American Dentist Murders then Decapitates a Popular Rare & defenseless Lion

[Frood]

Spec has a problem with his own anatomy. His stomach says "Oh yeah, meat on the barbecue", but his instinct says "Oh No, that's for meat collecting personnel. I'm far too humane to be meat collecting personnel! I was a cop and I collected cash meat from my unsuspecting and free roving prey, but that's fine, cuz they're domesticated and they know the cattle prod, taser, or bullet could come at any time. Free animals don't understand that so it's wrong to apply human on human butchery to animals with still valid survival instincts."  ac_toofunny

[RW]

That does bother me about the hunting debate.  It's so wrong to kill animals for meat if you have to hunt for them but it's okay to slaughter defenceless animals by the gazillion in the name of mass food production.  We are so unhealthy as a society because of such easy access to beef and the like but if you get off your lazy ass and kill a deer to eat, Spectre will call you a scourge on humanity.

[J0E]

I look at the slaughter of lions less of a humanitarian issue, than a cold, scientific view of it.

Just do the numbers. From a mathematical perspective, supply and demand, it is no longer viable.



Lions aren't exactly cuddly creatures. They take down thousands of weaker ones every year.

They kill livestock and sometimes people.



However, their numbers are going down and if organizations and countries don't intervene, this species will eventually disappear.

That's why trophy hunting of lions and every other kind of endangered species should be banned, just to preserve them.

If there were millions of lions and fewer people killing them, then hunting them for sport wouldn't be an issue, like it is - for example -  moose.



But when their existence is in peril, then obviously we have to step up to the plate and say - enough is enough. no more.

There are just aren't enough lions left for the growing number of hunters who want to kill them.

[Frood]

I look at the slaughter of lions less of a humanitarian issue, than a cold, scientific view of it.

Just do the numbers. From a mathematical perspective, supply and demand, it is no longer viable.



Lions aren't exactly cuddly creatures. They take down thousands of weaker ones every year.

They kill livestock and sometimes people.



However, their numbers are going down and if organizations and countries don't intervene, this species will eventually disappear.

That's why trophy hunting of lions and every other kind of endangered species should be banned, just to preserve them.

If there were millions of lions and fewer people killing them, then hunting them for sport wouldn't be an issue, like it is - for example -  moose.



But when their existence is in peril, then obviously we have to step up to the plate and say - enough is enough. no more.

There are just aren't enough lions left for the growing number of hunters who want to kill them.

I put to motion a "ban" on you Frank. Anyone who suggests banning, by default, must be banned because they initially invoked the ban hammer. It's in the State worshiping bylaws. Have a look yourself.

[J0E]

I look at the slaughter of lions less of a humanitarian issue, than a cold, scientific view of it.

Just do the numbers. From a mathematical perspective, supply and demand, it is no longer viable.



Lions aren't exactly cuddly creatures. They take down thousands of weaker ones every year.

They kill livestock and sometimes people.



However, their numbers are going down and if organizations and countries don't intervene, this species will eventually disappear.

That's why trophy hunting of lions and every other kind of endangered species should be banned, just to preserve them.

If there were millions of lions and fewer people killing them, then hunting them for sport wouldn't be an issue, like it is - for example -  moose.



But when their existence is in peril, then obviously we have to step up to the plate and say - enough is enough. no more.

There are just aren't enough lions left for the growing number of hunters who want to kill them.

I put to motion a "ban" on you Frank. Anyone who suggests banning, by default, must be banned because they initially invoked the ban hammer. It's in the State worshiping bylaws. Have a look yourself.

You're kidding, right?  :001_rolleyes:

[Frood]

Not at all. When I see someone propose banning something, I envision wrapping my hands around their necks and banning their breathing function.

[J0E]

Not at all. When I see someone propose banning something, I envision wrapping my hands around their necks and banning their breathing function.

...you want to ban someone because it offends your sensibilties even though it doesn't contravene the forum guidelines?



I call that stifling of free speech.



Your argument/motion needs a more solid foundation than that in order to be taken seriously.

[Frood]

Not at all. When I see someone propose banning something, I envision wrapping my hands around their necks and banning their breathing function.

...you want to ban someone because it offends your sensibilties even though it doesn't contravene the forum guidelines?



I call that stifling of free speech.



Your argument/motion needs a more solid foundation than that in order to be taken seriously.

I wasn't talking about the forum.

[cc]

the gay baths?



Sorry Joe. Could not resist

[RW]

Hahaha

[Bricktop]

That does bother me about the hunting debate.  It's so wrong to kill animals for meat if you have to hunt for them but it's okay to slaughter defenceless animals by the gazillion in the name of mass food production.  We are so unhealthy as a society because of such easy access to beef and the like but if you get off your lazy ass and kill a deer to eat, Spectre will call you a scourge on humanity.

Apparently, you and your Australian klingon have lost the ability to read.



I said, quite clearly, that I have no issue with sustenance based hunting, as long as that is its primary purpose.



That excludes "I'm going to go hunting a kill a moose because it makes my dick hard, but then I'll put it in the freezer to assuage any feelings of guilt".



That also excludes killing animals that are not edible. This category would include lions, giraffes, rhinoceros', elephants and goldfish. It does not exclude humans.



In most modern nations, sustenance meat is freely available. I note the diabolical conditions that it is often raised in, but that is a separate issue and does not justify open slaughter on wild animals. If you want a steak, got to the butcher.



If you prefer to go into the wilderness and kill a defenceless animal for your "meat", it still makes a substantial comment on your psychology. You enjoy killing. Is that the sign of a civilised and progressive society?

[RW]

The last paragraph proved my point.  



Those animals out in the bush have not had their defences bred out of them like cows, or were you not aware of that?

[Bricktop]

The last paragraph proved my point.  



Those animals out in the bush have not had their defences bred out of them like cows, or were you not aware of that?

Is there a point you're making?

[Frood]

The last paragraph proved my point.  



Those animals out in the bush have not had their defences bred out of them like cows, or were you not aware of that?

Some humans have been so domesticated that they can't fathom the concept of acquiring their own meat and therefore make up excuses to undermine those who still have some or all of their basic instincts intact.

[Anonymous]

An animal, albeit a beautiful one was wasted. Meanwhile in Syria, homos are being thrown off of buildings to their death and young kids are being trained to behead people while they are handcuffed. Get the fuck over it people. It's not a big deal.