I am very scared of the vegan movement, they will try to take our right away to have companion animals.

[BlueBeard]

I agree. They are true if they can be proven true.

I appreciate this. Thank you.

So answer me, is the "killing" of gays just because they are gay (in countries where is legal to kill them) is that murder? Or it is not murder just because the law says it is not murder?

Nah nah nah. We were going to deal with the topic at hand. We were going to avoid non sequiturs, red herrings. Gay people are gay people by definition. To kill a person unlawfully is murder.

If you're still trying to get "murder" to apply to animals, that's a dead end -- unless..... Say, try it the other way. Can you make an argument that an animal is a person? Then killing it unlawfully would be murder. Big ask, but... that's what it would take, right?

What about zoosex, the law says it is animal abuse, so it must be animal abuse because the law say so, right? The law is never wrong, is that your argument?

No, I never said the law was never wrong. I said your definition was contrived. You made it up. (See how you are? ) You could now argue that I believe the *dictionary* is never wrong. But ... that's a weak direction to take this. Then I would just say, well, we have to argue this based on *your* definition of the word, then. And that takes us back to square one, stuck at arguing just that. What the definition *should* be. And that won't go anywhere but round and round. That's been demonstrated plenty of times over already.

Animal murder is not murder just because the law say so? Right? Have you though that the law may be wrong and that animal murder is actually animal murder? Or that legal killing gays is actually gay murder despite what the law says?

Killing gay people unlawfully is always murder.

Killing animals is never "murder," no matter what the means or motivation.

I don't know how to say that any more clearly. There's no changing those facts because... well... they're facts.

 

[BlueBeard]

Oh, but ... facts can/do change. Once upon a time here, abortion could be considered murder. In 1973, a Supreme Court Ruling struck statues down that made it "murder." So is abortion murder today?

No.

Is the unborn fetus a person? No, no longer (if ever) a person as defined by law. Not until it's born.

And even THAT isn't simple. Say my pregnant stepdaughter is assaulted, loses her baby -- the assailant can be charged with homicide. Isn't that weird? He *unlawfully* took a human life. But if she does it, it's lawful. Is it "murder," though? Hmmm.... I bet it's not.

Crap. Now I gotta go check THAT out. (But, I'm the one that brought it up).

Short story is -- *can* the law be changed so that animals have "personhood" and killing one is "murder" under statute?

Yeah. Sure. Long shot, but... then, sir, you gotta case. (I just don't see it happening).

edit:
I found out more.

Prior to Roe vs Wade ('73), fetal rights were "incidentally protected" by laws prohibiting abortion. After abortion became legal, it was murky water. Did a fetus have *any* human rights at all? So....

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Still has nothing to do with animals other than Homo sapiens, but... definitely a demonstration of how laws can change.

 

[BlueBeard]

For all, and Aluzky especially:

I just found this at the Cornell law site. THIS IS WHY YOUR USE OF THAT TERM MAKES ME SO CONCERNED (end caps, sorry for yelling, but... was important):

Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,​

Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;​

​

Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.​

​

When you call me a murderer, um... see the implication? I ain't gonna let you call me that lightly knowing what the consequences of the term are. Are you SURE you want to use that term? If you keep calling me that because I eat meat or hunt, I have to wonder if you understand what you're calling down upon me, what your follow-through will be. You're basically asking for my execution or lifelong imprisonment. That's what "we" hear, those of us who eat meat, when vegans call us murderers.

And truthfully, you got to admit that some of them do. Some vegans are out there hissing, wishing I were dead. Your words help provoke them. Maybe they're a little off their rocker, maybe not. But your hate speech is putting my ass in a wringer just because you and I don't see things the same way. That sort of makes you an accomplice to any hate crime they commit.

Can I ask you that flat out, Aluzky?: What explains your insistence for the definition of murder to include animals as "Unlawful killing of Homo sapiens or any other species"? Do you want to see me executed or imprisoned? Do you harbor a wish that some impassioned animal rights activist "takes me out"?

All just because I shot two deer in the fall with my son, and cross my fingers we get to shoot deer again next fall? A lot of their meat is still in my freezer. Or just because I bought pork steaks yesterday at $1.49 a pound and couldn't pass that up? Or that I plan to have chicken fajitas tonight? I've got the fixings ready to go right now. I will be tossing them in the wok once my wife gets home in a half hour. If I persist, do you think I should die or be imprisoned as punishment.

If so, then we have nothing left to talk about. We're mortal enemies.

If not, can we at least please back down on the use of that word, murderer, from now on?

 

[Aluzky]

Nah nah nah. We were going to deal with the topic at hand. We were going to avoid non sequiturs, red herrings. Gay people are gay people by definition. To kill a person unlawfully is murder.

Again, killing gays is 100% legal in over 70 countries. So, killing gays for being gay in those countries is not murder? YES or NO?

No, I never said the law was never wrong

Well, you assume animal murder is not murder just because the law say so. Which translate as the law is right because the law say so. Which is a form of circular logic.

Again, answer me, it is factual that zoosex is animal abuse, just because the law say so, or is the law wrong?
Do you have proof that the law saying that animal murder is not murder, is that law based on facts? Or it is based on circular logic?

Killing animals is never "murder," no matter what the means or motivation.

So, if a country makes it illegal to murder animals. Then even in that country murdering animals would not be murder? Yes or No?

There's no changing those facts because... well... they're facts.

So far, you are using circular logic. The law says is not murder so it is not murder. This is circular logic. Again, using the same logic, zoosex is animal abuse because the law say so.


Edit: Let me put it this way, if you lived in a country where gays can be legally killed. If you where to hunt them and kill them, yes I would call you a murderer.

 

[BlueBeard]

Again, killing gays is 100% legal in over 70 countries. So, killing gays for being gay in those countries is not murder? YES or NO?



Well, you assume animal murder is not murder just because the law say so. Which translate as the law is right because the law say so. Which is a form of circular logic.

Again, answer me, it is factual that zoosex is animal abuse, just because the law say so, or is the law wrong?
Do you have proof that the law saying that animal murder is not murder, is that law based on facts? Or it is based on circular logic?



So, if a country makes it illegal to murder animals. Then even in that country murdering animals would not be murder? Yes or No?




So far, you are using circular logic. The law says is not murder so it is not murder. This is circular logic. Again, using the same logic, zoosex is animal abuse because the law say so.


Edit: Let me put it this way, if you lived in a country where gays can be legally killed. If you where to hunt them and kill them, yes I would call you a murderer.

You have no right to expect answers for your own false dichotomies. You've gone right back to your old ruts. Strings of fallaciously constructed snares of such tenuous thread, they can catch nothing. Most people have long since left the discussion knowing that there is nothing rational going on here.

I'm waiting for you to answer the most serious question, the fundamental question:

Are we mortal enemies, Aluzky? Do you hope that I will be executed or imprisoned for life as punishment for eating meat, for being responsible directly, as I have been, for taking animal life?

You are so intent on calling me a murderer. You're doing handstands in logic to make it apply. If I'm not stopped, I'm going to do it again.

What should be done with me, an unrepentant, serial murderer, in your opinion?

 

[BlueBeard]

PS:

Checkmate.

 

[Aluzky]

You have no right to expect answers for your own false dichotomies. You've gone right back to your old ruts. Strings of fallaciously constructed snares of such tenuous thread, they can catch nothing. Most people have long since left the discussion knowing that there is nothing rational going on here.

I'm waiting for you to answer the most serious question, the fundamental question:

Are we mortal enemies, Aluzky? Do you hope that I will be executed or imprisoned for life as punishment for eating meat, for being responsible directly, as I have been, for taking animal life?

You are so intent on calling me a murderer. You're doing handstands in logic to make it apply. If I'm not stopped, I'm going to do it again.

What should be done with me, an unrepentant, serial murderer, in your opinion?

And your whole reply is a red herring fallacy to avoid answering my questions. You just lost the debate. Yet some how I'm the one who is in checkmate? lol

 

[Tailo]

Why is it that "Vegans" first attack is Morality?
The moral values each person has is as different as there are shades of gray. To put it plainly there is no guilt felt by most people that eat meat and morality is not even a consideration. Morality is a human concern toward other humans, not a concern toward animals. Vegans try to expand morality to animals in order to use it as a point of argument and inflict guilt upon those that oppose their view on the matter.

Morality is about right and wrong of human action. There is no such restriction as it only applying when the action is directed at other humans. For instance, many people think that it is immoral to torture animals.

Why do "Vegans" argue that the production of meat is harmful to the environment?
Well, yes it is harmful to a small degree. But if you're going to go into the environment for your argument then why not tackle a real problem that is 159 times more harmful and something that is becoming a real concern in the world. What you ask, it's Styrofoam.
Styrofoam is made from polystyrene, which is a petroleum-based plastic. Styrofoam is actually the trade name for polystyrene. It’s popular because of its light weight, good insulation properties, and advantage as a packing material for shipping without adding weight. Unfortunately, for all of Styrofoam’s good points, data has shown that Styrofoam also has harmful effects.
Styrofoam is non-biodegradable and appears to last forever. It’s resistant to photolysis, or the breaking down of materials by photons originating from light. This, combined with the fact that Styrofoam floats, and this means that large amounts of polystyrene have accumulated along coastlines and waterways around the world. It is considered a main component of marine debris.
Styrofoam has health risks associated with the manufacture of polystyrene, air pollution is another concern. The National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research has found 57 chemical byproducts released during the creation of Styrofoam. This not only pollutes the air, but also results in liquid and solid toxic waste that requires proper disposal. Another cause for concern are the brominated flame retardants that are used on Styrofoam products. Research suggests that these chemicals may have negative environmental and health effects.
So are "Vegans" that use the environment as part of their argument involved in any anti-styrofoam campaign? Probably not, and that is because the environment is not their concern. If the environment were their concern then they would be doing something toward that end.

Your criticism of Styrofoam is interesting on its own. Could be a great topic. I don't see what this has to do with veganism though. How do you know that vegans aren't concerned about Styrofoam? It's an entirely different topic. I don't understand why you would write this right after the section about not comparing apples with oranges.

Why do "Vegans" say they are standing up for animal rights?
This is something I tried to address in a few different threads. In my mind I would think that anyone so concerned with an animals right to life would be involved in groups that promote animal rights. I would think that they would support animal charities. I would think that they would be politically active along these lines. However, when you ask a "Vegan" what animal rights group they belong to, or what animal charities they support, or are they politically active in these matters, then you will hear excuses one after the other about how the vegan lifestyle isn't about that but about living free of animal products as much as possible.
In my mind this is only polishing a small part of the surface and leaving the larger and more difficult parts for someone else. My Father always said if you are going to start something then you have to see it through and do the job to your very best ability.

Veganism is about respecting animals each and every day. Advocating for veganism is promoting animal rights.

One of the things that I dislike about "Vegans is the disrespect they have for others. This seems to be the norm. They don't seem to understand that people see things differently than they do and they try to make people qualify their meat eating tendencies as if they have to have a reason.

You can hear those who criticize you. You can't hear those who stay silent. Don't think that criticizing is the norm just because this is the only thing you hear.

The simple fact will always be that there is no right, and there is no wrong in the things you do unless you are breaking the law. So if you want to eat meat, then enjoy, and if you don't want to eat meat, then enjoy. AND if you want to have sex with animals, enjoy and don't get caught.

Why would you suggest breaking the law, if law is the only authority on right and wrong that you accept?

 

[BlueBeard]

LOL

So Yes or No? You MUST ANSWER!

Or are you avoiding answering my questions? I think you have just thrown in your white towel. You have run into a wall. Unfit to compete further.

(Do you feel goaded at all? Because your jabs? They didn't even tickle.)

I'm just playing with you. Returning your own techniques on yourself. But it was a serious question. Everyone here understands the implications of your "murder" definition. And we're waiting to see if you can answer. Why is it important for you to define meat-eaters as murderers? Or just, do you understand the ramifications of doing that? Do you intend for the law to judge them as murderers? Seriously?

Why can't you answer that? It's at the very root of this entire discussion.

 

[Tailo]

What is it with connecting death and sex? I never got that in literature, either. That constant association. And in the movies, even -- sheesh! A bomb is about to go off, destroy a city, and the hero and femme fatale suddenly look at each, then pounce on each other and get naked.

Ha ha, yeah. La petite mort – French euphemism for orgasm. I've known this one for at least a decade and I still haven't got used to it.

 

[Aluzky]

LOL

So Yes or No? You MUST ANSWER!

Or are you avoiding answering my questions? I think you have just thrown in your white towel. You have run into a wall. Unfit to compete further.

(Do you feel goaded at all? Because you're jabs? They didn't even tickle.)

I'm just playing with you. Returning your own techniques on yourself. But it was a serious question. Everyone here understands the implications of your "murder" definition. And we're waiting to see if you can answer. Why is it important for you to define meat-eaters as murderers? Or just, do you understand the ramifications of doing that? Do you intend for the law to judge them as murderers? Seriously?

Why can't you answer that? It's at the very root of this entire discussion.

Another red herring fallacy. You keep avoiding to address my arguments. Face it, you lost the debate.

 

[caikgoch]

Veganism is about respecting animals each and every day. Advocating for veganism is promoting animal rights.

OK, lets take that one little bitty idea. Now tell me why you can't respect a cat's or dog's natural need to eat meat? Why do vegans insist that they eat a vegan diet that is harmful for them?

 

[Aluzky]

OK, lets take that one little bitty idea. Now tell me why you can't respect a cat's or dog's natural need to eat meat? Why do vegans insist that they eat a vegan diet that is harmful for them?

Dogs are omnivores and they can thrive on a vegan diet. Also, dogs are HUMAN made, so, a dogs natural diet is any diet that humans wish to give them. Feeding a dog a vegan diet is as natural as feeding a dog only meat. Thing is, one diet leads to more animal abuse, more environmental destruction than the other. Thus, making the vegan diet the most ethical option.

FACT: A Balanced vegan diet is not harmful to dogs. You are talking bullshit.

IMO, cats should not be allowed as pets, as they contribute to animal abuse, they are also responsable for the extinction of hundreds of species, cats are a very harmful existence.

 

[caikgoch]

IMO, cats should not be allowed as pets, as they contribute to animal abuse, they are also responsable for the extinction of hundreds of species, cats are a very harmful existence.

And I thought a vegan diet was disrespectful! You want to murder all cats!

 

[Aluzky]

And I thought a vegan diet was disrespectful! You want to murder all cats!

You are doing a straw man fallacy.

Wild cats exist without human help. Who said anything about murdering them?

Can some one please debate me without using fallacies?

 

[caikgoch]

pets

Don't look wild to me.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@Aluzky there will be cats as long as there is human agriculture. If you grow something that mice and other agricultural pests can eat, they will come, and in their wake, there will be mesopredators like cats or, in Algeria, often fennecs.

This is why you ought to support the company Solar Foods!

Home - Solar Foods

solarfoods.fi

*Final Fantasy VII Victory Fanfare*

 

[Tailo]

OK, lets take that one little bitty idea. Now tell me why you can't respect a cat's or dog's natural need to eat meat? Why do vegans insist that they eat a vegan diet that is harmful for them?

I'm not sure whether there is a misunderstanding (due to the ambiguity of the word "you") so I'll clear it up just in case: I am not vegan myself, just vegetarian. In addition to vegan and vegetarian food I also feed my dog fish and/or invertebrates daily. There are still some traces of undefined animal proteins in his regular nutrition, in his evening dental snack for example, which I am looking to replace. But I plan to keep fish and molluscs and I am experimenting with insect based food. He is living an omnivore life and I plan to continue to feed him and future dogs an omnivore diet. I don't think I'll ever have a cat.

I don't think dogs need meat. I am no expert there, but there are enough sources that seem trustworthy to me.

I know there are vegans who have a cat and give their cats animal-based food. So I am sure that vegans don't insist in general that cats shall have a meat-free diet. There are probably some that do and I can't speak for them, but I assume that most of these think their suggested diet would be healthy. People err and it's unfortunate when that happens. It surely happens to people who feed their animals meat, too.

 

[Aluzky]

Don't look wild to me.

Your ignorant opinion is irrelevant when it comes to facing actual facts. Cats are not a fully domesticated species. Cats can do fine as wild animals without any human help.

 

[Aluzky]

@KNOTTYBOYZ

Skittles changed their recipe years ago to make it vegan. Many jelly beans are vegan too.

I'm not supper dogmatic about veganism, I have no problems with bugs that can't even feel pain when they are used as food.

Owning carnivore pets goes against veganism as you have to murder animals to feed carnivorous pets.

Would in theory could be obtained in ethical ways, which would not go against veganism.

Dog food already have B12 supplement, and you can always feed a dog B12 pill along with his/her vegan diet.

The dog body can create their own collagen and keratin from non-animal sources of food, so you are talking BS.

A dog on a vegan diet is easy to pull off, all you have to do is research and then feed the corresponding amounts.

So to deny your dog a normal diet and force them to a diet plan they're not designed for, even if you force them to consume the supplements via injections or pills, is inhumane in the end.

Dogs normal diet is what ever diet humans wish to give them. As dogs are an animal created by humans. Human chose what dogs eat or become through selective breeding. Feeding a dog a vegan diet is s normal as feeding dog a meat diet. In the end, there is nothing inhumane about deeding a dog a balanced vegan diet, you are talking bullshit.

Humans, along with other omnivores, are designed to consume meat for a reason and is a natural part of life.

Rape and murder is also natural. Being natural is no excuse to do them. You are using a naturalistic fallacy.

We, along with all the other meat eating animals, have been killing and eating meat for the purpose of nutrition, there's nothing inhuman about it.

So, if I where to murder you and eat you for nutrition, that would be Ok as long as it is for nutrition? Murder (of animals or humans) is inhuman, you deciding to ignore this fact does not change reality.

 

[caikgoch]

(due to the ambiguity of the word "you")

I should have been clearer. That's a generic you, meaning vegans generally.

Cats can do fine as wild animals without any human help.

Bull. Fucking. Shit. You forget I have a farm, a place where ignorant people drop their unwanted animals. About 1 in 20 cats survive longer than a week. None have ever survived a full year.

You want to know where my attitude comes from? Guess who has to "dispose" of all those unwanted animals. Tell me again how the SPCA's speutering is working out.

 

[knotinterested]

Dogs are omnivores and they can thrive on a vegan diet. Also, dogs are HUMAN made, so, a dogs natural diet is any diet that humans wish to give them. Feeding a dog a vegan diet is as natural as feeding a dog only meat. Thing is, one diet leads to more animal abuse, more environmental destruction than the other. Thus, making the vegan diet the most ethical option.

FACT: A Balanced vegan diet is not harmful to dogs. You are talking bullshit.

IMO, cats should not be allowed as pets, as they contribute to animal abuse, they are also responsable for the extinction of hundreds of species, cats are a very harmful existence.

Extinction of hundreds of species? Can you please point out a few species?

I am not a cat lover but I don't hate them either and your statement seems misleading.

 

[knotinterested]

Morality is about right and wrong of human action. There is no such restriction as it only applying when the action is directed at other humans. For instance, many people think that it is immoral to torture animals.

Not True - Morality is the right or wrong of your own actions based on how you as the individual feel about it. For instance I feel it is just fine to have sex with as many men or women or animals that I desire to do so with, but to a Baptist Minister, and a whole lot of people in society my actions would be judged as immoral. Since I am not afflicted with guilt over my actions then my actions don't affect my own morality. I am the only judge of what is moral or immoral concerning my actions in my life and nobody else has any say in the matter.

Your criticism of Styrofoam is interesting on its own. Could be a great topic. I don't see what this has to do with veganism though. How do you know that vegans aren't concerned about Styrofoam? It's an entirely different topic. I don't understand why you would write this right after the section about not comparing apples with oranges.

The criticism of Styrofoam is an example NOT A COMPARISON. The example devalues or puts into perspective the vegan environmental harm portion of their argument. The impact of environmental harm caused by meat production is 159 times less than the impact of environmental harm caused by the production of Styrofoam. This is not to mention the other harm it causes after it's production and use.
I had started that paragraph with "Well, yes it is harmful to a small degree." My example, Styrofoam, was to illustrate a TRUE environmental issue and show that "Meat production environmental harm," issue was making much less and not worthy of mention. So no Apples to Oranges here.

Veganism is about respecting animals each and every day. Advocating for veganism is promoting animal rights.

Ok you're promoting animal rights to about the same degree as meat production is harming the environment. A very small degree.

You can hear those who criticize you. You can't hear those who stay silent. Don't think that criticizing is the norm just because this is the only thing you hear.

If the only thing I hear from vegans is criticism, and it comes from every single vegan I meet, then how can I determine it to be less than normal for vegans to criticize everyone that does not agree with their point of view?

Why would you suggest breaking the law, if law is the only authority on right and wrong that you accept?

To suggest is to say that I suggest, or that I advise, but not to say "Don't get caught."
The Law is NOT the only authority on right and wrong that I accept, but the Law is the most commonly accepted authority by all of society.
There are tons of things that I disagree with when it comes to the Law, and because I disagree with them then I may or may not break the law in these areas. However in those areas where I am breaking the Law I also accept the responsibility of my own actions, and thereby the penalty should I be caught.

With that said then you should know that I am totally innocent of all things that I might be accused of today and in the future...........

 

[BlueBeard]

Ha ha, yeah. La petite mort – French euphemism for orgasm. I've known this one for at least a decade and I still haven't got used to it.

When you get to my age, it's more or less a big death. Mm, almost, I'd say, a complete death. If the sun also rises, let's just say this thing don't shine that bright no more. It's rising days are unpredictable.

 

[Tailo]

that said then you should know that I am totally innocent of all things that I might be accused of today and in the future...........

Yes, that's what I would assume.

 

[BlueBeard]

Another red herring fallacy. You keep avoiding to address my arguments. Face it, you lost the debate.

What debate? No debate started. Until you admit you were wrong to call humans who eat meat "murderers," there is no debate. You can't have everything on your terms, child. You must concede things you are wrong about so that we can move on to dismantling the rest of your.... I mean, move on to actually debating.

If you do not enter an argument willing to admit when you are wrong, there is no argument. You are dancing with yourself and making love to a fantasy in your head. No one can climb into that world of make-believe with you.

When you are ready to come out and play, I'm here in the ballpark sitting in the dugout, sucking on my sunflower seeds, waiting for the other team to finally show up and put on their cleats.

 

[BlueBeard]

You are doing a straw man fallacy.

Wild cats exist without human help. Who said anything about murdering them?

Can some one please debate me without using fallacies?

You go first. Show us what that looks like.

 

[BlueBeard]

Extinction of hundreds of species? Can you please point out a few species?

I am not a cat lover but I don't hate them either and your statement seems misleading.

I'm still trying to get past the assumption that carnivores are evil. It's not just humans who eat meat that are murderers, it's their filthy little carnivore cats. Because, not to be speciesist or anything, but some animals have more right to life and be true to their own nature than others. (?)

And the "supper dogmatic." I'm stealing that and passing out silk-screened t-shirts. Want one? "I eat meat. It's part of supper dogmatism."

That an vegan Skittles. I have a very, VERY funny story about Skittles and a blow job, but... doesn't fit in here. I'll have to tell it in another thread. But "vegan" Skittles. I haven't seen that commercial. Wonder why they don't brag about that more.

 

[BlueBeard]

I should have been clearer. That's a generic you, meaning vegans generally.


Bull. Fucking. Shit. You forget I have a farm, a place where ignorant people drop their unwanted animals. About 1 in 20 cats survive longer than a week. None have ever survived a full year.

You want to know where my attitude comes from? Guess who has to "dispose" of all those unwanted animals. Tell me again how the SPCA's speutering is working out.

Well, at our place, the black kitties do have a better rate of surviving to adulthood than the white ones. White ones get picked off right away at night by owls. The black ones don't live too much longer, since the boss has us dispatch as many cats that survive to adulthood as we can with a .22 (but Aluzky's okay with that, that's not "murder," since they were only carnivores).

That is a LOT different than hunting. I HATE "kill cat" days, since I like cats and have a couple awesomely affectionate ones at home. I take no joy in doing that but, but only a couple of us *can* do it. One's the operations manager, a woman. The other's me. The rest can't stomach it. And to tell the truth, it makes me a little sick in the gut, too. First of all, they're healthy cats just being cats. It hurts to be the one to end them. And then of course, the other thing's the blow to my manly pride -- that bitch outshoots me! (She never misses).

 

[BlueBeard]

Well, at our place, the black kitties do have a better rate of surviving to adulthood than the white ones. White ones get picked off right away at night by owls. The black ones don't live too much longer, since the boss has us dispatch as many cats that survive to adulthood as we can with a .22 (but Aluzky's okay with that, that's not "murder," since they were only carnivores).

That is a LOT different than hunting. I HATE "kill cat" days, since I like cats and have a couple awesomely affectionate ones at home. I take no joy in doing that but, but only a couple of us *can* do it. One's the operations manager, a woman. The other's me. The rest can't stomach it. And to tell the truth, it makes me a little sick in the gut, too. First of all, they're healthy cats just being cats. It hurts to be the one to end them. And then of course, the other thing's the blow to my manly pride -- that bitch outshoots me! (She never misses).

Oh shit shit shit.... damn me. Never realized this. Those OWLS are carnivores. I should be shooting OWLS! (Fuckin murdering owls!!!)

Naw. Naw, I don't think so. Get caught shooting owls, it's $1,500 per owl in restitution, plus fines, forfeiture of weapon. Wildlife is considered property of the state here.

Okay, back to just shooting cats.