On July 07 2012 02:25 Uncultured wrote: Good on them. It's their waters. Let them do what they feel they need to do.
pretty much this.
Yeah, honestly I don't think it matters if it's done in a controlled and non-excessive manner.
There are way bigger problems than this in Asia, like the mass hunting of tigers and rhinos for some stupid scientifically unproven medical justifications, especially when there are much cheaper substitutes for "products" like rhino horns or tiger bones.
You guys acting like Asians are cruel and insensitive or saying things along the line of "their mentality is dangerous" are just ignorant. There are great efforts to preserve endangered animals like pandas.
After all, it was mostly Western powers in the 19th century who drove whales to near extinction.
This is like making fun of 3rd world countries when they rode bicycles instead of cars, then when these countries modernize, make fun of them again for "polluting" the environment with their cars while you switch to bikes for "environmental enlightenment" while telling these developing countries that they are "dangerous".
On July 07 2012 01:26 Smat wrote: All you fools claiming that its hypocritical for westerners to criticize hunting whales are morons. The difference is that the fucking pigs and cows aren't going extinct, in fact there are more of them than ever. The whales are going extinct. I don't give a fuck when I watch whalers kill the whales and all the people on whale wars get all sad and start crying, thats actually halarious to me. I do give a fuck that 50 years from now I will only be able to see whales in nature books.
Maybe you should give a fuck about the damage that farming cows and pigs does to the environment which is much worse then eliminating a single species......Thinking, its a wonderful thing.
edit: I hate to come off snarky but your tone is a little irritating. Put a little more thought into your post and a little less confidence into your oppinions.
Nope, I think your wrong about superficial environmental damage being worse than the elmination of the largest mammal on the planet and I doubt you would find many who would agree with you. Messege boards are meant for the venting of opinions and I really don't see the problem with being confident.
Also U R DUMB!@!! (pretty much equal in eloquency to your lame "thinking" comment).
So SK wants to keep the mince whalestock in check to ensure optimal growth conditions for the fishstock so they can fish more to better feed their population. While AUS want the mince whale to be thriving so they can go on whale safaris and dive with them. Now who has the moral high ground?
I can also confirm that whalbeef of good quality is tasty, however if the quality is poor or it's poorly cooked, it has a tendency of tasting like fish oil.
i don't believe in karma so that doesn't apply. i do believe in God but Jesus ate fish and meat so that means im all good. i guess i "believe in science" but i don't think this idea of a lynchpin species has ever been proven, nor has it been proven that whales are a lynchpin even if lynchpin species' do exist. whales are not more intelligent than man, and big brain does not mean more intelligence... like at all. or do you think males are 1/3 times smarter than all females?
i don't own the planet but my kids do? okay well 1) i don't have kids, and 2) when i have kids ill use their whales to feed them, lol.
i dont know what the iphone thing is even about so im not gonna comment.
i would answer to the ET: they died out bro. we ate em. but have you seen our cows? they are beautiful and they taste amazing. then me and ET would go have a burger and a beer and laugh about it.
you could get a stupid tv show if you act like a dummy while you "protect" the whales.
killing whales seems no different than... an orca killing a whale. you know that orca's even kill people? so do dolphins.
"and big brain does not mean more intelligence" Thats right.when i look around , i can see your point
Average male brain is 12% bigger and have 4% more neurons.You ask for facts but you cant even get them right.You are not from usa,are you?
"And God said, See, I have given you every plant producing seed, on the face of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit producing seed: they will be for your food."
and i know its hard to graps something so unique if you are just grunt that do what he is told.
i know thats why i love orcas.can you name species that orcas hunted to extiction?And do you really compare your iq to orcas?i mean yes i heard they are quite inteligent,you can train them and stuff,but..still...
well neat at least your DNA and stuff dies with you.
You guys acting like Asians are cruel and insensitive or saying things along the line of "their mentality is dangerous" are just ignorant. There are great efforts to preserve endangered animals like pandas.
It's funny how people are bleeding out for dogs in another thread, but this one they have no sympathy for whales, who are much smarter, and much closer in terms of brain functionality to human beings. They're smart animals. They have single or two children litters, where dogs have considerably more. Most whales are on the endangered list or something similar. And we don't give a shit.
Meanwhile people are crying over a picture of a now deceased chocolate lab. This really makes me all kinds of crazy. Humans have a ridiculous double standard for cute animals. To me it's insane.
I think the hunting and murder of such majestic and intelligent animals is criminal. And I think it's baffling how we'd be outraged if the same happened to a dog, but don't bat an eye when it happens to a whale.
On July 05 2012 20:29 Oldfool wrote: Since these whales are already (arguably) endangered...
I'd really like to see the arguments that they are endangered. I see varying reports and the conclusion of the scientific community is anywhere from 300,000-600,000 and they rate the species as Least Concern and Data Deficient.
On July 05 2012 20:29 Oldfool wrote: Since these whales are already (arguably) endangered...
I'd really like to see the arguments that they are endangered. I see varying reports and the conclusion of the scientific community is anywhere from 300,000-600,000 and they rate the species as Least Concern and Data Deficient.
On July 05 2012 20:29 Oldfool wrote: Since these whales are already (arguably) endangered...
I'd really like to see the arguments that they are endangered. I see varying reports and the conclusion of the scientific community is anywhere from 300,000-600,000 and they rate the species as Least Concern and Data Deficient.
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.
How do they benefit scientific research in a way that helps humans?
Being mammals, the circumvention of these whales' extinction has more benefits to humans than just biodiversity. There are so many things you could research with them that it makes it a no-brainer for some South Koreans and Japanese to find another delicacy, at least until the whale numbers stabilize.
From a phylogenetics and evolutionary standpoint, the sorting out of whales and their placement on the tree of life is an important one. Looking at one nature article they actually found SINEs in whales challenging the view of the time that Artiodactyla were monophyletic.
Looking from an evolutionary development standpoint, whale communication could help shed light on the process communication with genetic analysis helping to identify things such as conserved genes shared amongst us.
From and environmental point of view relevant to humans, the minke whales in question have actually been used as bio indicators of certain levels of pollutants (PCBs, DDTs, CHLs, HCHs, HCBs) in the oceans
From a medical standpoint, although not practical at this point in time, given the sheer size of whales, if stem cells are able to be cultivated and used in humans from closely related species, what better a source than the largest mammals?
I'm sure there are many other examples one could thing of.
On July 07 2012 00:31 Azarkon wrote: 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?
I'm not sure if you realize this but an endangered species as large as a whale cannot be brought back to stable population levels in captivity... Besides that, it's not even relevant to what we're arguing because it has been centered around the protection of an endangered species (or so we thought, the verdict is still out I suppose...) through cutting down its overconsumption by South Korea.
This has nothing to do with the pros and cons of researching whales in their natural environment or breeding facilities, although the latter would obviously be the better scientific choice.
On July 07 2012 00:31 Azarkon wrote: 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.
Just because something doesn't lead to our extinction means that it isn't a problem. There is a difference between habitat loss due to a growing population and the extinction of whales for the purpose of a delicacy.
On July 07 2012 00:31 Azarkon wrote: 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.
Once again, this is not about reintroducing whales into some monitored captivity because we have been arguing about an endangered species throughout this thread, which would not be a feasible strategy.
On July 07 2012 00:31 Azarkon wrote: 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.
I'm not advocating outlawing whale hunting. I'm advocating outlawing the hunting of endangered and vulnerable whale populations. Big difference.
On July 07 2012 00:31 Azarkon wrote: 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.
The key word here is "able". Freedom and the respect of sovereignty are neither final nor absolute and should always be reconsidered given the circumstances involved in this case.
On July 07 2012 00:31 Azarkon wrote: 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?
If you're honestly equating the prohibition of hunting endangered whale species to any form of tyranny or infringement on freedom, then there really isn't any point in arguing with you further. It's a weak point and demonstrates that now, you're really grasping at straws.
On July 08 2012 07:53 CaF-Lunar wrote: only when the last fish is catched, the last river poisened and the last tree felled humans will realize that you can´t eat money.
On July 05 2012 20:29 Oldfool wrote: Since these whales are already (arguably) endangered...
I'd really like to see the arguments that they are endangered. I see varying reports and the conclusion of the scientific community is anywhere from 300,000-600,000 and they rate the species as Least Concern and Data Deficient.
I only said that based off the Wikipedia(yeah yeah) quote I found which stated that on one scale they aren't and on another they are. At the time I didn't know which was the most recognised so forgive me if I sensationalised the OP a bit. haha
FYI, there is considerable opposition from the SK community regarding this. This is not a decision made because the "community" wishes whales to be hunted, rather it is just a few higher ups who feel this is a good thing to do.
Considering that the current president is half japanese, there is speculation that this move is to indirectly support japan (or win their favor)
i don't believe in karma so that doesn't apply. i do believe in God but Jesus ate fish and meat so that means im all good. i guess i "believe in science" but i don't think this idea of a lynchpin species has ever been proven, nor has it been proven that whales are a lynchpin even if lynchpin species' do exist. whales are not more intelligent than man, and big brain does not mean more intelligence... like at all. or do you think males are 1/3 times smarter than all females?
i don't own the planet but my kids do? okay well 1) i don't have kids, and 2) when i have kids ill use their whales to feed them, lol.
i dont know what the iphone thing is even about so im not gonna comment.
i would answer to the ET: they died out bro. we ate em. but have you seen our cows? they are beautiful and they taste amazing. then me and ET would go have a burger and a beer and laugh about it.
you could get a stupid tv show if you act like a dummy while you "protect" the whales.
killing whales seems no different than... an orca killing a whale. you know that orca's even kill people? so do dolphins.
"and big brain does not mean more intelligence" Thats right.when i look around , i can see your point
Average male brain is 12% bigger and have 4% more neurons.You ask for facts but you cant even get them right.You are not from usa,are you?
"And God said, See, I have given you every plant producing seed, on the face of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit producing seed: they will be for your food."
and i know its hard to graps something so unique if you are just grunt that do what he is told.
i know thats why i love orcas.can you name species that orcas hunted to extiction?And do you really compare your iq to orcas?i mean yes i heard they are quite inteligent,you can train them and stuff,but..still...
well neat at least your DNA and stuff dies with you.
i never asked you for facts. nor did i claim to be giving facts. and yes i am from the US, why, what does that have to do with anything?
okay dude,
1) what's with the insults? let's agree that i may have had a slightly condescending tone and that you shouldn't be insulting and i'll apologize and we'll work from there and be nice from now on, okay?
2) you can't use the Bible to deny the Bible, nor can you use God's word to discount God's word. Jesus ate fish, and specifically said: it is not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean. therefore, i am not forbidden from eating meat or fish.
orca's aren't as good hunters as we are. i don't think orca's have "IQ's" and being trained is... not that much of a sign of intelligence. im sure they are smart for animals, but again, why the insults? be cool, my brother, be cool.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kROcL.jpg)
