Since all trophy hunting is hunting, any attempt to separate the two is not valid. Case in point:

I hate Ar-15s. They are evil weapons of war. They are only designed to kill many people ( I hate weapons of war)

I also am fine with someone owning a Garand. (Just not these weapons of war)

The inconsistency rests in the fact that your reasons for hating something (trophy hunting is killing animals for no "good" reason) also applies to the larger category of something else, which you are OK with. I'm fine with trophy or meat or any other type of responsible, ecology-focused hunting. I'm even ok with pig hunting here in TX where none of the animal is used and instead left to rot. Is it technically hunting? Yes. Is it technically pest control? Also yes. However, you can't be against pest control and OK with hunting. That's inconsistent.

Trophy hunts, when done in the normalized western model (reality is different than theory in a few cases), are ecologically, economically, and morally sound, and no different in these respects than any other type of hunting. All you have to do is look at Kenya, who in the 70s banned trophy hunting and saw massive reductions in animal numbers across the entire country, nearly over night. A lion which was previously worht a lot of money is now a pest. So of course the local population didn't give a shit when chinese-backed poachers shot them. The poachers were doing them a favor.

“False equivalency.”

Tying inanimate objects to the killing of living beings is a logical fallacy.

Bisbee wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:34 pm “False equivalency.”

Tying inanimate objects to the killing of living beings is a logical fallacy.

Argument from analogy =/= false equivalency

I'm not saying guns are like hunting, I'm saying the reasoning of the position is the same.

TEXGunny wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:06 pm Since all trophy hunting is hunting, any attempt to separate the two is not valid.

Wow! Why didn’t I think of that?!

Marlene wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:39 pm

TEXGunny wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:06 pm Since all trophy hunting is hunting, any attempt to separate the two is not valid.

Wow! Why didn’t I think of that?!

Again, try to argue against hunting in general. Good luck, but give it a shot.

Sarcasm is not a position. If you're not going to discuss a position or argument, why bother clicking the post button?

Because sometimes there is value in ridiculing bad arguments regardless of position on the subject at hand. Sometimes that value is fun.

When exactly did Texas ban critical thinking from public curriculum?

Insofar as anything which relies on intellectual laziness to sound remotely rational doesn’t usually win points in H.S. debate clubs, these kinds of “analogies” are discouraged.

Marlene wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:47 pm Because sometimes there is value in ridiculing bad arguments regardless of position on the subject at hand. Sometimes that value is fun.

When exactly did Texas ban critical thinking from public curriculum?

Funnily enough I grew up Southern California and never went to public school.



Again, snark is not convincing. Come on people, if its so obvious you should be able to articulate it easily! It's starting to feel like you've given up! Not even telling me how the analogy is wrong and instead snarking around smfh

Trolling is also discouraged.

Bisbee wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:59 pm Trolling is also discouraged.

You seriously consider asking for the topic of the thread, a discussion on the merits of trophy hunting, to be trolling.

Ok then

Page 8? What's the point by now? Just to argue?

I was going to stay out but this is just such a ridiculous example of reverse (ie non) logic I can't resist.

Saying "All trophy hunting is hunting" is meaningless. It's DESIGNED to confuse us (as if we were all imbeciles) into thinking "All hunting is trophy hunting" .....DUHHHHHHH!

That's like saying "all illegal drug injections are injections" and trying to convince us that all injections (including my next flu and shingles shots) are "illegal drug injections"!

If you want to be taken seriously you'll have to present a argument that isn't just logical, but rises, at a minimum, above the purely silly!

Hey Tex, you sound like in you’re in your 30’s but going on eight. Using big words doesn’t make one “adult”.

K9s wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:02 pm Page 8? What's the point by now? Just to argue?

I got here late?

Page 8 means it's a very volatile and compelling topic.

CDFiners

Guys... there's nothing new here.

Let’s just let Tex “win the internet”. Consider it a community service.

Guys, are you going to make me read this whole thread and start being mean to people?

On further review, I think this conversation has gone far enough. It has devolved into an emotional poop flinging fest.

Locking thread.

Well, this is going sideways...

-edit-
Eris beat me to it apparently...