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.
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.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.
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.So me having compassion for a seal but not for cotton is hypocritical? Please explain.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
Um......WE do not define evil. God does. He gave man meat to eat. I trust His word over yours. Sorry.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Is that what the passage actually says, or is that just your interpretation? http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/hrafall.htm
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?