Originally Posted by
bigboab
I am not talking about anyone involved in the food chain. I would be willing to bet that there are mor pleasure seeking hunters with guns than there are hunters hunting for food.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Start another thread about something.
I cant do it or I will bring out the Trolls.
Well explain to me what moral difference it makes in the way the guy that kills the food feels.
What is the moral difference between someone that chooses to kill his own food (and enjoys it) and someone that chooses to take it off the grocery shelf. The simple removal of involvement in the killing makes no difference in my mind.
Unless one is a vegan then I fail to see any difference even if the hunter only hunts for personal pleasure and never personally eats what he kills but instead gives/sells it to someone else to eat.
As I said if the hunt is just for sport and the kill never makes it to the plate but is just left there, or maybe just the head is taken for a trophy then I agree. But if the kill is eaten and often the rest of the animal used then I see nothing morally different from that or buying meat or things like leather shoes in a store.
Bookmarks