You Fat B*******

[Orlandokarla]

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.

 
Nobody is encroaching on their habitat. 
National Parks are not being bulldozed to make way for malls and housing developments, and yet the problem persists.
There's nothing wrong with their habitat. If there habitat was an issue, there wouldn't be so bloody many of them!
Once again, lack of sufficient predators is the problem.

[Orlandokarla]

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.

Arguing semantics? Really? 
(edited for relevance).
Natural :- Existing in nature and not made or caused by people.
: usual or expected.

[Orlandokarla]

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.

Is it the lack of meat that makes vegans so emotional? Animals don't sit around contemplating the meaning of the universe. Give them plenty of space, shelter, companionship, and ensure they get enough to eat and they're perfectly content.

Everything dies eventually, and I guarantee a swifter and more humane death than any animal experiences in the wild. If eating meat is cruel, then nature is cruel, and animals making use of the resources around them is the norm. As much as you claim to accept our status as animals, you seem to think that we are somehow apart and exempt from that simple fact. You accept that if a bear eats a goat, it's merely hungry, yet if a man eats a chicken, he's a monster?
It makes no logical sense.

[Orlandokarla]

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.

Are you kidding me? It has to be obvious to everybody but you, that I am perfectly comfortable with what I do. I'm starting to think you're copying and pasting your comments from somewhere, because much of it is irrelevant.

They are not only extremists, but hypocrites. PETA disciples love their pets, yet keeping animals in captivity purely for your own amusement is wrong, right?

Extremists refuse to compromise. They lack respect and tolerance for other people and their point of view. Just like you.
I don't care if you eat meat or not, wear leather or not, buy cheese made from bean curds... I really don't give a shit. Extremists, like you, want to force your ideals down people's throats, and dictate to the vast majority of society. And then you wonder why people are turned off by hearing the very name "PETA".

You asked me a question, I answered it. I even explained my reasoning, and yet you still insist that I am not entitled to my own opinion/perspective, based on my own experience.
I don't own a dairy farm, and the few I've been to were small, local businesses. They were nothing like PETA would have you believe they all are. I'm not going to form an opinion of a whole industry based upon the claims made by a political group with a clear anti-farming agenda. That would be stupid and ignorant, woudn't it?
You gave one example, from a less than neutral source. I replied that wasn't typical of my experience. I honestly don't know what more you expect. Did you want an honest answer, or just an argument?

[Orlandokarla]

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.

Make your mind up. Is it all evil, or just the big, modern commercial farms?
My farm bears absolutely no resemblance to a factory farm.

[Orlandokarla]

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.

Unbalanced nature? People like me? Are you typing with your elbows, and this is what auto-correct is putting together?
I do plenty to aid conservation in my region, and my carbon footprint doubles every time one of my cows fart.

You're clutching at straws.

Sorry bud, but eating tofu and wearing pleather doesn't make you exempt from mankind's collective responsibility for trashing the environment.
People like me? Pfft. Unlike most, I actually give a crap, and more importantly, I act on my convictions.
All you do is spout PETA ideals and propaganda from behind the parapet. A proper armchair activist.

[Orlandokarla]

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.

How do you keep a straight face as you type this crap? I refuse to believe you're not a persona.

Do you have a son who is obsessed with Billy Kee?

[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?

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?

Bears are fascinating animals. They pass through my property several times a day, with no issues. The dog's not a fan, but they maintain a respectful distance.
They're no threat to us, and with a little knowledge and common sense, it's not hard to live alongside them. Coyotes, like wolves, are no real threat to people either. It's ignorance and lazy/greedy livestock owners that are responsible for their eradication from many parts of the world.
Now the polar bears and wolf/dog hybrids up in Alaska, they're creatures to be feared.

As for re-introduction, it has been done over here with success.

[BigColSutherland]

Part of me thinks this might be a new tack from Mick. Is he both Orlandokarla and IC1967?

[IC1967]

You have posted so much drivel that I'd be here all week pointing out how ridiculous your point of view is so I'll just take your argument apart bit by bit as and when I get the chance.

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

Yes they do have pets but would have preferred it if pet keeping had never been introduced. You need to read the following article to get up to date with PETA's point of view before making such a ridiculous statement.

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

Back to milk production. You still haven't offered up a reasonable explanation as to why this barbaric practice is OK. I'm waiting.

[RedJ]

You have posted so much drivel.

The irony.

[IC1967]

Nobody is encroaching on their habitat.
National Parks are not being bulldozed to make way for malls and housing developments, and yet the problem persists.
There's nothing wrong with their habitat. If there habitat was an issue, there wouldn't be so bloody many of them!
Once again, lack of sufficient predators is the problem.

Have you ever thought why there are National Parks? They were formed to give animals somewhere to live free of human encroachment. The encroachment I'm talking about happened before the National parks were formed. Lack of sufficient predators has been caused by human interference in animal's habitats. This has happened because people like you feel you have dominion over all the other animals on the planet because you have twisted what the fairy story that is the Bible says to suit your own selfish agenda.

[Orlandokarla]

Part of me thinks this might be a new tack from Mick. Is he both Orlandokarla and IC1967?

You caught me!
IC1967 is just a wacky persona I use to amuse BST.

[BigColSutherland]

Less that.

More Orlandokarla is a wacky persona you use to amuse MadMick.

[Orlandokarla]

Part of me thinks this might be a new tack from Mick. Is he both Orlandokarla and IC1967?

I had honestly wondered the same about you.

[Orlandokarla]

Less that.

More Orlandokarla is a wacky persona you use to amuse MadMick.

Oh yeah, I eat meat and see nothing wrong with it... I'm such a radical! 

[Orlandokarla]

You have posted so much drivel that I'd be here all week pointing out how ridiculous your point of view is so I'll just take your argument apart bit by bit as and when I get the chance.

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

Yes they do have pets but would have preferred it if pet keeping had never been introduced. You need to read the following article to get up to date with PETA's point of view before making such a ridiculous statement.

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

Back to milk production. You still haven't offered up a reasonable explanation as to why this barbaric practice is OK. I'm waiting.

Not quite true Mick, you'll spend a week finding articles to make your arguments for you.

I had already read that hypocritical nonsense. Have you honestly read it, objectively?

PETA wish that nobody had pets, yet they perpetuate the practice themselves. How convenient; the extremist animal lovers get to keep animals AND still claim the moral high-ground whilst doing so. 

I've directly answered you regarding milk production TWICE.

[Orlandokarla]

Nobody is encroaching on their habitat.
National Parks are not being bulldozed to make way for malls and housing developments, and yet the problem persists.
There's nothing wrong with their habitat. If there habitat was an issue, there wouldn't be so bloody many of them!
Once again, lack of sufficient predators is the problem.

Have you ever thought why there are National Parks? They were formed to give animals somewhere to live free of human encroachment. The encroachment I'm talking about happened before the National parks were formed. Lack of sufficient predators has been caused by human interference in animal's habitats. This has happened because people like you feel you have dominion over all the other animals on the planet because you have twisted what the fairy story that is the Bible says to suit your own selfish agenda.

If memory serves, they were set aside, what, 150 years ago? That's plenty of time for nature to find balance if it was ever going to happen without intervention.

I see you're falling back on PETA's rhetoric of blaming everything on everybody else. "People like you," blah, blah, blah.

The problem is lack of predators, and hunting is the best option until sufficient populations can be reintroduced. Of course, PETA are against predator reintroduction. (More predators = more cute and furries getting eaten). It's not a perfect solution either, but it's the only possible long term solution, and even you must admit it's preferable to hunting?

The bible's not my book, I'm afraid, so you can lay off with the religious trolling. It's tacky, and unnecessary.
Also, I think you'll find that hunting and animal husbandry predates the bible.

[IC1967]

I've directly answered you regarding milk production TWICE.

You most certainly haven't. You've totally skirted around the issue. I'll make it simple for you. Do you feel the way that milk is produced for the mass market is acceptable or barbaric? 

[IC1967]

PETA wish that nobody had pets, yet they perpetuate the practice themselves. How convenient; the extremist animal lovers get to keep animals AND still claim the moral high-ground whilst doing so.

PETA are realists, unlike you. They deal with the situation as it is now, not how they wish it was. It is far more preferable for someone who supports PETA to look after a pet than a cruel person like you who views animals as part of your dominion and only fit for food.

[IC1967]

If memory serves, they were set aside, what, 150 years ago? That's plenty of time for nature to find balance if it was ever going to happen without intervention.

150 years is nothing in the great scheme of things.

[Filo]

I've directly answered you regarding milk production TWICE.

 You've totally skirted around the issue.

This affluent area Mick?

Not like you to ignore or skirt round the issue is it?

[IC1967]

The problem is lack of predators, and hunting is the best option until sufficient populations can be reintroduced. Of course, PETA are against predator reintroduction. (More predators = more cute and furries getting eaten). It's not a perfect solution either, but it's the only possible long term solution, and even you must admit it's preferable to hunting?

You really are clueless. Reintroducing predators is not the solution, neither is hunting. There is a reason why reintroducing predators is not the solution. Let me explain.

Animals can very often escape artificial boundaries and become a “nuisance,” leading to their being poisoned, hit by cars, or shot. In failed attempts to escape, they might become entangled in barbed wire or be shocked by electric fences. Upon introduction to their new homes, their prey scatter, and their lives and behavior patterns are turned upside-down.

Wolves, bears, lynxes, and boars deserve to lead free, natural lives. Reintroduction programs subject wild animals to capturing and handling, which is always very stressful for them and may eventually put them in the line of fire of farmers who are already angry about predator-reintroduction programs.

To capture and transport wolves and other predators to a new area, the animals must first be tranquilized. When they recover from the anesthesia, they are released into unfamiliar terrain. This unnatural process causes a great deal of stress to animals and threatens their physical health and well-being.

Wolves are social animals who live in tightly knit packs. It is nearly impossible to capture and relocate an entire pack, so relocation almost always breaks up a tightly bonded extended family, likely causing loneliness, pining, separation anxiety, depression, and grieving.

Relocated animals often have difficulty determining where they can find food and shelter. Some of the wolves who were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park have left their new packs because it is difficult to adapt to the new area and function in their contrived “family” units.

Reintroducing wolves and other predators into an environment that has been free of such animals for a long time is also traumatic for the animals who already live there, such as deer, birds, and any other animals who suddenly find themselves being stalked and attacked.

While supporters of predator-reintroduction programs believe in the concept of restoring the “balance of nature,” it’s not possible to artificially impose this balance. Ecosystems are in a constant state of change, which has been sped up by human expansion and technological advances.

Our species has wiped out predator populations in many areas of the world but must also realize that the system has evolved and recovered to its current state. Rather than attempting to return wilderness areas to some semblance of an undefined previous state and manipulating populations of animals, we need to focus our efforts on alleviating the suffering and promoting the well-being of those who are there now.

Many articles and news reports about the wolf-reintroduction program in the U.S. focus on people’s interests—the idea that the absence of wolves makes us miss out on a majestic part of nature. Such reports romanticize hearing “the cry of wolves” one day again in Yellowstone but do not consider the extensive suffering that could be expressed in these cries.

http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/predator-reintroduction-programs/

[IC1967]

The bible's not my book, I'm afraid, so you can lay off with the religious trolling. It's tacky, and unnecessary.

You're the one that brought the Bible into the argument to try and back up your case. Only one in five Americans think the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man." One in three think everything in it should be accepted literally. I suspect you are not in the one in five category and are far more likely to be in the 'literal' camp from what you've been saying.

It is a great worry to me that the most powerful nation on Earth is inhabited by so many stupid people.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

[Draytonian III]

Bigerty Bigerty Boring Kitson

[Orlandokarla]

I've directly answered you regarding milk production TWICE.

You most certainly haven't. You've totally skirted around the issue. I'll make it simple for you. Do you feel the way that milk is produced for the mass market is acceptable or barbaric?

I most certainly have answered the question.

I gave you an answer, an honest answer, but apparently it's not the answer you wanted. I'd have to know a lot more about it before I'd start waving a placard. I do know enough to know that PETA's example is not typical, and that I'm not naive enough to trust a single source for my information, especially if the source in question is dedicated to the abolition of the industry!
For the record, I'd be perfectly happy with tighter regulations governing the welfare of animals in agriculture. In my experience, most FAR exceed industry standards and regulations willingly, but it would be great if the minority were held to that higher standard. There will always be those that cut corners, in any industry, and they should be suitably punished for it, and not held up as 'typical' of the industry by extremists.

You offered PETA's perspective of dairy faming, and asked me to formulate an opinion of an industry based upon that. Even IF that was accurate and typical, they're still damning an entire industry based upon the methods employed by some. That's akin to condemning coal mining because some companies blow the tops off mountains in Kentucky.
You'll ask me for my opinion regarding animal testing after posting a link to the ALF next.

You've dodged the vast majority of points that I've made, or answered them either with sniping, trolling remarks, or page-long, emotionally charged drivel cut/pasted from PETA's website.

Is the sum of your knowledge and life experience contained within the PETA website?

[Orlandokarla]

PETA wish that nobody had pets, yet they perpetuate the practice themselves. How convenient; the extremist animal lovers get to keep animals AND still claim the moral high-ground whilst doing so.

PETA are realists, unlike you. They deal with the situation as it is now, not how they wish it was. It is far more preferable for someone who supports PETA to look after a pet than a cruel person like you who views animals as part of your dominion and only fit for food.

The law states that I own my animals. Just as you own your pets. Somebody has to be held accountable for their care, well-being and behaviour. What would stop somebody taking your cat, if you didn't own it? Who would be prosecuted if an animal was not being fed? Animal ownership is a practical necessity for liability reasons.

Only fit for food? 'Cruel people' like me eat our pets now? Clutching. At. Straws.

Keeping cats indoors, cats on leashes (WTF?). Mental. Their arguments are based upon emotion rather than logic. They talk about how cruel it is that animals are stuck in homes, and only eat, drink and urinate when/where they are told to by their owners, and then go on to say that letting a cat wander free is cruel because something might happen to it! Disease is taken care of by a responsible owner, and if anything, not letting your cat outside because bad things *can* happen is cruel and selfish.
You'd think it was written by a tween girl ffs.

PETA are only remotely realistic when it suits their current argument.

You don't think it's hypocritical that PETA euthanize thousands of dogs and cats every year to control population, but condemn the idea of humans or reintroduced predators doing it in the wild?

They want their pets and also to take the moral high-ground at the same time. What's the difference between a PETA "animal rescuer" and a "selfish" pet owner? The reason you tell yourself you keep animals, perhaps? Whether or not you're honest with yourself and acknowledge the fact that you love animals and simply want to keep one in your home? Do you have a pet? Is it free to wander over acres of pasture and forest, or is it locked in a house the majority of the day, and only taken outside to relieve itself or walk on a leash?

One of PETA's biggest failings is that they see everything human-animal related as being "wrong," or humans just taking advantage of or "using" animals. They fail to acknowledge that just as happens in nature between animals, humans and animals can have a symbiotic relationship. A "barn cat" keeps rodent populations under control, and has food/shelter/medical care etc, for doing no more than living free and following natural instincts.
Dogs can be valuable guards for livestock and property, doing what comes naturally, again in return for food/shelter/medical care etc.

[Orlandokarla]

If memory serves, they were set aside, what, 150 years ago? That's plenty of time for nature to find balance if it was ever going to happen without intervention.

150 years is nothing in the great scheme of things.

Course it isn't, but it's plenty of time to observe animal populations, and draw valid conclusions.

Just how long should we wait before trying to do something positive?

[Orlandokarla]

The problem is lack of predators, and hunting is the best option until sufficient populations can be reintroduced. Of course, PETA are against predator reintroduction. (More predators = more cute and furries getting eaten). It's not a perfect solution either, but it's the only possible long term solution, and even you must admit it's preferable to hunting?

You really are clueless. Reintroducing predators is not the solution, neither is hunting. There is a reason why reintroducing predators is not the solution. Let me explain.

http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/predator-reintroduction-programs/

Oh the irony!

You didn't explain anything; you copied and pasted more of PETA's drivel.
Do you have an original thought of your own?

It's all emotional nonsense as per usual. Typical of PETA. Blame all of human kind (except themselves) for destroying nature, but won't let anybody try to fix it in a logical manner.
We shouldn't try to reintroduce predators to areas they once dwelt in large numbers, because some of the animals already living there might be traumatised? Chuff me. They'll get eaten; that's half the point! Population control, natural balance. The incoming predators might get stressed out? Perhaps at first, until they realise what a target-rich environment they are now in. Then they will thrive.

If PETA were realistic, they would be more concerned with achieving a natural balance, even if (in the short-term) it upsets a few predators, and leads to a few more prey animals being eaten by their natural predators. A few years down the line, the problem is solved.

[Orlandokarla]

The bible's not my book, I'm afraid, so you can lay off with the religious trolling. It's tacky, and unnecessary.

You're the one that brought the Bible into the argument to try and back up your case. Only one in five Americans think the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man." One in three think everything in it should be accepted literally. I suspect you are not in the one in five category and are far more likely to be in the 'literal' camp from what you've been saying.

It is a great worry to me that the most powerful nation on Earth is inhabited by so many stupid people.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Did you even read your own quote?

I put forward the comment on the bible as a suggestion as to why some people feel the way they do about animals. I clearly stated that - "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."

For the last time, I do not read the bible, nor believe everything in it, literally or otherwise. I'm not American either, so again, refrain from the irrelevant, needless trolling.

It makes you look even sillier than your PETA's opinions already do.