What is the difference between killing an animal for fun and killing one for food?

[Bender]

Despise means a kind of animosity towards someone, after they violate you.

 

Good and evil were made up words so that primitives would live comfortable lives and avoid pain and torture.

Thus anything which has an intent of torture or pain is said to be evil.

Thus keeping animals in cages is more evil than shooting them instantly.

So the animal cannot despise humans for killing them, because after the killing, they are dead.

 

The intent of cageing animals is not to torture or hurt them, it is to eat them.

 

Also, according to your definition of evil, swatting a fly could be considered evil. I don't think that is a generally agreed upon sentiment.

[Velocity_Boy]

What is the difference between killing an animal for fun and killing one for food?

What is the difference between hurting or offending someone for fun or doing it for spite or doing it out of hate.

 

The only way a society can be truly happy is if nothing goes or if anything goes. The problem with drawing lines is that people will always want to move them and other people will always want to cross them.

For the record, I don't find jokes about anything offensive. I just find them distasteful and a cheap unintelligent way of making money. Anyone that needs to make these jokes is either fucked up mentally or is so greedy they'll do anything for money.

 

I also find the killing of animals for fun just as distasteful and the same people are just as fucked up or greedy. I was just trying to make a point. My point is that if you find anything about the death of a baby funny, then the killing of a giraffe for fun is just as funny.

Your post is filled with straw man arguments and inaccuracies.

 

A society not only can be happy by not going to either extreme as far as it's collective morality is concerned, the fact majority of them are! The normal zeitgeist is one of moderation and compromise. As set forth by social and political theorists like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. You need to read about the former's Social Contract theory. Most people are quite content to trade a bit of their freedom for a reassuring measure of government and protection.

 

The difference of course between killing an animal out of necessity and hunger and just killing for sport is substantial. And it is a difference of values and empathy for the animal. The fact majority of people who kill or have killed only for food do not engage in sport hunting. That right there proves there exists a difference in values and morals. And don't forget the fact that Christian fundamentalist types will claim there is nothing wrong with killing for sport. Since God gave us humans Dominion over the animals. So there is that.

 

Thus, the fact you personally find it distasteful is merely your opinion. If you were the provider for a family dependent on game for sustenance your opinion would likely change.

 

You claim that people who make jokes about others are meanest and Ryder and more judgemental and cruel than you, and then you quickly proceed to lose the moral high ground by calling them fucked up and greedy. Really?

 

You also come across at the outset of your post as amazingly arrogant by claiming you know for certain the sole method for human happiness. Yet, you proceed to offer not even a hint of insight into the human condition. Only instead shoeing yourself to posses conflicting and groundless opinions.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Velocity_Boy

[quickquestion]

So the animal cannot despise humans for killing them, because after the killing, they are dead.

 

The intent of cageing animals is not to torture or hurt them, it is to eat them.

 

Also, according to your definition of evil, swatting a fly could be considered evil. I don't think that is a generally agreed upon sentiment.

 

The difference of course between killing an animal out of necessity and hunger and just killing for sport is substantial. And it is a difference of values and empathy for the animal. The fact majority of people who kill or have killed only for food do not engage in sport hunting. That right there proves there exists a difference in values and morals.

Again, to summarize 4 pages in four lines or less...

 

My point is that Intent is irrelevant.

All that matters is the end impact on the animal.

If an animal dies, it does not care for what reason you killed it.

Nor does an animal, or a person in a cage, not experience torture, simply because you tell yourself "I didn't intend to torture them".

Edited April 17, 2017 by quickquestion

[dimreepr]

to summarize 4 pages in four lines or less...

 

I can do it in one:

 

I want an excuse to kill for no reason.

[quickquestion]

 

I can do it in one:

 

I want an excuse to kill for no reason.

People usually kill for a reason. Fun is a reason. Or emotional release. Or vengeance. Or justice. Or compassion. Or hunger.

[dimreepr]

People usually kill for a reason. Fun is a reason. Or emotional release. Or vengeance. Or justice. Or compassion. Or hunger.

 

LOL, I almost admire this attempt, but no, hungry people kill for a reason, everyone else finds an excuse.

Edited April 17, 2017 by dimreepr

[Bender]

My point is that Intent is irrelevant.

All that matters is the end impact on the animal.

If an animal dies, it does not care for what reason you killed it.

Nor does an animal, or a person in a cage, not experience torture, simply because you tell yourself "I didn't intend to torture them".

But you said "anything which has an intent of torture or pain is said to be evil", which clearly contains the word "intent".

I'm confused now. Are you implying that accidentally stepping on a bug is evil? After all, "intent is irrelevant" and "(intent of) pain is evil".

 

I agree that when an animal dies, it does not care for what reason. In fact, it does not care at all.

 

Not all caged animals experience torture. Animals have even been known to return to their cage after accidentally escaping or being set free.

one of many examples:

 

"experience with all sorts of animals in zoos show that animals that are set free often voluntarily return to their cages"

[quickquestion]

 

LOL, I almost admire this attempt, but no, hungry people kill for a reason, everyone else finds an excuse.

Angry people kill for a reason, the reason of satisfaction and vengeance, and or pleasure.

 

But you said "anything which has an intent of torture or pain is said to be evil", which clearly contains the word "intent".

I'm confused now. Are you implying that accidentally stepping on a bug is evil? After all, "intent is irrelevant" and "(intent of) pain is evil".

 

I agree that when an animal dies, it does not care for what reason. In fact, it does not care at all.

 

Not all caged animals experience torture. Animals have even been known to return to their cage after accidentally escaping or being set free.

one of many examples:

Now, you do have a point about the word "intent", it leaves something to be desired.

What I meant was, someone is "evil" if they are plotting to bring harm to innocent people for no reason.

The thing of it is though, most people are not innocent, so if someone wants to harm the world that does not make them evil. This only applies to a theoretical utopia where people are actually innocent (and not this garbage world of detestable humans.)

 

Basically, it's like accidental death, is not evil. It is an accident. But shooting an animal for food is no accident, the intent to kill was there. So I would reformulate my statement as "intent to cause an action that would cause harm." (People who shoot for food intend to cause an action which would cause harm.)

 

Also, animals only return to their cages because their habitat is completely destroyed by humans and there is nothing to eat. So your statement is not giving any +1's to the human race.

[dimreepr]

Angry people kill for a reason, the reason of satisfaction and vengeance, and or pleasure.

 

Yes they do, but why do you think they look for an excuse when they calm down?

[quickquestion]

 

Yes they do, but why do you think they look for an excuse when they calm down?

Because they are brainwashed by society to be dishonest.

 

Instead of honestly saying the reasons for killing, they make up something to sidestep it.

An honest reason for killing would be "I am in constant suffering. I hate society, and I am in constant misery. I feel I have been treated by a grave injustice. And there is no outlet for me to make it right. So due to this emotional build up, and society making it unable for me to attain any justice, I killed because it was the only way possible to correct the injustice that was done to me."

 

But killers just laugh and say "I killed, just because".

Completely ignoring and denying the full iceberg.

Edited April 18, 2017 by quickquestion

[dimreepr]

Because they are brainwashed by society to be dishonest.

 

Instead of honestly saying the reasons for killing, they make up something to sidestep it.

 

No, it's because the only honest reason to kill is hunger, the only dishonesty, in this argument, is the people who try to justify their excuse by trying to promote it to a reason.

[quickquestion]

 

No, it's because the only honest reason to kill is hunger, the only dishonesty, in this argument, is the people who try to justify their excuse by trying to promote it to a reason.

You aren't making any sense.

 

Why is the only reason to kill, hunger?

Please stop using circular reasoning, it is a fallacy.

 

I am tired of giving you examples of how you are wrong, but here is an example.

If a person has a disease, and they are living in constant suffering, and they say "Kill me", isn't killing them done for a reason, other than hunger?

Edited April 18, 2017 by quickquestion

[dimreepr]

You aren't making any sense.

 

Why is the only reason to kill, hunger?

Please stop using circular reasoning, it is a fallacy.

 

I am tired of giving you examples of how you are wrong, but here is an example.

If a person has a disease, and they are living in constant suffering, and they say "Kill me", isn't killing them done for a reason, other than hunger?

 

Reason...

 

noun

1. 1.

   a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

   "she asked him to return, but didn't give a reason"

   synonyms: cause, grounds, ground, basis, rationale; More
2. 2.

   the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.

   "there is a close connection between reason and emotion"

   synonyms: rationality, logic, logical thought, scientific thinking,

 

Excuse...

 

verb

ɪkˈskjuːz,ɛkˈskjuːz/

1. 1.

   seek to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offence); try to justify.

   "he did nothing to hide or excuse Jacob's cruelty"

   synonyms: justify, defend, make excuses for, make a case for, explain (away), rationalize, condone, vindicate, warrant; More
2. 2.

   release (someone) from a duty or requirement.

   "it will not be possible to excuse you from attendance"

   synonyms: let off, release, relieve, exempt, spare, absolve, free, liberate;

   raredispense

   "she has been excused from her duties for now"

noun

ɪkˈskjuːs,ɛkˈskjuːs/

1. 1.

   a reason or explanation given to justify a fault or offence.

   "there can be no excuse for any further delay"

   synonyms: justification, defence, reason, explanation, mitigating circumstances, mitigation, extenuation, palliation, vindication; More
2. 2.

   informal

   a poor or inadequate example of.

   "that pathetic excuse for a man!"

   synonyms: travesty of, apology for, poor specimen of, pitiful example of, mockery of; More

Edited April 18, 2017 by dimreepr

[Bender]

Also, animals only return to their cages because their habitat is completely destroyed by humans and there is nothing to eat. So your statement is not giving any +1's to the human race.

They return because of easy food and shelter. I don't see where you are going with the habitat argument. The discussion is about livestock. Their habitat is a cage.

[quickquestion]

They return because of easy food and shelter. I don't see where you are going with the habitat argument. The discussion is about livestock. Their habitat is a cage.

So do abused girlfriends who don't have much money. They return to their abusive boyfriends because they have nowhere else to go. That and because they are brainwashed by Stockholm.

Thus humans who cage animals are evil.

 

Also, not responding to dimreepr, because I already addressed his argument and won. If he cares to read back on my posts he will find out that he lost the argument.

[Bender]

So do abused girlfriends who don't have much money. They return to their abusive boyfriends because they have nowhere else to go. That and because they are brainwashed by Stockholm.

Thus humans who cage animals are evil.

So what do you suggest? Shall we release them all to starve, be ripped apart by predators, succumb to disease, crippled by traffic and extinct within one generation?

 

Besides, I already addressed your argument and won. If you care to read back on my posts you will find out that you lost the argument.

[quickquestion]

So what do you suggest? Shall we release them all to starve, be ripped apart by predators, succumb to disease, crippled by traffic and extinct within one generation?

 

Besides, I already addressed your argument and won. If you care to read back on my posts you will find out that you lost the argument.

We should stop breeding THEM in the first place.

It is better to not be born than to be born in Hell.

[Bender]

Why not simply nuke the world and be done with it?

[sahushram]

I recommend reading Lord of the Flies by William Golding. It is a fiction book, but provides deep insight to killing for fun vs. survival. Additionally, there are many websites online about the book that can clarify this question for you.

[dimreepr]

I recommend reading Lord of the Flies by William Golding. It is a fiction book, but provides deep insight to killing for fun vs. survival. Additionally, there are many websites online about the book that can clarify this question for you.

 

No it doesn't, it's a commentary on the fragility of our modern society, due to our insistence that we are, somehow, special and separate from nature.

 

They didn't really need to survive (given the timescale) did they?

[quickquestion]

Why not simply nuke the world and be done with it?

That is beginning to seem like a wise idea.

 

Unfortunately, the cockroach politicians would be buried in the bunkers, and reproduce the world with all the people I hate.

[zapatos]

That is beginning to seem like a wise idea.

 

Unfortunately, the cockroach politicians would be buried in the bunkers, and reproduce the world with all the people I hate.

My God would you give it a break already?

[Bender]

That is beginning to seem like a wise idea.

 

Unfortunately, the cockroach politicians would be buried in the bunkers, and reproduce the world with all the people I hate

You know that a lot of dogs will suffer too, don't you?