Canada Seal Slaughter begins

[FarmallMTA]

I'll say it again: I'd try to pretend to be sad that your "cultural heritage of killing seals" will be gone, but it's too hard. Just like I couldn't really be sad to see some other "cultural heritages" disappear... such as honor killing, wife beating, bride burning, and female circumcision (or male circumcision for that matter).

Careful, now. All us mush brained liberals value diversity here, especially if it's anything W might take issue with.

All those things are valued parts of the multiculti idiocy that we celebrate. W doesn't believe in honor killing? We're for it. W doesn't beat his wife? We're for it. W doesn't believe in bride burning? Us liberals are for it. He didn't circumcise Jenna and the other airhead? Well, we need to be for it, just to show how liberal and tolerant and celebrating of diversity we are.

And please. Be sure to donate to Daily Kos and Moveon.Org. We need to get this message out.

[D'rok]

I'll say it again: I'd try to pretend to be sad that your "cultural heritage of killing seals" will be gone, but it's too hard. Just like I couldn't really be sad to see some other "cultural heritages" disappear... such as honor killing, wife beating, bride burning, and female circumcision (or male circumcision for that matter).


One thing that you should be aware of in all this (although I have no idea if this is true in Fitter's case) is that in some instances the cultural heritage in question is First Nations. Here's a factoid for you:

"Archeological evidence indicates that the Native Americans and First Nations People in Canada have been hunting seals for at least 4,000 years."

Also, if you visited some of these communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and Eastern Quebec, and saw what their lives really are, your perspective might change a little.

All in all, I won't lose any sleep if the commercial hunt ends, but I'm sure not going to condemn anyone for participating - especially First Nations people.


ETA: Here's another source of info: http://www.fishaq.gov.nl.ca/sealfactsheet/

[D'rok]

Careful, now. All us mush brained liberals value diversity here, especially if it's anything W might take issue with.

All those things are valued parts of the multiculti idiocy that we celebrate. W doesn't believe in honor killing? We're for it. W doesn't beat his wife? We're for it. W doesn't believe in bride burning? Us liberals are for it. He didn't circumcise Jenna and the other airhead? Well, we need to be for it, just to show how liberal and tolerant and celebrating of diversity we are.

And please. Be sure to donate to Daily Kos and Moveon.Org. We need to get this message out.


????!!!
Did I miss something here? :confused:

[Darth Rotor]

All in all, I won't lose any sleep if the commercial hunt ends, but I'm sure not going to condemn anyone for participating - especially First Nations people.


ETA: Here's another source of info: http://www.fishaq.gov.nl.ca/sealfactsheet/
Well played. :)

DR

[steverino]

Why should anyone be forced to avoid looking his or her children in the eyes because he/she is ashamed at not being able to care for them?

So what you are saying is that if there was a buck in it, I would be justified in clubbing my golden retriever to feed my face? (From behind, of course.) :confused:

As far as the ancient tradition of the hunt argument, certain cultures still eat dogs. I think it is inhumane as they now have other options.

[D'rok]

Well played. :)

DR


Gracias :)

[Darth Rotor]

So what you are saying is that if there was a buck in it, I would be justified in clubbing my golden retriever to feed my face? (From behind, of course.)

:confused:
No. Clubbing is taking the dog out to a bar for dancing. Rogering is more what is involved here, but I suggest a :goat rather than retriever, due to the risks involved, and the sharp pointy teeth on the retriever.

DR

[FarmallMTA]

So what you are saying is that if there was a buck in it, I would be justified in clubbing my golden retriever to feed my face? (From behind, of course.):confused:

No, I think he's saying that if there's a buck in it you would be justified in clubbing your golden retriever so that Zsa Zsa Gabor has a nice fur coat to wear the next time she slaps a Beverly Hills cop.

[D'rok]

No. Clubbing is taking the dog out to a bar for dancing. Rogering is more what is involved here, but I suggest a :goat rather than retriever, due to the risks involved, and the sharp pointy teeth on the retriever.

DR


Will this goat do? :eek:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shub-Niggurath

[steverino]

No. Clubbing is taking the dog out to a bar for dancing. Rogering is more what is involved here, but I suggest a :goat rather than retriever, due to the risks involved, and the sharp pointy teeth on the retriever.

DR

Darth. Thanks for saving my life! He dropped the club just in time.

-Alice

[Lonewulf]

One thing that you should be aware of in all this (although I have no idea if this is true in Fitter's case) is that in some instances the cultural heritage in question is First Nations. Here's a factoid for you:

"Archeological evidence indicates that the Native Americans and First Nations People in Canada have been hunting seals for at least 4,000 years."

Also, if you visited some of these communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and Eastern Quebec, and saw what their lives really are, your perspective might change a little.

All in all, I won't lose any sleep if the commercial hunt ends, but I'm sure not going to condemn anyone for participating - especially First Nations people.

Here's a question: Why do Native Americans/First Nations people get a free ride?

Society and cultures advance. That's progress.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cultural traditions as long as they are not harmful. But if it is harmful, even if just to animals, it should be questioned, re-evaluated, and potentially eliminated.

And if it's another culture (such as the First Nation people) that are seperate from our own, we should still question it as a people. That doesn't mean we should necessarily force our culture upon others, but there are ways to encourage or discourage an activity than by force.



I also want to note that just showing archaeological (sp?) evidence that an activity was committed in the past, does not justify keeping that activity in existance, and does not give the people a free ride in continuing that activity. I mentioned honor killings, bride burnings, and the like above; if, say, honor killings were done for thousands of years, that does not mean it cannot be re-evaluated morally or logically.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to go insult seal hunters. Hell, I'm not even going to insult Tiffer's father. As he said, there weren't many jobs, his father went to work for money, fed his family, etc. Fine, that's great. But why does this mean that the activity must continue? Is there no other way of providing jobs to that area? Is the continued existance of seal hunting truly necessary? I dunno. Maybe. But the ideal, for me, is to end seal hunting; if it's a necessity, then it must stay around, but if it is not, then it should be ended. That's my view, and any call to "cultural heritage" just gets downright ridiculous to me. My problem wasn't with Tiffer's father's occupation, my problem is with Tiffer's attitude that it would be so incredibly sad to see the "culture" of seal hunting to die out. He acts as if we're trying to kill off the last of his great people or something...

It was once cultural to not let women attend schools. It was once cultural to not let blacks attend the same schools as whites. Our culture adapted and changed. It happens.

Oh, another thing about the First Nations people and the Native Americans: Warfare was one of their greatest cultural heritages. Tribal warfare was a big thing in their past, just as it was in European history. That does not make tribal warfare desirable today.

[D'rok]

Here's a question: Why do Native Americans/First Nations people get a free ride?

Because they deserve it:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/1998/01/07/natives980107b.html
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=/en/lp/lo/lswe/we/special_projects/RacismFreeInitiative/speeches/Fontaine.shtml&hs=

[steverino]

Here's a question: Why do Native Americans/First Nations people get a free ride?

That's what I was thinking. I mean, have you ever seen the movie "Black Robe?" Those natives were sadistic in some cases, and made Abu Grab and Gitmo look like Disneyland. I would guess those guys clubbed their women from behind.

Although I like those igloo orgies and wife-swapping stories I've heard.

[D'rok]

Although I like those igloo orgies and wife-swapping stories I've heard.

Not much else to do in an igloo when it's -50 outside and dark for 6 months of the year.

No goats either.

[steverino]

No goats either.

Why do all roads lead to SHEMP?

[Lonewulf]

Because they deserve it:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/1998/01/07/natives980107b.html
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=/en/lp/lo/lswe/we/special_projects/RacismFreeInitiative/speeches/Fontaine.shtml&hs=

This is emotional rhetoric, too.

Here's a question: Why shouldn't we let blacks keep slaves?

Slavery was a cultural tradition in Africa, and in fact, we bought slaves from the Africans. Should African-Americans "deserve" to keep slaves, or should we endeavor to wipe out slavery for all people?

I am not wanting to eradicate the culture of the Native Americans, I am not wanting to convert them to any particular religion, and if they don't harm me, I won't harm them. They can keep their tales, their stories, their songs, their dances, their spiritual beliefs, and their history. I don't have a problem with that. That's the kind of philosophy of life I like and deal with on a regular basis. However, I question the action of seal hunting, and "because it's tradition" just doesn't fly with me. I'm sorry, but it's an emotional appeal that has no effect on me.

Questioning harmful actions or behaviors, regardless of who actually acts them out, is also a philosophy of life I live with. If a black man kills another black man, I'd personally convict him of murder and sentence him to the same punishment as if he killed a white man. Alternately, if a white man killed a black man, I'd convict him the same as if he had killed a white man. And I'd convict the black man and the white man to the exact same sentence. It doesn't matter who is doing it, it is the action itself that is the only determination of my judgement. (Youthful age and mental retardation/mental insanity is an exception to this, however)

[D'rok]

This is emotional rhetoric, too.

If you want facts I can dredge them up for you. The gist is that we (Canadians of European descent) bear a large part of the responsibility for the abysmal conditions many First Nations communitites face. If you want the dry-eyed version, we broke many treaties (legally binding) that we are now attempting to honour. In the issue at hand, there are not enough First Nations seal hunters left for them to be a threat to the overall seal population, so there is no reason why they should be forced or encouraged to give up their traditions.

Here's a question: Why shouldn't we let blacks keep slaves?

Slavery was a cultural tradition in Africa, and in fact, we bought slaves from the Africans. Should African-Americans "deserve" to keep slaves, or should we endeavor to wipe out slavery for all people?
I don't normally like spouting off accusations of logical fallacies, but I have to call Equivocation on this one. Seals != slaves.

[Lonewulf]

If you want facts I can dredge them up for you. The gist is that we (Canadians of European descent) bear a large part of the responsibility for the abysmal conditions many First Nations communitites face.

...And?

If you want the dry-eyed version, we broke many treaties (legally binding) that we are now attempting to honour. In the issue at hand, there are not enough First Nations seal hunters left for them to be a threat to the overall seal population, so there is no reason why they should be forced or encouraged to give up their traditions.

Fair enough, but I don't get the necessity for seal hunting?

If the problem is that they suffer abysmal conditions, and you want to rectify that abysmal condition, then that itself is an issue by itself. That is neither here nor there when it comes to seal hunting. While seal hunting allows them to provide food for their families, why not just provide them with more casinos? I hear the profit is quite good with those. Lots of chances to climb up the economic ladder.

Though I admit, there are legal grounds to argue from if there is a legal treaty that Canada signed with First Nations involving this particular tradition (or one that would involve all traditions)...

I don't normally like spouting off accusations of logical fallacies, but I have to call Equivocation on this one. Seals != slaves.

No, but there are some kinds of tradition you want to get rid of, and others you do not. Obviously, an "Argument by Tradition" is not enough to convince you. I don't get why it should convince me.

[steverino]

In the issue at hand, there are not enough First Nations seal hunters left for them to be a threat to the overall seal population, so there is no reason why they should be forced or encouraged to give up their traditions.

To clarify, D'rok, is the slaughter done by First Nation hunters, or by white non-native Canandians, or both? My impression was that white Canadians (and Norwegians) are doing the hunting, and some here are excusing it because the orignial native populations did this for survival...And who buys the furs? Native populations?

[Lonewulf]

To clarify, D'rok, is the slaughter done by First Nation hunters, or by white non-native Canandians, or both? My impression was that white Canadians (and Norwegians) are doing the hunting, and some here are excusing it because the orignial native populations did this for survival.

Good point there.

If First Nation people hunt seals, that does not necessarily excuse non-First Nation people hunting seals.

[steverino]

Seems like there is a shallow, European vanity element to the seal industry, not just a native tradition.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I believe that the only lawful seal hunting that should occur is that done by the natives for their own food or clothing and that's it. I don't believe the "commercial" hunt should be allowed.

[D'rok]

Fair enough, but I don't get the necessity for seal hunting?

If the problem is that they suffer abysmal conditions, and you want to rectify that abysmal condition, then that itself is an issue by itself. That is neither here nor there when it comes to seal hunting. While seal hunting allows them to provide food for their families, why not just provide them with more casinos? I hear the profit is quite good with those. Lots of chances to climb up the economic ladder.


Are you aware of the parts of the planet we're talking about here? How many people do you think would visit a casino in Nunavut or in northern Labrador? Many of these communites are accessible only by Cessna. This is the Arctic and the sub-Arctic.

[D'rok]

To clarify, D'rok, is the slaughter done by First Nation hunters, or by white non-native Canandians, or both? My impression was that white Canadians (and Norwegians) are doing the hunting, and some here are excusing it because the orignial native populations did this for survival...And who buys the furs? Native populations?


The majority of the commercial hunt is indead white Newfoundlanders. Keep in mind though, this has been a way of life for many centuries even for them - it isn't a cash grab. The first official commercial harvest was in 1723, but subsistence hunting by Newfoundlanders has been going on for 400 years or more.

[Lonewulf]

Are you aware of the parts of the planet we're talking about here?

Admittedly, I don't know much about Canada.

How many people do you think would visit a casino in the Nunavut or in northern Labrador?

Give 'em something else, then.

"Abysmal conditions" by itself isn't quite a justification for future actions, if you can remove those abysmal conditions. For present or past actions, they are a justification (As in, "I had to steal a loaf of bread in order to survive"), but not in future actions (As in, "I will continue to steal, even though I am more than capable of providing for myself, or asking others to assist me even though they are more than willing to")

[D'rok]

Seems like there is a shallow, European vanity element to the seal industry, not just a native tradition.


That is pretty crass....no argument from me.

[Lonewulf]

The majority of the commercial hunt is indead white Newfoundlanders. Keep in mind though, this has been a way of life for many centuries even for them - it isn't a cash grab. The first official commercial harvest was in 1723, but subsistence hunting by Newfoundlanders has been going on for 400 years or more.

So, essentially, you're still going by the Argument of Tradition. If it isn't about the money, and it's done even by the Non-First Nation people (even assuming that the First Nation is an exception to all of this)...

Then where's your argument?

[D'rok]

So, essentially, you're still going by the Argument of Tradition. If it isn't about the money, and it's done even by the Non-First Nation people (even assuming that the First Nation) gets a break...

Then where's your argument?


No real argument here...just providing the background info. I agree that traditions aren't sacrosanct, I'm just providing the context. Many of these people are portrayed quite unfairly by activists.

[D'rok]

"Abysmal conditions" by itself isn't quite a justification for future actions, if you can remove those abysmal conditions. For present or past actions, they are a justification (As in, "I had to steal a loaf of bread in order to survive"), but not in future actions (As in, "I will continue to steal, even though I am more than capable of providing for myself, or asking others to assist me even though they are more than willing to")

It's not an easy problem to solve, we're working on it. In the meantime, I do not think they should be prevented from hunting.

[Lonewulf]

No real argument here...just providing the background info. I agree that traditions aren't sacrosanct, I'm just providing the context. Many of these people are portrayed quite unfairly by activists.

Okay, fair enough then. :)

[armageddonman]

"Yes, he does."
Then 'he' has zero clue about what a dog-eat-dog world it is. He's concerns and opinions are therefor irrelevant.

Ever seen what a polar bear does to a baby seal? Makes what humans do to them look like heavy petting... (Or do you honestly believe the BS that child-friendly nature shows try to tell people about 'prey' animals not feeling the pain of being taken down? HA!)

But I suppose we aughta ban polar bears too eh?


Carnivores cannot choose not to eat meat and survice. Humans can.

Besides, Humans kill animals for all kinds of puropses besides meat consuption. The seals are specifically killed for their fur, not their meat.

Therefore, your argument is a fallacy.

[Lonewulf]

Carnivores cannot choose not to eat meat and survice. Humans can.

Naw, we can't. We're animals, therefore we have no choice whatsoever. Totally unassailable argument. :D

Besides, Humans kill animals for all kinds of puropses besides meat consuption. The seals are specifically killed for their fur, not their meat.

Well, I'm sure that polar bears kill seals for their fur too! Haven't you ever heard of Polar Bear Brand Winter Coats?

(Oh, wait, those were made from polar bears, not by polar bears? Eeeeep...)

[Darth Rotor]

Seems like there is a shallow, European vanity element to the seal industry, not just a native tradition.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10962461cf2d7ac0d8.jpg
I think the young lady should respect the seals, and take that wrap off immediately! As a pennance for having worn seal fur, she needs to remove the rest of her clothing as well, immediately. I am compassionate, however, so if she finds Canada a bit too chilly sans clothing, she can come on down here to Texas. :D

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Carnivores cannot choose not to eat meat and survice. Humans can.

Besides, Humans kill animals for all kinds of puropses besides meat consuption. The seals are specifically killed for their fur, not their meat.

Therefore, your argument is a fallacy.
Is the meat wasted?

Is the fishing industry a beneficiary? If seals and humans are competing for the same fish resources, then this is a natural measure to mitigate competition for a food source.

I think Mr Darwin would approve. Fish is good food.

DR

[Lonewulf]

Is the meat wasted?

I admit, seal hunting is less loathsome if the meat is not wasted.

Is the fishing industry a beneficiary? If seals and humans are competing for the same fish resources, then this is a natural measure to mitigate competition for a food source.

Sounds like a post hoc rationalization to me...

I think Mr Darwin would approve. Fish is good food.

I think that "Mr Darwin" might find it disturbing that people are using evolutionary theory to justify human actions.

It reeks of the same stench as Social Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism).

Out of curiosity, do you have any statistical or scientific analysis or evidence that the seal population is in "need" to be shortened, population-wise, and that they will have any direct and massive impact on the fish population, whether within the next decade to century?

Though I guess if we go ahead and wipe out all the predators of seals, we'll have to kill the seals...

[steverino]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10962461cf2d7ac0d8.jpg
I think the young lady should respect the seals, and take that wrap off immediately! As a pennance for having worn seal fur, she needs to remove the rest of her clothing as well, immediately. I am compassionate, however, so if she finds Canada a bit too chilly sans clothing, she can come on down here to Texas. :D

DR

Darth- I know this is speculation, but I am guessing she is in a New York City or Montreal photo studio, complaining she is hot from all the studio lights. I think she needs you to cool her off. Our Sue Bird secret is safe with me.;)

[Darth Rotor]

Darth- I know this is speculation, but I am guessing she is in a New York City or Paris photo studio, complaining she is hot from all the studio lights. I think she needs you to cool her off. Our Sue Bird secret is safe with me.;)

Hey, why am I starting to overheat all of a sudden? :confused:

DR

[thaiboxerken]

So what you are saying is that if there was a buck in it, I would be justified in clubbing my golden retriever to feed my face? (From behind, of course.)

I think you would be justified in doing so if you had to either do that or let your children starve.

[steverino]

I think you would be justified in doing so if you had to either do that or let your children starve.

Fine, but I would not skin my golden retriever until I knew for sure she was dead. And thanks for cheering me up with morning.:(

[Lonewulf]

I think you would be justified in doing so if you had to either do that or let your children starve.

Of course.

But then, that's also less an argument for seal hunting, more an argument for bringing more money, economy, and job opportunities to those that do it.

[Darth Rotor]

I admit, seal hunting is less loathsome if the meat is not wasted.
If it is wasted, and not used, I'd tend to be more on your side. IIRC, one of the earlier posts showed that some of it becomes dog food, but maybe I misread.
Out of curiosity, do you have any statistical or scientific analysis or evidence that the seal population is in "need" to be shortened, population-wise, and that they will have any direct and massive impact on the fish population, whether within the next decade to century?
One of the links earlier in the thread pointed to the matter of fishing populations, seals, and fish as seal food. Not sure if that meant fish for the First Nation folks only, or the fishing industry at large.
Though I guess if we go ahead and wipe out all the predators of seals, we'll have to kill the seals...
Yes, sorta like we do regarding deer.

Too bad seal isn't as yummy as venison, but maybe it is an acquired taste.

DR

[Lonewulf]

Yes, sorta like we do regarding deer.

I was actually being sarcastic there, you know.

[Darth Rotor]

I was actually being sarcastic there, you know.
No need to be. Fish and Game and Wildlife wardens worry about such things, though I am treading on my edges of understanding. An explosion of population in an animal, such as the seals, when their major predators go away can have an influence, sometimes powerful, on the local ecosystem. The corrective actions vary, and the self correction typically sees the herd starve, or spread to other areas.

Depends on the beastie. The "balance" often sought is to avoid such an explosion/migration due to the varying and often unknown effects that manifest themselves downstream.

Or, you can just beat the little buggers to death, and keep the herd to a manageable size. :p

DR

[steverino]

... some of it becomes dog food, but maybe I misread.
DR

:eek: I should not have crawled out of bed this morning.

Can't they kill the little cute fluffies without beating them and, in some cases, skinning them alive?

[Lonewulf]

No need to be. Fish and Game and Wildlife wardens worry about such things, though I am treading on my edges of understanding. An explosion of population in an animal, such as the seals, when their major predators go away can have an influence, sometimes powerful, on the local ecosystem. The corrective actions vary, and the self correction typically sees the herd starve, or spread to other areas.

Depends on the beastie. The "balance" often sought is to avoid such an explosion/migration due to the varying and often unknown effects that manifest themselves downstream.

Or, you can just beat the little buggers to death, and keep the herd to a manageable size. :p

Or, you can just not hunt their predators to extinction.

Yes! I know! Radical idea!

[Darth Rotor]

Or, you can just not hunt their predators to extinction.

Yes! I know! Radical idea!
Too late. Already done, partly to protect livestock.

*shrugs*

Circles within circles.

DR

[Lonewulf]

Too late. Already done, partly to protect livestock.

*shrugs*

Circles within circles.

DR

I meant the predators of seals.

As for wolves and the like involving deer, they're re-introducing wolf packs. Though some folks here on this forum seem to be just fine with the idea of trying to wipe them out to near-extinction again.

[Darth Rotor]

I meant the predators of seals.

As for wolves and the like involving deer, they're re-introducing wolf packs. Though some folks here on this forum seem to be just fine with the idea of trying to wipe them out to near-extinction again.
Ah, I meant predators of deer. I read about the wolves recently, in Nat Geo I think, but given the distribution of livestock, I don't see them making a big enough comeback to be a major deer predator.

7mm magnum, it's a beauty.

DR

[Ben Tilly]

As for wolves and the like involving deer, they're re-introducing wolf packs. Though some folks here on this forum seem to be just fine with the idea of trying to wipe them out to near-extinction again.

It isn't a simple problem. In, for instance, New Jersey there are a lot of deer living in suburbs. If you try to control them with wild wolf packs, you're going to have a lot of trouble with wolves killing local pets and possibly attacks on children. (That is assuming that the wolves choose to remain in the suburbs. Human suburbs are not the most wolf-friendly territory...) The pets are an issue because wolves are territorial and see dogs as competing wolves. Wolves hunting children have not historically been a problem on this continent because we've not allowed wolves to live in fairly densely populated areas.

Cheers,
Ben

[armageddonman]

:eek: I should not have crawled out of bed this morning.

Can't they kill the little cute fluffies without beating them and, in some cases, skinning them alive?

Bullets cost money. The Bioindustry will do anything to keep the costs for killing animals down.

Fortunately, times are changing. I am confident that in a couple of decades, all this will be mostly a thing of the past as regarded as something like racial segragation, slavery etc.

[armageddonman]

Wolves hunting children have not historically been a problem on this continent because we've not allowed wolves to live in fairly densely populated areas.

Cheers,
Ben

Wolves hunting children hasn't been a problem anywhere at any time. Wolves have been hunted to extinction or near extinction because they were a competitor for game and a threat to livestock but hardly a danger to humans.

[Lonewulf]

Wolves hunting children hasn't been a problem anywhere at any time. Wolves have been hunted to extinction or near extinction because they were a competitor for game and a threat to livestock but hardly a danger to humans.

Wait wait wait, hold on, don't go too extreme here.

A wolf that is sufficiently starving will eat anything that it can, though rarely will eat another wolf (though NAWA DID actually encounter a single case of "wolf cannibalism" with wolves kept up in some of the worst conditions by "animal handlers", but that's a different issue). There have been some cases of children or other people being attacked by wolves, though they are admittedly extremely rare, except in times of incredible famine.

In Medieval Germany, famine was spread all throughout the nation, in every town, village, and city; wolves were desperate, and would often attack livestock, but sometimes they encountered villages where there was no livestock. There were times (though I believe they were rare) that a wolf pack would wander through a village, attacking everyone that they could while roaming the streets. A scary thought, but those were incredibly scary times.

As for pets, that's still an issue. I'd think that wolves would be likely to attack pets, but they're far more likely to avoid humans, especially here in the U.S. And as far as I know, deer aren't mainly hanging around cities, so I don't see what the problem here is, really. If you live in the suburbs, the whole point, usually, is to be "closer to the wildlife".

[Ben Tilly]

Wolves hunting children hasn't been a problem anywhere at any time. Wolves have been hunted to extinction or near extinction because they were a competitor for game and a threat to livestock but hardly a danger to humans.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Wolves hunting humans is a real problem in India today. Let me pick a link from a site that likes wolves for proof: http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/Wolves_South_Asia_child.htm.

Now why is it a problem in India and not elsewhere? Well it is only in India that wolves live in close enough proximity to people that they have become habituated. Which makes them more willing to consider humans as potential prey. Even so it isn't a big problem, but our society is unwilling to accept even a little problem of this kind.

Cheers,
Ben

[steverino]

Bullets cost money...

Fortunately, times are changing. I am confident that in a couple of decades, all this will be mostly a thing of the past...

I hope you are right. Those cute, doe-eyed fluffy-fluffs deserve some dignity. Plus, their hides are worth at least the cost of a bullet. :(

[Ryokan]

I believe that the only lawful seal hunting that should occur is that done by the natives for their own food or clothing and that's it. I don't believe the "commercial" hunt should be allowed.

How about the Norwegian hunters? Norwegians are the natives of Norway ;)

I just read in the paper today that the government has set up a quota of 31200 seals for this year's culling, where 2 seals pups older than a year equals 1 grown up seal. The culling is subsidized by the government.

You can read about the Norwegian seal hunting on the offical site of the Norwegian government. (http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/tema/Hval_og_sel/Fact-sheet-on-Norwegian-coastal-seals.html?id=430107)

Seal hunting is difficult and, up to recently, seal-hunting activity has been on the decline. As a result, the seal population has increased, generating a local imbalance in the surrounding environment.

[steverino]

How about the Norwegian hunters? Norwegians are the natives of Norway ;)

I think Dustin's point, which is also mine, is that native Canadians have fewer career options than "native" Norwegians. Because the Candian natives have gotten screwed over the years, they depend more on the land to sustain their own lives.

[Ryokan]

I think Dustin's point, which is also mine, is that native Canadians have fewer career options than "native" Norwegians. Because the Candian natives have gotten screwed over the years, they depend more on the land to sustain their own lives.

A fair point.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

How about the Norwegian hunters? Norwegians are the natives of Norway ;)

I just read in the paper today that the government has set up a quota of 31200 seals for this year's culling, where 2 seals pups older than a year equals 1 grown up seal. The culling is subsidized by the government.

You can read about the Norwegian seal hunting on the offical site of the Norwegian government. (http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/tema/Hval_og_sel/Fact-sheet-on-Norwegian-coastal-seals.html?id=430107)

Of course that's what a site promoting the seal hunt will say...

[Ryokan]

Of course that's what a site promoting the seal hunt will say...

Are you accusing the Norwegian government of lying to the public?

We have one of the freest presses in the world. If you're so sure they're lying, I suggest you contact a Norwegian newspaper. They love to run stories on the government lying.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Are you accusing the Norwegian government of lying to the public?

We have one of the freest presses in the world. If you're so sure they're lying, I suggest you contact a Norwegian newspaper. They love to run stories on the government lying.

Find an independent study confirming the same things then get back to me.

[thaiboxerken]

Now the Norwegian government is in a conspiracy...

[aggle-rithm]

This thread is frustrating. It's given me a hankering for seal meat, but it has yet to show up in my grocer's freezer section. :(

What's keeping those hunters? Are they enjoying the kill too much?

[Ryokan]

Find an independent study confirming the same things then get back to me.

Well, I'm not privy to the scientific advisory board that reccomended that quota to the government, and have no idea if they've published a report on the web.

So why do you think the Norwegian government subsidizes the hunt, then? Just for kicks? Just to uphold our image as bloodthirsty northern barbarians? Norwegian ministers get horny when they think about the massacre they've legalized? I think your story to the Norwegian newspapers is getting better and better.

[Ryokan]

This thread is frustrating. It's given me a hankering for seal meat, but it has yet to show up in my grocer's freezer section. :(

If you ever come to visit, I promise to make you seal burgers :)

(Whale burgers are tastier, though)

[Molinaro]

Bullets cost money. The Bioindustry will do anything to keep the costs for killing animals down.

Fortunately, times are changing. I am confident that in a couple of decades, all this will be mostly a thing of the past as regarded as something like racial segragation, slavery etc.

Bullets are not very likely to cause a fatal wound. You most likely would be shooting through blubber. The club with a spike is used because it is the most likely to cause a fast death. Using bullets would be vastly more cruel.

It's been tried.

[steverino]

[QUOTE=Molinaro;2514107..The club with a spike is used because it is the most likely to cause a fast death. Using bullets would be vastly more cruel.[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_hunting

It is therefore probable that a large number of seals indicated in this study would have been conscious not only while they were bleeding to death, but also while their skins were being removed.

[D'rok]

If you ever come to visit, I promise to make you seal burgers :)

(Whale burgers are tastier, though)


And then come on up to Canada for some Bison burgers and Caribou steak. Mmmmm.....

[steverino]

And then come on up to Canada for some Bison burgers and Caribou steak. Mmmmm.....

Do Canadian hunters club bison and caribou over the head and sometimes skin them alive?

[D'rok]

Do Canadian hunters club bison and caribou over the head and sometimes skin them alive?


Only the cute baby ones with puppy-dog eyes. :D

[steverino]

Only the cute baby ones with puppy-dog eyes. :D

:mad: Anyway, bison and carabou aren't cute and fluffy. They are big and smelly so you can eat them and get completely constipated for all I care.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm thinking that clubbing a bison will only anger it.

[D'rok]

I'm thinking that clubbing a bison will only anger it.

That's probably why the Indians stampeded them over cliffs:

http://www.head-smashed-in.com/

[steverino]

That's probably why the Indians stampeded them over cliffs:

http://www.head-smashed-in.com/

Cool site! The seals' heads get smashed in, too. I'd rather take a dive off a cliff than get clubbed...Especially if I was a cute, fuzzy, little fluffball of a seal.:o

[D'rok]

Cool site! The seals' heads get smashed in, too. I'd rather take a dive off a cliff than get clubbed...Especially if I was a cute, fuzzy, little fluffball of a seal.:o

Maybe after the seal hunt finally dies out we can have UNESCO create a World Heritage Site called "Head-Smashed-In Ice Floe". :eek:

[steverino]

Their gift shop could sell clubbed-seal beanie babies that are red with those big white eyes popping out.

[Lonewulf]

I can't wait until they make human burgers.

[steverino]

I can't wait until they make human burgers.

Dark meat or light? OOPS! I'm fired!

[Lonewulf]

Dark meat or light? OOPS! I'm fired!

Haha. :D

[D'rok]

Bump for some more info on this year's hunt:

http://tinyurl.com/2rpfgn

[Dr. Lao]

Awesome! Where can I buy a coat?

If baby seals weren't so darn cute, no one would give a rat's ass.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Awesome! Where can I buy a coat?

If baby seals weren't so darn cute, no one would give a rat's ass.


Do you make it a habit of coming to threads, not reading them, and then posting ignorant comments that have already been refuted time and time again in said thread? I care about the seals because the practice of killing them is overtly cruel. I care about slaughter of rattlesnakes as well. I doubt anyone would call them 'cute'. I care about cruelty and unwarranted slaughter of any animal, regardless of it's appearance. Next time you decide to make a dumb comment, try reading the entire thread. Now wipe the egg off your face.

[Reeco]

Awesome! Where can I buy a coat?

If baby seals weren't so darn cute, no one would give a rat's ass.

Idiot.

[Lonewulf]

Awesome! Where can I buy a coat?

If baby seals weren't so darn cute, no one would give a rat's ass.

Wrong.

Try raising a komodo dragon in inhumane conditions. Or an iguana. I'd still kick your ass if I could.

[aggle-rithm]

That's probably why the Indians stampeded them over cliffs:

http://www.head-smashed-in.com/

According to Dave Barry's article on this heritage center, they answer the phone, "Head-Smashed-In, may I help you?"

[armageddonman]

Bump for some more info on this year's hunt:

http://tinyurl.com/2rpfgn

I don't feel the least bit sorry for those people.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I don't feel the least bit sorry for those people.

Funny, but I do.

I feel sorry for you too -- for having that attitude toward your fellow man. :mad:

[Lonewulf]

I don't feel the least bit sorry for those people.

I do.

They were still working to support their families. As mentioned earlier in this thread, sometimes the only work people can get in those areas is that of seal hunting.

Not to say that I think their behavior/occupation is ideal. But at the same time, it's not like they had much choice. I would not wish bad things upon them.

[thaiboxerken]

I care about cruelty and unwarranted slaughter of any animal, regardless of it's appearance.

Yet, you'll post pictures of cute baby seals in an effort to sway emotions. ;)

[Tief]

My question is, can we eat the meat? Seems like a waste to just kill them for the fur alone.

I'm all for the killing of innocent seals, as long as there are plenty of them. Just think of all the innocent fish lives you save with each seal kill! What, think fish don't have feelings? If you do, you've never kept an aquarium. Well, maybe goldfish don't have feelings:D

[Dr. Lao]

Do you make it a habit of coming to threads, not reading them, and then posting ignorant comments that have already been refuted time and time again in said thread? I care about the seals because the practice of killing them is overtly cruel. I care about slaughter of rattlesnakes as well. I doubt anyone would call them 'cute'. I care about cruelty and unwarranted slaughter of any animal, regardless of it's appearance. Next time you decide to make a dumb comment, try reading the entire thread. Now wipe the egg off your face.

Seriously, I want a sealskin jacket. I saw them in Iceland a few years back, they are nice. As for the baby seals. Hardly unwarranted, they make great jackets!

boo freaking who.

Tell you what, when the sharks and polar bears sign a non aggression pact with the cute little seals, then I will think otherwise.

If the seals looked like baby anteaters no one would give a damn.

[Fitter]

My question is, can we eat the meat? Seems like a waste to just kill them for the fur alone.



Yes. Yes we can, and I do.

[Lonewulf]

Seriously, I want a sealskin jacket. I saw them in Iceland a few years back, they are nice. As for the baby seals. Hardly unwarranted, they make great jackets!

boo freaking who.

Tell you what, when the sharks and polar bears sign a non aggression pact with the cute little seals, then I will think otherwise.

So if animals act a certain way, it's okay for humans to act a certain way.

Cool.

I'll go eat my children and rape some women; I know some animals that are into that.

If the seals looked like baby anteaters no one would give a damn.

Wrong.

But hey, you know so much. You must, otherwise you wouldn't be proclaiming that "no one" would give a damn, which would indirectly refer to me.

If I care about things only based on appearance, and I consider crocodiles and alligators to be un-cute and un-attractive animals, then why am I arguing in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80203) thread?

If you cannot give a good argument, please retract the statement. Because you are obviously wrong.

[andyandy]

If I care about things only based on appearance, and I consider crocodiles and alligators to be un-cute and un-attractive animals, then why am I arguing in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80203) thread?.

the statement no one would give a damn is easily falsified, but would you agree that substantially less people would give a damn?

[Lonewulf]

the statement no one would give a damn is easily falsified, but would you agree that substantially less people would give a damn?

I would agree that it's very possible, though that was not the statement. Though as far as I know, humane treatment of animals means humane treatment of animals; there are few "exceptions" (legal-wise and logic-wise) just because an animal happens to look ugly or not, even if there may be a personal biase.

However, even if substantially less people would give a damn, that does not refute the point that animals should be treated humanely, nor does it refute criticism of seal hunting. It's a reverse "appeal to popularity", or something along those lines. And it's also, for many groups, wrong. Those that promote animal rights do so for many animals, not just "those that are cute".

[Dr. Lao]

So, what I need to know, since all animals are equal. What about driving? My car hits gnats all the time, I must be a murderer.

I had the house sprayed for termites, I suppose I should just let them eat in peace.

I washed with antibacterial soap today and killed untold thousands of peaceful little microbes, I must be so evil.

I love animals, I love my dog. But, I see nothing wrong with the Canadian seal hunt, its a way to make a living for folks who don't have a hell of a lot.

But, I don't see as much outrage at the practice of "finning" sharks. That is an outrage. Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some Japanese guy can get horny? I scuba dive, I like to see the sharks when I'm underwater. Pity that sharks don't have cute little faces and eyelashes.

[Lonewulf]

So, what I need to know, since all animals are equal.

Strawman. I never stated that all animals are equal. I stated that animal rights are not decided (nor should it be decided) based on appearance.

What about driving? My car hits gnats all the time, I must be a murderer.

Question based on strawman.

I had the house sprayed for termites, I suppose I should just let them eat in peace.

Based on strawman.

I washed with antibacterial soap today and killed untold thousands of peaceful little microbes, I must be so evil.

Based on strawman.

I love animals, I love my dog. But, I see nothing wrong with the Canadian seal hunt, its a way to make a living for folks who don't have a hell of a lot.

Did you even read through this thread before you posted? Just in case you, say, mentioned something that has already been mentioned before? Multiple times? And dealt with thoroughly?

I accepted that, but I do not consider the seal hunts to be ideal. I'd rather the folks that do the hunting have other job opportunities available to them. I'm not quite sure what you find so wrong with that position.

Others question the methods used during the hunt. Some criticize how the hunt could be made more humane.

But, I don't see as much outrage at the practice of "finning" sharks. That is an outrage. Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some Japanese guy can get horny?

That is an outrage, and I agree with you. I'm sure that if you brought it up with many animal rights groups, they would agree with you.

I scuba dive, I like to see the sharks when I'm underwater. Pity that sharks don't have cute little faces and eyelashes.

Once more, I agree that sharks should be treated humanely and not hunted wastefully.

[andyandy]

But, I don't see as much outrage at the practice of "finning" sharks. That is an outrage. Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some Japanese guy can get horny?


it's a popular Chinese delicacy rather than Japanese....and somewhat erroneous to interpret its popularity due to percieved aphrodisiac qualities.

[Dr. Lao]

Actually they eat it in Japan, China, Thailand, etc.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Seriously, I want a sealskin jacket. I saw them in Iceland a few years back, they are nice. As for the baby seals. Hardly unwarranted, they make great jackets!

boo freaking who.

Tell you what, when the sharks and polar bears sign a non aggression pact with the cute little seals, then I will think otherwise.

If the seals looked like baby anteaters no one would give a damn.

Your argument is so full of holes I don't even know where to start...

Firstly, Killing an animal simply for a "cool jacket" is unwarranted. You could substitute it with a fabric such as cotton or polyester.

Secondly, The fact that polar bears kill seals is irrelevant to how we treat them.
1. They MUST kill them for food. I have already stated that I don't oppose the small groups of natives killing the seals purely for food for their families. I oppose the commercial slaughter of them for their fur.
2. Humans are more intelligent than polar bears and thus have more responsibility to be ethical to our fellow animals.

[thaiboxerken]

Firstly, Killing an animal simply for a "cool jacket" is unwarranted. You could substitute it with a fabric such as cotton or polyester.


You fail to realize that this is just a value judgment on your part.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You fail to realize that this is just a value judgment on your part.

I've explained in detail how that's absolutely false. I really don't like repeating myself but here's a little bit of how you're wrong. The only thing that puts Humans at a higher level of moral value from other animals is their intelligence, thus their ability to appreciate moral or immoral treatment. This is all there is. Humans have no magical quality that makes them more important than other animal species. The only measurable thing they have is their intelligence. However other animal species also have intelligence. Other animal species also feel sense pain and are able to suffer. This means that they must be afforded moral rights as well, if humans are to be afforded moral rights. Humans have no need for fur coats. It's simply an item they like to have. They could easily buy cotton or polyester coats. Killing animals for the shallow desires of humans is unjustifiable.


The moral rights of other animal species won't be equal to humans simply because they aren't equal to humans in their ability to appreciate treatment of them. They can't appreciate a right to vote so they shouldn't get such. Humans should. Each species should be afforded moral rights corresponding with their intelligence. This is the only non-arbitrary and rational measure for moral treatment. That's all there is. Any other ascriptions to humans of some "superiority" above other animals or disenfranchising other animals of their basic rights isn't rational. The sole rubric for human moral treatment is also shared by other animal species.

Claims that somehow humans deserve everything and the interests of all other species should be ignored is simply ignorant chauvinism. Baseless.

This means that the amount of harm caused by killing an animal is much more severe than the harm caused by someone not getting a fur coat, which they could replace with a cotton or polyester coat or other fabric. The amount suffering caused from killing animals for their fur is compared to the potential suffering caused by someone not getting a fur coat is laughable. Anyone who really believes that getting a fur coat is more important than the lives of several animals needs to seriously re-evaluate their beliefs.

[thaiboxerken]

It's just a value judgment on your part that the more intelligent a creature is, the more humane is should be treated. No matter how you try to justify it, there is no scientific evidence to support your philosophy that intelligent creatures need to be treated better than non-intelligent ones. Really, Dustin, you have failed to realize that it ultimately comes down to a value judgment. Intelligence is your arbitrary value to make judgments on. Cuteness might be other person's arbitrary values, while species are another arbitrary value to make these decisions.

[Jas]

I care about the seals because the practice of killing them is overtly cruel. How is it cruel?

My question is, can we eat the meat? Seems like a waste to just kill them for the fur alone. The meat is eaten, I don't see why you would throw it out.

That is an outrage, and I agree with you. I'm sure that if you brought it up with many animal rights groups, they would agree with you.

Finning of sharks has been going on for years. Yet there is no international legislation to prevent it, and the only group that has done anything about it is Sea Shepherd, until very recently.

Aside from the fact that finning them alive and throwing them away is clearly much more morally reprehensible than killing seals, especially from an environmental perspective, the seal hunt is publicly condemmed, yet there is very little done in defense of sharks.

[Jas]

Bullets cost money. The Bioindustry will do anything to keep the costs for killing animals down. Do you know anything about hunting? You do realize that bullets are dirt cheap, and that shooting an animal from afar is much more efficient than walking up to it and physically clubbing it, don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_hunting

It is therefore probable that a large number of seals indicated in this study would have been conscious not only while they were bleeding to death, but also while their skins were being removed.

Gee, yet there's this whole section there that says this:
According to recent studies done by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), the hakapik, when used properly, kills the animal quickly and painlessly. Several American studies carried out from 1969-1972 in the Pribilof Islands of Alaska came to the same conclusion.[30] The Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing in Canada, also known as the Malouf Commission, claims that properly performed clubbing is at least as humane as the methods used in commercial slaughterhouses, and according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), these studies "have consistently proven that the club or hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely."
A study of the 2001 Canadian seal hunt conducted by five independent veterinarians came to the conclusion that although the hakapik is a humane means of hunting, many hunters were, in fact, not using the hakapik properly. This improper use, they said, was leading to "considerable and unacceptable suffering", and in 17% of the cases they observed, there were no detectable lesions of the skull whatsoever. In numerous other cases, the seals had to be struck multiple times before they were considered "unconscious".[31] These claims are supported by the CVMA report itself, which states that 87% of the hunters whom they had observed had violated Canada's hunting regulations by "fail[ing] to palpate the skull or check for the corneal reflex before proceeding to hook or bleed the seal or go to another seal."
While hunters sometimes begin the process of bleeding out seals prior to skinning, video evidence shows sealers do not often allow any time to pass between cutting the seals open and skinning them - thus it is unlikely seals are bled out properly prior to skinning. It is therefore probable that a large number of seals indicated in this study would have been conscious not only while they were bleeding to death, but also while their skins were being removed. Video evidence exists that shows seals moving as if alive at the time of skinning;[citation needed] the CVMA and Malouf Commission studies, while conceding that some incidents of live skinning may occur, have stated that seals have a swimming reflex that causes muscle contraction to continue even after death. In 2005 the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) prompted the Independent Veterinarians Working Group(IVWG) Report, with reference to video evidence, the report states, "Perception of the seal hunt seems to be based largely on emotion, and on visual images that are often difficult even for experienced observers to interpret with certainty. While a hakapik strike on the skull of a seal appears brutal, it is humane if it achieves rapid, irreversible loss of consciousness leading to death."
The 2001 report contained a number of recommendations on how sealing could be conducted more humanely. They did not, however, recommend the disuse of the controversial hakapik.

Hmm, the portion stating that there is video evidence of them being skinned alive is needing a citation.

[armageddonman]

Funny, but I do.

I feel sorry for you too -- for having that attitude toward your fellow man. :mad:

Nobody forced them to go slaughtering animals. But I stand corrected: I feel sorry for everyone who has such an attitude toward their fellow creatures as those people have.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

How is it cruel?


Cruel-1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering.
2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain

Suffering-1 : to endure death, pain, or distress

www.m-w.com (http://forums.randi.org/www.m-w.com)

Do you know anything about hunting? You do realize that bullets are dirt cheap, and that shooting an animal from afar is much more efficient than walking up to it and physically clubbing it, don't you?



Gee, yet there's this whole section there that says this:


Hmm, the portion stating that there is video evidence of them being skinned alive is needing a citation.


All of that has been addressed. Read the thread.

[andyandy]

Actually they eat it in Japan, China, Thailand, etc.

the statement

"Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some Japanese guy can get horny?"

is rather derogatory - some japanese guy is a poor choice for the target of that derision. You may as well say some English guy - for there's a trade in Shark fin soup in London's China town. If you want to slur a nation you could at least get the county right :rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

the statement

"Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some Japanese guy can get horny?"

is rather derogatory - some japanese guy is a poor choice for the target of that derision. You may as well say some English guy - for there's a trade in Shark fin soup in London's China town. If you want to slur a nation you could at least get the county right :rolleyes:

Indeed. Though allow me to change the statement to get the proper indignation out:

"Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some guy can get horny?"

[andyandy]

Indeed. Though allow me to change the statement to get the proper indignation out:

"Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some guy can get horny?"

yes that's a bit better....:)

[Dr. Lao]

Your argument is so full of holes I don't even know where to start...

Firstly, Killing an animal simply for a "cool jacket" is unwarranted. You could substitute it with a fabric such as cotton or polyester.

Secondly, The fact that polar bears kill seals is irrelevant to how we treat them.
1. They MUST kill them for food. I have already stated that I don't oppose the small groups of natives killing the seals purely for food for their families. I oppose the commercial slaughter of them for their fur.
2. Humans are more intelligent than polar bears and thus have more responsibility to be ethical to our fellow animals.

I'll buy whatever freaking jacket I want, I don't need some whiney guilt pusher to tell me what king of jacket I must have. I already have a great 60 year old goat skin jacket, I like it very much, and the goat would have been long dead anyway if they hadn't turned it into a nice jacket.

That is why many people have a negative opinion of animal rights activists, they act all holier than thou, and feel as if they have the authority to tell others what to wear or eat.

Humans are more intelligent! Very good. Humans also have the right to kill, eat and wear a seal, even a really cute one.

I admire your passion, but, you need to realize that, for all your self righteousness and passion, its not your call. Others have their opinions too, so you should respect that.

Do they sell sealskin jackets in Ireland? I'll be there in a few weeks, I'll look.

[Lonewulf]

I'll buy whatever freaking jacket I want, I don't need some whiney guilt pusher to tell me what king of jacket I must have. I already have a great 60 year old goat skin jacket, I like it very much, and the goat would have been long dead anyway if they hadn't turned it into a nice jacket.

That's nice. But some people do not like that there are animals that are hunted and killed en-masse just for corporate bucks. Just like the buffalo were hunted to extinction. And just like how I oppose the use of fox fur (and foxes are usually kept in some of the worst of conditions... but you don't care about that, I'm sure. After all, you get some nice-feeling coat, so it's automatically justified. ;) )

That is why many people have a negative opinion of animal rights activists, they act all holier than thou, and feel as if they have the authority to tell others what to wear or eat.

Yeah, those darn animal rights activists. Also, what about those courts, judges, and other types of criticism?! How dare people criticize Imus for calling other people names; how dare people act "holier than thou" and attack the KKK for writing slogans on walls. How dare the courts have the authority to tell people what they can and can't do, with threat of incarceration?

Oh wait. There's no inconsistency. Social pressure and judgement is a norm.

Hmm...

Humans are more intelligent! Very good. Humans also have the right to kill, eat and wear a seal, even a really cute one.

A "right" to?

That's a personal value judgment, and not one that I agree with. Any moreso than I think that people have a "right" to wipe out all species of animals for their personal greed, or that people have a "right" to pollute the environment whenever they so wish.

Doesn't mean that I think they should be restricted, but proclaiming that it's a natural RIGHT, like it was proclaimed in some constitution, or direction from On High speaks worlds about your argument...

[Molinaro]

That's nice. But some people do not like that there are animals that are hunted and killed en-masse just for corporate bucks. Just like the buffalo were hunted to extinction.

And what does an unmanaged hunt have to do with a quota based managed hunt, with respect to hunting to extinction?

Oh I know! It's all about the emotional appeal and who cares about what makes sense right?

[thaiboxerken]

Buffalo are extinct? That's news to me.

[Molinaro]

I ate a buffalo burger back in 1996 actualy. It was pretty good.

[thaiboxerken]

Fuddruckers sells buffalo burgers today. There are restaurants that offer buffalo steaks. I wonder how they do it, time-travel?

[Dr. Lao]

Corporate bucks?

Oh, its those EEEEEVIL corporations!

I buy what I want, free market, its great.

Courts, judges, Don Imus, that is a deflection and spin, has nothing to do with the argument.

Killing baby seals is legal, its a way of life for the inuit.

You have an opinion, good, but so do others. Again, I will eat and wear whatever the hell I want, without guilt from some nanny animal rights whiner.

[Lonewulf]

Buffalo are extinct? That's news to me.

Mis-statement.

Hunted them to near-disappearance here in the US. The buffalo, fortunately, made a comeback.

Fuddruckers sells buffalo burgers today. There are restaurants that offer buffalo steaks. I wonder how they do it, time-travel?

It was a misstatement.

Corporate bucks?

Oh, its those EEEEEVIL corporations!

Well, it's whoever funded the mass slaughter of animals for a quick buck, yes. In the case of the buffalo, it was not morally justifiable. In the case of seals... well, that's a different issue. I still find the act questionable.

For instance, I don't like the fur trade with fox fur. Or wolf pelts (which was mainly a "bounty hunting" issue). I would dislike seeing someone wearing the flesh of these animals if I thought that the animals were killed needlessly.

I buy what I want, free market, its great.

Courts, judges, Don Imus, that is a deflection and spin, has nothing to do with the argument.

Killing baby seals is legal, its a way of life for the inuit.

You have an opinion, good, but so do others. Again, I will eat and wear whatever the hell I want, without guilt from some nanny animal rights whiner.

That's fine.

Just recognize that if you ever criticize others for doing something you believe is wrong, you are a hypocrite for attacking animal rights advocates for doing the same.

And what does an unmanaged hunt have to do with a quota based managed hunt, with respect to hunting to extinction?

Oh I know! It's all about the emotional appeal and who cares about what makes sense right?

Oh I know! When I say "Oh I know!" I actually sound smrt!!111one

Sarcasm ftw!

But no, I am stating that there is a reason to criticize the mass hunting of animals as part of a trade. Many of those that criticizing the hunting of seals do so for the same reason: They view it as the same. Even if that is a mistaken belief, and the issue is about education of the issues, then it is different from attacking those evil animal rights advocates! Dr. Lao does not seem to care about the details; just that he should be allowed to do what he wants, when he wants, as long as he has money to pay for it. Some disagree with this philosophy of "money makes right".

Personally, I'm a bit more neutral when it comes to seal hunting. But the attacks on a viewpoint alternative to their own (while whining about "those evil animal rights advocates, trying to guilt trip me! Wah! I'm crying to mommy!") is what discussions like these always turn into. It's not about the particular details of the hunt, just attacking animal rights advocates, just as Dr. Lao is doing in this particular scenario.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm thinking that the buffalo would've had to have been seriously culled at some time in our history anyway. Could you imagine driving down the highway and having to avoid a buffalo stampede?

[Lonewulf]

I'm thinking that the buffalo would've had to have been seriously culled at some time in our history anyway. Could you imagine driving down the highway and having to avoid a buffalo stampede?

Intriguing that you would justify those actions.

Now that I know where you really stand on animal issues, I retire.

[thaiboxerken]

Justify? Hardly, I was just pointing out that the buffalo population, if it were like it was prior to the hunts, would definitely make highway travel in the Midwest very difficult. I guess we could've domesticated a majority of them, but then you'd be complaining about that as you think it's better for a species to be extinct than to be domesticated as a food product. (Which is how it is now, just with less buffalo)

[Lonewulf]

Justify? Hardly, I was just pointing out that the buffalo population, if it were like it was prior to the hunts, would definitely make highway travel in the Midwest very difficult. I guess we could've domesticated a majority of them, but then you'd be complaining about that as you think it's better for a species to be extinct than to be domesticated as a food product. (Which is how it is now, just with less buffalo)

You misunderstood, and you probably always will.

I was talking long-term effects, and nothing quite so immediate. And I was proposing a single alternative. I do not think that it is entirely impossible to return domesticated animals into the wild, through a series of re-introductions. But I did state that I did not see anything innately wrong with extinction of a domesticated animal by discouraging reproduction. You apparently do, but made no arguments; just gut-based responses. Which is ironic, as you criticize those that do the same.

Pardon me while I'm still not impressed with your response.

But I'm not really interested in discussing the issue, as you have demonstrated that you do not care to actually debate. If you did, you would have actually debated, which you did not. You never had anything to add to the discussion, and you probably never will. No skin off my nose.

[thaiboxerken]

I said why I think extinction would be bad, if cows were extinct, we couldn't eat them. But you never really wanted to debate, you just want to tell people that killing animals is bad.

[Lonewulf]

I said why I think extinction would be bad, if cows were extinct, we couldn't eat them.

Once more, I was talking about long-term alternatives, which involved pseudo-meat products. If you had read the argument, you would have understood this. You did not read the argument, because you were obviously interested in no more than attacking someone who thinks differently than you do.

I'd also add that you did not explain this explicitely, or I would have replied to it properly.

But you never really wanted to debate, you just want to tell people that killing animals is bad.

As you continue to demonstrate an inability to reason or listen.

Welcome to the ignore list. I tend to prefer to discuss things with people that can actually, you know, discuss things.

[thaiboxerken]

If by "discuss" you really mean "agree with you" I can understand why you'd place people on ignore.

[Lonewulf]

If by "discuss" you really mean "agree with you"

No, wrong again.

You mischaracterized my arguments again and again. I have had discussions with those that disagree with me and have had few problems. Randfan, for instance.

You still do not understand or comprehend the core of my arguments. I explained them in that thread, but you obviously ignored them. You continually demonstrate that you ignored them.

The fact that you're so worried about not getting your burgers anymore shows that you did not read my arguments about alternatives to present-day meat production. Yet you can't comprehend this; you probably never will.

Sad.

Anyways, ignore time.

I gotta admit, this is a bit less amusing than when you were calling everyone a "ninja wannabe" and similar ad hominems because some advocated traditional martial arts... ah well. Some children get tiring.

[thaiboxerken]

I'd rather have a burger than a soy-bean product. The burger tastes better. The life of a cow has no value to me other than being a product that tastes good, produces milk and can be used as leather.

[steverino]

Since this new wave of posts, here are my observations:

1) Just because seals are cute, that does not excuse man's killing them in a cruel way.

2) While other, less cute, animals are being killed in an equally cruel manor, that does not excuse man's killing either the "ugly" animals or the "cute" animals.

3) While WIKI and other sites suggest that most of the seals are slaughtered humanely, it is still valid to be concerned with those instances where the seals are skinned alive.

4) It is valid to side with the seals even if it is not considered by some as manly.

[Cleon]

Since this new wave of posts, here are my observations:

1) Just because seals are cute, that does not excuse man's killing them in a cruel way.

I'm...Really trying hard to parse that statement, and failing.

Cuteness, IMO, is really not a factor here. The only reason it plays a role at all is because some of those opposed to the hunt play up the "cuteness" factor to generate sympathy.

I find that to be extremely dishonest.


2) While other, less cute, animals are being killed in an equally cruel manor, that does not excuse man's killing either the "ugly" animals or the "cute" animals.

Killing animals is not pretty. A visit to a slaughterhouse should clear that up fairly quickly.

The question here is whether killing animals is ok or not (I'll take up the question of cruelty in a minute). There's not a lot of PETA support here, and I only know of a couple vegetarians on the board, so I'm going to assume everyone here is pretty much ok with killing animals in general.

Where people differ, obviously, is when killing animals is justified. For example, I'm perfectly ok with killing them for food. And if we're going to kill the cow for hamburgers anyway, I don't really see a problem with making jackets out of its hide. I'm 100% ok with animal testing for medical research, and for killing pigs for insulin (my mom's diabetic--maybe I'm biased). I'm not real big on killing for fun, or animal testing for cosmetics research. I like fishing, but I'm not a big fan of "catch and release."

People may disagree with me on that. That's fine. The reason I have trouble taking this "debate" seriously is that because so much hyperbole and emotional blackmail is thrown around, the actual reasons for the hunt--and therefore any rational arguments for or against it--are being completely ignored.


3) While WIKI and other sites suggest that most of the seals are slaughtered humanely, it is still valid to be concerned with those instances where the seals are skinned alive.

If those instances actually occur with any amount of regularity. I'm skeptical, largely (again) because of the hyperbole and emotional baggage being thrown around. I'm sure they happen occasionally, but the argument is that this is so rampant that it makes the entire hunt an exercise in cruelty.

Any mass killings of animals is going to involve some cruelty. You can't kill without being cruel. It's unfortunate, but it's reality. The anti-hunt crowd is claiming that the hakapik is inherently cruel--which is simply false. It sounds awful, and it sure doesn't look pretty, but at the end of the day it's really not any worse than any other method of killing animals. Again, visit a slaughterhouse if you don't believe me.


4) It is valid to side with the seals even if it is not considered by some as manly.

I fail to see where "manliness" enters into this. I'm pretty sure Jas for one doesn't give a crap about it.

[Fitter]

3) While WIKI and other sites suggest that most of the seals are slaughtered humanely, it is still valid to be concerned with those instances where the seals are skinned alive.



Please present all evidence you have of this practice to the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans as it is in direct contradiction of the Fisheries Act http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/SOR-93-56/bo-ga:l_IV-gb:s_27//en#anchorbo-ga:l_IV-gb:s_27 , item 29, and punishable under Canadian law. If this practice is as widespread as you make it out to be there should be no problem gathering enough evidence to convict those performing such acts.

[Darth Rotor]

Please present all evidence you have of this practice to the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans as it is in direct contradiction of the Fisheries Act http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/SOR-93-56/bo-ga:l_IV-gb:s_27//en#anchorbo-ga:l_IV-gb:s_27 , item 29, and punishable under Canadian law. If this practice is as widespread as you make it out to be there should be no problem gathering enough evidence to convict those performing such acts.
I'd have a care in presuming the efficacy of the long arm of the law.

For example, the laws on speed limits and speeding in the US are well posted and well known. Highway patrolmen pull over and cite many speeders. However, many, many speeders don't get caught, or don't get ticketed.

There is a limit to how many law / game enforcement people can go out and cite violaters.

Thanks for the link, interesting reading.

DR

[Dr. Lao]

Buffalo is good! And I don't even eat pork or beef (25 years on)

I also have eaten kangaroo, kudo, ostrich and any number of insects, fried and on pushcarts of Asia.

The point is, the animal rights weenies can only attempt to use guilt, well, too freaking bad, it don't work on me.

Animals should be tested on, insulin and cancer drugs have come about because of animal testing.

That chicken breast or hamburger just doesn't appear on your grocer's shelf, an animal dies, and its never pretty.

So what?

I'll eat what I want, wear what I want and live how I want, and the animal rights whiners can have their opinion, but I will disagree and continue to eat and wear what I want.

[armageddonman]

I'd rather have a burger than a soy-bean product. The burger tastes better. The life of a cow has no value to me other than being a product that tastes good, produces milk and can be used as leather.

Well I hope you don't mind if other people value your life the same way.

[armageddonman]

The point is, the animal rights weenies can only attempt to use guilt, well, too freaking bad, it don't work on me.


Actually, what they use it ethics. I suggest you read a book by Peter Singer. Really an eye-opener.
I have no problem if people decide to treat other animals like trash but don't complain if the same happens to you.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'll buy whatever freaking jacket I want, I don't need some whiney guilt pusher to tell me what king of jacket I must have.

Not if it's illegal.


That is why many people have a negative opinion of animal rights activists, they act all holier than thou, and feel as if they have the authority to tell others what to wear or eat.

How does telling you something is wrong make me have a "holier than thou" attitude exactly? Just stating the facts.


Humans are more intelligent! Very good. Humans also have the right to kill, eat and wear a seal, even a really cute one.

Says who? What if I said humans have the right to kill, eat and wear another human? Why would I be wrong?

I admire your passion, but, you need to realize that, for all your self righteousness and passion, its not your call. Others have their opinions too, so you should respect that.

Their opinions are wrong. I've established that.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Well I hope you don't mind if other people value your life the same way.

He things humans are somehow magically "superior" to other animals in all moral ways. He also calls intelligence an "arbitrary value judgment" whatever that means, so he doesn't think humans are more important due to their intelligence either. He just thinks they have some providence to claims of moral authority and importance.

[Lonewulf]

I'd rather have a burger than a soy-bean product. The burger tastes better. The life of a cow has no value to me other than being a product that tastes good, produces milk and can be used as leather.

I have Ken on ignore, I just saw this in a reply.

No, I wasn't talking about "some soy product", and I was thinking farther ahead into the future. Sorry, Ken, but you still don't comprehend the argument. You were apparently too lazy to read what I wrote.

As I have no doubt that you will continue to ignore such, I will not bother to go through the motions of reiterating my argument. I may be in the habit of wasting time, but there's a limit.

I'll eat what I want, wear what I want and live how I want, and the animal rights whiners can have their opinion, but I will disagree and continue to eat and wear what I want.

Go ahead. Just be aware that what you "want" can sometimes conflict with the law.

There is an ethical background behind any law, or any social course/discourse.

[thaiboxerken]

Well I hope you don't mind if other people value your life the same way.

I'm pretty sure carnivores of other species would kill and eat me if they could.

[thaiboxerken]

He things humans are somehow magically "superior" to other animals in all moral ways.

Actually, that would be YOUR position in the debates, you are the one that keeps telling us that since humans are more intelligent, we should follow a specific set of morals that YOU hold.

He also calls intelligence an "arbitrary value judgment" whatever that means,

It means that you've simply decided that intelligence is the end-all of values to judge other species value off of.

[thaiboxerken]

No, I wasn't talking about "some soy product", and I was thinking farther ahead into the future.

Isn't argument ad science-fiction a fallacy?

[Tailgater]

This thread is going great with the steak and chicken fajita I'm having for lunch.

[Lonewulf]

This thread is going great with the steak and chicken fajita I'm having for lunch.

It isn't seal, so this is off-topic. But hey, it doesn't matter, as long as you try to piss off those evil vegetarians. ;)

[Tailgater]

It isn't seal, so this is off-topic. But hey, it doesn't matter, as long as you try to piss off those evil vegetarians. ;)

Nah, I don't think they are evil. Just as long as they don't mess with my domesticated food. They keep balance to people who just want to go around clubbing seals.......doh. I think the thread quit being about seals a long time ago.

[steverino]

I'm...Really trying hard to parse that statement, and failing.

Cuteness, IMO, is really not a factor here. The only reason it plays a role at all is because some of those opposed to the hunt play up the "cuteness" factor to generate sympathy.

Let me try to parse out my statement. Some here are saying, cuteness-be-damned, killed those Mutha' F' seals. My point, Cleon, is that it cuts both ways. My critics are making cuteness a factor. IOW, let's not let the cuteness issue either prevent or promote our opinion of the slaughter. Instead, let's look at the slaughter closely to see if it is crueler than a slaughterhouse, and if these creatures, regardless of their looks, are being skinned alive.

I admit that it is hard to defend the slaughterhouse as it contains the word "slaughter" while admonishing the seal hunt. But, OK. We have to draw the line somewhere. As I have stated before on this thread, my comfort level for eating a burger is higher than my comfort level for clubbing a golden retriever so that its fur can line a stylish jacket.

As for my "manly" comment, I feel that any sticking up for animals here is considered by some as "soft."

[Cleon]

Let me try to parse out my statement. Some here are saying, cuteness-be-damned, killed those Mutha' F' seals. My point, Cleon, is that it cuts both ways. My critics are making cuteness a factor.

I disagree. It is those who are dishonestly painting the hunt as targeting the innocent, cute, fluffy seal clubs who are trying to make cuteness an issue. Note that the OP includes a picture of a cute, furry, baby seal--despite the fact that hunting said "whitecoats" is specifically banned in Canada, and has been for 20 years.

In post #8, the same poster displays a photo of the cute, furry whitecoat seal next to a photo of a skinned one--which, again, gives the mistaken impression that it's the cute widdle furry white seals being slaughtered by the horrible "ignorant and uneducated" hunters.

If anything, the "cuteness-be-damned" responses are irritated responses to this dishonest, emotionally laden tactic.


IOW, let's not let the cuteness issue either prevent or promote our opinion of the slaughter. Instead, let's look at the slaughter closely to see if it is crueler than a slaughterhouse, and if these creatures, regardless of their looks, are being skinned alive.

I'm with you 100% here. However, so far we haven't seen much in the way of substantiation of either of these claims.


I admit that it is hard to defend the slaughterhouse as it contains the word "slaughter" while admonishing the seal hunt.

Well, words notwithstanding, the point is that the result is the same--animals are killed, and the visual results will quite possibly turn your stomach. The question is whether the seal hunt is any more cruel than your run-of-the-mill (har!) slaughterhouse.

But, OK. We have to draw the line somewhere. As I have stated before on this thread, my comfort level for eating a burger is higher than my comfort level for clubbing a golden retriever so that its fur can line a stylish jacket.

And that's fine. I've got no problem with that whatsoever, any more than I have a problem with the forum's resident vegetarians. But I don't think "comfort levels" are at issue here.


As for my "manly" comment, I feel that any sticking up for animals here is considered by some as "soft."

Again, I don't see that as a factor. We should be concentrating solely on whether the hunt is unnecessarily cruel and the claims of the anti-hunt crowd.

[Lonewulf]

As for my "manly" comment, I feel that any sticking up for animals here is considered by some as "soft."

Indeed, I get that impression as well.

What I find interesting is that it's considered "wrong" for vegetarians to question the morality of eating meat (which is what everyone usually ends up attacking in threads like these), yet it's a-ok and even normal par for the cause of discussions like these for meat-eaters to rub in the face of vegetarians that they're eating meat.

"Oh wow! I'm eating a meat hamburger. Look at that. Mmmm, isn't this great? I'm eating the flesh of a cow -- which you are morally against -- haha! You stupid vegetarian".

Hypocrisy all around, IMO.

[thaiboxerken]

It's not wrong to eat meat, and making fun of the weirdo's who think eating meat is wrong is just plain fun.

[Tailgater]

Indeed, I get that impression as well.

What I find interesting is that it's considered "wrong" for vegetarians to question the morality of eating meat (which is what everyone usually ends up attacking in threads like these), yet it's a-ok and even normal par for the cause of discussions like these for meat-eaters to rub in the face of vegetarians that they're eating meat.

"Oh wow! I'm eating a meat hamburger. Look at that. Mmmm, isn't this great? I'm eating the flesh of a cow -- which you are morally against -- haha! You stupid vegetarian".

Hypocrisy all around, IMO.

It's a meateaters way of saying FU to someone telling them what they are doing is immoral. Just like if you made a thread saying that "doggy-style was immoral and I don't do that". My first reaction is to get my girl and say "oh ya look at me".

[Lonewulf]

It's a meateaters way of saying FU to someone telling them what they are doing is immoral. Just like if you made a thread saying that "doggy-style was immoral and I don't do that". My first reaction is to get my girl and say "oh ya look at me".

Which is why there never will be rational discussion on the subject.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Actually, that would be YOUR position in the debates, you are the one that keeps telling us that since humans are more intelligent, we should follow a specific set of morals that YOU hold.

You're not making sense. How is my position that humans are somehow magically "superior" to other animals in all moral ways? My position is that humans are more intelligent and thus should know right from wrong.

It means that you've simply decided that intelligence is the end-all of values to judge other species value off of.

I've shown how it's the only rational way to determine it.

[Fitter]

Their opinions are wrong. I've established that.


Only in your own mind.

[thaiboxerken]

Which is why there never will be rational discussion on the subject.

That and the irrationality of saying "eating meat is immoral."

[thaiboxerken]

You're not making sense. How is my position that humans are somehow magically "superior" to other animals in all moral ways? My position is that humans are more intelligent and thus should know right from wrong.

You've just restated your position that since humans are more intelligent, we should hold a special "magical" moral position that no other animals should.



I've shown how it's the only rational way to determine it.

No, you haven't. You've only described your arbitrary value in more detail.

[armageddonman]

I'm pretty sure carnivores of other species would kill and eat me if they could.

I hope that you're not implying that humans are carnivores?

[armageddonman]

It's not wrong to eat meat, and making fun of the weirdo's who think eating meat is wrong is just plain fun.

What's even more funny are meat-eaters who act aggressive/defensive towards vegetarians. What are you afraid of?

[Cleon]

Congratulations on the successful derail, everyone.

[thaiboxerken]

What's even more funny are meat-eaters who act aggressive/defensive towards vegetarians. What are you afraid of?

I'm afraid that if the vegetarians get their way, I won't be allowed to eat a nice steak. Vegetarians are free to be vegetarians all they want, the problem comes when they start telling me what to eat or not eat.

[steverino]

It's a meateaters way of saying FU to someone telling them what they are doing is immoral. Just like if you made a thread saying that "doggy-style was immoral and I don't do that". My first reaction is to get my girl and say "oh ya look at me".

OK. But you personally are not clubbing baby seals...are you?:(

So I am not accusing you of being immoral, and so you needn't fly up to New Foundland and club seals as a reaction.:)

[Tailgater]

OK. But you personally are not clubbing baby seals...are you?:(

So I am not accusing you of being immoral, and so you needn't fly up to New Foundland and club seals as a reaction.:)

No, I wouldn't, but I'm not sure how I feel about that either other than if they are doing something illegal they should be held accountable. Animals being hunted probably go through more pain than a quick bashing of the head. Some animals need the population controlled to keep balance with the environment they live in, but I'm no expert in seals. I do know that deer need to be kept in check where I live, so hunting limits are changed to adapt to this. I remember a year when they put too small of a hunting limit on them and there was a jump in the wolf population and car accidents.

The problem I have, is the people that want to give human-like rights to animals to the extent that they want to tell me that I can't eat them or buy products that use animal parts. Or tell restaurants to have a "veggie" menu when it is not good business for them. They don't want an animal to die for any reason that is not natural (which I could think of some horrible natural ways to die). I was in a face to face arguement with this girl that a friend brought over to a barbecue I was having, that had the nerve to start preaching to everyone how wrong it was that we were roasting a whole pig. I wouldn't have cared less if she was vegetarian, but unlike what some posters here think, the vegetarians are usually the defensive/aggressive ones from what I encounter. She was sooo disgusted about the fact she could see the pigs face and was angry at not being informed she was brought to some sick ritual. Wacky girl. Fortunately, when she demanded to leave, my friend dropped her off at the nearest gas station with cab fare.

[Tailgater]

I hope that you're not implying that humans are carnivores?

I hope your not implying that vegetarians are not at higher risk for anemia?:D

[The_Fire]

I hope that you're not implying that humans are carnivores?

No. We are omnivores. We need both veggies and meaties to stay healthy......

Source (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/N/Nutrition.html)

[Lonewulf]

No. We are omnivores. We need both veggies and meaties to stay healthy......

Source (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/N/Nutrition.html)

http://www.raysahelian.com/vegetarian.html

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No. We are omnivores. We need both veggies and meaties to stay healthy......

Source (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/N/Nutrition.html)


That's not what omnivore means. Omnivore simply means that we're suited for digesting both plant and animal matter. However if we simply ate fruits and vegetables we would still be just as healthy as if we ate meat and vegetables. Maybe healthier.

[Lonewulf]

That's not what omnivore means. Omnivore simply means that we're suited for digesting both plant and animal matter. However if we simply ate fruits and vegetables we would still be just as healthy as if we ate meat and vegetables. Maybe healthier.

This post is false, by most accounts that I have read. You cannot have a vegetable-only diet without some form of supplement and expect to remain healthy. There are certain products in meat that our body requires for optimum health, that you can supplement; but you do need the supplements.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

This post is false, by most accounts that I have read. You cannot have a vegetable-only diet without some form of supplement and expect to remain healthy. There are certain products in meat that our body requires for optimum health, that you can supplement; but you do need the supplements.


What would those be?

[Lonewulf]

What would those be?

Just a quick link I looked up...

http://www.wikihealth.com/Key_Nutrients_Needed_in_a_Vegetarian_Diet

Mainly Iron, Vitamin B12, Protein (not as big a deal, and not that hard to get in a vegetarian diet), etc.

I'm not saying that you can't get them from fruit or vegetable sources; but you have to balance your meals a lot more than in an omnivorous diet, at the least, as some of the nutrients (such as Iron and B12) are mainly found in meat sources.

Hmm, I think I posted too strongly in my previous post... but I would say that supplements would be highly recommended. Just not entirely necessary, with proper nutritional information.

[Tailgater]

What would those be?

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/nutrition/veg.htm#5

I would add calcium for the non-milk drinking veggies, although we keep a backstock of artificial powdered milk that's not too bad.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Just a quick link I looked up...

http://www.wikihealth.com/Key_Nutrients_Needed_in_a_Vegetarian_Diet

Mainly Iron, Vitamin B12, Protein (not as big a deal, and not that hard to get in a vegetarian diet), etc.

I'm not saying that you can't get them from fruit or vegetable sources; but you have to balance your meals a lot more than in an omnivorous diet, at the least, as some of the nutrients (such as Iron and B12) are mainly found in meat sources.

Hmm, I think I posted too strongly in my previous post... but I would say that supplements would be highly recommended. Just not entirely necessary, with proper nutritional information.

Taking vitamin supplements isn't very difficult and people should be doing it regardless of if they are vegetarians or not.

[Lonewulf]

Taking vitamin supplements isn't very difficult and people should be doing it regardless of if they are vegetarians or not.

Yeap. Never stated otherwise. Supplements are still a necessity nonetheless, and for certain people (including those below a certain wage limit, and those in underdeveloped countries), it's not always an option. Vegetarianism isn't always a viable option for everyone.

I would add calcium for the non-milk drinking veggies, although we keep a backstock of artificial powdered milk that's not too bad.

I'm currently drinking a glass of chocolate soymilk. This stuff is really popular here; it tastes good, and most people (even non-vegetarians/vegans) love it.

It's got all the benefits of milk, and even more, while still providing needed calcium and the like. Not only that, but it also has none of that annoying fat.

Also, calcium can be found in non-meat products. I believe that some sources were given in the link I provided.

ETA: Oh, it's also listed in the source you provided. Good stuff.

I could go for a plate of spinach right now.

[steverino]

I was in a face to face arguement with this girl that a friend brought over to a barbecue I was having, that had the nerve to start preaching to everyone how wrong it was that we were roasting a whole pig. I wouldn't have cared less if she was vegetarian, but unlike what some posters here think, the vegetarians are usually the defensive/aggressive ones from what I encounter. She was sooo disgusted about the fact she could see the pigs face and was angry at not being informed she was brought to some sick ritual. Wacky girl. Fortunately, when she demanded to leave, my friend dropped her off at the nearest gas station with cab fare.

These wacky-type chicks are usually really good in bed.

[Lonewulf]

I wouldn't have cared less if she was vegetarian, but unlike what some posters here think, the vegetarians are usually the defensive/aggressive ones from what I encounter.

Most vegetarians that I encounter I actually initiate an inquiry when it comes up; they aren't very pushy.

The pushy ones are the ones that tend to get noticed. Just like fundamentalists of any group. ;)

She was sooo disgusted about the fact she could see the pigs face and was angry at not being informed she was brought to some sick ritual.

To her, it was disgusting. To some people, seeing a dog roasted alive (or dead, even) is disgusting. "Disgust" is all about personal perception; and if she was not informed that a pig was going to be roasted, then I can see why she was appalled. Once more, it seems like your main concern is that she isn't MAN enough (er, woman enough?) to see a carcass and think, "Oh, hey, it's just dead meat that I can eat", and instead saw what was once a live animal.

Some people don't actually like seeing the whole of dead animals. Personally, I loathe being able to see the face of the animal that I'm eating. It's disturbing.

But then, I'm not a REAL man, I guess. ;)


Okay, seriously, I find it interesting that you are so upset over her reaction. She was not informed that a whole pig was going to be cooked, right? And when she saw it, she was disturbed, and reacted in that sense. I don't quite see why her reaction was that bad; if she had never been exposed to a dead animal, I don't think she would have had the desensitization that, say, a redneck would have while he's tearing out the guts of a deer carcass.

ETA: I wouldn't be surprised if there was something else about this scenario that wasn't stated or that I'm just not imagining. When you mentioned that she was "preaching" how wrong it was, I can see that there's a possibility that it was much worse than I'm imagining currently...

[thaiboxerken]

The pushy ones are the ones that tend to get noticed. Just like fundamentalists of any group.


What to fundamentalists have in common with the moderates of their group? I'll answer for you.

The absurd beliefs.

[steverino]

[QUOTE=Lonewulf;2554865]
To her, it was disgusting. To some people, seeing a dog roasted alive (or dead, even) is disgusting. "Disgust" is all about personal perception; and if she was not informed that a pig was going to be roasted, then I can see why she was appalled. Once more, it seems like your main concern is that she isn't MAN enough (er, woman enough?) to see a carcass and think, "Oh, hey, it's just dead meat that I can eat", and instead saw what was once a live animal.QUOTE]

Wasn't there a scene in GIANT where they were scooping out cow brains? It grossed me out totally.:boggled:

[Mid]

Most vegetarians that I encounter I actually initiate an inquiry when it comes up; they aren't very pushy.

The pushy ones are the ones that tend to get noticed. Just like fundamentalists of any group. ;)



To her, it was disgusting. To some people, seeing a dog roasted alive (or dead, even) is disgusting. "Disgust" is all about personal perception; and if she was not informed that a pig was going to be roasted, then I can see why she was appalled. Once more, it seems like your main concern is that she isn't MAN enough (er, woman enough?) to see a carcass and think, "Oh, hey, it's just dead meat that I can eat", and instead saw what was once a live animal.

Some people don't actually like seeing the whole of dead animals. Personally, I loathe being able to see the face of the animal that I'm eating. It's disturbing.

But then, I'm not a REAL man, I guess. ;)


Okay, seriously, I find it interesting that you are so upset over her reaction. She was not informed that a whole pig was going to be cooked, right? And when she saw it, she was disturbed, and reacted in that sense. I don't quite see why her reaction was that bad; if she had never been exposed to a dead animal, I don't think she would have had the desensitization that, say, a redneck would have while he's tearing out the guts of a deer carcass.

ETA: I wouldn't be surprised if there was something else about this scenario that wasn't stated or that I'm just not imagining. When you mentioned that she was "preaching" how wrong it was, I can see that there's a possibility that it was much worse than I'm imagining currently...

That's not my reading of the situation at all, from what i can see from Tailgater's post this girl was disgusted at seeing a whole pig roasted (which is fair enough) and instead of just leaving or asking to leave, with maybe some explanation why, she decided to inform everyone else that what they were doing was "sick". This is plainly rude. Ok maybe she should have been informed a pig was going to be roasted but given she was invited to a barbecue thinking roasting a whole pig is some sick ritual she's been tricked into is a bit ott don't you think?

To give a hypothetical example to illustrate why I think her behaviuor as described was rude and insulting, suppose she was an evangelical Christian and at the party there was a gay couple which she took offence to, now would it be civil of her to express her firmly held view that they were sick and disgusting?

[Tailgater]

Most vegetarians that I encounter I actually initiate an inquiry when it comes up; they aren't very pushy.

The pushy ones are the ones that tend to get noticed. Just like fundamentalists of any group. ;)



To her, it was disgusting. To some people, seeing a dog roasted alive (or dead, even) is disgusting. "Disgust" is all about personal perception; and if she was not informed that a pig was going to be roasted, then I can see why she was appalled. Once more, it seems like your main concern is that she isn't MAN enough (er, woman enough?) to see a carcass and think, "Oh, hey, it's just dead meat that I can eat", and instead saw what was once a live animal.

Some people don't actually like seeing the whole of dead animals. Personally, I loathe being able to see the face of the animal that I'm eating. It's disturbing.

But then, I'm not a REAL man, I guess. ;)


Okay, seriously, I find it interesting that you are so upset over her reaction. She was not informed that a whole pig was going to be cooked, right? And when she saw it, she was disturbed, and reacted in that sense. I don't quite see why her reaction was that bad; if she had never been exposed to a dead animal, I don't think she would have had the desensitization that, say, a redneck would have while he's tearing out the guts of a deer carcass.

ETA: I wouldn't be surprised if there was something else about this scenario that wasn't stated or that I'm just not imagining. When you mentioned that she was "preaching" how wrong it was, I can see that there's a possibility that it was much worse than I'm imagining currently...

Your right. None of it had nothing to do with being "manly". Some people would like to live their lives without being told how "immoral" they are. I find there is a fine line between this and a preacher showing up at my house trying to shove god down my throat.

At first, I thought nothing of it when she first saw the pig and started to make comments. It's not uncommon for even the people eating the meat to see the whole pig and say "ewwwww". (doesn't stop them from having a pork sandwich in my honey sweet barbecue sauce:) ) She was expecting nice looking prepackaged food from the grocery store that she wouldn't have to have an emotional attachment to. I get a little chuckle and remind them that if we were serving hot dogs and you saw how they were made it would be much worse. Most people don't mind getting prepackaged food that they would never touch if they saw first-hand what was thrown in. Apparently the pig set her off and it went past the normal, "that is gross" comments, and degraded in to how I would feel if I put my family members on display and roasted them. After several attempts to be polite to a guest and ask her just to drop it, comments escalated (other people were not helping at this point). She tried telling me how barbaric I was for being able to take this whole animal and prepare it, cook it and cut it in to pieces before a crowd to devour it. That humans were evolved now. I was still being patient at this point, by trying to tell her that it costs at least four times more to buy all this meat prepackaged, she was upsetting other people and if she didn't like it, there was plenty of other places to sit and not look at it. I guess this was her cue to pull out the animal rights handbook and give us all a lesson in a better world view. Shouts ensued and the rest is history.

[Tailgater]

These wacky-type chicks are usually really good in bed.

When I was in college, that was very true. Women with a cause are wild when you agree with them.;)

[Lonewulf]

Some people would like to live their lives without being told how "immoral" they are.

Of course. No one likes to feel like they're being immoral. Two hundred years ago, certain people in society wouldn't like being told that they're being immoral... today, we consider their actions to be incredibly immoral.

At first, I thought nothing of it when she first saw the pig and started to make comments. It's not uncommon for even the people eating the meat to see the whole pig and say "ewwwww". (doesn't stop them from having a pork sandwich in my honey sweet barbecue sauce ) She was expecting nice looking prepackaged food from the grocery store that she wouldn't have to have an emotional attachment to. I get a little chuckle and remind them that if we were serving hot dogs and you saw how they were made it would be much worse. Most people don't mind getting prepackaged food that they would never touch if they saw first-hand what was thrown in. Apparently the pig set her off and it went past the normal, "that is gross" comments, and degraded in to how I would feel if I put my family members on display and roasted them. After several attempts to be polite to a guest and ask her just to drop it, comments escalated (other people were not helping at this point).

Ah, k. I misread it. Didn't have to read on, I saw where it was going (I kept reading anyways, but I still saw it). That was going overboard.

But nonetheless, this particular scenario does nothing but to demonstrate that there are fundamentalists. There are fundamentalists in everything.

And someone rubbing into the face of a vegetarian that you are eating meat as an "FU", is to me, about just the same as accusing someone of murder for eating animals. If the vegetarian pushes an issue to the point where they are being incredibly insulting, then it's tit for tat. But suddenly opening up with, "OH, I'm eating MEAT... see that animal you loved? Well, now I'm EATING it... it's in my BELLY..." is just plain immature and unwarranted.

Of course, vs. Dustin, I can see the temptation there.

[Tailgater]

But nonetheless, this particular scenario does nothing but to demonstrate that there are fundamentalists. There are fundamentalists in everything.

And someone rubbing into the face of a vegetarian that they're eating meat as an "FU", is to me, about just the same as accusing someone of murder for eating animals.

I agree. I have some friends who are "complete" vegetarians and the subject never comes up. If I invite them over, we have non-meat appetizers for them and so on. It is definitely the fundie type veggies that prompt those reactions from many. Resentment from extremists pushing agendas (and that probably depends where you stand on the broad subject of animal rights) tends to resonate with many people. Of course, this is true with just about anything.

Side note: What is the shelf life of soy milk or other products? I buy a lot of dry or dehydrated goods in case we have to leave town on short notice. I hate having to go for a few days and coming back to bad food. I really don't like wasted food.

[Tailgater]

And someone rubbing into the face of a vegetarian that you are eating meat as an "FU", is to me, about just the same as accusing someone of murder for eating animals. If the vegetarian pushes an issue to the point where they are being incredibly insulting, then it's tit for tat. But suddenly opening up with, "OH, I'm eating MEAT... see that animal you loved? Well, now I'm EATING it... it's in my BELLY..." is just plain immature and unwarranted.

Of course, vs. Dustin, I can see the temptation there.
:rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

How do you keep the meat moist throughout the pig in a pig roast? I would think the outside meat would get dry and tough. You should've put an apple in the veggie chick's mouth.

Also, telling an "ethics" vegetarian that you're eating meat is never unwarranted.

[Tailgater]

How do you keep the meat moist throughout the pig in a pig roast? I would think the outside meat would get dry and tough. You should've put an apple in the veggie chick's mouth.

Also, telling an "ethics" vegetarian that you're eating meat is never unwarranted.

Similar to a turkey by injecting caulking gun sized tubes of seasoned water into various parts of the body to keep it moist (don't really have to, but I think it's better). If you coat the outside with oil it will make the skin crispier and also help seal in moisture (butter works too, but I like the crunchiness of oil).

[Lonewulf]

:rolleyes:

I take it that you disapprove of my post?

Anyways, regardless, there's never going to be agreement between the groups. While both are so busy trying to annoy, ridicule, or insult the other, there shall only be idiots like Thaiboxerken and the veggie chick you talked about.

Rational discussion? Out the window. It's about "us vs. them", no empathy, no discussion.

[Tailgater]

I take it that you disapprove of my post?

Anyways, regardless, there's never going to be agreement between the groups. While both are so busy trying to annoy, ridicule, or insult the other, there shall only be idiots like Thaiboxerken and the veggie chick you talked about.

Rational discussion? Out the window. It's about "us vs. them", no empathy, no discussion.

Hehe. I guess I picked the wrong smilie. You nailed the last line on the head.

[Lonewulf]

Hehe. I guess I picked the wrong smilie. You nailed the last line on the head.

Ah, yes, of course. :)

[thaiboxerken]

Again, fundamentalists of christianity are like fundamentalists of vegetarianism, they simply take the absurd beliefs to a violent level.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's not my reading of the situation at all, from what i can see from Tailgater's post this girl was disgusted at seeing a whole pig roasted (which is fair enough) and instead of just leaving or asking to leave, with maybe some explanation why, she decided to inform everyone else that what they were doing was "sick". This is plainly rude. Ok maybe she should have been informed a pig was going to be roasted but given she was invited to a barbecue thinking roasting a whole pig is some sick ritual she's been tricked into is a bit ott don't you think?

To give a hypothetical example to illustrate why I think her behaviuor as described was rude and insulting, suppose she was an evangelical Christian and at the party there was a gay couple which she took offence to, now would it be civil of her to express her firmly held view that they were sick and disgusting?

I don't see a problem expressing opinions. If you find it "rude" to express opinions then I think you're the one with a problem here.

What if you were in a society that allowed humans to be killed and roasted and eaten? You are invited to a dinner and are very excited and unknown to you, they have just murdered a human and are currently roasting them. At sight of this would you kindly leave or would you explain to them how what they are doing isn't acceptable? Would it be rude to explain to them why it's wrong to kill and roast a human?

You use an example of a Christian criticizing a gay couple. What about if an Atheist is invited to some sort of Christian gathering and isn't told anything about it. Would it be rude of the atheist to point out the fact that Christianity is absurd and theism is baseless? I don't think so.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Your right. None of it had nothing to do with being "manly". Some people would like to live their lives without being told how "immoral" they are. I find there is a fine line between this and a preacher showing up at my house trying to shove god down my throat.


Do you feel the same way about Sylvia Browne? Do you think she should just be able to live her life without being told how immoral she is? Or do so hypocritical that you only feel this way about people who think what you do is immoral but not when you think others are immoral?

[Lonewulf]

You use an example of a Christian criticizing a gay couple. What about if an Atheist is invited to some sort of Christian gathering and isn't told anything about it. Would it be rude of the atheist to point out the fact that Christianity is absurd and theism is baseless? I don't think so.

Yes, it would be rude, especially if they were not interested in discussing the topic with the atheist. Especially if the atheist used any sort of insults towards those involved.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes, it would be rude, especially if they were not interested in discussing the topic with the atheist. Especially if the atheist used any sort of insults towards those involved.

I don't believe attempting to point out someones delusions is a rude thing.

[Mid]

I don't see a problem expressing opinions. If you find it "rude" to express opinions then I think you're the one with a problem here.

What if you were in a society that allowed humans to be killed and roasted and eaten? You are invited to a dinner and are very excited and unknown to you, they have just murdered a human and are currently roasting them. At sight of this would you kindly leave or would you explain to them how what they are doing isn't acceptable? Would it be rude to explain to them why it's wrong to kill and roast a human?

You use an example of a Christian criticizing a gay couple. What about if an Atheist is invited to some sort of Christian gathering and isn't told anything about it. Would it be rude of the atheist to point out the fact that Christianity is absurd and theism is baseless? I don't think so.

There's a difference between expressing an opinion and getting into a shouting match. For instance as a lecturer I've caught a number of students who have plagarised this annoys me greatly however when I call them in to discuss it I do not shout at them and cause a scene even when they start lying to me as this is rude and counter productive. So if she'd wanted to have a discussion about the rights and wrongs of cooking something with a face I'd have no problem with that, when you start having a shouting match at a barbecue over how the meat is cooked that's ott. I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to do it, but others can still find the behaviour unacceptable and ask her to leave.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

There's a difference between expressing an opinion and getting into a shouting match. For instance as a lecturer I've caught a number of students who have plagarised this annoys me greatly however when I call them in to discuss it I do not shout at them and cause a scene even when they start lying to me as this is rude and counter productive. So if she'd wanted to have a discussion about the rights and wrongs of cooking something with a face I'd have no problem with that, when you start having a shouting match at a barbecue over how the meat is cooked that's ott. I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to do it, but others can still find the behaviour unacceptable and ask her to leave.


Under what circumstances would you start shouting at people if you saw them doing something you considered wrong?

[thaiboxerken]

Is Dustin defending a woman, who was invited to a backyard BBQ, being upset and causing disruption about meat being cooked?! Of course he would, he's probably one of those people that would do the same thing.

[Mid]

Under what circumstances would you start shouting at people if you saw them doing something you considered wrong?

Assuming they're not a distance away where it requires shouting for them to hear me then most situations aren't improved with shouting at people, certainly not situations where you trying to change someones beliefs.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Assuming they're not a distance away where it requires shouting for them to hear me then most situations aren't improved with shouting at people, certainly not situations where you trying to change someones beliefs.


I find that getting aggressive and loud with people tells them that you're serious and makes them take you seriously. If you calmly try to explain how someone who is doing something wrong is wrong then they aren't as likely to take you seriously because they figure that if you're not angry then it's not that big of a deal. This is how police officers deal with criminals often.

[Cleon]

I find that getting aggressive and loud with people tells them that you're serious and makes them take you seriously.

Yeah...Not so much. You may think that, but in reality "getting aggressive and loud" just makes you come across as arrogant, obnoxious, and a little crazy. See: Bill O'Reilly.

[Lonewulf]

I find that getting aggressive and loud with people tells them that you're serious and makes them take you seriously. If you calmly try to explain how someone who is doing something wrong is wrong then they aren't as likely to take you seriously because they figure that if you're not angry then it's not that big of a deal. This is how police officers deal with criminals often.

Dustin, do you disagree with people just to disagree with them, or do you really believe half the spit you say?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yeah...Not so much. You may think that, but in reality "getting aggressive and loud" just makes you come across as arrogant, obnoxious, and a little crazy. See: Bill O'Reilly.


Bill O'Reilly gets his points across. He may be wrong most of the time, but he does get his points across.

[Cleon]

Bill O'Reilly gets his points across. He may be wrong most of the time, but he does get his points across.

If it makes you feel better, I'm sure most people here already hold you in as high esteem as they hold O'Reilly.

[Dr. Lao]

"If meat is murder, are eggs rape?"


Chris Buckley

[Lonewulf]

"If meat is murder, are eggs rape?"


Chris Buckley

Rape? o_O

Where do you get the "rape" analogy?

I can see someone claiming that it's like "abortion" if they wanted to be silly and/or seem stupid, but rape? (And it's not abortion either, as the eggs are unfertilized; it's more like chicken menstruation).

[Dr. Lao]

It was a joke! I can tell it was a joke because a humorless prat like you couldn't figure it out.

jeeeeeeeeez

[Lonewulf]

It was a joke!

I got that it was a joke. But I don't get the analogy. For a joke to be funny, it has to make sense. Otherwise, "Blix pringles are splurgy!" would be a hilarious joke.

I can tell it was a joke because a humorless prat like you couldn't figure it out.

How mature.

jeeeeeeeeez

Indeed. I considered your post to be over-reactionary as well.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If it makes you feel better, I'm sure most people here already hold you in as high esteem as they hold O'Reilly.


You critique me for asserting that getting loud and aggressive can benefit one in a debate, then turn and insult me? Do you find that insulting people generally doesn't make you come across as arrogant, obnoxious, and a little crazy?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It was a joke! I can tell it was a joke because a humorless prat like you couldn't figure it out.

jeeeeeeeeez

It didn't make any sense. How was it a joke? Do you frequently pass something off as a joke after it's established that it makes no sense?

[Cleon]

You critique me for asserting that getting loud and aggressive can benefit one in a debate, then turn and insult me?

How did I insult you?

I mean, I'm sure you get your point across.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

How did I insult you?

I mean, I'm sure you get your point across.


I'm sure most people here already hold you in as high esteem as they hold O'Reilly.


This is a form of sarcasm. People on this forum don't hold O'Reilly at high esteem and you're implying that they don't hold me at high esteem either. This may be true but it's an insult regardless.

[Cleon]

This is a form of sarcasm. People on this forum don't hold O'Reilly at high esteem and you're implying that they don't hold me at high esteem either. This may be true but it's an insult regardless.

If it's factually accurate, it's not sarcasm. If I say people don't hold you in high esteem, it's not an insult. It's an observation.

But as I said--continue being loud and aggressive. You're getting your point across!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If it's factually accurate, it's not sarcasm.

No. You said "as high esteem as O'Reilly". People on this forum generally don't old O'Reilly at high esteem. Which makes it sarcasm.

If I say people don't hold you in high esteem, it's not an insult. It's an observation.

Even if it's a fact, It's still an insult. By definition..

Insult-to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
Insolent-boldly rude or disrespectful; contemptuously impertinent; insulting: an insolent reply.
Rude-discourteous or impolite, esp. in a deliberate way: a rude reply.
http://dictionary.reference.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/)

If I called you an "ugly Jew" it would be an insult. You might be ugly and you might be Jewish. However it's an insult regardless of it's factual accuracy. Get it?

But as I said--continue being loud and aggressive. You're getting your point across!

This is more sarcasm. You chastise me for being "loud and aggressive"(though I don't see how I can even be loud in an internet forum) yet you continue to insult me? Do you think you'll get your point across insulting people?

[Cleon]

No. You said "as high esteem as O'Reilly". People on this forum generally don't old O'Reilly at high esteem. Which makes it sarcasm.

However you like to interpret reality*.


This is more sarcasm. You chastise me for being "loud and aggressive"

Whoa there, hoss. I did no such thing. You were the one who said this:


I find that getting aggressive and loud with people tells them that you're serious and makes them take you seriously.


I pointed out that this is not the case, that Bill O'Reilly shows that being "loud and aggressive" usually makes you come across as arrogant, obnoxious, and a little crazy.

Instead of debating the point, you stuck up for O'Reilly, saying "he does get his points across."

If you don't like the comparison, perhaps you should have differentiated how your brand of "loud and aggressive" is different than O'Reilly's, rather than endorsing his methods.



* That was sarcasm.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

However you like to interpret reality*.

If what you said isn't sarcasm then you genuinely believe people on this forum hold O'Reilly at high esteem? That's what it would mean.


Whoa there, hoss. I did no such thing. You were the one who said this:

That wasn't the sarcasm. This was...

But as I said--continue being loud and aggressive. You're getting your point across!

The "You're getting your point across" is sarcasm since based on your previous posts you clearly don't believe being aggressive will get ones point across. If it isn't sarcasm then you've changed your stance and now agree with me?


I pointed out that this is not the case, that Bill O'Reilly shows that being "loud and aggressive" usually makes you come across as arrogant, obnoxious, and a little crazy.

I disagreed. I believe O'Reilly comes off as arrogant, obnoxious and crazy for different reasons, notably his nonsensical stances.

Instead of debating the point, you stuck up for O'Reilly, saying "he does get his points across."

That was the point.

If you don't like the comparison, perhaps you should have differentiated how your brand of "loud and aggressive" is different than O'Reilly's, rather than endorsing his methods.


We're not talking about my liking or disliking the comparison. We're talking about how it was sarcasm.
You don't have to compare me to O'Reilly because I used him as an example.

[Cleon]

Look, Dustin, you obviously don't like the fact that you had your own words thrown back at you.


Tough.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Look, Dustin, you obviously don't like the fact that you had your own words thrown back at you.


Tough.

You never 'threw' anything back at me. You criticized my stance that aggressive debating works to get your point across and then insulted me, as if insults gets ones points across.

[thaiboxerken]

I wouldn't worry about it Cleon, Dustin is like those christians who cry that they are being victimized because they aren't allowed to hang jews. He'll bully people around until someone takes a stand, then he'll cry that he's a victim.

[Dr. Lao]

It didn't make any sense. How was it a joke? Do you frequently pass something off as a joke after it's established that it makes no sense?

Actually, I've passed off most of what you post as a joke, funny thing is that you don't get it.

Arrogant, sanctimonious, in your face animal rights activists have no idea about how what they do actually makes the general public want to scoff and eat more meat.


Oh, and I made an error, P.J. O'Rourke came up with the quote. From the book "All the Trouble in the World" a great book, worth reading if you can unclench your ass.

[steverino]

I wouldn't worry about it Cleon, Dustin is like those christians who cry that they are being victimized because they aren't allowed to hang jews. He'll bully people around until someone takes a stand, then he'll cry that he's a victim.

I am a Jew, and also I agree with Dustin's position on this thread, which, last I checked, is about the ethics involved with clubbing live seals. I do not sense antisemitism nor over-aggression in his posts on this thread.

[thaiboxerken]

Do you really believe I accused Dustin of antisemitism?

[Lonewulf]

Oh, and I made an error, P.J. O'Rourke came up with the quote. From the book "All the Trouble in the World" a great book, worth reading if you can unclench your ass.

Considering the brand of "humor" you have demonstrated, I'm thinking that it's probably not that funny at all.

Now this (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp12282003.shtml) is humor. It actually makes sense.

Your quotation above did not make sense.

Glad we cleared that up.

[Dr. Lao]

Ooo, I offended Mr. Snippybottoms.

P.J. O'Rourke is a great writer, millions agree.

Lighten up Francis, the world has enough sanctimonious know-it-alls.

[Lonewulf]

Ooo, I offended Mr. Snippybottoms.

Mature, Lao. Mature. :rolleyes:

P.J. O'Rourke is a great writer, millions agree.

That's fine. The only exposure of him that you're giving isn't very interesting to me, though.

"Millions" of people like the show CSI, doesn't make me like it.

Billions of people also believe in some kind of deity. Doesn't make me think that they're right.

Lighten up Francis, the world has enough sanctimonious know-it-alls.

You're right, it does. And you can definitely work to stop being one.

"OMG! You stupid retard, you can't get a joke because you didn't find this particular one funny even though it made no sense, LOL! Unclench your ass while I wipe the drool off my chin!"

:rolleyes:

The irony is amazing.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I am a Jew, and also I agree with Dustin's position on this thread, which, last I checked, is about the ethics involved with clubbing live seals. I do not sense antisemitism nor over-aggression in his posts on this thread.

I've learned that spending much time responding to the posts of "Thaiboxerken" is a waste of time. In this thread as well as the one about Burgerking's stance on animal rights, I spent a lot of time responding to him only to be ignored. I address something he says in vast detail and then he ignores it and continues claiming that I never addressed it or simply says I'm "wrong". For instance my intelligence rubric for measuring ethical treatment and rights. He continually calls it "arbitrary" even though I've explained in detail how it isn't. He doesn't address my posts explaining how it isn't yet he still continues to claim it. This is why It's a waste of time discussing anything with him.

[thaiboxerken]

It is completely arbitrary to pick intelligence as a measure of how to treat other species simply because it is no more or less important a trait than any other trait. You simply value it more. It's as arbitrary as using cuteness as a factor on how to treat other animals.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It is completely arbitrary to pick intelligence as a measure of how to treat other species simply because it is no more or less important a trait than any other trait. You simply value it more. It's as arbitrary as using cuteness as a factor on how to treat other animals.


See what I mean?

[steverino]

It's as arbitrary as using cuteness as a factor on how to treat other animals.

Those of you here who are pro-clubbing have used the seals' cuteness as a device to dismiss the cruelty involved in the slaughter. IOW "Just because these creatures are cute, so what? Kill them, cruelty not withstanding."

[Cleon]

Those of you here who are pro-clubbing have used the seals' cuteness as a device to dismiss the cruelty involved in the slaughter. IOW "Just because these creatures are cute, so what? Kill them, cruelty not withstanding."

Steve, you've made that claim a couple of times now, and again I have to tell you that it's just not correct.

First, it is the anti-clubbing people who dishonestly try to bring cuteness into it, by portraying the seals as innocent, furry, and cute before the barbaric humans club them to death--again, despite the fact that hunting the whitecoats is illegal. Don't believe me? Look at the OP. It very clearly portrays the whitecoats as being the victims. (As do most of the anti-hunt websites.)

Second, you accuse "pro-clubbing" people of "dismissing the cruelty involved." Steve, at no point has it been established that the hunt is any more cruel than any other form of hunting. The claim has been made, but it has not been substantiated. On the contrary, studies seem to indicate that the hakapik is not particularly cruel. It looks awful, but then, so does any method of slaughter.

I'm more than willing to debate the issue on its merits--I'm actually neither "pro" nor "anti" clubbing, I'm neutral on the issue. If it's actually cruel and inhumane, sure, ban or regulate it. I'm all for banning the practice of shark finning, which is demonstrably a cruel practice. So far, however, the anti-hunt crowd seems unwilling--or unable--to provide any evidence that the hunt is actually cruel.

[steverino]

[QUOTE=Cleon;2569275]Steve, you've made that claim a couple of times now, and again I have to tell you that it's just not correct.

despite the fact that hunting the whitecoats is illegal. Don't believe me? Look at the OP. It very clearly portrays the whitecoats as being the victims. (As do most of the anti-hunt websites.)QUOTE]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sealhunt/

2. What about those cute whitecoat seals?

Whitecoats are newborn harp seals. Most Canadians can recall pictures of whitecoated seal pups being clubbed. The images were so inflammatory that Canada banned all hunting of whitecoats and bluebacks (in fact hooded seals) in 1987.

You'd never know that from some of the anti-sealing groups that still prominently display pictures of whitecoats on their websites and in fundraising materials. One site even features a downloadable video of people hugging whitecoats. The reality is that whitecoats can't be hunted anymore.

It's also true that young harp seals lose their white coats (and their protection) at about 12 to 14 days of age. After that, they're fair game for hunters, although they're usually about 25 days old before they're hunted. Most harp seals taken are under the age of three months. Young yes, whitecoats no.

I guess the fact that they are "at least" 12-25 days old, and "less cute" than the whitecoats makes the cruelty OK.

A 2002 report in the Canadian Veterinary Journal found that "the large majority of seals taken during this hunt … are killed in an acceptably humane manner." This study found that 98 per cent of hunted seals it examined had been killed properly.

New harp seal quota for 2007 hunt: 270,000
Harp seal quota for 2006 hunt: 325,000

OK. 270,000 + 325,000= 595,000 X 2 per cent. That's only 11,900 seals killed improperly!:mad:

[thaiboxerken]

Did you read point #3 of the article you just cited Steverino? It debunks your claim that it's cruel.

[Cleon]

I guess the fact that they are "at least" 12-25 days old, and "less cute" than the whitecoats makes the cruelty OK.

Again, *I'm* not the one plastering photos of the cute widdle fuzzy-wuzzies everywhere. If the "cuteness" angle bothers you--and I'm glad that it does--take it up with the anti-hunt people who stick those pictures all over the place.



OK. 270,000 + 325,000= 595,000 X 2 per cent. That's only 11,900 seals killed improperly!:mad:Is that percentage better or worse than your average slaughterhouse? In any process, there's bound to be some margin of error, even with the industrial slaughter machines that you'd find at your friendly neighborhood slaughterhouse. In cases where the slaughter is done manually, such as the seal hunt or kosher slaughter, the number is bound to be slightly higher (human error and all that).

Then there's the angle of what happens when it's killed "improperly." It's a long road from "2% were killed improperly" to "skinned alive," as Dustin has claimed. "Improperly" could mean anything from "they had to hit it twice" to "the animal was tortured to death."

[steverino]

"Improperly" could mean anything from "they had to hit it twice" to "the animal was tortured to death."

Considering the source and its charitable statistic, I'm putting my money on the second one.

[Cleon]

Considering the source and its charitable statistic, I'm putting my money on the second one.

You have something against the Canadian Veterinary Journal? :confused:

[steverino]

You have something against the Canadian Veterinary Journal? :confused:

OK. You are correct. I overreached. But it is a government beaurocracy, as is the entity that regulates the slaughter. I prefer to trust this scientific expert:

http://defamer.com/hollywood/pamela-anderson/pamela-anderson-likens-canadas-seal-hunt-to-war-in-iraq-163529.php

[Fitter]

OK. You are correct. I overreached. But it is a government beaurocracy, as is the entity that regulates the slaughter. I prefer to trust this scientific expert:

http://defamer.com/hollywood/pamela-anderson/pamela-anderson-likens-canadas-seal-hunt-to-war-in-iraq-163529.php


I'm sorry, conspiracy theories are 7 fora up.

[Tailgater]

No. You said "as high esteem as O'Reilly". People on this forum generally don't old O'Reilly at high esteem. Which makes it sarcasm.

Even if it's a fact, It's still an insult. By definition..

Insult-to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
Insolent-boldly rude or disrespectful; contemptuously impertinent; insulting: an insolent reply.
Rude-discourteous or impolite, esp. in a deliberate way: a rude reply.
http://dictionary.reference.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/)

If I called you an "ugly Jew" it would be an insult. You might be ugly and you might be Jewish. However it's an insult regardless of it's factual accuracy. Get it?

This is more sarcasm. You chastise me for being "loud and aggressive"(though I don't see how I can even be loud in an internet forum) yet you continue to insult me? Do you think you'll get your point across insulting people?

What if I found other people who were ugly and posted pictures of them claiming that because they were ugly it was not an insult to you because you were not the only ugly person? Don't answer that.


I find that getting aggressive and loud with people tells them that you're serious and makes them take you seriously.

Being aggressive in your arguement can also have the complete opposite affect and turn people off to what you are saying.

[Dr. Lao]

http://members.cox.net/%7Ebalrog666/maddox.jpg

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What if I found other people who were ugly and posted pictures of them claiming that because they were ugly it was not an insult to you because you were not the only ugly person? Don't answer that.

You're not making any sense here. Insults are insults regardless of factuality.


Being aggressive in your arguement can also have the complete opposite affect and turn people off to what you are saying.

When someone is doing something incredibly stupid you need to be aggressive and loud to talk sense into them.

[Dr. Lao]

Dustin, enough with your passive agressive BS and attitude.

Maybe YOU are the kook?

Maybe?



LOL

[Lonewulf]

Dustin, enough with your passive agressive BS and attitude.

Maybe YOU are the kook?

Maybe?



LOL

This post was the epitome of maturity.

Oh, oops, sorry, that was Dawkin's latest book. My mistake.

[Lonewulf]

http://members.cox.net/%7Ebalrog666/maddox.jpg

Intriguing. You post this image without giving credit to the creator, Maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com/). I have now fixed that for you. The full article is here (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor).

Though, to be fair, at least you've actually posted something that was amusing. I like Maddox, but find him hard to take seriously... on anything.