Sea Shepherd Society Cares More About the Deaths of Seals than People
This is so repugnant: Four seal hunters drowned when their boat capsized while being towed--a terrible tragedy. But to the radical Paul Watson, head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, the deaths of the seals killed in the hunt is worse. From the story:
The disgusting comments caused Elizabeth May, an adviser to Sea Shepherd to quit. Her comments show a proper humanity:Fishermen were infuriated when they heard comments by Watson that were broadcast on a local radio station on Friday morning.
In a statement this week, Watson said, "The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society recognizes that the deaths of four sealers is a tragedy but Sea Shepherd also recognizes that the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of seal pups is an even greater tragedy."...
Watson described sealers as "sadistic baby killers" and "vicious killers who are now pleading for sympathy because some of their own died while engaged in a viciously brutal activity."
"There's a point at which someone's comments are just so completely repugnant," May told CBC News Friday. "We're just reeling from the loss of these men at sea, and whether you support the seal hunt or not, you want all the seal hunters to get home to their families safely."Good for May. Too bad Watson can't find that level of charity in his heart. But who is surprised? Over the years Watson has demonstrated himself to be radically anti-human--as when he called for a "radical and invasive therapy" to cure the affliction of the human race on the planet, a statement in which he likened us to the "AIDS virus."
Labels: Sea Shepherd Society
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 3:53 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
I hate to venture off topic, but seals really don't appeal to me as creatures. Are they fish? Why are they so slow on land and so fast in the water?
My youngest son has converted part of the outdoor of the property into a mink habitat. There are about 30 of them in there, I would guess, and he raises them until they reach the end of their natural life--then and only then do we have the pelt collected.
The abuse we have received over the years has been astounding. We were hounded and hounded by neighbors when we lived just outside of Manchester, NH. I have moved to Maryland in part because I now work in the lobbying field and in part because people here don't seem to care.
One misconception people have--viciousness. Can't stress it enough. Yes, they are that vicious. My God, I sometimes wonder if I shouldn't invest in a dog trainer suit--you know, the suit that the man gets into and the German Shepherd all but mounts him as it attacks him? Wow.
If we catch any of that trouble from the wackos here, my son Byron has said he would give up the animals and go into guinea pigs or pot bellied pigs from Vietnam.
Norman,
I think you have a misunderstanding about the protection of animals and why people fight to protect them. It doesn't matter if seals do not appeal to you (or anyone else) as a creature, there is a need to conserve these animals, cute and cuddly or as 'vicious' as a Great White. It is odd that you mention the mink is vicious- remember they are a wild animal and you are their predator! Generally, humans have an attitude that we are the best, most advanced species, many of us forget we share this world with other species as well. They can't protect themselves against our own powers, so someone needs to be their voice. I almost think of it as defending our own children- animals are innocent and defenseless. We destroy their homes and kill them. Back to Sea shepherd, their goal is to protect and conserve. I don't necessarily agree with his approach and comment, however, the seal hunt is a tragedy as well.
By the way, seals are mammals just like us. They are pinnipeds "finned-feet" because they live on land and in the water using their fins as feet and swimming appendages.
Stefanie: Animals are not like our children. They are animals. Nor are they innocent. They are amoral. You are not "their" voice. You are engaged in arguing for human duties, a distinctly human endeavor that no other animal in the known universe is capable. In other words we are the most advanced species, but that gives us obligations as well as rights. No other species has either.
Wesley,
Animals do have rights. According to the Webster Dictonary, rights are something that one may properly claim as due, or something to which one has a just claim. Living is a universal right. As is food and shelter. The word "right" does not include animals. We do not have a right to exploit animals for selfish and egotistical purposes. Regardless if animals are moral or not, we are a species that does, and anyone that has a moral fibre knows that over exploitation is IMMORAL. Animals ARE the innocent party, they are the victims of our destruction, and if no one stops us, who will?
*The word "right" does not EXCLUDE animals
Living is a universal right? Are you kidding me? Only as against humans. The zebra has no right not to be killed by the lion. It's all about humanity. Animals are amoral and oblivious to all of this.
So, your end statement basically agrees with me. This is about defining the depth and extent of human duties. That's is because we are exceptional.
So was Buffalo Bill right for clubbing and killing women to wear there skins? Is that YOUR judicial system? The lion does not kill the zebra for sport, nor as an entrepeneurship. These furs can be simulated now, so there is no need to continue using other creatures skins for warmth. If you can demonstrate an actual NEED to continue these acts, you let me know. In the meantime, in international waters, all is fair game. (The battle will continue until the madness ends, get over it.)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home