|
On October 26 2011 21:25 SolidGasPro wrote:
Nobody cares about the many slain pigs and chickens abundant in our everyday menu, but if we talk about Asians slaying sharks or kittens everybody freaks out.
Double standards?
Because there are tens of billions of cattle and pigs and we have many ways to sustain their population and keep it extremely humane in the process.
Going around slaughtering sharks in the ocean by ripping their fins off, dropping then back in and letting them sink to the bottom and slowly die in the hundreds of thousands every year with no form of preservation, leading to mass extinction.
If you can't differentiate between the two, you're fucking retarded.
User was warned for this post
|
The current methods of shark finning are ridiculous. The difference with farming on land is that is well regulated and highly sustainable. It is not just the way in which it is done which is bad. The killing of so many sharks offsets oceanic ecosystems and will have knock on effects further down the food chain. So many species of becoming endangered species and others so close to the brink of extinction that a lose of the species from food webs would be catastrophic, this is considering that the loss of so many sharks isn't being felt already.
Even if we stop finning now, ecosystems wont just recover instantly, we can have a huge impact over such a short time but it will take years to return to normal if ever. Perhaps if I gave an example it would help. With current methods of fishing, only the largest of the species are caught and in days gone past the largest of the species would have the competitive advantage as they could eat more and bigger fish and would not be attacked by other species. But as we fish out the largest, the smaller species get the advantage and there is evidence of fish and even shark maturing at an earlier age and also at a smaller size to avoid the fishing nets (see Beacham 1983a).
This kind of impact is huge in the natural world and it will not only require a stop to destructive finning methods and fishing but also years of careful conservation and enforced regulation which is not present today.
|
It seems that education or..prevention of the animal cruelty is the compelling arguement. Would people be more "acceptable" of killing the whole shark instead of throwing a finless shark back in
|
Banning the sale of rhino horn (also used in Chinese medicine; surprise surprise) hasn't killed the demand; it's only driven crafty enterpreneurs into Europe's auction houses to buy up any existing rhino trophies currently hanging on the walls of stately homes.
And poaching need not even be mentioned, because it happens now and will continue to happen in the future.
|
On October 26 2011 21:44 Williammm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 21:25 kidcrash wrote:On October 26 2011 21:12 Williammm wrote:On October 26 2011 20:57 Trusty wrote:On October 26 2011 20:24 Williammm wrote:
Banning due to sustainability issues, I can understand.
But anything like moral and ethical issues are just bullshit. There is no humane way to kill an animal. Killing is killing, and I know most people associate degrees of pain an animal feels to calculate the level of ethical responsibility and morality. Honestly though, why should that even matter. The moment you decide to kill a living thing, you've already breached issues of ethics and morality. Stop being so self righteous.
The reasons for the ban were justified assuming that they're true. /story Are you saying animals don't feel pain? Would you like to have all your limbs cut off, then left to bleed out & die in the middle of the street? or would you prefer to have a lethal injection / gunshot to the head / anything else painless/instant. Totally agree that killing is killing and it's already crossing ethical/moral lines, but saying 'there is no human way' to kill an animal is bullshit. If they are going to run around killing sharks for their fins, at least stab it's brain, like any normal person who goes fishing.
I'm not saying they don't feel pain. I'm saying why should that matter, and why are we applying human emotions and concepts to another species whom we deem as food. You're comparing within species killing as oppose to the act of killing for food. Two completely different things. As I said before, it's just something we apply to other living things to make us feel better. Whether I prefer lethal injection or what not performed by ANOTHER human is a completely different issue. I, in that situation am not dehumanised in anyway. So as long as I'm perceived as humanity to the murderer, the humane killing concept applies. As soon as dehumanisation occurs, your end result is something akin to genocide and holocaust, brutal killings etc. Horrible thing because they're still people to me, but the question is why are you trying to make the sharks out like humans? They're just food, and the moment you deny they're food you're just kidding yourself. You've got to be kidding me. What we deem as food is completely subjective. Maybe I think your pet dog is a delicacy? What if I chopped off his legs and "released" him back into his environment? Your whole post is basically a justification for animal abuse and it kind of sickens me. We are on the top of the food chain. Whatever we can eat is food. That's objective truth. The scenario you described is not only unlikely but it's quite removed from the subject. Do you hold some sort of bond with sharks or something? Concept of animal abuse is also subjective and doesn't apply when we're killing the animal for its resources. Like i said before, the moment you choose to kill an animal, no other moral or ethical issues come into play. Death is the definitive end. You're wrong for doing it. With that said, if we are killing for food or its other resources it is completely justified in today's free market society and also biologically speaking ( we are omnivores). Are you going to go vegetarian or vegan? if not, please kindly shut up. If you are, that is your lifestyle and your choice. don't impose your beliefs on other people or bring it up in a topic that doesn't apply to you. If you do happen to have a human connection with animals, good for you, and good day to you sir.
If you think in such Darwinian terms, which I accept as it is totally logical, then moral arguments against shark finning are precluded. But shark finning causes ecological damage which in turn affects humans adversely, meaning that shark finning should still be banned in view of long term human interests.
|
On October 26 2011 21:49 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 21:44 Williammm wrote:On October 26 2011 21:25 kidcrash wrote:On October 26 2011 21:12 Williammm wrote:On October 26 2011 20:57 Trusty wrote:On October 26 2011 20:24 Williammm wrote:
Banning due to sustainability issues, I can understand.
But anything like moral and ethical issues are just bullshit. There is no humane way to kill an animal. Killing is killing, and I know most people associate degrees of pain an animal feels to calculate the level of ethical responsibility and morality. Honestly though, why should that even matter. The moment you decide to kill a living thing, you've already breached issues of ethics and morality. Stop being so self righteous.
The reasons for the ban were justified assuming that they're true. /story Are you saying animals don't feel pain? Would you like to have all your limbs cut off, then left to bleed out & die in the middle of the street? or would you prefer to have a lethal injection / gunshot to the head / anything else painless/instant. Totally agree that killing is killing and it's already crossing ethical/moral lines, but saying 'there is no human way' to kill an animal is bullshit. If they are going to run around killing sharks for their fins, at least stab it's brain, like any normal person who goes fishing.
I'm not saying they don't feel pain. I'm saying why should that matter, and why are we applying human emotions and concepts to another species whom we deem as food. You're comparing within species killing as oppose to the act of killing for food. Two completely different things. As I said before, it's just something we apply to other living things to make us feel better. Whether I prefer lethal injection or what not performed by ANOTHER human is a completely different issue. I, in that situation am not dehumanised in anyway. So as long as I'm perceived as humanity to the murderer, the humane killing concept applies. As soon as dehumanisation occurs, your end result is something akin to genocide and holocaust, brutal killings etc. Horrible thing because they're still people to me, but the question is why are you trying to make the sharks out like humans? They're just food, and the moment you deny they're food you're just kidding yourself. You've got to be kidding me. What we deem as food is completely subjective. Maybe I think your pet dog is a delicacy? What if I chopped off his legs and "released" him back into his environment? Your whole post is basically a justification for animal abuse and it kind of sickens me. We are on the top of the food chain. Whatever we can eat is food. That's objective truth. The scenario you described is not only unlikely but it's quite removed from the subject. Do you hold some sort of bond with sharks or something? Concept of animal abuse is also subjective and doesn't apply when we're killing the animal for its resources. Like i said before, the moment you choose to kill an animal, no other moral or ethical issues come into play. Death is the definitive end. You're wrong for doing it. With that said, if we are killing for food or its other resources it is completely justified in today's free market society and also biologically speaking ( we are omnivores). Are you going to go vegetarian or vegan? if not, please kindly shut up. If you are, that is your lifestyle and your choice. don't impose your beliefs on other people or bring it up in a topic that doesn't apply to you. If you do happen to have a human connection with animals, good for you, and good day to you sir. If you think in such Darwinian terms, which I accept as it is totally logical, then moral arguments against shark finning are precluded. But shark finning causes ecological damage which in turn affects humans adversely, meaning that shark finning should still be banned in view of long term human interests.
Never said ecological damage isn't justified. Just the moral and ethical aspect of culling an animal is just bullshit. I agree with you, something this damaging and unsustainable isn't worth doing. Reasons beyond that, are just not credible or sufficient to win any battles against the system.
|
On October 26 2011 21:48 bonifaceviii wrote:
Banning the sale of rhino horn (also used in Chinese medicine; surprise surprise) hasn't killed the demand; it's only driven crafty enterpreneurs into Europe's auction houses to buy up any existing rhino trophies currently hanging on the walls of stately homes.
And poaching need not even be mentioned, because it happens now and will continue to happen in the future.
Sharkfins can decay though =/ besides I can't hang it anywhere unlike rhino horns
|
On October 26 2011 21:44 Williammm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 21:25 kidcrash wrote:On October 26 2011 21:12 Williammm wrote:On October 26 2011 20:57 Trusty wrote:On October 26 2011 20:24 Williammm wrote:
Banning due to sustainability issues, I can understand.
But anything like moral and ethical issues are just bullshit. There is no humane way to kill an animal. Killing is killing, and I know most people associate degrees of pain an animal feels to calculate the level of ethical responsibility and morality. Honestly though, why should that even matter. The moment you decide to kill a living thing, you've already breached issues of ethics and morality. Stop being so self righteous.
The reasons for the ban were justified assuming that they're true. /story Are you saying animals don't feel pain? Would you like to have all your limbs cut off, then left to bleed out & die in the middle of the street? or would you prefer to have a lethal injection / gunshot to the head / anything else painless/instant. Totally agree that killing is killing and it's already crossing ethical/moral lines, but saying 'there is no human way' to kill an animal is bullshit. If they are going to run around killing sharks for their fins, at least stab it's brain, like any normal person who goes fishing.
I'm not saying they don't feel pain. I'm saying why should that matter, and why are we applying human emotions and concepts to another species whom we deem as food. You're comparing within species killing as oppose to the act of killing for food. Two completely different things. As I said before, it's just something we apply to other living things to make us feel better. Whether I prefer lethal injection or what not performed by ANOTHER human is a completely different issue. I, in that situation am not dehumanised in anyway. So as long as I'm perceived as humanity to the murderer, the humane killing concept applies. As soon as dehumanisation occurs, your end result is something akin to genocide and holocaust, brutal killings etc. Horrible thing because they're still people to me, but the question is why are you trying to make the sharks out like humans? They're just food, and the moment you deny they're food you're just kidding yourself. You've got to be kidding me. What we deem as food is completely subjective. Maybe I think your pet dog is a delicacy? What if I chopped off his legs and "released" him back into his environment? Your whole post is basically a justification for animal abuse and it kind of sickens me. We are on the top of the food chain. Whatever we can eat is food. That's objective truth. The scenario you described is not only unlikely but it's quite removed from the subject. Do you hold some sort of bond with sharks or something? Concept of animal abuse is also subjective and doesn't apply when we're killing the animal for its resources. Like i said before, the moment you choose to kill an animal, no other moral or ethical issues come into play. Death is the definitive end. You're wrong for doing it. With that said, if we are killing for food or its other resources it is completely justified in today's free market society and also biologically speaking ( we are omnivores). Are you going to go vegetarian or vegan? if not, please kindly shut up. If you are, that is your lifestyle and your choice. don't impose your beliefs on other people or bring it up in a topic that doesn't apply to you. If you do happen to have a human connection with animals, good for you, and good day to you sir.
Wrong. What part of chopping off it's fin and releasing it back into the environment don't you understand. Basically what you're saying is death is wrong no matter how you do it. So that means if you had to choose between a long drawn out and painful death for 2 hours or being shot in the brain, you would be indifferent? Don't make me laugh.
Also, who cares if I'm vegan or vegetarian? So if there are X number of animals inhumanely dying and I support a cause that saves a number less than X, it's ineffective? That's like saying metal detectors aren't always 100% effective so why use them?
The moment I choose to kill an animal no other moral or ethical issue comes to play? How is animal abuse subjective? Either something is being tortured or its not.
|
for me this stands in the same line as slaughtering Rhinos or Elephants for their Horns/Tusks. Totally appreciate that ban
|
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.
So you're in favor of abhorrent cruelty to sentient (albeit stupider) conscious beings... Torture... So people can have soup. Screw you (rhetorical device and not a personal attack) and your cruel traditions.
|
oh cool sharks are sentient. didn't know that. thx for da info.
|
These protestors are saying: “An unfair and irresponsible act.”
How is this an irresponsible act? Slaying sharks and dumping them back to die is responsible??
I am of chinese nationality living in Toronto and I am happy to see it banned and all the chinese businesses squirm.The majority of chinese don't give a crap about the environment they just want a good taste in their mouth and $$ in their pockets.
What is the good if all the sharks die out?, there is going to be a stop now or later. Canada is setting the good example for the rest of the world to follow. I highly doubt china or taiwan or the other asian countries will follow. But at least we did the right thing. That matters.
|
On October 26 2011 18:42 Divergence wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 18:37 kazie wrote:
oh the hypocrisy. do these shark lovers know this is exactly what vegetarians think of the whole meat industry? ramsay must be faking disgust in that video cuz i doubt he's that stupid One step at a time bro. You can't call someone a hypocrite for being willing to stake a step towards a more sustainable and ethical world. This is pretty blatantly wasteful and by now quite exposed to the general public. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the meat industry the entire animal is utilized better than the dead sharks are.
how sustainable do you think the business of beef is? got any idea the kind of ecological footprint that industry has in the USA?
i've eaten shark fin once in my life, it was meh. i can't say i'm against the ban on ethical grounds and if they're endangered.
|
On October 26 2011 21:55 arbitrageur wrote:Show nested quote +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. So you're in favor of abhorrent cruelty to sentient (albeit stupider) conscious beings... Torture... So people can have soup. Screw you and your cruel traditions.
you mean to say you don't eat meat?
|
On October 26 2011 21:58 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 21:55 arbitrageur wrote: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. So you're in favor of abhorrent cruelty to sentient (albeit stupider) conscious beings... Torture... So people can have soup. Screw you and your cruel traditions. you mean to say you don't eat meat?
yeah I eat meat... because they're shot in the head with a bolt gun before they're killed. Standard practice isn't to cut a chunk out of them and leave them to die. As I've said, the reason I think this ban is good is because I care more about whether (purportedly) conscious creatures feel pain than for human's right to a certain type of soup.
|
On October 26 2011 20:41 PolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 20:34 Scarecrow wrote: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. The law unfairly targets those who are involved in the business of wastefully slaughtering endangered animals in a cruel manner. It's not the majority's fault chinese cuisine and medicine has so many instances of this: Shark fin, bear bile, tiger penises etc. Show nested quote +It's not the majority's fault chinese cuisine and medicine has so many instances of this: Shark fin, bear bile, tiger penises etc. What in the WORLD are those used for...?
Traditional Chinese Medicine. It's quite the contributor to why the tiger is on the brink of extinction.
|
Good on Toronto and Mississauga, but you know Markham's never going to ban it so this is really a moot point anyway.
Need some shark fins? Drive to Markham!
|
I wasn't under the impression that sharks were endangered. I thought quite the opposite. I believe we should try and preserve biodiversity wherever we can.
|
On October 26 2011 21:54 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 21:44 Williammm wrote:On October 26 2011 21:25 kidcrash wrote:On October 26 2011 21:12 Williammm wrote:On October 26 2011 20:57 Trusty wrote:On October 26 2011 20:24 Williammm wrote:
Banning due to sustainability issues, I can understand.
But anything like moral and ethical issues are just bullshit. There is no humane way to kill an animal. Killing is killing, and I know most people associate degrees of pain an animal feels to calculate the level of ethical responsibility and morality. Honestly though, why should that even matter. The moment you decide to kill a living thing, you've already breached issues of ethics and morality. Stop being so self righteous.
The reasons for the ban were justified assuming that they're true. /story Are you saying animals don't feel pain? Would you like to have all your limbs cut off, then left to bleed out & die in the middle of the street? or would you prefer to have a lethal injection / gunshot to the head / anything else painless/instant. Totally agree that killing is killing and it's already crossing ethical/moral lines, but saying 'there is no human way' to kill an animal is bullshit. If they are going to run around killing sharks for their fins, at least stab it's brain, like any normal person who goes fishing.
I'm not saying they don't feel pain. I'm saying why should that matter, and why are we applying human emotions and concepts to another species whom we deem as food. You're comparing within species killing as oppose to the act of killing for food. Two completely different things. As I said before, it's just something we apply to other living things to make us feel better. Whether I prefer lethal injection or what not performed by ANOTHER human is a completely different issue. I, in that situation am not dehumanised in anyway. So as long as I'm perceived as humanity to the murderer, the humane killing concept applies. As soon as dehumanisation occurs, your end result is something akin to genocide and holocaust, brutal killings etc. Horrible thing because they're still people to me, but the question is why are you trying to make the sharks out like humans? They're just food, and the moment you deny they're food you're just kidding yourself. You've got to be kidding me. What we deem as food is completely subjective. Maybe I think your pet dog is a delicacy? What if I chopped off his legs and "released" him back into his environment? Your whole post is basically a justification for animal abuse and it kind of sickens me. We are on the top of the food chain. Whatever we can eat is food. That's objective truth. The scenario you described is not only unlikely but it's quite removed from the subject. Do you hold some sort of bond with sharks or something? Concept of animal abuse is also subjective and doesn't apply when we're killing the animal for its resources. Like i said before, the moment you choose to kill an animal, no other moral or ethical issues come into play. Death is the definitive end. You're wrong for doing it. With that said, if we are killing for food or its other resources it is completely justified in today's free market society and also biologically speaking ( we are omnivores). Are you going to go vegetarian or vegan? if not, please kindly shut up. If you are, that is your lifestyle and your choice. don't impose your beliefs on other people or bring it up in a topic that doesn't apply to you. If you do happen to have a human connection with animals, good for you, and good day to you sir. Wrong. What part of chopping off it's fin and releasing it back into the environment don't you understand. Basically what you're saying it death is wrong no matter how you do it. So that means if you had to choose between a long drawn out and painful death for 2 hours or being shot in the brain, you would be indifferent? Don't make me laugh. Also, who cares if I'm vegan or vegetarian? So if there are X number of animals inhumanely dying and I support a cause that saves a number less than X, it's ineffective? That's like saying metal detectors aren't always 100% effective so why use them? The moment I choose to kill an animal no other moral or ethical issue comes to play? How is animal abuse subjective? Either something is being tortured or its not.
For starters, the moment the fisherman fishes up the shark, the decision is already made that he will be the reason for the shark's death. He/she does not release it back into the environment, the fisherman discards the carcass.
Second of all, you're creating scenarios of hypothetical situations that again would not likely occur. We're not saving the animals here, we're talking about killing them. No saving involved. Effectiveness is 0 because there's nothing to be saved. You can not compare that with metal detectors.
Torture is also outside of the issue if death ensues. If the animal were living with no intention of killing it, then torture is the issue of moral and ethical concern. If death is the purpose. nothing else matters. Also torture implies intent on harming for pleasure. I can assure you the fishermans are simply performing their duty, and nothing more of that.
your arguments are invalid
|
Honestly, protesting against this ban is just plain silly. It feeks like some weird stuff in the mouth and its flavor is like nothing...
Human greed and selfishness is all I can say....even if the whole shark is taken instead of being thrown away, its still bad for numerous reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
