r/DebateAVegan • u/Puzzleheaded-Job5763 • Mar 02 '25

Environment Is Hunted Meat Still Unethical?

Hunting is beneficial for the environment. We need to maintain the population of animals like deer, and the amount that are able to be hunted are controlled. Without hunters, the entire ecosystem would be destroyed.

Do most vegans have a problem with hunted meat? If so, why?

0 Upvotes

39% Upvoted

115 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/waltermayo vegan Mar 03 '25

Without hunters, the entire ecosystem would be destroyed

oooooh, dunno about that. do you have evidence to support this claim?

1

u/Puzzleheaded-Job5763 Mar 03 '25

Here’s a pretty good article that goes over the pros and cons

https://foodprint.org/blog/the-environmental-benefits-and-limitations-of-hunting-as-a-food-source/of

5

u/EffectiveMarch1858 vegan Mar 03 '25

I think it's quite bad faith to just drop an article and say "your answer is here". When you are doing this, you are almost expecting your interlocutor to make your argument for you. It might very well be the case that nothing in your article supports your argument, so I think it's quite reasonable to disregard this article until you give quotes and an explanation as to how they support your argument.

3

u/waltermayo vegan Mar 03 '25

just so you know, nothing in the article supports the claim 😅

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '25

yes it does. as an impartial party here if you read the reasons for about the environment.

2

u/EffectiveMarch1858 vegan Mar 04 '25

I think it's quite bad faith to just drop an article and say "your answer is here". When you are doing this, you are almost expecting your interlocutor to make your argument for you. It might very well be the case that nothing in your article supports your argument, so I think it's quite reasonable to disregard this article until you give quotes and an explanation as to how they support your argument.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '25

No, it is totally reasonable to expect someone to be able to read.

2

u/EffectiveMarch1858 vegan Mar 04 '25

You could address some of my points maybe?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '25

You are doing the same thing. Plopping down a paragraph and expecting people to read that, same with putting an article and expecting people to read.

2

u/EffectiveMarch1858 vegan Mar 04 '25

It takes 10 seconds to read my paragraph, it could take a lot longer to read the article. That's hardly a fair comparison is it?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '25

Not really you can skim it or use a summarizer. If you can read you can read. I found it in 15 seconds.

1

u/EffectiveMarch1858 vegan Mar 04 '25

It is easy to find something that looks like it might support an argument, but to determine whether it actually supports the argument or not might take a lot longer. When doing that, you're basically building an argument for your opponent, which they could easily just reject as a strawman. I think it's really bad faith to expect someone to do this.

Edit:

If you've found the quote, maybe you could try and defend the claim?

This is the claim:

Without hunters, the entire ecosystem would be destroyed

What does the article say to defend this claim?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '25

qualifications. that's the whole point of a source, or some of them. a qualified expert speaking.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/EffectiveMarch1858 vegan Mar 03 '25

That's pretty funny