PDA

View Full Version : Japan begins annual "fishing" of 20,000 dolphins



John Lindsey
16th September 2003, 17:29
http://www.cdnn.info/eco/e030911a/e030911a.html

Senjojutsu
16th September 2003, 19:00
As Bud would say to Flipper his pet Dolphin:

    Get away Flipper, go get Sandy and Dad !!!

...from the TV Show FLIPPER aired on NBC 1964-1967

Vapour
16th September 2003, 23:19
Now, if this is about you shouldn't eat animals which are cute but o.k. to eat other animal who fail to develope a evolutionaly trait to suck up to human, I'm not buying it.

Kobe
17th September 2003, 00:43
Vapour,
As a japanese, you should know that to kill the dolphins have noting to do with eating them(unlike the whale hunting, with "scientific purposes") but to exterminate a competence for the fishermen.
Being cute in Japan can be very dangerous, at least for the dolphins, unless they have japanese legal residence like tama-chan.

Mekugi
18th September 2003, 02:57
I think they should donate Tama-chan to an Eskimo Family, personally.
IMHO hunting is not hurting or endangering the Dolphin population. Futhermore if there is a demand/use for the meat, to me it is OK to hunt them for food. I think the same thing about whaling, and having eaten whale meat, I can assure you that the whale is a useful animal in corpse form. What I am not for, however, is hunting them into extinction- which is pretty much what happened at the turn of the century. Simple foolishness. I totally believe in conservation of natural resources- however this is not something I feel that the Japanese are capable of maintaining given their fishing practices of the past.

I am not going to fall pray to lines like "they cry" or other crap like that. When one kills *anything* it usually makes a god-aweful noise unless it is snuffed right away. If one really wants to hear cries of pain, pig-sticking is something that can haunt you for ages. No one seems to complain about the bacon though, unless they are the vegan bunch (or Muslim/Islam).

I do agree with the Auqarium deal here, though. I hate watching wild animals being caged up. Japan has some HORRIBLE zoos and theme parks with endangered species in them, and I do not know how they get away with keeping these animals locked up as they are. The conditions are deplorable and the plight of these poor beasts is apperant. I simply do not like that whatsoever, it seems crueler to me than to slaughter them.

Remember, the only reasons Dolphins aren't eating us is because they haven't figured out how to do it yet (give em time though...).


SO long, and thanks for all the fish.

MarkF
18th September 2003, 10:32
IMHO hunting is not hurting or endangering the Dolphin population. Futhermore if there is a demand/use for the meat, to me it is OK to hunt them for food.

They don't mention at all, the dolphin killed in the fishing industry. You can hear them, all right, you can also hear the Madagascar Hissing cockroach, too, but other than strange festivals in some countries, eg, Mexico which honors the bug by eating them, they survive just fine. Dolphins don't. Either do whales. Most species are either extinct or on the edge.

Then there is the Japanese fetish of eating anything from wild animals raw as some sort of Viagra effect. Drink fresh, raw eel blood, get it up more often. Eat raw dolphin hearts, same thing, or bear gallbladders and on and on. We can see how well that is working by looking at the reproductive statistics. Truly, their own acts speak for themselves. When they are prevented from doing it to people, they turn to the next closest thing. Let's ask the famous Japanese cannibal who seems to make the talk show circuit often enough, how "sexy" it made him feel to eat "his girl's" lips.

There is no need for dolphin as food just as there is no need, especially for whales as food. It is simply a bad habit from the deep past which needs to be discarded. I have no problem with the good taste for eating squid marinated and coated in a paste of its own guts, but it is silly to equate that with eating dolphins and whales.

In fact, Japan, in many ways, needs desparately to arrive in the 21st century. We can see how they handled the last one.

I wonder how many upper class Japanese use elephant feet as umbrella stands. Any living thing can be used as food, common sense says which ones.

This is my oh so not humble opinion of a certain practice[s] of some Japanese people and is not an indictment of the Japanese as a people, just the ones that are silly enough to defend such practices mentioned in the article linked in the topic post.


Mark

Kimpatsu
18th September 2003, 10:48
Originally posted by Kobe
Being cute in Japan can be very dangerous, at least for the dolphins, unless they have japanese legal residence like tama-chan.
Which not even we long-term residents can get.

MarkF
18th September 2003, 11:01
No one seems to complain about the bacon though, unless they are the vegan bunch (or Muslim/Islam). Or Jews. Koshroot law is very specific and Islamic law forbidding the consumption of many/most of the same things are closer than most would like to admit.

At any rate, pork is raised for food and is in no danger of extinction. Good taste (estoteric or pragmatic) dictate what one is willing to eat and what one isn't (willing).

BTW: Most animals raised as food is eletrically stunned before being killed for preparation for food (except for Koshroot law which expressly forbids any kind of such dispatching). Ask Joe Frazier, he worked in a Kosher slaughter house as a teenager.


I do agree with the Auqarium deal here, though. I hate watching wild animals being caged up. Japan has some HORRIBLE zoos and theme parks with endangered species in them, and I do not know how they get away with keeping these animals locked up as they are. The conditions are deplorable and the plight of these poor beasts is apperant. I simply do not like that whatsoever, it seems crueler to me than to slaughter them.

Agreed. However, you must remember these are many of the same people who don't find torture or the killing of same as "horrible," rather they approve of it. It makes them feel "superior." I would think there are better ways to demonstrate that, though.


Remember, the only reasons Dolphins aren't eating us is because they haven't figured out how to do it yet (give em time though...).

That's a joke, right?


Mark

Vapour
18th September 2003, 13:26
Originally posted by Kobe
Vapour,
As a japanese, you should know that to kill the dolphins have noting to do with eating them(unlike the whale hunting, with "scientific purposes") but to exterminate a competence for the fishermen.
Being cute in Japan can be very dangerous, at least for the dolphins, unless they have japanese legal residence like tama-chan.

So it's more like farmer shooting fox or wolf then. Same thing in my view.

As of wale hunting for scientific purpose, it was bullock from the point it was introduced. It was a deal struck so that Japan can continue hunting whale for food while at the same time singing treaty to ban such activities. In international treaty, one can simply not go along and get away with it unless it is WMD. Your quotation mark seems to indicate you know that.

I don't know the detail of tama-chan stuff as I no longer keep truck of news back home but I'm quite sure tama-chan is honouraly rather than legal residence of Japan. We are quite anal on this kind of issue. Any paper works done in benefit of tamachan as citizen wouldn't have any legal standing in actual court of law.

I can agree to disagree with people who are vegetarian in this issue though whale produce far more meat per life than other animal. Also argument for preservation of species is valid argument. However, refusal of some countries to accept obvious scientific evidence published in accredit academic journal which show that some type of whale are indeed not endangered species at all seems to show that argument itself is just a disguise. "We can't even afford 0.00001% margin of error" or "no statitistica evidence is 100% certain" is fine argument if you actually practice such anal standard of proof in other area which they obviously fail to do.

Vapour
18th September 2003, 13:35
Oh, as of me not knowing majority of dolpine are not killed for food, I knew it but the article concerened started with "Japanese kill almost 20,000 dolphins every year for food." so I skip the rest of the article.

To be honest, I was suprised that dolphins are used for food. I assumed that they taste bad.

By the way, I can't be sure on this but killing dolpine is not so uncommon practice even outside of japan. Just like farmer don't have problem killing fox, I assume fishermen don't have problem killing fox of the sea if it will improve their livelyhood.

Kimpatsu
18th September 2003, 14:07
Dolphins are more intelligent than foxes, so the analogy doesn't hold water. Dolphins are smart enough to understand, and have internalised, abstract concepts. Killing them is a little too like murder.
---
Tama-chan may have honorary residence, but she was made a citizen of Japan in a big publicity stunt, resulting in protest marches in which we gaijin demanded the same treatment. You can read more details, (http://homepage.mac.com/wishtokyo/tamachan/News05English.pdf) if you like.

Vapour
19th September 2003, 00:39
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Dolphins are more intelligent than foxes, so the analogy doesn't hold water. Dolphins are smart enough to understand, and have internalised, abstract concepts. Killing them is a little too like murder.
---
Tama-chan may have honorary residence, but she was made a citizen of Japan in a big publicity stunt, resulting in protest marches in which we gaijin demanded the same treatment. You can read more details, (http://homepage.mac.com/wishtokyo/tamachan/News05English.pdf) if you like.

I just pointed out that some people made factual error on the status of tamachan. That is all. No point worked up about it. Tamachan can't vote even he is allowed to do so legally which is not the case anyway.

Pig are far more intelligent than dog but that doesn't stop people from eating pig. Intelligence was never crietia as to which animals to be meat for human consumption. Why not limit us to eating fish as they are more dammer than cow. Or for that matter why not eat plant because they got zero intelligence.

As I said, I can agree to disagree with vegitarian but not with people who exercise selective cultural judement. And as I said previously, I haven't got problem with preservation of species argument if they do agree to set and follow criteria of what is endangered species which for some reason, some countries refuse to do for whales. I wonder why.

Striking Hand
19th September 2003, 00:45
Originally posted by Vapour

To be honest, I was suprised that dolphins are used for food. I assumed that they taste bad.

A lot of the meat at Kujira restaurants often is dolphin meat.

I have no problem with killing ANY animal as long as it is used for food, goods or similar, naturally over-fishing is bad. Look at the Cod population worldwide nearly gone from overfishing, anybody wory about them??

But I think it is still a better practice than catching 1 million plus sharks annualy cut their fins off and drop them back into the sea alive to die slowly.

I think more dolphins die by being caught in fishing nets, pollution and similar annually than the 20.000 quoted in the article.

Vapour
19th September 2003, 00:47
Originally posted by Striking Hand
A lot of the meat at Kujira restaurants often is dolphin meat.

I have no problem with killing ANY animal as long as it is used for food, goods or similar, naturally over-fishing is bad. Look at the Cod population worldwide nearly gone from overfishing, anybody wory about them??

But I think it is still a better practice than catching 1 million plus sharks annualy cut their fins off and drop them back into the sea alive to die slowly.

I think more dolphins die by being caught in fishing nets, pollution and similar annually than the 20.000 quoted in the article.

Wow, I didn't know that. Hmmmmmmmm, dolphine stake.

Striking Hand
19th September 2003, 01:06
Correction on the Shark-Fin info.

Annually between 80~150 MILLION sharks are annually killed for their fins.
Some rekon that those figures are still too low.

Article (http://www.nova.edu/ocean/sharksoup.html)

Think about how the shark died next time you order that shark-fin soup.
;)

Kimpatsu
19th September 2003, 01:56
Originally posted by Vapour
I just pointed out that some people made factual error on the status of tamachan. That is all. No point worked up about it. Tamachan can't vote even he is allowed to do so legally which is not the case anyway.
Wrong, Tama-chan can vote, but I don't see the bloody animal exercisignthat right any time soon.

Originally posted by Vapour
Pig are far more intelligent than dog but that doesn't stop people from eating pig. Intelligence was never crietia as to which animals to be meat for human consumption. Why not limit us to eating fish as they are more dammer than cow. Or for that matter why not eat plant because they got zero intelligence.
It doesn't stop SOME people eating pork. There you go with sweeping statements again.

Originally posted by Vapour
As I said, I can agree to disagree with vegitarian but not with people who exercise selective cultural judement. And as I said previously, I haven't got problem with preservation of species argument if they do agree to set and follow criteria of what is endangered species which for some reason, some countries refuse to do for whales. I wonder why.
"Selective judgement"? Methinks thou dost protest too much.
BTW, when all the whales and dolphins have been hunted to extinction, what will you eat then?

Vapour
19th September 2003, 02:53
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Wrong, Tama-chan can vote, but I don't see the bloody animal exercisignthat right any time soon.

It doesn't stop SOME people eating pork. There you go with sweeping statements again.

"Selective judgement"? Methinks thou dost protest too much.
BTW, when all the whales and dolphins have been hunted to extinction, what will you eat then?

Wow, I hope you are not joking here. If he has legal entitlement to vote, I think my country is the first one to give voting right to non human. If animal right activist takes over the world, they might make the day global holiday. Are you really really sure that seal can vote in Japan?

As of pig, are you a vegetarian? If not, what you said is mere semantic argument which doesn't mean anything. Make no difference whether people in general eat pig or some eat pig given that these"some" actually are majority in where you come from originally and where you live currently.

As of "when all the whales and dolphins have been hunted to extinction, what will you eat then?", I support banning of commercial fishing of these animal before that. I'm happy not to eat shark fin, too. As of dolphine and some type of whale, I see no problem eating it.

Striking Hand
19th September 2003, 02:56
Tony.

If I remember correctly Tama-Chan was only granted permanent resident status not japanese citizenship.

Seeya.

Kimpatsu
19th September 2003, 03:06
Originally posted by Vapour
Wow, I hope you are not joking here. If he has legal entitlement to vote, I think my country is the first one to give voting right to non human. If animal right activist takes over the world, they might make the day global holiday. Are you really really sure that seal can vote in Japan?
That's what the ward mayor was claiming. He even made a jke about hoping the seal would vote for him. Of course, being a Japanese politician, he may know bugger all about the law, and simply think that Tama-chan can vote.

Originally posted by Vapour
As of pig, are you a vegetarian? If not, what you said is mere semantic argument which doesn't mean anything. Make no difference whether people in general eat pig or some eat pig given that these"some" actually are majority in where you come from originally and where you live currently.
That's a specious argument. Even if pigs are more intelligent than dogs, whales and dolphins are in a whole other category of intelligence.
Anyway, dogs are cuter than pigs. ;)

Originally posted by Vapour
As of "when all the whales and dolphins have been hunted to extinction, what will you eat then?", I support banning of commercial fishing of these animal before that. I'm happy not to eat shark fin, too. As of dolphine and some type of whale, I see no problem eating it.
No, you wouldn't see a problem. Overfishing is also a problem to be sure, but that's why the EU has limited cod quotas, for example.
I'll ask you again: after you've hunted whales to extinction, what will you eat then?

Big
19th September 2003, 05:47
For many people this is a highly emotive argument. But eating dolphin or whale is no different to eating any other fish. There are many animals that have high intelligence that we consume. There are many other species that we consume that are closer to extinction.

If allowed I believe we would start farming dolphins and whale, like we do with so many other fish.

I find eating dog or cat repugnant, mainly becuase of the taste, but am I going to go to Korea or China and start telling them what they should not eat???

Time for lunch. Mmmmmmmmm...

jamata

oki maku

Kimpatsu
19th September 2003, 05:49
Originally posted by Big
For many people this is a highly emotive argument. But eating dolphin or whale is no different to eating any other fish. You just condemned your argument right there.
"Other fish"? Dolphins and whales aren't fish; they're mammals. Shame on you for not knowing the difference.

Vapour
19th September 2003, 22:47
Some type of whale are far from endangered, a fact whale lover blatantly ignore by by repeating their mantra that "whale are enagengered species."

Reverse of this argument is to say that there are plenty of feline in the world so it is o.k. to hunt lion.

As of dolpine, there are plenty of dolpine, so endenagered species argument doesn't work here while this works for shark and other fish. Unfortunately, these species aren't cute enough to be cared while so called lover of planet waste disproportionate effor protecting "symbolic" species like dolpine and whales.

Some people fail to distinguish their cultural value (Cute=dolpine, Not Cute=Shark) with responsible management for renewable resource (dolpine = plenty, Shark = endengered). If we keep this up, only those who evolve to suck up to human would be left on this planet.

Kimpatsu
20th September 2003, 00:20
Originally posted by Vapour
Some type of whale are far from endangered, a fact whale lover blatantly ignore by by repeating their mantra that "whale are enagengered species."
Name one.

Originally posted by Vapour
Reverse of this argument is to say that there are plenty of feline in the world so it is o.k. to hunt lion.
Do you intend to eat the lion? No? So the comparison is meaningless.

Originally posted by Vapour
As of dolpine, there are plenty of dolpine, so endenagered species argument doesn't work here while this works for shark and other fish. Unfortunately, these species aren't cute enough to be cared while so called lover of planet waste disproportionate effor protecting "symbolic" species like dolpine and whales.
Dolphins are endangered by fishing nets, in which they get caught, but again, they are way to intelligent to be targeted for the dinner table.

Originally posted by Vapour
Some people fail to distinguish their cultural value (Cute=dolpine, Not Cute=Shark) with responsible management for renewable resource (dolpine = plenty, Shark = endengered). If we keep this up, only those who evolve to suck up to human would be left on this planet.
The old pro-whaling canard that opposition is cultural imperialism. It's conservation, pure and simple.

Vapour
20th September 2003, 01:07
Mink whale is the most notable one. Now, I would even go and look for an article in accredited scientific journal (i.e. not thrown around by Japanese government or green peace) which shows that is the case if (1) you would accept the finding of scientific research (2) upon accepting it, concede that there is no basis of banning hunt for mink whale and insisting the ban would amount to cultural imperialism.

If your answer is no, I'm wasting time with a religious zelot here. So I won't bother.

As of lion, it was to point out the falacy of using general state of affiar (feline abundant or whale in general are endengered) to overlook for particiuar state of affair (mink whale not being endengered or lion being endengered). I assume you are intelligent enough to see the logic of it but somehow that wasn't the case in whale. I wonder why. :)

By the way, how intelligent are dolphine compared to pig. Pig is suprisingly intelligent animal. Definitely more intelligent than dog. And I should mention that most of behaviour which people associate with intelligence of dolpine can be done by dog or wolf. Why not look for an article in some academic journal before insisting dolpine's hyper intelligence.

Mekugi
20th September 2003, 01:15
I hafta agree with Youj's arguement here. There is nothing wrong with killing dolphins as long as they are not being endangered. Plus they look delicious being the mammals that they are. However, I don't believe in waste. I think that killing an animal like a shark for it's fin is a waste of meat and a practice that needs to be stopped unless they start using the whole shark. Shark is delicious too, albeit they pee through their skin.

Yum!

-R

Vapour
20th September 2003, 01:33
Another thing. When pro-whaler make a case that "*mink* whale are not endengered", green organisation resond by saying "whale are endengered", they never say "mink whale are endengered". Very obvious spin only religious zelot will refuse to see.

Kimpatsu
20th September 2003, 02:17
Originally posted by Vapour
Another thing. When pro-whaler make a case that "*mink* whale are not endengered", green organisation resond by saying "whale are endengered", they never say "mink whale are endengered". Very obvious spin only religious zelot will refuse to see.
Not only are mincke whales endangered, but sperm whales and great whales are too.
A fact only a greedy gourmet would fail to see.

Kimpatsu
20th September 2003, 02:19
Originally posted by Mekugi
I hafta agree with Youj's arguement here. There is nothing wrong with killing dolphins as long as they are not being endangered. Plus they look delicious being the mammals that they are. However, I don't believe in waste. I think that killing an animal like a shark for it's fin is a waste of meat and a practice that needs to be stopped unless they start using the whole shark. Shark is delicious too, albeit they pee through their skin.

Yes, Russ, but when the Japanese kill dolphins, they do it commercially, and waste over half of what they catch. That way, if dolphins aren't endangered now, they soon will be.

Big
20th September 2003, 02:51
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You just condemned your argument right there.
"Other fish"? Dolphins and whales aren't fish; they're mammals. Shame on you for not knowing the difference.

Thanks for the English lesson. I point to my japanese-english dictionary sakana = fish. sumimasen

But how does this condemn my argument???

Dolphin is not extinct (and is not likely to be for a long time). In fact if commercialized, there would be a lot less dolphin wasted by tuna fishing.

According to the (independant) research I have seen/read, there are only a few species of whale that are close to extinction.

Why stop at dolphin or whales. IMO pigs are very intelligent and very cute...... plus they taste great.

Unless someone is a vegan, then they have no argument as they are being hypocritical.

jamata


oki maku

Kimpatsu
20th September 2003, 03:15
Originally posted by Big
Thanks for the English lesson. I point to my japanese-english dictionary sakana = fish. sumimasen
Sakana does mean fish. Whales and dolphins, however, are mammals, "honyurui".

Originally posted by Big
But how does this condemn my argument???
Because you don't fish for mammals. You hunt them.
Whales are on the verge of extinction, so hunting them is to force them to extinction. Not good. Hunting dolphins en masse will result in the same.

Originally posted by Big
Dolphin is not extinct (and is not likely to be for a long time). In fact if commercialized, there would be a lot less dolphin wasted by tuna fishing.
Not so; dolphins will face extinction owing to overhunting, and accidental death (collateral damage) owing to being caught in tuna nets. If they don't face extinction now, why force extinction's hand?

Originally posted by Big
According to the (independant) research I have seen/read, there are only a few species of whale that are close to extinction.
Yes: the species being hunted. Now, why do you think that is?

Originally posted by Big
Why stop at dolphin or whales. IMO pigs are very intelligent and very cute...... plus they taste great.
And what will you eat when they're extinct?

Originally posted by Big
Unless someone is a vegan, then they have no argument as they are being hypocritical.
I think you mean "vegetarian", don't you?

Vapour
20th September 2003, 03:22
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Sakana does mean fish. Whales and dolphins, however, are mammals, "honyurui".

Because you don't fish for mammals. You hunt them.
Whales are on the verge of extinction, so hunting them is to force them to extinction. Not good. Hunting dolphins en masse will result in the same.


But whales and dolphins are seafood. :laugh:

Kimpatsu
20th September 2003, 03:32
Originally posted by Vapour
But whales and dolphins are seafood. :laugh:
By which statement you demonstrate your inability to tell fish from mammals, the root cause of wanting to hunt them. :rolleyes:
BTW, Yoji, where are you based? (This has nothing to do with the debate at hand, I'm just being nosey. :p )

Vapour
20th September 2003, 04:29
You still haven't answered my question as to whether you would accept finding from scientific journal in regard to whether some whales are extinct or not.

Kimpatsu
20th September 2003, 04:58
Originally posted by Vapour
You still haven't answered my question as to whether you would accept finding from scientific journal in regard to whether some whales are extinct or not.
Depends on which journal. Since the debacle engineered by Jean Briquemont and Alan Sokal, I've learned not to accept claims at face value, even ones published in supposedly august science journals.

Big
20th September 2003, 05:37
It looks like I will agree to disagree. I don't consider killing a dolphin or a whale any different than killing any other seafood.

Like any other natural resource we consume, we are not that stupid to consume it into extinction. Like any other resource, we would take measures to ensure it did not become extinct, like farming or quotas. I believe that there may have been mistakes in the past, but there has been a lot of learning from these mistakes.

I don't understand why this is such an issue. The whales we want to hunt are not extinct, if anything they are becoming over populated. Dolphin is not extinct and making hunting legal would reduce the amount of waste, not increase it.

We don’t judge anybody’s choice to hunt cows, pigs, or dogs and we don’t judge anybody’s choice to kill carrots, rice, or potatoes. When people stop killing these innocent and cute products, then they may be in a position to judge….

jamata

oki maku
btw I think a vegan is a vegetarian that does not eat OR use any by product of an animal.

Kimpatsu
20th September 2003, 05:45
Originally posted by Big
It looks like I will agree to disagree. I don't consider killing a dolphin or a whale any different than killing any other seafood.
Whales and dolphins aren't seafood. They're mammals.

Originally posted by Big
Like any other natural resource we consume, we are not that stupid to consume it into extinction. Like any other resource, we would take measures to ensure it did not become extinct, like farming or quotas. I believe that there may have been mistakes in the past, but there has been a lot of learning from these mistakes.
Come back and say that in 50 years' time, when the Minke and Sperm whales are extinct, possibly the dolphin, and there's no oil left. Reckless consumption is driving resources to extinction AS WE SPEAK. Go take a look at the Amazon rain forest.

Originally posted by Big
I don't understand why this is such an issue.
I rest my case, your honour. Viewing man-made extinctions as trivial is precisely the problem.

Originally posted by Big
The whales we want to hunt are not extinct, if anything they are becoming over populated. Dolphin is not extinct and making hunting legal would reduce the amount of waste, not increase it.
They will be if you continue to hunt them. We could legalise murder if you like; then it would no longer be criminal, but it would still be wrong.

Originally posted by Big
We don’t judge anybody’s choice to hunt cows, pigs, or dogs and we don’t judge anybody’s choice to kill carrots, rice, or potatoes. When people stop killing these innocent and cute products, then they may be in a position to judge….
There you are using the cultural imperialism canard again. This isn't about culture; it's about preventing extinction and maintaining biodiversity.
But let's assume for a minute that hunting whales can be justified as a part of traditional Japanese culture. If so, then you must hunt them traditionally, using bamboo boats and hand-thrown spears, not commercial whaling vessels and explosive harpoons. Do to so and claim cultural tradition is disingenuous at best, and downright deceitful at worst.

Originally posted by Big
btw I think a vegan is a vegetarian that does not eat OR use any by product of an animal.
That's right; but vegetarians don't eat meat be definition, so "vegetarian" would have been more accurate here. If you like, vegans are a subset of vegetarians. Not all vegetarians are vegans, but all vegans have to be vegetarians.

Big
20th September 2003, 08:41
Tony san

We are not advocating the wholesale destruction of any species. To assume we want to is wrong.

Look at the pearl industry. We have managed to maintain a sustainable industry.

I agree that as a species, man is destroying this beautiful planet we are so lucky to live on. But please do not isolate the Japanese as many other countries have a poor reputation on this matter.

But we have to eat and we should have a balanced diet, including seafood (food that lives in the sea).

Your argument is a good one. But do you use any fossil fuels, wood, leather, water, cotton, wool.... What will you use when these run out?

It's not a valid question. Because if we are smart enough, we will ensure these don't run out.

If I want to hunt whale or dolphin and eat it, I will. Why should I use old technology? Other fisherman (people harvesting food from the sea) use the latest in technology, why should the Japanese be any different?

jamata


oki maku

Kimpatsu
20th September 2003, 08:50
Originally posted by Big
We are not advocating the wholesale destruction of any species. To assume we want to is wrong.
But it is what you will end up with if you hunt whales as desired.

Originally posted by Big
Look at the pearl industry. We have managed to maintain a sustainable industry.
Pearls are not threatened with immediate extinction.

Originally posted by Big
I agree that as a species, man is destroying this beautiful planet we are so lucky to live on. But please do not isolate the Japanese as many other countries have a poor reputation on this matter.
Other countries aren't trying to go whaling, which is what this thread is about. I'm trying to stick to the topic. If you start a thread about logging an deforestation in the Amazon, I'll condemn the Brazilians.

Originally posted by Big
But we have to eat and we should have a balanced diet, including seafood (food that lives in the sea).
Why don't you eat each other? Whales are as smart as some humans, and there are a lot more humans to fo round. Thinking of whales and dolphins as on a par with cod and kale is the root cause of your error.

Originally posted by Big
Your argument is a good one. But do you use any fossil fuels, wood, leather, water, cotton, wool.... What will you use when these run out?
Wool won't run out as long as there are sheep. Cotton won't run out as long as farmers keep replanting. Water won't run out as long as we stop polluting the planet. (Tall order, but...) Leather won't run out as long as there are cows. Wood won't run out as long as we stop reckless deforestation. With the exception of hardwood (rainforests), the items on your list are not threatened with immediate extinction, unlike whales.

Originally posted by Big
It's not a valid question. Because if we are smart enough, we will ensure these don't run out.
Well, in that case, you've made a pig's ear of it becasue Minke and other whales ARE on the brink of extinction, right now.

Originally posted by Big
If I want to hunt whale or dolphin and eat it, I will. Why should I use old technology? Other fisherman (people harvesting food from the sea) use the latest in technology, why should the Japanese be any different?
Iff you're going to use modern technology, you can't claim that hunting whales or dolphins are part of your cultural tradition. If you're going to use modern technology, you will accelerate the rush to extinction of sentient creatures that are more intelligent than some human beings. You'd be better off eating those human beings. So why don't you?

Mekugi
20th September 2003, 10:24
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Other countries aren't trying to go whaling

Uhoh, I have you here :p

Makah Indians Whaling rights (http://www.nwifc.wa.gov/whaling/whaleplan.html)

Makah Whaling Q&A (http://www.makah.com/whales.htm)

and finally

Preliminary Report on Makah Tribe Gray Whale Hunt (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/mmammals/whales/wreport.htm)

They have been whaling! Greenpeace about killing the whale trying to shield it from those "horrible whalers". They almost killed the tribe members, too.

Kimpatsu
20th September 2003, 11:03
Tribes aren't nation states; I'm perfectly aware of them, but they are beholden to their national governments (Canadian, etc.), which do not hunt whales.

Vapour
21st September 2003, 03:47
I'm not taling about some paid scientists making debate *outside* academic journal through particular organisation or books. I'm talking about articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Would you accpet finding from these journal in regard to population of particular type of whales?

By the way, I also should ask you what kind of sceitific article published in peer-reviewed academic journal you based your argument that mink whales are endengered species. I have a feeling that you never bothred to go outside of (so called) research published by green organization which is definitely not as good as the above mentioned source.

Here is a challenge for you Tony. If you accept, I will look for article(s) from peer reviewed accredited sceintific journal stating that *current* population of mink whales are not endengered. You will look for article(s) from peer reviewed accredited sceintific journal stating that *current* population of mink whales are indeed endengered.

Are you up for it? :nin:

Big
21st September 2003, 03:47
Tony san

Is Iceland a nation or not??

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/21762/story.htm

There are many species of whale and not all of them are extinct. To suggest that Japan or anyone else wants to hunt them into extinction is naive.

There is no shortage of dolphin, just as there is not a shortage of most other mammals we consume.

What will we do when we run out? As I stated before, it is highly unlikely this will happen. As most people want to retain these valuable resources. If it does, we would do the same thing the western countries have done when they hunted something into extinction.

I used of the pearl industry an example, because the industry was over farming and they nearly wiped out the entire stock. They realized the importance of retaining this natural resource and today there is a good supply.

Japan has a vested interest in maintaining a good supply of its natural resources and has done a much better job than many other countries.

Fossil fuels and clean water are in limited supply. What are you going to do when you run out of oil or water? Maybe we should all follow the British and go without taking a bath.

I did not state that it was a cultural right to hunt whale. I believe we should be able to hunt whale or dolphin, just as it is the right in the west to hunt/kill other mammals.

jamata


oki maku

Kimpatsu
21st September 2003, 09:45
Originally posted by Vapour
I'm not taling about some paid scientists making debate *outside* academic journal through particular organisation or books. I'm talking about articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Would you accpet finding from these journal in regard to population of particular type of whales?
As I said, which journals? Remeber the cautionary tale of Jean Briquemont and Alan Sokal!
For the real data on the perilous state of the whale population, go to Greenpeace. (http://whales.greenpeace.org/whaling/)

Kimpatsu
21st September 2003, 09:54
Originally posted by Big
Is Iceland a nation or not??
Yes. And their short-sighted decision to resume whaling has resulted, quite rightly, in EU sanctions. Do you want Japan to be subject to trade embargos too?

Originally posted by Big
There are many species of whale and not all of them are extinct. To suggest that Japan or anyone else wants to hunt them into extinction is naive.
Hunting them to extinction is what you are doing! Go to [/B][/QUOTE]Greenpeace (http://whales.greenpeace.org/whaling/) for the raw data.

Originally posted by Big
There is no shortage of dolphin, just as there is not a shortage of most other mammals we consume.
If you eat dolphins, I presume you eat people as well? These creatures are more intelligent than apes! They must never be touched!

Originally posted by Big
What will we do when we run out? As I stated before, it is highly unlikely this will happen. As most people want to retain these valuable resources. If it does, we would do the same thing the western countries have done when they hunted something into extinction.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't repeat the follies of 19th century Europe here and now in the 21st century, when the potential for ecological disaster is even greater.

Originally posted by Big
I used of the pearl industry an example, because the industry was over farming and they nearly wiped out the entire stock. They realized the importance of retaining this natural resource and today there is a good supply.
Pearls are not whales or dolphins, which are sentient creatures. To hunt them is to commit murder.

Originally posted by Big
Japan has a vested interest in maintaining a good supply of its natural resources and has done a much better job than many other countries.
And a much worse job than many others. Every country has a vested interest in maintaining an adequate supply of resource,s but Japanese policy is misguided, naive, and barbaric.

Originally posted by Big
Fossil fuels and clean water are in limited supply. What are you going to do when you run out of oil or water? Maybe we should all follow the British and go without taking a bath.
Great ad hominem. We take showers. Anyway, what does this have to do with the barabaric practice of killing sentient beings?

Originally posted by Big
I did not state that it was a cultural right to hunt whale. I believe we should be able to hunt whale or dolphin, just as it is the right in the west to hunt/kill other mammals.
Then you are completely wrong. Whales and dolphins are unique because they are sentient. Killing them is the same as killing human beings. Deluding yourself that they are a lower order of species is speciest and dangerous. It is also barbaric.

Big
21st September 2003, 10:39
Tony san

If we stop killing something because it is sentient, then we will all go hungry.

There are far more intelligent creatures than whales or dolphin that are the main food for many nationalities, some of these are close to extinction.

I do not believe Greenpeace, they are blinded by there own agenda. I prefer to read fact not fiction.

Whale and dolphin provide nutritional content that is not found in many other foods.

You are wrong to assume that Japan would consume anything into extinction. You have not provided any evidence to support this ludicrous claim, just sweeping generalizations based on misguided ideals. Japan is not hunting whales or dolphin into extinction, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim.

We do not eat humans. To suggest that we should because we eat whale is simply naive if not stupid.

I'm off to eat a nice big plate of kujira sashimi. A bit of wasabe, some soy and a nice cold beer mmmmmmmm.

jamata


oki maku

Kimpatsu
21st September 2003, 21:55
Originally posted by Big
If we stop killing something because it is sentient, then we will all go hungry.
Why? Plants aren't sentient, cows aren't sentient, pigs (beloved of you as an example!) aren't sentient; not even all the great apes are sentient. Only humans, dolphins, whales, and certain apes have exhibited sentience. You are completely wrong. Name me another sentient creature.

Originally posted by Big
There are far more intelligent creatures than whales or dolphin that are the main food for many nationalities, some of these are close to extinction.
Name me one creature more intelligent. Just one.

Originally posted by Big
I do not believe Greenpeace, they are blinded by there own agenda. I prefer to read fact not fiction.
What you really mean is that you will disregard the truth when it doesn't suit YOUR agenda.

Originally posted by Big
Whale and dolphin provide nutritional content that is not found in many other foods.
Such as? Brits, Americans, French, Spanish, Italians, Australians, etc. etc. seem to manage just fine without.

Originally posted by Big
You are wrong to assume that Japan would consume anything into extinction. You have not provided any evidence to support this ludicrous claim, just sweeping generalizations based on misguided ideals. Japan is not hunting whales or dolphin into extinction, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim.
Japan has already rendered certain species of monkey extinct by this very behaviour. I'm not wring; It has already happened.

Originally posted by Big
We do not eat humans. To suggest that we should because we eat whale is simply naive if not stupid.
Why? If you would murder one sentient creature, then why not another?
or are you just being specist?

Striking Hand
22nd September 2003, 00:12
Tony.

How do YOU know that they are sentinent?

Ran the test yourself or are you simply accepting what a few scientists say as the truth as it fits in with your worldview??

Greenpeace, Amnesty international and such got an agenda, they need it because if they run out of things to complain about they are out of business.

Would you stop eating steak and sausages if they find out cows and pigs to be sentient?

How would you adone for the wrongs of millenia of eating them?

There was an article in last weeks Japan times that showed that certain species of monkeys can differentiate between a fair and lousy deal and will even refuse food if they see other monkeys get better food than they do.

How does this fit in with your sentient view of lower creatures?

Like so often you sit behind your viewpoint and argue back and forth that yours is the correct one.

Science has been prooven many times wrong, and there are no absolute facts in science.

The research into which species is sentient and which is not is still fairly young and way from being finished and I think we will get a few surprises about those non-sentient species.

Seeya.

Kimpatsu
22nd September 2003, 00:25
Originally posted by Striking Hand
How do YOU know that they are sentinent?
Scientific studies have proven abilities consistent with self-awareness.

Originally posted by Striking Hand
Ran the test yourself or are you simply accepting what a few scientists say as the truth as it fits in with your worldview??
Have you stopped beating your wife?
The question is loaded, and thus unanswerable. My worldview is shaped by the facts in evidence. The opinion of "a few scientists"--i.e., experts--counts for far more than thay of a million lay people. If the experts say that whales and dolphins are sentient are more intelligent than the great apes, I'll accept that. Why won't you?

Originally posted by Striking Hand
Greenpeace, Amnesty international and such got an agenda, they need it because if they run out of things to complain about they are out of business.
What a daft thing to say. OF COURSE Amnesty and Greenpeace want to go out of business; do you think they delight in seeing prisoners of conscience, torture, pollution, the threat of extinction because it gives them something to do? Just as the League Against Cruel Sports has said in England, the day foxhunting is banned, they can disband. That's what they a re striving for. Their "agenda" as you put it is to make the world a better place. One without crulety of illegal or barbaric behaviour. What do you think they are there for?

Originally posted by Striking Hand
Would you stop eating steak and sausages if they find out cows and pigs to be sentient?
Yes. Wouldn't you, or would you rather be like Hannibal Lecter?

Originally posted by Striking Hand
How would you adone for the wrongs of millenia of eating them?
I can't, any mre than I can atone for millenia of slavery. Or are you arguing that because I can't, slavery should be reintroduced?

Originally posted by Striking Hand
There was an article in last weeks Japan times that showed that certain species of monkeys can differentiate between a fair and lousy deal and will even refuse food if they see other monkeys get better food than they do.
How does this fit in with your sentient view of lower creatures?
I don't see what you're arguing here, as I said earlier, I don't eat monkey either, and if monkeys are that intelligent, and whales are even more intelligent, that reinforces the argument that we shouldn't eat whales; it's certainly not an argument that we should start eating monkeys as well.

Originally posted by Striking Hand
Like so often you sit behind your viewpoint and argue back and forth that yours is the correct one.
Doesn't everybody? The whole point of argiunbg a viewpoint is because you believe it to be correct.

Originally posted by Striking Hand
Science has been prooven many times wrong, and there are no absolute facts in science.
This is a specious argument. One of the points about science is that all scientific theory is inherently falsifiable. That's what differentiates science from dogma. If the sentience of whales and dolphins is subsequently refuted, I'll have to rethink my position, but current scientific theory states that they are sentient, and so I shall work with that. What you're doing is arguing a viewpoint contrary to current theory; where's the sense in that?

Originally posted by Striking Hand
The research into which species is sentient and which is not is still fairly young and way from being finished and I think we will get a few surprises about those non-sentient species.
Yes, we may well. We may even find some humans are intelligent, despite the lack of evidence so far. ;)
So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Striking Hand
22nd September 2003, 00:52
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Yes. Wouldn't you, or would you rather be like Hannibal Lecter?

No, I wouldn't. Would I eat a human, if I am REALLy starving and there is no other food available YES I would, as I can guarantee you that many others would do even though now they say I won't.

The Japanese and MANY other cultures been hunting and eating wales for centuries, now Mr. Scientist, Mr. PC and Mr. Right comes along and sez bad boys this thing has feelings stop eating it.

Same thing with telling Koreans not to eat Dogs and cats.

Last time I checked too the reason why wales became nearly extinct was NOT because they were hunted for food, but because they were needed as raw-materials in many industries.
(Lubber, Whale-bone, etc.)

I love to eat rabbit and Horse meat, now many people are disgusted because I eat Rabbit(cute furry little things), I tell them to close the door from the outside and don't bother to come back.

Rule of nature is eat or be eaten.
But, oh no, I can't eat you because you are sentient.

Hogwash I say.

And I have swam with dolphines and really enjoyed the experience, the same way I played with hutch rabbits which we raised so that they could make a good stew.

Compassion is a quick and painless death for what will be your food.

Seeya.

Striking Hand
22nd September 2003, 01:06
Won't they eat/attack me if they are hungry because I am sentient.
I doubt it.

When they start signing non-eating agreements with the humans I stop eating them.

Kimpatsu
22nd September 2003, 01:09
You could become a vegetarian, you know, and not eat any food at all.
The cause of whales facing extinction may well be 19th century whaling for whalebone corsets and soap fat, but the fact remains that whales are facing extinction now, so hunting them will only exacerbate the problem. Crying "PC" at your enemies as a slur does nothing to detract from the veracity of their arguments. I personally can't stand horsemeat, but good luck to you if you want to eat it. Horses are not sentient the way that whales are.
Hannibal. ;)

Kimpatsu
22nd September 2003, 01:11
Originally posted by Striking Hand
When they start signing non-eating agreements with the humans I stop eating them.
You might be surprised.
Whales don't eat people. They eat krill. The tale of Jonah is a myth. If whales bite people, it is in self-defence, and you wouldn't begrudge a human that right, would you?

Striking Hand
22nd September 2003, 01:14
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You could become a vegetarian, you know, and not eat any food at all.


Not an option. ;)



The cause of whales facing extinction
may well be 19th century whaling for whalebone corsets and soap fat, but the fact remains that whales are facing extinction now, so hunting them will only exacerbate the problem.


As was pointed out and you keep ignoring it, only some species of wales are facing extinction.



Hannibal. ;)

Better watch out, you look tasty when you are soaked in beer, and I reckon I could get 2 or 3 meals out of you.
;)

Striking Hand
22nd September 2003, 01:16
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You might be surprised.
Whales don't eat people. They eat krill. The tale of Jonah is a myth. If whales bite people, it is in self-defence, and you wouldn't begrudge a human that right, would you?

How about the Killer Wale & and the apes??
Some even eat their own. :rolleyes:

Kimpatsu
22nd September 2003, 01:42
Originally posted by Striking Hand
Not an option. ;) [/B]
Granted. ;)

Originally posted by Striking Hand
s was pointed out and you keep ignoring it, only some species of wales are facing extinction.
I'm not ignoring it. As I pointed out above, the species facing extinction are the ones that are hunted. There is a direct correlation.

Originally posted by Striking Hand
Better watch out, you look tasty when you are soaked in beer, and I reckon I could get 2 or 3 meals out of you.
;)
Rump of Kehoe marienated in Guinness with wild rice and seasonal legumes.
Liver of Kehoe soaked in red wine (this has already been completed by dint of my drinking) , with baby potatoes and a side salad.
Heart of Kehoe (frozen), with pommes frites and Caesar salad.
Leg of Kehoe is off the menu due to Kehoe beng legless. :beer:

Kimpatsu
22nd September 2003, 01:44
Originally posted by Striking Hand
When they start signing non-eating agreements with the humans I stop eating them.
Good point.

Big
23rd September 2003, 10:36
Tony san

My Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (2000) has the meaning of sentient as able to see or feel things through senses

There is a considerable amount of evidence to suggest that cats, dogs and monkeys are sentient. On a lesser extent there is some evidence that suggests cattle, sheep and even some plants have feelings.

You assume several things that you have not been able to substantiate. I would like to correct you
- Not all species of whales are extinct
- Japan has not commercially hunted whale for a long time and there is no evidence to suggest that there is any correlation between the limited quantities being hunted now and the alleged extinction.
- Japan has no intention or desire to hunt the whale or dolphin into extinction

If you look at the list of extinct or endangered species in the world, how many of these are from or the cause of Japan? And how many are from or the cause of the English or Americans?

Japan does not lecture other countries on what you should or should not hunt. What right do other countries have to dictate to Japan what it can or cannot do?

Why aren't you giving the Chinese and the Koreans a hard time - oh that's right, they are more economically important to the West these days.

Please do not impose your moral values and half-baked scientific research on Japan, we have had enough western idealism to last a life time.

sayonara

oki maku

btw if you live in Tokyo, and you’ve eaten sashimi or sushi, there’s a very very good chance you have already eaten dolphin and or whale. Enjoy!

Kimpatsu
23rd September 2003, 11:11
Originally posted by Big
My Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (2000) has the meaning of sentient as able to see or feel things through senses
There is a considerable amount of evidence to suggest that cats, dogs and monkeys are sentient. On a lesser extent there is some evidence that suggests cattle, sheep and even some plants have feelings.
No, sentient in the sense of "self-aware". Cats and dogs aren't, but dolphins are.

Originally posted by Big
You assume several things that you have not been able to substantiate. I would like to correct you
- Not all species of whales are extinct
No, only the ones you hunt. There is a direct correlation between species hunted and those threatened with extinction.

Originally posted by Big
- Japan has not commercially hunted whale for a long time and there is no evidence to suggest that there is any correlation between the limited quantities being hunted now and the alleged extinction.
Wrong; read the Greenpeace page again. And Japan IS whaling commercially; you just don't call it that, as if anyone were fooled by the euphemism "scientific whaling".

Originally posted by Big
Japan has no intention or desire to hunt the whale or dolphin into extinction
No, you'll just do it anyway.

Originally posted by Big
If you look at the list of extinct or endangered species in the world, how many of these are from or the cause of Japan? And how many are from or the cause of the English or Americans?
Two wrongs don't make a right; this is a logical fallacy known as tu quoque. We're not discussing British wolves of American bald eagles; we're discussing whales.

Originally posted by Big
Japan does not lecture other countries on what you should or should not hunt. What right do other countries have to dictate to Japan what it can or cannot do?
Because you are in the wrong, and all wrongs must be righted. It is no virtue that Japan does not criticise Mugabe or protest human rights abuses in other countries.

Originally posted by Big
Why aren't you giving the Chinese and the Koreans a hard time - oh that's right, they are more economically important to the West these days.
I DO give those countries are hard time, especially on their human rights abuses. But we're not discussing them; we're discussing Japanese whaling.

Originally posted by Big
Please do not impose your moral values and half-baked scientific research on Japan, we have had enough western idealism to last a life time.
The science is not half-baked; if you bothered to read the Greenpeace page you'd know that. As to moral values, there ARE moral absolutes, and those who infringe them must expect to be condemned for it. If you don't want to be criticised, don't do anything wrong.

Originally posted by Big
btw if you live in Tokyo, and you’ve eaten sashimi or sushi, there’s a very very good chance you have already eaten dolphin and or whale. Enjoy!
No, none at all. I always know what I'm eating. I've been offered whale before, but refused it.

pacman2323
23rd September 2003, 13:53
My Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (2000) has the meaning of sentient as able to see or feel things through senses [/QUOTE




[QUOTE]No, sentient in the sense of "self-aware". Cats and dogs aren't, but dolphins are.

HAHAHAAAA how funny to tell a dictionary that its defination is wrong!
here is what my Webster says about sentient by the way follows close to Oxford
sentient=Capable of sensation and consciousness 2.experiencing sensation and feeling FYI a dog and cat can do this by the way how would you know a cat or dog has no "self awareness"?? Are you a cat or dog lol boy oh boy on the internet you meet them all:rolleyes: lol

-Chi Jonesone

Kimpatsu
24th September 2003, 04:16
Originally posted by pacman2323
HAHAHAAAA how funny to tell a dictionary that its defination is wrong!
If you had been following the discussions on other threads, you would know that lexicographers DO make mistakes. But if you like, replace "sentient" with "self-aware." Then my arguments still stand.

Originally posted by pacman2323
by the way how would you know a cat or dog has no "self awareness"?? Are you a cat or dog lol boy oh boy on the internet you meet them all:rolleyes: lol
Apart from the zero lack of spelling and punctuation, this is easily rebutted. Scientific tests demonstrate that cats and dogs are incapable of abstract thought, whereas whales and dolphins are, which is why they have developed language (an example of intelligence to anyone, surely?).
Your ad hominem and overt prejudice, combined with your inability to present even a semblance of punctuated and correctly spelled posts, even ones as brief as yours, do nothing to advance your cause.

hyaku
24th September 2003, 04:36
I thinks the present record is something like 70% of the worlds big fish (including mammals) have been killed over the last fifty years. By these standards expect to see "nothing" in another fifty!

Its the commercial aspect that does it in. I always see people long-lining where I dive. But now fine meshed tangle nets have shown up. Yet another begining of a complete obliteration of anything that moves underwater in another area.

I have to say being with touching distance of a whaleshark last month added a bit of meaning to my life.

http://www.bunbun.ne.jp/~sword/wshark.html

Hyakutake Colin

pacman2323
24th September 2003, 13:45
If you had been following the discussions on other threads, you would know that lexicographers DO make mistakes. But if you like, replace "sentient" with "self-aware." Then my arguments still stand. Ok your right I am wrong I still think it is funny arguing with a dictionary but I guess you like to argue huh.

Apart from the zero lack of spelling and punctuation, this is easily rebutted. Scientific tests demonstrate that cats and dogs are incapable of abstract thought, whereas whales and dolphins are, which is why they have developed language (an example of intelligence to anyone, surely?). Tony there is a nice expression in Japanese
begins with a Z and ends with an O please follow that:D

- Chihiro (chi)jonesone

Kimpatsu
24th September 2003, 14:17
Originally posted by pacman2323
Ok your right I am wrong I still think it is funny arguing with a dictionary but I guess you like to argue huh.
Tony there is a nice expression in Japanese
begins with a Z and ends with an O please follow that:D

- Chihiro (chi)jonesone
Do you actually know any punctuation, or are you called pacman because you like to gobble all those tasty-looking dots called full stops?

pacman2323
24th September 2003, 22:25
Do you actually know any punctuation, or are you called pacman because you like to gobble all those tasty-looking dots called full stops? LOL ok Tony since your only insult is about proper punctuation you must be very anal so I will leave you alone to play with it.Have fun don't poke to hard:D

-Chi Jonesone

Kimpatsu
24th September 2003, 23:36
Originally posted by pacman2323
LOL ok Tony since your only insult is about proper punctuation you must be very anal so I will leave you alone to play with it.Have fun don't poke to hard:D

-Chi Jonesone
Until you start writing coherent sentences, there is no argument to rebut. But you evidently enjoy ad hominem, so here's on for you:
Ya maddah wear army boots! :moon:

Big
25th September 2003, 14:26
Colin san

Great photos, sounds like it was awesome. We swam with dolphins in Western Australia last year it was amazing, so cool. They really are an interesting mammal.

Then when we got home we had iruka sashimi washed down with some cold beer, it was great.

Next time I go to Australia, I want to go to the Barrier Reef and swim with the whales, it sounds amazing.

I think people read what they want to read and if they believe Greenpeace is 'scientific' research all power to them. I like reading scientific research in an accredited journal with an editorial committee. That’s science. That’s credibility.

You meet all sorts on the Internet. Dictionaries are wrong and China and Korea violate human rights... so naive.

jamata

oki maku

cxt
25th September 2003, 21:21
Folks

I may have missed this--sorry of someone else already got to it but it seems to me that we have overlooked one important point.

Setting aside for a momemt the moral/ethicial implications of dolphin/whale hunting.

There is one other HUGE problem. Most of the whale/dolphin hunted for "food" are not species that live only in one area--but are to a great extent NOMADIC (sp?)

So if you support whaling--what gives you the right to "harvest" a couple of thousand whales??? They are in your waters today--mine tomorrow-anothers the next day.

Before you guys go overboard-yes I am aware of the laws that relate to international whaling.

I just think that your headed for trouble in trying argue a "legal" right to harvest. Same argument could be made by any nation with a ocean coastline.

Think of the result to the Japanese fishing industry if all of sudden they had major players after the same "stock" as it were.

I mean how would Japan deal with another country who wanted to harvest the same "resorce." Once you have established that its "ok" even advisable, to hunt dolphin for food. Once you try and "prove" that numbers of dolphin are "good" and are in no danger of going "extinct" THEN WHAT? You have now set the stage for OTHERS to use the info against you. Not a smart move.


Chris Thomas

hyaku
26th September 2003, 00:51
Originally posted by cxt FolksI mean how would Japan deal with another country who wanted to harvest the same "resorce." Once you have established that its "ok" even advisable, to hunt dolphin for food. Once you try and "prove" that numbers of dolphin are "good" and are in no danger of going "extinct" THEN WHAT? You have now set the stage for OTHERS to use the info against you. Not a smart move.
Chris Thomas

Good point. They have already harvested as you put it their own area to a point of extinction when it come to fish.

Its not just the commercial either. Stupid fishing programs on the television see them pulling out and anything and everything over a few centimetres long as the catch. About 40 miniscule fish lying on the bank or dock with some pro angler squatting over his catch wearing thousands of yen worth of the lastest fishing fashion. They dont seem to even have an anglers limit on what they pull out.

I really don't see its a matter of proof. I have spent hundreds of hours below the water, friends thousands. Its changing down there, its factual and maybe already too late.

Hyakutake Colin http://www.moalboal.shorturl.com

Joseph Svinth
27th September 2003, 21:25
As a rule, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, people who did their whaling from shore stations were known as shore hunters, whereas those who did their whaling from sea-going factory ships were known as fishers. This distinction is not absolute. Nonetheless, the term for the industry itself is definitely "fisheries." The etymology is probably Dutch, as the Dutch were pioneers of maritime whaling, and their word for whale is "walvis."

For online sources, see:

* Herman Melville, _Moby Dick_: http://pd.sparknotes.com/lit/mobydick/section103.html
* An 1846 article on whale-fisheries in the Indian and Pacific Oceans: http://www.du.edu/~ttyler/ploughboy/usdrwhalefisheries.htm )
* the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica at http://31.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GR/GREENORE.htm
* The Irish Whale Fisheries Act of 1937 at http://193.120.124.98/ZZA4Y1937.html .

For textual sources, see:

* John R. Bockstoce, _Whales, Ice, and Men: The History of Whaling in the Western Arctic_ (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2nd ed., 1995)
* Robert Lloyd Webb, _On the Northwest: Commercial Whaling in the Pacific Northwest 1790-1967_ (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1988)

Beating seals over the heads with sticks also falls under the purview of fisheries.

Thus, fisheries is probably better viewed, in an etymological sense, as an archaic term for catching anything marine.

***

According to NOAA, the gray whale population is as healthy as it has been at any time since the advent of commercial whaling in the North Pacific in the late 18th century. See http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2001/jul01/noaa01r121.html

Killer whales are also doing reasonably well for themselves.

***

Now, if you're an Orthodox Jew trying to be kosher, then be careful about using European margarine. The reason is that the base oil (generally peanut oil) may be adulterated with whale oil, which is what was commonly used to make margarine in the mid-20th century. See http://www.kosherquest.org/bookhtml/MARGARINE.htm .

Current European codes lump whale oils with cod liver oils, so some research would be required to know what you're getting. http://www.ianunwin.demon.co.uk/eurocode/docmn/ec99/ecmg05cl.htm

See also http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030906/RMARG/TPNational/Canada : One of North America's first margarine factories used whale oil.

***

The US tuna industry used to be really hard on dolphins -- dolphins feed on tuna, and when the dolphins get caught in drag lines, they drown.

For some background on fisheries issues, try http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/sumich/chap15.mhtml .

Vapour
30th September 2003, 23:03
World general fish stock being depleted is known fact, easily verifiable by research. This does not mean that every world fish stock are being depleted. Some country do manage their fish stock extremly well and the fact that other countries are doing bad is no reason to say every countries should stop fishing. Also, pretty much everyone including sceintific community but excluding few die hard believer seems to accept that some type of whales are nowhere qualified as endengered species.

Surely, the way to protect certain type of fish stock (which I agree are many) is to have global moratorium on these fish stock. Currently, as far as I know, only major moratorium in existence is the one for whales. How are we supposed to convince the countries around the world for initiation of another moratorium when initially-well-intentioned projected were being hijacked by ideologue.

Only ideologically neutral ground for reaching global consensus is scientific fact and idea of reneable resource management. If certain sea stock are depleted, you stop exploiting it. If that is not the case, there is no ground to maitain moratorium whatsoever. In fact, to do so is to damange the credibility of any sort of attempt at sensible resouce management.

If anyone has other ideological objection, I can certainly agree to disagree but I just can't be bothered to waste my time debating with them.

Vapour
30th September 2003, 23:16
Another thing. Intelligence is not the measure of what is good. Good and bad is value judgement which is not in the realm of scence. There are no doubt that human are the most intelligent species but does it makes us good? We seems to be pretty awful species for what we do to ourselves and others.

Here is a something for a thought. It is known that dolpine male sometime get together and gang rape a female dolpine. Here is intelligence for ya. If it's not human and move, you can eat it. :D

Kimpatsu
1st October 2003, 00:08
Originally posted by Vapour
Another thing. Intelligence is not the measure of what is good. Good and bad is value judgement which is not in the realm of scence. There are no doubt that human are the most intelligent species but does it makes us good? We seems to be pretty awful species for what we do to ourselves and others.
But intelligence is a good ethical reason for not eating dolphins.


Originally posted by Vapour
If it's not human and move, you can eat it. :D
So I guess we can eat you at any time, then...?

hyaku
1st October 2003, 01:18
:D:D:DAfter over thirty years of keeping and breeding tropical freshwater and marine species thats the first time I have ever heard the sexual habits of more than one male courting a female in the marine world described as "gang rape". Do me a favor!

For most fish breeding or mammals with fishlike bodies It almost always applies that you have to put more than one male with a female for sucessful spawning/breeding. Unlike such things as cows/humans where only one male is needed for many females to proliferate the species.

I would have rated dolphins intelligence as a step above humans. It was some time ago by scientists that if aliens (the out of this world kind) were to come to this planet in search of intelligent life they would choose dolphins.

I'm all for a moratorium but would not this also be commercial to allow international fisherman who sail around like vultures to move in on things and near wipe out. Problem is there is so little we can do to protect stocks outside national waters. I remember well the Soviet factory ships that filled the bays of Cornwall. They could not ship but there was no law against processing the fish caught with undersize nets and radar by other European boats. I think a few more sanctuaries for marine life would help.

The main problem seems to be the slow speed that they work at to protect Marine life. Most places I go to that are now Marine Sanctuarys have come after the disaster. Places I know now that should become protected are so slow to realize things.

On that note how many Marine Sanctuaries are there in Japan? They were working hard to abolish other peoples sanctuaries by buying whale commission voteslast time looked.

http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/info99/0033.html

The Marine Mammal Protection Act covers endangered and depleted species. Is Japan so really desperate for eating sea mammals that they have to worm their way round a clause that states they may be caught for scientific purposes?

I think men/mankind can survive without eating this. So much for the chauvanistic, supremist attitudes that I see displayed by Japanese over other countries. Who really are the barbarians?

Hyakutake Colin

Vapour
1st October 2003, 03:26
I will check the accuracy of information regarding dolphine committing rape. Having said it, this is not too uncommon occurence in mammal.

Vapour
1st October 2003, 03:30
Originally posted by hyaku
:D:D:DAfter over thirty years of keeping and breeding tropical freshwater and marine species thats the first time I have ever heard the sexual habits of more than one male courting a female in the marine world described as "gang rape". Do me a favor!

For most fish breeding or mammals with fishlike bodies It almost always applies that you have to put more than one male with a female for sucessful spawning/breeding. Unlike such things as cows/humans where only one male is needed for many females to proliferate the species.

I would have rated dolphins intelligence as a step above humans. It was some time ago by scientists that if aliens (the out of this world kind) were to come to this planet in search of intelligent life they would choose dolphins.

I'm all for a moratorium but would not this also be commercial to allow international fisherman who sail around like vultures to move in on things and near wipe out. Problem is there is so little we can do to protect stocks outside national waters. I remember well the Soviet factory ships that filled the bays of Cornwall. They could not ship but there was no law against processing the fish caught with undersize nets and radar by other European boats. I think a few more sanctuaries for marine life would help.

The main problem seems to be the slow speed that they work at to protect Marine life. Most places I go to that are now Marine Sanctuarys have come after the disaster. Places I know now that should become protected are so slow to realize things.

On that note how many Marine Sanctuaries are there in Japan? They were working hard to abolish other peoples sanctuaries by buying whale commission voteslast time looked.

http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/info99/0033.html

The Marine Mammal Protection Act covers endangered and depleted species. Is Japan so really desperate for eating sea mammals that they have to worm their way round a clause that states they may be caught for scientific purposes?

I think men/mankind can survive without eating this. So much for the chauvanistic, supremist attitudes that I see displayed by Japanese over other countries. Who really are the barbarians?

Hyakutake Colin

Can I ask you one thing before getting iinto any debate. Do you agree that it is o.k. to exploit sea as long as the rate of exploitation is sustainable.

This is separate issue from what is the current rate of exploitation or whether marine resource (including sea mammals) should be exploited at all due to their *supposed* intelligence. If you think sea mammals shouldn't be hunted no matter what, then they are your holy cows and we have nothing to debate here.

Kimpatsu
1st October 2003, 03:31
Originally posted by Vapour
I will check the accuracy of information regarding dolphine committing rape. Having said it, this is not too uncommon occurence in mammal.
I guess that lets you out, then. :D

Kimpatsu
1st October 2003, 03:37
Originally posted by Vapour
This is separate issue from what is the current rate of exploitation or whether marine resource (including sea mammals) should be exploited at all due to their *supposed* intelligence. If you think sea mammals shouldn't be hunted no matter what, then they are your holy cows and we have nothing to debate here.
Refusing to hunt sentient creatures is not a holy cow; if you don't eat people, you shouldn't eat whales. Or are you speciesist?

Vapour
1st October 2003, 03:42
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I guess that lets you out, then. :D

done google research and I immediately hit this site.

http://www.believermag.com/mammal/

either this is another urban legend or it seems pretty common occurence. Anyone add more professional insight?

Kimpatsu
1st October 2003, 03:44
Originally posted by Vapour
done google research and I immediately hit this site.

http://www.believermag.com/mammal/

either this is another urban legend or it seems pretty common occurence. Anyone add more professional insight?
It's a joke, Yoji. Nothing therein is intended to be taken seriously. It's a humour magazine.

Vapour
1st October 2003, 03:44
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Refusing to hunt sentient creatures is not a holy cow; if you don't eat people, you shouldn't eat whales. Or are you speciesist?

Yes. I don't eat human because I am human but I eat other species because they are not human.

I don't really discrimate among non human. You seem to do exactly that according to intelligence so you are defintely snob if not speciesist.

Kimpatsu
1st October 2003, 03:46
Originally posted by Vapour
Yes. I don't eat human because I am human but I eat other species because they are not human.
I don't really discrimate among non human. You seem to do exactly that according to intelligence so you are defintely snob if not speciest.
So you admit to being speciesist?
You should be thrown to the lions. :D
You don't discriminate between a cow and a scorpion? Let's see you eat scorpions, then. How about worms? Maggots? C'mon, Yoji, if you can't tell the difference between a Sidewinder and a puppy, go play with the Sidewinder...

Vapour
1st October 2003, 03:47
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
It's a joke, Yoji. Nothing therein is intended to be taken seriously. It's a humour magazine.

Argument is a joke, the information may not be. I also got this dolphine rape thing from few completely unrelated person. So until someone confirm me that it is untrue, I would keep open mind about it. Anyway, what the big deal. Rape is common occurence in some mammal. If dolpine are that intelligent, I'm not at all suprised.

Vapour
1st October 2003, 03:49
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
So you admit to being speciesist?
You should be thrown to the lions. :D
You don't discriminate between a cow and a scorpion? Let's see you eat scorpions, then. How about worms? Maggots? C'mon, Yoji, if you can't tell the difference between a Sidewinder and a puppy, go play with the Sidewinder...

Not the same thing here. If I don't like apple, I don't eat it. It's my personal preference and nothing to do with my view that people should be allowed to eat any vegetable.

Kimpatsu
1st October 2003, 03:51
Originally posted by Vapour
Argument is a joke, the information may not be. I also got this dolphine rape thing from few completely unrelated person. So until someone confirm me that it is untrue, I would keep open mind about it. Anyway, what the big deal. Rape is common occurence in some mammal. If dolpine are that intelligent, I'm not at all suprised.
If that's the intent, then it's not very funny. Kinda like your inability to distinguish between canines and arachnids...

Kimpatsu
1st October 2003, 03:54
Originally posted by Vapour
Not the same thing here. If I don't like apple, I don't eat it. It's my personal preference and nothing to do with my view that people should be allowed to eat any vegetable.
Your decision to eat other people à la Jeffrey Dahmer is not merely your own concern; it affects all society. That's why Dahmer was imprisoned. Eating dolphins is no less heinous.

Vapour
1st October 2003, 03:54
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:LKSgYT3pHa4J:www.public.asu.edu/~sbrem/docs/NARST2001.htm+%22gang+rape+of+dolphin+females%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"The first described investigations of dolphin violence. Researchers found that the image of the peaceful, spiritual dolphin were misleading. Dolphins were involved in savage attacks on porpoises and other dolphins, as well as the kidnapping and "gang rape" of dolphin females from other groups (. Possible evolutionary explanations were alluded to, but were not discussed in detail, and no background in evolutionary science was provided to contextualize these comments. Readers were left to rely on the "survival of the fittest" aphorism. "

It seems that I was right. If not, please enlighten me.

Kimpatsu
1st October 2003, 03:58
Humans commit rape, too. Are you indeed therefore advocating eating humans?

Vapour
1st October 2003, 04:08
Just so I stop the spam.

If Chinese want to eat dog or some African tribes eat insect, It is my view that they are perfectly entitled to do so. I don't eat it because I don't fancy it.

There is nothing more to discuss here. As I said, if intelligent is your criteria in deciding what and what is not to be eaten, that is your belief. I don't follow that belief nor I see any rational basis for such belief.

If one take your argument to logical conclusion, some severly handicapped human can be eaten because some of them have intelligence lower than pig. I find the idea of intellectually accepting that eating these people is o.k. more appaluing than idea of eating dolpine or whales. And let me guess, you are not eating severly intellectually handicapped human because you don't fancy the taste rather than your belief, right?

Vapour
1st October 2003, 04:11
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Humans commit rape, too. Are you indeed therefore advocating eating humans?

No, just to point out that intelligent (or some species commit rape or not) is no criteria in deciding what is or isn't to be eaten.

Vapour
1st October 2003, 04:13
Hmmm, I feel I'm wasting my time. I pretty much said all I want to say. So bye.

Joseph Svinth
1st October 2003, 04:50
For the nutritional value of cannibalism, try Dornstreich M; Morren GEB. 1974. Does New Guinea Cannibalism Have Nutritional Value? Human Ecology. 2:1-12. See also http://teaching.ucdavis.edu/nut20/0003.htm .

As I understand it, there are some problems with people getting all their essential nutrients from eating other people. Thus, as a rule, human cannibalism is more often associated with its psychological aspects than its nutritional aspects.

One can, however, survive quite nicely on a diet of raw whale blubber. Indeed, it was the mainstay of the Inupiat diet well into the 20th century.

***

For many fish, such as the salmon, the destruction of habitat is at least as deadly as overfishing. Salmon used to be native as far south as the Sacramento River, and the tendency is to say that it was the admitted overfishing that wiped them out. Nonetheless, the sluicing of the waterways to find gold was probably equally destructive. Ditto on the Columbia and Frazier Rivers, with the dams.

Lord knows what would have happened ecologically if the Rampart Dam, which was to dam the Yukon River, thereby creating a lake about the size of Texas, had been built as scheduled.

Kimpatsu
1st October 2003, 05:08
Originally posted by Vapour
Just so I stop the spam.
interesting that any rational viewpoint you can't defeat is spam. Or do you mean you're eating SPAM?

Originally posted by Vapour
If Chinese want to eat dog or some African tribes eat insect, It is my view that they are perfectly entitled to do so. I don't eat it because I don't fancy it.
Wrong. Just because Islamic fundamentalists want to commit honour killings of their daughters doesn't mean they should be allowed to do so, not even in Pakistan or other hotbeads of fundamentalism. The issue is whether an action is absolutely wrong: premeditated killing, slaughter of sentient beings, or persecution of minorities are all WRONG. That is the only issue here. Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite. The reason their plane flies is because a lot of Western-educated engineers got their sums right. The ravings of a prophet up a pole do NOT carry equal weight as the pronouncements of a Carl Sagan or an Ayn Rand. The reason we shall fight to win is that we have justice on our side. We will stop you eating people, and we will stop you eating other sentient creatures, too. Because murder is murder, and because murder is wrong.

Kimpatsu
1st October 2003, 05:16
Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
As I understand it, there are some problems with people getting all their essential nutrients from eating other people. Thus, as a rule, human cannibalism is more often associated with its psychological aspects than its nutritional aspects.
One can, however, survive quite nicely on a diet of raw whale blubber. Indeed, it was the mainstay of the Inupiat diet well into the 20th century.
If nutrition is the only criterion, Joe, then we should all take pills. Yoji isn't interested in nutrition; he claims that eating sentient creatures is part of his cultural tradition, and attempts to stop him are cultural imperialism. This argument, however, is bogus, because if he really wanted to be traditional, he'd hunt whales in a bamboo boat and spears, instead of a steel gunship with exploding harpoons and laser gunsights. The real issue is the deep-rooted Japanese inferiority complex. At school, the Japanese are taught that theirs is the divine nation with the emperor at its core, and never to question authority. (This is because the purpose of the Japanese education system is to turn out a compliant workforce for the world's largest manufacturing industry.) However, the Japanese lost WWII, and the dichotomy between favoured of the gods and the defeat in war is irreconcilable according to much of Japan's social programming. Hence the reaction to (primarily, though not exclusively) Western calls to a moratorium on whaling. The head of the Japanese delegation to the IWC has even said publically in a radio interview that he sees nothing wrong with blackmailing or bullying smaller countries into siding with Japan on the whaling issue, under threat of sanctions and big wads of cash to selected politicians (see: the carrot and the stick). Whither imperialism there? (Though I'm sure Yoji will try to tell us...)

Ron Tisdale
1st October 2003, 15:01
Ok, first, his name is Youji, or can't you read that?

Second:
Just because Islamic fundamentalists want to commit honour killings of their daughters doesn't mean they should be allowed to do so, not even in Pakistan or other hotbeads of fundamentalism.

Actually, this has less to do with "Islamic fundamentalists" than certain leftovers from tribal customs that existed pre-Islam. I'm no great fan of *any* sort of fundamentalism, but at least lets try to get the facts right.


Most "honour" killings of women occur in Muslim countries, the focus of this case study; but it is worth noting that no sanction for such murders is granted in Islamic religion or law. And the phenomenon is in any case a global one. According to Stephanie Nebehay, such killings "have been reported in Bangladesh, Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey and Uganda."

From: http://www.gendercide.org/case_honour.html?FACTNet

Ron

Kimpatsu
1st October 2003, 15:50
Originally posted by Ron Tisdale
Ok, first, his name is Youji, or can't you read that?
His name is Yoji, but I can't put the macron over the O. Or can't you read Japanese?

Originally posted by Ron Tisdale
Actually, this has less to do with "Islamic fundamentalists" than certain leftovers from tribal customs that existed pre-Islam. I'm no great fan of *any* sort of fundamentalism, but at least lets try to get the facts right.
But they are performed as islamic honour killings today. No one who commits them says, "Oh, this is a hangover from our tribal customs". They do it because they believe themselves sanctioned by Islam.
Do try to get the facts straight. :rolleyes:

Ron Tisdale
1st October 2003, 16:03
And they are incorrect in their belief, as documented in the source I provided. So....your labeling is still incorrect. But from what I've seen...I'm not surprised.

As to Youji's name, I'll cede to your greater knowledge of japanese and romanization.

R

Kimpatsu
1st October 2003, 16:13
Originally posted by Ron Tisdale
And they are incorrect in their belief, as documented in the source I provided. So....your labeling is still incorrect. But from what I've seen...I'm not surprised.

Leaving aside the gratuitous ad hominem, the advocates of honour killings do so in the name of Islam, so I'm simply going by what they believe themselves to be. A distinction that seems lost on you... :rolleyes:

elder999
1st October 2003, 22:30
Just viewed this entire thread…..whew!

To add a little clarity-or maybe muddy the waters….’

Many of my ancestors were whalers-Cuffees shipped out of Sag Harbor, NY from the very early 19th century-it’s part of what made my family wealthy....

....the part I’m partly ashamed of….

There are some populations of some species of whales that are in danger of extinction. Including all whales down to the smallest ones (a dolphin or porpoise is really just a small whale), the populations in the most trouble today include:

North Atlantic right whales
North Pacific right whales
Gulf of California porpoise (vaquita)
Chinese river dolphin (baiji)
Ganges river dolphin (susu)
Indus river dolphin (susu)
Finless porpoise
Possibly some bowhead and blue whale populations

Of these, the vaquita and baiji are in the most danger - they are both
classified as critically endangered by UNEP, like fin whales, humpback whales,and sperm whales, are probably in very little danger of extinction You can search UNEP’s Red list of endangered animals on the Web by going to:

http://www.wcmc.org.uk/data/database/rl_anml_combo.html

Whaling was banned worldwide in the 1970’s for a reason,just as alligator hunting was-whales were endangered and whaling had become too efficient, and alligators had become endangered as well.

You can now hunt alligators in Louisiana and Florida.

American Bison were protected for a long time, but I’m going to slaughter one in another month. There are a variety of cultures that hunt and dine on whale, and if controls are in place I don’t see anything wrong with it-for them.

That said, I don't think Japan's industrial harvesting of dolphins qualifies.

As for the eating of the “plentiful” species of whales(Youjii-I’ve sailed almost all over the world, and been in waters where whales wee migrating-in all my years I’ve only seen them twice), well, I don’t know how I feel about that-deep down it feels wrong to me,because they;'re intelligent-not because they're cute!

Hell, every time I’ve eaten dog I had seconds-and I’m known as a dog lover!I could almost never eat my pets-not happily, anyway, but......

Them that’s meat, gets eat(en).

Kimpatsu
2nd October 2003, 00:50
Originally posted by elder999
Them that’s meat, gets eat(en).
Does that include people, Aaron? :D

hyaku
2nd October 2003, 01:03
Originally posted by Vapour
Can I ask you one thing before getting iinto any debate. Do you agree that it is o.k. to exploit sea as long as the rate of exploitation is sustainable.

This is separate issue from what is the current rate of exploitation or whether marine resource (including sea mammals) should be exploited at all due to their *supposed* intelligence. If you think sea mammals shouldn't be hunted no matter what, then they are your holy cows and we have nothing to debate here.

I think we are getting at cross purposes here. Many people all over the world who live hand to mouth rely on a fish/rice diet. What I am against is the indiscriminate killing of sea mammals to satisfy the needs of someones food luxuries.

After the WW2 whale was eaten Europe for a short as beef stocks had depleted. However they did return to eating meat that was bred in captivity.

What gets me is unnecessary killing rather than a need to survive.

The complete depletion of the mackerel stocks in the South West of England which destroyed the local fishing industry there was sad because the nets used crushed the fish to an extent that they were not fit for human consumption. It all went in to petfood.

When alls said and done all its takes is a litle grey matter. When I see these idiots squatting on the TV screen over their kill of forty fish around 5 to10cms long like the great white hunter it defies belief. If this sums up Japanese intelligence when it comes to taking fish from water they still have along way to go. I learned about the taking of undersized fish when I was seven years old on joining the junior anglers club.

Hyakutake Colin

Hyakutake Colin

Joseph Svinth
2nd October 2003, 02:34
Pills cause problems because the bowels require roughage, etc., which the pills don't provide. There are also psychological issues to consider, such as the social import most folks give to communal dining; stress eating; etc.

Also, IMO, nutrition is not the sole criterion for eating, otherwise nobody would eat cotton candy, and most Americans wouldn't be overweight.

My guess is that the nutritional value of humans is not high, as in the wild, even tigers eat people only after they have become toothless. Pigs eat people, though, but usually only after they're dead.

Animals fight back, though. Bambi, for instance, kills far more Americans each year than do any other species of which I'm aware. Kamikaze runs -- they stand in the roads, ambushing unwary drivers...

Kimpatsu
2nd October 2003, 02:44
Certainly, in Heian Japan, food was eaten for its aesthetic, not nutritional, value, which is why people were thin and the "Twiggy look" was popular. (When this changed in later ages, the more "buxom maid" type become the aesthetic norm.)
We could eat pills for nutrition and take the roughage separately, as bran flakes every morning, for example. The problem is that although nutrition is not the primary purpose of consumption, it should be. Joe: don't confuse an is with an "ought to be". If Americans could be persuaded to alter their dietary habits, obesity would decline, but there is a notion prevalant today of the body as a machine, like a car, and when your car breaks down you take it to the auto shop and get it repaired, so doctors should be able to repair our bodies in the same way. At the same time, there is the problem that many Americans now abrogate personal responsibility: i.e., it is not their job to keep thin; that's the doctor's job to keep them thin. None of which has anything to do with whale hunting. As I said earlier, much of the reason for the Japanese desire to hunt whales to extinction is to demonstrate to themselves what many Japanese secretly doubt: that Japan is still a soverign nation, and not a satrap of the American barbarians. Resisting American pressure to end whaling is therefore viewed as a patriotic crusade, rather than an issue of sustainable resources or the ethics of killing sentient creatures. Whaling may be traditional, but so is slavery; just because something is a tradition doesn't automatically make it right to continue. In the 21st century, we should be looking forward with science, not backwards with superstition.
And we could still socialise with a pill-popping party. Do you want to have a dinner date with me to discuss the issue? :D

larsen_huw
3rd October 2003, 14:10
Just read this whole thread, and feel like bit of an intruder, seeing as i don't live in Japan.

I don't really have a view on the overall topic, but there are a few things Tony said which really interests me.

Tony,

You say (if i read your posts correctly) that eating dolphin is up there with eating humans. So as a hypothetical situation, if you were on a raft in the middle of the ocean, with another human and a dolphin (very hypothetical .... but starts to make perfect sense after your 10th beer!), which would get eaten first when you began to starve. You can assume there is no other food available to you, and that in terms of personality you like the dolhin and human equally.

If you take away the hypothetical questions, basically what i'm asking you is does there come a point when moral objections are overcome by physical needs? And if so, in your case, which would get slaughtered first?

If you feel this is straying too far off topic, feel free to PM me your answers. Also any relelvent information on why your beliefs (that word looks wrong, but i don't know why!) are as they are would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Kimpatsu
3rd October 2003, 15:59
Originally posted by larsen_huw
You say (if i read your posts correctly) that eating dolphin is up there with eating humans. So as a hypothetical situation, if you were on a raft in the middle of the ocean, with another human and a dolphin (very hypothetical .... but starts to make perfect sense after your 10th beer!), which would get eaten first when you began to starve. You can assume there is no other food available to you, and that in terms of personality you like the dolhin and human equally.

If you take away the hypothetical questions, basically what i'm asking you is does there come a point when moral objections are overcome by physical needs? And if so, in your case, which would get slaughtered first?

If you feel this is straying too far off topic, feel free to PM me your answers. Also any relelvent information on why your beliefs (that word looks wrong, but i don't know why!) are as they are would be greatly appreciated.Thanks.
No, It's a fair question. The short answer is, I don't know. To use a Biblical metaphor, it's all about the garden at Gethseme. According to the legend, Jesus knew the Roman guards would be coming from him, but he chose to stay and wait for them, rather than run away (of course, he was trying to fulfill his destiny, but...) So, would I have the courage to stay, or would I flee into the desert? Would I have the courage of my convictions, or would I give in and chow down? The short answer is, I just don't know. I've never been tested in that way.

larsen_huw
3rd October 2003, 16:04
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
No, It's a fair question. The short answer is, I don't know. To use a Biblical metaphor, it's all about the garden at Gethseme. According to the legend, Jesus knew the Roman guards would be coming from him, but he chose to stay and wait for them, rather than run away (of course, he was trying to fulfill his destiny, but...) So, would I have the courage to stay, or would I flee into the desert? Would I have the courage of my convictions, or would I give in and chow down? The short answer is, I just don't know. I've never been tested in that way.

Fair enough, thanks for the honest answer.

The phycology of principles is something that's very interesting to me. I'm pretty sure that if i had a choice between starvation and chowwing down on someone i didn't know, i'd be asking for seconds! In principle i'm against canibalism (maybe spelt something like that! :D ), but i'm pretty sure that there's a limit to my principles.

Vapour
3rd October 2003, 23:48
Originally posted by hyaku
I think we are getting at cross purposes here. Many people all over the world who live hand to mouth rely on a fish/rice diet. What I am against is the indiscriminate killing of sea mammals to satisfy the needs of someones food luxuries.

After the WW2 whale was eaten Europe for a short as beef stocks had depleted. However they did return to eating meat that was bred in captivity.

What gets me is unnecessary killing rather than a need to survive.

The complete depletion of the mackerel stocks in the South West of England which destroyed the local fishing industry there was sad because the nets used crushed the fish to an extent that they were not fit for human consumption. It all went in to petfood.

When alls said and done all its takes is a litle grey matter. When I see these idiots squatting on the TV screen over their kill of forty fish around 5 to10cms long like the great white hunter it defies belief. If this sums up Japanese intelligence when it comes to taking fish from water they still have along way to go. I learned about the taking of undersized fish when I was seven years old on joining the junior anglers club.

Hyakutake Colin

Hyakutake Colin

You may not directly answered it but you seems to accept that sensible management/exploitation of sea resource is valid. And as I said, this is separate issue from what is the acceptable level of exploitation. As of your distaste for waste, it is very valid feeling when the resource are scarce.

However, in regard to your distaste for commercial exploitation of sea resource which is depleting many of the world fish stock, I should put you in some perspective by pointing out that commercial aspect of fishing is here to stay whether you like it or not because... well, communism never worked anywhere has it. Stating that commercial greed is the cause of depletion of sea resouce is true but such revelation is as insightful as saying that Japanese summer is hot because sun exist. What one should realise is that the cause is in how such commercial aspect of fishing is managed. Only way to solve the problem is to make people realise that it is in *commercial* interest of everyone to preserve sea resouce. Bitching about the reality of capitalism or waving flags of holy mother nature is not a constructive direction in my opinion.

Kimpatsu
4th October 2003, 02:36
Originally posted by Vapour
Bitching about the reality of capitalism or waving flags of holy mother nature is not a constructive direction in my opinion.
Then let me as you a really simple question, Yoji:
When you've hunted all the cetaceans to extinction, what will you eat then?

T'ai Ji Monkey
4th October 2003, 03:25
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Then let me as you a really simple question, Yoji:
When you've hunted all the cetaceans to extinction, what will you eat then?

Simple and easy answer:
The same diet as now minus cetaceans.
:D

My Wife used to eart Whale too as it was served to her as part of her school-lunch.

T'ai Ji Monkey
4th October 2003, 03:45
Question for Tony.

What will you eat when all the COD are gone??

Beluga Caviar might already be a thing of the past too thanks to overfishing.



If beluga sturgeon is listed as endangered, all imports of beluga caviar into the U.S. would be prohibited. The United States consumes about 80 percent of all beluga caviar exports.


Sharks are becoming endangered too.

Looks like soon we will have a few more species that like the Dodo were eaten to death.

Kimpatsu
4th October 2003, 05:47
Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
Simple and easy answer:
The same diet as now minus cetaceans.

Until you've hunted that to extinction, too.

Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
What will you eat when all the COD are gone??
Beluga Caviar might already be a thing of the past too thanks to overfishing.
I don't eat cod. Or caviar.
Try again.

Kimpatsu
4th October 2003, 06:02
Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
What will you eat when all the COD are gone??
This is a tu quoque logical fallacy. We aren't debating cod, we're debating sentient cetations.

larsen_huw
6th October 2003, 11:15
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
...
I don't eat cod. Or caviar.
...

Tony,

You a veggie? Or just careful about the sustainability of your dinner?

Kimpatsu
6th October 2003, 12:00
Originally posted by larsen_huw
You a veggie? Or just careful about the sustainability of your dinner?
No, I'm not a vegetarian. I stopped eating cod when I realised how close to extinction the fish is, and I've never really had a taste for caviar (too much of a pleb at heart).

larsen_huw
6th October 2003, 12:09
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
No, I'm not a vegetarian. I stopped eating cod when I realised how close to extinction the fish is, and I've never really had a taste for caviar (too much of a pleb at heart).

Yeah, i've never had much of a taste for fish eggs. Give me a kebab and chilli sauce anyday!

So it's a sustainability thing? You only eat what's 'farmed' sensibly with numbers properly managed?

Kimpatsu
6th October 2003, 12:52
Originally posted by larsen_huw
So it's a sustainability thing? You only eat what's 'farmed' sensibly with numbers properly managed?
Exactly.

elder999
7th October 2003, 16:01
In keeping witht he sustainability thing, I believe that those Japanese that want to eat porpoise should have to go get it for themselves-either fishing from a boat, or, preferably, putting on SCUBA gear, taking a spear-gun, and taking trheir chances in the animals environment.

And yes, Tony, that includes people.
Just ask Roy Horn.:D

Big
15th October 2003, 11:40
Originally posted by elder999
In keeping witht he sustainability thing, I believe that those Japanese that want to eat porpoise should have to go get it for themselves-either fishing from a boat, or, preferably, putting on SCUBA gear, taking a spear-gun, and taking trheir chances in the animals environment.

And yes, Tony, that includes people.
Just ask Roy Horn.:D

Ok, I'm in on this... only if westerners have to go and kill their own cow/sheep/pig/dog/cat/chicken/monkey and cut it themselves.

jamata


oki maku

larsen_huw
15th October 2003, 11:48
Originally posted by Big
Ok, I'm in on this... only if westerners have to go and kill their own cow/sheep/pig/dog/cat/chicken/monkey and cut it themselves.

jamata


oki maku

I can live with that. Only animal i've ever killed myself is goat, but i'm sure the principle applies to all the meat i eat, you just might get a little more mess severing a cow's head! :)

Bet this'd lead to a sudden increase in vegetarianism if we all had to go kill our own food! I'm sure there's plenty of wooly liberals who'd faint if they saw what actually happens before their celophane wrapped dinner arrives in the supermarket!!! :D

Kimpatsu
15th October 2003, 11:50
Originally posted by Big
Ok, I'm in on this... only if westerners have to go and kill their own cow/sheep/pig/dog/cat/chicken/monkey and cut it themselves.

That's precisely what our farmers do. It's called free-range farming.

Kimpatsu
15th October 2003, 11:52
Originally posted by larsen_huw
Bet this'd lead to a sudden increase in vegetarianism if we all had to go kill our own food!
Specialisation means we don't have to, any more than all 127 million Japanese are required to kill their own food. That would be subsistence farming. Those who do hunt whale, however, must do so traditionally--with bamboo boats and spears--as it on the grounds of tradition that they claim the right to kill cetaceans.

larsen_huw
15th October 2003, 15:09
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Specialisation means we don't have to, any more than all 127 million Japanese are required to kill their own food. That would be subsistence farming. Those who do hunt whale, however, must do so traditionally--with bamboo boats and spears--as it on the grounds of tradition that they claim the right to kill cetaceans.

So if they did this, you would be happy with them killing 20,000 wales a year? :confused:

Naybe happy's the wrong word, how about you would accept they could kill 20,000 wales a year, provided they did it in a traditional fashion?

elder999
15th October 2003, 15:16
Originally posted by Big
Ok, I'm in on this... only if westerners have to go and kill their own cow/sheep/pig/dog/cat/chicken/monkey and cut it themselves.

jamata


oki maku

This is precisely what I do, although I've no cows, no pigs and don't normally eat dogs or monkeys.

elder999
15th October 2003, 15:25
Originally posted by larsen_huw
So if they did this, you would be happy with them killing 20,000 wales a year? :confused:

Naybe happy's the wrong word, how about you would accept they could kill 20,000 wales a year, provided they did it in a traditional fashion?

Yeah, I could accept that, but they couldn't do it.

larsen_huw
15th October 2003, 15:35
Originally posted by elder999
Yeah, I could accept that, but they couldn't do it.

Probably not, a quick calc shows that to be an average of almost 55 whales a week.

Say you'd need 2 weeks to find, kill and return a whale, so you'd need about 110 crews in order to do that. I have no idea of the size of Japan's whaling fleet, but i doubt it's that big.

btw ... i am aware (now!) that in an earlier post i was advocating killing 20,000 countries of my parents' birth! (wales) :)

bbtw .... Aaron, by a process of elimination, you eat cats! :D

Kimpatsu
15th October 2003, 15:42
Originally posted by larsen_huw
So if they did this, you would be happy with them killing 20,000 wales a year? :confused:

Naybe happy's the wrong word, how about you would accept they could kill 20,000 wales a year, provided they did it in a traditional fashion?
If they could manage to kill 20,000 whales a year by traditional methods, it woudl be quite a feat.

elder999
15th October 2003, 15:48
Originally posted by larsen_huw

btw ... i am aware (now!) that in an earlier post i was advocating killing 20,000 countries of my parents' birth! (wales) :)

bbtw .... Aaron, by a process of elimination, you eat cats! :D

I forgot about the cats-I don't eat cats.

But-I've said it before-every time I've had dog, I had seconds.

larsen_huw
15th October 2003, 16:38
Originally posted by elder999
I forgot about the cats-I don't eat cats.

But-I've said it before-every time I've had dog, I had seconds.

I guessed you didn't actually eat cats. And while i've never eaten dog, if i was hungry and it was on the menu, i wouldn't have any qualms about tucking in. Out of interest, what does it taste like? I'd imagine it to be somewhere close to goat.

elder999
15th October 2003, 16:56
Originally posted by larsen_huw
I guessed you didn't actually eat cats. And while i've never eaten dog, if i was hungry and it was on the menu, i wouldn't have any qualms about tucking in. Out of interest, what does it taste like? I'd imagine it to be somewhere close to goat.

Depends on how old it is and what it was fed.

Old dog can be pretty gnarly-sort of like bear, but a puppy that's been fed greens, bread and milk is delicious-though not like goat or lamb.More like pork.....