What does "intelligence" or "niceness" have to do with it?

[diversteve]

So are you prepared to allow the Japanese, Norwegians, and Icelanders to continue to eat Minke whale no matter how you personally feel about the issue?

OK, now you're really making me think...

I guess the answer should be no. Since I'm opposed to their continuing to kill any whales so to allow it is contrary to my stated position.

It's when it crosses the line into declaring how other people should behave I draw the line. I was born in a free country where everyone is entitled, within the law, to choose how they live. While I might not personally agree with how everyone chooses to exert that right I'm going to fight damned hard to allow them to continue to have it.

My problem is that you get into moral issues doing that. Without getting too political, where do you draw the line? Should no one have intervened in Bosnia? Or Darfur? Or Iraq? or the current Israeli/Palestinian situation. I'd have a problem with allowing those to continue without declaring how they should behave and doing something about it when they didn't. I don't think anyone rational can support the genocide that's taken place in those areas.

And within what law? U.S.? International Maritime? The U.N.?

In the case of the whales, the IWC doesn't seem to be to highly regarded by the three nations. Yet afaik, they were signers to the treaty. So isn't the process of getting them to stop within the law? The way I see it "within the law" the three nations are willingly violating the provisions of the IWC ban by exploiting the scientific research loophole. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Coelacanth]

Well when you think about it its perfectly natural to want to "save" certain "cute" animals and not others. As human we are programmed to want to care for things that resemble ourselves, especially baby humans. Dolphins and other whales with their seemingly smiling faces and puppies, cows, pandas, squirrels, etc. with their big eyes and round faces just naturally trigger a parental, protective response from us.

I don't think its right to focus on only the ones society deems cute (I for one find snakes and other reptiles painfully adorable; my friends disagree, freak out, and run away ) but this selective caring is quite understandable.

 

[diversteve]

First of all I think some of our positions are the same, it's just a matter of semantics or inflection - it's hard to convey in posted words sometimes what is meant.

Because lots of people think that cruelty is what hunting whale, seals or other creatures is about and I wish to state clearely that I in NO WAY support animal cruelty.

I don't either. But I do think that herding thousands of dolphins into a bay and then clubbing and knifing them to death is animal cruelty. I'm also of the mind that firing an explosive harpoon into a whale thats innocently going about it's life is also. Because they don't always kill it on the first shot, there are documented instances of whalers chasing them for hours before they're dead. I call that animal cruelty.

Do you even have or have even had pets btw? If you claim to have the same relationship to your ON SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL of whatever animal than you do to an entire group, I have to say that sorry, but I dont believe you.

That's entirely your prerogative. But I've looked into a Humpbacks eye and dove with dolphins underwater so my feelings are the same regarding them or my last dog. If you can't believe that then I can't help you to understand that I can. I'm not only opposed to a specific Humpback being killed (not counting Migaloo) but their entire species.

Its not perfectly acceptable. Its no less acceptable that I say that the ones that eat dogs should stop it immediately because theire so intelligent and cute than it is for me to dictate what car you should drive.

Here's where the issue is semantics. I think we share the same position here, it's just we're not communicating it clearly.

What I was trying to say was that it is perfectly acceptable for you or anyone else to have the same position about pigs or dogs or any other creature that I have about whales. But at the same time it doesn't have to be my position. Just as I don't likely agree with your position. But I am willing to discuss it here.

No, conserving wildlife is about keeping healthy populations.

But who defines what that is. In the case of the whales its the Internationally agreed upon organization - the IWC - who has called them endangered. So why do the three nations who signed the treaty continue to kill whales for profit under the thinly veiled guise of "scientific research"?

Its easier to raise money for the pandas for sure, its not accidental that WWF and other organizations dont use some slimy endangered snail in their promoting, but that does NOT mean that all the money they get go into saving the panda.
(Nor that all the money they get to into saving anything else either)

Can't disagree with you there. It's certainly why Sea Shepherd chose Migaloo. And the WWF chose the Panda. But you're just reinforcing my previous point that it IS easier to raise money when your mascot is cute and intelligent...

I doubt there's any organization that does use 100% of the money for what it's intended for as they all have overhead. And a board of directors who allocate any available funds as they see fit. But at least part of the money hopefully goes to what it's been donated for.

 

[Kim]

OK, now you're really making me think...

I guess the answer should be no. Since I'm opposed to their continuing to kill any whales so to allow it is contrary to my stated position.

My problem is that you get into moral issues doing that. Without getting too political, where do you draw the line? Should no one have intervened in Bosnia? Or Darfur? Or Iraq? or the current Israeli/Palestinian situation. I'd have a problem with allowing those to continue without declaring how they should behave and doing something about it when they didn't. I don't think anyone rational can support the genocide that's taken place in those areas.

And within what law? U.S.? International Maritime? The U.N.?

In the case of the whales, the IWC doesn't seem to be to highly regarded by the three nations. Yet afaik, they were signers to the treaty. So isn't the process of getting them to stop within the law? The way I see it "within the law" the three nations are willingly violating the provisions of the IWC ban by exploiting the scientific research loophole. But that's just my opinion.

OK....NOW IMO we're getting somewhere.

I agree with SEVERAL of the points you just made. First off - yes it's a moral issue, and that's one of the main points - everyone has different morals so yes - how do you choose? How do you declare one righter than everybody else. In the other cases you have listed I think that it's pretty clear that murder is against the law everywhere. This was that line I mentioned earlier that tips it over into confering a right to act in defense of human beings. Hell - I'll even agree to extend that to endangered species. I don't think that anyone has the right to hunt animals to extinction, but I suppose there will also be differences of opinion as to what level constitutes endangered/at risk etc - although I thought there were some international agreements on stuff like that.
However the Minke whale really isn't endangered by anyone's standards, so being against that doesn't really seem to have that reasonable and actual cause.

As far as the IWC is concerned there's a lot of misunderstanding about it. It's actually an organization that is supposed to enable sustainable commercial whaling. Because many countries who don't have a whaling industry are trying to use it as an organization to totally prevent whaling, it stands to reason that countries who ARE interested in the industry aren't too impressed when a commercial whaling moratorium is held in place even though there are ample stocks of some animals to allow the limited harvest that the whaling nations want. They don't want to allow them to have ANY whales - and that's absolutely not what the IWC was created for. All this rubbish about killing everything to the point of extinction makes no sense at all. How are whaling industries going to survive if they don't behave in a sustainable way. Do you really think they don't know that? And the problem is that as there is no real reason in the case of for instance the Minke whale - we're left with the intelligence/niceness/feelings reasons which don't hold up morally when compared to all the other stuff that we ARE prepared to kill for food.

When did you ever see anyone on SB complain about lobsters? Do you really think it's a pleasant and humane way to die to be dropped alive into boiling water? How about veal? Young calves strung upside down by their hind legs with their throats cut until they bleed out - sound humane to you?

Sorry - sometimes I just don't think that if we're going bandy words like "barbaric" people realize what some of their own actions really are. Ever seen a battery farm?

 

[diversteve]

OK....NOW IMO we're getting somewhere.

When did you ever see anyone on SB complain about lobsters? Do you really think it's a pleasant and humane way to die to be dropped alive into boiling water? How about veal? Young calves strung upside down by their hind legs with their throats cut until they bleed out - sound humane to you?

Sorry - sometimes I just don't think that if we're going bandy words like "barbaric" people realize what some of their own actions really are. Ever seen a battery farm?

I think where we differ is that we have different morals. Although morals is not the right word I prefer to think of it as standards of what we consider as food vs. animals to be preserved. Until tonite, I probably hadn't given it as much thought but here's my position:

I'm morally opposed to the taking of any whales, dolphins, sharks, turtles, rays, groupers, manatees and probably some other ocean creatures I haven't thought of yet. I don't discriminate between those that are endangered vs. sustainable.

It's not something I can clearly quantify, just the product of my upbringing, experiences in the ocean and various other impressions over my lifetime.

It's also not something I'll likely change, no matter what arguments are presented. And I eat Lobster and Veal also.

What's a battery farm?

This has been an interesting exchange of ideas and for that I thank both Kim and Tigerman but I'm done for the night.

 

[Kim]

What's a battery farm?

Something like this.....
The Battery Hen

General intensive farming methods.....
Factory Farming - Photo Gallery

And that's not just going on in Asia either!

 

[amitsi]

So if I kill a human thats less intelligent than me, its ok..
Sounds.. intelligent..

dude u don't have to kill a stupid human they dive at 220 feet on air...like a poster before on scuba board!

I don't eat animals ...but I don't mind people killing animals for food...and in a proper manner where the animals don't suffer some of my best friends hunt and ...Infact I am going spear hunting for tuna with my friends I will give them my catch....and I don't care if dolphins r more intelligent then us....!

BUT THESE SPECIES(DOLPHINS AND WHALES) ARE NOT AS ABUNDANT AS TUNA ...THEY DON'T REPRODUCE AS FAST AND HENCE KILLING THEM FOR WHATEVER REASON WITHOUT A THOUGHT FOR CONSERVATION IS WHAT THE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE HERE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT

I DON'T WANT A DONKEY TO BE EXTINCT NOR DO I WANT DOLPHINS TO BE EXTINCT INTELLIGENCE DONT MATTER BUT A ENTIRE SPECIES DOES!!!

THANKS TO THE ONE COUNTRY(WHICH THINKS TIGER MEAT WILL MAKE THEIR WEINER BIGGER OR WHATEVER) TIGERS ARE CLOSE TO EXTINCTION IN INDIA...PLS EDUMACATE BEFORE YOU BLABBER

 

[Kim]

I believe it's been said quite clearly several times that no-one is supporting unsustainable hunting at all.

This thread is actually about the intelligence, or niceness/cuteness of an animal being the factor which dictates what is permissible or not - and whether it's justified to try to bend others to our own will just because of how we personally feel.

 

[amitsi]

I believe it's been said quite clearly several times that no-one is supporting unsustainable hunting at all.

This thread is actually about the intelligence, or niceness/cuteness of an animal being the factor which dictates what is permissible or not - and whether it's justified to try to bend others to our own will just because of how we personally feel.

cuteness/niceness is no reason to stop killing anything if its a really useful and important food resource....delicacy is a word I have a problem with but that's another discussion

I do believe it is gr8 to protest even if they use moral high ground which not exactly fair but... ... if you didn't have these people the Giant California sea bass would be extinct, the Tigers would have been extinct a long time ago!!!

If it wasn't for these PETA types ...the rest of the world would still be hunting whales n dolphins as well ....

then there are others like me who believe in changing ..self only and I guess then there are people like you ...who will not change a bit to help nature and eat the last known whale or dolphin to extinction

there protesting will change a few people and save a few animals

If you don't agree it doesn't make anyone a bad person...as we say here duuuude chill!

 

[Tigerman]

...
But who defines what that is. In the case of the whales its the Internationally agreed upon organization - the IWC - who has called them endangered. So why do the three nations who signed the treaty continue to kill whales for profit under the thinly veiled guise of "scientific research"?

Norwegian whaling is NOT done covered as scientific researc, its done commercially and Norway is NOT bound by the IWC No commercial whaling policy as we formally objected to that policy.
The conservation status of the minke whale is Near Thretened, NOT endangered.
Endangered is only one of three different classifications within the threatened aspect.
However, considering that the minke whales is NT, caution is of course required in order to let the population grow at the same time as we hunt them.

Can't disagree with you there. It's certainly why Sea Shepherd chose Migaloo. And the WWF chose the Panda. But you're just reinforcing my previous point that it IS easier to raise money when your mascot is cute and intelligent...

I doubt there's any organization that does use 100% of the money for what it's intended for as they all have overhead. And a board of directors who allocate any available funds as they see fit. But at least part of the money hopefully goes to what it's been donated for.

That its easier to raise money with a cute maskot does NOT make wildife conservation about cuteness or intelligence, it makes raising money about intelligence and cuteness. Thats unfortunately two very different and sometimes opposing concepts.

If you have a healthy population of 1,000,000 deer and you know you have 10,000 surviving clafs a year and you wish to keep the population stable at 1,000,000 that means you can shoot 10,000 (minus the ammount that dies naturally) deer of different maturity each year. It doesnt mean that just because Bambi is cute you cant shoot any deer at all, nor does it mean you can shoot 100,000 deer a year.