Forum menu
and gaining pleasure from the kill itself?
This one means you have psychopathic tendencies.
thte chances of anyone answering that [ any question to your satisfaction is not high]
Most folk - ie the doctor example [ though you did raise some valid points to be fair- I doubt the animal cares much whether you kill it for fun or food for example as it will still be dead]
- think the motivation for your killing is a factor in evaluating it on moral grounds
We need to eat to live [ so why not enjoy this] we dont need to kill for fun.
Most folk are probably a little concerned when someone says they enjoy killing – I am not saying you are all psychopaths but you are on the way 😉
ther eis a smell of hypocrisy in meat teateres objecting and personally I have mor erespect fro meat eaters who kill theior own food thna the many meat teaters who would stop eating meat if they actually had to kill it themselves...I think the point there is most people knwo killig things is bad and doing it for fun is worse than doing it to eat. May be a fair poin tto say there is still some hypocrisy in that as the thing killed proably cares less about your motivation than we do.
Can anyone translate the above please? ^ 😆
whats the difference between having an animal killed just so you can gain pleasure from eating it, and gaining pleasure from the kill itself?
Ineretesting question, although I'd say the 'pleasure' gained from eating is more to do with the instinctive need to survive, whereas the notion of 'pleasure' from killing is a bit ambiguous; surely there's a long way between fulfilling some sick psychopathic tendencies and the satisfaction from being the master of the means of providing yourself with food...
What's the difference between killing an animal for pleasure, and killing a Human Being for pleasure?
What's the difference between killing an animal for pleasure, and killing a Human Being for pleasure?
None, as this thread clearly demonstrates. 😉
We need to eat to live [ so why not enjoy this]
But we really don't need to eat [b]meat[/b] to live, this is a clear scientific fact, millins survive without doing so, and there's reasonable evidence that if anything, they're healthier for doing so.
the 'pleasure' gained from eating is more to do with the instinctive need to survive,
We eat meat be cause we gain enjoyment from it, there's nothing wrng with that, for most of us it is societal normality... but please, don't decieve yourself that there is any need to do so, getting someone to kill an animal so you can eat it is no different from killing it yourself, and the only motivation is pleasure, there is no need for it to be killed. Human beings can survive perfectly well without the need for meat (I'll make an exception to this if you're an Eskimo)
Hell, if we really wanted to expand it, the only morally sustainable meat is of animals that compete with us for food resource - deer, pigeons, rats, mice, rabbits - they're all wild animals, and for us to continue surviving by eating vegetables, you could argue that we need to keep their populations in check to ensure our own survival... animal reared for meat in agricultural conditions, totally morally unsupportable, their entire existence is only there so we can kill them, and eat them (which we don't need to do) they don't get even the slightest chance of survival.
back to pheasants, of 1000 birds released, an estate can realistically expect to recover around a third - the rest either die of predation or natuural wastage, or survive and go feral. thats a lot better odds than the turkeys at Bernard Matthews.
But we really don't need to eat meat to live, this is a clear scientific fact
Maybe we in the Developed World in the Twenty-first Century we don't, but this is due to modern intensive farming methods and efficient production of suitable foodstuffs. Which have their not inconsiderable impact on the greater environment.
But you digress. The question you are being asked is about 'pleasure' gained from killing...
and the question I'm asking you is about the pleasure gained from eating meat!
Maybe we in the Developed World in the Twenty-first Century we don't, but this is due to modern intensive farming methods and efficient production of suitable foodstuffs
I think you'll find that vegetarianism is far more widespread, with a far greater history than the 21st C developed world... India being a fairly reasonable example!
The Hindu's and Jaians seem to have done OK out of it for the last couple of millenia... how's about that Ghandi bloke? I don't think you can really point the reliance on 21st century intensive farming finger at him, can you?
My friend rears pheasants (lol), here's a young one.
[url= http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2433/3563940765_b8b1443cf2.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/milkiekula/3563940765/ ]Baby Pheasants[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/milkiekula/ ]MilkieKula[/url], on Flickr
My mother takes the dog beating during the shooting season, the dog is pretty good at it too, should be after 4 years of doing it.
[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3632/3358987031_c4631965ec.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/milkiekula/3358987031/ ]Wet Cloud[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/milkiekula/ ]MilkieKula[/url], on Flickr
I keep meaning to go along, but I have to wait for an invite (once a year), people pay extremely big money to shoot pheasants (£1K+ per person and thats cheap).
But you digress. The question you are being asked is about 'pleasure' gained from killing...
Actually, and far from the first time, you're entirely wrong. The question initially asked in this thread by the OP was:
Helios - MemberThat pheasant thread got me wondering - does anyone on here go shooting regularly - and how did you get into it?
I have no real interest in spending every weekend at it. I want to shoot a few things, [u]taken them home and cook them every once in a while[/u]. Is there anyway you can get into it but not devote half your life to it?
Posted 21 hours ago # Report-Post
HTH
Actually, and far from the first time, you're entirely wrong. The question initially asked in this thread by the OP was:
That's not the question I was referring to though.
HTH. 😉
I think you'll find that vegetarianism is far more widespread, with a far greater history than the 21st C developed world... India being a fairly reasonable example!
Yes, I am well aware of that, however there is still the need for a nutritious source of protein in other areas where vegetables aren't too abundant. As you yourself admitted to re Eskimos.
Maybe we in the Developed World in the Twenty-first Century we don't, but this is due to modern intensive farming methods and efficient production of suitable foodstuffs.
Actually meat eating is the resource intensive, inefficient option, which is why we subject many animals such as chickens and pigs to unimaginable cruelty before killing them for the sheer pleasure of a hormone stuffed bacon roll or tasteless kfc-burger. Still, as long as that stays hidden out of sight, it's unlikely to affect your uninformed opinions, is it?
Wot BBSB said.
As you yourself admitted to re Eskimos.
Who, of course, make up the vast majority of the 7 bn people on this planet 🙄
Ok Elfin, so I reckon we're both agreed there then.
For the fifty thousand or so eskimo's (very few of whom will still be living a traditional lifestyle), a few siberians and some laplanders, living inside the arctic circle, maybe a small number of high altitude or desert communities, and a couple of other extreme comminities living on the very margins of survival in the wilderness, then meat eating is a necessity, and morally acceptable
For most of the the rest of the worlds population, and without doubt all those living in what we'd term "modern, first world communities" meat eating is an unneccesary luxury, only continued because we've built up a society around it, and we have decided to accept morally that its ok to kill animals, without any real need, because we like eating them, because its fun, we derive pleasure from it - no other justification really.
We raise animals in perpetual twilight, outside their natural conditions, in stinking concrete sheds, maxing out their potential with drugs and hormones - animals that are artificially fed on high calorie diets so they fatten up more quickly, going from birth to table in half the time that we once thought achievable, through modern intensive farming methods that produce shite tasting cheap meat, we cram them into cages, slaughter them industrially in concrete and steel factories of death. We slit their throats and let them bleed to death (often without any form of stunning on religious grounds)then grind up the bits we don't need, and feed them to the others.
And you're claiming the moral high ground over someone who enjoys killing them in the open air, in the wild, with a sporting chance?
Laughable!
That's not the question I was referring to though.
Thank God for that - for a second we were at risk of getting back the point of the thread. And that would never do.
We raise animals in perpetual twilight, outside their natural conditions, in stinking concrete sheds, maxing out their potential with drugs and hormones - animals that are artificially fed on high calorie diets so they fatten up more quickly, going from birth to table in half the time that we once thought achievable, through modern intensive farming methods that produce shite tasting cheap meat, we cram them into cages, slaughter them industrially in concrete and steel factories of death. We slit their throats and let them bleed to death (often without any form of stunning on religious grounds)then grind up the bits we don't need, and feed them to the others.
yes, but no rich people shoot them, so that's ok
I used to live on a farm which organised these corporate shooting days, I volunteered to do some beating when they were short one Saturday morning, turned up in my bright red motocross jacket and was given a few funny looks by the rest dressed in Barbour green, there was no way I was going to blend into the scenery with those idiots waving shotguns in my general direction. 🙂
Actually meat eating is the resource intensive, inefficient option, which is why we subject many animals such as chickens and pigs to unimaginable cruelty before killing them for the sheer pleasure of a hormone stuffed bacon roll or tasteless kfc-burger. Still, as long as that stays hidden out of sight, it's unlikely to affect your uninformed opinions, is it?
Oh go untwist yer knickers always trying to have a pop in't yer? You need to chill out and calm down a bit.
If rearing animals was as 'inefficient' as you claim, why have Humans bin rearing and eating them for millions of years then? Why have Human migration patterns mirrored those of animals? What about people who have moved from place to place, and take animals with them as a source of food? And people don't just use animals for food; go and have a look in museums and stuff at things like skins, furs, tools made from bones etc.
Plant crops are also subject to failure from time to time. Animal meat can be dried and preserved and last for ages.
I'm not arguing against the fact that we basically now 'chose' to eat meat, but that hazzunt historically bin the case for [b]all[/b] people globally.
Maybe we do eat meat more for pleasure than need. But I like a variety of foodstuffs.
Oh, and try to imagine a diet than consisted solely of vegetables native to the British Isles (and indeed many regions). Then consider how many vegetables we eat that are imported, and the environmental impact of that process.
And before you start getting all wound up and sand-panty, try to have a think about things all the way through and don't be so rude please.
And you're claiming the moral high ground over someone who enjoys killing them in the open air, in the wild, with a sporting chance?
'[b]Sporting[/b] chance'. 😕
What I object to is people killing purely for pleasure, for bloodlust. Not for food.
But I've said this several times now and if people don't want to consider what I've actually said and want to imagine their own version instead then I can't help that I'm afraid.
Oh and I'm currently eating a banana from Colombia if anyone's inertested...
I'm not arguing against the fact that we basically now 'chose' to eat meat, but that hazzunt historically bin the case for all people globally.
OK, so, we agree.
Maybe we do eat meat more for pleasure than need. But I [b]like[/b] a variety of foodstuffs.
and I [b]like[/b] killing animals, I also [b]like[/b] all the stuff that goes with that, being part of the complete cycle, the social scene, the history and culture of the sport.
The problem is, that you seem to think that, despite the fact that they both involve killing an animal purely for pleasure, your [b]like[/b] is somehow morally more acceptable than my [b]like[/b]
What I object to is people killing purely for pleasure
Which, as I keep saying, and as you seem to accept above, is exactly what you're doing every time you eat meat.
Sporting chance
well, as I stated in the example of pheasants, you release 1000, you get about 300 back by the end of season - thats average actual surveyed verifiable figures. So, if you have maybe fifteen days shooting, and get back a third of your pheasants total in that time, then that "sporting chance" is about 3:1 that they won't be shot.
Thats a lot better odds of survival than they get at my local chicken farm...
On the whole killing for pleasure, all the people sat in front of their xboxes and playstations playing COD, Battlefield etc. appear to be spending hours and hours deriving pleasure from the concept of killing. Are they any morally different?
Oh go untwist yer knickers always trying to have a pop in't yer? You need to chill out and calm down a bit.
You need to try being right sometime, or at least basing your opinions on some kind of facts - I won't be holding my breath though.
Care to produce some data on the "efficiency" of meat production or is it just you think it is so it is?
zokes - if you haven't given up on this - where are you?
there is shooting round where I am, and the cars aren't all giant 4*4's so I'm guessing it's neither hugely expensive or a serious commitment.
I can find out who runs the shoots and how muach and pass this back to you (not my thing, so no interest). Area is Perthshire
OK, so, we agree.
Bizarrely. 😆
Which, as I keep saying, and as you seem to accept above, is exactly what you're doing every time you eat meat.
I disagree. I eat meat because it's a valuable source of nutrition. Yes I do like meat, but I also like many vegetables too. A vegetable is a living thing, so you can apply your logic to a courgette or a potato or a tomato....
HANG ON A TOMATO IS A FRUIT!!!!! 😯
You need to try being right sometime
Actually, I've bin thinking about trying to be [i]wrong[/i], now and then.
Because that is an experience which is alien to me. 😐
Difference is Elfin - you're not alleging that I'm cruel and immoral for pulling carrots out the ground by their hair and chopping their feet off 😆
As for them sprouts, well, bastards the lot of them, I hope hey rot in hell!
zokes - if you haven't given up on this - where are you?
Sorry, off to bed (in the land down under).
I'm not sure you need my help anyway, anyone with half a brain can see Fred's barking at the wrong forest, never mind the wrong tree. I give it 30 mins or so before he takes his hijack 1 step further and posts some completely irrelevant pictures. Thread destruction complete, and perfectly reasonable question posed by the OP completely lost.
Yeah, sprouts should be tortured to death, horrible little things. 😡
anyone with half a brain can see Fred's barking at the wrong forest, never mind the wrong tree
Why are you so rude? If you want to engage in intelligent debate, as Zulu is doing, fine. If you're going to descend into abusive insults, do you really think I should show you any respect?
Actually, I've bin thinking about trying to be wrong, now and then.Because that is an experience which is alien to me
Thanks, but I don't think you have to point out how awesomely wide of the mark you can be, most people already know
As for them sprouts, well, bastards the lot of them, I hope hey rot in hell!
that on the other hand is the rightest thing I've read on here for ages. if I had my way, I'd line them up against an east laondon wall and make them listen to elfin drivel on until, well for ever.
And i don't take that sort of thing lightly.
anyone with half a brain can see Fred's barking [s]at the wrong forest, never mind the wrong tree[/s]
FIFY
do you really think I should show you any respect?
I'm confused as to why you think I should care
Why are you so rude?
Rude? Nope, not done that there.
However, I think you should brush up on your intelligent debate:
Yeah, sprouts should be tortured to death, horrible little things.
zokes - if you haven't given up on this - where are you?Sorry, off to bed (in the land down under).
I'm not sure you need my help anyway, anyone with half a brain can see Fred's barking at the wrong forest, never mind the wrong tree. I give it 30 mins or so before he takes his hijack 1 step further and posts some completely irrelevant pictures. T
Sorry, should have been addressed to OP - helios - if you're still around - is perthshire handy for you?
If rearing animals was as 'inefficient' as you claim, why have Humans bin rearing and eating them for millions of years then?
You really are out of your comfort and knowledge zone now if that is the tripe you are spouting fella. Farming animals is far more energy intensive than farming vegetable crops. The energy consumed is far less than is made available in a calorific value as food at the other end for meat. Comparing how we lived before the industrial revolution to now is as relevant as flying to the moon right now.
Try reading all of what I writed, Too Tall. Please.
And please answer that question. Why have humans bin eating animals for millions of years, if other foodstuffs were always readily available?
lefty weedy vegan agrees with right wing hunter shocker
If you want to compare nomadic populations who lived within the limits of their ecosphere, with a settled and industrialised population that rapes and pillages the earth with no thought for the consequences, I cannot possibly give you an answer that will satisfy us both. Animals will provide high calorific content - especially if the whole carcass is processed as much as possible (waste nothing) and easy to move around. Planting crops is a little more complex and requires far more thought and longer term investment but, acre for acre, produces more food than farming animals.
So - comparing a nomadic herder with a settled farmer and the requirements of society now is daft. Please continue ploughing your random furrow tho - seeing you try to argue out of a lack of understanding is amusing me on this day.
And please answer that question. Why have humans bin eating animals for millions of years, if other foodstuffs were always readily available?
Quite apart from the cutesy wutesy baby talk seriously wrecking any chance you might have of being taken seriously, you really do need to check your facts
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human ]Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago[/url]
Quite apart from the cutesy wutesy baby talk
Be careful, he'll think you're rude, then he won't *[b]RESPECT[/b]* you....