, , , , , , , ,

Following on from an earlier blog about the Metallic and Bear hunting issue currently being debated online, I am on one a bit and I just wanted to tackle the thorny issue being raised by the pro blood sports lobby about how “human beings hunt for food”.  In fact a lot of their arguments and indeed grievances all seem to revolve around food of some variety or another.

free-range-chickensMeat eaters, for example, are apparently not allowed to comment on hunting let alone be against it in any way shape or form. Well, for the record, I do eat meat. I also oppose hunting for sport.  I am being deliberately specific about the “sport” part of this statement. If people went outside, shot an animal and used it for food, clothing and all the rest I would not have a problem with hunting. After all it’s what we did as a species before the advent of farming.  However we are not talking food here.  What the pro blood sports brigade actually do is chase down or shoot an animal for the fun of it or to use as a trophy. I am amazed at how many hunt supporters on this page use this non-argument about food as justification for trophy hunting. How many of them have ever actually eaten fox?  Or badger?  And of course, they all personally go and hunt down their beef, pork and chicken. Kill it, gut it and prepare it to eat. Do they hell! They go to the butchers or the supermarket like everyone else. My stance on this is simple: you can choose to eat meat, fine by me; you can choose to be vegetarian, vegan or any other ~an you like. Don’t force it on other people, and respect their choice.  If like me, you do eat animal produce take some responsibility for the welfare of the animals that are bred and killed to feed you. There is plenty of ethically sourced meat out there.

Of course if you don’t eat meat you are basically just a hysterical hippy and therefore have no right to comment either.  I mean after all, when you choose not to eat meat it is compulsory to also simultaneously undergo a process to have part of your brain removed and a new “hysteria centre” inserted in its place. This is an even more ludicrous argument than the eating meat argument. Just because someone has changed their mode of feeding themselves it does not mean they automatically lose the right to comment on blood sports or anything else.

Whilst your opinions may well determine what you eat, what you eat does not determine your opinions.

What the upshot of this argument is: If you eat (anything) you can’t oppose hunting, because we like to hunt. Or we just like Metallica. Either way, we don’t like to be questioned.