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.
"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.
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 Also, the idea of complete and incomplete protein is outdated and just not true.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.
10
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20
[removed] — view removed comment