The "CWD is a HOAX" movement is building

[Boondocks]

Plus, trying to keep hunters from dying of a CWD-type disease and trying to save the clean herds we have left hardly seems anti-hunting -- they are very pro-hunting in my book.

The existence of CWD fears discourages the sport of hunting. A new hunter drops his first deer and he is thinking "ugh, what if it has CWD" regardless of whether it's real or not. The moral and traditional foundation of our sport is meat hunting, not antlers. Anything real or invented that casts doubt on the quality of that venison is very detrimental on the sport of hunting.....and that which is detrimental to hunting is detrimental to the support of the second amendment.

 

[Boondocks]

You are the one who raised glaciers in the first place. Just like you said no hunters are involved in CDW discussions/decisions. But in both cases when shown evidence to the contrary you re-wrote your supposed concern. Anyone who bases their understanding of complex scientific systems on anecdotal personal observations is just not to be taken seriously.

Then put more words in my mouth and don't take me seriously.

 

[Hunting Wife]

The existence of CWD fears discourages the sport of hunting. A new hunter drops his first deer and he is thinking "ugh, what if it has CWD" regardless of whether it's real or not. The moral and traditional foundation of our sport is meat hunting, not antlers. Anything real or invented that casts doubt on the quality of that venison is very detrimental on the sport of hunting.....and that which is detrimental to hunting is detrimental to the support of the second amendment.

CWD is real. It kills cervids. It is spreading across the nation. It is unknown whether it may be a threat to human health. All verifiable. So you take issue with agencies being honest about those things with the hunting public? What exactly is your proposed alternative?

 

[VikingsGuy]

The fact that sea levels have remained unchanged is empirical. One does not need to have "proof" to distrust those who lie to him and have ulterior motives.

The empirical fact is that sea levels have risen about 4 inches in the last 20 years. Lots of scientific cites are available if you actually cared about empirical evidence, but you don't care because any counter-evidence to your self-identified truths are apparently ignored. As a science denier, I think it better we realize that you are to be "distrusted" for your "ulterior motives".

And for the record, I do think a fair amount of climate science has been weaker than some have been willing to admit and their forward predictive models are still pretty iffy - but that is always how science works. It's not like on a Tuesday science discovered atoms, Wednesday Einstein came up with e=mc2 and Thursday we had nukes. It took hundreds of years - and funny enough for 40-50 years it was believed atoms could not be destroyed or created. Science evolves - it is not in the job of supporting anyone's particular personal politics.

 

[Boondocks]

The empirical fact is that sea levels have risen about 4 inches in the last 20 years.

It's easy to lie about 4 or 8 inches, but "Scientists" told us levels would rise many feet and the time period has long passed and there is no empirical evidence of it.
I believe in science and trust it, but I do not trust humans with agendas. Scientists who have a point of view which does not support official narratives do not have a voice because the media determines which point of view is official.

 

[brocksw]

All right I think we've hammered the climate stuff enough on this thread. Let's keep this on CWD.

Boon, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The existence of CWD fears discourages the sport of hunting. A new hunter drops his first deer and he is thinking "ugh, what if it has CWD" regardless of whether it's real or not. The moral and traditional foundation of our sport is meat hunting, not antlers. Anything real or invented that casts doubt on the quality of that venison is very detrimental on the sport of hunting.....and that which is detrimental to hunting is detrimental to the support of the second amendment.

Wow - so even if there was concrete proof of CWD killing hunter's families it could not be spoken of because it would cast doubt . . . . and eventually overturn the 2ndA?

So it really doesn't matter to you if the science is good or bad, if the agencies are doing good work or politically biased work, if CDW is a threat or not, if CDW management approaches work or not ----- you just want the topic forbidden so it does not somehow convolutedly cast shade on our right to bear arms. Wow - just Wow.

(BTW, the arguments around the 2A are about personal defense or not, militia vs national guard, strict or ordinary scrutiny, etc. there is no meaningful jurisprudence about 2A being based on hunting)

 

[VikingsGuy]

It's easy to lie about 4 or 8 inches, but "Scientists" told us levels would rise many feet and the time period has long passed and there is no empirical evidence of it.
I believe in science and trust it, but I do not trust humans with agendas. Scientists who have a point of view which does not support official narratives do not have a voice because the media determines which point of view is official.

So, tens of thousands of corroborated satellite datapoint over decades by dozens of agencies and countries are lies, but your personally held beliefs are beyond reproach - got it.

 

[Irrelevant]

The fact that sea levels have remained unchanged is empirical. One does not need to have "proof" to distrust those who lie to him and have ulterior motives.

1. there's the problem of scale. The oceans are truly so big it is difficult to fathom. The existing glacial retreats are either small alpine glaciers, like the Mendenhall, or ice sheets, which like ice cubes in your drink, then they melt don't change the level. Greenland and Antarctica will though.
2. It is changing...

 

[Irrelevant]

All right I think we've hammered the climate stuff enough on this thread. Let's keep this on CWD.

Boon, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

Sorry... I'll bow out again.

 

[VikingsGuy]

All right I think we've hammered the climate stuff enough on this thread. Let's keep this on CWD.

Boon, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

Sorry, my #128 "crossed in the mail".

 

[Boondocks]

Wow - so even if there was concrete proof of CWD killing hunter's families it could not be spoken of because it would cast doubt . . . . and eventually overturn the 2ndA?

So it really doesn't matter to you if the science is good or bad, if the agencies are doing good work or politically biased work, if CDW is a threat or not, if CDW management approaches work or not ----- you just want the topic forbidden so it does not somehow convolutedly cast shade on our right to bear arms. Wow - just Wow.

(BTW, the arguments around the 2A are about personal defense or not, militia vs national guard, strict or ordinary scrutiny, etc. there is no meaningful jurisprudence about 2A being based on hunting)

Your idea of concrete proof is sources and ex-spurts, mine is empirical.
Yes, the 2A and hunting are certainly deeply intertwined. Probably as much as half of 2A supporters are hunters. If people lost interest in hunting it would be a huge victory for the gun control commies.

 

[Boondocks]

So, tens of thousands of corroborated satellite datapoint over decades by dozens of agencies and countries are lies, but your personally held beliefs are beyond reproach - got it.

It is not the science or the data, it is the agenda of those who collect it and the selective manner in which mass media prevents the views of dissenting scientists from being disseminated.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The fact that sea levels have remained unchanged is empirical. One does not need to have "proof" to distrust those who lie to him and have ulterior motives.

You took State of Fear waaaay to seriously bruh

​

 

[brocksw]

Because everyone who has social position knows that going against the will of the media is political suicide.

Understood. So you propose that even fish and game agency employees and leadership among those agencies, who at an individual level we know and trust, are hiding the truth and going along with decades of science out of fear of social backlash?

 

[Boondocks]

Understood. So you propose that even fish and game agency employees and leadership among those agencies, who at an individual level we know and trust, are hiding the truth and going along with decades of science out of fear of social backlash?

Employees who go against the official narrative are easy to silence. They can be transferred where their beliefs will not be applicable. Many government jobs are occupied by people who are overpaid and they will adjust their opinions to conform with any standard which secures their employment.
“It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair
It really only takes one appointee at the top to enforce the official narrative.

 

[brocksw]

Employees who go against the official narrative are easy to silence. They can be transferred where their beliefs will not be applicable. Many government jobs are occupied by people who are overpaid and they will adjust their opinions to conform with any standard which secures their employment.
“It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair
It really only takes one appointee at the top to enforce the official narrative.

I see. Interesting assessment.

What evidence, regarding CWD, would change your mind?

 

[Boondocks]

I see. Interesting assessment.

What evidence, regarding CWD, would change your mind?

To see it myself.

 

[brocksw]

To see it myself.

So you would need to see a deer die of CWD in front of you.

Presumably, anything less is government conspiracy?

 

[VikingsGuy]

To see it myself.

How about we get you some CWD-positive venison and you feed it to your grandkids for a few years? At least that would demonstrate conviction.