Breaking news from the whale wars

[Jax]

[hijack]

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.

That is IF one applies one's culture's norms and values on another. In your cultural norm,

but the eating of a human in no way, shape, or form, compares to the eating of ANY animal on the planet

How, then, do you reconcile such a view with occurances such as the Greely expedition? Furthermore, those cultures with active canniblism actually honored the fallen opposition, as intaking their flesh was to absorb their valor and allow them to live on through the victor.
[/hijack]

 

[DCBC]

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.

You guys gotta lighten up! I'm happy to compare education if you like, but as you didn't seem to get it the first time, I'll repeat myself: "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."

If you are educated you will realize that knowledge and wisdom are different things.

 

[Sas]

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.

I don't. I think to say such a thing comes out of denial and hypocrisy.

 

[Sas]

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.

If you eat something that is killed, you are responsible for it's death. So, same thing in my mind.

New Zealand is not the world. Why should Japan respect some random country making a whale sancturary in a place that Japan sees no one as owning?

Anyway, this is fun but I must sleep

 

[Sas]

JAX, MINKE WHALES ARE NOT ENDANGERED. I used caps as you clearly keep missing that point.

 

[DCBC]

If you eat something that is killed, you are responsible for it's death. So, same thing in my mind.

Ok, but that's in your mind not everyone elses.

New Zealand is not the world. Why should Japan respect some random country making a whale sancturary in a place that Japan sees no one as owning?

Japan should respect New Zealand's territory, just as New Zealand should respect Japan's. This should be ruled upon by a third party before trespassing on it.

Anyway, this is fun but I must sleep

Nighty night. :jazzband:

 

[OldNSalty]

I don't. I think to say such a thing comes out of denial and hypocrisy.

So killing any animal, using any means is OK? I am just trying to clarify as I find that to be a potentially scary thought.

 

[DCBC]

If you buy ivory, you're responsible for an elephant's death.
If you buy black coral stuff, the same applies. Of course if you eat a hamburger, you are responsible for a cow's death. The difference in those cases is that the cow is not endangered

It's the truth.

 

[Sas]

Ok, but that's in your mind not everyone elses.

Same with what you think about whales. See the problem here? For example, I do not eat any seafood at all and I no longer collect stuff when I'm diving because of the devastation fishing has wrecked on the environment and also because I love marine life. But I never preach about it, because I am on thin ice to do so given I like other meat. You are too. Much of the guff about whaling comes from cultural imperialism I believe.

Japan should respect New Zealand's territory, just as New Zealand should respect Japan's. This should be ruled upon by a third party before trespassing on it.

Firstly, I thought it was an Australian territory where the whaling santuary is and only four countries have recognised it (all ones who have other claims over Antarctica). Japan has never recognised the claim nor the Ross Dependency claim by New Zealand if that is where whaling occurs also. Why should they? Japan also thinks it contravenes the ICRW too.

So killing any animal, using any means is OK? I am just trying to clarify as I find that to be a potentially scary thought.

If it is to eat them yes. Killing an animal for fun or no reason is not acceptable to me (i.e. hunting for kicks) and so forth. You clearly do not know of the cruel and horrible ways in which many forms of meat are obtained for consumption in the West. All ways to kill an animal are cruel, and I am ok with that because I am a meat eater. Most meat eaters ignore how their own meat is obtained and instead complain about other cultures' methods. It's cool if you want to do that, but you have to be aware of the hypocrisy.

 

[Geoff_H]

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.

On the contrary my dear DCBC, it was exactly the issue that Mr X. and I were discussing. He asserted the whalers were losing money, which I challenged as being unlikely. Further research by us both has led him to believe the whaling expeditions can be profitable. Do try and keep up with the conversation before jumping in and looking silly.

It's just wrong. Neither tiger nor whales have to be on the human menu.

Why is it wrong? Just because you don't eat whale meat doesn't mean you have the unilateral right to stop others eating whale meat. Not a single person here has dared to claim that taking less than 0.1% of the population of minke whales from the Southern ocean annually is going to endanger or even have any effect on the species.