4 ms·

I can see where you are coming from I think - hunting for pleasure when there are other alternatives is something you aren't sympathetic to. I sympathize with

I can see where you are coming from I think - hunting for pleasure when there are other alternatives is something you aren't sympathetic to. I sympathize with your view. The thing is, the alternatives to hunting are all crueler than hunting. The dilemma thus becomes choosing between (a) humans taking pleasure in killing animals (which should bother anyone IMO) (b) animals suffering more when nature does its thing Those are admittedly sucky choices but that is the reality at this point in time at least. The modern "solution" is to hide the reality behind some facade that lets us maintain our a more pleasant mental model of our world and our place in it e.g. I don't torture chickens, I get my eggs from the grocery store.

kbenson 12y ago
A lot of people are putting forth (b), but without a lot of justification other than disease, predation, old age. What I'm interested in at this point is how is that different than applying to towards people. What's wrong with "people die of alzheimer's, car crashes, old age, etc. and these are arguably worse than just allowing some people that enjoy killing other people from saving them from that burden." The question is somewhat ridiculous, there are easily many differences depending on your stance on the importance of sapience, etc, but that doesn't mean there aren't important facets to examining why it's different, and what beliefs hold up or do not under careful examination after deciding what the important differences are.
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  This is a worthwhile thought exercise. I'm not sure why people are down-voting you. I thought about it some and I think the difference is that for humans, we have other less horrible choices than animals. Our choices aren't (a) get eaten by wolves or (b) starve to death (c) get shot by a hunter At end of life we humans can get palliative care for example. I sympathize with your rebellion if you will, against the cruel choices nature has presented the other denizens of our planet. However, one must consider the reality not what we simply wish the reality was unfortunately.

kbenson 12y ago

A lot of people are putting forth (b), but without a lot of justification other than disease, predation, old age. What I'm interested in at this point is how is that different than applying to towards people. What's wrong with "people die of alzheimer's, car crashes, old age, etc. and these are arguably worse than just allowing some people that enjoy killing other people from saving them from that burden." The question is somewhat ridiculous, there are easily many differences depending on your stance on the importance of sapience, etc, but that doesn't mean there aren't important facets to examining why it's different, and what beliefs hold up or do not under careful examination after deciding what the important differences are.

chrisbennet 12y ago
This is a worthwhile thought exercise. I'm not sure why people are down-voting you. I thought about it some and I think the difference is that for humans, we have other less horrible choices than animals. Our choices aren't (a) get eaten by wolves or (b) starve to death (c) get shot by a hunter At end of life we humans can get palliative care for example. I sympathize with your rebellion if you will, against the cruel choices nature has presented the other denizens of our planet. However, one must consider the reality not what we simply wish the reality was unfortunately.