Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rudey
Than what?? Does that website you ripped pictures from condone hunting?
You have zero statistics and facts here and are just posting conjecture about what is and isn't moral, healthy, and painless all in an effort to justify hunting. So really you are not arguing a single thing as you don't have a single fact that you've presented.
You can eat the food, but you didn't go hunting because you were hungry.
-Rudey
|
Did I ever say anything about the website the pictures came from? I don't have to agree with everything they do to use their photos, do I? The point of the pictures is to give you an idea of the conditions of animals which are farmed for meat, versus those which are hunted in the wild.
As for morality - what are you talking about statistics and facts for what I consider moral or not? I wasn't aware that it was a matter of mathematical analysis.
Anyway, an interesting article related to this thread I read the other day:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=589
Re: people not going hunting because of hunger. Corporations which provide the meat that is purchased in restaurants and supermarkets are not killing the animals directly because of hunger either, they're doing it for money. So when you buy their products, you're -gasp!- supporting killing animals for a motive other than purely eating them. How is this somehow better? I really don't get it.