You also used a similar argument to say that evolution is not a scientific theory.

The only thing the two arguments have in common is that you don't appear to understand them. The theory of evolution is objective. Assessments of animal intelligence are not.

Irrelevent - it was banned on cruelty grounds

It is irrelevant. Going round killing animals for fun is completely different from harvesting them for food.

It's up to each country what they do.

So we shouldn't try to interfere if Japan wants to harvest whales? Please don't avoid this point for the next dozen posts.

You are going to unusual lengths to avoid the philosophical quandry you ahve gotten yourself into. I guess I'll have to get hypothetical on you - if you lived in a country where pigs were native, would you oppose the hunting of them?

Wasn't I saying the opposite when I said whaling was marginal in economic and cultural terms.

No. You were arguing that it was OK to ban it because it was only a small industry, but cattle and sheep are OK to kill because it is a much larger industry. You were claiming that the size of an industry is relevant to whether it should be banned on cruelty grounds. You are yet to explain the logic behind this.

So does 'objective' mean that evolution is a scientific theory?

No. It is two very different issues.

Japan voluntarily joined the IWC.

They can voluntarily unjoin. Or call their whaling scientific. That loophole has been left open under the same agreements you defer to.

They are whaling in international waters as well so it is the business of other nations.

Not if they are not harming those other nations. It is none of their business at all.

There is no equivalent way of banning hunting of pigs in a sovereign countries own territory, so its up to them what they do.

I am not asking you whether it is possible to ban pig hunting in a foreign country. I am asking you whethern it should be banned. You are using every possible copout you can think of to avoid answering that question.

No, but you can't tell me that this hypothetical case is on par to the situation with whales.

True. Pigs are considered to be more intelligent than the whales that are harvested and the hunt is on a much bigger scale. If harming intelligent creatures is your concern, as it appears to be with Walter Starck, then the pig issue is far greater.

Eg we haven't driven them close to extinction as we have with many species of whales

Once they have recovered and a sustainable harvest is possible, this is no longer an issue. Or do you think that if we ever push a species close to the brink we should never be allowed to harvest it again?

its easier to kill pigs humanely compare to harpooning whales at sea

Not wild ones. It's pretty rough on them, especially when the dogs get into them. And besides, I thought this was about intelligence, not cruelty. Walter built his entire argument around whale intelligence, but he got the species of whale wrong. If it's about cruelty instead, then factory farming pigs is by far the bigger issue.

Animals will be killed for food - thats unavoidable. As to which ones you have to weigh up the issues of cruelty, ethics, cultural and economic values, sustainability and ecology.

No you don't. You have to ignore culture, otherwise it's cultural imperialism. You can't tell another country not to eat an animal jsut because you don't like it. Otherwise we would have the Indians trying to tell us we can't eat cows. The economics is not a reason to ban a harvest, it is only a reason to remove subsidies etc. Animal cruelty has never been used to ban the consumption of animals, so there is no need for that either. Once you ban one animal on cruelty grounds, you have no objective way to draw the line.

In the case of cattle and sheep a lot of these issues don't apply at all.

Talk about Eurocentrism. Did you know that eating cows is taboo in India? Of course you think it doesn't apply, because it would never occur to you that the argument would be applied to the animals you eat.

I know their different issues but you say both aren't scientific - which puts you right out on the fringe.

I said it was subjective and anthropocentric, ie not objective. I didn't say anything about whether it was scientific. Scientific and objective are two different words with two different meanings. This evolution thing you keep bringing up is a red herring.

The point is that the ban is not cultural imperialism or the west 'forcing' Japan to stop whaling

It is if they change the rules halfway through and say the ban that was implimented on sustainability grounds should be kept through cultural imperialism.

it was the vote of an international body that they chose to join

Just because it was democratic does not mean it isn't cultural imperialism.

As to scientific whaling even you call it a loophole. Ie the Japanese are doing it in a way which was never intended.  

You appear to be confusing the two issues of whether it is right in a technical or legal sense and whether we should be doing it from a philosophical perspective. The existence of the IWC ban is not a valid reason for the IWC ban. It is a circular argument.

If whales are hunted to the brink again then everyone is affected

Right, sustainability is a valid reason. Cultural imperialism is not.

You can't say there more intelligent because there are so many species of whales and not many have been studied all that well.

This is getting rediculous. First you say they are intelligent, then when it is pointed out to you that pigs are smarter, you switch and say we should ban the harvest because they might be more intelligent. Well, pigs are probably more intelligent than the whales being harvested. You are applying a totally different standard to pigs that you are to whales. It has nothing to do with the evidence. You like bacon or find it acceptable, You don't like whale hunting, so you try to bend the evidence to fit your view. Admit it, the evidence is totally against you on the pigs vs whales issue.

If I can't say that pigs are more itnelligent, how can you say that whales are more itnelligent? How can you justify a whaling ban and not a bacon ban?

I'd doubt if the native pig hunt is on a bigger scale - and certainly is nothing like the recent history of whaling.

Rather than going on about whether it is bigger, first you should explain why it even matters. Why is it a valid argument. Like your intelligence argument, it is not a valid reason and even if it were, it would go against you, not for you.

Walter spent half his article attacking whaling on other issues also.

The other attacks are just as flawed. They are no better than PETA's poster of a pet dog with a fish hook through it's mouth. He actually equated killing a whale with killing a human. That is animal welfare extremism.

Given the past history there will always be doubts about commercial whaling on sustainability grounds.

You are missing the point. If you want a ban for sustainability reasons, then argue on sustainability. Don't argue on animal welfare grounds instead.

When a commercial industry is established there is commercial pressure to keep it going.

It can only keep going if it is sustainable, hence the original IWC ban. You could make exactly the same argument about fishing. You are rpetending to be interested in sustainability to impose your cultural imperialism.

Thats why we still allow hunting of marine mammals by aboriginal peoples. Commercial whaling does not have much cultural significance.

When you say it doesn't have much cultural significance, you are compeltely ignoring half of the cultural argument. A taboo on whaling is now part of our culture. We are trying to impose that culture on other people. it doesn't matter how important you think it is to Japanese culture, it is still cultural imperialism. If the citizens of Kazahkstan decided they wanted to aprticipate in sustainable whaling, then attempting to stop them would be cultural imperialsim.

The use of dogs raises some ethical issues

Well, should be ban the hunting of pigs with dogs then?

Should we ban sow stall pig farming, given the pigs are smarter than the whales you try to protect?

I know their different issues but you say both aren't scientific - which puts you right out on the fringe.

I said it was subjective and anthropocentric, ie not objective. I didn't say anything about whether it was scientific. Scientific and objective are two different words with two different meanings. This evolution thing you keep bringing up is a red herring.

Well it does at least put serious doubt on your credibility on scientific issues. Ie to dismiss evolution as not scientific when it is almost univerally acceepted by the scientific community.

The point is that the ban is not cultural imperialism or the west 'forcing' Japan to stop whaling

It is if they change the rules halfway through and say the ban that was implimented on sustainability grounds should be kept through cultural imperialism.

The rules haven't been changed.



it was the vote of an international body that they chose to join

Just because it was democratic does not mean it isn't cultural imperialism.

The IWC took account of cultural sensitivities by allowing traditional aboriginal whaling. The 'cultural imperialism' tag comes straight from Japanese whaling lobby. To say that a commercial industry that has only existed since 1945 is culturally significant is quite a stretch. The ban only came into being because pro-whaling countries changed their position on the issue.

As to scientific whaling even you call it a loophole. Ie the Japanese are doing it in a way which was never intended.  

You appear to be confusing the two issues of whether it is right in a technical or legal sense and whether we should be doing it from a philosophical perspective. The existence of the IWC ban is not a valid reason for the IWC ban. It is a circular argument.

Your the one going around in circles. You said because the Japanese still take whales the 'ban' is not really a ban.



If whales are hunted to the brink again then everyone is affected

Right, sustainability is a valid reason. Cultural imperialism is not.

Ethics/ cruelty does not equal 'cultural imperialism'. Just about every country has animal cruelty laws. Because whaling is supect on both counts just makes a clearer case for bans.



You can't say there more intelligent because there are so many species of whales and not many have been studied all that well.

This is getting rediculous. First you say they are intelligent, then when it is pointed out to you that pigs are smarter, you switch and say we should ban the harvest because they might be more intelligent. Well, pigs are probably more intelligent than the whales being harvested. You are applying a totally different standard to pigs that you are to whales. It has nothing to do with the evidence. You like bacon or find it acceptable, You don't like whale hunting, so you try to bend the evidence to fit your view. Admit it, the evidence is totally against you on the pigs vs whales issue.

No, you pointed out than ONE study said that pigs MIGHT be smarter than SOME species, but NOT ALL species of whales/ dolphins!/i]


If I can't say that pigs are more itnelligent, how can you say that whales are more itnelligent? How can you justify a whaling ban and not a bacon ban?

[i]Some whales/ dolphins are consistantly ranked higher than pigs, which you conveniently leave out. The bacon we eat comes from domestic animals.  



I'd doubt if the native pig hunt is on a bigger scale - and certainly is nothing like the recent history of whaling.

Rather than going on about whether it is bigger, first you should explain why it even matters. Why is it a valid argument. Like your intelligence argument, it is not a valid reason and even if it were, it would go against you, not for you.

It makes it easier to decide the lesser of two evils. If the benifits are marginal and the detriments are significant for a course of action then the sensible thing to do is not to take that action.  


Walter spent half his article attacking whaling on other issues also.

The other attacks are just as flawed. They are no better than PETA's poster of a pet dog with a fish hook through it's mouth. He actually equated killing a whale with killing a human. That is animal welfare extremism.

Well PETA will be pleased with you with you argument that we cannot  distinguish the capacity for pain of fish from higher creatures.  

Given the past history there will always be doubts about commercial whaling on sustainability grounds.

You are missing the point. If you want a ban for sustainability reasons, then argue on sustainability. Don't argue on animal welfare grounds instead.

I'm arguing on both. Can't you accept two ideas at once?


When a commercial industry is established there is commercial pressure to keep it going.

It can only keep going if it is sustainable, hence the original IWC ban. You could make exactly the same argument about fishing. You are rpetending to be interested in sustainability to impose your cultural imperialism.

Well a ban is not sustainable use is it. That they resorted to this shows they failed to sustainably manage the resource. Fisheries are closed sometimes in exreme cases of depletion. But they have a far greater capacity for rebounding.

IQ would you mind adding a brief description of the video? I don't normally download them.

Well it does at least put serious doubt on your credibility on scientific issues.

Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

The rules haven't been changed.

Yes they have. The IWC was set up to protect the future of the whale harvest, not to destroy it.

The IWC took account of cultural sensitivities by allowing traditional aboriginal whaling.

For the umteenth time, I am not alking about the original IWC ban. I support that.

The 'cultural imperialism' tag comes straight from Japanese whaling lobby.

Who cares where it comes from? FYI, I did not need anyone to tell me what it is, I recognised it myself.

To say that a commercial industry that has only existed since 1945 is culturally significant is quite a stretch.

OMG! You are kidding aren't you? Whaling is one of the industries this country was founded on.

The ban only came into being because pro-whaling countries changed their position on the issue.

What are you talking about?

You said because the Japanese still take whales the 'ban' is not really a ban.

Duh.

Ethics/ cruelty does not equal 'cultural imperialism'.

In this case it does.

Just about every country has animal cruelty laws.

Like I have already repeated many times, there are zero animal cruelty laws banning the harvest for consumption of any animal.

No, you pointed out than ONE study said that pigs MIGHT be smarter than SOME species, but NOT ALL species of whales/ dolphins!

Lets get this sorted out. The whales that are actually harvested (baleen whales, not killer whales etc) are not the intelligent ones. The fact that killer whales are smart is totally irrelevant to the ban on sperm whales. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. All you have in response is that they could be intelligent.

Some whales/ dolphins are consistantly ranked higher than pigs, which you conveniently leave out.

I did not leave it out. I just pointed out that you are talking about the wrong species. How many times do I have to say that?

The bacon we eat comes from domestic animals.  

So what?

It makes it easier to decide the lesser of two evils.

It only makes it easier because it introduces yet another totally irrelevant factor to make your decision on. And the way you use it is contrary to common sense.

Given the past history there will always be doubts about commercial whaling on sustainability grounds.

Sure, but like In said, that is not a good reason to make up another reason.

I'm arguing on both. Can't you accept two ideas at once?

In case you haven't noticed, I have already accepted one of them. I am happy to discuss both, but using one to justify the other is rediculous. It also helps if you can stay on topic and not switch to 'well it isn't sustainable anyway' to avoid discussing whether anaimal welfare is even a valid reason. Are you just trying to get off this topic?

Well a ban is not sustainable use is it.

It can be part os a sustainable management program, just not an indefinitely. That's what the hippies fail to understand about the whaling ban. It was never supposed to be permanent.

Fisheries are closed sometimes in exreme cases of depletion. But they have a far greater capacity for rebounding.

Um, how does this support your argument? You wouldn't claim fish feel pain just to keep such a fishing ban permanent.

To say that a commercial industry that has only existed since 1945 is culturally significant is quite a stretch.

OMG! You are kidding aren't you? Whaling is one of the industries this country was founded on.


Japan has a long history of whaling - but this was done by coastal communities catching the inshore whales and dolphins for susistance. Agriculture was always the mainstay of the Japanese economy. Inland peoples did not eat whale meat. Commercial hunting of pelagic whales only took off after WW2 and was a useful food source at a time of food shortages. Note also the polularity of whale meat in Japan today is not high and is decling despite efforts to promote it.

I should remind you that you said than ALL animals are fair game and that we should draw the line only with our own species.

Yes, that's what I think. However, given that you are using this argument, it's a bit hypocritical to look for excuses to eat bacon. You still haven't explained why doing something wrong on a really big scale is OK, but if it's on a small scale it should be banned. You still haven't explained why breeding animals yourself justifies far worse treatment for the lifetime of an animal in a factory farm. Do you support a ban on pig hunting with dogs?

Would I support a ban on pig hunting with dogs - possibly, I haven't thought about it that much. I don't see too much downside to such a ban. It would be up to individual countries as there is no equivalent to the IWC for the case of hunting of terrestial mammals. I doubt if the wild pig hunting industry your fond of would use that method as the mauling by dogs would damage the meat. Recreational hunting? Well I don't think its terribly sporting to let the dogs do the work!

Breeding animals for for food shouldn't be cruel if its done properly. Its in a farmers interests to keep their livestock weel fed and watered and protected from predators. It could be argued that if raised this way they get a better life than they would in the wild. There are rules for humane slaughter. If there are some cases of cruel treatment of livestock, well two wrongs don't make a right. 

We are predators by nature. Where humans live in a natural setting with apes and monkeys, they eat them too if they can get their hands on them. It would also be cultural imperialism to tell tropical people that they can't sustainably harvest apes and monkeys and that they have to chop down the forest and farm cattle instead. We do not have to justify what we are.

Yes and the IWC allows traditional subsistance whaling by indigenous peoples. Commercial whaling is not culturally important and not neccessary for subsitance.




Japan has a long history of whaling - but this was done by coastal communities catching the inshore whales and dolphins for susistance.

Same with fishing. Same with all agrictulture. It's all done a far bigger scale now than before. Also, before you were arguing that whaling should be banned because it is only a small industry. Now you say it should be banned because it is bigger than it used to be. Please explain why size matters so much and try to be consistent with ethe argument.

The World has moved on from when whaling was a bigger industry. Western countries mainly hunted them for their oil. We simply don't need to now as we have alternative products. In the case of Japan there were food shortages after WW11 and whale meat was a useful source of protein. That need is no longer there with abundant alternatives the prosperity to pay for them. Not to mention that we drove whales close to the brink.

Fisheries and agriculture on the other hand we can't do without - the alternative is starvation. If you have any concern for humanity the realities of food production mean that is way it has to be. If done properly though these activities are sustainable, though they do have an impact. Agricultural improvements have seen productivity rise several times over for a lot of crops - which means less land has to be cleared. The World's forest cover has actually been stable over the last decade or so.  

I doubt if the wild pig hunting industry your fond of would use that method as the mauling by dogs would damage the meat.

Compared to what? A shotgun? I lethal injection? Singing the pig to sleep? It's not your place to say how people should hunt pigs. It's certianly not your place to invent rational sounding arguments to fill in for your irrational ones. IF you think animal welfare justifies the ban, say so, don't make up some other reason.


Compared to a high powered rifle of course. You know - the weapon of choice for professional shooters. I didn't say it was my place, and I even said I haven't thought about it that much. I said it was up to each country to decide. You asked for my opinion and then give an unitelligable rant because I gave it.


Well I don't think its terribly sporting to let the dogs do the work!

So what? Some people enjoy it. It gets the job done. How else do you hunt pigs in thick scrub?

Plenty of hippies think it isn't sporting to catch fish on a line.

Are you trying to tell me there isn't a difference between catching fish on a line and setting dogs on to a pig for 'sport'. Even the RSPCA which opposes the hunting of animals for sport makes an exception for angling. 

Your giving the anti-fishing hippies a great oportunity to ban angling with your devotion to the promotion of marine parks!