Re: Reply to Hardmod and uncut-diamond:uncut_diamondMarch 15 2004, 12:33:05 UTC
"Whoring?" That's an interesting choice of word.
A) There is better food. Try it No money means no buying "better" food, better being rather subjective in this context.
Can you put a date stamp on John Efford's quote? It's at least two to three years old. Is it not possible that a market's emerged since then? Or are things such as the economy as stagnant as the tired arguments marshalled an nausem every year?
As for oil and penises and other such excuses, there are better sources. Better? I'm not the type to use aphrodiacs, but I ask you again, who are you to impose your opinions on others?
Better economic sources? Don't I wish. Or would you believe that everyone who goes out in a small boat, risking their lives, does it because they don't care to try other alternatives? If we could rely on tourism, we would. If we could rely on a reborn fisheries, offshore oil, etc, etc, etc, we would. The simple fact is that none of the industries in Newfoundland are large enough to support the population's needs and until such time as they are, people still have to eat. The messy problems of starving children in Newfoundland will no go away because some people are squeamish.
You, of course, cite the parties who stand most to benefit from such fakery as impartial sources as to the validity of your claim. You do not answer this: why would anyone be stupid enough to tape themselves doing this? Why would any hunter risk his profession in such a matter? There is no valid reason for anyone to tape themselves doing this.
As for the ban, given that people like your good, dear, impartial friends like to fake these sorts of things, it seems utterly reasonable for a general ban to occur, to prevent further misinformation and slander from occuring. Since we can't rely on Greenpeace and their ilk not to grandstand for their own benefit, we have to tailor the rules to fit the situtation.
As for the "no damn good reason" bit, if the choice we have to make is a choice between starvation and the death of a few animals, I - and anyone who has to look at this from anything other then an academic moral issue - will pick the survival of our people first and foremost.
And if the best you can do is reference Hitler, you have, I submitted, violated Godwins's Law (see here: http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html) and I refuse to acknowledge any potential of any validity in your arguements until you do something other then engage in even further liable and slander, one generally construed as a tacit admission of a lack of further valid arguments.
Re: Reply to Hardmod and uncut-diamond:emilystarr1March 16 2004, 21:42:15 UTC
'Whoring' is just a personal slang term I use to mean a corruption and enslavement against the being's will.
"Better" food meaning, strictly, veggies. Although also I understand that many of the sealers don't eat the seal meat at all and leave it on the floes. Not economically worth it. Is seal eaten a lot there? Is it a ton cheaper than other alternatives? (Even if it is, by the way, I still oppose the hunt.)
Can you put a date stamp on John Efford's quote? -snip- Is it not possible that a market's emerged since then? Or are things such as the economy as stagnant as the tired arguments marshalled an nausem every year?
May 4, 1998. A bigger pelt market has emerged- but that doesn't make it right. And the market will swing down again - and I don't want my family's tax dollars going to subsidies that support the hunt. But Efford's quote, though out of date, shows how the big guys in charge really feel.
Better? I'm not the type to use aphrodiacs, but I ask you again, who are you to impose your opinions on others?
Well, if it was aphrodisiacs made from the flesh of humans that were killed for it, I get the feeling people would impose their opinions on others. Who am I? Someone who knows it's wrong and I'm saying so. It's not an opinion. And society will come around to that in the next few decades. There have been other movements where activists were thought crazy to be even thinking about the issue.
The messy problems of starving children in Newfoundland will no go away because some people are squeamish.
Paul Watson brought in investors wanting to profit from tourism and manufacturing seal 'memorabilia' and offered year-round employment for the sealers. But it was rejected on the basis of the hunt being their right and tradition.
You do not answer this: why would anyone be stupid enough to tape themselves doing this? Why would any hunter risk his profession in such a matter?
I never claimed that the hunters taped themselves. I'm sure someone else got the video footage. And I sincerely doubt there are a lot of impartial sources to hear from on this issue. But I'd like to know which of those videos have been proved fake. Do you have any sources to site that have proved videos were fake?
As for the ban, given that people like your good, dear, impartial friends like to fake these sorts of things, it seems utterly reasonable for a general ban to occur, to prevent further misinformation and slander from occuring. Since we can't rely on Greenpeace and their ilk not to grandstand for their own benefit, we have to tailor the rules to fit the situtation.
Your 'friends' are impartial, I ask again? And if the videos are fake, as you claim, why would a ban occur? Are the fakes so damaging because they're exactly like the real thing? Wouldn't you want the REAL footage to go all over the place to show how wrong the 'fake' videos were?
As for the "no damn good reason" bit, if the choice we have to make is a choice between starvation and the death of a few animals, I - and anyone who has to look at this from anything other then an academic moral issue - will pick the survival of our people first and foremost.
Once again, the hunt is kept alive purely on a tradition and right-to-hunt basis. And I'm not just opposing the hunt itself, but how the seals are killed. Sure, it's no worse than factory farms and such - but I'm dead set against those as well. And truly, choosing a province's economy over seals? I choose the seals. Why is my concern for the seals purely academic while the 'starvation' of people is not?
And if the best you can do is reference Hitler, you have, I submitted, violated Godwins's Law -snip-
I was simply using a simplified reference anyone would understand to illustrate my point instead of typing it all out. I don't see how that is libel or slander. I was trying to say that using work or economy as an excuse to do something immoral and reprehensible doesn't wash. Wrong is wrong, and it should be stopped whether there are economic drawbacks or not.
Re: Reply to Hardmod and uncut-diamond:autosuggestionMarch 20 2004, 17:41:26 UTC
i for the most part agree, especially with the questioning of the term "whoring," which i find really disrespectful to sex workers.
also, assuming the seal hunt was only tradition (i know it's not), why does that make it less important? this comes up quite often in questions surrounding aboriginal rights, where (white) people claim that such things should be entirely eliminated without any regard for the cultures of people who have already had to deal with racist, assiminationist etc. policies.
Re: Reply to Hardmod and uncut-diamond:emilystarr1March 27 2004, 14:02:56 UTC
i for the most part agree, especially with the questioning of the term "whoring," which i find really disrespectful to sex workers.
Actually, in my context, it is nothing against sex workers. I used it in the context of basically using beings against their own will - which I personally feel the sex industry does. It's the last ditch way for a lot of people to get the money they need to survive. I hate that there is a market for the sex industry - but sex workers themselves I have nothing against and meant absolutely no disrespect to. They're caught in a vicious cycle in vicious societies.
also, assuming the seal hunt was only tradition (i know it's not), why does that make it less important? this comes up quite often in questions surrounding aboriginal rights, where (white) people claim that such things should be entirely eliminated without any regard for the cultures of people who have already had to deal with racist, assiminationist etc. policies.
Well, firstly, I wasn't just talking about Aboriginal tradition. All the sealers and sealing industry. And, yes, if something is wrong I will scream it to the mountains that it is wrong regardless of culture. I am not racist, nor do I want to annihilate Aboriginal culture - quite the opposite. But part of the culture - the seal hunt - that I want stopped. But I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. =)
A) There is better food. Try it No money means no buying "better" food, better being rather subjective in this context.
Can you put a date stamp on John Efford's quote? It's at least two to three years old. Is it not possible that a market's emerged since then? Or are things such as the economy as stagnant as the tired arguments marshalled an nausem every year?
As for oil and penises and other such excuses, there are better sources. Better? I'm not the type to use aphrodiacs, but I ask you again, who are you to impose your opinions on others?
Better economic sources? Don't I wish. Or would you believe that everyone who goes out in a small boat, risking their lives, does it because they don't care to try other alternatives? If we could rely on tourism, we would. If we could rely on a reborn fisheries, offshore oil, etc, etc, etc, we would. The simple fact is that none of the industries in Newfoundland are large enough to support the population's needs and until such time as they are, people still have to eat. The messy problems of starving children in Newfoundland will no go away because some people are squeamish.
You, of course, cite the parties who stand most to benefit from such fakery as impartial sources as to the validity of your claim. You do not answer this: why would anyone be stupid enough to tape themselves doing this? Why would any hunter risk his profession in such a matter? There is no valid reason for anyone to tape themselves doing this.
As for the ban, given that people like your good, dear, impartial friends like to fake these sorts of things, it seems utterly reasonable for a general ban to occur, to prevent further misinformation and slander from occuring. Since we can't rely on Greenpeace and their ilk not to grandstand for their own benefit, we have to tailor the rules to fit the situtation.
As for the "no damn good reason" bit, if the choice we have to make is a choice between starvation and the death of a few animals, I - and anyone who has to look at this from anything other then an academic moral issue - will pick the survival of our people first and foremost.
And if the best you can do is reference Hitler, you have, I submitted, violated Godwins's Law (see here: http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html) and I refuse to acknowledge any potential of any validity in your arguements until you do something other then engage in even further liable and slander, one generally construed as a tacit admission of a lack of further valid arguments.
Reply
"Better" food meaning, strictly, veggies. Although also I understand that many of the sealers don't eat the seal meat at all and leave it on the floes. Not economically worth it. Is seal eaten a lot there? Is it a ton cheaper than other alternatives? (Even if it is, by the way, I still oppose the hunt.)
Can you put a date stamp on John Efford's quote? -snip- Is it not possible that a market's emerged since then? Or are things such as the economy as stagnant as the tired arguments marshalled an nausem every year?
May 4, 1998. A bigger pelt market has emerged- but that doesn't make it right. And the market will swing down again - and I don't want my family's tax dollars going to subsidies that support the hunt. But Efford's quote, though out of date, shows how the big guys in charge really feel.
Better? I'm not the type to use aphrodiacs, but I ask you again, who are you to impose your opinions on others?
Well, if it was aphrodisiacs made from the flesh of humans that were killed for it, I get the feeling people would impose their opinions on others. Who am I? Someone who knows it's wrong and I'm saying so. It's not an opinion. And society will come around to that in the next few decades. There have been other movements where activists were thought crazy to be even thinking about the issue.
The messy problems of starving children in Newfoundland will no go away because some people are squeamish.
Paul Watson brought in investors wanting to profit from tourism and manufacturing seal 'memorabilia' and offered year-round employment for the sealers. But it was rejected on the basis of the hunt being their right and tradition.
You do not answer this: why would anyone be stupid enough to tape themselves doing this? Why would any hunter risk his profession in such a matter?
I never claimed that the hunters taped themselves. I'm sure someone else got the video footage. And I sincerely doubt there are a lot of impartial sources to hear from on this issue. But I'd like to know which of those videos have been proved fake. Do you have any sources to site that have proved videos were fake?
As for the ban, given that people like your good, dear, impartial friends like to fake these sorts of things, it seems utterly reasonable for a general ban to occur, to prevent further misinformation and slander from occuring. Since we can't rely on Greenpeace and their ilk not to grandstand for their own benefit, we have to tailor the rules to fit the situtation.
Your 'friends' are impartial, I ask again? And if the videos are fake, as you claim, why would a ban occur? Are the fakes so damaging because they're exactly like the real thing? Wouldn't you want the REAL footage to go all over the place to show how wrong the 'fake' videos were?
As for the "no damn good reason" bit, if the choice we have to make is a choice between starvation and the death of a few animals, I - and anyone who has to look at this from anything other then an academic moral issue - will pick the survival of our people first and foremost.
Once again, the hunt is kept alive purely on a tradition and right-to-hunt basis. And I'm not just opposing the hunt itself, but how the seals are killed. Sure, it's no worse than factory farms and such - but I'm dead set against those as well. And truly, choosing a province's economy over seals? I choose the seals. Why is my concern for the seals purely academic while the 'starvation' of people is not?
And if the best you can do is reference Hitler, you have, I submitted, violated Godwins's Law -snip-
I was simply using a simplified reference anyone would understand to illustrate my point instead of typing it all out. I don't see how that is libel or slander. I was trying to say that using work or economy as an excuse to do something immoral and reprehensible doesn't wash. Wrong is wrong, and it should be stopped whether there are economic drawbacks or not.
Reply
also, assuming the seal hunt was only tradition (i know it's not), why does that make it less important? this comes up quite often in questions surrounding aboriginal rights, where (white) people claim that such things should be entirely eliminated without any regard for the cultures of people who have already had to deal with racist, assiminationist etc. policies.
Reply
Actually, in my context, it is nothing against sex workers. I used it in the context of basically using beings against their own will - which I personally feel the sex industry does. It's the last ditch way for a lot of people to get the money they need to survive. I hate that there is a market for the sex industry - but sex workers themselves I have nothing against and meant absolutely no disrespect to. They're caught in a vicious cycle in vicious societies.
also, assuming the seal hunt was only tradition (i know it's not), why does that make it less important? this comes up quite often in questions surrounding aboriginal rights, where (white) people claim that such things should be entirely eliminated without any regard for the cultures of people who have already had to deal with racist, assiminationist etc. policies.
Well, firstly, I wasn't just talking about Aboriginal tradition. All the sealers and sealing industry. And, yes, if something is wrong I will scream it to the mountains that it is wrong regardless of culture. I am not racist, nor do I want to annihilate Aboriginal culture - quite the opposite. But part of the culture - the seal hunt - that I want stopped. But I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. =)
Reply
Leave a comment