Is it just me, or is there a bit of a disconnect here?

Not exactly. The complaint about abortion in the sticker is that it’s violent. Hunting is violent, too. You can argue whether it’s a justifiable violence, but there’s no arguing that it is violent. Personally, I’m not against hunting per se. I don’t do it myself, but I don’t have a problem with those who do, as long as it’s not just trophy hunting and as long as they actually use the meat.

I googled SCI for Hunters. It’s a very large big game hunting association. So it’s hunting for the thrill of killing something big and sometimes rare for people with the disposable income to travel. I guess it’s a matter of which species the violence is being directed against?

I see the disconnect – and yet; by my standards both those who oppose abortion by bumpersticker and those who propagate hunting by bumpersticker are not quite sane. ( I leave the question if the bumperstickerness makes them so as exercise to the reader. )

Also I am sure that if one wants to one could derive both from Genesis 1:28-30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=KJV ) that personally I would come to completely different reading of that passage does not matter – except in my estimate of the owners intelligence.

Hey, you can’t mount ’em on the wall, but them’s good eatin’!

This is standard cognitive dissonance – there is good violence, and bad violence, of course, and the kind that aids in their own gratification is good. I can probably even bet that the individual who had this probably had a “support the troops” sticker and has never (or even refused) to serve.

“The complaint about abortion in the sticker is that it’s violent. Hunting is violent, too.”

Er, no. Note the qualifier: “Peace in the womb.” It says nothing about peace outside it. That is to say: there are places and times where violence is acceptable, and there are places and times where violence is not. Violence against an unborn child is never acceptable, any more than is violence against a newborn in a maternity ward. There’s no cognitive dissonance between this attitude and hunting for food or sport, unless one is in the habit of hunting fetuses.

An analogy. Having sex is a fine thing. Nothing wrong with it, at the proper time and place. Would you call a church hypocritical if they celebrated weddings in a chapel where a sign was posted saying ‘please do not have sex in the pews'(*)? They’re condoning sexual activity while rejecting it, right?

(*) Obviously a left-wing church, if the sign is necessary; but not Unitarians, or the behavior wouldn’t be restricted 🙂

Help me get this straight – it’s okay to shoot doves, but not storks?

The things you see when you don’t have a metallic Sharpie in your pocket, eh?

It’s not like these people have to be consistent.
The Anti-Abortion crowd have members who are in favor of wars, but who want to stop abortions. Many of them also favor the murder of abortion providers while proclaiming to anyone who’ll listen that they are against Abortion because abortion is murder. And of course, many of them are in favor of the death penalty — state sanctioned killing — while maintaining that abortion is murder.

I suspect that, to their way of thinking, hunting is something done to animals, and abortion to people. And, clearly, people are not animals. I’m actually astounded at the number of people who do not realize (or accept) that humans are a type of animal.

Only if you don’t make a distinction between human life and, say, a deer’s life.

And what has the SUV got to do with it?

SUVs are quite good at eliminating critters (including humans), both by direct impact and by environmental impact.

I’d be a bit more surprised to see those stickers on an electric or hybrid car, or a bicycle(‘s panniers).

I think that many of us are guilty of some degree of cognitive disonance in these areas. How many vegetarian / vegan liberals support the right of choice but are horrified at the thought of eating animal protein much less pre-meditatedely killing dinner / your wall decoration? Having an ad for a big game association and an anti-choice sticker on your car are only dissonant in that one says “peace” and the other says “boom.” The deeper meanings and their interrelations are complicated and to be trite and cute about them is shallow.

If I am attacked — bad violence — I have a moral right to defend myself — good violence. If someone tries to hurt my family — bad violence — and I intervene and defend them, good violence. I am an omnivore. I have taken the moral position that it is ok for a cow to have its brains bashed in by a pneumatic bolt to the head so I can eat. I am sure the cow sees this as bad violence, but I this as the top sirloin steak in my freezer. Maybe this is cognitive dissonance, but we all have made decision points like these in our lives.

I have a feeling these people work only by soundbite. Since their is a gulf the size of mexico between each talking-point it becomes very easy never to see the irony.

To be honest though there is no cognitive dissonance specifically here. Humans are special because it was written so in a book a long time ago. Man has dominion over animals (its in the book) and the book is special because the book says it is special. So killing humans is wrong, killing animals is right.

Therefore wiping animals out is perfectly acceptable because we are better than everything else (while of course being humble and practising humility just like Jesus)

Gil@18: I should have known that somebody would skim over all the exclamation marks and capital letters – next time, I’ll remember to put in sarcasm tags.
As for everyone has to be taught to be moral , define “moral” – if you mean something like “being good to others”, “do as you would be done by” etc, well, there is some evidence to show that such behaviour is inborn and doesn’t need to be taught.

It occurs to me that there is another disconnect here. This person opposes a woman having freedom to end a pregnancy, and at the same time is clearly opposing any restriction on his (I assume “his”) freedom to own and use a gun. Further, he is supporting government intrusion into privacy on one hand, and opposing it on the other.

“I have a right to the freedoms I believe in, and you have no right to those I oppose” appears to be a pretty common attitude.

Sorry about the double post – not sure what happened.

Just got this in an email:

http://www.wholetruthcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/play_d1.jpg

I suspect that, to their way of thinking, hunting is something done to animals, and abortion to people. And, clearly, people are not animals. I’m actually astounded at the number of people who do not realize (or accept) that humans are a type of animal.

Humans aren’t animals. When there are more of a species of animal there is less of what that animal eats. When there are more humans there is more of what humans eat. Ecologically speaking humans are plants. When there are more of a species of plant, the resources the plant needs either increase (soil) or stay the same (sunlight).

We’re descended from animals but that doesn’t mean we’re still animals.

“Personally, I’m not against hunting per se. I don’t do it myself, but I don’t have a problem with those who do, as long as it’s not just trophy hunting and as long as they actually use the meat.”

Moron! What a moronic statement. What do you care whether or not they use the meat or just want to mount the head if you’re not really against hunting? Is hunting really about getting meat for the family?

Hell No!

If it is…it’s pretty expensive meat that’s not as good a quality of the meat in the grocery store that was killed in I guess what you would consider a more humane way of a bolt in the head or a snap of the neck of an animal that was treated inhumanely it’s entire life and kept in usually poor conditions.

Hunting is not about the meat. The meat is a bonus. I mean by the time a hunter buys a gun, ammo, hunting gear, license, and then pays someone to clean the deer and make steaks and sausage and jerky out of it, the hunter is paying double what they would have paid for much safer USDA inspected grocery store meat.

Hunting is a sport and if we allowed more permits each fall to help further lower the deer population, then maybe I wouldn’t have to put a new hood on my Freightliner every other fall after hitting a deer…I’m all for it.

You talk about violence and hunting? Have you seen how animals treat each other?

You should stick to issues you know more about…like cancer. After the idiotic statement you made about hunting I would second guess any advice you have on cancer.

I am not against hunting as long as it’s in a safe place and the animal is not endangered. When I say endangered…I don’t mean “people for the ethical treatment of animals” endangered, I mean really endangered.

The truth be told…people who hunt, have more overall knowledge and respect and truly understand the beauty of animals and understand gun control and gun safety way more than some conscientious objecting, tree hugging wacko that previously had no direction in life until he or she was brain washed with psycho babble from some influential main stream media supported talking head that claims to be in favor of animal rights.

@Joseph says “Humans aren’t animals… Ecologically speaking humans are plants.”

I think (after working it over a number of times) that I have an idea of what you’re getting at. However, it strikes me as a case of Humpty-Dumpty-ism – it works as long as the words mean whatever you want them to mean. But then, by your definition, it also seems that bees and termites are plants, and fungi are animals.

In any case, if you want to argue that humans are qualitatively different enough from other animals to be classed as something else, I would be interested in your reasoning. If you insist on arguing that we are plants, I shall be forced to raise an eyebrow at you 🙂

I wonder what they do if the animal they shoot was pregnant, thus aborting the fetus of that animal in the process of shooting it? Or is it a whole “man is better than animal” thing? Soooo many inconsistencies.

“That said, you can’t possibly know what is in the mind of every hunter, and you are being pretty arrogant to assume that you can.”

No Elleen, the arrogance is all yours. You presume that your way of thinking is so rational and level headed and that people of my ilk can’t possibly be intelligent enough to understand the big picture and that your way of thinking is right and those that have a different view are wrong.

“Perhaps you should rethink your judgments of people who you don’t know.”

No Elleen, perhaps you should rethink the way you spell the word “judgments” and you’re the one that needs to rethink the way you judge people that you don’t know. I live in the real world Elleen, you do not.

” wonder what they do if the animal they shoot was pregnant, thus aborting the fetus of that animal in the process of shooting it? Or is it a whole “man is better than animal” thing? Soooo many inconsistencies.”

Elleen, the irrational improperly thought-out inconsistencies are easily seen in your views…not mine.