On October 27 2011 09:28 buickskylark wrote:It's kind of hard to make separate arguments between shark fin soup/cruelty/wastefulness and shark extinction when they're completely related. Like I asked before, why wouldn't animal cruelty be a valid argument?
Because it's a weak/irrelevant argument.
Even if you killed the sharks humanely, we still have a problem of overfishing and ecological damage, due to the excessive profitability of shark fins vs. the limited supply.
Therefore, the animal cruelty issue is a distraction from the main problm.
On October 27 2011 08:03 Body_Shield wrote: The point of animal cruelty is pretty much moot in this situation. When you get down to brass tacks, it's all about if they keep heading in this direction, there will be no more sharks to fin, therefore no soup.
You can leave animal cruelty and wasteful practice completely out of the argument, because the actual outcome is the worst outcome. Using animal cruelty paints you in a 'hippy' kind of light to 'Conservative' type people, and if you've noticed, they tend to ignore and dismiss hippies.
This is the unfortunately reality. Strangely I find it's similar to the whole Global Warming/Environmental Protection cause, but that's for another day.
What? I think the animal cruelty aspect of it is a HUGE issue.
And I don't care if some asshole thinks that makes me a hippie. I judge conservatives as ignorant a-holes too, .. so it goes....
You can use it in the argument, but in and of itself is not a complete reason to ban the entire product/harvest.
The fact that there will be none left....forever... is the one and only reason.
Who cares if there are none left?
There are several species going extinct every single day, and we don't care about it.
Let supply/demand take care of the price of shark fins, at some point it will be put to an end, no reason to make criminals out of honest people trying to make a living.
I think humanity has driven enough species out of existence. Even if you lack compassion, it's obvious that we threaten our own existence if we don't change our ways. Totally support the ban, these animals should be treated with more respect.
Here is a list of endangered shark species, there are 201 of them. These animals have existed for millions of years and in just a few generations we are managing to erase them from existence.
On October 27 2011 08:03 Body_Shield wrote: The point of animal cruelty is pretty much moot in this situation. When you get down to brass tacks, it's all about if they keep heading in this direction, there will be no more sharks to fin, therefore no soup.
You can leave animal cruelty and wasteful practice completely out of the argument, because the actual outcome is the worst outcome. Using animal cruelty paints you in a 'hippy' kind of light to 'Conservative' type people, and if you've noticed, they tend to ignore and dismiss hippies.
This is the unfortunately reality. Strangely I find it's similar to the whole Global Warming/Environmental Protection cause, but that's for another day.
What? I think the animal cruelty aspect of it is a HUGE issue.
And I don't care if some asshole thinks that makes me a hippie. I judge conservatives as ignorant a-holes too, .. so it goes....
You can use it in the argument, but in and of itself is not a complete reason to ban the entire product/harvest.
The fact that there will be none left....forever... is the one and only reason.
Who cares if there are none left?
There are several species going extinct every single day, and we don't care about it.
Let supply/demand take care of the price of shark fins, at some point it will be put to an end, no reason to make criminals out of honest people trying to make a living.
We care because the sharks are THE predator of the ocean. They basically keep thousands of species under population control. If sharks die out, the natural pray of sharks will boom out of control, which will in retrospect dwindle their food supply and lead to extinction of countless species and overall destroy the ocean eco system.
On October 27 2011 08:03 Body_Shield wrote: The point of animal cruelty is pretty much moot in this situation. When you get down to brass tacks, it's all about if they keep heading in this direction, there will be no more sharks to fin, therefore no soup.
You can leave animal cruelty and wasteful practice completely out of the argument, because the actual outcome is the worst outcome. Using animal cruelty paints you in a 'hippy' kind of light to 'Conservative' type people, and if you've noticed, they tend to ignore and dismiss hippies.
This is the unfortunately reality. Strangely I find it's similar to the whole Global Warming/Environmental Protection cause, but that's for another day.
What? I think the animal cruelty aspect of it is a HUGE issue.
And I don't care if some asshole thinks that makes me a hippie. I judge conservatives as ignorant a-holes too, .. so it goes....
You can use it in the argument, but in and of itself is not a complete reason to ban the entire product/harvest.
The fact that there will be none left....forever... is the one and only reason.
Why wouldn't animal cruelty be a valid argument? I'm not saying it is or isn't just wondering why cruelty to another species isn't a good enough reason to stop doing something. I hope it's not the humans are carnivorous thing.
Just curious here...
If the fishermen shot the shark in the head before throwing it in the water, would that be animal cruelty also? If not, then the argument really has nothing at all to do with the actual product being sold. If so, well then I guess you are against any meat products being sold.
Are you talking about shooting the shark after it is de-finned? Animal cruelty to me is the totality of the practice of making shark fin soup. I have no problems with shark fin soup nor would I have any problems with people eating sharks. But pushing an animal towards extinction by using just a small part of it's body for no good reason is animal cruelty whether you let it drown or give it a quick death.
If you define artificial extinction as animal cruelty (technically the cruelest I guess), I would suggest you mention it earlier.
It can be directly related in this case, but using that term to describe artificial extinction is just kind of pointless when the term 'artificial extinction' exists....as it works much better to define itself than something else.
For example I don't describe Genocide just with the phrase horrible human rights violation, I'm pretty sure genocide works pretty well on it's own.
It's kind of hard to make separate arguments between shark fin soup/cruelty/wastefulness and shark extinction when they're completely related. Like I asked before, why wouldn't animal cruelty be a valid argument?
It's only partially related, you can stop the cruelty, you can stop the wastefullness, you can remove these things and still have a path toward extinction.
Animal Cruelty here is like someone shipped a puzzle with 20% more pieces than you actually need. Extinction is the entire picture.
On October 27 2011 09:32 Kiarip wrote:Who cares if there are none left?
There are several species going extinct every single day, and we don't care about it.
"Who cares if police stop murders. There are tons of murders going on every day, and we don't care about it."
Your argument is pretty bad. We all understand that the wave of human-induced extinctions is harmful to the environment, and we should try to stop them as best we can. The fact that we fail sometimes does not imply we should give up entirely.
On October 27 2011 09:33 Reborn8u wrote: I think humanity has driven enough species out of existence. Even if you lack compassion, it's obvious that we threaten our own existence if we don't change our ways. Totally support the ban, these animals should be treated with more respect.
Here is a list of endangered shark species, there are 201 of them. These animals have existed for millions of years and in just a few generations we are managing to erase them from existence.
on average there's a species going extinct every 20 minutes. If there's a suppl for shark fins there will be a demand regardles of whether it's legal or not, you're just forcing honest people trying to make their living into becoming criminals...
It's not our responsibility to save individual species, or even to avoid destroying them altogether, unless their lack of existence poses some kind of negative consequences for whoever's gonna be left alive. We don't need sharks in the seas for any reason. They eat fish, and we're already over-fishing the Oceans, so overpopulation of fish won't be a problem, most people don't eat actual sharks, they don't compose a large portion of people's diet, so if someone want's to have shark fins there's literally no negative consequence to it other than people in the future not being able to get shark fins...
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:
everyone should really watch this and not cause Gordon Ramsay is awesome but because it is really eye opening
On October 27 2011 09:32 Kiarip wrote:Who cares if there are none left?
There are several species going extinct every single day, and we don't care about it.
"Who cares if police stop murders. There are tons of murders going on every day, and we don't care about it."
Your argument is pretty bad. We all understand that the wave of human-induced extinctions is harmful to the environment, and we should try to stop them as best we can. The fact that we fail sometimes does not imply we should give up entirely.
let's look at them on a case by case basis:
there's no reason taht killing sharks is bad for the environment. Sharks eat everything that we eat, we're replacing them as preditors on the same food chain, so there's no danger of something underneath them in the food chain overpopulating the oceans.
On October 27 2011 08:03 Body_Shield wrote: The point of animal cruelty is pretty much moot in this situation. When you get down to brass tacks, it's all about if they keep heading in this direction, there will be no more sharks to fin, therefore no soup.
You can leave animal cruelty and wasteful practice completely out of the argument, because the actual outcome is the worst outcome. Using animal cruelty paints you in a 'hippy' kind of light to 'Conservative' type people, and if you've noticed, they tend to ignore and dismiss hippies.
This is the unfortunately reality. Strangely I find it's similar to the whole Global Warming/Environmental Protection cause, but that's for another day.
What? I think the animal cruelty aspect of it is a HUGE issue.
And I don't care if some asshole thinks that makes me a hippie. I judge conservatives as ignorant a-holes too, .. so it goes....
You can use it in the argument, but in and of itself is not a complete reason to ban the entire product/harvest.
The fact that there will be none left....forever... is the one and only reason.
Who cares if there are none left?
There are several species going extinct every single day, and we don't care about it.
Let supply/demand take care of the price of shark fins, at some point it will be put to an end, no reason to make criminals out of honest people trying to make a living.
The fact that an animal going extinct doesn't make a building somewhere immediately blow up doesn't mean it isn't causing damage. The deterioration of ecosystems isn't immediately apparent and isn't easily understood. However, when ecosystems are thrown off balance, it decreases the total amount of food that is able to be produced. By allowing these people to continue poaching, we are actually decreasing our total amount of food in the long run. Even from a purely human-centered perspective where all that matters are humans, it is harmful to us to allow the collapse of ecosystems, as it decreases the total food source.
Honestly man, don't even comment on stuff when you're just talking out of your ass. There is a significant amount of research done in this field and you clearly know nothing on the subject.
Supply and demand is not applicable to this situation because this is a situation where the supply eventually vanishes. When the supply vanishes, companies investing in the local fishing operations pick up and invest elsewhere. Meanwhile, local economies are hurt because they have extinguished their resources. What they are doing isn't sustainable and isn't going to be beneficial, even to the fishers, in the long run. The extinction or a species and the collapse of an ecosystem (Note: The sharks don't even have to go extinct in order for the ecosystem to collapse), is not even a cost of a benefit to humanity. This is just senseless behavior only occurring because of a lack of understanding.
On October 27 2011 08:03 Body_Shield wrote: The point of animal cruelty is pretty much moot in this situation. When you get down to brass tacks, it's all about if they keep heading in this direction, there will be no more sharks to fin, therefore no soup.
You can leave animal cruelty and wasteful practice completely out of the argument, because the actual outcome is the worst outcome. Using animal cruelty paints you in a 'hippy' kind of light to 'Conservative' type people, and if you've noticed, they tend to ignore and dismiss hippies.
This is the unfortunately reality. Strangely I find it's similar to the whole Global Warming/Environmental Protection cause, but that's for another day.
What? I think the animal cruelty aspect of it is a HUGE issue.
And I don't care if some asshole thinks that makes me a hippie. I judge conservatives as ignorant a-holes too, .. so it goes....
You can use it in the argument, but in and of itself is not a complete reason to ban the entire product/harvest.
The fact that there will be none left....forever... is the one and only reason.
Who cares if there are none left?
There are several species going extinct every single day, and we don't care about it.
Let supply/demand take care of the price of shark fins, at some point it will be put to an end, no reason to make criminals out of honest people trying to make a living.
We care because the sharks are THE predator of the ocean. They basically keep thousands of species under population control. If sharks die out, the natural pray of sharks will boom out of control, which will in retrospect dwindle their food supply and lead to extinction of countless species and overall destroy the ocean eco system.
What do sharks kill and eat, that we don't either kill and eat, or kill by accident and discard?...
On October 26 2011 20:37 Suisen wrote: But Chinese will defend anything China even if they actually disagree, apparently. Don't give me this fake loyalty.
The more I learn about China, the less I respect it.
Once again, an example of ignorance. Good Cantonese soup cost a lot of money to make. Even the soup my dad makes regularly costs $50-100 a pot.
Also, your comment makes no sense. He said no soup is worth more than 5 dollar. You call that ignorance. It's his fucking opinion. Your argument just proves his point. You are both wrong and ignorant as well as unable to understand the reasoning of others or express your own opinion using reasoning.
He's ignorant because he has never even tasted the soup before. Opinions can be ignorant.
On October 26 2011 20:37 Suisen wrote: Knowing the prize would spoil the taste when eating it. Especially when you realize the context is in a third world country.
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
On October 26 2011 20:37 Suisen wrote: I hear the noises of Han Chinese bring good luck as a good luck charm. And the good news is, there's a Han Chinese for every one of us. Let's harvest them as a Chinese doesn't really need a nose. Immoral? Nooo, don't infringe on culture.
If that's your culture, then cool. Hunting Han chinese seems much more dangerous than hunting sharks though.
Since we're freely expressing our opinions on the subject, I think China is a backwards ass country trying to hang on to too much archaic tradition while attempting to modernize its economy within a political framework that doesn't work. There's a huge social revolution coming in that country, and I can't wait for it to happen. Too many human beings are being abused and exploited, and they need to do something about it. While I'd love to write out a multi paged critique of the current Chinese government, I'll keep this about shark fin soup in Canada.
Frankly, if you're calling people ignorant for not having tried the soup or knowing about it, then you're missing the point. This thread isn't about culinary criticism or how much a dish costs, it's about Canada (finally) being willing to critique another culture and decide what we want in our country and what we do not. Shark fin soup should be banned outright in Canada (and any other civilized country for that matter). Period. This isn't a new issue. I'm amazed by how much mileage Gordan Ramsey's documentary has given it, but people have been talking about this for 20+ years. The harvesting methods employed to support the demand for what amounts to little more than a status symbol are barbaric and unsustainable. When you say things like we're ignorant for stepping on Chinese cultural traditions, it really shows me where you're at. China consumes a number of different items from endangered species as aphrodisiacs and status symbols. Guess what? A culture that values status and stupidity above responsible and sustainable environmental policy should be critiqued and told no. This is Canada, we're allowed to form policy around what we feel is most inclusive, not what ignorant and environmentally unaware Chinese people on the other side of the globe have done for the past 2000 years and want to continue for no other reason than tradition. When you have a billion people in your country who want to consume tiger penis or rhinoceros horn because they stupidly believe it to be an aphrodisiac while the environment suffers then its time to sober up.
You said in a previous post that Chinese think westerners are ignorant. That's nice, except that Canada has a very good human rights record, is one of the world leaders in alternative energy research, and over the past several hundred years has forged a very nice stable inclusive society that people want to live in. When Chinese people (who live in a country with a very poor human rights record, a country that cuts corners to produce unsafe and hazardous products, a country with little to no long term plans for sustainable or green energy, a country that only 25 years ago ran over protesting students with tanks, and a country that would rather keep their embarrassing screw ups secret rather than fixing the underlying problem) tell us we're ignorant for being critical of a negative environmentally irresponsible aspect of their culture -- even after how committed we've shown ourselves to be about respecting other cultures, we can rightfully ignore and laugh at them.
I support the ban 100%, I wish our country as a whole would ban it, I hope other countries follow suit, and if certain Chinese people don't understand why it's important that certain nations show leadership and take a stance on this important issue, then we don't need them in our country.
Posts like these make me ashamed of Canadians like you. The racism runs high in any thread that has to do with China. It's especially sad to see how xenophobic people can get, and generalize stereotypes to an entire culture of people. Considering the current nation was built by Immigrants, one would think that people would be more accepting.
I like how you talk of Canadians and put them on a moral highground. What right do we have to point fingers at other cultures and act as we've done no wrong?
On October 27 2011 09:01 sevencck wrote: You said in a previous post that Chinese think westerners are ignorant. That's nice, except that Canada has a very good human rights record, is one of the world leaders in alternative energy
As much as it pains me to discuss the unsavory actions of Canada, the xenophobic hate that some Canadians show is a disgrace to the country. Unless you were of native descent, we're all children of Immigrants in Canada. What it comes down to is that no country has the right to point fingers and look down their nose on the action of others.
On October 27 2011 09:32 Kiarip wrote:Who cares if there are none left?
There are several species going extinct every single day, and we don't care about it.
"Who cares if police stop murders. There are tons of murders going on every day, and we don't care about it."
Your argument is pretty bad. We all understand that the wave of human-induced extinctions is harmful to the environment, and we should try to stop them as best we can. The fact that we fail sometimes does not imply we should give up entirely.
let's look at them on a case by case basis:
there's no reason taht killing sharks is bad for the environment. Sharks eat everything that we eat, we're replacing them as preditors on the same food chain, so there's no danger of something underneath them in the food chain overpopulating the oceans.
If the ecosystem were that easy, being a biologist would not require a college education.
Sharks play a very sophisticated role within a marine ecosystem that no type of fishing or hunting could replicate. Everything from depth of water sharks swim in, to their hunting patterns, and even the parasites under their skin, play key roles in maintaining balance to marine ecosystems. That's why it is so important to preserve every predatory species, even if we have the ability to control populations of their prey.
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.
That's because the Chinese are f**king insane, that's like saying taking away a guy's gun cause he is mentally ill infringes on the minorities rights of "thinking differently"
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.
That's because the Chinese are f**king insane, that's like saying taking away a guy's gun cause he is mentally ill infringes on the minorities rights of "thinking differently"
On October 27 2011 09:28 buickskylark wrote:It's kind of hard to make separate arguments between shark fin soup/cruelty/wastefulness and shark extinction when they're completely related. Like I asked before, why wouldn't animal cruelty be a valid argument?
Because it's a weak/irrelevant argument.
Even if you killed the sharks humanely, we still have a problem of overfishing and ecological damage, due to the excessive profitability of shark fins vs. the limited supply.
Therefore, the animal cruelty issue is a distraction from the main problm.
I think you misunderstood me. My question has nothing to do with extinction. I merely wanted to know why animal cruelty isn't a valid excuse against doing it.
Also I like how people respond to obvious trolling about "lol why do we care if all sharks die." And if they are truthfully that dumb, ignore them anyway.
On October 27 2011 09:32 Kiarip wrote:Who cares if there are none left?
There are several species going extinct every single day, and we don't care about it.
"Who cares if police stop murders. There are tons of murders going on every day, and we don't care about it."
Your argument is pretty bad. We all understand that the wave of human-induced extinctions is harmful to the environment, and we should try to stop them as best we can. The fact that we fail sometimes does not imply we should give up entirely.
let's look at them on a case by case basis:
there's no reason taht killing sharks is bad for the environment. Sharks eat everything that we eat, we're replacing them as preditors on the same food chain, so there's no danger of something underneath them in the food chain overpopulating the oceans.
If the ecosystem were that easy, being a biologist would not require a college education.
Sharks play a very sophisticated role within a marine ecosystem that no type of fishing or hunting could replicate. Everything from depth of water sharks swim in, to their hunting patterns, and even the parasites under their skin, play key roles in maintaining balance to marine ecosystems. That's why it is so important to preserve every predatory species, even if we have the ability to control populations of their prey.
Good point and thank you. Its extremely frustrating to see how people ignorant of the situation feel like they have an opinion worth expressing. Its as if because they know what sharks are, and they know what a predator is, their logic and knowledge they have accumulated over the course of their life is sufficient to comment on the matter.
Its more complicated than a predator/prey relationship, people, get it through your heads. There are numerous studies outlining exactly why overfishing is a hugely tragic and EVEN IN A HUMAN-CENTERED PERSPECTIVE a bad thing.
I'm fortunate enough to be a chemist where people look at an issue and realize they have no fucking clue what they are talking about. It seems biologists often get the short end of the stick because the idea of what a living organism is seems to be something people feel like they understand better than they do. You guys have my respect and my condolences.
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.
Lol okay.. so you're saying sharks should be caught, fins cut off and then thrown back into the ocean bleeding and drowning ending with a cruel death? Whats the different if I eat bald eagles because it's my culture? It's still fucked for me to kill an eagle .
On October 27 2011 09:32 Kiarip wrote:Who cares if there are none left?
There are several species going extinct every single day, and we don't care about it.
"Who cares if police stop murders. There are tons of murders going on every day, and we don't care about it."
Your argument is pretty bad. We all understand that the wave of human-induced extinctions is harmful to the environment, and we should try to stop them as best we can. The fact that we fail sometimes does not imply we should give up entirely.
let's look at them on a case by case basis:
there's no reason taht killing sharks is bad for the environment. Sharks eat everything that we eat, we're replacing them as preditors on the same food chain, so there's no danger of something underneath them in the food chain overpopulating the oceans.
If the ecosystem were that easy, being a biologist would not require a college education.
Sharks play a very sophisticated role within a marine ecosystem that no type of fishing or hunting could replicate. Everything from depth of water sharks swim in, to their hunting patterns, and even the parasites under their skin, play key roles in maintaining balance to marine ecosystems. That's why it is so important to preserve every predatory species, even if we have the ability to control populations of their prey.
Well there's still a cost benefit-analysis to be done here... How much money are we willing to spend to make sure they dont go extinct? This isn't an example of a "must accomplish at all cost" type of mission, and simply banning it won't stop it.
The more you try to control shark-finning, the more expensive the fins will become, and the more profitable it will be to actually do it.
Demand is what controls the supply. You can't feasibly control the supply of shark fins by regulation, simply by decreasing the demand, and you can't decrease the demand if people are willing to even more for the friggin' sharks
EPT
