Canada Seal Slaughter begins

[Lonewulf]

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm...

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

A "right" to?

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

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

 

[Molinaro]

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

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

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

 

[thaiboxerken]

Buffalo are extinct? That's news to me.

 

[Molinaro]

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

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

 

[Dr. Lao]

Corporate bucks?

Oh, its those EEEEEVIL corporations!

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

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

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

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

 

[Lonewulf]

Buffalo are extinct? That's news to me.

Mis-statement.

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

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

It was a misstatement.

Corporate bucks?

Oh, its those EEEEEVIL corporations!

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's fine.

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

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

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

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

Sarcasm ftw!

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

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

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

 

[Lonewulf]

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

Intriguing that you would justify those actions.

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

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

 

[Lonewulf]

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

You misunderstood, and you probably always will.

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

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

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

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

 

[Lonewulf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

 

[Lonewulf]

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

No, wrong again.

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

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

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

Sad.

Anyways, ignore time.

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

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

 

[steverino]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cleon]

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

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

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

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

I find that to be extremely dishonest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Fitter]

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

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

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

I'd have a care in presuming the efficacy of the long arm of the law.

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

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

Thanks for the link, interesting reading.

DR