Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

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.

Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 369
  1. #101
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    OK JImJones, I'm getting a clearer picture of your position I think. A couple more questions though...

    1) As you have described your position, it seems as if truth is subjective, not objective. For if it were objective, then everyone would or should be in agreement. But as you have pointed out, people see things differently w/i their own "sub-world-view," which seems like you are referring to "their own understanding." Is this accurate?

    2) Furthermore, as you have described this position, it likewise seems as if morality, or the assignment of moral values is subjective. What one person sees to be wrong (eating bunnies because they see them as pets) another person may not (thus, they justify eating them). Is this accurate as well?

    3) Why are animal rights defined by being a "sentient being"? What about being a "sentient being" makes it necessarily the case that this being is owed or due any rights?

    4) What kind of rights are such sentient beings afforded? That is, what specifically are these rights?

    5) Who assigns these rights? Is it a legal authority? Or should it be mankind in general (like something we should all come to understand and be in agreement in)?


    I hope you don't think these types of questions are a form of badgering. That is not my intention. Instead, I'm employing the Socratic Method. It's a way to discover what the other person is saying in the clearest sense possible, discover assumptions (like what is so important about being a sentient being that means they should be given rights) as well as being an indirect way to challenge those assumptions and claims.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #102
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    OK JImJones, I'm getting a clearer picture of your position I think. A couple more questions though...
    I'd still like to hear why you don't think naturalism can support animal rights.

    1) As you have described your position, it seems as if truth is subjective, not objective. For if it were objective, then everyone would or should be in agreement. But as you have pointed out, people see things differently w/i their own "sub-world-view," which seems like you are referring to "their own understanding." Is this accurate?
    Truth isn't subjective - animals do feel pain, experience emotion and loss. On the other hand morality is subjective and dependent on one's social norms. In that I don't think naturalism is any different from other moral systems, e.g. religions (who see various animals as being more sacred than others)

    2) Furthermore, as you have described this position, it likewise seems as if morality, or the assignment of moral values is subjective. What one person sees to be wrong (eating bunnies because they see them as pets) another person may not (thus, they justify eating them). Is this accurate as well?
    Agreed. Or you could even have both - a rabbit owning rabbit pie eater. Hence the contradiction.

    3) Why are animal rights defined by being a "sentient being"? What about being a "sentient being" makes it necessarily the case that this being is owed or due any rights?
    Sure. I was beginning with animals, since that's our focus. Then linking them to humans via sentience.

    4) What kind of rights are such sentient beings afforded? That is, what specifically are these rights?
    I think the ones above are sufficient to begin with.

    5) Who assigns these rights? Is it a legal authority? Or should it be mankind in general (like something we should all come to understand and be in agreement in)?
    Agreeing on animal sentience is a new understanding. It is likely a fact as we understand humans more and more. Either way, I would think that it is objectively true that animals feel pain. Even those that weren't considered to until recently - eg the lobsters that we boil alive.

    I hope you don't think these types of questions are a form of badgering. That is not my intention. Instead, I'm employing the Socratic Method. It's a way to discover what the other person is saying in the clearest sense possible, discover assumptions (like what is so important about being a sentient being that means they should be given rights) as well as being an indirect way to challenge those assumptions and claims.
    Not at all. It's not something I have thought much about so you'll have to excuse a lack of serious knowledge. My goal is to understand your point that naturalism cannot support animal rights and why being inconsistent and contradictory means that those rights don't exist.

  3. #103
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Yes, that is the doctrine of the CC as informed by the Bible. Man was given dominion over those things and as so can use them, however he is also their steward and caregiver.
    Can you support that that is the interpretation held by the Catholic Church? None of your references to them seem to use that as their biblical support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Yes. You can kill the termite mound in your yard that is threatening your house. Dangerous animals also. As long as it is done with care and respect...quickly and without needless suffering.
    So there seem to be two criteria you are proposing.

    1) A need of some sort.

    2) Most humane dispatch possible under the circumstances.

    Would that be a fair summary?
    Last edited by Squatch347; October 9th, 2013 at 08:53 AM.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #104
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Can you support that that is the interpretation held by the Catholic Church? None of your references to them seem to use that as their biblical support.
    Around post 75 I referenced a catechism. Seem to use what?

    ---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So there seem to be two criteria you are proposing.

    1) A need of some sort.

    2) Most humane dispatch possible under the circumstances.

    Would that be a fair summary?
    A vital need, it is to be done with care and respect and a realization of what you are doing.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #105
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Around post 75 I referenced a catechism. Seem to use what?
    And that catechism never references Gen. 9, which was the verse I was calling you on. Regardless, it is somewhat moot, sufficed to say that Gen. 9 does not providing a limiting concept to what kinds of activities are permissible here, but that it is relatively consistent with Christian doctrine that some sense of propriety towards animals be observed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    A vital need, it is to be done with care and respect and a realization of what you are doing.
    Define "vital" please. What constitutes a vital need? Death, property loss, discomfort? What?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #106
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And that catechism never references Gen. 9, which was the verse I was calling you on. Regardless, it is somewhat moot, sufficed to say that Gen. 9 does not providing a limiting concept to what kinds of activities are permissible here, but that it is relatively consistent with Christian doctrine that some sense of propriety towards animals be observed.

    "2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

    198 Cf. Gen 2:19-20; 9:1-4."


    The references are at the bottom of each page.

    Additionally, the numbers "2417" are also links which bring up cross-references.

    ---------- Post added at 02:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Define "vital" please. What constitutes a vital need? Death, property loss, discomfort? What?

    There is no list. I suppose you could go through all of the catechisms and associated writings and assemble one. Would it be completely inclusive? No.

    Target practice with live animals is not vital. Would we let our military and police target practice with live humans? (with live ammunition)
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #107
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The references are at the bottom of each page.

    Additionally, the numbers "2417" are also links which bring up cross-references.

    You do realize that this is a separate source from the one you discussed in post 75 (where you pointed me)?

    And that the catechism you reference (both in 75 and here) don't support your argument? Nothing about those sources references "vital" needs, only that we have stewardship. Stewardship does not necessarily ban hunting for pleasure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    There is no list. I suppose you could go through all of the catechisms and associated writings and assemble one. Would it be completely inclusive? No.

    Target practice with live animals is not vital. Would we let our military and police target practice with live humans? (with live ammunition)
    Humans are not animals, humans are recognized as different and above animals in the Bible, Catholicism and all Protestant groups I've ever heard of. So that comparison fails.

    Why is hunting for sport not vital (killing of a bird from which humans get enjoyment), but hunting for population control is (in which humans hunt not for enjoyment, but because the herd does not conform to some number in population)?

    Really, my objection is that vital seems a pretty arbitrary term. You've inserted it here to criticize an action, but have not supported what it definition is (given Christianity as the moral base) or what is included as permissible. Your conclusion therefore does not follow without a better argument.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  9. #108
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You do realize that this is a separate source from the one you discussed in post 75 (where you pointed me)?

    And that the catechism you reference (both in 75 and here) don't support your argument? Nothing about those sources references "vital" needs, only that we have stewardship.

    You should look again, you are absolutely wrong about everything in that quote.

    ---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Stewardship does not necessarily ban hunting for pleasure.
    True.

    ---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Humans are not animals, humans are recognized as different and above animals in the Bible, Catholicism and all Protestant groups I've ever heard of. So that comparison fails.
    To be a soldier or a police officer it is not vital to be trained by killing a live human. The first animal I ever harvested was a squirrel. I didn't "practice" by shooting squirrels released in front of me from a box. My brother took me and I did it. My comparison stands.

    ---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Why is hunting for sport not vital (killing of a bird from which humans get enjoyment), but hunting for population control is (in which humans hunt not for enjoyment, but because the herd does not conform to some number in population)?

    Pigeon shooting is not hunting, I would barely classify a canned hunt as hunting but it depends on the circumstances. It is target practice. It is done with cruelty and lack of respect - not even bothering to make sure your victim is dead and the animal is wasted.

    Population control would be a different issue. I sometimes go out on deer damage, but I hunt just the same. Nobody said you can't enjoy hunting, the thrill of the hunt (which is different than the thrill of killing), being outdoors, even pride in a job well done. You just have to realize what you are doing and be respectful to God and not wasteful.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #109
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You should look again, you are absolutely wrong about everything in that quote.
    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that I am "absolutely wrong about everything in that quote."

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    True.
    Meaning your argument from the catechism falls apart. Your conclusion does not follow in this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    To be a soldier or a police officer it is not vital to be trained by killing a live human.
    Again, this is an apples and oranges fallacy. Humans are different from animals in the context of the Catholic catechism, so this comparison is fallacious.

    It is also impotent in another sense, I am not arguing that this is necessary for "practice." I'm saying that you have no valid definitional restriction on the term "vital" (which you arbitrarily and unsupportedly inserted) and as such anything could be considered "vital" until you define that term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Pigeon shooting is not hunting,
    Irrelevant, you've already ceded that population control is valid, and there is nothing inherent in population control that requires it to be "sporting." The definition required by you was that it was as humane as was feasible and that it was vital.

    Since you've already conceded that population control could be considered vital, that condition is met.

    You have yet to argue with more than "cowboy doesn't like it" that a more feasible manner is available given the multiple goals of this group.

    Given that both conditions stand, your objection here is moot.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #110
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that I am "absolutely wrong about everything in that quote."
    Post 75 is there for all to see. The source is there, "2417" is there, as is the doctrine saying animals are not to suffer or die needlessly. You are wrong.

    ---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Meaning your argument from the catechism falls apart. Your conclusion does not follow in this case.
    How so?

    ---------- Post added at 07:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Again, this is an apples and oranges fallacy. Humans are different from animals in the context of the Catholic catechism, so this comparison is fallacious.

    It is also impotent in another sense, I am not arguing that this is necessary for "practice." I'm saying that you have no valid definitional restriction on the term "vital" (which you arbitrarily and unsupportedly inserted) and as such anything could be considered "vital" until you define that term.

    The doctrine, post 75 again, says that animals should not suffer or die needlessly. I'm not comparing humans and animals. I'm supporting that it is not necessary to use a living target to learn how to shoot - to be a hunter, peace officer, or soldier. Therefore, those animals are dying needlessly (not vital) and there is document evidence of them suffering. You're losing every round and we haven't even got to waste yet (since the animals are not eaten or used in any way).

    ---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Irrelevant, you've already ceded that population control is valid, and there is nothing inherent in population control that requires it to be "sporting." The definition required by you was that it was as humane as was feasible and that it was vital.

    Since you've already conceded that population control could be considered vital, that condition is met.

    You have yet to argue with more than "cowboy doesn't like it" that a more feasible manner is available given the multiple goals of this group.

    Given that both conditions stand, your objection here is moot.

    How is it population control?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #111
    Discuss
    Guest

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    What seems to be forgotten in discussions on this issue on this forum is the moral basis for animal rights- it always seems to break down into arguments over heath benefits (or negative effects), or people stating their love for meat. I wish to present an utilitarian argument for vegetarianism here.

    From the ingestion of meat, one gains short-lived or even fleeting pleasure- a steak tastes good, sure, but that pleasure will not last beyond the time that one is eating a steak. The cost of the steak, with regards to the happiness of the cow that it is carved from is the following: often a life in intolerable conditions, with cramped pens and unnatural modification (I.e. intensive use of steroids, hormones etc.)- the idyllic barnyard scene of yesteryear is long gone. In addition to the suffering that the livestock must go through before entering the slaughterhouse, after it has done so it will undergo fear and intense pain before it dies. Some argue that in return for their death and meat, we provide for and protect livestock- does this sound like protection?

    Debates over zoophilia seem to currently be much the rage on this forum. Most think that we cannot justify the abuse of an animal for the fulfilment of some of our baser instincts, and most of those posting on this thread would agree with that. But surely appetite is a base instinct- and why should suffering be justified for the fulfilment of it?

    What makes it just that we continue to perform actions that are so immoral? God-given rights? Our strength- is might right? Can we justify egocentric hedonism?

  13. Thanks Scarlett44 thanked for this post
  14. #112
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    How so?
    If we include hunting for pleasure within the concept for stewardship, then nothing in the Catechism provides for the idea that we shouldn't be allowed to hunt solely for pleasure. Your support in that quarter thereby falls apart.

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    The doctrine, post 75 again, says that animals should not suffer or die needlessly.
    Something can occur that is not necessary and still not be needless. Those are two different terms that you are improperly equivocating.

    It is not necessary that I run a red light, I could well wait for it to turn green. But that does not mean that me doing so was needless. I could be running it because my wife is in labor, thus I have a need. But doing so might not have been necessary since I could have taken a different route.

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    How is it population control?
    Reducing population numbers via hunting is by definition population control.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #113
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If we include hunting for pleasure within the concept for stewardship, then nothing in the Catechism provides for the idea that we shouldn't be allowed to hunt solely for pleasure. Your support in that quarter thereby falls apart.

    You are confusing hunting for pleasure with getting pleasure from hunting. Further, your "hunting with pleasure" sounds like it is closer to "killing for pleasure" which is not ok.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  16. #114
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You are confusing hunting for pleasure with getting pleasure from hunting.
    How do you differentiate these two?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Further, your "hunting with pleasure" sounds like it is closer to "killing for pleasure" which is not ok.
    If hunting for pleasure ends in the death of an animal, and get pleasure from the hunt, and thus the kill, how is that not ok?
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  17. #115
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post


    Something can occur that is not necessary and still not be needless. Those are two different terms that you are improperly equivocating.

    It is not necessary that I run a red light, I could well wait for it to turn green. But that does not mean that me doing so was needless. I could be running it because my wife is in labor, thus I have a need. But doing so might not have been necessary since I could have taken a different route.

    I'll agree with that. You would have to describe the need for pigeon shooting. Blood lust? Psychopathology?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #116
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You are confusing hunting for pleasure with getting pleasure from hunting. Further, your "hunting with pleasure" sounds like it is closer to "killing for pleasure" which is not ok.
    Actually, that is the point I've been trying to get you to realize. Because one enjoys hunting does not make the act immoral. You have yet to make a serious argument showing that any act portrayed in this thread is undertaken solely for the act of the pleasure of killing the animal. IE the difference between something being necessary and something being needless.

    ---------- Post added at 11:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I'll agree with that. You would have to describe the need for pigeon shooting. Blood lust? Psychopathology?
    Don't shift the burden of proof here cowboy. You are the one maintaining it is incompatible with Catholic dogma. You have to provide the evidence that it's underlying intent is such.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #117
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Reducing population numbers via hunting is by definition population control.

    Pigeon shooting is not hunting. Nor is it population control, especially where the pigeons are cage raised for the spectacle. Nor is it population control when they are captured and transported 3 states away to be in a pigeon shoot - there are much more efficient ways of pigeon control. http://www.humanesociety.org/animals...s_pigeons.html

    ---------- Post added at 02:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Actually, that is the point I've been trying to get you to realize. Because one enjoys hunting does not make the act immoral. You have yet to make a serious argument showing that any act portrayed in this thread is undertaken solely for the act of the pleasure of killing the animal. IE the difference between something being necessary and something being needless.

    ---------- Post added at 11:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 AM ----------



    Don't shift the burden of proof here cowboy. You are the one maintaining it is incompatible with Catholic dogma. You have to provide the evidence that it's underlying intent is such.

    You're the one arguing that pigeon shooting is something more than target practice...prove it.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #118
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Pigeon shooting is not hunting.
    Why not?

    Fair enough that it isn't population control, that was only a hypothetical to show that your two premises were not necessarily incompatible.

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    You're the one arguing that pigeon shooting is something more than target practice...prove it.
    No I'm not, I'm simply poking holes in the presumption you've made. You are the one who argued that these shoots were not "vital." As such, it is incumbent upon you to prove it.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #119
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    How do you differentiate these two?

    If hunting for pleasure ends in the death of an animal, and get pleasure from the hunt, and thus the kill, how is that not ok?

    As long as there is a vital need it is ok. Satisfying a bloodlust is not ok. For example, my friend who can't stand turkeys...not ok, because he blasts them and wastes them. They are a part of God's cration and are to be respected.

    You can hunt, take pride in a job well done (gathering food), enjoy the thrill of the hunt and the outdoors, and all that, but if you're doing it just to kill, that isn't ok.

    According to CC doctrine.

    ---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why not?

    I'll refer to the videos as to the pointlessness of it. The pigeons can barely fly and are mostly shot on the ground. There's no need to learn how to shoot in that manner.

    Canned hunts, which I've done, aren't much better.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  22. #120
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the debate of animal rights

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post

    I'll refer to the videos as to the pointlessness of it. The pigeons can barely fly and are mostly shot on the ground. There's no need to learn how to shoot in that manner.

    Canned hunts, which I've done, aren't much better.
    But none of that is more than your personal opinion on it. Because you are unaware of any justification does not mean that there can't possibly be one right?

    This isn't a thread on cowboy's like or dislike of a practice, it is on an action being morally justifiable or not. Do you have any actual evidence beyond "I don't like it?"
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What Animal Would You Be?
    By sylouette in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: January 9th, 2008, 11:18 AM
  2. Animal Rights
    By Trendem in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: July 18th, 2005, 08:50 AM
  3. Animal Rights?
    By DogmaticTrip in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: November 12th, 2004, 02:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •