cats v's wildlife

Graces7

Magenta wrote: »

Right. So you shoot cats because you "believe that wildlife comes before a domesticated killer" but yet you shoot wildlife yourself.
So it's OK for you to shoot whatever you feel like but a cat should not kill?
It sounds to me like you just go around shooting for kicks.

Also ( re the reason for the gun being to protect his hens) do you not pen and protect your hens? If you do this properly there is no need for this shooting.

feral cats are not domesticated either. And TNR is the way not this killing

morganafay

seamus wrote: »

Correct. And if a dog was habitually doing this, it would be dealt with by the wardens. So equally foxes causing a nuisance should be dealt with.

I don't think dogs should be "dealt with" as in killed. My point was that most people wouldn't want dogs to be killed, but might feel different about foxes (thought I'm sure most people wouldn't want to kill foxes either)

And there are alot of dogs left to roam around towns that aren't taken by the warden.

Foxes might be a nuisance, but you can do other things than kill them. Keep chickens safely penned it, with concrete floors so foxes can't dig under, have bins that foxes can't get into, a fence they can't get over or under

GigaByte

seamus wrote: »

Aside from that, they will also spread pestilence and disease by ****ting all over your garden, leaving some lovely toxins there for your kids to get their hands on.

Birds **** can be just as deadly.

Bird droppings: What you don't know can't hurt you.
http://patism66.blogspot.com/2007/12/bird-droppings-what-you-dont-know-can.html

Graces7

doctor evil wrote: »

I doubt there is an artifically high number of hunters out there. Shooters also release pheasants and create sanctuary on their land/land they have access to. You won't find a cat doing that.

There is something innately obscene in raising birds etc with the sole purpose they they be shot for sport.

Nice wee bird; hatch out and grow so we can all aim and fire at you!

No. no self respecting cat would do that. Thankfully.

morganafay

Exactly, cats don't kill for fun. It's their instinct. They're not being cruel.

Why do so many people seem to hate cats? It's so old fashioned. Like cats are the devil/witch's cats . . .

Graces7

cipeen wrote: »

Yes, human interference and expansion have led to a (severely) negative impact on wildlife, but that doesn't mean that cats should be allowed to amplify our negative impact by being allowed to roam and kill.

Cats are an introduced species to Ireland, so their impact won't be 'natural' or 'balancing'.

I'd be happy to see a law introduced that made it illegal to let a cat roam wild. Same as it's illegal to introduce/spread pest species like Japanese Knotweed.

Historical evidence for cats and Ireland, please?

I think you will find it is so far back that it really does not apply.

Who will you arrest? The people who moved house and left their cats behind?

planetX

I'm just amazed how people can rationalize good and bad lists of the native wildlife. It's ok to torture and kill the bad list. It's a capital offense (for a cat) to kill from the good list. Such balance.

morganafay

I agree with Grace, if people are letting their cats go feral and have alot of feral kittens, then they are causing a problem.

But some people just have pet cats and are looking after them properly, not letting them breed or abandoning them or anything. If they are doing pretty much no harm, and are not in much danger themselves, then I don't think it's that big a deal to let them roam. If they're doing harm then don't let them roam.

morganafay

planetX wrote: »

I'm just amazed how people can rationalize good and bad lists of the native wildlife. It's ok to torture and kill the bad list. It's a capital offense (for a cat) to kill from the good list. Such balance.

Exactly! And how it's ok to kill someone's pet, but not for a cat to kill a bird (when it doesn't know what it's doing is "wrong")

Graces7

Kess73 wrote: »

Cats would not die out if all the birds did though. The cat population is artificial due to humans bringing about the domestic cat. People sustain numbers of cats that would never happen if the cat popultaion only had itself to rely on for food.

An better example of how cat populations fare without human involvement in artificially boosting it's food supply.

I never suggested punishing cats, I just think people need to be more aware of the knock on effect of things. Things like a cat having a litter and the litter being let loose. Or the dumping of cats when the owners decide that they do not want them. These kind of things introduce an animal with no predator of it's own into the enviroment and create a system where the apex predators are greater in number than they should be in relation to prey numbers.

My own way of discouraging cats is a water gun. The cat gets squirted a few times over a period of time and it does learn to avoid the garden it gets a squirt in. The way I see it, the cat is unharmed, and the birds in my garden have a slightly better chance.

Feral cats on the other hand can become a serious pest if their numbers are allowed to become too great in areas. They can hunt in groups and have been know to drive out and kill house cats. In other countries there are animals that will prey on feral cats and somewhat manage their numbers, but over here there seems to be an explosion of them. Another thing that does not help is that many people cannot tell the difference, or understand the difference, between a feral cat and a stray cat that is homeless.

We know that there is a problem; so what are YOU planning to do about it? Seeing as you think that you are among the very few who see this?
Please, help those who are working to set this right.

Theory is all very well; action is far, far better.

Can you support what you say re driving out and killing domestic cats? We have had our pets here challenged by a tom from outside the territory when we came here but he soon gave up.

morganafay

I've never heard of cats killing other adult cats. That's one thing I like about them. Some dogs might kill other dogs, but cats would rarely if ever really do that. (Of course I love dogs too!) They'd fight or chase other cats away, but wouldn't just kill them out of viciousness. Even the one vicious cat I've ever had (now too old to fight anyway) would always fight other cats just because she could, but if there were kittens around (which she could easily have killed) she's dislike them, because they annoyed her, but would never actually hurt them at all.

Graces7

Jackson Gray Gong wrote: »

If your cat is on my land eating our precious kingfishers, don't expect it home. It's not trigger happy by any means. Regardless of what you may think. There is a perfectly good reason for the action.



You are denying cats damage wildlife?

Limbo does not exist so no danger.

Are you threatening my cats? REALLY!

A cat is a cat is a cat. Its essence is to hunt.

"Damage" is a different matter altogether. That implies permanent and irreparable change; so yes I am denying that in that sense cats inflict irreparable destructive change on the entire balance of nature.

Only man does that. And how!

Not cats.

I am deeply grateful to my two cats for keeping the house and outbuildings here vermin free.

They probably catch birds sometimes; that is their nature. But that is not damaging wildlife permanently as birds do breed and renew.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

planetX wrote: »

Considered by whom?

The Irish state. Which outweighs your opinion and that of others here by quite a lot.

I don't consider foxes to be vermin.

Ah, so if you don't consider them to be vermin they can't be...? :rolleyes: You cannot deny that they are vermin by simply saying so.

Why is farming the be all and end all

Our country was once dependant on agriculture. We still have a lot of people employed in farming. It is a livlihood and one that needs to be protected from vermin.

and as pointed out before farming is responsible for far more damage to native wildlife and their habitats than pets could ever be.

It sure is, but the industry is needed. It's not just a hobby.

Maybe they're farming the chicken that goes into catfood. Maybe blackbirds taste as good as chicken?

I doubt it, either way there's not much meat on a blackbird Wouldn't be worth plucking and cooking.

Starlings cause damage to crops, is it ok for my cat to kill starlings?

Starlings are not an endangered species. It's not the common birds that are in abundance that people are worried about, it's the scarse beautiful birds like the kingfisher we are concerned for.

I like wild birds, as I like all animals. I don't see them as worthy of 'special' status because they make nice sounds.

Again, it doesn't matter what you think, you can have your opinion but stating your opinion doesn't make it fact. Song birds are protected, there is a reason for this.

Magenta wrote: »

They release pheasants to shoot them!
They breed them and keep them, then release them and get their kicks from shooting them.

Educate yourself in this field before you start blabbering on about it. It's embarrassing.

They could just kill them for food like you would with chickens, but no, releasing them and shooting them is much more fun.

Ever taste pheasant? Most shooters do not engage in this type of shooting. There is a market for it alright, and the pheasents are eaten in most cases. They are too good to simply throw away.

If you're so concerned about protecting your food producing animals then why don't you keep them secure in the first place?

Expenses and the likes. Many of the animals have to be kept in areas where they graze, how can you enclose a whole field?

If deer are as overpopulated in an area as all you ecology-loving hunters like to make out, then do you know what would happen? They would leave the area. If you went to a restaurant and found out it had no food, you'd go somewhere else, wouldn't you? Same thing.

Are you taking the piss? Do you know anything about deer? I know the answer to that question already Do you know what industries they effect? Do you think they should be let roam? Do you know why people are allowed shoot deer? Why certain areas and a certain organisations would call in shooters to cull an area? I doubt you know the real answers to any of these questions, but you are more than welcome to take a guess

Grey crows and magpies ARE wild birds!

Vermin. Simply put. Here's a definition to clear your confusion on the matter.

Vermin (in some dialect regions, Varmint or Varmit) is a term applied to various animal species regarded as pests or nuisances and especially to those associated with the carrying of disease.

And "destroying" other wildbirds is nature!!!! It's called natural selection!

So your conclusion is to let our songbirds and other endangered animals to simply die out?

It sounds to me like you kill the birds you don't like, and leave alone the pretty little ones you do like. Robins eat insects, are you going to decide you really like insects and start shooting robins too?

Robins are protected, seriously like is it that difficult to comprehend? It is not a matter of liking or disliking an animal or bird, it's about protecting certain species from other species that are well over populated. It's a shame that most of ye don't have a clue about what ye are talking about, you should appretiate the work that hunters and shooters put in to preserve your beautiful habitats.

Well then get off your ass and make your chicken enclosure fox-proof.

Why should he go to that expense? Shooting them is lawful, easy and costs less. Get off your moral high horse maybe?

Thrushes eat snails.
Tits eat insects and worms.
Native lizards eat insects.
Since they are all clearly murder machines, why aren't you shooting them?

This arguement is extremely weak. It's pathetic actually. I have explained a few times already why people would not shoot these creatures. Either way, shooting newts? Good luck with that one... lol.

I am so tired of bloodthirsty meatheads bleating on about how they are "protecting wildlife". If you love shooting things so much, join the army.

Bloodthristy meatheads? Are you a meat eater? Be honest now.

Shooters have done for more for this countries habitats than you will ever do. Begin to realise that and appretiate it. Hunters would also tend to know a lot more about wildlife and ecology in general than those who do not shoot. Why? Because those hunters educate themselves before taking action. They do it for a reason.

The general narrowminded anti-hunter wouldn't have a clue about anything, they just like to rabble on about how cruel it is, how inhumane and uneeded it is, while at the same time they tuck into a nice T-bone steak... Hypocrits? Definately...

morganafay wrote: »

That was a joke, sorry I thought that was obvious! But also to illustrate the point that there are loads of wild birds around my house and my cats haven't wiped them out.

Jokes in text, in case you haven't notcied, can be difficult to pick up, especially from reading your previous posts.

Cats are not going to wipe out the whole wild bird population in an area. That would be nuts. They do cause severe damage to certain bird species though.

Cats have been around for a long long time, and yet birds still exist. I don't think they're gonna go extinct because of cats anytime soon.

Ah sure if there's still birds around, then your cat can roam around freely, right?

morganafay wrote: »

For whatever reason, you're still killing someone's pet. How can that be justified?

Pet or not, if it's on my land endangering the rare species and my animals, it may not return home. Being a pet does not grant the animal diplomatic immunity

morganafay wrote: »

All these things can be said about dogs too, when they are left roam, and people don't usually call them vermin (in this country).

They are not vermin. They are a controlled pet, unlike cats. There are more restrictions with dogs than there are with cats.

Some people think animals are vermin and that makes it ok to kill them, but some people don't think that.

It doesn't matter what people think, what matters is the law. It's lawful to kill vermin, you don't even need a reason. So it is perfectly ok to kill vermin. It's not an opinion on what is vermin and what is not, it's fact, stated in writing.

Graces7

seamus wrote: »

Foxes are generally considered vermin, and not just by farmers. They get into bins and pull it all over the place, they pose a threat to cats (small, granted) and other pets such as rabbits and guinea pigs which are kept in areas accessible to the fox.

Aside from that, they will also spread pestilence and disease by ****ting all over your garden, leaving some lovely toxins there for your kids to get their hands on.

It may not justify killing them, but you can't ignore them on account of being "wildlife" either.

Of "your kids" insist on handling soil or grass, then teach them to wash their hands.

We were always taught WASH YOUR HANDS.

Graces7

If Limbo truly does not exist, to go by this post, it should.

Jackson Gray Gong wrote: »

The Irish state. Which outweighs your opinion and that of others here by quite a lot.



Ah, so if you don't consider them to be vermin they can't be...? :rolleyes: You cannot deny that they are vermin by simply saying so.



Our country was once dependant on agriculture. We still have a lot of people employed in farming. It is a livlihood and one that needs to be protected from vermin.



It sure is, but the industry is needed. It's not just a hobby.



I doubt it, either way there's not much meat on a blackbird Wouldn't be worth plucking and cooking.



Starlings are not an endangered species. It's not the common birds that are in abundance that people are worried about, it's the scarse beautiful birds like the kingfisher we are concerned for.



Again, it doesn't matter what you think, you can have your opinion but stating your opinion doesn't make it fact. Song birds are protected, there is a reason for this.



Educate yourself in this field before you start blabbering on about it. It's embarrassing.



Ever taste pheasant? Most shooters do not engage in this type of shooting. There is a market for it alright, and the pheasents are eaten in most cases. They are too good to simply throw away.




Expenses and the likes. Many of the animals have to be kept in areas where they graze, how can you enclose a whole field?



Are you taking the piss? Do you know anything about deer? I know the answer to that question already Do you know what industries they effect? Do you think they should be let roam? Do you know why people are allowed shoot deer? Why certain areas and a certain organisations would call in shooters to cull an area? I doubt you know the real answers to any of these questions, but you are more than welcome to take a guess




Vermin. Simply put. Here's a definition to clear your confusion on the matter.

Vermin (in some dialect regions, Varmint or Varmit) is a term applied to various animal species regarded as pests or nuisances and especially to those associated with the carrying of disease.



So your conclusion is to let our songbirds and other endangered animals to simply die out?



Robins are protected, seriously like is it that difficult to comprehend? It is not a matter of liking or disliking an animal or bird, it's about protecting certain species from other species that are well over populated. It's a shame that most of ye don't have a clue about what ye are talking about, you should appretiate the work that hunters and shooters put in to preserve your beautiful habitats.





Why should he go to that expense? Shooting them is lawful, easy and costs less. Get off your moral high horse maybe?




This arguement is extremely weak. It's pathetic actually. I have explained a few times already why people would not shoot these creatures. Either way, shooting newts? Good luck with that one... lol.



Bloodthristy meatheads? Are you a meat eater? Be honest now.

Shooters have done for more for this countries habitats than you will ever do. Begin to realise that and appretiate it. Hunters would also tend to know a lot more about wildlife and ecology in general than those who do not shoot. Why? Because those hunters educate themselves before taking action. They do it for a reason.

The general narrowminded anti-hunter wouldn't have a clue about anything, they just like to rabble on about how cruel it is, how inhumane and uneeded it is, while at the same time they tuck into a nice T-bone steak... Hypocrits? Definately...

morganafay wrote: »

That was a joke, sorry I thought that was obvious! But also to illustrate the point that there are loads of wild birds around my house and my cats haven't wiped them out.

Jokes in text, in case you haven't notcied, can be difficult to pick up, especially from reading your previous posts.

Cats are not going to wipe out the whole wild bird population in an area. That would be nuts. They do cause severe damage to certain bird species though.



Ah sure if there's still birds around, then your cat can roam around freely, right?



Pet or not, if it's on my land endangering the rare species and my animals, it may not return home. Being a pet does not grant the animal diplomatic immunity

morganafay wrote: »

All these things can be said about dogs too, when they are left roam, and people don't usually call them vermin (in this country).

They are not vermin. They are a controlled pet, unlike cats. There are more restrictions with dogs than there are with cats.



It doesn't matter what people think, what matters is the law. It's lawful to kill vermin, you don't even need a reason. So it is perfectly ok to kill vermin. It's not an opinion on what is vermin and what is not, it's fact, stated in writing.

morganafay

IamXavier, if all of our opinions don't matter, then why are you giving your opinions?

If you can then we can.

I don't agree with any of your opinions, and I never will. In fact most of what you said there just sounded liking you were trying to insult other people, and if you were, it just made you sound immature.

Magenta

Jackson Gray Gong wrote: »

Ah, so if you don't consider them to be vermin they can't be...? :rolleyes: You cannot deny that they are vermin by simply saying so.

And you cannot claim that an animal is vermin just by saying so.

Jackson Gray Gong wrote: »

Expenses and the likes. Many of the animals have to be kept in areas where they graze, how can you enclose a whole field?

They're called fences. Since you are using your sig to beg for work, maybe you could get a job in a fencing company? Just a thought...

Jackson Gray Gong wrote: »

Why should he go to that expense? Shooting them is lawful, easy and costs less. Get off your moral high horse maybe?

Cheap thrills...

And by the way, please learn to spell. Your poor English is embarrassing. It shows a lack of education, which amuses me since you have told me to get educated.

morganafay

Also, is it legal to shoot a cat? I know it's illegal in England and America.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Graces7 wrote: »

Limbo does not exist so no danger.

What has this got to do with anything? If you are trying to get personal, please continue failing. It's a discussion.

Are you threatening my cats? REALLY!

Oh, are ya getting upset? I didn't threaten anybody or anybodies cats. I simply said that if your (that's plural) cat is on my land and it is endangering my stock and the local wildlife, don't expect that cat to come home.

A cat is a cat is a cat. Its essence is to hunt.

My essence is to hunt too, but ignorant people make that difficult since they live on a moral high ground. Our bodies are designed for hunting. It's simple.

"Damage" is a different matter altogether. That implies permanent and irreparable change; so yes I am denying that in that sense cats inflict irreparable destructive change on the entire balance of nature.

Oooookayyy... So, cats don't damage the ecology at all? I shoot grey squirrels, do you think that's cruel and unnessecary? Cats do cause a lot of damage to wildlife. You just made up your own definition for the word "damage" and enforced it here. That is quite funny. Damage can be repaired, it's not always permanent.

Only man does that. And how!

Wrong!

Not cats.

I am deeply grateful to my two cats for keeping the house and outbuildings here vermin free.

As you should be towards hunters who keep the vermin numbers in our eco systems lower than they would be.

They probably catch birds sometimes; that is their nature. But that is not damaging wildlife permanently as birds do breed and renew.

Wrong... Cats can cause serious damage to wildlife and certain species where that species is endangered. In general, if cats were only to eat common birds (which is not the case) then they would not be causing any noticable damage at all.

planetX wrote: »

I'm just amazed how people can rationalize good and bad lists of the native wildlife. It's ok to torture and kill the bad list. It's a capital offense (for a cat) to kill from the good list. Such balance.

I am amazed at how little people know about ecology and the pets they keep.

It's not people who make up the different lists, it's the state with the help of expert advisors, ecologists.

You assume that people torture vermin? Why? To suit your own agenda? :rolleyes: It's not okay to torture any animal.

morganafay wrote: »

Exactly, cats don't kill for fun. It's their instinct. They're not being cruel.

Why do so many people seem to hate cats? It's so old fashioned. Like cats are the devil/witch's cats . . .

Why do people here assume that people hate cats? I am an animal lover, but I also like to conserve my local ecosystem.

planetX wrote: »

birds dig up bulbs, eat young veg seedlings, could also transmit disease - bird flu. Vermin? It's all subjective.

Bulbs? Are you serious? Farmers shoot birds for eating their crops, they put up scare crows and machines that make loud noises.

Bird flu? Oh lol... yea, because that was a real epidemic.

Some birds are vermin too, they get shot and controlled just like any other vermin.

It's not subjective at all actually.

Graces7 wrote: »

Also ( re the reason for the gun being to protect his hens) do you not pen and protect your hens? If you do this properly there is no need for this shooting.

Have you any idea about ecosystems and wildlife in general? Or are you just bickering on based on your own morals? Why not let foxes roam free? Just think about what you are saying, even for a moment.

[/quote]feral cats are not domesticated either. And TNR is the way not this killing[/QUOTE]

Would you have all these wild cats roam freely, because your love for them prevents you from acting properly? I love animals, but I also have the ability to see the importance in controlling certain species, obviously most of ye don't.

morganafay wrote: »

I don't think dogs should be "dealt with" as in killed. My point was that most people wouldn't want dogs to be killed, but might feel different about foxes (thought I'm sure most people wouldn't want to kill foxes either)

Well those people that wouldn't would be quite ignorant, naive and extremely uneducated.

Foxes might be a nuisance, but you can do other things than kill them. Keep chickens safely penned it, with concrete floors so foxes can't dig under, have bins that foxes can't get into, a fence they can't get over or under

Yea, lets protect foxes, ban the hunting of foxes and lets see what happens. Any ideas what might happen?

There's also the cost factor, any idea how expensive it is to put in a concrete floor and enclose a large area? Obviously not.

Graces7 wrote: »

There is something innately obscene in raising birds etc with the sole purpose they they be shot for sport.

That's your opinion, you are entitled to it. Each to their own.

morganafay wrote: »

I agree with Grace, if people are letting their cats go feral and have alot of feral kittens, then they are causing a problem.

But some people just have pet cats and are looking after them properly, not letting them breed or abandoning them or anything. If they are doing pretty much no harm, and are not in much danger themselves, then I don't think it's that big a deal to let them roam. If they're doing harm then don't let them roam.

If you control your cat, don't let it roam freely and have it causing trouble then no problems, but of course, some people think that because the animal was once wild, they should do nothing about it... :rolleyes:

morganafay wrote: »

Exactly! And how it's ok to kill someone's pet, but not for a cat to kill a bird (when it doesn't know what it's doing is "wrong")

Pet or not, if it is endangering livestock and/or endangered wildlife, then it's understandable, at least for some people it is.

Graces7 wrote: »

Of "your kids" insist on handling soil or grass, then teach them to wash their hands.

We were always taught WASH YOUR HANDS.

You obviously don't know much about kids either... :rolleyes:

Magenta

Jackson Gray Gong wrote: »

Our bodies are designed for hunting. It's simple.

28 of our 32 teeth are blunt. Our "canines" are as sharp as a spoon (i.e. not sharp, if you didn't understand this line).
We are slow, cannot jump for crap, use two legs instead of four (hence crap at running and jumping), have blunt nails instead of claws, and have poor sight, smell, and hearing compared to any carnivore you can name.
And you claim that everybody else is stupid.

morganafay

Haha, if we were designed for hunting then why would we need guns? I sure could go for some antelope, I'll just chase one down and kill it with my teeth and bare hands . . . or maybe a rabbit, I can run that fast.

morganafay

And Xavier, call people ignorant all you want, but it just shows how ignorant you are being.

Also you're just arguing and protesting too much, making really long posts which are mostly little insults to people. It's not convincing anyone, just being annoying.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

morganafay wrote: »

IamXavier, if all of our opinions don't matter, then why are you giving your opinions?

Trying to educate you people. My opinions are not opinions, but facts. Which I learnt from those who have a clue

If you can then we can.

Who said you couldn't give your opinion?

I don't agree with any of your opinions, and I never will.

I couldn't give a damn

In fact most of what you said there just sounded liking you were trying to insult other people, and if you were, it just made you sound immature.

You know where the report button is? Well use it if you have been insulted.

Graces7 wrote: »

If Limbo truly does not exist, to go by this post, it should.

Lost your ability to debate? Still trying to get personal? Pathetic really...

Magenta wrote: »

And you cannot claim that an animal is vermin just by saying so.

I didn't. It's printed in writing for everyone to see, vermin are defined and listed by the state. I didn't just claim random animals are vermin, the state defined them as such.

They're called fences. Since you are using your sig to beg for work, maybe you could get a job in a fencing company? Just a thought...

Come on, we are having a discussion about wildlife and cats and you try to insult me by throwing little digs like that? That's fairly weak...

Cheap thrills...

Wrong...

And by the way, please learn to spell. Your poor English is embarrassing. It shows a lack of education, which amuses me since you have told me to get educated.

Oh the lowest form of insult. Pathetic really. When one cannot debate any further, defend their opinion and is losing, they normally result to trivial insults. To er is human. All humans are flawed, and I accept this either way are we discussing spellings here? Or wildlife? You are not educated one bit in ecology, but you think you know it all because your moral compass is telling you so, maybe it's because you own a cat? I don't know. You definately need a crash course in wildlife anyway.

morganafay wrote: »

Also, is it legal to shoot a cat? I know it's illegal in England and America.

Beats me, I guess you best check that out for yourself. Who said anything about shooting cats?

Quite obvious from the insults and how some people have resorted to other measures instead of debating the issue at hand, that they are losing and they know it... :cool:

Magenta

morganafay wrote: »

Haha, if we were designed for hunting then why would we need guns? I sure could go for some antelope, I'll just chase one down and kill it with my teeth and bare hands . . . or maybe a rabbit, I can run that fast.

Jackson Gray Gong wrote:

I am amazed at how little people know about ecology and the pets they keep.

I am amazed at how little some people know about their own species.
I fancy a nice steak tonight. I might go and take down a cow.
Morganafay, you ambush it, and I'll go for its throat with my razor sharp teeth and haul it to the ground with my long sharp claws.

morganafay

It's pointless arguing with you. You don't even seem to be listening, just saying the same things over and over and I'm bored of it so not gonna argue.

This doesn't mean I know I'm wrong and have lost the argument though I'm gonna still keep the same beliefs

Magenta

Jackson Gray Gong wrote: »

Oh the lowest form of insult. Pathetic really. When one cannot debate any further, defend their opinion and is losing, they normally result to trivial insults.


Quite obvious from the insults and how some people have resorted to other measures instead of debating the issue at hand, that they are losing and they know it... :cool:

Aren't you the one calling people pathetic, uneducated, embarrassing? :rolleyes:

morganafay

Ok Magenta, then I'll swallow the meat without chewing and digest it with my super carnivore intestines!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Magenta wrote: »

28 of our 32 teeth are blunt. Our "canines" are as sharp as a spoon (i.e. not sharp, if you didn't understand this line).
We are slow, cannot jump for crap, use two legs instead of four (hence crap at running and jumping), have blunt nails instead of claws, and have poor sight, smell, and hearing compared to any carnivore you can name.
And you claim that everybody else is stupid.

Wow, you don't even know your own species. I think you should start with that one first, then progress to cats. Seriously, people need to learn a little about mamals, and wildlife in general.

Would you know much about evolution?

Where did I claim everybody else was stupid? I think you also need to read between the lines and not twist my words

morganafay wrote: »

Haha, if we were designed for hunting then why would we need guns? I sure could go for some antelope, I'll just chase one down and kill it with my teeth and bare hands . . . or maybe a rabbit, I can run that fast.

Not all animals have the same tools to hunt. Our main tool is our intelligence.

morganafay wrote: »

And Xavier, call people ignorant all you want, but it just shows how ignorant you are being.

Also you're just arguing and protesting too much, making really long posts which are mostly little insults to people. It's not convincing anyone, just being annoying.

Too much for you to read? There's a lot of information, you people have a lot of points and opinions that need to be addressed. I cannot do this in a little 3 lined post. If it's too much for you to read then don't read it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Magenta wrote: »

Aren't you the one calling people pathetic, uneducated, embarrassing? :rolleyes:

Uneducated is not an insult, it's a fact, which is quite obvious.

I never called anybody pathetic, some of the posts are though.

morganafay wrote: »

Ok Magenta, then I'll swallow the meat without chewing and digest it with my super carnivore intestines!

We are omnivores, not carnivores... you should at least know this much...

morganafay

Hmmm, yeah that was too much to read and thinking hurts my brain , I'm just gonna go outside and play with my cats in the fields before it gets dark.