Canada Seal Slaughter begins [Archive]

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 09:43 AM

Canada's annual "Seal slaughter" has begun. Each spring hundreds of blood thirsty locals descend onto the ice to slaughter helpless seals by shooting them or beating them to death with clubs. The Canadian seal hunt is the largest marine mammal slaughter on the planet with over a million seals killed in the last 3 years. The seals are killed for their fur and sold by the hunters. The hunters argue that seal hunting is their livelihood and they have nothing else to do, but since when was being ignorant and uneducated an excuse to slaughter helpless animals by the millions?

http://www.hsus.org/protect_seals.html

Sen. Levin Resolves to End the Canadian Seal Hunt >> (http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/marine_mammals_news/levin_res_07.html) (http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/marine_mammals_news/levin_res_07.html)

The pups watch with frightened eyes as the sealers descend on them with their clubs and guns. More>> (http://hsus.typepad.com/seals/)

http://www.hsus.org/web-files/protect_seals/seals07_moreways.jpg

drkitten

3rd April 2007, 09:45 AM

since when was being ignorant and uneducated an excuse to slaughter helpless animals by the millions?

Ironic that this plea is being made by a confirmed Nazi apologist.

thinkingaboutit

3rd April 2007, 09:46 AM

I heard there may not be many pups this year as ice levels are very low at the moment. (the pups will drown)

Can anyone confirm this?

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 09:47 AM

Ironic that this plea is being made by a confirmed Nazi apologist.

I'm not a Nazi, or a Nazi 'apologist' and the David Irving picture is in my avatar for totally different reasons which I've already explained to you twice. Stop being stubborn and stop trying to derail the thread.

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 09:49 AM

I heard there may not be many pups this year as ice levels are very low at the moment. (the pups will drown)

Can anyone confirm this?

It's true.

Broken ice slashes Canadian seal hunt quotas (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/broken-ice-slashes-canadian-seal-hunt-quotas/2007/04/03/1175366241399.html)

The total quota for this year's seal hunt is 270,000 animals, down 65,000 from last year. The change was made mainly because of the ice conditions.

270,000 seals will still be slaughtered.

ZouPrime

3rd April 2007, 10:30 AM

Canada's annual "Seal slaughter" has begun. Each spring hundreds of blood thirsty locals descend onto the ice to slaughter helpless seals by shooting them or beating them to death with clubs. The Canadian seal hunt is the largest marine mammal slaughter on the planet with over a million seals killed in the last 3 years. The seals are killed for their fur and sold by the hunters. The hunters argue that seal hunting is their livelihood and they have nothing else to do, but since when was being ignorant and uneducated an excuse to slaughter helpless animals by the millions?

Tell me, are seals the only animals you find "helpless"? Are you against hunting in general, or even killing animals in general, or do you just have something against seal hunting. If so, why? Because they are cute?

The pups watch with frightened eyes as the sealers descend on them with their clubs and guns.
Please stop, I'm going to cry. But you are certainly right; important decisions impacting the life and livinghood of thousands of people should be based on emotional pleading and anthropomorphism.

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 10:43 AM

Tell me, are seals the only animals you find "helpless"?

No.

Are you against hunting in general, or even killing animals in general, or do you just have something against seal hunting.

Truthfully, This isn't even "hunting". The seals have no chance to get away from the humans once they're on the ice. Technically it's just a slaughter.

Please stop, I'm going to cry. But you are certainly right; important decisions impacting the life and livinghood of thousands of people should be based on emotional pleading and anthropomorphism.

Anthropomorphism? Did you just learn that word? I see that word thrown around a lot by people who have no idea what it actually even means. By definition anthropomorphism is assigning uniquely of human characteristics to non-humans. Nowhere in this thread did I do this. Please do research before making ignorant comments.

As for their "livinghood"(Which isn't even a word BTW), Simply being too untalented and ignorant to do anything other than bash baby seals to death isn't an excuse to do so.

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 11:08 AM

What brave "hunters"...

http://indiescribe.typepad.com/indiescribe/images/seal_hunt.jpg

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060324_seal_hunt_big.jpg

http://tsao.enelparaiso.org/files/hunt02.jpg

Warning..Graphic...

http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2005/04/314911.jpg
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/03/30/31SEALS_wideweb__430x272.jpg
http://mindprod.com/images/sealpupskinned.jpg

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 11:14 AM

You can help stop it by visiting..
www.stopthesealhunt.com (http://www.stopthesealhunt.com)

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/370512755?ltl=1175620449

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/669792636?ltl=1175620462

ZouPrime

3rd April 2007, 11:17 AM

No.
Truthfully, This isn't even "hunting". The seals have no chance to get away from the humans once they're on the ice. Technically it's just a slaughter.

You didn't really answered the question.

Anthropomorphism? Did you just learn that word? I see that word thrown around a lot by people who have no idea what it actually even means. By definition anthropomorphism is assigning uniquely of human characteristics to non-humans. Nowhere in this thread did I do this. Please do research before making ignorant comments.

Criticising hunting because the animals are "helpless" certainly smells like crass anthropomorphism to me. Why did you even mentionned this? How is this relevant? Is hunting more « moral » if the animals aren’t helpless?

And also, why did you focused on this single word and completely sidestepped my point?

As for their "livinghood"(Which isn't even a word BTW), Simply being too untalented and ignorant to do anything other than bash baby seals to death isn't an excuse to do so.
Many native groups have relied on seal hunting for centuries. Calling them "untalented and ignorant" because they don't conform to a concept of moral based on your foreign and emotional analysis of the situation doesn't exactly help your argument.

ZouPrime

3rd April 2007, 11:21 AM

What brave "hunters"...

And how precisely is bravery related to the situation? Why is it an issue? Are you claiming that seal hunters consider their activity as brave? If so, do you have a source?

Ziggurat

3rd April 2007, 11:28 AM

http://www.imao.us/archives/005053.html

Is it wrong to kill a baby seal?
Of course it is. With the allotted amount set at 320,000 dead seals there’s no excuse for bagging just one.

Freddy

3rd April 2007, 11:29 AM

No.

Truthfully, This isn't even "hunting". The seals have no chance to get away from the humans once they're on the ice. Technically it's just a slaughter.

Deer don't have a chance either when people hunt them with guns, to say nothing of the cows, chicken and pigs we slaughter for food. Where's your outrage at that?

Anthropomorphism? Did you just learn that word? I see that word thrown around a lot by people who have no idea what it actually even means. By definition anthropomorphism is assigning uniquely of human characteristics to non-humans. Nowhere in this thread did I do this. Please do research before making ignorant comments.

He's merely suggesting that your selective outrage is in need of some explanation. The explanation he suggests, "anthropomorphism," might be a bit of a stretch, I agree. I assume he just meant that since seals are cute you don't think they should be slaughtered. Perhaps subconscious anthropomorphism is the reason we find some animals cute and others not so cute? You rely far too much on strict dictionary definitions. Words acquire their meanings through usage, and the way he used the word is not uncommon. But dubious usage of the word "anthropomorphism" aside, he has a point. Are you outraged that we slaughter cows and chickens?

With icecaps receding, those seals are not long for this world anyway, so we might as well use them, right? Otherwise, they'll just go to waste.

As for their "livinghood"(Which isn't even a word BTW), Simply being too untalented and ignorant to do anything other than bash baby seals to death isn't an excuse to do so.

Well, Mr. grammar Nazi, you have an incorrectly capitalized word in the very sentence in which you criticize someone else's grammar. Stop being an a[rule8]hole.

And, as we all know, it is only lack of talent and intelligence that limits one's economic opportunities. You should tell all those stupid no-talent Africans to get a real job already instead of just sitting around dying of AIDS. You truly are a piece of work.

HarryKeogh

3rd April 2007, 11:35 AM

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 11:36 AM

You didn't really answered the question.

Do I oppose all hunting? No.

Do I oppose hunting seals? No.

Do I oppose this method of hunting? Yes.

Do I oppose hunting baby seals? Yes.

Criticising hunting because the animals are "helpless" certainly smells like crass anthropomorphism to me. Why did you even mentionned this? How is this relevant? Is hunting more « moral » if the animals aren’t helpless?

Now "helplessness" is an anthropomorphism? Haha!

I mentioned it because it is indeed crueler to hunt helpless creatures who can't even run away. Deer can run, fast. Baby seals can't.

And also, why did you focused on this single word and completely sidestepped my point?

Just pointing out your factual errors.

Many native groups have relied on seal hunting for centuries. Calling them "untalented and ignorant" because they don't conform to a concept of moral based on your foreign and emotional analysis of the situation doesn't exactly help your argument.

Many natives have used cannibalism, slavery and pedophilia as well. Does that make it right?

If your occupational choices are limited bashing baby seals to death then it's pretty likely you aren't that bright.

Ryokan

3rd April 2007, 11:42 AM

Canadians taking all the glory for the baby seal clubbing, eh? Never forget, it was Norwegians that invented that perfect tool for bashing in the head of a cute little baby seal, the hakapik. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakapik)

I don't think seal hunting is any worse than killing cows. At least the seals are allowed to roam free in their own environment until killed, unlike domesticated animals.

They sure are cute, though.

Is the hakapik inhumane? See Myth #3 (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/myth_e.htm)

Is seal clubbing inhumane? The Canadian Veterinary Journal says no. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?%0btool=pmcentrez&artid=339547)

But if I know Dustin right, he has already made up his mind and not even moving the heavens and the earth will shake his convictions.

Mephisto

3rd April 2007, 11:44 AM

. . . but since when was being ignorant and uneducated an excuse to slaughter helpless animals by the millions?

Since forever . . .

1870 The Texas Rangers raid Mexican villages, lynching Mexicans and putting them in cages -- the "extreme sport" of the time.

http://www.alternet.org/story/13007/

The American Indian Genocide

The decimation of indigenous American Indian cultures, beginning five centuries ago, is still being whitewashed by textbooks and movies. There were many friendly and close relationships between early settlers and native peoples, but these were not the main current in our relations. U.S. history is blighted by acts of genocide against native people, exacerbated by the fatal impact of new diseases spread by contact between new settlers and native Americans. Many aggressive attempts were made to reshape the Indian peoples according to European cultural models, whether under threat of death or, later, through exile to government boarding schools.

http://www.wwcd.org/policy/US/UShistory.html

Anti-Asian Racism & Violence

Ever since the first Asians arrived in America, there has been anti-Asian racism. This includes prejudice and acts of discrimination. For more than 200 years, Asian Americans have been denied equal rights, subjected to harassment and hostility, had their rights revoked and imprisoned for no justifiable reason, physically attacked, and murdered.

http://www.asian-nation.org/racism.shtml

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,—There is perhaps no argument more frequently resorted to by the Slaveholders in support of the slave system, than the inferiority of the slave. This is the burden of all their defence of the institution of slavery, "the negro is degraded—he is ignorant, he is inferior—and therefore 'tis right to enslave him."

http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/douglass/support8.html

If men are capable of doing these things to each other, don't you think it's easy to justify doing it to animals? For the record, I'm with you against the slaughter of the seals, just as I would have been against the slaughter of millions of buffalo that the plains Indians depended on to live. Such blatant disregard for an entire animal species is grossly irresponsible, but I don't think it's going to stop.

Freddy

3rd April 2007, 11:45 AM

Wow. They are so much cuter with their skin on.

I disagree.:)

aggle-rithm

3rd April 2007, 11:47 AM

I mentioned it because it is indeed crueler to hunt helpless creatures who can't even run away. Deer can run, fast. Baby seals can't.

I think this is irrelevant if the population needs to be culled. The only issue is, are the animals killed humanely? In every picture I have seen, the person butchering the seal approaches from behind. If done carefully, the seal would never see it coming and would feel no pain.

If the alternative is to let the population grow out of control, resulting in mass starvation of the cute little guys, then I say do what you have to.

Ryokan

3rd April 2007, 11:48 AM

Grammatron

3rd April 2007, 11:50 AM

A seal walks into a club...

ZouPrime

3rd April 2007, 11:55 AM

I mentioned it because it is indeed crueler to hunt helpless creatures who can't even run away. Deer can run, fast. Baby seals can't.

Really? Why? Do you think these animals are even aware of being helpless or not? How is the difficulty of the hunt even relevant?

Many natives have used cannibalism, slavery and pedophilia as well. Does that make it right?

No, but this is completely irrelevant. My point was that seal hunting has a strong cultural element for many people, and that you couldn't dismiss this cultural context just by calling them "untalented and ignorant" for doing it. The world is more complex than that.

If your occupational choices are limited bashing baby seals to death then it's pretty likely you aren't that bright.
See what I mean. What you consider a "occupational choice" has been for many of these groups their only mean of survival for centuries. Do you think the random inuk who kill seals to feed and cloth his family gives a **** about your emotional arguments? Do you think it matters to him if seals are helpless or not?

aggle-rithm

3rd April 2007, 11:59 AM

See what I mean. What you consider a "occupational choice" has been for many of these groups their only mean of survival for centuries. Do you think the random inuk who kill seals to feed and cloth his family gives a **** about your emotional arguments? Do you think it matters to him if seals are helpless or not?

Not just centuries -- millenia. In fact, a strong case could be made that being preyed upon by humans is an essential part of the seals' ecological niche.

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:00 PM

Deer don't have a chance either when people hunt them with guns, to say nothing of the cows, chicken and pigs we slaughter for food. Where's your outrage at that?

Actually deer generally can run and hunters often miss them between all of the trees etc. As far as cow's, chickens and pigs. I do object when they are treated inhumanely or slaughtered in similar ways.

He's merely suggesting that your selective outrage is in need of some explanation. The explanation he suggests, "anthropomorphism," might be a bit of a stretch, I agree. I assume he just meant that since seals are cute you don't think they should be slaughtered. Perhaps subconscious anthropomorphism is the reason we find some animals cute and others not so cute? You rely far too much on strict dictionary definitions. Words acquire their meanings through usage, and the way he used the word is not uncommon. But dubious usage of the word "anthropomorphism" aside, he has a point. Are you outraged that we slaughter cows and chickens?

I'm not "outraged" that seal hunting occurs as much as I'm outraged at the number of seals killed and the inhumane way of doing it.

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dfiles/file_95.pdf

According to this study, 87% of the hunters viewed did not even follow the guidelines set by the Canadian govt.

With icecaps receding, those seals are not long for this world anyway, so we might as well use them, right? Otherwise, they'll just go to waste.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If anything we need to PRESERVE their populations so that they don't go extinct so easily when Ice Caps recede more and more.

Moreover, The "uses" of them (fur) are trivial and serve no purpose that can't be replaced by a cotton or polyester fabric.

Well, Mr. grammar Nazi, you have an incorrectly capitalized word in the very sentence in which you criticize someone else's grammar. Stop being an a[rule8]hole.

:rolleyes:

And, as we all know, it is only lack of talent and intelligence that limits one's economic opportunities. You should tell all those stupid no-talent Africans to get a real job already instead of just sitting around dying of AIDS. You truly are a piece of work.

The people beating these seals to death have no diseases. I don't see how your comparison to Africans with aids makes any sense. If someone works at a job in a developed country (like Canada or Norway or Russia) that requires no talent or intelligence and requires basic moral bankruptcy then It's very fair to judge such people as ignorant and untalented and morally bankrupt.

Yet another incredibly ignorant comment from "Freddy".

ZouPrime

3rd April 2007, 12:02 PM

If men are capable of doing these things to each other, don't you think it's easy to justify doing it to animals? For the record, I'm with you against the slaughter of the seals, just as I would have been against the slaughter of millions of buffalo that the plains Indians depended on to live. Such blatant disregard for an entire animal species is grossly irresponsible, but I don't think it's going to stop.

What's tragic about the buffalo isn't that they were hunted, but that they were hunted to instinction, and many times simply as a sport with no attempt to even benefit from the meat. Seals are hunted for their economical benefit; there's a annual quota to the amount of seals killed, the hunt is supervised by the Canadian government, and the seal population is currently pretty large and should remain the same.

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:06 PM

Really? Why?

Because they have no chance to defend themselves or escape.

Do you think these animals are even aware of being helpless or not?

Yes.

No, but this is completely irrelevant. My point was that seal hunting has a strong cultural element for many people, and that you couldn't dismiss this cultural context just by calling them "untalented and ignorant" for doing it. The world is more complex than that.

I don't care how strong a "cultural element" something has. Think Slavery. It had a huge cultural element. Would you consider that a valid argument for slavery? Would you call people who supported slavery ignorant? I would.

See what I mean. What you consider a "occupational choice" has been for many of these groups their only mean of survival for centuries. Do you think the random inuk who kill seals to feed and cloth his family gives a **** about your emotional arguments? Do you think it matters to him if seals are helpless or not?

Doubt it. That's why Canada needs to ban it. We can't allow ignorant untalented individuals with a thirst for blood and greed to go out slaughtering millions of innocent animals simply because they're too stupid to do anything else with their lives.

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:08 PM

Since forever . . .

If men are capable of doing these things to each other, don't you think it's easy to justify doing it to animals? For the record, I'm with you against the slaughter of the seals, just as I would have been against the slaughter of millions of buffalo that the plains Indians depended on to live. Such blatant disregard for an entire animal species is grossly irresponsible, but I don't think it's going to stop.

That's hardly an "excuse" or justifiable by any means.

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:10 PM

I think this is irrelevant if the population needs to be culled.

They don't.

The only issue is, are the animals killed humanely?

Nope.

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dfiles/file_95.pdf

In every picture I have seen, the person butchering the seal approaches from behind. If done carefully, the seal would never see it coming and would feel no pain.

Nope.

http://phidoux.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/seal_hunt.jpg

If the alternative is to let the population grow out of control, resulting in mass starvation of the cute little guys, then I say do what you have to.

There's no evidence that could ever happen.

thaiboxerken

3rd April 2007, 12:14 PM

I wonder if seal meat tastes good. If it does, I would like someone to fund me in starting a restaurant. All that meat needs to be turned into cash.

thaiboxerken

3rd April 2007, 12:16 PM

There's no evidence that could ever happen.

So overpopulation doesn't cause starvation of a species?

drkitten

3rd April 2007, 12:17 PM

I wonder if seal meat tastes good.

No, it tastes terrible. Kind of like a cross between rancid mackerel and militant liver.

Ryokan

3rd April 2007, 12:18 PM

Nope.

The Canadian Veterinary Journal (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?%0btool=pmcentrez&artid=339547) disagrees with you.

There's no evidence that could ever happen.

I remember it happened once, when I was little. Must've been between 8-10, so 20-22 years ago. I grew on a small island on the western coast of Norway, and we had what we Norwegians call a 'seal year', when there's an overpopulation of seals. The coast was littered with corpses of seals that had starved to death.

That's why we cull the population once in a while, as well as for protecting the population of cod.

ETA : Oh, and the Norwegian seal hunters aren't untalented and unintelligent - they're just average hunters and fishermen that partake in the government sanctioned culling whenever it's neccesary.

ClintonHammond

3rd April 2007, 12:20 PM

Do you whine and suck when beef cattle are slaughtered for food and leather?

Do you whine and suck when whole fields of wheat are slaughtered to make bread and oatmeal?

It's a harsh world... sometimes you're the seal and sometimes you're the club.

If you can't handle that, opt out.

*edit Go live in a fluffy bunny factory with a chocolate sunshine and gum-drop rain-showers....

I suggest you not violate the Membership Agreement by encouraging suicide, else you may find yourself suspended from this forum.

*Edit (Not that there's any point, because the original post has already been quoted below)
It wasn't my intention to 'encourage suicide', but rather suggest that there might need to be more chlorine added to Dustins end of the gene-pool...

It is hard however to take a mod named after a goofy cartoon character very seriously indeed! LOL

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:20 PM

Also, There is evidence (http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dfiles/file_95.pdf) that since the hunters are ignorant and unskillful(as I mentioned earlier) they tend not to follow the guidelines set by the Govt's and actually tend to skin the seals alive.

Moreover, The Canadian Seal harvest last year was only around 16 million CAD. Add in the funding required for regulations and subsidies and it's likely that the COST to actually allow the seal hunt is higher than what it makes. Not to mention most of the time the "hunters" ignore the rules set by the govt.

Also, if the hunts were banned and instead the area used for "eco tourism" it's likely it would bring in much more per year.

Ryokan

3rd April 2007, 12:20 PM

I wonder if seal meat tastes good.

If prepared right, it can. But whale tastes much better :)

thaiboxerken

3rd April 2007, 12:22 PM

Do you whine and suck when beef cattle are slaughtered for food and leather?

Yes, he does.

Cleon

3rd April 2007, 12:24 PM

As for their "livinghood"(Which isn't even a word BTW), Simply being too untalented and ignorant to do anything other than bash baby seals to death isn't an excuse to do so.

Well, I can tell you're approaching the subject in a fair and objective manner.... :rolleyes:

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:30 PM

The Canadian Veterinary Journal (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?%0btool=pmcentrez&artid=339547) disagrees with you.

And the veterinary report of the Canadian seal hunt disagrees with that.

I remember it happened once, when I was little. Must've been between 8-10, so 20-22 years ago. I grew on a small island on the western coast of Norway, and we had what we Norwegians call a 'seal year', when there's an overpopulation of seals. The coast was littered with corpses of seals that had starved to death.

After decades of this mismanagement and the resulting collapse of the East coast cod industry, the Canadian DFO has declared war on the seals in hopes that massive seal kills will bring back the cod and keep their disgruntled fishermen working. In fact, cod is not a major food source of the harp and hood seal diet. Further, recent evidence suggests that killing seals contributes to bacterial infestation on the ocean floor which leads to hypoxia, a condition in which patches of ocean lose all the dissolved oxygen and are unable to sustain cod or fish or marine life of any kind. However, these facts seem to have been brushed aside by the DFO in their efforts to justify and continue the slaughter.

http://www.seashepherd.org/seals/seals_seal_hunt_facts.html

ETA : Oh, and the Norwegian seal hunters aren't untalented and unintelligent - they're just average hunters and fishermen that partake in the government sanctioned culling whenever it's neccesary.

Anyone who resorts to bashing seals to death is obviously too stupid to get a real Job.

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:31 PM

ClintonHammond

3rd April 2007, 12:32 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:38 PM

"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?

Please don't tell me you're now comparing humans to polar bears...

Humans are intelligent enough to determine right from wrong, therefore humans have more responsibility to treat others better.

As far as polar bears go, Are polar bears slaughtering seals by the millions for something as trivial as their fur? No. Polar bears EAT seals.

If this "hunt" was limited to a small group of natives simply hunting(in a humane way) the seals for their meat and not exploiting them for their fur then I would not oppose it. But that's not the case.

thaiboxerken

3rd April 2007, 12:38 PM

Oh, he'll argue that because predators hunt prey doesn't mean that humans should. He wants us to be "better" than other animal species. This is my prediction.

Ryokan

3rd April 2007, 12:40 PM

And the veterinary report of the Canadian seal hunt disagrees with that.

Where is this report?

http://www.seashepherd.org/seals/seals_seal_hunt_facts.html

Oh yeah, Sea Sheperd. Now that's a reliable source.

Anyone who resorts to bashing seals to death is obviously too stupid to get a real Job.

The seal culling is just for a few days, otherwise these people have 'normal' jobs.

But I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. You've made up your mind and are immune to argument.

:tr:

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:41 PM

Oh, he'll argue that because predators hunt prey doesn't mean that humans should. He wants us to be "better" than other animal species. This is my prediction.

Humans aren't? Humans don't have more responsibility? If a male lion kills another's cubs does that mean it's OK for me to kill someones children? You frequently put yourself into these logical corners when you say things as nonsensical as that.

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:43 PM

Where is this report?

I linked it twice.

Oh yeah, Sea Sheperd. Now that's a reliable source.

Absolutely.

The seal culling is just for a few days, otherwise these people have 'normal' jobs.

But I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. You've made up your mind and are immune to argument.

:tr:

You've realized how wrong you are to endorse the wholesale inhumane slaughter of millions of innocent seals and now you're backing out with that excuse to safe face.

ClintonHammond

3rd April 2007, 12:46 PM

Good call, that prediction... but he's wrong.

Humans are just another predator, like it or not.

"Humans are intelligent enough to determine right from wrong"
Bull.... Just look at what they do to EACH OTHER!

I suggest you come down off your high horse and try living in the real world for a while... You'll discover that it's ugly, covered in its own blood and feces, smells horrible, often eats its own young and still beats hell outa any of the alternatives. Especially alternatives suggested by people in the Fluffy Bunny valley, where sunshine and laughter are born on cotton-candy clouds.

"something as trivial as their fur"
Ever worn seal-fur? It's FN sweet! And to paraphrase someone, you think if the roles were reversed they wouldn't be wearing OUR pelts?!?!? Yer damn right they would.

Cause that's how the world works.

"If a male lion kills another's cubs does that mean it's OK for me to kill someones children?"
Lions don't have laws.... We do... and the law says it's o.k. to cull seal populations from time to time for a variety of good reasons. (Actually lions do have laws of a sort... and their laws say it's o.k. for males to occasionally kill cubs so that the female goes into heat again, so the male can keep HIS genes alive... Human sperm does a similar thing inside a womans body as a matter of fact.... but let me guess, that's o.k. because you didn't KNOW about it right?)

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:48 PM

Here's a quote from the study you linked...

An interval of 54 s elapsed from the time that this seal was shot and wounded to the time that the bleeding and skinning process started. In the other case, an interval of 18 s elapsed between the 1st blow, hooking the seal in order to pull it away from the edge of the ice floe, and the 2nd or multiple blows. Three seals were clearly shot and subsequently lost. A large proportion (87%) of the sealers recorded on the 4 videotapes failed to palpate the skull or check the corneal reflex before proceeding to hook or bleed the seal or go to another seal.

Here's the IFAW summary on the so called "humane slaughter" of the seals.

www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dimages/custom/2_Publications/Seals/seals_vet_report_review.pdf (http://forums.randi.org/www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dimages/custom/2_Publications/Seals/seals_vet_report_review.pdf)

thaiboxerken

3rd April 2007, 12:49 PM

Seems to me that it would be a great way to improve a golf swing as well.

Ryokan

3rd April 2007, 12:50 PM

A Report of the Independent Veterinarians’ Working Group on the Canadian Harp Seal Hunt (http://www.thesealfishery.com/files/IVWGReportAug2005.pdf)

This report was paid for by the WWF, an organization not exactly in the seal hunters' pockets. It 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.

Fitter

3rd April 2007, 12:52 PM

ClintonHammond

3rd April 2007, 12:53 PM

"millions of innocent seals"
Innocent of what?!?!?

"Perception of the seal hunt seems to be based largely on emotion"
When intelligence fails or is lacking, that's all some people have to go on.

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:54 PM

Good call, that prediction... but he's wrong.

Humans are just another predator, like it or not.

"Humans are intelligent enough to determine right from wrong"
Bull.... Just look at what they do to EACH OTHER!

Humans do bad things. However those bad things are NOT justified. We recognize them as being BAD things. Humans don't have more responsibility? If a male lion kills another's cubs does that mean it's OK for me to kill someones children? You frequently put yourself into these logical corners when you say things as nonsensical as that.

I suggest you come down off your high horse and try living in the real world for a while... You'll discover that it's ugly, covered in its own blood and feces, smells horrible, often eats its own young and still beats hell outa any of the alternatives. Especially alternatives suggested by people in the Fluffy Bunny valley, where sunshine and laughter are born on cotton-candy clouds.

Your logic is inherently flawed and laughably absurd. You're arguing that because the world is a rough place that's not a reason to try to improve it? Yes, Tell that to the Lincolns, Washington's or MLK's of the world.

They would of laughed at you just like I'm laughing at you.

"something as trivial as their fur"
Ever worn seal-fur? It's FN sweet! And to paraphrase someone, you think if the roles were reversed they wouldn't be wearing OUR pelts?!?!? Yer damn right they would.

Cause that's how the world works.

Good grief does your nonsense have no end? It's "FN sweet" to wear seal fur? Really now? I think it's absolutely disgusting and many people agree with me. Anyone who wears it disgusts me.

Moreover, Seals have no need for human pets. Humans have no need for seal pelts.

"That's how the world works"? It seems to me you don't have a clue how the world works.

You're advocating the inhumane slaughter of millions of innocent seals.
Your arguments make absolutely no sense.
Just a few minutes ago you told me to commit suicide.

You sure do know how the world works eh?:rolleyes:

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:56 PM

"If a male lion kills another's cubs does that mean it's OK for me to kill someones children?"
Lions don't have laws.... We do... and the law says it's o.k. to cull seal populations from time to time for a variety of good reasons. (Actually lions do have laws of a sort... and their laws say it's o.k. for males to occasionally kill cubs so that the female goes into heat again, so the male can keep HIS genes alive... Human sperm does a similar thing inside a womans body as a matter of fact.... but let me guess, that's o.k. because you didn't KNOW about it right?)

So laws determine what is right or wrong? That's what you're arguing now?!?!? Good grief...

Humans have laws, yes. However laws do NOT determine what is right or wrong. I'm not asking a legal question here. Assume for instance that I live in a country that allows me to murder someone else's children. Does that make it right? I say absolutely not. By your own logic you must admit it is right, Which shows a major flaw in your logic.

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 12:59 PM

Dustin please take your outdated lies away from me. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/myth_e.htm
These stories were lies 30 years ago when I was growing up in Newfoundland and they are lies now. P.S. Seal flipper pie is delicious.

#2...I already posted a source showing that the methods used made it likely they were skinned alive.

Same for #3.

#4 agrees with me.

pchams

3rd April 2007, 01:01 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 01:01 PM

"millions of innocent seals"
Innocent of what?!?!?

Of ANYTHING.

"Perception of the seal hunt seems to be based largely on emotion"
When intelligence fails or is lacking, that's all some people have to go on.

I have all of the logic backing me up to begin with. However there's nothing wrong with emotional reasons not to do something.

ClintonHammond

3rd April 2007, 01:01 PM

The don't 'slaughter millions'.... Innocent of anything?!?! Tell that to the cod they slaughter....

As is said above, your 'arguments' are at least 20-30 years out of date....

-I- disgust you? good. That's your problem, not mine.

"that's not a reason to try to improve it?"
Culling the seal population improves a lot of things.. they have been listed over and over in this thread.... You can't see them because it's like playing chess with a pigeon.... You just knock over the pieces, carp all over the board and then fly away and tell your fellow pigeons that you beat a human at chess....

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 01:06 PM

How touching are your concerns from the sunny caribbean Dustin. :rolleyes:
This is how people have traditionally partially made do in the nasty north.
Have you ever spent a winter on the rock? I thought not.
Mind your own business.

What "people"? The entire seal hunt is done by a few hundred fishermen. Most Canadians oppose the Seal hunt. There is absolutely no valid reason for the hunt and it serves no viable purpose other than that for the individual fishermen who can't hack real work so they decide to hack seals to death instead.

Mind MY own business? It is my business. The world is my business. If I see something being done that I know is wrong then I will speak up.

Hey, Have you ever been to Darfur? Do you oppose the systematic rape and slaughter of the people there by the Janjaweed? Why? You don't know how things are done in Sudan! That's how they "make do". Mind your own business!

Your logic(or lack thereof) is absolutely laughable.

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 01:08 PM

The don't 'slaughter millions'.... and innocent of what?

As is said above, your 'arguments' are at least 20-30 years out of date....

-I- disgust you? good. That's your problem, not mine.

"that's not a reason to try to improve it?"
Culling the seal population improves a lot of things.. they have been listed over and over in this thread.... You can't see them because it's like playing chess with a pigeon.... You just knock over the pieces, carp all over the board and then fly away and tell your fellow pigeons that you beat a human at chess....

Learn to quote.
Read my posts I've addressed all of that already.
THE LINKS THAT WERE POSTED AGAINST ME ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO 'CULL' THE SEAL POPULATIONS!.

thaiboxerken

3rd April 2007, 01:14 PM

Did you have a valid argument, Dustin, or is ad-nauseum your preferred tactic for debate?

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 01:15 PM

I find it ironic that many self professed "critical thinkers" tend only to think critically about some things like religion but absolutely can't for the life of them think critically when it comes to basic things like this. The same people in each thread make the same refuted arguments against treating animals ethically. They stop posting in one thread once their arguments are refuted and then move onto another thread to continue with the same old nonsensical arguments. Very reminiscent of creationist tactics. Critical thinkers my ass...

Tricky

3rd April 2007, 01:19 PM

Is this anything like the great Jamaican Fish Slaughter? (http://reefsatrisk.wri.org/casestudy_text.cfm?ContentID=3348)

The Reefs at Risk analysis shows that in Jamaican waters overfishing pressure affects approximately two-thirds of reefs, watershed-based sources threaten over 60 percent of the reefs, while coastal development threatens over half, and marine-based sources threaten over 30 percent. Limited employment opportunities densely populated coastal zones, and easy access to the narrow shelf areas mean that the reef resources have been heavily used to provide a livelihood and sustenance.
***
Overfishing in Jamaican waters can be traced back over 100 years, with the capture not only of large predators, but also most of the herbivorous, algal-grazing fish.

So here we have a genuine ecological threat at your back door, Dustin, but you worry about a necessary culling a long way from you? Why? Because it is not your neighbors who go hungry if they don't have some source of income? Because seals are cuter than fish?

I am a deeply devoted environmentalist with a degree in environmental biology and I don't hunt (out of personal preference, not moral outrage), but as an environmentalist, I realize that we need to pick our battles. The seals are not horribly endangered (or the quota wouldn't be so high). Coral reefs are. Too many people engage in the blatent specism of being horrified by the slaughter of cute animals, but not of cold-blooded ones. Yes, there are a lot of environmental disasters out there just waiting to happen, but we need to focus on the more important ones.

thaiboxerken

3rd April 2007, 01:19 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 01:26 PM

So here we have a genuine ecological threat at your back door, Dustin, but you worry about a necessary culling a long way from you? Why? Because it is not your neighbors who go hungry if they don't have some source of income? Because seals are cuter than fish?

Please read this thread before responding. This hunt is not a culling. The population is in no need of "culling" as the links posted clearly say.

Even this one posted against me agrees with me...
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/myth_e.htm

I am a deeply devoted environmentalist with a degree in environmental biology and I don't hunt (out of personal preference, not moral outrage), but as an environmentalist, I realize that we need to pick our battles. The seals are not horribly endangered (or the quota wouldn't be so high). Coral reefs are. Too many people engage in the blatent specism of being horrified by the slaughter of cute animals, but not of cold-blooded ones. Yes, there are a lot of environmental disasters out there just waiting to happen, but we need to focus on the more important ones.

Firstly, I do oppose the slaughter of any animals.

Secondly, The only reason I posted this thread was because it's "seal season" in Canada.

Thirdly, This isn't so much a case of environmental concerns (although this "hunt" causes many environmental problems including bacterial infestation of waters from the carcases) but more of a concern for treating animals humanely and not killing them simply for fur which can easily be replaced with synthetic fabrics.

ClintonHammond

3rd April 2007, 01:27 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 01:28 PM

I'm getting pretty tired of debating nonsensical arguments in a thread and then having new people post thinking they have some great insight to the debate and then end up not even reading the thread and just rehashing the same old arguments already refuted. I spent 20 pages doing it on the other thread and I won't waste my time doing it again here. I see a post with an argument already addressed I won't re-refute it, I'll just say "Already refuted" and move on.

Tricky

3rd April 2007, 01:28 PM

I agree. You really do need to stop using fallacious arguments to support your beliefs.
This is a total sideline, but Thai, I have to tell you that I am offended by your avatar. No, I don't give a crap that he is peeing or that he is peeing on Dubya. What I object to is the disrespect to Bill Watterson, the cartoonist who created the Calvin character. Watterson took a very unusual path. In spite of the enormous popularity of his comics, he never authorized any usage of his images either as stuffed tigers (of which he could have sold millions) or stupid coffee cups. Neither, however, has he gotten in the gutter with the people who have stolen his character and used him as a symbol of their dislike for whatever Calvin is peeing on (and there are many). The Calvin I knew was not like that. While oddly twisted, he was never vulgar.

I know, I have a comic avatar too, but like so many comics, they have heavily marketed the image, so I don't feel like I'm doing something the creators would object to. I think Watterson would object to your usage, and I think his example of non-commercialism should be respected and even emulated.

thaiboxerken

3rd April 2007, 01:33 PM

I didn't pay for the avatar, Tricky.

ClintonHammond

3rd April 2007, 01:34 PM

"the same old arguments already refuted"
Except that you have yet to refute anything. That which you employ in your attempts to refute, is out-dated and irrelevant.

"I'll just say "Already refuted" and move on."
Just like a pigeon.

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 01:38 PM

I'll learn to 'quote' when you learn not to double and triple post...

"Most Canadians oppose the Seal hunt"
Wrong....
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/myth_e.htm

I'm afraid not. That poll has widely been criticized for being overtly confusing. Not distinguishing between the commercial hunt and and sealing by aboriginal groups or for personal use rendering the poll useless.

And that article refutes every one of your claims about the seal hunt.... and it comes from a much more reputable source than any of the articles you've posted.

It's not about reputability. It's about facts and evidence. Not only have I refuted the aspects of that article that are untrue, I've also pointed out that some of them even agree with me.

You claim that you refuted that article... but you tried to do it with information that is woefully out of date. So you've refuted nothing in the least.

What out of date information? All of the studies I linked are aren't older than 5 years.

So you resort to logical fallacies like "Appeal to emotion" (misleading vividness for example) .... which only serve to further weaken your 'case'

Looks like you don't know what an appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) fallacy is either...:rolleyes:

Dustin Kesselberg

3rd April 2007, 01:40 PM

ClintonHammond

3rd April 2007, 01:42 PM

Once again, you attempt to just knock over the pieces.

http://www.birding.in/images/Birds/rock_pigeon.jpg

Cleon

3rd April 2007, 01:59 PM

I find it ironic that many self professed "critical thinkers" tend only to think critically about some things like religion but absolutely can't for the life of them blah blah blah blah

Well, it must be because you're better than everyone who doesn't share your opinion, Dustin. That's why we "self-professed critical thinkers" don't share your opinion, and why the seal hunters are "too untalented and ignorant to do anything else."

If someone disagrees with you, you're just better than they are. That sort of thinking makes life soooo much easier.

ClintonHammond

3rd April 2007, 02:18 PM

From Quote Of The Day a couple of days ago....

Cynics regarded everybody as equally corrupt... Idealists regarded everybody as equally corrupt, except themselves. (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1398.html) Robert Anton Wilson (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Robert_Anton_Wilson/)

Tailgater

3rd April 2007, 02:43 PM

I think this falls under "free range" animals from the Burger King thread. :p

Molinaro

3rd April 2007, 02:51 PM

Tricky

3rd April 2007, 02:54 PM

I think this falls under "free range" animals from the Burger King thread. :p
You know, I think you're right. That looks like baby seal fur around his neck.
http://www.thirdwayblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/bk_brooke.jpg

Cleon

3rd April 2007, 02:56 PM

I feel the time has come for some wisdom from Dr. Denis Leary.

(Naughty words nerdified to accommodate Rule 8.)

There's the problem. We only want to save the cute animals, don't we? Yeah. Why don't we just have animal auditions. Line 'em up one by one and interview them individually.

"What are you?"
"I'm an otter."
"And what do you do?"
"I swim around on my back and do cute little human things with my hands."
"You're free to go."

"And what are you?"
"I'm a cow."
"Get in the fracking truck, ok pal!"
"But I'm an animal."
"You're a baseball glove! Get on that truck!"
"I'm an animal, I have rights!"
"Yeah, here's yer fracking cousin, get on the fracking truck, pal!"

We kill the cows to make jackets out of them and then we kill each other for the jackets we made out of the cows.

Tmy

3rd April 2007, 03:06 PM

"Dont kid yourself Billy. That seal would kill you and your whole family if given the chance!".

casebro

3rd April 2007, 03:25 PM

This is a total sideline, but Thai, I have to tell you that I am offended by your avatar. No, I don't give a crap that he is peeing or that he is peeing on Dubya. What I object to is the disrespect to Bill Watterson, the cartoonist who created the Calvin character. Watterson took a very unusual path. In spite of the enormous popularity of his comics, he never authorized any usage of his images either as stuffed tigers (of which he could have sold millions) or stupid coffee cups. Neither, however, has he gotten in the gutter with the people who have stolen his character and used him as a symbol of their dislike for whatever Calvin is peeing on (and there are many). The Calvin I knew was not like that. While oddly twisted, he was never vulgar.

Watterson intentionally gave his Calvin copyright to the public domain. Don't like it? Go piss up a rope. or a W. Or make up yopu own Calvin cartoon, of Calvin pissing on a Calvin pissing on a Calvin... Or complain to a moderator. Ooops, can I say pissing? whether or not somebody can have a cartoon of it?

drkitten

3rd April 2007, 03:36 PM

Watterson intentionally gave his Calvin copyright to the public domain.

I'm fairly confident that this statement is, in fact, untrue.

The original copyright is owned, of course, by United Press Syndicate under the usual terms.

The reproduction rights for the various publications are owed by Andrews McNeilly, and Waterson himself still owns the rights to the characters. As recently as 2006, Dartmouth College was forced to rename the 96th Winter Carnival as "Stupendous Games: Mischief in the Snow" because using the original Calvin and Hobbes theme would have violated Waterson's copyright.

I have been unable to find any source that suggests that Waterson placed the characters in the public domain, and an number of sites that state otherwise.

Don't like it? Go piss up a rope. or a W. Or make up yopu own Calvin cartoon, of Calvin pissing on a Calvin pissing on a Calvin... Or complain to a moderator. Ooops, can I say pissing? whether or not somebody can have a cartoon of it?

DanishDynamite

3rd April 2007, 03:47 PM

The yearly slaughterting of infants. Yet another reason to join PETA.

drkitten

3rd April 2007, 03:56 PM

Watterson intentionally gave his Calvin copyright to the public domain.

Further evidence that this statement is untrue. The US Patent and Trademark Office lists "Calvin and Hobbes" as a word mark (serial number 73586466), filed March 6, 1986 and owned by "ANDREWS MCMEEL UNIVERSAL CORPORATION."

Similarly, the Copyright Registry Office of the Library of Congress lists several entries for "Calvin and Hobbes," all related to the ownership by UPS/Andrews McMeel; the only transfer on record is a name-change when UPS became AMcM.

Check it out yourself.

DanishDynamite

3rd April 2007, 04:04 PM

Yet another reason to join the PETA.

thaiboxerken

3rd April 2007, 04:08 PM

Burning down people's houses.. a reason to join PETA, so you can get paid to do that.

DanishDynamite

3rd April 2007, 04:11 PM

Burning down people's houses.. a reason to join PETA, so you can get paid to do that.
Not understood.

thaiboxerken

3rd April 2007, 04:12 PM

PETA funds arsonists.

DanishDynamite

3rd April 2007, 04:14 PM

PETA funds arsonists.
And?

aggle-rithm

3rd April 2007, 04:16 PM

"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?

I saw a nature documentary that showed lions attacking an animal that was stuck in the mud (it was a large herd animal like a wildebeest). Since it couldn't move, there was no reason to kill it before eating it, so...they ripped it to shreds while it was still alive and conscious.

Mother Nature is a cruel, vindictive rhymes-with-witch.

Gord_in_Toronto

3rd April 2007, 04:17 PM

I'll learn to 'quote' when you learn not to double and triple post...

"Most Canadians oppose the Seal hunt"
Wrong....
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/myth_e.htm

And that article refutes every one of your claims about the seal hunt.... and it comes from a much more reputable source than any of the articles you've posted.

You claim that you refuted that article... but you tried to do it with information that is woefully out of date. So you've refuted nothing in the least.

So you resort to logical fallacies like "Appeal to emotion" (misleading vividness for example) .... which only serve to further weaken your 'case'

Here's some popcorn and some bread-crumbs....
Now, shoo little pigeey... fly away home....

Sample from this site:
An Ipsos-Reid survey conducted in February 2005 concluded that 60% of Canadians are in favour of a responsible hunt.

I'm included in that number.

Also, concerning the cute little beasties used in all the anti-sealing ads:
The image of the whitecoat harp seal is used prominently by seal hunt opponents. This image gives the false impression that vulnerable seal pups are targeted by sealers during the commercial hunt.

The hunting of harp seal pups (whitecoats) and hooded seal pups (bluebacks) is illegal – and has been since 1987. Marine Mammal Regulations prohibit the trade, sale or barter of the fur of these pups. The seals that are hunted are self-reliant, independent animals.

andyandy

3rd April 2007, 04:25 PM

Also, concerning the cute little beasties used in all the anti-sealing ads:

that's because only cute animals have rights....who cares about the ugly ones? :)

Tricky

3rd April 2007, 04:30 PM

Watterson intentionally gave his Calvin copyright to the public domain. If that were true, there would be Calvin and Hobbes merchandise everywhere. As far as I can tell, the only thing Watterson allows to be sold are books (with maybe occasional exceptions for charity and such).

But that being said, I'm not a fanatic about it. I am plenty disrespectful to a number of people, so Ken has the right to be so too. It just annoys me that such a great and literate comic strip has been co-opted by people who turn it into a crude and juvenile insult. But I'll get over it.

treble_head

3rd April 2007, 05:24 PM

If that were true, there would be Calvin and Hobbes merchandise everywhere. As far as I can tell, the only thing Watterson allows to be sold are books (with maybe occasional exceptions for charity and such).

Books are it. from the Calvin and Hobbes unplugged site:

Books are the only lisenced Calvin and Hobbes merchendise. (http://www.kerzap.com/calvin/faq.html)

can't give them credit for their spelling, but they seem to know their stuff.

The Painter

3rd April 2007, 05:48 PM

Yet another reason to join the PETA.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

fishbob

3rd April 2007, 07:38 PM

I wonder if seal meat tastes good. If it does, I would like someone to fund me in starting a restaurant. All that meat needs to be turned into cash.

Seal meat tastes nasty.

The waste really grates on my nerves.
With cows and pigs, most of the animal is used. Not so with these types of hunts (whales, walrus, seals). I have seen skins rotting on drying racks, carcasses in dumpsters or on the ground next to dumpsters, shot and harpooned animals - dead or injured - washed up on the beach. There is something wrong when it is so easy to waste so much.

Ben Tilly

3rd April 2007, 08:38 PM

Warning..Graphic...

http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2005/04/314911.jpg
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/03/30/31SEALS_wideweb__430x272.jpg
http://mindprod.com/images/sealpupskinned.jpg

If you're not careful, you might produce material that Lonewulf will find too enjoyable...

(If you don't understand my comment, read the thread starting at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77708.)

Cheers,
Ben

Lonewulf

3rd April 2007, 09:10 PM

The yearly slaughterting of infants. Yet another reason to join PETA.

I don't eat veal nor lamb, personally. I'm morally opposed.

If you're not careful, you might produce material that Lonewulf will find too enjoyable...

Mmm, blood.

Chupacabras

3rd April 2007, 09:38 PM

... how wrong you are to endorse the wholesale inhumane slaughter of ...

But... But... Aren't they slaughtered by HUMANS!?

(Don't dare mention "figurative", because then every argument can be argued to be figurative)

"Humane" - here lies largely the point of this discussion.

Humans are intelligent enough to determine right from wrong, therefore humans have more responsibility to treat others better.

Uh... So what are seals going to do about it?

Chupa - MEXICAN - cabras.

Darth Rotor

3rd April 2007, 09:40 PM

Dustin:

You seem to be taking this whole thing a bit too seriously.

I suggest a quick catching up on this webcomic, The Pet Professional. (http://www.petprofessional.net/)

Also, a little Frank Zappa from the song "Nanook Rubs It."

http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Frank-Zappa/Nanook-Rubs-It.html

Bits excerpted as being apropos of this discussion:

Well right about that time, people,
A fur trapper
Who was strictly from commercial (Strictly Commershil)
Had the unmedicated audacity to jump up from behind my igyaloo
(Peek-a-Boo Woo-ooo-ooo)
And he started in to whippin' on my fav'rite baby seal
With a lead-filled snow shoe . . .
I said:
With a lead
LEAD
Filled
LEAD-FILLED
A lead-filled snow shoe
SNOW SHOE

He said Peak-a-boo
PEEK-A-BOO
With a lead
LEAD
Filled
LEAD-FILLED
With a lead-filled snow shoe
SNOW SHOE
He said Peak-a-boo.
PEEK-A-BOO

He went right up side the head of my favorite baby seal
He went WHAP!
With a lead-filled snow shoe

An' he hit him on the nose 'n he hit him on the fin 'n he . . .

That got me just about as evil
As an Eskimo boy can be . . . so I bent down 'n I reached down 'n I scooped down
An' I gathered up a generous mitten full of the deadly . . .
YELLOW SNOW
The deadly Yellow Snow from right there where the huskies go

Whereupon I proceeded to take that mitten full
Of the deadly Yellow Snow Crystals
And rub it all into his beady little eyes
With a vigorous circular motion
Hitherto unknown to the people on this area,
But destined to take the place of THE MUD SHARK
In your mythology

Ah, Zappa, RIP, you crazy dude, you made the world a funnier, sicker, more delightful place.

Uh... So what are seals going to do about it?

Die

DR

thaiboxerken

3rd April 2007, 10:32 PM

I don't eat veal nor lamb, personally. I'm morally opposed.

I do, it tastes great!

HarryKeogh

4th April 2007, 05:41 AM

It just annoys me that such a great and literate comic strip has been co-opted by people who turn it into a crude and juvenile insult.

could be worse...

http://www.visittex.com/images/calcross.jpg

aggle-rithm

4th April 2007, 06:46 AM

Yet another reason to join the PETA.

I'll join PETA as soon as they come up with a viable plan to realize their utopia of perfect co-existence with all God's creatures. Until then, they're just pushing their unrealistic ideals on others.

ClintonHammond

4th April 2007, 08:17 AM

PETA.... People Eating Tasty Animals...

I'm all for it!

" I don't eat veal nor lamb"
Then slide it on over here and I'll eat it!

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 02:48 PM

After spending the past 38 years in Canada, I can honestly say that I have never met a fellow Canadian who is oposed to the seal hunt. In fact, anytime the topic has come up there has been a fairly consensus opinion that can be described as: "As soon as deer hunting is made illegal in the US, I'll listen to why you think seal hunting should be outlawed."

We don't bash dear over the head repeatedly until dead. Try again.

As far as the inhumane method of killing is concerned, I disagree. Everything I've read says that shooting a seal is far less likely to result in a quick death, compared to the clubbing.

Sources?

Do some seal hunters act like lunatics and enjoy the hands on killing a bit too much? I'm sure there are some like that. Just like there's going to be nutcases in any group of people. Unfortunately, those are the only stories that get repeated. And then people like you turn it into an absolute, accusing every seal hunter of inhumane behaviour.

Bashing a seal to death is inhuman no matter how you slice it I'm afraid.

BTW, I do not oppose "seal hunting". I oppose the systematic commercial seal slaughter which is what I posted about. If small groups of natives want to hunt seals for their meat and fur then I have no objections to that. As long as they follow the govt set rules, kill only seals that are mature and don't club them to death.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 02:50 PM

You know, I think you're right. That looks like baby seal fur around his neck.
http://www.thirdwayblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/bk_brooke.jpg

That's polyester.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 02:51 PM

I feel the time has come for some wisdom from Dr. Denis Leary.

(Naughty words nerdified to accommodate Rule 8.)

If you have read my past posts you'd know that's not my position. Try again.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 02:52 PM

The yearly slaughterting of infants. Yet another reason to join PETA.

What infants?

BTW, I don't support the organization known as P.E.T.A

ClintonHammond

4th April 2007, 02:54 PM

Holy spam, Batman

Cleon

4th April 2007, 02:55 PM

If you have read my past posts you'd know that's not my position. Try again.

I was trying to lighten things up.

Pull the stick out, already. You're not convincing anybody by shoving it in farther.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 02:56 PM

I saw a nature documentary that showed lions attacking an animal that was stuck in the mud (it was a large herd animal like a wildebeest). Since it couldn't move, there was no reason to kill it before eating it, so...they ripped it to shreds while it was still alive and conscious.

Mother Nature is a cruel, vindictive rhymes-with-witch.

If you really want to go that route and compare yourself to a lion then you must be like a lion. If you want to act like a lion and cruelly kill another animal then you need to be prepared to be treated like a lion. By bye free speech, voting rights, right to property and all of the other rights you cherish as a human. You can't have it both ways. Either you act like a lion and get treated as such or you act like a civilized and ethical human and get treated as such.
Lions aren't omnivores. They must eat meat Moreover, lions aren't intelligent enough to make ethical decisions like quickly killing it's prey before eating it to prevent it's suffering. Humans do.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 02:58 PM

Sample from this site:

I'm included in that number.

Also, concerning the cute little beasties used in all the anti-sealing ads:

The study isn't reliable. See my previous posts.
Killing the white pups might be illegal in Canada but that doesn't prevent it from being done. See previous post. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2487541&postcount=8)

thaiboxerken

4th April 2007, 02:59 PM

Killing other animals is okay, unless you're human. That's Dustin's position. Dustin, bashing seals IS ACTING LIKE A HUMAN.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 03:00 PM

If you're not careful, you might produce material that Lonewulf will find too enjoyable...

(If you don't understand my comment, read the thread starting at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77708.)

Cheers,
Ben

I'm very aware of that thread.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 03:01 PM

But... But... Aren't they slaughtered by HUMANS!?

(Don't dare mention "figurative", because then every argument can be argued to be figurative)

"Humane" - here lies largely the point of this discussion.

Uh... So what are seals going to do about it?

Chupa - MEXICAN - cabras.

The seals are helpless to do anything about.

fuelair

4th April 2007, 03:02 PM

Darth Rotor

4th April 2007, 03:05 PM

If you want to act like a lion and cruelly kill another animal then you need to be prepared to be treated like a lion.
Lions aren't intelligent enough to make ethical decisions like quickly killing it's prey before eating it to prevent it's suffering. Humans do.
1. Why attempt to anthropomorphize a lion with "cruel" to describe how it kills things? A lion kills its prey, and its dinner, in its own special way.

Be yourself. I lion knows that without being taught.

2. How do you know what is, or isn't, ethical among lions within a given pride? Lions do have observable groupings that could be termed social or tribal. Do you find it beyond consideration for a lion to behave ethically within a leonine context?

DR

Alt+F4

4th April 2007, 03:09 PM

that's because only cute animals have rights....who cares about the ugly ones? :)

Hey don't downplay the cuteness factor. Why do you think (most) human babies are cute? So we don't leave them on a mountain side when they start crying and blow their diapers.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 03:09 PM

Killing other animals is okay, unless you're human. That's Dustin's position. Dustin, bashing seals IS ACTING LIKE A HUMAN.

Let me put it this way, If you are totally indiscriminate in the way you treat other thinking creatures then I'm going to be totally indiscriminate in the way I treat YOU.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 03:11 PM

Think Dodo, think Passenger Pigeon, think Whales, ad. inf. (re- uneducated/ignorant).

I don't know what you're trying to say.

Jimbo07

4th April 2007, 03:12 PM

Umm... what evidence is there that seals need to be culled?

It's certainly not by arguing about protecting a cod stock that humans habitually overfish is it?

:confused:

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 03:15 PM

1. Why attempt to anthropomorphize a lion with "cruel" to describe how it kills things? A lion kills its prey, and its dinner, in its own special way.

And another person uses the term "anthropomorphic" incorrectly.:rolleyes:

Here's the dictionary definition of "cruel"...

1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings <a cruel tyrant>
2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain <a cruel joke> b : unrelieved by leniency <cruel punishment>
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=cruel

By definition, slowly killing a prey while it's suffering would be called "cruel".

However we can't fault lions for doing this because they are not intelligent enough to determine what is or isn't "cruel". Adult humans are. They can be faulted.

Be yourself. I lion knows that without being taught.

Tell that to this guy...

http://www.nndb.com/people/775/000028691/bundy-msht.jpg

2. How do you know what is, or isn't, ethical among lions within a given pride? Lions do have observable groupings that could be termed social or tribal. Do you find it beyond consideration for a lion to behave ethically within a leonine context?

Lions do have ethical rules for in pack social behavior however as far as I know they don't try to avoid overtly causing suffering to their prey.

Darth Rotor

4th April 2007, 03:26 PM

And another person uses the term "anthropomorphic" incorrectly.:rolleyes:
No, you did just tripped over that problem, and you proved your own error by providing a humano-centric definition for cruel.
disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings
Disposed to: behavioral, connotes volition and choice. What choice does a lion have in its killing method?

How do you square any need to be humane in a lion? It is a human behavior, or ethic, chosen or unchosen.
By definition, slowly killing a prey while it's suffering would be called "cruel".
No, by definition, and understanding a definition, a human slowly killing prey while it's suffering is cruel. A lion is a lion.
http://www.nndb.com/people/775/000028691/bundy-msht.jpg
What does he have to do with this conversation?
Lions do have ethical rules for in pack social behavior however as far as I know they don't try to avoid overtly causing suffering to their prey.
Given that understanding, why did you bother with the rest of your post, which was self contradictory?

DR

ETA: had to edit, I buggered up the tags. Sorry.

thaiboxerken

4th April 2007, 03:29 PM

Let me put it this way, If you are totally indiscriminate in the way you treat other thinking creatures then I'm going to be totally indiscriminate in the way I treat YOU.

But I'm not. I treat humans different from other creatures.

Are you claiming that seals think?

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 03:39 PM

No, you did just tripped over that problem, and you proved your own error by providing a humano-centric definition for cruel.

That's the English language definition of "cruel". That's how the word is used. There are no other definitions. Nowhere in the definition does it exclude treatment to other animals or among other animals.

Disposed to: behavioral, connotes volition and choice. What choice does a lion have in its killing method?

The lion could simply go for the throat and kill the prey as fast as possible and then precede to eat it.

How do you square any need to be humane in a lion? It is a human behavior, or ethic, chosen or unchosen.

I don't. That's the point. It doesn't apply to lions because they aren't as intelligent as humans.

No, by definition, and understanding a definition, a human slowly killing prey while it's suffering is cruel. A lion is a lion.

What reputable dictionary uses this definition?

What does he have to do with this conversation?

You said "be yourself". Bundy did that. Look what happened. If many people followed the philosophy of "being their self" no doubt many bad things would happen.

Given that understanding, why did you bother with the rest of your post, which was self contradictory?

How is it self contradictory? I don't know what you're talking about.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 03:43 PM

But I'm not. I treat humans different from other creatures.

Then indiscriminate in your treatment of non-human creatures?

Are you claiming that seals think?

Yes. I can post many scientific studies showing the intelligence and cognitive capacity of seals and other related species including sea lions.

thaiboxerken

4th April 2007, 03:48 PM

[Then indiscriminate in your treatment of non-human creatures?

Pretty much. I treat non-human animals based on how I feel about them.

Yes. I can post many scientific studies showing the intelligence and cognitive capacity of seals and other related species including sea lions.

Are you saying seals are thinking creatures? Obviously, they aren't thinking good enough not to be practice for golf swings. You'd think after years and years of this hunt, they'd figure out a good time to be somewhere else.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 04:09 PM

Pretty much. I treat non-human animals based on how I feel about them.

You don't treat humans the same way? Based on how you 'feel' about them?

Are you saying seals are thinking creatures? Obviously, they aren't thinking good enough not to be practice for golf swings. You'd think after years and years of this hunt, they'd figure out a good time to be somewhere else.

Seals are definitely "thinking creatures". Most animals are. The fact that they haven't learned to avoid being hunted simply means they aren't intelligent enough, don't have communication skills to do such, etc.

thaiboxerken

4th April 2007, 04:24 PM

You don't treat humans the same way? Based on how you 'feel' about them?

Sure I do. But I'm rather detached from non-human animals, as I can't really relate to them. How do you treat animals, both human and non-human? It seems to me that you'd treat a dull person with less respect than a genius.

Seals are definitely "thinking creatures". Most animals are.

Perhaps you're confusing thought with instinct and conditioned behavior.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 04:32 PM

Sure I do. But I'm rather detached from non-human animals, as I can't really relate to them.

Who would you treat better? Hitler or a random seal?

How do you treat animals, both human and non-human? It seems to me that you'd treat a dull person with less respect than a genius.

I would. I generally don't give dull people the time of the day. However in your case I'm making an exception.;)

Perhaps you're confusing thought with instinct and conditioned behavior.

No. I am distinctly aware of the difference between conscious thought and instinctive behavior. We've been through this in other threads which you seem to of quit posting in.

thaiboxerken

4th April 2007, 04:36 PM

Who would you treat better? Hitler or a random seal?

Are you an agent of Godwin? Are you paid some fee everytime you work Hitler into an internet discussion?

Anyway, I'll answer your question. I'd treat Hitler better.

I would. I generally don't give dull people the time of the day. However in your case I'm making an exception.

So you wouldn't mind that I, as a genius, treat you like garbage? Oh wait, you reject any actual objective measure of intelligence, so that makes your position unfalsifiable.

No. I am distinctly aware of the difference between conscious thought and instinctive behavior. We've been through this in other threads which you seem to of quit posting in.

Yes, but you've simply failed to demonstrate the difference.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 04:47 PM

Anyway, I'll answer your question. I'd treat Hitler better.

Why would you treat a psychotic mass murderer better than a seal who hasn't done anything to you?

So you wouldn't mind that I, as a genius, treat you like garbage? Oh wait, you reject any actual objective measure of intelligence, so that makes your position unfalsifiable.

Firstly, I never said "like garbage". I don't support treating any thinking thing "like garbage". What I said was with less respect. Not "no respect". If you were a genius and I were a fool then I likely would not even recognize your right to treat me as such and the point would be moot. However as a person who is not a fool, I recognize your right if you were a genius to treat me with less respect if I were a fool than someone much smarter.

Secondly, It is true that I do reject most measures of intelligence used today (for humans generally) but I do not believe that it's impossible to measure intelligence with certainty. For instance reducing something like human intelligence into a number makes no sense. I do believe it's possible to measure intelligence roughly with humans and non-humans.

Yes, but you've simply failed to demonstrate the difference.

Instinct...

1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>
2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level
Link (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Instinct)

Thought...

1 : to form or have in the mind
2 : to have as an intention <thought to return early>
3 a : to have as an opinion <think it's so> b : to regard as : CONSIDER (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/consider) <think the rule unfair>
4 a : to reflect on : PONDER (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ponder) <think the matter over> b : to determine by reflecting <think what to do next>
5 : to call to mind : REMEMBER (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/remember) <he never thinks to ask how we do>
6 : to devise by thinking (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/thinking) -- usually used with up <thought up a plan to escape>
7 : to have as an expectation : ANTICIPATE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anticipate) <we didn't think we'd have any trouble>
8 a : to center one's thoughts on <talks and thinks business> b : to form a mental picture of
1 a : to exercise the powers of judgment, conception, or inference : REASON (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reason) b : to have in the mind or call to mind a thought
2 a : to have the mind engaged in reflection : MEDITATE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/meditate) b : to consider the suitability <thought of her for president>
3 : to have a view or opinion <thinks of himself as a poet>
4 : to have concern -- usually used with of <a man must think first of his family>
5 : to consider something likely : SUSPECT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/suspect) <may happen sooner than you think>

Link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/thought)

thaiboxerken

4th April 2007, 04:52 PM

Why would you treat a psychotic mass murderer better than a seal who hasn't done anything to you?

Because he's human. If you don't like that, I'll use YOUR line of reasoning. Because he's more intelligent.

Secondly, It is true that I do reject most measures of intelligence used today (for humans generally) but I do not believe that it's impossible to measure intelligence with certainty. For instance reducing something like human intelligence into a number makes no sense. I do believe it's possible to measure intelligence roughly with humans and non-humans.

You've contradicted yourself a couple times in this paragraph. But since you're not the genius I am, I won't even respect you enough to tell you how.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 05:06 PM

Because he's human.

So?

If you don't like that, I'll use YOUR line of reasoning. Because he's more intelligent.

Yes, but does his intelligence make any difference in the light of his acts of atrocity? I say they do. I say that the amount of pain and suffering Hitler inflicted negates many rights he had to be treated well and should [of] be[en] immediately imprisoned. However should we immediately kill, torture or even imprison a seal when it has done nothing and we gain nothing from doing such? No. That's what I say.

What do you say?

You've contradicted yourself a couple times in this paragraph. But since you're not the genius I am, I won't even respect you enough to tell you how.

Looks like a copout if I've ever seen one. I can't spot any contradictions in it. Unless you can post them then I'll ignore your accusation.

thaiboxerken

4th April 2007, 05:11 PM

Yes, but does his intelligence make any difference in the light of his acts of atrocity? I say they do. I say that the amount of pain and suffering Hitler inflicted negates many rights he had to be treated well and should [of] be[en] immediately imprisoned. However should we immediately kill, torture or even imprison a seal when it has done nothing and we gain nothing from doing such? No. That's what I say.

Seals are guilty of "murder" according to your line of reasoning. They kill other animals all of the time. So, where is your morality consistent? You say it's based on intelligence, but now it seems that merit also plays a major factor.

Looks like a copout if I've ever seen one. I can't spot any contradictions in it. Unless you can post them then I'll ignore your accusation.

That's probably due to the fact that you're not a genius. You don't deserve the respect to be taught.

Ziggurat

4th April 2007, 05:15 PM

Lions aren't omnivores. They must eat meat Moreover, lions aren't intelligent enough to make ethical decisions like quickly killing it's prey before eating it to prevent it's suffering. Humans do.

Screw the killing prey issue. Are you aware that adult male lions regularly kill lion cubs? It's not accidental either: it's deliberate and premeditated. They know exactly what they're doing when they do it.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 06:16 PM

Seals are guilty of "murder" according to your line of reasoning. They kill other animals all of the time. So, where is your morality consistent? You say it's based on intelligence, but now it seems that merit also plays a major factor.

No, If you had been reading my posts here you would of seen the posts where I made it clear that animals with the intelligence of seals should not be punished for such habits because they aren't intelligent enough to discern what is right or wrong.

That's probably due to the fact that you're not a genius. You don't deserve the respect to be taught.

If you want to copout like that then be my guest...:rolleyes:

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 06:20 PM

Screw the killing prey issue. Are you aware that adult male lions regularly kill lion cubs? It's not accidental either: it's deliberate and premeditated. They know exactly what they're doing when they do it.

I am aware of that, however you need to remember that it's unlikely they can grasp exactly what they are doing. They see "Cub" and think "Potential threat to power" and kill it. They don't think about it's right to be alive or any such thing and I doubt lions brains are developed enough to even have the potential to make such distinctions. Humans on the other hand do have the potential to make such distinctions and generally ignore them.

Let me also say that if able, wildlife experts should not hesitate in taking cubs away from parents if they see there is a potential that the male lion might kill them due to the vulnerability of the species to extinction.

thaiboxerken

4th April 2007, 06:27 PM

No, If you had been reading my posts here you would of seen the posts where I made it clear that animals with the intelligence of seals should not be punished for such habits because they aren't intelligent enough to discern what is right or wrong.

Do you think Hitler could discern what is right or wrong? I think that Hitler definitely believed what he did was right.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 06:40 PM

Do you think Hitler could discern what is right or wrong? I think that Hitler definitely believed what he did was right.

I think it's likely Hitler knew what he was doing was immoral and made the conscious decision to ignore this and continue with it due to his absurd philosophical beliefs about how cleansing Europe of Jews and Czechs would benefit everyone else. Although I'm only guessing and can't say for sure what Hitler's feelings were or weren't.

thaiboxerken

4th April 2007, 06:48 PM

I think it's likely Hitler knew what he was doing was immoral and made the conscious decision to ignore this and continue with it due to his absurd philosophical beliefs about how cleansing Europe of Jews and Czechs would benefit everyone else. Although I'm only guessing and can't say for sure what Hitler's feelings were or weren't.

What if he weren't intelligent enough to realize that he was wrong?

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 06:56 PM

What if he weren't intelligent enough to realize that he was wrong?

If that were the case then I would still support executing him simply to make sure it never happens again. Though I oppose the "death penalty" as a government regulated procedure, I don't oppose single instances of execution where we know the person is guilty of the specific crimes.

thaiboxerken

4th April 2007, 07:10 PM

If that were the case then I would still support executing him simply to make sure it never happens again.

But if we do it to seals, it's wrong?

Gord_in_Toronto

4th April 2007, 07:14 PM

The study isn't reliable. See my previous posts.
Killing the white pups might be illegal in Canada but that doesn't prevent it from being done. See previous post. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2487541&postcount=8)

Ah. Yes. Of course. Your "studies" are reliable and my government's aren't.

Murder is against the law and Canada does its best to prevent it and to prosecute those that murder. Where is your evidence that that the killing of the whitecoats happens and that Canada would not prosecute any person who violated this law?

Are you mounting an effort to save the babies this year? They are all drowning. :boggled:

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 07:18 PM

But if we do it to seals, it's wrong?

If you had a seal that was simply killing all of the other seals and was killing dozens of them for no reason at all then I would support shooting it.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 07:21 PM

Ah. Yes. Of course. Your "studies" are reliable and my government's aren't.

I already explained why that poll wasn't reliable.

Murder is against the law and Canada does its best to prevent it and to prosecute those that murder. Where is your evidence that that the killing of the whitecoats happens and that Canada would not prosecute any person who violated this law?

How many people have been prosecuted for such? It's your burden to list those who have since you're the one who made the distinction of it being illegal.

Are you mounting an effort to save the babies this year? They are all drowning. :boggled:

You mean from Global warming? Absolutely.

thaiboxerken

4th April 2007, 07:22 PM

If you had a seal that was simply killing all of the other seals and was killing dozens of them for no reason at all then I would support shooting it.

But seals tend to participate in the slaughtering of many other animals.

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 07:24 PM

But seals tend to participate in the slaughtering of many other animals.

You mean fish? For food? I've been as clear as I possibly can on that.

Wirelight

4th April 2007, 07:37 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 07:49 PM

First post here.

Perhaps we need some "Free Range Seals" just like the chicken thing and Dustin won't have to rely on dramatic pictures of cute little seals to make his pathetic point.

Fight the good domesticated cause for christ's sakes.

The market for the meat of seals is incredibly small and is generally limited to Asian countries. Most of the seals killed are simply skinned for their fur and left to rot on the ice. So domestication makes no sense unless it's just for the fur. In the case of the fur, "fur" itself makes no sense because for one, synthetic "faux fur" can replace it and is cheaper and it's not required to even have "fur" for anything since other synthetic fabrics not only work better but are cheaper as well.

The only form of hunting of these seals I support would be for natives to hunt them for personal purposes. Not commercial.

P.S. Before posting your B.S. try to actually read the thread.

Wirelight

4th April 2007, 07:59 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

4th April 2007, 08:03 PM

Don't need too. I'm quite aware of what the seal hunt is about.

Why don't you go after Japanese net draggers instead that rape vast tracts of the sea? Oh right, no cute and cuddly pictures to go with that...

No. I do oppose that as well. The systematic depletion of the oceans life by huge fishing nets which kill anything in it's path and millions of pounds of the life pulled up each day is simply thrown overboard because it can't be sold. I absolutely oppose that. Why didn't I post a thread about it? The seal hunt was in the news and thought it'd be a good topic to post. Do you want me to post about that as well? I will.

ClintonHammond

4th April 2007, 09:28 PM

No, that's o.k...

One pigeon thread is more than enough

Ben Tilly

5th April 2007, 12:39 PM

Why would you treat a psychotic mass murderer better than a seal who hasn't done anything to you?

Because he's got an army?

Cheers,
Ben

Darth Rotor

5th April 2007, 12:43 PM

You said "be yourself".
The context of that statement was regarding the lions.

As to Bundy, him being human, I think we can agree that what he did was indeed cruel.

DR

Dustin Kesselberg

5th April 2007, 11:21 PM

The context of that statement was regarding the lions.

As to Bundy, him being human, I think we can agree that what he did was indeed cruel.

DR

So Lions can be themselves but humans can't? I agree.

We should also all be agreeing that the seal hunt is indeed cruel. Although there seems to be some people on here who either read somewhere that sympathy towards animals is "anthropogenic":rolleyes:, Or they're simply defending the actions of a few fishermen because they also live in Canada and are bias towards it (Sort of like the people in Israel were staunchly defending anything Israel did during last years conflict).

thaiboxerken

6th April 2007, 09:24 AM

S
We should also all be agreeing that the seal hunt is indeed cruel.

Yet you've failed to put together a rational argument as to why.;)

aggle-rithm

6th April 2007, 11:43 AM

If you really want to go that route and compare yourself to a lion then you must be like a lion. If you want to act like a lion and cruelly kill another animal then you need to be prepared to be treated like a lion. By bye free speech, voting rights, right to property and all of the other rights you cherish as a human. You can't have it both ways. Either you act like a lion and get treated as such or you act like a civilized and ethical human and get treated as such.
Lions aren't omnivores. They must eat meat Moreover, lions aren't intelligent enough to make ethical decisions like quickly killing it's prey before eating it to prevent it's suffering. Humans do.

Like it or not, humans are part of the ecosystem, and have been for thousands of years. It's only recently that they've felt the need to be responsible about it.

If we suddenly withdraw ourselves from the mix and do nothing to influence the "natural" order -- don't you think that would throw the environment seriously out of whack?

That's what would happen if humans suddenly stopped preying on an animal they've been preying on for thousands of years. It has evolved to deal with that environmental pressure; without it, overpopulation would be inevitable.

DanishDynamite

6th April 2007, 04:03 PM

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Could you point out the relevant article. Thanks.

DanishDynamite

6th April 2007, 04:11 PM

I'll join PETA as soon as they come up with a viable plan to realize their utopia of perfect co-existence with all God's creatures. Until then, they're just pushing their unrealistic ideals on others.
It would require a whole lot of idiotic and senseless killing of animals for me to join PETA. We're close.

DanishDynamite

6th April 2007, 04:12 PM

What infants?
Baby seals.
BTW, I don't support the organization known as P.E.T.ANeither do I. Yet.

DanishDynamite

6th April 2007, 04:15 PM

But I'm not. I treat humans different from other creatures.
Me too. Perhaps we have different definitions of human in this regard.
Are you claiming that seals think?
Of course they do. Are you claiming it makes the slighest difference whether they do or not?

DanishDynamite

6th April 2007, 05:21 PM

Sure I do. But I'm rather detached from non-human animals, as I can't really relate to them.
I think we have narrowed down your problem.
Perhaps you're confusing thought with instinct and conditioned behavior.
This might be true in your case, but I think a more interesting question would be why you feel it is important to know to what degree creatures you kill can be said to think or not.

thaiboxerken

6th April 2007, 05:27 PM

Me too. Perhaps we have different definitions of human in this regard.

Human = homo sapien. That would be my definition.

Of course they do. Are you claiming it makes the slighest difference whether they do or not?

No, but Dustin sure does.

I think we have narrowed down your problem.

What problem?

DanishDynamite

6th April 2007, 05:45 PM

Human = homo sapien. That would be my definition.
Me too.
No, but Dustin sure does. So it makes no difference for you?
What problem?Firstly, your inability to empathize with anything other than a human being.

thaiboxerken

6th April 2007, 05:47 PM

So it makes no difference for you?

Nope.

Firstly, your inability to empathize with anything other than a human being.

Why is that a problem?

DanishDynamite

6th April 2007, 06:00 PM

Nope.
So the intelligence of beings are of no interest for you when you determine whether whole sale slaughter of these beings is good or not. OK.
Why is that a problem?
It is a problem because human lives are dependent on the existence of non-human lives. An inability to understand this is a problem.

thaiboxerken

6th April 2007, 06:09 PM

It is a problem because human lives are dependent on the existence of non-human lives. An inability to understand this is a problem.

How does empathy play into that fact?

Darth Rotor

6th April 2007, 06:21 PM

So Lions can be themselves but humans can't? I agree.
Your words, boy, not mine.

DR

DanishDynamite

7th April 2007, 01:12 PM

How does empathy play into that fact?
Empathy is the ability to care about the well-being of others. You apparently lack this ability. Given the importance of the well-being of others, particularly other non-human creatures, for the wellfare of us all, your lack of this ability is dangerous.

Tell me, did you pick the wings of flies and/or the legs off spiders as a kid?

thaiboxerken

7th April 2007, 01:19 PM

Empathy is the ability to care about the well-being of others. You apparently lack this ability.

You are wrong. I can have great empathy for other humans. Also, I think your definition of empathy is poor. I am using the word with this definition in mind: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Given the importance of the well-being of others, particularly other non-human creatures, for the wellfare of us all, your lack of this ability is dangerous.

Bull. Just because I can't empathize with non-human animals doesn't mean I can't care enough to realize that we need to try and keep those animal species around. I don't care how happy my steak is before I eat it, but I would take measures to prevent the extinction of cows.

Tell me, did you pick the wings of flies and/or the legs off spiders as a kid?

Yes.

DanishDynamite

7th April 2007, 01:30 PM

You are wrong. I can have great empathy for other humans. Also, I think your definition of empathy is poor. I am using the word with this definition in mind: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
No, you are obviously incapable of empathy.
Bull. Just because I can't empathize with non-human animals doesn't mean I can't care enough to realize that we need to try and keep those animal species around. I don't care how happy my steak is before I eat it, but I would take measures to prevent the extinction of cows.
Keeping those animal species around requires empathy.
Yes.
Thought so. You are a dangerous person, thaiboxerken.

Tell me, do you have a rap sheet?

thaiboxerken

7th April 2007, 01:35 PM

No, you are obviously incapable of empathy.

Your insult is noted and dismissed.

Keeping those animal species around requires empathy.

No, it does not. However, feel free to provide evidence to support your claim. While your at it, maybe you can explain how we keep other resources around without empathy.

Thought so. You are a dangerous person, thaiboxerken.

Yes, I am dangerous, but only to people who threaten me.

Tell me, do you have a rap sheet?

I like heavy metal myself. I have a few speeding tickets, that's all. I think I'll go torture some ants now.

DanishDynamite

7th April 2007, 01:43 PM

Your insult is noted and dismissed.
Typical for a phsych.
No, it does not. However, feel free to provide evidence to support your claim. While your at it, maybe you can explain how we keep other resources around without empathy.
Other non-living resources don't require empathy.
Yes, I am dangerous, but only to people who threaten me.
No, you are a danger to us all. An inability to empathize, when our well-being depends so much on others, is a dangerous lack.
I like heavy metal myself. I have a few speeding tickets, that's all. I think I'll go torture some ants now.
Do you have a police record? Have you ever been arrested by the police? Have you ever been indicted or charged?

thaiboxerken

7th April 2007, 01:48 PM

Other non-living resources don't require empathy.

Why do living resources require empathy but non-living ones don't? You still haven't provided any scientific evidence to support your claim.

No, you are a danger to us all. An inability to empathize, when our well-being depends so much on others, is a dangerous lack.

I'm thinking you don't have any scientific evidence to support any of your claims.

Do you have a police record? Have you ever been arrested by the police? Have you ever been indicted or charged?

Who the frack are you to put me on trial here? And to answer your questions; no, no and no.

DanishDynamite

7th April 2007, 01:52 PM

Why do living resources require empathy but non-living ones don't?
Obviously! You clearly don't have a clue regarding the concept of empathy.
You still haven't provided any scientific evidence to support your claim.
What claim, my phsyco friend?
I'm thinking you don't have any scientific evidence to support any of your claims.
I'm thinking you have no idea what a scientific claim is, psycho.
Who the frack are you to put me on trial here? And to answer your questions; no, no and no.
I am a concerned citizen, psycho. And I doubt your answers are correct.

Refrain from using insults, DD.

thaiboxerken

7th April 2007, 01:58 PM

Obviously! You clearly don't have a clue regarding the concept of empathy.

So you really can't explain why living resources need to be empathized with but non-living ones don't.

What claim, my phsyco friend?

That we need to empathize with living resources.

I'm thinking you have no idea what a scientific claim is, psycho.

You're making a claim, I'm asking for your evidence.

I am a concerned citizen, psycho. And I doubt your answers are correct.

You're not concerned at all. You simply wish to insult me.

DanishDynamite

7th April 2007, 02:07 PM

So you really can't explain why living resources need to be empathized with but non-living ones don't.
This is sig material!

Psycho, try looking up the definition of empathy in a dictionery. Jesus Christ!
That we need to empathize with living resources.
"Living resources". Psycho, I bet you can't even understand why this phrase is offensive to me.
You're making a claim, I'm asking for your evidence.Ok, psycho, what was the claim?
You're not concerned at all. You simply wish to insult me.
Seek help, my friend.

thaiboxerken

7th April 2007, 02:12 PM

You've pretty much proven that you have no rational arguments to give pertaining to the subject of empathy with living resources.

I'll leave you to shed a tear for the steak I'm about to eat.

DanishDynamite

7th April 2007, 02:21 PM

You've pretty much proven that you have no rational arguments to give pertaining to the subject of empathy with living resources.

I'll leave you to shed a tear for the steak I'm about to eat.
Thai, I have to say I'm confused about what to do at the moment.

I entered this debate in the normal way, thinking I was up against a normal aggressor with different opinions. I made my remarks fit this.

In my opinion, please see a therapist. I don't say this lightly. I've been to a therapist as well.

thaiboxerken

7th April 2007, 02:27 PM

Your silly and constant insults really are rather tiring. You've actually made no attempt at rational discourse. You can cry for the cows, I will not.

DanishDynamite

7th April 2007, 02:32 PM

Your silly and constant insults really are rather tiring. You've actually made no attempt at rational discourse. You can cry for the cows, I will not.
I hope someone who cares for you gets you into a program. In my opinion you have a lot to offer and I hope this will be taken into account. I'd love to meet you at TAM 10, for example.

:)

thaiboxerken

7th April 2007, 02:36 PM

Insults noted and dismissed, again.

DanishDynamite

7th April 2007, 02:40 PM

Insults noted and dismissed, again.
In this case, they weren't insults.

Thaiboxerken, I've seen your contributions to the Science forum. They were top-of-the-line.

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm trying to help you.

thaiboxerken

7th April 2007, 02:44 PM

DanishDynamite

7th April 2007, 03:02 PM

Do you empathize with the grass when you step on it?
Not always, but sometimes I do, when I'm made aware of what I'm doing.
Do you shed tears for a mosquito that you smash?
None at all.
I'm wondering why you think humans should feel empathy for all living things, especially since most non-humans don't empathize with us.
Your question is difficult to answer. I cannot shut off my empathy for others. I constantly have empathy for beings around me. Constantly.

Gord_in_Toronto

7th April 2007, 04:06 PM

. . . .

Or they're simply defending the actions of a few fishermen because they also live in Canada and are bias towards it (Sort of like the people in Israel were staunchly defending anything Israel did during last years conflict).

Or, because we live in Canada, we are a lot closer to the "problem" than you are and have more understanding of it than those who live elsewhere.

If there is a "problem" with the seal hunt, it is that the killing is done in the open, not protected from sensitive eyes by buildings called abattoirs. :mad:

Dustin Kesselberg

7th April 2007, 08:14 PM

If we suddenly withdraw ourselves from the mix and do nothing to influence the "natural" order -- don't you think that would throw the environment seriously out of whack?

No.

That's what would happen if humans suddenly stopped preying on an animal they've been preying on for thousands of years. It has evolved to deal with that environmental pressure; without it, overpopulation would be inevitable.

There's no evidence for that. No evidence at all. Not only are the animals that humans consume limited almost entirely to domesticated animals whom we BREED, but our total destruction of fish populations in the oceans means that we're putting pressure on the ecosystems that will soon destroy them if we don't stop. We're netting the entire oceans and studies estimate that we've killed 90% of the oceans "big fish" and only about 10% remain.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/14/coolsc.disappearingfish/

Anyone who implies humans are "needed" to keep the ecosystems in check is a complete idiot.

Dustin Kesselberg

7th April 2007, 08:17 PM

Or, because we live in Canada, we are a lot closer to the "problem" than you are and have more understanding of it than those who live elsewhere.

No. I know all of the facts concerning this problem. It doesn't matter where you live.

If there is a "problem" with the seal hunt, it is that the killing is done in the open, not protected from sensitive eyes by buildings called abattoirs. :mad:

I don't see how that's a problem. The problem is the commercial killings themselves.

Gord_in_Toronto

8th April 2007, 10:27 AM

No. I know all of the facts concerning this problem. It doesn't matter where you live.

In your OP you said, "Each spring hundreds of blood thirsty locals descend onto the ice to slaughter helpless seals by shooting them or beating them to death with clubs."

They are not "blood thirsty". They may not think the same way you do, but they are not risking their lives on the ice simply to kill and get covered with blood.

I don't see how that's a problem. The problem is the commercial killings themselves.

No, the problem is you see the cute little "babies". If they were not visible, the EU would pay as little attention to them as they do to the raising of veal or the production of pâté de foie gras or what goes what goes on in an abattoir.

D'rok

8th April 2007, 07:00 PM

I linked it twice.

Absolutely.

You've realized how wrong you are to endorse the wholesale inhumane slaughter of millions of innocent seals and now you're backing out with that excuse to safe face.

What brave "hunters"...

http://indiescribe.typepad.com/indiescribe/images/seal_hunt.jpg

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060324_seal_hunt_big.jpg

http://tsao.enelparaiso.org/files/hunt02.jpg

Warning..Graphic...

http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2005/04/314911.jpg
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/03/30/31SEALS_wideweb__430x272.jpg
http://mindprod.com/images/sealpupskinned.jpg

Is this supposed to be evidence that cute little white furry seal pups are being harvested? You have several pictures of harvested adult seals with one live and well and most definitely unharvested pup in the middle. This is pretty darn dishonest.

An whats with this "millions of innocent seals" business? The harvest is 270,000 out of a population of 5,800,000.

Darth Rotor

8th April 2007, 08:56 PM

An whats with this "millions of innocent seals" business? The harvest is 270,000 out of a population of 5,800,000.

Not everyone likes facts as much as you do. :)

DR

Dustin Kesselberg

8th April 2007, 09:19 PM

In your OP you said, "Each spring hundreds of blood thirsty locals descend onto the ice to slaughter helpless seals by shooting them or beating them to death with clubs."

They are not "blood thirsty". They may not think the same way you do, but they are not risking their lives on the ice simply to kill and get covered with blood.

Beating seals to death and butchering them where they lay is what I'd call "blood thirsty". Deal with it.

No, the problem is you see the cute little "babies". If they were not visible, the EU would pay as little attention to them as they do to the raising of veal or the production of pâté de foie gras or what goes what goes on in an abattoir.

I don't know why the EU doesn't pay more attention to regulating slaughterhouses or banning foie gras but the fact that they are paying attention to this is a good thing no matter how you cut it.

Dustin Kesselberg

8th April 2007, 09:21 PM

Is this supposed to be evidence that cute little white furry seal pups are being harvested? You have several pictures of harvested adult seals with one live and well and most definitely unharvested pup in the middle. This is pretty darn dishonest.

The links are to show the brutality of the 'hunt' and to show that the whitefur's are often harvested as well even if it's illegal.

An whats with this "millions of innocent seals" business? The harvest is 270,000 out of a population of 5,800,000.

That's just in Canada. And that's just this year.

Dustin Kesselberg

8th April 2007, 09:22 PM

Not everyone likes facts as much as you do. :)

DR

More like misrepresenting the facts...

He's just another Canadian trying to justify an immoral and brutal practice because he's too bias to see it for what it is.

Darth Rotor

8th April 2007, 09:30 PM

More like misrepresenting the facts...

He's just another Canadian trying to justify an immoral and brutal practice because he's too bias to see it for what it is.
Dustin, some deer seasons the Texas Game and Wildlife authorities authorize a supplemental doe season after regular deer season, and some seasons they don't. The wardens and rangers measure the herd size across the state and in various specific areas, and then make a determination based on the balance between deer herd size and the folizage/graze available to sustain them.

Since so few natural predators remain in Texas for deer, man is now deer's main predator.

That policy is good stewardship, in that it keeps the white tail and mule deer in Texas viable and healthy.

And available to hunt. :) And to eat. Yummy. :)

I do not take your narrow view that the Canadian game officials are other than level headed regarding stewardship of the seal herd.

You are arguing from a particular bias, and have now accused our new friend dlacone of doing so, when he at least has facts, and less emotion behind his position.

Not well played.

DR

D'rok

8th April 2007, 09:55 PM

The links are to show the brutality of the 'hunt' and to show that the whitefur's are often harvested as well even if it's illegal.

OK. Show me a (recent) pic of a pup being harvested and I'll be suitably shocked. Don't show me a cute picture randomly inserted into a series of perfectly legal adult harvestings.

D'rok

8th April 2007, 09:57 PM

More like misrepresenting the facts...

He's just another Canadian trying to justify an immoral and brutal practice because he's too bias to see it for what it is.

Brutal yes. Immoral no.

Can't speak for other countries, but it is perfectly justifiable in Canada. The Harp seal population is healthy and growing. It's called resource management. And yes, other creatures are both resources and living beings...get over it.

Gord_in_Toronto

8th April 2007, 10:07 PM

Beating seals to death and butchering them where they lay is what I'd call "blood thirsty". Deal with it.

OK. I don't believe they should kill "laying" seals. We need the eggs.

I don't know why the EU doesn't pay more attention to regulating slaughterhouses or banning foie gras but the fact that they are paying attention to this is a good thing no matter how you cut it.

And that's what I call hypocrisy.

Dustin Kesselberg

8th April 2007, 10:26 PM

Dustin, some deer seasons the Texas Game and Wildlife authorities authorize a supplemental doe season after regular deer season, and some seasons they don't. The wardens and rangers measure the herd size across the state and in various specific areas, and then make a determination based on the balance between deer herd size and the folizage/graze available to sustain them.

Since so few natural predators remain in Texas for deer, man is now deer's main predator.

That policy is good stewardship, in that it keeps the white tail and mule deer in Texas viable and healthy.

And available to hunt. :) And to eat. Yummy. :)

I do not take your narrow view that the Canadian game officials are other than level headed regarding stewardship of the seal herd.

You are arguing from a particular bias, and have now accused our new friend dlacone of doing so, when he at least has facts, and less emotion behind his position.

Not well played.

DR

See the previous links posted. Even the people who support this "hunt" admit that it has nothing to do with keeping the populations of the seals down.

Dustin Kesselberg

8th April 2007, 10:27 PM

Brutal yes. Immoral no.

Explain how beating a seal to death isn't immoral. I've already explained how it is.

Can't speak for other countries, but it is perfectly justifiable in Canada. The Harp seal population is healthy and growing. It's called resource management. And yes, other creatures are both resources and living beings...get over it.

So the fact that the population is large is an excuse to do it? I could use the same argument in defense of murder for humans since there are after all 6 billion of us..:rolleyes:

Dustin Kesselberg

8th April 2007, 10:28 PM

And that's what I call hypocrisy.

How's that?

Darth Rotor

8th April 2007, 10:41 PM

See the previous links posted. Even the people who support this "hunt" admit that it has nothing to do with keeping the populations of the seals down.
So what?

You are still arguing from emotion, and dlacone responded with facts, which you attempted to discredit with emotive reply.

I don't derive from the previous posts that Canadian Law is being broken. Have I missed a trick here?

DR

Dustin Kesselberg

8th April 2007, 10:56 PM

So what?

You are still arguing from emotion, and dlacone responded with facts, which you attempted to discredit with emotive reply.

I don't derive from the previous posts that Canadian Law is being broken. Have I missed a trick here?

DR

I'm arguing from facts and emotion. A double whammy. I've either refuted the facts the people who support this massacre have presented or explained how they have no relevance. I don't see how there's anything left but dumb people repeating the same arguments I refuted last week.

D'rok

9th April 2007, 07:01 AM

Explain how beating a seal to death isn't immoral. I've already explained how it is.

I'm sure it is immoral for you. Not everything that you dislike is a universal moral law. Your moral outrage misguided in this case. These seals (the relatively few that actually are killed) suffer significantly less than animals in the industrial meat industry. Shall I show you gruesome abbatoir pictures to fuel your outrage, or do seals have some kind of special moral status?

There is nothing immoral about killing other animals to use/eat them if it is done responsibly. It's a bloody business to be sure. Can you suggest a better method for killing them? You might have a leg to stand on in that case.

So the fact that the population is large is an excuse to do it? I could use the same argument in defense of murder for humans since there are after all 6 billion of us..:rolleyes:
If you used the same argument in that fashion it would be called Equivocation.

D'rok

9th April 2007, 07:05 AM

I'm arguing from facts and emotion. A double whammy. I've either refuted the facts the people who support this massacre have presented or explained how they have no relevance. I don't see how there's anything left but dumb people repeating the same arguments I refuted last week.

I've been refuted? It must've happened when I wasn't looking. I am just a dumb Canadian after all. :rolleyes:

Lonewulf

9th April 2007, 07:12 AM

Do you empathize with the grass when you step on it? Do you shed tears for a mosquito that you smash? I'm wondering why you think humans should feel empathy for all living things, especially since most non-humans don't empathize with us.

And I wonder why you continually assume that all animals are the same. Or that a cow, chicken, or pig is the mental equivalent of a blade of grass.

Do you have any rational justification to show that my cat is the mental equivalent of a mosquito? Show studies, please.

Either that, or shut the hell up and stop making these irrational, downright moronic comparisons that even a retarded 10-year old kid could refute.

And if you really do insist that a cat is the mental equivalent of a blade of grass, or a mosquito, then I'll just have to bid you good day, as you obviously are not worth the time of day, much less a supposedly "rational" debate.

There's something I've learned on these forums (and others like it): People that advocate inhumane treatment of animals, or say that they're "cool with" inhumane treatment can make all the irrational and downright dumb comparisons and use all the fallacies that they like. But who do people gang up on? The vegetarians, or people that simply advocate humane treatment. It doesn't matter if arguments are equal, the vegetarians or people that are for actual ethical treatment of animals always get attacked, because, of course, caring about animals is some sort if social injustice or somesuch.

(Of course, there's also the fact that everyone is ganging up on Dustin in particular, so I'm being unfair in this particular case; Dustin has it comin')

aggle-rithm

9th April 2007, 07:27 AM

Beating seals to death and butchering them where they lay is what I'd call "blood thirsty". Deal with it.

The term "blood thirsty" describes motivations, not actions. I doubt that many of the hunters are motivated by a desire to kill for killing's sake. Fortunately, that sort of twisted mind is fairly rare in this world.

Lonewulf

9th April 2007, 09:16 AM

The term "blood thirsty" describes motivations, not actions. I doubt that many of the hunters are motivated by a desire to kill for killing's sake. Fortunately, that sort of twisted mind is fairly rare in this world.

Whereas, killing for money's sake is considered rather twisted.

At the least, if their prey is humans.

Darth Rotor

9th April 2007, 09:18 AM

Whereas, killing for money's sake is considered rather twisted.

At the least, if their prey is humans.
I kill rats and mice, and other vermin. The motivation is the health and safety of my family.

Do you have a problem with that?

DR

thaiboxerken

9th April 2007, 09:38 AM

And I wonder why you continually assume that all animals are the same. Or that a cow, chicken, or pig is the mental equivalent of a blade of grass.

I don't and neither did I make any statement as such. Danish said that ALL living things should be empathized with, so that's why I mentioned grass. He's repeatedly failed to demonstrate why.

Either that, or shut the hell up and stop making these irrational, downright moronic comparisons that even a retarded 10-year old kid could refute.

I'll tell you what. Make me shut up. Oh, and do try to actually read the thread before making such silly assumptions about my arguments.

thaiboxerken

9th April 2007, 09:41 AM

Whereas, killing for money's sake is considered rather twisted.

At the least, if their prey is humans.

Yes, and?

aggle-rithm

9th April 2007, 10:56 AM

I kill rats and mice, and other vermin. The motivation is the health and safety of my family.

Do you have a problem with that?

DR

Poor little vermin...*sniff*

Lonewulf

9th April 2007, 11:57 AM

I kill rats and mice, and other vermin. The motivation is the health and safety of my family.

Do you have a problem with that?

Naw.

Though personally, I prefer "no kill" methods of extraction.

Poor little vermin...*sniff*

I never got why there's so much hatred towards rats and mice vs. other animals. They get into your house without understanding private property, act according to their own instincts, and then go for the nearest food source without really thinking of it as "theft".

Anything can be considered "vermin". If a stray starving dog wandered into my house and scavenged it for food, I could call it "vermin" and then justify torturing it for a while before killing it, because "vermin == bad, period".

Hell, some humans have been referred to as "vermin". Some pretty awful things were justified for that reason...

I don't and neither did I make any statement as such. Danish said that ALL living things should be empathized with, so that's why I mentioned grass. He's repeatedly failed to demonstrate why.

And you consider grass an animal... why?

Get off the special grass, dude.

(Though if you have a quotation/reference, I'd be happy to look back and correct my mistaken presumption on Danish's claims)

I'll tell you what. Make me shut up.

You're right, my ignore button goes underused far too often.

Oh, and do try to actually read the thread before making such silly assumptions about my arguments.

I don't have to make "silly assumptions", I see the same tripe you're spouting off here, as you spouted off when we had this discussion before.

Yes, and?

If "blood thirsty" implies something is bad because someone kills just for the sake of killing, and "killing for money" is implied to be bad because someone kills just for the sake of money, I draw a parallel of negativity, but not definition.

thaiboxerken

9th April 2007, 12:53 PM

Again, I did not say grass was an animal. Grass are living things though. The Danish said all living things should be empathized with, not just animals. Why do you build straw men?

Darth Rotor

9th April 2007, 12:57 PM

Naw.

Though personally, I prefer "no kill" methods of extraction.
We used a cage trap for a squirrel who got into the house, and a racoon.
Hell, some humans have been referred to as "vermin". Some pretty awful things were justified for that reason...
The death penalty comes to mind, but I don't find it awful, more a pest control deal. Jeff Dahmer made plague infested rats look good by comparison. :p

Again, I did not say grass was an animal. Grass are living things though. The Danish said all living things should be empathized with, not just animals. Why do you build straw men?
Because he was thinking about dead grass? ;)

DR

Lonewulf

9th April 2007, 02:16 PM

Again, I did not say grass was an animal. Grass are living things though. The Danish said all living things should be empathized with, not just animals. Why do you build straw men?

Quote exactly where he stated that all living things should be treated the same, please. Until then, I'm not the one building strawmen.

I recall when you continuously claimed that I was claiming this exact same thing in the argument that we had earlier. It was a strawman then, so I'm willing to think that it's a strawman now. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

We used a cage trap for a squirrel who got into the house, and a racoon.

Personally, I like mice and rats. I know I'm somewhat a minority on that opinion.

The death penalty comes to mind, but I don't find it awful, more a pest control deal. Jeff Dahmer made plague infested rats look good by comparison. :p

I'm against the death penalty for several reasons.

But here's some more examples in mind for comparing people to "vermin": Jews (who, yes, were eliminated out of a sense of "pest control"; the nazis thought that the jews were detrimental to a society, and thus they needed to "purify" it) come to mind.

Another thing that comes to mind: The extermination of many people in Rwanda. I recall that the Tutsies were compared to "cockroaches".

It's often seen as justifiable to kill someone when you dehumanize them to the point of becoming mere "vermin". The word itself just has the connotation of "unwanted". There are many unwanted people in society... yet some, we tolerate because they don't actually break any laws.

And if they do break laws, it's only the heinous ones that we truly "punish" by storing them in cramped quarters where they get anally raped and given AIDS, but hey, we don't care; they're vermin.

I just find it interesting how, when we talk about getting rid of rats, we use downright painful solutions and then call it "getting rid of vermin". But when we kill unwanted cats and dogs, we're all "painless" about it (except when we stuff them into overcrowded gas chambers...), and call it "euthanizing", to make it all sound pretty and flowery. The English language is funny.

Gord_in_Toronto

9th April 2007, 02:34 PM

How's that?

Definition:

IN BRIEF: Insincerity by pretending to have qualities or beliefs not really held.

Europeans are picking on the actions in another country without applying the same considerations to things they do.

Ryokan

9th April 2007, 03:36 PM

Definition:

IN BRIEF: Insincerity by pretending to have qualities or beliefs not really held.

Europeans are picking on the actions in another country without applying the same considerations to things they do.

Don't know why you say Europeans.... We Norwegians are certainly European, and very known for killing seals and whales. The seal cullings are non-commercial, though, but we do eat the whales.

thaiboxerken

9th April 2007, 04:49 PM

Quote exactly where he stated that all living things should be treated the same, please. Until then, I'm not the one building strawmen.

We weren't even talking about treating things the same. We were debating his claim that all living things should be empathized with. Try and keep up.

Lonewulf

9th April 2007, 04:59 PM

We weren't even talking about treating things the same. We were debating his claim that all living things should be empathized with. Try and keep up.

Okay. THEN QUOTE IT.

I asked you to quote the specific statement several times. You have not.

Try to keep up, would you?

thaiboxerken

9th April 2007, 05:35 PM

You can go back and read the thread starting at post 163 if you really want to know. I'll just ignore your futile attempts at creating straw men as well.

Lonewulf

9th April 2007, 05:44 PM

I'll just ignore your futile attempts at creating straw men as well.

Likewise. :)

Ben Tilly

9th April 2007, 06:22 PM

Okay. THEN QUOTE IT.

I asked you to quote the specific statement several times. You have not.

Try to keep up, would you?

Sorry, but I think you're out of line here. Go back to http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78532&page=5 and read the first few posts. You'll find Danish Dynamite saying the following things in rapid succession over the first few posts:

"Are you claiming it makes the slighest difference whether they do or not?" (Where "do" means think.)

"...I think a more interesting question would be why you feel it is important to know to what degree creatures you kill can be said to think or not."

(in response to thaiboxerken saying "What problem?") "Firstly, your inability to empathize with anything other than a human being."

DanishDynamite went on to rant about destroying lives, a series of nasty insults towards thaiboxerken, etc.

Given this history thaiboxerken, is quite justified in drawing the conclusion that DanishDynamite believes that we should empathize with all creatures, whether or not they think. It may not have been said in so many words, but it was quite clearly said. I personally doubt that DanishDynamite thinks that we should empathize with, say, grass. However that conclusion does logically fit the chain of statements that he made. And given the truly nasty insults that DanishDynamite proceeded to deliver, I cannot fault thaiboxerken for the way he responded.

Regards,
Ben

Lonewulf

9th April 2007, 06:33 PM

Given this history thaiboxerken, is quite justified in drawing the conclusion that DanishDynamite believes that we should empathize with all creatures, whether or not they think. It may not have been said in so many words, but it was quite clearly said. I personally doubt that DanishDynamite thinks that we should empathize with, say, grass. However that conclusion does logically fit the chain of statements that he made. And given the truly nasty insults that DanishDynamite proceeded to deliver, I cannot fault thaiboxerken for the way he responded.

He responds to everyone in that way, no matter what, as long as he disagrees with them. Thai is good at the insults, and slings them out willingly.

Which is why I have given up any hope of ever being polite to TBK.

I further asked him to quote the relevant material. He refused to. He just let you do it for him, I guess. Not my problem.

As far as I'm concerned, Thaiboxerken is just another form of Dustin.

Gord_in_Toronto

9th April 2007, 09:12 PM

Don't know why you say Europeans.... We Norwegians are certainly European, and very known for killing seals and whales. The seal cullings are non-commercial, though, but we do eat the whales.

Ah. Sorry about the sweeping generalization. Trouble is, that in the same way we Canadians are always assumed to be USAians (except when we are bloodthirstily slaughtering baby seals), we see Europe as a great monolithic block. I'll return to saying "the EU" since that will exclude Norway and it's where the action is anyway. ;)

thaiboxerken

9th April 2007, 09:50 PM

He responds to everyone in that way, no matter what, as long as he disagrees with them. Thai is good at the insults, and slings them out willingly.

Bull. Also, I did not insult Danish in any way either. He was the one insulting me, despite my attempt to stay polite.

Which is why I have given up any hope of ever being polite to TBK.

You've given up being polite to me simply because I don't buy into your hippie "love all animals" mentality.

I further asked him to quote the relevant material. He refused to. He just let you do it for him, I guess. Not my problem.

Yet, it was just shown that I was not making things up. Danish was defending his claim that all living things should be empathized with.

Darth Rotor

9th April 2007, 09:54 PM

As far as I'm concerned, Thaiboxerken is just another form of Dustin.
Nope.

Ken and I often disagree, and also throw rocks at one another, but Dustin has not even reached white belt yet. Ken has a belt of color.

DR

Dustin Kesselberg

9th April 2007, 09:54 PM

Definition:

IN BRIEF: Insincerity by pretending to have qualities or beliefs not really held.

Europeans are picking on the actions in another country without applying the same considerations to things they do.

I don't quite follow what you're saying and it seems to me you're changing what you said.

However if Europeans criticize Canada for seal hunting but do it themselves then that is hypocritical and I oppose it.

Happy?

FarmallMTA

9th April 2007, 10:03 PM

Darth Rotor

9th April 2007, 10:06 PM

Was I being cruel to the mice which became dinner, or nice to the hawks which ate dinner? Which one is worth more points, Karma-wise? Screwing over the mice or helping out the hawks?
Since you had stolen their dinner in the first place with the sticky traps, I'd say you were returning dinner to the rightful owner.

DR

Lonewulf

9th April 2007, 10:12 PM

Bull. Also, I did not insult Danish in any way either. He was the one insulting me, despite my attempt to stay polite.

"Attempt to stay polite"? When did you ever make such an attempt?

You've given up being polite to me simply because I don't buy into your hippie "love all animals" mentality.

Once more, a strawman. Good going! You're on a roll, man!

I never said "love all animals". But YOU were the one that had no problem with radical inhumane treatment of animals because you didn't care one jot for 'em.

So if it isn't one extreme, it must be the other?

I love how you think!

I love how you call it my "hippy love all animals" bit. And yours is the nazi "lets treat things as horribly as we can if it tastes better". I also love it how you say that after you claim to have been "attempting" to be polite... hah.

It's funny how you talk about me being a hippy. I don't do drugs, I'm not necessarily anti-war (dependingly), and I doubt that I fall within the hippy category at all. I just think that animals should be treated ethically. You don't like that idea for some reason. Go you. But don't go thinking that everyone is in disagreement with my stance, and that I'm part of some extremist group.

Lonewulf

9th April 2007, 10:18 PM

Was I being cruel to the mice which became dinner, or nice to the hawks which ate dinner? Which one is worth more points, Karma-wise? Screwing over the mice or helping out the hawks?

They didn't go to waste, for one thing. They went towards helping out the ecosystem, which is part of a greater good.

thaiboxerken

10th April 2007, 10:42 AM

Was I being cruel to the mice which became dinner, or nice to the hawks which ate dinner? Which one is worth more points, Karma-wise? Screwing over the mice or helping out the hawks?

Karma is superstitious nonsense, so I wouldn't worry about points. However, I do think that it's less wasteful and messy to feed the mice to the hawks like you did. Ever think about getting a cat?

thaiboxerken

10th April 2007, 10:46 AM

I never said "love all animals". But YOU were the one that had no problem with radical inhumane treatment of animals because you didn't care one jot for 'em.

So if it isn't one extreme, it must be the other?

I'm only doing what you've done since the beginning of the thread, assigning an extreme position to my opponent. I actually do care about animals, but that never bothered you.

aggle-rithm

10th April 2007, 10:49 AM

Hell, some humans have been referred to as "vermin".

Gregor Samsa, for instance!

aggle-rithm

10th April 2007, 11:20 AM

I had mice in the farmhouse after a cold snap outside. I put out sticky traps and caught quite a few of them. They looked so vulnerable shivering and struggling on the sticky stuff trying to get loose. So tired, scared, hungry and thirsty. I couldn't bear the thought of stomping them into mouse jam with my boot heel.

So I took them outside individually, adhered to the sticky trap but still alive and struggling and set it on top of the concrete cistern. Hawks circling overhead dove down like P-51's machinegunning a Kraut sunning himself by a quiet brook in France. They swooped down and carried him off and ate the mice (not the Kraut soldier, now) right off the sticky strip.

Was I being cruel to the mice which became dinner, or nice to the hawks which ate dinner? Which one is worth more points, Karma-wise? Screwing over the mice or helping out the hawks?

One thing I've learned is that the ethical dilemmas are so much more clear-cut when you live in an animal-free environment, and judge the situations by looking at cute pictures of the harmless little critters. I had an experience last year that really changed my outlook.

My wife and I were fostering dogs that had been rescued from shelters, and were waiting to be adopted. The first few dogs were placed in nice homes, and we were starting to believe we could rehabilitate every pound puppy out there.

It was then that we took in a very nice-looking and friendly border collie named Oakley. He would approach people, stand on his hind legs, and put his front paws around them, as if giving them a hug. There didn't seem to be an aggressive bone in his body, but the farmer who had dropped him off at the shelter told a different story. He said it he had to give Oakley up because he had killed a goat -- not a behavior you want in a working dog. We couldn't believe Oakley was capable of such a thing, but there were a few troubling behaviors.

First, Oakley was extremely interested in our cats. He didn't chase them or even bark at them -- in fact, he acted like he was scared of them half the time. However, when he looked at them he froze in place, which is classic predatory behavior.

Second, he didn't really seem to care about people that much. Despite his friendliness, at the first opportunity he would gladly take off without giving his human friends a second thought. I had to chase him down a few times when he wandered off. He didn't run from me -- it was as if he didn't really care.

We finally took Oakley to get evaluated by an animal behaviorist. The verdict: He was in serious danger of becoming aggressive towards humans. The decision was made to have Oakley euthanized.

I was angry about this decision for a long time. Since I was just fostering the dog, I didn't really have a say in it (I wasn't the one that would get sued if the dog was adopted out and he attacked someone). It didn't seem right to condemn a quiet, friendly dog to death because he MIGHT hurt someone.

After a while I began to understand the reality of it. In time, we could have trained Oakley to be more social with humans and minimized the chances that he would hurt someone. However, it would take a lot of work, and meanwhile, there were a lot of other dogs being euthanized that DIDN'T have the emotional problems that Oakley did. This was one dog that MIGHT be saved, but there were many others that DEFINITELY could be saved.

Therein lies the problem: it's just not realistic to believe that you can save the whole world. The resources are limited, and we as humans have to make hard decisions about which animals live and which die. If we don't make a decision, it will be made for us, and animals will suffer as a result. The problem of limited resources also exists outside the confines of shelters and rescue groups. It's simply not an option to let them all run wild and free on a farm somewhere -- that magical farm doesn't exist.

wolfgirl

10th April 2007, 05:41 PM

D'rok

10th April 2007, 05:58 PM

I've resisted posting on this thread up till now because I know that I tend to get very emotional about this particular topic (cruelty to animals, etc.). I don't see the point in arguing my side only to be told that I'm just overly emotional or that I'm anthropomorphizing. Animals feel pain and fear and should be treated with compassion because it's the right thing to do.

I just wanted to say that in 1976 or 1977, I attended a march in Winnipeg to protest the seal slaughter. We marched on the Parliament Building with signs and chanted "Stop the Slaughter! Save the Seals!" I guess I was (and still am) a hippie, and I wear the label proudly.

It makes me very sad that over 30 years later, nothing has changed.

(Oh, and I use live traps to catch the mice in my house.)

Lots has changed actually. You made a difference. The hunt is more closely monitored now and pup harvesting is banned. I know that's probably not enough for you, but it's something.

Ironically, I was in grade school at the time (it was a big issue nationwide) and I drew a picture of a seal and did a little report on saving the seals. I still have it in a scrapbook somewhere.

I'm a softie too...there's no way I could participate in the hunt. (I'm still tramautized about the time in my childhood when I shot a gopher on a friend's acreage:o ). But it is a little naive to think that just because our delicate sensibilities can't handle something, that makes it morally wrong.

We have a responsiblity to manage the culling as humanely as possible, but there is nothing inherently wrong with one species of animal using another as a resource. We happen to be perhaps the only species that is aware of the consequences of our actions, and we are behaving appropriately with that awareness in this case.

Lonewulf

10th April 2007, 06:35 PM

We have a responsiblity to manage the culling as humanely as possible, but there is nothing inherently wrong with one species of animal using another as a resource. We happen to be perhaps the only species that is aware of the consequences of our actions, and we are behaving appropriately with that awareness in this case.

I agree with this, more or less, but I think that there other alternatives to using animals that will end up cheaper and more productive in the end. Though that's a bit far off.

Otherwise, I agree with your post. I also don't think that it's wrong to think of animals (especially domestic ones) as a "resource" either. But sometimes you have to take responsibility for your resources.

I've resisted posting on this thread up till now because I know that I tend to get very emotional about this particular topic (cruelty to animals, etc.). I don't see the point in arguing my side only to be told that I'm just overly emotional or that I'm anthropomorphizing. Animals feel pain and fear and should be treated with compassion because it's the right thing to do.

You damn hippy. ;)

D'rok

10th April 2007, 06:40 PM

You damn hippy, take your "save all animals" ideology and stuff it! TBK isn't buying it!

I'm guessing that you only read the first half of my post. Either that or I'm too dense to get your Interweb humour tonight.

Or both.

ETA: D'oh! Posted before your 2nd reply appeared. Please ignore.

Lonewulf

10th April 2007, 06:52 PM

I'm guessing that you only read the first half of my post. Either that or I'm too dense to get your Interweb humour tonight.

Or both.

It wasn't humor, it was an attack on TBK's logic. Afterwards, I realized that I was going down a path that I really didn't go down, so I edited my reply. I'd rather not spend all of my time attacking other posters on this forum, I really don't want to expend my energy on something like that. It's really not what I want to be/do.

ETA: D'oh! Posted before your 2nd reply appeared. Please ignore.

I figured I should explain my post anyways, since you already posted my unedited reply.

No problem, otherwise.

I'd like to make a comment:

Therein lies the problem: it's just not realistic to believe that you can save the whole world. The resources are limited, and we as humans have to make hard decisions about which animals live and which die. If we don't make a decision, it will be made for us, and animals will suffer as a result. The problem of limited resources also exists outside the confines of shelters and rescue groups. It's simply not an option to let them all run wild and free on a farm somewhere -- that magical farm doesn't exist.

I agree with this, more or less, but that doesn't change the ideal.

The ideal of society is to have one without criminals making lives harder on the rest of us; thus we work towards that ideal, without ever really expecting to reach the end of it.

The ideal of animals is to treat them as humanely as possible, and not have to euthanize or kill any animal needlessly. The dog that you mentioned in your post, however, was necessarily put down as you didn't have the resources to spend on him. But, ideally, it would have been preferable to keep him alive. That ideal hasn't changed, just your ability to fulfill that ideal has.

FarmallMTA

10th April 2007, 07:08 PM

It was then that we took in a very nice-looking and friendly border collie named Oakley. He would approach people, stand on his hind legs, and put his front paws around them, as if giving them a hug. There didn't seem to be an aggressive bone in his body, but the farmer who had dropped him off at the shelter told a different story. He said it he had to give Oakley up because he had killed a goat -- not a behavior you want in a working dog. We couldn't believe Oakley was capable of such a thing, but there were a few troubling behaviors.

We finally took Oakley to get evaluated by an animal behaviorist. The verdict: He was in serious danger of becoming aggressive towards humans. The decision was made to have Oakley euthanized.

Dang. Interesting situation. If it helps any, looks like you spared us all from the Ted Bundy of dogdom. Cheers, dude.

Fitter

10th April 2007, 07:38 PM

I've resisted posting on this thread up till now because I know that I tend to get very emotional about this particular topic (cruelty to animals, etc.). I don't see the point in arguing my side only to be told that I'm just overly emotional or that I'm anthropomorphizing. Animals feel pain and fear and should be treated with compassion because it's the right thing to do.

I just wanted to say that in 1976 or 1977, I attended a march in Winnipeg to protest the seal slaughter. We marched on the Parliament Building with signs and chanted "Stop the Slaughter! Save the Seals!" I guess I was (and still am) a hippie, and I wear the label proudly.

It makes me very sad that over 30 years later, nothing has changed.

(Oh, and I use live traps to catch the mice in my house.)

I've mostly stayed away from the emotional aspects of this thread because I also feel them deeply. Probably deeper than anyone else here. In 1976-77 while you were protesting in Winnipeg I was visiting my uncles who were fishermen. One of them went "to the ice" every year. He didn't go there out of "Bloodlust" as one poster would have you believe. He went there to make a little bit of money to put food on the table and a roof over the head of his family. No one risks life and limb on shifting sea ice because they get some cheap sexual thrill out of killing things, they do it because there is no other way to make a living. Now before you come back with government assistance or some such other crap let me ask you a question. How much money do you have to give a man to get him to give up his self respect? 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? The hunt has been declared humane and the harp seal population is in no danger of extinction http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/myth_e.htm . I have no doubt that within a very few years the commercial hunt will die a natural death and a part of my culture will be gone forever. I'm just glad Uncle Bill isn't around anymore to see it.

D'rok

10th April 2007, 08:39 PM

I've mostly stayed away from the emotional aspects of this thread because I also feel them deeply. Probably deeper than anyone else here. In 1976-77 while you were protesting in Winnipeg I was visiting my uncles who were fishermen. One of them went "to the ice" every year. He didn't go there out of "Bloodlust" as one poster would have you believe. He went there to make a little bit of money to put food on the table and a roof over the head of his family. No one risks life and limb on shifting sea ice because they get some cheap sexual thrill out of killing things, they do it because there is no other way to make a living. Now before you come back with government assistance or some such other crap let me ask you a question. How much money do you have to give a man to get him to give up his self respect? 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? The hunt has been declared humane and the harp seal population is in no danger of extinction http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/myth_e.htm . I have no doubt that within a very few years the commercial hunt will die a natural death and a part of my culture will be gone forever. I'm just glad Uncle Bill isn't around anymore to see it.

I'm really glad we got to hear this side of the story. Thanks Fitter.

Lonewulf

10th April 2007, 08:39 PM

I have no doubt that within a very few years the commercial hunt will die a natural death and a part of my culture will be gone forever. I'm just glad Uncle Bill isn't around anymore to see it.

I'd act sad and all, but I really can't bring myself around to fake it.

Fitter

10th April 2007, 08:44 PM

I'd act sad and all, but I really can't bring myself around to fake it.

Well at least we agree on something. Good day to you.

Ben Tilly

10th April 2007, 08:54 PM

He responds to everyone in that way, no matter what, as long as he disagrees with them. Thai is good at the insults, and slings them out willingly.

Which is why I have given up any hope of ever being polite to TBK.

I haven't paid enough attention to him to have an opinion on his behaviour in that respect. But it isn't hard to find people (in this thread even) who respect him.

I further asked him to quote the relevant material. He refused to. He just let you do it for him, I guess. Not my problem.

Well actually he told you which post to start reading at. I started reading at 2 posts before that, extracted the main quotes, and you apparently thought that his case was reasonable. In my books his response should have been more than sufficient. (While I wouldn't normally give a response like that, I type fairly quickly so I don't mind writing long essays. Others like to be briefer and I respect that.)

As far as I'm concerned, Thaiboxerken is just another form of Dustin.

As I've already noted, there are people around who respect him. That alone makes him rather different than Dustin.

Cheers,
Ben

Lonewulf

10th April 2007, 09:29 PM

Well actually he told you which post to start reading at.

Fair enough. I concede the point, I make an apology, and I retract my statements. I will endeavor to be more cool-headed in the future.

As I've already noted, there are people around who respect him. That alone makes him rather different than Dustin.

Maybe, but I did make the note as far as I am concerned. That doesn't mean, "As far as the forum is concerned".

Lonewulf

10th April 2007, 09:31 PM

Well at least we agree on something. Good day to you.

Likewise.

I never liked the statement, "It's the only way to make money, thus it's perfectly fine", personally. That seems more an argument to bring more jobs into the mix than to keep up inhumane butchering to me, personally.

And the "pride" thing? Yes, go ahead and risk your life to go slaughter animals for pride...

Your post was just a bunch of emotional bugaloo.

But I suppose your post deserves a more thorough response than what I gave.

I've mostly stayed away from the emotional aspects of this thread because I also feel them deeply. Probably deeper than anyone else here. In 1976-77 while you were protesting in Winnipeg I was visiting my uncles who were fishermen. One of them went "to the ice" every year. He didn't go there out of "Bloodlust" as one poster would have you believe.

I wouldn't have you believe that they went out of bloodlust, either. They went there to get money.

He went there to make a little bit of money to put food on the table and a roof over the head of his family. No one risks life and limb on shifting sea ice because they get some cheap sexual thrill out of killing things, they do it because there is no other way to make a living.

Like I said above, that seems more an argument for adding more jobs into the mix than it does to keep up the killing.

Now before you come back with government assistance or some such other crap let me ask you a question. How much money do you have to give a man to get him to give up his self respect?

This statement seems to have more emotion and rhetoric than anything else.

Though I do realize that government assistance is an iffy issue, especially since the government isn't quite good at assisting as many think, I'll grant.

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?

Rhetoric and emotion.

The hunt has been declared humane and the harp seal population is in no danger of extinction http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/myth_e.htm

This part of your post actually has more value, admittedly. Extinction alone isn't a case for whether to continue an act or not, but according to your link, many of the methods of killing seals are considered just as humane as deaths caused by commercial slaughterhouses. If that's true (and I don't see a reason to doubt that it is), then that could also be used as more an argument against the killings in commercial slaughterhouses...

It honestly depends on how you look at it sometimes.

I have no doubt that within a very few years the commercial hunt will die a natural death and a part of my culture will be gone forever. I'm just glad Uncle Bill isn't around anymore to see it.

"Part of your culture"? Wow. Now that's really getting into the rhetoric.

If there is other economical diversity and jobs available, then why is it so bad? If there isn't, then what ways can we bring those jobs about? If it isn't the jobs that you have a main concern with, then what the hell is the problem? Oh, right, it's part of your "culture", therefore it should always be around and not questioned or protested against?

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).