Whale meat turned into dog food!

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Actually, I'm quite poor--always have been--but I do know how to use a library.

Well then you are lucky you have a local library you can go to, because i dont know of any in my town.

By the way, not meaning to rush your gaining of evidence or anything, but the longer you wait/refuse to give me any evidence, even if its off one of those dredded internet sites- which i'd be more than happy to see, the more it leads me to believe that you never actually had any from the start :? .

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't have my library handy,...

lol! ROTFLMAO!!!

 

[bossel]

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.

They probably won't be eaten to death, but if full commercial whaling would be resumed they might at least come close to extinction. You don't need to kill them all, but if you kill so many that no viable population is left, they go extinct even if you stop all hunting.

The Red List has Minkes in the category Lower Risk: Common Minke Whales are LR/nt, while Antarctic Minke Whales are LR/cd.

"LOWER RISK (LR) - A taxon is Lower Risk when it has been evaluated, does not satisfy the criteria for any of the categories Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable. Taxa included in the Lower Risk category can be separated into three subcategories:
1. Conservation Dependent (cd). Taxa which are the focus of a continuing taxon-specific or habitat-specific conservation programme targeted towards the taxon in question, the cessation of which would result in the taxon qualifying for one of the threatened categories above within a period of five years.
2. Near Threatened (nt). Taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent, but which are close to qualifying for Vulnerable.
3. Least Concern (lc). Taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent or Near Threatened."

By the way, not meaning to rush your gaining of evidence or anything, but the longer you wait/refuse to give me any evidence, even if its off one of those dredded internet sites- which i'd be more than happy to see, the more it leads me to believe that you never actually had any from the start :? .

You might have to wait very long for your evidence (perhaps he simply repeats his views in a different wording & thinks that's evidence enough).

 

[mad pierrot]

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.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. A kill should be as clean and quick as possible, and it does speak of Japan's lack of effort. Even if they aren't doing it for sincere reasons, it would at least improve their public standing.

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?

An excellent point. I do agree. And yes, I do also agree that whales shouldn't be killed for dog food.

Bossel, thanks for the data. I actually did some browsing on the web and came up with the same info (more or less). I don't think that full commercial whaling will be resuming anytime soon, though.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Hmm, well, heres the latest news on the surplus whale meat and dog food issue;

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

 

[JT303]

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:

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?

Never a good idea to be drawn in to an argument with an activist. It's like arguing with the insane, a thankless task which leads nowhere. This person saw "the Cove" and believed all of it. Whaling is a big industry, Japan is not the only country which does is. Norway, Sweeden, The Inuit tribe still does to this day in the U.S. and Canada. Their method is far worse. No one badmouths the poor Eskimos though. Because they are trying to eat and survive. This is a webpage about Japan's culture, not activism. Go cry about the whales on reddit with the rest of the edgelords.

 

[JT303]

Actually, I'm quite poor--always have been--but I do know how to use a library.

Ahhh the Library, poor man's university. Libraries are a great source of info and free. I spent many a day in them myself. Poor doesn't mean ignorant, but I think the University educated bunch seems to think knowledge worth having must cost high ergo poor people stupid.

 

[JT303]

Hmm, well, heres the latest news on the surplus whale meat and dog food issue;

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

View attachment 54945

Since when has the BBC been a reputable source? For anything? Here is a link to another interesting BBC article, "racism as one of the leading causes of climate change"! Jan 27, 2022. link- Why climate change is inherently racist
Do you believe that too?

 

[JT303]

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]

Yes, very offensive. Maybe edgelords and animal activists should stick to Reddit!

 

[Majestic]

This is (another) thread that is nearly 20 years old, sir.
This argument from 2006 need not be revived.
Leave it be.