On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:28:06 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 12:42 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:38:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 7:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:

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.

First you say you didn't claim man was responsible, and then you say man
is responsible based on "science, credible sources, news reports". Make
up your mind.


See, there you go lying again. One more time, idiot. I SAID THAT
I NEVER INTRODUCED NOR USED THE LION NUMBERS TO SHOW THAT MAN IS RESPONSIBLE.
I separately said that almost everyone, yourself excluded, knows that
man is in fact responsible. See how that works? How they are two
different things? Good grief.

Instead of obfuscating and lying, why don't you just answer the simple
question:

Given that lions have declined from 400,000 to 16,000, are endangered,
almost extinct in West Africa and Asia, have lost most of the land
areas they once had, do you think it's a good idea to be killing
them to hang on walls for amusement? YES or NO.

Do you agree that man is responsible for almost all the species that
are currently endangered? YES or NO.





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.

Your post history includes various comments about how outraged you were
that the dentist killed the lion and how you'd like to see him
destroyed.

Lying again. I never said I'd like to see him destroyed. I
did say I thought him losing his patients, losing his business
that supports his killing more endangered animals, was a good thing.

And note that whatever I said about Palmer has nothing to do
with the number of lions in Africa.



Then you went off into trying to support your own personal
need to destroy the man, and attack his character.

-He and similar are definitely sickos.
-I hope he gets everything he deserves.
-I don't care if he's guilty of a crime or not. He deserves to be
ostracized, criticized and shamed for what he did, whether it's
specifically a crime or not.
-I'm just disgusted that anyone is sick enough to go shoot a dwindling
species
-This guy, IMO, is a sicko.
-No one is going for blood.


And I stand by that. Again, note that it has nothing to do
with the factual numbers of the decline in lions. Nor did I say
I wanted to destroy the man. Stop lying.




Then you present your statistics along side your personal viewpoint in
an effort to bolster your response and justify everything you've said.
IOW, you tried to use the statistics to back up your viewpoint of how
hunting the lion and killing it equates to "sick" behavior that deserves
severe consequences.


--
Maggie

That's because those numbers *do* exactly that. Good grief.
When you have an endangered species, where there are 16,000 today
versus 400,000 fifty years ago, to any thinking rational person,
it's not a good idea to kill more of them to hang on the wall.
It is indeed very, very sick.
And note, one more time, that has NOTHING to do with how the numbers
got there, idiot.