Comments on: The Case for Hunting http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:39:56 +1100 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Pass the Cockroach Please! -- a Nadder! http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting/comment-page-1#comment-15664 Pass the Cockroach Please! -- a Nadder! Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:07:14 +0000 http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting#comment-15664 [...] is (I know people who do this) then my sympathies end. It’s as inconsistent as meat-eaters against hunting. This inconsistency seems to only be present in urban, Western [...] [...] is (I know people who do this) then my sympathies end. It’s as inconsistent as meat-eaters against hunting. This inconsistency seems to only be present in urban, Western [...]

]]> By: Carrie http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting/comment-page-1#comment-363 Carrie Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:24:59 +0000 http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting#comment-363 Perhaps more the modern method of hunting is frowned upon and perhaps hunting in this age is wrong because of situation not the action in its own right. Our digestive system is now designed for meat consumption. In fact farming is more cruel than hunting. The hunter gather lifestyle is more compassionate to animals as a whole. Breeding and rasing and keeping animals purely for death is as perverse as it is if it were done for humans. farming can't be moral till we would make piece with the same done to us. Hunting allows chance into equation. Its fair, its on a small scale. The most simple methods of hunting are fair and perhaps a return to this would be better but who can say no with our vast human numbers it may be uncontrollable. Perhaps more the modern method of hunting is frowned upon and perhaps hunting in this age is wrong because of situation not the action in its own right. Our digestive system is now designed for meat consumption. In fact farming is more cruel than hunting. The hunter gather lifestyle is more compassionate to animals as a whole. Breeding and rasing and keeping animals purely for death is as perverse as it is if it were done for humans. farming can’t be moral till we would make piece with the same done to us. Hunting allows chance into equation. Its fair, its on a small scale. The most simple methods of hunting are fair and perhaps a return to this would be better but who can say no with our vast human numbers it may be uncontrollable.

]]> By: Jordan http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting/comment-page-1#comment-167 Jordan Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:56:40 +0000 http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting#comment-167 I'm a vegetarian. I just hunt for the sport of it! -Elmer Fudd I’m a vegetarian. I just hunt for the sport of it!

-Elmer Fudd

]]> By: Jess http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting/comment-page-1#comment-164 Jess Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:29:48 +0000 http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting#comment-164 The latter. And with spears. And catch birds with lassos. IN FORESTS WIDE AND BEAUTIFUL (I might sound whimsical but I am being totally serious!) The latter.
And with spears.
And catch birds with lassos.
IN FORESTS WIDE AND BEAUTIFUL

(I might sound whimsical but I am being totally serious!)

]]> By: michael http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting/comment-page-1#comment-163 michael Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:15:17 +0000 http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting#comment-163 Hehe, impressively cryptic Jess Yes to people being desensitized (comment above) and hence boo to hunting or yes to stalking fresh game in forests beautiful (no bias here!)? Hehe, impressively cryptic Jess

Yes to people being desensitized (comment above) and hence boo to hunting or yes to stalking fresh game in forests beautiful (no bias here!)?

]]> By: michael http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting/comment-page-1#comment-160 michael Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:22:51 +0000 http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting#comment-160 Hi Michael from Great Plains -- thanks for the encouragement! Good point about desensitisation but I think you can make the argument going the other way: if people with modern sensibilities (that DO value human rights etc. a lot more than people did say 500 years ago) kill their meat more they might be even more conscious of taking a human life. (Since they are more aware of the reality of killing). I've heard this from descriptions of kosher and halal slaughter and even if most of these stories are bogus there may be something to it. The problem with desensitisation is people associate hunting with the right wing which they associate with being pro-violence anyway (rightly or wrongly). If more moderate people join in this association may not hold. Hi Michael from Great Plains — thanks for the encouragement!

Good point about desensitisation but I think you can make the argument going the other way: if people with modern sensibilities (that DO value human rights etc. a lot more than people did say 500 years ago) kill their meat more they might be even more conscious of taking a human life. (Since they are more aware of the reality of killing). I’ve heard this from descriptions of kosher and halal slaughter and even if most of these stories are bogus there may be something to it.

The problem with desensitisation is people associate hunting with the right wing which they associate with being pro-violence anyway (rightly or wrongly). If more moderate people join in this association may not hold.

]]> By: Jess http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting/comment-page-1#comment-159 Jess Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:00:35 +0000 http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting#comment-159 Yes. Yes.

]]> By: MichaelInGreatPlains http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting/comment-page-1#comment-158 MichaelInGreatPlains Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:37:44 +0000 http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting#comment-158 On the specific content of this latest entry... I think there's an interesting paradox related to the distancing of the average person in modern western societies from the killing of his own meat. On the one hand, as you say, it removes him from one aspect of reality (and this may have some negative ramifications); on the other, it helps prevent the average person from becoming desensitized to the taking of life. Although such broad speculations don't lend themselves to proof, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a causative relationship between a society raising generations in which most people no longer kill animals, and that society also becoming ever more concerned about various aspects of human rights. (Usually for the good, but sometimes maddeningly overdone.) Of course, modern war has involved rather less direct killing, too. The bomber pilot, or missile silo commander, does not directly slit the throat of any living thing--does not see its eyes or smell its blood. Still, modern warfare can kill more people more quickly than ever before. So remaining sensitized to the direct act of killing is no guarantee of preventing slaughter, even slaughter on a grand scale. Still, the argument can be made (though I don't necessarily agree with the argument) that some moral ground has been won if people experience horror at the direct experience of taking life...even if, by eating meat from the grocery store, they're still supporting and benefiting from the taking of life. On the specific content of this latest entry… I think there’s an interesting paradox related to the distancing of the average person in modern western societies from the killing of his own meat. On the one hand, as you say, it removes him from one aspect of reality (and this may have some negative ramifications); on the other, it helps prevent the average person from becoming desensitized to the taking of life.

Although such broad speculations don’t lend themselves to proof, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a causative relationship between a society raising generations in which most people no longer kill animals, and that society also becoming ever more concerned about various aspects of human rights. (Usually for the good, but sometimes maddeningly overdone.)

Of course, modern war has involved rather less direct killing, too. The bomber pilot, or missile silo commander, does not directly slit the throat of any living thing–does not see its eyes or smell its blood. Still, modern warfare can kill more people more quickly than ever before. So remaining sensitized to the direct act of killing is no guarantee of preventing slaughter, even slaughter on a grand scale.

Still, the argument can be made (though I don’t necessarily agree with the argument) that some moral ground has been won if people experience horror at the direct experience of taking life…even if, by eating meat from the grocery store, they’re still supporting and benefiting from the taking of life.

]]> By: MichaelInGreatPlains http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting/comment-page-1#comment-157 MichaelInGreatPlains Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:06:05 +0000 http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting#comment-157 Michael, Kudos from a stranger who happened upon your blog, in the night. Intelligent and intellectually honest stuff. Keep up the good work. Michael,

Kudos from a stranger who happened upon your blog, in the night. Intelligent and intellectually honest stuff. Keep up the good work.

]]> By: michael http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting/comment-page-1#comment-154 michael Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:26:16 +0000 http://anadder.com/the-case-for-hunting#comment-154 Yes, millions of kangaroos get killed anyway with the meat wasted. I think rather than be vegetarian people would simply modify their "ickyness levels" just like virtually all societies before them have done. (Plus most of the world is still rural and hence kills its own meat, or at least is close enough to the process so as not to be in a bubble) Yes, millions of kangaroos get killed anyway with the meat wasted.

I think rather than be vegetarian people would simply modify their “ickyness levels” just like virtually all societies before them have done. (Plus most of the world is still rural and hence kills its own meat, or at least is close enough to the process so as not to be in a bubble)

]]>