Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt
in [Vegetarian]
|
Prev: SpayVac� Managing wildlife without slaughter?
Next: Most early humans ate primarily plant foods...
From: pearl on 14 Mar 2007 13:35 <10x(a)telu�s.net> wrote in message news:cfpfv2lq277mbm8ksjeuml8uahr740o0ss(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:52:53 -0000, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> > wrote: > > ><10x(a)telu�s.net> wrote in message news:f168v2lkmj6sog2gnqbaqagt9j29hqak85(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:15:51 -0000, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >"Nobody" <not(a)home.anymore> wrote in message news:Xns98EFCFF5C75ED1v2rt(a)204.153.245.131... > >> >> Chom Noamsky wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message > >> >> > news:esvh94$7h0$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > >> >> >> "Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:_IHIh.62302$Du6.38382(a)edtnps82... > >> >> >>> > "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message > >> >> >>> > news:esvf0i$6lg$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> > 'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours > >> >> >>> > etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy > >> >> >>> > and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be > >> >> >>> > painful), and to distract and divert attention away from > >> >> >>> > themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved > >> >> >>> > through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise > >> >> >>> > this, every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes > >> >> >>> > about their target is actually an admission or revelation > >> >> >>> > about themselves. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> That was a great general description of PETA and its membership. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You're still doing it.. > >> >> > > >> >> > I'd have to say the role of bully is being played by PETA. It's > >> >> > really none of PETA's business (headquartered in the US) to > >> >> > interfere in the affairs of the sovereign nation of Canada. If > >> >> > anyone finds sealing objectionable, simply refrain from buying the > >> >> > products. If there wasn't any market for seal products there > >> >> > wouldnt be a hunt, except perhaps a cull to help Canada's over > >> >> > exploited cod fishery to recover. > >> >> > >> >> Well said. I wonder what interest 'pearl' from the UK actually has > >> >> in the issue. At least Karen Gordon is Canadian. > >> > > >> >I care about the seals and the environment. Duh. > >> > >> You probably do care about seals and the environment. > >> > >> Sadly you are a vegetarian. The demand by folks who eat ceral crops > >> and vegetables has decimated wildlife habitat. The energy and water > >> used for irrigation alone is a major environmental disaster. > >> Maybe you are part of the problem? > > > >'Livestock a major threat to environment > >.. > >Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly > >permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land > >used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are > >cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, > >especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of > >former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing. > > You are right, the goat, and the plow are the biggest threat to > wildlife in the world. The plow more so because it destroys the > natural flora completely and replaces it with a monoculture that can > NOT be utilized by the wildlife that formerly used that land. > Cultivation causes dreadful habitat destruction, far more than > livestock ever did. False. Already addressed.
From: pearl on 14 Mar 2007 13:37 <10x(a)telu�s.net> wrote in message news:n7pfv2582lapdvrcbju55ninf86mscla8v(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:53:43 -0000, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> > wrote: > > >"Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message news:yOVIh.74154$cE3.39700(a)edtnps89... > >> "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message > >> news:et0rko$ph2$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > >> > "Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message > >> > news:cNKIh.62340$Du6.1198(a)edtnps82... > >> >> "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message > >> >> news:esvdt6$67m$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > >> >> > "Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message > >> >> > news:uwDIh.62113$Du6.116(a)edtnps82... > >... > >> >> >> It's perfectly ethical, legal, humane, moral, and sustainable to > >> >> >> harvest > >> >> >> seals for fur and meat. > >> >> > > >> >> > It is none of the above. > >> >> > >> >> That certainly was a compelling argument. > >> > > >> > If there is absolute necessity (for survival), it may be justifiable. > >> > > >> > This isn't. > >> > >> And who bestowed upon you the authority to determine what is justified and > >> what is not? Well, nobody has, so what you define as necessity is purely an > >> "opinion." > > > >Actually.. Logic dictates that whatever is not required for survival > >is not absolute necessity. Ethics determines that wanton violence, > >cruelty and killing is immoral. Justice averts her eyes and weeps. > > The violence of the seal hunt is so that folks can earn a few extra > dollars, feel that they have independant income. And they get to eat > some tastey seal meat. Viable alternatives have been suggested. > Compare that to the destruction of birds nests by farmers who use > mechanical means to weed crops - organic farmers do this.... > > >"Tsekung asked, Is there one word that can serve as a principle of > >conduct for life? Confucius replied, It is the word shu -- reciprocity: > >Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you." > >- Confucianism. Analects 15.23 > > What has this got to do with earning a living and survival? Find ways to do it that don't harm others.
From: pearl on 14 Mar 2007 13:39 "Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message news:q1WJh.83409$Du6.64406(a)edtnps82... > > "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message > > news:et995j$6ua$2(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > >> So you would take away a traditional lifestyle and income away from > >> folks who have lived of the fare of the ocean for at least tens of > >> centuries? What would they turn to for food and income if this is > >> denyied them? > >> So what if these folks speak French. It is their lifestyle and lively > >> hood you attack. They don't attack you for being vegetarian. > > > > Yeah..right. What part of "'Most of the meat is wasted and left > > on the ice." are you still having trouble with? If as a last resort > > seal meat is required, I can't object, but that isn't the case here. > > Wasted because of international ARA campaigns. That's a new one. Do explain. > >> Vegetarians are responsible for a great deal of loss of wildlife > >> habitat to the plow. They eat, wildlife starves. > > > > As if you 'omnivores' don't eat vegetables and fruits, grains, > > legumes, nuts and so on as well. Addressed in other posts. > > The 'ominvores' are not preaching from a holider-than-thou position That sure doesn't stop you from trying.
From: Chom Noamsky on 14 Mar 2007 14:05 "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:et995k$6ua$3(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > "Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message > news:xrMJh.82337$Du6.31201(a)edtnps82... >> "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message >> news:et6d6h$1ij$3(a)reader01.news.esat.net... >> >> > 'The adjective unethical has 2 meanings: >> > >> > Meaning #1: not conforming to approved standards of >> > social or professional behavior >> >> And you're "the" judge of what constitutes these approved standards, >> right? >> That's the problem with the ARAs, there is only one acceptable ethic >> (theirs), period. It amounts to a kind of religious fanaticism, or at >> the >> very least, it's autocratic and dictatorial. > > 'Meaning #2: not adhering to ethical or moral principles > Synonyms: base, dishonorable, dishonourable, immoral Thank you. You've proven time and time again you're bright enough to use online reference material. I commend you on your fantastic abilities. > 'A new report Public Morality and the Canadian Seal Hunt > has just been published (2005). Written by the Reverend > Professor Andrew Linzey it has been endorsed by more than > 60 leading ethicists, philosophers and theologians from around > the world. > > The report clinically criticises the Canadian seal hunt in detail. > It condemns the slaughter unreservedly and calls for it to be > made illegal. > > It further concludes that, 'in the absence of action by Canada, > other governments must act. Governments have to be made > accountable by the international community for their support > of cruelty.' > > The authors urge governments to ban the import of seal > products as a matter of urgency based on the moral > imperative to prevent unnecessary and prolonged suffering. > > The report concludes that 'The commercial hunt is devoid > of moral justification.' It says 'There is no country in the > world that accepts a definition of humane slaughter that > includes being skinned alive. > ...' > http://www.ffw.ch/content/view/88/57/lang,en_EN/ > >> > They show that the majority of Canadians oppose the seal "hunt". >> >> Depends on the poll. > > 'A recent opinion poll commissioned by Respect for Animals > in the UK shows that 79% of people in Britain want the seal > hunt to be banned. 73% want the UK to ban the import of all > seal products. > > These results mirror other polls that have been published > over recent years. A 2003 poll carried out in 4 EU countries > for IFAW found that 77% were opposed to the seal hunt. > > In the USA, where the import of seal products is already > banned, 79% of people are opposed to the killing of seals. > > Even in Canada, the very home of the hunt, a recent poll > showed that 64% of the population oppose the hunt with > 73% being opposed to the clubbing to death of seal pups. > > Canada's determined defence of the seal hunt shows > contempt, not just for the international voices of opposition > but also for the opinion of its own citizens. > ..' > http://www.ffw.ch/content/view/88/57/lang,en_EN/ > >> If an equal amount of effort went into educating >> Canadians about the facts, opinion would swing way back in favour of the >> hunt. Unfortunely, working people don't have a lot of free time, unlike >> the >> ARAs seem to have endless amounts of it to meddle in other people's >> affairs. > > 'The RSPCA's chief veterinary officer, Steve Cheetham > reviewed film of this year's slaughter (2005). His overall > impression was that the seals were being 'assaulted and > battered without being killed'. He says the sealers 'appear > incompetent, their attacks are random and ineffective.' > The video left him 'appalled' there was, in his words, > 'undoubtedly pain and suffering being caused to these > animals'. He added 'Some of the operatives appear callous > and show no compassion and in my view show no evidence > of proper training. The clubs they use are not adequate to > ensure death without suffering when used in the hands of > the operators seen'. > > The issue raised here of training is interesting. The only > training required or available is an 'apprenticeship' from > practicing sealers. So the cruelty and bad practice is simply > passed on from the experienced to the inexperienced. > > Professor Donald Broom, Professor of Animal Welfare in > the Department of Veterinary Medicine at the University of > Cambridge also reviewed film from the 2005 hunt. He notes > that a number of seals were still conscious despite having > been clubbed by the sealers. Professor Broom says: 'A > principle of legislation in Canada and many other countries > is that animals which are to be killed, for food or for other > products or reasons, should be killed instantly or rendered > unconscious instantly so that consciousness is not resumed > before death. If consciousness continues for more than a > few seconds after the first severe damage to the animal, > the method is not humane. > > Of the seals he saw in the videotape he said: > > One animal 'would have been in severe pain for several > minutes during many blows of the stick and whilst being > dragged with a nail through its tissues.' Others would > have been in pain for many minutes because of inadequate > stunning. Some were hit more than twice so there would > have been severe pain until rendered unconscious. Three > seals had, in Professor Broom's words 'their skin opened > and blood vessels cut while they were conscious. They > should have been rendered unconscious before skin and > blood vessels were cut. They would have become > unconscious, probably within 30 - 120 seconds after the > blood vessels were cut.' > > Lastly, Mary Richardson, a Canadian expert in humane > slaughter and past chair of both the Animal Welfare > Committee of the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association > and the Animal Care Review Board with the Solicitor > General of Ontario, also review film of the 2005 hunt. > > Her conclusion is clear - 'the seal hunt is inherently > inhumane'. She says 'What I witnessed was clear > evidence of unacceptable and illegal cruelty to animals. > In some scenes seals with terrible head injuries are left > in stockpiles of dead and dying animals. Choking on > their own blood and suffering tremendous pain - some > for as long as 90 minutes. In others, sealers clearly cut > open seals that are clearly still conscious.' > > So what is the reaction of the Canadian government to > this overwhelming evidence of cruelty? In recent years > video evidence has been submitted by licensed observers > of more than 660 examples of cruelty and violations of > the Marine Mammal Regulations. Video tapes, witness > statements, dates and times have been provided in great > detail to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Not > one single charge has been laid against any of those > involved. Instead, it repeatedly quotes another veterinary > report - known as the Daoust report - for public relations > purposes. This report claims that 'the majority of seals > taken during this hunt (at best, 98% in the work reported > here) are killed in an acceptably humane manner.' > > The Daoust survey was carried out by observers on board > sealing vessels in the presence of DFO enforcement officers. > Hardly surprising then if, as Daoust accepts, the sealers > may have been incited 'to hit the seals more vigorously'. > > More extraordinary was the fact that Daoust only looked > at the number of seals clubbed or shot that were brought > on board sealing vessels while conscious. The astonishing > omission of any and all the suffering occurring between the > time the animals were first clubbed or shot until they reached > the sealing ship renders the report pointless. > > Nevertheless the Canadian government quote it endlessly > - on its website, in its press releases and leaflets. > ...' > http://www.ffw.ch/content/view/88/57/lang,en_EN/ So you have an enforcement issue. Take it up with the government. >> >> The Golden Rule exists in all major religions, it's a very good rule >> >> when >> >> applied to human relationships. It falls apart when applied to >> >> human-animal >> >> relationships and animal ethics. >> > >> > For whom? Those wishing to selfishly exploit non-humans. >> >> Mankind has been selfishly exploiting animals since the dawn of recorded >> history. Is there something you missed in your high school texts? You >> won't find many instances of past peoples practicing the Golden Rule with >> animals. The closest you will get is 'sacred' status, like certain >> animals >> associated with religious beliefs. > > 'Argumentum ad Antiquitam. > > Description: A fallacy of asserting that something is right > or good simply because it is old; that is, because "that's > the way it's always been." > .. > http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm Now the repetitive, circular arguments develop. This is the predicable outcome of those who cannot defend or argue their viewpoints. >> And the only reason you have the luxury to sit there and 'defend' animal >> rights is because you sit upon the shoulders of millennia of >> technological >> advancement. This advancement never would have come about if mankind did >> not exploit animals for his purposes. > > How on earth did you work that out? Common sense. >> Of course, the alternate is you could >> live like a gorilla or a chimpanzee or an orangutan... but you ARAs >> aren't >> quite that desperate to live up to your radical ideologies. > > Lounging about eating fruits... sounds like the good life to me. Then go do it. Leave your modern conveniences at home. >> >> > There could be symbiotic, that is, mutually beneficial, association. >> >> >> >> Sealing is mutually beneficial. They get less competition for food, >> >> we >> >> get >> >> products to sell. >> > >> > Nonsense. >> >> Perfectly true. > > Yes, it is perfectly true that it is nonsense. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,522410,00.html >> >> > Whatever is not required for survival is not absolute necessity. >> >> > Logic. >> >> >> >> That eliminates just about 99.9% of what we know as civilization. >> >> Humans >> >> are not creatures of pure need, we have wants and desires and the >> >> intelligence to achieve them. That's what separates us from the >> >> animals. >> >> What you're delving into are theoretical that only exist in the minds >> >> of >> >> naive idealists. >> > >> > 'hu�mane (hyu-man') >> > adj. >> > Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion: >> >> Absolutely. That's why seal hunters use hakapiks and .22 shells to kill >> seals. It's humane. > > '.. Mary Richardson, a Canadian expert in humane > slaughter and past chair of both the Animal Welfare > Committee of the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association > and the Animal Care Review Board with the Solicitor > General of Ontario, also review film of the 2005 hunt. pearl, do you have ANY opinon you can call your own? All you do is parrot ARA websites and online reference material.
From: Chom Noamsky on 14 Mar 2007 14:10
"pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:et9bp8$84o$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > Find ways to do it that don't harm others. You should apply that to your own lifestyle first. Begin by turning off your PC which robs wildlife of its natural habitat. Do you believe wild animals have a right to a habitat? |