Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:24:01 -0500, Stein R <steinjr RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote:

>"J. Anderson" <andersons6 RemoveThis @inbox.lv> wrote in
>news:ebs0h.39606$ne5.7433@reader1.news.jippii.net:
>
>>
>> "Stein R" <steinjr RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9869B9C4FB923steinjr@216.196.109.146...
>>
>>> The fuss is about a simple principle : "Only ban what _needs_ to be
>>> banned - everything else is allowed.
>>>
>>> Even if _you_ do not want to do something, there is no need to refuse
>>> everybody else to do what you do not want to do".
>>
>> You know quite well that laissez-faire simply isn't possible any
>> longer. Everybody cannot be allowed to do whatever he pleases, neither
>> on an individual level nor as a subject within the 'international
>> community' of nations. If there is a general consensus concerning
>> whaling, then all countries should comply. Or are you the kind of
>> person who lits a cigar in a non-smoking area, telling others that
>> 'even if _you_ do not want to do something, there is no need to refuse
>> everybody else to do what you do not want to do'?
>
> You seem to have trouble understanding the concept "what _needs_ to be
>banned". What needs to be banned is behavior that is highly likely to
>cause serious damage to _other_ people.
>
> Say "drink and drive". If you do that in an environment where there are
>other people, you risk their life. _Your_ freedom to drive on public
>roads whenever you want to ends when it clashes with _my_ freedom to
>drive to drive on public roads without being at risk from being killed
>by alcohol impaired drivers.
>
> If you want to drink yourself silly and kill yourself driving your own
>car on an enclosed track where the only person you can kill or hurt is
>yourself, then do as you damn well please.

A few years ago they got serious about the drunk driving thing
and increased the penalty for doing so a lot more than it had been,
and at the time they made a lot of noise about doing it. But since
they did I've never heard anything about how much or little it helped
reduce the number of drunk driver related accidents.
 >> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale 

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87odrxbblj.fld@apaflo.com...

> *You* are the one in hysterics.

I don't really think so. Just take a look at this thread. There is the
whaling lobby and the anti-whaling lobby continuing their boring old
'debate' ad nauseam. The pro-whaling posters happen to live in Norway,
Alaska and Japan -- how stunningly surprising!

The hysterics are certainly not to be found among us yawning onlookers.

> History is filled with fools running off at the mouth with kooky
> ideas like yours.

I may have 'kooky ideas', but they have nothing to do with whales. The only
thing that connects me with Fin whales is that I'm from Fin land.
 >> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale 

<dh@.> wrote in message news:bep6k2pa1ifug93e4s2i55prlcqk2c2ot3@4ax.com...

> The animals are not being cheated out of any part
> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·

Wonderful! Then it's OK to produce babies for spare parts. After all, they'd
be experiencing whatever life they get as a result of such a scheme.
 >> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale 

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87iri49p8o.fld@apaflo.com...
> "J. Anderson" <andersons6.TakeThisOut@inbox.lv> wrote:
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:bep6k2pa1ifug93e4s2i55prlcqk2c2ot3@4ax.com...
>>
>>> The animals are not being cheated out of any part
>>> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
>>> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
>>
>>Wonderful! Then it's OK to produce babies for spare parts. After all,
>>they'd
>>be experiencing whatever life they get as a result of such a scheme.
>
> What an ass.
>
> Whales are not humans. Neither are chickens, no matter how much
> you resemble one.

Notwithstanding your expectedly humourless reaction it must be a great
comfort for you to know that there are others like you.
 >> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale 

"J. Anderson" <andersons6.DeleteThis@inbox.lv> wrote in message news:rY_0h.40634$n52.19064@reader1.news.jippii.net...

> you can't fight empathetic-romantic-ecological arguments with
> scientific-economic-anthropocentric ones. Nor the other way around.

That would certainly appear to be the case. Here is my take on it:

1. Empathetic - Emotion -- Do unto others as you would others do unto you.

2. Romantic - Spirit -- Creation is ordered and perfect. - Cooperative living.

3. Ecological - Soul -- All parts comprise the whole. - Balance within unity.

A. Scientific - Mind -- Rationalization. - Quantification of perceived parts.

B. Economic - Body -- Survival. - Competition due to a perceived lack.

C. Anthropocentric - Ego -- Dominion. - Preference results in imbalance.


Saying that, science is now recognizing that the nature of reality is unity;
economics is now realizing that natural resources are finite - that survival
depends on sustainable and wise utilization of resources; and, mankind is
learning that he should accept the responsibility that comes with free will.
 >> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale 

"J. Anderson" <andersons6.RemoveThis@inbox.lv> wrote in
news:rY_0h.40634$n52.19064@reader1.news.jippii.net:

> Thank you for your kind words, Stein, but my (yes, deliberately)
> superficial involvement in this discussion is not based on
> "understanding" anything about the topic itself, and I haven't been
> reading the arguments for or against whaling. I'm just tired of the
> subject and its regular reoccurrence.

If you don't want to take part in the debate,then just don't do it :-)

> The two sides are steadfastly entrenched, and they are necessarily
> talking at crosspurposes (forbi hverandre), because they don't have a
> common starting-point for their 'debate': you can't fight
> empathetic-romantic-ecological arguments with
> scientific-economic-anthropocentric ones. Nor the other way around.

If what you are saying is that different personality types sometimes
do not communicate well with each other, then I agree.

Say an INTJ and an ENFP (Myers-Briggs personality types) will not
necessarily communicate well - the Thinking/Judging way of expressing
yourself is fairly different from the Feeling/Perceiving, and the two
might have trouble both agreeing on what the problem is and what the
solution(s) are.

But I wouldn't say that "ecological arguments" belongs in the FP camp
by default.

Taking care of the environment makes sense to those of us who use _both_
sides of our brain too :-)

We just believe in taking care of the environment in _rational_ &
_practical_ ways, instead of babbling about how humans should just
disappear from the planet so the animals could roam free.

> And so the unintelligent element in this discussion is to have it in
> the first place.

If you assume that the people writing will be the _only_ people reading
the text, then certainly. Personally, I don't make that assumption.

Grin,
Stein
 >> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale 

> Not really. If they were "highly" intelligent people wouldn't
> be able to kill them from a boat on the surface of the ocean,
> because they would learn to stay away from them.

Like humans have learnt to stay away from bombs, guns, war and murder?
 >> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale 

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:32:05 +0300, "J. Anderson" <andersons6.RemoveThis@inbox.lv> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:bep6k2pa1ifug93e4s2i55prlcqk2c2ot3@4ax.com...
>
>> The animals are not being cheated out of any part
>> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
>> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
>
>Wonderful!

It's the way it is both when good and when bad.

>Then it's OK to produce babies for spare parts. After all, they'd
>be experiencing whatever life they get as a result of such a scheme.

They would, but does that necessarily mean it would be okay?
Wouldn't it depend on quality of life? Not for most people, because
most people have been taught to believe differently. In other types
of societies I feel sure people have believed it was okay. But since
we don't, for one thing we just don't. Would it be okay to raise
animals for spare parts? It would be--and is--a lot easier to provide
them with lives of positive value than it is humans. Raising humans
for food would be even less practical. But none of that really considers
whether or not it would be cruel "to them" to be raised for whatever
purpose. They wouldn't exist otherwise, so from their pov it would
probably be better to them than nothing even if they were made
aware of their fate and were able to discuss it, imo. The fact that
people on death row want to put off their execution shows that the
knowledge of our own coming death dosn't necessarily reduce a
person's quality of life to the point that they would rather not be alive.
I try to factor all that in.
 >> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale 

"> Whales are not humans. Neither are chickens, no matter how much
> you resemble one.
>

Frankly Void, neither are you.
 >> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale 

> Seals are in fact a *lot* smarter than that. Whales are sort of
> dumb...
>

So how do you feel about clubbing seals then??
 >> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale 

> Look, I couldn't bloody care less. I feel sorry both for the whales and
for
> you, you poor hysterics. In due time, you will be remembered as antiquated
> idiots.
>
>
These are the VERY same dimwits that are causing the demise of the earth.
God, it must give them a real hard-on knowing they have the power to destroy
a whole planet!!
 >> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale 

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87wt6i5ewq.fld@apaflo.com...
> "Misterina" <misterina RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Seals are in fact a *lot* smarter than that. Whales are sort of
> >> dumb...
> >>
> >
> >So how do you feel about clubbing seals then??
>
> It is actually more humane that shooting them.

So in your opinion, it is okay to shoot intelligent creatures?
 >> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale 

"Misterina" <misterina.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ei4rlh$gkm$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> news:87wt6i5ewq.fld@apaflo.com...
>> >
>> >So how do you feel about clubbing seals then??
>>
>> It is actually more humane that shooting them.
>
> So in your opinion, it is okay to shoot intelligent creatures?

No risk that he'd be committing suicide then. At least not by shooting.
 >> Stay informed about: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale