NationStates Jolt Archive


Whaling - for or against?

-Somewhere-
29-01-2006, 19:57
Whaling is a very divisive subject where emotions run high. There's been a lot of tough negotiations recently in the International Whaling Commission, with pro-whaling countries such as Japan and Iceland seeking an end to the moratorium on commercial whaling, and anti-whaling nations preventing this from happening.

Now there are mainly two reasons that the anti-whaling organisations cite - that whales are endangered, or that it's too cruel.

As long as the numbers permit it, I don't see anything at all wrong with whaling. I think the cruelty argument is stupid. Whales live entirely natural lives, doing whatever it is that whales do in thw wild before they get killed. Then lets look at factory farming. Most people don't object to animals being kept in conditions where they have no natural light and no room to move for their euntire lives, but some of them are against whaling. As for whales being too intelligent for us to kill, pigs are some of the most intelligent animals in existance but most people don't object to them being farmed. I'm not sure wether whales are sufficiently abundant to being sustainabley hunted as I'm no expert on the matter. But if an impartial scientific study shows that whales can be sustainabley hunted then I don't see why they shouldn't be harvested like any other natural resource.

So what do you all think?
Super-power
29-01-2006, 20:00
Save the whales, club a liberal instead :D
[NS:::]Vegetarianistica
29-01-2006, 20:16
AGAINST (of course)
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
29-01-2006, 20:21
FOR! Fucking whales, when was the last time they got together to do something for us? Do you ever see Blue Whales getting together so they can stop a group of sharks from hunting humans?
Palaios
29-01-2006, 20:31
FOR! Fucking whales, when was the last time they got together to do something for us? Do you ever see Blue Whales getting together so they can stop a group of sharks from hunting humans?

The question is not what they did for us, but what did they do to us??? well??? (I can't really think of anything negative)
And they are living creatures, shouldn't they get a chance to live too? Humans get the chance...
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
29-01-2006, 20:55
The question is not what they did for us, but what did they do to us??? well??? (I can't really think of anything negative)
Have you ever had to read Moby Dick? I did, and it was because those fucking whales had to be out in the fucking ocean getting chased around by hairy guys with one leg. My 9th grade English class must be avenged, KILL THE WHALES!
The Cat-Tribe
29-01-2006, 21:05
Have you ever had to read Moby Dick? I did, and it was because those fucking whales had to be out in the fucking ocean getting chased around by hairy guys with one leg. My 9th grade English class must be avenged, KILL THE WHALES!

Moby Dick was about the fucking whalers. Ishmael was a fucking whaler that whined about his whaling for a whole book. If they left the damn whales alone, there wouldn't be a book. It was hardly the fault of the whales.

Moreover, whales are responsible for your 9th Grad English class literature. Whales don't even have typewriters.

Either kill the whalers, the writers, or the 9th grade English teachers! Leave the damn whales alone.
Man in Black
29-01-2006, 21:06
I'm for whaling! Nothing like a fat chick to be there for you when the bars close and all the pretty women have gone home! :D







Oh wait, MARINE whales? Who cares? Is anyone here actually friends with a damn whale? Fuck Willy! I'll bet his ass tastes good smothered in barbecue sauce and slow roasted over a giant pit!
Lunatic Goofballs
29-01-2006, 21:08
Moby Dick was about the fucking whalers. Ishmael was a fucking whaler that whined about his whaling for a whole book. If they left the damn whales alone, there wouldn't be a book. It was hardly the fault of the whales.

Moreover, whales are responsible for your 9th Grad English class literature. Whales don't even have typewriters.

Either kill the whalers, the writers, or the 9th grade English teachers! Leave the damn whales alone.

Kill em all, let God sort em out. :)
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
29-01-2006, 21:10
Moby Dick was about the fucking whalers. If they left the damn whales alone, there wouldn't be a book. It was hardly the fault of the whales.
If there ahdn't been any whales to whale the whalers wouldn't have gone whaling and Herman Melville wouldn't have written an encyclopedia entry for every possible whaling task one can accomplish while whaling.
Either kill the whalers, the writers, or the 9th grade English teachers! Leave the damn whales alone.
Ah, but that is all further part of the plan. When the whales are dead, the whalers will have no livelihood left. Their careers will be permanently ended, and they'll live out the rest of their lives as impovershed alcoholics, forever having to know that they worked themselves out of the only job they are good for.
And since English Teachers and writers live pretty miserable lives in the majority anyway, I am already avenged against them.
So, hunt, hunt the whales! Bring all species into extinction and celebrate while you can, for soon sweet vengeance will be mine!
The Cat-Tribe
29-01-2006, 21:12
If there ahdn't been any whales to whale the whalers wouldn't have gone whaling and Herman Melville wouldn't have written an encyclopedia entry for every possible whaling task one can accomplish while whaling.

Ah, but that is all further part of the plan. When the whales are dead, the whalers will have no livelihood left. Their careers will be permanently ended, and they'll live out the rest of their lives as impovershed alcoholics, forever having to know that they worked themselves out of the only job they are good for.
And since English Teachers and writers live pretty miserable lives in the majority anyway, I am already avenged against them.
So, hunt, hunt the whales! Bring all species into extinction and celebrate while you can, for soon sweet vengeance will be mine!

I'm afraid your plan will backfire as some of those alcoholic ex-whalers will turn to writing books about whaling. Herman Melville II.
Lunatic Goofballs
29-01-2006, 21:13
Personally, I am of the opinion that hunting any animal that can't hunt you back is wimpy and lame. African bushmen who hunt lions wiht a spear... now those are REAL MEN! Well, the ones that win. Hehehe. :p

To that end, I propose that with the aid of modern genetic science, cybernetics and nanotechnology that we arm the animals. We give the whales torpedo launchers. The deer will get a pop-up gun turret. And we give the ducks aerial bombs. :)
Katurkalurkmurkastan
29-01-2006, 21:20
As long as the numbers permit it, I don't see anything at all wrong with whaling. I think the cruelty argument is stupid.

why would you say this? this is short-sighted and arrogant. geez, some people! how would you like it if you had a harpoon stuck in your side and you had to try and limp away?

no, i think we should just nuke 'em. Ain't no pain there! :D



I can't believe I just said that...
The Half-Hidden
29-01-2006, 21:20
No, because there aren't yet enough of them. I have no ethical qualms with whaling.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
29-01-2006, 21:21
I'm afraid your plan will backfire as some of those alcoholic ex-whalers will turn to writing books about whaling. Herman Melville II.
My maneouvre, like many tactical ones, has many tiers which aren't all immediatly visible. As soon as all those whalers try to make it as writers, producing a second run of Melville-style whaling works, the market will be flooded with dull, plodding, overly symbolic, anti-climactic fiction about men hunting whales.
Thus, whatever fame Moby Dick has, will be diluted and destroyed, and Moby Dick will fall, completing my revenge.
The Cat-Tribe
29-01-2006, 21:23
My maneouvre, like many tactical ones, has many tiers which aren't all immediatly visible. As soon as all those whalers try to make it as writers, producing a second run of Melville-style whaling works, the market will be flooded with dull, plodding, overly symbolic, anti-climactic fiction about men hunting whales.
Thus, whatever fame Moby Dick has, will be diluted and destroyed, and Moby Dick will fall, completing my revenge.

I begin to see the spark of genius ..... or is it insanity .....
-Somewhere-
29-01-2006, 21:23
why would you say this? this is short-sighted and arrogant. geez, some people! how would you like it if you had a harpoon stuck in your side and you had to try and limp away?
Don't just pick little bits out. I don't deny whaling is cruel. But as I said before, I think the cruelty argument is stupid because modern factory farming is extremely cruel and nobody cares about it.
Lunatic Goofballs
29-01-2006, 21:25
I begin to see the spark of genius ..... or is it insanity .....

They both spark. *nod*
The Cat-Tribe
29-01-2006, 21:28
Don't just pick little bits out. I don't deny whaling is cruel. But as I said before, I think the cruelty argument is stupid because modern factory farming is extremely cruel and nobody cares about it.

I'm sorry, but that argument is fallacious.

First, some people do care about cruelty in modern farming.

Second, modern farming isn't necessarily as cruel as whaling.

Third, and most importantly, because one has nothing to do with the other. Whether or not people should care about cruelty in modern farming is a red herring. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)
Kinda Sensible people
29-01-2006, 21:28
To that end, I propose that with the aid of modern genetic science, cybernetics and nanotechnology that we arm the animals. We give the whales torpedo launchers. The deer will get a pop-up gun turret. And we give the ducks aerial bombs. :)

Thus bringing a whole new form of entertainment to egging houses.

I like the way you think. ;)
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
29-01-2006, 21:33
I begin to see the spark of genius ..... or is it insanity .....
Considering that I have a master plan that involves getting revenge on an inaminate object, it may well be both.
Fair Progress
29-01-2006, 21:44
If the species isn't facing extinction, I'm in favor killing animals for food (I'm not a vegetarian) as long as they aren't put through unnecessary pain, a quick death is the best method.
Kossackja
29-01-2006, 22:26
moby dick is based on a TRUE event, where a whale attacked a ship and a lot of the crew died a terrible death, those who made it into the boats slowly starved on their way to find land until they started drawing lots, killing and eating each other.
whales are also our rivals when it comes to food, they feed on the same fish we catch, the more whales, the fewer proteinrich fish for our fishingfleets.
about the cruelty argument: one whale gives as much meat as hundreds of chicken, pigs, cattle, so you only have to kill one creature, isnt that merciful?
with the exception of blue whales and some others, there are more than enough to be used as a natural resource without threatening extinction.

also if you want to forbid whaling, who would have the authority to pass a law, that everyone on the high seas is subject to? and who would enforce it? who should play world police, capture whalers, drag them to which court and where should they be jailed? should the usa assume the role of world police on the oceans?
Droskianishk
29-01-2006, 22:27
You shoulda added, Yes in moderation.
The Cat-Tribe
29-01-2006, 22:29
also if you want to forbid whaling, who would have the authority to pass a law, that everyone on the high seas is subject to? and who would enforce it? who should play world police, capture whalers, drag them to which court and where should they be jailed? should the usa assume the role of world police on the oceans?

Ever heard of international law?
The Black Forrest
30-01-2006, 00:38
FOR! Fucking whales, when was the last time they got together to do something for us? Do you ever see Blue Whales getting together so they can stop a group of sharks from hunting humans?

Still carrying that grudge from the time that whale threw you to the shark and ran?
The Black Forrest
30-01-2006, 00:44
moby dick is based on a TRUE event, where a whale attacked a ship and a lot of the crew died a terrible death, those who made it into the boats slowly starved on their way to find land until they started drawing lots, killing and eating each other.


Yes that was the Essex in 1819. Melville used it more for inspiration. If you want to compare with today, the story of the Essex was known more like the Titanic is known today.

A nice little book "In the Heart of the Sea" by Nathaniel Philbrick


whales are also our rivals when it comes to food, they feed on the same fish we catch, the more whales, the fewer proteinrich fish for our fishingfleets.


Actually the whales aren't the problem. Just an excuse.

You forget to mention over fishing done by man has caused more of problem then the whales.


about the cruelty argument: one whale gives as much meat as hundreds of chicken, pigs, cattle, so you only have to kill one creature, isnt that merciful?


Not really. Ever eat whale meat? Too gamey for me. You are also comparing livestock raised for consuming vs a creature of the wild.

Whaling is 95% about commercialism and about 5% about survival(ie food source for some).


with the exception of blue whales and some others, there are more than enough to be used as a natural resource without threatening extinction.


Ok do you know what it takes to keep them from going extinct? What is a safe number?


also if you want to forbid whaling, who would have the authority to pass a law, that everyone on the high seas is subject to? and who would enforce it? who should play world police, capture whalers, drag them to which court and where should they be jailed? should the usa assume the role of world police on the oceans?

International law. If nations don't enforce it then you get vigelantes that go out and ram illegal whalers....
The Black Forrest
30-01-2006, 00:46
If they want to allow for whaling then they could allow it if whalers went back to sail ships, rowboats and regular harpoons.

Hmmm for some reason I think they would balk at that. ;)
NERVUN
30-01-2006, 00:50
Against. We've already done far too mcuh damage to the whale population as is. There's nothing really viable from whales that we need any more (whale oil no longer being needed, and the meat isn't all that great). Finally, we just don't know enough about whales to say for sure if they have a population able to survive hunting or not.

And no, the whales are not destroying fish populations. Humans are doing that.

Either kill the whalers, the writers, or the 9th grade English teachers! Leave the damn whales alone.
No, please no. I get enough pain from teaching 9th grade English, I really don't need Fiddlebottoms attempting to assianate me due to some complex plan to avenge the reading of Moby Dick.
Kossackja
30-01-2006, 01:21
If they want to allow for whaling then they could allow it if whalers went back to sail ships, rowboats and regular harpoons.

Hmmm for some reason I think they would balk at that. ;)completely stupid, would you also forbid hunting unless the hunters go back to spears, bows and arrows?You forget to mention over fishing done by man has caused more of problem then the whales.but the whales also eat a lot of fish, if we reign in their numbers, fish stocks will recover more quickly and fishing quotas can be set higher.Ever eat whale meat? Too gamey for me. You are also comparing livestock raised for consuming vs a creature of the wild.i havent had the chance to try it, but i would like to. i have no idea what "gamey means, its not in my dictionary (http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/dings.cgi?lang=en&noframes=1&service=&query=gamey&optword=1&optcase=1&opterrors=0&optpro=0&style=&dlink=self). the fact, that livestock is bred for food makes it even more cruel, because these breeds are laid out for maximum meat/milk production, the animals have defects, that make their lives particulary hard, as they cannot move very well, are susceptible to diseases, have to be treated with antibiotics to avoid infections, for some their bones cannot support the weight of the meat they have been bred to devellop. also we eat wild animals too, the fish for example, we catch in the ocean are wild, and nobody is suggesting to stop catching fish, because it is a "wild" animal.do you know what it takes to keep them from going extinct? What is a safe number?i suggest cutting the population in half and then maintaining a sustainable hunt. (The Canadian government has defined a sustainable hunt as one that does not cause the population to decline from current levels.)international law. If nations don't enforce it then you get vigelantes that go out and ram illegal whalers....dont think enforcing is so easy, what if you have a ship suspected of being involved in whaling? can you impound it? can you board it? if the crew resists, can you use force? can you sink the ship? what if a ship under suspicion refuses to be inspected, you take it by force, people die and then you find nothing? if there are lynch mob vigillantes, what if the ships, that the vigillantes attack, practice self defense and somebody dies, whom do you punish?
NERVUN
30-01-2006, 01:34
but the whales also eat a lot of fish, if we reign in their numbers, fish stocks will recover more quickly and fishing quotas can be set higher.
Ah, the wonders of wishful thinking. Sorry, no. Culling whales will not let the fish stocks suddenly rebound. Humans catch FAR more fish than whales do. Not to mention that the great whales, excepting the Sperm Whale, don't even EAT fish.

i havent had the chance to try it, but i would like to. i have no idea what "gamey means, its not in my dictionary (http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/dings.cgi?lang=en&noframes=1&service=&query=gamey&optword=1&optcase=1&opterrors=0&optpro=0&style=&dlink=self).
No, you don't. It REALLY doesn't taste all that good.

dont think enforcing is so easy, what if you have a ship suspected of being involved in whaling? can you impound it? can you board it? if the crew resists, can you use force? can you sink the ship? what if a ship under suspicion refuses to be inspected, you take it by force, people die and then you find nothing? if there are lynch mob vigillantes, what if the ships, that the vigillantes attack, practice self defense and somebody dies, whom do you punish?
Well, if in International waters, and commiting an illegal act, they can be borded by navies, I seriously doubt that any whaler in his right mind will challenge a US Navy ship. Of course, in reality, the ship would be tracked back to homeport. Protests can be loged with the home country, as well as eccomic sactions if the issue is important enough. If we can't get a country wide embargo on goods, there's always stripping the ship of right of travel. The ship would no longer be allowed in waters controlled by that country or allowed to port and resupply. THAT is very damaging, not to mention that the US Coast Guard has a tendancy to arrest all crewmembers of any ship attempting to enter US waters when it was told not to. Something about terroism.
New Stalinberg
30-01-2006, 01:36
Guys! Here's a news flash! If we go eat all the whales of the ocean do you realize what would happen? No one would be there to eat the krill, And the krill population will get so large that they will eat everything in the ocean by strength in numbers! So as much fun as whaling may seem, if we finish them off, the krill will come back, and in greater numbers too.