General Chat

Mac Harb -- I retract! I *would* cross the street to spit on him!


Rose -- I wasn't aiming at you, I was aiming at the propagandists.

Whatever the situation was in the 70s and earlier, it isn't now.

And that is what the propagandists very much do not want the world to understand.

The seals that are killed are independent, young as they are, and are killed humanely, if the hunter is in compliance with the licence conditions.


Just some other random bits that may be of interest:


http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2008/2008-02-20/html/sor-dors38-eng.html

- explanation of seal fishery observation licences.
(It's called a fishery because they are covered under the term "marine mammals", like whales.)


http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2009/hq-ac06-eng.htm

- govt news release about management of the 2009 seal hunt


http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2009/seal_hunt-chasse_au_phoque-eng.htm

- detailed description of the procedure hunters are required to follow (as I said earlier, essentially identical to the procedure followed in commercial abattoirs)

Really, Uggers?

If you can find me anyone in this thread, or elsewhere, who has started out with civil discourse, and been met with something else by me, please do bring it for our consideration.

Perhaps you missed the original thread on this topic, consisting of a long series of vicious and really very bigoted, and completely unfounded, attacks on seal hunters and anyone who doesn't oppose the seal hunt. That thread was deleted by its originator, Roxanne, just as I posted the Hanard excerpts this thread started with. Deleting threads because someone disagrees -- now there's some civil discourse for ya!

If you missed it, perhaps you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Gosh, that would be unusual around here ...

I guess you had some purpose in entering this thread other than to post a baseless personal attack ... civil discourse forever! eh?

just one little quibble Janey (good word quibble ...origin? lol)

"and are killed humanely, if the hunter is in compliance with the licence conditions."

quite so.... but as with abbatoirs here and elsewhere of course that is a moot point.... of course it SHOULD be humane , that is what the regulations require, but is it, always ?

I'll join you in spitting on Mac Harb Janey - he sounds a nasty piece of work - in fact, a typical politician!

However, after reading some (but not all I admit) of the blurb you recommended, I would take issue with one point you make:-

"..........and are killed humanely, if the hunter is in compliance with the licence conditions"

See, the "if" in the above sentence rather gives it away rather:

The report I read admitted that insufficient inspectors are available to ensure that all the seals ARE killed "humanely" (as defined by the Canadian Vet Authorities and which I still find to be an undesirable method).

So.....by my reckoning some of the seals are more than likely being subjected to inhumane methods of having their lives extinguished.

Sorry love, despite your and Eldrick's eloquent regurgitation of reading matter, I personally still find the methods used to cull seals distasteful. Nowt will convince me otherwise..................but I will join you in spitting on Mac Harb cos quite frankly he sounds worth spitting on.

Jac xxx

I don't like the culling of baby seals and never will. As this is done in 'public view' it does upset many people especially those who close their minds as to how their food eventually arrives in the small plastic trays in the supermarket. It's the starkness of blood against the pure white which shocks me although I have been at enough blood fests over the years. We all helped out at the 'turkey days' for friends and the flapping and splattering of blood is quite shocking but if you eat it you should take responsibility for killing it IMO. The children were 7, 8 and 9 and helped too.

Our children went to the slaughterhouse with our large beasts but were kept away when I had to kill the rabbits. Although they ate the rabbit, to them they were cuddly bunnies and I didn't want them to be present at the death.

I doubt the opposing sides will ever having any meeting of minds on this subject.

Sue

Its quite simple isnt it?

you agree with one argument or the other.

Support Canadian businesses, travel to their beautiful country buy their dead seal products etc

or alternatively erm

Don't!

As far as pasting lots of information is concerned....I can produce as much anti as I could pro reasons for a seal cull...some folk I guess decide to concentrate on one more than the other lol

SueM first -- I am starting to get callouses on my forehead.

If I'm wrong and you're not referring to the seal hunt when you said this, let me know: "It's the starkness of blood against the pure white which shocks me"

Whitecoats have not been killed since 1987. I don't know how much clearer I can make that!


Jac --
".........and are killed humanely, if the hunter is in compliance with the licence conditions"
"See, the 'if' in the above sentence rather gives it away rather:"

No, it doesn't give anything away. It is me acknowledging that making a law doesn't make anything so.

Cars drive at no more than 60 mph on motorways, if the drivers are in compliance with speed limits.

We have radar and traffic cops, whose presence is intended to persuade people to obey speed limits, and to charge them - and take away their licences - if they don't.

The Dept of Fisheries and Oceans has fisheries officers for exactly the same reasons.

Unless somebody has evidence of massive violations of licence conditions involving inhumane killing, the "if" is merely reference to the hypothetical possibility that there are violations, and the statistical / human likelihood that there are some.

EXACTLY as there are in commercial abattoirs. There are. Really, there are. There are abuses that go on in commercial abattoirs. People break laws no matter what they are doing or where they are.


"So.....by my reckoning some of the seals are more than likely being subjected to inhumane methods of having their lives extinguished."

Your reckoning, then, can ONLY be based on a belief that some significant proportion of seal hunters will choose to engage in inhumane killing methods if they think they can get away with it.

Could you explain why you believe that?

Do you believe that Canadians have a genetic propensity to want to do what, skin animals alive? When it makes no sense, from the hunter's point of view, to do that?


"Sorry love, despite your and Eldrick's eloquent regurgitation of reading matter"

You know, for all the accusations of "patronizing" leveled against me here, I have not addressed anyone in that way. Perhaps you were being familiar rather than patronizing. Given what you follow it with, I think not.

What you call "regurgitation", I call quoting and citing sources. And every time where it was applicable, I have described the source as having a point of view.

As I have repeatedly invited various people to do: if you dispute what those sources say, please do provide credible information from whatever source you like to disprove it.

Oh dear, Staffordshire Col. You do seem to have missed the whole entire point, don't you?

Perhaps that's because the initial thread was deleted ...

The discussion actually focuses on the European Union's decision to ban seal products.

That isn't a matter of personal choice, lovely though personal choice is.


"As far as pasting lots of information is concerned....I can produce as much anti as I could pro reasons for a seal cull...some folk I guess decide to concentrate on one more than the other lol"

lolol o.l.

I guess some folks prefer to know what the truth is, and not base their opinions of public policy on propaganda and disinformation, myself.

And I'm always glad to point at propaganda and disinformation and show it for what it is.

If someone, knowing the truth, still finds the seal hunt yucky (while continuing to eat commercially slaughtered animals?), that's their choice and they're welcome to it.

People who actually attempt to influence public opinion and thus public policy actually have a responsibility to the public -- not to tell or repeat lies.

Oh, and not to try to influence someone else's opinion by saying nasty things about people they disagree with.

That's called demagoguery, and in fact that is one of the ways tyrants come to power ...

Unfortunately if anyone dared to post as much 'anti' as you have posted 'pro' they would be deemed to be 'anti' simply because in your and Eldricks opinion they don't know the facts - as it appears only the 'pro' facts on the internet are true, and 'anti' people have all the wrong 'facts' as they are (just) 'fluffy animal huggers', vegetarians, or don't know what they're talking about!

As for it beng traditional - many things that are/were traditonal are/were barbaric - that's why many of our wonderful traditional 'sports' - bear baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting etc are banned!

Just accept that many people dislike the form seal culling takes and you aren't going to disabuse them of their opinion by drowning them in internet links!

Well said Maggie,

Quite simply many people hate any form of barbarism, and yes other forms of cruelty are investigated, I am a vegetarian and have views which i debate in my workplace regarding this issue,

Caz

I am sorry Janey...I can tolerate the '' I missed the entire point acusation'' jibe but Hmm we have decided to (as Europeans through our elected Parliments) to ban seal products and quite rightly in my own view. ( I am allowed a view I hope)....and erm the vast majority of those questioned (in UK polls) said 'yes ban the results of the seal cull, be it mean, fur, meat, or whatever because they are not acceptable

Staffordshire Col: I wonder why you would wonder whether you are allowed a view, when I said, quite clearly:

"If someone, knowing the truth, still finds the seal hunt yucky (while continuing to eat commercially slaughtered animals?), that's their choice and they're welcome to it."

I have no idea why people would choose to EXPRESS a view in public *unless they were trying to influence someone else*, in which case, as I said, they have a responsibility to offer a true and accurate foundation for that view ... but whatever.

"Hmm we have decided to (as Europeans through our elected Parliments)"

Actually, no, it was the European Parliament, not your elected Parliaments, that made this decision. Odd. Ordinarily, I wouldn't have thought of you of a fan of all that Europe stuff.



maggie winchester: "Unfortunately if anyone dared to post as much 'anti' as you have posted 'pro' they would be deemed to be 'anti' simply because in your and Eldricks opinion they don't know the facts - as it appears only the 'pro' facts on the internet are true, and 'anti' people have all the wrong 'facts' as they are (just) 'fluffy animal huggers', vegetarians, or don't know what they're talking about!"

I guess there was a purpose for posting that.

Hmm. Perhaps to persuade someone to your views because people who hold opposing views are just not nice and so nobody should agree with them? I believe I have addressed this phenomenon ...

Why would somebody spend time composing screeds like that, when they could use the same time to produce facts and/or arguments to counter the ones someone else has produced?

I have addressed the facts and arguments produced in opposition to the seal hunt and in support of the EU ban. Everyone else is entirely free to do the same in reverse.

The fact that facts appear on the internet doesn't actually make them false, you do know?


"As for it beng traditional - many things that are/were traditonal are/were barbaric - that's why many of our wonderful traditional 'sports' - bear baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting etc are banned!"

I absolutely agree with you -- I am a firm believer in progress, and I believe that measures taken to reduce cruelty to animals are progress indeed.

I was not claiming that the mere fact that a practice is traditional is sufficient ground not to oppose or even ban it. The onus is on the party who wishes to ban to provide justification for banning. The fact that a practice is one that people depend on for a portion of their livelihood, and the fact that a practice is part of a culture, can place a particularly heavy onus on the ban-seeker.

That really is how things work in the real world. Nobody gets to say "ew, I don't like what you're doing, we're going to outlaw it."

You, however, appear to be comparing the seal hunt to cockfighting. In fact, it was part of a culture, and some people may have depended on it for a portion of their livelihood. But I'll bet you can see a distinction between that practice and seal hunting. Just as you see a distinction between that practice and slaughtering cattle. In fact, I find it hugely disingenuous to compare the two, **when it has not been proved that the seal hunt is inhumane or cruel** and we know that cockfighting is.

I like the Star Trek universe, at least the part where nobody eats meat anymore. I'm sure they found some way of dealing with deer overpopulation and bears roaming around human settlements and what not.

But the fact is that at present, people eat and wear animal products. I do. And animals die, just like we do, of all sorts of causes. As I was saying in Rose's thread: if I were stranded on a desert island, would I eat my cat and possibly survive, or die and let my cat live to eat me and then die of starvation? Being killed is just one way of dying, as all animals must do, and being killed by a seal hunter could actually be less unpleasant than other manners of death seals experience. I mean, it really isn't as if all the seals culled would otherwise be immortal, or die peacefully in their beds surrounded by their great-grandchidren ...

Havent read through the ensuing text - been off preparing cooking and eating evening meal, but will respond to your last reply to me.

Janey - who the heck is patronising you? you do seem to think that everyone is out to shoot you down in flames (I hesitate to use a term of endearment, otherwise you might think that patronising). Not true. Merely trying to have a friendly debate that doesnt end in acrimony.

To be honest I personally find your never ending text to be rather labouring the point, but hey - you obviously believe what you quote, and I believe what I believe. Fair is fair isn't it?

I dont think that attempting to shove your "opinion" down the throats of others by copying and pasting text prepared by others is actually a formula for a friendly debate. But there you, you obviously think it is.

We have reasons to disagree I think: no big deal, it's what makes the world go around and at the end of the day, I will willing cross the Ocean and join you in spitting on Mac Harb, because I think I do trust your judgement on that subject.


Jac xxx

Agree with every word Jac

Jac, I shouldn't have extrapolated. I've been addressed by a number of familiar terms in the thread, by someone who did not intend them at all pleasantly.

We return to the common theme of what 'debate' is.

Debate isn't "well I think thus-and-so and if you don't like it you can go suck a lemon" (even if the latter part isn't said out loud).

Debate is an exchange of views *with the basis on which those views are held*.

There's little point in me debating someone who claims the world is flat, unless s/he offers me some evidence to support that view, or some argument against the facts I offer.

Otherwise, the "debate" looks like:

Person A: It is.
Person B: It isn't.
Person A: Yes, it is.
Person B: Well, I don't think it is.
Person A: Well, you're wrong.
Person B: No, you're wrong.

That is *not* what I practise.

Or maybe, as more commonly seen here:

Person A: I think X.
Person B: So do I.
Person C: Well, I don't.
Person D: I agree with you, C.
Person A: You're wrong.

and so on.

I guess some people see a point in that.

Do stop banging your head!!!

Pure white referred to snow/ice not coats.

I shall perform a very tiny grovel as I did not make myself clear.

Sue

sticks oar in a minute...and I am really on other debate... janey....

JaneyCanuck Today at 20:20 Request review
SueM first -- I am starting to get callouses on my forehead.

If I'm wrong and you're not referring to the seal hunt when you said this, let me know: "It's the starkness of blood against the pure white which shocks me"

I believe SueM was refering to the 'white' of the ice not the seal fur?

and re elcted members...we do elect MEPs to represent our views in European parliament...which is I think what Colin was refering to?

they will correct me if i am wrong...now back to my own thread lol >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

oops Sue lol... got there ahead of me... see I knew what you meant :) xx

Yep, Rose, I know the European Parliament is elected. I'm just surprised to see Staffordshire Col being a fan. ;)


Sue, you fell victim to my extrapolation too. There is just so much disinformation about 'baby seals', and so many people repeating it ... I see now what you meant!

lol Rose, that was scary!

You know, as well as I, what agendas are pushed via news channels to the general populace. If peoples' views are coloured by the mass media it is understandable that heaps of people will take the news reports as fact!

You only have to look at what the BBC did NOT show during the Israeli bombings in Gaza....says it all!