Political Crossfire Forums

[Carly]

We can't brutalise our wildlife cause our governement messed up in the '80's

[Impartial1]

Me don't like looking at poor little fluffy things getting clubbed to death. :(

In all honesty i'm not going to do anything about it, but i'll tell you this if it makes any of you feel better. If one of those guy's comes around here and someone points him out to me, i'll bash him over the head with a stick and tell him "how does that feel?".

[StrangerWitCandy]

Rohit wrote: Hm, I find the the marking of hundreds of thousands of humans for death in Africa more deserving of outrage. But there again is the twisted worldview of animal rights activists, seals=humans in importance. Whatever. :roll:

why can't both be deserving of outrage? what does mentioning one have to do with the other? there is room in cyberspace for more than one thread

[Infinite911911]

Carly wrote:

Canada's Seal Hunt: "Unacceptably Inhumane"



A picture is worth a thousand words:

[Carly]

Impartial1 wrote: Me don't like looking at poor little fluffy things getting clubbed to death. :(

In all honesty i'm not going to do anything about it, but i'll tell you this if it makes any of you feel better. If one of those guy's comes around here and someone points him out to me, i'll bash him over the head with a stick and tell him "how does that feel?".

Be sure to skin him alive after.

[letsgooilers]

Carly wrote: letsgooilers wrote: To my knowledge, the seal hunt needs to happen, otherise the fishing stocks are serious depleleted. Which means a ton of people in newfoundland and labrador are screwed workwise. As best as I know, the seal hunt was actually stopped a while back, and they found the fish stocks seriously depleted.

Canada's Seal Hunt: "Unacceptably Inhumane"

"The Canadian government insists that the seal hunt is an animal production industry like any other. They say that it might not be pretty, but basically it is just like any abattoir except on the ice. But we found obvious levels of suffering which would not be tolerated in any other animal industry in the world."

Two separate veterinary reports that studied the 2001 seal hunt, one commissioned by the Canadian government, show numerous instances where animals were clubbed or shot and not rendered immediately unconscious.

Together, the two reports also document that a number of animals each year are hooked and dragged across the ice while still conscious and some of these are still alive by the time they reach the decks of sealing vessels.

Here’s what one such international team of five independent veterinarians found:

79% of the sealers did not check to see if an animal was dead before skinning it.
In 40% of the kills a sealer had to strike the seal a second time, presumably because it was still conscious after the first blow or shot.
42% of killed seals examined were found to have minimal or no fractures, suggesting a high probability that these seals were conscious when skinned.
The veterinarian team concluded that the existing regulations were neither being respected nor enforced, and that the seal hunt is resulting in considerable and unacceptable suffering.

Source: IFAW

Um, I didn't say anything about how humane the hunt was or not, I was pointing out that to my knowledge, the seal hunt was economically viable for newfoundland and labrador.

[NeedsREALfreedom]

Pretty soon it's not just going to be acceptable, it'll be necessary! You forget that prospects for the polar bear, one of the seal's most important predators, are not looking good. Global warming is shortening the life of the ice-sheets, leaving the polar-bear out of whack with it's environment.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Infinite911911 wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Seals may look fluffy, they however lack rights.


:gdgf: How does a seal lack rights? Does it not tremble before violence? Was it not born with the same rights to life as you were? All things fear death and all things love life thefranzkafkafront. See yourself in others for a change. Then whom can you hurt? What harm can you do?

Rights require a concious, you cannot philosophically state that a seal exists as a seperate entitiy from our own minds unless it has the ability to doubt.

Ability to feal pain dose not equate rights in a entity.

The main flaw in your argument is that conscious is not held by all Humans. You state that only Humans have rights because only they are conscious, when in fact you are very wrong. Children, the mentally disable and people in comas have no conscious or awareness of their environment and own existence. So are you saying those people lack rights? thefranzkafkafront, the basic right of life is given to everything at birth.

Then i shall draw my argument out futher.

When i say concious, i mean quite spesifically a nervous system capable of receiveing processing and most important systhesising emperical data and concepts to a level which allows the mechanism of doubt and thus allowing the entitity to justfy its own extance.
Thus to be meta-physically an entity and thus in possession of rights the organism must be able to invoke cartesan doubt.

You've just illustrated one of the main examples about innate knowledge, how can children idiots and the comatose doubt there own existance and thus be provided rights.

Indeed this raises a problem, however the affordatory element is not the use of the carteasan mechanism but instead the existance of the mechanism.

A man may go through his entire life never invoke any form of philosophical sceptisism, however he exists as an entity as should he so choose to at any time he can do so.

As for the comatose again not an easy obsicle, we must take that the person did at one time possess a working mechanism of doubt, being comatose there is no way its repair can be accurately predicted, so you should never repess this mans rights as you can never be sure that at any moment he would not awake and again be the posessor of them.

For the right of life being given to eveything at birth, if eveything 'alive' (a uselessly romatic term refering to nothing more than organic mollecules utilising bio-chemical pathways) has a right to life, how can you then justfy bleeching a toilet or eating a stake.

Rights are non-inferatory, if eveything has a right to life, how can we justfy the destruction or consumption of organic matter?


Egro, for something to be in possession of rights it must posses itself a concious capable of the mechanism of doubt.

[StrangerWitCandy]

letsgooilers wrote: To my knowledge, the seal hunt needs to happen, otherise the fishing stocks are serious depleleted. Which means a ton of people in newfoundland and labrador are screwed workwise. As best as I know, the seal hunt was actually stopped a while back, and they found the fish stocks seriously depleted.

so why do they need to kill the baby seals? don't get me wrong, i don't think they should be killing either babies or adults, because in the end they are not doing it for the supply of fish. they are doing it to make a profit. the fish thing sounds like an excuse to me. why do we need to play mother nature anyhow and intervene? what about the seals? what about when they become endangered from our mercilessly clubbing them?

[Carly]

letsgooilers wrote: Carly wrote: letsgooilers wrote: To my knowledge, the seal hunt needs to happen, otherise the fishing stocks are serious depleleted. Which means a ton of people in newfoundland and labrador are screwed workwise. As best as I know, the seal hunt was actually stopped a while back, and they found the fish stocks seriously depleted.

Canada's Seal Hunt: "Unacceptably Inhumane"

"The Canadian government insists that the seal hunt is an animal production industry like any other. They say that it might not be pretty, but basically it is just like any abattoir except on the ice. But we found obvious levels of suffering which would not be tolerated in any other animal industry in the world."

Two separate veterinary reports that studied the 2001 seal hunt, one commissioned by the Canadian government, show numerous instances where animals were clubbed or shot and not rendered immediately unconscious.

Together, the two reports also document that a number of animals each year are hooked and dragged across the ice while still conscious and some of these are still alive by the time they reach the decks of sealing vessels.

Here’s what one such international team of five independent veterinarians found:

79% of the sealers did not check to see if an animal was dead before skinning it.
In 40% of the kills a sealer had to strike the seal a second time, presumably because it was still conscious after the first blow or shot.
42% of killed seals examined were found to have minimal or no fractures, suggesting a high probability that these seals were conscious when skinned.
The veterinarian team concluded that the existing regulations were neither being respected nor enforced, and that the seal hunt is resulting in considerable and unacceptable suffering.

Source: IFAW

Um, I didn't say anything about how humane the hunt was or not, I was pointing out that to my knowledge, the seal hunt was economically viable for newfoundland and labrador.

I know, I apologise.

It's that it's so inhumane. And we're led to believe that the seals are evil, eatting everything, but it's really because different governments, including Canada's, was greedy, and raped the sea for fish. It's not the seals fault!

[letsgooilers]

Infinite911911 wrote: Carly wrote:

Canada's Seal Hunt: "Unacceptably Inhumane"



A picture is worth a thousand words:



Um, I'd like to point out the furry white ones cannot be hunted.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Carly wrote: letsgooilers wrote: Carly wrote: letsgooilers wrote: To my knowledge, the seal hunt needs to happen, otherise the fishing stocks are serious depleleted. Which means a ton of people in newfoundland and labrador are screwed workwise. As best as I know, the seal hunt was actually stopped a while back, and they found the fish stocks seriously depleted.

Canada's Seal Hunt: "Unacceptably Inhumane"

"The Canadian government insists that the seal hunt is an animal production industry like any other. They say that it might not be pretty, but basically it is just like any abattoir except on the ice. But we found obvious levels of suffering which would not be tolerated in any other animal industry in the world."

Two separate veterinary reports that studied the 2001 seal hunt, one commissioned by the Canadian government, show numerous instances where animals were clubbed or shot and not rendered immediately unconscious.

Together, the two reports also document that a number of animals each year are hooked and dragged across the ice while still conscious and some of these are still alive by the time they reach the decks of sealing vessels.

Here’s what one such international team of five independent veterinarians found:

79% of the sealers did not check to see if an animal was dead before skinning it.
In 40% of the kills a sealer had to strike the seal a second time, presumably because it was still conscious after the first blow or shot.
42% of killed seals examined were found to have minimal or no fractures, suggesting a high probability that these seals were conscious when skinned.
The veterinarian team concluded that the existing regulations were neither being respected nor enforced, and that the seal hunt is resulting in considerable and unacceptable suffering.

Source: IFAW

Um, I didn't say anything about how humane the hunt was or not, I was pointing out that to my knowledge, the seal hunt was economically viable for newfoundland and labrador.

I know, I apologise.

It's that it's so inhumane. And we're led to believe that the seals are evil, eatting everything, but it's really because different governments, including Canada's, was greedy, and raped the sea for fish. It's not the seals fault!

GOOD POINT. when the fish supply is in danger because of HUMANS hunting them, do we start clubbing those evil baby humans?

[letsgooilers]

Ok, i've got catch a bus to school, so i'll just drop off a link with a debate between Danny Williams and Paul McCartney on Larry King recently: Danny William versus Paul McCartney

while I really don't much care for Danny Williams 9/10, I think he's in the right here.

[Infinite911911]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: letsgooilers wrote: To my knowledge, the seal hunt needs to happen, otherise the fishing stocks are serious depleleted. Which means a ton of people in newfoundland and labrador are screwed workwise. As best as I know, the seal hunt was actually stopped a while back, and they found the fish stocks seriously depleted.

so why do they need to kill the baby seals? don't get me wrong, i don't think they should be killing either babies or adults, because in the end they are not doing it for the supply of fish. they are doing it to make a profit. the fish thing sounds like an excuse to me. why do we need to play mother nature anyhow and intervene? what about the seals? what about when they become endangered from our mercilessly clubbing them?


What I find funny is how Humans automatically assume those fish stocks are ours. Seals have been hunting there LONG before we ever existed and the fish and seal populations were fine. To quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "One must not forget that the fruits belong to all and that the land belongs to no one.”

[Carly]

Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: letsgooilers wrote: To my knowledge, the seal hunt needs to happen, otherise the fishing stocks are serious depleleted. Which means a ton of people in newfoundland and labrador are screwed workwise. As best as I know, the seal hunt was actually stopped a while back, and they found the fish stocks seriously depleted.

so why do they need to kill the baby seals? don't get me wrong, i don't think they should be killing either babies or adults, because in the end they are not doing it for the supply of fish. they are doing it to make a profit. the fish thing sounds like an excuse to me. why do we need to play mother nature anyhow and intervene? what about the seals? what about when they become endangered from our mercilessly clubbing them?

Excellent point. I was thinking about that, but was unable to articulate it.


What I find funny is how Humans automatically assume those fish stocks are ours. Seals have been hunting there LONG before we ever existed and the fish and seal populations were fine. To quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "One must not forget that the fruits belong to all and that the land belongs to no one.”

[Infinite911911]

letsgooilers wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: Carly wrote:

Canada's Seal Hunt: "Unacceptably Inhumane"



A picture is worth a thousand words:



Um, I'd like to point out the furry white ones cannot be hunted.

I'd like to point out that seals less then 15 days old can not be hunted but seals less then 3 months old can. At that age most still have the whiter look.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: letsgooilers wrote: To my knowledge, the seal hunt needs to happen, otherise the fishing stocks are serious depleleted. Which means a ton of people in newfoundland and labrador are screwed workwise. As best as I know, the seal hunt was actually stopped a while back, and they found the fish stocks seriously depleted.

so why do they need to kill the baby seals? don't get me wrong, i don't think they should be killing either babies or adults, because in the end they are not doing it for the supply of fish. they are doing it to make a profit. the fish thing sounds like an excuse to me. why do we need to play mother nature anyhow and intervene? what about the seals? what about when they become endangered from our mercilessly clubbing them?


What I find funny is how Humans automatically assume those fish stocks are ours. Seals have been hunting there LONG before we ever existed and the fish and seal populations were fine. To quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "One must not forget that the fruits belong to all and that the land belongs to no one.”

I agree. Again its our egocentric view that every resource in the world automatically belongs to us. But I still can't help but feel the "fish supply" arguement is just an excuse. Conveniently when these good samaritans are clubbing baby seals to preserve the fish supply, they also get to make a nice profit from it by selling their skins for fashion. Perhaps humans are a big reason there isn't a huge fish supply? But no, we're running out of fish so that means we gotta club some greedy fish-hungry baby seals. I mean its obviously the only right thing to do... and how rude of them to eat our fish anyways. They should eat snow and deal with the hunger.

[Carly]

Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: letsgooilers wrote: To my knowledge, the seal hunt needs to happen, otherise the fishing stocks are serious depleleted. Which means a ton of people in newfoundland and labrador are screwed workwise. As best as I know, the seal hunt was actually stopped a while back, and they found the fish stocks seriously depleted.

so why do they need to kill the baby seals? don't get me wrong, i don't think they should be killing either babies or adults, because in the end they are not doing it for the supply of fish. they are doing it to make a profit. the fish thing sounds like an excuse to me. why do we need to play mother nature anyhow and intervene? what about the seals? what about when they become endangered from our mercilessly clubbing them?


What I find funny is how Humans automatically assume those fish stocks are ours. Seals have been hunting there LONG before we ever existed and the fish and seal populations were fine. To quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "One must not forget that the fruits belong to all and that the land belongs to no one.”

OOPS. I messed up on the quote.

THIS is what I was thanking you for articulating what I couldn't

:-/

[Infinite911911]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: letsgooilers wrote: To my knowledge, the seal hunt needs to happen, otherise the fishing stocks are serious depleleted. Which means a ton of people in newfoundland and labrador are screwed workwise. As best as I know, the seal hunt was actually stopped a while back, and they found the fish stocks seriously depleted.

so why do they need to kill the baby seals? don't get me wrong, i don't think they should be killing either babies or adults, because in the end they are not doing it for the supply of fish. they are doing it to make a profit. the fish thing sounds like an excuse to me. why do we need to play mother nature anyhow and intervene? what about the seals? what about when they become endangered from our mercilessly clubbing them?


What I find funny is how Humans automatically assume those fish stocks are ours. Seals have been hunting there LONG before we ever existed and the fish and seal populations were fine. To quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "One must not forget that the fruits belong to all and that the land belongs to no one.”

I agree. Again its our egocentric view that every resource in the world automatically belongs to us. But I still can't help but feel the "fish supply" arguement is just an excuse. Conveniently when these good samaritans are clubbing baby seals to preserve the fish supply, they also get to make a nice profit from it by selling their skins for fashion. Perhaps humans are a big reason there isn't a huge fish supply? But no, we're running out of fish so that means we gotta club some greedy fish-hungry baby seals. I mean its obviously the only right thing to do... and how rude of them to eat our fish anyways. They should eat snow and deal with the hunger.

Sad isn't it. Overfishing isn't the problem but Seals are. :gdgf:

[Kumar]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Rohit wrote: Hm, I find the the marking of hundreds of thousands of humans for death in Africa more deserving of outrage. But there again is the twisted worldview of animal rights activists, seals=humans in importance. Whatever. :roll:

why can't both be deserving of outrage? what does mentioning one have to do with the other? there is room in cyberspace for more than one thread
Um, the comment was not confined to simply this thread.