Anonymous #1 18h

When "animal lovers" think all hunters are evil and cant imagine how they have deep relationships and respect for the animals they hunt and have a stewarding relationship to the environment 🫩

68

Anonymous #4 16h

One-sided relationships are not relationships, buddy

-12

Anonymous #5 16h

It isnt one sided lmao remember how i mentioned stewardship

30

Anonymous #4 16h

How is any relationship you develop with wild animals who do not know who you are NOT one sided

-11

Anonymous #5 15h

Have you ever been hunting before? Subsistence hunters where im from know these animals generationally, both from human generations and animal generations. They protect the grazing land and waters of these animals and ensure their populations are stable and healthy before they hunt them. They know their families, habits and preferences, and that's how they know where they will be and when. Particularly in indigenous practice, a deep relationship with the animals is necessary to hunt respectfully

22

Anonymous #4 15h

Let’s clarify. A two-sided relationship means that the hunters know the animals AND that the animals know the hunters. Are you intellectually stunted? You are rationalizing potentially unethical behavior by invoking the mental state of the one who would be committing the unethical action without regard for the perception of the individuals who would be the victims, which is how morality is ALWAYS defined. It is almost as if you are implying that the animals consented to being hunted in some way.

-9

Anonymous #5 15h

Im not going to claim this perspective bc im not indigenous, but there are multiple frames of morality other than yours and some of those include beliefs of consent in hunting interactions. With some of the hunters i know the elk at least definitely do know the hunters from decades of interactions. Do you believe hunting in general is unethical? Is it unethical for a cougar to hunt a grouse? Why would it be different for a human to do so if not the cougar?

24

Anonymous #4 15h

Because humans are moral agents while non-human animals are not. Objective consent is not something that beliefs change, and cultural traditions that encourage unethical activity are not to be respected. Again, it’s the perspective of those to which the action is being done who matter. Now, tell me why, instead of non-human animals, hunters seek out such a mutual relationship with OTHER humans whose consent and knowledge is actually capable of being evaluated.

-9

Anonymous #5 15h

They can’t find anyone willing to enter into said relationship? Oh no, I guess the opportunity to be killed for no reason isn’t as popular as they thought it was.

-8

Anonymous #5 15h

I think this "no reason" aspect is where we might be missing eachother. Theres a great section on hunting vs killing in les beldo's contesting leviathan. Im talking about subsistence hunting, where these folks depend on these animals for their food and other uses for the year. That is not no reason.

20

Anonymous #4 15h

The "no reason" was immaterial to my argument. No actual reason that might be provided makes any difference to the one being killed. They aren’t getting anything out of it. Their lives are literally ending. And if one (imagine a human) genuinely is so kind as to give up their life for the survival of a family or group of people, you better believe that their consent isn’t given lightly and probably still would not be given outside of circumstances of extreme hardship, such as if they…

-7

Anonymous #5 15h

…were literally starving. Honestly, I think the chances that they would do this AT ALL is pretty slim unless they have developed a strong emotional bond with those they are saving, especially to provide something like food, which only delays their inevitable death from starvation for a week or so at most….

-7

Anonymous #5 15h

…I will say that, if they are literally in a position where they cannot SURVIVE without hunting, then hunting is at least UNDERSTANDABLE. But we don’t need to pretend like actions we’ve been forced into due to our unfortunate circumstances are entirely ethical. Above all, anyone who enjoys hunting even SLIGHTLY for ANY reason is the scum of the Earth and should all be executed.

-7

Anonymous #1 15h

Lionfish are so problematic in eastern nc that back when i was an avid diver theyd have local organizations and fishermen try to pay us per lionfish killed. Them and lantnerflies becomning problematic but people find them pretty and therefore tolerate them

24

Anonymous #5 14h

So what exactly is your ethical problem with hunting? How does it differ from an animal hunting? Who r u to say animals dont have moral frameworks bc they absolutely do. Frankly your perspective is very narrow and ignorant of other ways of thinking/seeing/being beyond your own.

14

Anonymous #4 14h

My ethical problem with hunting is obvious. It’s the same exact reason that hunting humans is unethical. Animals are just as capable of conscious experience as us. They have EQUAL moral value as us. If you disagree, you’re going to have to specify a distinction between hunting humans and hunting non-human animals. And no, while I see evidence that non-human animals are sufficiently similar to human psychologically, I see no evidence that the vast majority of animals are similar to us culturally.

-5

Anonymous #5 14h

Because non-human animals lack cultural variation, their behaviors are much less diverse, and they simply engage in this species-specific behavior without the same capacity to subject any of their individual actions to a well-developed moral framework.

-3

Anonymous #5 14h

Why do they have to be similar to us culturally to respect their cultures lmao? Of course animals have equal moral value but there are a million other social and practical reasons why humans dont hunt humans be fr with that. If im picking oysters there are social and practical reasons why i may want to avoid it like tides, toxins, and laws, but other than that i raise them and steward the water and gather them knowing that ive provided and its a reciporical exchange. Thats the relationship

11

Anonymous #5 14h

They totally have cultural variation it sounds like you just dont know very many animals closely. Orcas for instance where i am have different cultural morals based on whether theyre residents vs transients and whether they eat seals. Its actually causing major population concerns cuz residents only eat salmon and theres isnt enough to go around

18

Anonymous #4 14h

Three things: 1) My entire argument was that they lack the cultural framework from which morality is derived. As I said, non-human animals are not moral agents. Blaming them for any of their actions is a category error. 2) So you don’t think that hunting humans is unethical? The only reason we don’t is for social and practical reasons? This is the implication of what you just said.

-3

Anonymous #5 14h

3) For the last fucking time, there is no moral virtue in a reciprocal exchange that is determined exclusively at your discretion.

-1

Anonymous #5 14h

Bro, humans have reduced predator populations: to keep ecosystems in healthy balance it’s vital that we hunt. Respecting scientifically agreed upon quotas/tagging systems is a part of that process. If we’re animals of equal moral weight, shouldn’t we participate in the food chain?

15

Anonymous #5 14h

You havent listened to a damn thing ive said lmao its not determined entirely on the humans discretion there are all manner of indicators that determine the viability of a hunt thats where the respect and relation comes in, but ive already elaborated on that

15

Anonymous #4 14h

Dietary differences between populations is not evidence of moral agency

-1

Anonymous #2 14h

The answer to your last question is no. Even though we are INHERENTLY equal, we have SEPARATED ourselves from the food chain by creating "safe spaces" within civilization such that we are no longer PRACTICALLY equal. We treated ourselves as superior, and now, our population size is larger than ANY OTHER ANIMAL of our size and maintenance. Unless you want to reduce the population to mere millions rather than billions, NO

-6

Anonymous #5 14h

There is evidence that residents have better relationships with other marine mammals compared to transients. Its more than just dietary preferences

13

Anonymous #5 14h

Ok just because the world operates on a settler colonial paradigm of human superiority why do u think everyone should follow that??

9

Anonymous #4 14h

What the fuck are you talking about? The reciprocal relationship is at the hunter’s discretion because it doesn’t consider consent. If I steal someone’s bicycle and leave them a fruit basket in its place, does that have literally ANY bearing on the ethics of what I did?

-7

Anonymous #7 14h

#5 ^

19

Anonymous #2 14h

Yes. Humans have reduced predator populations. The ethical decision would be to reintroduce natural predators to make the ecosystem self-sustaining once again. NO ecosystem necessarily requires the intervention of modern civilization. And no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise, hunters are not hunting so that they might be able not to hunt in the future. The only reason they care about the environment at all is so that they can CONTINUE hunting.

-3

Comment Deleted

0

Next time try a little bit harder with the rage bait pal

8

Anonymous #5 14h

U know thats not a relevant example. The whataboutisms arent working because im talking about shit that actually happens. It seems like you dont understand reciprocity but youre letting your ignorance blind you from understanding how stewardship works. If we dont hunt deer their populations soar, and yes partially cuz we fucked their other predators but people have always been predators, esp for deer

17

Anonymous #7 14h

Everything I say is a sincerely held position based on reason.

1

Anonymous #5 14h

Is the reason that you refuse to confront your internalized settler colonial bias?

14

Anonymous #4 14h

If it’s not relevant, then explain how. If you can’t, you are admitting to being a barely sentient moron. Yes, the reason that the reciprocal relationship has jack shit to do with anything is because the deer did not agree to be killed for whatever beneficial shit you think you are doing to their environment.

-7

Anonymous #5 14h

Probably cause you could only get an animal to like you not someone of the human species lmao

5

Anonymous #4 14h

Again, I concede the implementation of hunting to sustain the ecosystem until predator populations can be restored. But hunters want to keep hunting, and you know it. That’s their entire motivation for being conservationists.

-7

Anonymous #5 14h

Its not relevant because i dont know you, a fruit basket has nothing to do with my mobility, you dont need a bike to survive, and that example is trivial compared to the issue of environmental stewardship and interspecies relations. We can (try) and have a conversation on the same terms but deer dont speak english and so the relationship will obv look different

11

Anonymous #4 14h

"Waaa waaa settler colonial something something" <—this is you. You can’t even rationally articulate your position. You have to rely on accusations of bias and using random buzz words you’ve heard. 🫵🤣 Animals experiences the world JUST LIKE US. They have a life and want to continue living JUST LIKE US. If it’s unethical to kill humans, it’s unethical to kill other animals.

-1

Anonymous #5 14h

Its obvious you dont know any subsistence hunters. Its about the entire ecosystem and yes about maintaining access to hunting because thats their food! And their clothes! And grease for their salves and whatnot. And healthy populations prevent the brackens from overgrowing which causes other problems for humans and foraging but the ecosystem even more broadly

15

Anonymous #7 14h

Oh, did I not make this clear? I HATE humans. We have caused EVERY current ecological issue. I don’t WANT to be friends with humans.

-3

Anonymous #4 14h

And they probably enjoy it, which means they should be executed. If they don’t, I already addressed this. It’s understandable but NOT ethical. If one should live without hunting, they should. Not all hunters need to hunt live. Many of the hunters who have contributed to the American conservationist movement are not Native Americans living off the land

-2

Anonymous #4 14h

No one should give a shit about humans. There should be mere millions of us, NOT even one billion. Environmentalism is NOT FOR HUMANS

1

Anonymous #5 14h

Bro can you like chill out and stop giving me 4 million notifications arguing about something so far from the main point atp

17

Anonymous #5 14h

Ecofascist spotted boooooo 🍅🍅🍅🍅

20

Anonymous OP 14h

Deep ecology is not fascist

-2

Anonymous #5 13h

Dawg get ur settler ass outta here invoking some noble savage bullshit. You obviously have no clue what youre talking about and want to stew in your self loathing ignorance. More folks than Native folks live off the land and those of us who are uninvited guests striving to do so have to be extra careful which dually stresses the need for building and maintaining relationships with the land in all its relations. No matter what humankind tries to separate from nature, we're all relatives.

13

Anonymous #4 13h

You think that my condemnation of ALL hunting, including the hunting practiced by indigenous groups, is promoting the myth of the noble savage? Do you even know what that is? 🤣 I expressed absolutely NO views regarding Native Americans compared to white Europeans.

-4

Anonymous #4 13h

My point was that, in condemning hunters who engage in and advocate for conservation, I was NOT referring to those living off the land. I was referring to the history of American environmentalism in which many conservationist hunters were actually government officials. They are only conservationists so that they can continue hunting and NOT so that they can eventually cease hunting entirely.

-4

Anonymous OP 13h

Turn notifications off. Top right of your screen

-2

Anonymous #5 13h

Thats a cool tidbit but u know alr im talking about subsistence hunting. Atp u gotta be trolling lol cuz its almost like youre going out of your way to miss my point. Im gonna eat a big juicy elk burger just for you tonight <3 Id go clamming too if the tides were right

10

Anonymous #4 13h

Not all of your arguments concern subsistence hunting. For instance, your claim that hunting is necessary to control populations of deer has NOTHING necessarily to do with subsistence hunting. You should not treat my comment responding to such arguments as if it is addressing subsistence hunting specifically. That would be irrational. Next time you want to claim I am straying from the main topic, make sure you actually strictly adhered to the topic in question yourself.

-4

Anonymous #4 13h

Imagine bragging about lack of empathy toward animals in a community dedicated to environmentalism. 🤣 I thought only MAGA responded to perceived vegans and vegetarians the way you just did.

-4

Anonymous #5 13h

I thought only maga would be so intentionally dense about environmentalism lol. Say i lack empathy all you want but the bull's name was sweetheart, he was born in '19 down the duckabush, and we saved his dumbass from ravines twice when we was a youngin. My friends have known his family for three human generations and fought to protect their land. As a result its better for all of us and it is an honor to be nourished by him and hold his body near me for decades with my sweetheart wallet.

18

Anonymous #4 13h

And yet, you just trivialized his memory by flaunting the unfortunate death in an attempt to piss off someone else who almost certainly shares even greater empathy for animal life than you or almost any other person. The ethical ideal is obviously to eliminate ALL death. Again, if you disagree, don’t pretend like you only support subsistence hunting in which animals NEED to die for nourishment.

-4

Anonymous #5 13h

I dont only support hunting out of need i support it if the animal gets used and if there is a good stewarding relationship. Thats why im vegetarian outside of animal products that i know align with my values lmao. Its not trivializing to recognize how yummy elk are sure i used it to be snarky but i cried when sweetheart hit the ground, out of grief and gratitude. I watched that cutie for years and i never thought hed grow to be so big and tasty

8

Anonymous #4 13h

It’s trivializing to use the death to be snarky. Don’t know why you would feel inclined to do that if you got so attached to the elk that you cried. I would certainly not do mention the death of my dog in that context. I would punch anyone who even mentioned it in a casual setting. Taste was not mentioned anywhere in your previous comment, making it irrelevant. Since you tend to mischaracterize my correction of straw men as a red herring in itself, I must call it out early.

-3

Anonymous #5 13h

A dog isnt the same as an elk and you know that 😭 sweetheart cant live in my house besides in my freezer and on my wall. And youre telling me about strawmen

8

Anonymous #7 12h

No cause tell me why I pop back on here at the end of my day to 50 comments because of them?

12

Anonymous #1 12h

U right ill shut up lol

1

Anonymous #5 12h

Wait until this guy learns about environmental justice, if he could read he’d be pissed! 😝

19

Anonymous #5 10h

Yes! We should reintroduce natural predators, (which is being done gradually!) but as a practical measure in the meantime: hunting.

6