PDA

View Full Version : Seal hunting: Adelaide vs. Chloe



Adelaide
10-24-2014, 08:57 AM
It is my belief based on information provided by government agencies about the increase in the seal population starting in 1970, the regulations in place by the government which are fluid based on yearly data, and the humane way sealers are taught to kill seals that sealing in Canada should be permitted.

Chloe
10-24-2014, 09:06 AM
There is nothing "humane" really about shooting and/or clubbing to death a seal for the sale of its fur. You can be taught 20 different ways to kill something but when it's being killed in exchange for profit then I don't see the humanity in it. Not to mention that the baby seals are often targeted because of their softer, lighter fur.

A couple of questions:

1. Other than the fur being taken off it's body what do the sealers typically do with the rest of the body? From the research i've done it seems like the fur is the main reason for the killing.

2. How does the Canadian government determine the number to be killed and who or what industry influences that decision?

Adelaide
10-24-2014, 09:16 AM
There is nothing "humane" really about shooting and/or clubbing to death a seal for the sale of its fur. You can be taught 20 different ways to kill something but when it's being killed in exchange for profit then I don't see the humanity in it. Not to mention that the baby seals are often targeted because if their softer, lighter fur.

A couple of questions:

1. Other than the fur being taken off it's body what do the sealers typically do with the rest of the body? From the research i've done it seems like the fur is the main reason for the killing.

2. How does the Canadian government determine the number to be killed and who or what industry influences that decision?

Contrary to environmental/animal activists, clubbing a seal with a hakapik means instant death and when a rifle is used it's the same thing - training is essential. A lot of domesticated food sources aren't even treated that humanely. As well, "baby" seals are off limits - you can't kill whitecoats or bluebacks. Veterinarians have determined that the method of killing the seals is humane.

1. The meat and other products are sold to mostly Asian countries while the fur/pelt is mostly sold to European countries. Generally the animal is not wasted. A lot of communities that hunt seals do so because they have hardly no access to the mainland for supplies for most of the year (although, melting ice is changing that) and there are few other ways to make a living where the economy sucks/unemployment is high. The maritime provinces have unemployment problems where people rely on sealing and fishing.

2. The government keeps statistics on the amount of seals in our waters and it's estimated that 8 million are currently inhabiting our waters. They put regulations in place so as to avoid endangering the animals. So, for example, X amount are allowed to be hunted in a year or X in 3 years. As soon as that number is reached sealers are called off and told they are no longer able to hunt seals. As it is, the population has grown a lot since the 1970s so it's also a way to control the population. The government keeps a very close watch.

Chloe
10-24-2014, 09:29 AM
Contrary to environmental/animal activists, clubbing a seal with a hakapik means instant death and when a rifle is used it's the same thing - training is essential. A lot of domesticated food sources aren't even treated that humanely. As well, "baby" seals are off limits - you can't kill whitecoats or bluebacks. Veterinarians have determined that the method of killing the seals is humane.

Ok but even the canadian governments website says that they are "usually" not hunted until they are 25 days old. That's less than one month old, that's a baby. Also it's assumed that the hunters training is great enough to provide instant death, but the reality is that practice and then doing it for real are two different things, especially considering that they are moving, alive, and showing emotion, All of which most likely reduces the odds of a perfect killing, especially with the club spike.


1. The meat and other products are sold to mostly Asian countries while the fur/pelt is mostly sold to European countries. Generally the animal is not wasted. A lot of communities that hunt seals due so because they have hardly no access to the mainland for supplies for most of the year (although, melting ice is changing that) and there are few other ways to make a living where the economy sucks/unemployment is high. The maritime provinces have unemployment problems where people rely on sealing and fishing.

If not for the demand of pelts the hunt probably would not be a commercial industry for the country. An inuit for example sustaining his family for months off of one seal is far different than the 400,000 seals that will be killed primarily for profit.


2. The government keeps statistics on the amount of seals in our waters and it's estimated that 8 million are currently inhabiting our waters. They put regulations in place so as to avoid endangering the animals. So, for example, X amount are allowed to be hunted in a year or X in 3 years. As soon as that number is reached sealers are called off and told they are no longer able to hunt seals. As it is, the population has grown a lot since the 1970s so it's also a way to control the population. The government keeps a very close watch.

The seal population grows because of the continued decline of its natural predators. Our hands across the globe and around Canadian waters kills, either on purpose or by accident, millions of varied marine animals each year, including predators, which makes the seal population rise and so then we kill them to control that population. One day when all of the natural predators are extinct we will control the seal population solely for industrial/commercial purposes and they will no longer be a part of nature but a part of our lifestyle. Population control is becoming more and more necessary because of our negative interactions with the natural world. Let the oceans recover from our actions and the seal population would be regulated by nature, and not by what's hot in fashion or in some asian food market.

Chloe
10-24-2014, 09:41 AM
Hey Adelaide I have to go shower and get ready for a class. I'll be back in a little bit :)

Keep going though and i'll respond later.

Adelaide
10-24-2014, 09:47 AM
Ok but even the canadian governments website says that they are "usually" not hunted until they are 25 days old. That's less than one month old, that's a baby. Also it's assumed that the hunters training is great enough to provide instant death, but the reality is that practice and then doing it for real are two different things, especially considering that they are moving, alive, and showing emotion, All of which most likely reduces the odds of a perfect killing, especially with the club spike.

People who hunt seals do so for a long time and know what they're doing. Recreational seal hunting isn't anywhere close to the percentage of commercial seal hunting. As for the age of the animal; they allow a seal to be killed once it is no longer attached to its mother. There are plenty of non-marine animals killed in childhood for their meat. Veal, for example, is a common source of meat. Also, how old are fish when they're killed for food? Do we even know? Do we care?


If not for the demand of pelts the hunt probably would not be a commercial industry for the country. An inuit for example sustaining his family for months off of one seal is far different than the 400,000 seals that will be killed primarily for profit.

Actually, it still probably would be. As I pointed out, a lot of the communities which participate in the seal hunt are deeply affected by high levels of unemployment, unavailable resources due to ice, so forth. They rely on the hunt to sustain their families and communities as much as aboriginals do. Recently there are very few pelt traders interested, but a huge market for the meat in Asia. There is also a market for seal oil which has many health benefits.


The seal population grows because of the continued decline of its natural predators. Our hands across the globe and around Canadian waters kills, either on purpose or by accident, millions of varied marine animals each year, including predators, which makes the seal population rise and so then we kill them to control that population. One day when all of the natural predators are extinct we will control the seal population solely for industrial/commercial purposes and they will no longer be a part of nature but a part of our lifestyle. Population control is becoming more and more necessary because of our negative interactions with the natural world. Let the oceans recover from our actions and the seal population would be regulated by nature, and not by what's hot in fashion or in some asian food market.

The sealing industry is sustainable and actually conservation-minded. 350,000 is the max per year, by the way. According to the Ministry that overseas fishing and the seal hunt, the seals consume 12 million tonnes of fish - 10% of the world's harvest - which means fisherman are going to be completely up a creek unless seals are hunted and the population controlled. Unless you can find a way to solve global warming, you aren't going to find many predators that can handle them naturally. Sealing makes up a significant portion of income for many on the east coast - it's no different than commercial fishing except seals are cute animals so it must be inhumane and wrong.

Chloe
10-24-2014, 11:59 AM
People who hunt seals do so for a long time and know what they're doing. Recreational seal hunting isn't anywhere close to the percentage of commercial seal hunting. As for the age of the animal; they allow a seal to be killed once it is no longer attached to its mother. There are plenty of non-marine animals killed in childhood for their meat. Veal, for example, is a common source of meat. Also, how old are fish when they're killed for food? Do we even know? Do we care?

It's pretty much all commercial seal hunting though. The roughly 400,000 seals that will be killed this year are primarily being killed for industry, and the main reason for the killing is not for the meat but for the fur. Even if it was for the meat I wouldn't be any less adamant about it being wrong, but still the main point if that this is killing for profit in my opinion. As for the other things I am against the meat industry anyway so things like veal and the like are already on my wrong list. To answer your question though, no, most people don't know or care, which is unfortunate in my mind.


Actually, it still probably would be. As I pointed out, a lot of the communities which participate in the seal hunt are deeply affected by high levels of unemployment, unavailable resources due to ice, so forth. They rely on the hunt to sustain their families and communities as much as aboriginals do. Recently there are very few pelt traders interested, but a huge market for the meat in Asia. There is also a market for seal oil which has many health benefits.

The seal oil for health benefits is also wrong in my opinion since there are plenty of alternatives that do not require the killing of another life in order to help sustain the health of another. As for the meat going to asia it's usually considered a delicacy, like bluefin tuna, and in my opinion that's not a good business to be associated with. Just because there may be demand in one part of the world for something unique like seal meat it doesn't mean that you have to accommodate them.


The sealing industry is sustainable and actually conservation-minded. 350,000 is the max per year, by the way. According to the Ministry that overseas fishing and the seal hunt, the seals consume 12 million tonnes of fish - 10% of the world's harvest - which means fisherman are going to be completely up a creek unless seals are hunted and the population controlled. Unless you can find a way to solve global warming, you aren't going to find many predators that can handle them naturally. Sealing makes up a significant portion of income for many on the east coast - it's no different than commercial fishing except seals are cute animals so it must be inhumane and wrong.

It's sustainable for business purposes but that's really it. If governments truly cared about sustaining a species they wouldn't take steps to diminish millions of other species, many of which interact and are interdependent on each other, including seals, which would then threaten the species that they have to then "sustain". Fisherman are not up the creek due to high seal populations, they are up the creek due to worldwide overfishing and worldwide damage to ecosystems causing the demand for seafood to keep going higher and higher. Millions of sharks are killed each year, many of those sharks are sharks that eat seals. Orca's are forced to travel further to find food leaving populations of seals safer from their hunting and leads to populations growing.

Here's a question for you: What are the main reasons that you are for seal hunting? How are you connected to it in a way that makes you a supporter?

Adelaide
10-24-2014, 12:13 PM
It's pretty much all commercial seal hunting though. The roughly 400,000 seals that will be killed this year are primarily being killed for industry, and the main reason for the killing is not for the meat but for the fur. Even if it was for the meat I wouldn't be any less adamant about it being wrong, but still the main point if that this is killing for profit in my opinion. As for the other things I am against the meat industry anyway so things like veal and the like are already on my wrong list. To answer your question though, no, most people don't know or care, which is unfortunate in my mind.

350,000.

How can they kill primarily for the pelt when there is literally only one company willing to purchase them? The industry is now mainly based on selling meat and oil. Another reason pelts are not popular is because they aren't allowed to kill whitecoats. The entire hunt is monitored incredibly closely by the government on land, air and boat to ensure that whitecoats are not harmed, that sealers use the proper technique to humanely kill the seals, and to ensure that only as many as is permitted are killed.



The seal oil for health benefits is also wrong in my opinion since there are plenty of alternatives that do not require the killing of another life in order to help sustain the health of another. As for the meat going to asia it's usually considered a delicacy, like bluefin tuna, and in my opinion that's not a good business to be associated with. Just because there may be demand in one part of the world for something unique like seal meat it doesn't mean that you have to accommodate them.

Omega 3 is mainly available in meat. Fake alternatives like supplements are not the same - so yes, it is important that there is fresh seafood and other forms of animal products.


It's sustainable for business purposes but that's really it. If governments truly cared about sustaining a species they wouldn't take steps to diminish millions of other species, many of which interact and are interdependent on each other, including seals, which would then threaten the species that they have to then "sustain". Fisherman are not up the creek due to high seal populations, they are up the creek due to worldwide overfishing and worldwide damage to ecosystems causing the demand for seafood to keep going higher and higher. Millions of sharks are killed each year, many of those sharks are sharks that eat seals. Orca's are forced to travel further to find food leaving populations of seals safer from their hunting and leads to populations growing.

Do you know that fish are becoming more endangered every year because of seals? That seals consume so much that large populations in the Gulf of St Lawrence are literally disappearing? The seal is the apex predator in those waters that, if allowed to just go on its way, will wipe out species and make fishing harder than it already is, possibly impossible. Without the commercial hunt the ecosystem would be terribly out of sorts and fish stocks would plummet further. Either the government is going to cull the seal population or they'll be hunted and actually used for a purpose. And again, people rely on sealing to stay alive, housed, so forth. Fishing and sealing are a vital industry to the east coast where unemployment is significant.

Adelaide
10-24-2014, 12:19 PM
Here's a question for you: What are the main reasons that you are for seal hunting? How are you connected to it in a way that makes you a supporter?

I'm for it because I know what it is and what the purpose of it is. My family, a part of it, landed in Newfoundland and Labrador. The poverty and unemployment is horrible. The seals, like any other animal, are hunted to supply the people, (with food, with money). There is an abundance of them, so much so they threaten other species. There is no predator other than the humans who can curb the population growth. It's done humanely - more so than in other industries involving animals for food - which has been established by internal and international veterinarians. There is even talk of getting certifications via training in order to hunt to reassure those who don't seem to understand.

I also believe most people have a problem with it because they believe activist propaganda. Such as that whitecoats are actively hunted. This is false. But they're cute animals when they haven't molted so it's awesome for those wanting to skew the facts.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 07:31 AM
I'm sorry @Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=473). I got hung up on some things yesterday and didn't really have enough time to sit down and give this the attention it needs. I got up early this morning to exercise like normal but i'll go ahead and respond to your posts above before I start that.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 07:49 AM
350,000.

what I saw on the government's website it said that they raised the quote to 400,000 for the 2014 hunt. The link is in the paragraph below.


How can they kill primarily for the pelt when there is literally only one company willing to purchase them? The industry is now mainly based on selling meat and oil. Another reason pelts are not popular is because they aren't allowed to kill whitecoats. The entire hunt is monitored incredibly closely by the government on land, air and boat to ensure that whitecoats are not harmed, that sealers use the proper technique to humanely kill the seals, and to ensure that only as many as is permitted are killed.

Based on this government website it looks like they are being purposefully vague when it comes to the fur trade, and it even states that the government is committed to developing new markets. One company can't be the only producer of all of those products the seal pelt can create. Sealing in Canada - Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/seal-phoque/faq-eng.htm)



Omega 3 is mainly available in meat. Fake alternatives like supplements are not the same - so yes, it is important that there is fresh seafood and other forms of animal products.

Supplements are adequate enough as a replacement for meats when it comes to omega 3's, and there are other foods that are higher in omega 3s that do not come from animals. They should invest more in those more humane foods that do not require clubbing or licenses to kill in my opinion.



Do you know that fish are becoming more endangered every year because of seals? That seals consume so much that large populations in the Gulf of St Lawrence are literally disappearing? The seal is the apex predator in those waters that, if allowed to just go on its way, will wipe out species and make fishing harder than it already is, possibly impossible. Without the commercial hunt the ecosystem would be terribly out of sorts and fish stocks would plummet further. Either the government is going to cull the seal population or they'll be hunted and actually used for a purpose. And again, people rely on sealing to stay alive, housed, so forth. Fishing and sealing are a vital industry to the east coast where unemployment is significant.

Seals are not the main reason fish are becoming more scarce, it's human interaction through over-fishing, and if there are studies showing otherwise then it's probably being funded and edited by the government that supports it or the industry that is involved in it. I view the Canadian government when it comes to the seal hunt in the same light that I view the Japanese government in the whale hunt. Both have stellar reputations when it comes to many things but have disgusting practices that they cling to for the sake of profit. These fisherman's livelihoods do not and should not depend on the slaughter of 350,000 seals, and the fact that they claim it does and that the government acknowledges that they do shows how it's not about conservation but about commercial profit in my opinion.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 08:09 AM
I'm for it because I know what it is and what the purpose of it is. My family, a part of it, landed in Newfoundland and Labrador. The poverty and unemployment is horrible. The seals, like any other animal, are hunted to supply the people, (with food, with money). There is an abundance of them, so much so they threaten other species. There is no predator other than the humans who can curb the population growth. It's done humanely - more so than in other industries involving animals for food - which has been established by internal and international veterinarians. There is even talk of getting certifications via training in order to hunt to reassure those who don't seem to understand.

It just sounds to me like an industry that has been artificially created over the centuries. For centuries these hunts have taken place, well before regulations even really started happening, and that includes fishing in general, and over the years the actions of over-fishing and putting so much demand on an ecosystem it now leaves the remaining large species in that area as one of the last big population species in those waters. The population is allowed to get to a certain point each year by the government to not only ensure that there will be a hunt each year but to also ensure that the habitat never truly recovers. They say that they use science based research to determine the amount of seals that will be slaughtered but funny enough it always guarantees the next year's hunt. It's a business, plain and simple, and for me, killing for profit is not a humane business.


I also believe most people have a problem with it because they believe activist propaganda. Such as that whitecoats are actively hunted. This is false. But they're cute animals when they haven't molted so it's awesome for those wanting to skew the facts.

They don't need to be "actively" hunted to still be hunted. People kill wildlife daily that they aren't supposed to kill simply because the game warden isn't around, even so-called honest hunters. Whether it's one additional deer or a fish two inches too small, it happens all the time, and so to say that there is no active hunting of a whitecoat seal is being purposefully blind to the reality in my opinion. If there are 350,000 seals killed that are on the kill list I can assure you that there were hundreds to maybe even 1000+ killed that should not have been killed. The only way to ensure that doesn't happen to is not participate in commercial sealing at all and then vigorously prosecute violators.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 08:26 AM
I'm not going to post the pictures of the bodies that have been skinned and left to rot, but at least this shows how truly helpless these seals are at the time of their death. The video also shows actual footage. The effort, money, fuel costs, and logistics involved to even produce and participate in these hunts makes me question the actual need as well from these commercial fishermen. It seems just as antiquated as the whale hunt to me yet the amount of money and effort invested into polishing up the inhumanity of it and regulating it for the sake of industry makes me question the sincerity and agenda of the people who actively promote it (i.e. government and business leaders)

9353

9354

9355

9356

http://youtu.be/foW_IiU2idQ

Chloe
10-25-2014, 08:43 AM
Adelaide i'm honestly trying not to get worked up. If I am just say so and i'll try to reset.

Adelaide
10-25-2014, 11:28 AM
what I saw on the government's website it said that they raised the quote to 400,000 for the 2014 hunt. The link is in the paragraph below.

Based on this government website it looks like they are being purposefully vague when it comes to the fur trade, and it even states that the government is committed to developing new markets. One company can't be the only producer of all of those products the seal pelt can create. Sealing in Canada - Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/seal-phoque/faq-eng.htm)

Supplements are adequate enough as a replacement for meats when it comes to omega 3's, and there are other foods that are higher in omega 3s that do not come from animals. They should invest more in those more humane foods that do not require clubbing or licenses to kill in my opinion.

Seals are not the main reason fish are becoming more scarce, it's human interaction through over-fishing, and if there are studies showing otherwise then it's probably being funded and edited by the government that supports it or the industry that is involved in it. I view the Canadian government when it comes to the seal hunt in the same light that I view the Japanese government in the whale hunt. Both have stellar reputations when it comes to many things but have disgusting practices that they cling to for the sake of profit. These fisherman's livelihoods do not and should not depend on the slaughter of 350,000 seals, and the fact that they claim it does and that the government acknowledges that they do shows how it's not about conservation but about commercial profit in my opinion.

You're better off reading and getting statistics and information from Newfoundland and Labrador's Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture: http://www.fishaq.gov.nl.ca/sealing/index.html

There is hardly a market for the fur because what people want are the whitecoats. Other pelts are less desirable, don't pay as much, and have fewer prospective buyers. It is not all about the fur of these animals.

Read the information from the provincial site, particularly this (http://www.fishaq.gov.nl.ca/sealing/humaness_environmental_significance.pdf). Yes, seals are a significan reason why fish are disappearing and left unchecked could completely ruin the ecosystem.

What would you rather the fisherman who join the hunt do? What can you do or think of to provide up to 35% of their income? Again, it is not just aboriginals that depend on the seal hunt. In the case of aboriginals it is because they use the animal in many ways to sustain themselves. In the case of the fisherman, he does it to get money to sustain himself/his family. Maybe you don't understand just how harsh conditions are where these people live - the weather, the unemployment, the poverty?

Adelaide
10-25-2014, 11:31 AM
It just sounds to me like an industry that has been artificially created over the centuries. For centuries these hunts have taken place, well before regulations even really started happening, and that includes fishing in general, and over the years the actions of over-fishing and putting so much demand on an ecosystem it now leaves the remaining large species in that area as one of the last big population species in those waters. The population is allowed to get to a certain point each year by the government to not only ensure that there will be a hunt each year but to also ensure that the habitat never truly recovers. They say that they use science based research to determine the amount of seals that will be slaughtered but funny enough it always guarantees the next year's hunt. It's a business, plain and simple, and for me, killing for profit is not a humane business.

They don't need to be "actively" hunted to still be hunted. People kill wildlife daily that they aren't supposed to kill simply because the game warden isn't around, even so-called honest hunters. Whether it's one additional deer or a fish two inches too small, it happens all the time, and so to say that there is no active hunting of a whitecoat seal is being purposefully blind to the reality in my opinion. If there are 350,000 seals killed that are on the kill list I can assure you that there were hundreds to maybe even 1000+ killed that should not have been killed. The only way to ensure that doesn't happen to is not participate in commercial sealing at all and then vigorously prosecute violators.

You don't understand that the government and numerous watchdogs participate in the hunt to prevent whitecoats from being killed. It is not a long hunting season. They're monitored by land, air and boat and it isn't just the government - it's also activists and foreign officials ensuring we stick to our own regulations.

Adelaide
10-25-2014, 11:37 AM
I'm not going to post the pictures of the bodies that have been skinned and left to rot, but at least this shows how truly helpless these seals are at the time of their death. The video also shows actual footage. The effort, money, fuel costs, and logistics involved to even produce and participate in these hunts makes me question the actual need as well from these commercial fishermen. It seems just as antiquated as the whale hunt to me yet the amount of money and effort invested into polishing up the inhumanity of it and regulating it for the sake of industry makes me question the sincerity and agenda of the people who actively promote it (i.e. government and business leaders)

9353

9354

9355

9356

http://youtu.be/foW_IiU2idQ

Here; watch a video not made by an activist and tell me how you expect these people to live without the seal hunt.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGc0XjgPz8s

Adelaide
10-25-2014, 11:40 AM
By the way, that video also explains the blood. It's part of humanely killing the seals. After you use a hakapik or a rifle you purposely slit an artery to ensure death is complete and quick.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 01:45 PM
You're better off reading and getting statistics and information from Newfoundland and Labrador's Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture: http://www.fishaq.gov.nl.ca/sealing/index.html

There is hardly a market for the fur because what people want are the whitecoats. Other pelts are less desirable, don't pay as much, and have fewer prospective buyers. It is not all about the fur of these animals.

Read the information from the provincial site, particularly this (http://www.fishaq.gov.nl.ca/sealing/humaness_environmental_significance.pdf). Yes, seals are a significan reason why fish are disappearing and left unchecked could completely ruin the ecosystem.

Not to dismiss the governmental links that you have provided but why would I take those as fact when it's the government itself that advocates for and defends the seal hunt? Just as you wouldn't trust an advocacy group's website why would I trust the government's "facts"? Would I trust the Japanese government's findings based on the "research" that they do in the southern ocean? The argument that seals are to blame for the lack of fish is like blaming Kodiak brown bears for any possible reduction of salmon in that part of Alaska. Human interaction is far more impactful and wide reaching. I'm not denying that seals don't eat a lot of fish, but what makes them the enemy just because they are reproducing? Our species can reproduce as much as we want and consume as much as we want but when things get tight we blame the most noticeable species nearby?


What would you rather the fisherman who join the hunt do? What can you do or think of to provide up to 35% of their income? Again, it is not just aboriginals that depend on the seal hunt. In the case of aboriginals it is because they use the animal in many ways to sustain themselves. In the case of the fisherman, he does it to get money to sustain himself/his family. Maybe you don't understand just how harsh conditions are where these people live - the weather, the unemployment, the poverty?

To be honest I'd rather the fisherman not join the hunt and consider other more legitimately humane ways of making extra money that doesn't involve mass slaughter. The argument that they are providing for their families doesn't really get a ton of sympathy from me since the same argument is used by others for so many other cruel things directed at animal species and ecosystems. "We must continue to drill for oil because it provides for my family. We must continue to frack because it provides for my family. We must continue to whale because it provides for my family. We must continue to use harmful chemicals because those profits from that industry provides for my family." At some point in time we need to stand up to things that harm others for profit, and that includes wildlife in my opinion. We can all do better with regards to that goal.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 01:51 PM
Here; watch a video not made by an activist and tell me how you expect these people to live without the seal hunt.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGc0XjgPz8s

I'd honestly rather them (humans) have to figure it out than to continue an annual mass slaughter. A slaughter that is centered around profit and not protection. If the fish population were abundant they'd still find a way to promote a seal hunt, probably making the case that with less seals it would yield even more catch which means more food and profit for people, but either way the seal is the enemy because if the fish population drops the seal would be blamed for that. It's never going to be because of years of irresponsible fishing and management by human beings.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 01:53 PM
Adelaide I think after your next response it would probably be ok to open this up for everybody, unless you feel otherwise.

Adelaide
10-25-2014, 02:11 PM
Not to dismiss the governmental links that you have provided but why would I take those as fact when it's the government itself that advocates for and defends the seal hunt? Just as you wouldn't trust an advocacy group's website why would I trust the government's "facts"? Would I trust the Japanese government's findings based on the "research" that they do in the southern ocean? The argument that seals are to blame for the lack of fish is like blaming Kodiak brown bears for any possible reduction of salmon in that part of Alaska. Human interaction is far more impactful and wide reaching. I'm not denying that seals don't eat a lot of fish, but what makes them the enemy just because they are reproducing? Our species can reproduce as much as we want and consume as much as we want but when things get tight we blame the most noticeable species nearby?

To be honest I'd rather the fisherman not join the hunt and consider other more legitimately humane ways of making extra money that doesn't involve mass slaughter. The argument that they are providing for their families doesn't really get a ton of sympathy from me since the same argument is used by others for so many other cruel things directed at animal species and ecosystems. "We must continue to drill for oil because it provides for my family. We must continue to frack because it provides for my family. We must continue to whale because it provides for my family. We must continue to use harmful chemicals because those profits from that industry provides for my family." At some point in time we need to stand up to things that harm others for profit, and that includes wildlife in my opinion. We can all do better with regards to that goal.

All hunting has a purpose and is usually more humane than how mass-produced animal products come about. Do you deny that? As a vegetarian I know you have a problem with all meat, but logically you must see that game meat and hunting are almost always more fair to the animal, healthier for all involved so long as there are regulations and rules in place to avoid over-hunting or hunting endangered species.

My government has little reason to want to propagate about the seal hunt - it's hurt our talks with the EU for a trade agreement, among other things. I'm absolutely sure they would love to ban the seal hunt if it were so easy. But the government recognizes that the hunt is vital to communities where there is no growing season for crops, and incredibly dangerous weather conditions for humans nonetheless domesticated animals. My video showed one such community that relies on preserved salted fish for 9 months of a year before the seal hunt. Ice blocks their access to the mainland most of the year.

Seals are not the "enemy" - they're a means of survival. They're respected as such and treated ethically through the training of sealers to make the kill quick and as painless as possible. I respect the people who hunt seals far more than I respect the people who own factory farms. The animal is what keeps people above water. It helps with unemployment. It takes more respect for an animal to kill it humanely than it does to order a big mac.

You're comparing apples and oranges. People who live on the east coast in areas that are barren and fishing and hunting are what sustain them, it's not as though they can suddenly become bankers or lawyers or doctors. Their job is swimming around in the ocean and inlets. As much as it is tradition for the aboriginals, it is tradition for the Newfies and Quebecois, among others. Generations of seal hunters. Generations that all depended on the seal hunt to survive the brutal winters. Yes, it comes at the cost of harming an animal but again - what exactly do you expect them to do in that area of my country to make up for lost revenue/income? There isn't anything else. I guess they could try to sell snow and ice?

Whaling is different as it's often with endangered species. Hunting sharks for the fins is different because you're taking the fin and throwing the rest back to rot. Sealing is a sustainable practice that is one of the only ways for many communities to survive.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 02:18 PM
All hunting has a purpose and is usually more humane than how mass-produced animal products come about. Do you deny that? As a vegetarian I know you have a problem with all meat, but logically you must see that game meat and hunting are almost always more fair to the animal, healthier for all involved so long as there are regulations and rules in place to avoid over-hunting or hunting endangered species.

My government has little reason to want to propagate about the seal hunt - it's hurt our talks with the EU for a trade agreement, among other things. I'm absolutely sure they would love to ban the seal hunt if it were so easy. But the government recognizes that the hunt is vital to communities where there is no growing season for crops, and incredibly dangerous weather conditions for humans nonetheless domesticated animals. My video showed one such community that relies on preserved salted fish for 9 months of a year before the seal hunt. Ice blocks their access to the mainland most of the year.

Seals are not the "enemy" - they're a means of survival. They're respected as such and treated ethically through the training of sealers to make the kill quick and as painless as possible. I respect the people who hunt seals far more than I respect the people who own factory farms. The animal is what keeps people above water. It helps with unemployment. It takes more respect for an animal to kill it humanely than it does to order a big mac.

You're comparing apples and oranges. People who live on the east coast in areas that are barren and fishing and hunting are what sustain them, it's not as though they can suddenly become bankers or lawyers or doctors. Their job is swimming around in the ocean and inlets. As much as it is tradition for the aboriginals, it is tradition for the Newfies and Quebecois, among others. Generations of seal hunters. Generations that all depended on the seal hunt to survive the brutal winters. Yes, it comes at the cost of harming an animal but again - what exactly do you expect them to do in that area of my country to make up for lost revenue/income? There isn't anything else. I guess they could try to sell snow and ice?

Whaling is different as it's often with endangered species. Hunting sharks for the fins is different because you're taking the fin and throwing the rest back to rot. Sealing is a sustainable practice that is one of the only ways for many communities to survive.

I'd be lying if I said that a part of me wasn't wanting to agree with you in some respects on some of your points, but then at the same time there's a big part of me that will call myself a sell out if I do. I don't know.

I understand that people need to survive, I do, but it's hard to get behind something that just seems so commercialized and traditional in spite of the percentage of people that are genuinely trying to survive. I think I could tolerate someone sincerely taking one of those lives in order to survive, but when it comes to doing it for money it just doesn't resonate with me. i'm sorry.

Adelaide
10-25-2014, 02:22 PM
I'd honestly rather them (humans) have to figure it out than to continue an annual mass slaughter. A slaughter that is centered around profit and not protection. If the fish population were abundant they'd still find a way to promote a seal hunt, probably making the case that with less seals it would yield even more catch which means more food and profit for people, but either way the seal is the enemy because if the fish population drops the seal would be blamed for that. It's never going to be because of years of irresponsible fishing and management by human beings.

You and I both agree on climate change, as far as I know. Seals had to have had a natural predator at some point that wasn't a human with a weapon, otherwise their population would not be now growing to the point of threatening fish species in specific areas. We're not going to suddenly reverse the changes in climate and ice sheets. It makes sense right now to hunt seals and keep the population controlled rather than just allow the government to cull. I'm sure that sealers themselves would happily create reasons why they should continue hunting, but the reality is the seals are actually harming the ecosystem along our coast and into the St. Lawrence. We may as well allow commercial sealing as it does serve a purpose and the people who do it have few, if any, alternative methods to survive.

Adelaide
10-25-2014, 02:25 PM
I'd be lying if I said that a part of me wasn't wanting to agree with you in some respects on some of your points, but then at the same time there's a big part of me that will call myself a sell out if I do. I don't know.

I understand that people need to survive, I do, but it's hard to get behind something that just seems so commercialized and traditional in spite of the percentage of people that are genuinely trying to survive. I think I could tolerate someone sincerely taking one of those lives in order to survive, but when it comes to doing it for money it just doesn't resonate with me. i'm sorry.

I get that. Unfortunately survival is about money for humans. 35% of a fisherman's income in some areas is sealing. Removing that would be devastating to what are already the poorest and most unemployed population in Canada aside from the territories.

Adelaide
10-25-2014, 03:17 PM
The debate is now open.

Peter1469
10-25-2014, 03:24 PM
I am persuaded that the seal population is unsustainably large. The numbers must be kept in check, and humane hunting is the best way to do that. If the meat is not going to waste, I don't have a problem with it. We eat cows, pigs, chickens, and whatnot as well.

And this is much much better than the common factory farming practices for obtaining food.

I am less persuaded by this being a primary source of income for certain people. Canada is large and has plenty of space for migration if needed. As a wise, dead comic once said, if you live in a desert..., move.

PolWatch
10-25-2014, 03:24 PM
Thank you both for some interesting information. While there are no seals to hunt in my area (the Gulf Coast) we have a similar situation with alligators. While gators are not as cute as seals, I don't think anyone wants to see them hunted to extinction (nearly the case in the past), but we also don't need to see them wipe out other wildlife. I have to agree with strictly controlled hunting in both cases.

Peter1469
10-25-2014, 03:25 PM
Thank you both for some interesting information. While there are no seals to hunt in my area (the Gulf Coast) we have a similar situation with alligators. While gators are not as cute as seals, I don't think anyone wants to see them hunted to extinction (nearly the case in the past), but we also don't need to see them wipe out other wildlife. I have to agree with strictly controlled hunting in both cases.

Gators are more fun to hunt. They fight back.

Alyosha
10-25-2014, 03:27 PM
Nature finds a way. Animals are controlled by predators directly above them in the food chain. If the large seal population cannot be killed by orcas, sharks, or polar bears then they will breed uncontrollably until nature creates a predator.

As an aside, if I had to "go" I'd rather it be quick by gunshot than slow by being eaten alive by an orca.

PolWatch
10-25-2014, 03:28 PM
Gators are more fun to hunt. They fight back.

I will cheer you from the bleachers!

Bob
10-25-2014, 03:39 PM
Chloe keeps fixating on profit. When she earns at a job, that is profit. When her parents earn, those are profits.

Since I have only heard of seal hunting, never had a direct impact on my life, I hope to be objective as to the debate.

As objective as I can be, it seems the natives doing the hunting do it to survive. While they may keep subsisting on salted fish, too much salt is bad for humans. I suppose Seal fats also provide subsistence.

At one time, it was my impression that anybody wanting to hunt seals (here, always shown as white cuddly fur animals) the activists gave me the feeling anybody who loved killing cute cuddly animals showed up to kill cute cuddly animals.

Adelaide has made a compelling argument for seal hunting. I notice, and not to discriminate in any way, the younger you are, the more you see the world with rose colored glasses and hope for that ideal world.

The world is not like that at all.

If we are to declare a winner, with no disrespect to all participants, Adelaide won.

Bob
10-25-2014, 03:42 PM
Climate change has nothing to do with any of this given for as long as there has been oceans and lakes, climate has changed.

Bob
10-25-2014, 03:43 PM
I am going out on the limb about reptiles aka alligators too. I honestly have no excuse why they exist. We don't have them in CA and the West and get along very well without them.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 05:11 PM
I am going out on the limb about reptiles aka alligators too. I honestly have no excuse why they exist. We don't have them in CA and the West and get along very well without them.

You do have reptiles in California and in the west, many reptiles actually, but yes you are correct that you do not have alligators. They (alligators) exist because they are apex predators and help control native populations in a natural way. They have evolved over time to fit in nicely within the ecosystem that they currently live in and California is not supportive of that type of habitat.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 05:12 PM
Climate change has nothing to do with any of this given for as long as there has been oceans and lakes, climate has changed.

Climate change has nothing to do with it but yet you acknowledge that climate changes? So wouldn't then you also accept the fact that if climate changes it can alter ecosystems? Climate change, whether natural or man-made, can and does affect ecosystems and animal populations.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 05:13 PM
Chloe keeps fixating on profit. When she earns at a job, that is profit. When her parents earn, those are profits.

Since I have only heard of seal hunting, never had a direct impact on my life, I hope to be objective as to the debate.

As objective as I can be, it seems the natives doing the hunting do it to survive. While they may keep subsisting on salted fish, too much salt is bad for humans. I suppose Seal fats also provide subsistence.

At one time, it was my impression that anybody wanting to hunt seals (here, always shown as white cuddly fur animals) the activists gave me the feeling anybody who loved killing cute cuddly animals showed up to kill cute cuddly animals.

Adelaide has made a compelling argument for seal hunting. I notice, and not to discriminate in any way, the younger you are, the more you see the world with rose colored glasses and hope for that ideal world.

The world is not like that at all.

If we are to declare a winner, with no disrespect to all participants, Adelaide won.

I wasn't fixating on profit I was talking about how I do not think that killing wildlife for commercial profit is humane.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 05:21 PM
and i'll concede that @Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=473) probably won the debate and most people here would probably agree with her on this topic, but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. It's just we are coming from two different perspectives in two very different parts of North America.

Peter1469
10-25-2014, 05:22 PM
and i'll concede that @Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=473) probably won the debate and most people here would probably agree with her on this topic, but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. It's just we are coming from two different perspectives in two very different parts of the North America.

I think that much of the world (leadership) officially agrees with you. Addy mentioned the international pressure that Canada gets over the seal hunts.

PolWatch
10-25-2014, 05:30 PM
I don't think of it as win/lose...you both made valid points. I agree with Adelaide's position because I have seen a similar situation close-up...the balance of nature is upset when a predator overpopulates an area. The introduction of man into nature means that a lot of the natural controls are changed. I hope our intelligence will enable us to be good stewards of the planet.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 05:33 PM
I don't think of it as win/lose...you both made valid points. I agree with Adelaide's position because I have seen a similar situation close-up...the balance of nature is upset when a predator overpopulates an area. The introduction of man into nature means that a lot of the natural controls are changed. I hope our intelligence will enable us to be good stewards of the planet.

Our intelligence tends to make us believe that we can control nature, but fortunately and unfortunately we can't. Often times we are the "predator" that upsets the balance by trying to force nature into satisfying only our needs.

Adelaide
10-25-2014, 05:42 PM
I don't really think either of us won. I agree with Chloe that we are coming from different perspectives.

PolWatch
10-25-2014, 05:46 PM
Our intelligence tends to make us believe that we can control nature, but fortunately and unfortunately we can't. Often times we are the "predator" that upsets the balance by trying to force nature into satisfying only our needs.

Yeap, mankind is a predator...that's why we are still on the planet. We could have gone the way of other species that are now extinct. I kinda like being here. I also like knowing that our intelligence is trying to help every other living creature on the planet have the same success. I'm sure that seals have a favorite fish dinner...what if over population of seals causes that type of fish to become extinct? Should we stand back and let nature take its course? Even though the predators that would have naturally reduced the seal population are reduced because of OUR presence? We are here now and a lot of damage has already been done. I'm in favor of interfering in nature to reduce our negative impact.

Peter1469
10-25-2014, 06:14 PM
Here if they don't cull the deer there is massive deer starvation, not to mention lots of accidents with cars hitting dear or the other way around. They are supposed to use the meat at homeless shelters.

Peter1469
10-25-2014, 06:16 PM
Man is an apex predator. Competition to include war is what drove human advancement and achievement.

donttread
10-25-2014, 06:22 PM
I prefer the gun shot to the clubbing which almost certainly has a lower first use quick kill rate . But people need sustainable winter clothing and meat.

Polecat
10-25-2014, 06:23 PM
If I had the feelings for all animals that Chloe does I would be forced to not only agree with her view but to stop eating meat or using any animal products. The fact is though I have learned to differentiate between natural resources and pets. In the past humans were much more calloused with their technique and use of wildlife. Whales were brought to the brink of extinction because of the high value of their oil. No thought was given to suffering or wasting the meat. It was a pure cash grab. This was how all natural resources where dealt with before the population became large enough that we could see our impact. Measures have been taken to correct this behavior and more will come I am sure. One thing is certain. We can't foul up the natural balance then just walk away and hope it recovers to our liking. It would no doubt recover but it could be in such a manner that we would deeply regret.

Polecat
10-25-2014, 06:27 PM
Here if they don't cull the deer there is massive deer starvation, not to mention lots of accidents with cars hitting dear or the other way around. They are supposed to use the meat at homeless shelters.

Deer over population has given rise to "mad deer" disease. Similar to mad cow. Moose and elk are also susceptible. Ohio imported it from Pennsylvania.

Adelaide
10-25-2014, 07:17 PM
If I had the feelings for all animals that Chloe does I would be forced to not only agree with her view but to stop eating meat or using any animal products. The fact is though I have learned to differentiate between natural resources and pets. In the past humans were much more calloused with their technique and use of wildlife. Whales were brought to the brink of extinction because of the high value of their oil. No thought was given to suffering or wasting the meat. It was a pure cash grab. This was how all natural resources where dealt with before the population became large enough that we could see our impact. Measures have been taken to correct this behavior and more will come I am sure. One thing is certain. We can't foul up the natural balance then just walk away and hope it recovers to our liking. It would no doubt recover but it could be in such a manner that we would deeply regret.

I personally have a problem with people hunting endangered animals or doing what the Japanese do and hulling in a whole shark just to cut off the fin and throw the rest of the animal away to rot. I think if you kill an animal, it deserves the respect of being used completely. Maybe that's weird. I enjoy various types of game meat but I know that the whole animal is being used and it's not just being hunted for it's antlers, for example. I don't care if it was a 10 pointer and you just had to have the rack - use the whole damn animal. Plenty of Canadian restaurants use game meat and you can store it yourself if you like it.

Bob
10-25-2014, 07:17 PM
I don't really think either of us won. I agree with Chloe that we are coming from different perspectives.

In other words, it was a complete waste of time.

Debates declare winners.

Peter1469
10-25-2014, 07:20 PM
In other words, it was a complete waste of time.

Debates declare winners.

Or we are just having good clean fun, Bob.

Bob
10-25-2014, 07:20 PM
I personally have a problem with people hunting endangered animals or doing what the Japanese do and hulling in a whole shark just to cut off the fin and throw the rest of the animal away to rot. I think if you kill an animal, it deserves the respect of being used completely. Maybe that's weird. I enjoy various types of game meat but I know that the whole animal is being used and it's not just being hunted for it's antlers, for example. I don't care if it was a 10 pointer and you just had to have the rack - use the whole damn animal. Plenty of Canadian restaurants use game meat and you can store it yourself if you like it.

That was not the debate between you two.

Each animal has to be debated.

For instance, does removing the fin kill the shark? If the shark dies, does it provide food for other fish or animals in the oceans?

This complicated the argument over seals in my view.

GrassrootsConservative
10-25-2014, 07:34 PM
No winner declared? How about a mud-wrestle for tie breaker?

I'll start a poll if we need one. :yepp: I would carry that burden.

:icon_thumright:

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 07:36 PM
In other words, it was a complete waste of time.

Debates declare winners.

Uh, no, they don't. That's competitive debating, the stuff you do in high school and college debate club to win competitions. That's not the purpose of debates on the forum.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 07:45 PM
That was not the debate between you two.

Each animal has to be debated.

For instance, does removing the fin kill the shark? If the shark dies, does it provide food for other fish or animals in the oceans?

This complicated the argument over seals in my view.

Are you being serious? Fins aren't aesthetic add ons for a fish, of course they will die if they are removed. When you kill millions of sharks per year to shark finning it completely damages the balance of the ecosystem.

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 08:10 PM
For instance, does removing the fin kill the shark?

I don't know. Does removing your head kill you?

GrassrootsConservative
10-25-2014, 08:15 PM
At least they die instead of suffering life without a fin.

When Chloe the vegetarian eats a plant that plant has been hurt by the cutting or removal of fruits and vegetables. I watched a documentary the other day called "What plants talk about" and it turns out plants are hurt when they are torn apart. You know that smell you get when you cut the grass? That's a chemical they release when they are pained.

And if that food is a root? You have just killed that plant, same as if you had eaten a chicken egg or clam.

Dirt has nutrients and doesn't feel pain. Maybe that's what vegetarians should eat since they don't want to hurt anything.

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 08:29 PM
At least they die instead of suffering life without a fin.

When Chloe the vegetarian eats a plant that plant has been hurt by the cutting or removal of fruits and vegetables. I watched a documentary the other day called "What plants talk about" and it turns out plants are hurt when they are torn apart. You know that smell you get when you cut the grass? That's a chemical they release when they are pained.

And if that food is a root? You have just killed that plant, same as if you had eaten a chicken egg or clam.

Dirt has nutrients and doesn't feel pain. Maybe that's what vegetarians should eat since they don't want to hurt anything.

Or people could just be reasonable and not resort to absurdity.

GrassrootsConservative
10-25-2014, 08:32 PM
Or people could just be reasonable and not resort to absurdity.

You're right, everything people eat is going to be hurt. People trying to eat without hurting something is pretty unreasonable.

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 08:35 PM
You're right, everything people eat is going to be hurt. People trying to eat without hurting something is pretty unreasonable.

Why is it unreasonable? There are instant and painless ways to kill an animal in order to eat it. There's absolutely zero reason not to make use of those methods.

GrassrootsConservative
10-25-2014, 08:39 PM
Why is it unreasonable? There are instant and painless ways to kill an animal in order to eat it. There's absolutely zero reason not to make use of those methods.

That's fine, I'm talking about vegetarians who don't eat meat. Of course humane methods should always be used to kill something hunted for food.

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 08:42 PM
That's fine, I'm talking about vegetarians who don't eat meat. Of course humane methods should always be used to kill something hunted for food.

What's your evidence that plants can feel pain?

GrassrootsConservative
10-25-2014, 08:48 PM
What's your evidence that plants can feel pain?

Why do I need evidence? And how would I obtain it?

Bob
10-25-2014, 08:49 PM
I don't really think either of us won. I agree with Chloe that we are coming from different perspectives.

While I respect both of you equally, let me explain since it is not against Chloe.

She argues points extremely well. So does Adelaide.

I could pull more for Chloe in fact. I suppose it is her caring and her youth.

But let's reel off facts.

Who gave the most sound arguments based on facts?

Adelaide did.

I am sure others won't agree.

But Chloe based her arguments on cute animals and how unfair it is to kill them.

Adelaide presented needs of typical residents that kill the seals who truly depend on them for meat and income.

I simply believe in her argument over the poor helpless seals argument. I like how Adelaide presented the seas in real life versus they are cute cuddly creatures that Chloe offers.

It is not that I wanted either to win.

I realize it is in fun but some great points by both were actually well made.

Just vote for Chloe if you think she won.

Or say it is a tie. I don't have a dog in the hunt anyway.

I am trying to squeeze in the Giant's Royals game and took time out since the Giants are messing up the game.

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 08:50 PM
Why do I need evidence? And how would I obtain it?

You don't need evidence, but it will certainly make the difference in whether or not you are taken seriously. How would you obtain it? A reputable scientific source on Google shouldn't be too difficult to find.

GrassrootsConservative
10-25-2014, 08:53 PM
You don't need evidence, but it will certainly make the difference in whether or not you are taken seriously. How would you obtain it? A reputable scientific source on Google shouldn't be too difficult to find.

Oh. Well then you didn't read my post. I saw it on a documentary you can find on Netflix streaming from PBS called "What plants talk about."

Read my post, there's something interesting about the smell you get when you cut the yard. Also watch the documentary if you can. It was really eye-opening.

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 08:57 PM
Oh. Well then you didn't read my post. I saw it on a documentary you can find on Netflix streaming from PBS called "What plants talk about."

Read my post, there's something interesting about the smell you get when you cut the yard. Also watch the documentary if you can. It was really eye-opening.

I'll look it up.

Bob
10-25-2014, 08:58 PM
I don't know. Does removing your head kill you?

This is the silly reply to the question .... does cutting off a sharks fin kill it.

Cute, but non responsive.

I had no idea some think of the fin the same way they think of heads.

I believe I said if it kills the shark, the dead shark provides food for other sea fish or animals.

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 09:00 PM
This is the silly reply to the question .... does cutting off a sharks fin kill it.

Cute, but non responsive.

I had no idea some think of the fin the same way they think of heads.

It's a serious response. Sharks don't have first aid, Bob. Cutting off any part of it could be potentially deadly. The fin especially. Fins on fish aren't just for show, they provide necessary functions to the livelihood of the fish.

It was your question that was silly.

Bob
10-25-2014, 09:05 PM
Are you being serious? Fins aren't aesthetic add ons for a fish, of course they will die if they are removed. When you kill millions of sharks per year to shark finning it completely damages the balance of the ecosystem.

I am not kidding. I don't know if the shark dies over that sort of an injury. Surely sharks lose fins to other denizens of the sea.

It is not an approval to cut off shark fins on my part.

I don't like moving off the seals but since sharks were brought into it, let's see what NOAA says.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/08/08_13_12shark_mythbusters.html

NOAA mentions that sharks can survive with the fin gone. It says most do die. I am not clear how they know that.

Adelaide
10-25-2014, 09:08 PM
I am not kidding. I don't know if the shark dies over that sort of an injury. Surely sharks lose fins to other denizens of the sea.

It is not an approval to cut off shark fins on my part.

Think of it like a boat. What happens when you loose the rudder?

Bob
10-25-2014, 09:28 PM
It's a serious response. Sharks don't have first aid, Bob. Cutting off any part of it could be potentially deadly. The fin especially. Fins on fish aren't just for show, they provide necessary functions to the livelihood of the fish.

It was your question that was silly.

Your question had nothing to do with fins. It was about heads.

That makes your response very silly.

More than the first time since you defend your silly question.

Per NOAA, sharks that lost the fin are known to survive.

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 09:31 PM
Your question had nothing to do with fins. It was about heads.

That makes your response very silly.

More than the first time since you defend your silly question.

It's a rhetorical device called a - oh, what the fuck, forget it. Not gonna spend five pages explaining rhetorical devices to you. Point being, it was a legitimate reference to show how silly your question was.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 09:32 PM
I am not kidding. I don't know if the shark dies over that sort of an injury. Surely sharks lose fins to other denizens of the sea.

It is not an approval to cut off shark fins on my part.

I don't like moving off the seals but since sharks were brought into it, let's see what NOAA says.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/08/08_13_12shark_mythbusters.html

NOAA mentions that sharks can survive with the fin gone. It says most do die. I am not clear how they know that.

Please research shark finning and find out exactly what we are talking about Bob

Also it clearly says on the very link that you provided that in almost all circumstances the shark dies after they have had their fins cut off so i'm not sure why you chose to make it sound more promising than the link said. The rare circumstance is probably when only a small portion of one fin is cut or damaged, or if it is somehow brought into captivity for treatment, and even then it is still probably a struggle and leads to death.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 09:34 PM
Your question had nothing to do with fins. It was about heads.

That makes your response very silly.

More than the first time since you defend your silly question.

Per NOAA, sharks that lost the fin are known to survive.

That is not what the link said. You are inferring that based on the word "almost". Short of saying 100% of sharks die from finning it was pretty clear on their site that cutting a sharks fins off results in death. Also I wouldn't just lean on NOAA's assessments either. Research it and look at multiple sources. Shark finning is cruel, needless, wasteful, and kills millions of sharks every year which in turn harms ecosystems.

Bob
10-25-2014, 09:39 PM
Think of it like a boat. What happens when you loose the rudder?

That makes sense until you read what NOAA says on this issue.

I posted from NOAA things about sharks that is pure myth.

But I believe the fin being cut off is the top fin. I am no expert on this at all, but what I know of them is the body movement provides both propulsion and steering. The fins on the sides are not cut off from what I am reading. The top fin is removed. As a non expert, if the shark dies, it seems it might lose fluids but I am not sure.

Bob
10-25-2014, 09:40 PM
That is not what the link said. You are inferring that based on the word "almost". Short of saying 100% of sharks die from finning it was pretty clear on their site that cutting a sharks fins off results in death. Also I wouldn't just lean on NOAA's assessments either. Research it and look at multiple sources. Shark finning is cruel, needless, wasteful, and kills millions of sharks every year which in turn harms ecosystems.

Correct but it means there is doubt they die. Did you see NOAA cite any study?

Per NOAA sharks are very plentiful and not in short supply.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 09:41 PM
That makes sense until you read what NOAA says on this issue.

I posted from NOAA things about sharks that is pure myth.

But I believe the fin being cut off is the top fin. I am no expert on this at all, but what I know of them is the body movement provides both propulsion and steering. The fins on the sides are not cut off from what I am reading. The top fin is removed. As a non expert, if the shark dies, it seems it might lose fluids but I am not sure.

Below the section that read MYTH there was a follow up that said FACT, and the FACT portion clearly stated that under nearly all circumstances the shark dies. Where are you seeing the ambiguity and why are you making guesses without researching it just a little bit more? Just research it beyond that one NOAA website please.

Adelaide
10-25-2014, 09:41 PM
Your question had nothing to do with fins. It was about heads.

That makes your response very silly.

More than the first time since you defend your silly question.

Per NOAA, sharks that lost the fin are known to survive.

You know, more probably could manage to survive without a fin but do you think those people taking the fins are really at all concerned with whether the shark will live?

Chloe
10-25-2014, 09:42 PM
Correct but it means there is doubt they die. Did you see NOAA cite any study?

Per NOAA sharks are very plentiful and not in short supply.

They are not the end all be all of shark research and shark future. You are basing an entire belief and argument on one website page.

Bob
10-25-2014, 09:45 PM
Please research shark finning and find out exactly what we are talking about Bob

Also it clearly says on the very link that you provided that in almost all circumstances the shark dies after they have had their fins cut off so i'm not sure why you chose to make it sound more promising than the link said. The rare circumstance is probably when only a small portion of one fin is cut or damaged, or if it is somehow brought into captivity for treatment, and even then it is still probably a struggle and leads to death.

NOAA is not good enough?

I reported dead on accurately.

I am just seeking pure facts. I note sites against this tell lies. At least they are not true.

I was asking if removing the dorsal fin leads to death. NOAA claims most die but does not rule out them living. That is very accurate.

NOAA for instance calls the claims of a 100 million dead sharks a myth.

It even discusses saving sharks.

Bob
10-25-2014, 09:47 PM
They are not the end all be all of shark research and shark future. You are basing an entire belief and argument on one website page.

So far, the other sites are entirely biased is why I used the Government site.

My belief is what NOAA says. Sharks can survive with the fin gone. How many survive, I have no idea.

Bob
10-25-2014, 09:50 PM
You know, more probably could manage to survive without a fin but do you think those people taking the fins are really at all concerned with whether the shark will live?

Really? This asks me to be in the heads of those removing fins from sharks

My basis for my question is I know a lot of animals can survive absent some appendage, legs, arms and so forth. I was thinking even sharks have fins bitten off. I believe some sharks don't mind eating each other.

I was interested in genuine research about if it is always fatal or sometimes fatal or seldom fatal.

I am hitting biased sited as biased as you faced over your arguments over seal hunting.

Bob
10-25-2014, 09:53 PM
Below the section that read MYTH there was a follow up that said FACT, and the FACT portion clearly stated that under nearly all circumstances the shark dies. Where are you seeing the ambiguity and why are you making guesses without researching it just a little bit more? Just research it beyond that one NOAA website please.

Nearly is not always. That is what caught my eye.

I would love to search it but for the sites biased against the fishermen cutting off the dorsal fin.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 09:53 PM
I don't know...I just...(sigh)

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 09:53 PM
Well, girls, it WAS a good debate, anyway.

http://i.imgur.com/3cjkQSt.gif

Bob
10-25-2014, 09:59 PM
It's a rhetorical device called a - oh, what the $#@!, forget it. Not gonna spend five pages explaining rhetorical devices to you. Point being, it was a legitimate reference to show how silly your question was.

Nobody but you dreamed up this so called device.

I spoke to the topic, shark fins.

You tried to divert to shark heads.

Device or not, that is so silly. Can't you ask real questions?

Bob
10-25-2014, 10:00 PM
Well, girls, it WAS a good debate, anyway.



It was until you diverted to heads.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 10:01 PM
Nearly is not always. That is what caught my eye.

I would love to search it but for the sites biased against the fishermen cutting off the dorsal fin.

Bob, a shark's dorsal fin controls its basic balance in the water. It's like the tail of a plane or the mast on a sailboat. An apex predator, like a shark, without it's dorsal fin will die, whether it's from the injury itself or eventual starvation due to the fact that it cant hunt correctly anymore, it will still die. Shark finning does not remove the tip, it removes the entire fin, and so without the fin the shark lacks one of its key bodily controls for movement which will also inhibit hunting. It will die.

Bob
10-25-2014, 10:04 PM
I don't know...I just...(sigh)

I don't know either which is why I asked if removing the dorsal fin of said shark is always fatal.

NOAA does not say it is always fatal.

I also stated NOAA claims most do die.

What else can I do since you post no counter links that are not biased.

I prefer something such as from biology.

Let me give you an instance.

Suppose you told me cutting a person's arm was fatal. I would ask, is it always fatal?

That is what I was seeking over fins.

If removing the dorsal fin is 100 percent fatal, then they clearly kill the shark.

NOAA left that wiggle I like in discussions like this.

Bob
10-25-2014, 10:09 PM
Bob, a shark's dorsal fin controls its basic balance in the water. It's like the tail of a plane or the mast on a sailboat. An apex predator, like a shark, without it's dorsal fin will die, whether it's from the injury itself or eventual starvation due to the fact that it cant hunt correctly anymore, it will still die. Shark finning does not remove the tip, it removes the entire fin, and so without the fin the shark lacks one of its key bodily controls for movement which will also inhibit hunting. It will die.

Maybe my problem is I am a pilot and fully understand rudders and fins and how they work in water.

You are claiming they always die. That is not what NOAA says and that comes from scientists.

I believe the lower fins do more for direction than the dorsal fin does.

Show me proof is good for me.

If you study fish and how they swim, the body actually does most of the propulsion when they wave their way through water. That is well established. A fin might provide nuances or even add to balance.

You may understand how a sail works.

A fish body sort of works like a sail. It weaves through the water creating high pressure zones on the body and low pressure zones. The flexing of the body is why they move through water. The dorsal fin does not flap at all. It is stationary.

Chloe
10-25-2014, 10:15 PM
Maybe my problem is I am a pilot and fully understand rudders and fins and how they work in water.

You are claiming they always die. That is not what NOAA says and that comes from scientists.

I believe the lower fins do more for direction than the dorsal fin does.

Show me proof is good for me.

If you study fish and how they swim, the body actually does most of the propulsion when they wave their way through water. That is well established. A fin might provide nuances or even add to balance.

You may understand how a sail works.

A fish body sort of works like a sail. It weaves through the water creating high pressure zones on the body and low pressure zones. The flexing of the body is why they move through water. The dorsal fin does not flap at all. It is stationary.

If say 1% of the sharks that have had their fins cut off live would you consider that justification enough that it's ok since a percentage will survive? Serious question. I ask that because you are so fixated on this possible little bit of ambiguity that it almost comes across like you think that it only kills a few sharks and the rest just simply cowboy up and survive somehow. Would it help if I said that 99.9% die that way it leaves you that .1 to satisfy the doubt that NOAA purposefully left on their site?

Let me ask you this basic question. If a shark has no stability and its ability to change direction is reduced significantly can it successfully hunt fish and survive healthy and with a full life?

Chloe
10-25-2014, 10:18 PM
Bob I won't lie to you...you are probably the most frustrating person i've ever debated/argued with. I just can't wrap my head around your logic right now. I'm sorry.

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 10:19 PM
It was until you diverted to heads.


Nobody but you dreamed up this so called device.

I spoke to the topic, shark fins.

You tried to divert to shark heads.

Device or not, that is so silly. Can't you ask real questions?

I should start discussions with you when I'm having self esteem issues. That'll boost my self esteem easy.

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 10:19 PM
Bob I won't lie to you...you are probably the most frustrating person i've ever debated/argued with. I just can't wrap my head around your logic right now. I'm sorry.

You're too sweet, Chloe, calling it "logic."

Chloe
10-25-2014, 10:20 PM
You're too sweet, Chloe, calling it "logic."

Be nice

Green Arrow
10-25-2014, 10:23 PM
Be nice

Sorry. I'm a smart ass, it's hard to put that aside sometimes :tongue:

Bob
10-25-2014, 11:00 PM
Bob I won't lie to you...you are probably the most frustrating person i've ever debated/argued with. I just can't wrap my head around your logic right now. I'm sorry.

Let me make it easy.

I and NOAA claim that some sharks survive fins being cut off.

You agreed with that I thought.

But if I am wrong,

You do not agree with NOAA and claim every shark that lost it's dorsal fin died.

Where are we going wrong? Chloe

Chloe, part of this is my intellect. Part is I notice minute details.

When I like to bat posters around, it is Green Arrow.

He is ultra easy to bat around.

Now I will play nice. I did this due to his smart ass replies to me.

IMPress Polly
10-26-2014, 06:51 AM
MY REVIEW OF THE DEBATE

Okay, so the main debate took place over the course of the first two and a half pages. I learned a lot from it (as ecology is not forte), but ultimately find myself in Chloe's camp on this issue, though not without nuance.

Functionally, the debate seemed to end very early on, with post #4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/33795-Seal-hunting-Adelaide-vs-Chloe?p=809636&viewfull=1#post809636), which presents what I consider the winning arguments:


Chloe wrote:
If not for the demand of pelts the hunt probably would not be a commercial industry for the country. An inuit for example sustaining his family for months off of one seal is far different than the 400,000 seals that will be killed primarily for profit.


Chloe wrote:
The seal population grows because of the continued decline of its natural predators. Our hands across the globe and around Canadian waters kills, either on purpose or by accident, millions of varied marine animals each year, including predators, which makes the seal population rise and so then we kill them to control that population. One day when all of the natural predators are extinct we will control the seal population solely for industrial/commercial purposes and they will no longer be a part of nature but a part of our lifestyle. Population control is becoming more and more necessary because of our negative interactions with the natural world. Let the oceans recover from our actions and the seal population would be regulated by nature, and not by what's hot in fashion or in some asian food market.

The response to these points provided boiled down to repeating the undisputed point established in the OP that seal hunting is ecologically sustainable, which wasn't really a counterpoint. After that point, the lines of communication seemed to effectively break down, with both parties basically spending the rest of the debate repeating their earlier points in more detail. The trouble seems to have been that Adelaide was attempting to make a pragmatic argument based on (perceived) human needs and ecological sustainability while Chloe was making a moral argument based on animal rights, and these two arguments never really communicated with each other. Both sides made good points, but Chloe's animal rights argument is more convincing to me for a reason that finds concentration in these remarks by Adelaide:


Adelaide wrote:
As I pointed out, a lot of the communities which participate in the seal hunt are deeply affected by high levels of unemployment, unavailable resources due to ice, so forth. They rely on the hunt to sustain their families and communities as much as aboriginals do. Recently there are very few pelt traders interested, but a huge market for the meat in Asia. There is also a market for seal oil which has many health benefits.

Here Adelaide fails to distinguish between differing levels of survival need. If the cost of not hunting seals looks like this...

Seal's Life vs. Human Life

...I'm with you (Adelaide). But in the cited remarks, you propose this equation instead...

Seal's Life vs. Human Poverty / Having to Move

...and that's where I see an obvious inequity of consequences that gives Chloe's line of argument the moral high ground.

Neither can I swallow the logic that says an animal's life can gain or lose value based on how one proposes to take it. Either life has value or it does not. The argument for "humane" executions is used to justify the death penalty in human society all the time, which is something that I suspect you (Adelaide) are opposed to as much as I am. Why should this "humane killing" argument be invalid when applied to people convicted of high crimes (albeit perhaps wrongly), but yet acceptable logic in support of killing the demonstrably innocent so long as they belong to a different species? If it were you, would you care if your mother or child or best friend was killed slowly or quickly, or would you kind of prefer that they be allowed to live? You see, that's where one finds the moral high ground: through a consistent application of empathy, not just by empathizing with those one has more in common with (e.g. members of one's own species).

I feel that there is something profoundly true in Chloe's assessment of the developing relationship between human beings and nature. She assesses that we (people) use our own rape of the natural world as an excuse to commit more in a perpetual cycle of abuse that is ultimately reshaping the whole way nature functions. We are systematically restructuring the natural world to serve the wants of our own species rather than seeking to find our place within nature, and therein, in that arrogance, lies the core problem. Chloe proposes essentially that yes, solving global warming and over-fishing is how we can best respond to this situation: by digging up the problem by its roots rather than just responding to symptoms of the ailment. She's right about that. Now as to whether Chloe actually has a workable solution to global warming (e.g. does she accept the necessity of a transitional energy?)...that might be a subject for another debate sometime. The point here though is that global warming and over-fishing by humans are not the seal's fault, and neither is it the seal's fault that First Nations and the impoverished have been mistreated and find themselves disadvantaged. It is our responsibility to solve these problems, not the seal's. The argument that the abuse of nature is required to satisfy secondary human needs never ends. It can be, and is, used to justify every single way in which we abuse nature. e.g. 'What about the coal miners and oil workers and lumberjacks who stand to lose their jobs if we ever fully convert to clean, sustainable forms of energy and stop destroying the rainforests?' You see what I'm saying? That logic never ends! In reality, layoffs are far less consequential than these actions, and solutions to problems like layoffs tend to surface when the need arises in a pressing way. These are simply industry-concocted excuses for making vast sums of money in ways that are deeply harmful to the natural world.

As for the nuance, here is one small area of possible disagreement I had with Chloe's argument:


Chloe wrote:
It's pretty much all commercial seal hunting though. The roughly 400,000 seals that will be killed this year are primarily being killed for industry, and the main reason for the killing is not for the meat but for the fur. Even if it was for the meat I wouldn't be any less adamant about it being wrong, but still the main point if that this is killing for profit in my opinion.

Returning to the equations I posted above, the moral high ground is lost if one cannot provide a better alternative (i.e. pragmatism DOES relate to morality). For example, in as far as the alternative to a First Nation killing seals for lack of another food source might be death, I cannot object to the practice. After all, people must survive too! Meat consumption can be justified in the genuine absence of alternatives, I believe. Asking people to die so that other species may live does not represent the moral high ground, but misanthropy. The moral high ground here comes from siding with needs over wants: the seals' need to live over people's want of fur. However, I agree with you in as far as meat consumption has become a human want more than a genuine need. That may not yet fully be the case though for certain First Nations, which, after all, lead a very basic kind of existence.

That though is kind of reaching a little for a point of disagreement, as it's not the main part of your argument, so I find myself in about 95% agreement with your position overall.

Polecat
10-26-2014, 10:12 AM
I will side with the sentiment towards harvesting wild life for trophies or wasteful use being wrong. When my father introduced my brother & I to shooting he made it clear that you got to eat what you kill. This was are cue not to shoot at animals just for fun. Farm animals are near zero waste. As far as taking shark fins goes I know it is wasteful to dump a mortally wounded animal back in the sea. If you are going to kill something then use ALL or it.

Chris
10-26-2014, 10:14 AM
I won't pick a winner. Or can I say the winner was good civilized debate/discussion of topic!

IMPress Polly
10-26-2014, 10:38 AM
While I do side with one argument over the other, I have to agree with you when you say that this was a debate of exceptional quality! In fact, between this and the debate between Green Arrow and Cthulu, I feel that the one-on-one debate forum is already proving to be the highest-quality debate forum we've got on this whole message board!

Alyosha
10-26-2014, 11:26 AM
IMPress Polly you and I should debate. We could think of all sorts of areas where we don't agree civilly.

IMPress Polly
10-26-2014, 11:44 AM
I'm up for it! Did you have any particular topic in mind?

Peter1469
10-26-2014, 11:53 AM
I'm up for it! Did you have any particular topic in mind?

How about different views on feminism.

Alyosha
10-26-2014, 12:01 PM
The existence and necessity of the state?

Alyosha
10-26-2014, 12:02 PM
Or since Ethereal is a wussy, we can do evidence of the supernatural.

Chris
10-26-2014, 12:08 PM
The existence and necessity of the state?


...we can do evidence of the supernatural.


Aren't those the same topic?

GrassrootsConservative
10-26-2014, 12:13 PM
Aren't those the same topic?

Literally they are. By definition. Supernatural means it exists outside the laws of nature. :grin:

Peter1469
10-26-2014, 12:30 PM
Literally they are. By definition. Supernatural means it exists outside the laws of nature. :grin:

Then why do humans gravitate towards governments of various forms.

Chris
10-26-2014, 01:08 PM
Then why do humans gravitate towards governments of various forms.


Those who do so do so for the same reason they gravitate toward religion.

There are many culture that gravitate away from government. All primitive cultures as a matter of fact.

PolWatch
10-26-2014, 01:10 PM
Every primitive culture I have ever read about has a chief, etc. Isn't that government? The only way to avoid government is to live alone...in an area where no knows you are!

Peter1469
10-26-2014, 01:14 PM
Every primitive culture I have ever read about has a chief, etc. Isn't that government? The only way to avoid government is to live alone...in an area where no knows you are!


Yes it is. That is why I used the word government and not the word state.

Chris
10-26-2014, 01:18 PM
Every primitive culture I have ever read about has a chief, etc. Isn't that government? The only way to avoid government is to live alone...in an area where no knows you are!

No. Generally speaking, chiefs were chiefs as long as they served the people, settling disputes, providing them gifts--and food and shelter in times of trouble. And if they didn't, the tribe found another who could. This is generally true of primitive peoples of the Americas, according to anthropologists.

Pirates operate in a similar fashion. The crew fashions a sort of constitution and elects a captain. He's in charge though generally only during battle. The crew that elects can reject their captain and find another.

PolWatch
10-26-2014, 01:22 PM
Isn't that a government? There is authority in the hands of one (or more) and the rest of the group agrees to obey?

Peter1469
10-26-2014, 01:29 PM
Mayors are mayors until someone else wins an election and takes over as mayor.

PolWatch
10-26-2014, 01:34 PM
No. Generally speaking, chiefs were chiefs as long as they served the people, settling disputes, providing them gifts--and food and shelter in times of trouble. And if they didn't, the tribe found another who could. This is generally true of primitive peoples of the Americas, according to anthropologists.

Pirates operate in a similar fashion. The crew fashions a sort of constitution and elects a captain. He's in charge though generally only during battle. The crew that elects can reject their captain and find another.

the more I have read this post, the more I think that its kinda the idea that this nation's government was founded on...gov by the people, etc etc?????

Bob
10-26-2014, 01:37 PM
Looking over posts 113-115, clearly there is a confusion that exists as to what government actually is.

The tribal chief and pirate were offered as evidence.

The word govern, part of government, names the purpose. Government names the means.

To Govern means some kind of entity that has authority that others will agree to follow.

The tribal chief would be the one that governs. It might amount to not much governing to much more. The tribal chief for instance might be a go it alone type or a type that relies on committees or the entire group.

If the group is too large, then it might use committees.

If the people follow what government requests, then it is government. If they refuse to follow, all you have is a gang.

We in America have a lot of governments if you look all of them up.

For instance

1. county government, where there could be one or more cities.

2. City government where the government only applies to the area of the city.

3. State Government which does not play a role in county and city governments as to day to day operations.

4. Federal Government.

I want to address Federal Government.

It should not be involved in any day to day operations of any states.

This is our present problem with the Federal Government.

It persists in playing roles in not only your city, but your county and your state.

I believe each state has competent leaders who know the job better than the Feds know the job.

To sum up, Obama, get your nose out of health care, schools and a lot more that you assume you have authority over.

Find it in the constitution bub or stop it.

del
10-26-2014, 01:37 PM
Let me make it easy.

I and NOAA claim that some sharks survive fins being cut off.

You agreed with that I thought.

But if I am wrong,

You do not agree with NOAA and claim every shark that lost it's dorsal fin died.

Where are we going wrong? @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565)

Chloe, part of this is my intellect. Part is I notice minute details.

When I like to bat posters around, it is Green Arrow.

He is ultra easy to bat around.

Now I will play nice. I did this due to his smart ass replies to me.

somewhere, a horse is looking for its ass.

Chris
10-26-2014, 01:44 PM
the more I have read this post, the more I think that its kinda the idea that this nation's government was founded on...gov by the people, etc etc?????

Yes, the Declaration speaks of just that, the right to form a government, and the right, if it fails us, to abandon it.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


Let's clarify the ambiguity in the word government. Generally people mean by it the state, the political state. Primitive tribes have no politics, not that they lack it, but that they reject it. Doesn't mean they don't have rules, traditions, customs, norms like any society that govern them.

Where some distinguish government from state, but others distinguish governance from government, or, clearer, rules without rulers. The former in each is anarchy, which doesn't mean chaos, but governance without government, rules without rulers.

I'm not sure about seals, but I think they're anarchistic. :D

Chris
10-26-2014, 01:45 PM
Mayors are mayors until someone else wins an election and takes over as mayor.

But mayors have authority to make decisions for the people. Tribal chiefs do not.

Bob
10-26-2014, 01:48 PM
I will side with the sentiment towards harvesting wild life for trophies or wasteful use being wrong. When my father introduced my brother & I to shooting he made it clear that you got to eat what you kill. This was are cue not to shoot at animals just for fun. Farm animals are near zero waste. As far as taking shark fins goes I know it is wasteful to dump a mortally wounded animal back in the sea. If you are going to kill something then use ALL or it.

My problem with saying the sharks have a fatal injury is I can't find proof.

I find assertions, but am still hunting for proof.

Take a cow for instance, cut off the horns and it survives very well.

Bob
10-26-2014, 01:50 PM
somewhere, a horse is looking for its ass.

Look no further than dels residence.

Bob
10-26-2014, 01:53 PM
But mayors have authority to make decisions for the people. Tribal chiefs do not.

In my city, where the Mayor leads the committee known as the city council, votes are cast and the majority view prevails. The Mayor can be in the minority.

The daily operations of government are handled by the city manager.

The Mayor can play a role in changing rules, the city manager can not. (short of helping the mayor and council)

PolWatch
10-26-2014, 01:55 PM
But mayors have authority to make decisions for the people. Tribal chiefs do not.

The chiefs were responsible for making decisions about where to hunt, etc...in fact, in some societies, their appointment (?) was based on their ability to bring home the bacon. The tribe members obeyed the instructions of the chief. Their survival depended on having a competent leader (government). I think you are playing word games, Chris. :wink:

Bob
10-26-2014, 02:24 PM
If say 1% of the sharks that have had their fins cut off live would you consider that justification enough that it's ok since a percentage will survive? Serious question. I ask that because you are so fixated on this possible little bit of ambiguity that it almost comes across like you think that it only kills a few sharks and the rest just simply cowboy up and survive somehow. Would it help if I said that 99.9% die that way it leaves you that .1 to satisfy the doubt that NOAA purposefully left on their site?

Let me ask you this basic question. If a shark has no stability and its ability to change direction is reduced significantly can it successfully hunt fish and survive healthy and with a full life?
Chloe

I started a topic "Shark Fins" But allow me to clean up your misconceptions of my views.

I also have some questions.

If 1 percent survive, it bothers me just as much as if all survived, or died. I believe at the very least, it is a cruel practice.

With fish (per my research) of all types more harmed by nets, this might be a fringe group even though bad in my view. But I don't consume shark fins. I suppose if you asked one who consumes them, they don't mind what happens to sharks.

I have several times stated very clearly, NOAA says most. I simply reported that. I don't happen to have figures to show either way.

i am seeking such figures.

From here for example.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/x3690e/x3690e1s.htm#TopOfPage

What bothers me about how you discuss is that you make a lot of assumptions that to date, are not backed up by any evidence.

It is like you see me claiming that sharks can do just fine with no fins. I am not making any of those type of claims. I don't care if they swim more or less stable with fins, to simply remove fins and dump them back in my view can be banned and I will be quite happy if that is possible. I tend to believe it is not possible.

I try to not live in the world of hope, I try to live in how things actually are.

I am trying to find out if they take off all fins or the dorsal. Surely if you remove all fins from sharks, at the least it makes life for them much harder.

I have also learned sharks do not eat often. That they consume food and spend quite a bit of time goofing off until they get hungry again. I also believe in adaption. That they could perhaps .... PERHAPS, figure out how to keep eating.

I read that the shark sinks to the bottom with no fins. That will kill the shark in my view.

Bob
10-26-2014, 02:26 PM
The chiefs were responsible for making decisions about where to hunt, etc...in fact, in some societies, their appointment (?) was based on their ability to bring home the bacon. The tribe members obeyed the instructions of the chief. Their survival depended on having a competent leader (government). I think you are playing word games, Chris. :wink:

I am with you on that point PolWatch. I don't understand why Chris sees no government with tribal chiefs.

Common Sense
10-26-2014, 03:40 PM
My problem with saying the sharks have a fatal injury is I can't find proof.

I find assertions, but am still hunting for proof.

Take a cow for instance, cut off the horns and it survives very well.

Cow horns are hair. Shark fins are flesh. You're comparing a haircut to an amputation.

Bob
10-26-2014, 03:42 PM
Cow horns are hair. Shark fins are flesh. You're comparing a haircut to an amputation.

Show me proof it kills a shark and we have that part settled.

I posted a list of sharks killed by China for fishing purposes.

Read that.

Dr. Who
10-26-2014, 03:44 PM
My problem with saying the sharks have a fatal injury is I can't find proof.

I find assertions, but am still hunting for proof.

Take a cow for instance, cut off the horns and it survives very well.
Bob, the horns of animals are essentially like fingernails and hair. The only part of them with any feeling is the bed or follicle. Thus horns can be cut off and they will simply keep on growing, much as your hair keeps on growing. A dorsal fin is quite another matter entirely. It serves a purpose to the shark, particularly for stability: The dorsal fin of a white shark contain dermal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermal) fibers that work "like riggings that stabilize a ship's mast", and stiffen dynamically as the shark swims faster to control roll and yaw.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsal_fin#cite_note-3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsal_fin

Needless to say, the fin also contains a blood supply, thus when cut off by fishermen, the shark bleeds, attracting other sharks who smell the blood in the water. Thus, if the shark does not simply bleed to death, he may otherwise be the object of a feeding frenzy by other sharks or other fish. I find the entire activity morally reprehensible. Of course few people find the shark cute or cuddly, so it is not viewed the same way as cutting off bambi's hoof with a bear trap, but it is equally cruel and disrespectful of life on this planet. The shark serves a very important purpose in the oceans. Without the shark the oceans would be a polluted mess. Sharks eats the sick, the weak, the dying and dead things in the water. It keeps the fish populations in balance, so that they don't overpopulate and starve to death. Like all apex predators, they are acutely necessary to a healthy ecosystem.

Common Sense
10-26-2014, 03:45 PM
Show me proof it kills a shark and we have that part settled.

I posted a list of sharks killed by China for fishing purposes.

Read that.

http://www.antisharkfinning.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hammerhead-byjeffrotman-225x300.jpg

Just like a haircut. He should be fine...just swim it off.

Chris
10-26-2014, 04:04 PM
I am with you on that point PolWatch. I don't understand why Chris sees no government with tribal chiefs.

Because it was not government in the sense you and I understand government. You're imposing modern Western view of government as natural and necessary on primitive tribes who didn't lack government but rejected it.

Chris
10-26-2014, 04:10 PM
In my city, where the Mayor leads the committee known as the city council, votes are cast and the majority view prevails. The Mayor can be in the minority.

The daily operations of government are handled by the city manager.

The Mayor can play a role in changing rules, the city manager can not. (short of helping the mayor and council)

That's government. American tribal chiefs generally--there are exceptions--had no authority other than to settle disputes, and even that, if they didn't do a good job of it, lost them their position. Other than that--and in some cases the privilege of polygamy--the chief was charged with serving the people by providing for them, in times of plenty, simply token gifts, but in hard times, literally feeding, clothing and sheltering them. Any further attempt by a chief to take charge, claim authority, to lead, was flat out rejected.

If you'd like to read more from anthropology I suggest starting with Pierre Clastres' Society Against the State.

Chris
10-26-2014, 04:13 PM
The chiefs were responsible for making decisions about where to hunt, etc...in fact, in some societies, their appointment (?) was based on their ability to bring home the bacon. The tribe members obeyed the instructions of the chief. Their survival depended on having a competent leader (government). I think you are playing word games, Chris. :wink:

As far as I know, no, they were not. The people, perhaps counsels of elders, if any such decisions were even made. Who stayed home to tends the children and farm, what to plant, when, when to harvest, who went on the hunt, where, what, these had been decided over time, were just what people did.

Bob
10-26-2014, 04:15 PM
As far as I know, no, they were not. The people, perhaps counsels of elders, if any such decisions were even made. Who stayed home to tends the children and farm, what to plant, when, when to harvest, who went on the hunt, where, what, these had been decided over time, were just what people did.

Chief Sitting Bull did what?

Bob
10-26-2014, 04:19 PM
That's government. American tribal chiefs generally--there are exceptions--had no authority other than to settle disputes, and even that, if they didn't do a good job of it, lost them their position. Other than that--and in some cases the privilege of polygamy--the chief was charged with serving the people by providing for them, in times of plenty, simply token gifts, but in hard times, literally feeding, clothing and sheltering them. Any further attempt by a chief to take charge, claim authority, to lead, was flat out rejected.

If you'd like to read more from anthropology I suggest starting with Pierre Clastres' Society Against the State.

I am not trying to overstate the role of chiefs. i have read up on a lot of them and my belief is they had stature. They all were different. Tribes in CA were different from tribes in the far east and the Dakotas for instance. The Cherokees were very civilized and I am thinking they had councils but one leader to speak for the local tribe.

In my view, even though loosely knit, it was a form of government.

If the Chief wanted to head north to hunt and was told to go south, I believe the Chief went north and the tribe followed.

Bob
10-26-2014, 04:24 PM
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)

The author was unknown to me but as you stated, I checked him out.

On primitive societies

Chris, I have not claimed tribes were states. I hold the opinion that for the most part, tribes did not understand owning land or water or the air or rivers or lakes.

They tended to roam particular areas but I do not believe that all tribes believed they owned parts of the earth. I think they merely used it.

It is similar to today. i do not own ocean. I know some claim parts of it, but to me it is a silly construct.


Society Against the State

Pierre Clastres

(an excerpt from Clastres' Society Against the State)

Primitive societies are societies without a State. This factual judgment, accurate in itself, actually hides an opinion, a value judgment that immediately throws doubt on the possibility of constituting political anthropology as a strict science. What the statement says, in fact, is that primitive societies are missing something - the State - that is essential to them, as it is to any other society: our own, for instance. Consequently, those societies are incomplete; they are not quite true societies--they are not civilized--their existence continues to suffer the painful experience of a lack--the lack of a State--which, try as they may, they will never make up. Whether clearly stated or not, that is what comes through in the explorers' chronicles and the work of researchers alike: society is inconceivable without the State; the State is the destiny of every society. One detects an ethnocentric bias in this approach; more often than not it is unconscious, and so the more firmly anchored. Its immediate, spontaneous reference, while perhaps not the best known, is in any case the most familiar. In effect, each one of us carries within himself, internalized like the believer's faith, the certitude that society exists for the State. How, then, can one conceive of the very existence of primitive societies if not as the rejects of universal history, anachronistic relics of a remote stage that everywhere else has been transcended? Here one recognizes ethnocentrism's other face, the complementary conviction that history is a one-way progression, that every society is condemned to enter into that history and pass through the stages which lead from savagery to civilization. "All civilized peoples were once savages," wrote Ravnal. But the assertion of an obvious evolution cannot justify a doctrine which, arbitrarily tying the state of civilization to the civilization of the State, designates the latter as the necessary end result assigned to all societies. One may ask what has kept the last of the primitive peoples as they are.

Chris
10-26-2014, 04:26 PM
Chief Sitting Bull did what?

Pierre Clastres' Society Against the State goes into detail about Geronimo. From Western tales he was a great chief rebelling against the white man, no? In reality he rebelled against the Apache and their traditional ways and they rejected him as they would anyone who tried to take authoritarian control of them. Geronimo had gained much prestige in leading them in revenge against Mexicans, and he tried to use that to take them on the warpath. "In vain. Its collective goal--revenge--having been reached, the Apache society yearned for rest. ...the Apaches chose not to follow Geronimo....would regularly turn their backs on him whenever he wanted to wage his personal war. Geronimo, the last of the great North American war chiefs, who spent thirty years of his life trying to "play the chief," and never succeeded." (pages 211-12)

Walk away from what you learned in government schools.

Chris
10-26-2014, 04:28 PM
Chris

The author was unknown to me but as you stated, I checked him out.

On primitive societies


Society Against the State
Pierre Clastres
(an excerpt from Clastres' Society Against the State)
Primitive societies are societies without a State. This factual judgment, accurate in itself, actually hides an opinion, a value judgment that immediately throws doubt on the possibility of constituting political anthropology as a strict science. What the statement says, in fact, is that primitive societies are missing something - the State - that is essential to them, as it is to any other society: our own, for instance. Consequently, those societies are incomplete; they are not quite true societies--they are not civilized--their existence continues to suffer the painful experience of a lack--the lack of a State--which, try as they may, they will never make up. Whether clearly stated or not, that is what comes through in the explorers' chronicles and the work of researchers alike: society is inconceivable without the State; the State is the destiny of every society. One detects an ethnocentric bias in this approach; more often than not it is unconscious, and so the more firmly anchored. Its immediate, spontaneous reference, while perhaps not the best known, is in any case the most familiar. In effect, each one of us carries within himself, internalized like the believer's faith, the certitude that society exists for the State. How, then, can one conceive of the very existence of primitive societies if not as the rejects of universal history, anachronistic relics of a remote stage that everywhere else has been transcended? Here one recognizes ethnocentrism's other face, the complementary conviction that history is a one-way progression, that every society is condemned to enter into that history and pass through the stages which lead from savagery to civilization. "All civilized peoples were once savages," wrote Ravnal. But the assertion of an obvious evolution cannot justify a doctrine which, arbitrarily tying the state of civilization to the civilization of the State, designates the latter as the necessary end result assigned to all societies. One may ask what has kept the last of the primitive peoples as they are.


Exactly. The state of civilization simply does not imply the civilization of the State. It is not necessary.

Bob
10-26-2014, 04:29 PM
Exactly. The state of civilization simply does not imply the civilization of the State. It is not necessary.

That does not dismiss my claim about government. It does blow off state, but government and state is not the same thing.

Take the case of Iraq.

State during Saddam was very different from state following Saddam.

But both amount to government.

Bob
10-26-2014, 04:31 PM
Pierre Clastres' Society Against the State goes into detail about Geronimo. From Western tales he was a great chief rebelling against the white man, no? In reality he rebelled against the Apache and their traditional ways and they rejected him as they would anyone who tried to take authoritarian control of them. Geronimo had gained much prestige in leading them in revenge against Mexicans, and he tried to use that to take them on the warpath. "In vain. Its collective goal--revenge--having been reached, the Apache society yearned for rest. ...the Apaches chose not to follow Geronimo....would regularly turn their backs on him whenever he wanted to wage his personal war. Geronimo, the last of the great North American war chiefs, who spent thirty years of his life trying to "play the chief," and never succeeded." (pages 211-12)

Walk away from what you learned in government schools.

Sitting Bull did what to an American General?

Chris
10-26-2014, 04:39 PM
Sitting Bull did what to an American General?


Earlier I related to polwatch how pirates were organized similar to tribes, creating constitutions, electing captains, who would indeed lead them into battle, but otherwise other times had no authority, just like Geronimo, just like Sitting Bull. Ignore my answers if you wish.

See Peter T. Leeson's The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates.

del
10-26-2014, 04:39 PM
Sitting Bull did what to an American General?

cut off his dorsal fin

Bob
10-26-2014, 04:49 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=812199#post812199)
Sitting Bull did what to an American General?


cut off his dorsal fin

Don't pull that crap on me.

I bent over laughing so hard I was trying to catch my breath.

My health is important so stop making me laugh.

Kidding, keep kerrying on.

Copied from Mat.

IMPress Polly
10-27-2014, 07:24 AM
Peter wrote:
How about different views on feminism.

Alyosha and I have already pretty well fleshed out our similarities and differences on feminism in the abstract, I think, so if we were to pick something related to gender issues, we might then want to pick something fairly specific. For example, I was thinking of maybe at some point debating one of our other feminists here* on the role of girls and women in Disney films, as I actually think a lot of feminists focus their attention on criticizing Disney too much because modern Disney is actually among the most feminist of all the major movie companies (save perhaps for Lion's Gate). I'm in the mood to offer a critical defense of the Disney princesses, both old and new (but especially new) if only to refocus us on criticizing companies that are doing much worse!

* In my mind, the "other feminists here" include (for the girls) Adelaide, PolWatch, Chloe, Amazon, and Alyosha, and (for the guys) Green Arrow, KC, Codename Section, and The Xl. (My definition of "feminist" excludes those who deny the existence of patriarchy.) I'd be up for debating any of them on the referenced subject. Any takers?


Alyosha wrote:
The existence and necessity of the state?


Or since Ethereal is a wussy, we can do evidence of the supernatural.

Wait, the EXISTENCE of the state is in question? :wink:

Seriously though, the state sounds like a good topic, if by the state you mean the same thing I do anyway (police, military, courts, prisons). We have some things in common in this area to fall back on (like a belief that the state can and should at least ultimately be abolished), so we wouldn't have to debate the basics of whether the instruments of the state are fundamentally good or bad, and those parameters would help make it a productive debate, methinks. By contrast, "the supernatural" might not be a very productive debate, as, coming from the negative standpoint on that issue, I wouldn't really have to say anything other than "I see no evidence" to make my case. The entire burden of proof would lie with you. Not much to debate there that I can see.

Anyway, I should mention that we should delay any debate until next week, as I'm going to be swamped this week (I'm doing the planning for a birthday party that happens to also fall on Halloween in my fairly minimal spare time) and this weekend I'll only be on briefly and will be focused on posting my official election prediction. Next week I'll probably have several decent opportunities in the early mornings to debate though.

IMPress Polly
10-27-2014, 12:36 PM
Alyosha:

It would be possible for me to begin participating o any such debate I think in the early morning hours of next Thursday the 6th, so if you wanted to post the topic on say Wednesday the 5th, that might get us off to a running start...just as a suggestion!

Alyosha
10-27-2014, 02:22 PM
Alyosha:

It would be possible for me to begin participating o any such debate I think in the early morning hours of next Thursday the 6th, so if you wanted to post the topic on say Wednesday the 5th, that might get us off to a running start...just as a suggestion!
IMPress Polly

sounds good still don't know what to debate, maybe social engineering in gaming?

Mister D
10-27-2014, 02:31 PM
@IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399)

sounds good still don't know what to debate, maybe social engineering in gaming?

A little esoteric? :undecided:

IMPress Polly
10-27-2014, 07:00 PM
Alyosha wrote:
sounds good still don't know what to debate, maybe social engineering in gaming?

Oh, in the post before that one I said the state would be fine, but I also like social engineering in gaming. :cool2: Whichever one you prefer I'm good with because the gaming world is kind of my forte.

Mister D
10-27-2014, 07:08 PM
Ladies, the state please. Thank you.

IMPress Polly
10-30-2014, 07:34 PM
That sounds fine to me. The state it is then, I guess! Alyosha, you can set up the topic next Wednesday, stating your position, then I'll respond early the next morning.

donttread
10-31-2014, 10:10 PM
Alyosha and I have already pretty well fleshed out our similarities and differences on feminism in the abstract, I think, so if we were to pick something related to gender issues, we might then want to pick something fairly specific. For example, I was thinking of maybe at some point debating one of our other feminists here* on the role of girls and women in Disney films, as I actually think a lot of feminists focus their attention on criticizing Disney too much because modern Disney is actually among the most feminist of all the major movie companies (save perhaps for Lion's Gate). I'm in the mood to offer a critical defense of the Disney princesses, both old and new (but especially new) if only to refocus us on criticizing companies that are doing much worse!

* In my mind, the "other feminists here" include (for the girls) Adelaide, PolWatch, Chloe, Amazon, and Alyosha, and (for the guys) Green Arrow, KC, Codename Section, and The Xl. (My definition of "feminist" excludes those who deny the existence of patriarchy.) I'd be up for debating any of them on the referenced subject. Any takers?





Wait, the EXISTENCE of the state is in question? :wink:

Seriously though, the state sounds like a good topic, if by the state you mean the same thing I do anyway (police, military, courts, prisons). We have some things in common in this area to fall back on (like a belief that the state can and should at least ultimately be abolished), so we wouldn't have to debate the basics of whether the instruments of the state are fundamentally good or bad, and those parameters would help make it a productive debate, methinks. By contrast, "the supernatural" might not be a very productive debate, as, coming from the negative standpoint on that issue, I wouldn't really have to say anything other than "I see no evidence" to make my case. The entire burden of proof would lie with you. Not much to debate there that I can see.

Anyway, I should mention that we should delay any debate until next week, as I'm going to be swamped this week (I'm doing the planning for a birthday party that happens to also fall on Halloween in my fairly minimal spare time) and this weekend I'll only be on briefly and will be focused on posting my official election prediction. Next week I'll probably have several decent opportunities in the early mornings to debate though.


How about their track record with "mouseteers?"

IMPress Polly
11-01-2014, 06:26 AM
I honestly wouldn't know. I've never watched The Mickey Mouse Club before. I was referring to animated motion pictures mainly. The essence of my commentary in defense of Disney in this sense would be as follows: That, even in the olden days (1930s-'50s), Walt Disney Pictures was doing something almost revolutionary just in making movies for girls at all. Their competition almost never did so, enabling Disney to pretty much corner that market...and thus become disproportionately susceptible to feminist scrutiny and critiques only because girls actually watched a lot of their movies! Think: If it hadn't been for Disney, film-watching would've been thought of the same way video games have been thought of for decades, pretty much until recently: as a hobby meant for boys and men. In fact, Disney still makes more movies (and TV shows also today, for that matter) for girls today than most of their competition even today, and pretty much corners the preteen girls market.

Now certainly Disney does deserve the criticisms they get from feminists generally, but I'm just arguing that the lopsided focus on critiquing Disney specifically is excessive when you place these things back in their historical context and in perspective, relative to how their competition portrayed/portrays girls and women in as far as those others even bother to. Walt Disney Pictures (which I'm notably distinguishing from Pixar, Disney Princess, and other Disney subsidiaries) has also evolved a lot over the last 25 years in terms of how they represent women on-screen. 25 years ago, we were at The Little Mermaid, which presents young girls with the message that if you're determined enough, look really, really good, and learn to shut up, one day the dashing rich guy of your dreams will solve all your problems by marrying you (or at least that was the message I got from it when I saw it in theaters and on videocassette; it was the first movie I saw in theaters). That, mind you, was the first animated motion picture Disney had made for girls in 30 years. After that though, the company discovered it had a gold mine on its hands and decided to resume its long-neglected princess movie pattern. Their messages started getting more progressive over the next decade, and by 1998 we had arrived at Mulan: the first, and so far only, Disney animated motion picture to star a female action hero (and my favorite Disney cartoon movie to date)! These days, Walt Disney Pictures makes a new movie a year or so and rotates out whether the main target audience will be boys or girls annually. Frozen is their latest movie for girls. I think when I highlight movies like Mulan, Lilo and Stitch, Wreck-It Ralph, and Frozen, you can easily see progress in the way the company portrays the female sex compared against say Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmations (which I count as the most openly sexist Disney movie ever), and The Little Mermaid...or even compared against most of their competition (again, save perhaps for Lion's Gate). Walt Disney Pictures typically portrays girls and women as independent these days and tends to refrain from overtly sexualizing their female characters. The most recent Disney cartoon film for girls, Frozen, also has extensive interactions between multiple female characters that don't revolve around boys and men (a rare feat for Hollywood movies) and (in another rare feat for Hollywood) was co-directed by a woman. It was 2013's only top-10-grossing film to have a female director!

While Pixar still sucks when it comes to matters of gender and the Disney Princess line fails to capture the progressive spirit of modern Disney films (e.g. why are girls sold Mulan's traditional Chinese dress that she hated in the movie instead of her armor, which she liked the most, finding it the most comfortable?), Walt Disney Pictures itself has reached a place of near-gender-parity in the way it represents girls and women on-screen. Now faults remain (e.g. why are the Frozen princess's eyes still bigger than their wrists?), but these criticisms seem secondary when compared to what we could say about most of Walt Disney Pictures' competition, which still rarely bothers to even make movies for girls at all!

Peter1469
11-01-2014, 08:20 AM
You never watched The Mickey Mouse Club?

IMPress Polly
11-01-2014, 08:49 AM
I've heard the theme song and watched like a couple of random sequences at different times (the contents of which I can't even remember now), but that's all. Now my mom says that she watched it all the time and loved it as a kid, but she predates me by 35 years.

PolWatch
11-01-2014, 08:55 AM
oh me. I remember Annette Funicello before she gave up her Mouse ears for a bikini & a beach blanket...

Minotaur
11-02-2014, 02:09 PM
It is my belief based on information provided by government agencies about the increase in the seal population starting in 1970, the regulations in place by the government which are fluid based on yearly data, and the humane way sealers are taught to kill seals that sealing in Canada should be permitted.

It is a slaughter and a horror still. It was never good and won't get better. Many Inuk are against the commercial mass killing of baby seals still. I thought this was done and never going to be brought back in this way.

Look up the Commercial Seal Hunt 2011 - IFAW videos.

Matty
11-02-2014, 02:09 PM
That film is fucking disgusting. I got infracted for showing one like it. Maybe the same one! It's still fucking disgusting.

Peter1469
11-02-2014, 02:27 PM
That film is fucking disgusting. I got infracted for showing one like it. Maybe the same one! It's still fucking disgusting.

There was a warning about the graphic video. If it was sick, you chose to open it.

Minotaur
11-02-2014, 02:33 PM
It is quite simple Chloe, you were correct with information you brought to the table. The reason this issue is so discouraging is it is one of the few hunts that involves mass killing of baby seals in a brutal way and baby "anything" as a target are as relatable to humans as puppies.

Our genetic makeup is programmed with some emotional limits so the argument for bashing baby seals just doesn't fly even for many Inuit.

Matty
11-02-2014, 02:39 PM
There was a warning about the graphic video. If it was sick, you chose to open it.
Not opening DOSEN't make the content less disgusting now does it? Like I said I posted one just like it before with punitive results.

Redrose
11-02-2014, 02:40 PM
The original one was the best. Good, clean innocent entertainment. circa 1956

9455

Matty
11-02-2014, 02:41 PM
The original one was the best. Good, clean innocent entertainment. circa 1956

9455
It came on right before American Bandstand.

Peter1469
11-02-2014, 02:41 PM
Not opening DOSEN't make the content less disgusting now does it? Like I said I posted one just like it before with punitive results.

Provide a link. Via PM.

Redrose
11-02-2014, 02:46 PM
It came on right before American Bandstand.

I loved that show, especially when Dick Clark would ask the couples to rate the songs 1 thru 10 for "danceability".

I would watch Soupy Sales too after high school. What a hoot. A lot of risqué jokes that went over our heads as kids. White Tooth and Black Fang.

Minotaur
11-02-2014, 03:07 PM
I posted on the wrong poster as I was trying to post to the toppost so others may be confused. I reposted it below where it was meant to be posted and instead of putting the video in I said for readers to look up the video based on the 2011 reality.

Minotaur
11-02-2014, 03:17 PM
Not opening DOSEN't make the content less disgusting now does it? Like I said I posted one just like it before with punitive results.

Not sure what is going on as I am new here but in the debate the pictures posted were as graphic and basically the same thing. They discussed real kills and none of it is less horrific. I appreciate that you gave me a heads up but I fixed it by removing the video. I initially put a warning on because I thought it was the right thing to do. There is not an easy way to discuss this I suspect because we are talking about the rare hunt where baby's are targets.

donttread
11-03-2014, 07:57 AM
The original one was the best. Good, clean innocent entertainment. circa 1956

9455

I dunno, the old guy in the back with mouse ears looks a bit creepy to me

Tahuyaman
04-07-2015, 09:56 PM
The massive increase in the seal population in Puget Sound is devastating native Salmon runs.

Redrose
04-08-2015, 12:05 AM
It is my belief based on information provided by government agencies about the increase in the seal population starting in 1970, the regulations in place by the government which are fluid based on yearly data, and the humane way sealers are taught to kill seals that sealing in Canada should be permitted.

Adelaide who kills the seals? Do the native eskimos do it for food and clothing and survival?


In the eighties I protested the extended hunting season on deer on Long Island, just because of over population. They extended the season and allowed for the shooting of females more too. I hated the thought of shooting those beautiful animals.

Well, sadly I was proven very wrong. When we won and they stopped the shooting season and actually dropped hay for food for them, the deer population got over grown, sick and weakened. There were just too many to survive healthy and reproduce a healthy offspring. The hunting season started once more.

If the seal population is becoming overpopulated, something should be done. I just hope they do it the most humane way possible. That image of a man clubbing a baby seal gives me nightmares.

donttread
04-22-2015, 10:39 PM
Seals are an animal. They should be treated as such. If the population is high enough, humane hunting should be allowed. I have a twist though, no big companies just private hunters and furriers

Heyduke
01-20-2016, 10:30 PM
Seals. They eat a rich diet. They're fatty. Provide enormous cutlets. How, if properly seasoned and grilled, could seal not be delicious?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Tahuyaman
08-27-2018, 04:16 PM
Seals are an animal. They should be treated as such. If the population is high enough, humane hunting should be allowed. I have a twist though, no big companies just private hunters and furriers


Seals are are now extremely overpopulated in Puget Sound. They are devastating native salmon runs. I would support a bounty on seals.

Orion Rules
08-27-2018, 07:00 PM
Seals are are now extremely overpopulated in Puget Sound. They are devastating native salmon runs. I would support a bounty on seals.

The typical lies. That's all you ever are is lies. Of course, the seals will have to stop eating the fish runs. But, they, as all the others, learned from man how to toss. So, what's really the matter, you won't have anymore oil wells? Remember, those are your 'friends'. You really think no one else knows. That is, what you are, how you evaluate, how was it how he said it. Oh, it was always 'the anti-humans'. Those are your finishes, 'the anti-humans'. So, the last sign of Jonah is that he sighs. 'Oh, my gosh, it's the anti-humans against me again, so now it is a bounty on the seals'. What about the slaughtering of those whales? You forgot, can't recall when that was. Sure, ya.

Tahuyaman
08-27-2018, 07:01 PM
The typical lies. That's all you ever are is lies. Of course, the seals will have to stop eating the fish runs. But, they, as all the others, learned from man how to toss. So, what's really the matter, you won't have anymore oil wells? Remember, those are your 'friends'. You really think no one else knows. That is, what you are, how you evaluate, how was it how he said it. Oh, it was always 'the anti-humans'. Those are your finishes, 'the anti-humans'. So, the last sign of Jonah is that he sighs. 'Oh, my gosh, it's the anti-humans against me again, so now it is a bounty on the seals'. What about the slaughtering of those whales? You forgot, can't recall when that was. Sure, ya.


Seals are over populated in Puget Sound. Whales aren't. You're a loon.

Orion Rules
08-27-2018, 07:44 PM
Posted by Tahuyaman:
Seals are are now extremely overpopulated in Puget Sound. They are devastating native salmon runs. I would support a bounty on seals.


Posted by Orion Rules:
The typical lies. That's all you ever are is lies. Of course, the seals will have to stop eating the fish runs. But, they, as all the others, learned from man how to toss. So, what's really the matter, you won't have anymore oil wells? Remember, those are your 'friends'. You really think no one else knows. That is, what you are, how you evaluate, how was it how he said it. Oh, it was always 'the anti-humans'. Those are your finishes, 'the anti-humans'. So, the last sign of Jonah is that he sighs. 'Oh, my gosh, it's the anti-humans against me again, so now it is a bounty on the seals'. What about the slaughtering of those whales? You forgot, can't recall when that was. Sure, ya.


Seals are overpopulated in Puget Sound. Whales aren't. You're a loon.

That's right, whales are not overpopulated, but you don't really care about that either. As for seals being overpopulated, that is an opinion, and you only wrote that to start something. As for being a loon, thank you. That is way better than can ever be stated about you. A loon is a bird, and you are a parasite.

Orion Rules
08-28-2018, 11:34 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUwM4026BHI

Tahuyaman
09-02-2018, 07:14 PM
Seals are over populated in Puget Sound. Whales aren't. You're a loon.


That's right, whales are not overpopulated, but you don't really care about that either. As for seals being overpopulated, that is an opinion, and you only wrote that to start something. As for being a loon, thank you. That is way better than can ever be stated about you. A loon is a bird, and you are a parasite.

How did you connect my comment on the overpopulation of seals to the underpopulation of whales?

Tahuyaman
02-23-2019, 12:04 PM
There's some positive news here in Washington state. The governor is wanting to help our native killer whale population. They are currently unhealthy and their numbers are declining. This is because of a lack of feed for them. He wants to create more chinook and coho salmon runs from hatcheries to provide feed for theses whales. Many hatcheries are currently underused or even unused. These runs could be created very quickly.


However, he has been educated and understands that the various breeds of seals and sea lions congregate in the areas of these hatcheries and devastate that run as they are released. Now everyone in a position of authority knows that seal population needs to be reduced at least to the levels it was in the 1960's.


Seals are smart. If they open up areas for hunting seals, they will catch on fast that these areas are dangerous and they will look for safe haven.


They are talking about reducing our seal population by as much as 50%. That's probably not enough, but it's a good start.


This is great news.

DGUtley
02-23-2019, 03:00 PM
This discussion reminded me of a song. Guess which one based on these lyrics:

You know what I'm gonna do?
I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible
Hot pink, with whale skin hubcaps
And all leather cow interior
And big brown baby seal eyes for head lights (yeah)
And I'm gonna drive in that baby at 115 miles per hour
Gettin' 1 mile per gallon,
Sucking down Quarter Pounder cheeseburgers from McDonald's
In the old fashioned non-biodegradable styrofoam containers

Tahuyaman
02-27-2019, 05:04 PM
This discussion reminded me of a song. Guess which one based on these lyrics:

You know what I'm gonna do?
I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible
Hot pink, with whale skin hubcaps
And all leather cow interior
And big brown baby seal eyes for head lights (yeah)
And I'm gonna drive in that baby at 115 miles per hour
Gettin' 1 mile per gallon,
Sucking down Quarter Pounder cheeseburgers from McDonald's
In the old fashioned non-biodegradable styrofoam containers
Dennis Leary?

DGUtley
02-27-2019, 05:07 PM
Dennis Leary?


25412

bulletbob
11-16-2019, 06:46 AM
I think hunting should be limited to native population who have traditionally used the meat and fur .

Peter1469
11-16-2019, 06:51 AM
I think hunting should be limited to native population who have traditionally used the meat and fur .

I wish they would find a more humane way of killing the seals. The seal population needs to be culled and kept under control.

Orion Rules
11-16-2019, 10:00 AM
I wish they would find a more humane way of killing the seals. The seal population needs to be culled and kept under control.

Why is that so? In Genesis chapter 1, the intent is to expand life in the universe, as God made room for it. Don't you understand? Death is the last enemy to be defeated in man's limited mindset. Man's mismanagment of his own character, his own life, taking too much from others, living beings who have families, little ones, a whole social structure, the oldest to the youngest, to man is to be living with Christ on Earth in bliss, peace, happiness, spirituality, to a change takes place.

Avarice, envy dimmed, the "need" to take more, to why man 'accomplishes' what he does to find life emptied, karma applied, to death holds no merit. Man's opinions are wrong of what it means to be without, to believe he can build a better world than the one God designed. The Book of Nehemiah and the Gates. Mankind is headed for great troubles as he denies it. In the last days is to be the establishment on Earth of the Kingdom of Christ. Every real Christian knows of it.

I Corinthians 15

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Peter1469
11-16-2019, 03:22 PM
Why is that so? In Genesis chapter 1, the intent is to expand life in the universe, as God made room for it. Don't you understand? Death is the last enemy to be defeated in man's limited mindset. Man's mismanagment of his own character, his own life, taking too much from others, living beings who have families, little ones, a whole social structure, the oldest to the youngest, to man is to be living with Christ on Earth in bliss, peace, happiness, spirituality, to a change takes place.

Avarice, envy dimmed, the "need" to take more, to why man 'accomplishes' what he does to find life emptied, karma applied, to death holds no merit. Man's opinions are wrong of what it means to be without, to believe he can build a better world than the one God designed. The Book of Nehemiah and the Gates. Mankind is headed for great troubles as he denies it. In the last days is to be the establishment on Earth of the Kingdom of Christ. Every real Christian knows of it.

I Corinthians 15

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
God wants man to properly manage his creation. That includes ethically eating some of them. Vegetarians and Vegans hate God.

Orion Rules
11-16-2019, 04:29 PM
God wants man to properly manage his creation. That includes ethically eating some of them. Vegetarians and Vegans hate God.
They love His creation as they want to see it loved and respected. Scripture states that it is by violence the Kingdom of God was seized. Berean Study Bible: "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subject to violence, and the violent lay claim to it."

Have you no respect? By your very reasoning, "to properly manage his creation", you should be consumed by a shark in the ocean. God manages His creation perfectly, without your destructive mind-set wanting to set a table crooked. You are not trustworthy or a friend of God, but antiChrist, serving as a persecutor of the pure faith of Christ that was first delivered.

There will be no bloodshed in the Kingdom of God. Genesis 1, Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolators, and every one who loves and practices falsehood."

The Gates of The Book of Nehemiah, you missed. Even the Israelis gladly accepted it, plus 10,000+ I.D.F. vegans have a passion for the love of God and His creation you would destroy for falsehood. Love the sunshine.

Peter1469
11-16-2019, 06:46 PM
They love His creation as they want to see it loved and respected. Scripture states that it is by violence the Kingdom of God was seized. Berean Study Bible: "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subject to violence, and the violent lay claim to it."

Have you no respect? By your very reasoning, "to properly manage his creation", you should be consumed by a shark in the ocean. God manages His creation perfectly, without your destructive mind-set wanting to set a table crooked. You are not trustworthy or a friend of God, but antiChrist, serving as a persecutor of the pure faith of Christ that was first delivered.

There will be no bloodshed in the Kingdom of God. Genesis 1, Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolators, and every one who loves and practices falsehood."

The Gates of The Book of Nehemiah, you missed. Even the Israelis gladly accepted it, plus 10,000+ I.D.F. vegans have a passion for the love of God and His creation you would destroy for falsehood. Love the sunshine.
God has given you this


https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-image.foodandwine.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F styles%2F4_3_horizontal_-_1200x900%2Fpublic%2F201104-r-xl-garlic-crusted-roast-rack-of-lamb.jpg%3Fitok%3DFhCzrdEk&f=1&nofb=1 (http://cdn-image.foodandwine.com/sites/default/files/styles/4_3_horizontal_-_1200x900/public/201104-r-xl-garlic-crusted-roast-rack-of-lamb.jpg?itok=FhCzrdEk)

Orion Rules
11-16-2019, 08:39 PM
God has given you this You posted it. You side with theft, deception. 1-10. Genesis 1, Isaiah 1, Isaiah 66, verses 3, 17. God never lied.

Lection 33

By The Shedding Of Blood Of Others Is No Remission Of Sins.

1. IESUS was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the blood offering of the law take away sin?
2. And Iesus answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation.
3. The priests indeed receive such offering as a reconciliation of the worshippers for the trespasses against the law of Moses, but for sins against the Law of God there can be no remission, save by repentance and amendment.
4. Is it not written in the prophets, Put your blood sacrifices to your burnt offerings, and away with them, and cease ye from the eating of flesh, for I spake not to your fathers nor commanded them, when I brought them out of Egypt, concerning these things? But this thing I commanded saying:
5, Obey my voice and walk in the ways that I have commanded you, and ye shall be my people, and it shall be well with you. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear.
6. And what doth the Eternal command you but to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God? Is it not written that in the beginning God ordained the fruits of the trees and the seeds and the herbs to be food for all flesh?
7. But they have made the House of Prayer a den of thieves, and for the pure Oblation with Incense, they have polluted my altars with blood, and eaten of the flesh of the slain.
8. But I say unto you: Shed no innocent blood nor eat ye flesh. Walk uprightly, love mercy, and do justly, and your days shall be long in the land.
9. The corn that groweth from the earth with the other grain, is it not transmuted by the Spirit into my flesh? The grapes of the vineyard, with the other fruits are they not transmuted by the Spirit into my blood? Let these, with your bodies and souls be your Memorial to the Eternal.
10. In these is the presence of God manifest as the Substance and as the Life of the world. Of these shall ye eat and drink for the remission of sins, and for eternal life, to all who obey my words.
11. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market, a pool which is called Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the waters.
12. For at a certain season, an angel went down into the pool and troubled the waters; whosoever went first into the waters was made whole of whatever disease he had. And a man impotent from his birth was there.
13. And Iesus said unto him. Bring not the waters healing? He said unto him. Yea, Lord, but I have no man when the water is troubled to put me in, and while I am trying to come another steppeth down before me. And Jesus said to him, Arise, take up thy bed and walk. And immediately he rose and walked. And on the same day was the Sabbath.
14. The Jews therefore said to him, It is the Sabbath it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. And he that was healed wist not that it was Iesus. And Iesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.

LECTION 33. 4. -Here is given the true significance of Ier. vii. 22, or as it should be rendered in that place, " Ye add burnt sacrifice to burnt offering and ye eat flesh. But I spake not to your fathers nor commanded them concerning these things," etc. Else, as translated in the A. V. it is inimical to the sense, see Numbers xi.

Peter1469
11-16-2019, 10:16 PM
God gave us animals t care for and to eat.

Vegans and Vegetarians are Lucifairians.




You posted it. You side with theft, deception. 1-10. Genesis 1, Isaiah 1, Isaiah 66, verses 3, 17. God never lied.

Lection 33

By The Shedding Of Blood Of Others Is No Remission Of Sins.

1. IESUS was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the blood offering of the law take away sin?
2. And Iesus answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation.
3. The priests indeed receive such offering as a reconciliation of the worshippers for the trespasses against the law of Moses, but for sins against the Law of God there can be no remission, save by repentance and amendment.
4. Is it not written in the prophets, Put your blood sacrifices to your burnt offerings, and away with them, and cease ye from the eating of flesh, for I spake not to your fathers nor commanded them, when I brought them out of Egypt, concerning these things? But this thing I commanded saying:
5, Obey my voice and walk in the ways that I have commanded you, and ye shall be my people, and it shall be well with you. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear.
6. And what doth the Eternal command you but to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God? Is it not written that in the beginning God ordained the fruits of the trees and the seeds and the herbs to be food for all flesh?
7. But they have made the House of Prayer a den of thieves, and for the pure Oblation with Incense, they have polluted my altars with blood, and eaten of the flesh of the slain.
8. But I say unto you: Shed no innocent blood nor eat ye flesh. Walk uprightly, love mercy, and do justly, and your days shall be long in the land.
9. The corn that groweth from the earth with the other grain, is it not transmuted by the Spirit into my flesh? The grapes of the vineyard, with the other fruits are they not transmuted by the Spirit into my blood? Let these, with your bodies and souls be your Memorial to the Eternal.
10. In these is the presence of God manifest as the Substance and as the Life of the world. Of these shall ye eat and drink for the remission of sins, and for eternal life, to all who obey my words.
11. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market, a pool which is called Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the waters.
12. For at a certain season, an angel went down into the pool and troubled the waters; whosoever went first into the waters was made whole of whatever disease he had. And a man impotent from his birth was there.
13. And Iesus said unto him. Bring not the waters healing? He said unto him. Yea, Lord, but I have no man when the water is troubled to put me in, and while I am trying to come another steppeth down before me. And Jesus said to him, Arise, take up thy bed and walk. And immediately he rose and walked. And on the same day was the Sabbath.
14. The Jews therefore said to him, It is the Sabbath it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. And he that was healed wist not that it was Iesus. And Iesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.

LECTION 33. 4. -Here is given the true significance of Ier. vii. 22, or as it should be rendered in that place, " Ye add burnt sacrifice to burnt offering and ye eat flesh. But I spake not to your fathers nor commanded them concerning these things," etc. Else, as translated in the A. V. it is inimical to the sense, see Numbers xi.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thoughtco.com%2Fthmb%2FxV5N4t EijNcZs5C7b7AVtJrG35M%3D%2F1280x853%2Ffilters%3Afi ll(auto%2C1)%2FDer_Daemon_Baphomet-589630855f9b5874ee38bf6d.jpg&f=1&nofb=1 (https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/xV5N4tEijNcZs5C7b7AVtJrG35M=/1280x853/filters:fill(auto,1)/Der_Daemon_Baphomet-589630855f9b5874ee38bf6d.jpg)

Orion Rules
11-17-2019, 04:34 AM
God gave us animals t care for and to eat.

Vegans and Vegetarians are Lucifairians.

Genesis 1, Isaiah 1, Isaiah 66 are not wrong, so you persecute the scriptures. Butchering innocent creatures, consuming male, female hormones of animals, is satanic and of Baphomet. A house headed to Hell.

Isaiah 66: Isaiah 66 King James Version (KJV)

1 Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not...

17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.

Peter1469
11-17-2019, 04:36 AM
Genesis 1, Isaiah 1, Isaiah 66 are not wrong, so you persecute the scriptures. Butchering innocent creatures, consuming male, female hormones of animals, is satanic and of Baphomet. A house headed to Hell.

Isaiah 66: Isaiah 66 King James Version (KJV)

1 Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not...

17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.
What "version" of the bible are you quoting from. My King James is not the vegan version.

FindersKeepers
11-17-2019, 05:48 AM
Wow -- this was an ancient thread that got resurrected.

Here's the deal for me -- I don't eat meat and I would probably club a person who clubbed a seal long before I'd club a seal.

That said, I do understand that animal population can sometimes get out of control and humans have stepped in to cull large amounts before. I don't know if stepping in is right or wrong, but I know it happens, and the humans that participate are not always just out to kill something.

My personal belief is that -- if left to itself -- nature tends to balance out. It's when humans encroach on nature that an imbalance sometimes occurs -- animals begin to migrate -- the natural predator/prey balance is upset.

I can't say whether or not seal clubbing should be banned or expanded -- I don't really know the particulars. I do know that it does not set well with me and I do know that I could not respect or associate with a person who took part. People have many excuses for the things they do -- and they often believe they are doing the right thing. I can't judge them, I can only lead my life by my own ideals.

Orion Rules
11-17-2019, 06:42 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wg8-rehVgw

Admiral Ackbar
11-17-2019, 08:53 AM
I have a Seal Skin chair in my den! The softest and warmest chair I own. Very comfortable.. The seals that died for it live on through my gratitude.

Orion Rules
11-18-2019, 07:50 AM
What "version" of the bible are you quoting from. My King James is not the vegan version.

Why do you believe lying helps your case ever? Your version states the same. Keep lying forever. Revelation 21-22.

Collateral Damage
11-18-2019, 08:33 AM
Wow -- this was an ancient thread that got resurrected.

Here's the deal for me -- I don't eat meat and I would probably club a person who clubbed a seal long before I'd club a seal.

That said, I do understand that animal population can sometimes get out of control and humans have stepped in to cull large amounts before. I don't know if stepping in is right or wrong, but I know it happens, and the humans that participate are not always just out to kill something.

My personal belief is that -- if left to itself -- nature tends to balance out. It's when humans encroach on nature that an imbalance sometimes occurs -- animals begin to migrate -- the natural predator/prey balance is upset.

I can't say whether or not seal clubbing should be banned or expanded -- I don't really know the particulars. I do know that it does not set well with me and I do know that I could not respect or associate with a person who took part. People have many excuses for the things they do -- and they often believe they are doing the right thing. I can't judge them, I can only lead my life by my own ideals.
#absolutetruth

Orion Rules
11-18-2019, 02:00 PM
God has given you this


https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-image.foodandwine.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F styles%2F4_3_horizontal_-_1200x900%2Fpublic%2F201104-r-xl-garlic-crusted-roast-rack-of-lamb.jpg%3Fitok%3DFhCzrdEk&f=1&nofb=1 (http://cdn-image.foodandwine.com/sites/default/files/styles/4_3_horizontal_-_1200x900/public/201104-r-xl-garlic-crusted-roast-rack-of-lamb.jpg?itok=FhCzrdEk)

See what happens, as Hell is as Hot as Hell is. Say why you feel being sent to Hell are rights:

https://animalequality.org.uk/act/house-of-horrors

Tahuyaman
01-14-2020, 12:26 PM
#absolutetruth
Isn't man also part of nature?

Collateral Damage
01-14-2020, 05:10 PM
Isn't man also part of nature?
Yes, of course. But there is a difference in definition. Man has the ability to reason, and understand mankind's effect on the world around them. Nature doesn't have the cognitive ability to understand it's impact in that manner.

Understanding and maintaining the balance between mankind and nature other than mankind, falls to humans.

Tahuyaman
02-17-2020, 10:35 AM
Yes, of course. But there is a difference in definition. Man has the ability to reason, and understand mankind's effect on the world around them. Nature doesn't have the cognitive ability to understand it's impact in that manner.

Understanding and maintaining the balance between mankind and nature other than mankind, falls to humans.

Correct. Seals don't understand that they are depleting their own food source. We can help correct this by thinning the seal population and help maintain their ability to survive.

Collateral Damage
02-17-2020, 01:17 PM
Correct. Seals don't understand that they are depleting their own food source. We can help correct this by thinning the seal population and help maintain their ability to survive.
Just as with those who claim culling the herds of deer that are overpopulating is a good thing for their survival, they aren't killing off the old, the sick, the weak. They take the prize bucks and the healthy females.

Nature does a very effective balancing act. While it isn't a quick response, when there is insufficient food source, the female fertility goes down. I would guess that it would be applicable to seals also, I know it applies to other aquatic life.

Humans are the factor in a number of species that have over populated by removing or reducing natural predators. Then humans try and claim they are fixing it by killing off the healthy of the species. Wash and repeat.....

Tahuyaman
02-17-2020, 03:22 PM
We have the ability to manage our game and wildlife resources in a responsible manner. In fact we are obligated to do so. Our incompetent fisheries management practices are leading to the elimination of salmon in the pacific NW.

carolina73
02-17-2020, 03:47 PM
Just as with those who claim culling the herds of deer that are overpopulating is a good thing for their survival, they aren't killing off the old, the sick, the weak. They take the prize bucks and the healthy females.

Nature does a very effective balancing act. While it isn't a quick response, when there is insufficient food source, the female fertility goes down. I would guess that it would be applicable to seals also, I know it applies to other aquatic life.

Humans are the factor in a number of species that have over populated by removing or reducing natural predators. Then humans try and claim they are fixing it by killing off the healthy of the species. Wash and repeat.....

Actually it is usually disease or predators that control the population not fertility.

Thinning the heard is just like thinning the seed sprouts in the garden. In hunting the hunter is generally going to take whatever looks large enough or meets minimum characteristics. He is not going to let 10 good deer walk by and wait for the right one, or the freezer will be empty.

Collateral Damage
02-18-2020, 08:58 AM
Actually it is usually disease or predators that control the population not fertility.

Thinning the heard is just like thinning the seed sprouts in the garden. In hunting the hunter is generally going to take whatever looks large enough or meets minimum characteristics. He is not going to let 10 good deer walk by and wait for the right one, or the freezer will be empty.
State Wildlife agencies will put out salt peter and salt blocks with additional chemicals used to reduce fertility. Where I lived in Pennsylvania, we bordered back to 5500 acres of State game land, and they definitely used fertility reducing as part of their management program.

Yes, they will up the licenses issued, but as I stated earlier, hunters will select healthier deer. I don't believe they take 'what strolls by' (seasons apply) and sick and/or old deer don't usually stock the freezer either.

Orion Rules
04-18-2020, 11:13 PM
Sick varmints. No ethics, no class. Gutless cowards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=J5077vKKsGc&feature=emb_logo

Orion Rules
06-12-2020, 12:42 AM
Admiral Ackbar posted: "I have a Seal Skin chair in my den! The softest and warmest chair I own. Very comfortable.. The seals that died for it live on through my gratitude."

Congratulations. Keep talking, show the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKzMwRsWW-k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCYf9q9t9bo