My position is simple, the minkes are not endangered, even by the IWC’s own standards. Therefore they can be harvested to some extent. I linked to the IWC’s own population estimates. Their estimates can be found by clicking on this link.
The minke whale population is estimated to be between 120,000 - 182,000 animals in the North Atlantic (excluding of course the Canadian East Coast). And these numbers only apply to 1995, the population certainly hasn’t declined since then, it can only have grown. Keep in mind that these whales calve roughly once a year. Even assuming considerable (more than 50%) mortality of new born calves and juveniles the numbers added each year to the population are impressive.
Let’s say the Icelanders decide to harvest 300 minkes a year. Please explain how this number will even remotely threaten the species?
shrug Those are the IWC’s own numbers I cited. I can’t help it if you suddenly decide to ignore them because they devastate your precious slippery slope. And you ignored my point about the market. There is no international demand for oil made from whale blubber, for example.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/me...lth/6408107.htm
Critics point out that the new study does not pinpoint the number of whales that plied the oceans just before intensive hunting began. Instead, it estimates the average population over tens of thousands of years. There have been a lot of climate changes during that time, including an ice age that ended 11,500 years ago, and the ocean’s capacity to support whales may be vastly different today than it was back then.
From Mercury News: New study revises estimate of early whale population
Palumbi concedes the point. By expanding the study to look at more genetic data, he said, it should be possible to determine how big whale populations were about 1,000 years ago, closer to the time that commercial whaling started.
So Palumbi says thatthe maximum could be from any time in the last several thousand years. And while further research might give us usefull numbers the numbers we have now are useless for determening the number of whales at the start comercial whaling. Agree?
The only thing he proved is that minke whales are at least 56% of the maximum from the last several thousend years(the number might be lower because, as Palumbi pointed out, they asumed that there was no contact between minke in the northern and southern hemiphere, which is unlikely).
ASW:
If the IWC thinks that a whalespecies is threatened the why should they allow ASW? Especially when “the evidence we have points to a degradation of marine ecosystems world-wide.” If the IWC thinks that a whale species can be hunted why can only ASW be allowed. I assume that the IWC doesn’t allow hunting on threatened species.
The only argument in favor of only ASW is the slippery slope argument. If this is IWC point then they should say so and tell the whalers how the trust can be regained or if that’s impossible tell them that whaling will not be allowed at any time.
(I still don’t understand why hunting for “simple monetary gain” is so bad when it is used to keep your family alive. Infact one might argue that comercial use of the sea is traditional in Norway(comercial fishing for export in northern Norway has been the only way to survive for the majority of the population for at least 800 years.))
The demand for whalemeat in Norway:
Greenpeace is correct about the demand for whalemeat in Norway, it’s low. But the whalers make a profit(comercial whaling remember) so what kind of argument is that. Lot’s of things are in low demand but people can make a living out of it anyway. The reason for this statement is that Greenpeace wants to create an impression that the whalers only hunt whales to export to Japan. And while Norwegian whalers would love to export the unused blubber that’s not going to happen. Japan has saind that the whales contain to much toxins and even if those levels should sink during the next decades Japanese whalers will oppose the export since whales are markeded as clean and natural and any whalemeat that isn’t compleatly clean might lower the demand. So if the only reason Norway and Iceland wants to hunt whales is for export then they should have stopped now
Whalewatching:
As I said whalewatching and whaling doesn’t compete with each other. It seems to me like the growth in whale watching has occoured after comercial whaling started.
And new boats are not an advantage if the old boats could still be used and certainly not if the new boats can only be used for tourism.
My position is even simpler: you don’t exhibit any solid idea about the arguments already addressed or stated in this thread, and are inviting me to repeat them yet again. As I said before, such “objections” do not merit a response, and frankly don’t belong in a forum of this caliber. Therefore unless I see some semi-intelligent points being made in your next post, this will be the last response I dedicate to your dumbed-down arguments.
Furthermore, I note there is little suspicious about “the IWC’s own standards” as concerns population estimates and so forth. The previous historical populations estimates employed are based on data that are likely not accurate, as described ad nauseam already. Indeed, everyone so far has conceded that previous historical population estimates may well be too low, which means that the standard for hunting whales (in light of sufficient control systems being in place) actually suffers from lowering of the bar owing to the historical estimates in use; this quite-likely-lowered bar was not really challenged until the publication of the study by Palumbi & Roman.
What makes you think that, apart from the relative minke abundance and your personal simplistic interpretation of the problem? There are other factors to consider, as even a casual reader of this thread ought to realize. I trust you are aware that whaling is in fact regulated? Are you aware of the “scientific whaling” loophole? Do you know what the RMP and RMS are, and why so much effort was devoted to their preparation? Do you know anything at all about the IWC and their work? Have you read little in this thread, but feel strongly that you must make an appearance? Well, you’ve already answered the last question with your posts to date, but the others are relevant.
More confirmation that you have not grasped the arguments, either mine or those of others. Regarding the IWC numbers and your entirely fictional and wishful conclusion above, I can only recommend a little bit more reading. You see, part of the point that you obtusely ignore with each intellectually dazzling appearance you make in this discussion is that as per IWC resolutions and charters already quoted, uncertainty in whale stock estimates is a relevant factor when considering whaling activities. Figures, current or historical, differing from IWC estimates don’t destroy the slippery slope argument, quite the opposite: they show that the degree of uncertainty involved may not meet IWC resolution knowledge requirements needed to open a hunting season on whales once again.
The international demand for whale blubber: a rather ridiculous point to insist on. Had you read this thread attentively you would know about the most significant market for whale blubber – not to mention some of the issues related to blubber, such as Norway’s whaling, the stockpiling of said substance, and the reason for stockpiling the slime in the first place.
Finally, you may be aware that iceland’s current whaling efforts are for “scientific” purposes, and not overtly for harvesting a resource as you suggest. One of the arguments you repeatedly ignored as you bequeathed the wisdom of your objections unto us is that lethal research is to at least some degree unnecessary, and faces strong opposition from among the scientific community, not to mention the layman community (which I have ignored for the most part). I therefore called for better justification of the lethal research methods employed in order to bring the argument forward, so that proponents of Iceland may demonstrate the good faith of the nation in this matter and prove that commercial gain is not the present aim of these scientific efforts; that is a point last discussed with Cohen. I noted and cited that present Icelandic scientific efforts are scheduled to involve the killing of 50 specimens of an endangered species of whale, in addition to 200 other specimens.
All these arguments and many more, generally ignored by you, already exist in this thread. If your recent posts are the extent of your arguments, I would rather devote time to the other three people currently levelling varying degrees of more intelligent objections against me than have to suffer the kind of repetition you seem to be asking for. This topic has seen more than enough dumbing down so far, so your efforts are quite superfluous.
I’ll catch up with other posters when I have a moment.
Let me also add, Dagger, that I have already cited and used IWC figures along with other posters, so your popping in with those weeks after they were first brought up, and claiming that they somehow resolve the ongoing argument is hardly illuminating.
I see Abe has moved from arguing a slippery slope to making an argument from ignorance.
Your argument from ignorance could easily be applied to any wild resource harvest. Even if one accepts the lowest end of the IWC’s population estimate (not warranted, but hey) and if one is aware of the fact that these whales calve roughly once a year, then it is blindingly obvious (even you haven’t tried to argue that 300 minkes a year will drive them to extinction) that the minkes are not endangered.
Basically, that is the majority of scientific opinion as is illustrated by the IWC’s numbers and the conservation status that they assign the species.
In light of these facts, the controversy of scientific whaling becomes moot. Plus, I doubt that those who are categorically against whaling because of the Bambi factor are very interested in the scientific minutae of the research.
And thanks for pointing out that since Norway dosen’t have a domestic market large enough to consume all of their whale blubber, and since the Japanese can get their own from the local whalers, the stuff is currently just taking up refridgeration space.
That will apply to Iceland even more since it is self-evident that a nation of 280.000 people will not be consuming the blubber from say, 300 minkes a year, if and when they resume commercial whaling.
Given the Icelanders stellar record on protecting their fish stocks I have no particular worries when it comes to them whaling.
Im still trying to get my head around just how to extract the stomach contents of a live whale. How would that be done and could it be done on the same budget as simply killing them and cutting them open?
Predictably, Dagger, nothing worthy of note in your latest post. I know I said I wouldn’t reply to more silliness, but since your objections are so disconcertingly simplistic you’ll get a reply before the other gentlemen, whose recent output deserves a little more time than I have at hand right now.
This motion you claim is evident only to the uninformed and the victims of selective literacy, since the argument that a degree of certainty is the desired goal was stated a number of times rather before your blunderings (it’s also an IWC argument made on a scientific basis, and not my creation). I actually provided nothing new in my posts to you, I simply reiterated the existing points that lay, apparently, in your blind spot. You therefore perceive as new a position that is not new. And you still fail to betray any understanding of it.
Difference between hand waving and an argument is … the argument – that same stuff you refuse to address meaningfully, preferring instead to pose theatrically quoting figures that have already been quoted. I therefore won’t get into the treatment of the minke numbers, since it is quite unnecessary to do so. Your assessment consists of making the simplistic claim that minke can be harvested just because there may be a certain number of them. As I repeated earlier, that’s all well and good but there are other factors to consider, factors already outlined should you at any time choose to read the thread or inform yourself rather than regale us with yet more dumbing down.
Also, it looks like you need some help when it comes to understanding, among other things, what an argument from ignorance is. For me to be making such an argument, I would have to claim that something is true only because it hasn’t been proved false, or vice versa. If I were saying that minke are endangered because it has not been proved that their numbers are fully recovered, that is an argument from ignorance. If I espouse the argument that confusion exists over the present and historical numbers of minke and other whales, and therefore a precautionary approach is advisable until levels of knowledge and control are adequate to make the decision to engage in commercial whaling, that, I think even the most stubborn and uninformed will agree, is not an argument from ignorance.
The consensus is also set against whaling until solid systems of knowledge and control are developed and implemented. This is particularly important in light of, for example, the products of illegal whaling that reach consumers. Again, no new material here, at least not new to readers with a modicum of attention.
What’s moot here is the drivel you assert with a straight face. “In light of these facts”? What facts? You haven’t stated a single new or relevant fact or integrated it into the discussion, much less shown that B follows A. You have demonstrated only that you are almost totally unaware of the issues involved in whaling and of the discussion in this thread.
For example, your comments on stored blubber do not indicate the slightest awareness that the blubber was being stockpiled specifically for export as a delicacy, and that it therefore represented very significant monetary value – the same reason Norway argued for the ban on trade of whale products to be lifted in the first place: money, not tradition or any such cagal. The only two things that eventually slowed the blubber plan to a crawl (since Oslo decided to go ahead with exports in spite of the international ban) were 1) stalling of Japanese demand (the primary market) for Norwegian blubber after the discovery that Norway’s blubber had unacceptably high levels of PCBs, and 2) the widespread calls for adequate genetic tracking systems and other controls that will prevent problems and abuses such as those already cited for Japan (see linked thread), where genetic testing of consumer whale foodstuffs showed that whales the hunting of which is strictly not permitted had nonetheless ended up on people’s tables. The whale foodstuffs on market are supposed to be the yield from Japan’s sizeable “scientific” whaling, which is ridiculous – one would assume that whalers and marine scientists of all people would recognize the species they are supposed to catch/examine, and leave the rest alone.
Oh please. Firstly, Iceland’s success in protecting their fish stocks is not “stellar”, though their efforts certainly are superior to most other nations and may one day (if, for example, cod stocks eventually recover) indicate successful methods – we are definitely not there yet. Secondly, I couldn’t give a putrid fig what worries or doesn’t worry you, this happens to be a forum for debate, not uninformed hand waving, requests for repetition, and airing of personal opinion while disregarding existing arguments right under one’s nose.
According to your earlier claim, this sort of thing constitutes a hijacking of the IWC. Please elaborate what you mean, because I demonstrated (and the article you linked explicitly mentions) that the IWC has had cetacean conservation as one of its responsibilities since its very inception. It’s therefore difficult to understand how conservationists could have swept in and hijacked a commission that was created partly for conservation in the first place.
I fail to see how discussion of whale killing methods is anything but a whaling and whale-related matter. We discuss methods of killing other animals, though perhaps in less detail, and you mentioned that you are appalled by the suffering involved in the production of veal. I think humane killing methods are perfectly acceptable guidelines, if they are intended to minimize the suffering of any animal.
Do you suggest that whales ought to be killed in whatever haphazard way it pleases the hunters to use? Some methods require the whale to die, mortally wounded, over a period of several hours. If this is to be avoided, then it seems it is the IWC’s job to establish the facts involved and develop suitable methods in accordance with “humane killing: Death brought about without pain, stress or distress to the animal by aiming to render an animal insensitive to pain as quickly as possible.” (from the IWC workshop report linked below).
Since you provided no link or argument for this topic, here is the interpretation from the same source as your last citation:
A summary and discussion of the eponymous report in which Japan is afforded little latitude. Note that the Web site above is by no means unique in considering a lot of the science issuing from Japan on these subjects to have a high content of rubbish; they (the web site) do, however, view Norway more sympathetically in spite of suspected scientific fraud in the past, saying “the Norwegians presented several papers and have at least made efforts to reduce TTD” (Time To Death).
The chase could be even more important than the actual kill, and this too must be part of the IWC’s charter:
Hijacking? I fail to see how. These all seem like valid concerns, and who other than the IWC is supposed to address them? Countries like Japan and Norway, left to their own devices? Hardly. I don’t understand the objections to investigating and killing methods – more humane killing techniques may make controlled commercial whaling, if and when it resumes, more acceptable rather than less. You’d think a pro-whaler would jump aboard this kind of initiative.
I hope Dagger’s false sense of accomplishment and his inane position didn’t ruin the progress we were starting to make, YOB, but the above seems to me a rather simplistic question, and rather too brief to be seriously addressing my previous points (including those written to Cohen, which are relevant here). In fact, again I don’t believe you have addressed my points as deserved, but let me deal with this issue.
Your above objection is used to justify scientific whaling (especially on the part of, surprise surprise, whale-gobbling Japan), and I guess examination of stomach contents, to determine exactly what a species of animal is eating, is indeed a lethal form of research that seems difficult to replace. It’s hard to see how else we can examine the contents of a whale’s stomach ifnot by slicing it open.
The answer is we don’t examine the contents of the stomach at all. We examine whale faeces.
The research was originally conducted on blue whales; a year after its announcement, whales whose scats were being analyzed included blue whales, sperm, humpbacks, and breeders. So there are alternatives to lethal research even when it comes to something as difficult to discern as stomach contents, but I must note that the belief that scientific whaling is motivated by science becomes more and more unlikely the deeper you look into the issue (and particularly so if you focus on Japan). So it would be nice to see some solid justification for lethal research on the part of nations that kill hundreds of whales (that they declare) every year, or intend to.
Incidentally (going back to Iceland and killing methods) this commentary from the summary of the IWC report linked earlier was interesting:
Of course, note the word “rumour” and think accordingly, but interesting nonetheless.
I have seen several very long posts here with fancy words but get your facts straight or this will all just be fancy gibberish.
Iceland uses grenade harpoons.
We cought 38 Minkes out of an estimated number of 55.000 animals around Iceland. They are not endangered and it is astonishing that some people worry so much about an independent nation killing a handful of animals. Guess how many cows we kill a year?
The US has not threatened us with any embargos and in fact there have been virtually no complaints from the outside world. Really. It would be ironic if they (US) had since they kill much more whales every year than we did this summer.
Other than that I don´t really see the point of arguing this case; every single person I have met who was opposed to whaling in the frantic way many of you are was so only because of lack of information, ignorance or just plain old self-rightousness and usually can not be argued with.
I´m not saying that those who oppose whaling are bad people but there are other ways of channelling your will to save the world. I take Greenpeace as an example, they have done a lot to raise global awareness regarding many important issues and actually behaved admirably while here in Iceland (even when a group of activists held a minke barbecue on the dock where rainbow warrior was docked). It´s not a bad cause but you´re barking up the wrong tree.
Not that it changes anything, a lot of people are pasting information that´s simply wrong. Just because it´s written somewhere on the internet doesn´t make it true.
That is exactly the problem really, there is a LOT of people taking all sorts of information for granted without ever challenging the source. The world needs more people like Alterego in that respect but it has to work both ways. We (the whaling scum) have valid arguments as well as unrelated statistics and bull (admittedly) just like those who oppose whaling do. Please try and find the truth and form your opinion based on that. It´s what we all owe each other as sensible human beings.
The Icelandic, Norwegian and the Japanese scientific consensus is that the minke whale is not endangered in any way, shape or form. But since posting their findings would be dismissed by Abe as being biased, one looks to the IWC numbers themselves and lo and behold, the IWC dosen’t seem to consider the species endangered. Even if their low-end estimates are correct.
As to Abe’s criticism of selective reading of literature on my part, I can only shrug my shoulders. The majority of scientific opinion dosen’t consider the minke to be endangered. When I compare that to the opinion of some SDMB ideologue, the choice in deciding which source is more credible becomes a no-brainer.
And the point about the whale blubber was not to argue whether Norway might conceivably be able to sell a container or two of the stuff to Japan at some distant point in time, (though I doubt they will), but rather that the gross overexploitation of whale stocks like took place in the 19th century is not feasible today, since there is not the same large international demand for their produce as there once was.
Whale-On-A-Stick™ will never be the same commercial success it once was.
That about sums it up, since Abe has grudingly conceded my point about the Icelanders being pretty decent in managing their marine life resources. I trust he’ll extend that to include the whales as well.
You are referring to a commentary that I quoted with caveat. I concede it may be wrong on one or several counts (I don’t know), but it was hardly a fulcrum or even a relevant part of the argument – you’ll note it was mentioned in passing as an item of interest. Other facts you have issues with, apart from that commentary? And any support for your claim/s?
And here we go again with simplifying the argument down to a fraction, recently caught whales over total population. You seem to have missed the greater argument, stated and restated though it was. The simplistic reference to cows is a matter also already discussed. And please note: 38 minke have been caught so far, but there are at least 212 other whales on Iceland’s catch list.
Would you care to provide any real arguments with that feeble characterization?
Regarding the USA being a whaling nation, earlier I linked to similar information (IWC Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, which is regulated of course – a different argument from commercial whaling, as you would know had you read the thread).
No brainer is right. Yet again you posture emptily over a point that is not actually in question, blissfully ignoring the real arguments you are, it’s becoming evident, incapable of addressing. The argument is not that minke are endangered. That argument would have been over weeks ago.
Now, regarding that selective literacy I pointed out, had you read and (if it’s not too much to ask) comprehended the discussion so far you would know I have given no grounds to be called an ideologue, since I have espoused and cited arguments based on science and international treaties and agreements, originally in response to a pro-whaling series of arguments that 1) had little support, and 2) were unduly dismissive of real issues. So please drop this little revisionist fantasy of yours, it’s quite tiresome.
Thanks for finally providing a thesis on the blubber issue. The fact that the days of massive exploitation are over makes little difference to the issue at hand though, since hadn’t PCBs been found in Norwegian blubber the Japanese market alone could probably have absorbed the whole lot (indeed, that was the “gold mine” plan of those sitting on blubber). The issue was Norway’s willingness to break the international ban on whale trade for the sake of commerce.
You persist with this transparently false charade, failing to acknowledge that I discussed and cited Iceland’s solid fisheries record long before you showed up, and in considerably greater detail (not to mention with better support than vague hand-waving references). Since this is a point I made and discussed before you appeared and failed to read the thread, even you will agree I cannot be conceding it.
Besides, I must point out that good fisheries conservation does not necessarily mean good whale conservation. For an obvious example, if whales turn out to be grazing significantly on the battered Icelandic cod stock, I suspect Iceland would view the two as mutually exclusive, at least in the medium term – what better incentive to commercially whale away?
Any coherent thoughts on the sei Iceland will be catching, a point I have brought up a number of times?
No, I have no “coherent” thoughts on the sei since Iceland won’t be catching any of them. Nor do I have for the fin whales as the same applies to them as well.
Bolding is mine.
This is from Iceland’s Ministry of Fisheries homepage . I suppose I should harpoon your ass for that oversight (rhetorically speaking), what with you being so well-read and all, but I’ll give it a miss. The actual details of the research itself seem to have been largely overlooked by the anti-whaling side.
See, it’s not that hard to cut back on the posturing and make a real point. Strange (if you had read the thread) that it should take so long to point out a correction on this matter. I plead guilty to having failed to keep abreast of the recent decision by Iceland to rescind their larger scientific proposal in favour of a much more restricted one. It looks like international pressure may work after all – on some nations anyway. At any rate, Iceland’s quiet backing down on the scientific whaling quota seems to have received much less media exposure than the initial announcement of the plan. You could have saved a lot of time by simply reading the discussion and pointing out my mistake as opposed to waving your hands in the air.
I also got the information wrong regarding Iceland’s original whaling plan – according to your link it was actually intended to bring in 250 whales per year for two years, not 250 whales over two years as I cited. In spite of the myriad empty accusations and knee-jerk whining I have managed to attract so far, no one managed to address this error, and the other error was only pointed out when I finally shoved it into top prominence – again, that does not suggest attentive reading of the material here.
As long as Iceland doesn’t spring a surprise with dramatically increased quotas (no quotas seem to be provided beyond the present catch, yet the program is supposed to last for 2 years), 38 minke is an understandable number, a far cry from the intended catch of 500 whales. To go back to a related issue, 38 minke will do rather less to energize the domestic market for whale products than the tons of meat the original plan would have yielded – also, it will probably be too small an amount to tempt international trade.
I would still like to know what you had to say regarding the proposal to catch the sei. It seems the decision not to hunt them was announced only a little over a month ago according to your cite, so surely you must have had an opinion on this matter before then. Was there absolutely no cause for worry at any time, or is faith in Iceland’s fisheries sufficient to dispel these concerns?
I notice that a link from the page you cited actually addresses and repeats the RMS issues I have brought up countless times before – and that’s as close as a pro-whaler has come near that argument in this entire thread. Those who insist on whining about the moratorium on commercial whaling and those who blithely insist that it’s OK to hunt whales simply because there are X number of them would do well to read up on the RMS.
I must criticize the Icelandic Fisheries site for failing to point out (much like Useless Git) the obvious difference between a whaling nation and a nation where regulated aboriginal subsistence whaling may take place. For example, lumping Norway and the USA in the same group of “whaling nations” is misleading at best, and quite possinbly a deliberately dishonest propaganda tactic (by the way, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 banned the hunting of is a whaling nation). Really now, fisheries web sites ought not to be the stage of this kind of misrepresentative rhetoric.
I also have to point out that the site insists – without citing support – that the proposed catch of 100 sei whales would have had no impact at all on the whale stock. That is a strange claim to repeat without evidence considering the precisely opposite cited assertion by the IWC, and the fact that seis are on the ESA (Endangered Species Act) list and listed as endangered on the IUCN Red list (endangered defined as facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future). Perhaps sei whales have made a recovery – either way Fisheries’ claim requires adequate support. Further, from what I understand it seems well known that sei whales eat tiny plankton, so the argument that their stomachs must be sliced open for research into fisheries management is not self-evident (try telling that to Japan – I am glad that Iceland corrected course on this matter).
I’ll comment on Icelanders hunting the sei, if and when they actually start doing so.
And I have no problems with the natives taking bow-headed whales since they’re only taking around 70 animals from a population somewhere in the vicinity of 10.000 individuals.
Iceland’s scientific whaling is only taking 38 animals from a stock which is much larger than the bowhead whale population. Both Iceland and the U.S. hunt whales in accordance with the IWC regulations and a taken whale is just as dead whether it was hunted by American natives or Icelanders. So long as neither go overboard and start hunting them in unsustainable numbers, there is little danger.
Don’t blame your fellow posters for not instantaneously correcting mistakes you yourself made. Not everyone has the time (or the patience) to sit down and correct your ignorance, nit by nit.
In any case, water under the bridge. I hope we managed to set you straight on this issue. At least your anti-whaling attitudes will have a little more starch in them, no?
Dagger, my misguided newbie, you must learn the rules of debate before uttering such silliness. If you want to address an issue you educate yourself on the existing material, you don’t barge into a thread spouting proclamations that I have shown were off-topic and irrelevant to the points I was making. A period of weeks in which an error is repeated and cited over a dozen times yet always somehow overlooked hardly constitutes “instantaneous” correction. And the excuse that not everyone has time to correct my “ignorance” “nit by nit” is such a pathetic cover, such a transparent and feeble attempt at yet more posturing, that I say to you: get over yourself and deal with the issues at hand in a manner worthy of GD. That “nit” happened to be one of the KEY items to the Iceland argument, an item that you and others mysteriously managed to overlook for weeks in spite of frequent repetition and the fact that you live in the country where these facts are relevant.
I suspect you didn’t know yourself what the exact plan was, then you went to research it following a restating of my argument, and finally found out more about it. Of course I can’t confirm this, but I’ve been dealing with people who put far too much emphasis on posturing and not enough on debate on these boards long enough to have a pretty good idea.
Furthermore: if you see an error, you correct it, end of story. If you do not correct an error, especially if you leave an error to fester for weeks, you have no authority and no right to use the “laziness” excuse when it finally is corrected, because to all demonstrable intents and purposes you cannot show you were previously aware of it at all (though you should have been). You have no right to hand-wave while refusing to read the thread at hand, while also refusing to address the relevant items brought forward. That is not debate.
So you did indeed, as I was the first to admit, correct an error I made, but after I stated it and restated it so oft that you had no chance of missing it. It is therefore suggested that (charitably assuming you were in command of the facts all along) you did not read the material here, but felt you had to have your say anyway. That’s not debate, that is proselytizing at best, and a lot of things I won’t get into at worst.
You have set me straight on precisely one item: that Iceland very recently and very quietly withdrew its original outrageous “scientific” whaling proposal and replaced it with a much more restricted one that does not reek to high heaven of suspicious motives. I already admitted that I failed to see this recent development and was therefore arguing accordingly. I’m even grateful for the correction, and it’s always a warm fuzzy feeling to see a poster go from contributing nothing to contributing something.
All else remains standing. You refused to address my points about the original proposal to catch endangered species, saying that you would concern yourself with such only if and when Iceland actually carried out such a plan. Apart from being a non-contribution to the discussion, that does’t indicate you have given the matter much thought, and it signals that were the world left up to that kind of thinking, we would only be able to address problems after they already occurred. I hope the smiley in your post signalled that that statement was a jest – ether way that was not a contribution.
The fact that Iceland corrected course is admirable, but it certainly does not bring down my arguments or those of many environmentalists who initially objected to the plan, arguments that were patiently explained and supported (key word there) for weeks. Yes, Iceland has recently made an effort to clear the suspicions and objections roused by the announcement of their original research plan, but the reasoning behind the original suspicions and accusations is not going to be invalidated simply because the catch quota has been suddenly slashed by 1300 % or however much. Rather, I think the change in quota is a vindication for activists and nations that applied pressure and arguments to incite Iceland to modify their actions.
Let me also add (as I have stated before, though you wouldn’t have read it) that I am not an anti-whaler. I look into these whaling issues occasionally when my curiosity is stimulated by people using garbage arguments to crush environmentalists, who, though sometimes misguided, have good intentions. You may have the impression that I am anti-whaling simply because I am opposed to the actions of Norway and Japan in defiance/subterfuge to the IWC, as described ad nauseam. Following the announcement of the highly suspicious Icelandic original scientific whaling plan (quite similar to Japan’s), I addressed the real issues behind “scientific” whaling and their implications (not rubbish such as “it tastes good” or “minke are not endangered”). It turns out that Iceland changed plan last month. Good. I’ll still be able to level the same arguments at them should they resume the suspicious activities they had originally announced. And, not being a person who relies on faith, I can’t simply trust in goodwill as you do.
