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.