This bill would have turned us all into vegans. At the very least it would have raised the price of beef, pork and poultry to the point that only the top !% could afford to eat meat.
Probably not, but why does he say that as if it was a bad thing?
Looking at other google news results...
While there are areas of this bill that I am supportive of, some amendments to the Criminal Code were very concerning, specifically interpretive language that could criminalize historic and normal activities of hunting, fishing, farming and trapping.
Canada already has strong animal protection legislation which was strengthened in 2008 by Bill S-203 which strengthened penalties for those who harm animals.
hunting, fishing, farming and trapping are by definition harming animals, you dipshit. Excuse the language..
Robert Sopuck, a Manitoba Conservative MP, echoed those concerns in previous debate on the bill, saying the terms “brutally or viciously” could create “a new and very broad offence. For example, would the current method of cooking lobster by placing them live in a pot of boiling water be criminalized?”
“It’s really about coming up with a balanced piece of legislation that protects the rights of hunters and angler and our agricultural community, even those involved in medical research, but also acknowledges concerns that we’ve heard from the broader Canadian community on this.”
Rempel cited the bestiality law as “a huge loophole we’re going to have to address.”
Even her fellow Conservative MP Robert Sopuck, who led the charge against the bill and was “absolutely delighted” at the scope of its defeat, can agree with that. He said his issue was with the “vague wording” that could have opened legitimate animal use up to potential litigation — particularly the Criminal Code provisions in the bill. The fact that it didn’t set out any exemptions for hunting, fishing and farming was problematic.
I don't understand the kind of world we live in. Sexual contact is declared to be "bad" without any context or evidence whatsoever. At the same time it is perfectly normal to rally against animal protection laws because you think you have a "right" to kill animals for fun. I don't get it.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2016-10-07 04:08:46
I don't agree with the assertion that all historic cultural practices that may be cruel should be banned. I know it's ironic, being a deer zoo and all, but I don't even oppose hunting really.
I'd never be part of it directly, but I don't feel so strongly over it. I've always told myself I can differentiate between those I love and those I eat.
I guess this means I'm a slightly hypocritical zoo, but I'm ok with that because society is so fucking hypocritical it's not even funny, so I can afford a bit.
BaaxtenCanines, equines, cetaceans 2 points on 2016-10-08 15:44:57
It's not hypocritical at all. I don't disagree with hunting, so long as it's for food, but that doesn't mean I agree with it either.
To me, it's morally permissible. It works for billions of animals every day and night and has worked for hundreds of millions of years, so why should we, being animals too, act any different?
Swibblestein 1 point on 2016-10-08 19:03:30
Well, I mean, animals rape each other all the time, and that's worked for billions of animals for hundreds of millions of years.
I feel like that's a really lazy argument you're using, just in general. Animals in the wild are not shining stars of virtue, sustainability, reason, or just about anything else.
thelongestusernameeethese posts are too deep for me. im starting to get all weird ag 1 point on 2016-10-08 22:53:07
Other animals who hunt dont have the capability to live just as well without it. Nor do they have the ability for mass agriculture
And (im really getting so tired of saying this) but the appeal the nature fallacy is still a fallacy. And if think it isn't, don't bother replying becuase computers are about as unnatural as you can get.
tencendur_Neeeigh 1 point on 2016-10-10 17:58:22
Premise 1): Everything that is not natural is supernatural.
Premise 2): Computers are not natural.
Conclussion: Computers are supernatural. (Like angels and demons?)
If you think the conclussion is an absurd, then you might cancel a premise if it makes you feel well.
thelongestusernameeethese posts are too deep for me. im starting to get all weird ag 1 point on 2016-10-11 22:21:20
su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
why should we, being animals too, act any different?
Because humans can be more ethical than animals.
I don't disagree with hunting, so long as it's for food
So, if a person has all the money in the world to buy vegan food in a shop, but goes out of the way to hunt deer, you OK with that? Even that he had no need to do that? Even that in the process of doing that, one or more deer is going to scape with a bullet wound and die slowly in the forest?
Only way hunting is OK is if you are starving to dead and you have no other option but to hunt for survival. Else, it is just excuses to not eat vegan stuff and support animal cruelty.
fuzzyfurry 1 point on 2016-10-11 23:07:41
How do you differentiate? From my perspective the only difference is which animal you choose to extend your empathy towards. I don't mean that overly accusing. Most people think this way and so did I for many years. But once you experienced the realization that humans don't need to take part in the deliberate killing of sentient beings and that we can afford to show kindness to animals that don't mean us harm, it's hard to go back. Just imagine a society where 90+% of the people don't eat meat and almost everyone grew up never eating meat. How many people would go out of their way to justify eating meat and then actually do it?
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2016-10-12 02:04:55
How do you differentiate? From my perspective the only difference is which animal you choose to extend your empathy towards.
Pretty much.
Aluzky 1 point on 2016-10-10 22:59:14
I don't understand the kind of world we live in.
A horrible world where the majority of humans are unintelligent, unethical and hypocritical.
People in charge of passing laws should hae a minimum IQ of 150 and show evidence of being non-bias and rational.
marketingman007 1 point on 2016-10-13 16:08:24
And who would be judging who is non-biased and rational?
Good luck with that one.
Also, a min 150 IQ would mean rule by elites and intellectually biased people, not average people. Rule by elites would not be a society I'd want - regular people have a lot more common sense than many elites.
Aluzky 1 point on 2016-10-30 00:26:42
Elites? Don't know about them, but yes, I want intellectuals to rule society. You can place rule to make sure the persons who are chosen are not bias. If you follow intellectual rules, you can avoid bias. Where the current system, is clear that politicians/presidents are obviously bias.
Average joe can't tie their shoes much less rule a society, this is why we have such shitty societies. You need intelligent to keep the ignorant masses from killing themselves.
marketingman007 1 point on 2016-11-01 15:55:52
Well, I'm glad to see that you have such a healthy attitude of regular people. If you represent elitists, I'm glad that elitists don't make the rules.
Aluzky 1 point on 2016-11-02 20:02:56
Well, I'm glad to see that you have such a healthy attitude of regular people.
Is that sarcasm? If not, then good that you can appreciate rational thinking.
If you represent elitists, I'm glad that elitists don't make the rules.
I have no idea what "elitists" are, and I doubt that I represent them considering that i don't know what they are. Would be nice if you where to explain what elitists are instead of actively avoiding to do so.
/r/zoophilia archive
From the comments:
Probably not, but why does he say that as if it was a bad thing?
Looking at other google news results...
hunting, fishing, farming and trapping are by definition harming animals, you dipshit. Excuse the language..
Yes, please.
I don't understand the kind of world we live in. Sexual contact is declared to be "bad" without any context or evidence whatsoever. At the same time it is perfectly normal to rally against animal protection laws because you think you have a "right" to kill animals for fun. I don't get it.
I don't agree with the assertion that all historic cultural practices that may be cruel should be banned. I know it's ironic, being a deer zoo and all, but I don't even oppose hunting really.
I'd never be part of it directly, but I don't feel so strongly over it. I've always told myself I can differentiate between those I love and those I eat.
I guess this means I'm a slightly hypocritical zoo, but I'm ok with that because society is so fucking hypocritical it's not even funny, so I can afford a bit.
It's not hypocritical at all. I don't disagree with hunting, so long as it's for food, but that doesn't mean I agree with it either.
To me, it's morally permissible. It works for billions of animals every day and night and has worked for hundreds of millions of years, so why should we, being animals too, act any different?
Well, I mean, animals rape each other all the time, and that's worked for billions of animals for hundreds of millions of years.
I feel like that's a really lazy argument you're using, just in general. Animals in the wild are not shining stars of virtue, sustainability, reason, or just about anything else.
Other animals who hunt dont have the capability to live just as well without it. Nor do they have the ability for mass agriculture
And (im really getting so tired of saying this) but the appeal the nature fallacy is still a fallacy. And if think it isn't, don't bother replying becuase computers are about as unnatural as you can get.
Premise 1): Everything that is not natural is supernatural.
Premise 2): Computers are not natural.
Conclussion: Computers are supernatural. (Like angels and demons?)
If you think the conclussion is an absurd, then you might cancel a premise if it makes you feel well.
su·per·nat·u·ral ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit adjective 1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
pretty sure we understand transistors and wires
http://www.abstrusegoose.com/215
Because humans can be more ethical than animals.
So, if a person has all the money in the world to buy vegan food in a shop, but goes out of the way to hunt deer, you OK with that? Even that he had no need to do that? Even that in the process of doing that, one or more deer is going to scape with a bullet wound and die slowly in the forest?
Only way hunting is OK is if you are starving to dead and you have no other option but to hunt for survival. Else, it is just excuses to not eat vegan stuff and support animal cruelty.
How do you differentiate? From my perspective the only difference is which animal you choose to extend your empathy towards. I don't mean that overly accusing. Most people think this way and so did I for many years. But once you experienced the realization that humans don't need to take part in the deliberate killing of sentient beings and that we can afford to show kindness to animals that don't mean us harm, it's hard to go back. Just imagine a society where 90+% of the people don't eat meat and almost everyone grew up never eating meat. How many people would go out of their way to justify eating meat and then actually do it?
Pretty much.
A horrible world where the majority of humans are unintelligent, unethical and hypocritical.
People in charge of passing laws should hae a minimum IQ of 150 and show evidence of being non-bias and rational.
And who would be judging who is non-biased and rational? Good luck with that one. Also, a min 150 IQ would mean rule by elites and intellectually biased people, not average people. Rule by elites would not be a society I'd want - regular people have a lot more common sense than many elites.
Elites? Don't know about them, but yes, I want intellectuals to rule society. You can place rule to make sure the persons who are chosen are not bias. If you follow intellectual rules, you can avoid bias. Where the current system, is clear that politicians/presidents are obviously bias.
Average joe can't tie their shoes much less rule a society, this is why we have such shitty societies. You need intelligent to keep the ignorant masses from killing themselves.
Well, I'm glad to see that you have such a healthy attitude of regular people. If you represent elitists, I'm glad that elitists don't make the rules.
Is that sarcasm? If not, then good that you can appreciate rational thinking.
I have no idea what "elitists" are, and I doubt that I represent them considering that i don't know what they are. Would be nice if you where to explain what elitists are instead of actively avoiding to do so.