I've not moved the goal posts.
This thread relates to 'working with children' and policies regarding background checks of those who do.
One toot read, in part, "Statistically women are the outlier offenders, around 5% or less for known sexual abuse."
You replied, "Statistically, women are more likely to just straight up kill kids so there goes your harm mitigation theory."
I asked for more information regarding your "statistics" and you provided a report related to 'filicide' in the context of 'domestic violence'. This is outside the scope of any "working with children" checks.
You wrote, "The original claims were not restricted to childcare..."
I haven't moved the goal posts at all.
This isn't a game. I am genuinely interested if you know of any statistical evidence that women, in a capacity for which they require a "working with children" background check, "are more likely to just straight up kill kids".
@spiffmeister
Kangaroo populations will naturally go through "boom and bust" cycles as the amount of available feed and water varies tremendously. (Aussies often forget that this is the world's driest continent.)
Mass deaths within local kangaroo populations will always occur due to drought. That's nature, and it's a bad way to die
Having 'extra' dingos manage the 'roo population' would mean they'd suffer a similar fate, just delayed by a few months, if that.
When the 'roo population fell to low numbers, the dingos would turn on whatever is available... including, as you say, livestock.
It's a complex problem, and there are no easy answers.
However, which is worse? Letting 'roos die horrible mass deaths from inevitable droughts, or controlling their numbers via managed culls, and then tapping into that resource? Most, but not all, kangaroos that are culled will die an instant death.
In fact, for those of us who eat meat, we should avoid beef, lamb, and pork. Kangaroo is FAR more sustainable from an environmental perspective...
... even if Skippy is on our National Coat of Arms.
@Davriellelouna