Does the world need to regulate whaling

IQS.RLOW · Post by **IQS.RLOW** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:12 am

^^^^ yep. Nothing but emotional garbage

Not even a hint of logical argument. Nothing new from Mantra

HIGHERBEAM · Post by **HIGHERBEAM** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:43 pm

NOIQ can you provide a link for your quote as I cant seem to find it on the web

http://www.dial-a-prayer.com/

freediver · Post by **freediver** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:13 pm

They're not being culled out of necessity because they're either a pest or needed for food. The Japanese have lied from the very beginning about their reasons for killing whales. Eliminate the pest or essential food factor and we're left with a blood sport.

No we're not mantra. You're not making any sense at all.

All I could find on the site was a comment that Minke whales are sighted more often than other whales.

If you google - IUCN Minke Whales - this is the top result:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/2474/0

If Minke whales are prolific breeders why are they protected?

Because all whales are, regardless of their status.

There has to be a reason for this

There used to be a reason. Not any more. Why is why the IWC scientific committee is drawing up plans for the resumption of commercial whaling.

and you can only conclude it's because there is uncertainty over their numbers

Again mantra you are making no sense - just leaping to absurd conclusions that appear to be based on nothing more than the fact that you know nothing about the topic.

Of course I'd like to dictate to everyone what essential food should be

Why? What is wrong with people deciding for themselves what to eat?

I can still say what I believe though.

That is hardly a good reason for saying it.

Do you think by using the word "harvest" we can throw whales into the same category as a vegetable?

Mantra, you keep missing, or deliberately ignoring the point - that 'essential food' is a meaningless term. There is no food that cannot be eliminated from our diet, therefor there is no such thing as essential food. You use the term to mean 'allowable food', then use this as a circular justification for what food should be allowed. You are basically arguing that whale meat should be banned - regardless of the environemtnal issues - because you think it should be banned.

It's unfortunate that there are so many people in this world who just can't appreciate the beauty and intelligence of this great mammal

They are dumber than swine.

mantra · Post by **mantra** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:34 am

freediver wrote:
They're not being culled out of necessity because they're either a pest or needed for food. The Japanese have lied from the very beginning about their reasons for killing whales. Eliminate the pest or essential food factor and we're left with a blood sport.
No we're not mantra. You're not making any sense at all.

Hunters who kill animals for sport don't make sense to me either. Non hunters, if they have to kill an animal, do it because it's needed for food or it's a feral pest. Hunters who do it for sport - do it for pleasure. Can you explain why you should kill an animal if you don't have to?

Because all whales are, regardless of their status

.

Have you thought about why they are protected?

There used to be a reason. Not any more. Why is why the IWC scientific committee is drawing up plans for the resumption of commercial whaling.

Just because it's an international body doesn't mean it always makes the right decision. Obviously they're trying to reach a compromise. The plans are still on the drawing board and hopefully they'll stay there.

Again mantra you are making no sense - just leaping to absurd conclusions that appear to be based on nothing more than the fact that you know nothing about the topic.

My conclusions are absurd to you because they're not the same as yours. Perhaps I don't know as much about the topic as you do, but I'm trying to understand why it's so necessary that "commercial" whaling continues. I can't see how "want", "pleasure" and a few bucks can justify this slaughter - although if the culling was necessary because of "need" it would be easier to accept.

Why? What is wrong with people deciding for themselves what to eat?

I can still say what I believe though.
That is hardly a good reason for saying it.

A lot of people say things for bad reasons - but my reasons for saying this aren't bad. We are so wasteful and so much is destroyed through greed.

Mantra, you keep missing, or deliberately ignoring the point - that 'essential food' is a meaningless term. There is no food that cannot be eliminated from our diet, therefor there is no such thing as essential food. You use the term to mean 'allowable food', then use this as a circular justification for what food should be allowed. You are basically arguing that whale meat should be banned - regardless of the environemtnal issues - because you think it should be banned.

It all comes back to the same argument. Why kill a living creature if you don't have to? Why destroy something because we can?

It's unfortunate that there are so many people in this world who just can't appreciate the beauty and intelligence of this great mammal
They are dumber than swine.

Swine are smarter than dogs.

boxy · Post by **boxy** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:01 pm

mantra wrote:
Because all whales are, regardless of their status
.

Have you thought about why they are protected?

There used to be a reason. Not any more. Why is why the IWC scientific committee is drawing up plans for the resumption of commercial whaling.
Just because it's an international body doesn't mean it always makes the right decision. Obviously they're trying to reach a compromise. The plans are still on the drawing board and hopefully they'll stay there.

So... first off you try to make out that because they are protected, it means that there is a reason for it... but then, when it's pointed out that that protection is being reconsidered, that is because "the authorities" can get it wrong.... but only if they go against your preconcieved bias.

Don't appeal to authority, unless you're willing to accept the possibility that your authority can change it's mind, and you're fine to follow them wherever they lead you.

mantra · Post by **mantra** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:49 pm

boxy wrote:So... first off you try to make out that because they are protected, it means that there is a reason for it... but then, when it's pointed out that that protection is being reconsidered, that is because "the authorities" can get it wrong.... but only if they go against your preconcieved bias.

Obviously the IWC is ineffective anyway and whether the whale is protected or not makes very little difference to the culling. They have no power to stop the hunting. I'm assuming these plans can be likened to prohibition where they believe if they allow commercial whaling to resume - the whalers will become malleable and the IWC will have more power to regulate. I hope the opposition stands strong and the plans fail.

Don't appeal to authority, unless you're willing to accept the possibility that your authority can change it's mind, and you're fine to follow them wherever they lead you.

I don't have much faith in the IWC - they're impotent.

boxy · Post by **boxy** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:19 pm

lol.

rest my case, then.

freediver · Post by **freediver** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:10 am

Hunters who kill animals for sport don't make sense to me either.

Mantra, what does not make sense is your insistence that whaling is done for sport. This is clearly not the case. It is so obvious I can;t understand why we are still going over it.

Have you thought about why they are protected?

Sure. have you?

My conclusions are absurd to you because they're not the same as yours.

No mantra. Just because I disagree with someone does not mean I cannot understand what they are saying. With this debate it is different. It's not just that I disagree with you. It's that you make absolutely no sense. Like your twisted logic for why you think whaling is done for sport.

Perhaps I don't know as much about the topic as you do, but I'm trying to understand why it's so necessary that "commercial" whaling continues. I can't see how "want", "pleasure" and a few bucks can justify this slaughter

You have it backwards mantra. People do not have to justify to you what they eat and how it is harvested. If you want something banned, you are the one who has to justify it, not the other way round. You might as well argue that people should not be allowed to talk until they have proven to you the need to talk. That is how much sense you make. The closest you have come to making sense is arguing that all foods should be banned until people get your approval to eat them. At least it makes sense, even if it is a stupid idea.

Swine are smarter than dogs.

Can you explain how this justifies the ban on whaling?

IQS.RLOW · Post by **IQS.RLOW** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:03 am

It's not just that I disagree with you. It's that you make absolutely no sense. Like your twisted logic for why you think carbon is bad.

Back atcha...answer in this thread
http://www.ozpolitic.com/polanimal/view ... f=2&t=6681

Mantra makes the same twisted logic as you do for a carbon tax. You not only refuse to recognise it, you propagate it by purporting to be a political party

I gather your membership must be growing

Neferti · Post by **Neferti** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:31 pm

Mantra is just anti-whaling, 'cos Browneye Bob said it is a Bad Thing. To think that Mantra used to vote for the Libs. Probably Fraser.

Political Animal

Does the world need to regulate whaling

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Who is online