From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Date: 24 Jul 1992 15:30:47 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BrvpHz.9uF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>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, 


Russell feels that for some wild reason that John and other hunters must
"dodge" his questions.  Apparantly he feels we are on trial here and we must
lie or avoid what *he* views as the truth or God forbid, he will not agree
with us or accept our answers as honest.  Is this sad or what?  :-)


>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. 


Another Russell tactic.  If he is not taking the issue off on some obscure
tangent, he is constantly asking you to reconsider what your are saying be-
cause you can't *really* be happy with what you are saying.  Can you?


>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. 


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


>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.  


>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.


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


>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?


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


>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.  


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


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


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

 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


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


Mike Linan









Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals