Killing Whales, Why?

[Buffy]

Why are people who do not exist and do not even have an opinion more important than me?

"More important" is your phrase. Indicates that you think others judge you "unfairly." We're crossing threads here, but *society* values future offspring because that is how society maintains its existence. Does this raise the group over the individual? Sure! Does it make one individual more important than another? Nope. Can you divorce yourself from society if you don't like it? Sure, but don't complain when it doesn't support you!

Why should I think about others and not myself?

Because they might help you when you need it!

Why should I care about the lives of whales if their extinction does not phase me?

Because they are part of the ecosystem we live in. Sure, you're probably going to die before the whales do, so I guess if you care about nothing but yourself, you could make an individual decision to desire the destruction of whales. It might benefit you in the short-term! You could get a high paying job lobbying for the Japanese or Norwegian Whaling Associations! Greenpeace Action might egg your house and call you names though. The larger society might punish you if you violate laws. Your choice of course. Just recognize that choices have consequences whether you think they are "fair" or not.

Lastly, what makes your moral system better than mine?

"My" happens to be closely aligned with the moral system of the society I live in. Its power comes from the fact that the majority of society agrees with it. If you do not agree with *society's* moral system, you may pay consequences.

 

Well I heard the story once before, And I know what the tears are for, :eek:

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Why do you keep on hammering about 'divine' morals and 'divine' purpose?

 

This thread is about the killing / not killing of whales.

 

Myself, I don't have a set of 'divine' morals. I'm an atheist, not that it matters in the least in this thread.

 

My stance towards this issue is that we shouldn't be destroying species in an ecosystem which we don't fully understand. Your stance is that only you and your opinion matter, so to hell with the rest (including the whales). I fail to see where God came into the matter.

 

Come on, now.

[Neuro]

"More important" is your phrase. Indicates that you think others judge you "unfairly." We're crossing threads here, but *society* values future offspring because that is how society maintains its existence. Does this raise the group over the individual? Sure! Does it make one individual more important than another? Nope. Can you divorce yourself from society if you don't like it? Sure, but don't complain when it doesn't support you!

That is a basis for a moral, that is not a scientific reason. It is little more than a threat of force, “The group will kill you if you don’t!”

 

How about we try to stop relying on primitive group think and start thinking for ourselves, if only for a minute.

 

What makes future generations that may not exist divinely more important than people who are alive in the present? Other than the fact that your society has arbitrarily declared that they value the future generations who are not alive over the present.

 

What makes this opinion in any way scientifically supported? I’m afraid that this question is going to collect cobwebs.

 

Relying on the idea that the *current* moral system dictates we live in a way that protects people who are not and may not be alive over the desires of people who are alive in the present is rather bland. Long story short, you are forced to make a judgment at some point that determines where your society draws up the rules and this judgment is going to be entirely subjective, thus nonscientific. THAT IS THE POINT.

 

To have an opinion is to have an opinion. The fact that you believe good and wrong are entities that exist in the universe is fine and well, but science does not support it.

 

Bush has been elected twice and Tehran is building nukes, I’m sure there is no shortage of forums dedicated to religion.

 

 

Because they might help you when you need it!

K? I’d rather live for myself though.

Because they are part of the ecosystem we live in. Sure, you're probably going to die before the whales do, so I guess if you care about nothing but yourself, you could make an individual decision to desire the destruction of whales. It might benefit you in the short-term! You could get a high paying job lobbying for the Japanese or Norwegian Whaling Associations! Greenpeace Action might egg your house and call you names though. The larger society might punish you if you violate laws. Your choice of course. Just recognize that choices have consequences whether you think they are "fair" or not.

You continually rely on the crutch that your collective’s moral decision is *good* and *correct* when study of morality proves that no action or judgment of action is anything but entirely subjective.

 

I am supporting the idea that science does not support any of these judgments and they are thus religious issues, not scientific ones.

"My" happens to be closely aligned with the moral system of the society I live in. Its power comes from the fact that the majority of society agrees with it. If you do not agree with *society's* moral system, you may pay consequences.

How scientific!

 

Entire post in a nutshell: If you are neither wrong nor right to do anything, why live for anything other than your own enjoyment or yourself? And why is it bad to do such if bad is not a real entity?

 

In short: You can live however you choose and it is not bad. All morality is equal.

 

buffy… your argument is basically a non-argument It is not an intellectual discussion to you, it seems. You sit in your chair and repeatedly quote my questions responding with “threat of force will make you act appropriately!” That is a non-answer.

[Neuro]

Why do you keep on hammering about 'divine' morals and 'divine' purpose?

 

This thread is about the killing / not killing of whales.

 

Myself, I don't have a set of 'divine' morals. I'm an atheist, not that it matters in the least in this thread.

 

My stance towards this issue is that we shouldn't be destroying species in an ecosystem which we don't fully understand. Your stance is that only you and your opinion matter, so to hell with the rest (including the whales). I fail to see where God came into the matter.

 

Come on, now.

God comes into the matter because if you are going to argue that your opinion on a thread that is to debate morals is correct -- it requires a god clause.

 

When advocating for a moral system in a debate, you are only correct if god supports you.

 

Scientifically, we are all equally correct regardless of our stance, thus, this thread is either a poll of our opinions or a waste of space on the internet.

[Boerseun]

Neuro, can you please continue this discussion of yours in your morality thread? This is about the killing/not killing of whales. Don't hijack this one to justify your non-adherence or non-understanding of morals, please.

[Neuro]

Neuro, can you please continue this discussion of yours in your morality thread? This is about the killing/not killing of whales. Don't hijack this one to justify your non-adherence or non-understanding of morals, please.

 

Hm. I percieve this thread a moral dilema. If all morals are equal, it doesn't matter which stance you take. We are all equal regardless of stance, because in order to win you require god on your side to be correct.

 

Everyone pick a god to support them and we will all win this debate.

 

BUFFY:We're crossing threads here, but

[Boerseun]

Hm. I percieve this thread a moral dilema. If all morals are equal, it doesn't matter which stance you take. We are all equal regardless of stance, because in order to win you require god on your side to be correct.

 

Everyone pick a god to support them and we will all win this debate.

What's with you and God? Have you some sort of personal moral conflict where you continuously battle with yourself over your belief/non-belief? Like I said - I'm an atheist, and my morality needs no supernatural crutch. I don't care whether yours needs it or not.

 

Also, I don't care whether you see this topic as a moral dilemma. This thread is NOT ABOUT YOUR UNDERSTANDING/MISUNDERSTANDING OF MORALS. This thread is about whales. Take your moral issues to your morality thread, please. If not, your posts here will simply be deleted. There's no moral conflict in that, so surely you should be able to understand it.

 

Also, your elevating this topic to a question of morals removes it from the scientific realm and places it in Philosophy. And this thread lies slap bang in the Physical SciencesEarth Science forum.

 

Please adhere to our rules (or our local flavour of morality), please. Those that don't, tend to not last very long, funny enough. Strange parallels, here.

[Neuro]

What's with you and God? Have you some sort of personal moral conflict where you continuously battle with yourself over your belief/non-belief? Like I said - I'm an atheist, and my morality needs no supernatural crutch. I don't care whether yours needs it or not.

 

Also, I don't care whether you see this topic as a moral dilemma. This thread is NOT ABOUT YOUR UNDERSTANDING/MISUNDERSTANDING OF MORALS. This thread is about whales. Take your moral issues to your morality thread, please. If not, your posts here will simply be deleted. There's no moral conflict in that, so surely you should be able to understand it.

 

Also, your elevating this topic to a question of morals removes it from the scientific realm and places it in Philosophy. And this thread lies slap bang in the Physical SciencesEarth Science forum.

 

Please adhere to our rules (or our local flavour of morality), please. Those that don't, tend to not last very long, funny enough. Strange parallels, here.

For it to be a scientitific discussion, the pretext must be that we debate if it is possible to both kill the whales and still uphold moral#133:thou shalt not killeth thy whales into exinction. If that is the case, then it is a scientific debate of weather or not it is possible to do such.

 

If however, we are debating weather or not to do it and removing M#133 from the pre-requisites to our arguments, then it is simply a moral discussion as I have argued in the thread.

---------------------------------------------------------

Whales, to kill or not to kill, discuss. That is the topic. Unfortunately, science is not going to dictate that we kill or don’t kill them, that is derived from our subjective opinions, which, are all equal.

 

To answer your question, and to explain myself: The only thing that would make an opinion on this topic correct and thus not equal to any other opinion would be to have God’s seal of approval. I am not a theist, I do not believe in god, but as such I know that the only thing that gives divine truth would have to be a god, otherwise our opinions and interpretations are equal.

 

When formulating your stance of weather you want to kill the whales or not, you have to factor in all of the factors and then make a moral decision that is neither scientifically correct nor scientifically incorrect. Thus, a moral dilemma that permits we all come in first place. Yay! We all win!

[freeztar]

Ok, look at it this way...

We are motivated to do things that enable our continued existance. Otherwise, we wouldn't eat or breath and we would just die. This is not morality, it is common sense and self-preservation.

 

To that end, as Boerseun has already *scientifically* pointed out, killing whales may not be in our best interest.

 

Whales may have some secret ingredient that will one day cure cancer (an exagerated example of course). We just don't know enough about them, and more importantly, how they function in the ecosystem.

 

To kill that which you do not understand is fear. I do not live my life in fear, do you?

[freeztar]

Back on topic...

 

The Secret Language of Whales Revealed - Yahoo! News

[Michaelangelica]

God comes into the matter because if you are going to argue that your opinion on a thread that is to debate morals is correct -- it requires a god clause.

Christians etc don't have a patent on morals, ethics and morality.

You can lead an upright, honest moral life without the threat of hell

 

I don't know how this works. it seems very strange

You just click and donate to save dolphins

Click to Donate - Free donations for rainforest, primates, pets, and more!

 

The blue whale is the largest animal that has EVER lived on Earth.

[Michaelangelica]

If you look closely at their facial expressions, they seem to be getting bored again.

 

 

Our monuments will never be the same again. And if you think the Brazilians are bad, once the whales take to the air they will destroy entire forests just to build their nests in trees that will promptly collapse the moment the whale cow gives birth. This will increase the greenhouse effect and add to global warming.

 

So - in order to save our planet we have to kill all the whales. Or give them something interesting to do, at least.

You paint a horrifing and frightening picture.

The trees are a real worry, and what about whale poo?

 

Now that you mention it the last whale i saw did look a bit bored slapping his tail about and swimming aimlessly in the sea.

You would think they could take up surfing like the dolphins.

 

Fortunately the clever Japanese have set up a good game for them . It is called "Avoid-the-exploding harpoon". That really keeps them on their toes (Do whales have toes?)

 

Recently, an actor from "The Chaser" (ABC television) decided to harpoon Japanese people and went about Sydney chasing Japanese tourists and schoolgirls with a blow-up-boat and harpoon. Unfortunately the Harpoon was from "Toys 'r Us" and was not as effective as the Japanese variety.

The Tourists did get up a bit of speed however.

Harpooning may not be as easy as it looks.

[Boerseun]

It's a horrible possibility.

 

Nonetheless, for some idiotic reason, whenever a whale beaches and dies around my neck of the woods, the authorites deem it prudent to pack the sucker with enough explosives to start World War 3, and blow it up. And EVERY SINLGE TIME it's a horrible mess, with pieces of whale raining out of the sky for miles around. People, bystanders, journalists, everybody remotely interested or just happening to be there, stand frozen for quite a few shock-filled minutes, draped in whale gore, before running hysterically into the sea to cleanse themselves of this particular Bad Idea. You would've thought that they learnt their lesson after the first couple o' whales went Boom - SPLAT.

 

There might be an answer to this, though:

 

A year or two ago, the shark research council convinced the Cape Town City Council to not blow up a recently beached carcass, but to give it to them to tow out to sea to study shark behaviour when confronted with fifty tons of prime steak. And so they did. They towed the carcass out, and the sharks went nuts. They got excellent footage of it; these sharks chomped away on the whale carcass as if there's no tomorrow! There's this belief that sharks must swim continuously in order to breathe; turns out to be false. The sharks gorged themselves on Willy the Whale, eating so much that they couldn't move anymore at all. And then they promptly sank to the bottom, lying motionless on the seafloor, digesting, sleeping, in some sort of a daze. It was amazing. And I guess this is a scene that happens quite often, seeing as whales also croak every now and then from natural causes, like the rest of us. And the sharks seem willing to stand by for just such an eventuality.

 

So maybe we could organise a few of these shark feeding stations on a regular basis where there are lots of whales, just to, you know, keep them on their flippery toes, to let them know we are wathcing them and we won't take any crap from them like attempts at flight, and similar uppity nonsense.

[Michaelangelica]

It's a horrible possibility.

 

Nonetheless, for some idiotic reason, whenever a whale beaches and dies around my neck of the woods, the authorites deem it prudent to pack the sucker with enough explosives to start World War 3, and blow it up.

 

There might be an answer to this, though:

 

A year or two ago, the shark research council convinced the Cape Town City Council to not blow up a recently beached carcass, but to give it to them to tow out to sea to study shark behaviour when confronted with fifty tons of prime steak.

So maybe we could organise a few of these shark feeding stations on a regular basis where there are lots of whales, just to, you know, keep them on their flippery toes, to let them know we are wathcing them and we won't take any crap from them like attempts at flight, and similar uppity nonsense.

Truly awesome.

I would suggest that the local authority sell tickets to this show and give free raincoats. You sound as if you have the same sort of imaginative, progressive, enthusiastic, creative, far-seeing local politicians as we do.

 

'Uppity' yes, exactly and Belligerent!. You have not seen belligerent until you have seen an Oz whale. They make the crocks look like teddy bears.

Sharks are clean and quick and just chomp bits off.

But whales STRAIN you (shudder) though this horrifying mesh like thing they use instead of teeth. Not a pretty sight.

 

A little off topic, but hey-

On the shark food. A true story

IN WA there are big tides and very long piers a mile or so long. It is very sparsely populated country. Two Ozzie miners used to regularly fish on the end of the pier. Unfortunately their fishing was spoiled buy a hungry shark who keep prowling around the pier, eating and scaring away the fish.

So one day, being creative, inventive and ingenious (like all from Oz -especially the Outback-the sun seems to develop these valued characteristics) the miners stuffed a sheep carcass with high explosives; went to the end of the pier, lit the fuse, chucked in the sheep, the shark swallowed the sheep and headed out to sea.

 

They were delighted to see their ingenious, well planned and researched scheme come to fruition. (All Ozzie research is done at the Pub, a much overlooked institute of Higher Learning) And so sat waiting for the explosion and the resulting "burley" * that would attract more fish.

Unfortunately after a few minutes going away from the pier the shark turned around and came back towards the pier. The two startled fishermen quickly started to run (remember the pier is a mile long). The shark caught up to them, passed underneath them and then exploded in a hail of sawdust a few meters in front of them.

 

They were very relieved, if a bit deaf from the explosion. The shark had taken a fair bit of the pier with him but a short swim would fix that. After recovering from the exertion and excitement they contemplated their swim to the still standing pier (The little bit they were on was moving and groaning and swaying ominously.)

Unfortunately (did I say that before) the "burley"* of the exploding shark had worked only too well and hundreds of 2-4M shark's descended from everywhere to feast on their brother's remains.

The two enterprising miners thought that discretion was better than valor and sat down to wait.

They were rescued by about three days later - a little parched, scared, cold and shell-shocked but nothing a few beers would not put right.

 

Notes/translation

* "burley" is a secret mixture of fish guts and other arcane ingredients thrown in the water to attract fish. Each fisherman has his own recipe passed down, father to son, though generations of elders.

 

(Story originally told, in much greater detail, by John Hepworth in the "Nation Review" c1980)

[freeztar]

So maybe we could organise a few of these shark feeding stations on a regular basis where there are lots of whales, just to, you know, keep them on their flippery toes, to let them know we are wathcing them and we won't take any crap from them like attempts at flight, and similar uppity nonsense.

 

 

:eek_big:

[Michaelangelica]

A petition to stop whale and dolphin killing

Stop the dolphin and whale killings in Taiji - Signatures

797,305 signatures so far

Directed form here (Interesting site)

PETITION: Stop the dolphin and whale kil... - Care2 News Network

 

An informative news site

savejapandolphins.org

[Michaelangelica]

Greenpeace Protests Japan Ban On Anti-Whaling Ship!

from Care2

today.reuters.com

Barring Greenpeace's anti-whaling ship Esperanza from docking in Tokyo violates free speech and suggests that Japan may have something to hide, the environmental group said on Thursday. The ship had hoped to bring its campaign to Japan, where whaling..

. . .

Greenpeace Japan head Jun Hoshikawa said what had happened to the Esperanza was just one example of a growing trend to use the "terrorist" label to suppress free speech.

 

"This is not just a problem for Greenpeace but for democracy in Japan," he said.

.

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=T349133