Canada Seal Slaughter begins

[thaiboxerken]

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]

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

Likewise.

 

[Ben Tilly]

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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Dilemma here, sort of related to the topic

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?

 

[Darth Rotor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Gregor Samsa, for instance!

 

[aggle-rithm]

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]

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.)

 

[D'rok]

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 ). 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]

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]

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.