• @gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        25 months ago

        Only because something is not of any use for you, does not mean that everyone else is sharing the same experience. You could go out there and talk with hunters why they hunt and what they get out of it. I would not hunt, because I don’t like guns - but fishing can be a really neat experience, especially a neat bonding experience with your father.

      • @Spacehooks@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15 months ago

        No one calls a lion hunting violence. it’s the circle of life. If the argument is it’s violence because it’s unnecessary well we need to bring back the wolves and solve world hunger before ill be on your side of that argument. I remember the scene in the Orville where the guy felt eating animals akin to murder. Yeah in that kind of universe i can support it but we are not there yet.

        Anyone hunting for sport alone should do so with a blade, its only more sportsman. It’s not like the deer has a projectile weapon.

        • @iiGxC@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          A lion hunting is violence. The circle of life is violent. I agree hunting isn’t the top priority of problems to solve, but people should at least be able to call it what it is and recognize it’s not a good thing

          • @Spacehooks@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            14 months ago

            I like to consider plant eating an act of violence. I Just ripped and tear into those yummy plant heads that were just living thier best life. If we go with this definition, then violence is a part of life and we just accept it as a necessity. It also means it is our moral duty to ensure the animals we eat are not wasted, not suffer unnecessarily, and appreciate the life that was taken so we can do more with our own. It’s only bad if it serves no purpose and is wasteful.

            • @iiGxC@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              14 months ago

              In some sense it is violence, but in another sense violence against a baby doll is fine while violence against a live baby is not. One of the key differences is the baby is sentient, the doll is not. The doll can not experience the violence, so it’s morally irrelevant. The baby can experience the violence, so it is morally unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge plants can’t feel pain, so violence to them is morally irrelevant.

              But I still accept that harm is unavoidable (at least in our time), but our response should be to minimize harm, not throw up our hands and give up and perpetuate the injustice

              • @Spacehooks@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                14 months ago

                we agree violence should be minimized but I think it’s a hard sell to call the natural order injustice. Injustice for me is unnecessary harm. Justice can cause harm but only when necessary. Predators have to eat. Wiping them out is injustice and forcing unnatural foods alternatives is probably violating thier freedoms and damaging the ecosystem which I would also consider injustice.

                • @iiGxC@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  14 months ago

                  why wouldn’t the natural order be unjust? Survival of the fittest doesn’t give two shits about justice, that’s not samething that gets selected for at all except in social species, and even then usually it’s only really selected for within the species