From: smithm@plugflow.ecn.purdue.edu (Matthew Jacob Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Date: 4 Sep 92 03:12:11 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <Bu0o7D.D0x@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Sep2.205525.7049@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, by smithm@furnace.ecn.purdue.edu (Matthew Jacob Smith):
>ms> - Nature is a butcher, she only descriminates between the fit
>ms>   and the unfit. Mercy is a human idea, one that nature does not know.
>ms>   Matt Smith
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> The notion that "Nature" is a person who has some ideas but not others,
>rl> is Matt Smith's idea.  There's no evidence to suggest that "Nature"
>rl> is familiar with this notion.
>
>From article <1992Sep3.121218.24115@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> On the other hand, almost everyone ELSE probably realizes that
>ry> the personification of "Nature" in the disputed quote is merely
>ry> a literary device and is not intended to imply that "Nature" is
>ry> capable of cognition.
>
>What purpose does it serve when a writer attempts to gain 
>credibility for his own opinions by casting them into the minds 
>and mouths of non-existent beings?  Consider the difference 
>between the quoted text, and a more honest expression of the same 
>thoughts: 
>
>    "I am a butcher.  I only discriminate between the fit and the
>     unfit.  Mercy is a human idea, but it's an idea that I do not
>     know".   -- Matt Smith
>
>Matt's entitled to his views, but when he pretends that they're the
>product of the mind of "nature" or some make-shift god, I reserve
>the right to point out the inherent misrepresentation.
>
>-- 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Hey Asshole your the one casting opinions, by writing down your
interpretation of my statement as a "more honest expression". It seems
to me that you hit the nail on the head for what most of you ARA's
fail to appreciate and what my statement means. Your right "nature"
has no mind or otherwise. What my statement means is that having no mind
, there is no moral, or amoral, merciful or unmerciful, cruel, or nice
things about natural life. These are human judgements, and recent ones at
that < 10K yrs most probably < 200yrs. There is no decision about life or
death in nature. It just happens. Sure there are factors that may give an
individual plant or animal a statistically greater chance for surviving, but
that's no gaurantee. Herbivours prey on plants, predators prey on other 
animals, that's just the way it happens. There is nothing pretty about death
no matter how it happens, but happen it will, and to everything. When an 
animal dies it opens up more resources to the rest of kin and competitors.
Argueing about the way in which that animal will die is a mute point, because
die it will. It makes no difference if say that deer dies quickly by the 
buulet from a gun, an arrow, predation, or by more "natural" means of
starvation, disease, parasitism, or accident. To give deer (or other animals)
human characteristics and compare how they react with how we react to 
stimuli is a human device. Eg. deer flee from danger, it is a survival 
response. They cannot "fear" that danger or death, because they cannot
understand or even conceptualize death. most people have an overblown fear
of death. They characterize it as evil and bad. They fail to realize that
death is as natural a process as life itself. For everything there is a time
to die. Instead of coming to grips with our own mortality, most of us try
not to admit it to ourselves. We either don't think about it, pretend it
won't happen, or seek man eternal quest for imortality, be that through
science or religeon. The height of this is ARA's belief that animals shouldn't 
die either so we shouldn't hunt them. Hunting is "natural" for us. As omnivours 
we can take advantage of whatever edible comes along, be it plant or 
animal. Hunting for us is no more unnatural than when a bear capitalizes
on the oportunity to take a deer or dig up a marmot. The problem arises
from the way our society functions. Where the only part of consuming meat
most people encounter is the hamburger. They have detached themselves so
far from death, that they hire someone else to kill for them. Then many 
hypocritically condemn this action. It is completely dishonest to condemn
hunting and then hire someone else to do it for you. To do it yourself
is the only way to realize what goes into that steak. It is to fully 
realize that you have taken something's life, and to be thankful for what
that animal has provided you, not to be physically and emotionally 
detached from the situation, like in a supermarket. Ah yes what about
Veggetarians you say? Well that is fine and dandy for some, but for them
to impose their will on the rest of society is completly ludicrous. The
only thing I can say is that they think that they are not being hypocritical,
but I doubt if many don't use any kind of animal product. Besides a Veggie
diet is not natural. Sure you can get away with it if your careful, but 
so can many omnivours. Well enough of this dietribe most people on 
T.P.A have made up their minds long ago. They either mostly agree with me
or not and all of this bandwith results in no one changing their opinions
only a constant flame war. Maybe we should make this Talk.animals.flame
Well at least it provides a forum to air opinions, even though their are
only two on this net, and I think you can guess which one I'm on.
				Cheers (to my 1/2 +)
						Matt Smith
BTW ARA stands for Animal Rights Assholes.
 And the venison I had for dinner was delicious!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals