# PETA and HSUS



## Stirmi (Oct 22, 2013)

Hey guys i thought i would put this here for people to see that peta and the hsus are horrible hypocritical organizations and I urge you not to support them at all. Both of which want to shut down the pet trade completely. in 2011 peta euthanized 95% of there animals including ones that had a good chance at being adopted. The HSUS will only .5% of all donations to pet shelters. I urge all of you to let everyone know of these deceitful organizations no matter your view on keeping exotics as pets these are awful organizations who must be stopped. there are many more reasons as to why they are awful organizations but i do not have time to write all of them.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
http://www.humanewatch.org/

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## lancej (Oct 23, 2013)

Both of these organizations make me sick.  They want to ban all pet ownership, close down all zoos, and ban all hunting (and hunters have contributed more to environmental restoration and protection then any other group).  The HSUS confuses a lot of people into thinking that they are donating to the American Humane Society - this happened to my parents until I educated them with the truth.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 23, 2013)

lancej said:


> Both of these organizations make me sick.  They want to ban all pet ownership, close down all zoos, and ban all hunting (and hunters have contributed more to environmental restoration and protection then any other group).  The HSUS confuses a lot of people into thinking that they are donating to the American Humane Society - this happened to my parents until I educated them with the truth.


In a poll conducted by Humanewatch.org, 85% of people polled believed that the Humane Society of the United States acts as an "umbrella" group for all local humane societies and animal shelters, and that donations to the HSUS goes mostly to care for animals in shelters, when in reality less than 1% of their in-take goes towards any hands-on animal care.  They produce tv commercials that are intentionally misleading, featuring sad-eyed puppies and kitties in shelters, making gullible animal lovers think that their donations are going towards "saving" and caring for those unfortunate animals.  HSUS lies and misleads people into believing that they are about caring for animals and preventing animal cruelty, when in fact they are an Animal Rights group committed to ending all animal ownership and use by humans.  As whacko as PETA is, at least they are fairly up front in stating that their goals are to end all animal use and ownership, including pets.  They don't talk out of both sides of their mouths about what they want to achieve, although they DO lie and mislead people into thinking that they want to save animals from being killed.  PETA believes that the only way to really prevent animal abuse, short of our species' extinction, is to kill any animal that might come into contact with humans!  They believe that killing animals is the greatest kindness that they can give to the animals, the only way to ensure that the animals will not suffer, and refer to death as a "gift"!  PETA just does not believe that anyone ELSE should be allowed to kill animals, that only THEY have that right, because only THEY kill for the "right" reason, as if it matters to an animal whether its life is taken so something else can eat it, or to satisfy some human's twisted notion of "mercy" and "compassion", born of a dangerous mental illness reminiscent of the terrifying nurse in Steven King's "Misery".
What makes HSUS so dangerous, though, is that they have infiltrated the government in this country, right up to the Federal level.  One of their chief attorneys is also an attorney for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection, and the head of the USDA and his wife both are board members of HSUS, so HSUS is dictating the policies of the nation's top agricultural office.

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## The Snark (Oct 24, 2013)

I would point out that PETA, HSUS, the Humane Soc. and all their ilk are SYMPTOMS of a problem, not a problem in themselves. Sure there are scams and schemes galore anywhere the real problem is to be found. The real problem? Need I say it? A society of semi literate morons letting other people solve the mess they create, be it through apathy or stupidity. They need babysitters and the babysitters can be phenomenally corrupt or unscrupulous. 

Are you thinking for yourselves or getting your information from the evening news alone? What is so complex about Socratic Methodology that people tend to avoid it like a plague?

PS, You want a real criteria for operating a charitable operation? Check out the Gates Foundation. If people did their homework like the criteria Bill Gates has laid down  for his operation the HSUS and similar operations would wither and die in a few weeks.

Homo erectus is alive and well, clutching a beer and staring vapidly at  Fox every evening.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## viper69 (Oct 24, 2013)

lancej said:


> ....(and hunters have contributed more to environmental restoration and protection then any other group)


There's certainly some truth about hunters as you mentioned above, however, hunters are hardly the "golden child" of conservation. Nothing says "I'm a real p*ssy" more, than hunting an animal for sport, just because you can, particularly those that are threatened, endangered, and near extinction. Especially when I see "hunters" or should I say murderers using high powered rifles, dogs, helicopters etc etc to THEIR advantage. Those are hardly traits of environmental protection/restoration.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## The Snark (Oct 24, 2013)

viper69 said:


> There's certainly some truth about hunters as you mentioned above, however, hunters are hardly the "golden child" of conservation. Nothing says "I'm a real p*ssy" more, than hunting an animal for sport, just because you can, particularly those that are threatened, endangered, and near extinction. Especially when I see "hunters" or should I say murderers using high powered rifles, dogs, helicopters etc etc to THEIR advantage. Those are hardly traits of environmental protection/restoration.


Hunters: phallic fetishists.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Decaryi (Oct 24, 2013)

I think a distinction should be made between hunting for food and trophy hunting. I love me a good phallis but fetishist I think not. and hunting for anything other then sustenance is wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 24, 2013)

viper69 said:


> There's certainly some truth about hunters as you mentioned above, however, hunters are hardly the "golden child" of conservation. Nothing says "I'm a real p*ssy" more, than hunting an animal for sport, just because you can, particularly those that are threatened, endangered, and near extinction. Especially when I see "hunters" or should I say murderers using high powered rifles, dogs, helicopters etc etc to THEIR advantage. Those are hardly traits of environmental protection/restoration.


Do you work for HSUS?  This is exactly the sort of thing that they say: "hunting is murder", etc.  NO legit HUNTER goes after any animal that is "threatened, endangered or near extinction".  That's not hunting; that's called POACHING, and it's ILLEGAL!  Comparing hunters, who pay have to pay a license fee to hunt, often have to pay landowners for use of their property, and obey strict laws on game limits, etc.  Comparing them to people who do take illegal animals, often to traffic in their body parts, is like comparing your pharmacist with the drug gangs who sell crack on the street corner.  How a given species can or cannot be hunted, IF it can be hunted, period, is determined by studies undertaken by both state FWL agencies and private agencies, to ensure that populations can sustain hunting, what kind of hunting, how much, and by what means.  If a species is determined to have low population or be facing other threats that might negatively influence its population in the near future, hunting of that species is stopped until populations can reach a safe and sustainable level.  You cannot give me any example of a species that is still classified as either threatened, endangered or near extinction  which is allowed to be hunted other than in rare instances where an individual animal has become a threat to humans in the US, not one.  Gray wolves, the poster child of the anti-hunting movement, have rebounded tremendously in many parts of their former range, which is a good thing, BUT it also is leading to some serious issues with agricultural interests, pet owners and others.  Their population is able to sustain hunting; it's either that or allow farmers and ranchers to go back to trapping, poisoning and shooting them at will.  People have to make a living, and people have to be fed.  
Now, the whole thing with high-powered rifles, dogs, yada yada, is another tactic of the AR's.  A high-powered rifle is useless if you cannot find the animal, and no amount of human technology is going to compensate for millions of years of evolution to produce senses that outdo ours on every level.  It is not uncommon for deer hunters where I live, in SC, to go through an entire season without getting a single deer, yet there are plenty of deer-just drive anywhere during the dusk or dawn hours and you'll see exactly what I mean!  A rifle cannot find deer or guarantee a shot anymore than a handgun will go out looking for a human victim and kill him on its own.  What a high-powered rifle DOES do, though, is to increase the odds of a quick kill, reducing the chances of an animal simply being injured, running off and dying a slow, painful death.  As for dog hunting, most game species in many states cannot be legally hunted with dogs, and those which can, like deer and black bear here in my state, can only be hunted during certain days of the legal season.  Dog hunting is no guarantee of a kill, either.  Many hunts end in the prey species giving its pursuers the slip and getting away, and many houndsmen do not even pursue animals with the intent of killing it, but just love to get out and hear the dogs.  I know many coon and fox hunters here who do that.  Being pursued by dogs, the descendents of the wolf, which USED to be the major predator of many animals here, serves the same purpose: to keep the species healthy by leaving the most intelligent and most fit to reproduce.  I used to be an avid hunter of wild/feral hogs, using dogs, because that is still the most effective method of controlling that invasive and extremely destructive, dangerous species, and only stopped because of my own health and physical issues.  
Now, the "murder" issue.  That is one of the main mantras of the AR movement: "hunting is murder", "meat is murder", etc.  You CANNOT murder an animal!  "Murder", by definition, is the deliberate killing of another HUMAN.  Do you agree with PETA that it's murder to kill a cow for human consumption?  A chicken?  A lobster?  IF so, why is it NOT murder for groups like that to kill healthy, friendly puppies and kittens that fall into their "care"?  Was it "murder" when HSUS came in and took all of Wildside Kennels American Pit Bull Terriers and killed them all, including nursing puppies, just because of their breed?  You do not have to support groups like PETA and HSUS financially to still support and empower them; you just have to agree with them in principal, and if you agree with them on some issues, you empower them to enact their entire agendas, which include laws to prevent all of us from being able to own animals of any kind, period.

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 12


----------



## Thistles (Oct 24, 2013)

pitbulllady said:


> Now, the "murder" issue.  That is one of the main mantras of the AR movement: "hunting is murder", "meat is murder", etc.  You CANNOT murder an animal!  "Murder", by definition, is the deliberate killing of another HUMAN.  Do you agree with PETA that it's murder to kill a cow for human consumption?  A chicken?  A lobster?  IF so, why is it NOT murder for groups like that to kill healthy, friendly puppies and kittens that fall into their "care"?  Was it "murder" when HSUS came in and took all of Wildside Kennels American Pit Bull Terriers and killed them all, including nursing puppies, just because of their breed?  You do not have to support groups like PETA and HSUS financially to still support and empower them; you just have to agree with them in principal, and if you agree with them on some issues, you empower them to enact their entire agendas, which include laws to prevent all of us from being able to own animals of any kind, period.


 Yes, I agree with Hitler that onions are nasty. I thereby empower everything he does. Get real. What empowers idiots is other idiots who are unable to distinguish between completely separate issues. Am I able to believe that circuses shouldn't be allowed to have animal performers without thinking that all pet ownership should be banned? The two are distinct issues and shouldn't be conflated, just like eating meat and breeding dogs are separate issues. You're perpetuating exactly what The Snark describes, but from the opposite extreme. Don't paint things with a broad brush when there are many shades of grey.

Regarding hunters vs poachers, there are plenty of examples of legal hunts that are ecologically irresponsible. Take off your rose-colored, pro-hunter-regardless glasses and look at what's actually happening. Wolf population numbers have indeed increased from the brink of extinction but they are still gone throughout the majority of their historic range and nowhere near either their historic numbers or a sustainable population. They have been completely extirpated throughout the US except for a very small population in the Northwest. Already protection has been removed and the population is still extremely small and vulnerable. There are fewer than 10,000 wolves in the lower 48. That isn't the sort of animal we should be hunting. Here's an article for you: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/opinion/dont-forsake-the-gray-wolf.html?_r=0 It's written by the Dutchers, who have dedicated their lives to wolf study and conservation. Stripping them of their endangered species classification was a stupid move, and more political than responsible. Sorry, I don't take Fish and Wildlife's word as gospel. Ranchers are compensated for their losses to predators, which are extremely minimal. Don't cry me any tears for them making their living and the big bad wolf hurting their business.

What about cougars? There's another great North American predator with small numbers that's been killed off in most of its natural range. People hunt them with dogs. How's that sporting? How does that population need management? If we had healthy levels of cougars and wolves we might not even need to control the deer population through hunting. You're proposing an artificial solution to a man-made problem when all we need to do is let the predators rebound. This is another example of you conflating two different issues: the current benefit to hunting deer and the clear detriment of hunting their predators. Hunting invasive species like boar is on another level entirely and is actually more comparable to the euthanasia of domestic dogs and cats (which are extremely harmful, overpopulated and unnatural) than to the killing of native predators.

What about legal big game hunts in Africa? There was a show just recently cancelled before airing following some ass killing big game including African elephants. It was perfectly legal. It's also completely irresponsible. Unfortunately laws are rarely made with the best interest of the animals at heart, so it's absurd to cry that poaching and hunting are different and then claim that because a hunt is legal it's also good.

So what I gather is you are pro-hunter, pro-meat, and pro-breeder. At least you're consistent in supporting the abuse and exploitation of animals. Can't accuse you of hypocrisy there. I will implore you to be more honest and be rigorous in your thought and make clear distinctions. You might be right about agreement with one issue enabling an organization to act on its entire agenda, but only if everyone swallows things as easily as you appear to.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lancej (Oct 24, 2013)

viper69 said:


> There's certainly some truth about hunters as you mentioned above, however, hunters are hardly the "golden child" of conservation. Nothing says "I'm a real p*ssy" more, than hunting an animal for sport, just because you can, particularly those that are threatened, endangered, and near extinction. Especially when I see "hunters" or should I say murderers using high powered rifles, dogs, helicopters etc etc to THEIR advantage. Those are hardly traits of environmental protection/restoration.


I am not even going to respond to such ignorant, idiotic, inflammatory statements such as this.  I feel sorry for people who are so uneducated as to make statements like this.


----------



## The Snark (Oct 24, 2013)

PBL, I realize your passion about this topic, and I fully recognize and understand where you are coming from. The flaw in your arguments, and bnot just yours but many people who have the best of intentions is the reliance on the babysitters. The government burrocracies that tell the morons it is now okay to kill this and hang that animal body part on your wall. Personal responsibility, and doing your own research, is critical. Not trusting government surveys. Surveys motivated in part by pandering to an electorate.

In 1970 I sat on old woman rock and watched the Haiwee deer herd come down the ridges and canyon. At a guess, they were about 200. Their numbers dwindled until my last check in 1997 when I counted 17. 200 miles north of Los Angeles. The city of Los Angeles funded several studies and found no significant reduction in the number of wild animals during the past 50 years. They also put out a bounty on beavers in that area of which I've seen 1 the entire time I've been going up there. 
Their studies are of course badly flawed. Los Angeles has a vested interest in the Owen's Valley. It is one of their water supplies as they slowly devastate the area, from destroying Mono Lake on south. A native camp site was recently bulldozed for 15 miles to facilitate water run off into the Haiwee reservoir. No Indians complained because the Monache tribe was wiped out out of hand by the U.S. Army in the late 1800's. No politician is going to dare to oppose the potential voting opposition the greater Los Angeles area can muster so the wonderful LA population can grow their green lawns on that stretch of desert. 

I'm certain we can find hundreds, more likely tens of thousands of similar situations where the BS rules and the natural environment takes it in the arse. Personal responsibility. Stop believing the lie and deny artists looking for re-elections. Appreciate nature without looking at it through the sights of a gun barrel. Realize that just because a Sarah Palin has said it is okay to butcher animals from helicopters doesn't necessarily mean that is true.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 24, 2013)

lancej said:


> I am not even going to respond to such ignorant, idiotic, inflammatory statements such as this.  I feel sorry for people who are so uneducated as to make statements like this.


Thank you lancej.  To say it's wrong to kill a wild animal, but OK to slaughter a cow in a pen with nowhere to run-there's something wrong there.  Killing is killing.  Yes, there are always going to be "bad apples" in any segment of the populace, including hunters and fishermen, but to equate shooting a deer, having the head mounted, and eating the meat with murdering a human?  

The thing is, that many here do not realize, is that the AR movement does NOT make any distinction between raising cattle or pigs for slaughter, or chickens for eggs, and hunting wild game. They make no distinction between breeding purebred dogs as pets or training dogs to fight to the death.  They make no distinction between between any of you keeping a tarantula or a corn snake and someone having a Bengal tiger.  ANY use of animals by humans is reprehensible to them and they seek to end it, and one of their most effective tools is getting people to think of animals as PEOPLE, to equate animals with humans, in every respect.  That's the whole gist behind the notion of animals having "right"! Owning a pet is "slavery", because you wouldn't own another person, right?  Eating an animal is "cannibalism".  Killing an animal is "murder".  When I see how many people actually DO buy into those concepts, yet who claim that they do not support groups like PETA, HSUS or ALF, it's disturbing, because those groups have already gotten into so many peoples' heads, won them over to their way of thinking.  Most of these people have no clue what is even involved in hunting; they just think that people go out and blast away at helpless animals that are just standing there, nowhere to run, no way to escape, that having a "high-powered rifle" is something that allows you to just walk up to an animal and kill it, that it magically charms an animal into being unable to move or seek cover.  And I bet not one of the anti's can give me ONE example of hunters legally being able to kill any species that is classified as "threatened, endangered or nearly extinct".  THAT is something they've been told by the AR's, so they have come to believe it as truth.  Many don't even realize how much their way of thinking has been affected by the AR movement, in matters such as hunting, fishing, breeding dogs or other animals, keeping pets, etc.

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Thistles (Oct 24, 2013)

pitbulllady said:


> Thank you lancej.  To say it's wrong to kill a wild animal, but OK to slaughter a cow in a pen with nowhere to run-there's something wrong there.  Killing is killing.  Yes, there are always going to be "bad apples" in any segment of the populace, including hunters and fishermen, but to equate shooting a deer, having the head mounted, and eating the meat with murdering a human?


 I actually think it's worse to raise animals for slaughter. The ill-effects on the environment are much worse.  



pitbulllady said:


> The thing is, that many here do not realize, is that the AR movement does NOT make any distinction between raising cattle or pigs for slaughter, or chickens for eggs, and hunting wild game. They make no distinction between breeding purebred dogs as pets or training dogs to fight to the death.  They make no distinction between between any of you keeping a tarantula or a corn snake and someone having a Bengal tiger.  ANY use of animals by humans is reprehensible to them and they seek to end it, and one of their most effective tools is getting people to think of animals as PEOPLE, to equate animals with humans, in every respect.


 I'm a vegan and I'm capable of making these distinctions. I think you're the one who needs to differentiate between separate issues. You're so opposed to any limitation of your exploitation of animals that you conflate all these issues and oppose them equally.



pitbulllady said:


> That's the whole gist behind the notion of animals having "right"! Owning a pet is "slavery", because you wouldn't own another person, right?  Eating an animal is "cannibalism".  Killing an animal is "murder".  When I see how many people actually DO buy into those concepts, yet who claim that they do not support groups like PETA, HSUS or ALF, it's disturbing, because those groups have already gotten into so many peoples' heads, won them over to their way of thinking.


 Why wouldn't we afford rights to another living being? They deserve equal consideration. That is not the same as equal treatment, but they are capable of suffering and we should take extreme care not to inflict such pain unnecessarily.



pitbulllady said:


> Most of these people have no clue what is even involved in hunting; they just think that people go out and blast away at helpless animals that are just standing there, nowhere to run, no way to escape, that having a "high-powered rifle" is something that allows you to just walk up to an animal and kill it, that it magically charms an animal into being unable to move or seek cover.  And I bet not one of the anti's can give me ONE example of hunters legally being able to kill any species that is classified as "threatened, endangered or nearly extinct".  THAT is something they've been told by the AR's, so they have come to believe it as truth.  Many don't even realize how much their way of thinking has been affected by the AR movement, in matters such as hunting, fishing, breeding dogs or other animals, keeping pets, etc.


 I know what's involved in hunting. I'm from rural Virginia and recently lived in rural Oregon. People (including some friends and family of mine) take time off work for hunting season there. I also hunted and fished myself when I was younger, which I now find shameful and regrettable.

Here's the thing about your challenge: many of these classifications of animals are limited and influenced by politics and our own ignorance. Since this is an arachnid forum I'll use spiders as an example. The only spiders protected by CITES are _Brachypelma spp._ and 2 _Aphonopelma_. This is in spite of knowledge that _Poecilotheria_ are in lots of trouble and total lack of data regarding most other tarantulas. How is that a good way to judge? In spite of the flaws of the system, lions and elephants which are both listed as vulnerable may be legally killed in Africa. Leopards, which are near threatened, are also fair game. We know these species are in decline but we continue to kill them for sport. It's sick. But way to ignore my entire previous post.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lancej (Oct 24, 2013)

Thistles said:


> Here's the thing about your challenge: many of these classifications of animals are limited and influenced by politics and our own ignorance. Since this is an arachnid forum I'll use spiders as an example. The only spiders protected by CITES are _Brachypelma spp._ and 2 _Aphonopelma_. This is in spite of knowledge that _Poecilotheria_ are in lots of trouble and total lack of data regarding most other tarantulas. How is that a good way to judge? In spite of the flaws of the system, lions and elephants which are both listed as vulnerable may be legally killed in Africa. Leopards, which are near threatened, are also fair game. We know these species are in decline but we continue to kill them for sport. It's sick. But way to ignore my entire previous post.


In order to hunt lions, elephants, and leopards, you have to buy a very expensive license and go through a lot of red tape.  The areas that allow these species to be hunted have determined that there is an issue with having these animals in the areas that the license is for, such as destruction of property, killing of livestock, or killing of villagers.  These nuisance animals will be killed regardless of whether it is a government official or a paying hunter.  The money from the sale of these licenses goes to pay for land to set aside for preserves and to pay for wardens to protect the wildlife from poachers.  Also, these hunters spend money while they are there giving much needed income to very poor villages.  Do you think that the native people give a crap about whether or not an animal is threatened or endangered if it is affecting their means of feeding themselves and families?  I think you need to get off your high horse and realize that the world is not all rainbows and puppies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Oct 25, 2013)

pitbulllady said:


> The thing is, that many here do not realize, is that the AR movement does NOT make any distinction between raising cattle or pigs for slaughter, or chickens for eggs, and hunting wild game. They make no distinction between breeding purebred dogs as pets or training dogs to fight to the death.  They make no distinction between between any of you keeping a tarantula or a corn snake and someone having a Bengal tiger.
> 
> pitbulllady


PBL, that is untrue and beneath you. SOME AR groups are that way. Not all. Some supposed AR groups even promote  the killing of endangered species. Let's put away the gross blanket statements.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Najakeeper (Oct 25, 2013)

I am sorry but I have to be quite blunt about this. Killing animals for "the thrill of it" is just a sick human behavior and most of the hunting that is going on in the developed world falls under this category.

I am glad that it is being done somewhat sustainable in these modern times, but this doesn't change what I think about the concept of hunting.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## catfishrod69 (Oct 25, 2013)

Now thats funny. Im a avid hunter. Mainly deer, rabbit, squirrel, coyote. I eat everything i kill, or someone else does. Well except the coyote. And its not ever gonna change. 





viper69 said:


> There's certainly some truth about hunters as you mentioned above, however, hunters are hardly the "golden child" of conservation. Nothing says "I'm a real p*ssy" more, than hunting an animal for sport, just because you can, particularly those that are threatened, endangered, and near extinction. Especially when I see "hunters" or should I say murderers using high powered rifles, dogs, helicopters etc etc to THEIR advantage. Those are hardly traits of environmental protection/restoration.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## The Snark (Oct 25, 2013)

*How to hunt bear, my opinion of how to hunt.*

An excerpt from a friends book. It's a little off color so just grin and bear it. 

About twenty more paces and we topped the rise. Far down the south side the lights of the resort intruded on our lonely desert, obscenely, disgustingly. Ryan stopped and sat on the ground. Jen squatted beside him. I parked my ass next to her and panted. Neither of them were the least bit winded though they both smoked and I didn’t. 
Jen murmured, finally giving me some explanation of things.
“We put up with that damned bear for two summers. Forest service wouldn’t let us take it unless a person was actually getting eaten. Screw our horses. Then these fat asses go put that fart farm in and oh lord there’s a bear. Go ahead and shoot it, please! We’ll give you a medal!”
Ryan commented dryly, “You’re getting cynical in your old age.”
He looked over past her to speak to us both, his grin showing in the bright moon light. “Let’s get organized. Jen, that’s a bear, that’s a tourist. Bear’s on four legs and furry. Don’t mix them up.”
Jen turned her head to give me an identical grin. “Are you horny?”
Before I could formulate and process Jen’s from nowhere questions Ryan started a low voiced monologue.
“Bear’s an omnivore. Eats anything but people trash is a gourmet dinner when you spend most of your time eating manzanita berries. Picnic tables down there are spreading the bear word far and wide. They can’t see that good but can get a scent of a ripe tuna sandwich two, three miles off.”
I asked, “So we are going to shoot it?”
Jen murmured, “They put out a bear trap. A couple of barrels welded end to end and laid on it’s side. Big fuzzy is supposed to prefer crawling into the thing instead of licking picnic tables.”
“Let me guess. Doesn’t work too well?”
He hit Jen’s leg and they both went silent, staring down the hill off to the right. She pointed her arm for me and I stared and stared. It took me over a minute before I saw something moving in the shadows at the far corner of the picnic area. 
They both got to their feet and Jen whispered to me, “Time to show us your Indian stuff. Quiet as a mouse. If you fall off a cliff I only want to hear the splat.”
The way they walked clued me and it became one of the conscious self aware moments of my life. They walked like they knew their footsteps were going to shift the sandy soil and it had to shift so slowly it wouldn’t be noticed. They made up for the agonizing slowness of their pace by taking extra long strides but we were still moving in extreme slow motion. I had time to analyze and examine every footstep I took. When we pushed through the brush we moved even slower. It took me several minutes of this before I realized we were stalking the bear as it stalked its dinner. 
I whispered to Jen, “How close do we have to get.”
Jen whispered. “Six inches is nice. Eight is safer.”
That confused me and forced me to ask, “What the heck are we doing?”
“Go up and kick it. Now shut up.”
I really needed to scream ‘WHAT??’ 
One slow step at a time we eased our way down into the valley. A low ridge rose between us and the bear and we were taking a course which seemed to intersect the bear if it kept moseying in the same general direction. We took one switch back, very slowly slid down a sandy little draw, then even slower topped the ridge, coming out only about 50 feet above the parking lot next to the picnic area. They both froze, peering part over, part through a huge sage bush.
Even more slowly we started moving off to our left, trying to negotiate a pretty steep slope directly above the parking lot. I managed to get down with reasonable grace and squatted next to them. Jen stuck her arm almost across my face to point. Only about 50 feet away I could see the outline of the bear nosing like a dog among the picnic tables. 
Suddenly I heard a metallic sound. The bear was working on tipping over a trash can and once that didn’t work it got up on its hind legs and started digging out the trash. 
Jen rose, took a couple of steps forward to put a tree between herself and the bear and pulled her t-shirt off over her head. This was looking all the more bizarre. While I appreciated that she wasn’t wearing a bra and at almost any other time the view of those hefty boobs would have been quite enjoyable, how exactly being topless fitted into what ever the heck it was they were planning went right past me. Ryan stepped up to her side and she turned her head to look at him, grinning.
I heard him whisper, “Go for it.”
Cautiously but quickly Jen stepped around the tree and walked straight at the bear, rifle in one hand, her t-shirt in the other. Ryan went around the other side of the tree and was walking pretty quickly at a bit of an angle from the way Jen was going. He was making sure Jen wouldn’t get in his line of sight but from my point of view I didn’t have the slightest idea what they were planning, except maybe to join the bear at his dinner.
Jen stopped about 20 feet from the bear. It hadn’t noticed anything, its head deep in the trash can. She glanced, checking on where Ryan was. He put his rifle to his shoulder, aiming. She then carefully but quickly stepped forward and less than five feet from the bear let out a piercing yell. 
The bear literally leaped right off the ground. It almost fell over as it got its head out of the trash can and spun around to see what the heck. Jen swung her shirt and started wapping at its head while yelling “YEEHAW!”
The bear was as surprised as I was. It tried to jump backwards and ended up flopping onto its butt. It then tried to back up while sitting down while Jen pursued, flailing away with her shirt. It spun around then faced her off defiantly. She raised both her arms over her head and went RAWWWR!
Then there was a flash and the startling horrible bang of Ryan’s cannon. He had moved up to only about 15 feet away. At first I thought he had shot the bear as it spun about again, went on its ass and almost over on its back. It scrambled to its feet and cast about, trying to get its bearings. Meanwhile Jen started firing round after round into the dirt at its feet while Ryan fired a series of shots apparently right over it’s head. 
I felt a little sorry for the bear as in its panic it plowed straight into a picnic table and they both went over in a jumble tumble. It then righted itself and began the ultimate bear boogie out the north side of the picnic area and straight up the mountain.
Ryan simply stood there until it had vanished then sat heavily on the ground. “Whoa!”
Jen gave him a push, tipping him over on his back. He just lay there, staring up through the pine branches. After a few moments he remarked to the sky, “I think I’m going to blame you for making me want to do screwy stuff …to impress you.”
She thumped the side of her head and held her nose, trying to get her ears to pop. “Didn’t think about being downrange of that pea shooter of yours.”
“Oop. Sorry. We should have swapped guns.”
They got to their feet, dusted off and came strolling back to where I was, both grinning like Cheshire cats. 
Jen slipped her shirt back on while remarking to me, “Shitso. I guess we missed.”
I asked, “Can I scream now?”
Jen said, “Oh yeah!”
I did, and she joined me. Meanwhile Ryan reloaded his rifle then fired another series of shots right over the main lodge of the resort.
We strolled down the parking lot and on down the road. A few frightened looking people came out of the lodge to see what the shooting and yelling was all about but they were ignored. 
Along the way Ryan mentioned, “You didn’t kick it.”
“I got to thinking that might have been a bad idea. Maybe next time. That was a lot classier than the first time!”
I asked, “First time?”
She cocks her head at him. “Comes up and grabs me saying we got a bear. We were armed with a chain saw that wouldn’t start and a frying pan.”
I thought that over, did some reasoning then asked, “So you never intended to shoot the bear.”
Jen murmured, “Bear’s belong here. People don’t. We’ve ran the pack train four years and never had to shoot one. These idiots come in and lay out feasts for them then freak when something natural happens.”
Ryan spoke softly and a bit dour, “We’re going to end up shooting it. Or someone else will. Too much easy pickings. He’ll be back.”
She asked me, “So how you like your first bear hunt?”


----------



## Thistles (Oct 25, 2013)

lancej said:


> In order to hunt lions, elephants, and leopards, you have to buy a very expensive license and go through a lot of red tape.  The areas that allow these species to be hunted have determined that there is an issue with having these animals in the areas that the license is for, such as destruction of property, killing of livestock, or killing of villagers.  These nuisance animals will be killed regardless of whether it is a government official or a paying hunter.  The money from the sale of these licenses goes to pay for land to set aside for preserves and to pay for wardens to protect the wildlife from poachers.  Also, these hunters spend money while they are there giving much needed income to very poor villages.  Do you think that the native people give a crap about whether or not an animal is threatened or endangered if it is affecting their means of feeding themselves and families?  I think you need to get off your high horse and realize that the world is not all rainbows and puppies.


 Yeah, ok, that's why canned hunts are so popular and South Africa breeds lions specifically for them. You know the country has more lions in captivity than in the wild, right? Yes, it is expensive to go shoot a wild lion. It's cheaper and therefore more attractive to go shoot a captive bred one in a pen. How sporting! Think that's helping the wild population any? Hm, it's decreased by 80% in the last 20 years. Did you know leopards are most often hunted with bait? What skill that takes! How dangerous these animals are!

Of course native people don't care if an animal is endangered if they think it's a threat. I've seen an endangered animal killed because it ventured into the home of a native when I was visiting a friend in Sri Lanka. That doesn't make it ok. "It'll happen anyway, so we should just let it happen/participate." Great.


----------



## lancej (Oct 25, 2013)

Thistles said:


> Yeah, ok, that's why canned hunts are so popular and South Africa breeds lions specifically for them. You know the country has more lions in captivity than in the wild, right? Yes, it is expensive to go shoot a wild lion. It's cheaper and therefore more attractive to go shoot a captive bred one in a pen. How sporting! Think that's helping the wild population any? Hm, it's decreased by 80% in the last 20 years. Did you know leopards are most often hunted with bait? What skill that takes! How dangerous these animals are!
> 
> Of course native people don't care if an animal is endangered if they think it's a threat. I've seen an endangered animal killed because it ventured into the home of a native when I was visiting a friend in Sri Lanka. That doesn't make it ok. "It'll happen anyway, so we should just let it happen/participate." Great.


I just love it when the uneducated insist on grouping hunters with trophy collectors.  There is nothing wrong with trophy HUNTING, but I do have issues with trophy COLLECTORS.  Hunting requires skills such as patience, extreme knowledge and respect for the game you are hunting, and good marksmanship with the weapon of choice.  Shooting an animal in a cage just because you want a trophy is NOT hunting.  I have issues with that.  I do not have issues with, and completely support legitimate hunting.  If AR groups were truly concerned about protecting endangered/threatened species in their native countries, then they would understand that the biggest key in succeeding is through education.  Education takes money.  So many countries are so destitute that education is just not feasible without some sort of economic boost.  They are more concerned with feeding and protecting themselves.  If an animal has no economic value, then it will not be protected no matter what international law says.  Conservation through commercialization (including responsible hunting, responsible collecting for the pet trade, and ecotourism) is a feasible solution that will benefit both the people and the environment in the long run by providing a boost in local economy.  PETA, HSUS, and many other AR groups spend their donations on lobbyists, advertisements, and celebrity spokespersons in developed countries to promote their messages.  If they were truly concerned about endangered and threatened species, they would be spending their money on education and economically boosting third world countries.  International hunting organizations are doing just that - promoting education and providing economic boosts to countries all over the world, while promoting responsible hunting.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## catfishrod69 (Oct 25, 2013)

I once read a article of a man who was hunting cape buffalo (the black death!), with a bow. He was in the complete open with no trees around, and had a monster bull 30 yards in front of him staring him down. He was crouched in a very akward position, but any movement what so ever, and the bull would have charged. Being that a human cannot outrun a cape buffalo, he had no choice but to stay in that position and wait for a shot.....Now that is patience, knowledge, respect, dedication!





lancej said:


> Hunting requires skills such as patience, extreme knowledge and respect for the game you are hunting, and good marksmanship with the weapon of choice.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 25, 2013)

lancej said:


> I just love it when the uneducated insist on grouping hunters with trophy collectors.  There is nothing wrong with trophy HUNTING, but I do have issues with trophy COLLECTORS.  Hunting requires skills such as patience, extreme knowledge and respect for the game you are hunting, and good marksmanship with the weapon of choice.  Shooting an animal in a cage just because you want a trophy is NOT hunting.  I have issues with that.  I do not have issues with, and completely support legitimate hunting.  If AR groups were truly concerned about protecting endangered/threatened species in their native countries, then they would understand that the biggest key in succeeding is through education.  Education takes money.  So many countries are so destitute that education is just not feasible without some sort of economic boost.  They are more concerned with feeding and protecting themselves.  If an animal has no economic value, then it will not be protected no matter what international law says.  Conservation through commercialization (including responsible hunting, responsible collecting for the pet trade, and ecotourism) is a feasible solution that will benefit both the people and the environment in the long run by providing a boost in local economy.  PETA, HSUS, and many other AR groups spend their donations on lobbyists, advertisements, and celebrity spokespersons in developed countries to promote their messages.  If they were truly concerned about endangered and threatened species, they would be spending their money on education and economically boosting third world countries.  International hunting organizations are doing just that - promoting education and providing economic boosts to countries all over the world, while promoting responsible hunting.


Thank you once again, lancej!  There should also be made a distinction between HUNTING and simply killing something that regarded as a pest, or not valued in any way, as is all too often the case in developing countries when people and animals clash.  As you pointed out, very often animals like lions and elephants in their countries are not viewed as valuable resources, but simply as agricultural pests or threats to human safety, and a lot of that has to do with education.  It does not matter to a farmer whether that animal destroying his crops or attacking his cattle is endangered or not, when his own existence depends on the success of his farming.  Teaching and providing farmers with alternate means of dealing with wild animals, aside from simply killing them, would be money well-spent, but I have yet to hear of any AR group willing to provide those funds, even though they certainly have the means to do so.  Villagers shooting elephants that have been getting into their crops are NOT "hunters", anymore than a farmer shooting a fox he catches in the chicken coop, devouring chickens.  I can guarantee that the most ardent anti-hunters have not gathered their "information" by actually participating in a hunt, by interviewing real hunters face to face, but have gotten their "information" second-hand, passed down by groups like HSUS.  The fact that so many lump anyone who kills a wild animal for whatever reason and under any circumstance all together in one category-hunters-says a lot about the lack of genuine knowledge on the subject.  There are legitimate hunters who abide by the laws, who RESPECT the game that they pursue, who are very knowledgeable about those animals, about their habitat, and about the weapons needed to bring them down.  There are poachers.  There are trophy collectors. And there are simply people trying to protect their way of life, their very survival.  They are NOT the same things at all!  I drive a car.  Jimmy Johnson also drives a car.  Does that make ME a champion NASCAR driver, too?  Real hunters do actually enjoy the outdoors.  We donate to organizations like Ducks Unlimited, which purchase and provide habitat for wildlife that would otherwise be destroyed.  We do not just go blasting away at every animal we see.  I like seeing deer, even when I'm not hunting...unless they're in front of my vehicle.  I just see myself as a predator, not just a scavenger who must eat what something else kills, which is basically what you do when you purchase meat from a store or restaurant.  I enjoy taking that time and effort to learn about my quarry, to try and match wits with it, and most of the time, the animal will win that battle!  Human knowledge and technology will never catch up with the animals' evolution.  This whole notion that hunters can't simply enjoy seeing an animal without wanting to blast away at it is a fallacy.  It's like saying that you cannot look at and admire another person without wanting to have sex with them!  Are there slob hunters?  Sure, there are. There are also lousy examples to be found in every single aspect of humanity, but to insist that ALL hunters are like this, again, is a false notion.  It's a negative stereotype perpetuated by people who want to see all hunting banned, all animal agriculture banned, all pet ownership/breeding banned.  Few even realize how deeply that message in ingrained in popular entertainment, what I like to call "The Bambi Syndrome", how much we are bombarded with a message that hunters are cruel, evil, bloodthirsty monsters out to kill all the innocent widdle animals and lay waste to the wilderness.

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Thistles (Oct 25, 2013)

There must be so many straw men in this thread because it's close to Halloween.

Yes, lancej, education is indeed the answer to almost every problem. Educating women in particular is the biggest key to improving pretty much everything.

Let me clarify some things you seem not to understand. I have never said I support either PETA or the HSUS. In fact, both of my posts were simply attempting to make clear distinctions between issues. Good job lumping everything together, except of course the extremely fine distinction you draw between people shooting wild animals and people shooting caged animals. One is clearly awesome because you think it is and the other clearly sucks because you think it does. Did you not notice my disdain for how we label animals and the laws surrounding hunting and protection of endangered species? Did you really somehow get the impression that I am at all confident that those will protect animals or is it just easier to keep slugging away at a straw man?



lancej said:


> There is nothing wrong with trophy HUNTING, but I do have issues with trophy COLLECTORS.


Nothing wrong with it because you said so? I see quite a bit wrong with it. It's killing an animal for entertainment either way.



pitbulllady said:


> There should also be made a distinction between HUNTING and simply killing something that regarded as a pest, or not valued in any way, as is all too often the case in developing countries when people and animals clash.


I agree. The hunter is the one who is morally bankrupt and should know better. Someone killing an animal threatening his livelihood has a better reason to do so than some wanker who wants a thrill and a head on his wall.



pitbulllady said:


> I just see myself as a predator, not just a scavenger who must eat what something else kills, which is basically what you do when you purchase meat from a store or restaurant.


And now you choose to omit that many AR groups are opposed to eating meat from a store, too. Better and better. What you are is a mostly bald ape that evolved to eat plants, not meat. You are not a predator. You're delusional.



pitbulllady said:


> There are also lousy examples to be found in every single aspect of humanity, but to insist that ALL hunters are like this, again, is a false notion. It's a negative stereotype perpetuated by people who want to see all hunting banned, all animal agriculture banned, all pet ownership/breeding banned.


 This from someone lumping all AR organizations and causes and issues together. What's good for the goose...

Seriously, let me just swap words around some here: "...but to insist that ALL people who promote animal rights are like this, again, is a false notion. It's a negative stereotype perpetuated by people who want to see all hunting permitted, all animal agriculture promoted, all pet ownership/breeding allowed in any form." Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? It is.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Galapoheros (Oct 25, 2013)

"What you are is a mostly bald ape that evolved to eat plants, not meat. You are not a predator."  But that can't be stated as a fact, you have been convinced of a theory.  There are contradicting theories with good arguments.


----------



## BobGrill (Oct 26, 2013)

I'm a big animal lover, but if someone wants to hunt an animal as long as they do so humanely (like killing it quickly and not torturing it), then they should be allowed to do that. As long as the animal isn't endangered, then I don't see anything wrong with it. I shouldn't have to repeat the fact that I'm a big animal lover myself, but I just want to get that across before I start getting accused of being sick for not having a problem with hunting.


----------



## The Snark (Oct 26, 2013)

*Slam on the brakes, please!*

Let us level the playing field a little here and stop with the sugar coating. IT IS NOT HUNTING. It is killing animals. PERIOD! Be it a dead on shot to the heart from a .308 or slow death by shock and starvation from certain traps, it is using our pre-frontals to cause animals deaths. You can leave the ridiculous argument of always killing humanely in the sewage where it belongs. Even the most diligent 'hunt'er maims and causes acute suffering on occasion. 

HUMANELY? Drop the unmitigated bullfeathers. In this modern day there are thousands of alternatives in the form of digital cameras that you can shoot animals with without the hazard of causing pain and suffering. Most governments have eliminated firing squads as capital punishment for the reason that it is not considered humane for a number of reasons. If you so desperately have the need to kill animals, so be it. Just stop justifying your actions with this age old gigantic blowfest. We get enough of that hogslop spewing out of Wash DC and the various faux news panderers.

And for the sake of all that's unholy, quit the bashing of AR groups with blanket statements. Some are slime. Some are doing exemplary work. For the serious bashers, please drag your gnarly carcasses on over this way and lend a hand fitting animals, from human to elephants, with prosthetics and doing other often thankless remedial acts after they encounter land mines your governments love to toss around by the millions with the hope of, on rare occasion, maiming an enemy combatant instead of the countless innocent animal victims.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## catfishrod69 (Oct 26, 2013)

Actually a heart shot is not a good shot at all. On a deer, you want a double lung penetration. If you shoot them in the heart, it could take days and miles for them to pass on. 





The Snark said:


> Be it a dead on shot to the heart from a .308

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Thistles (Oct 26, 2013)

Galapoheros said:


> "What you are is a mostly bald ape that evolved to eat plants, not meat. You are not a predator."  But that can't be stated as a fact, you have been convinced of a theory.  There are contradicting theories with good arguments.


 I don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you explain what I have been convinced of and what "contradicting theories" I should be taking in to account.



BobGrill said:


> I'm a big animal lover, but if someone wants to hunt an animal as long as they do so humanely (like killing it quickly and not torturing it), then they should be allowed to do that. As long as the animal isn't endangered, then I don't see anything wrong with it. I shouldn't have to repeat the fact that I'm a big animal lover myself, but I just want to get that across before I start getting accused of being sick for not having a problem with hunting.


 Ok, that's a lot of opinion with nothing to back it up. "They should be allowed to do that" why exactly? How will you enforce and define "humane?" What benefit is killing an animal "as long as the animal isn't endangered" and isn't that cut off arbitrary?



catfishrod69 said:


> Actually a heart shot is not a good shot at all. On a deer, you want a double lung penetration. If you shoot them in the heart, it could take days and miles for them to pass on.


 Doing my arguing for me.



pitbulllady said:


> I enjoy taking that time and effort to learn about my quarry, to try and match wits with it...


 Beyond hilarious. Play chess if you want to learn about and match wits with an opponent. Don't take on a deer. What dastardly masterminds they are...



lancej said:


> I just love it when the uneducated insist on grouping hunters with trophy collectors.  There is nothing wrong with trophy HUNTING, but I do have issues with trophy COLLECTORS.


 I don't think I dealt with this enough in my last post. Sorry, I'm pretty sick and not as sharp as I'd like currently. This is so condescending and arrogant. You call me uneducated because I don't agree with you, not based on anything incorrect or ignorant that I've said. Then you throw out what is and isn't wrong based on... ? Who knows!? How did you reach the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with one kind of killing and then take issue with another?


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Oct 26, 2013)

So, blanket statements about AR groups are an issue, but blanket statements about hunters are dandy?  Being a hunter does not make one "morally bankrupt", just as being for animal rights doesn't mean you want to end pet ownership.


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 26, 2013)

I don't take issue with killing domestic livestock, thistles.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who raise Cain over hunters shooting a deer, but have no qualms about devouring a big juicy steak.  It's still killing animals, which you obviously DO have issues with.  Not one of the anti's/AR's has even answered my question as to where, or who, provided your in-depth intel over what hunting is like, since you don't have first-hand experience to draw upon.  Mind answering that one for me?  What are your sources?  Or for that matter, why the life of a deer or a feral hog matters so much more than the life of a cow or a domestic pig, why is it so horrible to take the life of one, but kill and eat the other?  Are YOU a vegan yourself, don't believe in using ANY part of an animal or anything derived from an animal?  

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Thistles (Oct 26, 2013)

pitbulllady said:


> I don't take issue with killing domestic livestock, thistles.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who raise Cain over hunters shooting a deer, but have no qualms about devouring a big juicy steak.  It's still killing animals, which you obviously DO have issues with.  Not one of the anti's/AR's has even answered my question as to where, or who, provided your in-depth intel over what hunting is like, since you don't have first-hand experience to draw upon.  Mind answering that one for me?  What are your sources?  Or for that matter, why the life of a deer or a feral hog matters so much more than the life of a cow or a domestic pig, why is it so horrible to take the life of one, but kill and eat the other?  Are YOU a vegan yourself, don't believe in using ANY part of an animal or anything derived from an animal?
> 
> pitbulllady


 I've answered every one of those questions already. Thanks for respecting me enough to read what I've already written.


----------



## Stirmi (Oct 26, 2013)

I'm not a hunter nor do I want to but hunting is a good thing in certain places for example where I live we are overran with white tail deer due to a lack of predators unfortunatley a few decades ago the deer population became sooo bad that the deer began eating the bark off of trees an they became sick and paralyzed in their back legs which caused them to drag their back legs, the state than allowed a deer hunt to manage populations and now we have a healthy balance. That is one way of this being good. Also why is hunting bad but fishing isn't because that was never brought up yet

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BobGrill (Oct 26, 2013)

Obviously we've got some very opinionated individuals here on both sides. You guys probably are never going to see eye to eye on this topic, so maybe we should just drop the debate altogether before it turns ugly. Just my two cents.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Thistles (Oct 26, 2013)

Stirmi said:
			
		

> I'm not a hunter nor do I want to but hunting is a good thing in certain places for example where I live we are overran with white tail deer due to a lack of predators unfortunatley a few decades ago the deer population became sooo bad that the deer began eating the bark off of trees an they became sick and paralyzed in their back legs which caused them to drag their back legs, the state than allowed a deer hunt to manage populations and now we have a healthy balance. That is one way of this being good. Also why is hunting bad but fishing isn't because that was never brought up yet


 I think I already addressed some of this. I think sport fishing is bad, and commercial fishing is even worse. Hunting deer is unfortunately necessary now because we've hunted wolves and cougars so aggressively. But apparently the wolf population is ok now so we should go back to slaughtering them even though they're only in a few states and the deer, as you noted, are still out of control.



			
				Thistles said:
			
		

> I also hunted and fished myself when I was younger, which I now find shameful and regrettable.





			
				Thistles said:
			
		

> This is another example of you conflating two different issues: the current benefit to hunting deer and the clear detriment of hunting their predators.


I guess I can do the same for PBL.


			
				pitbulllady said:
			
		

> I don't take issue with killing domestic livestock, thistles.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who raise Cain over hunters shooting a deer, but have no qualms about devouring a big juicy steak.  It's still killing animals, which you obviously DO have issues with.





			
				pitbulllady; said:
			
		

> Or for that matter, why the life of a deer or a feral hog matters so much more than the life of a cow or a domestic pig, why is it so horrible to take the life of one, but kill and eat the other?





			
				Thistles said:
			
		

> I actually think it's worse to raise animals for slaughter. The ill-effects on the environment are much worse.


Furthermore, killing invasive species (feral hogs, cats, dogs...) is necessary. Also, see above quote directed to Stirmi.



			
				pitbulllady said:
			
		

> Not one of the anti's/AR's has even answered my question as to where, or who, provided your in-depth intel over what hunting is like, since you don't have first-hand experience to draw upon.  Mind answering that one for me?  What are your sources?





			
				Thistles said:
			
		

> I know what's involved in hunting. I'm from rural Virginia and recently lived in rural Oregon. People (including some friends and family of mine) take time off work for hunting season there. I also hunted and fished myself when I was younger, which I now find shameful and regrettable.





			
				pitbulllady said:
			
		

> Are YOU a vegan yourself, don't believe in using ANY part of an animal or anything derived from an animal?





			
				Thistles said:
			
		

> I'm a vegan and I'm capable of making these distinctions.


 I will add to this that it isn't possible to be TRULY vegan and not use anything animal derived in our current society, but it's a good goal. I also have cats which of course eat meat.



freedumbdclxvi said:


> So, blanket statements about AR groups are an issue, but blanket statements about hunters are dandy?  Being a hunter does not make one "morally bankrupt", just as being for animal rights doesn't mean you want to end pet ownership.


 Sorry, just saw this post. No, blanket statements are bad and unfair regardless of which side they're from. That was a poor way for me to put it and I hope my other posts decrying generalizations on both sides make up for it. Being a hunter doesn't necessarily make one completely amoral, but it does reflect poorly on a person in almost all cases.


----------



## The Snark (Oct 26, 2013)

So let's sum this up so far. Animal rights groups are evil. People who run around stroking their bang sticks are doing a necessary job. Vegan is a dirty word and unattainable, therefore they are all hypocrites. What else?


----------



## BobGrill (Oct 26, 2013)

You guys need to just learn to agree to disagree.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Oct 27, 2013)

BobGrill said:


> You guys need to just learn to agree to disagree.


I disagree. A while back a friend of mine and I agreed to disagree on a quite important matter. Then he went and got dead. So the soup is half finished, and we are going to have to take the whole thing and recook it in our next incarnations. That doesn't work at all well, yes? Therefore I resolved that I will disagree when an attempt is made to agree on disagreeing and prefer to stand firmly in the soup, demanding that the entire world must always agree, or disagree, unanimously, with my opinion. And of course I cannot possibly agree with such capitulation as I am, approximately, full of fecal matter about 50% of the time and that would make the agreers a bunch of schmucks or sycophants and the disagreers just a loose pile of covert hostile intentions. However, feel free to agree to disagree on agreeing with my disagreeing and disagree with my agreeing. Fair enoughe?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BobGrill (Oct 27, 2013)

When presented with a reasonable bit of logic, just spam away.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Galapoheros (Oct 27, 2013)

"I don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you explain what I have been convinced of and what "contradicting theories" I should be taking in to account."

 I can't get the "reply with quote" to work today for some reason.

http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/early-human-meat-eaters-vegetarian_n_1765521.html

http://thepaleodiet.com/getting-started-with-the-paleo-diet/

Opinions, theories, it's obvious which you believe, no reason to elaborate on it.  I'll nibble on the bait but will get loose from arguing which is correct because it's like arguing over religion and politics at this point which is interesting to do ...sometimes.  My opinion is that we are omnivores.  Each could look around and come up with contradicting info on this topic.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smokehound714 (Oct 27, 2013)

Peta is a terrorist organization.  They have used violence on several occasions to attempt to intimidate people.

  One person, Ray coronado, was paid to bomb buildings by Ingrid newkirk, and even worse, went to campuses nationwide, teaching students how to make incendiary devices.

  Despite actual evidence directly linking them to several arsons and instances of assaults, they still get away with these horrific acts.  The corporate media is protecting them, often portraying PETA positively, generally only publicizing instances where deluded washed-out actresses either Being naked for the sake of animal welfare (lolwut), or wearing ridiculous bikinis made of lettuce, ignoring the instances of brutality and bombings.

  They virtually never talk about the walk-in freezers, or the killing of animals, or the times where peta supporters viciously assault people buying meat.  And when they DO, Ingrid newkirk is never mentioned.  Hmmmm..


  The ASPCA should be added to this discussion, as they're another horrible group, also known for misleading the public into thinking their donations will go to shelters, when they definitely do NOT.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## The Snark (Oct 27, 2013)

Smokehound714 said:


> Peta is a terrorist organization.  They have used violence on several occasions to attempt to intimidate people.
> One person, Ray coronado, was paid to bomb buildings by Ingrid newkirk, and even worse, went to campuses nationwide, teaching students how to make incendiary devices.
> Despite actual evidence directly linking them to several arsons and instances of assaults, they still get away with these horrific acts.  The corporate media is protecting them, often portraying PETA positively, generally only publicizing instances where deluded washed-out actresses either Being naked for the sake of animal welfare (lolwut), or wearing ridiculous bikinis made of lettuce, ignoring the instances of brutality and bombings.
> They virtually never talk about the walk-in freezers, or the killing of animals, or the times where peta supporters viciously assault people buying meat.  And when they DO, Ingrid newkirk is never mentioned.  Hmmmm..
> The ASPCA should be added to this discussion, as they're another horrible group, also known for misleading the public into thinking their donations will go to shelters, when they definitely do NOT.


Your posting is exemplary of deliberate and accidental inaccuracies. I had come to think of you as an authority of natural history, re: spiders, but a posting like that casts you, and all you have posted, in a somewhat dimmed light. I thought you above smear campaigns and propaganda.
BTW, his name is Rodney.

---------- Post added 10-28-2013 at 06:06 AM ----------

In my odd way I have been trying to tone down this thread... and have failed miserably. However, this wholesale bashing with a LOT of unfacts , quoting innuendo as fact, and so on, is really unbecoming to a lot of what AB has given to the public. It, this thread and similar ones, is beginning to stink like the smear campaign that the logging proponents and the FBI undertook against Earth First! in the entirely fabricated cases against Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney. 

Would it be too much to ask that further postings be constrained to known established facts with references cited?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Thistles (Oct 29, 2013)

Galapoheros said:


> Opinions, theories, it's obvious which you believe, no reason to elaborate on it.  I'll nibble on the bait but will get loose from arguing which is correct because it's like arguing over religion and politics at this point which is interesting to do ...sometimes.  My opinion is that we are omnivores.  Each could look around and come up with contradicting info on this topic.


 I was afraid you were going to go Creationist on me, which is why I asked for clarification. I am not going to dispute that humans have been eating meat in some quantity for hundreds of thousands of years, but the fact is that this is an extremely short period of time in evolutionary terms. If someone is starving, of course the addition of meat will improve their health (even deer will eat meat in the dead of winter with no other food source.) This does not mean it is an ideal diet, however. If you want to leave it, fine, but I'm happy to discuss it.


----------



## kellakk (Oct 29, 2013)

*Vegetarian Ancestors?*



Thistles said:


> I am not going to dispute that humans have been eating meat in some quantity for hundreds of thousands of years


Actually, millions of years.

http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html

Anthropologists have long believed that the consumption of meat led to the development of culture.  Also, scientists from different fields have found that meat provided the necessary calories and proteins for us to evolve larger brains.  

http://www.livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html
http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html

Just wanted to clear that up. Of course, these are just theories, but all of science is anyway. These theories are pretty well-supported. I would post actual journal articles, but I don't have a whole lot of time.

However, I do agree that we no longer need meat in our diets. Agricultural advancements have allowed us to grow vegan/vegetarian foods that are nutritious enough to sustain us year-round.


----------



## Thistles (Oct 29, 2013)

We need to define "human," then. _Homo sapiens_ has only been around for 1-250 thousand years, depending on which scientist you ask. If we're talking about the whole genus Homo, ok, that's been around for 2-3 million years. That's still the blink of an eye in an evolutionary time frame. Thank you for links, though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kellakk (Oct 29, 2013)

Well, the development of _Homo sapiens_ has everything to do with the other species in _Homo_, so they are relevant.  And yes, 2-3 million years is a very short time.  But we don't know everything about evolution, so we really can't dismiss any information about human evolution.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Galapoheros (Oct 29, 2013)

Thistles said:


> I was afraid you were going to go Creationist on me, which is why I asked for clarification. I am not going to dispute that humans have been eating meat in some quantity for hundreds of thousands of years, but the fact is that this is an extremely short period of time in evolutionary terms. If someone is starving, of course the addition of meat will improve their health (even deer will eat meat in the dead of winter with no other food source.) This does not mean it is an ideal diet, however. If you want to leave it, fine, but I'm happy to discuss it.


Haha, oh no, far from it, you especially won't catch me picking a side on that one, freed myself from the "authorities" years ago by seeing reality, that nobody knows the answer to that one, that's good enough for me.  I have very strong life philosophies though like expressed in many religions but I leave it there at the ideas.  Getting off track so I'll leave it there.


----------



## The Snark (Oct 29, 2013)

kellakk said:


> Well, the development of _Homo sapiens_ has everything to do with the other species in _Homo_, so they are relevant.  And yes, 2-3 million years is a very short time.  But we don't know everything about evolution, so we really can't dismiss any information about human evolution.


Well said.


----------



## SamuraiSid (Oct 30, 2013)

Thistles said:


> We need to define "human," then. _Homo sapiens_ has only been around for 1-250 thousand years, depending on which scientist you ask. If we're talking about the whole genus Homo, ok, that's been around for 2-3 million years. That's still the blink of an eye in an evolutionary time frame. Thank you for links, though.





kellakk said:


> Well, the development of _Homo sapiens_ has everything to do with the other species in _Homo_, so they are relevant.  And yes, 2-3 million years is a very short time.  But we don't know everything about evolution, so we really can't dismiss any information about human evolution.


Isnt this a moot tangent? What we are evolved to do and what we need to do to survive and thrive generally take a back seat to what we *want* to do. Which is eat steak and chicken nuggets.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## kellakk (Oct 30, 2013)

Sure, it's a moot tangent if you don't like discussing our origins as a species.  But it's still fun to discuss, isn't it?  Besides, a lot of the time what we want to do is limited by what we are evolved to do. I may want to breath underwater, but that doesn't mean I can.  Anyway, I'm pulling it even further off track, so I'll stop now.


----------



## The Snark (Oct 30, 2013)

SamuraiSid said:


> Isnt this a moot tangent? What we are evolved to do and what we need to do to survive and thrive generally take a back seat to what we *want* to do. Which is eat steak and chicken nuggets.


The stuff the Darwin Award is made from.


----------



## Thistles (Oct 30, 2013)

kellakk said:


> Well, the development of _Homo sapiens_ has everything to do with the other species in _Homo_, so they are relevant.  And yes, 2-3 million years is a very short time.  But we don't know everything about evolution, so we really can't dismiss any information about human evolution.


 Yes and yes and yes.



Galapoheros said:


> Haha, oh no, far from it, you especially won't catch me picking a side on that one, freed myself from the "authorities" years ago by seeing reality, that nobody knows the answer to that one, that's good enough for me.  I have very strong life philosophies though like expressed in many religions but I leave it there at the ideas.  Getting off track so I'll leave it there.


 Sorry, I know it's touchy. That's why I really wanted to get you to elaborate before I went in for the kill. Thanks for being a good sport.



SamuraiSid said:


> Isnt this a moot tangent? What we are evolved to do and what we need to do to survive and thrive generally take a back seat to what we *want* to do. Which is eat steak and chicken nuggets.


 Also yes and yes and alas.

Again, sorry I'm dull. I've had pretty much the worst week ever. *dramaaa*


----------



## Galapoheros (Oct 31, 2013)

That slightly related topic isn't touchy to me, but it sure is to a lot of people.  I simply don't argue with anyone over it because I don't know, and nobody else does either, very liberating, esp. from religious authority.  To go other places is to start a journey based on blind faith.  I'm just not that kind of person.


----------



## The Snark (Oct 31, 2013)

Galapoheros said:


> Haha, oh no, far from it, you especially won't catch me picking a side on that one, freed myself from the "authorities" years ago by seeing reality, that nobody knows the answer to that one, that's good enough for me.  I have very strong life philosophies though like expressed in many religions but I leave it there at the ideas.  Getting off track so I'll leave it there.


"I don't believe in any religion. I've got this crazy thing I do called thinking." George Carlin

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Smokehound714 (Oct 31, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Your posting is exemplary of deliberate and accidental inaccuracies. I had come to think of you as an authority of natural history, re: spiders, but a posting like that casts you, and all you have posted, in a somewhat dimmed light. I thought you above smear campaigns and propaganda.
> BTW, his name is Rodney.
> 
> ---------- Post added 10-28-2013 at 06:06 AM ----------
> ...


Oh, my apologies, Ray is Rodney coronado's father (who is also a part of this)  Penn and teller's <edit>! covers the whole issue, along with actual footage of Rodney showing students how to make bombs, and i'm not talking about flour-bombs.   He's a member of the Earth-liberation-front, which is a known arsonist group, having torched several research labs, as well as setting SUV's on fire in public businesses.  

  Why go on a hunt for literature, when i can simply post this image?:



  I'm a fisherman.  Do the math.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Oct 31, 2013)

Smokehound714 said:


> Oh, my apologies, Ray is Rodney coronado's father (who is also a part of this)  Penn and teller's <edit>! covers the whole issue, along with actual footage of Rodney showing students how to make bombs, and i'm not talking about flour-bombs.   He's a member of the Earth-liberation-front, which is a known arsonist group, having torched several research labs, as well as setting SUV's on fire in public businesses.
> 
> Why go on a hunt for literature, when i can simply post this image?:
> 
> ...


You neglected to mention he owned up, took the rap on behalf of his family, and paid his dues. Your posting is pure recrimination.

You have your right to freedom of speech but I question you turning AB into a muck racking scandal sheet.


----------



## Stirmi (Oct 31, 2013)

By your logic snark michael Vick owned up to his mistakes but does it make it right for what he has done?


----------



## The Snark (Oct 31, 2013)

*Dangerous waters ahead*

Do we really want to go and drag out every criminal and criminal act committed on behalf of animals and the environment on these boards?

Some people, especially natives, are very passionate about the matters of animal abuse and environmental destruction. They have expressed themselves, their passion, in occasionally illegal ways. In the case of Roy and myself, and many other natives, we have a gigantic list of grievances that we do our best to put behind us even though the wrongs done in the past have not been fully answered to and the damage and destruction continues unabated in many quarters at this present time. We try to move on. 

I would ask others to try and do the same.


----------



## SamuraiSid (Nov 3, 2013)

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/pets.aspx

I thought it was an interesting read, and will share a personal story from my wife (I dont FaceBook).

My wife is constantly adding photos of our herps. A Ball Python, Boa Constrictor and Savannah Monitor. One individual comments on every single photo, stating, "creepy" or "gross". And not in the cute way where people say gross then get in closer for a better look. This same individual posted a picture of her miniature dog wearing a devil costume for Halloween.

What I gather about PETA and their wish to ban all pet ownership is that many people dont purchase animals for the pleasure of owning and caring for animals. They buy them as accessories, or as dolls to be dressed up. I know plenty of people who own dogs and cats because they grew up with them in the house and its considered "normal". How many people have you seen who have never attempted any sort of dog training, but then hit or yell at their dog for "acting out". Ive said it before, and Ill say it again. It is my belief that 9 out of 10 animal owners lack the responsibility and respect necessary to properly care for a living thing.

Even Pet Stores treat animals as commodities to be turned over as quickly as possible, and to this end they generally provide sub adequate care and care information. If these stores were to treat animals more humanely, refusing sales to inappropriate people for example, sales would go down. Employee salaries would go up as you'd have to properly educate them. These companies could not survive within our society as it currently stands. 

A very similar argument could be made about the cattle industry which I believe is the #1 opponent for animal rights. But if these cows had rights and were treated humanely, prices would skyrocket and people would complain. Unfortunately these issues take a back seat to big bucks. I highly suggest reading, "The Omnivores Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. Which takes you through the history of the American Agricultural Industry.  IIRC, it was during the depression of the 1930's which saw government doing everything in their power to make meat more affordable to the masses.

Calling them a terrorist organization is truly unfair. This is the same kind of thinking that paints all muslims with the same post-9/11 brush.


I cannot support any organization which believes in legislation over education. While I dont agree, I can kind ofunderstand PETA's pov. But by their logic everything from alcohol, to driving to politicians should be banned:sarcasm:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stirmi (Nov 3, 2013)

Interesting points except IMO with dealing with 10+ rescues and thousands of exotic pet owners I've talked to over the years only about 1/10 people don't care or are buying them irresponsibly and your saying it isn't fair to blame all Muslims for te 911 attack but is it fair to blame gun owners because of a few irresponsible people or a few irresponsible pet owners I punish everyone. IMO the only animal that should be heavily regulated would be dogs and cats because they are so invasive and bad or the environment contrary to any exotic will ever be. And while PETA isn't a terrorist organization there have been cases involving member assaulting people. And recently members of PETA were found dumping the bodies of dead puppies and kittens in trash cans

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SamuraiSid (Nov 3, 2013)

Experiences vary and I would love to meet some locals who truly care about the pets they own, instead of simply being passionate. Just my opinion, but I think your a lucky guy to know so many good people.

I certainly dont blame guns or all gun owners for gun violence. I suppose sometimes gun violence could be associated with how the children are raised. Acording to wikipedia Michael Vick grew up where dog fighting was the norm. So when he came into money he decided to get into the "business" for himself. By no means am I trying to defend his actions, but perhaps his actions are part of a larger cultural issue of ignorance. Opposed to pointing the finger at Vick, which has already been done, Im left wondering what kind of world we live in where anyone thinks its ok for kids to be involved in such an activity. As an adult you could argue that he should be mature enough to know its wrong, but social programming is a powerful agent, and there isnt enough awareness about animal cruelty to change someones point of view. Especially someone who grew up with adults telling children dog fighting is cool.


I would be very interested in hearing what happened to the PETA members found dumping bodies in trash cans. Im willing to bet the PR said something along the lines of, "We are currently looking into it" and thats the end of the story.


----------



## pitbulllady (Nov 3, 2013)

SamuraiSid said:


> Experiences vary and I would love to meet some locals who truly care about the pets they own, instead of simply being passionate. Just my opinion, but I think your a lucky guy to know so many good people.
> 
> I certainly dont blame guns or all gun owners for gun violence. I suppose sometimes gun violence could be associated with how the children are raised. Acording to wikipedia Michael Vick grew up where dog fighting was the norm. So when he came into money he decided to get into the "business" for himself. By no means am I trying to defend his actions, but perhaps his actions are part of a larger cultural issue of ignorance. Opposed to pointing the finger at Vick, which has already been done, Im left wondering what kind of world we live in where anyone thinks its ok for kids to be involved in such an activity. As an adult you could argue that he should be mature enough to know its wrong, but social programming is a powerful agent, and there isnt enough awareness about animal cruelty to change someones point of view. Especially someone who grew up with adults telling children dog fighting is cool.
> 
> ...


The PETA members in question were acquitted of all charges except for a misdemeanor charge of "littering" or "illegal dumping".  Seriously.  Do not underestimate the legal juggernauts that these groups have at their disposal.  Trust me, if you or I got caught taking healthy pets from people, promising to give those pets a new home, then killing them with illegally-obtained controlled substances and throwing their dead bodies in a dumpster belonging to a business, we'd both still be in prison.  The control that both PETA and HSUS have over judges and the influence they exert over elected officials is too great to simply brush off.  This is why both groups are currently being sued under the RICO Statute, which was originally designed to bust up the Mob and interrupt its activities.

Some people have argued that merely agreeing with these groups in principal on most of their stances does nothing to "empower" them, or help them get what they want.  Really?  If you agree with PETA or HSUS, what politicians are you most likely to vote for, those who are opposed to those same views, or those who agree with them?  If you have a choice between two politicians, one who say, thinks that hunting is evil and horrible and should be banned, or one who is an avid hunter himself?  Chances are that the AR movement is going to have made major financial contributions to the politician who shares their viewpoint, and if you're on board with it, too, and help put into office a politician who will work to further the AR agenda, you still helped them!  While you might agree with them on every single issue, by helping them get their political allies in power, you help ensure that their agenda is furthered.  They won't pick and choose just to promote and push for the things that YOU support.  You might have thought you only voted to help end hunting, but you get a ban on owning reptiles and other "exotic" pets in the bargain.  They don't distinguish between a responsible dog breeder and someone who keeps hundreds of dogs in horrible conditions just to have "designer puppies" for sale 365 days per year.  These people are NOT going to compromise.  It's too late to say, "WHOA!  I just voted for What's-His-Face because he promised to ban hunting, and now he's trying to ban my pets?"  Politicians are going to follow the money.  Just because you did not donate money to PETA or HSUS, by supporting the same politicians they support, and fund, you still support them, and they aren't going to stop with just implementing the changes that YOU want.  If you still believe that we should be allowed to own the animals of our choosing, that can come around quickly to "bite" you.

pitbulllady


----------



## SamuraiSid (Nov 3, 2013)

Thank you PBL. On an unrelated topic the last time I voted was for the tories in the federal election several years back. I voted for the sole purpose of ending the long gun registry. My views on the subject are that criminals dont register their firearms, and secondly, criminals dont use bolt-action hunting rifles to rob banks. That was 2 elections ago and the registery still exists. Campaign promises dont mean much since after the election you have spent your voice and the corporations still have lobbyists in Ottawa. Plus you mention plea bargains you need to raise with the opposition to make even a small victory.



After some more digging I found this:
http://topcatsroar.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/animal-welfare-v-animal-rights-skinned-alive-is-a-myth/

The German High Court found PETA guilty of paying people to skin animals alive, videotape the torture, and then pass the videos off as industry norms. PETA wanted people to think that Ugg boots were made from the furs of tortured, living animals.



Personally I wont be pleased with the results of the RICO case against PETA. The ASPCA paid out $9.3 million and to the best of my knowledge didnt make headlines. Something tells me that PETA will get a similar slap on the wrist, and with their lack of funds will likely result to baseball bats for euthanization.



Now Im wondering if anyone is aware of organizations worth backing?


----------



## The Snark (Nov 4, 2013)

SamuraiSid said:


> Now Im wondering if anyone is aware of organizations worth backing?


You could start with Senckenberg Research Institute (Dr. Jager et al), Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the RSPCA Reform group, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and a few others. I'd avoid the Human Rites Crotch (US Congress) and anyone even remotely ass-sociated with them.


----------



## Najakeeper (Nov 4, 2013)

pitbulllady said:


> The PETA members in question were acquitted of all charges except for a misdemeanor charge of "littering" or "illegal dumping".  Seriously.  Do not underestimate the legal juggernauts that these groups have at their disposal.  Trust me, if you or I got caught taking healthy pets from people, promising to give those pets a new home, then killing them with illegally-obtained controlled substances and throwing their dead bodies in a dumpster belonging to a business, we'd both still be in prison.  The control that both PETA and HSUS have over judges and the influence they exert over elected officials is too great to simply brush off.  This is why both groups are currently being sued under the RICO Statute, which was originally designed to bust up the Mob and interrupt its activities.
> 
> Some people have argued that merely agreeing with these groups in principal on most of their stances does nothing to "empower" them, or help them get what they want.  Really?  If you agree with PETA or HSUS, what politicians are you most likely to vote for, those who are opposed to those same views, or those who agree with them?  If you have a choice between two politicians, one who say, thinks that hunting is evil and horrible and should be banned, or one who is an avid hunter himself?  Chances are that the AR movement is going to have made major financial contributions to the politician who shares their viewpoint, and if you're on board with it, too, and help put into office a politician who will work to further the AR agenda, you still helped them!  While you might agree with them on every single issue, by helping them get their political allies in power, you help ensure that their agenda is furthered.  They won't pick and choose just to promote and push for the things that YOU support.  You might have thought you only voted to help end hunting, but you get a ban on owning reptiles and other "exotic" pets in the bargain.  They don't distinguish between a responsible dog breeder and someone who keeps hundreds of dogs in horrible conditions just to have "designer puppies" for sale 365 days per year.  These people are NOT going to compromise.  It's too late to say, "WHOA!  I just voted for What's-His-Face because he promised to ban hunting, and now he's trying to ban my pets?"  Politicians are going to follow the money.  Just because you did not donate money to PETA or HSUS, by supporting the same politicians they support, and fund, you still support them, and they aren't going to stop with just implementing the changes that YOU want.  If you still believe that we should be allowed to own the animals of our choosing, that can come around quickly to "bite" you.
> 
> pitbulllady


Yeah, so we come to the heart of the problem.

In US, politicians, who raise more money, will win the office they are running for. So basically, every single politician is bought and paid for by one special interest group or another, be it PETA or NRA, it does not matter. What you guys need is a proper political system, where legalized bribery does not exist anymore and corporations are not considered "people". Then you can be represented by people, who actually care about your concerns.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## The Snark (Nov 4, 2013)

Najakeeper said:


> Yeah, so we come to the heart of the problem.
> 
> In US, politicians, who raise more money, will win the office they are running for. So basically, every single politician is bought and paid for by one special interest group or another, be it PETA or NRA, it does not matter. What you guys need is a proper political system, where legalized bribery does not exist anymore and corporations are not considered "people". Then you can be represented by people, who actually care about your concerns.


:sarcasm:
Bullfeather$. Ju$t becau$e corporation$ have the $ame right$ a$ individual$, animal$ are con$idered food, target$ or toy$, they $till $hove creationi$m in kid$ face$ in pubic $koolz and debate evolution, we con$ume more food and re$ource$ than any other country but are among the wor$t fed nutrition wi$e, get our new$ from incredibly $$$ bia$ed $ource$, have the wor$t homele$$ problem of the entire world, have more people in pri$on than any other country, are rapidly becoming the mo$t obe$e people in the world, demand we have an infinite amount of toy$ and luxury goodie$ a$ motorhome$, RV$ etc, and have one of the crappie$t education $y$tem$, doe$n't mean we aren't kind loving wonderful fanta$tic people... and we've got the war toy$ to prove it!
:sarcasm:

could we get a little more wax on the floor over there... and there?

My theme song: [YOUTUBE]NOErZuzZpS8&list[/YOUTUBE]

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Thistles (Nov 4, 2013)

pitbulllady said:


> Some people have argued that merely agreeing with these groups in principal on most of their stances does nothing to "empower" them, or help them get what they want.  Really?  If you agree with PETA or HSUS, what politicians are you most likely to vote for, those who are opposed to those same views, or those who agree with them?  If you have a choice between two politicians, one who say, thinks that hunting is evil and horrible and should be banned, or one who is an avid hunter himself?  Chances are that the AR movement is going to have made major financial contributions to the politician who shares their viewpoint, and if you're on board with it, too, and help put into office a politician who will work to further the AR agenda, you still helped them!  While you might agree with them on every single issue, by helping them get their political allies in power, you help ensure that their agenda is furthered.  They won't pick and choose just to promote and push for the things that YOU support.  You might have thought you only voted to help end hunting, but you get a ban on owning reptiles and other "exotic" pets in the bargain.  They don't distinguish between a responsible dog breeder and someone who keeps hundreds of dogs in horrible conditions just to have "designer puppies" for sale 365 days per year.  These people are NOT going to compromise.  It's too late to say, "WHOA!  I just voted for What's-His-Face because he promised to ban hunting, and now he's trying to ban my pets?"  Politicians are going to follow the money.  Just because you did not donate money to PETA or HSUS, by supporting the same politicians they support, and fund, you still support them, and they aren't going to stop with just implementing the changes that YOU want.  If you still believe that we should be allowed to own the animals of our choosing, that can come around quickly to "bite" you.


 ...she says as if it doesn't go both ways. Yes, the American political system is a disaster. That goes for both political parties. Everyone's got their hands in the money. You have yet to answer any of my criticisms. You and your fan club just keep on making generalizations and attacking straw men.


----------



## bugmankeith (Nov 9, 2013)

I think I heard this is the same for the starving children commercials and UNICEF, that a petty fee helps children the rest goes to the company.

Also get this (a lot of organizations are liars). I've donated clothes and toys to charities, supposedly to go to needy children and families. Most stuff was in perfect condition but a few toys had my initials on them in small writing. You know I found 3 things of mine being sold on ebay I donated to these so called charities? The sellers page said nothing about working for charity or profit for charity. Its hard to trust any charity these days...


And like others stated, instead of paying thousands to make these commercials the money should be going to the cause!


----------



## The Snark (Nov 9, 2013)

bugmankeith said:


> I think I heard this is the same for the starving children commercials and UNICEF, that a petty fee helps children the rest goes to the company.
> 
> Also get this (a lot of organizations are liars). I've donated clothes and toys to charities, supposedly to go to needy children and families. Most stuff was in perfect condition but a few toys had my initials on them in small writing. You know I found 3 things of mine being sold on ebay I donated to these so called charities? The sellers page said nothing about working for charity or profit for charity. Its hard to trust any charity these days...
> 
> ...


Very true. Always check the facts of the cause or organization before donating or contributing. On that subject, one cause that is outstanding in it's field of putting the money where it does the most good: The Gates Foundation! I use their efforts as a guide that I hold others up against to compare.


----------



## SamuraiSid (Nov 9, 2013)

The Snark said:


> :sarcasm:
> Bullfeather$. Ju$t becau$e corporation$ have the $ame right$ a$ individual$, animal$ are con$idered food, target$ or toy$, they $till $hove creationi$m in kid$ face$ in pubic $koolz and debate evolution, we con$ume more food and re$ource$ than any other country but are among the wor$t fed nutrition wi$e, get our new$ from incredibly $$$ bia$ed $ource$, have the wor$t homele$$ problem of the entire world, have more people in pri$on than any other country, are rapidly becoming the mo$t obe$e people in the world, demand we have an infinite amount of toy$ and luxury goodie$ a$ motorhome$, RV$ etc, and have one of the crappie$t education $y$tem$, doe$n't mean we aren't kind loving wonderful fanta$tic people... and we've got the war toy$ to prove it!
> :sarcasm:
> 
> ...


I think this might be why PETA feels its in an  animals best interest to be euthanized instead of owned. Sometimes  a peacful death (assuming the technician is properly trained) is better than the overwhelming possibility of living a miserable life.

I still dont agree with PETA, just searching for some middle ground to keep the conversation flowing.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 10, 2013)

SamuraiSid said:


> I think this might be why PETA feels its in an  animals best interest to be euthanized instead of owned. Sometimes  a peacful death (assuming the technician is properly trained) is better than the overwhelming possibility of living a miserable life.
> 
> I still dont agree with PETA, just searching for some middle ground to keep the conversation flowing.


Well, you hit on the heart of the problem. There is no middle ground. The extremes overlap to a tremendous degree. A perfect example is here on AB the other day. I'm a pretty radical conservationist but I came under fire for promoting depredation. However, the sad fact is at the present time euthanasia is one very necessary solution to one of the problems. A few years back they had a rabies outbreak in Djakarta and the police quickly ran out of ammunition as they tried to reduce the completely out of control dog population. 

The WHO facts pretty much say it all. An estimated 200 million stray dogs in the world today and 55,000 human deaths every year from rabies. Yet let the word get out you put down stray animals, regardless of how humanely, you are going to get flamed from many quarters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Nov 11, 2013)

*The million pound hammer, as you people requested*

I so desperately have been wanting to tell a whole lot of people where they can kiss what of my anatomy. I boiled over today when I met a girl walking along a backwater stretch of road. She was wearing a flithy t-shirt and ragged pants, walking along looking for recyclables to sell. I guesstimated her age at between 12 to 14 and she was about 4 months preggo.

A while back on this forum I got blasted for something. I thought I would cut that person and the PETA and HSUS bashers a sweetheart deal. You talk the Americans into cutting back a little tiny bit on their rapacious destruction of our planet, say, consume a measly half million pounds of beef less every day, and I'll promise to never let our cog and dat act in a normal cog and dat like fashion ever again. 

And while we are at it, since you have that kind of clout, let's take one tenth of one percent of  the world's budget spent on war implements and feed and clothe all the needy children of the world. That budget should be more than adequate. 

A while back some incredibly self deceiving bozos heard a mega dork presidential candidate blowing sunshine up their wazoos in the form of CHANGE! We will CHANGE all the bad thingies and make our country flying fabulous wonderful forever and ever! CHANGE WILL COME ABOUT. 

Right. That much fertilizer would turn the Sahara into a teeming jungle. You utter and complete clowns. The one who blew that dung and all the ones that swallowed it. Change starts at the grass roots. Right at the bottom. Can we assume that all the PETA and HSUS bashers always take reusable bags when they go shopping? Always ride bikes whenever possible? Have the most energy efficient life styles possible?

Go right ahead and bash PETA and HSUS and any other organization you want. It's just the thing the Kochs and their ilk love.  Keep the sheep arguing among themselves as they take away our future generations planet and give us back a toxic waste dump.

We already know the government is ineffective. Quit deluding yourselves. It's not a democracy any more and you can shove that denial. It's an oligarchy, plain simple and straight forwards. The last presidential candidate that came close to holding the people as first and foremost was Ralph Nader and you saw just how far you deluded poop heads helped him go.

PETA more than any other animal rights operation took the words vivisection and wound laboratories  out of the closet in the cellar, (behind the door marked beware of the leopard), and brought them to the dinner table.

I found it hilarious recently, because I am a first degree Snark, when the McCarthy crap reared it's head once again. Obama=Socialist! BEWARE. News flash  you indoctrinated morons! The most functional operations of your government are all socialist. The infra structure. The police and fire departments. Your Social (in)Security. Oh holy bejeezus did the scam and schemers get mileage out of the great red threat horror stories, years after it died. As Andy Rooney once said, “There never was a great red threat. I've been to the bathrooms in Moscow.”

And so Americans and others of the modern first world, Greed and Gluttony Inc. moan and wail and snivel, as long as they don't have to give up the tiniest of their personal comforts and luxuries, and can continue to bash their favorite gripe. A couple of darling gals a while back, Katrina and Sandy,  gave you a stern wake up call. And what did you do? The ones that weren't too busy basking in Koch like backsides went screaming to their dysfunctional government to do something for them!

Dang but the big money loves to hear the moron masses sniveling and bitching, tearing at each other that their favorite cause is wonderful and everyone else is full of poop. That's as funny as some of us natives and our quaint seven generations doctrine. It's a wonderful bit of irony that we, the progeny of the victims of American genocide are observing. The quasi religious hypocrites went plopping their houses of worship all over our reservations and now we are slowly reclaiming our inheritance, putting houses of worship of modern man, casinos, on our little allocated plots and buying back what is rightfully ours to begin with. Got to love life's little ironies. That's along the lines of one mega successful businessman who put his money where his mouth is. The U.S. Gov couldn't stand that and sued him. Bad Mr. Gates. Why can't you be like the other a-holes and just quietly shaft everyone in sight in the proper prescribed manner?

“Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. So glad you could attend, step inside step inside. There behind the glass is a real blade of grass.  Be careful as you pass, move along, move along.” E.L.P. Carn Evil 9.

Well folks. You dug and are digging this sewage pit, crapping in it as you go down. Now, would it be too much to ask to get some positive outlooks and thinking, and just maybe, some objectivity and suggestions now and then as to what could be beneficial? What others are doing that is beneficial and suggestions to them as to what they could do to improve their operations?


Addendumb. As  for that loathsome nasty slut I met this morning, it's shame we can't move her to, say, Texas. Where the self righteous rectal religious can yell at her she should have put an aspirin between her knees and it's some fantasy guy in the sky's will she pop that baby out, or die trying, then put it up for adoption and head across the border where she can find employment lying on her back.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stirmi (Nov 11, 2013)

Snark, I'm not against conservation in fact I'm very pro conservation I think it is extremely important and without it the world will go down a relatively short awful path that will only end with poverty and death. However I'm saying PETA is a very poor organization and are not ethical or realistic on how to get there goals and those goals themselves, for example PETA wants people to stop eating meat but we are hard wired today meat as we have done throughout evolution, so to try an "persuade people" they organize attacks on meat markets. There are organizations out there who I feel are doing a good job such as the EPA because they are trying to get a balance of good industry and enviornmental protection. As for your take on the us political system, you don't even live in the us so how are you such an "expert" frankly your word means nothing because your just another extremist it seems who think they know everything and feel the need totalk down to people who don't share the same views. As for the girl and your texas remark, I laughed at how stupid it was, I have many relatives in texas and know many people and truthfully the liberal media try's to make them sound bad when in all honesty they are nicer than any northerner out there and value what's important like family and friends instead of money, time etc like they do in the north where I'm from, giving the chance I'm moving down south, the remark just how your true ignorance is and truly shows how little you know about America snark an I will ask the moderators to close this thread because it's only going to spiral down from this point on with ignorant people here who try to act like they are all high and mighty when they don't know jack about America.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 11, 2013)

Since it isn't painfully obvious to you by now, I'm a native American. Read what I wrote in several postings, not just selectively skim and grab pissy little things to get in a snit about. Read my profile. Try doing a little bit of research. Your knee jerk reactions make me gag.

And while were on the subject, please list for the edification of all, each and every one of your daily news information sources. I spoke in generalities, and you dig for the dirt. Did you really want me, as an example, to cite all the recent ridiculous legislation that the state of Texas is now foisting? That's one long long ugly list. They certainly aren't the only ones but they are exemplary.

Upon reflection, the moderators should consider shutting this thread down, but of course that is their decision based upon their wisdoms and choices. But the ground that I would cite for closing this thread is that you are trolling, and started this thread in that light. However, a whole lot of people have contributed a number of very worthy insights here, and I don't think that you having a tantrum should stifle them and their contributions.


----------



## advan (Nov 11, 2013)

*Mod Note*

Keep the debate civil. Everybody has an opinion and because this is a public forum, they will express it. 

Foul language does not help your side of the debate, please refrain from using it. Any more and infractions will be handed out.


----------



## gloost (Nov 11, 2013)

Yawn. Again... people yawping out existential angst defending this or that politically correct tosh...in the time it took you to type your silly angry essays,  the world didn't change 1 bit for the better,  and all you got was that little bit closer to a heart attack, or drowning in the tepid drool of  self-righteous impotence.


----------



## Malhavoc's (Nov 11, 2013)

gloost said:


> Yawn. Again... people yawping out existential angst defending this or that politically correct tosh...in the time it took you to type your silly angry essays,  the world didn't change 1 bit for the better,  and all you got was that little bit closer to a heart attack, or drowning in the tepid drool of  self-righteous impotence.


The world may not of changed by the Snark typing out his essay, However. I have now read it, You have now read it, so have countless others. It is up to us what we do with it, but I find those that take the soap box, are those at least trying to make change.  I do not think anyone should ever be condemned for expressing themselves, as we are all individuals entitled to our own views, thus is the American freedom of speech, no? 

HSUS and PETA have been in a lot of trouble lately, My question is, with the growing negative PR and public reception, what will be the next entity to take their place?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 11, 2013)

People are people, I think it's advancing technology that makes it easy to express the worse in people today.  The Snark rant reminds me of this song  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7W0Nm8iHwk  "Science like nature must also be tamed"  I plan to get back to nature.  Yesterday I cut wood for a stove I heat the house with, got hungry and ate pomegranates from my back yard that I didn't have to buy from somebody else, what a good feeling was to me ....oh yeah, staying on topic, PETA sucks! hahaha.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 11, 2013)

Malhavoc's said:


> The world may not of changed by the Snark typing out his essay, However. I have now read it, You have now read it, so have countless others. It is up to us what we do with it, but I find those that take the soap box, are those at least trying to make change.  I do not think anyone should ever be condoned for expressing themselves, as we are all individuals entitled to our own views, thus is the American freedom of speech, no?
> 
> HSUS and PETA have been in a lot of trouble lately, My question is, with the growing negative PR and public reception, what will be the next entity to take their place?


 MMMMMMPH!!!! Err, you didn't happen to mean condemned instead of condoned, did you? :sarcasm:

I've been exchanging emails with a PETA rep for several months now. I've tried to (believe it or not) politely point out they aren't making a whole heck of a lot of friends in certain circles. From what I have gleaned of their replies, they seem to think life is a bed of roses at this time. Interesting, the different takes and viewpoints. My other gripe with them is the convenience factor. People, especially celebrities, sign on to operations like PETA instead of putting out effort to do it on their own. I had a very kind letter from the actress Daryl Hannah a while back. That is her gripe as well. Her environmentalism efforts are definitely worth keeping an eye on.


----------



## Thistles (Nov 11, 2013)

The Snark said:


> The WHO facts pretty much say it all. An estimated 200 million stray dogs in the world today and 55,000 human deaths every year from rabies. Yet let the word get out you put down stray animals, regardless of how humanely, you are going to get flamed from many quarters.


 There are around 70 million feral cats in the US and 80 million in homes. There are also 7 dogs and cats born per human born daily in the US. Where are the animals going to go? The solution is to stop breeding, keep sterilizing and, unfortunately, keep euthanizing. I love the animals, but the millions annually dying in shelters and on the streets are enough motivation for me to give up having pets. Even if it meant I couldn't own pets it would absolutely be worth it to me to see legislation prohibiting breeding dogs and cats or even forbidding any pet ownership. This minimizes suffering and destruction. How selfish would I be if I could condemn millions to suffer and die so I can have them in my home? This is not even mentioning the environmental damage they do. Some of the most important work done in the Galapagos islands, which are some of the most pristine environments left, was extermination of introduced donkeys, goats, pigs, dogs, cats and rats. Not all the islands are back to how they used to be, but they've cleared a few. There's a beneficial hunt for those of you looking for a thrill kill. Hilarious how those who are defending hunting are decrying an organization that is euthanizing surplus destructive "pets."



Stirmi said:


> Snark, I'm not against conservation in fact I'm very pro conservation I think it is extremely important and without it the world will go down a relatively short awful path that will only end with poverty and death. However I'm saying PETA is a very poor organization and are not ethical or realistic on how to get there goals and those goals themselves, for example PETA wants people to stop eating meat but we are hard wired today meat as we have done throughout evolution, so to try an "persuade people" they organize attacks on meat markets. There are organizations out there who I feel are doing a good job such as the EPA because they are trying to get a balance of good industry and enviornmental protection...
> 
> ...I will ask the moderators to close this thread because it's only going to spiral down from this point on with ignorant people here who try to act like they are all high and mighty when they don't know jack about America.


 You got chewed out so now you want the thread closed? You started all this! Snark's already dealt with you handily, but I'll throw in my $.02. Trying to find places to cut this off was a bear. Use a period now and then.

It is impossible to be a conservationist and still advocate eating meat. Farming animals for food is one of, if not THE, most destructive thing we do to the environment. We are not "hard wired" to eat meat. You are culturally brainwashed into thinking you need it. It's bad for you, bad for the environment, bad for other people and certainly bad for the animals. Use that amazing BRAIN evolution has gifted you with and make a cost/benefit analysis. Seriously. Do some research on it and don't just defend what you WANT to do.

As for the EPA doing a good job... lol.


----------



## BobGrill (Nov 11, 2013)

Why do people have to get so pissy about this topic? I think the thread should be closed as well, because obviously people here can't accept the views of others and have to resort to making personal attacks. Remember, accepting someone's opinion is not the same as agreeing with it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Nov 11, 2013)

EPA. The Simpsons Movie was pretty accurate.

We had a traffic accident in our town. Since I heard the BANG I eventually wandered out to the scene. A car was leaking radiator fluid which has a 50 foot trip to the storm drain that emptied into Parker Creek. Some dude from the EPA was there. He was warning everybody to stay clear of the scene. I mean, this guy was acting like the EPA guy on Ghostbusters. He ordered me to back away from the vicinity. I sadly replied it is ethylene glycol and just what in heck is his personal 12 alarm fire. The nut case actually threatened to have me arrested if I didn't cooperate. 

So there we have Parker Creek. 150 yards upstream is the start of the LP timber harvest plots. Around a half million acres of clear cuts. The entire area sprayed repeatedly by helicopter with several different kinds of herbicide, all draining down into Parker.  Thousands of gallons of herbicide is okay because Louisiana Pacific, the biggest $$$ in the entire county, had filed the correct papers and received the correct waivers, but 2 gallons of biodegradable alcohol is a deadly hazard.

Talk about can't see the forest for the (lack of) trees. The EPA are in a class all their own, teetering at times at the very pinnacle of the cement head pyramid.


----------



## Thistles (Nov 11, 2013)

BobGrill said:


> Why do people have to get so pissy about this topic? I think the thread should be closed as well, because obviously people here can't accept the views of others and have to resort to making personal attacks. Remember, accepting someone's opinion is not the same as agreeing with it.


 If you were walking down the street and saw someone kicking a puppy, would you say something? How would you feel about it? Magnify that by billions.


----------



## Stirmi (Nov 11, 2013)

I wante the thread closed because it is losing it relevancy and turning sour between us and is resorting t personal attacks like bob grill said. I don't get why you two are getting so angry at me I respect your opinions however as soon as you started talking down to everyone is where I lost it because it was disrespectful an it is possible to be both there something called a middle ground and not being a extreme conservationist or the other end. This thread wasn't meant to cause anger between anyone it was meant to warn people about the true intentions of PETA and the Hsus. I'm sorry if I offended you but I have a right to an opinion just as you.  As for the dogs ad cats, ironically those are the only animals if think should be heavily regulate because of the damage to the environment they cause, however they should not be banned but regulated. Let's stay on good terms and drop this thread because I'm not going to Change your mind and your not going to change mine. And we are Ominvores, we eat both meat and plant like matter it is in it nature to eat both.


----------



## BobGrill (Nov 11, 2013)

Thistles said:


> If you were walking down the street and saw someone kicking a puppy, would you say something? How would you feel about it? Magnify that by billions.


Oh stop it. Your pathetic attempts to make me look like a cold-hearted animal-hater have failed already so don't even try it.

I see no reason for anyone to get all radical about it. I myself love animals and hate seeing them treated badly, but I'm not going to verbally or physically attack others just because they don't see eye to eye with all of my views.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Thistles (Nov 11, 2013)

Stirmi said:


> I wante the thread closed because it is losing it relevancy and turning sour between us and is resorting t personal attacks like bob grill said.


 You mean because people actually dare to defend animal rights? This has been brought up on the forum many times before with predictable results: a few predictable people make a few predictable angry (and often untrue) statements and everyone pats each other on the back for being so perceptive and staunch and united against the evils of the AR movement.

And like 2 people take the opposing view and can't get any straight responses. Look at PBL's replies to me here, for example. Did she ever answer any of my criticisms? Nope.



Stirmi said:


> I don't get why you two are getting so angry at me I respect your opinions however as soon as you started talking down to everyone is where I lost it because it was disrespectful an it is possible to be both there something called a middle ground and not being a extreme conservationist or the other end.


 I don't think I've talked down to anyone. I've asked people to stop generalizing and to be honest with themselves. I don't consider myself an extremist at all. I live in the US, own pets, feed them other animals...



Stirmi said:


> This thread wasn't meant to cause anger between anyone it was meant to warn people about the true intentions of PETA and the Hsus.


 There have been others just like it. If you just wanted a one-sided "THESE R BAD K?" warning, this isn't the place. It's a _forum._ That means there will be other people who can reply, and some will dissent.



Stirmi said:


> I'm sorry if I offended you but I have a right to an opinion just as you.


 Of course you do.



Stirmi said:


> As for the dogs ad cats, ironically those are the only animals if think should be heavily regulate because of the damage to the environment they cause, however they should not be banned but regulated.


 That would be a good start.



Stirmi said:


> Let's stay on good terms and drop this thread because I'm not going to Change your mind and your not going to change mine. And we are Ominvores, we eat both meat and plant like matter it is in it nature to eat both.


 "Let's just be done with this BUT BY THE WAY FINAL SHOT!" We are not omnivores by necessity. We are omnivores by choice. There is nothing natural at all about the standard American diet. Don't pretend nature justifies eating McDonalds.

---------- Post added 11-11-2013 at 08:09 PM ----------




BobGrill said:


> Oh stop it. Your pathetic attempts to make me look like a cold-hearted animal-hater have failed already so don't even try it.
> 
> I see no reason for anyone to get all radical about it. I myself love animals and hate seeing them treated badly, but I'm not going to verbally or physically attack others just because they don't see eye to eye with all of my views.


 That was not what I was trying to do. I was asking you how you would respond if you saw what you perceive to be animal abuse occurring, and appealing to your professed love of animals. Would you be angry? Would you say something? What is happening here is we have a difference of opinion about what constitutes abuse. I think every chicken killed on a factory farm deserves the same standard of care as my hypothetical puppy, so I feel the same way about it as I would if I saw my hypothetical puppy kicker.

I have not attacked anyone. I have attacked their positions and actions. That's what a conversation, debate or argument is. People and animals have rights. Beliefs do not. They deserve scrutiny.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 11, 2013)

BobGrill said:


> Oh stop it. Your pathetic attempts to make me look like a cold-hearted animal-hater have failed already so don't even try it.
> 
> I see no reason for anyone to get all radical about it. I myself love animals and hate seeing them treated badly, but I'm not going to verbally or physically attack others just because they don't see eye to eye with all of my views.


You are a cold hearted animal hater! I said it so it has to be true. So there. Bite me. (Said it with a straight face too!)
The fact is just about everyone who has weighed in on this thread is an animal lover, each in their own way. That none of you think precisely like I do proves you are all wrong but that's okay. Please report for sterilization or otherwise remove yourselves from the gene pool.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 11, 2013)

Hey Bob, I took a hint from Thistle's username and Avatar, I'm on to you Thistle lol!  Oh yeah, staying on topic, PETA sucks! hahaha.



BobGrill said:


> Oh stop it. Your pathetic attempts to make me look like a cold-hearted animal-hater have failed already so don't even try it.
> 
> I see no reason for anyone to get all radical about it. I myself love animals and hate seeing them treated badly, but I'm not going to verbally or physically attack others just because they don't see eye to eye with all of my views.


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Nov 11, 2013)

PETA and HSUS are here to stay and grow ever larger. Even the very people (exotic animal lovers) they target defend them. Setbacks will be setbacks.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 12, 2013)

Elytra and Antenna said:


> PETA and HSUS are here to stay and grow ever larger. Even the very people (exotic animal lovers) they target defend them. Setbacks will be setbacks.


You can take that one step further. As political parties are extremely aware and use the same tactic constantly, any kind of publicity, negative or positive, helps out the cause. This being from the average couch potato just stares vapidly, mouth hanging open slightly, with the grey matter motor never getting shifted out of neutral: If <name your favorite media news source> says it, it has to be true. If <name your most hated media news source> say it, it's a lie. So it really doesn't matter what is said, or the real truths. The discerning mind is off. The name of the cause gets out there and gets spread around and that's all that matters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Thistles (Nov 12, 2013)

The Snark said:


> You can take that one step further. As political parties are extremely aware and use the same tactic constantly, any kind of publicity, negative or positive, helps out the cause. This being from the average couch potato just stares vapidly, mouth hanging open slightly, with the grey matter motor never getting shifted out of neutral: If <name your favorite media news source> says it, it has to be true. If <name your most hated media news source> say it, it's a lie. So it really doesn't matter what is said, or the real truths. The discerning mind is off. The name of the cause gets out there and gets spread around and that's all that matters.


 You must have been talking to my mother.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 12, 2013)

Thistles said:


> You must have been talking to my mother.


Probably worse. From some two week applied psychology mini course. Billboard logic, capturing attention, blah blah blah. Was good for a half credit though!

You know, there is something remarkable and very strange about operations like PETA. There are people who donate great amounts of money to those causes and those people as a general rule do a lot of research before the money changes hands. What is amazing is there are so many people who apparently know far more than the millionaires and all their research. Why is this?

(I'm going to be up front honest here and not sandbag you all. I've just been in touch with a person who is making a third huge donation to an animal rights operation and who has researched PETA, even using a private investigator, for over a year before he gave them money. So I would really like to hear the info sources of the PETA authorities here, and the in depth research they have done. So please don't toss well known flash and crash media hype at me. I'm quite willing to hear the bad, but I want the real nuts and bolts. All of them, non selective. If you cite mainstream news media it would be very helpful, even your obligation if you think about it, to also cite the money that has changed hands, and who if anyone stands to profit from lowering the rights group a notch or two. Let's hear ALL the dirt. The rationales, the reasons and the motivations.


To give a prime example, Paul Watson was railroaded and bashed as people have been bashing PETA here. Word has come out from several very reliable sources, evidenced by their own actions, that Fox News received significant amounts of dark money to throw dirt at him. So, please keep in mind when bashing away, you may be entirely right and correct, or you may be echoing the slime slingers.


----------



## Mister Internet (Nov 12, 2013)

Morbid curiosity again backfires to interrupt my hiatus.  Things have gotten crunchy since the last time I've been here.

I have a genuine question for Thistle, Snark, and anyone else who insists on putting humans and animals on morally-equivalent grounds:

"Based on what, exactly?"

Now, I fully understand your moral outrage... I've heard it before.  What I don't understand is that I invariably hear the MOST moral outrage for animal rights from the people with an agnostic or atheist worldview.  This is completely incoherent to me, and I am just curious how you've come to justify the otherwise overwhelming cognitive dissonance that comes along with simultaneously holding the views that: A) there is no universal morality, and B) to the extent that morality obtains, animals are on equal footing with humans.

If one is truly committed to a naturalistic worldview (i.e., there is no spiritual dimension, or that the only things that are "real" are what we can perceive from our five senses), then it makes little sense to pretend that we have any reason or higher purpose in protecting the environment, animals, or even other people for that matter.  They are just competing species in a grand ecosystem that, through chance and happenstance, has allowed us to co-exist and this particular point in time... why on earth does that carry ANY moral weight?  Why are Black Rhinos more morally-weighted than fruit flies?  Why does it matter if people hunt a species to extinction?  Isn't that what animals DO???  If we are morally equivalent with animals, then it seems that those of you arguing in favor of animal RIGHTS are arguing in exactly the opposite direction... animals would hunt us to extinction without a second thought, because that's what animals DO.  Why are you so indignant at humans for doing what animals DO, when you've just gotten done explaining that we are morally-equivalent to animals and therefore hold equal moral weight?

It's mind-boggling, really.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## gloost (Nov 12, 2013)

Didn't read it. I've seen,  heard and smelt this sort of inane diatribe so many times,  I feel about it the same way I feel about treading in dog poop. Its dull,  annoying,  and disconcertingly familiar.


----------



## Thistles (Nov 12, 2013)

Mister Internet said:


> I have a genuine question for Thistle, Snark, and anyone else who insists on putting humans and animals on morally-equivalent grounds:
> 
> "Based on what, exactly?"
> 
> ...


 Ohh, this is the juicy stuff! These are good questions, and I've given them a lot of thought, particularly before I went vegan when I was still trying to justify eating meat. Let me correct you real quicklike and say I don't put humans and animals on "morally-equivalent grounds" at all. I will give you my... manifesto? tomorrow or the day after. You deserve a good answer and I'm running on 6 hrs sleep for the past 3 days so I couldn't be coherent enough to do this justice right now. For now I'll just say I am indeed an atheist, I do believe there is morality, and I am more ecocentric than anything in my view. I'll elaborate later, I promise. Also, I notice your signature. Is philosophy a pastime of yours? Your major in college?


----------



## The Snark (Nov 12, 2013)

Mister Internet??... did someone leave the door open? But anyway. Kind words much appreciated but I am going to have to decline the nomination(s). I'm theistic. (Buddhist with a Hindu slant backed up by the Nordic pantheon and an assortment of native American beliefs and principles.) But in this particular instance I'm pretty much neutral and playing devils advocate. Devil as in Lucifer in the correct translation of the word, or Prometheus if you prefer. And as for animal rights they place a poor second to my main interest, human rights, as in the right to think without ideologies, indoctrinations, knee jerk reactions and Pavlov's puppy piddling on ones leg. And yipes do we ever get some salivating going the moment we ring the PETA bell, don't we?

Honestly, I've never stood up and said PETA or HSUS or Poodles As Party Favors are in the right. I'm standing up and shouting into the wings, "Is there anyone here who has truly and honestly done their own research and isn't echoing, pro or con, some media blather?"

PS I've said it before and it's time to reiterate. George Carlin hit it closer IMHO than anyone else, paraphrased: Save the whales! Save the snails! Save the planet! BULL(feathers)!! It's people that are going away. The earth is doing just fine and will continue after humans and all the animals have gone. Maybe a bit more barren and inhospitable to life but it is going to keep right on rotating in it's orbit doing it's basking in the sun thing. Maybe pop out some new form of life that doesn't mind toxic radioactive sludge for water and feeds contentedly on Styrofoam.


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 12, 2013)

Cmon Mr I, don't you "feel" it, you just have to feel it, and then, then you know you're right(sarcasm), emotions are a killer.  "Why are Black Rhinos more morally-weighted than fruit flies?"  Yip, it's about "us" really.  Sometimes I wonder if these emotions are only conscious awareness of something close to social instincts that might awaken over time, how could we discern between the two if it happens simultaneously(?)  If we just did the "smart" thing, we wouldn't have to worry about morals so much imo.  There seems to be a lot of eco-indoctrination these days via NGOs and by the government.  Some of the kids these days almost seem to be taught to hate their self because they are human and, "killing the planet".  A lot of money to be made in carbon taxing.  imo the planet is extremely resilient, it doesn't care anyway but of course it's good to keep the environment clean, simply the smart thing to do.  It really comes down to how and what we do that affects us, I think that's semi-hidden concern for most people that is usually expressed with emotions and caring.  We protect people to protect ourselves, we want to protect the environment so that we can live in a better environment.  I wouldn't have a problem with Poison Ivy going extinct!  We want the Black Rhino around because "we" like to see the Black Rhino.  I wonder what the Black Rhino tastes like,  mmmmmm, Black Rhiiinoooo.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Nov 12, 2013)

HEY! You leave my Rhus Toxicondendra out of this! (It's quite good at interim erosion control)


----------



## pitbulllady (Nov 12, 2013)

Thistles said:


> Ohh, this is the juicy stuff! These are good questions, and I've given them a lot of thought, particularly before I went vegan when I was still trying to justify eating meat. Let me correct you real quicklike and say I don't put humans and animals on "morally-equivalent grounds" at all. I will give you my... manifesto? tomorrow or the day after. You deserve a good answer and I'm running on 6 hrs sleep for the past 3 days so I couldn't be coherent enough to do this justice right now. For now I'll just say I am indeed an atheist, I do believe there is morality, and I am more ecocentric than anything in my view. I'll elaborate later, I promise. Also, I notice your signature. Is philosophy a pastime of yours? Your major in college?


Am I to understand, Thistles, that your AR "manifesto" includes the conclusion that it's morally wrong for us humans to OWN, keep, breed and sell animals, for any reason, of any species?  That you yourself do not own animals, or sell animals, and do not believe that the rest of us should, either? If that's not the case, then please do enlighten us as to why you choose to disregard that, which is a staple of the AR mantra, while upholding the "meat is murder" aspect.  If it's morally wrong to eat animals, to kill animals for any reason, is it acceptable to own, buy and sell animals as property?

pitbulllady


----------



## The Snark (Nov 12, 2013)

"Indignation is cheap. Even Albert Zchweitzer's reverence for life didn't incude the mosquito, the tape worm or the Tse Tse fly." -Roger Zelazney-
But then, what of those who are indignant of the indignant?


----------



## Thistles (Nov 13, 2013)

pitbulllady said:


> Am I to understand, Thistles, that your AR "manifesto" includes the conclusion that it's morally wrong for us humans to OWN, keep, breed and sell animals, for any reason, of any species?  That you yourself do not own animals, or sell animals, and do not believe that the rest of us should, either? If that's not the case, then please do enlighten us as to why you choose to disregard that, which is a staple of the AR mantra, while upholding the "meat is murder" aspect.  If it's morally wrong to eat animals, to kill animals for any reason, is it acceptable to own, buy and sell animals as property?


 Again, it's like you haven't read a single word I've written. I've answered most of your questions already. Feel like answering any of mine?


----------



## The Snark (Nov 13, 2013)

Thistles, I'm speaking to you and sidelineing everyone else for the moment. I've asked over and over, on this forum and others, for the derogatory crowd to cite their evidence. Information they have sleuthed, investigated and deducted. It is not forthcoming. There is a reason for that. Their opinions are are ideologies. Ideas given to them. Check out the debate classes in Sociology. They cannot answer your questions because you are asking for the blanks to be filled in. When people weigh in with ideologies they are working from some form of doctrine given them by other people. in-doctrine-ation. As a child that has been told certain things by an authority they recognize and respect. But if you ask that child why, they can't answer. They are only reiterating the information they have been given. With the adult it is taken one step further. They hear what they want to hear, and then, as in this forum, repeat the information. Part of that is born of insecurity. A hefty part. Imagine a child discovering it's care provider is wrong. It's frightening. They don't want to hear it. They only want positive re-enforcements.

When I ask for them to cite the facts they have gleaned, along the lines of a reasonably well written police report, they cannot answer. Their information is only from the news sources they wanted to hear. When they read news, or watch it, they go to their favorite news sources and shun the ones that contradict the indoctrinations. As so, no, your questions are unlikely to be answered. 

However, one should always do oneself a favor of very carefully reading what those that disagree with you have to say. If nothing else you gain insights into them and the doctrines they are addicted to. Yes, addicted is the correct word. Psychological addiction. The reason for paying attention to them is to allow them to help you go beyond yourself. Gain their insights, their wisdoms. You need not take their doctrines as your own, but in the case of the rabidly anti AR people, they offer insights into the opposition. Know your enemy, right? As General George Patton yelled after he kicked Rommel's hiney in a battle in north Africa, "You dumb B*st*rd! I read your book!"

General Rommel had written and published a treatise on tank warfare and strategies. Patton was no fool. He didn't go, 'UHG! Fox News! Or, Greenpeace propaganda! Burn it!' 

The other point is, if you find yourself becoming emotional, someone else is controlling you. Pulling your chain. Everybody has that reaction. It's normal. Another form of insecurity but one easily dealt with. Just take all your frustrations, package them up, then let them rip. At the unheeding sky, or as I did a while back on this thread, blowing off steam, letting go of their control of me and moving on. Everything everyone says is valid in some form. Don't let your emotions fog up your senses. Blow it off and move on.

So no, they haven't read most of what you have written. They don't want to hear it. Same here. I don't care. There are many many battles to be fought on this and many other fronts. If you find yourself slamming your head against a doctrine wall, choose another direction, and keep on fighting. They are the ones that are losing, by hiding behind their selectively made ivory towers with rose colored windows. The less filled of ideologies you are the more freedom your have to chose when and where to stand up for your proven to be true beliefs.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Nov 13, 2013)

I blame the internet and not just mr. internet.


----------



## Thistles (Nov 15, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Thistles, I'm speaking to you and sidelineing everyone else for the moment. I've asked over and over, on this forum and others, for the derogatory crowd to cite their evidence. Information they have sleuthed, investigated and deducted. It is not forthcoming. There is a reason for that. Their opinions are are ideologies. Ideas given to them...
> ...When I ask for them to cite the facts they have gleaned, along the lines of a reasonably well written police report, they cannot answer. Their information is only from the news sources they wanted to hear. When they read news, or watch it, they go to their favorite news sources and shun the ones that contradict the indoctrinations. As so, no, your questions are unlikely to be answered.


 Oh, I don't expect an answer. I just don't want her to get away with it. It drives me crazy in debates when one makes a point and the other just drives on as if it was never made. You need to answer every question to have a solid base. She's too blinded by her assumptions to even read what I've said. It's almost funny how she keeps attacking a phantom opponent instead of directly answering me. She puts words in my mouth, assumes I behave in certain ways and then attacks that person even when I've already said the contrary. She's fighting that straw man so hard, and still looking to make ad hominem attacks. As if what I personally do has any bearing on what is right or wrong...



The Snark said:


> However, one should always do oneself a favor of very carefully reading what those that disagree with you have to say. If nothing else you gain insights into them and the doctrines they are addicted to. Yes, addicted is the correct word. Psychological addiction. The reason for paying attention to them is to allow them to help you go beyond yourself. Gain their insights, their wisdoms. You need not take their doctrines as your own, but in the case of the rabidly anti AR people, they offer insights into the opposition. Know your enemy, right? As General George Patton yelled after he kicked Rommel's hiney in a battle in north Africa, "You dumb B*st*rd! I read your book!"
> 
> General Rommel had written and published a treatise on tank warfare and strategies. Patton was no fool. He didn't go, 'UHG! Fox News! Or, Greenpeace propaganda! Burn it!'


 I've made that mistake before. I actually dropped an ethics class because I was uncomfortable with the discussion about eating meat. I ate meat at the time, but still considered myself an animal lover. The class made me feel guilty and I had no good defense for my behavior so I just removed myself from the environment. I didn't alter the behavior that was the source of the guilt - I just avoided self-scrutiny. I'm still ashamed of that. I wasn't honest with myself and I continued to hurt animals for my own pleasure as a result.



The Snark said:


> The other point is, if you find yourself becoming emotional, someone else is controlling you. Pulling your chain. Everybody has that reaction. It's normal. Another form of insecurity but one easily dealt with. Just take all your frustrations, package them up, then let them rip. At the unheeding sky, or as I did a while back on this thread, blowing off steam, letting go of their control of me and moving on. Everything everyone says is valid in some form. Don't let your emotions fog up your senses. Blow it off and move on.


 This thread isn't making me emotional. I'm used to people behaving just like this. What makes me emotional is knowing the torment that billions of animals experience unnecessarily every year, the damage that their painful existence does to the world and the general indifference of the human population to their plight.

---------- Post added 11-15-2013 at 11:31 AM ----------




Mister Internet said:


> I have a genuine question for Thistle, Snark, and anyone else who insists on putting humans and animals on morally-equivalent grounds:
> 
> "Based on what, exactly?"


 Ok, I have a little bit of time before work. Tomorrow will be my first day off in 2 weeks, so I'll finish up then what I don't get to today.

I do not think animals and humans are morally equivalent. Humans are an animal, but we are a very unique and, dare I say, unnatural, animal. Humans alone have the capacity for morality. Humans alone have expanded far beyond environments that are suitable for their survival in a natural state. Humans alone can drastically alter the entire planet. Humans alone have figured out how to leave earth. We are not the same as other animals. We have much greater capabilities and understanding, and therefore more responsibility.



Mister Internet said:


> Now, I fully understand your moral outrage... I've heard it before.  What I don't understand is that I invariably hear the MOST moral outrage for animal rights from the people with an agnostic or atheist worldview.  This is completely incoherent to me, and I am just curious how you've come to justify the otherwise overwhelming cognitive dissonance that comes along with simultaneously holding the views that: A) there is no universal morality, and B) to the extent that morality obtains, animals are on equal footing with humans.


 We all make at least one assumption in our world view: that any of this is real. I don't think you'll find any atheist who would agree that there is no morality. You might find a psycho who uses that philosophy to justify his actions, though. The atheists that I know all agree that there is morality, but stop short of calling it absolute or universal. I think we can all agree that, for example, pleasure is preferable to suffering. That's universal. The origin of this sentiment doesn't matter. It works, so we've stuck with it. For social animals like humans there is a sense of right and wrong that is inborn. Dogs, ants, elephants and humans have codes of conduct that govern our social behavior, and these can change. Society itself evolves, and with it our ideas about what is and is not acceptable.

As I said, I am an atheist but I was raised in a Christian family. I was taught that God gave humans dominion over the earth and told us to eat and wear animals. Isaiah 51:6 says "the earth will wear out like a garment." These are the defenses my mother and sister give when I ask how they justify their disregard for nature and animals. As an atheist, I don't have permission from a deity to destroy the planet. Earth is, to our knowledge, an experiment without a control. This is a unique planet with a unique system that has given rise to unique inhabitants. We don't know how our actions will change this system. From a purely selfish perspective, the things we are doing may threaten our species and way of life. We know for sure that we are already drastically changing individual ecosystems and locations. I



Mister Internet said:


> If one is truly committed to a naturalistic worldview (i.e., there is no spiritual dimension, or that the only things that are "real" are what we can perceive from our five senses), then it makes little sense to pretend that we have any reason or higher purpose in protecting the environment, animals, or even other people for that matter.  They are just competing species in a grand ecosystem that, through chance and happenstance, has allowed us to co-exist and this particular point in time... why on earth does that carry ANY moral weight?


 What you want here is a full blown discussion of secular morality. Why do atheists not kill anyone they want? How do we know how to be good? It goes back to social constructs and self-interest, in my opinion. If I'm known for being a thief, I'll be excluded. That sucks for me, so it's better that I behave myself, no? Also, again, we all kind of agree on the basics of what is and isn't good. We obviously disagree on the specifics, but usually it takes a religion to make people really screwed up.



Mister Internet said:


> Why are Black Rhinos more morally-weighted than fruit flies?  Why does it matter if people hunt a species to extinction?


 I actually have mixed feelings about extinction. Something like 99% of all species to ever exist are now extinct. Extinction is a part of nature. Species that work thrive. Those that are obsolete or ill-suited fade out. That's just how things are. I'm totally ok with giant pandas going extinct. They just aren't cut out for existence. Bye, pandas! What I'm certainly not ok with is humans destroying things almost arbitrarily regardless of how well they perform in the environment they evolved to fit. We don't know the repercussions of these extinctions. They still have a job to do or a niche to fill. To return to an anthropocentric view, who are we to decide which organisms are worthwhile today? For example, my grandmother would wipe out all spiders given the chance. I enjoy spiders personally. They have useful properties medically. They fill an important niche ecologically. She doesn't know or appreciate that. What if the dodo bird droppings could have cured cancer?



Mister Internet said:


> Isn't that what animals DO???  If we are morally equivalent with animals, then it seems that those of you arguing in favor of animal RIGHTS are arguing in exactly the opposite direction... animals would hunt us to extinction without a second thought, because that's what animals DO.  Why are you so indignant at humans for doing what animals DO, when you've just gotten done explaining that we are morally-equivalent to animals and therefore hold equal moral weight?


 Animals try to survive. We are doing WAY more than simply surviving. Again, I don't think we are morally equivalent. We can see the effects of our actions. A beaver doesn't know that it's messing up a stream when it builds a dam. A cat doesn't know it's causing pain to another creature when it kills a mouse. What we are doing is "shitting where we eat." And we should know better.



Galapoheros said:


> If we just did the "smart" thing, we wouldn't have to worry about morals so much imo.  There seems to be a lot of eco-indoctrination these days via NGOs and by the government.  Some of the kids these days almost seem to be taught to hate their self because they are human and, "killing the planet".


 I strongly disagree. There is very little _ECO_-indoctrination. It stands out so much because it is the opposite of how we conduct ourselves in our daily lives. "OMG RECYCLE? Those ECOFREAKS are really out of hand to keep forcing that on us! And don't get me started on those pushy vegans!" These are minorities and unusual, so they stand out. For example, I have been witnessed to by so many more Christians and their religion is so much more prevalent in our culture than Mormons, but people freak out when Mormons knock on their door. It's an uncommon view, so you notice it.



Galapoheros said:


> A lot of money to be made in carbon taxing.


 Bingo. Money is god and meat makes LOTS OF MONEY.



Galapoheros said:


> imo the planet is extremely resilient, it doesn't care anyway but of course it's good to keep the environment clean, simply the smart thing to do.  It really comes down to how and what we do that affects us, I think that's semi-hidden concern for most people that is usually expressed with emotions and caring.  We protect people to protect ourselves, we want to protect the environment so that we can live in a better environment.  I wouldn't have a problem with Poison Ivy going extinct!  We want the Black Rhino around because "we" like to see the Black Rhino.  I wonder what the Black Rhino tastes like,  mmmmmm, Black Rhiiinoooo.


 How do you know the planet is resilient? Will the rock we're on disappear because of us? Probably not. Will the surface change because of us? It already has. If you can't get people to be responsible for altruistic reasons you have to appeal to their selfish nature. The problem is, as Snark says, even something we find inconvenient like poison ivy might have a hidden benefit to us.

This is really general and just addresses specifics you guys raised. I don't have any more time now, but I can flesh this out more later if there's interest.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## The Snark (Nov 15, 2013)

*Priceless*



Thistles said:


> We obviously disagree on the specifics, but usually it takes a religion to make people really screwed up.


Now and then these forums cough up real jewels.


----------



## ShredderEmp (Nov 15, 2013)

Thistles: Religion doesn't always screw people up. You called me screwed up. Also, I haven't come across that verse in the Bible about it being ok to massacre animals, but I have read the one saying that God put us here as caretakers of the planet. Although I do admit that we never took much interest in doing that. 

And just so you know, not all atheists are perfect either.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Thistles (Nov 15, 2013)

ShredderEmp said:


> Thistles: Religion doesn't always screw people up. You called me screwed up.


 I did not. Check your distribution. I said "usually it takes a religion," meaning that usually really screwed up people are religious. That is nothing like saying all religious people are screwed up. That is also not saying all screwed up people are religious. You might be perfectly normal, and a serial killer might not be at all religious. I am saying that 100% of suicide bombers and sacrificers of humans and circumcisers of females are religious. That's a level of screwed up you can only reach on religion. That is also neither here nor there.



ShredderEmp said:


> Also, I haven't come across that verse in the Bible about it being ok to massacre animals, but I have read the one saying that God put us here as caretakers of the planet. Although I do admit that we never took much interest in doing that.


 My family interpreted Genesis 1:26 to mean they "rule" the planet. I tried to convince my sister it meant she should be a good steward and take care of God's creation, and she countered with the verse I mentioned before as well as the dietary laws which make it clear that people are allowed to eat animals and specify how. There are thousands of interpretations of the Bible and Christian denominations, so of course that one interpretation is not representative of all of them.



ShredderEmp said:


> And just so you know, not all atheists are perfect either.


 Of course not. I never said anything approaching that.

Snark, I hope that wasn't offensive. Again, I'm not saying all religious people are screwed up. I'm saying religion is a great way to make an otherwise moral person accept some really immoral things.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 16, 2013)

Thistles said:


> I am saying that 100% of suicide bombers and sacrificers of humans and circumcisers of females are religious. That's a level of screwed up you can only reach on religion. That is also neither here nor there.


ROTFLMAO.

Avoid blanket statements as there will always be some exception to any given rule, and people absolutely delight in pouncing on the exception. You know, sort of the antithesis of sound scientific analysis. But anyway, the vast majority of wars fought on this planet had religions behind the scenes, pumping the BS as hard and fast as they can. Along those lines came a little paradox: one of if not the most effective wars ever waged was the Genghis Khan's little outing and one of his stern edicts to his troops was to respect the cultures and religions of the peoples they conquered. Thus he could blast across Asia and into Europe without constantly having to watch his back.


----------



## Thistles (Nov 16, 2013)

Yep, yep. I started posting to correct some inaccurate generalizations. I do think that those 3 things in particular I mentioned are restricted to religion but of course I might be incorrect. I don't think an exception or two damages my point. Brb, sun god needs a human heart.

Isn't it true that Genghis Khan killed so many people that there was a notable improvement in the environment evident for years after?

Yep, just did a search: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...eople-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html


----------



## The Snark (Nov 16, 2013)

The Genghis Khan rewrote the book on ruthless as well as writing his own manual on horse warfare. He just didn't go out of his way making unnecessary enemies. One account tells that on the retreat of his armies the villages he had passed by welcomed his troops with open arms. Keep in mind there are three accounts of his antics. The European traditional, the more researched modern, and the Asian. A lot of the info taught in skoolz about him to this day was dirt slinging ala the Christian's ... interesting take on history.
I don't think Europe had any sensible environmental studies done in the 12th century. There may be some from Oriental scholars but the earth was still flat and the sun rotated around it in Europe back then. Copernicus quaint theories were still a ways off.


----------



## Thistles (Nov 16, 2013)

The study was a recent one measuring the change in carbon levels. It certainly wasn't done at the time. I honestly don't remember anything school taught me about him. I changed areas and schools so much that my background is pretty patchy.


----------



## ShredderEmp (Nov 16, 2013)

History books in my opinion only focus on the empires and revolutions. Mine never went into depth about Hannibal Barca or Genghis Khan. They talked about the empire and legacy of him, but nothing more.


----------



## Formerphobe (Nov 16, 2013)

> the Genghis Khan's little outing...


ROFL
I've been avoiding this thread, but peek in occasionally.  Thanks, Snark, for a good laugh!


----------



## The Snark (Nov 16, 2013)

ShredderEmp said:


> History books in my opinion only focus on the empires and revolutions. Mine never went into depth about Hannibal Barca or Genghis Khan. They talked about the empire and legacy of him, but nothing more.





Thistles said:


> The study was a recent one measuring the change in carbon levels. It certainly wasn't done at the time. I honestly don't remember anything school taught me about him. I changed areas and schools so much that my background is pretty patchy.


Your comments point out a glaring weakness of the American public school system as well as reminding me of it. The quality of education varies from state to state and the modern measurement of education actually achieved is based not on in depth knowledge and comprehension but the conform and comply standard. That's just a tad frightening when one reflects upon ones own actual knowledge. Future Einstein or good for becoming a dirt farmer, a persons future is up to the whims of some highly questionable school boards filled with some highly questionable people. Compared to the level and quality of education most Europeans  receive, the average American gets a start with a handicap. That is an established fact from some interesting tests performs upon the juvenile inmates of the correction facilities. As example, in California, swaths of the inmates are given a modified version of the SAT which produces results in year and month. The average juvenile inmate is technically 16 years old and in the 10th grade. But the applied SAT places their education level at or below the 5th grade.

That's just a little disconcerting when one takes into account the average Americans news source is Fox and they are supposed to be making informed sensible decisions in regards to the environment, animal and human rights, and what flavor of cheese the moon is made of.


Right after I typed the above I bonked into the following Moronic Machinations Esq, Pvt Pty Ltd crud. This is impartial and sensible thinking? (From Huff Po., verified by AP). This is the problem of blanket endorsement or opposition. All PETA bashers now get to be grouped together and share the mentality of South Dakota Factory Farmers and what they want to see on their parade float.

New York's Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade is seeing quite the squabble as Joan Jett has been ousted from the parade's South Dakota float due to her vegetarian lifestyle, CNN reports.
According to the website, Jett's no-meat ways and involvement in the People for the Ethic Treatment of Animals group -- which "condemns factory farms and ranches" -- was enough for ranchers to protest her appearance on the float. Jett is also an outspoken PETA activist and has even recorded vegetarian testimonial PSAs for the group.
"I've decided to switch from South Dakota to another float because people's political agendas were getting in the way of what should be a purely entertainment driven event," Jett said in a statement Saturday. "I will remain focused on entertaining the millions of people watching, who will be celebrating a great American tradition."
Instead of representing the state that is "so heavily reliant on agriculture and livestock production," according to Jodie Anderson of the South Dakota Cattlemen's Association, Jett will be moved to a different float.


----------



## Thistles (Nov 16, 2013)

Uh, the moving around I was referring to had me on both sides of the Atlantic. My history education in Austria was mostly the World Wars and the accompanying self-flagellation. I do completely agree that the quality of schooling overall in Europe was better than what I got in the US.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 16, 2013)

Thistles said:


> Uh, the moving around I was referring to had me on both sides of the Atlantic. My history education in Austria was mostly the World Wars and the accompanying self-flagellation. I do completely agree that the quality of schooling overall in Europe was better than what I got in the US.


(But please don't tell Americans that. They will start getting all rabidy and foamy about their wonderfulness)


----------



## ShredderEmp (Nov 16, 2013)

Still reading. I can't deny the truth but why are you saying such ___________ things. You don't have to act as that we are special and need to be comforted and babied. We already established the fact that the education system in America is lacking in contrast to other countries, but you don't need to act like a _____________.


----------



## viper69 (Nov 16, 2013)

The Snark said:


> That's just a little disconcerting when one takes into account the average Americans news source is Fox and they are supposed to be making informed sensible decisions in regards to the environment, animal and human rights, and what flavor of cheese the moon is made of.



The "average" American, now that's the biggest blanket statement I've read hahaha..Fox Noise does not resonate with all the "average" Americans! On top of that, if one is even to suggest that, one must should be specific about the region they are speaking about. The different regions of the USA are in fact somewhat different politically. Shame on you Snark hahah

re: education, yes the USA's primary system is definitely below most of the industrialized nations, HOWEVER, there's a reason why for many decades TONS and TONS of foreigners come to the USA to be educated in the USA, and it's not because the USA has great food either.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 16, 2013)

Oh hey! A repartee to my over the top irony laced rhetoric. So much for checking to see if anyone is reading my tripe. Hang in there whilst I randomly dial the mercurial and ready a broadside of some sort.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 17, 2013)

viper69 said:


> The "average" American, now that's the biggest blanket statement I've read hahaha..Fox Noise does not resonate with all the "average" Americans! On top of that, if one is even to suggest that, one must should be specific about the region they are speaking about. The different regions of the USA are in fact somewhat different politically. Shame on you Snark hahah


(I've dumped the foreigners come to America to be educated. That's too nebulous.)
College tosses this one in every students face several dozen times in the first couple of years. When is a generalized (blanket) statement not a blanket statement?  Do I really need to go into scientific methodology here? But let's take this one down. The best statistic, what seemed the most accurate though leaning conservatively, established 46% of Americans had Fox as their sole or primary news source. To be honest, I haven't kept up with them so feel free to research and change that as you please. Okay, we've performed the basic distillation process of converting a blanket statement, a supposition, into an established fact. Close to half of all Americans are Fox-ites. Now, the internet has given us an incredible tool. The search engine. By no means perfectly accurate, but able to  deliver data ready to be extrapolated so that a working hypothesis can be reached in minutes instead of weeks, months or years. So start you pass analysis. Shove into Google all the permutations you can think of Americans+uneducated. You are going to move that 46% towards 50%. Now add the permutations of does not read news. Keep on running your searches, distilling out the probables. Try to run at least 500 searches. What you are looking for of course is the number of hits. Individually they are invalid. You are going to have to discard and research over and over. Personally, I cheat. I've got a daemon program where I give it the basics and permutations and it runs the searches and returns averaged data. You can write your own using php without any real difficulty. I like my search analysis returns to take at least 1,000,000 samplings. 

As example, the search "Fox New"+bias (Always force your searches to reduce the extraneous. Then run CNN+bias, NBC, CBS and so on. Then throw away 95% as crap and your results are going to reflect a reasonably close analysis. You can keep on refining as you want. The only rule of this is all common factors are represented so you aren't introducing your own bias.

Then the other aspect of generality conversions into factual data. Blanket: all streams and rivers wander and meander. The distillation process here is very simple. Just use the known scientific fields. Hydrology->Sedimentology-> Fact:all streams and rivers wander and meander if there is sediment and sufficient force present.

Then an interesting study I read a while ago. The average 2nd year native German college student has a better grasp of the English language, grammar, spelling and punctuation, than the average American only educated to high school level.



Anyways, go ahead and do a few hundred pass analysiseses via search engines on PETA and HSUS in all permutations you can think of. With such a divisive topic I'd set the bar at at least 100,000,000 returns. See what you come up with. You may draw a complete blank. But even then you would be miles ahead of anyone who has reached a conclusion about them from, say, less than 50 media info blarbes.


----------



## Najakeeper (Nov 17, 2013)

The problem is not just Fox or people, who get their information from Fox. The problem is that US became so goddamn right shifted in the last two decades, even the so called "non-biased centrist media" spews inaccurate BS on a regular basis. Due to this TV based uneducation, it is seen quite normal to make decisions, which has worldwide implications, based on a book that was written thousands of years ago by a bunch of uneducated peasants. Science is only there to make money and unless it helps to make money, it is disregarded utterly.

On top of this, repealing Glass-Steagall act destroyed your economics (with the world economy in tow) , Citizens United killed the idea of an independent politician and Homeland Security Act destroyed your freedom. As a person, who has spend about 1/3rd of his life in the Pacific Northwest, I am sad to see USA in this shape.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SamuraiSid (Nov 17, 2013)

Najakeeper said:


> The problem is not just Fox or people, who get their information from Fox. The problem is that US became so goddamn right shifted in the last two decades, even the so called "non-biased centrist media" spews inaccurate BS on a regular basis. Due to this TV based uneducation, it is seen quite normal to make decisions, which has worldwide implications, based on a book that was written thousands of years ago by a bunch of uneducated peasants. Science is only there to make money and unless it helps to make money, it is disregarded utterly.


Spot on.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/


Yesterday your breakfast cereal had anti-oxidants, tomorrow it will be gluten-free and early next week it will come with a double serving of magic pixie dust. All based upon, "peer reviewed, scientific research."

I agree with the majority of what Snark is saying, but his acceptable and understandable attack on Fox News is where I deviate.


The root cause of all the **** we are discussing, all the tangents, is our flawed system of government. And yeah, Im putting Canada in the same boat as the USA. In terms of good and bad, Canada isnt as far along the dark path as USA, but our politicians and corporations have a love affair with the excessively capitalist system.

Right now in Canada, Half of our Senators are embroiled in controversy. They get $135,000 a year and a pension that makes your average Canadians jaw to touch the floor. On top of this, many make hundreds of thousands of dollars serving on corporate boards. Ms. Wallin served on three seperate boards to the tune of $1,000,000 in board funds and stock options.

According to the Ethics Commisioner, serving on these boards is not a conflict of interest. From the Senators themselves, they believe that they have the right to make additional income. They believe that serving on corporate boards will keep them up to date with current corporate trends, and will not produce a biased effect.... Like the time Prime Minister Martin gave east coast freight companies huge tax cuts, which they used to increase fleet size AND produce more profits for share holders. Yes, Mr. Martin was a major shareholder. But this wasnt a conflict of interest.

We all grow up with some understanding of morals. Right and Wrong. Well, as it turns out when you become a politician youre handed a rule book which provides a different set of morals to be followed. This rule book is designed to protect the status quo. Not to benefit the country or the people.



So when Im a politician, earning double the average household income WITH a guaranteed pension (Something average Canadians are well aware they wont be able to say after 2020), I have a right to work other jobs and make a ton of money. However, since I have obligations outside the senate, I need to make some sacrifices. For example, instead of talking to the people, talking to the corporations and scientists, which will affect  my opinion on legislation. I only have 30 minutes before my next board meeting. So that will give me time to meet with one lobbyist, get a lapdance, shake his hand and head off.

And yeah, lobbyists buy lapdances for politicians all the time. Unfortunately lobbyists dont work directly for the corporations they are lobbying for, so you cant prove a conflict of interest or corruption.

When Rob Ford admits to buying illegal narcotics, within the time since he started serving as mayor... Thats it. Nothing has happened. If you or I were to admit under oath that we did Cocaine, we would be thrown in jail, period. LETS PROTECT THE STATUS QUO!!!



In BC, There are several organizations whos sole objective is the welfare of aboriginal children. They are in a lot of trouble after it has been found out that the government hands them money, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, and some of these organizations dont handle a single case.... And yet the consultants, people whos job description is, "WORK CASES", still get paid.



I recall getting into an arguement with a friend of mine right out of high school. She was planning on getting a masters in environment sciences, and me, being a contrarian had something to argue:sarcasm: I said the facts dont back up Kyoto, and it doesnt make sence for Canada to buy carbon credits from the Russians just to stay in target. How about we spend that money on Canadian researchers, to research how to reduce pollution. She told me the facts dont matter, and Kyoto is a fantastic device to raise awareness. Come to think of it, I bet she belongs to PETA now.

The facts dont matter. Lets look at Tarantula Care Sheets as an example. For the most part, our community thinks they are an awful form of information. Fomr my personal perspective, they simplify and dumb down the information so that  it can be easily absorbed by the largest number of people. However, it is simplified to the point the information should be considered incorrect. We live in a time where our ability to gather information, far outweights our minds ability to assimilate the information. *Ever hear the term, "Headline reader" it refers to the fact that most North Americans read the headlines, skim the stories and derive simple opinions, based upon one sensationalised sentence, regarding a complex situation. Politicians are no different!*

You can find simplified 1 page documents, in point form, telling you how to properly care for a plethora of exotic animals. Animals which scientists spend years and years and years in school just so they can properly study them. This information cannot be properly scaled down. This is the same problem we have in Politics. 




One final note, I recall a time when the words Guerilla and Terrorist were not interchangeable. Dont read to much into this, Im a pacifist.


----------



## viper69 (Nov 17, 2013)

Najakeeper said:


> The problem is not just Fox or people, who get their information from Fox. The problem is that US became so goddamn right shifted in the last two decades, even the so called "non-biased centrist media" spews inaccurate BS on a regular basis. Due to this TV based uneducation, it is seen quite normal to make decisions, which has worldwide implications, based on a book that was written thousands of years ago by a bunch of uneducated peasants. Science is only there to make money and unless it helps to make money, it is disregarded utterly.
> 
> On top of this, repealing Glass-Steagall act destroyed your economics (with the world economy in tow) , Citizens United killed the idea of an independent politician and Homeland Security Act destroyed your freedom. As a person, who has spend about 1/3rd of his life in the Pacific Northwest, I am sad to see USA in this shape.


You and I both!! It's quite disgusting. Basic science in the USA hasn't been popular since the 1960s. Everything you say is very true. The portion you wrote about science/money at least in the USA, is typically believed by conservatives. They typically have a very, very short sighted view on financial investment when it comes to scientific research and what those findings should be used for.

The funny thing about Jesus Christ, is that he was a radical in his time, spouting all manner of crazy thoughts. *BUT, even more interesting*, is that he wasn't the only one. There were many other men living in the same region that were spouting as much radical ideas as he was. But for some reason, JC's ideas caught on. I like history, and it would be fascinating to see what were the events that enabled JC to become popular and not some of the others that lived during his time. I wish I could remember the title of the history book that was published a few years ago which examines all the radicals including JC.

---------- Post added 11-17-2013 at 03:58 PM ----------




SamuraiSid said:


> We live in a time where our ability to gather information, far outweights our minds ability to assimilate the information. *Ever hear the term, "Headline reader" it refers to the fact that most North Americans read the headlines, skim the stories and derive simple opinions, based upon one sensationalised sentence, regarding a complex situation. Politicians are no different!*
> 
> You can find simplified 1 page documents, in point form, telling you how to properly care for a plethora of exotic animals. Animals which scientists spend years and years and years in school just so they can properly study them. This information cannot be properly scaled down. This is the same problem we have in Politics.



That's why they are called "Care Sheets", not Care Compendiums. I don't disagree that some care sheets, be there printed or on the web, are misleading the consumer in how easy some pets can be. However, like any resource, one must consider the source, intended audience and equally as important intended purpose of the material.  There is value in care sheets, just like there is value in this web site.

I had no idea Canadians made so much so much in their government! Just like the USA! The truth is capitalism exists in all countries, yes even China and Russia. Unfortunately, in the USA there is nothing to balance out capitalism like there is Western Europe. I've never felt the USA or Europe had all the right answers themselves, but a healthy blend of both would be better I think than either system. That would be a better "grand experiment" as they like to call the USA at times.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 17, 2013)

*Appropo*

"We realize, clear thinking scientists that we are, that the world is governed by illiterates. You would scarcely credit it but there is rarely a politician in the world with the simplest grasp of biology. Most of them don't even understand how their own kidneys function, let alone anything more complex. Mention a word like ecology and they think you are referring to some obscure foreign statesman. Biology to them means the elementary sex instructions they received in secondary school. So is it to be wondered at that the last people our rulers ever consult are the appropriate scientists until they have made a thorough mish mash of the situation? Then they come crying to us like a child with a broken toy, asking us to mend it."

-Gerald Durrell - The Mockery Bird-

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 17, 2013)

SamuraiSid said:


> Spot on.
> 
> 
> The root cause of all the **** we are discussing, all the tangents, is our flawed system of government. And yeah, Im putting Canada in the same boat as the USA. In terms of good and bad, Canada isnt as far along the dark path as USA, but our politicians and corporations have a love affair with the excessively capitalist system.
> ...


I don't see this as capitalism though, this is corruption that pops up in any gov system.  I think corruption has just as much opportunity to get in a system dominated by the left, and big gov, left or right, leaves the public with less avenues to do something about it.  Yeah, I think it's just gotten too big, the party systems don't seem to matter much today imo.  "Liberal" used to mean free, today it seems to be big bro watching, more taxes, but we don't see much change.  Conservatism used to mean conserving our freedoms, but today the public seems to associate it with keeping things the same all the time, political conservatism doesn't have to do with social conservatism, they are two diff things.  I'm getting too distracted again, easy to do in a thread like this.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Mister Internet (Nov 21, 2013)

Thanks for taking the time to reply thoughtfully... I have a final on Saturday, so please don't mistake brevity for "attitude"... 



Thistles said:


> I do not think animals and humans are morally equivalent. Humans are an animal, but we are a very unique and, dare I say, unnatural, animal. Humans alone have the capacity for morality. Humans alone have expanded far beyond environments that are suitable for their survival in a natural state. Humans alone can drastically alter the entire planet. Humans alone have figured out how to leave earth. We are not the same as other animals. We have much greater capabilities and understanding, and therefore more responsibility.


First of all, the concept of an "unnatural animal" is definitionally and rationally incoherent.  If we are animal, our existence, our capabilities, our capacities, and our track record are all, by evolutionary necessity, "natural".  We evolved to have bigger brains, use the resources of the planet in novel ways, and invent hundred of ways to kill large amounts of organisms at will.  There is something a bit dishonest about trying to separate our mechanical, industrial, and moral capabilities from our biological identities as a sort of 'weak, naked ape', isn't there?  Cats kill for fun... but we're not allowed to kill for fun?  Why is that?  Simply because we can kill better and grander?

Also, who decided that greater understanding mandates greater responsibility (I'm assuming you mean this axiom is in play of necessity, not just due to Stan Lee's coining the phrase)?  It sounds nice to say, but how is this an actual mandate on sentient beings?  There seems to be NO correlating "degrees of responsibility" with degrees of development among higher mammals.  On the contrary, some of the highest mammal species are some of the most wasteful and wanton.  You're saying they should know better?  If not, when does the line get crossed from "extremely high-functioning mammal" to "ok, now you have a moral conscience, stop being a douche"?



Thistles said:


> We all make at least one assumption in our world view: that any of this is real. I don't think you'll find any atheist who would agree that there is no morality. You might find a psycho who uses that philosophy to justify his actions, though. The atheists that I know all agree that there is morality, but stop short of calling it absolute or universal. I think we can all agree that, for example, pleasure is preferable to suffering. That's universal. The origin of this sentiment doesn't matter. It works, so we've stuck with it. For social animals like humans there is a sense of right and wrong that is inborn. Dogs, ants, elephants and humans have codes of conduct that govern our social behavior, and these can change. Society itself evolves, and with it our ideas about what is and is not acceptable.


This is completely incongruous with our every day experiences, though.  You would care a great deal if I decided to burn your house down.  But if the sum total of reason against me doing such a thing were an assortment of "social behaviors", that's hardly compelling.  It's compelling if I want to live in proximity to YOU, maybe, but if it's not a mandate that lives one level above the western social construct we both happen to find ourselves in, then how does its moral import even pertain?  NO ONE lives their everyday lives as if they REALLY believe that there isn't universal morality... even those who vehemently deny it.

Your bald assertions about pleasure > suffering as a universal is easily disproved.  Because "it works"? For whom does it work?  Pleasure is nothing more than a biochemical response to ostensibly non-noxious stimuli, so it's hardly repeatable in any rigorous way, across a population.

Besides, what is the point of discovering good or bad actions anyway, if societies can evolve past it?



Thistles said:


> As I said, I am an atheist but I was raised in a Christian family. I was taught that God gave humans dominion over the earth and told us to eat and wear animals. Isaiah 51:6 says "the earth will wear out like a garment." These are the defenses my mother and sister give when I ask how they justify their disregard for nature and animals. As an atheist, I don't have permission from a deity to destroy the planet. Earth is, to our knowledge, an experiment without a control. This is a unique planet with a unique system that has given rise to unique inhabitants. We don't know how our actions will change this system. From a purely selfish perspective, the things we are doing may threaten our species and way of life. We know for sure that we are already drastically changing individual ecosystems and locations.


Again, who cares?  That's nice that YOU care, but the fact that you FEEL we shouldn't be wanton with the Earth isn't even remotely an argument in favor of an obligatory responsibility we've somehow unfortunately obtained by virtue of developing into symbolic reasoning.  You are treating the imperative that we should care for the Earth as a statement OF something made BY someone.  Otherwise, from whence has it come, and how can everyone be said to be obligated to it?



Thistles said:


> What you want here is a full blown discussion of secular morality. Why do atheists not kill anyone they want? How do we know how to be good? It goes back to social constructs and self-interest, in my opinion. If I'm known for being a thief, I'll be excluded. That sucks for me, so it's better that I behave myself, no? Also, again, we all kind of agree on the basics of what is and isn't good. We obviously disagree on the specifics, but usually it takes a religion to make people really screwed up.


We all kind of agree... isn't that curious. It's almost like... nahh.....

In your definition, "good" isn't a known quantity, it's merely a subjective value judgement by societal peers or tribesmen.  In such a case, "good" things and "bad" things aren't that way inherently, but 100% in virtue of the values assigned them by our society or tribesmen.  If something isn't "good" inherently, you really don't have any tools in your toolbag to tell me I'm WRONG when I do "bad" things, other than the threat of retribution by the society that decided it didn't like such actions... but that doesn't make it WRONG, it merely makes it not tolerated in a particulate set of circumstances.

On YOUR definition, I can't say "Rape is wrong".  I mean, I can SAY it, but I have no means to justify it.  About the sternest your definition allows me to be is to threaten lifetime incarceration or capital punishment if I don't agree to behave as if rape is wrong.  I can behave as if rape is wrong without ever conceding the premise.  And acting as if I believe it's wrong is all your definition requires of me.  Actually, that's more than your definition requires, but I'm feeling generous. 



Thistles said:


> I actually have mixed feelings about extinction. Something like 99% of all species to ever exist are now extinct. Extinction is a part of nature. Species that work thrive. Those that are obsolete or ill-suited fade out. That's just how things are. I'm totally ok with giant pandas going extinct. They just aren't cut out for existence. Bye, pandas! What I'm certainly not ok with is humans destroying things almost arbitrarily regardless of how well they perform in the environment they evolved to fit. We don't know the repercussions of these extinctions. They still have a job to do or a niche to fill. To return to an anthropocentric view, who are we to decide which organisms are worthwhile today? For example, my grandmother would wipe out all spiders given the chance. I enjoy spiders personally. They have useful properties medically. They fill an important niche ecologically. She doesn't know or appreciate that. What if the dodo bird droppings could have cured cancer?


Again, who cares?  Humans in 10,000 years who might be mad at us because we killed all the spiders?  If a species can't stand up to the un-fettered jugernaut of Homo sapiens acting wantonly, a case can be made that it wasn't "cut out for existence".  You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.  You can't just assert that pandas aren't "cut out for existence" and therefore aren't worth saving anymore than you can assert that another species IS worth saving.  Either we have a responsibility to ameliorate our actions or we don't.  If Giant Pandas would have lived one minute longer on this Earth were it not for humans, we've become responsible for them according to the system of moral responsibility you're trying to construct.



Thistles said:


> Animals try to survive. We are doing WAY more than simply surviving. Again, I don't think we are morally equivalent. We can see the effects of our actions. A beaver doesn't know that it's messing up a stream when it builds a dam. A cat doesn't know it's causing pain to another creature when it kills a mouse. What we are doing is "<edit> where we eat." And we should know better.


Every responsively cognitive mammal can see the results of its actions... it's inherent in the cause-effect and stimulus-response models of the natural world.  Just because we can see the effects of our actions, and some of us feel bad about it... how does that create a moral obligation?  You're wrapping the discussion with "well, of course" sorts of morally-obligatory language without giving yourself permission to use morally-obligatory language.  Your moral relativism doesn't allow you to make a statement like "we should know better".


----------



## The Snark (Nov 21, 2013)

Mr. Internet, that was an impressive post with several memorable quotes BTW. 
I'm sidelining here as much of this entire thread needs rereading but in your, if I may call it rebuttal, and in what Thistles wrote, one aspect of the human condition isn't touched upon and certainly is a salient point. Discerning. The glaring difference between the human animal and the rest is in the ability to make choices. Only the human undertakes pre-meditated actions, bears malice aforethought, and has the brain capability to make alternative decisions.
I would really like to reread your latest post that takes that factor into account.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## viper69 (Nov 21, 2013)

Mister Internet said:


> Again, who cares?  Humans in 10,000 years who might be mad at us because we killed all the spiders?  If a species can't stand up to the un-fettered jugernaut of Homo sapiens acting wantonly, a case can be made that it wasn't "cut out for existence".


Who cares? I do, and there are many people who care. There are species I would have *loved* to see, but can't, because man caused their extinction.

Re: Your statement of "species can't stand up..."... I think that's pure crap, man introduces things into the environment that are completely "artificial", that is, there's no way a species could have evolved with those pressures, because they didn't exist until man arrived (eg. ships, chemicals,...).

In addition, evolution is a very slow process and when one species' activities decimates populations faster than it can naturally reproduce and evolve, of course those species will go extinct, but that doesn't mean the species wasn't "cut out for existence". The world was finely balanced before man arrived, it has been unbalanced ever since.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 21, 2013)

viper69 said:


> Who cares? I do, and there are many people who care. There are species I would have *loved* to see, but can't, because man caused their extinction.
> 
> Re: Your statement of "species can't stand up..."... I think that's pure <edit>, man introduces things into the environment that are completely "artificial", that is, there's no way a species could have evolved with those pressures, because they didn't exist (eg. ships, chemicals,...)


And of course the minor consideration that humans are probably going to join the extinction list due to their avarice, greed, and 'who cares' attitude.

Speaking of avarice and greed. Starbucks just sued a street vendor in Bangkok and won, forcing him to change his business name and the sign:

http://s29.photobucket.com/user/thaiexodus/media/Starbung_zps81bbf678.jpg.html


----------



## viper69 (Nov 21, 2013)

The Snark said:


> And of course the minor consideration that humans are probably going to join the extinction list due to their avarice, greed, and 'who cares' attitude.
> 
> Speaking of avarice and greed. Starbucks just sued a street vendor in Bangkok and won, forcing him to change his business name and the sign:


Exactly, "who cares", shouldn't people be allowed to murder others without consequences. If people can't defend themselves, clearly they haven't evolved to survive. Let the strong survive!

Well if man doesn't get off this planet and destroy another planet, only bacteria will be left, and maybe some insects. Short live span, high reproduction rates, low complexity organisms. It won't be long before there will be another world war, this time over resources. There's a reason why China will never let Tibet be free, and it's about resources.

I can see why they won. But the King of lawsuits is Apple. However to be accurate, I ultimately blame the US Patent Office for being a bunch of dopes and letting an amazing amount of things slide through that shouldn't be patented at all.


----------



## cantthinkofone (Nov 21, 2013)

I hate HSUS and PETA with a passion. 'nuff said

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Nov 22, 2013)

"Feel intense dislike for. "Loathe, detest, dislike greatly, abhor, abominate, despise, execrate, feel aversion towards, feel revulsion towards, feel hostile towards, be repelled by, be revolted by, regard with disgust, not be able to bear/stand, be unable to stomach, find intolerable, shudder at, recoil from, shrink from."

Wow. That's a whole lot of emotions and energy that, when not properly directed towards the source, is entirely wasted.


----------



## Mister Internet (Nov 25, 2013)

viper69 said:


> Who cares? I do, and there are many people who care. There are species I would have *loved* to see, but can't, because man caused their extinction.
> 
> Re: Your statement of "species can't stand up..."... I think that's pure crap, man introduces things into the environment that are completely "artificial", that is, there's no way a species could have evolved with those pressures, because they didn't exist until man arrived (eg. ships, chemicals,...).
> 
> In addition, evolution is a very slow process and when one species' activities decimates populations faster than it can naturally reproduce and evolve, of course those species will go extinct, but that doesn't mean the species wasn't "cut out for existence". The world was finely balanced before man arrived, it has been unbalanced ever since.


But don't you see?  That's just something you would have preferred... it doesn't MEAN anything, really.  I can tell you I would have rather had sushi for lunch today than a ham sandwich, but you're not obligated to make me some when I tell you.  In fact, no one is obligated to make me some.  Unless, and only if, I can prove that a universal, unchanging, moral law was violated by my not having sushi, I have no just cause to compel anyone to accede my wishes on the matter.

Just because you would have loved to see a live Sabre-toothed cat (believe me, I would too!) doesn't mean that a moral wrong took place in their extinction, even if we caused it.  To establish that, you have to prove that preserving all species at all costs through all available means, to detriment of our own species is a universal moral obligation.  That's simply impossible of one truly believes in evolution, that's all I'm trying to say.  Metaphysics is required to establish things of that nature, and naturalistic/materialistic models don't allow for those things to exist.

And man's pressures on the earth and its species are simply that... new pressures.  Some species have adapted, some haven't.  Our nuclear bombs and plastics aren't any more "artificial" than a Neaderthal's stone tools.

I think you need to check in with an evolutionary biologist before you go ascribing things to evolution like "fine balance", as evolution is utterly unconcerned with balance, and is completely agnostic to population pressures.  Those under pressure will be selected against, or adapt.  Full stop.  There is no "fine balance" in this view, only degrees of "equilibrium", depending on all extenuating circumstances...


----------



## viper69 (Nov 25, 2013)

Mister Internet said:


> But don't you see?  That's just something you would have preferred... it doesn't MEAN anything, really.  I can tell you I would have rather had sushi for lunch today than a ham sandwich, but you're not obligated to make me some when I tell you.  In fact, no one is obligated to make me some.  Unless, and only if, I can prove that a universal, unchanging, moral law was violated by my not having sushi, I have no just cause to compel anyone to accede my wishes on the matter.
> 
> Just because you would have loved to see a live Sabre-toothed cat (believe me, I would too!) doesn't mean that a moral wrong took place in their extinction, even if we caused it.  To establish that, you have to prove that preserving all species at all costs through all available means, to detriment of our own species is a universal moral obligation.  That's simply impossible of one truly believes in evolution, that's all I'm trying to say.  Metaphysics is required to establish things of that nature, and naturalistic/materialistic models don't allow for those things to exist.
> 
> ...


I understand a lot of what you said, and what you have previously said. I don't necessarily think all of it is incorrect either. I'd prefer a lot of things really as would everyone else. It does mean something, it means I prefer to do/live/think a certain way, and others think like me, while others don't, and others think only some of the same things I do as well. Morality ? what is that?? It is nothing more than something that changes like sand dunes in a desert, it's completely subjective. One empire of people (eg Romans) thought slavery was OK, many years later another empire (eg USA) does too, and then later changes their laws (ie shifting its morality). No one is obligated to do anything actually. No one is obligated to attend a church, to help a person on the side of the road w/a flat tire, to volunteer to help others. But they do those things because they think it's the right thing for them to do, that's all, and neither is right or wrong. Morality is HIGHLY subjective, personal and rarely universal. People who are victims of violent crimes may feel the people who committed those crimes should die by the victim's own hands, others don't. Does that make either side wrong just because a society says it's illegal to do the former (rhetorical question) ?


Which species have adapted to humans destroying the planet? I'd say it's a bit too early to determine that, we haven't been around long enough to study and observe that with any degree of accuracy in my opinion.

I understand your line of thought regarding regarding new pressures, that we are just another species on the planet like all others, creating our own pressure, and other species will live or die. I understand that "top down" line of thought, that we aren't anything different than another species (that's my interpretation of such a line of thought). However, I think there is a danger when viewing these issues in a rather overly simplistic manner. I would completely agree with you if say, all these species developed alongside modern man simultaneously then perhaps sea turtles might actually have evolved in time not to eat plastic, or better yet, man might have found methods to prevent plastic from entering the ocean (as an example). However it didn't happen that way unfortunately, so they really have very little fighting chance of survival.

It's true about nuclear bombs vs stone tools, they are both artificial in the strictest and most simplistic of comparisons. However, their effects are radically different don't you think, surely almost anyone would rather have a stone tool pointed at them, then a nuclear bomb dropped by their house while they are cooking?? I certainly would take my chances with the stone tool, wouldn't you?! They are hardly the same when compared on a "micro-level".


Oh, I wasn't suggesting some religious power/s behind a "fine balance", NOT at all. It's something I that exists as in, it's a fact, there is no doubt a balance on this planet prior to man's arrival, and that balance is out of whack now due to man only. As a small general example, I'll use apex predators. When man wipes out apex predators, there is scientific data which shows the environment that those apex predators lived in definitely does not flourish. The wolf in N. America is a perfect example. In areas out West in the USA where the wolf was hunted to virtual extinction the level of species diversity dramatically dropped. I wish I had the link with the photographs from a national park of the before and after photographs; it's dramatic. That's partly what I meant by a "fine balance". Maybe that helps clear up what I wrote previously.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 26, 2013)

viper69 said:


> Which species have adapted to humans destroying the planet?


Apparently, according to some of the postings on this thread, Protectia Dementia, aka PETA has.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## viper69 (Nov 26, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Apparently, according to some of the postings on this thread, Protectia Dementia, aka PETA has.


There are A LOT of groups, PETA included, which have members that do good and/or mean well (I'm not referring to stars who lend their face/support for publicity) BUT also have members who MAY have good intentions but are doing things that are truly wrong such as putting people's lives in lethal danger. Radicalization can promote positive change, but lately it seems for many groups around the world, it's a method of promoting negativity, some of it lethal, to advance an agenda that is not necessarily a solution for the greater good.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 26, 2013)

NO! No no no no no no no no no no no! NOT!


viper69 said:


> There are A LOT of groups, PETA included, which have members that do good and/or mean well (I'm not referring to stars who lend their face/support for publicity) BUT also have members who MAY have good intentions but are doing things that are truly wrong such as putting people's lives in lethal danger. Radicalization can promote positive change, but lately it seems for many groups around the world, it's a method of promoting negativity, some of it lethal, to advance an agenda that is not necessarily a solution for the greater good.


EVERY single person even remotely connected with PETA is EVIL! VILE NASTY! They must be hated! Please reread all the PETA bashings on this thread. Exterminate them all!


----------



## PlaidJaguar (Nov 26, 2013)

The Snark said:


> (But please don't tell Americans that. They will start getting all rabidy and foamy about their wonderfulness)


Lol!  I was born American, never left the country (except Canada once or twice, which really doesn't count) and even I find our arrogance stifling!  Everything that's wrong with the country is the president's fault, and the president is only in office because a few left wing crazies rigged the election.  Everything else about America is either perfect or at least better than anything else in the world.  It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

---------- Post added 11-26-2013 at 08:14 AM ----------




viper69 said:


> Which species have adapted to humans destroying the planet?


Dogs, cats, crows, pigeons, rats, gophers, coyotes, all manner of insects and arachnids, horses, deer, etc. etc. etc..  I think it would be safe to say that any species considered a "pest" by humans has successfully adapted to our presence, as well as any species that humans consider useful.  We find pets and livestock highly beneficial, so all of those species are sitting at a VERY good place population-wise.  Not to say we always treat them well, but their numbers are unquestionably above endangered levels.



viper69 said:


> I understand your line of thought regarding new pressures, that we are just another species on the planet like all others, creating our own pressure, and other species will live or die. I understand that "top down" line of thought, that we aren't anything different than another species (that's my interpretation of such a line of thought). However, I think there is a danger when viewing these issues in a rather overly simplistic manner. I would completely agree with you if say, all these species developed alongside modern man simultaneously then perhaps sea turtles might actually have evolved in time not to eat plastic, or better yet, man might have found methods to prevent plastic from entering the ocean (as an example).


What exactly do you mean "developed alongside modern man simultaneously"?  Every living thing on this planet technically developed simultaneously, considering we all started from primordial ooze.  Sea turtles aren't new--they have had almost exactly the same amount of time to adapt to plastic as humans have, since we started dumping it in oceans almost the instant we decided it was disposable.


----------



## viper69 (Nov 26, 2013)

PlaidJaguar said:


> Dogs, cats, crows, pigeons, rats, gophers, coyotes, all manner of insects and arachnids, horses, deer, etc. etc. etc..  I think it would be safe to say that any species considered a "pest" by humans has successfully adapted to our presence, as well as any species that humans consider useful.  We find pets and livestock highly beneficial, so all of those species are sitting at a VERY good place population-wise.  Not to say we always treat them well, but their numbers are unquestionably above endangered levels.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you mean "developed alongside modern man simultaneously"?  Every living thing on this planet technically developed simultaneously, considering we all started from primordial ooze.  Sea turtles aren't new--they have had almost exactly the same amount of time to adapt to plastic as humans have, since we started dumping it in oceans almost the instant we decided it was disposable.


I should have been more clear hahaa..my mistake.  I hardly think domesticated animals, and those use as livestock count in this context. I was thinking more along the lines of large apex predators and other large animals.  I should have been more clear.

Developed alongside- meaning if man had been on the planet at the beginning with all other species too, man arrived much later after everything else. I never said sea turtles are new, in fact, they are QUITE old, dating back to dinosaurs. You made my point. There was NO plastic in the ocean back then hahaha, they have not had time to adapt to plastic being in the ocean (assuming they even can). On top of that, humans know what plastic is, and turtles don't.

The health of the planet would be better off without humans, that's a fact. The reign of the cockroach is near!


----------



## PlaidJaguar (Nov 26, 2013)

viper69 said:


> I never said sea turtles are new, in fact, they are QUITE old, dating back to dinosaurs. You made my point. There was NO plastic in the ocean back then hahaha, they have not had time to adapt to plastic being in the ocean (assuming they even can).


And you just made MY point!  Turtles have been here longer than humans, so they've definitely had time to adapt.  They've had literally all the time in the world.  The problem here isn't that they don't have time to adapt, it's that they don't adapt quickly enough.  And that is a heavy selection pressure.  The sad fact is that the planet will lose many species as a result of Homo sapiens.  

Now please don't mistake my intentions.  I'm a bleeding heart, save the animals, eco-friendly kinda girl.  I cry when I see pictures of animals harmed by human carelessness.  But from a purely scientific standpoint (which is extremely fun to discuss!) and more specifically evolutionary theory, Homo sapien is a wildly successful apex predator which is simply cutting down other, less successful predators.  Just as smaller, faster, more adaptable mammals stole the show from the great reptiles of the prehistoric era, the great ape is taking over where other creatures used to rule.  There isn't a moral imperative built into the process--that's something we invented, and is a wholly unique concept.  Oh what I would give to be a fly on the wall in biology lectures a thousand years from now!


----------



## The Snark (Nov 27, 2013)

PlaidJaguar said:


> And you just made MY point!  Turtles have been here longer than humans, so they've definitely had time to adapt.  They've had literally all the time in the world.  The problem here isn't that they don't have time to adapt, it's that they don't adapt quickly enough.  And that is a heavy selection pressure.  The sad fact is that the planet will lose many species as a result of Homo sapiens.
> 
> Now please don't mistake my intentions.  I'm a bleeding heart, save the animals, eco-friendly kinda girl.  I cry when I see pictures of animals harmed by human carelessness.  But from a purely scientific standpoint (which is extremely fun to discuss!) and more specifically evolutionary theory, Homo sapien is a wildly successful apex predator which is simply cutting down other, less successful predators.  Just as smaller, faster, more adaptable mammals stole the show from the great reptiles of the prehistoric era, the great ape is taking over where other creatures used to rule.  There isn't a moral imperative built into the process--that's something we invented, and is a wholly unique concept.  Oh what I would give to be a fly on the wall in biology lectures a thousand years from now!


Darned bleeding heart liberal animal protection fanatic. Grrr.

Let's quote Gerald Durrell* again. "...the chaps a bloody menace. One of these damned fluffy minded animal lovers, always interfering and causing trouble. You can't set a space in the ground anywhere but up he pops with all his namby pamby henchmen to tell you you can't build here because of a stoat or weasel or some such damned animal and you can't drain that swamp because of some awful crawly thing that's got to be saved. I tell you, that man is against all progress. He's a bloody menace."

Let's follow that up with another quote from the same book. The dialogue between the progressive and the conservationist. 
" 'It's perfectly ridiculous that the whole future of the human race should be risked for the sake of a bird and a tree.' snapped Sir Osbert."
" 'It is extraordinary to me that you cannot see that the whole future of the human race depends upon conservation, not continual and rapacious exploitation.' said Sir Lancelot angrily."

Just to point something out. If we take the worst case scenario of what is happening to the world at this time, we could very well be facing an apocalypse as great as, and on the planetary time scale close to the wham of 65 million years ago. Possibly even faster. Even if the scenario isn't all that bad, there are enough facts in right now to clearly demonstrate that we have altered and are altering the living conditions of earth WAY WAY WAY faster than anything evolution could possibly counter. That translates as the extinction of as many species as the wham and the ice age. 
In other words, no, there is no moral imperative. It's much closer to 'sink or swim'. Clean up our planetary act or go under. And on that note, homo sapien is not all that wildly successful. Unless you call the wham of that giant comet successful.

* The Mockery Bird


----------



## viper69 (Nov 27, 2013)

PlaidJaguar said:


> And you just made MY point!  Turtles have been here longer than humans, so they've definitely had time to adapt.  They've had literally all the time in the world.  The problem here isn't that they don't have time to adapt, it's that they don't adapt quickly enough.  And that is a heavy selection pressure.  The sad fact is that the planet will lose many species as a result of Homo sapiens.
> 
> Now please don't mistake my intentions.  I'm a bleeding heart, save the animals, eco-friendly kinda girl.  I cry when I see pictures of animals harmed by human carelessness.  But from a purely scientific standpoint (which is extremely fun to discuss!) and more specifically evolutionary theory, Homo sapien is a wildly successful apex predator which is simply cutting down other, less successful predators.  Just as smaller, faster, more adaptable mammals stole the show from the great reptiles of the prehistoric era, the great ape is taking over where other creatures used to rule.  There isn't a moral imperative built into the process--that's something we invented, and is a wholly unique concept.  Oh what I would give to be a fly on the wall in biology lectures a thousand years from now!



You crack me up Plaid   See you made MY point again. HOW could sea turtles have all the time in the world to adapt to plastic, when plastic hasn't been around since their inception as a species? They can't, it's not possible. =) This ties into what I meant by if modern man was around since sea turtles at the same point in time, perhaps things would be different.


----------



## PlaidJaguar (Nov 27, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Darned bleeding heart liberal animal protection fanatic. Grrr.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


You said it.  That's why I'm a darn bleeding heart liberal.  ;P


Viper, I'm still not following your logic.  Why would throwing plastic at them earlier in their development cause them to adapt faster?  Are you saying that brand new sea turtles would have been more adaptable than the same species thousands of years down the line?  Why?


----------



## viper69 (Nov 27, 2013)

PlaidJaguar said:


> You said it.  That's why I'm a darn bleeding heart liberal.  ;P
> 
> 
> Viper, I'm still not following your logic.  Why would throwing plastic at them earlier in their development cause them to adapt faster?  Are you saying that brand new sea turtles would have been more adaptable than the same species thousands of years down the line?  Why?


Oh, I've not written that introducing plastic would increase the rate of evolution. What I am saying is sea turtles (as an example) have had millions of years to evolve, but of all the various selection pressures they have had to adapt to, not one of those was man-made until man arrived. So how could they possibly adapt now after all this time of evolving without plastic as an example. The same can be said for light pollution for the sea turtle hatchlings. They use a few natural cues, one is light, to guide them to the ocean. But we know that hatchlings which emerge from the sand near bright lights use the bright lights as a cute and navigate away from the ocean and of course die. They didn't develop over millions of years with both man-made lights and natural light, and developed a mechanism to determine which is natural light leading them to water, and which is mad-made light leading them to certain death.  But maybe if "all of a sudden" sea turtles had initially evolved in the presence of man of millions of years, they MIGHT have determined a mechanism to determine which light was natural, and which was mad-made. That's all I'm saying. =)


----------



## SamuraiSid (Nov 27, 2013)

I think its safe to say that Homo sapien hasnt been able to adapt to plastic or any of the other toxic forces they introduce into their environments. Screw the Turtles, save the Homos!!!

Whether the reason comes down to morality, greed, ignorance, power, etc.


----------



## viper69 (Nov 27, 2013)

SamuraiSid said:


> I think its safe to say that Homo sapien hasnt been able to adapt to plastic or any of the other toxic forces they introduce into their environments. Screw the Turtles, save the Homos!!!
> 
> Whether the reason comes down to morality, greed, ignorance, power, etc.


The world is run by money, that's the only reason, you are correct. It's easier and cheaper to pollute the incredibly scarce amount of fresh drinking water, than it is to follow the law, and implement and develop methods to prevent it. If man's lifespan was LONG, like hundreds or thousands of years (like trees) I think things would be quite different on this issue.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 28, 2013)

I thought man has adapted to plastics. What the heck is that stuff the hot dog crud is injected into. It's sure not intestines anymore.

Why are sea turtles involved in the evolution discussion. It's an established fact that the slower the metabolism of the animal, the slower it is to evolve and adapt.


----------



## viper69 (Nov 28, 2013)

The Snark said:


> I thought man has adapted to plastics. What the heck is that stuff the hot dog crud is injected into. It's sure not intestines anymore.
> 
> Why are sea turtles involved in the evolution discussion. It's an established fact that the slower the metabolism of the animal, the slower it is to evolve and adapt.


I was using sea turtles as example a few posts back that's all..no special reason.


----------



## SamuraiSid (Nov 28, 2013)

The Snark said:


> I thought man has adapted to plastics. What the heck is that stuff the hot dog crud is injected into. It's sure not intestines anymore.


No need to pick on Hot Dogs. They are full of connective tissues, ligaments and all kinds of amino rich tissues that help make up part of the "whole prey" diet we largely ignore :sarcasm:



> Why are sea turtles involved in the evolution discussion. It's an established fact that the slower the metabolism of the animal, the slower it is to evolve and adapt.


Thats just like you, coming in here with your "facts" and "science".


----------



## The Snark (Nov 28, 2013)

SamuraiSid said:


> No need to pick on Hot Dogs. They are full of connective tissues, ligaments and all kinds of amino rich tissues that help make up part of the "whole prey" diet we largely ignore :sarcasm:
> Thats just like you, coming in here with your "facts" and "science".


Yeay! Full circle! ~I believe I can fly~.
I remember visiting the restricted area of a Chi town slaughter 'house'. House my arse. Giant factory assembly line. The steers led down the shoot, the pneumatic thump thing - painless killer, the hooks sunk in the animal and it is winched in the air. The disembowling, more hooks and knives, tearing the skin from the carcass. All USDA and friends approved procedures. One steer after another in an endless line running 24 hours a day.
And this pile cum puddle of crud. The empty trimmed carcass goes off one way on an overhead trolley thing and there is this pile on the smooth concrete floor. Two guys with flat shovels move the pile into a chute. Another guy with a hose blasts the feces in a somewhat different direction. I commented to him, "Yuck" as pile and dribble was sort of mixed up. He grinned at me and hosed some of the green slush into the chute.

Ah! The chute. All the leftovers. I schluck on down that way in the processing plant. The giant blender/eviscerator/muncher/cruncher/grinder where the non beef beef goes. It was mainly powered by a 3 phase Westinghouse<tm> 15 horse motor. There was another machine but I couldn't see the size of it's motor. That took the resulting goo of machine 1 and pulverized the bits of bone that got into the mess. All the munching was done before the cooking vats so the stuff would be sterile. Then the chemicals. The reek was pretty bad as cleaning agents outside the machines and pipes mixed with the flavorings and coloring agents. Those agents were delivered in railroad tank cars and pumped into storage vats to be injected and mixed into the stewing goo. Then way down at the end of the processing room was the injector filler thingy. Not much to see. Just big machines making noise. The grey goo, now all pink and tasty getting injected into that plasticish tube fed from giant spools.
And TADA! Pure all beef hot doggies! The USDA permits no more than (I think) 6% filth in processed foods. I never was sure if that was by weight or volume. Does the U.S. Gov measure poo and bile by weight or volume? PETA beware! 

Yup. Me and my facks and stackistics. What a dork I be.


----------



## Anonymity82 (Nov 28, 2013)

I wrote out this whole thing and decided the potential for butthurt was too high and I'm not in a mood to argue with people I'll probably never meet and God knows wouldn't know if you didn't introduce yourself in person so I'm just going with this. 

WE NEED TO START A PROGRAM TO NEUTER HUMAN BEINGS IN MASS NUMBERS. Yup, I said it and I mean it. Although I'm hoping my sperm count is too low anyway (can't explain here, but I do have a really good reason I'm hoping this) I will happily take the first step in this campaign if this means that millions of others will too. I fear we should also neuter gay men. Why? Well, money's tight. 

Step one:  Neuter human beings

Step two: ? 

Step three: Big profit. 

(for you southpark people).

Butthurt disclaimer: I'm not trying to talk down to those of you who have kids are plan on it. I don't think less of any of you whether you care or not (hopefully mostly not, since I don't really know most of you). Not for having kids that is or wanting to. I'm curious what a little me would look like and act like but then I get visions of fire, helicopters, handcuffs, blurry images of dismembered bodies and think better of it. Well, I was a bit of a trouble kid and I do not have the patience my parents did.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 29, 2013)

njnolan1, I don't know if you noticed that you slid on over to the far far right there. IE, the guvermint's opposition to LGBT marriages and a certain religion's vehement hatred of same. As George Carlin pointed out, what group of people are less likely to produce offspring, pollute the gene pool and load up the welfare roles with random progeny? That religion's opposition to LGBT marriages is truly extremely fantastically bizarre in that -those people- don't use or need birth control and don't have abortions. Their favorite two pet rants.

So before we are forced to label you a somethingphobe, we will accept your abject apologies by your crawling 9 miles on your hands and knees to throw rocks at the popes poop. Thanking you in advance. 


PS "You aren't going to outweird me. I find stranger things than you in my breakfast cereal." -Z. B.-, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy


:worship:;P:fury::unsure:;P:barf::clap:;P:};P


----------



## SamuraiSid (Nov 29, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Yeay! Full circle! ~I believe I can fly~.
> I remember visiting the restricted area of a Chi town slaughter 'house'. House my arse. Giant factory assembly line. The steers led down the shoot, the pneumatic thump thing - painless killer, the hooks sunk in the animal and it is winched in the air. The disembowling, more hooks and knives, tearing the skin from the carcass. All USDA and friends approved procedures. One steer after another in an endless line running 24 hours a day.
> And this pile cum puddle of crud. The empty trimmed carcass goes off one way on an overhead trolley thing and there is this pile on the smooth concrete floor. Two guys with flat shovels move the pile into a chute. Another guy with a hose blasts the feces in a somewhat different direction. I commented to him, "Yuck" as pile and dribble was sort of mixed up. He grinned at me and hosed some of the green slush into the chute.
> 
> ...


You paint a purty picture. Ive seen this on documentaries and would want to see it in person. Might re-sensitize me. I certainly dont agree with how animals are treated and with all the **** we add to our "food". But at the same time Im a rational guy and am perched comfortably on the fence.





njnolan1 said:


> I wrote out this whole thing and decided the potential for butthurt was too high and I'm not in a mood to argue with people I'll probably never meet and God knows wouldn't know if you didn't introduce yourself in person so I'm just going with this.
> 
> WE NEED TO START A PROGRAM TO NEUTER HUMAN BEINGS IN MASS NUMBERS. Yup, I said it and I mean it. Although I'm hoping my sperm count is too low anyway (can't explain here, but I do have a really good reason I'm hoping this) I will happily take the first step in this campaign if this means that millions of others will too. I fear we should also neuter gay men. Why? Well, money's tight.
> 
> ...


Hmmm, if you have a low sperm count, maybe you have a personal vendetta against those of us that can have kids? j/k

In all seriousness my wife and I are mostly on the same point with this stuff, although she is definitely the "glass half-full" one. We plan on having only one child.

But this is the PETA thread, and in dedication to President Newkirk, your going to have to neuter those gay men yourself


----------



## Anonymity82 (Nov 29, 2013)

The Snark said:


> njnolan1, I don't know if you noticed that you slid on over to the far far right there. IE, the guvermint's opposition to LGBT marriages and a certain religion's vehement hatred of same. As George Carlin pointed out, what group of people are less likely to produce offspring, pollute the gene pool and load up the welfare roles with random progeny? That religion's opposition to LGBT marriages is truly extremely fantastically bizarre in that -those people- don't use or need birth control and don't have abortions. Their favorite two pet rants.
> 
> So before we are forced to label you a somethingphobe, we will accept your abject apologies by your crawling 9 miles on your hands and knees to throw rocks at the popes poop. Thanking you in advance.
> 
> ...


While I try to decipher your paragraph let me just say that I'm not a phobe of any sort. Well, kids do scare me. But not gay men or women or the people in between. My first thought was "Well, gay men wouldn't need to be neutered" but then I thought of the black market price for sperm if we did start neutering and it wouldn't matter if you were gay. Just get that in a cup, syringe and bammo. Payment up front, meet me here next Friday and you'll get the rest when a baby pops out.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 29, 2013)

SamuraiSid said:


> You paint a purty picture. Ive seen this on documentaries and would want to see it in person. Might re-sensitize me. I certainly dont agree with how animals are treated and with all the **** we add to our "food". But at the same time Im a rational guy and am perched comfortably on the fence.


What we need is an mandatory olfactory channel on home entertainment systems. Let people smell the leaking bile and blood of gunshot wounds, the mix of feces, meats, sanitizing agents and concentrated flavoring chemicals. The fantastic smell of 'crispy critters', people who have managed to become incinerated and the seared flesh odor combines with the melted plastic in their clothing. The galactic rainbow of odors of various mixtures of barf people spew as rescuers work on them. And let's not forget the subtle differences in odors of animals turned inside out. Untrivialize all the maiming and agony just a bit and bring it home to peoples brains through their sinus. And more than likely the people will add some odor of their own as they leave their dinners on the living room carpet.


----------



## Anonymity82 (Nov 29, 2013)

SamuraiSid said:


> You paint a purty picture. Ive seen this on documentaries and would want to see it in person. Might re-sensitize me. I certainly dont agree with how animals are treated and with all the **** we add to our "food". But at the same time Im a rational guy and am perched comfortably on the fence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I promise you, no vendetta lol. My wife can't afford something so we have had to explore other options. Other options that personally affect me. Personally... oh so personally. I equate it to eating with a nice coating of vasoline in your mouth. I only know there's food because of the texture, but still there's no flavor. 

My contribution to the PETA thread. I hate you PETA. You go away, you go away and you die.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 29, 2013)

njnolan1 said:


> I promise you, no vendetta lol. My wife can't afford something so we have had to explore other options. Other options that personally affect me. Personally... oh so personally. I equate it to eating with a nice coating of vasoline in your mouth. I only know there's food because of the texture, but still there's no flavor.


My ex's 3 year old half sister smiled beguilingly as her dad took a bite of the sandwich. Unable to reach the jams and jellys, she sensibly substituted vaseline in the  first PB&J... PB&V? she had ever made. She waited for the compliments. The recognition.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Anonymity82 (Nov 29, 2013)

The Snark said:


> My ex's 3 year old half sister smiled beguilingly as her dad took a bite of the sandwich. Unable to reach the jams and jellys, she sensibly substituted vaseline in the  first PB&J... PB&V? she had ever made. She waited for the compliments. The recognition.


LOL, very, very funny story.


----------



## Atalictasia (Nov 29, 2013)

lancej said:


> Both of these organizations make me sick.  They want to ban all pet ownership, close down all zoos, and ban all hunting (and hunters have contributed more to environmental restoration and protection then any other group).  The HSUS confuses a lot of people into thinking that they are donating to the American Humane Society - this happened to my parents until I educated them with the truth.


My Boss is a Avid Hunter. He goes to Africa as well as to all different countries. He goes when they have to many animals and they need to do an animal control. The Animals he does hunt he has the native villagers skin them and then my boss will donate all the meat to the villages. Could you imagine how much meat is donated when you have 6 or more hunters and each hunter has like 8 or more tags to hunt. He can ask for money it wont be a lot but he can but he doesn't he "gives" it to them. He can also keep the meat and have it sent back home, but he doesn't. He keeps the skins so he can bring the skins home and have the taxidermist make his animal trophies. I was against this at one time but when I found out the background to it all It made me feel good to know he just didn't shoot for the thrill but also to help the surrounding villages in feeding them because he can go other places and hunt for only the kill as well. In the pictures he brings home to show us you can see how much the villagers appreciate him and his son so much. So Good does come out of hunting


----------



## The Snark (Nov 29, 2013)

Atalictasia said:


> My Boss is a Avid Hunter. He goes to Africa as well as to all different countries. He goes when they have to many animals and they need to do an animal control. The Animals he does hunt he has the native villagers skin them and then my boss will donate all the meat to the villages. Could you imagine how much meat is donated when you have 6 or more hunters and each hunter has like 8 or more tags to hunt. He can ask for money it wont be a lot but he can but he doesn't he "gives" it to them. He can also keep the meat and have it sent back home, but he doesn't. He keeps the skins so he can bring the skins home and have the taxidermist make his animal trophies. I was against this at one time but when I found out the background to it all It made me feel good to know he just didn't shoot for the thrill but also to help the surrounding villages in feeding them because he can go other places and hunt for only the kill as well. In the pictures he brings home to show us you can see how much the villagers appreciate him and his son so much. So Good does come out of hunting


Tell your boss to take all the money he spends, plane fares included, and donate it to something worthwhile like Doctors Without Borders or any of dozens of aid operations. Probably deliver a thousand pounds of food and medications for every pound of meat his phallic fetish gives a few villagers.  It's a complete joke to think imported hunters can do the animal control job the local people can't. The fact is a number of countries forbid the locals from hunting so they can attract safari tourists and stuff money in authority pockets.


----------



## jecraque (Dec 1, 2013)

I held out for a while, but I'm finally posting on this thread because of this article. I'll try to refrain from too much comment myself but I'm genuinely curious what others think here. Warning: some of the images are a bit graphic.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/feature/

One thing I will say--despite the clearly deeply flawed system we have in place, I am glad we do have some regulatory agency. My partner and I are movie buffs, especially older movies and foreign films, and have seen some cringe-worthy stuff on screen. I think there has been some backlash from the public in China, but there have been some really awful war scenes involving horses in relatively recent films. I wouldn't go the PETA-suggested all-CGI route but some rules should be established and duly followed...




njnolan1 said:


> I promise you, no vendetta lol. My wife can't afford something so we have had to explore other options. Other options that personally affect me. Personally... oh so personally. I equate it to eating with a nice coating of vasoline in your mouth. I only know there's food because of the texture, but still there's no flavor.


You and your wife do know that Obamacare and all private insurers are now legally obligated to provide women's preventative care, including contraceptives, with no co-pay, right??? Look into that!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Dec 1, 2013)

:sarcasm:jecraque! Tsk tsk. Shame on you. You should know better than to attempt to instill common sense into things.:sarcasm:

Let us look at the alternative scenario. The Humane Society makes an honest rubber stamp for a movie:
*Very few animals were maimed and killed in the making of this movie.*
Megamovie $Studio$ looked over the blood drenched movie set and saw that one coming. They made a tax projection that the movie would turn a box office projection of $500 million in the first 20 minutes. Only grossing $2.5 million in the first 20 weeks they declare a loss of a couple three hundred million $$$. Then with tax documents in hand as irrefutable proof of loss of income, they turn around and sue the Humane Society into paleolithic dust.

((In the early 1980's Louisiana Pacific logging and land rape specialists got caught with their hand in the cookie jar up to their armpit. A few square miles of watershed was completely destroyed, they cut down trees that didn't belong to them and so on. The court slapped their hand severely, among other things forcing them to replant the old growth redwood forest with fast growing soil destroying pine. But Louse de Pacific saw that one coming. Their 3 year tax projection placed their profit at $1.5 billion but they only realized $600 million. $900 million was claimed in loss of revenue they would have had if they had been allowed to rape even more of the Klamath River headwaters of the Trinity National Forest. A friend of mine, holder of stock in LP from her late husbands golden parachute, received a $65,000+ bonus dividend check for that little legit scam))


----------



## viper69 (Dec 2, 2013)

jecraque said:


> I held out for a while, but I'm finally posting on this thread because of this article. I'll try to refrain from too much comment myself but I'm genuinely curious what others think here. Warning: some of the images are a bit graphic.
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/feature/
> 
> One thing I will say--despite the clearly deeply flawed system we have in place, I am glad we do have some regulatory agency. My partner and I are movie buffs, especially older movies and foreign films, and have seen some cringe-worthy stuff on screen. I think there has been some backlash from the public in China, but there have been some really awful war scenes involving horses in relatively recent films. I wouldn't go the PETA-suggested all-CGI route but some rules should be established and duly followed...


I'd wish I could say this surprises me, it doesn't. Thanks for posting this. If these were people injured or killed on the set, there would be huge "problems", but it's only other animals, so who gives a crap. I had no idea Steven Spielberg was a horse killer.  GREED GREED GREED.


----------



## jecraque (Dec 2, 2013)

The Snark said:


> :sarcasm:jecraque! Tsk tsk. Shame on you. You should know better than to attempt to instill common sense into things.:sarcasm:
> 
> Let us look at the alternative scenario. The Humane Society makes an honest rubber stamp for a movie:
> *Very few animals were maimed and killed in the making of this movie.*
> ...


I know, I know. Silly me, right?

Seems like a pretty big tax loophole if you can just aim high and collect the difference. I'm not at all surprised that the companies that can afford the best legal representatives can get away with it, but... yeesh.

The way I see it, there are two alternatives for the future of animal use in US entertainment: 
1) we can go the libertarian route, and make ethics optional, a la Chinese war epics. An independent AHA could give films a gold star for exceptional animal treatment, the way the Marine Stewardship Council does with sustainable seafood products--slap a sticker on the front and those that care will buy only those products, while everyone else will go on assuming all those deaths were CGI and the companies will still rake in the big bucks. But no one will be the wiser if the AHA isn't allowed on set, and the extent of mistreatment will go entirely undocumented.
2) we can require that the entertainment industry follow the same laws as the rest of the country, and at least fine them for noncompliance (blacklisting repeat offenders) in addition to omitting the little gold star. It would have to be taxpayer funded, of course, and adequately funded, to prevent the kinds of shenanigans Snark mentioned as well as the things the article mentioned about AHA watchdogs getting too friendly with their flock. The paperwork required to document care and use would be similar to what is currently used in research.

Now, maybe there are other alternatives I'm not creative enough to come up with, in which case, sorry. Here's what shouldn't happen, though, especially: whatever happens on-set, the movie still gets a gold star, still gets released on time, and the worst thing that might happen is they change the wording from "No animals were harmed" to "We didn't see any animals harmed, honest" and the the Hobbit makes it's $500 mil in the first 20 minutes, easy. Sooo... there's that.

---------- Post added 12-02-2013 at 02:47 AM ----------




viper69 said:


> I'd wish I could say this surprises me, it doesn't. Thanks for posting this. If these were people injured or killed on the set, there would be huge "problems", but it's only other animals, so who gives a crap. I had no idea Steven Spielberg was a horse killer.  GREED GREED GREED.


That seems to be the bottom line, for sure. Spielberg might not have done it directly, but with his money/influence, if he cared about the welfare of his animal "actors" he'd have hired competent people and taken adequate precautions. It clearly is not a priority in the industry.


----------



## viper69 (Dec 2, 2013)

jecraque said:


> That seems to be the bottom line, for sure. Spielberg might not have done it directly, but with his money/influence, if he cared about the welfare of his animal "actors" he'd have hired competent people and taken adequate precautions. It clearly is not a priority in the industry.


He's the "CEO" of the film, the buck stops w/him as far as I'm concerned. With someone like him, he approves of his animal actors known as Homo sapiens, same for the non-homo sapien animal actors too.


----------



## The Snark (Dec 2, 2013)

3) A bunch of politicians wives, (ala Tipper Gore & friends) get together as they did when they appointed themselves the moral conscience of the recording industry, they lobby their husbands into a similar witch hunt, and filled with righteous indignation they tell Hollywood how it shall be lest they bringeth downeth uponeth them the same hellfire and brimstone congressional inquisitions. (See Frank Zappa vs the Mothers of Prevention)
4) Get PETA riled up enough to swing their weight down upon those Hollywood jackasses.


----------



## jecraque (Dec 2, 2013)

The Snark said:


> 3) A bunch of politicians wives, (ala Tipper Gore & friends) get together as they did when they appointed themselves the moral conscience of the recording industry, they lobby their husbands into a similar witch hunt, and filled with righteous indignation they tell Hollywood how it shall be lest they bringeth downeth uponeth them the same hellfire and brimstone congressional inquisitions. (See Frank Zappa vs the Mothers of Prevention)
> 4) Get PETA riled up enough to swing their weight down upon those Hollywood jackasses.


Gah! I just* knew* I was forgetting something in there! PETA will prevail.


----------



## The Snark (Dec 2, 2013)

An associate of mine worked at the stables Paramount pictures used. As he explained, "Animals are cheap props for movies. The wranglers handling the animals are pure dirt and better keep their mouths shut if they want to keep their jobs." 
To show how much attention Hollywood pays to the animals, that guy worked on a set in a John Wayne movie. Might have been 'How the West was Won'. In a series of scenes you can see Wayne ride into a town on one horse, be sitting on a different horse when talking to somebody, tying up a third horse at a hitching rail and a while later riding out of town on the first horse. Nobody noticed or cared.


----------



## jecraque (Dec 2, 2013)

The Snark said:


> An associate of mine worked at the stables Paramount pictures used. As he explained, "Animals are cheap props for movies. The wranglers handling the animals are pure dirt and better keep their mouths shut if they want to keep their jobs."
> To show how much attention Hollywood pays to the animals, that guy worked on a set in a John Wayne movie. Might have been 'How the West was Won'. In a series of scenes you can see Wayne ride into a town on one horse, be sitting on a different horse when talking to somebody, tying up a third horse at a hitching rail and a while later riding out of town on the first horse. Nobody noticed or cared.


Perhaps because a horse is a horse, of course, of course!


----------



## The Snark (Dec 2, 2013)

jecraque said:


> Perhaps because a horse is a horse, of course, of course!


(Holding my shaking head in my hands and moaning) I wish. Filming with horses is a nightmare and the most time consuming part of making a movie by far. Nearly all movie stars can't ride for beans and look like a sack of potatoes when the horse trots. So...
The horse needs to start moving easily with just a nudge or two, going into the appropriate walk, trot or canter very quickly or it's off camera. It has to work beside other horses and not want to race. It also can't stable nag and wait to follow another horse. It has to stand stock still at certain times without any restlessness. It has to have a very smooth trot. It has to canter at a pretty precise speed and very smoothly. It has to go eactly where it is supposed to, often in spite of stupid jerks on the reins telling it to go somewhere else. It has to walk, trot or canter right up to a hitching rail and stop at the exact right place without mincing. It cannot balk. It cannot kick. It cannot wicker or whinny. It must keep it's head pointed in the correct direction. It cannot toss it's head or it must toss it's head at the precise time. It cannot walk sideways. It cannot back up or shy. It must not rear or it must rear on command. It cannot restlessly 'paw' the ground. And above all, it must be rider sensitive and help to keep the sack of potatoes on it's back.

And then the tack. That horse has to have a hackamore, those work with curbs. That saddle looks like a tiny stool on one horse, a giant overcoat on that one there. Stirrups too long. Too short. Loose cinches. Belly cinch. Breast straps, butt straps, broken, short or too long latagos. Reins too long. Too short. Tied. A loop. And then grooming the horse. Mane too short. Too long. Forelock in eyes. Looks like a private in the army hair cut. Swishing tail. Hairless tail. Scars cuts or scrapes. Moan.

And then of course the horse. No drooling, slobbering, head shaking, scratching, rubbing, snorting, rolling, erections, dribbles, peeing, pooping, farting, proud tail, nodding/bobbing/tossing, biting, nipping, lip curling, white eyes, ears back, prancing, single footing or high head.

Now think about a movie set. Blowing a half million dollars a day. Loaded with prima donnas, idiots and all kinds of gadgets doing zillions of random horse spooking things, impatience running and ruling everything and the wranglers taking all the heat.


 They had one horse at paramount when I was there that avoided all the yelling and abuse. It was THE horse to have an actor on who was talking to somebody at a stand still. We could lead the horse out, place him and he would stand there like a statue regardless of the rider and what was going on around him. He just had two problems. You would raise his head up where you wanted it then after a couple of minutes it would start to droop and he'd fall asleep. The other problem was he was a nondescript roan with excellent conformation, almost built like a thoroughbred, But he had ridiculously short legs and stood at 13 hands. So taller riders stirrups would be danging way below his barrel near the ground. So all filming of him had to have the camera down near the ground and only get the upper half of the horse.


----------



## viper69 (Dec 2, 2013)

The Snark said:


> 3) A bunch of politicians wives, (ala Tipper Gore & friends) get together as they did when they appointed themselves the moral conscience of the recording industry.


I thoroughly despised their behavior on that issue, nothing but pure ATTEMPTS at total CENSORSHIP, the same for video games too! Such a PARADE of hearings with their antiquated mode of thinking. The attempts to undermine the US entertainment industry is wrong in that aspect. It's one of the few sectors where the USA exports and makes a TON of money, it's either number or very close as an export (it makes more than all the sports leagues combined)

I wonder if all those older people who hopped on the censorship bandwagon back then were opposed to all the "evil rock and roll" of the 60s and Elvis's gyrations on the Ed Sullivan show that were initially banned from TV, somehow I doubt it.


----------



## SamuraiSid (Dec 3, 2013)

The Snark said:


> What we need is an mandatory olfactory channel on home entertainment systems. Let people smell the leaking bile and blood of gunshot wounds, the mix of feces, meats, sanitizing agents and concentrated flavoring chemicals. The fantastic smell of 'crispy critters', people who have managed to become incinerated and the seared flesh odor combines with the melted plastic in their clothing. The galactic rainbow of odors of various mixtures of barf people spew as rescuers work on them. And let's not forget the subtle differences in odors of animals turned inside out. Untrivialize all the maiming and agony just a bit and bring it home to peoples brains through their sinus. And more than likely the people will add some odor of their own as they leave their dinners on the living room carpet.


Since we are talking about good food. Do you happen to know the origin of some asian dishes being served full? I was told, a long time ago, that the whole fish would be displayed on the plate so that those eating it could "pay their respects" in some regard, to the animal they were eating. It might have been my mother a long time ago, or my grandmother, who was Filipino. But I have learned not everything an Adult tells their child is the truth. Sometimes you gotta lie to save face 


 Meanwhile in good ol' North America we are constantly trying to turn whole, real food into consumer goods, like chicken nuggets. mmmmm, I love me some chicken nuggets and I swear to you, sometimes you can even taste the tumour. Thats not a joke Due to all the drugs the chickens often develop breast tumours which get turned into processed chicken bits. Its like when you get a corn sized piece of cartilage in your hot dog. My wife gets disgusted by it. I get to finish her hot dog Damn, now Im getting hungry. God bless the American Dream


----------



## viper69 (Dec 3, 2013)

SamuraiSid said:


> Meanwhile in good ol' North America we are constantly trying to turn whole, real food into consumer goods, like chicken nuggets. mmmmm, I love me some chicken nuggets and I swear to you, sometimes you can even taste the tumour.


Hey Chicken Nuggets are good wholesome food on par w/the finest Parisian dish!

As for tumors used in food...C'mon man, don't you know the USA is just trying to be extremely efficient with our resources, just like in every other policy the gov't puts forth!?


----------



## The Snark (Dec 3, 2013)

SamuraiSid said:


> Since we are talking about good food. Do you happen to know the origin of some asian dishes being served full? I was told, a long time ago, that the whole fish would be displayed on the plate so that those eating it could "pay their respects" in some regard, to the animal they were eating. It might have been my mother a long time ago, or my grandmother, who was Filipino. But I have learned not everything an Adult tells their child is the truth. Sometimes you gotta lie to save face


The only reason I know people leave the heads on fish is many people consider the cheeks the tastiest part and the heads are often used to season soups and stews. In certain locales it used to be common to leave a foot on a mammal so you could tell a puppy from a cat from a rat and so on at a glance.


----------



## jecraque (Dec 3, 2013)

The Snark said:


> The only reason I know people leave the heads on fish is many people consider the cheeks the tastiest part and the heads are often used to season soups and stews. In certain locales it used to be common to leave a foot on a mammal so you could tell a puppy from a cat from a rat and so on at a glance.


I'm not gonna lie, I learned the fish cheeks thing from reading Amy Tan in middle school and have felt deprived ever since. Never thought about it at an opportune time (like in a seafood market) though.


----------



## PlaidJaguar (Dec 6, 2013)

I had a whole fish at a Filipino restaurant once.  Once I got over the initial shock (I was expecting a fillet!) I really liked the concept.  The fish was extremely delicious, and not a scrap of meat was wasted.  Well, except the eyes.  The waitress told me the eyes were her favorite, but I couldn't bring myself to eat them...


----------



## viper69 (Dec 6, 2013)

PlaidJaguar said:


> I had a whole fish at a Filipino restaurant once.  Once I got over the initial shock (I was expecting a fillet!) I really liked the concept.  The fish was extremely delicious, and not a scrap of meat was wasted.  Well, except the eyes.  The waitress told me the eyes were her favorite, but I couldn't bring myself to eat them...


The eyes are actually quite healthy for you. This was interesting... I heard an interview by a guy (who didn't eat eyes) who was lost in the south Pacific for quite a while at sea. However, while you are lost and your body is in that starvation mode, the brain WILL make you eat things you would never eat, AND make you think they tasted good. So at one point his brain took over, and he started eating fish eyes and said they tasted like cherries. Survival is a powerful condition.


----------



## PlaidJaguar (Dec 6, 2013)

viper69 said:


> The eyes are actually quite healthy for you. This was interesting... I heard an interview by a guy (who didn't eat eyes) who was lost in the south Pacific for quite a while at sea. However, while you are lost and your body is in that starvation mode, the brain WILL make you eat things you would never eat, AND make you think they tasted good. So at one point his brain took over, and he started eating fish eyes and said they tasted like cherries. Survival is a powerful condition.


That's interesting!  How scary to be lost and starving.  Glad your friend made it.  It is really fascinating how much the brain can do to keep us alive.

I'm normally a pretty adventurous eater, but I had a bad experience trying to dissect a cow's eyeball with a hopelessly dull scalpel when I was 12.  Ruined me forever.


----------



## The Snark (Dec 7, 2013)

PlaidJaguar said:


> I'm normally a pretty adventurous eater, but I had a bad experience trying to dissect a cow's eyeball with a hopelessly dull scalpel when I was 12.  Ruined me forever.


Just clamp that sucker in a vice and have at it. We'll send PETA around to give you a ration later. (If we go by the PETA bashers on this forum they may demand you be spayed/neutered and you submit a close relative as a hostage against your future conduct.


----------



## Bigboy (Dec 7, 2013)

They are scum pure and simple. Fat bloated festering corpses stuffed full with the money of the uninformed hopeful do-gooder.  I won't even bother revisiting this thread I have such disdain for both organizations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

