An outbreak of a rare parasitic disease has been linked to undercooked bear meat eaten by dozens of people at a gathering in North Carolina, a new U.S. CDC report has revealed.
Everything you say is based on convention and nature and opinion. You never addressed what I said and in your own words “rearticulated” (more like regurgitated) the same points that you have yet to give merit to.
You mean you don’t find merit in them. But I’m done, because at least I tried to answer your questions. Where you made no attempt at answering the one question I’ve asked you twice.
That’s because your question doesn’t progress any argument. Unlike the question I asked you which was meant to probe your reasoning. it’s the kind of thing a troll would ask. It’s also a false dichotomy. I’m perfectly fine with you discontinuing as I frankly didn’t expect to get a reply that continued the discussion in good faith after your first reply.
It doesn’t progress your argument. You do not come across as the one arguing in good faith here, just so you know. You should think about why, if you are.
I never really made an argument, only said that I found the OPs argument strange without further context. I was probing OPs argument because they gave some reasoning for what they found different about killing a bear and killing a deer, but didn’t really elucidate the moral differences. Even if you take it for granted that OP is correct that people hunt deer specifically for food and bears specifically for sport, they didn’t really clarify why one was such an awful thing and the other was not.
Instead of clarifying things they just repeated themselves and hit me with the same irrelevant false dichotomy. Since I took for granted their theory of why people hunt certain animals it was irrelevant if I knew anything about hunting because I was not contesting anything about the practice of hunting. And whether I kill bears would also not be relevant to the discussion. This is why to me it doesn’t feel like they are having a good faith discussion.
You wanted to engage on the topic of hunting. But you expected to be the only one allowed to be asking questions.
So instead of answering the one question asked of you, you generate bogus reasons to justify why you’re above responding to any questions about your motivations, or knowledge/experience of the subject.
I’m not sure you even know what subsistence hunting is. Maybe you know the definition, but not the context. It seems like you assume everyone lives in an urban area, and can live a vegan lifestyle by going to the grocery store.
Everything you say is based on convention and nature and opinion. You never addressed what I said and in your own words “rearticulated” (more like regurgitated) the same points that you have yet to give merit to.
You mean you don’t find merit in them. But I’m done, because at least I tried to answer your questions. Where you made no attempt at answering the one question I’ve asked you twice.
Which itself is answer enough.
That’s because your question doesn’t progress any argument. Unlike the question I asked you which was meant to probe your reasoning. it’s the kind of thing a troll would ask. It’s also a false dichotomy. I’m perfectly fine with you discontinuing as I frankly didn’t expect to get a reply that continued the discussion in good faith after your first reply.
It doesn’t progress your argument. You do not come across as the one arguing in good faith here, just so you know. You should think about why, if you are.
I never really made an argument, only said that I found the OPs argument strange without further context. I was probing OPs argument because they gave some reasoning for what they found different about killing a bear and killing a deer, but didn’t really elucidate the moral differences. Even if you take it for granted that OP is correct that people hunt deer specifically for food and bears specifically for sport, they didn’t really clarify why one was such an awful thing and the other was not.
Instead of clarifying things they just repeated themselves and hit me with the same irrelevant false dichotomy. Since I took for granted their theory of why people hunt certain animals it was irrelevant if I knew anything about hunting because I was not contesting anything about the practice of hunting. And whether I kill bears would also not be relevant to the discussion. This is why to me it doesn’t feel like they are having a good faith discussion.
You wanted to engage on the topic of hunting. But you expected to be the only one allowed to be asking questions.
So instead of answering the one question asked of you, you generate bogus reasons to justify why you’re above responding to any questions about your motivations, or knowledge/experience of the subject.
I’m not sure you even know what subsistence hunting is. Maybe you know the definition, but not the context. It seems like you assume everyone lives in an urban area, and can live a vegan lifestyle by going to the grocery store.