Conquer Club

I have to do a skl project on this and was wondering what the opinion of the people on this site were

please give explanations for your answer and any useful liks for the project would be good as well :p

Yes.

Because it's evil and useless and all that bullshit but mostly because I see no reason to hunt them.

I say let indigenous peoples who value the whale culturally keep their ceremonial hunts, but commercialized hunting of whales like the Japanese and Norweigans do is (I believe) and should be illegal. There is actually a global moratorium on the commercial processing of whales, but the major whaling nations (Japan and Norway) say they're taking the whales for "scientific research". Which is little more than flipping the bird to the international anti-whaling movement, but they've gotten away with it for 20 years now.

Its hurting animals. So its bad. Nuff said.

FREE WILLY

I have to say I'm with Spurg on this one.

Scientific research my arse!!!!!! The Japs and the Norse(free him btw) and anybody else hunting whales comercially or scientifically should be made to stop. If they wont bow down to public opinion/pressure maybe they should be threatened with a 'little boy'.

Impale the whale and roast it!

Depends which whales - for the most part yes.

so you think ore commen species such as Grey Whale should be allowed to still be hunted?

unriggable wrote:Depends which whales - for the most part yes.

And which whales are deserving of decimation?

Gypsys Kiss wrote:

unriggable wrote:Depends which whales - for the most part yes.

And which whales are deserving of decimation?

Not decimation, controlled hunting. Sperm whales multiply quicker than most others so they can be hunted, many others though, like humpbacks and blue whales, should be spared.

save the whale, but f*ck Wales.

Whales are endangered, so of course!

I also agree with this good man:

spurgistan wrote:I say let indigenous peoples who value the whale culturally keep their ceremonial hunts, but commercialized hunting of whales like the Japanese and Norweigans do is (I believe) and should be illegal. There is actually a global moratorium on the commercial processing of whales, but the major whaling nations (Japan and Norway) say they're taking the whales for "scientific research". Which is little more than flipping the bird to the international anti-whaling movement, but they've gotten away with it for 20 years now.

lol

and not all types of whale are endangeroud, under half are

i think that everyone thinks whaling is bad because of the bad publicity, but now i am researching it it really isnt that bad

I dunno...how endangered could they possibly be? duh!

You guys know nothing about wildlife...it is self-contained.

Plus, I like chewing gum too much.

Wayne Kerstain wrote:You guys know nothing about wildlife...it is self-contained.

You really have no idea how much humanity has fucked up the world's ecosystems do you?

unriggable wrote:

Wayne Kerstain wrote:You guys know nothing about wildlife...it is self-contained.

You really have no idea how much humanity has fucked up the world's ecosystems do you?

Nah, don't really care to be honest.

The way I see it is, if chimpanzee's managed to wipe humanity off of the face of the earth, they wouldnt care either.

Or if whales were the mosty dominant creature, they would probably find some meagre mineral within our bodies to produce a meaningless and mildly satisfying peice of clothing out of us.

It's swings and roundabouts.

I love chewing gum.

Wayne Kerstain wrote:

unriggable wrote:

Wayne Kerstain wrote:You guys know nothing about wildlife...it is self-contained.

You really have no idea how much humanity has fucked up the world's ecosystems do you?

Nah, don't really care to be honest.

The way I see it is, if chimpanzee's managed to wipe humanity off of the face of the earth, they wouldnt care either.

Or if whales were the mosty dominant creature, they would probably find some meagre mineral within our bodies to produce a meaningless and mildly satisfying peice of clothing out of us.

It's swings and roundabouts.

I love chewing gum.

That's because those animals don't think like we do. If you want to make the natural selection argument, then you say we should use the conscious we were given, and not intellectualize it like that.

Bollocks to that.

From your arguement, I could argue then, that I was given an urge to burn down buildings, piss in peoples drinking water and fart on old paraplegic mens heads for a laugh....does this mean I am bad, since I'm following my instincts?

but destroying the ecosystems may be contributing to our own downfall

running out of resources such as water, food and fossil fuels

and things like global warming

I actually just got out of a class that talks about this sort of shyte. Go figure.

Yes, if chimps figured out how to destroy humanity (or did so inadvertantly) they might. But we humans have the ability to create a social system based on morality. The fact that we alone among animals have the ability to judge morality means that we are to be valued above animals, but if we don't make moral judgments about the rights of animals, then, what good is that ability? There is a question as to whether human pleasure is valued at more than animal pain, and if so, to what degree we discount animal pain to increase human pleasure (otherwise, meat is obviously a no-go) The whole thing is somewhat messy, maybe this will all resolve itself before we have exams.

So obviously, the guy posting above values simple human pleasures (such as chewing gum) over extreme animal pain (shooting exploding harpoons into rather defenseless whales) Fair enough, it's your moral system, I'm in no place to judge, but I'm rather glad I don't know you.

Wayne Kerstain wrote:Bollocks to that.

From your arguement, I could argue then, that I was given an urge to burn down buildings, piss in peoples drinking water and fart on old paraplegic mens heads for a laugh....does this mean I am bad, since I'm following my instincts?

Why yes, by that argument, you could. But then again, I was making the point that you seemed to be bringing in natural selection into the argument. What I basically understood from you was, "Nature gave us the ability to dominate, so why shouldn't we?" So I basically responded, "Nature also gave us the ability to consider the consequences of our actions, so why shouldn't we?"

Perhaps I misunderstood your logic.