Seal Hunting

[chimx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF5wkU7Y9AM

:(

[Janus]

Can't see the video 'cause someone flagged it.

[chimx]

That sucks. You'll have to create an account on youtube. Then you will be able to view it after "confirming" you are over 18.

[Cryotank Screams]

300,000 seals? That is fucking ridiculous, what did they do with the seals?

[SUPERninjapirate]

They probably took them back to the mainland and sold them for fur.

[Delirium]

i wonder how seal meat tastes? probably fatty...

[bcbm]

Man, fuck seals. What did they ever do for me? Fucking nothing.

[LSD]

And the point of this thread is ...what?

Nobody here (as far as I know) participates in or knows anyone who participates in the seal hunt; nor, I'd imagine, do any of us particularly like watching animals getting killed.

So if your aim is to convince us not to go up north and start beating on seals? Well, not to burst your bubble but it's a waste of time.

Except this isn't about seals, is it? It never is. These types of videos and images get bandied around a lot, but it's almost always in concert with a general ideological agenda which has a lot more to do with reconstructing the social contract than it does with ending this one activity.

Seals are cuter than fish so PETA types try to use the seal hunt to wedge open the deabte.

Well, fine, if pathos is your thing, there's nothing anyone can do to stop you from resorting to it. But entire thread for rhetorical fallacy? Sorry, but that's crap.

Moved to ...websites (I'm tempted to say Chit-Chat, but that would mean a plethora of moronic "dead seal" jokes)

***

And chimx, for the future, linking to fucking YouTube does not constitute a valid thread. Not outside of Chit-Chat anyway.

[chimx]

And the point of this thread is ...what?

Showing a video the depicts the seal hunt in Canada. I would have thought that was obvious. I choose science and environment because it pertained to an environmental issue.

And I'm sorry, I didn't realize that revleft constrained discussion to written text. Nor did I know that people deplore seal hunting for aesthetical reasons. Good contribution.

[LSD]

Revleft contrains discussion to discussion. That means actually raising a political point, not linking to a video, especially not a fundamentally apolitical video like that one.

I mean if it even contained some productive content, that would be one thing. But it doesn't introduce anything new to the debate, it's just the same old images we've all seen plastered around designed to evoke an emotional rather than logical reaction.

And, if you didn't notice, the emptiness of the initial post lead to a rather empty thread.

Again, if you want to discuss the political issues related to animal rights or hunting in general, fine. But do it with words and arguments. Posting a link (to a video that's been "flagged" as offensive no less) is not a useful political contribution.

[chimx]

Revleft contrains [sic] discussion to discussion. That means actually raising a political point, not linking to a video, especially not a fundamentally apolitical video like that one.

Perhaps I was confused by recent posts to the contrary. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61557)


designed to evoke an emotional rather than logical reaction.
You speak as if it were a bad thing. As if novels can't contain truth--Kundera will be crying himself to sleep tonight. As if photographs can't relay an essential reality intrinsic to the human character--Richard Avedon weeps.

[LSD]

Perhaps I was confused by recent posts to the contrary.

Perhaps you were.

That video was a news story, it was meant to illustrate the textual content of the post, and in any case it wasn't the sole contents of the post in question anyway.

Surely you see the difference between showing a videotape of a recent scientific discovery and showing "shocking" imagery for the purpose of evoking feelings of horror and misery.

I mean, come on, I know you're not that naive. The video in question has been deemed too offensive for children for crying out loud, it's not like I'm "making up" an objective difference here.

Pornography is often discussed in Discrimination, but if someone were to start a thread with only a link to a porn video, even if it were a particularly "unique" porn video, you'd better believe I'd trash it.

I view this thread in the same way (only slightly less so).


You speak as if it were a bad thing.

Because it is.

Political discussion needs to be logical, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be as objective as possible.

Look, there are a lot of reasons to oppose the seal hunt, but posting that link doesn't contribute to that discussion. It's just meant to upset people.

It's pure exploitation propaganda and you're damn right that's a bad thing ...here.

Whether or not it's a good strategy in general I'll leave to another discussion. But this is about whether or not that thread belonged in the Sciences and Environments forum of a political message board. And, again, the answer to that is clearly no.


As if novels can't contain truth...As if photographs can't relay an essential reality intrinsic to the human character

No, what I'm saying is that neither novels nor nonpolitical photoraphs belong on this site.

And, yeah, if your post had consisted entirely of exerpts from unbearable lightness of being, I probably would have trashed it. This is a political board, chimx, it exists for a very specific very limited kind of discussion.

That doesn't mean that other forms of expression aren't valid, it just means that this isn't the place to post them.

[chimx]

And, yeah, if your post had consisted entirely of exerpts from unbearable lightness of being, I probably would have trashed it. This is a political board, chimx, it exists for a very specific very limited kind of discussion.

You're right. I think Life is Elsewhere would be far more relevant to this site and its readers. Since you're a Kundera fan, I hope you get the joke. :)


That doesn't mean that other forms of expression aren't valid, it just means that this isn't the place to post them.

Two points:
1) Its fine that you want to keep political discussion going on this site. However, I can't help but wonder that your own bias on the issue played a part. The video on sharks that was posted had a significantly less political message. But as you said, it was allowed because it contained a brief one sentence abstract on the movie. If I had similarly added to the thread, "here is some brief footage of the Canadian seal hunt that takes place every year," would that have been accepted? (If so, by all means move it back and I'll make the appropriate modifications).

2) I think there is a bias against sources outside of written text. I recall posting some beautiful photos of Czarist Russia directly prior to the Russian Revolution (accompanied by plenty of text) in history forum because they were a valuable primary source for understanding conditions in Russia at the time of her revolutions. That was also moved to the graphics discussion, where it was not at all relevant. The photos were not what I was interested in seeing discussed, it was the content thereof. Equally so, this thread is now in websites. The website is not being call to question, but rather the content is what I was hoping discussion would lean towards.

[LSD]

The video on sharks that was posted had a significantly less political message. But as you said, it was allowed because it contained a brief one sentence abstract on the movie.

Again, though, it was more than that.

The shark video illustrated the point of the thread in an objective and non-sensationalist manner. The video you posted was nothing but sensationalism.

Indeed, YouTube found it so sensationalistic that they require registration (and I assume some kind of age declaration) to let you see it!

Again, pornography is often discussed in Discrimination, but if someone were to start a thread with only a link to a porn video, even if it were a particularly "unique" porn video, you'd better believe I'd trash it.


I think there is a bias against sources outside of written text

Yes there is.

This board is, ultimately, a textual medium first. Videos, pictures, they can occasionaly illustrate a point, but no, they shouldn't be the primary message, not outside of Graphics anyway.

The reason for that is that images and videos are so much more subjective than the written word and they leave so little room for direct engagement.

You can quote from text, you can go through it line for line, you can immediately parse the argument and respond in kind. Visual media appeal to an entirely different part of the brain and in so doing make it much harder to respond.

That's why threads started by images or, even worse, videos tend to have less productive discussions.

That seal video didn't present an arugment, it presented shocking imagery. Imagery designed to evoke an emotional reaction. And while that may make for good propaganda, it's highly unlikely to lead to a constructive dialogue.

'Cause what can people really say in response? I'm shocked? How horrible?

In a real debate on "animal rights" or even the seal hunt itself, rational arguments can be presented on both sides and then deconstructed and then defended and then deconstructed again.

That can't happen, not in a fair manner, when the one side is basing itself on the emotion of horrific imagery.

It's the same way that I would move a thread which consisted entirely (or probably even mainly) of pictures of starving children to Graphics.

Those images are political insofar as they relate to capitalism and global inequality, but they nonetheless don't have the potential to lead to a useful thread. All they'll do is evoke a response and spurr politically empty expressions of sympathy and upset.

[Sentinel]

I agree with the moving of the thread. I've got to say my first reaction to it was confusion, what was one supposed to reply, or comment? What was meant to be discussed -- simply how brutal and horrible the clubbing of seals is?

The thread was doomed to create online responses, I'm afraid.


The video on sharks that was posted had a significantly less political message.

But it was about a new scientific discovery.


But as you said, it was allowed because it contained a brief one sentence abstract on the movie. If I had similarly added to the thread, "here is some brief footage of the Canadian seal hunt that takes place every year," would that have been accepted? (If so, by all means move it back and I'll make the appropriate modifications).

The video on clubbing of seals, unlike the one on the discovery of the ancient shark, doesn't in itself bring anything new to discuss. Why don't you start a new thread with some questions/arguments of the more elaborate kind, to spark off a debate. Do so, and I can't see a problem if you also choose to link to the video, if you feel it can back up your arguments in some way.

But it isn't an argument in itself.

Even though I do agree with LSD it was a video made to affect people emotionally rather than rationally, and could perhaps be left out entirely..

[chimx]

The reason for that is that images and videos are so much more subjective than the written word and they leave so little room for direct engagement.

Apologize my post-modernism, but written history's and political polemics are subjective as well, the latter especially. If one's goal is to come to a rational conclusion, if such a thing even exists, one must first accept the subjective nature of all gathered sources. Personally I think relevance more so than subjectivity should be the motivating factor.


That seal video didn't present an arugment [sic], it presented shocking imagery. Imagery designed to evoke an emotional reaction. And while that may make for good propaganda, it's highly unlikely to lead to a constructive dialogue.

I strongly disagree that emotional imagery, be it written or photographed, negates sources quality. Humans, like a lot of animals, are emotional creatures. We make judgments based on both rational thought and internal gut reactions. Currently I'm working on a history thesis that has an entire chapter dedicated to personal testimonies of a massacre. They are brutal and painful to read, but very important to understand the whole story. Simply saying, "hundreds were massacred" doesn't properly convey the reality behind the situation. I needed emotional testimony that spoke of police beating a naked woman with a club until she was unconscious--smiling while whipping the blood on his army fatigues.

Equally so, the video isn't some sort of graphical concoction. People from Sea Sheppard (who do environmental/media work for plenty non-"cute" animals too) collect videos of hunters killing seals. If you find them disturbing, then perhaps that says something about your own conscience and your rational need to suppress truth brought on by your emotional side. Because I'm sure if you showed those to seal hunters, they would be pretty indifferent to the imagery.


Why don't you start a new thread with some questions/arguments of the more elaborate kind, to spark off a debate.

After this I'm kind of spent on the subject. :) Now I'm more interested in the idea subjectivity and/or intersubjectivity being a less valid expression of truth than "objective" reality, if such a thing exists. The idea that emotional reactions can only serve to undermine political discourse, as opposed to heighten our understanding of it.

[RevMARKSman]

I needed emotional testimony that spoke of police beating a naked woman with a club until she was unconscious--smiling while whipping the blood on his army fatigues.

I think that sentence spoke of the event well. No need for "emotional testimony."


Simply saying, "hundreds were massacred" doesn't properly convey the reality behind the situation.

Maybe not, but saying "hundreds were massacred and people went into hysterics about it" does.

[chimx]

If that is your opinion, you are out of touch with the work of most social historians.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 04:08 pm
If that is your opinion, you are out of touch with the work of most social historians.
Prove it.

Since when have historians accepted the idea of "emotional truth" or reality being non-objective? I'm talking about scientists here.

[LSD]

Apologize my post-modernism, but written history's and political polemics are subjective as well

Of course they are, anything written or composed is tainted by the bias of its author(s). That's probably doubly true when it comes to controversial issues of politics.

But we all know that. No one here is so deluded as to imagine that anything written must be "true" and that's certainly not what I'm trying to say.

No, the problem here isn't the innate production-side subjectivity of all human creations, it's the perception-side subjectivity of non-verbal communications.

Anyone reading this sentence knows what message I'm trying to convey. They may agree, they may disagree, they may not give a fuck; but they understand. The same can most certainly not be said for artistic, or even non-artistic, visual media.

As you said, a seal hunter would have an entirely different reaction to the video in question than me or you would. Likewise, I imagine that even among the lay popluation, there'd be some significant variation in effect.

And while that's perfectly acceptable when we're talking about a work of art or a piece of fiction, it's unproductive when our aim is to facilitate a constructive verbal debate.

Imagery can't be verbally deconstructed, it can't be rationally dissected or logically analyzed. That doesn't make it "worthless", nor does it impune its "quality" (whatever that means), but it does make it incompatible with a rational dialogue.

Because, again, there's no way to respond to it in kind. How exactly can someone rebut an emotion? I'll tell you, they can't. So a thread predicated on imagery rather than argument is hopelessly lopsided from the begining.

Which is why, again, those kind of threads rarely, if ever, end up anywhere productive. And even when they do, it's universally because someone finally introduced a verbal argument into the mix so that a real discussion could actually occur.

It's much better to just start with that argument, however, and skip all the unnescessary "tugging of heart-strings".


I strongly disagree that emotional imagery, be it written or photographed, negates sources quality.

I can't speak to "quality", since that's a hopeless vague term, but it does reduce a source's usefulness to constructive rational debate.

There's a reason that shocking imagery has so often been the hallmark of reactionary movements. Shocking people is the easiest thing to do and requires zero actual argumentation.

The Nazis were masters of it. Indeed, they can be credited with some of the first "animal cruelty" videos ...although they, of course, blamed it all on "the Jews".

But what's important here is that people believed it. Not because the Nazis' arguments were good, they weren't, not because they were nescessarily fascists before, most people weren't, but because they were shocked.

They saw image after image carefully constructed to shock and horrify them and, as designed, it moved millions of them to buy in the National Socialsit programme. And it did so solely emotionaly.

So clearly shock propaganda works, but the question at hand isn't one of efficacy, it's one of value. Der ewige Jude might have made for excellent propaganda, but it hardly was grounds for a fruitful debate.

And while I'm in no way equating "animal rights" support with national socialism, your video is functionall no different. And as such cannot lead to a productive discussion.


Humans, like a lot of animals, are emotional creatures. We make judgments based on both rational thought and internal gut reactions.

Obviously, but that doesn't mean that we should attempt to base our political conclusions on "feelings".

I've been pissed off at a lot of people in my life, but I haven't killed a single one of them nor have I put any of them in the hospital. That restraint wasn't emotional, on the contrary it was the suppression of emotion.

And that's a good deal of social interaction is about, recognizing when one cannot follow the dicates of ones feelings because to do so would not be objectively correct.

So while there nothing wrong with being an emotional human being (as we all are), we still have to be as universal and objective as possible, especially when it comes to issues of sociopolitical construction.

'Cause, again, the issue here isn't propaganda -- that's a seperate discussion entirely -- it's whether or not this video could help in coming to a productive rational conclusion on the matter of the seal hunt in particular and/or hunting in general.

And if all it has to offer is emotional provokation than that answer is a clear no.


If you find them disturbing, then perhaps that says something about your own conscience and your rational need to suppress truth brought on by your emotional side.

"Truth" has nothing to do with it. I find a lot of things "disturbing", that doesn't mean that they are nescessarily "wrong" nor that they should be stopped.

That's the problem with relying on emotional reactions as a basis for social policy. It elevates subjective reactions to a position of social authority.

It's that kind of thinking that kept homosexualiy illegal. People were "shocked" by the notion of two men having sex so they reacted emotionally and banned it. Yeah, religion had a lot to do with it, but mainly it was an emotional reaction.

Personally, I'm not disturbed by homosexuality, so that doesn't really apply to me; I am though rather disturbed by scat videos. I remember when I was younger I once read a caprophilic story and I couldn't get it out of my head for months.

Would that then qualify as a good political argument? Should I reprint that story to "prove" that caprophilia should be made illegal? How about videos? I can promise you that there are a lot of other people out there who find this stuff just as disturbing as me.

In many cases probably even more disturbing than the seal hunt video! After all, we're all desensitized to violence to some degree or another.

So if your video can be considered a cogent political argument, so must the shit porn video. And if the contention of your argument is that the seal hunt should be banned -- which I assume it is -- then likewise, shouldn't we ban sexual activities involving shit ...or anything else which "disturbs" us?

You see, that's the problem with glorifying subjectivity. Yes, we all have our own subjective experience of life, but we can't construct a society out of personal biases.

Human beings are still rational beings capable of engaging in rational discussion and that means putting that which can be logically and empirically demonstrated ahead of that which emotionally "touches" us.

[chimx]

I'll tackle some of your points, but in reverse order.


So if your video can be considered a cogent political argument, so must the shit porn video. And if the contention of your argument is that the seal hunt should be banned -- which I assume it is -- then likewise, shouldn't we ban sexual activities involving shit ...or anything else which "disturbs" us?

Not quite. The point I was planning on making following people viewing the video, is the intersubjective nature of morally founded laws and how ultimately it has led to a hyopcritical legal system which is ultimately species specific. Seeing a fisherman club a seal to death with a bat is considered acceptable, but seeing a boy beating his a domesticated cat to death is considered animal abuse and warrants a severe fine. But that is neither here nor there, at least not anymore.


"Truth" has nothing to do with it. I find a lot of things "disturbing", that doesn't mean that they are nescessarily "wrong" nor that they should be stopped.

That's the problem with relying on emotional reactions as a basis for social policy. It elevates subjective reactions to a position of social authority.
When I say "truth", I mean it in the subjective sense. Emotional responses, in the end, speak towards an inherent truth within the individual. To use your example, it pains me to see photographs of starving children. From this fact I derive that I am opposed to starving children, even though there are none where I live.

crap, the library is closing. don't response, i'll get back to this later.

[Comrade Marcel]

chimx, seal hunting is just another capitalist industry. Everyone here is an anti-capitalist.

So unless you are against all seal hunting, period, we have no disagreement.

If you are for banning seal hunting in Kanada, well I have news for you. Aboriginals might feel differently and I support their right to uphold their culture and hunt, club, eat, sell the fur of, etc. etc. as many seals as they want. Telling them not to is white cultural chauvinism and imeprialism.