11/3/2003: Japanese dolphin kill

Yes.

I still don't see how whether or not they raise the animals is relevant.

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


read

"read"? What is this strange thing "read" I have been hearing about?

[OnyxCougar]

OMFG!!

Sato said, "what's wrong with eating dolphins?"

Nothing.

Sato said, "There are Hindus, Muslims around the world who don't eat beef or pork, but do they tell Europeans not to eat this meat"

No. But Europeans raise these animals strictly for the purpose of slaughtering and eating them, so IT'S NOT THE SAME THING, and this is A STUPID FUCKING THING TO BRING UP BY WAY OF COMPARISON.

Apples and Oranges.

The comparison.

That's all. Just a point on the comparison.

Jesus H.

[OnyxCougar]

Somehow, some way, I have ceased to be able to express myself through the written word.

The part that scares me is that one of my minors in college is English.

I have never encountered so much frustration trying to express my opinions in written form than I have here.

I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person with a moderate vocabulary and at least rudimentary grasp of syntax.

How then, am I failing to communicate my thoughts on various issues?

[quzah]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
How then, am I failing to communicate my thoughts on various issues?

Because no one here can understand how it matters if they're raised or not. Killed is killed. Why does it matter if they raise dolphins or if they hunt them? They're dead either way. The death is the same. The slaughter is the same. Why does it matter if they're raised or if they're free swimming and caught and killed?

The point is, they're both dead. That's why no one can understand your point.

Hypocrisy: You getting sad at free little dolphins being killed, but it being ok to raise and kill cattle.

Quzah.

Pretty much what quzah said. It's not "apples and oranges" because one is raised and one isn't. I even stated before that one not being raised strictly for killing is easier to justify to many because at least the animals live a free life until they're killed. And you're getting all smarmy with "Thanks for playing" when you really don't have a point at all. Your comparision is stupid. Whether or not they were raised for food doesn't matter; the fact that they end up dead in the long run is the issue. Most groups fighting this don't want dolphins killed <b>at all</b>. It's not "we don't want wild dolphins being killed". They consider dolphins semi-intelligent creatures that, for more than one reason, should not be killed.

Stop being so fucking smarmy and try to read what others are saying instead of dismissing them outright and going "Thanks for playing". We've tried to read your post, it does <b>not</b> make sense, and I asked you to clarify. You come back with "this is A STUPID FUCKING THING TO BRING UP BY WAY OF COMPARISON" and quzah and I cannot possibly fathom how this is a STUPID FUCKING THING TO BRING UP BY WAY OF COMPARISON - because it's not. At the end of the day, animals got slaughtered and eaten. What's the difference? How does raising the animal make it "more better" to kill? How exactly is his comparison not valid if the end result is that animals die?

[coliano]

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.

[Whit]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Greetings Coliano, and welcome.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I see what you and OC are saying about the differences in the comparison but I think you are reading way to damn much into it. I don't think Sato was saying that killing dolphins is no more harmful to the sea than killing cows. He's talking about eating them. The quote was directly about eating dolphins. It didn't even reference how they die, yet that's been the big issue with the comparison. That's not what he was talking about. You've added way to much meaning to what was said. Keep it down to a comparison of eating one type of meat vs. another and you'll be on topic with the quote.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Now on the subject of the numbers of dolphins left in the wild... That should be solid grounds for making these slaughters internationally illegal. But that's another discussion.

[wolf]

My first impression on seeing the photo was "wow, that so has to be 'shopped."

Let me put it this way now, "I so hope that it's 'shopped."

(Snopes has not yet spoken on this particular issue.)

As far as DNK's slaughterhouse photos go, so what. I have no illusions where my dinner/breakfast meats are coming from. Seeing pictures of industrial meat production is not going to change my desire for tasty bacon (and hardened arteries. No illusions, remember?)

I don't feel worse about folks eating dolphins just because they're cute and appear to be darn smart. I wasn't all that attached to Flipper as a child. Pigs are supposed to be smart too. Doesn't stop me from enjoying a ham sandwich.

Hell, they had to rename dolphin fish in order to sell it in American restaurants.

[coliano]

Thanks Whit glad to be here. It's a great place and all you regulars are why I keep coming back,

No threadjack intended. I confess to not having read the accompanying article before posting. A sin I know

Having read it I understand the context. As you say he was simply comparing the eating of one type of meat vs. another.

So here's my 2c.

Sato aside however and without weighing in on whether killing animals for food is right or wrong I think that when endangered or imperiled species are at risk, 'cultural bias' should be a non-issue. The japanese in this case, rationalize the dolphin hunt to westerners as a 400 year old cultural tradition. While I can't morally justify my objections to their eating dolphins, I can certainly justify my objections to their *killing* them.

Hopefully it won't be too long before we can synthetically 'grow' the flesh of the animals we eat. I know signifigant strides are being made in that arena. Besides, dolphins are too cool to kill.

[wolf]

(are we sure these aren't actually sharks? Shark tastes great, you know)

[xoxoxoBruce]

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?

Ok, except cattle being the 2nd largest source of methane gas after termites, do have a significant impact on the ecosystem.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by quzah

Hypocrisy: You getting sad at free little dolphins being killed, but it being ok to raise and kill cattle.

Quzah.

I still don't understand why you think I'm a hypocrit on this:

If the Japanese were raising dolphins to be killed just like we raise cattle to be killed, Sato's comparison would be the same. But the Japanese aren't raising the dolphins, they are cornering them and slaughtering them, sometimes days going by before they actually die. Hence the outcry, the photo and this thread.

There is a difference between free animal and raised animal. So I feel different about free animal and raised animal.

Koreans eat dog. They breed and raise a certain type of dog for food. I've eaten dog when I was in Kunsan, Korea.

I don't have a problem with Koreans eating raised dog.
I would have a problem if a Korean came to my house, stole my dog and ate it, or if they went to the house across the street, someone I don't know, and stole their dog and ate it.

I think to me, the fundamental difference between raised meat and wild meat, is that in raised meat, there is less suffering in the butchering process than the descriptions in the greenpeace website in regards to these dolphins.

If you corral a bunch of cows, indescriminately stab away and it takes 3 days for the thing to die, I have a problem with that. If you corral a bunch of dogs, pigs, dolphins, sharks, pirahna, whatever, and they suffer for three days before they die, I have a problem with that.

I'm not thrilled about deer/elk/moose/rabbit/pheasant/quail/javelina/whatever hunting, because sometimes the animal gets wounded instead of killed, and runs away to die slowly. I think that's wrong. But...it is in accordance with the law and I will die to defend anyone's right to lawfully hunt game. That's why I said in the first posts, if the Japanese are hunting dolphins in accrdance with international law, it's not our place to decide for them. Doesn't mean I have to l like it.

But my original post, again stated for clarity, is about Sato's statement, as quoted by Whit, and Whit's reply that it's a logical argument. Coliano expressed it better than I did (thank god) and I've managed to calm down a little. I still do NOT see hypocrisy in my statements, quzah, and I want you to be more specific, pointing out places that I was.

[Undertoad]

And nothing in the thread about the relative intelligence of dolphins compared to cattle?

For me that's the thing that makes it no longer apples to apples. Cattle may not like being raised and slaughtered, but they lack any conscious concept of what's happening to them. While I would prefer they not suffer during the process, the fact that they can't ask why it's happening makes all the difference.

[OnyxCougar]

I'm sorry, UT, I'm so busy being misunderstood about the frigging quote, and being called a hypocrit because I eat meat, that I'm afraid to actually respond to that.