Hunting and Furries

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Well I guess this related enough to post. Saw something someone liked on Facebook.



And the link they provide to that: http://www.animalvoice.org/?_escaped_fr ... ution/cbgu

It's quite cool because they officially recognised...

The acceptance of non-human animals as sentient beings, which are able to feel the same pain and emotions as humans.

The recognition of the basic universal freedoms for non-human animals namely:

• Freedom from hunger or thirst by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.
  
  Freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
  
  Freedom from pain, injury or disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
  
  Freedom to express (most) normal behaviour by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.
  
  Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

I'm not sure how well that is reflected in their policies but it's a step in the right direction.

[Leeward]

Yet another reason to vote DA.

[Ryall]

The end result is a trade of the lion's possible happiness, for the definite happiness of some humans, plus probably less suffering for the lion.

I fully agree with you there.

I was pretty much just paraphrasing what you had been saying all along, but I am glad there was someone who shared this view with me.

That same argument could work for killing babies, particularly those of poor families. The baby might grow up to suffer and have a miserable life while killing the baby could make some psychopath very happy. Presumably you are not suggesting that that should be allowed, even if the happiness economics are pretty much the same.

Not at all, unless by 'baby' you mean fetus. Humans are protected from that line of argument, because ideally speaking, a world in which society values human lives and places human needs first would be the end goal in a 'happiness economics' game, because that would probably be the most conducive setting for a large, happy population. Most of us want to live in a society where we are valued, not so? The end goal is a world in which nearly every child born is guaranteed happiness. A world in which psychopaths get to kill poor babies sounds like a far-cry from that.

Of course, making that goal a reality whilst dealing with issues like overcrowding, poverty, and inequality is another story, but that's not the point.

[Leeward]

That's not fair, you should use a shrink ray on yourself and put on a blindfold before hunting a defenceless abortion-to-be. (As if that wasn't obvious, I'm joking, to try and bring this back to hunting.)

[Sev]

I'm not sure how well that is reflected in their policies but it's a step in the right direction.

How is it not reflected in their policies?

And why does it seem as though the DA is the only major political party in SA that isn't completely out of touch with reality?

[Raven Song]

Thanks to the DA, Cape of Good Hope SPCA has more authority than any other SPCA nationwide

[Sev]

And respect for them for that.

There is a strong correlation between animal abuse and anti-social behaviors.
Here's just one of many studies that confirms this finding.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Not at all, unless by 'baby' you mean fetus. Humans are protected from that line of argument, because ideally speaking, a world in which society values human lives and places human needs first would be the end goal in a 'happiness economics' game, because that would probably be the most conducive setting for a large, happy population. Most of us want to live in a society where we are valued, not so? The end goal is a world in which nearly every child born is guaranteed happiness. A world in which psychopaths get to kill poor babies sounds like a far-cry from that.

Of course, making that goal a reality whilst dealing with issues like overcrowding, poverty, and inequality is another story, but that's not the point.

It's interesting that you always want to create exceptions for people. You say things like "game is so dumb that it barely knows it's alive: that's why it's okay to kill it for meat" but are not willing to follow the same reasoning if it concerns humans. It's seems there's a bit of motivated reasoning there, where you've already decided what you want in regards to humans so if the logic you'll use for other beings doesn't work you'll make an exception without justification.

I did choose baby for a reason but I think that digression would be too far off topic.

How is it not reflected in their policies?

I didn't say it's not, I said I'm not sure if it is. Often these sort of statements are more lip service than anything else because acting on them can require changes in how things are done rather than business as usual.

There is a strong correlation between animal abuse and anti-social behaviors.
Here's just one of many studies that confirms this finding.

Kind of a weak study though and one that flip flops. The abstract says "A history of animal
cruelty during childhood was significantly associated with APD" which is supported by their experiment (although with a bunch of caveats that are only mentioned deeper in the paper) but in their discussion they say "This study confirmed the hypothesis that APD is associated with a history of cruelty to animals." That is not what they confirmed and it is not valid to just switch the two sides around.

On a side not, that's not even an important bit of information for debates on animals as it implies the only reason to care about animal abuse is that it might lead to human abuse. It might be interesting though if a "clean kill" of a pet animal is treated as abuse or not and why hunting is not.

[Adagio]

Rakuen... Were part of the food chain...
Even of we remove ourselves. There will be chaos.
Even something as insignificant as a fly, will have devastating consequences when they go extinct...

Removing humans from the food chain, will cause an overpopulation in many species.
Cow's don't really have any significant predators apart from humans. Thus. Overpopulation in cows.
The same for sheep.

The ecosystem DEPENDS on us being omnivores.
I call it creation, you call it evolution. Either way, we are meant to live this way.

Edit: we're both stubborn. I am not feeling bad about hunting for food.
You refuse to eat anything with a face.
We have our differences. I will not challenge your's, even though they are in my opinion stupid.

Lets both agree to disagree?

I hereby withdraw from this here discussion.
It's not going anywhere...

I make a point, you ignore it, you make a point, I ignore it...
We're all entitled to out own opinions afterall...

[Leeward]

Removing humans from the food chain, will cause an overpopulation in many species.
Cow's don't really have any significant predators apart from humans. Thus. Overpopulation in cows.
The same for sheep.

Only because humans domesticated them. In the wild they would have predators, in fact they even do in captivity. Shepherds routinely had to protect their herds from wolves, until they were driven to near-extinction.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Removing humans from the food chain, will cause an overpopulation in many species.
Cow's don't really have any significant predators apart from humans. Thus. Overpopulation in cows.
The same for sheep.

The ecosystem DEPENDS on us being omnivores.

But that's just wrong. The animals humans eat are domesticated and farmed, we create the population. We don't eat wild animals in any meaningful number. The exception to that is seafood which is creating massive losses in fish populations.

[Obsidian]

I am enjoying reading this topic, decent debate so far.

It's interesting that you always want to create exceptions for people. You say things like "game is so dumb that it barely knows it's alive: that's why it's okay to kill it for meat" but are not willing to follow the same reasoning if it concerns humans. It's seems there's a bit of motivated reasoning there, where you've already decided what you want in regards to humans so if the logic you'll use for other beings doesn't work you'll make an exception without justification.

The survival of our species is the motivation and it requires no justification because life is not a reasonable force. We value our own over other creatures as a whole because that is what our instincts tell us to do. To value another species as much as you do your own is a trait that will simply be breed out.

You can debate what is right and wrong but our DNA want to be passed down and it does not care about anything other than itself. As a result we will always draw a line between ourselves and anything else on the planet so as to remain to dominant life form. Our base instincts tell us to do this and they in turn are told to do this by decades of evolution.

I don't really have the desire to argue from a more philosophical standpoint on what is right or wrong just that life is selfish.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

The survival of our species is the motivation and it requires no justification because life is not a reasonable force. We value our own over other creatures as a whole because that is what our instincts tell us to do. To value another species as much as you do your own is a trait that will simply be breed out.

You can debate what is right and wrong but our DNA want to be passed down and it does not care about anything other than itself. As a result we will always draw a line between ourselves and anything else on the planet so as to remain to dominant life form. Our base instincts tell us to do this and they in turn are told to do this by decades of evolution.

I don't really have the desire to argue from a more philosophical standpoint on what is right or wrong just that life is selfish.

Minor problem, even taking that argument, there's no motivation for the survival of the species (see war). Even taking the biological argument, evolution will favour genes (or in this case alleles) that ensure their own survival but that doesn't mean you'll favour your species. It means you will do what best allows you to reproduce and the amount of effort you expend will decrease as the relationship between you and the other person decreases (see kin selection or most of Richard Dawkin's books on evolution).

[Ryall]

It's interesting that you always want to create exceptions for people. You say things like "game is so dumb that it barely knows it's alive: that's why it's okay to kill it for meat" but are not willing to follow the same reasoning if it concerns humans. It's seems there's a bit of motivated reasoning there, where you've already decided what you want in regards to humans so if the logic you'll use for other beings doesn't work you'll make an exception without justification.

I did choose baby for a reason but I think that digression would be too far off topic...

I'm not making any exceptions for people.

Unlike game, a human baby will mature into a human adult. A human individual has the capacity to affect the lives of so many other human beings positively, or negatively. Most likely positively though: that's why civilization works. Game will never be anything more than just, 'dumb game.'

I also explained the happiness economics, and utilitarian perspective on killing game for instance, and why those arguments don't support the killing of humans. Not even babies.

What's the, "exception," or inconsistency in my logic?

Minor problem, even taking that argument, there's no motivation for the survival of the species (see war)...

War doesn't prove there's no motivation for the survival of our species: it just proves that some humans will put the well-being of their chosen people ahead of people. Generally neither party in a war has to worry that their war will contribute towards the extinction of the human race, except when there were tensions between the USSR and the USA, which, if anything, helped prevent war.

How did you conclude that war is proof that people don't care about the survival of the human species? It sounds like you're the one making, 'exceptions.'

...Even taking the biological argument, evolution will favour genes (or in this case alleles) that ensure their own survival but that doesn't mean you'll favour your species. It means you will do what best allows you to reproduce and the amount of effort you expend will decrease as the relationship between you and the other person decreases (see kin selection or most of Richard Dawkin's books on evolution). It means you will do what best allows you to reproduce and the amount of effort you expend will decrease as the relationship between you and the other person decreases (see kin selection or most of Richard Dawkin's books on evolution).

Surely then the beings we should be most apathetic about, are the ones with the most distant percieved relationship to us, i.e. animals? The less like humans they are, the less we care? That seems to be the position most people take.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

I'm not making any exceptions for people.

Unlike game, a human baby will mature into a human adult. A human individual has the capacity to affect the lives of so many other human beings positively, or negatively. Most likely positively though: that's why civilization works. Game will never be anything more than just, 'dumb game.'

I also explained the happiness economics, and utilitarian perspective on killing game for instance, and why those arguments don't support the killing of humans. Not even babies.

What's the, "exception," or inconsistency in my logic?

The exception was when you said humans are excluded from the same logic. "Humans are protected from that line of argument." But you try to exclude them because of a possible future. There are arguments that any form of suffering is enough to outweigh any potential happiness. (Made by a UCT professor actually.) Capacity for some future ability is a tricky criteria. A baby will not necessarily mature into a human adult. They could die for all sorts of reasons or be retarded in some way. And every cell has the potential to mature into a human adult thanks to technological advances.

How did you conclude that war is proof that people don't care about the survival of the human species? It sounds like you're the one making, 'exceptions.'

That's not an exception. Just evidence that we do not make our decisions based on what is good for our species. Some do now but due to philosophy and not due to biology.

Surely then the beings we should be most apathetic about, are the ones with the most distant percieved relationship to us, i.e. animals? The less like humans they are, the less we care? That seems to be the position most people take.

If you mean "should" in the sense that that is the outcome predicted by biology, sure. If you mean "should" in the sense that that is the way we ought to conduct ourselves, no. Biology is not a source of morality.

[Ryall]

I'm not making any exceptions for people.

Unlike game, a human baby will mature into a human adult. A human individual has the capacity to affect the lives of so many other human beings positively, or negatively. Most likely positively though: that's why civilization works. Game will never be anything more than just, 'dumb game.'

I also explained the happiness economics, and utilitarian perspective on killing game for instance, and why those arguments don't support the killing of humans. Not even babies.

What's the, "exception," or inconsistency in my logic?

The exception was when you said humans are excluded from the same logic. "Humans are protected from that line of argument." But you try to exclude them because of a possible future. Capacity for some future ability is a tricky criteria. A baby will not necessarily mature into a human adult. They could die for all sorts of reasons or be retarded in some way. And every cell has the potential to mature into a human adult thanks to technological advances.

I weigh up the potential and possibilities surrounding game, and I weigh up it up for humans, and arrive at a different conclusion for humans because humans are different. That's not 'excluding humans' from my argument, or making an exception for them - I was being consistent.

I also argued about humanity's end goals: it's more than just a matter of probabilities. We have limited time and resources, how do we create the most happiness, and the least suffering? By placing importance on human lives, certainly; certainly not by treating animals with equal importance as humans.

And every cell has the potential to mature into a human adult thanks to technological advances.

Cells and fetuses don't experience suffering though: babies do. I am arguing on your terms here: a baby is at least as important as a buck because it is sentient and can suffer, just as a buck does.

What makes a human baby more important than a buck is its potential, and its capacity, which is much greater, and much less predictable than that of a buck. That has to count for something because otherwise the only thing that matters is suffering, in which case we can kill anything so long as we do it without causing suffering. Killing without causing suffering is well within out capabilities.

Why not kill anything then, I mean if suffering is the only thing that matters, and we can kill without causing suffering? You can't say that the act of killing is intrinsically unethical, because death is inevitable, and killing, by itself, is inconsequential.

So it must be suffering, and other factors that we consider.

There are arguments that any form of suffering is enough to outweigh any potential happiness. (Made by a UCT professor actually.)

I would say that argument is too vague and seems very unconvincing: by that logic we shouldn't treat cancer patients with chemotherapy because the chemotherapy will cause the patient additional suffering, and may only potentially create happiness in the future if the treatment is successful.

Surely then the beings we should be most apathetic about, are the ones with the most distant percieved relationship to us, i.e. animals? The less like humans they are, the less we care? That seems to be the position most people take.

If you mean "should" in the sense that that is the outcome predicted by biology, sure. If you mean "should" in the sense that that is the way we ought to conduct ourselves, no. Biology is not a source of morality.

I am not saying biology is a source of morality.

I am just saying that you were wrong when you said, "Minor problem, even taking that argument, there's no motivation for the survival of the species," in response to Obsidian's argument.

[Raven Song]

My fave Calvin and Hobbs

[Cape_F0X]

I raise you one Warthog trophy.

[Sev]

That looks... really stupid. Why would anyone hang that on their wall?

[Cape_F0X]

It's not hanging on my wall. The parents of my nephews had it made so I could remember the hunting trip.

We lost the photo's of the kill because back in the day the storage was limited and we were not diligent enough with uploading the photo's to the laptop.

That's why I am glad to have it. It was a textbook kill shot.

[Sev]

With a high powered, scoped rifle. Do it again with a bow or even crossbow and I'll be impressed. Shooting an animal that's completely unaware of your presence is not particularly sporting.

[Cape_F0X]

Sev, the point I am trying to get across is; it was their treat and I enjoyed the experience.

Not that I am the best hunter in the world with an unquenchable blood lust and a 20mm auto cannon!

[Raven Song]

Just as a question, in your own mind.. do those horns look prettier on your wall or on the warthog?

I'm not trying to be mean or to drag you down... but I remember walking through my cousins house, and he had:
A leopard and a baboon
an elephants tusks
a giraffe head
a zebra head
a whole bunch of buck heads and horns
a crocodile skin.

Some were killed with bows, some with guns. But it never looked right to me. They belong on the animal... not on his wall...

that being said I had a pair of duiker horns (those adorable little nobly ones) in my room, because we found a dead duiker at stables, killed by a trap. I made him a plaque and said "lost the wrong way" underneath.

[Cape_F0X]

@ RavenSong;

You're asking the guy who posted the beaded hunting trophy as an alternative to the real thing?

Like I said, because it's just the one and the meaning behind it I let this one slide.
The nephews parents have a few trophies I am not fond of, especially a pare of Caracal upper bodies.

[Raven Song]

No that's fine, I just wanted to know from a person who has actually killed an animal but has also posted a lot about not liking it what their opinions were... seeing as my hunting loving cousins opinion is severely one sided...

[Cape_F0X]

Re-leaved we have an understanding. It's also a bucket-list thing, I hunted and that make me a "MAN" (but not really because like Sev said).

[Raven Song]

I am often rather understanding of youngsters who go for a hunt with their family because often it is a family tradition. They have hunted for decades and therefore it is a "right of passage" for many. Even though they have freedom of choice not to hunt, how much freedom does one have when a family is behind them egging them on...

[Cape_F0X]

Could not have said it better myself.

That side of the family would think you're a "tree hugging softy" and your parent think you wasted an opportunity. The travel distance also does not help, you went all that way to do nothing.

[Raven Song]

My friend hated hunting... but he married into the family of the White Bushman
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/ ... sc=y&hl=en
(I worked with Peter Stark's daughter, she helps run the stables where my horse stays )

so every year in honor of Mr Stark they would drive up to Namibia and live as bushmen. They tented out, hunted for their food, slept under animal skins etc. for two weeks. He hated hunting but he had no choice because 1) he'd married them and 2) he didn't want to starve/freeze to death.

[Cape_F0X]

That sounds like the worst case scenario anybody could dream up.