On October 26 2011 18:17 Sasquatch wrote: I have no problem with people wanting to eat shark fin soup, but currently it is being harvested in a completely insane and unsustainable manner. Greed tends to ruin any good thing.
For reference, here's a piece Gordon Ramsay did on shark fin harvesting:
I'm all for banning shark fin, but saying that it adds nothing to the soup just make him sound like an idiot. I love Ramsay, but he was clearly biased against eating shark fins to begin with.
Shark fin tastes amazing; but we need some form of global reform to promote more humane ways of obtaining them.
On October 26 2011 20:24 Williammm wrote: Banning due to sustainability issues, I can understand.
But anything like moral and ethical issues are just bullshit. There is no humane way to kill an animal. Killing is killing, and I know most people associate degrees of pain an animal feels to calculate the level of ethical responsibility and morality. Honestly though, why should that even matter. The moment you decide to kill a living thing, you've already breached issues of ethics and morality. Stop being so self righteous.
The reasons for the ban were justified assuming that they're true. /story
Are you saying animals don't feel pain? Would you like to have all your limbs cut off, then left to bleed out & die in the middle of the street? or would you prefer to have a lethal injection / gunshot to the head / anything else painless/instant.
Totally agree that killing is killing and it's already crossing ethical/moral lines, but saying 'there is no human way' to kill an animal is bullshit.
If they are going to run around killing sharks for their fins, at least stab it's brain, like any normal person who goes fishing.
I'm not saying they don't feel pain. I'm saying why should that matter, and why are we applying human emotions and concepts to another species whom we deem as food. You're comparing within species killing as oppose to the act of killing for food. Two completely different things.
As I said before, it's just something we apply to other living things to make us feel better. Whether I prefer lethal injection or what not performed by ANOTHER human is a completely different issue. I, in that situation am not dehumanised in anyway. So as long as I'm perceived as humanity to the murderer, the humane killing concept applies. As soon as dehumanisation occurs, your end result is something akin to genocide and holocaust, brutal killings etc. Horrible thing because they're still people to me, but the question is why are you trying to make the sharks out like humans? They're just food, and the moment you deny they're food you're just kidding yourself.
You've got to be kidding me. What we deem as food is completely subjective. Maybe I think your pet dog is a delicacy? What if I chopped off his legs and "released" him back into his environment? Your whole post is basically a justification for animal abuse and it kind of sickens me.
We are on the top of the food chain. Whatever we can eat is food. That's objective truth. The scenario you described is not only unlikely but it's quite removed from the subject. Do you hold some sort of bond with sharks or something? Concept of animal abuse is also subjective and doesn't apply when we're killing the animal for its resources. Like i said before, the moment you choose to kill an animal, no other moral or ethical issues come into play. Death is the definitive end. You're wrong for doing it. With that said, if we are killing for food or its other resources it is completely justified in today's free market society and also biologically speaking ( we are omnivores). Are you going to go vegetarian or vegan? if not, please kindly shut up. If you are, that is your lifestyle and your choice. don't impose your beliefs on other people or bring it up in a topic that doesn't apply to you. If you do happen to have a human connection with animals, good for you, and good day to you sir.
Wrong. What part of chopping off it's fin and releasing it back into the environment don't you understand. Basically what you're saying it death is wrong no matter how you do it. So that means if you had to choose between a long drawn out and painful death for 2 hours or being shot in the brain, you would be indifferent? Don't make me laugh.
Also, who cares if I'm vegan or vegetarian? So if there are X number of animals inhumanely dying and I support a cause that saves a number less than X, it's ineffective? That's like saying metal detectors aren't always 100% effective so why use them?
The moment I choose to kill an animal no other moral or ethical issue comes to play? How is animal abuse subjective? Either something is being tortured or its not.
Torture is also outside of the issue if death ensues. If the animal were living with no intention of killing it, then torture is the issue of moral and ethical concern. If death is the purpose. nothing else matters. Also torture implies intent on harming for pleasure. I can assure you the fishermans are simply performing their duty, and nothing more of that.
I can't understand any of your arguments in this sentence. I'm not saying that I disagree with your arguments. I'm saying can't understand what you're trying to say.
Who is "the animal" that you referred to in the 2nd sentence?
What is your reasoning for claiming that "If death is the purpose, nothing else matters."?
What does the fisherman's intent have to do with anything? Aren't consequences the important aspect in moral considerations?
Now that I've read what you've said a few times, it seems to me like your focus is on intent&purpose, and not on consequences or results (i.e. it is the purpose of the action that determines whether it is morally good, and what occurs as a result of the action doesn't really matter). This has received a lot of focus in moral philosophy. I would like you to read of some of the discourse on consequentialism.
On October 26 2011 18:17 Sasquatch wrote: I have no problem with people wanting to eat shark fin soup, but currently it is being harvested in a completely insane and unsustainable manner. Greed tends to ruin any good thing.
For reference, here's a piece Gordon Ramsay did on shark fin harvesting:
I'm all for banning shark fin, but saying that it adds nothing to the soup just make him sound like an idiot. I love Ramsay, but he was clearly biased against eating shark fins to begin with.
Shark fin tastes amazing; but we need some form of global reform to promote more humane ways of obtaining them.
What is your evidence for the claim that Ramsay's opinion of the taste of Shark Fin soup is due to bias against shark fin harvesting?
On October 26 2011 18:17 Sasquatch wrote: I have no problem with people wanting to eat shark fin soup, but currently it is being harvested in a completely insane and unsustainable manner. Greed tends to ruin any good thing.
For reference, here's a piece Gordon Ramsay did on shark fin harvesting:
I'm all for banning shark fin, but saying that it adds nothing to the soup just make him sound like an idiot. I love Ramsay, but he was clearly biased against eating shark fins to begin with.
Shark fin tastes amazing; but we need some form of global reform to promote more humane ways of obtaining them.
What is your evidence for the claim that Ramsay's opinion of the taste of Shark Fin soup is due to bias against shark fin harvesting?
Uh, did you watch the rest of the video?
Actually, that, or his inexperience with Asian or Chinese cuisines; which I find less likely.
If I was made to chose between respecting someone else's food culture or my own values I'd go with my own values too. Not expecting this to be overturned anytime soon either.
On October 26 2011 20:24 Williammm wrote: Banning due to sustainability issues, I can understand.
But anything like moral and ethical issues are just bullshit. There is no humane way to kill an animal. Killing is killing, and I know most people associate degrees of pain an animal feels to calculate the level of ethical responsibility and morality. Honestly though, why should that even matter. The moment you decide to kill a living thing, you've already breached issues of ethics and morality. Stop being so self righteous.
The reasons for the ban were justified assuming that they're true. /story
Are you saying animals don't feel pain? Would you like to have all your limbs cut off, then left to bleed out & die in the middle of the street? or would you prefer to have a lethal injection / gunshot to the head / anything else painless/instant.
Totally agree that killing is killing and it's already crossing ethical/moral lines, but saying 'there is no human way' to kill an animal is bullshit.
If they are going to run around killing sharks for their fins, at least stab it's brain, like any normal person who goes fishing.
I'm not saying they don't feel pain. I'm saying why should that matter, and why are we applying human emotions and concepts to another species whom we deem as food. You're comparing within species killing as oppose to the act of killing for food. Two completely different things.
As I said before, it's just something we apply to other living things to make us feel better. Whether I prefer lethal injection or what not performed by ANOTHER human is a completely different issue. I, in that situation am not dehumanised in anyway. So as long as I'm perceived as humanity to the murderer, the humane killing concept applies. As soon as dehumanisation occurs, your end result is something akin to genocide and holocaust, brutal killings etc. Horrible thing because they're still people to me, but the question is why are you trying to make the sharks out like humans? They're just food, and the moment you deny they're food you're just kidding yourself.
You've got to be kidding me. What we deem as food is completely subjective. Maybe I think your pet dog is a delicacy? What if I chopped off his legs and "released" him back into his environment? Your whole post is basically a justification for animal abuse and it kind of sickens me.
We are on the top of the food chain. Whatever we can eat is food. That's objective truth. The scenario you described is not only unlikely but it's quite removed from the subject. Do you hold some sort of bond with sharks or something? Concept of animal abuse is also subjective and doesn't apply when we're killing the animal for its resources. Like i said before, the moment you choose to kill an animal, no other moral or ethical issues come into play. Death is the definitive end. You're wrong for doing it. With that said, if we are killing for food or its other resources it is completely justified in today's free market society and also biologically speaking ( we are omnivores). Are you going to go vegetarian or vegan? if not, please kindly shut up. If you are, that is your lifestyle and your choice. don't impose your beliefs on other people or bring it up in a topic that doesn't apply to you. If you do happen to have a human connection with animals, good for you, and good day to you sir.
Wrong. What part of chopping off it's fin and releasing it back into the environment don't you understand. Basically what you're saying it death is wrong no matter how you do it. So that means if you had to choose between a long drawn out and painful death for 2 hours or being shot in the brain, you would be indifferent? Don't make me laugh.
Also, who cares if I'm vegan or vegetarian? So if there are X number of animals inhumanely dying and I support a cause that saves a number less than X, it's ineffective? That's like saying metal detectors aren't always 100% effective so why use them?
The moment I choose to kill an animal no other moral or ethical issue comes to play? How is animal abuse subjective? Either something is being tortured or its not.
For starters, the moment the fisherman fishes up the shark, the decision is already made that he will be the reason for the shark's death. He/she does not release it back into the environment, the fisherman discards the carcass.
Second of all, you're creating scenarios of hypothetical situations that again would not likely occur. We're not saving the animals here, we're talking about killing them. No saving involved. Effectiveness is 0 because there's nothing to be saved. You can not compare that with metal detectors.
Torture is also outside of the issue if death ensues. If the animal were living with no intention of killing it, then torture is the issue of moral and ethical concern. If death is the purpose. nothing else matters. Also torture implies intent on harming for pleasure. I can assure you the fishermans are simply performing their duty, and nothing more of that.
your arguments are invalid
Torture implies harming for pleasure? I don't even know what to say. Your words are extremely cold-hearted and uncompassionate for living things. HOW YOU KILL SOMETHING MATTERS. I don't know if you've ever heard of a word called euthanasia.
The metal detector analogy was in response to you criticizing me for not being a vegetarian and asking me to shut the hell up, which is called a nirvana fallacy (when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect). I was just using an example because I couldn't remember the exact name of the fallacy.
I saw the whole documentary of Gordon Ramsay the other day and I deffinatly think something needs to be done to stop the cruel way they threat the sharks and throw them finless in the sea. Also because of the massive ammount of fishing the shark race is getting so small. There has to be some law to still allow them to fish but only a certain ammount, like a lot of other countries do for certain types of fish.
On October 26 2011 18:17 Sasquatch wrote: I have no problem with people wanting to eat shark fin soup, but currently it is being harvested in a completely insane and unsustainable manner. Greed tends to ruin any good thing.
For reference, here's a piece Gordon Ramsay did on shark fin harvesting:
I'm all for banning shark fin, but saying that it adds nothing to the soup just make him sound like an idiot. I love Ramsay, but he was clearly biased against eating shark fins to begin with.
Shark fin tastes amazing; but we need some form of global reform to promote more humane ways of obtaining them.
What is your evidence for the claim that Ramsay's opinion of the taste of Shark Fin soup is due to bias against shark fin harvesting?
Uh, did you watch the rest of the video?
Actually, that, or his inexperience with Asian or Chinese cuisines; which I find less likely.
I watched the entire video. Your claim was that he's "clearly biased". I've asked for any evidence to support this claim because I couldn't see any from the video that I watched.
On October 26 2011 20:24 Williammm wrote: Banning due to sustainability issues, I can understand.
But anything like moral and ethical issues are just bullshit. There is no humane way to kill an animal. Killing is killing, and I know most people associate degrees of pain an animal feels to calculate the level of ethical responsibility and morality. Honestly though, why should that even matter. The moment you decide to kill a living thing, you've already breached issues of ethics and morality. Stop being so self righteous.
The reasons for the ban were justified assuming that they're true. /story
Are you saying animals don't feel pain? Would you like to have all your limbs cut off, then left to bleed out & die in the middle of the street? or would you prefer to have a lethal injection / gunshot to the head / anything else painless/instant.
Totally agree that killing is killing and it's already crossing ethical/moral lines, but saying 'there is no human way' to kill an animal is bullshit.
If they are going to run around killing sharks for their fins, at least stab it's brain, like any normal person who goes fishing.
I'm not saying they don't feel pain. I'm saying why should that matter, and why are we applying human emotions and concepts to another species whom we deem as food. You're comparing within species killing as oppose to the act of killing for food. Two completely different things.
As I said before, it's just something we apply to other living things to make us feel better. Whether I prefer lethal injection or what not performed by ANOTHER human is a completely different issue. I, in that situation am not dehumanised in anyway. So as long as I'm perceived as humanity to the murderer, the humane killing concept applies. As soon as dehumanisation occurs, your end result is something akin to genocide and holocaust, brutal killings etc. Horrible thing because they're still people to me, but the question is why are you trying to make the sharks out like humans? They're just food, and the moment you deny they're food you're just kidding yourself.
You've got to be kidding me. What we deem as food is completely subjective. Maybe I think your pet dog is a delicacy? What if I chopped off his legs and "released" him back into his environment? Your whole post is basically a justification for animal abuse and it kind of sickens me.
We are on the top of the food chain. Whatever we can eat is food. That's objective truth. The scenario you described is not only unlikely but it's quite removed from the subject. Do you hold some sort of bond with sharks or something? Concept of animal abuse is also subjective and doesn't apply when we're killing the animal for its resources. Like i said before, the moment you choose to kill an animal, no other moral or ethical issues come into play. Death is the definitive end. You're wrong for doing it. With that said, if we are killing for food or its other resources it is completely justified in today's free market society and also biologically speaking ( we are omnivores). Are you going to go vegetarian or vegan? if not, please kindly shut up. If you are, that is your lifestyle and your choice. don't impose your beliefs on other people or bring it up in a topic that doesn't apply to you. If you do happen to have a human connection with animals, good for you, and good day to you sir.
Wrong. What part of chopping off it's fin and releasing it back into the environment don't you understand. Basically what you're saying it death is wrong no matter how you do it. So that means if you had to choose between a long drawn out and painful death for 2 hours or being shot in the brain, you would be indifferent? Don't make me laugh.
Also, who cares if I'm vegan or vegetarian? So if there are X number of animals inhumanely dying and I support a cause that saves a number less than X, it's ineffective? That's like saying metal detectors aren't always 100% effective so why use them?
The moment I choose to kill an animal no other moral or ethical issue comes to play? How is animal abuse subjective? Either something is being tortured or its not.
For starters, the moment the fisherman fishes up the shark, the decision is already made that he will be the reason for the shark's death. He/she does not release it back into the environment, the fisherman discards the carcass.
Second of all, you're creating scenarios of hypothetical situations that again would not likely occur. We're not saving the animals here, we're talking about killing them. No saving involved. Effectiveness is 0 because there's nothing to be saved. You can not compare that with metal detectors.
Torture is also outside of the issue if death ensues. If the animal were living with no intention of killing it, then torture is the issue of moral and ethical concern. If death is the purpose. nothing else matters. Also torture implies intent on harming for pleasure. I can assure you the fishermans are simply performing their duty, and nothing more of that.
your arguments are invalid
In spite of the fact that you claim to have a rational position on the ethics of animal suffering, your arguments seem purely emotional and wholly subjective to me. What exactly is your rational justification for condemning human suffering, but being fine with other animals suffering? The fact that the only animals you can emotionally relate to are humans? The fact that humans all belong to the same species of animals? The fact that a human can inflict suffering on non-human animals more easily?
On October 26 2011 22:16 Cambium wrote: I'm all for banning shark fin, but saying that it adds nothing to the soup just make him sound like an idiot. I love Ramsay, but he was clearly biased against eating shark fins to begin with.
Shark fin tastes amazing; but we need some form of global reform to promote more humane ways of obtaining them.
Did the shark fin add any kind of flavour to the soup, if so, why are there NO other recipies using shark fin? I mean, i like chicken and i can eat it cooked and with a lot of diffrent stuff. If shark fin has a specific taste, then i think it would be used for a lot more than only shark fin soup.
But what does a renowed chef like Gordon Ramsay know of food, right?
On October 26 2011 18:17 Sasquatch wrote: I have no problem with people wanting to eat shark fin soup, but currently it is being harvested in a completely insane and unsustainable manner. Greed tends to ruin any good thing.
For reference, here's a piece Gordon Ramsay did on shark fin harvesting:
I'm all for banning shark fin, but saying that it adds nothing to the soup just make him sound like an idiot. I love Ramsay, but he was clearly biased against eating shark fins to begin with.
Shark fin tastes amazing; but we need some form of global reform to promote more humane ways of obtaining them.
What is your evidence for the claim that Ramsay's opinion of the taste of Shark Fin soup is due to bias against shark fin harvesting?
Uh, did you watch the rest of the video?
Actually, that, or his inexperience with Asian or Chinese cuisines; which I find less likely.
I watched the entire video. Your claim was that he's "clearly biased". I've asked for any evidence to support this claim because I couldn't see any from the video that I watched.
"Jesus christ, I watch in horror...has it's fin sliced off while still alive" "It's a slow long and drawn out process"
On October 26 2011 22:15 Gescom wrote: It's laughable that anyone is protesting this..
you need your legs to walk
imagine one day, someone comes up to you in a van, slices off your legs and then just leaves you on the road while the rabid wild life of stray dogs or rats devour you
that's whats happening to the sharks slicing off their fins renders them pretty much unable swim and they probably sink down to the ocean floor and die or get eaten
if people wanna eat sharks fin thats fine but to the point where the animal itself is going extinct? too damn greedy is what they are..
China needs to learn some fuckin moderation if you ask me, the stuff thats going on in that country just makes me sick
On October 26 2011 18:17 Sasquatch wrote: I have no problem with people wanting to eat shark fin soup, but currently it is being harvested in a completely insane and unsustainable manner. Greed tends to ruin any good thing.
For reference, here's a piece Gordon Ramsay did on shark fin harvesting:
I'm all for banning shark fin, but saying that it adds nothing to the soup just make him sound like an idiot. I love Ramsay, but he was clearly biased against eating shark fins to begin with.
Shark fin tastes amazing; but we need some form of global reform to promote more humane ways of obtaining them.
What is your evidence for the claim that Ramsay's opinion of the taste of Shark Fin soup is due to bias against shark fin harvesting?
Uh, did you watch the rest of the video?
Actually, that, or his inexperience with Asian or Chinese cuisines; which I find less likely.
I watched the entire video. Your claim was that he's "clearly biased". I've asked for any evidence to support this claim because I couldn't see any from the video that I watched.
"Jesus christ, I watch in horror...has it's fin sliced off while still alive" "It's a slow long and drawn out process"
If you couldn't deduce that from his tone.
Not sure, if that was pulled out of order, but in the video he sees the video fo the shark beeing finned, after he ate the soup.
On October 26 2011 18:17 Sasquatch wrote: I have no problem with people wanting to eat shark fin soup, but currently it is being harvested in a completely insane and unsustainable manner. Greed tends to ruin any good thing.
For reference, here's a piece Gordon Ramsay did on shark fin harvesting:
I'm all for banning shark fin, but saying that it adds nothing to the soup just make him sound like an idiot. I love Ramsay, but he was clearly biased against eating shark fins to begin with.
Shark fin tastes amazing; but we need some form of global reform to promote more humane ways of obtaining them.
What is your evidence for the claim that Ramsay's opinion of the taste of Shark Fin soup is due to bias against shark fin harvesting?
Uh, did you watch the rest of the video?
Actually, that, or his inexperience with Asian or Chinese cuisines; which I find less likely.
I watched the entire video. Your claim was that he's "clearly biased". I've asked for any evidence to support this claim because I couldn't see any from the video that I watched.
Yea he'd make a GREAT point saying
"wow this is the best thing I've ever had" then goes on talking about the animal cruelty.
On October 26 2011 22:16 Cambium wrote: I'm all for banning shark fin, but saying that it adds nothing to the soup just make him sound like an idiot. I love Ramsay, but he was clearly biased against eating shark fins to begin with.
Shark fin tastes amazing; but we need some form of global reform to promote more humane ways of obtaining them.
Did the shark fin add any kind of flavour to the soup, if so, why are there NO other recipies using shark fin? I mean, i like chicken and i can eat it cooked and with a lot of diffrent stuff. If shark fin has a specific taste, then i think it would be used for a lot more than only shark fin soup.
But what does a renowed chef like Gordon Ramsay know of food, right?
LoL, there no recipes YOU know that call for shark fin. Tons of Chinese and Japanese recipes use shark fin. If you watch iron chef Japan, the Chinese chef Chen Kenichi uses shark fin very frequently in his dishes, be it stir fry or in soups. It's most commonly used in soups because the boiling process bring out its flavours most easily and completely.
That's why I said he was biased.... Saying shark fin tastes like glass noodle makes as much sense as saying beer tastes like piss.
On October 26 2011 18:17 Sasquatch wrote: I have no problem with people wanting to eat shark fin soup, but currently it is being harvested in a completely insane and unsustainable manner. Greed tends to ruin any good thing.
For reference, here's a piece Gordon Ramsay did on shark fin harvesting:
I'm all for banning shark fin, but saying that it adds nothing to the soup just make him sound like an idiot. I love Ramsay, but he was clearly biased against eating shark fins to begin with.
Shark fin tastes amazing; but we need some form of global reform to promote more humane ways of obtaining them.
What is your evidence for the claim that Ramsay's opinion of the taste of Shark Fin soup is due to bias against shark fin harvesting?
Uh, did you watch the rest of the video?
Actually, that, or his inexperience with Asian or Chinese cuisines; which I find less likely.
I watched the entire video. Your claim was that he's "clearly biased". I've asked for any evidence to support this claim because I couldn't see any from the video that I watched.
"Jesus christ, I watch in horror...has it's fin sliced off while still alive" "It's a slow long and drawn out process"
If you couldn't deduce that from his tone.
Not sure, if that was pulled out of order, but in the video he sees the video fo the shark beeing finned, after he ate the soup.
The wonders of post production, you can edit clips around in any order you want. Besides the issue of shark fining is easy to find, and one the first hits when you look up "shark fin". I would hardly doubt if Ramsay already knew about the practice before he even ate or watched the shark.
I hate in when people present themselves as vicitims and defend wasteful practice on the sole basis that it's a cultural thing. First, what the hell, culture and tradition is not always a good thing, you also got to evolve with the world you are living in.
In the US they ban all the european's cheese because they are made from untreated milk. This is ridiculous you know, because the thing that gives the taste is the fact that it is made with untreated milk and that andanger no one - we don't die because we eat fucking good cheese. But who cares ? It's the US choice and it is not hurting anyone and you will never see a French saying "damn those americans, they are not respecting our culture because they don't want our camember, our roquefort and bleu in their fucking super market".
On the other side, you have sailors that actually kill a whole shark for the fin only, while we all know our eco system is in danger...
On October 26 2011 18:17 Sasquatch wrote: I have no problem with people wanting to eat shark fin soup, but currently it is being harvested in a completely insane and unsustainable manner. Greed tends to ruin any good thing.
For reference, here's a piece Gordon Ramsay did on shark fin harvesting:
I'm all for banning shark fin, but saying that it adds nothing to the soup just make him sound like an idiot. I love Ramsay, but he was clearly biased against eating shark fins to begin with.
Shark fin tastes amazing; but we need some form of global reform to promote more humane ways of obtaining them.
What is your evidence for the claim that Ramsay's opinion of the taste of Shark Fin soup is due to bias against shark fin harvesting?
Uh, did you watch the rest of the video?
Actually, that, or his inexperience with Asian or Chinese cuisines; which I find less likely.
I watched the entire video. Your claim was that he's "clearly biased". I've asked for any evidence to support this claim because I couldn't see any from the video that I watched.
Yea he'd make a GREAT point saying
"wow this is the best thing I've ever had" then goes on talking about the animal cruelty.
On October 26 2011 22:16 Cambium wrote: I'm all for banning shark fin, but saying that it adds nothing to the soup just make him sound like an idiot. I love Ramsay, but he was clearly biased against eating shark fins to begin with.
Shark fin tastes amazing; but we need some form of global reform to promote more humane ways of obtaining them.
Did the shark fin add any kind of flavour to the soup, if so, why are there NO other recipies using shark fin? I mean, i like chicken and i can eat it cooked and with a lot of diffrent stuff. If shark fin has a specific taste, then i think it would be used for a lot more than only shark fin soup.
But what does a renowed chef like Gordon Ramsay know of food, right?
LoL, there no recipes YOU know that call for shark fin. Tons of Chinese and Japanese recipes use shark fin. If you watch iron chef Japan, the Chinese chef Chen Kenichi uses shark fin very frequently in his dishes, be it stir fry or in soups. It's most commonly used in soups because the boiling process bring out its flavours most easily and completely.
That's why I said he was biased.... Saying shark fin tastes like glass noodle makes as much sense as saying beer tastes like piss.
They use shark fin because it's expensive and so they can make the price of their dishes go up for nothing : rich people will buy it anyway for cultural reasons. It has nothing to do with taste, it's like putting gold in your champagne or in your ice cream.
im glad its banned. if the chinese wanna cry about it let them cry about it. yes i know theres a shitton of other unethical things going on in the world regarding animals, but any step in the right direction is a good thing.
its not like any one particular restaurant is suddenly losing business because of it. All of the restaurants with that item on the menu will no longer have it, thus they are still equal in terms of competition.
On October 26 2011 22:30 Cambium wrote: LoL, there no recipes YOU know that call for shark fin. Tons of Chinese and Japanese recipes use shark fin. If you watch iron chef Japan, the Chinese chef Chen Kenichi uses shark fin very frequently in his dishes, be it stir fry or in soups. It's most commonly used in soups because the boiling process bring out its flavours most easily and completely.
That's why I said he was biased.... Saying shark fin tastes like glass noodle makes as much sense as saying beer tastes like piss.
Didn't know that it was a big part of asian food culture, nonetheless i would still make the point, that it is not neccesary to have the ability to eat shark fin. First of all i think it is wastefull, cause the rest of the shark seems to not be used. Secondly it might become a health issue, because sharks accumulate a lot of mercury, due to being at the top of their respective food web. And who of us wants to become infertile?
On October 26 2011 22:31 hippocritical wrote: The wonders of post production, you can edit clips around in any order you want. Besides the issue of shark fining is easy to find, and one the first hits when you look up "shark fin". I would hardly doubt if Ramsay already knew about the practice before he even ate or watched the shark.
Really, tell me more, i have never heard of this thing called, "post". I am new to this video stuff, so please tell me more
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2008/08/01/edible_gold_leaf_2r3Yt_48.jpg)
