Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I eat chicken, turkey, beef, pork, veal and even fish all spread across one week. And I don't really care about the kind of technique that was used to behead them and process their flesh. Frankly, I eat, tip the waiter and leave.
I do worry about something, yeah. The various tasks and deadlines at work, my very recent ex-girlfriend and my dead father.
So what if baby seals are clubbed to death. Over my lifetime, I've been a mass murderer too. I've massacred baby cockroaches, baby spiders, baby bugs, baby scorpions, baby centipedes, baby ants, baby bees, baby wasps, baby cobras, baby tadpoles, baby microbes and even baby viruses that gave me fever and flu. Genocide alert!
Please shed your crocodile tears in that shiny and exquisitely made 20 dollar bowl from Crate & Barrell Inc., people
No, they are not carefully monitored by marine biologists. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. And it doesn't matter, in any case, how "sustainable" it is. It's cruel.
The Canadian sealers are lying. What are they supposed to say?
You are wrong. It is very carefully regulated. Biologists set the quotas and so forth. With all the animal rights groups going around observing it you're not going to find any sane sealer willing to break the rules, etc. Seal Hunt Myths and Realities
Quote:
Nothing to do with "propaganda from animal rights groups." I'm sure you know next to nothing about animal rights philosophy, and get most of your information about them through the media stories about PETA.
You are simply repeating what's told in the propaganda animal rights groups put out. I've researched the animal rights movement than you think.Even read quite a few of the books, etc., that started the movement.
Quote:
"Fur-trapping" is a horrifying death for the animal. And spare me the "humane" crap, please. I know about how men (and women) get fur. There is simply NO WAY to control the level of suffering when trapping for fur. Most trappers aren't even around when the animal is caught by the trap. And many, many animals suffer in agony for HOURS--sometimes DAYS-- before the trapper returns. I have ZERO tolerance for people who suffer from the back-to-the-land dementia. The big-bad-man, who goes out to "rough it" in the wilderness, and learns to celebrate brutality as a result. Get over yourself. Those who are born to the land, and are raised to respect it, would NEVER kill an animal by bashing in its head, or leaving it to suffer. It's demented behavior. And entirely monstrous.
Quite wrong. Trapping is humane if done right. Firstly, foothold traps on land must be checked everyday here. Secondly, traps in sets meant for certain target species are sized to catch the animal without causing suffering. The traps don't cause suffering to the animal. Toothed traps are illegal here. Several states require padded traps on certain animals. Conibear traps kill instantly. Here's some scientific research into humane trapping methods if you care to read it: Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (http://www.fishwildlife.org/furbearer_resources.html#BMP - broken link)
And if that's not enough for you, here's a video which dispels the myths about foothold traps: YouTube - Destroying The Myth
Oh I see... just because they are noticeably large and cute this is such a big deal. Those species of seals are not even close to being endangered anyhow. Where are the pity parties for rare insects that are killed? For species of generic looking fish that are getting caught? For types of small plants that people don't even know they exist and are dying out? Morons...
You are wrong. It is very carefully regulated. Biologists set the quotas and so forth. With all the animal rights groups going around observing it you're not going to find any sane sealer willing to break the rules, etc. Seal Hunt Myths and Realities
You are simply repeating what's told in the propaganda animal rights groups put out. I've researched the animal rights movement than you think.Even read quite a few of the books, etc., that started the movement.
Quite wrong. Trapping is humane if done right. Firstly, foothold traps on land must be checked everyday here. Secondly, traps in sets meant for certain target species are sized to catch the animal without causing suffering. The traps don't cause suffering to the animal. Toothed traps are illegal here. Several states require padded traps on certain animals. Conibear traps kill instantly. Here's some scientific research into humane trapping methods if you care to read it: Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (http://www.fishwildlife.org/furbearer_resources.html#BMP - broken link)
And if that's not enough for you, here's a video which dispels the myths about foothold traps: YouTube - Destroying The Myth
I don't care how many pro-trapping propaganda videos you post. They're made to defend a profit-making enterprise. Period. So-called animal rights "propaganda" is information circulated to protect the animals and nobody profits. So which line of defense do you think is more probable, in terms of telling the truth?
Fish and Wildlife agencies are often staffed by people from the very industries they are hired to regulate. Any quick read on the history of the Fish and Wildlife agencies in the U.S., in terms of the extent to which they serve industry rather than wildlife's interest, should make that abundantly evident. The BLM, for example, is responsible for the destruction of Navajo livestock--killed often in front of the very people who raised them--in the government's collusion with energy companies to starve the Navajo off their land in the 1970s-1980s, so it could be stolen for energy development. Yes, "stolen." The Navajo were never compensated for either their livestock or their land.
And no, YOU are wrong. Biologists don't recommend the seal "hunt." They merely give scientific evidence of what will happen if excessive numbers are murdered. Very different than promoting the "hunt"--which they most emphatically do NOT.
And enough with the claptrap about "humane" trapping. Things sound grand in theory. In practice, it's a very different ball game. The evidence abounds for those who choose to educate themselves.
I'm not "repeating" anything from the animal rights movement. And you most clearly have NOT researched the animal rights movement. If you had, you wouldn't be making the categorical statements you are making. For example, there is no one "animal rights" theory or set of beliefs. Animal rights philosophers and supporters (from the 16th century to the present day) are situated along a spectrum of thought, and have disagreed quite energetically on a number of points. People who think that animal rights=PETA (an organization often rejected by serious animal rights philosophers), or whatever the idiotic media has to say about it, are simply wrong.
One example (he addresses PETA further down the page):
Francione is an animal rights attorney. So is Steven Wise, who teaches at Harvard Law School. And there are an increasing number of serious people--academics, as well as people who have made their living off the animals--who are rethinking their position.
Just because humanity has always thought of animals as disposable--choosing to ignore their sentience, and the extent to which they feel pain and a whole range of emotions, so that they can profit off of them--hardly means that those who defend their right not to be abused by humanity are somehow "fringe" crazy. Although, of course, that's how mainstream society always ridicules those who fight on behalf of the oppressed, when the oppression itself produces profit. Abolitionists were vilified by the vast majority of Americans as crazy, un-American, etc. Feminists who fought for the right of women to vote and own property were mocked and sometimes attacked. In the 1960s, when Rachel Carson published "Silent Spring," warning about the dangers of DDT, the chemical industry went into high-attack mode, taking especial glee in attacking Carson's femininity--calling her an "old spinster," and making reference to the fact that, as a woman, she could hardly be relied upon for accurate scientific information. The profit motive can excuse any atrocity, and it has. It's the same old story, the same old structure of logic of those who defend oppression: It benefits the oppressor, and it capitalizes off society-wide beliefs and assumptions about the "lesser" value of those being oppressed.
Last edited by MovingForward; 09-20-2009 at 12:13 PM..
[youtube]_sTjJ-3NdwE[/youtube]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sTjJ-3NdwE"]YouTube - Interview with a Pro-Choice Student[/URL]
I have to laugh anytime someone, especially from the Right, makes a video and then uses that one idiot to represent an entire movement. That would be like saying the people who think Obama is the anti-Christ represent the conservatives. Maybe I should post a video of Orly Taitz defending that forged birth certificate or a photo of Ashley Todd?
Not to go off-topic too much, but someone did this exact thing when Obama won the election. He owned the site, so he closed it to comments. He posted a youtube video of clueless people who voted for Obama and couldn't discuss the issues. I wanted to ask him if he feels the stupid people on the Jay Leno show represent the average resident of CA, since Jay seems to find a lot of folks who don't know "Who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?" or "Who shot Abraham Lincoln?"
That's like saying "War is okay as long as you only drop a bomb on the right people."
When I was living in the country, one of my neighbors lost her cat. He was eventually found. He was close to death, hungry & cold and his leg was amputated at the vet's office. Why? He got caught in a trap someone apparently put out to catch something else.
[URL="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306407"]Study Links Red Meat To Cancer, Heart Disease : NPR[/URL]
To anyone who doesn't feel the meat industry is covering up scientific studies, listen to this 3 minute audio. As one doctor says, the study only confirms what has been known for over 20 years. Yet they still advertise on TV "Beef, it's what's for dinner" while cigarette ads are banned.
This brings to mind the Thanksgiving turkey slaughter video with Palin standing in the forefront, pardoning another (or was it that one?) turkey.
Yes I remember that, there was more than one with it's head in the grinder in that video....too bad it wasn't...oh never mind!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
