Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "California Killed 1.2 Million Birds To Stop a Virus. Pet Owners Say They Were Terrorized." video.

Yeah, but in Europe we killed millions of cows, then later pigs and managed to eradicate plagues that would have destroyed our livestock industries forever. Governments hopefully take what they consider the wisest actions given the cuircumstances.
8
@fake1man175 That's like pointing at a man driving on a freeway and saying "Next it will be Deathrace 2000". Do you know what a slippery slope argument is? You just made one.
3
@edmerritt1716 They're not people. They're foetuses.
3
@jaybaker1529 I definitely take your point but I'd still sooner put my trust in government scientists that the emotion and personal interest based decisions of individuals. I don't think either is making flawless decisions, but at least one is trying to use big picture thinking.
2
@montycantsin8861 Unfortunately, the needs of the majority sometimes require a scientific or clinical approach to matters, not an emotional one. If I was the farmer of the billions of other birds that were hypothetically wiped out by a deadly virus because the government couldn't make the tough decisions when it came to a million birds, I'd be outraged. I have tremendous compassion for these families but let's not get hysterical - the vast majority of these birds were going to be eaten within a year.
2
@loverainthunder lol
2
@edmerritt1716 Please define for me what a person is then please explain to me the EXACT moment that the egg and sperm becomes a person.
2
@dhoff1794 Entire herds were slaughtered merely because a single animal in a herd was infected. Sometimes not even.
1
@Lroshardt "incompetent"? Even in the days of the wild west when everyone had guns, and it was far more lawless, professionals were used to do the peace keeping because outside your fantasy world where everyone is a gun expert who stays calm under fire (something not even seen in the army or police force BTW) in the real world, people panic in the face of fire, they lose skills in the face of danger, and most will never acquire, much less work to retain the skills both physical and emotional, required to be effective under fire. Or we can train professionals who regularly hone their skills. Seems like a no-brainer to me, but then I'm not a terrified American living in constant fear of boogeymen. For a nation that talks so big, you sure are scared of a lot.
1
@halasimov1362 You "Guns save so many lives and hold order." You one post earlier "Sure.. that is what they told you." Colombia - Guns legal - most lawless country on Earth. Somalia - millions of guns - 2nd most lawless country on earth. Mexico - Guns widely available - 3rd most lawless nation on Earth. Are you starting to see a pattern here brainiac? Guns are not holding order - they're giving power to those willng to use them the most ruthlesslessly. But go on, cite "all the data", asswipe. Then we can compare gun deaths per 100,000 in gun owning nations against the US...
1
@halasimov1362 Ahh right, so just gonna pretend the other countries don't exist huh? Tell you what sonny, try again in 10 years when you're an adult.
1
Don't be stupid.
1
@fake1man175 Always a sign of insecurity when you ascribe other people's thumbs up as being by the poster (yes I saw your original unedited post). Also, you might wanna look up "ad populum fallacy". Just because something has the support of a lot of people doesn't make it right. Slavery is a good example. And a slippery slope fallacy, is the claim that x is inevitably the precursor to Y. There is NO progression between the FDC or Wildlife department killing fowl to prevent an avian epidemic, and a totally different government department murdering human beings for a different purpose. There ARE reasonable slippery slope arguments, such as "If the governments raises taxes by a cent to pay for the war budget, it will eventually raise it by more" because there is a clear path of progression as well as past precedent. Also, pointing out that you are mistaken is NOT a straw man. A straw man would be creating a misrepresentation of your argument then attacking that. I simply used an alternate example of a poor slippery argument to illustrate the absurdity of your position. So now you've committed two fallacies and mistakenly ascribed to me a fallacy I did not commit. You're not doing very well here are you?
1
It's horrific but if it's the only way to serve the greater good of preventing a national plague that kills EVERYBODY's birds, then it has to be done, just as it was with Mad Cow in Europe. Terrible decision to have to make but I'm glad that there are still people with the courage to make it, especially when our politicians are so spineless nowadays. It's been carried out in a heavy-handed manner, but given that people will do anything to protect their pets, I understand why. Can you imagine how agonising it must be to go to house after house, with crying kids and screaming adults? There's no good solution here, but this is the best worst.
1
@TheMrdrew86 In the same way that chopping down not burning trees creates a fire break. How long is it going to take to blood test 1.2 million birds?
1
@TheMrdrew86 Because they're never lie. Because the government has the time to test the papers of each of 1.2 million birds.
1
@sobsaveourbirdsfbsobsaveou8065 I feel for you, truly, but in an epidemic, do they have time to check 1.2 million bird medical bills, and how would they even kow that the bill applies to specific birds?
1
@sobsaveourbirdsfbsobsaveou8065 There are so far 474 infected properties and cases are on the rise. I don't know what constitutes an epidemic, or if this action was proportional, but I know that a disease with a 100% fatality rate needs to be contained and is actually spreading because poultry owners are wilfully breaking quarantine. If I owned birds elsewhere and they died because someone tried to hide their birds or move them out to safety, I'd want to exact violence upon them.
1