|
On October 27 2011 00:27 Williammm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 00:22 Paperplane 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? 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.
Because it does matter? It does bother me. The killing method matters, I don't understand why you can't see that.
|
On October 27 2011 00:27 Williammm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 00:22 Paperplane 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? 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.
Last I checked, we all live on the same planet and have a fundamental duty to make sure it's still here when our kids grow up. Our kids don't inherit the earth from us, we LOAN IT from them.
|
On October 27 2011 00:24 Avalain wrote:Show nested quote +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.
A great deal of the appreciation of Cantonese food is in its texture. The unique texture that shark fins have is why they're so prized. Shark fin soup with no shark fin in it is like eating a soggy french fry. Now you might argue that "most people" can't tell the difference. Just like how a lot of people can't tell the difference between pinot and merlot, or good scotch from bad. It still matters to those who can.
|
I am just happy albalone is still on the menu.
|
Glad to see it banned, the methods of harvesting the fins and the practically unregulated rate at which they are harvested at disgusting.
Cya later shark fin soup!
|
On October 27 2011 00:27 Williammm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 00:22 Paperplane 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? 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.
Its not about the long run, its about ethics. This example has been used thousand of times in this thread but I'm going to go ahead and use it once more anyways: Would it matter to you in the long run if people went around chopping off the legs of lions, while alive, and left it there? Its doubtful you'd notice the difference in your every day life. But its about ethics. Some things you just don't do. And if no one is concerned about it, nothing is going to happen about it either.
|
On October 27 2011 00:23 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 00:06 Williammm wrote: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. 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.
Again you're drawing this context regarding animals to humans. Stop doing that. Also the world is run mostly off economics, and we are already segregating and making it difficult for people with disabilities and what not to adapt to their situation. Why do you think it is usually the sick,elderly and unfortunate who fall into the bottom bracket of society and struggle to make ends meet? We don't euthanise everyone of those categories, because we are directly empathetic to their situations and do not wish the on us because we're all humans. Second, wars have been fought over the biggest eugenics program in history (Holocaust) and the Germans lost. That is why we don't do it. If society shifts towards a position where that becomes necessary, you bet it'll happen.
|
I'm in full support of this ban. Shark fin is only a delicacy because people say so, it makes no fucking sense to slaughter an entire animal and take a small part of its body just to make one dish that's sought after for no reason other than its price tag. The price tag then incites more slaughter, and on and on the vicious circle continues.
|
On October 27 2011 00:32 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 00:27 Williammm wrote:On October 27 2011 00:22 Paperplane 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? 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. Its not about the long run, its about ethics. This example has been used thousand of times in this thread but I'm going to go ahead and use it once more anyways: Would it matter to you in the long run if people went around chopping off the legs of lions, while alive, and left it there? Its doubtful you'd notice the difference in your every day life. But its about ethics. Some things you just don't do. And if no one is concerned about it, nothing is going to happen about it either.
This is a very specific case, because the product of food sought after is the fin, and the fin only. No matter how you argue, the rest of the carcass is going to be wasted due to the demand of the market. I'm afraid this is an issue of the produce, ethics will do very little to change how we produce it.
|
The ban is stupid. This is a classic example of an idiotic rule of stupid populist politics. The ban doesn't solve any problems. The problem is that sharks have fins cut off and thrown back into the ocean, not that sharks are being consumed. They should have stricter regulation on how the fin is harvested and make good use of the other parts of it, not ban the consumption/possession of the part.
This should be treated like medicine: treat the cause/sickness, not the symptoms.
|
The fact that this is merely for a tradition of culture is why I'm happy to see the ban. Tradition has no ethical weight for me. The value of an animal is greater than tradition.
|
Fuck the culture argument, it is horrible! You cut an important organ of an animal, and throw it back into the sea, like adding insult to injury. It is just cruel. Man, Chinese eat turtles, shark fins and use other animals in bunch of weird and cruel ways. Years ago I saw a "farm" harvesting racoons for their furs, skinning them while they are alive. It was the most horrible thing I've ever seen, the look of poor animals continue to haunt me to this day. The bears that are kept captive in their cages and harvested for their gall bladder or something, it is just outright cruel and disgusting. If this is what Chinese culture revolves around, damn cruelty and torture, then it can go to hell. Animals have a right to life aswell.
Yes, this is coming from someone who eats red meat, white meat and other sea animal's meat. However, there is a line between killing for consumption, which is natural, and outright cruelty. This belongs to the latter.
|
On October 27 2011 00:35 Williammm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 00:23 SupLilSon wrote:On October 27 2011 00:06 Williammm wrote: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. 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. Again you're drawing this context regarding animals to humans. Stop doing that. Also the world is run mostly off economics, and we are already segregating and making it difficult for people with disabilities and what not to adapt to their situation. Why do you think it is usually the sick,elderly and unfortunate who fall into the bottom bracket of society and struggle to make ends meet? We don't euthanise everyone of those categories, because we are directly empathetic to their situations and do not wish the on us because we're all humans. Second, wars have been fought over the biggest eugenics program in history (Holocaust) and the Germans lost. That is why we don't do it. If society shifts towards a position where that becomes necessary, you bet it'll happen.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jthX0.jpg)
Really don't know what else to say.
Also, godwin's law
User was warned for this post
|
On October 27 2011 00:38 Paperplane wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 00:35 Williammm wrote:On October 27 2011 00:23 SupLilSon wrote:On October 27 2011 00:06 Williammm wrote: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. 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. Again you're drawing this context regarding animals to humans. Stop doing that. Also the world is run mostly off economics, and we are already segregating and making it difficult for people with disabilities and what not to adapt to their situation. Why do you think it is usually the sick,elderly and unfortunate who fall into the bottom bracket of society and struggle to make ends meet? We don't euthanise everyone of those categories, because we are directly empathetic to their situations and do not wish the on us because we're all humans. Second, wars have been fought over the biggest eugenics program in history (Holocaust) and the Germans lost. That is why we don't do it. If society shifts towards a position where that becomes necessary, you bet it'll happen. Really don't know what else to say. Also, godwin's law
Totally seconding that. Let's just pretend that slaves were okay with being slaves because they were born into it. That's exactly how the world works! Herpidy economics derp!
|
On October 27 2011 00:30 Paperplane wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 00:27 Williammm wrote:On October 27 2011 00:22 Paperplane 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? 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. Because it does matter? It does bother me. The killing method matters, I don't understand why you can't see that.
OK I acknowledge the fact that it bothers you. Just because it matters to you, doesn't mean it matters to everyone, and it appears most people don't really care, nor should they because the result is really inconsequential for the majority.
|
The only thing I see really wrong is how they are Tossing the fish back, after taking a fin.
That 1 HURTS the animal, Imagine if there was a delecay of human figners for example, adn they just took 1 finger and said okay, go on now.
While, I can understand if the WHOLE animal was used for it's meat / products. Just one part of it is foolish and wasteful and hurtful to the fish.
I understand the Cultural implecation as well. Yet, I fail to see how harming an animal, for one part of it while releasing it back to the wild where it will suffer and undoutably die is not cruel.
The fact remains that it shouldn't be banned as a whole, but perhaps regulated as to the fish needs to be caught, brought back weighed, then fin'ed as with other fish as is required by law.
That would solve the case as well as limiting the lb / kg per year that are allowed to be caught.
|
If only everyone could see how animals are treated in EVERY major food company in the world, their views would drastically change. Treating animals is not only inhumane, but just goes to show the ethical values of the perpetrators. They have none whatsoever, and should be punished for it.
|
I am all for the ban of shark fin. Not only is it a waste, but people underestimate the effects sharks have on the ecosystem. Also, they can be rather intelligent creatures, contrary to the mindless killers they are often portrayed as.
Edit: I am a American born Chinese, so shark fin to me in general is not something I consider food I would eat everyday. However, I can understand why some Chinese living in Canada are upset. Chinese philosophy and mindset is deeply rooted in culture and past ideals and experiences. Banning shark fin for them is like destroying their culture, something they will not and can not tolerate.
|
On October 27 2011 00:37 excal wrote:
The ban is stupid. This is a classic example of an idiotic rule of stupid populist politics. The ban doesn't solve any problems. The problem is that sharks have fins cut off and thrown back into the ocean, not that sharks are being consumed. They should have stricter regulation on how the fin is harvested and make good use of the other parts of it, not ban the consumption/possession of the part.
This should be treated like medicine: treat the cause/sickness, not the symptoms.
The problem is that all that you are proposing would be completely meaningless because all shark fin in Canada are imported from foreign countries, where such regulations would not be applied. Since all shark fin in Canada are in here purely because of demand, the best thing that the Canadian government could do, whether it be federal, provincial, or municipal, is to ban the usage of the product.
|
On October 26 2011 18:32 thoradycus wrote:
although im against the cruel harvesting of fins, im chinese and i admit shark fin soup is culinary 7th heaven. Not that i eat it all the time though.
it takes like nothing. seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
