Earth to Msolga. Do you copy? Over!

They might have a claim to eat what they wish to eat.

You have failed, once again, to address the point that one turkey death only feeds one family for one meal and that one whale death feeds thousands for a few meals.

Also, the life of the turkey is a sad one in order that they are cheap enough for you all whereas the whale lives free in the ocean until it is killed. Possibly for many years. The turkeys are fed certain chemicals which contaminate their meat in order that they can look good on your platters and the whalemeat is as natural as the meat of grouse and deer which roam the moors and the wilderness unhindered.

All in all, fm, your animal loving is shot to pieces and your protect the whale promotions are merely an attempt to exploit fashionable ideas embraced by left-wing ladies of a certain age and condition.

50 million turkeys were slaughtered this year I read somewhere. And not a one of them ever beat a baby seal to death or swallowed millions of little sea creatures in order to get that fat.

NO, yu failed to see the entire point that TURKEYS HAVE BEEN DOMESTICATED AND ARE RAISED AS LIVESTOCK> WHALES ARE WILDLIFE>

We dont magae a wild stock by allowing fishing that can damage the population. The Japanese are claiming that taking 0.1% of the population isnt hrmful yet they take more like 5 times that collectively. They have not only made a false claim to fishing for "scientific research" They are not even sticking to their numbers claimed.

You are unarmed in this discussion .

The turkeys don't know they are domesticated. Your anthropomorphism is ridiculous.

You're domesticated yourself. Goodstyle.

And 5 times 0.1% is not a great leap. And I dare say your figures come from a source which you approve of.

I'll admit it if I am unarmed. You have admitted shooting wildlife.

The fact is that deaths per plateful is loaded heavily in favour of killing whales from an animal lovers point of view.

see the cleverness in that?


Whatever you were trying to cobble together there got lost in your pretentious babble.

Two assertions of no meaning double up-thumbed.

You are reduced to raspberries.

Apropos the impressive raspberries--

When Norman Mailer head-butted Gore Vidal in the washroom of a TV studio Mr Vidal looked up at Mailer from his supine position on the tiles and said, "Run out of arguments again Norman?"

NO, "I just wanted to make sure that, for once, you met up with reality"

Youve gotta avoid cliches like the plague spendi

Actually, the use of such raspberries brings A2K into disrepute. It can hardly be a "prestigious American debate forum" when such things pass for discussion.

The fact that nobody seems to mind is something one has to put up with.

then why did you bring it up?
Are you having another argument with yourself?


Whos winning?

What cliches?

And anyway cliches can be freshened up by a context restoring their original meaning. Dylan is an expert at that art. Richard Goldstein said that "Dylan approaches a cliche like a butcher eyes a chicken,"

A cliche, when restored, provides a fast and accurate appreciation of human nature. But it has to be restored to do that.

What you have to do is answer the points I raised. Never mind the literary criticism. It's not your cup of tea. Nor your strong suit.

If the Japanese wanted to eat all the whales within their 200 nautical mile boundary fine... But they hunt them all over the world and deny the rest of us the majesty of their presence. For science... please - for profit more likely.

Yss Cie, there are simply too many of us

That's right. Far too many. And we live in the wrong places.

From what I understand there are hundreds of thousands of whales and they eat other organisms in unimaginably vast quantities. The number being taken by the Japanese and the Norwegians is insignificant.

I saw a film of a few whales which got into a formation to create a wave which washed a seal off an ice floe, on which it had taken refuge, which they then munched up. That's bullying.

It follows that the issue is one of animal rights in which case the 50 million turkeys gobbled up on Thanksgiving have just as much going for them as the whales do. Hence, if you eat meat at all, you have no case for protecting a few whales except on behalf of some sentimental affectation possible derived from a National Geographic promo with whooshie musical dubbings and a voice in compassion overload.

It seems that the warming of the oceans has decimated some species of whales so if you contribute to that warming you are partially responsible for that decline which is of a far greater magnitude than the hunters could ever bring about.

The vegan hermit might be on firm ground arguing for the protection of whales but none of us are.

You are using whales to get attention.

Forcefully demonstrating the relativity of the religious discrimination. Thus the Christian hangs Porky by his hind legs then cuts his throat so he bleeds to death

If he were in charge he'd consider intelligence a curse, we'd live in mud and get slaughtered for food

However he probably wouldn't torture us

Who, Spend, me
I don't recall making any such case so you might clarify

Your essentially right, but there's an argument that can be made on the basis of level of sentience. It's an entirely amoral one and so moral indignation over the killing of whales does suggest immoral indifference to the killing of cows and turkeys.

I've not read FM's arguments so will don't categorize them, but there are plenty of others that I have read or heard that fit the category very well.

I find the slaughter of rhinos for their horns, elephants for their ivory, sharks for their fins, etc to be immoral, if only for the waste it involves, but I admit to objecting to killing wild animals above the level of insects for selfish reasons. I like to know they are out there and to see photos and film of them.

Also for selfish reasons, I choose not to think about the fates of animals raised or caught for food.

By what measure?

The earth can easily sustain our numbers.

Famine in Northern Africa and North Korea would exist if there were half the number of people living there.

The cruelty and callous stupidity of many humans has nothing to do with our numbers.

Yes

And, yes.

Which brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Olga.

Which, for those of a literary bent, follows on from Molly Bloom's last word.

What does the cruelty and callous stupidity of many Americans have to do with, Finn?