That's a particularly pretentious response to a reply that was subjectively factually correct.

Though expect it's difficult to hear what's actually being said with your head tilted so far back.

edit : I'm not the person to which you were responding, in case that wasn't clear

They aren't in current circulation, not the same thing.

Not arguing that they are useful, just that sitting in a warehouse and physical destruction aren't equivalent in terms of potential use.

I'd, personally, take the reddit and AI parts individually.

Sloperator and reddit chud, rather than attributing the AI evangelism to reddit specifically.

But again, im guessing, I could be entirely wrong.

Thats, very distinctly, not a denial of troll-like behaviour.

i think the miscommunication was mutual, but started with me, apologies.

An important distinction.

No, they don't.

You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.

edit: asking for an explanation of their thoughts around the issue is fine, but a requirement it is not.

Sure, you can hunt without guns. I don’t really see an argument for not using them though, as long as there’s no lead.

In the isolated context of lead poisoning alone, sure, banning lead is an answer.

In the greater context of gun ownership in general, it's more tricky.

But i wasn't advocating either , simply pointing out that banning guns and allowing hunting aren't mutually exclusive.

What’s really the ethical or environment argument in favor of only allowing bows, or whatever?

There are some , but i wasn't pushing for any so i'm not sure they are relevant here.

I see the emotional appeal, if people have a negative view of guns. Not a logical appeal though, besides maybe making them harder to access to prevent deaths by firearms.

Either you haven't thought this all way through or you are intentionally ignoring the whole host of other emotional and logical arguments around gun control.

If you can ban hunting with firearms, you can also just ban using lead ammo, so I don’t see how banning them is the best option in general.

As was said previously, in this isolated context you are probably right, in any kind of wider context, not so much.

I didn’t make any proposals in my above comment. It’s entirely statements of observations. I don’t know what you mean by saying you don’t see how they would work or not. I gave explanations of why hunting isn’t negative, and is often positive, but not any proposals of how anything should be done. Would you care to elaborate?

That's possibly my bad, i meant more that you were making statements without any (written) consideration to the wider context in which they were made.

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

Examples:

I will preface this by saying that my perspective on "nature" is that we are part of it, even will all the fucked up self destructive stuff we have going on , so it's not like we can really do anything "unnatural", i use the term natural below to mean nature if we didn't have such an outsized effect on natural processes.

From an environmental perspective, hunting keeps pray populations in naturally healthy levels, since most of their predators are driven out of populated areas, because people don’t like to be attacked by wild animals.

That's only true in an ecosystem where the predator (us) and the prey are in natural equilibrium, which I’m sure you'll agree is absolutely not the case.

Without that natural equilibrium you need formal and enforced regulation to make this work.

This magical "naturally healthy" state of existence glosses over a lot of problems with that statement.

It also doesn’t consume many resources, as they’re just living their lives in nature.

Also requires a natural equilibrium or regulation as a baseline.

I don’t think there’s any valid argument against hunting honestly, besides just being grossed out by it. I can’t construct a good argument against it though, and I suspect you can’t either.

Overhunting and ecosystem collapse, trophy hunting, selective hunting (think ivory), disease control, hunting for "sport" (think fox "hunting").

Those were just off the top of my head.

and remember animals dying and being eaten is natural, and frequently necessary to maintain an equilibrium that was evolved to be maintained by external factors

an equilibrium, not the only equilibrium, it also mentions evolution of equilibriums but is presented from a perspective that the equilibrium presented is now fixed (it is not).

we are also animals, so us dying and being eaten also fall under this, so by that rationale another effective solution could be to reintroduce more (non-human) predators and a few of us die here and there, but the animal populations now stay under control.

Deer, for example, will die horrible deaths of starvation, and do damage to the environment, if they aren’t hunted by humans.

Until a new equilibrium is reached, because that's how ecosystems work (or collapse, depending).

"Damage" is relative and a natural part of the evolution(or collapse) of ecosystems.

"anonymous" downvotes aren't a good replacement for an actual response, but you do you.

The server CPU's are called epyc and they are powerful, but not in the same way.

Server CPU's are geared to different types of workloads but if you built a desktop workstation with decent one it would be still be a beast.

I wasn't arguing that the server CPU's aren't powerful, i was saying that the latest ryzen desktop cpu was something I'd personally consider to also be powerful.

The threadrippers are also up there in terms of power, but the OP was specifically talking about ryzen.

[Attenborough voice]

"And here we see a wild false equivalency in it's natural habitat. Camouflaged and perfectly suited to it's environment, it goes unnoticed by many"

"Some humans have started recording the mating calls of this and other closely related cousins in the misinformationum ridiculosus family in hope of harnessing the power of the sounds for themselves, results have been varied"

OK, so let's assume that's a good faith literal interpretation.

Let's try it this way.

Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren't generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.

I could however be wrong in this generalisation given I only have my experience to go on, if your experience leads you to believe people who threaten kids over videogames are not running with a logic deficit then your statement makes sense I suppose.