What is a valid reason not to hunt whales for meat?

[Aussie_Chick]

If consuming whale meat DOES cause cancer for whatever reason, then so be it. The peoples who eat whale meat deserve it, if not cancer being too lenient a retaliation for wanting to destroy these magnificent creatures. Only the scum of the earth could bring themselves to harm these creatures. Or devour them.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Also, I'm re-iterating what Sensuikan San had mentioned, one of the primary drives towards human dominance over other species was our physiological makeup, a large brain was thought necissary to evolve before bipedal movement--- Young huamns also have better learning an co-operative skills than other animals due to the nature of their brains.
I think it's obvious that humans were extremely well adapted to hunting animals which would have been quite capable of killing them otherwise. I don't think they took up the practice of hunting 'on a whim'...

YM, I don`t think I ever said that humans took up hunting on a "whim," did I? I merely made some observations, which I stated not as fact but only as something on the lines of conjecture, that perhaps our optimal diet was not, or if it had become, may be now moving away from an optimal diet with meat. I don`t think I had made any absolute statements of declaration, did I?

Obviously I was leaving room open for what many think on the topic.

But, to continue with your observation I can add: Humans are prone to warring amongst themselves on small and large scale, capable of torturing for pleasure, using rape to humiliate, murder, child molestation to satisfy perverted urges, exterminating species, fauna due to irrational fear which conjure up threats that do not exist etc... all due to some "nature of their brains." I think it`s obvious that humans were and are adopted to murdering, warrring and destroying another of their brother -- human or non-human, where a real threat doesn`t exist, and persists in doing so despite the large brain we have that should lead us to more appropriate behaviour of treating one another and all those on Earth. Obviously something is wrong with our brains as a whole for we have not found a way to control that which highlights our depravity. I don`t think we "took up the practice of" depravity "on a whim."

The strange thing is that we have a mind capable of advanced reasoning and one which has discovered the concepts of compassion, empathy, and mercy which can be extended across barrier lines, unlike most of the animal world, but we don`t use it at a time in our history where it could eliminate the most depraved acts amonst us. You seem to be championing meat eating because it is natural, well, why not champion all the other natural depraved things that seem to mark our species? Or, are you just picking and choosing?

What is natural as some kind of inherant good should not be what we focus on, because that will for a long time be a natural part of us. What is capable to suppress the bad of natural is what is more noble -- for that will compliment the natural good we have.

The fact that you say that you are leaving this argument seems almost like you are giving up simply because nobody can see just how correct you feel your opinions are.

Did I say I was leaving the argument or just suggesting it be created anew in a different thread? I thought I had clearly stated the latter and just said that at the moment I was more deeply engaged in the religion thread. That`s all. Don`t worry. I will make myelf available for discussion with you. Trust me, you haven`t said anything to make me fear you as a debate opponent.

Your modus operandi in all of these responses (and similar to many vegans) has been simply to argue moreso---

What does that mean? Of course I argue my point of view. Do you want me to just put forth week-kneed assertions and then dither and concede? If you argue effectively then you may get me to cede a point or two. I am not against changing my mind on topics. I wasn`t born a vegetarian. I was argued into it, and I guess therefore I could be argued out of it. I bent on the issue but as of yet, nothing has bent me back. Nevertheless, though, one reason I engage in debate is to learn different perspectives.

Part of reasonable discourse is sometimes conceding certain points to the other person,

Yes, if you convince. No one cedes just for the sake of ceding. You haven`t convinced me of anything yet. Are you unreasonable because you haven`t ceded to my point of yet? According to your statement above it sounds like that conclusion could be drawn. I wouldn`t come to that conclusion. I would just assume I haven`t done a good enough job in convincing you to succeed. Why would you think otherwise or not reciprocate that thought or courtesy?

...that is unless you simply refuse to admit you may be wrong on any of your points, in which case, you've wasted everyones time because there is absolutely no point in debating someone who will by no means concede that anything they say might possibly be wrong.

Well, YM, then you have wasted my time because you have refused to admit you may be wrong on any of your points, and you`ve wasted everyone`s time. Am I right in using your logic thrown back at you? You tell me why you are exempt from it.

Now, go back and look at some of my posts in this thread, specifically in the last few days when the thread started picking up again, and I am pretty sure you will see me qualify my remarks in terms that are not absolute. Doing so let`s people see one is leaving room open for the possibillity that they may be wrong. So, what are you talking about in all this "ceding" stuff and "wasting" time? Where are your justifications for just about everything you said? Be specific.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

As for proving to you my "assertion" that I have been to the Far North, on your demand .... that is something I confess to finding mildly offensive. I therefore ask you directly (not rhetorically) ... are you calling me a liar?

No, John. I am not calling you a liar. I am saying there is really no credible way for me to confirm your past or present status. I could probably spend some time in tracking down your info -- or you even sending an extensive bio to me, but that could still be misleading and not mean your experiences or the personal educational/professional laurals you seem to refer to to bolster your argument are worthy to give in to as a trump card. Sure, you may be a zoologist at some place, but how would I know you are a competent one? There are a lot of people in high positions that just seem incompetent and misleading. Just look at George Bush.

Now, I sense you are going to take the above as a personal attack on you because I bring up the word "competent." However, please don`t. It is only used illustratively and I concede you may be the greatest zoologist in the world -- however, I have no way to confirm anything that would satisfy fully my questions on that point.

That is why I am saying it is kind of not good form to bring up one`s laurals or professional affiliation as a point of personal observation in a form like this. If we were on Meet the Press and all our bio info was out there, then "yes," the audience listening could be swayed by some points in our bio as a reason to take the person`s words more so over another.

Now, I know you are going to disagree, and well, if you want to just open all your posts with "Since I am a zoologist...." then I can`t stop you. Do as you wish. But, if you are a zoologist of good repute with a lot of knowledge, then you surely have data that can be divorced from yourself to put forth, don`t you?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Conversely ... your own cloak of anonymity is complete! What can I say? By your own rationale ...should I assume that you even exist?

lol. Yes, I am anonymous and will stay so. Having ired some religious people on the forum, I would hate to put their fervor to the test and find out I have been targeted by some strange forum stalker and find my home targeted like an abortion clinic. They may get two birds with one stone. <wink wink>

No, I may not exist. As you may not either. We could all be just existing from some complex chemical compounds causing an illusion. Perhaps I am a bot stuck in the cybor world divorced from human form.

If you want to assume I don`t exist, please give me no thought and just ignore me. I won`t deny you that choice. Do as you will.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Quote:
Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
lol. Just because I am a vegetarian doesn`t mean I don`t love steak.

Sansuikan-san: Then - stop torturing yourself, man!

lol.

As a human I have the ability to control my urges for pleasure. There are some things I would really love to do to taxi drivers and tax collectors and it would probably give me some kind of pleasure or satisfaction -- but, I suppress those actions which give me some mental anguish -- self torture -- if you will, man. ;-)

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Then I would give strong consideration towards not wearing imported clothing made by child-labor in several countries of this great world of ours!

What makes you think I don`t already? Is your advice based on presumption?

 

[sabro]

I went to my favorite Japanese restaurant last night (which does not have whale on the menu) and saw that they had steak... and I wanted to order it... but I stuck with the raw fish. I think long periods of forced vegetarianism and the avoidance of red meat due to medical reasons has left me unable to digest beef and unwilling to experiment.

What do you think of the native Inuit whale hunt that takes place once a year?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

What do you think of the native Inuit whale hunt that takes place once a year?

Sabro, I was going to make a separate thread for that when I got more time.

Do you think we should, or just keep it in here?

You are referring to the Makaw, aren`t you? It is a very interesting issue.

 

[sabro]

Makaw- I think that is correct- and you are the second person with a tripple post today. I'm not certain why, but I think there is a technical glitch.

As long as it doesn't become the central issues of discussion and just a brief digression, we can keep it here. I don't have a strong opinion and I'm not certain that anyone else does.

I would not object to it, although I don't know enough specifics- It seems like an effort to preserve a culture and tradition that doesn't really have the capacity to inflict serious damage on the whale population. Certainly from a strict survival point it is unnecessary, but for the survival of elements of this culture, they may deem it a necessity.

 

[sabro]

I thought this was interesting: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/grateful-whale.htm
A whale that was freed from some gear came back to "thank" each of the rescuers. We don't know exactly what the behavior was actually about, but it is definitely the sign of an intelligent animal.

 

[yukio_michael]

If consuming whale meat DOES cause cancer for whatever reason, then so be it. The peoples who eat whale meat deserve it, if not cancer being too lenient a retaliation for wanting to destroy these magnificent creatures. Only the scum of the earth could bring themselves to harm these creatures. Or devour them.

So, I suppose by your logic someone who would actually wish death upon someone via cancer is actually more moralistically sound than someone who eats meat? Maybe we should just indiscriminately round people up and torture them at black sites until they learn the errors of their dietary ways.

If there were such a thing as a 'food nazi', id say this would fit that description.

 

[Aussie_Chick]

Heh no if i had my way whales would be free of danger and being eaten by barbaric people with the knowledge of a caveman. Get with the times. Not everything that lives has to be eaten.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

C'mon! Everybody can use an extra fifty!

What are you talking about? You said you wouldn`t give it to me. But, if you did, I`d give it to ALF so they could do a number on a moored whaling ship they caught off guard.**

btw, they (ALF) have sunk whaling ships in the past.

Har har! Go ye southern priates of the jolly band of the Sea Shepherd aboard the Farley Mowat. Shiver me timbers and full ramming speed ahead!



**See, as a zoologist -- your contribution can help in more than one way besides just your knowledge.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

This is where I can't be sure wether you're playing with my words, or simply misread an admittedly badly constructed sentence.

The latter.

I would think that highly competent zoologists well respected in their fields would need good writing skills in order to get published in well respected journals read by their peers.

Don`t worry, John. I haven`t assumed anything by your admission. I know we all type quickly here on the forum and all mistakes, spelling, grammatical, or on clarity have nothing to do with how we would write something for peers in our profession to read and scrutinize. Just giving you some wry humor.

I believe I wrote: "I have to give it to you - you're a campaigner! And a good one!

Thank you. And, I will try to get even better.

But ... as a zoologist ..... I wouldn't give you fifty bucks a year!"
By this - I should probably have written "If you were a zoologist - you wouldn't be worth fifty bucks a year!" (Based on your analysis of the hunting capabilities of homosapiens.)

Yes. That is much bettter and keeps unverrifiable assertions and our laurals out of the picture.

Ok, John -- I quite concede we are excellent hunters based on our ability to cooperate via communication skills and paraphanalia we can created to aid us. No argument there. What spurred those, however, I think is up for debate.

Did we just start communicating and making things and then decided to use those on game? Or, is it likely or possible, that a shortage in vegetation, due to such things as drought or other occurrance force us to supplement our food by turning towards meat consumption? Could it be that our desperation in obtaining this other food source prompted communication and creativity in making paraphanalia to help us in our physical compartment that surely lacked in their capability alone to bring down a gazelle or zebra or what not?

It is interesting to note, that chimpanzees do hunt other primates. But, it is also interesting to note that often that hunting of other primates by chimpanzees is done when their fruit and other vegetation becomes scarce during seasonal changes or droughts. That is pointing at a choice to deviate out of necessity -- not out of just wanting meat. Perhaps humans when they had deviated over a period of years, just never switched back.

Please note, I have qualified all my answers above with words such as "probably, maybe, perhaps, etc..." I am not presuming to know for certain -- and many zoologists and scientists to my knowledge do not agree wholley on some of the different thoughts of the matter out there, right?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

As pointed out in my first paragraph ... my background is quite clear, and freely available to all. Any claim that I may have been trying to assert that I am what I am not is simply wrong. And pompous demands for accreditation to suit your whim .... surely, are approaching the preposterous.

Why are they pompous if you bring them into the discussion?

I didn`t claim you were asserting something you were not. I merely said there was no way to verify your assertion. Even if we could verify your assertion that you have all the accredidation necessary for being a zoologist, to verify you were a competent one well caught up on recent research and well respected in your field would be even harder. It would all be time consuming.

Better to just put forth reasoned arguments with referenceable data -- without bringing the personal into it.

This is not a harsh attack on you, John. It is just a generic response to someone, anyone, saying something like, "As a doctor, as an astorphysicist, as a blah blah blah..." The message is what is wanted, and if the message has the ring of truth to it, it can stand on its own without the laurals of the one delivering it.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

"Who the hell do you think you are?"
And what, in heaven's name, is your real agenda?
Cordially,
ﾆ淡ﾆ停?｡ﾆ停?彈/QUOTE]

Heaven and Hell probably don`t exist (well -- not as we are lead to believe in the Biblical paradigm).

I am just a poster with opinions who enjoys learning other perspectives through debate and if possible, moving others on the spectrum of their beliefs. That`s all. That`s all you need to know because I don`t assert anything based on my professional or my accredidation/laurals.

My agenda is to put forth my opinion and to sharpen my arguments so that I will be more effective in affecting change.

Cordially,
Strongvoicesforward.
;-)

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The evolution argument is intriguing: Primates have canines and almost all primates are omnivores. The proportion of meat to plants is rather small,

Yes, intriguing and interesting like you mention below.

Like you said, the meat/plant ratio is small. In fact, very small. As for the canines of primates, and the fact that their meat intake is quite small, it could be argued that those canines exist for defensive purposes and natural selection of partners choosing each other on their ability to protect one another -- hence their canines developed even more. I couldn`t say for sure, but it is an interesting point I had read on the issue as to why primates have such large canines but their meat intake is quite low.

Also the arrangement of our sense organs- binocular vision and bilateral hearing is more common among hunters, not strict herbivores and the adaptation to be able to eat this amount of meat- given the digestive enzymes and micronutrient requirements we now have has to be a recent development. I'm sure this proves nothing, but it is interesting.

Indeed, and nothing definitive.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Raising animals for meat does consume an inordinate amount of fresh water and agricultural produce. You could reasonably raise the world's food and water supply by cutting back on meat production or eliminating it entirely. (Then the population would swell and we would all die of starvation and disease all over again.)

Are you suggesting certain starvation in the short run is a better choice than possible starvation in the long run? Or is the paranthetical statement one of futility? -- do nothing to change because starvation will always be with us (i.e. let`s not be efficient with our recourses because it will lead us to no better situation).

 

[strongvoicesforward]

On issues of zoology and evolution I will defer to the actual zoologist as I am merely a high school administrator.

Do you defer to assertions of accredidation blindly? Do you defer to professionals even after their accredidation is confirmed blindly -- not taking into account they could be of ill repute amongst peers?

I just think the quoted statement is a very simplified one that is too absolutist to apply for matters of import. I am one who finds science important and no matter what my station in life is, I value my ability to scrutinize claims by messengers who base a part of their claim on their laurals and accredidation.

Look, if I go to a hospital and they tell me they have to do brain surgery on me, depending on how much time I have, I would probably ask some questions about the background of the surgions and would not just outright "defer," because they have diploma hanging on the wall. Sabro, wouldn`t you agree with this and accept that your statement was a little too unqualified to be applied widely?

I know you were aiming it at zoologists/evolution and your view that the issue may not be one of great import, but the reason of it is a little too simple -- if not a little lazy.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Sorry, but the current low life expectancy of Eskimos is probably mostly due to ...

No need to apologise for what you think I may be wrong at (which I left room open for). But, I do appreciate you qualifying your statements with "probably mostly..." You, too, don`t seem so certain to declare an absolute.

Never understood this argument. Have you ever looked at Gorilla canines?

Yes I have. Have you ever saw a documentary or read accounts on how they are used?

A gorilla is almost entirely vegetarian. That tells us the teeth mainly serve another purpose. They usually bear them when threatened and therefore probably have developed as a part of their anatomy for defense, rather than seizing, holding, and ripping prey for meat consumption.

 

[yukio_michael]

Heh no if i had my way whales would be free of danger and being eaten by barbaric people with the knowledge of a caveman. Get with the times. Not everything that lives has to be eaten.

I'm not advocating whale meat--- personally, I don't care. I believe in the preservation of some species based on ecology and extinction--- but I have no personal qualms about someone eating a whale because it happens to be a beautiful sea creature... when a whale writes a sonnet about how it doesn't like to be eaten, maybe I'll change my mind.

What are you talking about? You said you wouldn`t give it to me. But, if you did, I`d give it to ALF so they could do a number on a moored whaling ship they caught off guard.**
btw, they (ALF) have sunk whaling ships in the past.

?

 

[bossel]

You, too, don`t seem so certain to declare an absolute.

I'm cautious, esp. when speaking from memory only.

A gorilla is almost entirely vegetarian. That tells us the teeth mainly serve another purpose. They usually bear them when threatened and therefore probably have developed as a part of their anatomy for defense, rather than seizing, holding, and ripping prey for meat consumption.

Just my point.

 

[sabro]

Are you suggesting certain starvation in the short run is a better choice than possible starvation in the long run? Or is the paranthetical statement one of futility? -- do nothing to change because starvation will always be with us (i.e. let`s not be efficient with our recourses because it will lead us to no better situation).

What I am suggesting is that you can feed a larger population with plant products than with animal products, and if we ever wish to achieve a sustainable population level the carnivores among us will have to adjust. (It will happen when Beef hit several hundred dollars a pound.)

Do you defer to assertions of accredidation blindly? Do you defer to professionals even after their accredidation is confirmed blindly -- not taking into account they could be of ill repute amongst peers?

I can fix my car, but I prefer my mechanic do it. I don't give my doctor my best diagnostic guess, and I don't do my own labwork. When someone says they have been to Ireland and it's beautiful, I don't second guess them. Any second rate zoologist is likely to more know about zoology, taxonomy and evolution than I do and I figure it is best to take people at their word until they demonstrate otherwise.

 

[yukio_michael]

I don`t think I had made any absolute statements of declaration, did I?

I think you said that we were 'meat eaters of convenience', meaning that we didn't really need to eat meat, but it was societally convenient for us to do so, rather than a natural part of our rise in dominance.

Humans are prone to warring amongst themselves on small and large scale, capable of torturing for pleasure, using rape to humiliate, murder, child molestation to satisfy perverted urges, exterminating species, fauna due to irrational fear which conjure up threats that do not exist etc... all due to some "nature of their brains."

I'd say that the agression comes from the medula oblongata, as evolved from reptile brains. There is some study into the agression of reptiles due to an enlarged medula oblongata. The other things, I would say fall under sadism or ignorance. I don't know to what extent people purposely try to 'wipe out' an entire species these days, but I'd say it's not pronounced.

I think it`s obvious that humans were and are adopted to murdering, warrring and destroying another of their brother -- human or non-human, where a real threat doesn`t exist, and persists in doing so despite the large brain we have that should lead us to more appropriate behaviour of treating one another and all those on Earth.

I think if you look at the way that social animals act, animals that are in packs or heards, there will be a similar type of dominance by alpha males over weaker males. Nature seems to be labeled with an 'innocence' to it because animals lack complicated motives, but they do compete for food, sexual mates, dominance over other males.
War is a very broad subject, but the general idea is that organised tribes compete for land, resources etc.

Murder exists because everyone does what he or she thinks is right, regardless if this is a psychosis or something out of irational anger. Humans may kill others due to complicated motives, cohabitating animals may fight for dominance but chances are one of the animals will simply walk away.

Obviously something is wrong with our brains as a whole for we have not found a way to control that which highlights our depravity. I don`t think we "took up the practice of" depravity "on a whim."

Overall I'd say that people as a whole want peace, don't want to go to war (if you look at any of the statistics for involvement in past wars inititally), and that schizms and depravity are brought on by things like anomie, depression, complications in the family structure, drug abuse, alcoholism. Humans are socially, and psychologically more complex than animals, so they have more complex social and psychological problems.

The strange thing is that we have a mind capable of advanced reasoning and one which has discovered the concepts of compassion, empathy, and mercy which can be extended across barrier lines, unlike most of the animal world, but we don`t use it at a time in our history where it could eliminate the most depraved acts amonst us.

I would say a good deal of scientists seek similar goals of peace and learning about our existance, not just how we work, but why we do. Why are there random shootings in Compton, Watts, etc, but not so in Beverly Hills? Who is waging the war, is it really the people of a state, or the state oganization itself?

You seem to be championing meat eating because it is natural, well, why not champion all the other natural depraved things that seem to mark our species? Or, are you just picking and choosing?

I'm not championing it, nor am I condemning it. I'm simply saying theres no moral issue for me in eating animals, though if someone else chooses to have personal issues, fine by me, but I don't wish to be told that I should have a moral issue about it.

Even if I were a cheerleader for meat because I simply thought it was 'natural', it would be sort of ilogical to think that murder was 'natural', it may occur, but it's rather the opposite of a 'natural' event.

I wasn`t born a vegetarian. I was argued into it, and I guess therefore I could be argued out of it.

I have no intention to argue you out of being a vegitarian, but it's worrisome that people argue others into becoming one, which are my previous sentiments.

Are you unreasonable because you haven`t ceded to my point of yet?

I just think we are arguing two different points. I'm saying that people shouldn't need to concern themselves with the morals of animal consumption, and you are claiming that they should. It's very difficult to get to one common ground when the lynchpin of the argument is a moralistic basis.

Well, YM, then you have wasted my time because you have refused to admit you may be wrong on any of your points, and you`ve wasted everyone`s time.

I'm simply saying that it's impossible to be 'right or wrong' on a moralistic idea. Even the concept of 'thou shalt not kill' is conceptutally debateable, because you can't say something is right simply because it 'seems like it is right'... Please note, I'm not using this logic to say that 'murder is okay'.

I hope that this clarifies my position a bit.

 

[MajideSaiaku]

As a book i have says: "free-willy style sentimentality about our orca friends is unusual in japan. Maybe thats why so little domestic ire is raised when whale-hungry hunters and polls call for more harpooning of these creatures. In fact, grandma may want minke, but younger people are indifferent. Now if they were to kentucky-fry it...."

Its not that the japanese want to whipe out whales for food.

Its that some japanese like whale meat and obviously arent ashamed of this liking, and the rest of japan couldnt give a toss.

The japanese arent known for being passionate animal lovers.

So basicly it isnt evil intent against whales, its simply; They dont care.