All the world's population is born drooling and $hitting themselves. What does that prove?

 

There is a reason morals exist.Without them we would be still killing each other over a piece of bread.

If you think that people today won't kill for a piece of bread, you are truly mistaken.

 

I guess half of the world population isnt born with feeling pleasure in that.

It's there, there is a long cultural process of conditioning to repress it, shame you for having it and teach you to shame others for having it.

One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted. ... - FromMeditations on Hunting by José Ortega y Gasset.

 

It's there, there is a long cultural process of conditioning to repress it, shame you for having it and teach you to shame others for having it.

One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted. ... - FromMeditations on Hunting by José Ortega y Gasset.

I agree, and further, I don't think a person can completely appreciate that something must die in order for meat to be on the table until one has taken the life of a large mammal, or at least witnessed it being done.

 

For me and most of the people I knew when young and hang with today hunting is a pleasure. It's a deep "visceral" problem solving thrill.

I am very different from you. I am horrified by death, and it is proportionate to the evolutionary level of the thing that dies. I can kill a worm to get a fish, and kill the fish to eat it, but killing birds and mammals repulses me. A dead person almost puts me into shock. If I had won the lottery to go to Vietnam, I would have been the guy puking beside the first corpse I met.

I am grateful and very lucky that somebody else kills the food I eat.

 

If you think that people today won't kill for a piece of bread, you are truly mistaken.

They will in extreme situations, that's called survival of the fittest and that's what hunters prevent by going trophy hunting, which results in death of the fittest ones.

It's there, there is a long cultural process of conditioning to repress it, shame you for having it and teach you to shame others for having it.
One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted. ... - FromMeditations on Hunting by José Ortega y Gasset.

There is nothing wrong in hunting for necessity, same thing can't be said for trophy hunters which kill for ENJOYMENT.

 

They will in extreme situations, that's called survival of the fittest and that's what hunters prevent by going trophy hunting, which results in death of the fittest ones.

That's wrong, too. The fittest of the animals are the ones who evade the hunter.

Look, you have the right to any opinion you want, but you really should learn some truths about hunting before you attempt to convince anyone of the validity of those opinions regarding hunting and hunters. And if you think the fittest humans will be the thugs and killers who take bread from the weak, you don't know much about people or morality either.

 

The fittest ones could evade hunters if they used bow and arrows but since they are using high power rifles they cant. I doubt that they can evade bullets like in movie matrix. Animals couldn't adapt fast enough since guns are used for hunting maybe only for 200 years, before that only wealthy had access to guns. Bows are only effective for hunting in ranges under 20-30 yards which gives animal a chance to hear you and run away.
So it's you who is wrong.

 

What few people seem to recognize is that "survival of the fittest" is merely a phrase that describes a bias, not a certainty. If some fraction of the overall population of animals dies off (for whatever reason), it is not the case the only the weakest die and all of the "fittest" survive. It is just that, on average, somewhat more of the "fittest" survive than do the "weakest", but even then it is often the case that, in any particular situation, more of the fittest might die than the weakest. It is merely a long-term statistical bias in survival and procreation rates.

 

I am very different from you. I am horrified by death, and it is proportionate to the evolutionary level of the thing that dies. I can kill a worm to get a fish, and kill the fish to eat it, but killing birds and mammals repulses me. A dead person almost puts me into shock. If I had won the lottery to go to Vietnam, I would have been the guy puking beside the first corpse I met.

I am grateful and very lucky that somebody else kills the food I eat.

I largely agree. The higher up in cognitive ability the more trouble I have with killing something as well.

Yet with humans that feeling seems largely untrue for me.

Animals tend to use their brains to the best of their abilities to follow their instincts for self preservation and I highly repsect that.

Too many humans however make it clear they have zero want or will to use theirs for more than anything but stuffing material to keep their skull from falling in and as far as self preservatin instincts, well, they make that pretty clear they feel it should be someone elses resposibility at all costs.

 

The fittest ones could evade hunters if they used bow and arrows but since they are using high power rifles they cant. I doubt that they can evade bullets like in movie matrix. Animals couldn't adapt fast enough since guns are used for hunting maybe only for 200 years, before that only wealthy had access to guns. Bows are only effective for hunting in ranges under 20-30 yards which gives animal a chance to hear you and run away.
So it's you who is wrong.

Nope you're wrong again.

If you had ever hunted truly wild animals in their natural habitats you would know full well they (the smarter fit ones anyway) are more than capable of avoiding you even at great distances hence the necessity to have to bait them plus use considerable camouflage, hide in trees and use loads of patience and cunning in general just to get them to come within the range a high powered rifle is effective at.

True hunting is a test of intelligence and skill.

 

The word fittest, has much more context than strength.

There are many conditions and timings that determine that context.

The fittest is the result, not the cause.

 

Animals tend to use their brains to the best of their abilities to follow their instincts for self preservation and I highly repsect that.

Too many humans however make it clear they have zero want or will to use theirs for more than anything but stuffing material to keep their skull from falling in

I see your point. There are several humans I can't respect, but none of the lesser creatures.
Still, I'm not the person you want if you need to cull the (human) herd.

 

What's the word for a person who holds himself to fairly good moral standards and responds to everyday problems and repairs like they can usually be resolved with a minimum of agonized soul searching?

Um... 'Old fashioned in a good way?' -- Well, ok, so that's six words - but there it is

 

I see your point. There are several humans I can't respect, but none of the lesser creatures.
Still, I'm not the person you want if you need to cull the (human) herd.

That's okay. I can teach you.

Wanna learn how to throw hunting spears? I do now!

 

That's okay. I can teach you.

Wanna learn how to throw hunting spears?

No. The only way I would kill a person would be a, "me or them" moment, and I'd still feel sick about it.

 

The word fittest, has much more context than strength.

There are many conditions and timings that determine that context.

The fittest is the result, not the cause.

This is another of my pet peeves -- most people that discuss "survival of the fittest" in terms of human evolution invariably only consider physical strength. But any one human is very poorly situated to survive "in the wild", whether it be against other animals, the environment, or other humans. We survived and evolved because of our ability to cooperate and act in concert (and we aren't the only animals for whom that is a key survival trait). But even people that recognize that tend to put way too much emphasis on physical abilities and fail to recognize the vital role played by human intelligence. Humans prevailed primarily because of our ability to think and solve problems at a much higher level than our adversaries, be it developing tools (including weapons), preserving food, making clothing, cultivating crops, recognizing both short-term and long-term weather patterns, and a host of other cognitive skills and abilities.

If you were to take a large group of physically fit and strong, but mentally mediocre, humans and a large group of very bright, but physically mediocre, humans and plop them down in most survival situations, I would put my money on the bright group having the better change of prevailing over their surroundings, even if that included the two groups being pitted against each other.

 

Nope you're wrong again.

If you had ever hunted truly wild animals in their natural habitats you would know full well they (the smarter fit ones anyway) are more than capable of avoiding you even at great distances hence the necessity to have to bait them plus use considerable camouflage, hide in trees and use loads of patience and cunning in general just to get them to come within the range a high powered rifle is effective at.

True hunting is a test of intelligence and skill.

I doubt it takes a great intelligence to hunt with a rifle. It's not exactly hard to move silently, take cover and be downwind.

 

I guess half of the world population isnt born with feeling pleasure in that

At

doubt it takes a great intelligence to hunt with a rifle. It's not exactly hard to move silently, take cover and be downwind

Why don't try to do so yourself.

If you come back alive, we know you are right.

If not, we will award you the Darwin trophie.

 

No. The only way I would kill a person would be a, "me or them" moment, and I'd still feel sick about it.

See that's where you use ISB123's rational of,

They died because of their actions not because of mine.

from post 64.

You are not killing them. their actions are what got them killed. Sure you did it but if they had not acted the way they did then you would not have had reason thus you're not at fault for their death.

Also you can justify it as he does with killing trees to build his house,

My house is made from 90% brick and mortar other 10% is wood and it's from planted forests.

from post 81.

So being they were not wild humans but ones born and raised in captivity (possibly just for this reason. It's not like we or they could tell.) their lives don't count anyway.

See how this works! Even the anti hunting/killing people have your back on this!

The hunting and killing side obviously has no problems with it being its sport and the anti hunting and killing have your back too based on their logic of how they justify their beliefs as well.

WIN WIN I TELL YA!

We're good to go!