Animal Rights page 6

246 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by RMcD:
Originally posted by Aaron_:

Then why do you insist on killing every “useless” animal?

I don’t. Only kill them if its fun.

Now, THAT is just woefully sad,,,,
AND, deeply pathetic.

Do ya NOT know that such behavior//activity is also one of the “symptoms” of a psychopath

"""One particularly striking feature of psychopathy is that extremely violent and antisocial behaviour appears at a very early age, often including casual and thoughtless lying, petty theft, a pattern of killing animals, early experimentation with sex, and stealing."""

OH,,, BTW…RothyCat….great rejoinder.

 
Flag Post

What bugs me is when people do cruel things to animals. I mean, I’m no animal rights activist, or whatever, but I can’t stand it when people kill animals ‘Because they want to’. Or even when pet owners ignore their animals. I’ve seen many a show where people go into crazy cat ladies houses, and see trash everywhere that’s probably been there for weeks, while all these animals are just running around, even, in one shows case, having babies without the owner even knowing. For goodness sake, there were dead cat’s carcasses in her house! Freaking dead carcasses!

However much I hate it when I see the die hard vegetarians who ’won’t eat anything that casts a shadow’ or ‘Has a soul’, I do think there are lines that need drawn about the treatment of animals, and restriction on hunting for just the purpose of the kill, or the meat.

My family has hunted for a while, and when we take a deer down, we take the deer back, skin it, and butcher it and toss the meat in the freezer for eating at a later time. I personally hunt for the kill, the adrenaline rush is amazing, feeling your heart beat so loud that all other sounds are drown out, your heart beating so hard it feels like it’s going to explode out of your chest, the adrenaline steadying your hands (I have shaky hands, so the adrenaline keeps my hands still), then when you pull the trigger the couple seconds of anxiety, to see if you hit your mark, and see if you have a trophy deer :P Either way, whenever we take a deer, all meat is harvested, the skin is taken and cured by a friend of ours, and the carcass is tossed out for the bears to pick off of, and eventually decompose.

On the subject of growing animals just for processing and selling, I’m a christian, and in the Bible, it says that God gave the earth to humans for us to rule and have dominion over. We require food and water as much as the animals do, and if our way of finding food for us to eat is by mass production of animals, than what more can we do? We’ve pretty much passed the phase of having enough wooded areas (at least in the city), that running around and foraging and hunting is nigh on impossible for all of America to do, so therefore we have to find a way to keep ourselves properly fed and hydrated.

That’s my two cents on the subject. Since I never check the forums don’t expect me to respond.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

You first claim that this thread was dominated by poor arguers, then go on to say you want to improve your arguing, then finish with saying that you are going dominate the thread?

Ok, buddy. Maybe you should bring something to the plate (pun intended) rather than sit around trying to be cocky.

I for one hunt animals. I bleed them to death rather than instantly kill them, use the legs for scent pads, tan the hides, use the urine bladder for the urine for scent, eat the heart and liver, mount the antlers, cut meat off of just about every part of the body, and dispose of the animal in woods for nature to take.

Think you can do anything about my methods, let alone anyone else’s?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

You first claim that this thread was dominated by poor arguers, then go on to say you want to improve your arguing, then finish with saying that you are going dominate the thread?

Ok, buddy. Maybe you should bring something to the plate (pun intended) rather than sit around trying to be cocky.

I for one hunt animals. I bleed them to death rather than instantly kill them, use the legs for scent pads, tan the hides, use the urine bladder for the urine for scent, eat the heart and liver, mount the antlers, cut meat off of just about every part of the body, and dispose of the animal in woods for nature to take.

Think you can do anything about my methods, let alone anyone else’s?

just a question:-
What are scent pads?

Originally posted by RedWar31:

BUMP!

The year is 2012 and we have survived the never-gonna-happen apocalypse. The last discussion was dominated by poor participants. This is a fresh start, with a new debater in tow. ME.

I am an Animal Rights advocate, and I’d really like to be able to improve my skills in debating this topic. I can assure everyone here though, that your argument against Animal Rights is already gonna fail ;)

OK tell me your POV

 
Flag Post

I think that hurting animals is wrong.

 
Flag Post

If the hunting is not neccessary but if the animal is in pain and you get a little reward thats okay.

 
Flag Post

Wow. There’s a lot of douches out there in the world. smh

 
Flag Post

The scent pads are on the animal’s legs. I cut the entire legs off and when I am hunting I will rub them on different spots in the woods near me. It attracts deer looking for the other deer it can smell.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

The scent pads are on the animal’s legs. I cut the entire legs off and when I am hunting I will rub them on different spots in the woods near me. It attracts deer looking for the other deer it can smell.

Thanks, for telling me.

 
Flag Post

I often think to much of the focus is on pets and to little on the other animals. If I take a cat and smash it’s skull in I will be punished for animal cruelty. If I instead do this to a cow I will get farming subsidization. (I’m not a vegan I just dislike the hypocrisy often involved in these cruelty cases).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:

I often think to much of the focus is on pets and to little on the other animals. If I take a cat and smash it’s skull in I will be punished for animal cruelty. If I instead do this to a cow I will get farming subsidization. (I’m not a vegan I just dislike the hypocrisy often involved in these cruelty cases).

Because cats are cute and cuddly, and cows are thought of as meat and dairy products.

I’m sure any teenage girl would cry if a movie depicted a dog or cat being killed, but if it was a cow, they wouldn’t give two shits. The same applies for humans vs animals.

I had someone call me out when I was trying to explain why I spent most of my childhood summers shooting cats. I lived with my grandparents on their farm and they were about to be overrun by strays eating the chickens and eggs, so I came up with the idea of sitting around with a .22 Hornady and shooting them. I probably shot way more cats than I could count, kept the food coming in for my family, and got rid of all the barn cats and inbred animals running about. Yet, if I shot stray dogs or coyotes, do you think anybody would have cared?

 
Flag Post

Okay, I apologize for my cocky attitude. Let me rephrase what I said before- The last debate was filled with Animal Welfare activists, not Animal Rights ones (and its a difference I’ll be emphasizing).

Originally posted by thepunisher52:

OK tell me your POV

Of course, why didn’t I do so before? My POV is essentially PETA’s motto (although I hate PETA for being a hypocritical institution, but that’s besides the point).

Animal Rights activists look to 5 categories:
– Pets/Domestication
– Meat Industry
– Fur Industry
– Entertainment
– Animal Experimentation

My question is what’re your thoughts on each of these? My goal is to at least raise some questions in your heads after this discussion.

Originally posted by rwbstripes:
I had someone call me out when I was trying to explain why I spent most of my childhood summers shooting cats. I lived with my grandparents on their farm and they were about to be overrun by strays eating the chickens and eggs, so I came up with the idea of sitting around with a .22 Hornady and shooting them. I probably shot way more cats than I could count, kept the food coming in for my family, and got rid of all the barn cats and inbred animals running about. Yet, if I shot stray dogs or coyotes, do you think anybody would have cared?

You know, 99% of all serial killers/psychopaths killed animals during their childhood. As St. Francis of Assisi said, “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.” Just saying >.>

 
Flag Post

Animal experimentation is one I am happy to talk about, because whilst I personally do not do it, colleagues in the same field do, and the only reason I don’t is that my work is at the stage where I find experimenting on humans to be more rewarding.

We experiment on animals because they have shorter lifecycles, and so you can see the effects of your work on successive generations more quickly. Mice are used because their neurobiology is damn near identical to ours, and a tecyhnique that will work on a mouse, will 99/100 times work just fine on a human.

Whilst I disagree with working on sentient creatures – dogs and chimps – I do understand the motivaion. Mice are big balls of insinct. Very little there you could describe as self-awareness. There is some, but it is nowhere near as much as you are going to encounter in a canine mind. So, experimenting on them, with techniques intended to directly benefit ourselves, whilst taking steps not to give them undue suffering is to my mind, the best solution for developing techniques to the point where they are ready to be applied to humans.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Animal experimentation is one I am happy to talk about, because whilst I personally do not do it, colleagues in the same field do, and the only reason I don’t is that my work is at the stage where I find experimenting on humans to be more rewarding.

We experiment on animals because they have shorter lifecycles, and so you can see the effects of your work on successive generations more quickly. Mice are used because their neurobiology is damn near identical to ours, and a tecyhnique that will work on a mouse, will 99/100 times work just fine on a human.

Whilst I disagree with working on sentient creatures – dogs and chimps – I do understand the motivaion. Mice are big balls of insinct. Very little there you could describe as self-awareness. There is some, but it is nowhere near as much as you are going to encounter in a canine mind. So, experimenting on them, with techniques intended to directly benefit ourselves, whilst taking steps not to give them undue suffering is to my mind, the best solution for developing techniques to the point where they are ready to be applied to humans.

Very well said Miss Vika. You’ve argued your point well.

Before I get into the whole mice situation, can you answer why we experiment on animals? I don’t mean the answer you gave me as to why we choose them over ourselves, but the literal question- why do we experiment on animals?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RedWar31:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Animal experimentation is one I am happy to talk about, because whilst I personally do not do it, colleagues in the same field do, and the only reason I don’t is that my work is at the stage where I find experimenting on humans to be more rewarding.

We experiment on animals because they have shorter lifecycles, and so you can see the effects of your work on successive generations more quickly. Mice are used because their neurobiology is damn near identical to ours, and a tecyhnique that will work on a mouse, will 99/100 times work just fine on a human.

Whilst I disagree with working on sentient creatures – dogs and chimps – I do understand the motivaion. Mice are big balls of insinct. Very little there you could describe as self-awareness. There is some, but it is nowhere near as much as you are going to encounter in a canine mind. So, experimenting on them, with techniques intended to directly benefit ourselves, whilst taking steps not to give them undue suffering is to my mind, the best solution for developing techniques to the point where they are ready to be applied to humans.

Very well said Miss Vika. You’ve argued your point well.

Before I get into the whole mice situation, can you answer why we experiment on animals? I don’t mean the answer you gave me as to why we choose them over ourselves, but the literal question- why do we experiment on animals?

Its to test out medicine without endangering human lives.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by HappyAlCROWholic:
Originally posted by RedWar31:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Animal experimentation is one I am happy to talk about, because whilst I personally do not do it, colleagues in the same field do, and the only reason I don’t is that my work is at the stage where I find experimenting on humans to be more rewarding.

We experiment on animals because they have shorter lifecycles, and so you can see the effects of your work on successive generations more quickly. Mice are used because their neurobiology is damn near identical to ours, and a tecyhnique that will work on a mouse, will 99/100 times work just fine on a human.

Whilst I disagree with working on sentient creatures – dogs and chimps – I do understand the motivaion. Mice are big balls of insinct. Very little there you could describe as self-awareness. There is some, but it is nowhere near as much as you are going to encounter in a canine mind. So, experimenting on them, with techniques intended to directly benefit ourselves, whilst taking steps not to give them undue suffering is to my mind, the best solution for developing techniques to the point where they are ready to be applied to humans.

Very well said Miss Vika. You’ve argued your point well.

Before I get into the whole mice situation, can you answer why we experiment on animals? I don’t mean the answer you gave me as to why we choose them over ourselves, but the literal question- why do we experiment on animals?

Its to test out medicine without endangering human lives.

And would you say that, that purpose is to extend the human mortality rate? Or do you have some other one?

 
Flag Post

Its a complex question, but Crow’s not completely right. It is to test the effects of various chemicals or procedures on animals, rather than testing the same thing directly on humans. The theory being it is better for the negative effects to be found in animals, than it is for them to first turn up in humans.

I agree with that – to a point. Some animal testing was pointless and downright sadistic. “Let’s see what happens when cleaning agent X is poured into the eyes of this guinea pig!”. Yea, when you can do the same test with dead eyes and get the same results. That’s just letting the sadists run the asylum.

I know its not what you asked, RedWar, but I am going to amend the original concept:

It is to test out the effect of chemicals or procedures on living entities that bear as close a similarity to the intended type of entity targetted as possible, whilst minimising the negative effects on a sentient mind as much as possible.

Thus it is not ‘testing on humans’ that is to be avoided, as it is testing which results in permanent or lasting damage to the embodiment of a sentient mind which is to be avoided. We use creatures that are predominantly instinct for many experiments, thusly.

A lot of my field’s early work was on chimps, dogs, and housecats. It’s not something I’m proud of, but we needed to understand how a sentient mind would deal with these enhancements, and intrusions. We had no other means available to us at the time. Even the first human patients were pure experiment. We had no clue what would happen to these people, and they knew that going in.
 
Flag Post

While it is very nice of you to amend the concept in a way that seems like it would suit Animal Rights activists, let me point out 3 things.

1. This would satisfy animal welfare activists, as they believe animals should still be used but their suffering should be limited to as low as possible. Here’s the problem with looking at it through a welfare-like mind- you won’t get anything done. With animals in all these industries, it’s literally an all-or-nothing type deal. You can’t specify certain things to be done as the Right Wing members would advocate that it would put too much strain on industries.

2. The purpose of animal experimentation doesn’t follow your belief. Cosmetics and medicine alike follow the idea that since once isn’t allowed to legally experiment on humans, animals are the next thing.

3. Going along with that point, animal experimentation serves this purpose in the real world, regardless of your thoughts- to promote human pleasure and longevity.

Now, since you have already told me that you have a specific view on experimentation, tell me, what types of experiments would you be okay with? And please, be general regarding this.

Also, I would prefer if you used the word human instead of people. They aren’t actually synonomous, believe it or not, and the main goal of Animal Rights activists is to grant personhood to animals.

 
Flag Post

Actually I wasn’t amending it in a way that ‘seems like it would suit Animal Rights activists’, rather I was amending it in the only way my own morality – and that of most I have ever worked with – would allow. The original definition, its too vague unless you accept the axiom that non-human life is automatically less valuable than human life. I don’t. I can’t. My philosophy won’t allow me to, so I have to use a modified version that is compatible with both my morality and philosophy, and apply that to all my work.

There are individual differences, but in general most researchers work with something that is compatible to the italicised version.

Cosmetics and medicine alike follow the idea that since once isn’t allowed to legally experiment on humans, animals are the next thing.

Which would be all well and good if we weren’t allowed to experiment on humans. We are. The problem is, when you put a sentient, self-aware embodied mind into the equation it becomes an ethical issue on the part of the practicioner. Can we do the experiment without making things worse than they already are?

Every human test subject in the early days, was someone who was pretty much certain to die soon no matter what we did, and were scheduled for brain surgery as a last-ditch method to deal with servere brain malfunctions anyway. They agreed to let us ‘tinker’ in there whilst their brains were open. We couldn’t do any worse than they were already suffering.

The next stage of tests were locked in individuals, with no hope of ever being able to control their bodies again. Likewise we could have tested on animals, but what would have been the point? It wouldn’t have gotten us any closer to the goal, so we experimented on humans instead. Many of them didn’t work, but a few did. Everything else grew from there.

Going along with that point, animal experimentation serves this purpose in the real world, regardless of your thoughts- to promote human pleasure and longevity.

No. I would ask you please to stop insisting the only sentients in this world are humans. It is tiring and it is untrue. The point of all such experiments are to help embodied sentients – which means ALL embodied sentients, not just humans. If you cannot grasp that difference, this conversation is never going to go anywhere.

As it is we use smart prosthetics on humans, dogs, cats, chimps, whenever they’ve lost alimb and need a new one. With every procedure we push the boundaries a little more, learn something more. Every implantation, human or not, is an experiment. We have the basics down pat now, but we still need to fully overcome rejection issues, feedback and control issues.

Now, since you have already told me that you have a specific view on experimentation, tell me, what types of experiments would you be okay with? And please, be general regarding this.

Anything which allows us to integrate mechanical and/or computerised parts into an organic form in such a manner as they become part of the same organism, under the same control system. Nothing which changes the personality or alters the memories of the individual concerned.

Anything that elevates a given mind to new frontiers is fine. Deep brain implants to bring a canine up to an adult human cognition level, or bring them to far beyond it. Human mentality level is not the be all and end all, just a minimum benchmark level to achieve.

Let’s master the brain then re-engineer it as we see fit. Totally artificial lifeforms go down one road. Hybrids of flesh and titanium, neuron and electrode go down another. Eliminate any and all physical disability by making the organic body plug and play. Have whatever form your mind desires, regardless of what you started out as.

That pretty much sums up the core of what experiments I am okay with – as well as what experiments I am actively pursuing.

I would prefer if you used the word human instead of people. They aren’t actually synonomous, believe it or not

Like I said before, if you honestly believe you have to have human flesh to be a person, you are lying to yourself. Or you don’t realise what potentials are all around us.

I’ll stick to person, thank you very much.

 
Flag Post

Of course well put Vika. Now, not to be fussy,

You know, 99% of all serial killers/psychopaths killed animals during their childhood.

Assuming we are talking about in a significant manner, citation please? That is pure nonsense. Let alone the fact you are using serial killers and psychopaths interchangeably. I could also care less about Assisi moralizing. The only thing you’ve posited as an ethical justification is that people who kill animals will kill humans too. Which amusingly is purely human centric as a valuation.

 
Flag Post

So now there is a 99% chance that I will end up being a serial killer or psychopath? Holy fuck, thanks for letting me know!

Maybe you’re just a kid growing up in a city, but when you are relying on the chickens and the turkeys and the fat of the land for food, you really don’t get to say, "Oh, don’t kill the barn cat. It’s just an inbred, probably retarded, stray animal that is going about killing our animals. Let’s just let it live so we don’t potentially (With a 99% chance) become a serial killer or psychopath.

I didn’t sit around poking them with a stick, when I shot a cat I threw its body into the woods. Though, I did have the idea of making a little cat tooth necklace but never ended up getting around to that.

And by the looks of it, Vika is tearing your cocky attitude to pieces.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:
“Oh, don’t kill the barn cat. It’s just an inbred, probably retarded, stray animal that is going about killing our animals. Let’s just let it live…”

Where were you when I needed you, growing up? That half-sentence basically sums up 90% of my entire homeTOWN. Inbred, probably retarded humans that wander about killing things that don’t belong to them.

We could have had a field day together.

And by the looks of it, Vika is tearing your cocky attitude to pieces.

I was hoping for a reply by now, but after my last post, he just kinda…shut up and went away.

Maybe it was the length. Threads do tend to die when I drop a long one on them…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

So now there is a 99% chance that I will end up being a serial killer or psychopath? Holy fuck, thanks for letting me know!

That is not how statistics work.

saying that x% of a group does something does not mean that by doing that thing, there is a x% you are a part of the group

For example, if 10% of rich people eat their own hair, will eating your own hair give you an 10% chance of becoming rich? NO

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

I was hoping for a reply by now, but after my last post, he just kinda…shut up and went away.

Maybe it was the length. Threads do tend to die when I drop a long one on them…

My apologies, the holidays are a time-consuming.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Actually I wasn’t amending it in a way that ‘seems like it would suit Animal Rights activists’, rather I was amending it in the only way my own morality – and that of most I have ever worked with – would allow. The original definition, its too vague unless you accept the axiom that non-human life is automatically less valuable than human life. I don’t. I can’t. My philosophy won’t allow me to, so I have to use a modified version that is compatible with both my morality and philosophy, and apply that to all my work.

There are individual differences, but in general most researchers work with something that is compatible to the italicised version.

I thank you for thinking that way. It is most definitely an anti-speciest mentality and one that, if the world worked under, would result in us not having to have this dicussion.

Originally posted by vikaTae:


Which would be all well and good if we weren’t allowed to experiment on humans. We are. The problem is, when you put a sentient, self-aware embodied mind into the equation it becomes an ethical issue on the part of the practicioner. Can we do the experiment without making things worse than they already are?

Every human test subject in the early days, was someone who was pretty much certain to die soon no matter what we did, and were scheduled for brain surgery as a last-ditch method to deal with servere brain malfunctions anyway. They agreed to let us ‘tinker’ in there whilst their brains were open. We couldn’t do any worse than they were already suffering.

The next stage of tests were locked in individuals, with no hope of ever being able to control their bodies again. Likewise we could have tested on animals, but what would have been the point? It wouldn’t have gotten us any closer to the goal, so we experimented on humans instead. Many of them didn’t work, but a few did. Everything else grew from there.

That is very well true, but unfortunately not a widespread idea. Perhaps you’re aware of the Tuskegee Experiments, Unit 731, or Dr. Mengele. The problem with human experimenting began less with the idea of conducting a a poor-effective experiment (‘making things worse than they already are’), but with the lack of volunteering. The difference between Animal experimentation and Human experimentation was that with humans, you had to have their consent. With animals, you didn’t have to have their consent (by that I mean that they could bypass any consenting requirements b/c of the language barrier, an excuse that disgusts me). Following the 50s, this idea began to be more reinforced to the point where you see what you see today.

Originally posted by vikaTae:


No. I would ask you please to stop insisting the only sentients in this world are humans. It is tiring and it is untrue.

I apologize for my unprofessional lol, but you have to realize that you’re telling this to an Animal Rights activist. Of course I believe that animals are sentient beings. You’re looking at someone who’s written up arguments for cockroaches to be sentient. Where did you get that idea? I apologize for misleading you if that was the case.

Originally posted by vikaTae:


The point of all such experiments are to help embodied sentients – which means ALL embodied sentients, not just humans. If you cannot grasp that difference, this conversation is never going to go anywhere.

When we experiment on dogs for the purpose of helping dogs, I support that 100%. When we experiment on cats for the purpose of helping cats, I support that 100%. When we experiment on monkeys for the purpose of helping monkeys, I support that 100%. But when we experiment on dogs or cats or monkeys for the purposes of helping humans (and I know that you do not support this in your profession, but it is a practice utilized by many companies) I do not support that 100%.

I should have been more specific when I was arguing against animal experimentation, so I’m sorry for not being clearer. The only animal experimentation I am against is the ones that require any other species for the sake of humans. I hope that makes sense.

Originally posted by vikaTae:


Anything which allows us to integrate mechanical and/or computerised parts into an organic form in such a manner as they become part of the same organism, under the same control system. Nothing which changes the personality or alters the memories of the individual concerned.

Anything that elevates a given mind to new frontiers is fine. Deep brain implants to bring a canine up to an adult human cognition level, or bring them to far beyond it. Human mentality level is not the be all and end all, just a minimum benchmark level to achieve.

Let’s master the brain then re-engineer it as we see fit. Totally artificial lifeforms go down one road. Hybrids of flesh and titanium, neuron and electrode go down another. Eliminate any and all physical disability by making the organic body plug and play. Have whatever form your mind desires, regardless of what you started out as.

That pretty much sums up the core of what experiments I am okay with – as well as what experiments I am actively pursuing.

You certainly have a very open mind regarding the future, and I wish you luck in pursuing your goals. I should warn you that your ideas may run into conflict with the opposition that one cannot play God, but it is a stance I do not wish to argue. I already have my plate full as it is.

Originally posted by vikaTae:


Like I said before, if you honestly believe you have to have human flesh to be a person, you are lying to yourself. Or you don’t realise what potentials are all around us.

I’ll stick to person, thank you very much.

Very well said Miss. If only other “people” had that same mindset.

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Assuming we are talking about in a significant manner, citation please? That is pure nonsense. Let alone the fact you are using serial killers and psychopaths interchangeably. I could also care less about Assisi moralizing. The only thing you’ve posited as an ethical justification is that people who kill animals will kill humans too. Which amusingly is purely human centric as a valuation.

I wasn’t using the words interchangeably Mr. Ungezeifer. My / was intended as an “and” not an “aka”.

I would post a link, but it would be very time-consuming to post a link to every serial killer’s info. Look it up- every serial killer abused/tortured/killed animals when they were a kid. If you insist on more professional results, look up Dr. Arnold Aluke’s sociopath study or Dr. James Alan and Dr. Jack Levin’s published study, “The Will to Kill: Making Sense of Senseless Murder”.

Believe me, ethical justification is a whole other can of worms. This is simply trivia.

Originally posted by rwbstripes:

So now there is a 99% chance that I will end up being a serial killer or psychopath? Holy fuck, thanks for letting me know!

Maybe you’re just a kid growing up in a city, but when you are relying on the chickens and the turkeys and the fat of the land for food, you really don’t get to say, "Oh, don’t kill the barn cat. It’s just an inbred, probably retarded, stray animal that is going about killing our animals. Let’s just let it live so we don’t potentially (With a 99% chance) become a serial killer or psychopath.

I didn’t sit around poking them with a stick, when I shot a cat I threw its body into the woods. Though, I did have the idea of making a little cat tooth necklace but never ended up getting around to that.

And by the looks of it, Vika is tearing your cocky attitude to pieces.

Did I say that you didn’t have a right to kill them Mr. Rwbstripes? But could you answer me this one question- what were you feeding the chickens and turkeys that you relied on for your survival?