Comments on: South Korea may begin commercial whaling operations

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:23:24 +0000

Brain size has nothing to do with intelligence.
Whales are mammals, just like cows, yet we tend to eat many more cows.
Turtles live for over a century, yet there is no outrage over turtle soup.

If the species isn’t endangered, the only reasons to protest using it for food are (1) a personal philosophy where an individual chooses not to take the life of any living organism (which is impossible as plants are living organisms and they have a more immediate and purposeful existence), or (2) a personal attachment to an organism based on an internalized fantasy-image.

The best example of #2 is the idea that many Westerners have regarding eating dogs. It strikes Westerners as shocking because Westerners have a long history of domesticating that particular animal, and so eating them is like eating a family member. Yet in the East, where cows were difficult or impossible to raise, dogs were raised as a food source. (And I should mention because most people are misinformed – Dogs that are pets and dogs that are food are very different breeds)

I haven’t once heard a sound, logical argument against sustainable whaling. The focus should actually be on tuna, as they’re being overly farmed and their numbers are rapidly depleting – And it pains me to say that because I love me some o-toro and maguro.

By: mister Wu

mister Wu — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:48:35 +0000

Whales are not fish! They have huge brains larger than ours, and form long term relationships. Some whales would live for over a century if not murdered. Stop the new whaling holocaust. Boycott all commercial whaling nations!

By: mister Wu

mister Wu — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:43:05 +0000

Humans aren’t endangered (except by over population) I say open up human exploitation: Soylent Green before Whaleburgers!

By: Cesar

Cesar — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:10:40 +0000

you know fishing regulations work fairly well in most of the civilized world and that what took whales to neae-extinction in the 19th century was not whalling for food, right?

or is it just ignorance?

By: Level3

Level3 — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:52:52 +0000

Exaggerate a bit, eh?

Whales are in no danger of being hunted to near-extinction again as in the 19th century.

Why?

We don’t use whale oil anymore, we use the black stuff from the ground.

I’ll bet $1000 to any of you that minke whales will not be hunted to extinction even if Korea gets to whale and Japan totally abandons all quotas. Any takers?
[Of course, I have a few perpetual motion machine nuts who "owe" me hypothetical $1000 bets because, surprise! the perpetual motion machine that was "Just about to be announced and revolutionize the world!!1!", never got announced. Same story.]

Ironically, the only reason whales might become more popular as a food source adn thus hunted more heavily is if the very same lefties who want to save the whales also manage to make cattle-raising, and thus beef, prohibitively expensive due to exaggerated claims about the environmetnal impact of cow farts.

By: Trufax

Trufax — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:53:37 +0000

Give em an inch and they’ll take a mile. Japan has already done that and more with “research whaling” and I have no reason to believe Japan or Korea would restrain themselves any more with coastal whaling.

One would take “an extra” whale and so the other would too, back and forth. It would be just like Beavis and Butthead loaning each other the same dollar until they’ve bought a whole box of candy.

By: adsadasdasdasasd

adsadasdasdasasd — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:20:36 +0000

Oh non-endangered, do they even taste good?

By: NPC

NPC — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:44:23 +0000

“Non-endangered” today but once everyone wants a piece of the action we can flip “Non-endangered” to “extinct” in a matter of months. It’s all about momentum, we’ve got to stop Japan’s actions before they put a bad influence on the rest of the world.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 07:33:51 +0000

“Should Japan and Korea be allowed to catch a limited number of non-endangered whales?”

The key there is NON-ENDANGERED. If applying regulations to them and then hunting the whales is sustainable and they’re not endangered, aside from silly “save the whales” nonsense, why shouldn’t they be able to hunt them? I wouldn’t eat them due to mercury content, but I don’t see any harm in hunting non-endangered animals.