this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
117 points (97.6% liked)
Political Weirdos
801 readers
297 users here now
A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.
- Focus on weird behaviors and beliefs
- Follow Iemmy.world TOS
- Don’t be a jerk
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He's not a biologist, he's a lawyer. And if cutting up a whale with a chainsaw is normal day-to-day stuff in his family... that's pretty fucking weird.
It is quite weird but in a cool way. I mean, I collect teapots. He collects animal skulls. Which of us is more badass?
I don't find driving to a beach with your child to carve up a dead whale with a chainsaw (is that even legal?), bungeeing it into the car and then driving down the road with "whale juice" flooding into the car to be badass, just bad parenting.
Also, claiming to be a big environmentalist and having an animal skull collection is not the best look.
Nothing wrong with it if they were collected ethically. Would you find it odd that arborists collect tree trunk slices?
Is it ethical to drive down to the beach with your kid, cut off a whale's head with a chainsaw and drive it home in your car?
I doubt it's even legal, let alone ethical.
From the article:
It does not sound legal.
From NOAA.gov
Edit: Great job by an environmental attorney...
That act in itself is ethically neutral.
Why are you implying that legality has any impact on the ethics of the situation?
What makes you the arbiter of what is ethical?
I'm not.
Aren't you the one that asked if it was ethical? Did you not want an answer?
Sure. Why is it "ethically neutral" to expose a child to such things on a regular basis? Again, this was supposedly a day-to-day occurrence.
You just asked me for the answer, so in this case, you! Your second sentence does imply that you are, as the "not even X, let alone Y" implies that to reach Y you must pass X.
Please answer the question: Why is it ethically neutral to intentionally expose a child (he wasn't passing by, he found out it happened and drove there with his daughter) to such things on a day-to-day basis?
Its not my onus to answer that, that's akin to trying to prove a negative. As the one making the claim, you are supposed to try to prove it. How is exposure to a whale carcass unethical?
Because exposing children to traumatic things can cause psychological issues and watching someone carve up a whale with a chainsaw is pretty damn traumatic for a normal child.
Let me guess: "Prove that it's traumatic."
Nope, it's pointing out that you're moving goalposts.
You asked my why it was unethical. I told you. What goalpost did I move?
Although legality and ethics do not always coincide, they often influence each other. Many laws are based on ethical principles, such as the protection of human rights, wildlife, or the environment. They reflect a societal consensus that actions that violate these principles are both unethical and should be illegal.
In this case, RFK Jr. most likely violated several laws like the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which make it illegal to disturb, remove, or possess any part of a whale, even if it's dead, without a permit. This is not "normal" behavior.