228
submitted 2 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] wanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I have given an alternative. It is just not perfectly detailed enough for some random person on the internet that has no say in anything related to the subject.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

You have not given a viable alternative. Your alternative is "negotiate with Greenland." That is not viable and I explained why. It risks their entire polar bear population. It would have the potential to kill far more than just one polar bear and much more slowly and painfully.

But I guess that's your preferred solution to shooting a single bear in Iceland, the first since 2016.

[-] wanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Who do you think is qualified to make such a plan?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

The Icelandic government, what with it being in their purview. And they decided the best course of action was to kill the bear.

You saying "maybe they shouldn't have killed it" is not a solution to the issue.

Don't forget to downvote this post. It's vital that you downvote all of my posts for some reason.

[-] wanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

For the easy solution, all you have to do is ask the people with the gun. Congratulations the easy solution won.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Yet again, you have not provided a viable alternative.

All you've said is that maybe they shouldn't shoot the polar bear. That's it.

You don't have an alternative. You don't like what the people who are in any position to do anything about it came up with.

You have nothing but repeating that they shouldn't have shot the bear and your silly attempt to give me negative internet points.

[-] wanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I asked you who was qualified to come up with a plan and you did not say me, so I didn't come up with one. Are you changing your answer now?

I am an advocate for a solution other than killing.

your silly attempt to give me negative internet points.

I downvote trolls. It probably does nothing, but I try.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I asked you who was qualified to come up with a plan and you did not say me,

Why are you telling such a silly lie?

Weird how you're calling me the troll when you told such an obviously refuted lie.

I am an advocate for a solution other than killing.

Okay, let's have them reverse time and unshoot the bear. How would they do that? It's not my job to come up with such things!

And if I'm a troll, why are you indulging me? Do you enjoy being trolled? Shouldn't you stop engaging?

[-] wanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Your reading comprehension failed you there. "You did not say me" as in you did not say that I was qualified.

Okay, let’s have them reverse time and unshoot the bear.

Do you really think that I am advocating for changing past actions? Are you so ignorant for what advocation is for.

And if I’m a troll, why are you indulging me? Do you enjoy being trolled? Shouldn’t you stop engaging?

Meh. Better me than anybody else.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Do you really think that I am advocating for changing past actions? Are you so ignorant for what advocation is for.

I already said what I think and it's ironic that you told me that I failed reading comprehension in the same post. Here's a refresher:

I came up with an alternative: unshoot the bear.

[-] wanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Do you really think that it is as impossible to reintegrate a lost bear into a population as time travel is? It's just an absurd comparison.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I think, again, that if you introduce a deadly pathogen to a bear population from a foreign bear, you kill a lot more bears in much more painful ways than shooting them. The article discusses the pathogen issue.

But if you like, I accept your concept for "don't shoot one bear when you can potentially kill many bears much more painfully" even if I don't agree with it.

Also, if I'm a troll, you should be flagging me for the moderators. I doubt you will because a brief glance at my comment history would show that I was not a troll.

[-] wanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Releasing captured diseased animals has been done before. You are welcome to ask those that have done that what considerations were made for preventing the spread of disease, but as I have said repeatedly, I am not an expert in the relevant field, so I won't speculate.

Also, if I’m a troll, you should be flagging me for the moderators.

They removed my sarcastic comment calling it a troll. I have no expectation that they would recognize sea-lioning.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Releasing captured diseased animals has been done before.

Evidence please.

They removed my sarcastic comment calling it a troll. I have no expectation that they would recognize sea-lioning.

In other words: "I don't care if you say you aren't a troll, I don't care if the mods say you aren't a troll, I don't care if your post history shows you clearly aren't a troll. You disagree with me, therefore, you are a troll."

[-] wanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Wildlife veterinarians job is to treat captured animals and release them back into the wild. If you want any specifics you would have one of them

In Churchill, Canada they have a polar bear jail, where they place captured polar bears that wander into town. I would guess that some veterinary care is provided since they stay there for up to 30 days, but you'd have to ask them for any specifics if you want it.

https://www.backpacker.com/stories/nature/churchill-polar-bears-be/

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This was your claim:

Releasing captured diseased animals has been done before.

Evidence please that animals with diseases have been released in the wild.

Also, why would Iceland build a polar bear jail when there hasn't been another polar bear since 2016?

[-] wanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I thought you would prefer something more polar bear oriented, but OK. And to be clear since I think your reading comprehension might be failing you again, they treat the diseases before releasing the animals.

Here is an organization that does that.
https://www.wildlife-rescue.org/

And a youtube channel that does it as well.
https://www.youtube.com/@WacoWildlifeRescue

Now, I haven't vetted them to see if they are perfect at their jobs, but it is certainly an example of what I suggested.

Also, why would Iceland build a polar bear jail when there hasn’t been another polar bear since 2016?

So they don't have to shoot the bears obviously.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago
  1. You said nothing about treating diseases.
  2. Who is going to pay for that? The government? Why would voters agree to spend money on something needed about once a decade?
[-] wanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I did.

Wildlife veterinarians job is to treat captured animals and release them back into the wild. If you want any specifics you would have one of them.

My initial comment did not explicitly say they would be treated because I thought that would be obvious. I guess I gave you too much credit. But you still should have figured it out when I mention veterinarians.

Who is going to pay for that? The government? Why would voters agree to spend money on something needed about once a decade?

Again that's not something I am qualified to to work out. You would have to ask someone else for that.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Cool. Similarly, I'm not qualified to work out the unshoot the bear solution. Someone else can work that out. Seems like a better solution than a bear jail.

this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
228 points (97.1% liked)

News

36610 readers
581 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS