Alue42

Nowhere in my response did I say that anyone had a right to the land, and nowhere in my response did I say that it was Western powers that I was concerned about getting resources.

This is what happens when someone looks at the surface of issues and then becomes incredibly passionate about it.

You need to listen to people that have lived through many, many years of middle east conflicts. Talk with people who have been entrenched over there. Become friends with middle easterners who have moved over here during the 80s and 90s (as adults, not the children of those that came over) and started businesses and ask about their experiences.

You don't want to hear about how things are nuanced, but you look at things in such a black and white manner, which is typical of those in your age group becoming interested in politics.

You are still being incredibly naive.

Would you give bullets to someone after watching them shoot a kid if it benefitted you?

It has nothing to do with it benefiting me - or specifically the US as the case with Israel goes, or even the party or the politician. As I tried to describe in my original comment, it is a strategic move for GLOBAL PEACE - not just the US. This is not only about US intervention, which it is clear you have a lot of thoughts about, but also about the ports and access to resources both in and out for all of the countries in that region, and militaries of all countries. And destroying our only allyship in that region (not just us, but the other countries that have maintained their stance with Israel), maintains the ability to keep a foothold in that region.

If someone just shot a child in front of me, would I give them bullets? If they controlled the only access to all of the resources (oil, water, food, etc) that would cause my other allies to die without during times of crisis, I would absolutely consider it. That does not mean it would come without limitations.

For you to still think this way after it being explained to you shows how shortsighted and limited you are thinking.

From the rest of your comments, it's clear that you are very interested in politics and learning a lot, which is good! And you've gotten to a lot of topics, also good. But it seems like you have gotten to the surface level issues and become very passionate about them and it's that way or the highway instead of looking any deeper.

You've admitted that you are young and haven't been around for large scale issues and deep seated treaties and ally-ships that lead to the development of global political issues. It is incredibly understandable that given your age and experience you've summed up your decision into what you've currently seen in the news and perhaps the few bullet-point-history issues you've read up on.

The issues going on with Israel are enormously complex and are not as simple as who's land it is, who is keeping who away, and who is committing genocide. Yes, it is horrible, and it would be ideal if our political leader could step up and call out that country for those actions. The unfortunate reality from a geopolitical perspective and from the strategic perspective of being a world leader that needs to think many, many steps ahead is that the middle east is a very hostile area, and Israel is very strategically placed to not only have an ally, but also to keep key ports open - both for economic and military reasons.

Making a statement against the actions of Israel would have been detrimental to future global peace options. Instead, Biden can work with Netanyahu behind the scenes without making an official statement.

if something doesn’t have a concept of ethics, that doesn’t make its unethical actions unethical. If it did, teaching ethics would be unnecessary

Have you taken an Ethics class? You don't learn one set of rules for life and then you are done (boy, life would be so easy if that were the case!!). You learn Kantian philosophy, Consequentialism, Deontology, Utilitarianism....just to name a few. You learn how philosophy comes in to play and how to recognize the patterns. Knowing these can relate to understanding where someone (or in this discussion, the bear/fox/deer/etc) places it's moral compass to better understand it's viewpoint. The bear may not understand ethics, but it still has a moral compass that you can tease out.

So the question remains: What power holds these species' moral compasses? Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Or are you holding your morals up to them?

I truly have never heard that response!

What power holds these species' moral compasses? For many people it's their god or their religion (which could be Gaia/earth), for others it's others around them, for others including me it's themselves.
Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Do they hold themselves to your morals (ie, others comparing themselves to those around them), or are you holding your morals up to them?

So the bears, foxes, deer, egrets, etc are also being unethical and should be damned? Because they absolutely can live without meat but chose to hunt.

I was showing that your statements are incorrect. That hunting is not a necessity because we are omnivores. But it's not a necessity for the bear either, they are also omnivores.

Therefore, is hunting off the table for us? Both of your statements "eat meat to survive" and "eat x exotic animal" have been proven extreme false hyperboles that don't relate to the question at hand.

Ok, but what you said tried to toe the line while actually using absolute hyperboles to prove neither point.

Keep in mind we live in a world where it’s normal to go from “we need meat to survive” to “let’s eat X exotic animal that absolutely doesn’t have to be the one to sustain us”.

We actually don't need meat to survive. While there are species that are indeed obligate carnivores or ones that whose digestive system is more efficient with meat proteins, we are omnivores. It's even been shown that body builders and athletes can sustain themselves on a vegan diet.

“let’s eat X exotic animal that absolutely doesn’t have to be the one to sustain us”.

While some people get a thrill out of eating the highly illegal species, turning new species into a new food item can be a boon to conservation. Lionfish never used to live in the Florida Keys, then one popped up, then a handful, then all the sudden they were taking over whole reefs and the native species had no where to live. There was no way to get rid of them, they hide under the outcroppings of the reefs, they can't be caught on a line, no gillnetting, they have to be speared which is NOT easy as government operation or some sort of eradication program. Finally, it caught on how delicious they are and the area started teaching people how to handle the spines and the filet around the venom glands in order to cook them, and it took off like crazy and everyone was in the water to get them! The population hasn't declined, but it's somewhat leveled so the local marine species can at least get a toehold again.

And this isn't the only species with a story like this. So taking on exotic species (plant and animal) in your diet can indeed be a good thing for conservation.

But, the point is I asked if hunting was off the table for us as a species despite it occurring in nature, and if so was it due to our intellect? You responded with hyperboles on both ends that don't provide an answer.

I just tried looking for you, and the most up to date I could find was for 2017. That's disappointing, but slightly out of date is better than nothing.

The only reason it hasn't caught on is because they are very difficult to catch (spear) and even more difficult to prepare (venom glands). They are unbelievably delicious, but even so, I'm not going to trust a chef a don't know to be sure he didn't pierce one of those glands while preparing it. I'll trust myself or one of my friends that I no for 100% certain can do it right. So even though a handful of restaurants were offering it in the Keys and Miami, you'll really see people catching it themselves and preparing it just to be sure.

He's my conundrum with that. Other species will not go after animals that are close to death. I've worked with a lot of wild animals. The thinking is that if it is dead or close to death they will leave it to the scavengers since they don't want to risk contracting whatever killed it. Bears, eagles, so many animals are going to hunt healthy fish - bears specifically go after the salmon about to spawn and pass on their genes.

Hunting is part of nature, and not just with fish.

I understand the issue with industrialized/commercial kills, but is hunting also off the table in your train of thought? I mean this as a genuine question, not an attack, I know tone of voice is often lost through text.

Is hunting/fishing off the table for us as the species with higher intellect? We do not have as robust immune systems as the scavengers of nature do, so waiting for things to be in a position near death is worrisome to me. Whereas hunting/fishing (again, not the industrialized practice, but individual) is how conservation of species was born by developing species limits and it's how some species levels continue to be kept in check (for instance, invasive lion fish in the US South East)