Not nice.
- Thread starter Deluks
- Start date
Sponsored Links
bloody bleeding hearts..
nothing wrong with that, they're hunting them for research.
it's not like they're herding them into shallow water and clubbing them to death for food like some of them do..
nothing wrong with that, they're hunting them for research.
it's not like they're herding them into shallow water and clubbing them to death for food like some of them do..
I watch this when it's on discovery. That sonar machine they use to blow up your eardrums must friggin' hurt like hell!
are you serious? Research! my fecking arse. What is it that they are researching then, how effective their exploding harpoons are, how long it takes a whale to die, what agony it will go through while dying. The Japanese have more whale meat stored than they can eat so they're not after that. maybe it's the blubber they want? Plenty of fat bastards they could get that from on land
And you think killing for research is preferable to killing for food do you.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,624
- Reaction score
- 667
- Country
That is an apalling comment to make. No wonder you have trouble finding work with views like that.
Mr. W.
why is it an appaling comment?
people hunt things all the time..
it's an animal just like a deer..
so how does that make it any worse?
I'm sure you wear leather shoes and eat meat so why the sudden concern for a whale?
I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.. if you don't agree with it then don't read it..
people hunt things all the time..
it's an animal just like a deer..
so how does that make it any worse?
I'm sure you wear leather shoes and eat meat so why the sudden concern for a whale?
I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.. if you don't agree with it then don't read it..
That's the best argument you can come up with to defend the ****e you wrote.
Please explain how we would know it was ****e without first reading it.
Please explain how we would know it was ****e without first reading it.
Okay, so why does a human being have more rights than any animals?
There is no difference between human animals and human being, we are all animals at the end of the day
L
longdogs
I wish people would just leave the animals alone. Why do we need to research everyting until we destroy it. Why does everything have to be weighed and measured and tagged.
It's mainly humans that wipe the animals out anyway so just leave them alone.
R
RedHerring2
I'm with Coljack on this. It's a large animal being killed and it's always upsetting the first time. But if you're into eating meat or wearing natural skins, etc it has to go on. And what's the difference in seeing a large animal being killed to a smaller one? A chicken, pig, turkey etc.
Don't get absorbed in the emotional and propoganda language used by either side. Stand back and take a distant view.
This is a propoganda film. It's so obvious it even contradicts itself a couple of times. At about quarter of way into film it states the whale has been struggling for 25 minutes. Later (at 6.35) one crewman states "the whole operation is so efficient, 20 minutes tops"
Only a few seconds later this is contradicted by another stating 25 minutes again (at 7.12).
It seems strange that the film only lasts just over 7 minutes. If there was 25 minutes of gore to be filmed I'm sure they would have done.
Who's the one into gore the most, the killers who do it day in day out to earn a living, or the filmmakers who want to bring this stuff to our screens to shock us?
I'm not disinterested in some killing of animals, for sport, fun, ornaments or in case of endangered species.
But food or clothing, etc, it's always going to happen. Someone's shock and horror is another's food, clothing, wages.
Don't get absorbed in the emotional and propoganda language used by either side. Stand back and take a distant view.
This is a propoganda film. It's so obvious it even contradicts itself a couple of times. At about quarter of way into film it states the whale has been struggling for 25 minutes. Later (at 6.35) one crewman states "the whole operation is so efficient, 20 minutes tops"
Only a few seconds later this is contradicted by another stating 25 minutes again (at 7.12).
It seems strange that the film only lasts just over 7 minutes. If there was 25 minutes of gore to be filmed I'm sure they would have done.
Who's the one into gore the most, the killers who do it day in day out to earn a living, or the filmmakers who want to bring this stuff to our screens to shock us?
I'm not disinterested in some killing of animals, for sport, fun, ornaments or in case of endangered species.
But food or clothing, etc, it's always going to happen. Someone's shock and horror is another's food, clothing, wages.
I am staggered how anyone can seek to justify the cruelty that goes hand in hand with whaling. You want to tell us that it's upsetting because it is the first time it has been witnessed. If we watch it more it will become acceptable? not to me.
How about it's upsetting because of the methods used? they may well be necessary when hunting whale, i don't know. If they are, all the more reason not to hunt them. The killing of mothers and their calfs is justified by the fact it would be cruel to leave the calf on it's own. Really, how about leaving them both to roam the seas. What's so terrible about that.
Don't think for one minute their meat is needed to feed the population of Japan, it isn't. The Japanese have made it clear that they are not killing them for use as food, but for research. That's why research is painted all over their whalers. It's all done in the name of science and as we all know, cruelty is perfectly justified when done in the name of science.
In any case, do we really need to slaughter 900 plus whales every year for " research" for tissue sample, organ condition, body length, migration data.
Would you really want to eat meat from any other animal that you "knew" had been killed in such an horrific way? I eat meat and know full well how it gets to my table. That doesn't in anyway mean I have to find whaling acceptable. If I knew or even thought that an animal that my meat came from went through the same pain and suffering that whales go through, I honestly wouldn't eat meat.
There is only one "honest"reason we kill whale and it is the same one for everything else we kill. "Because we can".
How about it's upsetting because of the methods used? they may well be necessary when hunting whale, i don't know. If they are, all the more reason not to hunt them. The killing of mothers and their calfs is justified by the fact it would be cruel to leave the calf on it's own. Really, how about leaving them both to roam the seas. What's so terrible about that.
Don't think for one minute their meat is needed to feed the population of Japan, it isn't. The Japanese have made it clear that they are not killing them for use as food, but for research. That's why research is painted all over their whalers. It's all done in the name of science and as we all know, cruelty is perfectly justified when done in the name of science.
In any case, do we really need to slaughter 900 plus whales every year for " research"
for tissue sample, organ condition, body length, migration data.Would you really want to eat meat from any other animal that you "knew" had been killed in such an horrific way? I eat meat and know full well how it gets to my table. That doesn't in anyway mean I have to find whaling acceptable. If I knew or even thought that an animal that my meat came from went through the same pain and suffering that whales go through, I honestly wouldn't eat meat.
There is only one "honest"reason we kill whale and it is the same one for everything else we kill. "Because we can".
R
RedHerring2
You don't eat fish, crab, lobster then? Or don't they count 'cos they're small or considered to have no feelings?
Try raising animals and killing them for the table. The killing of them, however swift and efficient is never enjoyable.
It's just a personal interpretation of what goes on. You draw the line at what you consider acceptable.
Me? I'm not horrified because some organisations have the resources to be able to bring these type of stories to our screens.
I do question the wisdom of spending so much on trying to prevent some people eating what they want or need whilst some people of the world are starving or dying of thirst/decease.
As I said, I eat meat. Does that really lessen my perception of cruelty or my right to object to what I perceive to be cruel. I think not.
If I choose to eat crab or lobster or fish it is in the knowledge that it has been killed quickly.
I mystified by your use of the word "interpretation" how is the killing of a whale an interpretation?
As for an organisation bringing it to our attention, how else would you get to hear of it.
People are starving it's true, However those trying to prevent the hunting of whale are not the cause of that starvation, nor could they prevent it.
If I choose to eat crab or lobster or fish it is in the knowledge that it has been killed quickly.
I mystified by your use of the word "interpretation" how is the killing of a whale an interpretation?
As for an organisation bringing it to our attention, how else would you get to hear of it.
People are starving it's true, However those trying to prevent the hunting of whale are not the cause of that starvation, nor could they prevent it.
R
RedHerring2
To take your points one by one :
1. You're absolutely right. You must have your own view of what you consider cruel or necessary. You also have an absolute right to object to any practices. Similarly, I have a right to condone/accept/ignore/understand those practices.
2. Fish killed quickly? I think not, or perhaps after being trapped for hours even days in nets/pots, etc. Apart from that, you're not seriously going to tell me that you question/interrogate the supply chain of all meat and fish that you eat. In this country and abroad?
3. Interpretation? Hmm, well the language used in the film is certainly theatrical. Interpretation as to its necessity, etc. How else do you kill a whale?
4. The film could have been less one-sided, less prejudicial, using less emotive language. Perhaps filmed by an independent, non-biased organisation.
5. The film seeks to prevent some people from eating what they want or need. Doesn't that immediately suggest that they will eat something else, perhaps depriving others of that food?
Also, the money could be better spent on relieving hunger elsewhere.
1. You're absolutely right. You must have your own view of what you consider cruel or necessary. You also have an absolute right to object to any practices. Similarly, I have a right to condone/accept/ignore/understand those practices.
2. Fish killed quickly? I think not, or perhaps after being trapped for hours even days in nets/pots, etc. Apart from that, you're not seriously going to tell me that you question/interrogate the supply chain of all meat and fish that you eat. In this country and abroad?
3. Interpretation? Hmm, well the language used in the film is certainly theatrical. Interpretation as to its necessity, etc. How else do you kill a whale?
4. The film could have been less one-sided, less prejudicial, using less emotive language. Perhaps filmed by an independent, non-biased organisation.
5. The film seeks to prevent some people from eating what they want or need. Doesn't that immediately suggest that they will eat something else, perhaps depriving others of that food?
Also, the money could be better spent on relieving hunger elsewhere.
Sponsored Links
