I don't like the idea of hunting and sport being used in the same phrase
hunting was the first sport. i cant think of anything that could be called a sport over hunting
hunting was the first sport. i cant think of anything that could be called a sport over hunting
are you talking about sapient like as in apes, or did you mean sentient as in self aware?
if you are referring to the whale being sentient i would agree, they have a sophisticated communication and a intricate social structure, and i do dis agree with the fishing of them on that basis. but without war how do you stop the fishermen from harvesting them? is protecting a lesser life form by destroying a greater one ethical? if so justify that of course without demonizing people. perhaps instead of an antiwhaleing armada and risk of life loss on all three sides perhaps there can be conservation, and controlled fishing, and seasons, and regulations about size and species. we do that with everything else.
if you were referring to apes as sapiens, that is incorrect sapiens are human, that is the name of our species. simians are apes and monkeys and other primates. and the same thing exists with their species, people kill them for trophies and food, many countries have a taste for ape and monkey meat.
i agree there should be restrictions on such harvesting, but how can i tell a nation to stop because of my ethical delima. unless you want USA ruling all wildlife world wide
i hunt because i enjoy the idea of knowing the origin of my meat, that read slab of flesh in the grocery store can have any number of illnesses, and could have been killed weeks ago, you never know. you can lable it this or that but that requires trust in a system that is completely corrupted and notorious for pathogens in the meat.
i wonder why people dont seem to object to fishing as much as hunting, it is exactly the same act. or for that matter slaughter houses, what is the difference.
i am beginning to think that it is a case of people not liking it and therefor thinking it is wrong.
if you dont like hunting, dont like it that is okay. i dont like knitting but i am not going to run out and ban knitting
You mention the opportunity to be wild. Whales and most other hunted creatures are born wild. They take their chances in the natural world as to whether they survive of not whereas animals that are born to be killed for consumption have a quaranteed healthy life.
The fact that they are pumped full of chemicals before and after death is ofcourse true. Thats one of the pitfalls of eating meat.
Early mankind did not hunt for 'sport', they hunted for food to survive, skins to make shelter and clothes and bones for weapons.
Anything that doesnt result in killing a living creature and is done as a competition is sport.
Fish are not sentient beings in the same way that birds, mammals are, at least I dont think so. Fishing as a sport is wrong because why inflict pain just so you can weigh/measure something then stuff it in a case or throw it back?
Im guessing that nothing has died as a result of knitting
I agree if at the present time I could hunt again I would I always liked it and never get tired of it. Though I will follow the law if a species is said to be unhuntable, or unfishable.
Short of that I would always hunt but for the time being I can't so I just will wait until I can.
Though yet that is how our ancestors got their food a hundred years ago and before that it is exactly that a sport in a way the thrill of the hunt. It also provide food for ones family which make the person feel good.I don't like the idea of hunting and sport being used in the same phrase
Hunting for sport indicates it is not strictly necessary. Its like tracking a deer or chasing a fox.Exciting at the time, satisfaction of killing an animal if you can gain satisfaction from that, but its not sport to me. If you killed the deer with bare hands then its equal but these days hunters have rifles, often with telescopic sites.
Sentient is to be aware of ones environment, sapience is to be aware of ones self. A chicken is sentient, a human (or a whale) is sapient. That humpback knows what and who it is as much as you do and is of comparable intelligence. Environment (water means no fire which means no metal forging which means no advanced tools which means no civilization) is the only reason dolphins don't rule the world and we do.
the deer is adapt to its environment, man is not, we have to use tools to manipulate our environment. The deer has three weapons and you think a man should have none. A deer would absolutly kill a person who attempted what you suggest, how on earth is that fair.
What would you say is a sport.
We had civilization before we had metal fodgeing, ie puma punku, monchu pechu. And so on.
Whales dont have civilization because they are uncapable of overcoming their limitations. They lack intellegence to form such a thing, my proof is that the whale dosent have such things.
How do you know the whale is self aware, ever been a whale
Why don't they rule the oceans then? I think dolphins are awesome but I think you might be giving them too much credit
How do I know you're self-aware? I'm not you. I know by our interactions and the independent and original actions you take. Anyone who has studied whales and the like has seen the same in them as I in you. And yes whales have comparable intelligence, bottlenose dolphins have shown human-level intelligence and the typical whale and dolphin species is smarter then a chimp.
First and formost, that is a terrable argument, people know others are self aware because we communicate, hence proof. I believe whales are intellegent as are dolphins, incredibly intellegent, so are gorillas, and othe apes, but few have been able to use tools, so they dont share our intellegence, until they do, they will never be thought of as equal to man.
Dolphins are thought to be self-aware (as are some other animals- elephants, great apes, etc.) based on a few tests such as the mirror test. Either way, self-awareness does not automatically make them equivalent to humans in cognitive function as David seems to be implying.
I agree, there are ways to decide if a creature is self aware without verbal comunication. I.e. body language and so forth.
I dont know why you have to believe an animal is as intellegent as man to believe it is worth protecting, obviously the people who capture and kill them either disagree or dont care. It is improtant for us people who do to act in that manner. And fight the urge to demonize people who disagree. I am a conservationist, i have always been. But how do you stop something like whaleing without making world wide law.
You don't. You make a world wide law like they already did and tell the whalers to GTFO. What's needed is to close the 'research' loophole.
I agree, there are ways to decide if a creature is self aware without verbal comunication. I.e. body language and so forth.
I dont know why you have to believe an animal is as intellegent as man to believe it is worth protecting, obviously the people who capture and kill them either disagree or dont care. It is improtant for us people who do to act in that manner. And fight the urge to demonize people who disagree. I am a conservationist, i have always been. But how do you stop something like whaleing without making world wide law.
And the law works so well, loophole or not they will continue. There are hundreds of thousands of people in jail to attest to to that.
Laws are not the answer.
