Faroese Whaling Controversy

[Lord Baal]

The Faroese aren't isolated Amazonian tribesmen. They're a fully-modern, though isolated, society. So that particular argument doesn't work on this issue, I'm afraid.

 

[Dachs]

I was just reading EvenStranger's link, and it occurs to me that (if I understand evolution correctly) fruit is intended to be eaten by animals. It's a symbiotic relationship, where the plant offers nutrition to the animal (left-handed sugars), and in return gets it's seed (undigestible right-handed sugars) transported and planted with a bit of fertilizer (snicker).

Intended? By what, or whom?

 

[Glassfan]

The Faroese aren't isolated Amazonian tribesmen. They're a fully-modern, though isolated, society. So that particular argument doesn't work on this issue, I'm afraid.

Fully modern, like folks in Paris, London, New York?

Intended? By what, or whom?

It's just a figure of speech. No ID intended.

 

[Lord Baal]

Fully modern, like folks in Paris, London, New York?



It's just a figure of speech. No ID intended.

Like Cowra or Bourke. "Fully-modern" doesn't mean a large metropolis. That's a rather annoying false dichotomy.

 

[EvenStranger]

On the other hand, man is no longer following nature (is he?)

Oh yes he is. He does a very good job of pretending he isn't, but there's nothing else to follow. He dreams of finally asserting some kind of purely platonic "justice" over everything, but will never quite succeed.

 

[Glassfan]

My intent was to argue tolerance, but apparently I failed.

 

[Quintillus]

Sure, but it should be up to their confederation, their governance, their people to decide on their culture - not anyone else's discretion.

When they day comes that they want to change their whaling, fine. Until then, while they certainly could subsist without it - its a deserved part of their heritage

This sums up most of my thoughts, with the addition that it's OK to let them continue as is since they don't appear to threatening the species' existance. If they were hunting to them to extinction, I might think otherwise.

I also agree with contre that it's a lot less cruel than a lot of factory farming.

 

[Fastrada]

Native Americans are allowed to distribute and use peyote for cultural reasons and without consequence. If use of such a non-beneficial drug is unrestricted, I don't see a case being made to restrict the cultural practice of whaling that has practical merit.

why do you say peyote is non-beneficial?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Must. Be. Banned.

 

[Takhisis]

Why, Mr. Russian?

 

[innonimatu]

Whaling isn't any part of their livelihood. No whales were killed in 2008, for example. A comparison to bull fighting might be apt. The tradition goes back centuries. It may once have been essential, but it's now a social event for the community which is part of their cultural heritage. They would be as prosperous without it.

It doesn't actually harm anyone else. And not even those doing the hunting, because they can always hunt them and then not eat them if they're improper for consumption. And it is obviously sustainable seeing as they've been doing it for cenrturies.

So it's no one else's business but those islanders. Let them and them alone decide on it.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Mass slaughter of people is sustainable too. Humans did it for thousands of years. Actually, not killing masses of people is unsustainable. So why not to resume good-old viking traditions and wipe the inhabitants of those islands out for fun and for profit? Let those NATO peacekeepers and their hired armies go there!

 

[Takhisis]

Aleksey, you sound like those people who say that Hitler ate sugar, and similar reasonings.

 

[EvenStranger]

Why, Mr. Russian?

Oh, he doesn't want to save the whales. He's just sexually excited by the prospect of meddling in people's lives.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Aleksey, you sound like those people who say that Hitler ate sugar, and similar reasonings.

I have no idea what you are talking of, but somehow I fill you're up to Godwin's law assertion.

 

[innonimatu]

Mass slaughter of people is sustainable too.

I don't know about you but I classify "people" under "anyone else". And I was very clear about that condition:

It doesn't actually harm anyone else.

I don't know it you misunderstood me and jumped to conclusions or deliberately tried to create a strawmen, but please adress the actual points if you want to debate.
Moving on...

It does for animals. We're still learning about plants.

Sentient plants? I wouldn't want to learn about that! We have to eat something, you know?

Yes, I eat meat. That doesn't mean I want the food animals to suffer needlessly. And I have literally hugged trees. Back when I used to have my own house and a yard with fruit trees, I'd pat the trees on the trunk every fall, thank them for all their hard work that year in producing fruit for me and food/shelter for the birds and squirrels, and wish them a good winter's sleep.

Isn't another word for people incapable of feeling empathy "sociopath"?

I don't think it will come as a surprise for you that most people do not hug trees. And they are not sociopaths for not caring about trees, or squirrels or whatever. If you are truly even suggesting that they are, then then I'm afraid you're deep into social seclusion, so deep that you lost the attachment with the vast majority of humankind, the abilility to understant what most of your fellow humans feel and how they live. And that way... lies sociopathy! It needs not be deliberately destructive, you know?

Indeed I'm to say that "tree-huggers" can be destructive sociopaths when they demand (as many often do) that the state should use its monopoly on violence to enforce the protection of this or that species of animal, or vegetal, or whatever pseudo-natural thing they fancy. They're advocating violence against fellow human beings, and that for the selfish reason of imposing their own sensibilities about how animals, or vegetals, or whatever, are to be treated. Sure, it's the same things with all laws, and provided there is not too much resistance it's a fair game. But what about when there is resistance, when the targets of the repressive laws are not intimidated and the threat of violent repression must be actually carried out? At some point this willingness to use violence against other groups of humans will be seen as a form of sociopathy.

Imagine that you get your wish that this whaling should be made illegal. It has been stated that a majority of the islanders oppose any banning of the activity. How could they be stopped? Obviouly under these conditions only by the application of exterior force upon them. Should Denmark ban it and send over police to fine, beat up, and/or imprision anyone who dared challenge the prohibition (for that is how unpopular laws must be enforced)? Or perhaps promote an enbargo on the Feroe Islands, living conditions of its human population be damned?
In other words, how much violence agains humans is acceptable for the sake of avoiding needless suffering by animals? At what point does demanding instruments for the protection of some animals makes one a sociopath in regads to the humans who want to cause the claimed "needless suffering" upon those animals? (needless, one should keep in mind, is a subjective judgement)

 

[EvenStranger]

The best part is that, even if humans didn't exist, animal suffering would still be positively rampant. Does that mean I'm gonna go attend a dogfight? No, because I also view that as needless, but pretty much any kind of animal harvesting is just humans participating in the very same natural cycle which gave us our birth.

I think most people take the ramifications of evolution seriously right up to the neck and then they're basically creationists.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

The best part is that, even if humans didn't exist, animal suffering would still be positively rampant. Does that mean I'm gonna go attend a dogfight? No, because I also view that as needless, but pretty much any kind of animal harvesting is just humans participating in the very same natural cycle which gave us our birth.

Seen the civ1 intro, about how with the humanity came intelligence, I naively thought for all those years that there are at least these two things which make Man different from a dumb animal...

 

[Lord Baal]

Seen the civ1 intro, about how with the humanity came intelligence, I naively thought for all those years that there are at least these two things which make Man different from a dumb animal...

We can weasel out of things, which separates us from the animals. Except the weasel.

 

[Dachs]

We can weasel out of things, which separates us from the animals. Except the weasel.

and the stoat