<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Friends of the Moose</title>
	<link>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/101</link>
	<description>ThoughtPaths with Ken Wilson et al</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:29:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: cnaphan</title>
		<link>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/101#comment-27</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:44:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/101#comment-27</guid>
					<description>Oh. Most of your reasons would apply to sport and non-sport hunting. Like it not being a necessity. Farmed animals will always be cheaper, for instance.

It's like canoeing. Once upon a time, it was necessary and a lot of work. But it was fun then. Now, nobody needs to canoe. But it's still fun. People don't canoe to prove they could be a Voyageur or a Mohawk Indian. It's just fun, like it and hunting always have been. Mind you, canoeing doesn't kill animals, but most people do not have a problem with killing animals.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh. Most of your reasons would apply to sport and non-sport hunting. Like it not being a necessity. Farmed animals will always be cheaper, for instance.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s like canoeing. Once upon a time, it was necessary and a lot of work. But it was fun then. Now, nobody needs to canoe. But it&#8217;s still fun. People don&#8217;t canoe to prove they could be a Voyageur or a Mohawk Indian. It&#8217;s just fun, like it and hunting always have been. Mind you, canoeing doesn&#8217;t kill animals, but most people do not have a problem with killing animals.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: kwilson</title>
		<link>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/101#comment-24</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:17:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/101#comment-24</guid>
					<description>&#62; I don’t agree with “sport hunting” 

That was my point...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; I don’t agree with “sport hunting” </p>
<p>That was my point&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: cnaphan</title>
		<link>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/101#comment-22</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:57:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/101#comment-22</guid>
					<description>I don't agree with "sport hunting" but obtaining a portion of my meat supply from the wild is very appealing to me, either through fishing, bird hunting or big game hunting. We have laws to ensure that hunting does not hurt the supply of animals, but usually helps it remain stable. (Natural animal populations will tend to have peaks and valleys)

As for using "high-powered modern weapons", it's more merciful to the animal. It's rare to get a quick kill with a homemade bow-and-arrow.

I am, however, against killing for "trophy" animals, which shows disrespect for life and a bizarre fascination with the size of the animal or the antlers or whatever. Pulling a big fish out of the water is thrilling, mind you, but it's going in my belly, not my wall.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t agree with &#8220;sport hunting&#8221; but obtaining a portion of my meat supply from the wild is very appealing to me, either through fishing, bird hunting or big game hunting. We have laws to ensure that hunting does not hurt the supply of animals, but usually helps it remain stable. (Natural animal populations will tend to have peaks and valleys)</p>
<p>As for using &#8220;high-powered modern weapons&#8221;, it&#8217;s more merciful to the animal. It&#8217;s rare to get a quick kill with a homemade bow-and-arrow.</p>
<p>I am, however, against killing for &#8220;trophy&#8221; animals, which shows disrespect for life and a bizarre fascination with the size of the animal or the antlers or whatever. Pulling a big fish out of the water is thrilling, mind you, but it&#8217;s going in my belly, not my wall.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: kwilson</title>
		<link>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/101#comment-14</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:26:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/101#comment-14</guid>
					<description>No question about it, if you are going to eat it someone has to acquire it for you. My difference I think is in the 'sport' in it. I see no sport, and I have a real problem understanding the pleasure in the act of killing.

While I fully realize the realities, and one could rightly tell me to remove my rose coloured glasses, I have to differentiate between the act of necessity and pleasure in the act.

As an example, did the priests in ancient Israel take pleasure in the necessity of slitting the throats of the sacrificial animals. Maybe some did, but I have trouble conceiving that was part of the devine model (for a lot of reasons).

It is an interesting discussion, and I certainly don't have the complete answer, which is why I don't express an opinion on allowing it. I just don't "get it".</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No question about it, if you are going to eat it someone has to acquire it for you. My difference I think is in the &#8217;sport&#8217; in it. I see no sport, and I have a real problem understanding the pleasure in the act of killing.</p>
<p>While I fully realize the realities, and one could rightly tell me to remove my rose coloured glasses, I have to differentiate between the act of necessity and pleasure in the act.</p>
<p>As an example, did the priests in ancient Israel take pleasure in the necessity of slitting the throats of the sacrificial animals. Maybe some did, but I have trouble conceiving that was part of the devine model (for a lot of reasons).</p>
<p>It is an interesting discussion, and I certainly don&#8217;t have the complete answer, which is why I don&#8217;t express an opinion on allowing it. I just don&#8217;t &#8220;get it&#8221;.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/101#comment-13</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:43:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/101#comment-13</guid>
					<description>When oil runs out hunting will be a darned good skill to have.  I do not have this skill, so I will be a forced vegetarian.  My only real hope is to get invited out to dinner by the people who do poses the hunting skills.

I agree that if you shoot the animal and leave it then that's ethically irresponsible from a stewardship point of view.  However, if you take the animal and eat it, then that's an entirely different story.  Allow me to explain.

In Genesis 9 God gives man animals to eat.  In the N.T. Jesus declares all food to be 'clean.'  Therefore, we don't have to be vegetarians.  So, you wanna eat meat, do ya?  Well, someone's gotta kill it.  It may be at a slaughterhouse, or out in the wild.  Either way you can't spell 'slaughterhouse' without 'laughter'.  I mean, either way, the animal dies without defense.  (Actually, the animal has greater defense in the wild than in a controlled area.  It can run and hide, or simply run and get away.)  If you don't hunt the animal yourself, someone else has to in order for you to have the meat.

So, in between the time you think to yourself "I want some meat," to the time you are eating the meat, an animal has to be killed; by either you or by somebody else.

I'm with out on this one; let somebody else do it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When oil runs out hunting will be a darned good skill to have.  I do not have this skill, so I will be a forced vegetarian.  My only real hope is to get invited out to dinner by the people who do poses the hunting skills.</p>
<p>I agree that if you shoot the animal and leave it then that&#8217;s ethically irresponsible from a stewardship point of view.  However, if you take the animal and eat it, then that&#8217;s an entirely different story.  Allow me to explain.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?version=NASB&amp;passage=Genesis+9" title="Bible Gateway">Genesis 9</a> God gives man animals to eat.  In the N.T. Jesus declares all food to be &#8216;clean.&#8217;  Therefore, we don&#8217;t have to be vegetarians.  So, you wanna eat meat, do ya?  Well, someone&#8217;s gotta kill it.  It may be at a slaughterhouse, or out in the wild.  Either way you can&#8217;t spell &#8217;slaughterhouse&#8217; without &#8216;laughter&#8217;.  I mean, either way, the animal dies without defense.  (Actually, the animal has greater defense in the wild than in a controlled area.  It can run and hide, or simply run and get away.)  If you don&#8217;t hunt the animal yourself, someone else has to in order for you to have the meat.</p>
<p>So, in between the time you think to yourself &#8220;I want some meat,&#8221; to the time you are eating the meat, an animal has to be killed; by either you or by somebody else.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m with out on this one; let somebody else do it.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
