From: sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:45:05 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan6.072251.6605@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>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.
>
You people just aren't *listening* are you?  Hello??  Anybody there?
First - my point was NOT that hunting as a means of sustenance was unethical -
in fact if you took the trouble to read a few postings back you will
realize I specifically stated that hunting as a means of putting food on
the table is easily justified.  I made NO claim to man being herbivores -
I have no CLUE as to why you chose to jump to such ridiculous conclusions
only to support your personal agenda and to involuntarily force
inconsistencies within my philosophical framework.  Perhaps because many
pro-hunter types figure that if someone has something bad to say about
any aspect of hunting in general, that person must be promoting vegetarianism?
Look - I made no claim whatsoever to "man as herbivores" or stuff like
that, would you please lay off spewing the pro-hunting vs. anti-hunting/
pro-vegetarian dogma and realize that people are individuals and have
opinions, values, and beliefs that don't convenienly fit into 
stereotyped categories to which you have armored yourself to??
Before making assumptions about who I am and what I believe, would you
please give me the respect to realize that maybe - just MAYBE - somebody
with something negative to say about hunting might possibly believe
that eating meat is OKAY?!  I am trying to give you the same respect,
but I feel that you are unnecessarily pigeonholing me into preconceived
stereotypes.
>>
>>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.

Hold it for a sec.  First - I think PETA is a manipulative propoganda
machine, though I do admire some of the issues they do bring up
(read: SOME).  Now the point I was trying to make is that I KNOW some
hunters, maybe not you (the respect thing I previously mentioned) who
hunted because, truthfully, they got off on hunting down and killing
animals - period.  Not to eat them - but that the means had become an
ends.  Do you understand the nature of such a problem - i.e where a means
becomes an ends?  You'll have to answer that for me, as I won't assume if
you do or if you don't.

No off to the side - your discimination between animals and humans is
quite interesting.  What makes you think that killing a human isn't a natural
part of the cycle of life and death and survival on earth?  What makes
you think - or what gives you the AUTHORITY shall we say - to be so
smug and egotistical to believe that you are that separate from animals?
After all, if you subscribe to the theory of evolution (which you might
not) you must realize that the only real difference between humans and
other animals is that we have developed a sense of intelligence that in
our own minds makes us feel superior to everything on this planet.
"We are humans and it is so because we said so - and because we have the
weapons" seems to be the usual root philosiphy behind this belief.
A similar mechanism is going on right now in Bosnia - "we are Serbs and
we are superior and we have the weapons, so we kill Muslims out of
'ethnic cleansing'".  When you examine it - the basis for your claims to
being that separate and superior to other animals is very much the same
that is used by Serbians who kill and rape Muslims in Bosnia.  It's
the company you keep that often determines the person that you are.
>
>>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.

Melodrama or not, the basis for the car beating thing is the same as the
basis for the Bosnia thing which is the same basis for the animal thing
because who determines that humans are somehow superior and have the right
to do what they want?  We do.  If I think I am superior to you and if
i can kill you and do so and get away with it, does that make it ethical?

>>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

There's that deaf-eared vegan stereotyping dogma again.

>>>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.

The subject was somebody who stated that doing something for pleasure,
eg. sex, somehow correlated with the pleasure for hunting and somehow
both activities apply the same.  By introducing the difference - that is
the element of death in the form of a 9mm slug - into the picture, it
becomes obvious that demonstrating the parallels between hunting and
sex is purely ludicrous.

>First, the example about enjoying watching people die, then the part
>about hunting the retarded, now necrophilic beastiality -- you are one
>sick puppy.
>
Sorry - statements like this in light of the true context of these
paraphrased statements indicate a lack of individual thought or creativity
on your part.

>>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.
>>>
Please - it was a joke (note smiley face, and please don't ask me to explain
what one of them are supposed to mean to you).  You are getting desperate.

>>>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.

Nor have I tried to argue such.  The point was that killing for the sake of
killing in and of itself - for pleasure - is what I found unethical.
>
>>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.
>>>
>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?
>
I have always drawn the line where killing for the sake of killing I feel
is wrong.  Sme hunters hunt for food - and they use what they kill in
a constructive way - but that does not represent all hunters (refer to
the respect thing once again, as everyone is different).  My objection was
to people who kill moose, rhinos, cats, what have you for the sake of
killing or sticking them on their wall for show or trophy  -- what a waste.
What an egotistical waste.  Never did I claim that ALL hunters do this
(again - you are putting words in my mouth and stereotyping anybody who
differs in your viewpoint towards hunting) - but SOME do.  Got it?

Please - read your facts before you make an incorrect premise for your
arguments and babble on layer upon layer over a mistaken assumption.  it
will save you effort and this group bandwidth.

greg