Hunting Is Cruel! - MYTH

This is a perfect example of the anti-hunters using Emotive Words, in an attempt to add substance to their otherwise weak arguments.

The great thing about using words like these is that they don't have any set defined meaning. They rely for their interpretation on our own experiences and beliefs.

We all think we know what Cruel means, in fact we think It's obvious, but, in reality, our individual interpretations of "cruel" can vary hugely.

Two people can view the same activity and one think it cruel and one not and both be able to justify their feelings perfectly.

We can all think of things that we think are cruel, and we all know that being cruel is wrong.

So, by using undefined words like this, the antis can automatically make us think that something is wrong, without ever actually specifying why it is wrong.

Ok, now you are going to have to bear with me on this one, because it is quite a difficult concept. Let’s try an example to show you what I mean :

If I told you that I knew someone who was going to spend the afternoon at home sticking needles into small furry animals, you would agree, pretty conclusively, that that was cruel.

If I then told you that they were hypodermic needles and that he was a veterinary surgeon, you would change your mind.

Why? What has changed?

The action is the same. The effect on the animal is the same [a guinea pig does not understand that an injection is good for it – it just knows that it hurts]

The only thing that has changed is YOUR interpretation of his motives.

If I then told you that the guinea pig did not need an injection, and he was only giving it one because he enjoyed inflicting pain. Your opinion would change again.

Even if I was lying!

You see, your decision about cruelty is not based on what his actual motives are, it is based on what YOU choose to THINK his motives are.

Let's put this into a more realistic example :

If someone went down to the West Country and saw me hunting a Deer with hounds, they might well assume that I was being cruel to the deer.

If they then discovered that I had been asked to use the hounds to track down a deer that had been badly injured in a road accident so that it could be put out of its misery, they would probably change their mind. [The RSPCA, and even the League Against Cruel Sports, have used hounds for this purpose]

Why?

The action is exactly the same! The effect on the deer is even worse, because this deer is wounded and in pain already.

The only thing that has changed is that person’s perception of my motivation for doing it. He doesn't know my motivation – he can only guess.

But, because he now thinks that it is "justified", exactly the same action is no longer cruel.

 

And that is the crux of this whole issue.

Just calling something cruel does not make it so.

In order to prove that the anti’s have to prove that hunting is unjustified, and that they have so far singularly failed to do.

They merely fall back on the use of emotive language, and hope that some mud will stick.