Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Seal Slaughter
Show More
Loading...
Flag arielg April 24, 2012 10:39 AM EDT

You can go all over the place and find examples  and exceptions for eveything, Erey.  It doesn't change the basic principles. Ethics is about basic principles.

Flag arielg April 24, 2012 10:41 AM EDT

I'm sorry but your post is crap. According to you, the person that works 60 hours/week helping the poor, but eats meat is somehow morally inferior to the person that works 40 hours/week in a for profit job that helps no one, but doesn't eat meat?



The crap is in your lack of understanding.  We are talking about the aspect of meat eating, not judging the whole of a person's life.

Flag Girlchristian April 24, 2012 10:42 AM EDT

Apr 24, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Erey wrote:


Apr 24, 2012 -- 10:17AM, arielg wrote:


Are corpse eaters ethically-morally inferior to those who do not eat corpses?


Are those who refuse to eat corpses ethically-morally superior?



Of course they are. That is what ethics and morality are all about.  Those who base their actions on universal, more encompasing  principles regarding  life, are superior to the ones who base it on individual, groupist  or tribalistic considerations.




I think any moral high ground is quickly lost if the non-meat eater is insufferably obnoxious, sanctimonious, arrogant and stupidly belligerent. 


I also think you have a case for a hunter who eats localy is superior to a vegan who eats a bunch of imported stuff.  There is the other case if the non-meat eater eats food from crops where lots of animals are killed indirectly in the process of getting the plant to the table.  You kill more animals with your traditional crop harvesting practises than you do shooting a deer




IMO, a vegan that actually 'walks the walk' has far more credibility when condemning hunters for killing than the person that still eats meat, but buys theirs from a grocery store.

Flag Girlchristian April 24, 2012 10:46 AM EDT

Apr 24, 2012 -- 10:41AM, arielg wrote:


I'm sorry but your post is crap. According to you, the person that works 60 hours/week helping the poor, but eats meat is somehow morally inferior to the person that works 40 hours/week in a for profit job that helps no one, but doesn't eat meat?



The crap is in your lack of understanding.  We are talking about the aspect of meat eating, not judging the whole of a person's life.




Your post was far more general than just meat eating, you condemned meat eaters as inferior with no consideration for who they are and what they do with their life.

Flag arielg April 24, 2012 10:52 AM EDT

Your post was far more general than just meat eating, you condemned meat eaters as inferior with no consideration for who they are and what they do with their life.



I know very well what I said and meant, thank you. We are talking about the ethics involved in eating meat as opposed to not eating meat. In that regards, Hitler, who was vegetarian, was more ethical in his eating than a meat eater. I certainly have "consideration for who they are and what they do with their life."


(You would probably say that I think Hitler is superior to Mother Teresa) Feeling pesonally attacked is a very common reaction of meat eaters to the ideas some of us express. Totally defensive.

Flag Erey April 24, 2012 12:28 PM EDT

Apr 24, 2012 -- 10:42AM, Girlchristian wrote:


Apr 24, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Erey wrote:


Apr 24, 2012 -- 10:17AM, arielg wrote:


Are corpse eaters ethically-morally inferior to those who do not eat corpses?


Are those who refuse to eat corpses ethically-morally superior?



Of course they are. That is what ethics and morality are all about.  Those who base their actions on universal, more encompasing  principles regarding  life, are superior to the ones who base it on individual, groupist  or tribalistic considerations.




I think any moral high ground is quickly lost if the non-meat eater is insufferably obnoxious, sanctimonious, arrogant and stupidly belligerent. 


I also think you have a case for a hunter who eats localy is superior to a vegan who eats a bunch of imported stuff.  There is the other case if the non-meat eater eats food from crops where lots of animals are killed indirectly in the process of getting the plant to the table.  You kill more animals with your traditional crop harvesting practises than you do shooting a deer




IMO, a vegan that actually 'walks the walk' has far more credibility when condemning hunters for killing than the person that still eats meat, but buys theirs from a grocery store.




When I was refering to harvesting and the killing of animals in harvesting I was talking about the harvesting of plants.  Your grains, veggies, etc.  To harvest a crop you are going to kill inadvertently several, perhaps dozens of animals.  Some of the animals will be decapitated in the harvesting machines.  Others will die a slow painfull death from poisons



You can kill a few armadillos, a couple dozen mice maybe a few snakes, a rabbit or two to get your months supply of vegetarian food.  Or you can directly shoot and dress a deer and eat that. A deer or a grass fed cow, something like that is only eating what tends to naturaly grow in that space and they are pretty good about not destroying this little mini habitats where a family a few families of mice might be nestled.  They don't accidentaly take a bit out of a armadillo while they are eating a bush.  


If you think your lifestyle is harmless you are most likely sadly mistaken.

Flag Girlchristian April 24, 2012 12:37 PM EDT

Apr 24, 2012 -- 10:52AM, arielg wrote:


Your post was far more general than just meat eating, you condemned meat eaters as inferior with no consideration for who they are and what they do with their life.



I know very well what I said and meant, thank you. We are talking about the ethics involved in eating meat as opposed to not eating meat. In that regards, Hitler, who was vegetarian, was more ethical in his eating than a meat eater. I certainly have "consideration for who they are and what they do with their life."


To have consideration for who they are and what they do with their life would mean that you couldn't say, in any context, that Hitler was morally superior to, really, anyone. You claim he's morally superior because he didn't eat meat, but what about the millions of humans he killed? That's like saying a vegetarian pedofile is morally superior to a meat eater and it's silly. For anyone to be considered morally superior to another then you have to take ALL of who they are into consideration.


(You would probably say that I think Hitler is superior to Mother Teresa) Feeling pesonally attacked is a very common reaction of meat eaters to the ideas some of us express. Totally defensive.


LMAO, not defensive at all. You think it's perfectly okay to claim moral superiority over others and I don't.






 

Flag arielg April 24, 2012 1:15 PM EDT

To have consideration for who they are and what they do with their life would mean that you couldn't say, in any context, that Hitler was morally superior to, really, anyone.


Who the hell says that? I was talking about just the ethics of his eating.  I even warned you  not to jump to that conclusion when I said: "(You would probably say that I think Hitler is superior to Mother Teresa)"


You claim he's morally superior because he didn't eat meat, but what about the millions of humans he killed? That's like saying a vegetarian pedofile is morally superior to a meat eater and it's silly. For anyone to be considered morally superior to another then you have to take ALL of who they are into consideration.


 


Amazing.


 

Flag arielg April 24, 2012 1:32 PM EDT

IMO, a vegan that actually 'walks the walk' has far more credibility when condemning hunters for killing than the person that still eats meat, but buys theirs from a grocery store.


It has nothing to do with credibility or accepting anything anybody says or how good they "walk the walk". We are not trying to decide who is a better person. How closely anybody  follows the ideal is not the point.   The guiding principle is the point.


 There is a difference between seeing and accepting some superior principles, even though one is not able to follow them exactly, than rejecting them because one is not able to live according to them today.  One may do better tomorrow, if one keeps the principles.  One will never do if one rejects them because they are inconvenient or too hard to follow.


  

Flag solfeggio April 24, 2012 6:26 PM EDT

How weird that a thread that started out talking about the Canadian harp seal slaughter should have morphed into talking about Hitler as a vegetarian.


Well, although it is completely irrelevant here, nevertheless, as it happens, Hitler wasn't a vegetarian.  Whilst it is true that Hitler would go on the occasional vegetarian 'binge,' people who knew him described him as a lover of sausages, game pie, caviar, liver dumplings, and stuffed pigeon.


And Mother Teresa was not a vegetarian, either.


And none of this makes Hitler less an evil monster or Mother Teresa less a saintly, righteous woman.

Flag arielg April 24, 2012 6:37 PM EDT

You are completely missing the point, just like the one I was answering.

Flag solfeggio April 24, 2012 6:43 PM EDT

I wasn't trying to make a point or even answer anybody's post.  I was simply saying something that came to mind.

Flag solfeggio April 24, 2012 6:50 PM EDT

And yes, of course you are right to point out that ethics has to do with principles. 


I would say that anybody's basic ethical principle should be to do the least harm possible.  This means thinking about what it entails and then acting upon it.


But it means being aware of what is going on around us.  It means taking responsibility for our actions.  And it sometimes means challenging the status quo.


 

Flag Idbc April 25, 2012 6:08 PM EDT

 


Howdy Solf


 


Apr 24, 2012 -- 6:26PM, solfeggio wrote:


How weird that a thread that started out talking about the Canadian harp seal slaughter should have morphed into talking about Hitler as a vegetarian.



It is not in the sligthest bit weird.   It is typical.   What would be weird is if a thread that started out about a subject DID NOT digress into a totally irrelevant.  


 



Apr 24, 2012 -- 6:26PM, solfeggio wrote:


Well, although it is completely irrelevant here, nevertheless, as it happens, Hitler wasn't a vegetarian.  Whilst it is true that Hitler would go on the occasional vegetarian 'binge,' people who knew him described him as a lover of sausages, game pie, caviar, liver dumplings, and stuffed pigeon.


And ONMother Teresa was not a vegetarian, either.


And none of this makes Hitler less an evil monster or Mother Teresa less a saintly, righteous woman.




Nonetheless wether Hitler or Mother Theresa, or the Dali Lama or anyone else is or is not a vegetarian, a vegan, a carnivore, a fructivore, or an omnivore IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.


Whatever Hitler's diet was is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the Opening Post. 


NONTETHELESS you have seen fit to comment on it.  




 

Flag solfeggio April 25, 2012 6:20 PM EDT

Well, the thing is that somebody once observed that in any thread in any forum at any time, sooner or later, somebody will at some time make mention of Hitler.


I hadn't seen this happen in quite awhile, so I was surprised to see it pop up in the seal slaughter thread, of all places.


(For some reason, people who are anti-vegetarian/vegan like to bring up the Hitler/vegetarian stuff to make some sort of 'point,' I guess about the vegetarian lifestyle being evil...or something.)


 

Flag Erey April 25, 2012 7:03 PM EDT

Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:20PM, solfeggio wrote:



(For some reason, people who are anti-vegetarian/vegan like to bring up the Hitler/vegetarian stuff to make some sort of 'point,' I guess about the vegetarian lifestyle being evil...or something.)


 




There is not one person here who is anti-vegetarian. 


In the meantime almost all of us have done one of these:


1. gone vegetarian for a time


are vegetarian


have close friends or family that are vegetarian



I don't think any of us has a hard time being supportive of vegetarians.

Flag solfeggio April 25, 2012 7:08 PM EDT

Oh, piffle.


The facts speak for themselves.  And the facts have been posted again and again and yet again in threads that have anything to do with diet. 


Shoot the messenger seems to be the message we see so often in any thread that has anything whatsoever to do with trying to get people to see a different paradigm.



 


 

Flag teilhard April 25, 2012 7:39 PM EDT

I just saw Part of an Episode of Andrew Zimmern's Food Show, in which he visited a fancy Restaurant in Toronto ... They DO Seal Meat in Canada, so the Little Critters are NOT entirely "wasted" -- just KILLED ...

Flag teilhard April 25, 2012 7:41 PM EDT

My Family and I don't EAT "Paradigms" ... We eat FOOD ... a VARIETY, in Moderation ...


Don't like that ... ??? Tough (though longer slower Cooking often can render it deliciously TENDER ... !!!)


Apr 25, 2012 -- 7:08PM, solfeggio wrote:


Oh, piffle.  Who the hell cares whether anybody perceives vegans as arrogant or rude or whatever nonsense somebody cares to whine about?


The facts speak for themselves.  And the facts have been posted again and again and yet again in threads that have anything to do with diet. 


Shoot the messenger seems to be the message we see so often in any thread that has anything whatsoever to do with trying to get people to see a different paradigm.


You don't like the message?  Tough.


You don't like the way I talk?  Tough again.


 


 





Flag Idbc April 25, 2012 7:59 PM EDT

 


Howdy Solf


 


Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:20PM, solfeggio wrote:


Well, the thing is that somebody once observed that in any thread in any forum at any time, sooner or later, somebody will at some time make mention of Hitler.


I hadn't seen this happen in quite awhile, so I was surprised to see it pop up in the seal slaughter thread, of all places.


(For some reason, people who are anti-vegetarian/vegan like to bring up the Hitler/vegetarian stuff to make some sort of 'point,' I guess about the vegetarian lifestyle being evil...or something.)


 




Well the thing is if somebody does it and your do it then you shouldn't be suprised about  how weird that a thread that started out talking about the Canadian harp seal slaughter should have morphed into talking about Hitler as a vegetarian. 


Apr 14, 2012 -- 8:06PM, solfeggio wrote:


The cruel seal-slaughtering season in Canada, in which helpless seal pups are shot and clubbed for their fur, has started - even though there is no market for the fur anymore. 



www.sealharvest.ca/site/


As demand continues low, seal skins are stockpiled and selling for only $18 apiece. 



There is a market for the fur.  The market is currently low.  


 


Apr 14, 2012 -- 8:06PM, solfeggio wrote:


The cruel seal-slaughtering season in Canada, in which helpless seal pups are shot and clubbed for their fur, has started - even though there is no market for the fur anymore. 
www.sealharvest.ca/site/


 As demand continues low, seal skins are stockpiled and selling for only $18 apiece.  The biggist buyer of seal skins, Russia, has now banned their import. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamer...
Even the people of Newfoundland want the killing to stop.
www.hsi.org/world/canada/news/releases/2...  
The slaughter is horrible in the extreme.
www.hsicanada.ca/pdfs/inherently-inhuman...  


 


So, the question is: Why does the government want to continue with it?



And the answer is to revive the market and employment.  


Will they succeed?   


I wouldn't risk any money investing in the industry. 


I would certainly agree that the slaughter is horrible.     I wouldn't do it.   And its has been awhile since I have either eaten seal meat or wore a fur coat.  


 


 


 


 






The biggist buyer of seal skins, Russia, has now banned their import. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamer...
Even the people of Newfoundland want the killing to stop.
www.hsi.org/world/canada/news/releases/2...  
The slaughter is horrible in the extreme.
www.hsicanada.ca/pdfs/inherently-inhuman...   So, the question is: Why does the government want to continue with it?






  


 




 

Flag Idbc April 25, 2012 10:13 PM EDT

 


Howdy Solf


Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:20PM, solfeggio wrote:


Well, the thing is that somebody once observed that in any thread in any forum at any time, sooner or later, somebody will at some time make mention of Hitler. [/quote\


 I have seen many threads and forums in which Hitler was NOT  mentioned.      


 


Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:20PM, solfeggio wrote:


I hadn't seen this happen in quite awhile, so I was surprised to see it pop up in the seal slaughter thread, of all places.-



If it is true that somebody once observed that in any thread and in any forum at any time, sooner or later, somebody will at some time make mention of Hitler it should not suprise you that in this thread and this forum somebody would mention Hitler. 


In some threads and forums mention is often made of Israel  and oilarchy when it is little or no relevance to the topic of the thread.  


 


 


Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:20PM, solfeggio wrote:


(For some reason, people who are anti-vegetarian/vegan like to bring up the Hitler/vegetarian stuff to make some sort of 'point,' I guess about the vegetarian lifestyle being evil...or something.)


 




The point that those people are trying to make is that being a vegetarian does not prevent a person from being evil or something.  Being a vegetarian or a vegan at best only means that a person does not cause suffering to animals.  As for Hitler and vegetarianism


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_v...


wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_Dalai_Lama_a_v...


"



  • The Dalai Lama used to be a strict vegetarian, but is not a strict vegetarian now. The Dalai Lama was very impressed with an Indian vegetarian in the 1960's, and became vegetarian for about two years. Unfortunately, he contracted hepatitis, and under doctor's suggestions began eating meat again. Tibetan Buddhists are not strict vegetarians, as it is difficult to grow vegetables and grains in the Himalayas.


However being a vegetarian or a vegan has little or no relevance to the Original Post. 


The answer to the question in the Original Post


"Why does the(Candian) government want to continue with it?"


 is that it wants to revive the business of seal hunting.  It wants to increase empoyment.  That is a fact.  


To paraphrase Micheal Corelone:


"It's not personal Solf, it's business, strictly business."  


Personally I have doubts that the Canadian Gov't will be successful in its attempt to revive seal hunting. 


Personally I have never eaten a seal, not worn a seal fur.   Nor do I have any intention of doing either.  


 


 


 


  




 

Flag Girlchristian April 26, 2012 8:34 AM EDT

Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:20PM, solfeggio wrote:


Well, the thing is that somebody once observed that in any thread in any forum at any time, sooner or later, somebody will at some time make mention of Hitler.


I hadn't seen this happen in quite awhile, so I was surprised to see it pop up in the seal slaughter thread, of all places.


(For some reason, people who are anti-vegetarian/vegan like to bring up the Hitler/vegetarian stuff to make some sort of 'point,' I guess about the vegetarian lifestyle being evil...or something.)


 




Well, in this case, it wasn't an anti-vegetarian that brought up Hitler, it was Arielg who claimed Hitler was morally superior to meat-eaters.

Flag Idbc April 26, 2012 9:27 AM EDT

Howdy Girlchristian


Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:20PM, solfeggio wrote:


Well, the thing is that somebody once observed that in any thread in any forum at any time, sooner or later, somebody will at some time make mention of Hitler.


I hadn't seen this happen in quite awhile, so I was surprised to see it pop up in the seal slaughter thread, of all places.


(For some reason, people who are anti-vegetarian/vegan like to bring up the Hitler/vegetarian stuff to make some sort of 'point,' I guess about the vegetarian lifestyle being evil...or something.)


 




Apr 26, 2012 -- 8:34AM, Girlchristian wrote:


Well, in this case, it wasn't an anti-vegetarian that brought up Hitler, it was Arielg who claimed Hitler was morally superior to meat-eaters.




Which still has nothing to do with Original Post.  


Girlchristian why do you think that the Canadian gov't wants to subsidize the hunting of seals?   




 

Flag Girlchristian April 26, 2012 10:06 AM EDT

Apr 26, 2012 -- 9:27AM, Idbc wrote:


Howdy Girlchristian


Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:20PM, solfeggio wrote:


Well, the thing is that somebody once observed that in any thread in any forum at any time, sooner or later, somebody will at some time make mention of Hitler.


I hadn't seen this happen in quite awhile, so I was surprised to see it pop up in the seal slaughter thread, of all places.


(For some reason, people who are anti-vegetarian/vegan like to bring up the Hitler/vegetarian stuff to make some sort of 'point,' I guess about the vegetarian lifestyle being evil...or something.)


 




Apr 26, 2012 -- 8:34AM, Girlchristian wrote:


Well, in this case, it wasn't an anti-vegetarian that brought up Hitler, it was Arielg who claimed Hitler was morally superior to meat-eaters.




Which still has nothing to do with Original Post.  


Girlchristian why do you think that the Canadian gov't wants to subsidize the hunting of seals?   




 




Hi IDBC! For the same reasons you do, to increase employment and because the money from seal hunting is vital to those that are hunters and to the economy. A study in 2009 showed that 6 out of 10 Canadians approved of seal hunting and 6 out of 10 understood the economic importance of seal hunting. Seal hunting isn't just about furs and meat, it also includes seal oil, which is sold as a long-chain Omega 3 source.


In 2009, the World Wildlife Fund stated that the seal population was at a record high and in no danger of extinction from the hunting. Since then, the WWF states that the number of seals is at an even higher level and still not in danger with the current 'harvesting' (i.e., hunting) practices.

Flag arielg April 26, 2012 10:08 AM EDT

Well, in this case, it wasn't an anti-vegetarian that brought up Hitler, it was Arielg who claimed Hitler was morally superior to meat-eaters.


[/quote]


You keep insisting on this stupid interpretation  even though I pointed out more than once what is  it that was said.  I was talking about  the ethics of what what one eats, not judging any person.


One can be an evil person and have  more ethical  eating habits than those of a saint. Some people can be  really dense.  Go and read again what was said  and stop repeating lies.

Flag teilhard April 26, 2012 10:26 AM EDT

Yes ... Frank economic Considerations are not trivial in these Questions ...


E.g., People whose Living depends upon, say, "Mining" will no doubt FAVOR "Mining" far more so then, say, People who worry excessively about the environmental Effects of "Mining" ...


The Notion that SOME Folks are more "Objective" (and therefore morally superior) about such Questions is probably a vain HOPE rather than a Reality ...


Apr 26, 2012 -- 10:06AM, Girlchristian wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 9:27AM, Idbc wrote:


Howdy Girlchristian


Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:20PM, solfeggio wrote:


Well, the thing is that somebody once observed that in any thread in any forum at any time, sooner or later, somebody will at some time make mention of Hitler.


I hadn't seen this happen in quite awhile, so I was surprised to see it pop up in the seal slaughter thread, of all places.


(For some reason, people who are anti-vegetarian/vegan like to bring up the Hitler/vegetarian stuff to make some sort of 'point,' I guess about the vegetarian lifestyle being evil...or something.)


 




Apr 26, 2012 -- 8:34AM, Girlchristian wrote:


Well, in this case, it wasn't an anti-vegetarian that brought up Hitler, it was Arielg who claimed Hitler was morally superior to meat-eaters.




Which still has nothing to do with Original Post.  


Girlchristian why do you think that the Canadian gov't wants to subsidize the hunting of seals?   




 




Hi IDBC! For the same reasons you do, to increase employment and because the money from seal hunting is vital to those that are hunters and to the economy. A study in 2009 showed that 6 out of 10 Canadians approved of seal hunting and 6 out of 10 understood the economic importance of seal hunting. Seal hunting isn't just about furs and meat, it also includes seal oil, which is sold as a long-chain Omega 3 source.


In 2009, the World Wildlife Fund stated that the seal population was at a record high and in no danger of extinction from the hunting. Since then, the WWF states that the number of seals is at an even higher level and still not in danger with the current 'harvesting' (i.e., hunting) practices.





Flag rabello April 26, 2012 2:48 PM EDT

Man alive, are Americans black and white thinkers or not!  And suspicious, too.  


Either we strip the earth bare with mining and employ large numbers of people in one of the most dangerous jobs on earth, or we ban mining and let "the people" starve.


Either we allow Canadians to beat baby seals in the head with clubs till they are dead or dying in the hope of having full employment and thriving (or is it writhing??) "industry" without saying a word about it, or we save the baby seals like a bunch of wusses, and let "the people" starve.


No middle ground, nothing to learn from those who oppose just brutal practices (mining included) and supposedly assume they are "morally superior", just go shopping like Dubya says to do.  Don't worry, be happy. 


And am I to believe that the Canadian government pays hunters to go out and pummel baby seals with clubs, or that these hunters are hourly wage earners by some employer somewhere?      


Social Darwinism has such strange effects on the body politic, doesn't it?

Flag teilhard April 26, 2012 3:24 PM EDT

For sure, the All-or-Nothing Black-or-White Mindset in completely un-Realistic ...


Apr 26, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


Man alive, are Americans black and white thinkers or not!  And suspicious, too.  


Either we strip the earth bare with mining and employ large numbers of people in one of the most dangerous jobs on earth, or we ban mining and let "the people" starve.


Either we allow Canadians to beat baby seals in the head with clubs till they are dead or dying in the hope of having full employment and thriving (or is it writhing??) "industry" without saying a word about it, or we save the baby seals like a bunch of wusses, and let "the people" starve.


No middle ground, nothing to learn from those who oppose just brutal practices (mining included) and supposedly assume they are "morally superior", just go shopping like Dubya says to do.  Don't worry, be happy. 


And am I to believe that the Canadian government pays hunters to go out and pummel baby seals with clubs, or that these hunters are hourly wage earners by some employer somewhere?      


Social Darwinism has such strange effects on the body politic, doesn't it?





Flag solfeggio April 26, 2012 6:18 PM EDT

Rabello is right:


The ethics of social Darwinism are both subjective and also relativistic.  Societies like those in Canada that continue to pursue the clubbing of seals claim that this will advance their society by providing jobs for people. 


They may consider this a noble goal, but it still runs into conflict with any thinking person's innate sense of right and wrong.  Murdering baby seals for their fur is morally abhorrent.  The end - in this case, providing jobs - does not in any way justify the means here.


 

Flag Erey April 26, 2012 9:58 PM EDT

Apr 26, 2012 -- 6:18PM, solfeggio wrote:


Rabello is right:


The ethics of social Darwinism are both subjective and also relativistic.  Societies like those in Canada that continue to pursue the clubbing of seals claim that this will advance their society by providing jobs for people. 


They may consider this a noble goal, but it still runs into conflict with any thinking person's innate sense of right and wrong.  Murdering baby seals for their fur is morally abhorrent.  The end - in this case, providing jobs - does not in any way justify the means here.


 





But if they "murdered" seals for your cat's food then you would be A-OK with that.  I am sure

Flag rabello April 27, 2012 12:52 AM EDT

Apr 26, 2012 -- 6:18PM, solfeggio wrote:


Rabello is right:


The ethics of social Darwinism are both subjective and also relativistic.  Societies like those in Canada that continue to pursue the clubbing of seals claim that this will advance their society by providing jobs for people. 


They may consider this a noble goal, but it still runs into conflict with any thinking person's innate sense of right and wrong.  Murdering baby seals for their fur is morally abhorrent.  The end - in this case, providing jobs - does not in any way justify the means here.




I doubt it "provides jobs" anyway, just like the dolphin slaughter doesn't "provide jobs" for the Japanese.  It does provide "profit", though, to those who are brutal enough people to do it.  

Flag arielg April 27, 2012 7:30 AM EDT

They may consider this a noble goal, but it still runs into conflict with any thinking person's innate sense of right and wrong.  Murdering baby seals for their fur is morally abhorrent.  The end - in this case, providing jobs - does not in any way justify the means here.



You are not supposed to bring morality or ethics into this.  It is considered "icky" by some.

Flag Idbc April 27, 2012 11:06 AM EDT

 


Howdy Rabello


Apr 26, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


Man alive, are Americans black and white thinkers or not!  And suspicious, too.  



Unlike New Zealanders and others who live under the rainbow. 


Apr 26, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:

 



Either we strip the earth bare with mining and employ large numbers of people in one of the most dangerous jobs on earth, or we ban mining and let "the people" starve.



Either brutally  murdering baby seals is good or it is evil.  


"They may consider this a noble goal, but it still runs into conflict with any thinking person's innate sense of right and wrong.  Murdering baby seals for their fur is morally abhorrent.  The end - in this case, providing jobs - does not in any way justify the means here"


Either we rape mother earth for its minerals or we let the rapist starve. 


Either we brutally murder  baby seals or we let the




 


Apr 26, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


Either we allow Canadians to beat baby seals in the head with clubs till they are dead or dying in the hope of having full employment and thriving (or is it writhing??) "industry" without saying a word about it, or we save the baby seals like a bunch of wusses, and let "the people" starve.



Either we don't allow  Canadians to beat baby seals in the head with clubs till they are dead or dying in the hope of having increasing employment and thriving  "industry" without saying a word about it, or we save the baby seals like a bunch of wusses, and let "the people" starve.


I don't think that it is up to "we"(people other than Canadians who live under the rainbow)to not allow Canadians to increase employment in Canada by not allowing them to brutally murder baby seals.  I also don't think that the brutal murderers will starve if the effort of the Canadian gov't to increase employment fails.   


 



Apr 26, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


No middle ground, nothing to learn from those who oppose just brutal practices (mining included) and supposedly assume they are "morally superior", just go shopping like Dubya says to do.  Don't worry, be happy. 



No, you more than you would assume that those who are oppose such brutal practices are "morally superior."   No more than you would assume that you cannot learn anything from those who are in favor of just brutal practices.  


 


Apr 26, 2012 -- 2:48PM, rabello wrote:


   


And am I to believe that the Canadian government pays hunters to go out and pummel baby seals with clubs, or that these hunters are hourly wage earners by some employer somewhere?      


Social Darwinism has such strange effects on the body politic, doesn't it?




I don't know wether the Canadian gov't pays inhuman brutal hunters by the hour or by the seal to club baby seals.  


I don't think it really makes much of a difference either way.  


I do understand the reasons that people oppose the hunting of baby seals, and I also understand why the Canadian gov't wants to increase employment 


As I previously posted, I doubt that the plan by the Canadian gov't to increase employment in the baby seal murdering industry will succeed.  I have no plans to either buy a seal coat or to eat baby seals.   


The questions that I would ask is wether or not human beings are morally superior to nonhuman specie or are all species of animals morally equal?  


    


   




 

Flag rabello April 27, 2012 1:11 PM EDT

"Howdy" IDBC


I think you have a strange notion, there, of "industry" and ways to increase or maintain "employment".   I don't see the seasonal clubbing baby seals to death as an "industry" any more than I see the seasonal macerating dolphins with spears as an "industry", nor engaging in such needless, brutal practices as "employment".    I do think there can be and should be a "middle ground" when it comes to the natural earth and the "industry" that humans are bound and determined to get rich from, though, not an either/or proposition.


People from around the world journey to the upper reaches of Canada every year to put themselves between the hunter and the hunted, just like people from around the world are now journeying to Japan to try to stop the massacres, so it would appear that these things are more than just the business of Canadian or Japanese profit-seekers.  

Flag rabello April 27, 2012 1:21 PM EDT

Apr 27, 2012 -- 11:06AM, Idbc wrote:


Unlike......others who live under the rainbow. 




InnocentWinkSmile


Apr 27, 2012 -- 11:06AM, Idbc wrote:


The questions that I would ask is wether or not human beings are morally superior to nonhuman specie or are all species of animals morally equal?  




Morally and biologically speaking: yes all of life is morally equal and human beings are not morally superior.


I would also say, as an aside, the human beings have proven they are not morally superior to anything at all, the way we lie and manipulate, tolerate injustice and brutality -- even against other human beings, act brutally and start wars just because we can.

Flag Idbc April 27, 2012 6:09 PM EDT

 


"Howdy" Rabello


Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:11PM, rabello wrote:


I think you have a strange notion, there, of "industry" and ways to increase or maintain "employment".   I don't see the seasonal clubbing baby seals to death as an "industry" any more than I see the seasonal macerating dolphins with spears as an "industry", nor engaging in such needless, brutal practices as "employment".  



Wether you consider the notion to strange, or brutal or unneccessary does not change the fact that it is an industry, it is a business, and it does employ people.  


 


 


Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:11PM, rabello wrote:


  I do think there can be and should be a "middle ground" when it comes to the natural earth and the "industry" that humans are bound and determined to get rich from, though, not an either/or proposition.



I do think that there can be a "middle ground" when it comes to exploiting the natural resources of the earth even to get get rich in the process.   It is not a matter of getting "rich" or NOT getting "rich'. 



Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:11PM, rabello wrote:


People from around the world journey to the upper reaches of Canada every year to put themselves between the hunter and the hunted, just like people from around the world are now journeying to Japan to try to stop the massacres, so it would appear that these things are more than just the business of Canadian or Japanese profit-seekers.  




What is would appear is that these people ARE MORALLY SUPERIOR.  


It would appear that they are MORE SUPERIOR MORALLY then humans who are against the brutal, profit making murder and genocide of baby seals than those who are also opposed but are not willing to put themselves between the hunted and the hunter.  


It would appear that they are FAR FAR  SUPERIOR MORALLY than humans who profit from the  brutal,  murder and genocide of baby seals and those who carry it out and those who aid and abet the brutal mass murder and attempted genocide of baby seals.   The Canadian gov't is complict in the brutal genocide.  


It would also appear to me that those BRAVE, HERORIC AND MORALLY SUPERIOR human beings who spend their own money and time to stop the brutal, murderous, genocidal business-industry clearly see it as a BLACK industry, see NO WHITE, or NO GRAY.    .    


Morally and biologically speaking: yes all of life is morally equal and human beings are not morally superior.


Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:11PM, rabello wrote:


I would also say, as an aside, the human beings have proven they are not morally superior to anything at all, the way we lie and manipulate, tolerate injustice and brutality -- even against other human beings, act brutally and start wars just because we can.



It would appear that per the above human beings are morally inferior to all other species of animals.   It would appear that human beings are not only "not white-morally superior"  they are not even "gray".   It would appear that because the "the way we lie and manipulate, tolerate injustice and brutality -- even against other human beings, act brutally and start wars just because we can"  HUMANS ARE BLACK, BLACK, BLACK".  


So maybe a "tiny minorty"  aren't BLACK, BLACK, BLACK.  


And perhaps a "moderate" amount a GRAY, GRAY, GRAY. 


And maybe another "tiny minority are BLACK, BLACK, BLACK. 


 




 

Flag solfeggio April 27, 2012 6:22 PM EDT

Yes, it is a 'black' industry without any shades of gray. 


And yes, anybody who goes to the considerable trouble of paying good money to take him/herself up to Canada, pay for food and lodging and transportation whilst there, and put him/herself in harm's way to protest the killing of baby seals - that person is, indeed, morally superior to those who just talk about the injustice of it all but do nothing beyond that.


Those who at least try to do some good in this world are morally superior to those who don't even make the effort.


Because taking an innocent life for no good reason is immoral.

Flag rabello April 28, 2012 12:29 AM EDT

Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:09PM, Idbc wrote:


the fact that it is an industry, it is a business, and it does employ people.  




It is a way for some people to make money, same way poaching is a way for some people to make money


 

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 12:34 AM EDT

In my first Parish -- in NorthEastern Minnesota -- a fair Number of my Congregants hunted, fished (and, sometimes "poached") and gathered NOT to earn extra $$$ but for Subsistence ... I never felt that I was in ANY Position to JUDGE them ...


Apr 28, 2012 -- 12:29AM, rabello wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:09PM, Idbc wrote:


the fact that it is an industry, it is a business, and it does employ people.  




It is a way for some people to make money, same way poaching is a way for some people to make money


 





Flag solfeggio April 28, 2012 1:23 AM EDT

Well, teilhard -


Killing for sustenance might have worked in the days of the frontier, but it is simply not a good excuse for hunting today. 


I cannot believe that there aren't any supermarkets or even just little ol' grocery stores in northern parts of the states.  After all, no matter how small the town, if there's a church, there must be at least a main street,a pub or two, a school, and, one presumes, a grocery store.  And, if not, then there would be one in the nearest big town.


What is the big deal if somebody has to drive his pick-up truck a few miles to load up on groceries?  He'd probably be doing some driving to the place where he planned to hunt, after all.


And there is the fact that a bag of potatoes, onions, apples, rice, etc. costs less in the long run and lasts far longer than the carcase of the deer or pheasant or whatever the hunter killed.


People hunt because they like to kill, pure and simple.


And, if you personally have a problem with killing for pleasure, you have every right to judge such people.


Also, as their spiritual leader, you have every right to talk to them about killing for pleasure and how it is morally wrong.

Flag rabello April 28, 2012 1:31 AM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 12:34AM, teilhard wrote:


In my first Parish -- in NorthEastern Minnesota -- a fair Number of my Congregants hunted, fished (and, sometimes "poached") and gathered NOT to earn extra $$$ but for Subsistence ... I never felt that I was in ANY Position to JUDGE them ...




Well.....that is NOT what's going on with the seasonal slaughter of baby seals...not with the seasonal slaughter of dolphins, either.  


It is not an "industry", there is no employer who pays these people an hourly wage or a negotiated salary to go out and pound a juvenile seal in the head to death so as not to damage the fur, just as there is no employer who pays dolphin killers to do it, just as there is no employer to pay the killers of elephants, rhino's, mountain gorillas, siberian tigers, and other endangered species that get poached for their bodies or parts of their bodies, not for food.  They are not "employees"  -- they are people taking an opportunity, unholy as it is, to obtain filthy lucre.  What they do is a "business" -- with that, I will agree. But they are not employees and it is not an "industry".


Judge/smudge......It's not about them, it's about the seals -- and the dolphins, and the gorillas, and the tigers, and the manatees, and the spotted owl, and the .......


How do you think change happens if it isn't for good "men" doing something?


 

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 9:30 AM EDT

LOL ... You don't "get" it ... My (former) Congregants didn't hunt, fish (and occasionally, "poach") and gather for sake of Convenience, but for SUBSISTENCE, i.e., to LIVE ...


The increasing Population of Wild Cougars in northern Minnesota ALSO lives-off-the-Land NOT because it is more "Convenent" than going to the Store for Cans of Cat Food, but because THAT is HOW they GET their FOOD for SURVIVAL ...


Apr 28, 2012 -- 1:23AM, solfeggio wrote:


Well, teilhard -


Killing for sustenance might have worked in the days of the frontier, but it is simply not a good excuse for hunting today. 


I cannot believe that there aren't any supermarkets or even just little ol' grocery stores in northern parts of the states.  After all, no matter how small the town, if there's a church, there must be at least a main street,a pub or two, a school, and, one presumes, a grocery store.  And, if not, then there would be one in the nearest big town.


What is the big deal if somebody has to drive his pick-up truck a few miles to load up on groceries?  He'd probably be doing some driving to the place where he planned to hunt, after all.


And there is the fact that a bag of potatoes, onions, apples, rice, etc. costs less in the long run and lasts far longer than the carcase of the deer or pheasant or whatever the hunter killed.


People hunt because they like to kill, pure and simple.


And, if you personally have a problem with killing for pleasure, you have every right to judge such people.


Also, as their spiritual leader, you have every right to talk to them about killing for pleasure and how it is morally wrong.





Flag rabello April 28, 2012 1:36 PM EDT

Your (former) Congregants were cougars??? 

Flag Girlchristian April 28, 2012 2:54 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 12:29AM, rabello wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:09PM, Idbc wrote:


the fact that it is an industry, it is a business, and it does employ people.  




It is a way for some people to make money, same way poaching is a way for some people to make money


 




Yes and to support their families...

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 5:31 PM EDT

No ... But LIKE Wild Cougars, not a few of them lived in The Outback North Woods and didn't HAVE enough $$$ to BUY all the Food they needed ... So they hunted, fished (occasionaly, "poached") and gathered to get FOOD ...


NOT everybody in North America is Rollin-in-Dollars, you see ...


Apr 28, 2012 -- 1:36PM, rabello wrote:


Your (former) Congregants were cougars??? 





Flag rabello April 28, 2012 5:46 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 2:54PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Yes and to support their families...



LOL.  You make it sound so honorable!  We might ask why they don't/won't use humane methods to quickly kill baby seals if it's to feed their families.....

Flag rabello April 28, 2012 5:52 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 5:31PM, teilhard wrote:


No ... But LIKE Wild Cougars, not a few of them lived in The Outback North Woods and didn't HAVE enough $$$ to BUY all the Food they needed ... So they hunted, fished (occasionaly, "poached") and gathered to get FOOD ...


NOT everybody in North America is Rollin-in-Dollars, you see ...





Yep, and that's what food stamps if for.


But, as I said before, that ISN'T what's going on with the seasonal baby seal slaughter.    One might ask, if one is searching for truth, why these supposedly impoverished people don't/won't use humane methods to quickly kill baby seals if it's to feed their families for the food they can't afford to buy.  Unless you're going to argue that clubbing a baby seal that can't get away or defend itself in the head until it's head is crushed and it bleeds to death is the most humane way these supposedly impoverished hunters can think up.

Flag belleo April 28, 2012 6:04 PM EDT

I use to live on a farm . How did we kill the chickens and the beef and the pork ? It wasn't done with kid gloves . And I also know people who live close to the slaughter of baby seals . Yes they are very poor . And yes they eat the seal meat . Just like we do a great big steak and think nothing of it .

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 6:22 PM EDT

Lots of People don't qualify for "Food Stamps" or are too proud to get them and use them or they simply don't know about them ... Many of these Families have been hunting, fishing (and occasionally, "poaching") and gathering for GENERATIONS before there WERE any "Food Stamp" Programs ...


In addition, Hunting-Fishing-Gathering is a Set of Practices/Ways-of-Life that are VERY Deep Aspects of many Traditional Communities ... They will continue their Traditional Lives no Matter the Programs and Urgings offered and urged by Technocrats and Bureaucrats in faraway D. C.  OR in closer nearby Duluth ...


Do you suggest that my (former) Congregants were WRONG to gather Wild HazelNuts, Wild Berries, and/or to make Maple Syrup from Trees on their Land ... ??? They ought to NEVER catch and eat Fish from nearby Lakes and Rivers ... ???


Apr 28, 2012 -- 5:52PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 5:31PM, teilhard wrote:


No ... But LIKE Wild Cougars, not a few of them lived in The Outback North Woods and didn't HAVE enough $$$ to BUY all the Food they needed ... So they hunted, fished (occasionaly, "poached") and gathered to get FOOD ...


NOT everybody in North America is Rollin-in-Dollars, you see ...





Yep, and that's what food stamps if for.


But, as I said before, that ISN'T what's going on with the seasonal baby seal slaughter.    One might ask, if one is searching for truth, why these supposedly impoverished people don't/won't use humane methods to quickly kill baby seals if it's to feed their families for the food they can't afford to buy.  Unless you're going to argue that clubbing a baby seal that can't get away or defend itself in the head until it's head is crushed and it bleeds to death is the most humane way these supposedly impoverished hunters can think up.





Flag rabello April 28, 2012 6:29 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:22PM, teilhard wrote:


Do you suggest that my (former) Congregants were WRONG to gather Wild HazelNuts, Wild Berries, and/or to make Maple Syrup from Trees on their Land ... ??? They ought to NEVER catch and eat Fish from nearby Lakes and Rivers ... ???




I would suggest that what your (former) Congregants do or did is not related to the annual, seasonal slaughter of baby seals, and that as human beings continue to evolve, one day they will seek other methods of finding food that using things like clubs and traps and snares.   Maybe even learn how to apply for food stamps if they are that impoverished!

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 6:36 PM EDT

People who "live off The Land" AREN'T necessarily "impoverished," no matter the Prejudices of Morally-Superior-Feeling City-Slickers to the contrary ... (Are Farm Families who practice Subsistence Agriculture ALSO "impoverished," and who SHOULD then INSTEAD rely on "Food Stamps" to get their Food at the Local Grocery Store ... ??? Why are COMMERCIALLY Produced Food Supplies to be preferrred over Traditional Sources of Food ... ???)


Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:29PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:22PM, teilhard wrote:


Do you suggest that my (former) Congregants were WRONG to gather Wild HazelNuts, Wild Berries, and/or to make Maple Syrup from Trees on their Land ... ??? They ought to NEVER catch and eat Fish from nearby Lakes and Rivers ... ???




I would suggest that what your (former) Congregants do or did is not related to the annual, seasonal slaughter of baby seals, and that as human beings continue to evolve, one day they will seek other methods of finding food that using things like clubs and traps and snares.   Maybe even learn how to apply for food stamps if they are that impoverished!





Flag rabello April 28, 2012 6:36 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:04PM, belleo wrote:


I use to live on a farm . How did we kill the chickens and the beef and the pork ? It wasn't done with kid gloves . And I also know people who live close to the slaughter of baby seals . Yes they are very poor . And yes they eat the seal meat . Just like we do a great big steak and think nothing of it .




OK, even if what you say is 100% true -- that baby seal hunters are very poor (people who trade in highly desired animal pelts are rarely "poor") -- but even if that's true, why aren't they clubbing adult seals to death, by hand, year round, and why do you suppose they don't/won't use more humane ways to kill the baby seals during the seasonal hunt?  


And there are people who do think about it when they ear a great big steak and there are even a lot of people who won't eat a great big steak because of what they think about.  


Doesn't anyone have an idea why they bludgeon them to death instead of just shooting them?

Flag farragut April 28, 2012 6:38 PM EDT

" Maybe even learn how to apply for food stamps if they are that impoverished!"


 


Right, let the government pay, even if, with a modicum of freedom, you can fend for yourself.


The entitlement society.


Ya gotta love it.

Flag solfeggio April 28, 2012 6:44 PM EDT

This is ridiculous.  People of Minnesota are too poor to buy a bag of potatoes or rice or apples or oatmeal or canned corn or whatever - but they DO have enough money to buy guns, ammo, fishing gear, etc. and to buy petrol for their cars to take them to wherever it is they want to hunt or fish, not to mention paying for food and lodging at wherever it is they're going to do their hunting or fishing?


Give me a break!

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 6:45 PM EDT

***You're offering to provide FREE Rifles-and-Ammo to each of the Hunter Families ... ??? That's very generous of you ... !!! 


Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:36PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:04PM, belleo wrote:


I use to live on a farm . How did we kill the chickens and the beef and the pork ? It wasn't done with kid gloves . And I also know people who live close to the slaughter of baby seals . Yes they are very poor . And yes they eat the seal meat . Just like we do a great big steak and think nothing of it .




OK, even if what you say is 100% true -- that baby seal hunters are very poor (people who trade in highly desired animal pelts are rarely "poor") -- but even if that's true, why aren't they clubbing adult seals to death, by hand, year round, and why do you suppose they don't/won't use more humane ways to kill the baby seals during the seasonal hunt?  


And there are people who do think about it when they ear a great big steak and there are even a lot of people who won't eat a great big steak because of what they think about.  


***Doesn't anyone have an idea why they bludgeon them to death instead of just shooting them?





Flag rabello April 28, 2012 6:47 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:36PM, teilhard wrote:


People who "live off The Land" AREN'T necessarily "impoverished," no matter the Prejudices of Morally-Superior-Feeling City-Slickers to the contrary ...




Well, you are the one who said this:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 5:31PM, teilhard wrote:


No ... But LIKE Wild Cougars, not a few of them lived in The Outback North Woods and didn't HAVE enough $$$ to BUY all the Food they needed ... So they hunted, fished (occasionaly, "poached") and gathered to get FOOD ...


NOT everybody in North America is Rollin-in-Dollars, you see ...




If you didn't mean it, you didn't mean it.  But don't blame me for trying to follow your train of thought.


It is interesting that pro hunters who are not "judgemental" of anyone except "superior-minded" "city slickers" would get upset at the mention of food stamps, while at the same time defending an inhumane practice like bludgeoning baby seals in the head till their heads are crushed and the bleed to death.

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 6:50 PM EDT

AGAIN ...


It's NOT a Question of "Poverty" so much as a Traditional Way-of-Life ... (which DOES indeed include distinctly LIITED "Cash Flow") ... 


Should they (be REQUIRED to) buy their Maple Syrup and Berries in the Stores too, or is gathering THOSE somehow "okay" with you ... ???  What OTHER Aspects of their Daily Lives are YOU somehow uniquely qualified to judge and direct FOR them ... ??? Just curious ... Is it OKAY with YOU that they cut FireWood on their own Land for heating their Houses and OutBuildings in a VERY severe Climate ... ???


Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:44PM, solfeggio wrote:


This is ridiculous.  People of Minnesota are too poor to buy a bag of potatoes or rice or apples or oatmeal or canned corn or whatever - but they DO have enough money to buy guns, ammo, fishing gear, etc. and to buy petrol for their cars to take them to wherever it is they want to hunt or fish, not to mention paying for food and lodging at wherever it is they're going to do their hunting or fishing?


Give me a break!





Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 6:51 PM EDT

"Limited 'Cash Flow'" does NOT necessarily = "Impoverished" ...


Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:47PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:36PM, teilhard wrote:


People who "live off The Land" AREN'T necessarily "impoverished," no matter the Prejudices of Morally-Superior-Feeling City-Slickers to the contrary ...




Well, you are the one who said this:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 5:31PM, teilhard wrote:


No ... But LIKE Wild Cougars, not a few of them lived in The Outback North Woods and didn't HAVE enough $$$ to BUY all the Food they needed ... So they hunted, fished (occasionaly, "poached") and gathered to get FOOD ...


NOT everybody in North America is Rollin-in-Dollars, you see ...




If you didn't mean it, you didn't mean it.  But don't blame me for trying to follow your train of thought.


It is interesting that pro hunters who are not "judgemental" of anyone except "superior-minded" "city slickers" would get upset at the mention of food stamps, while at the same time defending an inhumane practice like bludgeoning baby seals in the head till their heads are crushed and the bleed to death.





Flag rabello April 28, 2012 6:53 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:44PM, solfeggio wrote:


This is ridiculous.  People of Minnesota are too poor to buy a bag of potatoes or rice or apples or oatmeal or canned corn or whatever - but they DO have enough money to buy guns, ammo, fishing gear, etc. and to buy petrol for their cars to take them to wherever it is they want to hunt or fish, not to mention paying for food and lodging at wherever it is they're going to do their hunting or fishing?


Give me a break!




Yes, it is ridiculous.   But, maybe they do more poaching than anything else, so they don't have to pay for the hunting license, maybe they hike out to the wild places, and maybe they don't use guns and ammo (that's the name of a magazine, btw) but beat cougars to death with clubs they made themsleves, or trap them with monstrous tools they built themselves.  Who knows? 


It's just attempts to divert attention away from the topic (as usual).

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 6:55 PM EDT

LOL ... You don't WANT to "get" it ...


Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:53PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:44PM, solfeggio wrote:


This is ridiculous.  People of Minnesota are too poor to buy a bag of potatoes or rice or apples or oatmeal or canned corn or whatever - but they DO have enough money to buy guns, ammo, fishing gear, etc. and to buy petrol for their cars to take them to wherever it is they want to hunt or fish, not to mention paying for food and lodging at wherever it is they're going to do their hunting or fishing?


Give me a break!




Yes, it is ridiculous.   But, maybe they do more poaching than anything else, so they don't have to pay for the hunting license, maybe they hike out to the wild places, and maybe they don't use guns and ammo (that's the name of a magazine, btw) but beat cougars to death with clubs they made themsleves, or trap them with monstrous tools they built themselves.  Who knows? 


It's just attempts to divert attention away from the topic (as usual).





Flag solfeggio April 28, 2012 7:01 PM EDT

And, as for the people who supposedly make their living clubbing baby seals -


How could anybody possibly even attempt to justify this barbarity?


To say that it provides jobs is ludicrous.


If the people can't find a decent job in the area where they live, why aren't they moving to someplace else to look for work?  Why aren't they going back to school to learn some sort of trade?  You can hardly say that you make your living killing seals for a few weeks every year.  This is hardly a career or even a noble occupation.  It's the ultimate cruelty.


www.care2.com/causes/brutal-seal-hunting...


So, picture the seal-clubber in action.  The fellow puts on his waterproof boots, jacket, and hat.  He picks up his nail-studded club, and off he goes to bludgeon the helpless little mammals, until the snow runs red.


But, what, really, is the seal cull all about in the end?  It's just another example of the violence of humans against our fellow animals.  It goes on all the time in the slaughterhouses, doesn't it?  But in the case of the seals, we can see it happening, and so it enrages us.


What's the real reason the Canadians are so keen to kill the seals?  Simple.  Seals eat a lot of fish, and the fishermen don't like that.  So, kill the competition.


 


 

Flag rabello April 28, 2012 7:01 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:38PM, farragut wrote:


" Maybe even learn how to apply for food stamps if they are that impoverished!"


 


Right, let the government pay, even if, with a modicum of freedom, you can fend for yourself.


The entitlement society.


Ya gotta love it.




What does that have to do with the annual, seasonal slaughter of baby seals for their pelts, in Canada, which is a country less likely allow its people to go hungry than America.

Flag rabello April 28, 2012 7:06 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:55PM, teilhard wrote:


LOL ... You don't WANT to "get" it ...




It's off topic

Flag solfeggio April 28, 2012 7:23 PM EDT

teilhard -


You protest that some of us don't 'get' it.  Oh, we get it, all right, more's the pity. 


Unlike many people who focus on the irrelevant details and fail to understand the principles involved, we see the big picture all too clearly.


 

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 7:33 PM EDT

The Annual Seal Hunt in some Areas of Canada is about a Traditional Way of Life ...


Apr 28, 2012 -- 7:01PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 6:38PM, farragut wrote:


" Maybe even learn how to apply for food stamps if they are that impoverished!"


 


Right, let the government pay, even if, with a modicum of freedom, you can fend for yourself.


The entitlement society.


Ya gotta love it.




What does that have to do with the annual, seasonal slaughter of baby seals for their pelts, in Canada, which is a country less likely allow its people to go hungry than America.





Flag rabello April 28, 2012 7:47 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 7:23PM, solfeggio wrote:


teilhard -


You protest that some of us don't 'get' it.  Oh, we get it, all right, more's the pity. 


Unlike many people who focus on the irrelevant details and fail to understand the principles involved, we see the big picture all too clearly.


 




Well said, solfeggio.  Thanks for the care2 link.  I once saw a video of the slaughter, in real time, which showed not only the bloodstained ice, but a pup that looked just like the one on the care2 link....except that the one in the video was covered in its blood and shaking, eyes wide open but having trouble breathing.  Of course none of the hunters thought to just end its suffering, thinking, I imagine, how much money they might get for its fur.

Flag solfeggio April 28, 2012 7:48 PM EDT

'Traditional way of life'?  What a load of crap.  Really.


Let's see, now.  Keeping slaves was once a 'traditional way of life,' too, wasn't it?  It still is, in some places.


And keeping your women in burkas is also a 'traditional way of life,' isn't it?


Gladitorial matches in ancient Rome were once a 'traditional way of life.'


Punishing heretics was once a 'traditional way of life.'


Burning witches was once a 'traditional way of life', too. 


And, oh, yeah, subsistence living is also 'a traditional way of life' for a lot of people in central Asia.  It isn't much fun, of course, and you can get pretty hungry at times, but, hey, it's 'traditional,' so that makes it OK.


The traditional way is not always the best way or the right way to live.  And the appeal to tradition to explain something is a common fallacy.  What was done in the past does not necessarily justify that which is being done in the present.


 

Flag rabello April 28, 2012 7:55 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 7:33PM, teilhard wrote:


The Annual Seal Hunt in some Areas of Canada is about a Traditional Way of Life ...




No it isn't. It is about selling pelts for the highest dollar from those who are amoral enough to pay for them.   


You should read the care2 article.


Why do you think they pound them about the head to kill them?  A question that remains unanswered by those defending such a barbaric practice.

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 8:22 PM EDT

But again ... You WOULDN'T object if the Baby Seals were SHOT rather than clubbed ..


Apr 28, 2012 -- 7:47PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 7:23PM, solfeggio wrote:


teilhard -


You protest that some of us don't 'get' it.  Oh, we get it, all right, more's the pity. 


Unlike many people who focus on the irrelevant details and fail to understand the principles involved, we see the big picture all too clearly.


 




Well said, solfeggio.  Thanks for the care2 link.  I once saw a video of the slaughter, in real time, which showed not only the bloodstained ice, but a pup that looked just like the one on the care2 link....except that the one in the video was covered in its blood and shaking, eyes wide open but having trouble breathing.  Of course none of the hunters thought to just end its suffering, thinking, I imagine, how much money they might get for its fur.





Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 8:24 PM EDT

"Settled Agriculture" as a Traditional Way of Life has produced its own Environmental -- and so, Ethical -- Problems ...


Do you object to "Settled Agriculture" ... ???  Why, or why not ... ???


Apr 28, 2012 -- 7:48PM, solfeggio wrote:


'Traditional way of life'?  What a load of crap.  Really.


Let's see, now.  Keeping slaves was once a 'traditional way of life,' too, wasn't it?  It still is, in some places.


And keeping your women in burkas is also a 'traditional way of life,' isn't it?


Gladitorial matches in ancient Rome were once a 'traditional way of life.'


Punishing heretics was once a 'traditional way of life.'


Burning witches was once a 'traditional way of life', too. 


And, oh, yeah, subsistence living is also 'a traditional way of life' for a lot of people in central Asia.  It isn't much fun, of course, and you can get pretty hungry at times, but, hey, it's 'traditional,' so that makes it OK.


The traditional way is not always the best way or the right way to live.  And the appeal to tradition to explain something is a common fallacy.  What was done in the past does not necessarily justify that which is being done in the present.


 





Flag Idbc April 28, 2012 8:43 PM EDT

 


Howdy Solf


Apr 28, 2012 -- 7:01PM, solfeggio wrote:


And, as for the people who supposedly make their living clubbing baby seals -


How could anybody possibly even attempt to justify this barbarity?


To say that it provides jobs is ludicrous.



It does provide jobs. 


Apr 28, 2012 -- 7:01PM, solfeggio wrote:


If the people can't find a decent job in the area where they live, why aren't they moving to someplace else to look for work?



Because they don't want to move to someplace else?


 


Apr 28, 2012 -- 7:01PM, solfeggio wrote:


  Why aren't they going back to school to learn some sort of trade? 



For the same reasons that people in New Zealand who work in black industries don't learn some sort of decent trade?


Apr 28, 2012 -- 7:01PM, solfeggio wrote:


 You can hardly say that you make your living killing seals for a few weeks every year.  This is hardly a career or even a noble occupation.  It's the ultimate cruelty.


www.care2.com/causes/brutal-seal-hunting...


So, picture the seal-clubber in action.  The fellow puts on his waterproof boots, jacket, and hat.  He picks up his nail-studded club, and off he goes to bludgeon the helpless little mammals, until the snow runs red. 



If you picture sheephearders in New Zealand committing mass murder and genocide on poor helpless baby sheep. 


Apr 28, 2012 -- 7:01PM, solfeggio wrote:


But, what, really, is the seal cull all about in the end?  It's just another example of the violence of humans against our fellow animals.  It goes on all the time in the slaughterhouses, doesn't it?  But in the case of the seals, we can see it happening, and so it enrages us.



Then don't look.  


Apr 28, 2012 -- 7:01PM, solfeggio wrote:


What's the real reason the Canadians are so keen to kill the seals? 


Simple.  Seals eat a lot of fish, and the fishermen don't like that.  So, kill the competition.


 


 




The poor innocent fish are going to be murdered wether by poor innocent seals or by mean ol fisherman.  


However the mean ol fisherman have a choice.  The seals do not have a choice. 


They must murder poor innocent fish in order to survive.   It seems to me that seals are amoral because they have no choice. 


Unlike humans who  do have a choice.   Humans can be moral, immoral, or amoral.   


They have choices that seals do not and that is what makes humans different from seals.  


Being able to make choices however does not explain why humans make they choices that they do make.    


Why is it that "some" humans make the choices that they make?  


  

Flag rabello April 28, 2012 9:51 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:22PM, teilhard wrote:


But again ... You WOULDN'T object if the Baby Seals were SHOT rather than clubbed ..




You are just being argumentative.   Why don't you say what YOU believe in rather than telling other people what they believe in, when you don't actually have a clue.

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 9:57 PM EDT

Either the MANNER of the Killing of the Baby Seals is under Discussion -- or it's NOT ...


Apr 28, 2012 -- 9:51PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:22PM, teilhard wrote:


But again ... You WOULDN'T object if the Baby Seals were SHOT rather than clubbed ..




You are just being argumentative.   Why don't you say what YOU believe in rather than telling other people what they believe in, when you don't actually have a clue.





Flag rabello April 28, 2012 10:09 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 9:57PM, teilhard wrote:


Either the MANNER of the Killing of the Baby Seals is under Discussion -- or it's NOT ...




So why do you keep bringing off-topic, and irrelevant topics into it?   This is a serious subject and for some of us, too serious to bother with your typically flippant and glib remarks.  It matters not one whit to me if you think clubbing a baby seal to death is A-OK...one day it will be ended, period, because of good "men" doing something.  You can be part of it, or not...your choice.

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 10:17 PM EDT

YOU (again) OBJECT to the MANNER of Death of the Baby Seals, and THEN you OBJECT when someone else joins in the Discussion ...


If you don't want a RESPONSE to your Posts, you perhaps ought not POST anything ...


Apr 28, 2012 -- 10:09PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 9:57PM, teilhard wrote:


Either the MANNER of the Killing of the Baby Seals is under Discussion -- or it's NOT ...




So why do you keep bringing off-topic, and irrelevant topics into it?   This is a serious subject and for some of us, too serious to bother with your typically flippant and glib remarks.  It matters not one whit to me if you think clubbing a baby seal to death is A-OK...one day it will be ended, period, because of good "men" doing something.  You can be part of it, or not...your choice.





Flag rabello April 28, 2012 10:34 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 10:17PM, teilhard wrote:


YOU (again) OBJECT to the MANNER of Death of the Baby Seals, and THEN you OBJECT when someone else joins in the Discussion ...




No, I asked those who support the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of baby seals why they are clubbed in the head till they're dead instead of being shot, electrocuted, having their throats cut, being strangled, or given a shot.   That does not mean, or even imply, that I "favor" them getting shot, electrocuted, having thier throats cut, being strangled, or given a shot.


If those who support this brutality can't even answer the question, then they can't answer the question.  All that does is undermine their supposed "support" -- no skin off my back, I know why they clobber them with clubs.


Apr 28, 2012 -- 10:17PM, teilhard wrote:


If you don't want a RESPONSE to your Posts, you perhaps ought not POST anything ...




Perhaps you should stick to giving your own opinions, and not tell others what their opinion are.

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 10:42 PM EDT

So ... The MANNER of the Death of the Baby Seals is IRRELEVANT in your Opinion ... You simply object to their being killed by ANY Means ...


Apr 28, 2012 -- 10:34PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 10:17PM, teilhard wrote:


YOU (again) OBJECT to the MANNER of Death of the Baby Seals, and THEN you OBJECT when someone else joins in the Discussion ...




No, I asked those who support the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of baby seals why they are clubbed in the head till they're dead instead of being shot, electrocuted, having their throats cut, being strangled, or given a shot.   That does not mean, or even imply, that I "favor" them getting shot, electrocuted, having thier throats cut, being strangled, or given a shot.


If those who support this brutality can't even answer the question, then they can't answer the question.  All that does is undermine their supposed "support" -- no skin off my back, I know why they clobber them with clubs.


Apr 28, 2012 -- 10:17PM, teilhard wrote:


If you don't want a RESPONSE to your Posts, you perhaps ought not POST anything ...




Perhaps you should stick to giving your own opinions, and not tell others what their opinion are.





Flag Idbc April 28, 2012 10:47 PM EDT

Howdy Teilhard


I do think that both Solf and Rabello would object to the killing-murder of seals no matter how it is done.   Even it was done with no brutality at all.   Wether they are clubbed, shot, or given a lethal injection.    It is their contention that they are innocent, and they have as much a right to exist as a human being.   They also claim that since it is not "neccesary" to kill-murder  them, then they shouldn't be killed-murdered.  They claim that even it "was" a neccessary evil in the past to kill-murder seals in the past, it is NOT a neccessary evil NOW.   Especially on an industrial scale. 


 


 

Flag teilhard April 28, 2012 11:00 PM EDT

Yes ... I know exactly what they're saying ... I just disagree with the RIGID ZEAL of their Black/White View of these Questions ... 


Apr 28, 2012 -- 10:47PM, Idbc wrote:


Howdy Teilhard


I do think that both Solf and Rabello would object to the killing-murder of seals no matter how it is done.   Even it was done with no brutality at all.   Wether they are clubbed, shot, or given a lethal injection.    It is their contention that they are innocent, and they have as much a right to exist as a human being.   They also claim that since it is not "neccesary" to kill-murder  them, then they shouldn't be killed-murdered.  They claim that even it "was" a neccessary evil in the past to kill-murder seals in the past, it is NOT a neccessary evil NOW.   Especially on an industrial scale. 


 


 





Flag rabello April 28, 2012 11:54 PM EDT

Being against the slaughter of baby harp seals is hardly an indication of black-and-white thinking, and the reaction such a thing elicits is the opposite from "zeal". 


I would think that those who oppose advocates of the humane treatment of animals would come up with a different counterargument than the tired old equivalent of "your mother wears combat boots" to express their opposition.   It's ok not to care about the seals, or the dolphins, or the whales, or the moutain gorillas, or the siberian tigers, or the elephants, or the wolves, or the prairie dogs, etc, and since it's ok not to care, that's all one really needs to say:  "I don't care and I don't care that you care".

Flag christzen April 28, 2012 11:57 PM EDT

Apr 15, 2012 -- 1:54PM, rabello wrote:


The only reason "man" is the "apex predator" is that he has to use tricks and weapons to kill whatever he wants dead....doesn't have the physical adaptations to go at it mano-to-animano




 


It's called intelligence.And it is what makes us the apex predator.It is also what will kill us off in the end.

Flag christzen April 28, 2012 11:59 PM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:54PM, rabello wrote:


Being against the slaughter of baby harp seals is hardly an indication of black-and-white thinking, and the reaction such a thing elicits is the opposite from "zeal". 


I would think that those who oppose advocates of the humane treatment of animals would come up with a different counterargument than the tired old equivalent of "your mother wears combat boots" to express their opposition.   It's ok not to care about the seals, or the dolphins, or the whales, or the moutain gorillas, or the siberian tigers, or the elephants, or the wolves, or the prairie dogs, etc, and since it's ok not to care, that's all one really needs to say:  "I don't care and I don't care that you care".




 


What I find most ironic about the whole animal rights debate is that almost without exception, those most  rabidly supportive of animal rights and outraged at the killing of say,baby seals,are also supporters of abortion rights and being able to end the life of unborn humans.


Strange.

Flag rabello April 29, 2012 12:06 AM EDT

That's because people who are prochoice understand that banning abortion will not stop abortion and just puts the lives of women, some of whom are mothers with children to raise, in danger. 

Flag teilhard April 29, 2012 12:07 AM EDT

Yes ... The Cognitive Dissonance is one of the Reasons I DISTANCE myself from The Zealots, even though I am personaly for various Reasons much in FAVOR of grealy increased "Animal Rights" (and also "Plant's Rights") ...


Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:59PM, christzen wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:54PM, rabello wrote:


Being against the slaughter of baby harp seals is hardly an indication of black-and-white thinking, and the reaction such a thing elicits is the opposite from "zeal". 


I would think that those who oppose advocates of the humane treatment of animals would come up with a different counterargument than the tired old equivalent of "your mother wears combat boots" to express their opposition.   It's ok not to care about the seals, or the dolphins, or the whales, or the moutain gorillas, or the siberian tigers, or the elephants, or the wolves, or the prairie dogs, etc, and since it's ok not to care, that's all one really needs to say:  "I don't care and I don't care that you care".




 


What I find most ironic about the whole animal rights debate is that almost without exception, those most  rabidly supportive of animal rights and outraged at the killing of say,baby seals,are also supporters of abortion rights and being able to end the life of unborn humans.


Strange.





Flag rabello April 29, 2012 12:10 AM EDT

Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:57PM, christzen wrote:


Apr 15, 2012 -- 1:54PM, rabello wrote:


The only reason "man" is the "apex predator" is that he has to use tricks and weapons to kill whatever he wants dead....doesn't have the physical adaptations to go at it mano-to-animano




 


It's called intelligence.And it is what makes us the apex predator.It is also what will kill us off in the end.




True enough.  And with that intelligence comes to ability to make a choice, too.

Flag teilhard April 29, 2012 12:14 AM EDT

And ... Our BEST Choices are made REASONABLY rather than on Basis of a hyped-up over-wrought emotionalistic Appeal based on The Big Brown Eyes of The Cute Little Helpless Innocent Baby Seals ...


Apr 29, 2012 -- 12:10AM, rabello wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:57PM, christzen wrote:


Apr 15, 2012 -- 1:54PM, rabello wrote:


The only reason "man" is the "apex predator" is that he has to use tricks and weapons to kill whatever he wants dead....doesn't have the physical adaptations to go at it mano-to-animano




 


It's called intelligence.And it is what makes us the apex predator.It is also what will kill us off in the end.




True enough.  And with that intelligence comes to ability to make a choice, too.





Flag rabello April 29, 2012 12:38 AM EDT

No...the "best" choices are those which cause the least amount of harm/suffering/damage to other living things.  "Emotionalism" having nothing to do with it.  If you think cuddly little furry creatures deserve to die a violent death because some man can make money off its fur, even though there's a such thing as fake fur in the modern world that is indistiguishable, that's your business.  More people throughout the world, including unemotional men, disagree with that -- and it will be those people who finally put an end to the slaughter of baby seals, dolphins, whales, etc for their bodies or body parts, not for their "food"

Flag christzen April 29, 2012 12:47 AM EDT

Apr 29, 2012 -- 12:06AM, rabello wrote:


That's because people who are prochoice understand that banning abortion will not stop abortion and just puts the lives of women, some of whom are mothers with children to raise, in danger. 




 


Oh,I understand pro choicers having a rationale for holding  their position.It doesn't change the irony of being pro "don't kill baby seals" while simultaneously being pro "terminate your unborn child if it suits you".

Flag solfeggio April 29, 2012 1:11 AM EDT

Oh, boy, oh, boy - abortion rights somehow has made its way into the discussion.


As a firm believer in pro-choice myself, I see nothing wrong with a woman terminating a pregnancy in the early stages when the supposed 'human' is nothing more than a zygote or an embryo.


I don't see why a woman who has been raped, or a woman whose health would be in danger if she carried a fetus to term should not be able to have an abortion.  The rights of a woman come before those of a zygote, embryo, or even a fetus.


It's her body, and it is up to her to decide what to do with it.


So, yeah, I'm a card-carrying atheist who believes in animal rights and women's rights, think LGBT people should be able to get married if they want (or do anything else they want - because what consenting adults do in private that doesn't hurt anybody is nobody else's business), think socialism is a good system, and always vote Labour (which would be the Democratic party to you).


And, where seals are concerned, I don't give a hoot whether they are cute and cuddly or sweet little babies or anything else.  The bottom line is that nobody needs their fur, nobody needs their meat, and nobody needs a job so bad that they have to kill seals to make a living.


 


 

Flag christzen April 29, 2012 1:55 AM EDT

Apr 29, 2012 -- 1:11AM, solfeggio wrote:


Oh, boy, oh, boy - abortion rights somehow has made its way into the discussion.




 


Not to debate abortion rights,but merely as a juxtaposition showing the concern of a particular segment of society for the lives of animals while simultaneously having no concern for the lives of unborn humans.


 


As I said,a strange combination.


 




 

Flag Idbc April 29, 2012 9:42 PM EDT

 


 


Howdy Rabello


Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:54PM, rabello wrote:


Being against the slaughter of baby harp seals is hardly an indication of black-and-white thinking, and the reaction such a thing elicits is the opposite from "zeal". 



The slaughter of baby seals is not a black and white to those who oppose the murder of this poor innocent babies by brutally using nail spiked clubs and hitting them in the head is pure black.   


I would imagine that though bloody it would relatively quick if not instaneous. It is my understanding that the reason for using a club to the head is to prevent damage to the seal fur.  


But everybody knows that the "real" reason that the Canaidiaon gov't is sponsoring the brutal mass murder and genocide  of the harp seals is to stop them from brutally murdering fish and eathing the fish that the fishermen want to brutally murder and selling for profit and riches.  


Instead of brutally murdering baby seals and fish for fun and profit when they could easily get re-educated and move.   They could grow soy beans make tofu and save the world.   


You can't get much more whiter then growing soy beans and making some yummy tofu. 


Those who oppose the right of women to brutally murder their own fetuses use some of the same tactics as those who murder baby seals.   They would use bloody gruesome pictures and paint the entire abortion industry as black profit making industry.


    


 


 


 


 


 


I would think that those who oppose advocates of the humane treatment of animals would come up with a different counterargument than the tired old equivalent of "your mother wears combat boots" to express their opposition.   It's ok not to care about the seals, or the dolphins, or the whales, or the moutain gorillas, or the siberian tigers, or the elephants, or the wolves, or the prairie dogs, etc, and since it's ok not to care, that's all one really needs to say:  "I don't care and I don't care that you care".





Flag teilhard April 29, 2012 10:09 PM EDT

Our "Modern" Human (distinctly DYS-Functional) Relationship to the REST of Nature is rapidly becoming ever more obvious and TRAGIC ...


Trying SERIOUSLY to HEAL that broken Relaionship will require BOTH our "Hearts" AND our "Minds" to be changed and engaged, for sure ...

Flag Idbc April 30, 2012 10:19 PM EDT

 


 


 


 


Howdy Teil


Apr 29, 2012 -- 10:09PM, teilhard wrote:


Our "Modern" Human (distinctly DYS-Functional) Relationship to the REST of Nature is rapidly becoming ever more obvious and TRAGIC ...


Trying SERIOUSLY to HEAL that broken Relaionship will require BOTH our "Hearts" AND our "Minds" to be changed and engaged, for sure ...




And it appears that is what Solf is trying to do.


 


 


 


 

Flag teilhard April 30, 2012 11:48 PM EDT

What is missing from the dewey-eyed Emotional Appeals about "Charismatic Mega-Fauna" (especially cute lovable Brown-Eyed Baby Seals and Ultra-Intelligent Dolphins) is the HARD-Headed Understanding of what is REALLY at Stake ...


Apr 30, 2012 -- 10:19PM, Idbc wrote:


 


 


 


 


Howdy Teil


Apr 29, 2012 -- 10:09PM, teilhard wrote:


Our "Modern" Human (distinctly DYS-Functional) Relationship to the REST of Nature is rapidly becoming ever more obvious and TRAGIC ...


Trying SERIOUSLY to HEAL that broken Relaionship will require BOTH our "Hearts" AND our "Minds" to be changed and engaged, for sure ...




And it appears that is what Solf is trying to do.


 


 


 


 





Flag Merope May 8, 2012 8:44 PM EDT

This thread was moved from the Hot Topics Zone.

Flag Idbc May 16, 2012 12:13 PM EDT

 


Howdy Teil


 


Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:48PM, teilhard wrote:


What is missing from the dewey-eyed Emotional Appeals about "Charismatic Mega-Fauna" (especially cute lovable Brown-Eyed Baby Seals and Ultra-Intelligent Dolphins) is the HARD-Headed Understanding of what is REALLY at Stake ...



What is the HARD-Head Understanding of what is "REALLY" at stake? 


My dispute with Solf is the claim that ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL or to be more preicise that ALL ANIMALS HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT TO SURVIVE AND NOT BE "EXPOLITED".  


If that is her claim.   


 


Sticking to the topic of the thread i.e. the "seal slaughter"  of "baby" seals it is clear to me that that it is a "brutal".


Human beings like other animals are capable of being brutal.  It comes "naturally".  So to condemn people for being brutal would be like condemning people for being gay.  


I don't know if those who are actually committing the "brutal murder-genocide" feel about their "inhumane(?)" acts. 


It is not a job that I would prefer as a career.  But I can't honestly deny that I would not do it as a last resort, especially if I had a family to feed.   


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Howdy Teil


Apr 29, 2012 -- 10:09PM, teilhard wrote:


Our "Modern" Human (distinctly DYS-Functional) Relationship to the REST of Nature is rapidly becoming ever more obvious and TRAGIC ...


Trying SERIOUSLY to HEAL that broken Relaionship will require BOTH our "Hearts" AND our "Minds" to be changed and engaged, for sure ...




And it appears that is what Solf is trying to do.


 


 


 


 









Flag teilhard May 16, 2012 3:18 PM EDT

What is most deeply "at Stake" in ALL of these such Tussles is the increasingly DIFFICULT Relationship between us Human Beings and the REST of Nature ... 


WE are in DEEP Trouble ... and it is  FAR  FAR  more tragic and serious than indicated by just soft-hearted Sentimentality for Charismatic Mega-Fauna with beautiful Big Brown Eyes ...


May 16, 2012 -- 12:13PM, Idbc wrote:


Howdy Teil


Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:48PM, teilhard wrote:


What is missing from the dewey-eyed Emotional Appeals about "Charismatic Mega-Fauna" (especially cute lovable Brown-Eyed Baby Seals and Ultra-Intelligent Dolphins) is the HARD-Headed Understanding of what is REALLY at Stake ...



What is the HARD-Head Understanding of what is "REALLY" at stake? 


My dispute with Solf is the claim that ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL or to be more preicise that ALL ANIMALS HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT TO SURVIVE AND NOT BE "EXPOLITED".  


If that is her claim.   


 


Sticking to the topic of the thread i.e. the "seal slaughter"  of "baby" seals it is clear to me that that it is a "brutal".


Human beings like other animals are capable of being brutal.  It comes "naturally".  So to condemn people for being brutal would be like condemning people for being gay.  


I don't know if those who are actually committing the "brutal murder-genocide" feel about their "inhumane(?)" acts. 


It is not a job that I would prefer as a career.  But I can't honestly deny that I would not do it as a last resort, especially if I had a family to feed.   


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Howdy Teil


Apr 29, 2012 -- 10:09PM, teilhard wrote:


Our "Modern" Human (distinctly DYS-Functional) Relationship to the REST of Nature is rapidly becoming ever more obvious and TRAGIC ...


Trying SERIOUSLY to HEAL that broken Relaionship will require BOTH our "Hearts" AND our "Minds" to be changed and engaged, for sure ...




And it appears that is what Solf is trying to do.


 


 


 


 













Flag Idbc May 17, 2012 1:48 PM EDT

 


Howdy Teil


 


May 16, 2012 -- 3:18PM, teilhard wrote:


What is most deeply "at Stake" in ALL of these such Tussles is the increasingly DIFFICULT Relationship between us Human Beings and the REST of Nature ... 


WE are in DEEP Trouble ... and it is  FAR  FAR  more tragic and serious than indicated by just soft-hearted Sentimentality for Charismatic Mega-Fauna with beautiful Big Brown Eyes ...




 If Solf only had....tussles regarding "Charismatic Mega-Fauna with beautiful Big Brown Eyes" then I could see your opposition to this particular thread. 


However Solf has...tussles with other  increasingly DIFFICULT RelationshipS between us Human Beings and the REST of Nature.


I doubt very much that Solf thinks that ending the brutal seal slaughter is going to make a significant impact on the increasing difficult impact that human beings are having on the global enviorment and the rest of the flora and fauna that shares the enviroment.  


However it will have a teeny, tiny impact.   Wether it will have a positive or negative impact is not so simple to answer.    


 


 

Flag teilhard May 17, 2012 3:32 PM EDT

Ummmm ... I'm NOT "opposed to the Thread" ... I just find it not as helpful as it could be ...


May 17, 2012 -- 1:48PM, Idbc wrote:


 Howdy Teil


 

May 16, 2012 -- 3:18PM, teilhard wrote:


What is most deeply "at Stake" in ALL of these such Tussles is the increasingly DIFFICULT Relationship between us Human Beings and the REST of Nature ... 


WE are in DEEP Trouble ... and it is  FAR  FAR  more tragic and serious than indicated by just soft-hearted Sentimentality for Charismatic Mega-Fauna with beautiful Big Brown Eyes ...




 If Solf only had....tussles regarding "Charismatic Mega-Fauna with beautiful Big Brown Eyes" then I could see your opposition to this particular thread. 


However Solf has...tussles with other  increasingly DIFFICULT RelationshipS between us Human Beings and the REST of Nature.


I doubt very much that Solf thinks that ending the brutal seal slaughter is going to make a significant impact on the increasing difficult impact that human beings are having on the global enviorment and the rest of the flora and fauna that shares the enviroment.  


However it will have a teeny, tiny impact.   Wether it will have a positive or negative impact is not so simple to answer.    


 


 





Flag Idbc May 17, 2012 7:48 PM EDT

 Howdy Teil


May 17, 2012 -- 3:32PM, teilhard wrote:


Ummmm ... I'm NOT "opposed to the Thread" ... I just find it not as helpful as it could be ...



 


Hmmmmm.....Are you opposed to seal slaughter? 


 

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook