Whaling and Censorship

Precognition said:
Nope, done debating- I won.
Click to expand...

Move over, John Edward, we've just found the new biggest douche in the universe. "Seriously, we all know that eating vegetables is wrong, just because you want to rationalize so that you can feel better about your drug doesn't make it any less wrong." This is what you're doing. Either admit to trolling or gtfo.

Now that that is out of my system:

Over hunting an endangered species at a rate that will drive them to extinction is a bad idea. Not morally wrong. Just a bad idea. If you like the taste of something why would you take steps to ensure that you might not be able to eat it one day?

The actions of people like Sea Shepherd are stupid. You don't fight fire with fire. If someone is doing something you don't like you have to fight it through legal means. Especially when the thing you don't like is illegal so you have the advantage in that respect. Also, how do these eco-terrorists garner so much support when their method of operation is endanger whalers lives, hurt their profitability (could potentially make people lose jobs, could make their kids go hungry[vegetarian kids, potentially]), and generally just be a dick?

Also, I have a solution to the whole it's wrong to eat animals thing. Us omnivores should eat all the vegetarian humans.

As an aside: Why is it that, even though countless species of animals have gone extinct before we even existed, it is our divine duty to prevent even one species of animal from going extinct now that we're on the scene? (This is an honest question.)
 
@ Yeti - I made no claim that it would be easy or cheap to artificially lengthen the stay of the whale species on the planet. What I said was people who give a shit about whales are free to grab some while the getting's good and do what they like with them.

I have no interest in providing a cheap/practical - or even possible - alternative to letting Japan decide the Japanese position on whaling laws. I'm merely pointing out that there are ways to keep whales extant if you care to do so - which is quite beside the point, because even if there weren't, whalers would have every right to continue operating while they can.
 
Lelouch said:
"IT R ILEGAL LOL" is no explanation for why anything is wrong.

Since you've displayed no capacity for thought, I'm going to spare myself the tiresome task of reading your inane thoughts again by adding you to my ignore list. I recommend you return the gesture so you don't accidentally address me expecting some kind of acknowledgement.
Click to expand...

If anything people are really getting sick of you and your 'adding to the ignore list,' since for the most part, we don't give a fuck. You obviously cannot display anything besides 'you disagree with me and I don't feel like I want to have a decent debate, ignore list lololol <big word>.' Honestly it is illegal for a reason, we are trying to preserve the world and the species that inhabit it. People normally don't feel terrible about killing a bug, ants, rat, or cows because there is an abundance of them. If, oddly, rats or cows become an endangered species, then I'd assume most people would stop killing them. Whales are an endangered species, so we shouldn't hunt and kill them to further force them towards their impending extinction. If they do get out of the endangered zone then the Japanese should be allowed to hunt them, but until then they're just doing something which the world condemns them for.

As for the vegetarian or you're wrong guy, we evolved because we ate meat. Meat allowed us to grow bigger brains -- we wouldn't have evolved without eating meat. Now that doesn't completely address the whole 'meat is murder' aspect you're going for, however it is always a good thing to know where your roots come from. It's true the vegetarian diets can get b12, protein, and zinc from supplements (which I myself take -- just for that extra boost), but you also don't get the essential amino acids which are found in a combination of animal meats. Being a vegetarian has some benefits, such as lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and a lower risk of colon cancer and diabetes, but if you don't take the supplements then you run the risk of Iron-Deficiency Anemia, Macrocytic Anemia, and having not having enough b12 can ruin protein synthesis and causes anemia.

Being vegetarian over eating meat is a personal choice, it isn't right nor wrong to eat or not eat meat. Don't go "it's a personal choice if I want to eat a child or not" because in certain life or death situations people have deemed it ok to eat another person. I can't remember the exact case, but Obi once had an article in his signature about a group of guys who were trapped in a mine tunnel during a cave in. They didn't have enough rations to survive for the amount of time it would take for them to get dug out. So they devised a way to figure out which one of them would be eaten with a roll of dice. They all agreed to it and they even asked the man who was chosen about the legitimacy of the roll which has taken place. He didn't argue so he was strangled and then eaten by his friends who, in the end, survived. Do these people now have a hunkering for flesh? I doubt it. People avoid cruelty, torturing anything, human or animal, killing for sport or pleasure, unless you be a serial killer or a psychopath. Killing for food and survival is fine in every sense of it.
 
Phantom_IV said:
Well, as OP I feel obliged to moderate my thread and introduce some new material.

As human beings, is there something sad about the idea of ceasing to exist? Would you feel that sadness if you knew you were the last of your kind, or that your lineage would cease to exist? And would you wish that on another creature, or a whole population of them, given that they are mammals like yourself and share 90%+ of your DNA?

If that doesn't bother you, consider that there's an economic value to species and diversity. At the very least, they're interesting to look at. Imagine the draw of showing off a live mammoth today. Or a blue whale in a tank. Even a dinosaur for that matter. Not to mention that some animals have medicinal purposes, or that research of them might lead to new understandings. And who knows what uses we might find in the future. For those reasons, preservation of a species has value, and the hunting of endangered species is a poor economic decision (especially because the benefits of the species' survival extends for years and years, while meat can only be eaten once). Therefore laws can be created by the international community to stop whaling, as the whole of humankind would suffer an economic loss from the species extinction (or the risk of extinction).

And does that mean we should choose the lives of whales over the livelihood of some people? Quite possibly. There's an idea of the tragedy of the commons, which is the entire community suffering a loss because an individual, or a group of individuals, overconsume and destroy a natural resource because they have an incentive to do so. Plus, might is often right in this world, and if more people oppose whaling than support it, measures can be taken to prevent whaling (overtly or covertly).
Click to expand...

@ Phantom - you can't use democracy to justify everything. A bunch of "what ifs" might be interesting, but whether or not they justify one country ordering another to live by the firsts' standards is very much open to interpretation.

I don't feel "the international community" has any place to pass laws forcing Japan to comply with the whims of the rest of the world in any matter that doesn't involve basic human rights. Whether or not potential future humans have a basic right to have whales available to them is also open to interpretation.

If people in the West like whales, those people can do their best to maintain whales in captivity. In the middle of the damn ocean, they're fair game for anyone with a boat.
Click to expand...

I felt like I should respond to that middle point. What if Japan just started dumping a ton of waste into the water? That has nothing to do with human rights, but obviously they shouldn't be doing so. And where do you pull democracy from? I mentioned it nowhere in my post. Agreements can be as simple as promises of trade in exchange for ceasing certain activities. That is not "forcing one to live by the other's standards", but simply providing them with an incentive to see things your way.
 
@ Phantom - about the democracy thing, I was referring specifically to your choice of words (final paragraph): "if most people are against it" etc. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I'm perfectly fine with people who care about whales providing incentives for whalers to cease operation. What I oppose is coercing governments in that way, either in the "international community" or with "sanctions".

Not on topic as such, but something amusing occurred to me: America forces Japan to end sakoku, and now Americans (among others) want to encourage Japan to conform by imposing trade sanctions.
 
I can't stand the idea that a country should have hegemony over it's land. If it's doing something wrong, it aught to be fixed.

The international community does not have to act at all. People who care about whales have to act, and if it happens to be through illegal means, so be it.

However, illegal means usually just incite more rage rather than solve anything, so I wouldn't recommend them. If people in the West like whales, they should protest like fuck, or do something about it. Possibly using international pressure, or other more effective methods.
 
billymills said:
I can't stand the idea that a country should have hegemony over it's land. If it's doing something wrong, it aught to be fixed.
Click to expand...
In many cases I agree. Within (very limited) reason, countries shouldn't force others to conform to what comes down to arbitrary opinions.

However, in this case, we have divided opinions on a subject that isn't important enough (think human rights level importance) that one opinion should take precedence over others. In all such cases, people should be free to make up their own minds - and I mean that on an individual scale, not a national/international one.
 
Japan is a big boy state. They have decided only to hunt whales for scientific reasons. There's over 800,000 minke whales. And Japan has a tag of around 800 a year. Now i'm no mathematical genius but that sounds like some pretty sustainable numbers to me. There whaling is not driving whales to extinction. Unless whales only live in Japans hunting waters i think we'll be all right.

Since when has Japan been hunting blue whales? I thought it was minke sperm and some other non blue whale whale.

If Japan did something that effected other countries beside it's own like dumping toxic waste in the ocean then sure have the other countries talk about a solution. however whaling is not the equivalent of dumping toxic waste in the ocean.

Precognition is probably four years old. People should not even respond to him. "i won you lost" lets try and grow up a little.
 
I will continue my lifestyle.

And I'll enjoy my next hamburger and think of you as I bite into that poor cow's flesh and then savor how good it tastes.

Blue whale was the biggest, no pun intended, example of how whales in captivity is not a possible solution.

Ok so the human anatomy and what basic body parts were designed to do is entirely irrelevant. Studies by unnamed, uncited individuals are more credible?? Not to mention do they account for lurking variables and other factors such as genetics, smoking habits excluding diet that would account for differences in lifetimes?

The human anatomy doesn't 'suggest' anything, it states what it was designed for. Your teeth are designed to be able to eat meat.

But I guess us stupid (BAN ME PLEASE)s have to keep on murdering animals that are bred simply to be eaten so we can eat our tasty, flavorful steaks and ribs.

Meanwhile animals that are not bred and not able to be bred with any kind of sustainability because they are exclusively wild and endangered species that are unable to be kept successfully in captivity should be hunted for whatever reason and breeding specimens removed from the environment that depends on their huge diets to keep the smaller populations in check.

Ok.
 
@ Son of Distaster or anyone for the killing of whales

Ill just clarify some points here.

1 . Whaling is ILLEGAL under the charter.

Countries such as New Zealand and Australia are concerned that Japan is hunting in areas restricted to them regardless of scientific research or not.

Infomation has also come to light that the Japanese are useing "lethal research" as a cover for accuiring wahle meat whch can then be sold. Japan is hunting whales outside their own waters restricting the whales population in other areas. Japan is currently being taken to court over this issue. The reason this issue has not really been dealt with before is a reason of International Relations since both Japan and Australia have very important economic ties to each other and both Australia and New Zealand do not want to jepodies this.

20090206_aussanctuary.jpg


That is an image of protected whale areas.

The battle between the Japanese whalers and the Sea Shepard took place in these protected areas. It is alose hear when the Japanese whalers fired a sonic device called an LRAD at the crew of a helecoptor filming the whaling. The whalers then turned the device onto the crew of the Sea Sheperd.

The LARD is...
"A newly developed weapon that blasts earsplitting noise, the LRAD can produce permanent hearing damage and temporarily disrupt vision. Being within 100 yards of the device is extremely painful"
I am no expert but firing that at a helicopter could be pretty dangerous right?
Also I feel sorry for the crew of the ship...

Actually Japan has a self imposed annunal tag of at least 900 whales a year. Key words there are Self imposed which means that Japan can set any quota they like.

Another conversation vessel stopped whalers from killing an endangered fin whale (not common at all) by blocking the ship with other smaller boats, It was at this stage that the Japanese deployed the sonic weapon in an attempt to force the boats away from the fin whale.

But its O.K after all that Endangered fin whale in a protected zone (ie NO scientific killing) was going to be killed for research.....I guess thats O.k then right?

Good on you Sea Shephard, keep on fighting.

Have a Nice Day!
 
Please stop using human rights to justify each and everyone of your arguments. There are NO inherent human rights. If someone wants to act against other humans, they're completely capable of doing so, assuming they're ready to accept the consequences—just like every other possible action.
 
vonFiedler said:
If you're gonna use South Park to justify your views, you should be aware that there's also an episode where Stan becomes a vegetarian, and he literally turns into a giant pussy.
Click to expand...

I'm not using it to justify, just making a note of it. I eat all kinds of meat, but have sadly never tried whale.
 
Just popping in to mention that
1. I wouldn't touch dolphin/whaling with a ten-foot pole, that's an international issue
2. Everyone who used South Park, including the Topic Creator, as a unbiased source for information on this topic, what the hell. South Park always presents the most extreme viewpoints and mocks both of them for comedy, I thought more people noticed this
 
I live in western new york where there is a high deer population, and deer hunting is essential to keeping the population down. It also provides food for hunters, and a lot of venison gets donated to homeless shelters. Humans need to take on the role of primary predator or else the deer population would go beyond what the environment could sustain and they would end up starving to death.

Factory farmed livestock is something totally different, and just as deplorable as whaling. But most people don't seem to care. They just put it out of their head as they eat their burger.
 
Quaily said:
Humans need to take on the role of primary predator or else the deer population would go beyond what the environment could sustain and they would end up starving to death.
Click to expand...
We need to be the primary predators to sustain deer population because we killed every single primary predator in the areas where deer population is problematic (for example a provincial park near me actually kills deer because the settlers killed all the bears/wolves/cougars in the region way back when).
 
marche111 said:
he's probably just that overly-sensitive, touchy-feely type.
Click to expand...

Just saying that I would be over ensative and Touchy feely is someone was going to shove a harpoon in me, which incidendly occured in a Mafia game when Jimbo was killed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top