IWC, Whaling & Japan. Is whaling illegal? Is whaling wrong?

Yeah, the thread really is a bit messy after the jackass contest and I'd largely given up on it.

I think that even you would recognize the hypocrisy in your question, Ionus.



It's a question of import.

When I first arrived at this forum, I complained about the writing from some people as being not in the best interests of a scholarly debate. Iwas told "doesnt your ignore button work ?" I will not cave in to bullies. If the administration is not concerned then I will give what I recieve. If I am better at it, then maybe they wont start bullying again...at least not with me. So in the words of the administrators of this site, doesnt your ignore button work ?

Nope. Not one bit..enlighten me...
Yes, you are importing something better suited for another thread.

I'll pass. Given the degree of out to lunch, much too big a task.





Check a dictionary.

I could not care a whit about who insulted who first, I just wish you guys would take it somewhere else and not crap all over my thread.

Robert, thankfully, doesn't choose to permit or restrict access to A2K based on his personal points of view.

It's not a public site and yet it still is free. No one has a right to post here.

Of course if there isn't a lot of traffic on the site, Robert can't attract advertisers and so he does need us --- not just anyone of us in particular.

I would imagine though that he understands there is a thin line between feisty commentary that stimulates debate and obnoxious and belligerent behavior that drives users away from his forum.

There are several members of this forum who make even feisty debate difficult, and for a time I resisted using the ignore feature as a barrier to their infectious bile, because I felt it signaled, in some way, submission. I came to realize that was foolish because no matter how strong my resolve they were able, at times, to bait me into an ugly exchange. Despite the fact that I always left such threads feeling victorious, it wasn't very long before I realized any sense of triumph was absurd and I regretted my taking part in a nasty verbal brawl.

So now I "ignore" them. I have no doubt that they are still trying to bait me with nasty insults, but I don't see them and so I'm not suckered in. I don't think anyone who does see them is thinking "Why doesn't the panty-waist respond?" If they are...who cares?

I suspect that at some point I will succumb to the urge to un-ignore one of the miscreants, and may even engage in a brawl, but in the meantime, I'm enjoying A2K more, in spite of myself.

So, you don't need to justify yourself or your behavior to Robert. He hasn't assumed the role of A2K Over lord and would be foolish to do so.

On these threads, you can feel free to regard Robert as any other chooch, which is to his credit.

As for the miscreants, if you choose to engage, have fun with it and go for the throat. They really are a pathetic lot of losers.

As usual Finn you have a well formed opinion. It has always been my intent to be polite to everyone but to meet abuse with worse abuse. If others think they can pressure me into going away, that is not known to me let alone in my reportoire. I think Michael the Ark-angel is a pussy. I look forward to the next challenge in the belief the forum will benefit in the long term, even if the short term is messy.

I wish you would continue the thread with your thoughts, for my part I will strongly resist the urge to give comatose cretans their comeuppance. I thought there was some good concepts to emerge from your brief at the start.

Have to admit, I just found myself unable to resist taking a shot at one of the miscreants who I have, for some time, ignored.

No one is perfect least of all, me.

In any case, have at them with blood and vigor...just don't worry about what Robert thinks.

You are right that Ionus has no more obligation to listen to me than any other forum member, but I don't think that means he shouldn't try to be considerate of other people and their intentions in a thread.

As an example, I started this thread in an attempt to better allow other threads to pursue their desired course and while I had no obligation to I just thought it is basic consideration to some degree. These are open discussions but I still see the thread starters as the topic hosts and try to let them have the topics they set out to when I can.

In any case, I've been frustrated now by not being able to have meaningful discussion on whaling (this isn't even my second or third try, it must be my fourth or fifth) in my attempts and this thread didn't get off to a great start. I want others to have their say and all but I'd also like to see people lay out their ratiocination in detail and the gainsay stuff makes that harder to elicit.

It's a weird one, this whaling issue. So very emotional an issue to specific demographics (there's seems to be an 80's component to it for example, where the generation right before mine cares much more than mine does about whales) and typically so very logically inconsistent (the ones who use whale intelligence to argue against eating whales but eat much more intelligent pigs, or who ignore others telling them not to eat cows for the same reasons they tell others no to eat whales). I may be fighting a losing battle to get people to express their food ethics through logic, and it may just be one of those primal things that we aren't typically very logical about, but I'm going to keep trying because of how it helps shape my own ethics.

So I tried to get whale lovers to examine the ethical ramifications of telling others what they can eat, and while I learned a lot there isn't much room for compromise there and we went in circles a lot.

So I started a thread about general food ethics, trying to get people to outline their general ethics on food without specific animals being mentioned and got nowhere fast. Some of the whaling debate spilled into it, and specific animals were being discussed instead of abstract concepts so I started another thread just asking people to name specific animals. Oddly enough some of the more abstract criteria started to be discussed there and now finally I just want a place to argue the specifics of whaling (e.g. the legal notions the anti-whaling crowd has are completely disconnected from legal reality) and honestly it just looks like there's really not much room for discussion here. On this whole site there are only a couple of people who even seem to understand what I'm trying to get people to discuss and who were interested in participating (namely dlowan and Thomas) and it's really frustrating to have so many attempts to get substantial discussion on this fail for me.

So I've decided what to do, I will map out the logic for every conceivable position and flow chart it and then ask people to take the flow chart and tell me what position the chart take them to. Maybe a food ethics quiz that tells people where they stand is going to work better than just asking them, because it seems that very few have thought out logically consistent positions on the matter.

But yeah, if Ionus wants to ignore my request he is perfectly free to do so, I'm not here to force my way and am just making an appeal to a particular type of interaction and as you point out it is an appeal that is perfectly easy to ignore.

Ive read thism thread in order to give my opinions and place my own vote into the "whaling in violation of an upvoted international agreement IS illegal".
However, this thread has actually gotten into the depths of a non-exchange of ideas and has gotten more into the donnybrook phase.

Ill stick with the "outrage..." thread because , besides the diversion to make us avert our eyes from whales to some claims on depleted fish stocks(asserted full responsibility US, which is bogus), its remained fairly on topic.

That NEVER works and I think you should reasses the outcomes. Such action ALWAYS escalates and merely turns good conversation foul . Ive left the "Outrage ..." thread for a few days to let an individual just cool heels, I d noticed that responses were beginning to become mere opportunities for name calling. I see that its happened here also.

As a matter aside from whether whaling is right or wrong I think it is pretty clear that the notion that it is "illegal" depends entirely on ignoring that there is no such "international" agreement and there is no such authority to declare it to be illegal. There are only a couple of countries in a voluntary organization declaring arbitrary sanctuaries in violation of the rules of their own organization.

And this is not what international law is made of. As an example, Norway has made no such agreement and there is absolutely no law that they are violating when they whale, those who claim it is illegal should try naming what law is being violated. Because international law just doesn't work this way. It is largely a matter of voluntary treaties, so whaling is not illegal except to the extent that countries enter binding legal treaties to agree not to whale and on the basis of even such treaties the notion that whaling is illegal is full of holes because the treaties in place do not support the US/Australian position and the organization's "charter" of sorts establishes it as an organization to develop whaling. This is why the IWC has not moved forward with any legal challenges of its positions that Japan has brought forth, they can't uphold their hijacking of the IWC through the treaties that brought Japan into it.

Japan can leave at any time and if the IWC wants to stay relevant they are going to start to have to issue their own quotas instead of arbitrary sanctuaries because on the very basis of the legal instruments that created the IWC they are supposed to be a conservation organization to promote sustainable whaling, not an animal rights organization (not knocking animal rights I am deeply interested in animal rights) that it has evolved to.

I think saying whaling is wrong is very arguable, but the notion that it is "illegal" is inflated rhetoric. It's illegal by Australian law, for example, but Australia has no jurisdiction over Japan. The IWC is a voluntary organization and by its own rules it allows for whaling through the loopholes that Japan uses.

If it is illegal, then why isn't there any legal action against it? Where is the court of law that would support such a verdict? Why just hot air about it each time an Australian president needs to be elected? The most you'll ever see about this is a dog and pony show from Australia to appease their domestic audience, but for something purportedly illegal a court of law actually saying so, as opposed to activists saying so would be a useful first step in actually establishing the whole "illegal" precedent. And there is a reason you don't see this alleged "crime" punished, and that is because it simply is not a crime.

Those are really cheap shots, Farmer, and you shouldn't be doing them on Robert's thread. I'll take them back where they belong.

Did you see that it looks as though the IWC is moving towards the position you advocate of negotiating quotas?

There's articles about it on Msolga's thread.

I'd support that personally because I don't think the head-butting is going to get anywhere.

Anyhoo, this is off thread, too.

Yup, I think it's the only tenable position they can take and it makes me very happy. As a conservation organization the IWC has worked well and I welcome it returning to conservation as a focus.



I saw you say that, and I find it very surprising because it doesn't sound too different than the status quo. All the rhetoric aside, Japan isn't whaling at unsustainable levels. So if the IWC issues quotas based on sustainability I don't see how the anti-whaling crowd will be satisfied.

The current whaling is sustainable*, so what does that give them?

* I know farmerman doesn't think so, but I'd actually love to argue that one because the science on it is clear and even the IWC scientists agree that there is room for a sustainable Minke catch.



I don't mind it here at all though, I'm very interested in why you'd find that satisfactory as I don't see it swinging in the anti-whaling crowd's favor if it's going to be based on science.

Thats why an "anti-science" approach has gotten some credibility herein. Ive said that Id be willing to accept a scientific based "sustainable" catch but the IWC has asked that the population numbers and carrying capacity be resolved for species INCLUDING THE SOUTHERN MINKE POPULATION. SInce discovering that Minkes are actually all part of separate subspecies, and the genetic components of the "catch" has not been forthcoming from Japan, you are talking an untruth RG.
Please try to be consoistent and not start or embed a "factoidal premise" within your posts. Saying that whaling is sustainable now and then moving on to your other points (or bringit it up in summary) is NOT what IWC says officially.

I can't comment on whose science is correct, but I find Farmerman's concerns...well...concerning. I am not sure that, in reality, the decision will involve JUST science. Some decisions Australia has made in a couple of circumstances to appease (often Japanese) tourists re animal kills certainly haven't been. I have certainly not been convinced by what I have read of the sustainability argument re Minkes. I doubt that we really know. I certainly make no claim to do so.

It won't satisfy the really hard core anti-whaling people, (of whom I am, very reluctantly, not one) but I guess I see it as a way of stepping down the level of conflict between at least the governments involved, and potentially being a face-saving way for everyone to calm down a bit.

I just don't see a lot of good in the current discourse.

Ultimately, unless fish stocks plummet very drastically, I doubt that whaling has much of a future. (Assuming baleen whales survived such a collapse, since they feed on tiny organisms?) I don't think it can be remotely economic for the Japanese, and they don't seem to actually eat that much of it. I don't know if the economics are better for the other whaling nations?

The current conflict seems to be generating more heat than light, and I suppose I hope that, with less drama between the governments, the Japanese might decide quietly to scale down their operations, or even stop over the long term.

I suppose I am hoping that whaling countries might just slowly move away from whaling, as I really do not think anti-whaling sentiment is going to go away, and I think, historically speaking, that things gradually tend to change when there is a lot of feeling for said change.

I hope it goes that way for the pigs, too!

I don't know why you say so confidently that pigs are MORE intelligent than all whales. I'm interested in your data re that. I am not saying that you're wrong, I would just be very surprised if enough similar testing had been done to back that up.

I know Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace will not stop opposing whaling using whatever tactics they decide to use, so I know an IWC compromise won't change that aspect.