Capture & Killing of Dolphins in Taijii

[siokan]

It is optimal in the study of the discrimination term.
101205b57[1]のコピー.jpg

[dogsbody70]

Are Japan's fish lovers eating tuna to extinction? | The Japan Times Online

re the blue fin TUNA.

[dgeclipsed49]

Originally Posted by Columbine

If you'd read any of that thread properly, you'd have known that The Cove documentary is a poor way to get a view of what goes on at this kind of dolphin hunt. A lot of the 'barbarianism' is hyped up by the film crew and director and it's an incredibly biased production. I mean, it's still awful if you are a dolphin /really like dolphins, but not very much worse than what happens to the average cow world-wide. .

Actually that is FAR from the truth. We have groups out there on the ground. filming video. We get the daily reports and see the daily slaughter. And those fisherman with blood on their hands, will point and laugh at those standing on the cove watching in tears. it was NOT exaggerated. As some would like you to believe.

In fact, here is an animated version. Much easier to stomach than the live. Actually created by a japanese couple. whom I believe portray an accurate depiction of what goes on.
YouTube - Free Dolphins English Version

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Columbine

I think the premise of the idea of The Cove was good; dolphin hunting is a rarity, so a large scale operation should be explored and portrayed to a wider audience, so people can make their own judgements on the controversy. The problem was, The Cove's director went in with the express object of portraying it all as barbaric and wrong, without any unbiased explanation from the other side of the equation.

Not sure what the confusion is over my cow statement. Who is 'they'? Dogsbody called the method of slaughter barbaric, I just wanted to point out that (moral objections over the intellect of dolphins aside) the method is generally no worse than how thousands of other food-crop animals are slaughtered world-wide. We only perceive it as being tangibly 'worse' because it's a very visible slaughter of a relatively non-conventional food animal. That's all the point I was making. I didn't say you had to be anti-cow slaughter as well as anti-dolphin meat. This is not a the value of cows vs the value of dolphins argument.

With all due respect, I don't agree with you but I'm not going to go into the 'resources' part of your post here as it would just de-rail the thread.

You've failed to address the point of my post.

I would argue that dolphins possess a level of self awareness that makes it more cruel but for the sake of argument lets just say that both the systematic slaughter of cows and the slaughter of dolphins is cruel.

With both being cruel, why would the objection to one of these acts be diminished by the practice of another from a logical perspective?

For example, you wouldn't dismiss someone who was campaigning to reduce poverty in India just because poverty in Africa exists would you?

[steel]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

You've failed to address the point of my post.

I would argue that dolphins possess a level of self awareness that makes it more cruel but for the sake of argument lets just say that both the systematic slaughter of cows and the slaughter of dolphins is cruel.

With both being cruel, why would the objection to one of these acts be diminished by the practice of another from a logical perspective?

For example, you wouldn't dismiss someone who was campaigning to reduce poverty in India just because poverty in Africa exists would you?

I can't answer for Columbine, but please allow me to add my two cents.

Elements of hypocrisy.

The same activist groups such as Sea Shepherd who target Japanese dolphin and whale hunting suspiciously shy away from conducting harassment campaigns against other countries engaged in similar practices. Specifically, white Christian Scandinavian nations like Denmark (Faroe Islands) and Norway - the former engaging in regular mass pilot whale and dolphin drives and the latter being an active completely unrepentant whaling nation (eg. they refuse to join the IWC as they considered it a farce).

I added the 'white Christian' label as it was included in an explanation provided by a very nice old lady from Bellvue Washington who was an ardent Sea Shepherd supporter. She patiently explained to me that Japan was especially deserving of protest and singling out as they were completely unrepentant --while Scandinavian countries - who all display the Christian cross on their national flags - were by their heritage and traditions, more reasonable (even though their actions might indicate otherwise). White Privilege, baby!

I suspect another reason why protest group hesitate to apply a full-force fuck against the Scandinavians is that they fear the retaliatory actions of an angry Nordic military force instead of the predictable wimpy non-lethal water cannons of the Japanese. The leaders know what they are doing. Better to rally the masses against the wealthy little Japanese kid with the glasses and funny name "Tojo" than go up against the popular blond blue-eyed Norwegian viking kid, Helly Hansen


A dolphin drive in the Faroe Islands (Denmark); when white nations do it, the levels of protest and activism are interestingly but a fraction of what is reserved for the Japanese.


Dolphins versus cows.
It depends on whom you ask. Wild versus domesticated makes it right, according to some. Intelligent versus single digit bovine IQs is another reason put forth -- however, the inclusion of intelligent pigs provides an uncomfortable counter-example - except pigs are less aesthetically pleasing creatures. And, of course, some protesters are opposed to the killing of any kind of living creature and have become vegan. Still, it's hard to give up those leather shoes.

For most people, we are okay with killing of animals unless they happened to be:

1. An endangered species; the dolphins are not, and neither are the Minke whales that are being hunted by the Japanese and Norwegians.
2. Pets. Mostly dogs and cats. Sorry Mr. Rat and Mr. Snake.

And, some people get irrationally opposed when:

1. The animals are really really cute. Bambi, err 'deer', for example - despite them being very tasty. And, I suspect the dolphin falls partly somewhere in this category too.

Of course, for a minority, meat of any kind will represent the M-Word ... "Murder" (or McDonald's in some households). Protest at any costs such as in this photo of this typically mild-mannered socially-responsible Korean citizen. It's biodegradable dog shit that he is carefully and respectfully placing alongside the pieces of cow slaughter (US beef):


Of course, Mr. Kim was still full of rage when he got back home. In fact, he was so angry, the kicked the dog and ate it!


And, so if it were that the aims of the "movement" were for the elimination of all forms of killing animals -- not just dolphins, but also chickens, pigs, cows and hey! don't forget the mass culls of kangaroos down in Australia where they are considered 'pests'! -- it is very strange to see how and why priorities are solely focused on this dolphin issue. The Soviets - when they wished to find ways to try and embarrass the US during the Cold War and detract attention from their numerous human rights issues - would flog the Leonard Peltier case like a dead horse ... but in their case, their motives were pretty transparent.

To convince me that stopping the dolphin drives is a good idea, short of trying to convert me into a PETA advocate who is against the killing of animals of any kind, you need to show me (and other omnivores) how and why non-endangered dolphins are so deserving of our attention that we need to protest, interfere and/or sabotage the livelihood of these Japanese fishermen. The reasons need to somewhat rational and logical - and that is where almost everything I have heard thus far falls short. They are not endangered. They may be 'cute' and certainly 'intelligent' but then so is Wilbur in Charlotte's Pig -- and this morning, I enjoyed a great breakfast of bacon, eggs, toast and baked beans.

[Ronin4hire]

To steel

There is no hypocrisy at least in my support.

Again... if you were campaigning for the elimination of poverty in India, does it matter that you aren't campaigning for the elimination of poverty everywhere?

It is enough that I support the goal of this organization.

I also support the goals of those organizations that are against the factory farming of cows, chickens and pigs amongst other animals.

All you're doing is rationalizing the killing and slaughter of dolphins rather than addressing the ethical concerns that people have against it.

You might have a point regarding the little publicity directed towards the Nordic nations though I'll give you that.

[steel]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

To steel

There is no hypocrisy at least in my support.

Again... if you were campaigning for the elimination of poverty in India, does it matter that you aren't campaigning for the elimination of poverty everywhere?

It is enough that I support the goal of this organization.

I also support the goals of those organizations that are against the factory farming of cows, chickens and pigs amongst other animals.

All you're doing is rationalizing the killing and slaughter of dolphins rather than addressing the ethical concerns that people have against it.

You might have a point regarding the little publicity directed towards the Nordic nations though I'll give you that.

Hypocrisy occurs when activists like yourself who are against all forms of killing animals of any shape or form are inconsistent in their targeting their subjects. You have even admitted there is a discrepancy in negative attention directed toward Japanese fishermen & whaler versus Scandinavian counterparts. I suspect the reason lies somewhere in the area of thinly-disguised racial contempt by the activist leaders.

Here's a rough analogy to play with. Let's say, we agree that we are in basic principle "against crime" (very much like 'killing all animals is "bad"'). However, the plan of attack is to preemptively search the property of black people (like targeting the dolphin drive in Taiji) while whites, Asians and Hispanics are left alone (like numerous examples of animal killing around us in the farms, slaughterhouses, Tsukiji fish market, supermarket and restaurants). 'Nothing personal or racist', it's claimed. 'Are you against crime too?' 'Why are you objecting to our crime prevention? Yeah, we'll get to those others eventually. We can't do everything at once. Maybe it's cause they are not so bad as blacks. Meanwhile we've got to start somewhere... right?'

Or, another one using the India & Africa analogy you provided. For activists like yourself whom you claim are against killing all sorts of animals - domesticated or wild - going way out of your way to actively protest the dolphin drives in Taiji Japan while all around you is evidence of other 'animal salughter' including supermarkets filled to the brim with fish, poultry, beef, pork and lamb ... is like an Indian activist in one of India's poorest villages ignoring the abject poverty around him to corral scarce resources to 'feed the poor' in faraway Africa. While it sounds ridiculous, developing nations have been known to do this in order to claim their country is not poor or as impoverished as the rest of the world thinks.

For the benefit of people who do not share the belief that killing all animals is wrong (like myself and many others on the board), activists need to convince using additional appeals to reason or emotion.

For example, a very logical argument would be "don't kill X because there are only 157 of them left in the world; they're an endangered species." At while that applied to certain kinds of whales (which most logical people would support), they do not unfortunately apply to Minke whales or dolphins.

Claiming they are 'intelligent' or sentient creatures does work with many people. Some even subscribe to the alien life form theory which I think is wacko. However, when you start providing examples of other highly intelligent creatures such as pigs... while a fraction may defect to Charlotte's Web, for most non-Jews and non-Muslims, bacon and ham are tasty tasty treats of nature!

That the animal in question is 'cute' also gets some supporters. However, that is also something that is highly subjective. 'Bambi' as I have indicated is 'cute' but it's also a cartoon character for kids - and legions of hunters and hungry gourmands would disagree that venison deserves to be banned from the dining room.

So, if you are talking to a reasonably logical omnivore, it's difficult to identify a convincing argument why they should get involved to interfere, protest or sabotage Japanese fishermen and their dolphin drives. "Because they are cute and intelligent" are not arguments that hold water.

And, if you then resort to .. "well, killing all living creatures is morally wrong" ... well that is unlikely to travel far with them. Most reasonable people don't object to killing animals for food, clothing, consumer goods and even for sport (eg hunting and fishing). And, while trying to convince them of the error of their ways, it is probably not a good idea to appear like a hypocrite while wearing clothing made of wool, leather or fur (you'd be surprised how many so-called vegan activists are guilty of this) .

[RealJames]

I don't care much for their sentience. To me it's about the effect on people.

Eating dolphin meat is really unhealthy.
Eating cow meat is bad for you too, but relatively it's nothing.

That's all there is to it in my books, what's the point of killing them if anyone who knows better wouldn't eat them?

[steel]

Two points on the health issue:

1. The motive of the activists is not being driven by the fact that consumption of dolphin meat is unhealthy; most really could not give two shits about human beings - and quite a few don't consider Japanese to be full human beings.

2. The motive of the Japanese fishermen is not being driven by dolphin as a human food source either. They have other reasons including the fact that they consider them 'pests' in competition with fishing stocks. Also, they provide captured dolphins to aquariums around the world.

In other areas of the world, we are not just being told what we may or may not eat. Some nanny state governments would like to make those decisions for us.

Pretty soon, videos like these will be classified as forbidden food "snuff" porn punishable with a minimum one year and one day felony imprisonment sentence:



And, here is the 'politically-correct' vegan version:

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by steel

Hypocrisy occurs when activists like yourself who are against all forms of killing animals of any shape or form are inconsistent in their targeting their subjects. You have even admitted there is a discrepancy in negative attention directed toward Japanese fishermen & whaler versus Scandinavian counterparts. I suspect the reason lies somewhere in the area of thinly-disguised racial contempt by the activist leaders.

Here's a rough analogy to play with. Let's say, we agree that we are in basic principle "against crime" (very much like 'killing all animals is "bad"'). However, the plan of attack is to preemptively search the property of black people (like targeting the dolphin drive in Taiji) while whites, Asians and Hispanics are left alone (like numerous examples of animal killing around us in the farms, slaughterhouses, Tsukiji fish market, supermarket and restaurants). 'Nothing personal or racist', it's claimed. 'Are you against crime too?' 'Why are you objecting to our crime prevention? Yeah, we'll get to those others eventually. We can't do everything at once. Maybe it's cause they are not so bad as blacks. Meanwhile we've got to start somewhere... right?'

Or, another one using the India & Africa analogy you provided. For activists like yourself whom you claim are against killing all sorts of animals - domesticated or wild - going way out of your way to actively protest the dolphin drives in Taiji Japan while all around you is evidence of other 'animal salughter' including supermarkets filled to the brim with fish, poultry, beef, pork and lamb ... is like an Indian activist in one of India's poorest villages ignoring the abject poverty around him to corral scarce resources to 'feed the poor' in faraway Africa. While it sounds ridiculous, developing nations have been known to do this in order to claim their country is not poor or as impoverished as the rest of the world thinks.

For the benefit of people who do not share the belief that killing all animals is wrong (like myself and many others on the board), activists need to convince using additional appeals to reason or emotion.

For example, a very logical argument would be "don't kill X because there are only 157 of them left in the world; they're an endangered species." At while that applied to certain kinds of whales (which most logical people would support), they do not unfortunately apply to Minke whales or dolphins.

Claiming they are 'intelligent' or sentient creatures does work with many people. Some even subscribe to the alien life form theory which I think is wacko. However, when you start providing examples of other highly intelligent creatures such as pigs... while a fraction may defect to Charlotte's Web, for most non-Jews and non-Muslims, bacon and ham are tasty tasty treats of nature!

That the animal in question is 'cute' also gets some supporters. However, that is also something that is highly subjective. 'Bambi' as I have indicated is 'cute' but it's also a cartoon character for kids - and legions of hunters and hungry gourmands would disagree that venison deserves to be banned from the dining room.

So, if you are talking to a reasonably logical omnivore, it's difficult to identify a convincing argument why they should get involved to interfere, protest or sabotage Japanese fishermen and their dolphin drives. "Because they are cute and intelligent" are not arguments that hold water.

And, if you then resort to .. "well, killing all living creatures is morally wrong" ... well that is unlikely to travel far with them. Most reasonable people don't object to killing animals for food, clothing, consumer goods and even for sport (eg hunting and fishing). And, while trying to convince them of the error of their ways, it is probably not a good idea to appear like a hypocrite while wearing clothing made of wool, leather or fur (you'd be surprised how many so-called vegan activists are guilty of this) .

lol.. you've addressed nothing I've said and your attempts at analogies are not analogous at all.

Activists do appeal to reason. People like you can only counter by rationalizing the act (via comparison with other reprehensible but more mainstream acts) rather than directly addressing the ethical dilemma. Not once in your entire post is that even addressed. I mean you dismiss it but you don't address it.

Furthermore your all or nothing approach to activism is flawed because then nothing would get done.

I bet if slavery were still legal today you'd dismiss any sort of activism to get rid of it because we wouldn't be solving all race problems at once.