From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:49:09 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You seem to be admitting that you're not a friend of whales that 
rl> belong to species with high populations, but you are a friend of 
rl> whales that belong to endangered species.  If that's the case, 
rl> please answer the question that I posed previously:  Do whales 
rl> that are endangered feel more fear, more pain, more social deprivation, 
rl> etc, etc, when they're hunted down by human beings than whales
rl> that are not endangered might feel in similar circumstances?  

John Van Etten writes
jve> No.  But I thought that you knew that none of these criteria 
jve> bother me if a human needs food.  Unless the animal is endangered 
jve> (in which case they still don't bother me) where my decision to 
jve> save them is based on entirely different criteria which I've 
jve> painfully detailed before.  :-) 

rl> Would you mind reposting the criteria that you claim to have posted
rl> previously?
rl> 
rl> In addition, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my question: Do whales 
rl> that are endangered feel more fear, more pain, more social deprivation, 
rl> etc, etc, when they're hunted down by human beings than whales
rl> that are not endangered might feel in similar circumstances?  

From article <hxtxgwb@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> This is starting to get old.  You seem to have a propensity for asking
jve> the same question at least 28 times, over and over...  

I'll continue to ask the question until I understand your position.
Perhaps it would help if you would provide a complete and 
thorough answer in lieu of dodging around.  If you did, indeed, 
post a complete and thorough answer previously, it surely did not 
arrive at my machine, nor did it arrive on uunet where I receive 
a delayed backup feed.  

If whales belonging to an endangered species are not more 
sentient than whales belonging to an unendangered genetic group, 
why do you feel that we would somehow be performing a disservice 
if we were to harm whales in the one case, but not in the other?  

jve> While *you* may have nothing in life to do except spar on the 
jve> net, there are those of us that actually have lives.  So I refer 
jve> you above (the "No." which I highlighted to make it easier for 
jve> you), where I answered this question for you before.  Now 
jve> Russell, old friend, I don't give a damn whether you *like* my 
jve> answers or not, but don't waste my time with bullsh-- like this, 
jve> or I'm going to have to give up discussing things with you.  I 
jve> really don't understand your tactics.  Do you honestly think that 
jve> on the 28th time I'm actually going to say something different, 
jve> when I painfully repeat my answers for you?  And that somehow 
jve> you'll be able to say you've found a flaw?  

The abundant flaws in your arguments are already painfully 
obvious.  I'm hoping, however, that you will take the time to 
study and explain them, rather than expecting everyone to assume 
that your beliefs are the same as truths. 

jve> If you don't like my answers, fine.  Call me an a--hole if it 
jve> makes you feel better because you don't like them.  But at 
jve> least have the courtesy to acknowledge them.  You're starting to 
jve> get on my nerves, old chum...  Even the patience of an old man 
jve> like me has its limits.  

Name calling isn't part of my style.   Let's stick to the issues,
shall we?

rl> Yet you're quick to summarize the total existence of a whale with 
rl> the label: "just food".  Has it occurred to you that life might 
rl> have many values for whales and deer that you've simply failed 
rl> to consider?   Has it occurred to you that we might be depriving
rl> them in some way in killing them?

jve> Has it ever occurred to you that people might be just as deprived of
jve> something as these animals are, if you take away their food?  Not
jve> everyone can afford to just go to the grocery store and buy all the
jve> veggies they want.  Some people are in need.

rl> Are you claiming that you would be deprived of your sole source 
rl> of food if your rights to hunt were taken away?

jve> No.  I'm claiming that there are *people* that are *dependent* on
jve> hunting for food.  Whether I am such a person or not really has no
jve> bearing at all.

In that case, would you please answer the questions that you 
avoided previously: Has it occurred to you that life might have 
many values for whales and deer that you've simply failed to 
consider?  Has it occurred to you that we might be depriving them 
in some way in killing them?   Please answer the questions. 

jve> Russell, how many times must we go through this?  I've considered 
jve> the issue quite carefully.  Probably more so than most.  The good 
jve> in killing them far outweighs any bad.  The numbers from 
jve> increasing herds prove that quite well.  

Can the quality of animal life be measured by the increasing number
of individuals in a given population?  For example, is life better
in Mexico City than in Stockholm, Sweden?  Is life better in Bangla
Desh than in Monaco?  If not, then perhaps you should admit that
increasing herd numbers aren't a convincing indication of better 
existence.

jve> The point (ad nauseum) is that man has
jve> intruded and done a hell of a lot of damage to the environment.  We
jve> can no longer afford to bury our heads -fill in the blank as to where-
jve> and ignore the problem.  We (that's *you* and *me*) screwed it up, now
jve> we (that's *you* and *me*) have to fix it.  And hunting is the key to
jve> making the fix.

The notion that sport hunting is a remedy for man's prior 
meddling in nature strikes me as incredibly ironic.  Like man's
prior meddling, it's driven by self-interest, not concern for
animals.  If it were otherwise, sport hunters would seek out
sick and diseased animals instead of striving to kill
the largest and healthiest individuals in the prime of life.

jve> That's life.  If you don't like it, fine, I'm not
jve> even going to ask you to do your part.  But it seems pretty rediculous
jve> for you to try and stop me from doing the job.  It's about as
jve> intelligent as stopping a dentist from drilling a child's tooth simply
jve> because the drill causes some degree of pain.  The long term effects
jve> are what is best.

Surely you don't expect anyone to believe that you're only concerned
about the welfare of the animals.   You've already stated that you
consider whales to be "just food", and have no qualms with killing 
any whale that doesn't belong to an endangered group.  Now tell me:
Is high-tech whale killing, like deer killing, the proper "fix" for 
man's prior meddling?

rl> Incidently, when you get some time, I'd appreciate it if you'd
rl> explain why it would be ok/notok for members of a vastly "superior" 
rl> species to hunt humans for sport.

jve> Patience, old friend.  We will resume our extremely relevant Space
jve> Invaders debate later in the week, barring anything unforseen.

rl> I'll look forward to it.  Perhaps your response will clarify
rl> some of the apparent inconsistencies in your philosophy.

jve> Russell, I don't ever recall saying there were no "inconsistencies" in
jve> my "philosophy."  I don't really give a damn if there are.

Thanks for your candor.

jve> Unlike you AR folk that get off on sitting around saying "our 
jve> philosophy is better than yours, nah, nah," and ignoring the fact 
jve> that your Wonderfully Enlightened views don't do a damn thing to 
jve> help the animals or the environment, hunters like me are at least 
jve> doing what can be done to fix the problem.  

In view of your prior comments, I find it difficult to believe that
"fixing problems" is first and foremost on your mind.    

jve> And if any of it is "inconsistent" in your opinion, just as it's 
jve> inconsistent for a dentist to drill a tooth, because it inflicts 
jve> pain on a child, which we all know is a Bad Thing (tm), then that 
jve> truly breaks my heart.  Deal with it.  

Don't be silly.  If a parent arranges for a dentist to fill a child's
tooth, the motivation is hardly one of self-interest.   To the contrary,
such parents are motivated by their care and concern for the well-being
of their child as an individual.  Do you care about deers and
whales as individuals, or, are such animals "merely food", as you've
admitted in the past?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals