Hunting, Guns, and the philosophy of a logical person facing an often illogical world.
Maybe it's because I was born and raised in a state where animal population control is necessary, but I cannot seem to understand anti hunting groups. Ok, sure, hunting just to kill is wrong, but that's not the whole reason we hunt. We do take the meat. We are helping to control the animal populations, as governed by the DNR.
Is the problem the difference between raising a food animal in captivity and making a sport of hunting a wild animal?
Are these anti hunters just people who are in denial of the omnivorous nature of the human creature?
Are these people traumatized by 'big game' sport hunters?
I just don't quite understand. In this state we are taught to hunt in the most humane way possible. One shot, one kill. Allow the animal to die peacefully. Do our part to keep the population from getting large enough for disease to wipe the animals out completely.
It's like anti gun people. I don't understand them either. A gun is not evil. It is a tool. Just like a knife, or a fork. Now yes, some guns are designed for killing humans. We design these 'weapons' for our military. They shouldn't be available to the public. BUT there are many types of guns that are designed for hunting. These are tools. There is nothing wrong with them.
Now if your goal is to make the world safer, then removing the guns will only complicate the process. Bad people will still get guns. Good people will still get shot. Instead of targeting the guns, we should be targeting the bad people.
I dunno. Every time I hear about a group lit PETA, it makes me want to 'fix' their stupid. (I'm an IT guy. It's my nature to try to fix broken things.)
I guess my real misunderstanding is this: Why are there so many stupid and/or unreasonable people in this world.
I mean, I'm not above listening to their arguments (provided intellectual decency is maintained). I just have difficulty understanding why some people can't accept the necessary evils of this world?
Necessary evils? Ok, fair, glad you asked. Humans are omnivores. That means that our bodies need the nutrition from both plants and meat. To get plants, we must raise and then kill plants. To get meat, we must raise and then kill meat. That means an animal must die. It's kind of a loose 'us or them'. You can't really have both. (Actually I think there are Hindu monks that have achieved true herbivore status. I might have to check that.)
Another example? Hunting? Well yes. First you have to understand what an ecosystem is. Ok. Good. The very existence of Humans destroys ecosystems. We are a virus. We can't help it. So we use hunting to both enter and be a productive part of the damaged ecosystems, as well as fill our need for meat. It happens that this all has an entertainment value as well.
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe anti gun people, and anti hunters just don't' understand cause and effect and the big picture? That doesn't make them stupid, I guess. It just makes them ignorant. Ignorance can be fixed with gentle application of the truth, combined with a willingness to learn.
I can hear some of my more open minded friends scowling at the idea of 'fixing' people. True, it is wrong to force change on a person. However, it is not unreasonable to believe that there are people who, through biased, emotion based, or just wrong misinformation have been led to believe things that are not correct. We call this ignorance. Is it so wrong to at least be willing to offer the truth to these people? As long as I don't forcefully fix people, I see no problem in assisting to fix any person who desires it. In fact, I believe the practice is called education. We usually consider it a good thing.
Anyway. I know this lacks the usual organization but I needed to dump these thoughts out. I think it is healthy for a mind to spend time organizing thoughts. It's a way to refine them.
Addendum, or whatever:
I was rereading and it clicked to me that there is a type of person (oh stereotyping!) that could easily be anti gun, anti hunter. People who are guided on emotion alone. I've known a few. Every one of these people I've met has had the common traits that they'll willingly make a bad decision because it satisfies their emotional need. First glance would cause you to cry 'Ignorant'. Deeper observation has always taught me that they do follow a logic, but it is flawed be the inability to filter out their emotions.
Such a person would gladly be anti hunter just on the simple fact that an animal dies.
Such a person would willingly be anti gun just on the simple fact that a gun is a tool for killing.
I've found these types of people to be unreasonable when they've made an emotion based decision. I've also found these people to be the one's who will fight hardest. These are the types of people who will stubbornly refuse to accept the possibility that they could be wrong.
I don't understand them either.
Hell, I don't understand any person who cannot be reasonable. Tell me I'm wrong, and I'll tell you your wrong. Tell me why I'm wrong, and I'm willing to consider the argument. I'm not perfect, I could be wrong. If I tell you why you are wrong, and your not willing to consider the possibility that you could actually be wrong, then there is no hope for you. I would label you unreasonable. I can't deal with that. I know no tactic short of barbaric gestures that will bring us to the truth of the matter.
Barbaric gestures are abusive tactics like raised voices, unnecessary repetition, or violence. I've often laughed at people who will raise their voice and repeat themselves until the opposition walks away. The opposition is walking away because your being barbaric and stupid. Not because you are right.
I guess the real thing about unreasonableness is the ancient 'lead a horse to water'. I cannot change you. You cannot change me. But if we are intelligent, reasonable people then we will first recognize that one, or both of us must change, and thus be willing to change ourselves based on the arguments made.
I guess you could say that I do not understand people who are not willing to change themselves for the greater good. Either they are unwilling to change, or they are unwilling to accept the greater good. It matters not. I do not understand why someone would not want to achieve the greater good.