- This topic has 214 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
I am not advocating changing the law. I am objecting to popa’s statement: You should davka hunt to keep it clear that human life and needs are more important.
I am not advocating changing the law. I am objecting to popa’s statement: You should davka hunt to keep it clear that human life and needs are more important.
Oh, I hadn’t realized you were objecting to that. Why do you object? Why do you assume the noda biyehuda wouldn’t have agreed with me? Why is it less of a good reason than parnassah?
I certainly would support outlawing movies depicting cruel behavior. I don’t think it realistically has much chance of being enacted in legislation, but it would be ideal if it were.
Avram in MD, I dont know about the gorilla case because I don’t know the details. But for the loin I think unless the dentist gave a public apology people should be informed about what he did and they can choose to boy cot his practice.
I think the fact that it was legal is atrocious, and the government officials should be held responsible. If a law was broken they should be prosecuted.
Joseph- “I believe hunting for sport ought to be a crime”
Agreed.
popa: “Why do you object? Why do you assume the noda biyehuda wouldn’t have agreed with me? Why is it less of a good reason than parnassah?”
Your logic makes no sense. Killing lions for the thrill and pleasure of killing is immoral and destructive to the soul. Look at the various cases in the Torah I mentioned before.
Earning money by causing killing for the pleasure of killing is just as bad!
When it says for pasnasa, it means for food or fur so people dont starve and freeze.
Why is it less of a good reason than parnassah?
Do you also think it’s okay to endanger yourself to make a political point? (Look at the teshuvah to see what I refer to.)
What point is being made anyhow – that the animal rights activists are wrong, and we’ll prove it by acting cruelly to animals?
Earning money by causing killing for the pleasure of killing is just as bad!
When it says for pasnasa, it means for food or fur so people dont starve and freeze.
It is? Why is it different than earning money from killing for the sake of earning money?
I’m not following your logic. The guides need the money so that they and their kids don’t starve and freeze.
What point is being made anyhow – that the animal rights activists are wrong, and we’ll prove it by acting cruelly to animals?
That wasn’t what I was thinking. I was thinking that society would be accustomed to the idea that human needs come before animal needs.
Ok, I finally read the teshuva. Sorry, I’m not following the reference to political points.
In all events, what it says is:
1. It’s not assur in tzaar baalei chaim or baal tashchis.
2. If your ikkar kavana is for fun, it’s achzariyus and therefore ill advised.
3. If your ikkar kavana is for fun, it’s assur because it’s a sakana.
4. if your ikkar kavana is for fun, it’s a bad idea because the sakana makes that they are mazkir your avonos in shomayim.
So,
If you hunt in a farm like that dentist dude, then it’s not a sakana so it’s muttar.
Reference was to sakanah, not political points. Now would you please answer my questions?
Yes, dentist dude wouldn’t be issur, just achzarius.
The ikkar is that I got you to learn something besides daf yomi.
“If you hunt in a farm like that dentist dude, then it’s not a sakana so it’s muttar.”
Rav Ovadia asserts that even non-Jews are forbidden to conduct bullfights. However, one may ask that a specific prohibition to conduct bullfights does not appear on the list of the Seven Noachide Laws that the Torah obligates all mankind to abide by.
Rav Yehuda Amital (in a lecture at Yeshivat Har Etzion) answers that we see that the Torah expects and demands every human being to behave decently. Moreover, the Torah demands every human being to refrain from engaging in immoral activities, even if an activity is not formally prohibited by the Noachide code. Failure to do so will result in divine retribution.
Do you also think it’s okay to endanger yourself to make a political point? (Look at the teshuvah to see what I refer to.)
No. I’m not planning to go hunting. And if I did, I’d do it in a farm like that dentist.
What point is being made anyhow – that the animal rights activists are wrong, and we’ll prove it by acting cruelly to animals?
See above.
First of all, the primary point is that hunting, especially in this brutal fashion, is immoral and should be made illegal if not already illegal. Indeed, from what I have read, both the dentists and the poachers with him were breaking the law. Any law that allows this behavior is immoral and should be changed.
Halacha does not allow breaking the law, and illegal poachers and bull fighters are not starving or freezing to death once they are caught and prevented.
According to your logic, bull fighting should be permitted because the bull fighters will starve and freeze to death if not. Rov Ovadia obviously says you are 100% wrong.
MW13: I never said it was Assur to hunt. Just that it’s a bad thing to do (for both Goyim and Jews). Whether we should legally mandate Middos is a fascinating tangential discussion and my long answer boils down to “sort of”.
Do you also think it’s okay to endanger yourself to make a political point? (Look at the teshuvah to see what I refer to.)
No.
So then you do see that parnassah is more important than a political point.
See above.
I had missed your answer, sorry.
I disagree, it doesn’t make the point that human needs take precedence over animal needs, it makes the point that human beings are cruel to animals even without any pressing need, and must be stopped entirely.
Whereas, if we only use animals in ways which Hashem approves of, we can rightfully take the high moral ground.
First of all, the primary point is that hunting, especially in this brutal fashion, is immoral and should be made illegal if not already illegal. Indeed, from what I have read, both the dentists and the poachers with him were breaking the law. Any law that allows this behavior is immoral and should be changed.
So like, halacha for example?
This juicy bit of apikorsus brought to you by the letter A.
popa_bar_abba’s logic:
“Slowly killing an animal for a week for the sheer pleasure of killing is immoral, corrupts the soul and is tzar bale chaim BUT Slowly killing an animal for a week for the sheer pleasure of killing is fine so long as someone else makes money off it.”
popa_bar_abba’s logic:
“Rov Ovadia Yoseph is an apikores because he called to ban bull-fighting world wide”
Just out of curiosity, did you read any of the examples brought from the Torah mentioned in the essay? Or are you continually ignoring this point on purpose?
“If you hunt in a farm like that dentist dude, then it’s not a sakana so it’s muttar.”
“This juicy bit of apikorsus brought to you by the letter A”
“No. I’m not planning to go hunting. And if I did, I’d do it in a farm like that dentist.”
“We should davka go hunting!”
-Popa’s words of wisdom
PBA: You are assuming that Halacha=morality and that any claim otherwise is Apikorsus. I think R’ Aharon Lichtenstein disagrees with you on both counts. Read his famous article. I could easily hear the argument that we, as human beings, are meant to outlaw immoral things Mishum “V’asisa HaYashar VeHaTov”.
PBA: You are assuming that Halacha=morality and that any claim otherwise is Apikorsus. I think R’ Aharon Lichtenstein disagrees with you on both counts. Read his famous article. I could easily hear the argument that we, as human beings, are meant to outlaw immoral things Mishum “V’asisa HaYashar VeHaTov”.
At the very least that halacha does not equal “immoral,” and that halacha should not “be changed.”
I’ve read some of Rav Lichtenstein’s articles. As can be expected, my mesorah is different in some respects and overlapping in many respects. Regardless, Rav Lichtenstein certainly never wrote that halacha is immoral and should be changed, chas v’shalom.
popa_bar_abba’s logic:
“Rov Ovadia Yoseph is an apikores because he called to ban bull-fighting world wide”
Just out of curiosity, did you read any of the examples brought from the Torah mentioned in the essay? Or are you continually ignoring this point on purpose?
Rav Ovadia didn’t say that halachah is immoral because it allows hunting. You did.
Halacha is not immoral obviously. Bull fighting is immoral. A society that permits bull fighting is immoral.
Is popa_bar_abba going to continually ignore this point?
Just out of curiosity, did you read any of the examples brought from the Torah mentioned in the essay? Or are you continually ignoring this point on purpose?
I definitely did not read the essay you pasted above, if that’s what you’re asking.
To answer your question, see DY’s response above.
This is a fairly simple point backed up by numerous examples in the Torah guys. Not sure what you are confused about.
“I definitely did not read the essay you pasted above, if that’s what you’re asking. To answer your question, see DY’s response above.”
But that makes no sense and is a copout answer.
This is a fairly simple point backed up by numerous examples in the Torah guys. Not sure what you are confused about.
Confused that you called the torah immoral chas v’shalom, and said halacha needed to be changed.
popa_bar_abba, even though you are trolling,
I am in a place where I can’t do much else at the moment, so I have no problem repeating what I previously wrote (until the mod closes the thread that is).
You can post what R’ Ovadia said a thousand times, it doesn’t change what you wrote which taken at face value is apikorsus:
Any law that allows this behavior is immoral and should be changed.
You should either retract or clarify that statement.
popa bar abba: troll extraordinaire lol
You are lucky its immoral to hunt trolls. (Plus, they dont cook very well anyway).
“You should either retract or clarify that statement.”
There is a difference between halacha and Torah values. I already did. If a law allows this act, but another law or code within the society prevents this act, then its not immoral. Thought that was common sense. You can be a menuval bereshut ha’Torah.
“Halacha is not immoral obviously. Bull fighting is immoral. A society that permits bull fighting is immoral.”
Right about now is where you should gracefully retract your previous statement and clarify that you think anyone who hunt is immoral or something like that.
It would have been more graceful about 10 posts ago, but I think it’s still within the grace period.
Ok im going to retract it for you Popa here it goes……
Do you still stand by your statement that Any law that allows this behavior is immoral and should be changed. and the implication that this includes Torah law?
DaasYochid, thought it was obvious I did not refer to a technical law. I have since stated this explicitly several times.
“Any law that allows this behavior without another law or moral code banning this behavior is immoral and should be changed.”
This concept of banning animal cruelty is based on Torah values.
Asking for common sense here.
“Any law that allows this behavior without another law or moral code banning this behavior is immoral and should be changed.”
So the Torah is only moral if another law bans hunting, but otherwise not, ch”v? In the US, where hunting is legal, the Torah should be changed, ch”v?
lolol
No, because its a Torah value not to be cruel to animals, a law that permits prolonged animal cruelty for sheer pleasure is immoral.
But the Torah does not actually ban it, only frowns upon it, so according to both versions of your statement, you are calling the Torah immoral.
You can still retract or clarify.
In the US, many laws were immoral and have been changed.
They used to needlessly kill buffalo by the thousands and the bald eagle was nearly made extinct due to sheer ignorance and carelessness. The generation of the 19th century was one of the most environmentally careless and exploitative in history.
Brutal, inhuman slavery was legal as well for most of the 19th century in the US. Yes, that was immoral too. And sadly people used the Bible to justify it.
No it does ban it in a practical sense. It morally bans it. We must listen to our Rabbis. And the Rabbis say based on the Torah we cannot torture animals needlessly.
When it says “demands” that means banning it in a practical sense.
in Mapudungun lolol means: “land of crabs and holes”
Hashem bans it.
“Failure to do so will result in retribution from Hashem.”
If divine retribution and rabbinic ordinances is not a ban I don’t know what is.
I like the way you’re quoting portions of some random essay as if its the Torah.
Hunting is not banned. It is muttar for food/hides.
“Hunting is not banned. It is muttar for food/hides.”
Very good. Baruch Hashem, today we have plenty of ways of clothing our bodies without killing lions.
popa_bar_abba, You like me, thanks, good to know you like people at least.
~I’m glad we all agree now that outrage was warranted for killing Cecil in that fashion.~
The End
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.