Vesica

And mind telling me WHY you think that whaling shouldn't be part of vegetarianism issue at whole? Whale meat end up in someone's dinner table - that's a big fact.

I will. Whaling in Japan is about eating whale meat. Whaling in Northern Europe, now and historically, is not primarily a quest for food. Whale blubber was an excellent fuel source. A tiny gland in the head of whales was an essential ingredient for perfumes and cosmetics. Whale bones were used for stays in corsets, ground and used as calcium supplements and turned into art by bored sailors. Yes, a small portion of the whale was eaten.

So I respond - Some whaling is about food on a table, always was and probably always will be. However history does not support your assertion that this was the whole point.

SO if whaling is not ONLY about food.... does that mean we can stop arguing about the evils of eating meat and get back to the topic at hand, that is WHALING.

The Other Michael

Seraphim, please check your private messages.

thanks,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

The Naked Mage

No, this merely demonstrates it to be more efficient, not a "lesser evil". I believe you have confused the two.

Bravo. Now we've demonstrated "healthiness" and "unhealthiness". Does this train pass through Moralityville? And do whales count as "red meat"? Is consuming a lean chicken "less evil" than consuming a fat, greasy cow?

Oh, so you meant "morality" on the HUMANS' part. We're not killing those animals for sport or surplus food, we're killing them in the name of self-defense and problem circumnavigation. Furthermore, such animals are not the harmless, gentle creatures you consider whales to be.

I say again: no matter how insignificantly.

Ab_Normal

Perhaps an argument can be made that there is a value to maintaining ecosystems in something close to their natural state for aesthetic reasons. Or maybe it'll benefit humanity as a whole if the planet is "healthier", as measured by the number of species that are not endangered.

Please note the copious use of weasel words - I'm just thinking "out loud".

Harumi

Seraphim said:

My reply : OH YES it is. I heard varies reports (from CNN, National Geography and Discovery) about creatures such as bears and reindeers entering human territory and forced to be shot in US regions. Even in my country, for the last 6 months, numerous reports of tiger attacks on local rubber farmers had increased.

Are you saying that these farmers, since they eat meat (well, I'm sure some of them probably eat meat), should let these tigers eat them for the sake of morality?

Another question: If a tiger came running to attack you, would you sit there and let it eat you?

I just want clarification, not insinuating anything.

Grad Student Humanist

Well I for one have no difficulty in establishing a hierarchy of animal life, nor do I find it irrational to have more empathy for a chimp or a Golden Retriever than a flatworm or a sponge. They're all animals. It is ridiculous to imply that killing a roach is the same as killing a gorilla and that someone should have the same empathy towards slugs as kittens.

Let's face it: millions of animal species are neurologically primitive and comparing those species to rather intelligent animal species such as dogs, cats, primates and marine mammals is silly. And let's not forget that humans have special bonds with many animals such as dogs, cats and horses because of the functions they have in human society (as companion animals, as workers, etc). I have very little empathy for a lobster and have no qualms about killing them for food (it's nothing but a large marine roach) but would never hunt deer or bear for either sport or food (unless it was a matter of self-preservation).

That being said, I would not object to whaling per se, just as I don't object to others going hunting. I do object to whaling when it's done in a manner which destroys ecosystems and drives species to extinction. That's the real problem here. And it's not just whaling. As has been pointed out, the Japanese are making quite a dent in the populations of large shark species, particularly hammerheads which they catch, de-fin and throw back. If the Japanese fishermen were ecologically responsible I wouldn't have a problem with them hunting whales. But thus far they've not proven themselves to be responsible.

Seraphim

By The Lone Ranger :
"Broadly speaking, extant whale species can be divided into two groups, the baleen whales and the toothed whales. "

My reply : Thank you for your explainations.

By Agricola Senior :
"If you feed on animals (cows, whales or whatever) you kill indirectly 5-10 times more plants than if you eat only plants. "

My reply : And where you get this information? Either way, it is OK to "kill" a plant because they can grow back faster than an animal could.

By Vesica :
"I will. Whaling in Japan is about eating whale meat. Whaling in Northern Europe, now and historically, is not primarily a quest for food. Whale blubber was an excellent fuel source. A tiny gland in the head of whales was an essential ingredient for perfumes and cosmetics. Whale bones were used for stays in corsets, ground and used as calcium supplements and turned into art by bored sailors. Yes, a small portion of the whale was eaten. "

My reply : Thanks for the explainations as well. But now I'm sick. Killing a giant and gentle creature for sake of a small gland in its head to make cosmetics, perfume and jewelry?

"So I respond - Some whaling is about food on a table, always was and probably always will be. However history does not support your assertion that this was the whole point."

My reply : I talking NOW, not what happened in the past. Either way, eating whale meat or turning them into cosmetics and jewelry is just a bit agressive, it is not?

By The Naked Mage :
"No, this merely demonstrates it to be more efficient, not a "lesser evil". I believe you have confused the two."

My reply : No, I have perfect understanding of the concept. Some people argued (or will argue) that plants have life since they response in manners showing that they do have life (such as "moving" toward the light, growing new leaves etc). And at the same time, animals have life as well. Killing both means you are taking life either way. By choosing a faster reproducing, less intelligent, and more nutritional values food resource (such as plants), you are commiting "lesser evil" than by killing of an animal.

And concept of "lesser evil" doesn't apply to morality and religion alone. By commiting "lesser evil", humans have choice to do less and less damage to the ecosystem in whole.

"Bravo. Now we've demonstrated "healthiness" and "unhealthiness". Does this train pass through Moralityville? And do whales count as "red meat"? Is consuming a lean chicken "less evil" than consuming a fat, greasy cow?"

My reply : meat has cholestrole (wrong word here, someone help) no matter what meat it is, thus have potential for being unhealthy to the body.

"Oh, so you meant "morality" on the HUMANS' part. We're not killing those animals for sport or surplus food, we're killing them in the name of self-defense and problem circumnavigation. Furthermore, such animals are not the harmless, gentle creatures you consider whales to be."

My reply : Maybe IF humans don't cut down forests and destroy animal's habitat and their food resources, animals do not need to enter humans' territory to seek food. Do you (humans) leave them with any choice of survival?

By Harumi :
"Are you saying that these farmers, since they eat meat (well, I'm sure some of them probably eat meat), should let these tigers eat them for the sake of morality?"

My reply : No, but they should not complain much if they or someone close to them get eaten because they are the one cause it all by destroying forest and natural habitats of the wild animals.

"Another question: If a tiger came running to attack you, would you sit there and let it eat you?"

My reply : I will run or fight, depends on situation. If I have to kill in order to survive, I will do so. But I will not go into a forest, destroy it and complain some tiger tried to kill me all because it was hungry.

BTW - What does "Regular" means? Most of your Nicks have the word "Regular" below them.

The Naked Mage

Um...yes, it does. It actually applies to morality only, a subject which religions enjoy espousing at great lengths on.

Morality itself, however, CAN be applied to a wide series of situations. So feel free to compose a persuasive argument against killing and eating whales or any other delicious critter on a moral stance.

Dear me. Now you must convince me that abusing my own body is immoral.

On the other hand, maybe some tigers just like manbeef. Ever consider that?

Are we their keepers? Let 'em evolve.

Seraphim

"Um...yes, it does. It actually applies to morality only, a subject which religions enjoy espousing at great lengths on. "

My reply : No, it does not. Only your concept of "lesser evil" not only wrong but also very shallow. Lesser Evil simply means choosing what is better (for ourselves, society and the world in general) rather than what is not.

Choosing Nuclear Power rather than Petroluem could be consider lesser evil since the polution level produced by nuclear power plant is less and study toward better disposing nuclear waste had been conducted.

Choosing vegetable rather than meat is lesser evil because vegetables produce less toxin in the body (fats etc could be considered toxin). Less toxin means less medical expenses and less medical expenses means the government/society could use that extra money for something more useful such as education.

I could go on and on and on about choosing what is better and what is not through Lesser Evil concept and HALF of it has nothing to do with Morality.

"Morality itself, however, CAN be applied to a wide series of situations. So feel free to compose a persuasive argument against killing and eating whales or any other delicious critter on a moral stance."

My reply : Mind showing me some example WITHOUT toching those I listed above?

"Dear me. Now you must convince me that abusing my own body is immoral."

My reply : Abusing your own body is no concern of anyone, but when you get sick and EXPECT the society to pay for your medical expenses, that's went it becomes immoral.

Example - Heart disease and colon disease said to be no. 1 (and 2) killers in US (read in a book). Government (and individual organisations) spend millions of dollars in research for a cure of what started in a eating habit.

Another example - AIDS and HIV which started from sexual activities and drug abuse. Government and private organisations had to spend millions in research for a cure all because the people who suffer this disease couldn't help themselves in sticking something in them or they themselves stick something in something else. For your information, I don't not pity those with AIDS.

"On the other hand, maybe some tigers just like manbeef. Ever consider that?"

My reply : IF that is true, humanity could have been extinct since they couldn't have made out of Africa 200,000 years ago.
Tigers (and other predators) are forced to hunt in human territory because they have no other place to go.

"Are we their keepers? Let 'em evolve. "

My reply : Thank you for your display of arrogance.

Yggdrasill

The way I see this, killing whales is better than purposefully breeding animals so we can kill them. Living a life of this,



is something I would consider worse than living free until they are killed. Now, of course, it is possible to raise hens and other animals humanely but, this is something I am not convinced is being done. So if given a choice of eating caged animals or eating free-range animals like whales, I would rather eat the latter.

And, this is not a matter of intelligence, it is a matter of pain. All animals I know of are capable of feeling pain, so it is best to choose a course of action that leads to the least amount of pain being experienced.

But, back on topic.

A overseen lifting of the ban would be best, a group of scientist from a few nations could cooperate to find the level of hunting that would be sustainable. And then the hunting could be overseen by neutral observers, to assure that no more than what is sustainable is killed. This way, the species being hunted survive and the Japanese get their whale-meat.

Note that I'm agains inhumane whaling, like rounding up a pack of whales and starting to kill them with knifes and other sharp objects. The footage I've seen of this is horrendous.

BTW, whale-meat is very tasty, it beats the crap out of all other meat I've tasted.