• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Seal Clubbing

ScottA

Author: Walking Like Einstein
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2011
4,309
657
✟78,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is seal clubbing moral? Why or why not? For me, the only logical answer is that it is completely evil to murder animals for luxury items.
No. True, there are those who would wear furs for vanity...but not if they are hot. So...even if they do wear them for vanity...it is first for warmth. So then it's a matter of choice: fur or some other thermal fabric. But let's not kid ourselves, animal furs mean taking a life, but synthetics rape the ecology, and even wool could be looked at as stealing or abusive. The point is, seals are NOT clubbed for vanity at all. And selective limits to resources because we have a compassion for one source of goods over another...borders, even suggests, hypocrisy. We ARE after all, by God, consumers.
 
Upvote 0

Conscious Z

Newbie
Oct 23, 2012
608
30
✟15,863.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No. True, there are those who would wear furs for vanity...but not if they are hot. So...even if they do wear them for vanity...it is first for warmth. So then it's a matter of choice: fur or some other thermal fabric. But let's not kid ourselves, animal furs mean taking a life, but synthetics rape the ecology, and even wool could be looked at as stealing or abusive. The point is, seals are NOT clubbed for vanity at all. And selective limits to resources because we have a compassion for one source of goods over another...borders, even suggests, hypocrisy. We ARE after all, by God, consumers.

So me having compassion for a seal but not for cotton is hypocritical? Please explain.
 
Upvote 0

ScottA

Author: Walking Like Einstein
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2011
4,309
657
✟78,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So me having compassion for a seal but not for cotton is hypocritical? Please explain.
Yes, ALL forms of fulfilling our need for clothing from nature are equal, in that they all "take" something. If you rip up the landscape and habitat to plant cotton...you are just as guilty of killing fury little critters as someone who clubs a seal pup. The difference is, you don't know what you have done, and yet are judging those who do and are honest about it. That is the hypocrisy.
 
Upvote 0

StephanieSomer

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2014
2,065
512
69
Chesapeake, VA
✟27,328.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Is seal clubbing moral? Why or why not? For me, the only logical answer is that it is completely evil to murder animals for luxury items.

In the words of the immortal Archie Bunker, "Would it make you feel any better, little girlie, if theys was thrown out the window?".

However, I tend to lean towards your sentiment since I have a tender view of God's creations, even if I object to your use of the word "murder". Murder can only be inflicted on humans. A specific animal killing may be immoral, but that doesn't justify the use of the word "murder". But, even with that in mind, the killing of an animal for it's skin isn't something I would call immoral. God did it first. My only objection would be if the method used was unnecessarily painful for the creature. I am aware that a quick blow to the head IS the preferred method of dispatch for numerous species. It's quick, and nearly painless for the animal, provided it is done correctly. And it is preferred over other methods because it is the least painful. IF this is how the seals are dispatched, I see it as merciful, as opposed to death by spear. But I must confess that I am not certain that "clubbing" equates to a quick blow to the head or not. My impression is that it is exactly that, since clubbing the body of the animal would make the skin unfit for use.

Your inclusion of the word "luxury" makes me wonder if your position isn't based more on class envy than on principle. That may not be a valid question, but it is the most logical explanation of it's use.
 
Upvote 0

Mrs Awesome

Active Member
Mar 11, 2015
123
21
✟577.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
It is most definitely immoral! Not only is it murdering an animal, but it is also abusive in how the murdering is done. I mean, come on! Choosing to club the poor thing to death vs. just shooting it clean and simple? It seems to satisfy a deep-seeded immoral longing that some people have to create pain and suffering in others, including animals. It's sad and wrong. It needs to stop. I'm sure God is looking down on us in disgust.
 
Upvote 0

StephanieSomer

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2014
2,065
512
69
Chesapeake, VA
✟27,328.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It is most definitely immoral! Not only is it murdering an animal, but it is also abusive in how the murdering is done. I mean, come on! Choosing to club the poor thing to death vs. just shooting it clean and simple? It seems to satisfy a deep-seeded immoral longing that some people have to create pain and suffering in others, including animals. It's sad and wrong. It needs to stop. I'm sure God is looking down on us in disgust.


The problem with your logic is that it is not murder. Murder can only be inflicted on a human by a human.
 
Upvote 0

StephanieSomer

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2014
2,065
512
69
Chesapeake, VA
✟27,328.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"Why do hunters club seals?

It's safe and easy, and it preserves the seal's valuable pelt. Federal laws in Canada give a sealer three ways to hunt his prey. He can shoot a seal with a rifle or shotgun—provided it's above a minimum caliber or gauge; he can break its head with a blunt club (like a baseball bat) that must be at least 2 feet long; or he can smash in its brains with something called a hakapik—a 4- or 5-foot wooden pole with a bent, metal spike affixed to the end.
In general, a sealer will use a hakapik or club if at all possible. That's because with these weapons, it's much easier to aim a blow directly at the seal pup's head. One swing from a hakapik will usually kill a pup right away. By law, you have to keep clubbing the seal in the forehead until you know for sure that it's dead."
From http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/03/why_do_they_club_seals.html

Also,
"In the Canadian commercial seal hunt, the majority of the hunters initiate the kill using a firearm. Ninety percent of sealers on the ice floes of the Front (east of Newfoundland), where the majority of the hunt occurs, use firearms.

An older and more traditional method of killing seals is with a hakapik: a heavy wooden club with a hammer head and metal hook on the end. The hakapik is used because of its efficiency; the animal can be killed quickly without damage to its pelt. The hammer head is used to crush the seals' thin skulls, while the hook is used to move the carcasses. Canadian sealing regulations describe the dimensions of the clubs and the hakapiks, and caliber of the rifles and minimum bullet velocity, that can be used. They state: "Every person who strikes a seal with a club or hakapik shall strike the seal on the forehead until its skull has been crushed," and that "No person shall commence to skin or bleed a seal until the seal is dead," which occurs when it "has a glassy-eyed, staring appearance and exhibits no blinking reflex when its eye is touched while it is in a relaxed condition." Reportedly, in one study, three out of eight times, the animal was not rendered either dead or unconscious by shooting, and the hunters would then kill the seal using a hakapik or other club of a type that is sanctioned by the governing authority.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_hunting

Hunters aren't uncaring, malicious marauders inflicting needless agony on these animals. The clubbing is used to reduce the suffering, not make it worse. People need to be honest enough to actually look at what is happening, and why, instead of reacting emotionally to what appears to be cruel. Cruelty isn't being inflicted.

Case in point. I have been looking at the prospect of raising rabbits at home for my own personal meat production. The practice is more widespread than you'd think. LOTS of people do it. The recommended method of slaughter is a quick blow to the head, then slitting the throat. The purpose of the blow to the head is to stun them into a state of senselessness so that pain is eliminated and the slitting of the throat is to produce death. The initial blow eliminates any pain caused by the throat slit. I might remind you that the OT method of sacrificial slaughter, as prescribed by God, did not include the blow to the head. Live and fully conscious animals had their throats slit. If any death of an animal is necessarily cruel, then you've got some splainin' to do.
 
Upvote 0

Conscious Z

Newbie
Oct 23, 2012
608
30
✟15,863.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes, ALL forms of fulfilling our need for clothing from nature are equal, in that they all "take" something. If you rip up the landscape and habitat to plant cotton...you are just as guilty of killing fury little critters as someone who clubs a seal pup. The difference is, you don't know what you have done, and yet are judging those who do and are honest about it. That is the hypocrisy.

You seem to be assuming that the moral crime in question here is destruction of the environment rather than the infliction of suffering on a sentient creature. Why is it not a moral crime to inflict suffering on a sentient creature for no good reason? Also, what if my method of getting clothing was killing humans for their skin and hair. Would you still hold that all forms of fulfilling my need for clothing were equal?
 
Upvote 0

Conscious Z

Newbie
Oct 23, 2012
608
30
✟15,863.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
"Why do hunters club seals?

It's safe and easy, and it preserves the seal's valuable pelt. Federal laws in Canada give a sealer three ways to hunt his prey. He can shoot a seal with a rifle or shotgun—provided it's above a minimum caliber or gauge; he can break its head with a blunt club (like a baseball bat) that must be at least 2 feet long; or he can smash in its brains with something called a hakapik—a 4- or 5-foot wooden pole with a bent, metal spike affixed to the end.
In general, a sealer will use a hakapik or club if at all possible. That's because with these weapons, it's much easier to aim a blow directly at the seal pup's head. One swing from a hakapik will usually kill a pup right away. By law, you have to keep clubbing the seal in the forehead until you know for sure that it's dead."
From http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/03/why_do_they_club_seals.html

Also,
"In the Canadian commercial seal hunt, the majority of the hunters initiate the kill using a firearm. Ninety percent of sealers on the ice floes of the Front (east of Newfoundland), where the majority of the hunt occurs, use firearms.

An older and more traditional method of killing seals is with a hakapik: a heavy wooden club with a hammer head and metal hook on the end. The hakapik is used because of its efficiency; the animal can be killed quickly without damage to its pelt. The hammer head is used to crush the seals' thin skulls, while the hook is used to move the carcasses. Canadian sealing regulations describe the dimensions of the clubs and the hakapiks, and caliber of the rifles and minimum bullet velocity, that can be used. They state: "Every person who strikes a seal with a club or hakapik shall strike the seal on the forehead until its skull has been crushed," and that "No person shall commence to skin or bleed a seal until the seal is dead," which occurs when it "has a glassy-eyed, staring appearance and exhibits no blinking reflex when its eye is touched while it is in a relaxed condition." Reportedly, in one study, three out of eight times, the animal was not rendered either dead or unconscious by shooting, and the hunters would then kill the seal using a hakapik or other club of a type that is sanctioned by the governing authority.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_hunting

Hunters aren't uncaring, malicious marauders inflicting needless agony on these animals. The clubbing is used to reduce the suffering, not make it worse. People need to be honest enough to actually look at what is happening, and why, instead of reacting emotionally to what appears to be cruel. Cruelty isn't being inflicted.

Case in point. I have been looking at the prospect of raising rabbits at home for my own personal meat production. The practice is more widespread than you'd think. LOTS of people do it. The recommended method of slaughter is a quick blow to the head, then slitting the throat. The purpose of the blow to the head is to stun them into a state of senselessness so that pain is eliminated and the slitting of the throat is to produce death. The initial blow eliminates any pain caused by the throat slit. I might remind you that the OT method of sacrificial slaughter, as prescribed by God, did not include the blow to the head. Live and fully conscious animals had their throats slit. If any death of an animal is necessarily cruel, then you've got some splainin' to do.

If I were to club you in the head, would you think it wasn't cruel so long as I did it until you were dead?
 
Upvote 0

StephanieSomer

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2014
2,065
512
69
Chesapeake, VA
✟27,328.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If I were to club you in the head, would you think it wasn't cruel so long as I did it until you were dead?

Irrelevant. We're not talking about killing humans. We're talking about killing seals. They are not at all the same thing. Your comparison falls apart. Clubbing seals isn't murder. Nor is it cruel. Shooting one in the head and not killing it then leaving it to suffer until it finally dies IS cruel. And, immediate death from gunshot does NOT happen a third of the time. Clubbing dispatches them immediately to prevent cruelty. MOST seals are NOT clubbed.
 
Upvote 0

Mrs Awesome

Active Member
Mar 11, 2015
123
21
✟577.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
The problem with your logic is that it is not murder. Murder can only be inflicted on a human by a human.

I consider it murder. This is not a problem with my logic. Many other people consider killing animals for food, for pleasure, for clothing, for anything to be murder.
 
Upvote 0

StephanieSomer

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2014
2,065
512
69
Chesapeake, VA
✟27,328.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I consider it murder. This is not a problem with my logic. Many other people consider killing animals for food, for pleasure, for clothing, for anything to be murder.

Have you no need or desire to be understood? Words mean things. Their meanings aren't unique to the individual. They have definitions. Go look it up in a dictionary. That's what they're for. So that we can all be using the same words, which are defined in specific ways, and be understood. You CAN consider it whatever you want. But if that personal interpretation differs from the actual specific meaning, it indicates that you are arguing from a basis of pure emotion, and not sense. Emotional arguments are most usually riddled with nonsense and inaccuracies.
 
Upvote 0

nebulaJP

Well-Known Member
Jul 15, 2011
688
51
✟23,663.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Single
To broaden the subject even more, the healthiest food we can serve our pet dogs is meat. Would you deny our pets this nutrition?

I have three cats and feed them meat cat food. This is immoral to do, no different than raising dogs and cats in deplorable conditions in order to make food for pet chickens, turkeys or pigs. Should dogs and cats be subjected to the treatment shown in the pictures? Well that is nothing compared to the cruelty livestock endure in the US. And each and every one of those farm animals has just as much individuality, personality and right to live as any dog or cat.

I condemn them to death because I consider the health of my cats more important than the life of other animals. I do that because I'm evil, but I'm not evil enough to consume animal products myself when it isn't necessary for my survival. I would need to be ESPECIALLY evil for that.

9709521_orig.jpg

guangzhou_cats.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mrs Awesome
Upvote 0

StephanieSomer

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2014
2,065
512
69
Chesapeake, VA
✟27,328.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I have three cats and feed them meat cat food. This is immoral to do, no different than raising dogs and cats in deplorable conditions in order to make food for pet chickens, turkeys or pigs. Should dogs and cats be subjected to the treatment shown in the pictures? Well that is nothing compared to the cruelty livestock endure in the US. And each and every one of those farm animals has just as much individuality, personality and right to live as any dog or cat.

I condemn them to death because I consider the health of my cats more important than the life of other animals. I do that because I'm evil, but I'm not evil enough to consume animal products myself when it isn't necessary for my survival. I would need to be ESPECIALLY evil for that.

Um......WE do not define evil. God does. He gave man meat to eat. I trust His word over yours. Sorry.
 
Upvote 0

nebulaJP

Well-Known Member
Jul 15, 2011
688
51
✟23,663.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Single
Rape is not part of the "circle of life".

Death is part of life. Death is a consequence of life. Death is not inherently bad or wrong. Death is necessary.


Rape is none of those things so I think the comparison fails.

Your life/death thing is true but in climates or societies in which eating meat isn’t necessary for survival, why does it have to be animal death? Why can’t it just be plant death?

These animals are capable of expressing love. They can form deep and obvious trust and affection for a human being. Why be so indifferent to their suffering?

So it seems to be more about “pleasure because we can” than necessity to me.
 
Upvote 0

nebulaJP

Well-Known Member
Jul 15, 2011
688
51
✟23,663.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Single
Perhaps you could address it to point out my poor logic. My point is that if you attribute higher moral status to humans (because humans can be locked up for murder while animals can't)

I asked before why does moral status depend on responsibility for one's actions and I don't think I was given an adequate reply. A toddler or adult with a severe mental disability cannot be locked up for murder either; does that mean they have a lower moral status?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

nebulaJP

Well-Known Member
Jul 15, 2011
688
51
✟23,663.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Single
Yes, ALL forms of fulfilling our need for clothing from nature are equal, in that they all "take" something. If you rip up the landscape and habitat to plant cotton...you are just as guilty of killing fury little critters as someone who clubs a seal pup. The difference is, you don't know what you have done, and yet are judging those who do and are honest about it. That is the hypocrisy.

We are not morally responsible for animals we kill unintentionally.
 
Upvote 0

nebulaJP

Well-Known Member
Jul 15, 2011
688
51
✟23,663.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0