5 ms·

I think you'd be surprised how many hunters appreciate the beauty and fragility of nature to a much higher degree than the average person. Who else sits in the

I think you'd be surprised how many hunters appreciate the beauty and fragility of nature to a much higher degree than the average person. Who else sits in the woods for hours and hours and studies the patterns of animals and weather? There are some dumbasses who just like shooting guns, but a lot of hunters are also conservationists.

ajuc 7y ago
I guess that depends on the person and on the country, but system is certainly broken at least in some countries. For exmample in my country hunter's organisation is something like NRA - it's the only easy way to have access to weapons, and a lot of people participate just to shoot. They treat state forests as farms - feeding animals so there's overpopulation and then they can shoot them using the excuse that there's too many...
Falling3 7y ago
Sure hunters can be conservationists; losing nature means losing their source of entertainment. But that doesn't mean they appreciate nature and it certainly doesn't mean they respect individuals, which they obviously do not.
- fiblye 7y ago
  Do you consider this statement to be true for all animals with carnivorous behavior or hunting instincts?
  - Falling3 7y ago
    Are you asking if I think, for example, lions respect deer as individuals?
    - jeffdavis 7y ago
      Or maybe: "Does someone who buys meat at the store respect individuals more or less than someone who hunts?"
- LeanderK 7y ago
  I think conservationsist is meant in a sense that they respect and appreciate nature. Every hunter I've come across was conversationist (in a sense that they appreciate nature), but I am biased because a lot I've come across were through national parks. But there are certainly a lot of conservationist hunters. I think your second sentence is not well formulated because if one does not follow you line of thought it does not make sense (X does not do Y because it obviously does not do Y). It's probalbly a risky subject, it might be that you just want to avoid too intense internet-arguments with that phrasing.
  - Falling3 7y ago
    >I think conservationsist is meant in a sense that they respect and appreciate nature. These kinds of conversations inevitably involve either special pleading or completely distorted definitions of words like "respect" that we would not accept in any other context. >I think your second sentence is not well formulated because if one does not follow you line of thought it does not make sense [...] I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate here. Do you want to try again?
    - LeanderK 7y ago
      > These kinds of conversations inevitably involve either special pleading or completely distorted definitions of words like "respect" that we would not accept in any other context. And I think this is a bit condescending. You're essentially denying me to have a different opinion because it's just invalid in your point of view. To give you perspective: I am not a hunter, I am a vegetarian and have been very active in environmental protection. I am certainly not advocating for myself or feel the need to defend my actions by special pleading or completely distorted definitions. But I see that hunters fullfill an important role because we don't really have much wild nature here in germany anymore and for most parts it's not possible because there's not enough space and the developed nature is not robust enough. Enviromentalist organisations here often work quite closely with hunters. And I also see that hunters exist that respect and appreciate nature (not because they want to hunt), which you seem to deny. > I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate here. Do you want to try again? "But that doesn't mean they appreciate nature and it certainly doesn't mean they respect individuals, which they obviously do not." Does not make sense to me because "certainly doesn't mean they respect individuals, which they obviously do not." does not. You say "X does not do Y because it obviously does not do Y." where X is the hunter and Y is respecting individuals. You treat it as given but for me it's not. What I wanted to say is that your sentence only makes sense when one shares your line of thought (it's obvious then), but when one does not then it's a not an argument (it is so because it is so). You treat it as a fact. In spirit it's similiar to my reply above.
Nicholas_C 7y ago
People who fish as well.

ajuc 7y ago

I guess that depends on the person and on the country, but system is certainly broken at least in some countries. For exmample in my country hunter's organisation is something like NRA - it's the only easy way to have access to weapons, and a lot of people participate just to shoot. They treat state forests as farms - feeding animals so there's overpopulation and then they can shoot them using the excuse that there's too many...

Falling3 7y ago

Sure hunters can be conservationists; losing nature means losing their source of entertainment. But that doesn't mean they appreciate nature and it certainly doesn't mean they respect individuals, which they obviously do not.

fiblye 7y ago
Do you consider this statement to be true for all animals with carnivorous behavior or hunting instincts?
- Falling3 7y ago
  Are you asking if I think, for example, lions respect deer as individuals?
  - jeffdavis 7y ago
    Or maybe: "Does someone who buys meat at the store respect individuals more or less than someone who hunts?"
LeanderK 7y ago
I think conservationsist is meant in a sense that they respect and appreciate nature. Every hunter I've come across was conversationist (in a sense that they appreciate nature), but I am biased because a lot I've come across were through national parks. But there are certainly a lot of conservationist hunters. I think your second sentence is not well formulated because if one does not follow you line of thought it does not make sense (X does not do Y because it obviously does not do Y). It's probalbly a risky subject, it might be that you just want to avoid too intense internet-arguments with that phrasing.
- Falling3 7y ago
  >I think conservationsist is meant in a sense that they respect and appreciate nature. These kinds of conversations inevitably involve either special pleading or completely distorted definitions of words like "respect" that we would not accept in any other context. >I think your second sentence is not well formulated because if one does not follow you line of thought it does not make sense [...] I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate here. Do you want to try again?
  - LeanderK 7y ago
    > These kinds of conversations inevitably involve either special pleading or completely distorted definitions of words like "respect" that we would not accept in any other context. And I think this is a bit condescending. You're essentially denying me to have a different opinion because it's just invalid in your point of view. To give you perspective: I am not a hunter, I am a vegetarian and have been very active in environmental protection. I am certainly not advocating for myself or feel the need to defend my actions by special pleading or completely distorted definitions. But I see that hunters fullfill an important role because we don't really have much wild nature here in germany anymore and for most parts it's not possible because there's not enough space and the developed nature is not robust enough. Enviromentalist organisations here often work quite closely with hunters. And I also see that hunters exist that respect and appreciate nature (not because they want to hunt), which you seem to deny. > I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate here. Do you want to try again? "But that doesn't mean they appreciate nature and it certainly doesn't mean they respect individuals, which they obviously do not." Does not make sense to me because "certainly doesn't mean they respect individuals, which they obviously do not." does not. You say "X does not do Y because it obviously does not do Y." where X is the hunter and Y is respecting individuals. You treat it as given but for me it's not. What I wanted to say is that your sentence only makes sense when one shares your line of thought (it's obvious then), but when one does not then it's a not an argument (it is so because it is so). You treat it as a fact. In spirit it's similiar to my reply above.

Nicholas_C 7y ago

People who fish as well.