This groups seems to have taken a turn for the worst since I last posted there. Check out the rants:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=7516&pst=913794

 [ send green star]

Jerks! Whales should be free to go about and doing their whaling activities unhindered.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

*loudaff*

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

It lost me at internet public and flamer.  What does it matter to you, really, FD? 

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Maybe I would like to try eating whale one day, without travelling to Japan or Europe. People like that do have some influence, unfortunately.

 [ send green star]

I believe they still consume blubbler there ...

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Ahhhhh, i c.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Plus, they are the intended audience of my whaling article.

 [ send green star]

Gotcha. 

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Actually, I think this is what motivated me to get into the debate in the first place. The anti marine park lobby was using 'foot in the door' type arguments and pretending that marine aprks were really about banning fishing completely. I kept saying that is absurd and would never happen, but then the whaling issue started nagging at the back of my mind. Oddly enough, the anti marine park lobbyists were often the first on the fishing forums to jump on the anti whaling bandwagon, right in the middle of saying all fishermen must stick together to fight the common enemy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/why-allow-whaling.html

 [ send green star]

That is because, Freediver, you still think fish are free.

Protection of Whales are sought because of past over~whaling~ an ironic term one might suggest.

When there was an over~abundance of food per hunter, it appeared to be so. Yet, now that the finiteness of world is more realized, we see that we cannot just willy~nilly consume to our heart's desire without thinking about it.

Deer culling occurs because they have stripped the land bare of what they eat. That this is from predators being killed or run~off seems to miss some people's attention~ and that they have done something similar. Their approach is to further limit the wildlife. This, often, to a point of extinction or decimation.

So, Freediver, I have little sympathy with your desire to someday eat Whale. Not until one realizes that there has to be constraints to ensure sustainability. When one is a part of a sustainable life, life~style, and Whales are in safe numbers, then the hunting of Whales is acceptable. That even one may already, in some fashion, think this way, is tainted by those that have preceded one, the reason for such restraints in the first place.

Yet, it is the one that offers sustainability that is the one that can hunt.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Stir up a bunch of controversy with a deliberately stupid argument, and then act like a victim when people call him on it.

Sorry-- don't see any "ethics" or any "progressivism" here. Just a childish quest for constant attention and a need to disrupt other people's good works....

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

But it isn't a stupid argument Archie. Taboos are a bad strategy for environmentalists. We should be worried about sustainability, not imposing our strange ideas on the world.

 [ send green star]

Freediver, your lack of comprehension is on your own upbringing and abilities, not on how I live my life.

Your rustic charm has long lost its appeal. Whether you know and purposely goad people, or are just blindly unaware of the world around you, the answer is strongly suggested by your last remark to me.

And as such I have lost any last resemblance of respect I had for you. The doubt has been erased and now I see it correct.

I will seriously take this into consideration in all my future dealings with you.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Thanks Blackcat, I appreciate it. Feel free to explain what you meant any time. If you get really keen you can try to counter my arguments about whaling.

 [ send green star]

Freediver, if you are incapable of understanding, you should go study. I would not trust a word you say at this point. Your lacking arguments in the past have now come to the forefront. Why not go back to your thread and get kicked around some more there.

I am not of the shallow kind who judges a group of people by one example, I judge people by their own actions and words and I see you belong in this ethics group just as much as you belong in a group about protecting whales.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

I can understand just fine, except of course for what you posted.

I am not asking you to trust anything I say. I am asking you to attempt to criticise it. I expect you will put far more weight in your own inability to launch a logical counter-argument.

Or, you could just continue with your personal attacks as a substitute for reasoned debate, like all good anti whaling activists.

 [ send green star]

Freediver, you are the one that insulted.

So, get off your high horse.

I am busy with other stuff. I don't rattle off without facts when they are incorporate to the argument.

The anti~whaling measures were put into place because of over~whaling. If you cannot fathom that basic fact, there is no need in starting a conversation.

I cannot counter your claim about the present levels of whales as I am not in the mood for researching that at the moment. That does not mean I won't. I have in the past, and tho it was well over a year ago, I do not trust your assessment that the numbers have sufficiently recovered, tho I know some have to a certain level.

Snide remarks will only create a hostile environment here on Care2.

Join that group if one wishes, but think first of the company one will be keeping.

Jumping to the conclusion that someone automatically and totally opposes one is a bad policy.

I do not oppose, tho I do not do so without questioning, hunting, or eating animals. I do oppose such where it strips an area, causes damages, or is basically unnecessary. That profit or livelihood exists does not over~whelm other considerations, such as destroying an animals overall survival. Excessive cutting down of trees is not supported by whatever design someone can make out for the reasoning.

Livelihood plays an important part, but the instances that it exists in cases is generally rare.

It is possible to get another job, and find food somewhere else.

Whales were in great numbers and were hunted to near destruction. That is where the argument starts. The fact that someone might someday want to taste whale meat is a near insignificant consideration. If there are a bountiful amount of whales, or something else, and it is hunting in a generally decent way, without overall harming the environment, and so on, I am not opposed to it simply because the animal possesses some desired manner. Tho, I take that into consideration. Meat is generally high cost, and at some time there may be a way around hunting to a great degree, even it that brings up the question if their desirability in other ways might affect their existence.

That is my opening argument. I will sometime this week look up statistics. And go on from there.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

The anti~whaling measures were put into place because of over~whaling. If you cannot fathom that basic fact, there is no need in starting a conversation.

What makes you think I cannot fathom that? Are you at all familiar with the justification for the resumption of commerical whaling?

It is possible to get another job, and find food somewhere else.

You could make the same argument about any food source. It is not a valid argument for banning consumption of it.

 [ send green star]

We should not impose our ideas upon the world and we should at the same time be careful about what animal gets killed and why.

I believe progressivism is about NOT being politically correct.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Why is it not an argument to ban consumption of it?

What right do you have to hunt an animal to extinction?

Especially, when you talk about sustainability?

I take it you are backing off on your claim of supporting sustainability, then?

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

'Are you at all familiar with the justification for the resumption of commerical whaling?'


I have some idea, but if you wish to inform before I research the matter, go right ahead.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Why is it not an argument to ban consumption of it?

Because you could make the same argument about any food source. It only comes close to making sense if you apply it in a hypocritical manner, and use it as a baseless justification for preconcieved notions.

What right do you have to hunt an animal to extinction?

Uh, who said anything about that?

I have some idea, but if you wish to inform before I research the matter, go right ahead.

Hunting whales can be done sustainably. The original justification for the ban is no longer valid. As it was the only acceptable justification for the ban, whaling should be once more allowed.

 [ send green star]

Are you referring to anything specific?

 [ send green star]

What evidence are you looking at?

 [ send green star]

Boris has closed my thread. I guess he decided they had run out of insults, so the thread could only go downhill from there.

 [ send green star]

OIC. I thought you were talking about patterns in tea leaves. Thanks for clearing that up.

Any chance you could give a reference for these 'studies'?

 [ send green star]

The hysterical abuse is continuing in this thread:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=7516&pst=663468

You have to laugh at the logic - I'm going to kill you, BTW you are a coward for not revealing your true identity to me.

 [ send green star]

Is that supposed to represent the extent of your knowledge of the topic - typing whale population into a search engine? Didn't you say you had been looking at actual whale population studies?

 [ send green star]

I honestly think if whaling can be done sustainably, we shouldn't stand in the way of those who wish to do it.

Those people who take animal intelligence seriously consider pigs to be smarter than the whales that are harvested.

 [ send green star]

Thank you for your response.  You brought up an interesting view.  I have seen some evidence that pigs are intelligent.  At least as intelligent as dogs.  The question is: how do we measure intelligence?  Definitely with our primate bias.  We look for use of tools and a capability to change our environment (often to our loss.)  Why should these be measures of an organism to determine intelligence?  Who says the creativity shown by whale song shouldn't be considered?  Or their obvious care and love of other whales?  And if these don't apply (in your decisions) then what determines your diet?  Anything slower?  Anything you can't hold a conversation with?  That doesn't bode well for the majority of humanity...

I really wish I had the courage to be a vegitarian?  I wish I could change my diet.  There are plenty of reasons other than a strong heart and a gentle nature to avoid eating animals.  I'm sure you know the statistics regarding how much you actually consume when you eat a cow.  If we eat from the bottom of the chain, instead of near the top, there is so much less wasted.  Sooner or later some of us won't have a choice. 

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

No, Freediver, I actually looked at the different results, but if one cannot bring themselves to delve into any of the results, my posting individual numbers and quoting opinions on the subject will not make any difference to you. When 99% of the results say they are still too low...

I gave my opinion on the numbers and opinions.

I say you come up with the argument, with the numbers, as you are the one that brought it up and want to change what is now policy.

You make a case.

Just calling for hunting because you think it is sustainable means not a lot.

You prove your case.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

The question is: how do we measure intelligence?  Definitely with our primate bias.

True. The main criticism of animal intelligence research is it's lack of objectivity and anthropocentrism. We can't even measure human intelligence in a way that everyone agrees with, so basically we can't even measure it in purely human terms, let alone from a broader perspective.

I'm sure you know the statistics regarding how much you actually consume when you eat a cow.  If we eat from the bottom of the chain, instead of near the top

A cow is about as low as you can go on the grasslands. Just because it is big does not mean it is high on the food chain.

No, Freediver, I actually looked at the different results, but if one cannot bring themselves to delve into any of the results, my posting individual numbers and quoting opinions on the subject will not make any difference to you.

So basically you can't be bothered backing up your argument with facts?

When 99% of the results say they are still too low...

That's the interpretation of the results, not the results themselves. The 99% figure is merely a reflection of your bias in selecting articles based on them having conclusions you already agree with.

I gave my opinion on the numbers and opinions.

I heard an interesting saying about opinions the other day.

You make a case.

I have. That the IWC scientific committee supports the resumption of commercial whaling is enough for me.

Just calling for hunting because you think it is sustainable means not a lot.

But I've already done far more than that.

 [ send green star]

Present the results then, smart guy.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Freediver will do.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/why-allow-whaling.html

 [ send green star]

I do not see anything about the IWC. Mostly a diatribe against those who make arguments in favor of not fishing to extinction.

Whales were overfished.

As have been other sea creatures. And other animals. The Dodo, for example.

When sufficient numbers exist, regulations are put in place to prevent overfishing, and there is the general mindset of living in a way that does not encourage excess damage to the environment, than there can be a pilot program to see if people are capable.

It was overfishing that brought the situation on, not some taboo.

Until people can accept that it was their own actions, or the actions of previous people with similar views, rather than try to blame others, and use arguments such as 'California, a state with millions of obese people' banned selling of Kangaroo...

California does not have to bow to you, someone from a foreign country.

The protection of animals in international waters is not the prerogative of one or two nations. There is also a big difference in protecting animals that have been endangered by people's actions, and forcing others to sell something against their will.

I am for sustainable use, but will not bow to such methods.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Whales were overfished.

You do realise there are more than one species don't you? Which oens are overfished?

Youa re the one who claimed to have done research, looked at the facts, and would be posting them. So far all I see are broad, uninformed generalisations. You say you might support whaling if it could be done sustainably, but you refuse to consider whether it can be done sustinably now, instead prefering to chant empty headed mantras.

 [ send green star]

Yes, and you made a case by calling Californians obese.

And have gone further by calling my statements empty~headed.

You have not made a case and have once again resorted to insults.

Of course, there are different types of whales, some that were more 'whaled' than others.

Are you trying to deny that there were whales that were over~whaled?

Is that really the case one is making?

I have not put any particular energy into this project because you have not made any true effort other than trying to malign people, while claiming to have made a scientific case, by implication, presenting no numbers of how whales have returned to any large numbers that allow them to be whaled again.

The link I presented even had a few articles that might support your position, yet you think insulting people makes your case.

I gave support to you in the past because I thought there was an honesty in one's attempt and not simply a desire to harass and insult people, giving you the benefit of a doubt.

After you make a legitimate argument that has any semblance of science behind it, I will respond.

Otherwise, I have no interest in you or your base insults.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Yes, and you made a case by calling Californians obese.

A landmass cannot be obese. Are you saying California does not have a serious obesity issue, brought about at least in part by their taste for tortured baby cows?

Are you trying to deny that there were whales that were over~whaled?

No. Did you read my article?

I have not put any particular energy into this project because you have not made any true effort other than trying to malign people, while claiming to have made a scientific case, by implication,

I have not claimed to have made a 'scientific case'. I left that up to the IWC scientists, who have made a valid case for the resumption of commercial whaling.

 [ send green star]