General News

Random Name · Post by **Random Name** » 3/1/2006, 7:58 pm

touche.

nikki4982 · Post by **nikki4982** » 3/1/2006, 8:01 pm

Random Name wrote:Where are you getting slavery? It’s a completely different topic. Not even good as an analogy. Human rights violations are not at all relatable to primary resources.

No, but it's comparible to animal rights violations.

Anyway, that's my last post in here. As always with animal rights topics, nobody's ever going to see this side of the argument.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 3/1/2006, 8:02 pm

Random Name wrote:Where are you getting slavery? It’s a completely different topic. Not even good as an analogy. Human rights violations are not at all relatable to primary resources.

Stop looking at the analogy and look at the point. Being a part of the culture does not make something right. Prove to me that fishing is right without saying "it's a part of the culture".

And I'm not trying to get you to agree with it. Hell, I don't even eat fish. But if you want to understand why it’s a part of our culture you have to know where it comes from.

Again, that doesn't make it right. I understand that it's a part of the culture. I understand that you can't just stop. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

There is this whole social perspective that you are totally missing.
(I'm not sure if it is still a tradition) In another country, it’s popular and traditional for a groom to take the sheets off his bed the day after the wedding and hang them outside his window. That way the stains they made on the sheets and bloodstains will be there to show off how he took his wife’s virginity. I'm sure you hear that and think it’s a horrible practice and should stop. But that’s only because it’s not common here. If it is right and honorable in their culture, why do you have the right to say its wrong?

I know you're going for moral relativism here. A common argument, and one that I'm not entirely against. But my point is that there may be practices that can be (and should be) considered universally wrong. Nikki, for example, draws that line somewhere before the killing of any animal.

Also, your last example is being used in the same way as my analogies. Are sheet stains blowing in the wind comparable to killing seals? no. But your point is no less valid for that.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 3/1/2006, 8:04 pm

And again, as far as moral relativism goes, being a part of the culture doesn't make something right, and doesn't grant it the right to universal acceptability.

Post by **saman** » 3/1/2006, 8:06 pm

i agree with sarah. i do agree that the killing of anything isn't ethically right, but in newfoundland's case, it's necessary. the population of newfoundland is almost entirely dependent on its fishery industry. culturally and economically. there are a very large number of newfoundlanders working in the fish industry. without it, they'd lose theirs jobs, become poor and homeless, and eventually die out. is that right?

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 3/1/2006, 8:08 pm

Okay. Yes. But it's neccessary because we have put ourselves in a position to become dependant on it.

And the point of all this (from Nikki's and now my perspective for the sake of argument) is that the seals should not be killed because of our stupidity.

Dr. Hobo · Post by **Dr. Hobo** » 3/1/2006, 8:11 pm

tell that to the ecosystem

Kathy · Post by **Kathy** » 3/1/2006, 8:20 pm

Yikes - sorry for starting all this.

Note to self... in the future, please avoid posting news about these kinds of subjects

Post by **saman** » 3/1/2006, 8:21 pm

Axtech wrote:Okay. Yes. But it's neccessary because we have put ourselves in a position to become dependant on it.

And the point of all this (from Nikki's and now my perspective for the sake of argument) is that the seals should not be killed because of our stupidity.

okay then, rob. please suggest an alternative way for the newfoundland people to earn their living.

well, i've stated my opinion anyway. make of it what you will

Matt. · Post by **Matt.** » 3/1/2006, 8:43 pm

saman wrote:okay then, rob. please suggest an alternative way for the newfoundland people to earn their living.

I agree.. And i'm done too.. I've stated my opinion and I don't know any of you well and don't want to come across as an idiot.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 3/1/2006, 8:52 pm

saman wrote:
Axtech wrote:Okay. Yes. But it's neccessary because we have put ourselves in a position to become dependant on it.

And the point of all this (from Nikki's and now my perspective for the sake of argument) is that the seals should not be killed because of our stupidity.
okay then, rob. please suggest an alternative way for the newfoundland people to earn their living.

well, i've stated my opinion anyway. make of it what you will

hahaha, I knew that was going to happen.

You expect me to solve the problem of a nation? Good call. My point is that something needs to be done, not that a 19 year old can single-handedly solve it.

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 3/1/2006, 10:14 pm

Maybe they can toss magic beans onto the frozen bedrock and everyone will live happily ever after including all the poor cute little cod!

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 3/1/2006, 10:38 pm

There's a difference between morality (what Nikki has been arguing for, and the cause that I've taken up in this thread) and practicality.

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 3/1/2006, 10:50 pm

Not in the real world.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 3/1/2006, 11:02 pm

What are you implying, though? That morality is irrelevant?

I'm arguing Nikki's view of morality. I didn't say "you must change now no matter how impractical!" I'm simply pointing out that a lack of convenient alternatives doesn't make something right.

Henrietta · Post by **Henrietta** » 3/1/2006, 11:38 pm

And my view on it is, they think it is right. Who are you to say it isn't? And who are they to say it is? Who is going to make them stop, and why? Because it's trendy to clap for animal rights?

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 3/1/2006, 11:45 pm

Again, moral relativism. However, Nikki (I'm using her as an example because her views fit the example better than my own) believes that killing anything is wrong. Saying that her belief is simply the result of a trend is somewhat crass and doesn't take into account the problem of morality. In any case, I don't think the fishing industry should be stopped tomorrow (impractical), so I'm done trying to argue her case in this one.

What are we even arguing at this point, anyways? I came into this saying that killing seals isn't the answer to solving the cod problem and that this is a poor excuse for the seal hunt, and somehow I've ended up arguing about the morality of fishing/the practicality of stopping the fishing industry. This isn't going anywhere.

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 3/2/2006, 12:46 am

Henrietta wrote:Who are you to say it isn't? And who are they to say it is?

Ahh, the great bane of our generation.
Or one of them anyway. At least thats what I think and who are you to say I'm wrong!

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 3/2/2006, 1:10 am

nikki4982 · Post by **nikki4982** » 3/2/2006, 1:23 am

Axtech wrote:Saying that her belief is simply the result of a trend is somewhat crass and doesn't take into account the problem of morality.

You forgot incredibly insulting.

Thanks, Cass. Those are my beliefs you're insulting there. Remember that the next time anyone critizes your religion.

ClumsyMonkey.net

ClumsyMonkey.net

General News