Never Wear Your Best Trousers When You Go Out To Fight For Freedom And Truth

Home > Never Wear Your Best Trousers When You Go Out To Fight For Freedom And Truth

(Bonus points to whoever can tell me the source of that title quote without googling.)

I try pretty hard to keep my hands reasonably clean when I get involved in discussions on this blog, as well as on others. I’m human, and I have a temper, and sometimes I do let my emotions get the better of me. It can be a fairly ugly thing, but fortunately, I’m pretty good at not taking things too personally. Sometimes though, there’s nothing for it but to get down in the dirt a little bit too.

Recently, I got a comment on a thread from 2009 regarding the hunting vs anti-hunting debate. My guess is that the person who left it, anonymously named “Krell”, figured I wouldn’t pay attention to such an old thread and that the comment would be left un-remarked. Maybe this person doesn’t know that I try really hard to reply to comments, particularly those of any substance… right or wrong. I keep a pretty close eye on the conversations that happen on this blog.

I probably should have just deleted it and gone on about my day. It was, after all, just another diatribe full of the standard anti-hunting rhetoric. Hunting is murder. Hunters are cruel brutes. We kill for fun. Etc.

Sport hunting is legal murder. There are no ethics in it, let alone morality. The prime motive is not hunger or survival. It’s pleasure. Hunters kill because they enjoy doing it. Have to. It makes them feel good. They kill millions of animals they do not eat. And the industry behind them makes a hefty profit. Hunters will forever claim they love and respect nature, yet they needlessly slaughter the best it has to offer. Such love. It’s not a “sport.” It’s more like a war. You have the snipers and you have their unwitting targets. But in this particular war, the other side can’t shoot back. The brutal and cowardly couldn’t ask for more.

Not much to build on there. Just another hate-filled evangelist attacking an opposing ideology with myth and misinformation. Then why didn’t I delete it instead of spending the time to reply to Krell’s comments, not once, but twice?

It’s hard to say, but a part of me feels like it’s a good thing to let the readers see this foolishness, particularly in light of some of the conversations we’ve had here, and on linked blogs like NorCal Cazadora, Fair Chase Hunting, and the Mindful Carnivore. Those conversations and the resultant comments are pretty good indicators that there’s a lot more to hunting and hunters than mindless bloodlust. In my mind, Krell’s comments provide sort of the same thing we see when PETA goes out and does one of their idiotic publicity stunts… it hurts them worse than it hurts us.

But I think this sort of commentary is important because it can inform our conversations when we challenge anti-hunting dogma. Sure, this person’s comments were on the extreme end of the spectrum, but this is a very real mindset out there. As hunters, we really need to be prepared to answer to this kind of charge, even if we question the validity. This is where hunting vs. anti-hunting becomes an ideological quagmire if we let it. Right vs. wrong. Good vs. evil. And not a bit of it comes with any tangible support for either argument. May as well be Catholicism vs. Judaism.

For my part, I gave this Krell person a chance to follow up with a more substantial discussion, and when that response offered nothing more, I closed the door. To me, it was a lot like closing the door on a Jehovah’s Witness or an evangelist from the local, fundamentalist Baptist church. I don’t fault anyone their personal beliefs or religion, and I appreciate those who’d like to offer me some of their Kool-Aid. But I have little patience for anyone who wants to force it down my throat.

Should I have allowed this person’s comments? Should I have responded? What would you have done?

Lead Ban Chronicles – I’d Rather Fight than Switch

Reply

mike

Posted November 11, 2011 at 7:40 AM

i think its okay to leave some ones narrow minded comments up. maybe they were just trying to get a reaction from you or your readers. maybe they really did mean what they said. who knows? all in all, its just their personal opinion (and nothing more). opinions are like @ssholes-everybody has one-and some are stinkier than others.
Reply

JAC

Posted November 11, 2011 at 8:25 AM

When I was in law school, sitting bleary-eyed through criminal law section, I learned that “murder” is the unlawful killing; of a human being; with malice aforethought. All three elements are required. So, Krell gets off to a rough start by being flatly wrong in his opening salvo. But, I think about killing animals a lot, and the way that is accomplished, and I’m not unsympathetic to some of Krell’s assertions. I know hunters who don’t eat their kill. My Icon and Leupold do make me an analogue to a sniper. Pigs have limited ability to fight back.

To address your comments about PETA, the thing is, Phillip, I hunt, in part, because of PETA’s work exposing factory farming. Somewhere between watching PETA’s videos and reading Omnivore’s Dilemma (I am a cliche), I found myself at Chuck Hawks site reading and reading and reading. I hunt now because I don’t want my eating choices to foment factory farming practices and I don’t want indentured immigrants standing up to their knees in gore for me.

Ultimately, I think that my choice to hunt is more ethical, less brutal, and more environmentally sound than if I ate factory meat. The animals live a natural existence, their death is as swift as in a slaughterhouse and I hunt only animals that are either invasive species or oerpopulated. But I can remember an historical me who might have written a screed like Krell’s. But that was before PETA and Pollan got to me.
Reply

laura

Posted November 11, 2011 at 8:50 AM

I can relate to Krell as I used to think exactly like him/her. I can understand this way of thinking. The world is not black and white it is gray. There are hunters who respect nature and hunt properly, there are many that don’t. Having said that, I would invite discussion so that Krell can get to know the side of those that do. But know that for every 100 hunters that hunt as hunting should be done, that 1 that blows it will be the one that Krell latches on to and that ruins it for everyone. Same thing for the other side. There are many animal/nature lovers who get colored with the PETA brush even though they would never hold such hard line views. I would still invite discussion. I would like to speak to Krell to share with him/her our experience here with the wild pig population explosion and to explain what happened to all the other elements of nature as a result. We still rescue animals, we are still animal lovers, yet we kill wild pigs. I would love to share this story to show a different side.
- Reply
  
  Phillip Loughlin
  
  Posted November 11, 2011 at 12:19 PM
  
  Thanks, for the comments everyone.
  
  I have not blocked Krell from commenting, and in fact had another little round this morning on the original thread (which can be found here, if you’re interested). In my last comments to Krell, I suggested reading more of the posts and comments threads on this blog, because all of the challenges he (or she) presents have been addressed in these pages… often many times over. I’ve been at this for almost five years now.
  
  I’d actually love to have more comments than my own there for a couple of reasons.
  
  The first is that the arguments that Krell puts forth have not changed a lick since I first debated hunting vs. anti-hunting back in the dark ages before we had the Internet. It’s as if there’s a playbook out there (there actually are several) and these folks are reading it verbatim. And honestly, my responses have become pretty much rote as well. I’m a little tired of repeating myself. One of the key things I learned over the years of this debate is that the reason it’s such a popular argument is that there is no “winning” side. It’s pure emotion. Some people think killing animals, particularly for “sport”, is morally wrong. Some others feel that it’s perfectly OK. And there are shades between who attach justifications or conditions, as John does (only hunts non-native or overpopulated species). Who’s right? I think the answer there is entirely subjective, and it should stay that way. Unfortunately, when the anti-hunters use this tactic, the common result is that the hunters end up trapped by their own responses. Do you enjoy hunting? Then you must enjoy killing. We all recognize the false dichotomy of course, but that’s hardly the point.
  
  I don’t mind evangelicism. I do it myself from a pro-hunting perspective. And despite my occasionally brusque responses, I am actually interested in hearing opposing viewpoints. There’s a lot to learn, even if I don’t agree with what I’m hearing. Plus, speaking out about what you believe shows conviction. In some ways, I think that’s admirable… particularly when there’s a strong, moral component to those ideals. But I also despise hypocrisy… and hypocrisy is pretty much inherent whenever someone starts speaking in absolutes. There’s a line there.
  
  The other reason I’d love to have more people responding to Krell is that I think that many of the voices on this blog counter Krell’s argument pretty clearly. John, Tovar, Holly, Laura, Eric Nuse, and many more have made a pretty clear case that the archetype of “hunter” that Krell is working from is a poorly constructed caricature, based on prejudiced ignorance (intentional or not) rather than fact.
  
  So please, feel free to hop over to the old thread, read up and comment if you feel like it. My own arguments there are fairly imperfect, so take me to task too if you will. I’m OK with that.
  - Reply
    
    JAC
    
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 2:19 PM
    
    Phillip: I’ll hop over there. But before I go, let me comment on one of your points. People who argue absolutes aren’t per se hypocritical, they are innacurate, or imprecise, or too lazy to hone a point. Being a hypocrit takes more doing.
Reply

JAC

Posted November 11, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Oy, my spelling!
Reply

Matt Moore

Posted November 11, 2011 at 3:48 PM

As far as allowing his post goes, it is up to you as it is your site. That being said, I think it is important to see and hear all sides and opinions. I find Krell’s comments inflammatory and narrow minded.

It is a very difficult exercise to have someone change what they perceive are their core beliefs. Mine are based on taking responsibility for yourself and family, doing the right thing, keeping my word, and the golden rule. It is my abbreviated version of the big 10 Moses stumbled across all those years ago.

I am not so religious compared to spiritual. My church is the outdoors and I feel comfortable there. I do not completely understand those who hunt and do not eat the game they harvest. Sometimes the best I can do is understand what I do and why.

My question for Krell is this: “Do you think mother nature is less cruel than man as an animal dying of starvation gets its eyes pecked out by a raven?”

So, count on me hunting every chance I get. It is part of me I am not willing to turn my back on.
Reply

Neil H

Posted November 12, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Phillip, I commend you for giving it a try. Perhaps you were deluded by more open minded conversations with our own resident vegan, Ingrid. It was good of you, but you might as well talk to a wall since “Krell” (nice touch with the name of a highly evolved race that died of it’s own technology, a la Forbidden Planet) didn’t come to find understanding, common ground, or insight. Yawn. Given the random finding of an old post that was probably the result of a search engine query, I’d say professional or at least dedicated troll.

I feel like this exemplifies a larger problem in our culture. The internet and even geographic location allows people to literally live and converse with only those who think as they do. People can create black and white worlds for themselves with no dissent and they pull further and further into them. Conservatism, liberalism, Fundamentalist Christianity, radical Islam; perfect worlds where all other sense and reason is pushed out. Perfect truth. Good versus evil, us against them, with us or against us, four legs good two legs bad, Meat is murder, God hates fags. Whatever. It makes me sad.

I can only muddle through the many shades of grey in the world I live in, where many people I call friends have widely different views on different subjects. The occasional vegetarian or vegan included. Some hold these opinions very strongly. While I’ve never met the archetypes who kill for fun that he describes, I’m sure somewhere they exist. I also know the feeling I had when I killed my first deer. Complex emotions of joy, sadness, pride, humility. The most unexpected feeling though, was an amazing sense of time; the overwhelming feeling that I would bring food back to my family as so many had before me. Nice that he knows that this was all delusional, that he or she knows the truth for me. Obviously, to him, “Krell” has moved beyond the last few million years or so of human behavior, past we neanderthals and the Dali Lama (who eats meat for health reasons).

I personally respect those who would choose not to kill an animal directly or indirectly. I respect anyone who leads a considered life above those who never question. But I also allow others to find their own answers. Is my solution a solution for everyone? No. It doesn’t have to be.
- Reply
  
  Phillip Loughlin
  
  Posted November 13, 2011 at 10:22 AM
  
  Good comments, Neil. Thanks.
  
  I do think you’ve hit on a really germane point regarding the way the Internet enables group-think and segregation of ideologies. There’s a lot of good that comes from this incredible source of information, but that’s tempered with the bad that you point out here. I guess the jury’s still out on whether the good outweighs the bad. For my own part, I tend to think the good has the upper hand. But there are times when I have to wonder.
  
  As I’ve said before, I do respect people who live true to their convictions. I am happy to discuss or even debate the merits of those convictions. But I will not be oppressed by those who would impose their moral standard over mine… especially with no better argument than the “moral rightness” of their argument. That’s what Krell is doing.
  
  Personally, my own sentiment about the morality of hunting aligns with what Matt said. I believe that predation is a natural state. I believe that it is as “right” for us to hunt and kill as it is for the falcon or the wolf. I believe in the deepest part of my intellect that it’s a foolish human conceit to think we’re above that natural state. But can I prove that’s right? Of course not. But I challenge anyone to prove it’s wrong either.
  - Reply
    
    Neil H
    
    Posted November 13, 2011 at 4:07 PM
    
    Phillip, you basically boiled the issue down. The idea that our native state is right or wrong.
    
    This is a bit of a tangent from the original post, but relevant to your point. I am, according to the powers that be, a classic ADHD personality. We are told that this is a “disorder” that affects a significant number (11% of males) of the populace. Hmm, that’s pretty big for a disorder. And it’s true: my ideas jump form subject to subject, I skip ahead in conversation, and I am often distracted things around me. Sitting at a computer typing (a business proposal, for example), sitting in an class in grade school, is torture. So what the heck am I getting at?
    
    So how does this explain that can I sit motionless and silent for three hours looking at one hillside as I did this morning, waiting for the most minute occurrences, totally happy and not in the least bored? Because ADD is basically the modern world’s way of avoiding that we have built a world full of BS and noise that doesn’t fit with the basic chemistry of many of us. When I started hunting again, I had a huge realization: I belong here, this is what I was meant to do, at a fundamental level. In the natural world, the distraction that I feel in our noisy, frenetic world becomes simply noticing. Noticing the subtle differences in tone or texture 300 yards away, the flick of an animals ear or tail, the tiny crack of a twig, a shift in the wind. I know that this is what I’m wired for. I may have traded the clean kill of a rifle to the slow death of a primitive bow, but the fundamentals haven’t been changed. Matt touches on this, as did you, because it’s something we instinctively know is true.
    
    And for what it’s worth, I also think the good of the internet is currently better than the bad. The issue of polarization and segregation of ideas is only partly a function of it. There are a lot of other factors, but that’s truly a whole other issue.
Reply

Phillip Loughlin

Posted November 15, 2011 at 8:19 AM

As of this morning, I’ve decided to block future posts by “Krell”. The discussion is going nowhere, no new information or discussion points are being forwarded, and well… honestly… I have no patience for it. I’ve taken his measure and found him wanting.
Reply

laura

Posted November 15, 2011 at 5:32 PM

If he she only wants to vomit on you and has no interest in listening to the other side, then by all means let them go. You gave him/her a chance. And let me leave you all with a really interesting article that wonders if when we moved from a hunter/gatherer society to agriculture, we may have change ourselves to a real negative threat to the planet. Have a read…
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/11/15/142339570/is-civilization-a-bad-idea?sc=fb&cc=fp
- Reply
  
  Phillip Loughlin
  
  Posted November 16, 2011 at 5:11 AM
  
  Krell was a troll, and I knew it when I allowed those posts. But sometimes those trolls develop into interesting and illuminating discussions. It’s happened here before. This one wasn’t going to germinate.
  
  As far as the questions raised in that NPR blog, that’s a topic I feel pretty strongly about. I’ve said for a long time that I believe the moment the hunter/gatherers stopped moving and built permanent homes and farms, the beginning of our end was set in motion. As soon as man started trying to control nature, we started to destroy it. Of course, other animals manipulate their environment and the other beings in it, but none to the extent that humans have done. Golf courses in the desert? Hotels under the ocean surface? How much more of this can we get away with before things really start to crumble?
  
  Nature is resilient, and as Ed Abbey said, “nature always bats last.” That’s the upshot, I guess.

Never Wear Your Best Trousers When You Go Out To Fight For Freedom And Truth

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Phillip Loughlin

Blogroll

Fish and Game Contacts

General

Outdoor Industry and Media

Outdoor News

Outfitters I've Used

Web Forums

Archives
Categories