Canada Seal Slaughter begins

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...
 
Is this anything like the great Jamaican Fish Slaughter?

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dustin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. You really do need to stop using fallacious arguments to support your beliefs.
 
Tricky said:
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?
Click to expand...

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


Tricky said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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....
 
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.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I agree. You really do need to stop using fallacious arguments to support your beliefs.
Click to expand...
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.
 
"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.
 
ClintonHammond said:
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
Click to expand...

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.


ClintonHammond said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


ClintonHammond said:
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.
Click to expand...

What out of date information?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

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

Looks like you don't know what an appeal to emotion fallacy is either...:rolleyes:
 
ClintonHammond said:
"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.
Click to expand...


I'm done addressing your gibberish until at least you learn how to properly quote.
 
Once again, you attempt to just knock over the pieces.

rock_pigeon.jpg
 
Dustin said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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."

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.

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
"Dont kid yourself Billy. That seal would kill you and your whole family if given the chance!".
 
Tricky said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom