I don't think this is a fair comparison because we breed these animals for farming, so technically we could breed as many as we need to sustain our habits.
On the other hand there is no way to breed whales. There is some finite number of them in the wild and we cannot actively endeavor to create more.
Commercial farming of farm animals will not cause the extinction of farm animals; commercial farming of whales will cause the extinction of whales.
" I don't think this is a fair comparison because we breed these animals for farming, so technically we could breed as many as we need to sustain our habits."
They still suffer greatly. Maybe a little extreme but by the same logic we could breed humans for slavery and say that it's OK because they got bred for it.
"commercial farming of whales will cause the extinction of whales. "
Not if done with proper quotas. It's not different from any other type of fishing.
Again, I don't even eat meat, but we should be a little more rational.
And there lies the rub! People ignoring quotas are the whole reason this kind of fishing needs strong cooperative regulation.
> It's not different from any other type of fishing.
Actually, it is categorically different. You'd be hard pressed to hunt salmon to extinction even if you tried because they spawn hundreds of eggs per female each year. The same cannot be said for any species of whale.
That's wrong. What matters is the capacity to suffer. There are humans who do not have the mental capacity to articulate such a thing either. I'd highly recommend as it deals with such arguments in greater length. http://lockeanliberal.com/2014/11/02/what-a-conservative-col...
> we breed these animals for farming, so technically we could breed as many as we need to sustain our habits.
I'm not sure this justification works. After all, if someone started breeding dogs or African Greys for human consumption in the U.S. in a way that was sustainable, people would still be outraged by it.
In fact they find SUCH a difference between "pet" animals and "farm" animals that we ban horse, dog, and cat meat for human consumption. Because you shouldn't eat cute things or something.
In my opinion, the people who constantly bring up the point you are responding to know full well. Read the rest of the comments here: It's repeated over and over. "Why do we care about whales if we don't care about cows?"
And then people like me and you respond with this same response: "Cows are not going extinct." They don't want to hear an answer, they want to shill veganism.
I've made the same reply a few times in this thread, and both times my comments were down-voted and flagged less than a minute after posting.
edit: Am I saying these people are coordinated? Yeah. Absolutely I am.
The implication of your comment you're arguing that allowing a species to risk extinction is somehow equivalent to breeding animals for slaughter as a food source. That a person cannot both be at ease with such farming of animals an at the same time, without contradiction, see value in preserving some other species from risk of extinction.
This is a rather obtuse outlook on your part. It should not be difficult to see that these positions on killing animals are not logically equivalent, or logically exclusive of each other.
Even forgetting about any concept of morality or ethics for a moment, from a purely utilitarian viewpoint raising animals for food isn't mutually exclusive with wanting to preserve the balance in an ecosystem in which whales play a part, and whose disruption could have far-reaching implications.
How many cows, chickens etc do you think would survive if humans all of a sudden decided to stop breeding and exploiting them? It's not like those animals can survive in the wild (unless, of course, humans continue protecting them and killing their predators).
Solely an issue with bitcoins algorithm? Given that you obviously can technically change the algorithm, but instead bitcoin folks choose to continue the environmental disaster and literally collectively burn millions of dollars into air every single day, to me it indicates that there are some other underlying issues very much there as well. But that may be just me.
It's interacting with Canadian citizenship and being paid by Canadian companies for advertising.
If it's literally doing no operations inside of Canada then they have nothing to worry about because Canada couldn't do anything to them.
Its pretty hypocritical of companies to rely on local laws to protect them but then act like all their customers on the internet don't exist in any real space and aren't under a nation states juridisction.
I'd prefer a completely free internet, but you don't get to have it both ways
Just to be clear I was responding to the OP's statement "One nation does NOT have the authority to dictate what a company can do outside of it's borders and concerns". This is incorrect - a nation regularly forms laws on what its companies and citizens can do outside of its borders and concerns.
Now what you are staying is something completely different from the OPs argument - you are stating "Google is not a Canadian entity so neither Op's or my arguments matter". I am not a legal expert so I have no idea but the statement that Google "does not operate at all in Canada" seems misleading as I know that Google has offices based in Canada. They have Canadian citizens working in Canadian offices under a registered entity so I am not sure why you are saying that Google "does not operate at all in Canada".
It's incredibly expensive to do this. Most people can't afford it especially since one of the parents generally has to spend most of their time with the child forgoing work.
Yes, there are programs in most states to help the parents in this sort of situation, but most of these programs let the benefits run out when the child reaches around 21-25 years of age.
