Outrage over Japan's plan to slaughter humpback whales

No wonder the argument looks lost.

If you would argue for whale hunting we might have a chance.

Hard nosed international negotiators don't bother with arguments suitable for lower middle-class ladies' coffee mornings.

0 Replies

Are you morally superior because you're a vegan? That obviously gives you the right to stare down from the mountain in moral outrage at all us lesser mortals. To judge anyone who doesn't meet your high standards.

0 Replies

Wilso, spendi is our resident contrarian . HE usually has no compelling reasons for his initial opinions but he develops one as the thread goes on. He will , at some point announce with a straight face that "this was what he said earlier, when noting of the sort was mentioned. Hes nota logical thinker, but Hes a hoot. Often he paints himself into corners and then denies having done so.
He thinks himself much brighter than he actually is .

An economic reason is equally valid for protecting whales. They generate a significant business in eco-tourism and natural history. They are a great way, like the elephant of Botswana for small towns to have a viable economy.

However, with all the data and objective reasoning aside, I wish to see them not go extinct because that diminishes us all. Allowing any nation to continue a market slaughter in the name of science, and then selling your specimens on the open meat market is a two=faced stand.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Wilso, spendi is our resident contrarian . HE usually has no compelling reasons for his initial opinions but he develops one as the thread goes on. He will , at some point announce with a straight face that "this was what he said earlier, when noting of the sort was mentioned. Hes nota logical thinker, but Hes a hoot. Often he paints himself into corners and then denies having done so.
He thinks himself much brighter than he actually is .

With that mode of discourse one could easily prove that The Bible is the literal truth,that pigs can do the Times crossword or than being off topic is on topic or any other daft idea you might have accidentally picked up from an educational system which places the self-serving assertion in pole position in scientific reasoning.

I am aware that you have neither the time nor the inclination to provide any evidence for your posturings and strongly suspect that even if you had you would be unable to.

Somebody once remarked that evolution will eventually arrive at the point where the surviving fittest will be those species which ladies of the lower middle-class swoon over, such as koala bears, those we can use for practical purposes and those which attention seekers can hitch their bandwagon to for the purpose of annoying everybody.

Economic reasons for hunting whales concedes the case that they can be killed and they don't have any equality with moral reasons even though they might serve the same purpose superficially.

I am a vegan for purely selfish health reasons and I have already said that I wouldn't fire a harpoon into a whale for all the money in the world because I can see the suffering. Neither would I go fishing but if I did eat meat and I did go fishing and I did support animal experiments causing suffering I wouldn't try taking any moral stances on whales just because I had had a deeply emotional experience with one. That stuff is for the shivering sweeties

And The Bible says we have dominion over the animals which, I think,is your general position despite The Bible being "a load of crap". I think you are picking up on whales for your own reasons and they are inconsistant morally with being in favour of those things I mentioned and much else besides.

Any economic argument gives the green light to whale hunting. It means it's okay when it suits you that it is and you disallow the pro whalers the same argument.

One needn't be all that morally developed to be superior to such utter bilge.

0 Replies

Please excuse this rude interruption to the boy fight! :wink: :

Last Update: Tuesday, June 20, 2006. 7:35am (AEST)

Greenpeace survives IWC vote
By Environment correspondent Sarah Clarke

Greenpeace has survived a vote which could have seen it removed from the International Whaling Commission (IWC), which is meeting in St Kitts in the Caribbean.

It came after a Japanese claim that the clash at sea between the two earlier this year put people's safety at risk.

Greenpeace had expected to have its observer status removed, but Japan watered down its complaint.

Instead, all countries adopted a resolution calling for safety on the high seas.

Mike Townsley from Greenpeace says that is always a priority.

"When we return to the Southern Ocean this year, again to confront the so-called scientific whaling fleet which plans to take 935 minke whales and 10 fin whales, safety will be our number one priority," he said.

However, both sides are still blaming each for the ocean clash between Greenpeace's Arctic Sunrise and the Japanese whaling fleet in January this year.

Meanwhile, pro-whaling countries have vowed to forge ahead with a return to commercial whaling. ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1666825.htm

0 Replies

Ms Olga wrote-

Quote:

"When we return to the Southern Ocean this year, again to confront the so-called scientific whaling fleet which plans to take 935 minke whales and 10 fin whales, safety will be our number one priority," he said.

There you go Olga.

One has only to think of all the men who have died fighting for their principles ,such as Battle of Britain pilots and Australians fighting fascism,to gauge the strength of the Greenpeace warrior's moral stance.They actually derive real benefits from what they do.

Did you know that Battle of Britain pilots knew that their chances of surviving six months was close to negligible.

BTW- Have you any reports about what goes on in St Kitts when they cease their deliberations. Some of us, cynics though we may be, suspect that having a jolly on expenses a long way from normal social restraints is of greater importance to delegates to conferences than the matter at hand. In fact some of us derive our cynicism from first hand experience.
Some journals call the conferences "freebies" and others call them "junkets".

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

Economic reasons for hunting whales concedes the case that they can be killed and they don't have any equality with moral reasons even though they might serve the same purpose superficially.

You are somewhat dense. I stated that there were economic reasons to NOT hunt whales. Id wish you would stop the "smithing" to your own liking . As for the rest of your post, whatever floats your boat as long as you dont frighten the children.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

You are somewhat dense. I stated that there were economic reasons to NOT hunt whales. Id wish you would stop the "smithing" to your own liking . As for the rest of your post, whatever floats your boat as long as you dont frighten the children.

Can you not even get started now without an assertion.

I have already given the economic reasons for not hunting whales. (Twice- which is once more than I would normally do). Perhaps you missed those. Perhaps you forgot already. Perhaps you ignored them to provide a subject to post on and hoped other threaders had forgotten as well.

There was no need to capitalise "not". I can read quite well without needing an elbow in the ribs.

Whatever makes you think I frighten children. What low sump did you dredge that up from.

Your previous avatar was enough to frighten a fast bowler and your present one is only a slight improvement.

0 Replies

Stradee quoted-

Quote:

During a debate Monday on whale-killing methods and hunters' desire to shorten the time between the harpooning of an animal and its death, Massiah said whaling countries were committed to reducing suffering. However, she said that she thought "the term 'humane killing' was an oxymoron."

Has Ms Massiah told the meat industry that? They "humanely" kill millions of animals every year. Maybe every week.

0 Replies

They kicked off on the News last night with English Nature trying to stop scollop dredging in Lyme Regis Bay to save the endangered coral. It seems the price of scollops has gone up a lot recently. People dive in the bay for the pleasure of admiring the coral and the local fishermen derive a living from wrecking it searching for the scollops.

Is it simply a battle between the status of various forms of leisure activity. Any moral argument would apply to coral surely?

0 Replies

The argument for whaling is mainly from the economic reason of the industry.
Actually, in Japan, people are not short of foods now. Beef is better than whale meat as to the tastes. The preference for whale meat among some portion of people in Japan is based mainly on the nostalgia for 1960's, when the consumption of whale meat was the highest in the quantity.
The "cultural" aspect, which is sometimes advocated by pro-whaling groups, of whaling is a far-fetched allusion for actually economic interests of the industry.
(In my childhood, I was educated by movies filmed by whaling companies to show how brave and grand the whaling was. But those did not show the process of the suffering of whales between harpooning and their death.
Currently I feel how I, as a child then, was cheated by the whaling industry.)

0 Replies

International criminals plying their "illicit" trade.

http://byandlarge.net/scuttlebutt/images/200411/fishing.jpg

0 Replies

In an article Blubbering Hypocrites in the Sunday Times June 18 Rod Liddle wrote-

Quote:

0 Replies

satt_fs wrote:

The argument for whaling is mainly from the economic reason of the industry.
Actually, in Japan, people are not short of foods now. Beef is better than whale meat as to the tastes. The preference for whale meat among some portion of people in Japan is based mainly on the nostalgia for 1960's, when the consumption of whale meat was the highest in the quantity.
The "cultural" aspect, which is sometimes advocated by pro-whaling groups, of whaling is a far-fetched allusion for actually economic interests of the industry.
(In my childhood, I was educated by movies filmed by whaling companies to show how brave and grand the whaling was. But those did not show the process of the suffering of whales between harpooning and their death.
Currently I feel how I, as a child then, was cheated by the whaling industry.)

Thank you for posting that, satt. Actually, I was thinking of you the other day, in relation to this thread. And hoping that you weren't taking it as some sort of generalized "Japanese bash". It's not meant to be that way at all. I suspect you already knew that, but just in case ....
Yes, I've read the views that you've expressed here, elsewhere. I think I've posted a few articles saying similar things. But it all does become very confusing with so many contradictory views being published. For example, it there is a huge stock-pile of whale meat, then why plan to escalate whaling at this stage? And why plan to include threatened species like the humpback when there's no economic need to? One minute we're being told there's a glut of whale meat in storage, the next that the whaling industry plans to make the catch even bigger. Huh? Of course, you may not have an explanation for this, but if you do have some insight, I'd be very interested to hear what you have to say.

0 Replies

Jeesh, hundreds of pages of who gives a ****.

They're animals. Eat them. Enjoy.

0 Replies

msolga..
Sorry, but I have no connection with the whaling industry or with groups against the industry either, and hence, I cannot say anything about their intention.
(With the large quantity of stock of whale meat, they would lower the price of whale meat with effects of enlarging the demands for the whale meat in Japan. )

0 Replies

One possible motive is that if whales are a protected species this will allow them to breed unhindered, at what rate I don't know, and as they eat 1 and 1/2 tons of other species per day they could,one supposes, remove all other life forms from the sea,like large trees kill off most life forms from beneath their beautiful but greedy foliage, and thus wipe out the worlds fishing industries and themselves at the same time.

With this argument, which I only offer for consideration, whale hunting could be said to be protecting whales.

I think seal culls are undertaken to protect fish stocks for our use.

0 Replies

so, aspendi, your thesis is that , nature, if left on its own, would destroy nature?

Just for you, I have a large bridge from Miami to Cuba,get in on the ground floor, were only taking a few more investors.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

One possible motive is that if whales are a protected species this will allow them to breed unhindered, at what rate I don't know, and as they eat 1 and 1/2 tons of other species per day they could,one supposes, remove all other life forms from the sea,like large trees kill off most life forms from beneath their beautiful but greedy foliage, and thus wipe out the worlds fishing industries and themselves at the same time.

With this argument, which I only offer for consideration, whale hunting could be said to be protecting whales.

I think seal culls are undertaken to protect fish stocks for our use.

Again I say WOFTM. You havnt got a clue what you are talking about. why dont you crawl back into your hole you nufty!

0 Replies

Outrage over Japan's plan to slaughter humpback whales

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know