[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt No, it is common sense. We can argue all day about whether a house or a few tulips is worth more, but when it comes down to it, we know what the truth would be to most people.

Once again, it’s not to do with which is worth more, it’s to do with where you draw the line between acceptable selfishness and unacceptable selfishness. You can call it common sense, but it’s ultimately just your own subjective concept of common sense.

Quote by: Matt How would the laws not apply to them? If the Government starts getting some balls, I think this issue could be enforced well. Humans are greedy, and if something is gonna take something we want, we really don't want that thing around. But when we can't have want, then we really wont be jealous and want to go kill that thing, since if we do we go to jail. Humans can reason out if they do this they go to jail.

And the exact same reasoning would apply for the killing of natural predators.

Quote by: Matt Why do you think I see deer in city parks grazing where I live? It is not because they are forced to (where I live there is no overpopulation of deer), but because some just prefer city or town life.

Do you have any proof of this?

Quote by: Matt Actually, you would want to throw people in jail as well. You have said some natural predators should be re-introduced alongside hunters,

Quote by: Matt For either of our methods, we would be the taxpayers paying for the higher fences.

Depends if introducing natural predators would actually be necessary. My method leaves our options open.

Quote by: Matt Most people indulge in shopping at a mall (there are food stores in malls too). The fact is, we started with the time effiencey of getting food, either by going to the store or going hunting. It is more time effective to get food at the food store, plain and simple.

Only if you take it in isolation, which is foolish given that food acquisition is not the only thing we need time for.

Quote by: Matt How can you say hunting can work if it hasn't worked so far?

Hunting is killing of animals. Killing animals decreases their numbers. Hence hunting can, if widespread enough, control overpopulation. This is proof that it can work (though of course not that it will).

Quote by: Matt Natural predation has worked for thousands of years (and in that time no diseases wiped out the wolf or cougar populations) and that is my proof that it will work.

The fact that it has worked isn’t proof that it will continue to work; only that it can.

Quote by: Matt You have no proof hunting can keep the population from overpopulation, nor do you have any proof it will greatly reduce the chance of them coming onto 'our' land. How can you argue about something you have no proof on?

I would ask you the same question.

Quote by: Matt How do you have as much proof? My method has worked in the past, yours hasn't, and with the way society is going, your method probably wont even stand a 1% chance of working in 100 years.

A fabricated statistic doesn’t change the fact that you have no proof of the future effectiveness of your method.

Quote by: Matt No, but I am supplying all the evidence here. You haven't hardly added a drop in the bucket. Your arguement is untenable, since it is all based on an 'if', that is why you cant find evidence to support your claims.

Your argument is based every bit as much on an assumption: the assumption that wolves and cougars will not be wiped out by some disease. If you want to set the bar so high for proving an argument, I can do the same.

Quote by: Matt Again, you are ignoring alot of my points and pick the ones that 'suit you the most'.

I cut down the quotes so it's clear what I'm responding to, but I'm not aware of missing any actual arguments. Feel free to point them out if I do.