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.

“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.

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. 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.