- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,573
ThinkOfTheChildren, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not opposed to killing when there is a good reason for it. I've done way more killing than I would have liked, but there's always been a reason for it. Killing to eat: sure. Killing to eradicate a pest that is a direct threat to your family or livestock: sure. Killing for amusement? No, THAT I'm opposed to.
Animals, for the most part, kill to eat. Yes, that is called nature. They have to eat, and that's how they've been securing sustenance for thousands, perhaps millions, of years. Should those same animals decide that humans should be added to their diet, then kill them.
I have no compunction whatsoever about killing, man or beast, when necessary. Killing for amusement, as the original poster (and a few after him) seemed to be suggesting is wrong to me. You may find it amusing: I don't.
I find your argument specious, at best. Certainly there are degrees of almost everything. How you came up with the idea that my view was all black and white is completely baffling to me.
Animals, for the most part, kill to eat. Yes, that is called nature. They have to eat, and that's how they've been securing sustenance for thousands, perhaps millions, of years. Should those same animals decide that humans should be added to their diet, then kill them.
I have no compunction whatsoever about killing, man or beast, when necessary. Killing for amusement, as the original poster (and a few after him) seemed to be suggesting is wrong to me. You may find it amusing: I don't.
I find your argument specious, at best. Certainly there are degrees of almost everything. How you came up with the idea that my view was all black and white is completely baffling to me.