I would be much more interested in reading that novel you wrote if you didn't begin it with an argument worthy of a grade-schooler:
Its the logical next step (if it was legal, though hey people commit crimes in the name of nature).Please miss melodrama, show me some of these radical and scary posts that have got you scared enough to claim the authors are lusting for murder.
The anti-native crowd fixes the problem of a gushing open wound with a bandaid, they say killing native *pets* prevents something
The REAL solution
The gushing open wound is humanity who caused all the problems
Its the logical step, especially if it was ever legal or couldn't be enforced for whatever reason. Its not that farfetched, since killing native *pets* to save the environment (in their mind) is a bandaid to the problem in the environment, when its humanity who originally caused it. If one cares so much about it, then that is what they would resort too, even if they can't legally admit it online. Or they really don't care about it (or again, they care very little to go that far), which is what I hope most do but that means they just took up some kinda *mental* trophy prize and latched onto their "win" of killing native stuff, but don't actually believe it but since they "won" the argument they keep at it, but again maybe don't care enough about the environment to go that far as to go on a zealous rampage in the name of the environment.
Either way, again not farfetched. on that side. Either care about the environment and solve the root of the issue (humanity) or care little and don't. AND the biggest problem isn't so much what humanity DOES, its how overpopulated humans are on a planet that can't sustain them. So killing native ants and other native pets is a bandaid that shows little care, and they don't care about dealing with the root of the issue (and why there are so many invasive things) which is...an overpopulated humanity. I guess killing native pets is just a super easy to reach for victory for them, but doesn't show much care in truth. If they truly cared, again the root of the issue is humanity. Though earth itself or humanity will probably solve the issue themselves. Overpopulated (and humanity is pretty destructive and loves to destroy the planet on top of overpopulation, which I believe is actually unique) species in the past have not done so good.
However, there is a proper definition of native as Serafine said at the end of his post.
It is NOT native if its not from the same ecosystem. Sometimes across the main road that ant is a different species despite looking the same. The best example is Dorymyrmex bicolor, in one city they are Dorymyrmex bicolor, the next they are actually a different species but still Dorymyrmex bicolor. Which Dorymyrmex bicolor actually is lots of species that look the same, but are actually different species. That entire species needs to be re-worked eventually. That is NOT native. And who knows how many ants are like that. For me, its as Serafine said, its native if it came from the SAME ecosystem as where they are released. Some people just like killing native ants though, the weirdo ones that release invasive ants or maybe don't but want to help invasives in anyway possible, and the small act of removing a colony (so many dig up colonies sadly) then helps invasive ants and/or disrupts the ecosystem in some way. Though I suppose if someone just caught a queen in a mating flight and raised the colony in that way, then it doesn't really belong in the ecosystem. Sadly a lot of people don't start colonies that way and just dig them up, which is more where my argument lies. Since a random caught queen might not have had the genes to survive, but in captivity did. Where as digging up a (native) colony and killing it is really wrong to anyone sane.
Its also maybe more an issue with areas with lots of native ants. Where I used to live in irvine and again here, its really just invasive ants. Argentine ants there, Solenopsis invicta here. So it doesn't actually really do anything at all but help against invasives.
"It is the logical next step"
This is called the slippery slope argument, it is a common logical fallacy and not worthy of a rebuttal. Being as your statement began with this fallacy the rest of your argument is called into question and also not worth a rebuttal, or even a reading, frankly. Ironic that you used the word logic in an argument that contains none.
Ok, whatever you say. Next time you want to argue, at least argue instead of insult. As soon as one insults they lost the argument. Its what a certain person does all the time on Twitter. When a person in an argument insults, that means they actually lost because they had no ground to stand on in their argument, so instead of preventing their side of the argument they just insult. Its typical grade schooler stuff.
Edited by Vendayn, July 13 2020 - 8:58 AM.