The points you mention as possible responses are correct of course. But I feel it would make me sound like I’m trying to avoid answering an actual question. Assuming the argument was chiefly a moral one, the question could be, “are indigenous hunting practices morally wrong?”. How would you answer this, without deflecting?

I don’t necessarily see how it would hurt my position to say that killing animals is wrong, no matter who does it. If the pro-murder side accuses me of being a colonialist/settler whatever, it’s easy to point out, that colonialist interference to stop indigenous hunting practices by force is also morally wrong, and the two positions are not mutually exclusive. As of yet, no vegan militia has encircled a native village anywhere in the world.

I can’t speak much about US politics, but if we move to an argument about policy, I could simply agree that lobbying efforts should be focused on the curtailing or abolishment of commercial murder.

What’s the device gonna be? Will it work?

That role annoys me so much every time lol

I’m the incompetent grifter who’s got some business behind the boss’s back. It always goes wrong, but it fools the protags into thinking I’m the main guy for a bit.

What are you talking about :agony:

True soy-brain hours :vegan-tofu: