 | Forum Threads |  |
| Random Photo | |
Slættaratindur 2. Juni 2007
|
| | 
| Member Poll | |
|
| Comments |
on September 09 2010 09:00:11
I find it sad that these whale killing apologetics always come to the same conclusive argument: "What you guys do is the same thing!"
I'm sorry, but that's not a good argument; actually, it's a false argument. This means you should reconsider your arguments. |
on September 09 2010 09:36:10
Well, then how's about "It's what we do, this is how we do it, so fuck off and mind your own business!" as an argument?
I like this article, because it's the first piece of factual stance I've seen in the press, outside of FO, besides a German documentary from the 70's.
I, on the other hand, find it sad, that these "save the whales" eco-mentalists always come to the same conclusive arguments:
"You people don't need the meat from the whales" and
"The whales are so polluted, that they're not fit to eat anymore"
I like meat, you people don't!
You people like Tofu, I don't!
Let's just leave it at that. |
on September 09 2010 14:43:02
Are you trying to argue or are you trying to say you don't care about other people's opinion? Cause doing both at the same time means you fail at both...
I like a factual stance as much as, or more, than the next guy. I was, however, deploring the pervasive use of a false argument. An argument that we all used as kids, and which we all were berated for as kids. Oh, and a list of facts is not an argument; you have to actually conclude something based on the facts. The conclusion HJH comes to is "it's really not that bad, and besides, you're just as bad!".
The arguments you provided for your eco-straw-mentalists are, ironically, perfectly valid. And they're even backed by Faroese scientists.
Now, if you don't care about other people's opinion, then I suggest you do that. Perhaps by not reacting? Because reacting (especially with a rant) kinda makes it seem like you do care.
And, if indeed you do care and are trying to argue, then I suggest you bring some arguments to the table instead of mindless ranting. |
on September 09 2010 17:56:32
Am gonna post my personal opinion here. Feel free to critique:
At the moment the debate is not about the ethics of eating meat. Rather the issue seems to be what meat we eat and how we harvest said meat.
Now the issue of what animal to kill, I don't see how it is more wrong to kill and eat a whale as compared to for instance a pig. If you do then please let me know.
As to the methods, I do believe it is MORE humane to let an animal live in it's natural habitat before killing it than keeping it caged, fattening it with hormones and such, and generally having it live a miserable life before trucking it to a factory to be slaughtered.
Where is the flaw in the argument? |
on September 09 2010 19:57:54
Where is the flaw in the argument?
According to Vuzman, it's in the argument itself, as well as the argument you pose, as a whole.
Are you trying to argue Yes, I am.
are you trying to say you don't care about other people's opinion? Yes, I do care.
Vuzman, you deplore the argument as a whole, because you refuse to aknowledge the fact, that anyone can think that it's perfectly acceptable that eating meat causes pain and stress on the animals being slaughtered. I, on the other hand, am perfectly aware of this, and deplore the fact, that any rational and sane individual, can honestly submit themselves to the degree of self-delusion that most of these "anti-killing-of-animals" personae seem to be on.
My argument is:
We eat meat, because we choose to do so.
To be able to eat meat, we must kill animals.
Killing animals causes them pain and stress.
Killing animals makes them bleed.
Seeing blood causes eco-mentalists to go into a fit.
Meat tastes good.
We choose to eat the meat. |
on September 09 2010 21:39:32
@Torellion: I don't see a flaw in your argument. That's not the false argument if that's what you think.
@JT: I was deploring the fact that a central argument in every whale killing apology I have seen so far is a logical fallacy. I didn't mention anything about killing being wrong.
I'm not sure what to make of the rest of your post. |
on September 09 2010 23:04:10
It's been a while since we had one of these. My 2 cents:
I agree with you Vuz, that saying others are doing the same thing as you is no argument for what you are doing is right. It can be used to mitigate the circumstances nonetheless, as kids frequently do  There is a difference though, and that is that when kids use this argument it is towards a teacher or parent; someone not in the wrong. In this case it is used towards the other misbehaving boys doing the same things, in effect saying "stop telling me to do something which you are unable or unwilling to do yourself".
You also write:
The arguments you provided for your eco-straw-mentalists are, ironically, perfectly valid. And they're even backed by Faroese scientists.
Here I would say yes and no. That whale meat is unhealthy is the conclusion reached by some Faroese scientists, and it should be accepted in the absence of any further qualified evidence to the contrary. Being skeptical is one thing, but if we're going to flat out disbelieve what our scientists conclude, we might as well close down Fróðskaparsetrið.
The other argument is way too ambiguous to be taken seriously. "You people don't need the meat from the whales". Need it in what sense and for what? Is there no need for it? - or - can one survive without it? I would very much say that whale meat is valued by most Faroese, so if that is the meaning then it is false. On the other hand, whale meat is not crucial to our survival at the moment, which is what I think is the intended meaning. In that sense, the argument is valid, but it is hardly a reason to stop eating whale meat? if so, then it is the weakest argument in history. You must stop doing X because X isn't crucial to your survival - in that case we must stop doing a lot of things.
( P.S. with regard to apologists and apologies: In the English language, the word apology is derived from the Greek word, but its use has changed; its primary sense now refers to a plea for forgiveness for a wrong act. Implicit in this is an admission of guilt, thus turning on its head the "speaking in defense" aspect of the original concept. from wiki) |
on September 10 2010 08:53:28
@Griz:
I generally agree with what you said, but I'm going to nitpick a little 
1) I see the difference between the teacher and the other misbehaving kids, but many of those misbehaving kids are not misbehaving! It is not unlikely that the most vocal of the opposers (e.g. the Sea Shepherd guy) realizes the dilemma of being a meat-eater and speaking out against killing, and has taken the consequences of that and become a veg*an. Indeed, look back in history at any widespread practice that we now deem as morally wrong (slavery, women's non-suffrage), then you can never escape the fact that on an international basis (or any large-group-basis) you will always start in a situation where any individual will be faced with the "you guys (nation or group) do the same". The only time where this argument is valid is if we say, "you guys do the same, but you're right, so let's both do X".
I would also like to state my dislike for the "first stone" argument. If we should do as Jesus said, and not speak up against anything if we have ever done something wrong ourselves, well, then no one is ever going to say anything. Hypocrite or not, the argument should stand on its own.
2) Whale meat is unhealthy. This is not a claim, this is fact. We know the levels of pollutants in whale meat, and we know this exceeds healthy levels, and we have evidence that this has a real, measurable effect. Fact. Not speculation, or "some scientists believe", but fact. There is no arguing over this fact.
3) To say that because you value whale meat, you need it, is really stretching the definition of 'need'. The word you're looking for is 'want'. Not the same.
And the argument can't be paraphrased as "You must stop doing X because X isn't crucial to your survival", but rather "You must stop doing X because it is bad for you and your unborn children!". Also, stop pinning JT's strawman arguments on me.
4) I thought everyone was aware what an apologetic was, but then again, I also thought that everyone had the skills of forming a basic argument. I was clearly wrong. 
PS: One might argue that using the "you guys do the same" argument is an implicit admission of guilt... |
on September 10 2010 09:21:25
I don't see anything wrong with eating whale meat.
Wuzman's 2nd point on whale meat being unhealthy: I agree to some extent, but would still like to see a cost/benefit analysis of the nutritional value of meat and blubber. It is a well known fact that beside being contaminated by mercury, PCBs and DDT, they are also very rich in vitamins, minerals and Omega3 etc.
You refer to unborn children - the official recommendation has been for years that girls and women of child-bearing age should not eat whale meat and blubber. I would therefore personally not feed my daughter (when that day comes) whale meat and blubber except maybe as a small snack on a special occasion.
What to me is the biggest issue is animal cruelty and humane killing. I agree with Torellion's statements on caging etc. - But when the Faroese claim (as we regularily do) that grindadráp is conducted in a manner that is as humane as possible, we really need to do so. There have been examples this summer that indicate that there are some Faroese people who do not care a flying fu*k for animal welfare. We need to address that issue head-on and maybe consider introducing hunting-licenses for grind. |
on September 10 2010 09:53:34
I was deploring the fact that a central argument in every whale killing apology I have seen so far is a logical fallacy. I didn't mention anything about killing being wrong.
But, that is the underlying argument in every stop-grindadráp post ever posted anywhere. The "you don't need the meat" argument is fundamentally flawed, as we pretty much don't need anything besides sunlight, water and basic nutrients. On this basis, I could use the same argument to say "you don't really need the clothes you're all wearing". Does this make the argument valid enough to have a bunch of nudists running around everywhere, throwing paint on anyone wearing any clothes? Does it make them right, or deranged?
When the previous argument clearly doesn't have the desired effect, they fall on the "whalemeat is unhealthy" thesis. If that should be a complete argument, then it must encompass every foodsource that is unhealthy, e.g. any sprayed vegetable and fruit, water-enlarged chickens, roasted onions and so forth, thus negating most any readilly available foodsource today. If we do this, then the degree of world hunger that we have today, is nothing compared to what's to come.
I like meat. I don't want to become a vegan (there is no such thing as a vegetarian), and I'll continue to eat meat, as long as it is available to me. You choose to live without meat. I respect that, and wish you the best of luck in your endeavour. I therefore have no respect whatsoever, for these "eco-saved" nutjobs, not respecting my wish to eat meat. I my book, they're worse than the Mullahs and Jenis' of this world. |
on September 10 2010 09:59:42
@Laluu:
Regarding health, I think it is a no-brainer. I'm not certain about this, but I expect that in order to get a health benefit from whale meat/blubber you would have to consume it in an amount and regularity that would be quite detrimental, considering the pollutants (this might be arguable in the case of fish, but I think that a whale would accumulate exponentially more pollutants). In any case, vitamins, minerals, Omega3 can all easily be gained from other sources.
As an aside I would like to correct a popular notion that we 'need' to eat fish to get 'fish oil'. Fish and whales do not produce Omega3 oil, they get it from eating algae and plankton. It can also be obtained from seaweed.
Also regarding the health argument: Stop pinning JT's arguments on me!
If I were to use the health argument, or the bad publicity argument, it is because of my own selfish reasons: I may well move back to the Faroes to live at some point, and I'd like to live in a country that doesn't have a measurably lower-than-average average IQ, and that doesn't get boycotted and booed by other nations.
Regarding cruelty and humane killing, I absolutely agree. I do think, however, that there is a real problem in the fact that many of the people that participate in the grinds do not do so because they need food, want the meat's health benefits, or do it out of charity for the old people at the old people's homes. Let's call a spade a spade. I've also been to many grinds, with varying levels of participation, and any logical reason I might have had was just a bonus. It was the emotional reasons that weighed the most. As long as this is the main reason why people do it, I think we're going to continue to have fuck-ups like we had this summer.
Yes, I'm going to claim that the emotional reasons are the most important for the grindapeople today. I think if there were mainly logical reasons for the grinds, then the grinds would have been different. Hunting licenses is one example. In fact, the restrictions that we have placed all were put in place because of pressure from the outside, usually with heated opposition. Maybe the opposition felt that any regard for the animals' welfare was an implicit admission of guilt? |
on September 10 2010 11:51:10
I was deploring the fact that a central argument in every whale killing apology I have seen so far is a logical fallacy. I didn't mention anything about killing being wrong.
But, that is the underlying argument in every stop-grindadráp post ever posted anywhere.
What what what?
The "you don't need the meat" argument is fundamentally flawed
FFS! It is your own fucking strawman argument!!1 If I thought it was a good argument I would have brought it up myself. But it isn't, so I didn't!
I started this discussion with e technical discussion about rhetoric and fallacies, but you keep trying to make this a moral discussion.
So let's have a fun little exercise. Let's take the concluding argument from your last post, and substitute the moral issue with some other moral issue:
I like X. I don't want to become a Y-man, and I'll continue to X. You choose to Y. I respect that. Therefore you should respect me, or at least fuck off and mind your own business.
Try substituting X with slavery, child rape, spousal abuse, balloon sex, etc.
It should be abundantly clear that just because you respect the opposition doesn't mean that you should get a free pass, or that they should respect you back.
It should also be clear that you're not presenting any arguments at all. "I like balloon sex" isn't an argument, and it can't be rebutted. It's a statement. An argument in defense of balloons could be "Balloons should consent to any sex, you don't have that, ergo it's wrong", or it could be "The thought of you having sex with balloons sickens me, ergo you should not do it". The last one is not a good argument as my taste preferences should be irrelevant.
I think this is what you are trying to argue with your statements; that veg*ans' preferences are different than yours, but we should all be able to have our own preferences. You see it as an issue of personal freedom. That is incorrect though, as personal freedom only applies to your own sphere of self-influence: As soon as other sentient beings are involved, there are other considerations to be valued above your personal freedom. |
on September 10 2010 13:03:00
No pro-whaling argument is EVER going to be 'good enough' for your kind of people.
The basis of every debate on the issue, always ends up the same. Eco-groups and urbanites saying how terrible it is for the animals, and the 'normal' people with the "look where your own dinner comes from" argument.
The point and facts that HJH presents are not an apology or a conclusive argument for us killing whales. It's more of a "this is how it is". Everything else is useless in these non- or pro- whaling discussions, as the debate always ends up in a mud toss competition.
That you aknowledge your selfish reasons for wanting to end grindadráp, is fine. I understand those reasons, but why do you then repute my selfish reasons for wanting to continue the grindadráp? |
on September 10 2010 13:05:15
P.S. Your 'substitute x and y' is flawed, as it can be used in any debate on any issue. |
on September 10 2010 13:40:40
P.S. Your 'substitute x and y' is flawed, as it can be used in any debate on any issue.
Beautifully rebutted |
on September 10 2010 14:09:59
Personally, I don't like it very much, neither the taste nor the comical farce. Grindalykkju I eat maybe 2 times a year. Grindadráp is not a pretty sight, and it seems to me that people go slightly mad whenever "grindaboð" is yelled. 200 boats go out to catch 15 whales. Cars are flooding the streets, people leave their cars in the middle of the road, even police cars park on top of other cars. And you sit there in a fucking traffic jam because people are too fat or retarded to walk more than a 100 meters, no use calling the police they don't give a fuck they probably just beat you up anyway. These people should have their assholes waxed and raped, that or legalizing front shooting missiles in cars. The so called sýslumenn are screwing their villagers over and selling parts to high bidders, parts that should have gone to the local villager. Rant over.... for now |
on September 10 2010 14:30:38
3) ... Also, stop pinning JT's strawman arguments on me.
Heh, you said they were perfectly valid, so I assumed you supported them even if they weren't your own
2) Whale meat is unhealthy. This is not a claim, this is fact. We know the levels of pollutants in whale meat, and we know this exceeds healthy levels, and we have evidence that this has a real, measurable effect. Fact. Not speculation, or "some scientists believe", but fact. There is no arguing over this fact.
I beg to differ. Unfortunately, it is always possible to argue everything - even facts - because; 1. The definition of scientific fact can be - and is - disputed philosophically. (lets not go into this.)
2. It is often unclear how "healthy levels" are determined. I haven't done any research about whale meat in particular, but have in the past hit a brick wall when trying to find out how "healthy levels" are determined. I very much doubt that "healthy levels" is an exact indisputable scientific fact, as supporting such broad sweeping conclusions is intrinsically difficult.
3. The evidence we have that supports the "real measurable effect" is in our case not universally accepted as evidence. At least I know that the latest thesis from M. Petersen, linking whale consumption in specific Faroese villages to poorer health in said villages, can be and has been disputed by people who have read the thesis; something to do with flaws in the method.
Like I said before, the science is there and it is pretty solid as far as I can tell in concluding that eating whale meat is detrimental to your health. However, calling these findings indisputable fact is stretching it. |
on September 10 2010 15:03:56
Beautifully rebutted
P.S. your beautification of rebuttal X is flawed, as smiley Y can be used in any debate on any issue. |
on September 10 2010 16:43:45
P.S. Your 'substitute x and y' is flawed, as it can be used in any debate on any issue.
Beautifully rebutted
No. You don't understand (either of you). Maybe I wasn't making myself clear. The focus wasn't on the X/Y part but the construction of the argument. Saying you like something isn't an argument, it's a statement. Respecting others doesn't give you a free pass.
you said they were perfectly valid, so I assumed
You know what they say about assumptions... I said they were valid, I didn't say they were good. There's quite a difference.
Regarding the health of whale meat, there's no discussion whether it contains mercury, PCB, DDT, and there's no discussion about the detrimental effects of mercury/PCB/DDT poisoning. What the levels are, sure, we can discuss that, but let's leave that to the scientists who know what they're doing. It is certainly not MSP's study that is being used to determine this, it is the many studies of Pál Weihe and Philippe Grandjean (now a Harvard professor), that began in the 80s. These studies actually form the benchmark for methyl mercury poisoning for the FDA, EPA, WHO, etc. It's safe to say they have been sufficiently peer reviewed.
Now, you can go all Descartes on my ass, but I don't think that would be helpful to anyone. It's a fact as long as we use reasonable definitions of the word "fact". |
on September 10 2010 17:06:49
That you aknowledge your selfish reasons for wanting to end grindadráp, is fine. I understand those reasons, but why do you then repute my selfish reasons for wanting to continue the grindadráp?
I don't repute (whatever you think that means) your reasons, and I'm not saying they're not valid reasons, I'm just saying they're not arguments that other people can use for or against anything. You like that, and that is your reason for wanting it to continue, and that's fine for you. But when people come to us and say "Stop that!", we can't very well say "Sorry, but JT likes it".
Or maybe you've found the ultimate argument to end every debate ever. Unless someone even cleverer says "infinity plus one!" |
on September 10 2010 17:07:19
@OKJones: LOL |
on September 10 2010 18:48:22
Saying you like something isn't an argument, it's a statement.
Me and Spiff talked about this the other day - stating how you feel is indeed not an argument. Statements can be true or false and on their own. For something to be considered an argument it must contain a statement and a conclusion.
Killing animals causes them pain and stress. <statement>
We choose to eat the meat.<statement>
Killing animals makes them bleed.<statement>
Seeing blood causes eco-mentalists to go into a fit. <statement>
Meat tastes good. <statement>
We eat meat, because we choose to do so .<statement> + <conclusion> = <argument>
To be able to eat meat, we must kill animals. <statement> + <conclusion> = <argument>
Arguments can be valid or invalid. Both arguments are strictly considered invalid, since it is possible to force someone to eat meat, and it is possible to eat dead animals, not killed by "us". Strictly speaking, all the statements are false too, but I doubt Thomsen intended to make a formal logical argument. |
|
|
| Post Comment | |
Please Login to Post a Comment.
|
|
|
| Login | |
Forgotten your password? Request a new one here.
|
| |
| Last Seen Users | |
| Obituaries | |
You must login to post a message.
|
| |
|
Interest
