ilovefuzz.com

... like maybe you need to commit some act of mass violence like shooting up a school or a movie theater or a falafel cart?

Please. I urge you instead to book a flight to this guys office and shoot it up instead. Fucking scumbags like this deserve lose everything and die.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33695872

I'm not feeling too friendly towards lions right now.

geez, I never thought I'd say this on ILF because y'all might think I'm the 'Nuge or something, but I have hunted myself (not big game). Let me tell you, real hunters hate poachers like that dentist more than you probably do.

Because you have to admit, in some places we need game-management. Try going to like Brown County, IN; the fucking deer will come try to eat shit out of your car! That's not good. Creates dependencies and also puts them in bad spots like roads at night where they might hurt someone.

[I know two people hurt by deer in the road, but zero by lions.... hmmm]

So bad hunters make the majority who are good, sporting and law-abiding people, look all like a bunch of idiots or worse.

Finally, there is the controversial idea that even for species of big-game that are threatened, a tiny amount of hunting should be allowed. This idea behind this is to charge exorbitant fees on the hunters who win a lottery system to hunt, and then use that money for enforcement against poachers. The problem is that the idea doesn't work when the corruption index of your country is off the charts.

So yeah, fuck that dentist-poacher.

How do you feel about African lions bought illegally to be pets in an urban Midwestern setting that then escape and take social media by storm?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/a- ... .html?_r=0

#MKElion

I'm thinking I should market my band's show this Friday as Pridefest II: Rally for the Milwaukee Lion

tuj wrote:in some places we need game-management.

calling animals 'game' makes it sound as if those animals' sole reason for existence is to service the material requirements of some kind of sport. i strongly doubt whether those animals, or any lover of animals, see it that way. they were born as free as you were, as all animals are, and no animal deserves to die for another animal's pleasure.
people calling animals 'game' rather than animals is a semantic 'de-animalising (animal equivalent of 'dehumanising')' game they are playing with their conscience to try to dodge the guilt they know they will naturally feel if they don't take steps to trick their conscience.

tuj wrote:Try going to like Brown County, IN; the fucking deer will come try to eat shit out of your car!

that's probably because incoming people built a town over a large proportion of their natural habitat. it's a certainty that they would far rather be eating their natural diet than anything to be found in a car. but the tree, bush, whatever, they (or their antecedents) used to eat from is now a drive-thru.

tuj wrote:I know two people hurt by deer in the road

compared to the number of deer hurt by people annually, i'd say the deer could hurt a thousand times as many people as they currently do and not even be close to getting even.
and i suspect when people say they have been 'hurt by a deer' they actually mean they drove into one, in which event the deer are inevitably hurt more if not killed outright. as such, that kind of admission reveals about the same level of humanity as running over a kid and then blaming the kid for your whiplash injuries.

tuj wrote:Finally, there is the controversial idea that even for species of big-game that are threatened, a tiny amount of hunting should be allowed. This idea behind this is to charge exorbitant fees on the hunters who win a lottery system to hunt, and then use that money for enforcement against poachers. The problem is that the idea doesn't work when the corruption index of your country is off the charts.

'controversial' as in 'bullshit'? the idea itself is rationally corrupt, regardless of who tries to implement it.
eg. allow a little violent assault and use the money to support victims of violent assault? that's a moral and logical vacuum.

again, the fact these hunters are trying to cook up some false 'morality bargain' based on demonstrably nonsense logic strongly suggests that they realise, at an instinctive conscience level, that they are doing something fundamentally unjustifiable, but that they will inevitably be obliged to try to justify it to others. the word for that is guilt.

i know that might seem a bit harsh as a reply to your post but it's really not you i'm down on, tuj, just your hunting. on a hundred other subjects i am sure we see eye-to-eye. but apart from preventing the spread of terminal disease i find most arguments for hunting thinly-veiled conscience-easers that lack any kind of genuine moral (or even logical) rigour.

Totally with tcat.

With the population of African lions reduced from 200000 to 30K (%15 for those of you sucking at the math), that has to be the most retarded fucking justification of that I've ever heard.
I understand the issues with poverty and social welfare etc. are what frive this sort of hunting in those regions, on top of the fact that you are dealing with already quite corrupt governments, but how are rich westerners justified in buying into that mentality and taking full advantage of that corruption (not to mention the exploitation of local peoples engaged to help them hunt) in order to take the life of an animal so that they can pretend it's still the good old days of colonial England and that White Cuntery will prevail?

Calling total bullshit.
Sorry dude.

Yeah, the only hunting I agree with is like tabbycat said to prevent serious illness or if
it is a necessity for survival. I'm talking about indigenous tribal shit not "hey bro, want some deer jerky?
I've got a freezer full of venison that my uncle gave me." shit.

When he resumes practicing dentistry, we need to employ the services of a suicide tooth bomber.

Killing unwanted unborn human babies = good

Killing a popular lion = bad.

Only in America.

Ugly Nora wrote:Killing unwanted unborn human babies = good

Killing a popular lion = bad.

Only in America.

Your sentiments are a little misguided, Nora, there's definitely no lion overpopulation problem.

Pictured:

Uns Table

If they woulda killed Columbus.

Chankgeez wrote:

Ugly Nora wrote:Killing unwanted unborn human babies = good

Killing a popular lion = bad.

Only in America.

Your sentiments are a little misguided, Nora, there's definitely no lion overpopulation problem.

There might be an over abundance of people, but since when does that make killing each other okay? We'll kill insects for the simple convenience of our own lives, because it's no threat to the species. I guess that makes that okay too?

HeavyXIII wrote:

Chankgeez wrote:

Ugly Nora wrote:Killing unwanted unborn human babies = good

Killing a popular lion = bad.

Only in America.

Your sentiments are a little misguided, Nora, there's definitely no lion overpopulation problem.

There might be an over abundance of people, but since when does that make killing each other okay? We'll kill insects for the simple convenience of our own lives, because it's no threat to the species. I guess that makes that okay too?

Are you a Buddhist?

To steal an old bit from Bill Hicks, they're not people until they're in my phone book.