Can't have enough shakrs in the Sea gnawing at my legs ^_^
I can understand it a little but at the end of the day...The world is built as Us vs Them anyway, if there was a time when you needed to eat and the only fish left in the sea was sharks...i think we should ^_^
I got a warning last time I commented on Chinese culture, but still, it seems to me it's just a rich mans thing. You eat it because it's expensive and fancy, much like alot of other dishes around the world..
cutting the fins off a shark and then throwing him back in the water is not right... all the animals on this earth were put here to ensure we survive, No animal should be killed unless you are going to eat or use every part of that animal
In some tribes in Africa genital mutilation of women is a cultural thing. Way to go advocating culture over sustainability or humane treatment! Sharks are some of the most graceful animals to swim the seas and just because their fins taste slightly better than shrimp is no reason to cause them to go to extinction.
Wow this has been going on for as long as i can remember its good to hear someones finally taking a stand. Also i hate shark i had it once...it tasted horrible
If it's legitimately endangering a species they need to cut it out. Just because it's a tradition or part of a culture doesn't mean it's going to be relevant for all time.
This also makes sharks more dangerous. You can't see their fin when they are attacking surfers anymore so...
And can you imagine the next generation growing up without Shark Week?!?! omg :o
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?
I won't go into the reasons for condemning human suffering as that is self explanatory. I also assume what you mean by suffering is the degree of pain the animal experiences. My logic behind my argument is, if it comes to a point of the inevitability of the animal's death especially in the case of commercial harvesting. efficiency should be the first and foremost consideration. Secondly, there is no direct and confirming form of communication between humans and other species of animals, thus any experience and bond felt between the person and the animal is subjective to the person. Thirdly, we're mainly talking about sharks here and other animals we consider as food of which the likelihood of forming a bond or a connection with is low. I'm not saying the only animals I can relate to are humans, but in this case of essentially slaughtering for food on a commercial scale; it is not likely I or you would have any connections with them either. Animals whom we domesticate usually aren't hunted and farmed as food. Which is why dog eating is such a contentious subject because it has a long history of domestication, sharks however is not the case.
@arbitrageur
Yeah sorry that post was a bit rushed and it is pass 12am as you would know. Kidcrash presented an argument that says either something is being tortured or it isn't in response to my claim that animal abuse is subjective. Now that I think about it, it is fairly objective (not too certain, will have to think further), but my position on the matter still remains, because we're talking about harvesting shark fins here. It doesn't classify as torture because the intent is absent, this is referring to the fisherman's actions of cutting the fin.
In regards to the death comment, my stance for this specific case is that if the fisherman were to have full knowledge that the shark would die as a result of his actions, why should he take extra steps to do anything else but let it die when his job is a matter of efficiency? It is also illogical in this case to think anymore beyond the death of the animal that you're going to consume. Also since the fins are the desired part of the shark to consume, why is it wrong to cut that specific bit off and discard the rest if the boat (Costa Rica boats, extremely small presented in the video) doesn't allow for that capacity, and these fishermen rely on max returns for each voyage. There is no way to consume the fin and not kill the shark, it's simply impossible. To argue the practices of obtaining fin without killing the shark that is deemed impossible is just plain irrational. Also based on criminal law, a crime would have to test for mens rea (intent) and without it, the moral and ethical obligation is lessened. People could argue and say don't eat the fin, but it is in the end something that a significant portion of society consumes and we have to take into consideration their feelings regarding the matter; human to human.
However I do agree as well with your position on consequentialism, but in this specific scenario I feel it is the intent that is being contested here. I would love to see your perspective on the topic of shark fishing though.
okay so a Chinese delicacy was banned in Canada? why is it a big deal if you want a Chinese delicacy why be upset if you cant get it in Canada? you're on the other side of the world don't expect all your customs to be upheld in a strange land, if I go to China I'm not gonna be mad when I can't get a 20 oz. steak at the nearest outback now am I? (idk if that's actually the case just an example) I mean no offense but if you want a food from your homeland, then get it there. Don't go other places and demand that they keep your tradition at the peril of the wildlife.
sorry if I come off rude but why the hell is this a big deal that it is banned?
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.
Again you're comparing animal slaughter for their meat to euthanasia which is a human to human phenomenon. I'm sorry my words seem cold-hearted to you but I'm just trying to view this matter with as little regard to subjectivity as possible.
Revealing documentary from Ramsey, and charges of 'bias' seem misguided (do we accuse people of bias when they oppose murder, rape, molestation, human / animal abuse, human rights violations, etc.?). These sharks are quite clearly being treated atrociously.
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.
Some beer do taste like piss though
It's all about personal taste. I've tried shark fin soup before and in all honesty the fin really didn't add anything to it for me, which led me to believe that it has more to do with culture more than anything else.
Not to say it cannot be used in other ways, but I do feel that if you are only using the shark for it's fin then you are wasting the shark. I love Iron Chef and you are right about him. He uses shark fin a lot and in different ways. Unfortunately not everyone is as good a cook as him. Most restaurants stick with the shark fin soup.
Of course Ramsay is trying to advocate for more humane ways of using the shark. That's his whole spiel. I don't like to waste food either.
On October 26 2011 20:10 OuchyDathurts wrote: No soup is worth more than $5 and even that is pushing it.
Once again, an example of ignorance. Good Cantonese soup cost a lot of money to make. Even the soup my dad makes regularly costs $50-100 a pot.
It's still a pot of mostly water. If I'm going to spend $100 on something to eat, first of all send me to the mental hospital, secondly it better be the orgasms of angels in my mouth and I better be gut bustingly full after the fact.
Spending that much on soup is like going to one of those silly french bistros and paying ungodly sums of money for a sliver of meat on top of a spear of asparagus with some sauce dribbled all over the plate. It's completely, mind blowingly stupid.
Regardless of anyone's fiscal irresponsibility in food choices unless your dad's soup requires the souls of babies or something else harvested in a completely irresponsible and unsustainable manner you're missing the overarching point.
PS: The video said 90 pounds, not $90. 90pounds being $144 which is even more laughable.
EPT
