To, perhaps, help illustrate my point against making laws for the sake of making laws, here's one of my favourite quotes from The West Wing...
Quote:
(Speaking about the Equal Rights Amendment) ...Because it's humiliating. A new amendment we vote on declaring that I am equal under the law to a man, I am mortified to discover there's reason to believe I wasn't before. I am a citizen of this country, I am not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old, white, men. The same Article 14 that protects you, protects me, and I went to law school just to make sure.
Elephants, white tigers and snow leopards are all on the world endangered species list. They are protected by international law, which would supersede my right to import them whether my country allowed me to or not.
Are the particular species of shark that are being targeted for their fins equally protected? I'm not being flippant, I honestly don't know. If they are, then why do we need our government to tell us it's not allowed if it's already not allowed? If they aren't, then why should our government prevent us from eating them?
All I'm saying, is that I believe in small government. If there's already an applicable law prohibiting something, then why would we need another one? On the flip side, if there isn't a law prohibiting something, do we really (actually) need a new one? Is there a particular, valid reason why we need one? I mean, sure, the procedure for acquiring the fins is cruel and inhumane, but one can equally argue the same for almost any animal-product we consume.
What about declawing cats? Outlawed in many countries around the world, but perfectly legal here in Canada. Is that right or wrong? I think it's terribly cruel to amputate part of a cat's toes just for the sake of protecting our furniture, but I also believe that it should be my decision to make.
The government has enough things to worry about. I don't need it trying to figure out if my cat has all of his toes or if there's a shark fin in my soup.
How do you think Elephants, tigers and leopards got on those lists? Governments agreed to motions to put them there. They are targeting sharks in general for their fins. Shark populations are under huge strain across the globe and finning certainly doesn't help. Declawing cats and finning LIVE sharks, tossing their still live bodies back into the ocean to let them die slowly and painfully is an absolutely ridiculous comparison.
That's the difference between a Conservative and Liberal government. Liberals want to govern everything, while Conservatives just want to govern the things that need to be governed on our behalf, and let us govern everything else for ourselves.
Not really, no. The conservative government is just interested in governing different things, and it happens to seemingly translate into a smaller government thus far. Have you gone over any part of that omnibus crime bill from a short while back? Now while the marijuana thing would never affect me personally, I know people who would be affected by it. Why don't they just let pot smokers govern that for themselves?
__________________
"Correction, it's not your leg son. It's Liverpool's leg" - Shankly
What about declawing cats? Outlawed in many countries around the world, but perfectly legal here in Canada. Is that right or wrong? I think it's terribly cruel to amputate part of a cat's toes just for the sake of protecting our furniture, but I also believe that it should be my decision to make.
The government has enough things to worry about. I don't need it trying to figure out if my cat has all of his toes or if there's a shark fin in my soup.
I guess we should decriminalize dogfighting too then, right? The government has no right to prevent me from capitalizing on my dogs suffering, so long as I pay taxes on any income I gain from it.
Why cant they use the sharks and turn them into cat food or something? My only issue with the bill is that it would prohibit a shark fishery to be established. Shark like any other animal should be allowed to be harvested in a humane sustainable way. The problem with shark finning is the inhumane manner it is being done.
All I'm saying, is that I believe in small government.
A truly 'small government' oriented federal system wouldn't allocate 20 billion dollars in annual military spending, doubling from eight years previous.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
It's not the Government's place to tell its citizens what they can or can not eat. Government should keep the lights on, provide safety and protection, make sure the bills are paid, and make sure our international interests attended to.
Let me worry about how I want to live my life, and whether or not I want to stuff a shark fin in my gullet.
That's what a Conservative government is all about. Do we really need our government to tell us it's wrong to eat shark fins? I'm a smart guy. My morals are pretty decent. I have the ability to decide this kind of stuff for myself. The less things we allow to be governed on our behalf, the freer we are. That's the difference between a Conservative and Liberal government. Liberals want to govern everything, while Conservatives just want to govern the things that need to be governed on our behalf, and let us govern everything else for ourselves.
If countries don't ban the importation of shark fins. There will be no sharks in a very short period of time. The less sharks there are, the more expensive the fins get, the more 'status' it represents to a bunch of ignoramuses, the more in demand they become. It will be an ecological disaster of unprecedented scale. It is argued some species are now past the point of recovery. Because of Chinese shark fin demand.
If countries do not make this practice a crime. China will destroy an entire group of species. And then some. There is simply zero of concept conservation of species protection in China. They do not care. All that matters is looking cool, eating a garbage bowl of soup to impress people. If worldwide goverments doesn't make it a serious crime, and soon, the Oceans are doomed. And the consequences will be irreversible. This is not hyperbolic by any stretch, it is that huge of a deal. Remove the Apex predators from the Ocean, and nobody can even begin to estimate how massive of a catastrophe this will be.
If an entire culture of people cannot control their selfish urges and do what is right for not only mankind, but more importantly and entire group of species, then you have to make them control it, by making them criminals.
Last edited by pylon; 03-28-2013 at 09:19 PM.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
Why cant they use the sharks and turn them into cat food or something? My only issue with the bill is that it would prohibit a shark fishery to be established. Shark like any other animal should be allowed to be harvested in a humane sustainable way. The problem with shark finning is the inhumane manner it is being done.
No, the biggest problem is the rate of which they are doing it, and the fact no species are out of bounds, regardless of how endangered they may be. Removing sharks from the Oceans, would be as catastrophic as removing bees from the planet.
The Following User Says Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
Are we at all surprised? The party's track record on environmental issues speaks for itself.
This.
Though many decisions regarding the environment are tough to weigh against the economic factors, this government almost seems happy to add to environmenal problems. One of the biggest problems of the conservative majority.
It's not the Government's place to tell its citizens what they can or can not eat. Government should keep the lights on, provide safety and protection, make sure the bills are paid, and make sure our international interests attended to.
Let me worry about how I want to live my life, and whether or not I want to stuff a shark fin in my gullet.
That's what a Conservative government is all about. Do we really need our government to tell us it's wrong to eat shark fins? I'm a smart guy. My morals are pretty decent. I have the ability to decide this kind of stuff for myself. The less things we allow to be governed on our behalf, the freer we are. That's the difference between a Conservative and Liberal government. Liberals want to govern everything, while Conservatives just want to govern the things that need to be governed on our behalf, and let us govern everything else for ourselves.
This is the most overused and perhaps illogical of the generally right wing based arguments, here and south of the border.
The government already does tell you what you can put in your body for a variety of reasons. They also tell you when, where, and how you can drive, what you must do to own a business, what is appropriate to wear in public, and multitudes of other regulations that govern your daily life.
Now, you may argue, I'm against regulation in those things as well, and I would largely agree with the sentiment. But only the staunchest libertarian who is really just looking for a fight would say we don't need any regulations.
Like many of the ones we need to live as a responsible society, this probably passes the test.
I visited Sea Life in Phoenix last week, and the presenter said that sharks will be extinct in 100 years. That sounded a bit alarmist. Any truth to that claim?
About 78 MILLION sharks are killed annually...possibly higher depending on the study. They reproduce once annually and don't have many pups. I'd be surprised if it takes 100 years at the current rate.
Finning is ridiculous to me. Why would you want to eat a part of a shark which is full of mercury. Also long lining causes countless deaths and the sharks are just tossed away as by catch. Pretty lame of the Feds to not pass it but as we see in Calgary, even when it passes some lobby group whines and minds get changed.
If we had 16 KM long trap lines across the land which catches every animal and all we cared about keeping were say rabbits people would have a problem with it. Because its happening in the ocean, nobody sees it.
This is just dumb. Can't say I'm pleased with the Conservative about this. Eff catering a minority group with backwards philosophy on this subject. Use your head. Voting in favour wouldn't hurt you in votes much, but voting against as they have will.
This is why Ralph Klein was so popular and will be dearly missed. He would tell the Asian community that if they didn't like this ban that they should move back to Asia or something totally wrong. Politically incorrect and would cause public backlash but overall would win the vote because he stood by his conviction and didn't bend over for votes.
Current politicans have no backbone. You will be missed Ralph!
This is why Ralph Klein was so popular and will be dearly missed. He would tell the Asian community that if they didn't like this ban that they should move back to Asia or something totally wrong. Politically incorrect and would cause public backlash but overall would win the vote because he stood by his conviction and didn't bend over for votes.
Current politicans have no backbone. You will be missed Ralph!
I sincerely doubt it's the entire Asian community that gives a rat's ass.
More than likely it's a special interest group that has somehow convinced (or paid off) grown-ass politicians that their small lobby can somehow influence a large voting block.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
Last edited by PsYcNeT; 03-30-2013 at 11:41 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
