News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I did not miss it.
I explicitly addressed it, and trying to get out of having said something moronic by "b-b-but humans have negative effects so deer overpopulation isn't actually a real thing" isn't a joke, it's a bad attempt at evading the topic.
That part makes it sound like you missed it because they were not questioning if deer have an ecological impact.
No, they're IGNORING it, like I said.
Which is why I'm reiterating it.
Then why stress the use of postulate?
Perhaps you should try re-reading the thread. They wrote:
To which I replied that they don't understand the meaning of the word "postulate", as no-one has postulated anything. They don't argue that, because they can't argue the facts I linked, so they get pissy and start whatabouting about completely irrelevant things, which you then defend as "a joke", which it was not.
I think you are still not getting their meaning. Given a species that has a negative impact on ecology the postulate is that the appropriate response is to cull that species. A pragmatic stance. But when generalized instead of specifying deer and when taking into consideration the negative impact that large populations of humans have we get to the "thin ice". Yes it's still deflecting from addressing your point but they were not denying the damage that deer can do and a postulate was made.
No, he's saying that I am POSTULATING things that are actually facts.
which is in contradiction with your pseudobabble:
No-one has talked about culling at any point. They are saying that I am MERELY POSTULATING that hunting is indeed beneficial for the environment, whereas in reality, I am observing a fact.
Isn't shooting deer to manage their population culling?
You accidentally ignored the more important part.
#They are saying that I am MERELY POSTULATING that hunting is indeed beneficial for the environment, whereas in reality, I am observing a fact.
So it is culling?
Just like he's avoiding the mistake, so now are you.
I did not postulate anything, nor did they postulate anything. They were wrong in saying I "postulated" something and you were wrong in thinking they postulated something. No-one postulated anything. I stated a fact.
It seems like you are avoiding acknowledging that shooting deer for population management is culling. So someone did at some point talk about it. Right?
There is a postulate. The postulate is that shooting is the course of action to be taken to achieve population management.
Kids these days, smh. You think you have some sort of semantic gotcha. You don't. Population management and culling are two different things, just like propagating a plant and harvesting it are. Propagation also involves harvesting, as where would you keep the seeds otherwise? Thus population control indeed includes but isn't limited to culling.
And all of that is completely irrelevant. "BUT WHAT ABOUT"
but what about if you actually talked about the argument at hand?
There is no postulate. They are saying that I postulated a thing. I did not. I stated a fact. "Postulate" connotates that something has been theorised, but not proven. I didn't suggest or assume the existence of something, I stated it. Deer population control is necessary for the continued survival of the ecology where the deer and us humans live.
It's an irrefutable fact, and something which happens to piss off vegans.
So what is the distinction that makes shooting deer not culling?
I did talk about the argument at hand.
"There is a postulate. The postulate is that shooting is the course of action to be taken to achieve population management."
Deer population control is necessary but shooting deer is not the only way to achieve it. I think it's the only practical way but it's not the only way. The postulate, or premise of a train of reasoning, that you proposed was hunting deer and commendably not wasting what could be harvested from them. Go with the denotation.
Kids these days indeed.
I linked a wikipedia article title "DEER MANAGEMENT", not "deer hunting." Are these terms confusing for you? Having trouble with categories?
There is no postulate. There is a statement of fact. The fact is that without deer management (which yes, includes the hunters who cull the population if necessary, but also nurture it with feeding places and most of all, observe), the populations go haywire, causing severe ecological disturbance affecting dozens if not hundreds of species of plants and animals and reducing traffic safety for people due to increased risk of collisions with deer.
Those are facts. Verifiable, irrefutable, facts. The people who originally started those theories may have postulated things. I did not. I relayed facts.
You know for some that seems to get pretty upset about people ignoring major points or conversations you do it a lot.
What is the distinction that makes shooting deer not culling?
Shooting deer, ya know? LIke you were talking about before you linked deer management.
The capital of Montana is Helena. That's a fact. Verifiable, irrefutable, fact. Thought I'd mention that since you keep stating facts that no one is trying to refute.
I have at no point said hunting deer as a means of population control as a part of deer management doesn't constitute culling. Perhaps you need to brush on your reading comprehension? As I said, you're having problems with categories.
The reason I tried not engaging with your childish semantic argument is that it's irrelevant. What is relevant is that, you said:
Which it isn't, because I have at no point postulated that. I have stated the well supported fact that deer management (which includes culling) is crucial, and above all, it's more moral than any other alternative, and it helps saves lives, both animal and human, by preserving the ecological balance of a given environment.
You're just trying to make this into childish semantic bullshittery, because you made a mistake and can't admit to it.
You also said this:
But you won't be able to name another way to achieve it. Weird, huh? Almost like you were pulling these things out of your arse, huh?
Cool so shooting deer, like you where originally mentioning, does count as culling. And the type of population management that you started the conversation with is shooting deer. So when you said that no one was talking about culling that was nonsense wasn't it? Because you were talking about culling.
Culling is an option for population management, one that you brought up and the one that the joke was referencing, but as you said yourself culling isn't the only option of population management. Strange that you didn't mention any other methods to manage population. Was that because you were pulling it out of your ass too?
Now you still seem confused. I'm not saying that deer management is not necessary. I'm not saying that culling is the only method. I did say that it is the most practical but I don't think your reading skills caught that. Since you think offering an alternative method is important for some reason then how about sterilization? Wildly impractical but that would do the trick.
You are making the case that because it's a fact that deer must be managed and that shooting them is the major practical method to achieve that goal, that it's a good thing or at least a necessary thing to shoot deer. Shooting deer to manage the population. That's a postulate. The line of reasoning that takes you from acknowledging a problem to selecting a solution. The hypothesis advanced as a premise of a train of thought.
Would you like to keep cranking up the hostility?
"No-one is talking about it" as in "you're doing some pitiful semantic bullshit, because you 'took sides' in a random internet thread and found yourself on the losing side, and she's not talking about it because she's trying to change the subject to some pitiful whataboutist argument.
As I said, you really need to brush up on your reading practice.
Our "debate" seems to be over the fact that I presented facts and didn't postulate a thing. Which is to say — offtopic.
Weird how you still haven't managed to give a single example of those "other ways" there are to do it? Might it be because you're a frustrated contrarian who doesn't understand the subject he inserted himself into?
It isn't a postulate. It's an observation of facts I haven't found myself. Presentation, if you will. I am not suggesting or assuming anything, which is the definition of "postulate."
You on other hand have postulated that "there are other ways of population control besides hunting", but weirdly, can't present a single one. Triple-weirdly, I've now had to repeat this for several comments repeated that question, but you seem to avoid it on purpose. Is it perchance because there aren't other ways, because you just made that up to sound good, which is why you added "hunting may be the most practical way" as a disclaimer so you can eat your words when you get called out on your BS?
"No-one has talked about culling at any point." As in you literally said that.
If I took a side it was the side that culling is the practical method of managing deer. You assumed that I was disagreeing with you when I was just pointing out that you misunderstood that person.
Work on your reading skills because I did give you an example of an "other way". Additionally work on your reasoning skills because me providing another way is off topic. And you already said yourself that culling was not the only way to manage deer population. You are contradicting yourself. You have to pick if you acknowledge that there are other ways, like you said previously or if you think that you have made some great point now about how there is no other conceivable way.
The postulate is that shooting deer is the practical acceptable solution to managing deer population. The necessity of deer management being a fact is closely related but distinct from making the connection to a method.
Read. I did give an alternative.
You thought I was disagreeing with you when I wasn't. I've said from the start that deer culling is the practical way to manage deer population and that harvesting their meet is the commendable thing to do along with it. Calm down. Read. Learn to behave in a civil manner, especially if you want to go about implying other people are acting like kids.