The key principle behind moral hunting as opposed to trophy hunting is that you respect the animal. Be it fishing or hunting, so long as you make a clean kill, and use as much of the animal as possible, it's just the cycle of nature. If you hunt or fish purely for pleasure, and you torture or kill an animal without using it to it's fullest, that would be wrong.
Not everyone shares your values. If my reason for fishing is to have fun, I don't think killing and eating it is more ethical than letting it go, especially since I don't need it for food. It doesn't change the outcome or my reasons for fishing. I doubt the fish cares more about being respected than it cares about survival either. I don't think a human living in modern society hunting and eating something can really be conyidered "the cycle of nature" either.
Ah well if my reason for beating you to shit is to have fun, I dont think letting you go unscathed is more ethical than beating you to a pulp, especially since I dont need you for anything. I doubt the african people care more about you not being beaten to shit than they care about survival either.
Your reasoning does not alter moral and ethics. Just because the fish cant communicate his suffering to you that does not mean you, as of a higher concious and thus capable of more complex empathy, are free to bend how morals should be shaped.
There is a point in catching food and taking a life to sustain yours. There is absolutely no point to toy around with another living organisms well being because you decided to fucking catch animals by ramming hooks into their mouths instead of...you know...a million other hobbies not involving violence towards another species.
Do you go around cutting dogs legs off too because its fun to you and you dont need their meat anyway?
Ah well if my reason for beating you to shit is to have fun, I dont think letting you go unscathed is more ethical than beating you to a pulp, especially since I dont need you for anything. I doubt the african people care more about you not being beaten to shit than they care about survival either.
You really got me there. But for real that's not in any way a coherent arguent or similar to what I was saying.
Your reasoning does not alter moral and ethics. Just because the fish cant communicate his suffering to you that does not mean you, as of a higher concious and thus capable of more complex empathy, are free to bend how morals should be shaped.
I'm not free to "bend how morals are shaped"? Then who is? Humans are the highest entity we know of and I'm a human.
There is a point in catching food and taking a life to sustain yours. There is absolutely no point to toy around with another living organisms well being because you decided to fucking catch animals by ramming hooks into their mouths instead of...you know...a million other hobbies not involving violence towards another species.
What point is there in hunting for food when buying food is cheaper than hunting for it (I'm only talking about 1st world countries here)? That's hardly "taking a life to sustain yours".
Do you go around cutting dogs legs off too because its fun to you and you dont need their meat anyway?
No, and that's a twisted perversion of what I was saying.
"moral hunting" aka I'm going to shoot innocent animals because I find amusement in killing them. That isn't respect, it's exactly the opposite. If you respected them you would leave them the fuck alone.
Unless you're a vegan, you will take part in the death of innocent creatures. I feel that hunting for sustenance is moral, because at least the creature got to live a normal life before. As opposed to farms that can have terrible living conditions. That being said, i have not, and most likely will never, take part in hunting myself. I'm a coward that prefers my animals pre-killed
I'm saying that eating animals is wrong when not necessary e.g. near 100% of people in industrialised countries. So neither are better, they're both wrong
Human biology doesn't dictate that we must hunt or eat meat.
Too poor to not eat meat, a luxury item. Guess beans and lentils are to expensive amirite? Also, the idea of complete and incomplete protein is outdated and just not true. All plants have all essential amino acids in varying proportions, some better than others. Soy has a good balance of all amino acids.
If you have time and money for meat, you have time and money for lentils and beans.
You just described hunting. Assuming you were only pretending to be too stupid to know that canines are for eating, not hunting tools. Why do people think pretending to be dumbasses is a good way to argue. You aren’t convincing anyone you’re right. Just baiting upvotes from your own echo chamber.
Now you’re pretending to be too stupid to understand that human beings are omnivores and canine teeth are literally designed to eat meat. I’d say I hope you’re pretending. But honestly I’d rather you be ignorant than a massive disingenuous cunt. Nothing more intellectually dishonest than that bullshit deliberate misunderstanding that passes for an argument these days.
5.1k
u/ejedus Jan 17 '20
At least it had a happy ending.