“The Procter & Gamble Company is being recognized for its longstanding financial and scientific commitment to advancing alternatives to animal testing and for its instrumental support in the passage and strengthening of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods. This committee is made up of several federal agencies that work together to advance alternatives to animal testing.”

http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/the_humane_society_of_the_united_states_honors_corporations_at_humane_awards.html

“There is a growing demand for products from animals raised in accord with humane care standards, a demand escalated by best-selling books, the media, advocacy and popular culture. Educated consumers want those farmers who treat animals and workers humanely to stand out from the competition and to prosper. HFAC’s program gives them the means to identify those farmers and reward them with their business.”

http://www.ashoka.org/adouglass

David, you could not have picked a worse example to make your point. Procter and Gamble is known to conduct animal testing on their products, and while they are trying to phase out of that they have not. At least not yet.

David,

The issue is not your position, the issue is that you failed at supporting it with facts.

It would be nice if you could stick to the topic and refrain from going on an unrelated rant.. but I must admit I’m somewhat curious as to how you’ve determined that I:

- obviously believe any killing of animals is inhumane

- oh except those that you consider below consideration.

- you just have drawn a line where above the line is sacred and below the line is OK to kill

- you are just as willing to have animals killed as long as they are small and/or pests.

You got all of this from one comment? wow. That’s impressive. I better watch what I write, pretty soon you’ll have everything about me figured out.

Seriously. I haven’t written any of the above, so please stop assuming you have any idea whatsoever what I believe because you don’t know me. Stick to the facts and things you know or believe and please stop assuming you no anything about anyone other than yourself. Thank you.

And you say I think I’m more knowledgeable than anyone?

Um, I merely pointed out that P&G was a poor choice to use as an example and that it did not prove your point. And I pointed out that whether there is a demand for products from animals raised in accord with humane standards may be great, there are many cases and examples where that is just not the case.

Whether consumers believe they are purchasing such products and companies make such claims about their products does not in any way mean that it is true. I gave you a link to information and facts illustrating that in fact, in many cases these claims are misleading and the care standards no more humane than other products.

Sorry you didn’t appreciate it but take the opportunity to learn something new by checking out the links I provided and just pick valid examples next time.

David…you are no different? You are happy to see whales killed, but you might not be happy to see humans killed. So try not to be to high brow in this discussion.

If you are neither happy or sad over anything,or incapable of any emotions, that just means that you are autistic. Or a moron.

People without feelings or passion or empathy will never understand those who possess feelings and passion and empathy.

David, you appear to be sorely lacking in all three.

David, if that is true, then that explains a lot. I would not discriminate against you because of it, but yo must face facts that there are something you cannot do. obviously you are incapable of feeling empathy for the whales, that much is clear. If you criticize people who do have empathy for them, then it would be wrong of you to discriminate against us.

Boo are you really think people are that ignorant? You use ‘autistic’ and ‘moron’ as slurs but now you try and say you really didn’t mean it in a bad way. Just like racists that say ‘but I have a black friend so I can’t be racist’.

“obviously you are incapable of feeling empathy for the whales, that much is clear.”

And why is that obvious? I have the ability to feel empathy, I just don’t feel it for whales. Hunting them is legal, the numbers taken don’t endanger the species so I feel no worse for them than the millions of other animals legally killed every year.

And what do you mean by accusing me of discriminating against people who do have empathy for whales? Disagreeing with you is now some type of discrimination? Point out facts is discriminatory?

I’m with David. The more I look at this, the less I like these interventions.

I think there are a lot of thinking people that agree, but the thinking people taking the opposite view on this site too often can’t express rational opposition, and are offensive and rude. I’m sorry you were a victim of that David, but I’m glad to see you stick by your convictions.

Fishermen do back down…when they have raped and pillaged the ocean to such an extent that there are no more fish left. See Canada.

Things are almost always like that. Look at the civil rights movement in America, for instance, personified by Dr. King Jr and Malcom X. There were people during the Holocaust that stood around and did nothing, and those that joined the retaliatory violent Resistance. I could go on (but Why if you are already not listening?).

And since I had some spare time, I put together a little list of my own for some choice people to read:

1. You should be envious of people who care about things passionately and seek them out (especially anonymously), in order to pull them down to make you feel better about yourself.

2. You should have an unassailable and high opinion of yourself. Make sure you show that with the appropriate, mocking tone. Grind into the dust the tiniest of mistakes made by anyone else, and if they don’t make mistakes, ignore them. Or make some up and then pin it on them! Change the subject, they have no idea what distraction is, go crazy with it!!

3. Remember, you yourself should never start an equal and opposite campaign with your ends in mind, just take potshots at the people who are you’re your stinging words. You see yourself as a spokesman for the rational majority, and heaven forbid if regular people saw all these unchallenged, passionate comments! How would they know that all of it was sooooo untrue?!! PHEW, good thing you’re such a regular knight in shining armor online.

4. Inflame racial tensions in the guise of pointing them out. Again, distraction is your friend! No one wants to look like they’re racist, if you associate an environmental cause with that, it taints the momentum! (Don’t report them to the administrator or anything). You’re ALL ABOUT social justice (paradoxically).

5. Try to smear ALL people who care as radical terrorists who know how to manipulate the media as wisely as any govt or politician does. Pull quotes out of context to make them look like monsters. Dismiss all of Hollywood (where money and awareness can come from) as idiotic time wasting. Make sure no one can see that you are really just wanted to be, say, CAPTAIN Watson’s boyfriend, except that you follow his every move like an obsessed stalker. No one sees right thru all the vitriol to that, I’m sure.

> Kimitake Hiraoka said:

“3. Commence carrying out acts of violence and vandalism against the unarmed civilians who are offending your “cause”..”

===================================

Please provide examples to support this statement.

In this situation, as in most (if not ALL) others, targets are not living beings but rather inanimate objects, property, profit, etc.. In this case, NETS were cut… HOW does that translate into “violence towards unarmed civilians”?

(And How do you carry out acts of vandalism towards a person..? I’m not quite sure. An example of this would also be appreciated.)

And the “cause” here is the enslavement or murder of sentient and highly intelligent living beings. Monetary damage to those who profit from this or damage to property used to accomplish it IMO should be the last of our worries.

Miguelo-san,

I will not take it upon myself to arrest Watson for his great many crimes. Not because he doesn’t deserve to be arrested, but because I will not take the law into my own hands. Why? Because I have no authority to enforce the law, just like the thugs from the Sea Shepherd. No authority whatsoever.

Sure, I disagree with what those thugs do. But that does not give me the right to throw acid at them or shine weapons-graade lasers into their eyes. Nothing does. Don’t you see?

“It’s called a citizen’s arrest and I believe the Japanese whalers did just that:”

Not all countries recognize citizen arrests. And no the Japanese whalers did not conduct a citizens arrest of Peter Bethune. The Captain of a vessel at sea has the power to arrest/detain people.

I’ll leave it at this: you have as much evidence for your elevation of dolphins above other creatures as people who oppose stem cell research have for calling an embryo a person with full human rights.

If the best you can do is saving 23,000 dolphins per year, you’re welcome to keep trying. Perhaps I’m talking to the people who aspire to do a bit more, including saving millions of dolphins from mercury poisoning.

One straw man argument after another.. this is not about embryo-rights or cattle.

Reducing the pollution causing the mercury contamination is a much bigger and more difficult problem to solve. However, that has nothing to do with the dolphin slaughter in Japan other than we know the animals are contaminated at levels that make them unsafe for human consumption.

(Answering in for Kevin)

The historical reason is Norway.

In 1889, Juro Oka brought Norwegian whaling techniques, technology and ACTUAL NORWEGIANS to Japan to build up his whale meat business. With modern equipment like harpoon cannons and powered ships, Oka put the traditional “whalers” in Japan out of business. His success created more economic competition for control of the whale meat and oil market in Japan.

Which brings us to the geographic reasons.

Japan geographically depleted its shoreline populations until the competing companies, using Norwegian methods, had to branch out to areas outside of Japan’s traditional whaling grounds to find more whales and make a profit.

This also conveniently corresponded with Japan’s desire to expand its empire by military conquest. As Japan expanded as a military naval power so too did Japan’s whaling industry grow.

Then, with the invention of refrigerated ships (to keep the meat from spoiling), Japan geographically expanded the hunt to include whale-rich Antarctic waters in the 1930s.

Your knowlegde of history is a farce. There was no nationwide prohibition to the consumption of “four legged animals.” It was a religious mandate that was followed voluntarily. To claim that Japan did not allow such consumption is to imply that there was a penalty or punishment if you did consume red meat. There was not.

All you are talking about is fishing, anyway. We are not talking about getting their livelihood from the sea. We are talking about the hunting of whales and dolphins, specifically. So, enough with Commodore Perry. You still haven’t answered the question.

Again, your historical knowledge is a farce. It was Jesuit missionaries and traders from Portugal who were the first westerners to bring cultural influence to Japan, in the 16th century. They were around for approx. 300 years before Perry showed up. There’s more to history than what you dimly remember from 6th grade. So take your snippy little remarks about US imperialism and stick it. And don’t try to take me on in the subject of history. In the last couple of hours, both you and Mick have tried and I’ve sent you both packing. Stick to crying in your milk about what a big meany Watson is. I’ll kick your ass in that dept. as well, but your stupidity won’t be quite as evident.

How mant times to I have to type the words distortion and obfuscation?? Commodore Perry and four legged animals? What does this have to do with killing whales and dolphins? What does this have to do with some bogus claim to cultural heritage?

You want an answer Kevin? Here it is. We are both right. Buddhism and Shinto-ism forbids the killing of land based, “4 legged” animals. This led to an Imperial madate confirming it. This does not mean that it was universally followed. It should be mentioned that the Emperor of Japan had very little to do with day to day life. In inland areas, professional hunters made use of deer and wild boar, as well as various bird species. And no one cared enough to stop them. The lack of red meat in the diet can be more traced to scarcity and the fact that cattle were used for drawing carts and plowing fields rather than as a food source. As soon as outside influences made other sources of food available, they were utilized. This is not limited to meat products as corn, sugar and tempura style cooking was also brought to Japan by others.

It is ridiculous that I let you lead the conversation in this meaningless direction. This has nothing to do with the modern day slaughter of cetaceans. Absolutely nothing. In medieval times the Japanese fishing “fleet” was comprised of small craft that stayed close to shore. There was no concerted effort at hunting whales and I have not seen one source to suggest that dolphins were specifically targeted.

There, I have wasted time and space addressing this atrociously meaningless direction of thought. Maybe you should make note of where it is because I’m not doing this again. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but if you’re going to claim history as your ally, make sure you learn all of it, not just the parts you like.