I disagree.
See those words I highlighted, they ae important as they highlight important distinction. Pests, ie animals that are a nuisances, are different.
It's an arbitrary distinction and matter of opinion as to what exactly constitutes a pest, and you'll find plenty who think they shouldn't be killed. Ask PETA.
Usually you need a license to do that but it depends on locality. The word "hunt" denotes a particular context of wild animal. Not what I or anyone else is talking about here.
So let me get this straight. If someone kills a wild cat you give them a thumbs up, but if it's a domesticated cat then they are subjected to Saw film style tortures? Am I understanding this correctly?
If you kill to eat or to feed others - it's fine.
But
why is it fine? As established, this is not necessary, so these kills are simply borne of desire, not need.
To put it concisely, you're saying taking pleasure in eating an animal you
didn't need to kill is fine, but
only if don't take pleasure in the kill itself. However, if the animal is so valuable then we shouldn't needlessly kill it solely for the pleasure of eating it, right? I don't see how that's much better.
I never said I consider myself to be a good person. I'm sure it's not the only thing that I consider to be morally wrong but still benefit from.
Fair enough.
If they are fags, I don't care. If no living being is hurt by an act, for me the act holds no moral value, neither positive nor negative. It may be distasteful to bystanders but so is modern architecture. Child predators by their nature hurt people. I wouldn't equate those two.
The overlap is immense, but I'm not equating the two, the latter is clearly far worse than the former. You brought up human nature though, and suggested parts of it aren't desirable, and I'm just saying the same about fags.
Even animals have complex mating rituals to attract partners and have consensual sex. If you are trying to say that one adult person raping another adult person is morally better than two fags engaging in consensual sex, I'd say that's quite twisted.
Complex mating rituals do exist in nature, so does rape, so that doesn't change anything.
Consenting faggotry is slightly less immoral, but my point was it at least served a natural purpose. If you're into moral relativism then I'd expect you to appreciate it considering you wouldn't be here right now otherwise. Consequentialism is tied up with moral relavitism, after all.