Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd and co-founder of Greenpeace, has been arrested on an international warrant and is facing charges including accomplice to assault and ship trespass
Faroese have hunted whales since time basically immemorial as people with more land have hunted deer. They are also allowed to, under international law, to hunt whales just as say Inuit are. Their hunting is sustainable, always has been.
The anti-whaling convention was instituted to stop commercial exploitation of the seas, to stop the great whaling ships, it was not instituted to stop people feeding themselves.
If there were a nation that still practiced cannibalism, should everyone be fine with it because they’ve been doing it a long time and it’s part of their culture? Even if sustainable because they only ate the criminals?
Just because something has been done for a long time doesn’t mean it should still be acceptable, especially as we learn more such as the intelligence and importance to the food chain that whales have. It’s not like there are no other options.
The Faroer don’t have enough arable land for everyone to switch to a vegan diet. They could import the rest of what they need, yes, but their only notable export product is fish so that wouldn’t make much sense would it.
And with “only notable export product” I mean “stamps are on place number two”. You know, the kind you glue onto envelopes.
Just to be clear, you’re no longer saying it’s ok to kill whales because it’s cultural and they’ve been doing it a long time? You’re now saying that it’s ok because they would be economically ruined if they didn’t kill whales?
I’m not trying to be combative, just trying to clarify.
Got it, thanks for clarifying. I think both lines of reasoning have problems though:
X is ok because it’s cultural and we’ve been doing X for a long time.
Y is ok because we would be economically ruined if we didn’t do Y.
I can think of many things to fill in for X and Y that satisfy the necessary conditions, but still aren’t ok. I do, however, think this line of reasoning is valid:
Z is ok because we would literally starve if we didn’t do Z.
I don’t think any vegan would take issue with #3, since in that case Z is necessary, and vegans are only concerned with unnecessary harm.
I mean I could have gone deeper into it but then I didn’t particularly feel like arguing with a vegan. Yes, I’m speciesist, we can leave it at that.
The Faroer certainly needed whaling in the past to survive, and that necessity has engrained itself in their solidarity culture – everything about how the hunt is done and distributed is communal, closest comparison I can come up when looking at Germany would be the status of the fire department in a village: Not the inn, not the church, not even the football club, but the fire department is the core and beating heart of the community and its solidarity. They had a brief stint with commercial whaling but they stopped that before commercial whaling got outlawed, couldn’t compete with the Norwegians and their giant ships.
Faroese being as green and nature-conscious as they are they would indeed stop if the whales were endangered… but they aren’t. Dolphins are controversial, I guess they’re going to stop hunting them within the next decade or two. That, or the rest of us are going to poison the seas even more so that the meat becomes completely inedible. It’s dire.
So from what you’re saying, it seems like not only is killing whales unnecessary for the Faroer anymore, but the document you linked seems to imply that it’s actively detrimental to their health.
Also this response doesn’t really engage with what I said before about the lines of reasoning being flawed. You’re painting a picture of how whaling has been an integral part of their cultural history, and that’s interesting information, but it doesn’t really relate to whether it’s the right thing to do.
So again, it’s an argument of the form “X is ok because it’s cultural and we’ve been doing X for a long time,” which I don’t think is very persuasive.
And one more thing: you’re now saying that they don’t kill whales commercially? So “Y is ok because we would be economically ruined if we didn’t do Y” doesn’t even apply, right? Or am I reading what you said incorrectly?
If you don’t want to be hated, don’t murder whales. It’s very easy, literally most people do it.
Faroese have hunted whales since time basically immemorial as people with more land have hunted deer. They are also allowed to, under international law, to hunt whales just as say Inuit are. Their hunting is sustainable, always has been.
The anti-whaling convention was instituted to stop commercial exploitation of the seas, to stop the great whaling ships, it was not instituted to stop people feeding themselves.
So kindly fuck off and I have a song for you.
If there were a nation that still practiced cannibalism, should everyone be fine with it because they’ve been doing it a long time and it’s part of their culture? Even if sustainable because they only ate the criminals?
Just because something has been done for a long time doesn’t mean it should still be acceptable, especially as we learn more such as the intelligence and importance to the food chain that whales have. It’s not like there are no other options.
Let me guess yet another vegan.
The Faroer don’t have enough arable land for everyone to switch to a vegan diet. They could import the rest of what they need, yes, but their only notable export product is fish so that wouldn’t make much sense would it.
And with “only notable export product” I mean “stamps are on place number two”. You know, the kind you glue onto envelopes.
Just to be clear, you’re no longer saying it’s ok to kill whales because it’s cultural and they’ve been doing it a long time? You’re now saying that it’s ok because they would be economically ruined if they didn’t kill whales?
I’m not trying to be combative, just trying to clarify.
Both are things that make killing whales ok. It’s just that when arguing with vegans “they’d literally starve” is a way more productive argument.
Got it, thanks for clarifying. I think both lines of reasoning have problems though:
I can think of many things to fill in for X and Y that satisfy the necessary conditions, but still aren’t ok. I do, however, think this line of reasoning is valid:
I don’t think any vegan would take issue with #3, since in that case Z is necessary, and vegans are only concerned with unnecessary harm.
I mean I could have gone deeper into it but then I didn’t particularly feel like arguing with a vegan. Yes, I’m speciesist, we can leave it at that.
The Faroer certainly needed whaling in the past to survive, and that necessity has engrained itself in their solidarity culture – everything about how the hunt is done and distributed is communal, closest comparison I can come up when looking at Germany would be the status of the fire department in a village: Not the inn, not the church, not even the football club, but the fire department is the core and beating heart of the community and its solidarity. They had a brief stint with commercial whaling but they stopped that before commercial whaling got outlawed, couldn’t compete with the Norwegians and their giant ships.
Faroese being as green and nature-conscious as they are they would indeed stop if the whales were endangered… but they aren’t. Dolphins are controversial, I guess they’re going to stop hunting them within the next decade or two. That, or the rest of us are going to poison the seas even more so that the meat becomes completely inedible. It’s dire.
So from what you’re saying, it seems like not only is killing whales unnecessary for the Faroer anymore, but the document you linked seems to imply that it’s actively detrimental to their health.
Also this response doesn’t really engage with what I said before about the lines of reasoning being flawed. You’re painting a picture of how whaling has been an integral part of their cultural history, and that’s interesting information, but it doesn’t really relate to whether it’s the right thing to do.
So again, it’s an argument of the form “X is ok because it’s cultural and we’ve been doing X for a long time,” which I don’t think is very persuasive.
And one more thing: you’re now saying that they don’t kill whales commercially? So “Y is ok because we would be economically ruined if we didn’t do Y” doesn’t even apply, right? Or am I reading what you said incorrectly?
deleted by creator
Somehow it’s still your fault. I’m very progressive.
Lemmy says “Indigenous rights” until it’s white people, I guess.