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.

I was chased by a moose, once.

True story.

my point might have been slightly hyperbolic and missapropriated.

Thing is, things die, things get killed, what food you eat has always resulted in things dying, same with clothes. I personally don't see the difference in killing animals for skins or deforesting areas to grow cotton.

Synthesising things is all well and good but how do you get the chemicals to synthesise, what's the enviromental cost of synthesising?
Making youself feel better because you think creatures don't die so you can live how you live if you don't directly kill them is a little naive.
Pesonally, I don't see what's wrong with killing things as a rescource, it's a part of life, animal products go into an incredible amount of consumer goods, and i for one am more than happy they do.
You can grow more animals just like you can grow more trees (if you manage them well).Not killing animals that are excess like the kangaroo plagues that happen here every 10-15 years dooms them to starvation and disease.

This whole anti killing attitude is weird, humans have killed animals for millennia. People who can't eat food with heads on is really strange, I kinda prefer it as it makes me appreciate what went into what I'm eating (that yes a steak is a cow). I actually think that people understanding that a creature died so they could eat, it might make people appreciate it more.
I am not overly callous , i say thankyou to the fish just before i kill it when i go fishing, i just feel that it is part of life, most animals kill or harm other organisms to survive- whether that be through predation, out competing or habitat reduction or accidental squashing.

If someone comes along with the line "it's cruel", most predators eat their prey alive , incapacitated but alive, humans are the apex predator.
This being said i like most animals, with the exception of horses and rats - though i do tend to like predatory animals more, like ravens cats, dogs, kookaburras, though i do love cows for some weird reason.
Seems like i'm on the hyperbole (or as my exceptional prime minister said "Hyperbowl") train atm, but my points still stand I just can't be bothered retyping to make it more diplomatic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I was chased by a moose, once.

True story.

was it a horny moose?

Bullockist wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
There is no part of PETA that isn't fraught with fraud, hypocrisy and stupidity.

Yeah - you know, I defended their right to do their stupid drone plan earlier in this thread; but I just want to make 110% clear that I in no way endorse anything PETA does. Or anything about PETA. They are just a notch above the Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion, and similarly situated - I'd respect and defend their right, within our legal limits, to do the awful, reprehensible things they do - without particularly liking the message or mission.

Living in a country that doesn't do the whole free speech thing i sometimes wonder at the value of it when people are respecting others rights to make ridiculous statements.
The only good thing PETA and westboro could do is have a a cage match to the death, i would pay to see it.

CptJake coming from a country that doesn't have mooses (moosi- how the hell do you pluralise moose) I have to really thank you for putting the idea of a horny moose on a rampage into my sick little mind. I'm now wondering if there is an amusing video of a moose mounting a small car.

The plural form of moose is moose

Bullockist wrote:
Thing is, things die, things get killed, what food you eat has always resulted in things dying, same with clothes.

I know that. I've killed and participated in the killing of half a million hogs. I'm not a tree-hugging hippy, if that's the impression you are under. You can hardly avoid meat without carence, so it's perfectly fine as it is necessary. Fur clothes isn't. Not in this day and age

I personally don't see the difference in killing animals for skins or deforesting areas to grow cotton.

Really? You don't see that one of those two beings killed is capable of suffering, that it has a consciousness, and that it trashes against what wishes to kill it?

Synthesising things is all well and good but how do you get the chemicals to synthesise, what's the enviromental cost of synthesising?

Certainly less than killing a predator for it's skin. Remember that graph in ecology on how much calories it took to produce one pound of predator? Even if you were to eat that cat or dog, let me assure you, as I've already skinned a wild cat, you can't make much more than soup with it.

Making youself feel better because you think creatures don't die so you can live how you live if you don't directly kill them is a little naive.

What?

Pesonally, I don't see what's wrong with killing things as a rescource

By that standard alone, I could kill you and be justified in the fact that I've just obtained some of the most valuable ressources on earth ; human organs. I should also be happy because I've just freed the amound of ressources you were going to take. Everything can be a ressource. The reasons why you shouldn't kill other human beings, and avoid killing other animals when it isn't necessary isn't based on ressource allocation, but on the value of higher life forms.

This whole anti killing attitude is weird, humans have killed animals for millennia.

See first statement above.

People who can't eat food with heads on is really strange

Currently eating chicken nuggets.

I kinda prefer it as it makes me appreciate what went into what I'm eating (that yes a steak is a cow). I actually think that people understanding that a creature died so they could eat, it might make people appreciate it more.

That's fethed up. Again, by that logic, murdering people should be appreciated because it makes the survivors appreciate their lives more.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
that you lowered yourself to the level of a crustacean should be enough to tell you that your analogy is problematic.

Probably the best line I'll read all night.

Good post kovnik obama.

I'll concede a few points.

1. you aren't a hippy.
2. synthesising being cheaper.
3.eating chicken nuggest is most likely eating pulverised chicken head.

However i don't see the correlation at all in your last point. Your point would apply ikf we were talking about cannibals eating said human, but i seee where you are going with it.

I also don't accept this concept of higher life. I have quite alot to do with bees , I see them struggle to survive when you half squash them, i see them trying to get back into the hive after being thrown out, i see them trying to fight off ants trying to kill them, i see them getting distressed at dirtiness created by a parasitic beetle (they leave if it gets bad enough) all these types of actions are pointed at (not all of them by you) as markers of higher life forms. I think higher life forms are a fallacy, bees are acclaimed as one of natures simpler life forms but have an extremely complex society and language system, i fail to see what makes them a lesser life form than a mammal.
Along this line of thinking I group all life forms into the same group, abeit with more empathy for mammals.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
that you lowered yourself to the level of a crustacean should be enough to tell you that your analogy is problematic.

Probably the best line I'll read all night.

It was a good burn.

Point I don't get about leather/furs, a lot of leather and fur is a byproduct of making the steak I had for lunch. Is it not more environmentally friendly to use all the animal? Or at least as much of it as possible?

Course I say this as man with leather belts, boots, jackets and a powerful love of steak. In short. I hate cows.

No, you love cows.

Using all the products is definitly more environmentally friendly.


A lot of Fur thats sold today is either old fur or stuff thats harvested from farms, not a whole lot of wild furs are still taken.

And there is truly nothing like a full Raccoon skin coat, plus its a good use for the little pests.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Point I don't get about leather/furs, a lot of leather and fur is a byproduct of making the steak I had for lunch. Is it not more environmentally friendly to use all the animal? Or at least as much of it as possible?

Course I say this as man with leather belts, boots, jackets and a powerful love of steak. In short. I hate cows.

I agree with this although I don't know what it has to do with the environment, it's more about getting as much use of the animal as possible.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Course I say this as man with leather belts, boots, jackets and a powerful love of steak. In short. I hate cows.

To be fair, leather is the only good material for both shoes and belts. Jackets have better (and much cheaper) alternatives, as do other clothes, but with shoes in particular there's no other good option.


Also what on earth animal that produces usable fur do we eat in this day and age? Not that I have a problem with the industry, mind (for all that I don't really see the appeal), but nobody eats foxes or weasels or whathaveyou.

Beaver has good pelts I hear, and those fat little suckers would probably make a good meal. Coyote pelts are also pretty nice, I have yet to eat one, but next one I take is getting BBQ'd in the name of trying to be more fair to the animal. (field butchered mind) otherwise I'll continue my policy of digging a grave for 'yotes. (fertilizer is good for the earth too)

I have non leather belts, they're the rigging belts the Corps gave me, they certainly have their place but they're about as fashionable as a traffic accident.

Thanks KalashnikovMarine I want to eat a beaver now.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Thanks KalashnikovMarine I want to eat a beaver now.

Who doesn't

Bullockist wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Thanks KalashnikovMarine I want to eat a beaver now.

Who doesn't

Oh man, I just realized I did a double entendre oh well it still works for me both ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Beaver has good pelts I hear, and those fat little suckers would probably make a good meal. Coyote pelts are also pretty nice, I have yet to eat one, but next one I take is getting BBQ'd in the name of trying to be more fair to the animal. (field butchered mind) otherwise I'll continue my policy of digging a grave for 'yotes. (fertilizer is good for the earth too)

I have non leather belts, they're the rigging belts the Corps gave me, they certainly have their place but they're about as fashionable as a traffic accident.

Do you live in a rural area?

Oh look, PETA's making it extremely difficult for the rest of us Animal Welfare/Rights people to get our point across without being laughed at again.
Thanks, PETA. Thanks ever so much.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, you love cows.

My wife loves cows, she thinks they're very pretty/cute and would love a pet one.

PredaKhaine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, you love cows.

My wife loves cows, she thinks they're very pretty/cute and would love a pet one.

Spoiler:

And also damn tasty - I've never quite understood how she reconciles that with herself...

As my friend would say; "I like animals, I like them a lot, actually, it's just that I also like the way they taste."

 Ouze wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
There is no part of PETA that isn't fraught with fraud, hypocrisy and stupidity.

Yeah - you know, I defended their right to do their stupid drone plan earlier in this thread; but I just want to make 110% clear that I in no way endorse anything PETA does. Or anything about PETA. They are just a notch above the Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion, and similarly situated - I'd respect and defend their right, within our legal limits, to do the awful, reprehensible things they do - without particularly liking the message or mission.

Its sad. I was fully behind their original mission - reduction in animal testing. Then they got weird.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, you love cows.

Using all the products is definitly more environmentally friendly.


A lot of Fur thats sold today is either old fur or stuff thats harvested from farms, not a whole lot of wild furs are still taken.

And there is truly nothing like a full Raccoon skin coat, plus its a good use for the little pests.

Fur prices are on the rise, so fur taking is as well. Decent money in it if you've got the right tools and no how.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Beaver has good pelts I hear, and those fat little suckers would probably make a good meal. Coyote pelts are also pretty nice, I have yet to eat one, but next one I take is getting BBQ'd in the name of trying to be more fair to the animal. (field butchered mind) otherwise I'll continue my policy of digging a grave for 'yotes. (fertilizer is good for the earth too)

I have non leather belts, they're the rigging belts the Corps gave me, they certainly have their place but they're about as fashionable as a traffic accident.

Do you live in a rural area?

Yes and no? Colorado Springs is a fairly populous city, but we're spread out enough that deer or coyote any where but the city center and the freeway are not a shocking occurrence. With 'yote populations on the rise they're considered pests and can be taken year round at any time with rifles. (outside of city limits, X distance from inhabited buildings, etc) Coyote calling is a popular sport/challenge around here. Personally it's a fall/winter sport for me even though you can hunt year round, I wouldn't want to risk taking a pregnant female or half a mated pair with a dependent litter of pups. No bueno.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Beaver has good pelts I hear, and those fat little suckers would probably make a good meal. Coyote pelts are also pretty nice, I have yet to eat one, but next one I take is getting BBQ'd in the name of trying to be more fair to the animal. (field butchered mind) otherwise I'll continue my policy of digging a grave for 'yotes. (fertilizer is good for the earth too)

I have non leather belts, they're the rigging belts the Corps gave me, they certainly have their place but they're about as fashionable as a traffic accident.

Do you live in a rural area?

Yes and no? Colorado Springs is a fairly populous city, but we're spread out enough that deer or coyote any where but the city center and the freeway are not a shocking occurrence. With 'yote populations on the rise they're considered pests and can be taken year round at any time with rifles. (outside of city limits, X distance from inhabited buildings, etc) Coyote calling is a popular sport/challenge around here. Personally it's a fall/winter sport for me even though you can hunt year round, I wouldn't want to risk taking a pregnant female or half a mated pair with a dependent litter of pups. No bueno.

my old PLT SGT lived a couple blocks from Bristol Brewing, and his neighborhood trashcans were regularly terrorized by the local bear populations... and that's not exactly the outskirts of town either.

Yotes are one of those animals that transitions to urban environments pretty well, and unlike Raccoons they are very dangerous. Small children have been attacked by the little pests.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
Nature isn't a happy place and if a hermit crab can wear a shell I sure as hell can wear a fur coat.

I'll take issues to that comparison. Hermit crabs salvage the empty shells of sea snails, you kill up to dozens of advanced mammals for a single luxury item you could manufacture with synthetic replacement. Sometimes, those animals are even skinned alive to cut down on the cost of euthanasia.

Hell, the simple fact that you lowered yourself to the level of a crustacean should be enough to tell you that your analogy is problematic.

Suppose I lived in the woods, killed the animal humanely and then used the skin. Is that more acceptable?

Personally if we have any PETA equivalent groups in the UK (do we ) and they try this stunt i will be rigging up anti-drone countermeasures EVERY WHERE i actualy had this weird idea of building a pintle mount for a paintball or airsoft gun onto a vehicle sort of like WW2 German staff cars. Or racks of fireworks.

Or maybe an RC hellicobter carrying remote operated spray cans. Or if your a pyro like me ghetto flamers.

Alternatively have one with a canister full of blood (or paint if your a pansy) fly it above the drone and open the canister. Lets see them deal with that one

Or get make some rocket fuel (theres how toos all over the internet), load them into cans, attach a tailpipe fins and stabilizer jets and unleash in volleys.

Or as above but make into mini V1 doodlebugs for increased range/accuracy.

Ill think of more soon

 master of ordinance wrote:
Personally if we have any PETA equivalent groups in the UK (do we ) and they try this stunt i will be rigging up anti-drone countermeasures EVERY WHERE i actualy had this weird idea of building a pintle mount for a paintball or airsoft gun onto a vehicle sort of like WW2 German staff cars. Or racks of fireworks.

Or maybe an RC hellicobter carrying remote operated spray cans. Or if your a pyro like me ghetto flamers.

Alternatively have one with a canister full of blood (or paint if your a pansy) fly it above the drone and open the canister. Lets see them deal with that one

Or get make some rocket fuel (theres how toos all over the internet), load them into cans, attach a tailpipe fins and stabilizer jets and unleash in volleys.

Or as above but make into mini V1 doodlebugs for increased range/accuracy.

Ill think of more soon

You should build a laser.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
Nature isn't a happy place and if a hermit crab can wear a shell I sure as hell can wear a fur coat.

I'll take issues to that comparison. Hermit crabs salvage the empty shells of sea snails, you kill up to dozens of advanced mammals for a single luxury item you could manufacture with synthetic replacement. Sometimes, those animals are even skinned alive to cut down on the cost of euthanasia.

Hell, the simple fact that you lowered yourself to the level of a crustacean should be enough to tell you that your analogy is problematic.

Suppose I lived in the woods, killed the animal humanely and then used the skin. Is that more acceptable?

If you have a need for it that you cannot reasonnably answer another way, and you target animals that are also good food sources, like rabbits, or pests like racoons and yotes like previously mentionned, then yeah, I don't see that as problematic. I don't either have a hatred for people that wear fur. There was, a few months ago, this video of a guy walking in the streets of montreal with a fox pelt as a scarf, and was getting stuff thrown at him by passerby. I took more offense with his acute hipsterism than with his wearing of a pelt.

What pisses me off is the horrible treatment of animals by an industry that could easily find alternative sources. That video on the chinese dog and cat fur trade gave me nightmares for days. I've heard that some eastern european countries do the same, live skinning the animals, but since they don't have a market for cat's and dog's meat, they throw the skinned live dog or cat in a crematory.

At least at the butcher plant, we had the decency to gaz and shock the hogs at the beginning of the process. We also used 97% of the weight of the animal in one manner or the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Point I don't get about leather/furs, a lot of leather and fur is a byproduct of making the steak I had for lunch. Is it not more environmentally friendly to use all the animal? Or at least as much of it as possible?

Course I say this as man with leather belts, boots, jackets and a powerful love of steak. In short. I hate cows.

I wouldn't say a lot. Cats, dogs, foxes and other predators don't usually have enough meat on them to warrant an industry based on it. Rabbits and seals, yeah. I don't know about beavers, never even saw beaver meat being sold.

Supposedly Beaver is quite tasty, all the first hand accounts I've read from trappers in the 1800s held them as a delicacy.

Beaver have been known to build nuisance damns that flood people's properties and endanger crops and/or livestock in certain areas. I have no problem with the killing of nuisance beavers. You might as well collect and use their furs, too.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Supposedly Beaver is quite tasty, all the first hand accounts I've read from trappers in the 1800s held them as a delicacy.

They should be, same as capybara or Guinea pig, large rodent makes for good food.

I've always been in favor of hunting and eating animals that are not endangered and not during their breeding/raising season.

Not carnivores though, mammalian carnivore meat is entirely disgusting. Folks in PA were telling me how good bear tasted, they were lying, it's bloody awful. Too much machismo around the hunting of predators, not enough common sense, you hunt for food? Good, go shoot a deer, there's millions and they are bloody wonderful to eat.

Hey without leather the entire fashion scene of the 80's would've been jeopardized. What would people have worn If there were no skin tight leather pants around?