Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
From what I've read, they are after Minke Whales, which are classified as 'Least Concern' in the Conservation Status.
So give me a break about calling them 'almost extinct in the articles'...
So give me a break about calling them 'almost extinct in the articles'...
Well it can have some repercussions...some species are very useful in one way or another [for example some birds facilitate the farming because they eat worms/flies etc.] and if you add a certain specie to a habitat that is not natural for it, then it can easily kill some kind of important specie [happened with some rats or mice in Australia centuries ago, don't remember the details]. It's the same with when you 'delete' a certain specie - then it's natural opponent [for whales it would be the killer whale I believe] can become strong and completely change the habitat.
I am, now tell me why some people attempt to reproduce and keep alive species that are going extinct in natural ways, simply because they are weaker than other species around them etc.?
Whales were, as far as I know, brought to the brink of extinction by whaling, not by any other causes. If you want to hear another answer, there are indeed some ridicilous choices being made in this respect. It would be much more valuable to protect other species than the panda bear, but the panda bear is seen as cute, although they are lazy as hell and are hardly ever reproduce.
1. What is the number of these 'almost extinct whales' and how did it change in last 10 years?
I could only find, within a couple of minutes, that there were 5000 whales in 1994.
2. Was there any survey about 'should the whales be hunted or not' in Japan, or the greenpeace Japanese guy just made up the 'fact' that Japanese people in general don't want the whales to be hunted?
The question is if that is considered relevant or not.
Whales were, as far as I know, brought to the brink of extinction by whaling, not by any other causes. If you want to hear another answer, there are indeed some ridicilous choices being made in this respect. It would be much more valuable to protect other species than the panda bear, but the panda bear is seen as cute, although they are lazy as hell and are hardly ever reproduce.
1. What is the number of these 'almost extinct whales' and how did it change in last 10 years?
I could only find, within a couple of minutes, that there were 5000 whales in 1994.
2. Was there any survey about 'should the whales be hunted or not' in Japan, or the greenpeace Japanese guy just made up the 'fact' that Japanese people in general don't want the whales to be hunted?
The question is if that is considered relevant or not.
Whales were, as far as I know, brought to the brink of extinction by whaling, not by any other causes. If you want to hear another answer, there are indeed some ridicilous choices being made in this respect. It would be much more valuable to protect other species than the panda bear, but the panda bear is seen as cute, although they are lazy as hell and are hardly ever reproduce.
My point exactly. If the 'green-side organisations' are against the killings they should also oppose the attempts to 'keep a specie running even though it would be long gone if humans wouldn't help'.
I could only find, within a couple of minutes, that there were 5000 whales in 1994.
some kind of specific whales?? if whales in general then it's weird because Norway kills over 1k whales each year.
yeah, another interesting fact - Norway kills more Minke whales than Japan
The question is if that is considered relevant or not.
Well I find it quite relevant because I'm anti-news lately :p. I try to read from both sides of politics etc. and I get more and more disgusted about how the news machine works...
The articles about the whales seem very biased as well, as I've mentioned they named the Minke Whales as 'almost extinct specie' while they are at lowest point in the extinction scale - so I don't believe those articles at all.
My point exactly. If the 'green-side organisations' are against the killings they should also oppose the attempts to 'keep a specie running even though it would be long gone if humans wouldn't help'.
I could only find, within a couple of minutes, that there were 5000 whales in 1994.
some kind of specific whales?? if whales in general then it's weird because Norway kills over 1k whales each year.
yeah, another interesting fact - Norway kills more Minke whales than Japan
The question is if that is considered relevant or not.
Well I find it quite relevant because I'm anti-news lately :p. I try to read from both sides of politics etc. and I get more and more disgusted about how the news machine works...
The articles about the whales seem very biased as well, as I've mentioned they named the Minke Whales as 'almost extinct specie' while they are at lowest point in the extinction scale - so I don't believe those articles at all.
I have to say that I think, I cannot stake that claim with any evidence, that whales, or at least some species of it, are endangered as the consequence of the whaling, and not by other causes.
I just googled shortly something about number of whales. I didn't want to spend too many time on looking for it, I am sorry for that.
The question about the relevance is; if it would really be the case that whales are almost going extinct as a consequence of the hunting, to what extent does the public opinion matter? Surveys are indeed always difficult to judge, I bet that the Japanese association of whale hunters would state that Japanese citizens want the whaling to continue.
I just googled shortly something about number of whales. I didn't want to spend too many time on looking for it, I am sorry for that.
The question about the relevance is; if it would really be the case that whales are almost going extinct as a consequence of the hunting, to what extent does the public opinion matter? Surveys are indeed always difficult to judge, I bet that the Japanese association of whale hunters would state that Japanese citizens want the whaling to continue.
I have to say that I think, I cannot stake that claim with any evidence, that whales, or at least some species of it, are endangered as the consequence of the whaling, and not by other causes.
I agree that some whales are endangered for 100% - I've read about a specie that was going extinct and it was forbidden to hund them.
But Japan and Norway are going for the Minke Whales - a specie that is almost not endangered at all.
So it's ridiculous to write 'don't hunt them, they are almost extinct'...
There's a special comission that regulates and states how many whales of specific specie can be hunted each year by each country in each region.
Surveys are indeed always difficult to judge, I bet that the Japanese association of whale hunters would state that Japanese citizens want the whaling to continue.
exactly. :)
'survey says that...' is the most annoying part of any article, clear bs.
(edited)
I agree that some whales are endangered for 100% - I've read about a specie that was going extinct and it was forbidden to hund them.
But Japan and Norway are going for the Minke Whales - a specie that is almost not endangered at all.
So it's ridiculous to write 'don't hunt them, they are almost extinct'...
There's a special comission that regulates and states how many whales of specific specie can be hunted each year by each country in each region.
Surveys are indeed always difficult to judge, I bet that the Japanese association of whale hunters would state that Japanese citizens want the whaling to continue.
exactly. :)
'survey says that...' is the most annoying part of any article, clear bs.
(edited)
I think that I indeed found some data for some other whale. Estimates for the Minke Whale range from around 700.000 to 1.300.000 million or something (according to Wikipedia). And there is indeed a quotum being set for the whale hunting (12xx for 2011 for Norway). Common sense says that the population would normally be sustained, if other countries don't hunt much more.
Exactly. Japan has limit of 900/year at the moment.
So the only thing against the Japanese hunting is the harpoons...but I guess that Norway uses harpoons as well.
In other words, greenpeace making unneeded 'save the environment, save the whales' buzz once again.
So the only thing against the Japanese hunting is the harpoons...but I guess that Norway uses harpoons as well.
In other words, greenpeace making unneeded 'save the environment, save the whales' buzz once again.
And with modern technology you have DNA of all kinds of animals and you can reproduce them in a couple of years. That's what they did with the goats and I've heard that in 5-10 years they will reproduce Mammoths as they've finally founds a proper DNA of them and now search for a good surrogate.
Please think before you write something, and if you did think it over, do it 1 more time extra ........ What happens if we copy a specie and put it back in nature without a mom learning the baby what to eat and what not to eat, were to find food, were to go too to reproduce, or simply said, how to survive??
As for the killing part, I'm with Dumb. I can't see a moral difference between killing a whale and killing a cow, or killing a stray dog [in humane way, not the way the Ukrainians been doing...].
And how can you even say this about killing whales if it is done with harpoons. Is that in any way human? And if you say this nonsense, what is wrong with killing humans as easy as irritating bugs when you're trying to get some sleep, if all living species on this planet are all the same and just as useless? Let's call wildlife and cattle the same .... great! You know what you are talking about :S
and what if there will be no whales?
And this shows that you don't know a thing about nature and it's balance. We don't know what will happen if a specie is gone. Sometimes nothing will happen if a specie disappear, other times it will cause a lot of problems.
try reading some articles about the ways they are bred, in what conditions they live etc.
Why do you think I quoted Gandhi??
The greatness of a society and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. -- Mahatma Gandhi
These kind of comments are just ridicules. Using an example that has nothing to do with the inhuman commercial slaughtering of whales as an argument to .... I don't even know why you use this example and what you are trying. Shall I consider it as your weakness in argumentation? Think I will do that as that is what it is.
(edited)
Please think before you write something, and if you did think it over, do it 1 more time extra ........ What happens if we copy a specie and put it back in nature without a mom learning the baby what to eat and what not to eat, were to find food, were to go too to reproduce, or simply said, how to survive??
As for the killing part, I'm with Dumb. I can't see a moral difference between killing a whale and killing a cow, or killing a stray dog [in humane way, not the way the Ukrainians been doing...].
And how can you even say this about killing whales if it is done with harpoons. Is that in any way human? And if you say this nonsense, what is wrong with killing humans as easy as irritating bugs when you're trying to get some sleep, if all living species on this planet are all the same and just as useless? Let's call wildlife and cattle the same .... great! You know what you are talking about :S
and what if there will be no whales?
And this shows that you don't know a thing about nature and it's balance. We don't know what will happen if a specie is gone. Sometimes nothing will happen if a specie disappear, other times it will cause a lot of problems.
try reading some articles about the ways they are bred, in what conditions they live etc.
Why do you think I quoted Gandhi??
The greatness of a society and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. -- Mahatma Gandhi
These kind of comments are just ridicules. Using an example that has nothing to do with the inhuman commercial slaughtering of whales as an argument to .... I don't even know why you use this example and what you are trying. Shall I consider it as your weakness in argumentation? Think I will do that as that is what it is.
(edited)
Please think before you write something, and if you did think it over, do it 1 more time extra ........ What happens if we copy a specie and put it back in nature without a mom learning the baby what to eat and what not to eat, were to find food, were to go too to reproduce, or simply said, how to survive??
You see, the species reproduction already does work and the species have no problem with learning basic things and surviving.
The only problem is that they should use more DNA samples so that the DNA in the group is more diverse - there will be less pathologies then.
So maybe you should rely on facts and not on your 'what ifs'
And how can you even say this about killing whales if it is done with harpoons. Is that in any way human? And if you say this nonsense, what is wrong with killing humans as easy as irritating bugs, if all living species on this planet are all the same and just as useless? Let's call wildlife and cattle the same .... great! You know what you are talking about :S
I don't see a difference between cattle and wildlife. If someone would start breeding humans in cages and keep them separated from life would you see a difference between killing a free human and a human raised in a cage? Great, you know what you are talking about :S
Seriously, your attituted in conversation is something you should work on. Personal attacks while writing every argument is nothing to be proud of, doesn't matter if you're right or wrong.
And this shows that you don't know a thing about nature and it's balance. We don't know what will happen if a specie is gone. Sometimes nothing will happen if a specie disappear, other times it will cause a lot of problems.
Cry me a river, please read all posts before replying - I wrote about it later on.
Why do you think I quoted Gandhi??
The greatness of a society and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. -- Mahatma Gandhi
And that's exactly why you differentiate killing wildlife non-endangered species from killing cattle.
(edited)
You see, the species reproduction already does work and the species have no problem with learning basic things and surviving.
The only problem is that they should use more DNA samples so that the DNA in the group is more diverse - there will be less pathologies then.
So maybe you should rely on facts and not on your 'what ifs'
And how can you even say this about killing whales if it is done with harpoons. Is that in any way human? And if you say this nonsense, what is wrong with killing humans as easy as irritating bugs, if all living species on this planet are all the same and just as useless? Let's call wildlife and cattle the same .... great! You know what you are talking about :S
I don't see a difference between cattle and wildlife. If someone would start breeding humans in cages and keep them separated from life would you see a difference between killing a free human and a human raised in a cage? Great, you know what you are talking about :S
Seriously, your attituted in conversation is something you should work on. Personal attacks while writing every argument is nothing to be proud of, doesn't matter if you're right or wrong.
And this shows that you don't know a thing about nature and it's balance. We don't know what will happen if a specie is gone. Sometimes nothing will happen if a specie disappear, other times it will cause a lot of problems.
Cry me a river, please read all posts before replying - I wrote about it later on.
Why do you think I quoted Gandhi??
The greatness of a society and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. -- Mahatma Gandhi
And that's exactly why you differentiate killing wildlife non-endangered species from killing cattle.
(edited)
I'm not going to discuss this anymore with you! Yes, I'm getting angry by the disgusting words you are using and the sick way you, and some others in this topic, think. The only thing that I learn in this topic is why this world is how it is right now. Some people just don't give a f***.
(edited)
(edited)
I don't care if you're getting angry, it's still doesn't justify the way you write - being agressive and belittleing in a discussion isn't something to be proud of.
The problem is that it is not possible (or at least I don't know how) to kill whales without making them suffer.
And I don't think this is such an interesting discussion, so I won't be discussing this any further. I just liked to show Dumb that his logic and arguments were invalid.
And I don't think this is such an interesting discussion, so I won't be discussing this any further. I just liked to show Dumb that his logic and arguments were invalid.
After the things I've read from you about this subject, I really don't give a damn what you think is justified or not about my use of words. Instead of making a fuss over the few words of mine that you don't like, you could better focus on yourself and wonder how the hell it came this far that you justify whaling.
And you don't know what I'm proud of or not, I'm just very happy I do have my heart on the right place.
And you don't know what I'm proud of or not, I'm just very happy I do have my heart on the right place.
Of course, everyone knows that you're the one man in the world to say what is true, moral and proper.
Who disagrees is a dumb, corrupted and heartless idiot :-)
Who disagrees is a dumb, corrupted and heartless idiot :-)
