New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Hmm yes
in reply to a message by beethoven
Okay, in strict observance of the definition of the word "violence", I can see your point that all consumption is to some degree violent. But you'd have to throw eating a carrot in there too, as pulling it out of the ground deprived it of its life. Even doctors would have to be considered violent at times, as they are called upon to perform proceedures which injure or even cause "death" to one part of the body for the better good of the whole. While, technically a violent procedure, I would not consider the amputation of a wounded Civil War soldier's leg in the field, with no anesthetic, to be an act of violence by the doctor.
For me, a hunter working as humanely as possible to feed loved ones is no more violent than that field doc sawing through bone with a hand saw, even though the field doc caused much more suffering than does a responsible hunter. People are also animals who have to eat; it's the way things are designed here on our planet. By strict definition, it's violent, sure, but not in practical application to my way of thinking. At least the hunted animal had quality of life in its natural environment before it was taken. That can't be said for the industrially-raised animals that provided my package of chicken breasts, yet the same folks who find hunting and the name, Hunter, to be too violent will pick up a package of chicken without a second thought.
For me, a hunter working as humanely as possible to feed loved ones is no more violent than that field doc sawing through bone with a hand saw, even though the field doc caused much more suffering than does a responsible hunter. People are also animals who have to eat; it's the way things are designed here on our planet. By strict definition, it's violent, sure, but not in practical application to my way of thinking. At least the hunted animal had quality of life in its natural environment before it was taken. That can't be said for the industrially-raised animals that provided my package of chicken breasts, yet the same folks who find hunting and the name, Hunter, to be too violent will pick up a package of chicken without a second thought.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Right, I would qualify eating a carrot as violent. I think it's very meaningful that organisms require acts of violence to sustain their own lives and to create any of the beauty that comes from being alive. I agree with you about hunting vs industrial farming.
I'm curious what you think of the name Huntress for girls. (I hope it's clear that I'm not arguing! ¡ust curious)
I'm curious what you think of the name Huntress for girls. (I hope it's clear that I'm not arguing! ¡ust curious)
1
Oh no, I didn't think you were arguing. I'm not either, just discussing. :)
I don't think of hunting as an inately unfeminine activity, but I don't care for Huntress at all. Adding the feminine ending doesn't "fix" the very masculine sound of "Hunt" where a name is concerned. It's no better than Elliottess to my ear. Women can be fletchers or coopers or thatchers or whatever else they care to be, but the corresponding occupation names look and sound purely masculine to me. No Fletcherina or Cooperette or Thatcheress for me. Just doesn't work. :)
I don't think of hunting as an inately unfeminine activity, but I don't care for Huntress at all. Adding the feminine ending doesn't "fix" the very masculine sound of "Hunt" where a name is concerned. It's no better than Elliottess to my ear. Women can be fletchers or coopers or thatchers or whatever else they care to be, but the corresponding occupation names look and sound purely masculine to me. No Fletcherina or Cooperette or Thatcheress for me. Just doesn't work. :)
1