Bigotry and calls for violence come after tribal fishing treaty protest

[Flagg]

Simon, I don't object to Native Americans killing whales. I object to all humans killing whales, barring a survival situation because as a human, I view human life more important than animal life. And I already said that we control what humans do, so yes, if ISIS started eating people and wearing skin suits I'd support still killing them because cannibalism for the sake of tasty human meat is murder. But at any time you're free to eat me.

[Civil War Man]

If we therefore stop tribes of Native Americans from killing whales because the whales' right to life trumps the natives' right to one of their few remaining viable economic activities...

Shouldn't we also stop orcas from killing the same species of whales?

The issue with that line of argument is that we lack the means to communicate more than the simplest ideas to other species. We can convince other people that it's a bad idea to hunt certain animals, but we can't with orcas because we don't share a language that can adequately convey that idea. As a result, the only way we could realistically stop orcas from hunting certain species of whales would be to somehow physically impede them from being able to do it, which beyond being economically unfeasible would generally result in a greater tragedy than just letting things be, since it would involve something like mass killings, forced relocation of entire pods, or somehow erecting physical barriers in the ocean.

[Simon_Jester]

If the only way we could realistically stop a specific group of human cannibals from routinely killing and eating humans were to do similarly uneconomical things, should that stop us?

Simon, I don't object to Native Americans killing whales. I object to all humans killing whales, barring a survival situation because as a human, I view human life more important than animal life. And I already said that we control what humans do, so yes, if ISIS started eating people and wearing skin suits I'd support still killing them because cannibalism for the sake of tasty human meat is murder. But at any time you're free to eat me.

My point is simple- we have the power to stop humans from killing humans, we have the power to stop humans from killing whales... but we apparently don't have the power to stop orcas from killing whales?

Either the whales deserve our protection, or they don't. It doesn't make sense that they deserve our protection from us but not from other species.

...But Orca's, like whales, are part of the environment and food chain, are pretty fucking smart themselves (as are all dolphins/porpoises), they are apex predators, and they kill endangered whales on occasion. But they don't do it in the numbers and industrial way that humans did/do.

Neither do the Makah- but we favor stopping the Makah and not stopping any one pod of orcas. Actually, scratch that, the Makah are killing non-endangered whales exclusively so far as I know. And not in sufficient numbers to ever put them in danger.

Is it because the orcas are "part of the food chain and environment and apex predators?" Exactly which of those arguments am I bound to respect? Does an intelligent orca's right to life override that of an intelligent (but non-predatory) whale? Does an intelligent orca's right to life override that of the many whales who will likely die to feed it over the course of its life?

Would the orcas all starve and die if they weren't eating whales? If so, if they are incapable of finding other food, are they intelligent enough creatures to be worthy of our consideration? I'm honestly inclined to say 'no.'

But beyond that, they are very intelligent and show emotion. That's why the great apes and elephants are protected. But we don't prevent their natural predators from preying on them.

Well, maybe we should... IF we take this proposition of "their lives are sacrosanct and they may not be killed as part of economic activity" seriously. If the rules of ethics apply to the Makah, they apply to us, and to the Japanese, and to the cetaceans.

But if the rules of ethics are "dog eat dog" or rather "orca eat whale," then why would that not then apply to the Makah?

But to honestly suggest that we have a responsibility as human beings to protect other animals from their natural predators in the wild is in a word: Dumb. That's what zoos are for.

Would we do something if a man-eating tiger were menacing Stone Age hunter-gatherers? This is a question that actually comes up in certain parts of the world, and the answer is "yes."

if other animals are as entitled to our protection as intelligent humans, then that should be applied consistently. If other animals are not entitled to our protection, then that should be applied consistently.

[Civil War Man]

If the only way we could realistically stop a specific group of human cannibals from routinely killing and eating humans were to do similarly uneconomical things, should that stop us?

Probably not, should they prove to be blatantly unwilling to listen to reason. And that's the difference. We can try to convince people to change their behavior before resorting to drastic measures. We can't do the same with animals because we lack the ability to meaningfully communicate with them.

Unless you are willing to eradicate or forcibly relocate the predator species (which could potentially cause mass starvation if you relocate them to an unfamiliar environment), you are not going to be able to prevent the predator from hunting. It is more humane to try to provide a safe environment for the endangered species to repopulate (the more ethical zoos have this as one of their MOs) than it is to try to actively prevent a predator from being able to hunt its prey.

[Flagg]

Simon, the simple fact is that it's completely unworkable unless you're willing to eradicate the apex predator and thus destroy the ecosystem. Your entire line of reasoning is unworkable unless you're suggesting that all non-human life is subject to exploitation by humans. And if that is your line of reasoning, then I reiterate: Eat me. It's a simple concept, even for someone as fucking obtuse as you.

[Simon_Jester]

Bluntly, if we are going to apply ethical laws uniformly across species lines, that is what has to be done.

If the laws saying that intelligent creatures are not to be killed apply to beings not of my species... Then predator species that cannot live, except at the price of ongoing slaughter and terror among other intelligent beings, should not live.

If there were an intelligent species that preyed upon humans, and could not be induced to stop, we would have exterminated that species long since, assuming we had the power to do so. There's a reason vampire hunters are sympathetic characters. And frankly, it probably wouldn't matter to us whether we had the power to communicate and say "stop eating us" or not. We'd want them dead anyway, and wouldn't accept "they don't know any better" as an answer. Not indefinitely.

So I feel compelled to conclude that either:
1) We do not seriously intend that such moral laws apply across species lines (human must not kill human, but orca may kill whale), or...
2) We seriously intend that such moral laws apply across species lines (nobody gets a free license to kill whales for any reason).

People are suggesting that there is a third possibility (rules against killing whales apply to humans, but not to orcas). But this directly contradicts normal human behavior in a variety of other ways.

It's not even about whether humans have a right to exploit ecosystems.

It's that we're making moral absolutist (as opposed to relativist) arguments about why the Makah can't kill whales. And then turning around and making relativist (as opposed to absolutist) arguments about why the orcas can kill whales.

Or, taken another way, we're arguing that we should let orcas kill whales because we can't stop them... but if the Makah made themselves equally hard to stop, we wouldn't advocate letting the Makah get away with killing whales for that reason.

[Thanas]

If there were an intelligent species that preyed upon humans, and could not be induced to stop, we would have exterminated that species long since, assuming we had the power to do so.

Bullshit. Leopards and other big cats are not extinct despite there being well-recorded examples of them preying on humans or near-humans.

Even if they were, your argument is essentially "we do not have a perfect system to stop intelligent beings from preying on each other yet so we should not enforce those things we already can do to stop intelligent beings from preying on each other." Which is not something I would have expected you to say given that you support Obamacare.

[Flagg]

Bluntly, if we are going to apply ethical laws uniformly across species lines, that is what has to be done.

If the laws saying that intelligent creatures are not to be killed apply to beings not of my species... Then predator species that cannot live, except at the price of ongoing slaughter and terror among other intelligent beings, should not live.

If there were an intelligent species that preyed upon humans, and could not be induced to stop, we would have exterminated that species long since, assuming we had the power to do so. There's a reason vampire hunters are sympathetic characters. And frankly, it probably wouldn't matter to us whether we had the power to communicate and say "stop eating us" or not. We'd want them dead anyway, and wouldn't accept "they don't know any better" as an answer. Not indefinitely.

So I feel compelled to conclude that either:
1) We do not seriously intend that such moral laws apply across species lines (human must not kill human, but orca may kill whale), or...
2) We seriously intend that such moral laws apply across species lines (nobody gets a free license to kill whales for any reason).

People are suggesting that there is a third possibility (rules against killing whales apply to humans, but not to orcas). But this directly contradicts normal human behavior in a variety of other ways.

It's not even about whether humans have a right to exploit ecosystems.

It's that we're making moral absolutist (as opposed to relativist) arguments about why the Makah can't kill whales. And then turning around and making relativist (as opposed to absolutist) arguments about why the orcas can kill whales.

Or, taken another way, we're arguing that we should let orcas kill whales because we can't stop them... but if the Makah made themselves equally hard to stop, we wouldn't advocate letting the Makah get away with killing whales for that reason.

This is literally so stupid it should stand alone with no response as a monument for all time.

[Simon_Jester]

Since Flagg has said nothing, I have no response to him. I will cheerfully reply to someone with brains, though.

So, Thanas...

I am sorry, I did not phrase the sentence you reference to perfect semantic precision.

To be more precise... if there were a species that habitually preyed upon humans, and could not be induced to stop, humans would almost certainly exterminate them. Or kill them until the threat they presented dropped to an utterly trivial and negligible level.

And indeed this is what seems to have happened in the Neolithic and (at the latest) the Iron Age and the gunpowder era.

Virtually every large predator on Earth suffered massive cullings and killings from human hunters as soon as humans acquired weapons powerful enough to kill them reliably. Until the survivors of these species have, in every case without exception, learned to avoid humans. Occasional individual members of these species may go after isolated and vulnerable humans, but they do not "prey on humans" in the sense that they 'have to' eat humans to survive.

If there had ever been a species of predator whose primary prey were humans, and that was incapable of adapting to a non-human diet, I am quite sure that species would be extinct unless it were somehow impossible for humans to kill.

There's a good reason why vampires and other fictional predators-upon-humans are portrayed as having supernatural powers... because it would simply not be credible that any species could make its living preying chiefly upon humans, unless it were somehow invulnerable to normal weapons and had magical powers of some kind.
__________________

Now, as to your second paragraph, you have misunderstood my argument.

My point is this. We don't take our 'obligation' to protect whales from orcas seriously. It's not just that we lack a perfect system to do it with. We don't even try. Even animal rights activists don't try. I'm not sure anyone has even composed a plan for doing it. Nobody provides more funding for cetacean communications on the grounds that maybe we can figure out how to talk to orcas and get them to stop murdering people (that is, whales). No one has a plan for 'imprisoning' all the whale-eating orca pods, or even for imprisoning any of them. Or for somehow trying to work out a way to warn whales that orcas are coming for them.

The idea that we should even consider doing any of these things is viewed as a ridiculous joke. It's not viewed as worth spending even a tiny pittance on. Dead whales just aren't that important... as long as it's orcas doing the killing.

We don't care about protecting whales from orcas any more than we care about protecting rabbits from foxes or deer from wolves or tuna fish from sharks- all of which are examples of nonsentient prey animals being targeted by predators.

Thing is, if protecting whales from predatory orcas is worth effectively zero effort on our part...

Why do we apply a different standard to the Makah, in terms of the cost we accept? Or rather, expect the Makah to accept?

I get that if a whale population is endangered no human should be allowed to hunt it. But that's not the issue here, not in the context of this specific whale population.

It's simply that if the whales are intelligent enough for it to be worth severely inconveniencing the Makah to protect them, then that should be the result of some general principle on our part. Not just a reflexive NO WHALING kneejerk on our part.

[Flagg]

Simon, do you not understand the concept of the natural world or are you just concern trolling and barfing obtuseness? The fact is that any animals that were targeting us as their main source of food are extinct or have adapted to find another food source. And animals that become threats or nuisances are hunted and killed. But we're not under threat of extinction from animals. And neither are endangered whales. They can be let be with natural predation as it exists without human interference without fear of them being wiped out.

[Flagg]

The argument put forth by you that we should interfere and deny predators access to food sources based on <insert nothing here> is, in a word, stupid. We can control what humans do and we have to because otherwise species will be wiped out. We can control humans hunting endangered or intelligent species because we have nothing they need and appeals to tradition are logical fallacies which you would be beating everyone in the thread over their heads with like a limp dick at Mardi Gras.

[Flagg]

Where are the Dire Wolves, Simon? Where are the Cave Bears? The Sabre toothed cats? Oh, right, they all went extinct not long after we came into contact with them. You don't need fucking vampires, viruses and bacteria suffice.

[Ralin]

Simon, do you not understand the concept of the natural world or are you just concern trolling and barfing obtuseness?

No dummy, he's saying that it's morally irrelevant.

The fact is that any animals that were targeting us as their main source of food are extinct or have adapted to find another food source. And animals that become threats or nuisances are hunted and killed.

And if whales are intelligent enough that killing them is wrong then we should do the same to animals that target them.

But we're not under threat of extinction from animals. And neither are endangered whales. They can be let be with natural predation as it exists without human interference without fear of them being wiped out.

Oh no. You said that we should kill whales because killing intelligent animals is wrong regardless of whether they're endangered. Stop switching from one argument to the other.

The argument put forth by you that we should interfere and deny predators access to food sources based on <insert nothing here> is, in a word, stupid.

No stupider than the idea that we shouldn't kill whales because people want to eat them or any other conservationist crap.

We can control what humans do and we have to because otherwise species will be wiped out.

We can control what orcas do in much the same way.

[Thanas]

Nobody provides more funding for cetacean communications on the grounds that maybe we can figure out how to talk to orcas and get them to stop murdering people (that is, whales). No one has a plan for 'imprisoning' all the whale-eating orca pods, or even for imprisoning any of them. Or for somehow trying to work out a way to warn whales that orcas are coming for them.

We do not have a system to communicate with them. Last I knew researchers were working on it though. Unless we have such a system we should not really judge someboddy for not achieving an impossibility.

Thing is, if protecting whales from predatory orcas is worth effectively zero effort on our part...

You are wrong about that because efforts are being made.

Why do we apply a different standard to the Makah, in terms of the cost we accept? Or rather, expect the Makah to accept?

Because we can communicate with them, unlike with the orcas.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh hey, Flagg said something! Something repetitive and dumb, but since I refused to repeat myself last time, maybe that's to blame...

Simon, do you not understand the concept of the natural world or are you just concern trolling and barfing obtuseness?

Since when does "it's the natural world" excuse us from our moral obligations to other people?

If whales are people (and thus it is forbidden to use them for economic activity), then it doesn't matter what's "natural," any more than we're obliged to let people with diabetes die a "natural" death by refusing to provide medical treatment.

If whales are not people, then it's fine to let orcas kill them because it's "natural," but then your argument that it is inherently wrong for humans to hunt them is undermined.

The fact is that any animals that were targeting us as their main source of food are extinct or have adapted to find another food source. And animals that become threats or nuisances are hunted and killed.

No animal ever targeted humans as their main source of food, even including big scary Pleistocene predators. They were, yes, killed off- as I myself pointed out in one of my own posts, large predators that hunt intelligent creatures routinely get killed off until they no longer present a threat. Whales are powerless to do this on their own behalf, but if they're people, moral agents worthy of consideration and whom it is murder to kill...

Then it is only fair that you would protect whales from being eaten by wild beasts.

But we're not under threat of extinction from animals. And neither are endangered whales. They can be let be with natural predation as it exists without human interference without fear of them being wiped out.

If all that matters is whether the whales are endangered, then the whales the Makah hunt are not endangered even if other whales elswhere in the world are. Moreover, the level of Makah whale hunting is significantly lower than the level of natural predation.

---

Nobody provides more funding for cetacean communications on the grounds that maybe we can figure out how to talk to orcas and get them to stop murdering people (that is, whales). No one has a plan for 'imprisoning' all the whale-eating orca pods, or even for imprisoning any of them. Or for somehow trying to work out a way to warn whales that orcas are coming for them.

We do not have a system to communicate with them. Last I knew researchers were working on it though. Unless we have such a system we should not really judge someboddy for not achieving an impossibility.

My point is that people aren't even trying to achieve this goal, or at least aren't working harder to think of it to stop the ongoing slaughter of whales. Nor is there even an attempt to construct plans for saving whales from orcas, the way that we do things like construct plans for space stations nobody's going to build any time this century.

My point is not just that we do not, in fact, save whales from orcas.

My point is that people (including conservationists) don't even act like this is a priority. It's not even a thing it'd be nice if we were able to do.

We behave as though, when it comes to providing food for orcas, whales are just another natural resource to be exploited by other species.

Thing is, if protecting whales from predatory orcas is worth effectively zero effort on our part...

You are wrong about that because efforts are being made.

Ah. Really? What efforts to save whales from orcas? I was not aware of any, and when I mention the idea of protecting whales from orcas, people always say "you must be joking" and call me stupid. I suppose it was careless of me to assume no one was trying.

Why do we apply a different standard to the Makah, in terms of the cost we accept? Or rather, expect the Makah to accept?

Because we can communicate with them, unlike with the orcas.

Why does this justify requiring the Makah to accept a higher cost to them than we propose to accept to us?

And if the Makah refuse, and insist on their treaty rights, at what point would we just shrug and say "oh well, let them kill orcas, we can't stop them" the way we say it about the orcas?

[Flagg]

You're so head up your ass smarmy and obtuse, trading paragraphs for IQ points, that you expect us to hold dolphins to a higher standard of morality than our fellow humans based upon appeals to tradition, sophistry, and ink on paper, yet you call me dumb? You're talking about mythical creatures like vampires as examples of human as prey predators when I pointed out that we killed all of our "natural predators". We are not stewards of the Earth, shit for brains. There is no god that gave us dominion over the Earth and all that lives upon it, and if there were it fucked up and gave that privilege to viruses and bacteria. Creatures apparently smarter than you are.

Plus we've talked about this before, so if a rules lawyer came in we'd all be in deep shit.

[Simon_Jester]

You never did get around to addressing my point as opposed to your delusional version of my point.

My point is, why is it right to tolerate whales being killed by wild animals, if it is inherently wrong for humans to kill whales?

This has nothing to do with humans being stewards of the Earth, and nothing to do with mythology.* It has to do with our standards for how we treat people as distinct from 'members of our own species.'

If whales are people then they deserve protection from many threats to their welfare and survival. Not just the specific threat of a bunch of guys in a motorboat occasionally going out and killing one.**

If whales are not people, then we can't just breezily say "it's wrong because killing whales is always wrong," we have to actually address the details, which so far you haven't been willing to do.
______________________

*Which I used to illustrate a point that, like all the others, sailed right over your head because you're too busy wallowing in your contempt for other people to listen to them and understand what they are saying.

**This kind of thing is why people talk about discovering alien intelligent life as if it were a big deal. Because it forces us to come to terms with the idea of morally significant beings that are not human. Trees and cows and so on just don't have the same order of moral significance that humans do... but sapient nonhumans would. We would have to either redefine our ethics to embrace rules that apply uniformly to all beings including nonhumans, in that case... or accept a dog-eat-dog world of conflict between different sapient species.

[Flagg]

You never did get around to addressing my point as opposed to your delusional version of my point.

My point is, why is it right to tolerate whales being killed by wild animals, if it is inherently wrong for humans to kill whales?

It's wrong for modern humans to kill whales because we don't need to, stupid. Wild animals need to eat. Wild animals don't understand that whales are intelligent and feel emotions at a high level. Wild animals don't, and will never, kill enough whales to drive them to extinction, as opposed to humans. This is basic stuff you don't need a 15 page dissertation of a post to understand.

This is why I will never take you seriously, simple simon. You hide your dumbassery behind mountains of text, when at the end of the day you ask questions a 5 year old doesn't need to.

[Thanas]

My point is that people aren't even trying to achieve this goal, or at least aren't working harder to think of it to stop the ongoing slaughter of whales. Nor is there even an attempt to construct plans for saving whales from orcas, the way that we do things like construct plans for space stations nobody's going to build any time this century.

My point is not just that we do not, in fact, save whales from orcas.

My point is that people (including conservationists) don't even act like this is a priority. It's not even a thing it'd be nice if we were able to do.

We behave as though, when it comes to providing food for orcas, whales are just another natural resource to be exploited by other species.

That is a bit troublesome. Unless measures of communication are established we will never know what exactly is going on. Whales and dolphins for example seem to be able to communicate and coordinate on some level, but we do not know what they are saying. Heck, until a short time ago we did not even know they gave themselves identities and communicated them to each other. Quite frankly, you are acting as if there is a finished product as if there is none.

Why does this justify requiring the Makah to accept a higher cost to them than we propose to accept to us?

Because I do not go and raid France, Italy or Poland if I need money, so there goes the tradition argument. And we are accepting plenty of higher costs. Many fishermen in Germany have lost their livelihood due to quotas, yet you do not see me raising a stink about it on here.

[Flagg]

Why does this justify requiring the Makah to accept a higher cost to them than we propose to accept to us?

Because I do not go and raid France, Italy or Poland if I need money, so there goes the tradition argument. And we are accepting plenty of higher costs. Many fishermen in Germany have lost their livelihood due to quotas, yet you do not see me raising a stink about it on here.

But Thanas, they have a piece of paper with ink on it that says they can kill whales! Whaling for our time!

[Flagg]

Also, Simon, please provide evidence that whales and dolphins are "people". You can not, because they are not. They are intelligent and show enough emotion that I don't think humans should kill them for food unless it's a survival situation and that they should never be killed for their parts because of said high level of intelligence/consciousness. But they are still wild animals that do what wild animals do. And we have no right to interfere with that unless they start attacking humans.

Your entire line of reasoning is a black/white fallacy. Just because something is of high enough intelligence/consciousness that they shouldn't be hunted by humans does not mean that they should be protected by humans from other species.

[Civil War Man]

Your entire line of reasoning is a black/white fallacy. Just because something is of high enough intelligence/consciousness that they shouldn't be hunted by humans does not mean that they should be protected by humans from other species.

I'd go so far as to say there are instances where we should interfere, but as far as I'm concerned, protection for the most part should mean preserving the integrity of a habitat or arranging some way for the endangered species to safely maintain or grow its population. It should only involve targeting the animals that are threatening the endangered species in cases where the former is an invasive species, particularly if they were introduced to the area due to human negligence or malfeasance. If you try to protect an endangered species by targeting its natural predator, you're probably just going to end up with two endangered species.

[Flagg]

Your entire line of reasoning is a black/white fallacy. Just because something is of high enough intelligence/consciousness that they shouldn't be hunted by humans does not mean that they should be protected by humans from other species.

I'd go so far as to say there are instances where we should interfere, but as far as I'm concerned, protection for the most part should mean preserving the integrity of a habitat or arranging some way for the endangered species to safely maintain or grow its population. It should only involve targeting the animals that are threatening the endangered species in cases where the former is an invasive species, particularly if they were introduced to the area due to human negligence or malfeasance. If you try to protect an endangered species by targeting its natural predator, you're probably just going to end up with two endangered species.

I agree with the sentiment of going after human introduced invasive species, but the practicality of doing so is almost impossible in many cases. Look at the American south and the fire ant, for instance. Or more recently, Florida's problem with Burmese Pythons. They estimate tens to hundreds of thousands of pythons in the Everglades alone, but massive hunts tend to yield a few dozen, simply because they have adapted so well. Sometimes you can't put the genie back in the bottle as much as you want to.

[Elheru Aran]

Was the fire ant introduced by humans, or did it come up naturally via Mexico? I'm inclined to think the latter... Burmese pythons are *definitely* a human introduction, though. One wonders if they couldn't just get some snake hunters in from Asia to clean house. I'd say introducing mongoose, but *those* are another kettle of fish as far as introducing invasive species goes...

[Simon_Jester]

My point is that people aren't even trying to achieve this goal, or at least aren't working harder to think of it to stop the ongoing slaughter of whales. Nor is there even an attempt to construct plans for saving whales from orcas, the way that we do things like construct plans for space stations nobody's going to build any time this century.

My point is not just that we do not, in fact, save whales from orcas... My point is that people (including conservationists) don't even act like this is a priority... We behave as though, when it comes to providing food for orcas, whales are just another natural resource to be exploited by other species.

That is a bit troublesome. Unless measures of communication are established we will never know what exactly is going on. Whales and dolphins for example seem to be able to communicate and coordinate on some level, but we do not know what they are saying. Heck, until a short time ago we did not even know they gave themselves identities and communicated them to each other. Quite frankly, you are acting as if there is a finished product as if there is none.

No. No such thought or action is in my mind. My point is simple. We are watching whales be killed by orcas on a routine basis. And we are treating this as "not a problem."

Granted, it would not be easy to negotiate with orcas or interview whales. It might take billions of dollars and decades of effort. It might not even be possible.

But this is not the only thing we could do, in order to interfere with whales' being eaten by orcas. There are things we could at least try, which we would surely have tried if these were tribes of humans we inexplicably couldn't communicate with. We could be talking about this as a humanitarian problem (or the equivalent word for whales) even if we are currently helpless to deal with it.

We could be doing these things... IF we actually thought it was a problem in and of itself that whales are being hunted, killed, and eaten.

We don't.

Why does this justify requiring the Makah to accept a higher cost to them than we propose to accept to us?

Because I do not go and raid France, Italy or Poland if I need money, so there goes the tradition argument. And we are accepting plenty of higher costs. Many fishermen in Germany have lost their livelihood due to quotas, yet you do not see me raising a stink about it on here.

The quotas in question are imposed to stop fisheries from collapsing- a net long term good for all the fisheries, even if in the short term it means fewer jobs on fishing boats.

Whereas the decision to set a quota of "zero" rather than, oh, "two per year" for east Pacific gray whales is not required to stop the whale 'fishery' from collapsing. A ban on factory ships killing hundreds of whales a year is certainly needed, but a ban on people in small boats killing a few a year is not.

Thus, the rule being imposed does not serve the same kind of purpose, and the imposition is of a different nature.

You never did get around to addressing my point as opposed to your delusional version of my point.

My point is, why is it right to tolerate whales being killed by wild animals, if it is inherently wrong for humans to kill whales?

It's wrong for modern humans to kill whales because we don't need to, stupid. Wild animals need to eat. Wild animals don't understand that whales are intelligent and feel emotions at a high level. Wild animals don't, and will never, kill enough whales to drive them to extinction, as opposed to humans.

By the same logic, it's wrong for humans to murder other humans, but it's not a problem if tigers sometimes eat humans, and we should tolerate them doing so. Because tigers are too dumb to understand that killing humans is wrong, and they need meat to live.

Except we don't. When tigers start eating people (and most don't, because we've spent thousands of years selectively killing off the ones that didn't learn this lesson), we kill the man-eating tigers. We accept considerable cost and risk in order to do so. Because if it is wrong for an intelligent creature to kill something, it is wrong for an intelligent creature to permit that thing to be devoured by wild animals.

Ecology doesn't override ethics, and the appeal to nature is still a fallacy.

Also, Simon, please provide evidence that whales and dolphins are "people". You can not, because they are not.

In this post you prove unable to comprehend binary logic and if/then statements.

I am not asserting that whales are 'people.' I am asserting that if they are people this leads to predictable consequences about their rights and status. And if they are not, then that, too, leads to predictable consequences.

In the first case we end up with what everyone agrees is a ridiculous contradiction (protecting whales from orcas is, apparently, a stupid idea).

In the second case, we need to have an extended conversation about the exact status of whales. A conversation informed by facts about ecology beyond the "uh, whales are all endangered right" level. And we do not the crude kneejerk reaction I'm seeing out of you.

They are intelligent and show enough emotion that I don't think humans should kill them for food unless it's a survival situation and that they should never be killed for their parts because of said high level of intelligence/consciousness. But they are still wild animals that do what wild animals do. And we have no right to interfere with that unless they start attacking humans.

Your entire line of reasoning is a black/white fallacy. Just because something is of high enough intelligence/consciousness that they shouldn't be hunted by humans does not mean that they should be protected by humans from other species.

So they have no right to not be killed, only a right to not be killed by us? Because it is natural that they die painfully and uselessly (serving only to sustain a species that will kill more of them next year, and the one after that)? Or rather, it's natural just as long as we're not the ones doing it?

I've never understood the mindset where it's okay to let a bad thing happen to someone as long as you didn't personally cause it. It sounds like something out of the low-end sort of second season TNG philosophizing. I could never say something like that without getting a biiig kick of cognitive dissonance out of it.