TL;DR;

My only point has consistently been that your statements lacked important supporting context and are written like they are the only correct option, that weakens them.

Questioning your weak statements seems to have upset you and rather than actually responding to my only actual point you've constructed multiple other positions i've not taken.

When asked for examples you moved to "you are discussing in bad faith" (still no examples , i might add).

A discussion is impossible with someone unwilling to engage (or unable to understand) the actual position of the other party.

The rest is just a long winded version of this, feel free to skip it.

Literally nothing is required. What’s your point? Are you just trying to argue about nothing? ....

My whole point, which i have stated multiple times, is that your statements are weak.

things like "and it does need to be done." implies that it is the only answer, when it isn't.

There is a problem with lead bullets. There’s also a problem with a lack of natural predation. We should try to solve these problems. We don’t have to solve any problem, but what’s the point in starting arguments with people online saying we don’t need to solve anything?

Again, point to where anyone said we don't need to solve anything ?

If your answer to someone questioning the validity of your statements is to say "fuck it, obviously you just mean we shouldn't solve anything" then i expect there's nothing further to gain from a conversation.

I had to go back to see what was said. I didn’t say anything was special about it being natural, like what you implied by saying it was magical. I said it’s kept naturally healthy by predators, as in nature had a mechanism to keep it healthy. This isn’t an appeal to nature, as you implied. It’s a statement of fact. It isn’t saying natural is better. It’s saying there is a natural thing. Doing it without nature accomplishes the same goal. So you did “quote me” in that you used two words I also used, you didn’t include anything else surrounding it, and made it say something it didn’t.

I literally quoted the surrounding sentence in that reply, not just the two words, if you didn't read it , that's on you.

As i've said, multiple times, there are mechanisms in place for balance and/or collapse, healthy is subjective.

As I said. We could wait for evolution to take its course. I don’t think waiting centuries with booming and crashing populations of animals is a particularly smart idea. Maybe you do, but you haven’t said anything other than “we don’t have to do anything.” Again, no shit! Stop writing these long comments saying literally nothing.

In your reply to me, yes, in the original response, not so much, which again i will remind you is the actual issue i've been mentioning this whole time.

My original reply was basically , "i don't agree or disagree with your points but perhaps add context so your arguments aren't so brittle" everything after that is responding to your questions. Its seems my responses aren't to your liking but i'm not sure there's anything i can do about that.

I'll add a TL;DR; for you so you can skim.

No, we don’t. We don’t need to discuss magical fairies taking care of the problem. We don’t need to discuss finding a magic lamp to solve the problem. Some things can safely be ignored because they’re so unlikely to happen.

I never said discussion was needed, i said that ruling out options is a part of how decisions and policies are made, if you think magical fairies being ruled out requires discussion, that's on you.

In the actual context on this thread of discussion i think that artificially increased predation could be (and historically has been) a viable solution to overpopulation.

Ceding areas to wildlife has also been used.

I said specifically that a shitstorm would probably be the result of dropping our current measures without a replacement that doesn't mean other options can't be discussed.

And that whole reply was again to point out the statement you made was an implied objective fact.

You aren’t making any argument besides that we should do everything but discuss how to solve these issues.

I mean...no , i'll quote my repeated statements of my only arguments :

I don’t know if it’s on purpose but your answer seems to be ignoring a lot of the realities of how the things you are proposing would work (or not work, as the case may be).

I don’t necessarily disagree(or agree) with you, but i absolutely think your arguments need work.

My only argument has been that your statements were omitting what i would consider important context.

and then in this response

"i don't agree or disagree with your points but perhaps add context so your arguments aren't so brittle"

If you want to attribute some other argument to me (that isn't a direct response to your questions) I’d appreciate if you could point out where it was made.

This is my last reply unless you actually want to have a discussion. If you do, discuss in good faith. We do not have to rule out things that can’t reasonably happen.

All of my responses were in good faith, if you don't understand that dismissing something because it is unlikely is literally ruling out an option i can't help you with that.

We should assume that suffering is at least somewhat negative.

I don't know what you mean by this but I’m fairly sure i haven't argued to the contrary.

We should assume that environmental experts saying prey populations need to be culled are correct.

Again, i haven’t argued against this, only that it's not the only option, as was implied by your statements.

If you don’t agree to these, there isn’t a discussion to be had.

I agree, "If you don’t agree to these things I’ve unilaterally stated to be true with no contextual support or citations then your responses are in bad faith" isn't a discussion, it's a personal echo chamber.