5 ms·

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

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.
    - Falling3 7y ago
      We're not talking about differences in opinion here. We're talking about abuse of language. You cannot respect an individual and kill them for entertainment. If you think otherwise, you're using a completely different definition of the word 'respect' and it's certainly not the definition that would be used in any other context. Hunters can be conservationists. They can even be a net positive for nature overall. But they kill other individuals. For enjoyment. Unnecessarily. They don't respect them. And I say this is obvious because it's a simple syllogism. Pretending that there is some sort of subjectivity to this discussion is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. You keep trying to shift this back to opinions and points of view, which I find is a common tactic when discussing animals, but we're not talking about anything subjective.

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.
  - Falling3 7y ago
    We're not talking about differences in opinion here. We're talking about abuse of language. You cannot respect an individual and kill them for entertainment. If you think otherwise, you're using a completely different definition of the word 'respect' and it's certainly not the definition that would be used in any other context. Hunters can be conservationists. They can even be a net positive for nature overall. But they kill other individuals. For enjoyment. Unnecessarily. They don't respect them. And I say this is obvious because it's a simple syllogism. Pretending that there is some sort of subjectivity to this discussion is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. You keep trying to shift this back to opinions and points of view, which I find is a common tactic when discussing animals, but we're not talking about anything subjective.