we're not trained to be animals; we are animals by nature. It isn't our animalness that makes people behave this way- in fact, this sort of senseless violence is somewhat rare in the rest of the animal kingdom. The other animals kill for food, or sex, or survival, or because threatened. Man is the creature that kills for sport.

Sucks to be human

except, that is, for prairie dog 13

true. But he was an abberation

Do you kill for sport, Nate?

Me? Not at all. But many do. Hell, in my family killing for sport is a sport. We are a violent species (I know, nature red in tooth and claw and all that, but we are more so). That not all humans kill things isn't proof that killing isn't innately human. Not all spiders spin webs, but it is still fair to say that spiders spin webs.

So would you then consider yourself an aberration?

Sort of. Around here I am certainly aberrant. Where I live the majority of people kill things for sport. I do not. So, yes. I guess I am an aberration.

I find it interesting that "man is THE" (implying only) "creature that kills for sport".

Looking at the shape of my own teeth and judging my diet, I find that I am an obvious omnivore. Therefore, I am designed to eat meat. It must follow that I must kill to get this meat. Whether it is available at the grocery store or not, I believe that as an animal I have an instinctual "killer instinct". Some of us find other outlets for this instinct that are non-murderous, some don't. To say that we are the only animals that kill for sport is suggesting that we were carnivors meant to be vegetarians.

I think you’re misunderstanding the meaning of ‘sport’. All animals kill for their food (directly or indirectly) but that is immaterial to this conversation. I said that man kills for sport. Sport, by definition, is something not done for survival.

Men (women and children as well) who are not hungry and have no need to kill for their own survival hunt. These people will stalk a deer, kill it and take a portion of its body as a trophy. They do this for joy (enjoying the art of the kill, or the adrenaline rush, or the godlike feeling of power) and they do it for vanity (having trophies to impress ones friends).

Name another member of the animal kingdom that does that.

It has been brought to my attention elsewhere that there are two groups of animals that are sometimes thought to kill for sport. However, These are Chimps and Domestic cats. However, I think that this belief comes from a faulty definition of ‘sport.’ Most people who make the argument that some non-human animals kill for sport seem to be defining ‘sport’ as “killing other than for food”. This definition is problematic at best as it would include in “sport killing’ acts that are not done for sporting reasons.

To wit, under that definition we would call sport: all wars, acts of self defense, capital punishment, murders in general, all acts of vehicular homicide, euthanising a pet etc.

"I think you’re misunderstanding the meaning of ‘sport’..."

Did you even read my comment? To quote me:

"as an animal I have an instinctual "killer instinct" (edit: that was a bit redundant). Some of us find other outlets for this instinct that are non-murderous, some don't."

I'm saying that the desire to kill is hard-wired into our DNA. As "civilized" animals, we raise our own game to avoid the inconvenience of having to track it, and slaughter it on the assembly line. Since most of us have no need to kill due to this advancement, we find other outlets for the instinct that hit the same pleasure sensors. Some people continue to just "hunt". Just because they don't have a "need" to do so doesn't mean that they don't have the desire.

I am confused as to what your definition of "sport" is. You've told me what it's not, but not what it is. Take the instance of domestic cats. Are you under the belief that they kill for altruistic reasons or by accident animals which they do not eat?

Yeah, I read your post and I take your meaning, but I still think that you are off the point a shade. You seem to be saying that men kill for sport because they are hardwired to kill. I'll grant that. We have foreward facing eyes, so our status as predators seems clear. In fact, I'd laugh if someone suggested that humans were not evolved killers. But that doesn't seem to matter at all. Charles Whitman has a walnut sized tumor in his brain which was likely the cause of his killing spree, that fact does not negate the senseless violence of the act.

You say: "Just because they don't have a "need" to do so doesn't mean that they don't have the desire. " This seems obvious, but irrelevant. I'm not saying that people kill because they don't have a natural desire to do so. That would be insane. Rather, I'm saying that we have a strong desire to do so, and that it is hardwired into us and that we take it to useless extremes. Other animals kill for a variety of reasons. Humans kill for a greater variety of reasons and one of those is pure pleasure.

So, what is sport killing? It seems reasonable that sport refers to something done for pleasure only. Thus sport killing is killing simply for the pleasure of it.I know that you are likely to claim that this is unfair as baseball is a sport and people play it for money, but I don't think that is correct (firstly, I would argue that baseball and football and such are games, not sports but that seems beside the point). If we agree that the game of baseball is a sport then I think it fair to say that it /is/ a sport wneh you and I play for fun. If I get paid to play it it becomes a job.

It might be fair to take this farther and say that sport killing is killing unrelated to survival. I'm not certain about that though. I will have to consider it.

So, how do we deal with cats killing mice and insects for pleasure? I'm nit sure that we have to since it doesn't happen. It's true that cats sometimes kill things that don't eat, but it doesn't follow that they killed these creatures for enjoyment. Cats kill when they aren't hungry for a variety of reasons: they do so as practice (young cats learn to hunt by hunting, they continue this behavior throughout their life: they hunt to maintain their ability to hunt which is no different than the ball player practicing his livelyhood in the off season); cats kill to provide food for other cats (a mother cat will bring her young animals for them to eat, and also to practice on); Cats kill to build bonds (Toms will sometimes offer dead rodents and such to females during the courtship process, also if you've owned a cat you may have noticed it bringing you little gifts- your cat didn't kill that little goody because he enjoyed it: it was an act of altruism on his part. He thought that you needed it or at least wanted it). I honestly am not familiar with any instance in which a cat kills merely for the joy of killing. There always seem to be other motives.

Tell me, what other motives are involved when a man stalks a deer, kills it then leaves it's corpse to rot in a glade?

I don't know any hunters that would leave a deer carcass to rot. In some cases part of the meat is unfit to eat from rupture of the bowels. Rather than let all the meat become contaminated, hunters often save as much as they can and leave the rest. I used to work with a guy that field dressed a deer after he saw it get hit by a car. There may be a few hunters that do what you describe, but they would be a small minority.

About killing for the pleasure of it, isn't the pleasure an evolved instinct? The hunter that enjoyed the hunt provided meat for his family more consistantly than the hunter that did not enjoy hunting. The need for modern man to hunt has disappeared, but his pleasure from hunting is still there. What you call "sport" is actually the appendix of our survival insticts. An unnecessary organ that once served a purpose. Not everyone gets appendicitis, but it's still there.

You have two points: on the first, walk through the woods in deer season. I do every year, and I always see decapitated deer. It is common (very common) for hunters to take only the head or the antlers and leave the rest to rot.

On your second point: yes.

That would piss the few hunters I know off.

'That would piss the few hunters I know off."

Yeah, it does. My family is a hunting family (I'm not) and they don't take that behavior in good grace. I've been with my dad when we've seen headless deer and the man goes into an extended burst of profanity. But a lot of people do it.


Since no one seems to get my point I’ll just lay it out simply: Humans are animals. Animals kill as part of their nature. When humans kill it isn’t because a specific human has degenerated to the level of an “animal”. In fact, we are animals. It’s just that we are the animal that (as a species) tends to kill without reasons of survival being involved. Humans go on murderous rampages from time to time. This is not behavior that one often sees among other animals. Yes, this behavior is hardwired in our DNA. Yes, it is the result of natural selection. That is all.

I think we get your point, it just seems like you try to play both sides at once.

When domesticated house cats that are fed go out and kill, then they are killing without survival being involved. If we are animals, then we should only be compared to other animals that have the same level of self awareness and food supply as we do. Since there are no other animals in this category, I think that you are condemming the human race unjustly.

On deer hunting:
Do you happen to know what the percentage of "trophy only" kills are to those that also take the meat? You say it is common, but without seeing the deer harvested for meat your eyewitness account doesn't count as evidence for "common".

"On deer hunting:
Do you happen to know what the percentage of "trophy only" kills are to those that also take the meat? You say it is common, but without seeing the deer harvested for meat your eyewitness account doesn't count as evidence for "common"."

I don't know the percentage, no, but that seems irrelevant. Common doesn't mean that it accounts for a large percentage of the total, merely that it happens often.


"I think we get your point, it just seems like you try to play both sides at once."

- I don't think so.

When domesticated house cats that are fed go out and kill, then they are killing without survival being involved."

I doubt that this is true. As I pointed out earlier: just because you don't eat it doesn't mean that it isn't necessary to your survival. If one cat is attacked by another cat and then kills his attacker it isn't necessary that he then eat the atacker to make it a matter of survival. To be clear, if someone tries to kill you and you (in self defense) kill them, it is a matter of survival wether you eat them or not

When an animal offers a gift of a fresh kill to a would be mate, that's about survival as well.

As I tried to point out, most of the instances in which people think animals (other than man) are killing for pleasure actually involve some other motive which is, in fact, related to survival.

"If we are animals, then we should only be compared to other animals that have the same level of self awareness and food supply as we do. Since there are no other animals in this category, I think that you are condemming the human race unjustly. "

First, I'm not condeming anyone. Other than my (joking) line: sucks to be human, I haven't made a moral judgement.

I'd also think that our level of self awareness should elevate us, and allow us to elevate our behavior. If this is the case, then it seems that we should be less likely to behave badly than, say, a sloth.

I was on business the past couple of days, so I was unable to continue this conversation. However, Archimago seems to have articulated my point better than I could.

"Tell me, what other motives are involved when a man stalks a deer, kills it then leaves it's corpse to rot in a glade?"

Isn't that obvious? Practice. Why do cats get that excuse when man does not?

"Isn't that obvious? Practice. Why do cats get that excuse when man does not?"

Okay, this is a good point. But, how about Ted Bundy.

"Okay, this is a good point. But, how about Ted Bundy."

He was an aberration.

Nate? Are we done here?

No. I'm just short on time right now.

An abberation? Really? Some estimates suggest that there may be 500 ted bundy types active in the U.S. at this moment. Maybe it is aberrant, but I'm not sure how aberrant.

and back to this:

"Isn't that obvious? Practice. Why do cats get that excuse when man does not?"

Really? Then why take the trophy?

"An abberation? Really? Some estimates suggest that there may be 500 ted bundy types active in the U.S. at this moment. Maybe it is aberrant, but I'm not sure how aberrant."

Interesting estimate. Say, do you happen to know how many people are living in the U.S. at this moment. An estimate will suffice.

Something tells me that psychotic prairie dogs are not the subject of many estimates, so this is comparitavely worthless anyway.

"Really? Then why take the trophy?"

Cats don't take trophies?

"Interesting estimate. Say, do you happen to know how many people are living in the U.S. at this moment. An estimate will suffice. "

250 mil- give or take. So?


"Something tells me that psychotic prairie dogs are not the subject of many estimates, so this is comparitavely worthless anyway. "

???????

As I said : we're not trained to be animals; we are animals by nature. It isn't our animalness that makes people behave this way- in fact, this sort of senseless violence is somewhat rare in the rest of the animal kingdom.

"Cats don't take trophies?"

your link says: "friendly bonding behaviors are often associated with such an action" in regards to "trophies." Like I said before, cats have a different motive.

What was my point?

Simple: Humans sometimes behave this way. It is part of what we are. When we do these things we are not “devolving” to some animal state. That is simply and all I was saying.

I love these debates. I wish we had someplace to more fully develop them other than in these blogs. Something more like a forum.

yeah. Me too.

Like I said: I miss it already.

"your link says: 'friendly bonding behaviors are often associated with such an action'"

Redneck A: "Hey Eugene, look at this deer head!"
Redneck B: "You're a man's man, Cletus. Let's drink some beer!"

I think they just bonded...

"I love these debates. I wish we had someplace to more fully develop them other than in these blogs. Something more like a forum"

Nobody used it except captpicard. It hurt my head to read his posts.

Do you really think Cletus (or Eugene, or whoever) killed the deer and took the trophy for that reason? I don’t. I think he killed it because it was fun and he kept the trophy because that’s his fetish. That he bonded with one of his buddies later is immaterial. In the case of a cat, they seem to kill specifically for the reason of offering their “trophy” in a bonding ritual. I don’t think the two are analogous. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.


And Captitard wasn’t the only one posting there. We had some interesting arguments. It’s just that this stuff goes in waves. It would have picked up later.

"Do you really think Cletus (or Eugene, or whoever) killed the deer and took the trophy for that reason?"

Yes, I really do. The only reason for having a trophy is for showing it off.

I firmly believe this is the same reason many men voraciously watch sporting events, and consume meaningless statistics on a ridiculous scale. It gives them something to talk about with their fellow vacuous.

Okay, now you’ve got me thinking. I hadn’t considered this: “I firmly believe this is the same reason many men voraciously watch sporting events, and consume meaningless statistics on a ridiculous scale. It gives them something to talk about with their fellow vacuous.”

I’ve always believed that it was something akin to a sexual fetish. Now I have to ponder your suggestion

I'm still wondering about this:

" The only reason for having a trophy is for showing it off."

That doesn't seem to be true. Many trophies are taken, and hidden. People who kill (this spans from serial killers to big game hunters) sometimes hide their trophies and look at them alone in secret. So, there must be other reasons for taking trophies than simply sharing them with others.

I still think that (in many cases) this is something akin to a sexual fetish.