The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3128863.stm
To study the whales impact on fish stocks? Would it not be better to revise the well documented effect that humanity is having on them instead?
It is us that is killing off the stocks that thousands of other species depend upon, not the other way around.
And what difference would the results of this "scientific catch" make?
"Oh, there's too many whales and not enough fish or something, so we can hunt a shedload more of them!" is the only answer I can see them looking to find.
The ignorance of Pro-whaling countries never ceases to disgust me.
To study the whales impact on fish stocks? Would it not be better to revise the well documented effect that humanity is having on them instead?
It is us that is killing off the stocks that thousands of other species depend upon, not the other way around.
And what difference would the results of this "scientific catch" make?
"Oh, there's too many whales and not enough fish or something, so we can hunt a shedload more of them!" is the only answer I can see them looking to find.
The ignorance of Pro-whaling countries never ceases to disgust me.
Page:
Goddess Belldandy wrote:
> But on everything else, I agree.
This just in, Hell officially freezes over.
> But on everything else, I agree.
This just in, Hell officially freezes over.
For once, and disturbingly yet again this week, I agree with most of your reply Light, excpet the motives for going to war. Obvisouly everyone has their own thoughts on this, but I honestly and truly believe that freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam's reign of terror that had lasted far too long was one motivation to finally give the 'execute' command. I know WMD was the main reason given, and I still believe the evidence is there, but lets not get sidetracked...
I believe saving those people was part of the reason we went in, not the only one, but it was one. Already the lack of enthusiasm for an Iraq venture shown by US oil companies is dispelling the myth that this was about establishing American oil supplies in the middle east.
But on everything else, I agree.
I believe saving those people was part of the reason we went in, not the only one, but it was one. Already the lack of enthusiasm for an Iraq venture shown by US oil companies is dispelling the myth that this was about establishing American oil supplies in the middle east.
But on everything else, I agree.
Practical Magic wrote:
> I'll readily admit my knowledge on the fox hunting thing is scant, I'm
> just saying things based on my perception of it and what I've
> read/seen.
>
> That's about what a lot of people do anyway, so whilst it's,
> admittedly, not the best basis for an opinion, it isnt't entirely
> wrong, is it ?
God no! What I have the problem with is the refusal to amend ones initial position based on newly received information. That, in a nutshell, is why I've always given you such a hard time.
>
> Even so, my belief that human rights come over animal rights is a
> personal one, and in that respect I cannot be wrong.
Absolutely. Whenever I've pulled you up about a personal opinion, I've generally wanted an explanation of just what train of thought brought you to that conclusion. Whilst I still think your logic behind your beliefs concerning animal rights is deeply flawed, you've explained why you believe it.
>
> I'm quite aware of some of the causes of the deaths of Iraqi's
> 1991-2003, though you should note that the UN resolution, brough about
> by pressure from China and Russia and others, was the deciding factor
> in not continuing the war into Iraq. The resolution passed to enable
> Desert Storm and Shield said that Iraqi forces had to be returned to
> 1990 positions, and did not give remit to pursue them further. The USA
> And UK tried to inspire an uprising, hoping that the rebels could gain
> enough ground to get out an official request for intervention,
> allowing USA and UK forces to bypass the UN resolution and move in.
> That didn't happen. When other nations have failed to act in the past
> to help the removal of people like Saddam it stems from the same
> thing, lack of will to act.
Yup, the lack of military action due to the UN resolution did indeed suck ass. But the simple fact is that if the US and UK were serious about wanting to help Iraq (the justification they eventually arrived on when every single other attempt to explain why it was being done turned out to be exaggerated at best, untrue at worst) then they would have defied the UN back then and saved lives. I agree that the UN were wrong back in the original Gulf War, but when looked at in the context of the more recent war, the claims that the US and UK simply didn't want to overstep their UN mandate rings false. There was still a huge coalition of goodwill toward the US and UK, and had they played on that then Hussein could have been toppled with the consent of the international community. Instead, they missed their chance and were left to bully and cajole others in order to finish the job.
To put it another way, helping the people of Iraq was the very last thing on the minds of the US and UK governments when this war was prosecuted.
>
> If people want a ban on whaling, fox hunting, whatever, then they
> should do it, and if those that are in power won't then vote others in
> and change the system. It's all about will to act, or more
> specifically, lack of it in some cases - if parliament knew the lords
> would not pass the act then don't bother with them , use that law you
> mentioned and do it straight away.
Then why not do away with lords altogether would seem to be the logic used there. However, the English Constitution is a strange thing, based predominantly on unwritten agreement more than anything else. For example, the office of Prime Minister is not consitutionally recognised. In other words, one cannot simply invoke the Parliament act at the drop of a hat; that would cause a constitutional crisis. The accepted formulae seems to be that if something is rejected by the Lords 3 times, then the Parliament Act comes into play. But that's not written down anywhere, it's a convention.
What I'm driving at is that it is nowhere near as simple as you say in the above paragraph. Will to act? Look at the sheer number of anti-war protestors. They had the will to act, yet it didn't happen. The reason being that there was no organised opposition in the Commons. To get anything done, one has to work through the accumulated red tape that began with the Magna Carta an has accumulated since. Saying that one can simply do something and make it happen is naive at best, hopelessly and deliberately unrealistic at worst.
>
> On another note, won't Blair's proposed Supreme Court make the Lords
> effectively out of a job ?
As a legal body, it would stop them being the highest court in the land. But as a Parliamentary body, no. I think (not sure, but think) the Supreme Court will only take on the judiciary functions of the Lords and not the executive ones.
> I'll readily admit my knowledge on the fox hunting thing is scant, I'm
> just saying things based on my perception of it and what I've
> read/seen.
>
> That's about what a lot of people do anyway, so whilst it's,
> admittedly, not the best basis for an opinion, it isnt't entirely
> wrong, is it ?
God no! What I have the problem with is the refusal to amend ones initial position based on newly received information. That, in a nutshell, is why I've always given you such a hard time.
>
> Even so, my belief that human rights come over animal rights is a
> personal one, and in that respect I cannot be wrong.
Absolutely. Whenever I've pulled you up about a personal opinion, I've generally wanted an explanation of just what train of thought brought you to that conclusion. Whilst I still think your logic behind your beliefs concerning animal rights is deeply flawed, you've explained why you believe it.
>
> I'm quite aware of some of the causes of the deaths of Iraqi's
> 1991-2003, though you should note that the UN resolution, brough about
> by pressure from China and Russia and others, was the deciding factor
> in not continuing the war into Iraq. The resolution passed to enable
> Desert Storm and Shield said that Iraqi forces had to be returned to
> 1990 positions, and did not give remit to pursue them further. The USA
> And UK tried to inspire an uprising, hoping that the rebels could gain
> enough ground to get out an official request for intervention,
> allowing USA and UK forces to bypass the UN resolution and move in.
> That didn't happen. When other nations have failed to act in the past
> to help the removal of people like Saddam it stems from the same
> thing, lack of will to act.
Yup, the lack of military action due to the UN resolution did indeed suck ass. But the simple fact is that if the US and UK were serious about wanting to help Iraq (the justification they eventually arrived on when every single other attempt to explain why it was being done turned out to be exaggerated at best, untrue at worst) then they would have defied the UN back then and saved lives. I agree that the UN were wrong back in the original Gulf War, but when looked at in the context of the more recent war, the claims that the US and UK simply didn't want to overstep their UN mandate rings false. There was still a huge coalition of goodwill toward the US and UK, and had they played on that then Hussein could have been toppled with the consent of the international community. Instead, they missed their chance and were left to bully and cajole others in order to finish the job.
To put it another way, helping the people of Iraq was the very last thing on the minds of the US and UK governments when this war was prosecuted.
>
> If people want a ban on whaling, fox hunting, whatever, then they
> should do it, and if those that are in power won't then vote others in
> and change the system. It's all about will to act, or more
> specifically, lack of it in some cases - if parliament knew the lords
> would not pass the act then don't bother with them , use that law you
> mentioned and do it straight away.
Then why not do away with lords altogether would seem to be the logic used there. However, the English Constitution is a strange thing, based predominantly on unwritten agreement more than anything else. For example, the office of Prime Minister is not consitutionally recognised. In other words, one cannot simply invoke the Parliament act at the drop of a hat; that would cause a constitutional crisis. The accepted formulae seems to be that if something is rejected by the Lords 3 times, then the Parliament Act comes into play. But that's not written down anywhere, it's a convention.
What I'm driving at is that it is nowhere near as simple as you say in the above paragraph. Will to act? Look at the sheer number of anti-war protestors. They had the will to act, yet it didn't happen. The reason being that there was no organised opposition in the Commons. To get anything done, one has to work through the accumulated red tape that began with the Magna Carta an has accumulated since. Saying that one can simply do something and make it happen is naive at best, hopelessly and deliberately unrealistic at worst.
>
> On another note, won't Blair's proposed Supreme Court make the Lords
> effectively out of a job ?
As a legal body, it would stop them being the highest court in the land. But as a Parliamentary body, no. I think (not sure, but think) the Supreme Court will only take on the judiciary functions of the Lords and not the executive ones.
I'll readily admit my knowledge on the fox hunting thing is scant, I'm just saying things based on my perception of it and what I've read/seen.
That's about what a lot of people do anyway, so whilst it's, admittedly, not the best basis for an opinion, it isnt't entirely wrong, is it ?
Even so, my belief that human rights come over animal rights is a personal one, and in that respect I cannot be wrong.
I'm quite aware of some of the causes of the deaths of Iraqi's 1991-2003, though you should note that the UN resolution, brough about by pressure from China and Russia and others, was the deciding factor in not continuing the war into Iraq. The resolution passed to enable Desert Storm and Shield said that Iraqi forces had to be returned to 1990 positions, and did not give remit to pursue them further. The USA And UK tried to inspire an uprising, hoping that the rebels could gain enough ground to get out an official request for intervention, allowing USA and UK forces to bypass the UN resolution and move in. That didn't happen. When other nations have failed to act in the past to help the removal of people like Saddam it stems from the same thing, lack of will to act.
If people want a ban on whaling, fox hunting, whatever, then they should do it, and if those that are in power won't then vote others in and change the system. It's all about will to act, or more specifically, lack of it in some cases - if parliament knew the lords would not pass the act then don't bother with them , use that law you mentioned and do it straight away.
On another note, won't Blair's proposed Supreme Court make the Lords effectively out of a job ?
That's about what a lot of people do anyway, so whilst it's, admittedly, not the best basis for an opinion, it isnt't entirely wrong, is it ?
Even so, my belief that human rights come over animal rights is a personal one, and in that respect I cannot be wrong.
I'm quite aware of some of the causes of the deaths of Iraqi's 1991-2003, though you should note that the UN resolution, brough about by pressure from China and Russia and others, was the deciding factor in not continuing the war into Iraq. The resolution passed to enable Desert Storm and Shield said that Iraqi forces had to be returned to 1990 positions, and did not give remit to pursue them further. The USA And UK tried to inspire an uprising, hoping that the rebels could gain enough ground to get out an official request for intervention, allowing USA and UK forces to bypass the UN resolution and move in. That didn't happen. When other nations have failed to act in the past to help the removal of people like Saddam it stems from the same thing, lack of will to act.
If people want a ban on whaling, fox hunting, whatever, then they should do it, and if those that are in power won't then vote others in and change the system. It's all about will to act, or more specifically, lack of it in some cases - if parliament knew the lords would not pass the act then don't bother with them , use that law you mentioned and do it straight away.
On another note, won't Blair's proposed Supreme Court make the Lords effectively out of a job ?
Practical Magic wrote:
> Okay Light, and I'm not being aggressive here, if it is a majority
> view why have our own politicians not passed the anti hunting law ?
> After all, this being a democracy, the politicians are put there by
> the people....
Money. There is a majority view, and if you recall the banning of hunting was part of the Labour campaign; it was one of the things they were elected to do. You'll note that the elected house of Parliament has indeed voted for an outright ban over and over again. But the unelected and monied house of Parliament says no.
>
> Even if the Lords stop it, a majority opinion should be able to change
> that, or pressure the commons to change the constitution in such a way
> that the Lords become more representative of the people they
> represent.
Oh? Why should a majority opinion be of concern to a group of people who have no need to rely on the support of any majority for their election?
Actually the commons have recently invoked the Parliament Act (which allows the Lords to be overruled by the Commons), so a total ban on foxhunting is in fact on its way.
I am being aggressive, I'll concede that. I am whenever I discuss something I have an opinion on. But the reason I am is that you're arguing a point that, with the greatest of respect, you clearly don't know a lot about. You're using spurious points that you don't seem to have thought through (the exception being your thoughts on the UN), and you're doing it so that you don't have to back away from your original point. It's not a sign of weakness to accept that an initial opinion came from not knowing all facts you know.
> Okay Light, and I'm not being aggressive here, if it is a majority
> view why have our own politicians not passed the anti hunting law ?
> After all, this being a democracy, the politicians are put there by
> the people....
Money. There is a majority view, and if you recall the banning of hunting was part of the Labour campaign; it was one of the things they were elected to do. You'll note that the elected house of Parliament has indeed voted for an outright ban over and over again. But the unelected and monied house of Parliament says no.
>
> Even if the Lords stop it, a majority opinion should be able to change
> that, or pressure the commons to change the constitution in such a way
> that the Lords become more representative of the people they
> represent.
Oh? Why should a majority opinion be of concern to a group of people who have no need to rely on the support of any majority for their election?
Actually the commons have recently invoked the Parliament Act (which allows the Lords to be overruled by the Commons), so a total ban on foxhunting is in fact on its way.
I am being aggressive, I'll concede that. I am whenever I discuss something I have an opinion on. But the reason I am is that you're arguing a point that, with the greatest of respect, you clearly don't know a lot about. You're using spurious points that you don't seem to have thought through (the exception being your thoughts on the UN), and you're doing it so that you don't have to back away from your original point. It's not a sign of weakness to accept that an initial opinion came from not knowing all facts you know.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Ineedsleep - The people in power in a dicatator regime are the country
> ! There is only one side - theirs. You take the others side then life
> expectancy drops. The UN estimates between 1991-2003 around 30 000
> Iraqis were killed in their own country, by their own government.
Yup, and d'you know why the majority were killed in that time? Cos we in the west encouraged them to rebel, and then backed off and left them to it. In other words, one could say that they were putting down a civil war. Or at least, that was the excuse that the US and various otehr nations gave when avoiding criticising Nicaragua for the numerous civilian casualties there.
And how come you are happy to quote the UN after having spent the majority of this thread criticising it?
>
> The whole 'humans are parasites' idea is one largely born in fiction,
> studies of the past show that animals became extinct naturally, and
> that the planet's climate changed, naturally, all before humankind.
What studies? Where are your sources? You're telling me that humanity has never had an effect on world wildlife? Then post something that backs up that opinion.
Mankind has a horrendous effect on ecology in general, I'll just post the one for now that backs up Ineedsleep's point...
http://www.light-science.com/articles1009.html
> Ineedsleep - The people in power in a dicatator regime are the country
> ! There is only one side - theirs. You take the others side then life
> expectancy drops. The UN estimates between 1991-2003 around 30 000
> Iraqis were killed in their own country, by their own government.
Yup, and d'you know why the majority were killed in that time? Cos we in the west encouraged them to rebel, and then backed off and left them to it. In other words, one could say that they were putting down a civil war. Or at least, that was the excuse that the US and various otehr nations gave when avoiding criticising Nicaragua for the numerous civilian casualties there.
And how come you are happy to quote the UN after having spent the majority of this thread criticising it?
>
> The whole 'humans are parasites' idea is one largely born in fiction,
> studies of the past show that animals became extinct naturally, and
> that the planet's climate changed, naturally, all before humankind.
What studies? Where are your sources? You're telling me that humanity has never had an effect on world wildlife? Then post something that backs up that opinion.
Mankind has a horrendous effect on ecology in general, I'll just post the one for now that backs up Ineedsleep's point...
http://www.light-science.com/articles1009.html
Okay Light, and I'm not being aggressive here, if it is a majority view why have our own politicians not passed the anti hunting law ? After all, this being a democracy, the politicians are put there by the people....
Even if the Lords stop it, a majority opinion should be able to change that, or pressure the commons to change the constitution in such a way that the Lords become more representative of the people they represent.
Even if the Lords stop it, a majority opinion should be able to change that, or pressure the commons to change the constitution in such a way that the Lords become more representative of the people they represent.
Ineedsleep wrote:
>
> Then you will never care for animals. I am not an animal rights
> activist but I am glad that there are some people in the world who do
> care enough to make a lot of noise about it. The human species as a
> whole is a parastic life form. We exist and thrive only because we
> have a tendancy to destroy everything in our way and it is only
> recently that we are taking a step back and thinking about the damage
> our actions cause.
THAT'S what I was trying to say in the last paragraph of the last post to Bell...dammit!
>
> Then you will never care for animals. I am not an animal rights
> activist but I am glad that there are some people in the world who do
> care enough to make a lot of noise about it. The human species as a
> whole is a parastic life form. We exist and thrive only because we
> have a tendancy to destroy everything in our way and it is only
> recently that we are taking a step back and thinking about the damage
> our actions cause.
THAT'S what I was trying to say in the last paragraph of the last post to Bell...dammit!
Ineedsleep - The people in power in a dicatator regime are the country ! There is only one side - theirs. You take the others side then life expectancy drops. The UN estimates between 1991-2003 around 30 000 Iraqis were killed in their own country, by their own government.
The whole 'humans are parasites' idea is one largely born in fiction, studies of the past show that animals became extinct naturally, and that the planet's climate changed, naturally, all before humankind.
The whole 'humans are parasites' idea is one largely born in fiction, studies of the past show that animals became extinct naturally, and that the planet's climate changed, naturally, all before humankind.
Practical Magic wrote:
>
> But isn't whaling killing for a livelihood, an economic activity,
> whereas fox hunting is killing as a sport.
True, but Icelands economy has no need for whaling at all. By their own admission, they need to stop reliance on an economy based on the sea;
http://english.eldey.de/Economy/body_economy.html
>
> Another problem is that the vast majority of people oppose both
> whale
> and fox hunting. I seem to recall that, during the debate about
> Iraq,
> you were very keen to point out that a majority of people supported
> war. Well, in this instance a majority of people support a total ban
> on hunting. So what's the difference between the two, other than the
> strength of your feeings on one compared to the other?
>
> A typical divide between pro and anti hunting supporters is location,
> where they live. It's fair to say that a majority of urban dwellers do
> not understand a great deal about the countryside. It's also fair to
> say that a majority of the UK's population lives in urban areas. A
> minority of the population live in the countrside, where foxes
> actually impact on the economy and area, and it's fair to say that
> these minority areas are where the pro hunt supporters come from. So
> with fox hunting you're seeing a divide based largely on the
> population's living area.
>
> The split in opinion with Iraq was quite obviously not based so much
> on where people lived, more on media coverage and political side
> stepping and speeches. But with hunting it's essentially a majority
> which may not fully understand the impact/activities of foxes in the
> countryside, shouting down those who do and have to live with them.
Again, true. But as I've said elsewhere in this thread when replying to you, an awful lot of my family live in rural areas. And without exception they oppose foxhunting. Not because they find it cruel, but because they say it simply doesn't work as pest control. In other words, they are part of the majority but they live in rural areas. And furthermore, their views give a lie to the pro-hunting brigade's assertion that this is a Rural vs Urban issue.
Aside from that though, I don't see your point. Regardless of location, a majority oppose it. Whilst hunt supporters frequently claim that they are providing an important service, that is simply not the case and there are plenty of farmers and shepherds who oppose hunting.
>
> There is no intervention because no one would support it, it'd be the
> right thing to do, but the media would turn on the country which
> proposed it, political suicide. The other obvious factor, drawing on
> my quote from Ralph Peters in another topic, is that there is no will
> from those who could act, to do so. How much are those that can
> willing to spend, to fight, to die, for those who cannot do so
> themselves ? I believe it's time that those who can, started doing it.
> I honestly believe the first step to doing so would be the dissolution
> of the United Nations
The right thing to do? But opposing the quesionable at best election of a world leader is the right thing to do. Opposing a war that has absolutely no justification is the right thing to do. Yet you've opposes those two things frequently.
That's not a dig, I'm just making the point that the 'right' thing is incredibly subjective, and depends on your viewpoint. One nation imposing it's view of right on everyone is wrong. But with whaling, the international community (the whaling commission, not the UN) agreed on what was right and wrong. It was agreed that ceasing whaling was the right thing to do. Now Iceland has started again. Ergo, it is doing something wrong.
>
> The UN has no real respect, no one nation takes it seriously any
> longer, right from the start it's been a political gambling house and
> economic advantage grabbing institution. It needs to be replaced by a
> smaller (administratively and decision making wise) organisation with
> it's own forces, transportation, everything. Right now, it relies on
> american hardware and support, alongwith largely smaller nations
> actual troops. It cannot send troops where they need to be with the
> rules of engagement they need to make a difference because no council
> member wants it's forces involved in a drawn out war in some place
> that has little impact on it.
I actually agree; the UN does need shaking up. But where do you get the forces from? Where would it receive it's funding?
>
> That's why no one intervened in Iraq, back in the late 30's it's why
> no one intervened in Germany, and so on, all through history's wars.
> We stand now at a time when we have the technology and the power to
> make a real difference in the world for everyone in it, if only we
> have the will.
And we simply don't have the will. Know why? Money. No one is going to stop Burmese or Indonesian oppression because of their natural resources. If you look at all of the interventions by western governments since the end of WW2, money has been at the root of almost all of them. Governments won't interfere in another country's affairs unless there is something in it for them. Jesus, just look at how Dubya hummed and hah-ed before committing peacekeepers to Liberia. And even then, it was only done as a vote winner due to Liberia and the US's shared history.
>
> I'm being realistic, an end to all suffering of anything living is not
> going to happen if resources are divided. Human life will always come
> before animal life. Who fixes animals that are injured ? Treats those
> with disease ? Cares for them ? Humans, hence they have priority in my
> opinion. Without prioritising you end up with little achieved. Think
> of all the campaigns there is focusing on one aspect of animal
> welfare, each with staff, admin, premises. Think how much more could
> be done it there was one organisation and that was it. Same goes for
> other charities. One charity for all human rights abuses would be
> better than many, same for famine relief, disease, everything. Too
> many replicate each other in all but small details, others try to do
> what official agencies should already do - like the NSPCC -
> technically Social Services are responsible for child welfare, if they
> aren't doing the job then get them sorted out, not have numerous
> charities getting in on the act. This kind of activity - the
> displacing of official government services by NGO's, is particularly
> prevalent in Africa and other poorer nations.
Isn't that because the official government organisations don't actually do any good because they are motivated by political rather than humanitarian/compassionate aims?
I'd also disagree that you're being realistic. If anything, it's easier to start with ending the suffering of animals than it is the suffering of people; one doesn't need to declare war on a nation to stop whaling, and it isn't exactly costly. Yet one has to declare a costly war to stop human suffering. You've mentioned prioritising, but bearing in mind how many hundreds of years it would take to sort out humanity, can you really say that we're justified in allowing animals to suffer needlessly in the meantime?
>
> But isn't whaling killing for a livelihood, an economic activity,
> whereas fox hunting is killing as a sport.
True, but Icelands economy has no need for whaling at all. By their own admission, they need to stop reliance on an economy based on the sea;
http://english.eldey.de/Economy/body_economy.html
>
> Another problem is that the vast majority of people oppose both
> whale
> and fox hunting. I seem to recall that, during the debate about
> Iraq,
> you were very keen to point out that a majority of people supported
> war. Well, in this instance a majority of people support a total ban
> on hunting. So what's the difference between the two, other than the
> strength of your feeings on one compared to the other?
>
> A typical divide between pro and anti hunting supporters is location,
> where they live. It's fair to say that a majority of urban dwellers do
> not understand a great deal about the countryside. It's also fair to
> say that a majority of the UK's population lives in urban areas. A
> minority of the population live in the countrside, where foxes
> actually impact on the economy and area, and it's fair to say that
> these minority areas are where the pro hunt supporters come from. So
> with fox hunting you're seeing a divide based largely on the
> population's living area.
>
> The split in opinion with Iraq was quite obviously not based so much
> on where people lived, more on media coverage and political side
> stepping and speeches. But with hunting it's essentially a majority
> which may not fully understand the impact/activities of foxes in the
> countryside, shouting down those who do and have to live with them.
Again, true. But as I've said elsewhere in this thread when replying to you, an awful lot of my family live in rural areas. And without exception they oppose foxhunting. Not because they find it cruel, but because they say it simply doesn't work as pest control. In other words, they are part of the majority but they live in rural areas. And furthermore, their views give a lie to the pro-hunting brigade's assertion that this is a Rural vs Urban issue.
Aside from that though, I don't see your point. Regardless of location, a majority oppose it. Whilst hunt supporters frequently claim that they are providing an important service, that is simply not the case and there are plenty of farmers and shepherds who oppose hunting.
>
> There is no intervention because no one would support it, it'd be the
> right thing to do, but the media would turn on the country which
> proposed it, political suicide. The other obvious factor, drawing on
> my quote from Ralph Peters in another topic, is that there is no will
> from those who could act, to do so. How much are those that can
> willing to spend, to fight, to die, for those who cannot do so
> themselves ? I believe it's time that those who can, started doing it.
> I honestly believe the first step to doing so would be the dissolution
> of the United Nations
The right thing to do? But opposing the quesionable at best election of a world leader is the right thing to do. Opposing a war that has absolutely no justification is the right thing to do. Yet you've opposes those two things frequently.
That's not a dig, I'm just making the point that the 'right' thing is incredibly subjective, and depends on your viewpoint. One nation imposing it's view of right on everyone is wrong. But with whaling, the international community (the whaling commission, not the UN) agreed on what was right and wrong. It was agreed that ceasing whaling was the right thing to do. Now Iceland has started again. Ergo, it is doing something wrong.
>
> The UN has no real respect, no one nation takes it seriously any
> longer, right from the start it's been a political gambling house and
> economic advantage grabbing institution. It needs to be replaced by a
> smaller (administratively and decision making wise) organisation with
> it's own forces, transportation, everything. Right now, it relies on
> american hardware and support, alongwith largely smaller nations
> actual troops. It cannot send troops where they need to be with the
> rules of engagement they need to make a difference because no council
> member wants it's forces involved in a drawn out war in some place
> that has little impact on it.
I actually agree; the UN does need shaking up. But where do you get the forces from? Where would it receive it's funding?
>
> That's why no one intervened in Iraq, back in the late 30's it's why
> no one intervened in Germany, and so on, all through history's wars.
> We stand now at a time when we have the technology and the power to
> make a real difference in the world for everyone in it, if only we
> have the will.
And we simply don't have the will. Know why? Money. No one is going to stop Burmese or Indonesian oppression because of their natural resources. If you look at all of the interventions by western governments since the end of WW2, money has been at the root of almost all of them. Governments won't interfere in another country's affairs unless there is something in it for them. Jesus, just look at how Dubya hummed and hah-ed before committing peacekeepers to Liberia. And even then, it was only done as a vote winner due to Liberia and the US's shared history.
>
> I'm being realistic, an end to all suffering of anything living is not
> going to happen if resources are divided. Human life will always come
> before animal life. Who fixes animals that are injured ? Treats those
> with disease ? Cares for them ? Humans, hence they have priority in my
> opinion. Without prioritising you end up with little achieved. Think
> of all the campaigns there is focusing on one aspect of animal
> welfare, each with staff, admin, premises. Think how much more could
> be done it there was one organisation and that was it. Same goes for
> other charities. One charity for all human rights abuses would be
> better than many, same for famine relief, disease, everything. Too
> many replicate each other in all but small details, others try to do
> what official agencies should already do - like the NSPCC -
> technically Social Services are responsible for child welfare, if they
> aren't doing the job then get them sorted out, not have numerous
> charities getting in on the act. This kind of activity - the
> displacing of official government services by NGO's, is particularly
> prevalent in Africa and other poorer nations.
Isn't that because the official government organisations don't actually do any good because they are motivated by political rather than humanitarian/compassionate aims?
I'd also disagree that you're being realistic. If anything, it's easier to start with ending the suffering of animals than it is the suffering of people; one doesn't need to declare war on a nation to stop whaling, and it isn't exactly costly. Yet one has to declare a costly war to stop human suffering. You've mentioned prioritising, but bearing in mind how many hundreds of years it would take to sort out humanity, can you really say that we're justified in allowing animals to suffer needlessly in the meantime?
Page: