"shooting a moose is an accomplishment"

That's sad, that's really sad.  How can anyone be PROUD of killing an animal? I just don't see it.

Very sad.

This is life, people. My father and I have hunted moose to eat for no less then 15 people all part of my family.

We would have done with out if we had not got 1.

Sad? What would be sad is without the moose 15 people would not have anything to eat for the winter, and would of had to go on welfare and food stamps.

The only people that seem to be agaist hunting are the ones who have more then enough money to buy meat that some one else killed for them.

I've never been a proponent of hunting purely for trophy-gathering; it's a waste, in my opinion.  But I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with hunting for food.  Perhaps the pride comes from contributing to feeding the family (or donating the meat, if their family didn't need it, so that others could eat). 

I'm not a hunter, a choice that comes more out of not liking early, cold mornings sitting in a hide doing nothing than out of opposition to the activity.  Hunters do more to conserve wildlife than most conservationists, I'd wager, and they certainly help keep herds to manageable sizes. 

Hunting does not teach violence, Ms. Ernst, as you infer.

I do get a bit uneasy when those who don't hunt choose to vilify those who do.  Just because others live life differently is no reason to judge them as somehow "lesser" or "unenlightened."

No Steve I do not want another medal, I got 3 of them by fighting a war. What I would like is for people that have no idea what hunting is about to listen and learn. They need to remember some people eat different then them and except the fact that how they live and eat is not always right for others. I don't believe being "vegan" is as healthy for humans as is eating meat. However I don't try to stop people from eating what they want to eat.

Thank you Sarah, many forget that the service I gave was for them as well as the goverment.

if using a gun is not violence then lets all buy our kids one for xmas and teach them how to shoot and kill,and if they trip and kill themselves or anybody else then that must be ok? what a sick human race we are! you kill animals because they have no voice and no defence against the so called superior species. i actually feel sorry for you who have no respect for any life.karma will come at the right time

Ms. Badham, you seem to be someone who truly cares about animals and has put a fair amount of thought and feeling into your position.  I am, however, saddened that your post implies that that caring doesn't seem to extend to your fellow humans.  I don't know where the contempt for people started.  While there are certainly plentiful examples of man's inhumanity and stupidity, I believe those are the minority; although they should not be disregarded, those are not the qualities of most.

Guns are not inherently violent.  As the old saying goes, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."  Granted, the inherently dangerous potential in a gun is greater than most, requiring exercise of caution (and training).  Those who work or recreate or hunt with guns by and large understand this and use the correct precautions and safety procedures.  Still, accidents do happen.  Sadly, not all can be prevented, just as not all car accidents can be prevented.

I fail to understand how those who care for and feed their families don't have respect for life.  How does it make us "a sick human race" that many choose to use meat in our diets as a source of protein?  I, for one, don't believe that makes me somehow "superior" to animals.  Many animals use meat in their diets -- are they inherently bad, too?

Indeed, your post's tone and pity for all the unenlightened masses indicates to me that the superiority is actually held by you.  Perhaps you should rethink your judgement of others based on how they have chosen to eat (for those of the biblical point of view, "judge not, lest ye be judged yourself").  As I have found in periods of high-handedness in my own life, karma can indeed be a humbling thing.

Wow, we truly are living in a world that are surrounded by IGNORANT people. They are everywhere! Including on change.org

 what is this?

 It is a moral tilt -- in the direction of mercy and justice for all created beings.

But god put the "created beings" here for man. The 1 thing that stands out here is as a hunter I don't tell others they have to do like I do, like Olivia does. I believe in live and let live in all ways. I believe that is even in the good book.

No one is telling you what to do. They have no power over you.

They are simply telling you that what you are doing is immoral in their eyes.

And they're hoping that by reasoning with you, you'll outgrow, as John Muir put it, this "infantile" need to kill harmless creatures, who are here not to feed our stomachs or our blood-lust or our superiority complexes, but to teach us lessons in self-control, unselfishness, meekness, peace.

If the good book, as you call it, is interpreted in a literal, fundamentalist light, which is not light at all but rather darkness, then it would not be a good book but a bad book.

To my sense, James, you do *NOT* believe in live and let live. You take the speciesist, homocentric view that humans should live and "let live" but that any animal must die for you. That's called self-glorification. It has nothing to do with glorifying your Creator.

You're welcome to watch the above-mentioned video, too, ya know. Tell us what you think, please!

Please forgive me if it sounds like I've personally criticized or attacked anyone. I get a little carried away with my zeal to protect animals from those who snuff out their precious lives for what I have come to believe are invalid reasons.     

Really, my motive is always to stir the conscience of mankind, to uplift consciousness in a general sense, never to demoralize or denounce individuals.

Since those of you who disagree have made the time to read and respond to the AR proponents here, may I ask kindly, with all respect, if you would please watch that aforementioned Google video, The Emotional World of Farm Animals, and give me your feedback, even in a private message? I counting on it tugging your heartstrings and shifting your worldview, even if only slightly! :-) 

Peace to all,

Olivia

Amend that last sentence to "I'm counting on...." :-))))

Sarah (I am sorry, but addressing you as "Ms. Schimeck" sounds too formal to me, as does your use of "Ms. White"),

If having a heart means to you that one is being merely sentimental, that one is feeling and appealing to raw emotion, that one is devoid of reason, then I have to say that your definition of heart is irrational to me.

If you are saying that there are different definitions of moral and ethical and that it is as moral/ethical for humans to hunt (the thesis of the paper whose link you supplied, and which I read) as it is moral/ethical for humans not to kill fellow living beings (whether wild or domesticated), then I will have to say that your definition of moral/ethical is irrational to me.

I came from where you are, so I know what it's like to think as you do. I was persuaded -- by reason, by a better understanding, by my conscience -- to change my views. So there would be no rational reason to go back to my old way of thinking, would there? I found it unsatisfactory, ignorant, restrictive.

As long as our world views remain poles apart, we will not agree on a definition of morality for both humans and nonhumans.

I get the impression that you WANT to remain unconvinced by my contention that it is unkind and unjust to kill others. You WANT to believe that there is no suffering involved in the act of killing. It makes sense that someone who kills others (or pays to have others killed for them) would be reluctant to own up to what is, bottom line, a selfish appetite for flesh. Most people on this blog already know there is no nutritional need to rely on animal protein when there is protein in so many plant-based sources of nutrition.

Though he writes exceedingly well, I found the arguments made by the Holy Cross professor lame. True, he could possibly persuade someone to agree with his rationale if that person put more stock in fair-seeming logic than in true intelligence, which rejects all forms of violence and doesn't try to make one kind of violence out to be superior to another kind of violence.

To say that hunting is more moral than wildlife-killing agriculture is like saying that combining driving with being high on alcohol is better than combining driving with being high on prescription drugs.

In this blog, we've already debunked, ad nauseum, the false proposition that managing deer by breeding and then killing them reduces their populations. (And one of the blogs that Stephanie referred us to this week points to a scientific study proving that non-lethal methods of keeping bears at bay are way more successful than lethal means.)

Also, one of our commenters has made it clear -- and I for one have taken her point seriously -- that vegans must make a conscious effort to minimize their consumption of fruits, veggies and grains grown on large farms where wildlife are mowed down right and left in order to grow crops. (The moral: go to local farmer's markets and buy organic fare from small gardens whenever possible, or grow our own.)

I'm positive there will come a time in the near future that all farmers, not just those whose livestock are overrunning the earth, will be held to account by both environmentalists and animal activists (who will one day be on the same page) for their profligate killing of wildlife. 

Perhaps by now you've watched the film about the farm animals and been touched -- yes, heartstrings tugged!!! -- by the way they and their human "rescuers" respond to one another, displaying mutual intelligence and affection. If such tender scenes do not move your mind and heart and soul and spirit and body to awake from the illusion of carnality, then nothing I or anyone else can say will motivate you to move beyond a killing mentality -- at this stage of your journey, anyway.

You might raise the point that the film shows no scenes of wolves and lions and tigers and bears and other "predators" mauling and killing and eating the sweet lambs and pigs and turkeys and calves, leading you to repeat your earlier question: do I think predator animals are immoral to prey on other flesh, since I claim that humans are immoral when they do so?

My answer:

The real man is not made to kill others, and has no need or desire to do so.

The real animal is not made to kill others, and has no need or desire to do so.

What we're witnessing every time we see men killing men or animals, or animals killing animals or men, is a false depiction of all species. A deflection of being, rather than a reflection of the divine creator of all.

Put another way: when we believe that someone is born to be a certain way, we see the results of that belief. If we are educated to believe that man is made to be carnivorous, that's what the world of humans will look like to us. If we are educated to believe that some animals are made to be carnivorous, that's what the world of animals looks like to us.

Contrarywise, when man recognizes carnality/carnivorism as a distortion of his true being, he is admitting at the same time that carnality/carnivorism is a distortion of an animal's true being.

The belief that any one of any species is made to be immoral or violent, or less than "very good," must be the result of false education. That false picture has been upended repeatedly -- every time someone overcomes carnality in thought and carnivorism in deed. History is replete with examples that disprove the theory that the carnal mind rules. It doesn't. It can't. It has no true or lasting power.

A child who is not educated into backwards beliefs cannot possibly accept the premise that anyone was made to kill or be killed. The child's innocence acts as a shield, not only protecting him from harm, but also preventing others, who are in the embrace of the child's thought, from harming or being harmed. That's why Isaiah declares that "a little child shall lead" the lion and lamb and kid and bear and fatling. To me, this promise foretells a day when all creation will respond to the pure, childlike thought (held in the true consciousness of each of us) that acknowledges the spiritual integrity and perfection of all earth's inhabitants, whether the outward form of an individual's identity walks on two legs or four.

Notice that it's the HUMAN childlike thought who does the leading; the animals' equally childlike thoughts respond, and follow (mirroring our thought about them).

Isaiah's prophecy of Paradise, like the one in Revelation, where there's no taint of suffering, violence, killing, or even of death, speaks to me of the "dominion" bestowed on man (if one accepts the first chapter of Genesis as the real account of creation and chalks up the second chapter onward as a  mythological counterfeit creation). We see in Isaiah's vision the gentle, protective qualities of dominion, which always shelters from harm those in its care: all the creatures!

Any response of yours I reserve the option of replying to privately. I've taken enough space here. More than enough. Good night. Or good morning. The roosters are crowing, welcoming another day of glorious life at their sanctuaries!

"The real animal is not made to kill others, and has no need or desire to do so."

Just how do you think bears and all the big cats eat?

Yup, James, I figured you'd pinpoint THAT statement! :-)

Here's how I see it: As long as we see a species as carnivorous, its members will act like carnivores. It's the same principle that applies to man: if we see ourselves as carnivores, we act like carnivores.

Once an individual grasps the fact (unseen and unseeable to a strictly material perception of life, or materialism) that we are all spiritual beings and that no spiritual being's "real" nature can be carnivorous, then and only then is it possible to free oneself and others, including animals, from that imposition.

It's impossible to arrive at this conclusion through biological theories, that's for sure! It's only possible to reach it by employing our spiritual sense. And that, like all other kinds of understanding, I think you'll agree, requires cultivation. Don't you think we grow when we're willing to listen and learn something that may be new to us, but what just might, in fact, be true for all? (Sorta like the sun: it's always shining, despite the clouds and rain blocking our view in the day, or despite the darkness of night.)      

LOL

I find it interesting that you keep trying to play the "spiritual" card.
If God had not wanted man to eat things that are alive we would have had something different then what we have found on the whole planet.

The good book, the one you use to learn about the spirit, states the animals and plants were put here for humans.

I believe that "when we're willing to listen and learn something that may be new to us" is where you need to be at this time. 

You're right, James. I do have a thing or two to listen to and to learn. Not necessarily in my interpretation of the "good book," but in my application of its principles of kindness and acceptance.

And so are you right, Ms. Schimeck. My tone did sound arrogant and condescending and holier-than-thou. That makes me feel ashamed, and sorry.

So, for the second time, I want to apologize, from the bottom of my heart (which is not actually heartless toward humans who don't agree with me, though you might think so, based on my last two posts).

In hindsight (foresight would be better to use!), I can see where you were being respectful in the use of my last name, Ms. Schimeck, and I didn't mean to be disrespectful or unappreciative of that fact. (May I please call you Sarah from now on?)

Looking back, I can see that if I'm going to defend my moral position, I don't need to make it sound like I'm undermining another's stance, or judgment. In fact, I had better NOT do that!

And, looking back, I can definitely see why my thoughts appeared over-the-top to you, and perhaps I should have kept them to myself, or saved them for another forum.

When I suggested responding privately, it was because I didn't want to bore everyone else reading this post with what seemed to be a one-on-one (or a one-on-two) exchange. :-) But I can see how it seemed like a unilateral decision being imposed upon you, Sarah, rather than kindly offered.

I have no good excuse for feeling this way, but I let myself get appalled at the idea that someone would think I might actually agree that there is a moral case to be made for hunting. By the same token, though, I can see that you, Sarah and James, would naturally respond the same way to my assertion that YOU have something to learn about morality.

From this I see it's wise to keep one's writings on the subject of morality impersonal -- instead of dipping into personal back-and-forth exchanges (attacks?) that inevitably make the other party out to seem "less moral" or "immoral" or "amoral." It only invites defensiveness -- on all sides. Maybe others can do this more successfully than I have done. Or maybe it's not possible to argue morals at a personal level and keep hurt feelings and head-shaking at bay!

If you -- the world, really -- would allow me to say what I was thinking about this afternoon before reading your replies, it is this:

What I treasure most is childlikeness. I don't mean childISHness, but childLIKEness. I look for it and value it in ALL children, in ALL men and ALL women, in ALL animals. I rebel when I see anyone's innate childlikeness abused, lost, hidden, violated, destroyed. (Perhaps "hidden" would be the best adjective, since I think it remains in all of us forever.)

To me, a childlike thought/heart means being: inclusive ... innocent ... harmless ... just ... fair ... meek ... merciful ... modest ... generous ... gentle ... genuine ... joyous ... carefree ... tender ... warm ... unselfish ... sensitive to others' needs ... un-fool-able ... inviolable ... honest ... brave ... energetic ... eager ... obedient ... forgiving ... un-envious ... guileless ... affectionate (I suppose I could keep going and I'm sure you'all could add a lot more adjectives). 

These qualities, to me, are everyone's substance. This substance may not be readily apparent, or even visible at all, but I believe that only these "good" (if we can all agree they are good) attributes comprise everyone's being, are our "real" nature.

What I didn't mention earlier is that, a few years ago, I started collecting stories, photos and videos that depict animals of different species (or animals and man) who are supposed to NOT get along, who are supposed to have only a predator/prey relationship, but who, in these accounts or scenes, disprove that rule -- or what are called the biological laws of nature.

Some of these stories tell of/show "carnivorous" animals who have been taught to live on non-carnivorous diets, and they live perfectly healthy, long lives. Most of the stories tell of/show how the "carnivore" unexpectedly takes a shine to his/her supposed "lunch" and how he/she protects instead of eats the new friend(s). When it is a relationship between man and "carnivorous" animal (as in the case of the Peruvian man and his crocodile friend or the South African couple with their hippo "daughter" Jessica), it has developed because one of them has protected and provided for the other, who needed help from the member of the "enemy" species to survive.  

These episodes, while seemingly anomalies, have taught me to question age-old biological assumptions and theories (though I was already questioning them for other reasons anyway). They have given me a glimpse of what universal harmony and peace look like, and feel like. They make perfect sense to my child-heart and to my spiritual reasoning (which, to me, are one and the same) -- much more so than does the physical-sense-only testimony of predatory relationships.

So, while at this point we'll agree to disagree, James and Sarah, I've learned (I hope!) from each of you more about being respectful, and humble. I realize your motives are not "bad." I wish you both well.

Naturally, I will continue to defend my animal friends -- that's as inevitable as breathing is to me. But I will not see you as the enemy, because you're not. You're my brother and my sister.

As another of my sisters would say, "Peace out!"

Olivia

Apology accepted, Olivia.  I'm glad you took away a learning experience from this discussion, as have I.  This is a really good forum to stretch our intellectual muscles on.

Your passion is to be commended, and I do believe that you are a genuinely caring person.  Disagreement is not inherently about good or bad, and I'm very heartened that you see that.

While I admit those stories are compelling (and indeed very interesting), I keep in mind that those are wild animals acting outside of their nature.  While I don't know the the whole of their stories, I am of the belief that wild animals should be just that -- kept wild, with minimal interference from man (and yes, some of that intereference is hunting).  It is only through that interference that these animals you speak of have had this dietary change (though hippos, I believe, are herbivores; still, though, potentially dangerous animals).

I have recieve this "message" for ever subject I have ever posted on. I wonder what is going on?

James,

There has been a new response posted to the following discussion on Change.org:
Does Panhandling Make Homelessness Worse?

----------------------------------------------
Mistakes are an mbt  shoes discount essential part of air  jordan 1 education. Neither beliver nor reject nike  air jordans anything, because any other person has rejected of believed it. Heaven has  given you an air  jordan 23 mind for judging air  jordan 5 truth and error, Use it. One thorn of experience  is worth a whole wilderness of warning. Practical wisdom is only to be learned  in the school of experience. Proverbs are short sentences drawn from long  experience. The tragedy of the world is that those who are imaginative have but  slight experience, and those who are experienced have feeble imaginations.

posted by long yan
----------------------------------------------