MajideSaiaku
tsuyaku o tsukete kudasai
- 19 Jan 2005
- 1,381
- 59
Look at it this way, if an animal (or plant) species starts breeding and domesticating us, we can assume its sentient.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fishery/whales/iwc/minke.htmlMinke 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
bossel said:You're the one who claimed to know which life forms can suffer & which can't.
If a robot is so cleverly designed as to be aware of himself, why deny the fact of self awareness?
But in how far does this lead to the conclusion: "All animals are worthy of consideration to not cause violence to."
& excludes plants, mushrooms, etc. Is it just your rather narrowed illusional focus?
sabro said:So is suffering the only criteria? What if we could assure that the slaughter was painless?
Then it would mean that suffering is not your only criteria.strongvoicesforward said:What if we could assure the elimination of a whole race or country of people were painless?
sabro said:Then it would mean that suffering is not your only criteria.
You're not the only one to whom it's not clear.sabro said: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.
Did I say something about exhaustively?strongvoicesforward said:Did I claim I knew exhaustively which life forms suffer or which ones can`t?
On my response "Plants aren't?" followed your rhetorical question:strongvoicesforward said:All animals are worthy of consideration to not cause violence to.
& a bit later in another post came this:strongvoicesforward said:Do they show signs of experiencing pain?
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.strongvoicesforward said:But, personally, my reason is based on: "Can they suffer?"
You said:Didn`t say I would, did I?
Is it possible that you're not a native English speaker? May I recommend to participate in some courses on pragmatics (linguistics).strongvoicesforward said:How do I know you are self aware? You could just be a cleverly designed robot.
Well, this is your illusion: Does it?Does being self aware actually mean one has to be able to experience pain and be able to suffer?
I suppose here we can agree. But you still haven't explained why to draw a line between animals & plants.Well, everyone will have to decide how far they personally would like to extend that.
bossel said:On my response "Plants aren't?"
But you still haven't explained why to draw a line between animals & plants.
Is that your way of saying that you're not a native English speaker?strongvoicesforward said:Plants aren`t animals. Don`t you know that?
Fine, that leads me back to the question: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.
Could you share your observations that may lead you to the conclusion that a sponge is closer to your reaction on pain & suffering?bossel said:I still wonder how you know that some sponge [phylum Porifera] can suffer pain while eg. mimosa pudica can't.
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.nurizeko said:ureeko, ureko...that bloke has a point, minke whale is back on the menu.
Is that your way of saying that you're not a native English speaker?
bossel said:Could you share your observations that may lead you to the conclusion that a sponge is closer to your reaction on pain & suffering?
bossel said:As usual, Urecco doesn't have much of a point. The statistics he uses are flawed.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/cetaceans/factsheet.htmWhat 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.
iwcoffice.org - This website is for sale! - iwcoffice Resources and Information.MINKE WHALES
Area Southern Hemisphere
Year(s) to which estimate applies 1982/83 - 1988/89
Approximate point estimate 761,000
sabro said:A sponge is an animal. (Sponge Bob non-withstanding).
Not all animals have "blood."
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.strongvoicesforward said:Plants aren`t animals. Don`t you know that?
No, it is my way of telling you that the subject is about animals.
You have nerves, a sponge doesn't, mimosa pudica doesn't. Which is still no answer toI have nerves. A sponge does not.
bossel said:Could you share your observations that may lead you to the conclusion that a sponge is closer to your reaction on pain & suffering?
What's that got to do with the question why you find animals worthy of consideration & not plants?strongvoicesforward said:Tell me Bossel when you find a judge`s decision on an animal case where he put forth your "plant" and "sponge" querries.
Yawn! Please reread what I wrote in my last post:urecco said:If you think the statistics I use are flawed, you should show other statistics.
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.bossel said:Minke whales are probably no endangered, but according to genetic research the original population was much higher than is shown.
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.bossel said: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.
Secondly, I think you made a mistake.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".
Whale count wrong, DNA study reveals"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.
strongvoicesforward said: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.
nurizeko said: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?
sabro said:I was laughing rather hard at nurizeko's rebuke in the last post-