It does not violate international law. It’s specifically regulated by an international treaty that some countries are part to. Don’t go around spreading disinformation, it’s a bad look.
No they’re not. Go read the actual article classifying them.
Also stop moving the goalposts. Fin whale catching has been heavily regulated, even in countries that still permit whaling (go read the source you linked in your other comment). You can’t start with “Whales [in general] are endangered, and are being hunted for food” and jump to “This specific specific whale that is very heavily regulated, also by countries that permit whaling, is not quite endangered but vulnerable”, and act like you have a counter argument to anything.
What you’re running here is a masterclass in bad faith arguing: Moving goalposts, mis-citing sources, and jumping from bastion to bastion. All while nobody has even disagreed with your major opinion (whales shouldn’t be hunted) but just pointed out that what you’re saying is factually wrong.
Let’s take a look at what the actual facts say about the conservation status of some of most commonly hunted species that are regulated under international whaling conventions:
Go on, back-track some more, I can’t wait to watch.
Or, you know, make your argument that you don’t think people should eat whales without relying on either being uninformed or knowingly spreading disinformation. You don’t really have an excuse here: You’re very clearly just stating falsehoods as if they were fact and building your non-existent argument on that. You can do better.
Come on… you’re even linking the sources yourself at this point, just take some time to read them.
First of all, you explicitly stated “endangered”, while the source you’re linking says “vulnerable”, which is a category specifically made for species that are threatened but not endangered.
Secondly, the source states that Japan has no reported fin whale catchings since 2019.
Finally: You can’t accuse me of cherry-picking when you’ve stated that “Whales [in general] are endangered”, and I respond with sources stating that seven of the most commonly hunted species are “least concern”, when you then cherry pick an example of one species that is heavily regulated, even by the countries that permit any catch at all, and that species isn’t even endangered but vulnerable. What you’re doing is pretty much the definition of cherry picking: Finding a single example that almost supports the claim you’re making.
You’re free to argue that you don’t like the idea of people eating whales. I’ll leave it to you to explain why. What I won’t let stand unopposed is when you’re basing your argument on disinformation, and back-tracking or moving the goalposts when confronted.
Just yell “save the whales” and be done with it. And stop acting like it’s based on some objective fact that doesn’t apply to every other animal that’s hunted for food. It’s not- it’s a sentimental thing, and that’s completely fine, just be honest about it.
Note that I have not once in this thread defended whaling, or the hunting of endangered species. All I’ve done is point out that you’re spreading falsehoods to make it seem like what is in essence a sentimentally based opinion has backing in facts.
That business involves murdering whales which violates international law.
I’m not taking a stance here. He asked why he was arrested, I simply told him what was written in the article as the basis for the arrest
It does not violate international law. It’s specifically regulated by an international treaty that some countries are part to. Don’t go around spreading disinformation, it’s a bad look.
Whales are endangered animals and Japan and Denmark are killing them for their taste buds.
Doesn’t change the fact that you’re spreading misinformation.
Fin Whales are endangered.
No they’re not. Go read the actual article classifying them.
Also stop moving the goalposts. Fin whale catching has been heavily regulated, even in countries that still permit whaling (go read the source you linked in your other comment). You can’t start with “Whales [in general] are endangered, and are being hunted for food” and jump to “This specific specific whale that is very heavily regulated, also by countries that permit whaling, is not quite endangered but vulnerable”, and act like you have a counter argument to anything.
What you’re running here is a masterclass in bad faith arguing: Moving goalposts, mis-citing sources, and jumping from bastion to bastion. All while nobody has even disagreed with your major opinion (whales shouldn’t be hunted) but just pointed out that what you’re saying is factually wrong.
Let’s take a look at what the actual facts say about the conservation status of some of most commonly hunted species that are regulated under international whaling conventions:
Go on, back-track some more, I can’t wait to watch.
Or, you know, make your argument that you don’t think people should eat whales without relying on either being uninformed or knowingly spreading disinformation. You don’t really have an excuse here: You’re very clearly just stating falsehoods as if they were fact and building your non-existent argument on that. You can do better.
You’re cherry picking the evidence to suit your argument as Japan and Greenland were hunting fin whales.
threatened
Come on… you’re even linking the sources yourself at this point, just take some time to read them.
First of all, you explicitly stated “endangered”, while the source you’re linking says “vulnerable”, which is a category specifically made for species that are threatened but not endangered.
Secondly, the source states that Japan has no reported fin whale catchings since 2019.
Finally: You can’t accuse me of cherry-picking when you’ve stated that “Whales [in general] are endangered”, and I respond with sources stating that seven of the most commonly hunted species are “least concern”, when you then cherry pick an example of one species that is heavily regulated, even by the countries that permit any catch at all, and that species isn’t even endangered but vulnerable. What you’re doing is pretty much the definition of cherry picking: Finding a single example that almost supports the claim you’re making.
You’re free to argue that you don’t like the idea of people eating whales. I’ll leave it to you to explain why. What I won’t let stand unopposed is when you’re basing your argument on disinformation, and back-tracking or moving the goalposts when confronted.
Just yell “save the whales” and be done with it. And stop acting like it’s based on some objective fact that doesn’t apply to every other animal that’s hunted for food. It’s not- it’s a sentimental thing, and that’s completely fine, just be honest about it.
Note that I have not once in this thread defended whaling, or the hunting of endangered species. All I’ve done is point out that you’re spreading falsehoods to make it seem like what is in essence a sentimentally based opinion has backing in facts.
Hot take, whaling is no different than hunting.