Whaling

[1_man_army]

Same as with asylum seekers.

 

Attacking desperate people who are seeking refuge from terrible poverty and repressive regimes, you're a real humanitarian aren't you?

[Arcantica]

I understand the traditional value point of view from the Japanese, but at the same time, these people are making it a business and selling meat for profit rather just for cultural purposes. These companies are not harvesting these whales in a traditional way for traditional purposes.

 

 

The Native American whale hunters here in North America got harassed and protested against when they wanted to take some whales for traditional purposes, which they have the legal right to do. They have been doing this for thousands of years, but are not out to make money. These guys hop in a small boat, paddle to the whales and harpoon them, and they actually use the meat within the community, and no money is made. This is something I think is good. Then on the other hand, I am against what these Japanese companies are doing, because its all commercial. Traditional hunting and gathering rights is kinda a sticky subject for me, having went to college for wildlife biology and being an animal rights activist, plus being Native American. I still hunt and fish, but at the same time there is that natural respect and traditionalism involved which I feel is important to have. You don't just do it because you want to go out and make a bunch of money selling stuff, you do it because it's what your people have always done to survive, and when you stop doing things for these reasons, you loose any cultural significance to it and you can't claim it as traditional anymore.

 

 

The Japanese are also secretly slaughtering dolphins and shark as well. But the blame is on the companies. I know people are quick to start talking trash about all Japanese people based on what a few do, which isn't right. Yes the government is allowing these companies to do it, but I don't think the general Japanese population is pro-whaling. When your company has enough money to influence political powers, you can pretty much get away with anything.

[i_love_burritos]

What arc druid is saying is certainly true, in terms of cultural value, but in terms of commercialization, they are "forced to". 127 million peoples' "culture", against 4.1 million [probably even less] Native Americans. There's just no way the Japanese are going to fill that need. Native Americans, eat your heart out.

[Guest Mrmegakirby]

I fully support whaling, but on a few conditions: All whalers should put themselves on equal ground with the beast. That is to say, the former wooden ships, lowering the smaller whaleboats and darting the lance by means of arm power, not no hydraulic harpoon guns. Where you have as much chance of surviving as the whale does. All this new technology and whatnot is taking away any sense of an honorable bout, like shooting a deer that they've tied up beforehand.

 

But that'll never happen again, and the whales need some time to repopulate before we take them again, so I am against the modern whaling fleets. And we don't even need whale oil anymore anyways, though the meat issue is still valid.

 

This is coming from someone with a "Nuke the whales" signature... Impressive.

 

I don't really see a point in researching them by killing them off... Would there not be more to learn about them while they're alive? You only need one whale to research dead, not one thousand.

[i_love_burritos]

I fully support whaling, but on a few conditions: All whalers should put themselves on equal ground with the beast. That is to say, the former wooden ships, lowering the smaller whaleboats and darting the lance by means of arm power, not no hydraulic harpoon guns. Where you have as much chance of surviving as the whale does. All this new technology and whatnot is taking away any sense of an honorable bout, like shooting a deer that they've tied up beforehand.

 

But that'll never happen again, and the whales need some time to repopulate before we take them again, so I am against the modern whaling fleets. And we don't even need whale oil anymore anyways, though the meat issue is still valid.

 

This is coming from someone with a "Nuke the whales" signature... Impressive.

 

I don't really see a point in researching them by killing them off... Would there not be more to learn about them while they're alive? You only need one whale to research dead, not one thousand.

 

Kirby, it was never "research".

[Jeffwilson99]

I fully support whaling, but on a few conditions: All whalers should put themselves on equal ground with the beast. That is to say, the former wooden ships, lowering the smaller whaleboats and darting the lance by means of arm power, not no hydraulic harpoon guns. Where you have as much chance of surviving as the whale does. All this new technology and whatnot is taking away any sense of an honorable bout, like shooting a deer that they've tied up beforehand.

 

But that'll never happen again, and the whales need some time to repopulate before we take them again, so I am against the modern whaling fleets. And we don't even need whale oil anymore anyways, though the meat issue is still valid.

 

This is coming from someone with a "Nuke the whales" signature... Impressive.

 

I don't really see a point in researching them by killing them off... Would there not be more to learn about them while they're alive? You only need one whale to research dead, not one thousand.

 

Kirby, it was never "research".

 

Well they may be doing "some" research, but I don't believe it needs to be lethal. Nor do I believe they need a quota of 1000 Minke whales per year. Nor do I agree with these "research" vessels making a lot of money by selling their catch. When look at what is acutally going on it becomes pretty clear that their is a monteary motivation for what they are doing, which = commercial whaling, not scienific research.

[Zierro]

EDIT: Sorry for the off-topicness of this post since it isn't really about whaling, but I thought it would be more reasonable to post my opinion on animal extinction in this thread instead of making a whole new one. Apparently I was wrong though. :eek:

 

I don't get why people are so upset about extinction. It's natural. Now, animal abuse is an entirely different issue, but I'm talking about environmentalists who go out of their way to save a group of animals who would have died naturally. Humanity should be our first priority - not the other animals. They're doing the best they can to ensure their own specie's survival. And if it isn't enough, well, it just isn't enough. They're obviously struggling to survive if they are on the verge of extinction, so I don't see how elongating their struggle makes matters any better.

[Lenin64]

I don't get why people are so upset about extinction. It's natural. Now, animal abuse is an entirely different issue, but I'm talking about environmentalists who go out of their way to save a group of animals who would have died naturally. Humanity should be our first priority - not the other animals. They're doing the best they can to ensure their own specie's survival. And if it isn't enough, well, it just isn't enough. They're obviously struggling to survive if they are on the verge of extinction, so I don't see how elongating their struggle makes matters any better.

I would agree, except the extinction of whales is completely mad-made and entirely preventable. They wouldn't have died out naturally in this case.

[fastortoise]

I don't get why people are so upset about extinction. It's natural. Now, animal abuse is an entirely different issue, but I'm talking about environmentalists who go out of their way to save a group of animals who would have died naturally. Humanity should be our first priority - not the other animals. They're doing the best they can to ensure their own specie's survival. And if it isn't enough, well, it just isn't enough. They're obviously struggling to survive if they are on the verge of extinction, so I don't see how elongating their struggle makes matters any better.

Multiple blood vessels near my brain have exploded after reading that. Recently I raged hard when my friend told me his family didn't "believe in microwaves", but as a biologist, this post made me rage even harder.

 

Seriously. If you want to live in a world where humans are the only "natural" thing in existence, then knock yourself out. I, and the rest of the population, on the other hand would enjoy living in harmony with the world.

[Zierro]

If you have such a problem with it, where's your rebuttal?

 

I think you're just still mad about me owning you in our last animal discussion. :wink:

 

I would agree, except the extinction of whales is completely mad-made and entirely preventable. They wouldn't have died out naturally in this case.

 

It wasn't really specifically about whales. I just saw this thread as a pretty good opportunity to get my point out.

[TTanT]

If you have such a problem with it, where's your rebuttal?

 

I think you're just still mad about me owning you in our last animal discussion. :wink:

 

I would agree, except the extinction of whales is completely mad-made and entirely preventable. They wouldn't have died out naturally in this case.

 

It wasn't really specifically about whales. I just saw this thread as a pretty good opportunity to get my point out.

 

In this case, your point is invalid.

 

It's like dropping a few nukes on Australia and saying kangaroos should adapt.

[Zierro]

Firstly, your analogy is invalid. I specifically said that I'm not talking about cases where people are the cause of the harm.

Secondly, what are you even talking about?

[TTanT]

Firstly, your analogy is invalid.

Secondly, what are you even talking about?

 

 

Firstly, it is a valid analogy.

 

Whales are not going extinct because they cannot adapt to their enviornment, or because they are somehow inferior.

 

Whales are going extinct becauses humans are killing them en masse.

 

And if you say a species should not continue because it can't survive the best efforts of the human race, then you'd be down to a few insects as candidates for survivors.

 

For goodness sakes, no species* can adapt to a threat like humans fast enough to survive.

 

*Excluding some insects, and possibly a few fish.

[Zierro]

Firstly, it is a valid analogy.

 

Nope. My point is only referring to extinction in the context of animals dying naturally, without the intervention of humans:

 

Now, animal abuse is an entirely different issue, but I'm talking about environmentalists who go out of their way to save a group of animals who would have died naturally.

 

IE: The waters in Florida reached very cold temperatures lately [which isn't really something you can blame on us], so the manatees were in danger. Humans took them from their habitat and brought them to a warm area.

 

The reason I posted my point in this thread is because it would be completely unnecessary to make a whole new thread about my point, when there is some relevance to animal extinction in this thread. The thread would have probably be locked and the mod would have pointed me in the direction of this one since they are so similar.

 

And if you say a species should not continue because it can't survive the best efforts of the human race, then you'd be down to a few insects as candidates for survivors.

 

I smell an exaggeration.

 

PS: I'd also like to add that I don't think it is immoral or whatnot to help animals. I just simply don't understand what the hype is about. And of course there are the people out there who only care for the environment because of that "holier than thou" routine, which I should have brought up in my first post.

 

PS2: If you want to save animals who have lost their homes due to humans taking their trees, that is completely reasonable. I was just getting at cases such as the manatees being cold though. I think you guys are just ignoring how I said the word "naturally".

[fastortoise]

If you have such a problem with it, where's your rebuttal?

 

I think you're just still mad about me owning you in our last animal discussion. :wink:

 

I would agree, except the extinction of whales is completely mad-made and entirely preventable. They wouldn't have died out naturally in this case.

 

It wasn't really specifically about whales. I just saw this thread as a pretty good opportunity to get my point out.

What makes you decide to start trolling? Is it an environmental factor (such as: today Zierro stubbed his toe. Now he is going to play Devils Advocate) or is there something wrong with your brain (as in: today Zierro's left brain hemisphere decided to take over and now he's alienating the forums) ?

 

In any case, if you're going to start telling us to stop saving species because they'll die out naturally (EXCEPT WHALES), then you'd be better off doing so in a thread that isn't about whaling :wall:

[TTanT]

[hide]

Firstly, it is a valid analogy.

 

Nope. My point is only referring to extinction in the context of animals dying naturally, without the intervention of humans:

 

Now, animal abuse is an entirely different issue, but I'm talking about environmentalists who go out of their way to save a group of animals who would have died naturally.

 

IE: The waters in Florida reached very cold temperatures lately [which isn't really something you can blame on us], so the manatees were in danger. Humans took them from their habitat and brought them to a warm area.

 

The reason I posted my point in this thread is because it would be completely unnecessary to make a whole new thread about my point, when there is some relevance to animal extinction in this thread. The thread would have probably be locked and the mod would have pointed me in the direction of this one since they are so similar.

 

And if you say a species should not continue because it can't survive the best efforts of the human race, then you'd be down to a few insects as candidates for survivors.

 

I smell an exaggeration.

 

PS: I'd also like to add that I don't think it is immoral or whatnot to help animals. I just simply don't understand what the hype is about. And of course there are the people out there who only care for the environment because of that "holier than thou" routine, which I should have brought up in my first post.

 

PS2: If you want to save animals who have lost their homes due to humans taking their trees, that is completely reasonable. I was just getting at cases such as the manatees being cold though. I think you guys are just ignoring how I said the word "naturally".

[/hide]

 

Ok, then. I agree that in some cases, animal rights are hyped.

 

But your phrasing made me read it as applying directly to this thread. Hence my kangaroo analogy.

 

And I read you saying it wasn't 'specifically against whales' as you saying it still applied to them.

 

After all, if we as a race destroy a species for sheerly frivolous reasons, then we are to blame, not the species.

[Zierro]

After all, if we as a race destroy a species for sheerly frivolous reasons, then we are to blame, not the species.

 

Of course. I have much respect for those Indian tribes who would use every morsel of their catch and not let a single body part go to waste. It might be mainly because they're trying to be efficient, but I also think they do it because they have respect for the animals. This is my definition of living in harmony with the world.

 

I debated against cockfighting for pages, so you can trust that I'm not some [wagon] who blows up squirrels for fun. I just think people get a little too worked up about animals. Yes, it might be sad to see manatees die, but humans are dying left and right too. With the resources and manpower we used to save the manatees, we could have provided food and water for starving humans. I guess it just bothers me to see humans help animals more than they help other humans.

[Zierro]

What makes you decide to start trolling?

 

When people like you prove how susceptible you are to it.

 

JK lol.

 

I'm not trolling at all. It's a legitimate point. I just have the feeling that you misunderstood part of it. It could have been because I worded something weird or you read something the wrong way, but either way, there is nothing trollish about me speaking my mind about human intervention with nature.

 

In any case, if you're going to start telling us to stop saving species because they'll die out naturally (EXCEPT WHALES), then you'd be better off doing so in a thread that isn't about whaling :wall:

 

So then it's stupid to bring up atheism in a thread that's about religion? Extinction is relevant to this thread. I saw something on the news about environmentalists intervening with nature and questioned the logic behind it. I decided this would be an appropriate thread to bring up my point since it was relevant to animal rights, extinction, etc. - so long as I specified what context I am speaking about, which I most certainly did. Also, did you notice I haven't said anything about whales in that entire post? EDIT: Wait, actually I kind of did. I said that I wasn't referring to cases that involve animal abuse, and whaling (the sport of it, not when people use them as a resource for survival) fits under that category.

 

And if you really take problem with the off-topicness, then why are you exacerbating it?

[Lenin64]

[hide]

Firstly, it is a valid analogy.

 

Nope. My point is only referring to extinction in the context of animals dying naturally, without the intervention of humans:

 

Now, animal abuse is an entirely different issue, but I'm talking about environmentalists who go out of their way to save a group of animals who would have died naturally.

 

IE: The waters in Florida reached very cold temperatures lately [which isn't really something you can blame on us], so the manatees were in danger. Humans took them from their habitat and brought them to a warm area.

 

The reason I posted my point in this thread is because it would be completely unnecessary to make a whole new thread about my point, when there is some relevance to animal extinction in this thread. The thread would have probably be locked and the mod would have pointed me in the direction of this one since they are so similar.

 

And if you say a species should not continue because it can't survive the best efforts of the human race, then you'd be down to a few insects as candidates for survivors.

 

I smell an exaggeration.

 

PS: I'd also like to add that I don't think it is immoral or whatnot to help animals. I just simply don't understand what the hype is about. And of course there are the people out there who only care for the environment because of that "holier than thou" routine, which I should have brought up in my first post.

 

PS2: If you want to save animals who have lost their homes due to humans taking their trees, that is completely reasonable. I was just getting at cases such as the manatees being cold though. I think you guys are just ignoring how I said the word "naturally".

[/hide]

 

Ok, then. I agree that in some cases, animal rights are hyped.

 

But your phrasing made me read it as applying directly to this thread. Hence my kangaroo analogy.

 

And I read you saying it wasn't 'specifically against whales' as you saying it still applied to them.

 

After all, if we as a race destroy a species for sheerly frivolous reasons, then we are to blame, not the species.

Yea, that's what I read it as, too, hence my post.

[Zierro]

Sorry for the confusion then. If I knew my post was going to cause such a controversy, I would have worded things a little more carefully.

[Jeffwilson99]

I don't get why people are so upset about extinction. It's natural. Now, animal abuse is an entirely different issue, but I'm talking about environmentalists who go out of their way to save a group of animals who would have died naturally. Humanity should be our first priority - not the other animals. They're doing the best they can to ensure their own specie's survival. And if it isn't enough, well, it just isn't enough. They're obviously struggling to survive if they are on the verge of extinction, so I don't see how elongating their struggle makes matters any better.

 

Ok your argument makes so little sense. Whales would not be dying out naturally if it was not for humans. In the past 200-300 years humans have hunted whales to the brink of extinction.

 

Also it's abundantly clear that whales are NOT humanity's first priority, there are many, many, more issues out that that have been priortised over whale protection. And at the moment the human species is at no risk of extinction, unlike whales, so why would we need to put so much effort into ensuring our survival?

 

The only reason they continue to struggle is because we continue to threaten their extisence faster than their populations can recover.

[Zierro]

That's because my argument isn't about whales. I was going off on a tangent about natural extinction. I just saw this thread as an opportunity to talk about it as opposed to making a whole new thread. I thought it would be okay as long as I specified what I was talking about, but I guess everybody missed the part where I said I was referring to natural extinction and not cases where humans are abusing animals.

[Jeffwilson99]

That's because my argument isn't about whales. I was going off on a tangent about natural extinction. I just saw this thread as an opportunity to talk about it as opposed to making a whole new thread. I thought it would be okay as long as I specified what I was talking about, but I guess everybody missed the part where I said I was referring to natural extinction and not cases where humans are abusing animals.

 

Ok so if you weren't applying it to whales, then it wasn't really relevant to this thread. Though, I would almost agree with your point on "natural" extinction, it is almost impossible determine how much human influence affects this. Personally, I can't think of any species alive today that are under threat of extinction whose existience has been affected by humans at all. If this is the case, then it would be impossible for there to be any cases of "natural" extinction.

[Dizzle229]

Most win-win idea ever.

 

Tell the Japanese that they have to stop whaling, but in return, they can sink Paul Watson.

[mister_moocky]

Most win-win idea ever.

 

Tell the Japanese that they have to stop whaling, but in return, they can sink Paul Watson.

While he's dressed as a whale.