From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:53:35 GMT


John Van Etten writes:
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...  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I'll continue to ask the question until I understand your 
rl> position.  Perhaps it would help if you would provide a complete 
rl> and thorough answer in lieu of dodging around.  If you did, 
rl> indeed, 

From article <14p7n7INNbki@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Russell feels that for some wild reason that John and other 
ml> hunters must "dodge" his questions.  Apparantly he feels we are 
ml> on trial here and we must lie or avoid what *he* views as the 
ml> truth or God forbid, he will not agree with us or accept our 
ml> answers as honest.  Is this sad or what?  :-) 

I don't think hunters are on trial here.  Don't you think it may 
be unreasonable for pro-hunting advocates to expect their opponents
to accept their beliefs as gospel, regardless of glaring 
inconsistencies, unfounded claims, and so on?  

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

ml> Poor Russell just can't seem to understand that in this world it 
ml> is a natural process that something must die in order for others 
ml> to live.  Plants must die for the vegan, animals must die for the 
ml> carnivore and both must die for the omnivore.  Every living thing 
ml> no matter how small or large in one way or another benefits 
ml> from the death of others.  The empirical facts that you so love 
ml> Russell are there to prove it.  

Would I be depriving a granite boulder of a meaningful existence if I 
were to smash it into tiny bits and use the gravel to construct a 
driveway?  If I consume a cabbage for lunch, have I deprived it in 
any meaningful way?   Does it feel pain?  Does it have emotions?
Does it join in meaningful social relationships with other cabbages?

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

ml> And lets ask Russell why we should believe that his agenda which 
ml> he claims is for the good of thinking, feeling animals of 
ml> personhood isn't actually driven by self-interest.  Come now 
ml> Russell, you don't expect us to believe that do you.  You're 
ml> probably striving to get that warm, fuzzy feeling by fooling 
ml> yourself into thinking that your are doing the world of animals 
ml> so much good, when it has been illustrated that hunters and 
ml> hunter groups have done far more good that you with less hot air.  

This doesn't make much sense.  Are you comparing my personal
contributions with the contributions made by all hunters put
together?   Or, are you comparing the contributions made by
individuals like myself with the contributions made by 
individuals like yourself?

> ...
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.

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

ml> Ask yourself Russell if this is a foolish question in view of the 
ml> fact that no scientific studys have been presented that would 
ml> indicate whale are dying of starvation due to overpopulation or 
ml> limited habitat.  

Then why does John Van Etten think it's perfectly ok to kill whale
individuals that do not belong to endangered genetic classes?    If
the rationale for killing deer is that deer are overpopulated, what's
the rationale for killing whales?

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.  

ml> Russell, you are trying very hard to ignore your own motives.  
ml> Such as no longer donating to organizations that greatly help 
ml> wildlife (not only game animals) simply because they may raffle 
ml> weapons and are largely made up of hunting members.  Now tell us, 
ml> whose motives are suspect.  

Are you suggesting that my motives are suspect simply because I
choose my charities on a reasonable basis?   Would my motives be
less suspect if I simply gave no thought to the manner?

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

ml> Apparantly Russell feels that only people on his side of the 
ml> fence are honest.  No way hunters, who do not view the world as 
ml> defined by Lawrence can tell the truth or possibly be "right".  

You're misrepresenting my position, Mike.

ml> Alright, I'm already going to admit that I've gotten a little 
ml> nasty here in this post but, I have been dealing with Mr.  
ml> Lawerence for some time now and am well aware of his "style" of 
ml> debate and mindset.  I sometimes feel the need to illuminate what 
ml> I feel is his dishonesty and arrogance.  If I have offended 
ml> anyone other than Mr.  Lawrence, I apologize.  

Incidently, several days ago you were accusing another poster of
refusing to listen to "facts and reason", and yet, you yourself
have stated on several occasions that you consider hunting to
be ethically acceptable for religious reasons.   I'm still waiting
for you to explain why you consider yourself to be qualified to
judge the allegedly unreasonable positions of other posters when
you yourself appeal to religious beliefs.  Thanks in advance for
clarifying your position, Mike.   I'm looking forward to a
factual and reasonable response, completely free of profanity,
personal attacks, insults, etc.

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