US Naval Exercise, Cancelled to protect endangered whales Options

[celebritygooner]

A federal judge in California has ordered the US Navy to temporarily stop using sonar equipment because it might harm whales and other sea mammals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5143698.stm

I've seen many clashes between business and environmental interests, but I've never heard of environmentalists clashing with the military and actually winning. Is this a good thing?

[Seeker]

Yes they did. In fact, they did ti so well, I didn't need to quote yours.

The first paragraph, the one about tuna, is a reply to your first. Killing is killing. You can't say people killing cows and whales killing dolphins is ok, but people killing dolphins isn't. Killing for food is ok but killing by accident isn't? What about killing for ivory or killing for fur or killing for religious ritual? Are those good enough? Killing is killing.

Edit: Twelve "killing"s in that paragraph.

The second paragraph, the one about Queequeg, is a reply to your second.

And the third paragraph, the one about naval bases, is a reply to your third. It be inconvenient for dolphins to have to find somewhere else to do what they do, but it's also inconvenient for humans to find a different place to do what we do. What's the difference? I don't see one.

How did your first paragraph address my argument? I said you can't compare humans to killer whales. Humans have a choice whether or not to harm other living creatures. Secondly, I said killer whales kill them for food. Humans using active sonar would not be killing them for food.

Killing animals for food (cows, whatever) is A-OK. Killing dolphins using sonar is not killing them for food and it is not accidental since we know very well that the sonar is killing them.

How can you say we are killing dolphins by accident when we know good and well the sonar is killing them? You need to think your arguments over a little better before you spout them off in a public forum.

Next, I said that active sonar goes out for miles. Dolphins have no chance of escaping before the damage is done, hence the reason they beach themselves in an attempt to get out of the water.

In response to that paragraph you go off on a tangent about norwhals and a fictional character from Moby Dick. What on Earth does that have to do with my argument?

Last but not least I said dolphins have certain mating areas. Disrupting their natural habitat endangers them as a species.

You popped back that avoiding the mating areas forces to the Navy to waste time and money to go to other areas. This is the only argument in your incoherent rambling that actually made any sense. In response to that, I'm sure the Navy can float their submarines a few miles away from the mating grounds to perform their exercises since the Navy continuously fuels their submarines to patrol international waters. The time and money used to avoid mating areas is insignificant.

At least think your arguments through before you put them on Techsans so they're not so easy for me to rip apart. I like a challenge and you're not giving me one.