Jump to content

Scott

Member
  • Content count

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

54

About Scott

  • Rank

  1. I have no problem with anyone eating anything, really, as long as the animal isn't made to suffer beyond what can reasonably be expected during death. My moral outrage isn't directed at the fact that a particular culture consumes dogs, or that someone would shoot a feral cat. I am objecting to the stance, adopted by certain cultures, that suffering should not only be tolerated, but amplified intentionally for the ill-conceived purpose of making the meat more delicious. I object to that as strongly as I object to American factory farming practices. To veal production. To elk poaching. To leg snares. To taking pot shots at buffalo from a moving train just for sport. To dog fighting. Etc. I'm fine with each culture making choices about what it consumes. But I don't feel guilty of cultural insensitivity for suggesting that we all ought to avoid doing things that cause an excess of suffering, pain, and anguish.
  2. I guess I'm lost on the emotional thing. I'm merely suggesting that the human species, regardless of skin color, income, or borders, should reduce the suffering of all sentient creatures, whenever possible. If that's an emotional claim, then I guess I'm emotional. Are people who advocate for women's rights in India just making stupid emotional claims that should be ignored because rape is just part of someone else's culture?
  3. Where am I being emotional in stating that we as a world should aim to reduce suffering in all species? Also, I JUST stated that I choose not to consume pig because of the way they're treated. If you show me a pig that was raised and slaughtered humanely, I'd be fine eating it. If you show me a dog that was raised and slaughtered humanely, I'd have no problem with you eating it.
  4. Are you retarded, or just willfully ignorant? There is video of all of this. You can watch it, if you're so inclined. How the fuck do you actually claim it is "bullshit," or animal rights propaganda. And will your participation in this thread be ending with the "white man's burden" nonsense, or were you going to make any actual points? I'm not acting burdened. I'm not acting like a civilized savior, riding in to bring culture to the brown savages. But I'm also not willing to accept torture and debauchery just because "it's how those poor people have always done it!" That's not good enough. That's such a lazy excuse. You can get a bunch of back-pats on an online message board by making that loser argument, because it pretends to be culturally sensitive. But it's just lazy. It's borne of discomfort in challenging the cultural mores of a society very different than our own. There's nothing wrong with understanding the living situation and cultural history of a region, and also stating out loud that some of it is unacceptable.
  5. I do not approve of the way pigs are raised and slaughtered, therefore I eat no pork. If we raised and slaughtered them in a more humane fashion, I would maybe change my stance. You'd do well to respond with less emotion on this board. Stop using this phantom "poor person on the other side of the world" character to support all your arguments. It's the standard response in these arguments, predictably placed right next to Kab's "pigs" comment. The bulk of the backlash against the consumption of dogs derives from the way the animals are treated - not merely from the fact that they are killed and consumed. I wouldn't technically have a problem with someone eating a dog as long as the animal suffered as little as possible. Lots of people "on the other side of the world" have a sick belief that dog meat becomes more delicious the more an animal suffers. Therefore they will suspend the dog by its neck, hanging it in the air, and then proceed to apply a blowtorch to its stomach and legs, intentionally trying to cause as much pain and suffering as possible. They will boil dogs alive, etc. It is unthinkable. I don't give a fuck how poor you are, or what culture you belong to, that type of behavior is unacceptable and abhorrent. We can, and should, do better as a species. Then again, these are just my "ridiculous sensibilities."
  6. My official stance is that I don't mind what you eat as long as you don't decimate the population and you don't cause the animals to suffer. I don't hate death; I hate suffering. I care. Dogs are highly intelligent, sensitive animals who are, by and large, evolved to develop loving, trusting bonds with humans. It is such a betrayal to see the way some people in this world treat them in turn.
  7. I have immense respect for you for holding these views. I can't get behind trophy hunting, but your outlook on the reduction of animal suffering is admirable. I wish more people shared that belief. For anyone interested in the ethics of hunting, Ted Kerasote has written multiple fascinating books on the subject.
  8. European mounts are the way to go. Much classier than a traditional shoulder mount.
  9. Yep, that's what I said! Exactly, verbatim what I said. One reason bear problems exist is because people have chosen to move into bear habitat. We tear down all this animal habitat and then cry foul when we see them in our yards. We then proclaim that there are too many animals to be supported by this ever-decreasing habitat, and therefore we need to up the bag limits. Carry on with your trophy hunting, but let's not delude ourselves about the origins of some of these animal-human conflicts. Also, I'm admittedly a huge misanthrope, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but 250 people doesn't seem like a devastating number for a continent the size of Africa. Public safety doesn't seem to be the most convincing reason to kill lions. How much tourism money did Cecil bring into Africa while he was alive? I understand that trophy hunting plays a large role in conservation, but I still don't see a morally defensible argument for it.
  10. I'd happily dismantle the corrupt beef industry so we could have more bison and healthy habitat in our country. True, trophy hunting brings money into African communities and paradoxically leads to the preservation of those species. It just feels like such a shitty argument, though. Like saying, "I'm gonna rape this woman, but I'm gonna donate 50 million dollars to women's health charities in her name." I appreciate the money that trophy hunters end up contributing to conservation, but I regard them as morally bankrupt people with whom I find no common ground. I cannot fathom the impulse to shoot to death an elephant, lion, leopard, etc. And as for the "We don't cry for lions" guy - how often do lions actually kill a villager? I'm not doubting that it's a very real problem - I'd just like to see some numbers. It reminds me of rich people who build log McMansions deep in the mountains, see a bear, panic, and demand that we have a bear problem and all bears must be killed. I doubt the Chinese are the ones who floated this idea to Trump. It was likely his dumbfuck sons. "Daddy we want to bring back our elephant parts. Now that you're king can you make those dumb laws go away???"
  11. The Trump administration is a rogue's gallery of soulless cartoon garbage monsters.
  12. I think one of the biggest legacies of Trump will be this trend he has set in motion of labeling anything negative against him "fake." Nothing matters anymore. Anything contrary to one's chosen beliefs just doesn't exist. It's fake. Nothing needs to be evaluated, digested, or debated anymore. Don't like it? It's not real. I don't know how we undo this damage.
  13. This is about Uranium One??? "These deeply troubling events took place when Mr. Mueller was the Director of the FBI. As such, his impartiality is hopelessly compromised," Gaetz said in a statement. "He must step down immediately." Good fucking lord.
  14. The tone is very different. Her phrasing implies that these men and women are brave for knowingly walking into dangerous situations. His phrasing implies that well maybe this isn't that big a deal and I don't need to pretend to be too upset because, c'mon, he knew what he was in for.
  15. Boy Scouts of America to allow girls

    Are they going to change their name? Maybe just "the Scouts?"
×