From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:22:55 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

[stuff deleted]
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Your position still doesn't make much sense to me.
>rl> 
>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?  
>
>From article <-fsx2md@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
>jve> No.  But I thought that you knew that none of these criteria bother me
      ^^^
>jve> if a human needs food.  Unless the animal is endangered (in which case
>jve> they still don't bother me) where my decision to save them is based on
>jve> entirely different criteria which I've painfully detailed before. :-)
>
>Would you mind reposting the criteria that you claim to have posted
>previously?
>
>In addition, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my question: Do whales 
>that are endangered feel more fear, more pain, more social deprivation, 
>etc, etc, when they're hunted down by human beings than whales
>that are not endangered might feel in similar circumstances?  

This is starting to get old.  You seem to have a propensity for asking
the same question at least 28 times, over and over.  While *you* may
have nothing in life to do except spar on the net, there are those of
us that actually have lives.  So I refer you above (the "No." which I
highlighted to make it easier for you), where I answered this question
for you before.  Now Russell, old friend, I don't give a damn whether
you *like* my answers or not, but don't waste my time with bullsh--
like this, or I'm going to have to give up discussing things with you.
I really don't understand your tactics.  Do you honestly think that on
the 28th time I'm actually going to say something different, when I
painfully repeat my answers for you?  And that somehow you'll be able
to say you've found a flaw?  If you don't like my answers, fine.  Call
me an a--hole if it makes you feel better because you don't like them.
But at least have the courtesy to acknowledge them.  You're starting
to get on my nerves, old chum...  Even the patience of an old man like
me has its limits.


[more stuff deleted]
>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.
>
>Are you claiming that you would be deprived of your sole source 
>of food if your rights to hunt were taken away?

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


>                                                 If not, please 
>answer my questions: 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?  

Russell, how many times must we go through this?  I've considered the
issue quite carefully.  Probably more so than most.  The good in
killing them far outweighs any bad.  The numbers from increasing herds
prove that quite well.  The point (ad nauseum) is that man has
intruded and done a hell of a lot of damage to the environment.  We
can no longer afford to bury our heads -fill in the blank as to where-
and ignore the problem.  We (that's *you* and *me*) screwed it up, now
we (that's *you* and *me*) have to fix it.  And hunting is the key to
making the fix.  That's life.  If you don't like it, fine, I'm not
even going to ask you to do your part.  But it seems pretty rediculous
for you to try and stop me from doing the job.  It's about as
intelligent as stopping a dentist from drilling a child's tooth simply
because the drill causes some degree of pain.  The long term effects
are what is best.


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

Russell, I don't ever recall saying there were no "inconsistencies" in
my "philosophy."  I don't really give a damn if there are.  Unlike you
AR folk that get off on sitting around saying "our philosophy is
better than yours, nah, nah," and ignoring the fact that your
Wonderfully Enlightened views don't do a damn thing to help the
animals or the environment, hunters like me are at least doing what
can be done to fix the problem.  And if any of it is "inconsistent" in
your opinion, just as it's inconsistent for a dentist to drill a tooth,
because it inflicts pain on a child, which we all know is a Bad Thing
(tm), then that truly breaks my heart.  Deal with it.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals