Trudeau family causes great offense!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Ultimately, it seems that those "deserving" of rights are those who can get an adequate consensus of people to fight for them. I don't care if animals are tortured, and most people seem to agree with me. But I don't quite get the contempt for the idea that they shouldn't be tortured. That seems pretty rational, but just too restrictive to my entertainment and eating pleasure.

It's already illegal to torture animals in Canada.

[BubberMiley]

It's already illegal to torture animals in Canada.

That's just wishy-washy laws for mamby-pambies who want to make themselves feel humane. And it's only illegal in certain situations, like if you're Michael Vick. If you're a bad shot while hunting or you enjoy eating veal, you can torture animals till the cows come home and nobody is going to charge you.

[Guest TrueMetis]

That's just wishy-washy laws for mamby-pambies who want to make themselves feel humane. And it's only illegal in certain situations, like if you're Michael Vick. If you're a bad shot while hunting or you enjoy eating veal, you can torture animals till the cows come home and nobody is going to charge you.

You don't actually know what torture is do you?

[kimmy]

I don't care if animals are tortured, and most people seem to agree with me. But I don't quite get the contempt for the idea that they shouldn't be tortured. That seems pretty rational, but just too restrictive to my entertainment and eating pleasure.

"Torture" is not a synonym for "kill".

-k

[William Ashley]

See the whole premise is that you need to put the conditions of animals on par with your favourite pet or yourself. (because animals have feelings too) (my personal reasons are more spiritual though and build from an ethical position but my ethics are very complex so I probably don't really meet the average vegan/peta ethics position anymore)

Watch this video then come back and say - would this be considered torture if I was treated that way? What if foofoo or scooby was?

People get all bent out of shape when the Chinese tenderize poochies but how different is it from having high impact steel lacerate and crush a limb of a four legged woodland creature galavanting through the woods on any given day, or the potentially partially snapped neck by a snare.

It is a very old practice nothing new.

I can't speak for PETA but my impression of the organization is that it really does care about animals as it would a human in terms of human rights.

Many people wouldn't eat humans (unless it were the norm I am guessing) but it is all about culture and flavour. that is not to say there arn't good tasting vegan menues... or that vegan food has to cost more.

The bottom line here is that animals were "trapped" and killed so that that photo could be taken. If Justin were wearing a human flesh parka instead from natives caught in the woods or people jumped and flayed while in the subway perhaps more of the population would be upset.

Frankly though the general consensus is that the animals that are good for us to kill (economically beneficial) and part of the cultural status quo are perfectly ok - but other cultures with different practices are barbaric. PETA simply has a higher moral standard that most Canadians can't even begin to approach - including Mr. Trudeau.

What I am suprised on here is that his family is wearing a minimum of about $1600 in fur jackets since it seems that the jackets sell for between $400 and $800. Was he sponsered or do most priveleged people buy $400 winter jackets? I can only guess teaching has not been his only source of income - but once again - perhaps teachers actually get paid well.

Here is a bit more on "canada goose factory jackets".

http://www.canadagooseonline.com/ - no I'm not getting a commission.

from the PETA side I would be asking two things.

1. where are the feathers coming from? Are the fowl killed for their down or harvested? Is it done - nicely?

2. trapping simply isn't a nice thing to do - why not make them with "fake fur instead?"

Personally I have skinned animals myself - but only animals I have scavenged that were dead when I found them - for example one animal killed by a dog accidentally and left to waste away, another road kill etc...

I actually advocate for using animal remains to good use - I just don't advocate for murdering an animal for its fur.. and even worse only for its fur when its bones and meat are left to rot.

ng

I also find the "canada goose" factory -- canada's national bird... tied into this - even though authorized kill of the animal have occured in Canada.. and are common in the US because the animal is seen as a nuisance.

It is funny that as Canada's average household debt is in the many many 10's of thousands this public servant is buying $400+ jackets... then we got to ask.. are they getting paid too much.

part of the issue here is that say if x% of people are christian - or jewish or muslim - their god is saying kill a few for me at the temple... so the religious and cultural beleif basis really isn't against the slaughter of animals it reveres it. Not everyone actually follows the old testament/talmund though. Hindus on the other hand might meet the PETA framework a little easier.. but the vedic basis itself actually burned live horses as part of their rituals (much like the celts either having sex with them before or after burning them alive.

Some of these things just are seen as over the top these days - either because there are no more kings in these cultures (and only they did the acts) likewise no more priests etc.. or place to perform the rituals.. but they are still in the "propaganda" for lack of a better word to describe indoctrinating text.

Being non ethnocentric I can only support freedom of non harmful practice and recognize god (my view of god - a multifaith view) has the power to punish humans who go against the will of nature. So I'm not really preachy about it myself - but I understand the issue.

He does look pretty good in the fur though I must say - even if he supported the brutal murder of an animal to do it. Some politicians would do worse to look good - like rob some disabled nortel employee or the widow of one of their means of living and leave them for dead.

(on a side note two rabits ran away from me today on my jog/run - see what we have done to them - completely scared - what do you think it would take you to be that way when you saw someone else.. clearly some element of trauma must have been inbuilt from the generations of survivers of human treatment to them - or maybe they just heard about the story) ---

here is more on fur trapping.

http://www.ad-international.org/fur/go.php?ssi=19

these jackets however are not farmed from what I have read they are trapped so see the trapped section not the farmed section for more info.

ps scalping didn't pass out of native customs all that long ago...

those natives perhaps treated humans on the same grounds as humans.. just had different practices... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping

You can try to say oh it is very simple that is wrong - but there are ideas indoctrinated behind customs.. that on first impression you can't see from the act itself... that is why things like honour killings, euthenasia and war time killing of combatants and civilians are "problematic" much like scalping --- or to some skinning after raising or trapping. They really are "an evil of sorts" but they are culturally stratified meaning they are embedded into the culture that is able to survive - as without it the ones that do maintain it can assert a dominant position on the ones that don't. And yes that is a total absence of supreme faith - but the judeochristianislamic god advocates warfare and genocide as a means of acheiving and that is a majority of the west. To those people that is good - not evil.. because it is to eliminate something seen as "worse". ethnic clensing of sorts.

The bottoms line --- a lot of people see nothing wrong with using animals as a product... others do.

It is just another political colour like bombing iran and the chinese or using PCPs or selling crack - some people benefit others don't. Usually these contraversial issues involve people standing up for a party that can't stand up for themselves - there is a "culturally unclear element" and it is based on ethics and morals and so is a socially defining issue - not a clear issue of "overall benefit"

The issue gets very complex the bottom line here is perhaps do animals feelings matter - and does our treatment of animals in any way effect us --- for some religious people yes.. for others they might compare it to refining metal or extracting oil.

As some religions and public health officials discovered -- how humans care for animals does effect human health and well being... not all practices are "dangerous" not all are "cruel" but some are.

and just what type of psychology exists can also effect human well being.. so yes how we treat animals does effect us.. just how it effects us is a matter of how we wish to define ourselves as a society.

(it is a crock - the whole system is a crock the psychology is a crock, but eliciting that twisted mindset from the man ain't something people ought to do for fear of encouraging subhuman behaviour (and I don't mean animalistic and barbaric behaviour.. I mean subhuman - inhumane. But alas the whole eye for eye on equal treatment... some animals treat humans bad... and hence the ethnical / moral argument gets tainted.. but it may reduce to - has that animal done something to you? for some a duck is a duck, and for others they purport the duck caller can't see the forest for the trees.

the maxim

bad people make life worse for good people, because they threaten to taint the good by association.

Edited December 19, 2010 by William Ashley

[scribblet]

It's all good, decrease the surplus coyote population

[BubberMiley]

"Torture" is not a synonym for "kill".

Yes, and I don't see how producing veal doesn't involve torture. But it's a very tasty product of torture.

[BubberMiley]

PETA can use their freedom of speech to criticize people who wear fur.

I'm using my freedom of speech to criticize them, and to express my support for a politician who (like the majority of Canadians) is happily wearing dead animal skin.

So then, by your definition, I guess you're both crybabies.

[Shady]

Yes, and I don't see how producing veal doesn't involve torture.

Forsure. You know that the meat producing industry wants to get all the answers it can out of the animals before they kill them.

Are you for real?

[William Ashley]

Forsure. You know that the meat producing industry wants to get all the answers it can out of the animals before they kill them.

Are you for real?

anguish: extreme mental distress

unbearable physical pain

agony: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"

torment: torment emotionally or mentally

yeah cause having metal rip into your leg immobilizing you for hours as you struggle until you collapse and die of exhastion wont cause phyiscal agony or suffering and mental trauma.

So I guess this isn't cruel and unusual treatment as a form of punishment then.. ?

What exactly would you call torture of animals or animal cruelty

Denying it is cruelty, and doing it are two different things - one is dishonest the other is cruel.

Atleast if we are going to discus an issue we can actually be honest about it rather than live in denial - as discussion of non points is a waste of time.

I've undergone both manmade and natural torture --- expand your knowledge of vocabulary a bit. joking about this stuff is a little offensive.

I can only guess you lived a cushy spoonfed life and have no grasp on the damage that torture does to people.

Are you denying trapping is potentially torturous to animals?

Edited December 19, 2010 by William Ashley

[BubberMiley]

In Shady's limited vocabulary, torture is only a means of getting information.

Even though it doesn't even work as a means of getting information.

[Shady]

Are you denying trapping is potentially torturous to animals?

Trapping isn't used to produce veal.

[Jack Weber]

Trapping calves????

[Shady]

Trapping calves????

Exactly. It's ridiculous.

[Wilber]

Many animals kill to survive, particularly the ones valued for their fur so in that respect we don't do anything that other species don't. If we kill an animal to eat, it seems kind of disrespectful to just throw away the parts we don't, so I don't have a problem with wearing leather or fur under those conditions. On the other hand, other species don't kill for vanity or sport. I do have a problem with that.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Wilber

[Bonam]

These idiot can have fun freezing in their crappy oil based faux fur or whatever artificial fibre they are using. Nothing will keep you warm of the water out like a good fur or leather garment.

I care nothing at all for animal rights but the above statement is not true. Modern artificial materials are superior to fur and leather from the standpoint of protection from weather, breathability, lightness, and durability. I'll take Polartec, Goretex and Softshell over fur and leather any day, for any of my mountain adventures...

Edited December 19, 2010 by Bonam

[William Ashley]

other species don't kill for vanity or sport.

[Wilber]

I care nothing at all for animal rights but the above statement is not true. Modern artificial materials are superior to fur and leather from the standpoint of protection from weather, breathability, lightness, and durability. I'll take Polartec, Goretex and Softshell over fur and leather any day, for any of my mountain adventures...

They still haven't come up with anything better than real fur for the rim of a parka hood. It just doesn't ice up like synthetics.

[DrGreenthumb]

The whole issue of fur/hide depends on how the fur/hide was obtained. You equate cowhide with coyote fur? Cowhide is, i'd imagine, mostly obtained after a cow is killed for its meat. I don't see a problem with that.

With Trudeau's coyote hide, the question is still: how was it obtained? If the animal was killed exclusively for its hide, in my opinion that's barbaric & sick. If it was obtained somehow naturally, then fine.

I wouldn't kill an animal just to wear it as an ornament. My non-fur coat is plenty warm.

I wish more people were wearing coyote hides. Coyotes are overpopulated and are a growing problem for livestock producers. I lost half my flock of chickens to coyotes this year. They are also increasingly less fearful of humans, and are becoming a danger to children living in rural areas.

[Bonam]

They still haven't come up with anything better than real fur for the rim of a parka hood. It just doesn't ice up like synthetics.

You are far behind the times my friend.

[DrGreenthumb]

The only problem is that I think everyone deserves to make their own choices - I will eat an animal I find dead, or

Really? You would eat an animal you find dead? Sorry but that is disgusting. Roadkill anyone? How do you know the animal did not die from some disease? Also you can't drain the blood from an already dead animal.

[DrGreenthumb]

On the other hand, other species don't kill for vanity or sport. I do have a problem with that.

Never met a house cat I guess?

[Wilber]

You are far behind the times my friend.

Name a synthetic fur that doesn't.

[Wilber]

Never met a house cat I guess?

Good point but I wonder if the cat looks at it the same way. You could probably say the same for some wild species like weasels but in general, wild animals don't kill for fun or their skins.

[Bonam]

Name a synthetic fur that doesn't.

I dunno about fur, I do know that my Arcteryx outer shell or mid layer soft shells don't ice up in any kind of weather, and are warm enough with several layers for me to be comfortable in -40, and are completely water proof.