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 But Efford's quote, though out of date, shows how the big guys in charge really feel.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.
"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
Leave a comment