It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

You are attacking the strawman that veganism is about never ever using wool.

No I'm not, but you saying that, that is a strawman. I made the larger point that veganism is ultimately irrational, and I demonstrated it by showing you there's several questions you simply can't answer without getting so worked up you get into personal insults.

Veganism is about reducing suffering

Oh wowooooow. This definitely surprises me so, as my earlier points have exactly pointed out that reducing suffering and being against shearing sheep or being against the population control of deer simply do not go together.

If you are against hunting elk/deer which is done based on government giving out felling permits, then you are for increasing suffering, as overpopulation of deer would devastate the environment and lead to increased car-deer crashes, which increase suffering to both animals and humans.

Treating it as an absolute is a strawman.

I cringe so hard when people toss around the names of rhetorical fallacies when they don't understand their definition either.

And you already admitted several times you don't even read my comments. There is nothing about veganism I don't know, despite you screeching how I don't know anything about it and after several comments where I argue with "reduce suffering" being the goal, you spurt "v-veganisms goal is t-to reduce suffering".

Yeah. That's what my comments are about and that's why you can't answer what to do with sheep or deer.

Were you the one who said we should literally drive sheep to extinction? I get confused with so many irrational vegans crying in my replies.

Your internal logic isn't consistent. The actions of vegans in general are more consistent in terms of animal morality than most, because most don't give a flying fuck and just go with whatever society is going with. However you don't really care enough to actually study the philosophy you say you're practicing. Or at least even glimpse at it critically.

Because you prolly live in a city, and denying death is just so much more comforting to you than accepting it as a natural part of life.

I was talking about the fact that wolves do come back in Germany in a natural way from further East and I think other parts of central Europe as well, and hunters lobby for killing them.

Hunters lobby for felling permits, because killing wolves is what has been practiced since before we had calendars, because wolves are the dogs which didn't get domesticated.

I live in SW Finland. I've never seen a wolf. The loner wolves, yeah, we sometimes get, and usually they're given a felling permit. Known why? Because lone wolves are dangerous. They're desperate and could snatch a kid walking home from school. That's not likely or even that probable, but what they do do, is kill domestic animals. Wolf packs we don't have, because there isn't animals for them to hunt around here.

But you're saying that this is wrong, and that hunters should stop hunting completely, and we should let packs of wolves roam population centers in Europe? And you genuinely think that's somehow morally superior of an idea? You can't be that thick. You're about "reducing suffering", yet you think it's better to 1) have wolfpacks where wolfpacks have never existed and 2) that a deer dying to a wolf suffers less while being eaten alive than a deer killed by a single shot from a rifle that the deer doesn't even have time to hear before it hits?

By what logic?

Using bloodhounds in hunting has been banned for a long time because of its cruelty. But you're arguing that we should bring literal packs of wolves to population centers despite the obvious risks, and that you support this notion because you're about reducing suffering?

Would you argue for killing predators in their natural habitat

Again, these aren't a natural habitat for wolves. They're coursing predators, not fucking house cats. If you don't understand what that means, maybe you shouldn't be arguing about wolves? My nickname is pretty much "wolfie" by it's Finglish etymology and I've been a massive fan of wolves since the early 90's.

Do I agree that we've intruded on what is the natural habitat of wolfs? Sure. But again, I didn't do it. And mostly, neither did anyone alive right now. MOSTLY. As in, the whole of Europe used to be good hunting grounds for wolfpacks. But since humans came, they slowly either 1) became dogs or 2) went further away.

A biologist explained to me that deer find food in the fields and in a natural habitat without this food source, their population would be much smaller. Is the solution to ban agricultural next to forests? I don't know. But I think there are better ways to interact with nature.

Wyaah. I dislike reality, I don't have any suggestions on what to do, but I demand you stop doing the things you're doing despite the obvious problems it will cause while solving nothing but a tiny portion of my angst towards death

Here kiddo, go and learn:

https://cornellbotanicgardens.org/conserve/deer/why-we-manage-deer

Deer overpopulation has the potential to limit forest regeneration to such an extent that the most basic ecosystem functions of a forest habitat may be threatened. Even where forests appear to be healthy at present, those forests will likely be negatively impacted by deer in the future unless those deer are actively managed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browsing_(herbivory)#Overbrowsing

Browsing can affect plant reproduction by reducing the availability of leaves for photosynthesis and flowers for pollination. Overbrowsing can lead to a decrease in seed production, hinder the recruitment of new individuals and alter the genetic diversity of plant population.

Impacts on other animals edit

Overbrowsing can change near-ground forest structure, plant species composition, vegetation density, and leaf litter, with consequences for other forest-dwelling animals.[9] Many species of ground-dwelling invertebrates rely on near-ground vegetation cover and leaf litter layers for habitat; these invertebrates may be lost from areas with intense browsing.[25] Further, preferential selection of certain plant species by herbivores can impact invertebrates closely associated with those plants.[25] Migratory forest-dwelling songbirds depend on dense understory vegetation for nesting and foraging habitat; reductions in understory plant biomass caused by deer can lead to declines in forest songbird populations.[9][26] Finally, loss of understory plant diversity associated with ungulate overbrowsing can impact small mammals that rely on this vegetation for cover and food.[15] Management and recovery edit

Overbrowsing can lead plant communities towards equilibrium states which are only reversible if herbivore numbers are greatly reduced for a sufficient period, and actions are taken to restore the original plant communities.[

sheesh I'm tired of having this exact same conversation everytime I point out how irrational veganism is, and you kids think you're gonna educate me when you don't even know the bare basics