Deceptive Japanese Whaling Season Begins

[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.