[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 237 KB, 409x453, twiggy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3881380 No.3881380 [Reply] [Original]

Let's play devil's advocate for a moment here.

Most people in first-world societies are anti-whaling.

Why would you support whaling?

Twiggy not related.

>> No.3881384

Whales taste great.

>> No.3881385

>>3881380

Liberty.

>> No.3881406

Being a complete faggot.

>> No.3881422

Whales are not a useful resource any longer. We have better ways of making everything that they once gave us.

>> No.3881424

animals are inferior life forms because they're stupid. if their bodies contain valuable resources, fucking go for it

>> No.3881433

>>3881385
hur dur liberty until the end even if it kills us.


ignorant little man you are blind to all negative consequences

>> No.3881435

>>3881433

Liberty lacks murder.

>> No.3881437

Whale meat tastes good.

The fact that many of them commit suicide and pollute beaches is enough to prove that there's too many of them.

>> No.3881439

>>3881435
An absolutist stance on anything is retarded.

>> No.3881445

>>3881435

You are okay with infringing on my liberty to kill you? My liberty to get away with it?

>> No.3881446
File: 12 KB, 392x300, 1317673910314.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3881446

>>3881439

> on anything

> mfw the possibilities

>> No.3881449
File: 3 KB, 150x164, pfschaters.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3881449

>>3881439
"An absolutist stance on anything is retarded." is itself an absolutist stance.

>> No.3881453

>>3881445

There is no Liberty to murder. There is no Liberty to "get away" with murder.

>> No.3881455

>>3881449
Thats like saying the tolerant should be tolerant of the intolerant.

>> No.3881462

>>3881453

So certain negative consequences, certain antisocial actions, are beyond liberty. Nobody has the freedom to do something that so limits another persons freedom.

>> No.3881464

>>3881455

> should be
> morality

Confirmed for hilariously subjective opinion argument.

>> No.3881469

>>3881455
If you claim to be tolerant everything, that would have to include being tolerant of intolerance.

Obviously tolerance must have exceptions and cannot be absolutist to be of practical utility.

>> No.3881472

>>3881462

No, that is too vague.

>> No.3881474

>>3881439
>only a sith deals in absolutes.

>> No.3881475

Whale oil is a renewable power source.

>> No.3881481

>>3881464
i didnt say i agree with that. You can't read.


>>3881449
Forgive me I should have worded it better. What I mean is, faced with a challenging decision, an absolutist viewpoint may be held from the outset but most likely the only way you'd be able to maintain it is through stubbornness or having not appreciated the complexity of the problem

>> No.3881484

>>3881481

I am well aware that tolerance is silly.

>> No.3881487

look i'll be blunt. i get paid for killing all the whales

>> No.3881493

>>3881484
sometimes*

>> No.3881500

>>3881455
yes they should be, like bronies. otherwise they are hypocrites.

>> No.3881507

it should be permitted as long as they're not on the verge of extinction. In other words, continue it monitor it regulate it until the population of whales can take no more. This is a necessary balance.

>> No.3881509

>>3881507
> implying whales are desirable

>> No.3881510

To piss off ecologists and hippies.

>> No.3881511

>>3881449
Most things require compromise. That is all.

>> No.3881516

>>3881509
why do people want to kill them then? there must be some value in it

>> No.3881518

For research. And Twiggy would harpoon the whales.

>> No.3881525

Fuck you Liberty, you derailed another thread because you are too retarded to understand questions, the original question wasn't whether you think the government should stop people from whaling, it was whether you support whaling, which you completely failed to address.

>> No.3881526

> Why would you support whaling?
My father was killed by a whale.

>> No.3881527

>>3881516
putting huge nets in the sea tends to kill stuff

>> No.3881529

>>3881507

I do believe Carlin said it best on this subject: "Let me tell you about endangered species, all right? Saving
endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control nature. It's arrogant meddling. It's what got us in trouble in the first place. Doesn't anybody understand that? Interfering with nature. Over 90%, way over 90% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet, ever lived, are gone. They're extinct. We didn't kill them all. They just disappeared. That's what nature does."

>> No.3881530

>>3881500
no because ultimately things have to protect themselves. even the tolerant.

>> No.3881532

Just regulate it, holy shit. Some guy said it before me compromise. Some people want whale meat, they can't be allowed to have it all or it will go extinct, so you regulate that shit, you have someone work who checks and makes sure that whalers take only so much whale.

>> No.3881539

>>3881380

You can feed more people from killing 1 whale from killing a handfull of cows.

Thats the moral arguement anyway.

Plus it's probebly good for you.

>> No.3881540

>>3881525

I addressed it from my first statement. Of course, because of Liberty.

>> No.3881544

>>3881529
So, not hunting whales for their oil is arrogant meddling and is what got us in trouble in the first place?
brb, fetching my harpoon...

>> No.3881551

>>3881529
>taking advice on complex issues from a comedian.


its not an arrogant attempt. its wrought with humility. as in accepting that animals have as much right to be here as we do. its not controlling nature any more than we already do (electricty you ever heard of it????). its about protecting the mutual benefit of society now and in the future. as in ensuring they can enjoy the same quality of living as we did (plus more, through technological advancements)

>> No.3881558
File: 18 KB, 300x243, Ben-Bernanke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3881558

>>3881551

> rights exist
> and non-humans animals have them

Tell me more.

>> No.3881560

>>3881540
So you support whaling, because of liberty?

As in, you think that people should hunt whales, because of liberty?

As in, due to some form of expressing the ability to do what one wants without physical or authoritative restraint (although I am sure you will dismiss me with 1 word for not using the exact definition of liberty you hold to be sacred truth), you think that people should go out into the ocean on boats and hunt whales and harvest their bodies?

>> No.3881562

Don't whales have primitive language? It ought to be possible to establish communication, set up little whale concentration camps run by privileged whales and then to turn whale bodies into fuel.

>> No.3881564

>>3881558
Animals have the right to be tasty.

>> No.3881567

>>3881562
The energy of the future, I can't wait to see Greenpeace militants faces when someone come up with that.

>> No.3881571

>>3881560

Not should, can.

>> No.3881570 [DELETED] 

>>3881558
rights dont exist exist in the mind of those who conceive them (Us) but you not what. for all intents and purposes, we exist (for the sake of existential argument we'll accept this one fact). If we exist, the things we invent exist (that includes rights). Just because it isn't objectively definable doesn't mean something doesn't exist.

>> No.3881576

>>3881562
a young whale grows multiple tonnes a year. that amount of fat can easily fuel a household for a year

>> No.3881580

>>3881558
rights don't exist except in the mind of those who conceive them (Us) but you know what? for all intents and purposes, we exist (for the sake of existential argument we'll accept this one fact). If we exist, the things we invent exist (that includes rights). Just because it isn't objectively definable doesn't mean something doesn't exist.

>> No.3881583

>>3881571
But the question wasn't, "Why would you support the legal right to whaling?" or "Why would you support government policy allowing whaling?" or anything of the sort, the question was "Why would you support whaling?", to which "liberty" is a nonsensical answer, as it says nothing about whether or not you think people should go whaling.

>> No.3881586
File: 133 KB, 935x606, Facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3881586

Liberty confirmed for full-retard.

>> No.3881591

>>3881586
>implying something else can be expected from a tripfag

>> No.3881656

>>3881586

consider what a person would be inclined to do that makes him opposed to ALL forms of government. It is rather short list.... and this is 4chan.....

>> No.3881726

>>3881583

Liberty answers it perfectly. The killing of whales does not initiate an act of aggression against another.

>> No.3881737

>>3881726
Unless you consider whales as equals to human beings.
Don't laugh, some people actually do.

>> No.3881743

I don't get the question.

First world people support building walls and third world people don't?

>> No.3881752

>>3881743
Oh wait, never mind, you were talking about whales.
I don't know. I think I'm okay with whales.

>> No.3881771

>>3881726
But just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Your response was analogous to, when asked "Why would you support whaling?", responding that we have highly advanced, high-speed lightweight fuel-efficient boats that make hunting whales easy, and that's why you support whaling.

>> No.3881774

I'm not even going to read the rest of the comments in this thread.

I would support it for aboriginals because they have always done it in their cultures for generations.

I would be against commercial whaling because it is unsustainable.

>> No.3881775

>>3881380
>Why would you support whaling?
I wouldn't.

If you mean if I were an individual that was involved in whaling how would I justify it well then thats easy: It makes me loads of dosh.

>> No.3881778

>>3881726
Off on a tangent

>> No.3881785

>>3881737
The term is near-human intelligence, and could be construed as the same reason we deem the life of a cretin worth protecting.

>> No.3881792

>>3881771

Like I said, not should, can.

>>3881774

> i am for it and against it

You are so silly.

>> No.3881803

>>3881792
Well, I would be against it if it was for profit. I would be for it if they were just hunted by aboriginal people in areas like Iceland and northern Canada.

>> No.3881804

>>3881792
But the question wasn't can, it was should.

You seem to be demonstrating a form of autism preventing you from understanding basic facets of communication that oddly coexists with a desire for attention, the two do not complement each other very well.

>> No.3881807

>>3881792
>You are so silly.

You are stubborn and myopic.

>> No.3881816

>>3881380
I don't see why I SHOULDN'T. It's a profitable enterprise, totally comparable with any other exploitation of nature and animals for their resources.
As long as it's done wisely so as to not destroy whale populations or disrupt the environment overly-much (which is the most profitable thing as well, btw; totally pragmatic to not kill the cow that gives you milk, ya know?) I see nothing at all objectionable about it.

>> No.3881829

>>3881380

> Why would you support whaling?

>>3881804

> the question was should


Pick one.

I support whaling because it does not initiate an act of aggression against another. A simple reading of the OP would have stopped your embarrassment.

>> No.3881853

>>3881829
So it's not an act of aggression because whales are not human? At what point does it become aggression? Is it measured by intelligence or the merit of being human or some other rason?

>> No.3881858

>>3881792
Stop being a fucking fanatical retard, tripfag.

You are COMPLETELY off base with this thread. It's like you can't even fucking read, and just blindly should FREEDOM as the answer to every question.

WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE HAVE OR SHOULD HAVE THE LIBERTY TO HUNT WHALES IS NOT THE QUESTION.

Assume, for the sake of your autism, that we're in a libertarian paradise where everything in your ideology is allowed and accepted blah blah blah.
You or anyone else can hunt whales or not.
So they question is: Why would you want to, or not? Why would you want others to, or not? (That last sentence is going to reduce you to blathering LIBURRDY again, I can see already, so let me clarify: YOU CAN NOT WANT SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING WITHOUT RESTRICTING THEIR FREEDOM TO DO IT.
So.
WHAT, for fuck's sake, is your opinion on the activity of whaling in this scenario?

>> No.3881862

>>3881829
I don't know why you're arguing, the vast majority ITT are for whaling. the issue then (not actually asked by OP) is limits. The majority seem to agree that some limitations should be required and the reasons have been identified ITT (which you ran away from when this thread sunk for a bit). As I have already point out, your failure to acknowledge the necessity of compromise is stubborn and myopic.

>> No.3881863

>>3881853

It is impossible for a whale to initiate an act of aggression, or be aggressed.

If not human, understanding helps.

>> No.3881866

>>3881829
So just because someone CAN do something means that they should?
It doesn't initiate an act of aggression for you to go try and eat deodorant, but I sincerely doubt you want to do that just for that fact.
The same applies to whaling YOU STUPID FUCKING RETARDED FUCK.

You are COMPLETELY ignoring the question in favor of fanatically spouting the buzzwords of your retarded ideology.

>> No.3881872

>>3881863
False

Evidence: Whale Whores

>> No.3881881

>>3881863
>>3881863
That's stupid.

Of course, this whole retarded, blind tangent you're on is irrelevant to the question, but I'll bite:
Aggression is an act of violence. A lion acts aggressively when it chases and kills an antelope.
Whales are perfectly capable of attacking and HAVE attacked humans.

Likewise, we have enacted aggression against THEM.

Drop the idiotically willfully-blind anthropocentrism, fuckhead.

Of course, you won't stop being deliberately myopic long enough to even FIGURE OUT WHAT THE FUCKING THREAD IS ABOUT, so I don't see much chance of that happening.

>> No.3881882

>>3881858

Where did I say freedom?

I have no need or want to hunt whales. If another has a need or want, and said need or want does not initiate an act of aggression against another, I see no problem with them following through on said need or want.

>>3881862

I give not one fuck about the majority. I don;t care if 50.1 percent of people oppose whaling, nor do I care if 50.1 percent of people support murder.

>> No.3881886

>>3881829
>A simple reading of the OP would have stopped your embarrassment.
This is pathetically ironic.

>> No.3881890

ITT: Liberty upsets a lot of people, again.

>> No.3881895

>>3881882
>Where did I say freedom?
>implying liberty and freedom are not synonymous
You're just trolling, aren't you?
No-one who isn't a troll could possibly be this stubbornly, deliberately blind.

>> No.3881897

>>3881829
>Why would you support whaling?

Okay, since you seem to fail at understanding language, let's pick this apart.

"Why" is the question, so a response must be a reason answering "why?"

"Would" establishes the question as a hypothetical. In a world in which whaling was being debated, what would your reasoning be behind your position?

"You" are the object of the question, you got this one at least.

"Support whaling?" is the operative clause. Notice how it is only two words. Support, and whaling. This implies that the word support directly addresses the practice of whaling. You seem to have trouble with this phrase. When someone asks you about a two-word action, the general response is to that specific action. The action, in this case, is "support[ing] whaling". Not, "supporting the legalization of whaling," not "supporting people's right to go whaling," not "support the government allowing whaling." The government allowing whaling is not the same thing as whaling. In fact, nowhere was any sort of authority ever addressed. What was asked was why, given that people can either go whaling or not go whaling, would you support whaling or oppose whaling?

Your problem understanding this question seems to be that you are unable to separate hypotheticals from your own ideological beliefs. Everyone knows you oppose the government, and everyone knows under any circumstances at all you will choose lack of government control over government control. Not everything is an issue of government control, however, and sometimes people find it interesting to ask about hypothetical scenarios that are not about government control. Understanding the difference may be hard for you, but you should really work on it to avoid making your autism so obvious.

>> No.3881898

>>3881882
I wasn't saying you need to agree with the majority. My concern is your stubbornness and myopia in rejection of all forms of compromise.

>> No.3881900

>>3881890
What's funny is that it's not even because of his ideology. Everyone fucking agrees with him, and yet he's STILL infuriating.

>> No.3881906

>>3881866

I didn't say anyone should kill whales.

>>3881881

You are confusing aggression with an initial act of aggression. One requires intent, the other is simply another word for violence. And violence is not always an initial act of aggression.

>> No.3881909

>>3881882
>If another has a need or want, and said need or want does not initiate an act of aggression against another, I see no problem with them following through on said need or want.
Wow.

Good job, idiot. You fucked up the thread FOR FUCKING NOTHING.

>> No.3881918

>>3881906
Your stance on your ideology is myopic, stubborn, arbitrary, and juvenile.
I hope you die in a fire.

Or at least get medication for that fucking rampant autism of yours at some point in the future.

>> No.3881927

>>3881895

Freedom has no restraints, Liberty does.

>>3881897

As a state is simply any person or group of people that regulate and punish without consent, my answer is perfect. I believe your problem is you think I am referencing the state, when in fact I am saying that they can (because of Liberty), and if they want to, thumbs up. If they do not, thumbs up. It is up to them, not me (because of Liberty).

>>3881898

What compromise do you feel is needed on the topic? No whale hunting on Sundays? You have to pray to the whale gods before you can kill one?

>>3881900

Being right for the wrong reasons means you are wrong.

>> No.3881933

Because people > whales

Maybe one of those japs or russians or whatever country still whales will do something great with that extra cash from selling whale fat.

>> No.3881949

>>3881927
>What compromise do you feel is needed on the topic?

Illegality of hunting endangered species for one.. if they are endangered. i have no idea what species of whale are endangered

>> No.3881958

>As a state is simply any person or group of people that regulate and punish without consent, my answer is perfect. I believe your problem is you think I am referencing the state, when in fact I am saying that they can (because of Liberty), and if they want to, thumbs up. If they do not, thumbs up. It is up to them, not me (because of Liberty).
Do you really think that addressed my post, at all? Your opinion seems to be that you would neither oppose nor support whaling. You didn't say that, however, you said that you would support whaling because Liberty. That isn't a reason. Now, if you really, honestly think you responded to my post, it's clear you aren't going to understand things no matter how thoroughly they are explained to you, so I'm not going to bother. I am somewhat surprised, however, that you seriously believe liberty to be such a perfect ideal that it answers questions relating to personal motivations and opinions, and yet you are highly functioning enough in your autism to successfully make posts on 4chan with proper grammar.

>> No.3881959

>>3881927
>Freedom has no restraints, Liberty does.
>thinking in Capital Letters
>Sort, axiomatic proclomations
>self-manufactured definitions
>thinking in total absolutes to the point where he can't even see where his ideology is relevant and where it's not, but just blindly and rigidly proclaims at every opportunity (seriously, you're like one of those atheists who screams at people for saying "god bless you" to them when they sneeze. or it's as if someone asked you "what's your favorite color" and you replied "everyone should have the liberty to decide their own favorite color!"

You are seriously a fanatic.

>> No.3881965
File: 9 KB, 640x480, bellcurve.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3881965

If it were demonstratable that the bellcurve of whale intelligence overlapped that of humanity, would you change your view?

>> No.3881979

>>3881965
it probably does. given how severely retarded some people are

>> No.3881984

>>3881965
hmm... I probably wouldn't be comfortable with it personally, but I'd still have to say it's alright for people to do, just because our species comes first.

I'd want it to be minimized though, more than I'd want any unnecessary harm to another creature to be minimized. Intelligence is important in my books.

Frankly though, if they're comparable in intelligence to humans they should defend themselves.

>> No.3882013

>>3881958

I would support a person choosing to engage in whaling, or not engaging in whaling. I have no say in the matter, nor "should" I have a say.

Somewhat decent grammar on 4chan is pretty unique. I find using it really stands out from the 90 percent of people here that simply name call.

>>3881965

No.

>> No.3882032
File: 27 KB, 413x591, fuck-off.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3882032

>>3882013
>I would support a person choosing to engage in whaling, or not engaging in whaling. I have no say in the matter, nor "should" I have a say.
HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL SO COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION??!!!

You need a fucking lobotomy.

>> No.3882046

>>3882013
>No.

Does that mean you have the same neutral stance on hunting humans for sport and meat? Or maybe just humans with lower-end IQ scores?

>> No.3882053

I'm not anti-whaling.
I'm pro-whaling.
You make silly assumptions based on the lies of environmentalists and the media

>> No.3882059

>>3882013
are you an ass

>> No.3882060

>>3882046
>Does that mean you have the same neutral stance on hunting humans for sport and meat?
Nope, because he makes arbitrary exceptions about the relationship of liberty and aggression/murder, and comes up with his own arbitrary definitions for what constitute aggression and murder.

>> No.3882061

>>3882053
>the lies of environmentalists and the media

Such as?

>> No.3882068

>>3882046

No, as that is anti-Liberty.

>> No.3882071

>>3882061
Everything.
PROTIP: 95% of things environmentalists say are bent truths or just simply made up. They're designed to inspire emotional responses in people so they put aside all logic and let their fear/disgust/empathy do all the thinking

>> No.3882074

>>3882068
>No, as that is anti-Liberty.

Explain how one is and the other isn't.

>> No.3882078

>>3882071
>Everything.

In other words, you've got nothing.

>anything I don't like is a lie

>> No.3882081
File: 17 KB, 350x267, tom_haverford_2039.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3882081

>>3882068
>hunting humans with low IQ scores
>anti-"Liberty"
>says Liberty

mfw

>> No.3882083

How can someone even support anarchy when it will always lead to warlordism, anyone who thinks it would work in the slightest is a fucking moron.

>> No.3882086

>>3882078
here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/
http://www.peta.org/
Your inability to use the internet is pathetic

>> No.3882091

>>3882083
>implying anarchy didn't give rise to our current societal/governmental structures

>> No.3882092

>>3882083

Agreed.

>> No.3882094

>>3882091
Exactly, so it will always repeat the process. Moronic.

>> No.3882096

>>3882086
>derp, link to peta, name calling, herp

Well, you've convinced me: all environmentalism is clearly based on lies.

>> No.3882106

>>3882096
Funny, since you believe everything THEY say without any real proof.

>> No.3882122

>>3882106

Who are "they," and what is it that I supposedly believe?

>> No.3882131

I, myself, am not anti-whaling. I have no problem with licensed fishermen harvesting whales from the sea.

I also think it's hilarious to watch the "Sea Shepherds" spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw stink bombs on the decks of whaling ships, and get clobbered with high-powered streams of water from those water cannons.

>> No.3882237

There are two issues with whaling.

First is the endangered status of whale species in general. It would be neither difficult nor unprecedented for them to be simply hunted to extinction. So at the very least, I'm very much against totally unregulated whaling, as historically regulation has been the only thing keeping hunting of *anything* sustainable.

Second is the consideration of whether whales themselves, on an individual level, are morally and ethically significant beings. Supposedly they are quite intelligent, which indicates that they are, and must therefore have some form of "rights" in any self-consistent ideology in which humans do also, making whaling a "murderous" act.

>> No.3882269

Some alien race needs to build massive fucking walls around all our coastlines.

>> No.3882279

>>3881965
Iq is speciesist bullshit. Of course whales will score low on an iq test, they do not have access to the same level of education and exposure to the western culture that iq tests are based on. Whales are just as smart as humans, and trying to use something artificial and repeatedly discredited to try to say that they are not is speciesist and wrong.

>> No.3882286

>>3882279
>Whales are just as smart as humans

Source?

>> No.3882291

i support whaling which is why i support harsher whaling controls and stronger enviromental laws. You can't catch whales if they are extinct. therefore we need to make sure we have a sustainable model