Being heartbroken isn't enough!
Submitted by jiahk on Tue, 2006-09-26 14:41.
Canada allowed hunters to kill more than 300,000 baby seals this year—one of the largest quotas in history. Watch now to find out how to stop this.
Click here to watch the related video. Help Stop the Cruel Seal Hunt!
Delicious
Digg
Reddit»
- Login or register to post comments
- 65312 reads
- Email this image
- Thumbnail
- -32 points
mmm
baby seal is delicious.
Are humars superior to all animals alike?
Why is it that we find it illegal to kill a dog, or a cat, however it's perfectly legal to go hunting? perfectly legal to make fur coats? Why is it that the species of the animal controls the immorality of the act. Why should it be any more illegal to kill a human as to kill an animal? Are we really that better than them? So much that we can kill them and it be ok, but to kill our neighbor and theyd lock us up and throw away the key? We are no better than them, we may be more intelligent, but that does not in any way make us superior. They dont kill for fun, they dont rape.
I find the killing in the picture to be especially horrifying. When you hunt for deer, you kill the grown deer. At least in killing it it has lived most of its life. I am not in any way justifying the killing of the animal in that last sentance, merely saying that there is no apparent reason as to why he would kill a BABY seal. You cant get NEARLY as much fur, or hide, or even food from a baby seal as from a full grown seal. Not to mention it has not even been living for very long. Therefore the act of killing the baby seal is purely wrong, and i agree that he should be severely penalized.
In responce to: "If I ever meet a person that has killed a baby seal, I will do the only thing that will stop them from doing it again; I will kill them."
A majority of our society today may not agree with killing him because they were brought up to believe that murdering him is wrong, but that he should be put to jail. As far as i go, i believe that if these crimes persist, we must be doing something wrong, Whether it be our punishment system or not.
Also, somehow had previously said that you arent put to death for killing an ant. That is irrelavent because the difference in our size is immense, we can not control the killing of an ant crawling on the ground beneath us. When we kill them, its to get rid of an infestation or accidental. As you can see in the picture above, he was in no way 'accidentally' killing this innocent baby seal. In which case this should be a crime.
The cuteness of the animal should be totally irrelavent as to the morality and nothing to do with the reason as to why this is wrong. We dont eat chickens because they arent as cute as say, a cat. So why should it be more wrong to kill a certian animal over another.
"Why is it that we find it
"Why is it that we find it illegal to kill a dog, or a cat, however it's perfectly legal to go hunting? perfectly legal to make fur coats? Why is it that the species of the animal controls the immorality of the act." (Around here it's actually legal to shoot stray dogs and cats.)
Though killing is at times accidental, it is also sometimes negligent. It is possible to avoid killing the ant. As far as the "pest" comment, well, we're the pests. I don't see how size matters at all. I'm also not saying someone should be killed or sent to prison for killing a small animal, just so you know. All I'm saying is if we want to think of life as being equal, we have to consider the little creatures who we have the audacity to consider "pests", in the equation.
"The cuteness of the animal should be totally irrelavent as to the morality and nothing to do with the reason as to why this is wrong. We dont eat chickens because they arent as cute as say, a cat. So why should it be more wrong to kill a certian animal over another." I agree it should be irrelevent, but it's not. So why should size matter then? Should I be allowed to kill a hampster, because it is much smaller than I?
There I go with hypotheticals again....
Would you die for that seal?
Would you die for that seal? If you would, wouldn't you already be there? Why limit this to mammals? Let's say, you step on an ant tomorrow, should you be put to death because of it? I know ants aren't as cute as baby seals, but I think the question is worth the time it takes to ask it.
"...stereotype that make people vote republican..." This is a very interesting statement on many levels. I don't think it was extremism. What he said sounded more like realism to me. Though one thing, I don't think we're equal to the creatures whether they be mammals or not, they are superior to us. "A rat will do a lot of disgusting things, but he'll never fuck a dead rat. It wouldn't even occur to him". That kind of thing.
If instead of a seal that was a creature that you don't like, would you still be saying the same things? All humans everywhere are contantly killing other creatures. Even when we die ourselves, those that feed on us die as well. Are they not as important to the world as this seal? If we are to save the seals, we first must die. That's just the way it is. If you have a better solution that doesn't involve pointless legislation, I'm all eyes.
the dead kill the living.
Life dies for the dead; life lives for the living.
The living kill the dead; the dead kill the living.
This balance is real; justice is the observation of import to this reality.
Questioning the will of an individual over their subjective terms of agreement to act acording to this way will not allow any individual privilege. Dwelling in the relm of hypothetical will not prove anything... Would you this? Could you that? Should you this instead? Who knows anyway? Who cares?
Doesn't Ithinktoomuch offer a solution without any pointless legislation?
All life is equal.
The answer to a question is the silence spent thinking; not the time or noise in the head.
Actually, no. My
Actually, no. My hypothetical questions are quite valid. But you agree that stepping on an ant should be punishable by death, apparently. That's interesting. "All life is equal", incase you're wondering is where I came to the most obvious conclusion. I like how you squirm. Why bother? Why even respond to what I say if all you're going to do is avoid what I say? You're right though, it is easier to dismiss a valid idea than it is to actually address it. You are a great pupil of political science. The way you dodge the questions is legendary and truly reminiscent of Richard Nixon or even Bill "The Snake" Clinton. Perhaps you could reach the status of W. with a little practise, and pre-senile dementia. Oops, I forgot, if we don't adhere to your way of thought, your logic, we must be wrong. How illogical. If you're just to argue, admit it. This site could use someone like that.
Why not actually put some of your own ideas out there instead of criticizing everyone elses? Let us have a little fun with you for a change, if we so choose.
IThinkTooMuch's "solution" would be good, if there weren't companies around the world that pay good money to seal killers for the goods they produce. There will always be more seal killers willing to get paid no matter what the dangers, which are plentiful even without fools trying to shoot them. In the end we're not even willing to stand up for ourselves, but damned if we won't kill for a fetus or a seal, or even a government that's trying desperately to kill us. You almost have to love American politics, the irony of it all, is brilliant.
hmm... oh well
You sure are smart! Read a little deeper and you might find an understanding. I don't intend to skip stones with you. You seem to be stuck in the loop of logical expectation, and there is only one way out... Focus!
Speak affirmatively if you care to be heard. Rhetorical questions are not useful in conversation. I participate in this freespeech community because I hope to hear real people with something real to say, and I do not respond to what reads at best as thinking-out loud.
Haha focus on your
Haha focus on your irrationality and lies? I never asked a single rhetorical question. I actually was hoping they'd be answered by you, but in the end I did know better. Read a little deeper... Give me a break. You're about as deep as a quarter-inch puddle. Irrational scribblings don't make you deep. Thought makes you deep, and we all know what you believe about people who actually take the time to think things through, after all you've been more than willing to tell us.
I love people who blame their own ignorance and insanity on the world around them. As if it's everyone else's fault, that you are incoherent. If your goal is to gain depth, please by all means read a book once in a while, it really is a good start (but you do actually have to think). These pseudo-intellectuals are a big part of the problem in America. Though til now I've never met a single one that actually admits to not using their mind.
Precisely why I could never be religious... Swine just tastes too damn good.
Tell me please if I am being a little bit too honest, but you are no better than anyone, and one day someone will see a reason to teach you that one way or another. Until that day, you'll just be swine with nothing to say, and no way to say it. Hence the reason you try so damn desperately to bring everyone else down.
bow-wow
woof woof
bark bark bark
blah blah blah blah blah...
"f I ever meet a person that
"f I ever meet a person that has killed a baby seal, I will do the only thing that will stop them from doing it again; I will kill them.
A person forfeits their right to live, the moment they commit murder."
--that is the most hypocritical statement I've heard in a while. congratulations- you have again reinforced the extremist liberal stereotype that make people vote republican. its an eye for an eye, killing a human in exchange for a seal is like a head for a finger...
think before you speak...
thinking before you speak...
I believe they did think before they spoke. Not only that but their arguments are sound, there is no hypocracy in the statement that "a person forfeits their life, the moment they commit murder". They have broadened the usual definition to include mammals in the ethical equation. This is however nothing new. Countless religions and philosophies of the world have included mammals as being equal to humans. So if that's what they believe than that is their belief. You may disagree with their ethics but the ideas are not on their face hypocritical.
Furthermore I believe the statement: "congratulations- you have again reinforced the extremist liberal stereotype that make people vote republican," is in actuality the most morally bankrupt statement in this exchange, as if I should constantly monitor my behaviour and beliefs so as not to offend some rich banker on Wall Street. Your beliefs and actions should come from the heart, not calculations on what may or may not bring a majority vote at the next election.
But back to the original question: personally I believe the people most culpable, most at fault for the brutal death of the above innocent seal are the people wearing the fur.
Head for a finger?
Do you value the life of a human over the life of a seal? Ithinktoomuch seems to be saying the two lives are equal, and that somebody must act in favor of the victim of murder for there to be justice. I agree.
People that are capable of such violence against these beautiful seals are not alive; love does not pulse in their veins. The world could be a much better place for all life it not for such murderous scum.
eye for an eye
If I ever meet a person that has killed a baby seal, I will do the only thing that will stop them from doing it again; I will kill them.
A person forfeits their right to live, the moment they commit murder.
I Don't think its right...
the seals are so cute...nobody should have the right to murder one of them...and if you do you shouldn't be able to sleep...if you are a good person....
fur industry
the fur industry is so disgusting. we must not let any of our friends wear fur!