Trudeau family causes great offense!

[August1991]

Returning to the OP:

Wearing the skins of animals? I would wager that the large majority of Canadians have clothing and accessories made out of the skins of animals. Leather remains the favorite material for winter footwear and gloves, as well as belts, purses, and other accessories. And, fur is of vast importance in the history of our country, and continues to employ many Canadians.

I would like to wish Mr Trudeau and his family a Merry Christmas. Don't let PETA ruin your holidays.

And I'm sure PETA won't ruin Trudeau Jnr's holidays.

The people who vote for PETA will never vote Conservative. But Trudeau Jnr just got himself alot of votes among many ordinary Canadians.

I glanced quickly through this thread and I'm astonished nobody noticed this. Trudeau Jnr did this deliberately, in the same way his father used to do it.

A man of the land.

In the case of Trudeau père, there was some truth to it. His father's people were rural Quebecers. As to Jnr, dunno.

Edited December 20, 2010 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

That's a great example of blogosphere propaganda.

You have a chronic inability to accept reality when it doesn't suit you.

[Bonam]

I'm talking about the edge of the hood that seals around your face in an Arctic parka. They still use real fur for that even though the rest of the coat may be synthetic.

Yeah I understood what you meant. I haven't had ice form around the edge of the hood on the jackets I mentioned.

[punked]

Returning to the OP:And I'm sure PETA won't ruin Trudeau Jnr's holidays.

The people who vote for PETA will never vote Conservative. But Trudeau Jnr just got himself alot of votes among many ordinary Canadians.

I glanced quickly through this thread and I'm astonished nobody noticed this. Trudeau Jnr did this deliberately, in the same way his father used to do it.

A man of the land.

In the case of Trudeau père, there was some truth to it. His father's people were rural Quebecers. As to Jnr, dunno.

Yah I got it right away, he knows his Liberal base isn't going anywhere so he is reaching for those old PC voters and doing a fine job having all you moderates that hate the Liberal party come to his defense. Wow there really is a sucker born every minute.

[Shady]

You have a chronic inability to accept reality when it doesn't suit you.

Sorry, but your example just isn't a common occurance. You cherrypick worse than Dick Cheney's Iraq intelligence.

[Guest TrueMetis]

No, because they're never allowed to move.

And that hurts them how? Of course this ignores that not all cows destined for veal are raised this way. My link

Is that like a nature show narrated by Sarah Palin?

That actually sounds like it would be a lot of fun.

"It's spring, and as mating season approaches this mama lynx is feeling a little mavericky..."

-k

No it's a show were she and her family do things to show how Alaskan they are even though it's clear she's never done most of it before. When it's not annoying stupid it's actually quite funny.

[Saipan]

And that hurts them how? Of course this ignores that not all cows destined for veal are raised this way. My link

No it's a show were she and her family do things to show how Alaskan they are even though it's clear she's never done most of it before. When it's not annoying stupid it's actually quite funny.

Far better than probably ANY senator anywhere in the world. She's filleting fish just right, shoot straight.... even notice when her father's scope is off

[PIK]

I'm actually pretty big on animal rights - getting the best conditions for animal and supporting :natural death use: over a murdering animal industry (I may be a member of PETA actually - not that active)

The only problem is that I think everyone deserves to make their own choices - I will eat an animal I find dead, or an animal someone offers to me (because it is better me who eats it than someone supporting its murder) --- I don't buy meat -- except for fish - and that is a long story. - and I went from strict vegan to someone who buys non fertalized eggs, and actually ain't against dairy use - but once again bad conditions or chemically altered states and unnatural states arn't "ideal" especially if they create health risks and states of pain for the animal.

It is all about doing respect to the animal. I would probably also kill an animal in self defence.

As far as this issue is concerned it is pretty much a non issue. It appears maybe as a little bit of a whiping - or has overtones to the "seal hunt" natives etc.. but it is a weird flip because I thought natives wern't happy about commercial fur trapping as atleast in the area I'm in they were blamed in part for depleting the native stocks (that and the trains)

I could be wrong.

I would wear animal product without a second thought - but I wouldn't kill the animal myself, nor would I support someone else killing it.. but I would put the animal to use once it was dead already, much like I'd eat a cow that died of a heart attack without malicious grounds. I'm not trying to escape samsara - I'm not trying to liberate my karma, I'm living my life and I'm not against accumulating good karma at the cost of moksha.

I do support animal rights though. I know people who trap also though - all in all - I don't doubt their right to and based upon traditions of me living in a place that is a north west company trapping post and hudsons bay trapping post, it is hard to offend the occupations of the people that built the community I live in, or the traditions of the two native communities that surround me - none the less I don't myself see a need for it, and opt to live in harmony with nature - although I almost fought a bear/moose once.. and was willing to do so - even to the death. But it didn't attack me, so no need to defend. They have a lot of character and you can bring out a lot of your own emotions that you associate with them and you can gain a greater respect for them.

To many it is a way of life.. and actually may be means of survival -- and potentially more environmentally friendly than a synthetic factory. Of course there are materials like wool and cotton, hemp and others...

do honour to the animal is where I am at... much like make use of the plant but don't abuse it or overuse it.

So what I got out of this , is I am against the killing of animals for food and clothing, but if someone else does the killing ,you have no problem eating or wearing animal products. So I take it you are for making it illegal to fish with barbed hooks?

[The_Squid]

I have no opinion on Trudeau and his fur wearing ways...

In my personal opinion, if an animal is killed for its meat and the hide is used as well, and this is done in a humane manner, then great.

If they are animals kept in a little tiny cage for their entire lives just for their fur, I believe that practice should be banned. Mink and fox farms are inhumane and cruel.

[Saipan]

But then same goes for chicken farms. "Environmentalists" have no problem eating eggs from birds that condemned to walk all their lives on zinc galvanized wire. Never see a simgle blade of grass or a bug, and often not even sunshine.

Likewise they have no problem with killing moose very slowly, being torn little by little. By wolves.

As long is it's not instant by hunters.

[M.Dancer]

About a dozen years ago (if not more) CBC reporters were told not to wear fur on camera. Not because of PETA or some concern that viewers would find fur distastful, but because at the time there was some economic hardship and most candians wwho would love to be kept warm by fur could not afford to.

My only thought about Trudeau's card is the same as the CBC execs. When so many are struggling, is it appropriate to show how much better off the fur bearer is?

[Bonam]

In my personal opinion, if an animal is killed for its meat and the hide is used as well, and this is done in a humane manner, then great.

If they are animals kept in a little tiny cage for their entire lives just for their fur, I believe that practice should be banned. Mink and fox farms are inhumane and cruel.

I never understood sentiments like these. Either way, the animal is being kept enslaved for its entire lifetime and then is killed at the whim of its human masters. The precise method of execution matters for only a few seconds, negligible compared to depriving a creature of its freedom for its entire lifetime and then killing it. And the % of body parts that are used after death hardly matters to the animal, it is already dead and can't care whether you use just its meat or also its fur.

The reality is a lot more black and white. Either you don't give a damn about animal rights, as I don't, in which case the utilization of animal products does not disturb you, or you care about animal rights, in which case any kind of farming and killing of animals should be unacceptable to you.

Anything in between is poorly thought out hypocrisy.

[Saipan]

About a dozen years ago (if not more) CBC reporters were told not to wear fur on camera. Not because of PETA or some concern that viewers would find fur distastful, but because at the time there was some economic hardship and most candians wwho would love to be kept warm by fur could not afford to.

Almost anyone can affor to raise rabbits. High quality fur.

My only thought about Trudeau's card is the same as the CBC execs. When so many are struggling, is it appropriate to show how much better off the fur bearer is?

Yes, it IS appropriate.

Just like showing off Windsor Castle.

Or one's expensive sports car.

It's a good incentive for the less diligent (or even the lazy) to move their butts.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Saipan

[Saipan]

(error in edit doubling post)

Edited December 20, 2010 by Saipan

[William Ashley]

So what I got out of this ,is I am against the killing of animals for food and clothing, but if someone else does the killing ,you have no problem eating or wearing animal products. So I take it you are for making it illegal to fish with barbed hooks?

Guess what.... why not just read my comment for what it is...

To recap.

1. I do not support the murder of animals contrary to their wishes. There is a threshold that I consider life "sensed" enough to merit this. However all nature sould be respected and honoured mindfully for what it is and its place in the world.

2. I think that we ought to make use of things and doing honour to a dead animal is part of that. But killing an animal for the purpose of industry where it isn't "needed'. Is infringing on the animals right to live.

3. I do not support animal products for myself, but feel individuals can make their own choices, and business people have the ability to act within the law in pursuit of providing services and products to people. It is up for the law to regulate the limits of allowable behaviour in society, not politics. People can advocate but application of force to prevent an act is something else - otherwise it is criminality -and while I do believe not all laws represent all peoples, I think that there is a fine line we must cross and a hidden war, or outright war, doesn't represent a single society, but actually represents multiple societies. Soceity can be united, but the basis I speak within regarding "Canadian Law" tends to be based on Canadian laws, and not politics of cultures and societies that weave the fabric of Canadian Society as a whole.

4. My reasons for eating fish are spiritual not moral. I could list many reasons why catching fish to eat should be avoided.

Do understand though that animals themselves on a basis of "ethics" acceptable behaviour within species varies widely. Some animals omnivores and carnivores will attack other animals, so it is not purely an ethical basis.

In part this is why I support the right to self defence, even if it means killing an animal - if the animal is that persistent in attacking or the only means available to defend oneself are potentially lethal.

The fish thing is complex. I am willing to eat some other limited sense life also that could be deemed extinguishing life.

It should be noted that some "natural" options are less environmentally harmful than manmade alternatives.. so the overall effect should also be accounted for. For instance using a horse in some areas may be less damaging to the environment, and may save animals lives as a result. The list of natural over manmade is extensive. One needs to address the overall impact of choices - but we really need very little.

I think however it is getting off topic a little.

I see hooking to actually be a time waste and netting is a far more efficent use of time if actually fishing for fish - but it is deemed illegal for perhaps those same reasons.

Characteristics of life, and the "spiritual nature" of the life are what matters to me - and that is a matter of faith. It is how it effects the life cycle, and how it effects me by consuming it.

I eat everything but I only eat some things under certain circumstances. Different scenarios exist for different foods.

I really do beleive that practices of ahimsa lead to liberation of the mind (so ideally aiming towards those practices is a good modal to follow)- but there are still worldly issues that may need to be dealt with..

and personally I'm not aiming for moksha. So I practice my beleifs based on the outcomes of use of ahimsa and other world practices and faiths.. it is complex.

I modify my diet to acheive my goals, not to be liberated from human life. I have a threshold I work with that modifies my diets based on the "overall effect" and you need to know my overall beleifs and understandings to really understand my practices.

I'm unlimited at default but self limited for the purpose of consumption.

ahimsa translates as - do no harm. -- peace and well being -- an avoidance of violence against life and material --- being a friend to the world with respect and honour.

my beleifs support bringing about positive karma and harnessing lifeforce/spirit for that purpose.

It gets very multifaith however I am moderating life so I try to associate with forces I want to have in my own. Likewise if I can improve the overall "force" then I take acts accordingly.

Life is more than biological or psychological, it is spiritual.

The bottom line on this issue is don't be cruel.I understand both sides of the situation though.

As for "making fishing illegal" I'm libertarian.

I think laws should regard public safety or the environment (as an extention of public safety) predominantly not culture.

If the environment is being damaged and not benefited, then laws might be required - that is why conservation and resource management is important with limited natural resources. The reason for this is because, we as a society, as a whole, live in that environment and share it, there are no real boundries or walls that seperate us in the world we live in, it is a shared part of our life. --- there is a certain level of reason and mindfulness that ought to be applied on resource issues.

I'm not versed enough in the overall effects of hook fishing on nature to make an informed decision. As far as I am aware though, netting would be less damaging and dangerous but perhaps deplete fish stocks more heavily. It is an ecosystem concern. If the fish arn't needed, personally I would say attempt to eat the lowest sensed life you can to maintain and achieve your needed health and wellbeing.

This might vary from person to person, differenet people have different lives, different goals, different barriers to overcome, to acheive fullfillment (this relates to concepts such as maslow's hierarchy of needs http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.union.umd.edu/GH/basic_needs/images/maslows_hierarchy2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.union.umd.edu/GH/basic_needs/index.html&h=359&w=400&sz=13&tbnid=mjohlAB-hYk_WM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmaslow%2527s%2Bhierarchy%2Bof%2Bneeds&zoom=1&q=maslow%27s+hierarchy+of+needs&hl=en&usg=__lr2sVmKY8UVz78gbHgerwtbTF3w=&sa=X&ei=RbUPTe2wKpOgnwff75XUDg&ved=0CCoQ9QEwBQ). I'm not about to tell someone else how to live their life, but I don't see a problem of saying what they shouldn't do in terms of interacting with my own - that is the basis of peace and cooperation - communication and dialouge to voice acts against the self to prevent counteraction and breach of a united society based on respect and honour.

The needs of humanity extend beyond human society.

Edited December 20, 2010 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

Less is more.

Verbosity is meandering about nothing in particular.

[The_Squid]

But then same goes for chicken farms. "Environmentalists" have no problem eating eggs from birds that condemned to walk all their lives on zinc galvanized wire. Never see a simgle blade of grass or a bug, and often not even sunshine.

Not true at all. I don't buy my eggs from factory farms. Free range chickens from a local farm only for me...

Likewise they have no problem with killing moose very slowly, being torn little by little. By wolves.

As long is it's not instant by hunters.

I think a wolf killing a moose and humans treating animals humanely are apples and oranges. But you love those red herrings, don't you?

[madmax]

Too funny when lefties attack lefties.

I have always thought that PETA was Conservative like Fox News.

They behave in a similar manner.

Edited December 20, 2010 by madmax

[The_Squid]

I never understood sentiments like these. Either way, the animal is being kept enslaved for its entire lifetime and then is killed at the whim of its human masters. The precise method of execution matters for only a few seconds, negligible compared to depriving a creature of its freedom for its entire lifetime and then killing it. And the % of body parts that are used after death hardly matters to the animal, it is already dead and can't care whether you use just its meat or also its fur.

The reality is a lot more black and white. Either you don't give a damn about animal rights, as I don't, in which case the utilization of animal products does not disturb you, or you care about animal rights, in which case any kind of farming and killing of animals should be unacceptable to you.

Anything in between is poorly thought out hypocrisy.

That's just plain silly and merely an attempt to justify your own lack of morality when it comes to the ethical treatment of animals. Of course there are different levels of humaneness and/or cruelty that are not acceptable.

Like Saipan's example about the chickens... I don't like chickens being held in little cages with their beaks cut off, never seeing the light of day.

However, a farm with free running healthy chickens is completely different. I grew up on such a farm and we, as farmers, hated what was happening on factory farms, chickens and other animals.

[Bonam]

That's just plain silly and merely an attempt to justify your own lack of morality when it comes to the ethical treatment of animals. Of course there are different levels of humaneness and/or cruelty that are not acceptable.

Like Saipan's example about the chickens... I don't like chickens being held in little cages with their beaks cut off, never seeing the light of day.

However, a farm with free running healthy chickens is completely different. I grew up on such a farm and we, as farmers, hated what was happening on factory farms, chickens and other animals.

Yes I'm sure it's all better because the chicken gets to "run free" (within the small fenced area of your farm) before it gets slaughtered, before its children are harvested for food, etc.

Keeping a living creature in a cage is still keeping it in a cage, whether that cage is the size of your farm or the size of a little box. You are just trying to make yourself feel better by thinking that what you do is any different, like a slave owner who thinks himself superior because he gives his slaves better clothing and more food than his peers.

Again: either it is moral to enslave and kill animals for the use of humans, or it is not. Either animals are mere chattel which we can do with as we please, or they are conscious beings deserving of living out their own lives in freedom. Anything in between is just intellectually dishonest individuals trying to make themselves feel better about their choices.

[The_Squid]

Yes I'm sure it's all better because the chicken gets to "run free" (within the small fenced area of your farm) before it gets slaughtered, before its children are harvested for food, etc.

Actually, it is better for the chicken not to be kept in a small cage where it can't move and to cut its beak off. It is more humane.

Keeping a living creature in a cage is still keeping it in a cage, whether that cage is the size of your farm or the size of a little box.

No... one is humane and one isn't. THere certainly is a difference.

You are just trying to make yourself feel better by thinking that what you do is any different, like a slave owner who thinks himself superior because he gives his slaves better clothing and more food than his peers.

I don't humanize animals... they are not people... they are not slaves... there is no comparison. This is merely about treating animals in an ethical manner.

Again: either it is moral to enslave and kill animals for the use of humans, or it is not. Either animals are mere chattel which we can do with as we please, or they are conscious beings deserving of living out their own lives in freedom. Anything in between is just intellectually dishonest individuals trying to make themselves feel better about their choices.

Not at all correct... Animals can be kept and used by humans in a humane manner. If they aren't, I will not support it. I know the farms that I buy my meat and eggs from and how they treat their animals. I catch my own fish.

It's not a difficult concept... unfortunately, most people don't pay attention to how the animals that they consume are treated. This perpetuates the problem of poor treatment on factory farms.

[dre]

Yes I'm sure it's all better because the chicken gets to "run free" (within the small fenced area of your farm) before it gets slaughtered, before its children are harvested for food, etc.

Keeping a living creature in a cage is still keeping it in a cage, whether that cage is the size of your farm or the size of a little box. You are just trying to make yourself feel better by thinking that what you do is any different, like a slave owner who thinks himself superior because he gives his slaves better clothing and more food than his peers.

Again: either it is moral to enslave and kill animals for the use of humans, or it is not. Either animals are mere chattel which we can do with as we please, or they are conscious beings deserving of living out their own lives in freedom. Anything in between is just intellectually dishonest individuals trying to make themselves feel better about their choices.

Again: either it is moral to enslave and kill animals for the use of humans, or it is not. Either animals are mere chattel which we can do with as we please, or they are conscious beings deserving of living out their own lives in freedom. Anything in between is just intellectually dishonest individuals trying to make themselves feel better about their choices.

Theres nothing inconsistant about believing that we can use animals for food and clothing and thinking that we shouldnt make them suffer more than need be. Most hunters have some sort of self imposed contract with their prey... a kind of respect on some level.

Anything in between is just intellectually dishonest individuals trying to make themselves feel better about their choices

Thats exactly what morals are... youre predisposition towards making choices you feel good about, based on your own subjective filter. Theres absolutely no reason for anyone to come down on the side of either of the extremes you mentioned and very few people do.

[Bonam]

Actually, it is better for the chicken not to be kept in a small cage where it can't move and to cut its beak off. It is more humane.

How so?

No... one is humane and one isn't. THere certainly is a difference.

Who gets to decide that? You? There are plenty of people who oppose the enslavement of animals as immoral and inhumane, including free range animals.

I don't humanize animals... they are not people... they are not slaves... there is no comparison. This is merely about treating animals in an ethical manner.

And how is keeping living creatures on your farm and harvesting their offspring and the animals themselves at your whim "ethical"?

Not at all correct... Animals can be kept and used by humans in a humane manner.

USED... in a humane manner? USING another living creature to its detriment and to your benefit can never be "humane".

If they aren't, I will not support it. I know the farms that I buy my meat and eggs from and how they treat their animals. I catch my own fish.

Yes, I'm sure the fish thank you for it, as they are violently torn out of the streams or lakes where they were swimming and killed so you can satisfy your hunger.

It's not a difficult concept... unfortunately, most people don't pay attention to how the animals that they consume are treated.

Nor should they, since enslavement and killing is enslavement and killing regardless of "treatment".

This perpetuates the problem of poor treatment on factory farms.

The problem... that allows vastly more food to be produced and more humans to be fed at a lower cost? I don't see this as a problem. The higher the standards of "treatment", which change absolutely nothing except to appease the consciences of morally inconsistent individuals, the higher the cost, which only makes poor people starve.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Bonam

[Bonam]

Thats exactly what morals are... youre predisposition towards making choices you feel good about, based on your own subjective filter. Theres absolutely no reason for anyone to come down on the side of either of the extremes you mentioned and very few people do.

Here we disagree. Morality comes from reason, or should in a rational individual. Morals that come from "faith" and "feelings" do not reflect reality.

The fact that someone feels better because they keep their chicken in a larger cage does not make them more moral than someone who keeps their chicken in a smaller cage.

[The_Squid]

Actually, no. Morality does not come solely from reason. Morality comes from empathy as well.