ironmonk Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 27 2004, 03:06 AM'] Good source? Show me the money. I'll believe it when I see it (and I honestly mean that). If you can show me where it has been condemned, I will assent to it immediately. [/quote] In the Catechism posted earlier on this thread. If you didn't try to philosophically and liberally look at the teachings of the Church, then you would see it clearly. You should first prove to us that there is a need for bullfighting and/or fox hunting before you believe it to not be a sin. We have shown you and explained to you where and why it's a sin.... and you say "prove it" it's not a sin... without any justification to prove it is not a sin?! Yoda says: Like a child that refuses to know the truth you are acting. How is it needed to shove swords/spears into the back of a bull when it passes the "fighter"? Enlighten us please. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Let's put this in a courtroom setting: You have accused Fox hunting (and now bullfighting) of being immoral. You are the prosecuter, so to speak. I am saying that I don't think you can make the claim that it is immoral, at least not without qualification. Since any form of hunting can be immoral if abused or done for the wrong reasons, I must assume that your accusation is all encompassing; that you are saying it is always and everywhere immoral. I am acting as the defendent in this case (though I have no vested interest in the matter for I have never done either). What have you established thus far? You have established that useless killing is a sin per the CCC. I agree. What have you not established? That fox hunting and bullfighting always and everywhere entail the useless killing of a brute. You have made the accusation. The burden of proof is on you. As a defendent, I don't need to provide any evidence whatsoever. I simply maintain that you cannot make the sweeping claim that Fox Hunting and Bullfighting are always and everywhere immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 29 2004, 09:54 AM'] If you didn't try to philosophically and liberally look at the teachings of the Church, then you would see it clearly. [/quote] I'm not sure what you mean by this. Interesting combination. Far be it from someone to look at the Church's teachings philosophically. How does that conect with liberalism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I'd have to say that sport hunting looks pretty sinful. However, just plain old deer hunting is good. I guess this puts the kibosh on my plans to go spear hunting for wild boars in Montana... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 [quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 29 2004, 11:30 AM'] I'd have to say that sport hunting looks pretty sinful. However, just plain old deer hunting is good. I guess this puts the kibosh on my plans to go spear hunting for wild boars in Montana... [/quote] YEP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 29 2004, 11:09 AM'] Let's put this in a courtroom setting: You have accused Fox hunting (and now bullfighting) of being immoral. You are the prosecuter, so to speak. I am saying that I don't think you can make the claim that it is immoral, at least not without qualification. Since any form of hunting can be immoral if abused or done for the wrong reasons, I must assume that your accusation is all encompassing; that you are saying it is always and everywhere immoral. I am acting as the defendent in this case (though I have no vested interest in the matter for I have never done either). What have you established thus far? You have established that useless killing is a sin per the CCC. I agree. What have you not established? That fox hunting and bullfighting always and everywhere entail the useless killing of a brute. You have made the accusation. The burden of proof is on you. As a defendent, I don't need to provide any evidence whatsoever. I simply maintain that you cannot make the sweeping claim that Fox Hunting and Bullfighting are always and everywhere immoral. [/quote] This is not a court of law. You object to the teachings of the Church without being able to explain where something might be an exception... but alas... the terms have been defined... if fox hunting and bullfighting did not fit the given criteria, then what was said does not apply. A little critical thinking goes a long way. I have describe what I meant by fox hunting... and bullfighting where the bull suffers and/or dies for entertainment of others is a sin. [quote]I'm not sure what you mean by this. Interesting combination. Far be it from someone to look at the Church's teachings philosophically. How does that conect with liberalism? [/quote] You are using philosophical "what ifs" and you don't even know the "what ifs" or you just haven't posted them. You are saying that it is not a sin, when it is because of philosophical "what ifs" - that is what theological liberalism does. We are talking real world here. Nothing more to be said on the topic. What has been described (i.e. fox hunting/bullfighting) is a sin, if you say it's not a sin then you are guilty of being obstinate to the teaching of the Church, then you've got some issues that you need to work out. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Actually, PSPX, you are the one that is the plaintiff and we would be the defendants. The fact of the matter is, that the Church has condemned needless killing of and cruelty to animals. There is no need for further 'evidence' in this regard. On the usefulness of fox-hunting - there is none. Sport hunting is cruel, and serves no benefit other than entertainment. Sport hunting is like porn - entertaining to some, but totally sinful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vianney Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Who says that hunting cant be for food and pleasure both? I deer hunt for the food but also for the thrill of the hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 [quote name='vianney' date='Nov 29 2004, 10:14 PM'] Who says that hunting cant be for food and pleasure both? I deer hunt for the food but also for the thrill of the hunt. [/quote] No one here is saying that. Food is a need. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I want to play devil's advocate here in a way. When my late grandfather was much younger, he'd often go on fox hunts, but they wouldn't kill the fox. All they'd do is run it up a tree and leave it at that. No killing the fox or anything like that. If a fox hunt doesn't include killing the fox, then surely that wouldn't be a sin. Granted, fox hunts without killing the fox may be the exception and not the rule, but because of that we can't make a blanket statement and say that fox hunts always include killing the fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 [quote name='Dave' date='Nov 29 2004, 09:36 PM'] I want to play devil's advocate here in a way. When my late grandfather was much younger, he'd often go on fox hunts, but they wouldn't kill the fox. All they'd do is run it up a tree and leave it at that. No killing the fox or anything like that. If a fox hunt doesn't include killing the fox, then surely that wouldn't be a sin. Granted, fox hunts without killing the fox may be the exception and not the rule, but because of that we can't make a blanket statement and say that fox hunts always include killing the fox. [/quote] This is partly what I am getting at. The fox is not always killed. In fact, I'm not sure they ever kill the fox in the VA fox hunts. But I think Ironmonk is refering to the cases when they do kill the fox. I say that one can still do it for a useful purpose. One can eat the meat and save the pelt for either clothing or decoration (or trade). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 (edited) Here's another issue: there is an ever increasing fox overpopulation problem in Britain right now. The foxes are dying of disease or are being poisoned (how's that for humane). Is this a useful reason to hunt them? Here is some interesting information on the role of the Terrier in pest control: Throughout history, man has found it necessary to control the populations of certain animals regarded as pests, either because of their destructive or predatory nature, or the risk of the spread of disease carried by them. Some of these animals spend much of their time underground and are most easily located there. The terrier, small bodied but strong and with a nose as keen as its nature, was originally bred for this work. Although thousands of people own terriers as pets, not everyone is aware that these dogs owe their origins to working ancestors, bred over centuries for pest control. The name terrier is derived from the French 'terre', meaning earth. Today, despite modern traps and poisons, the role of the terrier remains. In many pest control situations, the terrier is the most humane method available. The terrier's role is not to fight with its quarry, but to locate it underground and to bark at it continuously, either causing it to leave the earth or alternatively to indicate where in the earth the quarry is located – in order that it can be dug to and dispatched. Most recognised packs of foxhounds and minkhounds use terriers to locate or flush their quarry from below ground. Terriers are used by gamekeepers who are required to control foxes, particularly in woodland where shooting may be impractical. Independent pest control services are also available, wherever rats, rabbits, mink or foxes are causing damage. Edited November 30, 2004 by popestpiusx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 29 2004, 11:59 PM'] Here's another issue: there is an ever increasing fox overpopulation problem in Britain right now. The foxes are dying of disease or are being poisoned (how's that for humane). Is this a useful reason to hunt them? Here is some interesting information on the role of the Terrier in pest control: Throughout history, man has found it necessary to control the populations of certain animals regarded as pests, either because of their destructive or predatory nature, or the risk of the spread of disease carried by them. Some of these animals spend much of their time underground and are most easily located there. The terrier, small bodied but strong and with a nose as keen as its nature, was originally bred for this work. Although thousands of people own terriers as pets, not everyone is aware that these dogs owe their origins to working ancestors, bred over centuries for pest control. The name terrier is derived from the French 'terre', meaning earth. Today, despite modern traps and poisons, the role of the terrier remains. In many pest control situations, the terrier is the most humane method available. The terrier's role is not to fight with its quarry, but to locate it underground and to bark at it continuously, either causing it to leave the earth or alternatively to indicate where in the earth the quarry is located – in order that it can be dug to and dispatched. Most recognised packs of foxhounds and minkhounds use terriers to locate or flush their quarry from below ground. Terriers are used by gamekeepers who are required to control foxes, particularly in woodland where shooting may be impractical. Independent pest control services are also available, wherever rats, rabbits, mink or foxes are causing damage. [/quote] You're pulling for straws... For the 4th time... In the fox hunts, the fox is already captured. If it was a need to destroy the animal because of disease or overpopulation, then they could do it when they already have it. But they don't... they release it to chase it down then kill it with dogs. It's the same thing as taking a stray cat, and throwing it into a pit with pit bulls. The fox hunts we're talking about are STRICTLY for sport. These are not people going out and hunting a fox in the wild due to overpopulation, etc... Give it up already... you are wrong... you've been shown how you are wrong... Maybe you should re-read the entire post... either you misread something, overlooked something, or you are obstinate to Church teaching. God Bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 No, what has happened is that what you are condemning is finally getting more narrow and specific. My point from the beginning has been that you cannot condemn all fox hunting. I still maintain that position. You are now narrowing your condemnation to one specific form of it. Fine and dandy. But I'll say again, not all fox hunting is immoral. Your constant insistance that I am denying Church teaching (or some such nonsense) is, quite frankly, rediculous. It is absurd. It is a baseless accusation. And it is annoying. Perhaps that is your intent. I do not know. In any case, I have never disagreed that it would be wrong to kill an animal for the simple thrill of killing it. What I have said the whole time is that there are legitimate reasons to hunt fox. Ergo, I am disputing the minor premise of your syllogism. I am not disputing the truth of the Catholic teaching, I am disputing your assessment of fox hunting, not just morally, but factually. You seem to be unable to tell the difference between the Catholic teaching on the treatment of animals and your assessment of the "fact" of fox hunting. Essentially you are accusing me of having serious issues and being obstinate simply because I disagree with your judgement of something. I'm afraid that simply won't do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Nov 29 2004, 08:11 PM'] Actually, PSPX, you are the one that is the plaintiff and we would be the defendants. [/quote] How so? [quote]The fact of the matter is, that the Church has condemned needless killing of and cruelty to animals. There is no need for further 'evidence' in this regard. [/quote] I have not disputed this fact. [quote]On the usefulness of fox-hunting - there is none.[/quote] It is on this point that I disagree for reasons already stated. [quote]Sport hunting is cruel, and serves no benefit other than entertainment. Sport hunting is like porn - entertaining to some, but totally sinful.[/quote] Perhaps I am not understanding your use of the term "sport", because it seems to me that all hunting is considered a sport in some sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now