EPTAlso as someone who has consumed a very small slice of Minke, I have to say it's tasty.
South Korea plans to resume whaling - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
smarty pants
United States78 Posts
Also as someone who has consumed a very small slice of Minke, I have to say it's tasty. | ||
|
shizzz
Australia127 Posts
On July 06 2012 17:36 Mstring wrote: The plants will grow just fine even if there are no cattle to feed XD I'm not sure I understand your point. The grass and whatnot the cattle graze on and eat in the form of hay will continue to grow either way. So there's no issue? If you've never lived any other way, how would you know how good it really is? There are a lot of ways I haven't lived and experienced. What I do know though is that the somewhat healthy lifestyle I maintain now does me fine. I know it is good for me because of how I feel, eating a clean protein based diet and exercising routinely has been proven to be one method of living a good healthy life. I accept what it means to have meat on my plate, I seek the high levels of vitamins it offers and I like the taste.. personally I don't see a reason to change lifestyles for the time being. We'll see  What do you know I don't? | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
give a reason not to. | ||
|
Mstring
Australia510 Posts
On July 06 2012 17:43 shizzz wrote: I'm not sure I understand your point. The grass and whatnot the cattle graze on and eat in the form of hay will continue to grow either way. So there's no issue? You said that we need to keep farming cattle to remain fed. My point was that getting calories from plants via a cow is extremely inefficient. There are a lot of ways I haven't lived and experienced. What I do know though is that the somewhat healthy lifestyle I maintain now does me fine. I know it is good for me because of how I feel, eating a clean protein based diet and exercising routinely has been proven to be one method of living a good healthy life. I accept what it means to have meat on my plate, I seek the high levels of vitamins it offers and I like the taste.. personally I don't see a reason to change lifestyles for the time being. I'm glad you're feeling healthy All I will say is that "does me fine" is a foreign concept to me XD GG WP | ||
|
shizzz
Australia127 Posts
On July 06 2012 17:54 Mstring wrote: You said that we need to keep farming cattle to remain fed. My point was that getting calories from a cow is extremely inefficient. Well on paper yes, but in practice meat is still an important factor. I have no doubt if meat as a food source was to be forcibly removed the human race wouldn't suddenly die out. However like I said though, it is a main part of the majority of the populations diet and while it remains so, meat will need to be farmed. | ||
|
Mstring
Australia510 Posts
On July 06 2012 18:13 shizzz wrote: Well on paper yes, but in practice meat is still an important factor. I have no doubt if meat as a food source was to be forcibly removed the human race wouldn't suddenly die out. However like I said though, it is a main part of the majority of the populations diet and while it remains so, meat will need to be farmed. Absolutely. I'm not saying forcibly do anything. The majority you speak of didn't make the choice to eat meat, they were simply born in a place where it is ubiquitous and "the norm". My hope is that more and more will become thriving vegans to serve as examples so that people can make the choice themselves, not others make diet decisions for them | ||
|
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
| ||
|
Grackula
133 Posts
You don't need to kill an animal in order to survive. | ||
|
Xayoz
Estonia373 Posts
| ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
| ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On July 06 2012 17:06 Azarkon wrote: I don't think you understand the difference between telling others to read between the lines and intentionally avoiding the issue. You keep alluding to the logic of saving the whales, but have never stated what that logic is, preferring instead to draw parallels again and again to liberal humanist - ie modern Western - values, which are moralistic and humanistic stances. Logic in saving whales 1. Protecting endangered species helps to preserve biological diversity and benefit scientific research. 2. The whales in question are endangered. 3. Protecting said whales will help to preserve biological diversity and benefit scientific research. Please provide examples of what you accuse me of doing, i.e. "draw parallels again and again to liberal humanist - ie modern Western - values, which are moralistic and humanistic stances." and explaining why instead of making them up to fit your argument. On July 06 2012 17:06 Azarkon wrote: I don't need to pick up an introductory biology text. What I need is an explanation of what you are talking about when you allude to the rational benefits of saving whales. See above. On July 06 2012 17:06 Azarkon wrote: The purpose of discussion is not for me to assign to you what I already know about the arguments for stopping whale killing; it is for you to demonstrate that you know why you support it and are capable of arguing for it logically, which thus far you have been unable to do. See above On July 06 2012 17:06 Azarkon wrote: Indeed, what you said about natural selection above tells me that your knowledge in this area is rather lacking - an animal that tries to actively intervene in its environment is not fundamentally better adapted to that environment than an animal that remains apathetic. I never said nor implied that. What I apparently failed to make clear is that human intelligence and the factors surrounding it is such an advantageous trait because of our ability to constantly adapt to a changing environment that it has and continues to allow us to propagate our genes at a great rate (and by extension, those of endangered species despite other environmental pressures) and is natural selection at work (artificial selection is actually a form of natural selection). In that post, it was just a side thought I randomly threw in there for I don't know what reasons... On July 06 2012 17:06 Azarkon wrote: Here's a freebie: whales play an important role in the marine eco system and removing them has harmful effects on said eco system. The problem with this argument is that it requires arguing that removing whales results in harmful ecological effects for humans. Eco systems collapse - and are reformed - all the time. It would definitely cause a disturbance in the eco system which would probably negatively effect us more than it would positively, no matter how negligible it would be. However, this is a hypothetical, and can't be answered decisively nor tested so it really doesn't even belong in a science discussion. On July 06 2012 17:06 Azarkon wrote: Who's to say a whaleless ocean isn't better for humans? This is such a ridiculous statement and proves you're arguing for the sake of arguing that it deserved it own partition. If we had this attitude towards every endangered species, and to the environment in general, chances are the negative impacts would outweigh the positives. I think conservation biology agrees with me. I've already addressed these points in my previous posts but because you have tried to twist what I have said and create strawmans, I'll sum your questions up in a nutshell and make my answers as clear as I reasonably can at this time in the morning. What now? | ||
|
Deleted User 124618
1142 Posts
*edit* Last part wasn't good. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 06 2012 09:12 SupLilSon wrote: Pretty terrible comparison. Any other carnivore/omnivore has no idea of the global aspect of hunting a species to extinction. As humans we know full well that hastening the extinction of a species is wrong for so many reasons, moral and practical. Yes, that's the point... As you said "Pretty terrible comparison." Comparing humans to animals is pointless. Perhaps you should take that issue up with the guy that originally started the comparison by calling us a disgusting species. | ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
On July 06 2012 21:04 Masamune wrote: Logic in saving whales 2. The whales in question are endangered. But it's not! It's least concern! According to IUCN, the world's main authority on the conservation status of species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/2474/0 | ||
|
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
On July 06 2012 21:04 Masamune wrote: Logic in saving whales 1. Protecting endangered species helps to preserve biological diversity and benefit scientific research. 2. The whales in question are endangered. 3. Protecting said whales will help to preserve biological diversity and benefit scientific research. How do they benefit scientific research in a way that helps humans? What prevents them from benefiting research in, say, a breeding facility? Observing whales in their natural habitat allow us to understand how they behave in that habitat and their role in it, but how does that help humans? This is such a ridiculous statement and proves you're arguing for the sake of arguing that it deserved it own partition. If we had this attitude towards every endangered species, and to the environment in general, chances are the negative impacts would outweigh the positives. I think conservation biology agrees with me. I've already addressed these points in my previous posts but because you have tried to twist what I have said and create strawmans, I'll sum your questions up in a nutshell and make my answers as clear as I reasonably can at this time in the morning. What now? From the dawn of history, humans have been a driving factor in species extinction and genetic change among animals. We have domesticated a huge variety of animals, driven others to extinction, and converted huge swaths of the earth to cities, suburbs, and irrigated fields. This has led to a great reduction in biodiversity, but it has not led to our extinction, nor has it led to the breakdown of the earth's ecosystem. While this is not a blanket argument for doing whatever we want with the environment, it is to say that life on earth has greater resiliency than a lot of environmentalists want us to believe, and that modifying the environment in a way that benefits humans, benefits humans. Killing whales does not have the same degree of benefit, but at the same time, when done in a regulated manner that controls for how slowly whales reproduce, it also does not have the same degree of harm. For example, whale hunting, due its need to target and track whales, is not vulnerable to incidental catches of endangered species, while our commercial fishing practices are. On the other hand, whale hunting has economic benefits for the countries that want to engage in it, and provides jobs where otherwise they don't exist. In that, there are practical benefits to small groups of people, and ideologically speaking, the spirit of Western law is to grant freedom where it is able to be granted, and to respect sovereignty where it is able to be respected. To outlaw whale hunting internationally is a perilous step towards the tyranny of conformity, which stifles the freedom of individuals and the sovereignty of countries. What do you say to that? | ||
|
AdamBanks
Canada996 Posts
1. Protecting endangered species helps to preserve biological diversity and benefit scientific research. 2. The whales in question are endangered. 3. Protecting said whales will help to preserve biological diversity and benefit scientific research. 1. a). All species go extinct, givin a long enough time line. Extinction itself is not a problem for biodiversity as its been around almost as long and in the majority (like 99%) of cases it makes way for greaty diversity. (i think you mean to argue that humans accelerate this process but even then its not a solid premise) b). The arguement that something is good simply because it benefits science is myopic. Otherwise we would do the testing on humans which would provide the best data. 2. This has been tossed back and forth in the thread and im not sure if its true or not. 3. See premise 1a explaination as this is the same arguement restated and is a little redundant. | ||
|
makaron
32 Posts
| ||
|
Smat
United States301 Posts
| ||
|
Sorkoas
549 Posts
What did I miss with my thought process? | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
On July 07 2012 01:35 Sorkoas wrote: I don't see the problem. Whales have a lot of meat = protein. Asians in general don't eat enough food with complete protein with all essential amino acids the body needs. What did I miss with my thought process? a lot of things have a lot of meat. all meats have all essential amino acids a lot of things aren't environmentally threatened | ||
| ||
