From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:47:33 GMT

In <Brx91t.5uK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

	Russ, for some reason you are begging for the unbridled truth
tonight, and I've give it to you as I see it.  No apologies, no holds
barred, no reason.  I dunno -- maybe my hormones are imbalanced...

>If you have any questions about AR philosophical positions, why 
>don't you ask someone like Robert Black or Ted Altar or myself, 
>instead of posting comments aimed at another individual who shares 
>your particular set of (mis)understandings?  

	For the same reason I don't ask Sarah Brady for an interpretation
on the second amendment -- I don't think I'll get a neutral response.

>Speaking of inconsistencies, I'm still waiting for you to explain
>the following:

	I'll try, but you might not like my answers.  You've been warned.

>1) why you think it would be morally ok for super-intelligent aliens
>   to hunt humans for sport, but not morally ok for humans to hunt
>   humans.

	If they can do it, it's doesn't matter a whole lot what I think,
does it?  If their morals show it's fine, it's fine.  Morals go to those 
who can enforce them.  I'm sure the blacks we enslaved in years gone by didn't
like it, but until popular opinion decided it was unethical, it was an ethical
thing to do.  Too bad, Russ, but I enjoy hunting, and if aliens ever came
down are started hunting me I think I'd enjoy the challenge.  In any event,
my opinions on the matter wouldn't make a difference, and I don't think they
need to.  For that matter, the shouldn't.

>2) why you think it might be ok to use a bright young chimp in a 
>   medical experiment, but not ok to use a severely retarded man.

	Easy -- I don't like chimps, and I don't think them worthy of
my protection.

>3) why you consider nine-month old human fetuses to be "not yet alive"
>   and "not genetically human", yet staunchly defend the alledged 
>   rights of brain-dead comatose men and women.  

	I don't -- if the brain is dead, it's dead.  Next question:

>You've stated previously that you consider unendangered whales to 
>be "just food".   Please explain why you think a person who hunts
>and kills whales is "selflessly" helping the environment.  Would you
>be in favor of a total ban on deer hunting in places where the
>environment is clearly not threatened?

	Nope.  I think a ban on hunting need be only addressed when
the herd is endangered or threatened by hunting.  Simple.  Whales?
Harvest them unless doing so threatens them.

>If environmental protection justifies killing of deer and whales,
>why would such an argument not serve to justify the hunting of humans?

	It does, if you read your history of warfare and interpret it.
That we can presently support the population doesn't mean this option
will never be viable, given the present population growth.

>I'm looking forward to your explanation of the way that your
>alledged enviromental concerns fit in with your acceptance of
>whale killing, ie "they're just food".

	If they don't kill me first, they're food.  If they do, them's
the breaks.  Since neither humans nor whales are endangered, I see
no wrong in each one killing the other for food.  I don't kill my
fellow man without just cause strictly because of social taboo -- I
think many people could be killed and nothing but good come from it.
Murders, rapists, and child molesters come to mind, but I digress...

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals