News Deceptive Japanese Whaling Season Begins

[DaveC426913]

Okay, I have to ask how what I think is a fair exception can be excluded by that (just to help me understand your argument, please): there are a lot of people who are so disabled that they can not demand their rights. But aren't their rights a given regardless?

You mean simply because they can't speak?

No. Animals can't demand rights because they are not sapient. They live in the present, with no concept of freedom of pursuit of happiness.

Dave C, you bring up an interesting argument. What about the organisms which live upon both you and I to this very day?

Icky, yes, but something to think about, particularly as neither you nor I gave them any permission to live upon us at all.

I don't follow. What about them?

 

[ThomasT]

My argument is that animal rights should be a given, just as black rights or women's rights are.

Agreeing with the position of some other contributors to this thread, and disagreeing with you on this particular point (even though I acknowledge that your position is reasonable, and that your points wrt, say, vegetarianism, etc., despite nismaratwork's eloquent, and to the point, protestations, make much sense to me) I don't think that animal rights, or any other rights are "a given" in any sort of naturalistic, objective sense. Rights are given, or not, by those in power, by those in control.

Now, do I think that Japenese, or Norwegian, or whatever, whaling should be allowed to continue? Personally, I would rather that it stop. But, objectively, wrt the world at large, I can't find a good reason why it should. That is to say, even though it offends my sensibilities, I don't think it matters wrt encompassing considerations such as the survivability of other species, in particular mankind, or the oceans, or Earth. More species than we can count have come and gone in the history of the Earth.

As far as I can ascertain, worst case scenario, all of the whales and dolphins in the world can become extinct, and that wouldn't have much impact on the survivability of the human species. In fact, most of the species in our world can become extinct, and that wouldn't have much impact on the survivability of the human species. Do I want to live in such a world? No. Do I have any reasons for this orientation other than emotional ones? No.

I don't think in terms of normative ethics. Esthetically, for reasons that I can't verbalize, I would rather that we leave populations of wild animals to flourish, or not, on their own. However, it appears that certain portions of humankind are intent on preying on, with the possibly of extinguishing, certain animal species. And, I don't have any good, objective, argument against this, while very much not liking it.

Are the Japanese or Norwegian whaling practices reprehensible? Well, not according to them. And I have to agree, in a certain sense. Whale killing, or rhino killing, or gorilla killing, or whatever, isn't, in itself, reprehensible. Ok, yes, I, along with many others, want to live in a world where all of these species are present. However, my current opinion is that it doesn't matter wrt to the survivability of humankind. So, if the criterion is simply the survivabilty of humankind, then it seems to me that we can kill off most of the animal and plant species on Earth and still survive quite healthily. Or maybe not. I don't really know, so am amenable to being persuaded otherwise.

 

[nismaratwork]

Agreeing with the position of some other contributors to this thread, and disagreeing with you on this particular point (even though I acknowledge that your position is reasonable, and that your points wrt, say, vegetarianism, etc., despite nismaratwork's eloquent, and to the point, protestations, make much sense to me) I don't think that animal rights, or any other rights are "a given" in any sort of naturalistic, objective sense. Rights are given, or not, by those in power, by those in control.

Now, do I think that Japenese, or Norwegian, or whatever, whaling should be allowed to continue? Personally, I would rather that it stop. But, objectively, wrt the world at large, I can't find a good reason why it should. That is to say, even though it offends my sensibilities, I don't think it matters wrt encompassing considerations such as the survivability of other species, in particular mankind, or the oceans, or Earth. More species than we can count have come and gone in the history of the Earth.

As far as I can ascertain, worst case scenario, all of the whales and dolphins in the world can become extinct, and that wouldn't have much impact on the survivability of the human species. In fact, most of the species in our world can become extinct, and that wouldn't have much impact on the survivability of the human species. Do I want to live in such a world? No. Do I have any reasons for this orientation other than emotional ones? No.

I don't think in terms of normative ethics. Esthetically, for reasons that I can't verbalize, I would rather that we leave populations of wild animals to flourish, or not, on their own. However, it appears that certain portions of humankind are intent on preying on, with the possibly of extinguishing, certain animal species. And, I don't have any good, objective, argument against this, while very much not liking it.

Are the Japanese or Norwegian whaling practices reprehensible? Well, not according to them. And I have to agree, in a certain sense. Whale killing, or rhino killing, or gorilla killing, or whatever, isn't, in itself, reprehensible. Ok, yes, I, along with many others, want to live in a world where all of these species are present. However, my current opinion is that it doesn't matter wrt to the survivability of humankind. So, if the criterion is simply the survivabilty of humankind, then it seems to me that we can kill off most of the animal and plant species on Earth and still survive quite healthily. Or maybe not. I don't really know, so am amenable to being persuaded otherwise.

I would add... for me... if I had the willpower to not eat meat, I'd do that. I don't think it's better for my health... I just really feel badly about how many animals I've eaten. I'm not unrealistic about the internal world of cows however, but by the same token I'm given pause by the seeming intelligence of pigs (relatively intelligent...), cetaceans, and even some birds. Are these animals fooling us with elaborate behaviors, are they sapient, are either of those questions really valid when applied to a non-human intelligence, if it exists?

So... I understand why you appreciate dreiter's points, as well as mine... it's a horribly conflicted matter of balancing self-control, morals, and the possibility that what I just ate felt pain, suffered, and died... or just died. It's all my FEELINGS however, because there isn't a locus of data I can point to and say, "there, animal sapience!". I also can't ignore the fact that I wouldn't have eaten any of my dogs (given a choice), yet I eat pigs... which are brighter than dogs.

I think for those reasons this kind of issue requires exceedingly narrow focus relating to the issues of whaling in this context where it's:
Unnecessary
Illegal
In Violation of International Treaty (see: Illegal)
The Justification Is "cultural".

"Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning!"

P.S. I agree that it's unlikely to stop, even though as you say, my sensibilities are offended. (The only element of this I can state with absolute certainty)

 

[dreiter]

They can't be a given. Since rights are an entirely human invention, and animals cannot demand their own rights, the only way animals get rights is if we bestow them and enforce them on their behalf. i.e. the only contention that there will ever be over the rights of animals is that of humans who think they should have rights versus humans who think they shouldn't.

Newai countered your thought, and I have already answered why animal rights still apply when instituted by humans.

Okay, I have to ask how what I think is a fair exception can be excluded by that (just to help me understand your argument, please): there are a lot of people who are so disabled that they can not demand their rights. But aren't their rights a given regardless?

Not to be rude, but I don't really give a **** who's vegetarian here. Talking about eating meat in GENERAL has only tangential ideological bearing on the issue of whaling for "culture". This is the same cultural stewardship that gives us shark-fin soup, and no more tigers...

The OP and title are pretty clear... whaling. If anyone wants to debate the health and wisdom of a vegetarian diet, please... do it in a thread about that. This is a serious issue that deserves more than the usual gadfly intellectual exercises found in this section of PF.

If you want to discuss the reality of rights, there's a lovely philosophy forum that a Jesuit could get lost in. These matters only apply here as a specific case, and one in which there is the VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY.

Fair enough, I will stop after this post. I promise! :)

No. Animals can't demand rights because they are not sapient. They live in the present, with no concept of freedom of pursuit of happiness.

This is wrong, as many recent animal studies have shown. The question is not if they can plan for the future, or if they can worry about the next mortgage, the question is 'can they suffer' and the answer to that is a resounding yes.

I would add... for me... if I had the willpower to not eat meat, I'd do that. I don't think it's better for my health... I just really feel badly about how many animals I've eaten. I'm not unrealistic about the internal world of cows however, but by the same token I'm given pause by the seeming intelligence of pigs (relatively intelligent...), cetaceans, and even some birds. Are these animals fooling us with elaborate behaviors, are they sapient, are either of those questions really valid when applied to a non-human intelligence, if it exists?

So... I understand why you appreciate dreiter's points, as well as mine... it's a horribly conflicted matter of balancing self-control, morals, and the possibility that what I just ate felt pain, suffered, and died... or just died. It's all my FEELINGS however, because there isn't a locus of data I can point to and say, "there, animal sapience!". I also can't ignore the fact that I wouldn't have eaten any of my dogs (given a choice), yet I eat pigs... which are brighter than dogs.

Well I am glad you are at least seeing the dichotomy! I hope this will lead you to search for an answer to your lifestyle choices, one where there is no moral conflict within yourself. :) For some further reading I recommend:
[URL]https://www.amazon.com/dp/1566396921/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (G. Francione - law perspective)
[URL]https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060011572/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (P. Singer - utilitarian perspective)
"FAQ"[/URL] (a link to some of the quotes I have posted in this thread)

Since I am going to finish debating in this thread, I would just like to end with an encouragement to everyone to look beyond their own desire (the best word for it) and consider a lifestyle change that will be more positive for their health, the environment, and yes, for the other animal species of our planet. Best of luck to everyone!

 

[nismaratwork]

Newai countered your thought, and I have already answered why animal rights still apply when instituted by humans.




Fair enough, I will stop after this post. I promise! :)



This is wrong, as many recent animal studies have shown. The question is not if they can plan for the future, or if they can worry about the next mortgage, the question is 'can they suffer' and the answer to that is a resounding yes.


Well I am glad you are at least seeing the dichotomy! I hope this will lead you to search for an answer to your lifestyle choices, one where there is no moral conflict within yourself. :) For some further reading I recommend:
[URL]https://www.amazon.com/dp/1566396921/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (G. Francione - law perspective)
[URL]https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060011572/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (P. Singer - utilitarian perspective)
"FAQ"[/URL] (a link to some of the quotes I have posted in this thread)

Since I am going to finish debating in this thread, I would just like to end with an encouragement to everyone to look beyond their own desire (the best word for it) and consider a lifestyle change that will be more positive for their health, the environment, and yes, for the other animal species of our planet. Best of luck to everyone![/QUOTE]

When you want to make a point like, "animals suffer", I'm happy to shut up and listen. If you'd choose to start a thread about your views on the broader issue, I'll be there. Otherwise, all I can say is that I understand your frustration, anger, and sadness... have tried to be what you appear to live daily... and I seem unable as yet. I won't stop making periodic attempts, but I it seems I lack a certain moral conviction. Not for a second however, do I believe that animals don't suffer when you slit their throats, rupture their femoral arteries, or stun and bleed them. When other options are available to kill humanely, I can't even claim to eat meat that's been treated as well as possible.

Still, I eat meat, but I don't feel the need to eat absurd amounts of it or every type just because I [I]could[/I]. I CERTAINLY don't want to eat an animal that has a fairly well developed means of long-range communication-through-language (whales, dolphins, elephants...), a persistent memory, and the capacity to recognize themselves in a damned mirror.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is wrong, as many recent animal studies have shown. The question is not if they can plan for the future, or if they can worry about the next mortgage, the question is 'can they suffer' and the answer to that is a resounding yes.

Sorry, 'can they suffer?' does not equate to 'do they have rights?'

Do gazelles have the "right" to not be eaten by cheetahs?

 

[nismaratwork]

Sorry, 'can they suffer"' does not equal 'do they have rights?'

Do gazelles have the right to not be eaten by cheetahs?

No, of course it doesn't equate to equal rights, but do cheetahs have the options that we do?
edit: Can a Cheetah be cruel, or appreciate the suffering of another? No? Then... I think you're grossly over-generalizing a concept to make your point.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, of course it doesn't equate to equal rights, but do cheetahs have the options that we do?

Will rights activists be championing the needs of the gazelles? Hauling cheetahs off to prison for causing suffering?

No. Suffering is not a ticket to rights.

There were no rights before humans came along; they are an entirely human invention.

 

[nismaratwork]

Will rights activists be championing the needs of the gazelles? Hauling cheetahs off to prison for causing suffering?

No. Suffering is not a ticket to rights.

There were no rights before humans came along; they are an entirely human invention.

...And so we shouldn't use human inventions? Sorry, your logic train derailed near the end.

edit: Let me add, cheetahs have preferred prey, and beyond that, a range of prey. They're not the apex predators of the planet like we are, so ultimately when a cheetah hunts a gazelle, normal predation is occurring. What constitutes 'normal' predation for human beings? If you could formulate such a norm, how do you fit people with plenty of access to safer and cheaper sources of meat, hunting undersea mammals?

I get it, you're a rational guy, but another element you choose to ignore here: Activists DID successfully champion whales, and a binding international treaty is the result: this is also a violation of that treaty. Why are you focusing so narrowly on one issue here, when this isn't the general, "do animals have rights?" area?

 

[DaveC426913]

...And so we shouldn't use human inventions? Sorry, your logic train derailed near the end.

edit: Let me add, cheetahs have preferred prey, and beyond that, a range of prey. They're not the apex predators of the planet like we are, so ultimately when a cheetah hunts a gazelle, normal predation is occurring. What constitutes 'normal' predation for human beings? If you could formulate such a norm, how do you fit people with plenty of access to safer and cheaper sources of meat, hunting undersea mammals?

All true.

My point here is that we decide these things, based on what we think should be.

By definition, that makes them privileges, not rights.

I get it, you're a rational guy, but another element you choose to ignore here: Activists DID successfully champion whales, and a binding international treaty is the result: this is also a violation of that treaty. Why are you focusing so narrowly on one issue here, when this isn't the general, "do animals have rights?" area?

I am simply refuting the argument that keeps coming up here that the "whalers shouldn't hunt them because they have rights".

In reality, the whalers shouldn't hunt them because there's a law against it. No more, no less.

Why there's a law against it is another issue. Ultimately, it will have to do with whether over-hunting is wiping them out.

 

[nismaratwork]

All true.

My point here is that we decide these things, based on what we think should be.

By definition, that makes them privileges, not rights.

I am simply refuting the argument that keeps coming up here that the "whalers shouldn't hunt them because they have rights".

In reality, the whalers shouldn't hunt them because there's a law against it. No more, no less.

Why there's a law against it is another issue. Ultimately, it will have to do with whether over-hunting is wiping them out.

You're welcome to make that argument, but you need to keep track of just who you're arguing with. I don't believe in rights, for whales, or humans. I don't care that this is a human creation at all, as I've stated over and over in this very thread.

Either you're preaching to the choir, confused, or just enjoying a rhetorical exercise regarding science. Delightful, all of it, but preach to the people who believe that rights exist in an objectively real way, and not as the virtual particles of social interaction.

edit: In fact you can scroll up ON THIS PAGE to see me talking about the non-existance of rights, and joking about, "Mutually Extended Privelages".

 

[DaveC426913]

No, of course it doesn't equate to equal rights, but do cheetahs have the options that we do?

The above was directed at me, and it is more recent than waaaay up the top of THIS PAGE. It sounds like you're making excuses for why cheetahs ought to have something equivalent to rights, though they can't have "real" rights because they have fewer options.

I'm sure that is a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say, nonetheless, it was directed at my argument about rights and I reasonably assumed it was an attempt at refutation.

So yes, I've been following.

 

[nismaratwork]

The above was directed at me, and it is more recent than waaaay up the top of THIS PAGE. It sounds like you're making excuses for why cheetahs ought to have something equivalent to rights, though they can't have "real" rights because they have fewer options.

I'm sure that is a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say, nonetheless, it was directed at my argument about rights and I reasonably assumed it was an attempt at refutation.

So yes, I've been following.

So... in the face of literally pages of me writing clearly about my position, it didn't make you stop and think, "gee, maybe I'm not getting his meaning just right..."? I mean, I talked about eating babies and those in a PVS... I'm not exactly holding these cards close to the vest. You were trying to frame the argument in a particular way, and I pointed out that it was a ridiculous way to try and do so. My impression is that you latched onto the one element possible, and ran with it despite abundant evidence to the contrary, if you were indeed following.

So, which is it, did you make a truly HUGE assumption faced with a mountain of contrary evidence, did you lie about following, or are you being disingenuous about the whole thing? Of course, maybe I'm missing an option, but when you talk about "real rights", when my whole POSITION is that such a thing is a fiction... I wonder about sincerity.

 

[DaveC426913]

So... in the face of literally pages of me writing clearly about my position, it didn't make you stop and think, "gee, maybe I'm not getting his meaning just right..."? I mean, I talked about eating babies and those in a PVS... I'm not exactly holding these cards close to the vest. You were trying to frame the argument in a particular way, and I pointed out that it was a ridiculous way to try and do so. My impression is that you latched onto the one element possible, and ran with it despite abundant evidence to the contrary, if you were indeed following.

So, which is it, did you make a truly HUGE assumption faced with a mountain of contrary evidence, did you lie about following, or are you being disingenuous about the whole thing? Of course, maybe I'm missing an option, but when you talk about "real rights", when my whole POSITION is that such a thing is a fiction... I wonder about sincerity.

I think somebody peed on your Cheerios.

A diatribe over a misunderstanding? Because you think I didn't follow you closely enough? You're kind of overreacting.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think somebody peed on your Cheerios.

A diatribe over a misunderstanding? Because you think I didn't follow you closely enough? You're kind of overreacting.

I'm overreacting if it's a misunderstanding.

 

[mugaliens]

Ok, let's breathe a bit, here...

This is about whales, some species of which are in seriously short and endangerd supply.

Can we get back to talking about whales?

I have a very difficult time thinking of them as food.

 

[mugaliens]

No. Animals can't demand rights because they are not sapient.

You're kidding, right? Did you forget we humans are animals, too?

Life is a continuum.

Who said that? Oh, yes! Q.

 

[DaveC426913]

You're kidding, right? Did you forget we humans are animals, too?

Oh there's logic for you.

Apples are red. Firetrucks are also red. Therefore I should be able to eat a firetruck.

OK: non-human animals are not sapient. Better?

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh there's logic for you.

Apples are red. Firetrucks are also red. Therefore I should be able to eat a firetruck.

OK: non-human animals are not sapient. Better?

Of all the uses you could put that logical rigor to, this is your choice; to debate a point that's academic to you? This is GD... not Relativity or HE, and you're picking and choosing a relatively tangential point to dissect.

NONE of which changes that this whaling is in violation of treaty, so no further justification is needed. Once again, I just can't imagine why you feel that this is the place to make some Custarian stand for logic.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Of all the uses you could put that logical rigor to, this is your choice; to debate a point that's academic to you? This is GD... not Relativity or HE, and you're picking and choosing a relatively tangential point to dissect.

NONE of which changes that this whaling is in violation of treaty, so no further justification is needed. Once again, I just can't imagine why you feel that this is the place to make some Custarian stand for logic.

This thread could use more logical argument, Dave's simply facilitating that (note that a sticky in the P&WA section is a https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=154924"). This thread is better because of it.

You might be right that the Japanese are violating the treaty, but they claim to be doing it under the scientific collection clause. Are they staying within the limits of the clause?

 

[DaveC426913]

Of all the uses you could put that logical rigor to, this is your choice; to debate a point that's academic to you? This is GD... not Relativity or HE, and you're picking and choosing a relatively tangential point to dissect.

Not sure why you claim all this.

One of the central points I'm trying to refute, because it keeps coming up, is the belief that animals have inalienable rights.

Everytime you or I point out that there's laws these whalers are violating, someone comes back with 'but what about their rights'? Mugs was doing a similar thing. All I did was shoot a hole in his complaint.

NONE of which changes that this whaling is in violation of treaty, so no further justification is needed.

Agreed. And if people would just cooperate and say 'You're right I see no flaw in your logic' this thread would come to a graceful end, wouldn't it?

Once again, I just can't imagine why you feel that this is the place to make some Custarian stand for logic.

See above.


P.S. You are now engaged in a meta-argument; you're not challenging my actual argument, you're criticizing my technique.

Again, I'm sayin' someone peed on your Cheerios.

 

[jreelawg]

The Japanese are hunting whales because they want their carcasses. The anti-whaling people are trying to stop them from killing whales because they like the whales and want to keep them protected. So we have two groups of people who want something and are at odds with each other other in getting it. My opinion, let people fight for what they want. Theoretically the quantity of human will on each side times the amount of force in their arsenals should determine the outcome.

Some question the right to impose the will of some onto others. Who is to impose their will on the Japanese, that whales shouldn't be killed? And, who is to impose their will onto the anti-whalers that they shouldn't sabotage whaling operations.

 

[nismaratwork]

Not sure why you claim all this.

One of the central points I'm trying to refute, because it keeps coming up, is the belief that animals have inalienable rights.

Everytime you or I point out that there's laws these whalers are violating, someone comes back with 'but what about their rights'? Mugs was doing a similar thing. All I did was shoot a hole in his complaint.


Agreed. And if people would just cooperate and say 'You're right I see no flaw in your logic' this thread would come to a graceful end, wouldn't it?



See above.


P.S. You are now engaged in a meta-argument; you're not challenging my actual argument, you're criticizing my technique.

Again, I'm sayin' someone peed on your Cheerios.

Well I eat my Cheerios dry, so if someone pissed in them, they really went to extrema to do so. Actually, thinking about it now, I think I bought whole-grain, not the FROSTED Cheerios... why do they look frosted? YUCK!

...and back to the argument.

Even the most logical argument doesn't take place in a vacuum, and in this case the issue of a right is a tangent. We don't NEED to talk about the logic of rights, and in fact there's a lovely thread by Loren Booda that's so vague you could spend all day correcting logical errors; "The Rights To Be Harmonious". I know that it would be lovely to be working together to make the same essential point, from our very different perspectives and approaches, than it would be to argue about this subject.

As for your logic being correct, Yes of course it's correct! Even a glance at this thread (given the number and verbosity of my posts) would let you know that your point has already been made. Rejected unfortunately in some cases, assumed to be a cover for a belief in rights in others, but the same nonetheless.

So, I'll ask the essential question again: You're one man with limited time on an forum; there is an active thread discussing the general form of rights you're addressing, but THIS, is where you make what I will again call a Custarian stand for logic? I haven't made an argument for animal RIGHTS, I've made the opposite, yes I agree with your logic, but I see a flaw in your approach and choices. In fact Dave, I rarely disagree or even find flaw with your logic... maybe it's time to cultivate other qualities, such as recognizing when to put that logic to best use, given that you're one man on a website.

Mech: It's better for it? Has anyone, on any side of this debate even BUDGED? Is this logic that wasn't already discussed, here and elsewhere? Perhaps you'd like to switch back from cheerleader, and begin to make your own points. You've made them before, and we both agree that no good can come from further discussion between us... what about Dave?

 

[nismaratwork]

The Japanese are hunting whales because they want their carcasses. The anti-whaling people are trying to stop them from killing whales because they like the whales and want to keep them protected. So we have two groups of people who want something and are at odds with each other other in getting it. My opinion, let people fight for what they want. Theoretically the quantity of human will on each side times the amount of force in their arsenals should determine the outcome.

Some question the right to impose the will of some onto others. Who is to impose their will on the Japanese, that whales shouldn't be killed? And, who is to impose their will onto the anti-whalers that they shouldn't sabotage whaling operations.

Works for me; arm them both until they end up like every nation we've armed: depleted, tired, and in endless conflict that no longer threatens the essential interest to the same degree as before that intervention.

In fact, given them both bladed and bludgeoning weapons only; no projectiles except for boarding hooks: I'll buy one of each carcass; pro and anti whaler.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Mech: It's better for it? Has anyone, on any side of this debate even BUDGED? Is this logic that wasn't already discussed, here and elsewhere? Perhaps you'd like to switch back from cheerleader, and begin to make your own points. You've made them before, and we both agree that no good can come from further discussion between us... what about Dave?

What exactly are you adding to the discussion, other than nit-picking arugemnt style rather than content?

I just made a point that you've summarily ignored: the Japanese claim to be whaling legally under the scientific collection clause of the treaty. Are they lying?

 

[nismaratwork]

What exactly are you adding to the discussion, other than nit-picking arugemnt style rather than content?

I just made a point that you've summarily ignored: the Japanese claim to be whaling legally under the scientific collection clause of the treaty. Are they lying?

Yes.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Yes.

What portion of the "scientific collection" clause are they vioalting? Aren't they acting within the numerical limits defined by it?

 

[nismaratwork]

What portion of the "scientific collection" clause are they vioalting? Aren't they acting within the numerical limits defined by it?

Decided to take it here eh? No, I don't believe there is any science being done, and therefore it doesn't apply to begin with. Can you point to any meaningful science as a result of this "harvest", or point to the scientific method used along the way.

Beyond that, the entirity of the ongoing debate is fairly well encapsulated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#Scientific_Research

Deceptive... very much the right word. Commercial would be better, but given how the state is willing to be the money-launderer of choice... hey, who can prove it? Say, how's that whole system working withe economy, employment... construction...

 

[Mech_Engineer]

This whole thread has been boiled dowen by you to the fact that the Japanese are breaking the terms of a treaty. Problem is, they claim they are acting within the limits of the treaty. So if you're going to say they are breaking it, feel free to provide a citation from the treaty and their actions which PROVES this.

 

[DaveC426913]

This whole thread has been boiled dowen by you to the fact that the Japanese are breaking the terms of a treaty. Problem is, they claim they are acting within the limits of the treaty. So if you're going to say they are breaking it, feel free to provide a citation from the treaty and their actions which PROVES this.

The whole thread boils down even furtther. They are adhering to the letter of the treaty, but not the spirit. It is because of this grey area that there is any news item at all.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

They are adhering to the letter of the treaty, but not the spirit. It is because of this grey area that there is any news item at all.

How do you define the "spirit of the treaty" if it isn't in there specifically? If it is meant to be taken on interpretaion, are certain interpretations more "right" than others?

 

[DaveC426913]

How do you define the "spirit of the treaty" if it isn't in there specifically? If it is meant to be taken on interpretaion, are certain interpretations more "right" than others?

The spirit of the treeaty is about to what end the whales are being hunted, i.e. for scientific research. But that's really hard to verify and enforce.

The fact that it's hard to enforce doesn't mean that wasn't the goal of the treaty, it just means the treaty doesn't have enough teeth to differentiate.

Japan gets around a longstanding International Whaling Commission ban against commercial whaling by using a "research" loophole and designating the hunts -- which are considered an important part of Japanese culture and tradition -- scientific missions.

 

[nismaratwork]

How do you define the "spirit of the treaty" if it isn't in there specifically? If it is meant to be taken on interpretaion, are certain interpretations more "right" than others?

How do you define science? If you claim to be doing scientific research, where are the results that have ANY meaning? Are you adhering to strict standards, or is it an internally "consistent" system of state funded universities, agencies, and publications... with the purpose being the COMMERCIAL whaling, which IS a successful industry with obvious and clear links to former and current corrupt *Japanese officials, and a industry with clear demand?

You dodged the entire question of science, which just tells me: You're an engineer, not a scientist, and you clearly can't distinguish science from industry unless you're being a very elaborate advocatus diaboli in the most unpleasant way possible.



*or just "Japanese Diet Member", much like, "US Congress Member"

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The spirit of the treeaty is about to what end the whales are being hunted, i.e. for scientific research. But that's really hard to verify and enforce.

The fact that it's hard to enforce doesn't mean that wasn't the goal of the treaty, it just means the treaty doesn't have enough teeth to differentiate.

So are the Japanese really violating the spirit of the treaty, or just interpreting it differently? They obviously can't be prosecuted for violating an ambiguously defined interpretation...

 

[nismaratwork]

So are the Japanese really violating the spirit of the treaty, or just interpreting it differently? They obviously can't be prosecuted for violating an ambiguously defined interpretation...

What do YOU think? Answer instead of asking for once.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

What do YOU think? Answer instead of asking for once.

The answer is obvious- the Japanese are acting within their rights and the letter of the treaty. They cannot be prosecuted because of this.

The fact that you think they are violating the "spirit" of the treaty means it was written too ambiguously and might need to be revised in the future.

 

[nismaratwork]

The answer is obvious- the Japanese are acting within their rights and the letter of the treaty. They cannot be prosecuted because of this.

The fact that you think they are violating the "spirit" of the treaty means it was written too ambiguously and might need to be revised in the future.

Anata wa Nihon-jin desu ka?

edit: I'd say more, but... polite forum and all of that.

 

[DaveC426913]

So are the Japanese really violating the spirit of the treaty, or just interpreting it differently?

If they're selling the whales commercially and not conducting scientifc research on them then they're violating the spirit of the treaty.

The spirit of such a treaty recognizes that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. There is some scientific merit to examining a whale. So, though a few may have to be killed, it is for the greater good of the whales in the long tem.

Now, are these particular hunts actually resulting in us knowing more about the whales in general, including how we can preserve the species for our future?

Research is a funny thing. It's hard to say when or if it will pay off. We cannot put some stake in the sand and say 'your hunting must return x knowledge in y time'. There is no way of quantifying the return on investment of research. Because of this, the treaty even in principle can't really have teeth if anyone wants to findf a loophole.

Yet, if everyone respected the treaty and its spirit, we might not have endangered species. So we (at least, in principle) really do need the treaty.


I really think 'spirit versus letter' is something we all understand. Rules in an exam say 'no laptops, or Blackberry-like devices'. If I brought in an iPhone and cheated my way through the exam, do you think that's OK because the rule did not actually say "oh ... AND iPhones"?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Anata wa Nihon-jin desu ka?

edit: I'd say more, but... polite forum and all of that.

They aren't breaking the treaty, so there isn't a whole lot that can be done. Action might be warranted if they are endangering survival of a species, but to my knowledge they are not.

 

[nismaratwork]

They aren't breaking the treaty, so there isn't a whole lot that can be done. Action might be warranted if they are endangering survival of a species, but to my knowledge they are not.

Okubyou-jin, that answers one question.

 

[nismaratwork]

They aren't breaking the treaty, so there isn't a whole lot that can be done. Action might be warranted if they are endangering survival of a species, but to my knowledge they are not.

Alternate answer: American voters could choose to end their military protectorate of Japan; a massive expense, in protest, or reduce it funding for it.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

If they're selling the whales commercially and not conducting scientifc research on them then they're violating the spirit of the treaty.

The spirit of such a treaty recognizes that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. There is some scientific merit to examining a whale. So, though a few may have to be killed, it is for the greater good of the whales in the long tem.

They could easily be conducting population research into species size, weight, sex, relative health etc., and selling the whales after the data is taken. This would be in my opinion getting more out of the whales' deaths than just scientific research- they're getting research and delicious whale steaks...

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Okubyou-jin, that answers one question.

Posting in other languages does nothing to advance this thread, so either have the courage to say what you mean or don't post.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Alternate answer: American voters could choose to end their military protectorate of Japan; a massive expense, in protest, or reduce it funding for it.

Doing that would require allowing Japan to have its own military force- something may countries in the region do not want based on past events.

 

[nismaratwork]

Doing that would require allowing Japan to have its own military force- something may countries in the region do not want based on past events.

True... yet the voters could still demand it despite the political cost given incentive. Another answer; allow people to hunt whalers. I'm not joking at all: modify the treaty.

edit: Seriously, can you imagine the medical research that can be done on that many HUMANS?! In addition an industry could be made tinning whalers to satisfy Japan's odd fascination with that cannibal.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

True... yet the voters could still demand it despite the political cost given incentive. Another answer; allow people to hunt whalers. I'm not joking at all: modify the treaty.

Would the whalers be allowed to shoot back? If so, the TV show Whale Wars would get a lot more interesting real fast...

edit: Seriously, can you imagine the medical research that can be done on that many HUMANS?! In addition an industry could be made tinning whalers to satisfy Japan's odd fascination with that cannibal.

This isn't helping this thread.

 

[nismaratwork]

Would the whalers be allowed to shoot back? If so, the TV show Whale Wars would get a lot more interesting real fast...

Of course! Hell, try stopping them! In fact, we could make revenue selling weapons to both sides and televising, as you imply.

 

[nismaratwork]

Would the whalers be allowed to shoot back? If so, the TV show Whale Wars would get a lot more interesting real fast...



This isn't helping this thread.

Neither are you, but it's not stopping you from posting. On the other hand, I'm absolutely serious. If we're going to be grossly unethical and homicidal, why not gain some benefit? It's not as though any doctors are involved anyway.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

On the other hand, I'm absolutely serious. If we're going to be grossly unethical and homicidal, why not gain some benefit? It's not as though any doctors are involved anyway.

Are you claiming that whaling is the same as homicide?

 

[nismaratwork]

Are you claiming that whaling is the same as homicide?

Not in the slightest; I'd have to see convincing multiple peer-reviewed studies showing cetacean SAPIENCE, not just intelligence before I'd ever say or think that.

I just happen to think that it would be an elegant, entertaining, and economic solution to a problem. The three sweet E's!