# Ethical treatment of animals



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2010)

How did you arrive at your basis for the justice or injustice of how you use animals ie. hunting, sport fishing, as burden, etc.?


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 24, 2010)

I see animals simply for their potential uses.  Seems that is what they are most happy doing.  I'm happy to let them.

Of course, how my relatives and parental units used them imprinted on me during my youth.
Laws regarding them have influenced my decisions on how they are to be used and enjoyed.
Of course, learning how others prepare them for consumption from field to grill has impacted me positively.

I get great satisfaction from caring for my pet dog.  She loves me big time, and has for over fourteen years.
She has lived a great life.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2010)

"Simply for their potential uses"

Are they "happy" as prey.  I think some of them are built to be prey but I don't think you can determine that they "like" it.   

How about using them for fun?


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 24, 2010)

A80, you never make it easy for us thinkers!

Maybe those who are prey, are simply content with going about their survival tasks of eating, resting and avoiding the big one!
Most chipmunks I see from the stand are happy running around, even when the owl is sitting on my ladderstand watching.
If he gets there before I do in the AM, I let him hunt there.
I go to another stand location.
We have that agreement!

For fun?  If I see the animal is not having fun, no.
Yep, that's pretty subjective I know.
But it is honest.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2010)

Here's the problem: talking about animals without "Anthropomorphising" them.  Are they content?  Are they happy?  

There's a great line from ancient Indian lore that goes:   "What so fine the wolfs tooth?  The fleet legs of the antelope."

I think that sets the stage for a relationship between predator and prey.  But as humans, we are capable of defining our relationship to animals with our intellect and not merely by our pathology (or taxonomy, I forget which is applicable in this case).  So how have you defined your boundaries?


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 24, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Here's the problem: talking about animals without "Anthropomorphising" them.



You got me.  Dead to rights.  Guilty.

I enjoy taking game as much as eating game.  But I also enjoy the husbandry involved with raising animals.  The boundaries are probably a simple reflection of what I have been exposed to by my family and friends.

I hold firm to the boundary of "take what you need, leave the rest."
I hold firm to the boundary of "do no unnecessary harm."

Once I felt the commitment and dedication a dog will share with its owner, I knew it was for me.  I'd be lesser without it.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 24, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> A80, you never make it easy for us thinkers!
> 
> Maybe those who are prey, are simply content with going about their survival tasks of eating, resting and avoiding the big one!
> Most chipmunks I see from the stand are happy running around, even when the owl is sitting on my ladderstand watching.
> ...



That's what you get for not subscribing to a "Ready Guide".  Let's sort it out together.


----------



## wilber85 (Sep 24, 2010)

We are carnivores/predators by design and by nature.  

If an animal seeks companionship I will grant it.  
If an animal is prey I will eat it.  
If an animal threatens me I will kill it.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 25, 2010)

wilber85 said:


> We are carnivores/predators by design and by nature.
> 
> If an animal seeks companionship I will grant it.
> If an animal is prey I will eat it.
> If an animal threatens me I will kill it.



True, True....  If a deer sought companionship would you not consider killing it?  How does a bass convey it's desire for companionship?


----------



## bullsprig1100 (Sep 25, 2010)

I am a man of my own religious beliefs, and I believe if God did not want us to eat animals, he would not have made them out of meat....Arise, Kill, Eat.. Acts 11:7........Thats all I have to say about that!!


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Sep 25, 2010)

I see myself as an animal (scientifically cause I know I ain't a plant or a protazoa), and as an animal that has a one chambered stomach and both large and small intestines I was meant to eat meat, my digestive system is set up for it.  My ethics towards other animals is no different than other animals' ethics towards each other.  We are a part of nature whether we admit it or not and as a part of nature we have our role to play.  Most of our kind have parted ways with nature for the most part, I for one, still attempt to be a part of nature as much as possible.  

It is funny you choose to use the term "ethical treatment" towards creatures that have no ethics as humans use the term.  Infantcide and wanton killing takes place in the animal world just like in the so called civilized world of humans.  When a male lion takes over a pride the first thing he does is kill every cub he can find, so the females will come back into heat and he can spread his genetic material.  Male bears love to kill any cub they find.  Wolves hunt down and kill mountain lions, coyotes and any other predator just so they won't have competion.  Chimps literally wage war on other bands and there have even been recorded instances of "serial killer" behavior amongst some.  

Ethics are nothing more than a word we have come to use to justify our behaviors, whether good or bad.  Ethics are an individual trait, they are not something you can say all mankind even comes close to sharing.  Judeo-christian ethics are different from those of tribesmen in Pau Pau New Guinea or amazonian indians.  Heck, they are different amongst judeo-christian populations, the ethics of a dirt farmer in Mitchell County Georgia are going to be hugely different from a mid-town Atlantan. Ethics vary from individual to individual, to say Ted Bundy had no ethics would be wrong, but then again his ethics are different from mine. I do not need to justify my ethics to any other person, animal, plant or anything else because they are MY ethics. I don't tortue animals intentionally, but I do kill them by hunting, trapping, fishing and even the use of pesticides at times in the home.  I don't buy much processed meat (feeder lot fed, hormone and antibiotic injected) so I don't partake in or contribute much to industrial farming 

My ethics tell me other animals are just that, something to eat, make clothes out of and use as beast of burdens, period, they are not little people.

The biggest joke though is people who feel their ethics are somehow superior than other peoples', they are mainly city folk that because they don't get their hands dirty somehow think they are ethical towards animals while they sit in their home (destroyed habitat), wear their cotton (pesticides so bad that a cotton field is an ecological dead zone), use their electricity, burn their gas,  and create their garbage which must go somewhere (I could go on and on). They also tend to be the same people who turn their nose up at a homeless begger on the street and lock their doors on their cars when going through the less fortunate section of town.  They attend charity functions, write a check and think they are sooooooo good, cause they did their part.  To me, they are a joke, they are a drain on the human gene pool, but then again it is my ethics that tell me that.

Debating individual ethics is about as useful as teats on a boar hog.  I justify to myself and my maker and that is all that concerns me. 

One thing I find interesting is that you used an old indian saying, obviously from a plains indian tribe (the antelope reference).  Visit a buffalo jump site, they killed more than they could ever use, there is evidence that they took only choice cuts and some hides, there was no way they could use all they harvested.

Oh yeah, justice is a term that means "truth", as is a prosecutor's job to seek justice (to seek the truth) so I don't know if it is appropriate.  Justice assumes there is a truth, injustice means the truth was not found, whereas ethics does not assume there is a truth. While there are certain ethics that we might be bound to, such as laws, most ethics are individual and they do not mean they are the only way for others, just for the person whose ethics they are.


----------



## redlevel (Sep 25, 2010)

While y'all are reading old ambush80's tripe you might want to keep in mind that he would like to establish a "dialogue" with "moderate" organizations such as HSUS.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=296454&highlight=hsus

See particularly posts 11 thru 20.


----------



## vanguard1 (Sep 25, 2010)

well i just saw a archery show as i was changing football games and i saw a guy shoot a bear that was looking for food, it started rolling around and i could not watch, i turned off the tv and went to my office, i can not express the feeling of anger i felt when i saw that, i love all animals and can not understand why someone would want to kill something so full of life, and not harming anyone. I just wonder how many ( hunters) would go over to fight the terrorist that will shoot back or take on someone else with a gun or bow and see how it feels, in this day and age we do not need to kill to eat anymore, the us is the only country that hunts on a full belly.


----------



## redlevel (Sep 25, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> i love all animals and can not understand why someone would want to kill something so full of life, and not harming anyone./QUOTE]
> 
> I take it you are a vegetarian.  If so, while I disagree with you, I can respect your viewpoint.
> 
> If you eat any kind of meat, fish, or fowl, then you are a rank hypocrite.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 25, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> "Simply for their potential uses"
> 
> Are they "happy" as prey.  I think some of them are built to be prey but I don't think you can determine that they "like" it.
> 
> How about using them for fun?




Built to be prey?????


----------



## gtparts (Sep 25, 2010)

wilber85 said:


> We are carnivores/predators by design and by nature.
> 
> If an animal seeks companionship I will grant it.
> If an animal is prey I will eat it.
> If an animal threatens me I will kill it.




Omnivores.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 25, 2010)

Since this is the A,A, & A forum, does the ethical treatment extend to humans? Why? While most have an aversion to consuming human flesh, some don't. Those that usually do, have not had a well prepared sample of the cuisine. So, what say you?

What of the practice of euthanasia? Our friends to the far North use to set the non-productive aged on ice floes to help facilitate the survival of the greater "family".


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 25, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> well i just saw a archery show as i was changing football games and i saw a guy shoot a bear that was looking for food, it started rolling around and i could not watch, i turned off the tv and went to my office, i can not express the feeling of anger i felt when i saw that, i love all animals and can not understand why someone would want to kill something so full of life, and not harming anyone. I just wonder how many ( hunters) would go over to fight the terrorist that will shoot back or take on someone else with a gun or bow and see how it feels, in this day and age we do not need to kill to eat anymore, the us is the only country that hunts on a full belly.



Because an important part of managing wildlife resources is taking some from the headcount.
Overpopulation is a key concern, seeing the environment within an area is only capable of handling a certain number of animals.  The carrying capacity.

Go argue your anti-hunting stance in the appropriate forum.  It ain't in here.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 25, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Since this is the A,A, & A forum, does the ethical treatment extend to humans? Why? While most have an aversion to consuming human flesh, some don't. Those that usually do, have not had a well prepared sample of the cuisine. So, what say you?
> 
> What of the practice of euthanasia? Our friends to the far North use to set the non-productive aged on ice floes to help facilitate the survival of the greater "family".



Was not what the OP was discussing here.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 25, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Built to be prey?????



Try "suitable."

The food chain has been known and understood for quite some time.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 25, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Was not what the OP was discussing here.



Dear me!!! I was just wondering if there is a distinction between animals and humans. Is there some reasonable thought process that allows those who profess atheism or agnosticism to separate man from the so-called lower animals? I cannot think of one reason to make the distinction from your perspective. Doesn't it come down to what is thought to be yours and that which belongs to another?


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 25, 2010)

Honestly, there are plenty of humans that blur the lines between "animal" and "human."

Some have been and are put down without a trial.

It does not take following a religious belief system, any religious belief system, to understand the food chain.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 25, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Honestly, there are plenty of humans that blur the lines between "animal" and "human."
> 
> Some have been and are put down without a trial.
> 
> It does not take following a religious belief system, any religious belief system, to understand the food chain.



So, is there an ethical reason for an atheist not to practice cannibalism, since we are all animals in the taxonomic sense?


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 25, 2010)

gtparts said:


> So, is there an ethical reason for an atheist not to practice cannibalism, since we are all animals in the taxonomic sense?



Good book on the subject and some footnotes from it.

http://samvak.tripod.com/cannibalism.html


----------



## packrat (Sep 25, 2010)

*????*



vanguard1 said:


> well i just saw a archery show as i was changing football games and i saw a guy shoot a bear that was looking for food, it started rolling around and i could not watch, i turned off the tv and went to my office, i can not express the feeling of anger i felt when i saw that, i love all animals and can not understand why someone would want to kill something so full of life, and not harming anyone. I just wonder how many ( hunters) would go over to fight the terrorist that will shoot back or take on someone else with a gun or bow and see how it feels, in this day and age we do not need to kill to eat anymore, the us is the only country that hunts on a full belly.



May I ask a simple question? What the heck brought you to an outdoor forum? Sometimes you're the predator, sometimes the prey. I love vegetarians! The less competition there is for the meat; the happier I am.


----------



## vanguard1 (Sep 26, 2010)

packrat said:


> May I ask a simple question? What the heck brought you to an outdoor forum? Sometimes you're the predator, sometimes the prey. I love vegetarians! The less competition there is for the meat; the happier I am.



yes you may.  because I love the outdoors, believe it or not there are other things you can do besides kill animals outdoors, for one is target or skills shooting which is what i do. I know it does not give the same thrill as seeing a living animal suffer in pain, but it helps me know I can handle a gun if i need to stop a human threat.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Since this is the A,A, & A forum, does the ethical treatment extend to humans? Why? While most have an aversion to consuming human flesh, some don't. Those that usually do, have not had a well prepared sample of the cuisine. So, what say you?
> 
> What of the practice of euthanasia? Our friends to the far North use to set the non-productive aged on ice floes to help facilitate the survival of the greater "family".



Eating each other is maladaptive.  I think the reason that most advanced cultures that gave up cannibalism did it because its practice subverts peaceful coexistence.  It's taboo status is cultural, just like our "rules" about how we treat animals.

The same goes for the Eskimos.  I understand that the aged often get on the ice floes willingly.  Who am I to argue.



gtparts said:


> So, is there an ethical reason for an atheist not to practice cannibalism, since we are all animals in the taxonomic sense?







vanguard1 said:


> yes you may.  because I love the outdoors, believe it or not there are other things you can do besides kill animals outdoors, for one is target or skills shooting which is what i do. I know it does not give the same thrill as seeing a living animal suffer in pain, but it helps me know I can handle a gun if i need to stop a human threat.




Do you understand that human beings are biologically designed to be omnivores?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2010)

redneck_billcollector said:


> I see myself as an animal (scientifically cause I know I ain't a plant or a protazoa), and as an animal that has a one chambered stomach and both large and small intestines I was meant to eat meat, my digestive system is set up for it.  My ethics towards other animals is no different than other animals' ethics towards each other.  We are a part of nature whether we admit it or not and as a part of nature we have our role to play.  Most of our kind have parted ways with nature for the most part, I for one, still attempt to be a part of nature as much as possible.
> 
> It is funny you choose to use the term "ethical treatment" towards creatures that have no ethics as humans use the term.  Infantcide and wanton killing takes place in the animal world just like in the so called civilized world of humans.  When a male lion takes over a pride the first thing he does is kill every cub he can find, so the females will come back into heat and he can spread his genetic material.  Male bears love to kill any cub they find.  Wolves hunt down and kill mountain lions, coyotes and any other predator just so they won't have competion.  Chimps literally wage war on other bands and there have even been recorded instances of "serial killer" behavior amongst some.
> 
> ...



Do you think there is an element of sadism in the blood sports?  Like the fascination and pleasure kids get from burning ants with a magnifying glass?


----------



## earl (Sep 26, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> How did you arrive at your basis for the justice or injustice of how you use animals ie. hunting, sport fishing, as burden, etc.?



Plain and simple ,because . 
I am at the top of the food chain . I am a hunter and a gatherer. That's the way things are . No explanation needed.
Don't want to kill and eat ? Don't do it . 
SIMPLE.
Same reason Christians do except they blame it on a God.


----------



## redlevel (Sep 26, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> yes you may.  because I love the outdoors, believe it or not there are other things you can do besides kill animals outdoors, for one is target or skills shooting which is what i do. I know it does not give the same thrill as seeing a living animal suffer in pain, but it helps me know I can handle a gun if i need to stop a human threat.



You never answered my question.  Are you a vegetarian?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2010)

earl said:


> Plain and simple ,because .
> I am at the top of the food chain . I am a hunter and a gatherer. That's the way things are . No explanation needed.
> Don't want to kill and eat ? Don't do it .
> SIMPLE.
> Same reason Christians do except they blame it on a God.




I can accept that.  What do you think causes some people to filter or modify their natural impulses to predate? Have you ever thought about the "spiritual" ramifications of hunting/fishing?


----------



## earl (Sep 26, 2010)

Nope . I do it because for me it is a spiritual pleasure . My dad  never really cared for it ,so I was pretty much on my own learning the ropes . To my great pleasure ,both of my sons enjoyed it at an early age and continue to. Their kids are less than 2 year s old but have been introduced to it as well. That, my friend , is spiritual pleasure . 3 generations worth. 
I'm not sure what kind of verification or justification you are looking for. There are farmers that are the best of the best at growing crops but have no interest in going into livestock ranching . And vis a versa. I doubt if they worry about the decision of what they do but rather enjoy doing the thing they love for a living.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 26, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Eating each other is maladaptive.  I think the reason that most advanced culture that gave up cannibalism did it because its practice subverts peaceful coexistence.  It's taboo status is cultural, just like our "rules" about how we treat animals.



Maladaptive?? Tell that to the one marooned on an island with the fresh corpse of the pilot and no food. Survival drives people to do the otherwise unthinkable, sometimes.

As for the cultural aspects, I tend to agree. But, I have a difficult time accepting the cultural decision to be much more than arbitrary. That is, one decision may serve one group well, and yet the opposite decision may serve the other group well. I see no sense of over-riding right or wrong, only what serves the interest of the more powerful group at the time. There does not seem to be a moral component in the process.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 26, 2010)

The sanctity of life concept is the moral/ethical component which is in juxtaposition to cannibalism.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Maladaptive?? Tell that to the one marooned on an island with the fresh corpse of the pilot and no food. Survival drives people to do the otherwise unthinkable, sometimes.



Under normal conditions.  



gtparts said:


> As for the cultural aspects, I tend to agree. But, I have a difficult time accepting the cultural decision to be much more than arbitrary. That is, one decision may serve one group well, and yet the opposite decision may serve the other group well. I see no sense of over-riding right or wrong, only what serves the interest of the more powerful group at the time. There does not seem to be a moral component in the process.



That seems to me to be how it generally works.  The group in power establishes the rules for morality.


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Sep 27, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think there is an element of sadism in the blood sports?  Like the fascination and pleasure kids get from burning ants with a magnifying glass?



No more sadistic than any other predator taking prey.  If you think the wolf is sadistic taking an elk, then I reckon I would be sadistic taking that same elk.  The do gooder city person probably thinks ranching is sadistic, whereas the rancher looks at it as nuturing the cattle.  That pleasure some kids get doing what you refer to  is nothing more than some attempt at satisfacting of our predatory instincts.  Sadism is a relative term and varies from person to person....one man's sadism is another man's normality.
Remember, many S.S. troops hated doing what they did, but did it anyhow (that is why they developed gas chambers, too many "super humans" were committing suicide due to mass executions via gun).  Sadism requires some element of satisfaction due to control, I have my satisfaction during the hunt, not the kill.  To paraphrase an old saying...."I do not hunt so I can kill, I kill so I can hunt."


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 27, 2010)

redneck_billcollector said:


> No more sadistic than any other predator taking prey.  If you think the wolf is sadistic taking an elk, then I reckon I would be sadistic taking that same elk.  The do gooder city person probably thinks ranching is sadistic, whereas the rancher looks at it as nuturing the cattle.  That pleasure some kids get doing what you refer to  is nothing more than some attempt at satisfacting of our predatory instincts.  Sadism is a relative term and varies from person to person....one man's sadism is another man's normality.
> Remember, many S.S. troops hated doing what they did, but did it anyhow (that is why they developed gas chambers, too many "super humans" were committing suicide due to mass executions via gun).  Sadism requires some element of satisfaction due to control, I have my satisfaction during the hunt, not the kill.  To paraphrase an old saying...."I do not hunt so I can kill, I kill so I can hunt."



I think I agree.  It isn't sadistic if the pleasure isn't derived from causing the pain.  The pain is not the object, just a byproduct.  I've shot prairie dogs and gophers for the outfitter I worked for and I understood the practical reasons for doing it, what I didn't quite understand is how my friends and I could be so fascinated, maybe even amused by the violent tissue damage we inflicted on the vermin.  When a prairie dog "blows up" there is often an exclamation of "Whoa!!"  maybe even a chuckle or two.  It seems to be a pretty common reaction.  People use words like"smoked" or "dusted" or "wasted" when they kill animals, more often for sport than food, and I'm not quite sure what the emotion or the psychological process is that's associated with such reactions.  Any ideas?


----------



## gtparts (Sep 27, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> The sanctity of life concept is the moral/ethical component which is in juxtaposition to cannibalism.



Why isn't cannibalism the moral/ethical component?  In small geographically isolated areas of S. America, New Guinea, and other remote places where cannibalism was the cultural norm, not consuming human flesh was aberrant behavior. Anthropologists are quick to note that unless there is some determination made by an exercise of superior influence, such actions (cannibalism, for example) are most often dictated by tradition, devoid of any moral significance (amoral). In other words, they do it because they have always done it, not because of some sense of right or wrong about the behavior. An indigenous population in the Amazon basin prepares a monkey for community consumption in a certain way, not because all other ways of preparation are wrong, but because it just isn't done any other way. No consideration is given to alternate methods. 

Sanctity of life implies a moral judgment, in the case of cannibalism, concerning the value of human life as opposed to non-human (animal) life. If "all that is" is a result of chance or cosmic accident, there can be no justification for ranking human life more valuable than any other life form. Neither is more significant. Both are equally pointless.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 27, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Why isn't cannibalism the moral/ethical component?  In small geographically isolated areas of S. America, New Guinea, and other remote places where cannibalism was the cultural norm, not consuming human flesh was aberrant behavior. Anthropologists are quick to note that unless there is some determination made by an exercise of superior influence, such actions (cannibalism, for example) are most often dictated by tradition, devoid of any moral significance (amoral). In other words, they do it because they have always done it, not because of some sense of right or wrong about the behavior. An indigenous population in the Amazon basin prepares a monkey for community consumption in a certain way, not because all other ways of preparation are wrong, but because it just isn't done any other way. No consideration is given to alternate methods.
> 
> Sanctity of life implies a moral judgment, in the case of cannibalism, concerning the value of human life as opposed to non-human (animal) life. If "all that is" is a result of chance or cosmic accident, there can be no justification for ranking human life more valuable than any other life form. Neither is more significant. Both are equally pointless.



There are many studies on the possible origins of empathy and how it has shaped morality.  Ask Pnome.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 27, 2010)

As Freud said, "man is sui generis."

Observable processes like human reason, social cohesion, and empathetic logic are good enough for human existance to preclude any need for an imaginary force which assigns inherent worth.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 27, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> As Freud said, "man is sui generis."
> 
> Observable processes like human reason, social cohesion, and empathetic logic are good enough for human existance to preclude any need for an imaginary force which assigns inherent worth.



What!?!!!!!?!!  You don't need God to keep from becoming a raging cannibal?


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 28, 2010)




----------



## emusmacker (Sep 28, 2010)

Ambush80, have you ever killed a mosquito that was biting you?  If so, wasn't that insect just trying to feed and survive?  Kinda hypocritical don't you think?

gtparts, if you want to eat people then just go and do it and see what happens, if you like it so much then why not go to a backwards country where it is practiced and DO IT.


----------



## vanguard1 (Sep 28, 2010)

emusmacker said:


> Ambush80, have you ever killed a mosquito that was biting you?  If so, wasn't that insect just trying to feed and survive?  Kinda hypocritical don't you think?
> 
> gtparts, if you want to eat people then just go and do it and see what happens, if you like it so much then why not go to a backwards country where it is practiced and DO IT.[/QUOTE
> 
> if a animal was attacking me of course i would kill it, but to sneek around and and hide just to kill a poor animal is sick IMHO, and i have the right to feel that way.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 28, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> if a animal was attacking me of course i would kill it, but to sneek around and and hide just to kill a poor animal is sick IMHO, and i have the right to feel that way.



OK.
What is your answer to animal population control and overcrowding?  The motor vehicle?


----------



## vanguard1 (Sep 28, 2010)

wtm45 said:


> ok.
> What is your answer to animal population control and overcrowding?  The motor vehicle?



nature.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 28, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> nature.



Poor answer.

When the carrying capacity of the land is exceeded, it is clearly documented scientifically and factually the animals will suffer with disease and malnutrition.
Not at all natural.

Man has a role in nature.  It is to balance the resource.  That means taking animals in order to PREVENT such overcrowding.
Don't think that can happen?  You are sadly mistaken.


----------



## vanguard1 (Sep 28, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Poor answer.
> 
> When the carrying capacity of the land is exceeded, it is clearly documented scientifically and factually the animals will suffer with disease and malnutrition.
> Not at all natural.
> ...



oh PLEASE, like you do this to help the animals. like i said before why don,t you go and hunt the terrorist and see how it is to hunt something that can shoot back? it is a simple question.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 28, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> oh PLEASE, like you do this to help the animals. like i said before why don,t you go and hunt the terrorist and see how it is to hunt something that can shoot back? it is a simple question.



I've done my military duty.  You do not have to thank me.
It was my honor and privilege.

Now, if you believe the population numbers of animals will stay in check without hunting, please share that theory with us.
See, there are many biologists who know the facts and would love to hear your wisdom.
Those in the know realize it is a critical part of resource management.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 28, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> As Freud said, "man is sui generis."
> 
> Observable processes like human reason, social cohesion, and empathetic logic are good enough for human existance to preclude any need for an imaginary force which assigns inherent worth.



My only point in this thread is not one relating directly to some religious origin.

It is simply this.

Human reason, social cohesion, and empathy (logical or otherwise) may provide some context for the development of some type of moral code. However, human reason, social cohesion, and empathy (logical or otherwise) differ and, in fact, change from one person to another, one group to another. It is at best a moving target. What is moral in one context may be immoral in another. If the concepts of right and wrong are rooted in such shifting sand, how can they be trusted? From day to day or place to place, one cannot be sure his behavior is acceptable or not.

In the early 1800s, on Papua, New Guinea, Homo sapiens bbq is a special day of dining.

In the early 1800s, in Paris, France, such action might get you hung, shot, or guillotined. 

Are both cultures right? Are both wrong? One of each? Which?

There is a genuine problem with morality not being stationary.

In a world without an absolute moral sense or code, anything goes as long as you can back it up with threat of power or its manifest application. 

As for treatment of animals, in such a world, do whatever floats your boat, but be ready to defend your actions.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 28, 2010)

gtparts said:


> My only point in this thread is not one relating directly to some religious origin.
> 
> It is simply this.
> 
> ...



It reinforces the truth that absolute morality does not exist.
If it did, we would not see the changes that have occured.


----------



## apoint (Sep 28, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> It reinforces the truth that absolute morality does not exist.
> If it did, we would not see the changes that have occured.



Without absolute moral parameters. Any and everything is OK in each individuals mind as they deem OK.
 stealing rape murder has no boundaries. Good luck with that.


----------



## packrat (Sep 28, 2010)

*???*



vanguard1 said:


> oh PLEASE, like you do this to help the animals. like i said before why don,t you go and hunt the terrorist and see how it is to hunt something that can shoot back? it is a simple question.



Just outta plain curiousity, are there a bunch of flies in your house? If not, how do you get them out? Can't open the door for them; let one out, let five in. What do you do about fleas on your dog; ask them to leave? What if your kid came home from camp or school with lice, do you gas them or let them breed on their noggin? Where do you draw the line and why?


----------



## earl (Sep 28, 2010)

vanguard 1 , you have got to be a professional chain puller. With the views you have expressed on this thread , I would think that you would get physically ill every time you log on to Woodys.  All these pictures of dead animals and forums dedicated to the various ways men and women enjoy ending a particular animals life must be absolute agony for you . Or perhaps you are a sadist .'
I don't get it. Makes as much sense as a Christian commenting on an atheist subforum .


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Sep 28, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> nature.



I about busted out laughing at that, if a person thinks that is the way to go as opposed to a relatively quick death via bullet, they  haven't spent much time in the wild observing nature cause it is as cruel (I know a human term) as it gets.  I imagine the elk cow literally being eating alive, after being run  nearly to death by a pack of wolves would much rather have a bullet through the lungs (if they could be allowed to choose).  I know a .22 in the head after a lil bit of time in a trap would be much more "humane" than dying of dystemper or the mange from a fox's point of view.  But wait a second, unless we are planted by aliens or in fact aliens from another world, aren't we as much a part of nature as any other creature? I mean, if we aren't what are we?  

I don't hunt to help animals, I hunt to eat animals, sale animal fur, or to keep them from destroying my property.  How many animals have suffered due to the cotton you wear vangaurd1, or because the home you live in subtracted from their habitat?  Or the food you eat comes from the destruction of their habitat?  No human being alive has clean hands when it comes to causing suffering or death amongst lesser beasts. If you, or anyone else thinks otherwise I suggest you keep on watching disney movies and living in your little fantasy world.  Every living creature to some extent or other does so at the expense of other creatures just by exsisting, that is how nature is set up.  Me hunting is as much a part of nature as a wolf hunting or a virus infecting a baby mouse. Nature is always changing, (compare pleistocene vs. holocene) it is just that our kind has changed it about as fast as it has ever changed.

As for the military, being hunted, shot at, etc, etc....been there done that.


----------



## vanguard1 (Sep 29, 2010)

packrat said:


> Just outta plain curiousity, are there a bunch of flies in your house? If not, how do you get them out? Can't open the door for them; let one out, let five in. What do you do about fleas on your dog; ask them to leave? What if your kid came home from camp or school with lice, do you gas them or let them breed on their noggin? Where do you draw the line and why?



no we keep our home clean ,flies only go where there is trash or food.
as for fleas we buy a flea killer from our vet.
and all our kids are grown and out of the house.


----------



## Nicodemus (Sep 29, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> emusmacker said:
> 
> 
> > Ambush80, have you ever killed a mosquito that was biting you?  If so, wasn't that insect just trying to feed and survive?  Kinda hypocritical don't you think?
> ...


----------



## vanguard1 (Sep 29, 2010)

earl said:


> vanguard 1 , you have got to be a professional chain puller. With the views you have expressed on this thread , I would think that you would get physically ill every time you log on to Woodys.  All these pictures of dead animals and forums dedicated to the various ways men and women enjoy ending a particular animals life must be absolute agony for you . Or perhaps you are a sadist .'
> I don't get it. Makes as much sense as a Christian commenting on an atheist subforum .



hey without me this post would have died out. lol
the only reason i,m here is because i,m out of work and am goin nuts, help me get a job and i will be gone.


----------



## earl (Sep 29, 2010)

The chicken plants always need help in the processing plant . Have you tried the deer processors for temp help now that deer season has started ? 

Maybe other folks can help get you headed back to work too. Come on guys , help a nature lover .


----------



## vanguard1 (Sep 29, 2010)

earl said:


> The chicken plants always need help in the processing plant . Have you tried the deer processors for temp help now that deer season has started ?
> 
> Maybe other folks can help get you headed back to work too. Come on guys , help a nature lover .



no i would gag, but thanks i did not know you cared, i take back everything i said about you. well almost everything.


----------



## pnome (Sep 29, 2010)

This sums up my position pretty clear I think:



> I have always tempered my killing with respect for the game pursued.  I see the animal not only as a target but as a living creature with more freedom than I will ever have.  I take that life if I can, with regret as well as joy, and with the sure knowledge that nature's ways of fang and claw or exposure and starvation are a far crueler fate than I bestow. - Fred Bear


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 29, 2010)

apoint said:


> Without absolute moral parameters. Any and everything is OK in each individuals mind as they deem OK.
> stealing rape murder has no boundaries. Good luck with that.



There are no moral absolutes in the entire universe.

You need to read some Freud.  He discusses incest, murder and cannibalism extensively.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 29, 2010)

AWESOME POST, pnome!


----------



## vanguard1 (Sep 29, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> There are no moral absolutes in the entire universe.
> 
> You need to read some Freud.  He discusses incest, murder and cannibalism extensively.



hey if he wanted to do any of that to my family i would have shot him. no problem


----------



## earl (Sep 29, 2010)

Would you let the meat go to waste after you shot him ?


----------



## vanguard1 (Sep 29, 2010)

pnome said:


> This sums up my position pretty clear I think:



I have always tempered my killing with respect for the game pursued. I see the animal not only as a target but as a living creature with more freedom than I will ever have. I take that life if I can, with regret as well as joy, and with the sure knowledge that nature's ways of fang and claw or exposure and starvation are a far crueler fate than I bestow. - Fred Bear 

so you are the judge that desides what lives and what dies? so you are playing GOD?


----------



## vanguard1 (Sep 29, 2010)

earl said:


> Would you let the meat go to waste after you shot him ?[/QUOTE
> 
> no I would call you to come and get it.


----------



## emusmacker (Sep 29, 2010)

Vanguard1 Why don't you go and "target practice" on some terrorists. You wouldn't believe the facts if they bit you on the nose, before you run your mouth, do some research on hunting and conservation then TRY and make your pathetic arguement then.


----------



## packrat (Sep 29, 2010)

*Answer up*



packrat said:


> Just outta plain curiousity, are there a bunch of flies in your house? If not, how do you get them out? Can't open the door for them; let one out, let five in. What do you do about fleas on your dog; ask them to leave? What if your kid came home from camp or school with lice, do you gas them or let them breed on their noggin? Where do you draw the line and why?





vanguard1 said:


> no we keep our home clean ,flies only go where there is trash or food.
> as for fleas we buy a flea killer from our vet.
> and all our kids are grown and out of the house.



Don't get out of the house much do you Vanguard? Flies go anywhere they darn wish. I know; you just want to dodge the question. So you kill fleas, now where do you draw the line? How about mice? Does your pet's food contain any animal by-products? How about your shampoo? Wifes Make-up? You'd be surprised at how guilty you are without even knowing it. How's those shoes & belt?

http://www.ofac.org/issues/animals_everyday.php

http://www.cyberparent.com/eat/hiddenanimalsinfood.htm


----------



## pnome (Sep 29, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> so you are the judge that desides what lives and what dies? so you are playing GOD?



Are you serious?

I'm not playing God.  I'm playing Nature.  Predator and prey.

Does a hawk play God with a field mouse?


----------



## TTom (Sep 30, 2010)

As a hunter at least I do my own killing instead of hiring an assassin to kill my meat for me all the time.


----------



## vanguard1 (Sep 30, 2010)

emusmacker said:


> Vanguard1 Why don't you go and "target practice" on some terrorists. You wouldn't believe the facts if they bit you on the nose, before you run your mouth, do some research on hunting and conservation then TRY and make your pathetic arguement then.



because this is the USA it is called freedom of speech. I can run my mouth as good as you.


----------



## BBQBOSS (Sep 30, 2010)

Trolls... they are everywhere.


----------



## Sterlo58 (Sep 30, 2010)

I did not know we had any true died in the wool bunnyhuggers in Jackson County. How humiliating.


----------



## emusmacker (Sep 30, 2010)

Yeah you can definately run your mouth, but you never answered any of the questions you were asked. Guess you're what we call a dodgeballer or a draft dodger.

And I kill animals for sport and food because this is the USA and I have the priviledge to do so.

Sterlo58, don't worry man, we won't hold it against you.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 30, 2010)

BBQBOSS said:


> Trolls... they are everywhere.



Is there a season for them???


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 30, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> oh PLEASE, like you do this to help the animals. like i said before why don,t you go and hunt the terrorist and see how it is to hunt something that can shoot back? it is a simple question.



Are you being serious?  Why would I want to hunt something that could shoot back?  If you are being serious, you must be very foolish.  If you are egging us on, then Ha-Ha, I get it.  I like to poke people every now and again as well.

I hunt because I can.  I enjoy it, and I enjoy eating what I kill.  I consider myself to be at the top of the food chain and make no apologies for being there.  Yes, I can buy everything at the store I need to survive, but where is the fun in that?

Here is a thought out of left field.  I'd be curious if anyone else reading this feels the same way.  I hunt deer and if possible, I kill deer.  If I find a hurt fawn, and nuture it back to health and it be comes tame, I love it and treat it like any other pet.  I would never dream of eating it.


----------



## Whiteeagle (Sep 30, 2010)

Myself, like my American Indian ancestors, try to treat all living things ethically as I can. I try to leave Nature as I find it , except for the little that I take for my own needs and pleasures. It is the "good ole boy" animal rights people, not bonafide Outdoorsmen that create problems for Mother Nature to have to heal. Vanguard1, if the moccasin fits, wear it! Don't try to tell ME how to live. You would do good for yourself to try and become the MAN that Nicodemus is!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Whiteeagle (Sep 30, 2010)

Also. Sterlo58, I know many swell Outdoorsmen in Jackson Co, so be proud that only one "bunnyhugger" is there!!!!!


----------



## gtparts (Oct 1, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> There are no moral absolutes in the entire universe.
> 
> You need to read some Freud.  He discusses incest, murder and cannibalism extensively.



How uncharacteristic of you, to make such a grand assertion as being factual, while knowing full well you, nor Freud, have any proof. You should at least acknowledge that it is only your unproven opinion.

It is worth considering that man cannot provide a moral absolute, because he will not. It does not serve his desire to manipulate things to his own purpose on a situation by situation basis. It has been labeled _situational ethics_. It clearly accounts for the unwillingness to submit to God, the author of the moral absolute, on the part of many, who use all sorts of devices to deny the truth.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 1, 2010)

gtparts said:


> How uncharacteristic of you, to make such a grand assertion as being factual, while knowing full well you, nor Freud, have any proof. You should at least acknowledge that it is only your unproven opinion.
> 
> It is worth considering that man cannot provide a moral absolute, because he will not. It does not serve his desire to manipulate things to his own purpose on a situation by situation basis. It has been labeled _situational ethics_. It clearly accounts for the unwillingness to submit to God, the author of the moral absolute, on the part of many, who use all sorts of devices to deny the truth.



What you fail to recognize is that your moral absolute was written down by man just like all the other religious doctrines and their "moral absolutes".   You would do well to look at all of them, including indigenous people's and see where the ideas mesh.  From what I understand, the one and only Taboo that is shared across all cultures is the one against incest.  

Morality is fluid and should be as situations and conditions change.  Even your Bible makes exceptions to its own rules.  Strange how that lesson was lost on you.


----------



## jwf2506 (Oct 2, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> I've done my military duty.  You do not have to thank me.
> It was my honor and privilege.
> 
> Now, if you believe the population numbers of animals will stay in check without hunting, please share that theory with us.
> ...


I would like to say thank you for serving because of people like you I am able to freely hunt,fish and most important be a Christian without worring about being beheaded, atleast for now .THANK YOU


----------



## gtparts (Oct 2, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> What you fail to recognize is that your moral absolute was written down by man just like all the other religious doctrines and their "moral absolutes".   You would do well to look at all of them, including indigenous people's and see where the ideas mesh.  From what I understand, the one and only Taboo that is shared across all cultures is the one against incest.
> 
> Morality is fluid and should be as situations and conditions change.  Even your Bible makes exceptions to its own rules.  Strange how that lesson was lost on you.



Your opinion is noted and summarily rejected on the basis of what I know in my heart and soul to be true. 

As you have suggested, long ago I looked into the more credible belief systems and found them sorely lacking. 

A morality that is fluid is thoroughly unreliable, as are those who live by such a vacuous and unfulfilling notion of right and wrong. Such untethered liberality leaves one completely uncertain as to where one stands at any given point, or where anyone else stands, for that matter.

The biblical "rules"(as you call them) have been condensed by the Author to a simple and easy-to-remember two.

Matthew 22:36-40  "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"


   He said to him, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important  commandment. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments." 


I am quite satisfied that that alone sets a standard no other can match. You just can't improve on perfection.


----------



## emusmacker (Oct 5, 2010)

Looking at the morals of man from years past, wasn't Sodom and Gamorrah destroyed because of the homosexuals, hmmmm another "taboo". Oh yeah and even nature frowns on it, how many times do you see 2 male turkeys breeding, or even 2 bucks breeding. So why don't you go back and do a little more research.


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

Actually emusmacker that reason for destruction is a false reason,
a common misconception.

When was the decision to destroy the cities made? that is the first question to keep you on track to the biblical reasons stated.

Before the angels even entered the city the city was doomed and the destructions inevitable. 

God said he would not destroy the city if they could find 10 righteous men (not heterosexual but righteous and we all know that you can be heterosexual and not righteous) They failed to find those 10 men but Abraham prevailed upon God to save Lot from the destruction. 

If the populace wanting to "Know the angels" had been the reason then how was it that God made that call BEFORE the angels even got to Sodom?

Add to that that 

The Bible itself says

Ezekiel 16:49

    16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.


Seems Ezekiel didn't believe that Sodom's sin was homosexuality.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2010)

emusmacker said:


> Looking at the morals of man from years past, wasn't Sodom and Gamorrah destroyed because of the homosexuals, hmmmm another "taboo". Oh yeah and even nature frowns on it, how many times do you see 2 male turkeys breeding, or even 2 bucks breeding. So why don't you go back and do a little more research.



Have you ever Googled "homosexual behavior in animals"?   You have not.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Your opinion is noted and summarily rejected on the basis of what I know in my heart and soul to be true.



I don't even know what to call this.  Anecdotal evidence?  a Testimonial?  What I do know is that it is thoroughly unconvincing.



gtparts said:


> As you have suggested, long ago I looked into the more credible belief systems and found them sorely lacking.
> 
> A morality that is fluid is thoroughly unreliable, as are those who live by such a vacuous and unfulfilling notion of right and wrong. Such untethered liberality leaves one completely uncertain as to where one stands at any given point, or where anyone else stands, for that matter.



I have determined that this is the most appropriate response to changing conditions.  





gtparts said:


> The biblical "rules"(as you call them) have been condensed by the Author to a simple and easy-to-remember two.
> 
> Matthew 22:36-40  "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"
> 
> ...



How do apply the second law in combat?


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

Now as a funny ha ha exercise in thinking outside the box.

Problem determine if the men of Sodom wanting to "know" the angels was somehow homosexual.

Stipulation for only this one time that knowing them was ment to infer to have sex with them. 

#1 define homosexuality as relations with people of the same sex/ gender

Question #1 do Angels have a sexual gender? do they even have sex organs?

answer #1 angels have names that indicate a gender but there is not doubt that they lack a sex organs that would make them male or female in traditional terms.

So if Angels have no official gender, how could you say it was homosexual? LOL


----------



## DS7418 (Oct 5, 2010)

Well... as usual this thread went off into left field... but to the original,, If your gonna KILL an animal, just do it and be man enough to be content with it. If your looking for a way to justify what you just done then digg up some of these Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- reasons why you used "ethical" means to do it.. Your either a killer or a tree hugger,, no in-between..


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 5, 2010)

DS7418 said:


> Well... as usual this thread went off into left field... but to the original,, If your gonna KILL an animal, just do it and be man enough to be content with it. If your looking for a way to justify what you just done then digg up some of these Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- reasons why you used "ethical" means to do it.. Your either a killer or a tree hugger,, no in-between..



Wrong.


----------



## DS7418 (Oct 5, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Wrong.


.
 You are correct,, I spoke too soon.


----------



## emusmacker (Oct 6, 2010)

TTom, I know what the Bible says and you are correct, but do you think Sodom was the only city that had less than 10 righteous people, if that was the reason that God destroyed the city then that would make Him a respecter of persons which the Bible says He's not, so therefore the reason he destroyed the city was because of homosexuality. Remember how the men asked for Lot to send out the Angels, and instead he offered his own daughters, hmmm wonder why?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2010)

emusmacker said:


> TTom, I know what the Bible says and you are correct, but do you think Sodom was the only city that had less than 10 righteous people, if that was the reason that God destroyed the city then that would make Him a respecter of persons which the Bible says He's not, so therefore the reason he destroyed the city was because of homosexuality. Remember how the men asked for Lot to send out the Angels, and instead he offered his own daughters, hmmm wonder why?




Then they got him drunk in a cave and raped him.


----------



## Thanatos (Oct 6, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> How did you arrive at your basis for the justice or injustice of how you use animals ie. hunting, sport fishing, as burden, etc.?



My stomach...it makes me hunt and fish for these tasty little creatures.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 6, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> My stomach...it makes me hunt and fish for these tasty little creatures.



True...true


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 6, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Have you ever Googled "homosexual behavior in animals"?   You have not.



Did you think about that before you typed it out on the screen and hit send?  You did not.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2010)

emusmacker said:


> Looking at the morals of man from years past, wasn't Sodom and Gamorrah destroyed because of the homosexuals, hmmmm another "taboo". Oh yeah and even nature frowns on it, how many times do you see 2 male turkeys breeding, or even 2 bucks breeding. So why don't you go back and do a little more research.





ted_BSR said:


> Did you think about that before you typed it out on the screen and hit send?  You did not.



He states that homosexual behavior never happens with animals.  He's wrong and there is massive documentation to support that fact.  Obviously he hasn't looked for it.  Have you?


----------



## emusmacker (Oct 7, 2010)

As a matter of fact I've done my own research, actually observing "REAL" animals in the wild and not in some lab where human intervention has altered them. But you wouldn't know that because you don't hunt and only enjoy the outdoors for shooting purposes, and most animals run from gunfire.


----------



## emusmacker (Oct 7, 2010)

And yes, Lots daughters did get him drunk and then rape him, but the reason Sodom and gamorrah was destroyed was because of the homosexual lifestyles.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2010)

emusmacker said:


> As a matter of fact I've done my own research, actually observing "REAL" animals in the wild and not in some lab where human intervention has altered them. But you wouldn't know that because you don't hunt and only enjoy the outdoors for shooting purposes, and most animals run from gunfire.



You have not done your homework.  Much of the animal behavior research was done in the field.  Why don't you want to know the truth?  I would provide you a link to some research but it's so easy to find if you look that I don't feel obligated.  

I hunt and fish plenty.  Again you speak of things you know nothing about.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2010)

emusmacker said:


> And yes, Lots daughters did get him drunk and then rape him, but the reason Sodom and gamorrah was destroyed was because of the homosexual lifestyles.



This stands on it's own and needs no further commentary.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 7, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> How did you arrive at your basis for the justice or injustice of how you use animals ie. hunting, sport fishing, as burden, etc.?


 
Physiology of the animals make up. Square teeth, no incisors, parabolic vision = prey. Incisors, forward facing eyes = predators.

Humans fall into the second catagory.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 7, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Physiology of the animals make up. Square teeth, no incisors, parabolic vision = prey. Incisors, forward facing eyes = predators.
> 
> Humans fall into the second catagory.



My question is more about choosing a behavior; in the way that humans do despite their design.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 17, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> How did you arrive at your basis for the justice or injustice of how you use animals ie. hunting, sport fishing, as burden, etc.?



We are stewards.  No justice or injustice is involved.  I believe animals are different from man in the fact that animals do not have a soul (spirit, yes, soul, no) when they die, they cease to exist.  We are stewards, and the animals are due our respect, judgement, and thanks to God.


----------

