From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:22:51 GMT

In article <1icqm0INN8ke@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.170206.29823@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>>Mr. Sherwin,  (no sarcasm, just differentiation from Mr. Popken, aka Greg, too)
>>
>>You certainly have an interesting sense of the ethical.  If I may take your
>>ethical example, and summarize it, I would say that it states, in short,
>>that hunting is not ethical since it is enjoyable and not necessary for
>>survival.
>
>Nope - that hunting is to kill animals out of a sense of fun and pleasure
>as opposed to a means of survival makes it barbaric.  I think there is some
>truth to the idea to "take only what you need from this earth", and by
>putting slugs in animals brains because it has something to do with
>having fun and appreciating the great outdoors as opposed to feeding your
>family perverts humanity's place within nature.  Maybe you don't think
>that killing a moose or a rhino to put its head on your wall is a waste,
>but I do.  Fact is that we as humans are animals just the same - and when
>we kill not out of survival, we are acting not as if we exist within
>nature, but above it.  That this world was created solely for the amusement
>of humans.  But you see - that is a fallacy.  If we pollute and turn the
>planet into a charred mud ball, we have to live in that crap.  It goes
>full circle.
Mr. Sherwin (again, no sarcasm, just keeping you separate from Greg Popken),

Your rantings above do not dispute my assertion that you object to the
enjoyable aspects of hunting (which you mistakenly classify as the
"putting slugs into animals brains" part) and object to the lack of
necessity for survival.  You also seem unaware that animals have been
known to kill each other for reasons other than survival, too.  (For
example, a neighbors cat systematically killed all the chipmunks living
near my house, and left the carcasses uneaten on my patio.)

When you ignore the fact that humans are an omnivorous, predatory
species and say that human hunting is outside of "nature", then you
are perverting the meaning of nature to set an artificial limit which
excludes humankind.  Since we evolved as omnivores, what model suggests
to you that ignoring our evolutionary niche and living as herbivores
would be *more* "natural" or beneficial to the environment as a whole?
Whether an animal is killed by hunting or killed at the slaughterhouse
or caught in a fishing net, it dies as part of the food chain.  To
our success as a species, no animal is able to make humans their primary
food source.  The same can be said for polar bears.

>
>To justify killing out of recreation is to justify any serial murderer
>who gets off on watching people die.  Just because we can exert our power

This is where you really lost credibility, Mr. Sherwin.  Here you have
a premise that killing an animal and killing a human are morally equivalent.
Sort of like PETA's abortive "Meat Stinks - Ask Jeff Dahmer's Neighbors"
ad campaign.  In my opinion, killing a human is murder and a horrendous
tragedy;  killing an animal (non-human) is a natural part of the 
cycle of life and death and survival on Earth for carnivores and omnivores.

>over nature doesn't necessarily make it justified - just as if someone
>who overpowers you and beats you senseless and steals your car is not 
>necessarily right for doing so either.  And if we claim this superiority over

This car/beating thing you threw in here doesn't do anything to refute
what I said, either, but it made for nice melodrama.
>our own backyards (ie. nature/animals/etc) not out of a sense of mutual
>survival , but out of an egotistical and self-satisfied sense of
>intellectual superiority, we may as well hunt mentally retarded people for
>the fun of it too.

Again, you miss the point, and again you don't refute what I've said.
You seem to be trying to use a little "egotistical/self-satisfied/
intellectual superiority" here by ignoring the fact the we, like other
higher mammals are ominivores and evolved as such because it is an
efficient method for survival.  That those who like to hunt find the
process of being personally involved in the process of bringing food
to the table has much more to do with acknowledging the role omnivorous
humans play in the environment.  For intellectual self-satisfaction,
nothing tops debating publicly on Internet.

>
>>

Now, the silly part.

>>Using that same ethical evaluation, sexual intercourse for any purpose
>>other than reproduction (a survival chore) is unethical since it is
>>enjoyable and not necessary for survival.
>
>I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call putting a 9mm slug in the
>brain of my lover a form of foreplay.  Maybe you do - I don't know.
Would you call it "afterplay"?  I've never known a hunter who had
sexual relations with his harvest, either.  You have a sick imagination.
First, the example about enjoying watching people die, then the part
about hunting the retarded, now necrophilic beastiality -- you are one
sick puppy.

>I think I won't take that chance and refrain from asking you out on a date
>this Saturday night. :)
In my experience any man who says he thought better about asking a woman
out was actually too scared of the woman's rejection to actually try.
>>
>>Using that same ethical evaluation, drinking beer is unethical since
>>it is enjoyable and not necessary for survival.
>>
>Drinking beer in and of itself is not unethical at all per se if you read me.

Great, we've established that not all things in life have to be fun-free and
essential for survival in order to be ethical.

>However, drinking beer becomes unethical when you do so in order to maximize 
>the amount of fun you have as you go drunk-driving over a few unwary
>pedestrians here and there on the way home.
>>
>>As I said, a rather interesting sense of the ethical.
>>
>>Do you also object to these things that people do?  If not, why do you
>>object to hunting?
>>
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?

Mary Otto


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals