Repeal "Banning whaling" (Ends May 4th)

[Allama]

We established that, but I personally support a full ban so my vote remains as is.  I was only trying to persuade those in favor of a limited hunting system to vote against it before I found out you can't cancel legislation and create a new policy in one proposal.  At the time, I thought it would better serve their interests to do it all at once.

I personally don't like the idea of people being able to whale to their hearts' content between now and the proposal to instate a limit (which may or may not ever happen).

[Teoghlach]

Some of the arguments floating around seem to be, "Well banning it doesn't stop it." Erm, well that may be true, yet it's impossible to totally stop anything, so I don't really see... how that one holds up. I took a look at the UN Forums because I'm bored in a small town with 2 months to waste LoL, and aside from all the futile "we stand for whaling because we like barbeques" arguments, they were against it because a ban wouldn't stop it, and it would make it harder to control.

Well, I beg to differ! Cocaine is illegal, and people go through illegal measures to get it. Murder is illegal, and people go through illegal means to do it anyway. However, I don't see how this correlates with banning whales. There are only... so many "dirty" ways to hunt a whale, and being out on a boat in the middle of an ocean is a totally different scenario. If you ban whaling, it's not going to magically become a dirty underground business along the lines of a drug trade. It just won't. Poachers exist now, and poachers will exist afterwards, yet a ban on whaling should help the whale population because it's much easier to manage than a drug trade. Sure, the oceans are huge, yet if a ban is placed on it, I don't anticipate a sudden rush of boats to the open waters to hunt whales with some sort of sneak attack. I just don't. Laws taken towards helping sustain the panda population have helped, and not harmed: this is an appropriate example to look at. And unless NS has developed a miraculous new way to poach whales, the techniques aren't exactly the most humane.

And as for the arguments that, "My people need whale products..." give me a break.

I'm not entirely sure what I was trying to prove there... I hope it's "decipherable"

[Solnath]

Question: so what if whales go extinct and we lose a bit of biodiversity?

[Teoghlach]

Could the more logical question be, "What is the point in causing that to happen?"

[FeherTigris]

takasia: your argument that limited hunting makes all people and government in the industry angels (what industry? whaling is banned since the 70s) ... fortunately no i with double dot on my keyboard to write naive.
I tell you only one example: in 1933 they gave power to Hitler to satisfy him. in 1937 they gave Czech republic to satisfy him (Chamberlain said: 'this is a contract that brings 25 years of peace to Europe'). In 1938 Hitler annexed Austria. They thought this will be enough for him. We know the rest.
This will happen to your quotas. You give 10. Then they fight for 15 and then 20 and then 30. And you can not step back just always up.

[FeherTigris]

soly: nothing and everything. I (and hope we) think that nature and evolution is too complex to make 'active' decisions. We are not God we can not actively kill species (and look rabbits in Australia: we try to make it back, this is not only about extinction but also about disturbing local fauna and flora). We keep situation away from human influence to let nature decide. I can see no other way how can we do that. There are far too many examples that active human interference only ruin life on Earth.

[Solnath]

You seem to be thinking that humans are somehow not related to nature.

[FeherTigris]

just a little bit different: I think that humans are not the same participants in the nature game as all others. I do believe that our responsibility is just not equal to the responsibility of lions, gazelles, eagles, whales. why? because we can have much more influence on nature than they have.

and this is not limited to nature. in any situation if someone has more influence than he/she/it has more responsibility as well.

let it be the way: humans are the Delegates of many species in the nature game (1000000000 endorsement). humans can kick out other species. humans should act as a wise delegate taking the responsibility.

[Solnath]

Why? We have the power, so any action we take is automatically the right one. We reign supreme, so we can't be wrong.

[tak]

My argument is simple: with the ban, Japan govt is not cooperating at all. If there is a quota, those Japanese may start cooperating and reduce the scale of whaling.

The hunt will definitely be exceeding the quota, but it would still be better than the Japanese hunting without limit now.

[Delfos]

save the whales, save the whales, save the whales!

[FeherTigris]

Soly: you are kidding
takasia: quote: 'may start cooperating'. history does not justify this optimistic, naive standpoint. you are a dreamer. and if you say it 100 times as a mantra it still will be a dream and does not become serious.

[tak]

We should not give up on any chance in saving any whale.
If we don't do anything and keep the ban, the unchecked whaling will continue. We are killing more whales by banning whaling!

[Solnath]

FT: Not completely, at least. We are a part of nature, nature has given us methods to exploit other creatures so why should we forsake our natural right?

And Takasia, there's a simple solution to that if it is true: harsher enforcement. Someone tries to sell a product containing whale, they're shot on sight. Japan is over-populated anyway.

[Delfos]

they are not, they sell it in the 'west coast'.

takasia can be optimistic and idealistic, it's his way. no one has the right to say his ideals are impossible. It is with ideals that earth goes around.

save the whales, save the whales, save the whales!