Where do you stand on Whaling ?

[Damocles]

There are countless species we can't kill, naturally.

it's not natural selection to exterminate other species in a non-natural fashion.

it isn't "survival of the fittest" either, and it is neither of the above which applies to our murdering of whales, amongst other species.

Lethal illnesses aren't just man related, but they show how fallible we are naturally.

Ok, so surely you disagree with bleach?

Bleach kills BILLIONS of different species of bacteria, almost all of them are completely unharmful to human.

Bleach isn't part of the human body.
Bleach exterminates entire species.

This is essentially what you are saying. The only difference is that whales are cute and bacteria isn't.

-- Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:03 pm --

pretty vague reply.

can you tell me what is natural about using man-made tools to make a man flotation device to use a man made capturing device on a whale, to which we are not a natural predator(hence the man-made stuff coming before) to kill it using a man made weapon.

It just isn't.

Are chimps who use stones to crack open the heads of other chimps (which they could not do without their invented tool) unnatural killers?

on the bacteria:

that's a fair point which proves the point perfectly, hadn't thought about it from that point of view but yhp.

on the chimps:

are you saying they specifically invent a tool ie. chisel the stone into a shape, or just use a stone in its natural form?

either way, to some degree it is an unnatural kill, as it has used a weapon, though I'd say it is of a lesser degree to us inventing and constructing weapons to kill, like we have done.

I see where the debate will head, which is to "well surely natural evolution means that our intelligence is natural therefore the result of that must surely be natural, even if that includes weapons", and its a fair point to a certain extent, however my original qualm was with your view of hunting to extinction, which to me is wrong, hunting for survival is the basis for all species, however I do feel the natural characteristics of a specie(can't spell) are more natural than a specie-created weapon, I feel that's far more artificial, but I can concede that that is the result of intelligence based evolution, as opposed to physical, though I don't think that justifies us being any better, as there are many, many physical flaws we have that our intelligence compensates for, so we aren't really that superior, we just abuse our intelligence too often, hence why extermination is seen as acceptable by some people.

You have a fair point on the difference between hunting for survival and hunting for convenience, but my view is that if we as a species have not become civilised enough to value all life then only valuing that of "fluffy or cute" stuff is worse.

If we're genociding species, at least we accept what we're doing. If we're not, then we all become vegetarians.

I believe the middle ground, where we currently stand, is hypocritical.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

What does that actually mean in reference to this debate?

means we don't own the place and are mere pawns in the grand scheme of things and therefore don't have the right to non-naturally exterminate other species just because we think we're so superior.

How are we "pawns in the grand scheme of things"?

Who is the King in the grand scheme of things then?

You say we don't own the place (which my mortgage contract disagrees with); who does own it then?

You are deriding the accomplishments and the place in nature of your species and I cannot see any justification behind it apart from a sort of naturalist "white guilt" so to speak.

we're going off on a tangent here, the original qualm was with extermination.

there is no king, but we aren't the be all and end all round here, we're from the same cloth as everything else.

we've done bloody well for ourselves, but that doesn't, in my view, entitle to us to destroy other species because we deem, through our own thoughts and actions, that that is fair.<br /><br />-- Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:23 pm --<br /><br />

Ok, so surely you disagree with bleach?

Bleach kills BILLIONS of different species of bacteria, almost all of them are completely unharmful to human.

Bleach isn't part of the human body.
Bleach exterminates entire species.

This is essentially what you are saying. The only difference is that whales are cute and bacteria isn't.

-- Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:03 pm --



Are chimps who use stones to crack open the heads of other chimps (which they could not do without their invented tool) unnatural killers?

on the bacteria:

that's a fair point which proves the point perfectly, hadn't thought about it from that point of view but yhp.

on the chimps:

are you saying they specifically invent a tool ie. chisel the stone into a shape, or just use a stone in its natural form?

either way, to some degree it is an unnatural kill, as it has used a weapon, though I'd say it is of a lesser degree to us inventing and constructing weapons to kill, like we have done.

I see where the debate will head, which is to "well surely natural evolution means that our intelligence is natural therefore the result of that must surely be natural, even if that includes weapons", and its a fair point to a certain extent, however my original qualm was with your view of hunting to extinction, which to me is wrong, hunting for survival is the basis for all species, however I do feel the natural characteristics of a specie(can't spell) are more natural than a specie-created weapon, I feel that's far more artificial, but I can concede that that is the result of intelligence based evolution, as opposed to physical, though I don't think that justifies us being any better, as there are many, many physical flaws we have that our intelligence compensates for, so we aren't really that superior, we just abuse our intelligence too often, hence why extermination is seen as acceptable by some people.

You have a fair point on the difference between hunting for survival and hunting for convenience, but my view is that if we as a species have not become civilised enough to value all life then only valuing that of "fluffy or cute" stuff is worse.

If we're genociding species, at least we accept what we're doing. If we're not, then we all become vegetarians.

I believe the middle ground, where we currently stand, is hypocritical.

I think there's a difference between sustainable farming, and genociding species.

Also, it comes down to whether you believe plants are living things in their own right, I believe they are, they grow and respire and try and survive just like everything else, which is why I don't understand vegetarians, as to me its killing something no differently to an animal, so if you have a moral compass that dictates you can't eat things that have been killed, then starve.

 

[BulgarianPride]

means we don't own the place and are mere pawns in the grand scheme of things and therefore don't have the right to non-naturally exterminate other species just because we think we're so superior.

How are we "pawns in the grand scheme of things"?

Who is the King in the grand scheme of things then?

You say we don't own the place (which my mortgage contract disagrees with); who does own it then?

You are deriding the accomplishments and the place in nature of your species and I cannot see any justification behind it apart from a sort of naturalist "white guilt" so to speak.

we're going off on a tangent here, the original qualm was with extermination.

there is no king, but we aren't the be all and end all round here, we're from the same cloth as everything else.

we've done bloody well for ourselves, but that doesn't, in my view, entitle to us to destroy other species because we deem, through our own thoughts and actions, that that is fair.

So would you say that humans trying to "preserve" endangered species is natural? Say we are not hunting them in mass number, but their environment is changing and they are facing an extinction event. Should we try to save them or let nature do it's thing?

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

How are we "pawns in the grand scheme of things"?

Who is the King in the grand scheme of things then?

You say we don't own the place (which my mortgage contract disagrees with); who does own it then?

You are deriding the accomplishments and the place in nature of your species and I cannot see any justification behind it apart from a sort of naturalist "white guilt" so to speak.

we're going off on a tangent here, the original qualm was with extermination.

there is no king, but we aren't the be all and end all round here, we're from the same cloth as everything else.

we've done bloody well for ourselves, but that doesn't, in my view, entitle to us to destroy other species because we deem, through our own thoughts and actions, that that is fair.

So would you say that humans trying to "preserve" endangered species is natural? Say we are not hunting them in mass number, but their environment is changing and they are facing an extinction event. Should we try to save them or let nature do it's thing?

if it's a direct cause of human intervention ie. chopping down the amazon then yes they should be protected.

if it's just natural, then no, let nature take its course.

 

[Damocles]

Unfortunately, its often a chicken and egg problem where nobody can find the cause of something.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Unfortunately, its often a chicken and egg problem where nobody can find the cause of something.

I agree, but feared you'd pull me apart if I said "please save the polar bears cos they're cute like my husky".

 

[TCIB]

If they use sustainable means i cant see how we can say do not do it.

I think the main issue with whaling is unsrupulous hunters i.e. some Japanese vessels/companies. When the population is getting hammered, that is where i draw the line.

They hypothetically could say "but you eat cute chickens". Yes i know they do but you see what im getting at here.

The problem lies with the above said unsrupulous hunters and the fact whales gestate for a long time and only have one calf. They simply can't replenish the species as fast as we take.

If you can get an equilibrium then as much as may offend some peoples sensibilities i can't see an issue.
I like Whales and do not like the idea of hunting them but who am i to impose personal predjudices on others.

 

[johnny on the spot]

I spent a few months whaling after getting ditched by my beautiful plank of a sixth form girlfriend. I promise you Bluemooners, I have nasty-humped some massive participants.

 

[AustinBlue]

I spent a few months whaling after getting ditched by my beautiful plank of a sixth form girlfriend. I promise you Bluemooners, I have nasty-humped some massive participants.

That's pretty funny right there

 

[sweynforkbeard]

In the previous 10 pages has anyone mentioned the poop deck? Also I don't hold with bleaching chimps.