• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sushi chef, restaurant charged with serving endangered whale

Would you?


  • Total voters
    21
I say eat whatever you want, kill what ever you want. If the species is really important than its value alive will allow it to survive, if it is useless it will die. Darwinism is a fact of life, protecting animals from survival of the fittest is rather absurd.
 
I say eat whatever you want, kill what ever you want. If the species is really important than its value alive will allow it to survive, if it is useless it will die. Darwinism is a fact of life, protecting animals from survival of the fittest is rather absurd.

And just what does Darwinism have to do with man hunting with weapons? :confused:

You know, humans can kill every animal on this planet if they wanted to.
 
Last edited:
I say eat whatever you want, kill what ever you want. If the species is really important than its value alive will allow it to survive, if it is useless it will die. Darwinism is a fact of life, protecting animals from survival of the fittest is rather absurd.

darwinism applies to only killing what is needed for survival, not profit
 
And just what does Darwinism have to do with man hunting with weapons? :confused:

You know, humans can kill every animal on this planet if they wanted to.

1. Weapons are part of evolution.
2. Just because it isnt fair doesnt make it unnatural. For example is it a fair match between a shark and a seal?

To your other point, man can kill every animal but he wont. Why you ask?
Simple if the animal (whale) has a benefit to man and can make him money, then they will be saved through market economics. If the animal is useless then why would we hunt it?
 
darwinism applies to only killing what is needed for survival, not profit

No it does not. Animals kill for enjoyment and power all the time not for food only. Look at how Lions fights over land, Chimps brawl and kill for supremacy or cause they are bored and want to rip a weak chimps **** off.

Darwanism means the strong will survive and the weak will die out.
 
No it does not. Animals kill for enjoyment and power all the time not for food only. Look at how Lions fights over land, Chimps brawl and kill for supremacy or cause they are bored and want to rip a weak chimps **** off.

Darwanism means the strong will survive and the weak will die out.

thats my point, territorial and dominance disputes are natural, the systematic destruction of another species is not, the only animal that compare to humans is locusts
 
thats my point, territorial and dominance disputes are natural, the systematic destruction of another species is not, the only animal that compare to humans is locusts

Systematic destruction of other species happens all the time, through enviromental changes, or the dominance of a Predator. We are the dominant predetor and yes certain animals will go exctinct, but others will take their place. Thats how it works.
 
Being a diver I am very biased on this one. I would not eat whale or any other higher animal. Now I do believe we have dominion over them, but a society can be judged by how it treats it's animals.

Nothing wrong with compassion for our animal friends.
 
Systematic destruction of other species happens all the time, through enviromental changes, or the dominance of a Predator. We are the dominant predetor and yes certain animals will go exctinct, but others will take their place. Thats how it works.

see the thing is, nature had millions of years to place things in biological niches before humanity evolved enough intelligence to bugger things up, in any given ecosystem, the primary food source is more numerous than the secondary consumers, whom are more numerous than the tertiary consumers, and this leads to a balance, enviromental changes unbalance this, but this is random destruction, not systematic, it is only since humanity has developed a need to shape the enviroment to fit themselves that extinction of a particular niche in a particular way has occured, and in an ecosystem free of feral influences, you lose a particular niche animal in a short amount of time, and it will kill off the entire ecosystem.
 
see the thing is, nature had millions of years to place things in biological niches

False, changes can and do happen rapidly even without human intervention. Like about 10000 years ago with the mass extinction of many species and almost ours.
 
False, changes can and do happen rapidly even without human intervention. Like about 10000 years ago with the mass extinction of many species and almost ours.

i didnt say it was a static system, i didn't say changes depended soley on humans, i suggest you read my post again
 
1. Weapons are part of evolution.
2. Just because it isnt fair doesnt make it unnatural. For example is it a fair match between a shark and a seal?

To your other point, man can kill every animal but he wont. Why you ask?
Simple if the animal (whale) has a benefit to man and can make him money, then they will be saved through market economics. If the animal is useless then why would we hunt it?

Weapons are not natural. There is nothing natural about that evolution. :doh:doh:doh

As for your second point, I have no idea what you mean exactly. Are you saying that if an animal is of benefit (solely monetarily), then man will preserve it? And plenty of "useless" animals are hunted all of the time.
 
Weapons are not natural. There is nothing natural about that evolution. :doh:doh:doh

Weapons are tools of war, tools are used by many animals including Elephants and Monkeys. Weapons are the natural progression of evolution.

As for your second point, I have no idea what you mean exactly. Are you saying that if an animal is of benefit (solely monetarily), then man will preserve it? And plenty of "useless" animals are hunted all of the time

Those animals who are cute or are tasty will survive, those that are not needed or appreciated by men will die. So cuteness and tastiness will be their strength.
 
Weapons are tools of war, tools are used by many animals including Elephants and Monkeys. Weapons are the natural progression of evolution.



Those animals who are cute or are tasty will survive, those that are not needed or appreciated by men will die. So cuteness and tastiness will be their strength.

:doh:doh:doh

The strongest and most efficient bee-bee gun did not naturally evolve into a revolver. Objects don't naturally evolve, and any one who thinks so is plain nuts.

As to your second point, let me know when rats are going to die as a species.
 
Last edited:
The strongest and most efficient bee-bee gun did not naturally evolve into a revolver. Objects don't naturally evolve, and any one who thinks so is plain nuts.

No the weapns dont evolve, but they evolve as part of the evolution of humans.

As to your second point, let me know when rats are going to die as a species

We dont have that capability.
 
No vote again.
Would I what?
And why "charges"?
Has anyone any common sense? Any ability to act as a man?
 
Back
Top Bottom