Culls would be required unless you were willing to live with far worse outcomes such as we have seen with over population.

It is warped morals to ignore mass sickness and death in prey animals and destruction or great damage to the environment which causes even larger mass death and extinction of animals, in certain areas, simply because some think Man should play no role in killing animals.

But I am curious about what measures you think man could or would take to exercise dominion and keep those prey animals populations in check?

i would need to see you flesh out the 'moral' part specifically (how you isolate it) to parse between 'killing animals is ok/good/moral if for population control', and 'bad /immoral if for eating'.

Layer on to that 'what if the animals killed for population control are then used as food', is that immoral but throwing the meat away would be moral?

This kind of thing is really difficult. Just ask the Aussies.

Ya were just going to have to agree to disagree..

I stand by the absolute position that animals never have to be killed out of necessity or for food or for whatever reason you think humans are “apex” predators or whatever brainwashing propaganda that has been spread as lies.

It simply doesn’t need to happen for any reason. If an animal is that much of a threat then live somewhere else don’t live in the jungle.

Coexist

This is such BS...

Dominion as in its ok to build a fence and keep deer out of your property or building a house that keeps bugs out so you can live peacefully side by side.

What kind of bs is “we need to kill animals to save animals”... absolute nonsense makes me think you’re just trolling or arguing semantics.

Maybe you think you’re right and you really think animal populations need to be culled. Maybe you’re incapable of seeing there are other ways.

I'm pretty much in the same boat as you when it comes to my actual eating habits. And I'm not sure that we even disagree. But if you are interested in the moral argument against killing animals for food, Peter Singer has written extensively on the topic.

I just want to add... let animals kill each other and let one overpopulate... it’s not our place as humans to interfere...

So stop trying to play God

Humans are animals too though. I think what’s missing is humans are supposed to be humane and with factory farms we clearly aren’t.

This post does not address the issues I raised at all.

The point of my post is that predators and prey live in a necessary form of harmony.

When Predators are driven away due to man's intrusion and setting up of settlements or for other reasons, prey animals can destroy the ecology balance, harmign not only themselves (their herds get sickly and spread disease), but also the habitat of other animal species (driving many into local extinction), and impacting the very land, destroying soil, changing the course of rivers for the worse, etc.

So this not about man's fear and staying out the jungle. This is about protecting the animals.

It is man's short sightedness (the Vegan 'man must not kill') that would create an equation saying all that other harm being done is ok as long as mankind does not participate. That is warped thinking IMO. It is simply turning a blind eye to it because 'man is not involved' and convincing yourself good has been done while refusing to look at all the harm, that was actually done.

I take it you have not watched The Wolves of Yellowstone video I linked above.

It is a must watch for those who love nature and animals and need to understand the role of predators and prey in keeping environments healthy.

Without such knowledge people will continue to post in ignorance as I think you are here.

The word 'interfere' betrays your ideological bent.

Humans ARE part of the process, full stop.

I doubt even you would disagree that tribes in the Amazon should continue to hunt for their subsistence. I doubt you would stop them, if you had the sole power to make it illegal for them to do so.

So if you agree you will try to split hairs. Ok and moral for those humans b ut bad for other humans due to .. reasons.

If your position is absolutist and correct it must stand to all challenges. Otherwise it becomes subjective and 'preference' and not a 'moral' position.

I found this summary from his book.

If there is nothing more to his position than that I won't find anything enlightening there.

The 'we have no right to kill animals' argument fails on its face imo. i offer the 'tribes of the Amazon' as an example to show how it fails. That then defaults to 'bvut... but... we are smart and no longer NEED to, so we should not'.

Which then proves the 'we have no right to kill' fails, and is switched to 'in certain situations where man has utility and choice and options, they should not kill'.

That is about preference and choices and not moral imperative once you go that road. A very different argument. And a harder one to make when you want to impose it on others.

Dude, I wasn't claiming that Singer's views were as unnuanced as rjr's views. I haven't studied Singer closely. I'm not sure he would disagree with what you wrote above. I merely was referring you to him because you seem interested in the topic and he is one of the leading voices on the topic. That's all.

I wasn't saying that critically.

I thought maybe when you suggested it it was because he delved into the more nuanced arguments about why mankind should not eat animals as opposed to more of a blanket prohibition.

I totally understand those who say 'it is just wrong for mankind to eat animals' and their arguments. I just have not met or read anyone who can defend that point beyond an absolutist position when challenged with info such as the Amazon tribes, etc. As I said their arguments typically then fall apart as almost all give such tribes a pass. Which then leads to the inevitable 'well once we have choice, we should not'. Which is not a moral argument. It is a choice one. And one persons choice is not a moral position.

Anyway I am repeating myself.

Even under developed nations such as India are heavily vegetarian.. it’s just not necessary. Humans can gather food and forage. I think you’re just brainwashed to think there is only one way. Customs change.. slavery was pretty popular as was segregation and apartheid. When it comes to veganism it’s just the next thing to be on the right side of history.

Mental gymnastics to figure out a way that humans “need” to kill animals... for every example you can rehabilitate areas and stay out of areas if need be. You’re just hell bent on killing animals.

Even if populations get out of hand and humans alter the ecosystem you could always argue that as animals ourselves we have the right to alter it.

I’m sure you would be quick to argue that the food chain exists but you’ll conveniently flip and say humans can’t/shouldn’t interfere with wild life as though to say vegans can’t be absolute in not killing animals.

It’s always about trying to point out a
Vegans flaw in logic.. but plants have feelings... but we need to cull population.... but animals kill each other... but but but ...

There is literally 0 need to ever kill an animal for any reason. We are smarter than animals... run away drive away don’t put yourself in spots..

I don't understand why you believe that moral positions must be absolutist. Surely you could construct a moral argument for the position that it is wrong for you to kill another person unless the killing is necessary to defend your own life or the life of another person.

If you killed an active shooter, you would be making a choice of sorts. You would not be adhering to some sort of absolutist prohibition on the killing of another person. But I don't think it would be at all difficult to defend your action by reference to any number of moral philosophies.

Ahhh you are strawmanning now. Proof of someone has given up.

No one, me especially has said or even hinted that there is no other way. I am fully aware of India and have no issue with that.

That also has NOTHING to do with my point.

Do you think tribes in the Amazon are immoral and wrong for catching and eating meat? If not, why not?

You are emoting but not making any logical arguments.

What is the moral argument against a human killing one animal but humans ignoring how their impact (proximity driving away predators) makes it so certain prey animals alter the environment so much that they may drive all sorts of species extinct in a region.

Thousands and thousands of animals die to protect your 'man must not kill even if it means animals will kill thousands in an unnatural way'.

Quite frankly your callousness could be argued to be immoral. You show you care zero about actual animal death and the scale and simply care about 'who' is doing it. Human does it and kills one = 'bad'. Prey animals do it and kill thousands upon thousands 'who cares'.

This is one of the fundamental flaws and hypocrisies of ethical vegans I have found. Truly they don't give a sh*t about the animals. They only care about man killing any animal.

Sure but that is the explanation you gave and its logical.

So it IS NOT an absolutist position of 'though shall not kill'. We both agree that if that is offered it will fail. If you say the LOGIC for an example of a non absolutist case is 'self defense', I say 'i can examine that REASON and agree'.

Vegans never give a reason that can be challenged or examined. It is simply emoting. They almost always start with the absolutist example that it is simply wrong for man to kill, (see above) and cannot elaborate a differentiator that stands up to a logical challenge of its premise.

Yes it’s immoral to kill animals under any condition

Animals can kill each other... they can kill each other in droves...

You have a brain so therefore you have options to know better. But clearly you don’t know any better and think you have no choice.

But hint hint you do know better therefore you are morally juxtaposed.

I think you’re just trolling now anyways. I think you know that there’s no reason to kill animals anymore and you’re just arguing for sake of arguing.

Times are changing.. it’s the age of Aquarius which means awakening.. time to wake up!

Provide one example where humans have no other choice but to kill an animal?

Don’t straw man with but if we don’t kill an animal other animals will die nonsense... provide a clear proof

Animals die in the cultivation of your precious vegetables. Or do those animals not matter you speciest!?

The point is you don’t need to kill them... you don’t even need to plant your vegetables in the ground. They have stackable hydroponic systems that grow outside the ground.

But your pea brain is too small to accept this fact and the fact you’re incapable to think outside the box.

Have fun being chained to your brainwashing. It really seems to have worked on you!