Who here thinks that the West should put pressure on the Japanese to stop hunting dolphins?
I came across this post by some liberal do-gooder on Gplus trying to bleed my heart for the dolphins. They are sentient, you know?
Here are the main points I made, but you might wanna read the liberal's posts as well.
They _______ eat them. Ask the Indians about a fucking cow you self aggrandizers. The world is bigger than your vision of it. What about the pigs we slaughter or the chickens? Who's really heartless? Your bleeding heart vs. an asian's hungry stomach... You want to stop other people from doing something that they have done for thousands of years. I'd say it is just another self righteous "political" movement. Like Kony or the War on Terror. If you think it is okay to boss other cultures around your leaders will continually oppress the other countries. You think Muslim religion allows for bad things and our leaders will try to stop it, no? How does that work out? Cannibalism is still around. So, why not root out the Brazilian cultures and tell them to stop? Go there. Wag your finger. And walk away with your chin up because you are right. A true Western Missionary. The white man's burden. I don't know how it is possible to call me selfish over this issue...I'm standing up for something I don't even support because it is part of what makes Japanese culture unique ( they like it). Starting class wars of the Veblen status of foods is pretty self aggrandizing...Why not put the effort towards Tyson or KFC for their treatment of chicken? They have awful practices of virtual torture, but we sell it, buy it, eat it, etc. I'd support the argument if dolphins were being hunted everywhere in the world, but they aren't. They are hunted in particular regions. It is perfectly acceptable for US to stop hunting animals (we don't eat dogs for instance, but Asians and Africans do) that WE don't want to die, but to clash culture over something like this is absurd. Likening it to slavery is just as absurd. I doubt the Japanese are killing too many Atlantic Bottlenose... Also, your argument of sentience is a non-starter as dolphins are not "as" sentient as humans so justifying cannibalism from what I said is impossible. And yes, in Africa and South America...even parrots are eaten.
Your bleeding heart vs. an asian's hungry stomach... You want to stop other people from doing something that they have done for thousands of years. I'd say it is just another self righteous "political" movement. Like Kony or the War on Terror.
If you think it is okay to boss other cultures around your leaders will continually oppress the other countries. You think Muslim religion allows for bad things and our leaders will try to stop it, no? How does that work out? Cannibalism is still around. So, why not root out the Brazilian cultures and tell them to stop? Go there. Wag your finger. And walk away with your chin up because you are right. A true Western Missionary. The white man's burden. I don't know how it is possible to call me selfish over this issue...I'm standing up for something I don't even support because it is part of what makes Japanese culture unique ( they like it). Starting class wars of the Veblen status of foods is pretty self aggrandizing...Why not put the effort towards Tyson or KFC for their treatment of chicken? They have awful practices of virtual torture, but we sell it, buy it, eat it, etc. I'd support the argument if dolphins were being hunted everywhere in the world, but they aren't. They are hunted in particular regions. It is perfectly acceptable for US to stop hunting animals (we don't eat dogs for instance, but Asians and Africans do) that WE don't want to die, but to clash culture over something like this is absurd. Likening it to slavery is just as absurd. I doubt the Japanese are killing too many Atlantic Bottlenose... Also, your argument of sentience is a non-starter as dolphins are not "as" sentient as humans so justifying cannibalism from what I said is impossible. And yes, in Africa and South America...even parrots are eaten.
I cannot see the logic in telling people to stop eating somthing that is unique to their culture. But, according to the liberals I am selfish for not wanting to stop the Japanese...
This is how I imagine they see the Japanese
Aristophanes:Who here thinks that the West should put pressure on the Japanese to stop hunting dolphins?
This is kind of like a "should the U.S. attack Iran" question. You'll have to identify "the West".
If it's more of a generic question, and you want to know if "anyone" should "put pressure" on "the Japanese" to stop hunting dolphins, then you'd have to define those terms as well.
Ask the Indians about a fucking cow you self aggrandizers. The world is bigger than your vision of it. What about the pigs we slaughter or the chickens? Who's really heartless? Your bleeding heart vs. an asian's hungry stomach... You want to stop other people from doing something that they have done for thousands of years. I'd say it is just another self righteous "political" movement. Like Kony or the War on Terror. If you think it is okay to boss other cultures around your leaders will continually oppress the other countries. You think Muslim religion allows for bad things and our leaders will try to stop it, no? How does that work out?
Ask the Indians about a fucking cow you self aggrandizers. The world is bigger than your vision of it. What about the pigs we slaughter or the chickens? Who's really heartless?
If you think it is okay to boss other cultures around your leaders will continually oppress the other countries. You think Muslim religion allows for bad things and our leaders will try to stop it, no? How does that work out?
I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a compelling argument. It's not about the "Asian's hungry stomach." Most Japanese don't even know what's going on...they don't know how the dolphins are killed or where the meat comes from...let alone how contaminated it is. (Not unlike Americans and the poultry, meat, and other things they eat...although the dolphin meat is way more dangerous.)
You act like this is just a case of some ignorant American projecting their own idea of "civility" onto another culture, but I'm afraid you know a lot less about this particular issue than you think.
Cannibalism is still around. So, why not root out the Brazilian cultures and tell them to stop? Go there. Wag your finger. And walk away with your chin up because you are right. A true Western Missionary. The white man's burden.
There are people who do that.
Aristophanes:I don't know how it is possible to call me selfish over this issue...I'm standing up for something I don't even support because it is part of what makes Japanese culture unique ( they like it).
Define "they". (Surely you're not lumping the entire population of the country of Japan into a single entity that "likes" the slaughter and consumption of dolphins...are you?)
Starting class wars of the Veblen status of foods is pretty self aggrandizing...Why not put the effort towards Tyson or KFC for their treatment of chicken? They have awful practices of virtual torture, but we sell it, buy it, eat it, etc.
Um. What country do you live in? There are Americans all over the place who protest exactly that. There's a documentary about the "poor" and "unethical" treatment of animals of every single kind put out at least every other year...with particular attention paid to farm animals raised for the food industry. I have no idea where this is coming from. You're saying all this as if no one is going around speaking out against this kind of thing.
There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who are vegetarians and vegans specifically because they don't agree with the treatment animals harvested for food.
They don't "sell it, buy it, eat it, etc." So again I have no idea why this is supposed to be a very damning argument.
Aristophanes:I'd support the argument if dolphins were being hunted everywhere in the world, but they aren't. They are hunted in particular regions.
a) Dolphins don't exist "everywhere in the world"...they only exist in "particular regions."
b) What difference does it make?
c) Laws are different in different regions.
It is perfectly acceptable for US to stop hunting animals (we don't eat dogs for instance, but Asians and Africans do) that WE don't want to die, but to clash culture over something like this is absurd. Likening it to slavery is just as absurd. I doubt the Japanese are killing too many Atlantic Bottlenose...
You'd have to define "clash culture." I don't see what is wrong with voicing one's opinion about a specific practice, and urging others to refrain from it.
If there is something inherently immoral or unlibertarian about such a thing, I'd be interested to hear your explanation.
I cannot see the logic in telling people to stop eating somthing that is unique to their culture.
Perhaps this person cannot see the logic in telling people to stop telling others to stop eating something that is (allegedly) unique to their culture.
How is it you are any more in the right than they are?
Lol I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the name of this thread.
Anyway, screw animal rights activists, no one really takes them seriously as far as I can tell, it's hard enough to enforce human rights, who sees a massive part of the world's current culture and food supply being banned soon because we don't want these dumb creatures to suffer. There's no way to argue against animal rights activism because you cannot prove that someone's value is stupid. At the base level you shouldn't kill humans because there might be directly negative effects on you (retaliation) or indirect negative effects (how people treat you in future or on a mass scale economic problems). This does not apply to animals so there's not even a rational reason to believe this.
Animal rights activists and the arguments they make are exactly the "empathy for empathy's sake" arguments that people caricature liberals as making.
And with all this said... I'd still rather people didn't eat dolphins. I love those crazy water mammals :)
So chill.
I should have just posted this.
This is kind of like a "should the U.S. attack Iran" question. You'll have to identify "the West". If it's more of a generic question, and you want to know if "anyone" should "put pressure" on "the Japanese" to stop hunting dolphins, then you'd have to define those terms as well.
JJ, you need to learn jest.
Half of your post is worthless criticism of my semantics.
You'd have to define "clash culture."
Read Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" if you need this kind of thing spelled out for you. It is hugely respected among US academic and policy circles. If you knew anything about geopolitics outside of the LvMI you'd know exactly what it means to "clash civilizations" or "cultures" (Huntington defines those rather ambiguously, but more or less they both represent the amalgam of a particular body of interactions and norms).
I know people protest KFC, but that's not what this is about. I used that angle to point out that they are actively trying to depress another society, when the same atrocities are being committed on their dinner table. This was pushed at me on the internet (I NEVER see anti Tyson postings or signs around town or campus...) I pointed out that it is characteristic of a culture (ours) that thinks they can demand others change their traditions to conform to the Western ideal. Again, if you need "The West" defined look at a god damn globe. It is EUROPE and NORTH AMERICA.
The WEST is also, colloquially, the whole range of culture that has grown from ROME and GREECE. This is due to the incestual nature of the languages of Europe (AND THE US in case you didn't know); they are all basically dialects of Latin (Except Germany and the Scandanavian stuff).
I'm afraid you don't even have the prerequisite understanding of the history of your own culture (evidenced by your ignorance of the basic terminology) to even try to criticize me for nit picking some liberal activists on the internet. Your condescension bites your own ass.
Aristophanes:I'd support the argument if dolphins were being hunted everywhere in the world, but they aren't. They are hunted in particular regions. a) Dolphins don't exist "everywhere in the world"...they only exist in "particular regions." b) What difference does it make? c) Laws are different in different regions.
your (a) point is incorrect. And it wouldn't matter even if it wasn't as dolphins can still exist in places where they aren't hunted. I even use the example of an Atlantic bottlenose. They exist in a region where they aren't hunted... (0.o) ...because it is illegal to do so in the US system. Aaand (b) and (c) aren't worth it. Endangering the existence of a species is different than feeling sorry for them and hating the people that eat them. Indians don't boycott the US over our cruelty to the bovine.
haha
Says the guy who tries to claim that dophins aren't everywhere in the world...
the Americans are ignorant. They are doing exactly what you said, projecting their own idea of "civility" onto another culture." The rest of that quote is incorrect, at least from you it is. Now, a marine biologist could come on here and I'd believe them, but not a forum troll.
It's not about the "Asian's hungry stomach." Most Japanese don't even know what's going on...they don't know how the dolphins are killed or where the meat comes from...let alone how contaminated it is. (Not unlike Americans and the poultry, meat, and other things they eat...although the dolphin meat is way more dangerous.)
Have you been to Japan? Do you know Japanese people that have told you that? Do you converse with the Japanese food safety regulators? Or are you just using "google"??
…Because you also said that dolphins are in specific regions of the world (which is wrong)...unless you meant water. They are exclusive to water covered regions of the Earth or water filled tanks...
I don't see what is wrong with voicing one's opinion about a specific practice, and urging others to refrain from it. If there is something inherently immoral or unlibertarian about such a thing, I'd be interested to hear your explanation.
When did "libertarian" come into this? Can you take those goggles off? I'm saying that it is unreasonable to think that you can tell others what is right. So, the goal of the anti-dolphin hunting campaign is for the US to boycott Japan? Why not boycott China for eating dogs? or Brazil for not killing all of the cannibals? Or Australia, or South Africa, or Laos, or Thailand (they sell kids over there!)?? It is completely arbitrary and instigates cultural chasm. I also happen to think it is immoral to denounce a cultural trend and demand its abolition based on your judgment of their culinary habits. And especially so, when the Tyson, KFC thing is...still a thing.
Plus, the implications (from Huntington's work in this context) are that politics will matter less and less in the future and that wars will come about by cultural discrepancies. This is just a part of what he was talking about. We think that certain foods should be banned due to some kind of animalistic altruism ("They think like things with brains do, don't kill them!!"), but this will only chide our leaders into doing something about it...
I care less and less about "libertarianism" everyday. (I deleted this section to avoid flame). It is unrealistic and has a history of lack of success. I'll stay in favor of it personally, but pragmatically, or when discussing politics outside of a theoretical manner, it is useless.
"The WEST is also, colloquially, the whole range of culture that has grown from ROME and GREECE. This is due to the incestual nature of the languages of Europe (AND THE US in case you didn't know); they are all basically dialects of Latin (Except Germany and the Scandanavian stuff).
I'm afraid you don't even have the prerequisite understanding of the history of your own culture (evidenced by your ignorance of the basic terminology) to even try to criticize me for nit picking some liberal activists on the internet. Your condescension bites your own ass."
Wow... This is gonna get really ugly really quickly.
It is hugely respected among US academic and policy circles.
Huntington, however, is a retard and his attempt of division of the world moronic.
Did I make claims otherwise? Huntington is still discussed in academia, your opinion notwithstanding. Also, why don't you point out your criticisms of it/him? I have my own, as I do with most mainstream writers, but am curious why you'd state this with no supporting evidence, as if your opinion stands on some kind of "internet forum, duh" merit. Further, your criticism, apparently, seems rather inconsequential as you say his "division of the world" is "moronic." Do you have published writings I could investigate that counter his claims and observations? Or did you read the "criticism" section of the link I provided, then make a comment based on it? Anything that brings something fresh to the table?
My point exactly.
Well, it's not exactly your point is it? It is other figures in the US academic and policy circles that have criticized him...not you...
No, the West is a construct primarily of the French and Anglo-Saxon intelligentsia for the purpose of appropriating for Western Europe and its extensions in the New World the sole ownership of all of the achievements of the much larger Christian world, and even of a number barely related and relatable pre-Christian civilizations.
You need to use your commas correctly, bro. This is what you meant, right?
No, the West is a construct primarily of the French and Anglo-Saxon intelligentsia for the purpose of appropriating for Western Europe, and its extensions in the New World, the sole ownership of all of the achievements of the much larger Christian world and even of a number barely related and relatable pre-Christian civilizations.
Yeah, where did Christianity really rise to fame? It was Papua New Guinea, wasn't it? Why was Latin so important to Rome and the Church? What created the intelligensia other than the state and church of Rome? You refer to the intelligentsia as if they aren't synomous with cultural activities... And you even explicitly state "appropriation for western europe." The "intelligentsia" (first of all is too vague as you provide no time period) you refer to would be nothing without the Greeks and Romans (unless you think the tribes in Gaul were somehow uber influential in the rise of the Latin language within the Church). Italy has more to do with the cultural development of the West than France. By far. Trade and religion brought "the West" together under the Roman Empire. Roman intelligentsia wouldn't have been anything without the Greeks (Roman philosophy, art, and statues are pathetic compared to the Greeks). Do you see where I am going with this? I'd suggest you take a look at the link (it's just a wiki)...and rethink what I stated.
Also, if you are talking about the medieval time period or just after it, but before the 19th century, then "the West" is even more Eurocentric. Recently, "the West" has engulfed parts of about every continent even though some cultures have resisted its influence while others readily accept it. (See: Charles Maier, Among Empires)
Also, let's stick to the topic of the OP.
Did I make claims otherwise?
You didn't need to. You brought him up as suggested reading. Or do you make a habbit of bringing up as suggested reading books you think suck?
Oh so now figures in the US academic and policy circles have criticized him. But before I said he was a moron you were making an appeal to authority by pointing out he was hugely respected among US academic and policy circles.
So what now? You're so "critical" of Huntington you're going to rehash his drivel for me?
You didn't need to. You brought him up as suggested reading. Or do you make a habbit of bringing up as suggested reading books you think suck? Oh so now figures in the US academic and policy circles have criticized him. But before I said he was a moron you were making an appeal to authority by pointing out he was hugely respected among US academic and policy circles.
Not everyone agrees with Plato's conclusions in the Crito, but people still read it because it makes points. Not everyone agreed with the Federalist letters, but people still read them and people still took concepts away from them. Not everyone thinks Justine is a "good book," but people still read it. Do we all "like" The Prince? Or did we read it because it has had influence? Just cause you can't buy it at the LvMI store doesn't mean it isn't worth reading. This is why I'm starting to despise libertarians; so much disrespect for the Establishment that they forget what the Establishment even says...
But, that is what? moronic and not useful? You don't have any criticisms. I was right on when I said you read the criticisms on the link I posted then made a comment based soley on what you read there. That is why you red herring in this last post... You had probably never heard of Huntington before today and you probably don't have any real idea why I would use his terminology (because it has shaped the last decade of WESTERN POLICY; NATO and the US). You're just as far off base as JJ was and you are throwing fallacies to get out of it.
Tell me, what does what is posted in your quote of me have to do with Huntington? Where does Hungtington discuss those particular things? Hmm? What does it even have to do with him?
I don't remember stating my criticims of him and they aren't what you said...that his "division of the world" was "moronic." His division of society gets awwry only around the language barriers (which I stress and he puts less emphasis on) and religion; religions and languages tend to stick together. I merely think he is an Islamophobe and places a lot of weight on religious struggle between Xmas and Islam. His paper gave a lot of esteem to the NeoCons...that is my criticism. Not that he is a "moron." There are simliar, but still mutually exclusive, examinations of the things he brings up (Jihad vs. McWorld by Barber, and THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS: AN ISLAMICIST'S CRITIQUE by Roy P. Mottahedeh). The running theme in academia is simply that the Islamic world deserves the most attention...
At least JJ, just stopped posting. You're about to troll fallacies to try and look like you have relevant things to say when it is so obvious that you don't.
Marko litteras nescivit, non potuit dictare. Et cum magno conatu nugas...
=P
I really find amusing (yes, amusing) there's so much uproar over the Japanese whaling industry but little (if any) about other nation's.
You hear little about Norway, Russia or Iceland, the darling of the liberal world. You hear nothing about the Peruvian government turning a blind eye on dolphin hunting (officially banned, actually practiced as nothing happened). It's all about Japan.
If I didn't know any better I'd use the R-word...
The logic is they got in the way of relevant people and relevant custom at the wrong place and wrong time. If this is the case, and these liberal protests are succesful, they are obviously closer to some point of reality than the opposing side. If so, see how western pop stars, tweets, and vegan college activists are going to be more powerful and have a much more "irresistable grace" than some "age old unique" reactionary cultural quirk.
Us libertarian-liberals should embrace progressive-liberals as much as possible and only nitpick with them on technical points. We're probably roughly the same breed. I don't see them as so much "bleeding hearts", as I see them as JS Mill type utilitarians or holding a form of scientism. It would probably be best to just show them the folly of these thought lines (as well as economic consequences) - while showing the "progressive" nature of the market mentality. Less "clinging to guns and religion" as Obama said.
Some of it may bother me. I know I'll miss Chick-Fil-A if it gets shut down in my town, but that's the simple consequence for having asocial reactionary views - you end up "in the dustbin of history".
Nietzsche
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Aristophanes:This is kind of like a "should the U.S. attack Iran" question. You'll have to identify "the West". If it's more of a generic question, and you want to know if "anyone" should "put pressure" on "the Japanese" to stop hunting dolphins, then you'd have to define those terms as well. JJ, you need to learn jest. Half of your post is worthless criticism of my semantics.
Well which is it? Were you just not serious or did you just not pick the right words?
Aristophanes:You'd have to define "clash culture."Read Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" if you need this kind of thing spelled out for you. It is hugely respected among US academic and policy circles. If you knew anything about geopolitics outside of the LvMI you'd know exactly what it means to "clash civilizations" or "cultures"
I didn't ask what is "hugely respected among US academic and policy circles". I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean in this context. I can't say I've ever really heard of a term being "hugely respected".
I said you'll have to offer what you mean when you use that term. People use ambiguous terms like that all the time. "We", "the West", "the Japanese", "put pressure on"..."obscene", "growth", "wealth", "property", "mental illness", "power"...every single one of these terms is used all the time and has an easily sourced definition from a dictionary or encyclopedia. In your language you might say they are "hugely respected among US academic and policy circles" (but I'm just guessing, as I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to mean.)
But as I would have thought someone at least of your experience would understand, being "hugely respected?" doesn't exactly mean you can throw those terms around without having to define them. I'm sorry if this is news to you. It's possible I made too much of an assumption about your level of intellectual understanding.
See those links for examples in which those seemingly simply, supposedly easily understood, and probably "well respected" terms are requested to be defined.
I know people protest KFC, but that's not what this is about.
Sure seemed like that's what it was about.
I used that angle to point out that they are actively trying to depress another society, when the same atrocities are being committed on their dinner table.
And as I said, how exactly is it that you know "the same atrocities are being committed on their dinner table?" Have you been to all their houses? Do you know "bleeding hearts" that have told you that? Do you converse with the "bleeding hearts" who happen to be food safety regulators? Or are you just using "google"?? Or your ass?
This was pushed at me on the internet (I NEVER see anti Tyson postings or signs around town or campus...) I pointed out that it is characteristic of a culture (ours) that thinks they can demand others change their traditions to conform to the Western ideal. Again, if you need "The West" defined look at a god damn globe. It is EUROPE and NORTH AMERICA.
I've never in my life heard of a continent demanding something. I was under the impression that only individuals act. But I'm open to learning new things.
Please share the resources which document "EUROPE and NORTH AMERICA" making demands.
Aristophanes:The WEST is also, colloquially, the whole range of culture that has grown from ROME and GREECE.
Never heard of a culture demanding things either.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with anything. It appears to me that you have simply anthropomorphized a cardinal direction to make a grossly generalized statement about an entire hemisphere(?) of human beings...lumping literally billions of people into a single group that all hold this one characteristic that you wish to ascribe to them.
Sounds more like simple laziness on your part than anything else. But feel free to attack me if it makes you feel better I guess.
your (a) point is incorrect.
Sure is a lot of white and gray space on that map.
Aristophanes:And it wouldn't matter even if it wasn't as dolphins can still exist in places where they aren't hunted. I even use the example of an Atlantic bottlenose. They exist in a region where they aren't hunted... (0.o) ...because it is illegal to do so in the US system. Aaand (b) and (c) aren't worth it.
Isn't (c) exactly the "legal" thing you just said in the sentence before?
Endangering the existence of a species is different than feeling sorry for them and hating the people that eat them.
Okay. Because of course no one is killing endangered whales and dolphins.
Aristophanes:Indians don't boycott the US over our cruelty to the bovine.
And?
haha Says the guy who tries to claim that dophins aren't everywhere in the world...
Again, lot of white and gray space on that map. Quite a bit of it in the oceans.
Aristophanes:It's not about the "Asian's hungry stomach." Most Japanese don't even know what's going on...they don't know how the dolphins are killed or where the meat comes from...let alone how contaminated it is. (Not unlike Americans and the poultry, meat, and other things they eat...although the dolphin meat is way more dangerous.) Have you been to Japan? Do you know Japanese people that have told you that? Do you converse with the Japanese food safety regulators? Or are you just using "google"??
Would it make a difference? Would you still not come back and say "well that's just your experience...you don't know all the Japanese people". Would it make a difference if I showed you video of regular Japanese on the street being shown footage of dolphin drive hunting and their reaction of shock and disgust? Would it make a difference if I showed you interviews of Japanese scientists stopped eating tuna and dolphin from the grocery stores after they tested it and themselves for mercury levels? How about city councilmen explaining why they stuck their necks out to try and get dolphin meat removed from school lunches?
I assume you'd just tell me the videos were "Photoshopped"?
…Because you also said that dolphins are in specific regions of the world (which is wrong)...unless you meant water.
Again, lot of white space on that map.
They are exclusive to water covered regions of the Earth or water filled tanks...
"Everywhere in the world", "everywhere there is water" etc....but your own source proves you wrong. It's actually quite comical how proud you are of this point. This is literally the third time you've brought it up in this one post alone.
When did "libertarian" come into this? Can you take those goggles off?
What goggles? You're bitching because someone is voicing their opinion that dolphins shouldn't be slaughtered and fed to people. You make it sound like there is something wrong with that.
I'm just asking what exactly is wrong about it.
Aristophanes:I'm saying that it is unreasonable to think that you can tell others what is right.
I thought they were saying it was immoral and/or unethical? Are you suggesting it is unreasonable to think you can tell others what is immoral and/or unethical? Are you moral relativist now?
So, the goal of the anti-dolphin hunting campaign is for the US to boycott Japan? Why not boycott China for eating dogs? or Brazil for not killing all of the cannibals? Or Australia, or South Africa, or Laos, or Thailand (they sell kids over there!)??
I can't say exactly what the goal of those protesters is. You'd have to ask each of them. But I would assume their goal would be to have dolphin slaughter and consumption end.
But hey I could be wrong. Stranger things have happpened.
I also happen to think it is immoral to denounce a cultural trend and demand its abolition based on your judgment of their culinary habits. And especially so, when the Tyson, KFC thing is...still a thing.
That's an interesting invocation of morality. (Especially considering what you were likely implying about the subject only a few lines above. Are you bloomj31?) I'm also still not clear on how exactly urging people to stop slaughtering and eating dolphins is immoral simply because chickens are slaughtered and eaten too.
I don't quite follow the logic there. You're saying that if these people didn't protest the dolphins and only focused their efforts on the poultry first...and then turned their attention to the dolphins after chicken slaughter ceased....then it wouldn't be immoral?
What is it exactly that makes the order in which their efforts are focused moral or immoral? And how exactly is that determined? And what if these people are consistent across the board...vegans who protest the slaughter of all animals? Literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions of these people exist. I fail to see where the "immorality" comes in in their protest.
Perhaps you could enlighten us all. Jacob Spinney would be incredibly interested to hear why exactly he's an immoral person, I'm sure.
That's too bad.
Are squid and prawnies contaminated as well?
Ahh, JJ posted a whole bunch of nothing. "Could you define 'respect' please? You aren't an intellectual." hahaha
Respect (the way I used it) is that thing that calls your attention for being influential or esteemed (among other things) where you don't have to agree with it.
A lot of white on that map....good one. Shave off "worldwide" from the dopheeen's habitable zone and you can question things...about the sea of blue where the waters aren't icy...every continent has dolphins, kid. (oope, except antarctica...but it doesn't have much and I'm not even sure if we know for sure that there is land under all of the ice...so i'll make the exception there.
Yeah, why wouldn't you think that? Because all of my posts accuse people of that...or similar things to it.
Your response to my questions were answered with "Google." So, fucking what if there are videos on the net of bystanders...if there wasn't DEMAND for the product.........it wouldn't get made (or hunted w/e). So, fuck off with this pedestrian evidence shit. I could find any dimwit on the street and ask them about the little asian kids that make their clothes or cell phone, but when the conversation is over they won't remember or think anything of it they'll itch there collar and text a friend.
What is it exactly that makes the order in which their efforts are focused moral or immoral?
It's like having slaves, then telling other countries to knock off the slavery...It's like being fat and calling other people's diets wrong...It's like allowing your culture to mercilessly torture and kill pigs, cows, and chickens, but then getting upset when another culture does the same thing to a different animal. They are trying to force change on someone else that they won't even force upon themselves. Get it? It's one of those things where until your bed is made you don't bitch at strangers for having a messy bedroom.
Scoff! How dare I?!? Could you define moral relativist? You could mean so many things by that...
Is a moral relativist where you stick up for other cultural traditions besides your own? Or where you get sick of hearing bleeding hearts who latch onto something then hold it up as if it is the paragon of political causes?
I care less and less about "libertarianism" everyday. (I deleted this section to avoid flame). It is unrealistic and has a history of lack of success. I'll stay in favor of it personally, but pragmatically, or when discussing politics outside of a theoretical manner, it is useless. That's too bad.
I love this part too.
Awww, so you really are sad to see someone you don't even like turn away from the Church of Scient...I mean libertarianism.
"Subjective this. Subjective that. I win. Libertarianism only makes sense. All else is void."
Again, I'm going to say it. The NAP is inappropriate under conditions of oppression. It is, in fact, willful submission to the oppressors to swear of violence AND destruction of property. The Sons of Liberty burned down merchant ships; they destroyed property...they didn't lick the boots of the police when push comes to shove (cough Ron Paul cough).
Where is Marko? Is he reading his Huntington so he can actually criticize something?
I'd like to see dolphin and whale killing stopped in general, no matter who's doing the killing, nor do I care who's putting the pressure.
So give a reason. Then, set limits. If it is because they feel pain or are cute then we all need to be vegetarians...because you can't say stop killing dolphins, but continue torturing chickens or swine. There needs to be a logical reason.
Honestly, the only logical reason is if they are becoming endangered, but dolphins and whales aren't. Now, having said that I am aware there are certain types of both are threatened and I think they should be preserved, but who are we to tell them to stop hunting?
people can ask people to stop, rather than demand it
Well, I'm vegetarian (need to get back into veganism), but my reasons have nothing to do with dietary ethics. Dolphins and whales are highly intelligent creatures that their own intricate social and cultural webs, and in the process of aimlessly killing them it's showing who in the end really stands as the "higher" being, so to speak. It's simply pointless and we are losing a great bit of knowledge by killing them instead of studying them.
by study do you mean in their natural habitat or in tanks or a bit of both?
dolphins and humans can both be pretty brutal
Dolphins and whales are highly intelligent creatures that their own intricate social and cultural webs, and in the process of aimlessly killing them it's showing who in the end really stands as the "higher" being, so to speak. It's simply pointless and we are losing a great bit of knowledge by killing them instead of studying them.
Thing is, you can say this about all kinds of animals. Dogs and birds, tigers and lions all have their own "social and cultural webs." What you are saying is that some animals are stupid, therefore we can kill and eat them, but if the animal looks or feels like it has humanoid perception then we can't. This is a purely emotional perspective...
Lots of people will tell you dogs have unique personalities. Is that not almost identical to the perception and sentience of said dolphins?
((Also, if you live in america, you might wanna look up the companies that sell dog meat here. There are many more than I thought.))
It's simply pointless and we are losing a great bit of knowledge by killing them instead of studying them.
You know Francis Bacon died of a cold he got after he butchered a chicken then tried stuffing it with snow and ice...he was working on preservation of organic material with ice; refrigeration almost 200 years before we got them... We, unfortunately, have killed lots of things to learn about them. Darwin killed and ate one of every species he encountered. Maybe eating them gives us some special kind of knowledge of herbs.
It would be cool as shit to converse with a dolphin, but my guess is that they only like to talk about mackerel...
There's studies proving the intelligence of dolphins of whales, that it's on par with humans if not above. I'm not just basing it on an emotional perspective, if I was I'd claim vehemently we should not eat cows or chickens. I'm basing it on whether or not it's productive and generating anything of a real benefit to anyone. What do we get out of it? Is it productive?
But I'm not arguing the intricate and systematic intervention in a social web that we look at through a lens of praxeology, the ins and outs of bureaucracy, economics, and policy and it's affects. It's much more direct, that can actually be answered in terms of short answers regarding "yes" and "no." Should we kill whales and dolphins? Would you personally kill a whale or dolphin?
There are studies that prove the intelligence of bees as well. It is emotional. There isn't any way around it.
It is not productive to kill dolphins? Doesn't someone eat, buy, and sell the carcass? Don't whales have oil and meat? It is precisely productive or it wouldn't have demand. Those "profits" that the liberals bitch about kind of imply productivity...
It's much more direct, that can actually be answered in terms of short answers regarding "yes" and "no." Should we kill whales and dolphins? Would you personally kill a whale or dolphin?
You're telling me this isn't supposed to be an emotional ploy? You're delusional. This is exactly what emotional politics returns to. You reduce a complicated situation and force an up or down vote...
"Would you suck the arms and legs off of a little prenatal baby with a vaccum cleaner?" Well, do you support abortion?
"Would you donate money to a retarded homeless person?" Well, are you Ayn Rand or are you Mother Teresa?
You can't avoid the emotional angle of this kind of thing...
Intelligence is akin to an emotional justification? Fine, it's a matter of semantics, I'll be the bleeding heart liberal tree hugger who would rather see whales and dolphins preserved than killed, while the most productive element is "food" when it's proven that whale and dolphin meat is not good for consumption and they cannot breed as fast as cows or chickens.
You asked a question, I gave an answer.
It is not semantics. It is over whether or not it is okay to tell other cultures what to do. You think because an animal seems intelligent that we should stop other people from doing ...what they do.
Who gets mad at a matador?
There is little "productive" activity (other than ticket sales) to bull fighting.
People consume all kinds of unhealthy things. That is not a convincing argument against eating a particular animal.
while the most productive element is "food"
And oil for heat and light and insolation, but you act as if "food" is an inconsequential thing. Then you resort to saying that it isn't healthy anyway...and that they breed slower than other animals that are okay to kill and eat.
Bert: I'll be the bleeding heart liberal tree hugger
I'll be the bleeding heart liberal tree hugger
The truth revealed! Bert isn't a libertarian...he's a pinko commie shill for the establishment!
So explain to me why modernized Japan and Norway are still hunting? Is it a cultural? Survival? Or simply because "well, we were doing it before, so well...we just kept doing it" type of logic?
So explain to me why modernized Japan and Norway are still hunting?
mmmmmmm
it
is
pro
ductive?
Econ 101: Demand gets filled with supply.
You could say it is cultural or survival oriented.
The cultural angle I point out is simply Japanese people have always eaten seafood, dolphins are that. They eat live squid over there. They could die when a tentacle suctions onto their esophagus, but they still do it. We don't in the US, therefore I am tempted to call it "cultural." just as we don't eat dolphins...it is cultural.
But, if we all want a super libertarian world where everything is generic from one people to the next then, yes. Let them all be like us. McDolphins.
Also, are you implying that since Japan is Westernized that it doesn't retain any of its older cutural heritage? Like their language? Or their familial respect? Their...cuisine....?
There's a demand for heroin, don't have to believe it's productive.
I said modernized, not Westernized. Difference, because I'm not talking about McDolphin's or some other generic assumption of Western culture. A people can retain their culture while progressing and adjusting in a modern world. Is it necessary to kill dolphins and whales? No, and whatever "demand" it fills can be filled by other means that are less violent.
Then again what's some cultural attributes in the United States that were, well, disregarded? There was slavery, was that the culture of the South prior to the Civil War? You could say so. Shooting buffalo from train cars? Seemed to spike the interest of people heading westward. Designated racial areas for minorities? You can say that was a piece of our culture.
But in the end killing whales does not serve a cultural purpose in modernized countries who continue to do so when they can clearly find alternatives if they want to eat something. How much of those populations actually do eat whale, and how many of them actually need to eat whale?
killing dolphins in zoos could be profitable for a poacher, that does not make it profitable for the zoo, or the ecology of the ocean whatever be the case. not killing dolphins can certainly be more profitable than killing them.
You don't have to believe it, but it wouldn't exist if it wasn't demanded. And there is some "production" involved in it...
A people can retain their culture while progressing and adjusting in a modern world.
I'm not so sure...all of your following examples are in contradiction to this. You are right slavery and racism were totally part of our culture, but Japan wasn't telling us to knock it off. We did of that. We decided it one way or another. Now look at us...most of the people in this country hate our own history and have no respect for some of the figures that made today possible...For a national psyche (or cultural if you prefer to leave the state out of it) this is not good. It is not good to hate yourself...
How much of those populations actually do eat whale, and how many of them actually need to eat whale?
From a libertarian, I'd assume it makes no difference. If one person does it, preventing them from doing so is immoral (they aren't killing people).
You see, you are wanting to extending rights to animals. Why not plants? It seems absurd to me to tell another culture to "do it our way."
Dolphins aren't endangered. You are just too emotional when you hear about or see the process and would like to stop it even though it doesn't effect you in any way whatsoever.
Poachers in a zoo? There is a breach of property rights somewhere in there...
Zoos are essentially a showroom for enslaved animals (profit). Is that better than letting them swim freely (no profit) or straight killing them (profit)?
If animals deserve rights we can't be putting them in zoos. I feel like it'll get murky around "owning" an animal as a pet even.
http://sealife-ocean-life.knoji.com/the-worlds-endangered-dolphin-species/ endangered dolphins
free is best for the dolphins, but id be more open to ownership by people that want to protect them, and have them be free, then people that want to kill what they do not own. this would mean some would own dolphins they want to kill, but there would be people that own dolphins that are not to be killed and live in the ocean.
ecotourism is one way for animals to be free and profitable
Right. I'd agree with that. Privately owned seas would pretty much protect all fish for certain periods of the year (while they travel through it) from pollution and overfishing.
But this has little to do with the USA telling Japan how to manage its diet et al. That link doesn't work for me..or it just shows a white page. I realize there are some kinds of endangered dolphins and whales, but not the majority of them.
Yea...tourism. I'm sure the profits are comparable to carcass or a much more accessible "ecotour" in the form of the zoo.
Just because there's production involved does not make it productive.
How do they contradict, or is the south no longer the South because they don't have slaves? Nor, on the subject, do I hate myself because of this country's history.
Okay, why plants? Why animals? Why people? Why one and not the other, insert A here and remove B here. Well, it's pretty easy to tell the difference from a whale and an apple, and that one whale's life and that one apple's existence. Nor am I telling them to "do it our way," but to take another look at their actions, if I'm telling them anything besides to simply not do it.
We only like to see causes furthered that only directly affect us? Gay marriage affects me in no way whatsoever, but I support it. Why?
But this has little to do with the USA telling Japan how to manage its diet et al.
Are you srsly going to say it has to do with diet, and not the fact they are blatantly being killed?
hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah
If it is produced and sold to people to satisfy their demand for it...then it is productive. Heroine, weeds, booze, sex, etc.
Ummm if you're saying that slavery and racism were "part of southern culture", but that they don't have those things anymore...then they no loger exibit the same culture...it is still similar, but it isn't the same. And it is in fact a scar. You might not dislike the history of the country, but there are many who do.
it's pretty easy to tell the difference from a whale and an apple, and that one whale's life and that one apple's existence.
Is it? What about an apple and jellyfish? The tree "knows" how to repoduce...just as the jellyfish does. Neither have brains. They are following the same path that every other living things does; to reproduce...
The "look at your actions" argument is still telling others what to do and how to think. You can't avoid it. Do you stand around the frozen food isle telling people to reconsider their consumption of certain foods? Even if they realize, internally, that you are right, they will still resent being told what to do. Tell a fat person that soda will only make things worse for them and watch them react.
This goes back directly to my comment of "cultural chasm." An individual is different than 'a people'. Telling everyone in the world to not kill dolphins is different than telling Japan not to do it. But, in the link in my OP, you can see it is directed right at a certain part of Japan. it doesn't include Norway or the other evil whale hunting countries out there.
I'm seriously telling you that all meat is "blatantly" killed. The OP is aimed at "cultural demands." The diet is a part of that!?!?!?!?!??!?!