I’m not talking about the consumption of animals here, to be clear. What I’m talking about is spending days and a bunch of money planning to kill something, doing the killing, and skinning/eviscerating what was killed, and often displaying the stuffed corpse. Hunters and fishers refuse to admit they’re obsessed with taking pleasure in killing something.
Miss me with the “tradition” stuff, it’s just peer pressure from the dead and a fallacious argument. Don’t tell me it’s to eat, like I said, I’m not talking about the consumption here, so please prove to me you are literate by not bringing up that point. And don’t tell me you’re respectful to the animals you kill; I don’t believe the planning, stalking, and killing is a good way to show respect.
You can not talk about it all you want but you’re being intellectually dishonest by refusing to do so.
Eating meat that you know comes from a factory farm, a literal SAW like tortured life of cruelty, just to be on a conveyor assembly line to be slaughtered and you to eat, feels less psychopathic in the moment but in reality is just disassociating yourself from the literal torture you are causing.
Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he’ll sit in a boat and drink beers all day.
The majority of the time spent hunting and fishing is spent hanging out in nature with your friends. There’s lot ls of reasons to enjoy it, even if you don’t enjoy the actual killing.
And if you’re going to eat meat anyways, then forcing yourself to nut up and kill the animal yourself arguably leaves less suffering in the world than plugging your ears and contributing to factory farming. Both require disassociating from the evil you’re committing, and our brains are good at that because disassociation from violence was an unfortunately necessary part of our survival.
deleted by creator
If you think a factory farm where thousands of animals are slammed into cages next to each other watching their peers get slaughtered, is more ethical than shooting a solitary moose and getting several hundred pounds of meat then you are not arguing honestly or actually thinking through the scenario.
Quite frankly it doesn’t matter whether or not it’s a clean kill, it’s still more ethical per pound of meat by orders of magnitude even if it’s not, and your guess that most hunters don’t get clean kills is pretty based on nothing to begin with.
That’s because you’re completely unfamiliar with the subject you’re arguing about. Ethical hunters don’t take the shot unless they’re 100% sure they can kill the animal swiftly, and do it without endangering anything else. They drill this into your head throughout the 30-40 hour long hunter safety course which is required to obtain your hunting license.
Ehhh, mine was like six hours, I’m pretty sure. But even then they do drill this point.
Aside from that, literally no respectful hunter wants to maim an animal. Aside from the practical aspect of having to track a blood trail and hope you find the animal deceased, no hunter wants to inflict pointless suffering.
Nothing about it would be enjoyable. As a hunter it’s at the top of my list for things that could go wrong but can be pretty much be easily avoided.
Omg, it was to avoid exactly this. Bad commenter. Where’s my spray bottle?
Cognitive dissonance vis a vis actively gearing up, getting a license, and taking the time to hunt are different things and I only have an unpopular opinion on the latter.
Why would that require cognitive dissonance? A) cognitive dissonance isn’t the right term, there’s no two conflicting things that that requires you to believe and B) None of that is hard or unpleasant. It takes like 10min to get a fishing license, fishing rods and tackle are relatively cheap compared to most other camping gear and people love obsessing over and buying new camping gear and then spending time in nature with their friends.
The only part that requires mental disassociation is killing an animal, then cleaning it, then butchering it, then eating it. Why do you draw the disassociation line at the killing and cleaning, but not the butchering and eating?
Vis a vis means something like “in relation to” and I was using the cognitive dissonance to mean the people who eat meat but don’t like thinking about how it got there, not hunters. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I know it’s hyperbole, but it takes more than ten minutes to get a license because you are have to go to the place that issues them or wait days if it’s a mail thing. Relatively cheap is very different from not buying at all. So there’s any amount of effort and output of money done in anticipation of the stalking/killing/eviscerating. It’s not the relative cost compared to camping that’s in question.
Lol, bruh you go online and order a fishing license and it shows up in the mail a few days later. It took me under a minute to do a few months.
Do you eat meat? Because I eat meat, so the days I spent fishing and ate no grocery store meat was a net positive for the world. I don’t enjoy it, but I will nut up and do the killing if it makes the world a better place and the alternative was to force someone else to do it.
I don’t even get a license mailed to me. I just print it out on my printer at home.
You don’t even need to where I hunt and fish. As long as you can pull it up on your phone, that’s good enough.
If you think not eating meat from a grocery store is a good thing, then you should be asking yourself about why you do it on days you don’t fish. Otherwise, it comes off as something like: pickpocketing is bad, so I pat myself on the back every time I don’t do it.
“I will…do the killing if it makes the world a better place” sounds like something a villain says while twirling their mustache. You could just not do the killing and make the world a better place. So why not?
Catch and release is kinda odd, too. Stick a hook into something alive, drag it via that hook, suffocate it briefly, and bond over it.
Like I said, I do. You’re the one who said you didn’t think consumption was psychopathic. Why do you draw a line?
Either all aspects of meat consumption are inherently psychopathic or none inherently are. And if your definition of psychopathy includes all meat eaters, then maybe it’s not the most useful way of defining it.
I don’t draw a line, I just wanted to keep it out of this conversation because I’m specifically talking about the extra steps required to kill something personally. Which is why I tried to avoid talking about meat consumption in the post. And you and several other people ignored that. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by that behavior from people that think torturing fish is a fun activity. Thanks for being disappointing in a very predictable way. I don’t think I have anything further to get out of this conversation with you, so I won’t be engaging further.
Yes, because those extra steps, are just extra steps along the exact same spectrum of disassociation that everyone who eats meat undergoes.
You are trying to draw a line in the sand and then arrange a question around that line, and you can’t seem to comprehend it when everyone points out that the line is stupid and doesn’t exist anywhere but your own mind.
I see that your reading comprehension is about as strong as your social skills.