Opinions on ban of shark fin - Page 50

On October 27 2011 01:44 jester- wrote:
Bah, sustainability is really the issue here.

The difference between a pig/cow/chicken slaughterhouse is those farmers raise their own stock to slaughter or purchase them from elsewhere. They don't keep taking and taking and taking without EVER putting anything back.

The majority of every other meat we eat comes from either sustainable, regulated industry or farm produced product. Fish farms, cow farms, pig farms, etc are very different than going out into the ocean and killing a gigantic portion of an already low population species and not replacing them OR letting them replace their numbers themselves (see: crab fishing, hunting for fur).

The comparisons in here to other sources of food are weak, very weak.

On October 30 2011 12:01 Goshdarnit wrote:
As a lover a trying out different foods and fine foods in general I would normally find this annoying. But from the shark fin soup I have eaten (I do believe it was good quality, I paid enough for that shit to be worth it) my view is that the Fin itself doesn't add a huge amount to the flavor of the soup and the fact that no one will eat ANY other part of the shark disgusts me.
I mean the nail in the coffin for this situation is that the fins are cut off the shark and they are thrown back into the water... this is blatantly showing that what people are doing is like stealing, they don't even want to bring the actual shark back to port because of its pointlessness.
Maybe I would disagree with this law a little bit if sharkfin was one of the 3 most delicious foods in the world or something, but it simply isn't worth the cost.

Also from a humanistic standpoint it is incredible wasteful and stupid.

On October 30 2011 08:17 Warble wrote:
I wonder why people are so eager to ban it outright?

1. This seems rather heavy-handed to me. Why ban it outright instead of regulating it? Only allow fins to be sold if the whole shark is brought in. Only allow certain species to be captured - which is easy when combined with the previous rule. Make the fishers pay for this and taxpayers are no worse off. People are willing to pay a lot for luxury foods.
   
   
2. To those talking about how it's "just texture", texture is an important part of the "taste". Our mouths don't just have taste buds, but also have touch, and both play a role in how we appreciate food. For example, texture is the reason why chocolate tastes so good. Otherwise, it's mostly sugar (cocoa is bitter). We have the technology to give chocolate a wide variety of textures without altering the taste, yet only certain textures are universally popular. One thing that sets high end chocolate apart from cheaper products is the work that goes into the texture. Some vegetarians carry the "it's just texture" view to the extreme and apply it to meat products in general, which is equally short-sighted.
   
   
3. This matter doesn't seem to have much to do with endangered species - even the OP says so. So it's curious how so many people jump onto these ideas. The fishers still have to obey international laws and only hunt non-endangered species.
   

On October 30 2011 10:48 yandere991 wrote:


What about the comparison to bluefin tuna something that you're own country opposed a export ban on even though it is endangered.

This reeks of politics, if you can ban something that doesn't affect the culture or the economy of the vast general populace and it makes you seem more 'ethical' then its a win. If you want to ban something that will affect your voting base even if it is deemed ethical then you'll be labeled as someone that is hurting local jobs. The best example is the the "Why should I pay" ad in Australia at the moment on why should we pay a carbon tax, its sickening.

On October 30 2011 12:01 Goshdarnit wrote:
As a lover a trying out different foods and fine foods in general I would normally find this annoying. But from the shark fin soup I have eaten (I do believe it was good quality, I paid enough for that shit to be worth it) my view is that the Fin itself doesn't add a huge amount to the flavor of the soup and the fact that no one will eat ANY other part of the shark disgusts me.
I mean the nail in the coffin for this situation is that the fins are cut off the shark and they are thrown back into the water... this is blatantly showing that what people are doing is like stealing, they don't even want to bring the actual shark back to port because of its pointlessness.
Maybe I would disagree with this law a little bit if sharkfin was one of the 3 most delicious foods in the world or something, but it simply isn't worth the cost.

Also from a humanistic standpoint it is incredible wasteful and stupid.

On October 30 2011 12:25 Paper117 wrote:
Question:
I was watching The Cove awhile back. If what they said about the mercury levels in dolphins making their meat unsafe is true, would that also apply to shark species? They're both really high on the food chain.

On October 30 2011 13:32 Warble wrote:


I think you are absolutely right that this is purely political.

And considering how many posts here continue along the "endangered" and "it's just texture" lines, it's clear that they hit a soft spot.

When people think of sharks, they think of the endangered species and think those species are the ones being hunted.

I also agree with you about the bluefin tuna issue, and overfishing is an issue I find disheartening. I think seafood in general is at risk, and it's more than just sharks, but there seems to be an underlying racism in these laws in the way they only target food products enjoyed by other cultures.





Again, I think this sort of thing is the result of an internal bias against other cultures.

The Chinese are not necessarily a wasteful culture. For example, they have managed to make chicken legs a delicacy - and I find chicken legs so revolting just to look at I can't even bring myself to try it. Yet they made it edible. This delicacy could only have come about from the Chinese's desire not to waste food.

So when you consider that and then consider the fact that they only use the fins from the shark, you can get a better idea of how disgusting the rest of the shark is.

Basically, the rest of the shark has no nutritional value and is used for other purposes.

Can we really accuse the Chinese of waste for not liking to eat the rest of the shark when we don't like to eat chicken legs?

Also consider how expensive shark fin soup is. There's no shortage of people trying to find alternative ways to make it.

I completely agree with you that throwing them back after cutting the fins is wasteful (I also think it's cruel), but I think an outright ban is taking it too far, and makes this smell more political than a humanist policy by the provinces in question.





Yes, from last I heard, mercury levels in sharks are high and dangerous. But so long as people are aware of the dangers, I'm happy to let them decide to eat it. I see it on the same level as people eating fugu.

I hear some places have tried to use this as grounds for banning shark fin, to "protect" people from themselves. This contributes to yandere's point: it is just a political thing. People have an aversion to the idea of eating sharks and just want to find any reason to ban it.

On October 30 2011 13:32 Warble wrote:


I think you are absolutely right that this is purely political.

And considering how many posts here continue along the "endangered" and "it's just texture" lines, it's clear that they hit a soft spot.

When people think of sharks, they think of the endangered species and think those species are the ones being hunted.

I also agree with you about the bluefin tuna issue, and overfishing is an issue I find disheartening. I think seafood in general is at risk, and it's more than just sharks, but there seems to be an underlying racism in these laws in the way they only target food products enjoyed by other cultures.





Again, I think this sort of thing is the result of an internal bias against other cultures.

The Chinese are not necessarily a wasteful culture. For example, they have managed to make chicken legs a delicacy - and I find chicken legs so revolting just to look at I can't even bring myself to try it. Yet they made it edible. This delicacy could only have come about from the Chinese's desire not to waste food.

So when you consider that and then consider the fact that they only use the fins from the shark, you can get a better idea of how disgusting the rest of the shark is.

Basically, the rest of the shark has no nutritional value and is used for other purposes.

Can we really accuse the Chinese of waste for not liking to eat the rest of the shark when we don't like to eat chicken legs?

Also consider how expensive shark fin soup is. There's no shortage of people trying to find alternative ways to make it.

I completely agree with you that throwing them back after cutting the fins is wasteful (I also think it's cruel), but I think an outright ban is taking it too far, and makes this smell more political than a humanist policy by the provinces in question.





Yes, from last I heard, mercury levels in sharks are high and dangerous. But so long as people are aware of the dangers, I'm happy to let them decide to eat it. I see it on the same level as people eating fugu.

I hear some places have tried to use this as grounds for banning shark fin, to "protect" people from themselves. This contributes to yandere's point: it is just a political thing. People have an aversion to the idea of eating sharks and just want to find any reason to ban it.

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.

On October 30 2011 14:36 Eknoid4 wrote:

Please explain to me how China is the minority.

Name a country with more people

On October 30 2011 14:36 Eknoid4 wrote:

Please explain to me how China is the minority.

Name a country with more people