|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 26, 2011 21:28:30 GMT -5
"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. Eh, personally I subscribe to the viewpoint that killing humans willy-nilly is wrong because modern society kinda needs people to function. Not only that, but foremost purpose of the existence of society in the first place is to make life as pleasant as possible for its inhabitants, and as such killing people unless its absolutely necessary is kinda anathema (or whatever the word is) to that aim. So yeah, to me whales are perfectly ok for eatin'. That said though, what exactly is it about whales that puts them on the same ethical level as humans? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 21:32:56 GMT -5
"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. Eh, personally I subscribe to the viewpoint that killing humans willy-nilly is wrong because modern society kinda needs people to function. Not only that, but foremost purpose of the existence of society in the first place is to make life as pleasant as possible for its inhabitants, and as such killing people unless its absolutely necessary is kinda anathema (or whatever the word is) to that aim. So yeah, to me whales are perfectly ok for eatin'. That said though, what exactly is it about whales that puts them on the same ethical level as humans? Again, simply- brain to body mass ratio. In more detail, whales have been observed engaging in behaviour that strongly suggests they are as intelligent and self aware as humans are. |
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jul 26, 2011 21:36:06 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. I take it calamari is off the menu then? |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 26, 2011 21:38:39 GMT -5
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. This is what I was kind of getting at with the "emotional argument" claim I made a while back. You say it's a matter of personal opinion, yet you're also saying it justifies an international ban. That's not to say your opinion on personhood is any less or more valid than mine, just that when calling for something as major as an international ban, something more concrete and substantial than just personal opinion is needed. You've not got a lot of experience with firearms or shooting at moving targets from an unstable, moving platform, have you? Large ships are quite stable, especially when they've got some sort of roll prevention (not sure if whaling ships do, but it shouldn't be too hard to install it) and whales are fucking huge. That said, I know this is purely my own speculation and no, I don't exactly shoot stuff very often. That said though, I do think the problem is simply that it works perfectly fine for killing the whales so nobody's invested the money to make it more humane. Appropriate legislation or political pressure should do the trick. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 26, 2011 21:43:05 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? Because they lie about it actually being used for food. Usually they will use just the fins (for whale fin soup) and maybe (BIG MAYBE) blubber for the candles and stuff and whatever you use blubber for. Everything else goes to waste. Hell, I've heard accounts of them trapping the whales and stuff then slicing off their fins before 'letting them go' to die. The fact of the matter is, they are using silly excuses for why they're hunting these creatures. Also, as for why we shouldn't care because they aren't humans... we need whales. We need the ecosystem to be balanced as much as possible. As for what was said about clean kills. In my single experience it was clean. He dropped where I shot him. I didn't have to track him down. All I had to do was climb out of the blind, walk the few yards to him, then drag him back to the cabin for skinning and everything else. However, these whalers purposely drag the still living whales back to home base. They don't shoot the whale to end its suffering, they don't hit it again with a harpoon in their skull. Or if they do I haven't heard enough accounts of it. A lot of hunters may neglect it but I am in favor of them being fined for it and taught how to do things properly. Just like I'm for the whalers being fined and taught how to do things properly and without BS 'for science!' lines. We may use it here when it comes to sex and stuff like that but like Amaranth said (in a bit of a pun) it doesn't hold water. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 21:48:32 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. I take it calamari is off the menu then? I don't eat a lot of seafood, actually. Mostly for ethical reasons, I believe that pretty much any seafood is being obtained by non sustainable methods. I'd never really thought about inteligent and self aware moluscs before. Interesting point. |
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jul 26, 2011 21:51:23 GMT -5
Yes many species of squid, cuttlefish and octopi of the cephalopod branch of molluscs are highly intelligent. Unfortunately for them they are also highly delicious.
The whole thing is reminding me of the Dodo episode of the Goodies.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 21:51:44 GMT -5
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. This is what I was kind of getting at with the "emotional argument" claim I made a while back. You say it's a matter of personal opinion, yet you're also saying it justifies an international ban. That's not to say your opinion on personhood is any less or more valid than mine, just that when calling for something as major as an international ban, something more concrete and substantial than just personal opinion is needed. How much would you like? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligenceYou've not got a lot of experience with firearms or shooting at moving targets from an unstable, moving platform, have you? Large ships are quite stable, especially when they've got some sort of roll prevention (not sure if whaling ships do, but it shouldn't be too hard to install it) and whales are fucking huge. That said, I know this is purely my own speculation and no, I don't exactly shoot stuff very often. That said though, I do think the problem is simply that it works perfectly fine for killing the whales so nobody's invested the money to make it more humane. Appropriate legislation or political pressure should do the trick.[/quote]If legislation and political pressure were all it took, Australia wouldn't constantly be fending off illegal fishing vessels of all types from our waters. Also, watch "Dangerous Catch" sometime, get some idea how large vessels handle in ocean swells. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 26, 2011 21:52:50 GMT -5
Well, see, Watson knows that the Aussies and the Kiwi navy can't get involved because one, this isn't happening in their territory/jurisdiction, and two, it's not illegal. The Japanese are whaling under the rules of the IWC, which Watson used to claim he was acting in defense of till the IWC booted the SS and declared them a menace. You seem to know more than me, but I was under the impression the Japanese whalers were actually operating in the Australian Antarctic territory, and thus the RAN could indeed be legally utilised to stop them. Further, I don't really see why the RAN couldn't be used in international waters... protection of national interests on the high seas is sort of, you know, why we have navies, I thought. What's the SS? If you mean Sea Shepherd... how were they part of the IWC? I thought that was countries only? I'm not sending them any more until I get my damn sticker! Worst bit is, I've seen such stickers elsewhere, so I know they send them to some people, just not me! This is the worst kind of discrimination! (i.e. the kind that effects me) Australia, due to the treaty it signed with multiple other countries to not stake claims in the Antarctic, has no authority beyond 200 miles from the shores of their nation. Where the whalers operate is international waters as declared by the IWC, International court, and the NZ maritime authority that investigated the Ady Gil sinking Sea Shepherd (SS for short) were given authority by the IWC to keep watch and inspections on whaling ships under the IWC's authority. The IWC revoked that long ago and has now just signed a bill denouncing and allowing action to be taken against SS directly |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 21:53:11 GMT -5
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? Because they lie about it actually being used for food. Usually they will use just the fins (for whale fin soup) and maybe (BIG MAYBE) blubber for the candles and stuff and whatever you use blubber for. Everything else goes to waste. Hell, I've heard accounts of them trapping the whales and stuff then slicing off their fins before 'letting them go' to die. ...with whales? Are you sure? I've certainly heard, and seen documentary evidence, of this being done to sharks for shark fin soup... but I've never heard of whale fin soup before. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 21:54:43 GMT -5
You seem to know more than me, but I was under the impression the Japanese whalers were actually operating in the Australian Antarctic territory, and thus the RAN could indeed be legally utilised to stop them. Further, I don't really see why the RAN couldn't be used in international waters... protection of national interests on the high seas is sort of, you know, why we have navies, I thought. What's the SS? If you mean Sea Shepherd... how were they part of the IWC? I thought that was countries only? I'm not sending them any more until I get my damn sticker! Worst bit is, I've seen such stickers elsewhere, so I know they send them to some people, just not me! This is the worst kind of discrimination! (i.e. the kind that effects me) Australia, due to the treaty it signed with multiple other countries to not stake claims in the Antarctic, has no authority beyond 200 miles from the shores of their nation. Where the whalers operate is international waters as declared by the IWC, International court, and the NZ maritime authority that investigated the Ady Gil sinking Hm. OK then, I had been previously misinformed, or had misunderstood what I was told on the subject. Thanks for the correction. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 26, 2011 21:56:08 GMT -5
Because they lie about it actually being used for food. Usually they will use just the fins (for whale fin soup) and maybe (BIG MAYBE) blubber for the candles and stuff and whatever you use blubber for. Everything else goes to waste. Hell, I've heard accounts of them trapping the whales and stuff then slicing off their fins before 'letting them go' to die. ...with whales? Are you sure? I've certainly heard, and seen documentary evidence, of this being done to sharks for shark fin soup... but I've never heard of whale fin soup before. Yeah, I think it's done to both. Not at the same frequency as sharks though, certainly. Probably on a 1:10 scale (whale to shark) Or I could be misremembering something I saw about whales and their fins. It's possible really. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 26, 2011 21:58:19 GMT -5
And yes Booley, threat indeed is what they are. When they purposely ram ships including using a "can opener", launching projectiles at the whalers and deliberately trying to disable ships on the open seas, they are indeed a very real threat. Every year they grow more brazen. This last season they attacked a ship they disabled while it was radioing distress calls, then complained when the Japanese tried to defend themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 26, 2011 22:04:01 GMT -5
I will not be happy until I see the whalers get slapped with the book too within the next 3 years after this. Yes, Sea Shepherd has extreme tactics. Yes, it's surprising I support their mission. But you know what? I agree with the basic creed. That the whale's life is important too. You want to research whale anatomy? Fine. But killing 100+ of them is not research. You like how whale meat tastes? Fine. But the whales need to have their population supported. we humans seem to enjoy hunting other creatures to the brink of extinction and even to extinction. And they are. Taking less than .1% of the Minke population won't hurt it, as the Japanese are recording. Hell, their quota wouldn't even be as high if not for Watson harassing them. They increased it since Watson got involved to allow them to replace catch lost due to his group interfering. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 26, 2011 22:15:13 GMT -5
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? Because they lie about it actually being used for food. Usually they will use just the fins (for whale fin soup) and maybe (BIG MAYBE) blubber for the candles and stuff and whatever you use blubber for. Everything else goes to waste. Hell, I've heard accounts of them trapping the whales and stuff then slicing off their fins before 'letting them go' to die. The fact of the matter is, they are using silly excuses for why they're hunting these creatures. Also, as for why we shouldn't care because they aren't humans... we need whales. We need the ecosystem to be balanced as much as possible. As for what was said about clean kills. In my single experience it was clean. He dropped where I shot him. I didn't have to track him down. All I had to do was climb out of the blind, walk the few yards to him, then drag him back to the cabin for skinning and everything else. However, these whalers purposely drag the still living whales back to home base. They don't shoot the whale to end its suffering, they don't hit it again with a harpoon in their skull. Or if they do I haven't heard enough accounts of it. A lot of hunters may neglect it but I am in favor of them being fined for it and taught how to do things properly. Just like I'm for the whalers being fined and taught how to do things properly and without BS 'for science!' lines. We may use it here when it comes to sex and stuff like that but like Amaranth said (in a bit of a pun) it doesn't hold water. And regulations of the IWC state that all of the meat shall be sold on market to pay for the program. If they are in violation of such, prove it and take it to the IWC. So far there's been a lot of "well I hear they" type claims. This is indeed how they're allowed to go after whales. They take research samples from their hunts, otherwise it's commercial hunting and banned. Yes, the Japanese may be abusing a loophole, but they've also published scientific results...most recently a report showing that the Minke whales are losing blubber because of the warming climate, thus making them less immune to temperature changes |
|
