: intersesting enough, sounds like the typical vegitarian opinion.
: allow me to spread my thoughts on some of your thoughts.Perhaps it is the "typical" veg. opinion but what I find more interesting is the fact that I developed that opinion independently, through logical reasoning; it wasnt spoon fed to me by other vegitarians or drilled into me by society (parents, religion, etc..).
: it is wrong to raise animals in captivity, with the sole intention of selling them for food. this to me is cruel.
I agree.
: however i see hunting as a natural act.
So what? Call it a natural act, unnatural act, call it whatever you like; it remains cruel and unnecessary. It also happens to be a "natural act" for humans, like all other creatures, to defecate. Does that mean that we should all go and relieve ourselves on our front lawns, along side our dogs, or should/do we find more appropriate alternatives to that barbaric behavior? Sometimes I get the urge to strangle people who perpetuate animal cruelty, but I do not act out that natural desire of mine, for my human brain tells me there are more civilized alternatives. Hunting cannot be justified by merely labeling it a natural act.
: the difference is , hunting illustrates that process of the food chain, and keeps the world in a natural balance. farming animals, does not. it is the over production of one species to support the overpopulation of another. no balance. nothing should be over-done.
Hunting keeps the world in a natural balance? Yes, its a natural balance when you happen to be a couple of wild beasts competing for the kill on the savanah; not when you are that beast and you and your entire species are being hunted down by the most intellegent species on earth- who also happen to outnumber you by the millions. It was only a (natural) balance when we were primitive and uncivilized. Humans hunting naturally led to an enormous over population of humans, so please explain to me how you consider that to be balanced. You seem to be against the farming of animals, so Id like to know what you suggest all the millions of flesh eaters do instead? Maybe all strap on their weapon of choice and go butcher the wild animals themselves? Would that be an acceptable, natural acting enough alternative for you? Why is the farming of animals wrong, but not wrong if millions of individual humans go and do the butchering themselves? Please explain the difference and how the one is morally correct when the other is morally wrong.
: also, i'd like to point out that for someone who respects animals as you claim too, you do not give them very much credit. comparing a deer in the woods to a mentally disabled child? have you ever seen a deer run? or freeze , perfectly still? or seen the tiniest ruffle in a thicket in the woods, a football field away, as a sign that the deer caught your scent and your foot steps long before you even suspected her presence? (who did you say was at a disadvantage?)
I'd like to point out the fact that you obviously didnt absorb what it was that I actually said. I'll repeat it. I said "Humans are very intellegent and can obviously outsmart any animal, it's a completely unfair match. Sort of like hunting down a retarded child, but not as smart". I simply likened the act of an adult human (who hopefully contains a human brain) outsmarting an animal to that of outsmarting a retarded child. No Match. I give animals credit where credit is due; a deer only has limited instincts which tell it to run when it hears, see's or smells danger. Unlike humans, it does not possess the mental capabilities of outsmarting its preditors. And have you ever seen a human in the woods, hunting that deer you mentioned? The human, who's wearing his camouflage clothing and face makeup, hiding up a tree in his camouflage hut or platform, wearing his de-scenting liquid, viewing the deer through his high power scope/ binoculars, luring the animal to him w/ deceptive smells and calls and when the animal finally comes w/in a convenient distance blowing it away w/ his man made weapon? Who did YOU say was at the disadvantage?
: oh, and then to bring the majestic lion down to equal a blubbering idiot! how could you?
Again, you dont seem to be commenting on what my actual words/intentions were, but rather what you'd like to believe I said. I merely claimed that a lions rational thinking abilities are those of a lion and therefore when hungry it cannot deviate from the limited choices its instincts provide; it has no choice but to hunt for a meal, steal one or starve. You obviously would refer to that as being a "blubbering idiot". I just call it the natural extent to which a lion can behave.
: as for the pigs being smarter than dogs, who's to be the judge of that.(i would say that any animal has better sence than a human)
: it is not an intelligence factor, it is the fact that pigs have no desire to please thier owners, and therefore do not learn tasks to help serve their owners,ei herding, guarding, carting, "hunting" etc.
: working side by side, horses and dogs have developed a bond with people, which in the human mind, separates them from other animals.
Smarter than a dog, dumber than a retarded child, its irrelevant. I made mention of it only to illustrate the fact that pigs are intellegent creatures fully capable of appreciating the deplorable conditions in which they are kept. Werent you reading? Also, Im perfectly aware of the irrational ways in which humans seperate, in their own minds, animals to be tortured, murdered and consumed from animals they "bond" w/. I was pointing out the obscene hypocricy of it.
: and as an irony, in responce to your third world county comment, you failed to observe that these are the countries that actually eat LESS animal products than the rest of the world. which debunks the theory that as we become more advanced, our consumption of meat should deminish.
Well, congradulations on attempting to debunk that theory, however it wasnt mine. I never suggested that as an advanced society our flesh consumption should deminish in spite of the(your perported) fact that third world countries eat less of it, you did. I suggested that we should not harm, abuse or eat animals because its morally wrong and we as an advanced society can and should find alternatives. I was pointing out the fact that we (besides third world countries) no longer live in desperate times and we no longer need to murder animals in order to stay alive. I made no mention of the third world diet.
: and finally, you degrade the mighty vegitable. is life based soley on the ability to feel pain? since they do not feel pain, is it okay to dump a gallon of acid into a patch of forrest and kill off the vegitation that lies there? that a plant can die and/or whither under hostile environmental conditions demonstrates that it is a life form capable of responding harmful stimuli. whether or not pain registers in a nervous system, a death occurs when a plant is plucked from the ground.
Once again you twist my intentions. I dont condone haphazardly pouring acid anywhere, nor abusing nature in any way. And yes, since the vegitable has zero ability to appreciate any trauma whatsoever, mentally or physically, it is fine to consume.
