|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 28 2021 11:12 Fleetfeet wrote:
There are amusing parallels here between vegetarians being judged from the outside as being broken/stupid/whatever because the one doing the judging just doesn't understand why someone could be vegetarian, and can't relate.
The picture you're painting of sport hunters being fundamentally broken people isn't something I can get behind. I've met a few hunters, and a consistent thread through most of them is a respect for nature and consideration of the craft. Sure, it's a craft centered around killing, but that doesn't mean it is inherently evil or disrespectful. You could make an argument that the respect for nature is perverse, and I'd happily hear that argument, but I haven't seen signs that hunters are automatically bad people.
You are misunderstanding me. I am saying that someone becomes a bad person when they enjoy hunting for sport. In general, it is usually a cultural issue, but lots of people who were raised to hunt end up deciding "Ya know, that's kind of a weird thing to do, so I think I won't". Usually people's dads are like "hunting is good" and people just assume their dad is a decent man, so they go along with it.
A hunter can do every single thing they do when they hunt, right until they pull the trigger, and they could still enjoy and appreciate nature all the same. Pulling the trigger is where the issue is. Why do they need to pull the trigger if it is just for sport? Why does the animal need to actually get shot? This is assuming the person isn't using the meat.
|
On April 28 2021 11:22 Sermokala wrote:
Yes but thats not how human nature works. Sure it would be great if people were willing to just donate all their excess cash for good causes but charities work by creating communities around things and holding events from that community. I don't hunt pheasants but I really enjoy the events they put on.
The Black Rhinos that are auctioned off to kill need to be killed for the betterment of the herd and would be killed regardless of them monetizing it or not. I'm genuinely surprised that they haven't offered rich Americans a chance to go on a patrol for paochers, I know a number of people who have specifically asked for that on facebook.
I've donated thousands of dollars to various things and I honestly can't even remember most of it, so clearly I got almost 0 benefit out of it. There are plenty of people in the world who donate out of the good of their heart. People shouldn't need the deal sweetened by killing a bird.
|
United States10053 Posts
A little late on this, but California's governor, Gavin Newsom is facing a recall election right now. While I doubt that a Republican will actually win, it should be noted that former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer is probably the leading Republican running for that recall seat, and is quite popular with Republicans, and not an unreasonable choice for California independents, and even conservative-moderate Dems.
This is of course, assuming that Newsom is recalled, Faulconer would be the obvious choice to win the seat (can anyone really take Caitlyn Jenner seriously?). But Newsom doesn't face any troubles... yet. 40% in the latest poll in support of the recall, and it would require a majority. 10 points is a lot of ground to make up, but Republicans could try to use Newsom's COVID policies to attack him, alongside the issues of California losing a seat in Congress as a result of a steady migration out of California into states like Texas.
https://calmatters.org/explainers/recalling-california-governor-explained/
https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-march-2021/
|
Norway28561 Posts
Hunting is fine. Hunting endangered animals for trophies is pretty close to serial rapist of children level of shitty human.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On April 28 2021 11:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2021 11:22 Sermokala wrote:
Yes but thats not how human nature works. Sure it would be great if people were willing to just donate all their excess cash for good causes but charities work by creating communities around things and holding events from that community. I don't hunt pheasants but I really enjoy the events they put on.
The Black Rhinos that are auctioned off to kill need to be killed for the betterment of the herd and would be killed regardless of them monetizing it or not. I'm genuinely surprised that they haven't offered rich Americans a chance to go on a patrol for paochers, I know a number of people who have specifically asked for that on facebook. I've donated thousands of dollars to various things and I honestly can't even remember most of it, so clearly I got almost 0 benefit out of it. There are plenty of people in the world who donate out of the good of their heart. People shouldn't need the deal sweetened by killing a bird.
Maybe that's so for you. But it's the tragedy of the commons. If you aren't impacted by it, you probably won't think to raise money for it. But around here, one of the bigger group fighting preserve wetlands are duck hunters. Why? Because in order to duck hunt long term, they need a sustainable environment for the ducks. Hunters are directly impacted by over hunting and destruction of animal habitats and the like and are very incentivized to make sure there is a long term future for their hobby.
In any event, hunting will never end. If it was the traditional practice of your culture in Canada, people can't say boo against it under current thinking.
|
On April 28 2021 11:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2021 11:12 Fleetfeet wrote:
There are amusing parallels here between vegetarians being judged from the outside as being broken/stupid/whatever because the one doing the judging just doesn't understand why someone could be vegetarian, and can't relate.
The picture you're painting of sport hunters being fundamentally broken people isn't something I can get behind. I've met a few hunters, and a consistent thread through most of them is a respect for nature and consideration of the craft. Sure, it's a craft centered around killing, but that doesn't mean it is inherently evil or disrespectful. You could make an argument that the respect for nature is perverse, and I'd happily hear that argument, but I haven't seen signs that hunters are automatically bad people. You are misunderstanding me. I am saying that someone becomes a bad person when they enjoy hunting for sport. In general, it is usually a cultural issue, but lots of people who were raised to hunt end up deciding "Ya know, that's kind of a weird thing to do, so I think I won't". Usually people's dads are like "hunting is good" and people just assume their dad is a decent man, so they go along with it. A hunter can do every single thing they do when they hunt, right until they pull the trigger, and they could still enjoy and appreciate nature all the same. Pulling the trigger is where the issue is. Why do they need to pull the trigger if it is just for sport? Why does the animal need to actually get shot? This is assuming the person isn't using the meat.
I think a lot of this debate is people envisioning different things when talking about hunting "for sport".
Some people envision a local hunter going into the woods, shooting some deer that were already over the population limits, loading them into his truck and putting the meat into his fridge to eat/sell off. Considering that venison is considered pretty valuable high-quality meat, basically nothing goes to waste here, and literally no one leaves the animals unused.
The other people envision a guy heading to Africa and hunting endangered animals for trophies.
I think GH used the term "trophy hunting" for the second activity, which i think is a very good option to differentiate what we are talking about here. I don't think a lot of people really hate the first thing, but the second is indeed pretty disgusting.
I am personally a bit conflicted on the first thing, too. I generally dislike killing animals (which is also why i am a vegan), but i also see that in the current setup in the developed world, some types of animals have no natural predators anymore, and their populations need to be kept under control in some way. I personally don't know a lot about this, but am willing to trust the great consensus that this is something that is necessary. I don't really think it matters to the deer whether it gets killed by a hunter or a wolf, either. So having some hunters respectfully hunting these surplus animals sounds reasonable, and does not mean a moral failing of the hunters.
|
On April 28 2021 17:19 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2021 11:34 Mohdoo wrote:On April 28 2021 11:12 Fleetfeet wrote:
There are amusing parallels here between vegetarians being judged from the outside as being broken/stupid/whatever because the one doing the judging just doesn't understand why someone could be vegetarian, and can't relate.
The picture you're painting of sport hunters being fundamentally broken people isn't something I can get behind. I've met a few hunters, and a consistent thread through most of them is a respect for nature and consideration of the craft. Sure, it's a craft centered around killing, but that doesn't mean it is inherently evil or disrespectful. You could make an argument that the respect for nature is perverse, and I'd happily hear that argument, but I haven't seen signs that hunters are automatically bad people. You are misunderstanding me. I am saying that someone becomes a bad person when they enjoy hunting for sport. In general, it is usually a cultural issue, but lots of people who were raised to hunt end up deciding "Ya know, that's kind of a weird thing to do, so I think I won't". Usually people's dads are like "hunting is good" and people just assume their dad is a decent man, so they go along with it. A hunter can do every single thing they do when they hunt, right until they pull the trigger, and they could still enjoy and appreciate nature all the same. Pulling the trigger is where the issue is. Why do they need to pull the trigger if it is just for sport? Why does the animal need to actually get shot? This is assuming the person isn't using the meat. I think a lot of this debate is people envisioning different things when talking about hunting "for sport". Some people envision a local hunter going into the woods, shooting some deer that were already over the population limits, loading them into his truck and putting the meat into his fridge to eat/sell off. Considering that venison is considered pretty valuable high-quality meat, basically nothing goes to waste here, and literally no one leaves the animals unused. The other people envision a guy heading to Africa and hunting endangered animals for trophies. I think GH used the term "trophy hunting" for the second activity, which i think is a very good option to differentiate what we are talking about here. I don't think a lot of people really hate the first thing, but the second is indeed pretty disgusting. I am personally a bit conflicted on the first thing, too. I generally dislike killing animals (which is also why i am a vegan), but i also see that in the current setup in the developed world, some types of animals have no natural predators anymore, and their populations need to be kept under control in some way. I personally don't know a lot about this, but am willing to trust the great consensus that this is something that is necessary. I don't really think it matters to the deer whether it gets killed by a hunter or a wolf, either. So having some hunters respectfully hunting these surplus animals sounds reasonable, and does not mean a moral failing of the hunters.
I think as long as people are eating the animals, it's perfectly okay. If you think about it, those wild deer had a regular deer life, doing deer things. Compare that to cows or pigs raised for slaughter in typically shitty conditions, eating crap food to fatten them up quickly and barely getting out for minimum exercise. I think option A is the more ethical one, at least I can picture the deer led a happy life until they died.
|
I think as long as people are eating the animals, it's perfectly okay. If you think about it, those wild deer had a regular deer life, doing deer things. Compare that to cows or pigs raised for slaughter in typically shitty conditions, eating crap food to fatten them up quickly and barely getting out for minimum exercise. I think option A is the more ethical one, at least I can picture the deer led a happy life until they died.
Until that deer doesn't die by the shot, runs off and dies a slow and painful death later...
I agree with you, but the world is never black and white.
|
The thing about hunting, if the animals are abundant enough that they are subject to population control measures, their meat is arguably among the lowest-impact meat you can get from an environmental perspective. The deer is in its natural habitat just doing whatever it does anyway, and if the population is thriving to the point where there needs to be a cull, that meat is kind of "free".
This is relevant over here for kangaroos. A lot of people think of kangaroos as precious, exotic animals like elephants or rhinos, but they're actually more similar to deer in an ecological sense. They are extremely fit; they breed prodigiously, they travel insane distances and they can jump just about any fence you try to build. Consequently, despite their being a national icon, we actually have to kill a very large number of kangaroos every year to keep them under control. A lot of these then become meat and leather, either domestically or for export.
There's a bit of a push in the US at the moment to ban the sale of kangaroo leather, which honestly seems very counterproductive to me. It feels like people jumping on the PETA train without really understanding what's going on. The population does fluctuate with our variable climate, and there's a seasonal low at the moment coming out of a drought, but they are an extremely healthy population and it's still necessary to manage them one way or another. If you can make use of them at the same time, why leave them in the dirt?
Yes, in some ways hunting in the wild is less humane than the ways we kill cattle and pigs etc., but the entire rest of their lives up that point are substantially better. Also, try getting a bolt-gun onto an animal that moves 70 kmh and can jump clean over you.
|
On April 28 2021 18:33 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +I think as long as people are eating the animals, it's perfectly okay. If you think about it, those wild deer had a regular deer life, doing deer things. Compare that to cows or pigs raised for slaughter in typically shitty conditions, eating crap food to fatten them up quickly and barely getting out for minimum exercise. I think option A is the more ethical one, at least I can picture the deer led a happy life until they died. Until that deer doesn't die by the shot, runs off and dies a slow and painful death later... I agree with you, but the world is never black and white.
Honestly probably still better than spending all of your life in a small concrete cell in a factory farm.
Edit: @ Belisarius that is really interesting. I must admit that i was also in the category of "Kangaroo = rare exotic animal" before your post, simply because 100% of my experience with them has been in zoos. But of course, that is absolutely not the australian experience. I think the "Kangaroo = australian deer" comparison makes the situation a lot clearer.
|
There's different kinds and some are genuinely threatened, but the average grey or red roo is doing fine. There's only a half-dozen out of something like 30 species that are allowed to be shot.
They're really quite incredible animals. They're able to live in areas where almost no other creature of that size could, because of how ridiculously efficient their movement is. They can cover huge distances to find food, and they've also benefited a lot from the changes humans have made to the landscape. They like open space and really like the extra watering points we've conveniently put in.
The biggest challenge is when there's a bad drought, which does happen a lot. Then you get wild roos coming into farms to contend with livestock for the precious remaining water, and that creates a really crap situation for everyone.
Our national broadcaster put out a pretty balanced article on the topic if you're interested.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-08/us-ban-commercial-shooting-kangaroo-leather-football-boots/100050994
It's not cut and dried, I think there is a genuine case on both sides, but it seems like a conversation that's better had at a local level rather than someone across the pacific deciding a fairly sustainable industry is "the biggest mass slaughter of wildlife on the planet".
|
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/rhino-hunter
Is a good podcast on trophy hunting containing an interview with a guy that paid $350,000 for the right to kill a black rhino.
Ironically the people that are paying to kill the animals end up doing more for conservation than the people that just tweet their disgust about it because the money they pay for the right to kill the animal ends up going toward conservation and creating jobs for game wardens and trackers.
The thing is, you can think it's great idea to raise money in this way but also think that the people that pay it are limp-dick losers. It's not mutually exclusive.
|
On April 27 2021 22:48 IgnE wrote:
I don’t think there’s any evidence that cops expect black people to act more deferentially than anyone else.
The problem with the “we need better cop training” position is that it’s addressing a symptom rather than a cause. In an ideal world, people would act cordially to the police because the police would be a just organization. Call them the law stewards if you don’t like the word police. But plenty of people make very bad decisions when confronted by the police. Why? Because the legal system wrecks the lives of some good people, and is perceived to be unfair both in its process design and in its costs.
There are two things that you could do to drastically cut police shootings in this country if you had a magic wand: 1) get rid of all guns 2) restore trust in the legal system as a whole.
The second one might include things like a) opening up police to more legal liability for the injuries and humiliations of being arrested, especially when it is disproportionate or a baseless arrest, b) increasing the supply of public defenders and fixing the legal system so that it doesn’t threaten people’s jobs and livelihoods c) ending the drug war d) etc.
But prevalence of guns and distrust of our punishment system are the two main causes behind police shootings in my view. You won’t ever be able to get police shootings appreciably down without addressing one or both. Well, you might be able to, if police were just dissolved without any other changes maybe there wouldn’t be police shootings. But you’d almost surely see far more total shootings and other violent crime.
this is all - for the most part - true as far as I can see. though we neither live in an ideal world, nor do we have magic wands.
so the struggle is indeed real and interests of stakeholders need to be renegotiated (again), and that's tough indeed. especially now that POCs demand their rightful place at the table, and others feel their (now disproportionate) influence waning.
so training to combat the bad police practices and improve the gun one - at least from the police side(the one we can kinda/easier control) - and an end or at least massive tweaking of qualified immunity seems appropriate. at least as first steps in the right direction.
what do I mean with the gun side "we can control easier".
the gun issue is sacrosanct in the US. I don't quite get the why and so don't a lot of people in the US, though I do have my suspicions.
nevertheless thousands of people were ready to storm the capitol based on a lie.
so... imagine what could happen if you actually take away or massively weaken the rights granted by the 2nd amendment, what this could mobilize in some parts of the country. there are some batshit crazy people led astray by batshit crazy politicians, that play with fire for shits, giggles - and votes.
|
On April 28 2021 19:31 BlackJack wrote:https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/rhino-hunterIs a good podcast on trophy hunting containing an interview with a guy that paid $350,000 for the right to kill a black rhino. Ironically the people that are paying to kill the animals end up doing more for conservation than the people that just tweet their disgust about it because the money they pay for the right to kill the animal ends up going toward conservation and creating jobs for game wardens and trackers. The thing is, you can think it's great idea to raise money in this way but also think that the people that pay it are limp-dick losers. It's not mutually exclusive.
It is a lot easier to do something for any cause if you are so rich that can just spend 350k on the right to kill a rhino. That isn't really ironic, it is obscenely rich people having a larger impact on anything they touch for a much smaller relative cost.
But the negative effects of what they had to do to get that amount of money probably outweigh the positive effects of how they spend it. And i honestly think that the less or world caters to the super rich and gives them extra rights that other people couldn't possibly afford, the better. The fact that billionaires exist is obscene in its own right, the fact that they can spend that money to sidestep laws that effect everyone else (like not being allowed to shoot a rhino) is disgusting.
|
On April 28 2021 16:18 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2021 11:34 Mohdoo wrote:On April 28 2021 11:22 Sermokala wrote:
Yes but thats not how human nature works. Sure it would be great if people were willing to just donate all their excess cash for good causes but charities work by creating communities around things and holding events from that community. I don't hunt pheasants but I really enjoy the events they put on.
The Black Rhinos that are auctioned off to kill need to be killed for the betterment of the herd and would be killed regardless of them monetizing it or not. I'm genuinely surprised that they haven't offered rich Americans a chance to go on a patrol for paochers, I know a number of people who have specifically asked for that on facebook. I've donated thousands of dollars to various things and I honestly can't even remember most of it, so clearly I got almost 0 benefit out of it. There are plenty of people in the world who donate out of the good of their heart. People shouldn't need the deal sweetened by killing a bird. Maybe that's so for you. But it's the tragedy of the commons. If you aren't impacted by it, you probably won't think to raise money for it. But around here, one of the bigger group fighting preserve wetlands are duck hunters. Why? Because in order to duck hunt long term, they need a sustainable environment for the ducks. Hunters are directly impacted by over hunting and destruction of animal habitats and the like and are very incentivized to make sure there is a long term future for their hobby. In any event, hunting will never end. If it was the traditional practice of your culture in Canada, people can't say boo against it under current thinking.
female circumcision is a traditional thing to do in many countries.
People have no problem to say something against that "under current thinking".
It just doesn't make sense to kill without merit. Which, according to me, merit doesn't encompass shooting for sport or trophies. It can encompass something like deer control so forests can grow. But for amusement? Heck no.
On April 28 2021 19:31 BlackJack wrote:https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/rhino-hunterIs a good podcast on trophy hunting containing an interview with a guy that paid $350,000 for the right to kill a black rhino. Ironically the people that are paying to kill the animals end up doing more for conservation than the people that just tweet their disgust about it because the money they pay for the right to kill the animal ends up going toward conservation and creating jobs for game wardens and trackers. The thing is, you can think it's great idea to raise money in this way but also think that the people that pay it are limp-dick losers. It's not mutually exclusive.
The problem of them being endangered is not solved by it being fucking expensive to legally shoot them, let me tell you so much.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On April 28 2021 19:31 BlackJack wrote:https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/rhino-hunterIs a good podcast on trophy hunting containing an interview with a guy that paid $350,000 for the right to kill a black rhino. Ironically the people that are paying to kill the animals end up doing more for conservation than the people that just tweet their disgust about it because the money they pay for the right to kill the animal ends up going toward conservation and creating jobs for game wardens and trackers. The thing is, you can think it's great idea to raise money in this way but also think that the people that pay it are limp-dick losers. It's not mutually exclusive.
Person could have paid the same amount without killing the Rhino. I mean your last sentence adresses this, but I'm gonna state that if someone cares about preservation of endangered species, they're not gonna pay a lot of money to kill them, and without listening to that pod cast, I can't imagine the guy presenting an argument that would sway my opinion in this regard. However, I can understand that people charged with the preservation of species will allow rich jerks to take part in trophy hunting if it helps them out.
|
On April 28 2021 20:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2021 19:31 BlackJack wrote:https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/rhino-hunterIs a good podcast on trophy hunting containing an interview with a guy that paid $350,000 for the right to kill a black rhino. Ironically the people that are paying to kill the animals end up doing more for conservation than the people that just tweet their disgust about it because the money they pay for the right to kill the animal ends up going toward conservation and creating jobs for game wardens and trackers. The thing is, you can think it's great idea to raise money in this way but also think that the people that pay it are limp-dick losers. It's not mutually exclusive. Person could have paid the same amount without killing the Rhino. I mean your last sentence adresses this, but I'm gonna state that if someone cares about preservation of endangered species, they're not gonna pay a lot of money to kill them, and without listening to that pod cast, I can't imagine the guy presenting an argument that would sway my opinion in this regard. However, I can understand that people charged with the preservation of species will allow rich jerks to take part in trophy hunting if it helps them out.
I'd wager that putting in an 'official' avenue prevents said rich jerks from just doing it illegally anyway.
|
I would generally be skeptical anytime wealth wants to tell you about all the good things its money does.
|
To me, it's similar to something like taxing emissions to fund green technologies. In an ideal world, nobody would want to do the bad thing, but since people will do it anyway you might as well put the price up and route that money into something positive.
It goes without saying that the guy does not get to strut around like he's God's gift to the animal kingdom, any more than the guy with the giant truck gets to boast about how his enormous fuel bill is saving the planet. If he was really interested in conservation he would have just donated the money and done a tour.
Clearly, though, he wasn't going to do that, so I don't fault the park for finding a way to winkle the money out of him, as long as they can make the transaction deliver a net gain in the number of rhinos overall.
Obviously the more direct solution would be a wealth tax that routes some amount into conservation, but that's so far beyond the remit of a random park in Africa that it's not even in the calculation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
