Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Redbeard wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The lions and tigers are being killed principally for their fur/pelts, which is also an abomination. Why the hell do people now require these animal skins when perfectly adequate/superior synthetics exist?

Perfectly adequate according to who? You? Why do you feel justified in forcing your moral code on others? Talk about arrogance.

Both operations should be made illegal.

Oh look, it's a true-believer in the nanny-state. Tell everyone what they can and cannot do all the time. Peer at them through your cameras and make sure that they're not doing anything you personally disagree with.

Talk about the arrogance of individuals who believe themselves beyond the responsibilities to the society in which they dwell and the world upon which they exist.

You don't like that, get a ticket to the moon and be as free as you want.

Telling people what's right and wrong? Yep, unless you weren't living in a morally Judeo-Christian society for however many years you've been on this planet, that's part of your life. Society tells you what's right and wrong, other people all hold beliefs about that as well according to their moral code and individual perspective, again, if you don't like the idea of someone else disapproving of your lifestyle, the moon, Antarctica and the bottom of the oceanic floor are all options you may wish to consider. Otherwise brace yourself for me thinking fairly unpleasant things about you choosing to eat an animal that is listed as threatened by international convention.

So my question is are all the people against eating lions because they are wild animals against eating pheasant, deer, or any other "game" type animal? Personally I love deer meat, can't get enough. I would like to try lion meat to see if its good. If it tastes bad I wont eat more. But it would have to be pure lion meat. If its mixed it's not the same.

Redbeard wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
How about you and i take a stroll into the woods with a knife each and I'll show you who's higher up the fething food chain instead of you buying pre-slaughtered carnivore and claiming it's your precious moral right...

Wow, that's about as close to a personal threat as I've ever seen here. Nice language too. You know, there are over 200,000 words in our language, and here you are relying on the same old profanity to express yourself. Rather pathetic. So, what makes you so certain that our trip to the woods with knives would end in you showing me anything?

Rubbish, that's not a personal threat.

You just claimed to be 'higher up the food chain' and with that comment I simply said 'I don't bloody think so'.

The idea you buy some dead animal from someone who chopped it up after they bought it from someone else who killed it with minimum risk to themselves makes you 'higher up the food chain' is total rot. You just bought some protean from a shop. That makes you a consumer, not Conan the Barbarian...

MeanGreenStompa wrote: Telling people what's right and wrong? Yep, unless you weren't living in a morally Judeo-Christian society for however many years you've been on this planet, that's part of your life. Society tells you what's right and wrong, other people all hold beliefs about that as well according to their moral code and individual perspective, again, if you don't like the idea of someone else disapproving of your lifestyle, the moon, Antarctica and the bottom of the oceanic floor are all options you may wish to consider. Otherwise brace yourself for me thinking fairly unpleasant things about you choosing to eat an animal that is listed as threatened by international convention.

These ladies do a better job of persuading.



Also funny, because of the ease which such logic can be flipped.

MGS wrote:Rubbish, that's not a personal threat.

The whole knife in the woods thing, was a bit odd, IMO.

You just claimed to be 'higher up the food chain' and with that comment I simply said 'I don't bloody think so'.

The idea you buy some dead animal from someone who chopped it up after they bought it from someone else who killed it with minimum risk to themselves makes you 'higher up the food chain' is total rot. You just bought some protean from a shop. That makes you a consumer, not Conan the Barbarian...

If a scorpion can kill a man with poison, they are cheating? Like I said, eating endangered species because they are endangered is perverted, IMO. Eating a threatened species, is not a crime as far as I know. I can understand why someone would be aggressive after being called a monster of sorts, but whatever.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Otherwise brace yourself for me thinking fairly unpleasant things about you choosing to eat an animal that is listed as threatened by international convention.

That's fine, you can think whatever you want about my dietary choices, and I'll think you're a self-righteous prat, and we can go our own ways. Are you a vegan or a hypocrite?

You just claimed to be 'higher up the food chain' and with that comment I simply said 'I don't bloody think so'.

Then not only do you not understand the concept of the food chain, but you're also backpedaling. Telling someone to go into the woods with you and a weapon so you can show them something is clearly a veiled threat.

Redbeard wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Otherwise brace yourself for me thinking fairly unpleasant things about you choosing to eat an animal that is listed as threatened by international convention.

That's fine, you can think whatever you want about my dietary choices, and I'll think you're a self-righteous prat, and we can go our own ways. Are you a vegan or a hypocrite?

I have hunted and fished all my life. I have killed and gutted and skinned animals and eaten them.

Again, since you have limited comprehension, I'll reiterate this, the lion is an animal under threat. It is, in my opinion, contemptible that people would be paying to obtain their skins and meat whilst that situation continues.
Further, that an apex predator requires a massive amount of meat it's self, in order to reach adulthood in captivity, meat provided by cattle that have themselves required massive amounts of farmland turned over to their creation in order to be fed to the other animal you're going to eat. It is wasteful on an epic scale and in a world so heavily overpopulated and subject to so much human suffering based on hunger, morally bankrupt.

Redbeard wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You just claimed to be 'higher up the food chain' and with that comment I simply said 'I don't bloody think so'.

Then not only do you not understand the concept of the food chain, but you're also backpedaling. Telling someone to go into the woods with you and a weapon so you can show them something is clearly a veiled threat.

Oh I understand the food chain perfectly well. Consuming a predator doesn't make you higher up the food chain from me, you would only be higher than me if you ate me, hence my comment. It is you that doesn't grasp the food chain. A Tiger Shark isn't higher up the food chain than a killer whale because it eats a moray eel, it is only higher if it eats killer whales...

Also, whilst I am certainly not able to make veiled threats according to the rules of Dakka, surely I would be permitted to do so in your Utopian land of Ultimate Personal Freedom yes?

Before this gets bogged down in opinion.



We as a species are at the top of the food chain, we no longer (as a species) live on the savanna. That presumes you agree that all humans developed initially, within one space, but moving along.

If Redbeard eats a lion, he is higher on the food chain. We are not talking about the margins, we are talking about results. Redbeard ate a Lion, and is in some way superior to a lion; as perverted that logic may be. I have eaten alligator before, and would eat it again. Both an alligator and a lion produce more than their skin, eating the byproducts (as they would be concerned in this context), is no less than being superior.

However you percieve ritual, it would be difficult to define this beyond a ritualistic practice. Cannibalism has connotations beyond the food chain, but eating a lion doesn't... I am not a freaking lion.

This is conceptual cannibalism.

Save the veggies.

Wrexasaur wrote:

If Redbeard eats a lion, he is higher on the food chain. We are not talking about the margins, we are talking about results. Redbeard ate a Lion, and is in some way superior to a lion; as perverted that logic may be. I have eaten alligator before, and would eat it again. Both an alligator and a lion produce more than their skin, eating the byproducts (as they would be concerned in this context), is no less than being superior.

He didn't hunt down and kill the lion, he ate the carrion from another human's kill.

That makes him a scavenger actually...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I have hunted and fished all my life. I have killed and gutted and skinned animals and eaten them.

With your knife, right?

Again, since you have limited comprehension, I'll reiterate this, the lion is an animal under threat. It is, in my opinion, contemptible that people would be paying to obtain their skins and meat whilst that situation continues.

It has nothing to do with limited comprehension, I simply don't agree with you. If it's legal, it's fair game. Are you lobbying your government to protect this species? Are you donating money to conservation societies? Or are you just preaching on the internet to make yourself look big.

Further, that an apex predator requires a massive amount of meat it's self, in order to reach adulthood in captivity, meat provided by cattle that have themselves required massive amounts of farmland turned over to their creation in order to be fed to the other animal you're going to eat. It is wasteful on an epic scale and in a world so heavily overpopulated and subject to so much human suffering based on hunger, morally bankrupt.

This argument can be made about eating any meat at all. You remind me of the joke about Churchill and the lady who would sleep with him for a million pounds but not for five. The land required to raise one cow could provide food for far more people if it were used for crops instead. Rabbits are a more ecologically sensible meat than cattle, they reproduce much faster, and age to maturity in significantly less time. But no, you claim to have hunted and killed animals yourself. There's not a lot of difference here - only scale. Your actions are also wasteful on our overpopulated planet, and as they say, perhaps you should not stand in a glass house as you throw stones.

I happen to believe that there will always be haves and have-nots, and that quality of life has just as much place as quantity of life. Part of quality of life is the ability to try new things. If you're willing to give up wasting valuable ecological resources, like eating beef or pork, then I'll be happy to cut back as well. But it seems to me that you're only interested in telling others how they should live their lives, rather than actually making a difference with your own sacrifices.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:

If Redbeard eats a lion, he is higher on the food chain. We are not talking about the margins, we are talking about results. Redbeard ate a Lion, and is in some way superior to a lion; as perverted that logic may be. I have eaten alligator before, and would eat it again. Both an alligator and a lion produce more than their skin, eating the byproducts (as they would be concerned in this context), is no less than being superior.

He didn't hunt down and kill the lion, he ate the carrion from another human's kill.

That makes him a scavenger actually...

Which is a reasonable definition, and leads me to question why you would invite a scavenger into the woods, for a knife fight.

Beyond that point, it doesn't matter, the vultures ate the carcass, and had the ability to not die from doing so. The vultures are superior to the carcass; the core of this train of thought. If you will note the term used for all level of carnivores, they are referred to as consumers. All stages are consumers, beyond that of the sun, which can be described as the only true provider in the solar system; depending on how you are using the phrase, 'self-sufficient'.

If virus kill you, they are superior in a way that you are inferior. Virus win, asteroid hits the planet, we all die. The asteroid and solar degradation are superior to us; of that there is no current question. If you make the word superior, a personal term to react to, it will be easy to counter your logic. Let Redbeard eat lion, and let me eat alligator, I really see no difference.

Since sloths are endangered simply because they are too lazy to reproduce enough is it ok to eat them? The species is already working itself that way. The endangered species act has had extrodinarily little effect on species survival. The majority of species on it died off anyway. Things die off, it's just the way things work. Eventually lions would be replaced with something else or develope into a different type of lion to survive as the world changes. Thats how things work. I will gladly take a stand and state that I will eat any species of animal (other than human) proudly. If you wan't to put in the rule that I have to kill it I'm all for it. I just get to use anything that humans have invented to accomplish the task. Just because a lion didn't figure out how to invent a gun doesn't mean I can't use one. I just can't use one so big it would destroy all the meat I'm trying to eat.

The way I see it: The grass grows, it's a producer. The cow eats the grass, making it a consumer. The next consumer is the farmer. All the other humans are scavengers. Personally, I have no problem being a scavenger, and would eat the lion if given the chance. It was going to be killed anyway, do bygones. The problem with our society, is that we are too smart. We allow for too many people to live to make ourselves environmentally safe, and leave no impact. Eventually, there will be a famine, and millions of us will die. It's a matter of waiting and eventually it will happen. I give us 100 years.

Redbeard wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I have hunted and fished all my life. I have killed and gutted and skinned animals and eaten them.

With your knife, right?

Again, since you have limited comprehension, I'll reiterate this, the lion is an animal under threat. It is, in my opinion, contemptible that people would be paying to obtain their skins and meat whilst that situation continues.

It has nothing to do with limited comprehension, I simply don't agree with you. If it's legal, it's fair game. Are you lobbying your government to protect this species? Are you donating money to conservation societies? Or are you just preaching on the internet to make yourself look big.

Further, that an apex predator requires a massive amount of meat it's self, in order to reach adulthood in captivity, meat provided by cattle that have themselves required massive amounts of farmland turned over to their creation in order to be fed to the other animal you're going to eat. It is wasteful on an epic scale and in a world so heavily overpopulated and subject to so much human suffering based on hunger, morally bankrupt.

This argument can be made about eating any meat at all. You remind me of the joke about Churchill and the lady who would sleep with him for a million pounds but not for five. The land required to raise one cow could provide food for far more people if it were used for crops instead. Rabbits are a more ecologically sensible meat than cattle, they reproduce much faster, and age to maturity in significantly less time. But no, you claim to have hunted and killed animals yourself. There's not a lot of difference here - only scale. Your actions are also wasteful on our overpopulated planet, and as they say, perhaps you should not stand in a glass house as you throw stones.

I happen to believe that there will always be haves and have-nots, and that quality of life has just as much place as quantity of life. Part of quality of life is the ability to try new things. If you're willing to give up wasting valuable ecological resources, like eating beef or pork, then I'll be happy to cut back as well. But it seems to me that you're only interested in telling others how they should live their lives, rather than actually making a difference with your own sacrifices.

1. Yes, with my knife. Have you ever tried gutting and skinning without one? I shot the rabbits and pigeons with a gun, caught the fish on a line.

2. I pay a monthly amount to WWF, WSPA and the Born Free Foundation, of them I have been supporting the WWF since I was a kid. I occasionally donate to Greenpeace. I am not a fan of PETA and it's continuing drift into extremism and ability to do more harm than good.

3. If cows are to be slaughtered to feed lions, they should be feeding lions being kept in excellent conditions as part of a breeding program to maintain the species as the wild population suffers a continued decline. Over the past 20 years, the African species has suffered a 50% decrease.

4. In the last 5 years I have reduced my intake of beef, pork and lamb to once or twice per month. I eat chicken or fish in about 4 meals per week and try to keep the rest veggie now. I am fortunate that both my dad and brother are chefs and I grew up in a household where eating new and different foods was encouraged, so I have a wide ranging palate. I do not eat cod and only eat sustainably caught tuna but love seafood in general.

On the opposite end of the spectrum I eat meat like 4 times a week, and will eat anything I can buy. I do eat lots of veggies though, with most meals. I also eat grains a lot (spaghetti, breads etc).

@MGS , while i understand what you are trying to say , i must agree with what redbeard said though because

1) its true that a naked men without tools probably cannot beat a lion , but while evolution
gave lion strength and sharp claws and fangs , it gave humans the ability to use tools. Aka , guns , knives.

2) Tools are tools , no exception. Redbeard chose to shoot a lion with a gun , you choose to use tools to catch your fish,
and i wont be caught dead hunting unless im in a tank ( thus i would never go hunting ) . But we are all the same , just varied degrees.

Though again , i do understand your point of view MGS , for example ,
i always hear hunters show off saying "OH I KILLED THIS AND THAT!!!11" but honestly we all know it was the gun.
Perhaps even a monkey can pull a trigger and kill something. Hence i find it funny sometimes to hear them show off.

Redbeard wrote:What's wrong with this? I live near Czimer's (the butcher's store where the meat came from), and I don't have any issue with it. It's not endangered, so what is worse about eating lion than eating cow?

Because we actually hunt the cats and tigers to capture them and eat them?

We breed cows specifically for food, you know why?

Once upon a time, a cow and a tiger were standing next to eachother. Then there was a caveman running at them with a stone weapon. The Tiger runs the feth away.

The cow, meanwhile, stood there and said "Moooooo!" and died.

So by extension of your own logic why rule out cannibalism?

The specious argument about food chains means that, as a gunless veggie, Fethin' Nora! I'm on the cowin' menu. EEEEK!

The "science" is just being thrown around to justify to your vapid excuses. Homo sapiens: the specific is from sapentia meaning wisdom. Not seeing a great deal of evidence of this. Because you eat some lion obtain from a dubious butcher you are top of the food chain? Good grief. The syphillis bacteria non nomimg your deluded brain must be top of the food chain according to your pointless argument; which also conveniently fails to mention the man-eating lions who get their human prey without needing high velocity rifles.

Your arguments are still nothing more than narrow minded macho posturing.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:So by extension of your own logic why rule out cannibalism?

The specious argument about food chains means that, as a gunless veggie, Fethin' Nora! I'm on the cowin' menu. EEEEK!

Soylent Green is my kind of people.

Poor little moo cows. If only they would have run off instead of grazing. Took a bit of reading MGS and Readbeards back and forth to develop a respect for MGS's stance. Since he does have legitimate standards as to what is ok to eat and what isn't. Assuming that as long as he didn't get on to people for eating an "exotic" animal that there are plenty of em in the wild. I don't agree with you since I don't care much for the future of the world (don't have or want kids), but I do respect your right to have a different view.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:So by extension of your own logic why rule out cannibalism?

I dunno, why don't we? Perhaps because we have, and this conversation covers lions, not people. In some situations we are not at the top of the food chain, but in most others, we as a species most definitely are.

The specious argument about food chains means that, as a gunless veggie, Fethin' Nora! I'm on the cowin' menu. EEEEK!

In some situations you could be, but this is not the apocalypse, and your nutritional value doesn't count for much.

The "science" is just being thrown around to justify to your vapid excuses. Homo sapiens: the specific is from sapentia meaning wisdom. Not seeing a great deal of evidence of this.

Followed by linguistic randomness...

Because you eat some lion obtain from a dubious butcher you are top of the food chain? Good grief. The syphillis bacteria non nomimg your deluded brain must be top of the food chain according to your pointless argument; which also conveniently fails to mention the man-eating lions who get their human prey without needing high velocity rifles.

The food chain concerns a species as a whole, and as we have already eaten most everything the planet has to offer, and will continue to develop new food products, we are already at the top of the food chain on this planet. Out in the vastness of space, our species will probably encounter something that will gladly harvest us, but we are limited to a single planet, even if you consider the rest of the solar system.

Blablabla, science.

We can easily (as a species), destroy the entire planets ecosystem in seconds, and are continually doing it on a much smaller scale as we speak. Compare us to animals, and I can refer you to hundreds of years of knowledge (or thousands, depending on how you look at it), completely trumping that fact. We are animals, but collectively and over the course of the earth's history, animals that have, and will continue to dominate the planet. Flexibility counts for an awful lot when it comes to world domination, and evolution.

We have evolved past dominating the planet, so make it law for people to not eat lions already.

Your arguments are still nothing more than narrow minded macho posturing.

Which is why I have referred to domination of an already 'at risk' species (not 'endangered', and removed from consumption by law; along with not being proved to be a worthwhile limitation... by science.), as something I would consider perverted, but not beyond any reason. If I want to eat alligator, you can complain as much as you like, until it is illegal for me to do so.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
4. In the last 5 years I have reduced my intake of beef, pork and lamb to once or twice per month. I eat chicken or fish in about 4 meals per week and try to keep the rest veggie now. I am fortunate that both my dad and brother are chefs and I grew up in a household where eating new and different foods was encouraged, so I have a wide ranging palate. I do not eat cod and only eat sustainably caught tuna but love seafood in general.

Well, I guess you're just a saint then, aren't you. Me, I kick puppies for fun and drown kittens in pools of their own blood. I guess I'll never live up to your standards, so I'll just have to console myself by knowing that I've eaten lion and you haven't.

Redbeard wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
4. In the last 5 years I have reduced my intake of beef, pork and lamb to once or twice per month. I eat chicken or fish in about 4 meals per week and try to keep the rest veggie now. I am fortunate that both my dad and brother are chefs and I grew up in a household where eating new and different foods was encouraged, so I have a wide ranging palate. I do not eat cod and only eat sustainably caught tuna but love seafood in general.

Well, I guess you're just a saint then, aren't you. Me, I kick puppies for fun and drown kittens in pools of their own blood. I guess I'll never live up to your standards, so I'll just have to console myself by knowing that I've eaten lion and you haven't.

And with that, you prove yourself an arse.

We can finish our debate now, or at least I'm finished with it in regard to you, since you don't really have much of an argument and with the above comment, I can see that you've just trolled the last 3 pages because you took my comments personally since you'd eaten the lion at this individual's shop.

We will, neither of us, alter the other's perspective on this thread. But I have at least gained a new found dislike of you and retain my moral stance in regard to the topic.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
In the last 5 years I have reduced my intake of beef, pork and lamb to once or twice per month. I eat chicken or fish in about 4 meals per week and try to keep the rest veggie now. I am fortunate that both my dad and brother are chefs and I grew up in a household where eating new and different foods was encouraged, so I have a wide ranging palate. I do not eat cod and only eat sustainably caught tuna but love seafood in general.

Don't worry, I'm taking up your slack.

focusedfire wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
In the last 5 years I have reduced my intake of beef, pork and lamb to once or twice per month. I eat chicken or fish in about 4 meals per week and try to keep the rest veggie now. I am fortunate that both my dad and brother are chefs and I grew up in a household where eating new and different foods was encouraged, so I have a wide ranging palate. I do not eat cod and only eat sustainably caught tuna but love seafood in general.

Don't worry, I'm taking up your slack.

Good for you, I'll be sure and give your widow extra consoling when your arteries reach critical mass.

filbert wrote:Hmmm, why have people think you are an idiot when you can open your mouth and remove all doubt...