Whales, or whats left of them.

deb,

There is nothing wrong with emotion, but what if it flies in the face of sound reason and logic?

You argue that your diet is centered around the premise of the least suffering to the animals you eat.

Yet you eat small animals that make up a few meals while wishing humans would not eat larger animals that can make up hundreds of meals.

I posit that even by your emaotional standards if you take a look at the big picture it makes no sense.

0 Replies

Where do I say that people should not eat large animals?

0 Replies

In private conversations with me you indicated that you do not eat beef both for its inherent qualities as well as the suffering factor.

Here you indicate that you do not like the idea of whales being eaten because they are intelligent and because they would suffer.....

I could go on, but I am not a fan of entirely emotional arguments.

0 Replies

Wrong.

I do not eat beef for those reasons, and others - but I have never said others should not - I HAVE said that I do not approve of factory (ie feed lot) production of beef - or factory farming of any animal.

There are actually good health reasons for that as well, as it happens.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Of course, another objection to whaling is the horror of the kinds of deaths to which large, apparently highly intelligent, social and presumably sensorily sophisticated mammals are subjected - explosive harpoon heads have lessened the time frame of the horror, I suppose, but the whole methodology is horrific to those of us who believe we should limit the suffering of animals we choose to sacrifice.

In essence, I recognize that the anti-whaling argument, IF any new agreement contains safeguards against over-hunting, is emotional - ie it rests on the feeling that these creatures are too much like us, and too precious, to kill.

Here I bow out and allow you to nuance it as you will.

My personal suggestion is to use the one where you say you were positing arguments that you yourself might not share.

0 Replies

Bow out if you will - and I assume nuance is a kind word for fib - however I still have not said that others ought not to eat large animals raised for that purpose.

I do think that controlled killing at abbatoirs is kinder than the harpooning and slower death of whales at sea, however, as I said above, I do take Monger's argument about that.

Guilty as charged about emotionalism about whales in particular.

0 Replies

I am a FAN of nuancing and you have just nuanced.

You make the case that eating whales is "horrific" yet try to say that you did not say others shouldn't do it.

True, I do not recall you explicitly stating as much, but in this case I believe there is a bit too much of a nuance and I'd start calling it squirming. :-)

This thread is largely about whether others should eat whales or not. I see nobody here talking about their personal desire to eat whales.

I therefore consider it very very disingenuous for you to imply that you do not wish that other people would stop eating whales after calling the practice "horrific" and saying that whales are "too precious, to kill".

Are you talking about your own experience in killing and eating whales or that of others?

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Oh, I get you Craven!

No, no - you are right, I DON'T want other people eating whales - I do accept that this is based on emotion, not reason - I mean, I can mount a defense of this view - but I know it would not be acceptable to you.

Despite this feeling, I have during this thread acknowledged the cultural relativity of the view - and I have agreed, although not, I think in writing, with the notion that this is imposing certain views on other people. I also accept Monger's correction of my belief that eating of whale meat was confined to a tiny luxury market - if it is a staple food, I think that casts it in a somewhat different light.

I still hope that whaling will not re-commence. As I said - re emotionalism on this matter, guilty as charged.

I was arguing with your saying that I have said that OTHER people should not eat any larger animals, not with your representation of my views on whaling.

0 Replies

Dys - I am well aware of those figures - and many are active in trying to change fishing methods to ones less injurious to all manner of "bycatch".

0 Replies

Deb,

Wanna know somthing interesting?

I do not think people should eat whales. I think Japan is frequently quite deceptive in that they sometimes research whales as a pretext for eating them.

That being said I do have a qualm with some of the arguments against it. I personally think the criteria should be extinction and not the appeal to pity. I think much hyperbole is made of Japan's whaling. I think much of this is derived simply from the cultural difference.

Under the criterion of extinction I think there is a greater chance that whales will not be driven to it.

Under the criterion of emotion about whales and their suffering I think that it is more likely to simply elicit a "don't tell us what to eat" response.

A lot of the cultural indignity expressed, IMO, lessens the chances of Japan cooperating.

To be fair you noted this. My qualm with you was the appeal to pity. I think it's a fallacious argument because anything we eat, from plants to whales can fall under the appeal to pity.

I happen to believe that plants suffer to some degree. I also agree that whales and more intelligent life forms suffer to a far greater degree but since quantifying animal intelligence is near impossible I think it's a poor criterion that guarantees a standoff.

0 Replies

The Species Survival Network (SSN) gives information not only about and dolphins.

0 Replies

Craven - yes. Interesting indeed! I could, as I said, but it would take a long time, mount an argument based on intelligence and self-consciousness - and I actually think this is an argument that, while based on admittedly very inexact information, is gradually taking hold in a practical way amongst peoples who are not functioning at subsistence level. Most of us would have more qualms about killing and eating a chimpanzee than we would about killing and eating a fish.

Of course, this is probably being most unfair to the fish!

Of course, survival of any being on this planet is premised upon competition with and some destruction of other creatures. Even plants compete fiercely with each other and often destroy other plants in this process.

I guess I always come back to least harm and least infliction of suffering as possible. I would be a vegetarian again if I stood true to my principles, and I would probably find myself apologising to the carrots I was about to juice and suchlike!

I think your argument about extinction a good one to use - and, given that many species of whale were hunted nearly to extinction, it is easy to argue that we do not yet know enough about their situation and stability to re-commence hunting them safely.

I said from the very beginning of this thread that I understood the charge of cultural arrogance levelled at people who would deny whaling to others.

Your comments about pity - thing is, I think that pity - or empathy as I would hope it would be more accurate to describe it - is an early stage in re-thinking many things - like, for instance, slavery; bear-baiting; factory conditions; prison conditions etc.

I do not necessarily view it (ie empathy) with the negativity that you SEEM to - and, as I said, I think there IS a rational ethical discourse to be had about the possibilities for drawing distinctions between one animal and another.

As I said all along - I recognize the emotional and also the irrational components here as well (note I draw a distinction) and I do not see the results of such a discourse as a foregone conclusion, even inside my head.

I was putting points for discussion forth here - not actually saying I thought I had hold of the absolute truth.

I am very much in the process of thinking all of this through, and I very much welcome constructive critiques of my thinking - I think these important issues for us as a species.

It has been helpful mixing it with you on this issue.

0 Replies

Good stuff, Craven & 'lowan

0 Replies

What kind of pseudo intellectual crap are all of you guys spewing in here? I am a conservative, I think ALL liberals are pussy spineless bastards. But even I know that you cannot wipe out a species of animal on the planet with out effecting the ecco system in a negative way. And I said that in a paragraph. WTF you had to write a friggin short story. Maybe people would get your point better if you got to it sooner instead of trying to prove to people that you are smart. Remember a real smart person can get his point accross in fewer words... think about it.

dlowan wrote:

Craven - yes. Interesting indeed! I could, as I said, but it would take a long time, mount an argument based on intelligence and self-consciousness - and I actually think this is an argument that, while based on admittedly very inexact information, is gradually taking hold in a practical way amongst peoples who are not functioning at subsistence level. Most of us would have more qualms about killing and eating a chimpanzee than we would about killing and eating a fish.

Of course, this is probably being most unfair to the fish!

Of course, survival of any being on this planet is premised upon competition with and some destruction of other creatures. Even plants compete fiercely with each other and often destroy other plants in this process.

I guess I always come back to least harm and least infliction of suffering as possible. I would be a vegetarian again if I stood true to my principles, and I would probably find myself apologising to the carrots I was about to juice and suchlike!

I think your argument about extinction a good one to use - and, given that many species of whale were hunted nearly to extinction, it is easy to argue that we do not yet know enough about their situation and stability to re-commence hunting them safely.

I said from the very beginning of this thread that I understood the charge of cultural arrogance levelled at people who would deny whaling to others.

Your comments about pity - thing is, I think that pity - or empathy as I would hope it would be more accurate to describe it - is an early stage in re-thinking many things - like, for instance, slavery; bear-baiting; factory conditions; prison conditions etc.

I do not necessarily view it (ie empathy) with the negativity that you SEEM to - and, as I said, I think there IS a rational ethical discourse to be had about the possibilities for drawing distinctions between one animal and another.

As I said all along - I recognize the emotional and also the irrational components here as well (note I draw a distinction) and I do not see the results of such a discourse as a foregone conclusion, even inside my head.

I was putting points for discussion forth here - not actually saying I thought I had hold of the absolute truth.

I am very much in the process of thinking all of this through, and I very much welcome constructive critiques of my thinking - I think these important issues for us as a species.

It has been helpful mixing it with you on this issue.

Whales, or whats left of them.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know