| "Perhaps by your subjective standards.
Right, so a wolf killing an animal can be done efficiently and putting a bullet in an animal can be done efficiently. The difference is that one method is enjoyable to a lot of people.
Also, not all hunting is done with guns."
The difference between a wolf killing an animal and a human killing an animal: A) One needs the food, and one doesn't B) One is actually hunting, while the other hops out of the back of a truck and shoots an animal with a non natural, non 'fair' item.
Most is done with guns.
"What difference does that make? The animal being killed doesn't care what the killer's motivation is. If you do care about the animals and not simply about judging people who enjoy things which you find distasteful, then motivation shouldn't matter to you."
Yes, one is needed (wolf killing prey), and one is not (human killing animal). When killing (I will refrain from the word murdering) is not needed, why do it? Just for some enjoyment...not a good enough reason.
"And so would introducing wolves and cougars to control animal populations. What's the difference?"
Again, one needs to kill to live, and one doesn't.
"People with mental disabilities have a constitutionally protected right to life, they're not causing an overpopulation problem and they're likely to have relatives who would suffer as a result of their death."
Humans are causing an overpopulation, so why not kill the ones who can't argue about being killed? Wolves, bears, cougars, ect. don't have an overpopulation, cougars and wolves were almost killed off of most of the USA.
If a mother deer was killed, the baby would suffer and be scared and lonely. If a member of a pack of wolves died, the pack would be howling trying to find where their buddy is, and when they couldn't find him/her, they would be suffering. |