Blog # 116 KHAKI INTRUDERS (redux)

Our categorical position condemning the hunting and killing of woodland animals, has been amply expressed in an earlier writing, “Sanguine Sports.” However, it is the unlimited number of posts, featuring a man with a weapon proudly supporting the limp body of a dead deer, killed by him, and the denigrating of critics (of such acts) by sham arguments, that has motivated this addendum (redux). These human predators who, usually dressed in military khaki, insensitively, and shamefully, tramp about the woods with predatory intention and weapons at the ready, hoping to be lucky enough to encounter a suitable victim. They justify their flagrant behavior and seek to disarm their critics by accusing such critics of hypocrisy because they too” eat meat”. We will get to this inapposite justification and charge, but for now we will pause just long enough to say a mandatory “duh”.

Most normally socialized and acculturated people condemn killing. It is expected therefore that there would be numerous “comments” on face book, evincing shock at, and disapproval of, these bloodthirsty practices. These critics are usually met with such arrogant and macho responses as “hug a tree” or “sing kumbaya”, or are even “accused” of the heinous act of voting for Hillary.

But the singularly” brilliant” and commonly used counter to such expressions of shock and criticism, is the irrational charge of hypocrisy on the part of the critic, since the critic eats meat, (which irrelevant defense seems to fully satisfy the khaki killer), respecting which we have previously awarded the well- deserved, and highly prized, response, “duh.”

Evolution has brought man to the stage of development where, in contrast to many feral animals, lower on Darwin’s ladder of ascension, he is no longer classified as a “predatory mammal.” Accordingly, he instinctively views killing as atavistic and wrong; it is for this reason that many military personnel previously involved in actual combat, return home with PTSD.

What will it take to convince these reductive, macho forest warriors that there is little or no moral equivalency between eating a dinner containing meat, and the actual killing of an innocent beast. Is one required to be a vegetarian to have the proper standing to condemn such cruel and heartless murder of forest animals? The normal, innate disinclination and disapproval of such atavistic cruelty is not at all compromised by the civilized act of by buying meat at the supermarket for consumption; it is the blood-thirsty lust for (and act of) killing that we condemn.
-p.

og # 116                        KHAKI INTRUDERS (redux)

 

Our categorical position condemning the hunting and killing of woodland animals, has been amply expressed in an earlier writing, “Sanguine Sports.” However, it is the unlimited number of posts, featuring a man with a weapon proudly supporting the limp body of a dead deer, killed by him, and the denigrating of critics (of such acts) by sham arguments, that has motivated this addendum (redux). These human predators who, usually dressed in military khaki, insensitively, and shamefully, tramp about the woods with predatory intention and weapons at the ready, hoping to be lucky enough to encounter a suitable victim. They justify their flagrant behavior and seek to disarm their critics by accusing such critics of hypocrisy because they too” eat meat”. We will get to this inapposite justification and charge, but for now we will pause just long enough to say a mandatory “duh”.

Most normally socialized and acculturated people condemn killing. It is expected therefore that there would be numerous “comments” on face book, evincing shock at, and disapproval of, these bloodthirsty practices. These critics are usually met with such arrogant and macho responses as “hug a tree” or “sing kumbaya”, or are even “accused” of the heinous act of voting for Hillary.

But the singularly” brilliant” and commonly used counter to such expressions of shock and criticism, is the irrational charge of hypocrisy on the part of the critic, since the critic eats meat, (which irrelevant defense seems to fully satisfy the khaki killer), respecting which we have previously awarded the well- deserved, and highly prized, response, “duh.”

Evolution has brought man to the stage of development where, in contrast to many feral animals, lower on Darwin’s ladder of ascension, he is no longer classified as a “predatory mammal.” Accordingly, he instinctively views killing as atavistic and wrong; it is for this reason that many military personnel previously involved in actual combat, return home with PTSD.

What will it take to convince these reductive, macho forest warriors that there is little or no moral equivalency between eating a dinner containing meat, and the actual killing of an innocent beast. Is one required to be a vegetarian to have the proper standing to condemn such cruel and heartless murder of forest animals? The normal, innate disinclination and disapproval of such atavistic cruelty is not at all compromised by the civilized act of by buying meat at the supermarket for consumption; it is the blood-thirsty lust for (and act of) killing that we condemn.
-p.

Published by

plinyblogcom

Retired from the practice of law'; former Editor in Chief of Law Review; Phi Beta Kappa; Poet. Literature Student and enthusiast.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s