eating whale meat as japanese culture

No fan of whaling by any measure, but, with a western tradition of whiping out entire species, and using endangered ones or their eggs as delecacies or ornaments, you can hardly act all high and mighty over the japanese.

Its good your passionate about protecting endangered species, but when it makes you judgemental of a whole people without recognising your own countries and cultures wrong doings, you kind of lose the moral advantage.

Ask as many japanese as you can if they eat whale meat, youll be suprised.
 
To Aussie_Chick :

Aussi_Chick said:
i just feel that the governments aren't listening, the polititians are too busy giving themselves payrises rather than thinking about the welfare of the planet.

Well, governments and politicians are not doing anything against Japanese research whaling, because it is perfectly LEGAL.

Read this article by Dan Goodman, it is quite interesting.

By the way, Japanese research whaling is not threatening any whales species. So it's not having any effect on "the welfare of the planet".


To Nurizeko :

As I said earlier in this thread, the consumption of whale meat and blubber in Japan is mostly limited to some whaling communities. The majority of Japanese do not eat whale. But people living in these communities have a right to continue to eat whale meat as long as this custom doesn't endanger the whales species. Actually, the fact that only a few Japanese still eat whale meat and blubber is a good thing, as it means that there's only a small demand for these products...which means that there is no possible return to the large scale whaling operations that occured in the first 60 years of the 20th century.

Minke whales are abundant in the Southern Ocean, and their meat is clean of mercury and chemicals.

So, where's the problem?
 
isanatori said:
Hi,
No. As there is no consensus in the IWC Scientific Committee whether the results from Japanese research whaling programmes could be obtained without killing whales, you can not say that.
Can't see why a missing consensus among IWC members hinders me from stating the obvious & I repeat: Stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling (much easier & more efficient than killing, BTW), no need to kill.

Not as much independent as you may think. First, Scott Baker and Steve Palumbi work together very often. Second, Baker is heavily funded by IFAW...that doesn't sound very "independant" to me.
You mean, because they worked together before, the one is unable to conduct a study of different genes than the other, working with a different team?
IFAW funded? The University of Auckland then is unable to produce valid research results?
Hmm, then it should be fairly easy to produce studies which contradict the results of Palumbi's & Baker's genetic research. Where are they? (& since you have such high standards in regards to independence, absolutely free of any influence from the Japanese government or other pro-whaling institutions).

Baker should stick to scientific arguments and avoid to take political positions such as this one : " Now, it seems Japan plans to resume hunting of both species in defiance of the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary". Special permits issued as designated in article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, are not affected by the 1982 moratorium and the sanctuaries. Baker cannot ignore this, and is just saying the same misleading stuff as Greenpeace, IFAW and co.
Interesting that you want to deny scientists the right to publicise a political opinion (freedom of speech?).
Since Japanese whaling can hardly be called scientific, it seems a correct conclusion that the restart of hunting humpbacks & fin whales would be in disagreement with the moratorium.

I never mixed up Palumbi and Watson. In my previous message, I just answered both to you and Sharing the Earth.
Well, since you mentioned this before your response to Sharing it seemed that you identified my arguments in some way with him.

In 1990, although the Scientific Committee gave an estimate of 760.000 Antarctic Minke whales, the IWC, controlled by anti-whaling countries, decided to prolong the moratorium ad eternam.
& as the subsequent genetic studies suggest, quite rightfully so.
 
Hi,

Bossel said:
Can't see why a missing consensus among IWC members hinders me from stating the obvious & I repeat: Stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling (much easier & more efficient than killing, BTW), no need to kill.

Not IWC members, but members of the IWC scientific committee, which means people who know a lot more than us on the biology of whales. The fact that there is no consensus among these specialists of whales about the possibility to earn the same data (as the Japanese research whaling programmes) without killing, you can hardly say that "stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling" and without killing.
If it was so, I wonder why nobody has yet started to do non-lethal research on whales in Antarctic waters. (some clues : it is not feasible ; it would cost a lot of money and wouldn't make profit ; it would demonstrate that there are enough Antarctic Minke whales to allow some managed whaling under the Revised Management Procedure)

Bossel said:
You mean, because they worked together before, the one is unable to conduct a study of different genes than the other, working with a different team?
IFAW funded? The University of Auckland then is unable to produce valid research results?

No I mean that the fact they work (present, not past) often together, may have an influence on their works.
Yes, Baker is IFAW funded. See here : http://130.216.185.96/page/wftw/intro#FUNDS. I don't mean that the University of Auckland is unable to produce valid research results, just Baker.

Bossel said:
Interesting that you want to deny scientists the right to publicise a political opinion (freedom of speech?).
Since Japanese whaling can hardly be called scientific, it seems a correct conclusion that the restart of hunting humpbacks & fin whales would be in disagreement with the moratorium.

I'm not denying any scientist to have political opinions, but when it comes to scientist misleading the public such as Baker does with this quote "Now, it seems Japan plans to resume hunting of both species in defiance of the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary".
Whether Japanese whaling programmes can be called scientific or not, is just your opinion. However you cannot deny that the IWC scientific committee has a good opinion on Japan's research. Besides, it is legal and is not bound with the moratorium or the whale sanctuaries. Baker cannot ignore that.

Bossel said:
& as the subsequent genetic studies suggest, quite rightfully so.

The same studies the IWC scientific committee called "for further research to reconcile the numbers" (quoting you). Anyway, these studies were not available in 1990 when the IWC decided to prolong the moratorium without reasons.
The fact is that the anti-whaling camp is against all whaling and lacks any good scientific reason for this. Instead, it just misleads the public opinion with informations that are untrue (whales are going to get extinct, whaling is not sustainable, etc.). Whales have become a good symbol to make money under the name of the so called "protection of the environment".
 
isanatori said:
which means people who know a lot more than us on the biology of whales.
Just like Palumbi & Baker.

The fact that there is no consensus among these specialists of whales about the possibility to earn the same data (as the Japanese research whaling programmes) without killing, you can hardly say that "stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling" and without killing.
With a little reasoning of your own you can very well say that.

If it was so, I wonder why nobody has yet started to do non-lethal research on whales in Antarctic waters. (some clues : it is not feasible ; it would cost a lot of money and wouldn't make profit ; it would demonstrate that there are enough Antarctic Minke whales to allow some managed whaling under the Revised Management Procedure)
Oh man, now I'm sure that you're only spreading pro-whaling propaganda.

"not feasible": Crap! Actually, it's the most feasible method.
"cost a lot of money": Crap! Every scientific research costs money, but genetic sampling is surely much cheaper than hunting, killing & transporting the whales back to Japan. It's even cheaper than any useful photo-ID program.
"wouldn't make profit": Crap! Scientific research is to gain knowledge, not to make profit. If profit is made, it may be a welcome benefit, but that's not a primary aim of science.
"there are enough Antarctic Minke whales": Now, I don't know if this is crap, but it's very interesting that you know this so well with the current lack of sufficient data.

No I mean that the fact they work (present, not past) often together, may have an influence on their works.
Or maybe they simply have the same field of research & hence collaborate once in a while on overlapping projects.
Their data are verifiable. Hence any corrupted results should be fairly easy to prove then.

Yes, Baker is IFAW funded. See here : http://130.216.185.96/page/wftw/intro#FUNDS.
Thanks for the link, but this does not prove that Baker is IFAW-funded. It only shows that he got a grant for one part (maintenance of the reference data set) of one particular project (Witness for the Whales). The data coming from that project are still open for verification (& as I said, any falsification should be fairly easy to prove).

I don't mean that the University of Auckland is unable to produce valid research results, just Baker.
Baker works for the UoA, Witness for the Whales is a service by the UoA School of Biological Sciences. His research results are published on their website. Er...

Whether Japanese whaling programmes can be called scientific or not, is just your opinion.
& obviously Baker's. How is it misleading when he states the obvious?

Baker cannot ignore that.
Oh well, what he can or can't is up to him.


Anyway, these studies were not available in 1990 when the IWC decided to prolong the moratorium without reasons.
Without reasons? Just for fun? Obviously the decision was quite correct.

The fact is that the anti-whaling camp is against all whaling
I think, this sounds very logical. It would be a bit strange if the anti-whaling camp were in support of whaling.

and lacks any good scientific reason for this.
Obviously, that depends on how you see it.

Instead, it just misleads the public opinion with informations that are untrue (whales are going to get extinct, whaling is not sustainable, etc.).
Er..., you know that there actually are endangered whale species?

Whales have become a good symbol to make money under the name of the so called "protection of the environment".
But isn't that a good thing, according to you? Just a few lines before that you bemoaned the lack of profit in non-killing research.
 
Bossel said:
Oh man, now I'm sure that you're only spreading pro-whaling propaganda.

Let's be honest, I do support whaling as long as it is managed in a sustainable way, which RMP will allow (but it would also need a good Revised Management Scheme to control the hunting and the trade of whale products).
However, my opinion is that obviously you are only spreading anti-whaling propaganda.

Bossel said:
With a little reasoning of your own you can very well say that [stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling" and without killing].

I would be very pleased if you could explain me in detail your reasoning, as it is not so clear to me. Thank you in advance.

Bossel said:
"not feasible": Crap! Actually, it's the most feasible method.
"cost a lot of money": Crap! Every scientific research costs money, but genetic sampling is surely much cheaper than hunting, killing & transporting the whales back to Japan. It's even cheaper than any useful photo-ID program.

Then, if it is so easy and so cheap, why is that nobody has tried to undertake such studies in Antarctic waters. I'm sure that it is "obvious" to you.

Bossel said:
Without reasons? Just for fun? Obviously the decision was quite correct.

When the IWC/SC made an estimate of 760,000 Antarctic Minke whales, the IWC decided to prolong the moratorium (which was adopted on grounds of uncertainty concerning whales stocks). Could you explain me what was the "obviously quite correct" reason to do so at that time?

Bossel said:
& obviously Baker's. How is it misleading when he states the obvious?

But that's not the view of the IWC/SC on the subject. Just because you and Baker, and some other scientists such as Phil Clapham, claim that it is not research, doesn't mean it is not. Why would your opinion and anti-whaling scientists' opinion be more just than pro-whaling scientists' opinion ?
The IWC/SC is a forum composed of both pro- and anti-whaling scientist, as well as neutral scientists (whom I hope are the majority), and still it has a good opinion on Japanese research whaling programmes. That's not propaganda from the Japanese ICR or Japan Fisheries Agency, it is what you can read on the IWC website.

Bossel said:
Er..., you know that there actually are endangered whale species?

Yes, I know. I also know that there are also whale species that are far from being endangered. Did you know that?
 
isanatori said:
However, my opinion is that obviously you are only spreading anti-whaling propaganda.
Am I? Some examples, please!

I would be very pleased if you could explain me in detail your reasoning, as it is not so clear to me. Thank you in advance.
Er..., just eg., consider the size of ships, crews & the necessary equipment (& duration of sea voyage, since hunting & hauling the whales aboard takes some time) in comparison to the small boats & crew needed for biopsy sampling.

Then, if it is so easy and so cheap, why is that nobody has tried to undertake such studies in Antarctic waters. I'm sure that it is "obvious" to you.
If you were better informed it should be to you as well. How do you know nobody does?

Actually, the Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography is conducting biopsy sampling in the antarctic. What's more, in collaboration with the IWC, on recommendation of your beloved IWC SC 😲
Quote:
" The International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee has recommended the use of tissue biopsy on cetaceans as the most effective and least invasive method of obtaining the tissue samples required for molecular genetic and pollutant studies."

Most of the information in my last post is from their website. But, well, since according to you this research is absolutely not feasible, it is probably only done due to the undue influence of some anti-whaling infiltrators in the IWC SC. Terrorists!

Could you explain me what was the "obviously quite correct" reason to do so at that time?
Since the data of pre-whaling population were flawed & hence current population dynamics have to be re-evaluated, it seems very obvious. I did not say it was obvious at that time, but it is obvious that it was the right decision.
But that's not the view of the IWC/SC on the subject.
Ah, I see what you mean by being allowed to have an opinion. You're free to state it as long as it purports the IWC/SC view. Yep, very free, your freedom of speech.
 
Hi Bossel,

I see you start to refer to more serious sources than Scott Baker.
I knew about the SOWER programme, but I must admit I didn't know about studies the Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography in cooperation with it.
However, there are issues that the GLOBEC research programme doesn't adress . In particular, some biological parameters such as age distribution and maturity which the Japanese whaling research programmes adress.

Bossel said:
Ah, I see what you mean by being allowed to have an opinion. You're free to state it as long as it purports the IWC/SC view. Yep, very free, your freedom of speech.

This is not what I meant. What I wanted to say is that there are many different opinions about the Japanese whaling research programmes among scientists. Just because some as Baker say that it is not "scientific" doesn't make it so. The same can be said about the pro-whaling scientists.
In my opinion, the IWC/SC having a rather positive (which doesn't mean a 100% positive) view on the research Japan is conducting through its JARPA(2) and JARPN(2) programmes, it shows that there is some scientific credibility in these programmes.

Now, it is true that these programmes are good occasion for the Japanese whalers to keep their techniques and know-how "alive".
In my opinion, whaling can be sustainable if properly managed and controlled, which the RMP and RMS (once the latter completed) will make possible. Commercial whaling, in the future, might have to be conducted in a way close to actual Japanese research whaling (but with international scientist aboard) to assure the reliability of data about whales ressources.

However, for all this to become possible, both camp in the IWC must cooperate a lot more than what they are doing. I believe that there is some common points, particularly about the necessity to avoid the whales from get extinct.
In my opinion, what may happen if the IWC continues to be diverted from its purpose (the conservation of whales in order to make for the orderly developement of the whaling industry), is that whaling countries such as Japan and Norway will exit the commission and make their own management bodies (such as the already existing NAMMCO). Then, we would go back to what was the IWC when it was created and the management of whaling would be entirely controled the whaling industry's interests.
 
bossel said:
Well, don't know which logic you follow, but it seems different from mine. (BTW, there is not only one definition for logic.)
How does your logic of a constant process of evolution explain living fossils?
Evolutionary theory surely didn't change drastically in the last month. But I don't know how old the books which you use are. Punctuated equilibria were introduced as a theory in 1972. Your ideas seem to conform with phyletic gradualism, which is a bit older. But, hey, maybe you're living in the past.
At least in Europe it's widely recognised by now that evolution (ISO speciation) is not necessarily a gradual process.

Ah well, I try to stay away--but I just can't.

Look, it's real simple:

Parents pass their genetic traits on to their offspring...

...the offspring now have a slightly jumbled combination of the genetic traits of each parent...

...the offspring either lives to pass these traits on, or doesn't.

Evolution isn't just the change from one species to another, there's a constant process of genetic refinement going on with each generation. I say "refinement" because the whole process effectively screens out what doesn't work through natural selection, usually by fine-tuning the traits of existing species from one generation to the next through natural selection. Changes drastic enough to qualify as a new species are rare, and are usually the result of outside pressures.

In the case of one species dying off, it creates room in the ecologocical niche that species occupied. This creates decreased competition for that position, and an increased chance of survival for species with similar traits.

As a result, members of other species that were previously too similar to--whales for example--will instead thrive by beginning to take over the whale's position in the ecosystem. This allows them to reproduce, thus strengthening the traits that were similar to whales. The process continues untill a new, whale-like species evolves to take the place of the now extinct one, preserving the ecosystem with a bare minimum of alterations.

Also, as one hunts a species towards extinction, only those members of that species who are able to avoid being killed survive--their traits are passed on, and the species becomes increasingly harder to hunt.

If a species possesses so little capacity for avoiding predation that it can't prevent itself from being hunted to extinction...

...well, sorry: You've lost the evolution game.

But we have some lovely parting gifts, possibly including a place on the mantle of one of our game's winners.

Yes, there is the possibility that by hunting a species to extinction, we could alter the ecosystem enough to cause our own extinction, but it's simply not that easy to do. There are less dire, but more likely possibilities, such as dropping down a few notches in dominace--but as much as dislike humans, I have to admit that our adaptability and advanced use of science and technology makes even that highly unlikely. At worst our mushrooming population might get cut down to a more sustainable size--which is probably going to happen sooner or later anyway, judging from the way things are going.

When people start raising the spectre of humanity's extinction to support arguments against hunting, I'm forced to believe they either don't know what they are talking about, or are willing to use sensationalistic lies to win support for their cause.

By the way: There is only one definition for logic, sadly it's often misused or misunderstood. I suppose that makes sense--as one must use logic in order to understand it.

In any event, if you wish to debate this further I suggest we make a new thread--as our dissagreement seems more about the natue of evolution than the hunting of whales.
 
Bullsye, Reiku, couldnt have said it better if i tried myself, but chances are, those who you refer to that want to stop hunting, ussually have other motives and agendas apart from comming to the anti-hunting conclusion after logically and rationally looking at biology, evolution, and you know, the actual facts.
Some people just need the ego boost that comes with a cause to fight, even if it has no real basis.
Plus any idiot who thinks a world without whales would suddenly blow up obviously doesnt pay too much attention in biology class.
Yes it would be a loss, yes its sad if the whales died out, but it would unlikely be the end of life on earth.
I agree with you so much on that comment, if a species is so un-adaptable, so unable to go with the flow of nature and evolution and change and survive, and is so fragile with its hold onto existance that its being out-predated by another species or cant find its one and only source of food anymore, then by evolutionary terms your right, its a dead-end.
Like koala's and Pandas....its a shame, their nice creatures and stuff, but for the love of gods why their genetics decided they should only eat one species of plant is breyond me, Its like, evolutionary speaking, the koala and panda species are wanting to die out.
I think if humans dissappeared tomorrow, the ecosystem would be in more chaos then with the loss of a few whales (the whales are at the top of their food chain so apart from maybe an explosion in plankton, its hardly the end of the world).
 
It doesn't seem, especially with those lower estimates, that the whale population can take much external stress- with that low a population carrying capacity, and their long breeding cycle- hunting seems like a bad idea.
 
Reiku said:
Ah well, I try to stay away--but I just can't.
Look, it's real simple:
What you wrote is not only simple, but simplistic. Looks a lot like Social-Darwinism readjusted for justifying the wilful or negligent destruction of species.

When people start raising the spectre of humanity's extinction to support arguments against hunting
Did I do that? Where?

By the way: There is only one definition for logic, sadly it's often misused or misunderstood.
M-W:
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>

Cambridge ALD:
logic (REASONABLE THINKING)
noun
a particular way of thinking, especially one which is reasonable and based on good judgment

logic (FORMAL THINKING)
noun
a formal scientific method of examining or thinking about ideas


Looks like more than one definition.
 
I love how you failed to comment on the validity of my statements, Bossel.

You can dismiss it as "simplistic", or by saying it "Looks a lot like Social-Darwinism", but it seems you are unable to actually refute the validity of what I said.

Likewise, you can post as many definitions of the word logic as you please, logic itself is a thing, not the verbal or written symbols we use to represent it, and indeed has only one definition--or to be more accurate: Only one correct definition.

I find it ironic that I am defending whaling, since I myself do not believe it is nescessary and would personally prefer it not occur--but I also believe that making something illegal just because you don't like it or have no personal need for it is very, very wrong.

So let me restate:

I don't think we should hunt whales.

But I can find no logical basis for that opinion, and therefore cannot justify any attempt to enforce it.
 
Reiku said:
I love how you failed to comment on the validity of my statements, Bossel.
Both your simplistic view of evolution & attempt at justifying wilful or negligent eradication of species have already been addressed before. Your last post more or less merely repeated what you had written before. I don't have enough time to simply repeat the same argument all over.

Likewise, you can post as many definitions of the word logic as you please, logic itself is a thing, not the verbal or written symbols we use to represent it, and indeed has only one definition--or to be more accurate: Only one correct definition.
Logic is an abstract concept & hence completely reliant on the symbols we use to specify it. The one & only correct definition you propose is probably your favoured definition, but surely not the only one.

But I can find no logical basis for that opinion
Probably dependent on your one & only correct definition of logic.
 
Reiku said:
Is JRef under attack by animal activists?

Oh, this is funny. Another comment from someone who is "happiest" when they are "angry."

JRef is in no way under attack from animal activists. If animal activists wanted to flood the sight for days, weeks, or months, believe me they could. The more organized ones could set up a strong campaign to do so.

HOWEVER, animal activists have no intention of doing that to sights like this. These are forums set up as venues for people to discuss and disseminate information amongst themselves. The last thing animal activists want to do is be sitting in a forum on line with a hundred other activists saying the same thing and not getting their message out to those who do not think like them. These forums are viewed with respect by animal activists, an essential part of their tools in keeping the world connected to the problems animals face.

A specific section for "whaling" is set up so it is only natural that those interested in whaling who come upon the site feel a desire to voice their opinion on the topic. I think JRef is an inclusive community and just having that topic is indicative of them welcoming those who are concerned about the issues of whaling.

Very few of those who have come here to the whaling forum have found their way down to the opinion forum in discussions to post in the Animal Rights thread -- and I sure haven`t gone out of my way to invite any. I am pretty much the lone voice on Animal Rights here on JRef (except for Tsuyoiko who seems to be a little more low key on it than me.)

For just one person being active on Animal Rights here, I wouldn`t consider JRef being under "attack" -- unless one`s paranoia makes them happy, too.
 
Voice, these forums are first and formost about Japan, if these forums are an important part of the animal activist campaign then their not thinking very well.

Animal acivists need to take their debates to political and enviromental sites and forums, not some obscure forum about Japan mainly visitted by J-rockers who couldnt give a **** for the whales and a few Japan ex-pats and frequent visitors.

None of the above groups care about enviromentalism or have the power to change things, were a fringe group of society, and in no way in our current numbers influence any enviromental policy.

And those of us living in Japan live in a country which frankly doesnt care for foreign residents bitching about the enviroment at all.


If your mission apart from a few whaling debates is to actually spread the enviromentalist philosophy, your best bet is to take your well written and engaging opinions to places where they can make a difference.

Its like a war of the worlds scenario, where folk celebrate killing one tripod walker, is it really that big of a victory compaared to the millions upon millions of dead humans and millions upon millions more in line to join them?.

Its like hammering away at a giant metal cube and eventually chipping it.

What you need to do is hit it at a weak spot with a more powerful weapon.

So go forth SVF and make a difference - where it counts.
 
nurizeko said:
Voice, these forums are first and formost about Japan, ...

Correct, and they remain as such. People posting on animal activism or the whaling is quite all right as well. Threads and sections exist for them. Like I said, activists would not want this to become an Animal Rights lopsided forum. I am glad there are very few of us here.

if these forums are an important part of the animal activist campaign then their not thinking very well.

The whole body of public forums that exist for open exchange of ideas are valued by activists for getting issues they feel important pushed to the forefront for discussion. More discussion leads to more social awareness. More social awareness could cause more influential or future influential person to be moved on the spectrum of where they stand on animal issues.

Animal acivists need to take their debates to political and enviromental sites and forums,...

The do that, but it would be wrong to not spread out as much as possible. LIke I said, it is not wise for Animal Activists to be sitting around in an animal or environmental site talking to one another. That would be speaking to the the believers. No growing of numbers in that way.

...not some obscure forum about Japan mainly visitted by J-rockers who couldnt give a **** for the whales and a few Japan ex-pats and frequent visitors.

Well, we have a disagreement. I have a more positive view of JRef than you do and I do not feel they are so obscure to not attract others with wide interests or those even open to new ideas or social issues for debate.

Japan is also my home of residence, and many in Japan do visit this site. I feel quite justified in making myself and issues important to me available for engagement by others in my community. Perhaps you don`t. I do, and I would not ask you to not do so to issues important to you or discourage you from doing it in a way you feel is most positive for you.

None of the above groups care about enviromentalism or have the power to change things, were a fringe group of society, and in no way in our current numbers influence any enviromental policy.

Nurizeko, you are wrong. I have been PMed by a few people from those groups with comments on some of my animal posts. You do presume too much into areas you cannot see. As to whether they have "power," is irrelevant for raising concious understanding of or interest in the issues.

Don`t get too hung up on numbers, as well. Most great social changes have always started with one, two, or three dedicated people who were not in power. Things take time and no one never knows where the next great social leader on any issue will rise from. Why should people visiting JRef be ruled out of the equation?

And those of us living in Japan live in a country which frankly doesnt care for foreign residents bitching about the enviroment at all.

Have you jumped from Animal Rightists/activists to environmentalists? You should know by now that I am the former, so I have no reason why you switched to environmentalists. But, I would take issue that the governement doesn`t take notice here of activists. Of course we have not won anything on a grand scale as of yet, but one of the great things foreign animal activists are doing here is exporting their views on animals from America and Europe to Japan, which is slowly taking hold. Peta has had several demos in Tokyo and are in the process of getting members here -- perhaps soon to open up a Japan office, and the Animal Rights Center of Japan has been established and they are showing every sign of being as hard core as Peta and probably more.

If your mission apart from a few whaling debates is to actually spread the enviromentalist philosophy, your best bet is to take your well written and engaging opinions to places where they can make a difference.

Addressed above. In addition, the fight for animal rights is a multi-pronged one. The fight is being taken to clothing stores in Japan, whaling/dolphin hunting ports, media, zoos, pounds, etc... Making a difference takes time.

Its like a war of the worlds scenario, where folk celebrate killing one tripod walker, is it really that big of a victory compaared to the millions upon millions of dead humans and millions upon millions more in line to join them?.

lol. Good example. But you would have been better off not using it. It suits our argumentt better. To your question: YES!

Learning how to knock down the first Tripod (although in the movie it was virus) is a very important victory. It may be the most important one besides the last one that eventually comes. Until one learns how to knock down the first one, there is just a lot of grappling in the dark for the answer.

If Huntington Life Sciences ever goes under, which they are teetering now, you will see, if not hear, the proverbial "shot heard around the world." It will be a monumental marker in the history for the struggle against corporate businesses which make their profits off the backs and bloods of animals.

Its like hammering away at a giant metal cube and eventually chipping it.

Agreed. We are doing that in a number of ways. Believe me, the industry knows they are under assault. They have been taking the AR Movement quite seriously these last 10 years. Never good to storm the gate.

What you need to do is hit it at a weak spot with a more powerful weapon.
So go forth SVF and make a difference - where it counts.

I am forth, Nurizeko. There is no front. I am involved and engaged on my piece of the puzzle when I am away from the computer.
 
Aw, man--is SVF back to trolling again?

Or did he never stop and I just quit paying attention?

Look, he's made a few decent posts--I think--so just don't engage him when he's trying to stir up trouble in animal rights and/or religion topics. Debating with him on such subjects is pointless, he doesn't want to listen.

>hammers a "don't feed the trolls" sign into place<
 
Never have been trolling and Admin has never accused me of such. I have posted pretty much here so it is unlikely I have gone unnoticed by them.

I am an avid member of the JRef forum community contributing to discussions on topics that interest me. You asked if JRef was under attack by Animal Activists. I disagreed with that knee-jerk assessment and stated why it was wrong.

Let`s let admin decide when they think JRef is under attack and in threat of being over run. They`ve been doing a good job on their own, needing no prompting from you and can label such members attacking JRef themselves and single them out for action.
 
I have to admit, SVF has mellowed out since his stormy introduction, he seems to be contributing more then stirring trouble.
 
Yeah, he does contribute--but sometimes he also tries mightily to piss off the people that don't share his veiws.

He also uses alot of classic trolling techniques, which never achieve anything good no matter what cause you use them for--they just cause trouble and make people angry.
 
Perhaps your right, i havnt really participated in enviromentalist threads for a while.
 
Me neither--I've been trying to cut down on my "causing trouble and making people angry", and that's usually what me joining a moral debate amounts to. :devilish:
 
I ate whale meat in Japan for the first time a few years ago. It was like eating a veal cutlet. While not a large part of everyday culture in Japan, a vast majority of school children grew up with it in school and have an acquired taste for it (nostalgic)... Although I love whales (I have friends at U-Mass in the Biology Dept. that have researched whales/dolphins and have gone on many research jaunts with), I wouldn't object to eating whale meat in Japan however I wouldn't go out of my way either to find it or even eat it (not when there are much tastier dishes out there)...
 
Back
Top Bottom