Cute Cuddly Seals

[{GR}Raine]

"Thousands of commercial hunters armed with clubs, rifles and spears moved on to the ice floes off eastern Canada today to kill more than 300,0000 baby seals for their pelts over the next few weeks.

The spring hunt, which began yesterday, is expected to bring the area's coastal communities some £8.5m, but has been condemned by animal rights activists as barbaric.

This year's hunt is the third large-scale cull since the Canadian government decided in 2003 to allow almost a million seals to be culled over three years.

The move dismayed the anti-seal hunting movement, which has been going since the 1960s. Campaigners won major successes in the 1970s and 1980s to significantly reduce the scale of the hunt after convincing the US and EU to ban the import of pelts from young seals.

But last year's hunt was the biggest cull for more than 50 years. More than 300,000 baby seals were killed and a similar amount are expected to be culled this year by May 15, when the government's three-year plan ends.

The recent increases in the scale of the cull come at a time when demand for fur clothing has been rising.

The spring hunt starts around two weeks after many seal pups are born. Animal rights activists say the pups are clubbed to death and often skinned alive. Seal hunters and government officials who monitor the hunt insist the pups die instantly, under strict guidelines, including a ban on killing a seal pup less than 12 days old.

One campaigner, Rebecca Aldworth, of the Humane Society of the United States, is in the area to film the cull, posting footage on protectseals.org.

Speaking from the Gulf of St Lawrence, where the spring cull begins, Ms Aldworth, who has observed the seal hunt for the past six years, said yesterday: "It's just horrific out there. There is blood all across the ice and seal carcasses as far as the eye can see." Regulations require that hunters ensure the seals are dead before moving on, but Ms Aldworth said she had listened to some seals crying for their mothers, which give birth on the ice floes every spring. She said: "We've seen seals that were moving around and breathing, that have been left in these piles, some left conscious and crawling."

She claimed there were some 70 fishing boats in the area where she was filming but there were no government officials to check whether the seals were being properly killed.

Michel Therien, a spokesman for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, disputed Ms Aldworth's account. He said there were two large Coast Guard vessels in the region and one fisheries officer for every seven or eight commercial vessels. "I presume they can't be in all the places, all the times, but we encourage the public to report any illegal activities, for sure," Mr Therien said.

He said fishermen needed to supplement their income, with many fishing families only earning £500 a year from their catches of snow crabs, lobster or cod. "They have to live on whatever they're capable of catching," said Mr Therien. "The seal fisheries is part of their livelihood."

The government argues that the hunt brings in badly needed income to coastal communities, primarily from pelt sales to Norway, Denmark and China. The DFO argues the country's seal population is "healthy and abundant", and notes that there are an estimated 5 million harp seals, nearly the highest level ever recorded and almost triple what it was in the 1970s. Fishermen participating in the hunt also blame seals for the devastation of Canada's fish stocks, in particular cod, and argue a cull is necessary.

However, a recent report by the International Fund for Animal Welfare said the harvest of up to 975,000 seals will damage the marine mammal population. "Any pretence of a scientifically based ... hunt has been abandoned and Canada's commercial seal hunt has become - quite simply - a cull, designed more to achieve short-term political objectives than those of a biologically sustainable hunt," the report said.

Aboriginal and Inuit subsistence and commercial hunters begin the first part of the cull on November 15 in Canada's vast expanse of frozen Northern waters, which reach from the Yukon Territories near Alaska through the Arctic Ocean and down into the North Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Labrador. After starting in the Gulf of St Lawrence, the spring part of the commercial hunt moves to the Front, an arc of the Atlantic Ocean sweeping out about 30 to 40 miles from Newfoundland."

disgusting.

[NovelGentry]

Shot? And here I was thinking the proper course of action involved a club. -- Sorry, but it had to be said.

[{GR}Raine]

XD,

http://bzr.interserver.net/sealosnap.JPG

ok, ok, enough. it really is sad.

:lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was going to say, what a waste of bullets. But NovelGentry beat me to it.

I've always wanted something made of seal fur.


The spring hunt starts around two weeks after many seal pups are born. Animal rights activists say the pups are clubbed to death and often skinned alive.

I'm sorry, but it's impossible to be skinned alive after being beaten to death.

In other news, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Arthropods has condemned the sale of flyspray and swatters.

"These insects have been around for millions of years before us. We have no right to kill them."

The spokesman also condemned the practice of calling in the exterminator when one has a cockroach problem, adding:

"They only want to breed, scuttle about at night and be friends"

[rice349]

those seals had it coming to them...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040414/040414_seal_hunt_vlrg_7a.vlarge.jpg

Post-clubbing..
http://www.canadiantouristboard.com/clubbed.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Aaaaaw da poooor widdle seal.

Oh well. At least it's skull wasn't crushed in the jaws of a polar bear, but that's alright because being mauled by a polar bear is 'natural' and therefore more acceptable. :wacko:

The saddest thing is that we do such things to our own species.

[Xvall]

Seals can't even defend themselves. They're a bunch of fucking pussies. Maybe they should smarten up like other animals, and grow some fucking claws or something. No - instead, they decide to just piss around, cuddle, and then they end up with a fucking trudgeon on top of their god damn skulls.

*****es.

[Xvall]

On a serious note, Raine is a *****.

[JazzRemington]

Meh, as long as they don't suffer and there is little to no waste AND the numbers killed are according to need, I have no problem.

[rice349]

Seals can't even defend themselves. They're a bunch of fucking pussies. Maybe they should smarten up like other animals, and grow some fucking claws or something. No - instead, they decide to just piss around, cuddle, and then they end up with a fucking trudgeon on top of their god damn skulls.

Like i said, they had it coming to them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The above post is exactly the sort of attitude nature itself has to animals.

Humans are just particularly effecient hunters, unless we do stupid things like allowing the seal population to grow too large.

[rice349]

Humans are just particularly effecient hunters, unless we do stupid things like allowing the seal population to grow too large.

Lol that's why all realistic food webs show all arrows going directly towars the human

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know about you, but I certainly don't eat cockroaches.

[bushdog]

i'm all for shooting things (you know who) but i think fur is retarded unless you kill it, skin it, and tan the hid youself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Unfortunately there aren't any creatures worth skinning in Rhyl... except maybe Chavs.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 30 2005, 11:59 PM
Seals can't even defend themselves. They're a bunch of fucking pussies. Maybe they should smarten up like other animals, and grow some fucking claws or something. No - instead, they decide to just piss around, cuddle, and then they end up with a fucking trudgeon on top of their god damn skulls.

*****es.
An unarmed person can't defend themselves (more often than not) from a man with a gun. I guess that makes it acceptable if they're defenceless. Who wants to go around killing babies? All they do is cuddle their mother :rolleyes: .


Meh, as long as they don't suffer and there is little to no waste AND the numbers killed are according to need, I have no problem.

We can make it so the babies don't suffer. And I mean, we can eat the entire baby, then give our bones to our pets. If we kill them young enough the skull won't have developed making them both easier to kill, and easier to use all of ;) .


Oh well. At least it's skull wasn't crushed in the jaws of a polar bear, but that's alright because being mauled by a polar bear is 'natural' and therefore more acceptable.

And people wonder why Polar Bears are dying off in greater and greater numbers (specifically in Canada). First our industries, cars, etc., melt the glaciers destroying their habitats. Then we have to take their food from them in the 100,000's. Well if that's how communists intend to treat fellow animals, I might as well become a capitalist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And people wonder why Polar Bears are dying off in greater and greater numbers (specifically in Canada). First our industries, cars, etc., melt the glaciers destroying their habitats. Then we have to take their food from them in the 100,000's. Well if that's how communists intend to treat fellow animals, I might as well become a capitalist.

That has nothing to do with the way polar bears eat their food. You're stalling.

[JazzRemington]

I'm sorry.

[rice349]

Who wants to go around killing babies? All they do is cuddle their mother

I don't like babies so i wouldn't have a problem with somebody who did this... :lol:

[NovelGentry]

Well if that's how communists intend to treat fellow animals, I might as well become a capitalist.

I'm not sure where communist/socialist theory/ideology ever says we should treat our "fellow" animals any better. Unfortunately for those who care (PETA etc), animals are not humans.

You can argue spreading humanity towards animals all you want, but keep it out of the cause for leftist defense fund.

[Redmau5]

All hunters need shot. Fucking cowardly bastards, nothing more than that. Even if it was a group of socialist hunters, they still need shot.

Although i doubt there would be many left-wing hunters, if there is, they are just as bad as any capitalist. :D

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:18 PM


And people wonder why Polar Bears are dying off in greater and greater numbers (specifically in Canada). First our industries, cars, etc., melt the glaciers destroying their habitats. Then we have to take their food from them in the 100,000's. Well if that's how communists intend to treat fellow animals, I might as well become a capitalist.

That has nothing to do with the way polar bears eat their food. You're stalling.
What the hell are you talking about? It was said them getting clubbed to death is better than them getting rended apart in the jaws of a Polar Bear... So what am I stalling about??


I'm not sure where communist/socialist theory/ideology ever says we should treat our "fellow" animals any better. Unfortunately for those who care (PETA etc), animals are not humans.

I never said it did ;) . But I consider animal exploitation a form of imperialism. I'm also just saying if beating animals to death is how we treat animals, I don't think I want to be associated with that.


You can argue spreading humanity towards animals all you want, but keep it out of the cause for leftist defense fund

Sorry I don't believe in imperialism. I didn't think leftists did either (as most are supposedly pacifists).


I don't like babies so i wouldn't have a problem with somebody who did this...

Or innocent unarmed pacifist communists? I take it you wouldn't have any reprocussions about that either (since they most likely don't have claws and therefore can't defend themselves).


All hunters need shot. Fucking cowardly bastards, nothing more than that. Even if it was a group of socialist hunters, they still need shot.

Although i doubt there would be many left-wing hunters, if there is, they are just as bad as any capitalist.

Here here! :)

[rice349]

Sorry I don't believe in imperialism. I didn't think leftists did either (as most are supposedly pacifists).

Leftism is in no way synonymous with pacifism. I am a leftist, but certainly not a pacifist. Just as Jehovah's Witnesses would not be considered leftist, but they are pacifist due to their religion. While I personally don't hunt or exploit animals, i fail to see how any of this makes a connection with imperialism...are you confused as to what imperialism really is?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:43 PM

Sorry I don't believe in imperialism. I didn't think leftists did either (as most are supposedly pacifists).

Leftism is in no way synonymous with pacifism. I am a leftist, but certainly not a pacifist. Just as Jehovah's Witnesses would not be considered leftist, but they are pacifist due to their religion. While I personally don't hunt or exploit animals, i fail to see how any of this makes a connection with imperialism...are you confused as to what imperialism really is?
Well I don't think there's many pacifistic right wingers. There was an interesting quote, and I can't remember it exactly so I'll paraphrase: 'you can't conduct trade without protectionism, and the weapons used for protection are financed by trade. Therefore commercial business and war are synonymous.' All I know it was said by some Dutch merchant in the later 16th century.

Nope, I'm not confused at all. But conquoring lands that the animals inhabit is pretty much a direct parallel to any outside European conquest. The ownership of land (or rather what is produced from it) came primarily from Europe and the surrounding area.


I'm sorry, but it's impossible to be skinned alive after being beaten to death.

Speaking of stalling I almost overlooked this. Where on earth did it say they were being beaten to death then skinned alive. It just said that some were skinned alive, while obviously those remaining were beaten to death. But it would take an idiot to misinterpret that to STALL, because they have no humane argument.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:38 PM
All hunters need shot. Fucking cowardly bastards, nothing more than that. Even if it was a group of socialist hunters, they still need shot.

Although i doubt there would be many left-wing hunters, if there is, they are just as bad as any capitalist. :D
I would love to see you try to hurt a hunter. No really. The hunter would be armed with a rifle, shotgun and mabye even a scoped hunting magnum.
And you would have... Trotskyist literature. I hope it stops rifle bullets.

Fuck off, you bleeding heart liberal! :angry:

I'm getting increasingly disillusioned with the modern left. All these trendy modern lefties seem to care about is looking after the animals and 'religous tolerance'.
They seem to forget about class struggle, social progress or fighting imperialism.
Hopefully when they grow up they'll become real revolutionaries, but more likely they'll end up becoming yuppies and soccer moms.

[rice349]

I'm getting increasingly disillusioned with the modern left. All these trendy modern lefties seem to care about is looking after the animals and 'religous tolerance'.
They seem to forget about class struggle, social progress or fighting imperialism.
Hopefully when they grow up they'll become real revolutionaries, but more likely they'll end up becoming yuppies and soccer moms.

Word. To quote someone from ECG, "Death to Liberalism!"

[ComradeChris]

I'm getting increasingly disillusioned with the modern left. All these trendy modern lefties seem to care about is looking after the animals and 'religous tolerance'.
They seem to forget about class struggle, social progress or fighting imperialism.
Hopefully when they grow up they'll become real revolutionaries, but more likely they'll end up becoming yuppies and soccer moms.

It that attitude too that makes me want to disassociate myself from your brand of discriminatory leftism. You label people on the left, on the right, in the center...At least the right only has a few synonymous terms for us: Pinko, communists, socialist, etc. And those aren't derogatory to some people who are actually on the far left. But then you make it your point to be derogatory. Very egalitarian ;) . You attract more people with sugar than vinegar. Although vinegar is nice to put in people's eyes who are really annoy people with asinine comments like this. Hopefully stupid people would be eliminated in my ideal brand of communism.


Word. To quote someone from ECG, "Death to Liberalism!"

And people should listen to you? You're for killing just about everything and everyone that can't defend itself!

[rice349]

And people should listen to you? You're for killing just about everything and everyone that can't defend itself!

They should listen to me.

[Xvall]

An unarmed person can't defend themselves (more often than not) from a man with a gun. I guess that makes it acceptable if they're defenceless. Who wants to go around killing babies? All they do is cuddle their mother.

Jesus Christ, I can't believe you thought I was serious.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 2 2005, 05:46 PM

An unarmed person can't defend themselves (more often than not) from a man with a gun. I guess that makes it acceptable if they're defenceless. Who wants to go around killing babies? All they do is cuddle their mother.

Jesus Christ, I can't believe you thought I was serious.
I presume everyone is serious unless there is an indication of humour. So are you or aren't you for the killing of defenceless animals (specifically seals)?

[rice349]

I presume everyone is serious unless there is an indication of humour. So are you or aren't you for the killing of defenceless animals (specifically seals)?

Would I personally do it? No, probably not. Do i care that others do it? No, probably not. Do I think our time/resources should be given to animals over people? No, most definitely not.

[{GR}Raine]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 31 2005, 12:01 AM
On a serious note, Raine is a *****.
thank you. :lol:

[red_orchestra]

I think we are confusing all Left wingers as neo-hypies, or vegetarian feminist think tanks....please come back from being on planet Zendo and get in touch with the real world.

A true Communist is not a pacifist. A true Communist does not need religion. A true Communist only needs to live and be free from Fascism and help his or her comrads! Your beliefs about animal cruety are well noted...but not all Communists are for anti-hunting we are after all talking about politics.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:11 AM
I think we are confusing all Left wingers as neo-hypies, or vegetarian feminist think tanks....please come back from being on planet Zendo and get in touch with the real world.

A true Communist is not a pacifist. A true Communist does not need religion. A true Communist only needs to live and be free from Fascism and help his or her comrads! Your beliefs about animal cruety are well noted...but not all Communists are for anti-hunting we are after all talking about politics.
If I true communist doesn't need religion, there is no reason to put us above animals in hierarchy. Unless there are alterior motives for your believe of this?

As I said in a prior quote, leftism, is much more closely tied to pacifism. Unless right wingers like ignoring the war that is required for them to maintain their precious economies.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If I true communist doesn't need religion, there is no reason to put us above animals in hierarchy. Unless there are alterior motives for your believe of this?

There are ojective reasons to put humans above other animals; A human contributes more to society, they are one of your own species and to preserve them is in your self-interest, and a society that cares more about it's individuals lasts longer.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:44 PM


If I true communist doesn't need religion, there is no reason to put us above animals in hierarchy. Unless there are alterior motives for your believe of this?

There are ojective reasons to put humans above other animals; A human contributes more to society, they are one of your own species and to preserve them is in your self-interest, and a society that cares more about it's individuals lasts longer.
Why can't we all be animals, as we're classified? Afterall, for thousands of years they contributed to our society. And in fact, still do. They give us manure, milk, eggs, and even their own flesh. So I don't know where you get off saying that.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 04:48 PM
They give us manure, milk, eggs, and even their own flesh.
Chris i know you are all for animal-rights, as am i, but i just had to correct you. They don't "give" us their flesh, we take it.

That whole argument about humans contributing more to society is bullshit. What about mentally ill patients ? They are more of a drain than anything else. Should we just kill them off because they don't "contribute" to society ?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+Apr 3 2005, 01:24 PM--> (Makaveli_05 @ Apr 3 2005, 01:24 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 04:48 PM
They give us manure, milk, eggs, and even their own flesh.
Chris i know you are all for animal-rights, as am i, but i just had to correct you. They don't "give" us their flesh, we take it. [/b]
Yeah that came out a little wrong. But I mean we exploit them the way the Bourgeois exploits the working class, or a peasant was exploited by a noble. It's the same thing is what I was tryng to convey, somewhat convolutedly.

[dark fairy]

it really puzzles me how people can kill these animals or other animals as a sport or something of the sort... If you kill an animal use all of the animal... and even then if you can make sure you can , sort of, replace the animal you killed that somewhat ok... i don't know it's just hard because i feel like a hypocrite because technically i kill animals because i eat chicken and some meat... but ... it's always something conflicting... because i don't want to kill these animals... i know there are farms where the're "growing" them... but damn just so i can eat them... oh i don't know i guess because i don't eat seal i don't like people killing them... I feel like a murderer...

[bed_of_nails]

I say we form a comittee to eat every species of Animal raw, and figure out which ones taste good. From that point on, we can just eat what animals taste good and bomb the rest into nonexistance.

Seriously, you really must take an in-depth look at all science. Look at the people who believe that science proves Christianity. If people didn't denounce that and look deeper into it, we would have a homogenous society of christians.

[cormacobear]

The science says regardless of the annuall hunt there numbersare stable which make them a viable recource for harvesting, by fisherman who seen their livelyhoods destroyed by intl. overfishing of the grande banks./

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by ComradeChris+Apr 3 2005, 05:29 PM--> (ComradeChris @ Apr 3 2005, 05:29 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:24 PM

[email protected] 3 2005, 04:48 PM
They give us manure, milk, eggs, and even their own flesh.
Chris i know you are all for animal-rights, as am i, but i just had to correct you. They don't "give" us their flesh, we take it.
Yeah that came out a little wrong. But I mean we exploit them the way the Bourgeois exploits the working class, or a peasant was exploited by a noble. It's the same thing is what I was tryng to convey, somewhat convolutedly. [/b]
Bollocks. You cannot exploit that which is not sentient. Workers are sentient. Seals are not.

Edited to add: Seals are a resource that gradually grows over time. It must be managed responsibly. Over hunting them is irresponsible behaviour, as is not utilising them.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 05:19 PM
Communism requires compassion. Animals are exploited just as much as laborers...Animals feel too.
I completely concur. And sentient has nothing to do with it. An animal is well aware of where they are and would much rather be free (of course in their native habitats; as we bring them into habitats to suit us where many can no longer survive).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What about the mentally ill ? They could be deemed non-sentient as some of them haven't a clue what's going on around them. Should we just start exploiting them ?

There are two reasons why the mentall ill should not be exploited; firstly they are very third rate labour not having the capability of advanced thought, when perfectly sane people who understand the task at hand could be used instead. Secondly, while your wasting your time using the mentally ill as you workhorses, you could be interacting with them to find out what's wrong with them in order to cure them of their disorders, which doubtless reduce their quality of life; curing them of whatever disorder they happen to suffer would be a boon indeed.

Thirdly, I think you are being very prejudiced; mentally ill people are sentient, but they percieve the world in radically different ways to us thanks to their condition, which limits their ability to survive unaided, even in our cosseted society; most mildly autistic people can be taught to live full and happy lives without the need for a carer or gaurdian.


And who exactly says animals aren't sentient ? Science finds what it's paid to find.

Reality says that animals aren't sentient. Try working out the culture, hereditary tradition (Ideas that are passed from generation to generation) and storytelling capability of any animal you care to name. Even chimps and dolphins you will find their proto-societies incredibly static - Nothing changes over thousands of years, while human society has gone from strength to strength, with strong memes (A 'catch-all' name for stories and ideas - communism is a meme, as is the story of Jack and The Beanstalk) spreading and eliminatiing the weaker memes that it encounters.
It is humanity's constantly evolving memeticity that seperates it from the animal kingdom.
Agenda-sponsored lies may last for a while, but to attempt to keep these lies going for more than a few years or to make lies that are too big is to have reality rear it's ugly head and slap you in the face painfully.


If we had a white nationalist government i guarantee scientists would start finding genetic differences between races.

Doubtless; but the WN government would have to rely on violent oppression rather tha reality to prove themselves right. There are many studies that prove that a lot of animals are smarter that previously thought, but none so far have proved beyond a doubt that any given species of animal has a culture and an evolving memeticity
No animals apart from humans have the quintessential hallmarks of sentience.


All im saying is you shouldn't take everything science says on face value.


True scientists should never take anything on face value save reality itself. Reality consistently proves that so far the only creatures with sentience are humans.
There may be other sentient species elsewhere in the galaxy but humans are the only certain bet.


Do you honestly believe that chickens in battery cages can't tell that there is some form of better life than this ?

Only a sentient being would question the validity of it's existance. A chicken has never been found to have written extensive volumes in Chickenese about the Avian Condition. Humans, on the other hand have devoted a significant part of their lives to querying the universe at large (Science, religion, philosophy etc.)


Communism requires compassion. Animals are exploited just as much as laborers...Animals feel too.

Absolutely wrong. Firstly communism is about the selfish desire to be rid of classless society and its chains, (realising of course that everyone will have to be free in order for you to be truly free - communism isn't a fucking charity!) secondly animals have no feeling apart from those gifted upon them by nature; animals feel no true love for their fellow beings and have no desire to learn about the universe in which they inhabit beyond the location of the next meal, etc. (Note how capitalism reduces sentient beings into animals; substitute 'next meal' for 'next profit' if ruling class)


Seriously, you really must take an in-depth look at all science. Look at the people who believe that science proves Christianity. If people didn't denounce that and look deeper into it, we would have a homogenous society of christians.

The people who believe science proves Christianity are not scientific. they fail to apply critical thought in certain areas, and simply choose to overlook that which does not fit into their worldview. If science were truly applied on a worlwide scale, Christianity and all other religions would be dead and buried centuries ago.

Might I point out that even cats, dogs and other pets are a resource - an emotional one - they provide companionship and pretty much inconditional love to those that look after them, acting as surrogate children, who never grow up and will always need the care and affection of their owner. Every human needs love, and sometimes it's damn hard to get real love from a human, especially in capitalist society, where displays of affection can be percieved as a weakness to be exploited.

[ComradeChris]

Only a sentient being would question the validity of it's existance. A chicken has never been found to have written extensive volumes in Chickenese about the Avian Condition. Humans, on the other hand have devoted a significant part of their lives to querying the universe at large (Science, religion, philosophy etc.)

Not all human civilizations were/are capable of written language either. What's your point? Written word is only required if you want to pass on information to future generations. So I seriously hope you're not writting anything. :rolleyes:

And maybe it's best that humans didn't concern themselves with things that most likely won't matter in the long run. People fight wars, and create petty rivalries, over trivial things like that. In fact, inquisative thought about things is believed to be linked to genetics. Many people don't care about the origins of life, the universe, etc. Stop generalizing!


Absolutely wrong. Firstly communism is about the selfish desire to be rid of classless society and its chains, (realising of course that everyone will have to be free in order for you to be truly free - communism isn't a fucking charity!) secondly animals have no feeling apart from those gifted upon them by nature; animals feel no true love for their fellow beings and have no desire to learn about the universe in which they inhabit beyond the location of the next meal, etc. (Note how capitalism reduces sentient beings into animals; substitute 'next meal' for 'next profit' if ruling class)

So when animals weep over the death of their relatives that's not an emotion? To mourn it could be argued requires love (I personally don't believe in love; so I don't like your argument as a whole, as it's based around arbitrary qualifying words).

Well I guess humans are inherently greedy. And all the time I've spent arguing greed isn't an inherent human nature and you negate it in a few sentences. What a wonderful group of greedy leftists I discuss with. Well I guess I'm pretty well off, I don't see any need for fighting agains the system anymore. It's what my inherent greed would want. Thanks NoXion for your revelation.

[robob8706]

Absolutely wrong. Firstly communism is about the selfish desire to be rid of classless society and its chains, (realising of course that everyone will have to be free in order for you to be truly free - communism isn't a fucking charity!)

I'm not a communist to be selfish, I want to give up my material possessions in order that the value of those possessions may increase the quality of life for someone else, and thusly if i were in a communist society my participation in that society would be souly to benefit those around me and in the society. In no way am i selfish for wanting a communism. Communism requires altruism. If you think altruism is selfish, look up the definition.


secondly animals have no feeling apart from those gifted upon them by nature; animals feel no true love for their fellow beings and have no desire to learn about the universe in which they inhabit beyond the location of the next meal

Animals do have emotions, the feel fear, joy, sadness, etc. Even if they didn't feel emotions THEY STILL FEEL PAIN. Slit a pigs throat and watch it thrash around and squeel. That should be reason enough to give animals rights.

Watch this. http://www.petatv.com/downloads/mym2002.zip

If you aren't affected by that movie, you have no place here claiming to be considered a moral person.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not all human civilizations were/are capable of written language either. What's your point? Written word is only required if you want to pass on information to future generations. So I seriously hope you're not writting anything.

How convenient it is for you that you have ignored my mention of oral tradition. Pay more attention fuckwit. Oral tradition played a large part in the transfer of ideas from generation to generation, before the invention of the written word.


So when animals weep over the death of their relatives that's not an emotion? To mourn it could be argued requires love (I personally don't believe in love; so I don't like your argument as a whole, as it's based around arbitrary qualifying words).


Animals do not weep when they happen to come across the bones of their fellow species; they merely become nervous, knowing that there's something that can prey upon them without fear of reprisals; witness the nervous behaviours of elephants when they chance across the bones of their fellow species.

Love is when you are willing to risk your reproductive qualities for the sake of another member of your species; putting yourself in front of a bullet that was meant for your loved one; you believe so much in the superiority/equality in compassion of your fellow species that you are willing to risk death for them, rather than selfishly saving your own skin over theirs. It is the ultimate in overcoming your primitive animal desires in favour of a higher directive that benefits the whole of society rather than the one individual.


Well I guess humans are inherently greedy. And all the time I've spent arguing greed isn't an inherent human nature and you negate it in a few sentences. What a wonderful group of greedy leftists I discuss with. Well I guess I'm pretty well off, I don't see any need for fighting agains the system anymore. It's what my inherent greed would want. Thanks NoXion for your revelation.

All acts are selfish acts; they are believed to enhance the status of the original edictee; it is only the realisation that by saving the many that we can save our selves that we overcome our primitive desire for self preservation to ensure the survival of the group as a whole; by acting compassionate to our fellow species we engender compassion, thus ensuring our own survival.

Do you not feel more empathy towards the one who saved your life?

I guess that the crux of the argument is that animals are incapable of feeling gratitude, and thus will not return the favour when one is stuck in a sticky spot.

If you save a seal's life, that seal will not give a damn when you get stuck in a beartrap, but a sentient human will realise the predicament that you are in and will doubtless attempt to free you (In the hope that when the other human is in a similar situation you would do the same)

In short, sentients care, animals do not.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 08:21 AM

Absolutely wrong. Firstly communism is about the selfish desire to be rid of classless society and its chains, (realising of course that everyone will have to be free in order for you to be truly free - communism isn't a fucking charity!)

I'm not a communist to be selfish, I want to give up my material possessions in order that the value of those possessions may increase the quality of life for someone else, and thusly if i were in a communist society my participation in that society would be souly to benefit those around me and in the society. In no way am i selfish for wanting a communism. Communism requires altruism. If you think altruism is selfish, look up the definition.


secondly animals have no feeling apart from those gifted upon them by nature; animals feel no true love for their fellow beings and have no desire to learn about the universe in which they inhabit beyond the location of the next meal

Animals do have emotions, the feel fear, joy, sadness, etc. Even if they didn't feel emotions THEY STILL FEEL PAIN. Slit a pigs throat and watch it thrash around and squeel. That should be reason enough to give animals rights.

Watch this. http://www.petatv.com/downloads/mym2002.zip

If you aren't affected by that movie, you have no place here claiming to be considered a moral person.
First, the fact that you would give up your possessions for others only labels you as a sucker! People would easily take advantage of your overly giving nature.

NO! The ultimate dream of communism is not giving, but of cooperation! There are no heros or martyrs; there are only benificiaries.

All that video proves is that pigs have instinctual reactions to stressful situations; do you see the pigs develop anti-farming theory, having a language and culture through which they transmit their ideas like we do? no! The only react like animals to the pain that we cause to them, not thinking once of rebellion, (like occasional workers think of communism when they become oppressed by their boss) but only thinking of release to the pain that they are suffering. It may be a salve to the conciousnesses of many humans if we introduce more humane practices, but it is only for the benefit of the humans who feel twinges of guilt over killing dumb animals.

If you think by being communist you are being altruistic, you are under some very deep illusions.

Communism is selfishness.

[Redmau5]

What about the mentally ill ? They could be deemed non-sentient as some of them haven't a clue what's going on around them. Should we just start exploiting them ?

And who exactly says animals aren't sentient ? Science finds what it's paid to find. If we had a white nationalist government i guarantee scientists would start finding genetic differences between races. All im saying is you shouldn't take everything science says on face value.

Do you honestly believe that chickens in battery cages can't tell that there is some form of better life than this ?

[Redmau5]

I have to say im not into Communism to be selfish. If i wanted to be selfish i'd be an ardent capitalist trying to make as much as i can.

You aren't one of the people who believes in Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory ? Like you really save someone's life in the hope that they'll repay the favour in the future. What if you were going to work one day and you seen an unknown person in some sort of mortal danger. Would you leave them there to die because you don't know them and they can't repay the favour in future ? I dont think so.

I know thats a little off the point but i had to clear it up.

[ComradeChris]

How convenient it is for you that you have ignored my mention of oral tradition. Pay more attention fuckwit. Oral tradition played a large part in the transfer of ideas from generation to generation, before the invention of the written word.

You are the biggest fucking idiot in this forum. I was replying to YOU who mentioned written language from animals dipshit! Fuck you're fucking idiotic. You need to pay more attention to your own fucking posts you piece of shit moron.


Animals do not weep when they happen to come across the bones of their fellow species; they merely become nervous, knowing that there's something that can prey upon them without fear of reprisals; witness the nervous behaviours of elephants when they chance across the bones of their fellow species.

No, there are cases where elephants gather around the body of a fallen member of the herd, pack (whatever a group of elephants is called). They then proceeded to cry. Seeing they're non-sentient beings there must be some instinctive reason they started to cry, maybe you'd like to explain?


Love is when you are willing to risk your reproductive qualities for the sake of another member of your species; putting yourself in front of a bullet that was meant for your loved one; you believe so much in the superiority/equality in compassion of your fellow species that you are willing to risk death for them, rather than selfishly saving your own skin over theirs. It is the ultimate in overcoming your primitive animal desires in favour of a higher directive that benefits the whole of society rather than the one individual.

Many animals defend their young. They would take the brunt of an attack for their children. I guess that's the love you describe. Although I'd call taking a bullet intentionally stupid...but I'll make an exception for you, it would be beneficial if you decided to take one.


All acts are selfish acts; they are believed to enhance the status of the original edictee; it is only the realisation that by saving the many that we can save our selves that we overcome our primitive desire for self preservation to ensure the survival of the group as a whole; by acting compassionate to our fellow species we engender compassion, thus ensuring our own survival.

Then your definition of love is incorrect. In your example to be in love would mean being selfless...but you just claimed all acts are selfish acts. Make up your mind idiot.


Do you not feel more empathy towards the one who saved your life?

I'm not asking anyone to do that. In fact I'd almost rather die than talk with fuckers like you.


I guess that the crux of the argument is that animals are incapable of feeling gratitude, and thus will not return the favour when one is stuck in a sticky spot.

Ummm...you use man-made terms to describe simple biological occurances. Almost everything humans do can be linked to biological impulses.

And specifically to your animals thing...I've heard countless stories of animals saving their owners lives. But that's not gratitude to you I guess. But it is getting the owner of of a "sticky spot" as you would say.


If you save a seal's life, that seal will not give a damn when you get stuck in a beartrap, but a sentient human will realise the predicament that you are in and will doubtless attempt to free you (In the hope that when the other human is in a similar situation you would do the same)

What would a seal do anyway?? They don't have the proper means to open the trap!


In short, sentients care, animals do not

That's obviously a lie, because you show time and time again that you do not care.


I have to say im not into Communism to be selfish. If i wanted to be selfish i'd be an ardent capitalist trying to make as much as i can.

Once again I'll repeat myself for the sake of proving NoXion wrong. I am from a middle class family, I really don't have anything to lose or gain through advocating for communist beliefs. I fight for equality for those who cannot. So don't fucking tell me I'm a fake anything you fucking prick! Because if I were greedy, as you claim we all are, I would be a capitalist like Makaveli_05 just described.

[robob8706]

Communism requires compassion. Animals are exploited just as much as laborers...Animals feel too.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by ComradeChris+Apr 2 2005, 10:28 PM--> (ComradeChris @ Apr 2 2005, 10:28 PM)
Drake [email protected] 2 2005, 05:46 PM

An unarmed person can't defend themselves (more often than not) from a man with a gun. I guess that makes it acceptable if they're defenceless. Who wants to go around killing babies? All they do is cuddle their mother.

Jesus Christ, I can't believe you thought I was serious.
I presume everyone is serious unless there is an indication of humour. So are you or aren't you for the killing of defenceless animals (specifically seals)? [/b]
Chris, look buddy.

What I believe he is trying to point out his how little he cares about a seal hunt, in comparisson to racism/sexism/elitism etc.

I too used to get worked up about animals, but I am constantly becoming more rational about it.

I mean yes, call me crazy but I'd probably have less trouble with clubbing a politician, than a baby seal. However, I really don't care, since it's not me that has to do it.

Would you rather that Canada's northern native population starved to death because the fish get eaten too quickly by the seals? Because that's what your boregios attitude would likely bring about.

[red_orchestra]

Oh, I understand everyones position here. I believe that animals have rights too...oh yeah, i'm not for any abuse of animals. As I said earlier that politics are politics...and not everyone in the Left wing is anti-hunting, because that is true. Thats all.

[Sabocat]

What I find staggering is the rationale that the hunt is for the salvation of the humans hunting them.

If they were truly starving to death, wouldn't it make sense to harvest the seals for their meat rather than the fucking fur that is being sold to some bourgeois pile of shit that just has to have the latest fashion and wants to flaunt their wealth by wearing fur? They kill the seal, skin it and leave the entire carcass. This is similar to the idiots that condone cutting dorsal fins off of sharks for sharkfin soup for the elite in Japan. This hunt is for nothing other than capitalist vote pandering.

This bullshit about the seals wiping out the fish stocks is laughable too. You know what's wiping out the cod schools? Overfishing by the greedy fisherman and capitalist factory ships. Georges Bank has been turned into a veritable desert by overfishing. They are unsure if it will ever return to any semblance of what it once was. It used to be the richest fishing grounds in the world. It's demise has nothing to do with fucking seals.

In my area, they blame the decline of lobster and fish on the seals, but yet, you hardly see any here. The seal has become the "bogeyman" for all the whining fisherman that have wiped out their own existance.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by redcanada+Apr 20 2005, 02:16 AM--> (redcanada @ Apr 20 2005, 02:16 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:28 PM

Drake [email protected] 2 2005, 05:46 PM

An unarmed person can't defend themselves (more often than not) from a man with a gun. I guess that makes it acceptable if they're defenceless. Who wants to go around killing babies? All they do is cuddle their mother.

Jesus Christ, I can't believe you thought I was serious.
I presume everyone is serious unless there is an indication of humour. So are you or aren't you for the killing of defenceless animals (specifically seals)?
Chris, look buddy.

What I believe he is trying to point out his how little he cares about a seal hunt, in comparisson to racism/sexism/elitism etc.

I too used to get worked up about animals, but I am constantly becoming more rational about it.

I mean yes, call me crazy but I'd probably have less trouble with clubbing a politician, than a baby seal. However, I really don't care, since it's not me that has to do it.

Would you rather that Canada's northern native population starved to death because the fish get eaten too quickly by the seals? Because that's what your boregios attitude would likely bring about. [/b]
Bourgeois attitude?? So I guess compassion for defenseless creatures is bourgeois now??? OMG...I don't care what he was trying to say. If he was trying to say something either he should have said it initially or clarified after I brought up a concern with his view.

Also I never really noticed this, but thought it was worth saying to further dislodge your idiocy NoXion:


If you save a seal's life, that seal will not give a damn when you get stuck in a beartrap,
&

In short, sentients care, animals do not

Who created that trap?? A sentient animal! I guess purposely inflicting excruciating pain is caring? Even if it's used on the wrong animal. We obviously don't care that the Bear would be in that trap...that's caring too I guess. :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Who created that trap?? A sentient animal! I guess purposely inflicting excruciating pain is caring?

No, but helping people in difficult situations IS caring. I never claimed that setting a trap is caring, idiot. You did.

Thanks for ignoring my point entirely, which was that a seal is incapable of caring, while humans are capable of caring.

Thanks for using my poor choice of analogies as an excuse for ignoring the rest of my post, moron.

See you on the other side of the barricades, eco-fascist.

[Redmau5]

Eco-fascist ?

:lol:

[rice349]

Eco-fascist ?

Members of the douche-bag left who see the only true suffering of society exists solely in the animal population, and are willing to supplement the pain and suffering of the working class to preserve animal sanctity. I know some of these people who advocate human genocide as well as bestiality, not typical by any means but just another example of how extremism can sometimes go bad.

But usually (with the exception of E.L.F. and A.L.F. members) they usually lack the energy to get off their asses to do anything.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

rice349, you have encapsulated the concept perfectly.

[Hiero]

Not all human civilizations were/are capable of written language either

All healthy humans are capable of writing their language.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:55 AM


Who created that trap?? A sentient animal! I guess purposely inflicting excruciating pain is caring?

No, but helping people in difficult situations IS caring. I never claimed that setting a trap is caring, idiot. You did.

Thanks for ignoring my point entirely, which was that a seal is incapable of caring, while humans are capable of caring.

Thanks for using my poor choice of analogies as an excuse for ignoring the rest of my post, moron.

See you on the other side of the barricades, eco-fascist.
Well, in your example you're endangering humans. Your logic completely contradicted itself! If you can even call it logic :rolleyes: . I didn't ignore any of your posts...I believe I responded to all of your comments. Stop making up more bullshit. You're an idiot.

You ignored all of my posts save this one...and you still doged it too. Fascist eh? I'm the one routing for a completely egalitarian society...you enjoy your slavery dip-shit. Like I said, I'd gladly beat you into a vegetable then use you as you would use animals. But I'm glad you'd be hiding...like you're hiding from factual evidence. Maybe learn to hide your bullshit better to next time.


But usually (with the exception of E.L.F. and A.L.F. members) they usually lack the energy to get off their asses to do anything.

Yeah I'm lazy...or I'd be going first to beat the shit out of idiots like you and NoXion...no wait...that's because I don't want to get thrown in jail. And I don't see how freeing animals damages the working class; maybe you could explain that to me? If anything it eliminated less chores and farm labour!


All healthy humans are capable of writing their language.

So primitive beings who weren't capable of written language weren't healthy? Illiterate people aren't healthy?

[Hiero]

So primitive beings who weren't capable of written language weren't healthy? Illiterate people aren't healthy?

You didn't say primitive, thats different. I thought you were talking about the peoples of the 16th 17th 18th centuries that were "discovered" by white people who didn't have a written language.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:09 PM

So primitive beings who weren't capable of written language weren't healthy? Illiterate people aren't healthy?

You didn't say primitive, thats different. I thought you were talking about the peoples of the 16th 17th 18th centuries that were "discovered" by white people who didn't have a written language.
Ask that idiot NoXion what he was talking about. He changes his mind every 30 seconds.