Seraphim

"The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is caused by infection by one of two viral strains: HIV-1 and HIV-2. ["HIV" stands for "Human Immunodeficiency Virus".] The general consensus is that both HIV-1 and HIV-2 are derived from viruses that infect other primate species"

My reply : I did my own reading and evidence do point toward your conclusion, so till a newer evidence says otherwise, I will accept the above statement.

But wanna know something funny? This is what I consider poetic justice, no? Humans do into the forest and destroy it, capture and kill animals like they own the place and now, they got what they deserve ... poetic justice indeed. And you guys think there is no God.

"God has a Sense of Humor alright" - Solid Snake (Metal Gear Solid - from Konami ... its a game).

Doubting Didymus

I am really sorry, and I mean that, but I can not make head nor tail of this. Is it even adressed to me?

You seem to be under the impression that I started this thread, is that the source of confusion? For the record: I did not post any links in this thread, and I did not originate the topic. I hope that clears things up.

I also seem to have confused you unneccesarily with my analogy of discussions on sex. I did not intend sexual morality as a parralell to whaling. My point was only that arguing for vegetarianism is not an argument against whaling, it is an argument against all animal killing and so is off topic. That is all I meant to say, and I apologise for the confusion.

Liquidrage: My comparison between pig and whale intelligence certainly does matter. It is intended as a pre-emptive rebuttal of a common argument that I often see. That is, 'we should not eat whales, because whales are intelligent'. I do not find this convincing, as pigs are also intelligent and yet are often eaten. That is all.

So IF whales COULD be safely hunted without diminishing their numbers significantly, this objection would dissapear, right?

I will be sticking to my piggy guns here and insisting on 'do not hunt' criteria that apply to whales and not pigs. I do not see that this is off topic, and it is of particular relevance to the meat - eaters that are participating here.

For myself, I can currently see two things that apply to whales but not pigs. They are: Pigs are not in danger of extinction or severe population depletion, while whales may be. It is easy to kill a pig humanely, which is next to impossible with a whale. These arguments hold water with me.

Liquidrage

No. I gave several reasons, you don't get just to pick one, work it out in your head and ignore the others.

Reagarding pigs, I do not and would not agree in any way that it is OK to kill pigs for food unless it is necessary to do so.

I eat bacon and ham all the time by the way.

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Okie doke, here come the other two.

Why are whales inspiring, and who gets to decide which animals are inspiring enough to protect and which animals are mundane and everyday enough to eat?

They communicate with 'songs' that some, I stress some, people like to listen to. Again, who decides which animals have nice enough voices? Where are the music reviews that give us our morality decisions on which animals are untalented enough to eat?

That they are gigantic does not count for much. Would people stop eating pork if pigs were the size of cows? the size of two cows? How big is too big to eat? Again: who decides?

I do not know what 'distinct' means in this sense.

Is this an argument about all killing? Pigs probably don't want to be killed, are you okay with that or not?

I have said before that, with all else being equal, I can eat a whale if I can eat a pig. There are differences that would prevent me, however, and I have outlined them above. They may be too pragmatic for some.

Seraphim

"I am really sorry, and I mean that, but I can not make head nor tail of this. Is it even adressed to me?

You seem to be under the impression that I started this thread, is that the source of confusion? For the record: I did not post any links in this thread, and I did not originate the topic. I hope that clears things up.

I also seem to have confused you unneccesarily with my analogy of discussions on sex. I did not intend sexual morality as a parralell to whaling. My point was only that arguing for vegetarianism is not an argument against whaling, it is an argument against all animal killing and so is off topic. That is all I meant to say, and I apologise for the confusion."

My reply : OK, time to take a break since I'm as confusing as you are...
Anyway, I will jump in when I feel like it (or when I want to make sarcastic remarks ).

Doubting Didymus

What?

Seraphim

I said I gonna take a break ... is that OK with you?

Doubting Didymus

Yeah, fine.

But my 'what?' was really aimed at the 'I am as confusing as you are' comment, which I do not know how to take. Who is confusing, and who is confused? I know I am confused, because you are confusing but am I as confusing as I am confused? If you are confused as me, then I must be.

Stephen T-B

We’re in Moral Foundations and Principles, and my difficulty is that I am not clear whether killing animals, per se, is a moral issue; perhaps cruelty to animals is not a moral issue either.
We make many distinctions within our heads about the killing of animals, and the distinctions we make depends upon the cultures in which we are nurtured.
The majority view in English-speaking cultures is that killing some of them for their meat is OK; killing them for their horns / tusks and skins isn’t.
(There is a divergence when it comes to the morality of killing them for sport...)
We exclude a number of animals from the list of those which it is OK to eat, thinking, for instance, it to be “morally” repugnant to eat cats, dogs, horses, hamsters, squirrels and song birds.
We probably wouldn’t eat chimpanzee or gorilla, either, or dolphin, or whale.
We also ascribe moral values to the manner in which we keep and kill the animals we eat. For instance, most people would think it morally indefensible to kill a chicken in the microwave.
Now, the point is, that all these moral judgments are relative, and are formed, as I said, by the culture which nurtured us.
There is, in fact, very little consistency to be found: we are offended by the notion of killing and eating dogs on the basis that they are intelligent and companion able, but we kill and eat pigs which are more intelligent - and for all we know, might be very companionable.
The issue before us is whether whales are in any way distinct from all the other animals we kill either for their products or because it’s fun.
Is whaling a moral issue?
If it is, why?

Vesica

Is whaling a moral issue?

For some yes, since it is bundled together with all killing of animals for food or exploitation or whatever.

For me, No. Whaling is an ecological issue. It takes a lot of plankton or fish to get a whale to the size it is. They do not reproduce quickly and have been shown to be social animals needing a pod with older, wiser whales to have a long sucessful life. Even with the ban, whales are being killed faster than they can reach maturity. Unless hunting practices take into account the life cycle of whales and thier populations, it should not be practiced. We are not sure enough that whale populations can recover....These are the areas research should be directed towards!