There's no such thing as 'blood sport'. It's just sadism. Inadequate people trying to prove how tough they are by taking it out on defenceless creatures.
Or hunting
IMO hunting for food is absolutely fine. We've all got to eat. Hunting for the pleasure of killing is pathetic.
Just as some human psychopaths kill people for pleasure there are no doubt hunters who kill animals for pleasure, but most get pleasure from the stalking and the hunting. You might argue about us being "civilised" and should not have any hunting instincts, but our warring instinct have not diminished with becoming "civilised" have they. We accept it is a human trait that we are inclined to bomb, poison, shoot and gas people in their thousands, but believe that killing an animal for food, or even milking it, even if it suffers no pain or distress, is cruel and must therefore be perpetrated by psychopaths, sadists, inadequate people for the pleasure of killing .
I suggest it is normal for us not to enjoy killing animals and requires a de-sensitisation which our forebears would have acquired naturally by necessity, and which hunters acquire by choice. I catch trout for the table and have never enjoyed dispatching a fish, it requires a natural aversion to be overcome. Farmers send their animals to slaughter but they do not raise livestock for the pleasure of killing them. Why do hunters not just put foxes in a fenced field and let the dogs on them so they can see them being torn to shreds, makes more sense than having to chase the critters all over the countryside on a bloody horse and catch one if they're lucky and then not even see the kill.
If people with more money than they know what to do with, want to pay to exercise their skills in hunting and shooting and shoot game that is going to be killed anyway for conservation, we have no more right to accuse them of enjoying killing than accusing me of fishing for trout because I enjoy killing them. Once you accept it is a lie to accuse hunters of enjoying killing the central justification for anti hunting crumbles, which is presumably why it is compulsory to add "blood thirsty" before any description of hunting, plus "defenceless" and "innocent" before animals. I assume a guilty animal carrying a stick is fair game.
The hunter takes away the head for a trophy and the meat is used to feed the local population. The collection of trophies is no different from collecting football programmes except there is more skill involved in hunting stalking and shooting a wild animal than buying stuff on eBay.
If legal game shooting and trophy hunting is disrupted by the anti hunt fanatics what would be achieved?
Did an animal live as result - no Will animal conservation benefit - no Did money go to support a poor community - no Did it supply food for a poor community - no Will all hunting stop - no Will illegal hunting flourish - probably
Will anti hunting activists get their rocks off in the process - Yes, its why they do it, it's a hobby for the pleasure of bagging the trophy of a disrupted hunt. The negative outcome for wildlife and conservation is not important. There's not much difference in the pleasure hunters get, and hunters of hunters get, when all's said and done. The difference is that hunt saboteurs think their prey deserves to be dead.
What a load of 'ol bollox.
As Algarve said, they love Killing, for killings sake. An abhorrent trait of man! And yes, let's hunt the hunters, sounds like good fun, I'd be up for it.
I don't eat meat or fish, so not essential for me.
Because humans are omnivores.
But you know that, it's just that like all pasty faced, unhealthy veggie weirdos you have to tell everyone!
Flagged:)
It still doesn't mean we HAVE to eat flesh, like you imply.
How is being a veggie unhealthy, nor am I choosing to tell everyone, other than to make a point that we don't need to eat meat. Does it make you feel guilty, that you still have a blood lust?
Millions of people get by without eating animals. Choosing to kill and eat another living creature, is more weird that being a veggie.
By the way, perhaps you should change your name to "Meaty" as you don't appear to have any "Green" values
I don't eat meat or fish, so not essential for me.
Because humans are omnivores.
But you know that, it's just that like all pasty faced, unhealthy veggie weirdos you have to tell everyone!
Flagged:)
It still doesn't mean we HAVE to eat flesh, like you imply.
How is being a veggie unhealthy, nor am I choosing to tell everyone, other than to make a point that we don't need to eat meat. Does it make you feel guilty, that you still have a blood lust?
Millions of people get by without eating animals. Choosing to kill and eat another living creature, is more weird that being a veggie.
No, it's not.
That is how we have evolved. It is natural to eat meat. Depriving yourself of a food source is weird.
Whilst I undertsand why people are vegetarian, I don't think it is helpful to oppose bloodsports in the same way as you oppose slaughter for food when it is done as humanely as possible. I can undertsand opposing both, but they are different degrees and if you accept that we (humans) eat meat, then it doesn't matter how you kill animals, when it should do.
I don't eat meat or fish, so not essential for me.
Because humans are omnivores.
But you know that, it's just that like all pasty faced, unhealthy veggie weirdos you have to tell everyone!
Flagged:)
It still doesn't mean we HAVE to eat flesh, like you imply.
How is being a veggie unhealthy, nor am I choosing to tell everyone, other than to make a point that we don't need to eat meat. Does it make you feel guilty, that you still have a blood lust?
Millions of people get by without eating animals. Choosing to kill and eat another living creature, is more weird that being a veggie.
No, it's not.
That is how we have evolved. It is natural to eat meat. Depriving yourself of a food source is weird.
Evolution is an on-going process. The rejection of animal flesh might be a part of that process. The British used to put children up chimneys. We don't do that now. I've been a vegan for 20 years. Best thing I ever did. I don't feel deprived. There's plenty of lovely foods to eat.
I don't eat meat or fish, so not essential for me.
Because humans are omnivores.
But you know that, it's just that like all pasty faced, unhealthy veggie weirdos you have to tell everyone!
Flagged:)
It still doesn't mean we HAVE to eat flesh, like you imply.
How is being a veggie unhealthy, nor am I choosing to tell everyone, other than to make a point that we don't need to eat meat. Does it make you feel guilty, that you still have a blood lust?
Millions of people get by without eating animals. Choosing to kill and eat another living creature, is more weird that being a veggie.
No, it's not.
That is how we have evolved. It is natural to eat meat. Depriving yourself of a food source is weird.
Evolution is an on-going process. The rejection of animal flesh might be a part of that process. The British used to put children up chimneys. We don't do that now. I've been a vegan for 20 years. Best thing I ever did. I don't feel deprived. There's plenty of lovely foods to eat.
But that is social change - not physical evolution.
It is entirely natural to eat meat, as it is entirely understandable to choose not to.
Jeremy Corbyn: “As an Arsenal fan I’m disgusted that Stan Kroenke is involved in such a brutal, unethical and unnecessary activity...This is not sport. Kroenke should stick to football if he wants to be involved in sport...In my mind ‘blood sport’ is a contradiction and there should be no place on television or anywhere else for it.”
There's no such thing as 'blood sport'. It's just sadism. Inadequate people trying to prove how tough they are by taking it out on defenceless creatures.
Or hunting
IMO hunting for food is absolutely fine. We've all got to eat. Hunting for the pleasure of killing is pathetic.
Just as some human psychopaths kill people for pleasure there are no doubt hunters who kill animals for pleasure, but most get pleasure from the stalking and the hunting. You might argue about us being "civilised" and should not have any hunting instincts, but our warring instinct have not diminished with becoming "civilised" have they. We accept it is a human trait that we are inclined to bomb, poison, shoot and gas people in their thousands, but believe that killing an animal for food, or even milking it, even if it suffers no pain or distress, is cruel and must therefore be perpetrated by psychopaths, sadists, inadequate people for the pleasure of killing .
I suggest it is normal for us not to enjoy killing animals and requires a de-sensitisation which our forebears would have acquired naturally by necessity, and which hunters acquire by choice. I catch trout for the table and have never enjoyed dispatching a fish, it requires a natural aversion to be overcome. Farmers send their animals to slaughter but they do not raise livestock for the pleasure of killing them. Why do hunters not just put foxes in a fenced field and let the dogs on them so they can see them being torn to shreds, makes more sense than having to chase the critters all over the countryside on a bloody horse and catch one if they're lucky and then not even see the kill.
If people with more money than they know what to do with, want to pay to exercise their skills in hunting and shooting and shoot game that is going to be killed anyway for conservation, we have no more right to accuse them of enjoying killing than accusing me of fishing for trout because I enjoy killing them. Once you accept it is a lie to accuse hunters of enjoying killing the central justification for anti hunting crumbles, which is presumably why it is compulsory to add "blood thirsty" before any description of hunting, plus "defenceless" and "innocent" before animals. I assume a guilty animal carrying a stick is fair game.
The hunter takes away the head for a trophy and the meat is used to feed the local population. The collection of trophies is no different from collecting football programmes except there is more skill involved in hunting stalking and shooting a wild animal than buying stuff on eBay.
If legal game shooting and trophy hunting is disrupted by the anti hunt fanatics what would be achieved?
Did an animal live as result - no Will animal conservation benefit - no Did money go to support a poor community - no Did it supply food for a poor community - no Will all hunting stop - no Will illegal hunting flourish - probably
Will anti hunting activists get their rocks off in the process - Yes, its why they do it, it's a hobby for the pleasure of bagging the trophy of a disrupted hunt. The negative outcome for wildlife and conservation is not important. There's not much difference in the pleasure hunters get, and hunters of hunters get, when all's said and done. The difference is that hunt saboteurs think their prey deserves to be dead.
Just like this confused dentist who lived in Minnesota, but accidentally flew a few thousand miles to Zimbabwe to kill a lion over 24 hour period.
I take your point dipps but this is to me sums up the big game hunt mentality, and I for one would like to see this fella and everyone else like him, dropped into a safari park for a day with a few of Cecil's relatives, minus their toys of course
Mankind is a scourge on this planet. No amount of justification for why something as abstract as capitalism deems it necessary to kill already endangered species can change that.
If what Dippenhall said had any truth to it, why are hunters not content with riding their horses chasing a scent laid by a human as they can do now and have been able to do since the fox hunting ban? I am not saying the actual kill is all of it, but it is a significant part of it. Honesty is required here!
Conservation of the countryside my arse. They love the dressing up in red and galloping about lording it.
Funny when I'm driving through the shires I never see people dressed in red coats and white breeches layering hedgerows or digging drainage ditches. Too busy hob knobbing and quaffing sherry.
I don't eat meat or fish, so not essential for me.
Because humans are omnivores.
But you know that, it's just that like all pasty faced, unhealthy veggie weirdos you have to tell everyone!
Flagged:)
It still doesn't mean we HAVE to eat flesh, like you imply.
How is being a veggie unhealthy, nor am I choosing to tell everyone, other than to make a point that we don't need to eat meat. Does it make you feel guilty, that you still have a blood lust?
Millions of people get by without eating animals. Choosing to kill and eat another living creature, is more weird that being a veggie.
No, it's not.
That is how we have evolved. It is natural to eat meat. Depriving yourself of a food source is weird.
Evolution is an on-going process. The rejection of animal flesh might be a part of that process. The British used to put children up chimneys. We don't do that now. I've been a vegan for 20 years. Best thing I ever did. I don't feel deprived. There's plenty of lovely foods to eat.
Are you trying to tell me you ain't eaten a bit of bacon for 20 years? Impossible
I don't eat meat or fish, so not essential for me.
Because humans are omnivores.
But you know that, it's just that like all pasty faced, unhealthy veggie weirdos you have to tell everyone!
Flagged:)
It still doesn't mean we HAVE to eat flesh, like you imply.
How is being a veggie unhealthy, nor am I choosing to tell everyone, other than to make a point that we don't need to eat meat. Does it make you feel guilty, that you still have a blood lust?
Millions of people get by without eating animals. Choosing to kill and eat another living creature, is more weird that being a veggie.
No, it's not.
That is how we have evolved. It is natural to eat meat. Depriving yourself of a food source is weird.
Evolution is an on-going process. The rejection of animal flesh might be a part of that process. The British used to put children up chimneys. We don't do that now. I've been a vegan for 20 years. Best thing I ever did. I don't feel deprived. There's plenty of lovely foods to eat.
Are you trying to tell me you ain't eaten a bit of bacon for 20 years? Impossible
Given that the 'My Outdoor TV' thread has developed into a discussion about related topics - one of them being food - some of you might be interested in listening to this evening's Moral Maze on BBC Radio 4, which will be broadcast following the 8pm news. The subect of the programme is Veganism and Animal Rights.
From the Moral Maze web page: One of the less predictable arguments to result from Brexit concerns the rights and wrongs of chlorine-washed chickens. Perhaps chlorinated-chicken-gate made many people feel temporarily smug about UK standards of animal welfare, compared with those in other parts of the world. Yet, at the same time, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a 'Go Vegan World' advert with the headline "Humane milk is a myth" - a claim which suggests we do have much further to go before we can feel morally-superior about our treatment of animals. Veganism is on the rise, driven by animal welfare, health and environmental concerns. According to the Vegan Society, sales of vegan food increased by 1,500% last year and there are now more than half a million vegans in the UK, up from 150,000 ten years ago. Is veganism the next step in the march towards a more morally-enlightened and humane society? Or is it just a city-dwellers' fad, detached from the realities of food production, global economics and evolutionary biology? Whether vegans, vegetarians or meat-eaters, can our food production and consumption ever be compatible with animal welfare? Even if the language of animal 'rights' is unhelpful, do humans have a moral duty to avoid cruelty of any kind to other living things? Or is that an impossible goal while we prioritise the interests of Homo sapiens over the welfare of all other animals? Some believe that a society which is caring towards animals is more likely to be caring towards people. Others say that our conditioning from early childhood to embrace cuddly, friendly, talking animals has made us much too sentimental. As long as basic welfare standards are met, shouldn't important human needs be served by animals - including cheap chlorinated chickens?
Anyway following the derailment of this thread by the weirdo, unhealthy veggies, ill bring it back on track with this great piece by Jim Jeffries, watch till the end.
Anyway following the derailment of this thread by the weirdo, unhealthy veggies, ill bring it back on track with this great piece by Jim Jeffries, watch till the end.
Comments
I don't eat meat or fish, so not essential for me.
As Algarve said, they love Killing, for killings sake. An abhorrent trait of man! And yes, let's hunt the hunters, sounds like good fun, I'd be up for it.
But you know that, it's just that like all pasty faced, unhealthy veggie weirdos you have to tell everyone!
It still doesn't mean we HAVE to eat flesh, like you imply.
How is being a veggie unhealthy, nor am I choosing to tell everyone, other than to make a point that we don't need to eat meat. Does it make you feel guilty, that you still have a blood lust?
Millions of people get by without eating animals. Choosing to kill and eat another living creature, is more weird that being a veggie.
By the way, perhaps you should change your name to "Meaty" as you don't appear to have any "Green" values
No, it's not.
That is how we have evolved. It is natural to eat meat. Depriving yourself of a food source is weird.
I've been a vegan for 20 years. Best thing I ever did. I don't feel deprived. There's plenty of lovely foods to eat.
It is entirely natural to eat meat, as it is entirely understandable to choose not to.
Jeremy Corbyn: “As an Arsenal fan I’m disgusted that Stan Kroenke is involved in such a brutal, unethical and unnecessary activity...This is not sport. Kroenke should stick to football if he wants to be involved in sport...In my mind ‘blood sport’ is a contradiction and there should be no place on television or anywhere else for it.”
goal.com/en/news/8/main/2017/08/01/37473432/appalled-and-disgusted-arsenal-fan-corbyn-blasts-kroenkes
Just like this confused dentist who lived in Minnesota, but accidentally flew a few thousand miles to Zimbabwe to kill a lion over 24 hour period.
I take your point dipps but this is to me sums up the big game hunt mentality, and I for one would like to see this fella and everyone else like him, dropped into a safari park for a day with a few of Cecil's relatives, minus their toys of course
Funny when I'm driving through the shires I never see people dressed in red coats and white breeches layering hedgerows or digging drainage ditches. Too busy hob knobbing and quaffing sherry.
The subect of the programme is Veganism and Animal Rights.
From the Moral Maze web page:
One of the less predictable arguments to result from Brexit concerns the rights and wrongs of chlorine-washed chickens. Perhaps chlorinated-chicken-gate made many people feel temporarily smug about UK standards of animal welfare, compared with those in other parts of the world. Yet, at the same time, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a 'Go Vegan World' advert with the headline "Humane milk is a myth" - a claim which suggests we do have much further to go before we can feel morally-superior about our treatment of animals. Veganism is on the rise, driven by animal welfare, health and environmental concerns. According to the Vegan Society, sales of vegan food increased by 1,500% last year and there are now more than half a million vegans in the UK, up from 150,000 ten years ago. Is veganism the next step in the march towards a more morally-enlightened and humane society? Or is it just a city-dwellers' fad, detached from the realities of food production, global economics and evolutionary biology? Whether vegans, vegetarians or meat-eaters, can our food production and consumption ever be compatible with animal welfare? Even if the language of animal 'rights' is unhelpful, do humans have a moral duty to avoid cruelty of any kind to other living things? Or is that an impossible goal while we prioritise the interests of Homo sapiens over the welfare of all other animals? Some believe that a society which is caring towards animals is more likely to be caring towards people. Others say that our conditioning from early childhood to embrace cuddly, friendly, talking animals has made us much too sentimental. As long as basic welfare standards are met, shouldn't important human needs be served by animals - including cheap chlorinated chickens?
bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08zcbv5
https://www.facebook.com/JefferiesShow/videos/1734967413470323/