Killing animals?

[calandale]

I love eating pigs and cows and all sorts of animals, if they don't like it they can kiss my ass.

You'd like THAT too though. 

Well to take a life to save a couple of quid seems a bit... well horrible to me.

Money's an important concern to some of us.
I'd eat meat that I knew otherwise. If you can
get it cheaper, WITH the moral superiority of
killing it yourself, I see no problem.

especially now that free range and organic is trendy

Trendy is killing the meaning though. These terms
are being legislated into being pointless now.

, I don't see what the difference between that and wild would be personally.

Uhm...different types of animals? One doesn't go HUNTING
cattle. And farms don't tend to have deer on them.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Well to take a life to save a couple of quid seems a bit... well horrible to me.

Money's an important concern to some of us.
I'd eat meat that I knew otherwise. If you can
get it cheaper, WITH the moral superiority of
killing it yourself, I see no problem.

If money is an important concern and you don't mind animals being killed for it, then what's your problem with companies doing it for money?

especially now that free range and organic is trendy

Trendy is killing the meaning though. These terms
are being legislated into being pointless now.

Just because they're not put in place for the right reason doesn't mean the effect isn't the same

, I don't see what the difference between that and wild would be personally.

Uhm...different types of animals? One doesn't go HUNTING
cattle. And farms don't tend to have deer on them.

Smart arse.
I know that, I meant the end product, i.e. the taste of the meat.

 

[calandale]

Dealing with messy quote **** up, as
best I can:

If money is an important concern and you don't mind animals being killed for it, then what's your problem with companies doing it for money?.

No problem. The problem is with torture.
I don't give a **** about KILLING.

Just because they're not put in place for the right reason doesn't mean the effect isn't the same

When they can be genetically modified,
I don't see how the meaning is not changing.

Smart arse.
I know that, I meant the end product, i.e. the taste of the meat.

Meat is not just meat to me. Nor to most people.
Game TASTES different. Likewise, animals which are
well treated do, as well. As do baby cattle who are
caged up, so they can't move; or geese who are
force fed. Don't yell at people for liking the taste of
wild meat, when there are those who purchase
veal and pate.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Ah go feck yersen, it's 3:30. Tried to fix it, just got worse, apologies.

Right, I have no idea where I am anymore
To start off, "When they can be genetically modified,
I don't see how the meaning is not changing. "

I have no idea what you mean here so you're going to have to explain it.

"Meat is not just meat to me. Nor to most people.
Game TASTES different. Likewise, animals which are
well treated do, as well. As do baby cattle who are
caged up, so they can't move; or geese who are
force fed. Don't yell at people for liking the taste of
wild meat, when there are those who purchase
veal and pate."

I've already said that what would be the difference in the taste of free range and organic meat to wild meat? Both have generally the same lifestyle. And also don't say "most people" who are you including in this sample of yours?
I'm not yelling at anyone, I'm just stating my opinion.

 

[Llew2]

**** that, my ancestors worked damn hard to be top of the food chain, anything entering my territory is a prospective lunch.

I agree.

Personally though, I think all you city-slickers should stay on a farm for a year or two. It'll give you a whole new perspective on the subject and it'll make you realize how stupid all the 'save the poor defenseless animals' people are.

 

[calandale]

I have no idea what you mean here so you're going to have to explain it.

One can't avoid genetically engineered
food, by simply buying 'organic'.

I've already said that what would be the difference in the taste of free range and organic meat to wild meat? Both have generally the same lifestyle. And also don't say "most people" who are you including in this sample of yours?
I'm not yelling at anyone, I'm just stating my opinion.

And I've already stated, different types of animals.
While I know of people who end up hunting cows
(whoops!), deer taste different. Not a matter of
free range, but rather the actual animal. I'm sure
that wild cattle, who haven't been bred for human
consumption through the millennia, also taste different.

 

[13 Spider Bloody Chain]

I've already said that what would be the difference in the taste of free range and organic meat to wild meat? Both have generally the same lifestyle. And also don't say "most people" who are you including in this sample of yours?
I'm not yelling at anyone, I'm just stating my opinion.

Eh...you do realize that certain types of wild game are not domesticated? Deer, for example, are almost impossible to domisticate. Reindeer? Sure. Normal deer? Not so much...

Interesting thing on veal:

Veal is people!

...

Well, no.

Veal is actually male dairy cows.

There are generally two types of cows involved in dairy/meat products: dairy cows (like the black & white Holsteins) and beef cows (like Angus breeds, etc.).

Dairy cows are just that: over generations, millennia, perhaps, they were bred to make milk, and lots of it. Thus, they don't gain a whole ton of meat or fat since most of it goes into making milk. Beef cows, of course, are bred to convert most of their food energy into meat and fat.

Problem with dairy cows is this: male dairy cows can't make milk. They're also poor for real beef. You COULD try mating a few of them with beef cows to make half-breeds, but you still have tons and tons of males left, and halfbreed cows are kinda meh in both milking and beefing (if beefing is a word). Thus, you can either kill them and shove them into a landfill, or simply try to make best use of them: turn them into veal.

And that's why we have veal.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Personally though, I think all you city-slickers should stay on a farm for a year or two. It'll give you a whole new perspective on the subject and it'll make you realize how stupid all the 'save the poor defenseless animals' people are.

Ah the rural argument. You city people don't get our way of life 
Didn't work with fox hunting, not going to work with this.
You're assuming that everyone who disagrees with saving animals is doing it just because they're cute, fluffy and defenceless. I for one want the least amount of animals to die because I believe that life is a ... for want of a better phrase "once in a lifetime" thing.

One can't avoid genetically engineered
food, by simply buying 'organic'.

Well that depends what we're talking about. I don't really have anything against GM foods, so long as it's not going too far as in they're changed so they can't even move.

And I've already stated, different types of animals.
While I know of people who end up hunting cows
(whoops!), deer taste different. Not a matter of
free range, but rather the actual animal. I'm sure
that wild cattle, who haven't been bred for human
consumption through the millennia, also taste different.

To be honest, I really don't get your argument anymore, I've responded to so many people that I don't remember who said what.
As far as I recall we were debating whether animals in free-range would taste the same as animals in the wild.

Eh...you do realize that certain types of wild game are not domesticated? Deer, for example, are almost impossible to domisticate. Reindeer? Sure. Normal deer? Not so much...

There's a German stall that comes around with the German market that visits our town every so often, and they sell deer burgers, I can't imagine they hunted them all.


Anyway guys, I'm out, I've shattered and lost my bearings in every argument. I need sleep and I shall return to the fray anew.

 

[RR_Raptor65]

Any competent hunter will shoot an animal in the heart, the animal will take one step, and die.  I've seen it time and time again, and these are all older animals who have had a long and prosperous life by their standards, and more than likely produced many offspring.  When an animal dies naturally in the wild, they don't just lie down and never wake up, no, more often than not, sickness or the accumulation of a lifetime of wear and tear will kill them (Granted a predator doesn't take them first).  They'll either die a horrible death of starvation, unable to feed themselves anymore, or they'll die of sickness. 
Now, which sounds better to you:  Death by a bullet, which kills you instantly in the prime of your life, where you do not yet know hunger or sickness, or dying in your own filth over the span of several weeks?

On top of that, imagine living in a place where there are so many others that there just isn't enough food to feed everyone, a predator would normally make sure there aren't too many of you, but say the predators suddenly decide that killing you is wrong and switch to their secondary food sources only.  Wild Deer can easily do this, I've seen it, I've seen herds of over 100 Deer pick an area clean of all edible food in areas where hunting is not permitted.  I've also seen areas where hunting IS permitted, the land is beautiful and well managed, the Deer have free range of several dozen miles, and its not uncommon to see small groups of 6-12 deer, I've also seen wolves prosper here. 
Fact is, hunters do not leave an impact on the land and wildlife which they hunt (At least not anymore), and they do more good than harm to the animals that they hunt, and they can bring their family a fine meal which will last them for several weeks or months as a result of it.

Soon, I will be taking my Swedish Mauser out into the wilderness to return with another Deer this year.

 

[Lamjose]

Problem with dairy cows is this: male dairy cows can't make milk. They're also poor for real beef. You COULD try mating a few of them with beef cows to make half-breeds, but you still have tons and tons of males left, and halfbreed cows are kinda meh in both milking and beefing (if beefing is a word). Thus, you can either kill them and shove them into a landfill, or simply try to make best use of them: turn them into veal.

Sorry, but that is not correct at all. A holstein steer (bull with removed testicles) is by far my favorite type of meat. A holstein is a dairy breed, but the male of the species still produces good meat.


@Redcoat- your opinions would be a lot more convincing if you had any experience, other than just opinion, to back you up.

 

[calandale]

To be honest, I really don't get your argument anymore, I've responded to so many people that I don't remember who said what.
As far as I recall we were debating whether animals in free-range would taste the same as animals in the wild.

No. From my point of view, you were
claiming that hunting is unreasonable.
I'm merely giving a number of reasons
why I disagree.

 

[Nash]

Nature gave us the capacity to kill for various reasons and I dont think sport is one of them.

I agree. Killing for food is fine, it's natural. I suppose killing for "material" like fur is ok, but really only if you're going to eat the animal anyway (like the natives did it, use everything you get from the animal).

Now,I have a question for those hunters out there: Do you usually salvage and later eat the meat from the deer? What do you do with the carcass if the meat is not edible?

 

[calandale]

What the hell is the point of
hunting deer, if you ain't gonna
eat it?

 

[guspav]

agreed, sport hunting = waste  and therefore it's wrong and it's an abomination.

 

[silverkatana]

Is killing animals wrong?  That depends on what ‘wrong’ is…

First, though, let me let you in on a (not very well kept) secret.

Killing things, be they insects, rabbits, dolphins, puppies, or other human beings, is fun.  Yes, that’s right, killing defenseless animals (including the cute ones) and other people (irregardless of gender, age, or other social taboo) is incredibly enjoyable – by which I mean that it fills the killer with a wonderful sense of power, control, and general well-being.  The rush of continuing life is the purest sensation of elation any organism whose most basic instinct is to ‘stay alive’ can ever experience.  Like air, though, appreciation for life can only really be experienced in its absence; one easy way to ‘absent’ life, and so appreciate your own, is to kill something else.

Given that killing is fun, then why is most killing considered ‘wrong’?  The answer is that man is a social creature; modern societies have advanced to the point that most killing has a net detrimental effect. Without a society to judge, there would be no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; the concept of morality makes absolutely no sense in the absence of a collective.  For example, the killing of a little baby is considered ‘wrong’, for many reasons, but one powerful one is that it diminishes the collective’s ability to fulfill their need to breed and continue life (that’s why you save the women and children first – the breeders and the bred are the most valuable members of a survival-driven collective.)

Without turning this into a 20-page essay, the answer is that killing animals is neither wrong nor right in the absolute (as almost nothing is, or even can be); its morality depends upon its effect on your society as a whole.  Is killing a "cute widdle fwuffy bunny-wabbit" wrong?  You betcha; by describing the rabbit in that fashion, you give it inherent positive value to your society.  Is killing an overgrown rodent that is destroying your garden wrong?  Nope – that action results in a net positive for your society, and so is ‘right’.

Put in the briefest possible way, if an action increases your chances of successfully breeding, it is ‘right’, if it decreases said chances, it is ‘wrong’, and if it has no effect either way, it is not a moral subject.

So, to answer the original question with another: will shooting said rabbit help you get laid? 


@Calandale: 
WTF
is with
  your tiny
  little lines? 

    Reading your
    posts is
  like trying
  to read
really bad
poetry.

 

[calandale]

@Calandale: 
WTF
is with
  your tiny
  little lines? 

    Reading your
    posts is
  like trying
  to read
really bad
poetry.

Keeps a decent amount of whitespace
which makes things easier on the eyes.

 

[Cymro]

I see no problem with killing animals. Murder? Fah. We evolved our way to the top of the food chain, and we're not going to stop killing everything below us just yet.

Anyway, around here, Rabbits are pests. Rodents are pests. Foxes are pests. Grey Squirells are pests. Therefore, we kill them. If they could speak, and give logical arguments (as with humans), they would have a "right" to a trial, possibly followed by excecution. Of course, they can't, so we act as judge, jury and excecutioner. It just so happens that rabbits give a tasty snack folling the excecution

 

[Buxton]

Agreed Cymro.

They are pests, and therefore it's better if they aren't there. Rabbit populations will soon recover even if everyone went on a nationwide hunt. Those things breed stupidly fast. I shoot everything on the list (list of shootable vermin). It's good practice.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

The biggest pest that the world has is actually the human, growing at an alarming rate and raping the planet.
Good practice? Yeah, life exists for you to shoot at a whim.

I see no problem with killing animals. Murder? Fah. We evolved our way to the top of the food chain, and we're not going to stop killing everything below us just yet.

Anyway, around here, Rabbits are pests. Rodents are pests. Foxes are pests. Grey Squirells are pests. Therefore, we kill them. If they could speak, and give logical arguments (as with humans), they would have a "right" to a trial, possibly followed by excecution. Of course, they can't, so we act as judge, jury and excecutioner. It just so happens that rabbits give a tasty snack folling the excecution

Well if they were given a trial... what exactly would you charge them with? Being born a rabbit?
Being top of the food chain doesn't mean anything below us is an inferior piece of meat that we can kill on a whim, it means everything we can eat.

author=calandale link=topic=26536.msg664027#msg664027 date=1190526667]

No. From my point of view, you were
claiming that hunting is unreasonable.
I'm merely giving a number of reasons
why I disagree.

Yes I know, but that was one of your points, the taste.

 

[Buxton]

Good practice as in if I had to defend my country I could do so well.