![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
narcasseFandom Wank turned up a spectacular piece of unresarched objection to the whaling of baby seals. Yes, I’m going to keep calling it whaling. It makes me think of sushi that way.
The commentary is quite fun and turns up things like this (scroll down to the bottom) but what it really all boils down to is that lack of research that’s gone into the protest and the way that any protest seems to be occurring.
It’s like the fox-hunting debate here in the UK. There’s not much of a debate left but what it did essentially boil down to was an emotive argument against ‘cruelty to the little fluffy foxes’. The people involved in hunting weren’t given a fair hearing and public opinion won out. The problems of farmers who had to deal with the foxes weren’t given as much weight as the opinion of the city dwelling majority who argued on the basis of the unfairness of the situation to the animals. I’d rather presume that the hunt would give the fox a sporting chance, where as poisoning, shooting using night-vision goggles and so on wouldn’t.
It’s not so much the actual debate that would annoy me but rather the fact that hard facts were being ignored in the face of an emotive argument. Facts on both sides would have created a reasonable debate. Fox hunting might still have been banned but it would have been a fairer decision rather that one founded on an irrational mob mentality.
Emotive arguments are dangerous because of their irrationality; they’re also irritating because of the often presumed self-righteousness of their advocates. The alleged animal-rights activists who threatened the lives of several researches involved with animal testing for medical purpose at King’s College, London were no more than terrorists attempting to use scare tactics. If they really objected so strongly and had that high a regard for life then why they weren’t helping fund alternative and viable methods of pharmaceutical testing, I don’t know. Because that’s the problem really, all this enthusiasm and dedication goes into such destructive things which don’t help solve the problem at all. But of course threatening to kill someone is more glamorous than quietly supporting a viable alternative.
Protest all you like, reason, debate, argue but when anyone brings violence into the equation they shouldn’t be surprised when others then begin to suspect the validity of their argument.
Keep U.S. animal rights activists away from seal hunt, premier says (CBC News article)
Vlasak, a California surgeon and member of the Animal Liberation Front, was banned from Britain for advocating the murder of scientists who use animals in research.
"If it takes 10 to 15 vivisectors' lives to save 10 million animal lives, yes, I support that," he said.
Isn’t it interesting how readily human life is dismissed in favour of some emotive cause? Threatening violence instead of using reason doesn’t make anyone a hero; it makes them a fool and a violently dangerous fool at that. It’s just this sort of philosophy that leads to the sort of protestor who tramples GM crops without any understanding of basic science and ends up spreading the modified spoors, that they’d fought so hard to keep out of the environment, just that little bit faster. Murdering scientists isn’t going to change anything, what it’s going to do is persuade maybe one or two who might have wavered, that by carrying on in their field they’re doing right by science and the advancement of humanity. Idealism isn’t the sole province of wackjobs no matter what the wackjobs may think. It’s not that the rest of the world doesn’t understand, only that this sort of protest gives no recourse other than to stand in defiance of it. Perhaps it’s basic reverse psychology and the longer this sort of protest goes on, this terrorism, no one is even going to consider whatever cause that these people purport to fight for as valid. I certainly know I won’t.
But back to the seal whaling itself. The facts are rather less extreme than the protestors would like to acknowledge.
Whitecoats are newborn harp seals. Most Canadians can recall pictures of whitecoated seal pups being clubbed. The images were so inflammatory that Canada banned all hunting of whitecoats in 1987. You'd never know that from some of the anti-sealing groups that still prominently display pictures of whitecoats on their websites and in fundraising materials.
The Atlantic seal hunt – FAQs (CBC News article)
The accusation that seal pups are often skinned alive is perhaps the most entertaining out of the lot. Shoot a horse through the skull and its legs will still twitch in death throes. Not because it’s still alive but because the chemicals responsible for the function of the autonomic nervous system are still present. In fact it’s not exactly difficult to sustain ‘life’ after the higher brain functions have been shut down anyway.
Its little tricks like this that often involve ignoring scientific detail that really do invalidate the argument, many arguments, of this nature. When the argument against anything seems to be founded less on hard facts and a genuine sense of sympathy for the plight of whatever may be concerned and more in sense of playing at moral superiority or attempting to create some over inflated sense of self-importance in its adherents, then it stops being about said cause at all really. And were I to be particularly cruel, it might even speak more of a deficiency in such individuals than say anything about the cause they were purported to be supporting. It’s like the sentiment I once heard; that people who join GreenPeace are desperately trying to find somewhere to belong.
Of course civil and rational protest probably doesn’t get this sort of coverage but I’m willing to bet that it gets a hell of a lot more done.
CBC News links courtesy of![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nekonexus.
If you don’t read anything else I’ve babbled on about here, take a glance at the FAQ and bear in mind that while the information is out there, the fashionably vocal protestors keep choosing to ignore it.
-----
And an update link courtesy ofnekonexus once again): Ottawa won’t bar all seal-hunt observers
Speaking in St. John's, Hearn stopped short of imposing a ban on all observers, saying the annual hunt, which is now underway, must remain open to public scrutiny.
Hearn also promised tough action against any observer who tries to confront the sealers.
"If you step over that line and try to interfere in any way with the hunt, then you can be arrested and charged," he said.
Well, it's a start at least.
The commentary is quite fun and turns up things like this (scroll down to the bottom) but what it really all boils down to is that lack of research that’s gone into the protest and the way that any protest seems to be occurring.
It’s like the fox-hunting debate here in the UK. There’s not much of a debate left but what it did essentially boil down to was an emotive argument against ‘cruelty to the little fluffy foxes’. The people involved in hunting weren’t given a fair hearing and public opinion won out. The problems of farmers who had to deal with the foxes weren’t given as much weight as the opinion of the city dwelling majority who argued on the basis of the unfairness of the situation to the animals. I’d rather presume that the hunt would give the fox a sporting chance, where as poisoning, shooting using night-vision goggles and so on wouldn’t.
It’s not so much the actual debate that would annoy me but rather the fact that hard facts were being ignored in the face of an emotive argument. Facts on both sides would have created a reasonable debate. Fox hunting might still have been banned but it would have been a fairer decision rather that one founded on an irrational mob mentality.
Emotive arguments are dangerous because of their irrationality; they’re also irritating because of the often presumed self-righteousness of their advocates. The alleged animal-rights activists who threatened the lives of several researches involved with animal testing for medical purpose at King’s College, London were no more than terrorists attempting to use scare tactics. If they really objected so strongly and had that high a regard for life then why they weren’t helping fund alternative and viable methods of pharmaceutical testing, I don’t know. Because that’s the problem really, all this enthusiasm and dedication goes into such destructive things which don’t help solve the problem at all. But of course threatening to kill someone is more glamorous than quietly supporting a viable alternative.
Protest all you like, reason, debate, argue but when anyone brings violence into the equation they shouldn’t be surprised when others then begin to suspect the validity of their argument.
Keep U.S. animal rights activists away from seal hunt, premier says (CBC News article)
Vlasak, a California surgeon and member of the Animal Liberation Front, was banned from Britain for advocating the murder of scientists who use animals in research.
"If it takes 10 to 15 vivisectors' lives to save 10 million animal lives, yes, I support that," he said.
Isn’t it interesting how readily human life is dismissed in favour of some emotive cause? Threatening violence instead of using reason doesn’t make anyone a hero; it makes them a fool and a violently dangerous fool at that. It’s just this sort of philosophy that leads to the sort of protestor who tramples GM crops without any understanding of basic science and ends up spreading the modified spoors, that they’d fought so hard to keep out of the environment, just that little bit faster. Murdering scientists isn’t going to change anything, what it’s going to do is persuade maybe one or two who might have wavered, that by carrying on in their field they’re doing right by science and the advancement of humanity. Idealism isn’t the sole province of wackjobs no matter what the wackjobs may think. It’s not that the rest of the world doesn’t understand, only that this sort of protest gives no recourse other than to stand in defiance of it. Perhaps it’s basic reverse psychology and the longer this sort of protest goes on, this terrorism, no one is even going to consider whatever cause that these people purport to fight for as valid. I certainly know I won’t.
But back to the seal whaling itself. The facts are rather less extreme than the protestors would like to acknowledge.
Whitecoats are newborn harp seals. Most Canadians can recall pictures of whitecoated seal pups being clubbed. The images were so inflammatory that Canada banned all hunting of whitecoats in 1987. You'd never know that from some of the anti-sealing groups that still prominently display pictures of whitecoats on their websites and in fundraising materials.
The Atlantic seal hunt – FAQs (CBC News article)
The accusation that seal pups are often skinned alive is perhaps the most entertaining out of the lot. Shoot a horse through the skull and its legs will still twitch in death throes. Not because it’s still alive but because the chemicals responsible for the function of the autonomic nervous system are still present. In fact it’s not exactly difficult to sustain ‘life’ after the higher brain functions have been shut down anyway.
Its little tricks like this that often involve ignoring scientific detail that really do invalidate the argument, many arguments, of this nature. When the argument against anything seems to be founded less on hard facts and a genuine sense of sympathy for the plight of whatever may be concerned and more in sense of playing at moral superiority or attempting to create some over inflated sense of self-importance in its adherents, then it stops being about said cause at all really. And were I to be particularly cruel, it might even speak more of a deficiency in such individuals than say anything about the cause they were purported to be supporting. It’s like the sentiment I once heard; that people who join GreenPeace are desperately trying to find somewhere to belong.
Of course civil and rational protest probably doesn’t get this sort of coverage but I’m willing to bet that it gets a hell of a lot more done.
CBC News links courtesy of
nekonexus.If you don’t read anything else I’ve babbled on about here, take a glance at the FAQ and bear in mind that while the information is out there, the fashionably vocal protestors keep choosing to ignore it.
-----
And an update link courtesy of
nekonexus once again): Ottawa won’t bar all seal-hunt observersSpeaking in St. John's, Hearn stopped short of imposing a ban on all observers, saying the annual hunt, which is now underway, must remain open to public scrutiny.
Hearn also promised tough action against any observer who tries to confront the sealers.
"If you step over that line and try to interfere in any way with the hunt, then you can be arrested and charged," he said.
Well, it's a start at least.
