News Deceptive Japanese Whaling Season Begins

  • Thread starter Thread starter mugaliens
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the controversial practices of Japanese whalers, who are accused of disguising their activities as "scientific research" while targeting endangered species like humpback and fin whales. Participants express outrage over this deception, comparing it to the documentary "The Cove," which highlights the brutal killing of dolphins in Japan. The conversation also touches on the sustainability of whaling versus fishing, with some arguing that whales should be farmed like other livestock to prevent extinction. Concerns are raised about the ecological impact of hunting whales and the need for stricter regulations to protect these mammals. Ultimately, the debate emphasizes the ethical implications of whaling and the necessity for sustainable practices in food sourcing.
  • #121
nismaratwork said:
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.

nismaratwork said:
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? :wink:

nismaratwork said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #123
DaveC426913 said:
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? :wink:



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?
 
  • #124
jreelawg said:
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.
 
  • #125
nismaratwork said:
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?
 
  • #126
Mech_Engineer said:
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.
 
  • #127
nismaratwork said:
Yes.

What portion of the "scientific collection" clause are they vioalting? Aren't they acting within the numerical limits defined by it?
 
  • #128
Mech_Engineer said:
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...
 
  • #129
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.
 
  • #130
Mech_Engineer said:
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.
 
  • #131
DaveC426913 said:
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?
 
  • #132
Mech_Engineer said:
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.
 
  • #133
Mech_Engineer said:
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"
 
  • #134
DaveC426913 said:
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...
 
  • #135
Mech_Engineer said:
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.
 
  • #136
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #137
Mech_Engineer said:
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.
 
  • #138
Mech_Engineer said:
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"?
 
  • #139
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #140
Mech_Engineer said:
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.
 
  • #141
Mech_Engineer said:
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.
 
  • #142
DaveC426913 said:
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...
 
  • #143
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #144
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #145
Mech_Engineer said:
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.
 
  • #146
nismaratwork said:
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...

nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #147
Mech_Engineer said:
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.
 
  • #148
Mech_Engineer said:
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.
 
  • #149
nismaratwork said:
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?
 
  • #150
Mech_Engineer said:
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! :smile:
 

Similar threads

News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K