Sure, you can hunt without guns. I don’t really see an argument for not using them though, as long as there’s no lead.
In the isolated context of lead poisoning alone, sure, banning lead is an answer.
In the greater context of gun ownership in general, it’s more tricky.
But i wasn’t advocating either , simply pointing out that banning guns and allowing hunting aren’t mutually exclusive.
What’s really the ethical or environment argument in favor of only allowing bows, or whatever?
There are some , but i wasn’t pushing for any so i’m not sure they are relevant here.
I see the emotional appeal, if people have a negative view of guns. Not a logical appeal though, besides maybe making them harder to access to prevent deaths by firearms.
Either you haven’t thought this all way through or you are intentionally ignoring the whole host of other emotional and logical arguments around gun control.
If you can ban hunting with firearms, you can also just ban using lead ammo, so I don’t see how banning them is the best option in general.
As was said previously, in this isolated context you are probably right, in any kind of wider context, not so much.
I didn’t make any proposals in my above comment. It’s entirely statements of observations. I don’t know what you mean by saying you don’t see how they would work or not. I gave explanations of why hunting isn’t negative, and is often positive, but not any proposals of how anything should be done. Would you care to elaborate?
That’s possibly my bad, i meant more that you were making statements without any (written) consideration to the wider context in which they were made.
I don’t necessarily disagree(or agree) with you, but i absolutely think your arguments need work.
Examples:
I will preface this by saying that my perspective on “nature” is that we are part of it, even will all the fucked up self destructive stuff we have going on , so it’s not like we can really do anything “unnatural”, i use the term natural below to mean nature if we didn’t have such an outsized effect on natural processes.
From an environmental perspective, hunting keeps pray populations in naturally healthy levels, since most of their predators are driven out of populated areas, because people don’t like to be attacked by wild animals.
That’s only true in an ecosystem where the predator (us) and the prey are in natural equilibrium, which I’m sure you’ll agree is absolutely not the case.
Without that natural equilibrium you need formal and enforced regulation to make this work.
This magical “naturally healthy” state of existence glosses over a lot of problems with that statement.
It also doesn’t consume many resources, as they’re just living their lives in nature.
Also requires a natural equilibrium or regulation as a baseline.
I don’t think there’s any valid argument against hunting honestly, besides just being grossed out by it.
I can’t construct a good argument against it though, and I suspect you can’t either.
Overhunting and ecosystem collapse, trophy hunting, selective hunting (think ivory), disease control, hunting for “sport” (think fox “hunting”).
Those were just off the top of my head.
and remember animals dying and being eaten is natural, and frequently necessary to maintain an equilibrium that was evolved to be maintained by external factors
an equilibrium, not the only equilibrium, it also mentions evolution of equilibriums but is presented from a perspective that the equilibrium presented is now fixed (it is not).
we are also animals, so us dying and being eaten also fall under this, so by that rationale another effective solution could be to reintroduce more (non-human) predators and a few of us die here and there, but the animal populations now stay under control.
Deer, for example, will die horrible deaths of starvation, and do damage to the environment, if they aren’t hunted by humans.
Until a new equilibrium is reached, because that’s how ecosystems work (or collapse, depending).
“Damage” is relative and a natural part of the evolution(or collapse) of ecosystems.
Either you haven’t thought this all way through or you are intentionally ignoring the whole host of other emotional and logical arguments around gun control.
If we’re talking about gun control, fine. I’m all for reasonable gun control. I don’t think targeting hunting rifles/shotguns are the most useful though. Handguns are the issue there. Still, yeah, more good gun control would be nice. Not really part of this discussion though, but that’s the one argument I did consider, but doesn’t really apply to hunting weapons. If we can get it passed for the weapons that actually matter, then I’d agree losing hunting weapons are fine.
That’s only true in an ecosystem where the predator (us) and the prey are in natural equilibrium, which I’m sure you’ll agree is absolutely not the case.
Without that natural equilibrium you need formal and enforced regulation to make this work.
Yes. That formal enforced regulation needs to exist, and I don’t know anywhere that it doesn’t. In the US, you need a license, and you can only kill a certain number of the animal per season, and that’s all based on how many of the animals need to be culled, and it does need to be done. Equilibrium is maintained through this regulation.
This magical “naturally healthy” state of existence glosses over a lot of problems with that statement.
I never said “naturally healthy”. I said they evolved to have a certain percentage of losses. If that isn’t maintained by other predators, we need to do it. It’s naturally (in its current state) unhealthy. Hunting is required to keep it healthy.
we are also animals, so us dying and being eaten also fall under this, so by that rationale another effective solution could be to reintroduce more (non-human) predators and a few of us die here and there, but the animal populations now stay under control.
Sure. That’d be another solution. If we’re discussing policy, I think we can safely ignore it though. There’s a lot of solutions that are not going to happen. We don’t need to rule out all of them to discuss what we actually can do.
Until a new equilibrium is reached, because that’s how ecosystems work (or collapse, depending).
No. They boom and collapse. This repeats, until evolution takes it’s course maybe, which will be quite a while. It doesn’t reach an equilibrium state because they evolutionary pressures were different when they evolved. Maybe this isn’t true for all prey animals, but many, such as deer and rabbits, it is. Population booms, they eat all easily available food, they die off from starvation or disease, then they boom back.
A lot of your argument against hunting is that it requires regulation. No one is arguing against that. It is needed, and this is already recognized and enforced. We just need to now enforce participation in a way that doesn’t create negative externalities from lead poisoning.
Yes. That formal enforced regulation needs to exist, and I don’t know anywhere that it doesn’t. In the US, you need a license, and you can only kill a certain number of the animal per season, and that’s all based on how many of the animals need to be culled, and it does need to be done. Equilibrium is maintained through this regulation.
Animals don’t need to be culled, for the maintenance of the current pseudo equilibrium it’s probably a good idea, but it’s not an absolute requirement.
I never said “naturally healthy”
I literally quoted you.
I said they evolved to have a certain percentage of losses. If that isn’t maintained by other predators, we need to do it. It’s naturally (in its current state) unhealthy. Hunting is required to keep it healthy.
Hunting is the one of the current mechanisms we use to (roughly) maintain the status quo, it’s not the only mechanism, nor is it the only option, it’s just one of the ones we are using right now.
Healthy is relative in multiple ways, there would be a new equilibrium on the other side of the shitstorm that would probably arise from us dropping our current efforts with no replacement.
That might be subjectively bad for us, but it would exist.
Sure. That’d be another solution. If we’re discussing policy, I think we can safely ignore it though. There’s a lot of solutions that are not going to happen. We don’t need to rule out all of them to discuss what we actually can do.
Unless there’s some sort of magic book that already has the answers to what is and isn’t viable then we very much do need to rule them out, that’s how decisions and policies are made.
No. They boom and collapse. This repeats, until evolution takes it’s course maybe, which will be quite a while. It doesn’t reach an equilibrium state because they evolutionary pressures were different when they evolved. Maybe this isn’t true for all prey animals, but many, such as deer and rabbits, it is. Population booms, they eat all easily available food, they die off from starvation or disease, then they boom back.
I’m not sure what the no is about given the following sentences basically say the same thing i did.
If they aren’t fit they die off, a new equilibrium is reached or the ecosystem collapses.
“They boom and collapse.,This repeats, until evolution takes it’s course maybe, which will be quite a while.” is one way an equilibrium is reached if the species(singular or plural) don’t die off.
A lot of your argument against hunting is that it requires regulation. No one is arguing against that. It is needed, and this is already recognized and enforced. We just need to now enforce participation in a way that doesn’t create negative externalities from lead poisoning.
I’d be interested to see where you’re seeing an argument against hunting from me as, afaik, i haven’t said anything to that effect.
My only argument has been that your statements were omitting what i would consider important context.
Animals don’t need to be culled, for the maintenance of the current pseudo equilibrium it’s probably a good idea, but it’s not an absolute requirement.
Literally nothing is required. What’s your point? Are you just trying to argue about nothing? The Earth can just be destroyed. It isn’t required to exist. So what? We’re talking about solutions to a problem. There is a problem with lead bullets. There’s also a problem with a lack of natural predation. We should try to solve these problems. We don’t have to solve any problem, but what’s the point in starting arguments with people online saying we don’t need to solve anything?
I never said “naturally healthy”
I literally quoted you.
I had to go back to see what was said. I didn’t say anything was special about it being natural, like what you implied by saying it was magical. I said it’s kept naturally healthy by predators, as in nature had a mechanism to keep it healthy. This isn’t an appeal to nature, as you implied. It’s a statement of fact. It isn’t saying natural is better. It’s saying there is a natural thing. Doing it without nature accomplishes the same goal. So you did “quote me” in that you used two words I also used, you didn’t include anything else surrounding it, and made it say something it didn’t.
Healthy is relative in multiple ways, there would be a new equilibrium on the other side of the shitstorm that would probably arise from us dropping our current efforts with no replacement.
As I said. We could wait for evolution to take its course. I don’t think waiting centuries with booming and crashing populations of animals is a particularly smart idea. Maybe you do, but you haven’t said anything other than “we don’t have to do anything.” Again, no shit! Stop writing these long comments saying literally nothing.
Unless there’s some sort of magic book that already has the answers to what is and isn’t viable then we very much do need to rule them out, that’s how decisions and policies are made.
No, we don’t. We don’t need to discuss magical fairies taking care of the problem. We don’t need to discuss finding a magic lamp to solve the problem. Some things can safely be ignored because they’re so unlikely to happen.
I’m not sure what the no is about given the following sentences basically say the same thing i did.
I’d be interested to see where you’re seeing an argument against hunting from me as, afaik, i haven’t said anything to that effect.
Fair enough. You aren’t making any argument besides that we should do everything but discuss how to solve these issues. Someone said hunting needed to stop. I said it’s necessary for the current state of things. You’ve argued against what I said, which implies an argument against hunting, but really it’s just an annoying “… but what about” argument making no claims and no actual arguments.
This is my last reply unless you actually want to have a discussion. If you do, discuss in good faith. We do not have to rule out things that can’t reasonably happen. We should assume that suffering is at least somewhat negative. We should assume that environmental experts saying prey populations need to be culled are correct. If you don’t agree to these, there isn’t a discussion to be had.
My only point has consistently been that your statements lacked important supporting context and are written like they are the only correct option, that weakens them.
Questioning your weak statements seems to have upset you and rather than actually responding to my only actual point you’ve constructed multiple other positions i’ve not taken.
When asked for examples you moved to “you are discussing in bad faith” (still no examples , i might add).
A discussion is impossible with someone unwilling to engage (or unable to understand) the actual position of the other party.
The rest is just a long winded version of this, feel free to skip it.
Literally nothing is required. What’s your point? Are you just trying to argue about nothing? …
My whole point, which i have stated multiple times, is that your statements are weak.
things like “and it does need to be done.” implies that it is the only answer, when it isn’t.
There is a problem with lead bullets. There’s also a problem with a lack of natural predation. We should try to solve these problems. We don’t have to solve any problem, but what’s the point in starting arguments with people online saying we don’t need to solve anything?
Again, point to where anyone said we don’t need to solve anything ?
If your answer to someone questioning the validity of your statements is to say “fuck it, obviously you just mean we shouldn’t solve anything” then i expect there’s nothing further to gain from a conversation.
I had to go back to see what was said. I didn’t say anything was special about it being natural, like what you implied by saying it was magical. I said it’s kept naturally healthy by predators, as in nature had a mechanism to keep it healthy. This isn’t an appeal to nature, as you implied. It’s a statement of fact. It isn’t saying natural is better. It’s saying there is a natural thing. Doing it without nature accomplishes the same goal. So you did “quote me” in that you used two words I also used, you didn’t include anything else surrounding it, and made it say something it didn’t.
I literally quoted the surrounding sentence in that reply, not just the two words, if you didn’t read it , that’s on you.
As i’ve said, multiple times, there are mechanisms in place for balance and/or collapse, healthy is subjective.
As I said. We could wait for evolution to take its course. I don’t think waiting centuries with booming and crashing populations of animals is a particularly smart idea. Maybe you do, but you haven’t said anything other than “we don’t have to do anything.” Again, no shit! Stop writing these long comments saying literally nothing.
In your reply to me, yes, in the original response, not so much, which again i will remind you is the actual issue i’ve been mentioning this whole time.
My original reply was basically , “i don’t agree or disagree with your points but perhaps add context so your arguments aren’t so brittle” everything after that is responding to your questions. Its seems my responses aren’t to your liking but i’m not sure there’s anything i can do about that.
I’ll add a TL;DR; for you so you can skim.
No, we don’t. We don’t need to discuss magical fairies taking care of the problem. We don’t need to discuss finding a magic lamp to solve the problem. Some things can safely be ignored because they’re so unlikely to happen.
I never said discussion was needed, i said that ruling out options is a part of how decisions and policies are made, if you think magical fairies being ruled out requires discussion, that’s on you.
In the actual context on this thread of discussion i think that artificially increased predation could be (and historically has been) a viable solution to overpopulation.
Ceding areas to wildlife has also been used.
I said specifically that a shitstorm would probably be the result of dropping our current measures without a replacement that doesn’t mean other options can’t be discussed.
And that whole reply was again to point out the statement you made was an implied objective fact.
You aren’t making any argument besides that we should do everything but discuss how to solve these issues.
I mean…no , i’ll quote my repeated statements of my only arguments :
I don’t know if it’s on purpose but your answer seems to be ignoring a lot of the realities of how the things you are proposing would work (or not work, as the case may be).
I don’t necessarily disagree(or agree) with you, but i absolutely think your arguments need work.
My only argument has been that your statements were omitting what i would consider important context.
and then in this response
“i don’t agree or disagree with your points but perhaps add context so your arguments aren’t so brittle”
If you want to attribute some other argument to me (that isn’t a direct response to your questions) I’d appreciate if you could point out where it was made.
This is my last reply unless you actually want to have a discussion. If you do, discuss in good faith. We do not have to rule out things that can’t reasonably happen.
All of my responses were in good faith, if you don’t understand that dismissing something because it is unlikely is literally ruling out an option i can’t help you with that.
We should assume that suffering is at least somewhat negative.
I don’t know what you mean by this but I’m fairly sure i haven’t argued to the contrary.
We should assume that environmental experts saying prey populations need to be culled are correct.
Again, i haven’t argued against this, only that it’s not the only option, as was implied by your statements.
If you don’t agree to these, there isn’t a discussion to be had.
I agree, “If you don’t agree to these things I’ve unilaterally stated to be true with no contextual support or citations then your responses are in bad faith” isn’t a discussion, it’s a personal echo chamber.
In the isolated context of lead poisoning alone, sure, banning lead is an answer.
In the greater context of gun ownership in general, it’s more tricky.
But i wasn’t advocating either , simply pointing out that banning guns and allowing hunting aren’t mutually exclusive.
There are some , but i wasn’t pushing for any so i’m not sure they are relevant here.
Either you haven’t thought this all way through or you are intentionally ignoring the whole host of other emotional and logical arguments around gun control.
As was said previously, in this isolated context you are probably right, in any kind of wider context, not so much.
That’s possibly my bad, i meant more that you were making statements without any (written) consideration to the wider context in which they were made.
I don’t necessarily disagree(or agree) with you, but i absolutely think your arguments need work.
Examples:
I will preface this by saying that my perspective on “nature” is that we are part of it, even will all the fucked up self destructive stuff we have going on , so it’s not like we can really do anything “unnatural”, i use the term natural below to mean nature if we didn’t have such an outsized effect on natural processes.
That’s only true in an ecosystem where the predator (us) and the prey are in natural equilibrium, which I’m sure you’ll agree is absolutely not the case.
Without that natural equilibrium you need formal and enforced regulation to make this work.
This magical “naturally healthy” state of existence glosses over a lot of problems with that statement.
Also requires a natural equilibrium or regulation as a baseline.
Overhunting and ecosystem collapse, trophy hunting, selective hunting (think ivory), disease control, hunting for “sport” (think fox “hunting”).
Those were just off the top of my head.
an equilibrium, not the only equilibrium, it also mentions evolution of equilibriums but is presented from a perspective that the equilibrium presented is now fixed (it is not).
we are also animals, so us dying and being eaten also fall under this, so by that rationale another effective solution could be to reintroduce more (non-human) predators and a few of us die here and there, but the animal populations now stay under control.
Until a new equilibrium is reached, because that’s how ecosystems work (or collapse, depending).
“Damage” is relative and a natural part of the evolution(or collapse) of ecosystems.
If we’re talking about gun control, fine. I’m all for reasonable gun control. I don’t think targeting hunting rifles/shotguns are the most useful though. Handguns are the issue there. Still, yeah, more good gun control would be nice. Not really part of this discussion though, but that’s the one argument I did consider, but doesn’t really apply to hunting weapons. If we can get it passed for the weapons that actually matter, then I’d agree losing hunting weapons are fine.
Yes. That formal enforced regulation needs to exist, and I don’t know anywhere that it doesn’t. In the US, you need a license, and you can only kill a certain number of the animal per season, and that’s all based on how many of the animals need to be culled, and it does need to be done. Equilibrium is maintained through this regulation.
I never said “naturally healthy”. I said they evolved to have a certain percentage of losses. If that isn’t maintained by other predators, we need to do it. It’s naturally (in its current state) unhealthy. Hunting is required to keep it healthy.
Sure. That’d be another solution. If we’re discussing policy, I think we can safely ignore it though. There’s a lot of solutions that are not going to happen. We don’t need to rule out all of them to discuss what we actually can do.
No. They boom and collapse. This repeats, until evolution takes it’s course maybe, which will be quite a while. It doesn’t reach an equilibrium state because they evolutionary pressures were different when they evolved. Maybe this isn’t true for all prey animals, but many, such as deer and rabbits, it is. Population booms, they eat all easily available food, they die off from starvation or disease, then they boom back.
A lot of your argument against hunting is that it requires regulation. No one is arguing against that. It is needed, and this is already recognized and enforced. We just need to now enforce participation in a way that doesn’t create negative externalities from lead poisoning.
Animals don’t need to be culled, for the maintenance of the current pseudo equilibrium it’s probably a good idea, but it’s not an absolute requirement.
I literally quoted you.
Hunting is the one of the current mechanisms we use to (roughly) maintain the status quo, it’s not the only mechanism, nor is it the only option, it’s just one of the ones we are using right now.
Healthy is relative in multiple ways, there would be a new equilibrium on the other side of the shitstorm that would probably arise from us dropping our current efforts with no replacement.
That might be subjectively bad for us, but it would exist.
Unless there’s some sort of magic book that already has the answers to what is and isn’t viable then we very much do need to rule them out, that’s how decisions and policies are made.
I’m not sure what the no is about given the following sentences basically say the same thing i did.
If they aren’t fit they die off, a new equilibrium is reached or the ecosystem collapses.
“They boom and collapse.,This repeats, until evolution takes it’s course maybe, which will be quite a while.” is one way an equilibrium is reached if the species(singular or plural) don’t die off.
I’d be interested to see where you’re seeing an argument against hunting from me as, afaik, i haven’t said anything to that effect.
My only argument has been that your statements were omitting what i would consider important context.
Literally nothing is required. What’s your point? Are you just trying to argue about nothing? The Earth can just be destroyed. It isn’t required to exist. So what? We’re talking about solutions to a problem. There is a problem with lead bullets. There’s also a problem with a lack of natural predation. We should try to solve these problems. We don’t have to solve any problem, but what’s the point in starting arguments with people online saying we don’t need to solve anything?
I had to go back to see what was said. I didn’t say anything was special about it being natural, like what you implied by saying it was magical. I said it’s kept naturally healthy by predators, as in nature had a mechanism to keep it healthy. This isn’t an appeal to nature, as you implied. It’s a statement of fact. It isn’t saying natural is better. It’s saying there is a natural thing. Doing it without nature accomplishes the same goal. So you did “quote me” in that you used two words I also used, you didn’t include anything else surrounding it, and made it say something it didn’t.
As I said. We could wait for evolution to take its course. I don’t think waiting centuries with booming and crashing populations of animals is a particularly smart idea. Maybe you do, but you haven’t said anything other than “we don’t have to do anything.” Again, no shit! Stop writing these long comments saying literally nothing.
No, we don’t. We don’t need to discuss magical fairies taking care of the problem. We don’t need to discuss finding a magic lamp to solve the problem. Some things can safely be ignored because they’re so unlikely to happen.
Fair enough. You aren’t making any argument besides that we should do everything but discuss how to solve these issues. Someone said hunting needed to stop. I said it’s necessary for the current state of things. You’ve argued against what I said, which implies an argument against hunting, but really it’s just an annoying “… but what about” argument making no claims and no actual arguments.
This is my last reply unless you actually want to have a discussion. If you do, discuss in good faith. We do not have to rule out things that can’t reasonably happen. We should assume that suffering is at least somewhat negative. We should assume that environmental experts saying prey populations need to be culled are correct. If you don’t agree to these, there isn’t a discussion to be had.
TL;DR;
My only point has consistently been that your statements lacked important supporting context and are written like they are the only correct option, that weakens them.
Questioning your weak statements seems to have upset you and rather than actually responding to my only actual point you’ve constructed multiple other positions i’ve not taken.
When asked for examples you moved to “you are discussing in bad faith” (still no examples , i might add).
A discussion is impossible with someone unwilling to engage (or unable to understand) the actual position of the other party.
The rest is just a long winded version of this, feel free to skip it.
My whole point, which i have stated multiple times, is that your statements are weak.
things like “and it does need to be done.” implies that it is the only answer, when it isn’t.
Again, point to where anyone said we don’t need to solve anything ?
If your answer to someone questioning the validity of your statements is to say “fuck it, obviously you just mean we shouldn’t solve anything” then i expect there’s nothing further to gain from a conversation.
I literally quoted the surrounding sentence in that reply, not just the two words, if you didn’t read it , that’s on you.
As i’ve said, multiple times, there are mechanisms in place for balance and/or collapse, healthy is subjective.
In your reply to me, yes, in the original response, not so much, which again i will remind you is the actual issue i’ve been mentioning this whole time.
My original reply was basically , “i don’t agree or disagree with your points but perhaps add context so your arguments aren’t so brittle” everything after that is responding to your questions. Its seems my responses aren’t to your liking but i’m not sure there’s anything i can do about that.
I’ll add a TL;DR; for you so you can skim.
I never said discussion was needed, i said that ruling out options is a part of how decisions and policies are made, if you think magical fairies being ruled out requires discussion, that’s on you.
In the actual context on this thread of discussion i think that artificially increased predation could be (and historically has been) a viable solution to overpopulation.
Ceding areas to wildlife has also been used.
I said specifically that a shitstorm would probably be the result of dropping our current measures without a replacement that doesn’t mean other options can’t be discussed.
And that whole reply was again to point out the statement you made was an implied objective fact.
I mean…no , i’ll quote my repeated statements of my only arguments :
and then in this response
If you want to attribute some other argument to me (that isn’t a direct response to your questions) I’d appreciate if you could point out where it was made.
All of my responses were in good faith, if you don’t understand that dismissing something because it is unlikely is literally ruling out an option i can’t help you with that.
I don’t know what you mean by this but I’m fairly sure i haven’t argued to the contrary.
Again, i haven’t argued against this, only that it’s not the only option, as was implied by your statements.
I agree, “If you don’t agree to these things I’ve unilaterally stated to be true with no contextual support or citations then your responses are in bad faith” isn’t a discussion, it’s a personal echo chamber.