| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Kid-A 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 613
|
 Posted: May 30 2007 at 08:04 |
 stonebeard wrote:
If an animal is endangered, then it is unacceptable unless the survival of a certain culture of humans depend on it. Humans come before animals. Everything else, IMO, should be fair game.
You made a good point. What's the difference between a seal and a cow? Cuteness. The hypocrisy of the animal right movement.... |
err.. because cows are bred and farmed and seals aren't?
Seals have a huge impact on fragile ocean ecosystems, which are really screwed up already due to overfishing, pollution etc. Removing any link can have a huge impact.
I love the fact your so quick to call people hypocrites before thinking things through.
Edited by Kid-A - May 30 2007 at 12:01
|
|
|
 |
Visitor13
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 4702
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 12:08 |
oliverstoned wrote:
Its not acceptable to kill for the pleasure. |
It's not acceptable to kill at all.
It's also inevitable.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 12:31 |
Kid-A wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
If an animal is endangered, then it is unacceptable unless the survival of a certain culture of humans depend on it. Humans come before animals. Everything else, IMO, should be fair game.
You made a good point. What's the difference between a seal and a cow? Cuteness. The hypocrisy of the animal right movement.... |
err.. because cows are bred and farmed and seals aren't?
Seals have a huge impact on fragile ocean ecosystems, which are really screwed up already due to overfishing, pollution etc. Removing any link can have a huge impact.
I love the fact your so quick to call people hypocrites before thinking things through. |
Seals could be bred, but it's easier do breed cows. The ecosystem argument is the same for practically any animal anywhere. The fact is that animals have been over-fished/hunted/whatever for the course of animal history, or at least human history, and all of a sudden it seems that's not morally right. Bullsh*t. If we can stop a species from becoming extinct, then I believe we should, but we owe no obligation to do so.
|
|
|
|
Philéas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 12:45 |
stonebeard wrote:
If an animal is endangered, then it is unacceptable unless the survival of a certain culture of humans depend on it. Humans come before animals. Everything else, IMO, should be fair game.
You made a good point. What's the difference between a seal and a cow? Cuteness. The hypocrisy of the animal right movement....
|
I agree with this.
|
|
Bj-1
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 04 2005
Location: No(r)Way
Status: Offline
Points: 31644
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 12:55 |
King of Loss wrote:
FAT AND GREASY WALRUSES, ULKULKULKULKULK!!!
ULKULKULKULK!  |
YUP, HE'S RIGHT! 
|
|
RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on!
|
|
Frasse
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 758
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 12:56 |
|
I have no problem with seals being killed but I guess most of the "hypocrites" would have been silent if guns were used instead of pikes to kill the seals.
As to fishing. The methods used are wrong since they are very destructive to whole environments and eco systems but other than that I see no problems in fishing.
Generally, to kill for sport is wrong. The killings should come out of necessity, i.e. for food and clothing etc.
If the animals are extinct we maybe should let them be but I don't know if it'll be sush a catastrophe if some animals will disappear. It has happened before and it will happen again, many times, regrdless of if humans are involved. (We humans will also disappear one day.)
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 13:39 |
Killing any animal besides a human for food/sport/fun/boredom/etc is acceptable.
EDIT: Unless that animal is owned by someone
Edited by Equality 7-2521 - May 30 2007 at 13:40
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 13:49 |
Frasse wrote:
I have no problem with seals being killed but I guess most of the "hypocrites" would have been silent if guns were used instead of pikes to kill the seals.
As to fishing. The methods used are wrong since they are very destructive to whole environments and eco systems but other than that I see no problems in fishing.
Generally, to kill for sport is wrong. The killings should come out of necessity, i.e. for food and clothing etc.
If the animals are extinct we maybe should let them be but I don't know if it'll be sush a catastrophe if some animals will disappear. It has happened before and it will happen again, many times, regrdless of if humans are involved. (We humans will also disappear one day.)
|
In some areas, like off the Newfoundland coast, rifles are used, as the ice packs are not suitable for the use of the pike. The pike itself consists of a peen, quite like a shortened version of the head of a hammer, and the tine or pick. The peen is used to smash in the skull thus causing quick death. It could be compared to the "stun gun" used in slaughterhouses with the main difference being that the stun gun drives a 4 inch metal rod into the animal's skull & cerebellum. The peen on a pike is about 2 inches & is used to strike the seal in the back of the head. The pike itself, is used only to drag the animal to the ship. You are right about the fishing methods. They are basically an industrial vacuum that drags everything. Very efficient. To the point of nearly wiping out some fish species' stocks very quickly. The seal hunt on the other hand is managed & closely monitored so as to ensure sustainability. Funny how the seal hunters may actually be the most environmentally conscious of the two sides. They see the changes from global warming which in the long term may endanger the seal herds' survival more than the hunt ever has.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 13:51 |
|
Oh, a quick aside to all. Thank you for not using euphemisms, nor resorting to "extremist" language.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
Kid-A
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 613
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 14:06 |
stonebeard wrote:
Kid-A wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
If an animal is endangered, then it is unacceptable unless the survival of a certain culture of humans depend on it. Humans come before animals. Everything else, IMO, should be fair game.You made a good point. What's the difference between a seal and a cow? Cuteness. The hypocrisy of the animal right movement.... |
err.. because cows are bred and farmed and seals aren't?
Seals have a huge impact on fragile ocean ecosystems, which are really screwed up already due to overfishing, pollution etc. Removing any link can have a huge impact.
I love the fact your so quick to call people hypocrites before thinking things through. |
Seals could be bred, but it's easier do breed cows. The ecosystem argument is the same for practically any animal anywhere. The fact is that animals have been over-fished/hunted/whatever for the course of animal history, or at least human history, and all of a sudden it seems that's not morally right. Bullsh*t. If we can stop a species from becoming extinct, then I believe we should, but we owe no obligation to do so. |
Of course it is immoral to knowingly destroy the earths ecosystems. Do you just not like the world? We cannot just let things be wiped out.
Even for someone like you who obviously pretty much only cares for humans, think of our childrens chidren if species extinction carries on at this alarming rate? Our childern won't be able to eat fish.
My ecosystems point was not meant to be specific to seals, it is true for virtually everything, which is why we should be careful, and also why we have already f**ked the world up so much.
And the fact that it has happened in the past does not make it right. I think it's strange that you would think us causing damage in the past makes it acceptable for us to do it now.
Edited by Jim Garten - May 31 2007 at 03:36
|
|
|
|
Firepuck
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 28 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 657
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 15:51 |
Kid-A, your opinions are just that, be careful that you do not purport them as facts. Be careful that you are not just accepting what popular opinion encourages you to accept.
In my opinion there are some mighty high level political and business agendas at play with most, if not all, of the issues being raised in this thread.
Now before you get all irate at me, I'm not saying that you are wrong, but neither am I saying that you are right.
Oh the heck with it, you're wrong. I don't think you have done any research on the subject of the seal hunt, the effect of the seal population on their ecosystems, the population growth (or decline) of the seals, nor do you have any data to support you claims.
I don't think you have done any research on any of today's so called environmental issues, I think you have been brainwashed since your childhood by the right wing special interest groups, their media machine and political clout in much the same way that todays fanatical suicide bombers in the Middle East have been (and I should throw in the Tamil Tigers and kamakaze bombers so as not to single out the Muslim faith or imply they ‘started’ it).
As I tell my son, be careful of what you read and what you watch, always try to get as much information as you can about both sides of the story, then make up your own mind – do NOT let others make it up for you.
|
|
Kryten : "'Pub'? Ah yes, A meeting place where humans attempt to achieve advanced states of mental incompetence by the repeated consumption of fermented vegetable drinks."
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 15:59 |
Kid-A wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Kid-A wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
If an animal is endangered, then it is unacceptable unless the survival of a certain culture of humans depend on it. Humans come before animals. Everything else, IMO, should be fair game.
You made a good point. What's the difference between a seal and a cow? Cuteness. The hypocrisy of the animal right movement.... |
err.. because cows are bred and farmed and seals aren't?
Seals have a huge impact on fragile ocean ecosystems, which are really screwed up already due to overfishing, pollution etc. Removing any link can have a huge impact.
I love the fact your so quick to call people hypocrites before thinking things through. |
Seals could be bred, but it's easier do breed cows. The ecosystem argument is the same for practically any animal anywhere. The fact is that animals have been over-fished/hunted/whatever for the course of animal history, or at least human history, and all of a sudden it seems that's not morally right. Bullsh*t. If we can stop a species from becoming extinct, then I believe we should, but we owe no obligation to do so.
|
Well you have no obligation to do anything. You have no obligation to help your family or friends out with anything. It just makes you a w**ker not too, Same applies for this I think.
Of course it is immoral to knowingly destroy the earths ecosystems. Do you just not like the world? We cannot just let things be wiped out.
Even for someone like you who obviously pretty much only cares for humans, think of our childrens chidren if species extinction carries on at this alarming rate? Our childern won't be able to eat fish.
My ecosystems point was not meant to be specific to seals, it is true for virtually everything, which is why we should be careful, and also why we have already f**ked the world up so much.
And the fact that it has happened in the past does not make it right. I think it's strange that you would think us causing damage in the past makes it acceptable for us to do it now. |
If you think it makes you a superior person to not do what we have always done as the human race, then go ahead and refrain from killing whatever you have your mind on. But whatever you think, that's all it is: you personal belief. Mine is different, and I don't like being called a w**ker for it. I could call you a environmentalist buffoon who I think can't accept the obvious regarding human instinct, but there are more delicate ways of expressing emotions.
|
|
|
|
Ricochet
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 27 2005
Location: Nauru
Status: Offline
Points: 46301
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 16:03 |
Don't kill the whale!! 
|
|
|
|
Kid-A
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 613
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 17:42 |
Firepuck wrote:
Kid-A, your opinions are just that, be careful that you do not purport them as facts. Be careful that you are not just accepting what popular opinion encourages you to accept.
In my opinion there are some mighty high level political and business agendas at play with most, if not all, of the issues being raised in this thread.
Now before you get all irate at me, I'm not saying that you are wrong, but neither am I saying that you are right.
Oh the heck with it, you're wrong. I don't think you have done any research on the subject of the seal hunt, the effect of the seal population on their ecosystems, the population growth (or decline) of the seals, nor do you have any data to support you claims.
I don't think you have done any research on any of today's so called environmental issues, I think you have been brainwashed since your childhood by the right wing special interest groups, their media machine and political clout in much the same way that todays fanatical suicide bombers in the Middle East have been (and I should throw in the Tamil Tigers and kamakaze bombers so as not to single out the Muslim faith or imply they ‘started’ it).
As I tell my son, be careful of what you read and what you watch, always try to get as much information as you can about both sides of the story, then make up your own mind – do NOT let others make it up for you. |
What a f**king rude post. I am getting ready to study Marine vertebrate zoology at university, of course I have done reading around the subject. And what I said about fragile ecosystems, anyone who knows ANYTHING about ecosystems knows that. And no, I don't have any data, but so what? it's a really basic point I'm making, it's fairly obvious.
How f**king dare you say I have been 'brainwashed'. Why, cause I have environmental concerns? I can make my own mind up on things, don't be so insulting to someone you don't even know. And comparing it to brainwashing of terrorists, just rediculous.
I'm sorry, I did not intend to call Stonebeard a 'w**ker', I just meant that not doing things just because you are not obligated to makes you a 'w**ker'. I'm sorry if it came across that I was calling him a w**ker.
But you, Firepuck have been flat out rude in your post. I think you owe me an apology for making so many rediculous over the top comments based on the fact that I care about the environment.
Either that, or prove me wrong, as you did say 'oh the heck with it, you're wrong'. Or I can just go an a you-style rant and go 'I don't think you have done any research into the topic and have just been brainwashed by your Republican media, that everything fine there is not a problem.'
I'm sorry I just got REALLY pissed off by your post, so this post is probably f*cking rude as well but oh well.
Edited by Kid-A - May 30 2007 at 18:08
|
|
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 18:05 |
|
As I have compassion for all living beings, I can't find killing any animal acceptable.
|
|
|
|
magnus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 19 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 865
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 18:16 |
Atomic_Rooster wrote:
Oh, wait, I think I've answered the question. Which animal is not acceptable to kill? A mockingbird of course!
|
If it's me that bird is mocking, he's going down......... 
|
The scattered jigsaw of my redemption laid out before my eyes
Each piece as amorphous as the other - Each piece in its lack of shape a lie
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: May 30 2007 at 20:17 |
Kid-A wrote:
Firepuck wrote:
Kid-A, your opinions are just that, be careful that you do not purport them as facts. Be careful that you are not just accepting what popular opinion encourages you to accept.
In my opinion there are some mighty high level political and business agendas at play with most, if not all, of the issues being raised in this thread.
Now before you get all irate at me, I'm not saying that you are wrong, but neither am I saying that you are right.
Oh the heck with it, you're wrong. I don't think you have done any research on the subject of the seal hunt, the effect of the seal population on their ecosystems, the population growth (or decline) of the seals, nor do you have any data to support you claims.
I don't think you have done any research on any of today's so called environmental issues, I think you have been brainwashed since your childhood by the right wing special interest groups, their media machine and political clout in much the same way that todays fanatical suicide bombers in the Middle East have been (and I should throw in the Tamil Tigers and kamakaze bombers so as not to single out the Muslim faith or imply they ‘started’ it).
As I tell my son, be careful of what you read and what you watch, always try to get as much information as you can about both sides of the story, then make up your own mind – do NOT let others make it up for you. |
What a f**king rude post. I am getting ready to study Marine vertebrate zoology at university, of course I have done reading around the subject. And what I said about fragile ecosystems, anyone who knows ANYTHING about ecosystems knows that. And no, I don't have any data, but so what? it's a really basic point I'm making, it's fairly obvious.
DEBREWGUY STEPS IN - If I study automotive mechanics, like to be a mechanic, would i know more than others about car emissions & their effect on the environment ? You made a generalization about the WHOLE ecosystem, without admitting that the animal in question - the seal population in this area - is actually quite healthy & has increased threefold in 20 years. Some ecosystems are fragile. But if you're making a point, please give data to back it up. Basic or not, factually unsupported arguments are what I am getting at with this thread. And let's face it, with today's media weary populace, does the environmental movement really need to join the ranks of corporate PR firms, Political parties & their apologists / attack dogs, and other Orwellian master of double speak as being the last place where one will find something close to the truth. Give me one piece of information to doubt, you give one reason to doubt all information you give me. And I'm sure we both agree that this planet's health is too important to risk people seeing facts as one group's propaganda.
How f**king dare you say I have been 'brainwashed'. Why, cause I have environmental concerns? I can make my own mind up on things, don't be so insulting to someone you don't even know. And comparing it to brainwashing of terrorists, just rediculous.
I'm sorry, I did not intend to call Stonebeard a 'w**ker', I just meant that not doing things just because you are not obligated to makes you a 'w**ker'. I'm sorry if it came across that I was calling him a w**ker.
DEBREWGUY STEPS IN - In electronic communications, nuances are easily lost on the receptor. Sarcasm, irony, and often humour are often taken the wrong way. From personal experience, it is best to err on the safe side when making such attempts. Don't apologize for the receptor's misinterpretation, apologize for your use of the word.
But you, Firepuck have been flat out rude in your post. I think you owe me an apology for making so many rediculous over the top comments based on the fact that I care about the environment.
Either that, or prove me wrong, as you did say 'oh the heck with it, you're wrong'. Or I can just go an a you-style rant and go 'I don't think you have done any research into the topic and have just been brainwashed by your Republican media, that everything fine there is not a problem.'
I'm sorry I just got REALLY pissed off by your post, so this post is probably f*cking rude as well but oh well. |
DEBREWGUY STEPS IN - Again, in electronic communications, the perception can easily differ from the intent. From what I've read, the back & forth between you & Firepuck is a case of fighting fire with fire. Both would be wise to take back their words, and possibly re-phrase their cases. It is possible that both of you share some common opinions. Caring about the environment does not allow one to argue without presenting facts to support your point. The fact that you are a student in this area is not proof of anything. Indeed, it would be interesting to hear what you are learning about marine ecosystems. Knowledgeable exchanges of information are the best thing in helping us ALL make informed decisions. Ill supported claims however, weaken both sides. Over generalization also gives the impression of a closed mind basing a decision or opinion on very little actual info. The way out of this is a retreat from both inflammatory positions & towards a more understanding stance where you both should be able to ask for clarification if needed, where both can present explanantions as required & finally both could offer to respect differences as possible between two (hopefully) mature & intelligent people. Of course, having spouted all this BS, I can now claim superiority and go back to my caveman mentality to await the next opportunity to go off on a rant.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin & Razor Guru
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
|
Posted: May 31 2007 at 03:56 |
|
Guys - this is a very interesting debate, but just getting a little too heated for comfort - I'd ask that everyone takes a couple of steps back, a deep breath then comes back in again - I've no problem at all with strong opinions, but please try to keep name calling & personal accusations out of this.
Many thanks.
Jim Garten
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
|
Visitor13
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 4702
|
Posted: May 31 2007 at 04:06 |
bhikkhu wrote:
As I have compassion for all living beings, I can't find killing any animal acceptable. |
 to infinity
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 31 2007 at 04:34 |
Visitor13 wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
As I have compassion for all living beings, I can't find killing any animal acceptable. |
to infinity |
As a life long vegetarian, I agree completely.
As an animal at the top of the food chain, I find it much harder to agree - if we're not meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat? Aren't they just natural resources like anything else - if we stop using animal products, where does it end? Do we stop taking things out of the earth too, because of the impact we're having on the environment with strip mining, factory deforestation and fossil fuel burning? Do we go back to living in caves as ecologically sensitive farmers, with little or no creature comforts?
As a being with a compassionate awareness that transcends the animal, and a profound sense of logic, it does seem illogical to kill any animal or take things from the planet in an unsustainable way (thereby committing huge-scale genocide on future generations of animals including ourselves) when there are alternatives.
Maybe it's just me... 
Edited by Certif1ed - May 31 2007 at 04:36
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Which animal is it not acceptable to kill ?
