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
You are capable of subsisting without the consumption of animal products, and I assume you choose not to do so. You know that animal agriculture causes suffering. You choose your taste preferences instead of choosing to reduce suffering.
You don’t need to do it anymore, yet carry on with this super cruel tradition.
Please, go ahead, tell us about your grand plan of growing enough food on the Faroer. And then go ahead and tell other native populations all over the world to stop living off the land sustainably, and instead go in debt to buy HFCS from Nestle.
Hey so there’s this crazy thing called a “boat”, and you may not believe this, but it’s like a big truck which can go over water. And you can basically put whatever you want on it, so you can grow fruits and vegetables in Scotland, and then move them to the Faroe Islands.
They actually worked this one out a little while ago, and they’ve got these big buildings now just full of food, just shelves upon shelves with all kinds of foodstuffs. I know it sounds unbelievable, but here’s a photo of a supermarket on the Faroe Islands!
Now, I know you might be thinking, “well, hang on, doesn’t having a big boat like that cause climate change?” and the answer is “yes, but waaaaay less than animal agriculture.”
You also mentioned something about Nestlé HFCS, which I’m happy to reassure you about - It’s pretty rare over here, it’s really more of an American thing. We do have sugary foods as well, of course, but less so. But you can just choose not to eat those - it’s not like it is in the US where they put it in everything. And they’re not putting HFCS into the raw fruits and vegetables that you’d use to make a plant-based meal.
But you know what? 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, it doesn’t justify those of us who don’t live in that way to consume animal products.
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.
Once again, that’s not what I’m talking about. You’re having an argument with a strawman.
Though, I don’t particularly think you have a strong argument. Again, I refer you to my previous comment. I’m sure there are lots of cultures and societies that had to change how they made ends meet economically, and deal with the changes or ending of traditions associated with the end of the slave trade. That’s not a strong enough argument for the continuation of slavery. Likewise, tradition and economics aren’t strong enough justification to continue animal exploitation.
If you were to ask me, how would the people of the Faroe islands survive without the fishing industry, I’d say, how do you propose that OPEC nations survive without the oil and gas industries? Change is a part of life, and people need to accept that. Personally, I’d be more than happy for the state of Denmark to ensure that the needs of those people are met.
But, again, you’re forcing this argument on yourself.
Change is a part of life, and people need to accept that.
…which is why they’re using a spinal lance now instead of a knife so that the kill is as humane as possible?
This is like America and guns, or Britain and tea, or New Zealand and sheep shagging. Like Italians and valuing ingredient quality, like Germans and griping. They’re not going to stop. Change, sure, the Kiwis might change to goats. But stop?
They very well might stop hunting dolphins in particular, though. If you really want to make them stop completely then I suggest pouring even more mercury into the seas.
Which brings me to: Have you any idea how green the Faroese are? Conscious and connected to the nature surrounding them? Intensely worried about pollution? They’re probably going to be the first nation to hit 100% renewable electricity use including in transportation. How they’re actually best pals with Greenpeace? That Sea Shepherd is the odd rabid dog out, demonstrating again and again just why they’ve been kicked out of Greenpeace?
Personally, I’d be more than happy for the state of Denmark to ensure that the needs of those people are met.
By and large they don’t want to be part of Denmark. It’s only money which is currently keeping them in the union and they sure as hell aren’t going to knee-cap their economy to increase their dependence on Denmark.
You are capable of subsisting without the consumption of animal products, and I assume you choose not to do so. You know that animal agriculture causes suffering. You choose your taste preferences instead of choosing to reduce suffering.
You don’t need to do it anymore, yet carry on with this super cruel tradition.
deleted by creator
Please, go ahead, tell us about your grand plan of growing enough food on the Faroer. And then go ahead and tell other native populations all over the world to stop living off the land sustainably, and instead go in debt to buy HFCS from Nestle.
Hey so there’s this crazy thing called a “boat”, and you may not believe this, but it’s like a big truck which can go over water. And you can basically put whatever you want on it, so you can grow fruits and vegetables in Scotland, and then move them to the Faroe Islands.
They actually worked this one out a little while ago, and they’ve got these big buildings now just full of food, just shelves upon shelves with all kinds of foodstuffs. I know it sounds unbelievable, but here’s a photo of a supermarket on the Faroe Islands!
Now, I know you might be thinking, “well, hang on, doesn’t having a big boat like that cause climate change?” and the answer is “yes, but waaaaay less than animal agriculture.”
You also mentioned something about Nestlé HFCS, which I’m happy to reassure you about - It’s pretty rare over here, it’s really more of an American thing. We do have sugary foods as well, of course, but less so. But you can just choose not to eat those - it’s not like it is in the US where they put it in everything. And they’re not putting HFCS into the raw fruits and vegetables that you’d use to make a plant-based meal.
But you know what? 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, it doesn’t justify those of us who don’t live in that way to consume animal products.
Hope this helps!
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.
Once again, that’s not what I’m talking about. You’re having an argument with a strawman.
Though, I don’t particularly think you have a strong argument. Again, I refer you to my previous comment. I’m sure there are lots of cultures and societies that had to change how they made ends meet economically, and deal with the changes or ending of traditions associated with the end of the slave trade. That’s not a strong enough argument for the continuation of slavery. Likewise, tradition and economics aren’t strong enough justification to continue animal exploitation.
If you were to ask me, how would the people of the Faroe islands survive without the fishing industry, I’d say, how do you propose that OPEC nations survive without the oil and gas industries? Change is a part of life, and people need to accept that. Personally, I’d be more than happy for the state of Denmark to ensure that the needs of those people are met.
But, again, you’re forcing this argument on yourself.
…which is why they’re using a spinal lance now instead of a knife so that the kill is as humane as possible?
This is like America and guns, or Britain and tea, or New Zealand and sheep shagging. Like Italians and valuing ingredient quality, like Germans and griping. They’re not going to stop. Change, sure, the Kiwis might change to goats. But stop?
They very well might stop hunting dolphins in particular, though. If you really want to make them stop completely then I suggest pouring even more mercury into the seas.
Which brings me to: Have you any idea how green the Faroese are? Conscious and connected to the nature surrounding them? Intensely worried about pollution? They’re probably going to be the first nation to hit 100% renewable electricity use including in transportation. How they’re actually best pals with Greenpeace? That Sea Shepherd is the odd rabid dog out, demonstrating again and again just why they’ve been kicked out of Greenpeace?
By and large they don’t want to be part of Denmark. It’s only money which is currently keeping them in the union and they sure as hell aren’t going to knee-cap their economy to increase their dependence on Denmark.
This is like America and slaves. Or britain and slaves. Or france and slaves. Or Spain and slaves. They’re not going to stop. Change, sure, but stop?
You know, the nazis were really good about preventing animal cruelty, so I guess that just excuses them for their other evil shit they did.
We’re done here, thanks for your time.