4 ms·

Not sure what you mean. I’m talking about raising cattle. They know how to raise cattle. It’s in the stores, they produced it. You know how to produce whatever

Not sure what you mean. I’m talking about raising cattle. They know how to raise cattle. It’s in the stores, they produced it. You know how to produce whatever you produce. They don’t know how to produce what they produce?

duxup 7y ago
Is raising cattle the only topic here? Have they even raised cattle around wolves recently?
- cwbrandsma 7y ago
  We are in Idaho. Our last two governors have been ranchers as well and have been "not friendly" to wolves. Idaho motto around wolves is "Shoot, Shovel, Shut up". https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/record-number-of-wolf-attacks-on-livestock-reported-in-idaho/article_efe15c0e-c51d-11e9-ada0-3768ab589935.html https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/record-num...
e40 7y ago
Their self interest is that they produce as much cattle as possible. There might be other reasons why wolves would be beneficial, if released into the wild in CO, though. Hence the conflict of interest, on the part of the cattle owners.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  This does not fall within the normal range of meanings of "conflict of interest". Cattle owners are not in a position where their personal interests conflict with their official duties. Those are perfectly synched up. By your standards, voting is a conflict of interest.
  - kevinmgranger 7y ago
    > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. I don't think they meant the business-context "conflict of interest" rather the more general "conflicting interests".
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      Your interpretation is not a strong or plausible one. It would make the parent comment completely content-free ("cattle ranchers have multiple priorities, and just like everybody else, sometimes they pick one over another one") rather than just wrong.
  - e40 7y ago
    If cattle ranchers know there there is a public good for having wolves, yet they argue against them, I'm saying that position is a conflict of interest between them and the public good. They will almost always choose their own self interest. Voting? Well, people often vote against their own self interest, but it is hoped (by me, at least) that people will vote for their self interest, within reason. That reason is that you aren't voting for something that benefits your group more than another group. That would be a bad use of self-interested voting. A good use would be voting for "medicare for all" because you think it will benefit you and others.
aqme28 7y ago
They may see the costs of wolves without seeing the benefit, whereas other Coloradans would see the inverse. It's hard to say who has the correct full picture.

duxup 7y ago

Is raising cattle the only topic here? Have they even raised cattle around wolves recently?

cwbrandsma 7y ago
We are in Idaho. Our last two governors have been ranchers as well and have been "not friendly" to wolves. Idaho motto around wolves is "Shoot, Shovel, Shut up". https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/record-number-of-wolf-attacks-on-livestock-reported-in-idaho/article_efe15c0e-c51d-11e9-ada0-3768ab589935.html https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/record-num...

e40 7y ago

Their self interest is that they produce as much cattle as possible. There might be other reasons why wolves would be beneficial, if released into the wild in CO, though. Hence the conflict of interest, on the part of the cattle owners.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
This does not fall within the normal range of meanings of "conflict of interest". Cattle owners are not in a position where their personal interests conflict with their official duties. Those are perfectly synched up. By your standards, voting is a conflict of interest.
- kevinmgranger 7y ago
  > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. I don't think they meant the business-context "conflict of interest" rather the more general "conflicting interests".
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    Your interpretation is not a strong or plausible one. It would make the parent comment completely content-free ("cattle ranchers have multiple priorities, and just like everybody else, sometimes they pick one over another one") rather than just wrong.
- e40 7y ago
  If cattle ranchers know there there is a public good for having wolves, yet they argue against them, I'm saying that position is a conflict of interest between them and the public good. They will almost always choose their own self interest. Voting? Well, people often vote against their own self interest, but it is hoped (by me, at least) that people will vote for their self interest, within reason. That reason is that you aren't voting for something that benefits your group more than another group. That would be a bad use of self-interested voting. A good use would be voting for "medicare for all" because you think it will benefit you and others.

aqme28 7y ago

They may see the costs of wolves without seeing the benefit, whereas other Coloradans would see the inverse. It's hard to say who has the correct full picture.