Oriphiel

I see your point. But earlier you talked about the Taliban destroying statues of Buddha. The Taliban is a Conservative group, and they did what they did because they thought they were "saving" the morality of humanity. So you see, both Conservative and Liberal extremist groups want the same thing: to get people to submit to their moral ideals. It's just that typically ultra-Conservatives want to stop things from changing because they consider change morally unfounded, while ultra-Liberals want to bring about change because they consider the modern state of affairs to be morally unfounded.

Lord Larehip

But they meant to destroy it and they did so unapologetically.

Oriphiel

But Liberal Extremists blow things up all the time, and there are many Conservative Extremists who try to "protect" things and end up destroying them (how many conservative dictators have imposed strict laws on their population, citing "preserving public morality" as their reason, only to have their nation driven to the point of poverty and rebellion?). My point is that both sides think they are "saving" humanity with their violent actions, and neither is any better than the other.

Chula Vista

We use to have slaves in this country. We don't anymore. Should we turn a blind eye to other countries that have slaves today?

What's wrong is wrong. Whether we use to do it or not. Plain and simple.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

The Batlord

Well, are Yankee Quakers still the ones killing whales?

__________________

Lord Larehip

They don't exist anymore. Once the whaling thing dried up, so did they.

The Batlord

So why should Greenpeace be concerned with them when there are people who are actually killing whales at this moment?

__________________

Lord Larehip

Once we learned to rape the earth for oil we stopped killing whales which was good because there weren't many left by then. Now we are dictating to other nations how wrong it is to kill whales. It wasn't wrong when we were doing it on a scale so massive we nearly wiped them out in only 150 years. I know--when we did it, it was IMPORTANT! When they do it, it's just wanton destruction.

The Batlord

But... who cares about pointing fingers? Whales are being brought to the brink of extinction. That sucks. We should stop that from sucking. Quit ****ing whining. Jesus.

__________________

Lord Larehip

Well, that's a separate argument. I'm concerned about the hypocrisy and not the whale populations because, frankly, the whale is probably doomed. At best, their numbers have to be kept low and yet more nations want and need to start whaling:

Poorer whaling nations argue that the need for resumption of whaling is pressing. Horace Walters, from the Eastern Caribbean Cetacean Commission stated, "We have islands which may want to start whaling again - it's expensive to import food from the developed world, and we believe there's a deliberate attempt to keep us away from our resources so we continue to develop those countries' economies by importing from them."[36]

So, you see, anti-whaling keeps rich nations rich and poor nations poor and so really isn't as altruistic as it sounds.

Then there's the problem with fish stocks which Science magazine predicts could run out as early as 2048.

The Marine Conservation Society conducted a study of Britain's fishery that concluded:

The study calculated 'landings of fish per unit of fishing power' (LPUP) from 1889 to 2007 to give an indication of changes in the amount of fish available for capture by the fishing fleet. In that time, LPUP declined 500 times for halibut, more than 100 times for haddock and more than 20 times for plaice, wolffish, hake and ling. Cod has declined by 87 per cent.

Fish stock decline worse than previously thought | Marine Conservation Society

Press release - Exploitation of fish stocks has declined significantly during the last decade

Then there is the "rapid" decline of ocean plankton:

Rapid Plankton Decline Puts The Ocean's Food Web In Peril | ThinkProgress

According to Scientific American, phytoplankton population has dropped 40% since 1950:

Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950 - Scientific American

Phytoplanktons are absolutely essential to life on earth.

The problem is whales eat fish and plankton and they eat a lot of them. Large populations of whales is simply not feasible. In the end, I think the whale has had it.

But that is not my argument against Greenpeace. I focus only on the hypocrisy of telling other nations that they may not do what we did at a time when it was economically vital to us to do it. It's economically vital to them now--always has been.

Resorting to the whales-are-declining argument doesn't wash because almost all marine life in the oceans are declining because there are too many people--we have overfished, polluted and destroyed too much habitat and it isn't going to stop.

As I said, conservatives and liberals are the same. One claims to care about the environment and yet do you really think that even if you could prove to Greenpeace that whale stocks are as high as they have ever been that they would allow the killing of a single whale? I don't. And if you could prove to them that too may whales will negatively impact the environment, you know what these nature-lovers will say--"F-uck the environment! Nobody's going to kill any whales if we can do anything about it!"

They are not responsible people and nothing they say should ever be believed.