| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On October 26 2011 23:04 ilovelings wrote: Hi, I am come to tell you what is better for you. That's the point of governance. If something, even 'cultural', is deemed negative, they can make those decisions. Not everything should be a protected right if it has significant negative externalities. | ||
|
Warlike Prince
371 Posts
Edit: On October 26 2011 23:08 Dfgj wrote: That's the point of governance. If something, even 'cultural', is deemed negative, they can make those decisions. Not everything should be a protected right if it has significant negative externalities. Yeah, you cant eat this because we love animals so much, but go ahead and kill your self by smoking for 10 bucks a pack, were fine with that | ||
|
Mycl
Australia1370 Posts
On October 26 2011 23:06 zocktol wrote: Never heard of a baby that helped another human. So we don't need to care for babies, right? That's not true, my little cousin once found my keys for me. Very helpful little fella he was | ||
|
Naphal
Germany2099 Posts
rich people could feed homeless with sharkmeatstew and then have their soup... think of the possibilities! <.< all i am saying is at least try to use as much of the animal as you can, not just the penis, horn or fin... (funnily enough in germany there are right now cases where old rhinohorns get stolen out of the museums, because the newer are all replica) | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On October 26 2011 22:55 Williammm wrote: 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. This is not an argument, but just a bare assertion. Why should (economic?) efficiency be the first and foremost consideration and not the minimization of suffering given that the life of an animal is to be taken. I don't see any rational justification for that and it's surely not typically applied in areas of human suffering (i.e. capital punishment). The fact that humans are animals make your exceptions seem like special pleading solely on the basis of subjective speciesism. On October 26 2011 22:55 Williammm wrote: 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. This is just flat out wrong. Humans do communicate all over the time with other animals albeit less efficiently. But this is only circumstantially so because of the lower cognitive abilities of most other animals. Any bond between any two animals can be said to be merely subjective, this is trivially true. The fact that I cannot communicate efficiently with a 6-month old baby does nothing to relieve me of any moral responsibility towards it and the fact that I might not be able to "emotionally bond" with another human does nothing to relieve me of my moral responsibility towards him either. On October 26 2011 22:55 Williammm wrote: 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. Again you make an emotional argument. What does the fact that we might not relate to a shark do exactly to relieve us from moral responsability? You seem to be basing your morals on emotions and subjective relationships alone. This is not rationality. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 26 2011 23:13 MiraMax wrote: This is not an argument, but just a bare assertion. Why should (economic?) efficiency be the first and foremost consideration and not the minimization of suffering given that the life of an animal is to be taken. I don't see any rational justification for that and it's surely not typically applied in areas of human suffering (i.e. capital punishment). The fact that humans are animals make your exceptions seem like special pleading solely on the basis of subjective speciesism. This is just flat out wrong. Humans do communicate all over the time with other animals albeit less efficiently. But this is only circumstantially so because of the lower cognitive abilities of most other animals. Any bond between any two animals can be said to be merely subjective, this is trivially true. The fact that I cannot communicate efficiently with a 6-month old baby does nothing to relieve me of any moral responsibility towards it and the fact that I might not be able to "emotionally bond" with another human does nothing to relieve me of my moral responsibility towards him either. Again you make an emotional argument. What does the fact that we might not relate to a shark do exactly to relieve us from moral responsability? You seem to be basing your morals on emotions and subjective relationships alone. This is not rationality. Keep up the good fight Miramax, you're counter arguments are clear as water. | ||
|
norsK
United States131 Posts
Putting appendages in your soup does not make you fertile or lucky. People understand that now... so why are we still considering it sacred. If a person wants to order a bowl of soup to show off his wealth, why cant they just order birds nest soup? or deer umbilical cord soup? both delicious Chinese dishes that cost a fuck ton. I watched the documentary and I think its idiotic to cause that kind of suffering and ecological damage for something as ridiculous as shark fin soup. shark fins being used for anything else these days is nearly unimaginable because of the price of the fins. I have heard of it being ground up and used to replace MSG in Chinese dishes but other than that, where are you going to use it where you would make more money than selling it in chicken stock for 90$. As far as the inhumanity... for the love of man YES it is cruel and unjust. The mere process in which they are fishing is just wrong, not to mention the butchering of the animal and disregard for the meat. Dragging 12 miles of line is not just going to catch little sharks. Treating any form of life with this much disregard for the ending result of a bowl of soup and shark extinction, is sickening. The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?" ~Jeremy Bentham Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight. ~Albert Schweitzer The basis of all animal rights should be the Golden Rule: we should treat them as we would wish them to treat us, were any other species in our dominant position. ~Christine Stevens To a man whose mind is free there is something even more intolerable in the sufferings of animals than in the sufferings of man. For with the latter it is at least admitted that suffering is evil and that the man who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of animals are uselessly butchered every day without a shadow of remorse. If any man were to refer to it, he would be thought ridiculous. And that is the unpardonable crime. ~Romain Rolland, Nobel Prize 1915 'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress, can be judged by the ways its animals are treated" ~ Mahatma Gandhi' I am a vegetarian of 25 years, my entire life. And yes my opinion extends to all uses of animals. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
You cannot catch an animal mutilate it and then leave it where you found it. Why would anything think that's okay to do to a living thing? Does a city have a right to ban a food? Obviously a country should ban the practice of torturing sea life but is it fair for them to ban a delicacy? Would it help lessen the suffering of living things? | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On October 26 2011 23:09 Warlike Prince wrote: Yeah, you cant eat this because we love animals so much, but go ahead and kill your self by smoking for 10 bucks a pack, were fine with that And this is why smoking is under so much pressure to be confined to areas where externalities are limited. If you remove those, it becomes a personal issue with less social consequence - shark fin soup has extensive environmental consequences that can't be separated from eating the soup. | ||
|
Duke
United States1106 Posts
| ||
|
57 Corvette
Canada5941 Posts
I know its a part of chinese/asian culture, but the damn thing only adds texture to the food, and that can be done with a little effort using other materials. Note: I have watched Sharkwater, I am Biased, if you don't like my opinion thats your problem. | ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On October 26 2011 23:09 Warlike Prince wrote: I dont really care about tradition, I just think its stupid how government tells you not to eat something because of how it may or may not have been harvested. Shark fin soup is actually really good I tried it a couple years back and have had it maybe 3-4 times total Edit: Yeah, you cant eat this because we love animals so much, but go ahead and kill your self by smoking for 10 bucks a pack, were fine with that Exactly, killing YOURSELF. If you want to relate this to Humans, it's like cutting off a man's leg and throwing him onto the street to bleed out and die. | ||
|
Lumin
United States217 Posts
| ||
|
Paperplane
Netherlands1823 Posts
| ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On October 26 2011 23:25 Lumin wrote: Sharkfin soup is freaking so delicious. I have it at least once a week. moiderer | ||
|
repsac
91 Posts
eating sharkfin is ghey tho. mmm cartilage? kill yourself. | ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On October 26 2011 23:25 Paperplane wrote: Sharks going extinct would have very severe consequences on the ecosystem as a whole. Yes, species go extinct naturally but that's no excuse to speed it up. You cannot underestimate how much extinction of a species fucks up the natural order of things. Especially alpha predators such as sharks. | ||
|
Warlike Prince
371 Posts
On October 26 2011 23:25 SupLilSon wrote: Exactly, killing YOURSELF. If you want to relate this to Humans, it's like cutting off a man's leg and throwing him onto the street to bleed out and die. That is in no way the same thing, unless you ate the persons leg i guess. Animals are not humans, do you eat meat at all? | ||
|
noobcakes
United States526 Posts
This is definitely better for the world, if you're too selfish to stop eating it to save a species then you're a fucktard. | ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5094 Posts
The thing is the flavour of all these dishes come from a thick stock (usually chicken) and is cooked in it for hours and thus gains the flavour of the stock. Most Chinese people are aware of this yet still like to indulge in the "luxury" of it. Recently this phenomenon has been criticized by the general public, raising questions such as "what does this say about us Chinese people as a collective group?". I think this is a good move. I'm sure there is a lot of opposition though, especially the restaurants making a huge profit selling fish cartilage to rich assholes. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
ByuN vs Cham
herO vs Reynor
FEL
RSL Revival
Clem vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
FEL
BSL: ProLeague
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
