My trolling of Vegans is exclusively a response to Vegans demanding everyone surrender eggs and never eat meat on any occasion.
Dipshits being dipshits shouldn’t alter your moral compass. That’s “owning the libs” level discourse. You gotta leave that behind.
I find the more militant vegans to be annoying, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to troll them. They’re not worth the effort, and the end goal (less suffering, even if I don’t privilege animal suffering as equivalent to human suffering) aligns with mine. That they’re going about it in a potentially counterproductive way doesn’t mean I join the opposition.
That they’re going about it in a potentially counterproductive way doesn’t mean I join the opposition.
Okay this is getting a bit off-topic I guess but I get what you mean but the logic when taken to the extreme is silly and non-functional and creates more animal- and human suffering.
For one hunting as a way to control deer populations as controlling the population is a must since one of our ancestors went and replaced wolves hereabouts and bringing them back (I wouldn’t mind it) wouldn’t be as good population control and also not good for the wolves. Also also a deer suffers more when run down by a wolf than when one-shot killed by a rifle.
I support vegan products all the time and don’t really consume non-game meats if at all possible.
But like I said, offtopic. I agree with you that I wouldn’t go and troll the vegans, I do like arguing with them, as their ideology, while kinda naive, is at its core trying to help animals. And that I do too. So I just want to make them better at it and thus point out the flaws in their worldview. Not to mock them, to help them.
our ancestors went and replaced wolves … bringing them back … not good for the wolves
Umm yeah I’m going to stand firmly on the platform that wild populations that were devastated by human intervention benefit from the alleviation of that devastation.
Please do give an example. Humans have been the apex predator around these parts for literally thousands of years. We manage the deer. We don’t devastate it. If you threw in a pack of wolves, never even mind about the social effects of throwing them into what is now a population center has, the wolves don’t have an understanding of how many deer are supposed to be killed and how many aren’t.
I would love more wolves around my area, I’m not afraid of them at all. But it’s just not feasible anymore.
Might be hard for you to understand but not all human actions destroy nature.
A good example of human intervention devastating a population when discussing the devastation of the wolf population would be humans devastating the wolf population. 🤷
The wolves aren’t a tool for managing deer populations. Sure they would help, but if deer population and vegetation is the concern then they’re part of the overall management strategy. Wolves prey on many animals.
No. Humans replaced wolves in these parts extremely slowly. So slowly in fact you can’t say the population was “devastated”. In roughly the same time for the population numbers to go from wildly plentiful to practically none, some of the wolves became dogs.
The wolves aren’t a tool for managing deer populations. Sure they would help, but if deer population and vegetation is the concern then they’re part of the overall management strategy. Wolves prey on many animals.
Yeah, obviously. Including domestic animals. Which is why the wolves have slowly disappeared as human populations have extended here.
But lots of vegans still make the argument that hunters only hunt for wanting to kill things, instead of any actually beneficial reason. Which is wildlife management, as overpopulation of deer would be devastating to the ecology.
Yet still you find vegans who moralise hunters while saying that we should just release packs of wolves into what are low-density population centers. I’m not too worried about them snatching kids or whatnot, but just the fact vegans do make the argument frequently is what gets me.
Wolf populations were functionally controlling deer population as late as 200years ago. They were hunted for pelts and to prevent culling of stock/farm animals. Of course this varies geographically but is absolutely the case in north America.
I agree that it can be annoying to talk to a particularly militant began but the same is true for any ethos/identity.
The only thing that accomplishes is you lowering yourself.
It would be like opposing gay marriage “for the lulz”
Either you have a legitimate moral stance on an issue, or you don’t. Playing the troll on an issue simply because other people annoy you means you don’t care about the issue.
Dipshits being dipshits shouldn’t alter your moral compass. That’s “owning the libs” level discourse. You gotta leave that behind.
I find the more militant vegans to be annoying, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to troll them. They’re not worth the effort, and the end goal (less suffering, even if I don’t privilege animal suffering as equivalent to human suffering) aligns with mine. That they’re going about it in a potentially counterproductive way doesn’t mean I join the opposition.
Okay this is getting a bit off-topic I guess but I get what you mean but the logic when taken to the extreme is silly and non-functional and creates more animal- and human suffering.
For one hunting as a way to control deer populations as controlling the population is a must since one of our ancestors went and replaced wolves hereabouts and bringing them back (I wouldn’t mind it) wouldn’t be as good population control and also not good for the wolves. Also also a deer suffers more when run down by a wolf than when one-shot killed by a rifle.
I support vegan products all the time and don’t really consume non-game meats if at all possible.
But like I said, offtopic. I agree with you that I wouldn’t go and troll the vegans, I do like arguing with them, as their ideology, while kinda naive, is at its core trying to help animals. And that I do too. So I just want to make them better at it and thus point out the flaws in their worldview. Not to mock them, to help them.
Umm yeah I’m going to stand firmly on the platform that wild populations that were devastated by human intervention benefit from the alleviation of that devastation.
“devastated by”?
Please do give an example. Humans have been the apex predator around these parts for literally thousands of years. We manage the deer. We don’t devastate it. If you threw in a pack of wolves, never even mind about the social effects of throwing them into what is now a population center has, the wolves don’t have an understanding of how many deer are supposed to be killed and how many aren’t.
I would love more wolves around my area, I’m not afraid of them at all. But it’s just not feasible anymore.
Might be hard for you to understand but not all human actions destroy nature.
A good example of human intervention devastating a population when discussing the devastation of the wolf population would be humans devastating the wolf population. 🤷
The wolves aren’t a tool for managing deer populations. Sure they would help, but if deer population and vegetation is the concern then they’re part of the overall management strategy. Wolves prey on many animals.
No. Humans replaced wolves in these parts extremely slowly. So slowly in fact you can’t say the population was “devastated”. In roughly the same time for the population numbers to go from wildly plentiful to practically none, some of the wolves became dogs.
Yeah, obviously. Including domestic animals. Which is why the wolves have slowly disappeared as human populations have extended here.
But lots of vegans still make the argument that hunters only hunt for wanting to kill things, instead of any actually beneficial reason. Which is wildlife management, as overpopulation of deer would be devastating to the ecology.
Yet still you find vegans who moralise hunters while saying that we should just release packs of wolves into what are low-density population centers. I’m not too worried about them snatching kids or whatnot, but just the fact vegans do make the argument frequently is what gets me.
Wolf populations were functionally controlling deer population as late as 200years ago. They were hunted for pelts and to prevent culling of stock/farm animals. Of course this varies geographically but is absolutely the case in north America.
I agree that it can be annoying to talk to a particularly militant began but the same is true for any ethos/identity.
In some places. In some places, they were functionally controlling it as late as 30 years ago.
And I oppose all of them which are inherently irrational.
I spend my time arguing with Tankies, I’m not going to sit around on my high horse when there is work to be done digging trenches.
Besides, I shared a nice recipe with them, I didn’t insult their mothers.
I legitimately have no clue what that’s supposed to mean.
I am not above lowering myself
The only thing that accomplishes is you lowering yourself.
It would be like opposing gay marriage “for the lulz”
Either you have a legitimate moral stance on an issue, or you don’t. Playing the troll on an issue simply because other people annoy you means you don’t care about the issue.
Why would I ever oppose gay marriage? That’s just idiocy.
There are no objective legitimate moral stances, only better or worse.
Yes, that’s the point of the comparison.
Changing one’s advocated views to irritate someone else is idiocy.
So adopting the worse one out of annoyance says that you don’t actually care about the moral issue.
I feel like sharing recipes is not exactly comparable to opposing gay marriage. Maybe to a vegan, though.