# Steve Irwin legacy vs. PETA



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 26, 2019)

Any of you guys heard about the PETA tweets against Steve Irwin? Apparently it' starting a whole storm online. Any thoughts or opinions? Open to all ideas and perspectives here.

Here's the quote:
"#SteveIrwin was killed while harassing a ray; he dangled his baby while feeding a crocodile & wrestled wild animals who were minding their own business. Today’s #GoogleDoodle sends a dangerous, fawning message. Wild animals are entitled to be left alone in their natural habitats."

Link to original tweet:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098992959649808384


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 26, 2019)

PETA is trash, end of story.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Feb 26, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> PETA is trash, end of story.


Let me add on say yes PETA statements are true in regards to the incidents involving his infant son. * However* PETA is still a trashy and pathetic animal activist group that fails to recognize its own mistakes and fallacies. This also means PETA should take good look at itself as an organization before making statements as they wind up doing more harm than good. I also think this organization has a tendency to push away and discourage people who really care about the environment out of fear they will be lumped in with PETA.


----------



## Aznig (Feb 26, 2019)

Some things PETA says are true, and some are extremist bullshit. PETA has a legacy of shitty behavior - from promoting the abuse of other humans, to vandalism, to actually euthanizing a majority animals that they “rescued”.

They, like _all _extremist groups, should not be given much attention or validity. However, admittedly, there are groups that are far worse than PETA. Ignoring them is the best option. What they want is attention.


----------



## Cawdabra (Feb 26, 2019)

I put PETA in the same camp as the Westboro Baptist Church: real life trolls.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2019)

Whether you agree with PETA's overall aims or not, it's very clear that the model they use to advertise their conversations is to deliberately involve themselves in controversies that they realise will generate media attention. 

So when we tell all of our friends about those controversies, we're doing exactly what PETA wants. 

I don't say that because I want to discourage people from talking about PETA- I have no particular view on them one way or the other- it's just clear that this is how they get people to talk about PETA- including me.


----------



## EmmyCatto (Feb 26, 2019)

PETA is just going to keep doing shitty things as long as it gets them the attention they desire. Imo, people should really just ignore it when they do something like this, since all they want is attention from the media in order to stay relevant, but of course people are just going to keep talking. PETA is bottom of the barrel scum. They've done more than enough to show how terrible they are and they should really just be left in the dust to rot.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Feb 26, 2019)

Check out these replies to Peta after their Twitter post.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2019)

All of those people trying to capitalise on PETA saying a dumb thing, (what an opportunity for likes and twitter follows) are spreading PETA's attempt to get attention, tbh.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Feb 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> All of those people trying to capitalise on PETA saying a dumb thing, (what an opportunity for likes and twitter follows) are spreading PETA's attempt to get attention, tbh.



It's obvious they are doing for likes and follows, and of course they are only giving PETA more attention, but it's still satisfying to me seeing the anger and backlash from all of them.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 26, 2019)

IMO if Irwin's son doesn't have a problem with the incident cited (he's old enough by now to have an opinion on the matter), it's not up to PETA to make a stir about it. The only good thing that's come out of that organization is the hilarious parody Cooking Mama flash game meant to encourage people to swap their Thanksgiving turkey for tofurkey.

Because that game is damn funny.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 26, 2019)

PETA is a fucking joke as much as an extremist organization. I don't take them literally, but I do take them seriously as a threat to whatever they decide to lay their hands on.

Not only do they euthanize about, what, 70%(?) of the animals they "rescue", but they did the wrong move of shitting on Steve Irwin's legacy. The sheer level of ignorance and arrogance.. I have no fucking words. 

I want their organization to cease to exist, like every other extremist organization out there.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> It's obvious they are doing for likes and follows, and of course they are only giving PETA more attention, but it's still satisfying to me seeing the anger and backlash from all of them.



Organisations post bait. 
People swallow the bait. 
We read it all, while the internet sends us adverts. 

It's a business model.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 26, 2019)

You know.. I thought it'd be better to do some PETA memes as opposed to be pissed at them being complete and utter morons. Steve Irwin deserve better.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 26, 2019)

PETA are extremists. Nothing good ever comes from extremism.


----------



## TR273 (Feb 26, 2019)

I still liked it a few years ago when they had a go at Games Workshop for having some characters wearing fur (as in the plastic miniatures).


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 26, 2019)




----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 26, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> It's obvious they are doing for likes and follows, and of course they are only giving PETA more attention, but it's still satisfying to me seeing the anger and backlash from all of them.


Oh it's fucking legendary


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 26, 2019)




----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> Oh it's fucking legendary



You are doing exactly what PETA wants though. They expect and rely on people creating a huge storm of angry comments to generate the attention that results in them getting money.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Feb 26, 2019)

Bait doesn't always work in the fisherman's favor (though PETA realistically wouldn't be a fisherman, but oh well). People create online raiding parties and have done noticeable damage to lives and businesses, like sending all available food delivery to their doorstep, dispatching SWAT, disguising as employees online, spreading false info, etc.

*I'm not advocating this by the way,* just the attention from rage marketing can attract groups that want to capitalize off of it. PETA used to be a virtual punching bag in the earlier days of the internet whenever they made a publicity stunt, but today something absurd or hateful you say on the internet can come back to crush you, so I'm uncertain how much they really gained from these tweets.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Feb 26, 2019)

I think it's pathetic that they're trying to abolish the legacy of a person that was for animal rights, a person that is no longer alive to defend himself of those accusations nonetheless.


----------



## David Drake (Feb 26, 2019)

If you like animals, don't support PETA. Their idea of "ethical" treatment is far from. There are other better animal rights organizations.

As far as Steve Irwin..yes, he did a lot for conservation but he did have a television career based on hammily harassing large reptiles amongst others, so..."complicated figure"?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

F

Steve irwin was awesome


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 26, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> Any of you guys heard about the PETA tweets against Steve Irwin? Apparently it' starting a whole storm online. Any thoughts or opinions? Open to all ideas and perspectives here.
> 
> Here's the quote:
> "#SteveIrwin was killed while harassing a ray; he dangled his baby while feeding a crocodile & wrestled wild animals who were minding their own business. Today’s #GoogleDoodle sends a dangerous, fawning message. Wild animals are entitled to be left alone in their natural habitats."
> ...


Hmmm... I don't always agree with PETA, but they do have some valid points, (in some of their tweets) I think.

I mean, for starters, I don't know why people would tune in (on their tv's) to watch some knuckle headed daredevil-type guy who thinks he's invincible - rolling around in front of the cameras with a wild Bengal tiger, (for example).

Like PETA suggests - it might be better just to leave the wild animals alone, once and a while - instead of exploiting some of them - for schlock entertainment value.

He (and others like him) never really impressed me, in any way... as "you can't always fix stupid", I always say.

That said, it's a bit disgraceful for any organization to be exploiting anyone's death, just to score poltical points on social media. And so, PETA should probably apologize for that obvious mis-step, but they shouldn't apologize for what they believe in (I don't think)... no matter how misguided some people think their beliefs are.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Feb 26, 2019)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Hmmm... I don't always agree with PETA, but they do have some valid points, (in some of their tweets) I think.
> 
> I mean, for starters, I don't know why people would tune in (on their tv's) to watch some knuckle headed daredevil-type guy who thinks he's invincible - rolling around in front of the cameras with a wild Bengal tiger, (for example).
> 
> ...



Sure, he was daring and it was entertaining in some ways, but through numerous interviews he explained that it's his enthusiasm and energy that draws people to his program, and from there he could teach and get people interested in wildlife and conservation. Sure, he bothered animals (primarily reptiles), but he never had the intent to harm and knew how to professionally handle them without stressing the animal, and never encouraged viewers to do what he did. This is hardly something for PETA to comment on in my opinion.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Feb 26, 2019)

In my opinion peta is a good example of a well meaning organization with methods that just go too far and are not effective. There are far better animal rights groups out there.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Feb 27, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> You are doing exactly what PETA wants though. They expect and rely on people creating a huge storm of angry comments to generate the attention that results in them getting money.


Lol what? In the long-term making enemies does not bring in revenue or do anything for a cause. Most of their income is from contributions. And if this promotes their contributions from stupid people. Fuck it let stupid people waste their money on something completely worthless. Long term the're just killing their own source of life: Contributions. Fuck it let them die out, and become more radical, so people see how stupid these guys really are.


----------



## 1234554321 (Feb 28, 2019)




----------



## Illuminaughty (Feb 28, 2019)

This thread is a mess.


----------



## Captain TrashPanda (Mar 1, 2019)

Irwin would be proud
PETA would lose their shit lol


----------



## AppleButt (Mar 2, 2019)

I can get behind some of petas beliefs like anti factory farming, animal testing, and fur trapping. 

However, one can effectively advocate against that stuff without doing the bullshittery that PETA does.

Shit talking Steve Irwin is low of the low!  Seriously??  We need him to still be alive “bothering” animals more than ever now to keep people interested in them!


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Mar 2, 2019)

AppleButt said:


> I can get behind some of petas beliefs like anti factory farming, animal testing, and fur trapping.
> 
> However, one can effectively advocate against that stuff without doing the bullshittery that PETA does.
> 
> Shit talking Steve Irwin is low of the low!  Seriously??  We need him to still be alive “bothering” animals more than ever now to keep people interested in them!


Steve Irwin was a G, and a great figure and role model during my childhood. Then again PETA just talks shit loads of nonsense. You won't see those guys ever helping out war refugees or donating to the poor for instance. Just throwing fake blood on other people and shit talking them for wearing fur or eating meat.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 2, 2019)

> _Redacted by staff._



This is literally me. But I dont need a gun lol. Most oil is in the US


----------



## quoting_mungo (Mar 3, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> You won't see those guys ever helping out war refugees or donating to the poor for instance.


That's a ridiculous attempt to discredit PETA. Don't get me wrong, they're full of shit and hypocrisy, but why would an _animal rights organization_ help out _people_? That makes no sense. I don't expect the Make-A-Wish Foundation to clean wildlife after an oil spill, either (unless, possibly, some kid wished for a chance to give a seagull a bath).


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Mar 3, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> Steve Irwin was a G, and a great figure and role model during my childhood. Then again PETA just talks shit loads of nonsense. You won't see those guys ever helping out war refugees or donating to the poor for instance. Just throwing fake blood on other people and shit talking them for wearing fur or eating meat.


It could certainly be agrued that PETA is a bit of a "paper tiger" (as far as efficacy goes) in getting people to change some of their habits, (in regards to animal welfare). And, I concur that in both the "personality" and "tact" departments - a lot of work could certainly be done, (within their organization) to improve how the convey their messages.

A bit more "class, with a little less sass" is sometimes much more effective.

That said, what some may view as "political extremism" can also be seen (by some others) as activist-based "political assertiveness" - which is often times necessary to achieve their political goals; as being "nice" doesn't always cut it, in getting the work done, in the real World. And so, many of those within the PETA organization, simply view these maneuvers as a part of "getting the job done" probably.

Frankly, I think those who are offended by PETA should probably admit it to themselves that they *do* have some valid points to make; (no matter how offensive the way the information is presented)... and simply discounting (everything they say and do) is "penny wise, and pound foolish".

And, we need to be honest, here - it's not too much of a stretch to say that dangling an infant child over a live feeding crocodile is any less offensive than throwing fake blood onto an expensive fur coat.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Mar 3, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> That's a ridiculous attempt to discredit PETA. Don't get me wrong, they're full of shit and hypocrisy, but why would an _animal rights organization_ help out _people_? That makes no sense. I don't expect the Make-A-Wish Foundation to clean wildlife after an oil spill, either (unless, possibly, some kid wished for a chance to give a seagull a bath).


For sure that's more than fair, and I agree, not exactly on target. I know it's a completely separate issue, but I still 'personally' believe we should be helping other people out who are struggling around the world before freaking out about people wearing fur, eating meat, and factory farming etc. Don't get me wrong thinking about this kind of stuff is good. It's true altruism to be concerned with the well being of other creatures. Idk tho I still think PETA invests way too much time in nonsense like this before actually trying to help animals. For instance, the FBI opening up an Anti-Terror investigations on these guys for donating I think it was more than 70K against a convicted arson, for animal rights. To me it's a little (Actually very) crazy to be against the unethical treatment of animals, then actively support harming humans.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Mar 3, 2019)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> It could certainly be agrued that PETA is a bit of a "paper tiger" (as far as efficacy goes) in getting people to change some of their habits, (in regards to animal welfare). And, I concur that in both the "personality" and "tact" departments - a lot of work could certainly be done, (within their organization) to improve how the convey their messages.
> 
> A bit more "class, with a little less sass" is sometimes much more effective.
> 
> ...


More than fair. They do make a few valid points. But their actions and methods to achieving their goals are more what the problem is. Even still going after Irwin who donated so much time, money and effort into the conservation of wildlife while they support convicted criminals. It's just wrong. Idk as someone said earlier (maybe it was you I can't remember). Just support different groups. I agree 100%


----------



## Cawdabra (Mar 3, 2019)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> And, we need to be honest, here - it's not too much of a stretch to say that dangling an infant child over a live feeding crocodile is any less offensive than throwing fake blood onto an expensive fur coat.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Mar 3, 2019)

insertgenericnamehere1 said:


> More than fair. They do make a few valid points. But their actions and methods to achieving their goals are more what the problem is. Even still going after Irwin who donated so much time, money and effort into the conservation of wildlife while they support convicted criminals. It's just wrong. Idk as someone said earlier (maybe it was you I can't remember). Just support different groups. I agree 100%


Often times - there's grains of truth to be found, even within opinions that one disagrees with (or is even repulsed by). Finding those grains of truth can often times be difficult though, when people's judgements are clouded by anger. It's a learning and coping process, more than anything else.


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Mar 3, 2019)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Often times - there's grains of truth to be found, even within opinions that one disagrees with (or is even repulsed by). Finding those grains of truth can often times be difficult though, when people's judgements are clouded by anger. It's a learning and coping process, more than anything else.


Yup! Love ya already =p That's why I try to never get angry especially when dealing with a differing opinion, as each is a person's subjective world-view. Furthermore, each person might just have good reasons for their view, that I may not know. It's far better to listen and look for an objective truth that can actually solve a problem . Anger does nothing to better a point, it only discredits you among opposed and neutral onlookers. I'd far rather just walk away or just troll for my own laughs if someone freaks out these days, much better than to respond to fire with fire. It's true sometimes anger can get the better of me like all people. But one of the most valuable lesson and yes coping process or struggle for me was to not get angry especially for things like this.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 3, 2019)

Cawdabra said:


>


I probably shouldn't need to point out that stories posted to 4chan are often not true. 

In this case we're being asked to believe that somebody who spends their time calling people 'libtard virgins' on 4chan has actually met a woman in real life- let alone married her and bought her fur coats.

So I'm kinda not buying this one. x3


----------



## insertgenericnamehere1 (Mar 3, 2019)

Cawdabra said:


>



eyyyy a 4chan buddy =p


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Mar 4, 2019)

Cawdabra said:


>


4Chan green text stories are best, even if they don't seem to be true.
Oh well, just incase it is, bless this anon.



Fallowfox said:


> I probably shouldn't need to point out that stories posted to 4chan are often not true.
> 
> In this case we're being asked to believe that somebody who spends their time calling people 'libtard virgins' on 4chan has actually met a woman in real life- let alone married her and bought her fur coats.
> 
> So I'm kinda not buying this one. x3


I don't mind if it's not even real, I just love to read.
Green texts always amuse me somehow.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 4, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4™ said:


> 4Chan green text stories are best, even if they don't seem to be true.
> Oh well, just incase it is, bless this anon.
> 
> 
> ...



Eh, maybe we _should_ care if these stories are real, because they _can _colour our attitudes. 

I can imagine reading too many of them, and then getting to the point where I believe that being 'instantly pissed off' by somebody's 'skinny libtard' appearance is something rational and masculine- something part of a jovial bad-boy personality, rather than...weak and pathetic, which is what it actually is. 

It's kind of like jokes about the westboro baptists. I'm all up for that, but I wouldn't really be able to enjoy those jokes if the people telling them were also saying things like 'just looking at those christ-tard scum makes me angry,'.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 4, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Eh, maybe we _should_ care if these stories are real, because they _can _colour our attitudes.
> 
> I can imagine reading too many of them, and then getting to the point where I believe that being 'instantly pissed off' by somebody's 'skinny libtard' appearance is something rational and masculine- something part of a jovial bad-boy personality, rather than...weak and pathetic, which is what it actually is.
> 
> It's kind of like jokes about the westboro baptists. I'm all up for that, but I wouldn't really be able to enjoy those jokes if the people telling them were also saying things like 'just looking at those christ-tard scum makes me angry,'.



Most greentexts are just weirdass random stories of people shitting themselves. xD


----------



## Z-ro (Sep 18, 2019)

Thank you @Infrarednexus 
Hmrhm....FUCK PETA!!!!!!!1
BUNCH OF SLAUGHTER HOUSE HYPOCRITE MOTHERFUCKERS!!!


----------



## Baalf (Sep 18, 2019)

Captain TrashPanda said:


> Irwin would be proud
> PETA would lose their shit lol



 I would just like to say that jokes like that are in seriously fucking poor taste. Animals are living creatures, and making fun of them with me jokes like that is like saying animal Slaughter is funny. I'm sorry for getting offended by jokes like that, but I'm sorry, I see Life as more valuable then that.

Being honest.


----------



## Tapper (Sep 18, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> I would just like to say that jokes like that are in seriously fucking poor taste. Animals are living creatures, and making fun of them with me jokes like that is like saying animal Slaughter is funny. I'm sorry for getting offended by jokes like that, but I'm sorry, I see Life as more valuable then that.
> 
> Being honest.




They do make good burgers though


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 18, 2019)

Tapper said:


> They do make good burgers though


I'll take mine medium rare please


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 18, 2019)




----------



## Foxosh (Sep 18, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> I'll take mine medium rare please


I like my meat well done and grilled over charcoal.
Literally the only way to do it


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Sep 18, 2019)

Why stop at burgers?



Hmmm Texas bbq


----------



## Tapper (Sep 18, 2019)

Foxosh said:


> I like my meat well done and grilled over charcoal.
> Literally the only way to do it





DarkoKavinsky said:


> Why stop at burgers?
> View attachment 71184
> Hmmm Texas bbq



OwO


----------



## Captain TrashPanda (Sep 18, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> I would just like to say that jokes like that are in seriously fucking poor taste. Animals are living creatures, and making fun of them with me jokes like that is like saying animal Slaughter is funny. I'm sorry for getting offended by jokes like that, but I'm sorry, I see Life as more valuable then that.
> 
> Being honest.


The fact this thread has been dead since March and you want to bring up "ooo a joke about killing a cow is offensive" is amusing, mainly because that's a mockery.
Oh no, you and PETA are coming after me and everyone that posted memes because we love a good juicy burger every now and again.
Dude, grow up. Quit trying to start petty arguments over a dead thread.

*In the spirit of the thread, R.I.P. Steve Irwin. You are loved and missed by the sane and civilized people of the world.*


----------



## Captain TrashPanda (Sep 18, 2019)

No-fur-ther said:


> Thank you @Infrarednexus
> Hmrhm....FUCK PETA!!!!!!!1
> BUNCH OF SLAUGHTER HOUSE HYPOCRITE MOTHERFUCKERS!!!





Tapper said:


> They do make good burgers though





Infrarednexus said:


> I'll take mine medium rare please





KimberVaile said:


>





Foxosh said:


> I like my meat well done and grilled over charcoal.
> Literally the only way to do it





DarkoKavinsky said:


> Why stop at burgers?
> View attachment 71184
> Hmmm Texas bbq





Tapper said:


> OwO


^^^


----------



## Arthurtheshepherd (Sep 18, 2019)

FUCK PITA they are pointless and are hypocrites because they say they don't want to harm animals yet last year 75% of animals that came into their care got put down


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 18, 2019)

I think most normal people are united in the acknowledgment of PETA being a basket case organization.


----------



## Zenoth (Sep 18, 2019)

Anyone here supporting PETA, I hope you don't have a dog in the house.  PETA doesn't think domestic dogs should be a thing at all, and kill 2000 of them per year. 
www.washingtontimes.com: PETA kills 2,000 dogs and cats each year: report


----------



## Arthurtheshepherd (Sep 18, 2019)

Zenoth said:


> Anyone here supporting PETA, I hope you don't have a dog in the house.  PETA doesn't think domestic dogs should be a thing at all, and kill 2000 of them per year.
> www.washingtontimes.com: PETA kills 2,000 dogs and cats each year: report


SEE!!! 2000 fluff butts dead


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Sep 19, 2019)

Coyote yotes love chicken and ribs..... so, (sorry PETA) -*grill* those babies up, please....


----------



## Baalf (Sep 19, 2019)

*OKAY, I AM FUCKING SERIOUS!!!!!
*
You wouldn't joke about people dying, would you? You wouldn't joke about putting a gun to someone's head, would you? You wouldn't joke about eating people, would you? *THEN DON'T FUCKING JOKE ABOUT KILLING ANIMALS!!!
*
Every time I see people do that, I legitimately consider cannibalism. And that isn't a joke, that is me being completely fucking honest. Jokes like that legitimately make me wish there were people who allowed themselves to be turned into meat when they died of natural causes. Jokes like that remind me why I am misanthropic.

Also, I wasn't the one who necroed the thread. That was No-Fur-Ther.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Sep 19, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> *OKAY, I AM FUCKING SERIOUS!!!!!
> *
> You wouldn't joke about people dying, would you? You wouldn't joke about putting a gun to someone's head, would you? You wouldn't joke about eating people, would you? *THEN DON'T FUCKING JOKE ABOUT KILLING ANIMALS!!!
> *
> ...


"You wouldn't joke about eating people, would you"
Me into vore: Observe.

My teenager self used to joke about anything because I was a dark and 'edgy' fucker back then, I had no bounds on what I could or couldn't joke about, it's prob why I still don't take things too seriously anymore which may or may not be a good thing depending on one's view.
Of course I made sure to not be like that in public or try not to be. But to wish someone turned into meat or be cannibalised over a joke is a bit too far.

Yes, I know you have the right to be upset if someone makes a dumb joke especially about killing a living thing, but right now you're just setting yourself up to be knocked down like a domino.


----------



## ConorHyena (Sep 19, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> You wouldn't joke about people dying, would you? You wouldn't joke about putting a gun to someone's head, would you? You wouldn't joke about eating people, would you? *THEN DON'T FUCKING JOKE ABOUT KILLING ANIMALS!!!
> *
> Also, I wasn't the one who necroed the thread. That was No-Fur-Ther.



I have made jokes about all of the above. While I agree, dead animals should be treated with respect, I'd rather have less people wasting food (especially dead animals) than telling them not to make jokes about this

and yes, No-Fur-Ther is good at necroing threads.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 19, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> *OKAY, I AM FUCKING SERIOUS!!!!!
> *
> You wouldn't joke about people dying, would you? You wouldn't joke about putting a gun to someone's head, would you? You wouldn't joke about eating people, would you? *THEN DON'T FUCKING JOKE ABOUT KILLING ANIMALS!!!
> *
> ...


Bruh, between 40 to 60 percent of Earths species eat other animals.

Human beings were naturally carnivores in the beginning. Our earliest tribes survived off eating meat from animals we killed. We did this for thousands of years before we discovered agriculture and included fruits, grains, and veggies in our diets. Most people on this Earth still eat meat and this will probably continue for a long time. 

No doubt you are going to hear people talk about it.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 19, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4 said:


> "You wouldn't joke about eating people, would you"
> Me into vore: Observe.
> 
> My teenager self used to joke about anything because I was a dark and 'edgy' fucker back then, I had no bounds on what I could or couldn't joke about, it's prob why I still don't take things too seriously anymore which may or may not be a good thing depending on one's view.
> ...



Meh, maybe it is a  little bit too far.



Infrarednexus said:


> Bruh, between 40 to 60 percent of Earths species eat other animals.
> 
> Human beings were naturally carnivores in the beginning. Our earliest tribes survived off eating meat from animals we killed. We did this for thousands of years before we discovered agriculture and included fruits, grains, and veggies in our diets. Most people on this Earth still eat meat and this will probably continue for a long time.



Yes, but by joking about it, you're basically treating them as objects.

Honestly I hate PETA as much as the next guy, but I can't help but agree with SOME, not most, but some, of the things they believe. I don't agree we should STOP eating meat, but I do believe we should respect what we eat.


----------



## Z-ro (Sep 19, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> *OKAY, I AM FUCKING SERIOUS!!!!!
> *
> You wouldn't joke about people dying, would you? You wouldn't joke about putting a gun to someone's head, would you? You wouldn't joke about eating people, would you? *THEN DON'T FUCKING JOKE ABOUT KILLING ANIMALS!!!
> *
> ...


First off 
Chill, your disproportionate anger won't stop me from seeing a chicken's neck getting snapped up and enjoy that I will have something to eat 
And I necroed nothing, this thread is from 2019, so go figure what reason you used to mention my name
@Infrarednexus was a beautiful friend to tag it to me, thanks again 
Animals die regardless you joke or not 
Comedy is made also as a warning and to provoke people into taking measures for change to get taken 
Deal with it


----------



## Captain TrashPanda (Sep 19, 2019)

No-fur-ther said:


> First off
> Chill, your disproportionate anger won't stop me from seeing a chicken's neck getting snapped up and enjoy that I will have something to eat
> And I necroed nothing, this thread is from 2019, so go figure what reason you used to mention my name
> @Infrarednexus was a beautiful friend to tag it to me, thanks again
> ...


Ah, No-Fur-ther ftw. Side note, Chick-fil-A has the best nuggets.


BennyJackdaw said:


> Meh, maybe it is a  little bit too far.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How should I treat them other then objects? If I hit a deer on a back county road am I gonna scream and panic like your PETA ass and call an ambulance? My dog back at my parents is not a person. If it was hurt I would help it. IF THERE IS A COW BORN AND RAISED TO MAKE BEEF, THERES NO ISSUE WITH THE FARMER KILLING IT AND MAKING BEEF.
Grow up. Animals are objects. People are people. I can choose to love my pets and eat a burger and there ain’t one damn thing wrong.
I hope you’re happy that you’ve skewered the thread from paying our respects to Steve Irwin to having to explain to your headass why killing animals is ok.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Sep 19, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> You wouldn't joke about people dying, would you? You wouldn't joke about putting a gun to someone's head, would you? You wouldn't joke about eating people, would you?


I would and have. Because they're jokes.
One could argue about whether a joke is in bad taste or not, but face it:
A joke is a joke is a joke.

The jester was the only person to actually be allowed to criticize the throne and when we start throwing comedians under the bus, we should reroll on society.


----------



## ConorHyena (Sep 19, 2019)

Captain TrashPanda said:


> Grow up. Animals are objects. People are people.



This is bullshit.
Animals are _NOT _objects. 
They're living creatures, like us. 

I'm not saying it's wrong to kill an animal for food (I have done so myself before.) but it should be done so with respect. It's a living being that gave its life to nourish us.


----------



## Z-ro (Sep 19, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> I would and have. Because they're jokes.
> One could argue about whether a joke is in bad taste or not, but face it:
> A joke is a joke is a joke.
> 
> The jester was the only person to actually be allowed to criticize the throne and when we start throwing comedians under the bus, we should reroll on society.


My country is known for some of the HIGHEST Roadkilling worldwide, but it isn't of animals, but humans
When he hit an animal, regular reaction is "dumb fuck almost broke my windshield", in here we don't even care for the amount of death by roadkilling anymore, because it became an habit, we treat people like animals because they do dumb shit driving and get their ass skinned on the asphalt, animals got almost a 20% of our intelligence, therefore we don't kill them, they kill themselves


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 19, 2019)

So who else watched Steve Irwin's shows growing up?


----------



## Z-ro (Sep 19, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> So who else watched Steve Irwin's shows growing up?


I didn't unfortunately


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Sep 19, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> So who else watched Steve Irwin's shows growing up?


Pretty much all of them.


----------



## Captain TrashPanda (Sep 19, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> So who else watched Steve Irwin's shows growing up?


I watched reruns as a kid

I love how there’s a handful of people attempting to put the thread back on its rightful course then we have everyone else trying to decide if killing an animal is wrong.
The bullshittery runs deep in the morning.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Sep 19, 2019)

No-fur-ther said:


> My country is known for some of the HIGHEST Roadkilling worldwide, but it isn't of animals, but humans
> When he hit an animal, regular reaction is "dumb fuck almost broke my windshield", in here we don't even care for the amount of death by roadkilling anymore, because it became an habit, we treat people like animals because they do dumb shit driving and get their ass skinned on the asphalt, animals got almost a 20% of our intelligence, therefore we don't kill them, they kill themselves


There's  a legend from back in the day from northern Wisconsin where I live, of a woman for the longest time, every day going to work driving through the woods, she would hit a deer.
Every single day.
Well, there's  a story about a man who drives a riding lawn mower from iowa to wisconsin to see his sick and dying brother.
This man actually meets the woman right after she hits a deer.

Theres a movie about it, forgot the name. The scene he meets the woman, they take a moment of silence over the deer.
The scene is then juxtaposed with one where the man is driving his lawn mower with a new deer rack on his trailer (yes his mower was pulling a small trailer along).

All based on true stories too. Should find the name for you here in a sec


----------



## Z-ro (Sep 19, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> There's  a legend from back in the day from northern Wisconsin where I live, of a woman for the longest time, every day going to work driving through the woods, she would hit a deer.
> Every single day.
> Well, there's  a story about a man who drives a riding lawn mower from iowa to wisconsin to see his sick and dying brother.
> This man actually meets the woman right after she hits a deer.
> ...


Thx but no thx


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Sep 19, 2019)

No-fur-ther said:


> Thx but no thx


*shrug*
Suit yourself.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 19, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> So who else watched Steve Irwin's shows growing up?


When he died, Animal Planet started going downhill fast. Now it's a bunch of reality shows and other degenerate programming, some with no nonhuman animals whatsoever. Their new motto is even "Surprisingly Human".


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Sep 19, 2019)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> When he died, Animal Planet started going downhill fast. Now it's a bunch of reality shows and other degenerate programming, some with no nonhuman animals whatsoever. Their new motto is even "Surprisingly Human".


There's a guy on Youtube I like that reminds me of Steve a little.
His name is Coyote Peterson and even though he's a little more well-known for allowing himself to get bit by dangerous and venomous animals, he does have some legit good videos talking about the intricacies of different animal species, visiting wildlife preserves and sanctuaries, etc.


----------



## Z-ro (Sep 19, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> There's a guy on Youtube I like that reminds me of Steve a little.
> His name is Coyote Peterson and even though he's a little more well-known for allowing himself to get bit by dangerous and venomous animals, he does have some legit good videos talking about the intricacies of different animal species, visiting wildlife preserves and sanctuaries, etc.


Brave wilderness? Fuck yeah dude.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Sep 19, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Meh, maybe it is a  little bit too far.


It was man, but at least you saw that.
Glad I didn't come back to a dumpster fire though.



Infrarednexus said:


> So who else watched Steve Irwin's shows growing up?


Ngl, I never heard of him till now, but that's just me not caring a whole lot about TV or celebrities.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 19, 2019)

Captain TrashPanda said:


> I watched reruns as a kid
> 
> I love how there’s a handful of people attempting to put the thread back on its rightful course then we have everyone else trying to decide if killing an animal is wrong.
> The bullshittery runs deep in the morning.



It’s only okay if you Kero The Wolf it. 

Joke pls no lynch mob


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 19, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> There's a guy on Youtube I like that reminds me of Steve a little.
> His name is Coyote Peterson and even though he's a little more well-known for allowing himself to get bit by dangerous and venomous animals, he does have some legit good videos talking about the intricacies of different animal species, visiting wildlife preserves and sanctuaries, etc.


His stuff is like Jeff Corwin meets Jackass, and I love it.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Sep 19, 2019)

I had to post this


----------



## Captain TrashPanda (Sep 19, 2019)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> I had to post this


Ah, yes, I love this. 
Thank you for this.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 19, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> This is bullshit.
> Animals are _NOT _objects.
> They're living creatures, like us.
> 
> I'm not saying it's wrong to kill an animal for food (I have done so myself before.) but it should be done so with respect. It's a living being that gave its life to nourish us.



This post exactly.

The fact that a lot of people treat animals is objects literally horrifies me and as another reason I'm misanthropic.

And again, I don't support PETA.



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> When he died, Animal Planet started going downhill fast. Now it's a bunch of reality shows and other degenerate programming, some with no nonhuman animals whatsoever. Their new motto is even "Surprisingly Human".



Actually, that describes how Animal Planet was a few years ago, but it got better overtime. Also, from what I can tell, they no longer use that as their slogan.

Personally, I did grow up watching Steve Irwin a little bit. He wasn't someone I constantly watched, but I saw him a few times.


----------



## Joni (Sep 19, 2019)

Captain TrashPanda said:


> Animals are objects.





Captain TrashPanda said:


> abortion is murder


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Sep 19, 2019)

Joni said:


> View attachment 71248


Someone get the popcorn.
Show's about to start.


----------



## Captain TrashPanda (Sep 19, 2019)

Joni said:


> View attachment 71248





Toby_Morpheus said:


> Someone get the popcorn.
> Show's about to start.


Ah yes, pull something I said and use it out of context.
No response from me mate, not the thread for it nor is it worth my time.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 19, 2019)

I would ask anyone who thinks animals are objects or inferior to humans what exactly they mean. What separates us exactly? The fact that we use toilet paper to wipe our asses? Or the fact that we’re so smart we regularly kill each other while greedily trying to take over each other’s resources and have destroyed most of the environment? 

Sociological things aside, we aren’t much different from animals, in fact we are animals, we simply have mental adaptations that allowed us to expand our species the most rapidly. Anyone who says otherwise hasn’t taken a biology course.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 19, 2019)

I am surprised anybody would argue that an animal is 'an object'.

You don't really believe this do you?

It's just an attempt to be edgy, right?


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 19, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> It's just an attempt to be edgy, right?



>goes on furry forum
>says animals are objects
>results are highly predictable 

I’d say yeah.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 19, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I am surprised anybody would argue that an animal is 'an object'.


Well there's Abrahamic creationists, Objectivists, TCM dealers, trophy hunters, poachers......


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 19, 2019)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Well there's Abrahamic creationists, Objectivists, TCM dealers, trophy hunters, poachers......



I wonder how hunters would like it if we put them in a pen and let the wolves and rams and bulls after them. 

Without weapons. 

And no escape. 

Sweet justice.


----------



## ConorHyena (Sep 19, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> I wonder how hunters would like it if we put them in a pen and let the wolves and rams and bulls after them.
> 
> Without weapons.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't call that justice. That's more or less revenge.

While hunting for sport is absolutely deplorable, hunting an animal and then eating it is in my opinon ethically absolutely on solid grounds.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 19, 2019)

This thread, basically.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 19, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> I wouldn't call that justice. That's more or less revenge.
> 
> While hunting for sport is absolutely deplorable, hunting an animal and then eating it is in my opinon ethically absolutely on solid grounds.



Not really revenge. Just leveling the playing field. The hunters would probably lose... which is kinda the point. 

And yes, it mostly is, but in what context? I don’t think factory farming systems where animals get raised exclusively for human consumption, in cruel and unnatural environments, are ethical. 

Going out and whacking out a deer, eating it, eh, I guess that’s ok.


----------



## volkinaxe (Sep 19, 2019)

https://imgur.com/WD4SDuj




https://imgur.com/vVORY7h


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Sep 19, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> This thread, basically.


Didn't know who this guy was but it sounds like his comedy style has taken a lot of inspiration from George Carlin and Bill Hicks. I like him.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Sep 19, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> I wouldn't call that justice. That's more or less revenge.
> 
> While hunting for sport is absolutely deplorable, hunting an animal and then eating it is in my opinon ethically absolutely on solid grounds.


Just try to use as much of the animal as possible. Skins, guts, bones, etc.
You can make all sorts of good stuff with the parts one otherwise might toss.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 19, 2019)

Mr. Fox said:


> Didn't know who this guy was but it sounds like his comedy style has taken a lot of inspiration from George Carlin and Bill Hicks. I like him.



He writes songs too. He's had a #2 in the Charts before.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 19, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> I wouldn't call that justice. That's more or less revenge.
> 
> While hunting for sport is absolutely deplorable, hunting an animal and then eating it is in my opinon ethically absolutely on solid grounds.



As much as I hate hunting and how obsessed certain people are over it, I can sort of understand that.


----------



## Dreammaker33 (Sep 19, 2019)

Factory farming makes me feel sad, wtf did those poor animals do to any human being, Those animals don't deserve to be confined to a literal living hell. The world must come together and be more compassionate towards others and living animals that can obviously feel pain, if not I dread to think what the future holds for us.


----------



## volkinaxe (Sep 19, 2019)

https://imgur.com/qJWomff


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Sep 19, 2019)

PeTA is trash.  They aren't really helping animals, they have deranged ideas that domesticated species like dogs, cats, horses, and livestock should no longer be bred - at all - and should be allowed to simply become extinct in order to "prevent" abuse.  They rely on controversy but never actually accomplish anything.  They are little more than trolls and bullies.  Steve Irwin and his family have done far more for conservation and education than PeTA could ever hope to.


----------



## volkinaxe (Sep 19, 2019)




----------



## David Drake (Sep 19, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> This thread, basically.



Oh wow, blast from the past.

As I reached double-digit age in the mid-late 90s, I had a cassette tape my dad made from recorded audio from the TV. On one side was Jon Stewart: Unleavened (this was years before Daily Show), and the other side was Denis Leary: Lock and Load. Those two were my first big influential stand-up specials.

Denis' stuff hasn't aged particularly well for me in substance, since nowadays a lot of it feels like "edgy" conservativism from a stance of ignorance. But I do still love his delivery and performance, and he does have a couple of legitimately great bits so I do kind of have a soft spot for him.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 20, 2019)

MaelstromEyre said:


> PeTA is trash.  They aren't really helping animals, they have deranged ideas that domesticated species like dogs, cats, horses, and livestock should no longer be bred - at all - and should be allowed to simply become extinct in order to "prevent" abuse.  They rely on controversy but never actually accomplish anything.  They are little more than trolls and bullies.  Steve Irwin and his family have done far more for conservation and education than PeTA could ever hope to.


To be fair, the extinction of cattle would be a tremendous boon for climate change mitigation efforts.


----------



## volkinaxe (Sep 20, 2019)

do not forget that peta came for furry fandom


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Sep 20, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> I wonder how hunters would like it if we put them in a pen and let the wolves and rams and bulls after them.
> 
> Without weapons.
> 
> ...


That's not justice.
That's not revenge.
That's slaughter. May as well just say "If you're a hunter you deserve to die."



SwiftDog said:


> Not really revenge. Just leveling the playing field. The hunters would probably lose... which is kinda the point.


You basically sent people to their deaths, with no hope of escape.
It's not leveling the play field, you stripped away everything by saying you put them in a cage with NO ESCAPE.
Humans evolved with intelligence, you are punishing humans in that case for not evolving their strength and what not.

If you want an even playing field put the hunters in a forest without weapons. They have a choice of: Trying to flee OR fighting. Odds are they'd choose fight since humans not cannot outlast animals, or at least not easily anymore.
The human (should) craft a spear, or any weapon they can really, especially to keep distance and to actually harm the attacker, y'know an actual leveling of the playfield, not slaughter.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Sep 20, 2019)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> To be fair, the extinction of cattle would be a tremendous boon for climate change mitigation efforts.


So would the extinction of all the animal kingdom but uh
Heh
Babies and bathwater ;D


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 20, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4 said:


> That's not justice.
> That's not revenge.
> That's slaughter. May as well just say "If you're a hunter you deserve to die."
> 
> ...



And why do we care so much about the lives of these hypothetical humans? I find it interesting when people have such an emotional reaction to suggestions like these. Imagine the screams of horror from those wolf killers, killers of beautiful animals... 

Except what would actually happen, is that those wolves and rams and whatnot that I previously mentioned would most likely just leave those disgusting humans alone. Because animals tend to inherently recognize humans as non-prey, other predators. 

It is only us humans who find so many very creative ways to kill things. Killing innocent creatures for fun and “sport.” 

Farmed animals can be seen in a similar vein, except perhaps even worse. You pretend to be the animals friend and then after a certain point, slaughter the animals for food. 

No, your real outrage should be for all the trophy animals ruthlessly slaughtered. Many of them only have their heads removed. Or when livestock endangerment is supposedly an issue, they’re just killed and left to rot, the entire pack suffers.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Sep 20, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> And why do we care so much about the lives of these hypothetical humans? I find it interesting when people have such an emotional reaction to suggestions like these. Imagine the screams of horror from those wolf killers, killers of beautiful animals...


In otherwords, people deserve to die. Taking being a furry to a whole new level.



SwiftDog said:


> Except what would actually happen, is that those wolves and rams and whatnot that I previously mentioned would most likely just leave those disgusting humans alone. Because animals tend to inherently recognize humans as non-prey, other predators.


Tend to, not that they do.
This was done/said in the mindset that they were hunting you, for whatever animal instinct of a reason. Yes, those animals usually don't have a reason to hunt you, or often wolves don't.



SwiftDog said:


> It is only us humans who find so many very creative ways to kill things. Killing innocent creatures for fun and “sport.”
> Farmed animals can be seen in a similar vein, except perhaps even worse. You pretend to be the animals friend and then after a certain point, slaughter the animals for food.


Dolphins, look 'em up. Male dolphins have been known to use dead fishes and eels to masterbate. And mind you, these creatures are also intelligent.

I'm not on side of animals nor humans, I'm stating a fact. There are better ways to get food, but that doesn't mean go vegan, nothing wrong with killing animals.
Nothing wrong with hunting animals. But I am still not a fan of people getting cocky with their kills or even illegally hunting since legal hunting often does so with the mind of trying to ensure the animal population is stable.



SwiftDog said:


> No, your real outrage should be for all the trophy animals ruthlessly slaughtered. Many of them only have their heads removed. Or when livestock endangerment is supposedly an issue, they’re just killed and left to rot, the entire pack suffers.


My outrage is that people don't treat shit the way they'd wanna be treated.
If I'm gonna be your burger, at least let me have a decent life. If I'm going to be your pet, at least take care of me. If I'm going to be the thing you hunt, may your aim be steady and the kill be quick.

Yes, I'm against ruthlessly killing animals, but I'm also against just outright killing people. Or so the innocent.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 20, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4 said:


> In otherwords, people deserve to die. Taking being a furry to a whole new level.
> 
> 
> Tend to, not that they do.
> ...



Nothing innocent about hunters, specially trophy hunters. I have little against someone offing a deer and eating it, it’s pretty natural really. I think guns provide too much of a distance, emotionally that is, and not even much chance for the deer to escape. They would not be outright killed. Ideally, the wolves and cougars and bears would track them and make them hide, make them run and fear for their lives. Make them truly use that big brain of theirs in order survive in the wilderness, on an equal footing with nature itself. 

I think it would be fun to watch.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 20, 2019)

This is super weird.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Sep 20, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> Nothing innocent about hunters, specially trophy hunters. I have little against someone offing a deer and eating it, it’s pretty natural really. I think guns provide too much of a distance, emotionally that is, and not even much chance for the deer to escape. They would not be outright killed. Ideally, the wolves and cougars and bears would track them and make them hide, make them run and fear for their lives. Make them truly use that big brain of theirs in order survive in the wilderness, on an equal footing with nature itself.
> 
> I think it would be fun to watch.


I mean... Not going to lie I wouldn't mind going hunting, but that's just me wanting to try out new stuff. Of course I'd want to do it legally for the reasons stated above.
Well, I would try and hunt with a bow and arrow, but I wanna make sure the thing doesn't feel a thing, I just know in most cases there's a high chance of it dying quickly, or at least that's what I hope and assume, after all haven't experienced it. ;3

I mean, if any creature was running after me with the obvious intent to kill me, I'd haul ass. Mind you, I wouldn't wanna harm a bear, or at least a Grizzly one. (Not bias. Sssh.)

Although, my cruel/edgy self wouldn't mind seeing a bunch of 'hunters' get hunted by animals.



Fallowfox said:


> This is super weird.


C'mon, please don't act like you didn't see this coming from a mile away.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 20, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4 said:


> C'mon, please don't act like you didn't see this coming from a mile away.



Not the part about_ dolphin masturbation_, no! x3


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Sep 20, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Not the part about_ dolphin masturbation_, no! x3


Well, just like the canine thread, you learn something new everyday.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 20, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4 said:


> I mean... Not going to lie I wouldn't mind going hunting, but that's just me wanting to try out new stuff. Of course I'd want to do it legally for the reasons stated above.
> Well, I would try and hunt with a bow and arrow, but I wanna make sure the thing doesn't feel a thing, I just know in most cases there's a high chance of it dying quickly, or at least that's what I hope and assume, after all haven't experienced it. ;3
> 
> I mean, if any creature was running after me with the obvious intent to kill me, I'd haul ass. Mind you, I wouldn't wanna harm a bear, or at least a Grizzly one. (Not bias. Sssh.)
> ...



Hey well, guess we found some common ground!



Fallowfox said:


> Not the part about_ dolphin masturbation_, no! x3



Gonna have to give that a one big OwO


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 20, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4 said:


> If I'm gonna be your burger,



_If you wanna be my burger_, you gotta get with my friends. 
Make it last forever, friendship never ends. 

I wanna,  I wanna,  I wanna, I wanna, 
I wanna really, really, really wanna zigazig ah

;D


----------



## Massan Otter (Sep 20, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Not the part about_ dolphin masturbation_, no! x3



I hope that hasn't given you any art inspiration!


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Sep 20, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> _If you wanna be my burger_, you gotta get with my friends.
> Make it last forever, friendship never ends.
> 
> I wanna,  I wanna,  I wanna, I wanna,
> ...


"Friends"
Shit. Welp there goes that deal. I am cursed to have no friends.


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Sep 23, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> Nothing innocent about hunters, specially trophy hunters. I have little against someone offing a deer and eating it, it’s pretty natural really. I think guns provide too much of a distance, emotionally that is, and not even much chance for the deer to escape. They would not be outright killed. Ideally, the wolves and cougars and bears would track them and make them hide, make them run and fear for their lives. Make them truly use that big brain of theirs in order survive in the wilderness, on an equal footing with nature itself.
> 
> I think it would be fun to watch.


 I live in an area with a lot of deer, and a lot of hunters.

Most hunters are NOT a problem.  They go out, they get their deer or turkey or pheasant or elk or whatever else they're after that season, and they're done.  Many feed their families almost entirely from what they hunt or grow themselves.

That's what wildlife management is all about.  And hunters contribute more to conservation and environmental efforts than any of the bogus groups like PeTA or Greenpeace.  

Those groups are just about publicity and donations.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2019)

I regard the claim that hunters contribute to conservation with some dubious skepticism; in landscapes like the Scottish Highlands the ecosystem has been severely damaged in order to transform it into one in which red deer and grouse thrive, at the expense of other animals, because these are what hunters pay to shoot. 

The upland moors of Scotland are routinely deliberately burnt, to create grouse habitat (naturally they would be pine forest), and predatory birds like Golden eagles tend to mysteriously go missing over these areas. 

www.bbc.co.uk: Two golden eagles 'disappear' from grouse moor
Concern over four missing hen harriers
www.bbc.co.uk: Tagged hen harrier disappears on moor

www.bbc.co.uk: Hen harriers 'vanishing due to illegal killing'


----------



## ConorHyena (Sep 23, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I regard the claim that hunters contribute to conservation with some dubious skepticism; in landscapes like the Scottish Highlands the ecosystem has been severely damaged in order to transform it into one in which red deer and grouse thrive, at the expense of other animals, because these are what hunters pay to shoot.
> 
> The upland moors of Scotland are routinely deliberately burnt, to create grouse habitat (naturally they would be pine forest), and predatory birds like Golden eagles tend to mysteriously go missing over these areas.
> 
> ...



While I know this is happening in scotland, and I don't endorse it, I have opposite examples over here in Germany. Without hunters, the forest (which is man made as well, there's no "natural" forest left in germany at all) would suffer pretty badly.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> While I know this is happening in scotland, and I don't endorse it, I have opposite examples over here in Germany. Without hunters, the forest (which is man made as well, there's no "natural" forest left in germany at all) would suffer pretty badly.



The fact that they're often slapping themselves on the back and congratulating themselves for 'saving nature', but also involved in practices or straight-up* criminal* behaviour that harms nature always makes me regard claims that we should be thankful for the hunters' work with suspicion.

Basically I think they do what's in their interest, and _occasionally_ that might align with the interests of the natural world, but often it doesn't.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 23, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> The fact that they're often slapping themselves on the back and congratulating themselves for 'saving nature', but also involved in practices of straight-up* criminal* behaviour that harms nature always makes me regard claims that we should be thankful for the hunters' work with suspicion.
> 
> Basically I think they do what's in their interest, and _occasionally_ that might align with the interests of the natural world, but often it doesn't.



Since I have a few years of hunting experience, I feel it would be appropriate to add my opinion to this.

For me personally, I don’t think hunters ‘save nature’ in any significant way, as well. Rather, good hunters who participate legally are taking part in a natural cycle of nature. They also help fund wildlife reservations and other natural wonders by buying licenses from the government. Hunting is more of a privilege that good people have the ability to participate in.

As for animal stock and ideal habitat creation interrupting the ecosystem, I do have one good example of this in the US. Pheasants that were introduced to the states did have an impact on bird populations, significantly so. Pheasant stocking is one of the things I don’t like about hunting- I think it’s not a productive practice.

The key thing to take away from this is that not all hunters share bad practices, but I do agree that there are bad hunters and hunting practices out there. It’s important to take everything with a grain of salt, but there are good people who do such a thing for acceptable reasons.

That’s why it’s important to condemn the bad practices, and promote good ones, instead. That’s what I always try to do.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2019)

Unfortunately in the modern age human population densities are very large, and humans tend to hunt in technologically sophisticated ways- using guns for example.

So a relatively 'small' number of humans killing animals can have unforeseen consequences- such as declines in male virility in animals like lions, where the rights to shoot animals were sold under the guide of ostensibly being ethical because the funds would go towards managing reserves. 

I rather wonder as well what happens to all of the spent ammunition in the wild, because hunters don't recover this. I'm aware the use of lead-ammunition and fishing tackle has historically been disastrous. I'm rather suspicious that scientists will eventually decide that the alternative heavy metals that are used, like Bismuth, are not as green as they were initially advertised.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 23, 2019)

Well, that’s why animals, unfortunately, have to be regulated- it’s because of human density. It’s not as if humans can suddenly stop reproducing. It’s a necessary evil, sometimes.

Also, guns hardly give people that much of an advantage. Throughout several hunting seasons one year, my family only got 4 ducks. That’s not a whole lot, in retrospect. I think you’re underestimating the intelligence of the animals we hunt ethically.

As for spent ammunition, I personally always try to find my spent ammunition casings and shotgun shells, if I happen to find them. The bullets themselves are small in comparison, so if you pick up after yourself, it really doesn’t have that much of an impact, environmentally.

As for virility issues, the states don’t often have this problem. Hunting seasons are regulated here to prevent such issues, they only open seasons if populations are stable and healthy. The government regularly runs surveys to make sure issues like this don’t happen. Hunting lions can be argued against- but I believe that I always follow the law, and hunt ethically and cleanly.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> Well, that’s why animals, unfortunately, have to be regulated- it’s because of human density. It’s not as if humans can suddenly stop reproducing. It’s a necessary evil, sometimes.
> 
> Also, guns hardly give people that much of an advantage. Throughout several hunting seasons one year, my family only got 4 ducks. That’s not a whole lot, in retrospect. I think you’re underestimating the intelligence of the animals we hunt ethically.
> 
> ...



I mean, when people were using lead shot it _definitely did_, so can I believe you? 

I think more of us should appreciate that part of the reason animals like deer have to be regulated is because their natural predators have been extirpated. 
It's often difficult to re-introduce these predators because of opposition, in part from the industries that benefit from selling the rights to shoot game animals.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 23, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I mean, when people were using lead shot it _definitely did_, so can I believe you?
> 
> I think more of us should appreciate that part of the reason animals like deer have to be regulated is because their natural predators have been extirpated.
> It's often difficult to re-introduce these predators because of opposition, in part from the industries that benefit from selling the rights to shoot game animals.



Do you have statistics to back that up? That may help me understand your argument.

As for the issue of natural predators struggling to be reintroduced, I honestly didn’t know of any interest to restrict predators, because I’ve seen more deer killed by coyotes rather than me doing so. Trust me, it’s nasty.

It’s also important to remember that prey items, like deer, will always be more plentiful than predators. Deer reproduce in large numbers, in order to ensure the survival of their species, because the likelihood of them surviving a predator attack depends entirely on their ability to run away, more often than not. They don’t usually fight unless they have to.

Predators often depend on prey items to survive, and predators tend not to have many threats to their own survival, thus the shortage of predators. They have no need to produce an excess of offspring.

It may not just be an industrial issue- it could be because of a lack of habitat, more than anything. That’s the biggest threat to animals today, I fully believe that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> Do you have statistics to back that up? That may help me understand your argument.
> 
> As for the issue of natural predators struggling to be reintroduced, I honestly didn’t know of any interest to restrict predators, because I’ve seen more deer killed by coyotes rather than me doing so. Trust me, it’s nasty.
> 
> ...




http://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Impacts-of-Lead-on-Wildlife.pdf
Here's a fact-sheet about Lead. Astoundingly California's plan to go 'lead-free' is only intended to be fully achieved this year.

Your explanation for the rarity of predators in the world is incorrect; this is a well known result of human activity. Predators always have lower biomass than prey for thermodynamic reasons (not necessarily because they put less effort into reproduction), but the number of predators in the wild and the ranges of these species has been sharply depressed by human interference.

Norway's reputed for its pristine nature, but the territory only has < 100 wolves, which is comparable to Germany, a country which is much more densely populated by humans, because Norway does a poor job protecting its wolf population from human hunting; Norway sold the rights to kill two thirds of its then <70 wolves in 2015 to hunters.
www.theguardian.com: Norway plans to cull more than two-thirds of its wolf population


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 23, 2019)

Well, I never denied that the lack of predators was a result of human interference- I’m simply stating that hunting, especially today, does not have as much impact compared to habitat loss, and being roadkill. More animals die by being run over than being hunted, I think you and I could both agree on this.

As for Norway’s issue, I don’t live in Norway. If that’s something they’re doing, then I condemn it wholeheartedly. I don’t think this problem exists in the states, there are plenty of government protections in place to prevent this.

Also, I can admire these statistics, but how does my way of hunting add to this? The only lead that I’ve used to hunt is for small game, I’ve used alternatives for the rest. It’s actually legally required to use metal shot as opposed to lead when hunting birds, that I know is true.

I get the harm of lead, but it’s not used very extensively anymore. At least, not in such large quantities. Not to mention that hunting as a practice is in decline, regardless.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Sep 23, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Norway's reputed for its pristine nature, but the territory only has < 100 wolves, which is comparable to Germany, a country which is much more densely populated by humans, because Norway does a poor job protecting its wolf population from human hunting; Norway sold the rights to kill two thirds of its then <70 wolves in 2015 to hunters.


IIRC there was a bit of upset about this here, as well. Animals give no fucks about human borders, so when Norway gives the go-ahead to shoot a wolf, that wolf may well also be an animal that contributes to the genetic diversity of _our_ wolf population. (Not to say that Sweden has always been a hallmark of predator preservation, just that it'd be nice if people chatted with their neighbors before making these decisions.)

I don't particularly care for hunting of predators unless they pose a real danger and cannot be relocated, or their passing would be beneficial to the species as a whole (think carrying disease). I have _some_ tolerance for trophy hunting provided all parts of the animal are used, the proceeds go towards conservation, and the culling of the individual animal selected won't adversely impact the species. If nobody's going to eat it, though, you have no business hunting it recreationally, IMO. I feel similarly about sport fishing - if you're not intending on keeping any fish, don't go out fishing. Obviously you'll have less control over what bites than a hunter has over what they fire their gun at, and if you catch something that isn't suitable eats, and it's not injured, let it go, by all means. But pulling up a fish that is good eats and then throwing it back after posing with it so that someone else can catch it? That's just daft. (As is stocking lands _or_ waters with non-native critters for hunting/fishing purposes.)


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> Also, I can admire these statistics, but how does my way of hunting add to this? The only lead that I’ve used to hunt is for small game, I’ve used alternatives for the rest.








The thing with hunting is that, if it's somebody's ancestral way of life, like the Inuit, you can appreciate those people need to subsist. 
But in the West it's mostly a sport/hobby- people do it as a relax or have fun rather than because they depend on it as a way of life (indeed there's simply too many of us for that to be possible these days). 
So this kind of damage is entirely avoidable. All of those pellets in that X-ray of an Eagle, those were probably all fired by somebody who went home at the end of the day and thought they were a good hunter- a custodian of the environment.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 23, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> View attachment 71563
> 
> The thing with hunting is that, if it's somebody's ancestral way of life, like the Inuit, you can appreciate those people need to subsist.
> But in the West it's mostly a sport/hobby- people do it as a relax or have fun rather than because they depend on it as a way of life (indeed there's simply too many of us for that to be possible these days).
> So this kind of damage is entirely avoidable. All of those pellets in that X-ray of an Eagle, those were probably all fired by somebody who went home at the end of the day and thought they were a good hunter- a custodian of the environment.



To some, it’s not, though.

I know I don’t hunt because I see it as something as shallow as a pastime. When I earn that animal I hunted, I use all of it. I eat from it, I use its warm fur, I give its bones a place in my home. To people like me, it’s a way to respect a natural process in the wild in a fair, and ethical manner.

People hold this as a tradition for a reason. It’s not just a sport for people in the west, it is a way of life. 

That x-ray- it makes a point, but I already told you that I don’t use lead, a lot of the time. Maybe the world could benefit from lead free ammunition, I’m open to the possibility.

But, hunting is far from a sport for good people. It’s much more than that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> To some, it’s not, though.
> 
> I know I don’t hunt because I see it as something as shallow as a pastime. When I earn that animal I hunted, I use all of it. I eat from it, I use its warm fur, I give its bones a place in my home. To people like me, it’s a way to respect a natural process in the wild in a fair, and ethical manner.
> 
> ...




Can we meet half way if you agree not to use any lead ammunition?

I'm sure in the future scientists will discover that other heavy-metal ammunitions marketed as non-toxic are actually harmful, and the responsible thing would be to avoid littering at all, but it's perhaps all we can settle for.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 23, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Can we meet half way if you agree not to use any lead ammunition?
> 
> I'm sure in the future scientists will discover that other heavy-metal ammunitions marketed as non-toxic are actually harmful, and the responsible thing would be to avoid littering at all, but it's perhaps all we can settle for.



Yes, I was open to safe ammunition and cleaning up after myself in the first place. If there are non toxic options that are actually toxic, I’ll look it up. Any help would be greatly appreciated, fren.

I understand your argument, but I do not allow the horrible things you’re describing. I just hoped to help you understand that not all hunters do bad things, or have bad intentions. That’s all I hoped to achieve.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> Yes, I was open to safe ammunition and cleaning up after myself in the first place. If there are non toxic options that are actually toxic, I’ll look it up. Any help would be greatly appreciated, fren.
> 
> I understand your argument, but I do not allow the horrible things you’re describing. I just hoped to help you understand that not all hunters do bad things, or have bad intentions. That’s all I hoped to achieve.



I mean, you did confess to using lead shot. So you _are_ an example of a hunter who pollutes the environment.
I know you don't have bad intentions, but this is the reason why I am so doubtful when hunters talk about their close relationship with nature and their belief that they protect it.
Realistically it's just something they tell themselves so they can continue to feel good, isn't it? :S 

The hobby is always going to come first, and the environment second.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 23, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I mean, you did confess to using lead shot. So you _are_ an example of a hunter who pollutes the environment.
> I know you don't have bad intentions, but this is the reason why I am so doubtful when hunters talk about their close relationship with nature and their belief that they protect it.
> Realistically it's just something they tell themselves so they can continue to feel good, isn't it? :S
> 
> The hobby is always going to come first, and the environment second.



Not to me.

I only used what I had, I didn’t know the scale of harm that was being done. The fact that you think I put the sport first? You clearly don’t know me.

I apologize for wasting your time.


----------



## volkinaxe (Sep 23, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Can we meet half way if you agree not to use any lead ammunition?
> 
> I'm sure in the future scientists will discover that other heavy-metal ammunitions marketed as non-toxic are actually harmful, and the responsible thing would be to avoid littering at all, but it's perhaps all we can settle for.


----------



## Tapper (Sep 23, 2019)

Lead shot for waterfowl has been banned for some time, still legal for doves and for other small game.

I would be ok with a lead ban on shotguns for hunting, as pellets can and are consumed by other animals when a poor shot is taken and the animal gets away.

Lead in centerfire for big game is not really a problem.
Most hunting rounds are bonded (lead is chemically bonded to the copper jacket), and with centerfire your round will pass through an animal completely 99% of the time.

The alternatives to lead for centerfire (tin alloys) do not really work anywhere near as well as expanding lead core ammunition.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 24, 2019)

MaelstromEyre said:


> I live in an area with a lot of deer, and a lot of hunters.
> 
> Most hunters are NOT a problem.  They go out, they get their deer or turkey or pheasant or elk or whatever else they're after that season, and they're done.  Many feed their families almost entirely from what they hunt or grow themselves.
> 
> ...



Balancing my appreciation for the revenue they bring in with my disdain for them as people is a daily struggle for me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> Not to me.
> 
> I only used what I had, I didn’t know the scale of harm that was being done. The fact that you think I put the sport first? You clearly don’t know me.
> 
> I apologize for wasting your time.



Well that's the problem isn't it? :\

Somebody who did care would be informed about the environmental consequences of their sport.



volkinaxe said:


>



Depleted Uranium is even denser than lead, so it would have a even greater momentum; various militaries use it for this purpose. 

Guess why you don't, it's because Uranium's a toxic heavy metal that poisons people's nervous systems, kidneys, hearts etc. 

Lead also has a similar range of toxic effects, because it's also a heavy metal- and ammunition is one of the biggest sources of exposure. 

People who live near gun ranges, or who eat more meat that has been shot with lead ammunition, have higher levels of lead in their blood:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935109001467?via=ihub

There's no level of lead-exposure that is safe. You really don't want to be exposed to heavy metals because long-term exposure can damage intelligence irreversibly.


----------



## Tapper (Sep 24, 2019)

It's in decline, which in the case for conservation, isn't a good thing.


Roughly 60% of funding for State wildlife agencies come directly from hunting permits and correlated accessories.

Gaps in that funding have to be met with other means, with even a proposal for targeting pay for play viewing (monetization of wildlife viewing).

Keep that in mind next time your out in the great outdoors seeing some amazing wildlife


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Well that's the problem isn't it? :\
> 
> Somebody who did care would be informed about the environmental consequences of their sport.



If you understood that it also has benefits, and that yes, hunting could be improved upon, maybe I would understand your argument better.

We’re not going to find common ground if you refuse to see the bright side, so quite honestly, I think this argument has become pointless. I’m not trying to fight with you, I very much wish you could see that.

I don’t have a lot of respect for people who don’t see both sides, honestly.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> If you understood that it also has benefits, and that yes, hunting could be improved upon, maybe I would understand your argument better.
> 
> We’re not going to find common ground if you refuse to see the bright side, so quite honestly, I think this argument has become pointless. I’m not trying to fight with you, I very much wish you could see that.
> 
> I don’t have a lot of respect for people who don’t see both sides, honestly.



It's difficult to see a bright side. There needs to be evidence to justify that, but the more I read about lead toxicity the worse it appears to get- and the fact that people who have used lead shot confess to knowing even less than me about it doesn't make things look better. :\
My level of respect for an argument *has *to be based on the amount of evidence mustered to support it and not on emotional grounds.

Some of the questions I'm wondering about include, if Hunters claim they support conservation by paying for it, why can't society pay for conservation _without_ littering bullets and shot  in the natural environment?



Tapper said:


> It's in decline, which in the case for conservation, isn't a good thing.
> 
> 
> Roughly 60% of funding for State wildlife agencies come directly from hunting permits and correlated accessories.
> ...



It seems like they're making an argument for part of the tax on Kayak and Bicycles being used to fund wildlife areas, given that income from taxes on weapons isn't sustainable. 
That could be a much better approach because of reduced environmental disturbance. 

A funding model based on a sport that causes heavy metal pollution isn't a _great _idea, because then how do conservationists address the environmental problems that causes without sawing off the branch they are sat on?
I'm not keen on tying conservation support to oil and gas company profits as the recording brings up, because that feels like it's a way for companies that make a profit by damaging the environment to improve their public relations.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> It's difficult to see a bright side. There needs to be evidence to justify that, but the more I read about lead toxicity the worse it appears to get- and the fact that people who have used lead shot confess to knowing even less than me about it doesn't make things look better. :\
> My level of respect for an argument *has *to be based on the amount of evidence mustered to support it and not on emotional grounds.
> 
> Some of the questions I'm wondering about include, if Hunters claim they support conservation by paying for it, why can't society pay for conservation _without_ littering bullets and shot  in the natural environment?



I and a few others have given examples as to how we can improve the littering issue. You haven’t read those, I assume?

Non toxic shotgun shot is a thing we can work on, and actual bullets seem to be doing the least amount of harm, as they often penetrate their targets once shot, reducing the risk.

I already told you several times that I always try my best to pick up my spent shotshells and casings, and that good hunters should always strive to do the same thing. You refuse to listen to me.

You seem to have this know it all attitude, and think that people are bad for not being as educated. Why not educate them then, instead of sitting here and arguing with me?

You do a whole lot of trying to justify your argument, and not listening to the other side. This is why I have a hard time understanding you.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> I and a few others have given examples as to how we can improve the littering issue. You haven’t read those, I assume?
> 
> Non toxic shotgun shot is a thing we can work on, and actual bullets seem to be doing the least amount of harm, as they often penetrate their targets once shot, reducing the risk.
> 
> ...



You suggested picking up parts of the ammunition which aren't propelled, and using lead less often.
There's no safe level of lead to be exposed to though, and I have suspicions that alternative heavy metal shots will also transpire to have their own toxic problems in the future- or that the mere fact that they are ingested and can gather inside animals causes similar problems to plastic pollution.

An alternative that perhaps would be much more sustainable would be to use weapons like cross-bows? The problem seems to be the pollution that is a necessary consequence of firearms.
Or perhaps the problem is the idea of needing to kill animals in order to enjoy being out in nature, or to have a financial incentive to protect it. Those could also be ideas that need to be challenged.

I have to say, I wasn't previously aware of this- I was just suspicious. I didn't realise that people who live near gun ranges suffer from lead exposure, for example.
Now I'm rather horrified. Why don't we all know about this? Why isn't more done to stop it?


----------



## ConorHyena (Sep 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> and I have suspicions that alternative heavy metal shots will also transpire to have their own toxic problems in the future- or that the mere fact that they are ingested and can gather inside animals causes similar problems to plastic pollution.



But do you _know_ any of this? I'm sticking out of the argument as I don't have a stake in it and I have much bigger fish to fry.

But I had to point this out.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> You suggested picking up parts of the ammunition which aren't propelled, and using lead less often.
> There's no safe level of lead to be exposed to though, and I have suspicions that alternative heavy metal shots will also transpire to have their own toxic problems in the future- or that the mere fact that they are ingested and can gather inside animals causes similar problems to plastic pollution.
> 
> An alternative that perhaps would be much more sustainable would be to use weapons like cross-bows? The problem seems to be the pollution that is a necessary consequence of firearms.
> ...



Do you expect people to spend entire days looking for tiny, malformed lead shot? Fren, you have to understand the amount of resources needed to devote to that. The best we can do is devote our money towards non toxic shot. I already agree that we should replace lead shot, you’ve already made your point.

Not to mention that what hunters do is by far the least concern when it comes to environmental pollution. You’re right, plastic pollution and other forms are an issue, and that we should work to improve that. I feel like that’s the bigger threat.

You also seem to think that we kill animals for fun. Have I not told you that things like this are the natural way of things, and that we’re no better than the wildlife you claim to protect, if managed right? I don’t understand how people don’t get that animals killing each other for sustenance has been a thing since microscopic cells first became a thing.

I do more than take animals to help nature. I often love going to national parks, and my hunting goes to the preservation of these beautiful sites. Hunters are not one trick ponies, fren.

I don’t know why it’s so hard to understand that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> But do you _know_ any of this? I'm sticking out of the argument as I don't have a stake in it and I have much bigger fish to fry.
> 
> But I had to point this out.



I looked it up yesterday and found papers discussing Bismuth ammunition, they seemed to imply that while Bismuth was considered non-toxic, not much study had been done to assess that, and that there were cases of Bismuth toxicity.





https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749104001435

So this is why I am filled with doubt. Apparently it was legal to market Bismuth as non-toxic, in spite of scant effort to discern that fact.
What if it's_ not_?



MCtheBeardie said:


> You’re right, plastic pollution and other forms are an issue, and that we should work to improve that. I feel like that’s the bigger threat.



It's difficult to tell. The known harm from heavy metal pollution in the environment is definitely much worse, but the effects of microplastics on the environment aren't _known_ very well; people have only started researching that recently. 

My suspicion is that neither of them are much good for us.


----------



## Tapper (Sep 24, 2019)

They do have alternatives.

Lead shot was replaced with steel shot for shotguns, centerfire rifle have 100% lead free copper hunting rounds.






They just don't expand nearly as well as lead core controlled expansion rounds.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> It's difficult to tell. The known harm from heavy metal pollution in the environment is definitely much worse, but the effects of microplastics on the environment aren't _known_ very well; people have only started researching that recently.
> 
> My suspicion is that neither of them are much good for us.




Well, metal is certainly less harmful than lead, and the things to understand about firearms and bows is that you have to weigh the pros and cons of penetration, and expansion. We don’t want the animals we hunt to suffer when we shoot them, so it’s not just where we shoot them that matters.

Bows and arrows could provide this, but I wouldn’t say they’re better for the environment. Modern arrows often have metal heads, and their shafts are made of carbon fiber, aluminum, and fiber glass. I don’t think these are particularly great for the environment, either.

If we were to go back to wooden arrows with stone heads, there’s the risk that they will not penetrate as well, thus leaving the animal to suffer.

We don’t want this.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> Well, metal is certainly less harmful than lead, and the things to understand about firearms is that you have to outweigh the pros and cons of penetration, and expansion. We don’t want the animals we hunt to suffer when we shoot them, so it’s not just where we shoot them that matters.
> 
> Bows and arrows could provide this, but I wouldn’t say they’re better for the environment. Modern arrows often have metal heads, and their shafts are made of carbon fiber, aluminum, and fiber glass. I don’t think these are particularly great for the environment, either.
> 
> ...



If an arrow is retrieved, and not left in the environment, it _could _be the best solution. An expensive bolt, like one made of carbon fibre, is probably more likely to be retrieved. I suppose I'd be worried that some hunters would be less likely to choose a bow because it's not as 'masculine' as a gun, or because they'd be concerned about being perceived as 'sissy' for making a choice on environmental grounds. 

I'm debating whether the risk of individual animals suffering is acceptable compared to the risk of environmental pollution. 
Let's face it, if hunters didn't want to cause any suffering, they probably wouldn't be doing it; there's a level of suffering they must be comfortable with. 
Certainly a bow would also represent some decreases level of risk to humans, because of reduced accidental injuries; they don't go off by accident in the same way.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> If an arrow is retrieved, and not left in the environment, it _could _be the best solution. An expensive bolt, like one made of carbon fibre, is probably more likely to be retrieved. I suppose I'd be worried that some hunters would be less likely to choose a bow because it's not as 'masculine' as a gun, or because they'd be concerned about being perceived as 'sissy' for making a choice on environmental grounds.
> 
> I'm debating whether the risk of individual animals suffering is acceptable compared to the risk of environmental pollution.
> Let's face it, if hunters didn't want to cause any suffering, they probably wouldn't be doing it; there's a level of suffering they must be comfortable with.
> Certainly a bow would also represent some decreases level of risk to humans, because of reduced accidental injuries; they don't go off by accident in the same way.



But, there’s always a level of risk to everything a hunter uses. It’s also illegal in my state to use crossbows, unless you get a special permit, or you’re disabled. I can quote this law for you, which I personally think is dumb.

www.mass.gov: Deer hunting regulations

If you scroll down to the archery section, it will tell you that only disabled persons may use it. So the ability for me to use a crossbow is out of the question.

Arrows also do have better penetration, but bullets kill the animal quickly in order to prevent suffering. You really only have two options, fren.

Do you want the animal to suffer? Or do you want to harm the environment in some way, if you use non toxic means?

I feel like there are far bigger issues plaguing the environment, and ways we could lessen the impact. I don’t want the animals I take to suffer, that’s unacceptable.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> But, there’s always a level of risk to everything a hunter uses. It’s also illegal in my state to use crossbows, unless you get a special permit, or you’re disabled. I can quote this law for you, which I personally think is dumb.
> 
> www.mass.gov: Deer hunting regulations
> 
> ...



Personally, that's the point at which I would say 'this is probably not the hobby for me,'. 

I'd need to read the gruesome details about the degree of suffering caused by arrows or shot in order to begin making an assessment, but at the same time the environmental effect of alternative ammunition doesn't appear to be fully known yet, so I suspect I'd reach 'not yet able to tell' as a conclusion, with a side-helping of 'by the time we know, perhaps the damage will already be done,'.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 24, 2019)

So yeah....Steve Irwin was great. I miss him.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Personally, that's the point at which I would say 'this is probably not the hobby for me,'.
> 
> I'd need to read the gruesome details about the degree of suffering caused by arrows or shot in order to begin making an assessment, but at the same time the environmental effect of alternative ammunition doesn't appear to be fully known yet, so I suspect I'd reach 'not yet able to tell' as a conclusion, with a side-helping of 'by the time we know, perhaps the damage will already be done,'.



I suppose that’s likely the fairest answer you could give.

I do think that hunters could definitely benefit both themselves and the environment by using non toxic metal shot. I will definitely be replacing my lead shot as soon as possible.

But, there’s always a level of risk to everything. I feel honestly, if non toxic means were used to the best of my ability, that firearms would allow for less suffering, and that the impact would be far less than other effects of human pollution.

I’ve definitely learned, though. Thank you for teaching me about lead.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 24, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> So yeah....Steve Irwin was great. I miss him.



Hehe, yeah... we really derailed this thread, didn’t we?


----------



## Baalf (Sep 24, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> Do you expect people to spend entire days looking for tiny, malformed lead shot? Fren, you have to understand the amount of resources needed to devote to that. The best we can do is devote our money towards non toxic shot. I already agree that we should replace lead shot, you’ve already made your point.
> 
> Not to mention that what hunters do is by far the least concern when it comes to environmental pollution. You’re right, plastic pollution and other forms are an issue, and that we should work to improve that. I feel like that’s the bigger threat.
> 
> ...



Because hunting is fucking hypocritical? If the money raised from hunting is oh-so beneficial, then why not just raise the money without killing the VERY FUCKING ANIMALS THAT WE ARE SUPPOSEDLY TRYING TO SAVE!?! That's why I hate the "oh, hunting makes SOOOO much money for the environment!" We raise money that way not because it benefits the animals, but because it's convenient for HUMANS. Hopefully with hunting making less money, the people who genuinely care about the environment will find new ways to pay for the environment.

As for hunters caring about the environment, in my personal experience, most, if not all, hunters I've met care about animals ONLY if they get to hunt, and won't lift a finger to help animals otherwise. A lot of them sure like to talk big, though. All the tactics I've seen them use to convince you that they are the pinical of animal lovers would drive you insane, and many of them are the same tactics that groups like PETA uses: guilt tripping, seduction, treating others as idiots, etc.

As for bullets vs bows, either way you slice it, a dead animal is a dead animal. The extra time it suffers from a bow barely matters.


----------



## Zenoth (Sep 24, 2019)

@BennyJackdaw  do you eat meat at all? 
hunting is not hypocritical, those places that allow some big game hunting for a large price use that money to keep things such as reserves open.  those countries don't have much else to market besides that. What are your ideas for way for them to raise money without hunting?


----------



## Foxosh (Sep 24, 2019)

Dis gone be good


----------



## Tapper (Sep 24, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Because hunting is fucking hypocritical? If the money raised from hunting is oh-so beneficial, then why not just raise the money without killing the VERY FUCKING ANIMALS THAT WE ARE SUPPOSEDLY TRYING TO SAVE!?! That's why I hate the "oh, hunting makes SOOOO much money for the environment!" We raise money that way not because it benefits the animals, but because it's convenient for HUMANS. Hopefully with hunting making less money, the people who genuinely care about the environment will find new ways to pay for the environment.
> 
> As for hunters caring about the environment, in my personal experience, most, if not all, hunters I've met care about animals ONLY if they get to hunt, and won't lift a finger to help animals otherwise. A lot of them sure like to talk big, though. All the tactics I've seen them use to convince you that they are the pinical of animal lovers would drive you insane, and many of them are the same tactics that groups like PETA uses: guilt tripping, seduction, treating others as idiots, etc.
> 
> As for bullets vs bows, either way you slice it, a dead animal is a dead animal. The extra time it suffers from a bow barely matters.




Then you raise taxes, or how was listed above, a pay for play for you to view wildlife in the first place...
The revenue would have to be subsidized from somewhere.

Not only that but hunting has gone into such decline that the goverment in many instances have done culls of species that have been a problem not solved by nature itself.

Personally speaking I hunt for the meat, and I'd much rather that then the absolutely horrific conditions that factory farming has on livestock.

Ymmv though...


----------



## Foxosh (Sep 24, 2019)

Tapper said:


> Then you raise taxes, or how was listed above, a pay for play for you to view wildlife in the first place...
> The revenue would have to be subsidized from somewhere.
> 
> Not only that but hunting has gone into such decline that the goverment in many instances have done culls of species that have been a problem not solved by nature itself.
> ...


I agree. Its better that meat comes from the wild than from a factory farm.
The only problem is theres too many humans and i don't think the population is gonna decline anytime soon.
Obv 8 billion humans cant all hunt or the balance would be further compromised. But large scale agriculture of all kinds has taken its toll on the world.


----------



## Tapper (Sep 24, 2019)

Foxosh said:


> I agree. Its better that meat comes from the wild than from a factory farm.
> The only problem is theres too many humans and i don't think the population is gonna decline anytime soon.
> Obv 8 billion humans cant all hunt or the balance would be further compromised. But large scale agriculture of all kinds has taken its toll on the world.




Yup, no question about it.

We all couldn't survive, or even substitute on a large scale wild meat for factory farming due to our population size.

The option is nice though, and I really don't have an answer to our ever increasing population that relies on ever expanding growth....

Nothing stays the same in the long run....

If it's any consolation


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 24, 2019)

Okay, I wasn’t here for this whole thing, but I’m glad this situation seemingly resolved itself. I’m glad that people were here to help explain.

Now, may we make this a thread about how much we miss Steve Irwin again?


----------



## CrookedCroc (Sep 24, 2019)

Steve was a pretty kool guy, best hugs I ever had. 
He was pretty bad in Marvel VS Capcom tho...


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 24, 2019)

Why can’t we just divert funds from other sources to pay for conservation? Sleeping bag and tent taxes. I bet campers wouldn’t mind, in fact might actually appreciate, paying a tax to help fund their favorite outdoor places.

Or what about a camper tax? Those things are expensive. Imagine a 0.5% tax on all campers - even on a 20,000 camper that would be $100. $100k rigs would get slapped with a $500 fee. Suck it up, retired rich white guy.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 24, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> Why can’t we just divert funds from other sources to pay for conservation? Sleeping bag and tent taxes. I bet campers wouldn’t mind, in fact might actually appreciate, paying a tax to help fund their favorite outdoor places.
> 
> Or what about a camper tax? Those things are expensive. Imagine a 0.5% tax on all campers - even on a 20,000 camper that would be $100. $100k rigs would get slapped with a $500 fee. Suck it up, retired rich white guy.



And that will replace the $796 million dollars raised for licenses and fees hunters have already contributed, plus $440 million in donations every year? If you can do the math to match that, then I’d consider your proposal. 55% of conservation money comes from hunters alone, I honestly don’t know how you can match that with such a small camping tax. Hunting equipment is incredibly expensive, too. The statistics I listed aren’t just it, either. Check out the rest of the statistics.

Hunting IS Conservation - Paid for by Hunters | Elk Network

Hunter funding goes into the tens of billions, so I think you’ll have to do a lot more to match that.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 24, 2019)

Now, please, can we get back to Steve Irwin? That guy was my childhood, man.


----------



## Tapper (Sep 25, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> Okay, I wasn’t here for this whole thing, but I’m glad this situation seemingly resolved itself. I’m glad that people were here to help explain.
> 
> Now, may we make this a thread about how much we miss Steve Irwin again?



Damn right!!

The guy was a hero in the respect of educating the public on all kinds of wildlife, and I for one will miss his programs on prime time TV.

He will live on forever in that regard.


----------



## volkinaxe (Sep 25, 2019)

https://imgur.com/JgeFQMu

me  go`s fishing and get`s a fish 


https://imgur.com/Ctafepl

and makes food 


https://imgur.com/km0wyOk


----------



## Baalf (Sep 25, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> And that will replace the $796 million dollars raised for licenses and fees hunters have already contributed, plus $440 million in donations? If you can do the math to match that, then I’d consider your proposal. 55% of conservation money comes from hunters alone, I honestly don’t know how you can match that with such a small camping tax. Hunting equipment is incredibly expensive, too. The statistics I listed aren’t just it, either. Check out the rest of the statistics.
> 
> Hunting IS Conservation - Paid for by Hunters | Elk Network
> 
> Hunter funding goes into the tens of billions, so I think you’ll have to do a lot more to match that.



If that doesn't work, then there are many other ways that they could raise money. Just to name a few, they could sell natural things like tree saplings and plant seeds, they could just ask for donations, they could run hiking tours, among other things. But no! That's too hard! That's not convenient for the Glorious human race! Instead, let's hunt, kill and fucking slaughter every living creature on the planet! It doesn't matter if they're overpopulated or even endangered! let's bring that money for wildlife conservation in the ABSOLUTE WORST FUCKING WAY POSSIBLE!!!

And I think someone specifically mentioned that we have to control other creatures populations because we, ourselves, are catastrophically overpopulated? You know, we could cut down on our breeding or something, but no! What matter is is what's convenient for humans, not what's good for the environment or the planet!

And this is why I honestly don't feel any sadness for people who died in mass shootings or war or any cause that end human lives. There are billions of us, we live by such asinine logic that hunting is the be-all end-all of animal saviorism. We are rapidly destroying this planet. The people trying to stop stuff like this are seen as villains. Honestly, I have lost hope for the species to get better as a whole, since there's such a massive push to meet our species even worse. Hearing about 5 or so people dying in a mass shooting these days doesn't affect me anymore.

I'm hoping one day we will abolish hunting as a means of pain for wildlife conservation, and we will start raising that money without Mass Slaughter. Until then, I am and always will be misanthropic.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> If that doesn't work, then there are many other ways that they could raise money. Just to name a few, they could sell natural things like tree saplings and plant seeds, they could just ask for donations, they could run hiking tours, among other things. But no! That's too hard! That's not convenient for the Glorious human race! Instead, let's hunt, kill and fucking slaughter every living creature on the planet! It doesn't matter if they're overpopulated or even endangered! let's bring that money for wildlife conservation in the ABSOLUTE WORST FUCKING WAY POSSIBLE!!!
> 
> And I think someone specifically mentioned that we have to control other creatures populations because we, ourselves, are catastrophically overpopulated? You know, we could cut down on our breeding or something, but no! What matter is is what's convenient for humans, not what's good for the environment or the planet!
> 
> ...



You, sir, are quite insane, to value lives of animals more than people to the point of our own suffering. I feel very sorry for you.

Now, the man, the myth, the legend Steve Irwin was my role model since I was very young. He taught me how to love and respect wildlife, and I don’t think anyone could replace him.

He’s the one who really ingrained me with a love for reptiles, as I loved watching those segments of his shows. There was this one show of his that I remember watching as a kid, I forgot the exact name of it, but it was an incredibly influential show on me.

Rip Steve... I love ya, man.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> If that doesn't work, then there are many other ways that they could raise money. Just to name a few, they could sell natural things like tree saplings and plant seeds, they could just ask for donations, they could run hiking tours, among other things. But no! That's too hard! That's not convenient for the Glorious human race! Instead, let's hunt, kill and fucking slaughter every living creature on the planet! It doesn't matter if they're overpopulated or even endangered! let's bring that money for wildlife conservation in the ABSOLUTE WORST FUCKING WAY POSSIBLE!!!
> 
> And I think someone specifically mentioned that we have to control other creatures populations because we, ourselves, are catastrophically overpopulated? You know, we could cut down on our breeding or something, but no! What matter is is what's convenient for humans, not what's good for the environment or the planet!
> 
> ...


For once, I totally agree with one of your walls of rage.


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Sep 25, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> Why can’t we just divert funds from other sources to pay for conservation? Sleeping bag and tent taxes. I bet campers wouldn’t mind, in fact might actually appreciate, paying a tax to help fund their favorite outdoor places.
> 
> Or what about a camper tax? Those things are expensive. Imagine a 0.5% tax on all campers - even on a 20,000 camper that would be $100. $100k rigs would get slapped with a $500 fee. Suck it up, retired rich white guy.


There are already sales taxes when you buy any of that stuff.

We are not retired, nor are we rich, we do have a gooseneck horse trailer with living quarters, which we take with us (along with our horses) on camping trips.

Oh, yeah. . .horseback riding. . .another thing PeTA wants to ban.


----------



## Zerzehn (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> If that doesn't work, then there are many other ways that they could raise money. Just to name a few, they could sell natural things like tree saplings and plant seeds, they could just ask for donations, they could run hiking tours, among other things. But no! That's too hard! That's not convenient for the Glorious human race! Instead, let's hunt, kill and fucking slaughter every living creature on the planet! It doesn't matter if they're overpopulated or even endangered! let's bring that money for wildlife conservation in the ABSOLUTE WORST FUCKING WAY POSSIBLE!!!
> 
> And I think someone specifically mentioned that we have to control other creatures populations because we, ourselves, are catastrophically overpopulated? You know, we could cut down on our breeding or something, but no! What matter is is what's convenient for humans, not what's good for the environment or the planet!
> 
> ...



Uh, what?


----------



## Nax04 (Sep 25, 2019)

_*Me, a Great White Shark*_



 
_*Nom nom*_


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 25, 2019)

Well weird stuff happened here.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Well weird stuff happened here.



That is something we can definitely agree on. I am very confusion.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 25, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> That is something we can definitely agree on. I am very confusion.



It's weird when people get stuck in the position that humans' effect on the environment is calamitous therefore human death is _good_. 
The reason that the environment should be protected is, in part, to decrease unnecessary human suffering- so promoting human death as a solution is quite confusing. 

I also noticed one guy on the last page sneaking in climate change denial and implying that environmentalists are somehow offended by the idea of going fishing. 
What's next, denying acid rain exists and eating a salad to prove the point?


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> It's weird when people get stuck in the position that humans' effect on the environment is calamitous therefore human death is _good_.
> The reason that the environment should be protected is, in part, to decrease unnecessary human suffering- so promoting human death as a solution is quite confusing.
> 
> I also noticed one guy on the last page sneaking in climate change denial and implying that environmentalists are somehow offended by the idea of going fishing.
> What's next, denying acid rain exists and eating a salad to prove the point?



Exactly.

I don’t even need to say anything, that’s a good reply.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> It's weird when people get stuck in the position that humans' effect on the environment is calamitous therefore human death is _good_.
> The reason that the environment should be protected is, in part, to decrease unnecessary human suffering- so promoting human death as a solution is quite confusing.
> 
> I also noticed one guy on the last page sneaking in climate change denial and implying that environmentalists are somehow offended by the idea of going fishing.
> What's next, denying acid rain exists and eating a salad to prove the point?



Sorry I am not the hero people want me to be, but I never said that I support human suffering, just that I don't feel sorrow.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Sorry I am not the hero people want me to be, but I never said that I support human suffering, just that I don't feel sorrow.



But that’s equally bad, fren. Forgive me for being bold, but that’s like being content with the Nazis being in power, or the KKK doing their ‘activities’ against African Americans.

You’re still supporting them by not feeling bad about it. It means you’re complacent with heinous actions.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Sorry I am not the hero people want me to be, but I never said that I support human suffering, just that I don't feel sorrow.



It's difficult to understand this perspective, and I think it risks alienating people from environmentalist causes. 

Which is very frustrating because promoting better management of the environment is a good thing for human well-being, and many of the life-style changes that people might make to reduce their environmental impact happen to be changes that also promote their health and longevity. 

Caring about people and environmentalism naturally go together so well.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 25, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> But that’s equally bad, fren. Forgive me for being bold, but that’s like being content with the Nazis being in power, or the KKK doing their ‘activities’ against African Americans.
> 
> You’re still supporting them by not feeling bad about it. It means you’re complacent with heinous actions.



Yeah, not caring about a highly corrupt species is totally the same as supporting the Nazis or the KKK. Unfortunately, people dying in mass shootings and war is out of my power. Being sympathetic towards the Situation's won't save lives.

A LOT has to change about the human race before I will start caring about members of my species other than people I know personally. Telling me why I absolutely have to care about people I don't know won't change my opinions.

You're acting like I'm this horrible human being for not having sympathy. I still do what I can to help out nature and the people I work and live with. It's not much, but there's only so much one person can do.


----------



## Zerzehn (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Sorry I am not the hero people want me to be, but I never said that I support human suffering, just that I don't feel sorrow.



Then explain this.



BennyJackdaw said:


> And this is why I honestly don't feel any sadness for people who died in mass shootings or war or any cause that end human lives. There are billions of us, we live by such asinine logic that hunting is the be-all end-all of animal saviorism. We are rapidly destroying this planet. The people trying to stop stuff like this are seen as villains. Honestly, I have lost hope for the species to get better as a whole, since there's such a massive push to meet our species even worse. Hearing about 5 or so people dying in a mass shooting these days doesn't affect me anymore.



You're doing yourself dishonesty.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Yeah, not caring about a highly corrupt species is totally the same as supporting the Nazis or the KKK.
> 
> A LOT has to change about the human race before I will start caring about members of my species other than people I know personally. Telling me why I absolutely have to care about people I don't know won't change my opinions.
> 
> You're acting like I'm this horrible human being for not having sympathy. I still do what I can to help out nature and the people I work and live with. It's not much, but there's only so much one person can do.



I suppose, but when you use *mass shootings* as an example, it makes me think. I don’t know what kind of person could possibly let that happen. That’s... vile, if I’m being honest.

But, you’re right, it’s none of my business. Just don’t expect people to take kindly to that, though I’m sure you’re aware.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 25, 2019)

Zhaozerbat said:


> Then explain this.
> 
> 
> 
> You're doing yourself dishonesty.



Please tell me where, in that entire post, did I specifically say I wanted people to die in mass shooting. I said I lacked sympathy and nothing else. I never said I supported it.

I honestly do not appreciate being guilt-tripped into feeling sad for people. I don't appreciate being treated as a monster just because I don't have any sadness towards situations that are out of my control.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Please tell me where, in that entire post, did I specifically say I wanted people to die in mass shooting. I said I lacked sympathy and nothing else. I never said I supported it.
> 
> I honestly do not appreciate being guilt-tripped into feeling sad for people. I don't appreciate being treated as a monster just because I don't have any sadness towards situations that are out of my control.



But then you say you don’t care if the human race thins out.

That’s not okay, that’s how genocide starts. Someone crazier than you will take advantage of that lack of care, and do horrible things. As far as I’m concerned, you’re perfectly complacent with letting it happen.


----------



## Zerzehn (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Please tell me where, in that entire post, did I specifically say I wanted people to die in mass shooting. I said I lacked sympathy and nothing else. I never said I supported it.
> 
> I honestly do not appreciate being guilt-tripped into feeling sad for people. I don't appreciate being treated as a monster just because I don't have any sadness towards situations that are out of my control.



This is a dangerously neglectful attitude. By stating you don't care, you don't mind it happening.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 25, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> I suppose, but when you use *mass shootings* as an example, it makes me think. I don’t know what kind of person could possibly let that happen. That’s... vile, if I’m being honest.
> 
> But, you’re right, it’s none of my business. Just don’t expect people to take kindly to that, though I’m sure you’re aware.





MCtheBeardie said:


> But then you say you don’t care if the human race thins out.
> 
> That’s not okay, that’s how genocide starts. Someone crazier than you will take advantage of that lack of care, and do horrible things. As far as I’m concerned, you’re perfectly complacent with letting it happen.




Honestly, if I had the power to stop mass shootings, I might actually surprise you. Again, I misanthropic, I'm not heartless.

But you know, that's totally horrible, not feeling that much sympathy for a species that's causing the vast majority of other species to go extinct or endangered. I'm sorry, but I care more about them than humans. I find their pain and struggles are more urgent because, with all that happens to us as a species, we will most likely survive. When an animal goes extinct. They're gone and they are never coming back.



Zhaozerbat said:


> This is a dangerously neglectful attitude. By stating you don't care, you don't mind it happening.



Oh, I'm sorry, you're so right. It's wrong for me not to care about that stuff, but it's perfectly fine that most people don't give two fux about 30000 animals becoming endangered or at risk of Extinction.


----------



## Zerzehn (Sep 25, 2019)

@BennyJackdaw


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Honestly, if I had the power to stop mass shootings, I might actually surprise you. Again, I misanthropic, I'm not heartless.
> 
> But you know, that's totally horrible, not feeling that much sympathy for a species that's causing the vast majority of other species to go extinct or endangered. I'm sorry, but I care more about them than humans. I find their pain and struggles are more urgent because, with all that happens to us as a species, we will most likely survive. When an animal goes extinct. They're gone and they are never coming back.



I’m not saying you have the power to stop mass shootings, no one really can once it’s done. But those families who lost their lives, and can never get them back, are gone forever. The least you can do is acknowledge the value of the lives lost, or all their hopes and dreams meant nothing.

Conservation is desperately needed, but definitely not at the cost of lives. That’s lunacy.


----------



## Zerzehn (Sep 25, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> Conservation is desperately needed, but definitely not at the cost of lives. That’s lunacy.



At least SOMEONE has sense.


----------



## ConorHyena (Sep 25, 2019)

> Redacted by staff.



It's not hypocritical. It's just your logic applied to animals.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 25, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> It's not hypocritical. It's just your logic applied to animals.



No, it's hugely hypocritical. Especially when a lot of people think the life of a serial killer is worth more than the life of an endangered species. And frankly, I am sick of you people comparing me to a serial killer. How about you guys just drop it already.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Shut the fuck up, please. I am honestly sick and tired of having to read your bullshit. Badgering me and guilt-tripping me into carrying will only make me angry, which honestly (though temporarily) makes me care even less.
> 
> 
> 
> No! Certainly not at the cost of HUMAN lives, but thousands upon thousands of animal lives? Just fucking peachy. That's how I honestly feel about hunting and why I honestly believe it's incredibly hypocritical.



Well, then why are you talking to us? I can safely say that you won’t find whatever you’re trying to achieve here.

I won’t stand by when your loved ones become the victim of what you claim not to care about.

Animals are important. While they are innocent and care must be taken for them, you’re a hypocrite when you say you care about thousands of lost animal lives. How many people do you think lost their lives over mass shootings?

Don’t you think that’s equally worthy of support?


----------



## Zerzehn (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Shut the fuck up, please. I am honestly sick and tired of having to read your bullshit. Badgering me and guilt-tripping me into carrying will only make me angry, which honestly (though temporarily) makes me care even less.



I'm sorry that you got upset on a differing opinion on a PUBLIC forum.

Now, off to the salt mines with you.


----------



## Nax04 (Sep 25, 2019)

Zhaozerbat said:


> I'm sorry that you got upset on a differing opinion on a PUBLIC forum.
> 
> Now, off to the salt mines with you.


You sir, have won the internet


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

Nax04 said:


> You sir, have won the internet



Agreed.


----------



## Nax04 (Sep 25, 2019)

Zhaozerbat said:


> I'm sorry that you got upset on a differing opinion on a PUBLIC forum.
> 
> Now, off to the salt mines with you.


----------



## Zerzehn (Sep 25, 2019)

Nax04 said:


> View attachment 71727



He go to gulag today, comrade.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 25, 2019)

To be fair, BennyJackdaw hasn't actually called for any humans to be killed outright.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> To be fair, BennyJackdaw hasn't actually called for any humans to be killed outright.



Yeah, but allowing bad things to happen doesn’t excuse that. Especially since he seems to care about lives in some capacity.


----------



## Zerzehn (Sep 25, 2019)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> To be fair, BennyJackdaw hasn't actually called for any humans to be killed outright.



But he has expressed a criminally negligent attitude to it.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Sep 25, 2019)

What a thread


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

CrookedCroc said:


> What a thread
> View attachment 71728



Indeed. We may need to bring in an admin soon, I must admit that this thread has gotten pretty spicy.


----------



## Zerzehn (Sep 25, 2019)

> Redacted by staff



It wasn't taken out of context, ya dip. You just straight up said it.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

> Redacted by staff



Again, I say this to you.

Why are you still talking to us if there’s nothing to be gained from this? What you said was clear. You’d be willing to sit idly by while people are suffering, when you claim to care more about animals. Because you don’t care.


> Redacted by staff



There, I quoted you.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

At this point, I’m content with letting an admin close this topic. This has, admittedly, gone way out of hand.

Should we tag an admin?


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

This is just sad, this was supposed to be a thread about our lord and savior Steve Irwin...

This thread is lost to us.


----------



## Zerzehn (Sep 25, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> At this point, I’m content with letting an admin close this topic. This has, admittedly, gone way out of hand.
> 
> Should we tag an admin?


Be my guest. I think it's time to lay this thread to rest.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

Zhaozerbat said:


> Be my guest. I think it's time to lay this thread to rest.



Right. @SSJ3Mewtwo , can you close this thread? Things have gotten way out of hand, here. It’s time to shut it down.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 25, 2019)

Zhaozerbat said:


> It wasn't taken out of context, ya dip. You just straight up said it.



I said I didn't feel sadness, I didn't say I legitimately think people should die or that I would allow people to die if I had the power to stop them from dying! God, you people are acting like I'm Adolf Hitler or something!

And yes, I do care more about animals than humans. Sue me.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> I said I didn't feel sadness, I didn't say I legitimately think people should die or that I would allow people to die if I had the power to stop them from dying! God, you people are acting like I'm Adolf Hitler or something!
> 
> And yes, I do care more about animals than humans. Sue me.



Look, it’s over. We’re closing the thread, that’s enough.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 25, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> Look, it’s over. We’re closing the thread, that’s enough.



You know what, fuck it! If it makes you sleep at night, yes I would save a human's life if I had the power, but honestly that depends on the person. I don't have this double standard where the life of a serial killer is worth more than the life of an endangered species. If you were a good person, and I had the power to save your life, I would. Is that what you wanted to hear?


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> You know what, fuck it! If it makes you sleep at night, yes I would save a human's life if I had the power, but honestly that depends on the person. I don't have this double standard where the life of a serial killer is worth more than the life of an endangered species. If you were a good person, and I had the power to save your life, I would. Is that what you wanted to hear?



Yes! Now, let’s put this to rest. That’s enough.


----------



## Foxosh (Sep 25, 2019)

I had fun


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 25, 2019)

Foxosh said:


> I had fun



You sure did, fren. You sure did...


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 25, 2019)

Darn. I missed one of Benny's meltdowns


----------



## volkinaxe (Sep 25, 2019)

https://imgur.com/JgeFQMu




https://imgur.com/uD9mZWh


----------



## Yav (Sep 25, 2019)

Initially peaceful thread turned into drama? And I missed it?


 
No, but seriously, I don't think we should continue it, and that includes calling out the guy even after he left and mocking him. What happened, happened; Leave it be.
But on the subject at hand.. everyone can agree PETA is dumb and is doing absolutely nothing productive overall other then giving out a good laugh.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 25, 2019)

volkinaxe said:


> https://imgur.com/JgeFQMu
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You've already posted this meme in the thread. It's depressing that some people have this attitude towards climate change. 

Imagine the harm that would have been done to the world if there was also consorted denial that acid rain exists, or that CFC's deplete Ozone. 

"Pay more tax and use less hairspray to stop skin cancer they say!"


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> You've already posted this meme in the thread. It's depressing that some people have this attitude towards climate change.
> 
> Imagine the harm that would have been done to the world if there was also consorted denial that acid rain exists, or that CFC's deplete Ozone.
> 
> "Pay more tax and use less hairspray to stop skin cancer they say!"


Its only redeeming quality is that it's a halfway decent caricature.


----------



## volkinaxe (Sep 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> You've already posted this meme in the thread. It's depressing that some people have this attitude towards climate change.
> 
> Imagine the harm that would have been done to the world if there was also consorted denial that acid rain exists, or that CFC's deplete Ozone.
> 
> "Pay more tax and use less hairspray to stop skin cancer they say!"


did I oooo  I did


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 26, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> But that’s equally bad, fren. Forgive me for being bold, but that’s like being content with the Nazis being in power, or the KKK doing their ‘activities’ against African Americans.
> 
> You’re still supporting them by not feeling bad about it. It means you’re complacent with heinous actions.



That was quite the stretch there. Did you get a hernia when you reached with trying to compare someone who doesn’t like hunting to someone who supports KKK?


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 26, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> That was quite the stretch there. Did you get a hernia when you reached with trying to compare someone who doesn’t like hunting to someone who supports KKK?



It’s over now, we’ve cleared up the misconception. No one else needs to get involved in this, it’s time to wind down.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 26, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> Darn. I missed one of Benny's meltdowns





Foxosh said:


> It was fucking gold



Belittling someone for expressing their emotions about a contentious subject is cowardly and ends up preventing peope from sharing their views.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 26, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> It’s over now, we’ve cleared up the misconception. No one else needs to get involved in this, it’s time to wind down.



Sorry, you’re not der Führer of the thread.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 26, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> Sorry, you’re not der Führer of the thread.



True, but the situation is resolved for me. You can continue to drag other people into this, but I’m done here. If you continue to speak to me, I will ignore you. Continue the argument, please.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> It's difficult to understand this perspective, and I think it risks alienating people from environmentalist causes.
> 
> Which is very frustrating because promoting better management of the environment is a good thing for human well-being, and many of the life-style changes that people might make to reduce their environmental impact happen to be changes that also promote their health and longevity.
> 
> Caring about people and environmentalism naturally go together so well.



This is certainly a valid point. If we care about the environment, we can care about people as well. So these two worldviews are quite compatible. 

However, unfortunately, a misanthropic worldview also fits into environmentalism. There is definitely something to be said for the case that if humans were entirely absent from the picture, nature would simply correct itself and continue on in a substantially less devastated fashion.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 26, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> True, but the situation is resolved for me. You can continue to drag other people into this, but I’m done here. If you continue to speak to me, I will ignore you. Continue the argument, please.



It’s literally impossible to “drag” anyone into an argument or discussion on the Internet because people have complete free will over whether or not to respond to something.


----------



## Zerzehn (Sep 26, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> It’s literally impossible to “drag” anyone into an argument or discussion on the Internet because people have complete free will over whether or not to respond to something.


Ah, another one. Off to the salt mines with you. Benny would enjoy the company.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 26, 2019)

Careful that this doesn't verge into bullying.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Careful that this doesn't verge into bullying.



My sentiments exactly.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 26, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> Belittling someone for expressing their emotions about a contentious subject is cowardly and ends up preventing peope from sharing their views.


A single (and justified) emotional post on a single subject is perfectly fine, but when a user has firmly established themself as meltdown-prone in general, we run into problems.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 26, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> Belittling someone for expressing their emotions about a contentious subject is cowardly and ends up preventing peope from sharing their views.


Right, but in those posts he was belittling other users and going on about how much he hates human life and how useless it is. Is it really uncouth to laugh at what is, for all intents and purposes, an absurd reaction?

A debate about ethics is fine, but writhing and lashing out at everybody in arms reach? Yeah, it's a little absurd dude.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 26, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> Right, but in those posts he was belittling other users and going on about how much he hates human life and how useless it is. Is it really uncouth to laugh at what is, for all intents and purposes, an absurd reaction?
> 
> A debate about ethics is fine, but writhing and lashing out at everybody in arms reach? Yeah, it's a little absurd dude.



I’ve talked at lengths with people who have an misanthropist worldview, so I understand it fairly well. It’s closely related to nihilism in fact, but it goes in a slightly different directing. Instead of saying life is meaningless, it asserts essentially that we are the cause of our own suffering, and further we are the cause of other life’s suffering, and basically we suck. As an optimist, and more a utilitarian myself, I don’t share this world view but I can see where people come from and I can understand it. People who are misanthropic generally feel an intense sense of shame for the collective. There are times when I have been ashamed to be a human as well, so disgusted by other humans actions that I find it astonishing I’m actually one of them. 

With this in mind, I think you don’t particularly understand the mindset and psychological wiring that results in someone thinking like this. It’s a lot more nuanced that just “absurd,” I generally refrain from calling worldviews absurd because everyone has a different one and is entitled to their own beliefs and interpretations.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 27, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> I’ve talked at lengths with people who have an misanthropist worldview, so I understand it fairly well. It’s closely related to nihilism in fact, but it goes in a slightly different directing. Instead of saying life is meaningless, it asserts essentially that we are the cause of our own suffering, and further we are the cause of other life’s suffering, and basically we suck. As an optimist, and more a utilitarian myself, I don’t share this world view but I can see where people come from and I can understand it. People who are misanthropic generally feel an intense sense of shame for the collective. There are times when I have been ashamed to be a human as well, so disgusted by other humans actions that I find it astonishing I’m actually one of them.
> 
> With this in mind, I think you don’t particularly understand the mindset and psychological wiring that results in someone thinking like this. It’s a lot more nuanced that just “absurd,” I generally refrain from calling worldviews absurd because everyone has a different one and is entitled to their own beliefs and interpretations.



Let me get this straight, you want me to take this seriously?



BennyJackdaw said:


> And this is why I honestly don't feel any sadness for people who died in mass shootings or war or any cause that end human lives. There are billions of us, we live by such asinine logic that hunting is the be-all end-all of animal saviorism. We are rapidly destroying this planet. The people trying to stop stuff like this are seen as villains. Honestly, I have lost hope for the species to get better as a whole, since there's such a massive push to meet our species even worse. Hearing about 5 or so people dying in a mass shooting these days doesn't affect me anymore





BennyJackdaw said:


> No one is allowing anything to happen, you fucking moron! My God, you people are taking something I said completely out of fucking context! I'd reiterate that given the chance I might surprise you, but at this point, I honestly don't even want to give you the satisfaction.



There's a difference between "I think the human race is highly flawed, petty and selfish," and well going on about not feeling sorrow about Mass shootings, it's like, something an edgelord would say to get a rise out of everyone with how shocking he is. Oh, and then we the guy calling  everyone in arms reach 'fucking morons'.

Misanthropy is not a free pass for a total lack of civility and decorum, sorry.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 27, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> Let me get this straight, you want me to take this seriously?.



I’m always serious. I have no control over whether someone else is serious or not, nor whether they take things seriously. As a result I cannot answer your question.


----------



## Miyachan (Sep 27, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> Let me get this straight, you want me to take this seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i am not fond of the like function this forum have because all it does is encourage people to be tribalistic and at times utterly moronic.

but this post right here is one hell of a smcakdown. have a like sir. youve earned it.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 27, 2019)

Miyachan said:


> i am not fond of the like function this forum have because all it does is encourage people to be tribalistic and at times utterly moronic.
> 
> but this post right here is one hell of a smcakdown. have a like sir. youve earned it.



Shut the fuck up! You, Zhaozerbat and Kimber! I'm sick of being bullied for not having sympathy for people I don't know! God! Besides, we TRIED to finish that! Move on and leave me the fuck alone!


----------



## Zenoth (Sep 27, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> Shut the fuck up! You, Zhaozerbat and Kimber! I'm sick of being bullied for not having sympathy for people I don't know! God! Besides, we TRIED to finish that! Move on and leave me the fuck alone!


It's a public forum dude, and nobody is bullying you, but you seem to be trying to bully others, maybe it's time to walk away from the internet for the day and calm yourself.                                                                                                                                                            Back on topic, Steve Irwin was a great person.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 27, 2019)

Zenoth said:


> It's a public forum dude, and nobody is bullying you, but you seem to be trying to bully others, maybe it's time to walk away from the internet for the day and calm yourself.                                                                                                                                                            Back on topic, Steve Irwin was a great person.



Honestly I don’t know much about the man, possibly because I’ve always tended to engage in perusing legitimate conservation research and information, such as from Wilderness Society, WWF, local conservation orgs and various university science chapters.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 27, 2019)

Zenoth said:


> It's a public forum dude, and nobody is bullying you, but you seem to be trying to bully others, maybe it's time to walk away from the internet for the day and calm yourself.                                                                                                                                                            Back on topic, Steve Irwin was a great person.



No. I'm not the one treating other people like a serial murderer. THEY are treating ME like a horrible person. THEY are bullying ME, and I am sick of it!

Can we talk about the stingrays controversy for a moment? What exactly happened that day? From what I recall, it was an accident, but it still sparked somewhat of a "Jaws" epidemic.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 27, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> No. I'm not the one treating other people like a serial murderer. THEY are treating ME like a horrible person. THEY are bullying ME, and I am sick of it!



Fren, I’m sure it feels like you’re being cornered right now. I realize that I contributed to that.

But, after that thoughtful message you sent me, maybe I’d recommend letting this go. They’re not worth the time, especially if it’s an Internet forum. It may be time to just move on to something else.



BennyJackdaw said:


> Can we talk about the stingrays controversy for a moment? What exactly happened that day? From what I recall, it was an accident, but it still sparked somewhat of a "Jaws" epidemic.



As for the controversy you mentioned, I don’t know much about it. I’ll let someone else take the reigns from here.


----------



## Miyachan (Sep 27, 2019)

my father once told me "make sure to look in the mirror once in a while. look so you can see who you are, what you are and where you are going. if you do not you may end up becoming the monster under your own bed".

benny. from looking at this thread at just a glance you singlehandedly have completely ruined and derailed a thread that originally was meant to take on peta being assholes towards steve irwins legacy. steve was and still is an inspiration to millions of people across the globe.

you asked for getting smacked. you got what you deserved for being an asshole.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 27, 2019)

Miyachan said:


> my father once told me "make sure to look in the mirror once in a while. look so you can see who you are, what you are and where you are going. if you do not you may end up becoming the monster under your own bed".
> 
> benny. from looking at this thread at just a glance you singlehandedly have completely ruined and derailed a thread that originally was meant to take on peta being assholes towards steve irwins legacy. steve was and still is an inspiration to millions of people across the globe.
> 
> you asked for getting smacked. you got what you deserved for being an asshole.



But you are the ones who join in in not dropping it. You guys threw a fit because I mentioned that meat jokes were offensive to me, and then you guys made me feel like a villain for a quote other people found offensive, and I understand, especially after talking to McBeardie about why HE found it so offensive. I get it, okay? The point is that you are just as much to blame for derailing the thread because you keep bringing it up. If you guys want to drop it, then fucking drop it. And by making me feel like such a horrible person, you guys are just as guilty for being assholes, so fuck off. Hounding me will just piss me off more.

I know Steve was a good man. I have a lot of respect for him and his family. PETA mystifies me at time. Remember the time they tried to build an empathy center for lobsters?


----------



## Miyachan (Sep 27, 2019)

apology accepted. now can we get back on topic please?


----------



## Nate/Satsuki (Sep 27, 2019)

PETA literally thinks that eating eggs is the same as killing babies. As someone who’s had chickens before, there’s no way that you’re eating a baby chick unless it’s a fertilized egg. And I’m pretty sure that there’s laws against that.

tl;dr, PETA is full of shit.


----------



## Baalf (Sep 27, 2019)

Nate/Satsuki said:


> PETA literally thinks that eating eggs is the same as killing babies. As someone who’s had chickens before, there’s no way that you’re eating a baby chick unless it’s a fertilized egg. And I’m pretty sure that there’s laws against that.
> 
> tl;dr, PETA is full of shit.



This is why I don't get veganism entirely. Eggs are about as close to food without death as it gets.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 27, 2019)

I’ve heard stories of people affiliated with PETA killing dogs and stuffing them in a Chinese restaurant dumpster. (I have a video, if you’re curious)

Not only do they kill dogs in a cultish way, their members also seem very racist. If what I watched and heard is true.


----------



## Nate/Satsuki (Sep 27, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> I’ve heard stories of people affiliated with PETA killing dogs and stuffing them in a Chinese restaurant dumpster. (I have a video, if you’re curious)
> 
> Not only do they kill dogs in a cultish way, their members also seem very racist. If what I watched and heard is true.


Exactly. If I’m being honest, PETA would be better off vanishing off the face of the earth at this point.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 27, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> This is why I don't get veganism entirely. Eggs are about as close to food without death as it gets.



It's because the world needs more hens than it does roosters, so male chicks are usually killed after they hatch.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 27, 2019)

> Redacted by staff



I think people daemonise PETA so much because it makes them feel more secure about their own moral choices.

I think some folk feel, if they find out somebody else has made a moral choice to abstain from something, that this means that person believes they are better- and their immediate response is to seek flaws in that person.

and I say that as somebody who eats eggs and cheese, so like, I recognise that part of that animal suffering is because of me.



Guess I gotta say that obviously PETA deliberately goes after these sorts of situations- so they must think that it benefits them somehow.

I probably wouldn't view PETA as comparable to your standard vegan or t-totaler, who gets the whole 'so you think you're better than me?' treatment.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Sep 28, 2019)

> Redacted by staff


I wouldn't take PETA's word on what animals they put down and why as gospel - especially when they put the goriest photos they can find front and center on the page they have explaining it. (IMO anyone using shock imagery to push their argument is suspect.) I seem to recall that there was a bit of a scandal some years back where it was found they'd euthanized healthy animals, possibly in inappropriate ways (I think there was something about crowding them into a space for gassing, and that it sometimes failed? It's been a while, but it was pretty big when it happened), after attacking the practice of other shelters for euthanizing animals they couldn't find homes for. I think that's a large part of what people are trying to point out, here - PETA frequently lacks perspective, and/or acts hypocritically.

There's plenty of things wrong with factory farming/industrial-scale meat and egg production. There's absolutely room to improve there. But meat producers don't act like they're the champions of all of animalkind. PETA does. So PETA should be held to the standard of the image they're trying to project.


----------



## ConorHyena (Sep 28, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I think people daemonise PETA so much because it makes them feel more secure about their own moral choices.
> 
> I think some folk feel, if they find out somebody else has made a moral choice to abstain from something, that this means that person believes they are better- and their immediate response is to seek flaws in that person.
> 
> ...



We're not talking about people simply "making the moral choice to abstain from something" 

We're talking about people who insinuate that they're better because they follow some sort of ideology

There's a difference. I can't and won't give a fart about someone being vegetarian or being vegan, why should I? But if I have to sit beside someone who's going to tell me the entire dinner how virtuous vegans are and what a terrible person I am because I eat meat... well..


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 28, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> We're not talking about people simply "making the moral choice to abstain from something"
> 
> We're talking about people who insinuate that they're better because they follow some sort of ideology
> 
> There's a difference. I can't and won't give a fart about someone being vegetarian or being vegan, why should I? But if I have to sit beside someone who's going to tell me the entire dinner how virtuous vegans are and what a terrible person I am because I eat meat... well..



I agree it's because people feel attacked and are offended by the idea that other people might think themselves better than they are. 
I think it's also the reason that people discuss peta very frequently, compared to other proponents of animal rights. 

If we discussed proponents of animal rights or environmental protection that appeared reasonable- then we'd probably not feel so good about ourselves or secure in our behaviours. That's why people in this thread knew about the murderousness of peta, but _weren't_ aware that unwanted male chicks are killed on an industrial scale as a result of our consumption of eggs. 

Personally I haven't cut eggs out of my diet- so I'm still responsible for this, but I eat them less frequently.


----------



## volkinaxe (Sep 28, 2019)

OK  THIS IS GETTING OUT OF HAND  
stop  y  are you all doing this  steve Irwin wood not have liked this  
we need put our differences aside I know some of us  hunt and some of  do not like hunting  y 
not look at what we all like  not what we hate  I hope we can stop this


----------



## volkinaxe (Sep 28, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> Darn. I missed one of Benny's meltdowns


what`s going on ??


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 28, 2019)

volkinaxe said:


> what`s going on ??


Never mind. Just focus on Steve Irwin please

I want to give an apology to @BennyJackdaw  for my comment earlier. In the end it's my responsibility to be more respectful to others regardless of how things go down.


----------



## Nate/Satsuki (Sep 28, 2019)

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 28, 2019)

> Redacted by staff


Exactly 

If you don't sheer them they will overgrow their wool and sometimes die like this poor fella almost did.

Unsheared sheep so wooly he nearly died - WND - WND


----------



## Nate/Satsuki (Sep 28, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> Exactly
> 
> If you don't sheer them they will overgrow their wool and sometimes die like this poor fella almost did.
> 
> Unsheared sheep so wooly he nearly died - WND - WND


Thanks for adding this, I was about to but I didn’t have the time nor energy.


----------



## ConorHyena (Sep 28, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I agree it's because people feel attacked and are offended by the idea that other people might think themselves better than they are.
> I think it's also the reason that people discuss peta very frequently, compared to other proponents of animal rights.
> 
> If we discussed proponents of animal rights or environmental protection that appeared reasonable- then we'd probably not feel so good about ourselves or secure in our behaviours. That's why people in this thread knew about the murderousness of peta, but _weren't_ aware that unwanted male chicks are killed on an industrial scale as a result of our consumption of eggs.
> ...



I think people are annoyed by other people trying to tell them how to behave or what to do in a sanctimonious, overbearing way. 

If someone states in a discussion that meat is bad for the enviroment and one should try to eat less, he's just stating a truth.

if, however, he goes to tell everyone who's ordered meat on his menue that they're brutal idiots murdering animals and should all die in pain for the gruesome thing they're doing towards the enviroment and so on, he's going to get himself antagonized, despite the fact that, in the essence, he's making a similar point. 

I, for instance, despite my often martial attitudes, have actually reduced on meat quite massively in the recent years. I usually only eat it when I have to in the canteen (because the vegetarian serving is often a crime against humanity) or sometimes during the weekend to enjoy it.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 28, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> We're not talking about people simply "making the moral choice to abstain from something"
> 
> We're talking about people who insinuate that they're better because they follow some sort of ideology
> 
> There's a difference. I can't and won't give a fart about someone being vegetarian or being vegan, why should I? But if I have to sit beside someone who's going to tell me the entire dinner how virtuous vegans are and what a terrible person I am because I eat meat... well..



Sometimes I’m a hypocrite. I really love fried chicken legs. So occasionally I get a few if I’m super freaking tired and damn they taste good. 

But I know it’s a terrible decision that doesn’t benefit me, the chicken, or the workers involved. I’m conscious of that and don’t defend my decision as ethical in any way. If somebody reminded me of that fact, I wouldn’t get mad at them because they’d be right. Why would I do that? It wouldn’t make sense.


----------



## Foxosh (Sep 28, 2019)

David Attenborough voice: _(Several days after the admins were tagged no response has been had on why this thread is still breathing)_


----------



## volkinaxe (Sep 28, 2019)

> Redacted by staff


thanks for this a lot of  $$$ comes from wool in new Zealand


----------



## Captain TrashPanda (Sep 28, 2019)

Goddamn this thread is a mess.

R.I.P. Steve Irwin


----------



## Miyachan (Sep 28, 2019)

> Redacted by staff


peta as far as i know will outright lie with a straight face if it suits them. disgusting really.

one of the reasons i will pay very close attention to any and all organizations and see if they are worth donating to.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Sep 28, 2019)

This isn't related to Steve Irwin, but this is a PETA-related question.
Does PETA hate furries and yiff? I wouldn't be surprised if they called yiff "zoophilia" and "animal abuse", but have they ever said that?


----------



## Zenoth (Sep 28, 2019)

I don't think furries are on PETA's radar, but who knows


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 28, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> This isn't related to Steve Irwin, but this is a PETA-related question.
> Does PETA hate furries and yiff? I wouldn't be surprised if they called yiff "zoophilia" and "animal abuse", but have they ever said that?


It's more about if we use real animal fur to make our suits  :V

Dear Furries, Please Don't Wear Real Fur. Love, PETA | PETA


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Sep 28, 2019)

Zenoth said:


> I don't think furries are on PETA's radar, but who knows


They certainly are crazy enough to go after us.


----------



## Zenoth (Sep 28, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> They certainly are crazy enough to go after us.


www.reddit.com: What is PETA’s stance on furries? : NoStupidQuestions


----------



## Zenoth (Sep 28, 2019)

Found this.. they seem ok with furries as long as now real fur is used.


----------



## Foxosh (Sep 28, 2019)

@Zenoth my ushanka is made from racoon fur. I bet they'd have a nuclear meltdown if they saw that XDXDXD
For real though the warmest thing ive ever worn


----------



## Zenoth (Sep 28, 2019)

Foxosh said:


> @Zenoth my ushanka is made from racoon fur. I bet they'd have a nuclear meltdown if they saw that XDXDXD
> For real though the warmest thing ive ever worn


I have a Hemp Hoodlamb jacket that's lined with real fur that they would have a fit over, even though it's hemp based fur and some 'reclaimed' fur.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Sep 28, 2019)

Zenoth said:


> www.reddit.com: What is PETA’s stance on furries? : NoStupidQuestions


Okay, but what about yiff?


----------



## MaetheDragon (Sep 28, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> It's more about if we use real animal fur to make our suits  :V
> 
> Dear Furries, Please Don't Wear Real Fur. Love, PETA | PETA



*sweats profusely*

Uh, they would not like my room... Hunter n’ all.


----------



## SwiftDog (Sep 28, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> This isn't related to Steve Irwin, but this is a PETA-related question.
> Does PETA hate furries and yiff? I wouldn't be surprised if they called yiff "zoophilia" and "animal abuse", but have they ever said that?



In some ways animal rights activists have backtracked progress for people. The type of moral evangelism they employ is of the same variety used to shame ferals, cubs, non offending zoophiles and pedophiles, and so forth.


----------



## Zenoth (Sep 28, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Okay, but what about yiff?


I doubt that's a term peta knows, it's more a furrycentric term I think.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 28, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> In some ways animal rights activists have backtracked progress for people. The type of moral evangelism they employ is of the same variety used to shame ferals, cubs, non offending zoophiles and pedophiles, and so forth.


That's going to need some supporting data.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Sep 29, 2019)

Zenoth said:


> I doubt that's a term peta knows, it's more a furrycentric term I think.


But, I'm sure that they know about yiff, even if they don't know what it's called.


----------



## Miyachan (Sep 29, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Okay, but what about yiff?


i would recommend you learn to read. yiff is not mentioned.


----------



## ConorHyena (Sep 29, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> But, I'm sure that they know about yiff, even if they don't know what it's called.



before you do the panic

I doubt they will care. There's no animal abused involved.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Sep 29, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Okay, but what about yiff?





ConorHyena said:


> before you do the panic
> 
> I doubt they will care. There's no animal abused involved.


Exactly as long as you do not literally screw the pooch or any other animal for that matter PETA could care less. (Since having sex with an animal is considered to be a form of abuse.)


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Oct 1, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> This isn't related to Steve Irwin, but this is a PETA-related question.
> Does PETA hate furries and yiff? I wouldn't be surprised if they called yiff "zoophilia" and "animal abuse", but have they ever said that?



PeTA would HATE furries if they felt it would give them better publicity.
PeTA would LOVE furries if they felt it would give them better publicity.

It has nothing to do with doing what's right, or kind, or humane, or helpful.

It has everything to do with getting donations and telling other people how to live.


----------



## volkinaxe (Oct 1, 2019)

MaelstromEyre said:


> PeTA would HATE furries if they felt it would give them better publicity.
> PeTA would LOVE furries if they felt it would give them better publicity.
> 
> It has nothing to do with doing what's right, or kind, or humane, or helpful.
> ...


they wood just use us


----------



## Keefur (Oct 1, 2019)

A lot of folks don't relize that it was because of PETA that it is a federal crime to go into a dog or cat show and release the animals.  Peta people use to "blitz" dog and cat shows to release as many animals from their crates as they could before escaping. Some of the animals released were hit by cars or never found.  PETA is against all domesticated animals.  They would rather an animal die in the wild than live with a human.  Their "shelters" have a super high euthenasia rate, and as a matter of fact, some of their personnel were convicted of going around and stealing dogs to put down.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Oct 1, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> This isn't related to Steve Irwin, but this is a PETA-related question.
> Does PETA hate furries and yiff? I wouldn't be surprised if they called yiff "zoophilia" and "animal abuse", but have they ever said that?





Zenoth said:


> I doubt that's a term peta knows, it's more a furrycentric term I think.


They started some shit with us once because they thought fursuits were made with real fur.
I don't know if I can show any pictures, because it's nsfw. But they basically stood outside furry conventions, almost naked except underwear, bodypainted like animals, and holding up dumb signs like: "Animals are not ours to wear" but also even worse ones like "Hey kid, wanna yiff?"


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 1, 2019)

Keefur said:


> A lot of folks don't relize that it was because of PETA that it is a federal crime to go into a dog or cat show and release the animals.  Peta people use to "blitz" dog and cat shows to release as many animals from their crates as they could before escaping. Some of the animals released were hit by cars or never found.  PETA is against all domesticated animals.  They would rather an animal die in the wild than live with a human.  Their "shelters" have a super high euthenasia rate, and as a matter of fact, some of their personnel were convicted of going around and stealing dogs to put down.


How can anybody resent the bond between a human and their pets?


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Oct 1, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> How can anybody resent the bond between a human and their pets?



They compare it to slavery.
They oppose any use of animals for human benefit, including service and working animals (like assistance dogs, K-9/military/tracking dogs).
They oppose the use of hoofstock for riding, driving, or work, including competition and recreation.

They have entirely convinced themselves that people who keep animals have no connection with them at all, that the animals are miserable slaves.

I'll go tell my horses that, as they doze in the barn with buckets of fresh water, mangers full of hay, and fans to keep the flies away.  They should know how "abused" and "enslaved" they are.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 1, 2019)

To be honest the idea of keeping an inbred wolf with its testicles cut off in your house is kinda weird when you think about it. ;D


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 1, 2019)

MaelstromEyre said:


> They have entirely convinced themselves that people who keep animals have no connection with them at all, that the animals are miserable slaves.


Every cat owner ever knows this is not true. We may tell ourselves that we own the cats, but ultimately, they own US and we're merely their furless servants. If my cats were my slaves I'd not have kept my muttcat after the _first_ time he bit me.

PETA _may_ have had a point with their "sea kittens" anti-fish-eating campaign, but not in the way they think. Rather, both guppies (and other similarly cheap and easily bred sweetwater aquarium fish) and non-purebred cats are viewed as disturbingly disposable by much of society.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 1, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> Every cat owner ever knows this is not true. We may tell ourselves that we own the cats, but ultimately, they own US and we're merely their furless servants. If my cats were my slaves I'd not have kept my muttcat after the _first_ time he bit me.
> 
> PETA _may_ have had a point with their "sea kittens" anti-fish-eating campaign, but not in the way they think. Rather, both guppies (and other similarly cheap and easily bred sweetwater aquarium fish) and non-purebred cats are viewed as disturbingly disposable by much of society.



Personally I was really shocked when I was a child and my guineapigs had babies. They had a huge number of babies, but then half of them died because of weird genetic disorders.
One of them grew teeth *inside its throat,* and they grew through its flesh and killed it. 

Guineapigs aren't naturally bright colours, or covered in stripes. They're just brown in the wild, but pet shops want colourful ones- so all the stock is extremely inbred; you don't normally see all the horrible disabled ones that die behind closed doors.

So like, pet industry definitely does have some problems imo.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Oct 1, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> Every cat owner ever knows this is not true. We may tell ourselves that we own the cats, but ultimately, they own US and we're merely their furless servants. If my cats were my slaves I'd not have kept my muttcat after the _first_ time he bit me.
> 
> PETA _may_ have had a point with their "*sea kittens*" anti-fish-eating campaign, but not in the way they think. Rather, both guppies (and other similarly cheap and easily bred sweetwater aquarium fish) and non-purebred cats are viewed as disturbingly disposable by much of society.


"I'll get me some of those land fish instead!" - Steven Colbert (Well I thought it was appropriate to bring up that quote.  )


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 1, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> To be honest the idea of keeping an inbred wolf with its testicles cut off in your house is kinda weird when you think about it. ;D



Keeping the testicles on is much better idea really.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 1, 2019)

MaelstromEyre said:


> They compare it to slavery.
> They oppose any use of animals for human benefit, including service and working animals (like assistance dogs, K-9/military/tracking dogs).
> They oppose the use of hoofstock for riding, driving, or work, including competition and recreation.
> 
> ...


Have they never had pets of their own before? I have three cats and they all legitimately love me...


----------



## Keefur (Oct 1, 2019)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> How can anybody resent the bond between a human and their pets?


PETA can and does.  They don't really like exposing this part of their agenda.  They spout platitudes about animal rights and animal safety, but in reality, they want a complete separation of humans and animals.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 1, 2019)

Keefur said:


> PETA can and does.  They don't really like exposing this part of their agenda.  They spout platitudes about animal rights and animal safety, but in reality, they want a complete separation of humans and animals.


Humanity came of age alongside animals. We can't separate ourselves from them.
And good grief! Have they never had a pet before in their entire life!?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 2, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Personally I was really shocked when I was a child and my guineapigs had babies. They had a huge number of babies, but then half of them died because of weird genetic disorders.
> One of them grew teeth *inside its throat,* and they grew through its flesh and killed it.
> 
> Guineapigs aren't naturally bright colours, or covered in stripes. They're just brown in the wild, but pet shops want colourful ones- so all the stock is extremely inbred; you don't normally see all the horrible disabled ones that die behind closed doors.
> ...


Of course the pet industry has problems, and that especially (but not exclusively) applies the more profit-driven/motivated the particular establishment is. Selective breeding doesn't have to be bad, nor does line breeding done responsibly, but when your selective breeding doesn't come balanced with health consciousness, you're going to have a problem.

Take ragdoll cats. They literally all trace back to like... two or three individuals (I forget the exact details). I won't claim they're the Absolute Healthiest Breed Out There, but their possible breed-related health problems are known and responsible breeders will screen for them. In the case of one of these health issues, they're one of very few breeds that has an identified genetic marker for it, and you'll frequently see breeders noting that genetic status on the parents of litters. While catteries like this may break even, they rarely (at least over here) turn more of a profit than to cover e.g. showing of the cattery's own cats - which is arguably an expense associated with the breeding in the first place. It's a labor of love, not one of big bucks.

Animal mills, like what many pet stores get their stock from, won't do this screening. Backyard breeders who take litters off their purebred animals because they figure they can make a few bucks selling the offspring (since purebred animals fetch vastly higher prices, and even touting a single parent of a popular breed can push that along) won't do this screening, and may even do harebrained shit like crossing two dog breeds prone to hip dysplacia (sp?) or crossing guarding and herding breeds of dog.

And yes, there are dog breeders going for Crufts that _also_ cut corners on the health consciousness in the interests of meeting their goals (championship rather than profits in this case), and those breeders deserve condemnation just as much as the puppy mill ones. 

I'm not a big proponent of purchasing animals in pet stores, especially chain stores, and _especially_ if you live in a country with iffy animal welfare legislation. But I don't think the problems that stem from the pet industry being an _industry_ should come down to pet ownership in itself being bad for animals. (Though breed booms following successful movies/whatever can go die in a fire.)


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Oct 2, 2019)

I live in an area where Amish puppy mills are a thing - they frequently sell the pups to pet stores.   Of course, pet stores have ways to make it sound like the dogs they're selling all come from "great, loving homes."  And there's a local group that claims it is "rescuing" puppies from mills by buying them - which isn't rescue at all, because the breeder just made a sale and has more incentive to keep breeding dogs.

I think there are some hard-core extremist AR activists who don't own pets of any kind because they think it is all slavery.  Most, especially the PeTA supporters, probably have pets of their own, but they think they "love" their animals, while anyone who eats meat and wears leather or uses any animal products couldn't POSSIBLY love their own pet.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 2, 2019)

I love animals, cook em tasty good...


----------



## tamara590 (Oct 22, 2019)

PETA should shut their yap. they kill more then 99% of animals they rescue, advertize body shaming with their dumb save the whales ad featuring a bigger woman, compare animal slaughter to the holocaust, oversexualize their ads. and now try to villainize my idol steve irwin. im all for animal protection, its one of the most important things to me, i would give my life for animals. but theyre just hypocrites.


----------



## Nyro46 (Oct 22, 2019)

How has this thread not been closed yet?


----------



## volkinaxe (Oct 27, 2019)




----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 27, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> Of course the pet industry has problems, and that especially (but not exclusively) applies the more profit-driven/motivated the particular establishment is. Selective breeding doesn't have to be bad, nor does line breeding done responsibly, but when your selective breeding doesn't come balanced with health consciousness, you're going to have a problem.
> 
> Take ragdoll cats. They literally all trace back to like... two or three individuals (I forget the exact details). I won't claim they're the Absolute Healthiest Breed Out There, but their possible breed-related health problems are known and responsible breeders will screen for them. In the case of one of these health issues, they're one of very few breeds that has an identified genetic marker for it, and you'll frequently see breeders noting that genetic status on the parents of litters. While catteries like this may break even, they rarely (at least over here) turn more of a profit than to cover e.g. showing of the cattery's own cats - which is arguably an expense associated with the breeding in the first place. It's a labor of love, not one of big bucks.
> 
> ...



Something that surprised me recently was that Merle coat dogs are often partially deaf or blind, and that in humans the condition would be regarded as Waardenburg's syndrome. So some of the appearances and traits that are advertised as_ desirable _in dogs are directly analogous to human syndromes. 
Reading about dog breeds on wikipedia sometimes surprises me as well; I ended up reading about shetland sheep dogs and discovered that folded ears are preferred...and that when a dog is unfortunate enough to be born with straight ears an owner might choose to have its ears 'corrected' Shetland Sheepdog - Wikipedia

So it's difficult trying to accept those things.


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Oct 28, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Something that surprised me recently was that Merle coat dogs are often partially deaf or blind, and that in humans the condition would be regarded as Waardenburg's syndrome. So some of the appearances and traits that are advertised as_ desirable _in dogs are directly analogous to human syndromes.
> Reading about dog breeds on wikipedia sometimes surprises me as well; I ended up reading about shetland sheep dogs and discovered that folded ears are preferred...and that when a dog is unfortunate enough to be born with straight ears an owner might choose to have its ears 'corrected' Shetland Sheepdog - Wikipedia
> 
> So it's difficult trying to accept those things.


 Humans have done some messed up stuff to dogs for the sake of show and vanity.  Dalmatians have issues with deafness, especially if they have more white than spots on their head and ears.

In horses, there is a gene that produces a chocolate-brown body color with a white/flaxen mane and tail.  It is a beautiful combination, but there is a genetic defect that causes a form of blindness that often accompanies the "chocolate/flaxen" coat color.  GOOD breeders will test their stock for this eye issue, and not use horses in their breeding program.  

It is partially the responsibility of breeders to be sure they are only breeding sound, healthy stock, but also on the buyers to research the animal they are looking to buy.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 28, 2019)

MaelstromEyre said:


> Humans have done some messed up stuff to dogs for the sake of show and vanity.  Dalmatians have issues with deafness, especially if they have more white than spots on their head and ears.
> 
> In horses, there is a gene that produces a chocolate-brown body color with a white/flaxen mane and tail.  It is a beautiful combination, but there is a genetic defect that causes a form of blindness that often accompanies the "chocolate/flaxen" coat color.  GOOD breeders will test their stock for this eye issue, and not use horses in their breeding program.
> 
> It is partially the responsibility of breeders to be sure they are only breeding sound, healthy stock, but also on the buyers to research the animal they are looking to buy.



What surprises me is that breeders don't simply say 'oh, breeding this golden-coloured dog increases risks of disease X? I suppose we shouldn't try to select for golden-coloured coats,'.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 28, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Something that surprised me recently was that Merle coat dogs are often partially deaf or blind, and that in humans the condition would be regarded as Waardenburg's syndrome. So some of the appearances and traits that are advertised as_ desirable _in dogs are directly analogous to human syndromes.
> Reading about dog breeds on wikipedia sometimes surprises me as well; I ended up reading about shetland sheep dogs and discovered that folded ears are preferred...and that when a dog is unfortunate enough to be born with straight ears an owner might choose to have its ears 'corrected' Shetland Sheepdog - Wikipedia
> 
> So it's difficult trying to accept those things.



People today balk at the concept that behavioral and physical attributes may be tied to things like colorations and such. Breeding dogs relentlessly for certain color combos often has undesired or unanticipated effects because their are often other genes very close to those color genes that tend to flop over during genetic recombination.  The same thing occurs in humans to an extent. Racism is still wrong of course, but to say there’s absolutely no difference between human races is erroneous. 

Isolating the exact Merle coat color genes and inserting with gene transfer technology would actually produce a far healthier animal since it would be the *only* gene that was transferred. Many a breed has been messed up as a result of choosing color and shape over things like temperament and health.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 28, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> People today balk at the concept that behavioral and physical attributes may be tied to things like colorations and such. Breeding dogs relentlessly for certain color combos often has undesired or unanticipated effects because their are often other genes very close to those color genes that tend to flop over during genetic recombination.  The same thing occurs in humans to an extent. Racism is still wrong of course, but to say there’s absolutely no difference between human races is erroneous.
> 
> Isolating the exact Merle coat color genes and inserting with gene transfer technology would actually produce a far healthier animal since it would be the *only* gene that was transferred. Many a breed has been messed up as a result of choosing color and shape over things like temperament and health.


TBFH that's in most cases less about color/conformation breeding and more about sound breeding practices in general. Trait A doesn't need to sit anywhere near close to Trait B in order for both of them to disproportionately show up in the same subpopulation. If the trait was brought into the breed through a handful of individuals, _any_ trait displayed by one of those individuals is liable to pop up about as much as the desired trait in their descendants unless actively bred against. There may be very broad tendencies (semilonghair cats generally tend lower energy than shorthair cats, and sleek, long-bodied cats generally tend higher energy than cobby cats), but they're so broad as to be practically useless in predicting the behavior of a given animal, especially when general breed temperament isn't factored into the equation.

While not _all_ "serious" breeders will be responsible, making sure to get your animal from a breeder who is a member of a breed organization (preferably with a parent organization for the species in general where applicable) that has health programs for their breeders to follow is a good idea, if you're in the market for a purebred animal. Backyard breeders are less likely to be aware of breed-specific health issues, and even if they are, may not be bothered to have their animals screened for them. And, obviously, when going for any kind of crossbreed, it's important to research the parent breeds. A lot of people figure mutts are somehow healthier/spared breed-linked health conditions, when the truth in many cases is that you may be combining multiple breeds' issues into a single animal. This goes doubly if combining two breeds with the same or similar breed-linked health problems.

Most umbrella organizations with breed standards (think national/international kennel clubs, FIFe, etc.) also include mental/personality traits in breed conformation, these days, and I've personally had one of my cats get excluded from her group at a show because she was having a bad day and got real sour with the judge's assistant. (Not to the point of attacking, just making a lot of noise.) Many working breeds of both dogs and horses will also have results from "working trials" tied to their specific breed organization's breeding stock selection recommendations.

None of which excuses the abomination that is shrimp GSDs. That's an example of breeders being irresponsible and going overboard with conformation. (I know in many breeds breed standards at least here have been changed in later years in order to promote healthier animals - standards for at least some dog breeds with varying tail lengths, for instance, have been altered to disadvantage the very shortest tails due to links between super short tails combined with genes for curled tails, if memory serves, and butterfly vertebrae. I don't know if GSDs are among the breeds that had standards altered to combat health problems, though I do know there are individual breeders taking a stance against the shrimp-backed type in favor of a "working type" conformation.)


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 29, 2019)

quoting_mungo said:


> TBFH that's in most cases less about color/conformation breeding and more about sound breeding practices in general. . If the trait was brought into the breed through a handful of individuals, _any_ trait displayed by one of those individuals is liable to pop up about as much as the desired trait in their descendants unless actively bred against. There may be very broad tendencies (semilonghair cats generally tend lower energy than shorthair cats, and sleek, long-bodied cats generally tend higher energy than cobby cats), but they're so broad as to be practically useless in predicting the behavior of a given animal, especially when general breed temperament isn't factored into the equation.
> 
> While not _all_ "serious" breeders will be responsible, making sure to get your animal from a breeder who is a member of a breed organization (preferably with a parent organization for the species in general where applicable) that has health programs for their breeders to follow is a good idea, if you're in the market for a purebred animal. Backyard breeders are less likely to be aware of breed-specific health issues, and even if they are, may not be bothered to have their animals screened for them. And, obviously, when going for any kind of crossbreed, it's important to research the parent breeds. A lot of people figure mutts are somehow healthier/spared breed-linked health conditions, when the truth in many cases is that you may be combining multiple breeds' issues into a single animal. This goes doubly if combining two breeds with the same or similar breed-linked health problems.
> 
> ...



The problem is that breeders are not geneticists. Breeders can only select one animal that has roughly the right traits they want, and breed it to another animal that has roughly what you want. 

But even then you can have recessive traits that will emerge, from either or both animals, and create an undesirable combination. That famous anti-GM book tried to make gene editing sound like Russian Roulette, ie “generic roulette,” when in reality it’s always been like that. Here’s why. 

During prophase I of cellular meioses, chromosomes pair up and exchange genetic information along chiasma. In some cases there may be predetermined areas where the chiasmata occur and in other cases it may not be predetermined. 

The problem is breeders usually don’t even know this. They just breed the animal broadly based on breed standards, looks, blah blah blah. Although the information could be acquired, we probably don’t know yet, for example, if the genes for black an tan are closer to genes for aggressive behavior disposition, or maybe short toenails, anything really. I’m just throwing those out as examples. 

So: “Trait A doesn't need to sit anywhere near close to Trait B in order for both of them to disproportionately show up in the same subpopulation.”

Yes and no. If both traits are far apart on the DNA strand but happen to cross over by nearby chiasma commonly, it might seem like they’re nearby placed genes when they’re not. 

I’m not sure when exactly those genes will crossover - but that’s my point. No one else really does either.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 29, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> People today balk at the concept that behavioral and physical attributes may be tied to things like colorations and such. Breeding dogs relentlessly for certain color combos often has undesired or unanticipated effects because their are often other genes very close to those color genes that tend to flop over during genetic recombination.  The same thing occurs in humans to an extent. Racism is still wrong of course, but to say there’s absolutely no difference between human races is erroneous.
> 
> Isolating the exact Merle coat color genes and inserting with gene transfer technology would actually produce a far healthier animal since it would be the *only* gene that was transferred. Many a breed has been messed up as a result of choosing color and shape over things like temperament and health.



Strange colouration in dogs, like Merle, is more analogous to conditions like Waardenburg syndrome or Albinism than it is to geographic variation in humans. 

A proper analogue to human variation would be the geographic variation in the appearance of wolves, whose coats colours adapted to their local environments- (greyer wolves in the midlatitudes, snow-coloured wolves in the Arctic).


----------



## Anthrasmagoria (Oct 29, 2019)

I don't have much respect for PETA. They bring shame on the idea of "ethical treatment" by doing the most useless and petty things in the name of it until nobody takes it seriously.


----------



## ConorHyena (Oct 29, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> The same thing occurs in humans to an extent. Racism is still wrong of course, but to say there’s absolutely no difference between human races is erroneous.



There are no human races, therefor there is no difference.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Oct 29, 2019)

Wow, the thread is still alive!

I’m both incredibly surprised, and somewhat terrified at the same time. I hope things stay on topic now, though I confess I added to the earlier derailment.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 29, 2019)

MCtheBeardie said:


> Wow, the thread is still alive!
> 
> I’m both incredibly surprised, and somewhat terrified at the same time. I hope things stay on topic now, though I confess I added to the earlier derailment.



This train is on Mars, lol.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Oct 29, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> There are no human races, therefor there is no difference.


Human races happen all the time.





It's pretty interesting actually. They have these huge events, people gather, buy food, drink, and gamble on which one will win. There's a loud bang to signal the start, and they run a cardboard cut-out of a rabbit along the side of the track to help motivate them.
They used to use real rabbits, but every now and then they managed to catch one and it was pretty gruesome.
Not to mention, even when they didn't catch it, it was _still_ pretty cruel.


----------



## Sirocco~ (Oct 29, 2019)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> Human races happen all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Greetings stealer of birdseed. I was visiting this quite ghastly thread when I stumbled upon your post.

You sir, have impeccable wit, and a charming humor to boot~


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 30, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> There are no human races, therefor there is no difference.



Race in humans is a lot like dog breeds. They are all dogs and they are all humans and can breed with each other (I mean within the same species of course owo) but there are broad groups which may display certain phenotypical and genotypical traits. Refusing to acknowledge that at least is unscientific.


----------



## Baalf (Nov 1, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> I love animals, cook em tasty good...



The Forum does not allow me to say the appropriate words to describe people like you.



Anthrasmagoria said:


> I don't have much respect for PETA. They bring shame on the idea of "ethical treatment" by doing the most useless and petty things in the name of it until nobody takes it seriously.



It's probably why I hate them more than a lot of people seem to think. Because of them, and with the help of people like Sulfide/Tipsy-Cynical, people legitimately believe that ALL environmentalism is bad. This very fact honestly hurts me a lot because it makes me feel like a pariah to Human Society.




tamara590 said:


> PETA should shut their yap. they kill more then 99% of animals they rescue, advertize body shaming with their dumb save the whales ad featuring a bigger woman, *compare animal slaughter to the holocaust,* oversexualize their ads. and now try to villainize my idol steve irwin. im all for animal protection, its one of the most important things to me, i would give my life for animals. but theyre just hypocrites.



Can I be honest? I never understood why that was such a big deal to compare all the disgusting practices meat Farmers use to a horrible event like the Holocaust. Birds are kept in tiny cages that give them no room to move around in, and some are even dipped into electricity. I mean, not all meat farming is horrible (but a good chunk of it is, even quote-unquote free range and organic farms that tend to use those terms loosely), but for some of the worst, anyway you slice it, a lot of the practices pretty much animal cruelty, and we have people like Sulfide/Tipsy-Cynical pretending that the meat industry is oh-so innocent. In your opinion, what would be a more appropriate thing to compare it to?


----------



## tamara590 (Nov 1, 2019)

i hate ALL animal abuse, one of the many reasons i tend to avoid humans as much as possible. and now you say it, it actually IS comparable to the holocaust. how harsh that might sound to some. i didnt think that trough when typing that. animals getting skinned alive, electrocuted, tails cut off, balls BITTEN off by the farmers etc. and thats not even the beginning of that HUMANS do to them. sorry that i phrased it wrong, you are fully right! no wonder i hate humans and tend to avoid them, they always hurt, murder, rape everything...
sometimes i wish humans could go extinct, but when i say that, human emphatizers come at me and bash me or others who think that way by saying, start with yourself. humans are the worst!


----------



## SwiftDog (Nov 1, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> The Forum does not allow me to say the appropriate words to describe people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your reaction is pretty confusing considering my previous posts in the thread and my interaction with you. You’re either deliberately attempting to rile me, or have bad memory.


----------



## SwiftDog (Nov 1, 2019)

@BennyJackdaw please keep communication about discussion materials here on the thread. Posting responses here keeps everything open and honest between the parties involved and helps us better understand each other, as well as keeping the conversation contiguous. 

As a general rule, I a. ignore PMs regarding thread content and b. delete profile posts regarding thread content. 

Thank you for your understanding.


----------



## Baalf (Nov 2, 2019)

@SwiftDog 

You know, it was very much possible that I posted on your profile to avoid another battle.


----------



## ConorHyena (Nov 2, 2019)

tamara590 said:


> i hate ALL animal abuse, one of the many reasons i tend to avoid humans as much as possible. and now you say it, it actually IS comparable to the holocaust. how harsh that might sound to some. i didnt think that trough when typing that. animals getting skinned alive, electrocuted, tails cut off, balls BITTEN off by the farmers etc. and thats not even the beginning of that HUMANS do to them. sorry that i phrased it wrong, you are fully right! no wonder i hate humans and tend to avoid them, they always hurt, murder, rape everything...
> sometimes i wish humans could go extinct, but when i say that, human emphatizers come at me and bash me or others who think that way by saying, start with yourself. humans are the worst!



It does not compare to the holocaust, for a number of reasons. I don't want to spark off a Holocaust debate but I really don't think it's even remotely comparable.

We've had the misantrophist debate in this thread already, I think each and everyone of us would be served if we didn't spark it off again. I'd advise you to read up on it.


----------



## Baalf (Nov 2, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> It does not compare to the holocaust, for a number of reasons. I don't want to spark off a Holocaust debate but I really don't think it's even remotely comparable.
> 
> We've had the misantrophist debate in this thread already, I think each and everyone of us would be served if we didn't spark it off again. I'd advise you to read up on it.



To reiterate: what, in your opinion, would be a more accurate comparison? I'm just curious what people would rather compare it to, because a lot of the practices are very disgusting.


----------



## ConorHyena (Nov 2, 2019)

BennyJackdaw said:


> To reiterate: what, in your opinion, would be a more accurate comparison? I'm just curious what people would rather compare it to, because a lot of the practices are very disgusting.



They are, correct, at least some of them.

I wouldn't compare them to anything, condemning animal cruelty in itself is enough. Drawing analogies that don't hold up or are downright silly will hurt the case more than it will aid.


----------



## SwiftDog (Nov 2, 2019)

ConorHyena said:


> It does not compare to the holocaust, for a number of reasons. I don't want to spark off a Holocaust debate but I really don't think it's even remotely comparable.
> 
> We've had the misantrophist debate in this thread already, I think each and everyone of us would be served if we didn't spark it off again. I'd advise you to read up on it.



Is the amount of animal suffering caused by the factory farm system not comparable to the Holocaust? Probably not, it's unfair to the victims who suffered, however, I think it is fair to point out that under our current system there is still a lot of animal suffering going on because of the system that focuses on cheap, cheap meat over all else.


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Nov 4, 2019)

SwiftDog said:


> Race in humans is a lot like dog breeds. They are all dogs and they are all humans and can breed with each other (I mean within the same species of course owo) but there are broad groups which may display certain phenotypical and genotypical traits. Refusing to acknowledge that at least is unscientific.



 In one sense, yes, but domestic breeds, whether it's dog or cat or horse or cattle or any other form of livestock were selectively bred for specific traits, especially back when many animals were actually used for work, not just companionship.  Many of the "working" breeds still have that drive.  Others, not so much.  They may have the "look," but I have met quite a few spaniels that couldn't hunt their way to the meat counter at a supermarket.
Same for horses.  Breeds for draught work, breeds for speed, breeds for endurance, breeds to carry a rider for long distances at a swift, smooth gait.  Some people do get hung up on color - and when a breeder knows that buyers will pay $$$ for a lot of "color," sometimes they forget more important things, like conformation and temperament.  To quote one old horseman, "people who breed for color, don't know what else to breed for."
Some breeders are VERY into genetics, they even have their animals screened to be certain they don't carry issues that would be passed on to a foal.  They are a minority, though. 

There are certainly characteristics of humans, like skin color or hair type.  Not so much a result of intentional breeding to develop specific qualities, but just based on what people have available to reproduce with.


----------



## SwiftDog (Nov 8, 2019)

MaelstromEyre said:


> In one sense, yes, but domestic breeds, whether it's dog or cat or horse or cattle or any other form of livestock were selectively bred for specific traits, especially back when many animals were actually used for work, not just companionship.  Many of the "working" breeds still have that drive.  Others, not so much.  They may have the "look," but I have met quite a few spaniels that couldn't hunt their way to the meat counter at a supermarket.
> Same for horses.  Breeds for draught work, breeds for speed, breeds for endurance, breeds to carry a rider for long distances at a swift, smooth gait.  Some people do get hung up on color - and when a breeder knows that buyers will pay $$$ for a lot of "color," sometimes they forget more important things, like conformation and temperament.  To quote one old horseman, "people who breed for color, don't know what else to breed for."
> Some breeders are VERY into genetics, they even have their animals screened to be certain they don't carry issues that would be passed on to a foal.  They are a minority, though.
> 
> There are certainly characteristics of humans, like skin color or hair type.  Not so much a result of intentional breeding to develop specific qualities, but just based on what people have available to reproduce with.



Yeah, the only time humans really breed on a large enough scale for specific traits is if there's enough people seeking the same thing. For instance, nobles were once notorious for only marrying other nobles. That led to some inbreeding and well, some ironically less healthy stock! For the most part, human breeding tends to follow a pretty normal natural-selection bias, with only some fairly minor characteristics and differences showing up over long periods of time. For instance, people born and raised in the South long enough slowly develop a need for guns, ammo, and Trump! (just kidding. Mostly.) 

So usually things like this aren't going to show up in humans because after a certain point we reject racism and mate with whoever we want - sort of a built in mechanism against bad genetics, now isn't that interesting? Racists are so dumb that their ideas are literally the reverse of how to create healthy, strong humans.


----------

