Indeed. What is your point? The only thing stopping you is law, not a god and not some magical morality that will cast you to hell.
How do you feel about people who kill animals for the sheer fun of it?
- Thread starter Saven
- Start date
Indeed. What is your point? The only thing stopping you is law, not a god and not some magical morality that will cast you to hell.
Actually its morality that stops most of us. Stop projecting your own rather diseased modus operandi onto other people and assume that because it's true for you, then it's true for everyone.
We've been down this road before friend.
Morality is philosophical, yes. However, your claim in its nature can be and must be examined scientificially, since you are making a claim about the physical world (that there is an objective, existent, universal morality). This claim is a scientific one.
My position does not require proof since it is a negative statement. The burden of proof is on you.
Yes, I have. Morality is an opinion, which it is. That is a fact. Morality is an opinion. Do you disagree?
Do you just miss what you yourself say? "Most" is not all, and it certainly is possible for an individual to not feel that killing others is wrong, and you can't prove him "wrong" since that is his opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exceptions don't invalidate the norm or the rule.
You saying your statement that morality isn't universal is a negative would be like me saying that morality isn't relative is a negative. That don't fly.
You have not proven to my satisfaction that morality is an opinion. There's too much evidence that it's inborn, and then perhaps modified later on. However, it's still there and not an "opinion." I think you need to learn the meaning of the word.
You saying your statement that morality isn't universal is a negative would be like me saying that morality isn't relative is a negative. That don't fly.
You have not proven to my satisfaction that morality is an opinion. There's too much evidence that it's inborn, and then perhaps modified later on. However, it's still there and not an "opinion." I think you need to learn the meaning of the word.
They simply demonstrate that it is not objective or factual.
No, because if you say "morality isn't relative", you're saying "morality is objecitve", which means you are saying that morality objectively exists, which is a positive claim that requires proof.
The burden of proof is on you, not me.
When did I say it wasn't? I even agreed that biology and psychology play a huge role in the morality of the human being. However, this doesn't mean it is set in stone nor does it mean that it is objective. It is simply a pre-programmed feeling within humans, and like many others, can be ignored or changed on a whim.
It's there...unless you ignore it, or change your outlook. We can and do ignore instinct all the time. Just because it is "natural" doesn't mean we have to do it.
Why do you hate reason?
About as "orgasmic" as playing with any toy. Cats in particular do enjoy it. You should observe the behavior sometime.
I didn't say that; therefore, only one of us is making things up.
I didn't say the rolled around on the carcass. It's quite interesting that the words I have written are being interpreted by you as something along the lines of a feline orgasm while bathing in the blood of a carcass. Almost as if you had some kind of deviant fascination with predatory imagery.
Which is very false statement. Here is some contradictory evidence for you to chew on Rover:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr7YiL2zp4U
That's the spirit (finally)! Ask for evidence and ye' shall receive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_agt7Yd6ipQ
The psychologically ill-equipped won't survive too well don't-cha-think?
Why do you think I can't? *sigh*, let's turn your question into a better one (one of evidence). "Can you, Crunchy Cat, name any non-human life forms that kill for pleasure?". The answer of course is a big fat "yes, of course I can". Examples: zooplankton, damselfly naiads, predaceous mites, weasels, wolves, orcas, red foxes, spotted hyenas, spiders, brown bear, lynx, crows, and mink.
That was a gloriously bad example. Humans are interpreted by sharks very differently than you portray:
http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/saf_eating_humans.htm
The evidence I provided in this post contradicts your statement... i.e. you are quite incorrect.
Of course not. Why would you disagree with your own writing?
*pause*. Biting feels good, chasing feels good, blood tastes good, ... etc. If it wasn't pleasurable the best experience from hunger pangs would be alleviation of the pain without a reward... but put the alleviation of the pain in combination with pleasure then you have motivation to hunt.
Just did.
In one fell swoop:
No you didn't. That's a video of cubs eating, not torturing. The animal being alive while they do it is due to them not being strong enough to "deliver a killing blow" as the video says. The shark article states that investigation and self-defense are the reason sharks attack non-food animals. Still not pleasure-killing. The wolf video is a bunch of stills that are text-narrated by someone writing a story about them. It may just be a territorial defense thing... which would be way more likely, come to think. I see no evidence to believe that *any* of the animals you listed are pleasure-killers. We do, however, have way more evidence that they kill for food. After all, food is needed to live. What you are describing isn't. You're operating under an assumption that if you don't kill for pleasure, then you are psychologically ill-equipped, or that animals are. Well, most people don't act this way. and clearly they're doing fine.
The topic of this thread is hunting. The majority of hunters in the USA do not behave as wantonly as you are projecting onto them. Most are decent people who trim and eat the animals they kill. The ones who don't do that are killers, not hunters and most hunters will likewise tell you that. Such people are illegal poachers, and they ruin the reputation of real hunters.... which is why hunters oppose such idiots, while you may support them. You're supporting a bunch of idiots. That's a real source of pride for ya.
The freaky folks that you are defending and even encouraging are in the extreme minority here, which may be where you belong as well... so whatever psychotic behavior it is you are trying to justify clearly isn't prevailing here. The people who are you describing have a fascination with killing. It is as though they want to kill people, but are afraid to do so, so they kill animals instead.
Well sorry, but it ain't natural to be a sociopath, no matter how badly you guys identify with them.
Oh, and LMAO @ the sadistic plankton. That would be like me saying that HIV kills for pleasure. Good joke.
No you didn't. That's a video of cubs eating, not torturing. The animal being alive while they do it is due to them not being strong enough to "deliver a killing blow" as the video says. The shark article states that investigation and self-defense are the reason sharks attack non-food animals. Still not pleasure-killing. The wolf video is a bunch of stills that are text-narrated by someone writing a story about them. It may just be a territorial defense thing... which would be way more likely, come to think. I see no evidence to believe that *any* of the animals you listed are pleasure-killers. We do, however, have way more evidence that they kill for food. After all, food is needed to live. What you are describing isn't. You're operating under an assumption that if you don't kill for pleasure, then you are psychologically ill-equipped, or that animals are. Well, most people don't act this way. and clearly they're doing fine.
The topic of this thread is hunting. The majority of hunters in the USA do not behave as wantonly as you are projecting onto them. Most are decent people who trim and eat the animals they kill. The ones who don't do that are killers, not hunters and most hunters will likewise tell you that. Such people are illegal poachers, and they ruin the reputation of real hunters.... which is why hunters oppose such idiots, while you may support them. You're supporting a bunch of idiots. That's a real source of pride for ya.
The freaky folks that you are defending and even encouraging are in the extreme minority here, which may be where you belong as well... so whatever psychotic behavior it is you are trying to justify clearly isn't prevailing here. The people who are you describing have a fascination with killing. It is as though they want to kill people, but are afraid to do so, so they kill animals instead.
Well sorry, but it ain't natural to be a sociopath, no matter how badly you guys identify with them.
Oh, and LMAO @ the sadistic plankton. That would be like me saying that HIV kills for pleasure. Good joke.
Last edited:
On one end you're saying it's inborn to many species and then saying it's subjective. You really can't have it both ways. If biology and psychology play a role in those morals, then it means that there are a set of morals that nature designed us to develop. I consider those to be universal to humans, then. People acting in ways that don't follow those morals does not make them not universal. It just means that those morals are able to be violated. Theyre' still there, though.
Last edited:
Yes, because it is still a certain perception (i.e, it doesn't exist independently of human beings)
And furthermore, even if there is an inborn moral code, there are so many interpretations and variations of this that you cannot see that there is indeed a single universal moral code for everyone. Rather, morality is subjective, as I said (and that is the reality whether you agree or not).
For instance, to Hitler and Nazi-minded people, the "righteous" and "correct" and morally "good" thing to do is to exterminate the undesirables and create a structured, orderly society based on authority and submission. However, to many others, this is "wrong" or not morally permissable
Who is right and who is wrong? No one, because they both think they are right. Morality varies and it isn't objective or universal. The in-built social signals can be interpreted in many ways and even ignored altogether.
"nature" doesn't design anything. And furthermore, humans are truly remarkable creatures in that we are able to ignore our primal instincts and philosophize and have different views...thus morality is subjective.
You must first prove to us that morality is indeed objective and universal. The burden of proof is on you.
And furthermore, why is YOUR moral code better than anyone elses?
I'll ask you again, since you didn't answer the first time:
Why is murdering an animal so you can eat it any different than murdering an animal because you enjoyed murdering it?
Those aren't "cubs", but more importantly you really need to keep track of the conversation:
The video doesn't say that, but you're welcome to quote the exact words in the video (as well as what time range those words are stated in).
It states more than that but at least you interpreted that part correctly... which is why non-food animals wouldn't be used for pleasure killing.
Who sait it was?
Correct (surprisingly).
Territorial defense against food sources? I don't think so.
I don't think you understand the concept of evidence. I could direct you to a full video on a nature channel that shows fish eating other fish, vomiting the meal, and doing it again just so they can kill. What would be the point? You would try to rationalize it as something retarded like "oh those fish are just being territorial".
That's interesting. You think that killing to eat and killing for pleasure are mutually exclusive.
Incorrect. The assertion is that the behavior of killing for pleasure in a canivorous predatory species is good for their psychological health.
Most people aren't in an environment where pleasure killing is an option.
The thread is about opinions on humans who pleasure-hunt.
Are you sure I am projecting onto them? What specifically did I say about human hunters?
What about the indecent people who trim and eat the animals they kill?
What about the decent people who are killers?
Any animal (humans included) that kill are killers. If "most" hunters don't recognize that they're killers then they are being quite dishonest with themselves don't you think?
Did you just imply the rather fantastic and wild assertion that ALL humans who kill for pleasure are poachers?
Of course poachers ruin the reputation of anyone who hunts; however, that's neither here nor there.
I would oppose pachers too.
Do you just make things up as you go along? Where did I state I support poachers?
I wish I know what you were talking about, but even more I wish you knew what you were talking about.
The people who are you describing have a fascination with killing. It is as though they want to kill people, but are afraid to do so, so they kill animals instead. Well sorry, but it ain't natural to be a sociopath, no matter how badly you guys identify with them.
Interesting interpretation. The intended one is that killing for pleasure is natural and humans (especially males) whom have a strong killing desire can find satiation in hunting animals (just like their ancestors did). I don't know why you think a desire to kill in humans somehow means a desire to kill other humans. You wouldn't think that way about other predators now would you?
Zooplankton... and they are a life form observed to kill for pleasure. Also, HIV is not a predator/carnivore. It's not even a life form.
Last edited by a moderator:
What would be the point of bringing up disabled prey being eaten alive, if it didn't have to do with the topic? I'm just two steps ahead of you and ready to address all that nonsense before you even bring it up -- which I knew would be the result of that video. You not appreciating my doing that doesn't change that the video is irrelevant. Same with the sadistic plankton. And I guess sadistic tuna now, too.
So far, you haven't found showed us anything that demonstrates that pleasure motivates the killings in those videos or articles. All of what you have said amounts to a collection of sentences saying "Well I've seen some videos of animals injuring other animals before actually killing them. This has got to mean that they kill for pleasure." Methinks we need more conclusive evidence than that.
Just as an FYI, you use "whom" when referring to the object of a verb or verb clause, not a subject.
Last edited:
Well you just said why it's different. Yawn.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Huh ? That question is pretty self-explanatory..
You have a very indecisive and uncertain way of looking at things, which is why you call those subjective when others of us don't. We moved past that phase, already. In time, so will you. In the mean time, I will indulge your idiosyncratic musings.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get it either. They seem to be assuming, in the presence of any behavior that they personally have not come to understand yet, that the behavior is automatically done out of sadism. Exactly why they assume that is anyone's guess.
My opinion? I think it sounds like a personal problem.
Saven, you seem to be trying to use "wit" in order to keep from answering Roman's question. Why?
Let's ask his question in another way, then perhaps you'll see that it's not such a simplistic question afterall; Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of animals are killed every day by people who have no intention of eating those animals ...those people work for slaughter houses and butcher markets.
I think you can readily see that anyone who thus kills those animals surely aren't as squeamish about killing animals as you and others are ...and I'd suggest that there are many of them who actually enjoy it. In fact, it's just my opinion, but I'd say that it would be impossible for anyone to do that work if they didn't actually enjoy killing those animals.
So, ...with that in mind, would you like to answer Roman's question? "Why is murdering an animal so you can eat it any different than murdering an animal because you enjoyed murdering it?"
Baron Max
LifeinTechnicolor
Registered Senior Member
For Fun???
obviously thats messed up. Some do kill for sport or other reasons.
But for fun is a sin. its just like killing other people
obviously thats messed up. Some do kill for sport or other reasons.
But for fun is a sin. its just like killing other people
Actually it's WAY more simplistic than that crappola, and people often have jobs that they don't like doing. I see no reason why electrocuting chickens for KFC would ben an exception to that.
Out of the two positions before us, one (eating) is aimed at fulfilling a practical purpose/need, while the other motive is purely malevolence. Malevolent people are not good to have around. Their malevolent behavior is often a manifestation of their own inner seething.