ricknav

Hello Biker. I missed your calming presence these last couple of days. I guess I'll just have to read more of your thought processes to get to know you better before I go off half cocked again. Sorry, you seem to be a real nice fellow. I didn't mean to antagonize you so bad. I'll do better. Have a nice day.

Interesting point. I would think you would encourage diverse opinions. If everyone has to agree with one ethos to speak it would be more like church than a "forum". Have a nice day. Well said!

What's to support? Look, let me translate my story for you since you are obviously more interested in "intellectualizing" and arguing than seeing the simple point. This thread was started on the question of is it wrong to kill an animal just for the sake of killing. Then it evolved into an endless defense and counter-defense of "what-abouts" involving hunting, varmint eradication, killing for sport, killing for fun & even mindless killing just because one can. So, here it is ... I do not believe that killing is a sport. Period. I don't find it amusing or even interesting. Especially enough to turn it into a subject for dissection of its various "pointless" facets. Yes, I do believe that animals can think and therefore be influenced by "determination". Although their thoughts are more-than-likely limited to avenues of simple necessity they do have to make decisions in order to survive. Can I prove this beyond simple calculated logic via observation ... nope. Have I engaged in any enlightening conversations with animals lately for the purpose of garnering "support" from them that they would rather live than die or even if dying for a cause is of value to them ... nope. However, as a human being I do believe that being guided be some type of "prime directive" (if you will), that killing is wrong, is a pretty good insurance policy against the rationalizing through "intellectual" discourse, that killing is ok. Now if the whole area of interest for you in this discussion is "can animals experience determination" (and I must assume that you believe that they can’t, therefore making it ok to kill them(?)) and that that is of more importance than "killing is wrong" then you are truly a contrarian and would argue with a wall while that wall was falling on you. Have a nice day.

An argument was exactly what I was not going to indulge in. In the example I set forth, volition/determination was clearly "implied" & understood. Splitting hairs over a definition was not going to add anything substantive to the meaning of my example. Therefore, "If you agree with that, then just say so and save everyone the trouble of an argument." But in a nice way.

Only need one reason not to bomb tehran .... 1.3 Billion muslims. Then we have 300 million Americans (that can't agree on a religion ... imagine that). That's 4:1 against. We'd have to do a LOT of nuking.... and then what?

"EXACTLY"

Webster's definition: Determination: the act of deciding definitely and firmly; also : the result of such an act of decision b : the power or habit of deciding definitely and firmly. Ya, we could go off on a tangent getting into whether or not animals think ... but I won't. You say towmaatoe and I say towmaytoe..

If you give a human a gun and send him in the wild to kill an animal, I would say the human has, at least, a better than average chance of killing that animal ... assuming he can find it. Now if the animal he chooses to kill is a natural born killer, say a bear, then, yes, it would take a good deal more to kill it than say a deer. More skill (shooting ability), mental ability (knowledge of the animals abilities and habits) & of course a bit more courage. Now, outsmarting a deer does not seem to "bear" out as much relevance as outsmarting the bear. After all, neither animal has a gun with which to shoot back. But of course the bear does have something the deer does not ... the ability (and determination) to kill you if you do not kill it first. Now when hunting a deer, the object is always to get as close as possible to assure a clean, successful shot and kill. When hunting a bear, the hunter is usually not as confident of his weapons killing ability on the first shot. So he forgoes a "close encounter", for a more secure, distant shot ... oh, but ... not too distant. Far enough to get off that "just in case" second or maybe even third shot... in case of a miss or wounding. All good hunters are always thinking of safety first. So, we have on the one hand a dead deer and on the other a dead bear. Both just as assuredly dead and now fit for consumption, display or bragging rights. Somehow I just don't get the "sport" of the whole affair. Now maybe, if the human were armed with nothing more than a knife (pick your flavor) and had to track down and kill the animal with it and his bare hands ... yah, that would definitely be more "sporting".