NationStates Jolt Archive

Whales do nothing but bread and feed. Just all the other species of life on this planet. We do omre then that. Why compare us to whales?

And i assume that when China kills thousands of humans a year, it doesn't bother you?:rolleyes:

Whales do nothing but bread and feed. Just all the other species of life on this planet. We do omre then that. Why compare us to whales?Humans do nothing but breed and feed either. What's your point? What does a creature have to do to deserve life in your view?


And i assume that when China kills thousands of humans a year, it doesn't bother you?Punishment of criminals does not bother me indeed.

Is death penalty for killing someone terrorism?
You can well distinguish the death penalty (due process of law has established at least some level of proof that the person being punished murdered, not just "killed" someone else), and what you proposed, killing people at random for balenocide committed by other people of the same nationality.

Certainly not. Punishment is not terrorism. It's the reaction to someone's deeds.
Terrorism is not terrorism, if you ask a terrorist.

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.

In case you have forgotten, here is what you said.

Do to Japanese as Japanese do to whales.

You didn't talk about killing the culprits of balenocide, you talked about killing "fifty Japanese." At no point did you mention identifying which individuals were most liable for balenocide, in fact you went on to speculate that the lives of humans count less because their individual carcasses provide less meat.

Your arrogant anthropocentric perspective is appalling.

So, it's arrogant anthropocentrism to distinguish one Japanese person from another?

If that is so, then surely it just as arrogantly anthropocentric to distinguish a Japanese from an Egyptian. It's humans killing the whales, therefore you simply need to find 50 humans and kill them to serve justice as you see it.

I suggest you start with yourself.

Whales do nothing but bread and feed.

Untrue. Whales communicate with each other, beyond what is necessary to breed or feed. With the collapse of this premise, the rest of your post is worthless.

Just all the other species of life on this planet. We do omre then that. Why compare us to whales?

I haven't read through the whole thread, but whalehunting isn't such a big topic here in Norway.


So Norway doesn't want to hunt whales anymore?

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.


Hunting you down like mice :D

*snip*

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.


You have never studied them have you?

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.


Considering your first claim is false. The analogy fails.


Whales that get hunted for food are NOT on the barge of extinction (atleast not those under government control).


With the quotas demanded by the whalers; they would be.


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.


Kind of like your analogy of being hunted like mice....


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.

Speaking of facts....where are yours?

Whales do nothing but bread and feed. Just all the other species of life on this planet. We do omre then that. Why compare us to whales?


Well now. You might want to look into that claim.


And i assume that when China kills thousands of humans a year, it doesn't bother you?:rolleyes:

Hmmm I believe that is called Association fallacy?

Humans do nothing but breed and feed either. What's your point? What does a creature have to do to deserve life in your view?
For me a creature doesn't need to do anything to deserve life but if it comes down to my well being over the life of a member of another species I will kill that member of the other species. It is the way of nature, a rule of life, to put your needs and wants about those of other species. It may sound cold and heartless but that's the way the world can be. Compassion, especially to the level that societies elevate it, is mostly a creation of humanity and a very rare trait in almost everything else. Hell, quite a few animals even abandon their young.

Punishment of criminals does not bother me indeed.
What is their crime? The CCP has executed more than a few people for simply speaking their minds or even just for being suspected of having a different opinion on how the party should be running the country. If we were talking about just serial murderers here it might be a different story because some people do deserve to die because they're to dangerous to be left alive and have done to much damage. Speaking your mind should never be a crime, capital or otherwise.

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.
You sound like a pro-life Baptist.

that doesn't say what you claimed they claim. you claimed that peta wants animals "treated the same under the law as humans".
And what do you think total animal liberation is? How would you define that?

For me a creature doesn't need to do anything to deserve life but if it comes down to my well being over the life of a member of another species I will kill that member of the other species. Your or anybody's wellbeing (comfort?) depends on consuming whale meat?

Oh, you are still "contributing" to this thread, are you?

I thought you had slunk away in shame at your own trolling. Or was it racism and advocacy of terrorism? In any case, I thought you'd slunk away.

He doesn't look too slinky. *tips UB down the stairs*

Anyway, why just whales?
Free all nekton!
End nektonicide now!

Your or anybody's wellbeing (comfort?) depends on consuming whale meat?

Oh, you are still "contributing" to this thread, are you?

I thought you had slunk away in shame at your own trolling. Or was it racism and advocacy of terrorism? In any case, I thought you'd slunk away.

You sound like a pro-life Baptist.

wow, that sure showed me the error in my argument. come on, aren't you going to at least try?

And what do you think total animal liberation is? How would you define that?

animal liberation means recognizing animals as deserving moral consideration. it has never been used by anyone to mean "arrest that squirrel!"

He doesn't look too slinky. *tips UB down the stairs*
*Nice word play there!*
Anyway, why just whales?
Free all nekton!
End nektonicide now!

I feel an urge to yell "Nekto-fascist! What about plankton?!" but I know I'd just look silly if I did that.

For me a creature doesn't need to do anything to deserve life but if it comes down to my well being over the life of a member of another species I will kill that member of the other species.

how far down this hole are you willing to go? is it right to slaughter an entire species because they form a trivial inconvenience to you? will any gain in 'well-being' justify any amount of killing?

conversely, if they deserve life and don't form a detriment to your well-being (like whales, for example), shouldn't you be arguing for protection of them?

I feel an urge to yell "Nekto-fascist! What about plankton?!" but I know I'd just look silly if I did that.

Plankton are the fetii of Water World.

wow, that sure showed me the error in my argument. come on, aren't you going to at least try?
I'm growing tired of this actually. I know I'm right and that your wrong, that your argument is based soley on "warm fuzzies" emotion while mine is based on "cold heartless" logic.

There are 3 rules that apply to all civilizations and all life. 3 laws of nature.
1. Thir survival will be more important to them than yours.
If an another culture or species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species and civlizations don't survive long by being self-sacrificing.

2. Wimps don't become top dogs.
No species, no civilization, no one makes it to the top by being passive. Anyone and anything in charge will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

3. They will assume the first 2 apply to you.

I understand that what I am saying sounds cold and cruel and it is. But it is how life works, it is how humans came to be. To attempt to reject our nature would be suicide. You may not like it but this is the way things are. This is the way they've always been. And because this works best, this is how things will continue to be forever.

animal liberation means recognizing animals as deserving moral consideration. it has never been used by anyone to mean "arrest that squirrel!"
No. Animal liberation means eating meat or drinking milk becomes a crime, medical research (almost all medical research uses animals at some stage) becomes illegal, no more zoos, no more pets, no more fur, no more use of animals in any possible way. That is what PETA has argued for all these years. That is what the ALF (an organization PETA sometimes funds) has said they have fought for while they firebomb labs. They never say "arrest that squirrel!" Instead, what they want is for the law to say "arrest that human for crossing that black cat's path!"

The animal rights movement is dangerous because it isn't made up of reasonable and rational people. Passion is more important to animal rights activists.

You want passionate truth? I would personally kill every chimp with my bare hands if I knew that it would save just one street junkie with AIDS. You need to have priorities. For me, humanity comes first. When you put all other species ahead of your own you fall behind and risk extinction.

You are not above nature, you are not its guardian, you do not get to save the princess, you do not pass go and collect $200. Life isn't fair.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat some buffalo. Maybe some lamb. And if that rabbid raccoon comes back and raids my trash tonight I swear I'll shoot him.

I'm growing tired of this actually. I know I'm right and that your wrong, that your argument is based soley on "warm fuzzies" emotion while mine is based on "cold heartless" logic.

your argument either declares that it is morally permissible to rape children or leaves open the possibility of moral obligations towards animals. only one of those two options is not crazy. which means that your argument intended to demonstrate that we don't have moral obligations towards animals does nothing of the sort.

perhaps if you stopped hyperventilating and regained control of yourself enough to apply rational thought to the issue you could come up with a non-stupid argument for yourself?

I'm growing tired of this actually. I know I'm right and that your wrong, that your argument is based soley on "warm fuzzies" emotion while mine is based on "cold heartless" logic.

There are 3 rules that apply to all civilizations and all life. 3 laws of nature.
1. Thir survival will be more important to them than yours.
If an another culture or species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species and civlizations don't survive long by being self-sacrificing.


Problem slick. The argument of survival implies we are in competition with the whales or we need to eat them to survive.

2. Wimps don't become top dogs.
No species, no civilization, no one makes it to the top by being passive. Anyone and anything in charge will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

Wiping out species just because you can does not make you a top dog. It makes you a bully and nature shows that the bullies don't last long .


I understand that what I am saying sounds cold and cruel and it is. But it is how life works, it is how humans came to be. To attempt to reject our nature would be suicide. You may not like it but this is the way things are. This is the way they've always been. And because this works best, this is how things will continue to be forever.


Who are we in competition with? Wiping out species will back fire on us simply because mass extinction is not simply the elimination of species but the elimination of a few key species.


No. Animal liberation means eating meat or drinking milk becomes a crime, medical research (almost all medical research uses animals at some stage) becomes illegal, no more zoos, no more pets, no more fur, no more use of animals in any possible way. That is what PETA has argued for all these years. That is what the ALF (an organization PETA sometimes funds) has said they have fought for while they firebomb labs. They never say "arrest that squirrel!" Instead, what they want is for the law to say "arrest that human for crossing that black cat's path!"


So two groups define the whole? Not very "logical" Not to mention the slippery slopes that you use here. There is a great deal of "medical research" that can be questioned. Such as one case where they were taking monkies and strapping them to a device and crashing them into walls so they could study blunt force trama for car wrecks. The auto industry does their own and the highway patrol reports are detailed for such info.

The animal rights movement is dangerous because it isn't made up of reasonable and rational people. Passion is more important to animal rights activists.


Where is that logic you brag about? Dr. Jane Goodall is very much for animal rights and here is a shocker you won't belive. She accepts medical research. She would just like to see some aspects change for the well being of the test animals such as chimps having larger cages when not being used.

You want passionate truth? I would personally kill every chimp with my bare hands if I knew that it would save just one street junkie with AIDS. You need to have priorities. For me, humanity comes first. When you put all other species ahead of your own you fall behind and risk extinction.

Well slick. I would LOVE to see you try. A chimp could rip of your arm and beat you with it.

Again a beautiful slippery slope there!

*snip*

Wow kind of a bitter person are we?

I'm growing tired of this actually. I know I'm right and that your wrong, that your argument is based soley on "warm fuzzies" emotion while mine is based on "cold heartless" logic.

There are 3 rules that apply to all civilizations and all life. 3 laws of nature.
1. Thir survival will be more important to them than yours.
If an another culture or species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species and civlizations don't survive long by being self-sacrificing.

2. Wimps don't become top dogs.
No species, no civilization, no one makes it to the top by being passive. Anyone and anything in charge will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

3. They will assume the first 2 apply to you.

I understand that what I am saying sounds cold and cruel and it is. But it is how life works, it is how humans came to be. To attempt to reject our nature would be suicide. You may not like it but this is the way things are. This is the way they've always been. And because this works best, this is how things will continue to be forever.


No. Animal liberation means eating meat or drinking milk becomes a crime, medical research (almost all medical research uses animals at some stage) becomes illegal, no more zoos, no more pets, no more fur, no more use of animals in any possible way. That is what PETA has argued for all these years. That is what the ALF (an organization PETA sometimes funds) has said they have fought for while they firebomb labs. They never say "arrest that squirrel!" Instead, what they want is for the law to say "arrest that human for crossing that black cat's path!"

The animal rights movement is dangerous because it isn't made up of reasonable and rational people. Passion is more important to animal rights activists.

You want passionate truth? I would personally kill every chimp with my bare hands if I knew that it would save just one street junkie with AIDS. You need to have priorities. For me, humanity comes first. When you put all other species ahead of your own you fall behind and risk extinction.

You are not above nature, you are not its guardian, you do not get to save the princess, you do not pass go and collect $200. Life isn't fair.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat some buffalo. Maybe some lamb. And if that rabbid raccoon comes back and raids my trash tonight I swear I'll shoot him.

You Sir, are a moron.You think yourself superior and more worthy than fellow creatures. But you clearly are not. You are not above nature to do with it as you please.

So Norway doesn't want to hunt whales anymore?

no, I mean that we who actually live here know the facts straight off, while other countries get their info about this business through antiwhaling sites, and only that. If that isn't biased, then i don't know what is...


Hunting you down like mice :D

*snip*

Sorry for my nonfluent english, but it is a normal term of speaking, not meant to be taken litteraly. :P


You have never studied them have you?


I know enough to know that every whale species doesn't have the kind of social behaviour it is claimed to have. Yes, I know that they have some interesting "family"lives and blabla, but whales aren't alone on that, and as I stated earlier, all these attributes average joe thinks they have, is exaggerated immensely.


Considering your first claim is false. The analogy fails.

prove it is false...


With the quotas demanded by the whalers; they would be.


Hence the government regulation... Illegal whale hunting is a different topic. I acknowledge that there is a problem with whaling nowadays, with that "saving up quotas" bullcrap. But so much of this anti whaling thing is boasted to no end. So don't misunderstand me, I'm neither for or against whaling, in the same way that I'm not for nor against cows kept on farms.... I just find these protests against whaling exaggerated (sorry for using this word a lot :P) so extremely much.

Kind of like your analogy of being hunted like mice....


It was meant as a synonym for the fact that you could find them in every shopping mall, and every street corner...

Speaking of facts....where are yours?

I havent claimed to back up my facts, but whales are a type of animal, with different species and subspecies divided under them. And just as a terrier is aggressive/erratic by nature, and a st Bernhardt's dog is calm by nature, all different whales have different attributes and behaviour. But antiwhalingsites take all the "good" attributes of the different whale species and make this superwhale which they campaign with. That is what I am against.

Why compare us to whales?Last time I compared the friend of my ex-GF to a whale.. that didn't go too well. :D

Your or anybody's wellbeing (comfort?) depends on consuming whale meat?

Um, yeah, if you enjoy the taste of whale meat the consumption of whale meat will increase your comfort. Am I missing something here?

I am totally against whaling, for any purpose.

I am also totally against biased and unbalanced polls that are, to all intents and purposes, useless, not to mention, undemocratic.

no, I mean that we who actually live here know the facts straight off, while other countries get their info about this business through antiwhaling sites, and only that. If that isn't biased, then i don't know what is...


I will agree with you on that one. There are people on both sides that really haven't looked into any of the species. Except for "sound bite" info.

At one point I wanted to be a marine biologist. But events happened and that changed.

Sorry for my nonfluent english, but it is a normal term of speaking, not meant to be taken litteraly. :P

Ah! No worries then. Some people do go for the dramatic at times. Comment withdrawn.

I know enough to know that every whale species doesn't have the kind of social behaviour it is claimed to have. Yes, I know that they have some interesting "family"lives and blabla, but whales aren't alone on that, and as I stated earlier, all these attributes average joe thinks they have, is exaggerated immensely.


Ok. I am curious. I admit to not having studied every species. Let's hear your comments.


prove it is false...

I may have misunderstood your point so let's hold off till after your comments about whales.


I havent claimed to back up my facts, but whales are a type of animal, with different species and subspecies divided under them. And just as a terrier is aggressive/erratic by nature, and a st Bernhardt's dog is calm by nature,


Actually my Saint is rather hyper and alpha. I am still trying to figure that one out! :)

all different whales have different attributes and behaviour. But antiwhalingsites take all the "good" attributes of the different whale species and make this superwhale which they campaign with. That is what I am against.

Ok what is the misinformation then?