Fifth, there will never be an international ban on beef as beef is an excepted form of food and has been since the beginning of time (except in counties where they find the cow holy) and beef is farmed raised for slaughter. Whales are by no means farm raised.
If you've ever been to Japan it doesn't have a midwest to raise cows on farms. Beef is extremely expensive in Japan becasue they have very limited space. Their diet is more dependant on sea food than the states because of this.
Beef being an excepted food and whale not is an opinion not a fact. What organization decides what is an excepted food?
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Just seemed like a good spot to put this:)
one potato, two potato, three potato, four. lucky for you most ppl like clowns.
mfotis - I'm gonna have a whack at your stuff here. I don't particularly care about whaling one way or the other; on the one hand I think endangered species obviously should be protected, but then again, once a species is listed as "endangered", it's almost never unlisted - there's no real mechanism in place to assure that once a population reaches a healthy level, that it's allowed to be harvested. As it stands now, the "endangered" label seems permanent, regardless of population.
mfotis:
OK ppl lets get a grip. First I don’t support whaling. Second it's against international law. Now, for those you who don’t understand this; The US and other signature countries do answer to International law, that’s why it's called "International Law". Int. law allows the world leaders to try and convict war criminals in The Hague, intervene when other countries are violating human rights etc. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established in "WASHINGTON D.C." in 1946 to provide guidance for whaling yadda yadda yadda, in 1986 a moratorium on commercial whaling was signed and has not yet been lifted. Japan is a signatory of the IWC.
I could be wrong, but 1) these treaties only exist as long as the country continues to agree to it, and 2) these treaties are toothless - more symbolic than meaningful. No penalties, no fines, no nothing - purely a feel-good measure with no teeth or enforcement measures. Just because a commission was established in the US and has some signatories means absolutely nothing (Human Rights Commission, anyone?)
mfotis:
Third, US law extends further than the US, it affects US citizens abroad, think of the "Child Protect Act" also, people who commit crime against the US are subject to US law that’s why we have extradition treaties. .
Correct, but while technically true, there's no enforcement mechanism unless the other country actually decides to comply. If a country thumbs it's nose at the treaty, there's no particular way to do anything about it.
mfotis:
Fourth, hunting whale has nothing to do with oil, Japan is using the scientific loophole to hunt whale. The Japanese government actually subsidizes the whale industry and most of the whales that are killed stay in Japan since there is no market for export. Mainly, the Japanese hunt whale because they can get away with it under the current treaty and because it part of their culture.
True. But I'm not sure how much of the ban on whaling is really about endangered species, and how much of it is like the ban on eating horses - a strong element of one country imposing it's cultural beliefs on another. Honestly, this is kind of a case-by-case issue for me - obviously, there are many times when a Western culture has every right to impose it's beliefs on another country (women's rights, genocide, etc, being some of the biggest). But in this case, like I said above, since I'm not entirely sure whether the species of whales they're hunting are actually endangered or just on paper/a list, I don't really have an opinion on whether it should be allowed or not
mfotis:
Fifth, there will never be an international ban on beef as beef is an excepted form of food and has been since the beginning of time (except in counties where they find the cow holy) and beef is farmed raised for slaughter. Whales are by no means farm raised.
No argument
mfotis:
Sixth, and this is a bit of trivia for those who don’t know. The US has legal jurisdiction on all land outside the US that does not fall under a sovereign government and that has bat guano on it. That’s right folks if a bat takes a dump on and island and that island isn’t part of another county, it’s subject to US law. Now, you ask how is this possible and the answer is: because we’re a world power and that’s the way it is.
The bottom line is that the idiots who are portrayed in this show are no better than the Somali pirates if and when the move past being an annoyance. If they attack the ship regardless of what they attack with or board the ship they can be charged with piracy. Hell, Green Peace doesn’t even want to be associated with them.
There will be a 7th, 8th, and 9th as I see more comments that are based on opinion rather than fact.
Oh dear God I LOVE miso soup of any stripe. For some reason when I make it at home, it gives me the sh!ts afterwards something awful, but I can't stop eating the stuff
One persons fuzzy wuzzy wittle guy is anothers food. Dogs, cats, horses, whales. The problem I think is that people assign too much of thier idyllic views onto actuall animals. I don't have a problem with the responsible harvesting of any animal as long as it is sustainable. Wether or not the Japanese adhere to that I can't say.
Fifth, there will never be an international ban on beef as beef is an excepted form of food and has been since the beginning of time (except in counties where they find the cow holy) and beef is farmed raised for slaughter. Whales are by no means farm raised.
If you've ever been to Japan it doesn't have a midwest to raise cows on farms. Beef is extremely expensive in Japan becasue they have very limited space. Their diet is more dependant on sea food than the states because of this.
Beef being an excepted food and whale not is an opinion not a fact. What organization decides what is an excepted food?
It's not an opinion that beef is an excepted form of meat it’s raised almost world wide for food; I would have to say the moratorium on whaling as a food source is not an opinion it is a fact. Japan, is a signatory of this treaty. Also, Japan has Kobe beef. I’ve been to Japan and they have plenty of grassland to raise beef. Whale meat isn’t replacing beef in Japan it’s a luxury food. An independent study commissioned by Green Peace, (I know GP is anti whaling but they had a Japanese research company do the study) showed that the everyday Japanese person doesn’t even eat whale meat.
There are some people who still do eat whale meat. I can walk down the street and buy whale meat. If there was no demand that store wouldn't be there. It isn't as popular with the younger generation as it is with the older ones and I feel it will die out, but that decision is for them to make not us.
How would you feel if the non-smokers decided they were going to impose a ban smoking? Do you have any issue with Norway or US Esikmo's hunting whales?
How would you feel if the non-smokers decided they were going to impose a ban smoking? Do you have any issue with Norway or US Esikmo's hunting whales?
Just to jump in here:
In answer to the first of these questions, it's not a hypothetical, it's happening and it's pissing me off. To answer the second, I'm good with it, if they're using kayaks. Gotta respect that kind of courage.
How would you feel if the non-smokers decided they were going to impose a ban smoking? Do you have any issue with Norway or US Esikmo's hunting whales?
Just to jump in here:
In answer to the first of these questions, it's not a hypothetical, it's happening and it's pissing me off. To answer the second, I'm good with it, if they're using kayaks. Gotta respect that kind of courage.
Exactly, I have a problem with someone telling someone else they can't do something when that something doesn't infringe on their rights.
mfotis - I'm gonna have a whack at your stuff here. I don't particularly care about whaling one way or the other; on the one hand I think endangered species obviously should be protected, but then again, once a species is listed as "endangered", it's almost never unlisted - there's no real mechanism in place to assure that once a population reaches a healthy level, that it's allowed to be harvested. As it stands now, the "endangered" label seems permanent, regardless of population.
I have no idea if they're on the endangered list or not, I wasnt despelling that idea.
mfotis:
OK ppl lets get a grip. First I don’t support whaling. Second it's against international law. Now, for those you who don’t understand this; The US and other signature countries do answer to International law, that’s why it's called "International Law". Int. law allows the world leaders to try and convict war criminals in The Hague, intervene when other countries are violating human rights etc. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established in "WASHINGTON D.C." in 1946 to provide guidance for whaling yadda yadda yadda, in 1986 a moratorium on commercial whaling was signed and has not yet been lifted. Japan is a signatory of the IWC.
xmacro:
I could be wrong, but 1) these treaties only exist as long as the country continues to agree to it, and 2) these treaties are toothless - more symbolic than meaningful. No penalties, no fines, no nothing - purely a feel-good measure with no teeth or enforcement measures. Just because a commission was established in the US and has some signatories means absolutely nothing (Human Rights Commission, anyone?)
Your right, sorta, to enforce these treaties we and other countries place emabargos or threatin to place embargos on non-compliant countries. Thats how it's enforced globally. I believe we got Japan to play ball on the whaling issue by telling them that we wouldnt let them import fish to the US. - Have to check on this though but I thought I read this somewhere.
mfotis:
Third, US law extends further than the US, it affects US citizens abroad, think of the "Child Protect Act" also, people who commit crime against the US are subject to US law that’s why we have extradition treaties.
xmacro:
Correct, but while technically true, there's no enforcement mechanism unless the other country actually decides to comply. If a country thumbs it's nose at the treaty, there's no particular way to do anything about it.
Again, these treaties are enforced by applying diplomatic pressure, withholding money, etc. And every country we sign an extradition treaty with is different and we usually know the rules up front, i.e. France won't extradite if the death penalty is an option at sentencing.
mfotis:
Fourth, hunting whale has nothing to do with oil, Japan is using the scientific loophole to hunt whale. The Japanese government actually subsidizes the whale industry and most of the whales that are killed stay in Japan since there is no market for export. Mainly, the Japanese hunt whale because they can get away with it under the current treaty and because it part of their culture.
xmacro:
True. But I'm not sure how much of the ban on whaling is really about endangered species, and how much of it is like the ban on eating horses - a strong element of one country imposing it's cultural beliefs on another. Honestly, this is kind of a case-by-case issue for me - obviously, there are many times when a Western culture has every right to impose it's beliefs on another country (women's rights, genocide, etc, being some of the biggest). But in this case, like I said above, since I'm not entirely sure whether the species of whales they're hunting are actually endangered or just on paper/a list, I don't really have an opinion on whether it should be allowed or not
I agree, I don't know if the ban was based on whales being endangered or not, I just know it's in place.
man this thread got a lot more serious than i thought it would. i watched all of last season but it wasn't due to me supporting their cause, i don't care either way, i really just wanted to see one of the japanese ships ram thier boat or something. i'm not hoping for anyone to get hurt though.
deadliest catch is way more entertaining to me.
man this thread got a lot more serious than i thought it would. i watched all of last season but it wasn't due to me supporting their cause, i don't care either way, i really just wanted to see one of the japanese ships ram thier boat or something. i'm not hoping for anyone to get hurt though.
deadliest catch is way more entertaining to me.
man this thread got a lot more serious than i thought it would. i watched all of last season but it wasn't due to me supporting their cause, i don't care either way, i really just wanted to see one of the japanese ships ram thier boat or something. i'm not hoping for anyone to get hurt though.
deadliest catch is way more entertaining to me.
Comments
I could be wrong, but 1) these treaties only exist as long as the country continues to agree to it, and 2) these treaties are toothless - more symbolic than meaningful. No penalties, no fines, no nothing - purely a feel-good measure with no teeth or enforcement measures. Just because a commission was established in the US and has some signatories means absolutely nothing (Human Rights Commission, anyone?)
Correct, but while technically true, there's no enforcement mechanism unless the other country actually decides to comply. If a country thumbs it's nose at the treaty, there's no particular way to do anything about it.
True. But I'm not sure how much of the ban on whaling is really about endangered species, and how much of it is like the ban on eating horses - a strong element of one country imposing it's cultural beliefs on another. Honestly, this is kind of a case-by-case issue for me - obviously, there are many times when a Western culture has every right to impose it's beliefs on another country (women's rights, genocide, etc, being some of the biggest). But in this case, like I said above, since I'm not entirely sure whether the species of whales they're hunting are actually endangered or just on paper/a list, I don't really have an opinion on whether it should be allowed or not No argument No argument
There are some people who still do eat whale meat. I can walk down the street and buy whale meat. If there was no demand that store wouldn't be there. It isn't as popular with the younger generation as it is with the older ones and I feel it will die out, but that decision is for them to make not us.
How would you feel if the non-smokers decided they were going to impose a ban smoking? Do you have any issue with Norway or US Esikmo's hunting whales?
Exactly, I have a problem with someone telling someone else they can't do something when that something doesn't infringe on their rights.
Again, these treaties are enforced by applying diplomatic pressure, withholding money, etc. And every country we sign an extradition treaty with is different and we usually know the rules up front, i.e. France won't extradite if the death penalty is an option at sentencing.
I agree, I don't know if the ban was based on whales being endangered or not, I just know it's in place.
deadliest catch is way more entertaining to me.