NationStates Jolt Archive

Japan continues to think it can senselessly murder whales for "research" purposes when the real intent is to satiate their worse-than-barbaric palates. Whaling is a horrible and inhumane activity that should be completely banned. Japan should be heavily fined and sanctioned for the balenocide they commit every year. There is no reason to justify the enormous organized whale hunts. There are other, more humane, food sources. They can claim its tradition all they want, but almost the rest of the world dropped their "tradition" of whale-hunting. It is time for Japan to get out of the 1600s.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071117/ap_on_re_as/japan_hunting_humpbacks)

TOKYO - Japan's whaling fleet was set to leave port Sunday for its biggest-ever scientific whale hunt in the South Pacific, the government fisheries agency said.

The whalers have orders to kill up to 50 humpback whales — the first known large-scale hunt for the species since a 1963 moratorium put humpbacks under international protection.

The new hunt is certain to renew Japan's angry standoff with anti-whaling forces. Greenpeace and the animal rights activist group Sea Shepherd have said they will track the South Pacific hunt.

Four ships including the lead craft, the 8,044-ton Nisshin Maru, were set to leave Sunday morning from the southern port of Shimonoseki, said a news release from Japan's Fisheries Agency.

Two observation boats left northern Japan on Wednesday, the agency said.

Along with the humpbacks, the 239-member mission that runs through April will also take up to 935 Antarctic minke whales and up to 50 fin whales in their largest scientific whale hunt ever held in the South Pacific, according to a report Japan submitted to the International Whaling Commission earlier this year.

But it is the plan to hunt the humpback — a favorite among whale-watchers for its distinctive knobby head, intelligence and out-of-the-water acrobatics — that has triggered environmentalists' condemnation.

"These whales don't have to die," said a Greenpeace spokesman, Junichi Sato. "Humpbacks are very sensitive and live in close-knit pods. So even one death can be extremely damaging."

Humpback whales were hunted to near-extinction four decades ago. They have been off-limits since 1963, except for a few caught under a subsistence program by Greenland and the Caribbean nation of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Each caught one humpback last year, according to the International Whaling Commission.

The former Soviet Union defied the ban and hunted humpbacks until 1973. It is disputed how many were killed.

Scientists say humpback whales are complex creatures that communicate through lengthy "songs."

Although they grow up to 48 feet long and weigh as much as 40 tons, they are extremely acrobatic, often throwing themselves out of the water, swimming on their backs with both flippers in the air, or slapping the water with their tails.

The American Cetacean Society estimates the global humpback population at 30,000-40,000 — about a third of the number before modern whaling. The species is listed as "vulnerable" by the World Conservation Union.

Japanese fisheries officials insist, however, that the animals' population has returned to a sustainable level.

"Humpback whales in our research area are rapidly recovering," said the Fisheries Agency's whaling chief, Hideki Moronuki. "Taking 50 humpbacks from a population of tens of thousands will have no significant impact whatsoever."

He said killing whales lets marine biologists study their internal organs. Ovaries provide vital clues to reproductive systems, earwax indicates age, and stomach contents reveal eating habits, he said.

Meat from Japan's scientific catch is sold commercially, as permitted by the IWC, but Japanese officials deny that profit is a goal.

Japan also argues that whaling is a tradition in its country that dates back to the early 1600s, and Tokyo has pushed unsuccessfully at the IWC to reverse the 1986 commercial whaling moratorium.

Environmentalists claim that Japan's research program is a pretext for keeping the whaling industry alive.

Japan accuses activists of "environmental terrorism." After its last Antarctic hunt, the government released video of protesters launching smoke canisters from a Sea Shepherd ship and dropping ropes and nets to entangle the Japanese ships' propellers.

"We call them terrorists because they engage in blatant terrorism," Moronuki said. "We don't want violence. ... All Japan wants is to find a sustainable way to hunt a very precious marine resource."

Environmentalists have long campaigned for an end to the winter catch in the Southern Ocean and a North Pacific mission that kills about 100 minke whales a year.

Scientists note that humpbacks migrate to the southern seas from breeding grounds around the world.

"Some breeding grounds are not recovering to the same extent as others," said whale biologists Ken Findlay at the University of Cape Town. "While the catch may be small, we're not sure where they come from. That's a real concern."

Environmentalists also are critical of the harpooning methods Japan's fleet uses. Ships sometimes chase wounded whales for hours, Findlay said.

I think there are way more important things in the world than 50 whales getting killed.

where are the options for agreeing with Japan?

where are the options for agreeing with Japan?
Quite.

Whales are like big, giant cows. Full of meat, fat, and other goodies to be used. There is no reason whaling cannot be continued as long as the population remains stable.

I agree that commercial whaling is unnecessary and detrimental to the whale species. The article says this time it's for "research," which is unclear to me. If it is for real research, though, the death of whales wouldn't bother me, if it meant we could learn more about (and thus help) the humpback species as a whole.

Really, the whales get a better lot than chickens raised for meat.

Just because they're big and pretty doesn't mean we can't hunt them.

I really hate the idea of targetting whales specifically. There's nothing explicitly worse about killing a whale for its meat than killing any other animal for its meat, but this cold-blooded and calculated hunting down and slaughtering of whales sickens me beyond belief.

Enough of this mass-marketing of living resources, goddamnit. These are creatures, not gold sacks.

So you can kill a cow, kill a pig, kill a dog, but you can't kill a whale? Huh.

There's a lot of money and useful products in whaling. Kill a certain maximum number of them and keep the rest around so their populations can remain at sustainable levels. I personally have no problems with whaling or any other kind of fishing as long as the people involve abide by environmental laws and make a real effort to keep populations at stable, sustainable levels; like anything, whales can and will die all the time from natural causes, and responsible whaling can keep populations in check as well as supply valuable materials for our use.

The article says this time it's for "research," which is unclear to me.
They are testing the hypothesis, "Whale meat, does it still taste delicious?"

So you can kill a cow, kill a pig, kill a dog, but you can't kill a whale? Huh.

Who regularly eats dogs?

Killing whales is like killing elephants or monkeys or humans. They are an intelligent species that are quite aware of their existence. Cows don't know left from right.

Who regularly eats dogs?

Many Asians.

Who regularly eats dogs?
The Koreans, and currently Zimbabweans.
Killing whales is like killing elephants or monkeys or humans.
Pretty shitty way to evaluate whether you can kill something, no?
They are an intelligent species that are quite aware of their existence.
Pretty sure that pigs and such are aware that they're alive, to be quite honest.
Cows don't know left from right.
...

Who regularly eats dogs?

Killing whales is like killing elephants or monkeys or humans. They are an intelligent species that are quite aware of their existence. Cows don't know left from right.

And you base this on...what? For all we know, Bovines might be the superior species.

Oh, and racism ftl.

I'm gonna let Johnny Rico handle this one...

I'm from Buenos Aires, and I say kill 'em all!

Killing whales is like killing elephants or monkeys or humans. They are an intelligent species that are quite aware of their existence. Cows don't know left from right.
The issue at hand isn't intelligence; it's selectiveness. We justify the hunt because we have needs that only hunting can satisfy: in particular, food. But we're not hunting here to satisfy that need. We're only hunting whales because they are whales, and that's just disgusting.

Many Asians.
I bet Basset hounds are tasty.

And this is bullshit. Japan is just calling it "scientific research" so they can get away with killing whales. What other fucking research group in the world's whole purpose is to kill the thing it is researching? If they were being honest about it, sure, maybe they should be allowed to collect a handful every year, but they are being deceptive, Japanese dicks about it and as such need a boot up the ass.

I think there are way more important things in the world than 50 whales getting killed.

Whales might disagree.

I really, really want to go whale hunting some day. Like how the natives in Washington did it, or like in Moby Dick.

Whale burgers would be delicious.

I have no problem with the whaling so long as they are not overhunted. Which probably will be the problem in a year or so...

There is no reason not to use a resource, so long as it is used sustainably. The fact that resources are so often not used sustainably is the reason that certain resources are banned from use.

Japan continues to think it can senselessly murder whales for "research" purposes when the real intent is to satiate their worse-than-barbaric palates. Whaling is a horrible and inhumane activity that should be completely banned. Japan should be heavily fined and sanctioned for the balenocide they commit every year. There is no reason to justify the enormous organized whale hunts. There are other, more humane, food sources. They can claim its tradition all they want, but almost the rest of the world dropped their "tradition" of whale-hunting. It is time for Japan to get out of the 1600s.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071117/ap_on_re_as/japan_hunting_humpbacks)
What, do you think you can read minds or something? You act like tradition is the only reason for this, but I believe that tradition is a word with no meaning and even I believe that hunting for research purposes is good unless it poses a significant environmental problem like potential whale extinction.

I remember from grade 11 history class about how Japan has a fairly peaceful foreign policy compared to "the rest of the world", and you act like Japan is worse than the rest of the world anyway just because they're hunting whales, as if that's somehow infinitely worse than eating meat or fish, or stepping on ants on the sidewalk. It's ridiculous. Ok, so maybe the whales might be endangered or something, I do recall learning about whale underpopulation before, so maybe one could argue from an environmentalist perspective, (if 50 whales a hunt is a genuine threat to the species, that is, granted I wouldn't know) so why not go for that rather than to... call whale hunting murder? Last I checked murder referred specifically to killing humans, (as opposed to animals) and if it's not that it's not murder.

Also, I'm not sure what kind of research this is, but I know experiments on animals have brought medical benefits. Banting and Best doing experiments on dogs helped them see the connection between the pancreas and type 1 diabetes, which in turn gave them the idea to use insulin to treat it. This saved millions of lives, including my own. So, Sel Appa, if you ended up with type 1 diabetes, would you use insulin to save your life? You'd be benefitting from something that came about from experiments on animals, after all...

There's a lot of money and useful products in whaling.

There's a lot of money in sex slavery, too.

like anything, whales can and will die all the time from natural causes

Yeah... and "anything" includes human beings.

So let's start murdering each other. At least if we can get money and useful products from it.

:rolleyes:

Killing whales is like killing elephants or monkeys or humans. They are an intelligent species that are quite aware of their existence. Cows don't know left from right.

As you can see, we've got no quarrel with killing other humans, so your point is moot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munitions)

So let's start murdering each other. At least if we can get money and useful products from it.

:rolleyes:

I hear our livers go well with fava beans and a nice chianti. *nod*

Whales might disagree.
Depends. Probably the ones in the Atlantic Ocean aren't really fussed, and are more interested in debating whether plankton-hunting should be a free-for-all, or whether they should be splitting it all equally, using hilarious Whale memes to further their point.

There's a lot of money in sex slavery, too.
Actually true. Not sure how this equates to whale hunting. At all.
Yeah... and "anything" includes human beings.

So let's start murdering each other. At least if we can get money and useful products from it.

:rolleyes:
Heh, millions of governments and NGOs in the world can't be wrong!

http://www.libya-almostakbal.com/images/chad%20war/chadWar2/capt.sge.bme62.180804174412.photo00.jpg

etc. etc.

IMO there are only a few reasons to allow hunting on all species, and that is if there's an overpopulation, when the animals are destroying the eco-system (especially if they're foreign to it) or maybe for scientific research.

because the current population is only estimated 1/3rd of the pre-whaling population I don't think you can talk about overpopulation (they're even still considered a vulnerable species), they're also no threat to the eco-system they live in. Finally I don't see why they would need to kill 50 individuals for scientific research, so yeah, I dont' see any reason why we would have to allow whaling.

I agree that commercial whaling is unnecessary and detrimental to the whale species. The article says this time it's for "research," which is unclear to me. If it is for real research, though, the death of whales wouldn't bother me, if it meant we could learn more about (and thus help) the humpback species as a whole.
Japans so called "research" is crap. They sell the meat on the open market.


Why are whales different from cows? Don't know. They seem more intelligent. Many species are threatened or endangered. I find the ethics murky. I will admit to being a little squeamish as to eating something that seems so intelligent. But then again, I love bacon and would never consider eating a cat. But current consensus is that pigs are very intelligent and trump our precious dogs and cats, brainwise.

Actually true. Not sure how this equates to whale hunting. At all.

"It makes us money" is not a good reason to do things.

What, do you think you can read minds or something? You act like tradition is the only reason for this, but I believe that tradition is a word with no meaning and even I believe that hunting for research purposes is good unless it poses a significant environmental problem like potential whale extinction.

I remember from grade 11 history class about how Japan has a fairly peaceful foreign policy compared to "the rest of the world", and you act like Japan is worse than the rest of the world anyway just because they're hunting whales, as if that's somehow infinitely worse than eating meat or fish, or stepping on ants on the sidewalk. It's ridiculous. Ok, so maybe the whales might be endangered or something, I do recall learning about whale underpopulation before, so maybe one could argue from an environmentalist perspective, (if 50 whales a hunt is a genuine threat to the species, that is, granted I wouldn't know) so why not go for that rather than to... call whale hunting murder? Last I checked murder referred specifically to killing humans, (as opposed to animals) and if it's not that it's not murder.

Also, I'm not sure what kind of research this is, but I know experiments on animals have brought medical benefits. Banting and Best doing experiments on dogs helped them see the connection between the pancreas and type 1 diabetes, which in turn gave them the idea to use insulin to treat it. This saved millions of lives, including my own. So, Sel Appa, if you ended up with type 1 diabetes, would you use insulin to save your life? You'd be benefitting from something that came about from experiments on animals, after all...

Killing whales is disgusting. And trying to find excuses for such barbarity is equally disgusting.
Are you God to determine which life is more valuable than another? How dare you put human interests over those of other species? Your arrogance blinds you.

"It makes us money" is not a good reason to do things.

Seems to be the most used reason though.

Why are whales different from cows? Don't know. They seem more intelligent. Many species are threatened or endangered. I find the ethics murky. I will admit to being a little squeamish as to eating something that seems so intelligent. But then again, I love bacon and would never consider eating a cat. But current consensus is that pigs are very intelligent and trump our precious dogs and cats, brainwise.

I think this is more dependent on culture, we also don't eat maggots while they're a premium source of protein, easy to grow, and don't taste bad (I've been told). And yeah, pigs also look quite intelligent (when they're not in to small cages) have you ever "met" one?

Why are whales different from cows? Don't know. They seem more intelligent.

That's my understanding.

But we make the distinction for cultural reasons, not ethical ones.

Why are whales different from cows?Cows are specifically bred to be eaten, while hunting whales causes their extinction. In earlier ages people may have thought that the abundance of the sea's resources could never be exhausted, but folks should know better by now. And if they don't they must be forced.
Btw, eating cows as well as whales is barbarity.

Whales - tasty oil producing free range goodies !

Who regularly eats dogs?

Koreans and some other Asians.

Whales are like big, giant cows. Full of meat, fat, and other goodies to be used. There is no reason whaling cannot be continued as long as the population remains stable.

The population isn't stable. That's the problem. They're all endangered, many of them critically.

Killing whales is disgusting. And trying to find excuses for such barbarity is equally disgusting.
Are you God to determine which life is more valuable than another? How dare you put human interests over those of other species? Your arrogance blinds you.

Man built the wheel and flew to the moon. I have yet to see a humpback whale fly a plane.

Killing whales is disgusting. And trying to find excuses for such barbarity is equally disgusting.
Are you God to determine which life is more valuable than another? How dare you put human interests over those of other species? Your arrogance blinds you.To a certain extent I agree. I don't think humans are amazingly special. Other creatures can certainly love, think, feel pain. But I don't obeject to tigers eating deer.

But if we don't torture them,(ie factory farming) don't wipe them out or destroy the things they need to survive, are we really so awful? If you provide cattle with comfortable living conditions, it seems reasonable to be able to eat them. While I admire some of the reasons behind vegetarianism, I don't necessarily agree. Or I'd be in PETA with my grandmother who has fits when I wear silk.

How is this more morally bad than raising meat to eat?

I can understand environmental types protesting the damage to eco-system. I can understand vegetarians protesting..at least they are being consistent.

Regular meat-eaters protesting due to bambi-esque notions about whale are just being hypocrites, IMHO.

The issue at hand isn't intelligence; it's selectiveness. We justify the hunt because we have needs that only hunting can satisfy: in particular, food. But we're not hunting here to satisfy that need. We're only hunting whales because they are whales, and that's just disgusting.

What part of the "and the meat is sold" did you miss in the article?

To a certain extent I agree. I don't think humans are amazingly special. Other creatures can certainly love, think, feel pain. But I don't obeject to tigers eating deer.

But if we don't torture them,(ie factory farming) don't wipe them out or destroy the things they need to survive, are we really so awful? If you provide cattle with comfortable living conditions, it seems reasonable to be able to eat them. While I admire some of the reasons behind vegetarianism, I don't necessarily agree. Or I'd be in PETA with my grandmother who has fits when I wear silk.

Just like in communism. You provide the people with sustenance so you can ship them off to the gulag.

Silk...uhm. I thought the silkworms were not harmed because the silk is just the stuff they extrude. Kind of like spiders.

Cows aren't on the verge of extinction.

Yet.
*prepares steak sauce*

Just like in communism. You provide the people with sustenance so you can ship them off to the gulag.

Silk...uhm. I thought the silkworms were not harmed because the silk is just the stuff they extrude. Kind of like spiders.

You take it from the cocoon, so the larvae dies. I've done it before, it's really interesting.

Cows aren't on the verge of extinction.
S'cool, we can breed whales like we do cows.

How is this more morally bad than raising meat to eat?

Cows aren't on the verge of extinction.

But current consensus is that pigs are very intelligent and trump our precious dogs and cats, brainwise.

I've heard brains and eggs are good although I have never eaten them. :eek:

Just like in communism. You provide the people with sustenance so you can ship them off to the gulag.

Silk...uhm. I thought the silkworms were not harmed because the silk is just the stuff they extrude. Kind of like spiders.

No, silkworms are boiled alive to get the silk.

Just like in communism. You provide the people with sustenance so you can ship them off to the gulag.

Silk...uhm. I thought the silkworms were not harmed because the silk is just the stuff they extrude. Kind of like spiders.The silk is on the cocoon they are in for their metamorphosis. They silk is removed by boiling the cocoons. Worm inside.

Besides, PETA says dairy products exploit animals. They're a bit in left-field.

All carnivores/omnivores exploit some other creatures. Just do it as humanely as possible.

Yet.
*prepares steak sauce*

The only reason they're not extinct is that we eat them. If we didn't, cows would go bye-bye.

The only reason they're not extinct is that we eat them. If we didn't, cows would go bye-bye.

That depends, many of the natural predators(at least in America) are greatly reduced in number, and kept that way.
Though the cows might just eat up all the food and then wander around until they starve to death.

No, silkworms are boiled alive to get the silk.

Lobsters and crawfish are boiled alive for their meat. :eek: :p

The silk is on the cocoon they are in for their metamorphosis. They silk is removed by boiling the cocoons. Worm inside.

Ah. I wonder what they do with all those worms.
Besides, PETA says dairy products exploit animals. They're a bit in left-field.
Quite.
All carnivores/omnivores exploit some other creatures. Just do it as humanely as possible.
Right.
*crushes rabbit's spine with one bite before skewering and roasting it*

That depends, many of the natural predators(at least in America) are greatly reduced in number, and kept that way.
Though the cows might just eat up all the food and then wander around until they starve to death.

Or cause traffic jams. :D
http://www.arfsc.homestead.com/cow_in_road_India_600.JPG

Killing whales is disgusting. And trying to find excuses for such barbarity is equally disgusting.
Are you God to determine which life is more valuable than another? How dare you put human interests over those of other species? Your arrogance blinds you.

Man built the wheel and flew to the moon. I have yet to see a humpback whale fly a plane.

My apologies for reposting this, but I just came upon the revelation that, on planet earth, humans ARE god! :eek:

My apologies for reposting this, but I just came upon the revelation that, on planet earth, humans ARE god! :eek:You mean beings without morality.

Whether or not a humpback whale can fly a plane is irrelevant to his entitlement to live.
A mentally disabled person could not fly a plane either. Will you harpoon that person?

You mean beings without morality.

Whether or not a humpback whale can fly a plane is irrelevant to his entitlement to live.
A mentally disabled person could not fly a plane either. Will you harpoon that person?

Only if they run for President. :)

You mean beings without morality.

Whether or not a humpback whale can fly a plane is irrelevant to his entitlement to live.
A mentally disabled person could not fly a plane either. Will you harpoon that person?

No, I do mean gods. If an intersteller being with vastly superior intellect and technology with powers unbelievable came to earth, do you really think humans wouldn't practically worship it as a superior being? Whether or not humanity is a kind god, the comparison is the same.
The monoliths from 2001: A Space Odyssey come to mind.

And no, of course not, s/he's my own species. A mentally disabled cow? Anytime.

You mean beings without morality.

God. exactly.

No, I do mean gods.That's what I said. Beings without morality. They do things because they can.
And no, of course not, s/he's my own species. Why does the species matter?

That's what I said. Beings without morality. They do things because they can.
Why does the species matter?

I don't see any other creatures inhabiting this earth with morality. Which humans certainly do have. I also don't see any other creatures that take care of there disabled, at all.

I also don't see any other creatures that take care of there disabled, at all.
Elephants do. I believe chimps do so as well.

What the fuck does "inhumane" really mean? I mean think about it, what a pointless, ambiguous word.

What the fuck does "inhumane" really mean? I mean think about it, what a pointless, ambiguous word.

Inhumane - adj. - something that one would refuse to do to a dog yet would happily participate on a human.

What the fuck does "inhumane" really mean? I mean think about it, what a pointless, ambiguous word.I knew you wouldn't understand such a word.

I don't see any other creatures inhabiting this earth with morality. Which humans certainly do have. I also don't see any other creatures that take care of there disabled, at all.
And? Humans have an anthropocentric morality. Morality that is not absolute is no morality at all, it's just arbitrariness.

Killing whales is disgusting.
See my point about meat-eating or stepping on ants on the sidewalk. What makes killing whales so much more disgusting than that?

Are you God to determine which life is more valuable than another?
Oh please, the whole assumption that there even is a "god" is questionable at best.

How dare you put human interests over those of other species?
How dare animal rights people focus on one species more than any other to the extent that makes them want to demonize a relatively peaceful country? Why is it that you don't hear about massive international activist campaigns for the "rights" of spiders or ants? Let me guess; perhaps animal rights people aren't really being all that logical to begin with. I mean come on here, from sharks eating their own young to hyenas eating their prey alive, nature isn't all nice and friendly, it's about survival of the fittest. Animals are cruel to other animals, yet it's somehow worse when humans are. I think Penn Jillette puts it best; "even if you gave the animals rights they'd end up in animal prisons, right away, for attacking and assaulting each other... and for fucking and shitting all over the fuckin' shitty place. Life isn't Disney bullshit..."

Really, with regards to consistency, the best consistency is humans have rights, animals do not. Otherwise there is all sorts of room for inconsistency, see my point about spiders and ants.

Your arrogance blinds you.
*sighs* Accusations of arrogance seem to be often used to try to stifle independent thought. Some people talk about the "arrogance" of those who question the law. If people questioned the law to a further extent in Nazi Germany than they did perhaps we might not have gotten the Holocaust. I'm sick of this whole idea of accusations of arrogance...

Murder is defined as humans killing humans. so their not murdering anything.

Cows are specifically bred to be eaten, while hunting whales causes their extinction. In earlier ages people may have thought that the abundance of the sea's resources could never be exhausted, but folks should know better by now. And if they don't they must be forced.
Btw, eating cows as well as whales is barbarity.

That's what annoys me the most about this, when the Japanese PR come out with "Well you kill and eat cattle, this is basically the same thing" when it clearly isn't. When they can show me proof that they're hunting in a sustainable manner , I'll let them go about their merry way, but I'm not going to take their word for it.

Murder is defined as humans killing humans. so their not murdering anything.

Actually, murder is defined as the intentional, unlawful killing of another entity that can be murdered*.



*Yes, the definition is circular. That's law for you.

So...why isnt anybody jumping in to criticise Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Grenada, Dominica, St. Lucia, and the Faroe Islands?
All of those nations maintain whaling programs not related to native traditions. If you want to include THOSE then add Russia, the US, Indonesia, and every island in the Carribbean to the list.
Japan is harldy alone in this activity.

Whales might disagree.

If that's true, how come we don't hear from them about it?

So...why isnt anybody jumping in to criticise Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Grenada, Dominica, St. Lucia, and the Faroe Islands?

Last I checked, they didn't claim that they were engaging in research. Hell, some of them aren't even signatories to the treaty, and at least one of them has voluntarily disengaged from whaling until populations recover.

If that's true, how come we don't hear from them about it?

Because they don't leave witnesses.

Because they don't leave witnesses.
Chuck Norris is a whale. Well known fact.

humans have rights, animals do not.That's plain stupid. Humans have rights because humans create rights and assign them to themselves. Circular bullshit. Rights are in fact insubstantial.

Murder is defined as humans killing humans. Defined so by self-righteous humans. This definition is pointless.

As long as they're hunted sustainabley, I can't see any problem with whaling. The only reason it's controversial is because it's an animal that a lot of people find appealing. Must protect whales, but screw the animals living their entire lives in cramped factory farms. I can understand wanting to protect them on conservation grounds (Though I don't really know enough about the conservation situation to make a judgement) but a lot of people, like the OP, argue against it on sentimental grounds. I can't see how it's any worse than eating pork, pigs are intelligent. And balenocide.... hahaha!

That's plain stupid. Humans have rights because humans create rights and assign them to themselves. Circular bullshit. Rights are in fact insubstantial.

Defined so by self-righteous humans. This definition is pointless.

I actually do agree with your statement.
But if we decide something doesn't matter to us, we are hardly going to appeal to the silent and universal 'true' 'morality'.

so, anybody got a positive reason to allow this? what good purpose does killing members of just barely recovered species who recently went through a severe genetic bottleneck serve? how is it necessary or even worthwhile at all?

so, anybody got a positive reason to allow this? what good purpose does killing members of just barely recovered species who recently went through a severe genetic bottleneck serve? how is it necessary or even worthwhile at all?

They taste good?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13224146']The only reason it's controversial is because it's an animal that a lot of people find appealing. Must protect whales, but screw the animals living their entire lives in cramped factory farms.

of course, almost nobody will actually support factory farms once the concept is explained to them. certainly not the people opposed to killing whales. so this is more of a blind spot rather than an active bit of hypocrisy

so, anybody got a positive reason to allow this? what good purpose does killing members of just barely recovered species who recently went through a severe genetic bottleneck serve? how is it necessary or even worthwhile at all?
Japanese have always been weird. Comes from their long isolation. :rolleyes:

They taste good?

even if we count tasting good as a viable reason, we aren't exactly short on things that both taste good and haven't recently been hunted to near-extinction.

That's plain stupid. Humans have rights because humans create rights and assign them to themselves. Circular bullshit. Rights are in fact insubstantial.
What's that supposed to mean?

As for how humans have rights because we created them, that's kind of the point. Surely, since humans created rights, shouldn't they belong to humans?

Oh and I noticed you didn't address my other points and instead just quoted an excerpt out of context. Have nothing to say about the other points?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13224146']As long as they're hunted sustainabley, I can't see any problem with whaling. The only reason it's controversial is because it's an animal that a lot of people find appealing. Must protect whales, but screw the animals living their entire lives in cramped factory farms. I can understand wanting to protect them on conservation grounds (Though I don't really know enough about the conservation situation to make a judgement) but a lot of people, like the OP, argue against it on sentimental grounds. I can't see how it's any worse than eating pork, pigs are intelligent. And balenocide.... hahaha!
Agreed. Again, do you see major international protest movements for the "rights" of spiders and ants?

Surely, since humans created rights

More properly, we recognize rights... or we possess (inalienably) modes of thinking which lead us to rights.

The same processes, carried out to their logical conclusions, provide bases for animal rights as well.

Agreed. Again, do you see major international protest movements for the "rights" of spiders and ants?

Neither spiders nor ants have mental capacities remotely comparable to a whale's.

How is this more morally bad than raising meat to eat?

I can understand environmental types protesting the damage to eco-system. I can understand vegetarians protesting..at least they are being consistent.

Regular meat-eaters protesting due to bambi-esque notions about whale are just being hypocrites, IMHO.

Because the methods are inhumane and the whale populations not sufficient to (yet, anyway) sustain such hunting, hence the moratorium.

Lobsters and crawfish are boiled alive for their meat. :eek: :p

They can't feel pain.

They can't feel pain.

So its okay if we dose you up with morphine and then boil you alive?
Cool.
*prepares tartar sauce*

Neither spiders nor ants have mental capacities remotely comparable to a whale's.
And they also reproduces by the hundreds to tens of thousands in single colonies.

I'm siding with Japan on this. Responsible whaling, like responsible deer hunting does not damage the environment or the respective animal populations. So long as you keep tabs on the numbers and set a limit on the number of whales that can be killed in a year you will be able to keep the populations stable and provide an extra source of revenue to the Japanese version of the DNR to keep the local waters and what lives in them healthy and hunt poachers.

People don't understand the dangers that the radical environmentalists pose. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society actually scuttled half of Iceland's whaling fleet, which was only a couple of ships but still caused a lot of problems. They've also rammed Japanese fishing boats, not just the whalers but fisherman in attempts to sink them. Rodney Coronado, who torched a university medical research facility and destroyed over 3 decades of research in just one of many attacks, got his start in the Sea Shepherd's. These are not peaceful protestor's, they've deprived the sick of medical treatment and set fire to people's home's, at least once they even got the address wrong and attacked the wrong people.

The same processes, carried out to their logical conclusions, provide bases for animal rights as well.
How so? You say that we "recognize" rights; rights which animals don't seem to tend to recognize.

Neither spiders nor ants have mental capacities remotely comparable to a whale's.
What's your source for this?

Besides, mental capacity does not equal the extent of deserving of rights; for example the evolutionarily closest animals to us are monkeys, so theoretically the closest in intelligence level, yet monkeys don't have standards on the ages of those involved in sexual activity like ours, therefore by human standards count as paedophiles. (See http://youtube.com/watch?v=wbbBfHRsMBw; granted it's from a paedophile sympathizer, but that doesn't in itself prove it wrong) If we are to suggest that they have rights like ours, then theoretically they should have what else comes with it; but one needs only compare the public reaction to paedophiles to the public reaction to monkeys to realize that something is wrong here.

EDIT: And for the record, my response to the paedophile sympathizer was that the difference is that humans are CIVILIZED.

So its okay if we dose you up with morphine and then boil you alive?
Cool.
*prepares tartar sauce*

Well you know, humans also can feel psychological pain. Like the horror of certain knowledge of imminent gruesome death. Morphine won't make that better.

The ability to know the future is something that generally creatures like lobsters and ants are not going to have at all.

Surely, since humans created rights, shouldn't they belong to humans?

how does that follow?

how does that follow?
It follows because if humans "created" rights, that essentially makes them human property. If we acknowledge rights, however, then it's clear that animals don't, and since criminals not acknowledging others' rights is considered an adequate reason for them losing their rights, the same should be applied to animals.

Japan continues to think it can senselessly murder whales for "research" purposes when the real intent is to satiate their worse-than-barbaric palates. Whaling is a horrible and inhumane activity that should be completely banned. Japan should be heavily fined and sanctioned for the balenocide they commit every year. There is no reason to justify the enormous organized whale hunts. There are other, more humane, food sources. They can claim its tradition all they want, but almost the rest of the world dropped their "tradition" of whale-hunting. It is time for Japan to get out of the 1600s.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071117/ap_on_re_as/japan_hunting_humpbacks)
Japan can kill anything it wants. Unless, of course, somebody wants to do something about it. Which, of course, nobody does. Because, of course, nobody cares. You can stop them killing whales in your water, or whales that you own, but you can't stop them killing their own whales in their own water. Unless, as noted, you assemble something bigger than Japan to force them to stop (or somehow convince them that your irrelevant opinion is more valid than theirs).

So its okay if we dose you up with morphine and then boil you alive?
Cool.
*prepares tartar sauce*

I'd recommend my thigh.

If it's too inhumane to allow the killing of whales, should we try to stop the oversized dolphins from killing the whales too?

Linky to You Tube Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmYMWIXmaz4) you WILL be sad if you think of whales as sea going innocents...

Meat eaters eat animals, it's the way of things. (but in this case, they don't really eat much!)

(as to the video, notice the emotion inciting music and voice over... oh man! ;) )

Not surprised, orcas have always been the black sheep as far as dolphins go.

It follows because if humans "created" rights, that essentially makes them human property. If we acknowledge rights, however, then it's clear that animals don't, and since criminals not acknowledging others' rights is considered an adequate reason for them losing their rights, the same should be applied to animals.

two problems

1) if we can create rights for humans, what is inherently problematic about humans creating rights for other lifeforms or the land itself?
2) how do human children, the crazy, and the disabled fit into your little scheme above?

If it's too inhumane to allow the killing of whales, should we try to stop the oversized dolphins from killing the whales too?

equivocation. the issue is human hunting, not 'the killing of whales'

equivocation. the issue is human hunting, not 'the killing of whales'

Why do dolphins get to hunt baby whales for six hours just to eat the tongue and lower jaw and let everything else rot? What a waste, and you think humans are more inhumane than other creatures? My bet is that we kill them faster AND we value and utilize what we kill far more than nature demands of us...

I oppose this on the basis of ecological sustainability - not in the sense of it being cruel. See, I hold that human rights supersede animal rights. But humans also have a responsibility to protect other species. Being top species has its responsibilities.

Japan can kill anything it wants. Unless, of course, somebody wants to do something about it. Which, of course, nobody does. Because, of course, nobody cares. You can stop them killing whales in your water, or whales that you own, but you can't stop them killing their own whales in their own water. Unless, as noted, you assemble something bigger than Japan to force them to stop (or somehow convince them that your irrelevant opinion is more valid than theirs).

can does not imply should

Why do dolphins get to hunt baby whales for six hours just to eat the tongue and lower jaw and let everything else rot? What a waste, and you think humans are more inhumane than other creatures? My bet is that we kill them faster AND we value and utilize what we kill far more than nature demands of us...

we have moral obligations that other animals do not.

See, I hold that human rights supersede animal rights.

in what sense?

we have moral obligations that other animals do not.
I agree. But in this case, we too live on the planet earth, we are not outside of it looking in. We are subjects in our own aquarium, if you will, not just the guardians of it from the outside. By necessity we too consume what we protect. Be it ranching, farming or through hunting regulations, we do regulate our behavior even when we don’t always agree with each other on how that should be accomplished.

Whales, like anything else, could be regulated for sustainability purposes, and when harvested, harvested as humanely as possible and utilized as fully as possible when they are harvested.

I support Sea Shepherd's efforts in this regard.

In my opinion, hunting an endangered species is irresponsible to the point of being morally repugnant. Whether or not the various species of whales should be hunted if they had a healthy population is irrelevent. The fact is that many species of whales are endangered, and so there should be a complete moratorium on hunting them, lest they go extinct.

By necessity we too consume what we protect.

it is necessary to hunt whales?

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/94/45/23294594.jpg

THEY WANT TO MURDER WHALES?!?!?! :eek: ZOMG!

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/94/45/23294594.jpg

THEY WANT TO MURDER WHALES?!?!?! :eek: ZOMG!

hawwt. :p

it is necessary to hunt whales?

Is it necessary to eat chicken eggs? The point being, who gets to judge?

Creatures should have a right to exist in their natural environment. Extincting any animal species to take it's land or take the food from its mouth is unacceptable.

Their rights to exist for their own benefit, not ours should be in proportion to their intelligence.

The intelligence of whales and other sea mammals is difficult to assess, but I feel whales fall just below the great apes, and deserve near-human rights.

Therefore, I'm in favour of piracy. Of sinking whaling boats on the high seas, rescuing the crew and offloading the fuel oil if possible, but simply torpedoing them if that's what it takes.

*gulp*

I should probably clarify my position:
I am not actually for the hunting of whales at this time. They're numbers are far too low, and it's stupid to hunt something to extinction/close to extinction. However, I really would like to go whale hunting someday, the old-fashioned way, when the numbers are back up there. It would seriously be almost as amazing as hunting a woolly mammoth.

can does not imply should And 'should' is irrelevant in the face of 'does'.

Is it necessary to eat chicken eggs? The point being, who gets to judge?

of course not. now that we've got that out of the way, we must address the issue of what we ought do. and since we clearly cannot accept that whatever we can do we should be allowed to do, we are going to need reasons and justifications. it seems to me that eating chicken eggs is going to be significantly easier to justify (assuming it is possible) than hunting whales that just made it back from the brink of extinction.

And 'should' is irrelevant in the face of 'does'.

bullshit, and you know it.

Is it necessary to eat chicken eggs? The point being, who gets to judge?

A better and more relevant question is "is it necessary to kill hundreds of whales for 'research'?" The answer is no.

I support Sea Shepherd's efforts in this regard.
Paul Watson was kicked out of Greenpeace because he attacked sealers during a protest campaign and temporarily cost Greenpeace their tax-exemption status.

In 1986 Sea Shepherd tried to set Faroese police on fire when they were told to move their boat. They shot at the police, threw flares at them, dumped gas on them, and threw more signal flares at them in an attempt to set the police on fire. All because they were obstructing traffic in Faroese territorial waters and were asked to move.

They have claimed to have sunk 10 ships by ramming them or with mines. They even display the names of the ships and the flags they flew under on the side of their ship, the Farley Mowat.

What they are doing is beyond activism, it is terrorism. They have a long history of violence and cruelty. I'd honestly be suprised if they haven't killed someone already.

In my opinion, hunting an endangered species is irresponsible to the point of being morally repugnant. Whether or not the various species of whales should be hunted if they had a healthy population is irrelevent. The fact is that many species of whales are endangered, and so there should be a complete moratorium on hunting them, lest they go extinct.
Quotas, limits on the number of whales permitted to be culled, would allow the numbers to grow until the species are no longer endangered. Requiring a license would provide revenue to a department of natural resources which could patrol for poachers, monitor populations and maintain a healthy environment, and alter the permitted number of whales harvested every year based on the populations.

When you criminalize that which is not a real crime you will still create real criminals. Better to legalize and regulate it so at least you can monitor and control the situation.

What they are doing is beyond activism, it is...

effective.

Who regularly eats dogs?

Killing whales is like killing elephants or monkeys or humans. They are an intelligent species that are quite aware of their existence. Cows don't know left from right.

How can you say this about cows. In any case, humans kill humans all the time, and very few people complain about it. In fact, there's more people protesting the killing of whales than their are killing humans.



"It makes us money" is not a good reason to do things.

Maybe not, but it's the reason for a lot of things that we, and others do.


Cows are specifically bred to be eaten, while hunting whales causes their extinction. In earlier ages people may have thought that the abundance of the sea's resources could never be exhausted, but folks should know better by now. And if they don't they must be forced.
Btw, eating cows as well as whales is barbarity.

Well why don't they raise whales then!

Creatures should have a right to exist in their natural environment. Extincting any animal species to take it's land or take the food from its mouth is unacceptable.

Their rights to exist for their own benefit, not ours should be in proportion to their intelligence.

The intelligence of whales and other sea mammals is difficult to assess, but I feel whales fall just below the great apes, and deserve near-human rights.

Therefore, I'm in favour of piracy. Of sinking whaling boats on the high seas, rescuing the crew and offloading the fuel oil if possible, but simply torpedoing them if that's what it takes.

*gulp*

So everything gets its rights based on its intelligence? Are people with mental disorders lower beings than you or I?



In any case, I have to say that I agree with Aryvartha's earlier post, if you eat other meat, and you're opposing this, it's rather inconsistent. It's no less barbaric than raising animals simply to be slaughtered and processed in a factory. The only reasonable argument I've heard so far is we need to keep the whale population balanced (not decreasing really fast). But honestly, if the Japanese like whale so much, why wouldn't they make sure they have some left to hunt?

effective.
Actually it's criminal. It's terrorism. It's for sure attempted murder and probably murder considering the number of ships they've sunk, not all of them in port. And it isn't effective since they haven't really stopped anything. They've just hurt a lot of people, destroyed at least 10 ships, probably killed someone by now, and have a long history of violence.

And you'll love this:
1993: Paul Watson orders the crew on board the Sea Shepherd vessel “Edward Abbey” (formerly US Navy) to open cannon fire at a Japanese fishing vessel.
The following transcript stems from the 1993 Yorkshire Television documentary “Defenders of the Wild - Ocean Rider”

Paul Watson (over the radio): We are going to ram you! Stand clear!

A Taiwanese drift-netter (over the radio): “Why are you crushing our ship?”

Paul Watson: “You are killing too many dolphins and you insulted us by calling us creeps.”

From another confrontation with a Japanese fishing vessel:
Narrator: Sea Shepherd is ready to ram again. Now Paul Watson wants the Edward Abbey to fire directly at the drift-netters.

Watson: “Fire a couple in the stern right at the water line."

What's your source for this?

A basic understanding of anatomy. A whale has a brain. A spider or an ant does not.

I'm siding with Japan on this. Responsible whaling, like responsible deer hunting does not damage the environment or the respective animal populations. So long as you keep tabs on the numbers and set a limit on the number of whales that can be killed in a year you will be able to keep the populations stable and provide an extra source of revenue to the Japanese version of the DNR to keep the local waters and what lives in them healthy and hunt poachers.

At the present moment it is impossible to hunt whales sustainably. All species are in extreme danger, and as such to claim that killing any at all will not matter displays a gross ignorance of the subject.

In any case, I have to say that I agree with Aryvartha's earlier post, if you eat other meat, and you're opposing this, it's rather inconsistent. It's no less barbaric than raising animals simply to be slaughtered and processed in a factory.

Thank you.

But honestly, if the Japanese like whale so much, why wouldn't they make sure they have some left to hunt?

Never underestimate human stupidity.

Indians nearly hunted their national animal - the tiger - to extinction in India. At one point there were only a few hundred left in the whole country where thousands used to be.

Thank you.



Never underestimate human stupidity.

Indians nearly hunted their national animal - the tiger - to extinction in India. At one point there were only a few hundred left in the whole country where thousands used to be.

Still, those Japanese are pretty damn smart.

Actually it's criminal. It's terrorism.

and this demonstrates it's ineffectiveness, how?

And it isn't effective since they haven't really stopped anything.

except for all those ships that you claim they stopped...

and this demonstrates it's ineffectiveness, how?
Were Stalin's and Hitler's genocide campaign's effective in erradicating capitalism and the Jews respectively?

[/QUOTE]except for all those ships that you claim they stopped...[/QUOTE]
Actually they claim to have sunk 10 ships. The SSCS claimed responsibility for sinking half the Iceland whaling fleet but there was insufficient evidence to convict Paul Watson even though he took credit for the planning. When he was informed about the charges that he could be facing and the penalties they carried he recanted and was released but declared persona non grata in Iceland. So they reduced Icelands whaling fleet by half in the late 80s and sank 8 more but what about all the other ships still out there? They sometimes get harrassed by Watson (who is not a vegan and interprets veganism as a form of philosophical lunacy) and crew (who he's been in many hilarious disputes with) but are still out there. Oh, he also carries an AK-47 and a large hunting knife when he's out on onw of his "protests".

The problem with whaling is the same with drugs. It's no more a real crime than hunting a deer and is a much more humane way of killing than what animals do, eating their prey to death (biting and chewing until the prey dies). By making it illegal you remove all regulation and leave those responsible for regulating use of natural resources underfunded and unable to meet the demands placed upon them.

How so?

Because human beings don't get rights because they are humans.

The simple fact that we are humans gives us nothing at all. It's purely an arbitrary fact.

You say that we "recognize" rights; rights which animals don't seem to tend to recognize.

That's because most animals are incapable of abstract moral reasoning.

But that isn't the basis of rights either. Very young humans are incapable of abstract moral reasoning too, yet abusing and torturing them isn't acceptable.

What's your source for this?

:rolleyes:

for example the evolutionarily closest animals to us are monkeys,

No, the evolutionarily closest animals to us are chimpanzees, and after them the rest of the great apes.

Monkeys are part of the same order as humans, but there are much closer relatives.

If we are to suggest that they have rights like ours, then theoretically they should have what else comes with it;

Not at all.

Autonomous rationality (basically, making decisions for reasons, on the basis of judgment) is the prerequisite for moral agency, for being obliged by morality and being held accountable to it. Chimpanzees and other very intelligent animals may be somewhat capable of this, but not the way humans are.

To be an entity who "counts" in moral consideration, all that is necessary is sentience: enough feeling such that we cannot accept brutal treatment from the perspective of that entity.

but one needs only compare the public reaction to paedophiles to the public reaction to monkeys to realize that something is wrong here.

Yes--your slippery slope.

And 'should' is irrelevant in the face of 'does'.

From the perspective of what will happen, perhaps not.

From the perspective of what should happen, it is absolutely relevant... and that means that it is relevant to the most crucial question facing us: the question of decision-making, of what we should do.

Maybe not, but it's the reason for a lot of things that we, and others do.

Is this some kind of excuse?

Actually it's criminal. It's terrorism.

If there is one area where the state's laws have no legitimacy whatsoever, it is the realm of animal rights.

There it is exhibited by both a procedural failure (by their nature non-human animals can't vote and represent themselves) and a "results" failure (many non-human animals have their welfare completely discounted... and the distinction between the ones that count and the ones that don't is pretty much arbitrary.)

Just as people had no obligation to obey the laws protecting the "property" of Southern slave-owners, people today have no obligation to obey the laws protecting those who grievously violate the rights of non-human animals.

It's for sure attempted murder and probably murder considering the number of ships they've sunk, not all of them in port.

Considering that they try for property destruction, not killing people, it's neither attempted murder nor actual murder.

But honestly, if the Japanese like whale so much, why wouldn't they make sure they have some left to hunt?
Quite honestly, the Japanese don't like whale so much. The current complaint by the whaling groups in Japan is that modern Japanese children and younger Japanese don't eat the whale that is being caught, preferring more Western style foods (And, as usual, the blame is laid on McDonald's). This is why the whaling industry is trying to get it into Japanese school lunches. There's actually some debate in Japan as the last few hauls haven't been able to be sold to the Japanese markets due to lack of demand and re currently sitting on ice in warehouses or sold for dog food.

The FA denies this of course.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20070211x3.html

Were Stalin's and Hitler's genocide campaign's effective in erradicating capitalism and the Jews respectively?

fairly. effective ≠ good

So they reduced Icelands whaling fleet by half in the late 80s and sank 8 more but what about all the other ships still out there?

yeah! and whats so good about medicine too? there are still diseases, aren't there?

Were Stalin's and Hitler's genocide campaign's effective in erradicating capitalism and the Jews respectively?

Stalin's aim wasn't eradicating capitalism, it was solidifying his own power, and it worked at achieving that objective.

While Hitler didn't manage to exterminate the Jews, he did annihilate the old and massive Jewish community in Eastern Europe... it just doesn't exist anymore, nothing remotely comparable to what once was there.

Not that this has anything to do with whaling.

Killing whales is disgusting. And trying to find excuses for such barbarity is equally disgusting.
Are you God to determine which life is more valuable than another? How dare you put human interests over those of other species? Your arrogance blinds you.

if i EVER see you kill a cockroach..........

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wbbBfHRsMBw;

Oh my god... that is your source?

:rolleyes:

Japan continues to think it can senselessly murder whales for "research" purposes when the real intent is to satiate their worse-than-barbaric palates. Whaling is a horrible and inhumane activity that should be completely banned. Japan should be heavily fined and sanctioned for the balenocide they commit every year. There is no reason to justify the enormous organized whale hunts. There are other, more humane, food sources. They can claim its tradition all they want, but almost the rest of the world dropped their "tradition" of whale-hunting. It is time for Japan to get out of the 1600s.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071117/ap_on_re_as/japan_hunting_humpbacks)

A poll that leaves two options to agree with you and one to say you are biased? Mmmm... I vote bias.

As for the issue of Japan and whaling....

1) Your OP uses weasel words ("senselessly murder") and weasely neologisms ("balenocide"). Avoid such loaded words in debate.

2) I haven't bothered to read through the thread, as I've seen NSG do so before. If, by some amazing stoke, a new argument has come up, please let me know.

3) Japan's "research" whaling program is a sham. This is not unusual.

4) I've eaten whale once. It wasn't that good.

5) Whaling should be restricted in order to restore stocks.

6) Almost all, if not all, whale products have suitable alternatives.

7) Whale meat has dangersously high concentrations of mercury and should be avoided.

Neither do comatose, (severely) developmentally disabled, or infant homo sapiens sapiens. But they still have rights.

And sentience.

Neither spiders nor ants have mental capacities remotely comparable to a whale's.


Neither do comatose, (severely) developmentally disabled, or infant homo sapiens sapiens. But they still have rights. The "mental capacities" measure thus seems to be an inadequate standard.

Neither do comatose, (severely) developmentally disabled, or infant homo sapiens sapiens. But they still have rights. The "mental capacities" measure thus seems to be an inadequate standard.

Ants and spiders do breed a lot more quickly though, we'd have to try very hard to stomp them all.

Because human beings don't get rights because they are humans.

The simple fact that we are humans gives us nothing at all. It's purely an arbitrary fact.


"is a human" is an arbitrary standard. However, its value lies in the fact that it is more conducive to the peaceful protection of rights, or is less arbitrary, than other methods like "I have this right because the weapon I'm holding says so" (the equivalent for many non-human species would be something along the lines of "I have this right because I can crush your windpipe with my jaws and teeth.")

Thus, the standard is still of value because it provides a mechanism for defusing the gigantic "Mexican standoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff)" that is the assertion of rights in the state of nature.

So "Human beings get rights because they are human beings" should not be interpreted so literally. What is actually being said is "We've agreed on a rule that assists us in pursuing and protecting rights without necessitating lethal violence."

Of course, we end up settling for the "is a human" standard because that's as general/universal a rule as we can get before we run into the problem of communicating with non-human species for the purpose of entering into agreements with them concerning the protection of rights. I certainly don't believe that this barrier is impossible to breach; having lived for a very long time with pet dogs and rats, I understand their behavior to an extent that I think very much constitutes communication. At least to some extent, domestication of this sort is an agreement between human and non-human for the purpose of mutual protection of rights (anyone who has tried to handle a rat on one of her bad days will understand why the agreement is mutually enforcable :D ). Might even call it a "social contract."

And sentience.

Spiders and ants are capable of responding to sensory stimulus. And they are self-aware enough for the purposes of survival, individually and as a species. That's all that sentience is.

What you probably mean is sapience, but that would be too arbitrarily human-biased for the purposes of your argument.

Ants and spiders do breed a lot more quickly though, we'd have to try very hard to stomp them all.

So, all we have to do is improve health care and birth rate, and it's open season on homo sapiens sapiens.

The "there's a lot of them" standard seems also rather insufficient.

However, its value lies in the fact that it is more conducive to the peaceful protection of rights, or less arbitrary

Circular.

We don't care about the "peaceful protection of rights" until you can give us a reason for those rights in the first place.

So "Human beings get rights because they are human beings" should not be interpreted so literally. What is actually being said is "We've agreed on a rule that assists us in pursuing and protecting rights without necessitating lethal violence."

What's the danger of "lethal violence" from infants? Or the severely disabled? Can we kill them off because we don't need social contract protection from them?

Of course, we end up settling for the "is a human" standard because that's as general/universal a rule as we can get before we run into the problem of communicating with non-human species for the purpose of entering into agreements with them concerning the protection of rights.

Oh, so all of this is based on a material "agreement" between humans?

Interesting. Among other things it seems to conveniently justify the status quo of power relations, whatever they happen to be--if you have the power to defend yourself, it doesn't matter what you do to everyone else. (If you don't, of course, you probably won't be in power anyway).

Therefore, genocide, for instance, is perfectly acceptable. The social contract is breached, the state of war is entered into. One side wins, the other loses. There's no agreement anymore, and since that's the only basis for human rights, who cares what happens to the losers?

Social contract theory only makes sense when justifying political systems, not when justifying morality... on a fundamental level, all the good social contract theories are in fact founded on a prior conception of morality.

Spiders and ants are capable of responding to sensory stimulus.

Yes, but they are not capable of feeling the way humans (and whales, and all mammals) are.

We have machines that "are capable of responding to sensory stimulus."

What you probably mean is sapience

No, that's not what I mean at all. Sapience has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

All this whining about some over-glorified, supersized sea cows... I could understand maybe if they were hunting them to extinction, but that's not the case. This argument is of little more then the usual fallacies of "animal rights" dogma. And makes things even worse. It really is time for the animal rights loonies to come out of thier fantasy worlds.


On a side note. Sea Shepherd probably isn't the best organization to use here. There are no doubt far better, legitimate, groups which could be used as an example. Sea Shepherd is a violent extremist group, who's actions and rantings border on terroristic. Run and founded by a raving maniac/lunatic, an extremist ideologue of almost the highest order.

---


I think there are way more important things in the world than 50 whales getting killed.
I think there are way more important things in the world than 50 whales getting killed.
I think there are way more important things in the world than 50 whales getting killed.
QFT! x100

So, all we have to do is improve health care and birth rate, and it's open season on homo sapiens sapiens.

The "there's a lot of them" standard seems also rather insufficient.

Oh crap... I meant to quote the insects vs whales argument.

Responsible whalingThere is no such thing.

All this whining about some over-glorified, supersized sea cows... Somebody should harpoon you for a change. after all you're just some over-glorified, mediumsized town monkey.

I could understand maybe if they were hunting them to extinction, but that's not the case. Yes, it is the case.

Circular.

We don't care about the "peaceful protection of rights" until you can give us a reason for those rights in the first place.


The reason is survival. My, including our, survival is more secure or likely to be successful to the extent that we find a way to do so peacefully.


What's the danger of "lethal violence" from infants? Or the severely disabled? Can we kill them off because we don't need social contract protection from them?


Infants and the severely disabled don't pose a danger. But they are under threat of danger from those more capable. They too have the same right to peaceful survival as anyone else.


Oh, so all of this is based on a material "agreement" between humans?


On the contrary. If anything, what I said states rather clearly that all of this is based on a material "agreement" inside of and between the various species. The interspecies communications barrier is a significant one, but not one that I think is impossible to break through.


Interesting. Among other things it seems to conveniently justify the status quo of power relations, whatever they happen to be--if you have the power to defend yourself, it doesn't matter what you do to everyone else. (If you don't, of course, you probably won't be in power anyway).


Since the purpose of the agreement is to limit power, I fail to see how this is so.


Therefore, genocide, for instance, is perfectly acceptable. The social contract is breached, the state of war is entered into. One side wins, the other loses. There's no agreement anymore, and since that's the only basis for human rights, who cares what happens to the losers?


Is there any practical senario whereby all the individuals constituting an entire people or species would collectively and simultaneously attack me, requiring me to defend myself on such a massive scale, or is this all just nonsensical hyperbole?

Breach of the social contract justifies self defense, and, barring nonsensical rhetorical devices, genocide is never defensive in nature.


Social contract theory only makes sense when justifying political systems, not when justifying morality... on a fundamental level, all the good social contract theories are in fact founded on a prior conception of morality.


Social contract theory is based on the recognition of the fact that survival is better guaranteed outside of the state of war, anyway. Morality is just another useful tool for doing exactly that.


Yes, but they are not capable of feeling the way humans (and whales, and all mammals) are.


"Feeling."

Seems rather fuzzy, arbitrary, and ill-defined to me (kinda like the standards of those who defend unlimited whale hunting...)

Regular meat-eaters protesting due to bambi-esque notions about whale are just being hypocrites, IMHO.

I disagree, preservation of what is seen as majestic or beautiful is about the only moral motive that makes any sense, along with conservation: As long as we have only minor ethical problems about causing suffering, torturing or killing other people I completely fail to see why animals should be - in average - allowed more rights than fellow human beings?


Therefore in my opinion whale, elephant or monkey hunting is OK as long as it is done for food, doesn't endanger or severely disable the species and their consumption safe for the human being (eg. disease wise it's generally unhealthy to eat animals with long lifespans or who are near to us physiologically) - For that matter, I'd rather limit normal fishing than whale hunting because it's less sustainable than controlled whale hunting.

Of course, all cute, majestic and funny animals should be protected, coz they make good documentaries :p

I disagree, preservation of what is seen as majestic or beautiful is about the only moral motive that makes any sense, along with conservation: As long as we have only minor ethical problems about causing suffering, torturing or killing other people I completely fail to see why animals should be - in average - allowed more rights than fellow human beings?


Therefore in my opinion whale, elephant or monkey hunting is OK as long as it is done for food, doesn't endanger or severely disable the species and their consumption safe for the human being (eg. disease wise it's generally unhealthy to eat animals with long lifespans or who are near to us physiologically) - For that matter, I'd rather limit normal fishing than whale hunting because it's less sustainable than controlled whale hunting.

Of course, all cute, majestic and funny animals should be protected, coz they make good documentaries :p

Why don't you allow hunting humans for food? They are neither majestic, nor cute, nor funny. Why allow humans more rights than other fellow beings? And hunting humans surely wouldn't endanger that species.

The reason is survival. My (including our) survival is more secure or likely to be successful to the extent that we find a way to do so peacefully.

Historically there are a great variety of "peaceful" arrangements of power that involve nothing like "human rights" as we understand them.

Infants and the severely disabled don't pose a danger. But they are under threat of danger from those more capable.

It's a contract, right? And the reason I accept the contract is so I can survive.

But infants and the severely disabled don't threaten my survival. So why shouldn't I kill them?

On the contrary. If anything, what I said states rather clearly that all of this is based on a material "agreement" inside of and between the various species.

My point was focused on the "material agreement" part.

Since the purpose of the agreement is to limit power, I fail to see how this is so.

Because the reason to abide by human rights is survival.

If I don't need to abide by human rights to survive, why bother?

Breach of the social contract justifies self defense

Oh, only that? Really? Then obviously you have a basis for morality beyond the social contract. Otherwise there are no rules once it is gone.

"Feeling."

Seems rather fuzzy,

The difference between whales and spiders in terms of nervous systems is massive. Nothing wrong with "fuzzy" in that context.

arbitrary

Feeling is the only non-arbitrary moral consideration.

Why don't you allow hunting humans for food? Why allow humans more rights than other fellow beings? And hunting humans surely wouldn't endanger that species.

Because of health risks, like I posted. ;)

Technically speaking hunting humans for pleasure would be a good thing for the planet, especially if we hunted the rich who like to spend big, the diseased Africans and overbreeding Asians.

A big problem with the aforementioned scenario would be that the hunted would fight back, probably collectively, and would make a big fuss about it.

They are neither majestic, nor cute, nor funny.

I also object to this: All humans are majestic, cute or at the very least funny! :)

But infants and the severely disabled don't threaten my survival. So why shouldn't I kill them?


Because it would violate the terms of your contract with me. Infanticide poses an obvious threat to the continued survival of the species (the social contract also concerns collective survival, not just your personal survival. That is why it is "social."). A willingness to kill infants and the severely disabled also suggests an unacceptably high chance of willingness to kill me too.


My point was focused on the "material agreement" part.


Please explain.


If I don't need to abide by human rights to survive, why bother?


You should prefer to abide, or you will find yourself on the recieving end of collective and individual defensive measures which will likely threaten your survival. Since I assume you're a rational individual, you will tend to prefer survival.


Oh, only that? Really? Then obviously you have a basis for morality beyond the social contract. Otherwise there are no rules once it is gone.


Assuming I'm not insane, one shouldn't think that once the social contract is breached I will desire to go on a wonton killing rampage. I pursue the social contract in the first place because I fear the wonton killing rampage and want to escape it. Limiting myself to self defense against a direct threat in the event of social contract violation is not really a matter of morality, so much as it is my personal desire to not expose myself to any more violence than I absolutely have to in order to survive.


The difference between whales and spiders in terms of nervous systems is massive. Nothing wrong with "fuzzy" in that context.


But it sounds like you've only broadened the definition of those deserving of rights slightly from "humans" to "those with complex nervous systems." When compared to those who advocate unlimited whale hunting, this is only a shift in scale, not a fundamental moral difference. You're both still relying on some arbitrary physical characteristic. Why are you allowed to do this while Hayteria is not (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13224896&postcount=130)?

Because it would violate the terms of your contract with me.

It does? So can I put conditions on my contract with you, too?

How about "don't kill whales"?

Infanticide poses an obvious threat to the continued survival of the species

So? Why should I care about the survival of the species?

A willingness to kill infants and the severely disabled also suggests an unacceptably high chance of willingness to kill me too.

No, it really doesn't. Especially not if our primary basis for not killing each other is the threat of retaliation.

And this reason, if valid, applies to killing animals, too.

You should prefer to abide, or you will find yourself on the recieving end of collective and individual defensive measures which will likely threaten your survival.

You just totally ignored the point.

Again, historically there have been plenty of "peaceful" arrangements of power that did not involve respect for human rights... where the powerful were powerful enough that the powerless people they oppressed could not fight back.

The twisted element of the self-interested logic for the social contract is that instead of seeing such an arrangement as particularly evil, it must instead be viewed as one of many possible legitimate social arrangements... if I'm one of the powerful, I have no reason to give a shit about the powerless.

Since I assume you're a rational individual, you will tend to prefer survival.

Seeking survival has nothing to do with rationality. Indeed, rationality is the primary way we can recognize that sometimes there are more important things.

Limiting myself to self defense against a direct threat in the event of social contract violation is not really a matter of morality, so much as it is my personal desire to not expose myself to any more violence than I absolutely have to in order to survive.

Well, fine. That's a personal desire.

Now, how do you deal with the fact that plenty of instances of sectarian violence between groups end in genocide? The social contract has been breached, there are no rules, and clearly the people committing genocide do not share this personal desire of yours. Is that perfectly alright?

But it sounds like you've only broadened the definition of those deserving of rights slightly from "humans" to "those with complex nervous systems."

No. Every entity is deserving of moral consideration--ants as well as whales.

But the kind of consideration we give them depends on their capacity to feel. I might value ant feelings as much as I value whale feelings... but there's a hell of a lot more of the latter than there is of the former.

You're both still relying on some arbitrary physical characteristic.

No.

Morality is founded in a certain kind of empathy, a willingness to imagine ourselves in the place of others and consider whether we would accept certain things if they were done to us.

In this consideration, the subjective element of the entity in question--most importantly, what it feels--is absolutely crucial.

Because it would violate the terms of your contract with me. Infanticide poses an obvious threat to the continued survival of the species (the social contract also concerns collective survival, not just your personal survival. That is why it is "social."). A willingness to kill infants and the severely disabled also suggests an unacceptably high chance of willingness to kill me too.And? You have not yet proven to be better than a whale. So why spare you if whales may be hunted?

You have not yet proven to be better than a whale.


Since I haven't aimed to prove any such thing, my failure to do so is not surprising. I brought up the idea of the social contract as a reason/mechanism for protecting non-human species, in fact.


So why spare you if whales may be hunted?

Have I actually made this claim? My arguing with someone who disagrees with the statement "whales may be hunted" does not necessitate my believing that "whales may be hunted."

Since I haven't aimed to prove any such thing, my failure to do so is not surprising. I brought up the idea of the social contract as a reason/mechanism for protecting non-human species, in fact.



Have I actually made this claim? My arguing with someone who disagrees with the statement "whales may be hunted" does not necessitate my believing that "whales may be hunted."The point is that there is no contract. And abusing such anthropocentric shit to create reasons for or against killing is despicable. Don't do to other creatures what you don't want to have done to yourself. That's all reason that's needed and it only has to do with oneself. Plain and simple, no social contract needed.

*...*

In 1986 Sea Shepherd tried to set Faroese police on fire when they were told to move their boat. *...*

What they are doing is beyond activism, it is terrorism. They have a long history of violence and cruelty. I'd honestly be suprised if they haven't killed someone already.*...*

Endangering life in the process of destroying property does not qualify as terrorism.

Only by a modern US definition can the destruction of property be considered "terrorism." The Oxford English Dictionary (and the dictionary of Australia, the Macquarie) define it as "violence intended to create terror."

Destruction of property is not violence, and the very fact that of ten ships sunk, you cannot show a single life lost, proves that the intention of Sea Shepherd is to destroy property, not to induce terror in anyone.

If you qualify the term, eg "economic terrorism", you can make that case. It's not terrorism.

I need hardly remind you of the dangers of misidentifying the enemy.

==================

How can you say this about cows. In any case, humans kill humans all the time, and very few people complain about it. In fact, there's more people protesting the killing of whales than their are killing humans.

Oh really?

People kill other people for deeply serious reasons, though occasionally for frivolous ones. Most importantly, people kill other people for a wide range of reasons, and we only protest about it when there is no other option.

Law enforcement is an option to reduce killing of people. Welfare is an option to reduce killing to survive. War-crimes trial is an option to reduce ethnic cleansing, and so it goes on.

Whaling has one real reason: to make money by selling whale products. Whether that is a legitimate business or not (eg, dealing illegal drugs is a business, but not a legitimate one) ... there is a single clear way to stop it, and that's to make it unprofitable.

Those who protest are just like anti-war or anti-globalization protestors: they either don't know a viable way to stop it, or they aren't prepared to make the personal sacrifice to stop the killing of whales.

So everything gets its rights based on its intelligence? Are people with mental disorders lower beings than you or I?

Sadly, yes. Look at the most common insult used on NSG: "idiot." It's an insult which was once a medical term for a person in a certain low range of intelligence, as measured by intelligence tests. It's ad hominem, it is used to dismiss an opinion based on a characterization of the person who speaks it.

But we aren't going to give each whale an IQ test before slaughtering it, so we must treat each whale as a representative of it's species, as potentially as intelligent as the smartest whale ever.

Human rights are more clearly defined, because we understand each other far better than we understand whales. A simple IQ test is not, for these rights so much more relevant to each of us, sufficient to deprive a human of all human rights.

Yet we do. We really do. We grant them a livelihood, in the form of a disability pension (oh, is that an "additional right", a "right beyond human rights" ... well gee, think about that). We deny them the right to parenthood in some cases. We deny them the right to make certain decisions in their own interest.

You may point to the trend, wherein people with mental disability are gaining rights, over the past decades being granted more not less human rights, and I'd agree that this is good. We do this because we can, because it benefits ALL of us to be considered equals, humans. This is the essence of an open society, to not be judged by what we are now, but by our potential.

An 'idiot' has the potential to be a normal human being, to participate as an equal in human society. A whale does not. There will always be a clear distinction, based on the genome, and I'm not arguing for whales to have full human rights.

Rather, like people of low intelligence, I'm arguing for whales to have supplementary rights, among them a right to sufficient food and free accomodation, rights which may be mentioned in the UN Charter for humans but in practice are not granted anywhere.

In any case, I have to say that I agree with Aryvartha's earlier post, if you eat other meat, and you're opposing this, it's rather inconsistent. It's no less barbaric than raising animals simply to be slaughtered and processed in a factory. The only reasonable argument I've heard so far is we need to keep the whale population balanced (not decreasing really fast). But honestly, if the Japanese like whale so much, why wouldn't they make sure they have some left to hunt?

Or, as you said above, farm them. In territorial waters.

What fishing is doing to the oceans is nothing less than "the tragedy of the commons."
Declaring it wilderness unless owned and policed by nations is the best solution, the only way to avoid it being turned to desert.

===================

Actually it's criminal. It's terrorism. It's for sure attempted murder and probably murder considering the number of ships they've sunk, not all of them in port. And it isn't effective since they haven't really stopped anything. They've just hurt a lot of people, destroyed at least 10 ships, probably killed someone by now, and have a long history of violence.

And you'll love this:
1993: Paul Watson orders the crew on board the Sea Shepherd vessel “Edward Abbey” (formerly US Navy) to open cannon fire at a Japanese fishing vessel.
The following transcript stems from the 1993 Yorkshire Television documentary “Defenders of the Wild - Ocean Rider”

Paul Watson (over the radio): We are going to ram you! Stand clear!

A Taiwanese drift-netter (over the radio): “Why are you crushing our ship?”

Paul Watson: “You are killing too many dolphins and you insulted us by calling us creeps.”

From another confrontation with a Japanese fishing vessel:
Narrator: Sea Shepherd is ready to ram again. Now Paul Watson wants the Edward Abbey to fire directly at the drift-netters.

Watson: “Fire a couple in the stern right at the water line."

Sounds fine to me. No risk of life, mess up the screws so they can't fish any more and must ask for a tow.

=====================

Quite honestly, the Japanese don't like whale so much. The current complaint by the whaling groups in Japan is that modern Japanese children and younger Japanese don't eat the whale that is being caught, preferring more Western style foods (And, as usual, the blame is laid on McDonald's). This is why the whaling industry is trying to get it into Japanese school lunches. There's actually some debate in Japan as the last few hauls haven't been able to be sold to the Japanese markets due to lack of demand and re currently sitting on ice in warehouses or sold for dog food.

Well hooray for the Japanese, and to hell with their "traditional practices."

=================

A poll that leaves two options to agree with you and one to say you are biased? Mmmm... I vote bias.

As for the issue of Japan and whaling....

1) Your OP uses weasel words ("senselessly murder") and weasely neologisms ("balenocide"). Avoid such loaded words in debate.

2) I haven't bothered to read through the thread, as I've seen NSG do so before. If, by some amazing stoke, a new argument has come up, please let me know.

3) Japan's "research" whaling program is a sham. This is not unusual.

4) I've eaten whale once. It wasn't that good.

5) Whaling should be restricted in order to restore stocks.

6) Almost all, if not all, whale products have suitable alternatives.

7) Whale meat has dangersously high concentrations of mercury and should be avoided.

Absolutely. I'd call that a thread-win, except my blood is up and want to rehash the arguments I haven't heard yet.

=================

Neither do comatose, (severely) developmentally disabled, or infant homo sapiens sapiens. But they still have rights. The "mental capacities" measure thus seems to be an inadequate standard.

Potential capacities then. And among ourselves, we are quite rightly wary of the "thin end of the wedge" which could eventually deprive one of us of our rights as members of species homo.

==============

All this whining about some over-glorified, supersized sea cows... I could understand maybe if they were hunting them to extinction, but that's not the case. This argument is of little more then the usual fallacies of "animal rights" dogma. And makes things even worse. It really is time for the animal rights loonies to come out of thier fantasy worlds.

Oh, go swim with sharks. Whoever taught you to talk made a big mistake.

On a side note. Sea Shepherd probably isn't the best organization to use here. There are no doubt far better, legitimate, groups which could be used as an example. Sea Shepherd is a violent extremist group, who's actions and rantings border on terroristic.

Kind-of. "Violent" is correct, and "bordering-on" is too. Congrats on not making the fallacious step "illegal property destruction == terrorism"

They're pirates. Aaaaar!

I'd be OK with capturing the crew and selling them into slavery. Because I am very rational on this subject ...

How about "don't kill whales"?
...
And this reason, if valid, applies to killing animals, too.


I think I am in fact rapidly approaching that very conclusion, even before having entered this thread. That would essentially be the point of suggesting a "social contract" like arrangement between species, anyway (this was the intent behind the relevant post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13224963&postcount=140)).


No, it really doesn't. Especially not if our primary basis for not killing each other is the threat of retaliation.


I would retaliate against your killing someone else exactly because I fear for myself. Sympathy is thus key to making the social contract work.


You just totally ignored the point.


Or I misunderstood it, or accidently missed it, or was distracted by something else, or made some other kind of mistake. Being a mere human, I am capable of committing them.


Again, historically there have been plenty of "peaceful" arrangements of power that did not involve respect for human rights... where the powerful were powerful enough that the powerless people they oppressed could not fight back.


Presumably oppression includes being subject to unjustified violence or other threats to survival. I would be more inclined to characterize these "peaceful" arrangements as existing in the absence of the social contract. Involuntary arrangements do not make a binding contract.


Is that perfectly alright?


I would call it perfectly irrational.


In this consideration, the subjective element of the entity in question--most importantly, what it feels--is absolutely crucial.


Can this feeling work by proxy? For instance, if the eradication of a species which doesn't meet the empathy/"feeling" standard would negatively impact another species that does meet that standard. Eliminating ants would also eliminate the primary food source of the anteater, as an example.

Thus we return to the issue of survival, wherein the anteater's "selfish" interests provide a reason for me to restrain myself from eradicating another species otherwise condemned by an inferior nervous system.

And abusing such anthropocentric shit to create reasons for or against killing is despicable.


The social contract is "anthropocentric" only to the extent that we wrongly assume that only the human species is capable of social behavior, that non-human species are behaviorless immobile lumps.


Don't do to other creatures what you don't want to have done to yourself.


This is the most basic principle of the social contract, is it not?

I think they ought to be fined for breaking international agreements,
It's not as if there was a famine in Japan and people desperately needed the whale meat to survive. They hunt it as it is some sort of expensive delicacy. That ought to be strickly discouraged, and I suggest some very painful fines for this.
There's plenty of other fish out there they can go for, plus there's plenty of land animals. There is no need whatsoever to go after a just-recovering species that was nearly exticnt only a few years back. That's just pure greed, nothing more.

There seems to me to be a huge difference between farming animals for slaughter, and killing animals in the wild.

There are far more cattle on the planet than there would be in the absence of humans ... and far fewer whales.

Whaling isn't "harvesting." You only harvest what you plant on land you own, anything else is poaching.

Elephants do. I believe chimps do so as well.

African wild dogs do as well.

I hope Japan stops intruding into Australia waters to hunt the whales except the current Australian government seems to be allowing them to so do because they are "trade partners".

And perhaps the Japanese insistence on killing whales outside their territorial waters is in fact a "right of usufruct" claim on those waters ...

... as a seafaring nation from way back ...

... as a densely populated island which cannot feed its population from farms ...

... as a powerful culture (the Eastern echo of Britain) whose choices are death or dominion ...

perhaps it is a "land-rights" thing, the maintenance of an ongoing connection (a commercial connection) with waters beyond their current internationally-recognized territorial waters.

Commercial interest in sale of whale-meat is hugely outweighed by the opprobrium of being whale-killers. The Japanese government taking the side of whalers is like Papua New Guinea insisting on the right of some citizens to eat people, above the tax they can take from metal mining. It makes no commercial sense for the Japanese govt to defend whaling.


Some day, all the land mass of Earth may be taken by humans. Perhaps for status reasons, perhaps for solar-power collection, perhaps for farms and accomodation. (I hope not, I want wilderness where humans cannot tread, but it is possible.)

Then, even the deep oceans will be so valuable as farm-land that it will all be claimed by governments, corporations or collectives.

Perhaps Japanese government and corporate interest are keeping the whaling 'business' afloat, to stake a "traditional" claim to ... well, most of the Pacific ocean and a slice of Antarctica.

Someone, tell me it ain't so.

Send another Enola Gay... a couple of em...

I also object to this: All humans are majestic, cute or at the very least funny! :)

Human beings are lke Slinkies; They are mostly useless, but I can't help but smile when one of them tumbles down stairs. :)

Send another Enola Gay... a couple of em...
For god's sake, they're whales!

As for those Sea Shepherd people, I think a navy should be sent out to board them and confiscate their ships and send the crew to prison. If they fight back, sink them. Their tactics are very dangerous. Their ships are also unregistered, making them pirates so it's perfectly legal to do that. The only reason they've been able to get away with what they've done is that no country has been willing to stop them. They wouldn't last long against a semi-decent navy.

Send another Enola Gay... a couple of em...

This is a little extreme, isn't it?

I would retaliate against your killing someone else exactly because I fear for myself.

You're missing the point, though this time I think it's my fault for being unclear.

If our reason for not murdering others is fear of retribution, then my killing of infants and the severely disabled, who cannot exact retribution, does not in any way indicate a threat to you, who can.

Presumably oppression includes being subject to unjustified violence or other threats to survival. I would be more inclined to characterize these "peaceful" arrangements as existing in the absence of the social contract.

That is precisely my point. Yet the powerful still survive--they can survive without a social contract of equality that states, "If I want rights, I must give them to you as well", because, materially speaking, they can enforce their own rights (and more) upon others without having to secure the cooperation of those others. They can defend themselves against those they oppress, and thus, by your reasoning, have no reason to grant those they oppress rights.

That is why truly moral rationality makes use of the hypothetical: "If I were in your position, I would want human rights. Therefore, I must give them to you." The imperatives of prudence given to us by the logic of self-interest are intrinsically limited by their reliance on material consequences: oppressing others may sometimes bring harm upon me, but certainly not always. Does that mean that oppression is only sometimes wrong?

I would call it perfectly irrational.

Why?

I do, of course, agree that it is irrational. But none of the reasons you have given have provided a basis for that conclusion... and my reasons lead to conclusions you don't accept.

Can this feeling work by proxy? For instance, if the eradication of a species which doesn't meet the empathy/"feeling" standard would negatively impact another species that does meet that standard. Eliminating ants would also eliminate the primary food source of the anteater, as an example.

Absolutely it could work that way.

Thus we return to the issue of survival, wherein the anteater's "selfish" interests provide a reason for me to restrain myself from eradicating another species otherwise condemned by an inferior nervous system.

Yes, we are always concerned with "interest." But whose interest? That is the important question.

balenocide

I can't debate when I'm laughing so hard.

I can't debate when I'm laughing so hard.

Dangit! You just made me start laughing about that again. :D

So you can kill a cow,
Domesticated.

kill a pig,
Domesticated.

kill a dog,

Domesticated.

but you can't kill a whale? Huh.
Not domesticated.

Shall we talk breeding cycles of the first three vs the last?

Elephants do. I believe chimps do so as well.

Correct.

See my point about meat-eating or stepping on ants on the sidewalk. What makes killing whales so much more disgusting than that?


Interesting? A whale compares to an ant....how?

How dare animal rights people focus on one species more than any other to the extent that makes them want to demonize a relatively peaceful country?

Actually different groups focus on particular species.

This "peaceful" country does not manage the supply so it deserves demonization.

They argued the IWC for limits that were high enough that all whaling fleets operating 24/7 365 days a year could not reach them.

They screamed bloody murder when the moratorium was suggested.

Their "scientific" whaling has not produced anything worthy.

They catch "pygmy blue whales" (we call them blue whale calves).


Why is it that you don't hear about massive international activist campaigns for the "rights" of spiders or ants?

You haven't been following the Brazilian Rain forest problems eh?

Let me guess; perhaps animal rights people aren't really being all that logical to begin with.


:rolleyes:


I mean come on here, from sharks eating their own young to hyenas eating their prey alive, nature isn't all nice and friendly, it's about survival of the fittest.

Do you even understand what that phrase means?

Animals are cruel to other animals, yet it's somehow worse when humans are.


Can you point out a species that hunts for trophies?

The rest is not really worth commenting on.....

of course, almost nobody will actually support factory farms once the concept is explained to them. certainly not the people opposed to killing whales. so this is more of a blind spot rather than an active bit of hypocrisy

Correct. For example, puppy mills are not as frequent after people found out about them....

Agreed. Again, do you see major international protest movements for the "rights" of spiders and ants?

How many spiders and ants are there versus whales?

How often to ants and spiders lay eggs?

How many spiders and ants hatch?

Now how often do whales breed?

The comparison is ludicrous.

I'm siding with Japan on this. Responsible whaling, like responsible deer hunting does not damage the environment or the respective animal populations. So long as you keep tabs on the numbers and set a limit on the number of whales that can be killed in a year you will be able to keep the populations stable and provide an extra source of revenue to the Japanese version of the DNR to keep the local waters and what lives in them healthy and hunt poachers.


The problem is Japan does not hunt responsibly. The limits they want set would wipe out the populations.

Poachers opps I mean scientific whalers hunting poachers?

Can you point out a species that hunts for trophies?



Well, you should realize that only a tiny, tiny fragment of a fragment of the human population hunts for trophies. Most people don't hunt period, and of those that hunt, do you honestly think that most of them do it to obtain trophies?

In any case, a guy hunting for trophies is just trying to show off, that's why he puts animal heads on his wall. In the same way, animals try and look big and strong, or colorful, or whatever it is that makes them more desirable.

The black forrest. I would like to let you know something. When I first joined I learned that in NSG it is considered something we call RUDE to post 6 times in a row.

The black forrest. I would like to let you know something. When I first joined I learned that in NSG it is considered something we call RUDE to post 6 times in a row.

:D

Point taken.

Can you point out a species that hunts for trophies?
I think Orcas sometime will hunt for sport, kill another animal and then not eat it. Apes and monkeys will fight amongst themselves and with rival groups of the same species over territory, mates, food, and sometimes without clear motives. Humans may be the only animal to keep trophies but we are not the only one that hunts for sport. Rape, murder, canabalism, and so much more is common in nature. Humans, by comparison, are quite tame.

I think Orcas sometime will hunt for sport, kill another animal and then not eat it.

I have not heard of that one.


Apes and monkeys will fight amongst themselves and with rival groups of the same species over territory, mates, food, and sometimes without clear motives.

We were talking about viscious killings to which I believe you suggested the Animal kingdom was worst than humans.

Apes and monkeys due fight but a killing is rather rare especially in dominance battles. It does not serve to kill a rival because you can be injured in the process and thus removed.

Territory, mates, food may be addressed as trophies but they are about survival and propagation. They still do not compare the human penchant for killing for the sport of it.

Humans may be the only animal to keep trophies but we are not the only one that hunts for sport. Rape, murder, cannibalism, meat eating, and so much more is common in nature. Humans, by comparison, are quite tame.

Arguable. You don't find the animal kingdom screwing each other for a percentage. They don't really have wars(one recorded for chimps). They don't practice genocide.

Murder? Thats primarily a human quality. Now killing.....

Rape? It happens a great deal in our societies. I don't think anybody has done a measurement to compare.

Now is it a case of anthropomorphism to call it rape? For example, does a chimp female carry the psychological damage that a human female carries after such an event?

Meat eating? Not really a fair comparison. We have the choice to not eat it. predators do not. Which is worst? Those that can't help it or those that know and do it anyway?

america continues to insist it can murder humans. something about a bolt in one eye and a sty in another?

everybody does something a bit wrong and something a bit right. japan has monorails, all america has is cars. and yes, the token bone of amtrak, thrown to those of us who would like there to be anything else.

no one's perfect and all things chainge, and i certainly don't condone nor encourage whale harvesting. seems only harmful and not very useful for anything in this day and age.

but then so do coal fired power plants, or even nuclear ones, when a diversity of wind, solar and geothermal tecnologies, with the odd modest scale hydro, wave action, et.c. thrown in could and would do the job just fine.

all this bashing of anyone a little different, is just a smoke screen to divert attention from the inequities of more dominant and wide spread cultures and their influence, largely one of far more devistating destructiveness then the mere hunting of whales.

anyone other then nations like japan, dependent on it as they are, should probably be banned for harvesting ocean life at all, as critically low as it's resources have become due to many factors, the contribution of the over use of combustion to global climate chainge being one of the more predominant among them.

=^^=
.../\...

Do to Japanese as Japanese do to whales.

Do to Japanese as Japanese do to whales.

Set sail from Japan with about 250 people to kill 50 of them and bring their carcasses back to Japan for study, allegedly? What will that achieve?

Set sail from Japan with about 250 people to kill 50 of them and bring their carcasses back to Japan for study, allegedly? What will that achieve?I don't know. What does whaling achieve? The whales are eaten, so could be those Japanese. You know, on sandwiches or so...

I don't know. What does whaling achieve? The whales are eaten, so could be those Japanese.

50 whales is a lot more meat than 50 Japanese people.

50 whales is a lot more meat than 50 Japanese people.Well, you could just catch as many of them as make up the meat weight of 50 whales.

Do to Japanese as Japanese do to whales.

So you're pretty much a terrorist now?

You seem to be advocating a random killing of fifty (or more?) individual humans, for no reason other than their nationality.

Or if it's a joke, perhaps you could explain it. Your last attempt (the Enola Gay quip) didn't exactly get a round of belly-laughs.

Japan continues to think it can senselessly murder whales ...

They can't murder whales, whales aren't people, therefore killing them isn't murder

They can't murder whales, whales aren't people, therefore killing them isn't murderWhat a cheesy excuse.

So you're pretty much a terrorist now?

You seem to be advocating a random killing of fifty (or more?) individual humans, for no reason other than their nationality.

Or if it's a joke, perhaps you could explain it. Your last attempt (the Enola Gay quip) didn't exactly get a round of belly-laughs.Why is doing to someone what that someone is doing to others terrorism? It's only justice. You kill, so you get killed. Quid pro quo.

Why is doing to someone what that someone is doing to others terrorism? It's only justice. You kill, so you get killed. Quid pro quo.

You really aren't funny today.

They can't murder whales, whales aren't people, therefore killing them isn't murder

What a cheesy excuse.

No, it's technically correct. That's a fault in the OP, to use the word "murder" where it clearly doesn't apply.

Still, Dyakovo isn't really saying anything.

What a cheesy excuse.

not a cheesy excuse it just bugs me when I see people using the term murder in reference to killing animals when murder is the illegal killing of another person. This does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I support what the Japanese are doing

No, it's technically correct. That's a fault in the OP, to use the word "murder" where it clearly doesn't apply.

Still, Dyakovo isn't really saying anything.

I wasn't trying to

You really aren't funny today.I don't intend to be.

So you actually support going over there and killing them for doing something which you personally find disagreeable?In the US people who kill are sentenced to die. Where is the difference? Do you think the killing of a whale deserves less punishment than the killing of a human?

I don't intend to be.

So you actually support going over there and killing them for doing something which you personally find disagreeable?

Have whales ever tried killing the Japanese back? Why do we have to get involved?

As pacifists, they do not fight back as they are slaughtered in their homes.
The whales are a dying breed.

As a balenophile I am strongly against balenocide.

Have whales ever tried killing the Japanese back? Why do we have to get involved?

Have whales ever tried killing the Japanese back? Why do we have to get involved?

Well, there's a thought. We could arm the whales ...

The Japanese have every right to eat whalesWhat constitutes that right? General retardation?

nobody really knows how many whales there are in the world.Yes, we do. Whales can be counted. If you don't have enough fingers, then use a pencil and paper.

Well, there's a thought. We could arm the whales ...

with nukes
:gundge:
:sniper:
:mp5:

The Japanese have every right to eat whales and nobody really knows how many whales there are in the world. It's better to give quotas per whale species hunted then to place a complete halt/ban on whaling itself. I believe with quotas, whalers would comply with rules and sometimes participate in bargaining with other whale hunters thus making whales a world commodity (then it would be in the interest of whale hunter to keep the stock levels of whales up). If you place a ban on whale hunting, hunters would try anything to bypass the ban and would only value the quick-buck gained from the hunting of whales (so they don’t care about the stock level of whales).

In the US people who kill are sentenced to die. Where is the difference? Do you think the killing of a whale deserves less punishment than the killing of a human?

My position of interfering with 'trade' by destroying property can be argued to be terrorism, or 'economic terrorism' ... but yours is plainly terroristic.

Trying to influence a nation's actions by murdering its citizens at random? That's terrorism.

You are advocating terrorism.

Advocating terrorism is contrary to the terms of service of this forum, if not the law of your land. You really ought to retract.

Well, there's a thought. We could arm the whales ...

with nukes


Torpedoes. Train 'em up, make sure they understand the consequences of their actions, leave the decision to them.

In the US people who kill are sentenced to die. Where is the difference? Do you think the killing of a whale deserves less punishment than the killing of a human?

The difference is that in a minority of American states people can be sentenced to death for murder (the illegal killing of a person) where as 1) a whale is not legally a person, and 2) the killing of whales is not illegal in Japan which since it is Japanese doing this that would be the set of laws that would be applicable

Torpedoes. Train 'em up, make sure they understand the consequences of their actions, leave the decision to them.

good plan

The difference is that in a minority of American states people can be sentenced to death for murder (the illegal killing of a person) where as 1) a whale is not legally a person, and 2) the killing of whales is not illegal in Japan which since it is Japanese doing this that would be the set of laws that would be applicableJustice is not bound to laws or definitions. And I did not use the word "murder", and I don't need to. Killing is sufficient. If killing a human is wrong then there is no reason to assume that killing a whale is less wrong, and subsequently must be punished.

Justice is not bound to laws or definitions. And I did not use the word "murder", and I don't need to. Killing is sufficient. If killing a human is wrong then there is no reason to assume that killing a whale is less wrong, and subsequently must be punished.

What gives you the right to be the one carry out this punishment?

Also I didn't say that you used the word murder, I provided a succinct explanation of what the difference was

What gives you the right to be the one carry out this punishment?What gives me the right to not carry out a punishment?

Also I didn't say that you used the word murder, I provided a succinct explanation of what the difference wasOk, the difference between murder and what?
I asked what the difference was between killing a human and killing a whale as something wrong and what constitutes a justification to treat this wrong conduct differently.

What gives me the right to not carry out a punishment?

Ok, the difference between murder and what?
I asked what the difference was between killing a human and killing a whale as something wrong and what constitutes a justification to treat this wrong conduct differently.

I suggest you go back to my post and reread it, if you still are having trouble, maybe you should find somebody to read it to you :headbang:

I suggest you go back to my post and reread it, if you still are having trouble, maybe you should find somebody to read it to you :headbang:Your differences are only differences in law texts, not in substance.

What constitutes that right? General retardation?

Yes, we do. Whales can be counted. If you don't have enough fingers, then use a pencil and paper.

Well crying out "it's not fair" won't help your case either. The Japanese government feels it's being screwed because out of all the countries that are against whale hunting, how many of their citizens do consume whale meat? So realistically, these anti-whale hunting countries have nothing to lose. Besides, the true fault of whale reductions are of European and North American countries that killed whales in industrial proportions for their fat. It's like blaming the native Indians for eating the last remaining North American buffalo when in reality we all know who almost drove that species into extinction. If whales can be counted then why can anyone agree to a specific number of whales so far? It is said that we humans know so much about space than we know about earth's waters, so don't be quick to judge anything about that part of the world. Worry about human suffering (famines, wars, and natural disasters). On another note, those green peace people that jeopardize the lives of the Japanese merchants should be punished. Their (Green Peace) tactics in stopping their opponents can be considered terroristic.

Their "scientific" whaling has not produced anything worthy.
Does that mean that it won't? Perhaps it needs time and/or support to make its findings?

You haven't been following the Brazilian Rain forest problems eh?
Not quite following them, no, but I remember learning about them in school and until very recently tended to trust teachers above all other sources. However, last I checked, I thought the main issue was how deforestation decreases plant photosynthesis therefore allowing further increase in carbon dioxide concentration therefore contributing to climate change?

Do you even understand what that phrase means?
Yes, it means that animals best suited to their environment survive, those that aren't don't. However, receiving genes that wouldn't contribute to their continued survival isn't a consequence of their own actions, showing that nature isn't based on who deserves what but based on random chance. It was a reference to the cruelty of nature and how humans, being the first to establish civilization, were the ones who diverged from nature the most.

The rest is not really worth commenting on.....
And yet you have yet to prove it. You can say that but unless you back it up it means nothing, no matter how many people say otherwise.

Oh my god... that is your source?

:rolleyes:
Did I even call it a "source"? Stop putting words in my mouth. I said to see it. It was merely the reason I thought that was the case. Again, yes that was said by a paedophile sympathizer, but again, that doesn't in and of itself disprove it; and you haven't disproved it otherwise. Also, for the record it also comes from someone who seems to ironically be in favour of animal rights (has said he denies religion and "any other lame excuse that tries to justify discrimination on the basis of . . . animal race") so I doubt he'd have particular reason to lie "against" animals.

We have no say what the Japanese can and cannot do, they are a sovereign country... End of story.

Justice is not bound to laws or definitions. And I did not use the word "murder", and I don't need to. Killing is sufficient. If killing a human is wrong then there is no reason to assume that killing a whale is less wrong, and subsequently must be punished.

Arguably speaking, such absolutes as you profess hold no water. Killing a person is NOT inherently wrong in and of itself. Primary case in point, self defence, or defence of others. IT is also why the act of killing in combat is not normally perceived to be unjust (within the context of a perceived "just" war), and why some people view capital punishment as acceptable.

I could carry that further and argue that this rule was put in pllace more for societal safety reasons than out of a true notion of "wrongness". We don't condone random killings of people as we do not desire to be victims therof. If history has shown one thing, however, it is that any notion that this sense of "wrongness" is deeply ingrained in us is simply untrue. There have been far too many instances of masses being swayed to accept rampant butchering to believe otherwise.

And finally, a blanket statement of implicit moral equivalence is unfounded. i.e., that "if killing a person is wrong than killing ANYTHING is wrong" is silly. It's why no-one gets upset at non-toxic efforts to exterminate mosquitos as a disease prevention measure. We release millions of dragonflies in our area each spring for that reason. Setting the hunters out to do our dirty work by proxy for us. A person, a whale, a mosquito.... no different right? Hell, let's go on to complaining about the wanton destruction of vegetables next. Life is life after all....

No? OK, stick to sentient life? Fine. How many fine upstanding people want wolves reintroduced into historic hunting grounds now given over to suburbia? No-one?

Personally, I want whale stocks protected for the simple reason that f*cking with the natural balance of ecologies has proven time and time again to have negative and unforseen consequences. I'm fond of the ecology of this planet, and in it's ability to sustain my life comfortably. I believe that we need to minimize our impact upon it because, as a parent, I want it's natural spleandours to be available to my descendants, and for it to be a healthy place in which they can live.

But I've never met a person yet who argues the simplistic, moralistic reasons who can't eventually get backed into the corner where they find a species of life that they'd accept seeing eradicated or contained.

We have no say what the Japanese can and cannot do, they are a sovereign country... End of story.

This is AMERICAAAAAA!!

Did I even call it a "source"?

Who cares what you called it? You used it to support your claim. Therefore, it's a source.

It was merely the reason I thought that was the case.

That is, your source.

Again, yes that was said by a paedophile sympathizer, but again, that doesn't in and of itself disprove it;

No, it doesn't. But it calls into question its credibility.

Not that that element even factors in when one considers that it's a video made by some random guy on YouTube with likely nonexistent credentials who speaks very vaguely about a topic he shows no evidence of knowing anything about.

Hasn't anyone ever taught you how to evaluate sources? :rolleyes:

(Why even bother to cite a source if a random guy on the Internet is good enough? If his word suffices, why doesn't yours?)

and you haven't disproved it otherwise.

The burden of proof is on you.

Also, for the record it also comes from someone who seems to ironically be in favour of animal rights (has said he denies religion and "any other lame excuse that tries to justify discrimination on the basis of . . . animal race") so I doubt he'd have particular reason to lie "against" animals.

I didn't say he was a liar. I just don't think he's credible.

two problems

1) if we can create rights for humans, what is inherently problematic about humans creating rights for other lifeforms or the land itself?
2) how do human children, the crazy, and the disabled fit into your little scheme above?
1) That would be in turn forcing other humans to abide by those rights.

2) See, thing is, a child is a human whom is being raised by other humans. (their parents) They are given time to learn to become a moral agent before being held responsible to law, as they are going to reach that point eventually, and by that time if they aren't a moral agent they can't be a moral patient. (Eg. They lose their right to freedom, and in many people's views their right to life, if they take away others' rights.) Animals aren't going to reach that point, and aren't raised by humans (except pets, but I'm not arguing against pets' rights) and they get away with things that humans are publicly hated for. Shouldn't it be obvious from how criminals lose their rights because they refuse to acknowledge others' rights that children are a unique exception?

As for the disabled, are you suggesting that people with disabilities get away with their crimes solely because of their disabilities? If so what examples do you have of this? Oh, and I wouldn't happen to agree with letting them off the hook either. As for the crazy, they're locked up. Last I checked paedophiles are publicly considered "crazy" and that doesn't stop popular opinion from saying things like "all paedophiles should have their balls chopped off and shoved down their throats"

1) That would be in turn forcing other humans to abide by those rights.

so?

2) See, thing is, a child is a human whom is being raised by other humans. (their parents) They are given time to learn to become a moral agent before being held responsible to law, as they are going to reach that point eventually, and by that time if they aren't a moral agent they can't be a moral patient.

incorrect - no matter what they do, you don't get to rape them, you don't get to murder them in the street, etc. we have moral obligations toward them no matter what.

As for the disabled, are you suggesting that people with disabilities get away with their crimes solely because of their disabilities? If so what examples do you have of this? Oh, and I wouldn't happen to agree with letting them off the hook either. As for the crazy, they're locked up. Last I checked paedophiles are publicly considered "crazy" and that doesn't stop popular opinion from saying things like "all paedophiles should have their balls chopped off and shoved down their throats"

you lost the plot. the question is about our obligations towards people who cannot reciprocate. remember, you had this argument that because animals don't acknowledge the rights of others, they don't get to have any rights protected.

How many fine upstanding people want wolves reintroduced into historic hunting grounds now given over to suburbia?

*raises hand*

*raises hand*

seconded

The thing about animal rights is that animals don't understand the concept of rights. With rights come responsibilities. If animals were treated the same under the law as humans then they would have to abide by the laws that we do. If a wolf killed a rabbit it would have to be arrested and thrown in prison for murder. I'm pretty sure there are laws that prohibit people from just shitting all over the place in public and I think there are laws against sex in public yet dogs will hump just about anything when you take them to the park. If you gave animals the same rights that we enjoy then you'd have send them all to prison for violating the rules that we live by. If you wouldn't it'd be arguing for animal superiority rather than equality. If a species could show that it can understod the concept of rights and rules then it would be a different story but it isn't the case.

The thing about animal rights is that animals don't understand the concept of rights. With rights come responsibilities.

children, the mentally disabled, the currently unconscious. point conceded?

If animals were treated the same under the law as humans then they would have to abide by the laws that we do.

has anyone ever suggested this at all ever? names, dates, links, etc?

Does that mean that it won't? Perhaps it needs time and/or support to make its findings?

As I mentioned earlier, Japan's "research" whaling is a sham, and can be carried out by non-lethal means.

The actual purposes include:
1) It is a means to get around the ban on commercial whaling.
2) The research is intended to show that the depletion of fishing stocks world wide is due to whales and not human overfishing, intended to be used as an excuse to overturn the commercial whaling ban.
3) It serves as a lightning rod to focus the attention of environmentalists who might otherwise be working to restrict Japan's destructive overfishing.
4) Fisheries agency bureaucrats responsible for whaling keep their jobs if there's whaling. (Don't underestimate the Japanese bureaucracy!)
5) It serves as a nationalist platform.

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4106688.stm?ls



Oh, and here's a nice little bit on the high levels of environmental toxis in whale meat that I mentioned earlier:
Media Release
The Hon Dr Sharman Stone
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Federal Member for Murray

12 April 2002
Japanese Whale Meat No Delicacy

The latest scientific research has cast a disturbing light on the Japanese Whaling Association's push to encourage young people to eat more whale meat, according to the Parliamentary Secretary for the Antarctic, Dr Sharman Stone.

"It is very surprising that the Japanese are encouraging the eating of whale meat with shoppers queuing for free samples of canned whale stew, deep-fried whale meat and blubber recipes in downtown Tokyo", Dr Stone said.

"Unfortunately, what these unsuspecting consumers probably received was a cocktail of toxins and contaminants that have made their way into our seas and oceans, particularly during the last 50 years".

"We now know from work done by Dr Roger Payne at the Whale Conservation Institute, who has been studying and documenting whales for the last 28 years, that chemicals have not only made their way into the sea but have made their way up the food chain and into the bodies of whales".

Dr Payne, who has led over 100 expeditions to all oceans and studied every species of whale in the world, has repeated that the highest concentration of EDC's (Endocrine Disrupting Compounds) ever found in any animal came recently from a minke whale, the species presented for free tasting to Tokyo lunchtime shoppers.

Unfortunately the chemical revolution of the last Century has produced synthetic contaminants not found in nature, to use in a range of pesticides, fertilisers and other products. These substances wash from the land into the sea. EDC's are highly toxic, chemically stable and long lived. They are also usually far more soluble in fats than water. Because animals and humans have not had to deal with these substances before, they tend to accumulate and store the substances in the body tissue, especially the fats.

Since EDC's are so long lived, every time an animal consumes a plant or another animal containing EDC's it accumulates the chemicals. The longer you live, the more you accumulate. Other mammals, like humans and whales, also pass the substances on to their foetus and to their infants as the babies drink the mother's milk.

Dr Payne has found that while the United States allows the sale of fish only if it contains less than 2 parts per million of PCB's (Polychlorinated Biphenyl), killer whales sampled mid-ocean have been found to have concentrations as high as 400 parts per million. The Beluga Whales of the Gulf of St Lawerence, he found, have concentration of PCB's as high as 3200 parts per million.

"In a paper delivered in Sydney last month, Dr Payne referred to the accumulating evidence that EDC's can inhibit foetal development, disturb reproductive organs, compromise immune systems and cause neural damage", Dr Stone said.

"Tragically, because air and water current disperse the EDC's polewards, polar people and animals have the highest accumulations. Whales caught in the Antarctic are not free of the threat of contamination"

"Whales have great difficulty in disposing of these toxins from their bodies - so where do these contaminants end up? In the whale meat being served at this very moment to Japanese consumers, of course!"

"Not only is this meat now highly contaminated, but it is clear from press reports of the whale meat giveaway that Japanese consumers do not believe they are missing out. Surveys consistently show that young Japanese consumers have not embraced whale meat and are disturbed by the methods used to kill whales", Dr Stone said.

"It is important that the Japanese Whaling Association informs whale meat consumers about the toxicity levels found in some meat and blubber of the product that they are trying to encourage their consumers to eat".

"This is a serious human health issue. At the same time they should also be concerned about the Japanese fleets killing of whales for 'research' in Antarctica, when non-lethal methods can deliver the same data that will help protect the species".

Contact:
Simon Frost 0419 495 468
Thursday April 11, 2002

http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/ps/2002/psmr12april02.html

Why don't we just capture a few live whales and start some sort of whale breeding program or something? Maybe when we perfect cloning technology we can clone whales.

Whales for everybody!:p

children, the mentally disabled, the currently unconscious. point conceded?
No, point not conceded. Children do not have rights. They don't own anything until they're 18, their parent or guardian can take anything the child thinks is theirs away from them. Children have privileges and those can be taken away for any reason that their caregiver sees fit. The mentally disabled are often also in a similar situation to children, they have the majority of their decisions made for them by someone else, they're basically adult children.

I don't know why you brought up people who are asleep but I know others will decide things for you if you are unable to respond to a doctor who needs to work on you.

has anyone ever suggested this at all ever?
It's PETA's official position. Ingrid has even said that their mission is total animal liberation. They're againt eating meat (even though humans are predatory animals), riding horses, owning pets, the works.

You done yet?

Children do not have rights.

epic fail

It's PETA's official position.

source?

They have plenty of rights ... maybe not full property ownership but there are plenty of other rights which children and the disabled have besides property rights

if anything, we have extra moral obligations towards them, the violation of which is seen as rather particularly horrendous.

No, point not conceded. Children do not have rights. They don't own anything until they're 18, their parent or guardian can take anything the child thinks is theirs away from them. Children have privileges and those can be taken away for any reason that their caregiver sees fit. The mentally disabled are often also in a similar situation to children, they have the majority of their decisions made for them by someone else, they're basically adult children.

I don't know why you brought up people who are asleep but I know others will decide things for you if you are unable to respond to a doctor who needs to work on you.
Snip

They have plenty of rights ... maybe not full property ownership but there are plenty of other rights which children and the disabled have besides property rights

if anything, we have extra moral obligations towards them, the violation of which is seen as rather particularly horrendous.

Yes. Children have rights which adults do not. They also lack some adult rights.

But Indri's statement "children do not have rights" is plainly wrong.

An obligation to a child is not the same as the child having rights.

And Free Soviets,
"There is no hidden agenda. Our goal is total animal liberation."
-Ingrid Newkirk, "Animal Rights 2002" Convention, June 30, 2002.

An obligation to a child is not the same as the child having rights.

And Free Soviets,
"There is no hidden agenda. Our goal is total animal liberation."
-Ingrid Newkirk, "Animal Rights 2002" Convention, June 30, 2002.

Does a child have a right to life?

Does that mean that it won't? Perhaps it needs time and/or support to make its findings?

You have to actually be trying to find something which they are not. After 20 years(well 19) they have yet to publish anything.

Not quite following them, no, but I remember learning about them in school and until very recently tended to trust teachers above all other sources. However, last I checked, I thought the main issue was how deforestation decreases plant photosynthesis therefore allowing further increase in carbon dioxide concentration therefore contributing to climate change?


There are also untold species of insect that have been wiped out by the burnings.

And yet you have yet to prove it. You can say that but unless you back it up it means nothing, no matter how many people say otherwise.

Just your simplistic comparison of spiders and ants as invalid.

I'm gonna let Johnny Rico handle this one...

"The only good whale is a dead whale?"

:confused:

Justice is not bound to laws or definitions. And I did not use the word "murder", and I don't need to. Killing is sufficient. If killing a human is wrong then there is no reason to assume that killing a whale is less wrong, and subsequently must be punished.

Yes, I thought so. The step beyond the amoral "if it's OK for one Japanese to kill a whale, it's OK for me to kill some other Japanese" ... you admit to implementing "justice" ... you admit to an intention to change one persons behaviour by killing another.

You're advocating terrorism. That's in contravention of the terms of service of this forum, and it's almost certainly illegal where you live.

So shut up.

=============

We have no say what the Japanese can and cannot do, they are a sovereign country... End of story.

We can damage the profitability of their whaling operations by sinking their boats when not in Japanese territorial waters. Outside those waters, the laws of Japan do not apply.

If Japan chooses to send a naval escort to protect the whaling ships of their flag, that will work. You know what? I don't think they will. They'll just stop whaling.

Story not quite over.

==============

The thing about animal rights is that animals don't understand the concept of rights.

Says you. The person who thinks children have no rights. Whatever.

With rights come responsibilities. If animals were treated the same under the law as humans then they would have to abide by the laws that we do.

IF. Who said animals should be treated the same under the law as humans?
Strawman.

If a wolf killed a rabbit it would have to be arrested and thrown in prison for murder.

Because ... humans who kill rabbits are tried for murder ... where?

I'm pretty sure there are laws that prohibit people from just shitting all over the place in public and I think there are laws against sex in public yet dogs will hump just about anything when you take them to the park.

Not if you train them not to. Dogs can easily be taught to conform with human standards of modesty.

If you gave animals the same rights that we enjoy then you'd have send them all to prison for violating the rules that we live by. If you wouldn't it'd be arguing for animal superiority rather than equality.

EXACTLY! Animals have rights which humans do not. They lack some rights which humans have.
You took a sensible point (pages and pages ago) that one set of rights cannot be applied to all species. We cannot treat all animals alike, since they may be ants or they may be whales.
But you really have lost the plot and are saying some very silly things, even about human rights.

If a species could show that it can understod the concept of rights and rules then it would be a different story but it isn't the case.

Isn't it? I'll use your example, dogs. Dogs easily learn rules, and obey them even if they are never punished for breaking them. Dogs are pack animals, and a dog which recognized human authority is far more obedient than any human ever is.

An obligation to a child is not the same as the child having rights.

It's pretty plain that you consider children to be "property," and all their rights to be subsidiary to their "owners" ... presumably parents.

I ask you this: what about runaways, homeless children? Being clearly outside their parents' power to exercise "an obligation" to the child ... does it therefore follow that they are not human, have no human rights, are nothing more than "proceeds of salvage"?

Because if that is your position, it would follow that homeless children have no rights, and it's perfectly OK to kill them, rape them or cook them up for dinner.

I wouldn't be comfortable saying that. Is that what you believe?

Another topic on animal rights.

Let's look at human rights, who have human rights in today's world? The group who can defend them. Whales like other animals can't defend themselves. They will always be at the mercy of human. Unless the benefits of preserving whales out weight that of hunting whale, it's impossible to stop a group from doing it.

Naturally this means there are two ways to convince the Japanese, by allowing them to see more benefits of preserving, or to create more harms for hunting. It is unfortunately the same group that is calling Japanese inhumane choose the destructive path to push for their agenda. How can a group talk about animal rights without recognizing human rights? I think the only way to promote peace is to use nonviolent approaches. Otherwise it will make us no different than what we are advocating against.

I am against Japanese Whaling, because the way whale travels, killing whale in their territory is killing the whales in the rest of the world. Why should Japanese be allow to dictate the same resource that the rest of the world use as tourist attraction (whale watch)? What the Japanese is doing now is no different than building a dam on a river to irrigate their own city while cutting the water source off from everyone else down the line. Just because it is done in their territory doesn't make it okay. Every whale they kill is every whale they rob from the rest of the world. This is not a local but a global matter. Japanese alone shouldn't be the sole benefiter of a world resource.

Yes, I thought so. The step beyond the amoral "if it's OK for one Japanese to kill a whale, it's OK for me to kill some other Japanese" ... you admit to implementing "justice" ... you admit to an intention to change one persons behaviour by killing another.

You're advocating terrorism. That's in contravention of the terms of service of this forum, and it's almost certainly illegal where you live.

So shut up.?Is death penalty for killing someone terrorism? Certainly not. Punishment is not terrorism. It's the reaction to someone's deeds.
On the other side, working towards the needless extinction of a species is terrorism. People who provide and consume whale meat are guilty of emptying the oceans of whales. I consider that a crime against the planet and its ecosystem. And for crimes that have irreversible consequences the only punishment is the culprit's permanent removal from this planet and its ecosystem.
Your arrogant anthropocentric perspective is appalling.

Your arrogant anthropocentric perspective is human.

Fixed, it's only natural to have one's own species at the top of the priorities list.

An obligation to a child is not the same as the child having rights.

no, not necessarily. but only if we move beyond talk of morality only in terms of rights. but moral obligation is all that we need anyways. talk of rights is a mere convenience, given our social discourse on the nature of moral obligations. the fact of the matter is that we do have moral obligations towards beings that cannot reciprocate your moral consideration of them, and thus your entire argument against recognizing such for animals trips on its own first premise.

And Free Soviets,
"There is no hidden agenda. Our goal is total animal liberation."
-Ingrid Newkirk, "Animal Rights 2002" Convention, June 30, 2002.

that doesn't say what you claimed they claim. you claimed that peta wants animals "treated the same under the law as humans".

Let's look at human rights, who have human rights in today's world? The group who can defend them.

only if they aren't rights at all.

what you mean to say is that only those groups whose rights are recognized and defended are able to freely exercise them, though they retain them regardless. but, of course, since we are proposing to recognize and defend the moral standing of animals and ecosystems, etc., then this poses no problem at all anyway.

Fixed, it's only natural to have one's own species at the top of the priorities list."it is natural" is a weasel phrase.
And to consider one's own species better than others is descipable.

Is death penalty for killing someone terrorism?
Well, it's the act of violently taking someone's life in order to make a political point. Sounds like terrorism to me.

I haven't read through the whole thread, but whalehunting isn't such a big topic here in Norway. When I went to Australia on the other hand, greenpeace was hunting us down like mice, coming with all this stuff about how japan and norway and other countries where killing whales.
The example we see at the start of the thread isn't an exclusive example of human brutality against animals, and without the correct sources when it comes to these issues, I always tend to look at it with a bit of scepticism.
Greenpeace have chosen the whale as their "totem-animal". They have made this "ideal-whale" which is social, intelligent, it raises its kids, they can talk, they are peacefull bla bla. This is in fact not true for the msot part. If you took all the positive aspects of every whale in the world, then yes, you probably would end up with some kind of whale liek that. But if you took every positive ability and aspect of dogs as well and made a "superdog", you'd have the same thing.
Whales that get hunted for food are NOT on the barge of extinction (atleast not those under government control). Notice how greenpeace people (I am assuming that the threadstarter classifies under this) uses the word murder in the headline. Euphemisms like that tells atleast me that the threadstarter is using propagandistic devices to influence the readers, which just shows even more how these kinds of cases are greatly exaggerated to the brink of unseriousness.
But by all means, I see why they fight against it. I do respect vegetarians and such, but that is a total different discussion. These whaletopics can really annoy me, especially on how they can not keep to facts, or back up the ones they have.

Well, it's the act of violently taking someone's life in order to make a political point. Sounds like terrorism to me.Punishment is about making a political point? Since when?

"it is natural" is a weasel phrase.
And to consider one's own species better than others is descipable.
I do agree that "natural" is, indeed, not a moral justification by any reasonable standards... but you say that to consider one's own species better than others is despicable; and just what makes you think those species don't in turn have THEIR own species as their priority? Again, think of the opportunism of the wild, hyenas eating their prey alive, etc...