You Fat B*******

[BigColSutherland]

There's too many humans on Earth. Would you be happy if a bear came and slaughtered your family...you know...because killing a few is prerable to wide spread starvation and disease?

[IC1967]

I failed to mention that I train and ride these horses on occasion. I even enjoy it, much to the disdain of PETA, I'm sure. Am I now beyond redemption?

 

Yes you are beyond redemption. The only reason you 'rescue' horses is so you can gain some pleasure at their expense. Why do they need rescuing in the first place? No doubt because some cruel human has disposed of them.

[IC1967]

When you figure out what animals (and humans, for that matter) ARE on this earth for... you know... the meaning of life and all that, be sure to let me know. The Bible states that God gave us dominion over the animals, but I don't take you for the religious sort.

I suspected you were a religious nut job. I am a devout atheist and proud of it. I've got news for you. Humans are also animals. You trot out the usual rubbish from the fairy story that is the Bible. Even if the Bible was a factual document having dominion over the 'animals' does not mean treating them cruelly. I suspect you also believe in Adam and Eve and that God made the world in 7 days. No wonder the way you think is so out of touch with how it should be.

[IC1967]

I currently have 7 horses, and I've found good homes for many more. Every one of them saved from a trip to the slaughterhouse, with the exception of my latest project, a rescue who was perhaps a week away from starving to death. A 1200lb Brabant, ($2000+ in vet bills and counting), who I'm estimating is a good 1100lbs underweight. Don't tell me I lack empathy for animals, when unlike many bleeding-heart animal 'lovers', I put my time, effort and money where my mouth is, 7 days a week.

Like I said earlier. You only do what you do for horses because you gain pleasure from riding them. No doubt when they are old you send them to the slaughterhouse.

[IC1967]

I view animals in the food chain, in the same way the vast majority of the world currently does, always has, and likely always will. I know you're a big fan of learning from movies, so watch "The Lion King," and the complexities of the "Circle of Life" will be wonderfully explained to you through song.
You'll thank me after.

Just because most of the rest of the world views animals as part of the food chain doesn't make it right. There was a time when most of the world thought slavery was OK.

[IC1967]

In regards to hunting, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you're talking about. Do yourself a favour and get help regarding your Bambi-related childhood trauma. Your ignorance, as demonstrated, is astounding. The biggest threat to deer is overpopulation. Whether you like it or not, in many places, hunting is a necessity. Shooting a small minority is preferable to wide spread starvation and disease.
The problem is that there are not sufficient predators to keep their population under control, because humans don't hunt them in sufficient numbers anymore. PETA's answer? Let 'em die. Yep, just let them all die. As long as no human benefits from their deaths, and thus doesn't compromise their mission statement, they don't give a crap. No thought, care or consideration is given to the disastrous ecological consequences that would inevitably follow, just so they can feel good about sticking to their lofty principles.

There is no need for hunting. Anyone who thinks its OK is a barbarian. Overpopulation is a problem  because humans have decided to steal animals habitats. In America you have no excuse for doing this as there is so much land available. But of course humans do as they please and let the animals suffer the consequences. So what solution do the humans come up with? Kill them. Great.

[IC1967]

The "what, when, and how many", is strictly controlled in hunting. Nobody shoots Bambi's mother; it's not allowed. Fawns may not die because their mothers get shot, but they certainly die from disease and starvation if the population isn't kept under control, by people like me. I don't especially enjoy it, tbh, but it needs to be done.

Like I said, if humans didn't steal animal's habitats then there wouldn't be a problem with overpopulation. Instead of killing defenseless animals, you'd do better spending your time trying to get their habitat sorted out.

[IC1967]

Another way to help regulate the population is to assist in increasing the numbers of natural predators, like bears. Perhaps if I had any empathy towards animals, I'd get involved in something like that...

So you are admitting that you are an unnatural predator.

[IC1967]

I do slaughter some animals. Not many, not often, but I do it. I much prefer to sell them whenever possible, but I only have so much room, and I like to know where my food comes from. I treat all of my animals very well, and nothing goes to waste.

I doubt your animals think they are treated well. They either get killed by you or by whoever you sell them on to.

[IC1967]

I dislike PETA because they are extremists. I don't have much time for fanatics of any kind, political, religious, or otherwise. PETA and those associated with them have used shock tactics for decades, as you well know.
I don't accept PETA's "version of reality", because their propaganda doesn't match my own experience. I'm not saying that there aren't some deplorable farms out there, but such conditions are not the norm, as they would have you believe.
Fair enough?

So the likes of Paul Mcartney are extremists. I don't think so. People like you try to brand PETA as extremists because you are very uncomfortable with the truth. It makes you feel better as you don't want to confront the reality of what you do.

Fair enough? Don't make me laugh. I gave one example of how milk is produced in the vast majority of cases and you say fair enough. You cannot deny that milk production is extremely cruel. I'd have more respect for you if you just admitted that this is the case but you are happy with the situation because you have dominion over all animals. You need to counter my milk argument much better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Go on Mick

You tell him how to counter arguments and get taken seriously.

[IC1967]

Thousands of years of animal husbandry, throughout the span of human civilization, has led "people like me" to think the way we do about animals. On the other hand, a couple of decades of vegetarian/vegan propaganda was all it took to have "people like you" crying into your cornflakes.

Aren't you the macho man. What has gone on in the past bears no resemblance to the cruel factory farming that goes on today.

[IC1967]

Nature is about balance, and as long as I'm leaving my little part of the world in a much better state than I found it, I can look at myself in the mirror just fine.

At last something we can agree on. Nature is about balance. Unfortunately it is people like you that have totally unbalanced nature and are responsible for leaving the world in a much worse state than you found it.

[IC1967]

Go ahead and condemn me from your ivory tower.

You are suitably condemned. I just wish there was a God, as I'm sure there is no way he would let the likes of you into heaven.

[IC1967]

You tell him how to counter arguments and get taken seriously.

As the unrivaled expert in this department, he would do well do read some of my previous posts to see how it should be done.

[IC1967]

There's too many humans on Earth. Would you be happy if a bear came and slaughtered your family...you know...because killing a few is prerable to wide spread starvation and disease?

I disagree. As usual I will furnish you with the facts that back me up.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/22/no-population-explosion-too-few-owning-too-much

Also the last time I checked, there were no bears on the loose in Doncaster. Bears tend to live in the wild and only in certain countries. I would not be daft enough to live near a bear population. Those that do must accept the risks and the consequences.

[Filo]

There's too many humans on Earth. Would you be happy if a bear came and slaughtered your family...you know...because killing a few is prerable to wide spread starvation and disease?

I disagree. As usual I will furnish you with the facts that back me up.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/22/no-population-explosion-too-few-owning-too-much

Also the last time I checked, there were no bears on the loose in Doncaster. Bears tend to live in the wild and only in certain countries. I would not be daft enough to live near a bear population. Those that do must accept the risks and the consequences.

I'm still interested to know where this affluent area of Doncaster is

[RedJ]

Probably one of them houses next to the like in Costa del Bessacarr.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You tell him how to counter arguments and get taken seriously.

As the unrivaled expert in this department, he would do well do read some of my previous posts to see how it should be done.

Oh you DO answer posts from me Mick. I'm so glad. When you ignored those posts yesterday asking for a straight answer to a simple question, I thought I'd upset you or something.

So. You going to answer yesterday's question then?

[IC1967]

I refer you to my previous answer about going off topic. Thanking you in anticipation for your cooperation.

[wilts rover]

There's too many humans on Earth. Would you be happy if a bear came and slaughtered your family...you know...because killing a few is prerable to wide spread starvation and disease?

I disagree. As usual I will furnish you with the facts that back me up.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/22/no-population-explosion-too-few-owning-too-much

Also the last time I checked, there were no bears on the loose in Doncaster. Bears tend to live in the wild and only in certain countries. I would not be daft enough to live near a bear population. Those that do must accept the risks and the consequences.

But there used to be bears in Doncaster, and wolves, until they were hunted to extinction beacuse they were a threat to life and domestic livestock. Are you saying they should be reintroduced and left to roam free?

[BillyStubbsTears]

But Mick. The original question was very much ON topic. Yet you ignored it several times. Very, very disappointing behaviour for one who prides himself on answering direct questions.

And so odd for a betting man, that you should make a bold prediction yet resile from it when challenged to make a wager.

Since you clearly DON'T intend to take the bet, one assumes that you don't and didn't believe the guff you wrote at the time.

Eh Mick? Yes or no will do. In this thread or any other one.

[BigColSutherland]

There's too many humans on Earth. Would you be happy if a bear came and slaughtered your family...you know...because killing a few is prerable to wide spread starvation and disease?

I disagree. As usual I will furnish you with the facts that back me up.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/22/no-population-explosion-too-few-owning-too-much

Also the last time I checked, there were no bears on the loose in Doncaster. Bears tend to live in the wild and only in certain countries. I would not be daft enough to live near a bear population. Those that do must accept the risks and the consequences.

Mick, this wasn't a question for you. There are no bears in Doncaster. Therefore, I don't know why you thought it was aimed at you.

Oh and same paper different angle: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/26/earth-population-consumption-disasters

[Filo]

Probably one of them houses next to the like in Costa del Bessacarr.

Nope, it's not there is it Mick?

[Orlandokarla]

There's too many humans on Earth. Would you be happy if a bear came and slaughtered your family...you know...because killing a few is prerable to wide spread starvation and disease?

No, silly, what we do is provide education and birth control.

Since that's not really an option for animals, you could always ask PETA to set up and fund a spay and neutering program for tens of thousands of deer every year. Good luck with that.

If you really insist in relating this to humans, following your/their logic, we should simply do nothing, let the human population spiral out of control, and when there are untold millions starving and dying of disease, simply sit back and let nature take its' course. It'll sort itself out eventually, right?

And I'M the one accused of lacking empathy?

[Orlandokarla]

I failed to mention that I train and ride these horses on occasion. I even enjoy it, much to the disdain of PETA, I'm sure. Am I now beyond redemption?

 

Yes you are beyond redemption. The only reason you 'rescue' horses is so you can gain some pleasure at their expense. Why do they need rescuing in the first place? No doubt because some cruel human has disposed of them.

And PETA members don't have pets? Do me a favour! 

You really don't think things through, do you?
Nobody needs 7 horses, whether they ride any of them or not. I save the poor buggers, nurse them back to health, and find them homes. I don't have unlimited time, resources and space, so I can't keep them all. If I'm to rescue more, I need to move them on. Training them, especially after having been abused, is difficult and time consuming, but is necessary to make them safe around humans, so that I can find them homes. Horses require regular interactions with humans for their own sake (farrier, vet etc), and an undisciplined horse is incredibly dangerous. It's for their own good. Most people have absolutely no interest in a $200 a month pasture ornament. Making them safe to ride gives them the best chance of finding a loving home. I'll just have to live with the fact that the pleasure I derive from doing this bothers you.

Most horses that I come across need to be rescued because their owners can't keep them any longer. People lose their jobs or even their homes and simply can't afford to keep them. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.

[Orlandokarla]

When you figure out what animals (and humans, for that matter) ARE on this earth for... you know... the meaning of life and all that, be sure to let me know. The Bible states that God gave us dominion over the animals, but I don't take you for the religious sort.

I suspected you were a religious nut job. I am a devout atheist and proud of it. I've got news for you. Humans are also animals. You trot out the usual rubbish from the fairy story that is the Bible. Even if the Bible was a factual document having dominion over the 'animals' does not mean treating them cruelly. I suspect you also believe in Adam and Eve and that God made the world in 7 days. No wonder the way you think is so out of touch with how it should be.

  There you go, making assumptions again. You really could hang yourself with a tassel, couldn't you?
You were the one to infer that you had the meaning of life all figured out. I merely offered an explanation which may work for you, depending upon your belief system.

You really don't need to tell anybody you're a devout atheist, it's obvious. The clues are all there in the attitude. You enjoy talking down to people far too much, and genuinely believe that if only they were as knowledgeable as you are, they'd see everything as you do. I don't doubt you also begrudge anybody whatever small amount of comfort they derive from their faith, and take great pleasure in explaining to them just how stupid they are for not knowing the "truth" as you see it.

You scoff, snort and smirk a lot too, I can tell. I bet you're great fun at parties.

I'm a good, solid, law-abiding citizen. I treat everyone I meet with kindness and respect, because it's the right thing to do, not out of fear of some sort of divine being.
We are indeed animals too, and the acceptance of that fact is one of the main reasons most see nothing wrong with taking our earned placed at the top of the food chain. When a lion eats a zebra, is it cruel? Of course not.
FYI, I'm pretty sure the term "sacrificial lamb" is biblical.

[Orlandokarla]

I currently have 7 horses, and I've found good homes for many more. Every one of them saved from a trip to the slaughterhouse, with the exception of my latest project, a rescue who was perhaps a week away from starving to death. A 1200lb Brabant, ($2000+ in vet bills and counting), who I'm estimating is a good 1100lbs underweight. Don't tell me I lack empathy for animals, when unlike many bleeding-heart animal 'lovers', I put my time, effort and money where my mouth is, 7 days a week.

Like I said earlier. You only do what you do for horses because you gain pleasure from riding them. No doubt when they are old you send them to the slaughterhouse.

Again, I rescue them, they cost me a small fortune, and I send them to a new home, free of charge. That's a lot of work for somebody who just wants to ride a horse.
I saved them from going to the glue factory, so why would I send them there? I do have a sick, unbroken old horse that I have never ridden, but since they are unfit for adoption, I can't take in many such horses. I'd rather rescue a new horse every few months and help as many as possible, than run a hospice for a handful of horses.

Do you have a pet? Let me guess, a big fat cat that you stroke while you post on here, like a super-villain from James Bond?

[Orlandokarla]

I view animals in the food chain, in the same way the vast majority of the world currently does, always has, and likely always will. I know you're a big fan of learning from movies, so watch "The Lion King," and the complexities of the "Circle of Life" will be wonderfully explained to you through song.
You'll thank me after.

Just because most of the rest of the world views animals as part of the food chain doesn't make it right. There was a time when most of the world thought slavery was OK.

Perhaps, but when everybody around you disagrees with you, a wise man would at least acknowledge that there may be an perfectly valid, alternative point of view.

You still haven't watched "The Lion King" yet, have you? It expains it to you in simple terms you can understand.

[Orlandokarla]

In regards to hunting, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you're talking about. Do yourself a favour and get help regarding your Bambi-related childhood trauma. Your ignorance, as demonstrated, is astounding. The biggest threat to deer is overpopulation. Whether you like it or not, in many places, hunting is a necessity. Shooting a small minority is preferable to wide spread starvation and disease.
The problem is that there are not sufficient predators to keep their population under control, because humans don't hunt them in sufficient numbers anymore. PETA's answer? Let 'em die. Yep, just let them all die. As long as no human benefits from their deaths, and thus doesn't compromise their mission statement, they don't give a crap. No thought, care or consideration is given to the disastrous ecological consequences that would inevitably follow, just so they can feel good about sticking to their lofty principles.

There is no need for hunting. Anyone who thinks its OK is a barbarian. Overpopulation is a problem  because humans have decided to steal animals habitats. In America you have no excuse for doing this as there is so much land available. But of course humans do as they please and let the animals suffer the consequences. So what solution do the humans come up with? Kill them. Great.

And you accuse ME of not countering a point?
"Well.... Well... Hunting is still wrong," is not a counterpoint. Dodging the question again. You offer neither a solution of your own, nor do you even bother to defend PETA's illogical rambling. All you do is point out the imperfection of the current policy.
It's OK to be an idealist, but sometimes all you can do is to pick the best of the options available to you.

Overpopulation occurs in the US due to a lack of predators, not diminishing habitat.
Humans have a role to play as predators. Even the bloody Native Americans understood this. Bears, wolves, panthers, mountain lions etc are protected and are being nurtured, but there are simply not enough of them yet.

By completely refusing to address any points regarding PETA's absurd stance on simply letting them all die, I'll take it that some degree of logic may have actually sunk in.

"What solution do the humans come up with? Kill them. Great."
Well those with any degree of common sense and foresight agree that killing a few is preferable to mass starvation and disease.
It's an imperfect solution for an imperfect world, but a much more humane option than the extremists suggest. YOUR humans are willing to cause an ecological disaster, as long as they can still cling to their principles. It's pathetic, wilfully ignorant and cowardly.