From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:35:43 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1ifgchINNngm@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.072251.6605@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

[conservation of bandwith ... old stuff deleted]

[if you read all of it, this sentence will bring back memories ...]
>You people just aren't *listening* are you?  Hello??  Anybody there?
[balance of rantings deleted - Sherwin was offended that I might have
mistaken him for a vegetarian]
>that eating meat is OKAY?!  I am trying to give you the same respect,
>but I feel that you are unnecessarily pigeonholing me into preconceived
>stereotypes.

Right.
Your statement, "Hello?? Anybody there?" just oozes respect.  Sure.

>Hold it for a sec.  First - I think PETA is a manipulative propoganda
>machine, though I do admire some of the issues they do bring up
>(read: SOME).  

There may be hope for you yet, Sherwin.


ooooh -- a question

>quite interesting.  What makes you think that killing a human isn't a natural
>part of the cycle of life and death and survival on earth?  What makes

Humans don't typically kill other humans for food, but will kill each other
for an number of other reasons which are related to survival.  Nothing
unnatural there.  However, in the natural development of human society
group social measures are often used in place of killing;  for example,
the legal/judicial system.

>you think - or what gives you the AUTHORITY shall we say - to be so
>smug and egotistical to believe that you are that separate from animals?

Actually, I criticized you for making that mistake, when you said that
man was outside of nature.  You're anger may have gotten the best of you
here.

>After all, if you subscribe to the theory of evolution (which you might
>not) you must realize that the only real difference between humans and
>other animals is that we have developed a sense of intelligence that in
>our own minds makes us feel superior to everything on this planet.
>"We are humans and it is so because we said so - and because we have the
>weapons" seems to be the usual root philosiphy behind this belief.

Cue the twilight zone theme.

[another bad analogy deleted]
>>First, the example about enjoying watching people die, then the part
>>about hunting the retarded, now necrophilic beastiality -- you are one
>>sick puppy.
Now you've added examples of senseless brutality between humans and
genocide.  And you still haven't said anything about why you feel
that hunting is truly unethical.

You're wasting my time.  If you have nothing to offer but your pathetic,
sick analogies, and nothing to discuss on the ethics issue, why don't
you just drop it?

>> Great, we've established that not all things in life have to be fun-free and
>>essential for survival in order to be ethical.
>
>Nor have I tried to argue such.  The point was that killing for the sake of
>killing in and of itself - for pleasure - is what I found unethical.

(Werner, did you read this?  No mention of suffering as a justification.)
>>
>>So, Mr. Sherwin, what is your real ethical objection to hunting?  Since it is
>>ethical to do things that are fun and not necessary for survival (such as
>>drinking beer) why is hunting "unethical" in your view?  (You have
>>stated a weak case with a few bits of information about what you don't
>>like about your own (in my opinion, distorted) view of hunting -- but
>>let's return to the ethics question.)  You've already conceded in
>>another post that hunting which results in food on the table is not
>>objectionable -- where are you drawing the line now?
>>
>I have always drawn the line where killing for the sake of killing I feel
>is wrong.  Sme hunters hunt for food - and they use what they kill in
>a constructive way - but that does not represent all hunters (refer to
>the respect thing once again, as everyone is different).  My objection was
>to people who kill moose, rhinos, cats, what have you for the sake of
>killing or sticking them on their wall for show or trophy  -- what a waste.
>What an egotistical waste.  Never did I claim that ALL hunters do this
>(again - you are putting words in my mouth and stereotyping anybody who
>differs in your viewpoint towards hunting) - but SOME do.  Got it?
>
Sherwin, you certainly have an interesting way of iterating to your
position, seemingly one word at a time.

Now you are stating that a) killing for the sake of killing is wrong AND
b) killing to "stick them on the wall for a trophy is wrong BUT
                 -BUT-
a) killing for food is ethical
AND b) using what is killed in a constructive way is ethical.

So, are we to assume that ethics of killing an animal is determined
by whether it is used to make shoes or to decorate a den?  You did
in fact say that using it in a constructive way was ethical.  Are
we to restrict that to only those "constructive" uses which you find
esthetically appealing?

And as for stereotyping, you've been backpedalling uphill from your
first post about how you feel that hunters are out for the thrill
of the kill.  

>Please - read your facts before you make an incorrect premise for your
>arguments and babble on layer upon layer over a mistaken assumption.  it
>will save you effort and this group bandwidth.
Sherwin, you don't have to type in what you say when you are talking
to yourself.


BTW, it was kind of funny to read this and realize what a snit you were
in.  Maybe you should take a trip to Muir Woods and walk around for
a while and calm down before you answer this post.  You were
really raving out here.


Mary Otto
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals