'I shot a whole family of baboons'

Ok my bad about the rifle. I just assumed he was like most of these hunters going to Africa and hunting with a rifle.

A rifle is more humane but don't act like these guys give a crap about what is more humane, when they are hunting for fun. If a trophy hunter uses a bow or spear then I wouldn't necessarily call them a pussy but I would still say they are assholes. They might still be pussies if they have other people around them with guns ready to fire if the animal comes charging at him.

See here’s part of the problem, you assume you know what these people are thinking. You don’t know that he didn’t care about being humane.

I’ve never met a single hunter....well that’s not true at all, many Alaskan natives are some of the least humane hunters I’ve ever encountered...
 
Aren't they what? What you're trying to communicate here is not clear.


You claim to not care, yet in the very next sentence you contradict that statement.

Are you willing to accept the possibility that this has a deeper psychological meaning for you than you're fully aware of?


Animals act upon an automatic instinct. They have no ability to build, or expand their knowledge. When the extent of their instinctual knowledge fails them, they die.

Your desire to see "more" in an animal is pure anthropomorphism.

You are wrong on every single point in this post.
I'm afraid that's projection on your part.


Is your argument that Jesus Christ, the good fisherman himself, would somehow object to hunting and fishing practices?

It's always fun to watch non-believers stumble and fall when they try to use scripture to moralize against an actual believer.

You should try to thumb through the Bible at least once before you try to use it as an ex-post-facto justification for what you want it to say.


This is you anthropomorphizing again. At this point, I'm not sure you're even consciously aware of the fact that you're doing it.


Animals act upon an automatic instinct.

You call this notion "nonsense", yet you're completely unable to disprove it.

Humans have the ability to expand their knowledge far beyond any automatic instinct.

This wasn't achieved by an "instinct" for tool making and knowledge retention:


Volitional consciousness was required to achieve this feat.

Are you willing to accept the possibility that your stance is an incorrect one?


1. Are you saying animals don’t need have family
Bonds and relationships? You should read a little about whales, elephants and primates. Your use of the word anthropomorphizing repeatedly isn’t impressing me. Just because your opinion fits your narrative doesn’t make it right. Science says you are clearly wrong about this issue so I’ll stop debating it.

2. So your argument about hunting is Jesus was a fisherman? Wow. It’s like having a discussion with my someone from the Bronze Age. I can assure you I have read the Bible and am more versed in its nonsense than you are. Let’s look at Proverbs 12:10 which says, one of the signs of a righteous man is to take care of his animals. The Bible also says we shall treat NONE of gods creations with contempt. Finally we can look at Ecclesiastes 3:19, for what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same, as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.

Standing by for your nonsensical answer.
 
All hunting is done for fun. Literally no one has to supplement their meat supply by hunting because of cost..

You're literally clueless . . . it's a choice to feed one's family on wild game. A choice that many make because it's their only option. Enjoying it or believing it's fun is part of any activity.
 
If you have to ask, then you won't get it...

If I didn't enjoy hunting I wouldn't take the time to do it or spend money to do it . . . some folks both enjoy it and feed their family by hunting . . .
 
Well we can agree on the abortion thing. And you replied again. Lots of replies for someone who is upset and doesn’t care

Why would I be upset. This whole situation doesn’t bother me at all. The opinions of non hunters isn’t something I lose sleep over.
 
If I didn't enjoy hunting I wouldn't take the time to do it or spend money to do it . . . some folks both enjoy it and feed their family by hunting . . .

Hunting is fun. Especially tough mountain hunts in remote areas.
 
You're literally clueless . . . it's a choice to feed one's family on wild game. A choice that many make because it's their only option. Enjoying it or believing it's fun is part of any activity.

It’s also much healthier. Give me a freezer full of moose any day over spending thousands of dollars on shitty factory farmed beef on styrofoam plates from a shitty big chain supermarket.
 
There's nothing objectively wrong with what he's done. You may disagree with hunting but nothing objectively wrong with it.

There is. You just gotta zoom out and think this through logically. Imagine an alien killing people and posting pics of how beautiful these specimens are. then going "WHAT???? it helps humans because of the funds go towards charities!"
 
If I didn't enjoy hunting I wouldn't take the time to do it or spend money to do it . . . some folks both enjoy it and feed their family by hunting . . .
But they are feeding their family and or friends, that's the point, that it isn't wanton killing.
 
But I'm not a sociopath. I'm a Christian fellow with a strong belief in objective moral values. I like to play devils advocate games with secular moralizers in an attempt to show them how dangerous atheism is to the foundation of objective moral truths.

I think that evolution and atheism can lead people into moral relativism and nihilism which is dangerous to a society.

im not sure how a christian can think killing a family of baboons for one's enjoyment isn't immoral.
 
You are wrong on every single point in this post.


1. Are you saying animals don’t need have family
Bonds and relationships? You should read a little about whales, elephants and primates. Your use of the word anthropomorphizing repeatedly isn’t impressing me. Just because your opinion fits your narrative doesn’t make it right. Science says you are clearly wrong about this issue so I’ll stop debating it.

2. So your argument about hunting is Jesus was a fisherman? Wow. It’s like having a discussion with my someone from the Bronze Age. I can assure you I have read the Bible and am more versed in its nonsense than you are. Let’s look at Proverbs 12:10 which says, one of the signs of a righteous man is to take care of his animals. The Bible also says we shall treat NONE of gods creations with contempt. Finally we can look at Ecclesiastes 3:19, for what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same, as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.

Standing by for your nonsensical answer.

I'm repeating the word anthropomorphizing, because you're repeatedly doing it. You're conflating an animal being a steward to its offspring until it reaches reproductive age, with an actual conscious family bond. You're attaching human-like personality traits to animals, but you need to understand this is only occurring in your mind, not in reality.

In regards to your Googled scripture, other than serving as beasts of burden, transportation, money, and food, what do you think the purpose of those beasts were exactly?

I can assure you it's not for the reasons you're hoping for.

Again, are you even willing to accept the possibility that your stance could be wrong on this issue? If you're unable to accept that as even a possibility, then that serves as more proof that you arrived at this conclusion emotionally, not logically.
 
I'm repeating the word anthropomorphizing, because you're repeatedly doing it. You're conflating an animal being a steward to its offspring until it reaches reproductive age, with an actual conscious family bond. You're attaching human-like personality traits to animals, but you need to understand this is only occurring in your mind, not in reality.

In regards to your Googled scripture, other than serving as beasts of burden, transportation, money, and food, what do you think the purpose of those beasts were exactly?

I can assure you it's not for the reasons you're hoping for.

Again, are you even willing to accept the possibility that your stance could be wrong on this issue? If you're unable to accept that as even a possibility, then that serves as more proof that you arrived at this conclusion emotionally, not logically.

Science tells me that I’m not wrong. You are also moving the goalposts which is pretty par for the course with people like you. Please show me where I ever said animals stay with their parents until reproductive age. That is just you essentially lying to make your narrative fit. Answer me this, in that picture why do you think that baby baboon was holding onto its mother? Do you think the hunter put them that way or do you think the baby had human like feelings for it’s mother, the same way a baby would?

Do you think Jesus would have been a sport hunter? (Let’s not get it twisted that anyone actually believes the Bible and scripture) but it’s fun to make you answer questions using your own ammo against you.

Are you willing to accept that your stance could be wrong on this issue? I’m not really sure exactly which part you would like me to admit may be wrong but be specific and I’ll answer accordingly.

If you want me to admit that animals do not share the same emotional bonds as humans, well myself and scientists are not wrong.
 
lol you are wrong I think in every point you are trying to make.

1. Clearly I meant, aren't we all gods creations? (I know we aren't but you think we are) how can you reconcile killing gods creations for no reason really? Would Jesus approve of this?

2. As a nihilist I see no intrinsic value in any life. Humans have no more value than baboons. I know you don't like this but it's true. With that being said, I don't really care as the baboons lives hold no value really in the context of the universe yet it's still a stupid move by the parameters set up by society as a family bond was likely broken.

3. Animals and humans alike act on what you call, "automatic instinct". Humans have evolved a conscience and have higher levels of thinking and retaining information but it doesn't mean much in the terms we are discussing. The idea that animals cannot ascertain and build knowledge is utter nonsense.

You're a pretty awful Nihilist, then. You also wouldn't see any sort of need to attach yourself to any sort of moral boundaries because according to your own proffessed belief system those are "made up".
 
Congrats. You posted me giving my position on a subject!! Way to go big guy

One that contradicts the ones in this one. Or were trolling with a different personality in that thread so it doesn't count?
 
Back
Top