|
On October 26 2011 23:55 iLikeRain wrote:
If you're going to eat the entire animal, and you put it down with respect, I have no problem with people eating shark fins until they explode. But catching them, cutting off the fins and releasing the sharks back into the water is animal cruelty at its finest.
You don't see hunters catching deers, cutting off their hooves or whatever and then letting them lie in the forest to die slow and painfully.
Besides, sharks are becoming endangered, so I think this is very good news.
I have to agree completely with this, how can people even argue?
There are so many things you could eat, why even bother with meat whose the origins are so cruel and wasteful...
|
Honestly, all argument about the ethics and morality aside, this practice is still outright wrong from an environmental perspective. I am in no ways an environmentalist but you'd have to be blind or very uneducated to not realize the detriments of hunting a species to extinction. If being able to eat a certain soup outweighs your concern for the environment in which we live, you really need to rethink your priorities.
|
On October 26 2011 23:39 Legatus Lanius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 23:36 chipman wrote:
I think vegetarians and animal activists at large are hypocrites who claim to be something they're not.
We need to eat to live. Nearly everything we eat was once alive regardless of where it came from. The end.
People stuck in this state of self denial tend to devalue human life. Like how some idiot tried comparing a human infants to sharks. I've known liberal animal activists to get crazy over animal abuse while abusing their kids?
You have to draw the line somewhere and realize there's more important things going on in your life than are we eating the whole shark, or not.
Personally, I've never eaten shark anything, I rarely eat seafood, so this doesn't even come close to concerning me, thx for wasting my time. we dont need to eat meat however. humans are perfectly capable of surviving on vegetarian and vegan diets. even carl lewis was a vegan lol iirc, the human physiology lends more to herbivorous eating than carnivorous
Hum...no...human physiology (and specialy our brain) lends to eat a lot of different proteins. The easier way to feed our need is eating flush...
But yeah, you can get these proteins with many different vegetables In our societies it's pretty easy to get it. But if you had to grow the vegetables yourself...it wouldn't worth it, because you would spend more energy in cultivation than you would get from it.
|
On October 26 2011 23:36 chipman wrote:
I think vegetarians and animal activists at large are hypocrites who claim to be something they're not.
We need to eat to live. Nearly everything we eat was once alive regardless of where it came from. The end.
People stuck in this state of self denial tend to devalue human life. Like how some idiot tried comparing a human infants to sharks. I've known liberal animal activists to get crazy over animal abuse while abusing their kids?
You have to draw the line somewhere and realize there's more important things going on in your life than are we eating the whole shark, or not.
Personally, I've never eaten shark anything, I rarely eat seafood, so this doesn't even come close to concerning me, thx for wasting my time.
You've almost got it all. I am sure you would figure out the rest alone, but I am glad to help.
You have:
- we need to eat things that are alive to survive
- we need to draw the line somewhere
You still need to get:
- making gross mistakes when drawing the line will lead to lots of unnecessary suffering => bad
You can then conclude:
- we need to draw the line cautiously and constantly reevaluate our decisions in light of new discoveries.
That's exactly what this discussion is about. Cheers!
|
On October 26 2011 23:49 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 23:40 Warlike Prince wrote:On October 26 2011 23:35 57 Corvette wrote:On October 26 2011 23:31 Warlike Prince wrote:On October 26 2011 23:25 SupLilSon wrote: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: On October 26 2011 23:08 Dfgj wrote: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. 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. 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? Its not about people eating the fin, its about the cruel way it is harvested. I mean, if they took the shark as a whole, used every part of it, put the entire shark to good use, I would not oppose that. But this is purely animal cruelty. If you had your legs cut off and were thrown back out on to the street, you would die knowing you can do nothing about it, and everything except your legs will go to complete waste. I dont think the shark thinks " dam he only took my fin, now I'm goign to die and most of me will go to waste." he thinks " crap I'm gunna die " as soon as he gets caught either way. excuse me? that's really your argument for this? "well the shark doesn't know either way" lolwut? so you're saying that it's ok for me to take candy from a baby since they'll just forget about it? right? it's called being a cruel fuck, that's what it's called.
No that is my respose to what someone said, not my arguemnt.
Stop comparing people to animals unless you wanna talk about all the things the shark bites / eats / kills with no remorse or caring how much of its prey gets wasted or how it feels bad as it dies
|
On October 26 2011 23:13 MiraMax wrote:
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.
Why shouldn't economic reasoning be the first and foremost consideration giving the way society functions as a factory of production as its main motif. Caring for the food source above the economic needs of the people who need to maximise their efficiency in order to survive in the market driven world, have you taken that into consideration? I agree my position at this point is speciesism, but why is that wrong? Why should humans who are at the top of the food chain, consider the suffering of other animals who are being culled for food? Given how the food chain works and the stronger consumes the weaker without consideration of the weaker, why is then that kind of behaviour becomes unacceptable just because we're humans?
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.
We have but how do you confirm what you're trying to communicate is being received? Especially when it comes to sharks in this case. Also your example of a 6 month old baby is invalid, because humans are capable of within species empathy that allows for connections and bonds between adult and child. You cannot communicate with a shark, nor will you ever be able to in this lifetime. Thus all feelings you experience for the sharks whom you are most likely to be removed from are completely subjective.
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.
What responsibility do you have or anyone in this forum have on the slaughtering of sharks for their fins? Why does it concern you, how they're killing the sharks? Without established connections, what grounds do you have to say that what the fishermen are doing is wrong? Why is it wrong to kill for food? On what basis do you feel obligated for moral responsibility if you're so far removed from the actual context?
It is not enough to simply say we're human beings and we should be fair to all living things the way we are fair to each other. That is subjective, and not every person holds those views.
The only thing we can say that is wrong in response to the OP is the unsustainable practice of shark fin harvesting as well as the potential environmental damage it does that threatens the balance of the ecosystems which in turn threatens our own survival. There is a foreseeable impact that is widespread across humanity. Killing methods do not fall into that category.
|
Whats unethical is the fishing of sharks. I don't give 2 shits if you can't eat your fetish soup.
Well-known species such as the great white shark, tiger shark, blue shark, mako shark, and the hammerhead are apex predators, at the top of the underwater food chain. Their extraordinary skills as predators fascinate and frighten humans, even as their survival is under serious threat from fishing and other human activities.
-wiki
You don't fuck with the balance of the ocean ecosystem.
And no, its not about killing an animal or how you kill it, but its the effect of killing this animal to the oceans.
|
About time some parts of the world catch up with the others.
Now all we need is for asia to ban it, and for norway and japan to stop whaling.
|
On October 27 2011 00:09 yousaba wrote:
About time some parts of the world catch up with the others.
Now all we need is for asia to ban it, and for norway and japan to stop whaling.
There is still whaling in the US also, sort of. We allow native Americans to kill a very small number of non endangered whales as part of their religious rituals, but really this ends up to them shooting a whale in a speed boat then having a priest bless it.
|
So, an animal goes into the endangered category in order to meet the demand, and when hunting of the animal starts getting banned, people get into an uproar that it's the ban that's hindering the supply.
That's some short-sightedness right there.
|
On October 26 2011 23:33 pyrogenetix wrote:
As a Chinese person having eaten bird's nest, sea cucumber, abalone and shark's fin, I really have to say they are overhyped and overpriced pure luxury items.
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.
i agree! Its just popular because its consider a 'luxury item' or delicacy. I support a ban on this, although i hope this ban doesnt create the rare/forbidden aura that plague many other ban items in the past and just drive the trade to the black market.
Never tried sea cucumber though, those thing freak me out :p
|
On October 26 2011 23:55 iLikeRain wrote:
If you're going to eat the entire animal, and you put it down with respect, I have no problem with people eating shark fins until they explode. But catching them, cutting off the fins and releasing the sharks back into the water is animal cruelty at its finest.
You don't see hunters catching deers, cutting off their hooves or whatever and then letting them lie in the forest to die slow and painfully.
Besides, sharks are becoming endangered, so I think this is very good news.
Actually, there are poachers out there who kill the animal and take only what they need. It goes way beyond shark fins sadly. x-x
|
On October 26 2011 19:03 Plexa wrote:
Shark fin soup is as much a culture in China as Whaling is in Japan.
So yeah, sometimes banning something cultural is justified!
This, This sooo much.
|
On October 27 2011 00:06 Williammm wrote:
What responsibility do you have or anyone in this forum have on the slaughtering of sharks for their fins? Why does it concern you, how they're killing the sharks? Without established connections, what grounds do you have to say that what the fishermen are doing is wrong? Why is it wrong to kill for food? On what basis do you feel obligated for moral responsibility if you're so far removed from the actual context?
It is not enough to simply say we're human beings and we should be fair to all living things the way we are fair to each other. That is subjective, and not every person holds those views.
Your argument is that the shark fishers don't have time to do this humanely because economy yada yada. It takes a couple seconds to kill the shark and put it out of it's misery. How is that too much to ask?
Does it matter if I can communicate with a shark or not? I don't think so. I don't have to communicate with a shark to see the method is needlessly cruel and with barely any effort can be changed to bring less suffering upon the shark.
|
On October 27 2011 00:06 Williammm wrote:On October 26 2011 23:13 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Show nested quote +
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.
Why shouldn't economic reasoning be the first and foremost consideration giving the way society functions as a factory of production as its main motif. Caring for the food source above the economic needs of the people who need to maximise their efficiency in order to survive in the market driven world, have you taken that into consideration? I agree my position at this point is speciesism, but why is that wrong? Why should humans who are at the top of the food chain, consider the suffering of other animals who are being culled for food? Given how the food chain works and the stronger consumes the weaker without consideration of the weaker, why is then that kind of behaviour becomes unacceptable just because we're humans? Show nested quote +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.
Show nested quote +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. We have but how do you confirm what you're trying to communicate is being received? Especially when it comes to sharks in this case. Also your example of a 6 month old baby is invalid, because humans are capable of within species empathy that allows for connections and bonds between adult and child. You cannot communicate with a shark, nor will you ever be able to in this lifetime. Thus all feelings you experience for the sharks whom you are most likely to be removed from are completely subjective. Show nested quote +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.
Show nested quote +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.
What responsibility do you have or anyone in this forum have on the slaughtering of sharks for their fins? Why does it concern you, how they're killing the sharks? Without established connections, what grounds do you have to say that what the fishermen are doing is wrong? Why is it wrong to kill for food? On what basis do you feel obligated for moral responsibility if you're so far removed from the actual context? It is not enough to simply say we're human beings and we should be fair to all living things the way we are fair to each other. That is subjective, and not every person holds those views. The only thing we can say that is wrong in response to the OP is the unsustainable practice of shark fin harvesting as well as the potential environmental damage it does that threatens the balance of the ecosystems which in turn threatens our own survival. There is a foreseeable impact that is widespread across humanity. Killing methods do not fall into that category.
So you think the world should be run entirely based off economics? Ok then, I guess we should just start euthanizing people with mental and physical disabilities and people too old to work. They are just drains on our economic efficiency anyways... Honestly, do you even read what you are writing? Because if you did you'd realize how ridiculous it is sounding.
|
On October 26 2011 23:25 Lumin wrote:
Sharkfin soup is freaking so delicious. I have it at least once a week.
Did you know that the actual shark fin is tasteless? They can make sharkfin soup without putting any shark in it and you wouldn't even notice the difference. I've actually had sharkfin soup with and without the shark fin in it and they taste the same.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 26 2011 18:41 T.O.P. wrote:
It's an example of the majority infringing on the rights of the minority. The law unfairly targets people of Chinese descent by banning one of their cultural traditions.
Who cares? If their cultural tradition is harmful, it should change.
We can't just put anything people do wrong on a pedestal just because it's part of their culture or their tradition. If it's bad, it's bad. Being cultural has nothing to do with it.
|
Shark fin soup is seriously one of the dumbest dishes I have ever had. The fin itself is utterly ignorable. It provides little to nothing in taste. It is pretty much relegated almost purely into being nothing other than a status symbol. It is incredibly vapid. The broth on its own is delicious. The fin is really unnecessary.
|
I once watched this done to a shark in a video and I was so enraged, I could have killed the fishermen if I happened to meet them in real life. This was so totally cruel that I try to get those images out of my mind to this day. Thus, I applaud this ban and hope it gets extended to the whole country and all the world.
|
On October 27 2011 00:22 Paperplane wrote:Show nested quote +What responsibility do you have or anyone in this forum have on the slaughtering of sharks for their fins? Why does it concern you, how they're killing the sharks? Without established connections, what grounds do you have to say that what the fishermen are doing is wrong? Why is it wrong to kill for food? On what basis do you feel obligated for moral responsibility if you're so far removed from the actual context?
It is not enough to simply say we're human beings and we should be fair to all living things the way we are fair to each other. That is subjective, and not every person holds those views. Your argument is that the shark fishers don't have time to do this humanely because economy yada yada. It takes a couple seconds to kill the shark and put it out of it's misery. How is that too much to ask?
If that is what you consider humane, then how do you know they don't do it already? We saw one example of of a video most probably only took footage of the most horrendous practices in a third world country. Also why does it matter if they do or don't? In the long run, it won't bother you in any way, shape or form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
