So your argument is that it's wasteful? And that food is a better justification for the waste than making a trophy?
You can make trophies out of things that aren't bears and you can eat things that aren't deer, so I'm not sure how they are much different unless your argument is that eating specifically deer is important somehow and making trophies out of bears is not.
People who hunt prey for trophies, and waste the meat, are also pieces of shit. It's called wanton waste, and it's illegal.
But no one hunts predators for their meat. They hunt them for sport. They hunt them because they get a joy from killing them, and for no other reason. I'm not sure what you're not getting about this. They only keep the meat, because again, it's wanton waste and it's illegal.
Bear meat is disgusting. Predators do not taste good. They're killed so weak men can feel strong. They hunt predators because they enjoy killing for the sake of killing, and for trophies. That's it.
This is the third time I rearticulated the same point, which everyone else here seems to get.
Now that I've done that for you, can you please let me know which one of these you are:
A. Someone who hunts predators.
B. Someone who has no experience with, or knowledge of, hunting.
I love bear meat, and cougar. I don't know where you got this idea that predators don't taste good.
I've eaten a few cougars in my time and gotta say, taste varies wildly depending on lifestyle and hygiene.
From eating them and growing up in an area with a lot of subsistence, and sports, hunting.
Then maybe you should grow up next to someone that can cook next time
Everything you say is based on convention and nature and opinion. You never addressed what I said and in your own words "rearticulated" (more like regurgitated) the same points that you have yet to give merit to.
You mean you don't find merit in them. But I'm done, because at least I tried to answer your questions. Where you made no attempt at answering the one question I've asked you twice.
Which itself is answer enough.
That's because your question doesn't progress any argument. Unlike the question I asked you which was meant to probe your reasoning. it's the kind of thing a troll would ask. It's also a false dichotomy. I'm perfectly fine with you discontinuing as I frankly didn't expect to get a reply that continued the discussion in good faith after your first reply.
It doesn’t progress your argument. You do not come across as the one arguing in good faith here, just so you know. You should think about why, if you are.
I never really made an argument, only said that I found the OPs argument strange without further context. I was probing OPs argument because they gave some reasoning for what they found different about killing a bear and killing a deer, but didn't really elucidate the moral differences. Even if you take it for granted that OP is correct that people hunt deer specifically for food and bears specifically for sport, they didn't really clarify why one was such an awful thing and the other was not.
Instead of clarifying things they just repeated themselves and hit me with the same irrelevant false dichotomy. Since I took for granted their theory of why people hunt certain animals it was irrelevant if I knew anything about hunting because I was not contesting anything about the practice of hunting. And whether I kill bears would also not be relevant to the discussion. This is why to me it doesn't feel like they are having a good faith discussion.
You wanted to engage on the topic of hunting. But you expected to be the only one allowed to be asking questions.
So instead of answering the one question asked of you, you generate bogus reasons to justify why you're above responding to any questions about your motivations, or knowledge/experience of the subject.
I'm not sure you even know what subsistence hunting is. Maybe you know the definition, but not the context. It seems like you assume everyone lives in an urban area, and can live a vegan lifestyle by going to the grocery store.
I’m glad you love animals and I’m curious if you’re approaching this from a post-speciesist perspective? (e.g. perhaps you’re vegan for ethical and/or other reasons)
(not arguing anything btw just curious)
I know the term speciesism but am not read up enough about it to say whether I would fit that perspective. Personally I don't believe a human and a bear and a deer are equal, or even two humans are equal, just equal in certain ways that matter when discussing things like the right to their life.
And taking a life can be justified. But I personally would not take a life for food as there are other things to eat. Even if OP believes that neither deer nor bears have the right to life though, I'm curious what line of reasoning would bring someone to think the act of taking one's life is monstrous and taking another's noble. Surely to believe such a thing there must at least be some kind of great cost attributed to at the very least killing that bear, and I am curious why that cost would not be also an attribute of killing the deer or be neutralized by the boon of deer meat vs a trophy or the satisfaction of hunting (which the OP claims to be the only reasons someone would hunt a predator, but I can come up with more).
The morality of the situation is certainly an emotional subject for me. But in conversations like these I'm mostly approaching it out of curiosity as I acknowledge that most people find these things normal and am more interested about why they find these things normal or what justifications they come up with on the spot. I believe most people don't really know why they find these things normal, I'm not sure I really knew why I found them normal before I was myself questioned.
Very interesting. Thanks for the detailed response!
So your argument is that it's wasteful? And that food is a better justification for the waste than making a trophy?
You can make trophies out of things that aren't bears and you can eat things that aren't deer, so I'm not sure how they are much different unless your argument is that eating specifically deer is important somehow and making trophies out of bears is not.
People who hunt prey for trophies, and waste the meat, are also pieces of shit. It's called wanton waste, and it's illegal.
But no one hunts predators for their meat. They hunt them for sport. They hunt them because they get a joy from killing them, and for no other reason. I'm not sure what you're not getting about this. They only keep the meat, because again, it's wanton waste and it's illegal.
Bear meat is disgusting. Predators do not taste good. They're killed so weak men can feel strong. They hunt predators because they enjoy killing for the sake of killing, and for trophies. That's it.
This is the third time I rearticulated the same point, which everyone else here seems to get.
Now that I've done that for you, can you please let me know which one of these you are:
I love bear meat, and cougar. I don't know where you got this idea that predators don't taste good.
I've eaten a few cougars in my time and gotta say, taste varies wildly depending on lifestyle and hygiene.
From eating them and growing up in an area with a lot of subsistence, and sports, hunting.
Then maybe you should grow up next to someone that can cook next time
Everything you say is based on convention and nature and opinion. You never addressed what I said and in your own words "rearticulated" (more like regurgitated) the same points that you have yet to give merit to.
You mean you don't find merit in them. But I'm done, because at least I tried to answer your questions. Where you made no attempt at answering the one question I've asked you twice.
Which itself is answer enough.
That's because your question doesn't progress any argument. Unlike the question I asked you which was meant to probe your reasoning. it's the kind of thing a troll would ask. It's also a false dichotomy. I'm perfectly fine with you discontinuing as I frankly didn't expect to get a reply that continued the discussion in good faith after your first reply.
It doesn’t progress your argument. You do not come across as the one arguing in good faith here, just so you know. You should think about why, if you are.
I never really made an argument, only said that I found the OPs argument strange without further context. I was probing OPs argument because they gave some reasoning for what they found different about killing a bear and killing a deer, but didn't really elucidate the moral differences. Even if you take it for granted that OP is correct that people hunt deer specifically for food and bears specifically for sport, they didn't really clarify why one was such an awful thing and the other was not.
Instead of clarifying things they just repeated themselves and hit me with the same irrelevant false dichotomy. Since I took for granted their theory of why people hunt certain animals it was irrelevant if I knew anything about hunting because I was not contesting anything about the practice of hunting. And whether I kill bears would also not be relevant to the discussion. This is why to me it doesn't feel like they are having a good faith discussion.
You wanted to engage on the topic of hunting. But you expected to be the only one allowed to be asking questions.
So instead of answering the one question asked of you, you generate bogus reasons to justify why you're above responding to any questions about your motivations, or knowledge/experience of the subject.
I'm not sure you even know what subsistence hunting is. Maybe you know the definition, but not the context. It seems like you assume everyone lives in an urban area, and can live a vegan lifestyle by going to the grocery store.
I’m glad you love animals and I’m curious if you’re approaching this from a post-speciesist perspective? (e.g. perhaps you’re vegan for ethical and/or other reasons)
(not arguing anything btw just curious)
I know the term speciesism but am not read up enough about it to say whether I would fit that perspective. Personally I don't believe a human and a bear and a deer are equal, or even two humans are equal, just equal in certain ways that matter when discussing things like the right to their life.
And taking a life can be justified. But I personally would not take a life for food as there are other things to eat. Even if OP believes that neither deer nor bears have the right to life though, I'm curious what line of reasoning would bring someone to think the act of taking one's life is monstrous and taking another's noble. Surely to believe such a thing there must at least be some kind of great cost attributed to at the very least killing that bear, and I am curious why that cost would not be also an attribute of killing the deer or be neutralized by the boon of deer meat vs a trophy or the satisfaction of hunting (which the OP claims to be the only reasons someone would hunt a predator, but I can come up with more).
The morality of the situation is certainly an emotional subject for me. But in conversations like these I'm mostly approaching it out of curiosity as I acknowledge that most people find these things normal and am more interested about why they find these things normal or what justifications they come up with on the spot. I believe most people don't really know why they find these things normal, I'm not sure I really knew why I found them normal before I was myself questioned.
Very interesting. Thanks for the detailed response!