News Whaling Petition

[Scouse]

I don't hugely disagree with most of what you're saying, DaGaffer. I, personally, wouldn't eat any primate or monkey unless I was starving to death. That's the only way it would be "necessary" for me.

I don't know enough to make an informed decision either way on whether I think any monkey is fair game. I suspect not, though.

As for the social pain argument. One of my edits was to add the word "great" in front of social pain. I guess that social pain of some degree is to be expected when you kill pretty much any animal. One of the reasons that I wouldn't kill primates is that they're demonstrably so close to humans in their emotional responses that I think it's not only cruel but irresponsible for us to do so...

 

[rynnor]

We don't need to kill them - it's not even as if they're shitting out crude oil. It's not as if people will starve to death without whale meat either. Shed loads of that stuff just ends up in catfood.

O - I missed this one - you do realise thats not true right?

 

[rynnor]

One of the reasons that I wouldn't kill primates is that they're demonstrably so close to humans in their emotional responses that I think it's not only cruel but irresponsible for us to do so...

Ugh - what a morally reprehensible approach - 'only things that look like us feel pain' nice one - your well on your way to writing the bible - feel sure to throw in some nonsense about things made in gods image

 

[rynnor]

YEAH! Killing whales improves self esteem!

Yay- I like to criticise other cultures because it makes me feel good!!111

 

[noblok]

Ugh - what a morally reprehensible approach - 'only things that look like us feel pain' nice one - your well on your way to writing the bible - feel sure to throw in some nonsense about things made in gods image

Yeah, I don't get that either. You're blaming christianity for creating the illusion that humans are far superior to anything else, but you're basically doing the same thing. Other creatures only have value insofar as they are like humans. It's not exactly the same argument, but in essence it comes down to the same thing. Humans are the measure of all things.

 

[Scouse]

Ugh - what a morally reprehensible approach - 'only things that look like us feel pain' nice one - your well on your way to writing the bible - feel sure to throw in some nonsense about things made in gods image

That's your (mistaken) interpretation of how I feel.

I've been arguing against whaling based on nothing more than the needless suffering it creates.

The thread has moved on (IMHO) to a more wide-ranging discussion of animal welfare.

What I stated (about primates only) is that they demonstrably feel pain - and we can understand that. Therefore it's a no-brainer that killing them = bad.

It's quite obvious (I think) that I'm attempting to make the argument that: if we can demonstrate that other animals feel and comprehend pain on a similar level then we have to consider not killing them too.


I've stated that we're at the beginning of a new scientific exploration and understanding of the animal world around us. The comments were made in that context.

However understanding context is not something I feel is one of your strong points rynnor

Yeah, I don't get that either.

I can see that. It's because you're reading what I wrote and taking the wrong message.

 

[rynnor]

However understanding context is not something I feel is one of your strong points rynnor

I think you are incapable of seeing the implications of what you say then are shocked to backtrack when others point them out tbh.

 

[Scouse]

I think you're a bit of a bitch, tbfh, and when presented with a clarification you go "nyah nyah bollocks I don't believe you"...

 

[noblok]

I can see that. It's because you're reading what I wrote and taking the wrong message.

I don't see how. Except for the extinction argument all of your points rely on the similarity between animals and humans. Physical pain, social suffering, intelligence: these are all things in which they are like us.

 

[Scouse]

I don't see how. Except for the extinction argument all of your points rely on the similarity between animals and humans. Physical pain, social suffering, intelligence: these are all things in which they are like us.

I've explicitly stated that I think we need to consider our treatment of other animals (i.e. non-primates). I've also (repeatedly) stated that I consider our actions to be currently taken in a paucity of scientific understanding of the animal world.

How much clearer can I be?


As for your point that I seem to have chosen unsuitable criteria to assess an animals suitability as a foodstock - I'm open to challenge on that and would like to ask you this direct question:

If physical pain, social suffering and intelligence are unsuitable criterion to base such a decision on, what are?

 

[noblok]

I know you also think we need to consider non-primates. My point was that the only arguments you offer as to why we should consider them are characteristics in which they are similar to humans (again, apart from extinction).

If physical pain, social suffering and intelligence are unsuitable criterion to base such a decision on, what are?

I think 'wildness' is an important element to consider in a proper treatment of animals. This means that in my view it's more important that e.g. a whale is allowed to roam free before it's killed than whether or not it suffers. Translated to a more concrete situation I think it's fairer to a deer to hunt it in the wild than it is to keep it under controlled circumstances in a farm, even though in the first case you can't guarantee a painless death, while you can have this guarantee if they're kep in captivity all their lives (well, there are no 100% certainties, but you get the point).

Obviously domestic animals are somewhat of a grey area here. I don't think I agree with those who say that domestic animals are 'genetic goofies', i.e. impoverished clones of once wild animals, but on the other hand I can see where they're coming from. For domestic animals I think a proper way to treat them is one which respects their individuality. This doesn't mean they should all have a name, but it certainly excludes an industrial kind of farming which views them only as raw materials. I think they should be viewed as creatures who live their own lives, (to an extent) independent of us, not as creatures who's only purpose is to feed us (although I don't think there's anything wrong intrinsically with eating them).

I realise these aren't the clearest and most practical of ideas, but I think they are valuable guidelines.

 

[Scouse]

I realise these aren't the clearest and most practical of ideas, but I think they are valuable guidelines.

No offence, but I think you're talking nonsense.

 

[noblok]

I understand. I get that a lot when I talk to people about non-anthropocentric ethics .

 

[Scouse]

Ok then. I'll bite:

I think 'wildness' is an important element to consider in a proper treatment of animals. This means that in my view it's more important that e.g. a whale is allowed to roam free before it's killed than whether or not it suffers

So, you're saying long as it's had a "free" life then it doesn't matter if it suffers outrageously?

Is "wildness" a sliding scale? Is it quantifiable other than "not farmed"?

Farmed creatures have to be nicely treated because they've been locked in fields regardless of whether they comprehend captivity, but "wild" animals deserve a bit of suffering 'cause that's "fair"?


Just because you talk about non-anthropocentric ethics in your bible group doesn't mean you're learning anything worthwhile, other than big words...

 

[noblok]

So, you're saying long as it's had a "free" life then it doesn't matter if it suffers outrageously?

No. I think suffering matters, but I don't think it's the only point to be considered. I also think it's not the most important point. Outrageous suffering is probably something which should be avoided, but suffering is a sliding scale.

Is "wildness" a sliding scale? Is it quantifiable other than "not farmed"?

Yes, I think it is a sliding scale. It's pretty obvious that for example a lion in a zoo is 'more wild' than one kept in a circus cage, but less wild than one which roams in an African nature reserve.

Farmed creatures have to be nicely treated because they've been locked in fields regardless of whether they comprehend captivity, but "wild" animals deserve a bit of suffering 'cause that's "fair"?

I think you misunderstood my point. I don't think domesticated animals should be compensated for their captivity, because I think a case can be made for captivity being their proper place/treatment. However, I think they still should be respected as a ceature with a life independent of ours.

I also didn't claim wild animals deserve suffering. I just think that suffering is something which shouldn't necessarily be avoided. According to me there are more important values than avoiding suffering.

 

[DaGaffer]

I don't see how. Except for the extinction argument all of your points rely on the similarity between animals and humans. Physical pain, social suffering, intelligence: these are all things in which they are like us.

I really don't see the problem with that. And yes, I do increasingly have a problem with eating pork for precisely that reason (on the other hand, bacon is proof God doesn't exist so I feel duty bound to eat it ). I don't particularly want to be a vegetarian (mainly because most of them are boring self-righteous twats), but at the same time I don't assign the same worth to a chicken as say, a dolphin. Hard line carnivores may regard me as being a hypocrite, well so be it. Hypocracy serves a useful social function.

 

[noblok]

Well, that's fair enough. I just thought it was a bit unfair of Scouse to lambast Christianity for emphasising the special status of mankind, while his own argumentation is fundamentally no different and only make some superficial changes.

 

[Scouse]

I advocate wholesale change. You put forward the standard christian view. Which I think is utter bollocks.

 

[noblok]

I advocate wholesale change.

Not really. In essence it's still all about humans and human values. Animals should only be respected insofar as they are like humans. While I agree that you advocate some change and they are probably changes I'd support, it's no fundamental turnaround.

edit: I'd be inclined to agree that what I put forward is at least close to the standard christian view, but it is pretty far removed from the "it's our sky-fairy-given right to exploit all of nature as we see fit" view.

 

[rynnor]

I don't particularly want to be a vegetarian (mainly because most of them are boring self-righteous twats), but at the same time I don't assign the same worth to a chicken as say, a dolphin. Hard line carnivores may regard me as being a hypocrite, well so be it. Hypocracy serves a useful social function.

When you render it down to its objective basis the anti-whaling arguement really comes down to cultural 'dont eat' lists.

Theres no consistent logic to these lists yet when another culture has a different list its all 'Ooo arent they evil for eating X'.

As you put it you regard a dolphin as having more worth than a chicken - thats a purely cultural judgement - if another culture of fishermen regards dolphins as fish stealing pests isnt that equally valid?

 

[DaGaffer]

When you render it down to its objective basis the anti-whaling arguement really comes down to cultural 'dont eat' lists.

Theres no consistent logic to these lists yet when another culture has a different list its all 'Ooo arent they evil for eating X'.

As you put it you regard a dolphin as having more worth than a chicken - thats a purely cultural judgement - if another culture of fishermen regards dolphins as fish stealing pests isnt that equally valid?

Its not as simple as that. Look at it this way; how long does it take to replace a chicken? How long does it take to replace a dolphin? Whaling is a poor food production method from a completely objective economic point of view. No cultural bias required.

As it happens, the only person who keeps throwing around the racist argument is you; I don't see anyone else describing the Japanese as evil or anything like that.

 

[rynnor]

Its not as simple as that. Look at it this way; how long does it take to replace a chicken? How long does it take to replace a dolphin? Whaling is a poor food production method from a completely objective economic point of view. No cultural bias required.

You get a lot more from one whale than one chicken though eh? You really suggest that people might be against whaling because its a poor food production method?

I hope you are boycotting beef then since its a lot less effecient than broiler chicken farming?

Its actually probably quite effecient since it requires no land and no feed your just go harvest them.

As it happens, the only person who keeps throwing around the racist argument is you; I don't see anyone else describing the Japanese as evil or anything like that.

People are making a judgement on another culture through a form of cultural imperialism - that in essence is racist.

Your saying that your right and they are wrong backed with nothing more than cultural prejudices.

 

[Scouse]

When you render it down to its objective basis the anti-whaling arguement really comes down to cultural 'dont eat' lists.

Still ignoring all of my arguments, none of which are based on any cultural bullshit, I see...

People are making a judgement on another culture through a form of cultural imperialism - that in essence is racist.

Your saying that your right and they are wrong backed with nothing more than cultural prejudices.

Yep. Even after everyone has told you that it's fuck all to do with culture and given other reasons for their objections (mine based on cruelty alone) you still bang on your same broken drum...

 

[Jail Bait]

When you render it down to its objective basis the anti-whaling arguement really comes down to cultural 'dont eat' lists.

Theres no consistent logic to these lists yet when another culture has a different list its all 'Ooo arent they evil for eating X'.

As you put it you regard a dolphin as having more worth than a chicken - thats a purely cultural judgement - if another culture of fishermen regards dolphins as fish stealing pests isnt that equally valid?

QFT thank you

 

[Jail Bait]

Interesting question (the first that's been posed).

I wouldn't actively support them. But that's about it.

See, the reason I asked this is that Canada`s indigenous peoples that hunt whales do so the way that they did before white man came. Small boats and hand thrown harpoons vs the Japanese whalers with their explosive tipped harpoon throwing cannons that kill almost immediately.

Canada`s natives hunt for whales along cultural lines and is very important to them, I am not going to deny them the ability to do so.

 

[rynnor]

Still ignoring all of my arguments, none of which are based on any cultural bullshit, I see...

I'm not ignoring them but I hope that I have shown how they are flawed and actually based on cultural bias not logic?

Yep. Even after everyone has told you that it's fuck all to do with culture and given other reasons for their objections (mine based on cruelty alone) you still bang on your same broken drum...

I dont think you and da-gaffer constitute everyone

I dont expect most people to accept my arguements - its tough to throw off cultural programming I'd just like to challenge the idea that this issue is black n white and perhaps get some people to think.

 

[DaGaffer]

You get a lot more from one whale than one chicken though eh? You really suggest that people might be against whaling because its a poor food production method?

I hope you are boycotting beef then since its a lot less effecient than broiler chicken farming?

Its actually probably quite effecient since it requires no land and no feed your just go harvest them.

One chicken can lay 300 eggs a year; if they go to term that's 300 8lb (3.6Kg) chickens. Assume 21 day gestation and chickens don't start to breed until say 5 months. So in 18 months you can have a tonne of chicken meat.

By comparison, a Minke whale takes a year to gestate, and 13 years to mature, reaching a mass of 7 tonnes. And that's a relatively small whale.

So please don't tell me whale hunting is more efficient that chicken farming (and yes, beef farming is worse than chicken farming, but the inefficiencies of whale hunting are orders of magnitude worse)

People are making a judgement on another culture through a form of cultural imperialism - that in essence is racist.

Your saying that your right and they are wrong backed with nothing more than cultural prejudices.

"Culturalist" if you must. So what? I don't like fois gras production either. It doesn't mean I'm anti-French. But that's irrelevant because the cultural imperialism argument is a load of shite anyway. Commercial whaling is no more part of Japanese "culture" than building PS3s is. (Its actually far more part of British culture than Japanese) Its a convienient cover for commercial interests and no more than that; the Japanese hardly ate any whale meat prior to WWII (no-one did - its horrible), and only got a taste for it during post-war austerity. Japanese whaling in the 1500s (when they really started) was done for exactly the same reasons as in the west, for whale oil, which no-one needs anymore.

 

[Scouse]

I'm not ignoring them but I hope that I have shown how they are flawed and actually based on cultural bias not logic?

IMO you've not even attempted to show how my argument, which is based solely on cruelty, is a "cultural bias". Hurting things is hurting things - it doesn't matter where in the world it's being carried out.

WTF has that got to do with "culture"?

Canada`s natives hunt for whales along cultural lines and is very important to them, I am not going to deny them the ability to do so.

Did you actually read my post? I said I wouldn't actively support them. Is that the same as deny?


Anyway - what we're talking about is the resumption of commercial whaling. It's cruel and unnecessary. Nothing you or rynnor have said have even challenged the established fact that it fekking well hurts them.

You guys simply don't care that it does. Admit it already!

 

[Jail Bait]

One chicken can lay 300 eggs a year; if they go to term that's 300 8lb (3.6Kg) chickens. Assume 21 day gestation and chickens don't start to breed until say 5 months. So in 18 months you can have a tonne of chicken meat.

By comparison, a Minke whale takes a year to gestate, and 13 years to mature, reaching a mass of 7 tonnes. And that's a relatively small whale.

So please don't tell me whale hunting is more efficient that chicken farming (and yes, beef farming is worse than chicken farming, but the inefficiencies of whale hunting are orders of magnitude worse)

Creatures like worms, mice and rabbits would even be better that chicken, should we stop eating chicken and beef because it doesn`t fit your cultural beliefs

"Culturalist" if you must. So what? I don't like fois gras production either. It doesn't mean I'm anti-French. But that's irrelevant because the cultural imperialism argument is a load of shite anyway. Commercial whaling is no more part of Japanese "culture" than building PS3s is. (Its actually far more part of British culture than Japanese) Its a convienient cover for commercial interests and no more than that; the Japanese hardly ate any whale meat prior to WWII (no-one did - its horrible), and only got a taste for it during post-war austerity. Japanese whaling in the 1500s (when they really started) was done for exactly the same reasons as in the west, for whale oil, which no-one needs anymore.

The Japanese may not have but North American Inuit peoples have for recorded history.

 

[Jail Bait]

Did you actually read my post? I said I wouldn't actively support them. Is that the same as deny?

But you will criticize them, isn`t that the same......

Anyway - what we're talking about is the resumption of commercial whaling. It's cruel and unnecessary. Nothing you or rynnor have said have even challenged the established fact that it fekking well hurts them.

You guys simply don't care that it does. Admit it already!

Since the introduction of explosive harpoons the whales die quickly.

You better start waving the Vegan sign around because for a piece of Taste Meat to get to your plate then something has to die.

And yes I don`t care what dies as long as it is taste.