How can you be so sure that deer don't make value judgements? Do you know how deer think?
Well I've spent a great many hours watching them, as well as many other animals, as well as a great many hours trying to sort out the difference between genetically programmed behaviour vs. learned behaviour in humans, which requires comparison between humans and other animals.
So I believe I do have a pretty good idea of how they think. What thinking they do that is, which isn't much.
If we are going to have hypothetical discussions about "If you were a deer" we have to project some human style thought into it.
Which is a mistake, which was the point I made when the other guy tried to start the hypothetical discussion in the first place.
If one were a deer, one would have absolutely zero human style thoughts.
Q. If I were an apple, how would I feel about being an orange?
A. I wouldn't.
That's all we can do since we know how we think, but don't really know how a deer does.
I disagree on both points, a) that inserting human thoughts (anthropomorphism) is all we can do, and b) that we can't know how they think. Study and reasoning (and metadata), can tell us how a human thinks, it can do the same, or very close, regarding other species.
Deer don't eat much grass, they browse more then graze.
They do eat grass, but grass wasn't the point I was making, it was just an example to illustrate the point. I could have said, "flora" or "vegetation" or "typical biomass for an herbivore" and made the same point. Using the word "grass" was more than sufficient to get the point across.
Knowing that they can show a preference in menu choices, and knowing that deer don't want to die, we can infer that they would show a preference to be in a situation where they did not know death was coming (by the hunter) vs being a situation where they do know that death is coming when being chased down by predators.
I've bolded the faulty assumption, which renders the chain of reasoning built on that assumption, and the conclusion equally faulty.
Deer avoid dying if they can. So do viruses. That does not automatically mean they have any "wants" or "don't wants" in terms of reasoned desires.
No inference is possible regarding their "preferred method of dying". They don't
have a preference because they can't comprehend the choice in the first place.
We don't have wolves or many puma down here in TX. I'm not sure that coyotes or hogs show the same level of "professional courtesy" of making the kill before beginning to feast. I see your point about the natural part of the death process, but at that point my interest is not in providing a normal and natural death.
I said it could be argued. I never said it was a particularly strong argument.
If it going to die by my hand, I prefer not to see it suffer,
So it's about what's best for the hunter, not the deer.
Which is perfectly acceptable - but I'd rather not pretend otherwise.
(And for the record, I also prefer not to see it suffer. But that's to make
me feel better, not the game.)
and it is assumed that a quick and unexpected death makes the meat taste better if limits the amount of adrenaline versus the animal running a long ways and dieing slowly.
That's what they say.
Dunno myself. The only comparison I've personally been able to make is rabbits sitting still shot with a .22 pistol or rifle, vs. rabbits shot on the run with a shotgun.
I've eaten a bunch of both. Can't say I've ever noticed any difference.
Does it also apply to fighting game fish? Should they be taken with nets so they'll taste better? Or does the slow asphyxiation make it all taste the same either way?
