williat

All I was trying to point out is that they were a good overall purchase, and I stated that I believed they should be replaced due to age, as well as clearly there are more efficient forms (requiring less man hours) of helicopters are available. Like I said I never said they were the best machines ever built, nor were they "Flying Coffins"...

Yeah I know. I was trying to talk about the term in general, I realize Shady didn't come up with the nickname, I was just trying to give Shady a hard time is all, lol.

To reaffirm Argus's statement here, and to address those saying there are never dogs fights anymore. It might have been a UAV, but it was shot down by a Russian MIG over Georgian territory...for me that's reason enough to have a couple jets on hand to be able to scramble in case Russia ever wanted to come into our airspace for any reason.

Well I see that you have links...great. I never said THEY ARE THE BEST THINGS EVER, I made it clear in my last post as well I'm not disputing that some have crashed. But as you so clearly showed us they were built in 1963 & as you are right in saying it takes roughly 30 hours mechanical work per 1 hour of flight, so the fact that 12 have (lets assume all were mechanical failure instead of pilot error) crashed should be absolutely no surprise I mean we should have spent the money a lot sooner. What I'd also like to note here is that I believe the last Canadian Sea King crash was in 2003 (going by memory so correct me if I'm wrong), so 7 years without a crash is pretty good if you ask me, considering they are suppose to "fall out of the sky". From what I've been told from people close to the Sea Kings is that they just weren't being taken care of properly so maybe not totally Sirkorsky's faulty design. But my friend you are reading articles, not to go into too much detail but lets just say I have a very very close connection some of these helicopters (Sea Kings as well as the new Sirkorsky helicopters replacing them) so I am speaking from experience through being around these pilots & mechanics on a consistant basis. ALL these pilots say that they LIKE the Sea Kings because of their ease of use, so I'm confident in saying that my post was true in 1970 as well as 2010. I understand some may not like them, but all the pilots I know say they do the job for now (the main downside being the amount of labour required for 1 hour of flight time). But if you want to tell me I'm wrong because you read it somewhere be my guest big guy, theres just some things you can't learn from reading, first hand knowledge for me personally, means a little more. I'm not saying your wrong in any way, shape or form, I was just trying to point out that you can't call them Flying Coffins. By the way the President of the United States, his helicopter....guess what, its a SEA KING!

I see where you’re coming from, but we cannot forget we do have commitments to NATO/NORAD, whether he have to “use” the planes or not. I believe this is most of the thinking behind it; also these are versatile aircraft meaning that they don’t just get used as fighter jets. The F-18s are getting old and I see the argument of why are we spending on items that may be inadequate in 10 years, but having them around (not saying that $9 billion is a good price here people) isn’t such a bad thing, I mean look what happened with Afghanistan, we got there and went “Oh shit! We need some new gear”. One point I also wanted to add is that Canada has no need to invest in very advanced military technology, I’m talking here more along the lines of missile defense systems and so on, our neighbours to the south, whether you like them or not, HAVE to protect Canada so to speak. Remember Alaska is up top, so the US wouldn’t let Canada be attacked, their missile defense system essentially has to cover our asses because, well were in the middle of them. I’ve heard many people bring this up and I want to clear something up because this is actually an area that I have knowledge of, the new helicopters Canada is getting, I’m not 100% sure on all the details, although we purchased a set of Sikorsky helicopters and built a massive set of new hangers at Shearwater Base in Nova Scotia. Secondly Shady, before calling them flying coffins you maybe should have looked a little harder. I personally know a couple Sea King pilots and they all say that they like these helicopters. Some fell out of the sky I’m not disputing that but don’t call something shitty because it breaks every once and a while. I mean if I used your logic I could say all Toyotas are rolling coffins, since the breaks failed on a couple of occasions. Again we’ve already spent money on some new helicopters.

Wouldn't piracy imply some form of bounty for these so called pirates. I mean keeping weapons away from people who have said "I want you to cease to exist" seems like a pretty reasonable thing to me. If you're implying that solely boarding the ship is an act of piracy then I would say you are very much wrong. If you are saying that taking any weapons off said ships constitutes the "bounty" then I suppose I could understand your argument a bit more (not that I would think it is right). But really your comment is just to try and piss people off... Add something useful, don't add dumb ideas because other people do it.

After being bombed/occupied...damn those Palestinians and their rocket attacks, give me a break they hardly ever hit anything...I get the idea that they are firing rockets at you and I've had this argument with a couple of people on here about the use of force so I'll try to avoid that topic as best I can but honestly you treat people like shit (the Palestinians) what the hell do you expect them to do. I'm pretty sure Jordan and Israel are both carved out of previous Palestinan land. You are technically right to some degree I suppose with completely pulling out of Gaza. I've been to the middle east...you really should never make comments when you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This should read: "Some Palestinians have electrity, running water, many have TV and internet, cell phones, etc. If you want to see inhuman conditions look at Africa.". Although I wasn't in Gaza (so I have no clue what its like there) but judging by what I saw I'm willing to bet it can't be any better. I'll give you that some Palestinians have these luxuries, plus someone has already mentioned the refugees...I'm willing to bet that the refugee camps don't have TV or internet. I'll give you that Africa is far worse off then Palestine in the grand scheme of things, but just because someone is worse off doesn't make it right I think you'll agree. I'm not saying some form of blockade isn't necessary so I agree with you here, stopping weapons from entering Palestine is in Israel's best interest and I understand and accept this. I mean I think its nuts that in most of these countries they get 1 AK47 per household (I doubt its like that in Palestine), I mean call it culture or tradition or a means of living but an AK47...really? I mean we're always discussing safety/security in the area but its hard to do any form of good when weapons are so easy to come by. When I was in the middle east area (did a bit of travelling around) you can usually just hit a local market and buy weapons most of the time (or at least find out where to buy them). I honestly have no problem with the blockade, Israel has their right to safety just as anyone does, therefore why not just let these ships (the Turkish ones and the Irish one) stop in an Israeli port, let them check it out if its all good and no weapons let them through. I mean people can argue all day that this shouldn't be the case but honestly in the grand scheme of things who cares, Israel can go to sleep knowing that weapons aren't being brought in on these ships and Gaza will receive its aid, christ its really not that difficult.

Yeah I would believe it was a mine if thats what they came out and said. Like its been said considering that the Cheonan wasn't able to pick up the sub or torpedo it seems a bit fishy to me, although they haven't come out and said "We didn't know it was there" so I suppose its how you want to interpret the whole thing. Personally I just feel like now adays they keep so much information from us its nuts, I mean are we ever going to know if it was NK? Probably not, my guess would be China will come back and say something like "It's unclear if a torpedo is what sank the ship/who fired", which will bring things right back to where they were. In relation however to some suggesting that a mine or the Cheonan's own ammunition sank it, I'm not sure if I'm totally willing to accept this story either, I mean they obviously found remnants of a torpedo so doesn't this sort of rule out this theory. Unless of course you're suggesting that it was planted or something along those lines. The one thing that I thought was good about this entire event (if you can call it a good thing) is that SK handled the situation very well, bringing NK in front of the UN security council is the most grown-up move I've seen a state make in a while.

I totally believe that some of these terrorist jobs (car bombings, suicide bombings) are no doubt the work of intelligence forces much like you said, keeps everyone in a state of terror (hence the term terrorist). I've heard a couple stories such as these over the years, I also saw a documentary once (can't remember the name but I think it was by Frontline) that was interviewing a US commando and at one point the US knew exactly where Osama was hiding but did not/were not allowed to act on intelligence. Far too many powerful people are making money off the war. What? I thought we were talking about North Korea?

I probably shouldn't have put that out there without explanation. I don't think I should have to fund any political party nor do I think campaign money should come from corporate sponsors. I know this seems sort of contradictory because one might say well where would the money come from? But as you stated I don't think money really needs to be an issue at all, I can't speak for anyone else but those campaign commercials usually get me laughing more then wanting to vote for the party. I mean they just feed Rick Mercer stuff to make fun of them. I would whole heartedly support the system of "a single well written essay from each candidate followed up by maybe a couple of speeches and townhall style meetings", the fact is most people probably wouldn't read it or attend/listen to the speeches and most people would still just vote by party/leader without knowing much about either. This is why I don't support any "party" per se, every election I do exactly the same thing, take a sunday morning sit down and read what these guys are saying they "will do" for Canada, if I could just pick parts from each party that I liked and vote that way I would because I really don't agree with voting for a party that only represents 1/2 of what I want and the other 1/2 is totally against what I want. Maybe I'll just start my own party and call it something really obvious so people vote for me like "The Rational Party of Canada". To paraphrase Chris Rock on political parties "if you know how you would deal with a situation before hearing the issue, then you're a fucking moron". Sorry for the language folks.

Well it's clear that NK sank the ship according to reports, although wasn't it also reported there was WMD in Iraq? I mean I have no idea if they fired the torpedo or not, nor am I claiming to know. It could have been an accident as you suggested, but that would be a big screw up. This is how I feel on the whole subject, personally I don't think Kim Jong-Il is dumb enough to attack SK at this moment, he knows NATO/US is waiting for a reason to come oust him from power (if he doesn't know then he's in some trouble), so to me I honestly have a hard time believing that NK would just fire a torpedo at a SK ship without being provoked. Like we've both said it could have been a mistake (i.e. thought the SK ship was in NK water), but for me I'll stand by my skepticism on the entire thing. I mostly agree with what you said about China, they've said they plan to hold whomever is at fault accountable but if anything comes of it I would be surprised. As Xul stated its just another skirmish in an area that is known for this type of thing, I think I'm really only surprised and pretty much the only reason I brought it up is because the Cheonan sank.

I agree for the most part with the OP, but there are some areas that I could see being problematic in my mind; 2) I’m not sure how secure most Israeli’s would feel in this situation, one little bump in the road and shit could hit the fan (pardon my French). 3) I’m just sort of being a jerk with this one but what if Hamas was elected in both those areas (hypothetically). But the highway I agree with. 4) Even Iran? 12) I believe this involves Syria more then Palestine as someone has already pointed out. But yes it is of security importance to Israel. 13) I can’t see this working, it would give Israel too much control is what I’m guessing the argument would be. I mean eventually Palestine would be allowed to form a military I would assume, so this would sort of hamper that entire idea in my mind. I feel that there are so many issues in the area that it would be difficult to hash out a plan such as this either way. I’ve read through the posts so I don’t want to repeat what’s been said already, but for the most part water seems to be an important issue. As its been stated instead of just handing over money as aid, lets put it to use and build desalination projects, I mean we might as well stop giving money to let them fight each other and put it to something useful. I’ve also seen a couple arguments for international law, but I think we need to figure out what the hell international law means first, because from what I’ve always been taught it more a set of guidelines then “law”, sort of a vague concept because in reality we’re still developing it over time as far as I understand it (someone can correct me if I’m wrong). Personally I think the difference of opinion between Israel & Palestine is far too great to mend with an agreement, because as it’s already been addressed by a few, what would happen if the agreement is breached? Would we just return to how things are today, in my mind that’s not really solving anything just sort of a temporary patch. Argus’s idea of just dividing it between Jordan & Egypt seems to me like it could be the most realistic option, if the OP plan worked out Palestine would still be a mess for many many years afterward, at least Argus has proposed an idea that in my mind would make this entire idea a whole lot less stressful for those involved.

Intense stuff.

So by now everyone must have heard about the North Korean torpedo incident and basically from what I understand there has been a report filed by South Korea with help from other countries (US, Canada, ect) that says this was a North Korean torpedo that sank the ship and it was fired from a North Korean sub. I read China has been performing their own investigation and that they won't protect whomever is at fault. I want to hear what everyone else thinks on the subject, personally I don't know much about military technology or how they would find the remains of this so-called torpedo after it destroyed a ship. I've always had a little bit of conspiracy theorist in me, mostly because they are always pretty interesting theories. I've read in a couple places that some people are suggesting this may have been an act performed by another country to provoke another Korean war. On the other hand i've read news reports that a "group" of North Korean mini-subs (whatever that means) left a base along with an escort ship a few days before this the Cheonan sank, and returned shortly after. I mean if they had subs deployed I have to say that it doesn't look good, but I could also see how they could be easily blamed. I've also read that the torpedo has numbers that match an older model torpedo that the South Korean's have in their possession. Personally I'm not trying to dispute the fact that it's a North Korean torpedo, what's more interesting to me is if South Korea was able to get a hold of one of these, then couldn't other countries? Also if it matches an older model torpedo the South Korean's have, then couldn't it be an older torpedo that some other country fired to try to provoke a situation, knowing that the numbers would be similar enough to say it was North Korea? I could see why finding a reason to attack North Korea could be good for a lot of countries, take out another nut case running a country, not that I'm saying I would agree with provoking an incident such as this....but I can see why someone would consider it. What I do find more interesting however is how South Korea is handling it, I'm pretty impressed that they haven't started killing each other yet. I mean they are formally asking the UN to look into, pretty fair if you ask me. You can argue what you want about the UN being corrupt but I mean at least they didn't just started shooting at North Korea.

So after re-reading the original question and all the posts I have come to the conclusion that: There is large a difference of opinion, both with very valid arguments, although I have decided that I personally believe the ban is wrong and that the hunt should be able to proceed as long as other young animals are also being killed for whatever reason. I'm not saying I think it's an acceptable practice I'm just saying I'm not sure I believe I can fully explain a reason to ban it, other opinions are just as valid as mine but hey thats what I think. Peace out.

Sorry, those aren't your quotes. I'm not exactly sure what I did to make them show up as yours to be quite honest but it appears that those quotes are TrueMetis's, notice how it goes from your actual response to TrueMetis's and then quotes you as TrueMetis. My apologies to you, but my response is still valid just referring to TrueMetis's comments. I will be more careful when utilizing the quotation button from now on. Again WIP sorry.

So let me get this straight, you’ve understood that by adding an emoticon I was being sarcastic, condescending or insincere. Wow, nothing could be further from the truth, absolutely no reason behind it to be quite honest with you. But I do however find it pretty hypocritical that you among others has accused me of “not listening” or “telling me what my point is” all the while you were completely not listening to me…could we say we’ll chalk it up to the fact that we cannot add gestures/real emotions/facial expressions? I was just saying thanks, nothing more nothing less; seriously you blew that out of proportion. I suppose you can blame the recession though for the drop in prices no doubt, but I would guess that more then just the wealthiest and most powerful world elite buy this stuff, I don’t know but Jan Arden doesn’t seem like an insanely wealthy or very “powerful” person per se, but she has a full seal skin suit. I disagree, I think the Federal Government is just sort of afraid to go one way or another with it. From what I’ve gathered basically things would just go back to the way they were, with the whole idea of it kind of in limbo. I can’t say that I think the Government is doing this for huge financial or political reasons, I think they might just be like most of us who aren’t sure about it either. I can see where the offshore oil developments would be financial “reasons” for the government to allow risk to take place (tax revenue), but I can’t say I think it’s the same as sealing, I mean I’ve heard such a different range of numbers for how much the market for seal is, oil is well…black gold. I agree they probably could do something else, but some people in Canada participate in it due to cultural and traditional reasons. No matter what you want to believe many of these sealing families have been doing this for generations, it probably goes all the way back to when Cartier landed here and the First Nations taught them, its not like these guys are saying “Hey if we kill those animals we can make some money”, its sort of part of their culture…and I’m not sure I can say that it should be banned all together or at all. I’m sure it happens. But I doubt in Canada they are affecting many policy decisions, we have decent restrictions in place; we showed that by surviving the financial crisis fairly well. I’m not saying I agree with civil servants who “move in and out of government and the industry they are supposed to be regulating!” because I don’t. But I’m just not sure how much affect they could really have? They do not; WWF even stated as long as the hunters do it correctly it is humane. Check Wikipedia sources if you don’t think so. As do I, I have family that work in the oil business (roughnecks/driller) and they are constantly telling me about regulations in place…they don’t necessarily oppose it they just think sometimes it can be a bit extensive. And you may think that is a bias opinion then, but I rather listen to a couple of guys who grew up on an organic apple orchard who now are working in the oil industry, then what people think the case may be. I agree financial reasons would be almost non-existent in the grand scheme of it all from sealing. I also want to know the answer: How would we keep the population manageable? I’m not saying we should kill any if nature is going to take care of it, but what if it doesn’t? Then do we get stuck footing the bill to kill off a bunch of seals?

Ok and I see how you are dividing the two groups, I dont eat these foods (minus eggs which I must admit but only rarely), I just cant sort of divide between the two. So this particular argument I basically render void in my mind anyway because I believe it can be well fought either way. A draw if you will... Right but when I look at it seals sort of fall in a grey area, because you can hunt moose and there is a quota on how many you can take but you cant sell moose commercially. But seals as I seem to understand it are sort of between being a hunt and being commercial if you see what Im saying. But I do get that we have laws distinguishing between farm animals, wild animals and pets. Again this is true; they are bought therefore putting title to them in a way, as opposed to seals which are wild. See now that is an argument I can live with, you dont need to be all emotional, I think this is an extremely valid point. I just wanted someone to give me reasons to support or not support it. I assumed that you were appalled by the ethics because the conversation concerned young animals that are learning to swim & fend for themselves…my mistake I got confused and made too broad of an assumption. All I was trying to see was if we changed the hunt to only hunting seals with rifles, would it change your view…clearly your response is no. So were on the same page right? Well since you read up on it…how different are the characteristics between a 6 month old and a 1 year seal. If just saying how “different” is different, is its something that any person with some form of education in seals would be able to realize, then I’m all for it. Educating people and making it the law only to kill seals that are a year old or more would be good then right? But on the other hand if its something that you’d have to get right next to the seal to notice can’t say that I would think that is reasonable…so it depends is all I’m saying. I agree you have. Sorry if it appeared I was suggesting otherwise, I misinterpreted what you were trying to say, my bad. When did it become wrong to just admitting I dont know…honestly I have no affiliation to the hunt what so ever other then that it takes place in my province. Ive seen seals, theyve never bothered me so Ive never bothered them type of thing. I dont even think I know a person who goes sealing. I dont support the killing of any baby animal but I also cant say well these ones are fine to kill but these ones arent. Basically in my mind I cant really draw the line distinctly between the two, you can. Its just my opinion I realize that I misinterpreted yours, I mean honestly the time between my first couple comments on this post should give you an idea of how much reading I had to catch up with, so my bad if I forgot something you said previously. Im not excusing my ignorance if it was so obvious but seriously if I had to sum up my view its that; I dont know if it should happen, I dont even know if we should be eating any other animal, Im not an expert so I dont think my opinion on it is right or wrong anyway, its just what I think…disagree with what Im saying if you want but seriously I just dont know what the hell I believe. Lol. But I do appreciate you sharing your views, whether you believe I mean that or not!

So I’m just going by how I’m reading it, that apparently I, the “college boy”, instantly have an opinion that is less valuable then yours because I am in college. That’s fine I should just call you Mr. Arrogant for the rest of this post. But I think you probably already know you’re a bit arrogant. Obviously I knew there was going to be confirmation bias, I said Thank You EVERYBODY as in I incorporated most of the arguments into my paper (the original goal). You just assume that I have “chosen” a side, personally I still don’t know, I don’t think the evidence is enough in either direction to automatically say yes or no to the ban, I wanted to see if a clear conclusion could be made after looking at the ban on the levels of law, science and ethics. I also never suggested that the three findings on each level would ever agree. I never suggested that we should take anything from the earth, I merely said “we do it”, so stop sitting here thinking I’m this colossal idiot when I told you that you’re post about how humans have no right greater then any animal (as I interpreted it) was an extremely interesting theory. By the way the part about the fish stocks I stated as an obvious known fact, why you instantly assume I deemed you less intelligent and that I had to point it out to you and you’re followers is beyond me…get serious not everyone is against you all the time. I never suggested that “we have to insert ourselves into maintaining the balance of nature” or seals will die off, I agreed with you in an earlier post stating very clearly that I very much thought the idea was interesting, I don’t know if they would or wouldn’t because how the hell would to be able to say that with any confidence. My argument either way would be invalid of course, which is why I never suggested it, again I merely stated we do practice it (and one of the major arguments Pro sealing is that we are managing the population as many have stated is no a good reason). I am very much listening too you, but that’s exactly what I’m saying too. People’s attitudes towards ethics can be quite different. I totally agree with you when you say “If our circle of concern stays limited to the human race, and we believe animals are just products for our exploitation -- we're screwed, plain and simple!”. I think pretty much every system we have is a mess because of our outlooks on the world, so where you get off telling me it’s unclear if I’m paying attention, only makes me question if you’re listening to me? I understand that the statistics of it all are highly debated and I agree that they could probably be way off, just like I agree adding the part about the percentage was largely irrelevant. Just like I questioned the population numbers, but just because they may or may not be correct doesn’t mean we should just discard them. As someone already stated many of these observers go out with the hunters, I’ve read it happens, I have no idea how much it happens but I mean at least that’s a good thing. I’m not trying to say it makes it alright but I think by looking at some form of numbers provides better information then two groups claiming that shit is happening. But I also have to clearly agree that it would be far too much land to cover for every single seal killed to be cleared as properly killed, but I also don’t believe that these sealers knowingly go out to skin seals alive, that would imply that they are mentally unstable. Therefore if we can’t decide on banning it or not…can I just propose that we try to educate these people so they are qualified? Or did you just want to put me down because I may not be as smart/experienced/wise as you, oh great one. Totally agree with you. Maybe it should be: why the hell doesn’t the WTO make provisions for human & animal rights? Look I just want to add that I don’t want to sound rude in anything I’ve written above but I was just providing information and views that I have found, you countered by providing opinions and facts that I was unaware of or hadn’t looked at, and yes maybe I misinterpreted some of them. But honestly trying to make someone seem dumb because they expressed their views (right or wrong) just makes you seem less and less creditable…

You are very much correct and after looking into it on more sources it does appear to be days and not weeks (sorry clearly a typo on my behalf). I have to say that when I hear 12-15 days that is drastically different and I can’t say I would agree with this. But I’ve also heard that they loose their “white coats” at this stage, which is when they, as you stated, are learning to swim & hunt. It does clearly mean that they are at a disadvantage, although my counter point to this then is that we eat veal, spring lamb & young turkeys and if you even want to take the debate a step further eggs...these points are already highlighted by many posters before me. Therefore I find it difficult to say well its ok on one hand but not on the other. I mean for me I think we need to call it what it is, its pretty clear that these seals aren’t dying out and I mean we treat farm animals as bad if not worse so I can’t say that “Well they’re babies”, really doesn’t make any difference for other species so why at this point. As I said above I agree that they are at a disadvantage, but I mean we keep cows, pigs and chickens in pens…essentially the farmer’s way of shooting fish in a barrel I suppose you could say. But again we don’t smash them over the head to kill them, I think we usually slit their throats, AH yes the far more ethical way to do it… Well my question then to you is what the difference is then between clubbing them over the head while there are disadvantaged or shooting them with a rifle? Clearly the seal is at a disadvantage when it’s shot at rather then someone walking up to it wouldn’t you say, or we could agree that it is as bad? It sort of seems you are clearly appalled by the ethics of it…but even activist groups have said that as long as it’s done correctly it is humane (Read the Wikipedia article if you don’t believe me). How do you know? Did you ask? That’s like telling me you can tell a dog or persons age just by looking at them. This argument completely invalid in this case, also I believe the size difference in bears and deer is much greater then seals, don’t take my word for it but I believe after loosing their white coats (12 days or so) they begin to add weight, I mean I’ve seen a lot of seals where I grew up and let me tell you, I can’t tell the difference between an old seal and a young (not baby those are obvious) seal. Your argument about fish is totally different as well because when you go recreational fishing you must measure the fish, theoretically, I’m not saying that it happens all the time but there are size restrictions, commercially I really have no idea how they do it, I know with Crab again it is by size measurement. All I was asking people to do was to think logically because clearly you are thinking very much in terms of ethics…if you think ethics is a big factor re-read my prior posts. I feel that the thread must contain “the big fight” against the seal hunt because compared to other industries in which “young” animals are also slaughtered the seal hunt has been made a “big” deal by opponents, but I agree with you that it shouldn’t happen in seals or any animal for that matter. I’m not trying to draw you away from the question, I’m just saying that there are different views on it so don’t just look at one side, I’ve looked at why the ban is put in place and it is largely due to ethics (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+IM-PRESS+20090504IPR54952+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN). I know saying well we do it in one situation makes it ok for us to do it with seals, but I think we just need to step back from the Pro or Against and just look at the bigger picture.

But couldn't this also show why the Liberals and Conservatives do better. Clearly people care about the poor and minorities in some way, but we are an individualist society, therefore the WASP would really have no reason (culturally) to vote NDP. Couldn't agree more.

I agree with you that the non-voting block is quite large, being a younger individual myself and being a part of a different aray of election processes I can certainly attest that many youth do not vote purely because they do not care. I think in Canada it has become difficult to draw lines between the parties because to most Canadians the terminology used can be confusing...I'm willing to bet that at my university most people wouldn't be able to give a decent description of what they thought Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Greens or anyone really thought for that matter. I'm not saying a lot of people know nothing about politics I'm just saying I think people care less. Perfect example among many youth and no doubt my close friends is that the Green Party merely wants marijuana legalized. As for electing Leblanc, I think most of the voting public (usual folk that probably don't post on these forums, I'm thinking along the lines of my family) take a minor look at what each party stands for but mostly vote on leader. I think voting leader matters to some extent but I've always believed the whole there's no "I" in team, therefore I vote to more of a 50-50 split, I factor in who is in charge plus what I think of the party. Leblanc might be good for the Libs but I'm not sure anyone cares enough now adays to vote in a different party, most people are somewhat content with what the Conservatives have done. My father who voted Liberal for many years voted for the Conservatives in the last election and his reasoning was "they did a decent job, and thats all I ask"...seems like a simple concept really.

This is true and I will admit I didn't touch on this subject. I do admit that we as Canadian have also been responsible for overfishing the waters, I'm not blaming everyone but us, I said "We did it too". You bring up the idea of human population growth, and that we have more efficient equipment therefore "we" as humans are taking more then ever before and I also agree with you on that point. Although my skepticism is with the avoidance of DFO, I mean I would like to assume that DFO's job is to make sure that we don't take "too much" so that we wipe out a species of fish, just like the seals I put confidence in the fact that the government is actively managing this...you can argue with me on the quality of job they do I'm just pointing out what their job is, as far as I'm concerned. Remember I'm attempting to look at this from an unbias perspective, so I'm not saying your ideas are wrong. Yes it is an argument that is often used by the industry, but I mean we’ve done it before as humans, all of a sudden its wrong because its seals…I know that’s not exactly what you’re getting at or probably not even really close to it but you have to understand the value I put to this argument from opponents of the hunt. I’d also like to point that it depends on what you’re calling a cull, because my view may be completely different. I recently watched the documentary Food Inc. and in the film they claim that some slaughterhouses kill upwards of 400 cows per hour, could this not also be considered a form of culling then? Clearly the argument about primarily saving fish stocks is just as invalid as calling slaughterhouses “culling factories”, and I think you make a very valid point that it shouldn’t be about killing one thing to save another. I completely agree, I think there are other solutions to the problem…but I’m not saying I don’t believe in the hunt, I mean we hunt basically everything else so why should seals be some kind of protected animal. I suppose you could continue to hunt them but not for commercial use, but what the hell is the point then, hunting lodges make money off people going out to hunt deer or moose or bear or birds and we don’t hear people saying “wait they shouldn’t be making money off that”. All I’m saying is if you plan to be against the commercial aspect of the seal hunt then you need to be against the commercial aspect of all other hunting. So are all types of food, you can’t say fish is getting expensive but neglect the fact that it costs more to buy everything else too. I was trying to prove a point about how you are arguing. You’re basically just discrediting everything that doesn’t meet up with what you are attempting to say. That link is from a journal, just because YOU don’t have confidence in it doesn’t mean it might not be true…I mean what the hell do you really know about the veterinary journal? I have about as much confidence in the 98% figure as I do in all these opponents saying that almost 40% of seals killed are slaughtered inhumanely, so I take it all as a grain of salt, don’t sit here and only argue your point, have an open mind and try to understand what I’m asking…don’t just respond with “well how can we say that’s believable?”, how can we say that these Sea Sheppard activists aren’t full of shit? I agree that these figures of 200 charges seems foolish, as its already stated those are charges not convictions, I mean if you are going to accept certain things and discredit others then at least be fair about it and either accept or discredit all. This seems like a very interesting argument and I would like to read more about it if you have anything I should look it. As I’ve said I’m trying to be unbiased in the report therefore this may be a good argument as well. The one question I would raise to you about this is that we are talking about an industry, therefore the ban falls under the WTO which makes no provisions for human rights at all (doesn’t touch on child labour laws in any way), although when we choose to punish another country we also apply sanctions usually in the form of trade sanctions, which can also be detrimental to human life by reducing the market for said country’s exports, bringing in less money to the people of the country. So my question is why should there be animal rights considered in trade relations when we make absolutely no provision for human rights? I would be much more willing to accept the argument that animals should have rights if we we’re also provided with rights under the WTO, but I do not think we can put animal welfare above humans. I see the arguments you are trying to make and I believe this is a very reasonable approach to the debate on killing pups. Logical in the fact that we are really only killing the seal pups for the pelts, which fetch a higher price…and I agree that it’s probably not right to do it that way. I wouldn’t be opposed to setting an age limit a little higher, I mean people here are calling them babies but I’ve read that hunters must wait until the seal is “molting”, which I’m not exactly sure what that means but it appears it takes place after roughly 12-15 weeks when the mother leaves the child anyway. I sort of understand this being the bar that has been set, they would be left up to defend themselves anyway so it seems like an acceptable place to be allowed to hunt them if you take the numbers right out of it. But I don’t think we will ever find common ground on when it is appropriate, if we move the number higher to say not killing seals under 1 year then the debate becomes well how do we know the seal is a year old? It should be pretty clear when the seal is molting, or at least this is what I would hope the case is… Also I must say that I agree with you that these sealers aren’t “money-hungry” individuals, I mean they didn’t steal anyone’s life savings over the past 2 years, so why should they be stamped with the image of slaughtering young seal pups out in the middle of nowhere, worse guys in Canada? I would argue that most are assuming these individuals know that this is wrong and continue to do it purely for greed. In reality the prices of seal pelts have all but collapsed due to the financial recession, falling from $105 in 2006 to $15 in 2009 (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/05/f-seal-hunt.html), I mean isn’t this the case of stereotyping? I’m not saying lets sweep the problem under the rug, all I’m saying is shouldn’t we have bigger things to worry about in the grand scheme of things, many on these forums gravely disagree with how our food industry works, but I don’t see anyone trying to put up a big fight against these industries, like the beef industry which is feeding cattle corn in turn producing E.Coli 0157H7, I mean we didn’t have this strain of E.Coli before we started feeding them corn as far as I know….all I’m trying to say is if you want to be mad at the sealers because they are practicing this, then you sure as hell better be ready to take up the fight against the rest of the food industry!

Yes, but this point can also be argued just as well from the other side. Would they not have all the more reason to look to or believe in a creator watching down on them? I think in some instances it would. I also must agree that I feel that religion is essentially a form of brainwashing and the best way to counteract it would be through education (mentioned by someone earlier). I don't believe that politics and religion can be branched together, mainly due to the drastic differences in religious beliefs throughout the world. Religion is another means to divide, I don't consider myself a non-believer, all I'm saying is I don't know what I believe. Theres probably a strong case that can be made for all religions in some aspect, but the fact remains that all religions have conspiracy theories about being the greatest lies every told. Taking religion out of the equation would no doubt play a huge factor in world peace, IMO.

Couldn't agree more.