On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:49:56 +0100, "pearl" <tea@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>WHY I QUIT HUNTING
>Published by cyrano2 at 8:30 pm under Animal Liberation, Cruel Idiots,
>Empathy Deficient, Exploitation, Moral Cowardice, Moral Rot, Speciesism
>
>BY WAY OF PREFACE TO A PERSONAL STORY
>Man is a creature of astoni****ng contradictions and enormous moral range.
.. . .
>by showing that humans are indeed capable of
>understanding their wrongful deeds, that, despite all the muck that
surrounds
>us, decency manages to survive somehow, and that in consequence they
>indeed aspire to live in peace with their conscience, because, if nothing
else
>bad actions do in fact bother them, deny them rest, redemption
underscores
>the possibility of a better world grounded in real peace and justice for
>everyone, none the least for the most exploited and brutalized creatures
on
>this earth, the animals.
Human hunting involves less cruelty, fear and suffering than
non-human predation. It also involves less than disease and
starvation, and is not as hard on baby animals. Advocates of
the gross misnomer "animal rights" would rather see more
suffering caused by non-human predators than see humans
diliberately control wildlife populations through hunting. Human
hunters don't live in the area with their prey, causing suffering
from fear night and day, at all times of the year. They also don't
chase their prey to exhaustion and then rip them apart, etc,
as non-human predators do. Of course humans cause much
less suffering to young and baby animals, since they usually
don't even hunt during the time of year their prey are giving
birth. In contrast to that non-human predators do hunt during
the time of year their prey are giving birth, and they hunt the
newborns specifically. Why do misnomer advocates want to
promote so much more brutilization and suffering? Or if they
don't litteraly *want* to, why don't they care anything about it?
|
