|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 26, 2011 19:20:54 GMT -5
We have guns and harpoons and they don't? And in some cultures they are sacred (but that is besides the point). And why is that line of thinking only applied to whales (and sometimes seals)? Deer, bears, kangaroos, ducks, geese, rabbits, fish and foxes don't have guns and harpoons either, yet the majority opinion is hunting those guys is a-ok, even when it's just for fun rather than food. It's the same reasons we find animal abuse bad. Yeah, the animals have teeth but we're bigger and we have the weapons and the larger brains. Hunting =/= animal abuse. As a hunter of deer I must say that you're comparing the two types of 'hunting' wrongly. Hunters keep the deer population down to manageable levels. The whalers are killing said whales and overstepping their quotas using the BS excuse of 'research' and 'science' or the worst excuse of all 'food'. Hunting them to near extinction is not ethical hunting of any sort. Here in Georgia you can only kill 2 of a predator like a bear in a season. You can only kill less than 25 deer in a season if I remember right. I killed only one. One. And I used every part that I could (hide, horns, meat). These guys? Do not. Also, as LHM pointed out, the whales are abused before they die. I consider being dragged along by your wound to be abuse before death. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 26, 2011 19:55:31 GMT -5
For me, it comes from the belief that whales are fellow sentients. Hunting whales for food is, essentuially, the same as hunting people for food. IMHO. Riiiiight. So what exactly puts whales on a higher level than any other non-human animal? |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 26, 2011 20:06:49 GMT -5
Hunting =/= animal abuse. Indeed, it does not, if the hunter is an ethical hunter. And ethical hunters do NOT jam one of these fuckers into you  and then either let you bleed to death, or drag you into a factory ship by the wound, and then commence hacking pieces off you with saws while you are still alive. Out of interest, google image search for harpoon produces this young lady, who recently featured in another thread. Synchronicity! t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkymPrpgglGIrovbXjk7uqG8R0Z4Y50FmDw_Nzvh_RatOyjkLCLgGranted, I'm no harpoon engineer, but don't modern harpoons kill instantly? I thought they had an explosive tip that goes off inside the whale and destroys the internal organs, killing it instantly. Either way, to me that seems like more of an argument to make whaling more humane, not ban it entirely. That's generally the conclusion most people reach when they hear about livestock being mistreated. |
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Jul 26, 2011 20:10:51 GMT -5
Also, as LHM pointed out, the whales are abused before they die. I consider being dragged along by your wound to be abuse before death. And deer hunters never need to track some bleeding deer for over an hour for it to finally die? Generally with whatever they were hit with still inside them. It's not much nicer unless you actually kill it clean, and I don't hear about that all to much. But I also don't hunt. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 26, 2011 20:12:56 GMT -5
As a hunter of deer I must say that you're comparing the two types of 'hunting' wrongly. Hunters keep the deer population down to manageable levels. The whalers are killing said whales and overstepping their quotas using the BS excuse of 'research' and 'science' or the worst excuse of all 'food'. Hunting them to near extinction is not ethical hunting of any sort. Here in Georgia you can only kill 2 of a predator like a bear in a season. You can only kill less than 25 deer in a season if I remember right. I killed only one. One. And I used every part that I could (hide, horns, meat). These guys? Do not. Also, as LHM pointed out, the whales are abused before they die. I consider being dragged along by your wound to be abuse before death. Your argument seems more to favour ensuring it's sustainable (which I'm all for) rather than banning it outright. Especially your claim of overstepping quotas (which I've never heard of then doing from a reliable source btw). Furthermore, why do you claim food is not a legitimate excuse for whaling, yet in the next paragraph you justify hunting by saying you use the animal after you kill it? Another question, what part of whales that have some sort of use aren't used? |
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jul 26, 2011 20:31:56 GMT -5
For me, it comes from the belief that whales are fellow sentients. Hunting whales for food is, essentuially, the same as hunting people for food. IMHO. Riiiiight. So what exactly puts whales on a higher level than any other non-human animal? LHM said sentience. They are believed to be self aware. Dolphins like Chimpanzees can recognise themselves in mirrors. Bushmeat is banned and frowned upon for similar reasons. Is the science that whales are now at sustainable levels where they could be hunted without causing extinction? Having said all that if given the opportunity I would probably try, whale, chimp or person just to see what they taste like. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 26, 2011 20:49:49 GMT -5
LHM said sentience. They are believed to be self aware. Dolphins like Chimpanzees can recognise themselves in mirrors. My question was why exactly this translates as "don't eat them". If cows could recognise themselves in the mirror, it sure as hell wouldn't stop me from eating steak. Is the science that whales are now at sustainable levels where they could be hunted without causing extinction? Well yeah. Whales breed just like any other animal. It's just a matter of only hunting as many per year as they can replace via breeding. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 21:04:05 GMT -5
For me, it comes from the belief that whales are fellow sentients. Hunting whales for food is, essentuially, the same as hunting people for food. IMHO. Riiiiight. So what exactly puts whales on a higher level than any other non-human animal? Brain to body mass ratio, simply. I never said whales are higher than any other non human animal, btw. Frankly, I have similar reservations about hunting similarly inteligent, self aware animals. Wolves, for example. Elephants, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 26, 2011 21:06:33 GMT -5
Riiiiight. So what exactly puts whales on a higher level than any other non-human animal? Brain to body mass ratio, simply. I never said whales are higher than any other non human animal, btw. Frankly, I have similar reservations about hunting similarly inteligent, self aware animals. Wolves, for example. Elephants, as well. So what you're saying is that some highly emotional reasoning on your part justifies not just an international ban but also Sea Shepherd's general (illegal) twattery? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 21:08:01 GMT -5
Granted, I'm no harpoon engineer, but don't modern harpoons kill instantly? I thought they had an explosive tip that goes off inside the whale and destroys the internal organs, killing it instantly. Yes, modern harpoons have explosive heads, but death is rarely instantaneous. That is a valid point of view, if you don't accept the idea that whales are, essentially, "people". However, until a genuinely humane method of whale farming is advanced, I think it should be stopped entirely. If you are interested in the concept of humane, sustainable whale farming, Arthur C Clarke wrote a whole book about it, visionary that he was. The Deep Range. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 21:11:39 GMT -5
LHM said sentience. They are believed to be self aware. Dolphins like Chimpanzees can recognise themselves in mirrors. My question was why exactly this translates as "don't eat them". If cows could recognise themselves in the mirror, it sure as hell wouldn't stop me from eating steak. Much like abortion, I think thats an internal ethical discussion everyone needs to have with himself. I don't seek to force my views on others, generally, but for myself, I would be very sad if it were shown that cows were sentient, since I am a steakavore, and would feel compelled to stop eating them. Is the science that whales are now at sustainable levels where they could be hunted without causing extinction? Well yeah. Whales breed just like any other animal. It's just a matter of only hunting as many per year as they can replace via breeding.[/quote]Yet humans have a well documented history of hunting things faster than they can reproduce. Whales included. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 21:15:43 GMT -5
Brain to body mass ratio, simply. I never said whales are higher than any other non human animal, btw. Frankly, I have similar reservations about hunting similarly inteligent, self aware animals. Wolves, for example. Elephants, as well. So what you're saying is that some highly emotional reasoning on your part justifies not just an international ban but also Sea Shepherd's general (illegal) twattery? "Highly emotional"? I think I am being rational and ethical, actually. i think precisely the same things that make it unethical to kill a human without his consent are present in whales, therefore, it is unethical to kill them without their consent. While Sea Shepherd's methods may leave something to be desired, I am happy that someone is doing something and drawing attention to the plight of these animals. Yes, THAT, is an emotional argument. However, I am, and have, and encourage others, to do what they can to bring pressure onto whalers by other means as well. Usually legal ones. However, direct action has its place. Very few cultural paradigm shifts are achieved without breaking laws somewhere. Rosa Parkes and the Suffragettes spring to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 26, 2011 21:18:13 GMT -5
That is a valid point of view, if you don't accept the idea that whales are, essentially, "people". But whales are not people. Whales are whales. People (i.e. humans) are people. However, until a genuinely humane method of whale farming is advanced, I think it should be stopped entirely. I can certainly understand that, although I do wonder if it would simply be a matter of aiming for the head. If you are interested in the concept of humane, sustainable whale farming, Arthur C Clarke wrote a whole book about it, visionary that he was. The Deep Range. That pretty much sums up my thoughts on whaling. Make sure it's sustainable and humane, but other than that go for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 26, 2011 21:19:45 GMT -5
It's not much nicer unless you actually kill it clean, and I don't hear about that all to much. But I also don't hunt. Anecdotally, based on the number of hunters in my friends and family, I'd say a clean kill is pretty common. Not common enough, however, ot negate the point. And a lot of hunters seem to neglect the responsibility of tracking down their wounded prey. However, I would thinkthis is simply a case of what Shane said earlier, flipped on its head. If Shane didn't like hunting dear, it would come off as similarly cruel based on these things. It would likely be small comfort that clean kills are "common enough." I've never particularly had a propblem with hunting, except I find some people pretty douchey about it. Specifically, the guys who will wing a deer and leave it to slowly bleed to death, or the ones who treat the use of firearms on large animals as an excuse to get drunk. But neither of these particularly apply here, to whaling. My only real issue with hunting whales is this concept of taking a threatened species, especially for profit. I'd personally feel the same if deer were an endangered animal. Around here, if they don't get hunted, they will overpopulate and starve themselves, so I'm hardly worried about the deer being rendered extinct. Whaling is different because it is still threatening them, and the "for science!" line just doesn't hold water. And they were talking expansion only a couple years ago.... Still don't support Sea Shepherd though. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 21:24:19 GMT -5
That is a valid point of view, if you don't accept the idea that whales are, essentially, "people". But whales are not people. Whales are whales. People (i.e. humans) are people. Rather depends what your definition of "people" is. If it is belonging to the species Homo sapiens sapiens that makes something special, then I guess whales are shit out of luck. But if it is something beyond being human, if personhood is to do with inteligence and self awareness, then I believe whales qualify. This is a matter of personal opinion, of course. You've not got a lot of experience with firearms or shooting at moving targets from an unstable, moving platform, have you? |
|
