Breaking news from the whale wars

[OldNSalty]

I will reiterate.... After watching video from different vantage points....

The Ady Gil was almost stationary leading up to the collision. Want proof? Look at the wake of the Ady Gil on the Japanese video, there isn't any wake. The Ady Gil was almost dead in the water as the Japanese whaling ship apprached at a high rate of speed.

The Japanese whaling ship, traveling very fast, make a radial turn to starboard to ram the Ady Gil. The Agy Gil responded by accelerating just before impact, perhaps to avoid being rammed. Again, watch the Japanese video to see the Ady Gil accelerate and throw up a wake just before impact.

As the Ady Gil accelerated, the Japanese whaling ship made a last-second correction to port to ensure that it rammed the Ady Gil squarely.

Are you vegan DCBC? If not, well you really have no ground to stand on if you are going to argue about the meat that others eat.

That's not entirely correct. I can still eat meat but recognize that as a society we have a responsibility to not hunt animals to extinction or I could have a valid reason to oppose the manner in which some animals are brought to the dinner table or I could even claim that some animals are too intelligent to hunt.

Just saying....

 

[Jax]

This can be likened to the trade of humans for the sex trade. How much money that can be made or the demand isn't the issue. It's just wrong. Neither tiger nor whales have to be on the human menu.

Are you vegan DCBC? If not, well you really have no ground to stand on if you are going to argue about the meat that others eat.

Who says anything about endangered species here? Many whale species are not endangered including species that the Japanese are after here (Minke whales). Also there is little evidence about the intelligence of whales. But say intelligence is a criteria, then one would not be able to eat pigs, or cephalopods either. I'm certainly not going to give up bacon personally, no matter how smart pigs are.

Being vegan has everything to do with arguing against whaling. If you use animal products then you cannot really argue against whaling without being hypocritical.

fftopic:

Um . . . DC did . . . when he said whales and tigers should not on the menu. I do not see where "what is on the menu" has to do with being vegan. One is . . . just is . . . and the other is a choice.

Sorry, all! :focus:

 

[DCBC]

Minke whales however are not endangered according to the red list..

The International Whaling Commission (Population Estimates) says that in the Southern Hemisphere, the Commission is unable to provide reliable estimates at the present time. A major review is underway by the Scientific Committee.

Therefore it seems prudent to not hunt anything, where you aren't reasonably sure of the numbers. It just seems logical to me, but go figure...

 

[Sas]

So what your saying is that if I'm like Hannibal Lecter it's ok, because no one can tell me what to eat?

No because eating a human is murder, they are an equal and a member of your own species. Eating an animal is not.

That's not entirely correct. I can still eat meat but recognize that as a society we have a responsibility to not hunt animals to extinction or I could have a valid reason to oppose the manner in which some animals are brought to the dinner table or I could even claim that some animals are too intelligent to hunt.

Just saying....

Sure you can say that, but it means you are a hypocrite. There is no way to produce animal products humanely (other than if you eat animals that have died of old age which some vegetarians I know do this, but this is rare). None. I say this as an avid meat eater. So, why should your idea what is acceptable to eat/hunt and how it is acceptable override someone else's? I agree that endangered species are excluded from that, but we are not talking about endangered species when it comes to the Antarctic hunt. (other forms of whaling I find unacceptable due to the unsustainability).

fftopic:

Um . . . DC did . . . when he said whales and tigers should not on the menu. I do not see where "what is on the menu" has to do with being vegan. One is . . . just is . . . and the other is a choice.

Sorry, all! :focus:

You are not understanding the point. My point is if he thinks whales should not be on the menu, he cannot argue for this legitimately unless he does not consume other animal products. It makes no sense to say that one animal is ok to eat but not another. The only reason why people care about whales is because they are easier to anthropomorphise in the West (like dogs and various other creatures people get horrified at other cultures eating), and that is not a rational reason to be against eating whales.

 

[DCBC]

No because eating a human is murder, they are an equal and a member of your own species. Eating an animal is not.

Killing and eating are not usually the same thing, but that's another discussion. "Eating an animal is not" So you make a differentiation that you expect others to obey (and your right). That's why there are laws and that's why New Zealand has established this area as a whale sanctuary.

 

[DCBC]

It's been proven in Weekly World News that whales are spies for alien invaders. IJS

They man a movie out of it: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. It all worked out in the end; the whales saved mankind.

 

[Jax]

You are not understanding the point. My point is if he thinks whales should not be on the menu, he cannot argue for this legitimately unless he does not consume other animal products. It makes no sense to say that one animal is ok to eat but not another. The only reason why people care about whales is because they are easier to anthropomorphise in the West (like dogs and various other creatures people get horrified at other cultures eating), and that is not a rational reason to be against eating whales.

Let me try active listening: If DCBC thinks [an endangered species] should not be on the menu, he can make that claim legitimately if and only if he does not consume other animal products. Non Sequitur

Logic and reason has no place in this discussion!

I noticed . . .

I'm afraid to ask what's in that popcorn box then....

 

[DCBC]

Non Sequiter

Exactly!

 

[OldNSalty]

Sure you can say that, but it means you are a hypocrite.

No it doesn't. To follow your logic is to say that anything is OK as long as I am ok with the results-ends justify the means. I can't both eat meat and say that I am opposed to a system of slaughter that uses stoning or fire as a means of killing the animal. I think it is perfectly sane to say that eating meat is OK BUT there should be conditions.

 

[AquaExplorer]

Killing and eating are not usually the same thing, but that's another discussion. "Eating an animal is not" So you make a differentiation that you expect others to obey (and your right). That's why there are laws and that's why New Zealand has established this area as a whale sanctuary.

Dude...we can play semantics all day long...but the eating of a human in no way, shape, or form, compares to the eating of ANY animal on the planet, period. To even remotely argue they are the same merely lessens your arguments and makes you look, well less then educated.