On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:38:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 7:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 9:40:27 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2015 9:07 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ashton Crusher:
It takes no great skill to pay a
$50,000 fee, hire half a dozen "guides", surround yourself with 2 tons
of armored vehicles so the animals can't get to you, and then go
"hunt" an animal that is of no value as food and that is more "rounded
up" then hunted. And then to do it illegally when you already had the
entire deck stacked in your favor to start with but not even that was
good enough for your meager skills at "hunting".

Devil's Advocate Question: How does that substantially differ from what
happens in a slaughterhouse?

I can cite a few diffs, but would like to hear what others say.


The animals in the slaughterhouse are raised for meat. Theyh are not
declining in numbers but are controlled.

Lions in the wild went from 420,000 in the 1940's to about 20,000 today.

Deer seem to be prolific and hunting is not destroying them completely
and is controlled. Most that are hunted are used for food.

Killing a lion on a preserve is closer to shooting your pet dog. OK,
let him off the leash BANG! Got a trophy!

+1

But, OMG! You used *statistics*. I did exactly the same thing
and you saw that at least one loon denier here can't accept that.


You jumped from quoting the decline in numbers went from X to Y and MAN
WAS THE CAUSE BECAUSE THEY KILLED ALL THOSE LIONS trying to use the
statistics to support your conclusion.


You're lying again. I did *exactly* what Ed did. I gave you a link
to the numbers of lions, their decline, their endangered species status
and I said:


"You really are ignorant of the world around you. Per the reference
above, there were 400,000 African lions in 1950. In 1990 there were
100,000. In 2004 the estimate is down to 16,000 to 47,000.
What part of that don't you understand? Does it have to get down
to the last 10, before you wake up? "

Note that there is nothing there that I posted about *how* the lion
population got there. YOU immediately started the BS about statistics
not showing who's right, who's wrong. Then you went on to lying,
falsely claiming that I used those numbers to claim that man is responsible.
I did no such thing. I did say that all the science I've seen from
credible sources, news reports, etc do put man as responsible. And then,
because you lie, I even separated the two things out for you in a
subsequent post. I said from the standpoint of not shooting lions to
cut off their heads, it matters not a wit how the lions because endangered.
But you just drone on and lie, which is why you're the new village idiot.


Ed simply mentioned the statistics without inserting a conclusion that
man was the cause.


Per the above post history, EXACTLY what I did. It's right
there in the post history and I welcome everyone to go look
at it. You lie and
try to make it otherwise, which is why I have no respect for
you and you're but cannon fodder to make a fool of now.



I'm thinking you don't see the difference, though.

--
Maggie

I'm thinking you're both a liar and the new village idiot. And
then people think I'm being harsh with you? Good grief.