So why is hunting for pleasure immoral exactly? Booth isn't wasting the meat. "Because he could get food elsewhere" seems like a pretty arbitrary standard. "Because the animal feels pain" is just projecting your own emotions onto the animal and sympathizing with them--emotions don't make logical arguments.
I'd love it if you could give us a nice, solid logical argument backing up your main assertion since you've repeated it several times under the presumption it's true. Appealing to emotionalism isn't going to cut it.
You want me to explain to you the immorality of killing something for pleasure? It's kinda self-evident.
You don't believe that animals feel pain? You don't believe that it's immoral to cause a living thing pain for one's pleasure?
Again, these things are self-evident, which is why they aren't argued. Perhaps you haven't thought about it, but I'd ask you to.
It's not emotionalism....it's morality..something that all members of civilized society abide by, inherently, because moral differentiate between what's 'wrong' and what's 'right'.
Ok. I'm going to say out right that a) I don't eat non human animals; b ) I take non human animal ethics very seriously (I have a masters degree in philosophy on this very topic) & c) I'm a big fan of David Booth the hockey player. Further, I am not absolutely against hunting. There can be good reasons for it i.e. necessary wildlife management. So there are exceptions to the rule.
HOWEVER, as much as I don't want to dislike what Booth has done, I can't help but say that his reasoning just doesn't work, ethically speaking. Sure, hunting goats may be challenging but why should we care about that? Of course it is a thrill for the hunters, but what about the interests of the animals themselves? Don't they count for something Booth? Or is it all about human interests only?
This isn't intended to be a hater thread. It's too bad for the goat is all I'm saying. Would much rather hockey started (might keep Booth away from his 'hobby'). I find it ironic that as much of this bugs me I still would completely support Booth as a hockey player. I do wonder where Booth draws the line though.....
START THE SEASON!!! END THE MASSACRE (note: sarcasm)
Thought I should add a few posts which display a lack of reasoning. If anyone wants to specifically address me on a point related, feel free to do so. I will try my best to address any direct responses.
cIutch, on 13 October 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:
i believe we have a cannibal here friends stay clear
CookieCrumbs, on 14 October 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:
"I don't eat non humans".
Oh my Lord...
Mountain Man, on 14 October 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:
Just when I think I have read it all on CDC. Just when I think it is impossible for someone to say something more outright baffling. You sir, you come out with this.
Thank you for bragging about your Cannibalism. My stupidity meter officially has a new low.
Not eating non human animals does not logically entail eating human animals (we are animals too right). That is like saying if I don't non orange fruit, then I must eat apples. It doesn't necessarily follow from teh former that I must eat the latter. I could not eat both, which is entirely possible. In other words, cannibalism simply doesn't follow, and for the record I don't eat humans.......sometimes.
dura_mater, on 14 October 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:
Then why not just say you don't eat animals. That's like saying you don't eat apples... or any other fruit, just say you don't eat fruit. You're asking to get flamed when you word something so deliberately poorly.
The precise meaning is non-human animals. We are animals. They are non-human animals.
Jester@wraiths.ca, on 15 October 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:
You made the point to specify that you don't eat NON-human animals.
You made a poorly worded statement, simply admitting the obvious would have been a better route than over-defending the mistake to try and make it seem like everyone else is wrong...
I've clarified the meaning of the term. Your insistence on the issue only shows that you are trying to make an argument out of nothing (which demonstrates a lack of reasoning on your part as well)
*people don't seem to realize that they are arguing about the vagueness of the term "non human animals". The meaning should be more than clarified now. More rediculously, its not even the point at issue....
/end discussion on this
n00bxQb, on 14 October 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:
Why is hunting and killing a mountain goat for food and trophy not okay but raising and slaughtering cattle for meat and leather okay?
No one said it was ok. You are presupposing that it is. That's called begging the question.
tas, on 14 October 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:
vegetarians are dumb. eat according to your biology.
also, what makes eating an animal so much worse than eating a plant? both are alive, and eating plants is worse for the planet than eating animals (since plants produce oxygen while animals deplete it).
First, human biology does not dictate that we must eat meat. If that were the case, vegans would perish. Further, many high performance athletes are switching to vegan diets for improved health and recovery.
Second, plants are not sentient. They do not experience complex emotions or desires like we do. More importantly, they do not experience pain.
Third, eating plants isn't destroying the environment as near as badly as factory farming non human animals is. You need to do some basic fact checking.
Bieksa would be a great captain. I'd be very supportive of his ascendancy to that role if it was relinquished by Hank.
He's respected by the players in the locker-room, the coaching staff and management, and the more intelligent of our fan-base. He's a natural leader out on the ice and has had enough experience as an alternate. He's a fixture in Vancouver whose spent his entire career here and most likely will retire as a Canuck. He's an established leader on defence. He doesn't yap unnecessarily. He stands up for his teammates and himself. He doesn't recklessly fight. He's been an effective point producing player as well, which shows that he gets the job done on the ice. He a media darling to say the least. He doesn't seem to lose his cool even in high pressure situations on and off the ice. He seems to naturally want to help younger players. Solid role model for the kiddies. Good head on his shoulders and very intelligent.
I could go on, but these are the main reasons that if the captaincy were ever vacant, then Bieksa would fill the role nicely.
Aged 32 today, a pair of the best players the franchise has ever seen! Not many years ago were they just young little prospects Burkie worked wonders to make happen.. I'm thankful they play for Vancouver!