Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd and co-founder of Greenpeace, has been arrested on an international warrant and is facing charges including accomplice to assault and ship trespass
Even if there are people living off the land sustainably - as in, fully providing for themselves and their families in whatever way they can without actively farming animals - and we’re okay with that,
So you’re ok with what the Faroese are doing, got it. Wait no you want to stop them letting sheep graze the parts of the island which aren’t suitable for agriculture, and instead whale more.
it doesn’t justify those of us who don’t live in that way to consume animal products.
Go on, tell me more about how the Faroese are living. How much of their economy, do you think, is food production in one way or the other? How, do you think, is the whale hunt organised? Is it commodified?
Having looked at that data (I trust you already have since you sound so sure and knowledgeable) one could of course say “well they could stop exporting fish then they wouldn’t need to whale”. There’s something to that, and it would also mean that they couldn’t afford to import machinery any more, couldn’t afford gas any more, no textile imports, and with them again sitting in row boats in sheepswool clothing maybe they’d look “primitive” enough for your tastes to be allowed to whale, again.
Seriously WTF. “This reservation has a supermarket, that means they should not be allowed to hunt any more”. Are you hearing yourself. Read this.
Could you please check the comment thread, look at who I replied to, what they said, and what my response was? If anything, I have been defending the Faroese, not criticising them. I have been criticising people who are being hypocritical about the Faroese whaling while also supporting traditional western animal agriculture.
I’ve not really taken much of a position on the Faroese themselves - except in my last message where I said that I don’t really have a huge issue with subsistence/survival consumption of animal products, as much I do with industrialisation of those products.
For what it’s worth, I’m sure the slave industry made some societies and cultures economically viable which are no longer so. I don’t think “but then this culture/tradition/religion/society would have to adapt to changes” is a particularly strong argument against abolishing cruel or immoral systems of oppression. But that’s not really the argument I’m interested in, right now, and it’s not the argument I originally made.
My argument is that the average person, who is absolutely capable of living a life without the consumption of animal products, with little or no impact to their quality of life beyond their taste preference, cannot justify that behaviour beyond selfishly prioritising their taste preferences over the suffering of others.
My argument is that the average person, who is absolutely capable of living a life without the consumption of animal products
Oh so you’re a vegan got it. The Faroer don’t have enough arable land to support living off plant agriculture, they need the sea to survive. Import? Possible in principle but without fish to export, with what money? It’s like telling Inuit they should live off salad (literally what they call all vegetables): Greenland is much larger but not exactly suited for agriculture.
And much unlike bullfighting the Faroese actually take care to make the killing humane. In fact missing your shot when hunting deer should cause a lot more suffering than what they’re doing, for the most part the animals are first beached, uninjured and generally fine (it’s not like they can’t breathe air), the killing itself takes seconds. The sight of course isn’t pretty, lots of blood in shallow bays certainly leaves an impression but that impression says nothing about how much the animals suffered.
They care about continuing to whale because it’s a core part of their culture, they don’t care about preserving random details like using old and slow and awkward knife techniques instead of the current spinal lancing, they care about things like their solidarity being expressed and reinforced in the communal activity and the distribution scheme.
So you’re ok with what the Faroese are doing, got it. Wait no you want to stop them letting sheep graze the parts of the island which aren’t suitable for agriculture, and instead whale more.
Go on, tell me more about how the Faroese are living. How much of their economy, do you think, is food production in one way or the other? How, do you think, is the whale hunt organised? Is it commodified?
Having looked at that data (I trust you already have since you sound so sure and knowledgeable) one could of course say “well they could stop exporting fish then they wouldn’t need to whale”. There’s something to that, and it would also mean that they couldn’t afford to import machinery any more, couldn’t afford gas any more, no textile imports, and with them again sitting in row boats in sheepswool clothing maybe they’d look “primitive” enough for your tastes to be allowed to whale, again.
Seriously WTF. “This reservation has a supermarket, that means they should not be allowed to hunt any more”. Are you hearing yourself. Read this.
Could you please check the comment thread, look at who I replied to, what they said, and what my response was? If anything, I have been defending the Faroese, not criticising them. I have been criticising people who are being hypocritical about the Faroese whaling while also supporting traditional western animal agriculture.
I’ve not really taken much of a position on the Faroese themselves - except in my last message where I said that I don’t really have a huge issue with subsistence/survival consumption of animal products, as much I do with industrialisation of those products.
For what it’s worth, I’m sure the slave industry made some societies and cultures economically viable which are no longer so. I don’t think “but then this culture/tradition/religion/society would have to adapt to changes” is a particularly strong argument against abolishing cruel or immoral systems of oppression. But that’s not really the argument I’m interested in, right now, and it’s not the argument I originally made.
My argument is that the average person, who is absolutely capable of living a life without the consumption of animal products, with little or no impact to their quality of life beyond their taste preference, cannot justify that behaviour beyond selfishly prioritising their taste preferences over the suffering of others.
Oh so you’re a vegan got it. The Faroer don’t have enough arable land to support living off plant agriculture, they need the sea to survive. Import? Possible in principle but without fish to export, with what money? It’s like telling Inuit they should live off salad (literally what they call all vegetables): Greenland is much larger but not exactly suited for agriculture.
And much unlike bullfighting the Faroese actually take care to make the killing humane. In fact missing your shot when hunting deer should cause a lot more suffering than what they’re doing, for the most part the animals are first beached, uninjured and generally fine (it’s not like they can’t breathe air), the killing itself takes seconds. The sight of course isn’t pretty, lots of blood in shallow bays certainly leaves an impression but that impression says nothing about how much the animals suffered.
They care about continuing to whale because it’s a core part of their culture, they don’t care about preserving random details like using old and slow and awkward knife techniques instead of the current spinal lancing, they care about things like their solidarity being expressed and reinforced in the communal activity and the distribution scheme.