Reply With Quote
What Starburry means is that if it were not culturally unacceptable to eat dogs, than we wouldn't have a problem with it. I do understand where Marburry is coming from, and I think he has a valid, if not misdirected, line of reasoning.
Most of us in America condemn matadors as well, and the bulls they killed and eaten, but is tortured before death, and is therefore frowned upon.
Hunting is a means of acquiring food. Torture to the animal is expressly forbidden. There is a sporting aspect here. From a sporting aspect, the animal must be given some semblence of a fair chance (hence, no fully automatic machine guns). I don't nessacarily agree with this, but the skills learned and exercised from hunting are valeuble ones.
There are those who go out to hunt for the sake of shooting/killing something. I would actually agree with Starburry, that this behavior is no different than dogfighting, or my example, matadoring. But it is hard to tell intentions of people and seporate those from the legit hunters.
There is a final aspect of hunting. In the US, we have effectively eleminated most, if not all predators to large prey animals. As such, we are now the top predator. Without a predator, these animals will (and do) explode in population to the point they will starve themselves, or worse, cause mass dissease to spread. Deer are overpopulated, and need controll. It is better that these animals are killed, and at least have a chance of their deaths not being a waste if you hunt them, where the alternitives are mass extinction through disease, hunger, or just plane waste of materials, which also can breed dissease.
