Japan!!!! Please stop whale hunting!!!!

[Xtina]

Why do Japan cannot stop whale hunting??? What if our beautiful whale extinct!!! Why do Japan people eat whale meat??

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0405/japan.whaling/popup.ap.japan.whaling.jpg

As you Can see, Japan is increasing their whale hunt!!! :?
This is really sad since thay don't know that whale are a really good creature and people are still killing them! Don't they have a heart? :?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40168000/jpg/_40168166_minke203.jpg

Poor Minke whale!!!

The Japanese whalers aiming to harpoon 150 minke whales, 50 sei whales, 50 Bryde's whales and 10 sperm whales. They have already killed 440 minke whales in a recent hunt in the Southern Ocean sanctuary!!! :(

Japan also kills 20,000 dolphins!!! :(

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=dolphin+dead/v=2/SID=w/l=IVI/SIG=11ruq3683/*-http%

Do you know Dolphin is a really good friend and they have amazing healing powers? Here, Nick from BSB kiss a dolphin.(Or maybe it's the dolphin!)

http://mitglied.lycos.de/andyfile/nick4cuteimg34.jpg

Japan claimed that they hunt whale for reseacrh. They are only using a weak reasosn to continue whale hunting, just beacuse they want to eat whale!!!

They said Minke whale eat too much fish that human have none. This is not true!! Minke whale don't eat fish!!! They are suspension feeders, they eat krills!

Plus whale meat not hood for you health at all.

So Remeber if you want to

http://www.sharkfriends.com/conservwhales.jpg

Do not eat whale meat too!!!

[Tateishi]

Heard it doesn't taste to nice either.

[mad pierrot]

I invite you to read some of the other threads in this section. Seeing how controversial this topic is, more debate is always welcome.




PS- Whale meat actually tastes pretty good. (Just my opinion!)

[okaeri_man]

i think i tried whale meat once. it wasn't too bad. but i'm not a fan of killing more whales than need to be killed, so i think i'll pass on it next time.

Xtina, how is killing whales any different for killing cows? or pigs? or sheep, or tuna, or chicken, kangaroo? you seem very passionate about the whale issue, but not the others.

[mad pierrot]

Why do Japan people eat whale meat??

I just happened to talked to one of my older neighbors about this today. He's an older gentleman (in his mid-70s) and has lived in Wakayama all his life. Taiji, the celebrated place of Japan's best known whale and dolphin hunts, is in the southern end of the prefecture. When I asked him about whale meat, he told me as a child he used to eat it every week. Why? At the time, whale meat was cheap and readily available. Today, eating whale meat for him is hardly an issue. Given how expensive and rare it is now, he might eat it only once or twice a year. I don't think it's my neighbor's intention to cruelly wipe out a cetacean species, but it doesn't change the facts. What should we do about it? Increased education would help raise awareness, but this also raises another touchy issue, cultural relativsim. How do we go about it? By telling a bunch of senior citizens that eating whale once and awhile is a cardinal sin? Again, as it's been raised on these boards before, how do you go into someone else's culture and tell them what's right and wrong? If you have to, do it very carefully and respectfully.

Personally, I see too many things wrong in my own culture that stand for correction before I see the need to correct other's. But this is a global issue that affects us all. Where do we draw the line?

[PaulTB]

Xtina, how is killing whales any different for killing cows? or pigs? or sheep, or tuna, or chicken, kangaroo? you seem very passionate about the whale issue, but not the others.
Well of course it is different to all of those, in various different ways.

cows, pigs, sheep, chicken
Biggest difference is that these are all raised commercially to be killed for food and none of them are in danger of extinction.

I think kangaroo meat is generally taken from kangaroos culled from 'over populated' areas.

tuna is probably the best comparison as fish stocks often reach threateningly low levels. The biggest difference here is the aspects of relative intelligence and cruelty of the way they are caught and killed.

[Apollo]

Poor whales... :(
I have never tasted whale - and would NEVER like to due to obvious reasons: against whale-hunting.

I like this picture Xtina:
http://www.sharkfriends.com/conservwhales.jpg

[okaeri_man]

Well of course it is different to all of those, in various different ways.

cows, pigs, sheep, chicken
Biggest difference is that these are all raised commercially to be killed for food and none of them are in danger of extinction.

I think kangaroo meat is generally taken from kangaroos culled from 'over populated' areas.

tuna is probably the best comparison as fish stocks often reach threateningly low levels. The biggest difference here is the aspects of relative intelligence and cruelty of the way they are caught and killed.
you realise all these reasons would make a vegetarian shake their head in disbelief and/or make them want to throw something at you...

killing commercially raised animals is ok since they're not in danger of extinction? and yet in your tuna argument you say it's ok since it's not as cruel. well not that i've been in a cage too small to walk in and pumped full of drugs to make me unnaturally fat, but i'm sure the factory grown chickens are having the times of their lives.

ok to kill kangaroos in 'over populated' areas...? yep, i'm sure that was exactly what the september 11 terrorists thought when they killed off a few new yorkers. too many people in new york, nobody will care if we kill a few.

the issue of intelligence always gets the vegetarians stirring. "if something is dumb then it's ok to kill it." well, let's hope you all pass your exams everyone, otherwise you will be killed for being stupid. not to mention all those disabled people as well, they're not helping the human race. bloody retards, kill them all.

well i'm not a vegetarian, but my friend is vegan and i have to put with this stuff quite often.

[earthangel]

Ha! Sounds like your vegan friend is doing a good job of teaching you how to think as opposed to just imitating everybody else in society who are sitting down to their dinner slicing up dead animals and thinking it is all right.

If the majority of people had to watch an animal being slaughtered so they could eat it we would have far more vegetarians and I daresay vegans than we have now.

So we really do need slaughterhouses with glass walls to solve this problem of ignoring/ignorance.

I love Xtina's plea to Japan to stop whaling - so much heart in her. The photo of Nick "kissing" the dolphin is so beautiful. Thanks for sharing. I wish more people inside Japan felt like her but it doesn't look like it from what I have been reading.

[bossel]

If the majority of people had to watch an animal being slaughtered so they could eat it we would have far more vegetarians and I daresay vegans than we have now.
Well, the majority of people in past centuries saw (if not doing it themselves) animals being slaughtered for food. They didn't have much of a doubt to eat the meat afterwards. It's usually just this overly romanticised view of "nature" in the West nowadays that leads people to "empathise" with slaughtered animals.

[lexico]

With due regard for the subject of whale protection, let us all pause here for a moment to consider one simple and important animal group, the fish.
70% of the major fish reserve in the seas have been hunted and consumed by us humans.
It's time to push the standards of mild vegetarianism to include the fish stock on our "eat with moderation" list.
Besides, the tuna you are getting have more mercury than a century ago.
Live and let live!
Kill the vegetables, not the fish!
Fish have feelings, too!
Please read Uncle Frank's "Do fish have personalities?" thread. :gohan:http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9212

[mad pierrot]

I'm an omnivore, dammnit.

Eating something to extinction = bad idea.
Not eating something because you pity it = personal ideology.

[earthangel]

Another view could be that some of the human race is actually spiritually evolving beyond anthropocentric views - and is having compassion not just for other people in our family, our country, our earth but all species.

As Albert Schweitzer so beautifully phrased it:
Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace. (more of his sayings at http://www.ivu.org/history/europe20a/schweitzer.html )

He was not the only great thinker who was an ethical vegetarian. Read more here:-

http://www.ivu.org/people/ and http://www.ivu.org/history/museum.html
http://www.ivu.org/people/quotes/foodchoi.html

Even modern celebrities are now outspoken against meat eating

http://www.famousveggie.com/peoplenew.cfm (and see quotes there too)
http://www.ivu.org/hkvegan/gb/famous.html

Since Japan is a predominantly Buddhist country, perhaps it would be good to follow the Buddha's injunctions?

The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion.
Mahaparinirvana (Buddhist)

[mad pierrot]

Did you know siddhartha died from eating a bad piece of pork?

:p

[lexico]

Did you know siddhartha died from eating a bad piece of pork?

:pUhmmmm...really?
What shocking news! :ramen:
I went a buddhist junior high school for three years, and that's not what I heard. According to the reverand the story goes;

One day, Siddhartha Buddha received several pieces of rice-cake (in my lanugage, Korean, that was the word...we didn't have the lesson in Pali.) collected for alms that day. But upon finishing his meal, felt some discomfort. His digestive condition grew worse and he eventually died.

So it probably wasn't bad pork (unless as a side dish) that did it. Hmmm...but you never know; the enlightened ones (acording to the Mahayana school) don't necessarily have to deny anything per se. Still Siddharta came before Dharma....

Well what follows is even more interesting. He knew that his deciples would miss him greatly, so he promises them. "If you feel really desperate to see me as I leave, then I will give you a sign to show that I know you."

And at the funeral, the disciples wept bitterly, and guess what? Siddhartha's two feet appeared on the side of his coffin which calmed the disciples greatly. So even to this day, if you go to a Buddhist temple, you will often find the symbol of great compassion; Siddhartha's two feet! :)

[mad pierrot]

I guess it's up for debate. (The version I heard came from some profs in America and a couple of Mongolians.)

I did a quick search and found THIS. (http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MEL/waley.htm)


The idea then that Buddha died of eating pork is
wholly absent from the Chinese Canon, and can never
have entered the head of any Far Eastern Buddhist
till the Pali scriptures began to be studied at the
end of the 19th century.

Some other random thoughts on the buddha's death:

mesenteric infarction? (http://www.lankalibrary.com/Bud/buddha_death.htm)

even more over-analysis (http://jyotisha.00it.com/Parinibbana.htm)

There seems to be a TON of stuff on this floating around the net....

:-p

[bossel]

Another view could be that some of the human race is actually spiritually evolving beyond anthropocentric views - and is having compassion not just for other people in our family, our country, our earth but all species.
But your compassion does not go out to the common cauliflower? Shame on you! It's alive, too. :p

I don't see why it should be convincing anyone to try vegetarianism just because some celebs do.

[lexico]

I guess it's up for debate. (The version I heard came from some profs in America and a couple of Mongolians.)
I did a quick search and found THIS. (http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MEL/waley.htm)
Some other random thoughts on the buddha's death:
mesenteric infarction? (http://www.lankalibrary.com/Bud/buddha_death.htm)
even more over-analysis (http://jyotisha.00it.com/Parinibbana.htm)
There seems to be a TON of stuff on this floating around the net....
:-pMy hats off to you, Mad Pierrot!
I got a free ride again after the Hoshi no ouji; I read your first two links (identical) with much interest, and as for the third, I'm savoring it, biting off one chunk at a time.

I did a quick check on your point about vegetarianism.
My next door neighbor is a devout Buddhist, and she tells me verbatim;

"As for Buddha dying from eating pork, I doubt it.
But it should be known that abstaining from eating meat is not entirely correct.
If the meat was already prepared, a monk can eat it and be fine with the regulations, which states that as long as the monk does not actively engage in the slaughter, or witnesses the slaughter, eating meat is permissilbe."

So the common impression, which I also shared, that the Mahayana school strictly prohibits meat without exception turned out to be false.

It appears that the Buddhist's main concern is the agony of death rather than the death itself. It is agony in the sense that just before death, when the intention of murderous thought becomes evident, and that thought is put into action, there is no merciful thought, no sense of coexistence, no communal bond, but only the absolute separation between sole and isolated beings. Have you heard of cows and calves shedding tears, and sheep bleating before the slaughter house?

Why is it so harmful to the monk or Buddhist? It is the perception of another's pain and isolation that becomes the cause of his/her own agony. Because humans are intelligent beings, the hurt is transmitted by empathy. Whether someone is empathic or not is really not the issue. It just happens by having the senses.

As for a proper response, let me first finish the reading, and properly arrange the ideas in perpective. :haihai:

[mad pierrot]

It appears that the Buddhist's main concern is the agony of death rather than the death itself. It is agony in the sense that just before death, when the intention of murderous thought becomes evident, and that thought is put into action, there is no merciful thought, no sense of coexistence, no communal bond, but only the absolute separation between sole and isolated beings. Have you heard of cows and calves shedding tears, and sheep bleating before the slaughter house?

I understand, and can definately sympathize! As for my original comment, I only meant it to be taken lightly. Honestly, I don't think the Buddha's cause of death is really that important. His philosophy should be our main concern.

:sorry:

[lexico]

I understand, and can definately sympathize! As for my original comment, I only meant it to be taken lightly. Honestly, I don't think the Buddha's cause of death is really that important. His philosophy should be our main concern. I appreciate you sympathy for the beasts. And no worries, just some things that I realized after taking an interest. I do believe it was the whales, then the fish, and then Syakamuni Buddha and the pork. We should be ready to track back when we have adequately discussed the pork legend, and its significance to Buddhism in general. It's light, and it's serious at the same time. But learning and thinking about new things that I wasn't aware of is quite valuable.The version I heard came from some ......a couple of Mongolians.I failed to notice this piece of information last time.
As far as I recall the Mongolian canon Ganjur derives from the Tibetan canon, again from the Sanskrit original. The pork legend missing in the Chinese Tripitaka could have been due to its omission in the Sanskrit original and hence in the Tibetan translations of it.

But the fact that Mongolian lamas (or lay Buddhists ?) were aware of the pork legend could mean that the legend may have been from a lost/suppressed Sanskrit/Tibetan text that we do not have any more.
Do you have any information or thoughts in that line?

[Mycernius]

I'm an omnivore, dammnit.

Eating something to extinction = bad idea.
Not eating something because you pity it = personal ideology.

I agree with you. Humans are an omnivore. Despite what various vegetarian people will say, we need meat to gain all the protein in our diet. The only plant that can give all the proteins is Soya, which is why a lot of fake meat is made from it. Even our closest living relatives, chimps, will activily hunt and eat monkeys. The point I am trying to make is that as humans we have the ability to choose what we eat because we have the wide choice of diet to be able to do this. Our caveman ancestors didn't have the choice and ate what was available, and put anybody in a survival situation they would eat meat, if the diet was limited.
To much meat is bad for you, but then again too much of anything is bad for you.
Some people say that meat is murder. Just remember Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian
'There are three types of vegetarian
1. Those who don't eat meat because of ethical or personal reason. Fair enough
2. Those who don't eat meat because they've seen the movie Babe
3. Those who don't eat meat, except for Fish and Chicken...'
-Jack Dee

'Hardcore vegans. Won't drive through town with the word Ham in it...'
-Bill Bailey

[lexico]

Even our closest living relatives, chimps, will activily hunt and eat monkeys. The point I am trying to make is that as humans we have the ability to choose what we eat because we have the wide choice of diet to be able to do this. Our caveman ancestors didn't have the choice and ate what was available, and put anybody in a survival situation they would eat meat, if the diet was limited.Chimpanzee cannibalism is news to me. Do you happen to have a source?

I've read about Pekin Man (Zhoukoudian variety of homo sapiens) practicing cannibalism, but that has been discredited. These relatives of Neanderthal man are also known to have practiced burial rites of red coloring for religious reasons and to give flowers to the dead.

The known anthropological cases of cannibalism were all temporary, such as in a war situation or in extreme cases of prolonged food shortage. The Australian/New Zealand cases of Kuru, an early precursor of modern mad cow disease, were casused by cannibalism of the brain matter by close family members, but this was a modern development arising from prolonged hunger.

We have seen such isolated cases in many instances of extreme hunger; China during the Great Leap Forward, the air crash survivors in the Andes, and historical documents of China, Korea, and Japan all record cannibalism in times of extended famine. But never as a stable and long-term source of diet.

What I am trying to say is that due to the mysterious connection of brain matter consumption and BSE type neural diseases, cannibalism could not have been a steady food source. Which makes me doubt the validity of long tern "chimpanzee cannibalism."

But if the chimps are indeed long-term cannibalistic and have immunity to BSE-type diseases, then chimps may hold a key to solving the BSE mystery.

[bossel]

Chimpanzee cannibalism is news to me. Do you happen to have a source?
What Mycernius said was "chimps, will activily hunt and eat monkeys." Cannibalism would mean chimps eating chimps, not monkeys (chimpanzees are apes, BTW).
Cannibalism among chimps also occurs occasionally, but hunting monkeys for meat is quite common. Usually the males are the hunters, but the prey is divided among the group (though not equally to all individuals) afterwards.

What also occurs among chimps is a kind of border warfare. Small groups of chimpanzees patrol the borders of their territory, whenever they encounter single individuals of a neighbouring group they attack & try to kill.

If you want to know more:
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html


Edit:
BTW, human cannibalism was probably not as rare as you seem to think:
Cannibalism Normal For Early Humans? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html)

Quote:
"Genetic markers commonly found in modern humans all over the world could be evidence that our earliest ancestors were cannibals, according to new research. Scientists suggest that even today many of us carry a gene that evolved as protection against brain diseases that can be spread by eating human flesh."

[mad pierrot]

As far as I recall the Mongolian canon Ganjur derives from the Tibetan canon, again from the Sanskrit original. The pork legend missing in the Chinese Tripitaka could have been due to its omission in the Sanskrit original and hence in the Tibetan translations of it.
But the fact that Mongolian lamas (or lay Buddhists ?) were aware of the pork legend could mean that the legend may have been from a lost/suppressed Sanskrit/Tibetan text that we do not have any more.
Do you have any information or thoughts in that line?

Yes, as far as I can also recall, Mongolian Buddhism is derived from Tibetan Buddhism. As for reasons to why they mentioned the Buddha ate pork, I have no idea!

:p

I do know that Buddhism in Mongolia has suffered a great deal this past century. Most unfortunately, Communist radicals very nearly wiped out its existence in the early 1930's, resulting in a massive loss of life and knowledge.

Check this quick link History (http://mongoluls.net/shashin/monrelihis.shtml)

A friend of mine, Mark, runs a cultural restoration project in Mongolia and Nepal. Check out his website HERE. (http://baldanbaraivan.org/)

[lexico]

What Mycernius said was "chimps, will activily hunt and eat monkeys." Cannibalism would mean chimps eating chimps, not monkeys (chimpanzees are apes, BTW).
Cannibalism among chimps also occurs occasionally, but hunting monkeys for meat is quite common. Usually the males are the hunters, but the prey is divided among the group (though not equally to all individuals) afterwards.

What also occurs among chimps is a kind of border warfare. Small groups of chimpanzees patrol the borders of their territory, whenever they encounter single individuals of a neighbouring group they attack & try to kill.

If you want to know more:
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.htmlThanks, Bossel for the link and pointing out my loose reading again.:relief:
If chimpanzees only engage in the seasonal hunting and the consumption of the Colobus monkeys, and not cannibalistic practices, then my question for Mycernius is void. But in a way you've answered my question. Thanks. :cool: Edit:
BTW, human cannibalism was probably not as rare as you seem to think:
Cannibalism Normal For Early Humans? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html)

Quote:
"Genetic markers commonly found in modern humans all over the world could be evidence that our earliest ancestors were cannibals, according to new research. Scientists suggest that even today many of us carry a gene that evolved as protection against brain diseases that can be spread by eating human flesh." This part is interesting because the April 11, 2003, National Geographics News article you quoted (on an Sceince contributor Simon Mead, a co-author of the study Cannibalism Normal For Early Humans? from the Medical Research Center with University College, London) is based on only one theory (the older one presented by Stanley Prusiner) of pathogenesis of the Creuztfeldt-Jakob Disease/Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy aka Mad Cow Disease.

It is significant to note that Prusiner himself had afterwards announced that the presence of the malformed protein prion is only one effect of the disease, not the pathogen itself.

Although the National Geographics News article is aimed at the general public, its use of such loose a statement as 'CJD is inherited through the transmission of genetic material' (paraphrase) is ample cause to doubt its scientific seriousness.

When the relationship between CJD and prion is all but sketchy, any scientific research based on this weak assumption that they are indeed related in a causal realtionship becomes controversial, and hence the thesis based on malformed prion inducing gene analysis loses ground as supporting evicence of widespead cannibalistic practices in our species in the past.

Nevetheless I reserve making a firm statement until I've had a good read of Tim White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley, an expert on the study of human cannibalism, who said "the genetic link to cannibalism 'is permissible given the wide body of evidence for prehistoric human cannibalism.'" I just happen to doubt the validity of the gentic link assumed as a valid support of his theory.

[bossel]

Although the National Geographics News article is aimed at the general public, its use of such loose a statement as 'CJD is inherited through the transmission of genetic material' (paraphrase) is ample cause to doubt its scientific seriousness.
Well, I doubt the scientific seriousness of NG in general. :p But this finding has been reported in a variety of media (eg. New Scientist, I was just too lazy to look up more scientific sources), hence there is a certain validity to the reasoning.

I just happen to doubt the validity of the gentic link assumed as a valid support of his theory.
It is a valid support, although the validity may be not too high & as with all new research has to be verified by other scientists. It's quite possible that this genetic variation developed in response to some prion disease being present in other meat sources than humans.

Nevertheless there is not much doubt that cannibalism among human beings occurred all over the world once in a while. Whether that was occasional or habitual cannibalism probably depended on the society &/or environment.

[lexico]

It's quite possible that this genetic variation developed in response to some prion disease being present in other meat sources than humans..Here you only suggested that the normally folding prion genes as the logical outcome of consuming CJD pathogen contaminated animal meat. In consideration of the reports on trans-species transmission of CJD, your statement can be put as either certain or highly probable. Whichever the case, you have just underminded Tim White's reasoning that the presence of such genes is support for his theory of widespread cannibalistic practices in humas. To play devil's advocate, I can say "well, those genes developed out of consuming contaminated animal meat, not from eating human flesh/brain mush."
Nevertheless there is not much doubt that cannibalism among human beings occurred all over the world once in a while. Whether that was occasional or habitual cannibalism probably depended on the society &/or environment.Has the subject been dealt with at JFORUM? Or is it established fact, or at least considered such by mainstream anthropologists?

[bossel]

To play devil's advocate, I can say "well, those genes developed out of consuming contaminated animal meat, not from eating human flesh/brain mush."
You can very well say so. This is a quite open (& new) question, which will need quite some time to be solved conclusively (if that ever happens).

Has the subject been dealt with at JFORUM? Or is it established fact, or at least considered such by mainstream anthropologists?
I don't think, there is a mainstream in regard to that question. There is the PC faction, which wants cannibalism to be seen as a total exception, there is the opposing faction which sees cannibalism as a widespread phenomenon all over the world in early tribal societies (albeit not everywhere at all times), & there are a lot of other anthropologists in between.

I lean in the direction of the view of it being a worldwide phenomenon. Since the paleontological record of humans is still scarce, the jury is still out, but I see the discoveries of human bones with cutting marks (& sometimes opened to get the marrow out) as a clear indication that it was much wider spread than the PC faction likes.

[earthangel]

But your compassion does not go out to the common cauliflower? Shame on you! It's alive, too. :p

I don't see why it should be convincing anyone to try vegetarianism just because some celebs do.

My compassion goes out to all living things. But since I have to eat, eating low on the food chain means less suffering for others. When you eat a cow or a whale, that represents millions of deaths of insects or grass blades (since you consider vegetables sentient). Therefore if you eat grass directly you are killing far fewer.

From the Buddhist perspective (since there are so many posts in this thread on Buddhism), you can die and reincarnate as an animal (which includes insects and - incredibly - bacteria) but you cannot reincarnate as a vegetable.

Therefore, vegetables should not be treated with as much compassion as animals or humans.

Personally though, I'd rather be a breathairian and live on sunlight!

By the way, did you know that the Dalai Lama has requested all the Tibetan Buddhist monks to abstain eating meat for a year (hoping they will choose to go longer, no doubt). It is time all Buddhists stopped eating meat in my opinion. It is the Buddhist way as much as possible to not cause harm or suffering to others. I wish Japan, as a Buddhist nation, would take this into its lifestyle.

When I lived in Japan in 1979 studying Zen Buddhism in Zen monasteries, I noticed many of the Japanese civilians claimed to be Buddhist yet knew absolutely nothing about Buddhism. Some didn't even know Buddha was a man!

[bossel]

But since I have to eat, eating low on the food chain means less suffering for others.
Good point, though nothing that would convince me of not eating meat anymore. Cows & fowl are for the largest part fed on grain, I think, which is harvested from dead/dying plants. No problem there. Pigs are a bit different, since they are to a degree fed with tubers & stuff, but nothing that would worry me to much, either.

(since you consider vegetables sentient).
Where did I say so?
Scientific research is still ongoing, but there are probably plants with some kind of a nervous system. AFAIK no vegetables yet, though.

From the Buddhist perspective
Well, religion. I don't go for that, anyway.

(which includes insects and - incredibly - bacteria)
[...]
It is time all Buddhists stopped eating meat in my opinion. It is the Buddhist way as much as possible to not cause harm or suffering to others.
Reincarnated as bacteria? Then in order to cause no harm to others, you'd have to kill yourself. Your body is constantly killing bacteria, how do you want to stop this? If you eat vegetables, you kill a lot of bacteria, too.

I wish Japan, as a Buddhist nation, would take this into its lifestyle.
Is Japan a Buddhist nation? What about Shinto?
Why should all those non-Buddhists in Japan follow Buddhist rules?

[Tsuyoiko]

From the Buddhist perspective (since there are so many posts in this thread on Buddhism), you can die and reincarnate as an animal (which includes insects and - incredibly - bacteria) but you cannot reincarnate as a vegetable.

Bacteria are not animals. I think this misconception comes about because the word 'bug' is used to refer both to insects and to bacteria. Bacteria are the most simple (and by far the most abundant) lifeforms. Plants, fungi and animals are a twig on the tree of life in comparison. This essay http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_bacteria.html explains it well.

[mad pierrot]

Dr. Gould is full of it!

Damn evolutionary punctualists....

:D

[Tsuyoiko]

Dr. Gould is full of it!

Damn evolutionary punctualists....

:D

Hey, don't diss Dr Gould! :p

[mad pierrot]

Hey, don't diss Dr Gould!


Ok, I just had to stick up for his ach-nemesis, Richard Dawkins!

:relief:

As much as I might have had complaints about Dr Gould, I mourn his passing. He was a great man.

:sorry:

[Tsuyoiko]

Ok, I just had to stick up for his ach-nemesis, Richard Dawkins!

:relief:

As much as I might have had complaints about Dr Gould, I mourn his passing. He was a great man.

:sorry:

It looks like we are enemies then! Grr, Richard Dawkins :box:

[SharkLover]

http://pubwww.srce.hr/botanic/cisb/slike/fauna/dupini/whaling.jpg
:(

my petition: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/stopwhaling

[komachi]

Whales were an important protein replenishment sources for the Japanese.
A big reason that the American army had come to Japan was to get the material of lady's corsets.

If women dressed in like a "Gone with the wind" fashion now, and plastic was not invented, No one had complained about that.

[lexico]

Interesting point about the corset material from the whales; as crude oil will dry up sooner or later, the day when humans once again turn to the those whales for alternative plasticoid material + lamp oil might not be too far off... just a thought, but we might need to learn to farm a greater number of whales for our material needs.

[komachi]

yeah,a funny story,'cause it's true.

"There is a woman behind the history." (*^ ^*

[Duo]

I wonder, would people make such a big fuss if it was sharks that were being under threat instead of whales or dolphins ?

Do we have some kind of preference for cute lookin gentle animals ?

Why is it always wrong to kill a bunny or wahtever, but snakes and other uglier creatures are to be wacked away ?

I guess our preference for looks and impressions goes fare beyond than just when we interecat with our own specie.

This is not to say that I advocate whale hunting, i am against it of course.

[Nebiki]

I wonder, would people make such a big fuss if it was sharks that were being under threat instead of whales or dolphins ?

Do we have some kind of preference for cute lookin gentle animals ?

Why is it always wrong to kill a bunny or wahtever, but snakes and other uglier creatures are to be wacked away ?

I guess our preference for looks and impressions goes fare beyond than just when we interecat with our own specie.

This is not to say that I advocate whale hunting, i am against it of course.

There's actually a campaign to stop the hunting of sharks, as they too are hunted for various reasons.

[komachi]

I can not understand the sense of people who restricts like religion, and compels gastronomic culture.

OK - Cows
NO - Cats
NO - Dogs
OK - Cows that cannot inspect BSE
NO - Whales
NO - Dolphins
and
"No" campaign now! - sharks

Is it the religion????
It is the same sense as the crusade,isn't It?

[Duo]

There's actually a campaign to stop the hunting of sharks, as they too are hunted for various reasons.

Granted, but do you don't even remotely hear about is much as you hear about whale hunting ;)

[lexico]

And what about the mass murder of the kelp for our jam and jelly and tooth paste ?

[komachi]

Japanese doesn't eat cats ,dogs,and dolphins.
but i would like to add several lines.

OK - Rabbit
OK - Lamb
OK - Calf
NO - Nightingale
OK - Chicken

In Japanese senses, it's cruel and barbarous to eat baby animals like calf and lamb.
However, Japanese accepted esteeming such a culture.
(Of course, we do not eat nightingale either. )

[SharkLover]

I thought they were Shintoaists(sp?) the worship of the gods of NATURE
http://www.sharkfriends.com/conservwhales.jpg
oooh I hope they make a shirt out of the pic!! ^_^

[komachi]

It's "Anti-whale fishing" is the worship of whale as a god now,isn't it?
Please do not force that religion on us.
the feeding chain broke because human races who caught whales were gone...
you know, the whale fishing have been prohibited .
and the amounts of sardines decrease sharply.
the Japanese tables are destroyed by the new religion assumed to be "The whale fishing is a corruption to the god".




http://www.e-kujira.or.jp/gahou/makkou.jpg


http://www.e-kujira.or.jp/gahou/nagasu.jpg






The whale fishing too much is very bad.
It's also bad that the number of whales increases too much.
i agree with making the limitation of the amount of capture.
i agree that "anti-dolphin fishing "too.
but,
I do not want to rob of their(Fishermans etc.) job.

[lexico]

Excellent info, Komachi !!
It looks like humans can enjoy life after the crude oil; whale bones and tendon instead of plastic that never dies to rot like the vampires can never rest ...
btw, can you get gasoline, aspirine, and tar from whales ?
Do you know if people have found a way to domesticate the whale ?
Whale farming might solve many problems, just like dog farming can make dog meat consumption a civilized eating practice. No sarcasm by all means. :)

[lexico]

The general rule of thumb about accumulative contaminants in the food chain states that the higher up the pyramid, the higher the concentration of

DDT, Dioxins
Lead, quick silver, cadmium, stroncium, etc.

because they accumulate in the fat or other body sturture. For those whalew who live on small kurile shrimp, there would be an advantage; but if the whale has a looooong life expectancy, then the accumulation will take effect. That is one of the reasons why toxic waste should NEVER be dumped into the river and the oceans.... one day, without your knowing, perhaps your grandchild will be enjoying a piece of sushi contaminated with the Nuclear waste your country had dumped into the ocean... via a 3rd world country. :( :( :bawling:

[bossel]

the feeding chain broke because human races who caught whales were gone...
Except for the last few thousand years human beings weren't part (or on top) of the marine food chain in the 1st place.

you know, the whale fishing have been prohibited .
and the amounts of sardines decrease sharply.
It's kind of strange. Are you saying that in the millions of years humans did not hunt whales anyway, Sardines were close to extinction?

It's also bad that the number of whales increases too much.
Probably, but do you have any numbers that would support the assumption that whale numbers actually did (or do) increase too much?

[lexico]

Except for the last few thousand years human beings weren't part (or on top) of the marine food chain in the 1st place.
...
It's kind of strange. Are you saying that in the millions of years humans did not hunt whales anyway, Sardines were close to extinction?I don't know anything about sadines, 鯖魚, whales have been hunted in the Sea of Korea-Japan for at least three thousand years as is vividly documented in these numerous paleolithic whales inscribed into stone-walls (http://my.dreamwiz.com/synoria/ban2.htm)... overwhelmingly many whales had been hunted there, by these paleolithic hunters. Ulju, Kyonsangnam-do, Korea.

[SharkLover]

why cant they wait till the whales are dead?? geez...maybe 10 whales are dieing in the ocean right now!!......

[duff_o_josh]

whale is delicious and hippies should become extinct.

[lexico]

whale is delicious and hippies should become extinct.Umm...while I respect your every right to hijack this into a hippie-bashing thesis, I wonder if it is logical to imply that hippies as a group constitue a legitimate instance of species. Of course they mate with themselves, but they can also mate with other human varieties; suggesting that although they might qualify as a subspecies of the human species; hippies can hardly claim a separate animal group on their own. Hence your reference to hiipies becoming extinct is illogical. :p
Besides, one can eat whales if one chooses; whereas I'm not sure if hippies are safe to consume... :clueless:

[duff_o_josh]

hahahahaha lexico that was a good read. actually i think that people complain too much about things that have no affect on them at all. species are always evolving and always going extinct. why should we stop something that is natural?

[nurizeko]

Xtina, how is killing whales any different for killing cows? or pigs? or sheep, or tuna, or chicken, kangaroo? you seem very passionate about the whale issue, but not the others.

Cows and pigs arnt going extinct, infact we look after the buggers, but, its a bit harder to mass breed endangered whale species for food stocks.

[strongvoicesforward]

Cows and pigs arnt going extinct, infact we look after the buggers, but, its a bit harder to mass breed endangered whale species for food stocks.

The only reason most care about animals going extinct is because they want their presence to keep the world better for themselves. There is no care for the animal for the animal's sake in the argument that we must not kill an animal because it is near extinction. It is for the health of the echo system and hence a means to just keep us alive. It is purely self interest.

So, if we could mass produce whales like cows and pigs, then killing them in great numbers is then ok? -- despite the fact they are highly intelligent animals, care for their young, live in close knit family units, feel pain and misery, display signs of a complex language, etc...

If we have a choice of doing something without causing pain and showing compassion, then why not choose that choice? All animals are worthy of consideration to not cause violence to.

Humans aren`t endangered. We are an animal. If something not being endangered is a criteria for making it ok to hunt, then why not open season on humans? Why not cull the species that is overpopulated just about everywhere destroying the fuana just about whereever it appears?

[bossel]

It is purely self interest.
Exploiting the self interest of people is often the best way to advance the good.

All animals are worthy of consideration to not cause violence to.
Plants aren't?

Why not cull the species that is overpopulated just about everywhere destroying the fuana just about whereever it appears?
I'd consider that, but I fear being one of the 1st to be culled.

[nurizeko]

The only reason most care about animals going extinct is because they want their presence to keep the world better for themselves. There is no care for the animal for the animal's sake in the argument that we must not kill an animal because it is near extinction. It is for the health of the echo system and hence a means to just keep us alive. It is purely self interest.
So, if we could mass produce whales like cows and pigs, then killing them in great numbers is then ok? -- despite the fact they are highly intelligent animals, care for their young, live in close knit family units, feel pain and misery, display signs of a complex language, etc...
If we have a choice of doing something without causing pain and showing compassion, then why not choose that choice? All animals are worthy of consideration to not cause violence to.
Humans aren`t endangered. We are an animal. If something not being endangered is a criteria for making it ok to hunt, then why not open season on humans? Why not cull the species that is overpopulated just about everywhere destroying the fuana just about whereever it appears?

Yes, if we could mass breed whales then killing them in large numbers would be okay, its the continued existance of the species which counts.

In evolutionary and survival terms alone, without any of that human invented mumbo jumbop, pigs and cows are getting the better deal, we are feeding them, guarding them, watering them, sheltering them, and all they have to do in return is give up their meat once they have reproduced, nature doesnt give a crap about how many animals die, aslong as they get top reproduce, and in domesticated animals, humans are doing most of the giving, it doesnt take much effort nature wise for a cow to chew grass and drink water, then die after its served its purpouse, but us humans are investing time, resources and effort just to get the cows meat, its a more efficient means for us to gain the meat but, the cow would have died eventually and we could have got the meat from it, but by this arrangement, we get more meat, and the cows get everything they need, food and water and the time to reproduce and continue the species before dying, and that is really all survival is about, surviving to reproduce.

So again, in short, if we could domesticate whales, it WOULD be okay to kill them ofr their meat, because then it WOULDNT be any different from killing cows and pigs, because we have ensured their continued existance.


Bossel is right, by maintaining the ecosystem for ourselves, we are maintaining it for all life, afterall, we all share spaceship-earth.
Its no secret that at a lower survival level, its about the survival of the fittest, and all life is competing with each other, were not destroying the world because were somehow evil, were just using our natural given assets (intelligence) to dominate the earth as were programmed to do after millions of years of cold feelingless competition, birth and death.
But on the larger scale, all this competition maintains a life-maintaining earth, the gaia effect or something like that.

If you look at it this way, its actually quite enlightened and advanced of us to actually considor protecting a species at all, any lesser creature who was hunting whales or something to extinction wouldnt even be able to think, let alone think twice about exhausting the prey species.

Chances are humanity could be ethereal beings that safe-guard the virginity of a life-rich universe from the destructive clutches of lesser intelligent species and we would still have individuals whinging that our forms corrupt sub-space or where-ever our ethereal forms exist.

I dont think the universe would allow such a wild imbalance as a rabid species setting out to destroy all life, it would mess up the whole balance between chaos and order the universe has going, and were not in anyway a challenge to the universes vast way of doing things.

So, maybe next time you want to think of humanity as some kind of evil nasty fluke of evolution destined to destroy the earth and all life, remember that we are animals to, and our best interests are ussually the best interests of all life on earth, so it doesnt make sense that we will destroy ourselves, even if we dont really think about it, we have a natural instinctual interest for life to thrive, i highly doubt we'll end up in polluted domed cities on a waste-desert earth as you might fear, chances are, if we feck things up too much, nature will fix the imbalance and bamn, no more humanity, or at least a small stone-age population of humanity.

[strongvoicesforward]

Exploiting the self interest of people is often the best way to advance the good.

I won`t argue with that if it doesn`t imply "at the expense of others." I should have put that in my sentence to make it clearer.

Plants aren't?

Do they show signs of experiencing pain? Do they have a central nervous system? Do they have sentience?

I'd consider that, but I fear being one of the 1st to be culled.

LOL! I could be right behind you. ;-)

[sabro]

Do shrimp feel pain? Do they have a central nervous system? How about lobsters?

[bossel]

Do they show signs of experiencing pain?
They? Don't know. But many (if not most) plants have the necessary sensory equipment & show reactions to stimuli.
Do they have a central nervous system?
Nope. (Do all animals have one? Not that I know of. At least the German systematics differentiates between CNS & the Strickleiternervensystem eg. in spiders.)
Do you need a CNS to feel pain? To be alive? To be worthy of consideration?
Do they have sentience?
Define sentience!

[sabro]

Bossel perhaps you can help me with SVF: When he says "All animals are worthy of consideration..." is he making humans equal, or of equal consideration with not only the noble whale, but also the earthworm and remora...does he include head lice and intestinal parasites? Are those beings sentient? Who gets to deem what is sentient and what is not? How did they earn worthiness? If we bred cows without brains would that mean that steak would be a vegetable? Do clams and oysters qualify as worthy? And what the heck is a scallop?

If he means by sentient - concious and self aware of one's existence, than how do we test that? I'm not sure my dog is aware of his own existence... Or is it broader- like experiencing senses?

[nurizeko]

A simple test for sentients, put a mirror infront of the subject creature/plant, if it recognises itself its probably sentient, if it doesnt, or thinks its another creature, then its probably just stupid and like, not intelligent.

If your plant is reacting at all to its reflection, call the authorities, that plant be whack, yo! :cool:

[sabro]

Can you show a mirror to a clam, scallop or oyster? How about a shrimp? I showed a mirror to my cat just now and he just put one ear back and turned away. I don't know what that means.

[nurizeko]

It means your cat is a wuss and submitted to the dominance of mirror-cat.

When i did it with my cat it just stared at it and didnt like being moved closer to the mirror, she would hiss at it.

My dog just avoids the gaze of his mirror image altogether, and tries to get away if i move him closer to it.

My goldfish when i had them just floated there gulping away.

[yukio_michael]

Sometimes I'm caught in the gaze of a mirror for hours repeating the phrase you handsome devil over and over again...

fu fu---

[strongvoicesforward]

If he means by sentient - concious and self aware of one's existence, than how do we test that? I'm not sure my dog is aware of his own existence... Or is it broader- like experiencing senses?

How do I know you are aware of your sentience -- or even if anyone really exists?

Are fetuses sentient?

Are infants sentient?

Usually it is only after a few years that children can pass the dot test.

Are people in comas and vegetative states sentient?

How can anyone know anyone else actually exists, are sentient or feel pain? We could all be one big chemical reaction of hallucinations.

[sabro]

Good questions. You posed the requirement of sentience- can you suggest some answers?

[strongvoicesforward]

Good questions. You posed the requirement of sentience- can you suggest some answers?

It was one of three -- and I never said I weighted them equally or even that sentience was the determining factor. Those questions were in the musing sense.

But, personally, my reason is based on: "Can they suffer?"

[bossel]

Bossel perhaps you can help me with SVF: When he says "All animals are worthy of consideration..." is he making humans equal, or of equal consideration with not only the noble whale, but also the earthworm and remora...does he include head lice and intestinal parasites?
Actually, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. To me all life is equal, only I'm a bit more equal. What counts is only my own well-being. :p


It was one of three -- and I never said I weighted them equally or even that sentience was the determining factor. Those questions were in the musing sense.
But, personally, my reason is based on: "Can they suffer?"
Which animals can suffer? How do you know they suffer & plants don't?

Musing further on sentience: Am I correct that you define it as some kind of self-awareness? Then how many animal species can be self-aware?

[sabro]

Maybe sentience also requires the level of intelligence to understand and communicate one's sense self awareness of being? Perhaps humans are the only animals on the planet to fit this definition?

Should we get back to the cetacia at some point?

[strongvoicesforward]

Which animals can suffer? How do you know they suffer & plants don't?

How do I know you suffer?

Musing further on sentience: Am I correct that you define it as some kind of self-awareness? Then how many animal species can be self-aware?

How do I know you are self aware? You could just be a cleverly designed robot.

"Know" implies and absolute in knowledge.

I don`t know if all this going on is just an illusion.

Like you said: ... only I'm a bit more equal. What counts is only my own well-being.

If I am the only one existing and everything is an illusion of chemical compounds, then what counts is my own well-being, and if calming my sense of wrong perpetrated on animals helps my well being, well then... that is what I am going to champion in this chemical mix -- at least until you can prove that you are not an illusion or are as equally self aware and sentient as I am. ;-)

[bossel]

Should we get back to the cetacia at some point?
I think, it's always part of the discussion, since this question is part of the problem why to prefer some life forms over others.
Regarding cetacea & consciousness it's interesting to note that they actually have a rather elaborate communication system. Whether some cetacea are self aware & in how far they can communicate their self awareness is still open to discussion.

How do I know you suffer?
I don't. You're the one who claimed to know which life forms can suffer & which can't. I still wonder how you know that some sponge can suffer pain while eg. mimosa pudica can't.

How do I know you are self aware?
Yeah, how do you know?

You could just be a cleverly designed robot.
If a robot is so cleverly designed as to be aware of himself, why deny the fact of self awareness?

"Know" implies and absolute in knowledge.
I think, this point has been questioned a lot in philosophy.

I don`t know if all this going on is just an illusion.
[...]
If I am the only one existing and everything is an illusion of chemical compounds, then what counts is my own well-being, and if calming my sense of wrong perpetrated on animals helps my well being, well then... that is what I am going to champion in this chemical mix -- at least until you can prove that you are not an illusion or are as equally self aware and sentient as I am. ;-)
Aha. Interesting (well, maybe not really). But in how far does this lead to the conclusion: "All animals are worthy of consideration to not cause violence to."
& excludes plants, mushrooms, etc. Is it just your rather narrowed illusional focus?

[sabro]

So is suffering the only criteria? What if we could assure that the slaughter was painless?

As far as self existence- there has to be a beginning point to any logical construct: Descartes- Cogito ergo sum...is the usual point for all materialistic logic.

[nurizeko]

Look at it this way, if an animal (or plant) species starts breeding and domesticating us, we can assume its sentient.

[urecco]

Minke whales are increasing
For much of this century, Norway, the UK, Japan and other countries competed fiercely for whale resources in the Antarctic. As a result, most species were over-exploited, beginning with blue whales followed by fin whales, the species with the highest commercial value. These species have not yet recovered to their optimum population levels.

By contrast, minke whales in the Antarctic have been increasing as they fill the ecological niche created by removal of the larger baleen whales. Culling of minke whales may greatly help the recovery of the larger baleen whales.

Changes in population size of baleen whale species in the Antarctic
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fishery/whales/iwc/image/minke.gif
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fishery/whales/iwc/minke.html

Not all whales are endengered.

[strongvoicesforward]

You're the one who claimed to know which life forms can suffer & which can't.

Did I claim I knew exhaustively which life forms suffer or which ones can`t? Don`t think I did, did I? Please go back and find that difinitive statement by me. If you do, then I will correct the statement.

If a robot is so cleverly designed as to be aware of himself, why deny the fact of self awareness?

Didn`t say I would, did I? Does being self aware actually mean one has to be able to experience pain and be able to suffer?

But in how far does this lead to the conclusion: "All animals are worthy of consideration to not cause violence to."

Well, everyone will have to decide how far they personally would like to extend that. Could be cetacia, primates, and so on etc... Little by little it will evolve to be reflected in legal codes and laws by what the majority feels. I do know that the AR movement is well entrenched and the interests of animals are being taken up in court more and more and getting victories on a scale that would have been unimaginable just 100 or even 50 years ago.

& excludes plants, mushrooms, etc. Is it just your rather narrowed illusional focus?

Ahh, interesting (Well, not really). ;-)

[strongvoicesforward]

So is suffering the only criteria? What if we could assure that the slaughter was painless?

What if we could assure the elimination of a whole race or country of people were painless?

[sabro]

What if we could assure the elimination of a whole race or country of people were painless?
Then it would mean that suffering is not your only criteria.

[strongvoicesforward]

Then it would mean that suffering is not your only criteria.

It was offered as an absurdity to your strawman argument in question form. Don`t read too much into it.

[sabro]

I was just trying to determine what your criteria for determining which species got equal consideration were. It is not clear to me and asking is not meant as a strawman but rather a probe.

[bossel]

I was just trying to determine what your criteria for determining which species got equal consideration were. It is not clear to me and asking is not meant as a strawman but rather a probe.
You're not the only one to whom it's not clear.


Did I claim I knew exhaustively which life forms suffer or which ones can`t?
Did I say something about exhaustively?:p
All animals are worthy of consideration to not cause violence to.
On my response "Plants aren't?" followed your rhetorical question:
Do they show signs of experiencing pain?
& a bit later in another post came this:
But, personally, my reason is based on: "Can they suffer?"
Since you base your judgement on suffering & obviously exclude plants from consideration, the conclusion that you claim to know their insuffering nature seems allowed. But, hey, this is just your illusion, maybe implicatures don't exist in your realm.


Didn`t say I would, did I?
You said:How do I know you are self aware? You could just be a cleverly designed robot.
Is it possible that you're not a native English speaker? May I recommend to participate in some courses on pragmatics (linguistics).

Does being self aware actually mean one has to be able to experience pain and be able to suffer?
Well, this is your illusion: Does it?

Well, everyone will have to decide how far they personally would like to extend that.
I suppose here we can agree. But you still haven't explained why to draw a line between animals & plants.

[strongvoicesforward]

On my response "Plants aren't?"

Plants aren`t animals. Don`t you know that?

But you still haven't explained why to draw a line between animals & plants.

Maybe I wouldn`t draw the line between them if I could observe aversion to pain and suffering that I can comprehend in some way similar to mine from what I demonstrate through action when I am in a state of suffering or pain.

[nurizeko]

ureeko, ureko...that bloke has a point, minke whale is back on the menu.

[bossel]

Plants aren`t animals. Don`t you know that?
Is that your way of saying that you're not a native English speaker?

Maybe I wouldn`t draw the line between them if I could observe aversion to pain and suffering that I can comprehend in some way similar to mine from what I demonstrate through action when I am in a state of suffering or pain.
Fine, that leads me back to the question:I still wonder how you know that some sponge [phylum Porifera] can suffer pain while eg. mimosa pudica can't.
Could you share your observations that may lead you to the conclusion that a sponge is closer to your reaction on pain & suffering?

[bossel]

ureeko, ureko...that bloke has a point, minke whale is back on the menu.
As usual, Urecco doesn't have much of a point. The statistics he uses are flawed. Minke whales are probably no endangered, but according to genetic research the original population was much higher than is shown.

[Jack]

What use does a whale have? seriously what do they do?

[strongvoicesforward]

Plants aren`t animals. Don`t you know that?

Is that your way of saying that you're not a native English speaker?

No, it is my way of telling you that the subject is about animals.


Could you share your observations that may lead you to the conclusion that a sponge is closer to your reaction on pain & suffering?

I have nerves. A sponge does not.

It is always funny to see people always try to pull the topic off of considering the rights of animals by going to the "plant" and "simple cell organisms," as if they think that is going to deflate considerations for not causing harm to animals.

The Movement grows. Animals are more and more being afforded legal consideration from tyrany and oppression. It is a slow movement. We have no illusions about that. And, I don`t think I have read any judges in cases involving animals render a decision with the "plant" or "sponge" argument. Those who proffer those arguments are the ones going kicking and screaming trying to craft clever arguments to keep the blood letting going.

Lots of work to be done.

Tell me Bossel when you find a judge`s decision on an animal case where he put forth your "plant" and "sponge" querries.

[sabro]

A sponge is an animal. (Sponge Bob non-withstanding).
Not all animals have "blood."

[urecco]

As usual, Urecco doesn't have much of a point. The statistics he uses are flawed.

Other sources.
What is the Current State of Whale Stocks?
At present the stocks of individual species of whales vary considerably, both in terms of their numbers and distribution in the world's oceans. None of the twelve species of great whales is in imminent danger of extinction, although blue and northern right whales are classed as "endangered". Bowhead, southern right, sei, fin and humpback whales are classed as "vulnerable". On the other hand, the minke whale population in Antarctica is estimated at around 3/4 of a million animals.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/cetaceans/factsheet.htm

MINKE WHALES

Area Southern Hemisphere
Year(s) to which estimate applies 1982/83 - 1988/89
Approximate point estimate 761,000
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm

If you think the statistics I use are flawed, you should show other statistics.

[strongvoicesforward]

A sponge is an animal. (Sponge Bob non-withstanding).
Not all animals have "blood."

I never said I sponge was not an animal, brother Sabro. I merely said they do not have nerves.

[bossel]

Plants aren`t animals. Don`t you know that?
No, it is my way of telling you that the subject is about animals.
Subject of this thread is whale hunting, an activity, neither an animal, nor a plant. You came up with the "All animals..." stuff. Which leads to the question why animals & not plants are worthy of consideration. You still haven't given a satisfactory answer.

Eg.I have nerves. A sponge does not.
You have nerves, a sponge doesn't, mimosa pudica doesn't. Which is still no answer toCould you share your observations that may lead you to the conclusion that a sponge is closer to your reaction on pain & suffering?

Tell me Bossel when you find a judge`s decision on an animal case where he put forth your "plant" and "sponge" querries.
What's that got to do with the question why you find animals worthy of consideration & not plants?


If you think the statistics I use are flawed, you should show other statistics.
Yawn! Please reread what I wrote in my last post:
Minke whales are probably no endangered, but according to genetic research the original population was much higher than is shown.
I didn't say that the current numbers are flawed (although they are far from precise, anyway). For better estimates of original populations I refer you to Palumbi & Baker.

[urecco]

I didn't say that the current numbers are flawed (although they are far from precise, anyway). For better estimates of original populations I refer you to Palumbi & Baker.
Firstly, as a minke whale reproduces annually and easily recovered its population, I doubt that we shouldn't hunt them until they recover its original popuration.
Under International Whaling Commission guidelines, member states can vote to resume whaling if populations are seen to have risen to little more than half of "historic levels".
Secondly, I think you made a mistake.
"A small population tends to weed out all its genetic differ ences through inbreeding," Prof Palumbi said. "A huge population should, by contrast, have a lot more genetic variation."
The scientists restricted their DNA analysis to humpback, fin and minke whales - all of which were once ruthlessly hunted.
"The genetics we've done of whales in the north Atlantic says that, before whaling, there were a total of 800,000 to 900,000 humpback, fin and minke whales - far greater numbers than anybody had ever thought," Prof Palumbi said.
[...]
They also took samples from 87 minke whales and calculated a historic population of 265,000 - around twice the number in the seas today.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1005639,00.html
The estimates I used are about the population in Antarctic not in the north Atlantic.

[nurizeko]

Plants aren`t animals. Don`t you know that?
No, it is my way of telling you that the subject is about animals.
I have nerves. A sponge does not.
It is always funny to see people always try to pull the topic off of considering the rights of animals by going to the "plant" and "simple cell organisms," as if they think that is going to deflate considerations for not causing harm to animals.
The Movement grows. Animals are more and more being afforded legal consideration from tyrany and oppression. It is a slow movement. We have no illusions about that. And, I don`t think I have read any judges in cases involving animals render a decision with the "plant" or "sponge" argument. Those who proffer those arguments are the ones going kicking and screaming trying to craft clever arguments to keep the blood letting going.
Lots of work to be done.
Tell me Bossel when you find a judge`s decision on an animal case where he put forth your "plant" and "sponge" querries.

Because naturally, your a highly qualified biologist with the authority to tell people what is an animal and what isnt, what can feel pain and what cant.

Take your tree-hugging fanaticism elsewhere, i like nature and animals but at least im not a total bloody eco-loony.
"tyranny and opression", man, how many times ive heard islamic nut-jobs say that to, bossel isnt trying to say animals dont feel pain, what hes asking you is what is an animal and what isnt?......youd be suprised the things that are classified as animals, but being qualified in anything but actual biological science, you wouldnt know that right?.

Why is it that only animals with what you understand to be a nervious system deserve protection?, while its okay to continue to reap plants and lower lifeforms?......Chances are you have a very limited idea of what is pain, and what a sensory system is.
Were not pulling the topic "off" to derail you because you think your argument is so flawless (flawless arguments are the havens of fanatics), were pointing out important things which cant be ignored...that is that the definition of animal is greater then that which stands on four legs or breaths through a blowhole, and that theres many other ways for an organism to sense its surroundings then with a nervious system.

But being woefully short on real facts and knowledge, you wouldnt know that?

[strongvoicesforward]

<SNIP>

Deletion of double posting.

[strongvoicesforward]

Because naturally, your a highly qualified biologist with the authority to tell people what is an animal and what isnt, what can feel pain and what cant.

Your rant sure is painful.

Note: "your" does not equal "you are." The former is a possessive, the latter is a contraction. Normally, I don't critique a poster's grammatical or punctuation errors, but since you seem to be high on Bossel I thought I would point this out to you since Bossel seems to be interested in English as a member's native language. But, don`t take it hard, we all make mistakes of the kind here. After all, we are not writing universty papers, are we, Bossel?

Take your tree-hugging fanaticism elsewhere, i like nature and animals but at least im not a total bloody eco-loony.

No, you just sound like a "total loony" without a cause.

"tyranny and opression", man, how many times ive heard islamic nut-jobs say that to, bossel isnt trying to say animals dont feel pain, what hes asking you is what is an animal and what isnt?......youd be suprised the things that are classified as animals, but being qualified in anything but actual biological science, you wouldnt know that right?.

Well, I am quite surprised at your reading comprehension ability. I don't think Bossel ever asked me "what is an animal?" and "What isn't?" Could you show me where he asked me that?

Bossel, did you ask me that? Nurizeko seems to be delusional or seeing things that don't exist. Maybe his rant has caused him to pop a blood vessel or something.

Nurizeko, please show me where Bossel asked me that question and then I will apologise for questioning your reading comprehension. Until then, you might want to enroll in a class to help you with reading comprehension skills.

Why is it that only animals with what you understand to be a nervious system deserve protection?, while its okay to continue to reap plants and lower lifeforms?......Chances are you have a very limited idea of what is pain, and what a sensory system is.

lol. hmmm...well, nurizeko, I know I don't like pain. If you tell me you don't mind it, I will gladly hit you over the head with a hammer continuously. Now, if you move away from it or scream out or act in some way I am familiar with the concept of pain, then I will assume you don't like pain and I will stop causing it to you. Hopefully by then, it may have adjusted some of your "looniness." ;-)

Were not pulling the topic "off" to derail you because you think your argument is so flawless (flawless arguments are the havens of fanatics), were pointing out important things which cant be ignored...that is that the definition of animal is greater then that which stands on four legs or breaths through a blowhole, and that theres many other ways for an organism to sense its surroundings then with a nervious system.

Bossel, ask Nurizeko if his/her first language is English, or if he/she doesn't understand "contractions."

Who ever said anything about denying the title "animal" to anything that doesn't walk on four legs or breaths through a blowhole?

I didn't say there was no way an animal might not be able to sense its surrounding except for a nervous system, did I? I just said that a sponge does not have nerves.

But being woefully short on real facts and knowledge, you wouldnt know that?

I certainly am not a Jshok Cousteauo (sp?).

Have a nice day, Nurizeko. Don't forget about looking into a class on reading comprehension and remember contractions. Bossel is interested in native Englsh language ability so since you reference him, you may want to write in a way that could please him.

[sabro]

I'm not sure what to do. I was laughing rather hard at nurizeko's rebuke in the last post- I had to give him a rep point. Now should I also be tell him that he is a very bad boy. I wouldn't want to seem like a hypocrite to you.

As far as the oceanographer Jacques Cousteau.

I guess it is too bad that we can't eat sponges.

[strongvoicesforward]

I was laughing rather hard at nurizeko's rebuke in the last post-

lol! Yes, I was laughing hard at it, too. I think I may give him a rep point also for making me laugh. Besides from always writing "your" when it clearly is not a contraction of "you are," he/she was quite loony.

[sabro]

I shy away from criticizing the spelling, typing, grammar and punctuation on forums. It is poor form and discourages participation. I would offer suggestions and corrections only when indicated.

[strongvoicesforward]

I shy away from criticizing the spelling, typing, grammar and punctuation on forums. It is poor form and discourages participation. I would offer suggestions and corrections only when indicated.

I agree for the most part. But, Bossel seemed to show some interest in English being a person's first language, so I thought I would introduce him to Nurizeko for further musing on the point.

[sabro]

I don't think Bossel was actually criticizing your spelling. He seemed to be more concerned with your logic and conceptual presentation. But Bossel can speak well for himself and I don't need to do it for him.

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't think Bossel was actually criticizing your spelling. He seemed to be more concerned with your logic and conceptual presentation. But Bossel can speak well for himself and I don't need to do it for him.

I guess that is of subjective perception. Something for your not wanting to look at everything "black and white," brother Sabro.

[sabro]

You seem a bit confused. I clearly said that I didn't think Bossel was criticising your spelling. It is clear that this is not black and white thinking but rather speculation. Which is why I indicated that Bossel could probably clarify his own motives better than I can. Is that a bit clearer for you?

And when did I graduate from being your "pond" that you did not care about to your "brother." It seems rather insincere coming from you.

[strongvoicesforward]

Where did I ever say he was criticising my spelling, brother Sabro?

I guess you are confused with believing in something like a "trinity." Have you lost your train of thought again?

[sabro]

Correction: spelling et al. Again no confusion on my part. Did you lose context again?

[strongvoicesforward]

Correction: spelling et al. Again no confusion on my part. Did you lose context again?

No. You must have lost your train of thought, like you admit is your motto.

[sabro]

More deceptive practices? A statement I used once Mr. Chessmaster, cannot be considered my motto.

Are you going to talk about whaling or what?

[strongvoicesforward]

More deceptive practices? A statement I used once Mr. Chessmaster, cannot be considered my motto.

Looks like a motto to me -- always with your name.

Are you going to talk about whaling or what?

Kind of hard to when people want to talk about plants, call people loony and encourage that. But, I wouldn`t expect anything otherwise from someone who thinks one is three and three is one (What is that? -- the Three Musketteers?).

[sabro]

What in the non-existant hell are you talking about? (Is this some sort of protien deprivation dementia?)

[strongvoicesforward]

What in the non-existant hell are you talking about? (Is this some sort of protien deprivation dementia?)

I am wondering the same about you, brother Sabro. If you would stop reading tales of The Fairy God King your reading comprehension my not be stymied by delusion. Then you would have comprehended I never began talking about plants. You were the one to ask when I was going to start talking about whales? I answered, that is hard to do when people are interested in bringing plants into the argument.

If you would stop believing in one is three and three are one, then you wouldn`t be so confused and would no "lose your train of thought."

[nurizeko]

voice the loon
1. Calls sabro "brother sabro"
2. supports terrorising entire communitys over a
few guinea pigs
3. has an unhealthy obsession with spelling and
and grammar on the internet, an informal
media arguably NOT an english lecture hall.
4. finds all violence against animals intolerable,
yet seems to relish and savour the very
thought of violence against his fellow
man.
5. Has fanatical unrealistic expectations on the
relationship between humans and our food supply
6. Has no real logical ideas on how to balance out
humanities needs and the wellbeing　of the
ecosystem, and just rants on about how
animals rock and how much he hates humanity
7. Seems to have a fanatical belief that his opinions
and comments are truth and right, even though
he has yet to prove any real honest wisdom and
knowledge of what he speaks about beyond that
of a ranting loon.
8. A massive hypocrit, being a nature extremist,
while using computers, wearing clothes, eating
food, and most things in his life comming from
animals and plants.
Nuri a loon?
1. Likes haggis, possible sign of wierdness.
2. Has a phobia of mosqitos and blood sucking insects in general.
3. Supports crazy things like common sense, logic wisdom, and people more qualified about a subject having the legitimate say on it.
4. Likes cats over dogs.
5. Once he was on a deul highway home, and the gas station his family stopped at didnt have a loo so he climbed a fence and went into the nearby trees and bushes, to find the otherside was a golf course, so he had to choose who to risk seeing him...he chose the golfers, and wizzed just inside the bushline...if any golfers saw him they were kind enough to pretend otherwise...


Wow...i guess the list speaks for itself.
Its not like im unfamiliar with fanatics who blindly have their own agendas and beliefs, to feul the contempt and hatred and irrational unjustified hostility towards a particular group or race or religion, on in your case, all of humanity, but you knew fine and well you were comming onto a japan related forum, not a nature nut forum, im all happy if you want to spout your irrational and unworkable new world order BS in forums dedicated to your cause, but youve clearly came here with the intention of trolling, and demonizing japan, because somehow you feel you will win a decisive and long lasting blow against "the enemy" though your never really sure who they are, it changes as it suits you, the best way to describe your philosophy is this: for some reason in your life you lost faith in humanity, and now, you intent on hating all of it in return, but you cant really choose a particular target like racists or sexists can. Also you dont really care about the animals and nature, its just a convenient smoke screen, a mask to hide your contempt behind.
Possibly your mother or father abused you, maybe you were bullied at school, maybe it was just something as stupid as someone laughed at you once when you told them you were going vegetarian i dunno, maybe your just a total dead-beat with little worth and you've got nothing better then to fight the cause, any cause, aslong as you dont have to face the reality that your life is meaningless i dunno.
Yes, nature, mother earth, the ecosystem IS important and it DOES deserve our protection and management and respect.
But is stupid fanatical eco-nut rants on a forum, terrorising entire communities, dumping dead whales in cities, piracy, empty threats and a misplaced attitude that you are somehow fighting for a resistance cause when you arent acheiving anything and there is no real enemy, helping the cause for an eco-friendly humanity?....hell no.
If you want to save the whales, become a politician, lobby for pro-green policies and bills, try and find comprimise and meet nature and humanities needs in the middle, have patients and most of all be realistic about what to expect, the only way nature will be free from effect from humanity is if we are completely whiped from the earth and all trace of our existance (eco-nuts included) are gone.
But thats not going to happen, and having the natural instinct for survival of the species i, and the vast majority of others down want it either.
Neither is nature and life so fragile that a puff of smoke will finish all life on earth, chances are humanity would sooner finish itself off from its own pollution, and nature would recover itself.
The problem i have with eco-loonies is that they have such small small closed minds, that only think about the present and immediate future, and they cant think beyond into the bigger picture, the grand scheme of things.
Even if life did eventually (which it will anyway) vanish from the earth, theres still probably thousands if not millions or billions of worlds in the universe that have rich life on them.
Long before the sun swallows the earth and turns it into a puff of soot, the earth will be too hot for life, but what then?, should humanity just die with it because we live back in the stone age, when we could have advanced our technologies and spread into space eventually.
Earth is dying as we speak, its been dying since it formed, As far as i see it, its more important that ultimately, humanity has enough freedom to research and develope its technologies so we can escape this planet before its burnt to a cinder, then throw away civilization just so we can protect a few poxy whales that will die out in a few million years anyway, long long LONG before all life is destined to die.
I believe like any sane person, protecting the enviroment is important, yes, mostly for our own interests, and dont get me wrong, i do enjoy nature for natures sake, but ultimately we have to find the right balance in which nature is protected sufficiently, while humanity still has the freedom to develope and advance, and that is a balanced world that has no place for eco loonies.
Also i like plants more, doesnt mean im going to stop eating them, but i would prefer a nice leafy shade-casting tree over a big wet whale, if i had to choose between the survival of a single species of tree, or a single species of whale, ide choose a species of tree for conservation.

[sabro]

Hearingstrongvoicesforward: it is rather clear that you like to pollute this board with a plethora of meaningless tripe. Whales are dying and you waste time in a vain and weak attempt to slam me. As far as talking about plants-(not me), calling people looney (not me) and encouraging that (also not me). It should be apparent to you exactly who is confused. If you would stick to the topic of the thread you might not undermine your credibility so severly and someone might actually pay attention to your vegetarian spiel.

Talking about whales is not hard to do. Ignore the OCD strong voices in your head and start typing in your thoughts, facts and ideas about why the Japanese should not slaughter 80 whales a year in the name of science. It does not seem difficult to do.

I am glad to report that I have never read any tales about the fairy god king. My basic math skills are quite sound. And I believe nurizeko and bossel have both made you look like an idiot.

[strongvoicesforward]

And I believe nurizeko and bossel have both made you look like an idiot.

The belief of a person who believes one is three and three are one does not hold much merit from my point of view. Those are thoughts of people who have delusion. Though, their beliefs do have entertainment value, brother Sabro. I guess there is a little merit in that. ;-)

[strongvoicesforward]

voice the loon
1. Calls sabro "brother sabro"
2. supports terrorising entire communitys over a
few guinea pigs
3. has an unhealthy obsession with spelling and
and grammar on the internet, an informal
media arguably NOT an english lecture hall.
4. finds all violence against animals intolerable,
yet seems to relish and savour the very
thought of violence against his fellow
man.
5. Has fanatical unrealistic expectations on the
relationship between humans and our food supply
6. Has no real logical ideas on how to balance out
humanities needs and the wellbeing　of the
ecosystem, and just rants on about how
animals rock and how much he hates humanity
7. Seems to have a fanatical belief that his opinions
and comments are truth and right, even though
he has yet to prove any real honest wisdom and
knowledge of what he speaks about beyond that
of a ranting loon.
8. A massive hypocrit, being a nature extremist,
while using computers, wearing clothes, eating
food, and most things in his life comming from
animals and plants.
Nuri a loon?
1. Likes haggis, possible sign of wierdness.
2. Has a phobia of mosqitos and blood sucking insects in general.
3. Supports crazy things like common sense, logic wisdom, and people more qualified about a subject having the legitimate say on it.
4. Likes cats over dogs.
5. Once he was on a deul highway home, and the gas station his family stopped at didnt have a loo so he climbed a fence and went into the nearby trees and bushes, to find the otherside was a golf course, so he had to choose who to risk seeing him...he chose the golfers, and wizzed just inside the bushline...if any golfers saw him they were kind enough to pretend otherwise...
Wow...i guess the list speaks for itself.
Its not like im unfamiliar with fanatics who blindly have their own agendas and beliefs, to feul the contempt and hatred and irrational unjustified hostility towards a particular group or race or religion, on in your case, all of humanity, but you knew fine and well you were comming onto a japan related forum, not a nature nut forum, im all happy if you want to spout your irrational and unworkable new world order BS in forums dedicated to your cause, but youve clearly came here with the intention of trolling, and demonizing japan, because somehow you feel you will win a decisive and long lasting blow against "the enemy" though your never really sure who they are, it changes as it suits you, the best way to describe your philosophy is this: for some reason in your life you lost faith in humanity, and now, you intent on hating all of it in return, but you cant really choose a particular target like racists or sexists can. Also you dont really care about the animals and nature, its just a convenient smoke screen, a mask to hide your contempt behind.
Possibly your mother or father abused you, maybe you were bullied at school, maybe it was just something as stupid as someone laughed at you once when you told them you were going vegetarian i dunno, maybe your just a total dead-beat with little worth and you've got nothing better then to fight the cause, any cause, aslong as you dont have to face the reality that your life is meaningless i dunno.
Yes, nature, mother earth, the ecosystem IS important and it DOES deserve our protection and management and respect.
But is stupid fanatical eco-nut rants on a forum, terrorising entire communities, dumping dead whales in cities, piracy, empty threats and a misplaced attitude that you are somehow fighting for a resistance cause when you arent acheiving anything and there is no real enemy, helping the cause for an eco-friendly humanity?....hell no.
If you want to save the whales, become a politician, lobby for pro-green policies and bills, try and find comprimise and meet nature and humanities needs in the middle, have patients and most of all be realistic about what to expect, the only way nature will be free from effect from humanity is if we are completely whiped from the earth and all trace of our existance (eco-nuts included) are gone.
But thats not going to happen, and having the natural instinct for survival of the species i, and the vast majority of others down want it either.
Neither is nature and life so fragile that a puff of smoke will finish all life on earth, chances are humanity would sooner finish itself off from its own pollution, and nature would recover itself.
The problem i have with eco-loonies is that they have such small small closed minds, that only think about the present and immediate future, and they cant think beyond into the bigger picture, the grand scheme of things.
Even if life did eventually (which it will anyway) vanish from the earth, theres still probably thousands if not millions or billions of worlds in the universe that have rich life on them.
Long before the sun swallows the earth and turns it into a puff of soot, the earth will be too hot for life, but what then?, should humanity just die with it because we live back in the stone age, when we could have advanced our technologies and spread into space eventually.
Earth is dying as we speak, its been dying since it formed, As far as i see it, its more important that ultimately, humanity has enough freedom to research and develope its technologies so we can escape this planet before its burnt to a cinder, then throw away civilization just so we can protect a few poxy whales that will die out in a few million years anyway, long long LONG before all life is destined to die.
I believe like any sane person, protecting the enviroment is important, yes, mostly for our own interests, and dont get me wrong, i do enjoy nature for natures sake, but ultimately we have to find the right balance in which nature is protected sufficiently, while humanity still has the freedom to develope and advance, and that is a balanced world that has no place for eco loonies.
Also i like plants more, doesnt mean im going to stop eating them, but i would prefer a nice leafy shade-casting tree over a big wet whale, if i had to choose between the survival of a single species of tree, or a single species of whale, ide choose a species of tree for conservation.

Ha! I guess you really "rebuked" me in that, as brother Sabro likes to say. I'm sure it was hillarious. Too bad I didn't read any of that "loony" wind. I guess you gave your fingers a typing workout, huh? I'm just wondering if you got the contraction "you're" down right this time. Did you?

[sabro]

Believe me nurizeko spoke a lot of truth, and you missed some insight that would help you grow as a human. Ignore the truth. It makes living lies easier.

[strongvoicesforward]

Believe me nurizeko spoke a lot of truth, and you missed some insight that would help you grow as a human. Ignore the truth. It makes living lies easier.

Ha!

Have I been "rebuked" again? Hey, you are really good at this "rebuking." thing! ;-)

Perhaps the "One is three and three are one will smite me" now, so you can praise some more "rebuking."

ROTFLMAO!

[sabro]

I'm glad you're laughing...(as sad as a picture that is...)
Out of curiosity- where does you bad math example come from and what does it have to do with whales?

[Mycernius]

Nuri a loon?
1. Likes haggis, possible sign of wierdness.

A definite sign of weirdness, but you are from north of the border so you are forgiven. But your continuation of hunting these small defenceless beasties with other clansmen have driven them to the brink of extinction. They are now forced to hide in their little burrow up in the highlands, only to appear before tourists, waiting for the howl of the Haggis terrier hounds, goaded on by the wail of the bagpipes. Save the Haggis. Believe me if you've ever tried one you'll want to save it from being cooked, just to save you own stomach.

[bossel]

The estimates I used are about the population in Antarctic not in the north Atlantic.
No mistake, you got the wrong article. Palumbi & Baker did studies on 2 different genes of antarctic Minke & both found that the original population was above 1m (1,000,000).



since Bossel seems to be interested in English as a member's native language.
Nope, I only wonder about this because of your apparent lack of understanding (or, as you might say: low comprehension ability).

Bossel, ask Nurizeko if his/her first language is English, or if he/she doesn't understand "contractions."
Is it part of your illusion now that you can order me around?

I just said that a sponge does not have nerves.
Then what relevance had your earlier question whether plants had a central nervous system?

After you had your fun with Sabro I want to come back to my last post, I'm still missing some explanation:
You came up with the "All animals..." stuff. Which leads to the question why animals & not plants are worthy of consideration. You still haven't given a satisfactory answer.
Eg.I have nerves. A sponge does not.
You have nerves, a sponge doesn't, mimosa pudica doesn't. Which is still no answer toCould you share your observations that may lead you to the conclusion that a sponge is closer to your reaction on pain & suffering?

[Revenant]

3. has an unhealthy obsession with spelling and
and grammar on the internet, an informal
media arguably NOT an english lecture hall.That would be odd, since he makes quite a few spelling mistakes. While I haven't been following this thread carefully (I check in every once in a while), on all other threads I've seen him in, he doesn't seem obsessed with either of these.

[Lady Blue]

Whale hunting is something we all should care about.

For those who have notice, I live in mexico, and recently, the country launched a campain (is that right??) on behalf of the whales, because some of them reproduce in mexican waters. Today, in my International Marketing class, we actually took a little argument about this.

I don't think eating whale is as bad as it sounds, is just like, as somebody said, eating cow or chicken or else. What makes it somewhat untolerable is the amount of whales killed for this matter. I come to the phrase: All with moderation. Of course, for us, humans, is soooo difficult to do! Like drinking!

I do not intend to get religius, but it is said in the Bible that God created everything, but what came to be related on human feeding, vegitables are only mentioned. After the first sin, man got to feed himself with animals, why? Because now he was suppoused to grow his own parcel. And we all know how much it takes for something to grow. there are medical support fot the fact of us created to be vegitarian, like our intestines. Veggitarians have longer intestines because vegitables take longer to be diggested and taken out of our sistem, meat can get dicomposed easier, and it's too long for it to be kept inside... (Reason I find very valuable when my dad goes to the bathroom)

I don't think it is 100% ok to eat chicken and else that are grown artificially, but I also know they're not in danger of extintion. Even if they're not raised on factories, they're easier to manage, don't you think? I live in the north, where people actually have ranches and packs of cows. We actually, sometimes eat horse meat. But I don't think it's wrong just because we like them or cos their pretty or usefull, why? Because we don't eat it everyday; something I cannot say about the chicken, see?
Just think. Have you ever seen a Whale farm?? I haven't. Whales take sooo long to reproduce, like oaks to grow up. I love japan, but I think that they're still humans living on this world. A world that is not private for them or for any country. This kind of things affects us all, and being such an old culture an intelligent people, they should know the consequences their unmeasured hunting will bring.

about canivalismo... well,, that's some subject I don't want to discuss. This matter involves too much self conciusness and morals and ethics and religion and... many things. I cannot say I wouldn't do it because I have never been in such a sittuation that would force me to do things I usually wouldn't do. But, as for to say, why would I eat human flesh NOW if I can go outside and kill a chicken? In some other situation (like that story about the plane crash where the survivors ate human flesh of the dead ones.. but only from their butts....) I don't know.

[urecco]

No mistake, you got the wrong article. Palumbi & Baker did studies on 2 different genes of antarctic Minke & both found that the original population was above 1m (1,000,000).

I guessed "original population" means the population before starting whalefishing (in 1904 in Antrarcitic).

Is that right? If not, please define what is the "original population."

And if possible, please show me the source you use.

[nurizeko]

Cheers for the rep point for my last reply, Strongvoiceforward, i read something in the comment about straining to present my loony thoughts, but then, we all cant be gifted with the skill to type fast enough to present a reasonable post when the need arises.

Cheers for your support, i hope you dont mind, ive decided your rep point you so kindly gave me is you recognising that infact you are sorry for your hostile commentary against my original responses, and that you agree with what i and those engaging you in discussion say, i always find being able to stand back and admit defeat humbly like a man is a very admirable quality, its good to see you have at least one. :cool:

Lol.:p

[strongvoicesforward]

Cheers for the rep point for my last reply,...

Ha! Don't read too much into it. It was just for your arduous effort. That's all. I geuss if I had read your post, the reason for giving it to you may have been "humor." But, since I didn't read it, we'll never know about that.

Strongvoiceforward, i read something in the comment about straining to present my loony thoughts, but then, we all cant be gifted with the skill to type fast enough to present a reasonable post when the need arises.

Yes, I understand. Too bad for you and your fondness for the word "loony."

Cheers for your support, i hope you dont mind, ive decided your rep point you so kindly gave me is you recognising that infact you are sorry for your hostile commentary against my original responses, and that you agree with what i and those engaging you in discussion say, i always find being able to stand back and admit defeat humbly like a man is a very admirable quality, its good to see you have at least one.

Good work there. Now, if you want to use a contraction for the bolded, it is as such: "you're"

I think your rep points are going to bloom from me because you make me laugh so much. Rep Inflation is headed your way. You will be the highest "repped" member because I value your "loonyiness." You will pass all with rep points because of your ability to bring humor to the threads. I'm giving you one right now. ;-)

[strongvoicesforward]

I'm glad you're laughing...(as sad as a picture that is...)
Out of curiosity- where does you bad math example come from and what does it have to do with whales?

Brother Sabro, the math of "One is three and three are one," is from your superstition. Have you lost your train of thought again?

It was aimed at showing little value for your "belief" which you felt an urge to state. Your "belief" is humorous -- like the math you believe in.

[strongvoicesforward]

Nope, I only wonder about this because of your apparent lack of understanding (or, as you might say: low comprehension ability).

Bossel, you are the one who seems to not be understanding a plant is not an animal.

Is it part of your illusion now that you can order me around?

Now, how can I order you around from where I am and expect you to heed those orders, bossel? I guess I should have worded it, "Why don`t you ask..." That way you would have "comprehended" it was not an "order."

After you had your fun with Sabro I want to come back to my last post, I'm still missing some explanation:

Yes, Sabro is easy to have fun with. I guess you saw that so you could "comprehend" it and make the statement.

[strongvoicesforward]

Then what relevance had your earlier question whether plants had a central nervous system?

What are you talking about? I am not the one going off on a diversion to bring plants into the discussion. You are.

Sure, I answered your inquirey about "And plants aren't?" with the "central nervous system" answer, but it is "irrelevant" because "plants" are not animals. Why don't you get that?

[strongvoicesforward]

You came up with the "All animals..." stuff. Which leads to the question why animals & not plants are worthy of consideration.

It only "leads" to that question for those intent on causing a diversion away from animals. Sorry, I will not be lead there.

But, you may spend your time repeating it over and over if you so wish. Your expenditure of time to do so does not bother me, and a simple "copy, paste" command of this message will follow each. ;-)

Ha!

Why don`t you think about getting back to animals and away from your reductionist argument. It may be engaged then.

[bossel]

I guessed "original population" means the population before starting whalefishing (in 1904 in Antrarcitic).
Is that right? If not, please define what is the "original population."
And if possible, please show me the source you use.
With original population I actually meant the population maximum before whaling. IIRC, the source should (sorry, don't have it available right now) be "Baker & Palumbi (1997) The genetic structure of whale populations : implications for management." I think they said something about a steady growth of the antarctic Minke population without major disturbances until whaling.


Bossel, you are the one who seems to not be understanding a plant is not an animal.
:souka: Could you quote me on that?

Now, how can I order you around from where I am and expect you to heed those orders, bossel?
How should I know? This is your illusion, not mine.

I guess I should have worded it, "Why don`t you ask..." That way you would have "comprehended" it was not an "order."
Well, this definitely shows that you have problems with English, native speaker or not. Why do you use the imperative if you want to ask a question?

What are you talking about?
Bad English & a bad memory:
Do they have a central nervous system? Do they have sentience?

I am not the one going off on a diversion to bring plants into the discussion. You are.
Er..., not so much more diversion than you did with your "All animals...". Whales are not "all animals", but a rather small (in numbers & biomass) sample of animal life.

Sure, I answered your inquirey about "And plants aren't?" with the "central nervous system" answer, but it is "irrelevant" because "plants" are not animals. Why don't you get that?
Oh, your memory is back?
What I don't get is your reasoning behind all this. Since you are unable to provide an answer, I suppose, you don't actually have a rationale, it's simply your feeling.

Plants are not animals.
Whales are not human.
&?

[Sensuikan San]

It only "leads" to that question for those intent on causing a diversion away from animals. Sorry, I will not be lead there.
But, you may spend your time repeating it over and over if you so wish. Your expenditure of time to do so does not bother me, and a simple "copy, paste" command of this message will follow each. ;-)
Ha!
Why don`t you think about getting back to animals and away from your reductionist argument. It may be engaged then.

Surely ... the discussion is and the concern should be ... not about plants, animals ... minerals ... or plastic ornaments, should it?

Surely, the discussion is about "suffering" and unnecessary eradication, is it not?

Surely, wether or not it is an animal, a human (as distinct from other animals only by being "one of our own"), an onion, a cabbage a fir tree ... or a chunk of rock from the moon ... is immaterial.Are they not all worthy of some consideration?

Surely you cannot just pick one and champion it ... to the death.

Can anyone tell me and prove to me, beyond any doubt, without qualification ....
... that an onion is not screaming when I chop it, dice it or slice it ... ?


I assure you - am NOT being facetious!

[sabro]

While you are wondering about your onion- I was thinking I had some empathetic tears while slicing... I'm wondering why I am being mocked because someone else can't understand a complex concept. Hmmm?

Is there a whale somewhere in the thread?

[nurizeko]

I found a can of whale meat today in my local friendly ozam supermarket.

If i knew where voice lived i mighta been tempted to buy it and mail it to him, it might make a nice sandwich. :cool:

[strongvoicesforward]

I found a can of whale meat today in my local friendly ozam supermarket.
If i knew where voice lived i mighta been tempted to buy it and mail it to him, it might make a nice sandwich.

Outside my local supermarket I found a "loony" talking to himself.

If I knew where zeko lived, I mighta been tempted to buy a plain ticket for him and send him to her (?); he might make a nice conversation partner for her.

Ha!

[strongvoicesforward]

Could you quote me on that [i.e. not understanding a plant is not an animal -- SVF]?[/quote]

You are right, there is no quoe of you saying, "I do not understand a plant is not an animal." However, your pulling the conversation from a topic discussing animals (whales in particular) to plants, makes me wonder if your first language is English and therefore you do not understand.

Sure, I said "all animals" which "whales" are a part of, but that is still within the group of animals and not a micro organism living in clusters like a sponge.

Like I said, I am not going to be pulled into a reductionist argument because the purpose to do so is to divert the discussion away from life and suffering we can relate to.

SVF: Now, how can I order you around from where I am and expect you to heed those orders, bossel?

How should I know? This is your illusion, not mine.

Yes, you own nothing if you are mine. Thanks for acknowledging that.


Now, how can I order you around from where I am and expect you to heed those orders, bossel?

Well, this definitely shows that you have problems with English, native speaker or not. Why do you use the imperative if you want to ask a question?

You seem to have a limited understanding of how imperatives are sometimes uttered. I may order my bowling ball, "curve left! curve left!" as it heads to the right back corner pin. In fact, many do that. Just go to any bowling ally and observe all those imperatives given to inanimate objects.

When watching a sporting event, I may even scream, "Run faster!" eventhough my imperative will not be able to force them to do so.

I may even pose imperatives in questions/suggestive form to people, "Why don`t you just get a second job?" Sure, it is a question, but it could also be viewed as prodding to get a second job without actually expecting an explanation as to why the person won`t get a second job -- for I may have no reason to suspect that this person is against getting a second job.

Language is a rich medium, bossel. Don`t you know that? However, you are forgiven, because nuances can get muddled in text.

Er..., not so much more diversion than you did with your "All animals...". Whales are not "all animals", but a rather small (in numbers & biomass) sample of animal life.

Er...yes... much more -- for plants are not animals. All animals are an umbrella that whales still fall under. Plants are outside of it. Why don`t you get that?

[Xkavar]

Remember people: whales aren't people, until a ancient satellite emerges from deep space and starts evaporating the atmosphere because all the whales who could enter the system override codes were eaten.

:D

[nurizeko]

If i remember anything from that movie, for a planet without whales, earth was doing fine, as they always say in star-trek, earth is also called paradise.

Doesnt seem like too much of a terrible future without blubber.

If you sent me the loon, voice, ide probably wash and feed the poor sod, and call the appropriate authorities to take care of them, and call the police to charge you with abduction of someone not in the right mind to be able to resist your abuse of their vulnerable state.


Seems a strange thankyou for being sent such a nice sandwich filler, and a token of peace. :blush:

Instead could you send me a tin of greater-hippius-eco-warriorus, i do so love chowing down on endangered species., yum yum. :ramen:

[bossel]

However, your pulling the conversation from a topic discussing animals (whales in particular) to plants,
You're the one "pulling the conversation from a topic discussing" whaling to "all animals", makes me wonder...

Sure, I said "all animals" which "whales" are a part of, but that is still within the group of animals and not a micro organism living in clusters like a sponge.
A sponge is an animal, just like a whale, only a bit more "primitive" in its physical organisation.

Like I said, I am not going to be pulled into a reductionist argument because the purpose to do so is to divert the discussion away from life and suffering we can relate to.
Why should I have such a purpose? As I said, I wondered what your rationale was. Since you obviously have none, as it seems that your anti-whaling stance is just emotion-driven, this has been settled.

Yes, you own nothing if you are mine. Thanks for acknowledging that.
Sliding from illusion to delusion... interesting.

When watching a sporting event, I may even scream, "Run faster!" eventhough my imperative will not be able to force them to do so.
From my experiences in stadia the fans often not only shout imperatives at the sporters, but also abuse. Then, according to you, it's OK to "shout" abuse in a discussion forum as well?

Language is a rich medium, bossel. Don`t you know that? However, you are forgiven, because nuances can get muddled in text.
Well, your nuances are quite muddled, that's true. Although I see a certain imperial (not to say fascistoid) attitude shimmering through.

for plants are not animals. All animals are an umbrella that whales still fall under. Plants are outside of it. Why don`t you get that?
Well, it's always a question how big your umbrella is. Both plants & animals are eukaryotes. Humans fall under the umbrelly of primates, whales don't. It's a question of where you want to draw the line. & why you draw it just there. You haven't shown much of a rationale why to take all animals but not plants into consideration.
But, hey, if you just feel like that, no problem. Can't argue with emotions.

[strongvoicesforward]

A sponge is an animal, just like a whale, only a bit more "primitive" in its physical organisation.

Eventhough a sponge does not have nerves, I wouldn`t go out of my way to harm them. That said, they do not have nerves. Do they suffer? They may, but if I can`t relate their suffering to any concept or view it in a way that we are familiar with, it is hard for me to understand why you are bringing them into the argument. Yes, I said, "all animals," and technically you are right, they qualify -- but it is a diversion as you go off into a reductionist mode of discussing pain and suffering.

... it seems that your anti-whaling stance is just emotion-driven, this has been settled.

Emotion is a part of it. It may even be the over riding part of it. Nothing wrong there since it is one based on empathy and considering the interests of an animal to not suffer. Humans are animals. We do not like to suffer. We go out of our way to put protections in place to try and prevent others from causing others to suffer. Logically, it may be right to have a culling of humans in some overpopulated areas, however, my emotions would view that as an anethema.

From my experiences in stadia the fans often not only shout imperatives at the sporters, but also abuse. Then, according to you, it's OK to "shout" abuse in a discussion forum as well?

I didn`t structure a sentence on what was permissable. I structered the sentence on what happens/how things are used. Why are you trying to slide the meaning over into something else?

Well, your nuances are quite muddled, that's true.

Ha! You told me, didn`t you? No, actually your attempt at pulling the conversation into the reductionist kind is quite -- eerr, laughable.

Although I see a certain imperial (not to say fascistoid) attitude shimmering through.

lol. When you say that I almost can here Spock on Star Trek saying it and see him with his raised eyebrow. Funny. I`m almost tempted to be just as childish and say, "Yeah, well me to for you."
[/QUOTE]

[nurizeko]

Voice, you do relise that not only do you carry no credibility here, you are merely being used as a scratching post for bossel to practice his claws on?.

I need not go into a long rant as to why bossel has you on the ropes, because you would claim victory in a fight if you were thrown from the ring, and needing intensive care, suffice to say he does.

If your plan was to win over hearts and minds for your cause, you've failed.

If however you are here for the arguments, feel free to continue, i dont doubt you will eventually fade away, make a mistake and get banned, or otherwise continue to remain un-heard.

So if your merely here to stir up trouble in the name of whaling, feel free to continue but, you dont really have anyone listening, as it is, all your pro-whaling buddies who signed up for one or two posts seem to have faded away.

[strongvoicesforward]

Nurizeko, I am shocked to see you have strung a few sentences in a post without screming "loony" throughout it. Was it hard?

Voice, you do relise that not only do you carry no credibility here, you are merely being used as a scratching post for bossel to practice his claws on?.

Cute.

I need not go into a long rant as to why bossel has you on the ropes, because you would claim victory in a fight if you were thrown from the ring, and needing intensive care, suffice to say he does.

Yes, please spare us the rants you are so fond of. Thanks for admitting your propensity toward them. I have no need to claim victory. I will leave it up to the minds of those who read the posts to decide whose argument moves them more to agree with. Most people reject going into hyperbol with extreme reductionist arguments. Only those who are so intent on making someone scream "uncle" usually go that route, as bossel has.

If your plan was to win over hearts and minds for your cause, you've failed.

You need not declare that. You have no access to all those who may have lurked here visiting. Silence is no indicator. Let others decide for themselves.

If however you are here for the arguments, feel free to continue, i dont doubt you will eventually fade away, make a mistake and get banned, or otherwise continue to remain un-heard.

I am sure I won't be here for the remaining 50 years of my life. People change and move on. Though, I might make it a point 50 years later to just log on to see if you are still here calling people "looney" and not knowing the contraction of "you're for "you are." <snicker snicker>

Haven't you had a composition or grammar course in high school yet on contractions?

But, I will be here for some time to come and doubt if I will get into the habbit of calling people "loony."

So if your merely here to stir up trouble in the name of whaling, feel free to continue but, you dont really have anyone listening, as it is, all your pro-whaling buddies who signed up for one or two posts seem to have faded away.

There are many of us. Wish we had more. Never enough. I don't begrudge them for moving on to whatever their next fight is.

Nurizeko, you may want to PM Sabro that you have "rebuked" me again. He likes to congratulate people for "rebuking" me. He may give you some rep for it. <snicker snicker>

Have a good weekend, Zeko.

[bossel]

if I can`t relate their suffering to any concept or view it in a way that we are familiar with, it is hard for me to understand why you are bringing them into the argument.
You're playing the emotional card, I don't. It's very well if you like whales & don't want to see them harmed, but I have problems with your reductionist argument of something like "only CNS lifeforms are worthy of consideration". Whether you can relate to another species' experience (or even another human's) is entirely subjective & isn't of much use in an argumentation.

We don't know which animals can experience pain & suffering in a similar way to humans (primates are probably very close, but the more unrelated a species is, the fuzzier the picture gets).
We certainly can't say whether plants (& if so which species) can experience pain & suffering in similar ways to animals, but according to current research many plants have the necessary sensory equipment to "feel pain".

Yes, I said, "all animals," and technically you are right, they qualify -- but it is a diversion as you go off into a reductionist mode of discussing pain and suffering.
Well, if you bring all animals as an argument, you should expect your argument to be examined. If it's only an emotional appeal, it's a zero argument anyway, IMO.

Humans are animals. We do not like to suffer.
Except for the masochists among us.

We go out of our way to put protections in place to try and prevent others from causing others to suffer.
So, when killing whales is done under anaesthesia that would be OK with you?

I didn`t structure a sentence on what was permissable. I structered the sentence on what happens/how things are used. Why are you trying to slide the meaning over into something else?
Er..., if it wasn't to support your (rather strange) usage of the imperative, why bring it up? Since it doesn't add anything to the question whether your usage was permissable or not, isn't it irrelevant? Maybe even reductionist?

[bossel]

BTW, Nurizeko & SVF:
Please tone it down a bit!

[strongvoicesforward]

BTW, Nurizeko & SVF:
Please tone it down a bit!

Just wondering why you didn`t say that innitially when Nurizeko came on with his rants of "loony." Doing so may prevent reactionary responses.

However, Bossel, you aren`t innocent from pushing things into a direction of antagonization:

Sliding from illusion to delusion

Well, your nuances are quite muddled, that's true. Although I see a certain imperial (not to say fascistoid) attitude shimmering through.

Perhaps your insistance would be more egalitarian as such:

"Let`s all of us calm it down a little."

[strongvoicesforward]

You're playing the emotional card, I don't.

There is nothing wrong with emotions being part of an argument if it is one based on empathy and not causing pain and suffering.

Besides, court cases are often decided on by not only the evidence that is brought into the proceedings, but by how the jury and judges are often times moved by the emotions of the victims and their families.

In criminal proceedings, things need to be only proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil proceedings the bar of proof is even lower. Emotions do get in the way of decisions and emotions are often the impetus that drives people to even look at and bring the issues up. Their emotions often compelll them to take action. The world is built on action that are driven by emotions.

If you choose not to use emotions, then that is to your disadvantage. I will not hobble my argument because you choose to do so.

It was some years ago when I think it was the "Natural Museum" of Washington (sorry I don`t have the exact name down -- could get it for you though) was using beagles or primates to study trauma and burn injuries. Taking out an ad in the Newspapers with pictures of beagles caused the emotions of tens of thousands of people to write and take action to get the experiments halted and the funding for it recinded. They were successful and it was their emotions that moved them. You may want to deny it, but they are a factor, and I will use them to speak up against or to stop suffering when I can.

Whether you can relate to another species' experience (or even another human's) is entirely subjective & isn't of much use in an argumentation.

Sorry, bossel -- it is of use. Seeing that all scientists and politicians have not yet come to agree that animals have sentience or can even feel pain or suffer for that matter, more and more laws are being passed protecting animals from abuse because those with "emotion" in the animal welfare and animal rights groups have been pushing these agendas. They have been successful and even Germany for the first time has mentioned animals in their constitution -- a precedent in the world. Emotions are what is driving the change in animal welfare rules, laws, and regulations.

People are moved by them and these groups appeal to them and they do filter down into law.

We don't know which animals can experience pain & suffering in a similar way to humans (primates are probably very close, but the more unrelated a species is, the fuzzier the picture gets).

It isn`t so important that they feel or experience exactly as we do. It could be even more intense. We can give meaning to our pain. We can accept the pain of a dentist drilling into our teeth knowing that it is for a purpose and that it will be over soon. An animal being forced to undergo something of a violation of its body, even for its own good, just cannot know that it will be over soon or that it has a purpose. That could magnify pain, suffering and fear. Humans can also fall back on religion or some kind of personal belief of cosmic justice as a comfort if they so choose to mitigate the pain. Animals can`t.

Whatever, we do know that "pain" is a state that is not pleasant and that animals seek to move away from the source of that pain. They often shout out when experiencing it.

Some researchers say that even men and women may have some differences in pain perception or the ability to withstand it. Knowing that, I wouldn`t say that that is enough to not extend protection from suffering when it is possible. Difference in pain does not justify causing it.

We certainly can't say whether plants (& if so which species) can experience pain & suffering in similar ways to animals, but according to current research many plants have the necessary sensory equipment to "feel pain".

Well, then I would say those researchers have a lot more to do to get that out to the public and accepted. Still, going off onto plants is a diversion.

Well, if you bring all animals as an argument, you should expect your argument to be examined. If it's only an emotional appeal, it's a zero argument anyway, IMO.

I don`t mind my argument being examined. However, I see a reductionist argument when one is presented and most reject those because it boils down to micro-organisms and extremes of hyberbol.

Yes, it is "in your opinion." Sorry, emotions are parts of arguments when pain and suffering are involved and one need only look at human court cases, jury and judge decisions and the sentencing they mett out and also the many animal welfare/rights victories via campaigns and court cases that have been embraced and championed by parts of the public. The public responds to emotional arguments and they do often influence what actions are taken.

Are you denying that?

So, when killing whales is done under anaesthesia that would be OK with you?

No. That is a violation of their autonomy. However, if they are serial child rapist murderers, I may change my mind on it -- or opt for the lobotomy seeing that I don`t see how they could get a job to pay back the victims in a work release program. ;-)


Er..., if it wasn't to support your (rather strange) usage of the imperative, why bring it up? Since it doesn't add anything to the question whether your usage was permissable or not, isn't it irrelevant? Maybe even reductionist?

Er..., nothing strange about it. The imperative on a forum as this is known by all to be rhetorical. I could never expect an order to be fulfilled. You seemed to have not understood it.

[nurizeko]

loon1

• noun informal a silly or foolish person.

• verb Brit. informal act in a foolish or desultory way.

— ORIGIN from LOON2 (referring to the bird’s actions when escaping from danger), perhaps influenced by LOONY.


desultory
/dezzltri/

• adjective 1 lacking purpose or enthusiasm. 2 going from one thing to another erratically and intermittently: a desultory conversation.

— DERIVATIVES desultorily adverb.

— ORIGIN Latin desultorius ‘superficial’ (literally ‘relating to a vaulter’), from desilire ‘leap down’.

From my point of view, your responses carried little substance, as were, as defined above, somewhat loony.

I apologise if i observed wrong, one mans gold is another mans coal, from my perspective it was indeed your replies and responses which seemed somewhat rantish, though no doubt they made alot of sense to you.

You can however rest assured i wish no harm on whales, though as an omnivore im still quite comfortable with munching on other forms of animal life, if i could, i would gladly live off of water, but unfortunately my frail body requires food, plant material and meat, as unfortunate for the cows and pigs and chickens as it is, it is by no means unatural or otherwise "wrong" anymore wrong then it is to breath air and drink water and reproduce and go to the loo, i am merely doing what my natural body requires me to do, and as far as whales go, i dont wish extinction on them, or overly inhuman treatment, but, if it were the case that we could domesticate and eat whales without whiping them out, i would be accepting of this, you are however free to disagree and maintain vegetarianism, but, i personally stop short of harrassing the japanese people because a few whales end up on a plate.

It is good whaling is so thinly spread that only one country is really being made an issue over it, and scientific or not, the amonut they catch doesnt seem to be, from what i have observed, as detrimental to the continued existance of whale species.


With all that said, one might more easily understand why i would feel the passionate near fanatical call for all whaling to stop full stop, and in the greater scheme of things, to stop meat-eating altogether could be considored "loony".

It is like telling people to stop breathing or drinking water because they create carbon dioxide or because they pollute water with other waste materials and expel it as urine, and this will destroy the natural order.

but it is natural, just as much as billions of humans consume animal meat, billions of humans take dumps, piss, and exhale breathed air, and yet the world continues to rotate on its axis since the day it formed.

Anyway, i apologise for any offense, perhaps i was a bit unfair with my initial observations, i will try to refrain from being to hasty with such comments in future, earned or otherwise.

[sabro]

Nuri- that was rather civil of you. Such gestures should be commended.

[urecco]

With original population I actually meant the population maximum before whaling. IIRC, the source should (sorry, don't have it available right now) be "Baker & Palumbi (1997) The genetic structure of whale populations : implications for management." I think they said something about a steady growth of the antarctic Minke population without major disturbances until whaling.
Your source said there was a steady growth before whaling.
So the population maximum means the population when the whaling began (1904).
Is that right?


BTW, in your opinion, is the population of minke whales in the Antarctic increasing (recovering) ?

[jp22]

yes Japan, Mitsubishi, Sony, Honda
stop whaling so that the boycott of Japan can end..

it is in the economic interests of Japan to stop

http://www.seashepherd.org

[sabro]

Is there a boycott of Japan? It doesn't seem to show up on any economic figures.

[Aerain]

It's not japan, it's the industry in japan that respond to the demand and most people in japan eating whale don't realise that eating it is not seen ethically correct to some people around the world... And you can't convince people in a industry to stop making money, people are individualist and they don't really care about people's opinion.

[Sarapva]

I think that's true - industries will keep doing what they're doing while they can make money. What do you think of the Canadian seal hunt, Aerain? You're not too far (relatively) from the hunting.

[yukio_michael]

It's not japan, it's the industry in japan that respond to the demand and most people in japan eating whale don't realise that eating it is not seen ethically correct to some people around the world... And you can't convince people in a industry to stop making money, people are individualist and they don't really care about people's opinion.What do you think the statistics are concerning those consuming whale meat are in Japan, I think you might be surprised about this...

[Aerain]

Seal or whale, I don't think there is any difference, except whale are now an endangered specy, but what I find "immoral" is the fact we hunt them for money and not just for our own natural need... But again it is only an opinion, no one is "right" or "wrong" though some may point out arguments that are deprived of any logic...

What do you think the statistics are concerning those consuming whale meat are in Japan, I think you might be surprised about this...

I thought Japan and China were those who consumed the most... I also suspect Korean to eat some, but I heard Korean generally ate more red meat instead...

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

And what about those poor little seals in Canada, they are killed in a extreme cruel way. I feel sick each time when I see it on TV.
They are killed because some women want to wear the fur of those baby seals. Horrible!!

[Sarapva]

It's the industries (fur, meat, etc.) that are cruel. Like Aerain said, killing animals for money seems to be immoral. I don't have much of a problem with people killing animals to eat themselves, but raising them in small cages or going out to kill thousands at a time for fur, just for profit, is inhumane.

[KirinMan]

It's the industries (fur, meat, etc.) that are cruel. Like Aerain said, killing animals for money seems to be immoral. I don't have much of a problem with people killing animals to eat themselves,

I respect your opinion in this but you should realize that it is an oxymoron here, "killing animals for money seems to be immoral" people fail to remember that killing of animal's for food is the same as killing animal's for profit.

In my opinion people are taken in with the "cuteness", the "majesty", or the "intelligence" of a particular species. It seems to me that it is fashionable now a days to be concerned about this animal or that mammal, but people still love to eat their veal.

[Sarapva]

I don't think that killing animals for food is the same as killing them for profit - I was thinking of a hunter, let's say, in the woods, hunting a deer or moose for meat. The moose has lived its whole life in a natural way, not stifled by humans in warehouses or cages, and hopefully the hunter would try to kill the animal as quickly as possible. In contrast, in the meat industry animals are bred to live in cages, have their beaks/toes cut off, are branded, etc., then sent to a slaughterhouse where there are not any rules for quick killing. This is all to make money - we don't know that the owner of the farm/slaughterhouse eats meat himself.

I don't base my compassion for animals on whether they're cute or majestic - I think all feeling beings deserve the same respectful treatment.

[yukio_michael]

I don't think that killing animals for food is the same as killing them for profit.Well, we're none of us hunter-gatherers anymore so this point is moot.

[KirinMan]

I don't think that killing animals for food is the same as killing them for profit - I was thinking of a hunter, let's say, in the woods, hunting a deer or moose for meat. The moose has lived its whole life in a natural way, not stifled by humans in warehouses or cages, and hopefully the hunter would try to kill the animal as quickly as possible. In contrast, in the meat industry animals are bred to live in cages, have their beaks/toes cut off, are branded, etc., then sent to a slaughterhouse where there are not any rules for quick killing. This is all to make money - we don't know that the owner of the farm/slaughterhouse eats meat himself.
I don't base my compassion for animals on whether they're cute or majestic - I think all feeling beings deserve the same respectful treatment.

Out of curiosity here, and not meant to be taken as sarcasm;

Do you eat meat or are you a vegetarian? When I say meat I mean not only red meat, but poultry, fish, pork etc etc.

I understand what you are saying but it is impossible for society today to go back to the days of the "hunter". You sound like a romantic sometimes, wishing for the days when people only took what they needed and were happy without knowing what was going on in the rest of the world. It is admirable, even noble.:-)

I think it is unrealistic to even consider, since society has deemed that meat is an important part of our diets and people have decided to make a living providing that service for the market. Just as in any business throughout the history of mankind, find your product that the customer wants and they will buy it.

[Mr Man]

It's a fact of life that in order to sustain the life of one organism, most of the time, something else has to die. We consume flesh, whether it is plant or animal. Even vegetarians are eating something that is made of "living" cells.
What we need to practice though is sustainability! We need to be able to take what we need, while allowing the recovery of whatever resource we are exploiting. When business comes into the equation, it definitely makes things more convenient and easier for everyone, but it also causes massive amounts of waste, and since the primary goal of any business is to grow and make profit while dealing with competition, resources take a massive pounding as the idea of sustainability is all but forgotten.
We can only hit back by being more responsible consumers, and that means taking the time to find out about all the companies that supply us with our beloved products, bite the bullet and boycott those that don't do enough to protect the sources of their businesses or are causing damage!
No company likes bad publicity and it is possible to force them to be more responsible if they feel their power to generate profit is threatened.
We, the lucky 5% of the planet are currently creating a lifestyle that is totally unsustainable, fiercely protective of our right to shop; to consume. What happens when the rest of the world decides to live like us, creating cultures of casual consumerism and oversupply?

[Sarapva]

Obeika, I'm a vegetarian - I don't eat meat (red meat or poultry) or fish, and I rarely eat eggs (I try my best to stay away from things made with milk, but that's hard sometimes). So I couldn't really call myself a vegan. But the point I was trying to make is that the motivation for killing animals seems to be important - if someone is killing for food (and this still happens around here, where I live - people hunt deer for meat), they probably have more respect, in a way, for the animal and want to kill it quickly. But in industries where the bottom line is profit, there isn't that same "respect" or human/animal interchange - in factories people don't have to study an animal's habits to figure out when is the best time to kill it, etc.

Mr Man - Yes, I agree that sustainability is important, and something we'll have to get back to if we're going to survive. I just read an article about how modern societies are built on the "heyday" of oil and gas, which we're past now, and that the way we're using cars, etc. is not sustainable over a much longer period of time. I know that the U.S. is a big culprit in consumerism and using gas and oil, etc.

[yukio_michael]

Threads like these have the same chance of getting Japan to cease Whale hunting as does a Swedish J-Rock fan with poor English making a website petition trying to get Gackt to create an English translated version of his fan website.

Who do you think reads these threads? Delegates to the Japanese Whaling committee? If you're really so serious about this sort of stuff Join some activist groups... those people actually like hearing about this sort of stuff...

I've never seen Whale meat on a menu, yet I've seen horse meat... but we shouldn't kill horses because 'horseys are pretty'... (ps. Horse meat is tasty)...

Seriously, this is a dead issue--- the only thing these threads serve are to a) promote disinformation (whales are smarter than humans etc etc), b) have people posit ideas simply to hear other people agree with them and c) have those people who don't agree argue ENDLESSLY back and forth.

Surely there is a better outlet for your rage than this... most people don't even come in informed about the subject whatsoever... It's a part of Japan's culture/industry so I don't think the forum is invalid--- it's just the same old thing over and over ad nauseum.

In Japan they say itadakimasu ~ which in effect is meant to say, "thank you for this life that I am taking, so that it may nourish me."

Unless you're living in a hippie co-op, there's no motivation for killing ANY animal other than profit... think about it.

[KirinMan]

Threads like these have the same chance of getting Japan to cease Whale hunting as does a Swedish J-Rock fan with poor English making a website petition trying to get Gackt to create an English translated version of his fan website.

Who do you think reads these threads? Delegates to the Japanese Whaling committee? If you're really so serious about this sort of stuff Join some activist groups... those people actually like hearing about this sort of stuff...

I've never seen Whale meat on a menu, yet I've seen horse meat... but we shouldn't kill horses because 'horseys are pretty'... (ps. Horse meat is tasty)...

Seriously, this is a dead issue--- the only thing these threads serve are to a) promote disinformation (whales are smarter than humans etc etc), b) have people posit ideas simply to hear other people agree with them and c) have those people who don't agree argue ENDLESSLY back and forth.

Surely there is a better outlet for your rage than this... most people don't even come in informed about the subject whatsoever... It's a part of Japan's culture/industry so I don't think the forum is invalid--- it's just the same old thing over and over ad nauseum.

In Japan they say itadakimasu ~ which in effect is meant to say, "thank you for this life that I am taking, so that it may nourish me."



While I am guilty of continuing the "debate" or "discussion" on this thread I agree with what you have written here. Well said.

:bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:


Unless you're living in a hippie co-op, there's no motivation for killing ANY animal other than profit... think about it

The biggest profit to me is a full stomach.:-)

[Sarapva]

I think it's helpful to discuss these things, if just to find out what regular people in other countries think about a certain issue (instead of only hearing about what their governments are doing). I don't have rage against the Japanese government or anyone else - but I think this is an important topic and that people become a little more educated by discussing things. I don't expect to be heard by any committees or law-makers, but in the end, it's the average citizen who can change things overall.

[centrajapan]

Whales is a mobile source of proteins. Whales taste good, whales eat alot of fish, whaling is an eco frinedly form of food production.

I also think the seal hunt is good. The seal hunt is a very good example of a commercial hunt which has lasted for centuries and where the stock numbers are still very healthy. Not every commercial hunt ends in an animal being wipedd off the face of the earth. The seal hunt is a good example of that.

Don't you just love the hypocrasy of these continental Europeans and other people who point fingers at people living in the Arctic regions to tell them to stop killing seal and eating whales while the same people who are pointing their fingers are wearing leather sneakers made out of cow hide and eat pork chops 3 times a week. They pretend to be eco friendly but are infact not aware that they are much less eco friendly than people who kill seals and eat whales.

The seal hunt should go as a good example of how people can utilize a natural renweable resources. And to thos people who point fingers at people who eat whales and kill seals. May I suggest you take that pointing finger some place else.

Coming from a whaling nation I think it is splendid that Japan carries whaling. I hope the anti whaliong racist imperialists will wake up and start to respect the differences in cultures and habits because their arguments are not very good. They need to come up with new ones. That is also the reason why more and more countries in IWC now days are supporting pro sustanable countries and less pro intolerant countries. It is countries like Japan, Norway etc who got the momentum.

Why the ##¤%! should UK, Australia, USA, New Zeland, France, Canada, or any other stinking country tell to Japan. Oi! Stop eating whale meat! And why the "#¤%¤"! should Japan say. Uhhhmm...OK.

[alantin]

What I find interesting is that Xtina who started this thread in 2004 has not made a single post since. :okashii:

I must be as arctic as you are then! I wasn't really aware that Norway was into whaling though.. :souka:

I don't know anything about whales or whaling except that I hear, they are an endangered species. Maybe the whaling nations should consider that more or soon they won't have anything to whale.. If there are many countries thinking that there is plenty of "stock" existing, on deciding to stop, will only postpone the extinction a bit..

But as I said, I don't really know anything about the subject. ^_^
On the other hand, I don't see anything threatening our supply of cow sneakers and pork chops, so I think we should stick to them. ^_^

[Indiana Gardener]

I eat meat including venison (deer), squirrel, rabbit, beef, pork, chicken, fish (farmed, I believe), and turkey.

In the case of the first three, they are wild like the whales. However, unlike the whales, they are not going extinct. Quite the opposite in fact, at least in this area. They overpopulate quickly and must be hunted for the population to remain healthy and have enough to eat in their habitat so that they all don't die out.

If that was the case with the whales, who are we to say who can't eat what they like?

Though as the facts are presented, that is not the case with the whales. We have to take care of our environment or we'll loose it for good. That includes the plants and animals that make up the flora/fauna portion of our environment.

Endangered migratory birds are protected with world-wide laws if I'm not mistaken? Why not the same for endangered migratory marine creatures?

Personally, I find the thought of eating whale and dolphin disturbing (though I have never had it), but I'm sure there are many people who would find the fact that I eat deer disturbing. It all comes down to the fact that we should eat what we have plenty of and let the rest repopulate.

[centrajapan]

In the case of the first three, they are wild like the whales. However, unlike the whales, they are not going extinct. Quite the opposite in fact, at least in this area.

There is no such thing as a whale. Minke whales have never been is close to getting extinct. So your argument is not very good I am afraid. Even Greenpeace say the Minke whale is not a threatened spiecies. Please read more. Americans have hunted basically every single bison close to extinction and then hunted every single large whale due to whale oil and now they are telling others to stop eating whale meat while they let the indegenous people hunt a far more endangered whale spiecies which was exploited in the whale oil era by Amercian Imperialists but due to the Indegenous cultrue getting shafted they say. Indians can hunt whales because they are primitive but not Jpaan because they are modern. What kind of attitude do Americans have of the Indegenour people? My gut feeling is. Not very good.



Good riddance. USA! Stick to what you know . Which is not whaling perhaps bombing random countries is but not whaling.

[Indiana Gardener]

I said "Though as the facts are presented, that is not the case with the whales."

I did not say, these are the facts. Facts can be presented differently from how they actually are. I never claimed to know any actuality of how things are. I only stated how the media has portrayed it.

You seem to like to read things that aren't there into others' statements...

Stick to what you know . Which is not whaling perhaps bombing random countries is but not whaling.
... and taking cheap shots that are irrelevant to current discussions.

Many Americans, myself included, are not happy with our current administration. So I'd thank you if you'd please not group me with that lot.

In my opinion we should stop offering any kind of beneficial aid such as disaster relief and anything else to foreign countries, allies included, and take care of our own first.

So you can say, Good riddance. USA!, but how many times have we bailed European countries out of trouble? You seem to have forgotten all of the times that the US has been there for Europe in the past, Mr. Norseman.

And also What kind of attitude do Americans have of the Indegenour people? My gut feeling is. Not very good.

My very best friend happens to be Cherokee. If you knew as much about indigenous people as you claim, you'd know that "Indian", as you say, is offensive to many Native Americans. I have personally known members of the Cherokee and Sioux nations who take exception to the term "indian".

[MadamePapillon]

Look at it this way, eventually we will have hunted the oceans and the forests clean, cut down every last source of wood, polluted our water/air supply, over populated our planet and drained every last resource.

Eventually all we'll have to eat is what we produce in factories and what we keep in warehouses and inevitably a disease will spread from the unhygenic state of those places and we'll be screwed. Once everything is gone we'll die off and eventually the air/water will clear, animals will come back, forests will regrow, climate change will level out and all will be well.

So go on, keep hunting the whales. :cool:

[PatC]

We all modify our behavior, either because we want to or we are compelled to. The mind-set born of Japanese culture and those of other whale eating nations is subject to the same influences and controls that cause us to modify our behavior, sometimes for our individual benefit and sometimes not.

If one has been exposed to the lives of whales as I have, then on an intellectual level (and sometimes emotional level), one easily realizes that whale society closely mimics that of the human community. There is stong scientific evidence that whales, as a species "feel" and that they have achieved a level of "awarness" that is equivalant or even perhaps superior to our own. That is to say, they are equipped with both intellectual and emotional tools. The function both as individuals and within the setting of what we call "family".

(Now this understanding of the capabilites of whales is relatively recent. Perhaps, in some fashion, individual human hunters who came in close contact with whales sensed or comprehended the level of whale intellectual and emotional capability. There is evidence that they did. I suspect, however, that the drive to survive ((these humans were hunting for food)) overcame any moral connection that felt between themselves and whales.)

With this understanding of whale life and culture it is the responsibility of the whale eating societies and the individuals who live in them to consider and evaluate the data and facts associated the potential destruction of a high-level and unique whale society. In other words, is moral responsibility able to overcome those less noble desires such greed and personal gratification?

It would be difficult to argue, except in some relatively rare instances, that whale hunting today is a response to the survival instinct. Therefore, if one acknowledges that whales are a high-order life form on this plant, then what is the justification for killling them or any other-high order life form that does not pose a threat to our own existance?

[alantin]

In addition to to MadamePapillon's positive view, here is another:

If we as a species don't often find any moral responsibility to prohibit us from tormenting each other...

(Hitler's Germany, Americans and the native Americans, Japan and WWII, North Korea, Lordi, homeless kids in Russia (and many other places!), etc, etc...)

...then who cares if whales are sentient beings or not.
People don't slay just whales, squirrels, and tanuki; they slay each other and generally people just look after the number one!

Yeah! It's a pessimistic view but I'm tired.
I guess I should be off to bed..

[Pepe]

As long as the resource is maintained (i.e. sustainable 'fishing'), then I don't really care. Hunting to extinction (see: America vs. Buffalo) gets my blood boiling though.

[Indiana Gardener]

Hunting to extinction (see: America vs. Buffalo)
Bison are not Buffalo and they are not extinct. The slaughtering is in the past. Why do we only hear about the slaughtering? They are currently under breeding management and reintroduction is taking place over most of the plains states.

My own state is even undertaking efforts to reintroduce the woodland Bison.

Heck, there are enough of them now that they are being commercially raised as a beef alternative. There are two farms in my local area.

I can go ten miles up the road and see herds of Bison, but there are no whale farms...

[Half-n-Half]

In a vain attempt to end all the arguments on this thread that will most likely not change anyone's beliefs, I offer you this point of view. In a hundred billion-trillion years from now, none of this will have mattered. Whether we hunted whales to extinction or not won't matter in a hundred billion-trillion years from now. It's a pessimistic view, and to accept it wholly would mean to just give up on life, but it is a liberating thought. It helps to relieve some of that tension you feel burning inside your gut :-).
My own state is even undertaking efforts to reintroduce the woodland Bison.
Heck, there are enough of them now that they are being commercially raised as a beef alternative. There are two farms in my local area.
I can go ten miles up the road and see herds of Bison, but there are no whale farms...
As a fellow Hoosier to another, where exactly are these herds? I've heard about them but never really seen them or knew where they were. Just curious.

[Indiana Gardener]

Hello fellow Hoosier! The one Bison farm is around Argos and I think the other is up near Goshen as I remember. I think there are some in the southern part of the state too, but it's been a while since I've been down that way.

I believe the proposed reintroduction area for the woodland Bison is in a protected area in Brown County, not sure.

It amazes me how people from other countries blame Americans for knowing nothing on whaling, all the while they know nothing about the current status of the Bison and seem to think they are extinct.

In a hundred billion-trillion years from now, none of this will have mattered.
So true. All we can do is do the best we can at the time we are in. I personally have nothing against hunting whales as long as it's well regulated.

What I, and I'm sure most other Americans, do have something against is anti-Bush equalling anti-American and slams like "primitive" against our native nations.

Just for clarity, I'm not anti-Bush or pro-Bush. We have some of the same values regarding other things, and others we don't. Just a difference of opinion on what we should get ourselves into. Support the troops, but perhaps not the method.

[pipokun]

Hayden responds to Japanese arrest warrant
"I have grown up hearing - and adhering to - this phrase: 'condemnation without investigation dooms one to everlasting ignorance.'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21826234/

It is good to know the activist also know how we have to tuckle the problem.
I don't know what she really did in Japan, but protesting someting itself is not the reason to arrest someone, Japanese or non-Japanese, at all in Japan.

[centrajapan]

Here are some sound arguments to whaling.
Eating whale meat is far more environmentally-friendly than eating beef, lamb or pork. Harvesting nature's surplus means that biodiversity and habitat does not have to be destroyed and turned into agricultural land.
Whaling does not destroy the environment and is very energy efficient − producing beef requires much more energy than producing whale meat.
As free-range animals, whales are spared the prolonged suffering of factory-farm livestock.
Sustainable whaling means putting into practice the principles of conservation and sustainable use as embodied by the world community in Agenda 21.
http://www.highnorth.no/IWC2007/default.htm
No one wants to hunt every single whale to extinction. Not even Japan. However Japan wants to utilize a natral renewable resources. They want to take a % of minke whales. Way belwo the number which threatenes the stock numbers.
Whales is just a mobile source of proteins just as other animals such as cows and pigs. And it is not the same as eating humans. Why talk about Hitler when we are talking about whales? If you are a vegeterian is it not much worse that over a million cows are slaughtered daily than somewhere around 1000 MInke whales yearly? Besides large scale beef farming is having much more devistating consequences for this planet.
It amazes me how people from other countries blame Americans for knowing nothing on whaling,
The US government votes against Japan on IWC meetings while let the Indegenous Americans hunt a far more threatened speicies than Japan's Minke whales. It is quite difficult to understand their logic.

[Indiana Gardener]

You only quoted half of my statement before the comma, which changes the meaning. If you're going to quote me, don't fragment it.


It amazes me how people from other countries blame Americans for knowing nothing on whaling, all the while they know nothing about the current status of the Bison and seem to think they are extinct.


I never said that we did know anything about whaling. I only said that foreigners also seem to not know much on the Bison.


The US government votes against Japan on IWC meetings while let the Indegenous Americans hunt a far more threatened speicies than Japan's Minke whales.
The Inuit are only allowed 56 whales per year from an isolated population of one species. There are other more vast populations of the species. Like Japan's whaling, the one they hunt from is not the only population of the species.


The US' thinking about this is that the Inuit have no other major source of protein in their northern area. They can not raise livestock or plant vegetables. Their lives depend on it. Quite unlike people who live in more moderate climates.


So in your opinion, as someone who doesn't even live here or apparently know any of our native people, should we remove them from their land or allow them to starve? That is quite barbaric. More so than people hunting whales.

[centrajapan]

You only quoted half of my statement before the comma, which changes the meaning. If you're going to quote me, don't fragment it.
OK, sorry.

The Inuit are only allowed 56 whales per year from an isolated population of one species. There are other more vast populations of the species. As with Japan, the one they hunt from is not the only one.

The USA is still a whaling nation, as bowhead, beluga and gray whales are hunted by the Alaskan Eskimos. They take about 50 bowhead whales annually. The Alaskans also catch a few hundred beluga, 238 in 2000.

http://www.highnorth.no/IWC2007/default.htm

My point was that US voted against Japan to hunt Minke whales but yet supports the Inuits hunting whales in Alaska. One law for ne and one law for an another is not very consistent.

Very few people are aware that the US is steadily driving the first large whale to extinction − the North Atlantic right whale. Only a few hundred of them remain. They are mainly killed by ship strikes and entanglements. Harpoons have not been pointed at them for centuries.

US policy is once more illuminating. It will take an effort to save the North Atlantic right whale, and it may very well be that it is too late. If we again look at the interests, it is understandable that the US government is not doing much. It may have severe economic consequences for cargo ships and thus also an economic cost for the average American.

What the US is doing is limited to taking photographs, register deaths and thinking about ways to do something without too much cost involved.

On the other hand, how can the save-the-whale campaign ignore the fate of the right whale? If avoiding extinction was the basis of this campaign, all and every resources should be spent on the right whale. But they are not. On the contrary, the right whale is left behind.

The likely reason is that it will cost money to save the right whale, a bill that must be paid by the average American. The save-the-whale campaign is fully aware that it is hard to do fundraising, next to impossible, when the only promise to the donors is that they must later also pay the costs for implementing a new policy saving the right whale.

Ignorance of the plight of the North Atlantic right whale demonstrates that all these save-the-whale groups are not guided by love to the whales, but hate for the whalers, Japanese whalers in particular. If they were guided by compassion and love, the future for the right whale would have been bright.

http://www.highnorth.no/IWC2007/default.htm

The whale spiecies which Japan is hunting are less critically endangered than the whale spiecies which the Native American tribes hunt. US is also the first country on ths planet to make a whale spiecies go extinct if they do not do something about the current situation.

But still, it is Japan who gets criticised the most. Even Norway hunts more Minke whales than Japan yet Japan gets more criticised than Norway.

US together with countries like UK, Australia, NZ keep urging Japan to stop hunting whales but USA will let their country hunt a far more critical endangered whale spiecies.

[Indiana Gardener]

The US stance on whale hunting by the northern native nations is that it is a vital part of their food supply. They don't have much else. It is either let them take some food or let them starve.

While we love our whales, we love our people more. Is that wrong?

The whale population that they hunt from is carefully monitored and is slowly rising in numbers. Our native people don't want an extinction, because it's their food source, and they abide by the limits set to allow for the population growth of the species they hunt.

Other countries in more moderate climates have other sources of protein. They do not absolutely depend on whale meat. It's not a life and death situation for them.

Like I said, I'm not against whaling, as long as it's regulated. However, if you are going to compare the reasons for two different whaling situations at least recognize those differences.

The whale spiecies which Japan is hunting are less critically endangered than the whale spiecies which the Native American tribes hunt.
Nations.

[centrajapan]

I guess you and me do not differ too much in opinions on whaling. I just want to add there are many whaling cultures around the world. From the Arctic regions in Europe and North America to the tropical regions in the Carebian and South East Asia.

I don´t think any culture and people should have to prove that they need to whale. Imagine if we had to prove that we had to eat lamb.

I am in favour of each culture deciding what is good for them and not some outsider decide how your culture should evolve. Ofcource whaling must be strictly monitored and within reasonable limits.

Therefore I am against the stance of most western countries in their position regarding Japanese whaling.

[alantin]

Let's see how these news will spice up the conversation..
Just came up today on BBC news.

Japanese whalers hunt humpbacks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7099720.stm)

:souka:

[centrajapan]

I like how BBC and especially Austrailan media like to focus on Japan all the time. USA hunts are more endangered whale than the humpback whales. The bowhead.

[Indiana Gardener]

You keep coming back to that, but why again do the northern nations practice whaling?

Oh right, for survival... in a harsh climate where people have absolutely no other major source of protein or the capabilities of producing another on their own. The temperature is below freezing for over 320 days out of the year. Most of the year is on the extreme side of sub-zero.

You also live in a northern area of the world, but the difference is in the currents that flow over Norway; allowing your country to have a growing season from 100 to 190 days depending on the location.

As far as I know, whaling is not a life or death situation for other countries. No one is going to starve if they go to the supermarket and pick up a package of another kind of meat instead of whale.

Just for a minute, take an honest look at this in your mind, ok. Now, picture this, you are in one of the coldest areas of the world, 340 miles north of the arctic circle. It's almost completely desolate except perhaps for some fir trees further inland away from any year-round food source.

Enough fish can only be caught to allow you to eat fish once to twice a week.

The question is, are you willing to only eat one to two times a week in an environment where you need to produce a lot of body heat... or do you go out and kill a seal and a whale so that you can instead eat twice a day?

It's about survival there. Not going out to catch something that people elsewhere consider to be only a "delicacy".

Since you keep dwelling on this instance of whaling, you must have a pretty good solution in mind? Lets hear it. How are you going to feed thousands of Inuit people in an area that can be difficult to access from the outside due to climate and environment?

If you've not already done so, maybe you'd like to volunteer to go up there to live for a year or two so that you can find the solution? Depending on your mode of transportation, you may not be able to take enough food with you to last you that long. In which case, I guess you'd be eating at the most twice a week to conserve the whale meat for the locals - resulting in one less person to hunt food for?

[centrajapan]

Does that mean that you are against Japan whling? Since you mentioned how cold it is in Alaska. Do you think that they should stop hunting whales if they had access to Mc Donalds? You seem to think whaling is a bad thing. And that it should only be tolerated if they need it for it survival which in my view is the classic example of a racist imperialist. It is an outsider who decides what is good for them. Correct me if I am wrong.


Terms like "aboriginal", "native" and "indigenous" have been used rhetorically by minority groups themselves in order to muster support for their struggle to gain recognition as distinct peoples with their own cultures and with just rights to self- determination. But this can easily become a double-edged sword because concepts such as ASW imply a static view of a people and its culture. Whaling as well as sealing is allowed only as long as it is conducted by small non-White, oppressed minorities perceived as lacking unifying political institutions, use "simple" technologies, and whose economic exchanges are believed to exist within the confinement of a non-commercial economy. Only "traditional" usage is allowed, and ｷit tends to be the outsiders who define what is "traditional" (Wenzel 1991 ).

http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Culture/a-con-in.htm

So since Japan is modern and have access to MC DOnalds they should stop killing whales but "primitive" people should be able to becausethey don't know any better.

[Indiana Gardener]

I am only against unregulated whaling. As long as any country wants to eat whales and we aren't down to the last few pair, let them. Killing one animal is no different than killing another. Look back at one of my first posts on this. I said, who are we to tell anyone what they can and cannot eat?

It's you who has been griping on and on about the Inuit whaling,
failing to recognize and admit the difference in the reason that they must practice whaling,
insinuating that they should not be allowed to hunt bowheads even for survival
and be allowed to starve to death as long as the US votes against other countries' whaling practices, even if those countries don't depend on them as a major source of food.

You are so absolutely close minded that you can not recognize the difference.

Frankly, I find the ways that you keep referring to our native people appalling and racist.

I am not against Japan or any other country whaling if it's what they want to eat and there are still plenty of whales.

What I am strongly against is a non-American trying to tell us how we should treat our native people (Yes, "native", because that's what they are. This was their country first. Not yours, or even mine.) and making racist stereotypes against them. No matter if you intended it that way or not, that is exactly how you sound.

Since you can't get past this, move on, or even make any valid effort to come up with a realistic suggestion about what else they are supposed to eat, I am moving on from this thread.

You can by all means, feel free to continue posting 90+% of your posts about the same thing, just like you have since the day you joined. I've found that I'm not the only one who has called you out on this. Your argument is getting old and has no legitimate point. The comparison of Japan and other countries whaling to the whaling of the Inuit has no common ground and others here besides myself realize this as well.

[centrajapan]

The Makah Tribe in Washington State hunt whales. I wonder. Do they have super markets in Washington State? If they were not allowed to hunt whales would the Makah Tribe starve? I have a hard time believing that they have no access to super markets in Alaska and that they would starve. However I do not know the situation in details in Alaska. It is hard for me to belive that the situation in US is that bad.

I know that in Greenland whale meat is sold in super markets. I find your image of "these poor people up in the north have to whale for survival" to be, I would not say racist because that is a strong word but old fashioned and naive.

It is not US who gives out permits but the IWC. US say the Inuits can hunt in their coastal waters in Alaska but they vote against Japan hunting in their own coastal waters. As I mentioned. One law for one and another law for someone else. This is not very consistent.

The US is an anti-whaling whaling nation – it hunts whales and is against whaling elsewhere. This is at the outset an irreconcilable and contradictive policy, and has made the US worthy of accusations of double standards and hypocrisy.

US must promote the whaling interests of Alaska, mainly through securing an aboriginal quota at the IWC. On the other hand the US must satisfy the anti-whaling sentiments of various American animal rights groups. This is done by opposing so-called commercial whaling. What is the difference between commercial whaling and aborigonal whaling? WHale meat is sold in super markets in Greenland. Are not also Japanese aborigonals?

[MadamePapillon]

The fact that whale populations worldwide are in decline should be sounding an alarm. In some places you don't have much choice, it's a matter of survival, but if you can go to the local grocery store and pick up pre-packaged whale meat..you probably shouldn't.

It's commercial whaling that will most likely kill the species off because there is a general rule with commercial hunting: they always get greedy. There is no way to 'safely' hunt whales commercially simply because we know to little about them and their breeding habits.

If you kill off just two or three more whales than the pod can replace every year you are effectively killing them off, their numbers will continue to dwindle until either, they can no longer reproduce or humans have killed off the last of them. To say nothing of the dolphin slaughter, in which they don't even bother with any pretence and just pick off the whole pod in one go. There is no way that is sustainable for any long period of time, they can and will hunt them to extinction.

[centrajapan]

The fact that whale populations worldwide are in decline should be sounding an alarm

wrong. they are not. again some spiecies are some are not. the minke is increasing and abduntant. they have never been threatened. its like saying stop eating tomatoes because aubogines are threatened. apple and oranges and guess what? japan does not want to hunt endangered oranges. yet western countries are saying stop eating endangered oranges because it does not fit their religion. imperialsim 101. but here is the funny part. the "indians" can because they "need" it.

[Dogen Z]

I think the Japanese Ministry in charge of this made a humungus f**k up in allowing and expanding the hunt for humpback whales whether or not they're endangered. While most Westerners don't know much about and are not as concerned about Minke whales, almost all know and care about humpbacks. I believe most westerners have about the same sentiment about humpbacks as do Japanese about Pandas. So this travesty that is about to take place will be a huge black eye for all of Japan, regardless of who was responsible. It will undo a lot of the goodwill that Japan has been trying to earn in the international community, mostly the west. It may also have some short-lived economic repercussions for some Japanese companese. However, the biggest consequence of the hunt will be a significant increase in support for that arrogant, criminal organization, Greenpeace (while I agree with its aims, I'm totally in opposition to its tactics).

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

To Ocean Dude,

Very well said! I also agree with the Greenpeace aims, but not with its tactics.

It is much better to show people all over the world how these poor animals suffer: The whales, the baby seals, and all other suffering animals. Let schoolchildren and their teacher hear the crying from those poor animals. Show us all how these animals are slaughtered, while they crying from the pain. Not be filmed from a distance but real close ups so that we all can see the details. Then only the idiots and cruel onces will be able to keep on watching and think of money only.

I have nothing against hunting and fishing, that is how the primitive men kept on living.
I am against all this cruel slaughtering while it can be done painless. More respect for our
co-inhabitants the animals would do us honour.

[caster51]

American and Austrarian ever hunted whales to consume just oil of whales until their Edge of extinction.
The Japanese did not waste even one drop of blood of them.
It only has to think about the balance of the amount of the resource(whales) and the amount of capture. I think it is the cultural discrepancy.

It will undo a lot of the goodwill that Japan has been trying to earn in the international community, mostly the west
I think most country does not have interests about that.
(some may want selling beef)
we should prevent the overexploitation of the natural resources and the abuse that seems to be done in the past. The monitoring system is strengthened.
we should do investigation and the analysis to hunt.
westener does not eat whales
the Japanese eats whales. that is it

How idly does the human being kill an animal?
the meat goes to the garbage box. oh god


I think it is more important problem

[bruno]

Fishermen go to the sea and bring the capture home as fresh as
possible.But have you ever heard about the animal transports across
Europe and elsewhere by trains and trucks ??
Then you now what cruelty to animals means !
For GREENPEACE its not enough spectacular!!

[Sarapva]

It is much better to show people all over the world how these poor animals suffer: The whales, the baby seals, and all other suffering animals. Let schoolchildren and their teacher hear the crying from those poor animals. Show us all how these animals are slaughtered, while they crying from the pain. Not be filmed from a distance but real close ups so that we all can see the details. Then only the idiots and cruel onces will be able to keep on watching and think of money only.

More respect for our
co-inhabitants the animals would do us honour.

Yes, I agree with this. If children see at a young age how things are done and how the animals suffer for it, they're more likely to grow up and change it. It's the same when people see a video of an animal being skinned alive for its fur or how geese are force-fed for a gourmet delicacy only for the very rich - after seeing how these things actually get to us, the vast majority of people will not buy them again.

Also anyone who has seen a video of how whales and dolphins are hunted and killed couldn't possibly want that to happen again.

[caster51]

Also anyone who has seen a video of how whales and dolphins are hunted and killed couldn't possibly want that to happen again

so is this..

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=OGMFpZKnzsI
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=MIBfuH-EfrQ
there are many like that

[Taiko666]

so is this..
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=OGMFpZKnzsI
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=MIBfuH-EfrQ
there are many like that

Thanks for these links. As a vegetarian, I'll keep them for use in the future.

But I don't see how they excuse whaling. Or do two wrongs make a right in Japanese culture?

American and Austrarian ever hunted whales to consume just oil of whales until their Edge of extinction.
The Japanese did not waste even one drop of blood of them.
It only has to think about the balance of the amount of the resource(whales) and the amount of capture. I think it is the cultural discrepancy.

Likewise, I don't see why the wrong-doings of US, Australian and European whalers in the distant past excuses Japan's attitude today.

the Japanese eats whales. that is it

Then how do you explain the huge stockpiles of uneaten whale meat?

The J-Gov kills whales just to give the Japanese public a 'little Japan versus the big bad world' issue to get emotional about.

[caster51]

I don't see how they excuse whaling. Or do two wrongs make a right in Japanese culture?
wrong? what is wrong?
you felt wrong, aren't you?
to eat whale is right..
so is beef.


I don't see why the wrong-doings of US, Australian and European whalers in the distant past excuses Japan's attitude today.

I just said "the history of US, Australian and European whalers".

Then how do you explain the huge stockpiles of uneaten whale meat?

where? in supermarket?
at least. it does not waste.

it comes " discrimination matter" against the Japanese?

[centrajapan]

It is much better to show people all over the world how these poor animals suffer: The whales, the baby seals, and all other suffering animals.

Whaling is by far the most strict form of a wild hunt operation there is on this planet. There are stricter guidelines to whaling than for instance deer hunting or the kangaroo cull.

As for animal welfare what is more cruel? To be raised in a factory farm only to get killed so that we can eat hamburgers and wear our sneakers made of leather or be free and then get unlucky and end up being a whale hamburger. I would much rather be a free whale than a meat producing bull.

It seems to me that there are double standards among people who are against whaling. They have one sets of rules for a certain type of animals and an another set or rules for other animals.

If it is environmental reasons. Whale meat is much more environmental friendly than eating beef, lamb or pork.

[Ewok85]

There are stricter guidelines to whaling than for instance deer hunting or the kangaroo cull.

The word cull is used with Kangaroo because kangaroos are killed off to keep the number down. To make it plain and simple - THERE IS TOO MANY.

As for animal welfare what is more cruel? To be raised in a factory farm only to get killed so that we can eat hamburgers and wear our sneakers made of leather or be free and then get unlucky and end up being a whale hamburger. I would much rather be a free whale than a meat producing bull.

You are a thinking person who has desires, goals and the ability to make the logical steps required to know that there is better. A cow does not have this, not even close. Meanwhile dolphins and some small whales have shown amazing intelligence which cows do not - social order, language control and understanding, tool use, self awareness etc.

If it is environmental reasons. Whale meat is much more environmental friendly than eating beef, lamb or pork.

Hah, thats ridiculous. Millions of cows, sheep and pigs have been bred in captivity to provide for us. Whale numbers are unknown, unmanaged and can be severely harmed by just picking them off without taking careful consideration. Do you know how many female whales were killed last year by the Japanese whaling fleet? Do you realise how many were pregnant or calving? The number isn't insignificant. The issue is compounded by the fact that whales live far longer lives than cows or sheep, gestation and calving periods are far longer as well.

Whales face a far greater risk of extinction, which is the bigger environmental risk.

[centrajapan]

The word cull is used with Kangaroo because kangaroos are killed off to keep the number down. To make it plain and simple - THERE IS TOO MANY.

They are regarded as "pests" because there are too many because they want to make more grace land for cows and because the eco system is out of balance. Yet Australia has managed to wipe out a number of kangaroo spiecies and they say because there are "too many" Australia seems to be the most cluess nation on this earth if you ask me.

You are a thinking person who has desires, goals and the ability to make the logical steps required to know that there is better. A cow does not have this, not even close. Meanwhile dolphins and some small whales have shown amazing intelligence which cows do not - social order, language control and understanding, tool use, self awareness etc.

How do you know this? Do you have any cow friends? Is your cousin half cow/pig? Minke whales have less IQ than a cow. Gene manipulation, groth hormones, not to mention the enregy which is used to catch them then transported only to be killed in the slaughter house. Over a million cows are getting killed each day. This on the expense of untouched nature destroying the natural eco system.

Lets agree here. Taking animals from the wild is indeed much more eco friendly than taking domestic animals.

Hah, thats ridiculous. Millions of cows, sheep and pigs have been bred in captivity to provide for us.

The use of selective equipment to catch marine fish and mammals is perhaps the most environmentally-sound way of producing food for human consumption today: the environment remains unaffected, energy use is low in relation to yield, and there is no pollution from fertilisers, pesticides or other chemicals.

http://www.emb-norway.ca/facts/general/whaling/whaling.htm

Are you aware of the impact of mass beef farming? I suppose you have heard of Mc Donalds and Betty the Cow cutting down the Amazon. No?

[Pepe]

Sorry, I meant Bison. And I didn't say that they were extinct, but I understand how my sentence can be misleading. I meant 'hunting towards the point of extinction'. Bison where as common as 'roos in Oz, where they not? And they were hunted for the act of just shooting something, not for food or their skins, where they not? And even though there have been many small successes in the breeding programmes, the total number of Bison is still only a tiny fraction of that prior to the big hunts, no?

My point is that the Bison were almost hunted to extinction for no real purpose - they were not really a pest (although there are anecdotal reports of them being rather mean drunks), and often the carcasses where piled up and burnt (if that was an attempt at a BBQ = Epic Fail). Now considerable effort is being expended to bring the Bison back into it's former habitat and re-introduce it as a resource to the domestic market. That is a text-book example of resource mismanagement.

A whale is just a warm-blooded REALLY big fish, and as such a resource. Hell, technically humans are only a resource too.

[Rose Selavey]

Japanese citizens please lobby your government to stop the so called scientific whale research which is to take place in these coming weeks and months, the Japanese whaling fleet will set sail this week for the Southern Ocean. For the first time, their catch will include 50 humpback whales, as well as 935 minke and 50 fin whales.

Humpbacks from Australian waters will be among those slaughtered, your friends or relatives may have returned recently from Australia and experienced watching these whales in their natural habitat, from one of the many whale watching tourist boats operating in Australia. These whales have no fear of boats or humans as they have grown up free of hunting. If the hunt goes on this season, this trust of human will have gone.

They are beautiful creatures and they need us to protect them, Southern Cross University researchers have challenged the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research to a full debate on its program of ‘scientific whaling’, which this summer will include the killing of 50 Australian humpback whales.

Associate Professor Peter Harrison, director of the Southern Cross University Whale Research Centre, has refuted claims by the Institute that lethal research is necessary to obtain accurate information on these whales. SCU’s Whale Research Centre has new non-lethal techniques for collecting genetic data on the humpback population.

Professor Harrison said the data was obtained by genetic testing, using the DNA in skin samples left behind in the water after photographically identified whales had breached, together with small biopsy samples of humpback whales from Alaska provided by one of the research partners, Professor Scott Baker from Oregon State University, USA.

It is time to stop, taking endangered species of whales!
Act now,
Please

[Sarapva]

I'm sure that if enough Japanese citizens wrote to their government complaining about the whale hunting, the government would have to take notice. I've read that in the U.S. government they believe that for every one letter written by a citizen, there are 100 more people who didn't write but feel the same way.

[Astroboy]

Majority of Japanese citizens support Whaling and object to extraordinary anti-whaling campaign outside Japan.

"Our planet should be shared by all creatures including human being, not dominated by only a specific group of countries or creatures. It is our brief that we should respect each other, getting over the difference of culture, ethic groups, species, etc. in order to achieve the sustainable world."

[Rose Selavey]

This may the first cultural clash for Australia over territories. While Japan has a historical argument for whaling, so to does Australia. The interesting thing is Australia has a current cultural reason for anti-whaling, unlike Japan. The whale has become a cultural icon for Australia, it encompasses all things Australian, the ability to change and evolve from a nation which once participated in the destruction and harvest of a species to one which embraces its survival. The humpback whales migrate past the east coast of Australia every year, playing and interacting with Australians, they usher in the holiday season, bringing the warmth with them. The importance of these creatures not only to the Australian physic but also to the Australian economy is the reason that in 2000, the Australian Whale Sanctuary was created within Australia's 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone in Antarctica. Under Australian law, hunting whales in the Sanctuary is a serious offence. Australian have every right to want to defend these creatures. This is not an emotional issue, if the Japanese want to kill whales then target non-endangered species in their own waters.

[Sarapva]

Do the Japanese whaling ships target whales within the sanctuary? I hope not. That's such a good idea to create a sanctuary for whales. I can see how migrating creatures are important to people. When I lived in Alaska, the Canada geese coming back in the spring was an uplifting sign that spring was on the way. It really lifts people's spirits, like being reassured that there is still life after the long cold winter.

Are the whales migrating now, Rose - the beginning of the Australian summer?

[Rose Selavey]

They finished migrating in the spring, the Humpbacks leave the warm waters in the north (far northern Australia) in the Australian winter and by the time the last come past Tasmania it is spring. The humpbacks have had there calves and head for the Antarctica for a feed at this time of year they congrate in the southern Ocean. The Japanese in the past have targeted the whales (caught and captured) in the whale sanctuary. Not sure if they will again this year, only time will tell.

[Sarapva]

The Japanese must know it's a whale sanctuary they're hunting in. Talk about disrespect, as well as blatant disregard for Australia. I hope they won't be able to get away with this much longer. Surely the IWC will be able to see what the Japanese are doing. Those whales and the people fighting for them are in my thoughts and prayers.

[GodEmperorLeto]

What are we supposed to do? Declare war on them?

[Sarapva]

No - I hope that the IWC will stop trying to compromise with Japan and expect them to follow the same "no whale hunting" rules that most of the rest of the world goes by. The hunters are the ones that are declaring war on the whales.

[Rose Selavey]

Well said Sara!

As to war the Antarctica will become in the next few decades a place of hostility as nations around the world fight for the natural resources in this vast wilderness.

[Sarapva]

Yes, and I think it's the same in the north pole too. I'm hoping the next generations will have more respect for the natural world than we do now.

[micheal56]

Why do the japanese people allow the japanese government to kill whales ???

Japan is known around the world as whale killers & shortly you will not be welcome across the world for your barbaric 'cull for science' acts.


Shame on you japan !!!

[nice gaijin]

We have many threads on whaling in which you can voice your outrage, try not to make any more threads with misleading titles.

[Kyoto Returnee]

We have many threads on whaling in which you can voice your outrage, try not to make any more threads with misleading titles.

Could not agree more!

Mods: How about consolidating all the posts and threads into one thread if that's possible?

[Numark]

I completely understand people being against the hunting of whales, but they had better be vegetarian or vegan otherwise none of what they say makes any sense.

If you are against the slaughter of sentient beings for food that is fine, but don't try and draw distinctions between whales and animals such as cattle, goats, etc. All mammals that we eat are intelligent in thier own right and they all are hurt when they are killed.

So don't get up on your pedestal with a hamburger in your hand, because you are just making a fool of yourself.

[Sensationalist]

Please stop killing live stock ! Please stop killing whales ! Please, let's all just get a grip !

[sou-nano?]

Someone please explain me
why whales are special animals ?

why are they sacred?

I cannot understand it.

[Sensationalist]

Why do the japanese people allow the japanese government to kill whales ???
Japan is known around the world as whale killers & shortly you will not be welcome across the world for your barbaric 'cull for science' acts.
Shame on you japan !!!

Condemning Japan for whale hunting is like condemning the U.S. for destroying our ozone layer. The U.S. is known around the world as an ozone killer. You can't have it both ways Micheal. If the world is to condemn Japan for whale hunting then the world has to also condemn Scandinavian countries as well. How do you decide who's barbaric and who's not ?

[tanhql]

I completely understand people being against the hunting of whales, but they had better be vegetarian or vegan otherwise none of what they say makes any sense.
If you are against the slaughter of sentient beings for food that is fine, but don't try and draw distinctions between whales and animals such as cattle, goats, etc. All mammals that we eat are intelligent in thier own right and they all are hurt when they are killed.
So don't get up on your pedestal with a hamburger in your hand, because you are just making a fool of yourself.
so only vegetarians can speak against cannibalism?

[Numark]

so only vegetarians can speak against cannibalism?

Being as cannibalism is generally not the killing for sustenance (food), but for ritual or spiritual purposes, I would say it doesn't really apply to this situation.

Someone please explain me
why whales are special animals ?
why are they sacred?
I cannot understand it.

People differentiate whales from other mammals used for food (like cows, pigs and sheep) because they are believed to be more intelligent.

Whales are not generally believed to be sacred by any peoples that I know of, except maybe the Inuit, but they still hunt them anyway.

[tanhql]

Being as cannibalism is generally not the killing for sustenance (food), but for ritual or spiritual purposes, I would say it doesn't really apply to this situation.
what if it is for food? what if some penniless family living in some alley started killing strangers for food?

Someone please explain me
why whales are special animals ?
why are they sacred?
I cannot understand it.
they are not bred by humans for the purpose of food. pigs, cows, sheep, chickens etc, are bred in farm by humans for food, so it is accepted that the ultimate fate of these animals is to be killed for food. in fact, i've read on some website that said if humans don't domesticate these animals for food, they would have died out due to clearing of their natural habitat. on the other hand, pets are not domesticated for food; they are domesticated to keep humans company, so it is generally not accepted to eat dogs or cats etc.

[Numark]

we can what-if ourselves to death in any argument, but what i was talking about was only meant to imply non-human species

[Bunshinsaba]

"Meat is meat and a man's gotta eat."

Farmer Vincent, MOTEL HELL

[Chi65]

I know several Japanese, who say, that there is so much growing in Japan, that one life is not enough to try it all out. ;-)

Also see a new developement in the growth of teeth:
more wisdom teeths, less in front, particularly the pointed ones, as for evolution.
I know it, because I have two missing, one came and one grew inside, therefore I got all my wisdom teeths. Comment from several dentists in my life, yes, ah, here it is again, we recognised the same with others too, there is a general change on the way.
When I wrote this on a science forum, I got it confirmed.
Although I am not a vegetarian, but my daughter, I eat only very little meat and don't feel dependant on it at all.
So much for a change. . .

[Boelcke1916]

I am a 57 year old attorney in Idaho (USA). I have been watching the tragic seal hunts and whale hunts for years, though have mostly kept quiet. Now I find that it is something I feel a moral obligation to speak out against. This is 2009 and I really don't think our wives need cute white seal coats and no one needs to eat whale meat. This is cruel, not needed and upsets millions of people. The whales and the seals are good animals. Let's stop the slaughter, or state clearly why this is really necessary.

Sorry, but there is no need in 2009 to eat whale meat. I think this is causing a huge backlash, especially now that the Animal Planet television station has picked up a show about it. My wife and I are going to donate to the cause and make it a special part of our lives. It has to be stopped.

[Putrefaction]

I'm not sure why, but I take a hippie stance on it. I'm vegetarian from my parents religious views, by the way, though I'm not sure I'd start eating meat once I leave the house. I see no need to. I'm against whale hunting and pretty much killing to consume. I know my views are irrational when I say that domesticated animals are plenty abound so chicken, cow, whatever other meats there are may as well be consumed, but less abundant animals such as whales, even culturally, really shouldn't be killed anymore.

Japan has suffered a huge cultural upheaval, if they are willing to accept the fact that extinction of an animal will be inevitable, then it is up to the rest of the world to make their blind eyes see. Even America, land of the arrogant, has been turning around its polluting ways...somewhat.

[DCS]

If Japan wants to whale, let them whale. But confine the whaling to their OWN WATERS! If what they say is true and whaling is not threatening whale numbers or migration patterns I am sure there is no problem in sustaining whale hunting as a economically viable food source in Japan.

So go and empty your own waters.

I read up on the matter for a bit. If you want to make this a cultural thing, fine. Traditional whale hunting is still done in Japan. Lots of people depend on it for their income. So Help these people to get the 'gap' in the market instead the whaling fleet. Let them supply the demand and everybody wins. Well, except Japan's whales.

People do not like seeing whales killed. Because its "not nice".But hundreds of other species are killed every day with as much cruelty, some of these just for fun.But we turn a blind eyes.

Whaling is just one aspect of how the oceans are being depleted. If we lose links in the eco systems we are going to lose the whales in any case.

Lets start looking at the bigger picture of witch whaling is just a small part.

[pipokun]

This forum has nice sub-forum(s), incl., whaling (http://www.jref.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=8), though it's been a mystery for me why a whale is kept here, All Things Japanese.

[harrystone]

Japanese are not doing the right thing. stop it!