If you were a psychopath...

[Sauna]

deleted

[Bowser]

Whatever the cause of conscience , it does restrain, apart from the law.

I would agree with this and say that it applies to many. There must be a point of divergence where each individual's conscience does not coincide with law, even though most probably parallel the basic principles of society and see the mutual benefit.

Baron's example requires the absence of law and punishment. In that scenario people might disregard some of the more basic rules. How many though could murder or rape on a whim and wake the next morning feeling no regret? You might have it within yourself to break windows but could you really kill another person? Even when pressed hard to commit a crime or cause harm, an individuals conscience often controls the moment.

Mob rule might defeat individual discretion, but there will always be those who never join the riot. Is that because of empathy, fear of punishment or personal conscience?

invert_nexus' model of a psychopath hinges on the absence of empathy, and I might agree. But how much of our conscience hinges on empathy? How much of it is simply a natural ingrained attribute? I am inclined to believe that there is an inhibitor that is more deeply rooted in most.

[Sauna]

deleted

[heliocentric]

I never mentioned IQ nor intelligence.

Man's mind is more than that.

From what i can see everything you mentioned relates to higher congnitive functioning, conceptual ability, etc - which is intelligence, what else could it be?

The gulf between a retard's mind and the mind of a deer is far wider than that between the smartest and the dumbest human.
On a completely different level.
No comparison.
At all.

I wasnt specifically talking about mental retardation, im also talking about severe mental impairment, even possibly brain damage.
With such a human who can be said to be not much smarter than a large mammal (even if we only consider this as a hypothetical) is that human then by definition not worthy of compassion/empathy?
This does seem to be what youre proposing, if we follow the logic of your criteria.

[TimeTraveler]

If that were true the basic standard of the law would never be exceeded in terms of morality or ethics, which is demonstrably not the case. People voluntarily restrain themselves from all sorts of doings that the letter of the law would allow.

Vegetarianism, for instance, is a classic example of this.

Vegetarianism is not simply about ethics, it's a cultural trend. So that's not the best example.

A better example would be walking an old lady accross the street or helping the homeless. There is no law which says you have to do it, but people still do it.

The majority of people however are not saints, and don't care about "ethics". How many people do you personally know who are ethical?

I'm sure you know a lot of people who follow the law, we all do that, but how many people do you know who take ethical stances on issues and follow through?

Vegetarianism is not enough in my opinion to make a person ethical, it's one issue, and it's an issue that does not affect people directly. Deciding not to cheat, thats an example of ethics. Most people, like 70%, cheat on their wives or husbands.

[TimeTraveler]

I would agree with this and say that it applies to many. There must be a point of divergence where each individual's conscience does not coincide with law, even though most probably parallel the basic principles of society and see the mutual benefit.

Baron's example requires the absence of law and punishment. In that scenario people might disregard some of the more basic rules. How many though could murder or rape on a whim and wake the next morning feeling no regret? You might have it within yourself to break windows but could you really kill another person? Even when pressed hard to commit a crime or cause harm, an individuals conscience often controls the moment.

Mob rule might defeat individual discretion, but there will always be those who never join the riot. Is that because of empathy, fear of punishment or personal conscience?

invert_nexus' model of a psychopath hinges on the absence of empathy, and I might agree. But how much of our conscience hinges on empathy? How much of it is simply a natural ingrained attribute? I am inclined to believe that there is an inhibitor that is more deeply rooted in most.

Some of us have conscience, some of us have morality, some of us have empathy. Most people however, are simply well trained and lack in many of these areas.

This means, most people, meaning average people, not vegetarians and the human rights/animal rights types. I'm talking the majority of this country, the average citizen. This person, would be capable of killing, the murder rates would rise over night if there will no laws, and in no time we'd have civil wars, and then tribal wars, and then we'd see the war of all against all like how Hobbes describes. This is because,
the average man has a nature that is not inherently good, but inherently evil.

The average man is selfish, cruel, wicked, essentially a brute or barbarian.
The laws of society were set up to tame and manage the average man, not the rare individuals who could manage themselves through some sort of inherently good traits, but for the man who if left to his own devices, would literally riot, rape, murder, pillage, and set fires all accross the country.

This man exists, you know the type, I know the type, you may have grew up with these types as a child, you may have been like this as a teenager, and some people stay like that as an adult.

Basically, we need laws because people are too irresponsible to handle freedom. It sucks to have to say that, but people cannot handle the freedom that they currently have, they will use it to destroy each other and themselves. So we have laws to restrict the freedom and limit the destructiveness of the mass man, and to prevent society from becoming mob rule.

That is why our society is a Republic. The founders knew all along that mass man, and mob rule were the most dangerous type of disorder a country could face.

[James R]

invert_nexus:

There are skills involved in hunting. Exercising your skills, and being good at them, can be a pleasurable experience.

What skills are involved in hunting with a rifle that are not involved in hunting with a camera?

Animal cruelty is a warning sign for various personality disorders.
Hunting != Animal Cruelty.

It involves killing an animal for no good reason. It is done purely for pleasure. Yes, yes, I know you might occasionally eat some of the animal you kill, but that's not why you hunt. You do it for fun.

Then perhaps you are lacking in human empathy for you to fail to perceive a difference in murdering a human and hunting an animal.

What's the difference? In one case, a human is killed. In the other, an animal is killed. Both involve killing a sentient creature.

Hunting, per se, isn't a problem at all. There is the possibility for people to take advantage of hunting in order to satisfy cruel desires, but this is because of something in the person, not the act of hunting itself.

You have an interesting kind of double-think. You seem to consider it wrong to kill human beings, presumably because you think humans are "special", for no reason other than that are a human being and you think you are "special". On the other hand, you consider the killing of an intelligent, self-aware animal (like a deer, let's say) as a mere trifle - nothing to worry about.

I suspect your problem is that you view non-human animals as automatons. You see animals only as abstract "types", and not as individuals. You think animals are fungibles (look it up). You're wrong.

I'm not really interested in debating the ethics of hunting.

What are you afraid of?

In some sense, man cannot be said to be higher than the animals. Because evolution doesn't work that way. There is no 'top rung'.

However, we have the biggest brain. And we have the most refined mind. Our mind is more powerful than the mind of animals on a grand scale. So much more powerful that there is not even a comparison between the two.

And you think this gives us some kind of right to cruelty?

I think it gives us greater moral responsibility for our actions.

You'd equate the pain of an animal with the pain of a human?

Can you show that it is qualitatively or quantitatively different? If not, then better to err on the side of caution.

The pain of an animal is in the moment. The pain of a man is something that keeps on going. It is abstract. It is savored. It is understood in a way that no animal can ever understand.

Nice rationalisation, but it doesn't hold up.

When a deer gets shot with an arrow that doesn't kill it immediately (a bad shot), then the pain it feels comes from the arrow itself. When a man gets shot, it knows that the arrow is not to blame. That there is a human being our there with a bow that has just shot him.

And that makes a difference because .... (?)

Not only this, but man is unique in his ability to empathize as widely as he does.

But not enough in the case of hunters, obviously.

Animals don't empathize over other animals. They hardly even empathize over animals of the same species let alone animals of other species. There are some instances of interspecies empathy, but these are generally in animals that have bonded together through one means or another. Dogs empathize with their humans, that sort of thing.

One minute you're saying that human beings have greater capacities than animals, then next you say that humans shouldn't be held to any higher standard of behaviour than other animals.

You're mixed up.

Man has a theory of mind. That is, he is aware that other beings have minds of their own. That they are lving beings with existences of their own.
Animals do not have this, for the most part.

Prove it.

I could go on and on about this. But all this is so blatant that the discussion is practically pointless. You either get it or you don't. And you obviously don't. You over-empathize.

Right back at you. You under-emphathise and over-assume.

Hunting is not torturing an animal to watch it suffer.

No. It is just killing an animal for pleasure.

Hunting does not equal animal cruelty.

So, it's not cruel to take life unnecessarily?

I said there is no reason to feel remorse for the deer you've killed.

Why not? Because one deer is interchangeable with another deer? Because the deer won't care if it is dead?

I'm interested in your rationalisation for this.

Animals are programmed to find their own species interesting and other animals only marginally so.

What are humans programmed for? Are humans as robotic as you think animals are?

This is evidenced by the ease at which we can identify different members of our species. Their facial features and other characteristics allow us to tell them apart with ease.
The same cannot be said for other species. They 'all look the same'. At least, more effort must go into telling them apart.

Wrong. Animals have no problem distinguishing other members of their species. Just because they often do not do so by sight doesn't mean that important distinctions aren't there. You aren't aware of them, but that's your problem, not theirs.

[Bowser]

This is because,
the average man has a nature that is not inherently good, but inherently evil...

That is why our society is a Republic. The founders knew all along that mass man, and mob rule were the most dangerous type of disorder a country could face.

Hmm, I am still at odds with the first statement and have yet to determined the minority of the two. I see potential.

[Sauna]

Vegetarianism is not enough in my opinion to make a person ethical, it's one issue, and it's an issue that does not affect people directly.

Being so keen to stick your neck out, TimeTraveller, I suggest to post to moot thread, "Is eating meat morally wrong":

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53226

In that instance the cultural trend appears to extend already to 669 postings, but with plenty of scope yet, I dare say, to make a fool of yourself.

[invert_nexus]

James R.,

What are you afraid of?

Afraid?
That's not relevant.
Uninterested is the term you're looking for.
I know you're this big animal rights guy and everything, but frankly, I don't give a shit. And I didn't plan nor do I plan to go into a huge discussion on the ethics of hunting.
So eat it.
However, I'll do you the honor of answering some of your questions seeing as how you're quite addled about what I've been saying.

What skills are involved in hunting with a rifle that are not involved in hunting with a camera?

Some hunters do turn to cameras.
But, you don't get meat with a camera, now do you?
Ever hear about killing two birds with one stone?
I mean, you do know that some people like to eat game?
Wow.
What a concept.

What's the difference? In one case, a human is killed. In the other, an animal is killed. Both involve killing a sentient creature.

You've just answered your question.
In one case, a human is killed. In the other, an animal is killed.
This is the difference.
I mean, it's a real tough distinction, right?

You have an interesting kind of double-think. You seem to consider it wrong to kill human beings, presumably because you think humans are "special", for no reason other than that are a human being and you think you are "special"

Hello, James.
This here thread is about social empathy.
Welcome.

I suspect your problem is that you view non-human animals as automatons.

Well, that's a huge shame for you then. Because you'd be wrong in your suspicion.

You think animals are fungibles (look it up).

Nice insult.
I'm curious. Do you stockpile obscure words so you can use them to insult people's intelligence with often? I don't think I've ever seen you use this particular tactic before. Interesting.

And you think this gives us some kind of right to cruelty?

I'm curious if you've read the thread at all? Because I've repeated myself quite often on the subject of cruelty, yet here you are making an asinine statement.
Hmm.

I think it gives us greater moral responsibility for our actions.

Interesting that you mention responsibility. I've also mentioned this very thing.
Of course, you're not interested in anything but bashing the meat-eater.

Can you show that it is qualitatively or quantitatively different?

When I spoke of the difference in the... minds of animals and men, what I meant to point out was... hmmm.
See. I knew I didn't describe it very well, and I've been trying to think how better to explain it... and, I've not quite got there yet.
I'll try to figure out how to explain what it was that I was trying to say better and I'll get back to you.

Suffice it to say, that I wasn't saying what you thought I was.

But not enough in the case of hunters, obviously.

You sure about that?
I wonder if you're aware of just how much deer suffer from overpopulation since we've pretty much eradicated their natural predators?
And, I doubt you'll listen to reason on this since you're such a reactionary on the subject, but a good kill is a quick kill. Better than what they would get in the wild.

However, as I said, empathy should only go so far.

But, like I also said, I'm not interested in debating the ethics of hunting.

Prove it.

You're supposedly a man of science, James. I'm sure you're aware of the problem of induction. Well, I suppose you're a physicist and mathematician which might mean that you're a bit deficient in the epistemological aspects of your trade.

There is no way to 'prove' anything.
Period.

However, the absence of a theory of mind in all animal species other than man is pretty much a consensus in the scientific world. It has been tested in an enormous variety of ways, and this is an established paradigm.

Now, as I've already stated, chimps and a few other higher mammals have been shown to have some very rudimentary theory of mind, but only rudimentary. Very rudimentary.

Hell, James, human children don't develop a theory of mind until aproximately two years of age.

Right back at you. You under-emphathise and over-assume.

That's certainly your opinion. And you're welcome to it.

So, it's not cruel to take life unnecessarily?

In a sense, but you're trying to trap me in semantics here now, Jamesy boy.
I'm talking about a completely different sense of cruelty and you damned well know it.

Back at you. Is it not cruelty to let them starve due to overpopulation?

Why not? Because one deer is interchangeable with another deer? Because the deer won't care if it is dead?

I'm interested in your rationalisation for this.

Because remorse is way too strong a term to use for what empathy one should feel for a deer.
Simple as that.

Why should I rationalize it for you? It wouldn't make a shit's worth of difference to you and you know it.

What are humans programmed for? Are humans as robotic as you think animals are?

James.
Hello.
I was referring to humans in this statement as well.
Practically your entire life is devoted to the human social network.
This is how life works.
We find our own species most interesting of all. We obsess over our own species.

And I've never spoken of robots, so shove that up your... whatever.

Wrong. Animals have no problem distinguishing other members of their species. Just because they often do not do so by sight doesn't mean that important distinctions aren't there. You aren't aware of them, but that's your problem, not theirs.

No. You're wrong.
Because you just said exactly what I said.
Animals can distinguish animals within their species far better than they are able to distinguish from other species.
Because they're clued into the social network.
Because their empathic cues are wired up for their particular species.

And, yes, before you ask me to 'prove it', they also have the ability to distinguish between other species to some extent. Especially animals who depend heavily on scent as scent is quite distinctive.

But, for the most part, animals find us as homogenous as we tend to find them.


Blah.

[Roman]

Baron is right. People are restrained by law not conscience. Thomas Hobbes said the same thing and he was right. People don't steal because it costs more to pay the fine or go to jail, not because stealing is wrong or feels bad. Why would it feel bad to steal food if you are hungry? Property has nothing to do with morality, it's a completely legal construction with no ethical basis.

Then why is crime so easy to get away with? The law functions only part way. We're hard wired for a social contract.

[heliocentric]

Some of us have conscience, some of us have morality, some of us have empathy. Most people however, are simply well trained and lack in many of these areas.

This means, most people, meaning average people, not vegetarians and the human rights/animal rights types. I'm talking the majority of this country, the average citizen. This person, would be capable of killing, the murder rates would rise over night if there will no laws, and in no time we'd have civil wars, and then tribal wars, and then we'd see the war of all against all like how Hobbes describes. This is because,
the average man has a nature that is not inherently good, but inherently evil.

The average man is selfish, cruel, wicked, essentially a brute or barbarian.
The laws of society were set up to tame and manage the average man, not the rare individuals who could manage themselves through some sort of inherently good traits, but for the man who if left to his own devices, would literally riot, rape, murder, pillage, and set fires all accross the country.

This man exists, you know the type, I know the type, you may have grew up with these types as a child, you may have been like this as a teenager, and some people stay like that as an adult.

Basically, we need laws because people are too irresponsible to handle freedom. It sucks to have to say that, but people cannot handle the freedom that they currently have, they will use it to destroy each other and themselves. So we have laws to restrict the freedom and limit the destructiveness of the mass man, and to prevent society from becoming mob rule.

That is why our society is a Republic. The founders knew all along that mass man, and mob rule were the most dangerous type of disorder a country could face.

My society isnt a republic its still a monarchy! (well on paper anyway) lol.

But yeah i agree with pretty much everything youve said, although i hesitate to say men are 'inherently evil' i think that just polarizes/simplifies a pretty complex issue.
Its all pretty mind-bending once you really start to consider where the dividing line between raw visceral empathy and the social cumstoms that bind us together might actually be.
Are we living in a world where the vast majority are simply very good 'fakers'? with an elected minority of fakers to rule us who are appealing in their campaigns to an entirely fictious 'moral majority'?
It is quite simply impossile to know who is acting of genuine social conscience and who is mearly towing the moral-line so as not to step foot outside of the law.
Prehaps all we can do is, as you say observe who people react to morally loaded situations outside of the law, as only these situations are likely to dictate the true underlying nature of the individual.
Ive also realised this is part of the reason why if 'x' asks me if 'z' is a nice person more offen than not i reply that i dont know and that i generally have to observe someone in a variety of complex social situations to make an accurate assesment. Prehaps to other people a 'nice person' is simply someone who aimiable and appears to be socially agreeable in conversation. And im working off a different interpretation entirely and being a nit-picking bastard as useall.

[Sauna]

deleted

[heliocentric]

Why can't they just be not worthy of compassion because you don't feel compasion for them? Does there have to be a reason.

No there doesnt have to be a reason, infact id rather people were honest than hastily invoke ad hoc rationalisations that fall apart almost immediately on closer inspection.

I have no loyalty to animals, just like I have no loyalty to someone who I've never met. Why should we create extra emotions?

Well i appreciate your genuine honesty even if i dont agree with your attitude.
Although im not suggesting we should create 'extra emotions', empathy can go as far as you want it to go, you can place artificial limits on it, or you can excersise it like any other aspect of yourself - entirely upto you.

[James R]

I know you're this big animal rights guy and everything, but frankly, I don't give a shit. And I didn't plan nor do I plan to go into a huge discussion on the ethics of hunting.

Then I hope you'll think more carefully next time before you go off on a tangent you can't defend.

Some hunters do turn to cameras.
But, you don't get meat with a camera, now do you?
Ever hear about killing two birds with one stone?
I mean, you do know that some people like to eat game?

Most hunters do not hunt for the meat. They hunt for the fun of it. Meat is just a by-product.

What's the difference? In one case, a human is killed. In the other, an animal is killed. Both involve killing a sentient creature.

You've just answered your question.
In one case, a human is killed. In the other, an animal is killed.
This is the difference.
I mean, it's a real tough distinction, right?

You're begging the question.

I suspect your problem is that you view non-human animals as automatons.

Well, that's a huge shame for you then. Because you'd be wrong in your suspicion.

Well, I can only go on what you write, and so far I've seen nothing from you to make me change my impression.

You think animals are fungibles (look it up).

Nice insult.
I'm curious. Do you stockpile obscure words so you can use them to insult people's intelligence with often? I don't think I've ever seen you use this particular tactic before. Interesting.

If your intelligence is insulted by my use of a concise word, that's your problem, not mine.

I wonder if you're aware of just how much deer suffer from overpopulation since we've pretty much eradicated their natural predators?
And, I doubt you'll listen to reason on this since you're such a reactionary on the subject, but a good kill is a quick kill. Better than what they would get in the wild.

Hunters don't kill deer to control their numbers. They do it for fun. Like the meat, control of deer numbers is just a by-product - a distraction from the main game, which is the blood-lust of the hunter.

There is no way to 'prove' anything.

I'm aware of that. I just thought you might have something to base your views on, that's all.

However, the absence of a theory of mind in all animal species other than man is pretty much a consensus in the scientific world.

I believe that a "theory of mind" has been demonstrated in various apes, dolphins, whales, and most recently elephants. Probably, other animals have it, too.

Regardless, lack of a theory of mind does not make it right to hunt.

Hell, James, human children don't develop a theory of mind until aproximately two years of age.

Would it be ok to hunt young children, then?

Because remorse is way too strong a term to use for what empathy one should feel for a deer.

Your view appears to be based on nothing other than your own convenience.

Animals can distinguish animals within their species far better than they are able to distinguish from other species.
Because they're clued into the social network.
Because their empathic cues are wired up for their particular species.

And so... ?

[invert_nexus]

Then I hope you'll think more carefully next time before you go off on a tangent you can't defend.

I didn't go on the tangent, James.
It was brought up and I discussed it briefly.
very briefly.

And, again, you're making a mistake.
I never said I couldn't defend. Just that I don't care enough about the subject to make the attempt.

Most hunters do not hunt for the meat. They hunt for the fun of it. Meat is just a by-product.

Yeah.
Right.

If your intelligence is insulted by my use of a concise word, that's your problem, not mine.

No, James.
You attempted to insult my intelligence not by using the word, but by arrogantly twisting the sterile canvas snoot of an icing anointment utensil...

(Heh. Sorry. Muffin man lyrics. It seems to fit.)

Anyway.
Your attempted insult was not in the word, but your snide "look it up".
As if you weren't already aware of this. Should I rolleye you?

Hunters don't kill deer to control their numbers. They do it for fun. Like the meat, control of deer numbers is just a by-product - a distraction from the main game, which is the blood-lust of the hunter.

You do realize that you're hopelessly biased, don't you?

I hope you at least have a small inkling of this fact.
I'll admit that I'm biased. But, nowhere near as biased as you.

Anyway.
Prove it.

Or... are you committing the sin already mentioned in this thread so many times... Are you professing to have the ability to peer into people's inner recesses and understand their motivations better than them?

I'm aware of that. I just thought you might have something to base your views on, that's all.

What? Like you do, you mean?
My views are on animals' lack of theory of mind is far more scientifically sound than your views on hunters blood-lust.

I believe that a "theory of mind" has been demonstrated in various apes, dolphins, whales, and most recently elephants. Probably, other animals have it, too.

Hello.
You like repeating me, don't you?

Would it be ok to hunt young children, then?

Absolutely.
Retards too.

(Actually, as I've already said, I didn't get my point across well and I'm going to try to figure out how to explain it better.
....
You did read that, didn't you?
Or are you just interested in hunter-bashing?
You might note that I'm not a hunter. Just for reference. If I were a hunter, I might have more of an interest in discussing hunting. Maybe.)

Your view appears to be based on nothing other than your own convenience.

What's yours based on?

And so... ?

And so... empathy is focused primarily on intra-species relationships, James.
Remember. The topic of the thread?
I know that you've got this whole bloodlust thing going on. Compelled to speak against the horrors and brutalities of hunting and all.
But that's not what this thread is about.
Funny that.

[madanthonywayne]

You're equating "social training" with "conscience". Over time, society has "trained" its members to behave and to follow the laws and rules. That's not "conscience", MadAnthony, it's basic fear of the consequences of ones actions.

Conscience is internalization of the morals you have been taught. You could call it social training. It is absolutely not fear of consequences.

If there were no consequences, we might well kill the stranger or rape the woman ...there certainly have been human societies that did that very thing in the past. Or are you proposing that "conscience" is a modern human invention??

Every society has its rules. Ones internalization of them is one's conscience.

Try doing some indepth research into some of the rougher parts of major cities in the USA where gangs run free and the cops stay the hell away for fear of being killed. The gangs, the violent men/boys, have learned, yes, LEARNED, that there is little chance of being caught and punished.

Here you've made my point for me. Are the laws different in the "rough parts" of major cities? No. The problem is the people there. They have the same laws but they can not be enforced because many citizens in the area have not internalized the social norms present in the greater society.

Self regulation by internalization of social norms is the most effective form of social control. Without it, you get chaos such as that which exists in inner cities. This is why many people consider the collapse of the black family to be the root cause of the social breakdown in inner cities. The younger generations are not being socialized in civilized behavior.

[James R]

invert_nexus:

I never said I couldn't defend. Just that I don't care enough about the subject to make the attempt.

The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Most hunters do not hunt for the meat. They hunt for the fun of it. Meat is just a by-product.

Yeah.
Right.

Yeah. Right.

Your attempted insult was not in the word, but your snide "look it up".
As if you weren't already aware of this. Should I rolleye you?

My "look it up" was a helpful suggestion, since I assumed you probably wouldn't have come across the word before. Was I wrong?

Hunters don't kill deer to control their numbers. They do it for fun. Like the meat, control of deer numbers is just a by-product - a distraction from the main game, which is the blood-lust of the hunter.

You do realize that you're hopelessly biased, don't you?

Against hunting for fun? I freely admit I am biased against that.

It's indefensible.

Anyway.
Prove it.

Look at how hunters describe themselves. You won't have to look beyond this very forum. Hunters admit they do it for fun. Yes, they also try to rationalise it in the same ways you have if pressed, but their real motivations aren't exactly hard to uncover.

Would you like me to dig up some web sites for you?

My views are on animals' lack of theory of mind is far more scientifically sound than your views on hunters blood-lust.

Ok. Why do you think hunters hunt, if not for fun? What's the main reason?

Would it be ok to hunt young children, then?

Absolutely.
Retards too.

You don't actually believe this, I hope.

You might note that I'm not a hunter. Just for reference.

Why so defensive, then?

And so... empathy is focused primarily on intra-species relationships, James.

Well, yes. Just as empathy is focused primarily on one's relations before one's friends before one's neighbours etc. Intra-species is way down the list, then comes inter-species.

Relevance?

I know that you've got this whole bloodlust thing going on. Compelled to speak against the horrors and brutalities of hunting and all.
But that's not what this thread is about.

Actually, I think that sociopathy towards non-human animals is not so different from sociopathy towards other human beings. Both involve a failure of the ability to place oneself into another's shoes and see the world from their point of view. The only difference is that sociopathy towards non-human animals is widely accepted as "normal" in our society, whereas sociopathy towards other human beings is considered disfunctional.

[madanthonywayne]

Look at how hunters describe themselves. You won't have to look beyond this very forum. Hunters admit they do it for fun. Yes, they also try to rationalise it in the same ways you have if pressed, but their real motivations aren't exactly hard to uncover.

Actually, I think that sociopathy towards non-human animals is not so different from sociopathy towards other human beings. Both involve a failure of the ability to place oneself into another's shoes and see the world from their point of view. The only difference is that sociopathy towards non-human animals is widely accepted as "normal" in our society, whereas sociopathy towards other human beings is considered disfunctional.

James,
Must you turn every discussion into an animal rights discussion?

That said, what's wrong with hunting for fun? Of course, to justify it I must appeal to nature which you'll call a fallacy. But, here goes anyway.

Man evolved as a hunter-gatherer. Males, in particular, were the hunters. While I personally have never hunted, it seems reasonable that after millenia of evolution as a hunter; hunting would fulfill some atavistic instinct which is probably stronger in some than others.

Having sex with members of the same sex seems natural to some and I'm sure you would defend a person's right to do this although to many it seems twisted and perverted. To others, hunting seems natural and right and enjoyable. Should the homosexuals be allowed to do what is natural to them while this is denied to the hunters?

Well, you say, the homosexuals aren't hurting anyone, while the hunters kill sentient beings. Is it worse for the deer to be killed by a human than a wolf? Is it worse to be killed by a gun or run over by a car?

Deer are prey animals. It's why they have eyes on the side of their heads. Hunting is natural for some humans. Being hunted is natural to deer.

Hunters do not go out of their way to cause pain or discomfort for their prey. The deer population must be controlled somehow. Why not in a way that is enjoyable for hunters?

[Prince_James]

Deers are also carriers of the Deer Ticks, which carry the pathogen that causes lyme disease. This disease is one of the fastest growing infectious diseases and can be truly dehabilitating to have. It is not at all fun to have, to say the least.