PDA

View Full Version : in Canada it's about to be started the seal hunting season


tennislover
Mar 20th, 2006, 06:37 PM
http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2006/03_Marzo/20/FOCA.jpg
up to 325,000 of those adorable creatures will be allowed to be killed

:sad: :sad: :sad:

CondiLicious
Mar 20th, 2006, 06:40 PM
http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2006/03_Marzo/20/FOCA.jpg
up to 325,000 of those adorable creatures will be allowed to be killed

:sad: :sad: :sad:

It's a vile practice. At least you posted a "before" pic and not an "after" pic of the poor thing having his brains smushed to pieces.

ToeTag
Mar 20th, 2006, 06:51 PM
:o :o :o

I don't get why they have to be clubbed to death? If they did it, say, with a shotgun blast to the head, I don't think there would be such a controversy.

Dementinator
Mar 20th, 2006, 06:55 PM
And we are supposed to live in a civilised world? yeah right!

mandy7
Mar 20th, 2006, 06:57 PM
there will be a day where i'll get myself a club and start clubbing the hunters to death

drake3781
Mar 20th, 2006, 07:25 PM
:o :o :o

I don't get why they have to be clubbed to death? If they did it, say, with a shotgun blast to the head, I don't think there would be such a controversy.

Many are shot too. The club is another way. A group of two hunters will approach a group of babies and either shoot or club the entire group. As they die the hunters will either skin them on the spot, often before they are quite dead, and leave their bodies. Or they will hook them up and drag them to a central location or onto the boat where they are skinned and their oils are taken.

The mothers have left to eat, after weaning the babies and eating no food themselves during this period. The mothers return to find this carnage and of course, no babies. Pictures can be found at links I have previously posted. I may post them here later.

BTW there is a poster called blerr here who will defend this practice. He claims it is not cruel and he knows this because his parents have seen this first hand and they have told him.

CondiLicious
Mar 20th, 2006, 07:59 PM
BTW there is a poster called blerr here who will defend this practice. He claims it is not cruel and he knows this because his parents have seen this first hand and they have told him.

My mother once told me to eat the crust on bread because it would make my hair curl. So I did and my hair is straight :sad:

Pheobo
Mar 20th, 2006, 08:08 PM
It's a horrible practice, but on the other hand some people need to sell the pelts to live. It's hard to judge this kind of thing when you don't live the same lives as these people.

Helen Lawson
Mar 20th, 2006, 08:12 PM
My mother once told me to eat the crust on bread because it would make my hair curl. So I did and my hair is straight :sad:

My mother once told me you can always smell it on a girl who sells it.

Funny what mothers tell their daughters! :lol:

Paldias
Mar 20th, 2006, 09:20 PM
http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2006/03_Marzo/20/FOCA.jpg
up to 325,000 of those adorable creatures will be allowed to be killed

:sad: :sad: :sad:

Way to distort the information. You're just like Paul McCartney and his wife. Clearly misinformed. My god, how off the bar can you be? 90% of all seals killed in Canada are shot not clubbed. Get your facts straight. If they did not depopulate the seals there would be overpopulation and less of everything. Following through with this MUST be done. I mean jesus I'm the most Liberal person ever but for christ's sake!

drake3781
Mar 20th, 2006, 09:24 PM
Way to distort the information. You're just like Paul McCartney and his wife. Clearly misinformed. My god, how off the bar can you be? 90% of all seals killed in Canada are shot not clubbed. Get your facts straight. If they did not depopulate the seals there would be overpopulation and less of everything. Following through with this MUST be done. I mean jesus I'm the most Liberal person ever but for christ's sake!

Somebody might possibly debate points with you, but not me. Look at how you express yourself and how you treat other people and their opinions.

Paldias
Mar 20th, 2006, 09:30 PM
Somebody might possibly debate points with you, but not me. Look at how you express yourself and how you treat other people and their opinions.

I'm sorry but there have been a countless number of people (including people in this thread) who are misinformed and keep blaming Danny Williams (the premier of Newfoundland & Labrador) for this 'crime'. 90% of all seals killed in Canada are shot, not clubbed. Why it's not 100%, I don't know but the fact is it's not all clubbing. And if you're against the whole process of it then you don't understand how an ecosystem works. The seals will overpopulate, eat all the fish leading to more havoc in the Newfoundland economy and not to mention the food chain.

drake3781
Mar 20th, 2006, 09:39 PM
I'm sorry but there have been a countless number of people (including people in this thread) who are misinformed and keep blaming Danny Williams (the premier of Newfoundland & Labrador) for this 'crime'. 90% of all seals killed in Canada are shot, not clubbed. Why it's not 100%, I don't know but the fact is it's not all clubbing. And if you're against the whole process of it then you don't understand how an ecosystem works. The seals will overpopulate, eat all the fish leading to more havoc in the Newfoundland economy and not to mention the food chain.

OK I disagree with you but at least you are writing in a civilized way. That was my point, you sounded very angry and ugly in what you wrote before.

What would you recommend if you personally had power to make the decisions? Any changes or let it happen as it will? Possible things to consider:
- number of animals allowed to be slaughtered,
- how the profits to the humans are distributed and any limits to profits or rules on who gets what,
- how the animals can be killed
- rules, if any, on checking each animal for death before skinning, and requiring them to be killed and handled instantly instead of wounded and left to die or fall through the ice and drown.
- how the skinned bodies should be disposed of (taken away or left for the mothers to find when returning).
- monitoring by veterinarians and humane associations
- other

416_Man
Mar 20th, 2006, 09:42 PM
I'm sorry but there have been a countless number of people (including people in this thread) who are misinformed and keep blaming Danny Williams (the premier of Newfoundland & Labrador) for this 'crime'. 90% of all seals killed in Canada are shot, not clubbed. Why it's not 100%, I don't know but the fact is it's not all clubbing. And if you're against the whole process of it then you don't understand how an ecosystem works. The seals will overpopulate, eat all the fish leading to more havoc in the Newfoundland economy and not to mention the food chain.

I saw that interview on CNN (I think) where they basically tried to eat Danny Williams alive. Yes, it's unfortunate that animals have to be killed. But if anyother country in the world would like to give money to the (MAJORLY) depressed Newfoundland economy, then you are more than welcome to. That way, no animals would have to be hurt and the Newfies would be happy too, otherwise stop moaning.

azdaja
Mar 20th, 2006, 09:46 PM
i'm afraid some people don't realise that we have to kill some animals if only because we nearly exterminated their natural enemies. it may sound cruel, but in some cases it's necessary. in some other cases it should be avoided, though. each way, it has little to do with how sweet the animals themselves look.

Scotso
Mar 20th, 2006, 09:46 PM
It's a horrible practice, but on the other hand some people need to sell the pelts to live. It's hard to judge this kind of thing when you don't live the same lives as these people.

Sensible post.

What would happen if hunting them wasn't allowed? Would the population get out of control? Would there not be enough food for them all, so that they would starve? Would they cause extinction of their prey be overhunting themselves? Would we wake up with a family of seals in our backyards?

I mean, I don't know the answers to these questions... but I do know that here in Virginia, if people didn't hunt deer the population would explode. Granted that's our ancestors fault for killing off their predators, but still, it has to be done.

dementieva's fan
Mar 20th, 2006, 09:52 PM
I saw that interview on CNN (I think) where they basically tried to eat Danny Williams alive. Yes, it's unfortunate that animals have to be killed. But if anyother country in the world would like to give money to the (MAJORLY) depressed Newfoundland economy, then you are more than welcome to. That way, no animals would have to be hurt and the Newfies would be happy too, otherwise stop moaning.
:yeah:

Mattographer
Mar 20th, 2006, 09:57 PM
This is only one thing I don't like about Canada. I always want to kill these hunters since I was little boy :armed:

Mattographer
Mar 20th, 2006, 09:59 PM
I'm sorry but there have been a countless number of people (including people in this thread) who are misinformed and keep blaming Danny Williams (the premier of Newfoundland & Labrador) for this 'crime'. 90% of all seals killed in Canada are shot, not clubbed. Why it's not 100%, I don't know but the fact is it's not all clubbing. And if you're against the whole process of it then you don't understand how an ecosystem works. The seals will overpopulate, eat all the fish leading to more havoc in the Newfoundland economy and not to mention the food chain.
That basically said they killing those seals just because of economy? :tape: It's still crime, anyway.

dementieva's fan
Mar 20th, 2006, 10:00 PM
Liberal senator's reply to the Minnesota family
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060317/seal_hunt_060317/20060317?hub=Canada
Canada's annual seal hunt pales in comparison to the slaughter of innocent Iraqis at the hands of the U.S., according to a Liberal senator who defended the hunt to an American family.

Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette penned a terse response to the McLellans, suggesting they should be more concerned about their own government's treatment of Iraqis.

She didn't limit her comments to the war, however, pointing out that the true crimes being committed in the world are "the daily massacre of innocent people in Iraq, the execution of prisoners -- mainly blacks -- in American prisons, the massive sale of handguns to Americans, the destabilization of the entire world by the American government's aggressive foreign policy, etc."

Hervieux-Payette told Montreal's La Presse that Americans should worry about their own country's behaviour before pointing fingers at other nations.

She sent a copy of her blunt response to other senators, and told La Presse: "all senators received the letter from the McLellans and I was the only one to respond."

"This activity allows the livelihoods of our people in a region where they have been living for centuries," she wrote.

She has a point, McCartney and the gang should try to protest against the mess that their country has created before coming to canada

drake3781
Mar 20th, 2006, 10:01 PM
Sensible post.

What would happen if hunting them wasn't allowed? Would the population get out of control? Would there not be enough food for them all, so that they would starve? Would they cause extinction of their prey be overhunting themselves? Would we wake up with a family of seals in our backyards?

I mean, I don't know the answers to these questions... but I do know that here in Virginia, if people didn't hunt deer the population would explode. Granted that's our ancestors fault for killing off their predators, but still, it has to be done.

Some animals naturally limit their popualation based on the environment. So if we didn't kill them, in time they would naturally regulate their breeding to fit the land and resources available to them.

The ecology of seals in Newfoundland cannot be anywhere near as bad as deer in Virginia. Woodlands and farmlands in the US are being rapidly converted to housing developments, highways, and strip malls. What's going on in the ecology of arctic areas that would cause over 300,000 extra births than required each year? Somehow I don't believe that this many animals (if any) need to be managed by man.

To the people who support this, a question: IF it were established that the "need to kill them to manage their poplulation" argument was proved to be unfounded (not saying it is, just "IF"), then would you still support the hunt for other reasons, or would you change your opinion?

And MTFan, this is not addressed to you personally, I just launced by quoting your text.

drake3781
Mar 20th, 2006, 10:06 PM
Liberal senator's reply to the Minnesota family
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060317/seal_hunt_060317/20060317?hub=Canada

She has a point, McCartney and the gang should try to protest against the mess that their country has created before coming to canada


This type of argument occurs FREQUENTLY on many topics here on WTF. Rather than debating the points and details of an issue, somebody will present another topic that is entirely unrelated, and say, well, party A has no right to argue this point because of their stance on this other topic.

I haven't taken a philosphy or debating or logic course for a long time, but surely there is a name for this type of argument and it is taught that it should not be used, right? (Anybody in school who can answer this?)

Gerri
Mar 20th, 2006, 10:06 PM
I don't get the argument of butchering thousands of animals to control the population. The food chain existed for millions of years before we appeared. The food chain would be fine if we stopped slaughtering everything around us.

smarties
Mar 20th, 2006, 10:12 PM
The picture posted represents a baby seal and the hunting of baby seals or ''blanchons'' (sorry I only know the term in french) is prohibited by law since 1987.

Wiggly
Mar 20th, 2006, 10:17 PM
They killed seasl when they are like grey or older. Still bad tought.

But some countries killed that much of HUMANS and they are less critized :o

drake3781
Mar 20th, 2006, 10:30 PM
The picture posted represents a baby seal and the hunting of baby seals or ''blanchons'' (sorry I only know the term in french) is prohibited by law since 1987.


Oh REALLY? I have just been reading about this, and to my understanding it IS the babies that are killed. They are going after their pure white coats at a specific age (right before "molting" I think) and right when the mothers have left the babies immediately after they are weaned, so the mothers can get some food. (the mothers have not eaten during the three-week weaining time).

This is to supply the fur (pelts) for clothing uses. It takes many seals' lives to make a single coat (I'll get a figure but its at least 10-20.)

Now I will go check this, as what you write is quite different. Back in a while! You are saying that the hunting of the baby fur seals pictured is not going to be done and has not since 1987?

CondiLicious
Mar 20th, 2006, 11:03 PM
i'm afraid some people don't realise that we have to kill some animals if only because we nearly exterminated their natural enemies. it may sound cruel, but in some cases it's necessary. in some other cases it should be avoided, though. each way, it has little to do with how sweet the animals themselves look.

But they should be culled in a humane way. Not a barbaric, disgusting way such as this:

http://www.harpseals.org/gallery/mpegs/hunteryellowjacket.jpg

http://www.harpseals.org/gallery/stills/folder2/skinninglarge.jpg

http://www.harpseals.org/gallery/stills/folder2/fieldofsorrowlarge.jpg


It's the same with the fox hunting debate... Living close to the countryside I know that foxes can be a nuisance but hunt them by shooting them in the head... killing them instantly... Don't chase them until they are exhausted and then let a bunch of dogs rip them to shreds. It's evil.


Maybe 90% of seals are shot and killed humanely but the 10% that aren't makes the whole practise something to be ashamed of imo.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Mar 20th, 2006, 11:21 PM
:sad:

dementieva's fan
Mar 20th, 2006, 11:22 PM
Some animals naturally limit their popualation based on the environment. So if we didn't kill them, in time they would naturally regulate their breeding to fit the land and resources available to them.

The ecology of seals in Newfoundland cannot be anywhere near as bad as deer in Virginia. Woodlands and farmlands in the US are being rapidly converted to housing developments, highways, and strip malls. What's going on in the ecology of arctic areas that would cause over 300,000 extra births than required each year? Somehow I don't believe that this many animals (if any) need to be managed by man.

To the people who support this, a question: IF it were established that the "need to kill them to manage their poplulation" argument was proved to be unfounded (not saying it is, just "IF"), then would you still support the hunt for other reasons, or would you change your opinion?

And MTFan, this is not addressed to you personally, I just launced by quoting your text.

Do you have any problem when you eat chicken? Do you have any problem when you eat pork, beef or fish? Do you have a problem you squish a mosquito? Do you have a problem when pesticides are sprayed in the fields to kill the rodents? NO. How are seals any different?
(This is not paticularly directed at you but all those argueing for banning this seal hunt)

dementieva's fan
Mar 20th, 2006, 11:28 PM
That basically said they killing those seals just because of economy? :tape: It's still crime, anyway.

Killing seals to support people in an area is still better than killing people to steal oil :tape:.

CondiLicious
Mar 20th, 2006, 11:33 PM
Killing seals to support people in an ares is still better than killing people to steal oil :tape:

:rolleyes:

drake3781
Mar 20th, 2006, 11:38 PM
Do you have any problem when you eat chicken? Do you have any problem when you eat pork, beef or fish? Do you have a problem you squish a mosquito? Do you have a problem when pesticides are sprayed in the fields to kill the rodents? NO. How are seals any different?
(This is not paticularly directed at you but all those argueing for banning this seal hunt)

I don't eat chicken. I don't eat pork. I don't eat beef.
I do kill fish and mosquitos. I would argue they are different, and woud work to convince you if I thought there was a value (my time is kind of limited but if you want to convince me you really think they are the same, and need to be shown why not I might make the effort).

416_Man
Mar 20th, 2006, 11:38 PM
Killing seals to support people in an area is still better than killing people to steal oil :tape:.

:worship:

drake3781
Mar 20th, 2006, 11:41 PM
Killing seals to support people in an area is still better than killing people to steal oil :tape:.

It's different. It may be better, worse, or equal. I can list 500 other things that are better, worse, or equal. Does that mean this topic should not be discussed? Why does this type of "logic" keep coming up in discussions?

416_Man
Mar 20th, 2006, 11:46 PM
It's different. It may be better, worse, or equal. I can list 500 other things that are better, worse, or equal. Does that mean this topic should not be discussed? Why does this type of "logic" keep coming up in discussions?

Buddy, unfortunately kissing puppiedogs to sleep and dancing around campfires singing Kumbayah doesn't pay the bills. In this world, money is the only thing that ensures your economy and lifestyle can survive. If you'd rather sacrifice your state of living for the benefit of the animals, I would NEVER eat any form of animal anymore (fish or not), and close your computer, becasue I'm sure your provider had to kill a few beaver dams in the process.

drake3781
Mar 20th, 2006, 11:53 PM
Buddy, unfortunately kissing puppiedogs to sleep and dancing around campfires singing Kumbayah doesn't pay the bills. In this world, money is the only thing that ensures your economy and lifestyle can survive. If you'd rather sacrifice your state of living for the benefit of the animals, I would NEVER eat any form of animal anymore (fish or not), and close your computer, becasue I'm sure your provider had to kill a few beaver dams in the process.

Are you saying if ANY animal has to die to provide some service I use then I must agree that ALL slaughter of ALL animals is acceptable?

Not arguing for or against that point right now, just clarifying what you wrote.

dementieva's fan
Mar 20th, 2006, 11:55 PM
I don't eat chicken. I don't eat pork. I don't eat beef.
I do kill fish and mosquitos. I would argue they are different, and woud work to convince you if I thought there was a value (my time is kind of limited but if you want to convince me you really think they are the same, and need to be shown why not I might make the effort).
I cant see why you find seals different from fish? :confused: Is about the cuteness for you as it is for the person who started this thread?

OK, you care about seals so much, we will abolish the seal hunts once we start getting money from an american tax-payer into the pockets of the people of NFL and Labrador. You guys care about the seals so much, you guys should'nt have a problem paying some money for their safety, right? :shrug:

dementieva's fan
Mar 20th, 2006, 11:58 PM
Are you saying if ANY animal has to die to provide some service I use then I must agree that ALL slaughter of ALL animals is acceptable?

The "slaughter" of that animal which does not provides any service to you or does not effect you in any way provides for the services that people in another region get.

416_Man
Mar 21st, 2006, 12:03 AM
Are you saying if ANY animal has to die to provide some service I use then I must agree that ALL slaughter of ALL animals is acceptable?

Not arguing for or against that point right now, just clarifying what you wrote.

No I'm just saying that you should tell a poor Newfoundland family that you have to plant a money tree because without this industry you have no money, and will have to move somewhere us to have a living. Go for it, and see how suddenly you're hurting the people, rather than the animal.

meyerpl
Mar 21st, 2006, 12:06 AM
Buddy, unfortunately kissing puppiedogs to sleep and dancing around campfires singing Kumbayah doesn't pay the bills. In this world, money is the only thing that ensures your economy and lifestyle can survive. If you'd rather sacrifice your state of living for the benefit of the animals, I would NEVER eat any form of animal anymore (fish or not), and close your computer, becasue I'm sure your provider had to kill a few beaver dams in the process.
Aren't you being a bit condescending? Your insults aren't necessary to make your point, in fact they detract from your point and discredit you.

I understand that people in northern Canada feel like they're unjustly under attack when people cry out about the seal hunt. I understand that Canadians tend to think it's hypocritical of people to express such outrage about something going on thousands of miles away from them, something that has been taking place for countless generations, while what's going on in the slaughterhouses and/or the coorporate farms down the road is equally, if not more cruel.

This is a tough issue for me. I hate the thought of what's taking place during the seal slaughter, or harvest, depending upon your perspective. I also understand that to eliminate it would have devastating effects on a lot of people, including indigenous people with a dependency on the seals dating back thousands of years. I don't much buy the population management argument much in this case, but admit that I don't have enough information to formulate an informed opinion.

It's an emotional issue for everyone, but all you do is fuel people's emotions and weaken your position by deriding your opponents as you do in your post.

416_Man
Mar 21st, 2006, 12:15 AM
Aren't you being a bit condescending? Your insults aren't necessary to make your point, in fact they detract from your point and discredit you.

*death*

Yes, I'm a hairy buttock. All I'm good at is spewing shit.

On a lighter note, I find sarcasm requisite (my big word of the day) for furthering an argument. If you don't appreciate it, you can lick my hairy ass- that's a lie, it's not that hairy.

That's a joke :). Unlike many people on this board, I've been to Newfoundland, and I have family there (yes, I don't tell many people that). However, I value a human's life over an animal's. If that makes me Satan, then lick my trident, bitch. But that's strictly my condescending, detractive, discreditied opinion.

meyerpl
Mar 21st, 2006, 12:17 AM
*death*

Yes, I'm a hairy buttock. All I'm good at is spewing shit.

On a lighter note, I find sarcasm requisite (my big word of the day) for furthering an argument. If you don't appreciate it, you can lick my hairy ass- that's a lie, it's not that hairy.

That's a joke :). Unlike many people on this board, I've been to Newfoundland, and I have family there (yes, I don't tell many people that). However, I value a human's life over an animal's. If that makes me Satan, then lick my trident, bitch. But that's strictly my condescending, detractive, discreditied opinion.
MUCH better.

416_Man
Mar 21st, 2006, 12:19 AM
MUCH better.

Thank you, God. :)

And I thought you only existed in the movies. :hearts:

meyerpl
Mar 21st, 2006, 12:21 AM
Thank you, God. :)

And I thought you only existed in the movies. :hearts:
By the way, you called a woman "buddy" and a man "bitch". Looks like somebody needs to get out more. You've been cooped-up during that long Canadian winter so long you've forgotten the basics.

416_Man
Mar 21st, 2006, 12:30 AM
By the way, you called a woman "buddy" and a man "bitch". Looks like somebody needs to get out more. You've been cooped-up during that long Canadian winter so long you've forgotten the basics.

You know, it's tough living in my igloo in Toronto. :tape:

hablo
Mar 21st, 2006, 12:35 AM
You know, it's tough living in my igloo in Toronto. :tape:
yes, we have lovely igloos in Toronto ! :haha::tape:

meyerpl
Mar 21st, 2006, 02:14 AM
You know, it's tough living in my igloo in Toronto. :tape:
Get a life? Get a sense of humor, girl.

dementieva's fan
Mar 21st, 2006, 02:40 AM
You know, it's tough living in my igloo in Toronto. :tape:
:haha:

Solitaire
Mar 21st, 2006, 03:36 AM
A progressive Canada :tape:

Scotso
Mar 21st, 2006, 03:46 AM
Some animals naturally limit their popualation based on the environment.

By this logic, wouldn't they breed more since they're being hunted?

Scotso
Mar 21st, 2006, 03:47 AM
This is only one thing I don't like about Canada. I always want to kill these hunters since I was little boy :armed:

They kill seals... so you kill them. Yeah, that makes sense.

Moron.

Scotso
Mar 21st, 2006, 03:49 AM
It has to be said... the only reason people give a damn about this is because they're cute.

hablo
Mar 21st, 2006, 03:55 AM
It has to be said... the only reason people give a damn about this is because they're cute.
I agree.

drake3781
Mar 21st, 2006, 04:25 AM
It has to be said... the only reason people give a damn about this is because they're cute.

I hate it when people list my reasons for me, make them simplistic, and get them wrong. Happens a lot around here.

meyerpl
Mar 21st, 2006, 04:34 AM
I hate it when people list my reasons for me, make them simplistic, and get them wrong. Happens a lot around here.
You're only saying that because............. :lol:

Just kidding. Obviously, it's an issue that deserves more thought and consideration than many people are willing or able to give it. Too many folks would rather just resort to slinging barbs at each other. I believe I'll sleep on it. :yawn: Good night boys and girls.

Scotso
Mar 21st, 2006, 04:39 AM
Sorry, drake, but it's mostly true. There have been tons of threads about the poor seals on this forum in the last year, but I haven't seen many people crying about whaling or about the deaths of chickens. I haven't seen people worrying about the number of cows that are slaughtered for meat.

You might be an exception, but the "cute and cuddly" syndrome is well known in the animal agricultural industry.

Scotso
Mar 21st, 2006, 04:40 AM
I also wonder how many people lobbying here for an end to this practice have leather seats in their cars or use animal byproducts.

Reuchlin
Mar 21st, 2006, 04:59 AM
did anyone hear about the greyhound rabbit hunting in the US?-- horrible!

Grachka
Mar 21st, 2006, 06:36 AM
I don't eat chicken. I don't eat pork. I don't eat beef.
I do kill fish and mosquitos. I would argue they are different, and woud work to convince you if I thought there was a value (my time is kind of limited but if you want to convince me you really think they are the same, and need to be shown why not I might make the effort).
Re: Vegetarians that eat fish. The only conclusive evidence in the debate over whether fish feel pain was done at the Roslin Institute down the road from me a couple of years ago. The results showed that fish had pain receptors in their head and face just as birds and mammals do, and that hurt fish had an adverse reaction in their behaviour as opposed to normal fish. This is proof that they feel pain, rather than just the presence of these sensory cells. Angling can hardly be described as a humane way of killing (I'm presuming this is how could kill your fish), given most involve goring the mouth, and subsequently dragging it out by it's mouth, which has been proved to be full of pain receptors. The fish then suffocates or is clubbed to death (the latter sounds familiar ;))

I bring this up because this is the main reason fish are given as 'different'. I'm always skeptical about vegetarians that use this as the excuse for eating fish as opposed to eating various others meats, because it's just not true. I assume this includes you as, given what you've said in this thread and the one about the PETA advert, it seems you are a vegetarian on protest of inethical slaughter of animals. On these grounds, that should include fish.

P.S. I talk as a vegetarian of seven years, who didn't eat fish.

azdaja
Mar 21st, 2006, 10:22 AM
I don't get the argument of butchering thousands of animals to control the population. The food chain existed for millions of years before we appeared. The food chain would be fine if we stopped slaughtering everything around us.
we disrupted the food chain long time ago by becoming the dominant species. some natural enemies of certain animals were decimated and we are the only ones who can control their numbers now.

But they should be culled in a humane way. Not a barbaric, disgusting way such as this:
i kind of agree with this, but i think that graphic images like this are used by those who want to abolish the practice entirely. the fox hunting thing on the other hand was clearly very ugly and unnecessary, yes.

Killing seals to support people in an area is still better than killing people to steal oil :tape:.
this is true, of course. humans >> animals

CooCooCachoo
Mar 21st, 2006, 10:53 AM
I'm sorry but there have been a countless number of people (including people in this thread) who are misinformed and keep blaming Danny Williams (the premier of Newfoundland & Labrador) for this 'crime'. 90% of all seals killed in Canada are shot, not clubbed. Why it's not 100%, I don't know but the fact is it's not all clubbing. And if you're against the whole process of it then you don't understand how an ecosystem works. The seals will overpopulate, eat all the fish leading to more havoc in the Newfoundland economy and not to mention the food chain.

I think he or she clearly does understand how an ecosystem works. An ecosystem is not linked to the economy of some region. In essence, overpopulation can be a part of an ecosystem and the way it maintains itself. It continuously evolves. Changes in biodiversity are natural. Or at least, some of them are.

It is man that finds this overpopulation a problem, for it ruins the economy of the area. I understand why this is done, but don't bring up an ecosystem argument in here because that is plain rubbish.

Andy.
Mar 21st, 2006, 11:25 AM
:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

azdaja
Mar 21st, 2006, 11:34 AM
Some animals naturally limit their popualation based on the environment. So if we didn't kill them, in time they would naturally regulate their breeding to fit the land and resources available to them.

i heard seals don't have a concept "family planning".

drake3781
Mar 21st, 2006, 05:22 PM
So many people support the seal hunt.
And don't believe I have a right to protest it.
Interesting.
I want my own planet.

drake3781
Mar 21st, 2006, 06:08 PM
The picture posted represents a baby seal and the hunting of baby seals or ''blanchons'' (sorry I only know the term in french) is prohibited by law since 1987.

OK I have checked this and the whitecoat seal hunt was re-introduced in 1996.

Are Seals Overpopulated?
No. The Canadian government and sealing industry have, at various times, tried to claim that the harp seal population has "tripled" over the past three decades, or that the harp seal population is "exploding," or that seals are overpopulated.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The harp seal population in the Northwest Atlantic is the world's largest—it is supposed to number in the many millions. This is a migratory population that spans the distance between Canada and Greenland.

In the 1950s and 1960s, over-hunting wiped out close to two-thirds of the harp seal population. By 1974, the population was considered to be in serious trouble, and senior government scientists recommended the commercial hunt be suspended for at least ten years.

In the early 1980s, the European Union banned the import of whitecoat seal skins, effectively removing the principal market for the hunt at the time. For the next decade, the numbers of seals killed in the hunt dramatically declined, and the harp seal population began to recover

However, according to the last survey conducted by the Canadian government in 1999, the harp seal population stopped recovering in 1996 (when the commercial seal hunt was reintroduced) and began to decline. With more than a million seal pups killed over the past three years alone, we can only wonder what the impact will be on the harp seal population over the coming years.

416_Man
Mar 21st, 2006, 07:27 PM
So many people support the seal hunt.
And don't believe I have a right to protest it.
Interesting.
I want my own planet.

I, like several others already, do not support the seal hunt. We support the occupation that many Newfoundlanders have. If they were killing seals or other animals,strictly for sport (a la Dick Cheney), then that would be entirely different. This isn't for fun, this is for food.

You have a right to protest it, the thing is, some disagree with what you're protesting. You're ignoring this as an industry, which is the only means of income for many families, besides crochet and curling :tape: :p . If you have a solution for these people PLEASE say it, because then everyone can be happy. If you don't, then there is to reason for the argument.

cometz9
Mar 21st, 2006, 07:31 PM
those poor seals :sad: where's PETA :mad:

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 21st, 2006, 07:45 PM
A bullet through the head is one thing, bludgeoning them to death is the definition of barbarism.

I don't give a toss if its only 10%, there is absolutely no excuse for the practice of seal clubbing. Sick f*ckers.

drake3781
Mar 21st, 2006, 08:03 PM
I, like several others already, do not support the seal hunt. We support the occupation that many Newfoundlanders have. If they were killing seals or other animals,strictly for sport (a la Dick Cheney), then that would be entirely different. This isn't for fun, this is for food.

You have a right to protest it, the thing is, some disagree with what you're protesting. You're ignoring this as an industry, which is the only means of income for many families, besides crochet and curling :tape: :p . If you have a solution for these people PLEASE say it, because then everyone can be happy. If you don't, then there is to reason for the argument.


I've been told I have no right to protest it because I come from a country that kills people, I kill fish, I kill mosqutos, and I'm not economically supporting the people of Newfoundland. Right?

I would love to participate in a finding a solution for this personally. I am capable of doing it, along with a team of specialists, including hunters. However I'm not equipped to out that team together, don't have the resources to support it, and don't have the authority to make the solution into law. And I have another job. Neverthelss, a solution can be found. These are not impossible problems. Raising objections and awareness is a step toward getting a solution. At this time I can work to raise awareness.

I don't mind the argument btw, but there is lot of attempt to shut up the other side instead of argue it. I've tried arguing on population, methods of slaughter; no answers, only smart alec remarks and people saying "well you have no right to argue because....."

To say you don't support the seal hunt but support the occupation... I don't get it. They are one and the same, aren't they? If you support this, you are responsible for over 300,000 mammal deaths this year alone. If that's what you support, fine, but please take ownership for it, say it loud, say it proud.

azdaja
Mar 21st, 2006, 08:11 PM
To say you don't support the seal hunt but support the occupation... I don't get it. They are one and the same, aren't they?
killing animals and killing humans is not the same.

as for your argument about the population, it is argued that the seal population in certain areas can get so big that it justifies culling. in certain other areas it's different. i'm not an expert on this, but this is what i found out about the topic. there are other animal species that need protection more urgently and i don't see why people concentrate so much on this issue (except for the problem of how they are killed, perhaps). seals are not really endangered presently.

hablo
Mar 21st, 2006, 08:14 PM
To say you don't support the seal hunt but support the occupation... I don't get it. They are one and the same, aren't they? If you support this, you are responsible for over 300,000 mammal deaths this year alone. If that's what you support, fine, but please take ownership for it, say it loud, say it proud.

how can you not get it ? She clearly explained her position in the part which I have bolded :shrug:

You have a right to protest it, the thing is, some disagree with what you're protesting. You're ignoring this as an industry, which is the only means of income for many families, besides crochet and curling . If you have a solution for these people PLEASE say it, because then everyone can be happy. If you don't, then there is to reason for the argument.

drake3781
Mar 21st, 2006, 08:16 PM
killing animals and killing humans is not the same.

as for your argument about the population, it is argued that the seal population in certain areas can get so big that it justifies culling. in certain other areas it's different. i'm not an expert on this, but this is what i found out about the topic. there are other animal species that need protection more urgently and i don't see why people concentrate so much on this issue (except for the problem of how they are killed, perhaps). seals are not really endangered presently.

I think he meant the occupation as in the "job" of hunting/killing/skinning/rendering/selling/etc. (Not occupation of Iraq if that's what you were thinking.)

smarties
Mar 21st, 2006, 08:17 PM
OK I have checked this and the whitecoat seal hunt was re-introduced in 1996.

check your sources... I think the Fisheries minister of Canada should know this...

''Since 1987 the killing of those seals has been banned, said Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, who suggested the real motive of many groups was not to protect the herd but to raise funds."We have people who are -- whether it be innocently, which I doubt, or deliberately -- passing messages which are saying this hunt is continuing as it did 20 years ago. That is completely and utterly false," he said on a conference call.''

azdaja
Mar 21st, 2006, 08:20 PM
I think he meant the occupation as in the "job" of hunting/killing/skinning/rendering/selling/etc. (Not occupation of Iraq if that's what you were thinking.)
ok, i did mean the occupation or iraq because comparisons to that were also made here. btw, are you 2 persons posting under the same username?

drake3781
Mar 21st, 2006, 08:21 PM
how can you not get it ? She clearly explained her position in the part which I have bolded :shrug:


Are you talking to me or to Man416? :confused:

Don't bother answering, if it's to me.... no offense, but I'm a bit tired of this. Some other people can take over here and make your statements; I've said my piece for now.

The hunt will go on no matter what I say or do; it's pointless anyway. However, I am truly shocked at many of the viewpoints and responses here...I learn something new every day about my fellow man. :tape:

hablo
Mar 21st, 2006, 08:26 PM
Are you talking to me or to Man416? :confused:

Don't bother answering, if it's to me.... no offense, but I'm a bit tired of this. Some other people can take over here and make your statements; I've said my piece for now.

The hunt will go on no matter what I say or do; it's pointless anyway. However, I am truly shocked at many of the viewpoints and responses here...I learn something new every day about my fellow man. :tape:
yeah, I was talking to you....

(you should just ignore my posts if you really don't a reply too :haha: )

I guess I won't be getting an answer to my post though :lol::tape:

you have to get used to other posters points of view though...just like I have to,for instance, when it comes to the anti-choice (abortion issue) :shrug:

Scotso
Mar 21st, 2006, 09:25 PM
The hunt will go on no matter what I say or do; it's pointless anyway.

You would make a poor activist with such a viewpoint. If you think it's wrong, then you should try to stop it.

We disagree, but I don't think that makes either of us bad people.

drake3781
Mar 21st, 2006, 10:44 PM
Please watch videos on this page. I could only watch the two on Windows Media Player.

http://www.stopthesealhunt.ca/site/pp.asp?c=dhKPI1PFIqE&b=437937

** I highly recommend the last one at the bottom of the page "March 2004 Day 3"; it is quite informative.

Don't worry that it's propaganda... these are all filmshoots of what is acutally happening, and you can turn off the woman's voice at the end if you don't want to hear what she has to say; but what you see is real.

This may not change anyone's mind; but let's take it out of the "theoretical" and into reality.

Oh and Smarties (I think your name is) all I can find is documentation that baby seals ARE being hunted now. I have "checked my sources" and see NOTHING to the contrary. The best reference I have is msnbc. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4738584/ "Canada banned the killing of whitecoat seal pups younger than 12 days and limited sealers to the use of small boats rather than large commercial vessels. "Hunters are not allowed to go after whitecoat seal pups younger than 12 days." In fact the hunting grounds are "seal nurseries" - the ice floes where the mammals give birth and prepare to mate before heading to the Arctic. "In both hunts, the seals are taken in the "whelping" areas where they born a few weeks earlier." Here's another: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/EDIT02/603200345/1090/EDIT "The hunt, the largest commercial slaughter of marine mammals in the world, targets seals as young as 12 days of age. In 2005, 98.5 percent of the seals killed were 2 months old or younger. They had no escape from the hunters." So after 12 days they are allowed to be killed. And finally, a Canadian news site http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060315/Seal_Hunt_060315/20060316?hub=CTVNewsAt11 "Canada has not permitted a whitecoat hunt since 1987, but the pups can be killed once they lose their white fur, which can happen as soon as about 12 days after they are born."
"The fact is that the seals that are being killed, 98 per cent of them, are between three weeks and three months of age."

I'm not sure if you were arguing about the number of days at which they can be killed. I concede that any pup 1-11 days cannot legally be killed. Do you concede that any pup 12 days or older can be, and that the vast majority are under three months old?

Also, see the video for film of babies killed.

Finally, each pelt is worth about $50. The oil is also rendered and sold. The "meat" is typically not used; it is left on the ice attached to the skeletons.

CondiLicious
Mar 21st, 2006, 10:54 PM
A bullet through the head is one thing, bludgeoning them to death is the definition of barbarism.

I don't give a toss if its only 10%, there is absolutely no excuse for the practice of seal clubbing. Sick f*ckers.

Yup!

dementieva's fan
Mar 21st, 2006, 11:07 PM
The hunt will go on no matter what I say or do; it's pointless anyway. However, I am truly shocked at many of the viewpoints and responses here...I learn something new every day about my fellow man. :tape:

You're shocked at what? That people value a human life more than that of a seal? Everyone values life of a human more than that of any animal. If you had 1 million dollars and your wife/husband was suffering from a deadly disease and there is a 5 % chance that you could save her/him if you give the doctors a million dollars on the other hand you have 500 seals whose life would be definately saved if you spend your millions bucks on them. Who would you save? You wife who has a 5% chance to live or those 500 seals? Ofcourse you will save your wife even if there was 1% chance that she could live. Does that make you a bad person? No. The hunters are also in a similar situtation the difference is just that you fail to see from their point of view.

Scotso
Mar 21st, 2006, 11:52 PM
Yes, the life of a human is worth more.

SelesFan70
Mar 22nd, 2006, 04:04 AM
A bullet through the head is one thing, bludgeoning them to death is the definition of barbarism.

I don't give a toss if its only 10%, there is absolutely no excuse for the practice of seal clubbing. Sick f*ckers.

:worship:

Crazy Canuck
Mar 22nd, 2006, 04:10 AM
A bullet through the head is one thing, bludgeoning them to death is the definition of barbarism.

I don't give a toss if its only 10%, there is absolutely no excuse for the practice of seal clubbing. Sick f*ckers.
Clubs are cheaper. I don't suppose that you'd like to provide the funding for better hunting equipment?

Scotso
Mar 22nd, 2006, 04:19 AM
And it's not like they're clubbing them to death with a bat. The club things have a sharp point on them to go into the animals brain, no? I don't see how that's any worse than a bullet.

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 22nd, 2006, 06:18 AM
As some studies have said, 20% of the world species will be extinct in a few centuries with or without our help.
We can go to the extremes and put animals rights over human rights which in Canada and America I have heard and seen. I find it a bit disturbing.
There was a story about a police dog that died in duty in Florida a few years back.
The dog was given the full scale funeral. Whatever you can think of for a human, it was done for this dog. It was front page news.
The same week a man died in a horrible accident.
He was given a paragraph in the same newspaper and was not able to get a proper funeral, his family couldn't afford it.
Noone made a point to help his family or help pay for a proper funeral.
It was ridiculous. It was sad. It was inhuman.
We can also go to the other extreme and make it our duty to exterminate these animals. That's a bit sick. Let nature take it's course, which it will with Darwinism.
We can only save species for a a couple of centuries before something will come up.
Many of the Tasmanian Devils are dieing of cancerous lesions which seem to be contagious.
All we can do is isolate the animals and hope.
Killing animals who really can't defend themselves is a barbaric action.
At the same time Canada's rate of murders by guns is one of the lowest in the world.
I don't do it but if the scientist find that these animals aren't on the endangered species list which I haven't seen yet, it's all play.


How about we try to save some animals that really really need our help.
The Iberian lynx for example.
We are losing our cats EVERYWHERE. Almost every species of cat is endangered.
The Florida Panther is basically gone. Bobcats & Cougars are next on the list.
We need to save our North America cats.

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 22nd, 2006, 05:18 PM
Clubs are cheaper. I don't suppose that you'd like to provide the funding for better hunting equipment?

Nope.

They can afford a rifle and a supply of bullets. I'm not suggesting they purchase helicopter gunships & laser-guided missiles.

Scotso
Mar 22nd, 2006, 06:55 PM
Nope.

They can afford a rifle and a supply of bullets. I'm not suggesting they purchase helicopter gunships & laser-guided missiles.

How do you know what they can afford?

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:09 PM
How do you know what they can afford?

Because I am the Oracle? :confused:


Don't be so ridiculous. They can afford the one-off purchase of a cheap but functioning rifle & then a yearly outlay on bullets.

If they can't, tough sh*t. They'll either have to make one or divest themselves from the annual seal massacre.

Scotso
Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:11 PM
Because I am the Oracle? :confused:


Don't be so ridiculous. They can afford the one-off purchase of a cheap but functioning rifle & then a yearly outlay on bullets.

If they can't, tough sh*t. They'll either have to make one or divest themselves from the annual seal massacre.

Do you mind me asking what your occupation is?

Grachka
Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:12 PM
Not many cultural relativists around these parts.

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:14 PM
Do you mind me asking what your occupation is?

Nope.

I'm a civil servant.

I'm feeling generous. If they can't afford a rifle they shall be given a VERY SMALL loan to purchase one.

Scotso
Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:15 PM
A civil servant.

But what exactly do you do?

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:18 PM
A civil servant.

But what exactly do you do?

I currently work on a 6 month contract in HR. That specific enough?!

Scotso
Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:19 PM
Are you a vegan?

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:21 PM
Are you a vegan?

Nope.

I can see where this is going.

I joyfully embrace hypocrisy.

Scotso
Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:23 PM
As long as you realize it. :p

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:26 PM
As long as you realize it. :p

Yup.

But I'm sticking to my guns...err...they should use guns.

drake3781
Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:50 PM
Do you mind me asking what your occupation is?

While you are playing your little word games (who is worthy?), please take 10 minues to see what is occurring. (Last video on the page.)

http://www.stopthesealhunt.ca/site/...1PFIqE&b=437937

Grachka
Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:56 PM
While you are playing your little word games (who is worthy?), please take 10 minues to see what is occurring. (Last video on the page.)

http://www.stopthesealhunt.ca/site/...1PFIqE&b=437937
I thought you were fed up of the ignorant masses?

drake3781
Mar 22nd, 2006, 08:12 PM
I thought you were fed up of the ignorant masses?

Grachka: Two questions. I would like to get down to basics with you.

1. True or False? You know what occurs on these hunts, you have seen at least one video, and you support it.

2. True of False? You believe that any person who kills any animal to eat has no standing to protest against the seal hunt.

Therefore you could write and sign your name to this statement:

"I support the seal hunt to start now in Canada, which will kill 300,000 seals, most between 12 days to 3 months of age, by means of clubs and guns. I suggest anyone who eats animals (even fish only) not voice your opinion about it because you have no credibility with me protesting this hunt."

I would really like to hear a simple true or false from you about this, instead of your prickly responses to other people.

Grachka
Mar 22nd, 2006, 08:27 PM
Grachka: Two questions. I would like to get down to basics with you.

1. True or False? You know what occurs on these hunts, you have seen at least one video, and you support it.

2. True of False? You believe that any person who kills any animal to eat has no standing to protest against the seal hunt.

Therefore you could write and sign your name to this statement:

"I support the seal hunt to start now in Canada, which will kill 300,000 seals, most between 12 days to 3 months of age, by means of clubs and guns. I suggest anyone who eats animals (even fish only) not voice your opinion about it because you have no credibility with me protesting this hunt."

I would really like to hear a simple true or false from you about this, instead of your prickly responses to other people.
1. True or False? You know what occurs on these hunts, you have seen at least one video, and you support it - False
2. True of False? You believe that any person who kills any animal to eat has no standing to protest against the seal hunt. False

My earlier prickly comment (which I don't think was prickly at all, btw :confused: ) was on the 'fish-eating' vegetarian. I took issue with that because I believe it to be hypocritical, and stated why. I left it up to you as to whether you wanted to respond to it, and when you didn't, I left it. I voiced no opinion on the seal hunt at all, so I don't know where you've got the idea that I am supportive of it :scratch:

In fact, I am against the seal hunt - and given I am not from Canada, would have very little reason to be a cheerleader of it. Who is a 'fan' of seal clubbing anyway? The vast majority of people that are defending it, do so because it affects the livelihood of humans, rather than some bloodthirsty craving for seal brain.

Yes, I'd rather it didn't happen, and would urge you, if you feel strongly about it, to protest your head off, but my second prickly response was referring to how you got arsey with people because they either didn't instantly agree with you, or were apathetic enough to only post a sad smiley.

dementieva's fan
Mar 22nd, 2006, 08:57 PM
While you are playing your little word games (who is worthy?), please take 10 minues to see what is occurring. (Last video on the page.)

http://www.stopthesealhunt.ca/site/...1PFIqE&b=437937

Propaganda :rolleyes:

matthieu_tennis
Mar 22nd, 2006, 09:10 PM
1.don't cry if they dont kill the seals they will have an overpopulation
2. The canadians dont eat seals its the indians or the people of the north
3. They cant kill baby seals by the law
In the middle of the centuary it was the norvegian ( they were coming to canada for hunting). who killed the most of seals and they let them death on the ground

Scotso
Mar 22nd, 2006, 11:41 PM
While you are playing your little word games (who is worthy?), please take 10 minues to see what is occurring. (Last video on the page.)

http://www.stopthesealhunt.ca/site/...1PFIqE&b=437937

There was no word game. It's an old common belief that most people understand, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I watched your video. I noticed they used a helicopter. Do they have any idea how many fossil fuels are used by helicopters?

These videos don't really do anything besides show clips of cute little seals to try to guilt people into giving money and such. Big deal.

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 23rd, 2006, 05:36 PM
There was no word game. It's an old common belief that most people understand, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I watched your video. I noticed they used a helicopter. Do they have any idea how many fossil fuels are used by helicopters?

These videos don't really do anything besides show clips of cute little seals to try to guilt people into giving money and such. Big deal.

Firstly, the comment about the film-crew using a helicopter is utterly ridiculous, even childish. I don't make a habit of defending environmentalists, but by your logic they'd have to renounce air travel or renounce their beliefs.

Fair enough, you support the seal slaughter, but your main line of argument against those who protest is predicated on relativistic rubbish...

You are a sinner, I am a sinner, that does not preclude you from criticising the behaviour of others, likewise it does not preclude me from criticising the behaviour of others. If you think it does, I expect you never to criticise anyone or anything again.

On drunken nights out I have on (rare) occasions become embroiled in street scuffles, sometimes these incidents may even have been my fault. Does this mean I can't criticise muggers and gay bashers?

I support selective capital punishment of murderers by lethal injection. Does this mean I cannot condemn the practice of stoning people to death as carried out in some Islamic countries?!

Hitler invaded Poland, Britain invaded Iraq… but only an idiot would claim the latter rendered the British Government hypocritical to condemn the former.

I have in moments of annoyance swatted the odd fly, I eat meat. Only the most detached person would claim this invalidates my view that clubbing infant seals to death with bats is needless barbarism. If they must do it they should use f*cking guns.

I also think whaling is abhorrent, but yet I eat fish & chips. If this makes me a hypocrite, so be it. I'd rather be a hypocrite than a cultural relativist.

The human mind is a beautiful thing. It is well capable of processing the nuances of value judgements. Either engage your own brain, or accept that others will.

Scotso
Mar 23rd, 2006, 10:45 PM
Firstly, the comment about the film-crew using a helicopter is utterly ridiculous, even childish.

It was meant to be.

Fair enough, you support the seal slaughter, but your main line of argument against those who protest is predicated on relativistic rubbish...

When exactly did I say I supported it?

You are a sinner, I am a sinner, that does not preclude you from criticising the behaviour of others, likewise it does not preclude me from criticising the behaviour of others.

There's a difference between being critical and condemnation.

I support selective capital punishment of murderers by lethal injection. Does this mean I cannot condemn the practice of stoning people to death as carried out in some Islamic countries?!

On this, I would have to say that yes, it means you shouldn't condemn them. Murder is murder no matter how you do it.

Hitler invaded Poland, Britain invaded Iraq… but only an idiot would claim the latter rendered the British Government hypocritical to condemn the former.

I wouldn't say that, but I also don't think that only an idiot would. Violence is violence.

I'd rather be a hypocrite than a cultural relativist.

That's actually pretty sad.

Either engage your own brain, or accept that others will.

Why the personal attack? I think you know quite well that I am using my brain here.

~ The Leopard ~
Mar 25th, 2006, 07:07 AM
This type of argument occurs FREQUENTLY on many topics here on WTF. Rather than debating the points and details of an issue, somebody will present another topic that is entirely unrelated, and say, well, party A has no right to argue this point because of their stance on this other topic.

I haven't taken a philosphy or debating or logic course for a long time, but surely there is a name for this type of argument and it is taught that it should not be used, right? (Anybody in school who can answer this?)

Argumentum ad hominem. You attack the person rather than the argument they are putting.

I have no particular opinion on the issue discussed in this thread, but just thought I'd chip in with that. :angel:

drake3781
Mar 25th, 2006, 07:17 AM
Argumentum ad hominem. You attack the person rather than the argument they are putting.

I have no particular opinion on the issue discussed in this thread, but just thought I'd chip in with that. :angel:


Thank you, Leopard. Are you sure that Argumentum ad hominem covers this special way of attacking the person by querying deeply into his/her "cleanliness" to discuss the issue at hand, so that only a person who can prove him/herself 100% clean may be allowed to have an opinion?

I'll look it up over the weekend, though, not asking you to.

For those who care one way or the other (maybe those wanting a new coat?) the hunt starts in a few hours.... Saturday morning. The boats and helicopters are surely on their way now. 325,000 seals is the quota this year.

~ The Leopard ~
Mar 25th, 2006, 07:23 AM
It's just the generic term for attacking the person. However, one way to attack a person is to accuse him/her of hypocrisy. Even if X is a hypocrite, that does not affect the validity of X's arguments on the issue being discussed, so it's a logical fallacy.

Of course if there's a question that X may actually be lying, showing X's bad character might be relevant (a lot of courtroom cross-examination relates credibility and truthfulness, because many facts can only be established through witness testimony). But in most of the arguments we have on this board, someone's truthfulness is just not relevant.

~ The Leopard ~
Mar 25th, 2006, 07:27 AM
In equity, there's a rule about coming to court with "clean hands". This basically means that if you want to say the other side should not be able to rely on their strict legal rights because they've behaved in some unconscionable (or "dirty") way you have to acted in a squeaky clean way yourself. If not, the strict law is applied.

But that has nothing to do with questions of truth. To extend it beyond its context would certainly be a fallacy, but I'm not aware that it has a name.

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 25th, 2006, 07:35 AM
Thank you, Leopard. Are you sure that Argumentum ad hominem covers this special way of attacking the person by querying deeply into his/her "cleanliness" to discuss the issue at hand, so that only a person who can prove him/herself 100% clean may be allowed to have an opinion?

I'll look it up over the weekend, though, not asking you to.

For those who care one way or the other (maybe those wanting a new coat?) the hunt starts in a few hours.... Saturday morning. The boats and helicopters are surely on their way now. 325,000 seals is the quota this year.

I'd classify the method as relativism. It draws parallels between morally dubious / imperfect behaviour and downright bad / evil behaviour. Relativism decrees that there are no moral absolutes; 'good' & 'evil' do not exist, everything is relative.

I.e. "They are clubbing baby seals to death, yet you eat meat, therefore you have surrendered your right to pass judgement. Only a vegan can take a view on the way others treat animals."

It is a way of stifling debate. The ironic thing being that those who embrace relativism, generally populate the extreme fringe of Leftism. People who pride themselves on their openminded social liberalism, seek to artificially set the parameters for debate.

Tiresome.

drake3781
Mar 25th, 2006, 07:37 AM
I'd classify the method as relativism. It draws parallels between morally dubious / imperfect behaviour and downright bad / evil behaviour. Relativism decrees that there are no moral absolutes; 'good' & 'evil' do not exist, everything is relative.

I.e. "They are clubbing baby seals to death, yet you eat meat, therefore you have surrendered your right to pass judgement. Only a vegan can take a view on the way others treat animals."

It is a way of stifling debate. The ironic thing being that those who embrace relativism, generally populate the extreme fringe of Leftism. People who pride themselves on their openminded social liberalism, seek to artificially set the parameters for debate.

Tiresome.


OK thanks to you and Leopard.

borisy
Mar 25th, 2006, 04:35 PM
It's a horrible practice, but on the other hand some people need to sell the pelts to live. It's hard to judge this kind of thing when you don't live the same lives as these people.

Yeah as if Canada is in Africa and poor Canadian children are starving to death. There are no other jobs available in Canada too.

borisy
Mar 25th, 2006, 04:37 PM
Way to distort the information. You're just like Paul McCartney and his wife. Clearly misinformed. My god, how off the bar can you be? 90% of all seals killed in Canada are shot not clubbed. Get your facts straight. If they did not depopulate the seals there would be overpopulation and less of everything. Following through with this MUST be done. I mean jesus I'm the most Liberal person ever but for christ's sake!

300000/10=30000. It still sounds enough barbaric to me. And the only reason why they are overpopulated is again human beings: global warming and overhunted whales.

Scotso
Mar 25th, 2006, 04:55 PM
Actually, as far as I know, the job market in Canada isn't very good.

416_Man
Mar 25th, 2006, 05:19 PM
Actually, as far as I know, the job market in Canada isn't very good.

The job market in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal is spectacular. As well, all the western provinces are doing quite well, as are Ontario and Quebec in general. However, the moment you get to the maritimes the economy is very depressed, and this isn't just Bumfuckshwa, New Brunswick, this is Halifax, St John's and Charlottetownt too. The worst, and more desperate conditions are in Labrador by far.

I find it funny the people who are contrasting Canada to any African nation. Yes, they're leagues apart. However, if Labrador (moreso) and Newfoundland don't find another industry, it's difficult to anticipate how much a strain on the economy it will become.

dementieva's fan
Mar 25th, 2006, 05:33 PM
Yeah as if Canada is in Africa and poor Canadian children are starving to death. There are no other jobs available in Canada too.
:rolleyes:
As matter of fact Newfoundland and Labrador is the poorest province in Canada, per-capita income is the lowest and taxes are very high. It's population is falling rapidly due immigration to other provinces. Fishing is the only reason NFL and Labrador exists today and banning the seal hunt will have an indirect negetive effect on fishing causing furthur loss of jobs.

tennislover
Mar 25th, 2006, 05:37 PM
stop stop stop the killers! :sad: :sad: :sad:

416_Man
Mar 25th, 2006, 05:38 PM
stop stop stop the killers! :sad: :sad: :sad:

*death*.

borisy
Mar 25th, 2006, 06:28 PM
Maybe we should start culling people, the planet is already too crowded with them.

matthieu_tennis
Mar 25th, 2006, 06:33 PM
poor maritime ;(

dementieva's fan
Mar 25th, 2006, 07:47 PM
I also think whaling is abhorrent, but yet I eat fish & chips.

You also support the iraq war so that makes you a hypocrite^2

dementieva's fan
Mar 25th, 2006, 07:49 PM
Maybe we should start culling people, the planet is already too crowded with them.
GREAT IDEA! Let's start with you :rolleyes:

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 25th, 2006, 08:12 PM
You also support the iraq war so that makes you a hypocrite^2

:lol: That makes my views on the seal cull invalid does it?!

As I've already said, if my stances seem hypocritical to relativists, I embrace that.

I eat meat, yet I don't think baby seals should be clubbed to death...

...I also supported the removal of Saddam. :eek: Get over it.

polishprodigy
Mar 25th, 2006, 09:18 PM
The fact that the picture of the seal in the first post is of a white seal, which were banned from being hunted in the 80s, is one reason why this thread is misinformed.

drake3781
Mar 25th, 2006, 09:48 PM
The fact that the picture of the seal in the first post is of a white seal, which were banned from being hunted in the 80s, is one reason why this thread is misinformed.

The seals are legally allowed to be killed once they are 12 days old.

If that seal on the first page is just born to 11 days old, it cannot be killed.

Does it make a big difference?

CondiLicious
Mar 26th, 2006, 03:57 PM
The seal cull is the lead story on one of the UK's biggest tabloid-newspapers... which I was shocked at as today is Sunday and usually the day when the lead stories are on which celeb has been caught taking drugs and who is sleeping with who.

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/sundaymirror2/mar2006/2/6/0003A363-4560-1426-B24E0C01AC1BF814.jpg

Pups are clubbed & then skinned alive in front of their mothers... You can hear their bleating as the babies are dragged away
Dennis Ellam And Roland Leon In The Gulf Of St Lawrence


BLOOD is spreading across the ice. Obscene scarlet on pure white.


At the stroke of 6am yesterday - right on schedule - Canada's annual slaughter of the seal pups got under way.

It's the biggest and the most barbaric cull anywhere on Earth.

By the time you read this 70,000 pups will have been killed. A total of 325,000 will die - either clubbed to death or shot - within the next three weeks. But it might take just five days.

As dawn broke yesterday the bloodbath began, with men jumping from their fleet of boats, running across the ice, swinging their spiked clubs as they went.

The impassioned pleas of Paul and Heather McCartney and Brigitte Bardot - and worldwide condemnation - count for nothing out here. Thirty-eight years to the day after our sister paper the Daily Mirror's iconic front page revealed the horror of the cull to the nation, nothing has changed.










Just 24 hours earlier, when we flew into this remote wilderness, it was still untouched, a natural nursery for thousands of month-old pups, basking on the ice in the thin sunshine, their proud mothers beside them.




Today, the pups' freshly-skinned carcasses, still steaming from their body heat, litter the ice. Their mothers lie beside them, pining for their dead babies, their mournful bleating carried in the cold air.



Nothing prepares you for such a sickening spectacle.

They call it a hunt, of course, to make it sound like a noble challenge between man and beast. But a harp seal can't run like a fox, it has nowhere to hide like a deer in a forest, it can't fight back like a grizzly. It just lies there, helplessly waiting to be slaughtered.



It's only three weeks since the McCartneys came here, to make their emotional and - out here - controversial plea for the slaughter to be abandoned.



Canada's response? It promptly increased the quota hunters are allowed to kill by another 5,000. "When so-called celebrities come across here making their pronouncements - wealthy people telling folks how they should earn their living - well, we're outraged," government official Phil Jenkins, told me. "We don't feel we need to justify the hunt to anyone."



I paid £12 my "observer's" permit allowing me to watch the slaughter. The "hunters" have paid just £2.50 each for their licences to kill. A top hunter will bag around 1,000 pups a week - and earn over £3,000.



This year, the Canadian government has decreed, 325,000 seal pups can be culled on their journey out of the St Lawrence, from the breeding ground where they were born to the open sea.



Most will die before they have even taken their first swim.



There is simply no logic in the old argument that seals have to be culled to keep their population down and protect fish stocks. Nature has its own ways.



The waters in the Gulf are warming, the ice is thinner than it has ever been in living memory.



For hundreds of square miles it is broken and cracked like a vast crazy paving. Amazingly, our helicopter pilot managed to put down photographer Roland Leon and myself on a pan of ice that was barely any bigger than the chopper, while the floe pitched and rolled all around us in a raging gale.



In these treacherous conditions, . countless new-iborn seals, would have I fallen into the sea and ' drowned anyway.



In fact, as the Canadian government now admit, the impetus for the hunt is commercial. It makes money.

Yesterday I watched in horror as the hunters swarmed on to the ice with knives dangling from their belts and their traditional "hakapik" clubs slung over their shoulders.



The hakapik is a multipurpose killing tool - a heavy wooden club, with a hammer head on one side to crush a seal pup's skull, and on the other a hook to drag away the carcass to be skinned.



THE first two days of the hunt are always the busiest, I am told. There must be 50 men swarming over the ice - and thousands of pups waiting to be slaughtered. So many to kill, so little time.



The hunters are supposed to club them three times over the head, then touch their eyeball to make sure they are dead before being skinned.



A moment ago one baby seal was a living creature, looking up towards its executioner, fear etched on its face. Its last gesture is to open its mouth wide. A silent cry for mercy. :sad:

Now it's a battered heap, waiting for the skinners who follow the hunters. Blood runs from its wounds and its mouth.



The force of the blows has forced its eyes from its sockets. I turn away only to catch out of the corner of my eye the sudden movement of a bloody shape.



A seasoned hunter will you tell this is just a death spasm. Some vets, however, think differently.



According to one report, as many as 40 per cent of seal pups could still be alive when they are skinned.



This one is wriggling and writhing in agony, as it is dragged along, leaving a crimson trail. The hunters lift it, still thrashing, aboard their boat to skin out of sight of our camera.



Earlier I met Robbie Marsland in the offices of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).



HE showed me a collection of seal products - tins of seal meat, hats and gloves made from seal fur, even a seal's penis, a delicacy in the Far East where they powder it down and drink it with wine as an aphrodisiac.



Discreetly, the Canadians are now hoping to push seal oil onto the market too, in Omega 3 capsules.



But the main prize is the skin. This year's price is around £30 a pelt, boosted by a sudden demand from the big fashion houses.



Last season, for example, you could have bought a Gucci sealskin coat.



That's why the hunters prefer to club the pups' skulls rather than shoot them and risk hitting the hide. Nothing ruins a £1,000 Gucci coat more than an unsightly bullet-hole.



In the isolated fishing communities around Newfoundland and Labrador, they will tell you that the seal hunt is vital to their way of life, and has been for generations.



"A man has to feed his family, that's the stark truth out here," says Mark Small, 59, a hunter for more than 40 years, like his father and his grandfather before him. "A guy can earn 6,000 dollars in a week. That's one quarter of his annual income. How do you take that away?



"The world thinks we're barbarians, but we're not. Our ancestors settled here to work the oceans, and we have respect for the animals that live here. Seals too. But what do you do with pests in other countries? You get rid of them.



"We don't need you folks to tell us how to run our lives."

Grachka
Mar 26th, 2006, 04:16 PM
Hmmmm, nice to see the Sunday Rag Mirror running a balanced story for once :lol:

I don't feel articles like this add anything significant to the debate.

CondiLicious
Mar 26th, 2006, 04:38 PM
Hmmmm, nice to see the Sunday Rag Mirror running a balanced story for once :lol:

I of course didn't buy the Sunday Mirror... I saw the cover at the newsagents as I picked up my copy of The Observer :o

ToeTag
Mar 30th, 2006, 06:16 AM
Pam Anderson joins crowd of stars protesting seal hunt

Associated Press

TORONTO — Pamela Anderson has added her name to the growing list of celebrities speaking out against Canada's annual seal hunt, which just got under way.

Anderson, who hosted Sunday's Juno Awards, Canada's largest music awards, has asked for a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Harper turned down a similar request by French film legend Brigitte Bardot, who traveled to Ottawa last week to protest the hunt.

The seal hunt has attracted plenty of celebrity protesters this year, including Paul McCartney and his wife, Heather Mills, who called the cull "a stain on the character of the Canadian people" and urged the government to turn to ecotourism in the region.

British singer Morrissey said he won't include Canada on any tours until the seal hunt ends.

"As a proud Canadian who frequently travels abroad, I am alarmed that people are starting to see Canada as a country more beholden to a pack of greedy hunters and to the sealskin 'fashion' whims of a few countries than to the massive international outcry against the hunt," Anderson said in a letter faxed to Harper's office late Monday.

"One of the biggest problems facing the U.S. government is appearing aloof about its own hostile behavior; I'd hate to see that happen north of the border too."

Anderson is a native of British Columbia in western Canada.

The actress said she's collected thousands of signatures on an online People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals petition protesting the annual hunt, which opened last Saturday in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

The regulated hunt begins among the aboriginal Inuits in the Arctic North in November and will move to Newfoundland and Labrador in April.

The Canadian government and isolated fishing communities off the Atlantic Ocean insist they need the supplemental winter income, especially since the cod stocks have dwindled. The slaughter of some 320,000 seals last season brought in $14.5 million in revenue.


Who is Morrissey?
Pammy would you puhleez stop telling people you're from Canada. :o


link (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/celebrities/3756226.html)

JuchuKai
Mar 30th, 2006, 06:40 AM
^^yes, I heard that about Morissey too

Ellery
Mar 30th, 2006, 02:15 PM
Who is Morissey :confused:
Pamela "Proud Canadian" ? :confused: :lol:

dementieva's fan
Mar 30th, 2006, 02:36 PM
Pam Anderson joins crowd of stars protesting seal hunt

Associated Press

TORONTO — Pamela Anderson has added her name to the growing list of celebrities speaking out against Canada's annual seal hunt, which just got under way.

Anderson, who hosted Sunday's Juno Awards, Canada's largest music awards, has asked for a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Harper turned down a similar request by French film legend Brigitte Bardot, who traveled to Ottawa last week to protest the hunt.

The seal hunt has attracted plenty of celebrity protesters this year, including Paul McCartney and his wife, Heather Mills, who called the cull "a stain on the character of the Canadian people" and urged the government to turn to ecotourism in the region.

British singer Morrissey said he won't include Canada on any tours until the seal hunt ends.

"As a proud Canadian who frequently travels abroad, I am alarmed that people are starting to see Canada as a country more beholden to a pack of greedy hunters and to the sealskin 'fashion' whims of a few countries than to the massive international outcry against the hunt," Anderson said in a letter faxed to Harper's office late Monday.

"One of the biggest problems facing the U.S. government is appearing aloof about its own hostile behavior; I'd hate to see that happen north of the border too."

Anderson is a native of British Columbia in western Canada.

The actress said she's collected thousands of signatures on an online People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals petition protesting the annual hunt, which opened last Saturday in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

The regulated hunt begins among the aboriginal Inuits in the Arctic North in November and will move to Newfoundland and Labrador in April.

The Canadian government and isolated fishing communities off the Atlantic Ocean insist they need the supplemental winter income, especially since the cod stocks have dwindled. The slaughter of some 320,000 seals last season brought in $14.5 million in revenue.


Who is Morrissey?
Pammy would you puhleez stop telling people you're from Canada. :o


link (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/celebrities/3756226.html)

I'd be surprised if Pamela can locate Canada on the world map. :lol:

Anniemal
Mar 31st, 2006, 03:39 AM
Well, I do find it disturbing that some people seem to care more about 300,000 or so seals over the millions of starving, AIDS-infected children in Africa. I really wish McCartney and Morrissey would dedicate more of their time to those poor children, I think they are a more worthy cause than the seals. But then again it seems these days people care more about animals than our fellow human beings.

Another thing I should mention (it may have been mentioned in this thread already but I am too lazy to read), is that the cute baby seals with the white fur are not the ones being hunted. Only adult seals that have shed the white fur are allowed to be hunted.

Timariot
Mar 31st, 2006, 08:02 AM
1. Harp seal is not endangered at all. Hunting is perfectly sustainable.

2. Re:clubbing. Most of the farm animals are actually killed in equivalent way - hit in the head with a blunt object & then have their throats cut. I don't see anyone making a fuss about it. Or that many natives still kill animals with spear etc. ancient weapons. Btw, anyone who knows anything about hunting knows that animals frequently don't die instantly from the first shot.

2b. Besides, if the point is only to call for more humane killing methods, then why demand banning of entire hunt?

3. There are dozens of animal species which actually ARE overexploited and threatened, and few, if any, people care or even know about them, and you certainly never see any celebrity giving a fuck about it. Why? Apparently they're not cute enough. In a bizarre way, I guess that's natural selection at work...