R.P. on animal cruelty?

[Ozwest]

jeffersonT,

My Border Collie just read your post, and she reckons you need to get out more.

 

[Gammerus]

I just can't make it through all those posts, there is far to much aggression and bitterness so I will start with a clean slate.


When it comes to Animal welfare where does Ron stand? Is it completly up to the states? If so, what if a state decides they are ok with cock fighting, dog fighting, and inhumane slaughter houses?

 

[TaxProtester]

found some tid bits of information here

http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/ron-paul.html

what I would glean from this article would be "states are the ones who have the authority to decide these issues" However, the article is obviously biased but it does have his voting record on several federal bills concerning animals.

 

[jeffersonT]

jeffersonT,

My Border Collie just read your post, and she reckons you need to get out more.

Good ‘un, boiy.

 

[Fox McCloud]

When it comes to Animal welfare where does Ron stand? Is it completly up to the states? If so, what if a state decides they are ok with cock fighting, dog fighting, and inhumane slaughter houses?

Ron Paul seems to vehemently support States rights; my guess is that he'd be ok with it...he might not be happy with it, but he'd support their right to do it.

 

[nosebruise]

I just can't make it through all those posts, there is far to much aggression and bitterness so I will start with a clean slate.


When it comes to Animal welfare where does Ron stand? Is it completly up to the states? If so, what if a state decides they are ok with cock fighting, dog fighting, and inhumane slaughter houses?

Ron Paul's stance on Animal Welfare is irrelevant. Chances are he doesn't approve of people beating dogs, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the federal government so it doesn't matter.

If a state decides cock fighting, dog fighting and inhumane slaughter houses are ok, then they are ok. it is up to the states to decide, and there so long as there is nothing unconstitutional going on. if states decide its ok to sell liquor to 10 year olds or to make prostitution legal or to put a prohibition on alcohol, or allow heroin to be sold at 7-11... they can do that too. as long as they arent breaking the constitution, then the fed has no power to stop them.

 

[Joe3113]

Innateness is from Latin: natural or inborn.

Meaning: there is a typical, “non-retarded” model of a species. Some humans are born with more than two legs—it does not mean that having two legs is the normal, innate state of man. This is applicable to all living groups.

ALSO, as I’ve stated I do not oppose the theory of natural selection, and it does not “destroy” my theory, which is not even a theory of my own.

You have just contradicted yourself once again. Quite amusing actually. You have stated there is a "typical species model". This does not reconcile with random genetic mutation, natural selection and the theory of evolution. Species are continually changing. Genetic mutation is a natural occurrence.

In terms of the word 'innate', you have provided me with synonymous words, but have not qualified what exactly you are referring to physically. Without such a qualification, your definition remains subjective.

I don’t understand the addition of “species” as a qualifier. Could you explain a little more?

I'm trying to cover all situations that could occur. It's getting a little complicated but to explain a bit:

I made it a combination, so that if an animal were somehow void of it's emotive ability (which is a subjective definition, as it stands now, anyway) then it could not be treated an an inanimate object, but rather euthanased with dignity, for example.

They are not subjective words. Fetishism is defined for you in dictionaries, as is sublimation.

Your foolishness has been confirmed. As I have stated above, words are restricted by words themselves, because definitions are words which themselves require definition. The method by which circular logic is overcome is with the use of word axioms whose definition is self-evident. However axioms remain subjective because the 'self-evident' nature of a word varies among different people. You apply the word to my behavior, I do not. And, just a reminder, you are using words in a dismissive manner again. That is a condescending behavior.

Obviously; but, as I didn’t do that.

Yes you did do that.

I also added “(Freud)” as a qualifier of specific usage, avoiding generalization, but also assuming these words are familiar to anyone of intellectual familiarity with the last 150 yrs.

You are falling into your word trap again. Freud makes absolutely no difference. The definitions of these words often not widely accepted, and even if they were, the use of words themselves as evidence is deeply flawed by the fact that these words all require axioms in their definition, which are subjective.

Example: is it subjective to say that a man dressing up a dog is emotional attention in excess of that the situation requires? or: is a man breaking a table over another man’s head for sneezing in his presence an excess of sentiment?

I say yes, however I accept that, in strict terms, my application of 'excess of sentiment' to these situations is entirely subjective. It can't be anything else.

One could say they were, but you’d look absolutely ridiculous.

Well I agree in with you in that specific example, however there are an infinite number of situations which could be described, including those involving animal cruelty to which we probably will not agree.

That’s what “morality” is, though; it is a human concept regarding human actions.

At least we have found the fundamental level from which our disagreement is born. I don't accept the premise that morality is a word applied exclusively to unique human behaviors. You do. And you seem to try and qualify that by throwing more subjectivity at me.

I value Oscar Wilde and Tolstoy over ants

But what does that mean exactly, to 'value' one thing over another? Certainly I would agree that given a choice if an ant or a human being should be killed, I would save the human being. However I don't accept that humans are somehow artificially removed from all other animals, despite the fact that we have a set of unique characteristics. If you understand natural selection, you should be receptive to that argument.

Values—I’m speaking of these in the sense Nietzsche or Aristotle would apply them—do not disappear merely because we are all interrelated beings.

Irrelevant argument. I have never argued that rights derive from 'values' as you put it. Further, what constitutes 'values' is subjective, as I have described above.

The other point to make here is your blind faith in these authors. These people are presenting absolute truths, to no more an extent that you, nor I.

 

[Joe3113]

whats a definite emotive ability?
do fish exhibit emotive abilities?

You are describing the fundamental restriction of words themselves. We define words with other words. Those other words also require definition. The situation becomes circular unless you accept some words as 'axioms' that do not require definition, but whose meaning is self-evident. The problem with self-evident meanings is that they are completely subjective. This is the argument I was having with jeffersonT.

On the other hand we could attempt to apply a definition to emotive ability, but I'm not sure it would ever suffice, but I guess it could be refined over time. My starting point definition would be a combination of brain anatomy and physiology, anthropomorphic characteristics, and levels of cortisone following particular events.

what about mice... and if so, is it wrong to feed mice to a pet snake?

You present an interesting philosophical question with many angles. I'll do some really quick analysis. Certainly if a native snake caught and ingested a native mouse, that is a situation which is completely outside the realm of human interference, in any way. However, with respect to a per snake, you have to reduce the question to one of keeping the snake itself. If the snake were being used to create anti-venom and the mouse was humanely killed, then I was consider it justified. On the other hand, if the snake were being kept as a housing fashion accessory, perhaps it would not be justified. You could analyze this situation to a much greater extent than I have, but I don't want to spend time on this when I could be working on some things I'm doing to help Dr Paul get elected...

 

[nosebruise]

found some tid bits of information here

http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/ron-paul.html

what I would glean from this article would be "states are the ones who have the authority to decide these issues" However, the article is obviously biased but it does have his voting record on several federal bills concerning animals.

durrr.

dude the article told us absolutely NOTHING. every single one of those votes tells us nothing about ron pauls personal views on animal rights/welfare/cruelty... they simply reinforce his views on whether to pass laws that are constitutional or not.

see how he voted for things that were both harmful AND helpful? it doesnt tell us his stance at all. he was simply voting on what was constitutional and against taxpayers being taxed to pay for ridiculous things, whether they were beneficial or harmful was irrelevant. he is a constitutionalist first, and any other cause comes second.

 

[TaxProtester]

Ron Paul's stance on Animal Welfare is irrelevant.

It's is not irrelevant when you are speaking with someone who is concerned about animal welfare and trying to persuade them to vote for RP. How in the world you can think that a voters concerns are irrelevant is beyond my comprehension. Please explain.

Whether you agree with their concern or not, is what is irrelevant.

 

[TaxProtester]

durrr.

dude the article told us absolutely NOTHING. every single one of those votes tells us nothing about ron pauls personal views on animal rights/welfare/cruelty... they simply reinforce his views on whether to pass laws that are constitutional or not.

see how he voted for things that were both harmful AND helpful? it doesnt tell us his stance at all. he was simply voting on what was constitutional and against taxpayers being taxed to pay for ridiculous things, whether they were beneficial or harmful was irrelevant. he is a constitutionalist first, and any other cause comes second.

So do some more research like I am doing. Did I claim the article to show his views. The answer is no. Why do you assert that I did?

 

[nosebruise]

You are describing the fundamental restriction of words themselves. We define words with other words. Those other words also require definition. The situation becomes circular unless you accept some words as 'axioms' that do not require definition, but whose meaning is self-evident. The problem with self-evident meanings is that they are completely subjective. This is the argument I was having with jeffersonT.

On the other hand we could attempt to apply a definition to emotive ability, but I'm not sure it would ever suffice, but I guess it could be refined over time. My starting point definition would be a combination of brain anatomy and physiology, anthropomorphic characteristics, and levels of cortisone following particular events.



You present an interesting philosophical question with many angles. I'll do some really quick analysis. Certainly if a native snake caught and ingested a native mouse, that is a situation which is completely outside the realm of human interference, in any way. However, with respect to a per snake, you have to reduce the question to one of keeping the snake itself. If the snake were being used to create anti-venom and the mouse was humanely killed, then I was consider it justified. On the other hand, if the snake were being kept as a housing fashion accessory, perhaps it would not be justified. You could analyze this situation to a much greater extent than I have, but I don't want to spend time on this when I could be working on some things I'm doing to help Dr Paul get elected...

im not describing a fundamental restriction of words, i'm asking YOU, as an animal rights activist. what do you define as a definitive emotive ability. where do emotive abilities start on your scale. why do they start at that point. do you consider fish to exhibit emotions? why or why not? where does your scale of protection begin?

those questions weren't rhetorical. i was sincerely asking because i dont really get the whole animal rights thing. (like i said i completely agree with you when you say that dogs shouldnt get beaten, but animals having legal rights is rather far fetched, and only serves as yet another example of bloating a government needlessly.)

i honestly don't understand how it's supposed to work.

----

Why does it matter whether humans interfered in that situation or not? a mouse would be killed... rather violently, by a snake either way. Why does it matter whether the snake is a "housing fashion accessory" (and i'm sure many snake lovers would disagree with you as far as them simply being accessories). Now lets give the mouse some rights and say you can't do that, because its unnecessarily killing the mouse when the snake could be fed a substitute. Do you think it would be inhumane to keep the snake from eating it's natural food, or forgoing it's instincts to hunt/eat live prey?

what if my dog mauls a cat (that doesnt belong to anyone). can it be held liable in a court of law for murder?
can my snake kill a mouse on its own? if so why can't i feed it a mouse?

animals aren't meant to have rights because they are a larger part of natural order than we are. their "rights" are still confined to the survival of the fittest.

animals are part of food chains, livestock, animals are pests, animals are pets, and beasts of burden, they play so many roles to humans and to nature.
animals die and are killed all the time for a plethora of reasons (mostly by violently killing each other, mind you) its absolutely natural. the circle of life. the food chain.

animal rights is a ridiculous notion.

is hunting considered cruelty?
what about fishing?



give animals rights when they start giving rights to each other.

 

[nosebruise]

So do some more research like I am doing. Did I claim the article to show his views. The answer is no. Why do you assert that I did?

"but it does have his voting record on several federal bills concerning animals."



that had enough implication that the article mentioned something of worth.

didnt tell us anything. didnt need to be posted. and on top of which this entire topic is completely irrelevant, just like ron's views on animal rights or animal cruelty are irrelevant to his presidency.

 

[Joe3113]

thats just one TINY example of the kind of crazy crap you would have to deal with. animals aren't meant to have rights because they are a larger part of natural order than we are. their "rights" are still confined to the survival of the fittest.

When we refer to animal rights, we are referring to their interaction with humans.

animal rights is a ridiculous notion.

No it's not.

is hunting considered cruelty?

I would say it is when it is not required for survival. People have widely varying opinions on this.

what about fishing?

Personally, I don't think fishing qualifies as cruelty. Other people have different opinions.


------------

You have to make a distinction in terms of motive. Animals in the wild base their actions on survival. If a human needed to hunt for survival, I would accept that. However, most humans hunt because they are blood-thirsty, uncaring rednecks.

give animals rights when they start giving rights to each other.

So you can only confirm that rights exist following their application?

 

[jeffersonT]

You have just contradicted yourself once again. Quite amusing actually. You have stated there is a "typical species model". This does not reconcile with random genetic mutation, natural selection and the theory of evolution. Species are continually changing. Genetic mutation is a natural occurrence.

In terms of the word 'innate', you have provided me with synonymous words, but have not qualified what exactly you are referring to physically. Without such a qualification, your definition remains subjective.

The use of “typical species model” was a bad choice of words.

My point is this: a sociopath—an example you came up with—has a sense of morality innately; he is abnormal in a psychological sense. This abnormality is a “malfunction” according to “normal” conditions of the brain. It does not, however—just as being born deaf or with one does not—, mean he is non-human. He still retains a sense of morality.

Innateness. I’m not sure how to be much clearer than this. A spider can spin webs innately; a human can imagine the future and walk upright. These are innate, inborn characteristics.

I'm trying to cover all situations that could occur. It's getting a little complicated but to explain a bit:

I made it a combination, so that if an animal were somehow void of it's emotive ability (which is a subjective definition, as it stands now, anyway) then it could not be treated an an inanimate object, but rather euthanased with dignity, for example.

How is emotive ability subjective? For most species (of animals), one can run tests/experiments—just as one can do to establish the ability at abstract thought—to establish the existence of “emotion.”

I think the claim that “everything is subjective,” which you seem to be grappling to, is for the most part a philosophical laughingstock—it defeats debate. It’s also extremely simplistic.

Your foolishness has been confirmed. As I have stated above, words are restricted by words themselves, because definitions are words which themselves require definition. The method by which circular logic is overcome is with the use of word axioms whose definition is self-evident. However axioms remain subjective because the 'self-evident' nature of a word varies among different people. You apply the word to my behavior, I do not. And, just a reminder, you are using words in a dismissive manner again. That is a condescending behavior.

Go discuss something with a structuralist—that’s what you sound like right now. Some half-assed attempt at structuralist semiotics.

Fetishism is understood by anyone who wants to. If we did things your way, speech itself would be irrelevant.

The above quotation from your post would be meaningless.

But, in “reality,” the words sublimation and fetishism are well understood, and can be easily defined; I don’t see why this is such an issue. A fetish sublimates a desire to another object instead of the actual object, be it a foot, a dog, or whatever.

I don’t understand, once again, the problem with my use of these words; it appears straight-forward to me.

Yes you did do that.

(...)

You are falling into your word trap again. Freud makes absolutely no difference. The definitions of these words often not widely accepted, and even if they were, the use of words themselves as evidence is deeply flawed by the fact that these words all require axioms in their definition, which are subjective.

I’m not using words as “evidence,” I’m using words—which refer to concepts, things, etc. (...)—to define specifically a term. Freud makes sense as he was (as far as I know) the first person to apply these terms in the sense I am applying them. Possibly Sacher-Masoch did, but if so I’m not aware of it.

The degeneration in meaning of these words is due to appropriation by many different sects of philosophy, economy, sociology, anthropology; I’m clarifying the sense in which I use them, which is Freud’s.

We can’t really get anywhere if you keep saying everything is subjective. What’s the motivation to debate this if that’s the case?

I say yes, however I accept that, in strict terms, my application of 'excess of sentiment' to these situations is entirely subjective. It can't be anything else.

bleh

But what does that mean exactly, to 'value' one thing over another?

That Wilde is BETTER than an ant. In EVERY sense.

Certainly I would agree that given a choice if an ant or a human being should be killed, I would save the human being. However I don't accept that humans are somehow artificially removed from all other animals, despite the fact that we have a set of unique characteristics. If you understand natural selection, you should be receptive to that argument.

Aesthetic contemplation and creation alone makes us better; irrespective of anything else.

I understand in a restricted sense that we are all related through natural selection; in a sense incorporating values—human-created, just as rights-based civic order—we are BETTER than other species. If you can’t concede that—which I think you’ve done to some extent previously in the thread in terms of the ‘levels of equality’—we can get nowhere.

Irrelevant argument. I have never argued that rights derive from 'values' as you put it. Further, what constitutes 'values' is subjective, as I have described above.

This is what it comes down to: rights descend from moral values. Period. We may have to just stop arguing. I see no way to convince you, and you cannot convince me that emotive ability alone warrants rights, and beyond that the government expenditure to execute punishment to protect those supposed rights.

The other point to make here is your blind faith in these authors. These people are presenting absolute truths, to no more an extent that you, nor I.

Let’s give them a little credit. We’re typing on a message board quite weakly; they are both titanic, original minds. They’re not gods; Achilles and Odysseus maybe to our ant-like scrapings.

 

[nosebruise]

When we refer to animal rights, we are referring to their interaction with humans.

what's your point. theres still all sorts of retarded crap. is raising livestock to be slaughered considered cruelty? is fishing considered cruelty? is keeping caged pets cruelty? is pest control cruelty?

No it's not.

sure.
like i said. my opinion still stands that animals should not be maimed. but that is a moral and ethical thing, and it shouldn't be regulated by the government. yes some people will do some bad things. most people who beat their dogs will do so regardless of laws.
but giving animals all sorts of rights is going to cause immense amount of controversy as to where rights start, where they end, what they mean. etc.

I would say it is when it is not required for survival. People have widely varying opinions on this.

yep. see i disagree with you there. honestly i see nothing wrong with someone going out and killing their own venison. in fact i'd prefer it over someone happily chewing out a commodity hamburger at mcdonalds made from industrialized cheap unhealthy beef raised for slaughter and pumped full of hormones.

hey at least the deer got half a life of freedom, the hunter had to WORK for his food, and pull the guts out and knows how the damn thing got on his plate.

that to me is more honorable than post processed taco bell gluttony.

Personally, I don't think fishing qualifies as cruelty. Other people have different opinions.

why not? why is hunting cruelty and fishing not? you're putting a hook through the fishes mouth and bringing it out of the water to suffocate? thats pretty cruel in my book?

You have to make a distinction in terms of motive. Animals in the wild base their actions on survival. If a human needed to hunt for survival, I would accept that. However, most humans hunt because they are blood-thirsty, uncaring rednecks.



So you can only confirm that rights exist following their application?

i think the people who apathetically munch away on byproduced are a lot more uncaring than any redneck hunter is.

animals kill each other. its part of a natural order. humans are part of that order as well.

just because we are industrialized enough to have meat factories, and dont have to go out with a bow and arrow and hunt rabbits to get dinner doesn't mean squat. those animals are still getting killed and the people are simply being less associated by the fact that they are eating something that was once alive. that's the ONLY difference.

 

[nosebruise]

So you can only confirm that rights exist following their application?

also since i accidentally skipped this.

(it's called a joke.)

 

[nullvalu]

Isn't it obvious? The woman's pet deer got sick after eating Tide laundry detergent.

LMFAO!!! OMG Sorry I just couldn't contain it on that one..

 

[Joe3113]

The use of “typical species model” was a bad choice of words.

My point is this: a sociopath—an example you came up with—has a sense of morality innately; he is abnormal in a psychological sense. This abnormality is a “malfunction” according to “normal” conditions of the brain. It does not, however—just as being born deaf or with one does not—, mean he is non-human. He still retains a sense of morality.

Innateness. I’m not sure how to be much clearer than this. A spider can spin webs innately; a human can imagine the future and walk upright. These are innate, inborn characteristics.

I've already addressed this argument.

How is emotive ability subjective? For most species (of animals), one can run tests/experiments—just as one can do to establish the ability at abstract thought—to establish the existence of “emotion.”

It is subjective in the same way other words are, unless a specific scientific definition is universally agreed upon, which I doubt it ever will be. I gave you an example in my previous post of the objective parameters I would start with.

I think the claim that “everything is subjective,” which you seem to be grappling to, is for the most part a philosophical laughingstock—it defeats debate. It’s also extremely simplistic.

Go discuss something with a structuralist—that’s what you sound like right now. Some half-assed attempt at structuralist semiotics.

Fetishism is understood by anyone who wants to. If we did things your way, speech itself would be irrelevant.

The above quotation from your post would be meaningless.

Wrong. Language is created as a practical means of communication. Words are a meaningful attempt to summarize complexity. Words are not the unbreakable fundamentals of life, as your use of them implies.

But, in “reality,” the words sublimation and fetishism are well understood, and can be easily defined;

So those words have definitions that are 'well understood'? What does that mean exactly? Does it mean every single human being accepts that they apply to people who care about animal rights? Am I not a human being?

What you should be saying is that you have developed your own definition of such things and in your own case, the words do apply to animal rights. This is an example of a situation where the practicality of words as a means of communication, breaks down.

I’m not using words as “evidence,” I’m using words—which refer to concepts, things, etc. (...)—to define specifically a term. Freud makes sense as he was (as far as I know) the first person to apply these terms in the sense I am applying them. Possibly Sacher-Masoch did, but if so I’m not aware of it.

You are using words as absolute truths rather than a limited, practical, convenient means of communication among individuals.

The degeneration in meaning of these words is due to appropriation by many different sects of philosophy, economy, sociology, anthropology; I’m clarifying the sense in which I use them, which is Freud’s.

Freud is just another human being who applies his own subjectivity. Simply throwing Freud at me is not a form of argument.

We can’t really get anywhere if you keep saying everything is subjective. What’s the motivation to debate this if that’s the case?

I have answered this previously.

That Wilde is BETTER than an ant. In EVERY sense.

LOL. So the water molecules in some guy are 'BETTER' than the water molecules in an ant? The DNA in some guy is 'BETTER' than the DNA in an ant?

You seem to be well read and yet you still produce contradictory arguments.

Aesthetic contemplation and creation alone makes us better; irrespective of anything else.

We are talking about rights. I'm not saying our unique characteristics have no bearing on our own rights, I am saying that our rights are not present solely due to our unique characteristics. In effect, rights are not exclusively applied to humans-human interaction. It is a continuous scale.

I understand in a restricted sense that we are all related through natural selection; in a sense incorporating values—human-created, just as rights-based civic order—we are BETTER than other species. If you can’t concede that—which I think you’ve done to some extent previously in the thread in terms of the ‘levels of equality’—we can get nowhere.

I concede that there is a continuous scale of emotive ability among the species. Humans have more rights than dogs and dogs have more rights than frogs. But those species DO have some rights. That is where we disagree.

This is what it comes down to: rights descend from moral values. Period.

No they do not. Period.

We may have to just stop arguing. I see no way to convince you, and you cannot convince me that emotive ability alone warrants rights, and beyond that the government expenditure to execute punishment to protect those supposed rights.

I respect your your right D) to speak your mind. Argument is healthy.

I don't consider government expenditure when making decisions concerning morality.

Let’s give them a little credit. We’re typing on a message board quite weakly; they are both titanic, original minds. They’re not gods; Achilles and Odysseus maybe to our ant-like scrapings.

I certainly respect anyone who tackles difficult philosophical questions.

 

[Joe3113]

what's your point. theres still all sorts of retarded crap. is raising livestock to be slaughered considered cruelty? is fishing considered cruelty? is keeping caged pets cruelty? is pest control cruelty?

If I were to put a universal definition on the word 'cruelty' I would be contradicting my own arguments. What constitutes 'cruelty' is in the eye of the beholder. I have my own opinions, but there are an infinite number of situations that can be analyzed.

sure.
like i said. my opinion still stands that animals should not be maimed. but that is a moral and ethical thing, and it shouldn't be regulated by the government. yes some people will do some bad things. most people who beat their dogs will do so regardless of laws.
but giving animals all sorts of rights is going to cause immense amount of controversy as to where rights start, where they end, what they mean. etc.

I understand your point about the administrative practicality of statutory implementation. I sympathize with that point.

yep. see i disagree with you there. honestly i see nothing wrong with someone going out and killing their own venison. in fact i'd prefer it over someone happily chewing out a commodity hamburger at mcdonalds made from industrialized cheap unhealthy beef raised for slaughter and pumped full of hormones.

hey at least the deer got half a life of freedom, the hunter had to WORK for his food, and pull the guts out and knows how the damn thing got on his plate.

that to me is more honorable than post processed taco bell gluttony.

Again, I sympathize with your point. However, you have ignored another option. In fact, it is the option that I choose. I think you know what that option is.

cruelty? is keeping caged pets cruelty? is pest control cruelty?
[/QUOTE]

If I were to put a universal definition on the word 'cruelty' I would be contradicting my own arguments. What constitutes 'cruelty' is in the eye of the beholder. I have my own opinions, but there are an infinite number of situations that can be analyzed.

sure.
like i said. my opinion still stands that animals should not be maimed. but that is a moral and ethical thing, and it shouldn't be regulated by the government. yes some people will do some bad things. most people who beat their dogs will do so regardless of laws.
but giving animals all sorts of rights is going to cause immense amount of controversy as to where rights start, where they end, what they mean. etc.

I understand your point about the administrative practicality of statutory implementation. I sympathize with that point.

why not? why is hunting cruelty and fishing not? you're putting a hook through the fishes mouth and bringing it out of the water to suffocate? thats pretty cruel in my book?

It's just my opinion. As I have stated above, cruelty is subjective. Personally, depending on the species of fish you are referring to, I am not convinced that fish are at a level where they agonize. Although my opinion is open to change. I don't eat fish for other reasons.

i think the people who apathetically munch away on byproduced are a lot more uncaring than any redneck hunter is.

As I said I sympathize with this and I've qualified my position in a previous response.

animals kill each other. its part of a natural order. humans are part of that order as well.

This is a common argument. It breaks down when you consider that humans have applied morality to themselves. When you cannot afford something at the shop you don't shoot the shopkeeper and take the item, while dismissing it as "being part of the natural order". If humans can apply morality to themselves then the must apply it to those beings who humans have forced into human society. We domesticated animals, so we are responsible for them. If we go and interact with nature, then we can't leave our morality behind, whether or not you think morality exists in the natural order that is not human effected.

just because we are industrialized enough to have meat factories, and dont have to go out with a bow and arrow and hunt rabbits to get dinner doesn't mean squat. those animals are still getting killed and the people are simply being less associated by the fact that they are eating something that was once alive. that's the ONLY difference.

I addressed this previously. I sympathize with the point you make and am glad you, at least, have a sense that animals are worth considering.

Killing is not the issue. Cruelty is the issue. As a veterinary student I have euthanased healthy animals (although thankfully stray animals are rapidally reducing occurrences in Australia). It is preferable than putting them back on the street and dying a slow painful death after being hit by a car.