Iceland hunters kill whale

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by SG-N, Aug 19, 2003.


What about killing a whale?

  1. Yes! (I wonder whether I will like that taste)

    4 vote(s)
  2. Yes but only for scientific purposes.

    8 vote(s)
  3. No, never!

    17 vote(s)
  1. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    They want to kill some whales... why not?!

    I mean, I like these animals and that's a good thing to protect them but we are not dealing with economic hunting (at least not as Japan does). The whales are not endangered in this part of the world - less than the other fishes that are killed because of the whales'protection (the whales'hunters had to find an other activity!).

    That's a good thing to kill some of them to check what they eat. Thus, the scientists will be able to know if they are a danger for the environement, or if they are in danger because they eat bad (polluted) food. However, as I already said, I would be against a massive hunting.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Of course, someone is going to ask if it could have been possible to tranquilize them, and pump thier stomachs.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    Humm... well...
    Ah damned! I knew I was forgotting something!

    Ok, you can do it too... BUT maybe that you will save thousands of tunas'babies by killing these whales instead of pumping their stomachs (they would be hungry then, no?). Why don't you think about these babies?!!! *crying* Poor, poor babies...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Can I harpoon a few Icelanders to see how they affect the local fish population? Howabout a few Japanese?
  8. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    You want to kill some Japaneses... OK but be aware of the coastguards because I think that it's forbidden!
    About the Icelanders, we've got a problem : they are endangered! There are only 290 000 Icelanders left... while there are still between 290 000 and 630 000 minke whales! (my source)

    *Save the Icelanders!*

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Aug 22, 2003
  9. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Ah, but think of the historical range and population of the Icelanders. How many were there 500 years ago? Now the Japanese REALLY need some culling.
  10. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Yeah exactly clockwood.
    What makes people different than whales other than the fact we can understand what they are screaming while we brutally murder them?
    Whales have all of our admirable qualities and none of our dispicable qualities.
    Aren't they obnoxious or arrogant enough to give a pardon?
    Why don't we get research done on humans? There is so much we could learn but we don't do it. Even to people guilty of horriffic crimes. But a completely innocent whale can be yanked out of the ocean by little japanese men and then sentenced to death by having an electric rod shoved up its ass. This is the new method for "research" and that whale hangs there litterally screaming for 20 minutes before it dies. Who thinks this shit up? Its insane right? And we aren't nuking japan why?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    We aren't burning them alive for WHAT reason?
    I can't think of one, help me out here....
    If the military can't stomach torturing asians to death then they could give me a job because I can't imagine something as fullfilling as doing that. I would feel my life had a purpose if I had the chance to torture asians to death. I still wouldn't have justified it the situation because I would be punishing the scum of the earth. The only way I could get justice would be forcing them to watch as I torture their children, but then knowing them they would probably enjoy that and want to make a movie of it for later sexual gratification.
    They have sinned more than they could ever be sinned against. Its a real problem.
    Its times like this I pray there is a hell.
  11. KitNyx Registered Senior Member

    Up until I read the last post I was generally impressed by the intelligence of the local posters. That is the most ignorant and stupid things I have ever seen on this site. Is that the power of YOUR God - hate, ignorance, and spite? I am not sure if it was meant as a joke or not...

    - KitNyx
  12. Unregistered The Original Conservative Registered Senior Member

    Damned whalezoids...

    Kill 'em, even if they don't fight. If they fight back...kill them, but this time with a passion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. Unregistered The Original Conservative Registered Senior Member


    Eh, why not? We'll kill them in the name of science! Or better yet, in the name of ALLAH! PRAISE ALLAH ALL YOU SONS OF BITCHES!

    ...Or we can kill them just cause Clockwood said so. Or because its our right of existence.

  14. Congrats Bartok Fiend Registered Senior Member

    You are such a Toohey, Dr. Lou.

    Whales have none of our admirable qualities because they cannot actively decide anything. Humans can make a coordinated effort to feed themselves, and increase their living standards, by thinking, and creating. As a whale does not sanction its own killer, and exercises its right to thash and cry, we as Humans should not sanction our own killer- the refusal of economic resources for emotional reasons that cannot even be fathomed by the 'victims'.

    Iceland depends on fishing to survive- without it, Iceland would have no devleoped society. That is more important than any number of whales, because it involves us.
  15. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    Unregistered :
    When I read your posts I would love to believe that it's irony... but I guess you're not able to do it. Just a IQ problem! What a pity

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Congrats :
    But for "creating", the whales can do the same! They are able to coordinate their effort to feed themselves too... You missed a good occasion to shut up.
    What about the forest in Amazonie, the tigers, the elephants, the gorillas, the rhinoceros... Kill them all!!! It's a lot of money! Do you know that you could try to sale your dog too! I guess that you will find a laboratory...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What could I reply to that?! Well... 2.8% of unemployment while they are not able to fish the whales and their GDP per capita is only $25,000! Poor, poor Icelanders...
  16. Congrats Bartok Fiend Registered Senior Member

    I'd say that certain things are preserved for certain reasons. I would not eat my dog because I love him, and I would not destroy 100% of the rainforest because of the romantic notion of its very existence. However, I would not be hesitant to use what I could from it.

    But wouldn't this extand past tigers, elephants, etc. to salmon, tuna, cows, and even codfish?

    Cod is pretty much Iceland's only export. Iceland has that high living standard because it kills animals. How is a whale more valuble than a cod? The same way a human is?

    But has a whale ever synthesied an entriely new, more efficient method, on its own? No, evolution does that.

    So I suppose I missed a really good oppurtunity...golly.
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2003
  17. Unregistered The Original Conservative Registered Senior Member

    When I read your posts I would love to believe that it's irony... but I guess you're not able to do it. Just a IQ problem! What a pity

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I admire your clever cynicism...however your lack of an actual arguement to my point startles me.

    I will not flame you just because you are ignorant...I'll do that later.

    Hope I could help!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    I woudl have thought, that if we are but animals, that destroying the ecosystem and other components of it would be a bad idea.
    AS for Codfish, a case in point of overfishing, Iceland has managed its stocks and has a renewable resource, the CAnadian grand banks has lost its.

    Anyhow, ill never really understand the utilitarian worldview that says only humans matter and all else is our toy.

    Although I would have thought, that since we are part of nature, even as some would have it, mechanisms, we dont invent anything ourselves, we are just bringing forth what is already within us. So in that case why get so high and mighty, congrats?
  19. Congrats Bartok Fiend Registered Senior Member

    I mostly agree.

    We don't preserve ecosystems for their benefit, only because we need the resources an ecosytem provides. Less pollutants means better health for humans and other organisms, and the benefits of maintaining healthy ecosystems always comes back to us.

    This does not mean that we only preserve ecosystems for monetaray profit. We maintain them for educational resons, cultural reasons, and simply for our own enjoyment. If we just arbitrarily preserved things, even if we got no sort of benefit, of any type, we would set a precedent that would be counterproductive to human interests, because we make untouched land, in any case, more valubale than land that holds productive use.

    We get more out of codfish if we keep them alive. This way, preserving them is in our own best interest, far more than massacring them is. We don't do it strictly for them. So, whales should follow the same logic. Get use out of them, but keep the population viable and healthy so that our use can be insured. This is called 'privitizartion of commons' and it has worked in actively improving the envirnoment of the US, and the world, over the 20th century. We have more forests now than we did in the 60's, for example.

    Some articles:

    guthrie- everything else is not our 'toy'. Everything else is our fuel, meaning that being careless with it should not come as part of the deal of using it.

    There is a line, though, between protecting resources and totally cutting them off from human use. Surely, whales are better off without being hunted, and humans might not rely on whales for life, but if whales don't need to be used, why any other creature? How is it that a creature's worth to society is judged only by the number of its population?

    Yes, I know that our intelligence is part of nature, and we certainly do not supercede nature by using our brains. We do, however, have a cognitive function that is totally unique, as of now, to our own species. I think there is an objective way to judge how important a species is to the world, and since have the power to control the world, we are the most important. However, other species are only important if we derive sustinence/enjoyment from them. I don't think it's high and mighty; I just think it works.
  20. weebee Registered Senior Member

  21. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    Re: I mostly agree.

    We have more forest (in western countries at least) because we don't use the lands anymore. There are less and less farmers, so they don't take care of the country and that creates new forests (that's a problem when there's fire...).
    Just if you need them! But we don't need to kill the whales (for a commercial purpose). I already explained that the Icelanders didn't need it to have a good life level. They don't need it to eat neither...
    How many whales are needed to save their species? Are you able to say it?! No, and the scientists neither. That's why we must protect them.
    I understand your point of view and I agree that the number can't be the only reason to judge a species value, but it's one of them : the less units their are, the more they are important. Then, each one can choose its own number. However, don't think about the humans when you want to compare : 10 000 humans on the earth would have no problem to find each other (Internet, TV, Telephone...) but it would be different for whales (or other species).
    Why do you only judge a full species? You could apply this theory to parts of some species... Isn't it what the Aryans did? (sorry it's extreme but that's what you make me think about - not that you are an Aryan!!)
  22. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    wow you know very little about whales.
    and you are very selfish.
    and you know this how?
  23. Congrats Bartok Fiend Registered Senior Member

    If there is a market for whale, we need them. Not there really is anymore, but if we wanted to eat whale, or use whale blubber, that would be paramount over whether they were endangered, because we would know the risk- by continuuing to eat whales, we would be eating away at the future of whales as a commodity. That isn't good business for a whaling company, becuase they need whale to make a living. So they either bail or use more intelligent fishing methods.

    Whaling itself is no longer practical in this way. We get more from having whales to study and enjoy than we do from any material we can get from them. So let us use them in this way! Selective killings for science will not depopulate the whale population.

    And you can really strike off pretty much everything from the 'need' column. We shouldn't really produce anything than water...soybeans...and...meat, I guess. Right?

    I don't think that an endangered species in inherantly less valuable, but I don't think that a species' being endangered makes it more valuable. We need to study whales to know how to preserve them, which in some cases might mean killing them. Whatever.

    Hello, river-wind. Yes, I am. But what I said is still true. Without fishing, Iceland would be a third world country. Or maybe not a ocutnry at all. I care about that more than I care about whales, because I am a human and I want humans to be successful. Of course, overfishing does not fit into that, or rabid de-forestation, or rampant pollution, etc.

    Also, I know that humans are more advanced than other animals because that is simple fact. We study the brain functions of many animals, and ours is the most advanced.

    The Octopus, dolphin, falcon, etc. probably have a higher level of cognitive faculty than most, but they simply aren't as smart as us. Can you prove otherwise?

Share This Page