-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Western Australia: Shark Attack Central
- Thread starter LeeToRainesToRoach
- Start date
Green madness on sharks costs lives
The green madness launched by Peter Singer is now official: the lives of sharks count for more than humans.
Take it from the new West Australian Government, which refuses to even try catching the shark that’s just killed a 17-year-old girl.
Insane, you’ll say, but there was West Australian Fisheries Minister Dave Kelly on Tuesday, saying drum lines wouldn’t be rolled out to catch the shark that mauled Laeticia Brouwer as she surfed off Esperance with her dad.
“The fact that drum lines weren’t deployed this morning I think you can safely say was a result of the change in policy from the election,” Kelly said.
“We don’t see the merit in automatically deploying drum lines in these circumstances.”
He said the government was even considering ending the “serious threat” policy, under which sharks deemed an imminent risk to people were killed.
You see, we must think of the poor sharks, even though more Australians than ever are being bitten as they surf or swim.
Two people were killed in WA last year, and 15 since 2000, yet even the state’s previous Liberal government three years ago scrapped drum lines protecting popular beaches.
Sharks first. Humans second.
In fact, NSW also thought killing sharks was mean, so had limited protection at beaches until last year.
Result: NSW has had four fatal shark attacks in four years.
But Queensland, where they’ve had nets and drum lines for decades, has had just two fatal attacks in 10 years.
In Queensland, this madness applies to crocodiles instead.
Three North Queensland councils want more culling of crocodiles to protect people but the Labor Government says no.
So how did we go to this?
Like so many utopian movements that cause so much suffering, this started with one philosopher in the peace of his study.
It was 42 years ago that a young Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, published Animal Liberation, telling humans not to treat animals like animals.
His idea took off. Vegetarianism became hip. Chickens went free-range, on the assumption they loved the great outdoors like a sandal-footed green.
And this new faith that overturned the Christian order of creation.
The Bible, in Genesis, says man is at the very top of the food chain: “God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals ... ’ ”
But Singer, now a professor at Princeton, in 2011 explained our new religious order: where humans are demoted — so much so that we’re mere food for sharks.
“It is obvious that humans and animals are not politically equal. We couldn’t give them the right to vote,” he said.
“But there’s a sense in which I think they do share an important equality and that is the capacity to suffer or to enjoy their lives.
“And I think that ought to lead to a moral equality in the sense that I think that their pain ought to count just as much as the pain of a human being.”
You wouldn’t hook a human by the mouth with a drum line, would you?
But the danger of this new faith is obvious. If we must treat animals like humans, we must also treat humans like animals.
Human life becomes less sacred, and we're seeing that now in the policies pushed by the Greens, whose original manifesto was written by Singer and Greens founder Bob Brown in their book, The Greens.
For instance, the Greens want euthanasia legalised, so humans can be put down almost like we put down a dog.
They want virtually no restrictions on abortion, with Singer even arguing for the killing of severely disabled babies, much as we cull defective animals.
And the Greens now want an end to killing sharks. Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson heads a Senate environment committee investigating whether we really should protect ourselves from sharks. Its other members are another Greens senator, Lee Rhiannon, and Labor’s Anne Urquhart.
Sure enough, Whish-Wilson even before his inquiry started said he was against drum lines and shark nets, and says he wants his inquiry instead to “take some of the fear out of the debate because I actually think that’s what is part of the big issue here is a lot of unnecessary fear and hysteria”.
To help change our attitudes — rather than save lives — Whish-Wilson calls shark “attacks” just “encounters” instead, as if they’re meet-and-greets rather than meet-and-eats.
But — hey — what’s a few dead people as long as sharks are happy?
The green madness launched by Peter Singer is now official: the lives of sharks count for more than humans.
Take it from the new West Australian Government, which refuses to even try catching the shark that’s just killed a 17-year-old girl.
Insane, you’ll say, but there was West Australian Fisheries Minister Dave Kelly on Tuesday, saying drum lines wouldn’t be rolled out to catch the shark that mauled Laeticia Brouwer as she surfed off Esperance with her dad.
“The fact that drum lines weren’t deployed this morning I think you can safely say was a result of the change in policy from the election,” Kelly said.
“We don’t see the merit in automatically deploying drum lines in these circumstances.”
He said the government was even considering ending the “serious threat” policy, under which sharks deemed an imminent risk to people were killed.
You see, we must think of the poor sharks, even though more Australians than ever are being bitten as they surf or swim.
Two people were killed in WA last year, and 15 since 2000, yet even the state’s previous Liberal government three years ago scrapped drum lines protecting popular beaches.
Sharks first. Humans second.
In fact, NSW also thought killing sharks was mean, so had limited protection at beaches until last year.
Result: NSW has had four fatal shark attacks in four years.
But Queensland, where they’ve had nets and drum lines for decades, has had just two fatal attacks in 10 years.
In Queensland, this madness applies to crocodiles instead.
Three North Queensland councils want more culling of crocodiles to protect people but the Labor Government says no.
So how did we go to this?
Like so many utopian movements that cause so much suffering, this started with one philosopher in the peace of his study.
It was 42 years ago that a young Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, published Animal Liberation, telling humans not to treat animals like animals.
His idea took off. Vegetarianism became hip. Chickens went free-range, on the assumption they loved the great outdoors like a sandal-footed green.
And this new faith that overturned the Christian order of creation.
The Bible, in Genesis, says man is at the very top of the food chain: “God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals ... ’ ”
But Singer, now a professor at Princeton, in 2011 explained our new religious order: where humans are demoted — so much so that we’re mere food for sharks.
“It is obvious that humans and animals are not politically equal. We couldn’t give them the right to vote,” he said.
“But there’s a sense in which I think they do share an important equality and that is the capacity to suffer or to enjoy their lives.
“And I think that ought to lead to a moral equality in the sense that I think that their pain ought to count just as much as the pain of a human being.”
You wouldn’t hook a human by the mouth with a drum line, would you?
But the danger of this new faith is obvious. If we must treat animals like humans, we must also treat humans like animals.
Human life becomes less sacred, and we're seeing that now in the policies pushed by the Greens, whose original manifesto was written by Singer and Greens founder Bob Brown in their book, The Greens.
For instance, the Greens want euthanasia legalised, so humans can be put down almost like we put down a dog.
They want virtually no restrictions on abortion, with Singer even arguing for the killing of severely disabled babies, much as we cull defective animals.
And the Greens now want an end to killing sharks. Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson heads a Senate environment committee investigating whether we really should protect ourselves from sharks. Its other members are another Greens senator, Lee Rhiannon, and Labor’s Anne Urquhart.
Sure enough, Whish-Wilson even before his inquiry started said he was against drum lines and shark nets, and says he wants his inquiry instead to “take some of the fear out of the debate because I actually think that’s what is part of the big issue here is a lot of unnecessary fear and hysteria”.
To help change our attitudes — rather than save lives — Whish-Wilson calls shark “attacks” just “encounters” instead, as if they’re meet-and-greets rather than meet-and-eats.
But — hey — what’s a few dead people as long as sharks are happy?
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
what a rubbish article. any evidence that drum lines work? any consideration that shark numbers off WA and Queensland are naturally different, leading to differences in fatality numbers?
and Peter Singer is extreme. he does not represent many who are against indiscriminate killing tool like drum lines. and the idea that people only started caring about animal rights after he wrote a book is ridiculous.
(i didnt click the link, but somehow i knew this trash came from a news tabloid.)
Its a tragedy, but 15 deaths in 17 years in "shark attack central", I'll take those odds. Just like I take the odds riding to work.
Brodders17 said:
Check out the list before and after the 1960's when use of drum lines began in Queensland. The trend is similar for netted beaches in NSW.
Bolt could've done without invoking the Bible, but he raised some points worthy of discussion.
What is the WA government doing to protect people? Are we condemned to cede the water to the monsters?
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Monsters??? Pffft. That's their house! And I'd love to see the percentages of all sea users vs the ones who get attacked by sharks. What nonsense, cede the water? Pffft. Put up signs that people swim at their own risk. Then we as humans are accountable.
It's like saying that if someone jumps my back fence and is subsequently attacked by my cat, that the response is slaughter my cat??? Nah. That's my cat's yard, not the person jumping the fence. Sure I'll put up a sign saying Beware of Cat. But if someone chooses to place themself at risk, it's not my cat's fault they get scratched.
Snakes kill people too, let's kill them all. Crocodiles too. Vending machines. Cars. More people drown than what sharks get, let's ban swimming.
Far out.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Monsters.
Jaws had a big effect on me as kid too, my older brother used to do the theme music when we were at Barwon Heads beach,
, but I grew up 8-
Brodders17 said:
Yeah I must say I treat links posted by lee on the General board like I treat post from Zips or Leon - I just ignore them.
Like your footy posts though Lee :fing32
Some might find this interesting
https://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~krebs/ecological_rants/2017/03/
Certainly clear what camp Bolt sits in....
https://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~krebs/ecological_rants/2017/03/
Certainly clear what camp Bolt sits in....
WesternTiger said:
No, exploitation of animals is not his argument at all.
WesternTiger said:
Hence why I didn't post the author's name, people think "I'm not reading *smile*in' Bolt". Nobody could fail to see his main point - that there are people who, given the choice of preserving the life of a shark or the life of a human, would have no problem choosing the shark.
