I have no problem with wearing pink at any time. Even though I don’t hunt, I do hike and often share the trail with hunters. I’d still prefer orange simply because I’m mildly red-green colorblind, and I can see orange more easily than pink.
In university I used to wear what I thought was a dark blue oxford shirt until someone said “wow, it’s really brave of you to wear that shirt”, which is when I learned it was a strong purple.
I was mortified because growing up I got called gay (which was very much an insult at the time) and made fun of a lot.
I didn’t wear it for a while after, but eventually I got over it and the girls seemed to like it, I got asked out by a number of them over the lifetime of that shirt. I put on weight and it got pit stains and I had to throw it away.
Nobody ever made fun of me forwearing that shirt, at least not to my face.
I was hesitant to wear pink or purple in high school for the same reasons. In college, though, I stopped caring. And as you say, they were good colors for my social life. :)
Purple’s a great color for nice clothes! My favorite polo is a nice, deep purple, and I have a few button downs that are lighter shades of purple too. But yeah, back in the 90s that was definitely a “gay” color, and that was 100% meant as an insult at the time.
People shouldn’t be hunting in the first place. Toxic masculinity (toxic humanity really) thinks killing/exerting power over a weaker innocent is a good thing though
Unless you’re vegan, I don’t think you have a good argument against hunting from a moral perspective. Hunters also are some of the biggest donators to wildlife conservation.
of course I’m vegan, at this point not being vegan is the b12 deficient thing to do. Compassion for all sentient beings is the next ethical step humanity needs to take.
Only because something is not of any use for you, does not mean that everyone else is sharing the same experience. You could go out there and talk with hunters why they hunt and what they get out of it. I would not hunt, because I don’t like guns - but fishing can be a really neat experience, especially a neat bonding experience with your father.
No one calls a lion hunting violence. it’s the circle of life. If the argument is it’s violence because it’s unnecessary well we need to bring back the wolves and solve world hunger before ill be on your side of that argument. I remember the scene in the Orville where the guy felt eating animals akin to murder. Yeah in that kind of universe i can support it but we are not there yet.
Anyone hunting for sport alone should do so with a blade, its only more sportsman. It’s not like the deer has a projectile weapon.
A lion hunting is violence. The circle of life is violent. I agree hunting isn’t the top priority of problems to solve, but people should at least be able to call it what it is and recognize it’s not a good thing
I like to consider plant eating an act of violence. I Just ripped and tear into those yummy plant heads that were just living thier best life. If we go with this definition, then violence is a part of life and we just accept it as a necessity. It also means it is our moral duty to ensure the animals we eat are not wasted, not suffer unnecessarily, and appreciate the life that was taken so we can do more with our own. It’s only bad if it serves no purpose and is wasteful.
In some sense it is violence, but in another sense violence against a baby doll is fine while violence against a live baby is not. One of the key differences is the baby is sentient, the doll is not. The doll can not experience the violence, so it’s morally irrelevant. The baby can experience the violence, so it is morally unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge plants can’t feel pain, so violence to them is morally irrelevant.
But I still accept that harm is unavoidable (at least in our time), but our response should be to minimize harm, not throw up our hands and give up and perpetuate the injustice
we agree violence should be minimized but I think it’s a hard sell to call the natural order injustice. Injustice for me is unnecessary harm. Justice can cause harm but only when necessary. Predators have to eat. Wiping them out is injustice and forcing unnatural foods alternatives is probably violating thier freedoms and damaging the ecosystem which I would also consider injustice.
why wouldn’t the natural order be unjust? Survival of the fittest doesn’t give two shits about justice, that’s not samething that gets selected for at all except in social species, and even then usually it’s only really selected for within the species
Well that’s a massive question that we certainly won’t see answered in our lifetime - we haven’t even figured out justice between humans, and we still have a long ways to go on just that front. I have some ideas on what a more just world might look like, but some are not feasible with the current state of the world. But I think a good place to start is with the original position/veil of ignorance thought experiment
I get that as a individual the system is cruel but at a planet level it could not be more fair. The world has balance (human shortsidedness aside) so I see it as justified. This is one of things where I wonder if I lack imagination because only alternative I see is a tomb world. Which is out of the question so i ask myself do I simply accept what has been the cycle since the start of life on earth the only path or do I truly believe in the system. Like Stockholm syndrome. Since I hate late stage capitalism I must not agree with the system but that thought only applies within sentient beings not on the planet scale we are discussing. If I had viable alternatives would I side with you? Maybe i would. This will a be fun passive thought.
i don’t have the stats, but if I had to bet, I’d bet that most people do not hunt for that reason, and they end up spending more than they would otherwise
also, almost nobody in the US needs to eat cows or any other animals. Lentils are cheaper than all of the above, and that’s without looking at externalities like climate impact
Growing up rural and poor, venison was the difference between everyone eating well or my parents having to skip meals. A box of shotgun shells cost $10 and if we took 2 or 3 deer it would be enough to fill a chest freezer and last most of the year, also we would trade it with local farmers for vegetables and watermen for seafood.
We are poor. We grow all our own vegetables. Raise, hunt and fish all our own protien. We don’t have much money but we feed our kids well and live a much less overall impactful life than many others dwelling in the western world. Yet we are the evil assholes. Massive Soy and corn farms are destroying our quality ag land but we certainly shouldn’t hunt to feed ourselves. Fuck militant vegans.
White tail deer must be killed, we have broken their habitat.
Over the last 400 years Millions of acres of Forrest have been converted to planes and farmland, and most of the large North American predators have been killed.
So instead of deer having to forrage in Forrest they can be eat more effectively by grazing, and without natural predators like wolves the deer population can grow unchecked. Deer will reproduce until the area can’t support the population leading to starvation. Also the deer population has let them spread to new areas where they can out compeat animals like moose, elk, and caraboo, causing the larger animals population to plummet.
We shouldn’t cull humans for the obvious ethical reasons
nor should we cull other species, for the obvious ethical reasons. If your solution to a problem is “kill until it’s not a problem anymore”, guess what, that’s not good enough
Unnecessary killing is wrong? Killing is something to avoid? Taking anothers life should be a last resort and if it is absolutely necessary, we should always be trying to stop it or find ways to make it unnecessary? Live and let live? Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you?
idk those are pretty obvious to me, if they’re not obvious to you then idk what to tell you
I think we just have different values when it comes to wildlife, and animals. “Live and let live” “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” as social contracts work for human interactions, but animals lack the capacity to understand those concepts and can’t hold up their end of the contract. A cat won’t live and let live, a cat will kill every bird it can get it’s hands on. Nature is a brutal unstable equilibrium, and human actions have made it more unstable. But as thinking animals we have the ability to reduce the harm we have caused. We need to reduce suffering where we can, and maintain the welfare not just of individual animals but of their populations and environments.
Deer behave differently in the presence of predators. They migrate less, the reproduce more manageably. Overpopulation of deer results in overgrazing where they can effectively kill entire species of plants or desertify areas. We’ve engineered an environment without their natural predators.
Culling and hunting them is different than if we caught and release neutered them.
I’m not a hunter, and I’d be fine if we just introduced wild predators like wolves (I saw a study that this was actually healthy to their population).
Exactly, it’s not simple, hence the need for better, more ethical solutions. I don’t know the best solution, I’m not an expert on deer or ecosystems, but I think we can do better than killing till the problem goes away
So you’re okay with their suggestion of introducing wolves to help control the deer population? (which for the record, I’m not denying is genuinely a promising strategy to help with the problem)
But if you are, then how is that not also “unnecessary killing”? The end result is essentially the same thing, dead deer that become food for another specie.
Yeah, I mean when you look at how much suffering humans cause despite all our intelligence it’s not that hard to be jaded. Even then, at least for me, it’s a lot easier to empathize with humans than other species. It’s also a lot easier for me to empathize with humans in my social circles than humans I don’t know.
it bothers me when people arbitrarily limit who they’ll empathize with.
A processed deer including tag, skinning, and butchering ends with 70lbs and costs about $300. 70lbs of processed beef costs $800-900. You can cut those prices in half if you butcher the deer yourself or buy a primal beef and butcher that yourself.
We wiped out their natural predators to protect livestock and pets. Leaving deer population unchecked leads to crop destruction(incliding soy and lentils) as well as deer suffering from famine.
Cows are absolutely an environmental nightmare and factory farmed in an abhorrent manner. Deer that are part of the natural ecosystem and lived nice and mostly healthy natural lives free of steroids and antibiotics are not abused ecological nightmares.
Lentils require many acres of farmland that ruin the local ecology, far more if you grow them without pesticides and fertilizers that cause their own ecological disasters including the loss of insect populations and algae or plankton blooms that release carbon and kill ocean and river ecology. Can’t harvest all of those lentils without 3rd world near slave labor or carbon emitting farm equipment. Harvesting pesticides, GMO, and fertilizer free crops without carbon emitting machinery by using fair wage paid people would increase the cost of the end product to far exceed viability.
Hunting is cheaper and more ethical than factory farms and veganism. Advocate insect farming as an ethical, sustainable, and environmental food source instead of ruining the environment with misguided vegan or vegitarianism.
If deer overpopulation is the problem, catch-neuter-release is more ethical than killing them.
I don’t know the specifics on lentils, but if we stopped feeding so damn much of our crops to other animals, we wouldn’t need so much cropland and it wouldn’t be as big of a problem and we could use better practices on the land we do grow crops on. I don’t remember the exact number, but something like 80% of the soy we grow gets fed to exploited animals. And when you look at trophic levels, it makes sense. Only like 10% of the energy from one level makes it to the next, so eating other animals will always be inefficient and unsustainable on a mass scale. If everyone hunted and ate the same amount of dead animals as they do now it would be catastrophic for local ecosystems.
it always amazes me when people would rather eat insects than plants. Grasping at any straw to avoid eating your veggies
I know your augment is ethical but its easier to catch a neuter cats since they literally come up to me feeding them. Cat traps are small and they just walk right in and then we bring them to a vet. Deer kind of run away so shooting on sight and eating them seems more efficient. I know Staten island was sterilizing them and it was expensive. 3.3mil to bring down pop 700 deer in 3 years seems like alot. Of course, if hunters are not eating the deer that’s a dbag move if they killed it.
I never heard anyone wanting to eat bugs unless it’s shrimp and the like. That crazy if you know people like that. eat salad people! I knew a guy who refused to eat fruit. Like wtf man.
Yeah, doing the right thing is usually more expensive. Doesn’t mean it’s not worth it
i usually hear it in discussions like this, where people think cheap, sustainable, high protein, plant based foods are lacking. Beans and nuts and legumes are right there lol
Yeah shame we live in a system where we have to make the choice. Personally, I think the money is better on human birth control. Takes longer to see results but reducing human pop to only wanted planned children will yield more environmental bonuses.
Lol “plant protein lacking! Alpha only eats bugs!” Naaa I’ll take nuts and beans.
The goal of blaze orange or hot pink is to be visible, it’s a safety feature to make it clear to anyone you are a human not a deer, also it makes you more visible from the air for Department of Natural Resource to identify you and track hunting activities.
Eh… Hot pink was very popular among males and females alike in the 80’s. I wasn’t even aware that they make hunting gear with hot pink instead of orange, and a lot of other people probably aren’t aware either. Besides that, they’d need to do a bunch of field testing to see how the deer react to it before any serious hunters would consider it. Even with field testing, there are a lot of hunters that don’t want to wear orange.
This headline could be re-written as “Additional colors approved for visibility while hunting in select states”, but that doesn’t have conflict built into it, which generates clicks and engagement.
As a former hunter, I was intrigued, so I did a bit of searching. Most of the articles suggested that the testing had been done and that hot pink might actually be superior to blaze orange. It’s supposedly more visible to humans and less visible to the main big game animals.
Add comment