A
Anonymous
Guest
Fellas,
It wuz a cold Feb 2000 day. I strolled on over ta the old Airgunletter forum when lo 'n behold Prof Hoff started everone ta thinkin' like he usually did. I hope ya aint to bored with it. I done jest a bit a editin'. If ya caint go outside, mebbe this will help ya pass the time.
Urge To Kill Posted by Prof Hoff on February 24, 2000 at 22:13:00:
Is the urge to kill so overpowering in some that they would take the life of any creature that became unlucky enough to wander into range?
Alas, I wonder about the machinations of a mature mind that would act to terminate a bird or animal just because it was there. Some would justify our role as nature's Terminator for a variety of
reasons -- pest control, ridding our environment of disease-carrying varmints like the rat, protection of real property because some woodpecker or squirrel may have taken a fancy to the siding on our
house...the list goes on and on. Still, for whatever the reason, some killing appears to be just plain mean and stupid. We ought to have the courage to say as much.
Indeed, we may all have committed such acts of careless brutality when we were young. The first bird I ever killed with my brand new Crossman pumper was a chickadee that died in the snow just because it was the first live target this ignorant kid saw when he went afield on a bright
Christmas morning more than a half century ago. Then and now, I felt ashamed and shocked by my own stupidity. Even now, the depth of my feelings and remorse for the witless exuberance of youth is intensified because, in those days, I had no mentor who would help me understand the
responsibilities of a real hunter.
Perhaps some veterans among those who love air gunning could chime in with their views on this philosophical issue. As exemplars, we can do much to assist the young folk who gather in the Airgun Letter Forum that they may be transformed from Huns to hunters.
Please understand, I am not a bleeding heart animal-rights activist. Many hundreds of squirrels and bunnies have fallen under my cross-hairs--thence to be delivered into our stew-pot.
And, yes, I do shoot starlings. Still, I continue to seek a perspective on why wanton killing is so accepted by some who hunt. For example, why does Mr. (Slowpoke) Possum or Mr. (Dutiful) Honeybee deserve to be shot just because they may have presented themselves as a convenient target. Can it be that, in the hustle of daily life, we are turning inward and
angry -- and in the doing thereof we are losing our appreciation of life's fragile grandeur.
I realize that this topic has been dealt with before on the AGLF, and I have no wish to cause tempers to flare. That having been said, I remain unable to understand why one would wish to kill a creature that was doing no real harm.
Please educate me. I'm listening. Let the flames begin.
Regards,
Prof Hoff
Rather profound. Well put... Penn 22:17:48 2/24/00
Posted by Steve in CT on February 24, 2000 at 22:23:02:
Prof Hoff
I would debate this point with you but I have too many things going on in my life. I just don't have the time or energy to waste as to why I shot the stupid Crow this morning. He just happened to be at the wrong place and the wrong time. (Wrong for him that is). I don't know why,
neither do I care to find out. When that pellet makes the noise you know it hit, it is just heavenly. Why does someone gets a kick out of scoring in bowling? Who the hell cares? Just have a good time doing something legal.
With the utmost respect,
Steve in the nutmeg state.
Posted by jr99 on February 24, 2000 at 22:24:54:
WAR??? religious, economic, territory, ego, diet, deficiency.
Aloha john
Posted by Swinson on February 24, 2000 at 22:25:37:
When I was in high school I used to shoot "anything". My anything was limited to wild animals but I would think nothing of baiting grackles and starlings in the winter and shooting as many as possible. We used to hunt squirrels to near extinction in the local park, and would use night
vision and "chopped and shopped" Ruger 10/22's to take more rabbits than you can count (this after killing dozens of rabbits with various airguns).
As I got into college I never hunted, the desire to hunt went the way of my awkward and raging hormones that came with puberty. Now I hunt rats at night with some "skill and precision." Sometimes I'll go overboard on a pigeon hunt or two, but most of my hunts are now "justifiable"
ones. Truth of fact is I enjoy dropping those field targets just as much if not more. If I can drop one out at 100 yards I'm really ecstatic. It gives me much more satisfaction.
Regards,
Craig
Posted by CraigVM on February 24, 2000 at 23:10:02:
Well, I could go with the "Deprived Childhood" angle or perhaps my mother drank during her pregnancy with me. Nope, I think I like the "too much violence on prime time TV" excuse. Then again I own a Playstation and do listen to an occasional RAP song. Oh I don't know...maybe it is
just that a paper target doesn't have the ability to run or fly away.
All I know is that I will never go with the "I only shoot things I eat" theme as long as I own a fly swatter!
Posted by Nayrb on February 24, 2000 at 22:41:06:
Prof Hoff:
It is understandable from your letter that you have been haunted for years about your "stupid action." You did this because it was something that you needed to do to learn, and you did. True, pests can not be tolerated but does not necessarily mean they must be terminated. Game
meat must not be left to spoil. Whatever one destroys (providing it is edible) should be consumed or consumed at a later time. I have eaten many small birds (mainly sparrows) black birds are not too tasty.
Protected birds speak for themself. Forget about that bird you shot! If you didn't shoot it then it probably would have been ripped apart by a hawk, or hit by a car, or caught by a cat.
Posted by Ray on February 24, 2000 at 22:56:44:
My first few kills in my teens and I realized killing was wrong. I did not know why, but my conscience told me no. I sold my guns and never looked back. Today, at 43, I am pro-second amendment, and love to shoot airguns. Will probably move to fire arms as my kids mature. I
have no desire to kill.
A few days ago, while looking through my Banner 4-12, I spotted a chubby squirrel. My first thought was to shoot him. Why did I not do this? Because it was wrong. I am now mature enough to not have to act on any hair brained idea that pops into my head.
As a Christian, I believe the reason I had that thought that to kill was a thing called sin. I would not hesitate to kill for food, protect person or property. But to kill for "sport" is evil, in my opinion. It is the willful destruction of life, and life is sacred, even animal life.
Don't know if this furthers the discussion, but that's my take.
Thanks for asking.
Posted by RBest on February 24, 2000 at 23:03:35:
RH:
I must say that as I get older, the urge to hunt (for me at least) has decreased. I still take an
occasional squirrel when the population is high--as it has been the last couple years. Crows, for some strange reason, are automatic targets for me. Just seeing one of those noisy bullies makes my trigger finger itch.
I rarely even consider any other birds, including starlings. Some of this may be traceable to a grievous error I made a long time ago. I was out looking for crows one morning with a buddy of mine, when I spied a large dark bird landing in a tree. He was hidden behind some
leaves, and I had a peep sighted 22 with me. I fired the shot then ran over to claim my prize only to discover that it was a hawk! I felt terrible, and kicked myself for weeks over that mistake.
I soon went out and bought a scope for that gun, but wound up not hunting at all for almost 3 years. Several years later I resumed hunting, but mainly went for deer. Even that faded about 10 years ago when I had the misfortune to go hunting with a bunch of jerks. I got so turned off by the whole
event that I stopped for several more years. I would now have to say that 98% of my shooting is at inanimate objects now. 'Cept for them damn crows! Don't ask me why.
Russ
AMEN on the Crows!! Ray 23:33:16 2/25/00
Posted by Tom on February 25, 2000 at 08:06:44:
See Russ, just as in my earlier posting, the phrase, ?as I get older? keeps popping up in relation to the urge to kill. It's got to have something to do with reduced testosterone levels. No wild beast is as
joyfully bloodthirsty as a teenaged male of our species. I even practice catch and release fishing at this stage.
When a teenager, anything that sat still for a moment or took my hook was at risk and my conscience bothered me not one whit, indeed I rejoiced in my domination. I was empowered and exalted, to be brutally honest. Do you suppose we all become closet Hindus as we age? Or is wisdom indeed, the province of age and experience?
Posted by RGunn on February 25, 2000 at 14:29:43:
This thing about becoming more conservative as we age has not worked that way for me. I went through that phase when I was in my early thirties. Catch and release, fly fishing (I use to write for Fly Fishing Magazine), bow hunting, because I thought that was the only sporting way to hunt. Don't shoot anything you can't eat, etc. etc.
Now I shoot every (legal) varmint I get my sights on! And I feel no remorse over it. "Go figure".
Simple answer, profound idea.
Posted by Pel-It on February 24, 2000 at 23:24:11:
I spend the better part of 3 months out of the year chasing deer in an assortment of Canadian provinces and take great pride in "connecting" with a 500 yard groundhog with fussed over varmint rifles and loads. I have since discovered the much loved adult airgun that enables me to do
most of my varmint hunting right out my back door with little disturbance to those who are not as agreeable to the sport but every once and a while the question, "Why do you kill?" is put forth and my reasoning is as follows:
If you'll allow me to use sex as a parallel, ask yourself why we as humans are drawn to it. Not because it feels good, but rather without it, we as humans wouldn't be as strong a race thus making it a survival instinct. The same can be said for killing. As omnivores, we were born, built and driven just like all the other meat eating animals out there to kill and eat weaker prey.
Now back to the sex thing. How does the human body provoke procreation? Make the act mentally appealing and so goes for why we kill. It's simply the fulfillment of an ancestral instinct.
Posted by Snake on February 24, 2000 at 23:46:56:
Nice shot. I think you nailed it with that one. We ARE predators. ssssssssSnake
Posted by Phillip Reedy on February 25, 2000 at 08:01:27:
Hello Snake,
I would certainly agree with your statement---our non-human ancestors were more scavengers that barely got by. It was the development of predatory skills that allowed them a better food supply, and thus set them off on a long road of evolution that ended with us.
Yes, there are both good and bad things about our nature, but you can't discount something that was part of several million years of evolution.
Have fun,
Phil Reedy
Posted by Pavel Podvoiski on February 24, 2000 at 23:42:06:
Well, when I was young I did my part on frogs. Now...I just not enjoy killing anymore. I ?know? I can. Human mind is very flexible thing. It can rationalize anything. "Humane kill" is just another rule of the game. Wanna challenging shot?---shoot paintballs at 100 yards!
You have to admit, you kill because you ?can?. Nothing wrong with it, though....how can you kill rats? They are brilliant animals, their merits in science are enormous, their will to survive is second to none. 20,000,000 years from now, their descendants will dance on your bones
Posted by Snake on February 24, 2000 at 23:49:30:
That little dirty rat bastard gets the last laugh. ehh, ya win some ya
lose some
sssssssSnake
Posted by RBest on February 24, 2000 at 23:59:33:
heh heh- I always thought there was a typo or two in the bible. When
they say "The meek shall inherit the earth", they must have meant 'squeak'.
RB
Posted by R Jagielski on February 24, 2000 at 23:44:33:
Bottom line is because of a lot of different reasons. I kill because on a weird level I enjoy the
challenge of trying to hit a living, breathing, somewhat thinking object. Maybe that comes from my primal man past. I don't know. Maybe I'm a sinner. Someone who cannot do good when it comes to innocent creatures and my airgun. I don't think that's it. I think I kill because it satisfies an urge to destroy so that we as humans can feel like we are in control. By killing I'm creating a stable environment in which I believe I now control. If I can get a grip on that one thing that makes me think that I'm in control, whether it be my job, relationship, finance or poor little joe squirrel then I'm a happy camper. It sounds way out, but maybe our need to kill is what keeps some of us rational in other areas.
Just a thought.
Regards,
R. Jagielski
Posted by Jeb on February 25, 2000 at 00:45:17:
I hunt, I target practice. Every time I kill something with my rifle, which has been many times, I feel a twinge of guilt or regret, whatever you want to call it. My question or statement is, why? When I place the ant stake in the ground by the door or spray a nest of paperwasps with a high power hose, I feel nothing but anticipation of elimination and satisfaction. Why? They are all creatures of the earth, and the urge to control, destroy, consume, is overwhelming.
It is all part of the mystery and rationalization of life. I had a girlfriend once, she would not eat a duck because she said it was too cute, yet she ate chickens like they were going out of style.
That way of thinking is wrong! Killing is killing, termite, chicken, duck, crow, fly, etc. Eat it or not, man has always killed and always will. We may as well accept it.
Just a thought.
Jeb
Posted by Kathy on February 25, 2000 at 00:49:49:
I have no ?flames? for you sir; it would be foolish and vulgar of me to do so. Your post states your thoughts eloquently.
Your post has also rekindled my pathos, for I fall well within your ?nature?s terminator? definition. Please recall, if you have read any of the chapters, my inner struggle to eliminate or leave alone the
squirrel ?pests? in my backyard from my bird feeders. Although I portrayed that decision process in a few sentences, it was, in fact, and arduous and soul-searching ordeal. It is not my intent to kill every squirrel in my backyard and beyond, only those that are persistent enough to get past my previously applied physical barriers. Is this protection of ?property?? Perhaps. Is it selfish of me to do so because it interferes with my hobby? Again, perhaps.
For the sake of argument, allow me to pose a corollary. You are an avid gardener and you have a fine example of one in your back yard. This garden is your hobby and you enjoy the fruits of your labor, literally. Could you self-justify and rationalize setting mole traps? I, for one, have no problems with this. To augment this corollary I further submit the case of the farmer versus the crows, whereas the farmer takes deliberate steps to kill the birds. Again, I have no problem with this
solution set.
While I freely admit that I have deliberately modified the habitat for the birds within my backyard, I did not premeditate luring squirrels with the bird feed for the sake of sport. That effect was totally
serendipitous. Note that a garden or a field of corn would exhibit the same coincidental effect, attracting a different species of course.
I can only assume that the gray, and self-defined, lines that separate the quadrants of protection of property, protection of persons, sport and wanton killing will be debated long after we have departed this earth. Although you close your post with an ?Educate me? request, I am barren of the knowledge you seek. In fact, from my comprehension of your post you are far from ignorant on the issues you raise. You admit to ?still shoot[ing] starlings ? why? Perhaps if you seek an answer to
that question you will be closer to your quest for enlightenment.
Thank you sir for the opportunity to respond to such a thought provoking post.
Kathy
Posted by Tom on February 25, 2000 at 07:38:06:
Kathy,
You just get better and better. I knew there had to be a fine mind behind the lines of your story and you have betrayed it with this posting. All of us have to deal with our individual manifestation of
the reptilian portion of our consciousness. How we deal with it reveals a great deal about the person. Frankly, I suspect Prof Hoff must be a great person to be around.
On a lighter, but no less serious note, I am fairly certain at this stage in my life that the thirst for blood is tied pretty directly to testosterone levels. While I will certainly kill to eat (squirrel is
still my favorite thing), I no longer take joy from the act itself. I noticed no one has yet taken refuge in the Biblical lines concerning ?dominion over the beasts and birds,? nor shall I.
Cheers,
Tom @ Buzzard Bluff
Posted by Forbin on February 25, 2000 at 02:26:21:
Prof Hoff,
I think you already know, or at least have your own thoughts as to the answer to this question. But since you have opened this can of worms, here goes.
We and our ancestors have one thing in common. The need to conquer our environment. The more power and control we have over our surroundings, the greater the chances for succession, and therefore, the continuation of ourselves (immediate) and our species (future).
There are many examples of this "instinct" in nature and in history. However, the difference between nature and humans is our ability to override instinct with reasoning, and therefore, Choice.
This is the point at which we oftentimes fail miserably. We automatically yield to that part of us which needs the gratification of power and control, which in turn gives the feeling of strength and
continued survival at a "primal" level of consciousness.
You mentioned "the machinations of a mature mind". Mature in what area? Obviously, you have discovered through experience and training of your own mind that "urges" do not have to be acted upon.
When and how did you discover that you could control your urges? Experience and reasoning, you questioned your own motives for what you were about to do in a given circumstance. It is indeed a mature mind that consistently overrides an urge with a choice. So to finish answering your question, those who indiscriminately kill anything in their path have not learned what you have already displayed by even posing the question to start with...discipline and discernment.
No doubt this is a debate that could rage on and on. And I have purposely avoided certain aspects of it in this post. There will probably be enough misunderstandings of what I've already said.
Oh well, just my two farthings.
Forbin.
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 25, 2000 at 02:59:41:
The course of nature versus philosophy...The painful truth is: if, for a moment, we stick to what we know, there was no such thing as moral justification before man invented it--or was taught it by his Creator, whichever line you want to stick to.
Fairness and what's "right" are not values that are inherently present in nature--we merely invented
them in order to be able to deal with what happens when the excrement is about to hit the fan. We call that "conscience", and as a means of deciding what to do and what not to do, it's probably the best we have.
For reasons of moral justification, I'd love to say that in nature, all creatures have a conscience, and kill only for food or survival. I believed that until I was 14, and witnessed seagulls apparently
senselessly attacking a half-drowned rabbit on the beach that they were not going to eat in the first place. Pigeons are reported to be another example of senseless cruelty.
Having said that, we've got only one object to cling to and that is our own conscience and what we believe is fair and right. If we stick to that, we may not always be entirely "right", but at least we won't be terribly wrong.
It's one of my pet theories that, if here is a God, all our individual consciences thrown on a pile is the most tangible manifestation of Him (or Her, what do we know). But I need to stop here or I will start a terribly irrelevant philosophical rant, whereas I actually need to get some work done.
cheers,
peter
Posted by I BELIVE I KNOW THERE IS A GOD on February 25, 2000 at 05:19:09:
YOU STATED IF THERE IS A GOD, THERE IS A GOD AND WERE ALL LIVING PROOF.
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 25, 2000 at 06:05:39:
Dear anonymous poster,
What my beliefs are is irrelevant in this matter, and I am not willing to bother anyone with it unless so asked. However, the philosophy I tried to outline applies regardless of your beliefs; even those who don't believe there (I suspect that you meant to type "there" instead of "their") is a God, should still answer to their conscience. That is what I wanted to make clear.
On another note, I'd appreciate if you could unglue your caps lock.
peter
Posted by MR Bulk? on February 25, 2000 at 05:09:57:
I read somewhere that as men age, certain physiological changes occur which, when combined with life experience, transform them back into Human Beings again. They reacquaint themselves with feelings--this might be characterized as, "getting in touch with their feminine side"
--much like those they experienced during the innocent years of toddlerhood.
I remember shooting up all manner of animals when I was a boy, but also recall "justifying" it by reminding myself that these birds were eating up my mother's carefully tended fruit garden, or roosting in the garage rafters and pooping on the family car, etc. Now at age 47, I shoot
almost exclusively at the behest of local land owners who have businesses to protect.
I know that if I take the time to ponder each kill, especially the killing of the more sophisticated mammals higher up in the biological chain, it can get to me. This is something I am not ashamed to admit. And I even remember shooting, in a single night, literally hundreds of
birds that had taken over the open beamed ceilings of huge chicken coops. These birds were raining fecal waste into the hen's feed troughs, hens whose eggs would end up on our breakfast plates
eventually. And yet---and yet...when we went to pick up the bodies, I would find superficially wounded---and sometimes even completely healthy--birds, huddled down on the wet ground next to their dead mates, faithful to the end, watching with dark eyes as our boot heels came
crushing down on their skulls to end it all.
Yes, I still do shoot, and I still do "justify", and I let any feelings I might have pass over me, because on balance there is another entire set of feelings to this, something along the lines of--
"satisfaction", I guess you could call it--satisfaction in the trueness of one's aim, the steadiness of one's hold, the grip, the stance, the breathing--all of it--that provides the satisfaction of accomplishing something not everyone Can or Will do.
When at home I rarely, if ever, "pop" a bulbol or other recognized pest bird species any more, and in fact have allowed a small family of Java rice birds (or peach-faced finches or whatever ya call 'em) to take up residence atop one of the square wood columns that surround my back
patio. But when the farms call, I know they will simply call someone else if I do not go.
And I do enjoy eating eggs.
Posted by Jerry Rhodes on February 25, 2000 at 12:02:11:
Charlie,
Here at age 62 I have noticed the same progression in my attitudes. As a boy I was a born killer. When I was 15 or so I had moved from "shoot everything in sight" to a focused hunter. I would come home from school and get my 101 and go out into a field and spot some bird and
stalk and pursue it until I either killed it or it got too dark to shoot. I would ignore all of the rest of the "targets of opportunity" and concentrate only on my quarry.
Probably all small boys exhibit this trait, and it is good for them to be able to vent on sparrows than to go on to more serious stuff later. I have a book called the "Prairie Traveler" written in 1851 that warns about meeting bands of Indians on the plains and how to deal with them. Of particular danger was a group of 17 to 19 year olds. The author warned that unless there were older males in the bunch you were in for a fight. The young adult males in all cultures are the most dangerous
members of the society. Americans are no different than Cheyenne or Masai.
Must be hormones..........
Jerry
Posted by MR Bulk? on February 25, 2000 at 21:49:47:
Jerry, thanks for the insight. Explains even more stuff to me about myself.
Charlie
Thanks Charlie! mike pearson 09:30:10 2/25/00
My Pleasure...I Feel Better Already! MR Bulk? 22:01:55 2/25/00
Posted by Brian on February 25, 2000 at 06:06:06:
It would seem the only life sacred to humans, as a race or species, is our own. Witness our wanton elimination (extinction) of countless species of wild plants and animals and throughout history the even more challenging question of "ethnic cleansing". That, to me, should be of
even greater concern to us as humans than the hunting of game for food, sport, economic gain, or any purpose.
We hunt and shoot because we can. I do not have a good, moral answer or reason for why humans
deliberately kill other humans to promote their own thought or ideals, in the end then is nothing sacred? It comes back to Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a messed up example of survival of the fittest.
Airgun related? I don't know but this is part of my opinion on the urge to kill (HUNT). For whatever reason I guess we do it because we CAN and from it we gain CONTROL of our own environment and SATISFY our own needs.
This is a debate to which there seems no answer and one which I am unqualified to engage in. I can only give my own thoughts and opinion. It seems as humans we can make justification for our own
actions but not always the actions of others. Philosophy or air gunning or both. Good shooting and thinking to all.
I'm a Vietnam veteran. Believe me, humans DO NOT consider human life sacred. Roy 08:12:55 2/25/00
Posted by John L on February 25, 2000 at 11:46:17:
I believe hunting is a most natural pursuit of the descendants of carnivorous predators. Therefore, what sometimes appears to be wanton killing to some, such as the urge of a young fellow with an airgun to shoot every sparrow or starling he sees, is natures way of having him
practice a skill he no longer really needs to survive, but the need is there, stronger in some than others, and will be answered to.
Posted by Steve L on February 25, 2000 at 12:51:19:
Perhaps we are destined to be alone on this tiny planet.
Posted by Thomas Kean on February 25, 2000 at 12:57:59:
I am a simple man who believes that the Good Lord created us that we might worship him. No other purpose. If you are an atheist then you may do as you like and (to be consistent with this understanding) as long as you can get away with it, it doesn't matter anyway. But when
you die, the Lord will call you to account.
According to your collected wiseacrings life has no purpose other than to sustain another generation. The universe is going to either expand forever or contract to a singularity. If you are a logical atheist you may as well grab as much of life as you can before you die! Shooting a varmint or two is of no consequence since there is no ultimate point to anything anyway. Each creature serves as food for another creature. Death is part of life. It is a fact. You must harmonize with this fact. You cannot escape it.
You intellectuals have wiseacred a theory. You have made the theory a fact. It is very dangerous to mistake fantasy for fact. Organic life is not a brute collection of creatures. It is designed. You start altering the blueprints of such a design without knowing what you are doing, big
problem!
The Good Lord allows us to eat certain animals because he designed them to be food for us. As long as we kill them "humanely" and respect them. We have no problem. It is you intellectuals who create the problems by disobeying the Good Lord?s injunctions and then make jobs for yourself by providing the solution.
You poison us with genetically modified food and then inject us with chemicals to heal us. You
inculcate Satanic teachings to our youngsters through the media so they disrespect themselves, our ladies and society and then say the solution is to ban guns. An example of your stupidity is that you worry about the death of a varmint or two and don?t worry about tampering with genes. God has indeed made you monkeys. But not in the way you think.
Tom
Posted by Mark er on February 25, 2000 at 14:11:29:
So let me get this straight. One can either believe in the "good lord" or be an atheist. What about the other 10,000 religions on this planet?
Posted by mike pearson on February 25, 2000 at 16:16:00:
Mark,
The guy doesn't have to recognize those other 10,000 religions, let alone agree with them. This is how he feels and believes (obviously pretty deeply). We don't have to agree with each word he says but I am sure you would acknowledge that we should at least respect his right to voice those views (even if he didn't acknowledge all the religions of the world) right?
----MP
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 25, 2000 at 18:54:38:
(ho wait... who are you and what have you done to Mike Pearson?) On a more serious note: our co-poster (Tom Keane) in question is not only communicating how he feels, but he is also making explicit judgements about those who do not feel the same way: ?You intellectuals have wiseacred a theory.? You ?have made the theory a fact.?
The poster in question then proceeds to actually put a value on us: ?An example of your stupidity is that you worry about the death of a varmint or two and don?t worry about tampering with genes. God has indeed made you monkeys. But not in the way you think.?
This is the kind of behavior that goes way beyond what I would consider telling us how he feels and believes. Regardless of whether I agree with him or not, I find his reasoning appalling and dogmatic. Mark's question about the "10,000 religions" is but one, and not the
most profound, hole in Tom Keane's reasoning. It amazes me that you've missed that.
Posted by mike pearson on February 25, 2000 at 20:11:38:
No Peter, I didn't miss it! Not at all! And I also didn't agree with it either! I just felt that the poster was ventilating at no one particular person and that his post would reveal in itself any innate
flaws and shortcomings. I stand by his right to speak his mind as long as he is NOT insulting specific people by name or by category.
For example, I'm not an FT shooter, but I don't think that give me the right to come down on FT shooters without some retribution! This writer was speaking from the heart and did so in generalities at that! I don't think the name calling and assertions helped his argument to be
truthful.
I do happen to believe in a lot of WHAT he said however so really how could I attack those points!
I do NOT believe he did his arguments justice (as I just said) because the tone of his post was dogmatic although appalling might be a judgement call here!
He is saying (or trying to say) that a lot of people who are counted wise (in their own eyes) are seen as foolish in God's eyes (because of their actions). That is what the Bible teaches. Am I to take the guy to task for that? Hardly!
Should I have taken him to task for being so dogmatic? Perhaps I SHOULD have said something in the spirit of consistency! Conversely, perhaps you could have looked a bit harder to see what was sticking in my craw about Joe's post? I believe that there was plenty to see (from my
vantage point). But truthfully speaking, it is harder to be objective (being human as we are) with those who are in agreement with us.
In summary, I defend the guy's right to say what he did (quoting the Bible might be out of fashion these days but hardly a crime either). On the other hand, he missed the mark by using the buzz-word monkeys. If he is going to paraphrase the Bible, he should have done so more accurately (?fools? is the word the good book used) and he should have told more or the Word.
In that way, his message wouldn't have been condemning but edifying. If he done that (and that book is full of verses he could have used in CONJUNCTION with the ones he paraphrased) his message would have been much better received because the tone would have been a lot different and the testier things he said would have been given a more broad (and less condemning) context which I believe would have made a world of difference.
But Peter, let's face it, the guy (a human like all of us) was fed up and aggravated and in that frame of mind left some things out that should have been added and put a couple of things in there in ways that weren't even in the best interest of his position.
Me? I should have said something more in this case. But as you said Peter earlier in reference to Joe with me, I don't think ole Tom dislikes you?
Now, since I've gotten my guilt out and confessed my shortcoming in all of this? Is there any
confession you might possibly add regarding the other post? Could you have (in ANY way) have been more objective yourself? Come on Peter, there's plenty of room in the confession booth! ROFL!
Repentantly,
Mike
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 26, 2000 at 04:35:56:
"Is there any confession you might possibly add?" Yep, but it would surprise you. I was rather impartial to the "other" post (Joe's), but not entirely to this one (Tom's), which is why I chose not to address it---caution got the better of me.
Why am I partial to Tom's post? Because I do believe there is a God (whichever name you want to stick on it is ok in my book), and because I find it simply appalling how some people deal with that. I will not say any more about this subject, because I find that as soon as I try to phrase is, the statements that come out are filled with angry quality judgements.
I think Tom dislikes my following my conscience rather than Tom's word. In other words many of us do "just what we like", which is a VERY dangerous way of saying that even people who, in his eyes, are non-believers, can follow their own conscience. In my opinion, the fact that we have a
conscience is living proof of the existence of a larger entity. It's his gift to us, and we should wield it wisely rather than listen to dogmas of others, for when judgement day comes, we will have to account for our lives ourselves.
But he REALLY hits the wrong buttons when he starts to make explicit value statements like "An example of your stupidity is that you worry about ..." That is not done in my book. If someone justifies such dogmatic behavior by calling upon God, well...before having to get in that booth
and confess my guilt about becoming very angry about such abuse, I rest my case here. I'm in a good mood, about to pick up my new rifles, set up some targets, and fire away, and I won't let anyone spoil it.
peter
Posted by mike pearson on February 26, 2000 at 08:09:36:
Peter,
I asked you that question not entirely to be annoying (my wife says that I am uniquely talented in that department) but because in some crazy way I trusted YOUR character! A lot of people wouldn't have answered that question with sincerity and honesty. It would have been easy to blow
the whole thing off. I counted on your honesty and sincerity to come through and it did. You didn't blow the question off at all. You were not glib or flip either; you were honest and sincere. Meant a lot.
Now go out there and have a GREAT day shooting! (Nevertheless, I'm rooting for Janny and you can tell her I said so! LOL!)-----
Take Care,
Mike
Posted by Michael A. 13:44:06 2/25/00
After reading most of the posts/replies, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I feel like a murderer. But, as I am typing this, I keep looking out the window to see if any Starlings are at the feeders. "Go figure"!
My thoughts from the top of Maslow's dung heap
Michael A.
Prof Hoff: Did you get into airguns because you thought this would be a
less violent crowd? Michael A 16:50:34 2/25/00
Posted by Snake on February 25, 2000 at 14:33:25:
Best part about being a human is the thinking. It's also the worst. Thanks Prof Hoff for the stimulating topic. Thanks to the posters for the participation. Who doesn't like to think? We need more thinking and less entertainment, me thinks.
Now I must go strangle a rat
sssssssssssSnake
Posted by Jerry Rhodes on February 25, 2000 at 18:21:06:
Snake,
You are right when you said that the "Best part about being a human is the thinking". Even so sometimes I wish I was a fisherman instead of a human.
Jerry
This is to " deep " for me. Posted by RGunn on February 25, 2000 at 13:51:41:
Posted by Michael A on February 25, 2000 at 13:44:06:
Right on Prof! I can't kill "for fun" or just because "it's a crow" etc. I have had to dig deep to try and find philosophical justification to do in the squirrels that are wrecking havoc on my trees and
property. My justification is that they are causing extreme damage to the natural flora and
environment.
I've often wondered what if we were visited by aliens with a billion year or so jump start on us who then decided to "take us out" carte blanche "because we are human" and, as we all seem to agree,
"destruction is just in our blood" and we were guilty of wreaking havoc in our little end of the cosmos ("The Day the Earth Stood Still"?.
I feel that given our evolution and time in space we are fortunate to have the luxury to visit such thoughts, and the best one can hope is to die of natural causes. So where do you live, with your genes and hormones, or with your philosophy, which may be impossible given your environment
and circumstances?
Zen story:
"One day, the governor Lu-hsuan, asked Nan-ch'uan the following question: "A man once raised a goose in a bottle, watching it grow until he realized it had grown too large to pass through the bottle's neck. Since he did not want to kill the goose, or break the bottle, how would
he get it out?"
Nan-ch'uan began quietly, "My esteemed governor," then he roared, "THE GOOSE IS OUT!"
It is said that Lu-hsuan was enlightened on the spot.
Party on, Waynes.
Posted by Shakespear on February 25, 2000 at 13:11:51:
" to kill or not to kill that is the question " How else can we say it? We'll it's just a fact of life, and human nature in itself. In one instance, we destroy things, and in the other we brought life to things.
The world is coming to an end, moral degradation genocide, ethnic cleansing, pollution, toxic
wastes, nuclear wastes lying beneath the oceans, global warming, species extinction, rainforest, diminishing returns on the world's fish population, and just one more shot before they all go away.
One more cheap moment of thrill for humanity's primordial instinct. What?s a person to do?
Re: the difference between Kill and murder is simple. jr99 23:02:17 2/24/00
True, as I have tried to explain about the commandment. (Thou shall not MURDER..is the literal meaning) raymond s pyke 23:35:59 2/25/00
Posted by Cole on February 25, 2000 at 16:05:53:
I call MY urge to kill......(un)natural selection. If they happen to be within range(and obviously, they'd be rather unlucky...), and if there is a group of them, I pick out one of them, and kill it. The rest fly away to be killed another day. The unlucky ones die, the ones that
aren't careful die, the slow ones die, the noisy ones die...etc. etc.
It's mainly the ones that get my attention. Unless I'm hunting, then it's just whatever I happen to see...which is the same thing I just said I guess..."It's mainly the ones that get my attention.
Cole
Posted by jitoe on February 25, 2000 at 08:50:46:
Someone contributed in another forum or other "...the unexamined life is not worth living..." I
believe the 'what's' and 'how's' are easy, just shadows in the park. The darkness is in the 'why' of things.
The master Carl Jung had this 'urge to kill' target in his sights with his symbols perspective. Inexplicable action may almost always be the realization of subconscious drumbeats. Take
professional sports: Why should a city tax itself a billion dollars to house a sports team, when its roads and schools are in shambles? Jung might say the sports team is the city's symbolic warrior caste, fixed to do battle with neighboring 'villages'. Our symbolic survival is tied to their success. When group survival is at stake, nothing is too good or too unreasonable.
What may make us different than all the other creatures that have preceded us is that we can recognize why we do things if we try. If the agony and terror of a mangled songbird dying alone is pointless in the overall picture, we can choose not to be the part of it.
If we still need to respond to the call of the drums, we can symbolically reply---by field target shooting, or in an even more disconnected state---target shooting. Someone here said the difference between killing and murder is easy. No. If that were true, murder trials would not go on for months; murder would not be the meat and potatoes of film and literature. And the
responders to this topic would not bother to respond.
Posted by Mike Pearson on February 25, 2000 at 09:13:47:
The problem with labeling things symbolic this and symbolic that is that it tends to blur symbolic with real! The urge to hunt may be primal, but it's very real!
Why should we disconnect because now in this current time someone else feels somehow uncomfortable with our primal urge. As it is people disconnect everyday from the primal urge to hunt and also the primal urge for conquest. What do you suppose it is when a businessman makes
another deal or a huge conglomerate takes over another company. Heck, a man's desire to make a conquest of a beautiful woman?
We have problems keeping our poor fed in certain places in this country, let alone around the world and you're talking about some mangled bird in the forest! Give me a break! You wouldn't have a
problem with a four legged predator taking that bird now would you?
I was raised on the farm and saw a lot of killing through those years. Not once did I have an urge to go out and kill a human being. I was taught to revere wildlife and that death was every bit a nature as life! Disconnect? No, I don't think that's for me! I want to become even MORE a part of nature, not disconnect FROM it!
And another thing, Carl Jung may be YOUR master but he sure as heck is NOT mine!!!-------
Mike
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 25, 2000 at 09:39:22:
Mike,
I think you miss the point.
At some stage (as was well put in jitoe's message) it may happen that one has the opportunity to step aside for a moment, take a scrutinizing look at his primal urge, and then CHOOSE whether he will 'disconnect' from it or not. Superficially, you may have a point, but it evaporates once the "beautiful woman" I may desire to "conquest" happens to be your wife. A pathetic example, I know, but still a working one.
Just my 0,02...
Posted by mike pearson on February 25, 2000 at 14:26:29:
Peter,
Maybe I was a bit rough with the guy. Maybe I should re-read his post. As I saw it, his post contained a little more than a self-examination. His post, if I got it right, contained some judgement in it too and that is one thing (if I am indeed right) I won't tolerate!
I have posed the same questions to myself in the past (as hard as this may be for some to believe) and I came to believe that I am a part of nature (a much higher part than the birds, animals and fishes to be sure) and so, it is only natural for me to have the desire to hunt. It is a part of me and I don't go into guilt and remorse over the fact that this is a part of my in-born makeup.
I have killed many, many animals and birds through the years and never, ever have I felt pride in the fact that I took their lives. Pride in a good hunt well-executed? Yes! Pride and satisfaction in a shot well made? Yes! A deep, indescribable feeling of rightness that I provided
food for the table or got rid of some pest in the same way my forefathers did? Yes!
I almost put down guns one time. I was in my late teens and my brother's dog was hit by a car. She was too far gone for a vet and we didn't have the money in any case so I gave the dog an instant merciful end! I ran to my bedroom and tried to hold back my tears. I couldn't (am having a hard time typing this now)! It was as if the tears came from some place within that I never knew existed!
About a half hour later, my brother came in and said, ?Mike, thanks for taking care of Lady for me. I couldn't do it!? Well I swore off guns and hunting right then and there. I don't know how long that lasted, maybe a day? I think my brother's coming in and putting things in perspective helped me.
I am a hunter who happens to be a passionate airgunner instead of the other way around. I have killed many critters in my life. Still, I have never to my recollection ever desired to kill a single person (and I've been angry with people like anyone else). I am gentle with children, have a deep respect (almost an awe) for senior citizens and am gentle with dogs, cats and other domestic animals.
Point is, I have examined my life and I find it far from wanting and as you well know Peter, I can be a friend to those who for their own reasons don't feel my love (even need) for hunting. I respect them for where they're at and I leave it at that!
Seems to me that a person would be so much better getting a job in a slaughter house if killing was their main desire. For me, I have had many great hunts where I bagged nothing! Being out in the woods in the fresh air WITH my gun and going after a worthy prize!
Looking back over MY life, mine would have been a barren existence without those memories. Perhaps I could have taken up some other passion (and I do have other completely NON-related passions that would probably surprise you) but I chose hunting (or perhaps because of my fortunate childhood, hunting chose me) and I would NOT take any amount of money in the world for those memories!
I share this much Peter only because I know you well enough to know I can! The other poster came off differently to me, and to him I would say that perhaps HE needs to examine HIS life and NOT assume anything more about us (because that's the way his tone came off: judgmental,
accusatory and a bit condescending).
One more thing, this is an airgun forum! This is an airgun forum! We talk about all kinds of things
relating to airguns (and a few things not relating to them from time to time). Hunting is a normal, legal, and to a lot of us healthy and wholesome, airgun activity. While the poster has the RIGHT to voice self-recriminations and self-guilt regarding hunting, he shouldn't be surprised at all if he runs into plenty of posters who really don't want to read his overly introspective (from mine and others' perspective) and gloomy guilt trips! If he needs to make a change, then let him.
I knew a nationally prominent firearms gun writer who gave up all of his guns (except his son's .22 rim-fire) and he told me over the phone that he only does things that he has a passion for. Now he has several novels out. My friends could NOT believe he gave up his hundreds of
guns. I admit I was stunned too but I figured that was his choice and the quality of his life was more important than any gun. I even kidded him about not getting into airguns (that was the reason he sold his guns). He merely chuckled at this. In his case, he typically shot more guns in a week than most people do in a year so eventually, enough was enough! That was taking inventory of one's life for sure!
For me, I have taken inventory of my life and while I really don't need "a lot" more guns, I sure could use more time and land to use the ones I got-----hunting of course!----
Mike
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 25, 2000 at 18:25:35:
(Maybe I should be on "The Practice". Explanations about the rhetoric tricks I use will be between brackets, so read this in the usual lighthearted tone)
?His post if I got it right contained some judgement in it too and that is one thing (if I am indeed right) I won't tolerate!?
Um, isn't that some sort of judgement in itself?... naah, but seriously: I read only an evaluation, on the basis of personal beliefs, of what jitoe finds questionable. I don't know about your country, but where I am, anyone is entitled to make, and voice, such evaluations. (mind you: I DO know about your country... the reason why I said I don't know was entirely of a rhetoric nature... presenting myself as impartial)
?It is a part of me and I don't go into guilt and remorse over the fact that this is a part of my in-born makeup.?
Purely philosophically: If we take that statement as it stands, a serial killer or a pedophile could make the same statement. (MIND YOU: this does not put you or any other hunter at the same level,
and it is an overcharged comparison and would work well before a jury, BUT it does show that such a statement doesn't serve as justification. It may, however, serve as an explanation, but it doesn't tell us anything useful about Right or Wrong.)
But this is all beside the point.
The real point is: without getting personal, it is very well possible to openly evaluate the things our conscience tells us. Not only that, but I also respect it when someone does that, even if I don't agree with him or her.
It would have been another matter if jitoe would have stood up and said "Mike, you are a killer, and that is a bad thing". He didn't. Therefore, members of the Jury, I would ask you to think of our
unamended Constitution before you speak a verdict on this man.
peter
Posted by mike pearson on February 25, 2000 at 19:02:56:
Peter! Peter! Peter! Once again you remind me why I missed your presence on this forum! First of all, the serial murder comparison would NOT hold up well in court (you said it would but I suspect that you meant it wouldn't).
I said what I said and I meant what I said for better or worse. I also shared with you (all) a part of my adolescence that was painful. I shared it because it was an actual account of a possible turning point of my life.
Joe didn't present his case as just intellectual philosophizing as I saw it. He made some pretty stiff value judgements. Sure I could have "taken it" but really, why should I? I'm not a mean, cold hearted killer and Joe's earlier posts painted hunters as such. He was pretty direct in it. At that point, I thought he went over the line. I also was annoyed at his presupposition that Carl Jung was the master! Give me a break! A master of what?
Peter, you know me well enough that I could care less whether a person is a hunter or not. I could care less whether they find hunting distasteful! If everything else is in line, that person and I can still
be friends. But when a person makes value judgements about hunting and then paints me with the same brush as he paints himself in his self-recrimination and self-guilt, then I draw a line (at his statements relative to including me and other hunters) not his beliefs in and of themselves.
He could have allowed as to how others believe differently on this topic and shown respect on the subject but I didn't see that kind of humility (or respect) from his Jungian statements! Seemed to me
that he and Mr. Jung had this thing all wrapped up in a neatly tied ribbon!
Oh yeah, the serial murderer has to still pay the consequences for his actions. I have thought about my life as a hunter and the consequences of my actions have been blessed ones so naturally, I AM a hunter! That's what I was saying and I think most people knew that. I sleep
very well at night (when my aching back isn't acting up!)
One question Peter, which one of us was found innocent by the jury??? I wasn't sure who was on trial here! Were you ARTFULLY using ambiguity again! ROFL! heh,heh!
Seriously, I don't bear the poster any ill will! I really don't! He MOST DEFINITELY has the right to speak his mind (which he did) and I support his right to do so. I also have the right to say what's on my mind which I did!
Thanks For the Thought Provoking Post,
Mike
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 25, 2000 at 19:17:20:
For starters, Carl Jung WAS a master---of philosophy. There is no debating that. Debating that would be like debating whether William Shakespeare was a master of literature or not. Carl Jung has outlined, as well as defined, a couple of concepts on which our philosophical
building is currently resting.
The case he builds is that Jung defines where some of our primal "instincts" and the group behavior he's talking about may come from, and when scrutinizing these statements, I find them
inconclusive, but also in essence hard to deny.
But, although worth outlining, that is again beside the point.
The point is: was he making value judgements or not? I think he was, but the statement that explicitly shows that he's speaking his own mind rather than judge yours is that he outlines that we have a choice...and then he doesn't proceed outlining what your choice should be. And even
if you would choose another path than he does, I don't think he'll dislike you for it.
That's philosophy for you.
cheers,
peter
Posted by mike pearson on February 25, 2000 at 19:39:17:
I don't dislike him personally either! I don't know him well enough for that!
You are a tough debater Peter (I grudgingly admit that! Grudgingly darnit!) I know (I just know mind you) that there are a couple of issues I could debate even further (and downright successfully too I might add) on a couple of points BUT you?ll reduce it to some hair-splitting if I do AND while the mind and spirit (I've got some pit-bull in me still chomping at the bit) are more than
willing, the (middle-aged) body says to retire from this battlefield (in full honors mind you) and live to fight again another day!!! LOL!
I hope you too caught the light spirit parts of my posts! Actually, it's too bad the poster (Joe?) and I couldn't get together and talk face to face. I'm sure we'd come away with more respect for each other. As for Carl Jung, I'll give him this much; his teachings have provided modern therapists more ammo to deal successfully with mental maladies than Freud ever did even though psycho-analysis was so in vogue in the psychiatric community for decades.
Actually, as far as that goes, I believe that William Glasser and Albert Ellis provided more that was of use to modern therapists than Freud, Rogers and Jung put together but now I am speaking purely from opinion and offer it as such.
So while I stand corrected on the master part (to a point), the poster simply left it at master. Peter, I think you are a master at writing. I sincerely mean that BUT I wouldn't introduce you as simply the master.
You see what I mean?
I promised to not go into it anymore and I did just that! Forgive me forum! I didn't mean to let the pit-bull out even a little bit but he managed to get out (a little) anyways! LOL!
With Respect As Always (and that's to Joe too),
Mike
Posted by Harvey on February 25, 2000 at 21:24:42:
Hello, you don't know me but I think this needs to be said. You guys are (and many others on the forum) an incredible wealth to those of us who take the time to read your thoughts. I don't know Jung, but I know Hume, Kant, some Rawles, and a little Wittgenstein. I guess the subject
of whether to hunt or not, is as basic as our need to understand our origin.
P.S. Do you think gun enthusiasts have any tendency to believe in a God/Deity or not? Please
answer the way you guys just did (ooh I hope your viewpoints aren't the same....
Harvey
Re: Harvey, I know I do! mike pearson 00:16:17 2/26/00 (0)
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 26, 2000 at 04:54:22:
Harvey,
Yes, I believe that there is a larger entity---call it God. Yet again, I think I'm too stupid to have any idea what it is. The fact that there is apparently a plan working here (evolution) is a
proof of the fact that there's something going on other than sheer chance. There are many great scientists that believe there is a larger entity than just us.
Nature (and what we know from it as collected in the natural sciences) is the manifestation that we get to see from it. We look in awe, and we are gifted by that same entity with cognitive abilities, as well as with a conscience. Without that conscience, we wouldn't know the difference between Right and Wrong, so maybe, just maybe, this conscience thing is a manifestation of our awareness of the existence of our Maker.
Acknowledging my stupidity, I do not conform myself to some formal organization that exists on the basis of thinking that it knows what God is like or pretending to know what He wants. Therefore, I am not a Christian in the formal sense of the word. I do see a lot of similarities and appealing viewpoints in other religions as well.
But as to my own beliefs: I'm a human being, I try to live by my conscience as much as I can, and I stand in awe of what I see, without understanding the Master Scheme.
Jung, by the way, was a pupil of Freud who lifted the psychoanalytic theories of his master (which have held for a surprisingly long time) to a philosophical level, thereby providing the
relatively young science of psychology with some foundation. He wasn't a philosopher per se, but as such he was capable of overseeing the consequences of what he had learnt and discovered, even if it surpassed the boundaries of what formally was his "playground".
cheers,
peter
Posted by Jerry Rhodes on February 25, 2000 at 22:41:54:
How presumptuous us humans be..................
Harvey,
I am constantly amazed at how folks can actually claim to know what God thinks or what big plan God has. The world must be cram packed with people that are FAR more intelligent
than I am to be able to claim that they understand God.
To put things in proper perspective, from where I stand. Any earthworm is far more likely to graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard than I am able to form the first glimmer of understanding of "God". Recognizing my ignorance I fall back on my environment. I am a product of that environment and feel that my main duty is to treat other folks with the respect they are due and expect the same from them.
I think it is called ethics. I have developed an ethic for myself that for all intents and purposes has been handed down to me from before Moses' time. It is a good system and if we all more or less stick to the basic concepts we will be able to deal with each other in a
predictable way.
Some people need the threat of hell fire and damnation to make them toe the line. I depend on my long dead grandmothers. I try each day to please them. Sometimes I do pretty well and at other times I'm dismally short.
Jerry
It wuz a cold Feb 2000 day. I strolled on over ta the old Airgunletter forum when lo 'n behold Prof Hoff started everone ta thinkin' like he usually did. I hope ya aint to bored with it. I done jest a bit a editin'. If ya caint go outside, mebbe this will help ya pass the time.
Urge To Kill Posted by Prof Hoff on February 24, 2000 at 22:13:00:
Is the urge to kill so overpowering in some that they would take the life of any creature that became unlucky enough to wander into range?
Alas, I wonder about the machinations of a mature mind that would act to terminate a bird or animal just because it was there. Some would justify our role as nature's Terminator for a variety of
reasons -- pest control, ridding our environment of disease-carrying varmints like the rat, protection of real property because some woodpecker or squirrel may have taken a fancy to the siding on our
house...the list goes on and on. Still, for whatever the reason, some killing appears to be just plain mean and stupid. We ought to have the courage to say as much.
Indeed, we may all have committed such acts of careless brutality when we were young. The first bird I ever killed with my brand new Crossman pumper was a chickadee that died in the snow just because it was the first live target this ignorant kid saw when he went afield on a bright
Christmas morning more than a half century ago. Then and now, I felt ashamed and shocked by my own stupidity. Even now, the depth of my feelings and remorse for the witless exuberance of youth is intensified because, in those days, I had no mentor who would help me understand the
responsibilities of a real hunter.
Perhaps some veterans among those who love air gunning could chime in with their views on this philosophical issue. As exemplars, we can do much to assist the young folk who gather in the Airgun Letter Forum that they may be transformed from Huns to hunters.
Please understand, I am not a bleeding heart animal-rights activist. Many hundreds of squirrels and bunnies have fallen under my cross-hairs--thence to be delivered into our stew-pot.
And, yes, I do shoot starlings. Still, I continue to seek a perspective on why wanton killing is so accepted by some who hunt. For example, why does Mr. (Slowpoke) Possum or Mr. (Dutiful) Honeybee deserve to be shot just because they may have presented themselves as a convenient target. Can it be that, in the hustle of daily life, we are turning inward and
angry -- and in the doing thereof we are losing our appreciation of life's fragile grandeur.
I realize that this topic has been dealt with before on the AGLF, and I have no wish to cause tempers to flare. That having been said, I remain unable to understand why one would wish to kill a creature that was doing no real harm.
Please educate me. I'm listening. Let the flames begin.
Regards,
Prof Hoff
Rather profound. Well put... Penn 22:17:48 2/24/00
Posted by Steve in CT on February 24, 2000 at 22:23:02:
Prof Hoff
I would debate this point with you but I have too many things going on in my life. I just don't have the time or energy to waste as to why I shot the stupid Crow this morning. He just happened to be at the wrong place and the wrong time. (Wrong for him that is). I don't know why,
neither do I care to find out. When that pellet makes the noise you know it hit, it is just heavenly. Why does someone gets a kick out of scoring in bowling? Who the hell cares? Just have a good time doing something legal.
With the utmost respect,
Steve in the nutmeg state.
Posted by jr99 on February 24, 2000 at 22:24:54:
WAR??? religious, economic, territory, ego, diet, deficiency.
Aloha john
Posted by Swinson on February 24, 2000 at 22:25:37:
When I was in high school I used to shoot "anything". My anything was limited to wild animals but I would think nothing of baiting grackles and starlings in the winter and shooting as many as possible. We used to hunt squirrels to near extinction in the local park, and would use night
vision and "chopped and shopped" Ruger 10/22's to take more rabbits than you can count (this after killing dozens of rabbits with various airguns).
As I got into college I never hunted, the desire to hunt went the way of my awkward and raging hormones that came with puberty. Now I hunt rats at night with some "skill and precision." Sometimes I'll go overboard on a pigeon hunt or two, but most of my hunts are now "justifiable"
ones. Truth of fact is I enjoy dropping those field targets just as much if not more. If I can drop one out at 100 yards I'm really ecstatic. It gives me much more satisfaction.
Regards,
Craig
Posted by CraigVM on February 24, 2000 at 23:10:02:
Well, I could go with the "Deprived Childhood" angle or perhaps my mother drank during her pregnancy with me. Nope, I think I like the "too much violence on prime time TV" excuse. Then again I own a Playstation and do listen to an occasional RAP song. Oh I don't know...maybe it is
just that a paper target doesn't have the ability to run or fly away.
All I know is that I will never go with the "I only shoot things I eat" theme as long as I own a fly swatter!
Posted by Nayrb on February 24, 2000 at 22:41:06:
Prof Hoff:
It is understandable from your letter that you have been haunted for years about your "stupid action." You did this because it was something that you needed to do to learn, and you did. True, pests can not be tolerated but does not necessarily mean they must be terminated. Game
meat must not be left to spoil. Whatever one destroys (providing it is edible) should be consumed or consumed at a later time. I have eaten many small birds (mainly sparrows) black birds are not too tasty.
Protected birds speak for themself. Forget about that bird you shot! If you didn't shoot it then it probably would have been ripped apart by a hawk, or hit by a car, or caught by a cat.
Posted by Ray on February 24, 2000 at 22:56:44:
My first few kills in my teens and I realized killing was wrong. I did not know why, but my conscience told me no. I sold my guns and never looked back. Today, at 43, I am pro-second amendment, and love to shoot airguns. Will probably move to fire arms as my kids mature. I
have no desire to kill.
A few days ago, while looking through my Banner 4-12, I spotted a chubby squirrel. My first thought was to shoot him. Why did I not do this? Because it was wrong. I am now mature enough to not have to act on any hair brained idea that pops into my head.
As a Christian, I believe the reason I had that thought that to kill was a thing called sin. I would not hesitate to kill for food, protect person or property. But to kill for "sport" is evil, in my opinion. It is the willful destruction of life, and life is sacred, even animal life.
Don't know if this furthers the discussion, but that's my take.
Thanks for asking.
Posted by RBest on February 24, 2000 at 23:03:35:
RH:
I must say that as I get older, the urge to hunt (for me at least) has decreased. I still take an
occasional squirrel when the population is high--as it has been the last couple years. Crows, for some strange reason, are automatic targets for me. Just seeing one of those noisy bullies makes my trigger finger itch.
I rarely even consider any other birds, including starlings. Some of this may be traceable to a grievous error I made a long time ago. I was out looking for crows one morning with a buddy of mine, when I spied a large dark bird landing in a tree. He was hidden behind some
leaves, and I had a peep sighted 22 with me. I fired the shot then ran over to claim my prize only to discover that it was a hawk! I felt terrible, and kicked myself for weeks over that mistake.
I soon went out and bought a scope for that gun, but wound up not hunting at all for almost 3 years. Several years later I resumed hunting, but mainly went for deer. Even that faded about 10 years ago when I had the misfortune to go hunting with a bunch of jerks. I got so turned off by the whole
event that I stopped for several more years. I would now have to say that 98% of my shooting is at inanimate objects now. 'Cept for them damn crows! Don't ask me why.
Russ
AMEN on the Crows!! Ray 23:33:16 2/25/00
Posted by Tom on February 25, 2000 at 08:06:44:
See Russ, just as in my earlier posting, the phrase, ?as I get older? keeps popping up in relation to the urge to kill. It's got to have something to do with reduced testosterone levels. No wild beast is as
joyfully bloodthirsty as a teenaged male of our species. I even practice catch and release fishing at this stage.
When a teenager, anything that sat still for a moment or took my hook was at risk and my conscience bothered me not one whit, indeed I rejoiced in my domination. I was empowered and exalted, to be brutally honest. Do you suppose we all become closet Hindus as we age? Or is wisdom indeed, the province of age and experience?
Posted by RGunn on February 25, 2000 at 14:29:43:
This thing about becoming more conservative as we age has not worked that way for me. I went through that phase when I was in my early thirties. Catch and release, fly fishing (I use to write for Fly Fishing Magazine), bow hunting, because I thought that was the only sporting way to hunt. Don't shoot anything you can't eat, etc. etc.
Now I shoot every (legal) varmint I get my sights on! And I feel no remorse over it. "Go figure".
Simple answer, profound idea.
Posted by Pel-It on February 24, 2000 at 23:24:11:
I spend the better part of 3 months out of the year chasing deer in an assortment of Canadian provinces and take great pride in "connecting" with a 500 yard groundhog with fussed over varmint rifles and loads. I have since discovered the much loved adult airgun that enables me to do
most of my varmint hunting right out my back door with little disturbance to those who are not as agreeable to the sport but every once and a while the question, "Why do you kill?" is put forth and my reasoning is as follows:
If you'll allow me to use sex as a parallel, ask yourself why we as humans are drawn to it. Not because it feels good, but rather without it, we as humans wouldn't be as strong a race thus making it a survival instinct. The same can be said for killing. As omnivores, we were born, built and driven just like all the other meat eating animals out there to kill and eat weaker prey.
Now back to the sex thing. How does the human body provoke procreation? Make the act mentally appealing and so goes for why we kill. It's simply the fulfillment of an ancestral instinct.
Posted by Snake on February 24, 2000 at 23:46:56:
Nice shot. I think you nailed it with that one. We ARE predators. ssssssssSnake
Posted by Phillip Reedy on February 25, 2000 at 08:01:27:
Hello Snake,
I would certainly agree with your statement---our non-human ancestors were more scavengers that barely got by. It was the development of predatory skills that allowed them a better food supply, and thus set them off on a long road of evolution that ended with us.
Yes, there are both good and bad things about our nature, but you can't discount something that was part of several million years of evolution.
Have fun,
Phil Reedy
Posted by Pavel Podvoiski on February 24, 2000 at 23:42:06:
Well, when I was young I did my part on frogs. Now...I just not enjoy killing anymore. I ?know? I can. Human mind is very flexible thing. It can rationalize anything. "Humane kill" is just another rule of the game. Wanna challenging shot?---shoot paintballs at 100 yards!
You have to admit, you kill because you ?can?. Nothing wrong with it, though....how can you kill rats? They are brilliant animals, their merits in science are enormous, their will to survive is second to none. 20,000,000 years from now, their descendants will dance on your bones
Posted by Snake on February 24, 2000 at 23:49:30:
That little dirty rat bastard gets the last laugh. ehh, ya win some ya
lose some
sssssssSnake
Posted by RBest on February 24, 2000 at 23:59:33:
heh heh- I always thought there was a typo or two in the bible. When
they say "The meek shall inherit the earth", they must have meant 'squeak'.
RB
Posted by R Jagielski on February 24, 2000 at 23:44:33:
Bottom line is because of a lot of different reasons. I kill because on a weird level I enjoy the
challenge of trying to hit a living, breathing, somewhat thinking object. Maybe that comes from my primal man past. I don't know. Maybe I'm a sinner. Someone who cannot do good when it comes to innocent creatures and my airgun. I don't think that's it. I think I kill because it satisfies an urge to destroy so that we as humans can feel like we are in control. By killing I'm creating a stable environment in which I believe I now control. If I can get a grip on that one thing that makes me think that I'm in control, whether it be my job, relationship, finance or poor little joe squirrel then I'm a happy camper. It sounds way out, but maybe our need to kill is what keeps some of us rational in other areas.
Just a thought.
Regards,
R. Jagielski
Posted by Jeb on February 25, 2000 at 00:45:17:
I hunt, I target practice. Every time I kill something with my rifle, which has been many times, I feel a twinge of guilt or regret, whatever you want to call it. My question or statement is, why? When I place the ant stake in the ground by the door or spray a nest of paperwasps with a high power hose, I feel nothing but anticipation of elimination and satisfaction. Why? They are all creatures of the earth, and the urge to control, destroy, consume, is overwhelming.
It is all part of the mystery and rationalization of life. I had a girlfriend once, she would not eat a duck because she said it was too cute, yet she ate chickens like they were going out of style.
That way of thinking is wrong! Killing is killing, termite, chicken, duck, crow, fly, etc. Eat it or not, man has always killed and always will. We may as well accept it.
Just a thought.
Jeb
Posted by Kathy on February 25, 2000 at 00:49:49:
I have no ?flames? for you sir; it would be foolish and vulgar of me to do so. Your post states your thoughts eloquently.
Your post has also rekindled my pathos, for I fall well within your ?nature?s terminator? definition. Please recall, if you have read any of the chapters, my inner struggle to eliminate or leave alone the
squirrel ?pests? in my backyard from my bird feeders. Although I portrayed that decision process in a few sentences, it was, in fact, and arduous and soul-searching ordeal. It is not my intent to kill every squirrel in my backyard and beyond, only those that are persistent enough to get past my previously applied physical barriers. Is this protection of ?property?? Perhaps. Is it selfish of me to do so because it interferes with my hobby? Again, perhaps.
For the sake of argument, allow me to pose a corollary. You are an avid gardener and you have a fine example of one in your back yard. This garden is your hobby and you enjoy the fruits of your labor, literally. Could you self-justify and rationalize setting mole traps? I, for one, have no problems with this. To augment this corollary I further submit the case of the farmer versus the crows, whereas the farmer takes deliberate steps to kill the birds. Again, I have no problem with this
solution set.
While I freely admit that I have deliberately modified the habitat for the birds within my backyard, I did not premeditate luring squirrels with the bird feed for the sake of sport. That effect was totally
serendipitous. Note that a garden or a field of corn would exhibit the same coincidental effect, attracting a different species of course.
I can only assume that the gray, and self-defined, lines that separate the quadrants of protection of property, protection of persons, sport and wanton killing will be debated long after we have departed this earth. Although you close your post with an ?Educate me? request, I am barren of the knowledge you seek. In fact, from my comprehension of your post you are far from ignorant on the issues you raise. You admit to ?still shoot[ing] starlings ? why? Perhaps if you seek an answer to
that question you will be closer to your quest for enlightenment.
Thank you sir for the opportunity to respond to such a thought provoking post.
Kathy
Posted by Tom on February 25, 2000 at 07:38:06:
Kathy,
You just get better and better. I knew there had to be a fine mind behind the lines of your story and you have betrayed it with this posting. All of us have to deal with our individual manifestation of
the reptilian portion of our consciousness. How we deal with it reveals a great deal about the person. Frankly, I suspect Prof Hoff must be a great person to be around.
On a lighter, but no less serious note, I am fairly certain at this stage in my life that the thirst for blood is tied pretty directly to testosterone levels. While I will certainly kill to eat (squirrel is
still my favorite thing), I no longer take joy from the act itself. I noticed no one has yet taken refuge in the Biblical lines concerning ?dominion over the beasts and birds,? nor shall I.
Cheers,
Tom @ Buzzard Bluff
Posted by Forbin on February 25, 2000 at 02:26:21:
Prof Hoff,
I think you already know, or at least have your own thoughts as to the answer to this question. But since you have opened this can of worms, here goes.
We and our ancestors have one thing in common. The need to conquer our environment. The more power and control we have over our surroundings, the greater the chances for succession, and therefore, the continuation of ourselves (immediate) and our species (future).
There are many examples of this "instinct" in nature and in history. However, the difference between nature and humans is our ability to override instinct with reasoning, and therefore, Choice.
This is the point at which we oftentimes fail miserably. We automatically yield to that part of us which needs the gratification of power and control, which in turn gives the feeling of strength and
continued survival at a "primal" level of consciousness.
You mentioned "the machinations of a mature mind". Mature in what area? Obviously, you have discovered through experience and training of your own mind that "urges" do not have to be acted upon.
When and how did you discover that you could control your urges? Experience and reasoning, you questioned your own motives for what you were about to do in a given circumstance. It is indeed a mature mind that consistently overrides an urge with a choice. So to finish answering your question, those who indiscriminately kill anything in their path have not learned what you have already displayed by even posing the question to start with...discipline and discernment.
No doubt this is a debate that could rage on and on. And I have purposely avoided certain aspects of it in this post. There will probably be enough misunderstandings of what I've already said.
Oh well, just my two farthings.
Forbin.
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 25, 2000 at 02:59:41:
The course of nature versus philosophy...The painful truth is: if, for a moment, we stick to what we know, there was no such thing as moral justification before man invented it--or was taught it by his Creator, whichever line you want to stick to.
Fairness and what's "right" are not values that are inherently present in nature--we merely invented
them in order to be able to deal with what happens when the excrement is about to hit the fan. We call that "conscience", and as a means of deciding what to do and what not to do, it's probably the best we have.
For reasons of moral justification, I'd love to say that in nature, all creatures have a conscience, and kill only for food or survival. I believed that until I was 14, and witnessed seagulls apparently
senselessly attacking a half-drowned rabbit on the beach that they were not going to eat in the first place. Pigeons are reported to be another example of senseless cruelty.
Having said that, we've got only one object to cling to and that is our own conscience and what we believe is fair and right. If we stick to that, we may not always be entirely "right", but at least we won't be terribly wrong.
It's one of my pet theories that, if here is a God, all our individual consciences thrown on a pile is the most tangible manifestation of Him (or Her, what do we know). But I need to stop here or I will start a terribly irrelevant philosophical rant, whereas I actually need to get some work done.
cheers,
peter
Posted by I BELIVE I KNOW THERE IS A GOD on February 25, 2000 at 05:19:09:
YOU STATED IF THERE IS A GOD, THERE IS A GOD AND WERE ALL LIVING PROOF.
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 25, 2000 at 06:05:39:
Dear anonymous poster,
What my beliefs are is irrelevant in this matter, and I am not willing to bother anyone with it unless so asked. However, the philosophy I tried to outline applies regardless of your beliefs; even those who don't believe there (I suspect that you meant to type "there" instead of "their") is a God, should still answer to their conscience. That is what I wanted to make clear.
On another note, I'd appreciate if you could unglue your caps lock.
peter
Posted by MR Bulk? on February 25, 2000 at 05:09:57:
I read somewhere that as men age, certain physiological changes occur which, when combined with life experience, transform them back into Human Beings again. They reacquaint themselves with feelings--this might be characterized as, "getting in touch with their feminine side"
--much like those they experienced during the innocent years of toddlerhood.
I remember shooting up all manner of animals when I was a boy, but also recall "justifying" it by reminding myself that these birds were eating up my mother's carefully tended fruit garden, or roosting in the garage rafters and pooping on the family car, etc. Now at age 47, I shoot
almost exclusively at the behest of local land owners who have businesses to protect.
I know that if I take the time to ponder each kill, especially the killing of the more sophisticated mammals higher up in the biological chain, it can get to me. This is something I am not ashamed to admit. And I even remember shooting, in a single night, literally hundreds of
birds that had taken over the open beamed ceilings of huge chicken coops. These birds were raining fecal waste into the hen's feed troughs, hens whose eggs would end up on our breakfast plates
eventually. And yet---and yet...when we went to pick up the bodies, I would find superficially wounded---and sometimes even completely healthy--birds, huddled down on the wet ground next to their dead mates, faithful to the end, watching with dark eyes as our boot heels came
crushing down on their skulls to end it all.
Yes, I still do shoot, and I still do "justify", and I let any feelings I might have pass over me, because on balance there is another entire set of feelings to this, something along the lines of--
"satisfaction", I guess you could call it--satisfaction in the trueness of one's aim, the steadiness of one's hold, the grip, the stance, the breathing--all of it--that provides the satisfaction of accomplishing something not everyone Can or Will do.
When at home I rarely, if ever, "pop" a bulbol or other recognized pest bird species any more, and in fact have allowed a small family of Java rice birds (or peach-faced finches or whatever ya call 'em) to take up residence atop one of the square wood columns that surround my back
patio. But when the farms call, I know they will simply call someone else if I do not go.
And I do enjoy eating eggs.
Posted by Jerry Rhodes on February 25, 2000 at 12:02:11:
Charlie,
Here at age 62 I have noticed the same progression in my attitudes. As a boy I was a born killer. When I was 15 or so I had moved from "shoot everything in sight" to a focused hunter. I would come home from school and get my 101 and go out into a field and spot some bird and
stalk and pursue it until I either killed it or it got too dark to shoot. I would ignore all of the rest of the "targets of opportunity" and concentrate only on my quarry.
Probably all small boys exhibit this trait, and it is good for them to be able to vent on sparrows than to go on to more serious stuff later. I have a book called the "Prairie Traveler" written in 1851 that warns about meeting bands of Indians on the plains and how to deal with them. Of particular danger was a group of 17 to 19 year olds. The author warned that unless there were older males in the bunch you were in for a fight. The young adult males in all cultures are the most dangerous
members of the society. Americans are no different than Cheyenne or Masai.
Must be hormones..........
Jerry
Posted by MR Bulk? on February 25, 2000 at 21:49:47:
Jerry, thanks for the insight. Explains even more stuff to me about myself.
Charlie
Thanks Charlie! mike pearson 09:30:10 2/25/00
My Pleasure...I Feel Better Already! MR Bulk? 22:01:55 2/25/00
Posted by Brian on February 25, 2000 at 06:06:06:
It would seem the only life sacred to humans, as a race or species, is our own. Witness our wanton elimination (extinction) of countless species of wild plants and animals and throughout history the even more challenging question of "ethnic cleansing". That, to me, should be of
even greater concern to us as humans than the hunting of game for food, sport, economic gain, or any purpose.
We hunt and shoot because we can. I do not have a good, moral answer or reason for why humans
deliberately kill other humans to promote their own thought or ideals, in the end then is nothing sacred? It comes back to Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a messed up example of survival of the fittest.
Airgun related? I don't know but this is part of my opinion on the urge to kill (HUNT). For whatever reason I guess we do it because we CAN and from it we gain CONTROL of our own environment and SATISFY our own needs.
This is a debate to which there seems no answer and one which I am unqualified to engage in. I can only give my own thoughts and opinion. It seems as humans we can make justification for our own
actions but not always the actions of others. Philosophy or air gunning or both. Good shooting and thinking to all.
I'm a Vietnam veteran. Believe me, humans DO NOT consider human life sacred. Roy 08:12:55 2/25/00
Posted by John L on February 25, 2000 at 11:46:17:
I believe hunting is a most natural pursuit of the descendants of carnivorous predators. Therefore, what sometimes appears to be wanton killing to some, such as the urge of a young fellow with an airgun to shoot every sparrow or starling he sees, is natures way of having him
practice a skill he no longer really needs to survive, but the need is there, stronger in some than others, and will be answered to.
Posted by Steve L on February 25, 2000 at 12:51:19:
Perhaps we are destined to be alone on this tiny planet.
Posted by Thomas Kean on February 25, 2000 at 12:57:59:
I am a simple man who believes that the Good Lord created us that we might worship him. No other purpose. If you are an atheist then you may do as you like and (to be consistent with this understanding) as long as you can get away with it, it doesn't matter anyway. But when
you die, the Lord will call you to account.
According to your collected wiseacrings life has no purpose other than to sustain another generation. The universe is going to either expand forever or contract to a singularity. If you are a logical atheist you may as well grab as much of life as you can before you die! Shooting a varmint or two is of no consequence since there is no ultimate point to anything anyway. Each creature serves as food for another creature. Death is part of life. It is a fact. You must harmonize with this fact. You cannot escape it.
You intellectuals have wiseacred a theory. You have made the theory a fact. It is very dangerous to mistake fantasy for fact. Organic life is not a brute collection of creatures. It is designed. You start altering the blueprints of such a design without knowing what you are doing, big
problem!
The Good Lord allows us to eat certain animals because he designed them to be food for us. As long as we kill them "humanely" and respect them. We have no problem. It is you intellectuals who create the problems by disobeying the Good Lord?s injunctions and then make jobs for yourself by providing the solution.
You poison us with genetically modified food and then inject us with chemicals to heal us. You
inculcate Satanic teachings to our youngsters through the media so they disrespect themselves, our ladies and society and then say the solution is to ban guns. An example of your stupidity is that you worry about the death of a varmint or two and don?t worry about tampering with genes. God has indeed made you monkeys. But not in the way you think.
Tom
Posted by Mark er on February 25, 2000 at 14:11:29:
So let me get this straight. One can either believe in the "good lord" or be an atheist. What about the other 10,000 religions on this planet?
Posted by mike pearson on February 25, 2000 at 16:16:00:
Mark,
The guy doesn't have to recognize those other 10,000 religions, let alone agree with them. This is how he feels and believes (obviously pretty deeply). We don't have to agree with each word he says but I am sure you would acknowledge that we should at least respect his right to voice those views (even if he didn't acknowledge all the religions of the world) right?
----MP
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 25, 2000 at 18:54:38:
(ho wait... who are you and what have you done to Mike Pearson?) On a more serious note: our co-poster (Tom Keane) in question is not only communicating how he feels, but he is also making explicit judgements about those who do not feel the same way: ?You intellectuals have wiseacred a theory.? You ?have made the theory a fact.?
The poster in question then proceeds to actually put a value on us: ?An example of your stupidity is that you worry about the death of a varmint or two and don?t worry about tampering with genes. God has indeed made you monkeys. But not in the way you think.?
This is the kind of behavior that goes way beyond what I would consider telling us how he feels and believes. Regardless of whether I agree with him or not, I find his reasoning appalling and dogmatic. Mark's question about the "10,000 religions" is but one, and not the
most profound, hole in Tom Keane's reasoning. It amazes me that you've missed that.
Posted by mike pearson on February 25, 2000 at 20:11:38:
No Peter, I didn't miss it! Not at all! And I also didn't agree with it either! I just felt that the poster was ventilating at no one particular person and that his post would reveal in itself any innate
flaws and shortcomings. I stand by his right to speak his mind as long as he is NOT insulting specific people by name or by category.
For example, I'm not an FT shooter, but I don't think that give me the right to come down on FT shooters without some retribution! This writer was speaking from the heart and did so in generalities at that! I don't think the name calling and assertions helped his argument to be
truthful.
I do happen to believe in a lot of WHAT he said however so really how could I attack those points!
I do NOT believe he did his arguments justice (as I just said) because the tone of his post was dogmatic although appalling might be a judgement call here!
He is saying (or trying to say) that a lot of people who are counted wise (in their own eyes) are seen as foolish in God's eyes (because of their actions). That is what the Bible teaches. Am I to take the guy to task for that? Hardly!
Should I have taken him to task for being so dogmatic? Perhaps I SHOULD have said something in the spirit of consistency! Conversely, perhaps you could have looked a bit harder to see what was sticking in my craw about Joe's post? I believe that there was plenty to see (from my
vantage point). But truthfully speaking, it is harder to be objective (being human as we are) with those who are in agreement with us.
In summary, I defend the guy's right to say what he did (quoting the Bible might be out of fashion these days but hardly a crime either). On the other hand, he missed the mark by using the buzz-word monkeys. If he is going to paraphrase the Bible, he should have done so more accurately (?fools? is the word the good book used) and he should have told more or the Word.
In that way, his message wouldn't have been condemning but edifying. If he done that (and that book is full of verses he could have used in CONJUNCTION with the ones he paraphrased) his message would have been much better received because the tone would have been a lot different and the testier things he said would have been given a more broad (and less condemning) context which I believe would have made a world of difference.
But Peter, let's face it, the guy (a human like all of us) was fed up and aggravated and in that frame of mind left some things out that should have been added and put a couple of things in there in ways that weren't even in the best interest of his position.
Me? I should have said something more in this case. But as you said Peter earlier in reference to Joe with me, I don't think ole Tom dislikes you?
Now, since I've gotten my guilt out and confessed my shortcoming in all of this? Is there any
confession you might possibly add regarding the other post? Could you have (in ANY way) have been more objective yourself? Come on Peter, there's plenty of room in the confession booth! ROFL!
Repentantly,
Mike
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 26, 2000 at 04:35:56:
"Is there any confession you might possibly add?" Yep, but it would surprise you. I was rather impartial to the "other" post (Joe's), but not entirely to this one (Tom's), which is why I chose not to address it---caution got the better of me.
Why am I partial to Tom's post? Because I do believe there is a God (whichever name you want to stick on it is ok in my book), and because I find it simply appalling how some people deal with that. I will not say any more about this subject, because I find that as soon as I try to phrase is, the statements that come out are filled with angry quality judgements.
I think Tom dislikes my following my conscience rather than Tom's word. In other words many of us do "just what we like", which is a VERY dangerous way of saying that even people who, in his eyes, are non-believers, can follow their own conscience. In my opinion, the fact that we have a
conscience is living proof of the existence of a larger entity. It's his gift to us, and we should wield it wisely rather than listen to dogmas of others, for when judgement day comes, we will have to account for our lives ourselves.
But he REALLY hits the wrong buttons when he starts to make explicit value statements like "An example of your stupidity is that you worry about ..." That is not done in my book. If someone justifies such dogmatic behavior by calling upon God, well...before having to get in that booth
and confess my guilt about becoming very angry about such abuse, I rest my case here. I'm in a good mood, about to pick up my new rifles, set up some targets, and fire away, and I won't let anyone spoil it.
peter
Posted by mike pearson on February 26, 2000 at 08:09:36:
Peter,
I asked you that question not entirely to be annoying (my wife says that I am uniquely talented in that department) but because in some crazy way I trusted YOUR character! A lot of people wouldn't have answered that question with sincerity and honesty. It would have been easy to blow
the whole thing off. I counted on your honesty and sincerity to come through and it did. You didn't blow the question off at all. You were not glib or flip either; you were honest and sincere. Meant a lot.
Now go out there and have a GREAT day shooting! (Nevertheless, I'm rooting for Janny and you can tell her I said so! LOL!)-----
Take Care,
Mike
Posted by Michael A. 13:44:06 2/25/00
After reading most of the posts/replies, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I feel like a murderer. But, as I am typing this, I keep looking out the window to see if any Starlings are at the feeders. "Go figure"!
My thoughts from the top of Maslow's dung heap
Michael A.
Prof Hoff: Did you get into airguns because you thought this would be a
less violent crowd? Michael A 16:50:34 2/25/00
Posted by Snake on February 25, 2000 at 14:33:25:
Best part about being a human is the thinking. It's also the worst. Thanks Prof Hoff for the stimulating topic. Thanks to the posters for the participation. Who doesn't like to think? We need more thinking and less entertainment, me thinks.
Now I must go strangle a rat
sssssssssssSnake
Posted by Jerry Rhodes on February 25, 2000 at 18:21:06:
Snake,
You are right when you said that the "Best part about being a human is the thinking". Even so sometimes I wish I was a fisherman instead of a human.
Jerry
This is to " deep " for me. Posted by RGunn on February 25, 2000 at 13:51:41:
Posted by Michael A on February 25, 2000 at 13:44:06:
Right on Prof! I can't kill "for fun" or just because "it's a crow" etc. I have had to dig deep to try and find philosophical justification to do in the squirrels that are wrecking havoc on my trees and
property. My justification is that they are causing extreme damage to the natural flora and
environment.
I've often wondered what if we were visited by aliens with a billion year or so jump start on us who then decided to "take us out" carte blanche "because we are human" and, as we all seem to agree,
"destruction is just in our blood" and we were guilty of wreaking havoc in our little end of the cosmos ("The Day the Earth Stood Still"?.
I feel that given our evolution and time in space we are fortunate to have the luxury to visit such thoughts, and the best one can hope is to die of natural causes. So where do you live, with your genes and hormones, or with your philosophy, which may be impossible given your environment
and circumstances?
Zen story:
"One day, the governor Lu-hsuan, asked Nan-ch'uan the following question: "A man once raised a goose in a bottle, watching it grow until he realized it had grown too large to pass through the bottle's neck. Since he did not want to kill the goose, or break the bottle, how would
he get it out?"
Nan-ch'uan began quietly, "My esteemed governor," then he roared, "THE GOOSE IS OUT!"
It is said that Lu-hsuan was enlightened on the spot.
Party on, Waynes.
Posted by Shakespear on February 25, 2000 at 13:11:51:
" to kill or not to kill that is the question " How else can we say it? We'll it's just a fact of life, and human nature in itself. In one instance, we destroy things, and in the other we brought life to things.
The world is coming to an end, moral degradation genocide, ethnic cleansing, pollution, toxic
wastes, nuclear wastes lying beneath the oceans, global warming, species extinction, rainforest, diminishing returns on the world's fish population, and just one more shot before they all go away.
One more cheap moment of thrill for humanity's primordial instinct. What?s a person to do?
Re: the difference between Kill and murder is simple. jr99 23:02:17 2/24/00
True, as I have tried to explain about the commandment. (Thou shall not MURDER..is the literal meaning) raymond s pyke 23:35:59 2/25/00
Posted by Cole on February 25, 2000 at 16:05:53:
I call MY urge to kill......(un)natural selection. If they happen to be within range(and obviously, they'd be rather unlucky...), and if there is a group of them, I pick out one of them, and kill it. The rest fly away to be killed another day. The unlucky ones die, the ones that
aren't careful die, the slow ones die, the noisy ones die...etc. etc.
It's mainly the ones that get my attention. Unless I'm hunting, then it's just whatever I happen to see...which is the same thing I just said I guess..."It's mainly the ones that get my attention.
Cole
Posted by jitoe on February 25, 2000 at 08:50:46:
Someone contributed in another forum or other "...the unexamined life is not worth living..." I
believe the 'what's' and 'how's' are easy, just shadows in the park. The darkness is in the 'why' of things.
The master Carl Jung had this 'urge to kill' target in his sights with his symbols perspective. Inexplicable action may almost always be the realization of subconscious drumbeats. Take
professional sports: Why should a city tax itself a billion dollars to house a sports team, when its roads and schools are in shambles? Jung might say the sports team is the city's symbolic warrior caste, fixed to do battle with neighboring 'villages'. Our symbolic survival is tied to their success. When group survival is at stake, nothing is too good or too unreasonable.
What may make us different than all the other creatures that have preceded us is that we can recognize why we do things if we try. If the agony and terror of a mangled songbird dying alone is pointless in the overall picture, we can choose not to be the part of it.
If we still need to respond to the call of the drums, we can symbolically reply---by field target shooting, or in an even more disconnected state---target shooting. Someone here said the difference between killing and murder is easy. No. If that were true, murder trials would not go on for months; murder would not be the meat and potatoes of film and literature. And the
responders to this topic would not bother to respond.
Posted by Mike Pearson on February 25, 2000 at 09:13:47:
The problem with labeling things symbolic this and symbolic that is that it tends to blur symbolic with real! The urge to hunt may be primal, but it's very real!
Why should we disconnect because now in this current time someone else feels somehow uncomfortable with our primal urge. As it is people disconnect everyday from the primal urge to hunt and also the primal urge for conquest. What do you suppose it is when a businessman makes
another deal or a huge conglomerate takes over another company. Heck, a man's desire to make a conquest of a beautiful woman?
We have problems keeping our poor fed in certain places in this country, let alone around the world and you're talking about some mangled bird in the forest! Give me a break! You wouldn't have a
problem with a four legged predator taking that bird now would you?
I was raised on the farm and saw a lot of killing through those years. Not once did I have an urge to go out and kill a human being. I was taught to revere wildlife and that death was every bit a nature as life! Disconnect? No, I don't think that's for me! I want to become even MORE a part of nature, not disconnect FROM it!
And another thing, Carl Jung may be YOUR master but he sure as heck is NOT mine!!!-------
Mike
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 25, 2000 at 09:39:22:
Mike,
I think you miss the point.
At some stage (as was well put in jitoe's message) it may happen that one has the opportunity to step aside for a moment, take a scrutinizing look at his primal urge, and then CHOOSE whether he will 'disconnect' from it or not. Superficially, you may have a point, but it evaporates once the "beautiful woman" I may desire to "conquest" happens to be your wife. A pathetic example, I know, but still a working one.
Just my 0,02...
Posted by mike pearson on February 25, 2000 at 14:26:29:
Peter,
Maybe I was a bit rough with the guy. Maybe I should re-read his post. As I saw it, his post contained a little more than a self-examination. His post, if I got it right, contained some judgement in it too and that is one thing (if I am indeed right) I won't tolerate!
I have posed the same questions to myself in the past (as hard as this may be for some to believe) and I came to believe that I am a part of nature (a much higher part than the birds, animals and fishes to be sure) and so, it is only natural for me to have the desire to hunt. It is a part of me and I don't go into guilt and remorse over the fact that this is a part of my in-born makeup.
I have killed many, many animals and birds through the years and never, ever have I felt pride in the fact that I took their lives. Pride in a good hunt well-executed? Yes! Pride and satisfaction in a shot well made? Yes! A deep, indescribable feeling of rightness that I provided
food for the table or got rid of some pest in the same way my forefathers did? Yes!
I almost put down guns one time. I was in my late teens and my brother's dog was hit by a car. She was too far gone for a vet and we didn't have the money in any case so I gave the dog an instant merciful end! I ran to my bedroom and tried to hold back my tears. I couldn't (am having a hard time typing this now)! It was as if the tears came from some place within that I never knew existed!
About a half hour later, my brother came in and said, ?Mike, thanks for taking care of Lady for me. I couldn't do it!? Well I swore off guns and hunting right then and there. I don't know how long that lasted, maybe a day? I think my brother's coming in and putting things in perspective helped me.
I am a hunter who happens to be a passionate airgunner instead of the other way around. I have killed many critters in my life. Still, I have never to my recollection ever desired to kill a single person (and I've been angry with people like anyone else). I am gentle with children, have a deep respect (almost an awe) for senior citizens and am gentle with dogs, cats and other domestic animals.
Point is, I have examined my life and I find it far from wanting and as you well know Peter, I can be a friend to those who for their own reasons don't feel my love (even need) for hunting. I respect them for where they're at and I leave it at that!
Seems to me that a person would be so much better getting a job in a slaughter house if killing was their main desire. For me, I have had many great hunts where I bagged nothing! Being out in the woods in the fresh air WITH my gun and going after a worthy prize!
Looking back over MY life, mine would have been a barren existence without those memories. Perhaps I could have taken up some other passion (and I do have other completely NON-related passions that would probably surprise you) but I chose hunting (or perhaps because of my fortunate childhood, hunting chose me) and I would NOT take any amount of money in the world for those memories!
I share this much Peter only because I know you well enough to know I can! The other poster came off differently to me, and to him I would say that perhaps HE needs to examine HIS life and NOT assume anything more about us (because that's the way his tone came off: judgmental,
accusatory and a bit condescending).
One more thing, this is an airgun forum! This is an airgun forum! We talk about all kinds of things
relating to airguns (and a few things not relating to them from time to time). Hunting is a normal, legal, and to a lot of us healthy and wholesome, airgun activity. While the poster has the RIGHT to voice self-recriminations and self-guilt regarding hunting, he shouldn't be surprised at all if he runs into plenty of posters who really don't want to read his overly introspective (from mine and others' perspective) and gloomy guilt trips! If he needs to make a change, then let him.
I knew a nationally prominent firearms gun writer who gave up all of his guns (except his son's .22 rim-fire) and he told me over the phone that he only does things that he has a passion for. Now he has several novels out. My friends could NOT believe he gave up his hundreds of
guns. I admit I was stunned too but I figured that was his choice and the quality of his life was more important than any gun. I even kidded him about not getting into airguns (that was the reason he sold his guns). He merely chuckled at this. In his case, he typically shot more guns in a week than most people do in a year so eventually, enough was enough! That was taking inventory of one's life for sure!
For me, I have taken inventory of my life and while I really don't need "a lot" more guns, I sure could use more time and land to use the ones I got-----hunting of course!----
Mike
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 25, 2000 at 18:25:35:
(Maybe I should be on "The Practice". Explanations about the rhetoric tricks I use will be between brackets, so read this in the usual lighthearted tone)
?His post if I got it right contained some judgement in it too and that is one thing (if I am indeed right) I won't tolerate!?
Um, isn't that some sort of judgement in itself?... naah, but seriously: I read only an evaluation, on the basis of personal beliefs, of what jitoe finds questionable. I don't know about your country, but where I am, anyone is entitled to make, and voice, such evaluations. (mind you: I DO know about your country... the reason why I said I don't know was entirely of a rhetoric nature... presenting myself as impartial)
?It is a part of me and I don't go into guilt and remorse over the fact that this is a part of my in-born makeup.?
Purely philosophically: If we take that statement as it stands, a serial killer or a pedophile could make the same statement. (MIND YOU: this does not put you or any other hunter at the same level,
and it is an overcharged comparison and would work well before a jury, BUT it does show that such a statement doesn't serve as justification. It may, however, serve as an explanation, but it doesn't tell us anything useful about Right or Wrong.)
But this is all beside the point.
The real point is: without getting personal, it is very well possible to openly evaluate the things our conscience tells us. Not only that, but I also respect it when someone does that, even if I don't agree with him or her.
It would have been another matter if jitoe would have stood up and said "Mike, you are a killer, and that is a bad thing". He didn't. Therefore, members of the Jury, I would ask you to think of our
unamended Constitution before you speak a verdict on this man.
peter
Posted by mike pearson on February 25, 2000 at 19:02:56:
Peter! Peter! Peter! Once again you remind me why I missed your presence on this forum! First of all, the serial murder comparison would NOT hold up well in court (you said it would but I suspect that you meant it wouldn't).
I said what I said and I meant what I said for better or worse. I also shared with you (all) a part of my adolescence that was painful. I shared it because it was an actual account of a possible turning point of my life.
Joe didn't present his case as just intellectual philosophizing as I saw it. He made some pretty stiff value judgements. Sure I could have "taken it" but really, why should I? I'm not a mean, cold hearted killer and Joe's earlier posts painted hunters as such. He was pretty direct in it. At that point, I thought he went over the line. I also was annoyed at his presupposition that Carl Jung was the master! Give me a break! A master of what?
Peter, you know me well enough that I could care less whether a person is a hunter or not. I could care less whether they find hunting distasteful! If everything else is in line, that person and I can still
be friends. But when a person makes value judgements about hunting and then paints me with the same brush as he paints himself in his self-recrimination and self-guilt, then I draw a line (at his statements relative to including me and other hunters) not his beliefs in and of themselves.
He could have allowed as to how others believe differently on this topic and shown respect on the subject but I didn't see that kind of humility (or respect) from his Jungian statements! Seemed to me
that he and Mr. Jung had this thing all wrapped up in a neatly tied ribbon!
Oh yeah, the serial murderer has to still pay the consequences for his actions. I have thought about my life as a hunter and the consequences of my actions have been blessed ones so naturally, I AM a hunter! That's what I was saying and I think most people knew that. I sleep
very well at night (when my aching back isn't acting up!)
One question Peter, which one of us was found innocent by the jury??? I wasn't sure who was on trial here! Were you ARTFULLY using ambiguity again! ROFL! heh,heh!
Seriously, I don't bear the poster any ill will! I really don't! He MOST DEFINITELY has the right to speak his mind (which he did) and I support his right to do so. I also have the right to say what's on my mind which I did!
Thanks For the Thought Provoking Post,
Mike
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 25, 2000 at 19:17:20:
For starters, Carl Jung WAS a master---of philosophy. There is no debating that. Debating that would be like debating whether William Shakespeare was a master of literature or not. Carl Jung has outlined, as well as defined, a couple of concepts on which our philosophical
building is currently resting.
The case he builds is that Jung defines where some of our primal "instincts" and the group behavior he's talking about may come from, and when scrutinizing these statements, I find them
inconclusive, but also in essence hard to deny.
But, although worth outlining, that is again beside the point.
The point is: was he making value judgements or not? I think he was, but the statement that explicitly shows that he's speaking his own mind rather than judge yours is that he outlines that we have a choice...and then he doesn't proceed outlining what your choice should be. And even
if you would choose another path than he does, I don't think he'll dislike you for it.
That's philosophy for you.
cheers,
peter
Posted by mike pearson on February 25, 2000 at 19:39:17:
I don't dislike him personally either! I don't know him well enough for that!
You are a tough debater Peter (I grudgingly admit that! Grudgingly darnit!) I know (I just know mind you) that there are a couple of issues I could debate even further (and downright successfully too I might add) on a couple of points BUT you?ll reduce it to some hair-splitting if I do AND while the mind and spirit (I've got some pit-bull in me still chomping at the bit) are more than
willing, the (middle-aged) body says to retire from this battlefield (in full honors mind you) and live to fight again another day!!! LOL!
I hope you too caught the light spirit parts of my posts! Actually, it's too bad the poster (Joe?) and I couldn't get together and talk face to face. I'm sure we'd come away with more respect for each other. As for Carl Jung, I'll give him this much; his teachings have provided modern therapists more ammo to deal successfully with mental maladies than Freud ever did even though psycho-analysis was so in vogue in the psychiatric community for decades.
Actually, as far as that goes, I believe that William Glasser and Albert Ellis provided more that was of use to modern therapists than Freud, Rogers and Jung put together but now I am speaking purely from opinion and offer it as such.
So while I stand corrected on the master part (to a point), the poster simply left it at master. Peter, I think you are a master at writing. I sincerely mean that BUT I wouldn't introduce you as simply the master.
You see what I mean?
I promised to not go into it anymore and I did just that! Forgive me forum! I didn't mean to let the pit-bull out even a little bit but he managed to get out (a little) anyways! LOL!
With Respect As Always (and that's to Joe too),
Mike
Posted by Harvey on February 25, 2000 at 21:24:42:
Hello, you don't know me but I think this needs to be said. You guys are (and many others on the forum) an incredible wealth to those of us who take the time to read your thoughts. I don't know Jung, but I know Hume, Kant, some Rawles, and a little Wittgenstein. I guess the subject
of whether to hunt or not, is as basic as our need to understand our origin.
P.S. Do you think gun enthusiasts have any tendency to believe in a God/Deity or not? Please
answer the way you guys just did (ooh I hope your viewpoints aren't the same....
Harvey
Re: Harvey, I know I do! mike pearson 00:16:17 2/26/00 (0)
Posted by Peter Huppertz on February 26, 2000 at 04:54:22:
Harvey,
Yes, I believe that there is a larger entity---call it God. Yet again, I think I'm too stupid to have any idea what it is. The fact that there is apparently a plan working here (evolution) is a
proof of the fact that there's something going on other than sheer chance. There are many great scientists that believe there is a larger entity than just us.
Nature (and what we know from it as collected in the natural sciences) is the manifestation that we get to see from it. We look in awe, and we are gifted by that same entity with cognitive abilities, as well as with a conscience. Without that conscience, we wouldn't know the difference between Right and Wrong, so maybe, just maybe, this conscience thing is a manifestation of our awareness of the existence of our Maker.
Acknowledging my stupidity, I do not conform myself to some formal organization that exists on the basis of thinking that it knows what God is like or pretending to know what He wants. Therefore, I am not a Christian in the formal sense of the word. I do see a lot of similarities and appealing viewpoints in other religions as well.
But as to my own beliefs: I'm a human being, I try to live by my conscience as much as I can, and I stand in awe of what I see, without understanding the Master Scheme.
Jung, by the way, was a pupil of Freud who lifted the psychoanalytic theories of his master (which have held for a surprisingly long time) to a philosophical level, thereby providing the
relatively young science of psychology with some foundation. He wasn't a philosopher per se, but as such he was capable of overseeing the consequences of what he had learnt and discovered, even if it surpassed the boundaries of what formally was his "playground".
cheers,
peter
Posted by Jerry Rhodes on February 25, 2000 at 22:41:54:
How presumptuous us humans be..................
Harvey,
I am constantly amazed at how folks can actually claim to know what God thinks or what big plan God has. The world must be cram packed with people that are FAR more intelligent
than I am to be able to claim that they understand God.
To put things in proper perspective, from where I stand. Any earthworm is far more likely to graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard than I am able to form the first glimmer of understanding of "God". Recognizing my ignorance I fall back on my environment. I am a product of that environment and feel that my main duty is to treat other folks with the respect they are due and expect the same from them.
I think it is called ethics. I have developed an ethic for myself that for all intents and purposes has been handed down to me from before Moses' time. It is a good system and if we all more or less stick to the basic concepts we will be able to deal with each other in a
predictable way.
Some people need the threat of hell fire and damnation to make them toe the line. I depend on my long dead grandmothers. I try each day to please them. Sometimes I do pretty well and at other times I'm dismally short.
Jerry
Back about 35 years ago..yes...35. I got a Crossman 177 pump Pellet/BB Gun for Xmas. It was a cold harsh winter here in the Midwest. I was outside "Playing" Hunter. I was hiding under a Pyracantha bush..you know the one that has the big red juicy berries in the Winter...All at once a large flock of Cedar Waxwings(beautiful birds) started a feeding frezy. Within a foot or two above me. I killed 3 or four of those poor birds at point blank range before they knew it. I remember seeing the bright red blood dripping out of them, steaming from the cold...I killed them/slaughtered those beautiful birds for no reason but for the "fun" of it. I have to tell you. I have NEVER killed another animal after that just for the fun of it. Not even a starling. KAHUNA