If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics (was: Who's "Him"?)
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote: ... *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what they have to to survive. To suggest that is ludicrous. .. Claiming a need to "survive" *NEVER* justifies aggression by one human against another. To survive an attack by another human being.. You may not *initiate* an attack on another human being to "survive". If you're hungry and have no money, you may not attack another human being to take his money for food, or to kill and eat him. *ONLY* defensive violence may be legally justified against another human. 'There must be an urgent and immediate threat to life which creates a situation in which the defendant reasonably believes that a proportionate response to that threat is to break the law. [..] the fact that hunger does not arise spontaneously, and there are other ways in which to seek relief from poverty [..] ... "If the defence of necessity is to form a valid and consistent part of our criminal law it must, as has been universally recognised, be strictly controlled and scrupulously limited to situations that correspond to its underlying rationale." ...' http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...in-English-law The lion has no other way to preserve her life except by predation. But the lion needs no justification. The lion, no. However humans view the lion's actions as justified. Humans don't need any "justification" for their predation on other animals, either. After all your assertion that "rights" apply only to humans? Yes, even after that. Humans do not need any "justification" - need not appeal to some "right" - to be able to prey ethically on other animals. It is presumed ethical. 'In his article, "Bambi Lovers vs. Tree Huggers," Ned Hettinger joins Holmes Rolston in arguing that, since predation plays such a critical role in evolution, anything less than a thoroughgoing affirmation of it (either by humans or by animals) constitutes a failure to take the appropriate attitude toward the natural world. ... On Hettinger's view, human hunting and meat-eating are justified if and only if "some legitimate goal of meat eaters is not attainable by eating a vegetarian diet and . . . hunters have some legitimate goals that are not achievable through wildlife photography" or other less harmful means (Hettinger 1994, 11). He claims that there is such a goal, namely, "participating in the logic and biology of one's ecosystem" (Rolston 1988, cited in Hettinger 1994, 13). Hunters and meat eaters, unlike vegetarian wildlife photographers "[affirm] human nature by participating in a process that made us what we are." ...' http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/ethics_and_....1everett.html Not natural predators. "Fewer than 6% of Americans hunt today" .... 'The Case Against Sport Hunting Published 06/15/02 API Wildlife Campaign Director, Camilla Fox, was invited by North American Hunter magazine to submit a piece on the animal rights perspective of sport hunting. This is what the editors received. The Animal Protection Institute (API), a national nonprofit organization with 85,000 members and supporters, is dedicated to protecting animals from cruelty and exploitation. API opposes the killing of animals for "sport" on the grounds that it is contrary to public sentiment, ecologically destructive, unnecessary, and unethical. Public opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Americans oppose the killing of animals for "sport" or "recreation." Fewer than 6% of Americans hunt today - roughly half as many as in the early 1970s. On the other hand, participation in non-consumptive wildlife activities has increased dramatically over the last decade. Today, more than 31% of Americans enjoy some form of wildlife-watching recreation. Still, wildlife agencies continue to "manage" wildlife and habitat to ensure a healthy supply of "game" animals for hunters and a constant source of revenue from license sales. Non-game and endangered species and habitat protection programs, however, remain chronically underfunded. Sport hunters argue, often vehemently, that they are true conservationists. However, conservation in the hunter's mind seems to mean ensuring an adequate supply of targets, often at the peril of non-hunted native species. A recent study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin cites numerous examples of hunter groups resisting and even impeding efforts to restore native wildlife or to protect biodiversity. According to the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 29% of avian species and 54% of mammalian species currently threatened or endangered are still jeopardized by hunting. The U.S. Sportsman's Alliance - the largest sport hunting lobbying group in America, representing more than 1,000 sportsmen organizations - has attempted to dismantle the Endangered Species Act and actively promotes polices that destroy wildlife habitat. How is this consistent with conservation? Perhaps most disturbing to Americans is the idea of killing for "sport." Sport implies two players on an equal playing field. Where is the sport in shooting captive-raised elk on game farms? Or in chasing down coyotes and wolves with aircraft and snowmobiles? Or in baiting black bears with jelly donuts to shoot them from the safety of a nearby tree? Some hunters argue that bowhunting has brought back the fair chase in hunting. But where is the fair play when one animal escapes wounded for every animal killed? If sport hunters are truly interested in good sportsmanship then why haven't more hunters challenged these practices? Fortunately, sport hunting is declining as fewer and fewer Americans find pleasure in killing animals for recreation. Many former hunters find the spiritual connection with nature and thrill of stalking and shooting an animal with a camera or binoculars. Indeed, the three fastest-growing outdoor activities among persons 16 years or older in the United States are birdwatching, hiking, and backpacking. It is our hope that when hunters come to truly empathize with the animals they wound or kill and see them as sentient beings - as many hunters eventually do - they will stop hunting. The evolution toward a more compassionate relationship with animals is evident and should be commended. Hunters would do well for themselves - and the animals they purport to conserve and revere - by also making this great leap forward and calling off the hunt. http://www.bancrueltraps.com/articles.php?p=395&more=1 You up. You tried to use a purely defensive legalism for humans to try to "justify" what lions do with no need for justification. It doesn't work. I wrote that the lion is justified, since to survive she has no other options. You said that need can't justify anything, so I showed you an example from human law saying that self-defense/survival justifies (right to) lethal force against (even) another human being. The lion requires no justification for his predation on other animals, and neither do we, as long as the prey isn't human. Why don't you need justification as a proclaimed moral agent? Why would I? The prey do not have rights. They have interests which merit moral consideration and protection from moral agents. How can you disregard non-humans interests? You don't know what you're doing. You can't justify what you're doing. I need no justification. Animals have no rights. I may ethically prey on them as freely as does the lion. Why do you think you have the right to take life since - unlike in the lion's case - it has nothing to do with your survival, but merely your wish to eat 'meat'? How does your interest weigh against your victim's interests, or are you going to simply deny they have interests of their own, like living, liberty, contentment.. It isn't a question of ethical or legal "right". I just do it. It's presumed to be ethically permitted. That's the default. Presume shresume. You need to answer my questions. I have done. You haven't. All you've done is to state "it's presumed..". Non-human animals don't have "rights". They just do what they do. Rights do not enter into it in any way. The right to do what they do - in accordance with natural law. No, not a "right". They just do what they do without any thought to rights. They do it *irrespective* of how we feel about it. They do it respective of how *they* feel about it No. They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it. Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans animals are unfeeling Animals don't have any feelings about being predator or prey. And how exactly do you presume to 'know' this? We all know it. Really? How interesting. Well, aren't you going to 'enlighten' me? Really. Waiting.... Really. Can't, can you. Have. Not even an attempt. As per usual. Have done much more than an attempt. Where, ball? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Who's "Him"?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics (was: Who's "Him"?)
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ... pearl wrote: .. *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what they have to to survive. To suggest that is ludicrous. .. Claiming a need to "survive" *NEVER* justifies aggression by one human against another. To survive an attack by another human being.. You may not *initiate* an attack on another human being to "survive". If you're hungry and have no money, you may not attack another human being to take his money for food, or to kill and eat him. *ONLY* defensive violence may be legally justified against another human. 'There must be an urgent and immediate threat to life which creates a situation in which the defendant reasonably believes that a proportionate response to that threat is to break the law. [..] the fact that hunger does not arise spontaneously, and there are other ways in which to seek relief from poverty [..] .. "If the defence of necessity is to form a valid and consistent part of our criminal law it must, as has been universally recognised, be strictly controlled and scrupulously limited to situations that correspond to its underlying rationale." ..' http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...in-English-law The lion has no other way to preserve her life except by predation. But the lion needs no justification. The lion, no. However humans view the lion's actions as justified. Humans don't need any "justification" for their predation on other animals, either. After all your assertion that "rights" apply only to humans? Yes, even after that. Humans do not need any "justification" - need not appeal to some "right" - to be able to prey ethically on other animals. It is presumed ethical. 'In his article, "Bambi Lovers vs. Tree Huggers," Ned Hettinger joins Holmes Rolston in arguing that, since predation plays such a critical role in evolution, anything less than a thoroughgoing affirmation of it (either by humans or by animals) constitutes a failure to take the appropriate attitude toward the natural world. .. On Hettinger's view, human hunting and meat-eating are justified if and only if "some legitimate goal of meat eaters is not attainable by eating a vegetarian diet and . . . hunters have some legitimate goals that are not achievable through wildlife photography" or other less harmful means (Hettinger 1994, 11). He claims that there is such a goal, namely, "participating in the logic and biology of one's ecosystem" (Rolston 1988, cited in Hettinger 1994, 13). Hunters and meat eaters, unlike vegetarian wildlife photographers "[affirm] human nature by participating in a process that made us what we are." ..' http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/ethics_and_....1everett.html Not natural predators. "Fewer than 6% of Americans hunt today" .... 'The Case Against Sport Hunting Published 06/15/02 API Wildlife Campaign Director, Camilla Fox, was invited by North American Hunter magazine to submit a piece on the animal rights perspective of sport hunting. This is what the editors received. The Animal Protection Institute (API), a national nonprofit organization with 85,000 members and supporters, is dedicated to protecting animals from cruelty and exploitation. API opposes the killing of animals for "sport" on the grounds that it is contrary to public sentiment, ecologically destructive, unnecessary, and unethical. Public opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Americans oppose the killing of animals for "sport" or "recreation." Fewer than 6% of Americans hunt today - roughly half as many as in the early 1970s. On the other hand, participation in non-consumptive wildlife activities has increased dramatically over the last decade. Today, more than 31% of Americans enjoy some form of wildlife-watching recreation. Still, wildlife agencies continue to "manage" wildlife and habitat to ensure a healthy supply of "game" animals for hunters and a constant source of revenue from license sales. Non-game and endangered species and habitat protection programs, however, remain chronically underfunded. Sport hunters argue, often vehemently, that they are true conservationists. However, conservation in the hunter's mind seems to mean ensuring an adequate supply of targets, often at the peril of non-hunted native species. A recent study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin cites numerous examples of hunter groups resisting and even impeding efforts to restore native wildlife or to protect biodiversity. According to the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 29% of avian species and 54% of mammalian species currently threatened or endangered are still jeopardized by hunting. The U.S. Sportsman's Alliance - the largest sport hunting lobbying group in America, representing more than 1,000 sportsmen organizations - has attempted to dismantle the Endangered Species Act and actively promotes polices that destroy wildlife habitat. How is this consistent with conservation? Perhaps most disturbing to Americans is the idea of killing for "sport." Sport implies two players on an equal playing field. Where is the sport in shooting captive-raised elk on game farms? Or in chasing down coyotes and wolves with aircraft and snowmobiles? Or in baiting black bears with jelly donuts to shoot them from the safety of a nearby tree? Some hunters argue that bowhunting has brought back the fair chase in hunting. But where is the fair play when one animal escapes wounded for every animal killed? If sport hunters are truly interested in good sportsmanship then why haven't more hunters challenged these practices? Fortunately, sport hunting is declining as fewer and fewer Americans find pleasure in killing animals for recreation. Many former hunters find the spiritual connection with nature and thrill of stalking and shooting an animal with a camera or binoculars. Indeed, the three fastest-growing outdoor activities among persons 16 years or older in the United States are birdwatching, hiking, and backpacking. It is our hope that when hunters come to truly empathize with the animals they wound or kill and see them as sentient beings - as many hunters eventually do - they will stop hunting. The evolution toward a more compassionate relationship with animals is evident and should be commended. Hunters would do well for themselves - and the animals they purport to conserve and revere - by also making this great leap forward and calling off the hunt. http://www.bancrueltraps.com/articles.php?p=395&more=1 You up. You tried to use a purely defensive legalism for humans to try to "justify" what lions do with no need for justification. It doesn't work. I wrote that the lion is justified, since to survive she has no other options. You said that need can't justify anything, so I showed you an example from human law saying that self-defense/survival justifies (right to) lethal force against (even) another human being. The lion requires no justification for his predation on other animals, and neither do we, as long as the prey isn't human. Why don't you need justification as a proclaimed moral agent? Why would I? The prey do not have rights. They have interests which merit moral consideration and protection from moral agents. How can you disregard non-humans interests? You don't know what you're doing. You can't justify what you're doing. I need no justification. Animals have no rights. I may ethically prey on them as freely as does the lion. Why do you think you have the right to take life since - unlike in the lion's case - it has nothing to do with your survival, but merely your wish to eat 'meat'? How does your interest weigh against your victim's interests, or are you going to simply deny they have interests of their own, like living, liberty, contentment.. It isn't a question of ethical or legal "right". I just do it. It's presumed to be ethically permitted. That's the default. Presume shresume. You need to answer my questions. I have done. You haven't. All you've done is to state "it's presumed..". Non-human animals don't have "rights". They just do what they do. Rights do not enter into it in any way. The right to do what they do - in accordance with natural law. No, not a "right". They just do what they do without any thought to rights. They do it *irrespective* of how we feel about it. They do it respective of how *they* feel about it No. They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it. Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans animals are unfeeling Animals don't have any feelings about being predator or prey. And how exactly do you presume to 'know' this? We all know it. Really? How interesting. Well, aren't you going to 'enlighten' me? Really. Waiting.... Really. Can't, can you. Have. Not even an attempt. As per usual. Have done much more than an attempt. Where, ball? I miss the days of "Who's "Him"? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Who's "Him"?
pearl wrote:
"Hoots" wrote in message . .. .. Do the Hustle! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT6LRADexhw Let's Bugaloo! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics (a topic lesley the stupid foot-rubbing gash does notknow)
Rudy Canoza wrote:
pearl wrote: "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ... pearl wrote: .. *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what they have to to survive. To suggest that is ludicrous. .. Claiming a need to "survive" *NEVER* justifies aggression by one human against another. To survive an attack by another human being.. You may not *initiate* an attack on another human being to "survive". If you're hungry and have no money, you may not attack another human being to take his money for food, or to kill and eat him. *ONLY* defensive violence may be legally justified against another human. 'There must be an urgent and immediate threat to life which creates a situation in which the defendant reasonably believes that a proportionate response to that threat is to break the law. [..] the fact that hunger does not arise spontaneously, and there are other ways in which to seek relief from poverty [..] .. "If the defence of necessity is to form a valid and consistent part of our criminal law it must, as has been universally recognised, be strictly controlled and scrupulously limited to situations that correspond to its underlying rationale." ..' http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...in-English-law The lion has no other way to preserve her life except by predation. But the lion needs no justification. The lion, no. However humans view the lion's actions as justified. Humans don't need any "justification" for their predation on other animals, either. After all your assertion that "rights" apply only to humans? Yes, even after that. Humans do not need any "justification" - need not appeal to some "right" - to be able to prey ethically on other animals. It is presumed ethical. 'In his article, "Bambi Lovers vs. Tree Huggers," Ned Hettinger joins Holmes Rolston in arguing that, since predation plays such a critical role in evolution, anything less than a thoroughgoing affirmation of it (either by humans or by animals) constitutes a failure to take the appropriate attitude toward the natural world. .. On Hettinger's view, human hunting and meat-eating are justified if and only if "some legitimate goal of meat eaters is not attainable by eating a vegetarian diet and . . . hunters have some legitimate goals that are not achievable through wildlife photography" or other less harmful means (Hettinger 1994, 11). He claims that there is such a goal, namely, "participating in the logic and biology of one's ecosystem" (Rolston 1988, cited in Hettinger 1994, 13). Hunters and meat eaters, unlike vegetarian wildlife photographers "[affirm] human nature by participating in a process that made us what we are." ..' http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/ethics_and_....1everett.html Not natural predators. "Fewer than 6% of Americans hunt today" .... 'The Case Against Sport Hunting Published 06/15/02 API Wildlife Campaign Director, Camilla Fox, was invited by North American Hunter magazine to submit a piece on the animal rights perspective of sport hunting. This is what the editors received. The Animal Protection Institute (API), a national nonprofit organization with 85,000 members and supporters, is dedicated to protecting animals from cruelty and exploitation. API opposes the killing of animals for "sport" on the grounds that it is contrary to public sentiment, ecologically destructive, unnecessary, and unethical. Public opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Americans oppose the killing of animals for "sport" or "recreation." Fewer than 6% of Americans hunt today - roughly half as many as in the early 1970s. On the other hand, participation in non-consumptive wildlife activities has increased dramatically over the last decade. Today, more than 31% of Americans enjoy some form of wildlife-watching recreation. Still, wildlife agencies continue to "manage" wildlife and habitat to ensure a healthy supply of "game" animals for hunters and a constant source of revenue from license sales. Non-game and endangered species and habitat protection programs, however, remain chronically underfunded. Sport hunters argue, often vehemently, that they are true conservationists. However, conservation in the hunter's mind seems to mean ensuring an adequate supply of targets, often at the peril of non-hunted native species. A recent study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin cites numerous examples of hunter groups resisting and even impeding efforts to restore native wildlife or to protect biodiversity. According to the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 29% of avian species and 54% of mammalian species currently threatened or endangered are still jeopardized by hunting. The U.S. Sportsman's Alliance - the largest sport hunting lobbying group in America, representing more than 1,000 sportsmen organizations - has attempted to dismantle the Endangered Species Act and actively promotes polices that destroy wildlife habitat. How is this consistent with conservation? Perhaps most disturbing to Americans is the idea of killing for "sport." Sport implies two players on an equal playing field. Where is the sport in shooting captive-raised elk on game farms? Or in chasing down coyotes and wolves with aircraft and snowmobiles? Or in baiting black bears with jelly donuts to shoot them from the safety of a nearby tree? Some hunters argue that bowhunting has brought back the fair chase in hunting. But where is the fair play when one animal escapes wounded for every animal killed? If sport hunters are truly interested in good sportsmanship then why haven't more hunters challenged these practices? Fortunately, sport hunting is declining as fewer and fewer Americans find pleasure in killing animals for recreation. Many former hunters find the spiritual connection with nature and thrill of stalking and shooting an animal with a camera or binoculars. Indeed, the three fastest-growing outdoor activities among persons 16 years or older in the United States are birdwatching, hiking, and backpacking. It is our hope that when hunters come to truly empathize with the animals they wound or kill and see them as sentient beings - as many hunters eventually do - they will stop hunting. The evolution toward a more compassionate relationship with animals is evident and should be commended. Hunters would do well for themselves - and the animals they purport to conserve and revere - by also making this great leap forward and calling off the hunt. http://www.bancrueltraps.com/articles.php?p=395&more=1 You up. You tried to use a purely defensive legalism for humans to try to "justify" what lions do with no need for justification. It doesn't work. I wrote that the lion is justified, since to survive she has no other options. You said that need can't justify anything, so I showed you an example from human law saying that self-defense/survival justifies (right to) lethal force against (even) another human being. The lion requires no justification for his predation on other animals, and neither do we, as long as the prey isn't human. Why don't you need justification as a proclaimed moral agent? Why would I? The prey do not have rights. They have interests which merit moral consideration and protection from moral agents. How can you disregard non-humans interests? You don't know what you're doing. You can't justify what you're doing. I need no justification. Animals have no rights. I may ethically prey on them as freely as does the lion. Why do you think you have the right to take life since - unlike in the lion's case - it has nothing to do with your survival, but merely your wish to eat 'meat'? How does your interest weigh against your victim's interests, or are you going to simply deny they have interests of their own, like living, liberty, contentment.. It isn't a question of ethical or legal "right". I just do it. It's presumed to be ethically permitted. That's the default. Presume shresume. You need to answer my questions. I have done. You haven't. All you've done is to state "it's presumed..". Non-human animals don't have "rights". They just do what they do. Rights do not enter into it in any way. The right to do what they do - in accordance with natural law. No, not a "right". They just do what they do without any thought to rights. They do it *irrespective* of how we feel about it. They do it respective of how *they* feel about it No. They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it. Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans animals are unfeeling Animals don't have any feelings about being predator or prey. And how exactly do you presume to 'know' this? We all know it. Really? How interesting. Well, aren't you going to 'enlighten' me? Really. Waiting.... Really. Can't, can you. Have. Not even an attempt. As per usual. Have done much more than an attempt. Where, Rudy? Everywhere, stupid gash. You ****ed up, stupid gash: you tried to justify lions' predation - an offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves against human predation. You ****ed up. You always **** up. You're a ****-up - a stupid, new-age, crackpot ****-up and dumb gash. But she's a great dancer! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics (a topic jonathan ball, the stupid sick pervert, does not know)
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message m...
pearl wrote: "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ... pearl wrote: .. *No one* questions non-human predators right to do what they have to to survive. To suggest that is ludicrous. .. Claiming a need to "survive" *NEVER* justifies aggression by one human against another. To survive an attack by another human being.. You may not *initiate* an attack on another human being to "survive". If you're hungry and have no money, you may not attack another human being to take his money for food, or to kill and eat him. *ONLY* defensive violence may be legally justified against another human. 'There must be an urgent and immediate threat to life which creates a situation in which the defendant reasonably believes that a proportionate response to that threat is to break the law. [..] the fact that hunger does not arise spontaneously, and there are other ways in which to seek relief from poverty [..] .. "If the defence of necessity is to form a valid and consistent part of our criminal law it must, as has been universally recognised, be strictly controlled and scrupulously limited to situations that correspond to its underlying rationale." ..' http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...in-English-law The lion has no other way to preserve her life except by predation. But the lion needs no justification. The lion, no. However humans view the lion's actions as justified. Humans don't need any "justification" for their predation on other animals, either. After all your assertion that "rights" apply only to humans? Yes, even after that. Humans do not need any "justification" - need not appeal to some "right" - to be able to prey ethically on other animals. It is presumed ethical. 'In his article, "Bambi Lovers vs. Tree Huggers," Ned Hettinger joins Holmes Rolston in arguing that, since predation plays such a critical role in evolution, anything less than a thoroughgoing affirmation of it (either by humans or by animals) constitutes a failure to take the appropriate attitude toward the natural world. .. On Hettinger's view, human hunting and meat-eating are justified if and only if "some legitimate goal of meat eaters is not attainable by eating a vegetarian diet and . . . hunters have some legitimate goals that are not achievable through wildlife photography" or other less harmful means (Hettinger 1994, 11). He claims that there is such a goal, namely, "participating in the logic and biology of one's ecosystem" (Rolston 1988, cited in Hettinger 1994, 13). Hunters and meat eaters, unlike vegetarian wildlife photographers "[affirm] human nature by participating in a process that made us what we are." ..' http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/ethics_and_....1everett.html Not natural predators. "Fewer than 6% of Americans hunt today" .... 'The Case Against Sport Hunting Published 06/15/02 API Wildlife Campaign Director, Camilla Fox, was invited by North American Hunter magazine to submit a piece on the animal rights perspective of sport hunting. This is what the editors received. The Animal Protection Institute (API), a national nonprofit organization with 85,000 members and supporters, is dedicated to protecting animals from cruelty and exploitation. API opposes the killing of animals for "sport" on the grounds that it is contrary to public sentiment, ecologically destructive, unnecessary, and unethical. Public opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Americans oppose the killing of animals for "sport" or "recreation." Fewer than 6% of Americans hunt today - roughly half as many as in the early 1970s. On the other hand, participation in non-consumptive wildlife activities has increased dramatically over the last decade. Today, more than 31% of Americans enjoy some form of wildlife-watching recreation. Still, wildlife agencies continue to "manage" wildlife and habitat to ensure a healthy supply of "game" animals for hunters and a constant source of revenue from license sales. Non-game and endangered species and habitat protection programs, however, remain chronically underfunded. Sport hunters argue, often vehemently, that they are true conservationists. However, conservation in the hunter's mind seems to mean ensuring an adequate supply of targets, often at the peril of non-hunted native species. A recent study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin cites numerous examples of hunter groups resisting and even impeding efforts to restore native wildlife or to protect biodiversity. According to the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 29% of avian species and 54% of mammalian species currently threatened or endangered are still jeopardized by hunting. The U.S. Sportsman's Alliance - the largest sport hunting lobbying group in America, representing more than 1,000 sportsmen organizations - has attempted to dismantle the Endangered Species Act and actively promotes polices that destroy wildlife habitat. How is this consistent with conservation? Perhaps most disturbing to Americans is the idea of killing for "sport." Sport implies two players on an equal playing field. Where is the sport in shooting captive-raised elk on game farms? Or in chasing down coyotes and wolves with aircraft and snowmobiles? Or in baiting black bears with jelly donuts to shoot them from the safety of a nearby tree? Some hunters argue that bowhunting has brought back the fair chase in hunting. But where is the fair play when one animal escapes wounded for every animal killed? If sport hunters are truly interested in good sportsmanship then why haven't more hunters challenged these practices? Fortunately, sport hunting is declining as fewer and fewer Americans find pleasure in killing animals for recreation. Many former hunters find the spiritual connection with nature and thrill of stalking and shooting an animal with a camera or binoculars. Indeed, the three fastest-growing outdoor activities among persons 16 years or older in the United States are birdwatching, hiking, and backpacking. It is our hope that when hunters come to truly empathize with the animals they wound or kill and see them as sentient beings - as many hunters eventually do - they will stop hunting. The evolution toward a more compassionate relationship with animals is evident and should be commended. Hunters would do well for themselves - and the animals they purport to conserve and revere - by also making this great leap forward and calling off the hunt. http://www.bancrueltraps.com/articles.php?p=395&more=1 You up. You tried to use a purely defensive legalism for humans to try to "justify" what lions do with no need for justification. It doesn't work. I wrote that the lion is justified, since to survive she has no other options. You said that need can't justify anything, so I showed you an example from human law saying that self-defense/survival justifies (right to) lethal force against (even) another human being. The lion requires no justification for his predation on other animals, and neither do we, as long as the prey isn't human. Why don't you need justification as a proclaimed moral agent? Why would I? The prey do not have rights. They have interests which merit moral consideration and protection from moral agents. How can you disregard non-humans interests? You don't know what you're doing. You can't justify what you're doing. I need no justification. Animals have no rights. I may ethically prey on them as freely as does the lion. Why do you think you have the right to take life since - unlike in the lion's case - it has nothing to do with your survival, but merely your wish to eat 'meat'? How does your interest weigh against your victim's interests, or are you going to simply deny they have interests of their own, like living, liberty, contentment.. It isn't a question of ethical or legal "right". I just do it. It's presumed to be ethically permitted. That's the default. Presume shresume. You need to answer my questions. I have done. You haven't. All you've done is to state "it's presumed..". Non-human animals don't have "rights". They just do what they do. Rights do not enter into it in any way. The right to do what they do - in accordance with natural law. No, not a "right". They just do what they do without any thought to rights. They do it *irrespective* of how we feel about it. They do it respective of how *they* feel about it No. They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it. Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans animals are unfeeling Animals don't have any feelings about being predator or prey. And how exactly do you presume to 'know' this? We all know it. Really? How interesting. Well, aren't you going to 'enlighten' me? Really. Waiting.... Really. Can't, can you. Have. Not even an attempt. As per usual. Have done much more than an attempt. Where, ball? Everywhere, Evasion or ipse dixit B$. You tried to justify lions' predation - an offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves against human predation. Spot the differences, troll? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics (a topic lesley the stupid foot-rubbing gash does not know)
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:08:40 -0400, Hoots wrote:
Goo wrote: You ****ed up, stupid gash: you tried to justify lions' predation - an offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves against human predation. You ****ed up. You always **** up. You're a ****-up - a stupid, new-age, crackpot ****-up and dumb gash. But she's a great dancer! Don't bet on it. She may have some good points though. She appears to want to care about animals but can't get over the way things disturb *her* enough to think about things realisitically, which prevents her from really being able to consider the animals and that probably applies to her own as well, unfortunately for them. The greatest example is this: How could a person who thinks that all livestock farming is wrong, possibly distinguish between which types should be allowed and which should be altered or redesigned? Answer: They necessarily could not. Here's another: How could a person who refuses to acknowledge that some livestock have lives of positive value, possibly distinguish between which do and which do not? Answer: They necessarily could not. Is there any help for such people? Answer: Yes, and they avoid it like the plague. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics (a topic lesley the stupid foot-rubbing gash does notknow)
dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:08:40 -0400, Hoots wrote: Goo wrote: You ****ed up, stupid gash: you tried to justify lions' predation - an offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves against human predation. You ****ed up. You always **** up. You're a ****-up - a stupid, new-age, crackpot ****-up and dumb gash. But she's a great dancer! Don't bet on it. She may have some good points though. She Maybe her points are sitting up high. Way up firm and high? appears to want to care about animals but can't get over the way things disturb *her* enough to think about things realisitically, which prevents her from really being able to consider the animals and that probably applies to her own as well, unfortunately for them. The greatest example is this: How could a person who thinks that all livestock farming is wrong, possibly distinguish between which types should be allowed and which should be altered or redesigned? Answer: They necessarily could not. Here's another: How could a person who refuses to acknowledge that some livestock have lives of positive value, possibly distinguish between which do and which do not? Answer: They necessarily could not. Is there any help for such people? Answer: Yes, and they avoid it like the plague. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics (a topic jonathan ball the stupid sick pervert does not know)
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message m...
pearl wrote: "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message m... pearl wrote: "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ... pearl wrote: You've lost, ball, but are too dishonest and cowardly to admit it. Non-human animals don't have "rights". They just do what they do. Rights do not enter into it in any way. The right to do what they do - in accordance with natural law. No, not a "right". They just do what they do without any thought to rights. They do it *irrespective* of how we feel about it. They do it respective of how *they* feel about it No. They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it. Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans animals are unfeeling Animals don't have any feelings about being predator or prey. And how exactly do you presume to 'know' this? We all know it. Really? How interesting. Well, aren't you going to 'enlighten' me? Really. Waiting.... Really. Can't, can you. Have. Not even an attempt. As per usual. Have done much more than an attempt. Where, ball? Everywhere, [snip bull****] Evasion or ipse dixit B$. You tried to justify lions' predation - an offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves against human predation. Spot the differences, troll? The differences are such that they make the comparison absurd. In both cases the underlying motivation is the same - survival. What's absurd is your attempt to equate a natural predator/prey relationship with your mere wish to eat 'meat'. In that case, yes, the differences are such that they make the comparison absurd. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics (a topic lesley the stupid foot-rubbing gash does not know)
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:04:09 -0400, Hoots wrote:
dh@. wrote: On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:08:40 -0400, Hoots wrote: Goo wrote: You ****ed up, stupid gash: you tried to justify lions' predation - an offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves against human predation. You ****ed up. You always **** up. You're a ****-up - a stupid, new-age, crackpot ****-up and dumb gash. But she's a great dancer! Don't bet on it. She may have some good points though. She Maybe her points are sitting up high. Way up firm and high? May be, especially when she thinks about Goo ;¬) appears to want to care about animals but can't get over the way things disturb *her* enough to think about things realisitically, which prevents her from really being able to consider the animals and that probably applies to her own as well, unfortunately for them. The greatest example is this: How could a person who thinks that all livestock farming is wrong, possibly distinguish between which types should be allowed and which should be altered or redesigned? Answer: They necessarily could not. Here's another: How could a person who refuses to acknowledge that some livestock have lives of positive value, possibly distinguish between which do and which do not? Answer: They necessarily could not. Is there any help for such people? Answer: Yes, and they avoid it like the plague. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Bad Fat" or "Bad Carbs" Linked to Cognitive Decline and Dementia | Jim | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | November 12th, 2007 04:26 PM |
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" | [email protected] | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | February 1st, 2007 04:27 PM |
Mark Twain's "Smoking is Good for You" , and "Being Fat Can SaveYour Life" | Jbuch | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | January 20th, 2007 03:20 PM |
define "healthy" or "fit" or "athletic" | oregonchick | General Discussion | 7 | September 16th, 2006 12:30 AM |
Google "Aspartame" and you get "toxic diet soda" | [email protected] | General Discussion | 0 | May 5th, 2006 08:29 PM |