Ritual Hate.

Three times this year a girl has been ritually crucified on the internet for the sin of shooting an animal. The first was an eleven year-old who shot a mountain lion that got too close to the family ranch and appeared to be stalking her brother. The second, a Texas girl who posed with a picture of a lion she shot (with a bow!) while on safari, and the third a Belgian girl who was given a modeling contract after the cameras discovered her at that World Cup thingy, only to have the contract yanked away when she posted a picture of herself on Facebook with a gazelle she’d shot (along with the promise to do the same to the American soccer team. I take no offense.)

The general tone of twitter and comment sections of newspapers was one of maniacal hatred, wishing death and destruction on these intrepid Dianas.

If I had a daughter, she would look like this.

If I had a daughter, she would look like this.

Above, the eleven-year-old who shot the mountain-lion.

Below, the world’s most gorgeous soccer fan. (Maybe I should watch more soccer.)

diana

If I had a mistress, she would look like this.

I think this deserves a closer examination:

Oh. My. God.

Oh. My. God.

 

Below, a pink compound bow! Only in Texas.

If I had two mistresses...

If I had two mistresses…

I’ve commented on hunting before. I hunt small game and birds, but don’t feel any attraction to big game hunting. Going on an African Safari strikes me as a colossal waste of time and money, like buying a sports car, but if it is done in a sustainable way, I don’t see any moral problems: to each his own.

I suppose I can understand if a vegetarian felt disgust at the above photos, but expressing the desire to see the perpetrator killed? We all know that the internet lets you say things online that you would never say in person, but isn’t a death-wish the opposite of vegetarianism? What about people who express outrage over the photos who are not vegetarians? On what moral grounds can they claim that hunting is bad?

Here are some thoughts on what might be going on here:

Social media seems to be taking on a sociological role of letting people feel morally superior by conforming themselves to the right opinions, independently of their actions. Someone can feel like he is accomplishing something, taking a stand, when he is in fact doing nothing. Millions of people tweeted #bringbackourgirls knowing full well it was not going to do anything to save the still-kidnapped Nigerian school-girls, but it made them feel good about themselves: it was a way of showing they were good people with good feelings.

(Ludicrously, this notion that correct feelings are a substitute for action seems to have infected the United States government: hence the first lady posing with a #bringbackourgirls sign knowing full well that her husband had long since decided that he was not going to send in Delta Force in a risky rescue attempt… which was the only thing that might have done any good.)

The more sensitive you are to “right feelings” the higher your imagined value and social standing. Hence, it is not enough to be against ordinary racism, like, denying someone a job just because he is black. You want to be on the cutting edge of right-feeling, and be against things that nobody ever thought was racist, like “The Washington Redskins”, which nobody imagined was racist until 2014. The more violent your objections, the more sensitive you are, the better person you become, at least in the eyes of your twitter followers.

The inverse of this need to conform to “right-feelings” the need to ritually abuse anyone who operates under a different standard. The girls above are not particularly sensitive to the emotional needs of animals, they rather enjoy the thrill of the hunt, which is something all human beings would have understood perfectly well, up until a generation ago. That makes them inferior. As a sign of superiority, the right-feeling person must hate them, wish them dead, raped, eaten alive, etc.

The expressions of outrage are largely indifferent, since the victims of have their own internet supporters who will flock to their defense out of similar motives of right-feeling, and internet tantrums by definition have little real world effect (#bringbackourgirls). But it is not totally indifferent: people can lose jobs over things said about them online. The Belgian girl seems to have lost a modeling contract. (Though she’ll probably find another, being so cute.)

Of course, if the girls above were not girls, if they were middle aged men, no one would care as much, which comes to another point: people always get more enraged when the perceived “other” is a woman. For example, both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin transmit personality quirks (the former dishonest and cold, the latter self-promoting and flippant) which I find annoying, but I can’t relate to the deep, visceral, fanatical hatred they inspire in their political opponents. The same flaws in a man would not be so enraging.

In closing, I’d like to hazard a guess: I’d be willing to bet that the majority of the internet outrage against the girls above did not come from “patriarchal” men angry that they were stepping out of traditional roles and invading a male sport: those guys were probably delighted and wished their own daughters were more like that. No, I’d suspect the outrage came mostly from other women. Women seem to be more likely to cut down other women to make themselves feel good.

Update: The comment section below seems to go a long way towards proving my point. Read, and you will find personal insults, death fantasies about yours truly, and blowhards pontificating against strawmen. I am very glad I gave them the opportunity to indulge themselves, but I do wish they had bothered to read the whole post. 

 

86 comments

  1. Indeed. I don’t like the way political correctness dominates our society nowadays.

    1. I wonder what the Northern Right Whale thinks of your view on political correctness?

  2. How, for example, is poaching rhino for Asians with weak erections etc un-justifiable yet canned hunting simply to get a lions head any more moral or okay?

    Maybe it should be declared a free for all? Say WTF – soon there’s likely to be no Rhino ( except in zoos or special terrorist proof camps). and go and hunt the shit out of everything just for the fun of it?
    And why stop at African wild life?
    How you any idea how many Northern Right whale there are? Hmmm?

    I have never understood the mentality behind killing an animal simply for the sake of it.
    Perhaps there are physiological issues here?

    1. Wow. Impressive the way you completely dismantled that poor straw man; nothing left but a few smoldering wisps of hay. Good thing I’m not advocating uncontrolled poaching, or I’d be in agony right now.

      1. I didn’t say you were in favour. I asked what was the difference between poaching rhinos to extinction for the pleasure of grinding up its horn in the fallacious belief belief it will help your hard on, and shooting a fully grown lion for the sake of having its head mounted on your lounge wall…simply for pleasure?
        ( Maybe, that also would give you a hard on?)

      2. Another scarecrow bites the dust.
        “What is the difference between hunting rhinos to extinction… and shooting a fully grown lion…?”
        Why, the extinction part.
        What happens to an individual animal is of no consequence and I don’t see why I should give a crap what Asians imagine to be a homeopathic Viagra.
        Animal populations are a resource to be managed for the common good. Extinction does no one any good. Wildlife management is actually not that hard to figure out; it is largely a settled science. I’d imagine, however, that in Africa the problem is effective and honest policing.
        And what is it with you and dick jokes? What are you, 12?

      3. Ah, DP, the thought I cherish is that your last breath will come because an ordinary domestic cow sits on your stupid, fat ignorant head.

        Maybe you could write to your government and ask how disruption to trade is an adequate reason for not enforcing ships to reduce speed off their coastline in an effort to help reduce the number of whale deaths?

        What a dick you are.

      4. Your ad hominems add so much to your argument.

      5. They do, don’t they?

        There isn’t any argument.You are simply a dick.
        Watch out for those cows, DP…ah…I can see it now…

  3. Ark, you are out of line. And logic.

    1. Really? Well, DP and I have rubbed shoulders from time to time on this particular issue,Col.
      I struggle to understand the mentality of anyone who would take pleasure in killing an animal for fun/sport.
      Why not shoot the neighbours dog or take pot shots at stray cats?

      1. I am also opposed to hunting for sport. However, the issue goes far deeper than that – and if you read what he said, words like ‘sustainable’ are used.
        The point is that in some instances conservation is actually supported by the hunting fraternity. In others, seasonal hunting where the overpopulation is used for food actually reduces the disgusting abbatoir practices – the products of which many of these outraged individuals are quite happy to consume. In short – it is an immensely complex subject.
        One needs to focus on the specific aspects mentioned, without going at a tangent into whales and rhinos. That subject was not on the agenda.

      2. I lived in Wisconsin for a few years, where the three main pastimes are hunting, fishing and drinking beer, and the relationship between conservationists and hunters was close.
        The result was a state abounding in wildlife of all kinds, both game and non-game. Knowledge of local environmental issues was well diffused throughout the populace. It is the only place I’ve ever lived that was like that.

      3. It is true to say that the majority of dedicated hunters know far more about the environment and conservation issues than most of their critics.

      4. I am aware of the so-called complex issues.
        But the overall tone of the post where it related to the practice of hunting for fun is disgusting.
        Also his remarks about taking these women as mistresses is crass and sexist – and yes I am sure he wasn’t serious.
        But he is a Christian and I am damn sure neither his pastor or wife would approve, would you? .

        Yes, I am also aware that conservation is supported by some of the hunting fraternity who ALSO have an agenda.
        David Attenborough supports conservation and so does my brother, Gerry ( he is active in it as well) but neither of them believes they have the right to hunt ( for fun) the animals they are trying to protect.

        Why NOT discuss Rhinos and whales?
        They too are hunted for fun and recreation.
        Are you aware how many Northern Right whales there are?
        Should we wait til we can count the numbers of these animals on the fingers of our hands?
        What about the Andean Condor?

      5. archaeopteryx1 · ·

        I can’t understand how ANYone can gain pleasure from killing anything. The only assumption I can make, is that their self-esteems are low, and this is a way of feeling superior to SOMEthing. I can understand the necessity of doing it for meat – every animal kills to eat, if even only a vegetable, but not for sport.

      6. I don’t enjoy the killing itself. It is just the link between hunting and eating.
        Animals that hunt enjoy what they are doing. Watch a cat. Every dog I’ve had (mostly part terrier) loved hunting. I don’t see why people should be so different.
        Again, I want to repeat I’ve nothing against vegetarianism: I think it is coherent and noble in a way. But if you are going to eat meat, you should sometimes do the killing yourself.

      7. archaeopteryx1 · ·

        But if you are going to eat meat, you should sometimes do the killing yourself.” – Why?

      8. Killing an animal isn’t wrong, but it is serious. There is nothing wrong with eating a steak, but it is a little flippant to never stop and think about where it came from. I think the word is “alienation”.
        When people lived on farms they were never in any doubt about where meat came from. It came from creatures they raised and slaughtered themselves. The connection was vital. Same with hunting.
        This notion that hunters are cruel is strange to me: every serious hunter I know loves animals. The better the hunter, the more he loves them. He knows perfectly well what he is eating and what it cost.
        Which is why I respect vegetarians: they know the cost of what they are eating and make a choice. I know the cost of what I eat, and make a different choice.
        (When I say it isn’t wrong, I mean in general: I’m sure there are particular cases of killing an endangered animal, or killing an animal in a particularly cruel way, beyond the normal sufferings of the slaughter house or the woods, which would make killing an animal wrong.)

      9. archaeopteryx1 · ·

        I fired “Expert” in the military – it’s not that I don’t know what I’m doing with a weapon, whether it be a rifle or a bow – but the memory of the beauty of the animal I killed, would spoil my appetite for eating it. I’m not deluding myself as to where meat comes from, and I’m perfectly willing to pay someone to do it, which I do every time I pay $5 per pound for steak, but I’d rather not do it myself, just as I’d rather not repair my own toilet, or take my own garbage to the dump – now if that’s “dishonest,” then so be it.

      10. Ok. You have your reasons, I have mine.

      11. archaeopteryx1 · ·

        Yup.

      12. Nowhere was poaching or exploitation of wildlife, particularly those endangered, for mythical or actual properties mentioned. You dragged that in. It is an entirely separate issue from the sport hunting one which was discussed. As far as the outrage against the girls, and Sarah Palin,in connection with huntining exploits is concerned, a lot of it is knee-jerk and uninformed double standards by armchair activists.

      13. There were other examples he could have used to illustrate his point, regarding hate.
        But he is in favour of killing for pleasure and this is what is disgusting.
        Glorification of the death of an animal when that death is completely unnecessary is perverse.
        Why not stalk the suburbs with a compound bow and high powered rifle and shoot cats and dogs?

        There is nothing knee-jerk about showing one’s disgust about a young woman touting her exploits over killing a leopard, white rhino or any animal simply for the ”pleasure” of killing it.
        And the claims that hunter are at the forefront of animal conservation is also somewhat skewed logic, as there is an ulterior motive. And let’s remember, that hunters and trappers, not poachers were largely responsible for the decimation of many species across the globe in the first place.

        There is no rational defense of such action.

      14. A far more attractive idea would be to go hunting poachers and other human vermin.
        The defence would fall to pieces were it not that human behaviour is, on the whole, self-seeking and selfish with little regard for consequences. That being so, one now has the paradox that in many cases the hunters have become more conservation-conscious than the exploitative masses. It is skewed logic to suggest that having an ulterior motive for conservation makes any difference – if conservation is the end result, the motives are irrelevant. It would be wonderful if the vast majority would follow conservation ideals simply because it was the right thing to do – but that takes us in a circle back to normal human behaviour …

      15. As I have stated, thee are a great many people who invest time an money in conservation who feel no need or desire to kill the animals they set out to protect.
        Yes, there is a paradox involved, but this still does not justify killing (animals) for pleasure.

        There are a great many recreational facilities involving weapons that do not involve the death of animals.
        Hunters who are skilled in the use of such weapons could quite easily turn their skill and knowledge to other non-lethal ( and beneficial) uses.
        I reiterate the killing of animals purely for the fun of it is indefensible.

        if conservation is the end result, the motives are irrelevant.

        Wrong! Because it allows the hunter to have a say in the terms of conservation, and once again, this will involve a proviso that allows them to kill for pleasure.

      16. Choose your equation for many actual situations:
        + hunters = + conservation
        – hunters = – conservation.
        QED

      17. Again, you are assuming these are the only two alternatives, thus justifying ( in your mind) the belief it is okay to kill for pleasure.

      18. You simply haven’t assimilated the slightest thing I have written, have you? Those alternatives are there, side-by side with others which also exist. However, those particular two are likely to remain either/or for the foreseeable future. Therefore the choice is allowing continued existence for reasons one disapproves of, or denying it because of principle. Surely a no-brainer?.

      19. You simply cannot grasp the concept that hunting is a choice and that ultimately all the hunter brings is death and money.
        They remain because of supply and demand.

        My brother is heavily into conservation, especially in the preservation of dingos and the Tasmanian Devil.
        No hunting is involved to fund the preservation of these species.

        You are simply unwilling to consider alternatives and will not acknowledge that there are no moral grounds for killing for pleasure.

      20. First paragraph – invalid times three, namely grasping the concept, that hunters only bring death and money, and that they only exist because of supply and demand.. Truer to say many supplies only exist because of such demand – but I have already spelt that out. Dedicated conservationists of my ken are rangers in game farms where hunting is allowed, and they accept the reality that the farms only exist because of that.
        Second and third paragraph – another parallel situation, which has no relevance on the one discussed.
        Third paragraph – invalid times two.
        Reasons have already been explained.

      21. @Colonialist.

        I simply have no desire to engage you on this any more, Col.
        I have stated, that you are refusing to look at alternatives and not recognising the fact that killing for pleasure is morally reprehensible and indefensible.

        If you feel the need to justify your case in defense of people like DP, so be it.

      22. You are, I’m afraid, a hopeless debater on occasion. You assume things which are not said, argue in circles and off the topic, stick to points with dogged determination even though they have thoroughly been refuted – and then, as a last resort, you resort to personal insult. At least, the latter has not applied in this discussion, I am pleased to note.
        Over and out.

      23. archaeopteryx1 · ·

        You didn’t wait long enough, colonialist – he’s got a “dickhead” in there somewhere, he always keeps a spare! Give the fat lady a chance to sing –

      24. This is nothing to do with debating. Or do you think this is some sort of point scoring game?
        Really…is this what you believe it is?
        You know, I think you just might!
        My goodness.
        Well, wel. Tell you what, maybe you should ask one of your grandkids, Col, how they feel about this berk killing animals simply because he enjoys it.
        Why not show the little ones the pictures of the these young women and their ”trophies” and explain to them exactly why these animals were killed.
        Then take them out and teach them how to shoot . Start with ducks or rabbits maybe. Just for fun…..

        Something tell me you wouldn’t be the most popular grandad in town.

      25. archaeopteryx1 · ·

        I simply can’t imagine anyone finding pleasure in the taking of a life. Yet sadly, I used to be one of those. Once you take it, you can’t give it back. The smiles on those girls’ faces leads me to believe that there’s someone they needed to impress, and a life had to end because of it, a life that was unique in all the universe.

  4. And because stealing habitat and polluting our shared world isn’t quite enough, you @#!*% kill for enjoyment.

    You make me sick.

    (I usually do not allow this sort of comment, but I’m making an exception for this because it proves the point of the article. –dpmonahan)

    1. Priceless. You “claim” this post is about political correctness, then write in black and White that you “wouldn’t ordinarily approve the comment.”

      Why? Because it offends you to have someone call you out for what you are: A pathetic excuse for a human who takes pleasure in killing animals that cannot defend themselves?

      1. I would not ordinarily approve it because it adds nothing to the discussion. In this case, however, it proves my point.

      2. Again, priceless! Caught in your own practicing hypocrisy, you idiot.

      3. Did you actually read the post? Is it really so hard to come up with something smart to say?

  5. archaeopteryx1 · · Reply

    I couldn’t help wondering who the eland in the center photograph was stalking. After I left Viet Nam, I decided I wouldn’t kill again, and except for cockroaches and the occasional housefly, I’ve done a pretty good job of keeping that promise, but I don’t suppose my own experiences give me the right to tell others not to kill.

    But with grocery stores full of readily available food, except for an actual life threat, I can really see no point to it, considering that you can do anything with a camera that you can do with a rifle, except leave a corpse.

    It DOES seem a bit strange, however, that Mr. Monahan seems to so strongly equate killing with sexuality, but I suppose that’s an issue he will need to resolve with his therapist.

    1. I respect people who don’t eat meat out of principle, but it is a principle I don’t share.
      I look at the killing this way: either I participate passively in their deaths by buying meat from the butcher, or I do it actively by killing the animal myself. I think the latter is a little more honest, and more respectful of the gravity of the moment, but to each his own.
      You bring up an interesting point about the photos and sex: no, I am not aroused by the photos (despite my “mistress” joke.) but if they were photos of old men no one would care. I think we tend to have more visceral reactions when we see women doing something we don’t like.

  6. But, what about the poor dinosaur population being hunted? The Internet is not amused!
    http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/07/11/steven-spielberg-is-a-disgusting-dinosaur-hunter-internet-says/

  7. “Animal populations are a resource to be managed for the common good”
    They have traditionally been a resource but they no longer need be. I think people are moving towards acknowledging that we share the world with them not necessarily as a resource for our benefit in terms of how we can exploit them, through the (now) meaningless activity of rousing happy chemicals in a hunt situation or through force breeding for consumption and profit. I don’t know what the future holds in terms of a more balanced and less exploitative relationship between our species and other animals, but I hope it doesn’t involve the perpetuation of making sentient beings suffer and needlessly die for trivial human highs. It’s about weighing up the outcomes for all animals concerned. I’m amused yet dismayed you can’t see how hunting less intelligent creatures for fun is pointless and repulsive.

    1. I’m amused by your moral assertions that exploiting animals is bad, hunting is bad, and your simultaneous denial of objective morality.
      Why, why, why am I obligated to weigh up the outcomes of all animals involved? Why does the suffering of other animals have some moral claim to my attention?
      You insist that humanity is evolving in a new direction. So what? Evolution is a blind process with no moral implications. Evolution is not “right or wrong”; mutations either work or they don’t, and we will not know if they did work for millennia. You have no idea whether or not your personal preferences are to your decedents’ evolutionary benefit, it is impossible for anyone to know – there are too many variables.
      Even if there is a benefit to your preference, then it is just a temporary fix because all species are going to go extinct some day anyway.
      So until you can come up with a compelling reason why I should follow your personal tastes, spare me the sermons.

      1. “until you can come up with a compelling reason why I should follow your personal tastes, spare me the sermons.”
        It’s common sense for anyone sufficiently evolved empathetically to understand that making another sentient being suffer for your pleasure (hunting high or delicious taste) is cruel. We’re obviously not all there yet, but I think it’s definitely the way societies are moving, and it’s a common thread of popular philosophy that’s continued to flourish down the centuries. People often do war and suffering when in a corner, pushed for survival, but when presented with peace, stability and knowledge we tend to avoid making other beings suffer. We just need to think about it and not mindlessly follow traditions like eating sentient beings who once may have been our only option for survival. Most people who have truly befriended any animal outside our species understand this, even if they find it difficult to make the shift away from the traditional cultural expectations that are ingrained and also bring them some form of short-term pleasure i.e. eating meat and hunting.

        I agree that evolution has no moral implications as such, we may yet spiral in another direction, but it doesn’t make the obvious conclusions that this point in time any different. None of this seems like a sermon to me, just fact.

        Linking this to ritual hate was an interesting idea but you didn’t make it tight enough to keep people on topic, and I suspect you enjoyed making so. You’re right that blind hatred of people participating in activities we disagree with is pointless. It’s just difficult to grasp how blind people can be to what animals feel, and how arrogant humans can be about their place on this planet.

      2. archaeopteryx1 · ·

        I used to work with Special Olympics, and often found myself wondering if we weren’t defeating the purpose of evolution by caring for those special needs children, as nature would have eliminated them early on. But then I concluded that possibly that was our next evolutionary step, and one that we would ultimately need to save us from ourselves – was that of empathy and compassion.

      3. It is a nice reflection, but not lets not make evolution into a thing or force that somehow directs us. Evolution just means “stuff changes”.
        Sometimes I wonder if people don’t use “evolution” and “progress” the way Pentecostals talk about the Holy Spirit.

      4. “Sufficiently evolved empathetically” seems like you are making evolution the bearer of morals. I think you are trying to sneak it in the back door. There is no such thing as “more or less evolved”, there is only the long term question of whether your decedents will survive, and from our perspective, the question is impossible to answer.
        Just a few ideas:
        1. You seem to find more animal-rights activists in countries where people do not live close to animals. Having a couple of dogs is not being in close sympathy with the animal kingdom, growing up on a farm or working a trap line is.
        2. People have been making pets of animals almost as long as they have been eating them. You have not discovered something new.
        3. I do not have a specific tradition on my side; I have the widest of human experience on my side, across centuries and cultures. It is conceivable that 99.9% of humanity is just plain wrong about something, but I can’t be wrong giving them the benefit of the doubt.
        4. It is not true that someone who eats animals or hunts them is not sympathetic to them. A good hunter or rancher has a certain love for animals and understands them well.
        Well, thanks for reading the whole post about ritual hate. Maybe you are right and I did not have the purest of intentions in choosing those particular examples, but the post is written. Anyway, thanks also for not wishing death on me or calling me names, You are very sweet.

  8. >blockquote>I’m amused by your moral assertions that exploiting animals is bad, hunting is bad, and your simultaneous denial of objective morality.

    Interesting….have you ever watched the movie Predator I wonder?
    Or go back further. Do you remember the series V?

    1. When I was five. What’s the point? Some interspecies Golden Rule?

      1. No. I was wondering how you would feel if this were to become the norm: humans regarded as nothing but sport/food.

      2. What, it has never happened before? I was visiting a friends nice little suburb in Louisiana a few years ago and my hosts informed me that the week before their neighbor’s son had his arm bit off by an alligator while swimming in the local crick.
        Not the alligator’s fault, that is what they do.
        I don’t think animals are particularly horrified by the fact that they are food for other animals, because they don’t conceptualize it. All the rabbit knows is to always flee the fox.
        What is a horror is humans doing this sort of thing to other humans. It happens, not for food, but for fun. Unlike animals, we humans can conceptualize it, and we realize it is a choice.
        Which is why we are different from animals, superior to them, and of greater value than them.
        While it is possible to imagine a “superior race”, we cannot imagine something superior to us that does not have an analogous intelligence and freedom. They would just be smarter, stronger, better technology. So our horror of Predator chasing Arnold around the woods is equivalent to the horror we feel about European colonists massacring some stone age natives, not me shooting a squirrel.

      3. Except that the massacre of natives – as was perpetrated against Australian Aborigines, for instance was actually done for ”sport” in some cases.

        In other words, killing for pleasure.
        Now, these people regarded the ”Abbos” as sub human and saw little if anything wrong in what they did, so how is this different to what you or any hunter does when it is done simply for the pleasure of killing a sentient creature?

      4. The animal really is sub-human; no one seriously doubts that.
        But typically when Europeans would attempt to de-humanize others, there was an equal European backlash. In other words, Europeans may have assumed they were generally superior, but they did not automatically assume they could therefore treat other people any ol’ way they wanted. They need to invent excuses for it for treating others as less-than-human: they are Christ-killers, they bear the mark of Cain, they are enemies of the Revolution… They feel no such need with animals. You can’t dehumanize something that is not human.

      5. I used the ”Abbo” example to illustrate the point of killing sentient life simply for pleasure.
        Obviously such examples are lost on you.
        I should not really be surprised.

        There are ample non lethal sports involving firearms, and if you need to actually kill something then why not become a mercenary or enlist and go fight in Afghanistan for example?

        Or use your skill to defend animals against poachers?

        Irrespective, the fact remains, hunting simply for the pleasure of killing suggests something intrinsically wrong; a disorder of some kind with the individual concerned.

        Such behaviour is disgusting, and, quite frankly, so are those that participate in such activities.

      6. This conversation really is hopeless. There is something profoundly wrong with you if you say “if you have to kill something, make sure it is a human.” I’m not the disgusting one here.

      7. Again, you miss the point. You wish to kill for the Pleasure of killing so put your weapons skill you have to good use and go fight terrorists or poachers.
        I fail to see why you have not the intellect to comprehend this?
        You obviously have issues – let’s face it, normal people don’t actually enjoy killing, and you obviously do, thus failing medical treatment go and shoot something that will have a positive outcome.
        Poachers or terrorists.

        However, I have a sneaky feeling that you would simply be too poop scared to go up against a fully armed poacher in the African veld.
        You would likely be pissing all you machismo down your legs within ten minutes out in the open. Especially knowing that not only is ”Charlie” out there somewhere likely armed with an AK47 but there’s every chance you might stumble across a lion that was feeling a bit peckish.

        No, I suspect little furry squirrels and birds are about all you can handle, DP.

      8. Sunday you were pissy, Monday decent, and now this. TAKE YOUR MEDS!

      9. Why? You kill for pleasure.
        So use that hankering to kill the poachers who are killing the animals .
        That way, you get the thrill of the hunt, and the endorphin release at the demise of a piece of human trash.

        For you, it’s a win win situation. Good grief, if you have the balls you would be in an almost continuous state of ecstasy.

        Surely you subscribe to some hunting magazine?
        Don’t they have ADs akin to what they run in those Soldier of Fortune magazines, DP?

        Imagine, DP the Texas Ranger of the African Veld.

        Hemingway would have nothing on you boyo,

        Surely you’re not really scared of hunting poachers with AK’s DP?

      10. If you took your meds, it would not only make life better for the people around you, but you would have less feelings of rage, not wish death upon your fellow man, get more done around the house, be less susceptible to ludicrous conspiracy theories and probably even write better prose.

      11. Thank you for your concern.
        It must make you feel all warm and cosy; believing you are helping your fellow man.
        Why on earth do you think poachers and those that buy from them are worth saving; or worth more than than the animals they slaughter?

        Conspiracy theories? Where on earth did that come spring from?

        Haven’t you got a squirrel to kill? Surely your self esteem must be a its afternoon low?
        Time to haul out the bow/rifle and kill something, DP.

      12. Poaching is a bad thing but the temptation is natural: some dirt poor African offered money to cure some old chinaman’s ED. Nothing to kill a man over.
        It is high summer in the North. Not hunting season.
        Aren’t you the one who thinks Nazareth is a giant conspiracy cooked up by Constantine?
        Therapy and some pills could help that.

      13. Poaching is a bad thing but the temptation is natural: some dirt poor African offered money to cure some old chinaman’s ED. Nothing to kill a man over.

        Ah, yes the old moral/greed dilemma.
        Then maybe you could at least volunteer to help stamp it out?

        However, I would be very interested to hear what your strategy would be to:
        a) Combat the source/chinaman’s cultural greed and ignorance etc.
        b) What sort of superpower you had to dodge the bullets from an AK47?

        Nothing to kill a man over.
        RFLMAO.
        Men are killed for far less.

        One could say the same thing about whale hunters. I for one, would also shed no tears over whalers.

        What Nazareth has to do with this post is quite beyond me. But yes, the Nazareth as described in the bible is, based on the complete lack of verifiable evidence, very likely fictitious.

        It is high summer in the North. Not hunting season.

        Good heavens, what will you do?

        All this aside,DP, killing for pleasure is still evidence of some serious sort of mental/emotional issue.
        And as you partake of this, you surely must have problems.
        What is it you cannot grasp? Normal people do not kill for pleasure.
        You do QED …..fill it in yourself.

      14. archaeopteryx1 · ·

        If I were to ever kill again, it would be poachers, particularly of gorillas, such as the ones in Ruwanda and Congo. Even then, I would take no pleasure in extinguishing a life, but there are those who choose not to heed a warning unless the consequences are sufficiently dire.

      15. Arch, you’re whistling in the wind discussing this with DP.

      16. archaeopteryx1 · ·

        Oh, I know – that may not really be his photo, but anyone who chooses one like it, has to be as cocky as the pose implies – I just wrote for anyone else who might be reading.

      17. The photo is of me. Coincidentally, I happen to look exactly like Peter Sellers musing on the joys of nuclear winter.

      18. archaeopteryx1 · ·

        Really?! I mistook it for Inspector Clouseau –

      19. About forty years ago a handful of bored, spoiled first-world degenerates, who never worked a farm or lived in the woods, and had no contact with animals other than playing with the family pet or watching “Bambi” were surprised to realize that the beef mommy brought from the store had once been a real live cow. So they decided that it was somehow wrong to eat meat or go hunting, and anyone who disagreed with them was EVIL (or whatever synonym you like).
        Every other human being from the first homo-sapiens up until that generation of judgmental pricks would find me perfectly normal, not to mention handsome.

      20. Nope. You are NOT killing for sustenance. If you were , then this would be a different matter entirely.

        You kill FOR PLEASURE. Any dietary considerations are secondary to this issue.
        Unless you are saying those stupid girls in your photos were advised by a doctor to kill the Lion and Gemsbok in the photos as part of some sort of healthy eating plan?
        And even then, was it necessary to smile for the photo?
        Not even a tad of remorse?

        Sorry, DP, the more you try to justify the more you look like an arse.
        An arse who has no little or no empathy and who simply enjoys killing for the sake of it.

        You need some sort of mental health treatment. Really. I am not joking.

      21. I doubt our ancestors went hunting with heavy hearts and only when facing starvation after a blight killed the wild radishes. They doubtless enjoyed themselves.
        If you were to ask them: is the stag good to eat? Is it noble and beautiful? Is it fun to hunt? They would answer ‘yes’ to all three, seeing absolutely no contradiction. Then, when you throw your kill-joy puritanical temper-tantrum, they would take you to the medicine man for herbal anti-depressants.
        You’ve gotten your head so wrapped up in a self-serving moral outrage that you have forgotten the normal human joys.
        You are like Victorian ladies who believed that sex was not to be enjoyed, but only endured for the propagation of the species, or like modern puritans who think sex is fun, but that babies are an environmental hazard to be abhorred. You have a twisted notion of ethics that spoils normal human joys, to the point that you think it is better for a man to go to war against his fellow man than to catch his own dinner instead of buying it from the butcher.
        Your head is on directly backwards, and I think it is because you get a feeling of superiority from it. All of humanity likes something so you claim it is wrong: it sets you apart, and it gives you ample opportunity to throw online hissy-fits.

      22. Ranting again,DP?

        What have our ancestors got to do with anything?
        They hunted for food. They enjoyed the hunt, yes, because a successful hunt,where the animal was brought down and no hunter was killed, was a success, and everyone got to eat.
        Under the circumstances I see nothing wrong with this scenario.

        Going up against a Mammoth, or Sabre tooth tiger with spears is just a tad different than bringing down a bloody squirrel or pigeon with a high tech compound bow or modern rifle with laser sights just so you can get your jollys off you ignorant prat!

        But they didn’t kill for pleasure.

        There is a difference here and because you continually try to justify your actions – which have frig all to do with need – I suspect you are perfectly aware of my argument and are just being a ass.

        So be it….

      23. No one goes home rejoicing after going to the supermarket, even if it was “successful” and no one got killed.

      24. Let’s try to get this straight, once and for all shall we?

        We are not discussing killing for sustenance.
        We are not discussing ancient bushmen tracking an Oryx for several days.
        Neither are we discussing Neanderthals setting traps for Woolly Mammoths.
        And we are not discussing someone living in the outback who takes down animals for food.

        You kill for pleasure.

        This implies there is something wrong with you or anyone else who will take the life of a sentient creature simply because if gives them a metaphorical hard on..

        Are we clear?

        However, I am interested where this belief, this absolute right to kill animals simply because you can, is derived from?

      25. Normal human behavior cannot be wrong.
        Ancient man painted hunting scenes on the walls of his caves because he considered it a loathsome chore? Roman mosaics and medieval tapestries depict hunts because they only appreciated animals as a regrettable source of protein? Or because it is a beautiful, powerful, fun and deeply human experience?

      26. What is the matter with you?
        Are you a complete buffoon?

        It is not normal human behaviour.
        It is human behavior, yes, but this can and does change.

        The animals you describe were hunted for sustenance. All animals likely went into the pot.
        You could give a shit whether you eat them or not.
        You hunt first and foremost for the pleasure of killing.

        And you did not answer where you derive the belief that you have the right to kill animals for pleasure?

      27. I’ve never claimed to hunt for the “pleasure of killing”. I have explained myself: normal human joys are not evil. It is normal because it is always and everywhere considered as such.

      28. Ah..so how would you describe the smiling vacuous looks on the women in the photographs?

        If you consider that joy is derived from killing a sentient creature then you are truly sick.

        This is killing for pleasure. It is not as if the animal gets up and runs off afterwards is it?

        You truly are a moronic individual.
        There are things growing on damp bread that are more ”normal” than you, DP.

        I think I’ll call it quits.
        There is little to be gained discussing anything from one who has such patent emotional/ mental issues.
        Any minute now you will be citing the bible as authority for your action.

        You need help.

      29. archaeopteryx1 · ·

        not to mention handsome” – somehow I doubt that that is often mentioned.

  9. “1. You seem to find more animal-rights activists in countries where people do not live close to animals. Having a couple of dogs is not being in close sympathy with the animal kingdom, growing up on a farm or working a trap line is.”

    You’re confused here and it’s an empty point. By people living ‘close to animals’, you mean people immersed in traditionally exploitative use of animals. Condemnation of barbaric practices such as slavery doesn’t tend to come from within the communities that habitually enslave. Acceptance is part of the cultural indoctrination and ongoing justification for traditional practices. Farmers and trappers making their livelihoods from the lives of animals, treating them as a source of income, are less likely to turn on their own kind and their self-justified practices.

    “2. People have been making pets of animals almost as long as they have been eating them. You have not discovered something new.”

    I didn’t say I’d discovered anything new. There is however a larger movement of treating animals with growing respect as we move away from seeing them as a necessary food source, and as we learn more about the complexity of their behaviour. In much the same way as learning about ‘foreigners’ makes us find it difficult to brand whole ethnic groups or nations as evil or some sort of enemy, so understanding what drives the behaviour of other species of animal and relating it to our own behaviour, makes it difficult to maintain a sense of detached or cruel ownership.

    “3. I do not have a specific tradition on my side; I have the widest of human experience on my side, across centuries and cultures. It is conceivable that 99.9% of humanity is just plain wrong about something, but I can’t be wrong giving them the benefit of the doubt.”

    The only question is whether you think it’s logical to end the lives of sentient beings because it’s fun or tasty for you. Ongoing practices of human beings based on necessity followed by tradition and greed are irrelevant in terms of branding something ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. It would be absurd to make our decisions based on what everyone else is doing. ‘It’s always been done this way’ has never cut it as an excuse for silly behaviour.

    “4. It is not true that someone who eats animals or hunts them is not sympathetic to them. A good hunter or rancher has a certain love for animals and understands them well.”

    Yes, I know hunters who love animals. It’s the disconnect between the sentient beings it’s alright to kill and the ones we don’t – once again, cultural indoctrination. They would be appalled to see doggies in cages waiting for slaughter in Asia and if their neighbour was doing it, may well react with ritual hate. However, even those those with the view of thinking one kind of animal deserves to be hunted and/or eaten and another doesn’t, often the relationship with the ‘favoured’ species is very much one of domination and control, not true friendship.

    This is fun. Your answers are steeped in guilt and self-doubt. You know you’re a victim of mindless tradition and greed. When it comes down to it, there’s no excuse for the way we treat animals. I still eat cheese from cow’s milk of unknown farmed origins – it’s sheer laziness, disrespect and greed, there’s no other justification.

    1. I wish I was conflicted, the need for soul-torturing introspection would certainly make the conversation more interesting. Nope, I’m completely content hunting and fishing as I am picking fruit.
      Your analogy between ethical awakenings between peoples and animal rights does not work. The patterns of exploitation you mention as popping up among people are not universal. They are not things assumed to be right always and everywhere. Coming to the conclusion that a person should not eat meat is not comparable to saying he should not buy slaves; it is comparable to saying he should not eat fruit,or have sex, or bury the dead, or drink alcohol.
      I think your mental error is to use a forced analogy between human relationships and human dealings with animals, and then convince yourself to take the analogy literally.
      Sorry: a pet is not a friend. A plow ox is not a slave. Eating cheese is not exploitation of alienated cows. Hunting deer is not murder. A boy who owns a dog today understands the dog in exactly the same way as a boy would have understood his dog 3000 years ago.

      1. “I think your mental error is to use a forced analogy between human relationships and human dealings with animals”
        Em, they are all animal relationships. It’s not an analogy, it’s an extension of understanding, empathy and genuine concern to other, related species.

        “Sorry: a pet is not a friend.” Certainly not if you wish to convince yourself that the rest of the animal kingdom has been provided for humans to exploit and rule. I do genuinely feel sorry for people whose relationships with other animals are so limited.

        “A boy who owns a dog today understands the dog in exactly the same way as a boy would have understood his dog 3000 years ago.” That would be true for anyone who wishes to ignore the huge body of work researching animal behaviour we currently have access to. You clearly wish to be one of the gloriously uninformed generally treating other animals, if not humans, as was done 3000 years ago.

      2. Yeah, the reason why we are so prone to mental errors when dealing with analogies is because there is a likeness and a difference. For example: a rock is a being, a dog is a being, a man is a being: but they are not all the same thing.
        In this case, when we say “relationship” we are speaking analogously. The relationship between two dogs and two men has a certain similarity: but just because we use the same word we are not referring to the same reality. And the difference is human conceptual thought, which changes how we relate to everything.
        It is also a fallacy to think that humans were so different in the past: the myth of progress is always running into the reality that people don’t change much. 3000 years ago we had slavery and tribal warfare. We still have those things today. You can probably find slave free cultures or more advanced cultures without tribal warfare back then too.
        But dogs and boys were always the same.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 129 other followers

%d bloggers like this: