Poor Marius

bitslice · 9 Feb 2014 at 13:13

kedge said:
How about removing bitslice from the human race and every other foolish idiot like bitslice.

Aren't you that creationist kid?

If so then LOL

If zoo's didn't operate on such a scientific basis then we wouldn't have been able to save as many species as we do now. I really want the gorillas to survive and organisations like this are our best hope. I have no interest in supporting donkey sanctuaries.

Basically you have no clue on what you are talking about, have no counter point to anything being discussed and all you have left is to shout abuse

/

Tuppy_Glossop · 9 Feb 2014 at 13:21

bitslice said:
If zoo's didn't operate on such a scientific basis then we wouldn't have been able to save as many species as we do now. I really want the gorillas to survive and organisations like this are our best hope. I have no interest in supporting donkey sanctuaries.

Giraffes are not endangered. And killing them doesn't help the gorillas.

UTmaniac · 9 Feb 2014 at 13:26

I do wonder just how much effort Copenhagen Zoo made to advertise this poor giraffe's fate with plenty of notice, if no other interested zoos came forward (although the news article makes it quite unclear what happened with Yorkshire's enquiry).

Even if another zoo was not interested, I would have been far happier seeing this creature going to someone with appropriate dwellings (eg. a farm), to live outits days without procreation (castration not an option?)than going to the slaughter.

bitslice · 9 Feb 2014 at 13:27

Tuppy_Glossop said:
And killing them doesn't help the gorillas.

I said organisations like this one,
If freeing up a food bill helps global research, then I'm fine with that, that is what they are there for.

[TW]Fox · 9 Feb 2014 at 13:27

bitslice said:
If zoo's didn't operate on such a scientific basis then we wouldn't have been able to save as many species as we do now. I really want the gorillas to survive and organisations like this are our best hope. I have no interest in supporting donkey sanctuaries.

Basically you have no clue on what you are talking about, have no counter point to anything being discussed and all you have left is to shout abuse

/

Don't forget though that Zoo's rely on funding to carry out this good work of which you speak.

Funding which almost entirely comes from the 'awwww, isnt it fluffy' brigade. Things like Pandas, pointless though I agree they are, draw in the crowds who spend money which can then be used to conserve the animals that need it.

bitslice · 9 Feb 2014 at 13:34

[TW]Fox;25815934 said:
Don't forget though that Zoo's rely on funding to carry out this good work of which you speak.

Which comes back to what ethical policy do they follow?
If they submitted to the whims of every passing vegan nutjob then research would collapse under the cost of feeding every genetically pointless animal.

Something like 7500-20000 animals get culled according to some animal rights group (google if you care about sources), who is going to feed that many animals if the lions don't assist?

arc@css · 9 Feb 2014 at 13:38

robfosters said:
No use whatsoever. Compared to tigers and gorillas who are multi-functional?

Tuppy_Glossop · 9 Feb 2014 at 13:39

bitslice said:
If freeing up a food bill helps global research, then I'm fine with that, that is what they are there for.

Are all zoos science labs, then ? Whatever happened to zoos that allow people, who wouldn't otherwise get the chance, to see exotic animals ? Who even owns zoos in the UK these days ? What about private collectors ?

kedge · 9 Feb 2014 at 13:41

bitslice said:
If zoo's didn't operate on such a scientific basis.

Leave them in their natural environment stop messing with your scientific crap.

bitslice · 9 Feb 2014 at 13:48

kedge said:
Leave them in their natural environment stop messing with your scientific crap.

Yeh, evolution, load of rubbish innit?
And that LHC, what's all that about eh? Waste of monies, bring back gas lamps I say.

The problem with their 'natural environment' is that it is no longer natural as we are happily destroying it, so eventually if we want them to survive we have to find out if it is possible to breed them.

Edit
Comment regretfully withdrawn

Tuppy_Glossop · 9 Feb 2014 at 14:00

bitslice said:
and all you have left is to shout abuse

bitslice said:
Go back to Dribble Town and lick some windows

Can you see how one point might undermine the other ?

Yas786 · 9 Feb 2014 at 14:06

robfosters said:
I considered your opinion until I read the last sentence.

Ridiculous thing to say. We should just let a beautiful species go extinct due to money worries?

Ignore bitslice, as per usual he comes out with his standard bag of crap when he opens his mouth.

Terrible thing to happen, surely they could have found a home for it

Craterloads · 9 Feb 2014 at 14:13

Tuppy_Glossop said:
Can you see how one point might undermine the other ?

He's pretty good at this

bitslice · 9 Feb 2014 at 14:22

Yas786 said:
Ignore bitslice, as per usual he comes out with his standard bag of crap when he opens his mouth.

Craterloads said:
He's pretty good at this

Oh here come the butt hurt people that follow me around GD :rolleyes:

Nothing to contribute as usual, just trolling I see.

@Tuppy
The difference is that I've made a point, he and the two apologist clowns above never do.

Akagi · 9 Feb 2014 at 14:26

bitslice said:
Pandas should have all been culled decades ago, total waste of resources.

bitslice said:
Pandas are a cute but evolutionary dead end, they present nothing of interest to science

Jokester · 9 Feb 2014 at 14:28

Panda's are a waste of money, even some conservationists are saying that now as they suck up limited resources trying to keep the species alive, when even the pandas themselves seem to be completely disinterested in procreating.

bitslice · 9 Feb 2014 at 14:29

That's not a real Panda!

It's a furry.

Akagi · 9 Feb 2014 at 14:42

bitslice said:
That's not a real Panda!

It's a furry.

It's actually acme15 in a panda hat because his old clan were called Panda.

Anyway, RE; the thread, it is a shame the giraffe was killed, especially when other zoos were so willing to take him... Maybe they just saw it as an opportunity to lose the giraffe and get free lion food.

Tuppy_Glossop · 9 Feb 2014 at 14:46

bitslice said:
The difference is that I've made a point, he and the two apologist clowns above never do.

To me he seems to be saying that science may not hold all the right answers. Which is definitely a point of view, whether you agree or not.

RDM · 9 Feb 2014 at 15:28

Tuppy_Glossop said:
To me he seems to be saying that science may not hold all the right answers. Which is definitely a point of view, whether you agree or not.

Putting aside kedge's own "special" understanding of science, if we did just "leave them to it" as far as pandas go, they would probably go extinct because we have already destroyed too much of their habitat for them to really be viable in the wild. (By "we" I mean mankind, I personally haven't been slashing and burning panda groves).