South Korea said Wednesday it may scrap its fiercely criticised plan to resume "scientific" whaling if experts come up with non-lethal means to study the mammals in its waters. "We may not conduct whaling for scientific research if there is another way to achieve the goal," Kang Joon-Suk, a senior official of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, told reporters.
Seoul, South Korea (CNN) -- South Korea is considering hunting whales in the waters off its shores for what it says are scientific purposes, drawing criticism from environmental groups and countries around the Pacific Rim. Citing calls from fishermen for a resumption of limited whaling, the head of the South Korean delegation to the International Whaling Commission, Kang Joon-suk, said Wednesday that Seoul was working on a proposal to hunt minke whales migrating off the Korean Peninsula.
"We believe this move is a thinly veiled attempt by Korea to conduct commercial whaling under the guise of scientific research, similar to hunts conducted by Japan in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary," said Wendy Elliott, head of World Wildlife Fund's delegation to the whaling commission.
South Korea intends to pursue a similar approach to Japan by submitting a proposal to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission. Other countries in the region reacted to Seoul's plans with dismay. "I am very disappointed by this announcement by South Korea," Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia said Thursday. "We are completely opposed to whaling; there's no excuse for scientific whaling." Gillard said she had instructed the Australian ambassador to South Korea to take the matter up "at the highest levels of the Korean government." New Zealand intends to take similar action over the situation, Foreign Minister Murray McCully said, suggesting that South Korea's plans could undermine the standing of the International Whaling Commission. The announcement "will put further pressure on an organization that already has significant difficulty sustaining itself as a credible international institution," he said. The minke whales that would be the target of South Korea's proposed hunt are considered endangered by the whaling commission's Scientific Committee, WWF said in a statement.
I'm not sure why SK thinks this is a good idea, considering the worldwide outrage against Japan's whaling program. Since these whales are already (arguably) endangered I would hope this is shutdown before it can begin but Japan has managed to exploit loopholes for over 30 years so I'm not optimistic on this outcome.
Here's a video from a news report earlier today with some comments from the PM of Australia and wildlife groups.
Some info on the whales they plan to hunt
The IUCN Red List labels the northern species as Least Concern and the southern as Data Deficient. CITES, on the other hand, lists both species in Appendix I (threatened), with the exception of the west Greenland stock, which is given in Appendix II (trade controls required). The dwarf minke whale (B. acutorostrata subspecies) has no population estimate, and its conservation status is categorized as Data Deficient.
On July 05 2012 20:42 Bleak wrote: Human is a disgusting species.
Agreed. Makes me a misinthrope for sure, but people like to destroy things such as our planet...
All we can try to do is to stop other people and or educate people about topics such as these in hopes that someone with some type of power or authority can help.
Humans are a sickness for planet earth, such things make me mad as f*ck. (Also a reason i would never play terran, or generally humans in an rts game xD)
On July 05 2012 21:00 DonKey_ wrote: Is whale wars going to have new enemies now?
Nope, according to the news SK is going to be doing this in their sovereign waters. What makes the conservationists able to go after the Japanese fleet is that the whaling is taking place in international waters.
SK can just bar any conservationist vessel from entering their waters, escort them out, or fire on them or board and detain them if they don't comply.
To be honest, if south korea gets blocked from whaling in their own waters but japan is allowed to do it in international waters that is a bit of a double standard. It's like slapping one kid for smoking a cigarette while there is a chain smoker blowing smoke in everyones faces right beside him.
I'm against whaling but i do see south koreas point...
On July 05 2012 21:13 killerdog wrote: To be honest, if south korea gets blocked from whaling in their own waters but japan is allowed to do it in international waters that is a bit of a double standard. It's like slapping one kid for smoking a cigarette while there is a chain smoker blowing smoke in everyones faces right beside him.
I'm against whaling but i do see south koreas point...
Except it's more like slapping one kid for killing endangered whales with harpoons while there is a chain whaler whaling whales in everyone's faces right beside him.
Sorry, but incomplete analogies like such do annoy me. Smoking doesn't kill whales.
On July 05 2012 21:13 killerdog wrote: To be honest, if south korea gets blocked from whaling in their own waters but japan is allowed to do it in international waters that is a bit of a double standard. It's like slapping one kid for smoking a cigarette while there is a chain smoker blowing smoke in everyones faces right beside him.
I'm against whaling but i do see south koreas point...
Except it's more like slapping one kid for killing endangered whales with harpoons while there is a chain whaler whaling whales in everyone's faces right beside him.
Sorry, but incomplete analogies like such do annoy me. Smoking doesn't kill whales.
On July 05 2012 20:42 Bleak wrote: Human is a disgusting species.
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 05 2012 21:13 killerdog wrote: To be honest, if south korea gets blocked from whaling in their own waters but japan is allowed to do it in international waters that is a bit of a double standard. It's like slapping one kid for smoking a cigarette while there is a chain smoker blowing smoke in everyones faces right beside him.
I'm against whaling but i do see south koreas point...
Except it's more like slapping one kid for killing endangered whales with harpoons while there is a chain whaler whaling whales in everyone's faces right beside him.
Sorry, but incomplete analogies like such do annoy me. Smoking doesn't kill whales.
I'm not sure you understand what an analogy is
It's still very much an analogy. There's no kids or slapping in the real situation I was just saying, smoking doesn't really hurt anyone or anything (relatively), it's just a dumb longterm move for your own body, so it is a sort of misleading analogy of his.
Interesting that we are the only ones on our planet that are outraged by this and also at the same time the only ones who will take part in this aside from killer squid.
Only thing i could think of whne i read the title : " Resume finishing her ! "
Really how can killing whales from an endangered specie be seen as a valid scientific experiment ?
Other than that i can totally see why SK could be pissed if japan gets away with whaling in international water but sk can't. I would totally do something like that if my neighbour was allowed to and i wasn't.
While I don't think that hunting for animals/fish/whales is in itself bad, what is bad is hunting for an endangered species like this whale. If they would be smart about it they would wait another 10 or 20 years for the whale population to become strong enough again...
Anyway, westerners are always ready to bitch about what is happening in someone elses territory, while in Europe we have pretty much emptied out our own seas and the seas around Africa. But we hear nobody about that, nobody ever talks about the fact that a local african fisherman now has to go I don't know how many miles into the sea before he finds any fish, while 30 years ago he could fish right at the beach. And this is all because of the European fishing boats and of course abuse of the weak political system in Africa.
On July 05 2012 21:13 killerdog wrote: To be honest, if south korea gets blocked from whaling in their own waters but japan is allowed to do it in international waters that is a bit of a double standard. It's like slapping one kid for smoking a cigarette while there is a chain smoker blowing smoke in everyones faces right beside him.
I'm against whaling but i do see south koreas point...
Except it's more like slapping one kid for killing endangered whales with harpoons while there is a chain whaler whaling whales in everyone's faces right beside him.
Sorry, but incomplete analogies like such do annoy me. Smoking doesn't kill whales.
I'm not sure you understand what an analogy is
It's still very much an analogy. There's no kids or slapping in the real situation I was just saying, smoking doesn't really hurt anyone or anything (relatively), it's just a dumb longterm move for your own body, so it is a sort of misleading analogy of his.
What i'm saying is that how can the international community justify trying to forbid one country from doing something when a country right beside them is doing the same thing is a worse way... I fail to see your point.
On July 05 2012 21:28 Hnnngg wrote: Finally someone decides to take a stand against those douchebag whales.
I strongly agree, i'm so tired of getting bullied by whales all the time. I want to eat nice whale ramen and i want my girl to have cosmetics made of extinct animals so she can have expensive stuff to look like a fine slut.
On July 05 2012 21:42 theBALLS wrote: What makes this worse than eating chicken if they don't hunt to the point of extinction?
Well there's a few differences . First and foremost many types of whales are a protected species , also they're wild animals so hunting them is very different than farming chickens who're domesticated animals.
On July 05 2012 21:42 theBALLS wrote: What makes this worse than eating chicken if they don't hunt to the point of extinction?
Well, its the "hypocrisy" we teach ourselves, we can eat chicken or pig whole day, but because of whale meat being so distant for us we are allowed to make 3rd party judgements on this matter. Same goes for eating dogs or other animals we didnt't pigeonholed in our minds as "food".
I'm not so much appalled by the fact that they want to resume whaling but by the fact that they are trying to bullshit their way out of getting condemned for it by claiming it was for scientific purposes.
Obviously, I also oppose Japan and Iceland's commercial whaling as they're using the same excuse.
I can't believe you guys are joking about this, I mean seriously?
This is a serious thing and its pretty disgusting that your making fun of an issue that we have tried to fix out for a long time. I'm really angry at what my mainland country is doing, I mean seriously? First they throw evolution out of their textbooks, enforce tiger parenting and now this...
On July 05 2012 21:42 theBALLS wrote: What makes this worse than eating chicken if they don't hunt to the point of extinction?
Well, its the "hypocrisy" we teach ourselves, we can eat chicken or pig whole day, but because of whale meat being so distant for us we are allowed to make 3rd party judgements on this matter. Same goes for eating dogs or other animals we didnt't pigeonholed in our minds as "food".
Understanding the ecosystem is not hypocrisy. When whaling was unrestricted we over killed great whales, leaving orcas with no food, so they killed seals, sea lions, otters, etc which in turn affected everything on the ocean floor.
When you breed and kill a chicken, you are not fucking with the ecosystem for commercial gain. While everything we do has an impact on the planet great or small, from chicken feed to killing whales, wanting to minimize that impact isn't hypocrisy. It's just the opposite of stupidity
On July 05 2012 21:42 theBALLS wrote: What makes this worse than eating chicken if they don't hunt to the point of extinction?
Well, its the "hypocrisy" we teach ourselves, we can eat chicken or pig whole day, but because of whale meat being so distant for us we are allowed to make 3rd party judgements on this matter. Same goes for eating dogs or other animals we didnt't pigeonholed in our minds as "food".
I would say it's rather that we have no infrastructure for the farming of whales and hence there isn't sufficient population regeneration to make it sustainable on a large scale. It's better comparable to hunting larger mammals like elephants and giraffes or something. They are also said to be (supposedly) rather intelligent compared to cows, dogs, cats etc.
Sometimes I just wish the world would fuckin explode so people could see how badly they fucked up things. Fucking money-power addiction, the most harmful addictions are the most morally acceptable and socially rewarded it seems.
On July 05 2012 21:42 theBALLS wrote: What makes this worse than eating chicken if they don't hunt to the point of extinction?
Well, its the "hypocrisy" we teach ourselves, we can eat chicken or pig whole day, but because of whale meat being so distant for us we are allowed to make 3rd party judgements on this matter. Same goes for eating dogs or other animals we didnt't pigeonholed in our minds as "food".
Understanding the ecosystem is not hypocrisy. When whaling was unrestricted we over killed great whales, leaving orcas with no food, so they killed seals, sea lions, otters, etc which in turn affected everything on the ocean floor.
When you breed and kill a chicken, you are not fucking with the ecosystem for commercial gain. While everything we do has an impact on the planet great or small, from chicken feed to killing whales, wanting to minimize that impact isn't hypocrisy. It's just the opposite of stupidity
To be fair. Factory farms are destroying the planet at a much larger rate than the whaling industry is...
The difference is people like eating their meat, yet South Korea's whaling policies don't personally affect their lives, so they can get on their high horses and say that they should stop.
So what you mean to say, is to "minimize impact as long as it doesn't change the way I live"...
Why is it always OUR whales? Surely there's good whales in other waters.
Seriously though, I really don't get this. If they were going to start whaling, why announce it to the world that you're hunting an endangered species for "science"?
On July 05 2012 21:42 theBALLS wrote: What makes this worse than eating chicken if they don't hunt to the point of extinction?
Well, its the "hypocrisy" we teach ourselves, we can eat chicken or pig whole day, but because of whale meat being so distant for us we are allowed to make 3rd party judgements on this matter. Same goes for eating dogs or other animals we didnt't pigeonholed in our minds as "food".
Understanding the ecosystem is not hypocrisy. When whaling was unrestricted we over killed great whales, leaving orcas with no food, so they killed seals, sea lions, otters, etc which in turn affected everything on the ocean floor.
When you breed and kill a chicken, you are not fucking with the ecosystem for commercial gain. While everything we do has an impact on the planet great or small, from chicken feed to killing whales, wanting to minimize that impact isn't hypocrisy. It's just the opposite of stupidity
To be fair. Factory farms are destroying the planet at a much larger rate than the whaling industry is...
The difference is people like eating their meat, yet South Korea's whaling policies don't personally affect their lives, so they can get on their high horses and say that they should stop.
So what you mean to say, is to "minimize impact as long as it doesn't change the way I live"...
It's kind of pointless to cherry pick farming when industry, transportation, power stations, etc destroy the planet even more. The problem is humans and always has been. I still don't see how we arrive at "welp, if you're not gonna eradicate humanity we may as well get back to killing all the whales"
What I mean to say is pretty much exactly what I said "there is no point in hunting whales, it is stupid"
On July 05 2012 22:26 Ruscour wrote: Why is it always OUR whales? Surely there's good whales in other waters.
Seriously though, I really don't get this. If they were going to start whaling, why announce it to the world that you're hunting an endangered species for "science"?
because that is the legal loophole and how they get away with it? as pm. gillard said, disappointing
On July 05 2012 22:04 Alpino wrote: Sometimes I just wish the world would fuckin explode so people could see how badly they fucked up things. Fucking money-power addiction, the most harmful addictions are the most morally acceptable and socially rewarded it seems.
Humpback whales number in the 80.000, Bowhead whales number in the 20.000. Both are 'least concern' when it comes to endangered species according to wikipedia (can i refer to that site here?). Several whale species (like the blue whale) however number in the hundreds and I take it those will be avoided at all cost. If the SK government sets up safety management in regards to which whales they target, they may not be damaged that much in international relations.
Given that we are entering a warmer period globally, that could however influence food supply for the whales negatively. This does mean any damage to whale populations could be longer lasting than intended. Because we don't know what effect whaling will have, I'm slightly concerned for this move by the SK government.
All that said, I don't see reason for panic. Maybe I'll enjoy some whale butt if I ever go to Korea!
On July 05 2012 22:48 Desertfaux wrote: Humpback whales number in the 80.000, Bowhead whales number in the 20.000. Both are 'least concern' when it comes to endangered species according to wikipedia (can i refer to that site here?). Several whale species (like the blue whale) however number in the hundreds and I take it those will be avoided at all cost. If the SK government sets up safety management in regards to which whales they target, they may not be damaged that much in international relations.
Given that we are entering a warmer period globally, that could however influence food supply for the whales negatively. This does mean any damage to whale populations could be longer lasting than intended. Because we don't know what effect whaling will have, I'm slightly concerned for this move by the SK government.
All that said, I don't see reason for panic. Maybe I'll enjoy some whale butt if I ever go to Korea!
If you'd read the full OP, you'd see that the WWF stated that the whales that would be hunted are currently considered endangered.
This is totally fine. I don`t understand people that are not vegetarians, but oppose whaling. Perhaps the fact that i reside in a country with a rich whaling tradidion makes my perspective slightly different. I mean " It`s ok to eat animals, just not the cute ones?" And don`t give me the "endangered species" argument. As long as they are harvested responsibly, it`s no different from hunting boars or deer. Whale-steak is delicious, trust me! Save the whales .... FOR DINNER!
Please stop touching the poor whales! They are the most beautiful and the most mighty specie in the world, humans are just killing them simply because they can... Shame.
Frankly, i'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner.
They have some really weird views when it comes to animal rights in SK, i've always put it down to remnants from the 'eat whatever you can' mentality from the war.
SK government taking some really strange decisions lately; first by moving the capital to rural Sejong, now by resuming the archaic practice of whaling.
On July 05 2012 22:48 Desertfaux wrote: Humpback whales number in the 80.000, Bowhead whales number in the 20.000. Both are 'least concern' when it comes to endangered species according to wikipedia (can i refer to that site here?). Several whale species (like the blue whale) however number in the hundreds and I take it those will be avoided at all cost. If the SK government sets up safety management in regards to which whales they target, they may not be damaged that much in international relations.
Given that we are entering a warmer period globally, that could however influence food supply for the whales negatively. This does mean any damage to whale populations could be longer lasting than intended. Because we don't know what effect whaling will have, I'm slightly concerned for this move by the SK government.
All that said, I don't see reason for panic. Maybe I'll enjoy some whale butt if I ever go to Korea!
If you'd read the full OP, you'd see that the WWF stated that the whales that would be hunted are currently considered endangered.
Minke whales fall under 'least concern' as well. Know that WWF will take a stance against any form of whaling. Minke whales need to be revaluated and perhaps split between their atlantic and pacific populations, because as of now they are among the most populous whale species. This does not help any opposition against the proposed whaling.
The whaling commission who states these minke whales as endangered do also mention its impossible to assess some of their populations. I'm afraid to say the SK government is not going to be swayed by anything less than internation sanctions. GLHF wwf
On July 05 2012 21:42 theBALLS wrote: What makes this worse than eating chicken if they don't hunt to the point of extinction?
Well there's a few differences . First and foremost many types of whales are a protected species , also they're wild animals so hunting them is very different than farming chickens who're domesticated animals.
so according to this line of logic, if we can domesticate an animal, then we have the right to commercialise it as food?
i'm not for whaling and i do think hunting an animal near extenction is morally incorrect. but i would like to bring up what happened when perry forcibly opened japan's borders in 1853. one of his objectives was to open up the seas surronding the area so that american whalers, who at the time had a monopoly on the buisness, could whale and use japanese ports to stock up. from that period on america's whaling industry whaled the crap out of japan's sea for whale oil.
nowadays, whales are nearing extinction, whale oil isnt that useful anymore and the industry is not as profitable anymore. most countrys who commit whaling only do it for food.
what im trying to say is that one big contributor to whales nearing extenction was the american whaling industry. imagine if a random stranger came into your house and ate most of your beloved sausages and then turned around and said to you "hey you're nearly out of sausages so dont eat anymore ok?". thats how i feel the situation with america and japan in regards to whaling is like right now.
like i said, i am against it all but i just wanted to bring up a different pov to see what all you fine gentlemens think about it. i feel like the problem isnt nearly as black and white as the media paints it out to be.
On July 05 2012 21:42 theBALLS wrote: What makes this worse than eating chicken if they don't hunt to the point of extinction?
Well there's a few differences . First and foremost many types of whales are a protected species , also they're wild animals so hunting them is very different than farming chickens who're domesticated animals.
so according to this line of logic, if we can domesticate an animal, then we have the right to commercialise it as food?
Why not? Why are only cows, pigs and chicken acceptable to so many people? If anything whales would be the best thing to farm since you get so much food per life.
What sort of difference is there from "scientific whaling" and whaling for other purposes, such as using their products in the market. Not only should we consider the moral issues regarding whaling in general, but also for what benefit is it to kill whales for scientific reasons.
On July 05 2012 22:40 Chewbacca. wrote: Why do we think we need to stop every single species from dying out? Species have been going extinct long before humans ever came along.
This is how I feel. Why exactly are we going to such great lengths to save whales? I'm against actively trying to kill off animals just to make them go extinct but if it's just a byproduct of what we do.. What do whales even contribute to human society? Aren't bees also struggling? I'd be more concerned about them.
On July 05 2012 23:22 Valentine wrote: What sort of difference is there from "scientific whaling" and whaling for other purposes, such as using their products in the market. Not only should we consider the moral issues regarding whaling in general, but also for what benefit is it to kill whales for scientific reasons.
Whatever scientific whaling is, it's probably more useful than whatever whales are doing for us as is.
On July 05 2012 22:40 Chewbacca. wrote: Why do we think we need to stop every single species from dying out? Species have been going extinct long before humans ever came along.
This is how I feel. Why exactly are we going to such great lengths to save whales? I'm against actively trying to kill off animals just to make them go extinct but if it's just a byproduct of what we do.. What do whales even contribute to human society? Aren't bees also struggling? I'd be more concerned about them.
On July 05 2012 23:22 Valentine wrote: What sort of difference is there from "scientific whaling" and whaling for other purposes, such as using their products in the market. Not only should we consider the moral issues regarding whaling in general, but also for what benefit is it to kill whales for scientific reasons.
Whatever scientific whaling is, it's probably more useful than whatever whales are doing for us as is.
What kind of logic is this? Do you want whales to cook meal for you or make you breakfast?
I will just drop some facts because people seem confused.
Commercial whaling is banned by the international whaling commission. Both Japan and South Korea are a part of said commission. There is a loophole which allows for whaling if you do it for "scientific purposes". The science conducted is basically cutting the whale open and confirming that it still eats fish.
On July 06 2012 00:00 SnipedSoul wrote: What do you even do with a whale after you catch it?
Nothing you cannot do with other stuff. But hey, please stop human greediness if you can. Tho past studies shown that whales (might) posses high level cognitive capabilities, we still slaughter them. We are to them what nazi were to jews :S So sad....
I think it's hilarious how people are spewing so much vitrol and hate with out a shred of actual scientific knowledge about what's actually going on. If you actually Know, and have hard data on population, rate of kills, affects of environmental changes and the rate of births, then I'm all with you, but until then get a grip and stop acting like a 2 year old.
Very interesting, anyone know what the sceince is they are going to use? I mean, what else is there to know about whales? Or they trying to use them for things?
On July 06 2012 00:20 Pandemona wrote: Very interesting, anyone know what the sceince is they are going to use? I mean, what else is there to know about whales? Or they trying to use them for things?
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 06 2012 00:20 Pandemona wrote: Very interesting, anyone know what the sceince is they are going to use? I mean, what else is there to know about whales? Or they trying to use them for things?
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 06 2012 00:20 Pandemona wrote: Very interesting, anyone know what the sceince is they are going to use? I mean, what else is there to know about whales? Or they trying to use them for things?
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.
Or to determine if the mercury level found in the whales is above or not the safety level for human consumption
On July 05 2012 22:40 Chewbacca. wrote: Why do we think we need to stop every single species from dying out? Species have been going extinct long before humans ever came along.
This is how I feel. Why exactly are we going to such great lengths to save whales? I'm against actively trying to kill off animals just to make them go extinct but if it's just a byproduct of what we do.. What do whales even contribute to human society? Aren't bees also struggling? I'd be more concerned about them.
On July 05 2012 23:22 Valentine wrote: What sort of difference is there from "scientific whaling" and whaling for other purposes, such as using their products in the market. Not only should we consider the moral issues regarding whaling in general, but also for what benefit is it to kill whales for scientific reasons.
Whatever scientific whaling is, it's probably more useful than whatever whales are doing for us as is.
What kind of logic is this? Do you want whales to cook meal for you or make you breakfast?
Hypothetically speaking, if killing off whales can help with cancer research, they're better off being hunted for that than having them swim about minding their own business. This is what he means.
Also, while I do get the whole "killing stuff is bad" thing, how is this any different than all the other animals we're slaughtering daily. So they're endangered, big whoop, cows and chicken would be endangered too if we wouldn't breed them for food.
On July 05 2012 22:58 bonifaceviii wrote: As long as they use the whole animal, keep their whaling sustainable by use of quotas and restrict it to certain species, I have no problem with it.
On July 05 2012 22:40 Chewbacca. wrote: Why do we think we need to stop every single species from dying out? Species have been going extinct long before humans ever came along.
This is how I feel. Why exactly are we going to such great lengths to save whales? I'm against actively trying to kill off animals just to make them go extinct but if it's just a byproduct of what we do.. What do whales even contribute to human society? Aren't bees also struggling? I'd be more concerned about them.
Whatever scientific whaling is, it's probably more useful than whatever whales are doing for us as is.
I guess it is because we are not sure what the consequences would be. Maybe it will effect the ecosystem heavily, maybe we will discover they could be useful for medical purposes or maybe just so the generations after us are not pisses at us because they would also like to hunt and eat them after reading that they are delicious.
On July 05 2012 22:40 Chewbacca. wrote: Why do we think we need to stop every single species from dying out? Species have been going extinct long before humans ever came along.
This is how I feel. Why exactly are we going to such great lengths to save whales? I'm against actively trying to kill off animals just to make them go extinct but if it's just a byproduct of what we do.. What do whales even contribute to human society? Aren't bees also struggling? I'd be more concerned about them.
On July 05 2012 23:22 Valentine wrote: What sort of difference is there from "scientific whaling" and whaling for other purposes, such as using their products in the market. Not only should we consider the moral issues regarding whaling in general, but also for what benefit is it to kill whales for scientific reasons.
Whatever scientific whaling is, it's probably more useful than whatever whales are doing for us as is.
What kind of logic is this? Do you want whales to cook meal for you or make you breakfast?
Hypothetically speaking, if killing off whales can help with cancer research, they're better off being hunted for that than having them swim about minding their own business. This is what he means.
Also, while I do get the whole "killing stuff is bad" thing, how is this any different than all the other animals we're slaughtering daily. So they're endangered, big whoop, cows and chicken would be endangered too if we wouldn't breed them for food.
Wow a sensible response in a thread of trolls. Thank you!
On July 05 2012 20:42 Bleak wrote: Human is a disgusting species.
We are the chosen specie. All other species exist to be a servant of humans or as a food source.
Wait for "Planet of Apes I" installment Now seriously, someone tell me a good reason (or more) why whaling is a good thing? Also keep in mind that we are dealing with "possibly" self-aware intelligent specie.
Personally, I don't see why we have the right to say "no" to SK. If they want to whale, they have the right to whale. As long as they aren't interfering with any other countries they should be able to. This is no different from some countries killing cows (usa) vs some countries making it illegal (india). Different cultures have different views and we shouldn't infringe upon south koreas.
Really pathetic as a country to succumb to this shit. The only reason I don't hang my head in shame on behalf of Canada for club sealing is because their population is out of control so it must be done. Even then, it's a difficult situation. And at least Canada doesn't say it's for 'research'. This infuriates me so much.
The Japanese hold up signs saying they are weighing whale stomachs, measuring this and that, etc. Now Korean's will be attending this perverse ball? I'm really ashamed to be part of this human race.
We treat intelligent creatures/ANCESTORS like a mosquito. It's revolting.
On July 06 2012 00:48 aebriol wrote: South Korea can go for it if they want.
I see nothing really special about whales ...
That's simply because you're ignorant. Whales have intelligence. They communicate. They play. They hunt in packs. They are sophisticated creatures. These aren't mindless cattle that do fuck all. And that's only part of the point. The REASON for doing this is outrageous. If you don't care, maybe you should watch a video of a harpoon vessel firing a torpedo into a whale. Enjoy.
On July 06 2012 00:46 MrRicewife wrote: Really pathetic as a country to succumb to this shit. The only reason I don't hang my head in shame on behalf of Canada for club sealing is because their population is out of control so it must be done. Even then, it's a difficult situation. And at least Canada doesn't say it's for 'research'. This infuriates me so much.
The Japanese hold up signs saying they are weighing whale stomachs, measuring this and that, etc. Now Korean's will be attending this perverse ball? I'm really ashamed to be part of this human race.
We treat intelligent creatures/ANCESTORS like a mosquito. It's revolting.
Minke whale population is out of control surrounding korean seas.
On July 05 2012 20:42 Bleak wrote: Human is a disgusting species.
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.
I don't even know from where to begin with...First of all other species kill and eat because they have to for their survival, and only enough to keep them alive. We on the other hand, humans, fucking industrialize the killing process and turn the whole thing into a factory. Kill for more than we can consume, kill for "scientific" purpose, kill for research.....These are other ulterior motives not connected to the survival of us. This is just because humans want to kill for some reason and they do it.
If you are starving and you kill a rabbit to eat you are a carnivore. If you organize hunting parties to systematically slaughter species after species for your benefits other than immediate survival, you are disgusting.
The day will come we die by mass earthquakes, tsunamis, heavy storms and lava emission, don´t worry, the nature will pay back, and if that day comes i will laugh at humans, even tho i kick the bucket too :D
I don't disagree with whaling entirely. There's enough numbers of certain types of species to make whaling with a cap viable for the three nations that want to do it. When they use the guise of scientific research to kill endangered species then that's completely fucked up.
On July 05 2012 22:40 Chewbacca. wrote: Why do we think we need to stop every single species from dying out? Species have been going extinct long before humans ever came along.
This is how I feel. Why exactly are we going to such great lengths to save whales? I'm against actively trying to kill off animals just to make them go extinct but if it's just a byproduct of what we do.. What do whales even contribute to human society? Aren't bees also struggling? I'd be more concerned about them.
On July 05 2012 23:22 Valentine wrote: What sort of difference is there from "scientific whaling" and whaling for other purposes, such as using their products in the market. Not only should we consider the moral issues regarding whaling in general, but also for what benefit is it to kill whales for scientific reasons.
Whatever scientific whaling is, it's probably more useful than whatever whales are doing for us as is.
What kind of logic is this? Do you want whales to cook meal for you or make you breakfast?
Hypothetically speaking, if killing off whales can help with cancer research, they're better off being hunted for that than having them swim about minding their own business. This is what he means.
they're better off being hunted
How on earth is a whale better of being hunted rather than swimming around minding their own business?
Also, while I do get the whole "killing stuff is bad" thing, how is this any different than all the other animals we're slaughtering daily. So they're endangered, big whoop, cows and chicken would be endangered too if we wouldn't breed them for food.
It's no different. Eating a burger will seriously impact your credibility if you're chanting "save the whales". XD
On July 06 2012 00:46 MrRicewife wrote: Really pathetic as a country to succumb to this shit. The only reason I don't hang my head in shame on behalf of Canada for club sealing is because their population is out of control so it must be done. Even then, it's a difficult situation. And at least Canada doesn't say it's for 'research'. This infuriates me so much.
The Japanese hold up signs saying they are weighing whale stomachs, measuring this and that, etc. Now Korean's will be attending this perverse ball? I'm really ashamed to be part of this human race.
We treat intelligent creatures/ANCESTORS like a mosquito. It's revolting.
On July 06 2012 00:48 aebriol wrote: South Korea can go for it if they want.
I see nothing really special about whales ...
That's simply because you're ignorant. Whales have intelligence. They communicate. They play. They hunt in packs. They are sophisticated creatures. These aren't mindless cattle that do fuck all. And that's only part of the point. The REASON for doing this is outrageous. If you don't care, maybe you should watch a video of a harpoon vessel firing a torpedo into a whale. Enjoy.
I stand by that if as a species, they can't communicate to us enough to stop us from hunting them, or make any defense for themselves, I have no problem consuming them.
You know what's kinda sad? That people have to lie about their reasons for hunting their own animals.
Btw, have you seem animals killing each other? Not just like discovery channel stuff but some real prey/predator hunting. I have never seen anything more vicious or gory than animals hunting. I've seen those documentaries "Oh look at this poor cow, look at this poor whale". Doesn't phase me in the slightest compared to what happens in nature. Oh we shot a whale? My friend had a snapping turtle that he fed live mice. That literally made me feel sick. And I've seen some messed up stuff in movies and been fine.
Point of the matter is, I don't care about whales because even in a first world country, I have bigger things to worry about than the survival of some animal that will never affect me whatsoever. And if you want people like me to care, you should probably 1. be more polite about making your defense and 2. link us the video that will make us care.
On July 06 2012 01:06 Mstring wrote:How on earth is a whale better of being hunted rather than swimming around minding their own business?
He said if it helps cancer research. No one here is advocating mindless slaughter of any animal. I just don't see why it's such news that a small country on the other side of the globe is hunting animals for resources.
On July 06 2012 00:46 MrRicewife wrote: Really pathetic as a country to succumb to this shit. The only reason I don't hang my head in shame on behalf of Canada for club sealing is because their population is out of control so it must be done. Even then, it's a difficult situation. And at least Canada doesn't say it's for 'research'. This infuriates me so much.
The Japanese hold up signs saying they are weighing whale stomachs, measuring this and that, etc. Now Korean's will be attending this perverse ball? I'm really ashamed to be part of this human race.
We treat intelligent creatures/ANCESTORS like a mosquito. It's revolting.
On July 06 2012 00:48 aebriol wrote: South Korea can go for it if they want.
I see nothing really special about whales ...
That's simply because you're ignorant. Whales have intelligence. They communicate. They play. They hunt in packs. They are sophisticated creatures. These aren't mindless cattle that do fuck all. And that's only part of the point. The REASON for doing this is outrageous. If you don't care, maybe you should watch a video of a harpoon vessel firing a torpedo into a whale. Enjoy.
I stand by that if as a species, they can't communicate to us enough to stop us from hunting them, or make any defense for themselves, I have no problem consuming them.
Can't communicate? Screams of agony and blood spilling out doesn't send you a message?
Your parents probably can't communicate with me in a more meaningful way than a whale can. Do you have a problem me slaughtering and consuming them?
Now that you mention it, there are a few people around here that I can't communicate with. I think it's huntin' time! XD
On July 06 2012 01:06 Mstring wrote:How on earth is a whale better of being hunted rather than swimming around minding their own business?
He said if it helps cancer research. No one here is advocating mindless slaughter of any animal. I just don't see why it's such news that a small country on the other side of the globe is hunting animals for resources.
I know what he said. If it helps cancer research, how does a whale benefit? His statement was that "they" are better off. How is any creature better off being slaughtered rather than not?
On July 06 2012 01:06 Mstring wrote:How on earth is a whale better of being hunted rather than swimming around minding their own business?
He said if it helps cancer research. No one here is advocating mindless slaughter of any animal. I just don't see why it's such news that a small country on the other side of the globe is hunting animals for resources.
I know what he said. If it helps cancer research, how does a whale benefit? His statement was that "they" are better off. How is any creature better off being slaughtered rather than not?
Did you realize how many pigs/chickens/cows/horses/etc dies during a day ? Do you really care about them ?
On July 06 2012 01:06 Mstring wrote:How on earth is a whale better of being hunted rather than swimming around minding their own business?
He said if it helps cancer research. No one here is advocating mindless slaughter of any animal. I just don't see why it's such news that a small country on the other side of the globe is hunting animals for resources.
I know what he said. If it helps cancer research, how does a whale benefit? His statement was that "they" are better off. How is any creature better off being slaughtered rather than not?
Did you realize how many pigs/chickens/cows/horses/etc dies during a day ? Do you really care about them ?
Every single one of them.
The same care is extended to all humans too; which is why I stand up for animals; because I realise that when we stop killing them we'll all be much, much better off.
@Xenocide_Knight: it's just news because the whales are potentially endangered and people would not like to see them go extinct. I see both sides here and am mostly neutral about it, that's just the main concern.
The thing is, there is no species besides humans that can collectively communicate with another species something like "don't hunt us", though I guess you could consider their distress a form of more primitive communication since they don't speak etc. They cannot make a defense for themselves because humans are simply too powerful. Because we are technologically advanced, there really is no species out there that can successfully mount a defense against humans. We have harpoons and guns and bombs and rockets--there is no species on earth that can just protect itself from that.
I understand there's a lot of rudeness but that's just their side so to speak. The degree of gruesomeness is, in my opinion, a moot point unless humans are literally torturing them for as long as possible (though iirc there was that bit about making dolphins suffer so that their meat tastes better). The idea is just that as humans, we have near-total control over whether they thrive or die out completely and should use whatever power we hold over animals judiciously and with discretion.
And yeah, it's a trade-off. Is the risk and loss incurred by potentially driving a species to extinction worth whatever amount of potential benefit it can reap humans with regard to cancer? That's a question people have to ask themselves.
Depends on how much they're hunting. If it's like 2-3 a year or something, that's quasi-reasonable. If it's the hundreds that Japan does, well, I'm going to get pissed.
On July 05 2012 20:57 saMas wrote: Humans are just a virus
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.
On July 05 2012 20:57 saMas wrote: Humans are just a virus
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.
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.
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.
On July 05 2012 20:57 saMas wrote: Humans are just a virus
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.
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.
You fucking inbreds need to stop comparing the consumption of animals by the West to this bullshit. For one, none of the animals we eat are endangered. Diversity of lifeforms is the key issue here and I wouldn't care had these whale numbers actually been stable.
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".
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
A cursory search on google images about "scientific whaling" conducted by Japan showed the carcasses of adult whales and calves being loaded onto a whaling boat. Why the fuck do you need to kill the baby whales? It makes no sense unless you are actually planning to sell the meat as a sort of whale veal or something.
Pretty much every nation is guilty of double standards / hypocrisy from the sounds of it. This is no different.
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.
Whales have a fair weight of evidence behind them being on a convergent course of evolution towards self awareness. We should not be hunting cetaceans. Full stop.
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.
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 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.
On July 05 2012 20:57 saMas wrote: Humans are just a virus
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
But you did. You said that we need to act 'better' than animals because we are humans. This is a fundamentally moral argument, because what is 'better' is contingent on social/cultural/ideological forces and you have shown no different. You have never explained what makes preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them, and short of that you are a product of the environmentalist social mores that are conditioned into people in the West these days. Thus, you are making a moral argument, not a logical one.
I ask again - why is preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them? Is it not natural for species that are unable to adapt to their environment to perish? Isn't that the entire process of selection and evolution?
Did some more reading about this topic. It is an interesting and complicated topic. Proponents of whaling claim that the consumption of whale meat is deeply embedded in Japanese and (presumably) SK culture. Attempts to limit their "right to whale" are essentially considered an attack on their culture, history etc. What makes it sad is that the consumption of whale meat in Japan has decreased to the point where large stockpiles have been built up and whale meat is actually being served as school lunch in some areas ( http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/japan/100407/japan-whale-meat ).
According to a 2008 survey conducted by the Nippon Research Center 95% of Japanese either don't eat whale meat or eat it very rarely. Generally speaking, people get angry when they feel their culture is being attacked...maybe that is why they want to keep whaling? As a way of saying "fuck you western food nazis".
meh, if they want to hunt the whale, let them hunt the whale.
with comments like: "i hate humans" and "humans are a virus" i don't think i want to be on those people's side, so i'm gonna stick with the "i love humans and eat whales" side.
On July 06 2012 03:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: meh, if they want to hunt the whale, let them hunt the whale.
with comments like: "i hate humans" and "humans are a virus" i don't think i want to be on those people's side, so i'm gonna stick with the "i love humans and eat whales" side.
On July 06 2012 03:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: meh, if they want to hunt the whale, let them hunt the whale.
with comments like: "i hate humans" and "humans are a virus" i don't think i want to be on those people's side, so i'm gonna stick with the "i love humans and eat whales" side.
that's what im saying, it's the friggen bad guy that says stuff like "humans are a virus" and "i want all humans to just die for attacking the poor whales"
Hm perhaps one day far in the future children will laugh at our current civilization because we are so primitive i mean the writings right there "Endangered species" yet we still choose to hunt them. I mean if we let people hunt anything they wanted with no restrictions, i am almost positive there would only be about 10 species of animal and those are the ones who taste bad and have no fur.
On July 06 2012 03:22 xjoehammerx wrote: Did some more reading about this topic. It is an interesting and complicated topic. Proponents of whaling claim that the consumption of whale meat is deeply embedded in Japanese and (presumably) SK culture. Attempts to limit their "right to whale" are essentially considered an attack on their culture, history etc. What makes it sad is that the consumption of whale meat in Japan has decreased to the point where large stockpiles have been built up and whale meat is actually being served as school lunch in some areas ( http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/japan/100407/japan-whale-meat ).
According to a 2008 survey conducted by the Nippon Research Center 95% of Japanese either don't eat whale meat or eat it very rarely. Generally speaking, people get angry when they feel their culture is being attacked...maybe that is why they want to keep whaling? As a way of saying "fuck you western food nazis".
I know I would be pretty pissed if India started giving us shit for eating cows. I say treat whales like any other fish (whatever, mammals, we eat them too).
There are a lot of laymen here on this thread, and while I commend your proactiveness in taking some action, I would like to just add a perspective.
DON'T: Force your ideas down the throats of people who don't agree with you. DON'T: take ANYTHING at face value. DON'T: Reject evidence just because it doesn't match your beliefs
DO: Be the global citizen and make an informed decision. DO: Take action if you think it is right. Not taking action is the same as taking their side.
I'll give you some food for thought.
Did you know? Canadians hunt 200 bowhead whales (endangered) a year to satisfy the 'cultural needs' of their Inuit population.
Did you know?While whaling is receiving huge international reaction, restaurants in rural Vietnam are serving monkey brains which include killing the monkey in front of the customers at the table.
Did you know?While we're told not to hunt whales because they're incredibly intelligent, Pigs, smarter than dogs, are in the top 10 smartest animals in the world. We still eat them without any guilty conscience every day though.
Did you know? That the official political stance of the 88 member nations in the International Whaling Commission is Pro-Whaling:Against-Whaling ratio is only 7:10. Did you expect more countries to be against whaling?
Did you know? Historically in Japan, whale meat delicacies were not mainstream. It was only until the 1940s, when General McArthur Douglas, in charge of occupation of Japan post WW2 TOLD the Japanese to eat whales to account for the shortage in food.
Did you know? With the current spearing technology for hunting whales, Iceland reported in the 1990's a 75%+ instant kill rate with an average of 14 minutes from impact of spear to death of whale? That inconsistent with this, the Japanese reported a 40%+ instant kill rate and an average of 35 minutes from impact of spear to death of whale? Who really is telling the truth here?
Did you know? The exceptions for whaling (non commercial) are for research purposes, and the Japanese adamantly believe only lethal research will produce effective results? Japan had not conducted a research party for whales for four years since 2008, until May 2012, when they set out to do lethal research on 50 Minke Whales. Also, between 2005-2008, during the period they were conducting the JARPA II research (given an annual quota of 950 Minke Whales, 50 Fin Whales, 50 Humpback whales), they only killed half their given quota for this period (2005-2008).
Did you know? If Japan stopped importing food, they would only be able to feed 40% of their population annually?
Did you know?The Japanese Government has a NOT FOR SALE stock of 5000 tonnes of whale meat? Whale meat is more expensive than beef in Japan, and really, doesn't taste as good.
Did you know?There are pirate whaling operations which operate in the 'black market' of Japan's fisheries. There are only 5 operational whaling boats for commercial whaling shared among 8 remaining companies.
Did you know?Whales only give birth once every few years.
Did you know? At the rate of overfishing we are doing, we will have no fish in the seas by 2049.
Did you know?The international terrorist organisation Sea Shepherds founder was a former Greenpeace board member? Did you know that he established the sea shepherds due to an experience in which he felt like his life was spared by a dying whale?
To be honest, after seeing both sides of the argument and picking apart both, I'd rather just be a vegetarian.
There´s an astonishing amount of hypocrisy in this thread. Thank you to elliminist for providing some much needed perspective.
IMO, if you have no qualms about eating cattle, pork etc. you have no business criticizing Koreans for eating whale. If you have moral problems with killing and eating animals, that´s cool. In fact, I´d commend you for that. However, saying we shouldnt kill whales while chowing down on a nice porterhouse steak just strikes me as wrong.
(This is all provided the hunted whales aren´t endangered, of course.)
If its not your culture and its not harming humans then why are you concerned -.- There are much larger issues which exist within every individuals environment that I am often amazed that people can become so passionate about such matters.
I am wrong many times a day and so is everyone else, so perhaps these individuals should appreciate or at least respect the values and views of others (provided they do not interfere directly with the rights and lives of other humans).
On July 05 2012 22:40 Chewbacca. wrote: Why do we think we need to stop every single species from dying out? Species have been going extinct long before humans ever came along.
This is how I feel. Why exactly are we going to such great lengths to save whales? I'm against actively trying to kill off animals just to make them go extinct but if it's just a byproduct of what we do.. What do whales even contribute to human society? Aren't bees also struggling? I'd be more concerned about them.
On July 05 2012 23:22 Valentine wrote: What sort of difference is there from "scientific whaling" and whaling for other purposes, such as using their products in the market. Not only should we consider the moral issues regarding whaling in general, but also for what benefit is it to kill whales for scientific reasons.
Whatever scientific whaling is, it's probably more useful than whatever whales are doing for us as is.
What kind of logic is this? Do you want whales to cook meal for you or make you breakfast?
Hypothetically speaking, if killing off whales can help with cancer research, they're better off being hunted for that than having them swim about minding their own business. This is what he means.
Also, while I do get the whole "killing stuff is bad" thing, how is this any different than all the other animals we're slaughtering daily. So they're endangered, big whoop, cows and chicken would be endangered too if we wouldn't breed them for food.
It's no different. Eating a burger will seriously impact your credibility if you're chanting "save the whales". XD
Cuz they don't have to worry about finding food and stuff anymore!
Just kidding, I meant we're better off if they're being hunted, as long as it helps us. If they'd just be hunted for fun we would not be better off, but in the interest of science, it's somewhat understandable.
On July 05 2012 22:40 Chewbacca. wrote: Why do we think we need to stop every single species from dying out? Species have been going extinct long before humans ever came along.
This is how I feel. Why exactly are we going to such great lengths to save whales? I'm against actively trying to kill off animals just to make them go extinct but if it's just a byproduct of what we do.. What do whales even contribute to human society? Aren't bees also struggling? I'd be more concerned about them.
On July 05 2012 23:22 Valentine wrote: What sort of difference is there from "scientific whaling" and whaling for other purposes, such as using their products in the market. Not only should we consider the moral issues regarding whaling in general, but also for what benefit is it to kill whales for scientific reasons.
Whatever scientific whaling is, it's probably more useful than whatever whales are doing for us as is.
What kind of logic is this? Do you want whales to cook meal for you or make you breakfast?
Hypothetically speaking, if killing off whales can help with cancer research, they're better off being hunted for that than having them swim about minding their own business. This is what he means.
they're better off being hunted
How on earth is a whale better of being hunted rather than swimming around minding their own business?
Also, while I do get the whole "killing stuff is bad" thing, how is this any different than all the other animals we're slaughtering daily. So they're endangered, big whoop, cows and chicken would be endangered too if we wouldn't breed them for food.
It's no different. Eating a burger will seriously impact your credibility if you're chanting "save the whales". XD
Cuz they don't have to worry about finding food and stuff anymore!
Just kidding, I meant we're better off if they're being hunted, as long as it helps us. If they'd just be hunted for fun we would not be better off, but in the interest of science, it's somewhat understandable.
Be careful with this logic, the idea that the best good is what is good for man (or in this case science which in turn serves man) is what lead us to our current environmental state (we must be short-sighted).
Its kinda funny if you think about it, many years ago various religions provided us the same message science seems to now.
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.
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 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.
But you did. You said that we need to act 'better' than animals because we are humans. This is a fundamentally moral argument, because what is 'better' is contingent on social/cultural/ideological forces and you have shown no different. You have never explained what makes preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them, and short of that you are a product of the environmentalist social mores that are conditioned into people in the West these days. Thus, you are making a moral argument, not a logical one.
I ask again - why is preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them? Is it not natural for species that are unable to adapt to their environment to perish? Isn't that the entire process of selection and evolution?
lol how is it a fundamentally moral argument? It actually has nothing to do with morals and is quite logical. Once again the strawman...
Given human intelligence and our ability to reason, we have two options in regards to this situation: A) Live in apathy and let natural selection take its course. B) Make easy alterations in our lives to preserve biodiversity, which can be as asset in the future.
I'm not advocating that we take option B because of some moral obligation but because it is the option which benefits society the most. We already do many things that go against nature to benefit and progress society, so why should this be any different? Humans are generally considered a patriarchal species, but yet we employ women equality and literacy in the West and it, in turn, helps to preserve our advanced and developed society. You make the claim for allowing natural selection to take its course, so are you also saying that we should just revert back to our normal behaviour and allow civil rights to dissolve because it goes in tandem with our innateness? This is the case in other societies and transcends "social/cultural/ideological forces" but would it be a beneficial choice for ours? The same case could be made for preserving biodiversity on this Earth. South Korea may have different social and cultural codes of conduct than mine, but when it starts to potentially infringe on my life, I take issue with it. For all I care they can enslave their women, but don't touch the whales How's that for morals?
If there is any assumption to be made, it's that you are the product of internet conditioning that believes environmentalism to be a wasted effort and should be ignored completely because of a few introductory college classes. Honestly, it's getting stale.
Is it possible to farm whales? They should come up with a law that if any countries are for hunting endangered species, they must spend money on coming up with way to farm these animals.
On July 05 2012 20:42 Bleak wrote: Human is a disgusting species.
I love how people say things like this and it only shows them to be just as bad because they lump the whole species together ~_~ yes yes we are ALL hunting whales sir everyone of us, we also all killed jews in WW2 in the deathcamps and anyone who commits a crime means the whole species is at fault.
it's whales, what makes whales worth more then fish or turtles? Most whale species that are taken by whaling aren't even close to endangered, and when they are it's often that subspecies that lives in that one area and doesn't thrive there. Really i'm fine with hunting all animals(people withstanding) for food, science, industry etc. As long as it's done so that it doesn't totally wipe them off the planet, like we do with some fish species. After all we want to continue to do it we should be at least smart enough to not do it to death.
On July 06 2012 07:14 semantics wrote: it's whales, what makes whales worth more then fish or turtles? Most whale species that are taken by whaling aren't even close to endangered, and when they are it's often that subspecies that lives in that one area and doesn't thrive there. Really i'm fine with hunting all animals(people withstanding) for food, science, industry etc. As long as it's done so that it doesn't totally wipe them off the planet, like we do with some fish species. After all we want to continue to do it we should be at least smart enough to not do it to death.
thats the thing though, its difficult to stop when it does need to be stopped so its best to keep the regulations there.. people think in the short term and not the long term usually.
I see no issue in this, as long as the whales they hunt are not endangered there is no problem. Its the same thing with Japan, they do not hunt whales that are endangered. I do not see why people get so up in arms about this, its basically the same thing with chickens, cows, turkeys, fish, pigs and goats. We eat animals and plants, that's just life for you. Unless any species we commercially hunt is endangered, get over it.
Edit: Having read what type of whale they are actually hunting, I am now a little iffy. The numbers have recovered, but I would prefer if they would go after more populous whales instead.
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.
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 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.
But you did. You said that we need to act 'better' than animals because we are humans. This is a fundamentally moral argument, because what is 'better' is contingent on social/cultural/ideological forces and you have shown no different. You have never explained what makes preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them, and short of that you are a product of the environmentalist social mores that are conditioned into people in the West these days. Thus, you are making a moral argument, not a logical one.
I ask again - why is preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them? Is it not natural for species that are unable to adapt to their environment to perish? Isn't that the entire process of selection and evolution?
lol how is it a fundamentally moral argument? It actually has nothing to do with morals and is quite logical. Once again the strawman...
Given human intelligence and our ability to reason, we have two options in regards to this situation: A) Live in apathy and let natural selection take its course. B) Make easy alterations in our lives to preserve biodiversity, which can be as asset in the future.
I'm not advocating that we take option B because of some moral obligation but because it is the option which benefits society the most. We already do many things that go against nature to benefit and progress society, so why should this be any different? Humans are generally considered a patriarchal species, but yet we employ women equality and literacy in the West and it, in turn, helps to preserve our advanced and developed society. You make the claim for allowing natural selection to take its course, so are you also saying that we should just revert back to our normal behaviour and allow civil rights to dissolve because it goes in tandem with our innateness? This is the case in other societies and transcends "social/cultural/ideological forces" but would it be a beneficial choice for ours? The same case could be made for preserving biodiversity on this Earth. South Korea may have different social and cultural codes of conduct than mine, but when it starts to potentially infringe on my life, I take issue with it. For all I care they can enslave their women, but don't touch the whales How's that for morals?
If there is any assumption to be made, it's that you are the product of internet conditioning that believes environmentalism to be a wasted effort and should be ignored completely because of a few introductory college classes. Honestly, it's getting stale.
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.
On July 06 2012 07:14 semantics wrote: it's whales, what makes whales worth more then fish or turtles? Most whale species that are taken by whaling aren't even close to endangered, and when they are it's often that subspecies that lives in that one area and doesn't thrive there. Really i'm fine with hunting all animals(people withstanding) for food, science, industry etc. As long as it's done so that it doesn't totally wipe them off the planet, like we do with some fish species. After all we want to continue to do it we should be at least smart enough to not do it to death.
yeah it all starts that way. then all of a sudden a new species is endangered. the damage cant be reverse and they die off. messing up the ecosystem. its not like whales breed like insects.
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 07:39 teaCher wrote: Koreans are so smart, yet they want to hunt an endangered species????????? Makes no sense.... stop whaling, more sc...
koreans are no smarter than the next nationality O_O
also lol@ guy who said humans are a disgusting species as if he is on some upper echelon. No we aren't, we're a gr8 species O_O
On July 06 2012 07:39 teaCher wrote: Koreans are so smart, yet they want to hunt an endangered species????????? Makes no sense.... stop whaling, more sc...
koreans are no smarter than the next nationality O_O
also lol@ guy who said humans are a disgusting species as if he is on some upper echelon. No we aren't, we're a gr8 species O_O
but on topic, I don't see a problem with hunting whales as long as it doesn't endanger the population. It's kind of a cultural thing, in the west we're taught to love whales and that they're peaceful and majestic creatures and such. However, if the population can sustain being hunted, I see no problem with it.
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
Do people even bother reading the fucking article?
You do realize sea shepherd CAN NOT come to other nation's maritime property and harass the fishing ships (technically they can, if they dare)? That nation has every right to either arrest you on spot and send your ass to prison for long time, or downright sink your ass into bottom of the ocean.
SK will only resume whaling within the boundary of their nation, unlike japan and their international whaling.
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.
taste is preference
Pigs are in huge supply because we breed them like crazy then slaughter them like... pigs. Factory farming is probably one of the sickest things we do on this planet(way worse then whaling, go watch a documentary, or better yet.. go to a factory farm), your just turning a blind eye cause you enjoy pig meat. If you really think pigs are happy in their little pig stalls and enjoying a nice roll in the mud before being rolled off to the slaughterhouse.. lol...
Whaling is retarted I agree with you, and I can't believe more countries are joining in on whaling when there is already a huge issue with whale populations.
To be fair I think killing one whale is less harmful then killing 10,000,000 pigs, this is my opinion, just like you have yours.
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.
taste is preference
Pigs are in huge supply because we breed them like crazy then slaughter them like... pigs. Factory farming is probably one of the sickest things we do on this planet(way worse then whaling, go watch a documentary, or better yet.. go to a factory farm), your just turning a blind eye cause you enjoy pig meat. If you really think pigs are happy in their little pig stalls and enjoying a nice roll in the mud before being rolled off to the slaughterhouse.. lol...
Whaling is retarted I agree with you, and I can't believe more countries are joining in on whaling when there is already a huge issue with whale populations.
To be fair I think killing one whale is less harmful then killing 10,000,000 pigs, this is my opinion, just like you have yours.
A rather sad dynamic to be sure, as the fresh bacon I used to get at my aunts organic farm in Virginia growing up beats anything I've ever had since. Sometimes, you can taste the sadness.
I don't understand why everyone is so up in arms. If they use all of the whale and keep it sustainable theres no problem. To draw a parallel, almost all of us eat chicken or beef, yet we don't flip tables over the overconsumption of chicken or cow meat, and most of the time a lot of the innards aren't even used. Even for agricultural purposes, we don't flip tables because we eat too much rice or bread.
I can't believe how butthurt people are about this.
Whales eat a huge number of fish. Fish feed a huge number of people. Whales are therefore in direct compitition with us. The natural order dictates we do what we must to survive.
I think that as long as we preserve their DNA and that we try to 'farm' them in a secluded area with a fair good supply, I don't see anything wrong with this.
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 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 06 2012 00:20 Pandemona wrote: Very interesting, anyone know what the sceince is they are going to use? I mean, what else is there to know about whales? Or they trying to use them for things?
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.
I did eat whale meat twice in my life (once to try and 2nd time I wasn't even told what it was before I put it into my mouth). Whales are not worth anything special in taste and eating them is like eating elephants - not cool to eat something that is intelligent. Besides whale meat is too expensive. Pathetic when you see pics/videos of extinct animals and say thanks to previous generation for destroying em - do people ever learn on own mistakes?!
It's easy to point the finger at S. Korea now, isn't it?
Unfortunately the ocean fauna is already fucked to a point of no return anyway. Hope i'm wrong here, but it really doesn't look good, though the eco system is far from being understood. There's a lot more to be done than stopping another country from whaling "a bit". We should start eating jellyfish and squids to make up for killing all their predators.
Wonder if N. Korea will join the fun. At least they would have a good reason.
edit: To all people complaining about eating "intelligent" animals. Inform yourself about the intelligence of pigs please. It was mentionend already a couple of times in this thread. I eat pork a lot, but being an uninformed hypocrite is the worst!
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.
I however can't STAND whale wars. They're like 10 year-olds on their playship shooting paintballs at fucking whalers trying to make a living. Whenever they talk about why they do it, it's not even because they give a shit it's endangered. They denounce any and all whale hunting because killing a whale is bad and we can't kill whales no matter what. When slapped in the face with the comparison of how infinitely more grotesque the livestock industry is, they have nothing to say. Because they're stupid. I can't wait for the day they bump into the wrong whaling ship and get sunk from the opposite end of a gun.
On July 05 2012 20:42 Bleak wrote: Human is a disgusting species.
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.
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.
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. .
Agree on "whale whores". But It's a pipe dream of saving whales - they will be extinct. Farming is impossible with whales and even farming smaller fish like salmon caused real nature damage (farms kill everything in miles near it with all that chemicals we inject into fish while farming etc). Biggest problem is whales grow slow and they have ONE baby while pig, chicken or other fish grow much faster and have multiple seblings. The only reason whales aren't extinct is cuz oceans are huuuge and people can't really deplete em as fast as land. Heck some whales live on deeps that subs can't conquere.
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.
Okay so orcas hunt whales sometimes because they can't do shit when mother is around and she spends 99.9% near her baby. What other predator can take on a whale? Also a sperm whale can generate an echo strike strong enough to explode a big house but they aren't fucking cleaning the oceans for fun and only eat as much as they need. Whales can make orcas go extinct to protect their pups but they are smart enough not to do it. Imagine if orca's were killing human children and humans had whale advantage --> orcas extinct. Humans whipe out animals mostly with polluting and urbanisation - not for food. More like this land is ours - go screw yourselfs animals
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.
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 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.
But you did. You said that we need to act 'better' than animals because we are humans. This is a fundamentally moral argument, because what is 'better' is contingent on social/cultural/ideological forces and you have shown no different. You have never explained what makes preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them, and short of that you are a product of the environmentalist social mores that are conditioned into people in the West these days. Thus, you are making a moral argument, not a logical one.
I ask again - why is preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them? Is it not natural for species that are unable to adapt to their environment to perish? Isn't that the entire process of selection and evolution?
lol how is it a fundamentally moral argument? It actually has nothing to do with morals and is quite logical. Once again the strawman...
Given human intelligence and our ability to reason, we have two options in regards to this situation: A) Live in apathy and let natural selection take its course. B) Make easy alterations in our lives to preserve biodiversity, which can be as asset in the future.
I'm not advocating that we take option B because of some moral obligation but because it is the option which benefits society the most. We already do many things that go against nature to benefit and progress society, so why should this be any different? Humans are generally considered a patriarchal species, but yet we employ women equality and literacy in the West and it, in turn, helps to preserve our advanced and developed society. You make the claim for allowing natural selection to take its course, so are you also saying that we should just revert back to our normal behaviour and allow civil rights to dissolve because it goes in tandem with our innateness? This is the case in other societies and transcends "social/cultural/ideological forces" but would it be a beneficial choice for ours? The same case could be made for preserving biodiversity on this Earth. South Korea may have different social and cultural codes of conduct than mine, but when it starts to potentially infringe on my life, I take issue with it. For all I care they can enslave their women, but don't touch the whales How's that for morals?
If there is any assumption to be made, it's that you are the product of internet conditioning that believes environmentalism to be a wasted effort and should be ignored completely because of a few introductory college classes. Honestly, it's getting stale.
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.
The main gist of my arguments is NOT that letting whales go extinct is equivalent to reverting back to primitivism. Read my posts carefully over please. But nice try, I knew you couldn't answer the post directly. Instead, you chose to blow it out of proportion and use this stance as your new strawman to base your post on.
However, just to be clear, my main argument is that we can either live in apathy and just let shit happen (because evolution will take its course...) OR we can choose to cut back on unnecessary practices TEMPORARILY for the sake of biodiversity and its beneficial implications for humans (which happens to also be evolution taking it's course). There is nothing moralistic about my stance, which you also claim there is.
My previous posts were addressing your post claiming that we should just let natural selection take its course because that's life . I refuted this by saying that aside from protecting endangered species, the West practices many policies that go against our our innate behaviour SUCH AS women rights (uncommon across different cultures, societies and ideologies much like whale hunting [which is why I chose the example, not to equate anything like you imply]), leading to advancement in our lives and society. My example of women's rights also demonstrates that although Western civil rights standards are uncommon across the world, they hold out to be far superior, from a logical standpoint (my emphasis), as addressed in the previous posts. Therefore, we shouldn't be ashamed that we're conditioned with Western standards, because sometimes (as in the case with women's rights and endangered species) they happen to be the better standard.
And if you can't read between the lines, which you have proven on a consistent basis: given Homo sapiens natural advantage of higher cognition over any species on Earth, the logical solution (I'M NOT ADVOCATING ANYTHING REGARDING MORALS) to our existence would be to live in a world where we utilize this advantage and our subsequent knowledge, instead of brushing it aside to live an apathetic life. The former IS actually natural selection at work, while the latter would be impractical/illogical/absurd and is the stance of your original post that I commented on, which thankfully, is not practised by society.
P.S. The benefits attained from the preservation of endangered whales goes far beyond having something to do with my children while at MarineLand, which you allude to. But if these are the only benefits you can attribute to biodiversity, I'd advise putting down your philosophy text and picking up an introductory biology one, instead.
Enough with the cultural imperialism, there's nothing special about Minke whales. Considering there's hundreds of thousands of Minkes left in the world I think it's alright if the Koreans take a few for themselves.
What's the difference between a whale and a tuna, besides that whales are cuter? As long as they're careful about it I don't see what the hubbub is about.
On July 06 2012 11:00 Savant wrote: What's the difference between a whale and a tuna, besides that whales are cuter? As long as they're careful about it I don't see what the hubbub is about.
Haha I'm bothered more by the blatantly disingenuousness of saying it's for scientific purposes (at least over the long term). Not only are you killing shamu you are being sneaky about it!!!
Im not too sure what the general consensus is like around the whaling issue in north america and europe, but i think i can comfortably speak for most australian's when i say that this disgusts me. Minke whales have been identified as an endangered species, why the koreans would feel the need to go out and kill more of them than the japanese already do i have no idea.
And as far as the Japanese arguement for it where they claim we slaughter thousands of cattle every year and it being no different. When you sustainably farm something as far as im concerned theres nothing wrong with it, but Japan and now Korea go out into the ocean and slaughter the whales as they migrate every year without the slightest consideration of how much they damage they're doing to bio-diversity in the oceans and tourism industries across the south pacific for a delicacy so in demand that they have warehouses full of whale meat which can barely be given away.
On July 06 2012 13:39 tsango wrote: Im not too sure what the general consensus is like around the whaling issue in north america and europe, but i think i can comfortably speak for most australian's when i say that this disgusts me. Minke whales have been identified as an endangered species, why the koreans would feel the need to go out and kill more of them than the japanese already do i have no idea.
And as far as the Japanese arguement for it where they claim we slaughter thousands of cattle every year and it being no different. When you sustainably farm something as far as im concerned theres nothing wrong with it.
I'm with the Japanese; take a step back and it's the same thing as slaughtering cows. If you want someone else to stop killing then a good place to start is to lead by example and figure out how you are contributing to killing and then doing something about it
On July 06 2012 13:39 tsango wrote: Korea go out into the ocean and slaughter the whales as they migrate every year without the slightest consideration of how much they damage they're doing
I think you're burying your head in the sand when it comes to the damage caused by cow farming XD
On July 05 2012 20:57 saMas wrote: Humans are just a virus
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.
Don't see why people are jumping on you since you disproved your own point in your own post. Simple enough.
Hey! these whales are lucky we atleast have some empathy to slow down for them. if we were an animal like them they would have been extinct a long time ago. so even if we are fishing them, we arent as bad as them.
It means there are other countries that are whaling. The same countries that opposed to Korea's vote for resuming whaling.
How are these whales caught? Research or Commercial or through Accidental Netting?
By the use of gigantic aircraft carrier. Seriously, does it matter? Whales are killed when they are caught. Regardless of in which way they are caught.
Does it account for inuit population? Whaling in Canada, the Carribean, Indonesia?
Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't matter. Tell me the difference between aboriginal whaling and whaling in Korea or Japan.
What about Iceland? Norway?
What about them? What exactly are you asking here?
I don't really care much for which side you're trying to argue, but realistically know what you're trying to present in a post...
Fact that you are asking series of questions that could be answered by simple google search, know what you are trying to ask.
Never had whale before. Maybe I can try it the next time I'm in SK. I doubt it tastes that good though. I wonder if it tastes more like fish or beef. Or maybe it'll be a mixture. Mamallian sea meat, a kind of meat I've never tried before.
Is whaling bad? Sure. Is domesticated concentration camps for slaughter just as bad? Yeaps. Does it bother me that I eat meat anyway? Not really. Do I try to create an illusory rationalization to justify my meat eating behavior? No, I'm a bad boy. How do I live with myself? I feel sad, then I go out and eat a steak and feel happy. Why meat taste so good!?
On July 06 2012 15:20 Mstring wrote: Heroin addicts think their drug 'tastes' good too
The thing is, it does. You will say the same once you've tried it, which is what makes it so dangerous. Back OT, ofcourse we're predators, yabba yabba, but we also evolved, our brain is superior to all other species on earth. This makes us able to create ethical questions like this one. Yes, the strongest one survives, but at what cost? An empty world?
why are people complaining? i mean i dont hear the whales complaining. If they hated getting hunted so much they should start an activist group to bargain for their rights or something.
Until other species can get anywhere near the intelligence that humans have they stand no chance lol
And "worst" case whales are hunted to extinction, which has no effect on any of you normal people's lives. Stop pretend to care about stuff so you can hate on other countries. Its not like you are actually going to help save the whale or anything so dont start pointless arguments.
On July 05 2012 20:42 Bleak wrote: Human is a disgusting species.
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.
Actually no. We are the only species that have an understanding that its wrong and hurtful to kill off endangered species or deplete the earths resources. But we keep doing it anyway. It's the difference between killing for survival and premeditated murder.
wait what is the problem again? why are people outraged by this and how is it different from slaughtering any other animal for food and other resources (in this case oil)?
On July 06 2012 15:20 Mstring wrote: Heroin addicts think their drug 'tastes' good too
The thing is, it does. You will say the same once you've tried it, which is what makes it so dangerous.
"Taste" is subjective. Salivation is proportional to the reward you believe you'll get. Now I don't know every meat eater, but I'm quite confident that the vast majority have no clue what their bodies feel like without meat. A drug addict will keep taking (and defend to all ends) drugs until they *know* that they can get a better feeling without it. Now apply this to meat. Not only has virtually everyone tried it, they're all addicted to it and don't know anything else
On July 06 2012 15:32 zala2023 wrote: why are people complaining? i mean i dont hear the whales complaining. If they hated getting hunted so much they should start an activist group to bargain for their rights or something.
Until other species can get anywhere near the intelligence that humans have they stand no chance lol
And "worst" case whales are hunted to extinction, which has no effect on any of you normal people's lives. Stop pretend to care about stuff so you can hate on other countries. Its not like you are actually going to help save the whale or anything so dont start pointless arguments.
This is one of the most retarded arguements I've read in a long time.
I made a wall of text but I'm going to delete it now and assume you're a troll. If this is really your view I can't imagine you contributing to society.
This begs me to question what exactly the South Koreans plan to test for "scientific purposes". Tagging whales and tracking migratory patterns is one thing. Killing them is another. As far as I know, Japan has been using this excuse to feed their children delicious whale meat in school.
Honestly though, is whale meat that delicious to eat???? Japan was hunting them for their so called "scientific purpose".
I got a cousin who lives and worked in Japan and he tried it and said that it wasn't that good compared to other delicacies of such as Kobe beef and matsusaka beef or something.Though maybe different people have different preference and taste for food is always subjective.
Whaling is fine IF it is regulated in a control manner and it doesn't targeted the endangered whale species. What i find more disgusting is the foie gras where they mass breed the duck or gooses and force-feeded them so that their liver tastes better and then they literally ripped out the liver from the duck.
The Whales they are hunting aren't endangered. The only difference between Koreans hunting Minke Whales and Americans breeding cattle is that humans have a sentimental attachment to whales. As long and they aren't hunting Endangered Species or over hunting a species to the point of endangerment then I don't really see the big fuss.
I don't see what will stop humans to push another species to extinction. This is nothing new. And all the pussies trying to protect whales - your cities are built on animal territory - do you feel guilty? no. You probably eat animals, if no - you probably kill millions of bugs to get your salad - its a fact you can't keep your hands clean no matter what. Life eats fucking life. That's just the way it is. I don't want to sound so depressing, and would like to keep the whales alive but what about rest of the fucking millions of species? There are 6 billion fucking hungry people and last i checked they like any kind of meat.. i don't know really what to say about these subject, i can only bitch a few lines but i don't believe in struggle, the human nature is fucking unstoppable!
Let the Koreans have some fun, the rest of the world sure had theirs.
I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE
I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE
As long as no endangered whale species are targeted, it would be hypocritical for me to object. Though I must say I do not like that these countries use scientific research as a justification. It seems very dishonest.
I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE
So what's your message?
Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias.
On July 06 2012 11:33 kaisen wrote:It means there are other countries that are whaling. The same countries that opposed to Korea's vote for resuming whaling.
Yes but the statistics say that Japan caught ~17 thousand whales. A graph that doesn't tell us the scope of the statistic or the source of the statistic is pretty much just attempting to breed ignorance. When was this? From 1948 to 2012? From 1986-2005? 1986-2012? Trust me this makes a huge difference.
Did you know that it was revealed in 1994 that the Soviet Union had been systematically undercounting its catch. From 1948 to 1973, the USSR`s reported hunted ~2,700 Humpback whales was actually ~48,000 whales?
It`s also a long established rule that Norway and Iceland are not bound by the International Whaling Commission`s Commercial whaling ban. However they do not appear on this graph.
You aren`t at fault for why the Canadian Inuit`s annual catches of 200 ENDANGERED bowhead whales are not reported on this graph, but you SHOULD be considering the accuracy of that information you rely upon.
How are these whales caught? Research or Commercial or through Accidental Netting?
By the use of gigantic aircraft carrier. Seriously, does it matter? Whales are killed when they are caught. Regardless of in which way they are caught.
It does. Research whaling is reported and appears most in statistics presented by the IWC.
Commercial Whaling is done by other countries. Japan also has a Commercial whaling industry (though small) which fishes off its local waters. By the way, Norway has caught roughly 11 thousand whales since the commercial whaling ban since 1986. Yet, they`re not on the graph.
Accidental netting is NOT considered whaling for the purposes of international enforcement. However, every year unreported amounts of whales (estimated in the thousands) are caught in nets and `accidentally` whaled?
I don't really care much for which side you're trying to argue, but realistically know what you're trying to present in a post...
Fact that you are asking series of questions that could be answered by simple google search, know what you are trying to ask.
Why did you post an map with completely fabricated statistics and use it as a basis of your arguments?
I KNOW I am more qualified to discuss this topic than an overwhelming majority of posters in this thread BUT I`m not trying to force an opinion down your throat. I just wanted you to understand that using unsourced material like that is the same as just drawing up random numbers on MS paint and using it as evidence for your case.
I don`t disagree with actually saying something and making a point though.
I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE
So what's your message?
Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias.
I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable
I can understand where people are coming from that are claiming it's hypocritical to object since the western populations heavily farm cattle etc. Though when you look at it, they aren't the same thing and there are a few key differences which give rise to argument imo. Cattle farms are just a part of life and for the human race to remain fed such practices must exist. These animals are bred for the sole purpose of feeding people (is the life we give them they otherwise wouldn't have had, worth the early death they inevitably face?). Whales on the other hand are not, they are a very intelligent and majestic animal (read:more likable) that is hunted down in the wild that many feel is for an unjustifiable cause. this is where the issue arises. Some might say those are conflicting views but this is just the reality I feel. I do believe S.Korea should be able to fish and eat what they want if it's in their own waters, especially regulated numbers of a decently populated species.
I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE
So what's your message?
Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias.
I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable
Yeah, I don't think gay marriage should go through either. The point here is sometimes shit doesn't go your way, not everything fits into your little box of comfort, and not everything will back the fuck off your irrational fears and thoughts. And you deal with it because you're not the most important person in the world. My fear of spiders doesn't mean all spiders should be killed. A teens discomfort at physical affection doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Peoples hard-on for whales doesn't make them exempt from hunting.
I might be okay with it if it is restricted and enforced, but knowing how things work it won't be. I really don't know what will happen if this is allowed. I'm just assuming the worst, I guess.
The problem with humans is we are too damn efficient at hunting. Add that to nearly limitless demand and many species can become critically endangered or extinct very quickly. We need to be able to set limitations on ourselves since physical limitations no longer apply to us.
Edit: The difference between cattle and whales are that cattles are domesticated and whales are not. There are inherent problems with the cattle industry as well as the fishing industry, but those are two different topics.
Also, due to bioaccumulation, whale meat has a lot of mercury and isn't good for consumption. So what are we using the whale carcasses for? Candles? Cosmetic products? Other unnecessary things? Seems like a waste of a perfectly good animal.
On July 06 2012 16:55 shizzz wrote: Cattle farms are just a part of life and for the human race to remain fed such practices must exist..
A simple question: does a cow's meat provide more or less calories than the plant foods it is fed throughout its life? XD
These plant foods they are fed are a renewable produce, grown in it's own right for the purpose of feeding the cattle which feed us. You will also be getting a range of vitamins from the meat in a concentrated form you otherwise wouldn't have. Sure you can live a meat free life but for those of us who don't, meat is pretty damn good . Meat has been a main staple in our diet for a long time and I definitely don't see that changing anytime soon.
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.
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 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.
But you did. You said that we need to act 'better' than animals because we are humans. This is a fundamentally moral argument, because what is 'better' is contingent on social/cultural/ideological forces and you have shown no different. You have never explained what makes preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them, and short of that you are a product of the environmentalist social mores that are conditioned into people in the West these days. Thus, you are making a moral argument, not a logical one.
I ask again - why is preserving endangered species 'better' than not preserving them? Is it not natural for species that are unable to adapt to their environment to perish? Isn't that the entire process of selection and evolution?
lol how is it a fundamentally moral argument? It actually has nothing to do with morals and is quite logical. Once again the strawman...
Given human intelligence and our ability to reason, we have two options in regards to this situation: A) Live in apathy and let natural selection take its course. B) Make easy alterations in our lives to preserve biodiversity, which can be as asset in the future.
I'm not advocating that we take option B because of some moral obligation but because it is the option which benefits society the most. We already do many things that go against nature to benefit and progress society, so why should this be any different? Humans are generally considered a patriarchal species, but yet we employ women equality and literacy in the West and it, in turn, helps to preserve our advanced and developed society. You make the claim for allowing natural selection to take its course, so are you also saying that we should just revert back to our normal behaviour and allow civil rights to dissolve because it goes in tandem with our innateness? This is the case in other societies and transcends "social/cultural/ideological forces" but would it be a beneficial choice for ours? The same case could be made for preserving biodiversity on this Earth. South Korea may have different social and cultural codes of conduct than mine, but when it starts to potentially infringe on my life, I take issue with it. For all I care they can enslave their women, but don't touch the whales How's that for morals?
If there is any assumption to be made, it's that you are the product of internet conditioning that believes environmentalism to be a wasted effort and should be ignored completely because of a few introductory college classes. Honestly, it's getting stale.
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.
The main gist of my arguments is NOT that letting whales go extinct is equivalent to reverting back to primitivism. Read my posts carefully over please. But nice try, I knew you couldn't answer the post directly. Instead, you chose to blow it out of proportion and use this stance as your new strawman to base your post on.
However, just to be clear, my main argument is that we can either live in apathy and just let shit happen (because evolution will take its course...) OR we can choose to cut back on unnecessary practices TEMPORARILY for the sake of biodiversity and its beneficial implications for humans (which happens to also be evolution taking it's course). There is nothing moralistic about my stance, which you also claim there is.
My previous posts were addressing your post claiming that we should just let natural selection take its course because that's life . I refuted this by saying that aside from protecting endangered species, the West practices many policies that go against our our innate behaviour SUCH AS women rights (uncommon across different cultures, societies and ideologies much like whale hunting [which is why I chose the example, not to equate anything like you imply]), leading to advancement in our lives and society. My example of women's rights also demonstrates that although Western civil rights standards are uncommon across the world, they hold out to be far superior, from a logical standpoint (my emphasis), as addressed in the previous posts. Therefore, we shouldn't be ashamed that we're conditioned with Western standards, because sometimes (as in the case with women's rights and endangered species) they happen to be the better standard.
And if you can't read between the lines, which you have proven on a consistent basis: given Homo sapiens natural advantage of higher cognition over any species on Earth, the logical solution (I'M NOT ADVOCATING ANYTHING REGARDING MORALS) to our existence would be to live in a world where we utilize this advantage and our subsequent knowledge, instead of brushing it aside to live an apathetic life. The former IS actually natural selection at work, while the latter would be impractical/illogical/absurd and is the stance of your original post that I commented on, which thankfully, is not practised by society.
P.S. The benefits attained from the preservation of endangered whales goes far beyond having something to do with my children while at MarineLand, which you allude to. But if these are the only benefits you can attribute to biodiversity, I'd advise putting down your philosophy text and picking up an introductory biology one, instead.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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. Who's to say a whaleless ocean isn't better for humans?
Comparing whale hunting to eating cows is fucking stupid. We don't farm whales. Whales are top level predators that reproduce very slowly and face increasing pressure.
You can make the case that "we don't need to eat any meat, just eat plants!!!!" but there are plenty of reasons to keep eating animals.
Do we know what will happen if we push whale species extinct? Not really I guess, but it's a pretty safe bet that it won't be anything good. I don't know of any good reasons to keep hunting whales.
Just to give some more perspective, I feel the same way about the overfishing of other top level predators like tuna and swordfish. There's verrrrrry little reason to hunt them on a grand scale. It will be bad for everyone all over the planet if we fuck up fish populations so bad that there aren't enough to go around.
I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE
So what's your message?
Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias.
I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable
Yeah, I don't think gay marriage should go through either. The point here is sometimes shit doesn't go your way, not everything fits into your little box of comfort, and not everything will back the fuck off your irrational fears and thoughts. And you deal with it because you're not the most important person in the world. My fear of spiders doesn't mean all spiders should be killed. A teens discomfort at physical affection doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Peoples hard-on for whales doesn't make them exempt from hunting.
I guess I desire more freedom in life than you do. Who benefits from your tolerating suffering? You certainly don't...
On July 06 2012 17:13 Bigtony wrote: You can make the case that "we don't need to eat any meat, just eat plants!!!!" but there are plenty of reasons to keep eating animals.
I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE
So what's your message?
Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias.
I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable
Yeah, I don't think gay marriage should go through either. The point here is sometimes shit doesn't go your way, not everything fits into your little box of comfort, and not everything will back the fuck off your irrational fears and thoughts. And you deal with it because you're not the most important person in the world. My fear of spiders doesn't mean all spiders should be killed. A teens discomfort at physical affection doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Peoples hard-on for whales doesn't make them exempt from hunting.
I guess I desire more freedom in life than you do. Who benefits from your tolerating suffering? You certainly don't...
Or maybe I respect others freedom more than you do.
I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE
So what's your message?
Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias.
I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable
Yeah, I don't think gay marriage should go through either. The point here is sometimes shit doesn't go your way, not everything fits into your little box of comfort, and not everything will back the fuck off your irrational fears and thoughts. And you deal with it because you're not the most important person in the world. My fear of spiders doesn't mean all spiders should be killed. A teens discomfort at physical affection doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Peoples hard-on for whales doesn't make them exempt from hunting.
I guess I desire more freedom in life than you do. Who benefits from your tolerating suffering? You certainly don't...
Or maybe I respect others freedom more than you do.
Yet here you are trying to tell me that I shouldn't feel free to fight against my own discomfort XD
I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE
So what's your message?
Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias.
I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable
Yeah, I don't think gay marriage should go through either. The point here is sometimes shit doesn't go your way, not everything fits into your little box of comfort, and not everything will back the fuck off your irrational fears and thoughts. And you deal with it because you're not the most important person in the world. My fear of spiders doesn't mean all spiders should be killed. A teens discomfort at physical affection doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Peoples hard-on for whales doesn't make them exempt from hunting.
I guess I desire more freedom in life than you do. Who benefits from your tolerating suffering? You certainly don't...
Or maybe I respect others freedom more than you do.
Yet here you are trying to tell me that I shouldn't feel free to fight against my own discomfort XD
What freedoms of others have I encroached upon?
You're here telling me I should only care about what makes me comfortable, and that I should fight anything I dislike, regardless of what anyone else wants. I call that selfishness.
I knew there would be a time where this image was relevant. It's certainly the message I'm getting from half the posts in this thread. HUMANS ARE MONSTERS I WISH THEY'D ALL JUST DIE
So what's your message?
Being too obsessed with saving every animal and not caring about animals are equally stupid. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of hunting as a whole to be honest, but I'm not naive enough to think the world should bow to my phobias.
I think that it's stupid to go through life tolerating things you find uncomfortable
Yeah, I don't think gay marriage should go through either. The point here is sometimes shit doesn't go your way, not everything fits into your little box of comfort, and not everything will back the fuck off your irrational fears and thoughts. And you deal with it because you're not the most important person in the world. My fear of spiders doesn't mean all spiders should be killed. A teens discomfort at physical affection doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Peoples hard-on for whales doesn't make them exempt from hunting.
I guess I desire more freedom in life than you do. Who benefits from your tolerating suffering? You certainly don't...
Or maybe I respect others freedom more than you do.
Yet here you are trying to tell me that I shouldn't feel free to fight against my own discomfort XD
What freedoms of others have I encroached upon?
You're here telling me I should only care about what makes me comfortable
I didn't tell you that.
and that I should fight anything I dislike
Why wouldn't you? You don't like being uncomfortable, right?
regardless of what anyone else wants
These are your words not mine. I'm not telling anyone what to do; it's all open for debate. I'm not telling people they can't eat meat or kill animals; I'm just telling them what I believe to be the facts and what my experiences are.
If you can't figure out how to fight against your discomfort without encroaching on the freedoms of others then that speaks to your lack of creativity, not my selfishness.
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.
On July 06 2012 17:13 Bigtony wrote: You can make the case that "we don't need to eat any meat, just eat plants!!!!" but there are plenty of reasons to keep eating animals.
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?
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.
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.
I'm glad you're feeling healthy
All I will say is that "does me fine" is a foreign concept to me XD
On July 06 2012 17:13 Bigtony wrote: You can make the case that "we don't need to eat any meat, just eat plants!!!!" but there are plenty of reasons to keep eating animals.
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.
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.
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
On July 06 2012 17:13 Bigtony wrote: You can make the case that "we don't need to eat any meat, just eat plants!!!!" but there are plenty of reasons to keep eating animals.
List five.
give a reason not to.
You don't need to kill an animal in order to survive.
I don't see a problem with whale hunting in small numbers. I find it much more troublesome that we eat stupid amounts of tuna, which will probably be extinct long before whales as whales are the poster boys for many protection groups.
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?
On July 05 2012 20:42 Bleak wrote: Human is a disgusting species.
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.
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.
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 2. The whales in question are endangered.
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? 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
"Tell me, Dr. Freeman, if you can. You have destroyed so much. What is it, exactly, that you have created? Can you name even one thing? ... I thought not." - Half-Life
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.
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.
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
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?
"I don't see the problem.Sorkoas dog 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?"
or
"I don't see the problem. Jews(americans are fat) 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.
On July 06 2012 20:53 AngryMag wrote: I don't see a problem with whale hunting in small numbers. I find it much more troublesome that we eat stupid amounts of tuna, which will probably be extinct long before whales as whales are the poster boys for many protection groups.
It's not one or the other, they both need to be protected. Hunting whales in small numbers may not seem bad, but they don't have the benefit of laying millions of eggs like Tuna (naturally) and are very few to begin with, so you cannot compare the two.
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?
"I don't see the problem.Sorkoas dog 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?"
or
"I don't see the problem. Jews(americans are fat) 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?"
I don't see how whaling is in any way comparable to cannibalism. Maybe I missed something.
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.
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?
I just wanted to chip in. I think the fact is we don't know what effect whale hunting of an endangered species will have, and that we ought to avoid taking any risks that could make the situation worse because its like gambling with our future (i.e. they are currently in the process of recovering based on their endangered status, I don't know but I would be afraid of any government's concept of "regulated" hunting for an endangered species. Its still dangerous and could lead to their extinction because its a precarious balance).
You're right to point out that species have gone extinct and we've survived, but as you recognize that's no reason to continue doing so if we can avoid it. We still don't know everything about how such an ecosystem works and what the consequences might be so its in our best interest to prevent doing things like this until we are, to do otherwise would be reckless.
There may be an economic benefit, but its obviously offset by unknown negative consequences and the loss of another whale that people want to continue to observe (people generally like biodiversity). I think you're being a little extreme in your rhetoric; all that's being asked for is for countries to stop whaling *endangered* species, nothing about stopping sustainable whale hunting. You can't sacrifice everything for jobs and economic growth, obviously there are some things that matter more and secondly there are probably millions of other ways to make money.
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?
Some species are deeply tied to their local ecosystems, which in turn affects us as we rely on that ecosystem for food (among other things). If those species are removed, then there would likely be negative consequences. Therefore, we try to avoid those negative consequences! . Don't forget, people also like biodiversity and want to maintain that.
But how will we eat food? Well, you can eat different types of food :D
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?
"I don't see the problem.Sorkoas dog 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?"
or
"I don't see the problem. Jews(americans are fat) 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?"
I don't see how whaling is in any way comparable to cannibalism. Maybe I missed something.
in the past,before year 1833,Blacks in americas and europe we not considered equel human beings.so it was ok to hunt them,sold them and force them to do anythign you want.kill them,beat them cut them to shredes..what ever.
now,year 2012 animals in americas ,europe and all around the world are not consider equal to human beings.so it ok to hunt them,sold them and force them to do anythign you want.kill them,beat them cut them to shredes..what ever.
And no,i dont mean you cant eat a piece of meat.but be ...i allmost fear to sue such word...be wise.
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?
"I don't see the problem.Sorkoas dog 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?"
or
"I don't see the problem. Jews(americans are fat) 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?"
I don't see how whaling is in any way comparable to cannibalism. Maybe I missed something.
in the past,before year 1833,Blacks in americas and europe we not considered equel human beings.so it was ok to hunt them,sold them and force them to do anythign you want.kill them,beat them cut them to shredes..what ever.
now,year 2012 animals in americas ,europe and all around the world are not consider equal to human beings.so it ok to hunt them,sold them and force them to do anythign you want.kill them,beat them cut them to shredes..what ever.
And no,i dont mean you cant eat a piece of meat.but be ...i allmost fear to sue such word...be wise.
I sort of see your point and I know you specifically say that you don't mean you can't eat meat but I can't see how you could mean anything else. Are you saying that all animals are equal in importance to humans or just whales specifically and why?
On July 06 2012 17:13 Bigtony wrote: You can make the case that "we don't need to eat any meat, just eat plants!!!!" but there are plenty of reasons to keep eating animals.
List five.
give a reason not to.
You don't need to kill an animal in order to survive.
"any such living thing other than a human being." -Dictionary.com's second definition of animal.
Yes, you do. If you want to live you have to kill something else that lives and eat it. This is the way life works. Sure, you might have less empathy for plants and bug because we don't share as many of their characteristics. But they're just as much alive as you and me.
On July 06 2012 20:00 Grackula wrote: I find asian mentality odd and dangerous. I'm pretty sure GOM hate those foreigners they want money from.
On July 06 2012 17:49 Bigtony wrote:
On July 06 2012 17:18 Mstring wrote:
On July 06 2012 17:13 Bigtony wrote: You can make the case that "we don't need to eat any meat, just eat plants!!!!" but there are plenty of reasons to keep eating animals.
List five.
give a reason not to.
You don't need to kill an animal in order to survive.
"any such living thing other than a human being." -Dictionary.com's second definition of animal.
Yes, you do. If you want to live you have to kill something else that lives and eat it. This is the way life works. Sure, you might have less empathy for plants and bug because we don't share as many of their characteristics. But they're just as much alive as you and me.
On July 06 2012 20:00 Grackula wrote: I find asian mentality odd and dangerous. I'm pretty sure GOM hate those foreigners they want money from.
On July 06 2012 17:49 Bigtony wrote:
On July 06 2012 17:18 Mstring wrote:
On July 06 2012 17:13 Bigtony wrote: You can make the case that "we don't need to eat any meat, just eat plants!!!!" but there are plenty of reasons to keep eating animals.
List five.
give a reason not to.
You don't need to kill an animal in order to survive.
"any such living thing other than a human being." -Dictionary.com's second definition of animal.
Yes, you do. If you want to live you have to kill something else that lives and eat it. This is the way life works. Sure, you might have less empathy for plants and bug because we don't share as many of their characteristics. But they're just as much alive as you and me.
Time to get a new dictionary mate.
Edit: Try the first definition instead.
You don't have to eat meat to survive isn't a reason not to eat meat.
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?
you missed your complete racist behaviour
You're pulling the racist card to defend whales? Come on, you can do way better than that. Maybe it was wrong of me to generalize like that but I thought it was well-known that these diatery issues do exist in Asia because a lot of people don't eat much else than rice and veggies.
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.
I find it ridiculous that people can live with themselves after saying that humans aren't meant to eat meat. Well, we're not definitely meant to eat pills to make sure we get all nutricients with veg only diet... And saying killing animals is immoral? What the hell? Anyway, beside the point.
There's far more endangered species than whales, especially the ones being hunted. >100k common mince whale with Norway hunting something between 500-1000 yearly. Japan, in 16 years, has killed 19000 whales, mostly antarctic mince whales (16k). Other countries aren't really significant.
If you want to save endangered animals, at least try to save one that needs saving.
If specie cannot take 1-2% loss each year, it would've become extinct ages ago.
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.
And maybe, just maybe, we can't all go back to stone age and live off the land so our planet stays green. How about you people would just realize that we need to eat and instead of trying to make us stop producing food they would start to think how those animals could be either changed (genetics) to be more environmental or make the farms able to control the emissions (Not sure if the right word) in a way that's not overly expensive.
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?
you missed your complete racist behaviour
You're pulling the racist card to defend whales? Come on, you can do way better than that. Maybe it was wrong of me to generalize like that but I thought it was well-known that these diatery issues do exist in Asia because a lot of people don't eat much else than rice and veggies.
In west,lot of people have issues about eating too much meat,like cardiovascular problem,cancer problem ,gout and many more.So why dont we ship all that meat to asia?Or if you like killing so much,why dont we reduce human population,so they dont need so much meat? But if you say your own kind is untouchable,but others can be killed and enslaved ,just becosue they are not your race and are lesser minds,then who you are if not racist?
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.
So what if i create law,that says your house and family is mine and i have enough tanks to enforce it?would you let me do whatever i wish?
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?
"I don't see the problem.Sorkoas dog 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?"
or
"I don't see the problem. Jews(americans are fat) 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?"
I don't see how whaling is in any way comparable to cannibalism. Maybe I missed something.
in the past,before year 1833,Blacks in americas and europe we not considered equel human beings.so it was ok to hunt them,sold them and force them to do anythign you want.kill them,beat them cut them to shredes..what ever.
now,year 2012 animals in americas ,europe and all around the world are not consider equal to human beings.so it ok to hunt them,sold them and force them to do anythign you want.kill them,beat them cut them to shredes..what ever.
And no,i dont mean you cant eat a piece of meat.but be ...i allmost fear to sue such word...be wise.
I sort of see your point and I know you specifically say that you don't mean you can't eat meat but I can't see how you could mean anything else. Are you saying that all animals are equal in importance to humans or just whales specifically and why?
I would dare to say that every animal is equal to human but Yes,every animal is important for this planet.ussualy the most disgusting things are the most important ones :mashrooms,bacteria and bugs.
why?Well if you believe in karma,then every being have soul that must attune with something.so killing them could couse your own bad karma
if you believe in God,then " God said, Let us make man in our image, like us: and let him have rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every living thing which goes flat on the earth." Wise and good ruler nurture and care about its subjects.And basicaly,your are killing gods creation,perfect creation.
If you believe in science,then every piece of ecosystem is linked together,every animal depends on other.and we dont exactly know what couse what.We tried to create biotope,but it started to die out after while(Biosphere 2).and Maybe, whales are much more inteligent then we are.after all they have big brain.
If you believe..well if you dont beleive at all,then your motto should be:"We dont own planet,we borrow it from our childrens"You know
Imagine therese is song plaing on Iphone 20 and there is line.: "I heard an eagle cried."And your son ask: "Dad?what is an eagle?And....cried?"
or imagine there are extraterrestials who,after exploring whole universe,planet after planet,rocky,barren,and gas gianst,have found one green planet.Earth.And after they land perhaps you will show them some picture.water.trees,animals.ET ask" "What is this?" "It is grey whale." "Such beautifull creature.May i see it?" What would you answer
But if you want to know how much dollars you can make and how many jobs can be created if you protect whales..i dont know.probably 0
You got two gifts that no other animal seems to have.Brain,capable of logical though and heart cappable of such emotions as love,compassion,sence of art...is killing whales and hoarding money right way to use it?
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?
"I don't see the problem.Sorkoas dog 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?"
or
"I don't see the problem. Jews(americans are fat) 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?"
I don't see how whaling is in any way comparable to cannibalism. Maybe I missed something.
in the past,before year 1833,Blacks in americas and europe we not considered equel human beings.so it was ok to hunt them,sold them and force them to do anythign you want.kill them,beat them cut them to shredes..what ever.
now,year 2012 animals in americas ,europe and all around the world are not consider equal to human beings.so it ok to hunt them,sold them and force them to do anythign you want.kill them,beat them cut them to shredes..what ever.
And no,i dont mean you cant eat a piece of meat.but be ...i allmost fear to sue such word...be wise.
I sort of see your point and I know you specifically say that you don't mean you can't eat meat but I can't see how you could mean anything else. Are you saying that all animals are equal in importance to humans or just whales specifically and why?
I would dare to say that every animal is equal to human but Yes,every animal is important for this planet.ussualy the most disgusting things are the most important ones :mashrooms,bacteria and bugs.
why?Well if you believe in karma,then every being have soul that must attune with something.so killing them could couse your own bad karma
if you believe in God,then " God said, Let us make man in our image, like us: and let him have rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every living thing which goes flat on the earth." Wise and good ruler nurture and care about its subjects.And basicaly,your are killing gods creation,perfect creation.
If you believe in science,then every piece of ecosystem is linked together,every animal depends on other.and we dont exactly know what couse what.We tried to create biotope,but it started to die out after while(Biosphere 2).and Maybe, whales are much more inteligent then we are.after all they have big brain.
If you believe..well if you dont beleive at all,then your motto should be:"We dont own planet,we borrow it from our childrens"You know
Imagine therese is song plaing on Iphone 20 and there is line.: "I heard an eagle cried."And your son ask: "Dad?what is an eagle?And....cried?"
or imagine there are extraterrestials who,after exploring whole universe,planet after planet,rocky,barren,and gas gianst,have found one green planet.Earth.And after they land perhaps you will show them some picture.water.trees,animals.ET ask" "What is this?" "It is grey whale." "Such beautifull creature.May i see it?" What would you answer
But if you want to know how much dollars you can make and how many jobs can be created if you protect whales..i dont know.probably 0
You got two gifts that no other animal seems to have.Brain,capable of logical though and heart cappable of such emotions as love,compassion,sence of art...is killing whales and hoarding money right way to use it?
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.
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.
One thing people have to realize is that most species have gone, and go extinct without our involvement. You cannot help it. In this case: we can. Another thing you have to realize is that as much I, and many others hate people killing animals, sometimes it has to be done.
A gross hypocrisy I see is that we literally have certain living things that we label as "pests" and "insects" etc, and we actually go out of our way to kill, not all of us, but a lot do. What makes whales more sacred than an ant? They're both alive, regardless of intelligence they live like we do, and die like we do. Ending life is never good, but sometimes I guess there must be justification.
Will hunting that specific breed of whale in SK sovereign waters endanger the species? I doubt it, but I don't know; that's just a guess. Personally I despise anyone who kills animals, but Humans come first, and our priorities > whale priorities. If the whales are endangering the fish population, than the whales are a problem.
I don't understand why people are hating on humans just because some Koreans might start killing whales. Sure, it's not a great thing to do, but if they want to do it, they will and nobody can stop them. I would much rather prefer they kill whales than kill humans.
On July 08 2012 16:40 Lorken wrote: I don't understand why people are hating on humans just because some Koreans might start killing whales. Sure, it's not a great thing to do, but if they want to do it, they will and nobody can stop them. I would much rather prefer they kill whales than kill humans.
The thing that people often don't realize is that animals do go extinct because of humans, and it is a big shame when this happens, here is an example of an animal that existed 70 years ago, but is no more:
It happens when people are careless, and when it is done, it is done. Hunting animals to the point of extinction is also very dangerous, because the genetic diversity in a species becomes less, and this severely weakens the chance of survival in the long run, here is an example of what happens when genetic diversity goes down:
Anyway, there are just too many people not giving a fuck, and that is very sad...I would have liked to see a tasmanian tiger in real life, it looks awesome. Shamefully, I can now only watch it on tape. And for our kids or their kids there will be no options but to watch many animals on tape, because many animals simply won't be around anymore at the rate we are going (for example, I don't think polar bears will exist in the wild in 60 years).
On July 08 2012 13:55 v3chr0 wrote: One thing people have to realize is that most species have gone, and go extinct without our involvement. You cannot help it. In this case: we can. Another thing you have to realize is that as much I, and many others hate people killing animals, sometimes it has to be done.
A gross hypocrisy I see is that we literally have certain living things that we label as "pests" and "insects" etc, and we actually go out of our way to kill, not all of us, but a lot do. What makes whales more sacred than an ant? They're both alive, regardless of intelligence they live like we do, and die like we do. Ending life is never good, but sometimes I guess there must be justification.
Will hunting that specific breed of whale in SK sovereign waters endanger the species? I doubt it, but I don't know; that's just a guess. Personally I despise anyone who kills animals, but Humans come first, and our priorities > whale priorities. If the whales are endangering the fish population, than the whales are a problem.
I wouldn't really choose to kill something unless it was about to kill me. The only reason things have to be killed is because we make it that way.
Dogs.. we put down thousands of them, because of overcrowding in shelters. There is overcrowding in shelters because we choose to breed more puppies, because the demand for puppies is always there. The puppies often are taken home, then at some later point the family loses the need or want for the dog and takes it to a shelter. People often don't adopt and then some people don't even neuter and spay which is crazy, if you ever work in a shelter let me know how many dogs/cats are put down a day..(all 3 of my animals are adopted)
We can survive on this planet without murdering any animals needlessly, and insects, well we could do with killing far less.. as far as I know, of course there are times where we might have too, say your in the forest after a plane crash and it's a safe food source you know about, or a bear is charging you.
To say "It has to be done" is a pretty insane statement. Ants can be repelled by mint oil, so can fruit flies. Spread mint oil near the areas where the ants are coming in.
I've killed fleas recently cause my cats got them, and one of my cats is allergic, so you can't ALWAYS avoid the taking of life, but I think avoiding it as much as possible is pretty important.
On July 06 2012 16:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: minke whales aren't even endangered and are the most populated whales in the world at 600,000
Exactly. They are in the list of "least concerned" in the watch list. Somehow, the anti-whaling activists are claiming that it is endangered.
Kaisen you confuse me. One day you're creating threads shitting on the Chinese about letting Americans hunt "endangered" species on their land which are actually under '"Least Concerned" and the next day you're accusing the anti-whaling activists of mislabeling endangered status .
It's about time us smart humans showed those damn whales who's boss, swimming around in the ocean like they don't care. Good thing we have Japan and SK to make them aware of our existence and superiority as a race, just so they don't get any crazy ideas.
On July 08 2012 07:46 Masamune wrote: 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.
It's easy to say that none of these benefits are all that important, except to the handful of scientists who care about the topics in question. The last one is a grasp at straws, to use a phrase of yours - the best source of stem cells outside of humans is primates, followed by other species of that phylum. It's a great stretch to say that whales are a candidate at all, given the difficulty of extracting stem cells from them.
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.
Why do we care about bringing them back to stable population levels? Providing, for a moment, that what you said about the scientific benefits of keeping whales around is pragmatic - why do we need large, stable populations of them to conduct the research?
I'm not advocating outlawing whale hunting. I'm advocating outlawing the hunting of endangered and vulnerable whale populations. Big difference.
Too bad, because whale hunting - and not just the hunting of endangered whale populations - is outlawed. The countries attempting to subvert the bans in question aren't doing so to hunt endangered whales, but to hunt whales of least concern status.
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.
I don't think you understand the gravity of infringing on other countries' sovereignty and freedom to do what they want in their own territory - world wars have been started for less.
You have to do a lot better than you did in the beginning of this reply to show that whales are not just marginally useful in scientific research, but immensely useful to humans across the world. Very few people give a damn about where whales fall in the taxonomic tree. A huge amount of people do care, however, about their own country's freedoms being infringed upon - for example, the Japanese people's outrage and opposition towards the ban on whaling. Japan - and now South Korea - are prepared to subvert international law to continue whaling. What are the people who oppose whaling prepared to do in response?
I dunno if this is a good idea, because according to star trek the voyage home-humans will need whales *songs* to save the earth, and we havent yet created or learned enough about going back in time to get the specific songs required to stop the alien probe from attacking!
On July 09 2012 16:55 SlayerOfYou wrote: I dunno if this is a good idea, because according to star trek the voyage home-humans will need whales *songs* to save the earth, and we havent yet created or learned enough about going back in time to get the specific songs required to stop the alien probe from attacking!
No worries. In Doctor Who, the UK eventually becomes a space colony on the back of a giant space whale. We will learn the whale songs there.
On July 06 2012 00:00 SnipedSoul wrote: What do you even do with a whale after you catch it?
Nothing you cannot do with other stuff. But hey, please stop human greediness if you can. Tho past studies shown that whales (might) posses high level cognitive capabilities, we still slaughter them. We are to them what nazi were to jews :S So sad....
I think we should save the whales and thereby save a piece of of humanity. What is the extermination worth in the grand scheme of things? Our coming generations won't appreciate the fact that our thirst for blood was greater than our compassion for other species.
On July 08 2012 07:46 Masamune wrote: 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.
It's easy to say that none of these benefits are all that important, except to the handful of scientists who care about the topics in question. The last one is a grasp at straws, to use a phrase of yours - the best source of stem cells outside of humans is primates, followed by other species of that phylum. It's a great stretch to say that whales are a candidate at all, given the difficulty of extracting stem cells from them.
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.
Why do we care about bringing them back to stable population levels? Providing, for a moment, that what you said about the scientific benefits of keeping whales around is pragmatic - why do we need large, stable populations of them to conduct the research?
I'm not advocating outlawing whale hunting. I'm advocating outlawing the hunting of endangered and vulnerable whale populations. Big difference.
Too bad, because whale hunting - and not just the hunting of endangered whale populations - is outlawed. The countries attempting to subvert the bans in question aren't doing so to hunt endangered whales, but to hunt whales of least concern status.
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.
I don't think you understand the gravity of infringing on other countries' sovereignty and freedom to do what they want in their own territory - world wars have been started for less.
You have to do a lot better than you did in the beginning of this reply to show that whales are not just marginally useful in scientific research, but immensely useful to humans across the world. Very few people give a damn about where whales fall in the taxonomic tree. A huge amount of people do care, however, about their own country's freedoms being infringed upon - for example, the Japanese people's outrage and opposition towards the ban on whaling. Japan - and now South Korea - are prepared to subvert international law to continue whaling. What are the people who oppose whaling prepared to do in response?
Again with the strawman arguments. First you asked me what was the logic behind saving whales and I gave the answer of biodiversity and scientific research (in a logical argument with proofs, even), given how important whales are to marine biology. Then you asked me how that scientific research could benefit humans and I replied with yet another answer. Now you're focusing on the importance of my research examples to humanity and trying to spin that as a flaw in my reasoning? Give me a break.
Why do we care about bringing them back to stable population levels? Providing, for a moment, that what you said about the scientific benefits of keeping whales around is pragmatic - why do we need large, stable populations of them to conduct the research?
What kind of a dumb question is this? Obviously, if you're going to be doing research with any animal, you want to make sure you have a sufficient sample from a stable source and that your test subjects are not the last remaining of a soon-to-be extinct species. (How would you replicate an experimental design to validate a study's findings if the test subject's species went extinct??)
Aside from that, given the size of whales, and the type of study you're conducting, it would be hard to conduct any meaningful trials with them in captivity and not in their natural environment.
Too bad, because whale hunting - and not just the hunting of endangered whale populations - is outlawed. The countries attempting to subvert the bans in question aren't doing so to hunt endangered whales, but to hunt whales of least concern status.
Which is obviously a problem. First they're trying to sidestep the bans using loopholes, and in the process of trying to hunt whales of "least concern", they're hunting whales that have vulnerable populations.
I don't think you understand the gravity of infringing on other countries' sovereignty and freedom to do what they want in their own territory - world wars have been started for less.
So in essence, what you're telling me is that the West prohibiting Japan and South Korea from hunting vulnerable whale populations is a more severe form of tyrannical + Show Spoiler +
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.
infringement on a nation's sovereignty than the invasion of Serbia by the Austro-Hungarian empire or Poland by Nazi Germany? You can't be serious.
You have to do a lot better than you did in the beginning of this reply to show that whales are not just marginally useful in scientific research, but immensely useful to humans across the world. Very few people give a damn about where whales fall in the taxonomic tree. A huge amount of people do care, however, about their own country's freedoms being infringed upon - for example, the Japanese people's outrage and opposition towards the ban on whaling. Japan - and now South Korea - are prepared to subvert international law to continue whaling. What are the people who oppose whaling prepared to do in response?
I don't have to prove how whales are immensely useful to humans across the world because Japan and South Korea killing them is definitely not useful to humans across the world, either. All I have argued is that the "triviality" of saving endangered whales species trumps the triviality of wanting to eat delicacies (as well as answering your question).
It's also funny how the new crux of your argument revolves around the West "stifling" Japan and Korea's sovereignty and freedom to pursue hunting endangered species (which you venture as far to state is worse than the infringements of the aggressor nations of the World Wars) when the two aforementioned nations are doing just that regarding North Korea's nuclear ambitions (whose reasons to become a nuclear power could be argued to protect its own sovereignty and freedom).
This begs the question if you really are that much in favour of South Korea's right to hunt vulnerable whale populations or if you've mistaken this thread for a social science essay gone wrong.
Either way, I think I'm finished with replying to you.
On July 06 2012 00:00 SnipedSoul wrote: What do you even do with a whale after you catch it?
Nothing you cannot do with other stuff. But hey, please stop human greediness if you can. Tho past studies shown that whales (might) posses high level cognitive capabilities, we still slaughter them. We are to them what nazi were to jews :S So sad....
"Scientific reasons" as in the same bullshit superstitious "health" reasons Japanese are hunting sharks for their fins? These pacific-rim countries and their outrageous level of superstition..
as long as it is regulated and they don't hurt the population too much, we don't need anymore endangered species
and that thylacin or w/e animal that is now extinct looks so beautiful! SK needs to be careful and monitor the populations. Maybe even start some programs to help whales reproduce.
On July 10 2012 08:08 Masamune wrote: Again with the strawman arguments. First you asked me what was the logic behind saving whales and I gave the answer of biodiversity and scientific research (in a logical argument with proofs, even), given how important whales are to marine biology. Then you asked me how that scientific research could benefit humans and I replied with yet another answer. Now you're focusing on the importance of my research examples to humanity and trying to spin that as a flaw in my reasoning? Give me a break.
I don't think you understand what a strawman is.
I did ask you for the logic of saving whales, and after fiddling with moralistic analogies for a while, you finally gave two answers: biodiversity and scientific research. I then said that these answers were weak and provided their faults. This is a logical progression of the rhetoric. Did you think having an argument is equivalent to having an effective one? Of course I was going to tell you the flaws in your logic. This is not a strawman.
What kind of a dumb question is this? Obviously, if you're going to be doing research with any animal, you want to make sure you have a sufficient sample from a stable source and that your test subjects are not the last remaining of a soon-to-be extinct species. (How would you replicate an experimental design to validate a study's findings if the test subject's species went extinct??)
Aside from that, given the size of whales, and the type of study you're conducting, it would be hard to conduct any meaningful trials with them in captivity and not in their natural environment.
The response was targeted towards the examples that you gave. Three of your examples had to do with extracting, testing, and using biomolecular material from whales. This sort of material is easily extracted in captivity and preserved in tissue cultures. We have the technology to sequence the entire genome of a species of whale to save genetic knowledge for posterity. We don't have to have living whales to know where they are in a taxonomic tree. We don't have to have living whales to know what genes are shared between them and us. We don't have to have living whales to replicate their stem cells - though why you want to do so is beyond me.
That leaves using minke whales to detect pollutants in the water, for which plenty of alternatives exist, including testing other organisms and the water itself. Not exactly a great series of arguments for your cause.
Which is obviously a problem. First they're trying to sidestep the bans using loopholes, and in the process of trying to hunt whales of "least concern", they're hunting whales that have vulnerable populations.
The logic in this statement is baffling. Why does the hunting of whales of least concern = the hunting of whales with vulnerable populations?
[So in essence, what you're telling me is that the West prohibiting Japan and South Korea from hunting vulnerable whale populations is a more severe form of tyrannical infringement on a nation's sovereignty than the invasion of Serbia by the Austro-Hungarian empire or Poland by Nazi Germany? You can't be serious.
You've taken what I said out of context. I said that issues of territorial sovereignty are very serious business for which countries have started world wars over, and that this falls into the umbrella of that business. That is not equivalent to saying that banning whale hunting = invading another country, because there are differences in degree. Still, culinary habits aren't the cause for why 52% of the Japanese public favor the continuation of whale hunting in lieu of international law - job benefits, perceptions of neocolonialism, and nationalism-fueled indignation towards Western demands are better factors.
To not understand the geopolitical dimensions of the issue is to not understand it at all.
I don't have to prove how whales are immensely useful to humans across the world because Japan and South Korea killing them is definitely not useful to humans across the world, either. All I have argued is that the "triviality" of saving endangered whales species trumps the triviality of wanting to eat delicacies (as well as answering your question).
But you haven't done this. You've provided a couple of arguments for why stopping whale hunting is beneficial, but they are trivial and easily bypassed. It's just that because you've attached a great deal of sentimental value to the causes in question, you are unable to see that the practical benefits you've named aren't all that valuable.
On the other hand, you haven't examined the arguments against the ban carefully enough to formulate a proper argument. For example, you have ignored the value of countries' desires to decide what happens in their own territorial boundaries, which in the context of human psychology far outstrips the trivial benefits you've given for preventing whale hunting. At the same time, you've trivialized the coercive nature of controlling other countries' behaviors which, when applied in reverse by other countries to the bad habits of - say - the US, are never going to accepted by the American people.
To this end, you are arguing a strawman - because the issue of whale hunting was never a contest between saving endangered whales species and wanting to eat delicacies. That is a case of reductio ad absurdum.
It's also funny how the new crux of your argument revolves around the West "stifling" Japan and Korea's sovereignty and freedom to pursue hunting endangered species (which you venture as far to state is worse than the infringements of the aggressor nations of the World Wars) when the two aforementioned nations are doing just that regarding North Korea's nuclear ambitions (whose reasons to become a nuclear power could be argued to protect its own sovereignty and freedom).
I dare say stopping a regime known to threaten its neighbors with the use of force from having access to weapons capable of leveling entire cities is a better cause than what you've given here for saving whales, and that's what these debates boil down to - better arguments.
On July 06 2012 16:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: minke whales aren't even endangered and are the most populated whales in the world at 600,000
Exactly. They are in the list of "least concerned" in the watch list. Somehow, the anti-whaling activists are claiming that it is endangered.
Kaisen you confuse me. One day you're creating threads shitting on the Chinese about letting Americans hunt "endangered" species on their land which are actually under '"Least Concerned" and the next day you're accusing the anti-whaling activists of mislabeling endangered status .
On July 06 2012 16:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: minke whales aren't even endangered and are the most populated whales in the world at 600,000
Exactly. They are in the list of "least concerned" in the watch list. Somehow, the anti-whaling activists are claiming that it is endangered.
Kaisen you confuse me. One day you're creating threads shitting on the Chinese about letting Americans hunt "endangered" species on their land which are actually under '"Least Concerned" and the next day you're accusing the anti-whaling activists of mislabeling endangered status .
On topic: If they're not hunting endangered species inside their own territorial waters who are we to stop them? I mean I don't like the treatment in the making of foie gras but I'm not going to start criminal acts bordering on eco-terrorism in Canada to stop them because respecting other nation's sovereignty is actually important.
I'm a little amazed at how much hate there is on South Korea for thinking of whaling.
Whaling has been outlawed for several decades, and all these endangered species have had a chance to recover. From the perspective of countries that used to whale, the international agreement to stop whaling was a temporary agreement. At some point it should only be fair they are allowed to resume again, as long as the numbers taken are intelligently regulated.
For Japan if I recall correctly they take ~500 minke whales for "research" / whale meat eating a year, and considerably fewer than that of a couple other species. I did look this up at one point feel free to Wikipedia it or something if you want too lazy to link everything right now. Putting this all in perspective though, some whale estimates (many are dated):
Good for SK. If they feel like whaling is going to benefit their country and the people in it, then they should go for it. Its my personal belief that animals were put here for the sole purpose of helping us (humans) survive. Whether its food from their meat, clothes and shelter from their hides, or products made from their parts. Animals have always been and will continue to be consumption for our benefit.
On July 11 2012 09:07 Joedaddy wrote: Good for SK. If they feel like whaling is going to benefit their country and the people in it, then they should go for it. Its my personal belief that animals were put here for the sole purpose of helping us (humans) survive. Whether its food from their meat, clothes and shelter from their hides, or products made from their parts. Animals have always been and will continue to be consumption for our benefit.
People come first.
I agree with you, but what happens when all the animals are gone...? Whales reproduce very slowly, aggressive hunting can put them to extinction in a very short time.
On July 11 2012 09:07 Joedaddy wrote: Good for SK. If they feel like whaling is going to benefit their country and the people in it, then they should go for it. Its my personal belief that animals were put here for the sole purpose of helping us (humans) survive. Whether its food from their meat, clothes and shelter from their hides, or products made from their parts. Animals have always been and will continue to be consumption for our benefit.
People come first.
Too bad it's entirely possible to survive without "using" animals.
It's of my belief that black people are here for the sole purpose of helping us (white people) survive. Whether it's growing my food, making my clothes, building my shelter, or products made by their hands. Black's have always been and will continue to be used for our benefit.
See what I did there? If we just use and treat living beings like crap, then the whole world is crap. Human's wont be able to evolve until we move past this kind of thinking your spouting off. I'm not claiming whole world should be vegan tomorrow(would be wonderful though), but taking steps BACKWARDS, doesn't help the freaking situation.
On July 05 2012 20:42 Bleak wrote: Human is a disgusting species.
Any species in the universe will hunt their prey regardless of whether or not it is endangered. Get over yourself and smart up. Although I'm for whaling, I disagree with hunting endangered whales. Although it takes FOREVER for whales to repopulate, it's still a necessary wait if you want to keep whaling in the future.
On July 11 2012 09:07 Joedaddy wrote: Good for SK. If they feel like whaling is going to benefit their country and the people in it, then they should go for it. Its my personal belief that animals were put here for the sole purpose of helping us (humans) survive. Whether its food from their meat, clothes and shelter from their hides, or products made from their parts. Animals have always been and will continue to be consumption for our benefit.
People come first.
Too bad it's entirely possible to survive without "using" animals.
It's of my belief that black people are here for the sole purpose of helping us (white people) survive. Whether it's growing my food, making my clothes, building my shelter, or products made by their hands. Black's have always been and will continue to be used for our benefit.
See what I did there? If we just use and treat living beings like crap, then the whole world is crap. Human's wont be able to evolve until we move past this kind of thinking your spouting off. I'm not claiming whole world should be vegan tomorrow(would be wonderful though), but taking steps BACKWARDS, doesn't help the freaking situation.
Yeah I see what you did there, and although his belief is a little extreme, I don't believe it matters whether or not we can do without it or not. Humans lived for a long ass time without anything but the most basic of technologies. If you all of a sudden believe we should stop using the internet because it consumes an amount of electricity, then you start believing ridiculous bullshit as well. The problem is not whaling, but instead the rate and the particular whales being killed. Whales wouldn't give a shit if they killed us and used us for food, we are animals, just as they are, and we do what we want with what we want. The issue here is, if we want to keep doing what we want with whales, then we are going to need whales.
On July 05 2012 20:42 Bleak wrote: Human is a disgusting species.
Any species in the universe will hunt their prey regardless of whether or not it is endangered. Get over yourself and smart up. Although I'm for whaling, I disagree with hunting endangered whales. Although it takes FOREVER for whales to repopulate, it's still a necessary wait if you want to keep whaling in the future.
On July 11 2012 09:07 Joedaddy wrote: Good for SK. If they feel like whaling is going to benefit their country and the people in it, then they should go for it. Its my personal belief that animals were put here for the sole purpose of helping us (humans) survive. Whether its food from their meat, clothes and shelter from their hides, or products made from their parts. Animals have always been and will continue to be consumption for our benefit.
People come first.
Too bad it's entirely possible to survive without "using" animals.
It's of my belief that black people are here for the sole purpose of helping us (white people) survive. Whether it's growing my food, making my clothes, building my shelter, or products made by their hands. Black's have always been and will continue to be used for our benefit.
See what I did there? If we just use and treat living beings like crap, then the whole world is crap. Human's wont be able to evolve until we move past this kind of thinking your spouting off. I'm not claiming whole world should be vegan tomorrow(would be wonderful though), but taking steps BACKWARDS, doesn't help the freaking situation.
Yeah I see what you did there, and although his belief is a little extreme, I don't believe it matters whether or not we can do without it or not. Humans lived for a long ass time without anything but the most basic of technologies. If you all of a sudden believe we should stop using the internet because it consumes an amount of electricity, then you start believing ridiculous bullshit as well. The problem is not whaling, but instead the rate and the particular whales being killed. Whales wouldn't give a shit if they killed us and used us for food, we are animals, just as they are, and we do what we want with what we want. The issue here is, if we want to keep doing what we want with whales, then we are going to need whales.
I don't want to give up technologies, honestly don't want to give up animal consumption either, just heavy factory farming and abuse of animals(so a big sacrifice if you want meat at it's current price, but yeah..).
South Korea's plans don't sound like they are moving us forward as a planet, and I'm glad to hear plans may be scrapped.
Pretty disgusting. Yes, I eat beef. Yes, I eat chicken. Yes, I eat pork.
Whales are far less numerous than these farm raised animals. For that reason, I feel that they should be left the fuck alone by everyone unless there is a LEGITIMATE reason to kill them.
Does that make me a hypocrite? I don't see how it would. If there are a small number of a particular creature remaining on Earth, protect them.
On July 10 2012 09:23 Enzymatic wrote: "Scientific reasons" as in the same bullshit superstitious "health" reasons Japanese are hunting sharks for their fins? These pacific-rim countries and their outrageous level of superstition..
On July 12 2012 07:03 ayaz2810 wrote: Pretty disgusting. Yes, I eat beef. Yes, I eat chicken. Yes, I eat pork.
Whales are far less numerous than these farm raised animals. For that reason, I feel that they should be left the fuck alone by everyone unless there is a LEGITIMATE reason to kill them.
Does that make me a hypocrite? I don't see how it would. If there are a small number of a particular creature remaining on Earth, protect them.
There is a legitimate reason, it provides people with jobs, money, food, etc. The same exact reason why we kill pigs/cows/chickens. Besides, they're not completely depleting the whale population, just hunting a few every year. I fail to see how this is somehow worse than many other practices we utilize.
There are far less whales then farm raised animals because we have artificial increased the population of these animals immensely.
1. People suddenly hating on their own species. 2. People who chant "save the whales" while admitting to eating other forms of meat. 3. People blaming Asian nations for destroying the environment when the bulk of the damage has always been (and continues to be) done by Western countries. 4. People who believe animals were "put on this earth for man's use".
On July 11 2012 09:07 Joedaddy wrote: Good for SK. If they feel like whaling is going to benefit their country and the people in it, then they should go for it. Its my personal belief that animals were put here for the sole purpose of helping us (humans) survive. Whether its food from their meat, clothes and shelter from their hides, or products made from their parts. Animals have always been and will continue to be consumption for our benefit.
People come first.
vs
On July 12 2012 12:38 xtruder wrote: A few things I've read that make me laugh:
1. People suddenly hating on their own species. 2. People who chant "save the whales" while admitting to eating other forms of meat. 3. People blaming Asian nations for destroying the environment when the bulk of the damage has always been (and continues to be) done by Western countries. 4. People who believe animals were "put on this earth for man's use".
And guess what?
User was warned for this post
Award winning posts of raw primitive vanity (award to "Joedaddy" for a line of thought that may have been necessary 100 years ago) and shift the blame game (award to xtruder pointing fingers at the sinners of now without care to the sinners of the future ((China, India and Brazil)) ).
Astounding and critical posts that progressed debate in this thread on the whole.
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.
becouse defects of others,are mirrors to ours.
Genesis 9:1-3 (English-NIV)
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
looks like south korea has found their way of venting their anger caused from the decline of brood war, killing whales. I mean, it makes me want to punch little children in the face, so I can understand how a culture that has been so heavily influenced by it could resort to murdering giant fish.
Well, for me, it depends on what they are planing with the research. What are they after? WHY do they want to research whales? Could whales be the cure to cancer? then sure. Research. But if we'll get better hairproducts or something out of this, leave them the fuck alone.
I dont see a problem with this. We kill tons of livestock. Its God's will and I'm ok with that I applaud South Korea for standing up against retard hipsters like green peace.
God's will.. referring to green peace as retard hipsters.. oh boy. The average intelligence of the people discussing this topic really doesn't bring anything meaningul to the table. Just mindless banter.
Is it wrong to kill animals for food? Well probably not, but some would disagree. Is it wrong to hunt a species into extinction? Probably, but again some would disagree. Personally, I find that hunting a species merely for 'scientific research', into extinction for some cases, is not only inhumane but iresponsable.
What exactly is this reseach accomplishing; I'd be genuinely interested in seeing papers published on the matter that aren't for the analysis of "DNA sampling, physical measurements such as earbone size, age ID, and most importantly, the contents in the digestive tract." It's nothing more than perverted propaganda at this point used to carry out personal agendas. What of importance is coming from this? What does killing 500 whales 'in the name of science' accomplish?
On July 11 2012 09:07 Joedaddy wrote: Good for SK. If they feel like whaling is going to benefit their country and the people in it, then they should go for it. Its my personal belief that animals were put here for the sole purpose of helping us (humans) survive. Whether its food from their meat, clothes and shelter from their hides, or products made from their parts. Animals have always been and will continue to be consumption for our benefit.
EPT![[image loading]](http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/eQafnB9wMZNM18lDIFC.ag--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD01MTI7cT04NTt3PTQzNQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/AFP/photo_1341989255698-1-0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/20100114-minke-whale.jpg)
I was just saying, smoking doesn't really hurt anyone or anything (relatively), it's just a dumb longterm move for your own body, so it is a sort of misleading analogy of his.
![[image loading]](http://www.mgsrvr.com/5c4632e7f75e80f6206c9d9328b10bc0.gif)
![[image loading]](http://shirtoid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/dolphin-revenge.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/471160_245425128884404_299480293_o.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kROcL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://brandonwantstochangetheworld.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/mad.jpg)
