Greenie whackos want to kill your dog (& cat & goldfish)

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,966
Reaction score
2,154
There is not an ounce of common sense in any of these MORONS, is there?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc ... nimalsfood

"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.

Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.

Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.
Click to expand...

Go ahead lefties, go put Rover, Spot and Sparky to sleep! You made this bed, now sleep in it!
 
I don't believe in owning pets so that doesn't apply to me. 8)
 
Glaucus said:
I don't believe in owning pets so that doesn't apply to me. 8)
Click to expand...

:lol:

I wonder how this will sit with crazy cat ladies like this?

60141523_f3856b91d7.jpg
 
Glaucus said:
I don't believe in owning pets so that doesn't apply to me. 8)
Click to expand...

Nor I but I still find myself babysitting my friends' cats from time to time.
 
redrumloa said:
There is not an ounce of common sense in any of these MORONS, is there?
Click to expand...

"Time to Eat the Dog" is a rather tongue in cheek title. It takes a moron not to see that, and it also takes a moron not to see that information is not an order.

Everything that lives needs resources to do so and dogs are top level predators - primarily meat eaters - and that's a pretty inefficient food source in terms of required inputs. Feeding dogs grain is a substantial saving on that.

On the other hand, what if some billionaire decided that his dog was worth more than your kids and he was going to price you out of the food market? Would that be reasonable? It's about choosing how to use resources.

If you and the wife go shopping with a hundred bucks does that mean you each get to buy something for $100? Well, with a loan I guess you can but the real world doesn't give loans. You can only actually consume what exists but not more.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
"Time to Eat the Dog" is a rather tongue in cheek title. It takes a moron not to see that, and it also takes a moron not to see that information is not an order.
Click to expand...

Who are you replying to? I did not quote that.

Everything that lives needs resources to do so and dogs are top level predators - primarily meat eaters - and that's a pretty inefficient food source in terms of required inputs. Feeding dogs grain is a substantial saving on that.
Click to expand...

If these dogs were not domesticated and were living in the wild, they would mainly eat meat. Yes, I know modern dog would have a hard time in the wild, that is besides the point. In general numbers, how many aminals were in the wild, say, 300 year ago compared to the numbers now? An animal eats meat, what a shocker.

On the other hand, what if some billionaire decided that his dog was worth more than your kids and he was going to price you out of the food market? Would that be reasonable? It's about choosing how to use resources.
Click to expand...

We are not this point yet. The USA should never be to this point, the only thing that will cause this sort of crisis is the greenie lemmings pushing cap & trade and bernanke bending the country over so the big banks can corn-hole us all with hyper inflation. Don't make Rover a scapgoat for political greed.
 
redrumloa said:
faethor said:
redrumloa said:
Who are you replying to? I did not quote that.
Click to expand...
Did you read your quoted article?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc ... nimalsfood
-- 2nd paragraph.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I did not quote the title to make my point. It is obviously tonge in cheek.
Click to expand...

Indeed and so, I take it, is your thread. Thus, unless you actually believe that, "Greenie whackos want to kill your dog (& cat & goldfish)."
shouldn't it be in the Lizard's Lounge?

Same with the "Obama wants to eat yer grannie," themed nonsense that was popping up here not so long ago.
 
I agree with Robert. If this was meant as tongue in cheek then could Wayne please move it to Lizard's Lounge.

Thank you.
 
Robert said:
Indeed and so, I take it, is your thread. Thus, unless you actually believe that, "Greenie whackos want to kill your dog (& cat & goldfish)."
shouldn't it be in the Lizard's Lounge?
Click to expand...

Well, unless I missed something beyond the over the top title this guy is serious about the science.

"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.

Was this a joke? If so, let me know. Maybe I am thick.
 
@red

To answer your questions:
No and possibly, respectively. Oh wait, that last bit wasn't a question.

It's not a joke or a threat or anything else you might like to imagine. It is, instead, a statement of fact. It would be like saying that bullets come out of the end of the gun with the hole and very fast. That's just information. When it comes to choosing which end of a gun you want to be on it may be a helpful nugget to have in mind.
 
redrumloa said:
If these dogs were not domesticated and were living in the wild, they would mainly eat meat. Yes, I know modern dog would have a hard time in the wild, that is besides the point. In general numbers, how many aminals were in the wild, say, 300 year ago compared to the numbers now? An animal eats meat, what a shocker.
Click to expand...

The UK has foxes but wolves were wiped out by 1700 and for most of the UK they were effectively wiped out by 1500.

The wolf population of Alaska is about 10,000 in 1.7 million square km. UK is about 250,000 square km or about 15% the size so the wild wolf population could have been around 1500 or maybe 2000.

The current dog population of the UK is 8 million or 4000 times as big as the potential old time wolf population.
 
redrumloa said:
Robert said:
Indeed and so, I take it, is your thread. Thus, unless you actually believe that, "Greenie whackos want to kill your dog (& cat & goldfish)."
shouldn't it be in the Lizard's Lounge?
Click to expand...

Well, unless I missed something beyond the over the top title this guy is serious about the science.
Click to expand...

So you don't really think someone wants to kill your dog but it still isn't a joke? If it's not a joke, why write something so, in your words, over the top, in the first place?

Do you always make a ridiculously absurd, hyperbolic assertion in order to draw attention to something that is otherwise quite trivial?
-EDIT-
Actually, you don't need to answer that. I'm pretty sure you have form in that department.
/EDIT/

I could try that:
Truth-denying-neo-con-fascist-whacko-nazi wants to kill your children and destroy America!!!!!

Then a thread about someone's assertion that global warming is nothing but a sham and best ignored?

No?

OK, maybe not.... ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top