Whaling conference sees possible breakthrough deal

Whale is part of the Japanese diet and has been for centuries like the Eskimos.. But I do not think that the young generation care to much for it today, what it should be turned into is a very expencive delicacy more so than fugu or pufferfish. Strict rules and only certain standards should be applied, to obtain a certain number of licences,example (five per prefecture) to serve whale meat, this would reduce the numbers of whales being hunted.

whale was a part of a very very small number of Japanese's diet until after WW2. The japanese have sucked the oceans dry of fish and won't stop until there is nothing left. It is greed and arrogance, thats all.

The japanese have sucked the oceans dry of fish and won't stop until there is nothing left.

And now everyone in the US, EU, Austr and China are eating sushi like mad as well.

Moderator: Sushi is not relevant to this discussion.

I suggest you read http://www.highnorth.no/index.asp Maybe hearing both sides of the story would help you be more objective. Refusing to would be emotion and ignorance. that's all.

whale was a part of a very very small number of Japanese's diet until >after WW2.

Suggest you read up and educate yourself. http://luna.pos.to/whale/jwa_trad.html

The japanese have sucked the oceans dry of fish and won't stop until >there is nothing left. It is greed and arrogance, thats all.

Whales are not fish.

lol, asking people to read up and educate themselves at high north and luna. Yeah, you're sure to get a balanced view there.

we all know a nations regularly flout the rules, avoid or just ignore quotas will never back off easy.

Yeah cleo as balanced as from the Sea Shepherd's website? Where they use emotion and one argument point is how long it takes the whales to die? Sounds like a heartstring pull such animal loving people as yourself just love to grab onto.

What's wrong with emotion? What's wrong with being upset and disgusted at the thought of a creature dying a slow and painful death in order to satisfy the jaded palates of a few old men?

If we boil the pro-whalers' argument down to its basics, we get 'We want to eat whale because we like it. It's nostalgic'. Isn't that an emotional argument?

What's wrong with emotion? What's wrong with being upset and disgusted at the thought of a creature dying a slow and painful death in order to satisfy the jaded palates of a few old men?

For the humanity argument, nothing's wrong with emotion.

For the conservation status argument, emotion's irrelevant. The species is threatened or it isn't, no matter how one might feel about the subject. And minkes aren't threatened.

No cleo read about the research they do and why they do it on that website I posted. They explain about it. It's not emotional or natsukashii. It's about harvesting resources and researching sources of food. Sorry to you but animals are sources of food.

OK! No emotion! Critical analysis: Japan was given permission to hunt and kill 1,000 Minki whales for scientific research. However, the meat ends up for sale in restaurants and supermarkets. Japan has said, it sells a portion of the meat to cover researching costs (buying more grenades for the harpoons). Regardless of your stand on whaling this is a blatant lie! Japan's whale hunt is soly for commercial purposes. I'm sure a lot of the pressure on Japan's whaling activities would be eliviated if they would just stop lieing to the rest of the world and admit they hunt whales commercially.

bushlover -

The high north alliance page under 'whaling in Japan' has three links:

Q&As : There are 2 research programmes. They're 'perfectly legal'.

Research in the Antarctic (dated 1996): Page Not Found

Research in the NW Pacific (dated 2000): Numbers taken, pictures of dead and butchered whales with men in hard hats, all copyright icr.

How is that supposed to persuade?

Japan was given permission to hunt and kill 1,000 Minki whales

To be more accurate, Japan gave itself permission to kill 1,000 Minke.

For the conservation status argument, emotion's irrelevant.

I've never been big on the conservation status argument. A slow painful death is no easier to bear for the individual just because there are lots of others with similar DNA sloshing around. There are over 6 billion humans sloshing around on the planet, in no danger of going extinct any time soon (unless we succeed in roasting the whole planet), yet when we read of one being killed deliberately and needlessly, even if it isn't slow and painful, we get all upset. Why is no one researching the use of surplus humans for food? - because it's an emotional issue.

Lose your emotions, you lose your humanity.

Cleo- Lose your respect for human life, and lose your humamity.

Here is Greenpeace's view on Sea Shepherd's violence and lack of respect for human life.

We passionately want to stop whaling, and will do so peacefully. That's why we won't help Sea Shepherd. Greenpeace is committed to non-violence and we'll never, ever, change that; not for anything. If we helped Sea Shepherd to find the whaling fleet we'd be responsible for anything they did having got that information, and history shows that they've used violence in the past, in the most dangerous seas on Earth. For us, non-violence is a non-negotiable, precious principle. Greenpeace will continue to act to defend the whales, but will never attack or endanger the whalers.

We differ with Paul Watson on what constitutes violence. He states that nobody has ever been harmed by a Sea Shepherd action. But the test of non-violence is the nature of your action, not whether harm results or not. There are many acts of violence -- for example, holding a gun to someone's head -- which result in no harm. That doesn't change their nature. We believe that throwing butryic acid at the whalers, dropping cables to foul their props, and threatening to ram them in the freezing waters of the Antarctic constitutes violence because of the potential consequences. The fact that the consequences have not been realized is irrelevant.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/paul-watson-sea-shepherd-and

What's wrong with emotion? What's wrong with being upset and disgusted >at the thought of a creature dying a slow and painful death in order to >satisfy the jaded palates of a few old men?

I 'm disgusted and upset at people who think nothing of the welfare of their fellow human beings just to statidy their own sense of self righteousness and emotional obsession with specific animals.

I 'm disgusted and upset at people who think nothing of the welfare of their fellow human beings

lol. Cry me a river. Stopping the sham that is whaling would not affect anyone's welfare adversely. The few men out on the death ships would be able to go home and get decent jobs. Their families would be able to have them at home and not have to worry about them being thousands of miles away in a hostile environment. Those are pluses, not minuses.

The only minus would be to the nostalgic old men no longer able to indulge in dreams of school dinners fifty years ago. And that would be a blow to their egos, not their welfare.

cleo,

Was having a lunch with a Japanese person who is anti-whaling (one of her friends worked for Greenpeace in some capacity).

Well, she was anti-whaling, but she's now pro-whaling after seeing the work of those SS morons you like to support.

As you might imagine, this put a smile on my face.

Well, she was anti-whaling, but she's now pro-whaling after seeing the work of those SS morons you like to support.

This won't last of course, but its stuff like this that caused my own stance to go from anti-whaling to pro-whaling.

"Lose your respect for human life, and lose your humamity"

If we're in the mood for editing peoples posts I'll be modifying yours to Lose you respect for life, lose your humanity.

This is an emotional issue. Ossanamericas argument isnt some detached philosophical one, he/she doesnt like the tactics Sea Shepherd uses and will dig up any quote, link, or issue any insult when the blood's boiling. Cleo's argument, the most humanitarian here, is emotional because of the animals suffering. Davidattokyo takes some sort of perverse pleasure in 'turning' Japanese anti whalers.

You cant escape those emotions, they make us what we are. I for one am the better for it and am glad to see some progress on limiting the slaughter.

Seems Sea Shepherds protests havent fallen on deaf ears but we'll see how the discussions pan out.

dontpanic, I didn't "turn" the Japanese anti whaler (who it seems was more that way because her friend was than her personal beliefs), it was Sea Shepherd who turned her back to the light side.

The pleasure I got was seeing the results of Sea Shepherd going against the wishes of Sea Shepherd's moronic supporters.

They don't call "Useful Idiots" are Useful for nothing :)

"They don't call "Useful Idiots" are Useful for nothing :)"

No they dont do they?

lol. Cry me a river. Stopping the sham that is whaling would not affect >anyone's welfare adversely.

Stopping the criminal activity would not affect anyone's welfare adversely except for Watson himself. The SS sheep could get reakl jobs and consitbutors could put their money towards better and non-criminal uses.

The few men out on the death ships would be able to go home and get >decent jobs. Their families would be able to have them at home and not >have to worry about them being thousands of miles away in a hostile >environment. Those are pluses, not minuses.

So are you prepared to personally guarantee the welfare of all the seamen and engineers connected to whaling? It's assinine to declare that people "could go home and get decent jobs" at a time when the global economy has tanked and the maritime industries have been hit very hard. Truth is you simply don't gibvea hoot about the welfare of "human beings" which are secondary to your precious whales.

If we're in the mood for editing peoples posts I'll be modifying yours >to Lose you respect for life, lose your humanity.

When does the welfare of an animal become worth more than that of a human being? To me, the answer is absolutely never. Being an adult means making hard choices between equally valuable and cherished ideals in a manner which is not destructive to human society.

dontpanic

"In addition to being morally wrong, we believe the use of violence in protection of whales to be a tactical error. If there's one way to harden Japanese public opinion and ensure whaling continues, it's to use violent tactics against their fleet. It's wrong because it puts human lives at risk, and it's wrong because it makes the whalers stronger in Japan."

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/paul-watson-sea-shepherd-and

I rest my case.

interesting to see some japanese care very much about the japanese-culuter and japanese whaler's welfare in a place so far from japan.

what about welfare of those doing business without involving in killing of the animal? and they are doing the business close to their shore. they also have their own way of life and culture to do or to protect something, some species of animal.

do japanese whalers ever care or respect the people in the southern sea area regarding to this issue?

so what wrong if people in the area want to support whoever doing whatever to kick the discourtesy japaneses out of anywhere closer to their home?

give me a good reason why anyone should care about you when you don't care about them?

should the whaling culture and whaler welfare from japan be valued higher than any other people culture and welfare living in southern sea?

"To me, the answer is absolutely never."

thedeath, people don't live in the sea.

bushlover, i did mention "the people in the southern sea area". i just did not put the word round in the last sentence. sorry i didn't know that somepeople can not understand it.

i will be happy to get a good and thoughtful comment rather than a cheap shot attaching.

No worries mate. Some south sea people like whales... especially with soy sauce and ginger.