Comment on Littering đŻ
Cethin@lemmy.zip â¨1⊠â¨day⊠agoOK, I think this is an incredibly stupid argument.
From the ethical perspective of anti-meat, hunting animals is so much better. They get to live natural lives, and they die in a similar manner to they do in nature (maybe a little faster, which is good).
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 donât like to be attacked by wild animals. It also doesnât consume many resources, as theyâre just living their lives in nature.
I donât think thereâs any valid argument against hunting honestly, besides just being grossed out by it. Thatâs fine, and you can just not do it. Iâve never hunted in my life, and I suspect I never will. Itâs not really something I want to do. I canât construct a good argument against it though, and I suspect you canât either. If you can, give it a shot, 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. Deer, for example, will die horrible deaths of starvation, and do damage to the environment, if they arenât hunted by humans.
Crazy ape comment aside (iâd put it closer to apes with delusions of grandeur but thatâs just me), not shooting guns and allowing hunting arenât mutually exclusive.
Especially given all the hunting that happened pre-gun.
I donât know if itâs 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).
Sure, you can hunt without guns. I donât really see an argument for not using them though, as long as thereâs no lead. Whatâs really the ethical or environment argument in favor of only allowing bows, or whatever? 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.
I didnât make any proposals in my above comment. I donât know what you mean by saying you donât see how they would work or not. I gave explanations of why hunting isnât negative, and is often positive, but not any proposals of how anything should be done. Would you care to elaborate?
Where I grew up, most people use a Have-a-Heart trap or a snare, then a knife or captive bolt gun (no bulltets).
Scenario A: Youâre minding your own business, when a bullet passes through your heart/lungs and youâre dead in seconds.
Scenario B: You get caught in a trap and wait for hours for an ape with a knife or a bolt gun to come along and finish the job.
Honestly, if I were an animal, Iâd prefer Scenario A.
That works. Iâm not saying you canât hunt with other methods. Iâm just saying that I canât see much of an argument against the use of leadless firearms for hunting, besides a weak gun control one (hunting weapons arenât a significant portion of the danger from firearms, mostly handguns or rifles like the AR-15). People can hunt however they want, or not at all, as long as it is controlled to healthy levels and doesnât cause any other issues, and, ideally doesnât cause unnecessary suffering to the animal.
Sure, you can hunt without guns. I donât really see an argument for not using them though, as long as thereâs 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, itâs more tricky.
But i wasnât advocating either , simply pointing out that banning guns and allowing hunting arenât mutually exclusive.
Whatâs really the ethical or environment argument in favor of only allowing bows, or whatever?
There are some , but i wasnât pushing for any so iâm 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 havenât 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 donât 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 didnât make any proposals in my above comment. Itâs entirely statements of observations. I donât know what you mean by saying you donât see how they would work or not. I gave explanations of why hunting isnât negative, and is often positive, but not any proposals of how anything should be done. Would you care to elaborate?
Thatâs 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 donât 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 ânatureâ is that we are part of it, even will all the fucked up self destructive stuff we have going on , so itâs not like we can really do anything âunnaturalâ, i use the term natural below to mean nature if we didnât 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 donât like to be attacked by wild animals.
Thatâs only true in an ecosystem where the predator (us) and the prey are in natural equilibrium, which Iâm sure youâll agree is absolutely not the case.
Without that natural equilibrium you need formal and enforced regulation to make this work.
This magical ânaturally healthyâ state of existence glosses over a lot of problems with that statement.
It also doesnât consume many resources, as theyâre just living their lives in nature.
Also requires a natural equilibrium or regulation as a baseline.
I donât think thereâs any valid argument against hunting honestly, besides just being grossed out by it. I canât construct a good argument against it though, and I suspect you canât either.
Overhunting and ecosystem collapse, trophy hunting, selective hunting (think ivory), disease control, hunting for âsportâ (think fox âhuntingâ).
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 arenât hunted by humans.
Until a new equilibrium is reached, because thatâs how ecosystems work (or collapse, depending).
Either you havenât thought this all way through or you are intentionally ignoring the whole host of other emotional and logical arguments around gun control.
If weâre talking about gun control, fine. Iâm all for reasonable gun control. I donât 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 thatâs the one argument I did consider, but doesnât really apply to hunting weapons. If we can get it passed for the weapons that actually matter, then Iâd agree losing hunting weapons are fine.
Thatâs only true in an ecosystem where the predator (us) and the prey are in natural equilibrium, which Iâm sure youâll 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 donât know anywhere that it doesnât. In the US, you need a license, and you can only kill a certain number of the animal per season, and thatâs 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 ânaturally healthyâ state of existence glosses over a lot of problems with that statement.
I never said ânaturally healthyâ. I said they evolved to have a certain percentage of losses. If that isnât maintained by other predators, we need to do it. Itâs 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. Thatâd be another solution. If weâre discussing policy, I think we can safely ignore it though. Thereâs a lot of solutions that are not going to happen. We donât need to rule out all of them to discuss what we actually can do.
Until a new equilibrium is reached, because thatâs how ecosystems work (or collapse, depending).
No. They boom and collapse. This repeats, until evolution takes itâs course maybe, which will be quite a while. It doesnât reach an equilibrium state because they evolutionary pressures were different when they evolved. Maybe this isnât 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 doesnât create negative externalities from lead poisoning.
You must be exhausted after all those huge jumps in logic and reasoning.
You must be pretty rested, because you didnât even try to make an argument. What were the leaps in logic? Can you actually explain, or are you just implying there are to sound smart, but canât actually identify any?
You appealed to pretty much every strawman there is when it comes to animal rights.
You appealed to pretty much every strawman there is when it comes to animal rights.
How so? What was the strawman?
I have a half assed argument against hunting, and itâs mostly my being a picky ass. Most of the time, the game around here, you get better meat from the store. So people just let it sit in their freezer and it ends up going to waste. Which reminds me, I have some moose ass in my freezer I gotta eat.
Aarkon@discuss.tchncs.de â¨1⊠â¨day⊠ago
Just because something happens on its own in nature doesnât mean itâs a good thing per se - for instance, I prefer the warmth of my heated house over the ânaturalâ cold temperatures of the winter months. Thatâs the famous âappeal to natureâ fallacy right there.
Also, like others already pointed out, hunting deer is only necessary because we eradicated most of their natural predators. Making the case for hunting today in order to fix a problem hunting created in the past feels oddly circular to me.
qaeta@lemmy.ca â¨20⊠â¨hours⊠ago
I mean, kinda yes, kinda no. We generally werenât hunting predators primarily for meat, but for community safety. The meat was a byproduct of not wanting a bear or something to decide our children would make for a tasty snack.
Cethin@lemmy.zip â¨20⊠â¨hours⊠ago
Itâs not circular, because it needs to be done. If it isnât done we have massive problems. It doesnât depend on any other logic. Sure, the issue was crested, in part, by hunting also (a lot just because predators wonât live near population centers though), but the argument that it needs to be done isnât dependent on you agreeing with killing predators.
hector@lemmy.today â¨17⊠â¨hours⊠ago
A little off subject, but I want to start a movement to have farmers raise a few cows and pigs in the old method, letting them roam around and forage, not treating them horribly, and then selling the meat directly to consumers. Because if you bought an entire cowâs worth of cuts at a grocer, itâs an astronomical sum, even as the rancher is getting barely enough to get by from it, the agriconglomerates hold the gates and are squeezing everyone, and itâs forced these factory style farms to proliferate to stay in business, as the corporates wonât pay enough for the old style of farming to be worth it, but still charge more than enough so that old way would more than be worth it if we cut out the parasitical mega corporations.
Itâs kind of baked in though, usda inspections and the like on beef, itâs illegal to go outside of them really, barriers to entry that probably are ruinously expensive for someone doing a handful of cow shares, but affordable for a conglomerate doing a thousand head
But thereâs a way around it, doing cow share programs, selling directly to people but itâs grey area.
Anyway itâs a major harm reduction as far as Iâm concerned. People arenât going to stop buying meat. We can give farmers more money, save consumers money, and give the animals better lives, by cutting out these mega corporations from the deal, and in doing it with meat, itâs an in to do all sorts of vegetables and the like as well, we need community sponsored agriculture that is not more expensive than the grocers, and I think thatâs more possible now with rising grocery costs.