Whale Burger !
www.hikikomori.tv
Whale Taggers Flash Cartoon.
http://www.hikikomori.tv/Flash/Episodes/www.hikikomori.tv_Episode01_Whale_Ta
ggers.html
www.hikikomori.tv
Bad Feng Shui Very Bad!
Lex T
Lex T
>>
> Also in Norway whale beef is common food:
> http://home.online.no/~sulvund/Voss_Now/foto25410.htm
>
Look for the meat in the middle, "HVAL"
Lex T
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> Also in Norway whale beef is common food:
> http://home.online.no/~sulvund/Voss_Now/foto25410.htm
Actually Norwegian whaling is dependenet on government subsidies,
since young people dont like whalemeat
and many older people have traumatic memories of whalemeat dinners in
their youth
Lex T
But I remember it from the menu-cards on the Lofoten-Ferry, and this
market. So some people do eat it. And why is ity subsidized?
Lex T
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> Jan Bojer Vindheim wrote:
> > Actually Norwegian whaling is dependenet on government subsidies,
> > since young people dont like whalemeat
> > and many older people have traumatic memories of whalemeat dinners in
> > their youth
>
> But I remember it from the menu-cards on the Lofoten-Ferry, and this
> market. So some people do eat it. And why is it subsidized?
Some people like it of course,
but most people eat it ( or at elast want it on the menu)
for political reasons.
Whaling is seen by many as an affirmation ofNorwegian culture and
independence.
So even if it makes no economic sense
the government has to support it.
Håvid A. Falch
news:1gym9t4.1qmrnm21q3d6kgN%jan.vi...@gmail.com...
It is not dependent on government subsidies. I know there were som subsidies
for whale blubber storage in the past, but I am unsure as to whether this is
still in effect or not. In any case, your claim that the whaling is
dependent upon subsidies is void, it is fully self-sustainable.
Also, about this claim (by the previous poster): "Also in Norway whale beef
is common food:"
I can tell you that whale meat is *not* a common food in Norway. Let me put
it this way... We are one of only a few countries in Europe where whale meat
is eaten at all, so in comparison to the world, it is common in Norway. Put
in a perspective of meals per person however, not at all.
-----
Håvid A Falch
Håvid A. Falch
> Lex T <trumb...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> Some people like it of course,
> but most people eat it ( or at elast want it on the menu)
> for political reasons.
> Whaling is seen by many as an affirmation ofNorwegian culture and
> independence.
True. And that is an interesting point. So many could do without it, but
still want it on the menu as some sort of political statement. In my
opinion, that can be traced directly back to the way certain organizations
and individuals campaigned against whaling in the last few dacades. Lies,
emotions and whatnot else they could get their hands on were thrown at us,
in what many pro-whalers consider the biggest fundraising campaign these
organizations ever embarked upon. Yes, that again. I get tired of repeating
it, but it was really all about money, and nothing was to stand in the way
of the "green movement" as they collected their cash.
These days, most of the organizations have cooled down. Some have even
aknowledged the fact that they went a little overboard with their arguments
before. But even now that the whaling issue looks more like a conflict of
interests, rather than outright war, most people over here still want
whaling to continue. And I guess that is simply to prove a point. The point
that it can be done sustainably, and that all the gruesome prophecies set
forth by certain elements will not deliver. And of course, the most
important one: We will not be pushed around by the ignorant world opinion.
Well, that was a bit long, and a bit beside the post I was replying to as
well. But I felt that it was at least a little relevant...
> So even if it makes no economic sense
> the government has to support it.
-----
Håvid A Falch
Floyd L. Davidson
>I can tell you that whale meat is *not* a common food in Norway. Let me put
>it this way... We are one of only a few countries in Europe where whale meat
>is eaten at all, so in comparison to the world, it is common in Norway. Put
>in a perspective of meals per person however, not at all.
That *has* to be true, given the population of Norway and the
small number of (small) Minke whales harvested.
On the other hand... There are about 3500 Inupiat people living
here in Barrow. They are allocated 22 Bowhead whales per year.
They like to catch young whales about 40-45 feet in length,
which is about 80,000 pounds per whale.
If that is only 50% food (I don't know what the actual
percentage is, and am trying to be conservative), that would be
40,000 pounds of food per whale.
40,000 * 22 / 3500 is about 250 pounds per year per Eskimo!
That would be something like 2/3rds of a pound per day average for
every Eskimo in town.
Now, it is safe to say that whale meat is commonly eaten in
Barrow, eh?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@barrow.com
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> still want it on the menu as some sort of political statement. In my
> opinion, that can be traced directly back to the way certain organizations
> and individuals campaigned against whaling in the last few dacades. Lies,
> emotions and whatnot else they could get their hands on were thrown at us,
> in what many pro-whalers consider the biggest fundraising campaign these
> organizations ever embarked upon. Yes, that again. I get tired of repeating
> it, but it was really all about money, and nothing was to stand in the way
> of the "green movement" as they collected their cash.
Actally your argument is deeply flawed. Your statement about the
motivation of the antiwhaling campaigners are way of the mark, and prove
that emotionalism certainly is not confined to one side in this
conflict.
As for commercial motivation,remember that some of the largest
industrial corporations in Norway (chemical factories and shipping
corporations especially) were founded on the hunt for blue whales, of
which there at one time, largely because og norwegian industroial
whaling, were only a few hundred individuals left.
As for the minke, the present population may be able to withstand a
limited hunt,
but actually I dont see the point in doing it,
except a childish wish to raise a finger at the international community.
Not all traditions are worth keeping up.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> There are about 3500 Inupiat people living
> here in Barrow. They are allocated 22 Bowhead whales per year.
> They like to catch young whales about 40-45 feet in length,
> which is about 80,000 pounds per whale.
>
> If that is only 50% food (I don't know what the actual
> percentage is, and am trying to be conservative), that would be
> 40,000 pounds of food per whale.
I think 50% meat content is overstating it. Most of the carcass is
blubber. Industrial whaling was done more for the fat content than for
the meat.
Here in Norway large chemical factories, produced paint, margarine, lamp
oil and other stuff based on whale fat. Large commercial fortunes were
amassed this way.
Håvid A. Falch
> Håvid A. Falch <de...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> Actally your argument is deeply flawed. Your statement about the
> motivation of the antiwhaling campaigners are way of the mark, and prove
> that emotionalism certainly is not confined to one side in this
> conflict.
I don't think I ever said anything about emotions being spilled only from
the anti-whaling community. With the tensions as high as they were/are, some
purely emotional arguing is pretty much unavoidable from either side.
As for my statement about the motivation, how is it off the mark? Keep in
mind that I was not talking about the common activist when I mentioned money
as a motivational factor. I am sure that the people running around with
their pretty banners proclaiming whalers as the scum of the earth, have
their reasons. Fear of whales going extinct, a belief in the divine nature
of whales, just because... and the list goes on. It doesn't really matter
though. Like I said, the comment was aimed at the people running the
business.
> As for commercial motivation,remember that some of the largest
> industrial corporations in Norway (chemical factories and shipping
> corporations especially) were founded on the hunt for blue whales, of
> which there at one time, largely because og norwegian industroial
> whaling, were only a few hundred individuals left.
This is true, but irrelevant and old. The hunt for the large whales in the
Antarctic is long gone. It was in a rapid descent from the 1950s to the 70s,
and eventually collapsed under it's own weight and depletion of the whale
population. I don't see how this justifies the exploitation of an otherwise
defendable and just cause for profit and publisity.
> As for the minke, the present population may be able to withstand a
> limited hunt,
> but actually I dont see the point in doing it,
> except a childish wish to raise a finger at the international community.
> Not all traditions are worth keeping up.
Well, it may be able to withstand far more than we are currently hunting.
And I can assure you that there are enough people who do see the point in
it, for whaling to continue well into the future. There is more to it than
just saying f**k the world. It's food, good food at that, and one of the
more ecological sources of meat in the world.
-----
Håvid A. Falch
Floyd L. Davidson
>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
>
>> There are about 3500 Inupiat people living
>> here in Barrow. They are allocated 22 Bowhead whales per year.
>> They like to catch young whales about 40-45 feet in length,
>> which is about 80,000 pounds per whale.
>>
>> If that is only 50% food (I don't know what the actual
>> percentage is, and am trying to be conservative), that would be
>> 40,000 pounds of food per whale.
>
>I think 50% meat content is overstating it. Most of the carcass is
>blubber. Industrial whaling was done more for the fat content than for
>the meat.
But I didn't say "meat", I said *food*. And while you folks in
Norway may not eat muktuk (I have no idea what Minke whale
muktuk is like, as compared to muktuk from a Bowhead, so there
might well be good reason not to like it), muktuk from a Bowhead
is a genuine delicacy! Grey whale muktuk, for example, is
horrible!
The fact is that here probably well over 50% of a Bowhead is
used for food. There is of course still some use for other
parts, such as the baleen, but today non-food parts are a
relatively small part of the used portion of a whale.
>Here in Norway large chemical factories, produced paint, margarine, lamp
>oil and other stuff based on whale fat. Large commercial fortunes were
>amassed this way.
As long as it is used, whether for food or other useful
products, I have no problem with it. Eating the meat and
rendering the blubber is acceptable, just as some parts of cows
(leather shoes), horses (glue) and pigs (footballs) are used for
other than food products... :-)
Of course, today none of those commercial uses is significant
anyway. Last I heard you folks were selling parts of your
whales to Japan??? I have no problem with that either.
Of course, none of this makes sense to irrational people who
lose all perspective and equate whales to some romantic
emotional or mental lack that they feel...
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>>
>> True. And that is an interesting point. So many could do without it, but
>> still want it on the menu as some sort of political statement. In my
>> opinion, that can be traced directly back to the way certain organizations
>> and individuals campaigned against whaling in the last few dacades. Lies,
>> emotions and whatnot else they could get their hands on were thrown at us,
>> in what many pro-whalers consider the biggest fundraising campaign these
>> organizations ever embarked upon. Yes, that again. I get tired of repeating
>> it, but it was really all about money, and nothing was to stand in the way
>> of the "green movement" as they collected their cash.
>
>Actally your argument is deeply flawed. Your statement about the
>motivation of the antiwhaling campaigners are way of the mark, and prove
>that emotionalism certainly is not confined to one side in this
>conflict.
How was it off the mark? What do Greenpeace and the SSCS do,
other than collect huge sums of money? Name one anti-whaling
organization that spends most of its money on something *other*
than administration (meaning salaries for executives).
Perhaps the people who *contribute* have other motivations, but
the organizations are all about money, not whales.
>As for commercial motivation,remember that some of the largest
>industrial corporations in Norway (chemical factories and shipping
>corporations especially) were founded on the hunt for blue whales, of
>which there at one time, largely because og norwegian industroial
>whaling, were only a few hundred individuals left.
That is true. There is *no* question that we should *never*
return to unregulated commercial whaling. The IWC is *supposed*
to come up with management plans to prevent the abuses of the
past. However, they aren't doing it. In the short term, a
moratorium may well be effective, but in the long run that is
very likely to result in a negative impact when countries begin
ignoring a non-functional IWC.
>As for the minke, the present population may be able to withstand a
>limited hunt,
> but actually I dont see the point in doing it,
>except a childish wish to raise a finger at the international community.
>Not all traditions are worth keeping up.
People who want to eat Minke whales have just as much right to
eat them as you do to eat whatever it is that you eat. If *you*
don't want to eat whale meat, *don't*. But claiming somebody
else shouldn't is irrational.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> "Jan Bojer Vindheim" <jan.vi...@gmail.com> :
> > As for the minke, the present population may be able to withstand a
> > limited hunt,
> > but actually I dont see the point in doing it,
> > except a childish wish to raise a finger at the international community.
> > Not all traditions are worth keeping up.
>
> Well, it may be able to withstand far more than we are currently hunting.
> And I can assure you that there are enough people who do see the point in
> it, for whaling to continue well into the future. There is more to it than
> just saying f**k the world. It's food, good food at that, and one of the
> more ecological sources of meat in the world.
There was an interview on Norwegian Tv just a few days ago with one of
the few whalemeat buyers remaining. He was giving it up, as the market
is too small. I believe he said "the young generation does not take to
whalemeat".
Whalemeat may be an acquired taste, but it is obviously not for
everybody. I know a large number of prowhalers, and quite a few of them
will privately admit that they dont actually like the stuff.
Whalemeat is heavily contaminated, by heavy metals and other industrial
pollutants. The ecological argument is a shoddy construction.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> How was it off the mark? What do Greenpeace and the SSCS do,
> other than collect huge sums of money?
Why dont you take a lokk at the greenpeace websites for an answer to
that one ?
> Name one anti-whaling
> organization that spends most of its money on something *other*
> than administration (meaning salaries for executives).
Administration includes a lot of useful jobs, including gathering and
processing information.
> Perhaps the people who *contribute* have other motivations, but
> the organizations are all about money, not whales.
Hugely overstated, or - more bluntly - bullshit.
<snip!>
> People who want to eat Minke whales have just as much right to
> eat them as you do to eat whatever it is that you eat.
If they disregard intenational tretaies which ban whaling, that is.
> If *you* don't want to eat whale meat, *don't*. But claiming somebody
> else shouldn't is irrational.
Now I dont usually pull the whalemeat out of peoples faces, if I come
across people eating the stuff. But I view the whole prowhaling
campaign in Norway as deeply irrational.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> How was it off the mark? What do Greenpeace and the SSCS do,
> other than collect huge sums of money?
Why dont you take a look at the greenpeace websites for an answer to
that one ?
> Name one anti-whaling
> organization that spends most of its money on something *other*
> than administration (meaning salaries for executives).
Administration includes a lot of useful jobs, including gathering and
processing information.
> Perhaps the people who *contribute* have other motivations, but
> the organizations are all about money, not whales.
Hugely overstated, or - more bluntly - bullshit.
<snip!>
> People who want to eat Minke whales have just as much right to
> eat them as you do to eat whatever it is that you eat.
If they disregard international treaties which ban whaling, that is.
> If *you* don't want to eat whale meat, *don't*. But claiming somebody
> else shouldn't is irrational.
Now I dont usually pull the whalemeat out of peoples faces, if I come
Håvid A. Falch
> Håvid A. Falch <de...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> There was an interview on Norwegian Tv just a few days ago with one of
> the few whalemeat buyers remaining. He was giving it up, as the market
> is too small. I believe he said "the young generation does not take to
> whalemeat".
Maybe so, but I live in the Lofoten/Vesterålen area, which is one of the
most active regions when it comes to whaling. And there are plenty of places
around here to buy whale meat. And I have first hand insight into some of
the local businesses in the industry. Sure, whale meat is not the easiest
sale, but there is still money to make from it. You just have to know where
to sell it, and have an extensive network for distibution.
So I am not so worried about "one of the few" whalemeat buyers remaining
giving up. It's over when it's over, and that is not quite yet. You are
being a bit too pessimistic/optimistic about it.
> Whalemeat may be an acquired taste, but it is obviously not for
> everybody. I know a large number of prowhalers, and quite a few of them
> will privately admit that they dont actually like the stuff.
Which again shows that, for some reason, people who have no interest in the
whale meat itself still want whaling to continue. Like I said before, there
is a statement in it. And the wish to make such a statement can be traced
back to the "green" organizations of the world. If they wanted to stop
whaling, they sure went about it the wrong way. I suppose they might have
realized that by now, and backed down only to let things cool off for a
while, before they make another attempt. If so, I hope they will be a bit
more "subtle" about it next time, it might do their cause a bit more good
than the hot-headed stunts they did last time around.
> Whalemeat is heavily contaminated, by heavy metals and other industrial
> pollutants. The ecological argument is a shoddy construction.
The way I see it, that is a question of "healthy" rather than "ecological".
That we pollute the oceans, contaminating arctic wildlife like polar bears
and whales is one example of the negative ecological impact we have on
nature. Hunting and eating whales however, is a good and ecological way to
produce food. If we catch the plague or grow green antennas because of
eating contaminated whale meat, that is what I would call a health problem.
And whale meat is not where the biggest concentration of toxins can be
found, that would be the blubber. And the high levels of pollutants in the
blubber is one of the reasons export to Japan is highly unlikely to catch
on.
-----
Håvid A. Falch
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>> How was it off the mark? What do Greenpeace and the SSCS do,
>> other than collect huge sums of money?
>Why dont you take a lokk at the greenpeace websites for an answer to
>that one ?
You think they are going to advertize it on their web page???
>> Name one anti-whaling
>> organization that spends most of its money on something *other*
>> than administration (meaning salaries for executives).
>
>Administration includes a lot of useful jobs, including gathering and
>processing information.
Yeah, sure.
>> Perhaps the people who *contribute* have other motivations, but
>> the organizations are all about money, not whales.
>
> Hugely overstated, or - more bluntly - bullshit.
It's a *fact*. Some are far worse than others, but almost all of them
are little more than money generating machines. Greenpeace is actually
one of the "best", and they still fit that description.
><snip!>
>
>> People who want to eat Minke whales have just as much right to
>> eat them as you do to eat whatever it is that you eat.
>
>If they disregard intenational tretaies which ban whaling, that is.
There is *no* international treaty that bans whaling. Stop speading
emotinal bullshit.
>> If *you* don't want to eat whale meat, *don't*. But claiming somebody
>> else shouldn't is irrational.
>
>Now I dont usually pull the whalemeat out of peoples faces, if I come
>across people eating the stuff. But I view the whole prowhaling
>campaign in Norway as deeply irrational.
Well, I can see why... you aren't particularly concerned with
accurate facts or rational logic.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> jan.vi...@gmail.com (Jan Bojer Vindheim) wrote:
> >Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How was it off the mark? What do Greenpeace and the SSCS do,
> >> other than collect huge sums of money?
> >Why dont you take a loo at the greenpeace websites for an answer to
> >that one ?
>
> You think they are going to advertize it on their web page???
Of course. Their webpages are full of information about their various
projects around the world. Campaigning on sea mammals is just a fraction
of their amazing range of acitvity
<snip!>
> >> Perhaps the people who *contribute* have other motivations, but
> >> the organizations are all about money, not whales.
> >
> > Hugely overstated, or - more bluntly - bullshit.
>
> It's a *fact*. Some are far worse than others, but almost all of them
> are little more than money generating machines. Greenpeace is actually
> one of the "best", and they still fit that description.
It probably depends on what you are looking for.
Any large organization needs an income,
and some (I have worked in many) use too much time getting the necessary
cash to do their thing, and therefore become less effective.
Some orkers in greenpeace and other organizations actually get paid for
their work, which, of course makes it possible for them to survive, and
motivates them to keep on working.
I Imagine you also have an income to keep you alive in this
moneycentered world. .
But it is *not* an objective *fact* that gathering money is their main
purpose. Moneymakimng does not take up most of their time, and
certainly is not formeost in their minds.
Youre statement on this point is bullshit
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> "Jan Bojer Vindheim" <jan.vi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Whalemeat is heavily contaminated, by heavy metals and other industrial
> > pollutants. The ecological argument is a shoddy construction.
>
> The way I see it, that is a question of "healthy" rather than "ecological".
> That we pollute the oceans, contaminating arctic wildlife like polar bears
> and whales is one example of the negative ecological impact we have on
> nature. Hunting and eating whales however, is a good and ecological way to
> produce food. If we catch the plague or grow green antennas because of
> eating contaminated whale meat, that is what I would call a health problem.
> And whale meat is not where the biggest concentration of toxins can be
> found, that would be the blubber. And the high levels of pollutants in the
> blubber is one of the reasons export to Japan is highly unlikely to catch
> on.
You are right that ecological and health concerns can be separated, and
that the contamination of the meat is a health issue for the consumer.
But then claiming that whales are better food because they live in the
wild oceans would also be a health argument.
So what is the ecological argument?
The one I have heard is that population balance is maintained by keeping
whale stocks down. Which is of course begging the question: why are fish
stocks so low that the whale population cannot be fed ?
Floyd L. Davidson
>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
>
>> jan.vi...@gmail.com (Jan Bojer Vindheim) wrote:
>> >Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> How was it off the mark? What do Greenpeace and the SSCS do,
>> >> other than collect huge sums of money?
>> >Why dont you take a loo at the greenpeace websites for an answer to
>> >that one ?
>>
>> You think they are going to advertize it on their web page???
> Of course. Their webpages are full of information about their various
>projects around the world. Campaigning on sea mammals is just a fraction
>of their amazing range of acitvity
Your logic is astounding. No wonder you can't get the rest
of this straight.
...
>But it is *not* an objective *fact* that gathering money is their main
>purpose. Moneymakimng does not take up most of their time, and
>certainly is not formeost in their minds.
>
>Youre statement on this point is bullshit
Which you don't seem to be able too either understand or refute.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> jan.vi...@gmail.com (Jan Bojer Vindheim) wrote:
> >Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
> >
> >> jan.vi...@gmail.com (Jan Bojer Vindheim) wrote:
> >> >Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> How was it off the mark? What do Greenpeace and the SSCS do,
> >> >> other than collect huge sums of money?
> >> >Why dont you take a loo at the greenpeace websites for an answer to
> >> >that one ?
> >>
> >> You think they are going to advertize it on their web page???
> > Of course. Their webpages are full of information about their various
> >projects around the world. Campaigning on sea mammals is just a fraction
> >of their amazing range of acitvity
>
> Your logic is astounding. No wonder you can't get the rest
> of this straight.
You ask what greenpeace does, except collect money,
I ask you to see their webpages for informationm on their various
campaigns. What is illogical about that ?
> >But it is *not* an objective *fact* that gathering money is their main
> >purpose. Moneymakimng does not take up most of their time, and
> >certainly is not formeost in their minds.
> >
> >Youre statement on this point is bullshit
>
> Which you don't seem to be able too either understand or refute.
I refute your claim by pointing to the number of projects Greenpeace is
engaged in.
Your namecalling is certainly no proof of the validity of your
arguments, such as they are.
Floyd L. Davidson
>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
>> jan.vi...@gmail.com (Jan Bojer Vindheim) wrote:
>> >Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
>> >> jan.vi...@gmail.com (Jan Bojer Vindheim) wrote:
>> >> >Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
>> >> >> How was it off the mark? What do Greenpeace and the SSCS do,
>> >> >> other than collect huge sums of money?
>> >> >Why dont you take a loo at the greenpeace websites for an answer to
>> >> >that one ?
>> >>
>> >> You think they are going to advertize it on their web page???
>> > Of course. Their webpages are full of information about their various
>> >projects around the world. Campaigning on sea mammals is just a fraction
>> >of their amazing range of acitvity
>>
>> Your logic is astounding. No wonder you can't get the rest
>> of this straight.
>
>You ask what greenpeace does, except collect money,
>I ask you to see their webpages for informationm on their various
>campaigns. What is illogical about that ?
Their web page is propaganda aimed at increasing contributions.
It doesn't show how much goes to "administrative" or "fund
raising" costs, compared to the programs they advertise.
Pointing to their propaganda as proof that they are not a money
collection agency is illogical.
>> >But it is *not* an objective *fact* that gathering money is their main
>> >purpose. Moneymakimng does not take up most of their time, and
>> >certainly is not formeost in their minds.
>> >
>> >Youre statement on this point is bullshit
>>
>> Which you don't seem to be able too either understand or refute.
>
>I refute your claim by pointing to the number of projects Greenpeace is
>engaged in.
That doesn't refute anything. It has *nothing* to do with whether
they spend more on collecting money that anything else. All it does
is suggest that you, like many others, are suckered by a well
financed PR organization that is very effective at raising money.
The point was and *still* is, that the only thing they actually
*accomplish* with regularity is funding.
>Your namecalling is certainly no proof of the validity of your
>arguments, such as they are.
I've pointed out that what you have *said* is illogical. I
haven't called *you* any names other than Jan Bojer Vindheim,
which is what you call yourself. If you think calling you by
your chosen name reduces the validity of my arguments, then once
again I'll point out that your logic is not valid. But we could
already see that from the other arguments you've presented.
Håvid A. Falch
Well, the issue about fish stocks is also interesting, though not what I had
in mind. It's a question about ecology and also economy. It's a question of
where humans fit into the marine food chain, and how much fish we can/should
take to keep the balance, while still heeding economic interests. Way to
complex and subjective for me to even get started on. But let me at least
say this much... I don't think whales have any more right to the fish than
we do. And the only "sensible" thing to do, is to take as much as we can,
without making a mess out of everything that lives in the sea. It might not
be the most ecological way of doing it, but usually, purely economical
interest wins out over any serious ecological mangement. Economy will
support ecology to support itself, but no further. It's a fine line to
tread.
My actual point with the ecological comment though, was about the nature of
wild versus domesticated animals. And I guess at this point, it would be
prudent to correct myself and say that this is really more of an ethical
question.
The thought is that whales live a free life in the ocean before they are
killed. And from my viewpoint, this makes well up for the somewhat less
effective killing methods they are subjected to. I must honestly say that I
have little sympathy for the notion that it's better for an animal to be
killed at a slaughterhouse than by harpoon in the Atlantic. Having visted
both local farms and slaughterhouses on school trips and the like, my
impression of the life of a farm animal from birth do the freezer isn't
exactly flattering. Theactual kill might be quicker, but I have only one
word to describe the way domestic livestock is treated: Morbid.
Anyway, that was what my comment was rally all about. So, not ecological,
ethical. Well, mostly, maybe a little ecology there too...
-----
Håvid A. Falch
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> jan.vi...@gmail.com (Jan Bojer Vindheim) wrote:
>
> >You ask what greenpeace does, except collect money,
> >I ask you to see their webpages for informationm on their various
> >campaigns. What is illogical about that ?
>
> Their web page is propaganda aimed at increasing contributions.
>
> It doesn't show how much goes to "administrative" or "fund
> raising" costs, compared to the programs they advertise.
>
> Pointing to their propaganda as proof that they are not a money
> collection agency is illogical.
I do not claim that Greenpeace does not collect money.
I reply to your original statement
> What do Greenpeace and the SSCS do,
> other than collect huge sums of money?
by pointing to information about their varied acticities around the
world.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
Floyd L. Davidson
This might be a language problem. You are taking that
question a if it were meant literally. It doesn't mean
specifically what the words say though... it means, something
along the lines of: "Yeah, sure, they *claim* to do things
other than collect money, and some fools are suckered into
believing them. But what do they *actually* *devote* *real*
*resources* to, other than collecting money?"
The answer is virtually nothing. A reasonable figure for
adminstrative overhead would be well below 40%, but those
organizations run well over 80%.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> >by pointing to information about their varied acticities around the
> >world.
>
> This might be a language problem. You are taking that
> question a if it were meant literally. It doesn't mean
> specifically what the words say though... it means, something
> along the lines of: "Yeah, sure, they *claim* to do things
> other than collect money, and some fools are suckered into
> believing them. But what do they *actually* *devote* *real*
> *resources* to, other than collecting money?"
>
> The answer is virtually nothing. A reasonable figure for
> adminstrative overhead would be well below 40%, but those
> organizations run well over 80%.
Your (undocumented) estimate of percentages is less interesting
than the fact that greenepeace does a lot of good work around the
world.
information about this is still found on their various websites.
For those that care to look.
Floyd L. Davidson
>than the fact that greenepeace does a lot of good work around the
>world.
And SSCS, the other one I mentioned by name?
You seem to ignore them...
>information about this is still found on their various websites.
>For those that care to look.
As noted, that is not a reliable source.
As to the undocumented nature of Greenpeace funding activities,
I am not going to bother seaching for cites, but if you try
you'll probably find sufficient information to verify what I've
said.
Greenpeace has been publicly "outed" a couple of times.
Of course, by comparison to Watson's SSCS, Greenpeace actually
*is* a pretty good outfit!
I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for either of them.
Jan Bojer Vindheim
I do not claim that Greenpeace is 100% pure, but i do claim that the
organization has done and continues to do a lot of good work.
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>> Greenpeace has been publicly "outed" a couple of times.
>
>many people dislike what Greenepace is doing, for various reasons.
Yes. Because while some small part of it does make sense, a
great deal of it is abject foolishness.
What Greenpeace did to the Canadian Inuit people with the
idiotic idea that hunting seals was bad, was just inexcuseable.
In Greenpeace's favor though, is that they refuse to support
racism. They kicked Paul Watson out years ago...
>I do not claim that Greenpeace is 100% pure, but i do claim that the
>organization has done and continues to do a lot of good work.
I am *much* more concerned with the fact that they do a lot of
really bad work, and that they spend an inordinate amount of
resources on generating funds which *do not* go to the projects
that people believe they are supporting, and instead are spent
"administrative costs".
Jan Bojer Vindheim
> jan.vi...@gmail.com (Jan Bojer Vindheim) wrote:
>
> >I do not claim that Greenpeace is 100% pure, but i do claim that the
> >organization has done and continues to do a lot of good work.
>
> I am *much* more concerned with the fact that they do a lot of
> really bad work, and that they spend an inordinate amount of
> resources on generating funds which *do not* go to the projects
> that people believe they are supporting, and instead are spent
> "administrative costs".
yes. it shows.
fudge
just as smart as most Japanese. There is no room in Japan for cemetaries.
This is a solution to the problem. Uncle Hiro might taste pretty good with
some miso and soy sauce.
Farmer John
45N 77W
"www.hikikomori.tv" <v...@technokio.com> wrote in message
news:d9aiur$r90$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> http://www.hikikomori.tv/Comic/Hikikomori-TV-6_20_05.gif
>
> Whale Taggers Flash Cartoon.
>
http://www.hikikomori.tv/Flash/Episodes/www.hikikomori.tv_Episode01_Whale_Ta
> ggers.html
>
> www.hikikomori.tv
> Bad Feng Shui Very Bad!
>
>
>
>