News Deceptive Japanese Whaling Season Begins

[ThomasT]

Thomas, would you argue that animals (including humans) perceive death to be worse than pain?

No.

Because hunting is more than inflicting unnecessary pain, it is inflicting unnecessary death.

I presume that there are things worse than death, such as prolonged excruciating pain (I imagine, but don't really know).

There is no need to make tribes eat farm animals as you suggest.

I agree, they should be allowed to hunt the wild animals in their territories as they always have. Eating 'farmed' animals is simply the norm in my world.

There is no need for the eating of animals at all!

For some societies there seems to be.

You have mentioned that you are uncertain if a healthy life is possible using soybeans instead of meat, and I can tell you on no uncertain terms that not only is it possible, it is healthier.

Ok, for now, I'll take your word for it.

Looking at any nutritional breakdown of meat products versus soy products, you can easily see the superior nutritional profile of the soy alternative. Meat has protein and some vitamins and minerals, but tofu has both of those as well as fiber and phytochemicals.

Ah yes, fiber. I'm 62. I take fiber supplements. It seems to help.

So I don't think arguing the health issues is the way to go ;)

Well, I'm not really arguing health issues. But I do remember a study that said that societies that subsisted primarily on meat and milk (ie. the farming of animals) seemed to be healthier than primarily vegetarian societies. Of course, there might be many factors in play here. So, I never regarded this as definitive.

As for the 'you can never convince everyone to stop eating meat so why bother', well that might as easily be 'you can never convince others to vote like you do so why bother'.

I don't think I said that. Did I say that?

If you think voting is futile, then I suppose I can see why you think changing your diet is futile.

I don't think voting is futile. I think it's idiotic, that is, voting republican or democrat, if you want to ever see any real change from the status quo. If you don't then of course by all means continue to vote democrat or republican. And, I don't see becoming a vegetarian as necessary in any sort of moral sense, or necessarily beneficial dietarily. I like eating chicken and cow meat. I'm 62 years old and healthy as a horse and have been eating, primarily, chicken and cow meat for my entire life. I eat a vegetable and/or a fruit maybe once a month.

 

[DaveC426913]

And taken to extremes, we would get up every day with the goal of totally screwing our world over.

Why would we do that?

Where did I even hint that we would wish to screw up our world, (which would subsequently screw us up)?


All I'm doing is pointing out that, when we choose to limit ourselves, and protect our world we do it for our own benefit, not for the benefit of some morality outside the influence of humans.

The key is that we decide what is the right thing to do.

In that sense, animals do not have rights, they have privileges - privileges can be taken away if we see fit.

"Animal rights are no more a matter of opinion than is any other moral matter. This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from asking whether the morality of human slavery is a matter of opinion. We have decided that slavery is morally reprehensible not as a matter of mere opinion, but because slavery treats humans exclusively as the resources of others and degrades humans to the status of things, thus depriving them of moral significance.

Correct. We (the majority) have decided that all humans have rights. This was not the case when the world was much much more of a frontier and foreigners were enemies or animals.

The view that we ought not to treat animals as things is consistent with our general notion that animals have morally significant interests."

Yes. It's an argument. It is not a given.

The problem with this whole whaling thread is that many people assume that these "animal rights" are a given.

.
.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why would we do that?

Where did I even hint that we would wish to screw up our world, (which would subsequently screw us up)?


All I'm doing is pointing out that, when we choose to limit ourselves, and protect our world we do it for our own benefit, not for the benefit of some morality outside the influence of humans.

The key is that we decide what is the right thing to do.

In that sense, animals do not have rights, they have privileges - privileges can be taken away if we see fit.



Correct. We (the majority) have decided that all humans have rights. This was not the case when the world was much much more of a frontier and foreigners were enemies or animals.



Yes. It's an argument. It is not a given.

The problem with this whole whaling thread is that many people assume that these "animal rights" are a given.

.
.

Well, I've been clear that I don't even believe in an objective reality of human rights, except for mutual consent, as you've said. I said flat out to the guy I was arguing with, "I like whales", as one of the justifications. I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion, and I know that you're trying to go nap-of-the-earth with the scientific view here; I accept that.

We humans organize from basic principles of mutually extended privilages based on the ability to end or ruin each others lives. That ruining can be seizure of food or land, women and children, or even spreading disease. The killing, is obvious. We then try to explain WHY, beyond the obvious utility of a measure of social interaction, we should extend the same privileges in ANY form to ALL people. For most of history, and in much of the world, that's just not the case for people; they don't think they have rights, they KNOW that they don't.

NONE of that... has anything to do with this discussion anymore in my view. The lines have been drawn at: I Want vs. I Believe, and they're unlikely to move. Some people want whale meat, and I, being capable of doing so, express my disgust and anger with that choice, and my belief in a go'el haddam system for this new frontier. The flipside of packing heat in the wild west after all, and the freedoms conferred, was a lack of security... I think whalers can live and die under the same basic principles of retribution.

Remember, if this isn't a moral issue, why should I be morally troubled when whalers are killed, their livelihoods destroyed, etc? I'm thrilled, and in a world where you could kill them on sight as rangers do to poachers in some nations, I'd be in line with a gun. The whalers can pack heat too, and now you REALLY have 'The Most Dangerous Catch'.

History indicates that if diplomacy fails, violence will settle the issue eventually, if only through mutual destruction.

 

[dreiter]

For some societies there seems to be.

That's great for those societies, but Japan/US are not hunter-gatherer societies, so this does not apply to us.

Ok, for now, I'll take your word for it.

Don't take my word for it, just look around a few minutes. From Wiki:
"Vegetarian diets are usually rich in carbohydrates, omega-6 fatty acids, dietary fiber, carotenoids, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, potassium and magnesium.[3][4] They contain lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein.[3]
Studies show that the health of vegetarians compares favourably with that of non-vegetarians.[5] British vegetarians have lower death rates than non-vegetarians,[5][6] although this is at least partly due to non-dietary lifestyle factors, such as a low prevalence of smoking and the generally high socioeconomic status of vegetarians, or to aspects of the diet other than the avoidance of meat and fish.[7]
Vegetarians avoid the negative health effects of animal protein including red meat: A 1999 meta-study of five studies comparing vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates in Western countries found the mortality rate due to ischemic heart disease 26% lower among vegans, compared to regular meat eaters, and 34% lower among ovo-lacto vegetarians and pescetarians...
There is evidence that vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index,[3][4] lower risk of obesity,[17] lower blood cholesterol levels,[3][4] lower homocysteine levels,[4] lower risk of high blood pressure,[3][17] and lower risk of type 2 diabetes.[3][17] One large prospective study found that non-meat-eaters had only half the risk of meat eaters of requiring an emergency appendectomy.[5]"

I don't think I said that. Did I say that?

Yes, see below.

Anyway, imho, there are more meat eaters and hunters than you can possibly convince to not be meat eaters and hunters.

And, I don't see becoming a vegetarian as necessary in any sort of moral sense, or necessarily beneficial dietarily. I like eating chicken and cow meat. I'm 62 years old and healthy as a horse and have been eating, primarily, chicken and cow meat for my entire life. I eat a vegetable and/or a fruit maybe once a month.

That's great for you. The question is what your pleasure is worth to society and the environment. Even if you don't recognize the moral status of animals, do you recognize the environmental destruction that meat has to our planet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_meat_production"

All I'm doing is pointing out that, when we choose to limit ourselves, and protect our world we do it for our own benefit, not for the benefit of some morality outside the influence of humans.

The key is that we decide what is the right thing to do.

In that sense, animals do not have rights, they have privileges - privileges can be taken away if we see fit.

I agree with these statements, but I don't see how you are using them to explain your ignoring this issue.

Yes. It's an argument. It is not a given.

The problem with this whole whaling thread is that many people assume that these "animal rights" are a given.
.

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

 

[DaveC426913]

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

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[Newai]

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.

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?

 

[nismaratwork]

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?

Mutually Extended Privileges... MEP... I'm trademarking it . Rights are a concept based in an absolute moral authority in what (I believe) is an amoral universe. Privileges, we can exchange under the golden rule, and other concepts of equity, and build from there.

 

[mugaliens]

That's the only time I've laughed in real life in this thread. Thanks!

Humorous, yes, but also tragic, in it's Dean/Lewis sort of way.

 

[mugaliens]

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.

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.

 

[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?