lol, agreed. So, Subrosa, what would you find to be gained from doing it your way v/s the current way?
It doesn't matter how right you may be, spell check is still your friend.
the plains indians did that to bison (not buffalo, no buffalo is the US,) for food, and used just about every part of the dead animal. the mayans made game sacrifices because of religion. its what they believed was right. im not saying it was right, but there is a difference between that and beating a dog or cat because your cult says thats what you should do. the moa was killed of by europeans.
rant over.
A common name is a common name. Would you prefer next time I use Bison bison? Either way I am sure most animal rights activists would condemn that form of slaughter as much as any practice we have in today's agriculture.
And why is there any difference between something done in the name of religion and something done because in your opinion your dog/cat needs to be beaten because it is of your opinion that it is the right thing to do? It's more a rhetorical question as I do not want to break the TOS.
And on your last misstatement there...please provide me with anything proving that Europeans drove the Moa to extinction and not the Maori people. Even wikipedia says you are wrong.
YOUR mistake is believing wikipedia. and if you are right (wich you probably are) they obviously didnt try to kill off al the moa. and is it possible to "accidentally" beat a dog or cat?
With all due respect Nicole, whether to close this thread is I believe my own business and that of the mods.Speaking of cud, this thread is resembling it more and more by the minute....
A discussion of the finiteness of fossil fuels and our eminent global destruction have very little to do with the OP's topic. I vote we either we get back to the discussion (specifically, I wish someone [OP?] would explain, or speculate on, what could possibly be gained by revoking animal welfare acts and laws) or we close this thread.