[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt I have already proved that, since my method requires less people, therefore is cheaper and has less risks.

Whether it has fewer risks is irrelevant unless each individual risk is equal, which obviously they are not.

Quote by: Matt It is extreme wishful thinking to think millions of people are lying or are having wishful thinking themselves. Probably some are, but not all, unless you believe everyone is a liar these days.

Not everyone claims to have experienced the paranormal; in fact I would suspect that it’s a very small proportion of the population. And you yourself have just displayed the wishful thinking I’m talking about below: taking something you don’t understand and attributing it to the paranormal.

Quote by: Matt And I don't think there has even been a study that imaginary hunting methods work

Right, but there’s logic to that. There isn’t any logic to the idea that people can contact the dead.

Quote by: Matt No, but there are many more links like that of the same thing basically. Not everyone is a liar David.

I never said the phenomenon doesn’t exist; I’m just saying it’s an absurd and illogical leap to say that it’s the work of spirits.

Quote by: Matt You said you would pass no laws, no 'ifs' in your statement. Therefore your non-default method cannot work, furthermore you better stop promoting it.

I said that my default method involved passing no laws; not that I would be unconditionally unwilling to pass laws.

Quote by: Matt I mean will you have enough to balance out the potential of millions of other hunters? Also, ecological management is rocket science, you can't just fix things like that.

Why not?

Quote by: Matt I'm saying in the next 10 years, not in the next 50 when in all likelihood hunters will be a rare breed. Also, by having to do that, you would be killing more deer then natural predators by trying to balance the number of does and bucks.

How so?

Quote by: Matt Natural predators have been superior to hunting in all its current and past methods, therefore they are better hunters.

Doesn’t follow. I’ve explained why several times.

Quote by: Matt You have to prove, just like me, that your method is more reliable.

Unless you prove your method to be superior, mine is assumed to be equal or superior. The burden of proof is on the one wishing to restrict human freedom.

Quote by: Matt And it is still possible all humans die. Most things are possible.

Yes, so it’s possible that both our methods will fail. Now that that’s established, it’s a question of whose is most likely to succeed.

Quote by: Matt We can't live with out water (duh),

Yes, but we have ways of producing and rationing water that wolves don’t.

Quote by: Matt and they don't need to adapt quickly since climate change occurs over years.

And evolution to fit one’s environment takes thousands of years.

Quote by: Matt It was just an example. It is easier to ban something like hunting then trying to fix all of it.

An example of a computer doesn’t prove this.

Quote by: Matt Yay, finally I get a block buster. Ok, so now I have taken the remote areas (millions of acres),

Have you any proof that these remote areas in which wolves have a significantly greater chance of working constitute millions of acres?

Quote by: Matt Anyhow, that basically means we will continue to debate over the non-remote areas as what we are to do, and debate their merits. It is also valid to employ natural predators in non-remote areas too.

But you haven’t proved that it’s more valid than hunting. You don’t ban something unless you have proof that it’s no good.

Quote by: Matt I'm saying it is a good chance they won’t come back after they quit.

Proof? I don’t see any reason that a current hunter who would be encouraged to hunt by cash incentives would not feel the same encouragement when not currently hunting.

Quote by: Matt Terrorism has a reasonable chance of happening. Not great, but reasonable.

In that case, why aren’t lightning strikes given anything like the same level of news coverage? The only possible answer is that news does not operate simply on probability of something happening.

Quote by: Matt And what is that fallacy?

Appeal to Authority.

Quote by: Matt Plus your default method does involve passing a law or two.

Quote by: Matt So by changing the legal system, you would be passing new legislature.

Nope, we’ve been through this. I would simply be removing the ban on hunting in all seasons. That involves removing a law; not passing a new one.

Quote by: Matt Then many animals, like mice, you would be saying have similar biology compared to humans. Also, we have extreme mental differences from wolves.

A mental difference has no bearing on transmission of disease.

Quote by: Matt Rabies isn't a disease that can wipe out great populations though, so it doesn't apply.

All you asked for was an example of a disease which can spread by a carrier outwith the species. We know that there wolf and cougar diseases have the potential to spread through the population and we know that they have the potential to spread through a carrier outwith the species. Therefore it’s not inconceivable that a disease with both these traits will develop.

Quote by: Matt I can't copy and paste it, Google must not want you to copy the book. It is on page # 270. You can click a link and scroll, can't you?

You mean the bit where it quotes Machiavelli saying that fear is stronger than greed? That’s not proof, Matt; that’s just a guy saying something.

Quote by: Matt If we have a food shortage, we won’t be able to develop new production of food since there is none.

A food shortage means there is not enough food; not that there is none.

Quote by: Matt And if there is no proof it might, it is worthless.

There’s plenty of proof that it might. The world already has experienced rapid temperature change over the past 50 years. Look at any graph of climate change and you’ll see this.

Quote by: Matt It may cause the deer to suffer by not allowing them to fulfil their natural function? Proof please.

‘Taint my point to prove. You’re the one claiming that neutering is more humane.