EPTOpinions on ban of shark fin - Page 21
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Thrill
2599 Posts
| ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
This shark issue is just arbitrary sensationalism, trying to make it out as if this is so much worse than your usual case, even though it is exactly the same, in order to get a foothold in promoting greater empathy with what we eat in general. The only way it makes any sense is if you go all the way, and illegalize eating meat, which is inherently cruel to animals. The only thing holding you back I'm sure, is that it's politically impossible, as it well should be. I am a human being, I dominate my environment because I have a faculty which beasts lack: cognition. I dominate my environment because it makes me happy, and the environment has no purpose until I form a desire and a plan for it, anyway. I do not feel guilty for using my mind, for using the products of the minds of others to create my environment out of the default of nature, an environment which I find comfortable, and which grants me even greater control. I will not feel guilty for eating, even though it is a destructive force - destructive of what? Nature, defined only as that which existed before man did anything to change it, is not sacred. Man is not an evil force on the world of the default. He is merely a force who deems some aspects of reality good and others evil as befits his quest for prosperity and happiness. It is just an idea too complicated for most people to grasp, they just won't be bothered. That is why we have mysticism, as we have since we lived in caves. Some ideas are of such obvious practical merit that we can't help but live by them, even if we simply won't be bothered to understand them. Love is such an idea, we say it is the most valued human experience of all, and therefore the more indiscriminately we experience it, the better. Wealth is such an idea, we say the greater good is for it to be enjoyed by as many people as possible, so we penalize those who produce it in order to spread it around. Knowledge itself is such an idea, we say that it comes from the Kingdom of Heaven, beyond our realm of existence, and can be attained only by accepting something to be true without asking to be shown evidence. Empathy is such an idea, we say it's an instinct - the only instance of nature's default still operating within human kind - and so it derives its merit. Freedom, is yet another such idea. It's an idea which applies to humans because we are capable of respecting it, of respecting each other. Because it's the foundation of an individual and one's creative potential, which must be allowed to flourish in order for others to benefit from it. But we apply it to animals because, well, we're stupid. And then in protection of the freedom of animals from human harm (although good luck trying to keep those same animals from eating each other) we restrict the rights of those humans who enjoy eating too much, because of course the value of the freedom of a criminal is negligable. Human beings do not owe anything to those living things which cannot pick up even the most underlying fundamentals of nobility: the creation of their own tools for use in subduing their prey. They are impotent to create anything, whatsoever, except approximate copies of themselves, which to this day is the only manner in which they may progress forwards. Why do any of our human values apply to them, except for the human value of their bodies as something useful that can be found in nature, just like wood from trees, rocks from the earth, water from pools? ...What's in it for us? | ||
|
Malpraxis
Costa Rica8 Posts
One thing common in the mist of all the ethical shark problems is that people are blind to the fishermen who are in Ramsay's video for example. I cannot stress how important this is. Radical conservationists often fail to see the human side of things, and that is why they have to go 'radical'. People are so much more willing to cooperate if you explain how conservation can benefit everyone. Thus I don't think absolute bans are a good solution. We just need to manage things wisely. Dr. Daniel Pauly (a world-class expert on fisheries) once said that if 50% of the oceans were protected and fishery-free, the production on the other 50% would skyrocket to such a degree that we would be able to meet the world's demand for fish and seafood for centuries to come. This will never happen, sadly. | ||
|
IMSmooth
United States679 Posts
On October 27 2011 03:04 zobz wrote: Fishing is an inherently brutal process to the fish. Why single out commercial fishing? Every time you put a hook of any kind in the water it's something you're most likely going to have to rip out of the fish's lips if not its throat, and I have personally never seen a fisherman stab his catch in the brain before filetting it, or for that matter before gutting it and throwing it back in the water. This shark issue is just arbitrary sensationalism, trying to make it out as if this is so much worse than your usual case, even though it is exactly the same, in order to get a foothold in promoting greater empathy with what we eat in general. The only way it makes any sense is if you go all the way, and illegalize eating meat, which is inherently cruel to animals. The only thing holding you back I'm sure, is that it's politically impossible, as it well should be. I am a human being, I dominate my environment because I have a faculty which beasts lack: cognition. I dominate my environment because it makes me happy, and the environment has no purpose until I form a desire and a plan for it, anyway. I do not feel guilty for using my mind, for using the products of the minds of others to create my environment out of the default of nature, an environment which I find comfortable, and which grants me even greater control. I will not feel guilty for eating, even though it is a destructive force - destructive of what? Nature, defined only as that which existed before man did anything to change it, is not sacred. Man is not an evil force on the world of the default. He is merely a force who deems some aspects of reality good and others evil as befits his quest for prosperity and happiness. It is just an idea too complicated for most people to grasp, they just won't be bothered. That is why we have mysticism, as we have since we lived in caves. Some ideas are of such obvious practical merit that we can't help but live by them, even if we simply won't be bothered to understand them. Love is such an idea, we say it is the most valued human experience of all, and therefore the more indiscriminately we experience it, the better. Wealth is such an idea, we say the greater good is for it to be enjoyed by as many people as possible, so we penalize those who produce it in order to spread it around. Knowledge itself is such an idea, we say that it comes from the Kingdom of Heaven, beyond our realm of existence, and can be attained only by accepting something to be true without asking to be shown evidence. Empathy is such an idea, we say it's an instinct - the only instance of nature's default still operating within human kind - and so it derives its merit. Freedom, is yet another such idea. It's an idea which applies to humans because we are capable of respecting it, of respecting each other. Because it's the foundation of an individual and one's creative potential, which must be allowed to flourish in order for others to benefit from it. But we apply it to animals because, well, we're stupid. And then in protection of the freedom of animals from human harm (although good luck trying to keep those same animals from eating each other) we restrict the rights of those humans who enjoy eating too much, because of course the value of the freedom of a criminal is negligable. Human beings do not owe anything to those living things which cannot pick up even the most underlying fundamentals of nobility: the creation of their own tools for use in subduing their prey. They are impotent to create anything, whatsoever, except approximate copies of themselves, which to this day is the only manner in which they may progress forwards. Why do any of our human values apply to them, except for the human value of their bodies as something useful that can be found in nature, just like wood from trees, rocks from the earth, water from pools? ...What's in it for us? Did you not just read Malpraxis post literally on the last page?!?!? You just spent that long typing a big post like this without even reading other comments????? This is ridiculous. The only thing i can take from this is man>animal and therefore might as well kill every single one on the planet without any consequences to our own species. You take the cake on absolute worst post i have seen in this thread, this is no easy feat. They should give you a title avatar. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On the whole "majority infringing on the minority culture" thing. Well have they ever considered that its highly offensive to those people banning it? Its part of their "culture" to see it as an unnecessary and cruel thing that only produces what comes down to a luxury. The question is in my mind is that when two cultures clash on an issue that can be regulated legally then how is it that someone can be "right" on a cultural issue? Then I bring it back to democracy with majority rules. Its not a perfect system and yes sometimes the majority takes advantage of and even suppresses the minority unfairly but thats what happens. This is in Canada not China. You wouldn't find much support for Canadians living in China to ban this. Fact is that the majority culture wants it banned and thats how it goes. This is only in 1 part of Canada though isn't it? So its not like they can't go to somewhere closeby and pick some up and just ignore the whole "consumption is illegal" part of the ban since there is no way in hell they will properly regulate this, outside of restaurants anyway and even then I doubt that enforcement will be that strict. | ||
|
poorbeggarman
139 Posts
Bottomline: Sucks to be a toronto restaurateur Its a start, but unless they go federal, its just a waste of time. | ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
On October 27 2011 03:13 IMSmooth wrote: Did you not just read Malpraxis post literally on the last page?!?!? You just spent that long typing a big post like this without even reading other comments????? This is ridiculous. The only thing i can take from this is man>animal and therefore might as well kill every single one on the planet without any consequences to our own species. You take the cake on absolutely worst post i have seen in this thread, this is no easy feat. They should give you a title avatar. Actually I read it while I was waiting for the next page to come up before I posted. Yes sustainability of a resource for continued human enjoyment is a valid argument for conservation. However, that is not the argument I am dismissing or the argument which about half of the conservationalists in the world hold. It is important to dismiss what they do. After all, do you yourself even admit that sustainability of a resource for continued human enjoyment is the only valid argument, or would you fall back on what I refuted when the former does not seem applicable? | ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
| ||
|
jinixxx123
543 Posts
On October 27 2011 03:04 zobz wrote: Fishing is an inherently brutal process to the fish. Why single out commercial fishing? Every time you put a hook of any kind in the water it's something you're most likely going to have to rip out of the fish's lips if not its throat, and I have personally never seen a fisherman stab his catch in the brain before filetting it, or for that matter before gutting it and throwing it back in the water. This shark issue is just arbitrary sensationalism, trying to make it out as if this is so much worse than your usual case, even though it is exactly the same, in order to get a foothold in promoting greater empathy with what we eat in general. The only way it makes any sense is if you go all the way, and illegalize eating meat, which is inherently cruel to animals. The only thing holding you back I'm sure, is that it's politically impossible, as it well should be. I am a human being, I dominate my environment because I have a faculty which beasts lack: cognition. I dominate my environment because it makes me happy, and the environment has no purpose until I form a desire and a plan for it, anyway. I do not feel guilty for using my mind, for using the products of the minds of others to create my environment out of the default of nature, an environment which I find comfortable, and which grants me even greater control. I will not feel guilty for eating, even though it is a destructive force - destructive of what? Nature, defined only as that which existed before man did anything to change it, is not sacred. Man is not an evil force on the world of the default. He is merely a force who deems some aspects of reality good and others evil as befits his quest for prosperity and happiness. It is just an idea too complicated for most people to grasp, they just won't be bothered. That is why we have mysticism, as we have since we lived in caves. Some ideas are of such obvious practical merit that we can't help but live by them, even if we simply won't be bothered to understand them. Love is such an idea, we say it is the most valued human experience of all, and therefore the more indiscriminately we experience it, the better. Wealth is such an idea, we say the greater good is for it to be enjoyed by as many people as possible, so we penalize those who produce it in order to spread it around. Knowledge itself is such an idea, we say that it comes from the Kingdom of Heaven, beyond our realm of existence, and can be attained only by accepting something to be true without asking to be shown evidence. Empathy is such an idea, we say it's an instinct - the only instance of nature's default still operating within human kind - and so it derives its merit. Freedom, is yet another such idea. It's an idea which applies to humans because we are capable of respecting it, of respecting each other. Because it's the foundation of an individual and one's creative potential, which must be allowed to flourish in order for others to benefit from it. But we apply it to animals because, well, we're stupid. And then in protection of the freedom of animals from human harm (although good luck trying to keep those same animals from eating each other) we restrict the rights of those humans who enjoy eating too much, because of course the value of the freedom of a criminal is negligable. Human beings do not owe anything to those living things which cannot pick up even the most underlying fundamentals of nobility: the creation of their own tools for use in subduing their prey. They are impotent to create anything, whatsoever, except approximate copies of themselves, which to this day is the only manner in which they may progress forwards. Why do any of our human values apply to them, except for the human value of their bodies as something useful that can be found in nature, just like wood from trees, rocks from the earth, water from pools? ...What's in it for us? question, if you by some chance have a retarded child with your wife, would you kill it? because you seem to think that life is not worth anything if it cant think for itself. i choose to see it differently, If man is smart enough to possess the power to kill anything, it also means man is smart enough to do the right thing and not kill animals of to the point of extinction when there are clear alternatives to eating meat in general. . This problem of sharkfin's is only 1 issue of mass hypocrisy i see from people concerned about this issue. Like for e.g the guy shown in the youtube video is shocked at the amount of fins he saw on the roof. I'd really like to see him go into a chicken slaughter house for KFC, or a mc Donalds cow farm for beef.. It will trump whatever he sees here. They basically cut the cows throat in this big wheel , they castrate testicles when they dont want them to mate ( absolutely no painkillers) the list goes on and on.. I just hope the ppl that are complaining about shark fin also lessen there consumptions of meat in general .. You do not require Meat everyday to survive, thats a fucking myth. | ||
|
LeoPenrose
Canada10 Posts
Chicken broth and a gelatinous goo. ...Are you f-ing kidding? This doesn't even come close to a respectable dish, regardless of the moral and ethical problems attached to it. I support the ban, but it's just a bandage over a gunshot wound. Ramsey's approach is the only way to effectively go about ending this. On a related note, here's a video for, of all things, responsible foie gras Dan Barber @ TED -"The most ecological choice for food is also the most ethical for food... and it's almost always the most delicious choice." | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On October 27 2011 03:04 zobz wrote: + Show Spoiler + Fishing is an inherently brutal process to the fish. Why single out commercial fishing? Every time you put a hook of any kind in the water it's something you're most likely going to have to rip out of the fish's lips if not its throat, and I have personally never seen a fisherman stab his catch in the brain before filetting it, or for that matter before gutting it and throwing it back in the water. This shark issue is just arbitrary sensationalism, trying to make it out as if this is so much worse than your usual case, even though it is exactly the same, in order to get a foothold in promoting greater empathy with what we eat in general. The only way it makes any sense is if you go all the way, and illegalize eating meat, which is inherently cruel to animals. The only thing holding you back I'm sure, is that it's politically impossible, as it well should be. I am a human being, I dominate my environment because I have a faculty which beasts lack: cognition. I dominate my environment because it makes me happy, and the environment has no purpose until I form a desire and a plan for it, anyway. I do not feel guilty for using my mind, for using the products of the minds of others to create my environment out of the default of nature, an environment which I find comfortable, and which grants me even greater control. I will not feel guilty for eating, even though it is a destructive force - destructive of what? Nature, defined only as that which existed before man did anything to change it, is not sacred. Man is not an evil force on the world of the default. He is merely a force who deems some aspects of reality good and others evil as befits his quest for prosperity and happiness. It is just an idea too complicated for most people to grasp, they just won't be bothered. That is why we have mysticism, as we have since we lived in caves. Some ideas are of such obvious practical merit that we can't help but live by them, even if we simply won't be bothered to understand them. Love is such an idea, we say it is the most valued human experience of all, and therefore the more indiscriminately we experience it, the better. Wealth is such an idea, we say the greater good is for it to be enjoyed by as many people as possible, so we penalize those who produce it in order to spread it around. Knowledge itself is such an idea, we say that it comes from the Kingdom of Heaven, beyond our realm of existence, and can be attained only by accepting something to be true without asking to be shown evidence. Empathy is such an idea, we say it's an instinct - the only instance of nature's default still operating within human kind - and so it derives its merit. Freedom, is yet another such idea. It's an idea which applies to humans because we are capable of respecting it, of respecting each other. Because it's the foundation of an individual and one's creative potential, which must be allowed to flourish in order for others to benefit from it. But we apply it to animals because, well, we're stupid. And then in protection of the freedom of animals from human harm (although good luck trying to keep those same animals from eating each other) we restrict the rights of those humans who enjoy eating too much, because of course the value of the freedom of a criminal is negligable. Human beings do not owe anything to those living things which cannot pick up even the most underlying fundamentals of nobility: the creation of their own tools for use in subduing their prey. They are impotent to create anything, whatsoever, except approximate copies of themselves, which to this day is the only manner in which they may progress forwards. Why do any of our human values apply to them, except for the human value of their bodies as something useful that can be found in nature, just like wood from trees, rocks from the earth, water from pools? ...What's in it for us? I like and endorse this post. | ||
|
Kokujin
United States456 Posts
| ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
| ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On October 27 2011 03:30 jinixxx123 wrote: question, if you by some chance have a retarded child with your wife, would you kill it? because you seem to think that life is not worth anything if it cant think for itself. Even retarded children possess cognitive ability far exceeding that of animals. A better question is if my child was a vegetable, and yes, I would consider pulling life support. | ||
|
ETisME
12618 Posts
to be honest, I find slaughter house a lot more unethical than these shark farmers. You guys should really see some videos of slaughter house, Blows Your Mind | ||
|
Thrill
2599 Posts
On October 27 2011 03:40 relyt wrote: the poachers will definitely not care about the sharks. Wtf... A long-line cares about nothing. It kills indiscriminately. Reducing the shark fishery to poaching would definitely not make anything worse. | ||
|
reincremate
China2216 Posts
On October 27 2011 02:57 Bibdy wrote: No, I'm saying get the stick out of your ass and enjoy small victories when you can. Only a tiny fraction of proposed legislation actually make it through the political process of ANY country, let alone a modernized Western one where people have long, open debates about various topics. The leverage of the 'inhumaneness' of fishing for shark fins is what got this one through easier. Nailing the ENTIRE shark fishing market has bigger implications and requires more effort. Give it time. The legislation is hardly a victory if it does nothing to solve the problem of overexploitation of sharks. Even if many cities ban shark fins it will be unlikely to put a dent on the harvesting of sharks. The fins will simply get sold in places where it's still legal or be sold illegally. This ban only affects restaurant owners and patrons. Viewing this as some kind of step in the right direction would be akin to climbing a tree and viewing that as a first step to getting to the moon. The point is that the activists, politicians and media are just indulging in hypocrisy and smugness by wasting time on a tiny issue that will likely have no effect on the environment and sustainable development whatsoever. | ||
|
Mortal
2943 Posts
| ||
|
Moldwood
United States280 Posts
| ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
On October 27 2011 03:44 Thrill wrote: Wtf... A long-line cares about nothing. It kills indiscriminately. Reducing the shark fishery to poaching would definitely not make anything worse. You think the poachers wont use a long-line? | ||
| ||
