Blind man goes hunting!

[CrAz3D]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405341,00.html

WOW!  That's pretty intense and VERY cool that he's back out and doing things he loves!

[Rule]

Disgusting. 

[CrAz3D]

That he burned 80% of his body?  His crippled hand?  Way to be clear.

[Blaze]

It's good that someone who has been through all that, can do something he enjoys again.

[Rule]

I thought it was clear.  It's disgusting that some guy who is completely crippled, and couldn't possibly compete with these animals in the wild, is filled with joy to know that he's taking away life again.  "Here let me guide your gun in the direction of an animal -- you just pull the trigger and have the satisfication of killing it".  Our species, in general, sucks.

[Camel]

I'm not a huge proponent to hunting in general, but I don't take issue with this case in particular. I think it's great that he's getting out and doing what he loves, even if that's a vile act

[Rule]

I think this is much worse than regular people hunting (which is usually pretty bad).  And Camel, what if he enjoyed raping people?  "With technology these days, and the help of friends, I can do what I love again".

[Camel]

And Camel, what if he enjoyed raping people?

That's exactly the same logic for why I think hunting is vile. That's not to say I'm going to stop eating meat or anything, I just think that shooting a wild animal is cruel. But, as I've said before, I respect other peoples' ability to make their own informed decisions, and if he wants to put that on his conscience, then I'm not going to stop him.

[Rule]

And Camel, what if he enjoyed raping people?

That's exactly the same logic for why I think hunting is vile. That's not to say I'm going to stop eating meat or anything, I just think that shooting a wild animal is cruel. But, as I've said before, I respect other peoples' ability to make their own informed decisions, and if he wants to put that on his conscience, then I'm not going to stop him.

I guess you could have just as well said this, then:

I'm not a huge proponent to raping in general, but I don't take issue with this case in particular. I think it's great that he's getting out and doing what he loves, even if that's a vile act

[CrAz3D]

Animals aren't human, they dont have rights.





Now go eat a dead cow

[iago]

That's exactly the same logic for why I think hunting is vile. That's not to say I'm going to stop eating meat or anything, I just think that shooting a wild animal is cruel.

That's totally insane. Farming animals is unimaginably more cruel than hunting. At least hunting it's one instance of pain and that's it (generally), you aren't imprisoning them their whole life and keeping them just alive enough to be food!

[Rule]

Animals aren't human, they dont have rights.





Now go eat a dead cow

Yes, non-human animals aren't human.  It doesn't follow that they shouldn't be respected.  You are an animal, idiot.  When are you going to get kicked out of x86, btw?

[CrAz3D]

Animals aren't human, they dont have rights.

Now go eat a dead cow

Yes, non-human animals aren't human.  It doesn't follow that they shouldn't be respected.  You are an animal, idiot.  When are you going to get kicked out of x86, btw?

They should be respected and well seasoned.

When are you going to get kicked out of x86, btw?

So it appears as though someone is showing you the member forums?  Sounds like an interesting breach of security

[Rule]

When are you going to get kicked out of x86, btw?

So it appears as though someone is showing you the member forums?  Sounds like an interesting breach of security

No-one had told me that.  Thanks for confirming the obvious though. lol!

[Lead]

Your all looking at it from the worst possible standpoint. What if he liked to golf? If they made some special equipment for him to go golfing again would your opinion change? I think that him trying to live his life like he used to is a wonderful thing, regardless of what he is doing. Kudos to him.

[Rule]

...regardless of what he is doing...

no

[Lead]

Yes I meant raping, setting cats on fire (NEDM reference), and touching little children like the old man on Family Guy.

When I say "regardless of what hes doing" I am constraining that phrase into the bounds of legality.

[iago]

When are you going to get kicked out of x86, btw?

So it appears as though someone is showing you the member forums?  Sounds like an interesting breach of security

That reminds me of a Seinfeld quote:

Elaine: Hey George, Jerry says you get this sweater on discount because of a red spot
George: Jerry, how could you betray me?
Jerry: She tricked you, you idiot! I never told her!

[Rule]

CrAz3D just caused a breach of security by revealing private clan information! :O
Immediate grounds for expulsion?

[Blaze]

CrAz3D just caused a breach of security by revealing private clan information! :O
Immediate grounds for expulsion?

Haha, win!

[dark_drake]

I fail to see the problem with hunting. It helps keep the animal population in check so many of them don't end up starving in the winter. Starvation might be considered the natural order of things, whereas a bullet to the chest is pretty uncommon in nature. Then again, starving seems to be a lot crueler.

[Lead]

I fail to see the problem with hunting. It helps keep the animal population in check so many of them don't end up starving in the winter. Starvation might be considered the natural order of things, whereas a bullet to the chest is pretty uncommon in nature. Then again, starving seems to be a lot crueler.

Sorry that not all of us are vegan iago

Edit: Yes that was an indirect statement

[iago]

I fail to see the problem with hunting. It helps keep the animal population in check so many of them don't end up starving in the winter. Starvation might be considered the natural order of things, whereas a bullet to the chest is pretty uncommon in nature. Then again, starving seems to be a lot crueler.

Sorry that not all of us are vegan iago

To be fair, I argued in FAVOUR (that's "favor") of hunting; at least, in most ways, it's better than farming.

[Warrior]

When are you going to get kicked out of x86, btw?

So it appears as though someone is showing you the member forums?  Sounds like an interesting breach of security

No-one had told me that.  Thanks for confirming the obvious though. lol!

LOL. Way to go.

[Lead]

I fail to see the problem with hunting. It helps keep the animal population in check so many of them don't end up starving in the winter. Starvation might be considered the natural order of things, whereas a bullet to the chest is pretty uncommon in nature. Then again, starving seems to be a lot crueler.

Sorry that not all of us are vegan iago

To be fair, I argued in FAVOUR (that's "favor") of hunting; at least, in most ways, it's better than farming.

That is why I put my edit in my thread

[Camel]

I should clarify: I mean to say that shooting an animal as a point of pride is a vile act. If the intent is to use the animal as a resource, then I feel it's justified.

That's exactly the same logic for why I think hunting is vile. That's not to say I'm going to stop eating meat or anything, I just think that shooting a wild animal is cruel.

That's totally insane. Farming animals is unimaginably more cruel than hunting. At least hunting it's one instance of pain and that's it (generally), you aren't imprisoning them their whole life and keeping them just alive enough to be food!

There are farms where animals are raised to be hunted; they are most definitely not mutually exclusive.

As far as cruelty in farming goes, what you're referring to is primarily a problem with poultry, which I don't generally eat anyways. Thanksgiving is one major exception.

[Camel]

I fail to see the problem with hunting. It helps keep the animal population in check so many of them don't end up starving in the winter. Starvation might be considered the natural order of things, whereas a bullet to the chest is pretty uncommon in nature. Then again, starving seems to be a lot crueler.

That's total bullshit. What do you think they did before our species evolved?

Inaction can not be immoral.

[Sidoh]

I fail to see the problem with hunting. It helps keep the animal population in check so many of them don't end up starving in the winter. Starvation might be considered the natural order of things, whereas a bullet to the chest is pretty uncommon in nature. Then again, starving seems to be a lot crueler.

That's total bullshit. What do you think they did before our species evolved?

Painfully obvious.

Inaction can not be immoral.

That's total bullshit.  If you're sitting in a lawn chair, sipping iced tea by a lake when you see a stranger drowning, inaction would be staying in your chair and doing nothing about it.  That's pretty clearly immoral.

[iago]

That's totally insane. Farming animals is unimaginably more cruel than hunting. At least hunting it's one instance of pain and that's it (generally), you aren't imprisoning them their whole life and keeping them just alive enough to be food!

There are farms where animals are raised to be hunted; they are most definitely not mutually exclusive.

As far as cruelty in farming goes, what you're referring to is primarily a problem with poultry, which I don't generally eat anyways. Thanksgiving is one major exception.

I obviously meant in the general case.

And it's not just poultry, farming is cruel at the best of times (it's basically equivalent of raising humans in jail) (and it's rarely the best of times).

[dark_drake]

I fail to see the problem with hunting. It helps keep the animal population in check so many of them don't end up starving in the winter. Starvation might be considered the natural order of things, whereas a bullet to the chest is pretty uncommon in nature. Then again, starving seems to be a lot crueler.

That's total bullshit. What do you think they did before our species evolved?

My guess would be that other predators kept their populations in check. Of course, there was still that life cycle where there'd be tons of predators, not much prey, so a bunch of predators died off, and the prey made a return. This would let the predators come back in force, and the cycle goes on. Unfortunately, humans kicked the shit out of predator populations, leaving man as the only viable predator in many regions. Hunting works. It keeps the populations in check, and people get food out of it.

Besides, it's not like sportsmen are going out and killing most of these animals just for hell of it. It might not just be for food, but I've yet to meet a hunter who lets game meat just go to waste.

[Lead]

Personally I like to nail a dear in the face with a crossbow then take the som bitch, gut it, and put it in my chili.

[Camel]

Inaction can not be immoral.

That's total bullshit.  If you're sitting in a lawn chair, sipping iced tea by a lake when you see a stranger drowning, inaction would be staying in your chair and doing nothing about it.  That's pretty clearly immoral.

I definitely do not, and will not ever agree. Morality, as I see it, can only be applied to an action, not an inaction. How do you know that person drowning isn't going to be the next Hitler? Obviously it's extremely unlikely, but you can't call that inaction immoral.

To be perfectly clear: it is immoral to purposefully drown someone, but not to let them drown of their own accord.

My guess is that you're confusing what's humane/civilized with what's moral, though I suppose it's also possible that you simply don't agree

And it's not just poultry, farming is cruel at the best of times (it's basically equivalent of raising humans in jail) (and it's rarely the best of times).

How is it like raising humans in jail? Do they not have freedoms they would otherwise have? Sure, it sucks that they're going to die, but farm animals are, in general, not mistreated.

[Sidoh]

I definitely do not, and will not ever agree. Morality, as I see it, can only be applied to an action, not an inaction. How do you know that person drowning isn't going to be the next Hitler? Obviously it's extremely unlikely, but you can't call that inaction immoral.

To be perfectly clear: it is immoral to purposefully drown someone, but not to let them drown of their own accord.

My guess is that you're confusing what's humane/civilized with what's moral, though I suppose it's also possible that you simply don't agree

I whole-heartedly disagree.  I'm not confusing morality with anything.  I think it is grossly immoral to allow another human being drown in the hypothetical presented.

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.  You lose.

[Camel]

I ask of you seriously, how can nothing be wrong? Since I don't think we disagree on what's humane, I think we're simply arguing semantics here.

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.  You lose.

lol

[Sidoh]

I ask of you seriously, how can nothing be wrong? Since I don't think we disagree on what's humane, I think we're simply arguing semantics here.

The definition of morality is pretty clear, I think.  Allowing another person to die when you had the chance to save them at no cost is, in my eyes, wrong and arguably evil.

[Newby]

Allowing another person to die when you had the chance to save them at no cost is, in my eyes, wrong and arguably evil.

And if you try to save them and fail, are you still wrong? You didn't save them, it was the same thing as sitting there doing nothing, and you're in the same spot as the person who didn't do anything.

[Sidoh]

Allowing another person to die when you had the chance to save them at no cost is, in my eyes, wrong and arguably evil.

And if you try to save them and fail, are you still wrong? You didn't save them, it was the same thing as sitting there doing nothing, and you're in the same spot as the person who didn't do anything.

There's a fundamental difference in the situations, though.  In one, you choose to let someone die.  In the other, you choose to attempt to save their life.  The morality in question is in that choice.  The result is irrelevant.

[Newby]

But look at your statement:

Allowing another person to die when you had the chance to save them at no cost is, in my eyes, wrong and arguably evil.

In the first scenario, you sat in a lawn chair as a man drowned in a puddle. You allowed another person to die. You had the chance to save them at pretty much no cost. You didn't take it, but you had the chance.

In the second scenario, you try to pull their face out of the puddle, but they drown anyways. You allowed another person to die. You had the chance to save them at pretty much no cost. You tried to save them, but failed.

I'm nitpicking your statement right now, but you see my point. It's about choice.

[Sidoh]

"Allowing" means you forfeit some or all of your power to prevent something from happening.  You haven't "allowed" a person to die if you've done everything you can to keep them alive but they die regardless of your efforts.  If you pulled them out of their water, but their lungs were filled with fluid without your knowledge and they drown, you have not made a choice to let them die.  You've done everything you can to save their life.  The second situation doesn't apply.

[iago]

How is it like raising humans in jail? Do they not have freedoms they would otherwise have? Sure, it sucks that they're going to die, but farm animals are, in general, not mistreated.

They have no freedom, they're taken care of by people who don't care for their wellbeing, they aren't allowed to leave, they aren't allowed to take care of their most basic urges (mating, for instance), they don't get to raise a family (male children of dairy cattle and egg chickens, for instance, are killed at birth), they aren't allowed to eat what they want (they're fed just enough food to keep them alive), their either beaten or killed for misbehaviour, and they're killed when they're either ready for meat or they're no longer useful (for producing offspring/milk/eggs/whatever the case).

You're right, it's not like prison, it's much, much worse.

At least with hunting, the animal lives a normal life.

"Allowing" means you forfeit some or all of your power to prevent something from happening.  You haven't "allowed" a person to die if you've done everything you can to keep them alive but they die regardless of your efforts.  If you pulled them out of their water, but their lungs were filled with fluid without your knowledge and they drown, you have not made a choice to let them die.  You've done everything you can to save their life.  The second situation doesn't apply.

I agree, the situations are very different.

[Camel]

I ask of you seriously, how can nothing be wrong? Since I don't think we disagree on what's humane, I think we're simply arguing semantics here.

The definition of morality is pretty clear, I think.  Allowing another person to die when you had the chance to save them at no cost is, in my eyes, wrong and arguably evil.

According to what you've said, it is evil to pull the plug on a vegetable. Do you really believe that?

I agree; the definition is painfully clear. Evil is, by definition, morally objectionable behavior. Morality is, by definition, concerned with right and wrongdoings. Since inaction aren't doings, they can't be right or wrong, are not subject to morality, and can not be evil. As I said before, it's simply a matter of semantics; but you simply can't call the lack of action an immoral action - it just doesn't follow logically.

[Sidoh]

According to what you've said, it is evil to pull the plug on a vegetable. Do you really believe that?

Straw man.  These are entirely different circumstances.

I agree; the definition is painfully clear. Evil is, by definition, morally objectionable behavior. Morality is, by definition, concerned with right and wrongdoings. Since inaction aren't doings, they can't be right or wrong, are not subject to morality, and can not be evil. As I said before, it's simply a matter of semantics; but you simply can't call the lack of action an immoral action - it just doesn't follow logically.

I don't agree with your definition.  Neither does Merriam-Webster.

2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct bplural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct

The failure to behave in a certain way in a situation can easily be considered immoral.

[Camel]

Straw man.  These are entirely different circumstances.

How so? You're allowing someone to die when you have the chance to save them; same circumstances.

I don't agree with your definition.  Neither does Merriam-Webster.

Seriously?

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
 b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
 c: conforming to a standard of right behavior
 d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
 e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2: probable though not proved : virtual <a moral certainty>
3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

[iago]

"behaviour" doesn't imply action or inaction. Inaction is still a type of behaviour.

[Camel]

"behaviour" doesn't imply action or inaction. Inaction is still a type of behaviour.

So what? There is an worse extreme beyond inaction, which centers the inaction on the moral scale.

[Sidoh]

How so? You're allowing someone to die when you have the chance to save them; same circumstances.

The circumstances are completely different.  You're making the choice to end whatever is left of their life (maybe it's even fair to say they aren't alive...) because you think it's what is best for them or what they would have wanted.

It would depend on the wishes of the person who is now a vegetable.  Many people will ask their loved ones to not let them live on in that state.  Especially in this case, I don't think it's immoral at all.

I don't agree with your definition.  Neither does Merriam-Webster.

Seriously?

Main Entry:
    1mor·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1moral
Pronunciation:
    \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\
Function:
    adjective
Etymology:
    Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date:
    14th century

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>2: probable though not proved : virtual <a moral certainty>3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

It's more appropriate to look at the entry for the noun.

a doctrine or system of moral conduct bplural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

Morality is passive.  It seems outrageous to think it only applies to actions.  It's a behavioral contract.  Behavior is the way someone acts or reacts in a situation.  A reaction can be to do nothing.

"behaviour" doesn't imply action or inaction. Inaction is still a type of behaviour.

Exactly.

"behaviour" doesn't imply action or inaction. Inaction is still a type of behaviour.

So what? There is an worse extreme beyond inaction, which centers the inaction on the moral scale.

I disagree.  The morality of a reaction cannot be measured unless the circumstances are revealed.

George sees a car drive by the street across from his house.  He reacts by doing nothing.
Immoral?  Of course not.

In the other circumstances, doing nothing is immoral (provided that the perceptions of right/wrong are roughly the same).

[Camel]

Okay, I can agree at a fundamental level with everything you've said there, but I don't think it discounts what I've said per se. I still don't think inaction can be inherently wrong, and I'll ask you to focus on that statement to avoid this argument becoming cyclical.

[Sidoh]

Okay, I can agree at a fundamental level with everything you've said there, but I don't think it discounts what I've said per se. I still don't think inaction can be inherently wrong, and I'll ask you to focus on that statement to avoid this argument becoming cyclical.

No one has said inaction can be inherently wrong.  That would be stupid.  As I said previously:

The morality of a reaction cannot be measured unless the circumstances are revealed.

[Camel]

Okay then, I guess there's nothing left to discuss?

[Sidoh]

Okay then, I guess there's nothing left to discuss?

How about that weather?

[iago]

This makes me think of the people living by Auschwitz who assumed that they were just living next to an especially screamy pie factory.

[Camel]

Okay then, I guess there's nothing left to discuss?

How about that weather?

Screamy