Oyuki kigan
-
Content Count
1797 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Oyuki kigan
-
-
Originally Posted By: Tubby Beaver
I see where you are coming rom, BUT Human's are omnivores, so meat is an important part of our diet.
probably not as importantant as most think. Except for really marginal areas where game is more abundant than vegetation (the arctic, deserts, etc) anthropology has shown that the majority of food prehistoric humans ate was veg, rather than meat. Meat requires a much bigger output of energy to track down and hunt, and was probably only consumed infrequently by most of our ancestors. So i don't buy the 'its our nature to eat meat' arguement.
Quote:I go back to my same point, if it wasn't for taste then we wouldn't eat anything!!
Nature has provided taste as a sensation to encourage us to eat things that aren't deathly. Yes, the food you mention does have its "immoral" parts,
BUT what exactly is HUMANE slaughter? The natural world slaughtes worse than us, eating the animal as it lies there. The Crocodile will grab an animal and drag it underwater until it drowns or becomes maleable enough to spin off a leg. A shark will simply bite into its victims until it dies of either blood loss or consumption. A snake will strike, render its prey paralysed then swallow and digest it whole. A spider will inject its food with a protein dijesting enzyme that will literally liquidate its prey's insides as it stands...then suck the juices out leaving an empty bag of skin. What exactly would you have us do??
act like humans, not animals.
C'mon, are you serious? Animals that can't choose to act, kill, or eat any other way are supposed to be role models for our actions?
Quote:This is what I don't get from Enviro's....WE ARE ANIMALS. WE ARE PART OF THE NATURAL WORLD. YOU CAN HUFF AND HAA ABOUT A LOT OF STUFF BUT WHEN IT GETS DOWN TO IT, WE ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME URGES AS ANY OTHER ANIMAL ON THIS EARTH.
if thats the message you're getting, i suggest you change sources and read decent book on the subject. Diet For America, The Food revolution, Eating Animals (about animals and food), or The Sacred Balance, A Green History of The Earth, Collapse-How Societies Chose To Succeed or fail, The Weather Makers, The End of Nature are good general places to start on humans and environment.
All of those books arguements are slightly more nuanced that the ones you are apparently exposed to. -
Originally Posted By: iiyamadudeOyuki kigan and his like almost make me actually want to do all those things.
Responses like this drive people to write things like this. -
Originally Posted By: Tubby BeaverOriginally Posted By: Oyuki kigan
inhumanely slaughter most for no other real reason other than they like the taste?
we all do.
errm.....we're not gonna eat animals that we don't like the taste of....that's part of nature. Even wild animals will pick and choose their favourite meal when there is a smorgasbord of prey. If we can't slaughter them, then how do we eat them?
What i mean is, we are at a point in our lifestyle where we don't depend on meat as food for survival. Its a luxury. Technically, most of us can be completely healthy without meat. Which means, the only reason all this insanely inhumane stuff is done (shark-finning, fois gras, veal, "The Cove"-style slaughter, etc) is to satisfy taste, nothing else. -
Re-ex is pretty good. I especially like hitting op that newish onsen just past the base, one of the nicest views from a rotenburo in the Saku area. And the bakery down at the base may be the best in Nagano.
But truthfully, i prefer Re-ex's neighbor, Yachiho Kogen.
-
what kind of person would
-butcher non-food-animals (like buffalo) for sport until near extinction?
-continue to consume oil, fertilizer, tuna, whale, dodo, etc ad nauseum knowing full well they won't last and may cause severe damage to the ecosystem?
-try to actually put a dollar price on their own umbilical chord ie: the air, water, and natural systems we depend on for survival?
-destroy their own home and the home of all their fellow earthlings for the sake of short-term profit?
-knowingly raise the temperature of the entire earth with all the largely forseeable disaterous consequences (and the far more scary unpredictable ones as well)?
-torture some lifeforms, keep others in horrific conditions, and inhumanely slaughter most for no other real reason other than they like the taste?
we all do.
-
Here is some free advice from an instructor
Make it easy on yourself. You will fall less and have more fun. Which is the point. Besides, dudes in the Olympic halfpipe were riding rockers in there. Its not cheating.
PS The 'hard way of learning' is on an alpine board
-
There are biodegradable waxes made from soybean oil available now. If you are not sure you want all the toxins and flurocarbons going back into the water table, give them a try.
i ride them now and my board slides fine. the only thing is that they generally have a higher melting point, so you need an iron with a high temp setting
-
I'd rate Taiwan slightly ahead of Japan.
-
Originally Posted By: quattro
Global warming has been debunked. They just never got the message so there predictions were off.
News travels slowly to my parts. When and how did this happen? -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8561751.stm
So basically, its Japan's cultural right to eat a species to extinction?
-
Thanks. That simultaneously cleared things up and confused me.
-
Originally Posted By: thursdayOyuki, you should cape on your ski shephard stance and slap those kids into submission.
If there is one thing i am not, it is a ski shepherd -
Originally Posted By: thursdayIt is market driven. Don't be so naive that it's something else.
We are on completely different sides of the fence on most issues, so i won't pursue any more arguements in that direction.
But this is one thing i genuinely don't understand about whale hunting. Or maybe markets.
Japan supposedly has tons of whale meat on ice, has no real economic demand for it, yet still continues to hunt heavily. I can see where gov't subsidy may be involved, but not market forces.
Can you explain? -
Originally Posted By: Chriselle
I know the inclusion of "whale" meat in kyushoku is also highly localized and is a little beyond the budget of most school eiyoshi.
i'm not sure, i've seen it at all 3 Jr Highs i've worked for, in rural Tochigi and Nagano. -
maybe we should leave the whales fate to the markets then? Just like the tuna?
-
If you are content comparing the preservation of life on earth to making money on the stock market, then i'm afraid we won't be able to agree.
remember, the WHALERS are the ones violating international law.
-
Originally Posted By: Mamabear
And for what it's worth while I don't like what is going on with whaling I am very anti the way Sea Shepherd and those rainbow warriors conduct themselves. The very definitely fall into the category of eco-nazi!
For clarification, what do you mean by 'rainbow warriors'? Greenpeace? Because Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace are pretty far apart in the way they deal with whalers. -
Originally Posted By: thursdayI see sea shephard are all for ramming ships in antartic waters. How fun is that without endangering lives.
Sea Shepherd has been around since '77, and while they have sunk many whaling vessels, they haven't killed anyone (although people have been injured/concussed in the ramming and launching of stink bombs).
Whether is works or not is debatable. But when 'official' means (like the International Whaling Commission, boycotts, international pressure, petitions) are ineffective, some people will naturally gravitate to stronger and extreme methods. That goes across the board for stopping the wholesale destruction of the earth.
On method SS employed that i DID like, was that they offered a pretty big bounty for the captain of an illegal whaling vessel. The captain, unable to trust any of his own crew, had to retire. -
Originally Posted By: Tubby BeaverOriginally Posted By: Oyuki kiganOriginally Posted By: Tubby BeaverJapan through history has hardly responded positively to outside pressure for change. Surely living here you would agree that making the Japanese close ranks on themselves and making a "Japan vs the world" issue out of it is not the best method for instigating change in this country
So what, should we beat them in a war again and write animal rights into their new constitution?
No....now who's being ridiculous?
What about all the letter bombs to animal research facilities? I don7t know if there have been any actual fatalities but the intent to cause bodily harm in this way is certainly there....maybe not widespread though.
the war thing was facetious, but only halfway so. Thats the only reason women got the vote.
As for letter bombs, i have not heard of that. I am certainly against that, if its true.
However, i am less inclined to criticize the ALF sabotage of animal research facilities, where no one but the research is harmed, and animals that have been cruelly abused have been saved. -
Originally Posted By: Creek BoyOriginally Posted By: Oyuki kigan
so as long as the dolphins were killed humanely, you'd be cool with it?
I cant say yes to one animal and no to another - its hypocritical. As long as they arent endangered I dont see what the differences is.
Just a quick test. And forgive me for ambushing all of you with this. i wasn't my to, but it fits nicely with the exact topics we've been discussing.
Would you give up bluefin tuna sushi?
It fits most of the same principles we've been discussing.
High in mercury, inhumanely slaughtered, and now...
ENDANGERED??? -
Originally Posted By: Tubby BeaverTerrorists such as the IRA, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Peoples Front of Judea (only kidding ) also act upon their beliefs but I don't know many people who would side with them or many who would agree that their extreme tactics has allowed them to get what they want
Well, there is one glaring difference in those organizations you mention and 'extremist' environmental groups. All those groups (Except the Judean People's Front, assholes), have killed people.
To my knowledge, no environmental group, no matter how nutzo, has crossed that line. I have read a bit about them, and while many do condone property damage, like Sea Shepherd, none of them condone murder, seeing the inherent contradiction of trying to save lived by killing.
Although, like you say, how successful they have been is unclear. -
Originally Posted By: Tubby BeaverJapan through history has hardly responded positively to outside pressure for change. Surely living here you would agree that making the Japanese close ranks on themselves and making a "Japan vs the world" issue out of it is not the best method for instigating change in this country
So what, should we beat them in a war again and write animal rights into their new constitution?
The Taiji thing is not new, and there have been some very well-meaning attempts to reconsiter the dolphin cull, such as repositioning the village as a center for dolphin-related tourism.
But in the end, change has to come from the Japanese people themselves, but how are they supposed to change when nobody even knows about it?
Whaling and the dolphin cull have been way bigger news stories abroad than they have been in Japan, until the movie came out, no Japanese person i talked about it with even knew of any such thing.
Finally, this movie may spark an internal dialouge. Which is a start. -
Originally Posted By: Tubby BeaverOriginally Posted By: Oyuki kiganOriginally Posted By: Tubby Beaver
So which is it? There is nothing to hide or the killings are unpleasant to look at?
I think if you watched what happens in any regular abbatoir you would find it unpleasant to look at. I think also the noise of the dolphins would trigger disgust in people, it sounds as if they are screaming. However lambs and pigs also have high pitched screams that would tug on our emotional heart strings yet there is no international furore. I also don't think it helps that the Eco-Nazis come scrambling out of their smelly holes and try to pressure Japan into changing...well done hippies, that's really gonna work!!
Nice juxtaposition, Eco-nazis.
Somehow, i don't think the nazis were the ones trying to save lives from systematic torture and killing.
Thats all, i'm back off to my smelly hole.
haha I think you're picking an arguement that isn't even there. Eco-nazi thing wasn't directed at yourself and I don't think you'd disagree that the term "Nazi" has been used in popular culture to describe an extreme element of a particular movement, the reference wasn't comparing the ideologies of the National Socialists of WWII and the Eco-extremist element that IMO hinders the Environmental causes of today
I know you were, and i'm just commenting on how ridiculous it sounds.
the only difference between myself and those 'extremists' is that they are actually acting on what they believe, and i'm just typing stuff on the internet. I am probably not that different that most of them. -
Originally Posted By: thursdayso much hyprocracy, so little fish.
Have you seen the way the mediterranena people coral the bluefin and then stab them with their harpons and hawl them onto their boats. They were huge bluefins, perhaps 20 years old.
Now that they have disappeared from the med, then no more ritual killing. Damn.
No fish ever killed painlessly. Certainly not the ones i caught, and i tried.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/23/jonathan-safran-foer-fish-farming
"The Cove" wins an Oscar
in General off-topic discussions
Posted
what relevance does quoting books have to do with this quote?
TB, in the preceding paragraph, you give examples about how animals kill without compassion, and how harsh the natural world is when it comes to eating.
Then, you say you don't understand the environmentalist stance, and give your interpetation
So what i am getting from you, is that because you think environmentalists are all about 'being art of nature' on one side, and then 'deny your carnivorous instincts and eat veggies' on the other, you see a contradiction, and that is what you don't get'.
Is that a fair assessment?
i wrote that list of books, because they offer a more complete and coherent environmentalist viewpoint that the one you seem to have mistakenly picked up. I have not heard anyone with half a brain try to argue that point, because it takes the human experience to reductio ad absurdum.
A very good book that primarily deals with humans and their relationship to the natural world is David Suzuki's (he's a geneticist, by the way) The Sacred Balance.
How DO you kill/slaughter Humanely??
You gave examples of fairly grotesque eating habits of the animal world, and then ask the question 'what would you have us do?'
To me, that is a bit of an obvious answer. We as humans, have many, many options available to us, ones NOT available to animals.
We have technology to make killing safe, swift, and pretty much painless.
We have the ability to empathize with other species, like pets or 'cute' animals.
Generally, we feel compassion, and reduce the amount of suffering we cause to other life. Usually this is confined to human relations, but people with bigger hearts include other types of life as well. I don't suppose you are the type of guy to go around kicking dogs, just because you can. We generally abhor that kind of behavior. (that new book, Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer is a meditation on just this)
And finally, we can make decisions based on the future. If we over hunt a certain animal, they will eventually cease to be a food source. Or we can choose different food sources over another, if one seems to be unsuitable (like staying away from big macs when you are on a diet).
Animals can't do these things, or if they can, at a level so low that we don't really understand.
So, to answer your question, i would ask us to consiter all the above when deciding what to eat. For me, humane slaughter is attempting to reduce slaughter in the first place. Personally, at this point in our civilization and development, i don't see any need to slaughter animals at all, except in extreme circumstances. Most of us don't need it for nutrition, so really its only for taste that we choose to kill.
But if you are really needing a definition of 'humane slaughter', the best i heard was from my instructor for my BC Hunter safety course (CORE) when i was 16.
He said "If you shoot an animal, its your responsibility to make the cleanest kill possible. And if you only injure it and it runs away, it is you responsibility to do everything in your power to track it down and end its suffering".