Quote from: Nexus on May 31, 2015, 09:50:54 PM

As long as they aren't intelligent beings or tortured, I don't care.

Kinda missed the party man.

I don't know what you mean by "intelligent beings". That seems like an arbitrary line: "as long as they aren't as intelligent as humans I don't care". And which humans are you measuring them against? Math professors or truck drivers? Brain surgeons or people with down syndrome?

Quote from: Pendulate on May 31, 2015, 09:57:06 PM

Quote from: Nexus on May 31, 2015, 09:50:54 PM

As long as they aren't intelligent beings or tortured, I don't care.

Kinda missed the party man.

I don't know what you mean by "intelligent beings". That seems like an arbitrary line: "as long as they aren't as intelligent as humans I don't care". And which humans are you measuring them against? Math professors or truck drivers? Brain surgeons or people with down syndrome?

Intelligence in a species refers to self-awareness, as far as I know, not like school shit.

Without getting roped into 9+ pages of argument, regardless of how you feel on eating meat, hunting for food is more ethical by whatever degree than hunting for sport. Just by making use of the remains to the fullest extent you're doing more to "honor" (parenthesized because I realize that this can easily be contorted, it's just a turn-of-phrase) the animal than killing it to mount a head on your wall.

Also mounting heads is gross and tacky, so there's that.

The topic was if there's an ethical difference between hunting for sport and hunting for food. And to answer the question, hunting for sport is less ethical regardless of "how much" that is. Of course, sport hunters also use their meat -- as you pointed out -- but I'd think it'd be more understood in an argument on ethics that killing for a trophy is less ethical than killing to eat.

I'm not fond of the tone you used in the second portion of your post; not hounding you, just pointing out that I'm going to be less likely to continue this discussion if I feel you're looking down on me the entire time.

Ummm, let's put it this way... Personally, if the situation called for it, I'd rather feed a family with my body than have someone stuff me and hang me on their wall. But that's just me.

My point being, though you are apparently having trouble making the distinction between those two "uses", she's just making the simple argument that some uses are more noble than others, and I agree.

To the people who try to piss off vegans by saying that these types of threads make them hungry for meat, I always say, you know, good. Awesome. I'm glad you're gonna go eat some meat. That way, the suffering of the animals that went into creating that product will not have gone to waste.

Quote from: Prime Servitor on May 31, 2015, 11:05:26 PM

The topic was if there's an ethical difference between hunting for sport and hunting for food. And to answer the question, hunting for sport is less ethical regardless of "how much" that is. Of course, sport hunters also use their meat -- as you pointed out -- but I'd think it'd be more understood in an argument on ethics that killing for a trophy is less ethical than killing to eat.

Okay, but that doesn't really answer my question. Merely saying that one is less ethical than the other, or that it would generally be seen as such in most arguments, isn't enough; the claim needs to be logically defended.

Quote

I'm not fond of the tone you used in the second portion of your post; not hounding you, just pointing out that I'm going to be less likely to continue this discussion if I feel you're looking down on me the entire time.

I re-read my post and couldn't find anything condescending, but I apologize if you interpreted it that way.

A) Animals grown commercially live under worse living conditions than those that live their lives naturally. [Reasons provided previously]
B) To purchase the meat of commercially grown animals is tantamount to supporting commercially growing animals.
C) Provided Points A and B, to consume wild game is more ethical than to consume commercially grown animals.
C2) Simply the point to "eating natural game is more ethical than the equivalent alternative".

D) Define "useful" as "able to be used for a practical purpose or in several ways".
E) The option which is more useful ("honoring" the death) is more ethical.
F) The most ethical way to use meat is for consumption.
G) Decoration is less practical than an object that maintains a purpose of semi-frequent use. (e.g. a knife is more practical than a photograph.)
H) A mounted head has fewer possible uses than raw material.
I) Given Points D, E, F, G, and H, a mountain head (or trophy) is less a less ethical use of resources than converting them to food and raw material.

I) Given Points C2 and H, it is more ethical to eat for food than for sport.

Your hypothetical insists that it's either a or b; the truth of the matter is that you're not selling the antlers for a TV, it's for currency. Currency could be used for any number of things, and even then, you're implying you have to sell them. They can be used for medicine, handles, whistles, replacement buttons, fire-starters, pressure flakers, et cetera. The antlers have far more practical uses beyond wall-hanging. Add into the fact that using as much as possible entails more than that (including the skull, eyes, the fur, and meat that isn't traditionally eaten by humans) you get more from "hunting for food" than you do "hunting for sport".

A trophy is worth less do to it being less useful, and what's more useful is more ethical.

Your hypothetical insists that it's either a or b; the truth of the matter is that you're not selling the antlers for a TV, it's for currency. Currency could be used for any number of things, and even then, you're implying you have to sell them. They can be used for medicine, handles, whistles, replacement buttons, fire-starters, pressure flakers, et cetera. The antlers have far more practical uses beyond wall-hanging. Add into the fact that using as much as possible entails more than that (including the skull, eyes, the fur, and meat that isn't traditionally eaten by humans) you get more from "hunting for food" than you do "hunting for sport".

A trophy is worth less do to it being less useful, and what's more useful is more ethical.