Upon hearing this disgusting dialogue, I'd almost feel like shooting the accused in the foot.
Raccoon attack
- Thread starter Worf
- Start date
Upon hearing this disgusting dialogue, I'd almost feel like shooting the accused in the foot.
B
burt-oh-my!
You CANNOT logically reconcile the two positions - don't kill raccoons, do eat chickens, or eggs.
I also find it hard to reconcile - don't kill raccoons, because even though they inconvenience you, they have rights too - and do kill human beings 3, 4, or 5 months after inception.
I also find it hard to reconcile - don't kill raccoons, because even though they inconvenience you, they have rights too - and do kill human beings 3, 4, or 5 months after inception.
You can wriggle and writhe all you want. You cannot escape the truth of the logic.
And yes, I know it was an analogy.... that's why I say you are equating the two situations. Isn't that what an analogy is?? DUH!!!
And, yes... now you are N1ghth4wk free... and much less enlightened for it. But then again... guys like you like the dark. You can't stand the harsh light of logic when it reveals the hypocricy that you embrace. Bye bye, muffdiver.
If you say so; I didn't, though that shoe would fit. He is a man who thinks his anger allows him to beat a baby with a shovel.
What could I possibly say to this??? All I can do is laugh.
Thank you for giving me my morning smile.
Similarly. No useful reasoning's to be expected from a guy who laughs at the concept of such cruelty and self-entitlement. But it's pitiable, not laughable.What could I possibly say to this??? All I can do is laugh.
Oh.... so you weren't joking???? Oldjones, do you really believe that because this man is prepared to beat a raccoon to death with a shovel that he would be prepared to beat a baby to death with a shovel? Really???
Guess you didn't know raccoons have babies, and it was a raccoon baby he maimed. And if he was prepared he'd have used something like a broom to shoo it or an axe or machete to kill it humanely.
He is is a psychotic who can't control his rage. Society steps in with heavyhanded laws to discipline people who don't discipline themselves.
He is is a psychotic who can't control his rage. Society steps in with heavyhanded laws to discipline people who don't discipline themselves.
When you say "baby" without the word "raccoon" after it, one would tend to think you are referring to a human baby. Thank you for clarifying that you meant "baby raccoon" and therefore adding absolutely nothing to this dialog other than stating the obvious. Yes... it has been established that he beat a baby raccoon with a shovel.
I had racoon problems before, kept getting in my garbage! Solution, Cayenne pepper! Good some where to buy cheap Cayenne pepper, spread the pepper around the area they are infesting! Spread it so they have to cross this area to get to where they want to go! Once they do that, they will never be back! I did it once! Never seen them again! $5 worth of Cayenne pepper and problem solved!
The pro-raccoon lobby should be willing to "walk the talk" or they lose all moral authority in this discussion. Are they willing:
1) Compensate all victims of raccoon destruction? and
2) Willing to adopt all unwanted raccoons in their OWN home.
1) Compensate all victims of raccoon destruction? and
2) Willing to adopt all unwanted raccoons in their OWN home.
My earlier line was clearly meant to draw the line at what is legal (hunting, fishing) and moral (killing for food when necessary) compared to this individual's actions (attempting to kill an inconvenient nuisance.) I did not claim that fishing or hunting were moral or kind. But they can be necessary. And there are accepted methods of dispatching with the prey that are generally followed by ethical hunters and anglers.
You can keep bringing your fishing analogy back into this, but the facts remain: licenced hunting and fishing are legal and regulated; unlicenced (attempted) killing of an animal out of frustration is not.
From a pure logistical perspective, if we allowed every home owner to kill every "pest" (and since it's in the city, what safe/acceptable methods could they use? who would regulate it? who would enforce it? the last thing we need is a wild west orgy of killing) there would be thousands of dead animals that would have to be disposed of. What would be the acceptable methods for doing carcass disposal? Who would be responsible for that? Furthermore, a void would be created in the ecosystem that would be filled by other "pests" and then there would be another round of killings. All because people don't want their gardens torn up? How does this make sense?
Animals are a part of the urban landscape and always will be. More importantly, they are a part of the ecosystem. If a homeowner doesn't want to be invaded, there are steps he or she are responsible to take - metal flashing on the roof, sealed porches, diligent upkeep, etc., not to mention other preventative measures - secure garbage, cayenne pepper, lighting, pets, etc. That is part of the "deal" when buying a house. Anyone who would try to eradicate every so-called pest in an effort to keep a pristine home and garden is an OCD psychopath, in my opinion. "Stuff" does not have a greater value than life.
I know this could be the topic of another thread, but I would argue from a philosophical angle that animals do not have rights PER SE - they are not protected in the Constitution and even the Bible (if I can quote that as a moral authority) says that man has 'dominion over all animals'. They don't have rights even in the jungle - they tear each other limb from limb. HOWEVER, animals are protected by manmade laws if not the generosity or humanity of people. Therein lies their rights, as opposed to innate rights.
Last edited:
Other cities have SANE animal culling policies and the people there are not all barbarians. CP 24 said that Toronto ("Animal City" is the worst when it comes to out of control wildlife. Too many years of loony liberals in power.
Query: How does arresting homeowners solve the raccoon problem?
in power.Query: How does arresting homeowners solve the raccoon problem?
In the country, if there are some animals causing problems, you can kill them. The elimination of the pest is to be humane. But not really sure how humane it is to set a dog lose on an animal, as it could take hours for the dog to finally kill the pest.
In the city, there are local laws that restrict what you can do with pests as they don’t want people going about doing stupid things around other sensitive people. Like shooting, causing undo suffering, or trapping animals and relocating them to the country.
Do you pro raccoon guys have a problem with people in the country killing pests, like raccoons?
In the city, there are local laws that restrict what you can do with pests as they don’t want people going about doing stupid things around other sensitive people. Like shooting, causing undo suffering, or trapping animals and relocating them to the country.
Do you pro raccoon guys have a problem with people in the country killing pests, like raccoons?
Lets try this one: City folks have a cat that has had a litter of kittens. City folk can't afford to take the kittens to the vet for necessary shots etc. City folk will not take kittens to SPCA shelter because of the horror stories in the press about the SPCA. Or, City folk decide to drive to the country side and let the kittens go and have a chance of living. With in two days all kittens are probably killed and eaten by Coyotes, Racoons, etc. Should the City folk have taken a chance and given the kittens to the SPCA? Dumped the kittens in the countryside where they have very little chance of surving? Or, try and humanly kill the kittens themselves? GB
Well said and beautifully written I might add. Unfortunately the trolls have that attitude of don't tell me the facts I already have my mind made up.
Captain Fantastic is a tool and everything he has said has been invalidated by pure logic (see ohbutthurt's and nightie's posts) and from farmers (see greatbear's posts) who have plenty of experience with wildlife including raccoons. Captain Fantastic is the troll, only he's not trolling intentionally - he's just too stupid to know it because he has too much vested interest in protecting some animals over others because they're cute and remind him of his dog.
