Japan, please stop whale hunting!

[MajideSaiaku]

Look at it this way, if an animal (or plant) species starts breeding and domesticating us, we can assume its sentient.

 

[urecco]

Minke whales are increasing
For much of this century, Norway, the UK, Japan and other countries competed fiercely for whale resources in the Antarctic. As a result, most species were over-exploited, beginning with blue whales followed by fin whales, the species with the highest commercial value. These species have not yet recovered to their optimum population levels.

By contrast, minke whales in the Antarctic have been increasing as they fill the ecological niche created by removal of the larger baleen whales. Culling of minke whales may greatly help the recovery of the larger baleen whales.

Changes in population size of baleen whale species in the Antarctic

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fishery/whales/iwc/minke.html

Not all whales are endengered.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

You're the one who claimed to know which life forms can suffer & which can't.

Did I claim I knew exhaustively which life forms suffer or which ones can`t? Don`t think I did, did I? Please go back and find that difinitive statement by me. If you do, then I will correct the statement.

If a robot is so cleverly designed as to be aware of himself, why deny the fact of self awareness?

Didn`t say I would, did I? Does being self aware actually mean one has to be able to experience pain and be able to suffer?

But in how far does this lead to the conclusion: "All animals are worthy of consideration to not cause violence to."

Well, everyone will have to decide how far they personally would like to extend that. Could be cetacia, primates, and so on etc... Little by little it will evolve to be reflected in legal codes and laws by what the majority feels. I do know that the AR movement is well entrenched and the interests of animals are being taken up in court more and more and getting victories on a scale that would have been unimaginable just 100 or even 50 years ago.

& excludes plants, mushrooms, etc. Is it just your rather narrowed illusional focus?

Ahh, interesting (Well, not really). ;-)

 

[strongvoicesforward]

So is suffering the only criteria? What if we could assure that the slaughter was painless?

What if we could assure the elimination of a whole race or country of people were painless?

 

[sabro]

What if we could assure the elimination of a whole race or country of people were painless?

Then it would mean that suffering is not your only criteria.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Then it would mean that suffering is not your only criteria.

It was offered as an absurdity to your strawman argument in question form. Don`t read too much into it.

 

[sabro]

I was just trying to determine what your criteria for determining which species got equal consideration were. It is not clear to me and asking is not meant as a strawman but rather a probe.

 

[bossel]

I was just trying to determine what your criteria for determining which species got equal consideration were. It is not clear to me and asking is not meant as a strawman but rather a probe.

You're not the only one to whom it's not clear.

Did I claim I knew exhaustively which life forms suffer or which ones can`t?

Did I say something about exhaustively?

All animals are worthy of consideration to not cause violence to.

On my response "Plants aren't?" followed your rhetorical question:

Do they show signs of experiencing pain?

& a bit later in another post came this:

But, personally, my reason is based on: "Can they suffer?"

Since you base your judgement on suffering & obviously exclude plants from consideration, the conclusion that you claim to know their insuffering nature seems allowed. But, hey, this is just your illusion, maybe implicatures don't exist in your realm.

Didn`t say I would, did I?

You said:

How do I know you are self aware? You could just be a cleverly designed robot.

Is it possible that you're not a native English speaker? May I recommend to participate in some courses on pragmatics (linguistics).

Does being self aware actually mean one has to be able to experience pain and be able to suffer?

Well, this is your illusion: Does it?

Well, everyone will have to decide how far they personally would like to extend that.

I suppose here we can agree. But you still haven't explained why to draw a line between animals & plants.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

On my response "Plants aren't?"

Plants aren`t animals. Don`t you know that?

But you still haven't explained why to draw a line between animals & plants.

Maybe I wouldn`t draw the line between them if I could observe aversion to pain and suffering that I can comprehend in some way similar to mine from what I demonstrate through action when I am in a state of suffering or pain.

 

[MajideSaiaku]

ureeko, ureko...that bloke has a point, minke whale is back on the menu.

 

[bossel]

Plants aren`t animals. Don`t you know that?

Is that your way of saying that you're not a native English speaker?

Maybe I wouldn`t draw the line between them if I could observe aversion to pain and suffering that I can comprehend in some way similar to mine from what I demonstrate through action when I am in a state of suffering or pain.

Fine, that leads me back to the question:

I still wonder how you know that some sponge [phylum Porifera] can suffer pain while eg. mimosa pudica can't.

Could you share your observations that may lead you to the conclusion that a sponge is closer to your reaction on pain & suffering?

 

[bossel]

ureeko, ureko...that bloke has a point, minke whale is back on the menu.

As usual, Urecco doesn't have much of a point. The statistics he uses are flawed. Minke whales are probably no endangered, but according to genetic research the original population was much higher than is shown.

 

[Jack]

What use does a whale have? seriously what do they do?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Plants aren`t animals. Don`t you know that?

Is that your way of saying that you're not a native English speaker?

No, it is my way of telling you that the subject is about animals.

Could you share your observations that may lead you to the conclusion that a sponge is closer to your reaction on pain & suffering?

I have nerves. A sponge does not.

It is always funny to see people always try to pull the topic off of considering the rights of animals by going to the "plant" and "simple cell organisms," as if they think that is going to deflate considerations for not causing harm to animals.

The Movement grows. Animals are more and more being afforded legal consideration from tyrany and oppression. It is a slow movement. We have no illusions about that. And, I don`t think I have read any judges in cases involving animals render a decision with the "plant" or "sponge" argument. Those who proffer those arguments are the ones going kicking and screaming trying to craft clever arguments to keep the blood letting going.

Lots of work to be done.

Tell me Bossel when you find a judge`s decision on an animal case where he put forth your "plant" and "sponge" querries.

 

[sabro]

A sponge is an animal. (Sponge Bob non-withstanding).
Not all animals have "blood."

 

[urecco]

As usual, Urecco doesn't have much of a point. The statistics he uses are flawed.

Other sources.

What is the Current State of Whale Stocks?
At present the stocks of individual species of whales vary considerably, both in terms of their numbers and distribution in the world's oceans. None of the twelve species of great whales is in imminent danger of extinction, although blue and northern right whales are classed as "endangered". Bowhead, southern right, sei, fin and humpback whales are classed as "vulnerable". On the other hand, the minke whale population in Antarctica is estimated at around 3/4 of a million animals.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/cetaceans/factsheet.htm

MINKE WHALES

Area Southern Hemisphere
Year(s) to which estimate applies 1982/83 - 1988/89
Approximate point estimate 761,000

iwcoffice.org - This website is for sale! - iwcoffice Resources and Information.

If you think the statistics I use are flawed, you should show other statistics.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

A sponge is an animal. (Sponge Bob non-withstanding).
Not all animals have "blood."

I never said I sponge was not an animal, brother Sabro. I merely said they do not have nerves.

 

[bossel]

Plants aren`t animals. Don`t you know that?
No, it is my way of telling you that the subject is about animals.

Subject of this thread is whale hunting, an activity, neither an animal, nor a plant. You came up with the "All animals..." stuff. Which leads to the question why animals & not plants are worthy of consideration. You still haven't given a satisfactory answer.

Eg.

I have nerves. A sponge does not.

You have nerves, a sponge doesn't, mimosa pudica doesn't. Which is still no answer to

Could you share your observations that may lead you to the conclusion that a sponge is closer to your reaction on pain & suffering?

Tell me Bossel when you find a judge`s decision on an animal case where he put forth your "plant" and "sponge" querries.

What's that got to do with the question why you find animals worthy of consideration & not plants?

If you think the statistics I use are flawed, you should show other statistics.

Yawn! Please reread what I wrote in my last post:

Minke whales are probably no endangered, but according to genetic research the original population was much higher than is shown.

I didn't say that the current numbers are flawed (although they are far from precise, anyway). For better estimates of original populations I refer you to Palumbi & Baker.

 

[urecco]

I didn't say that the current numbers are flawed (although they are far from precise, anyway). For better estimates of original populations I refer you to Palumbi & Baker.

Firstly, as a minke whale reproduces annually and easily recovered its population, I doubt that we shouldn't hunt them until they recover its original popuration.

Under International Whaling Commission guidelines, member states can vote to resume whaling if populations are seen to have risen to little more than half of "historic levels".

Secondly, I think you made a mistake.

"A small population tends to weed out all its genetic differ ences through inbreeding," Prof Palumbi said. "A huge population should, by contrast, have a lot more genetic variation."
The scientists restricted their DNA analysis to humpback, fin and minke whales - all of which were once ruthlessly hunted.
"The genetics we've done of whales in the north Atlantic says that, before whaling, there were a total of 800,000 to 900,000 humpback, fin and minke whales - far greater numbers than anybody had ever thought," Prof Palumbi said.
[...]
They also took samples from 87 minke whales and calculated a historic population of 265,000 - around twice the number in the seas today.

Whale count wrong, DNA study reveals
The estimates I used are about the population in Antarctic not in the north Atlantic.

 

[MajideSaiaku]

Plants aren`t animals. Don`t you know that?
No, it is my way of telling you that the subject is about animals.
I have nerves. A sponge does not.
It is always funny to see people always try to pull the topic off of considering the rights of animals by going to the "plant" and "simple cell organisms," as if they think that is going to deflate considerations for not causing harm to animals.
The Movement grows. Animals are more and more being afforded legal consideration from tyrany and oppression. It is a slow movement. We have no illusions about that. And, I don`t think I have read any judges in cases involving animals render a decision with the "plant" or "sponge" argument. Those who proffer those arguments are the ones going kicking and screaming trying to craft clever arguments to keep the blood letting going.
Lots of work to be done.
Tell me Bossel when you find a judge`s decision on an animal case where he put forth your "plant" and "sponge" querries.

Because naturally, your a highly qualified biologist with the authority to tell people what is an animal and what isnt, what can feel pain and what cant.

Take your tree-hugging fanaticism elsewhere, i like nature and animals but at least im not a total bloody eco-loony.
"tyranny and opression", man, how many times ive heard islamic nut-jobs say that to, bossel isnt trying to say animals dont feel pain, what hes asking you is what is an animal and what isnt?......youd be suprised the things that are classified as animals, but being qualified in anything but actual biological science, you wouldnt know that right?.

Why is it that only animals with what you understand to be a nervious system deserve protection?, while its okay to continue to reap plants and lower lifeforms?......Chances are you have a very limited idea of what is pain, and what a sensory system is.
Were not pulling the topic "off" to derail you because you think your argument is so flawless (flawless arguments are the havens of fanatics), were pointing out important things which cant be ignored...that is that the definition of animal is greater then that which stands on four legs or breaths through a blowhole, and that theres many other ways for an organism to sense its surroundings then with a nervious system.

But being woefully short on real facts and knowledge, you wouldnt know that?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

<SNIP>

Deletion of double posting.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Because naturally, your a highly qualified biologist with the authority to tell people what is an animal and what isnt, what can feel pain and what cant.

Your rant sure is painful.

Note: "your" does not equal "you are." The former is a possessive, the latter is a contraction. Normally, I don't critique a poster's grammatical or punctuation errors, but since you seem to be high on Bossel I thought I would point this out to you since Bossel seems to be interested in English as a member's native language. But, don`t take it hard, we all make mistakes of the kind here. After all, we are not writing universty papers, are we, Bossel?

Take your tree-hugging fanaticism elsewhere, i like nature and animals but at least im not a total bloody eco-loony.

No, you just sound like a "total loony" without a cause.

"tyranny and opression", man, how many times ive heard islamic nut-jobs say that to, bossel isnt trying to say animals dont feel pain, what hes asking you is what is an animal and what isnt?......youd be suprised the things that are classified as animals, but being qualified in anything but actual biological science, you wouldnt know that right?.

Well, I am quite surprised at your reading comprehension ability. I don't think Bossel ever asked me "what is an animal?" and "What isn't?" Could you show me where he asked me that?

Bossel, did you ask me that? Nurizeko seems to be delusional or seeing things that don't exist. Maybe his rant has caused him to pop a blood vessel or something.

Nurizeko, please show me where Bossel asked me that question and then I will apologise for questioning your reading comprehension. Until then, you might want to enroll in a class to help you with reading comprehension skills.

Why is it that only animals with what you understand to be a nervious system deserve protection?, while its okay to continue to reap plants and lower lifeforms?......Chances are you have a very limited idea of what is pain, and what a sensory system is.

lol. hmmm...well, nurizeko, I know I don't like pain. If you tell me you don't mind it, I will gladly hit you over the head with a hammer continuously. Now, if you move away from it or scream out or act in some way I am familiar with the concept of pain, then I will assume you don't like pain and I will stop causing it to you. Hopefully by then, it may have adjusted some of your "looniness." ;-)

Were not pulling the topic "off" to derail you because you think your argument is so flawless (flawless arguments are the havens of fanatics), were pointing out important things which cant be ignored...that is that the definition of animal is greater then that which stands on four legs or breaths through a blowhole, and that theres many other ways for an organism to sense its surroundings then with a nervious system.

Bossel, ask Nurizeko if his/her first language is English, or if he/she doesn't understand "contractions."

Who ever said anything about denying the title "animal" to anything that doesn't walk on four legs or breaths through a blowhole?

I didn't say there was no way an animal might not be able to sense its surrounding except for a nervous system, did I? I just said that a sponge does not have nerves.

But being woefully short on real facts and knowledge, you wouldnt know that?

I certainly am not a Jshok Cousteauo (sp?).

Have a nice day, Nurizeko. Don't forget about looking into a class on reading comprehension and remember contractions. Bossel is interested in native Englsh language ability so since you reference him, you may want to write in a way that could please him.

 

[sabro]

I'm not sure what to do. I was laughing rather hard at nurizeko's rebuke in the last post- I had to give him a rep point. Now should I also be tell him that he is a very bad boy. I wouldn't want to seem like a hypocrite to you.

As far as the oceanographer Jacques Cousteau.

I guess it is too bad that we can't eat sponges.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I was laughing rather hard at nurizeko's rebuke in the last post-

lol! Yes, I was laughing hard at it, too. I think I may give him a rep point also for making me laugh. Besides from always writing "your" when it clearly is not a contraction of "you are," he/she was quite loony.

 

[sabro]

I shy away from criticizing the spelling, typing, grammar and punctuation on forums. It is poor form and discourages participation. I would offer suggestions and corrections only when indicated.