South Korea plans to resume whaling - Page 9

On July 06 2012 08:22 logikly wrote:
now we are going to have whale wars vs south Korea too? cant wait to watch it

On July 06 2012 08:00 stevarius wrote:
There are a ton of whale species on the endangered species list.

Whaling is retarded. I love how people make the comparison to killing pigs, but pigs are in huge supply and taste fucking fantastic compared to other animals like dogs, etc. You don't use a hammer to drive a screw.

On July 06 2012 08:40 Apollo_Shards wrote:
The Japanese can not be let to outdo the Koreans in anything, even unethically killing endangered species. KOREA #1!

On July 05 2012 21:28 Hnnngg wrote:
Finally someone decides to take a stand against those douchebag whales.

On July 06 2012 08:41 kaisen wrote:

What a fucking troll.

On July 06 2012 00:40 kaisen wrote:

We are the chosen specie. All other species exist to be a servant of humans or as a food source.

On July 06 2012 00:21 kaisen wrote:

I believe that much of the scientific work being done by Korea & Japan is to determine if the flavour of whale meat has remained constant over time or if it has changed, for better or worse, due to environmental factors such as climate change or ocean acidification.

On July 05 2012 21:27 BlackJack wrote:


Could say the same about any carnivore/omnivore. The only difference is that any other predator would gladly hunt whales into extinction while humans have voluntarily ending whaling in most countries for the sake of the whales.

On July 06 2012 09:10 rd wrote:
I don't see any problem with hunting whale for food, other than the fact that they're endangered. I would hope the same industry that profits from the endangered whales will be the one that innovates a system to keep the population stable, which, alternatively means more money to be made.
.

Could say the same about any carnivore/omnivore. The only difference is that any other predator would gladly hunt whales into extinction while humans have voluntarily ending whaling in most countries for the sake of the whales.

On July 06 2012 07:33 Azarkon wrote:


Hmm, from what I see, you are greatly confused about what your argument is.

Your main gist in those paragraphs is that letting whales go extinct is equivalent to reverting back to primitivism, thereby unmaking the social progress humans have made. But this is a false analogy: human progress is not fundamentally predicated on environmentalism, and one is able to have one without the other. Indeed, the two are opposed in a lot of ways. For example, in order to have the advanced, technological society that we have today, huge swaths of natural habitats had to be transformed into resources that service humans - to the detriment of their animal and plant inhabitants. There is nothing logical in the fear mongering statement that allowing whales to go extinct is tantamount to repealing social progress.

This is a large flaw in your ideological stance. Your advocacy of betterment for ourselves is in the service of a humanistic moral philosophy, and the examples that you gave regarding gender equality, civil rights, etc. are all examples from human morality. But instead of stopping there, you then draw the false analogy between human morality and animal rights, believing that the securement of one requires the securement of the other. This is the very tacic of animal rights groups in the West - to equate animal rights with human rights and therefore environmentalism with moral humanism - which makes my notions about your conditioning all the easier to support.

What you further fail to understand is that, because you depend on tenets from a moralistic human philosophy to support your environmentalist stance, you are making moral arguments. Gender equality, for example, is not a law of nature, but because the variants of moral humanism popular in the West today posit that equal rights and opportunity is a fundamental positive desirable to all humans, gender equality is an ethical tenet of Western moral humanism. That your notion of progress and advanced society is tied to ethical - and specifically humanly ethical - principles is what makes your arguments moral.

In the case that your goal is to avoid a moral argument, you are better off sticking to the personal argument, which constitutes the best logical argument in your arsenal against whale hunting - you oppose whale hunting because it infringes on your life, because killing off whales -> you and your children are no longer able to enjoy them in whatever capacity you enjoy them now. This is a logical, utilitarian argument, and your confusion lies in thinking that your other arguments, and not this one, is your primary rational thrust.