What's new

Whale meat turned into dog food!

Welcome to our Japan community!

A discussion forum for all Things Japanese. Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
73
Well there you go, whale meat will be ending up in a local petshop near you, a company is selling meat on the web as "healthy and safe natural" dog food. Natural? Did you ever see a wild dog reletave swim out to sea and kill a whale? Healthy? I doubt the huge quantity of blubber/fat will be healthy for dogs.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Anger over whale pet food claims

And the vast bulk of whales cought and killed by the Japanese aern't even killed in a humane manner a report says "Japan reported almost 60% were not killed outright";

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Whaling 'too cruel to continue'

"We have heard many arguments from Japan over the years about why whaling is necessary to them but they have never stated that they needed to kill whales to feed their dogs."

"It says the average estimated time to death is more than two minutes, and that some whales take over an hour to die."

Considering their internal organs are exploded from the inside via modern harpoon technology, taking over an hour to die is horrendous and must cause extreme suffering for the animal to die, whales are also amoungst some of the most intelligent and rare animals on the planet.

" It says criteria for assessing the time it takes a whale to die are unreliable, with some animals possibly surviving long after they are judged to be dead."

"Dr Lillie wrote: "If we can imagine a horse having two or three explosive spears stuck in its stomach and being made to pull a butcher's truck through the streets of London while it pours blood into the gutter, we shall have an idea of the method of killing.

"The gunners themselves admit that if whales could scream the industry would stop, for nobody would be able to stand it."

At least Norway is making great efforts to kill whales more humanely while japan is making no effort at all and has one of the highest slow death rates for whales it kills in the World.

There is a glut of whale meat being produced in Japan, the goverment is killing far more whales than what there is actually demand for, many japanese themselves are against whaling or simply do not like the meat- even for those that do like eating whale meat, there's far more whales being killed than what they can actually eat.

If everyone if japan decided to eat whale meat tomorrow, the the majority of whale species would go extinct.

Im sorry(well not really), but i strongly disagree with eating whale meat, we have no real reason to eat these magnificent creatures apart from to feed our completely self-scented/selfish greedy desires.
I see no real justafiable reason/s for japan to kill whales at all.
I am strongly against whaling not only in japan, but in general. full stop.
 

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
73
"Worth far more alive than dead"

232X150_WHALE_MEATJPG-1.jpg


whalerjp-1.jpg






stabbed_whale-1.jpg


mom_baby_eye-1.jpg


svBURGER_narrowweb__300x360-1.jpg



.... ...... .....
 

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
73
mad pierrot said:
On a side note, although I actually like whale meat, it's not very healthy.
Mercury, anyone? (see link below.)
Packaged Whale Meat in Japan Contains High Levels of Mercury
Mercury contamination aside, I still feel there is nothing wrong with eating whale.

So you dont mind eating a rare animal that could have taken up to over an hour to die after it had its stomache exploded? You honestly do not mind financially supporting the killing of such an animal in such a way for the sake of the taste of its meat when their are billions of other things you can eat?
 

Reiku

先輩
Joined
23 Aug 2004
Messages
464
Reaction score
8
No.

Watch a nature doumentary sometime--slow cruel deaths are not man's sole playground. In fact, both cats and orcas (sometimes called "Killer Whales", although they are not whales) toy with their food in a manner that puts most human cases of animal cruelty to shame. Then there are the various parasitic species that lay their eggs in another living animal--some killing, mutilating, and or causing horrible pain in the process.

I could go on and on, but I'm hungry--so I'll go fix myself a tuna sandwhich. Don't look at me like that, I like tuna--especially the yellowfins because they look like punk rockers--but they're edible, and they taste good, and that makes them food.
 

mad pierrot

I jump to conclusions
Joined
22 Nov 2003
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
82
In answer to your questions...

No, I'm not for the inhumane slaughter of anything.
I'm also not for basing my judgments off information released by self-interest groups to the mass media. I'm not calling them liars, but I would say they certainly aren't the most impartial group in the world.

For example:
"It says the average estimated time to death is more than two minutes, and that some whales take over an hour to die."

Great. Some whales. Any reliable statics here? If only 1 whale out of 200 died that way, I could still say the above statement and not be called a liar.

Now on to Dr. Lillie.
Dr Lillie wrote: "If we can imagine a horse having two or three explosive spears stuck in its stomach and being made to pull a butcher's truck through the streets of London while it pours blood into the gutter, we shall have an idea of the method of killing.
Dr. Lillie is certainly an expert on the modern Japanese Whaling industy. I'm sure that his information is all up-to-date, and I'm assuming he's been on a variety of whaling vessels.

Err.... Um.... To bad he wasn't. Well, he was on a whaling vessel once, 66 years ago. And he was an evironmental activist. Either way, I'm sure one guys testimony on boat trip in the 1940's should be used to judge all the practices of modern Japanese whaling.

Anyways...
I'm getting offtopic. In my post I stated I don't see anything wrong with eating whale. I didn't say that whale are being killed in the most humane way possible. They probably aren't. But the right to eat whale? Yes, I support that right. As far as there being billions of other things to eat, sure. But how do we decide which animals gets preferential treatment? Everyone has their own biases.

Would you support whaling if whales were slaughter in a more humane manner?
 

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
73
Reiku said:
No.

Watch a nature doumentary sometime--slow cruel deaths are not man's sole playground. In fact, both cats and orcas (sometimes called "Killer Whales", although they are not whales) toy with their food in a manner that puts most human cases of animal cruelty to shame. Then there are the various parasitic species that lay their eggs in another living animal--some killing, mutilating, and or causing horrible pain in the process.

I could go on and on, but I'm hungry--so I'll go fix myself a tuna sandwhich. Don't look at me like that, I like tuna--especially the yellowfins because they look like punk rockers--but they're edible, and they taste good, and that makes them food.

Yes people are animals, but we are animals that have the ability of concious and the ability of awareness of morality and what is humane or not, at least to a certain degree.
To say its fine to cause great suffering to animal just because other animals do it is stupid/wrong in my opinion. Its like saying "Oh look, that lion started to disembowl that zebra while it was still coughing up blood with its last breath" or "That wolf pack chased that deer for 2hrs before they dragged it down to the ground and started chowing down its wind pipe".
Such justification as yours could be used to inflict all sorts of cruel acts on animals...

We are human beings though.
Wether thats a good thing or not though, is debatable, but thats another subject altogether.

I believe as a human being, you should try to not cause suffering to a species of animal, especially if it will not benefet that animals species in any form or way. If you want to be just another mindless animal, thats your choice, if you want to be a highly evolved human being though, well thats also your choice. But speaking from the perspective of the general human understanding of animal morality, whaling is wrong. I do not believe we don't have the ability to understand suffering and its effects and morality, which is why i think its no excuse or justification just to say "other animals dont do it so why should we?" .
 

Reiku

先輩
Joined
23 Aug 2004
Messages
464
Reaction score
8
My god, you are a fool.

What awareness of morality does humanity posess? What proof to you have of this claim?

Or are you merely repeating what you've been told, like a "mindless animal"--a parrot, in this case.

For that matter, how do you know that other animals do not posess this same awareness?

Did they tell you?

Perhaps all the animals you spoke to were sociopaths, and not representative of their species.

You base your opinions on emotions and beliefs, I base mine on facts and reason--which of us is chosing to be a "mindless animal"?

Baka ningen.
 

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
73
mad pierrot said:
No, I'm not for the inhumane slaughter of anything.
I'm also not for basing my judgments off information released by self-interest groups to the mass media. I'm not calling them liars, but I would say they certainly aren't the most impartial group in the world.
For example:
Great. Some whales. Any reliable statics here? If only 1 whale out of 200 died that way, I could still say the above statement and not be called a liar.
Now on to Dr. Lillie.
Dr. Lillie is certainly an expert on the modern Japanese Whaling industy. I'm sure that his information is all up-to-date, and I'm assuming he's been on a variety of whaling vessels.
Err.... Um.... To bad he wasn't. Well, he was on a whaling vessel once, 66 years ago. And he was an evironmental activist. Either way, I'm sure one guys testimony on boat trip in the 1940's should be used to judge all the practices of modern Japanese whaling.
Anyways...
I'm getting offtopic. In my post I stated I don't see anything wrong with eating whale. I didn't say that whale are being killed in the most humane way possible. They probably aren't. But the right to eat whale? Yes, I support that right. As far as there being billions of other things to eat, sure. But how do we decide which animals gets preferential treatment? Everyone has their own biases.
Would you support whaling if whales were slaughter in a more humane manner?

It doesn't change the fact that the first statement is a fact, if a little vague, its still notifying something that is true.
Even if only 1 out of 200 hundred whales took over an hour to die, does that make it anymore morally correct? I personally do not think so.
How would you feel if you found out that 1000people were executed, 5 of them took over an hour to die in an incredibly painful form of death/euthanasia? Would you say, "oh well, its ok because at least most of the people only took a couple of minutes to die"?

Just because Dr. lillie is not an expert on japans whaling industry, so are you indicating that his opinion does not matter or should be ignored on the whole because he is not an expert? Do you think my opinion should be ignored because i agree with him because i am not an expert on japans whaling industry?

And as for the question, if you are asking my honest personal opinion, i dont think its right to eat whales as it does nothing beneficial for the rare species survival in question.
For example, i agree with the eating of rare Essex Saddleback pigs, because if there was no human demand for their consumption, they would simply go extinct. They almost went extinct a couple of years ago because the low demand for their consumption dropped to much.
I agree though with eating pheasants for example, because they are not rare or endangered, and despite the fact they would most likely still survive and prosper as a species if we didn't financially support the eating of them, in the vast majority of cases it is well known they are humanely killed.
I dont agree with eating whales because the eating of whales is very bad for their species no matter how you look at it.
Using your justification, its like saying you have the right to eat grey wolves. Would you still say you have every right to eat the domesticated dogs close relatives? How far does your reasoning for the right to eat whales apply to other species of rare animals? Or do you simply think that eating whale meat isn't as bad as eating other rare animal meat?
 

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
73
Reiku said:
My god, you are a fool.

What awareness of morality does humanity posess? What proof to you have of this claim?

Or are you merely repeating what you've been told, like a "mindless animal"--a parrot, in this case.

For that matter, how do you know that other animals do not posess this same awareness?

Did they tell you?

Perhaps all the animals you spoke to were sociopaths, and not representative of their species.

You base your opinions on emotions and beliefs, I base mine on facts and reason--which of us is chosing to be a "mindless animal"?

Baka ningen.

My god you are a fool too.
Its stupid to say there isn't any proof that humans can express acts of morality- there are millions of cases of particular members of the human race expressing morality every day.

For example, i do not eat battery farmed food due to the morality of it- surely this is an example of me, a human being, displaying the ability/awareness to show/display morality?

If you base your opinions on facts, then surely you do know that there isn't any proof of animals displaying acts of morality? Have you ever seen any proof of a lion taking further thought of consideration on the zebra's behalf, to kill it humanely, before it decides to act upon its thought of killing it?

Surely if you are a person of facts, then surely you are contradicting yourself by saying "im a person of facts, there's no evidence/facts of human beings having the ability to express morality"- (thus indicating you believe this theory because asking me if i can answer it) -but then you say "Theres no evidence of animals not having the ability to show morality".
Make up your mind. Whats your point if you cannot list any examples/facts of animals showing morality?
You cannot essentially say "human beings are guilty until proven innocent" and then say "animals are inncoent until proven guilty"- sorry if i am blabbering on a bit, but apart from your theory that i am a person of emotion rather than facts(which i personally disagree with by the way, so your second questions is irrelevant), what exactly is your point?
 

Luthien Rogue

後輩
Joined
19 Sep 2005
Messages
105
Reaction score
9
Hey everyone. 🙂

In response to the original question: All life is equal; eating whale meat is no better than eating any other type of meat. I think it's sad that instead of removing an animal from "The List," we're adding another one to it...

Watch a nature doumentary sometime--slow cruel deaths are not man's sole playground. In fact, both cats and orcas (sometimes called "Killer Whales", although they are not whales) toy with their food in a manner that puts most human cases of animal cruelty to shame.

You're justifying your actions by saying "animals do it too"? That's like trying to justify your actions by saying "but...that five-year-old did it too!" :p

Some animals will kill their young; does that mean we should to, or it would be okay if we did?

Animals are capable of emotions that some believe only humans are capable of. Animals feel pain. Animals have emotional attachments to other people and animals. If you've ever had a pet, you would know this is very true. Saying it's okay to let even one of them suffer seems very cruel.

People should be expected to take care of "lesser" species, since we have the ability to.

Please, just tell me one difference between us and animals that makes it ok for us to kill them while it isn't ok for people to kill another human.

If an animal were to kill a human for any reason it would be put down. If an animal killed someone you loved, would you say "Oh, that's what animals do... oh well, no big deal"? :p We should try to treat everyone and everything equally, rather than let our selfish cravings and desires decide things for us.

🙇‍♂️

By the way... let's try doing this without any childish name-calling... (which certainly doesn't help you prove your point...)

With much metta,
~LR
 

mad pierrot

I jump to conclusions
Joined
22 Nov 2003
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
82
It doesn't change the fact that the first statement is a fact, if a little vague, its still notifying something that is true.

Yes, it's a fact that some whales don't die immediately. But because it's so vague it's a misleading fact. It doesn't say how many or under what circumstances they die under, or how and by whom this was determined. I merely wanted to point out that this is a highly subjective subject, and this was a far from objective statement.

You are free to decide what is morally correct, I never said otherwise. Then again, I don't think this argument is about the moral legitimacy of a small percentage of a group's suffering over the whole.

Just because Dr. lillie is not an expert on japans whaling industry, so are you indicating that his opinion does not matter or should be ignored on the whole because he is not an expert? Do you think my opinion should be ignored because i agree with him because i am not an expert on japans whaling industry?

Well, this is a thread about whaling in Japan posted under the whaling in Japan section. Seeing as his experience was half a century ago in completely different circumstances, I think it's safe to question its relevancy to this discussion. And no, I don't think your opinion should be discarded. I never said it should be. Although, I think having a reliable source of information helps make a more convincing argument.

I dont agree with eating whales because the eating of whales is very bad for their species no matter how you look at it.

Actually, I think the species in question is the minke whale. This has been discussed before on the forums, and I think it's generally been shown that Minke Whales are NOT in danger of being hunted to extinction by Japanese whaling vessels.

Using your justification, its like saying you have the right to eat grey wolves.

Actually, I never stated my justification. I only stated that I was for the right to consume whale meat. I didn't mention why. You are assuming quite abit about my reasoning, actually. I'm entirely against anything that would threaten a species with extinction. In general, it seems that Minke whales will not be eaten to death by the Japanese population. If you can find data that will prove me wrong, by all means, do so! I will be the first to support you.

FYI, I would like to try dog someday.

OK- Let's remember to keep this civil, too! No name calling, Reiku. I happen to love these kind of debates but let's not let our contentions get carried away!
 

Reiku

先輩
Joined
23 Aug 2004
Messages
464
Reaction score
8
A piece of advice, Tokis-Phoenix: quotation marks are meant to be used for quotes not misrepresentations.

I never said there wasn't any proof that humans have a capacity for morality, I asked you what awareness of it they had and what proof you had of that awareness.

Likewise, I never said "Theres no evidence of animals not having the ability to show morality"--I asked you how you knew they didn't posess it.

I questioned your beliefs--I did not state my own, other than my belief that you are a fool.

Now that you have answered my questions, I will answer yours:

Tokis-Phoenix said:
For example, i do not eat battery farmed food due to the morality of it- surely this is an example of me, a human being, displaying the ability/awareness to show/display morality?

No.

People do not object to cruelty and death because of morality, they object to them because of an instinctive fear that they will be victims of them.

Instinctually, we recognize that there is no seperation between humans and animals. We are a category of animal, and therefore the concept of "harm to animals" also includes "harm to humans"...

...Because we are human, "harm to humans" also includes "harm to ourselves"...

...thus we are driven to prevent "harm to animals" in the hopes of reducing the risk to ourselves.

This is not morality, it is a self-serving survival instinct.

You can dissagree, but your refusal to accept the truth does not disprove it.

Tokis-Phoenix said:
If you base your opinions on facts, then surely you do know that there isn't any proof of animals displaying acts of morality?

No.

There is evidence to support it, just as there is evidence to support morality in humans--but these behaviours can more readily be explained as the result of survival instincts than the posession of a moral compass.

Tokis-Phoenix said:
Have you ever seen any proof of a lion taking further thought of consideration on the zebra's behalf, to kill it humanely, before it decides to act upon its thought of killing it?

No.

There are examples of lions and other species developing "more humane" methods of killing--but I would say that a quick, painless death that does not give the prey oppotunity or inclination to fight back would be more efficient, and that could be mistaken for consideration.

Tokis-Phoenix said:
Surely if you are a person of facts, then surely you are contradicting yourself by saying "im a person of facts, there's no evidence/facts of human beings having the ability to express morality"- (thus indicating you believe this theory because asking me if i can answer it) -but then you say "Theres no evidence of animals not having the ability to show morality".

That would be a contradiction, but I did not say either of those things.

I am a person of facts, and the facts indicate that "morality" is a purely fictional concept grown from our misunderstanding of--or refusal to accept--our instincts.

Tokis-Phoenix said:
Make up your mind. Whats your point if you cannot list any examples/facts of animals showing morality?
You cannot essentially say "human beings are guilty until proven innocent" and then say "animals are inncoent until proven guilty"- sorry if i am blabbering on a bit, but apart from your theory that i am a person of emotion rather than facts(which i personally disagree with by the way, so your second questions is irrelevant), what exactly is your point?

My point is that you do not understand what you are talking about--a point you have just helped me prove.

[edit]In regards to the posts adressing my use of "childish name calling": I was stating my opinion--an opinion based on facts, I might add.

Personally, I find the increasing bombardment of this forum by ignorant animal-rights posts far more offensive than making an honest observation of someone's intellect.[/edit]
 
Last edited:

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
73
Reiku said:
A piece of advice, Tokis-Phoenix: quotation marks are meant to be used for quotes not misrepresentations.
I never said there wasn't any proof that humans have a capacity for morality, I asked you what awareness of it they had and what proof you had of that awareness.
Likewise, I never said "Theres no evidence of animals not having the ability to show morality"--I asked you how you knew they didn't posess it.
I questioned your beliefs--I did not state my own, other than my belief that you are a fool.
Now that you have answered my questions, I will answer yours:
No.
People do not object to cruelty and death because of morality, they object to them because of an instinctive fear that they will be victims of them.
Instinctually, we recognize that there is no seperation between humans and animals. We are a category of animal, and therefore the concept of "harm to animals" also includes "harm to humans"...
...Because we are human, "harm to humans" also includes "harm to ourselves"...
...thus we are driven to prevent "harm to animals" in the hopes of reducing the risk to ourselves.
This is not morality, it is a self-serving survival instinct.
You can dissagree, but your refusal to accept the truth does not disprove it.
No.
There is evidence to support it, just as there is evidence to support morality in humans--but these behaviours can more readily be explained as the result of survival instincts than the posession of a moral compass.
No.
There are examples of lions and other species developing "more humane" methods of killing--but I would say that a quick, painless death that does not give the prey oppotunity or inclination to fight back would be more efficient, and that could be mistaken for consideration.
That would be a contradiction, but I did not say either of those things.
I am a person of facts, and the facts indicate that "morality" is a purely fictional concept grown from our misunderstanding of--or refusal to accept--our instincts.
My point is that you do not understand what you are talking about--a point you have just helped me prove.
[edit]In regards to the posts adressing my use of "childish name calling": I was stating my opinion--an opinion based on facts, I might add.
Personally, I find the increasing bombardment of this forum by ignorant animal-rights posts far more offensive than making an honest observation of someone's intellect.[/edit]



So based on your understanding or morality, how exactly do you define morally correct?

"People do not object to cruelty and death because of morality, they object to them because of an instinctive fear that they will be victims of them.
Instinctually, we recognize that there is no seperation between humans and animals. We are a category of animal, and therefore the concept of "harm to animals" also includes "harm to humans"..."

Im sorry but i disagree with this.
People can object to death and cruelty for all sorts of reasons, i think your theory on the human race objecting to cruelty and death is wrong as it can hardly be applied to everyone as well as i do not see any "proof" for your theory- you cannot sum up every persons reason for objecting to death and cruelty will your few words or theory, im sure most people here who have done somthing for the sake of morality will agree with me here on this.

I may just be assuming this, but you seem to believe we are all run by unconscious untrollable instincts, like fear, to a large extent, particually in the scenario you just explained. I disgree with this. For example, i do not eat battery chicken because i fear ending up in a cage living in misery for the rest of my life, but rather, i do not eat battery farmed chicken because i think it is unesasary to put an animal, in this case a chicken, through so much suffering all in the name of a cheap peice of chicken meat. There is no instinctive fear factor to it, it is just logical, at least to me, not to cause unesarsary suffering to an animal if you can help it. The reason it is an action of morality, is because i am not eating chicken in for that very reason, rather than say, not eating it because of personal health problems i may get from eating it or because i like the taste of free range chicken etc.
It has nothing to do with a "self-serving survival instinct" as you put it as far as im concerned, and i am sorry to say you are not really giving me any real evidence or facts to help me agree with you either.

You have not proved anything. I dont know why you seem to believe that your opinions, which is all they are, are accounted for as proof or even evidence.

By the way, i am no animal rights activist- i say and do what i think is right at that particular point in time, i think its sad that you seem to have this notion that anyone you cares about whales as far as whaling is concerned, is an animal rights activist- if anything, thats pretty arrogant of you.
I also appologise if you feel i am bombarding you with my disagreement of your opinions.
Im sorry I also have to agree with mad pierrot that name-calling is childish no matter how you look at it- no one is trying to take away your ability to call people fools. Not that im calling myself innocent or anything 😊 .
 

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
73
mad pierrot said:
Yes, it's a fact that some whales don't die immediately. But because it's so vague it's a misleading fact. It doesn't say how many or under what circumstances they die under, or how and by whom this was determined. I merely wanted to point out that this is a highly subjective subject, and this was a far from objective statement.
You are free to decide what is morally correct, I never said otherwise. Then again, I don't think this argument is about the moral legitimacy of a small percentage of a group's suffering over the whole.
Well, this is a thread about whaling in Japan posted under the whaling in Japan section. Seeing as his experience was half a century ago in completely different circumstances, I think it's safe to question its relevancy to this discussion. And no, I don't think your opinion should be discarded. I never said it should be. Although, I think having a reliable source of information helps make a more convincing argument.
Actually, I think the species in question is the minke whale. This has been discussed before on the forums, and I think it's generally been shown that Minke Whales are NOT in danger of being hunted to extinction by Japanese whaling vessels.
Actually, I never stated my justification. I only stated that I was for the right to consume whale meat. I didn't mention why. You are assuming quite abit about my reasoning, actually. I'm entirely against anything that would threaten a species with extinction. In general, it seems that Minke whales will not be eaten to death by the Japanese population. If you can find data that will prove me wrong, by all means, do so! I will be the first to support you.
FYI, I would like to try dog someday.
OK- Let's remember to keep this civil, too! No name calling, Reiku. I happen to love these kind of debates but let's not let our contentions get carried away!


I am sorry mad pierrot for assuming your justification, sometimes i can end up assuming too much in debates 😊 , but it would help, if only for me, a great deal if you state some sort of justification for your opinions/comments when you say them, as i guess in essence in can be like a misleading fact as far as the whale death fact(which i agree is misleading but i'll get onto that in a bit) in the sense that most people assume others to explain their opinions in a debate, and thus those who dont try to justify their opinions generally get alot "assumed" about them.
I do agree though in the end I was wrong for assuming so much about your opinion.

As to the "fact" or statement or whatever you want to call it, yes it can be misleading either way you look at it. As you've probably gathered, part of why i am so against whaling in japan rather than other places in the world(as there are many other countries that do whaling), japan has one of the most inefficient ways of telling if whales are completely dead or not- the fact that the statement suggested that some whales caught by the japanese can take over an hour to die, is evidence in my opinion that it must happen enough to be even acknowledged by japans poor methods of telling if whales are dead or not. To what extent inhumane/inefficient whale killings go on is another question, and I’m sure no matter how in depth you research the answer to that question, it will always be very difficult to answer, but i am deeply concerned that its possible for a whale to even take that long to die especially with our update technology of whale killing weapons.
I take it that 2minutes is the minimum amount of time a whale can take to die and over 1 hour is roughly the maximum on average, which then leads to the question that what is the average amount of time for whales to die or how many whales take to die in between those figures and the exact time. It would certainly be important and interesting to find out at least in my opinion, to discover the general effectiveness of the weapons used to kill the whales on average in various countries.
You can always make a weapon more efficient, it is worrying then that japan, with one of the most highest rates for inefficient whale killings, is doing the least to improve its own technology, but rather relying on Norway, which has one of the lowest rates for efficient/humane killings, who is doing the most to improve her whaling technology.
As you have probably already gathered, im very into the theory/questions of morality, but i personally think that if japan is going to continue bringing in one of the largest overall rates of whale killings every year, it should take far more responsibility than it already is over is whaling? Surely you agree with this, no?
Right now as far as the killing of whales is concerned with japan, japan is like the one driving the car but relying on the passenger to drive it for them. It should be the other way around- japan should be setting the best example of efficient whaling towards its whaling siblings because it has the most responsibility over the highest whale intake every year.


Here is a short article on minke whales;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/58.shtml

If you check out the mink whale fact file in the whale dog food link at the start of the thread, it says ツ“There are no agreed current estimates of population. The IWC suggests there may be more than 130,000 common minke but considerably fewer than the 1980s estimate of 760,000 Antarctic minke.ツ”
Which means their numbers are considerably lower than what they were just 20yrs ago. Which when you take into consideration that over 900 million tons of battery farmed animals are consumed in Britain every year, that’s a very small population for any species of animal.
Minke whales are not endangered I agree, but their population is painfully small. Considering that japan had a bulk of whale meat this year, I think it was something like 60% more than what there was demand for, I think its completely unnecessary to too kill so many minke whales considering that although they are not an endangered species, they are still very rare. To use such a rare animal for dog food is especially unacceptable in my opinion.
Do you agree its wrong to kill minke whales for dog food?
 

Reiku

先輩
Joined
23 Aug 2004
Messages
464
Reaction score
8
Tokis-Phoenix said:
So based on your understanding or morality, how exactly do you define morally correct?
"People do not object to cruelty and death because of morality, they object to them because of an instinctive fear that they will be victims of them.
Instinctually, we recognize that there is no seperation between humans and animals. We are a category of animal, and therefore the concept of "harm to animals" also includes "harm to humans"..."
Im sorry but i disagree with this.
People can object to death and cruelty for all sorts of reasons, i think your theory on the human race objecting to cruelty and death is wrong as it can hardly be applied to everyone as well as i do not see any "proof" for your theory- you cannot sum up every persons reason for objecting to death and cruelty will your few words or theory, im sure most people here who have done somthing for the sake of morality will agree with me here on this.
I may just be assuming this, but you seem to believe we are all run by unconscious untrollable instincts, like fear, to a large extent, particually in the scenario you just explained. I disgree with this. For example, i do not eat battery chicken because i fear ending up in a cage living in misery for the rest of my life, but rather, i do not eat battery farmed chicken because i think it is unesasary to put an animal, in this case a chicken, through so much suffering all in the name of a cheap peice of chicken meat. There is no instinctive fear factor to it, it is just logical, at least to me, not to cause unesarsary suffering to an animal if you can help it. The reason it is an action of morality, is because i am not eating chicken in for that very reason, rather than say, not eating it because of personal health problems i may get from eating it or because i like the taste of free range chicken etc.
It has nothing to do with a "self-serving survival instinct" as you put it as far as im concerned, and i am sorry to say you are not really giving me any real evidence or facts to help me agree with you either.
You have not proved anything. I dont know why you seem to believe that your opinions, which is all they are, are accounted for as proof or even evidence.
By the way, i am no animal rights activist- i say and do what i think is right at that particular point in time, i think its sad that you seem to have this notion that anyone you cares about whales as far as whaling is concerned, is an animal rights activist- if anything, thats pretty arrogant of you.
I also appologise if you feel i am bombarding you with my disagreement of your opinions.
Im sorry I also have to agree with mad pierrot that name-calling is childish no matter how you look at it- no one is trying to take away your ability to call people fools. Not that im calling myself innocent or anything 😊 .

As I said, you can dissagree-but I doubt you can disprove.

The fact remains that humans--like all animals--are affected powerfully by their subconcious instincts. The key word here is "subconscious".

You may consciously think whatever you like, even chosing to override your instincts in some cases--but those instincts are still there, and if you do not oppose them they will subtly and strongly affect everything that you do.

In the case of "morality", we label the things we do not want to happen to us as "bad", and the things we want to have happen to us as "good"--but these are just artifitial concepts, not related to any reality outside of our own desires.

I have already explained the process in detail--that you refuse to "see any proof" does not mean there is none. This has all been scientifically proven for quite some time and although that does not mean it is nessecarily true, it has yet to be disproved--so the burden of proof is yours.

You could aslo argue that you do not "see any proof" that the earth orbits the sun, but this only shows either ignorance on your part or refusal to accept proof when it is shown.

Either way, I am not inclined to waste my time trying to prove someting to a person who will not listen.

I would be happy to find someone who can challenge my statements logically and disprove the theories I have presented--but so far I have yet to be preseted with a logical, informed rebuttal to any of my views on humanity, the environment, or evolution.
 

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
73
Reiku said:
As I said, you can dissagree-but I doubt you can disprove.
The fact remains that humans--like all animals--are affected powerfully by their subconcious instincts. The key word here is "subconscious".
You may consciously think whatever you like, even chosing to override your instincts in some cases--but those instincts are still there, and if you do not oppose them they will subtly and strongly affect everything that you do.
In the case of "morality", we label the things we do not want to happen to us as "bad", and the things we want to have happen to us as "good"--but these are just artifitial concepts, not related to any reality outside of our own desires.
I have already explained the process in detail--that you refuse to "see any proof" does not mean there is none. This has all been scientifically proven for quite some time and although that does not mean it is nessecarily true, it has yet to be disproved--so the burden of proof is yours.
You could aslo argue that you do not "see any proof" that the earth orbits the sun, but this only shows either ignorance on your part or refusal to accept proof when it is shown.
Either way, I am not inclined to waste my time trying to prove someting to a person who will not listen.
I would be happy to find someone who can challenge my statements logically and disprove the theories I have presented--but so far I have yet to be preseted with a logical, informed rebuttal to any of my views on humanity, the environment, or evolution.


LOL, im sorry if you see me as a time waster for responding to your comments. Should've thought otherwise. I really hope somone can come along as logical as you to reply to your statements in this thread 😊 . Obviously your detailed process of explanation was far too great for my illogical mind to comprehend, im afraid i may never find any proof for your opinions though, 'tis such a shame that i will now be destined to live in question forever.
"Sigh"...All i can do and did is ask for you to give some evidence or proof that has lead you to your theorys/opinions, heh, can't please everyone can't i 😌 ?
ps: by the way im not trolling or flaming, i just cant think of any better way to answer your post, i have sort of found your posts quite offensive throughout most of this thread as well anyways, you were much nicer in the global warming thread i did u'know.
 

Reiku

先輩
Joined
23 Aug 2004
Messages
464
Reaction score
8
I got sick of dealing with the same BS over and over again.

As for proof of my statements, fine.

I don't have my library handy, as I am at a friend's house--but a google search should do for articles about such basic psychology. It is time consuming though, as it can be hard to find a relieable, non-biased source on the internet. I'll post the results when I have them.

[edit] I take it back, google sucks for this kind of thing--as does the internet in general. The only things I can find that would be relieable are websites run by universities and of course they aren't giving away their classes for free...

...for that matter, why am I?

Oh yes, becuase education and intelligence have gone out of fashion, so we now have a gaping void where "common knowlege" used to be.

Ah well, I'll post some proof when I can get it--it's all "psych 101" stuff anyway so if worse comes to worse I could go to the local college bookstore and just buy a textbook...

...so could you, for that matter, the phrase "RTFM" comes to mind. [/edit]
 
Last edited:

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
73
Reiku said:
I got sick of dealing with the same BS over and over again.

As for proof of my statements, fine.

I don't have my library handy, as I am at a friend's house--but a google search should do for articles about such basic psychology. It is time consuming though, as it can be hard to find a relieable, non-biased source on the internet. I'll post the result when I have them.

No one is forcing you to post 😌 .
'Tis cool if you can back up your claims, although ideally it would be really cool if you could find an internet based source as i dont want to be buying any books or anything u'know?

Hey, dont let debating get you down- as i always say, "Turn that frown upside down" 👍 !
 

pipokun

先輩
Joined
4 Feb 2005
Messages
2,355
Reaction score
46
Whale meat 'made into dog food'
Quite a shocking title, but nothing specific mentioned in the article, which company, which part of whale meat, is it the part for people to eat. It is nothing but exaggeration or agitaiton for anti-whaling. I think it is not fair.
I'm afraid BBC won't answer, so anybody here ask the anti-whaling organisaiton for more details.

edit: I found the website in the article.
 

Reiku

先輩
Joined
23 Aug 2004
Messages
464
Reaction score
8
Tokis-Phoenix said:
No one is forcing you to post 😌 .
'Tis cool if you can back up your claims, although ideally it would be really cool if you could find an internet based source as i dont want to be buying any books or anything u'know?
Hey, dont let debating get you down- as i always say, "Turn that frown upside down" 👍 !

Funny, I have a similar saying: "Let me re-arrange your face." :D

And you're right, no person is forcing me to post--my sense or horror at the level of ignorance and lack of basic debating skill in these threads is.

I guess I'm still in shock over Bush's "fuzzy math" comment actually working inthe presidential debate with Al Gore. It seems like being an intelectual went from being unpopular to being a stoning-worthy offense while I wasn't looking.

I didn't have a very high opinion of humanity before hand, but now...

...it's both terrifying and disgusting, and I guess I feel compelled to try and find some exception to what seems to be becoming the rule.

As for the book thing, I was thinking more along the lines of scanning the pages and posting them--although I couldn't help but shudder a little at the "i dont want to be buying any books or anything u'know?" comment--since when is learning really so bad?
 

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
73
pipokun said:
Quite a shocking title, but nothing specific mentioned in the article, which company, which part of whale meat, is it the part for people to eat. It is nothing but exaggeration or agitaiton for anti-whaling. I think it is not fair.
I'm afraid BBC won't answer, so anybody here ask the anti-whaling organisaiton for more details.

Who are you referring to as an anti-whaling organisation? The BBC, the ABC, AOL news, The Sunday times etc- all of this massive news broad casting networks all have articles on the story- i doubt its made up or anything, but i dont know what companys are selling/supporting the whale meat in dog food thing- its likely though that its being kept secret for the time being though due to legal reasons.
Or are you referring to me being an anti-whaling organisation lol?
 

Tokis-Phoenix

先輩
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
73
Reiku said:
Funny, I have a similar saying: "Let me re-arrange your face." :D
And you're right, no person is forcing me to post--my sense or horror at the level of ignorance and lack of basic debating skill in these threads is.
I guess I'm still in shock over Bush's "fuzzy math" comment actually working inthe presidential debate with Al Gore. It seems like being an intelectual went from being unpopular to being a stoning-worthy offense while I wasn't looking.
I didn't have a very high opinion of humanity before hand, but now...
...it's both terrifying and disgusting, and I guess I feel compelled to try and find some exception to what seems to be becoming the rule.
As for the book thing, I was thinking more along the lines of scanning the pages and posting them--although I couldn't help but shudder a little at the "i dont want to be buying any books or anything u'know?" comment--since when is learning really so bad?

Takes one to know one lol 🙂 .

By the way not everyone has unlimited cash to spend on books, which is why i hinted i didn't want to buy one just to justify your opinions(which isn't my responsability anyways) although i guess you've obviously never run out of books to read with your high level of intellect lol(I appologise if my any of my replys sound/appear sarcastic 😊 ).
 

Reiku

先輩
Joined
23 Aug 2004
Messages
464
Reaction score
8
Actually, I'm quite poor--always have been--but I do know how to use a library.
 
Top Bottom