@vrtgo: I know most people on here can take this language, but regardless of that insults and/or trolling are not welcome in this forum/community (trolling can be fun.. but the kind that starts with insults gets stale pretty quick).
2009-11-10, 9:23 am
*out of topic*
For those reading quoted vrtgo's post in previous messages *the word* was replaced with "goblins". I added a couple variations to account for plurals and spaces.. (I had to write literally *the word* instead of the actual word (follow me?
) because I was caught at my own game hehe).
The censoring is an obvious word replacement you can see when posting. This is meant as a little joke, and should not be seen as anything else.
pps: Word censoring does make reading Nukemarine's reply a little strange. Using simple **** would better convey the original message.. I don't know. Again, it 's meant as a little joke. If you really don't like it please make a separate subject for it, thanks.
*back to Whaling Wars*
For those reading quoted vrtgo's post in previous messages *the word* was replaced with "goblins". I added a couple variations to account for plurals and spaces.. (I had to write literally *the word* instead of the actual word (follow me?
) because I was caught at my own game hehe).The censoring is an obvious word replacement you can see when posting. This is meant as a little joke, and should not be seen as anything else.
pps: Word censoring does make reading Nukemarine's reply a little strange. Using simple **** would better convey the original message.. I don't know. Again, it 's meant as a little joke. If you really don't like it please make a separate subject for it, thanks.
*back to Whaling Wars*
Advertising (Register to hide)
May 16 - 30 : Pretty Big Deal: Save 31% on all Premium Subscriptions!
- Sign up here
2009-11-10, 9:29 am
LOL,
It is funny to see this because we get kind of spoiled on this forum rarely reading an insulting post with no argument backing it up. I am vegetarian, mostly vegan, so it is my opinion that killing of any animal, or insect for that matter, should be avoided if possible.
I grew up in a family where hunting is a sport. They spend upwards of $10,000 each year renting a camp site and equipment for the thrill of killing a deer. They catch fish and then release them because they don't fish for food, just for the excitement of catching one. It may seem bizarre but sitting in boats as a child, I always wondered about what kind of trama those fish were experiencing for our pleasure.
I shot a bird as a small boy. It devastated me but I was treated as a hero for some reason. The bird had a mate that flew around us frantically seemingly distraught over what happened. The flesh from the bird was about one mouthful. I never touched a gun again. If animals must be killed, I would prefer it be something large that could feed many people. Killing one whale seems less harmful than killing many pigs to get the same amount of meat. They are both sentient beings with high intelligence, for what ever moral justification intelligence plays in killing. I don't think anyone views killing retarded humans as any less a crime than college graduates.
It is funny to see this because we get kind of spoiled on this forum rarely reading an insulting post with no argument backing it up. I am vegetarian, mostly vegan, so it is my opinion that killing of any animal, or insect for that matter, should be avoided if possible.
I grew up in a family where hunting is a sport. They spend upwards of $10,000 each year renting a camp site and equipment for the thrill of killing a deer. They catch fish and then release them because they don't fish for food, just for the excitement of catching one. It may seem bizarre but sitting in boats as a child, I always wondered about what kind of trama those fish were experiencing for our pleasure.
I shot a bird as a small boy. It devastated me but I was treated as a hero for some reason. The bird had a mate that flew around us frantically seemingly distraught over what happened. The flesh from the bird was about one mouthful. I never touched a gun again. If animals must be killed, I would prefer it be something large that could feed many people. Killing one whale seems less harmful than killing many pigs to get the same amount of meat. They are both sentient beings with high intelligence, for what ever moral justification intelligence plays in killing. I don't think anyone views killing retarded humans as any less a crime than college graduates.
2009-11-10, 10:15 am
bodhisamaya Wrote:I don't think anyone views killing retarded humans as any less a crime than college graduates.Well. Except nazis.
2009-11-10, 6:39 pm
bodhisamaya Wrote:Killing one whale seems less harmful than killing many pigs to get the same amount of meat.But aren't there less whales in general? I'm not sure, just asking.
2009-11-10, 6:51 pm
Jarvik7 Wrote:Just for that, I now support the machine gunning of whales for sport,Lol just saying that reminds me of the old dolphin shooting game that used to be on joecartoon way back when.. that was fun lol.
Lets be serious guys,, killing animals and everything.. if they didn't want us to eat cows they wouldn't have made them out of beef and made them taste awesome with gravy and potatos.
I've never tried whale, can't say it appeals to me much, but then im not overly big on seafood.
2009-11-10, 6:53 pm
So let's talk about cannibalism. I hear what's even better than turducken is whale that's been fed a diet of other whales, stuffed with dolphins who've been fed tuna (j/k), garnished with Hannibal the Cannibal.
Edited: 2009-11-10, 7:07 pm
2009-11-10, 7:16 pm
We all know that whales are special since Star Trek IV, that's why we shouldn't kill them.
2010-01-06, 2:06 pm
A not so great day for the eco-terrorists:
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/wha...-lubs.html
Cost of the Ady Gil "super" boat - say around US$1,000,000. (although many reports say more).
Cost of an Elephant Pump in Africa that could supply 250 people with 40 litres of clean water everyday US$800 http://www.pumpaid.org/The-Elephant-Pump.shtml
Hmmm 312,500 people in need could have clean water everyday or..... well you get the point.
(and I'm not posting this simply to offend those that are anti-whaling. It just doesn't make sense to me that so much money is wasted on anti-whaling activities when there are much bigger issues in the world that activists that want to preserve "intelligent" life could be pursuing imho)
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/wha...-lubs.html
Cost of the Ady Gil "super" boat - say around US$1,000,000. (although many reports say more).
Cost of an Elephant Pump in Africa that could supply 250 people with 40 litres of clean water everyday US$800 http://www.pumpaid.org/The-Elephant-Pump.shtml
Hmmm 312,500 people in need could have clean water everyday or..... well you get the point.
(and I'm not posting this simply to offend those that are anti-whaling. It just doesn't make sense to me that so much money is wasted on anti-whaling activities when there are much bigger issues in the world that activists that want to preserve "intelligent" life could be pursuing imho)
2010-01-06, 2:37 pm
I've only seen the South Park episode, but I thought the whole war reference thing was a bit weak.
2010-04-15, 6:48 am
I'm a vegan, and as such, am completely against whaling.
I'm lazy, so I'm just going to copy and paste an explanation of the animal rights theory that I wrote a while back:
"Most people already accept that it is wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering on animals. Unnecessary must at the least, mean it is wrong to inflict suffering for reasons of pleasure, convenience or amusement. Yet if you look at society’s treatment of animals, the overwhelming amount of suffering inflicted on animals can be justified ONLY on the basis of pleasure, convenience or amusement. Consuming meat and other animal products cannot be considered necessary in ANY sense. The ONLY reason we have for consuming these products is that we enjoy the taste, and if we take the interests of animals seriously, our enjoyment cannot be considered a moral argument.
Most people own a cat or dog. We treat these animals as a part of our family; yet we stick forks into other animals who are no different from those who we consider our family.
Animal farming is also a nightmare for the environment, it takes 20 times more land to produce food for a meat-eater than a vegan, animal farming contributes to 51% of Global Warming, and is the leading cause of deforestation and desertification. A cow eats 10 times more plant matter than volume in flesh it outputs.
Mainstream science is increasingly acknowledging that meat and other animal products have negative effects on human health; causing cancer, heart disease, diabetes and a score of other illnesses.
Then there are the other common arguments I here:
1. “Plants are alive too, therefore it is okay to kill animals.”
Animal rights argues for the right of SENTIENT animals. Plants are not sentient, that is, they have no perception of the senses and are not conscious. Whereas all sentient animals have an interest in not being treated as the mere property and resources of others, plants have no interest in anything. Suppose that plants were sentient, veganism would still be the moral baseline. For the simple fact that in order to produce meat, an animal needs to consume far larger amounts of plants than volume in flesh it outputs. The more we care about plants, the more we want to minimise the suffering inflicted upon them animals by going vegan.
2. “Animals kill other animals, therefore we can too.”
There are also scores of vegetarian/ vegan animals that never harm another living creature, why should they not serve as our role model, rather than carnivores?
Animals perform a number of ‘natural’ acts that we humans would never consider acceptable. For example, rape, murder, cannibalism etc. Since when have animals served as a role model of how human society runs itself and determines its moral values? Isn’t it funny that when it is convenient for us to do so, we attempt to justify our exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed “superiority.” And when our supposed “superiority” gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as nothing more than another species of wild animal, as entitled as foxes to eat chickens.
We kill billions of animals every year for reasons that cannot possibly be considered necessary while accepting that it is wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering on animals,
If we take the interest of animals of interests seriously, we must award their interests equal consideration by adopting a vegan diet."
And that's a quick description of why I'm vegan, and completely anti-whaling.
反捕鯨！
I'm lazy, so I'm just going to copy and paste an explanation of the animal rights theory that I wrote a while back:
"Most people already accept that it is wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering on animals. Unnecessary must at the least, mean it is wrong to inflict suffering for reasons of pleasure, convenience or amusement. Yet if you look at society’s treatment of animals, the overwhelming amount of suffering inflicted on animals can be justified ONLY on the basis of pleasure, convenience or amusement. Consuming meat and other animal products cannot be considered necessary in ANY sense. The ONLY reason we have for consuming these products is that we enjoy the taste, and if we take the interests of animals seriously, our enjoyment cannot be considered a moral argument.
Most people own a cat or dog. We treat these animals as a part of our family; yet we stick forks into other animals who are no different from those who we consider our family.
Animal farming is also a nightmare for the environment, it takes 20 times more land to produce food for a meat-eater than a vegan, animal farming contributes to 51% of Global Warming, and is the leading cause of deforestation and desertification. A cow eats 10 times more plant matter than volume in flesh it outputs.
Mainstream science is increasingly acknowledging that meat and other animal products have negative effects on human health; causing cancer, heart disease, diabetes and a score of other illnesses.
Then there are the other common arguments I here:
1. “Plants are alive too, therefore it is okay to kill animals.”
Animal rights argues for the right of SENTIENT animals. Plants are not sentient, that is, they have no perception of the senses and are not conscious. Whereas all sentient animals have an interest in not being treated as the mere property and resources of others, plants have no interest in anything. Suppose that plants were sentient, veganism would still be the moral baseline. For the simple fact that in order to produce meat, an animal needs to consume far larger amounts of plants than volume in flesh it outputs. The more we care about plants, the more we want to minimise the suffering inflicted upon them animals by going vegan.
2. “Animals kill other animals, therefore we can too.”
There are also scores of vegetarian/ vegan animals that never harm another living creature, why should they not serve as our role model, rather than carnivores?
Animals perform a number of ‘natural’ acts that we humans would never consider acceptable. For example, rape, murder, cannibalism etc. Since when have animals served as a role model of how human society runs itself and determines its moral values? Isn’t it funny that when it is convenient for us to do so, we attempt to justify our exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed “superiority.” And when our supposed “superiority” gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as nothing more than another species of wild animal, as entitled as foxes to eat chickens.
We kill billions of animals every year for reasons that cannot possibly be considered necessary while accepting that it is wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering on animals,
If we take the interest of animals of interests seriously, we must award their interests equal consideration by adopting a vegan diet."
And that's a quick description of why I'm vegan, and completely anti-whaling.
反捕鯨！
2010-04-15, 6:59 am
I can accept (while not agree with) vegetarians'/vegans' arguments. It is the "moral" argument against certain types of meat that happen to be attached to cute/lovable/majestic/whatever animals, while condoning the farming of ugly animals that I cannot accept.
Anti-whaling isn't about veganism or saving the environment, it is about loving whales. Why bring up anti-whaling because of your veganism? The number of chickens, cows and pigs slaughtered daily within a 100mile radius of your house likely outweighs the small number of whales killed by Japan in a year. Do your activism at home before trying to ride into another country on a moral high-horse and resorting to terrorism. (this isn't directed at you)
Anti-whaling isn't about veganism or saving the environment, it is about loving whales. Why bring up anti-whaling because of your veganism? The number of chickens, cows and pigs slaughtered daily within a 100mile radius of your house likely outweighs the small number of whales killed by Japan in a year. Do your activism at home before trying to ride into another country on a moral high-horse and resorting to terrorism. (this isn't directed at you)
Edited: 2010-04-15, 7:04 am
2010-04-15, 7:09 am
As I said, that was an incredibly brief introduction. For a lengthy explanation, I'd recommend going and reading Gary Francione's 'Your Child or the Dog?: Introduction to Animal Rights.'
I'm not trying to be rude, but most of the people I meet who have strong anti-animal rights opinions have never even opened a book on animal rights.
Quite simply, do you agree that it is wrong to inflict 'unnecessary' suffering on animals?
Do you agree it is alright to eat cats and dogs? Have you ever owned a pet that you loved?
On the contrary, why should vegans and animal rights activists not oppose whaling?
I oppose all animal exploitation, why can we not fight for whales and simultaneously fight for other animals?
And please spare me the 'terrorism' insults. In the thirty or so years that Sea Shepherd has been around, not one single person has been killed as a result of their actions.
Yet the Japanese overfish and destroy the oceans, show no respect towards international sanctions, and yet they're not 'eco-terrorists'?
The word 'terrorist' has become an insult which is simply thrown around now without any real meaning.
This isn't a matter of Japan-bashing, this a matter of ethics, it applies to all human beings. I'm just as critical of my home country, Australia.
I'm not trying to be rude, but most of the people I meet who have strong anti-animal rights opinions have never even opened a book on animal rights.
Quite simply, do you agree that it is wrong to inflict 'unnecessary' suffering on animals?
Do you agree it is alright to eat cats and dogs? Have you ever owned a pet that you loved?
On the contrary, why should vegans and animal rights activists not oppose whaling?
I oppose all animal exploitation, why can we not fight for whales and simultaneously fight for other animals?
And please spare me the 'terrorism' insults. In the thirty or so years that Sea Shepherd has been around, not one single person has been killed as a result of their actions.
Yet the Japanese overfish and destroy the oceans, show no respect towards international sanctions, and yet they're not 'eco-terrorists'?
The word 'terrorist' has become an insult which is simply thrown around now without any real meaning.
This isn't a matter of Japan-bashing, this a matter of ethics, it applies to all human beings. I'm just as critical of my home country, Australia.
Edited: 2010-04-15, 7:27 am
2010-04-15, 7:26 am
I'm not going to argue with you about if it's ok to eat meat. You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you.
If you are trying to challenge my post, then does that mean that you think that only pretty animals shouldn't be killed? Anti-whaling is an indefensible position unless you are vegan, which is not SeaShepherd's platform. Even if one is both anti-whaling AND vegan, as you are, one should be trying to stop what they see as injustices in their own country, especially when they outweigh the injustices of that foreign country. In the rare case of a vegan Japanese anti-whaling advocate, then they can protest all they like with my blessing. They still wouldn't have my support though, since I eat meat and it would be hypocritical.
Would you think it would make sense to get bent out of shape over the incompetence of the highway department in Japan when the streets near your house in your own country have magma pouring out of gigantic potholes?
Yes that is a less serious issue since nothing is being killed and eaten, but is the same relationship of local:foreign, major-issue
maller-issue.
-edit-
Terrorism does not mean murdering. That no one has died is just because of sheer luck. The entire point of SeaShepherd's campaign is to terrorize the fishermen using illegal means in an attempt to make them too afraid of going out to sea. I agree that the term gets thrown about loosely now days, but in this case it fits.
I didn't write my reply because I'm trying to defend Japan (they aren't the only country that whales), I just find SeaShepherd and their ilk incredibly hypocritical. I'd be writing the same post in defence of cow farming if some Indians decided that they just can't take it anymore.
If you are trying to challenge my post, then does that mean that you think that only pretty animals shouldn't be killed? Anti-whaling is an indefensible position unless you are vegan, which is not SeaShepherd's platform. Even if one is both anti-whaling AND vegan, as you are, one should be trying to stop what they see as injustices in their own country, especially when they outweigh the injustices of that foreign country. In the rare case of a vegan Japanese anti-whaling advocate, then they can protest all they like with my blessing. They still wouldn't have my support though, since I eat meat and it would be hypocritical.
Would you think it would make sense to get bent out of shape over the incompetence of the highway department in Japan when the streets near your house in your own country have magma pouring out of gigantic potholes?
Yes that is a less serious issue since nothing is being killed and eaten, but is the same relationship of local:foreign, major-issue
maller-issue.-edit-
Terrorism does not mean murdering. That no one has died is just because of sheer luck. The entire point of SeaShepherd's campaign is to terrorize the fishermen using illegal means in an attempt to make them too afraid of going out to sea. I agree that the term gets thrown about loosely now days, but in this case it fits.
I didn't write my reply because I'm trying to defend Japan (they aren't the only country that whales), I just find SeaShepherd and their ilk incredibly hypocritical. I'd be writing the same post in defence of cow farming if some Indians decided that they just can't take it anymore.
Edited: 2010-04-15, 9:11 am
2010-04-15, 7:34 am
Incorrect - Sea Shepherd does promote veganism. Paul Watson is a well known animal rights activist, and refuses to serve anything but vegan food on the Sea Shepherd fleet.
Let's take your logic and put it in a different context:
Those of us living in first world countries should not donate to charities like World Vision, or try and help those living in other countries, as long as there are homeless and or needy people in our own country.
I don't know about you, but doesn't it make sense to try and help ALL people, not just those directly in your line of sight?
I could just as easily call the Japanese terrorists for killing sentient creatures and destroying the oceans.
Let's take your logic and put it in a different context:
Those of us living in first world countries should not donate to charities like World Vision, or try and help those living in other countries, as long as there are homeless and or needy people in our own country.
I don't know about you, but doesn't it make sense to try and help ALL people, not just those directly in your line of sight?
I could just as easily call the Japanese terrorists for killing sentient creatures and destroying the oceans.
Edited: 2010-04-15, 7:36 am
2010-04-15, 7:41 am
If the Japanese are sea terrorists, then Australians are land terrorists for making all those delicious cows.
Your rebuttal re: starving children in Africa goes against what I've already said. Direct attention where it's needed most. The poverty rate in developed countries is lower than in developing countries, so that kind of aid should go to developing countries. Australia, America, Canada, and most other western countries kill FAR more animals than Japan does (or has done for it via importing), so to focus attention on them is part hypocrisy part denial.
I suggest you protest Australian cow farming instead. There is far more suffering involved in the raising of millions of cows and their slaughter than the hunting of a fraction of the number of whales (one whale also provides much more meat than one cow). You can refer to your own "vegans would eat plants even if they are sentient" argument which backs this up.
Like it or not, Japanese whaling causes far less suffering than the cow farming in your home country.
While Mr. Watson may personally be a vegan, that is not SeaShepherd's platform. If they were calling for the stop of all meat production, they'd instantly lose a lot of their support. I would at least accept their opinions if that was what they called for though, instead of singling out a single minor foreign offender.
Guess what would happen if Japan did ban whaling? More cows would have to be killed to take the place of that protein. Ramming ships and shining lasers into the eyes of sailors isn't going to turn people into vegetarians.
Your rebuttal re: starving children in Africa goes against what I've already said. Direct attention where it's needed most. The poverty rate in developed countries is lower than in developing countries, so that kind of aid should go to developing countries. Australia, America, Canada, and most other western countries kill FAR more animals than Japan does (or has done for it via importing), so to focus attention on them is part hypocrisy part denial.
I suggest you protest Australian cow farming instead. There is far more suffering involved in the raising of millions of cows and their slaughter than the hunting of a fraction of the number of whales (one whale also provides much more meat than one cow). You can refer to your own "vegans would eat plants even if they are sentient" argument which backs this up.
Like it or not, Japanese whaling causes far less suffering than the cow farming in your home country.
While Mr. Watson may personally be a vegan, that is not SeaShepherd's platform. If they were calling for the stop of all meat production, they'd instantly lose a lot of their support. I would at least accept their opinions if that was what they called for though, instead of singling out a single minor foreign offender.
Guess what would happen if Japan did ban whaling? More cows would have to be killed to take the place of that protein. Ramming ships and shining lasers into the eyes of sailors isn't going to turn people into vegetarians.
Edited: 2010-04-15, 12:35 pm
2010-04-15, 7:53 am
While there are a lot of hypocrits just jumping on the band wagon, criticism of Japan's whaling is valid. They send their fleet to catch whales near Antarctica where commercial whaling is banned by the IWC, under the pretext of 'scientific research' (which everyone knows is b.s).
In general I don't think Japanese people know much about the issue, judging from a bit of youtube exploration. Check out this stupid clip from japanese TV and equally stupid comments...
In general I don't think Japanese people know much about the issue, judging from a bit of youtube exploration. Check out this stupid clip from japanese TV and equally stupid comments...
2010-04-15, 8:01 am
Jarvik7 Wrote:If the Japanese are sea terrorists, then Australians are land terrorists for making all those delicious cows.Did you think I'd disagree with that? Do you think animals are incapable of feeling terror?
When a cow has its throat slit and is hanging upside down with it's blood draining out, do you suppose it might be experiencing a little bit of terror?
Jarvik7 Wrote:You can refer to your own "vegans would eat plants even if they are sentient" argument which backs this up.I'm not sure what relevance that statement had. There is no scrap of scientific evidence on the face of the earth to suggest that plants are sentient. Environmentally, the amount of plants factory farm animals eat is disastrous, but ethically, the plants aren't feeling a thing.
Yes, factory farming is far more extensive than whaling. So what? What exactly is preventing me from opposing whale-slaughtering, and opposing all other types of animal exploitation simultaneously?
Edited: 2010-04-15, 8:48 am
2010-04-15, 8:06 am
My first reply was re:SeaShepherd, which this thread is about and you were defending. I knew very well that you'd also be against cow farming, which is why I used it as an example.
Until SeaShepherd starts ramming trucks into the sides of cowsheds and trying to blind farmers, they deserve nothing but contempt.
Let me use your developing countries example. Would you think highly of a charity that only wanted to save the white children in that country? (Nevermind that this already happens - most "save the starving children" charities will only help Christians or those willing to convert)
I'm not even pro-whaling, I'm apathetic. I wouldn't care if it did get banned in Japan.
Until SeaShepherd starts ramming trucks into the sides of cowsheds and trying to blind farmers, they deserve nothing but contempt.
Let me use your developing countries example. Would you think highly of a charity that only wanted to save the white children in that country? (Nevermind that this already happens - most "save the starving children" charities will only help Christians or those willing to convert)
I'm not even pro-whaling, I'm apathetic. I wouldn't care if it did get banned in Japan.
Edited: 2010-04-15, 8:15 am
2010-04-15, 8:15 am
Jarvik,
I'm not sure how you can so vehemently suggest that one should only practice ethics in one's local environment and not worry about ethics in a foreign environment, or that one should primarily be concerned with problems that have a more practical or have a higher magnitude in severity. While I can see where you are coming from I think that being too pragmatic is not giving people the opportunity to do good in a place outside of their "home" or what is local to the person addressed (whatever your definitions of that are, they seem to be very loose). Sure more cows are slaughtered and many more suffer than whales, but just because there are more of them, does that really mean that it is necessary to tackle the bigger issues? Why can't the smaller issues be addressed? Just because they are small, there is still an ethical value to them that we should respect right? Thoughts?
I'm not sure how you can so vehemently suggest that one should only practice ethics in one's local environment and not worry about ethics in a foreign environment, or that one should primarily be concerned with problems that have a more practical or have a higher magnitude in severity. While I can see where you are coming from I think that being too pragmatic is not giving people the opportunity to do good in a place outside of their "home" or what is local to the person addressed (whatever your definitions of that are, they seem to be very loose). Sure more cows are slaughtered and many more suffer than whales, but just because there are more of them, does that really mean that it is necessary to tackle the bigger issues? Why can't the smaller issues be addressed? Just because they are small, there is still an ethical value to them that we should respect right? Thoughts?
2010-04-15, 8:17 am
nadiatims Wrote:While there are a lot of hypocrits just jumping on the band wagon, criticism of Japan's whaling is valid....No, I'd have to agree with that video for the most part. Australia treats its wildlife atrociously. Millions of kangaroos are slaughtered every year here, for no good reason. They are not pests, and there numbers are not in unsustainable proportions. They're killed for the greediness of the meat and skin industry, and it's a shame to Australia. I used to spend a lot of my time trying to raise awareness of Kangaroo slaughter.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing Kangaroos is atrocious, killing Whales is atrocious.
Both Japan and Australia have undertaken this issue as a petty little country versus country competition. It's time both countries woke up and realised this is a matter of ethics.
That being said, I have met a few Japanese who hated the idea of whaling, and I even managed to turn them vegan (yay!).
Edited: 2010-04-15, 8:21 am
2010-04-15, 8:20 am
bizarrojosh Wrote:Jarvik,So you think it's justifiable to go into your neighbour's backyard and throw rotten butter at him because he killed a rat, but stand by while your wife/brother/etc is slowly beating a whole litter of dogs to death with a golf club in your garage? Because that is the same thing SeaShepherd does.
I'm not sure how you can so vehemently suggest that one should only practice ethics in one's local environment and not worry about ethics in a foreign environment, or that one should primarily be concerned with problems that have a more practical or have a higher magnitude in severity. While I can see where you are coming from I think that being too pragmatic is not giving people the opportunity to do good in a place outside of their "home" or what is local to the person addressed (whatever your definitions of that are, they seem to be very loose). Sure more cows are slaughtered and many more suffer than whales, but just because there are more of them, does that really mean that it is necessary to tackle the bigger issues? Why can't the smaller issues be addressed? Just because they are small, there is still an ethical value to them that we should respect right? Thoughts?
My position is that you have no moral high-ground if you are in fact a worse offender. That should be obvious to everyone. I also thought it would be obvious that problems should be addressed in order of their severity. Stop a bleeding gunshot wound before you trim a hangnail.
Edited: 2010-04-15, 8:35 am
2010-04-15, 8:32 am
Sea Shepherd is a marine preservation society. They choose to help animals and the environment by opposing the slaughter of marine life. Sea Shepherd is in fact the only marine preservation society which is against all marine poaching.
Other animal rights activists choose to help out dogs and cats, by working at shelters etc.
Some animal rights activists choose to help out animals by purely promoting veganism.
Some join welfare organisations and organise campaigns targeting specific aspects of animal exploitation.
There's no one specific way to oppose animal exploitation, it's the diversity of all these approaches put together that makes a social movement.
Other animal rights activists choose to help out dogs and cats, by working at shelters etc.
Some animal rights activists choose to help out animals by purely promoting veganism.
Some join welfare organisations and organise campaigns targeting specific aspects of animal exploitation.
There's no one specific way to oppose animal exploitation, it's the diversity of all these approaches put together that makes a social movement.
2010-04-15, 8:35 am
Jarvik7 Wrote:That example, while making a good point, I think is too simplistic and is not accurate because of the types of relationships you picked. In the example you picked, you chose familial relationships which are some of the closest relations that we have socially. This puts a different kind of urgency and responsiblity upon the person doing the thought experiment. Whereas someone in a different city, state/prefecture, or country is a stranger and the distance created by this relationship doesn't have the same sense of responsibility that one's family demands of us. So again I deferentially ask, just because one is not doing the most good, why is doing a little bit of good bad?bizarrojosh Wrote:Jarvik,So you think it's justifiable to go into your neighbour's backyard and throw rotten butter at him because he killed a rat, while your wife/brother/etc is slowly beating a whole litter of dogs to death with a golf club in your garage? Because that is the same thing SeaShepherd does.
I'm not sure how you can so vehemently suggest that one should only practice ethics in one's local environment and not worry about ethics in a foreign environment, or that one should primarily be concerned with problems that have a more practical or have a higher magnitude in severity. While I can see where you are coming from I think that being too pragmatic is not giving people the opportunity to do good in a place outside of their "home" or what is local to the person addressed (whatever your definitions of that are, they seem to be very loose). Sure more cows are slaughtered and many more suffer than whales, but just because there are more of them, does that really mean that it is necessary to tackle the bigger issues? Why can't the smaller issues be addressed? Just because they are small, there is still an ethical value to them that we should respect right? Thoughts?
My position is that you have no moral high-ground if you are in fact a worse offender. That should be obvious to everyone. I also thought it would be obvious that problems should be addressed in order of their severity. Stop a bleeding gunshot wound before you trim a hangnail.