From: gun-smoke@cup.portal.com (Thomas Alan Swenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: re: Moral Judgements
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:06:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

David Caruso II writes >>>>
Thomas Alan Swenson responds to David >>>
Robert Black responds to Thomas Alan Swenson >>
Thomas Alan Swenson responds to Black >
Robert Black responds to Tom Swenson *

I deleted most of this stuff because we've seen it all before and 
it wastes bandwidth.  

In reply to Robert Blacks religious arguments:

I view mans role as benevolent master.  We were created in God's image and 
given this earth to rule over.  This is not to say that it's O.K. to set  
animals on fire for our amusement.  Someone who sets an animal on fire 
because he delights in suffering, degrades himself.  As a hunter I admire 
and appreciate the game I hunt and strive to minimize suffering.  The act 
of killing game is a very small portion of the total experience.  The 
responsibility is for the whole earth not just the animals.

While we are on the subject of stewardship.  Hunters feel a strong sense 
of stewardship. This responsibility extends far beyond the animals.  It  
includes the wild places we hunt in and the preservation of our traditions.
This why hunters have supported conservation long before it was the 
"politically correct" thing to do.  It is also why so many hunters fight 
so passionately to preserve our rights and continue our traditions.  
We want our children and grand children to enjoy the things we have 
enjoyed.    

You still haven't justified animals having rights.  Because some animals 
can feel pain,  our sense of decency and compassion says we should not 
inflict UNNECESSARY pain.  I view the concept of animal rights in an 
entirely different light.  When  you say animals have rights you are 
also saying animal are our equals.  It goes against everything I 
believe.

*Secondly, your analogy falls apart because, the right that you're
*claiming involves a third party.  Consider the case of a cannibal who
*recognizes your right to abstain from eating human flesh.  All he asks
*of you is to recognize his right to decide this issue for himself and
*live according to his own beliefs.  What about a man who likes to beat
*women? He recognizes your right not to do it and only asks that you
*recognize his right to decide for himself?  Isn't it clear that when you
*introduce a third party (i.e. a victim), the rules change?

By inventing rights where they have do  not exist. You are attempting to 
change the rules.

Suppose I was to decide that trees have a right to life?  Does that give 
me the right to force you to stop using wood and paper?  Don't laugh, 
there are people out there who actually believe trees have rights.   
Some of them have been known to drive steel spikes into trees causing 
serious injury to anyone who cuts into one with a chain saw.  

*If you're correct in deducing the ultimate goal, is that a bad goal if
*it's accomplished through persuasion by the use of facts and reason?

The problem is some animal rights groups are not using facts and reason.  
They are using blind emotion, lies and intimidation to accomplish their 
goals.  I have a copy of a pamphlet published by People for the Ethical 
Treatment of Animals entitled "How to Sabotage Hunts A Guide for 
Defending Wildlife."  It starts out "A small but violent minority known 
as American hunters..."  

Among the tactics advocated are "Plaster the floors of hunting blinds 
with cow dung, rotten eggs, or other unpleasant substances.  Tear down 
tree stands."  This brochure also encourages activists "During actual 
hunts, assemble a group of people early in the morning and use air 
horns and whistles to warn animal into hiding."  I realize PETA doesn't 
speak for the entire animal rights movement but they are one of the 
larger and more vocal groups out there.

It is because of the increasing militancy of groups like PETA, I view 
the animal rights movement as a direct threat to my values and my freedom.
Like many of my fellow hunters,  I have a strong desire for my children 
to enjoy the wild places, the freedoms  and traditions  I have enjoyed.  
I was raised to believe that in America we  have the right to live 
according to our own beliefs not those of a radical minority.

*How do I keep getting sucked into these lengthy exchanges?  
*anyone else have work to do? :-)

I post from home.

Tom Swenson
Freedom of the press is great -- If YOU own the press!



 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals