This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Tsunami Relief: Help People Not Whalers

Tsunami Relief: Help People Not Whalers - Comments

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 1 by alaskansee

Signed #227,942. Nearly there.

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:30:42 UTC | #899361

78rpm's Avatar Comment 2 by 78rpm

I'd boycott Japanese products because of their whale killing if I could, but it's scarcely possible, at least in the U.S. The only other country I know of that hunts whales (at least I think they still do) is Norway. Easy for me to avoid buying Norwegian products--King Oscar Sardines and Jarlsberg cheese are all I ever see, and I can live without them.

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:45:34 UTC | #899365

Floyd's Avatar Comment 3 by Floyd

What is this petition doing on this site? If you are passionately against whaling you need to ask yourself some important questions, such as WHY are you against whaling?

  1. Whales are endangered: Minke whales are the main species being hunted and are listed as threatened, even though there are an estimated 800,000 Minkes in our oceans. Japan kills less than 500 per year.

  2. It's inhumane: Maybe - but so is a lot of killing in nature. Ever seen a pack of African wild dogs take down a zebra and eat it alive? Much inhumane killing of other animals by man goes on as well.

  3. Whales are special: Whales are of relative high intelligence, but so are pigs, cattle and sheep and even chickens. At what level of intelligence should we draw the line?

I personally don't like Japanese whaling as I love nature and cannot see for the life of me why there is any need for it. I think the only reason they do it is some sort of cultural pride in not giving in to foriegn pressure. But I get really tired of the hysteria about whaling without ever giving reasons for opposing it.

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:09:02 UTC | #899367

Layla's Avatar Comment 4 by Layla

Comment 3 by Floyd It's inhumane: Maybe - but so is a lot of killing in nature. Ever seen a pack of African wild dogs take down a zebra and eat it alive? Much inhumane killing of other animals by man goes on as well.

Oh right, so the rule is if African wild dogs do it, it's okay. I get it. Wait..that also extends to humans? So murder, rape, assault, theft, torture are all okay because human beings regularly do those things? I have really been wasting my time worrying about a lot of things over the years, haven't I? Starting from tomorrow I suggest a cruelty spree - if it's all right for nature, it's all right for me!

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:28:45 UTC | #899371

mmurray's Avatar Comment 5 by mmurray

Comment 3 by Floyd :

What is this petition doing on this site? If you are passionately against whaling you need to ask yourself some important questions, such as WHY are you against whaling?

  • It's inhumane: Maybe - but so is a lot of killing in nature. Ever seen a pack of African wild dogs take down a zebra and eat it alive? Much inhumane killing of other animals by man goes on as well.
  • What is the naturalistic fallacy doing on this site?

    Michael

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:30:02 UTC | #899372

    I Deny's Avatar Comment 6 by I Deny

    Comment 3 by Floyd :

    What is this petition doing on this site? If you are passionately against whaling you need to ask yourself some important questions, such as WHY are you against whaling?

  • Whales are endangered: Minke whales are the main species being hunted and are listed as threatened, even though there are an estimated 800,000 Minkes in our oceans. Japan kills less than 500 per year.

  • It's inhumane: Maybe - but so is a lot of killing in nature. Ever seen a pack of African wild dogs take down a zebra and eat it alive? Much inhumane killing of other animals by man goes on as well.

  • Whales are special: Whales are of relative high intelligence, but so are pigs, cattle and sheep and even chickens. At what level of intelligence should we draw the line?

  • I personally don't like Japanese whaling as I love nature and cannot see for the life of me why there is any need for it. I think the only reason they do it is some sort of cultural pride in not giving in to foriegn pressure. But I get really tired of the hysteria about whaling without ever giving reasons for opposing it.

    Words of a meat eater, I reckon.

    If I'm mistaken, then you already have good reasons to oppose animal slaughter...

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 03:44:13 UTC | #899384

    chris 116's Avatar Comment 7 by chris 116

    Comment 3 by Floyd

    If you are passionately against whaling then you need to ask yourself some important questions, such as why you are against whaling?

    Well said Floyd. May I suggest starting with Wikipedia's Cetacean Intelligence and following the links. Hopefully another user can offer a better suggestion.

    Japan kills less than 500 per year.

    This was true last year. But they'd have liked to kill more. The crew of Sea Shepherd harassed them so much that they were only able to slaughter 172, which was about a fifth of their target. If you'd like the Japanese to kill more Whales, then please send money to the Japanese tsunami fund, so that they can better protect their whaling fleet. If you want them to kill less Whales, then support Sea Shepherd: they have proved that they do make a big difference.

    It's inhumane: maybe – but then so is a lot of killing in nature. Ever seen a pack of African wild dogs take down a zebra and eat it alive?

    Wild dogs can't be inhumane Floyd, on account of them being wild dogs.Indogane just sounds wrong, doesn't it Floyd? Plain stupid in fact.

    Much inhumane killing of other animals goes on as well.

    My neighbour beats his dog, therefore……

    Whales are of relative (sic) high intelligence, but then so are pigs, cattle and sheep and even chickens.

    May I suggest Scientific American: Are whales smarter than we are? The jury is still out on whether or not Whales have developed consciousness. But I'm pretty sure they're not even sitting on chickens.

    While I can understand apathy, why somebody would take the effort to defend this barbarity baffles me. Are you sure that you're not a Japanese whaler, Floyd San?

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 05:14:24 UTC | #899393

    i_am_user's Avatar Comment 8 by i_am_user

    If they have such a hard time selling whale meat, how come the Japanese government is putting so much money into the industry? Since my main concern is species endangerment, I'd be interested in knowing if what Floyd stated is true. It's still pretty sketchy and unethical how the Japanese government only obtained their whaling permit under the guise of 'research'.

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 05:19:01 UTC | #899395

    101observer's Avatar Comment 9 by 101observer

    I don't think people are really reading Floyd's point. He himself says that he doesn't like whaling, and the only thing he does is attack the hysteria surrounding it.

    Much inhumane killing of other animals goes on as well.

    My neighbour beats his dog, therefore…… Therefore you should say or do something about it. But if there happens to be someone in the neighborhood who tortures cats (or other animal, beside the point here), then you should start focussing on that.

    Think about the reason why you're against whaling. If it holds up to reason, you've got a good argument. If it doesn't, maybe you should look somewhat critically at your position against whaling.

    Personally, I regard whaling the same a hunting, which, if it has to be done, should imo be as quick-killing as possible. Of course, whale's aren't killed as easy as most game, for me a reason not to go whaling.

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:02:09 UTC | #899462

    mmurray's Avatar Comment 10 by mmurray

    Comment 9 by 101observer :

    I don't think people are really reading Floyd's point. He himself says that he doesn't like whaling, and the only thing he does is attack the hysteria surrounding it.

    Well I read it. Part of his attack is apparently to say that because animals do something it is morally correct for us to do it. Do you agree with this ?

    Michael

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:10:01 UTC | #899466

    diotallevi's Avatar Comment 11 by diotallevi

    Chris, if you want to support whaling sending money to the Japanese tsunami fund will not help. The money supporting the whaling fleet is coming from Japanese tax payers, out of the 3rd special budget for tsunami recovery (of which it is less than 2% of the fisheries ministry budget). Withholding charity because you object to a governments stance on whaling is a little mean-spirited.

    Sea Shepherd are criminally obstructing Japan's legal right to take whales. I don't care if you are against whaling in general (although I don't think there is a convincing conservation based argument against this amount of whaling), the support of activists which put peoples lives in danger is misplaced and wrong.

    There is also the question of why Western countries so strenuously object to these killings when their own meat industry (to choose one result of our extreme consumerism) is causing ecological destruction which is magnitudes greater than the whaling industry.

    Japan sells the meat because they are required to by the IWC: it is a requirement that whales taken in the scientific hunt, are not wasted.

    The scientific basis of the hunt is not sneaky, it was put there to allow whaling nations to perform lethal scientific research with the aim of developing a sustainable whaling industry when whale stocks have recovered. This is exactly what Japan is doing.

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:21:14 UTC | #899473

    mmurray's Avatar Comment 12 by mmurray

    Comment 11 by diotallevi :

    Japan sells the meat because they are required to by the IWC

    Would that be the same IWC where Japan bribes smaller nations with `aid' to vote with them ?

    Michael

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:14:52 UTC | #899511

    Reckless Monkey's Avatar Comment 13 by Reckless Monkey

    Firstly before I'm eviscerated. I HATE WHALING! All the science they claim to be doing is perfectly able to be done simply following them and taking samples from their poo floating behind them, The papers they publish are apparently rubbish. However I was visiting Melbourne and walking past the docks and saw the Sea Shepard we went in for a look as they were giving tours. Here was something that from a distance looked like it belonged in a Thomas the Tank Engine episode, but on closer inspection it would need to be a somewhat demonic Thomas the Tank engine episode. They boast that they haven't killed anyone in their escapades, but they also boast that they have have sunk 5 ships (they have painted ships sinking like a WW2 fighter plane). They had sharp steel channels attached to the hull to hole a whaling ship on ramming. Now from what I understand the Japanese are not legally allowed to hunt in the areas the Sea Shepard patrols and they argue that the international community refuses to enforce this (I have no idea if this is actually true). As much as I hate whaling I left the ship troubled by my hatred for whaling and finding it difficult to justify potentially drowning crew members with families and the product of a culture that doesn't teach their young to respect nature.

    What really troubles me is they appear to be getting results and it sickens me to the guts that reason and debate can't bring about the end of whaling.

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:18:08 UTC | #899517

    chris 116's Avatar Comment 14 by chris 116

    Comment 11 by Diotalevi

    Sea Shepherd are criminally obstructing Japan's legal right to kill whales.

    If it is criminal, then the law is an ass: the criminals have right on their side and all power to them.

    The support of activists which put people's lives in danger is misplaced and wrong.

    Misplaced and wrong is an opinion. An indisputable fact is that there are more whales alive because of Sea Shepherd's actions and therefore I urge anybody who is pleased by that result to support Sea Shepherd. By the way, last year's result was: several hundred whales saved from slaughter against no whalers kill.

    The scientific basis of the hunt is not sneaky……

    While covertly buying the votes of small nations is sneaky, I've never thought of the slaughter as sneaky: far from it. They continue to openly slaughter these intelligent beasts because they don't give a fig for world opinion, which is why direct action is required.

    …… It was put there to allow whaling nations to perform lethal scientific research with the aim of developing a sustainable whaling industry.

    The AIM of their lethal scientific research is to provide whalemeat. Are you seriously suggesting that Sea Shepherd's crew putting themselves between the harpooners and the Whales was detrimental to cetacean research?

    There is also the question of why Western countries so strenuously object to these killings when their own meat industry is causing ecological destruction which is magnitude greater than the whaling industry.

    I wasn't aware that Western countries were making strenuous efforts. But if that's true, then it is hypocritical. All the same, I still urge the individuals of those nations who want to stop the slaughter of whales to support Sea Shepherd. It's possible to be both opposed to hacking down rainforests for cattle and whaling.

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:23:57 UTC | #899568

    Lizzie Cornish's Avatar Comment 15 by Lizzie Cornish

    The lady I spoke to in the Japanese Embassy in London about 30 minutes ago, said the story orignated in The Guardian, then the other papers picked it up, without bothering to check the details. I suggested that if it IS wholly wrong, then they should ask every paper who's printed it to publish a full apology. She told me that various embassies around the world are now looking to do exactly this..Not sure WHO is telling the truth here, but she seemed adamant that never EVER would they use the money from the tsunami donations for anything other than helping those affected...

    Press Release No tsunami donations used to fund scientific whaling programme 09 December 2011 "Following deeply misleading headlines in a number of recent news articles which appear to suggest that there is a connection between whaling and tsunami-related donations, we wish to emphasise that the donations made in support of relief and recovery efforts in the region affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami have never been used nor will ever be used to fund Japan's Scientific Whaling Research Program.

    The warm support that the Japanese people have received from the British people in response to the disaster is deeply appreciated, and we would like to make it crystal clear that all donations received are only ever used for the relief and reconstruction of the lives of those affected by the great disaster, and for no other purpose." Embassy of Japan http://www.uk.emb-japan.go.jp/en/news/111209.html

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:10:21 UTC | #899701

    aquilacane's Avatar Comment 16 by aquilacane

    There are whales/dolphins who can understand human command I know no human with the intelligence to understand a whale or dolphin, not without the aid of computer software. Maybe if they held the food, we would.

    How do we know this 30 mil came from the relief fund? I would like to see some proof.

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:24:32 UTC | #899801

    Layla's Avatar Comment 17 by Layla

    "Whaling research programme" that's a good one.

    Somebody really ought to tell them that cataloguing how tasty whales are is not usually a requirement of scientific study of a species.

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:41:53 UTC | #899843

    Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 18 by Alan4discussion

    Comment 9 by 101observer

    I don't think people are really reading Floyd's point. He himself says that he doesn't like whaling, and the only thing he does is attack the hysteria surrounding it.

    What hysteria?? Direct action to enforce conservation measures on vested interests, in the face of wilful disregard of them, while international authorities are turning a blind eye!? When talk is ignored, action is required. The absence of clear law (with the obstruction of the formulation of conservation laws by Japan) does not mean "anything goes" in ignoring conservation of endangered species.

    Perhaps some background culture, history, and religion will help clear the issues:

    Religion has also played a major part in Japan's culinary development. During the 6th century, Buddhism became the official religion of the country and the eating of meat and fish were prohibited. The first recorded decree prohibiting the eating of cattle, horses, dogs, monkeys, and chickens was issued by Emperor Temmu in A.D. 675. Similar decrees, based on the Buddhist prohibition of killing, were issued repeatedly by emperors during the eighth and ninth centuries. The number of regulated meats increased to the point that all mammals were included except whales, which were categorized as fish.

    The taboo against the consumption of meat developed further when the Japanese indigenous religion, Shinto, also adopted a philosophy similar to that of the Buddhists. This did not mean, however, that meat eating was totally banned in Japan. Professional hunters in mountain regions ate game (especially deer and wild boar), and it was not uncommon for hunted bird meat to be consumed. However, a lack of animal breeding for meat kept its consumption very low. Indeed, it was only during the fifteenth century and its aftermath that the tradition of eating both the meat and eggs of domestic fowl was revived. Fowls, until then, had been regarded in Shinto as God's sacred messengers and were reared to announce the dawn rather than as a mere food resource.

    In 1854 trade was renewed with West and soon a new Japanese ruling order took power. The new Emperor Meiji even went as far as staging a New Year's feast in 1872 designed to embrace the Western world. It had a European emphasis and for the first time in over a thousand years, the people publicly ate meat. The general population started to eat meat again after the Meiji Restoration which occurred in 1867.

    The Japanese have traditionally avoided eating meat, just as Catholics avoided eating meat on Fridays.

    However, whales were considered to be FISH, so whale steaks could be eaten without breaking the taboo!

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:42:18 UTC | #899844

    DocWebster's Avatar Comment 19 by DocWebster

    Comment 11 by diotallevi :

    Chris, if you want to support whaling sending money to the Japanese tsunami fund will not help. The money supporting the whaling fleet is coming from Japanese tax payers, out of the 3rd special budget for tsunami recovery (of which it is less than 2% of the fisheries ministry budget). Withholding charity because you object to a governments stance on whaling is a little mean-spirited.

    Sea Shepherd are criminally obstructing Japan's legal right to take whales. I don't care if you are against whaling in general (although I don't think there is a convincing conservation based argument against this amount of whaling), the support of activists which put peoples lives in danger is misplaced and wrong.

    There is also the question of why Western countries so strenuously object to these killings when their own meat industry (to choose one result of our extreme consumerism) is causing ecological destruction which is magnitudes greater than the whaling industry.

    yup we got a shill here, just like the scientologists that show up whenever somebody tells the truth about Hubbard

    Japan sells the meat because they are required to by the IWC: it is a requirement that whales taken in the scientific hunt, are not wasted.

    The scientific basis of the hunt is not sneaky, it was put there to allow whaling nations to perform lethal scientific research with the aim of developing a sustainable whaling industry when whale stocks have recovered. This is exactly what Japan is doing.

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:44:44 UTC | #899847

    Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 20 by Alan4discussion

    Comment 11 by diotallevi

    The scientific basis of the hunt is not sneaky, it was put there to allow whaling nations to perform lethal scientific research with the aim of developing a sustainable whaling industry when whale stocks have recovered. This is exactly what Japan is doing.

    Pull the other leg! It has bells on!! The whole contrived notion of "scientific research whaling", is just a big con!

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:51:36 UTC | #899853

    101observer's Avatar Comment 21 by 101observer

    Comment 10 by mmurray

    Well I read it. Part of his attack is apparently to say that because animals do something it is morally correct for us to do it. Do you agree with this ?

    No, I don't. But his second line in the same attack brings the point back to what humans do. As I said, I'm not in favor of whaling. However, by saying it is inhumane, I think we should first look at worse inhumane treating of animal before focusing on whales (battery chickens, force-fed animals, unsedated slaughtering of animals, …) Whaling being inhumane is a good argument against whaling, but not necessarily good for a global outcry, not if the other things are ignored.

    Comment 18 by Alan4discussion

    What hysteria?? Direct action to enforce conservation measures on vested interests, in the face of wilful disregard of them, while international authorities are turning a blind eye!? When talk is ignored, action is required. The absence of clear law (with the obstruction of the formulation of conservation laws by Japan) does not mean "anything goes" in ignoring conservation of endangered species.

    My apologies, hysteria may not have been the right word in this context. I wrote the response mainly because except for chris 116, a lot of people started to attack Floyd either personally or the weakest point in his argument while disregarding the rest.

    Anyway, interesting side-topic on the history of Japanese whaling.

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:05:50 UTC | #899912

    I Deny's Avatar Comment 22 by I Deny

    Yeah, the outrage in this article was not outrage of whaling, it was outrage about the funding.

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:48:07 UTC | #899990

    mmurray's Avatar Comment 23 by mmurray

    Comment 21 by 101observer :

    I wrote the response mainly because except for chris 116, a lot of people started to attack Floyd either personally or the weakest point in his argument while disregarding the rest.

    His only argument seemed to be to assume that, unlike him of course, the rest of us hadn't thought through our opposition to whaling

    If you are passionately against whaling you need to ask yourself some important questions, such as WHY are you against whaling?

    Forgive me if that arrogance left me a little pissed off.

    Michael

    Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:36:38 UTC | #900084

    diotallevi's Avatar Comment 24 by diotallevi

    Comment 12 by mmurray :

    Comment 11 by diotallevi :

    Japan sells the meat because they are required to by the IWC

    Would that be the same IWC where Japan bribes smaller nations with `aid' to vote with them ?

    Michael

    The clause was written in 1946

    Sat, 17 Dec 2011 02:29:13 UTC | #900141

    mmurray's Avatar Comment 25 by mmurray

    Comment 24 by diotallevi :

    Comment 12 by mmurray :

    Comment 11 by diotallevi :

    Japan sells the meat because they are required to by the IWC

    Would that be the same IWC where Japan bribes smaller nations with `aid' to vote with them ?

    Michael

    The clause was written in 1946

    I wasn't commenting on that clause. Just remarking on the high esteem in which I hold the IWC.

    Michael

    Sat, 17 Dec 2011 02:38:31 UTC | #900144

    Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 26 by Alan4discussion

    Comment 11 by diotallevi

    Sea Shepherd are criminally obstructing Japan's legal right to take whales. I don't care if you are against whaling in general (although I don't think there is a convincing conservation based argument against this amount of whaling), the support of activists which put peoples lives in danger is misplaced and wrong.

    Ah! The "Destructive stupidity is arguably legal", argument! - in the absence of legislation, jurisdiction, or enforcement to prevent it! Sea Shepherd is entitled to sail the seas just like anyone else!

    Whales are a high order predator with a low reproduction rate. Eating them is as efficient as hunting tigers for meat in India! Anyone with a basic grasp of food-chains or food production knows this!

    Only the village idiot needs further "research", to investigate the matter, before beginning to think!

    Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:02:36 UTC | #900228

    diotallevi's Avatar Comment 27 by diotallevi

    Comment 14 by chris 116 :

    Misplaced and wrong is an opinion. An indisputable fact is that there are more whales alive because of Sea Shepherd's actions and therefore I urge anybody who is pleased by that result to support Sea Shepherd.

    The idea that whales should not be hunted is opinion. In this case Sea Shepherd thinks their opinion gives them the right to endanger human lives.

    I wasn't aware that Western countries were making strenuous efforts. But if that's true, then it is hypocritical. All the same, I still urge the individuals of those nations who want to stop the slaughter of whales to support Sea Shepherd. It's possible to be both opposed to hacking down rainforests for cattle and whaling.

    Western countries don't make strenuous "efforts" they just make loud noises to satisfy their citizens that they are fighting whaling. I wonder how supportive the western governments would be of environmental activism which disrupts their own own agriculture and industries.

    Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:58:30 UTC | #900830

    diotallevi's Avatar Comment 28 by diotallevi

    Comment 26 by Alan4discussion :

    Ah! The "Destructive stupidity is arguably legal", argument! - in the absence of legislation, jurisdiction, or enforcement to prevent it! Sea Shepherd is entitled to sail the seas just like anyone else!

    This remark pretty much describes all human economic activity. Why are anti-whaling protestors allowed to obstruct legal commerce and endanger people lives. I agree they are entitled to sail the seas like everyone else, and that includes an obligation not to pilot their ships in a dangerous manner.

    Whales are a high order predator with a low reproduction rate. Eating them is as efficient as hunting tigers for meat in India! Anyone with a basic grasp of food-chains or food production knows this!

    Except that hunting 1000 Indian tigers would have a large impact on their population.

    You almost have a point with the efficiency argument, but neglected to follow it through. I agree that in general an efficiency measure for food sources is a good idea, but surely that would lead to the conclusion that all meat eating is inefficient compared to plant matter? Now we are back to the same question, why allow criminal activity to protest the hunting of whales but not any other sort of inefficient food source?

    Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:07:19 UTC | #900833

    diotallevi's Avatar Comment 29 by diotallevi

    Comment 19 by DocWebster :

    yup we got a shill here, just like the scientologists that show up whenever somebody tells the truth about Hubbard

    Nice, I'm a shill because I disagree with Sea Shepherds methods of protest.

    Perhaps I just think that this issue is just a bunch of misfits playing hero for the press (not to mention funding their activist lifestyle) by pushing a "save the whales" message against a legal hunt that will have no adverse effects on the sustainability of the minke whale population.

    While people cheering them on get to feel all good for supporting them without making one change to their own lifestyle (a big generalisation - I admit). Instead of supporting Sea Shephard, concerned citizens should half the amount of red meat they eat, half the amount of fuel they use, half their plane travel, and stop using disposal containers for everything. If people concerned with whaling could do these easy to acheive things they would make an incredible contribution to preserving the environment. But its much easier to sit back, enjoy their consumerist lifestyles and complain about Japan whalers and feel good while "saving the whales".

    Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:19:03 UTC | #900838

    mmurray's Avatar Comment 30 by mmurray

    Comment 29 by diotallevi :

    Perhaps I just think that this issue is just a bunch of misfits playing hero for the press (not to mention funding their activist lifestyle) by pushing a "save the whales" message against a legal hunt that will have no adverse effects on the sustainability of the minke whale population.

    When did we decide that the only reason for opposing the whale hunt was the effect on the sustainability of the population ?

    While people cheering them on get to feel all good for supporting them without making one change to their own lifestyle (a big generalisation - I admit).

    Indeed. You have bugger all idea of what our lifestyle is.

    Michael

    Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:37:17 UTC | #900840