You're leaving the second part of that sentence out.
How do you feel about people who kill animals for the sheer fun of it?
- Thread starter Saven
- Start date
You're leaving the second part of that sentence out.
the practical part? Its not very practical for the animal now is it.
It does not pertain to the animal, please don't be deliberately dumb.
so practical for the human? How would it be impractical for the human to kill an animal?
No idea what you mean.
Isn't enjoying killing something one of the signs of a being a pyschopath?
Killing for pleasure is natural. If someone has a psychological need to kill then hunting is the perfect way to meet that need.
What are you basing this perception on, exactly? Keep in mind that typical animals in the wild do not kill because it's a pleasureable experience. They avoid it. Leaving their domicile to kill something expends much needed food-energy, time, and it exposes them to dangers. This is why many predators have metabolisms designed to have long resting periods in between kills.
So I repeat... what are you basing this perception on? It may be your own somewhat twisted desires that you are projecting onto nature here, due to having been so far removed from it.
Who said I can't? By the way I am making the negative statement, which in most cases impossible to prove, but I will be nice to you, so I will present the impossible:
If you watch Star Trek, in it Klingons have different morals and their rights are completely different than ours, thus morals are not universal.
There, you have it. Human morals only exists as long as humans are present and even then it is different for each culture.
It is you, who have to prove that morals are universal because you made that positive statement, although I don't expect you to understand it.
Anyhow, conversation is over....
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course, because the Klingons have different morals. If I only watched more Star Trek, I would have known it.
Thanks for stopping by.
Thanks for stopping by.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is? I've never killed anything just because it was fun, I've never gotten enjoyment out killing anything, unless perhaps I didn't know I was killing something.
These people apparently lack the capacity to empathise with their victims. They see them as "things" rather than as sentient beings. Killing an animal is for them no different from breaking an inanimate object.
Since most human beings on the planet do not hunt, this "deep human need" seems confined to a minority. Which suggests to me that it's not really a deep human need at all.
And what would be the evolutionary advantage of a "need" to kill for sport, in your opinion?
Might makes right, then? Is it ok to hurt or kill all weak things? Babies? Defenseless old people? People who don't have a gun when you do have one? Or just non-human animals?
Perhaps. Can you think of any reason why killing a man would be "worse" than killing a cow, which might be "worse" than killing a fish?
Or do you think these are all morally equivalent? Please explain.
Really? You seem very knowledgable about vegetarians. How many do you know? Where did you get your information?
Would you have a problem with killing a human being, if that human "didn't go to waste"? If so, why the double standard?
Ever see a house cat kill a bird? To be a predator, killing must be a pleasurable experience. This behavior is consistent amongst all predatory species. Some species when confronted with very helpless prey, will kill by biting and eating, vomit, and then repeat the process so they can kill again.
This is partially true when a kill takes effort.
Observation of nature.
It sounds like you're caught up in the human bias-judment of "he's being mean!". Take a step back and observe they way species on earth really behave.
In humans, gaining pleasure from killing is far more predominant in men. We have historically always been the hunters and fighters.
That behavior is absolutely not consistent among all predators. Housecats kill animals in the way they due to frustration. They're still wild at heart and are tempremental, and they have no outlet for that predatorialness inside the home. An unnatural situation is causing their unnatural behavior.
Most animals in the wild, don't torture and kill animals the way cats do, and since in the wild is the natural state, then we can just toss your housecat example out the window. Most predators kill an animal as quickly as possible, and then eat it as quickly as possible so that it is not stolen by another animal. Survival, not sport, is the aim of animals in the wild. Citing weird and unusual examples of cats vomiting out a dead thing because it agrees with a freaky notion that doesn't hold true in the majority, makes no sense.
Almost no animals behave in the way you just described. Snakes don't choke mammals because it's pleasurable. Birds don't bite worms because it's pleasurable. Most predators in fact *avoid* killing, if it isn't a foodkill. If that were untrue, then we would see sharks biting people on sight. Shark attacks are very rare, however, and whenever it takes place, it is a case of a mistaken identity for a seal.
You're transposing your own very human and very contrived thought patterns onto animals here, and that just doesn't fly.
Sure dude. That's why they purr and roll around in ecstasy with blood on their faces.
Can you give me an example of a predtor that won't kill prey for pleasure?
Incorrect. Many predators disable an animal as quickly as possible. There are countless instances of disabled prey being eaten alive instead of being killed first.
Much of the time this part would be correct for hungry animals.
Incorrect. Persisting is the aim of animals in or out of the wild. That include psychological health/satiation.
Cats aren't the only species that do that.
Except for many mammals, avians, and fish.
I don't think most predatory snakes choke mammals.
Ever seen a crow kill smaller birds just for the heck of it? Dogs and deer? Lamprey and whatever?
Most predators avoid hard-to-kill species if possible. They usually go for the weakest and dumbest prey available; however, if they have an opportunity to kill really weak prey for the fun of it; they are not likely to let that opportunity go.
Or alternatively, and more likely, I simply know more about nature.
The whole argument that it is "natural" for humans to kill animals for fun is an example of the [enc]appeal to nature[/enc] logical fallacy that assumes that everything "natural" must be good. That's even assuming that it is, in fact, "human nature" to kill for fun - an arguable point on its own.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Killing an animal for sheer sport and without any physical need is not only a great injustice, it is a breach of the covenant between God and man's right to live on this Earth. Furthermore, not only killing, but imprisoning creatures is also against the natural order of things. Imprisoning rodents, birds, and other animals against their will for the mere pleasure of humans is a great injustice. God shall judge humanity considering the transgressions which they commit against fellow men, animals, plant life, and even the air and soil.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
They deserve the same treatment.