In the news

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/23/deader_than_a_roadkill_dog_disgusting_racist_song_about_michael_brown_performed_at_lapd_officers_charity_event/

Classy.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/27/nigel-farage-named-briton-of-the-year-by-the-times-5000495/?ito=v-a

if you needed any more convincing to boycott murdochs evil empire

I think that's a typo and "Briton" should actually read "cunt".

They gave it to Osborne last year, why were you not convinced then?

Oh...
https://twitter.com/hashtag/QZ8501?src=hash

Who was runner up? Ched Evans?

“Run. Get wet. Have a pint”.

Can you explain why this is news?

Apart from the fact that someone may have given the arse a muddy hand slap?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/11315937/Bring-back-lynx-to-Scottish-countryside.html

It's an exciting idea, just like the beavers, but there isnt a 'moral' case for re-introduction of any species. It annoys me when they pander to the same kind of mindset that costs the environment so dearly.

What do you mean there isn't a moral case? Wild cats are a great idea. I mean nobody really goes into the highlands do they. Only cunts and they deserve to get ripped apart. Literally.

@NurseHolliday someone walking a dog will find the corpse, it's a traditional way dead bodies are found.

Corpses and world cups.

And fox shit.

You mean dog shampoo don't you?

Why do you feel that there isn't a 'moral' case for mammal reintroductions in the UK? I can think of multiple arguments that feel moral to me.

For instance, the UK contributes (I think) c.$85million annually on wildlife conservation, making it one of the largest contributors in the world (6th IIRC). At least a proportion of this money goes towards encouraging human-carnivore co-existence in countries where people routinely have their livestock or even children eaten by wild predators. In part many of these issues can be improved by changing management and husbandry practices, but at the end of the day the reality is that when humans live alongside large carnivores there will inevitably be conflict. Some programmes hope to compensate local farmers for the loss of their livestock, but this compensation can only ever be partial (typically 50-80% of the lost value) and in India a family is only paid c.$2,000 in the case of human predation or injury. If we want our grandchildren to live in a world where tigers and lions still exist, then we must trust in part to good will towards wildlife.

Some might say that it is immoral for us in the UK to beg other people to tolerate wild carnivores in their own backyard for our pleasure when we have killed all of our own and are now unwilling to re-introduce them.

More absolute insanity:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/30/idaho-toddler-shoots-kills-mother-walmart

Fuck sake. This could so easily be avoided.

If she was properly armed she'd be able to defend herself .

Honorary Darwin award?

Considering Walmart still stocks ammo it was lucky that the toddler didn't manage to reload and shoot again!

Morality is a human construct. It doesn't apply to animals, especially to the idea of a species. When we say we are doing something morally, on the behalf of animals, we would be better off being honest and saying that were doing it because it makes us feel better about our relationship with animals. We attempt to bridge the gap of non comprehension between us an animals with weird constructs such as morality and the 'natural' all the time and it's almost never for the benefit of the animal. Often it ends up with the animal being worse off.

I should clarify that I'm not against responsible re-introduction. But my support for it isn't motivated by morality, and morality rhetoric shouldn't be resorted to when trying to convince others to support it.

Am I being pedantic? I love kittehs

That poor fucking child.

The mother was shopping for Christmas presents. Now his older brother is pissed as he won't get that Glock he was promised