OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

If whaling is to be halted, it should be done via legal international means, not via crazed zealots with bat-boats and "photonic disruptors

she wants no whales to be killed period

Sometimes a bit of anarchy is needed to get things corrected.

It appears that the IWCis a mere puppet of whaling interests

and I agree with her. The only peoples that should be allowed to harvest whales are the Innuit whose entire culture is based on a few species.

Japan doesnt fit that definition even by a teeny stretch of the imagination.

The Japanese whaling industry (as we know it today) is a product of Post WWII, its not a legacy activity.

EWvery product that whales produce can be made better in other means.

"Sustainability" is a hoolow wqord and its bounds are set (in this case) by smoe dubious research.

The AMerican Bison was a species whose numbers in the Eastern forests and the great plains measured in the tens of millions. We xleaned them out of the eastern forests by the early 1700's and almost ran them to extinction by the beginning of the 20th centruy.

There are several whale species taht are teetering on the brink of extinction so the Icelanders and JApanese are turning to minkes and Finbacks (whose numbers, they say, are sustainable to allow whaling for "scientific research".)

If thats the case, why does all this whale meat wind up on some fishmarkets counter? What more research must the Japanese engage in to satisfy their scientific curiosity?
I believe that the only reserach thats being done is for new recipes for blubber.

So should only the original pig and cow farming cultures be allowed to eat pigs and cows?

Why is cultural heritage suddenly the litmus test for whether an animal can be eaten?

So? There's fake bacon too but I still want to eat real pigs.

Nonsense. Sustainability is a simple concept that relates to whether an activity can be sustained. Where the lines are drawn can get murky but that isn't important to the argument.

No because pigs and cows are artificially cultivated by hundreds of cultures and whales are WILD and many species are.THREATENED

Because it would help validate your point> As it is, you are trying to defend an ancient practice for modern times for people who only wish to eat whale as a status symbol. SOunds like killing the last egret or the last Bird of paradise to me.

Your argument is getting kre ridiculous as you get more strident.

Please refer to my original point of this e'en. PIGS N COWS N LAMBS N CHICKENS,N GOATS, N GUINEA PIGS are all raised under rules of animal husbandry and are raised in masses that are naturallu unsustainable just so they can be produced in large numbers for slaughter. WHALES are not. You have not, nor has the Japanese whaling industry, nor the IWC, shown us what they consider is a "sustainable amount of killing" The minke has been seen to suffer a marked population dexcline in its Northern Populations. There used to be an estimated 2.5 million of the minkes. Theres a lower population today and hunting is only adding to the decline. If jApan were really concerned about the Cetaceans as a family, they should cease ALL whaling and find out whats driving their numbers down in the wild.

Now youre just talking out of another orifice .

Sustainability iks VERY MUCH the issue. You are word dropping the concept but dont have any idea what that number is.

We have a term in hydrology called "Safe or sustainable yield" . Its been defined by the USGS to mean "THAT AMOUNT OF WATER WE CAN PUMP WITHOUT GETTING INTO TROUBLE" Its a simple sounding concept but is backed by rigorous measurement , prediction, and modelling.
The IWC and whaling nations have NO IDEA what is sustainable. I find it utterly unacceptable to keep killing whales to find out what the sustainable number is, serve up the carcasses, and then lie to the world that what theyre doing is "scientific research".

Peter Singer, an Australian professor of bioethics at Princeton University, wrote this:
"I did not argue that whaling should stop because whales are endangered. I knew that many expert ecologists and marine biologists would make that claim. Instead, I argued that whales are social mammals with big brains, capable of enjoying life and of feeling pain " and not only physical pain, but very likely also distress at the loss of one of their group.
Whales cannot be humanely killed " they are too large, and even with an explosive harpoon, it is difficult to hit the whale in the right spot. Moreover, whalers do not want to use a large amount of explosive, because that would blow the whale to pieces, while the whole point is to recover valuable oil or flesh. So harpooned whales typically die slowly and painfully.
Causing suffering to innocent beings without an extremely weighty reason for doing so is wrong. If there were some life-or-death need that humans could meet only by killing whales, perhaps the ethical case against it could be countered. But there is no essential human need that requires us to kill whales. Everything we get from whales can be obtained without cruelty elsewhere. Thus, whaling is unethical."

I did not argue that whaling should stop because whales are endangered. I knew that many expert ecologists and marine biologists would make that claim. Instead, I argued that whales are social mammals with big brains, capable of enjoying life and of feeling pain " and not only physical pain, but very likely also distress at the loss of one of their group.

The Japanese do have one argument that is not so easily dismissed. They claim that Western countries object to whaling because, for them, whales are a special kind of animal, as cows are for Hindus. Western nations, the Japanese say, should not try to impose their cultural beliefs on them.

The best response to this argument is that the wrongness of causing needless suffering to sentient beings is not culturally specific. It is, for example, one of the first precepts of one of Japan's major ethical traditions, Buddhism.

But Western nations are in a weak position to make this response, because they inflict so much unnecessary suffering on animals. The Australian government strongly opposes whaling, yet it permits the killing of millions of kangaroos each year " a slaughter that involves a great deal of animal suffering. The same can be said of various forms of hunting in other countries, not to mention the vast amount of animal suffering caused by factory farms.

Whaling should stop because it brings needless suffering to social, intelligent animals capable of enjoying their own lives. But against the Japanese charge of cultural bias, Western countries will have little defense until they address the needless animal suffering in their own backyards. (Emphasis added -- T.)

But against the Japanese charge of cultural bias, Western countries will have little defense until they address the needless animal suffering in their own backyards.

Thomas, I am not going to get into cows & pigs!

Humans have a damn sight more control over how cows & pigs are reared, how they live, say nothing of how they are killed.

I'm sorry if that sounded abrupt, Thomas

So what? Take Singer's argument against whaling, and substitute the word "whales" with "cows", "pigs", or "chicken". How is the edited argument any weaker than the original one?