I can appreciate a distinction between the two words, and I believe both are useful.

Someone crying during a film is a pretty raw and pure example of empathy and not sympathy. The person crying isn't feeling bad for the fictional character who experiences a tragedy. That would be sympathy. They aren't grieving for a fictional loss, which would also be closer to sympathy.

Rather, they are imagining what is going on in the fictional character's head at the time they see them expressing their distress on screen, almost as if it were going on in their own head. They are simulating the same feeling as the person crying and as a result, they also cry with the character on screen. That's empathy. Another example would be feeling distress over witnessing or even imagining a dog being abused in a very painful way.

In contrast, sympathy regards people's upset in a "sucks to be you" or "I get that" way. It's acknowledgement of other's distress, even understanding of it, but not necessarily getting into the head of the creature experiencing the distress.

For instance, it may be enough for the agent to consider questions like, how would I want to be treated if I were a bug; or, what would it be like for me to be treated thus if I were a bug? To extend the reasoning I offered above: If you happen to suppose bugs aren't sentient, then you might conclude it wouldn't "be like" anything for you to be treated any way whatsoever if you were a bug; or if you suppose bugs are only "marginally sentient", there may be room for you to infer or expect that if you were a bug you wouldn't be capable of having a significant objection to having the life swiftly crushed out of you. — Cabbage Farmer

That paragraph comes really close to describing how I've looked at it. If I were the size and form of an ant but retained all my current senses and intellect, then sure: I'd pray never to be discovered by someone like me, knowing what I'm inclined to do to anthills I encounter. But if I had the intellect and awareness of an ant, as well as their form... probably I wouldn't object to being swiftly crushed because I would have no concept of it.

As stated, however, the golden rule is much more relevant when there's a chance of payback.. but perhaps also if intelligence and perception remains to scale even if size doesn't. There was an old episode of the Twilight Zone I saw in which an astronaut discovered a planet populated by tiny people. To them, he was an absolute giant, and to motivate them to obey his commands, he would periodically step on their towns.


I have to admit that if I were certain no one would ever find out or punish me for it, I could easily see myself fulfilling the role of the dominant oppressor, if I were in that situation. Although I'd be nowhere near as psychotic as that character (who was truly a raving power-mad lunatic, if you've seen that TZ episode) I would still very much sink my teeth into the opportunity to play god. As a giant, I could think of all sorts of unpleasant tasks to make the tiny people carry out for no other reason than to menace and subjugate them. At the very least, I'd crush their military. I wonder: is this inclination "evil" or just personal fallibility?

I'm not proud to admit it.. but if it were possible for bugs retaliate -- to take tit for tat, etc,... I'd be less inclined to step on them and more inclined to leave them alone. As it stands right now, I can do whatever I want to them and they can't do anything about it. That does influence how I treat them -- as sleazy as that probably makes me look. And on a grander scale, if there were some cosmic "payback" awaiting me for my actions (although I don't think there is) then my karma toward bugs is well beyond negative.

Precisely, Hitler's agenda sprouted out of malice, whereas yours appears to sprout out of sadism. If I have to weigh them on the "evil" scale, sadism would far outweigh hatred.
Now, my point regarding ants was to suggest that they do in fact, feel irritation as you squish them for your entertainment. — TheSoundConspirator

I appreciate your interpretation, but what leads you to believe my agenda sprouts out of sadism?

Let's apply what you say: I know that you believe that ants feel physical irritation, but if I'm oblivious to that irritation when I go to step on them, can the motivation of sadism be accurately assigned to my purpose, regardless of whether or not they do suffer? Sadism refers to purposely inflicting suffering.

Is it justifiable to kill and cruelly torture other species to gain momentary pleasure and enhance our "educational standards"? Frankly speaking, I'd go as far as to conclude that Mussolini and Hitler's agendas were purer than yours. — TheSoundConspirator

When I'm messing with an anthill in my driveway, my sneaker covering their home is just a weird, giant white thing to them, some object for them to try and avoid. Their perception of why it is there and what exactly I'm doing to them doesn't extend farther, so what makes this cruel?

From a bug's eye view: Would I like to be stepped on with an adidas rip-off housing a malodorous foot? — TheMadFool

When you use that specific imagery...no, I guess you wouldn't. Nor would I...

You're trying to see if I acknowledge that my treatment of ants may be cruel by applying how I treat bugs (stepping on them because I can) from a perspective where you are still intelligent but bug-sized, and you're using specific imagery to critique the unceremonious regard for how I kill them : being crushed under some dismissive asshole's foot vs .giving them the freedom to be left alone from my kind attention. There appears to be a subtle commentary on the evils of materialism too... the victim being indifferently squashed under a giant sneaker of all things. It's clever symbolism.

Also, my feet aren't that "malodorous".... except on days I play tennis or frisbee :grin:

It might, however, be a sign of something that will cause you problems. You may or may not notice those problems. Even if, let's assume for argument, empathy for insects is misplaced, you might have a more general empathy deficit which will after your other relationships. — Bylaw

That theory has been put forth but I question whether one's treatment of bugs is indicative of an empathy deficit when it comes to relationships in everyday life, especially with peers; I make friends easily and can get in their heads and feelings about their problems. I don't know anyone who would not say I'm not a great guy. My appreciation of others just doesn't extend down to bugs and especially ants whose maximum entertainment value for me are as squish victims. I'm a sizeist, but not a sociopath.

However, in the hypothetical scenario mentioned I wouldn't see it in terms of killing or be killed... although I'm sure the tiny people would. Intelligent oppressed people look to find a way to defeat their oppressor, and that is a role I'd be very eager to fill. However, I wouldn't want to wipe them out. But I would certainly want to terrorize them much like a temperamental Greek deity. Even just from a curiosity-standpoint, it would be endlessly fascinating to watch them labor in multitudes and to test just how much oppression they will tolerate before they retaliate with force. I'm not sure that it's an empathy issue as opposed to other desires just superseding it, at least in certain situations where certain conditions are met.

Exactly. I think the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would like others to do unto you - or it's negative formulation - do not do unto others what you wouldn't want others to do unto you - is key/germane to the morality of bug squishing.

The reason why we don't apply the Golden rule to bug stomping is because they seem incapable of using the tit-for-tat strategy that has a major role vis-à-vis the golden rule but the winds of change do blow and with odd results :point: Agent Kay Squishing Bugs In MIB — TheMadFool

I'd venture to say they are incapable of using tit-for-tat strategy. My actions toward bugs I encounter probably won't ever come back to bite me, as I think you are saying.

However, that would also apply to the situation you describe in which giant lifeforms arrived on Earth. As I mentioned, if I were in a situation in which I encountered a civilization of intelligent, flea-sized people, I would want to be as cruel as possible and terrorize the hell out of them. I'd very much want to take advantage of the size difference and establish dominance. I think that's a pretty understandable and reasonable wish for any guy though. Plus, the opportunity to be worshipped as a god would be almost irresistible, and the possibilities would be endless. Why let them have self-determination, if through sheer force, I could force them to engineer their society in my own image? I'd flatten any structure that didn't at least in some small way idolize me.

Is it justifiable to kill and cruelly torture other species to gain momentary pleasure and enhance our "educational standards"? Frankly speaking, I'd go as far as to conclude that Mussolini and Hitler's agendas were purer than yours. — TheSoundConspirator

Hitler's agenda was cold, systematic murder on a mass scale though. My motivation for demolishing an anthill on my driveway isn't malicious. I don't hate the ants, nor do I wish for them to be completely gone.

Ants form complex social colonies and show spectacular signs of intelligence. They feel pain as well, physical irritation as they are being squished. — TheSoundConspirator

Why are such intelligent beings so oblivious to danger then? There have been occasions where I'll stand over an antmound and hover my foot a few inches above it threateningly, and they don't appear to react or evade it.

True there are other ways. But toying with nuts and other inanimate objects is less interesting and interactive than toying with ants. All are "unnecessary" though: I don't think many would argue against that.

It's definitely unnecessary, no question. You say it gives you a different idea about the person: the act being a reaction to something more serious is possible, but what about just indulging one's self for its own sake?

I don't disapprove of your practice, although I don't practice it. When you see someone who pretty habitually squashes them, even going out of the way to do so, does it give you a different idea about them than you otherwise would have? Some do.. which I find interesting.

What makes human beings the sole authority on pain? Animals feel pain just as much as we do and yet we don't value that. — TheSoundConspirator

Can you substantiate that though?

Animals kill each other only when necessary and to survive, they do it without any further emotions regarding betrayal, happiness, partiality, pride or sadism. — TheSoundConspirator

It is not true that animals kill only when necessary for survival.

Moreover, did you notice?, bug sprays are labelled, "POISON" - what kills them kills us too. I wonder what that means? — TheMadFool

It's an interesting allegorical comparison... but my suspicion is they just meant toxic if ingested, inhaled, or exposed to skin. :razz:

If it's ok to step on and snuff out bugs, is it ok if giants step on and snuff us (humans) out? — TheMadFool

If there were giants aliens who discovered Earth and started stepping on us for no reason -- much the same way I do ants -- then I wouldn't be in much of a position to complain, given what I stated. I do see your point. :razz:

In that same vein though, If the positions were reversed, and I encountered a race of tiny, intelligent aliens, I have to admit that I would be very inclined to take advantage of the size difference just as they would. The idea of having entire race of intelligent beings to either toy with, reward, or terrorize as a focus for my frustrations or whims is pretty tantalizing. It would be like playing god, but almost for real. And despite its moral quandaries, I could very much see myself being an old testament God and enjoying every second of it. And be honest: what guy hasn't fantasized about being a god every now and then? That seems a normal expression of the male ego, possibly one element to the mindset of most successful conquerors throughout history. Being an absolute tyrant is rewarding.

Well first of all, bugs experience pain. You might only half hurt them, and then they could be doomed to walk around for some time with chronic pain and then die. — Tanner Lloyd

Pain as in suffering, or pain as in chemical response to harmful stimulus? :brow: I'm not closed off to the idea of bugs experiencing pain, but it doesn't seem likely. And even if they experienced "chronic pain" as a result of being half crushed, they're just bugs. They exist in a world far below me, their problems not even being on my radar. As I said, what is my sneaker except one of many other deadly threats they face each minute?

It seems like OP is amazed more so at the influential idea that humans are not superior to all other species. Why should this idea amaze you? We're not superior to any other species. If you look systematically at all the wonders of what other species are able to achieve this should be obvious to you. Let David Attenborough's voice guide you through the amazing lives of other species in one of his documentaries. There is nobility in other species. There is spirituality. There is culture, even civilization (such as in the case of some ants), to admire. — Tanner Lloyd

Superior is an arbitrary term and I don't really see it in those terms. However, why shouldn't I look down on ants? I'm literally a giant compared to them.

Also you mischaracterize my lack of appreciation. Even when I step on them, it is interesting to watch their reactions in response to different situations. I'm still amazed at what they are capable of collectively.

Do you dislike seeing someone step on bugs? Do you see it as worse than recreational fishing? — bert1

I'm interested in both and the reasoning behind each. Mostly the first.. and how and why it influences your opinion of the someone in question.

That solution extends naturally to killing people who are, let's just say, problematic for you. Don't you agree? After all, in both cases we sanction killing or, more accurately, it's ok to off something/someone to deal with a problem — TheMadFool

Hmm, but on the other hand: I have the wherewithal to recognize that much greater consideration must go into the killing of humans. There is greater loss and greater consequence. Bugs on the other hand live in a world far below me -- one of sand and grass and warring insect species, and in which every minute is battle for survival. When you already live in a world fraught with peril, where being eaten, dismembered, cocooned, drowned, dehydrated, swatted, or squashed could be a minute away, what's my shoe but another random deadly threat?

Too, ecologically speaking, bugs are considered as essential components of the natural order, key to the health of the ecosystem - exterminating them, yourfoot in chemical and other forms, might come back to bite us. — TheMadFool

You have a good point. The mass extermination of bugs as well as damaging the ecosystem would absolutely bite us. But being one guy, my foot alone (in any other form too) isn't capable of influencing the ecosystem on such a scale, no matter how many anthills I demolish personally. My "carbon footprint" and general impact on the environment overall, as result of other behavior, is a lot bigger than the literal footprints left when I purposely step on the ants in my driveway.

Jains believe that life (which equals soul) is sacred regardless of faith, caste, race, or even species. Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being.

I guess I admire this philosophy although I do not live it. The needless taking of life does seem to be undesirable. I like many others probably look at the level of imputed sentience or ability to suffer when judging such acts. — prothero

They apparently live in India and I'm certain I'd be unwelcome among them. Still, I wonder about their philosophy's applications. Those guys use brooms to sweep away insects in their path. It's one thing for them to be uncomfortable with injuring or killing any living being, but I wonder what (if any) intervention they prescribe when witnessing someone else doing it. Do they intervene to stop violence or do they stop at simply observing it with frowns on their faces?

Não li seu texto inteiro, mas acho que se eu estivesse em uma situação onde vários insetos invadissem minha casa eu provavelmente iria morar na rua invés de chamar a detenção.

Using google translate, portugese: "I haven't read your entire text, but I think if I were in a situation where several insects invaded my house I would probably live on the street instead of that prison." — TheMadFool

That is a greatly irrational solution to a small problem that can easily be solved with a foot.

I think you may be right. Even though it's an illogical leap though to see killing bugs as one step away from (or closer to) killing humans.

Plenty of people have less reservation about killing simpler beings relative to more complex beings, and don't "move on from the former to the latter". But I think some grasp for a rationalization to explain why killing even simpler beings bothers them - especially along with the notion that any pleasure might come of it.

In a game, you don't kill anyone or anything just because the appearance might give that impression, you simply "win". The sensation is that of victory/superiority, just the same as when winning any game against someone else. The form of the game is irrelevant. Killing bugs for some is much the same - it's a solution to a problem. But just because some prefer a method that involves death, it doesn't mean death is all the same or might become the same for them.

Ouch... :sad:

That movie, Antz, was sort of chilling to watch when I was a kid. Especially the part where the kid was trying to crush the ants. I remember being quite stricken by the fact that at least in the movie they were sentient... they were basically people. — KarpalTunnel

Do you mean to say that ants perceive me as a faceless Cthulu-like titan? Cool. :grin:

More serious response: I saw that movie too. I don't think the ants comprehend what I'm doing to them like the kid in the film, but it's definitely fun imagining myself like that. Thanks.

and without your manufactured, malodorous footwear. — KarpalTunnel

...hey! You can blame the material for being spongy and porous. And what can I say: I'm an active guy. You say that like I should be bothered... but the more my running shoes smell, the manlier it makes me feel. :grin:




More serious response again: Knuckle dragging? Most people think I'm a pretty good guy, not some chest-beating bully. I even coach peewee tennis for free. And there's no sadism involved. For that to be true, the ants would have to experience suffering, which they are incapable of. Really surprised you think me stepping on ants is worse than people who shoot rare mountain goats, elephants, and endangered cats, like the adult children of Donald Trump do.

Yeah, most likely it will seem too foreign for them to see as a danger or not.Well, any object coming to squish a fly will make it jet off. Most insects will scurry off with slow moving objects coming on to them. Their locomotion can let them down with fast moving objects. I mentioned the slow-motion thing, if it's true, these small creatures see the threat coming and so some won't move, thinking this object will stop and move on (like a bird might), or try to move but are too slow. Whether we know for sure they know this incoming danger with them being still, it's hard to say. If you hovered an object over them for longer when they are still to see if they think; "screw this, I'm going to make a run for it." ,and then they react, would be a sign they knew it was a threat and ran off or with enough time they realised it is weird and run off. — Wetsocks68

What's so foreign to them about a shoe though? Their world is full of large objects and surfaces.

I did some admittedly quick research and am learning that their leg hairs "hear" our movement at about 5 meters, some even see in color, and they have a keen sense for detecting vibrations. They definitely sense us from some distance away. So they at least seem capable of recognizing dangerous threats even though they don't comprehend them in our terms.

Even still, it's happened more than once where I'll be listening to music out back on the patio and be intruded on by a spider crawling on the floor, right in front of me...and just waiting to be stomped. Sure they don't comprehend when they invade a house... but how dense of a nerve cell cluster is needed to recognize a really big, white sneaker as something dangerous? If not danger... then what do you estimate they do perceive, then?

And yeah, they aren't asking for me to step on them, but they aren't being killed in sufficiently significant numbers to have adapted to avoid being stepped on. Even though I step on bugs on purpose, a guy like me doesn't make any dent in their population at all. In that context, is the kind of attention I give to spiders sad, wrong, or unwarranted?

Spiders can often sit still around danger if they feel they can't out run a threat or feel invisible with their background, they sit still and hope to blend in with the environment to not be spotted and killed. — Wetsocks68

Good point; they do tend to sit still. They wait until the last moment before evading a deadly threat and then go for the nearest available dark corner. Which I find maddening.

Ants probably detect the incoming danger in slow-motion like the fly can but simply can't speed off as fast as a fly can, into three dimensional space. Even if this research wasn't correct, ants are hell of a lot slower than a fly and flies have three dimensional space to rapidly take advantage of. — Wetsocks68

That is true; ants on the pavement can't move quickly enough to escape. In my experience though, they only run away when they are alone or in very small numbers.. but I am not sure in response to what. Vibration, sight, chemicals?

I have noticed their behavior is pretty different when in large groups and near their home. When I step on ant mound and just stand there with my shoe on their home, they scatter chaotically for about a minute but they don't run away or at least they don't go far. Instead they crawl all around and sometimes underneath my shoe trying to get in and out. At least that's based on my observations: and I've stepped on a lot of ants. :grin:

That isn't driven by malice at all though. It's more satisfying a curiosity by watching their reactions. Even though I treat ants like dirt, I still appreciate that the distance and speed at which they communicate and mobilize collectively in response to deadly threats (like my feet) through chemical signaling and vibrations alone, is pretty remarkable. No other insect I can think of comes close. It's fascinating how the colony acts almost like a single organism, sacrificing its individuals for the greater good... imagine if humans had that level of cooperation and one-ness of purpose.

Ok, I see your sentiment.

The other thing is, if you don't get them, find them weird, or find it odd the things they do. Then they could think the same for us, with us being wildly different to them.
I admit, it's hard to get used to. The thought of a cave centipede crawling over me at night to my awareness. Is a very hard one to accept with me not freaking out. But I also think it would be a bit weird to be super calm with it.
Well it would also be freaky if your friend stood at your bed whilst you slept. So I think the odds are, I don't think the cave centipede wants to be near us or on us either. But my god if it happened to be on me at night, I would just have to jump out bed and run or flap, freak out, I would still try not to kill it though. — Wetsocks68

For me it isn't just finding them weird or odd... but some are very annoying, creepy, and uninvited... emphasized more by the pictures you posted. To me they are like the tarantulas you mentioned, which are the stuff of nightmares.

Just the mental image of one of those centipedes on my bare leg, and feeling it, makes makes me cringe slightly. Not knowing what the hell it's doing under all those legs. You're a kinder man than me for trying not to kill it. That's one I'd chase down to squash.

Sport" is, in my opinion, inconsiderate. Someone who is inconsiderate is not as culpable as someone who is mean, sadistic or evil. But they are more culpable than someone who is absent minded, afraid or spontaneously reacting without thought.

I try to think before I act. I take spiders outside because I'm considerate of their life, and because they perform life in their sphere. But I will kill an elk when I hunt. — James Riley

Do you eat the elk that you hunt? If so, I doubt that many would take issue with your killing of them. Although premeditated, the hunting of the elk would have some utility. By contrast, I would be pretty wary of someone who killed elk just for the sake of killing elk. I don't hunt or fish; they just aren't my kind of thing. If I did though, I'm pretty sure I'd never be able to stomach the idea of killing an elk and just leaving it to rot. I figure it would be illegal too.

Live pigeon-shooting is another "hobby" that I think is pretty messed up. Pigeons are considered to be highly intelligent animals; the idea of gathering up a bunch of them just to release them and using them as target practice seems pretty cowardly. That people hold competitions over it boggles my mind. And then of course we have trophy hunters to me are the most disturbing. Super rich men, such as the adult children of Donald Trump, who literally fly overseas and pay tens of thousands of dollars to corrupt foreign government bureaucrats so they can obtain permits to kill sometimes endangered animals.



As I suggested above in the post, it takes the expression "going out of your way to kill something" to a whole new level. Even still, there are likely people who disapprove of me stepping on ants for no reason, but would condone (or perhaps even celebrate) the above. Makes you think. :razz:

The spider doesn't know it is entering a building that doesn't want it. It just sees a gap it can fit under, under the door and goes through it. The bees that get stuck in a house actually wants to leave the house as in all cases of bees in my house. Of course they do, there's nothing in the house for them. They get stuck confused by the windows. Even common wasps in spring and summer want to make a quick exit but get confused by the windows. Only in late summer/autumn do common wasps increasingly hone in on artificial human sweet food/drinks as they face natural food scarcity at that time of the year. Indeed they'll go crazy to get that then rare fix. — Wetsocks68

Bugs that manage to grab my attention get a new home at the tip of the green arrow. Tenants come and go often. :grin:

More serious reply: Taken together, bugs have a tendency to make every square foot of dry land on the planet their home though. It's true that they don't seek to invade a house. Like you suggest; they don't comprehend what a house is.

I recognize that bugs don't ask to be stepped on or have their lives unceremoniously cut short. But as mindless as they are, bugs still capable of sensing and reacting to danger. That being said, I have to assume that they can perceive the pair of ominous, white, alien objects pictured above as dangerous when they make the mistake of crawling anywhere near my feet. Right?

For bugs, being in constant danger is a package deal. Look how quickly a fly will move if you go to swat it with your hand. They have ways of escaping and avoiding danger.

You're basically dishing out the highest human judicial punishment to insects that more than likely are going about its harmless activities. If a spider had to die for looking creepy then that's very sad and wrong.
Given the time spiders aren't creepy and can even be cute.
Due to their rapid and inconspicuous nature, humans rarely get to make a good acquaintance with their features and behaviour. There's no hope of any acquittance if it meets a shoe every time though.
Have a look at tarantulas, start with them. I know a friend who is scared of spiders but can handle tarantulas.

So in short, we have sport fishermen who don't go out to kill fish. Fish that definitely don't die every time they're caught. Compared with insects being instantly killed upon mere presence and proximity to the person, all the time? With zero hope of the targeted insects living to see another day, unlike the targeted fish which has a higher chance to see another day.

I get the sense you see it as a moral issue. Even though I respect that position, should the spider's wishes even matter? You are correct in stating there is no hope of any acquaintance between me and a spider because it will, as you say, "meet a shoe every time." I have a hard time seeing them as cute. There are some bugs I don't kill however: butterflies, pray mantises, etc.

You do bring up good points about fishing. There is a difference in intent, no question. When I fulfill the role of a menacing giant to the ants out on my back patio, I am almost definitely setting out to cause death and destruction. That is different than recreational fishing, I admit, so my comparison is flawed. I would still suggest fishing may be more callous and even cruel though, Even if it weren't lethal it requires one to have what to me seems like an unhealthy stomach for witnessing and causing suffering. Whatever their intelligence, the fish are clearly pretty distressed or in pain. It's pretty different than when I go to step on ants. For them darkness looms momentarily and becomes total, before dying under a giant's foot.

Furthermore, smashing bugs seems immature and childishly destructive, as opposed to fishing, which is seen as an actual, constructive hobby.
Furthermore, smashing bugs seems immature and childishly destructive, as opposed to fishing, which is seen as an actual, constructive hobby.

I agree with your comment that the two are generally perceived quite differently; I just question if it's rational. Fishing is certainly constructive when the goal is to obtain a meat source, but from a moral standpoint I struggle to distinguish recreational fishing from stepping on ants. And there are definitely people who appear to see it in moral terms.

Now, of course, there's cruelty toward fish in sport fishing, but those that do engage in sport fishing don't do so with willfully cruel intentions toward the fish (as is often ascribed to those who step on bugs for the fun of it, rather than for reasons such as you've ascribed). Reminds me of Cobain lyric taken out of context, "It's OK to eat fish, because fish don't have any feelings."

Whether this would be frowned upon or not I still think would be dependent on what we take the participants' intentions to be in partaking in the sport. If we find they do it for the pleasure of cruelty, then frowned upon (by those who don't value cruelty). If we appraise that they don't, then we may think them ignorant and so on, but we don't hold the same type of aversion to the participants.

No?

That is a good question.

As you said, cruel intentions tend to be ascribed those who step on bugs for the fun of it. But sometimes I just like experimenting with their reactions. At the same time though, I'm rational enough to know that the ants that I purposely step on aren't capable of experiencing suffering, a result which I have to believe is necessary in order to satisfy any potential/alleged reward someone gets from purposeful cruelty.

I agree with you about fishing. Whether or not the act itself is cruel in its degree of brutality or degree of suffering caused, I don't believe that people who fish for recreation intend to be cruel. I suspect most people share that view of those who fish even for sport. Meanwhile, I have a notion that people who openly disapprove of stepping on bugs suspect (and in some cases even assume) cruelty is intended.

I have wonder what explains it - the visual difference in size? Why to a bystander does me standing over and toying with an army of ants, calmly planting my shoe on their home so they can't go in or out, conjure up a more sinister mental image than that someone hooking, injuring, and potentially killing a fish that is large enough in size that they can hold with two hands?

No worries. Recreational fishing has its critics, for sure, but as someone earlier stated, it's often given a pass purely because of social convention. That seems really problematic though.

When I raise my sneaker above an army of hungry ants, or step on a spider, or smash a pesky bee, the goal is often to repel or destroy unwanted invaders either because they are annoying, may sting or bite, or in the case of spiders, are just creepy. Recreational fishermen aren't trying to repel invaders, though. Rather, they are traveling often long distances to seek out the animals' habitat without any intention of using them for meat.

You state "the difference is the intention behind the act." There is a jarring difference in the degree of planning and intent.. but I don't think it favors fishing in a positive way. Swatting down a bee is an unthinking, split second decision. Similarly, not much thought or planning goes into stepping on a spider for some overly dramatic girl; if they want me to see me demonstrate my machismo, why not? Even walking over to stamp my feet on invading ants is relatively unthinking.

By contrast, people who sport fish literally plan ahead, prepare for, and travel long distances to go and do something that they are fully aware will injure and can potentially kill. It's quite literally going out of your way to harm something. There is long term planning and time investment that goes into recreational fishing, there are gears turning in the person head, they actually look forward to it. Think about that... even if the people aren't cruel-minded, their commitment to an activity that hurts significantly more complex animals than bugs seems to be. What is the intent? I'm not saying bug squashers and sport fishermen don't sometimes overlap. But I'm critical of how one activity is embraced while the other one is written off as immature or cruel.

And that's to say nothing of the people who travel overseas to trophy hunt elephants or other intelligent animals. That elevates "going out of your way to kill something" to a whole new level.

Condemn was probably too strong a word. But I have experienced people who will scold or frown on bug squashing. For example, I have a good friend who comes over to my house on a lot of afternoons. If we're on my back patio and I start stepping on a line of hungry ants making their way from the grass, he'll tell me to "just leave them alone." Sometimes I horse around and start stamping them even faster and he will say "Come on, man" or "I'm just going to leave then." I'm pretty sure he sees it as immoral but we're good enough friends that he overlooks it.

I think you are right... but the personal logic that people use to condone one activity while condemning the other is pretty terrible.

"Fishing is different; it's relaxing." Maybe for the fisherperson...