|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2011 : 12:05:05 [Permalink]
|
sailingsoul.....
bngbuck to Dr. Mabuse
| Do you hunt animals for any purpose? |
sailingsoul
| Bngbuck, would that include the bacterium on the surface of a paper target or those under foot who are killed at the time? |
No.
I don't see any sensible application of the word hunt to bacteria on the surface of a paper target, underfoot, or anywhere. Medical and biological scientists may well hunt bacteria, but I see this as an entirely different context.
Bacteria are of the biological taxonomic kingdom bacteria or metazoa; a totally separate biological separation from the kingdom animalia. My question to Mabuse was regarding animals.
To be more precise, it is my current opinion that of the three biological domains, it is ethically OK for humans to kill or destroy members of the first two domains, Archaea and Bacteria; if there is good reason to do so (medical, mandatory food source, etc.; and many other valid reasons including scientific research and similar endeavors).
When it comes to Eukaryota, the ethical problem becomes progressively more difficult as the life form becomes more complex.
To render an ethical opinion concerning the voluntary destruction of each and every eurkarote extant would be an impossibly difficult task. In general, I am opposed to the concept of humans killing most animals for sport, profit, entertainment, etc. Obviously, there are many, many exceptions.
I recognize fully the food chain concept, and I see it as largely logically correct. I also love beefsteak and seriously wish that I didn't; because every hamburger that I consume makes me more of a hypocrite. Evolution itself dictates, to a certain degree, the mandate of dog eats dog (cat eats mouse, would be a better metaphor). However, one cannot deny the logic and inevitability of survival of the fittest. I do not believe that this axiom fully excuses human cruelty to animals, any more than the biblical admonition as to.... And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and ... King James Bible....does!
And there are many other fully valid reasons for man killing other forms of life, including mammals and homo sapiens himself. As always, context dictates the ethical and moral judgment of any specific incident of voluntary life-taking.
| Why shouldn't all organisms that strive to survive when being hunted not be equal in being protected and not killed? |
Well, first I would refer to the above comment regarding hunting. I fail to see any way that the hunting concept could be applied to bacteria.
But the closest that I can come to answering your excellent question is not really an answer, only a simile. But it does explain my opinion on the apparent paradox that you pose.
For the same reason that I do not consider the destruction of a human zygote to be murder; but I would strongly defend the position that abortion of a viable fetus at some late point in the third trimester definitely could be considered murder, or manslaughter, depending upon the circumstances that prompted the abortion. I would also opine that such an in utero abortion, even at the end of the third trimester; could, under certain circumstances, be determined not to fall under the legal definition of either murder or manslaughter. These would be under circumstances where the life of the mother is at stake, and similar considerations.
To me, there is a continuum of axiological relevance that ranges from reprehensible all the way to righteous, and that index of wrong to right must be considered in all instances of taking life.
To return to the differentiation between bacteriuum and animals, my opinion is that the regression back to the decision point of where is it morally and ethically permissable for a human to destroy another form of life is far too complex to yield to simple answers. There is no absolute black or white, only a great many shades of grey.
In the event the above discourse is seen as derailment of thread continuity, I can only plead that I am not well versed in the Rules of The Water Cooler.
If any other member has significant interest in these topics, perhaps a topic thread would be in order. There is much to be said, and learned, from a discussion of basic ethics.
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 12/12/2011 : 13:29:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Well, first I would refer to the above comment regarding hunting. I fail to see any way that the hunting concept could be applied to bacteria. |
Nor to cows, really. As Jake Johansen noted, you can "hunt" cows with a hammer. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2011 : 18:09:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by bngbuck
Well, first I would refer to the above comment regarding hunting. I fail to see any way that the hunting concept could be applied to bacteria. |
Nor to cows, really. As Jake Johansen noted, you can "hunt" cows with a hammer.
|
Bison on the other hand take a little more work. And while most of us may not hunt microbes some, such as food born illness inspectors or the CDC do...and of course Microbes do hunt us. The spectrum is shaved with a thin and capricious razor. And while we are slicing lets not let the vegans forget that fungi is an animal. |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 12/12/2011 18:13:23 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2011 : 18:46:00 [Permalink]
|
| As Jake Johansen noted, you can "hunt" cows with a hammer. |
Yes. And as is frequently the case, using "hunt" as a euphemism for "kill", a very large number of cows are indeed dispatched by a captive bolt pistol, a kind of automated hammer.
I cannot decry the practice as it is purported to be reasonably humane most of the time. I do enjoy beef, and I am obviously conflicted; or as Kil might say: "cognitively dissonant" regarding the subject. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2011 : 19:57:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I cannot decry the practice as it is purported to be reasonably humane most of the time. I do enjoy beef, and I am obviously conflicted; or as Kil might say: "cognitively dissonant" regarding the subject. |
Don't know why. Cows don't exactly have a lot of ambition. It's not like eating them deprives them of opportunities. One might argue that making a little cow or two and then while still healthy providing food and clothing to dozens (along with other products) is more than a lot of human beings do with their lives, so that letting them die naturally (and be less useful to us) actually deprives them of the greatest achievements a cow can reach. As long as the living conditions and slaughter aren't cruel (either of which would tend to lower profits anyway), you shouldn't have any moral conflicts. And I say that as someone who doesn't eat beef.
Bacon, on the other hand.... yum! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2011 : 20:25:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
[quote]Originally posted by bngbuck
[One might argue that making a little cow or two and then while still healthy providing food and clothing to dozens (along with other products) is more than a lot of human beings do with their lives, so that letting them die naturally (and be less useful to us) actually deprives them of the greatest achievements a cow can reach. As long as the living conditions and slaughter aren't cruel (either of which would tend to lower profits anyway), you shouldn't have any moral conflicts.
|
This is bolstered by the fact that most cows ever born would not have been were it not for the beef, dairy and leather industry.
It is an interesting challenge to the Singer form of Utilitarianism. Which has more utility, a relatively small amount of all natural roaming cattle living free (and dying of brutish natural causes) or hundreds of billions of cows born and having a chance to live, breed and feed, but only to be slaughtered for their produce after a few years.
I don't claim to be able to do the calculation, but Singer has.
(ETA: I think my usual typos were far better than the new autocorrection feature of Safari, which apparently can not be shut off). |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 12/12/2011 20:27:04 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 02:20:33 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| And I say that as someone who doesn't eat beef. |
Why? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 05:14:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave.....| And I say that as someone who doesn't eat beef. |
Why? |
Smells bad. Tastes bad. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 07:58:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W. Smells bad. Tastes bad.
|
Sounds like you should avoid the cook not the cow.
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 08:43:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
"It was great fun. I want to do this again."
You've been baptized, welcome to the club.
|
Thanks for the welcome.
Game hunting in Sweden is only allowed during prescribed periods during the year, on certain animals, for population control or food, by licenced hunters according to availability. Elk being the most prominent. And having a licence to own a gun does not automatically mean that you may hunt game.
Gun licence is not easily obtained anymore in Sweden, you need to provide a good reason for why you should have it. A valuable heirloom passed on for generations is not reason enough, which means that it may have to be sold or destroyed in case the person inheriting it doesn't already have a licence. My father has been asking me from time to time if I shouldn't join a shooting club and secure a licence for sporting guns, so I can inherit his guns the day he kicks it (being a retired officer, he has a few).
Many members of local gun clubs don't own any guns, but use the club's gun and a kind of club-wide communal licence which applies to the members of that gun club. It takes years to obtain a personal licence.
I will probably not hunt game, it's way too messy having to deal with the aftermath. I prefer getting my meat from the counter chopped up in manageable sizes for the frying pan or the grill. But I see no ethical reason why I couldn't kill game for food. It happens everywhere and is part of nature, and we are after all omnivores. Keeping animals for food seems perfectly fine by me, however, that in no way grant us the right to mistreat or abuse them.
Hunting animals solely for sports is something I strongly disapprove of. That's just senseless killing for pleasure, and should be outlawed on planet Earth. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/13/2011 08:46:05 |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 08:44:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
No.I don't see any sensible application of the word [i]hunt to bacteria on the surface of a paper target, underfoot, or anywhere. Medical and biological scientists may well hunt bacteria, but I see this as an entirely different context. |
I agree it is a completely different context. It was a bit tognue in cheek comment and was an excuse to present the video of that white blood cell hunting that specific bacteria. While passing up at least one other during the chase. I see that white blood cell is most definitely hunting that bacteria. It even consumed it upon capture. I don't think that because people don't normally hunt bacteria that it can't be done. My evidence is that video.
I'm not voting for a thread on the ethics of hunting. Mostly because that's an exercise where opinions are not likely to be altered after their presentation. Not my cup of tea. It would be like talking religion with the hope of conversion by either side, a bit futile in my view. 
edit for grammatical clarity |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
| Edited by - sailingsoul on 12/13/2011 09:03:05 |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 08:59:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by sailingsoul
"It was great fun. I want to do this again."
You've been baptized, welcome to the club.
|
Thanks for the welcome.
Game hunting in Sweden is only allowed during prescribed periods during the year, on certain animals, for population control or food, by licenced hunters according to availability. Elk being the most prominent. And having a licence to own a gun does not automatically mean that you may hunt game.
Gun licence is not easily obtained anymore in Sweden, you need to provide a good reason for why you should have it. A valuable heirloom passed on for generations is not reason enough, which means that it may have to be sold or destroyed in case the person inheriting it doesn't already have a licence. My father has been asking me from time to time if I shouldn't join a shooting club and secure a licence for sporting guns, so I can inherit his guns the day he kicks it (being a retired officer, he has a few).
Many members of local gun clubs don't own any guns, but use the club's gun and a kind of club-wide communal licence which applies to the members of that gun club. It takes years to obtain a personal licence.
I will probably not hunt game, it's way too messy having to deal with the aftermath. I prefer getting my meat from the counter chopped up in manageable sizes for the frying pan or the grill. But I see no ethical reason why I couldn't kill game for food. It happens everywhere and is part of nature, and we are after all omnivores. Keeping animals for food seems perfectly fine by me, however, that in no way grant us the right to mistreat or abuse them.
Hunting animals solely for sports is something I strongly disapprove of. That's just senseless killing for pleasure, and should be outlawed on planet Earth.
|
I went deer hunting once in Texas with my brother. Didn't fire a shot. The biggest thing I've learned is I froze my butt off and deer have radar. It fulfilled any desire to ever repeat the venture. I like you have no problem hunting for food and not sport.
As far as the laws about guns in you country, it appears that all private gun ownership can be criminalized in one generation under them. Except for those whom the government blesses. That's ridiculous, it nothing more than the government out right banning gun ownership, over time. I'm evidently a supporter of civilian gun ownership.
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 09:03:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Originally posted by Dave W. Smells bad. Tastes bad.
|
Sounds like you should avoid the cook not the cow. |
I haven't met a cook who could make it appealing. It's me, not them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 10:37:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Originally posted by Dave W. Smells bad. Tastes bad.
|
Sounds like you should avoid the cook not the cow.
|
Although I am someone who will eat anything at least once, unless it come in the form of a patty, I don't care for beef either. And I am usually the cook. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 11:29:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by sailingsoul
"It was great fun. I want to do this again."
You've been baptized, welcome to the club.
|
Thanks for the welcome.
Game hunting in Sweden is only allowed during prescribed periods during the year, on certain animals, for population control or food, by licenced hunters according to availability. Elk being the most prominent. And having a licence to own a gun does not automatically mean that you may hunt game. |
Same here in the States. PETA has been screwing with the process by buying the licenses and not using them to take the prescribed number of animals. (In some States, the first week of deer season is an unofficial state holiday.)
And venison in Illinois primarily feeds on corn, so there is hardly any wild taste to it. You do have to add fat so it will cook properly. (Venison is very lean.)
I'll omit a rather sad joke concerning Norway and a certian film released. I thoroughly enjoyed the film as it was a far better faux amateur docudrama than Blair Witch. Trolljegeren (auf English "Trollhunter") was very well put together.
Gun licence is not easily obtained anymore in Sweden, you need to provide a good reason for why you should have it. A valuable heirloom passed on for generations is not reason enough, which means that it may have to be sold or destroyed in case the person inheriting it doesn't already have a licence. My father has been asking me from time to time if I shouldn't join a shooting club and secure a licence for sporting guns, so I can inherit his guns the day he kicks it (being a retired officer, he has a few).
|
Kinda silly. Does not allow for someone to collect historically significant weapons.
Many members of local gun clubs don't own any guns, but use the club's gun and a kind of club-wide communal licence which applies to the members of that gun club. It takes years to obtain a personal licence. |
Not a bad idea. Allows people to determine if they can become proficient in the use of the weapon.
I will probably not hunt game, it's way too messy having to deal with the aftermath. I prefer getting my meat from the counter chopped up in manageable sizes for the frying pan or the grill. But I see no ethical reason why I couldn't kill game for food. It happens everywhere and is part of nature, and we are after all omnivores. Keeping animals for food seems perfectly fine by me, however, that in no way grant us the right to mistreat or abuse them.
Hunting animals solely for sports is something I strongly disapprove of. That's just senseless killing for pleasure, and should be outlawed on planet Earth.
|
Here in the States, you can find butcher shops in the primary hunting areas who are willing to dress and butcher your kill for a fee. There are some cuts which some might not consider that are delicious. Heart is quite tasty when cooked properly.
Trophy hunting is pointless. Even Terrible Ted Nuggent eats what he kills. If you are killing an animal just for the trophy, then you are wasting a lot of really quality meat. At least donate the meat to the homeless, but don't let it go to waste. Same thing with sport fishing or "catch and release" fishing. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The water cooler, part 3
