Whale Wars

[aggiecatholic05]

aggiecatholic05
I see your point.
However, I didn’t see killing / murder as the intent of Sea Shepherd. I view Sea Shepherd as assertively protesting, defending and attempting to save 1000 whales from being butchered “in the name of science”. Sea Shepherd is defending the lives of these beautiful creatures who are helpless in defending themselves.

Bob

killing may not be the ‘intent’ but it is a very real and possible consquence of the actions they take. if i were to drink a gallon of vodka then decide to go drive to mcdonalds in canada i wouldnt be attempting to kill someone but it is likely that i would. and i would likely be charged with murder if i did.

and im not trying to accuse them you or anybody of anything, but it is my understanding that putting animal life on par with or above human life is big time sinful. to me saying youd die for an animal and attacking humans to save animals is exactly that. this is the main reason i dont like the idea of this group. the rest is just icing.

the whales in question may be beautiful to some, i never saw it but hey to each their own-personally i like ducks those are pretty, but they are about as helpless as any other animal man harvests. they can flee that all the animals have.

edit- i am enjoying actually having a civil debate that isnt horribly off topic or a flamefest. it makes for a nice change of pace

 

[AMDGAlto]

I haven’t seen the show, but their base statement is so crazy! If you give one thing for another it’s because you believe the other thing is more valuable than the first. I think it’s immoral to say that a whale’s life is more valuable than a human’s.

I don’t think that animals should be slaughtered for no reason, but if you need the animal for food or clothing then it’s ok to kill it. I don’t agree with sport killing when you don’t use the animal you killed. I think it’s horrible just to kill something for fun.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

I haven’t seen the show, but their base statement is so crazy! If you give one thing for another it’s because you believe the other thing is more valuable than the first. I think it’s immoral to say that a whale’s life is more valuable than a human’s.

I don’t think that animals should be slaughtered for no reason, but if you need the animal for food or clothing then it’s ok to kill it. I don’t agree with sport killing when you don’t use the animal you killed. I think it’s horrible just to kill something for fun.

i cant argue with or object to one thing you said there

 

[Sair]

i would view it as an immoral statement. but in the interest of full disclousure i do not view whaling as an immoral activity. assuming it is done the same as fishing or hunting, in the most humane way possible and at a sustainable rate then its fine. intelligent as they may be whales are still just animals.

The biggest issue I have with whaling is that “the most humane way possible” of carrying out whale slaughter is still barbaric, and causes an immense amount of suffering to the whale. Whether human or not, it is still a sentient creature and entitled to be spared unnecessary suffering. There is no practical way for humans to hunt whales that would qualify as humane.

Then, of course, there is the issue of the dishonesty of the Japanese in carrying out commercial whaling under the auspices of ‘research’. Whale meat is not a staple of the Japanese diet, and therefore it is only monetary greed that motivates the annual slaughter. This in itself is immoral.

 

[Rleng616]

AGGIECATHOLIC05
You make some very good points.
No, the whales are not on the same par as humans, but they are alive and one of God’s creatures.
Thank you for your reply.

Bob

 

[aggiecatholic05]

The biggest issue I have with whaling is that “the most humane way possible” of carrying out whale slaughter is still barbaric, and causes an immense amount of suffering to the whale. Whether human or not, it is still a sentient creature and entitled to be spared unnecessary suffering. There is no practical way for humans to hunt whales that would qualify as humane.

Then, of course, there is the issue of the dishonesty of the Japanese in carrying out commercial whaling under the auspices of ‘research’. Whale meat is not a staple of the Japanese diet, and therefore it is only monetary greed that motivates the annual slaughter. This in itself is immoral.

i think we may be using different definitions of sentient. that may be the root of our disagreement. the way i leraned to use the term the only sentient things are God Angels and Man. the rest arent. sure they think, but those are mostly just instincts.

since i havent ever been on a whale hunt i only have television to go off-bad source i know. but i will agree that whaling most likely could be done in a more humane way.

if the japanese are being dishonest, then yes that is as immoral as any other dishonesty. no argument there. the same for greed.

but when it comes to whaling and attacking people who do it i am reminded of what my parents would tell me when i was 3-“two wrongs don’t make a right”

the sea shepards are still in the wrong even if the whalers are too.

and Bob you are welcome

 

[alveolate]

The biggest issue I have with whaling is that “the most humane way possible” of carrying out whale slaughter is still barbaric, and causes an immense amount of suffering to the whale. Whether human or not, it is still a sentient creature and entitled to be spared unnecessary suffering. There is no practical way for humans to hunt whales that would qualify as humane.

Then, of course, there is the issue of the dishonesty of the Japanese in carrying out commercial whaling under the auspices of ‘research’. Whale meat is not a staple of the Japanese diet, and therefore it is only monetary greed that motivates the annual slaughter. This in itself is immoral.

this is the precise point i was looking for in the argument… these so-called ecoterrorists aren’t really dying for THE whale, but more to make this statement: “preventing humanity from debasing itself to the level of butchering whales in an age when much more humane methods are available - this is worth me putting my life on the line.”

of course, i’m not 100% sure these whale war guys really think like that, but if they were putting their lives on the line for the bigger picture - humanity - is this then morally acceptable? what about tree-huggers, or peaceful demonstrators in a potentially life-threatening environment, or Thich Quang Duc? probably not a hearty “yup, these guys are moral!”, but definitely more room for consideration than “idolators. immoral.” yea?

 

[Sair]

I would imagine that anyone who makes the decision that they are prepared to die for a cause - not in the direct manner that a suicide bomber would adopt, but still acknowledging the possibility of death or injury as a result of their actions - obviously needs to be able to justify in their own conscience that the cause is worth the risks they are taking.

Each person would have their own reasons for deciding that saving the whales is a cause worth dying for - whether it’s making the statement that humanity should be beyond savagery, for the sake of conservation for the future, or even to save the life of a single whale. Different things are important to different people. It’s probably the same for soldiers sent into war zones - they need to resolve for themselves whether the war in which they are risking life and limb is a just war, if they are to avoid conflict of conscience.

 

[roanoker]

Whales are food, just like mackeral and tuna. The Japanese and the eskimos love it. Who can say that they can’t have it?

 

[Sair]

Most Japanese people don’t eat whale meat - it’s too expensive. They have stockpiles of unused whale meat because it’s not consumed. I’d say that constitutes waste on a massive scale. Who says the Japanese can’t eat whale meat? That would be the very people who set such a prohibitive price on it. Hunting whales is an expensive endeavour. There are many other cheaper, more humane sources of food available.

Besides - saying that whales are food and that constitutes a reason to brutally slaughter them is on a par with saying that humans should murder each other because we have the ability to kill. Any thinking person knows that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

 

[Vladi]

Save the whales! But killing millions of babies is a right.

The Left makes me sick.

 

[Sair]

I have to say, Vladi, I rather suspect the feeling is mutual.

And from a biological perspective, as far as sentience is concerned, a whale is far more so than a tiny bundle of cells that has not yet acquired the physical capability for sensory perception…

Someone always has to play the abortion card, don’t they? Do people sit there and think, “well, they’ve stumped me there. Can’t refute their argument, so I’ll just bring up the totally irrelevant subject of abortion. That’ll fix 'em!”

 

[Eucharisted]

And from a biological perspective, as far as sentience is concerned, a whale is far more so than a tiny bundle of cells that has not yet acquired the physical capability for sensory perception…

And from a biological perspective, as far as sentience is concerned, a whale is far more so than a tiny bundle of cells that has not yet acquired the physical capability for sensory perception…

And from a biological perspective, as far as sentience is concerned, a whale is far more so than a tiny bundle of cells that has not yet acquired the physical capability for sensory perception…

You, sir, made me chuckle.

 

[Sair]

Why? Is biology funny these days? I simply thought it was a relevant statement, considering earlier quibbling over the definition of sentience, and because someone thought it was appropriate to throw the subject of abortion into a completely unrelated discussion.

 

[wabrams]

Finally, you might ask, if I find their position so abhorrent, and I believe (as I do) that the Sea Shepherds are a profoundly immoral organization, as I understand Catholic morality, why do I watch the show?

And tho nobody asked it, I think this is a GREAT question, and I wish I had an answer. I need to think about this. Right now it is the equivalent of watching a train wreck - horrible, but fascinating, and not a level of “evil called good” that you see everyday. In my conscience, I believe this is not a good enough reason.

I definately think they are eco-terrorists, but like you, I can’t take my eyes off the train wreck! It is a very fascinating show and an interesting insight into the looney toon fringe.

 

[wabrams]

aggiecatholic05
I see your point.
However, I didn’t see killing / murder as the intent of Sea Shepherd. I view Sea Shepherd as assertively protesting, defending and attempting to save 1000 whales from being butchered “in the name of science”. Sea Shepherd is defending the lives of these beautiful creatures who are helpless in defending themselves.

Bob

It might not be the intent, but what if their little stunts causes someone to die? Slippery powder causes someone to loose their footing and goes over the side or slip and crack their skull open. Or what if they foul the propellers and someone dies while trying to tow the ship back to harbor?

 

[Sair]

It might not be the intent, but what if their little stunts causes someone to die? Slippery powder causes someone to loose their footing and goes over the side or slip and crack their skull open. Or what if they foul the propellers and someone dies while trying to tow the ship back to harbor?

The possibility of death or injury is inherent in the job the whalers do. Even without the activists trying to stop them, whaling is a dangerous activity (though less so than it was a century or so ago). Just like the crab fishers in the Bering sea, they accept the risks because they get paid a good wage. Neither whale meat nor crab meat are essential food items - people hunt and fish for them because there is a highly lucrative market for what is considered luxury cuisine.

 

[wabrams]

The possibility of death or injury is inherent in the job the whalers do. Even without the activists trying to stop them, whaling is a dangerous activity (though less so than it was a century or so ago). Just like the crab fishers in the Bering sea, they accept the risks because they get paid a good wage. Neither whale meat nor crab meat are essential food items - people hunt and fish for them because there is a highly lucrative market for what is considered luxury cuisine.

I understand that there are a great many risks inherent with those jobs; but those dangers are from mother nature, not man. What you are hinting at would be akin to trying to justify the actions of an arsonist just because a fireman’s job is dangerous to begin with.

 

[Sair]

I understand that there are a great many risks inherent with those jobs; but those dangers are from mother nature, not man. What you are hinting at would be akin to trying to justify the actions of an arsonist just because a fireman’s job is dangerous to begin with.

Um, kind of. Only firefighting is an altruistic occupation, and I imagine that there are rewards greater than monetary reimbursement that come from the job that make it worth the risk to those who undertake the work. There is nothing altruistic about whaling, and the Japanese know they are carrying it out in defiance of international opinion. Antiwhaling activists must be a familiar part of the job by now.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Japanese know they are carrying it out in defiance of international opinion.

so? i hate how much stock is placed in the international opinion. its like the us judges who want to use european laws as reasoning in their decesions.

if japan says whaling is legal in their waters that is their right as a soverign nation, and attacks by forieners on their ships should be viewed as an act of war, making any response from them self defense.