Another reason not to whale - whales have feelings like us

[earthangel]

December 18, 2005
A group of courageous and compassionate divers cut loose an exhausted humpback whale just outside of San Francisco. They removed over twelve crab traps weighing 90 pounds each with the ropes tangled around the tail and flippers.

“When I was cutting the line going through the mouth, its eye was there winking at me,” said Diver James Moskito. “When the whale realized it was free, it began swimming around in circles,” Moskito said. “It swam to each diver, nuzzled him and then swam to the next one. It seemed kind of affectionate, like a dog that’s happy to see you. I never felt threatened. It was an amazing, unbelievable experience.”

[nurizeko]

Can i have a copy of that story that wasnt written by a PETA reporter? or is it even real?.

Winking?.....maybe the whale was just blinking, that thing mammalian species do....and as for the nuzzling, a cute disney type story but highly suspicious.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

The story has no scientific or factual founding to it, no link to prove its root source, and no names of witnesses either...And to say whales feel the same forms of emotion as us its pretty much just speculation.

earthangel i respect your opinions, wether i agree with them or not, but you will have to make your debates or opinions more "solid" if you want people to take them seriously.

[strongvoicesforward]

Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix

The story has no scientific or factual founding to it, no link to prove its root source, and no names of witnesses either...

and

Originally Posted by Nurizeko

Can i have a copy of that story that wasnt written by a PETA reporter? or is it even real?.

@TP underlined quotes: Yes, it does.

@Nuri's underlined quotes: Yes, you can. Yes it is.

lol. Oh my! Oh my chicken little, chicken doodle, the sky is falling! All those Peta people are just so devious. Surely it is a piece written by Peta as is all animal friendly pieces, and they must all be misleading and wrong -- no sources, no witnesses, no links. Oh my! Oh my chicken little, chicken doodle, the sky is falling!

Ok, you two -- here ya go: Daring rescue of whale

Whether your questions and demands were satisfied in your above 2 posts I am sure will not matter. You are determined to dismiss it -- so why even ask the questions and demands in the first place?

But, in case you miss the specific info you demanded:

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Writer: Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer

Rescue Diver: James Moskito, relates how he was very moved by the encounter and eye contact.

Other org names are listed as well.

As to whether it was scientific or feel the same emotions as we do -- in this case I guess you are referring to "thanks", right?

Whether they do or have the potential to and display it, I couldn`t really be for sure. I do know that there are many stories of animals displaying loyalty and actions that may be interpreted as "thanks." I also know that man is an animal that at times does not display "thanks." I also know that whales do not have the same motor skills as we do, so for one to demand a "hug" equal the human kind is a little absurd.

I guess those with open minds no how to graciously give the "benefit of the doubt." At one time it was thought that blacks were animals not prone to the same feelings and potential for intelligence as whites -- but those with compassion could let their ideas on the matter open on the topic and work toward moving in an inclusive mindset -- not an exclusive one.

But, as always, those comfortable with the status quo -- resist that and change.

To be fair to doubt though in this story, here is a quote from it:

Whale experts say it's nice to think that the whale was thanking its rescuers, but nobody really knows what was on its mind.

"You hate to anthropomorphize too much, but the whale was doing little dives and the guys were rubbing shoulders with it," Menigoz said. "I don't know for sure what it was thinking, but it's something that I will always remember. It was just too cool."

What is important is that humans found it worth destroying hundreds of dollars, if not thousands of dollars of commercial fishing gear to save this animal in distress at peril of their own safety.

[Sensuikan San]

I dunno about "winking" - I'm not sure as to how a close up witness can see both of a whale's eyes at the same time! ... "blinking" seems more likely to me, too.

Other than that ... I wouldn't dispute the story at all. See nothing suspect about it. See nothing wrong with it.

I owned a dog for many years ...... 'nuf said.

ジョン

[yukio_michael]

He was probably blinking in morse code. There simply is no other explanation.

[mad pierrot]

hahaha

That's funny.

[strongvoicesforward]

Originally Posted by mad pierrot

hahaha
That's funny.

hahaha lol!

Yes, I, too, think it is funny some fisherman lost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in commercial fishing ropes and traps. Ha haha haha. Hope his family`s milk money didn`t rest on that, or the kids may not be getting their dairy calcium.

I find it hilarious when people trash paraphanalia -- especially when it means an animal or animals are saved in the process.

Go rescuers! Go sabateurs! <snicker snicker>

[Tokis-Phoenix]

The "Another reason not to whale - whales have feelings like us" point of this debate though is irrelevant though to whaling debate in japan because;
a. Its illegal to hunt humpback whales, the only humpbacks allowed to be caught are four whales per year can be taken by aboriginal whalers in St Vincent and the Grenadines.
Its irrelevant that a whale got caught up in netting by accident, because it has nothing to do with whaling.
b. There is no evidence/proof that "whales have feelings like us".

I disagree with whaling, but i don't think you should just make up stuff or imply false or unknown facts just to aid your side of debate .

Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward

What is important is that humans found it worth destroying hundreds of dollars, if not thousands of dollars of commercial fishing gear to save this animal in distress at peril of their own safety.

Yeah, nice story, good reading for the kiddies- unfortunatly it has nothing to do with whaling in japan though.

[mad pierrot]

hahaha lol!

Yes, I, too, think it is funny some fisherman lost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in commercial fishing ropes and traps. Ha haha haha. Hope his family`s milk money didn`t rest on that, or the kids may not be getting their dairy calcium.

I was laughing at the morse code jab.

[strongvoicesforward]

Originally Posted by mad pierrot

I was laughing at the morse code jab.

Yes, I know. But, I think the part I laughed at was more humorous.

[mad pierrot]

Do you ever take a break from mockery?

[strongvoicesforward]

Originally Posted by mad pierrot

Do you ever take a break from mockery?

Sure. Most of my posts are serious in nature. Have you read them all? Calculate the percentage with comments of mockery to serious ones.

But, I don`t mind reserving mockery for those who feel a need to denegrate with mockery a situation where an animal was suffering and in the process of being relieved from that suffering.

If someone mocked Jews being rescued in WW2, I would feel no embarrassment at either condemning the one doing the mockery, or mock him/her or a different aspect from which that mockery stemmed from.

[strongvoicesforward]

Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix

The "Another reason not to whale - whales have feelings like us" point of this debate though is irrelevant though to whaling debate in japan because;
a. Its illegal to hunt humpback whales, the only humpbacks allowed to be caught are four whales per year can be taken by aboriginal whalers in St Vincent and the Grenadines.
Its irrelevant that a whale got caught up in netting by accident, because it has nothing to do with whaling.

It is making the point that hunting of whales anywhere (an inclusive statement which Japan falls within) should not be done due to their feelings -- which this thread starter believes to be like us. The ability of feelings of suffering are being highlighted and applied to anywhere as the reason for not hunting whales.

Quite relevant.

*Yeah, nice story, good reading for the kiddies- unfortunatly it has nothing to do with whaling in japan though.

The title of the thread is a general reason against hunting whales. It could have been placed in the "opinion" forum as well. Placing it here reminds me of the time when someone created the thread titled, "Can anyone tell us about Japan's ancient religions?" and placed it in the "religion and philosophy" section when it should/could have been more appropriately placed in the "Religion in Japan" section. I pointed it out but a mod deemed it acceptable since it "touched" on religion. So, with a minimal thread of connection, the topic of this thread has to do with "whales" and a reason not to hunt them which can be used against the pros for Japanese whaling -- it is ok here as well -- that is if consistancy in judgement is honored.

btw, good reading for me as well -- and I am no "kiddie" -- as is I am assuming the majority of the readership of the SF Chronicle are not "kiddies" either. Perhaps the editor does not know his job well enough to choose "kiddie" stories for a news medium that primarily serves adults. Is that what you are suggesting?

b. There is no evidence/proof that "whales have feelings like us".

There is no evidence from observation that brain dead children or severely retarded children "have feelings like us" -- but that spurious logic doesn`t allow me to suggest they are not worthy of protection from exploitation and slaughter.

100% conclusive evidence is often the battle cry of those entrenched in the status quo of comfort. An animal need not have 100% likeness of us to allow us to make laws not harming them. After all, if they were 100% like us -- they would be human. The point is not if they are like us, but whether they can suffer.

I disagree with whaling, but i don't think you should just make up stuff or imply false or unknown facts just to aid your side of debate.

Nothing has been made up. First you protested that no "link" or "root source" was posted, then you clamped onto "no names" or "witnesses" and then you mischaracterized Earthangel's proposition "like us" with a more rigid adgective "same" as if she is suggesting whales are the same as humans in emotions. She does not go to that length. Most people view the phrase "like us" as in shared similarities or nearness and closeness in attributes.

"Like us, Chimpanzees use tools." An accurate and clear statement.

"The same as us, Chimpanzees use tools." hmmm...I don`t recall Chimpanzees ever using bolt cutters to free themselves from zoos. But, a human prisoner would one if it could aid in their escape froma flimsy fenced prison.

Admittedly, both phrases can be used to denote similarities but the former is more clear and accurate with a looser meaning. The 2nd one is more strict.

Nothing has been made up or falsely provided as you accuse. You still haven`t had the good courtesy to acknowledge what you protested as lacking that caused your suspect, has been provided.





------------------------------
*order of quote point rearranged.

[strongvoicesforward]

This “same as us” myopic phrase and protestation is so funny, I just have to add more to it. It lends itself to arrogant selfishness.

I would surely hope that many other animal species would not have feelings and emotions the “same as us”. I would hate for whales, wolves, or lions to be sitting around a kitchen table saying, “Let`s give ‘thanks’”, displaying emotions of gratitude as they carve a human for their Thanksgiving Dinner. Brrrrrr....

The “same as us” would be horrible for animals and us if it were true -- why then they would be huddling together in meetings and conferences wondering and planning how to conquer us and may purposely write a book that says “be fruitful and multiply” and if they did that, well, there would just be too many species with Gods trying to be “fruitful.”

The “same as us” would mean mean animals jumping us to rape us. After all, there are those beastiality people amongst us.

So rather than the “ability to suffer”, should we treat animals according to let`s say another characteristic, hhhmmmm, perhaps gentleness? Sloths are pretty gentle. Maybe we should pass laws that treat sloths better than humans since they are more gentle than we are. Do they war amongst each other in ghastly manner? I don`t think so.

Or, are we going to treat according to intelligence? I don` t think it is pretty intelligent that we war with one another killing millions of our own kind over some of the things we have in our history. So, I doubt if we could write ourselves at the top of the law because of intelligence. After all, many test out as severely retarded people and they have little intelligence. I guess no protection for them. Tough luck.

Hmmmm....what is left?

Oh, that`s right! Suffering. Most turn from pain because it is a state they would rather not want to be in. Most would like that pain not be inflicted on them. We avoid suffering and situations that lead to that -- and we see many animals who like us cry out or run from it when given the chance.

Funny, how much we have to suffer the impassive cruelty of the ‘intelligent’ amongst us.

[mad pierrot]

Sure. Most of my posts are serious in nature. Have you read them all? Calculate the percentage with comments of mockery to serious ones.

But, I don`t mind reserving mockery for those who feel a need to denegrate with mockery a situation where an animal was suffering and in the process of being relieved from that suffering.

If someone mocked Jews being rescued in WW2, I would feel no embarrassment at either condemning the one doing the mockery, or mock him/her or a different aspect from which that mockery stemmed from.

Thanks for clearing things up! I wasn't taking any of your posts seriously.

It is making the point that hunting of whales anywhere (an inclusive statement which Japan falls within) should not be done due to their feelings -- which this thread starter believes to be like us. The ability of feelings of suffering are being highlighted and applied to anywhere as the reason for not hunting whales.

A reasonable point, I agree. But, as I'm sure the reason you're posting is to discuss and/or persuade, it's interesting that you have done an admirable of getting people to disagree with you. Perhaps you should think of a less-counter productive approach to posting? As you like to post your opinion quite abit, why not start your own blog?

[strongvoicesforward]

Originally Posted by mad pierrot

Thanks for clearing things up! I wasn't taking any of your posts seriously.

lol.

How the audience takes it for themselves, has nothing to do with the intent of the person putting their opinion out.

Some will take it the way the presenter intends it, and some will not.

It doesn`t bother me that you don`t take my posts seriously. Those who don`t I would expect them to not waste time in responding. I usually don`t respond or debate with those who I don`t take seriously. "Disagreeing" however, does not mean "not taking seriously." I`ve been disagreed with and debated with quite often here.

A reasonable point, I agree. But, as I'm sure the reason you're posting is to discuss and/or persuade, it's interesting that you have done an admirable [job]of getting people to disagree with you. Perhaps you should think of a less-counter productive approach to posting?

I don`t recall any posters ever saying they were "non-religious" and that I caused them to become so. I don`t recall any poster saying they were for "animal rights" and I caused them to not be so. I don`t remember any poster saying they were "vegetarian" and I caused them not to give it up. Do you recall any posts as such?

Many of those who engaged me in discussion/debate have disagreeed with me from the beginning on many of those topics. Therefore, I have not "gotten" them to disagree with me. Though a few have PM said I caused them to think on the topics I have brought forward. I would imagine that there are more lurkers who never post or even join who have read my comments and may have not felt so opposed to my statements. But, then again...that is speculation.

You see my style as counter-productive, as well as may others. I do not. First, it let`s me prepare my arguments for some of the ones I have not heard employed yet. It is productive for me. 2nd, it brings the topic up for thought. 3rd, like I mentioned before, I really do have no way to judge how many have actually read them or agree/disagree or have been moved to think about changing their thoughts on it in the future. Change sometimes takes a long time and one idea or comment can take a long time to fester and grow into something more substantial. I am not so full of myself to think that I AM the only one who has caused someone to change their minds on religion or animals or the environment. I am just part of the machine doing my bit.

As you like to post your opinion quite abit, why not start your own blog?

Well, that is a passive way to put forth your opinions, isn`t it? Create and wait for someone to come by. Nothing wrong with that. However, there is also the "active" approach -- go forth and say what you have to say. Besides, you may be surprised to know that I do have a blog -- hehehehe, of which I would prefer to keep my identity separate from here.

But, madpierrot, my post numbers are still quite low in regards to some others' totals here. Nothing wrong with some posting more that others. Are you saying the rules have a limit per day or week or month?

[mad pierrot]

It doesn`t bother me that you don`t take my posts seriously. Those who don`t I would expect them to not waste time in responding. I usually don`t respond or debate with those who I don`t take seriously. "Disagreeing" however, does not mean "not taking seriously." I`ve been disagreed with and debated with quite often here.

Just another verbal jab. I do take SOME of your posts seriously.

Many of those who engaged me in discussion/debate have disagreeed with me from the beginning on many of those topics. Therefore, I have not "gotten" them to disagree with me. Though a few have PM said I caused them to think on the topics I have brought forward. I would imagine that there are more lurkers who never post or even join who have read my comments and may have not felt so opposed to my statements. But, then again...that is speculation.
You see my style as counter-productive, as well as may others. I do not. First, it let`s me prepare my arguments for some of the ones I have not heard employed yet. It is productive for me. 2nd, it brings the topic up for thought. 3rd, like I mentioned before, I really do have no way to judge how many have actually read them or agree/disagree or have been moved to think about changing their thoughts on it in the future. Change sometimes takes a long time and one idea or comment can take a long time to fester and grow into something more substantial. I am not so full of myself to think that I AM the only one who has caused someone to change their minds on religion or animals or the environment. I am just part of the machine doing my bit.

I still maintain otherwise. I'm only basing this on what I've observed in some of your threads, which is, in general, agitation not over your views, but over the manner in which you post them. Speaking for myself, you manage to come off as somewhat of a preachy vegetarian fundamentalist. Long, drawn out threads that mostly consists of you hammering out your viewpoints gets old fast. I could be wrong, but I'm sure other people feel the same way. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm still going to suggest you try something with more tact.

But, madpierrot, my post numbers are still quite low in regards to some others' totals here. Nothing wrong with some posting more that others. Are you saying the rules have a limit per day or week or month?

Not at all! But, to re-iterate, I think that your inability to show repose results in a negative attitude towards your posts. If you agitate enough people, well....

[strongvoicesforward]

Originally Posted by mad pierrot

Just another verbal jab. I do take SOME of your posts seriously.

Thank you.

I'm only basing this on what I've observed in some of your threads, which is, in general, agitation not over your views, but over the manner in which you post them.

Please point something out specifically, MP, rather just throw out a general accusation. And point show us how it is more than a majority of my posts. You won`t find it. But many feel that just because I do not add things like, "IMO, IMHO, I see your point of view, I understand your point of view, or I think," all over the place. Some like those softeners. I don`t see them as necessary. Perhaps you do. Fine. It is your style if that is what you like.

Now, when I have taken the strongest tact of mine, look at who and what I have been engaging to and replying to. Look who talks about "slapping" people or calling them "Hitler wanna bes" and other direct insults. I may respond to those posts, but I do not post in like manner. You might want to look around before you "jump to conclusions" like the phrase you have chosen to describe yourself. Or, is that an apt description?

Speaking for myself, you manage to come off as somewhat of a preachy vegetarian fundamentalist.

"Preachy" vs. "Vocal" -- it will depend on your personal choice of words. The threads are rooms. People can enter them or pass by them. A preacher coming upon a street corner does not give us the opportunity to not hear him as we sit drinking our coffee at an outside cafe. On the forums, you are quite capable of not reading what opinion I have to offer.

Long, drawn out threads that mostly consists of you hammering out your viewpoints gets old fast.

Well, I am thorough. I do remember the time when I had try to have the discussion "stand down" and was harangued for not continuing it. See, can`t please all the people all the time. If I am brief and appear once in a while, I will be accused of dodging important points. If I am thorough, then I get a statement like yours. Therefore, I just have to do what I feel comfortable doing. I can`t be responsible for the likes or dislikes of the audience when they can and have the freedom of choice to enter or bypass my threads or skip over my posts on other threads.

I could be wrong, but I'm sure other people feel the same way.

With so many people with a variety of likes and dislikes, in all probability you are right and wrong. "Other" people is quite inclusive.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm still going to suggest you try something with more tact.

You mean like add all those softener tags to my statements???

To re-iterate, I think that your inability to show repose results in a negative attitude towards your posts.

My repose is a consistant one -- one of straightforwardness on opinions that are matters of import to me. Those I give less leeway to are the ones that first come harshly to me. Still, I never talk about slapping them or calling them "Hitler wannabes" and hope for "animals to eat them alive." You might want to look at the posting styles of Reiku and Nurizeko if "repose" is your concern.

[mad pierrot]

Please point something out specifically, MP, rather just throw out a general accusation.

Sure! Your entire reply serves nicely. And, as it's clear that you are in no way capable of taking a hint, I now bid you goodbye, and wish you better luck at another forum.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward

It is making the point that hunting of whales anywhere (an inclusive statement which Japan falls within) should not be done due to their feelings -- which this thread starter believes to be like us. The ability of feelings of suffering are being highlighted and applied to anywhere as the reason for not hunting whales.
Quite relevant.
The title of the thread is a general reason against hunting whales. It could have been placed in the "opinion" forum as well. Placing it here reminds me of the time when someone created the thread titled, "Can anyone tell us about Japan's ancient religions?" and placed it in the "religion and philosophy" section when it should/could have been more appropriately placed in the "Religion in Japan" section. I pointed it out but a mod deemed it acceptable since it "touched" on religion. So, with a minimal thread of connection, the topic of this thread has to do with "whales" and a reason not to hunt them which can be used against the pros for Japanese whaling -- it is ok here as well -- that is if consistancy in judgement is honored.
btw, good reading for me as well -- and I am no "kiddie" -- as is I am assuming the majority of the readership of the SF Chronicle are not "kiddies" either. Perhaps the editor does not know his job well enough to choose "kiddie" stories for a news medium that primarily serves adults. Is that what you are suggesting?
There is no evidence from observation that brain dead children or severely retarded children "have feelings like us" -- but that spurious logic doesn`t allow me to suggest they are not worthy of protection from exploitation and slaughter.
100% conclusive evidence is often the battle cry of those entrenched in the status quo of comfort. An animal need not have 100% likeness of us to allow us to make laws not harming them. After all, if they were 100% like us -- they would be human. The point is not if they are like us, but whether they can suffer.
Nothing has been made up. First you protested that no "link" or "root source" was posted, then you clamped onto "no names" or "witnesses" and then you mischaracterized Earthangel's proposition "like us" with a more rigid adgective "same" as if she is suggesting whales are the same as humans in emotions. She does not go to that length. Most people view the phrase "like us" as in shared similarities or nearness and closeness in attributes.
"Like us, Chimpanzees use tools." An accurate and clear statement.
"The same as us, Chimpanzees use tools." hmmm...I don`t recall Chimpanzees ever using bolt cutters to free themselves from zoos. But, a human prisoner would one if it could aid in their escape froma flimsy fenced prison.
Admittedly, both phrases can be used to denote similarities but the former is more clear and accurate with a looser meaning. The 2nd one is more strict.
Nothing has been made up or falsely provided as you accuse. You still haven`t had the good courtesy to acknowledge what you protested as lacking that caused your suspect, has been provided.
------------------------------
*order of quote point rearranged.

You can try to justify the thread all you like, but it does not change the fact that there is no evidence that "whales have feelings just like us"- considering that this is the whole point/arguement of the topic/debate, its pretty failed one simply because there is no evidence for such a statement. Full stop.

You can try and use brain dead children as an example- but its entirely different to whaling in japan and also irrelevant because we do not hunt or euthanise brain dead children. Human beings are entirely different species to whales as well. There may be thousands of reasons why people don't want to perform cannibalism or kill each brain dead children for the sake of it, but we can only assume a lot of these reasons as many are personal individual ones etc.
Its a bad example to the point of this thread .

[nurizeko]

Man, i thought putting SVF on ignore would solve the issue of his spam blocknig up the threads but all those mini-bars of "you have this person on ignore" isnt that much better.

I agree, whales with feelings and a nice lil kid story has no relevence to whaling in Japan, if you want to discuss japans whaling, post news about whales involved with japan.

[WhaleKillers]

Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix

You can try to justify the thread all you like, but it does not change the fact that there is no evidence that "whales have feelings just like us"- considering that this is the whole point/arguement of the topic/debate, its pretty failed one simply because there is no evidence for such a statement. Full stop.
You can try and use brain dead children as an example- but its entirely different to whaling in japan and also irrelevant because we do not hunt or euthanise brain dead children. Human beings are entirely different species to whales as well. There may be thousands of reasons why people don't want to perform cannibalism or kill each brain dead children for the sake of it, but we can only assume a lot of these reasons as many are personal individual ones etc.
Its a bad example to the point of this thread .

No fact that whales have feelings like us is always debatable. Just as debatable as does your dog or cat have feelings like us? Yet MOST people wouldn't conciously go and eat one, would they? And why ever not, since esp. dogs are supposed to taste pretty good, PLUS they are definitely not in any danger of being endangered. So in that vain, what's the difference?
Before anyone jumps on the cow/chicken/pig argument, here's a consideration, it's already too ingrained in most of our brains that we need to eat it. If you never eatin something before, you don't crave it. Why re-introduce another species to be slaughtered when there's no true need? Haven't humans brought enough destuction to nature?


As for whales/dolphin feelings, in my experience, they have just as much if not more feelings than a dog or a cat. I personally have had the chance to swim with dolphins and whales, and let me tell you, the interactions are profound. The feelings are likened to bonding with a soulmate. Yeah, sounds corny, but that's what I personally felt, as if they understand and can read what you are feeling. I only ever got that feeling with one of my cats that died. All the others, including my two dogs, I never got those vibes.
In that regard, it's hard to take seeing the world take two steps back in time, supporting a more barbaric habit best left in the past.
And all else aside, a whale's death is not a clean one.

[leonmarino]

This is the most interesting thread I have come across in a whale.. Uh, while. There have been a lot of things which I would love to react on, but I'll keep it to a short post this time.

Originally Posted by WhaleKillers

As for whales/dolphin feelings, in my experience, they have just as much if not more feelings than a dog or a cat. I personally have had the chance to swim with dolphins and whales, and let me tell you, the interactions are profound. The feelings are likened to bonding with a soulmate. Yeah, sounds corny, but that's what I personally felt, as if they understand and can read what you are feeling. I only ever got that feeling with one of my cats that died. All the others, including my two dogs, I never got those vibes.

In my opinion, personal experience doesn't tell us a lot, if we are talking about whether whales have feeling or not. I wish I could swim around dolphins and whales, but I wouldn't dare stick any conclusions to feelings of "bonding". I am sure it was a pretty exciting experience, and that is the reason why I shouldn't trust your gut feelings on this.

According to the two factor theory of emotion, people subconsciously link their emotional arousal with a cognitive label. Experiments have shown that people being interviewed on a wobbly bridge admitted to feeling more attractions towards a interviewer than people being interviewed in a nice safe environment. This is also one the reasons that it is recommended to take your first date to a exciting movie and have dinners at candlelight; the pumping of the heart and widening of the pupil because of bad lighting is wrongly attributed to feelings of love and attraction.

In your case, I am afraid you have attributed your feelings of "bonding" to the swimming amongst the dolphins and whales; I am sure it was experience that increased your heart rate, and caused excitement.

Now, I am not saying that you're trying to mislead the readers or anything, it is perfectly human to make these sort of mistakes. I would like to hear your view on this, and ask you if you have any substantial, possibly scientific proof that whales have emotions, and are able to "bond" or feel anything beyond physical pain.

[Tsuyoiko]

Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix

there is no evidence that "whales have feelings just like us"- ... Human beings are entirely different species to whales as well.

Going back even to the seventeenth century, findings in neuroscience tend to indicate that animals are not that different to us. The differences are more of degree than in kind. Having said that, the evidence from relative brain size and complexity (which are generally considered the most reliable measures of intelligence) suggest that whales are not very intelligent. Their brains are a hundred times smaller than humans', relative to body mass, and their neocortex has fewer layers than most mammals. On the same criteria, (bottlenose) dolphins are considered very intelligent - second only to humans, with a brain nearly half as large and a frontal lobe almost as complex as a human's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale#Whale_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence

Still, I don't think we should base our treatment of other creatures on how similar they are to us. How do you measure similarity? What criteria count - intelligence, chromosome similarity, familiarity? I prefer that we avoid unnecessary suffering to any creatures at all. Call me a crazy person, but I don't even cut flowers as it's killing them unnecessarily. But if someone needs to a kill a whale to survive then so be it - as long as they do it as humanely as possible. The question then is, how often does anyone really need to kill another creature to survive?