And the whalers think they are the source of their livelihood, which they believe should continue to exist. Funny how your thinking is related to your emotional attachment, theirs is to their livelihood. I can see why the gov’t of Japan tends to side with the whalers.
Come now - you and I both know there’s more to conservation than emotional attachment. Don’t jump on my admission of emotional attachment to the creatures like that. That’s bad form.
Ummm...."I think those krill-munching fluke-slapping aquatic behemoths are aweseome creatures and they deserve to continue to exist.” I respond to what’s posted, Rap.
Yes, I know what I said, thus why I noted it was “my admission of emotional attachment.” I trusted (foolishly, it seems) that you wouldn’t require a rehash of the basic arguments for conservationism. I will try not to make that mistake again.
People whaled for thousands of years. The difference, IMO, was that whaling technology got ahead of the curve. Were populations rapidly reduced? Yes. But the funny thing is that they have recovered far more quickly than scientists thought they would, meaning it is likely that there was an overestimation of the damage done.
Definitely possible, yet the trend lines were unambiguous. It’s also a possibility that reproduction rates are greater than estimated; whales are notoriously hard to track.
Also, damage of other species than whales has been far more severe due to overhunting. Including other species of cetacean, such as the Baiji (a dolphin believed extinct as of 2006 due in part to hunting, but also to other causes), and other aquatic mammals such as the Japanese Sea Lion, hunted to extinction by Japan in the 1950s, and the Carribean Monk Seal, similarly hunted to extinction in the 1950s. The Hawaiian Monk Seal is endangered due to overhunting, and the Mediterranean Monk Seal is critically endangered and may not survive due to its estimated population of under 600 individuals being so widely dispersed.
And let’s not forget that some of the species that Japan has resumed hunting include ones still endangered, such as the fin whale, whose total population is estimated at 40-50,000 individuals. Blue whales, which are thankfully still banned, may number at as few as 2,300. The Northern Atlantic and Pacific Right Whales are down to a population of about 200 and 400 respectively.
And finally, the North Pacific humpback is at about 130 specimens.
These are not recoveries, sir, that one can trumpet. Some species have rebounded, others remain on the brink of extinction.
Regardless, a complete ban, vs. harvest limits or other regulation, is an emotional response. (I personally believe the markets can regulate sufficiently; price is a powerful demand-suppressant.)
It’s partially an emotional response, I agree; but it’s also a rational one given that the products traditionally acquired through whaling can all be achieved by other means. Also, let’s face it: An out-of-work whaler can find a new job. A species hunted to extinction cannot find a new ecological niche.
And the whalers think they are the source of their livelihood, which they believe should continue to exist. Funny how your thinking is related to your emotional attachment, theirs is to their livelihood. I can see why the gov’t of Japan tends to side with the whalers.
Come now - you and I both know there’s more to conservation than emotional attachment. Don’t jump on my admission of emotional attachment to the creatures like that. That’s bad form.
Ummm...."I think those krill-munching fluke-slapping aquatic behemoths are aweseome creatures and they deserve to continue to exist.” I respond to what’s posted, Rap.
Yes, I know what I said, thus why I noted it was “my admission of emotional attachment.” I trusted (foolishly, it seems) that you wouldn’t require a rehash of the basic arguments for conservationism. I will try not to make that mistake again.
After I mentioned it. Don’t call it bad form if I’m responding to an emotional argument by calling it an emotional argument. Especially after you make sweeping comments about people here wanting to nuke the whales (oh I’m sorry, that must be what passes for good form in your book).
People whaled for thousands of years. The difference, IMO, was that whaling technology got ahead of the curve. Were populations rapidly reduced? Yes. But the funny thing is that they have recovered far more quickly than scientists thought they would, meaning it is likely that there was an overestimation of the damage done.
Definitely possible, yet the trend lines were unambiguous. It’s also a possibility that reproduction rates are greater than estimated; whales are notoriously hard to track.
Also, damage of other species than whales has been far more severe due to overhunting. Including other species of cetacean, such as the Baiji (a dolphin believed extinct as of 2006 due in part to hunting, but also to other causes), and other aquatic mammals such as the Japanese Sea Lion, hunted to extinction by Japan in the 1950s, and the Carribean Monk Seal, similarly hunted to extinction in the 1950s. The Hawaiian Monk Seal is endangered due to overhunting, and the Mediterranean Monk Seal is critically endangered and may not survive due to its estimated population of under 600 individuals being so widely dispersed.
And let’s not forget that some of the species that Japan has resumed hunting include ones still endangered, such as the fin whale, whose total population is estimated at 40-50,000 individuals. Blue whales, which are thankfully still banned, may number at as few as 2,300. The Northern Atlantic and Pacific Right Whales are down to a population of about 200 and 400 respectively.
And finally, the North Pacific humpback is at about 130 specimens.
These are not recoveries, sir, that one can trumpet. Some species have rebounded, others remain on the brink of extinction.
Regardless, a complete ban, vs. harvest limits or other regulation, is an emotional response. (I personally believe the markets can regulate sufficiently; price is a powerful demand-suppressant.)
It’s partially an emotional response, I agree; but it’s also a rational one given that the products traditionally acquired through whaling can all be achieved by other means. Also, let’s face it: An out-of-work whaler can find a new job. A species hunted to extinction cannot find a new ecological niche.
All of which can probably be accomplished without a complete ban on all whaling, something you called a ‘no-brainer’, but against which there are logical arguments.
After I mentioned it. Don’t call it bad form if I’m responding to an emotional argument by calling it an emotional argument.
It wasn’t an argument. It was just an admission of emotional attachment. Though I do know you tend to treat everything said as part of one’s argument.
Especially after you make sweeping comments about people here wanting to nuke the whales (oh I’m sorry, that must be what passes for good form in your book).
Whenever you accuse me of making disingenuous argumentation, I am routinely reminded of flat-out lies you make such as the above.
As you are damned well aware, “nuke the whales” was a phrase referring to both Reagan’s indifference to environmental concerns and his desire to increase the US nuclear stockpile. The Republican Party has not, traditionally, been terribly concerned with environmental issues and most people here, yourself included, subscribe to that party, so pro-environmental stances are likely going to face a more oppositional audience here. That’s all I said, fade to black, roll credits. Your interpretation was a deliberately constructed strawman. Why you thought you’d get away with it I don’t know.
All of which can probably be accomplished without a complete ban on all whaling, something you called a ‘no-brainer’, but against which there are logical arguments.
Perhaps there are, but yours have been mostly fallacious. The one you have made that is not is that there are those whose livelihoods depend upon whaling - aboriginal tribes, in particular, but others as well.
The problem with allowing for exceptions is that Japan, Finland and Iceland have all repeatedly exploited those exceptions to effectively resume commercial whale harvesting at levels that further threaten already endangered species. (They are, for example, harvesting fin whales again.) Because of these nations’ bad faith in working out a reasonable compromise, a complete ban (excepting aboriginal hunting) is warranted. And in my opinion, the abuse of the loopholes overrides the claims of economic hardship for commercial whalers (such as the Japanese government, coff coff) obviously enough to be a no-brainer. You, as ever, are entitled to disagree.
After I mentioned it. Don’t call it bad form if I’m responding to an emotional argument by calling it an emotional argument.
It wasn’t an argument. It was just an admission of emotional attachment. Though I do know you tend to treat everything said as part of one’s argument.
Especially after you make sweeping comments about people here wanting to nuke the whales (oh I’m sorry, that must be what passes for good form in your book).
Whenever you accuse me of making disingenuous argumentation, I am routinely reminded of flat-out lies you make such as the above.
As you are damned well aware, “nuke the whales” was a phrase referring to both Reagan’s indifference to environmental concerns and his desire to increase the US nuclear stockpile. The Republican Party has not, traditionally, been terribly concerned with environmental issues and most people here, yourself included, subscribe to that party, so pro-environmental stances are likely going to face a more oppositional audience here. That’s all I said, fade to black, roll credits. Your interpretation was a deliberately constructed strawman. Why you thought you’d get away with it I don’t know.
Rewind, Rap. Let’s look at your first response to me pointing out it’s not quite the no-brainer you made it out to be:
Granted, mjgreen, most posters here tend to ally with the party that coined the phrase “nuke the whales”, but what can I say, I think those krill-munching fluke-slapping aquatic behemoths are aweseome creatures and they deserve to continue to exist.
First, the GOP did not coin the phrase ‘Nuke the Whales’, their opponents did. You want to accuse me of ‘flat-out lies’? Opponents created the phrase, as you describe, to criticize certain Reagan Administration positions. Fine. So why say the GOP created the phrase? I’ll be charitable and ascribe it to you misusing the term ‘coin the phrase’.
With that misrepresentation in mind, you then explicitly set out your position as the counterpoint to the awful whale-nuking GOP. What’s ironic is you taking a whole paragraph to accuse me of deliberately setting up a straw man when it is you who did so! (though I won’t say deliberately. My brain makes me show evidence of intent, which I don’t have...funny, neither did you) Broad sweeping statement regarding the position of those who ally with the GOP (by your own admission above you were in fact linking the posters positions on whales to the phrase ‘nuke the whales’), followed by your position as the righteous opposite to that position.
It’s a common device used in politics, Rap, like duplicity. Usually when called on it, the person who made the statement then falls back and ‘clarifies’ saying “I really meant this.” Funny how that works, isn’t it? Now I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, despite your demonstrated and admitted duplicity in other threads, that you really meant what you are claiming, and you misused ‘coin the phrase’, and that misuse is the source of the misunderstanding.
Second, I do not subscribe to the GOP, actually, which is something I’ve stated here before. You’re smart enough to know that conservative does not equal Republican. I am a proud conservative. My loyalty is to my principles, not a party. Or should I just accuse you of flat-out lying and deliberately doing this and that and be done with it? Why I think I’d get away with that I don’t know.
All of which can probably be accomplished without a complete ban on all whaling, something you called a ‘no-brainer’, but against which there are logical arguments.
Perhaps there are, but yours have been mostly fallacious. The one you have made that is not is that there are those whose livelihoods depend upon whaling - aboriginal tribes, in particular, but others as well.
Well, isn’t those people’s livelihood alone reason enough to say that it isn’t a ‘no-brainer’? That being the original reason for my dissent to you, I believe I have made my point.
The bulk of your previous post was 100% sophistry (your typical squirm when called out), and frankly I have neither the time nor the patience to parse it. Suffice it to say you took a phrase which you know referred to an indifference to environmental concerns and did not specify you, and used it to claim that I was accusing you and the multitudes of not indifference, but intent, to slaughter the whales into extinction. You are throwing up chaff to obscure that falsehood now, and I’m having none of it. Enough said.
mjgreen - 15 May 2008 05:21 PM
All of which can probably be accomplished without a complete ban on all whaling, something you called a ‘no-brainer’, but against which there are logical arguments.
Perhaps there are, but yours have been mostly fallacious. The one you have made that is not is that there are those whose livelihoods depend upon whaling - aboriginal tribes, in particular, but others as well.
Well, isn’t those people’s livelihood alone reason enough to say that it isn’t a ‘no-brainer’? That being the original reason for my dissent to you, I believe I have made my point.
Except you conveniently snipped out the remainder of my post, which explained why that was overridden by other facts (including and especially the fact that the whaling industry in Japan has been propped up by the Japanese government despite waning interest in whale-based product consumption by the Japanese people). I wonder why you did that.
The bulk of your previous post was 100% sophistry (your typical squirm when called out), and frankly I have neither the time nor the patience to parse it. Suffice it to say you took a phrase which you know referred to an indifference to environmental concerns and did not specify you, and used it to claim that I was accusing you and the multitudes of not indifference, but intent, to slaughter the whales into extinction. You are throwing up chaff to obscure that falsehood now, and I’m having none of it. Enough said.
Maybe I’ll take a page from your book and wonder why you won’t respond to my carefully laid out reasoning. I do find it interesting that you have the ability to know what others knew and when. What’s funny is that you are the one who stated Republican’s coined the phrase ‘nuke the whales’, you are the one who injected the emotional argument, you are the one who called bad form. Yet you are the one acting like an offended party. As to “specify you”: I quote:
The Republican Party has not, traditionally, been terribly concerned with environmental issues and most people here, yourself included, subscribe to that party
Did you or did you not lump me in with Republicans, Rap? Did I or did I not simply deny that I am a Republican, with no reference to whether you were accusing me of anything or not? Have you become so intellectually bankrupt this election season that you will automatically jump to notions of bad faith on the part of a debate partner who has strived to argue in nothing but good faith with you? That is some chutzpah, given your own recent admissions to using duplicity as just part of politics.
mjgreen - 15 May 2008 05:21 PM
All of which can probably be accomplished without a complete ban on all whaling, something you called a ‘no-brainer’, but against which there are logical arguments.
Perhaps there are, but yours have been mostly fallacious. The one you have made that is not is that there are those whose livelihoods depend upon whaling - aboriginal tribes, in particular, but others as well.
Well, isn’t those people’s livelihood alone reason enough to say that it isn’t a ‘no-brainer’? That being the original reason for my dissent to you, I believe I have made my point.
Except you conveniently snipped out the remainder of my post, which explained why that was overridden by other facts (including and especially the fact that the whaling industry in Japan has been propped up by the Japanese government despite waning interest in whale-based product consumption by the Japanese people). I wonder why you did that.
Pathetic, Rap. Really. All that last paragraph presented reasons that in your opinion override the needs of those people. I’m sure those people who rely on whaling don’t feel that way, now do they? Kinda blows a hole in your assertion that its a ‘no-brainer’. Which was my point to begin with. I just assumed that you aren’t so arrogant that you believe your opinion to be fact.
Sophistry, sophistry, sophistry. This is becoming tiresome.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yes, I forgot you don’t consider yourself a Republican. I was referring to my initial remarks about “nuke the whales” when I said I wasn’t including you.
You continue to call something that wasn’t an argument an argument despite three statements from me that it wasn’t part of my argumentation. I’ll not call you a liar for that and simply suggest you aren’t reading carefully.
You still have failed to explain why you misrepresented my remarks while knowing the meaning of the phrase “nuke the whales”, and why it was a misstatement and not a lie, instead focusing on who actually invented the phrase.
Then rather than try to defend the importance of the commercial whaling industry, you simply hone in on the words “in my opinion” and regard the rest as therefore ignorable.
Your skills in sophistry are commendable, but you are doing nothing but evading. And I tire of it. May the next thread on which we meet yield a better debate.
