No, they wouldn't. Please do not speak for me. My imagination is as fertile as anyone's. If I was starving, whether I was a meat eater or not, it would give me no pleasure at all to kill an animal and I most certainly would not be feeling any lust for its blood. If I did it, I would be doing it because I felt I had no choice in order to survive and it would be with a huge amount of regret and sadness, tinged with horror, at what I'd had to do.

I know EXACTLY how I would feel ... at 56, I have had over 5 decades to get to know myself!! And my guess is, I am no different from most people. When faced with death, or faced with our loved ones being harmed, most people have similar reactions.

Just not so. When ANY animal is starving to death, the overwhelming desire to eat is all-consuming (no pun intended). The sight of a possible meal at one's fingertips would erase all thought of regret, horror or sadness ... all you would want to do is to grab that animal and kill and eat it as quickly as possible.

I am not trying to tell anyone how to think ... but animal nature is such that when faced with death through starvation, all our nice fluffy little trappings of civilisation would go out of the window, and we would become as wild animals.

We are not 'just' animals, we are humans. People have deliberately starved themselves to death for whatever reason - we have an ability to choose what we do and how we act. I would not enjoy killing an animal, regardless of being hungry enough to do it. You might know you would get a kick out of killing, I know I wouldn't. We are all different, as I said before.

What do you think we humans are if not animals? Plants?

We are animals, the same as a dog, a cat or a horse.

I did not say I get a kick out of killing. You are putting words into my mouth. What I am saying is that when it comes down to survival, we are NOT all different, we are all exactly the same. We would ALL kill by whatever means we had at our disposal to survive ... and if we were dying of hunger, we would revel in the fact that we had managed to kill some poor unfortunate animal in order for us to survive ... if you say otherwise, then you know absolutely nothing about human physiology and biology.

No, I said we are not 'just' animals. We are not the same as dogs etc. because we are human, so-called 'higher beings'.

You have been discussing the subject of bloodlust, which is not about a need to survive but, to reiterate, 'the desire for bloodshed'. I said:

"That isn't bloodlust either. Bloodlust is a desire for bloodshed. I don't see that given your scenario, if someone who was starving to death made the decision to kill and eat an animal, they would desire the blood of that animal on their hands."

And you replied:

"Of course they would !! Clearly, you have no idea of what it is like to be hungry, really, really hungry. I don't, but I can imagine."


You say above that I have put words in your mouth but in the next few lines, say: " ... if we were dying, we would revel in the fact that we had managed to kill some poor unfortunate animal ..." so which is it? 'Revel' means to take great pleasure or delight ... which is what I said I thought, based on your posts ("you might know you would get a kick out of killing ...)

As for your comments on physiology or biology - there you go again with your blind statements. If you think we are just like dogs and cats, I respectfully suggest a refresher course on anatomy, physiology and evolution is in order.

[QUOTE=Lucky Star;1854933]No, I said we are not 'just' animals. We are not the same as dogs etc. because we are human, so-called 'higher beings'.

Hmm, I have my doubts about the "higher". Humans are one of the very very few species that will kill for reasons other than food

You have been discussing the subject of bloodlust, which is not about a need to survive but, to reiterate, 'the desire for bloodshed'. I said:

"That isn't bloodlust either. Bloodlust is a desire for bloodshed. I don't see that given your scenario, if someone who was starving to death made the decision to kill and eat an animal, they would desire the blood of that animal on their hands."

And you replied:

"Of course they would !! Clearly, you have no idea of what it is like to be hungry, really, really hungry. I don't, but I can imagine."


You say above that I have put words in your mouth but in the next few lines, say: " ... if we were dying, we would revel in the fact that we had managed to kill some poor unfortunate animal ..." so which is it? 'Revel' means to take great pleasure or delight ... which is what I said I thought, based on your posts ("you might know you would get a kick out of killing ...)

Yes I would !! Were I dying of hunger (it would take me many months incidentally !!), I would indeed REVEL in the killing of the poor unfortunate animal ... revel, because his death meant my survival. This does not mean that I would get a kick out of the pure act of killing, even in starvation mode ... but I would REVEL in the death as it would ensure my survival

Thats excellent, Im pleased it helped in that case.
Im not looking for your respect or your approval, you show ignorance in what you state, thats the problem.

Ill ask you again, which hunt did you see kill the Fox so close you know it wasnt killed almost instantly. Where was this and how did you manage to get so close?

excellent post again and well done for being so composed with someone so rude!

some people do eat people rather than die... cannibalism does happen in certain situations.

i agree, im the same. although, i watched a programme about cannibalism which said that when people get to a certain state of starvation, certain parts of their brain shuts down. so thats why they can eat a person, who they may be related to or friends with etc. and show no remorse, coz that part of their brain has shut down...

i have never said i have attended a foxhunt. you assumed that and as far as being ignorant, well i know i am not.

here is information taken from the Animal Aid website which i have no doubt you will dismiss as untrue.

'How does the hunted fox suffer?

Every part of a fox hunt is cruel - from the chase, to the dig-out, to the kill. There is no 'quick nip to the back of the neck' in hunting. Lead hounds will snap at any part of the running fox, before the pack rip it to pieces. If the fox manages to go to ground, then it will be forced to fight with terriers for hours before being hauled out and, if lucky, shot.

Copper the fox made national headlines. After being chased, and caught, by the Chiddingford, Leconfield and Cowdray Hunt hounds, he managed to bolt down a rabbit hole. Luckily, Hunt Saboteurs were close by and physically blocked the hounds from Copper, using a policeman's helmet.

Copper had suffered bite wounds to his rear flanks and was losing blood from his penis due to kidney damage caused during the stress and exhaustion of the long run from the hounds. The vet was able to offer scientific evidence that hunted foxes undergo pathological stress, a level of suffering so intense that they can die even if they succeed in escaping the jaws of the hounds. He was quoted as saying 'I have never seen such trauma in a dog, even a badly injured one.'

Post-mortems commissioned by the Home Office on four foxes killed by hunting revealed that there was evidence of multiple bite wounds to the face, head, rib cage, heart, lungs and stomach. (The Observer, 11/6/00)'