose any sleep over it because humans are omnivores and we are apex predators. Always will be. In the future when we are 3d printing meet commercially the only difference between those who eat (real) meat and those who don't will be wealth. the life of that lion is not worth any more than a cow, it was bred to be shot. The fact that its death served no purpose pisses me off. But if you look at the big picture, the revenue generated by this hunting supports the breeding of rare breeds which could be used to increase the gene pool in conservation areas and by providing big game hunters the opportunity to hunt big game may help prevent poaching in conservation areas where wildlife populations need to be in balance for the hole ecosystem to survive.

Would you say the life of a bonobo, elephant or dolphin is worth more than that of a cow?

We have the instinct to kill.

It is a bit like sex for fun, it isn't necessary but we have evolved to do it for a complex set of reasons

interesting debate...

separate from the whole this woman being a douche thing:

whats the stance on pest control? (rats, squirrels, pigeons, bugs etc etc)

how many people averse to eating meat or actually killing their own meat play violent computer games where you get to simulate killing other humans?

Junky wrong it is an excellent analogy as an example of a pointless human endeavour that we all accept as evolved behaviour. Sex for fun does not have a direct influence on reproduction, killing for fun does not have a direct effect on sating our hunger.

You should read
[img] [/img]

These are interesting indeed I too would like the audiences opinion:

whats the stance on pest control? (rats, squirrels, pigeons, bugs etc etc)

how many people averse to eating meat or actually killing their own meat play violent computer games where you get to simulate killing other humans?

What about this then?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/lion-killed-dallas-zoo

Junky wrong it is an excellent analogy

Well no, one is fun for both parties, one is very much not fun for the other one.

One is an expression of love, the highest of human emotions. The other is sadism, so where does that fit in?

There were loads of hunters when we rode in the Alps this Summer. At one point we stopped on a long climb for a break and a bite, below us was a meadow and a large deer trotted into it, we had just passed at least ten dudes with rifles. We all watched and waited with dread for the gunshot, but thankfully the deer trotted across the meadow and away to safety. The dozy hunters must have been looking the other way.
Deer 1, Huntsman NIL 😆

Well no, one is fun for both parties, one is very much not fun for the other one.

One is an expression of love, the highest of human emotions. The other is sadism, so where does that fit in?

Of course it's not always true, but it usually is.

Explain yourself if you're going to contribute.

Explain yourself if you're going to contribute.

OOOhhh handbags. I think I currently represent about 30% of all posts on this topic by word count, do you not think I've explained quite a lot? You demanding little so and so.

it is an excellent analogy as an example of a pointless human endeavour that [b]we all accept[/b] as evolved behaviour

so despite folk disagreeing with you you state what we all think again just like we all have the instinct to kill

It would be easier to debate if you could notice the disagreement and just state your opinion as yours rather than claim we all agree with it - the thread clearly shows we dont have unanimity here
Comparing sex with senseless murder is so daft i am not even prepared to engage on it tbh.

Sex for fun does not have a direct influence on reproduction,

killing for fun does not have a direct effect on sating our hunger

how many people averse to eating meat or actually killing their own meat play violent computer games where you get to simulate killing other humans?

I think pretending to kill pretend things is not actually really killing things

Thta may be as bad as comparing it to sex though,

Blimey can you and molgrips not debate without getting moody? Have you considered that it might be your lack of reading or understanding rather than mine? I am taking the time to read all your points, and not claiming any are ridiculous or not worth discussion.

It would be easier to debate if you could

many humans have in the past engaged in pointless killing (Sacrifice, fox hunting, pest control) I dunno if they enjoyed it or not..
I would argue that its a recent civilisation thing, a higher functioning reasoning that has moved our morals away from this behaviour.

see junky i'm not making any comparisons with the question you quoted... it appears to me that you're assuming a comparison (i could be wrong in assuming you're assuming of course). the question is just a question, its neither a comparison or a statement.

I think pretending to kill pretend things is not actually really killing things

damn, you're correct, my tiny little mind didn't work that one out 😛

see mr junky, i dont do violence whether in a virtual world or to other humans... but i'm quite comfortable in killing my dinner. i wouldn't shoot a lion, but i'd call pest control in to kill squirrels or something.

humans are strange creatures aren't they!

So you are claiming the number of times I have sex has no relation on the likelyhood of getting someone pregnant?

argument invalid, the only people on STW who have sex are the people who have twins and boast about it, everyone else is lying.

humans are strange creatures aren't they!

read and cogitate my posts, rather than kneejerk reaction because you are thinking I am trying to piss you off.

If a woman conceals the point at which she ovulates, indeed unlike most other animals, I have to have "pointless" sex with her as I cannot be certain when she is fertile and she will take my seed. If I am trying to impregnate her does this not somewhat defeat your "pointless" argument?

I am not disagreeing we have sex without wishing for someone to get pregnant however without contraception we could not exactly guarantee this would not happen so its easy to see it have [ from the genes view] a point
Ie sex being fun = more sex = more sowing of the seed etc

Whatever the reason we do this it is not like killing an animal for fun

I have n

OOOhhh handbags. I think I currently represent about 30% of all posts on this topic by word count, do you not think I've explained quite a lot?

You didn't expalin why you said that either sex is not an expression of love or hunting for fun isn't sadism. I don't know which bit you are disagreeing with or why. Ok the latter point was a bit of a stretch I admit.

Anyway, sex could be considered an important part of relationship bonding, which is important for the human species since stable relationships historically helped bring up our high maintenance young. From a more philanderous standpoint, constant sexual desire from men could be useful because females have concealed ovulation, so unlike many species you can't tell when they are fertile. Most likely tactic to succeed then is for men to want to shag all the time.

So not pointless.

But this is now WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY OT and getting less useful by the post...

If I am trying to impregnate her does this not somewhat defeat your "pointless" argument?

No, it is not about what you are aware of, or not. Evolution has us committing "pointless sex" to ensure we get procreation, before science, at some point we would have had no idea what we were doing, much like animals, it is instinct. My point is that humans often do things that our reasoning or current understanding can not explain.

You only think it is not pointless because you understand it (or think you do).
Somebody may well come up with an explanation of pointless killing, will it suddenly become morally acceptable then?

I agree with junky on this, lots of behaviours have been selected through evolution. Rape being a prime example, base instincts do not however provide justification for your own morality in todays society.

Toys19's argument is rather disingenuous and reads like the ramblings of a 6th former.

Humans enjoy:

a. sex
b. killing animals
c. killing humans from other tribes

its all evolutionary, isn't it?

tomw and somewhatslightlydazed. I think you are agreeing with my point.

eg

Rape being a prime example, base instincts do not however provide justification for your own morality in todays society.

I agree, much like killing for the sake of it, it may well be instinct, but our civilisation stops us from doing it.

I was teaching a lad to shoot in the field...

He's a lifelong vegetarian and pet rabbit owner.

He asked if he could shoot a rabbit. I said sure. He was happy... then I added "but you have to eat it". He wasn't up for that.

What was the question again?

Not entirely toys19, for example the last line of your prior post....we do have biological explanations for pointless killing. However, after science has informed of us of that.... a moral decision is often taken on the basis of philosophy and the needs of society in general. Science can in certain circumstances further inform morality (eg self-awareness, the differences between animals and humans).

Pointless consensual sex (there is no such thing btw) does not remove another animals own biological interests (like killing them does) nor does it cause acute suffering. You can't compare the two at all.

Toys19's argument is rather disingenuous and reads like the ramblings of a 6th former.

I don't remember resorting to ad hominen, which is what your 6th former might do?

I am happy to be in this discussion, but please try and be civil? If you are the leviathan you think you are, you would not resort to just insulting people. If you think I am wrong, educate, explain and discuss there is little need for condescension, belittling or just plain rudeness.

What about killer sex? Is that ok, hoping for a bit at the weekend. Yes pest control is ok. I wouldn't kill little mammals if I could help it, just trap them. Would like to eat a squirrel though, they taste nutty apparently. If chimps and elephants were bred for hunting then that would make them fair game. Don't agree with it, but I don't expect to agree with everybody. Vice versa. Let's not get our knickers in a knot. Toys19 have you read the other title " Guns, Germs & Steel" sounds like a craker 😉

guns germs and steel is very good, as is Collapse.

I read Collapse. Well, I read half of it and got so massively bored I couldn't carry on.

Some societies didn't manage their natural resources well and collapsed. Ok, I get it, no need to ram the same point into my brain page after page...

skim reading is your friend..

I don't remember resorting to ad hominen

If you are the leviathan you think you are

Evolution has us committing "pointless sex" to ensure we get procreation,

Somebody may well come up with an explanation of pointless killing, will it suddenly become morally acceptable then?

well you accuse molly and myself of being moody, handbags and knee jerk reactions and you followed that quote up with

you did get arsey did you not? I was just pointing it out. I did not say you were pathetic or not worth arguing with like you did, I just asked you to stop having a go and stick to the argument.

If you are the leviathan you think you are

Do you want to discuss this or just resort to discrediting me to try and prove your point or shall we just go for last wordism.

I have asked you to be civil, and to stick to the topic in hand. To be honest you have just made this whole thing boring, why pick on the person, surely we can have a discussion about the topic in hand.

you did get arsey did you not? I was just pointing it out.

I did not say you were pathetic or not worth arguing with like you did,

As insults go, it is not particulalry powerful is it

Do you want to discuss this

Junkyard, toys19.. step away...

ok molly