Whale of a Tale

March 17th, 2007
Go to Comments Leave a comment

I went to Jo’s place again, this time to celebrate the birth of his granddaughter, and met with Masashi from the City Office as well. The three of us dined on hamburg steaks (yes, hamburg, not hamburger), shumai, and whale. Oh yes, I said whale. I have now crossed it off of my list. Horse is next. We then bummed around Jo’s place, went to a bar and sang karaoke, and engaged in your average celebratory merrymaking. Anyway, enjoy the video, and then if you’d like to, read the extended post. I somehow wound up writing about whales, whaling, and Japan. But first, the pictures.


I am surprised at how strongly people react to this topic. I’ve already gotten in trouble with 2 people who were both horrified and disgusted when I told them that I’d tried whale meat. This really put me in a funk. To me, I’d had an interesting gastronomic adventure, and to my good friends I’d committed a heinous crime. I hope that you’ll forgive me if you think me a meat criminal. I don’t like it when people don’t like me or think poorly of me, and I fought with myself over whether or not to publish this post. I’m a people pleaser, and upsetting people is far from my priority list. Please take that into account as you read. If you’re bothered, please find a different post that you’ll enjoy. If you’re ok, then please read on. This is an opinion piece.

When a friend of mine directed my attention to an article in the New York Times, I was amused. There has been some more recent media attention for Japan and its relationship with whales lately. This is due in no small part to the fisherman recently killed in an attempt to help a sperm whale. It’s also highly political, because of Japan’s whaling program. Japan cannot technically commercially whale, because it is a member of the International Whaling Commission and therefore subject to its moratorium, but it does so under special scientific permit. This is a mighty hairy topic for a lot of people. Personally, I think whaling in general (for commercial or scientific reasons) is fine. Don’t get me wrong - I love whales, and don’t want them to die, so please don’t hate me. Ha ha. I simply have no qualms about hunting them. Japan is certain that it could operate a sustainable commercial whaling operation, and I am cool with that. (Whether it is doing so currently under the guise of its JARPA program or not is not for me to say.)

I think most people think of Orcas or Humpback whales when they think of a whale. I also think that most people think poorly of the whaling practice because of the grisly Nantucket sleighride style of harpooning. Something bothers them about killing a graceful, large animal in such an unsightly manner. I certainly understand that. They also bring up the idea that whales are endangered. A “whale” is what, exactly? There are many kinds of whales, and Japan doesn’t hunt them indiscriminately. Japan goes after Minke whales and a few Bryde’s whales each year. Minke whales make up the vast majority of the total take (87% of the total take in 2005, I believe). Guess what? These whales are not endangered. (Though, in the interest of full disclosure, Japan does take very small numbers of Sei, Fin, and Sperm whales. The first two are endangered, the latter is classified as vulnerable.) But Minke whales and Bryde’s whales? I checked the IUCN red list database. Minke whales are still considered “lower risk,” though they may slide into “near threatened” status eventually. Bryde’s whales aren’t really classified at all; they bear a “data deficient” marker. Sure, it may be nitpicky, but the point is - the whales Japan goes after aren’t endangered. In fact, check out this quote from the article to which I linked above.

Most biologists agree that certain species of whales, including the minke, have not only recovered but are now thriving. Disagreement remains, however, about whether they can be harvested in a sustainable way or whether they are now so numerous that, as Japan asserts, they are threatening other marine animals.

One thing I noticed, while thinking about this, was that we handle these stories strangely. I think that the opinion decisions the general population makes, as non-experts, should not be based on feelings. We anthropomorphize animals in the news all the time. Just look at other videos of freak encounters between people and whales. The “angry” whale “attacks” someone. Um, right. The whale reacted to a really odd situation like a whale would. That’s all. This is dissimilar to a shark attack, where the intent is feeding, but the result is a confused freakout. No, no malice was in the whale’s heart for the evil men killing its family. Animals are animals - highly evolved or otherwise. That’s all.

But I digress. We should not take conservation lightly. I’m not a person who enjoys the thought of killing animals, and I’m not saying that I advocate whaling practices, either. I do, however, think that banning them outright is a bit off. I’ve had the pleasure of being to the two most hotly contested whaling countries in the world, now. (That’s Norway and Japan, folks.) While some like to be humorous about whaling (Norway’s “Intelligent food for intelligent people” and “If we had dolphins, we’d kill them too” slogans, for instance - and yes, I find them darkly humorous), I do think it’s worth considering. Overhunting was a problem, and could be again if people aren’t careful. However, with the ability to monitor the whale populations, I see no reason not to allow commercial whaling of viable whales. It is in the economic interest of the companies hunting and profiting from them to keep their populations robust. After all, if the whales go away, the whaling industry goes away. It’s an ironically symbiotic relationship. Lastly, it seems odd to me that for all the outrage toward America and its cultural imperialist tendencies (not my words or beliefs), the American-led environmental movement is given carte blanche and virtually no friction in raising cane about things like this. We haven’t succeeded at managing things in our own country, but we are more than willing to ask others to follow our lead on this type of thing. Check out the case of Yellowstone National Park and the mismanagement of the elk population if you want some really good ponderworthy material. It’s interesting. But I’ll save that for another entry - probably the global warming one. That one is bound to make me tons of new friends too. (Yes. It was sarcastic.)

Anyway, as of yesterday, I have eaten whale. I mean, I had to try it before it was banned. You know? Also, I lied in the video. It has a strong smell, and a heavy taste. Won’t be eating it again, to everyone’s relief, I’m sure. Sigh. Feel free to respond and tell me how you feel about the issue, but let’s keep it civilized, folks. I know people disagree. And I’d love to talk about it. But no flames, ok?

  • Subscribe to Rocking in Hakata
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Technorati
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Japan Soc it!
  • TwitThis

Deas Customary Drivel, JBMatsuri, Media, Photos, Politics, RIH Entries, Unsolicited Commentary, Video

Hit JapanSoc.com today for the best social news about Japan!
Join JapanSoc.org to get plugged into the J-web community.
  • Scott
    Clearly you have never seen the fourth Star Trek movie.

    I'm just kidding. LOL.
  • There are too many whales! Why do you think they're throwing themselves into oncoming boats? It's the whale form of suicide.

    In all honesty, I don't think whaling is such a big deal in moderate quantities. I think it's odd that everyone focuses on the whales in the present day, when tuna is facing a bigger threat. (Everyone loves toro! Savory, savory toro.)

    Killing a whale for food is like killing any other animal for food. Americans are particularly put off by the unfamiliar. For example, most Americans are completely horrified when they hear that some Koreans eat dog meat. What they don't understand is that the dogs aren't the domesticated types. Instead, they are specifically bred and raised for consumption. Even so, I don't want to eat it, but I don't think someone who does is a criminal.

    By the way, I had horse at kaitenzushi, and I can't say that it was delicious, but I also didn't find it offensive.
  • Actually, Scott, I haven't...hahaha. But after reading this synopsis, I kind of wish that I'd referenced it. I should probably see it. What's wild is that it plays into the next opinion entry too. Ha ha - thanks for the comment.

    Alex, I pretty much agree with what you said, though I'm pretty uneducated about the tuna problem. By the way, I've added you to my Blogroll. :-) Also, your baby is cute. Ha ha.
  • Bonnie
    Deas, I love you for the fact that when we were kids you never wanted anything with "stuff" on it, or that was remotely sophisticated. And now you will try anything once. I mean you've had whale, wildebeast, ostrich, kangaroo, etc. I find most of that gross, but you are cool for trying it.

    Also, that is the cutest baby ever! She is soooo adorable with those little pudgy cheeks! But what on earth is a monkey-fish? and how is that endearing?
  • Yeah, see, I rationalize that by claiming that when I was younger everything actually was gross. Somewhere along the line, the world caught up and started serving me palatable food. I dunno when. Sure, that makes no sense. But try arguing about it. Ha ha.
  • Bonnie
    AHHHH! Thanks to you I cant get the "Whale of a Tale" Disney song out of my head!!!!!
  • Bonnie - My daughter is a lot of things, including a monkey-fish. She's also a monster, boo boo, and monku-chan (Ms. Whiner). In public she goes by the name Lani Lee.
  • Bonnie
    But she is sooooooooo cute! I mean you just want to tickle her and make that adorable little giggle come out.
  • Ha ha ha - why are the comments in my whale meat entry all about Alex's baby? He has a site too! It's on my blogroll! Visit it and talk about his cute baby there! Ha ha. I feel like I'm stealing his comments. (Sorry, Alex.) :-P
  • Scott
    Well, we'll have to watch it one day when you're not galavanting around Asia :-D
  • Hi,

    I don't think much of the IUCN ratings in terms of usefulness for conservation, in fact they tend to confuse the situation. The IWC manages whales not on a global species basis (the unit in which the IUCN classifies whale species) but on a "stock" or distinct sub-population basis.

    The minke whale is pretty much abundant everywhere (although the "J-stock" in the Sea of Japan has been controversial in previous years)

    The Sei whale is regarded by the Japanese as being quite abundant in the Western North Pacific. They see more of these in their sighting surveys than they see minke whales (for which an RMP implementation has also been completed), although Sei whales are bigger which makes them easier to spot. Apparently they were more severely exploited in the Southern Hemisphere though, so may still be classed as "Endangered" by the IUCN because of this.

    Similarly for the fin whale, Iceland's local population is known to be at a high level of abundance, but there is less agreement on fin whales in the Antarctic. Japan believes through it's sighting programmes there that they are increasing at a biologically high rate, but it is likely that they need to pile up more evidence and have independent confirmations before it is more accepted internationally. I personally don't think they are making up fairy tales - time will tell, and Japan's abundance estimates for other species have been accepted and used by other scientists in the past.

    The Bryde's whale is as you say "DD", yet the Western North Pacific population is due to have an "RMP implementation" completed for it at this year's IWC Scientific Committee meeting just started. This essentially indicates that commercial whaling of this species could be managed on available scientific advice if the IWC wished to permit it, and that the population is in a healthy state.

    Sperm whales is the best one - apparently more than million worldwide, yet still listed as "Endangered" by the US Government.

    As you see on my blog, I hope that the status of whale populations is reported in the western media in more detail. It's not just whales either. In fact Australia, while criticising Iceland and Japan for hunting "Endangered" fin whales, itself has an industry based on the exploitation of the Southern Bluefin Tuna, which the IUCN has listed as "Critically Endangered". Ignoring Australia's hypocrisy, the IUCN listings may be useful where there is no competent management authority overseeing the exploitation of the species, but their ratings can be counterproductive for sound science based decision making in other cases concerning whales and tuna (my opinion!).
  • Like I said, I really wish I'd found your blog, David. Everyone who is reading through this post for the first time should really do yourselves a favor and read David's stuff at his blog, David @ Tokyo. He's far more thoroughly versed in the topic, and I think it would be really helpful if you're looking for more than merely my ponderings on the subject. :-)
  • Peter
    "The first two are endangered, the latter is classified as vulnerable.) But Minke whales and Bryde’s whales? I checked the IUCN red list database. Minke whales are still considered “lower risk,” though they may slide into “near threatened” status eventually. Bryde’s whales aren’t really classified at all; they bear a “data deficient” marker. Sure, it may be nitpicky, but the point is - the whales Japan goes after aren’t endangered. In fact, check out this quote from the article to which I linked above."

    In one breath there are whales being hunted that are endangered, in the next the whales Japan goes after are not endangered. Sounds like you are trying to paint a pretty picture here.

    "I also think that most people think poorly of the whaling practice because of the grisly Nantucket sleighride style of harpooning. Something bothers them about killing a graceful, large animal in such an unsightly manner."

    No, people have seen recent footage of recent hunts whereby whales are killed using explosive-tipped harpoons. Many whales die slow deaths. If we were back in the days of the Nantucket sleighride, I think many would agree at least the whale had an even chance, although even then it was a cruel practice. Some seem inclined to consistently point out that other forms of harvesting are equally cruel. Bringing up other examples in order to detract from the topic of whaling being cruel is as useful as saying there is human rights abuse in many countries around the world therefore we should not be too concerned about Somalia. Whaling is cruel, and the Japanese dolphin drives are even worse. The dolphins hunted are not endangered, but as human beings with some sort of self-appointed superiority, we should be mindful of how much suffering we inflict on others, human or not. Much literatures exists on the social aspects of whales and dolphins. If these animals are to be respected for having culture and high cognitive abilities, they do not deserve to die in an inhumane manner.

    "It is in the economic interest of the companies hunting and profiting from them to keep their populations robust."

    That argument, which makes common sense, should have worked last time around, but it didn't, and stocks of large whales collapsed. With the Norwegian and Japanese hunts continually increasing, and their disrespect for the work of international scientists who do not agree with whaling, it seems likely we will see history repeat, not on a global species level, but at a population level.

    "We haven’t succeeded at managing things in our own country, but we are more than willing to ask others to follow our lead on this type of thing."

    There is little point in comparing whales to elk or tuna. If you are talking about the whaling debate, deal with the issue at hand, don't compare and fingerpoint. Bare in mind that the Japanese programs are concentrating on migratory species, some which pass through waters of countries who do not support whaling, who have established whale sanctuaries, and who have whale watch industries.

    "To me, I’d had an interesting gastronomic adventure, and to my good friends I’d committed a heinous crime. I hope that you’ll forgive me if you think me a meat criminal. I don’t like it when people don’t like me or think poorly of me, and I fought with myself over whether or not to publish this post. I’m a people pleaser, and upsetting people is far from my priority list."

    When people choose to eat meat, they should think about what that animal went through in order for them to have their gastronomic adventure. You seem convinced whaling is not cruel or detrimental to whale species' survival. If you don't like people thinking poorly of you, ask yourself was it worth it.

    No responses to anything from david at tokyo. Away from your back slapping, he is largely seen as ill-informed, amongst other things.
  • Hi there. I see that you're pretty firmly anti-whaling. Knowing that, my guess is that nothing anyone says here will sway you. In spite of that, I'll quickly respond to your thoughts.

    In one breath there are whales being hunted that are endangered, in the next the whales Japan goes after are not endangered. Sounds like you are trying to paint a pretty picture here.


    It's not painting a pretty picture. If you want to be the editing police, that's fine - I never claimed to be a great writer. However, the facts stand. The overwhelming majority of whales that Japan takes are not endangered.

    No, people have seen recent footage of recent hunts whereby whales are killed using explosive-tipped harpoons. Many whales die slow deaths. If we were back in the days of the Nantucket sleighride, I think many would agree at least the whale had an even chance, although even then it was a cruel practice. Some seem inclined to consistently point out that other forms of harvesting are equally cruel. Bringing up other examples in order to detract from the topic of whaling being cruel is as useful as saying there is human rights abuse in many countries around the world therefore we should not be too concerned about Somalia. Whaling is cruel, and the Japanese dolphin drives are even worse. The dolphins hunted are not endangered, but as human beings with some sort of self-appointed superiority, we should be mindful of how much suffering we inflict on others, human or not. Much literatures [sic] exists on the social aspects of whales and dolphins. If these animals are to be respected for having culture and high cognitive abilities, they do not deserve to die in an inhumane manner.


    You can choose to respect these animals and make a moral case out of it. I have a problem with you mandating that others should follow suit. You are not the arbiter of international morality. If you can think of a more humane, economically viable method for killing whales, by all means suggest it.

    That argument, which makes common sense, should have worked last time around, but it didn’t, and stocks of large whales collapsed. With the Norwegian and Japanese hunts continually increasing, and their disrespect for the work of international scientists who do not agree with whaling, it seems likely we will see history repeat, not on a global species level, but at a population level.


    Why does the disrespect for scientists who disagree whaling count more than the disrespect for scientists who agree with it? The source material included information from biologists. They don't count because they don't agree with you? My problem with the scientists who disagree with whaling is that they don't often do so on scientific terms. It's a question of ethics or philosophy for many of them.

    Also, did we have the ability to accurately track whale populations the last time around? Are you against trying things twice? Seems to be a weak point at best.

    There is little point in comparing whales to elk or tuna. If you are talking about the whaling debate, deal with the issue at hand, don’t compare and fingerpoint. Bare in mind that the Japanese programs are concentrating on migratory species, some which pass through waters of countries who do not support whaling, who have established whale sanctuaries, and who have whale watch industries.


    There is every reason to compare whaling to other controversial environmental management problems. The arrogance of those who believe that human control over the population of a given animal is in the best interest of that animal is alarming to me. The environmental movement and even the conservation movement to some degree have completely destroyed projects that they've touched before. Why is that not relevant now?

    When people choose to eat meat, they should think about what that animal went through in order for them to have their gastronomic adventure. You seem convinced whaling is not cruel or detrimental to whale species’ survival. If you don’t like people thinking poorly of you, ask yourself was it worth it.


    Was it worth it? YES. In fact, I said if I liked whale meat's taste, I'd surely do it again. I encourage other people to try it. I don't have a problem killing animals for food. Do you understand that? They kill each other for food. We kill them for food. Given the chance, they kill us for food. It's the way the world works. I do not feel guilty about it. And I only care about bothering people who have my respect. You don't, so I really don't give a rip what you think of me.

    No responses to anything from david at tokyo. Away from your back slapping, he is largely seen as ill-informed, amongst other things.


    Well, that's to be expected from someone who disagrees with everything that he says. It's safe to say that people who disagree with you consider you ill-informed and arrogant about it. Amongst other things. ;-)
  • Peter
    "Knowing that, my guess is that nothing anyone says here will sway you."

    Your response to me ably demonstrates that this actually applies to you.

    You clearly have little understanding of the issues but a great ability to regurgitate what others have written elsewhere. You have managed to contradict yourself and show ignorance on a number of levels, along with (either cleverly or stupidly) demonstrating a lack of comprehending the actual points I have raised.

    "I have a problem with you mandating that others should follow suit.You are not the arbiter of international morality."

    That is your interpretation of what I have written. I have not mandated that others should follow suit.
    "I encourage other people to try it. "
    This however, is clearly "mandating" that others should follow suit.

    "And I only care about bothering people who have my respect. You don’t, so I really don’t give a rip what you think of me."

    Trust me, I don't want your respect and you don't want to know what I think of you.
  • Ah, Peter. You like to call me out, claiming that I'm unoriginal. That's probably true. I hear things that I agree with and things that I disagree with, and tend to gravitate toward those with whom I'm more in line. Nothing wrong with that. Logically, philosophically, and morally, I line up better with people who tend to take an anti-anti-whaling position. That's just not you. No hard feelings.

    You like to analyze what I say and point out what you think are flaws or problems, but you never really make your case. Pointing out things that detract from my presentation does not equate to proving your rightness. You know? (In the same way, this comment does not verify my correct thinking just because you've not offered a shred of a substantial argument. It merely points it out that lack.)

    Anyhoo, I want to thank you, Peter. You're my first ever troll. That's not to say that your ideas aren't welcome here - I just feel like you're more angry about this issue than you are ready to discuss it. Either way, thanks for your comments. :-)
  • Peter
    Is this blog limited to those you know Deas? Is it exclusive to only those who agree with you on issue your write about? Because I have presented a different view from your own does that make me a troll?

    I am not angry, and that is yet another misinterpretation. I have tried to discuss this topic, but as you have basically said yourself, there is not much point in a discussion with someone when their mind is made up (which yours clearly is), especially when they resort to labeling you as a troll simply for putting forward other evidence and views. Perhaps you should think about warning posters that you only appreciate like-minded thinkers.
  • Peter - seriously, think about it - this blog? It's on the internet, so it is obviously a public forum. Are the people who visit it mostly random or mostly acquaintances? I'd be lying if I said they didn't correlate for the most part. What I wrote in my previous comment applies again.

    I hear things that I agree with and things that I disagree with, and tend to gravitate toward those with whom I’m more in line. Nothing wrong with that. Logically, philosophically, and morally, I line up better with people who tend to take an anti-anti-whaling position. That’s just not you. No hard feelings.


    So yeah, I guess people who like what I write tend to read my blog...what's your point? Only like-minded people are appreciated here? You have no problems posting here. I obviously don't shut people down when they don't agree with me.

    I apologize for misinterpreting your prior comments and for possibly improperly characterizing you as both angry and a troll. While you do put forth other views, you have offered little to no evidence for them. In fact, I feel like you just disagree with me and leave it at that, as though your notions are self-evident truths. They're not. But then again, maybe you're right and I'm set in my thinking. I'd really like to believe that I could be swayed by someone presenting a decent argument - not just a disagreement. I think things for reasons, and I assume you do too. But you've got to lay it out for me in order to change my opinion - and even then only if it's particularly persuasive, based on salient points. I think that's entirely reasonable. Writing people off as "uninformed" needs qualification. I promise not to write you off as a troll until you've further qualified yourself. So. Why do you think we're wrong? What do you have that can change our minds? If at the end we're still at an impasse, then so be it - we can call it a stalemate and go our separate ways. Or you'll convince me. Or maybe you'll find yourself convinced. I dunno.

    Until then, insulting me, my ability to think for myself, my blog, the other people who visit my blog, etc. I gotta say, it doesn't really help your case.
  • Peter
    I believe the insults were on both sides.

    It is very hard to present facts and cases here for all the various issues surrounding the whaling debate. You can go into the history, cultural aspects, animal welfare concerns, population sustainability, commerce, and so it goes on. It is not my intention to take up space here detailing each point. This is not a cop-out, simply a realisation that space is limited and any effort may be wasted anyway.

    There are always going to be those who can argue their view the other way. I have witnessed this many times, and the debate usually dissolves into name-calling and nastiness. Many times the facts are not revealed or they are misconstrued or deliberately twisted or cherry-picked.

    The whaling debate (and I am only talking about whaling here) is very complex. It is an emotional topic, and that is hard to separate from science because humans are, in essence, emotional beings. The emotive aspect is present on both sides of the debate, although it is often only attributed to one.

    I have problems with whaling for many reasons. The logic for my reasons are based on both science and emotion. I am a trained biologist, and I am perfectly capable of separating the two. I have tried above to draw attention to some of the arguments against whaling that you have raised for it. Granted I have not gone into huge detail, and I think I have explained this by saying space is a constraint along with whether it will make any difference to anyone's opinion. On this last point, I don't believe it will make any difference to your way of thinking, and will therefore be a waste of both our time. For people who do want to learn more about whaling and be informed in their decisions, there are neutral resources on the web, including journal articles.
  • Hey again Peter. I think we're arguing this from completely different viewpoints. (Duh.) I am not concerned with the morality or ethics of whaling, excepting that I believe it should be done in a sustainable manner. Because I believe that this is completely viable, I am not opposed to whaling. (Doesn't make me a cheerleader of it. Just an anti-anti-whaling person.) In order to justify my argument, I cited the IUCN Red List and my own (amateur) analysis of problems people have with whaling on an emotional level. David has loads and loads of information from various organizations, and you just wrote him off entirely. Unfortunately, thus far, you haven't supported anything you've said. You've just countered what I've said by calling it wrong or ill informed or ignorant, take your pick. But even if you think that about my argument, it's my argument. You haven't made one. You've mentioned that you're a biologist. You've basically told me to do your homework for you and prove why you are right to myself. "Go look up why I'm right" is not a winning argument. Neither is "there isn't enough space." Contrary to your last comment, I think they're both cop-outs of sorts.

    But I digress. You have said the following.

    Whaling is cruel, and the Japanese dolphin drives are even worse. The dolphins hunted are not endangered, but as human beings with some sort of self-appointed superiority, we should be mindful of how much suffering we inflict on others, human or not. Much literatures [sic] exists on the social aspects of whales and dolphins. If these animals are to be respected for having culture and high cognitive abilities, they do not deserve to die in an inhumane manner.


    I think that this is the crux of your argument. I'm trying to say that the "whales are endangered" line of reasoning that anti-whaling folks brandish all too readily is a flawed line of reasoning. But your line of reasoning is entirely different. You value whales differently than I do. To me, whales are animals, the same as other animals. And I explained before why I think it's ok to hunt them. You seem to be upset with humankind's power inside and/or over the animal kingdom, because mistreatment and abuse can occur. I just don't think that whaling is either of those things.

    You clearly have little understanding of the issues but a great ability to regurgitate what others have written elsewhere. You have managed to contradict yourself and show ignorance on a number of levels, along with (either cleverly or stupidly) demonstrating a lack of comprehending the actual points I have raised. (Emphasis added.)


    What are the actual points that you've raised? Here's a list that I came up with. Forgive me if I'm stupidly demonstrating a lack of comprehension here, and point out any that I missed. 1) Whaling is cruel. 2) Dolphin drives are worse than whaling. [See point 7.] 3) Many whales die slow deaths. 4) Explosive-tipped harpoons are worse than Nantucket sleighrides, because the whales had a fair chance back then. 5) People should be mindful of the suffering we inflict on other creatures. 6) International scientists who don't agree with whaling are sometimes disrespected. 7) Whaling is not comparable to other things. Doing so is an evasion of the subject. 8) If you want people to like you, you should be anti-whaling. 9) You are a biologist. I am not. 10) There is so much proof for your side of the argument that the space limitations prevent you from citing your sources, and citing them wouldn't convince me anyway. 11) You are capable of separating science and emotion. Your argument is based on science available in journals online. 12) Star Trek IV says whaling is bad. (Ok, in fairness, my buddy Scott threw that in at the beginning as a joke.) :-)

    My anti-anti-whaling points could be summed up as: 1) We anthropomorphize whales (and other animals) in the media to drum up emotional reactions to their fates. This has an impact on environmental policy, which ends up being empathy driven instead of factually driven. 2) "Whales" are not a single creature, so stating that "whales are endangered" is entirely meaningless. 3) The whales that Japan routinely hunts are not endangered. 4) The IUCN Red List is being updated to reflect the growth of multiple controversial whale populations. The same ones that Japan is castigated for hunting. 5) The start of whaling in Japan is arguably America's responsibility - and the pressure for halting whaling is also from the West. This might be seen as a politically charged environmental form of cultural imperialism, whereby a larger, more powerful country causes a smaller, less powerful country to bend to its will. 6) I've never seen Star Trek IV and cannot be held responsible for its contents. :-P

    I think that my arguments have a more factual basis than yours do, though I do insert my opinion into them. I think I can make flipside conversational arguments about some of what you said, too. For instance, scientists who advocate anti-whaling policies are disrespected. Which of our points are more valid? Do either of them make our arguments stronger? I don't think so. Just because someone maligns an opponent doesn't mean that the maligned person is correct... I think you'd agree with me there, at least. Anyway, you mentioned some neutral sources. I may argue their neutrality, just as you've argued the neutrality of David's information. (Well, just flatly written it off, anyway.) Give yourself a shot at convincing me, and link me up to some things. I've linked you up to what I was talking about. It's fair.

    For people who do want to learn more about whaling and be informed in their decisions, there are neutral resources on the web, including journal articles.


    Let's have some. And feel free to correct any points that I've skewed trying to be humorous. (And / or include your own list of points that you think I've made.) If I am as ignorant about this as you charge, I'd like to fix that. If I'm not, though, at least I can try to better understand where you're coming from (on the factual side of things). I think you'd agree with me that we feel totally different about the sanctity of whales' lives. Yes?
  • Peter
    Deas - I am about to go on a week's leave for a field trip. I am not making this up to evade you. If you choose to think so, you choose.

    "I think you’d agree with me that we feel totally different about the sanctity of whales’ lives. Yes?"

    It would appear that way.

    "“Go look up why I’m right” is not a winning argument. Neither is “there isn’t enough space.” Contrary to your last comment, I think they’re both cop-outs of sorts."

    I did not write "go look up why I am right." Please do not attribute quotes to me that I did not make. If that is the tact you are going to take, clearly there is no point in responding to you. This is the sort of thing I mean when I write that there is a tendency to misrepresent what others have said/written in this debate. It makes progression of dialogue useless.

    I will respond when I return. I'm afraid I have other more pressing issues right now, especially if I am going to be wasting my time in formulating a reply.
  • More of the same. I was using quote-marks in that case to set off a chunk of text (not attributed to you, I might add) from the rest of the sentence. Nitpicky, but an understandable gripe. Technically, you never said "there isn't enough space" either. Paraphrasing done for ease of expression. Either way, it wasn't intentionally pernicious on my part. If it bugs you, I'll use dashes next time. Either way, the fact remains that go-look-up-why-I'm-right is not persuasive. That meaning is what I read in that quote. I put the actual quote in at the end of my comment. You're free to challenge my readings of your comments. I don't want to malign you.

    I laid out what points I thought you'd made in your earlier comments, and you're free to correct me on any of them. I also invited you to make a list of points that you think I've made and compare it to the list (of points I thought I'd made) that I made for myself. I'm with you in that I don't want to misrepresent what others say. Anyway, I hope your field trip goes well for you and wish you luck with your stuff. If you still feel inclined to post when you're back, I'll gladly reply. (And I certainly understand scheduling issues. I have many myself.) Later.
blog comments powered by Disqus