South Korea plans to resume whaling - Page 6
Forum Index > General Forum |
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
| ||
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On July 05 2012 21:00 gugarutz wrote: the strongest one there is WE WILL SURVIVE .. yay ![]() i dont think it's smart to hunt endangered species but this argument that humans are evil is just silly. edit: 100th post wohoo ![]() humans are quite literally evil, and no argument could be made that humans are not evil since the concept of evil is internal to human society/discourse/thought. I guess we could argue though that evil is just an aesthetic ideal that's internal to the mind of whoever is thinking it, and only gets applied to imaginary people, not actual people (i.e. I think you are evil, but it is not you who are 'evil' simply my concept of you), unless someone truly thinks themselves to be evil. Evil doesn't actually mean anything though. It's less a descriptive term, more a relational term that is applied to something to justify a range of relationships or stances one can take in regard to what it's being applied to. We're also a lot of other things too. But yeah, what about that whaling, damn. Hunting endangered intelligent species. Definitely not smart eh EDIT: I guess not endangered, just below historic levels, and not recovered in some populations. | ||
Thylacine
Sweden882 Posts
| ||
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
On July 06 2012 01:43 caradoc wrote: humans are quite literally evil, and no argument could be made that humans are not evil since the concept of evil is internal to human society/discourse/thought. I guess we could argue though that evil is just an aesthetic ideal that's internal to the mind of whoever is thinking it, and only gets applied to imaginary people, not actual people (i.e. I think you are evil, but it is not you who are 'evil' simply my concept of you), unless someone truly thinks themselves to be evil. Evil doesn't actually mean anything though. It's less a descriptive term, more a relational term that is applied to something to justify a range of relationships or stances one can take in regard to what it's being applied to. We're also a lot of other things too. But yeah, what about that whaling, damn. Hunting endangered intelligent species. Definitely not smart eh EDIT: I guess not endangered, just below historic levels, and not recovered in some populations. I don't know of a lot of human societies that equate whale hunting with evil. Given that the concept of evil is internal to human society/discourse/thought, that makes humans 'not evil' - by our standards, which is the only standard that we understand. | ||
Spicy_Curry
United States10573 Posts
| ||
Miragee
8429 Posts
On July 05 2012 20:42 Bleak wrote: Human is a disgusting species. First, shortest and smartest post of the thread. Nuff said... | ||
Mawi
Sweden4365 Posts
| ||
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
On July 06 2012 02:09 Spicy_Curry wrote: Humans are the only animals that hunt for more than they need. Its disgusting. Predators in nature waste a lot of meat each time they kill. Have you seen what happens after a lion takes down an antelope? The lion doesn't eat the entire antelope. It eats choice bites, then leaves the carcass for scavengers. A lot of scavengers have a niche because predators are wasteful. Not just that, but there are predators besides humans who kill for 'pleasure'. Take cats, for example. There are a lot of well-fed pet cats who go after rats just because - they don't kill rats because they are hungry and need to eat; they kill them because they want to. | ||
ZaaaaaM
Netherlands1828 Posts
On July 06 2012 01:43 caradoc wrote: humans are quite literally evil, and no argument could be made that humans are not evil since the concept of evil is internal to human society/discourse/thought. I guess we could argue though that evil is just an aesthetic ideal that's internal to the mind of whoever is thinking it, and only gets applied to imaginary people, not actual people (i.e. I think you are evil, but it is not you who are 'evil' simply my concept of you), unless someone truly thinks themselves to be evil. Evil doesn't actually mean anything though. It's less a descriptive term, more a relational term that is applied to something to justify a range of relationships or stances one can take in regard to what it's being applied to. We're also a lot of other things too. But yeah, what about that whaling, damn. Hunting endangered intelligent species. Definitely not smart eh EDIT: I guess not endangered, just below historic levels, and not recovered in some populations. I don't see how that adds anything to the discussion going on. I'd definitely argue against "humans" being "evil". We lived in harmony with nature for many, many years before civilization started. I don't think any human being starts off evil, but its hard not to become evil in a disgusting society like ours. | ||
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
And no, I don't trust South Korea over a whaling commission's scientists on the actual numbers just like I don't trust North Korea over anyone with a brain on the actual number of holes-in-one Kim Jong Il made on his first attempt at golf (apparently 11). Speaking of North Korea, they may as well claim their nuclear ambitions are for scientific research seeing as their population has no power... If they develop a bomb, well I'm sure the population in that area of the world will "recover considerably". User was warned for this post | ||
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On July 06 2012 02:15 Azarkon wrote: Predators in nature waste a lot of meat each time they kill. Have you seen what happens after a lion takes down an antelope? The lion doesn't eat the entire antelope. It eats choice bites, then leaves the carcass for scavengers. A lot of scavengers have a niche because predators are wasteful. Not just that, but there are predators besides humans who kill for 'pleasure'. Take cats, for example. There are a lot of well-fed pet cats who go after rats just because - they don't kill rats because they are hungry and need to eat; they kill them because they want to. Yes and in nature, most species are patriarchal and rape serves as an adaption. Does that mean we should just succumb to our primal behaviour because other species do and allow it to creep back into our society? And fyi, predators in nature waste meat because they have no form of preservation like we do. Instead of carrying around a rotting piece of meat, it serves a better purpose to just hunt another animal again. The first humans in the Americas did this when they drove many species to extinction but I can't blame them because they didn't know any better and were trying to survive. We know better now so let's show it? | ||
xjoehammerx
United States191 Posts
On July 06 2012 01:57 Thylacine wrote: No problem as long as the whale species they hunt aren't endangered. You can write, so you must be able to read. The OP clearly stated that the whales they mean to hunt can be considered endangered. Maybe if I can prove that whales will eventually evolve into ultralisks SK will desist from hunting them for "scientific reasons" (How anyone with an education can try and make that argument with a straight face is beyond me). Oh wait....SK is having issues with evolution right now as well. Damn. Edit: According to wikipedia the quota for Japanese "scientific whaling" for the JARPA 2007/2008 mission was 900 minke whales and 50 fin whales. The reason that Japan often cites for scientific whaling is ass backwards: "The reason for the moratorium [on commercial whaling] was scientific uncertainty about the number of whales. ... It was a moratorium for the sake of collecting data and that is why we started scientific whaling. We were asked to collect more data." -Deputy whaling commissioner, Joji Morishita Basically they are trying to use "scientific whaling" to prove that they can resume commercial whaling. According to their line of thought, the whale populations of interest can sustain commercial whaling. Not too sure about that one...950 whale quota is a little large anyway. Why do you need that many? | ||
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
On July 06 2012 02:29 Masamune wrote: Yes and in nature, most species are patriarchal and rape serves as an adaption. Does that mean we should just succumb to our primal behaviour because other species do and allow it to creep back into our society? And fyi, predators in nature waste meat because they have no form of preservation like we do. Instead of carrying around a rotting piece of meat, it serves a better purpose to just hunt another animal again. The first humans in the Americas did this when they drove many species to extinction but I can't blame them because they didn't know any better and were trying to survive. We know better now so let's show it? Being morally 'better' than animals is a human conceit; there is nothing 'animal' about it. But being a human conceit, it is comprehensibly only to other humans and in the context of our societies/cultures/ideologies. The statement that humans are 'evil' / 'disgusting' because we hunt whales has little to do with nature and everything to do with our social conceptions, which are not necessarily shared by other societies/cultures/ideologies. My bringing this into this thread is to remind people how socially constructed their world views are. Animals never think that they're wasting food / driving prey into extinction / hunting for meat instead of pleasure / etc. People, living in modern, first world societies, who have been educated under the doctrines of environmentalism, and who are disconnected from the act of hunting and killing prey because all they experience is grocery store->kitchen->table, do. In short, I don't see how pontificating about how bad humans are because we won't follow each other's socially constructed moral standards is going to help. Instead - why do you think bio-diversity is important? What is a rational argument for it? What is an emotional argument for it? | ||
xjoehammerx
United States191 Posts
http://wa3.cdn.3news.co.nz/3news/AM/2012/7/5/260279/minke-aap-1200.jpg?width=460 | ||
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
While hunting a species into extinction is not very nice, neither is burning down the rainforest (same thing by proxy) or throwing all sorts of shit into landfill sites or the ocean. But what the fuck we all do it, so its kewl. | ||
Evangelist
1246 Posts
| ||
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On July 06 2012 02:39 Azarkon wrote: Being morally 'better' than animals is a human conceit; there is nothing 'animal' about it. But being a human conceit, it is comprehensibly only to other humans and in the context of our societies/cultures/ideologies. The statement that humans are 'evil' / 'disgusting' because we hunt whales has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with our social conceptions, which are not necessarily shared by other societies/cultures/ideologies. My bringing this into this thread is to remind people how socially constructed their world views are. Animals never think about whether they're wasting food / driving prey into extinction / hunting for meat instead of pleasure / etc. People, living in modern, first world societies, who have been educated under the doctrines of environmentalism, and who are disconnected from the act of hunting and killing prey because all they experience is grocery store->kitchen->table, do. Skip the moral blanketing about humans being bad, and talk about how SK is trying to violate an international treaty via a loophole, and we're better off for discussions. I don't see how pontificating about how bad humans are because we won't follow each other's socially constructed moral standards is going to help. Don't try and create strawman arguments with me because I never once touched on the topics of evil and morality. Leave your college classes on ethics and morality at the door please. As a species with an advanced form of cognition, we have the ability to make our society a better one (which ultimately is for our own "selfish" purposes and a topic of another discussion). Instead of condoning some of the things we do because it's natural and seen in nature (such as your comparison of human wasting to animals), we can try and curtail it a bit to better help us all. | ||
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On July 06 2012 02:18 ZaaaaaM wrote: I don't see how that adds anything to the discussion going on. I'd definitely argue against "humans" being "evil". We lived in harmony with nature for many, many years before civilization started. I don't think any human being starts off evil, but its hard not to become evil in a disgusting society like ours. Im sorry but your wrong on this. The only time humanity was "in harmony" with nature was when our population levels were low so our impact was less. A common misconception is that earlier human populations before "civilization" were all nature loving hippies. And to everyone talking about how bad our species is....shut up. Any species that would reach the sentience and advantage that humanity has gained would do the same fucking thing its part of the basic biological program. We simply have the means to actually do it (and also to feel bad about it). | ||
flergh
Iceland34 Posts
| ||
| ||