• barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Both are things that make killing whales ok. It’s just that when arguing with vegans “they’d literally starve” is a way more productive argument.

    • Spacenut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Got it, thanks for clarifying. I think both lines of reasoning have problems though:

      1. X is ok because it’s cultural and we’ve been doing X for a long time.
      2. Y is ok because we would be economically ruined if we didn’t do Y.

      I can think of many things to fill in for X and Y that satisfy the necessary conditions, but still aren’t ok. I do, however, think this line of reasoning is valid:

      1. Z is ok because we would literally starve if we didn’t do Z.

      I don’t think any vegan would take issue with #3, since in that case Z is necessary, and vegans are only concerned with unnecessary harm.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean I could have gone deeper into it but then I didn’t particularly feel like arguing with a vegan. Yes, I’m speciesist, we can leave it at that.

        The Faroer certainly needed whaling in the past to survive, and that necessity has engrained itself in their solidarity culture – everything about how the hunt is done and distributed is communal, closest comparison I can come up when looking at Germany would be the status of the fire department in a village: Not the inn, not the church, not even the football club, but the fire department is the core and beating heart of the community and its solidarity. They had a brief stint with commercial whaling but they stopped that before commercial whaling got outlawed, couldn’t compete with the Norwegians and their giant ships.

        Faroese being as green and nature-conscious as they are they would indeed stop if the whales were endangered… but they aren’t. Dolphins are controversial, I guess they’re going to stop hunting them within the next decade or two. That, or the rest of us are going to poison the seas even more so that the meat becomes completely inedible. It’s dire.

        • Spacenut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          So from what you’re saying, it seems like not only is killing whales unnecessary for the Faroer anymore, but the document you linked seems to imply that it’s actively detrimental to their health.

          Also this response doesn’t really engage with what I said before about the lines of reasoning being flawed. You’re painting a picture of how whaling has been an integral part of their cultural history, and that’s interesting information, but it doesn’t really relate to whether it’s the right thing to do.

          So again, it’s an argument of the form “X is ok because it’s cultural and we’ve been doing X for a long time,” which I don’t think is very persuasive.

          And one more thing: you’re now saying that they don’t kill whales commercially? So “Y is ok because we would be economically ruined if we didn’t do Y” doesn’t even apply, right? Or am I reading what you said incorrectly?

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            You have yet to establish, or even argue, that eating whale meat is a wrong in the first place. Approaching your life from an “if it’s not proven to be ok, then it’s bad” kind of perspective may be jerkoff fuel for the dedicated moralist, but is ultimately not anyone’s principle of acting. It’s not how our minds work. It is a convenient way to acquire a crippling load of shame if one so wishes.

            it’s actively detrimental to their health.

            Life is dangerous to health.

            Or am I reading what you said incorrectly?

            Yes. You’re mixing up different things.