i'm an environmentalist but some environmentalists disgust me

[careyprice31]

like this guy, Paul Watson who spends his time fighting against the canadian Newfoundland seal hunt.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005069

i mean, what the fuck?

he fights against legitimate taking of animals by legitimate law abiding hunters, and seals are thriving btw and not headed for extinction, he doesnt complain about the real problems, the greed and thoughtlessness of humanity and animals being driven to extinction they complain about people who hunt nothing more exotic than a seal or a deer or a duck. and theydo it legally (btw killing white coats, baby seals is illegal in canada despite what these nut bars say)

and they are mostly driven by emotion and not on biological reality. (I mean seals look cute, right?)

Newfoundlanders also love to hunt for moose but he aint out complaining about that or the fact that we eat cows and pigs.

I think a lot of these people do it for attention they get and money.

he's also discriminatory against Newfoundlanders.

http://www.nfb.ca/webextension/ancestors/press2.html

imo a nut bar of a human being.

what do you guys think?

[Xiao Banfa]

Fuck Paul Watson and Sea Sheppard and all sleazy ex-hippies scumbags.

Fuck whales. Fuck whales. Fuck whales. I will eat a whale. I don't care.

What do we need whales for. Seals? Fuck off.

With all the problems in this world, this is what gets them going?

I'd say a bit anti-japanese racism wouldn't be uncommon to these 'people'.

Rejected by the the human world, the only entities that want anything to do with them are hippies and whales.

It's all an attention seeking club of incurable douchebags who wouldn't know class politics if it bought them a drink laced with ketamine.

[careyprice31]

Fuck Paul Watson and Sea Sheppard and all sleazy ex-hippies scumbags.

Fuck whales. Fuck whales. Fuck whales. I will eat a whale. I don't care.

What do we need whales for. Seals? Fuck off.

With all the problems in this world, this is what gets them going?

I'd say a bit anti-japanese racism wouldn't be uncommon to these 'people'.

Rejected by the the human world, the only entities that want anything to do with them are hippies and whales.

It's all an attention seeking club of incurable douchebags who wouldn't know class politics if it bought them a drink laced with ketamine.

I have to agree.

when some newfoundland sealers died some weeks ago Paul watson said it was a tragedy but the mass killing of seals was a worse one.

what the fuck?

legitimate hunting by legitimate hunters, most of whom hunt humanely and kill humanely, is worse than these deaths?

something not right there. The man got a couple of screws loose upstairs, me thinks.

[spartan]

I can understand the desire to protect endangered animals but as you said seals arent endangered and this mans arguing against the hunting of seals is nothing short of Primitivism.

Socialists should stear clear of people like him as he would have no problem with the seal hunters (Who are workers) losing their job just to protect fucking animals!

Thats the problem with alot of Enviromentalists they have this unrealistic attitude towards tackiling important issues and they will likely lose support and blacken the name of Enviromentalism becuase of this.

As an Enviromentalist myself i see the only way to tackle the problems with the climate and other issues is through the use of technology.

[MarxSchmarx]

Thats the problem with alot of Enviromentalists they have this unrealistic attitude towards tackiling important issues and they will likely lose support and blacken the name of Enviromentalism becuase of this.

I'm not sure I agree with you there, Spartan. There's this idea called "charismatic megafauna." A lot of people who go through life not really caring about serious environmental problems like climate change, the destruction of ecosystems, etc... suddenly get passionate about cute and cuddly mammals like seals or pandas being hunted. So in order to get people to start caring about the environment, we first dupe them into thinking their helping Willy the Whale.

Sure, Paul Watson is a primitivist nutjob and probably a jerk. But, despite Watson's best intentions to waste everyone's time, this particular antic isn't as counterproductive as it appears on first sight.

For someone who doesn't think twice about the environment, there's a bit of propaganda value in seeing someone stand up for a defenseless seal. But it does get the attention of people who otherwise won't care about the future of biofuels.


i see the only way to tackle the problems with the climate and other issues is through the use of technology.

Of course I agree with you. He doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding in stopping the seal hunt. To the extant that Paul Watson is serious in stopping the seal hunt, his tactics are moronic and practically worthless.

[apathy maybe]

I know, lets go club a seal! We could skin one alive as well you know.

Perhaps while we are at it we could beat a few and leave them to die on the ice?

Sounds fun.


I can understand the desire to protect endangered animals but as you said seals arent endangered and this mans arguing against the hunting of seals is nothing short of Primitivism.You have no idea what primitivism is do you... I'll give you a clue, it isn't going out in ships enforcing "international law" against whalers (by, among other things, ramming their ships). It also isn't opposing the seal hunt in Canada (from international waters I believe, apparently the Canadian government doesn't like the Sea Shepard Society).

I don't agree with everything that the Sea Shepard Society do, and I don't agree with the personality cult that is around "Captain Paul Watson", but I'm not about to condemn them, for condemning the torture of these seals. As well, as I understand it, the seal hunt only exists because of subsidies given by the Canadian government to the sealer's...

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm not about to condemn them, for condemning the torture of these sealsWhy? Humans don't have an obligation to protect the welfare of other species as animals only exist for our benefit, we should only preserve animals if it is in our own interests to do so. Do you actually have a sound reason for giving animals rights?

[careyprice31]

Why? Humans don't have an obligation to protect the welfare of other species as animals only exist for our benefit, we should only preserve animals if it is in our own interests to do so. Do you actually have a sound reason for giving animals rights?

with great power comes great responsibility, and thats not just for spiderman hehe

we have much more power on earth than any other species, and it is our responsibility and our obligation to use that power with sufficient caution.

animals are beings too, beautiful little souls, why shouldnt they have rights.

but i dont agree with people like Paul Watson. He is a nut job.

I wish he'd go protest against some real abuse though like the millions of factory farmed chickens kept in little tiny cages and sometimes have their beaks sliced off in an attempt to keep psychologically damaged birds from inflicting pain on one another.

That would be better imo than protesting against a seal hunt which is much more humane and the seals die humanely. At least up until the moment people hunt them they are free living out their natural lives. hunters agree that hunting an animal that is penned up isnt nice.

and many conservationists and environmentalists have been or still are hunters.

[Dystisis]

Well, all I wish is that I could say "I'm a norwegian" without some rabid american woman accusing me of whale genocide.

Using the same line of thinking I could accuse her of committing illegal wars and slaughtering thousands of innocent people.

[BobKKKindle$]

animals are beings too, beautiful little souls, why shouldnt they have rights.

What is your actual argument here? You have the onus to prove that animals should be given rights - and yet you have given no explanation of the criteria that should be used to determine whether a being is worthy of rights. What is it that makes an animal worthy of rights, but not, say, a fetus, or a petri dish of bacteria? Should all animals be given the same set of rights?

Suggesting that animals should be given rights because they are "beings" or "beautiful little souls" is an attempt to obscure your lack of logical analysis by appealing to emotions, in much the same way as pro-lifers use shocking imagery to stimulate an emotional response and twist language to make it seem as if a fetus is the same as a child.


we have much more power on earth than any other species, and it is our responsibility and our obligation to use that power with sufficient caution.

Humans are powerful, and yet you have given no explanation of why our power results in a moral obligation to protect animals from harm. Why should we be responsible for the welfare of beings that are not of the same species as us? The behaviour of the sharks of the oceans does not suggest that they feel responsible for plankton - and so why do we face such a moral obligation?


I wish he'd go protest against some real abuse though like the millions of factory farmed chickens kept in little tiny cages and sometimes have their beaks sliced off in an attempt to keep psychologically damaged birds from inflicting pain on one another.

What exactly is wrong with this? The only justified reason to eliminate factory farming is to reduce the environmental impact and to improve the quality of meat consumed by humans - not because the animals involved are being harmed.

This time of wishy-washy reasoning must be eliminated from the left - we are scientists.

[careyprice31]

What is your actual argument here? You have the onus to prove that animals should be given rights - and yet you have given no explanation of the criteria that should be used to determine whether a being is worthy of rights. What is it that makes an animal worthy of rights, but not, say, a fetus, or a petri dish of bacteria? Should all animals be given the same set of rights?

Suggesting that animals should be given rights because they are "beings" or "beautiful little souls" is an attempt to obscure your lack of logical analysis by appealing to emotions, in much the same way as pro-lifers use shocking imagery to stimulate an emotional response and twist language to make it seem as if a fetus is the same as a child.



Humans are powerful, and yet you have given no explanation of why our power results in a moral obligation to protect animals from harm. Why should we be responsible for the welfare of beings that are not of the same species as us? The behaviour of the sharks of the oceans does not suggest that they feel responsible for plankton - and so why do we face such a moral obligation?



What exactly is wrong with this? The only justified reason to eliminate factory farming is to reduce the environmental impact and to improve the quality of meat consumed by humans - not because the animals involved are being harmed.

This time of wishy-washy reasoning must be eliminated from the left - we are scientists.

what the fuck, bob, are you for real?

i actually turned off and then back on my monitor to make sure it wasnt broken when I read this post. Then checked it as if it had lied.

I have to explain to you why animals deserve some consideration, intelligent people on RL who are so intelligent they can see the flaws in human societies and think critically about the world, and then because i said animals are beautiful little beings and beautiful little souls I must be like a pro lifer appealing to emotion? Wtf, Ive been studying science since I was a child. I know whether they got souls is debatable, because no one has proved their existence. But it is true that animals are beings, a different type of being, but beings.

a fetus is different, it lives inside a mother's body, it is a part of her body. While a fetus is definitely human, there is not a relationship of symbiosis here, the fetus is more of a danger to a mother than a help, everyone knows how dangerous a pregnancy can be physically, and i dont think i need repeat my remark that if a woman cant control her reproductive life she cant control the other parts of her life as well.

why should we have an obligation? I think personally that if humans are so darn selfish, egotistical, and narcissistic as to not give anything consideration 'because its not of our species' or'it's no direct benefit to us to do so' then we're not going to make it as a species. A big point of leftist is to not be selfish and egotistical, to help others, to protect the weak and those weaker than ourselves. Thats one reason right there to do so.

also you dont think im realistic, i just appeal to emotions, another reason is that if we destroy the earth and let animals die, then we will never have any chance in heck of building a nice world. we depend on nature. Therefore we need to protect it.

About sharks and plankton, nature has taken care of the problem, animals do not hunt each other to extinction. They take what they need for their own survival, yes, they may hunt even when they are not hungry or whatever because instinct tells them to keep their skills sharp, but they have never sent many species to extinction like humans have like the Passenger Pigeon.

I think you're last paragraphs are what flabbergasted me the most.

"What exactly is wrong with this? The only justified reason to eliminate factory farming is to reduce the environmental impact and to improve the quality of meat consumed by humans - not because the animals involved are being harmed.

This time of wishy-washy reasoning must be eliminated from the left - we are scientists.[/"


I need explain to you what is wrong with putting animals in little tiny dirty cages and slicing off their beaks? wtf, is this for real? Not only does it deteriorate the quality of the meat for people but its very abusive to the animal. You dont seem to be bothered by animal abuse. The only reason for you is quite a narcissistic one.

Imo there is something wrong here with the left. and you wonder sometimes why people hate us leftists? Jeez.....

and I think I agree with scientist and university professor Dr. Temple Gradin of Colorado State University when she said oftentimes science is uncaring. I never thought of it that way until I went to university and met people studying entomology and other sciences. They seem to regard animals as atomata !! Just things to study. It seems all the feeling has been taken out of science. Im reminded of when Grandin talked about how the Skinner era (BF Skinner was a behaviorist) regarded animals as atomata and said 'we dont have to know how the brain works - animals just have reflexes.'

"This time of wishy-washy reasoning must be eliminated from the left - we are scientists.[/""

this sentence just proves how correct Grandin was in her observations of scientists.

[Xiao Banfa]

and twist language to make it seem as if a fetus is the same as a child.



You know a baby in the womb half an hour before birth is so wildly different from a baby. What it is is a green cube with sausage arms.

It also speaks yiddish.

Yeah Bob, I've already picked up on the fact that you don't have a conscience. Maybe you'll have to rely on the majority of people that do to keep you in line.

And you saying that we have no oblgation to behave respectfully to animals just illustrates the pattern.

[BobKKKindle$]

But it is true that animals are beings, a different type of being, but beings.What does the term "being" mean? Would you also consider a bacterium to be a "being" such that we face an obligation to try and protect the lives of bacteria- perhaps by restricting the use of antibiotics? What about plants - should we take care to avoid stepping on or breaking plants because they also have rights? You have not given a clear logical basis for your insistence on animal rights.


also you dont think im realistic, i just appeal to emotions, another reason is that if we destroy the earth and let animals die, then we will never have any chance in heck of building a nice world. we depend on nature. Therefore we need to protect it.I agree - the destruction of the environment is contrary to our interests as a species, and so we should ensure that we do not hunt species to extinction, by controlling our impact on fragile ecosystems - but only because of our own interests, not because we face a animal-rights moral obligation to do so. Rejecting animal rights is not the same as welcoming the destruction of nature.


A big point of leftist is to not be selfish and egotistical, to help others, to protect the weak and those weaker than ourselves. Thats one reason right there to do so.I disagree - the proletariat should revolt because the abolition of capitalism is in their objective material interests, not because of a sense of "moral" duty or because people should be kind and compassionate. Socialism does not rely on altruism.


why should we have an obligation? I think personally that if humans are so darn selfish, egotistical, and narcissistic as to not give anything consideration 'because its not of our species' or'it's no direct benefit to us to do so' then we're not going to make it as a species. A big point of leftist is to not be selfish and egotistical, to help others, to protect the weak and those weaker than ourselves. Thats one reason right there to do so.What does "make it as a species" mean? Humans have been able to progress by using nature to suit our needs - including the use of animals as a source of nutrition and a method for transportation - and so why would unnecessarily protecting other species be conducive to our interests?


I need explain to you what is wrong with putting animals in little tiny dirty cages and slicing off their beaks?Yes, you need to give an explanation of why this is morally bad - emotive rhetoric is not sufficient. This is the most effective way to grow chickens in large quantities.


You dont seem to be bothered by animal abuse. The only reason for you is quite a narcissistic one. Correct - I don't care about animal "abuse" because my prime concern is the interests of human beings, and people should be able to use animals in whatever way they way without punishment, which includes the use of animals for sexual pleasure. We should only improve the conditions of animals if doing so serves the interests of our own species.

[careyprice31]

Correct - I don't care about animal "abuse" because my prime concern is the interests of human beings, and people should be able to use animals in whatever way they way without punishment, which includes the use of animals for sexual pleasure. We should only improve the conditions of animals if doing so serves the interests of our own species.[/quote]

what the fuck, bob, again Ill say that. I'll simply add that you're giving ammunition to people like Deja Vu and others who dont like leftism and who think that it has nothing to do with altruism and is based on selfishness and envy.

and also that i wouldnt want anyone with your beliefs within 6000 yards of my house.

I love my two pet cats and all animals and you wouldnt care if anyone hurt either of the non human members of my family.

if someone picked up a cat and shoved a penis up the cat's vagina and the poor cat is howling in pain, that wouldnt bother you in the least "because people should be able to use animals for whatever they want including sexual"? What the flying purple, red and grey fuck? what kind of a human are you?

freeing the proletariat has to do with altruism, leftists wanna do it because they care about them isnt that right? They know they are exploited and want to help them by getting a new system and getting rid of capitalism isnt that right? Thats altruism.

[BobKKKindle$]

Svetlana, there is something wrong with your quote function, it makes your posts hard to read.


freeing the proletariat has to do with altruism, leftists wanna do it because they care about them isnt that right? They know they are exploited and want to help them by getting a new system and getting rid of capitalism isnt that right? Thats altruism.I don't see how this is actually connected to the discussion - even if leftism is based on altruistic motives, why does this mean that animals should be given rights? Why should our altruism extend to non-human beings?

You have not dealt with any of the points I gave above (especially the meaning of the term "being" and the issue of plants and bacteria) and your position lacks any supporting arguments.


what kind of a human are you? People who gain sexual pleasure from animals should not be denied their sexual freedom - and so should be allowed to have intercourse with an animal, on the condition that the animal is not the property or a workers collective or an individual. It may be possible to breed animals for the sole purpose of providing sexual pleasure so that people are not forced to covertly use animals they do not own.


I love my two pet cats and all animals and you wouldnt care if anyone hurt either of the non human members of my family. Is this supposed to be an argument? I have a fish (called Lenin) and I would be upset if someone hurt my fish because the fish is my personal property - and so no-one can do anything to the fish unless I give my consent. I use my fish as a source of enjoyment and so my quality of life would be diminished if my fish were hurt.

[careyprice31]

"I don't see how this is actually connected to the discussion - even if leftism is based on altruistic motives, why does this mean that animals should be given rights? Why should our altruism extent to non-human beings?"

because they are weak and oppressed and if we only care about humans and nothing or nobody else we are just being hypocrites when we say we are leftists and we care about helping the weak and oppressed.

"You have not dealt with any of the points I gave above (especially the meaning of the term "being" and the issue of plants and bacteria) and your position lacks any supporting arguments."

They are beings. They live, they breathe, they have feelings. They arent human beings, but they are a kind of being. Of course when i walk i step on plants and bacteria. You cant help that. and we eat plants and such as well. Nothing wrong with hunting and gathering food. My aim is to not cause unnecessary destruction and abuse of nature. Bacteria do/did have their purpose, for example, some break down and recycle garbage, and some are used to make medicine. and the ones which cause disease......we are learning how to control and cure disease. Once they may have been needed to control populations, but they are becoming absolete. The world no longer needs them. I see nothing wrong with erdicating aids for example. We are learning to make a better world for animals and people.

"People who gain sexual pleasure from animals should not be denied their sexual freedom - and so should be allowed to have intercourse with an animal, on the condition that the animal is not the property or a workers collective or an individual. It may be possible to breed animals for the sole purpose of providing sexual pleasure so that people are not forced to covertly use animals they do not own."

im not replying to this. It just makes me angry. I'm better off keeping my mouth shut.

"Is this supposed to be an argument? I have a fish (called Lenin) and I would be upset if someone hurt my fish because the fish is my personal property - and so no-one can do anything to the fish unless I give my consent.[/quote]"

thats the only reason you think animals should be protected from abuse?

[BobKKKindle$]

because they are weak and oppressed and if we only care about humans and nothing or nobody else we are just being hypocrites when we say we are leftists and we care about helping the weak and oppressed.Leftism is based on human emancipation and arguably is derived from self-interest of the proletariat, not altruism, such that "mistreating" animals is not a form of hypocrisy, and basing your argument on emotive appeals is a deviation from the materialist perspective.

You need to establish what the criteria for according rights are, explain why these criteria should be used, and show how animals fit the criteria. Thus far you have not been able to achieve any of these tasks - all of which are necessary for your case.


They are beings. They live, they breathe, they have feelings.It can be argued that animals display all of these characteristics - but why do we face a moral obligation to protect something just because it is capable of breathing and displaying emotion? What is so important about these behavioral features that they justify giving a being rights?


im not replying to this. It just makes me angry. I'm better off keeping my mouth shut.So you have no response and support sexual oppression? How is support for sexual oppression compatible with a revolutionary outlook? It appears that you are the one guilty of hypocrisy.


thats the only reason you think animals should be protected from abuse?Animals should be protected when protection is in the interests of the individual owner and/or our collective interests as a species. Animals have no value beyond the utility they offer humans.

[MarxSchmarx]

Well, all I wish is that I could say "I'm a norwegian" without some rabid american woman accusing me of whale genocide.


Funny how this almost NEVER happens to a Japanese person. Why do you think there is a double standard there? :confused:

[Xiao Banfa]

That's bullshit. Go to Australia and NZ. Half the people probably don't even know that norwegians do it as well.

[MarxSchmarx]

That's bullshit. Go to Australia and NZ. Half the people probably don't even know that norwegians do it as well.So why do you suppose the Norwegians get a free pass in that part of the world but the Japanese don't?

[careyprice31]

Leftism is based on human emancipation and arguably is derived from self-interest of the proletariat, not altruism, such that "mistreating" animals is not a form of hypocrisy, and basing your argument on emotive appeals is a deviation from the materialist perspective.

You need to establish what the criteria for according rights are, explain why these criteria should be used, and show how animals fit the criteria. Thus far you have not been able to achieve any of these tasks - all of which are necessary for your case.

It can be argued that animals display all of these characteristics - but why do we face a moral obligation to protect something just because it is capable of breathing and displaying emotion? What is so important about these behavioral features that they justify giving a being rights?

So you have no response and support sexual oppression? How is support for sexual oppression compatible with a revolutionary outlook? It appears that you are the one guilty of hypocrisy.

Animals should be protected when protection is in the interests of the individual owner and/or our collective interests as a species. Animals have no value beyond the utility they offer humans.

I don't have to build a case nor explain anything. It is apparent to even a child that abusing little animals must not be tolerated. and i do not base my arguments on emotive appeals but on biological reality. This is a fact that luckily most people know. and luckily most do not share your views.

It should be apparent to you as well. Im sure you already know why your opinions would be regarded as completely scary and nut barish to most people.

"so I have no response and support sexual oppression? How is that compatible with a revolutionary outlook?"

Lemme ask you something. How is causing great pain to another creature compatible to a revolutionary outlook? Because that is what will happen if you let someone have sex with a cat against the cats will and it will hurt them. They can feel great pain you know. I am not against sexual oppression, but against other creatures being hurt. If a homosexual wanted sex with someone of the same gender against their will I wouldnt support that either. Not because im a homophobe and against sexual expression but because it is against another being's will and will hurt them.

Your building a straw man there. Im not against sexual oppression. You either ignored or missed my point.

So, according to your logic, it was all right for my uncle, who was an animal abuser, to kick his cat in the stomach while she was pregnant and force her to have a miscarriage, and almost killed her. It was all right for another one of his cats to get his tail caught in the spokes of a bike and scrape all the fur off his tail leaving it bloody and raw and having part of his spine fall off because the tail is part of the spine there are bones in it, and be left howling for days without medical attention? It was all right for him to refuse to get attention for the same cat years later when he got something caught in his throat and later choked to death? It was ok for him to abuse the pregnant cat he had and call her a slut and smack her and terrorize her because she got pregnant all the time even though it was his own fucking fault he never got her spayed?

but who gives a flying purple fuck according to your logic my uncle could do what he liked to his cats because they were just things and his property, right?

Wow, I thought Vanguard1917 was the most unusual guy I have ever met when it came to anti environmentalism, but you sir, really take the cake.

Vanguard may not like most environmentalists, but even he did not condone abuse.

[Intelligitimate]

bobkindles must be some sort of deranged Libertarian pretending to be a Trotskyist, or maybe a Spartacist (as they openly support NAMBLA).

[Xiao Banfa]

No. New Zealand and Australia has a big stinky pissy thread of anti-east asian racism.