The Cellar - View Single Post

coliano · 11-03-2003, 11:25 PM

Hi everyone, I'm mostly a lurker, forgive me for jumping into such a hot thread. I love you all so whether you agree or disagree, so it's all good.

For the moment, lets forget about the picture of blood bay.

Onyx does have an absolutely valid point in that this is an apples to oranges issue. Here's why.

The quoted statements from Sato in Whit's post contained a logical fallacy. That fallacy was the implied assumption that the japanese killing dolphins and other cultures killing beef are an apple to apple comparison. They are not and I'll explain in a moment. Whit's comment that Sato had a logical point was really more emotional than logical. ;-) And I think that this is what Onyx has been trying to point out.

Western cultures have conditioned themselves to accept the killing of cows for food. The japanese have conditioned themselves to accept the killing of dolphins for food. Apples and Apples. You can substitute any creature you want for cows or dolphins. Cats, dogs, spiders, horses, you name it and there is a culture out there who considers it food. Sato is correct in that it would be wrong for one culture to impose its own standards of what is 'food' on another. In that sense, we're all 'guilty' and it's a thread for another forum whether or not killing animals for food is ethical or 'right' or what have you.

Sato and others are incorrect in stating that killing animals raised in captivity for that purpose and killing wild animals like dolphins are 'equal.' From a social/ethical/moral point of view yes, they are equal. It's killing an animal for food. There is however a major difference. When animals are born, bred, and slaughtered in captivity, you effectively have a closed system. The effects of that system on our ecosystem as a whole are relatively minimal*. The natural population of wild cattle (if such a thing exists) doesn't change no matter how many cattle farms there are. When the japanese kill wild dolphins, to such a degree that we know their global populations are dwindling, they are harming the entire ocean system and the ecosystems that depend on it by upseting the stability of populations that have evolved over millenia. They are in fact imposing their own culture on the entire world, are they not?

This is not to say that we do not do the same things. If Sato had compared the killing of dolphins with the eskimo hunting of endangered whale species, that would have been more of an apples to apples issue. Instead, he mixed a moral/ethical issue with one of global ecology. Apples and Oranges. No culture has the right to tell another what their cultural standards should be. Any culture has the right to take a stand when another culture's practices threaten the global ecosystem.

I think Onyx was just trying to point out that while it may seem logical to say that we're just as bad for killing cattle as they are for killing dolphins, Sato's logic just doesn't follow through to conclusion because it leaves out a big part of the equation. Morally speaking, we are just as 'bad' as they are. Globally speaking, raising cattle on farms to be slaughtered for food is immeasureably more responsible than driving any species of animal towards extinction (to be slaughtered for food).

Although the discussion in this thread may be about whether or not killing animals for food is right or wrong, the picture was of dolphins being killed and was (sort of) accompanied by a quote that kicked off the discussion. That quote contained a deceptive logical fallacy. Sato's point about relative morality was a straw man; I have no problem stating that in my opinion the world has every right to tell the japanese to stop killing dolphins.

In short, it was a nasty picture and definitely not a nice thing to think about. I think the Japanese are in the wrong on this one. At risk of flamage, I suppose you could say I agree with OnyxCougar here. That said, I think that "Thanks for playing" isn't the best note to end a post on. It's always better to learn something from someone elses post than to have your feelings hurt.

Thanks for listening ;-)

*I know, I know...debateable.

11-03-2003, 11:25 PM	#37
coliano Your last resort. Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Los Angeles, California, USA Posts: 10	Hi everyone, I'm mostly a lurker, forgive me for jumping into such a hot thread. I love you all so whether you agree or disagree, so it's all good. For the moment, lets forget about the picture of blood bay. Onyx does have an absolutely valid point in that this is an apples to oranges issue. Here's why. The quoted statements from Sato in Whit's post contained a logical fallacy. That fallacy was the implied assumption that the japanese killing dolphins and other cultures killing beef are an apple to apple comparison. They are not and I'll explain in a moment. Whit's comment that Sato had a logical point was really more emotional than logical. ;-) And I think that this is what Onyx has been trying to point out. Western cultures have conditioned themselves to accept the killing of cows for food. The japanese have conditioned themselves to accept the killing of dolphins for food. Apples and Apples. You can substitute any creature you want for cows or dolphins. Cats, dogs, spiders, horses, you name it and there is a culture out there who considers it food. Sato is correct in that it would be wrong for one culture to impose its own standards of what is 'food' on another. In that sense, we're all 'guilty' and it's a thread for another forum whether or not killing animals for food is ethical or 'right' or what have you. Sato and others are incorrect in stating that killing animals raised in captivity for that purpose and killing wild animals like dolphins are 'equal.' From a social/ethical/moral point of view yes, they are equal. It's killing an animal for food. There is however a major difference. When animals are born, bred, and slaughtered in captivity, you effectively have a closed system. The effects of that system on our ecosystem as a whole are relatively minimal. The natural population of wild cattle (if such a thing exists) doesn't change no matter how many cattle farms there are. When the japanese kill wild dolphins, to such a degree that we know their global populations are dwindling, they are harming the entire ocean system and the ecosystems that depend on it by upseting the stability of populations that have evolved over millenia. They are in fact imposing their own culture on the entire world, are they not? This is not to say that we do not do the same things. If Sato had compared the killing of dolphins with the eskimo hunting of endangered whale species, that would have been more of an apples to apples issue. Instead, he mixed a moral/ethical issue with one of global ecology. Apples and Oranges. No culture has the right to tell another what their cultural standards should be. Any culture has the right to take a stand when another culture's practices threaten the global ecosystem. I think Onyx was just trying to point out that while it may seem logical to say that we're just as bad for killing cattle as they are for killing dolphins, Sato's logic just doesn't follow through to conclusion because it leaves out a big part of the equation. Morally speaking, we are just as 'bad' as they are. Globally speaking, raising cattle on farms to be slaughtered for food is immeasureably more responsible than driving any species of animal towards extinction (to be slaughtered for food). Although the discussion in this thread may be about whether or not killing animals for food is right or wrong, the picture was of dolphins being killed and was (sort of) accompanied by a quote that kicked off the discussion. That quote contained a deceptive logical fallacy. Sato's point about relative morality was a straw man; I have no problem stating that in my opinion the world has every right to tell the japanese to stop killing dolphins. In short, it was a nasty picture and definitely not a nice thing to think about. I think the Japanese are in the wrong on this one. At risk of flamage, I suppose you could say I agree with OnyxCougar here. That said, I think that "Thanks for playing" isn't the best note to end a post on. It's always better to learn something from someone elses post than to have your feelings hurt. Thanks for listening ;-) I know, I know...debateable. __________________ ...maybe next time.