Reply #124: There you go questioning my motives. [View All]

[kristopher]

Why don't you put a sock in the propaganda and LISTEN.

You (generalized to include all those who refer to killing whales as murder) are NOT making unbiased assessments of the "science" to meet the goals of the original mandate of the IWC.

You have adopted a deep seated value that is affecting your JUDGMENT.

It causes you to INTERPRET THE EVIDENCE TO ACHIEVE A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.

All your talk about "realistic case" and "erring on the side of caution" are (internal to you) justifications for cooking the books your way. They are your rationalization tools that allow you to insert your values in place of the mission statement of the organization as it was formed by group consent. Read your post -

"The IWC has changed as what we know about whales has changed. Do I think the IWC's mission should be revised to one that emphasizes whale populations as being valuable from a conservation standpoint and because of their intrinsic worth as a species and individually, rather than as floating sacks of meat and industrial lubricant, as whalers treat them? Of course. But that's the current paradigm whether it's clearly stated in writing or no, every member country knows it, and those who object can choose to do as Norway did, or make a good case for shifting back to the resource management paradigm and try to shift the policy."

That is a partisan, not an objective observer trying to find a solution to a problem.

Your complaint about Japan "buying memberships" is just one more in a long list. If you trace the evolution of the membership of the IWC you'll find the Japanese were being their usual imitative selves. We did it first and they just retaliated.

Let me repeat my central point:

You (again as a representative sample of a group) have developed a NEW value that is deep seated and real. It is so at odds with what is the historic position of our anthropocentric culture that you yourself can't come to grips with it. However it is so strong that it is demanding that you take action to correct the circumstances that are violating this value. You can't articulate the basis or nature of the feelings you have because it isn't something we've really encountered before. If you can't articulate this involuntary and compelling belief structure you've developed, how can you possibly confront those who don't share it except by indirect methods and tactics?

The use of these indirect methods and tactics may seem reasonable to you because of your need to relieve the cognitive distress you are experiencing, however to those who do not share that distress, your methods and tactics are an obvious cover for ulterior motives.

I have more but before I go on, I want to ensure we are on the same page.

Take as a given that I share your motives. Entertain for a moment that I'm not trying to box you in for the purpose of causing a continuation of your distress.

Does the analysis I've presented so far make sense?