Repeal "Banning whaling" (Ends May 4th)

[tak]

I bet you really don't get what I meant.
The Japanese will not agree to an outright ban, so they actually allow whaling without limits.
If the world allow the Japanese to whale with a quota, it is unlikely that the Japanese will reject - and the government is likely to enforce it too.
The Japanese just act "rebellious" in the whaling issue, now the Koreans act similarly on the dog one.

It is not a very good idea to impose your own values on everyone without discretion, especially when it will never work!

[Solnath]

It is not a very good idea to impose your own values on everyone without discretion, especially when it will never work!

And for zat, you mazt die!

[FeherTigris]

This is your dream. The actual situation is that there are more nations that want whaling (poor Japan is not the only one). The quota they ask for altogether is much more than needed for extinction. Of course there are scientist who said no problem with hunting so many whales, enough will be left.

And if you allow a ship to go out to hunt 1 you can be sure they will go for 3, one after another. You can not stop them on the sea: they will have a permission for 1 and there will be only one at a time.
Now with the ban you can stop the ship and say: here is a whale, you are arrested, ship is taken.

you said: until demand someone take the risk. if you allow just 1/5 of the demand why do you think they do not go for the rest?
(imagine: you want to store 1GB of pictures, MP3-s and an ISP offers you 200MB? would you accept it and drop the rest?)

[FeherTigris]

ah, as per imposing values: what is the value you think of? can you be a little bit more concrete?

[tak]

The problem is, with this ban, Japan is NOT arresting anybody!
If there is a quota, Japan will. As Japan has a population of more than 100 million, their reduction in whaling can most likely compensate the quota for Norway, Iceland, etc.

[tak]

ah, as per imposing values: what is the value you think of? can you be a little bit more concrete?

So, eating whale is not part of your culture, you suggest whaling ban.
Others think it is not right to eat dogs, dogs are banned for consumption.
Hindu believe cows are sacred, so no beef
Muslim believe pigs are dirth, so no pork
Mongolians don't quite eat vegetables, so no vegetables either
hm... not much left, huh?

Why must we impose what we believe on the others?

[FeherTigris]

No more new idea just summarizing:
1. whaling is an advantage for the few - no whaling is not a disadvantage for anybody
2. no scientifically reasonable quota will be enough for the ones who want whaling
3. whaling will not be reduced if allowed using quotas
4. over quota ships will be much harder to detect and stop

(parallel: allowing guns in the US does not lower the number of kills. indeed.)

[tak]

No more new idea just summarizing:
1. whaling is an advantage for the few - no whaling is not a disadvantage for anybody
2. no scientifically reasonable quota will be enough for the ones who want whaling
3. whaling will not be reduced if allowed using quotas
4. over quota ships will be much harder to detect and stop

(parallel: allowing guns in the US does not lower the number of kills. indeed.)

My summary then:

1. Not an advantage for ANYBODY? No stakeholder in the industry?
2. No, it won't be enough. But it can please some countries for sure.
3. No one is stopped by the Japanese govt from whaling now. With quota, the govt will act.
4. Whales are huge! If licensing did not work, what are they doing with those Alaskan Crabs? Only quotas and licensing can prevent (not eliminate) over whaling.

(Killers can be irrational; profit-making fishermen are)

[Allama]

Here's a point no one seems to be addressing:

Whether or not you believe a quota will satisfactorily prevent extinction while allowing certain cultures to continue whale hunting, THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOT ESTABLISH ONE.  This piece of legal fun repeals the ban but fails to establish a limit on hunting whales in particular, and thus permits a total failure to protect the endangered or threatened species from extinction.

Even if you are pro-quota, you should vote against this resolution.  Propose a quota later, if you must.

[tak]

Here's a point no one seems to be addressing:

Whether or not you believe a quota will satisfactorily prevent extinction while allowing certain cultures to continue whale hunting, THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOT ESTABLISH ONE.  This piece of legal fun repeals the ban but fails to establish a limit on hunting whales in particular, and thus permits a total failure to protect the endangered or threatened species from extinction.

Even if you are pro-quota, you should vote against this resolution.  Propose a quota later, if you must.

We cannot propose a "quota" resolution without repeal this one, as they are contradictory

[Allama]

We cannot propose a "quota" resolution without repeal this one, as they are contradictory

I'm saying an entirely new proposal could be written up to repeal "Banning whaling" and establish a quota system.  Leaving it open like this is too risky.

[tak]

We can't write a proposal like this, can we? There is some stupid UN proposal rules regarding this

[Romanar]

True.  If you're for LIMITED whaling, the only real option is to pass the repeal and propose a separate whale quota bill, and hope to get that passed.

[Allama]

Oh bugger.  Well, I still vote against.

[DrenEgralA]

Actually, if this resolution passes,  we *can* write a proposal limiting the amount of whaling a nation can engage in.  The language must be precise and there can be no real world examples within the proposed resolution.

If accepted, it'll be put the queue and voted on.