| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
insaneMicro
Germany761 Posts
On October 26 2011 23:45 br0fivE wrote: i dont see why they havent already made shark farms would be the most logical idea Sharks don't do too well in captivity; nobody has never managed to keep a Great White alive longer than a couple months IIRC. Don't know abut other species though, but they all reproduce real slow. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
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: thanks, it's a good clip. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On October 27 2011 00:06 Williammm wrote: 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? That's easy. I don't see societies' main motif as being to enable an efficient economic production and I don't think you do either. That would have it completely backwards. Efficient economic production is a means to increase well-being for the memebers of society. It's also not so much about being wrong or not, but about being rational. If you care about that, then you should not make excuses based on speciesism because this would be a purely subjective argument, as long as you don't provide the important distinguishing factors. However, if you are fine with morals being based on subjective arguments and emotions and not on rationality, then why would we continue to argue. What rational argument could I provide? On October 26 2011 22:55 Williammm wrote: 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. That's exactly why I would not want to base my morals on whether or not I can feel with the shark. You propose that this is the way to go. I simply called this out as an argument from emotion - and rightfully so. On October 26 2011 22:55 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. 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. Another big argument from emotion. Whether I sense concern about something or am emotionally distressed about something is neither here nor there. I have never said that "killing for food is wrong whatever the circumstance" nor do I hold this position. But it is easy to see that the practice involved causes unnecessary suffering to an animal for the benefit of producing a luxury item (which happens to be eatable in this case). I can comdemn that practice based on my assessment of benefits and downsides, which could certainly be factually wrong. But you would need to address any failures with a specific argument. I care for other humans mainly because of their profound ability to sufffer. If humans would not be sentient then I would also not care for them (a.k.a. speciesism is bogus). I have learned however that other animals are also able to suffer. The extent to which they suffer might be difficult to analyze for me, but then again I would also not know whether you can suffer in the same way I can. I am therefore generally obliged to consider all animal suffering, if I care that my morals are rationally grounded. This is actually the easy part, I think. The hard part comes as soon as conflicts arise... but then again I will not simply drop rationality just because it gets difficult. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
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 isn't so much in how much of the shark gets used. While yes, it would obviously be better to use all of the shark rather than hacking off a few pieces and launching it overboard, even doing that doesn't change the fact that there are X number of sharks left and harvesting them for anything so frivolous is unsustainable. Some people love blasting ducks and pheasants and they've made organizations like Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever to save their habitats so there are more of them to blast in the face! It's a hell of a novel concept. Some fisheries are like "holy shit, we're catching WAYYYYYYYYYY too many of these fish, if we keep it up we don't have a job since there's no fish left!" So they put quotas on how many are caught. It honestly isn't a question of the ethics (though that is an issue for some obviously it missed the bigger point). It's a question of simple mathematics. "There's 10,000 bowls of rubber soup left on the planet. Is it really worth it to eat all that and completely screw over the aquatic ecosystem as well as deprive future generations of the animal?" Unless the shark produces more of themselves than you take out of the pool then you're part of the problem. | ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
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. Why should I or anyone else in this thread stop using humans for comparison? Are you in denial of the FACT that humans are animals just as sharks are? And I don't really understand the rest of your post, you say that the world is mostly run off economics, and because of that people with disability are left behind. So... we shouldn't run the world off economics? I feel like you are unknowingly supporting what I said. | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
| ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
Likewise for bluefin tuna. | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
| ||
|
marcesr
Germany1383 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:02 marcesr wrote: Always the Chinese, I really cant stand it anymore. They dont care about animals they dont care about humans, its just a completely reprobate people. Just FYI, other countries do this same shit. Whaling, killing animals and so on. So it's not just the Chinese. | ||
|
Hikari
1914 Posts
Have had sharkfin soup multiple times in the past, mostly in major celebrations. Not too sure about the no flavor thing, but it does change the texture of the soup to be somewhat gooey. I suppose you can replace that texture and taste from other sources, just as having fake beef made from soy (the ones these days are very hard to tell which is fake and which is real if you don't look into what you are eating in details). I agree that cutting off the fins and throwing the shark back into the ocean is a waste. However there is still legal hunting of sharks, and sharks do come with fins. What I dislike about this whole sharkfin ban is that its more or less a political act. No, banning shark fin trades in various cities would NOT fix anything, but to give raise to "illegal trading" of "legally obtained" shark fin. What needs to happen is for countries around the world to tighten sharking regulations: returning with a shipload of sharkfin without any "sharks" should not be able to walk around sharking bans some countries have. To my knowledge, cruel harvesting of shark fins do not happen in Canada. Should we also ban fur trade just because parts of the world take fur in a cruel manner? How about making it a law to help the injured since people in China simply let that little girl suffer after getting rolled over by 2 cars? It is not a Toronto problem. Why ban shark fin trading when the city should just ban the trade of tobaco? Cigarettes are known to cause nothing but trouble, and I see cigs to be far more inhumane (omg: people are suffering from cancer from 2nd hand smoking!) than shark fins. Politicians are simply wasting time, putting up an act, pretending they just performed a good deed for the community while affecting many chinese eateries and medicine shops. Take chickens for example: a lot of them are raised in small cages the size of a shoe box: that is not very humane right? Does that mean we should ban all chicken sale, including those raise in free ranges? The problem is there but is approached in the completely wrong method. If I am an international shark fin trader I wouldn't give a shit about the ban, and maybe secretly rejoice since I can try to start and underground sharkfin trade to those in Toronto and possible establishing a monopoly. To top it off, as shark fin trading is illegal anyway, might as well as sell them the "real" illegal stuff from Africa instead of buying fins off Canadian fisheries. | ||
|
PrideNeverDie
United States319 Posts
in order to limit a method of obtaining shark fins, the government banned the product itself will this be the new accepted government enforcement? the public seems to be okay with the premise. i wonder if it will be applied into other controversial issues such as drugs, prostitution, abortion, and risky economic investments | ||
|
uiCk
Canada1925 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:09 Hikari wrote: To my knowledge, cruel harvesting of shark fins do not happen in Canada. Should we also ban fur trade just because parts of the world take fur in a cruel manner? How about making it a law to help the injured since people in China simply let that little girl suffer after getting rolled over by 2 cars? It is not a Toronto problem. . ^ Europe banned white seal fur from Canada Also, white seal hunting is well regulated, and has no effect on population or ecosystem. | ||
|
Spicy_Curry
United States10573 Posts
| ||
|
Sephy90
United States1785 Posts
| ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:16 Sephy90 wrote: Before I say anything, I want to ask something. Can a shark survive without its fin at all? From Wiki: Sharks are often killed for shark fin soup. Fishermen capture live sharks, fin them, and dump the finless animal back into the water. Finning involves removing the fin with a hot metal blade.[77] The resulting immobile shark soon dies from suffocation or predators | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:16 Sephy90 wrote: Before I say anything, I want to ask something. Can a shark survive without its fin at all? Could you survive without legs in the Serengetti? They either bleed out, it gets infected, or they become easy prey/can't eat, since they can't maneuver. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:13 PrideNeverDie wrote: the precedent set is what is interesting to me in order to limit a method of obtaining shark fins, the government banned the product itself will this be the new accepted government enforcement? the public seems to be okay with the premise. i wonder if it will be applied into other controversial issues such as drugs, prostitution, abortion, and risky economic investments What do you mean? The sale of drugs and prostitution is already banned, at least in many countries. How is banning the sale of shark fins setting a precedent for anything outside of the culinary world? | ||
|
reincremate
China2213 Posts
And if it's about waste and sustainability, they should ban high octane vehicles, flyers, plastic bags, plastic forks, print newspapers, etc. Most of our fish and seafood comes from methods of fishing that are more unsustainable (e.g bottom trawling) than throwing mutilated sharks back in the water. Obviously the practice of throwing the rest of the shark is highly wasteful (and cruel if that matters) and the hunting of endangered species is bad, but there are so many practices that are worse that aren't banned. So why is there a double standard? I think the chief motivation behind the shark ban is the same as the "free Tibet" protests that happen quite often with people who have nothing to do with Tibet. People don't necessarily actively hate Chinese people, but I think the antagonism is just a way for people to feel better about their own frivolous, unethical lifestyles/choices. | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:16 Sephy90 wrote: Before I say anything, I want to ask something. Can a shark survive without its fin at all? " Can it survive? Yes. Eventually the wound will heal, if left alone in ideal conditions. However, in the wild, the shark will be eaten by stronger animals, or its mates. Blood + Ocean + Sharks = Dinner. It'll be picked apart within minutes." Quick google... Bottom line is it can't. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Clem vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
FEL
WardiTV European League
BSL: ProLeague
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
The PondCast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
