Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Cloud x Aerith forums! We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Japan Dolphin Drive Hunt
Topic Started: Dec 1 2007, 09:04 AM (673 Views)
Materia Thief
Member Avatar
yet again, today I loved you
Nothing But Values
Dec 4 2007, 08:30 PM
Having said that, these are still for sale undisputed. That is because you can't force someone not to eat something because it's dangerous (a basic right). You can only inform them.

You can't force someone to not eat something because it's dangerous, but that doesn't make it right. Nothing gives you the "right" to eat whatever the heck you want because, goshdangit, "I want to", by the way. Sure, eating is a part to the "right to live," but nothing dictates that you should be allowed to eat whatever you want. And even then, aren't there more important "rights" to be concerned about besides "I get to eat whatever the heck I want to!"? :]

Quote:
 
As far as Dolphins go: None of the dolphins hunted are going extinct globally.


So wait, if something goes extinct locally and ecologically it's "okay" 'cause "Oh, they're elsewhere too?". Is that what you're saying? o_o

Quote:
 
As far as Dolphins near Japan, it's more than dolphins. Many types of fish simply don't inhabit their water anymore due to a high demand for fish. Telling them not to fish anymore would be disastrous.


Yeah, it's more than dolphins. Doesn't make it right. They hunt whales, which are undeniably endangered species under the pretense of "scientific purposes," when in fact, it's incredibly easy to find whale meat in the markets. I doubt anyone's telling them to "not fish anymore". The arguement is against dolphin hunting, not fishing in general (which has its issues too, but this is not the thread for it).

And they don't inhabit their waters anymore because we've overfished them. We have no idea if those fish that we killed because "oh, we're hungry" (even though it's definitely not the poor eating those fish) or "oh, because we need some place to dump this toxic waste" could have cured some fatal disease or been the inspiration for the next grade in technology. A "high demand for fish" is NO excuse to destroy a species for our own greed.

Quote:
 
As far as intelligence: We make no effort to eat the dumbest animal available. Eating an intelligent animal is just as humane as a dumb one. It's sad knowing their more pack-mentality that leads them to even saving humans at times, but why eat based on sympathy to humans? Many animals are compassionate, just to other creatures.


Dolphins can be just as dangerous as sharks, quite honestly, and although I agree we shouldn't eat based on "Oh, look, it's intelligent life! And this isn't! Let's eat the stupid one!," the major factor I see is that we raise cows/chickens/pigs for consumption. We aren't raising dolphins.

Quote:
 
As far as any religion that could come up: You cannot outlaw something based on a religion. Law is an unbiased representation of all of it's concerned people (in a good government anyways).


I agree that religion shouldn't play a factor in this, but there are more reasons to outlaw beyond religion. Ecological concerns, for one thing.

EDIT: By the way, I definitely agree with you Raist, in that more awareness needs to be raised on how more common meat products are raised (i.e. cows/chickens/pigs).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nothing But Values
Member Avatar
Member
Quote:
 
You can't force someone to not eat something because it's dangerous, but that doesn't make it right. Nothing gives you the "right" to eat whatever the heck you want because, goshdangit, "I want to", by the way. Sure, eating is a part to the "right to live," but nothing dictates that you should be allowed to eat whatever you want.


Hows this then: The only means by which you can take a dangerous product off the market (for it's dangerous properties), should be is if it is no more than a poison. I agree that the current standards of dolphin 'harvesting' leads to many cases of poisonous meat. I don't think this should lead to the ban of the meat, just strict regulations. Though these regulations might render the dolphin market barren and amounts to it being illegal, it still allows healthier cases to get through.

Quote:
 
You can't force someone to not eat something because it's dangerous, but that doesn't make it right. Nothing gives you the "right" to eat whatever the heck you want because, goshdangit, "I want to", by the way. Sure, eating is a part to the "right to live," but nothing dictates that you should be allowed to eat whatever you want.


I mentioned the rights to eating it because people were using the high mercury content as an argument. I am all for the restriction of current dolphin hunting, but I need to play the devil's advocate and remove what I don't see fit from that argument.

Quote:
 
So wait, if something goes extinct locally and ecologically it's "okay" 'cause "Oh, they're elsewhere too?". Is that what you're saying? o_o


When it comes to animal protection laws based on population, it global. As far as locally, it's up to the local government. This is because it's important to protect a species on grounds of population only if that population can be permanently damaged. Because there are large populations of all of the hunted dolphins in the same ocean, it shouldn't be considered a large enough threat to outlaw based on population.

Quote:
 
The arguement is against dolphin hunting, not fishing in general (which has its issues too, but this is not the thread for it).


I include fishing in general, because as established by the 'don't hunt by intelligence' idea, it's makes a concentration on dolphin's immoral.

What I see happening is a mix up of the original idea: The status quo of dolphin hunting is horrifying. Lack of regulations puts even school children at risk. We can agree with this (I hope). So you can easily argue that we should regulate dolphin hunting for a safer product and more humane hunting methods. Where it left from this was including the danger of dolphin population and it's negative health effects. These two points become vague as it effects a more global scale. The best you could hope for is a local effort by locals as it effects them. To many of us this is global, and to concern ourselves with other's local affairs and put dolphin hunting on top is ludicrous.

I'm sorry if I repeat myself or accidentally misquote someone. I'm rather tired and may miss something.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Materia Thief
Member Avatar
yet again, today I loved you
Nothing But Values
Dec 4 2007, 11:18 PM
Hows this then: The only means by which you can take a dangerous product off the market (for it's dangerous properties), should be is if it is no more than a poison. I agree that the current standards of dolphin 'harvesting' leads to many cases of poisonous meat. I don't think this should lead to the ban of the meat, just strict regulations. Though these regulations might render the dolphin market barren and amounts to it being illegal, it still allows healthier cases to get through.

Here, let me restate my position, since I don't think I was exactly too clear in my original statement. I am, first and foremost, for regulated fishing so that we may fish sustainably. Meaning that we aren't overtaxing the ecological population of whatever species. It is impossible, I think, to completely ban fishing, so if we can at least fish sustainably, than I'm good with it.

Regardless--I think there are more reasons to restrict hunting besides the meat having dangerous qualities to it, but I would be fine with strict regulations with actual enforcement.

Quote:
 
I mentioned the rights to eating it because people were using the high mercury content as an argument. I am all for the restriction of current dolphin hunting, but I need to play the devil's advocate and remove what I don't see fit from that argument.


Understood. I'm just pointing out what I see are flaws in your arguement in (at least I hope it is) an intelligent manner. XD

Quote:
 
When it comes to animal protection laws based on population, it global. As far as locally, it's up to the local government. This is because it's important to protect a species on grounds of population only if that population can be permanently damaged. Because there are large populations of all of the hunted dolphins in the same ocean, it shouldn't be considered a large enough threat to outlaw based on population.


But see, what I'm arguing is that the local extinction of a species can and ultimately will damage the larger population as a whole. :ermm: It steals away a specific part of the gene pool, including the thousands of years of natural selection that has refined the species for that area (in this case, the Pacific North-East). I don't see how a dolphin several thousand miles away can make up for dolphins that are becoming locally extinct in that area. As well, the local extinction of one species can cause a massive butterfly effect across the local ecosystem in general--destroying the dolphin's natural predators, among other things. God forbid we learn that one of these dolphin species that we're killing is in fact a keystone species. The effect would be devestating. :|

And even then--if the dolphin becomes extinct in one area, people will simply move on to another area where they [the dolphins] live and the hunting continues until they're either ecologically or biologically extinct--both massively damaging the world as a whole.

Quote:
 
I include fishing in general, because as established by the 'don't hunt by intelligence' idea, it's makes a concentration on dolphin's immoral.

What I see happening is a mix up of the original idea: The status quo of dolphin hunting is horrifying. Lack of regulations puts even school children at risk. We can agree with this (I hope). So you can easily argue that we should regulate dolphin hunting for a safer product and more humane hunting methods. Where it left from this was including the danger of dolphin population and it's negative health effects. These two points become vague as it effects a more global scale. The best you could hope for is a local effort by locals as it effects them. To many of us this is global, and to concern ourselves with other's local affairs and put dolphin hunting on top is ludicrous.


I'm a little confused by what you're trying to say here, but yes, I'm sure we can agree that regulations are needed. XD

I disagree, however, in the fact that "local efforts by locals" is the best and only way to solve such a problem. Simply enough, since it is profitable for them (which it is, no doubt about it), they have done nothing to stop it. I'm sure they're perfectly aware of the ecological ramifications of it (considering the massive amounts of protests), but they persist. The world is becoming increasingly global and the butterfly effect continues to hold true. The local extinction of the dolphins in Japan's coastal waters could devestate the planet as a whole, even if people do not believe that they have an inherent value besides meat.

I apologize if I didn't address your points, btw, haha. And I totally understand the whole being tired--that disclaimer applies to me too. XD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zee
Member Avatar
rabbit heart
Quote:
 
Hows this then: The only means by which you can take a dangerous product off the market (for it's dangerous properties), should be is if it is no more than a poison.


Quote:
 
That is because you can't force someone not to eat something because it's dangerous (a basic right).


It's not that dolphin meat is dangerous just like...for example, eating a high calorie food is dangerous. There are serious cases of mercury poisioning that resulted from eating dolphin meat.

from New Scientist
6 June 02


Two of the 26 liver samples examined contained over 1970 micrograms of mercury per gram of liver. That is nearly 5000 times the Japanese government's limit for mercury contamination, 0.4 micrograms per gram.

Read the full article.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Materia Thief
Member Avatar
yet again, today I loved you
Kit
Dec 4 2007, 03:56 AM
Plus a bigger point is that in Japan hardly anyone buys whale or dolphin meat any more so they aren't even being hunted for use really.

If this was true, dolphin hunting wouldn't be a problem in Japan, now would it? :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nothing But Values
Member Avatar
Member
As for materia thief: I'm willing to settle on a personal disagreement over the duties of local and global responsibility, as it's more of opinion. Seeing as we at least agree on regulations and such.

as for:
Quote:
 
It's not that dolphin meat is dangerous just like...for example, eating a high calorie food is dangerous. There are serious cases of mercury poisioning that resulted from eating dolphin meat.


I put more detail in the next post. Those are isolated cases that got through due to a lack of regulation. Dolphin meat on average isn't poisonous.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The Lifestream · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Affiliates
.: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :.