Total Members Voted: 32
Quote from: Prime Servitor on June 01, 2015, 12:30:25 AMI've already stated that I'm not going to discuss veganism itself; it may be touched upon as related to the subject, but it is otherwise irrelevant. You asked whether hunting for food or sport was more ethical. Whether or not killing it is ethical is not the focus; if that was your intention, then the OP was either poorly worded or very underhandedly sanctimonious.Well, hunting and killing are inextricably intertwined, no? We're invariably dealing with the killing of living organisms here. Therefore, you have to look at the question from the standpoint of, "Which of these two causes justifies the killing more?"That's how I looked at it, anyway.
I've already stated that I'm not going to discuss veganism itself; it may be touched upon as related to the subject, but it is otherwise irrelevant. You asked whether hunting for food or sport was more ethical. Whether or not killing it is ethical is not the focus; if that was your intention, then the OP was either poorly worded or very underhandedly sanctimonious.
Quote from: Prime Servitor on June 01, 2015, 12:30:25 AMWell specifically, my question was regarding cases where necessity is not a factor. So I think we may still be talking past each other.
10 pages on such a simple topic.Guys......
To say "You can eat something else" is irrelevant to the question: is it better to hunt for food or fun?
Quote from: Prime Servitor on June 01, 2015, 12:44:21 AMTo say "You can eat something else" is irrelevant to the question: is it better to hunt for food or fun?Ah, but that's what I'm getting at: hunting for food is hunting for fun, a lot of the time.
Quote from: Rocketman287 on June 01, 2015, 12:43:52 AM10 pages on such a simple topic.Guys......At least a page of that spent discussing it respectfully. Besides, calling it "simple" is rather inane considering how many "simple topics" get multiple pages of responses.
You can easily overcomplicate a simple topic.That's what happened here.
that's what happens when the main participants are two barely distinguishable edgy brick walls
Quote from: Prime Servitor on June 01, 2015, 12:46:13 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on June 01, 2015, 12:43:52 AM10 pages on such a simple topic.Guys......At least a page of that spent discussing it respectfully. Besides, calling it "simple" is rather inane considering how many "simple topics" get multiple pages of responses.You can easily overcomplicate a simple topic.
Quote from: Pendulate on June 01, 2015, 12:37:39 AMQuote from: Prime Servitor on June 01, 2015, 12:30:25 AMWell specifically, my question was regarding cases where necessity is not a factor. So I think we may still be talking past each other.On my logical outline you agreed with Points A through C perfectly fine, which entailed why eating wild game is more ethical than commercially grown. To that end, necessity (by handwave of supermarkets) is irrelevant due to it being a comparatively immoral circumstance.
calm down guys, don't hunt me for sport
It's really easy to distinguish Verb and Pendulate:Verb calls you a cuntPendulate calls you a cunt indirectly:^)
necessary.
Quote from: Pendulate on June 01, 2015, 12:44:29 AMQuote from: Prime Servitor on June 01, 2015, 12:44:21 AMTo say "You can eat something else" is irrelevant to the question: is it better to hunt for food or fun?Ah, but that's what I'm getting at: hunting for food is hunting for fun, a lot of the time.Let's concede that for sake of argument. Here's the comparison:Hunting for Food:-Provides entertainment-Provides essentials (food, shelter, services, goods)-Provides non-essentials (decoration, frivolous goods)Hunting for Sport:-Provides entertainment-Provides non-essentials (decoration, frivolous goods)Hunting for food, even giving that those hunters may find it fun, is still more practical than hunting for sport. More practical being more useful, more useful being more ethical.
Quote from: Prime Servitor on June 01, 2015, 12:51:19 AMQuote from: Pendulate on June 01, 2015, 12:44:29 AMQuote from: Prime Servitor on June 01, 2015, 12:44:21 AMTo say "You can eat something else" is irrelevant to the question: is it better to hunt for food or fun?Ah, but that's what I'm getting at: hunting for food is hunting for fun, a lot of the time.Let's concede that for sake of argument. Here's the comparison:Hunting for Food:-Provides entertainment-Provides essentials (food, shelter, services, goods)-Provides non-essentials (decoration, frivolous goods)Hunting for Sport:-Provides entertainment-Provides non-essentials (decoration, frivolous goods)Hunting for food, even giving that those hunters may find it fun, is still more practical than hunting for sport. More practical being more useful, more useful being more ethical.But now you're adding all these factors that were never present in the original question. The question assumed nothing more than both acts provide entertainment. Now you've added your own assumptions -- in a way that seems somewhat biased, actually. Why does hunting for food suddenly provide "essentials" (when I think we've established that it often doesn't) and why does hunting for sport provide strictly "non-essentials"?This was why I specifically chose to make my question exclusive to the kinds of hunting that are not necessary (an unnecessary act cannot be done to produce essential goods; this would invalidate the meaning of essentiality). And these kinds of food-hunting are very common in developed society, so it is not an unimportant question.
Quote from: Pendulate on June 01, 2015, 01:00:18 AMnecessary.Before I say anything, define necessary for me. I want to be clear on what you're meaning by it first.
Quote from: Prime Servitor on June 01, 2015, 01:03:11 AMQuote from: Pendulate on June 01, 2015, 01:00:18 AMnecessary.Before I say anything, define necessary for me. I want to be clear on what you're meaning by it first.For the purpose of this discussion, an extreme measure that, if you were not to take, would cause you serious harm, seems reasonable. So this requires it to be the only measure available, or the least extreme of the bunch.Obviously necessity is a difficult thing to pin down, but it's pretty clear in this case, where the hunters have easy access to supermarkets, that hunting for food is not necessary. By the mere fact that there are less extreme and less harmful options.
It should be obvious given the framing of the question that "essentials" refers to food in general and [direct/converted] material for shelter, unless you're contesting that we don't need to eat or need shelter.
And I've already established this, which you didn't refute. hunting for sport doesn't provide food, it isn't converting raw materials into practical tools: it only creates a trophy. A trophy, I also conceded, /could/ be bartered (bizarrely), but the sole fact that it is only /one/ product rather than a multitude lessens its innate value.
Quote from: Pendulate on June 01, 2015, 01:35:15 AMQuote from: Prime Servitor on June 01, 2015, 01:03:11 AMQuote from: Pendulate on June 01, 2015, 01:00:18 AMnecessary.Before I say anything, define necessary for me. I want to be clear on what you're meaning by it first.For the purpose of this discussion, an extreme measure that, if you were not to take, would cause you serious harm, seems reasonable. So this requires it to be the only measure available, or the least extreme of the bunch.Obviously necessity is a difficult thing to pin down, but it's pretty clear in this case, where the hunters have easy access to supermarkets, that hunting for food is not necessary. By the mere fact that there are less extreme and less harmful options.So you're supporting the notion that sulfites, nitrates, and BHA aren't linked to various cancers and increased asthma-sensitivity? And we've already agreed that buying from the supermarket is the more immoral of the two options, unless you want to revisit that.And how is it "less harmful"?
Sorry, but I prefer not to debate in that format. I feel it tends to lead to taking things out of context, and it's something I'd rather not do.
You contend that there are alternatives. Fine and dandy, but I will repeat, I am not discussing veganism.
I came into the thread to state something that was quite obvious, and a page later I'm still trying to explain it. Venison is objectively a food, no matter how you think of it. Therefore, it fulfills a core necessity (food, shelter, clothing). You can contend that it's not necessary all you wish, but that doesn't mean it fits the role.
I feel you're being sanctimonious because, no matter how many times I tell you I don't want to discuss veganism, you keep turning it into a discussion on promoting veganism.
Someone says that they can eat it, you say they can go to supermarkets. Someone says that going to the supermarket for the same thing (underlined for stress) is a poor alternative, you say that you should just not eat meat. If you think it's subtle, it's not; you can call it being critical, but that doesn't change the fact that you are very poorly hiding your motive.
Hell, if you think of me as a (verb-described) "typical meat eater", then I've completely lost interest in discussing the subject.
Poll
Is there a difference between hunting for sport and hunting for food?