NationStates Jolt Archive

Dining with the dolphin hunters

By Paul Kenyon
Director/producer/reporter, Dolphin Hunters

Most people deplore the mere thought of hunting and killing dolphins, but in Japan it is legal and, arguably, traditional. So, is the process known as drive hunting symbolic of a cultural gulf, or does it simply amount to mindless slaughter?

The thin, dark slivers of meat were prepared in a fan shape, and had started bleeding in the high humidity.

This was the only bar in Taiji, a small town in southern Japan with a strong suspicion of outsiders.

The meal that faced me was raw dolphin.

The locals jab at it, and slurp it down with the local beer. It is one of their favourite foods, cheaper than whale, and more flavoursome.

It looks like tuna, but black. After some prodding, I swallowed a single piece... and won a little trust.

We had come here after an American marine mammal specialist with One Voice, Ric O'Barry, told us about the annual mass slaughter of dolphins in Japan.

It has been going on for 400 years and the process is called "drive hunting".
The fishermen surround a pod of dolphins at sea. They lower metal poles into the water and bang them with hammers.

The clattering noise carries through the water, and confuses the dolphins' sonar. In their panic, the dolphins are driven into shallow water. Then the killing begins.

There is little finesse about it. The water runs red, as the fishermen use knives and ropes to capture them and hoist their thrashing bodies onto the quayside.

From there, they are dragged, many still alive, to the slaughter house, chunks of flesh ripping from them onto the tarmac.

Hunters' logic
Two days after arriving in Japan, I was in the dolphin hunters' co-operative in Taiji.

All they know of Westerners are the handful of protesters who turn up each year, trying to stop their hunt.

In a town of 500 fishermen, only 27 are allowed to catch dolphins. It is an elite club, membership of which is chosen by Masonic-style ritual.

"Even if you were the prime minister's son, you wouldn't necessarily get in," said one former mackerel fisherman, guzzling a plate of dolphin in The Whale Bar.

But, the dolphin hunters surprised me. They were not the callous animal rights abusers I had been led to expect.

They were dignified and philosophical about their trade.

They were also confused. Dolphins to them are just big fish to be treated like any other.

"You'd think nothing of slicing off a tuna's head while it was alive, so why the outcry over dolphins?" one of them said.

That night, in the dolphin bar, I showed them a BBC film about the latest research on dolphin intelligence.

I wanted to understand the cultural gulf dividing Japan and the rest of the world.

They sat in silence, watching bottle-nose dolphins master up to 60 words of sign language and demonstrate some pretty mind-blowing problem-solving skills. They were not impressed.

"They're just like dogs," said one. "You could teach dogs the same tricks; it doesn't mean they're clever."

International outrage

The dolphin hunting season began at the start of October.

As the fishermen prepared their boats, marine mammal specialist Ric O'Barry prepared his plans to stop them.

Each year he flies from his home in Miami, and takes up residence in Taiji for six months.

He and his colleagues wake early in the morning, and shadow the fishermen, trying to film their activities.

The confrontations between the two sides can descend into scuffles. Mr O'Barry says he has been threatened with a knife. The fishermen deny it.

They wonder how we would feel if a group of Japanese turned up each year in the English countryside to picket a fox hunt.

Greater impact

Further up the coast, we discover the real cost of dolphin hunting, something that goes beyond the cultural arguments batted backwards and forwards by protesters and fishermen.

In the town of Futo, we meet a man who used to hunt dolphins, but stopped.

His reason? He says his colleagues were breaking the government-imposed quota; they were killing too many dolphins.

The quota is there to prevent damage to the species, but he said his colleagues cared little about that.

He now takes tourists out to observe dolphins in the wild. On our day-long trip, we did not see a single one.

Not only that, his colleagues have not carried out a drive hunt here for four years. They have not been able to find dolphins either.

It seems the fishermen have simply fished themselves out of a job. But, back in Taiji, the hunt is going ahead this year as it has done for the last four centuries.

The fishermen say they need it to survive. It is the only business they know.

The activists trying to stop them are likely to be exclusively outsiders.

That is not necessarily because the Japanese support the trade. During the three weeks we were there, we found no one outside the dolphin hunting towns who even knew that dolphins were eaten.

So, perhaps the challenge is not to change minds, but to inform them.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3956355.stm


From 1963 through 1999, the Japanese Government allowed the fishermen of Japan to slaughter 668,393 dolphins. Some were taken for meat while others were killed as mere 'incidental' catch in the process of capturing live dolphins for displays in marine parks and aquariums. Public pressure and the documenting of the slaughters virtually stopped the slaughters for several years, however, with the growing popularity of swimming with captive dolphins and displaying dolphins in marine park settings the capturing and killing of dolphins in Japan is once again on the rise.

http://www.petitiononline.com/watercat/petition.html

Diskuss. If you want to do something:

http://www.petitiononline.com/watercat/petition.html
http://www.earthisland.org/saveTaijiDolphins/

Hows about cultural massacre?

In China They Eat Dogs (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180748/)

(Irrelevant link, but true statement)

Hmmm. Japan gets the most attention and the most flack...but what about every other large-scale commercial fishery that has 'incidental' catches of dolphins? People didn't start boycotting tuna for nothing.

They eat guinea pigs (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6281125) in Peru.

They are tasty.

As far as I'm concerned, dolphins have been proven to be--at the very LEAST--semi-sentient, if not completely sentient. Therefore, I do not approve of their culture anymore than I approved of the Aztec sacrifices. You do not kill a sentient being. Period.

If they are overfishing and damaging the populations, that is an issue. Otherwise, they are simply hunting. Why become emotional over a few hundred dolphins, when Western countries slay thousands of chicken, pigs, cows and sheep every day?

i say let them be.

anymore than I approved of the Aztec sacrifices.
My god...how old ARE you?

If they are overfishing and damaging the populations, that is an issue. Otherwise, they are simply hunting. Why become emotional over a few hundred dolphins, when Western countries slay thousands of chicken, pigs, cows and sheep every day?
Apparently, because chickens, pigs, cows and sheep are dumb. And we don't like the taste of dolphin meat. Yet.

My god...how old ARE you?
...

Bad word choice. Let me rephrase: I would have not supported the Aztec sacrifices.

(And to answer your question, it's either nineteen or sixty-six. Depends on whether you believe I'm Patrick Stewart or not, as some people appear to be convinced I am.)

Cabra West: They are not sentient beings. Furthermore, those species aren't nearing extinction either. They're treated a damned sight better than a lot of other species anyway. People rant on and on about cruel practicies in the meat industry, but in reality they are well treated right up to the slaughterhouse.

Meh
I have no intention of applying a special rule to them just because they are of another “culture” as I find the idea of separate cultures in the modern world to be divisive. I do however have no problem with anybody hunting dolphins.

..]
Cabra West: They are not sentient beings. Furthermore, those species aren't nearing extinction either. They're treated a damned sight better than a lot of other species anyway. People rant on and on about cruel practicies in the meat industry, but in reality they are well treated right up to the slaughterhouse.
Wild cattle, pigs, chicken and sheep are all passingly rare. The domestic breeds are different...bred specifically to eat. So here's an idea...much as we have done elsewhere, with shrimp, with salmon etc, we can 'farm' dolphins for eating, and 'solve' the problem of extinction.

Flipper for dinner, flipper for lunch...

As far as I'm concerned, dolphins have been proven to be--at the very LEAST--semi-sentient, if not completely sentient. Therefore, I do not approve of their culture anymore than I approved of the Aztec sacrifices. You do not kill a sentient being. Period.
Until they learn a language humans can understand and tell us that they’re sentient, we must assume that they are not.

They eat guinea pigs (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6281125) in Peru.

They are tasty.
*draws blade*

DEFEND THEMMMMM!!!!

*runs towards Peru*

Wild cattle, pigs, chicken and sheep are all passingly rare. The domestic breeds are different...bred specifically to eat. So here's an idea...much as we have done elsewhere, with shrimp, with salmon etc, we can 'farm' dolphins for eating, and 'solve' the problem of extinction.

Flipper for dinner, flipper for lunch...

Did you say You were half asian or full asian or something, right?

Cabra West: They are not sentient beings. Furthermore, those species aren't nearing extinction either. They're treated a damned sight better than a lot of other species anyway. People rant on and on about cruel practicies in the meat industry, but in reality they are well treated right up to the slaughterhouse.

Pigs are pretty intelligent, if I remember correctly. Nasty characters, but surprisingly bright. And sentience is tricky to determine.

As I said, if they are not following the quota and thereby threaten the population, that is an issue.
And I daresay that those dolphins enjoyed a natural life of perfect freedom before they get killed, so there can be no talk about mistreating them either, can there?

Until they learn a language humans can understand and tell us that they’re sentient, we must assume that they are not.

So you say we should kill people who cant speak as well? Maybe Sinuhue would find their meat tasteful....

Did you say You were half asian or full asian or something, right?
No.

No.

Riiiiight...Native American?

In China They Eat Dogs (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180748/)

(Irrelevant link, but true statement)
Yeah, that's pretty irrelevant. They give dogs away for free in developed countries, how bad do you think it is in undeveloped countries where there is no breeding control at all?

So you say we should kill people who cant speak as well?
No. Because of our own experiences as human beings, we must assume that other human beings are at least capable of the same emotions that we are.
We have no experience being dolphins, so we must go on the next best thing, their word, of which we have none.

So you say we should kill people who cant speak as well? Maybe Sinuhue would find their meat tasteful....
Meat I have eaten and enjoyed:

cow, pig, sheep, goat, moose, caribou, muskox, muskrat, beaver, bear, snake, crocodile, turtle, horse, chicken, turkey, partridge, grouse, duck, goose, pheasant, ptarmigan, dog, guinea pig, llama, elk, deer, seal, whale, walrus, rabbit...and pretty much any type of fish or assorted seafood I could get my hands on.

So it's entirely possible.

No, then again...human meat is forbidden.

Riiiiight...Native American?
How is this relevant?

No. Because of our own experiences as human beings, we must assume that other human beings are at least capable of the same emotions that we are.
We have no experience being dolphins, so we must go on the next best thing, their word, of which we have none.

Oh I havent got any experience of being you...I'd have to assume you arent sentient unless you tell me so. And maybe prove it with some compassion...

Riiiiight...Native American?
Aboriginal. And this helps you how?

By the way, I wouldn't eat dolphin unless I had to.

But I've eaten a Japanese woman.

Oh I havent got any experience of being you...I'd have to assume you arent sentient unless you tell me so. And maybe prove it with some compassion...
Common sense would tell you that the physiological similarities between you and me show that we are of the same species and thus posses nearly the same mental capacity.

As for compassion, remember, sociopaths are sentient.

By the way, I wouldn't eat dolphin unless I had to.

But I've eaten a Japanese woman.

What did she taste like? :p

Ok... so, where is the anti-seal hunt gang? Why haven't they spoken up yet? Are they still working on their anti-dolphin eating campaign?

The intresting thing here is that the only reason they are not treating the hunting of dolphins the same as the hunting of any other animal or fish is because dolphins look "cuter". Unless they are endangoured, but i don't think they are...are they?

Aboriginal. And this helps you how?
He can then assess your opinion invalid because of your background/age/whatever prejudice he might have.

I consider dolphins to be intelligent, perhaps even sentient. I wouldn't eat one.

What did she taste like? :p
She was salty and very moist :)

I wouldn't eat a dolphin, and I wouldn't kill one either.

Killing a semi-sentient being is something that I generally wouldn't do.

The intresting thing here is that the only reason they are not treating the hunting of dolphins the same as the hunting of any other animal or fish is because dolphins look "cuter". Unless they are endangoured, but i don't think they are...are they?

And what's the opposite of this? "Lets eat it, it's meat afterall....Mwahahah" cave man attitudes? We got enough meat source, we dont need to hunt dolphins. And fish isnt a mammel. And humans are animals too but we consider them seperate from other animals and this has nothing to do with cuteness. (most humans arent cute)

In China They Eat Dogs (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180748/)

(Irrelevant link, but true statement)

Actually, that would be the Koreas.

Actually, that would be the Koreas.

The move only mentions "In China They Eat Dogs" as a reasoning to commit crimes :p

Yes, it's a very strange movie, but good. You should see it, if you get the chance.

When was the last time that you saw an Internet petition actually do something?

And what's the opposite of this? "Lets eat it, it's meat afterall....Mwahahah" cave man attitudes? We got enough meat source, we dont need to hunt dolphins. And fish isnt a mammel. And humans are animals too but we consider them seperate from other animals and this has nothing to do with cuteness. (most humans arent cute)

Of course I realise there are other reasons, but what im saying is that the animal rights actavists are targeting dolphins over other animals which are being hunted unneciscerily because they are cuter.

Of course I realise there are other reasons, but what im saying is that the animal rights actavists are targeting dolphins over other animals which are being hunted unneciscerily because they are cuter.

Few/none of them are as smart and harmless as dolphins. It's a matter of priority.

"People! Soylent Green is people!"

Few/none of them are as smart and harmless as dolphins. It's a matter of priority.

Meh, I would debate but

1. I don't care that much and
2. Your probably right mostly.

Just as long as they stay in the quota....

Actually, that would be the Koreas.
So Korea and China then. And probably some other countries - though not so often in western countries.

Meat I have eaten and enjoyed:

cow, pig, sheep, goat, moose, caribou, muskox, muskrat, beaver, bear, snake, crocodile, turtle, horse, chicken, turkey, partridge, grouse, duck, goose, pheasant, ptarmigan, dog, guinea pig, llama, elk, deer, seal, whale, walrus, rabbit...and pretty much any type of fish or assorted seafood I could get my hands on.
How did llama taste? Kinda like cow, or what?

And "ptarmigan"? Now you're just making up the name of animals as you go. :p I know, ptarmigans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptarmigan) are real, but I had to look it up for Pete's sake!

Dolphins are sentient, so I oppose this.

Same reason I oppose animal testing on the great apes (But support it on just about everything else that aint sentient)

How about we stop all fishing and eat only land animals...and stop hunting for sport, only for food.

How did llama taste? Kinda like cow, or what? More like horse. Dry.

And "ptarmigan"? Now you're just making up the name of animals as you go.
Hahahahaa...they are really dumb birds...makes you think of the dodos...you can walk up to them and knock them on the head. Small and tasty.

It doesn't sound like these Japanese are hunting dolphins for sport.

If memory serves, this is one small village in Japan. I don't agree with it, but it is hardly a nationwide thing.

Actually, even whale consumption is dropping down dramtically as of late as the older generation starts to die off.

She was salty and very moist :)
I could say something to that, but I would probably just get smacked by my Japanese fiancee if I did. ;)

I think thats horrible of them to hurt something so innocent, but, it is their culture, their tradition and I don't think we should tell them too stop a 400 year old tradition because we think it's horrible.

How is this relevant?

Well, it's funny. Ny Nordland's threads mostly seem to be about race and ethnicity, several times quoting racist sources to back racialist viewpoints, and he always tries to guess or assume the race/ethnicity of other posters, particularly the ones he disagrees with.

...but he's not racist, no...

I think thats horrible of them to hurt something so innocent, but, it is their culture, their tradition and I don't think we should tell them too stop a 400 year old tradition because we think it's horrible.
So we should condone this for the sake of diversity, preservation of their culture, or whatever?

*shrugs*

We don't like the idea of killing dolphins because our culture views them as cute. Same reason why many people are squeamish about eating dog. Now, I've eaten dog, but I've not had a chance to eat dolphin (yet). I say, kill them, as long as I get to eat them.

Of the dolphins being discussed here only bottle-nosed are suggested to have self-awareness. I consider self-awareness to be a minimum requirement for sentience and the point where I find it even remotely concerning. BN dolphins are still debated as to self-awareness. They are not the majority of the dolphins involved in this type of hunting.

Animal cognition is a difficult science because we are so biased to the way we think. There is much evidence that pigs, dogs, and various other non-ape, non-cetaceous animals may have comparable levels of cognition to some cetaceous species. It's still a blossoming study and if we are going to use very preliminary evidence to argue that eating an animal should be disallowed then we might as well stop eating everything but cows. Because let's face it, cows are even dumber than most people who have more than 10,000 posts on NS. ;)

Did you say You were half asian or full asian or something, right?

You know when you're trying to convince people you aren't a racist, it probably doesn't help to constantly try to bring up everyone's race as if it's a part of the argument. If you actually want people to start addressing your arguments and stop trying to put you in a little box, perhaps you should set the example by addressing their arguments and stop trying to put everyone in the race box.

To those arguing that this is wrong because of "self-awareness": I don't care if it's sentient, if it tastes good, I'll eat it. If human flesh were legal I'd feel the same way.

I'm opposed to it only if it is causing dolphins to become an endangered species.

To those of you who don't think its right to kill something sentiant: How do you know whether a particular animal is sentiant or not? (Or are you vegetarians?)

just go fishing for fish, not mammals!

just go fishing for fish, not mammals!
Yeah, leave those mammals alone. You know, like, pigs, cows, deer, etc.

Yeah, leave those mammals alone. You know, like, pigs, cows, deer, etc.
since when have we been fishing for cows?

Hmm...

If memory serves, this is one small village in Japan. I don't agree with it, but it is hardly a nationwide thing.

The fact that no alternatives are present or are being suggested by the protestors (at least it seem's so), means that they hardly have a logical reason to stop either, even if it is against the law. As the article suggests, they don't know any other means of living.

It's hard to empathize with dolphins or endangered species when they are all that's keeping the rice bowl from going empty.

since when have we been fishing for cows?

Hmm...

Why are mammals special if they are in water?

Why are mammals special if they are in water?
Because they're in water! Water! Just think about it... :cool:

Because they're in water! Water! Just think about it... :cool:

So you didn't actually have a point?

since when have we been fishing for cows?

Hmm...
Since they fell in the lake?

So you didn't actually have a point?
maybe you don't understand yet... I'll try to clarify.


WATER

Since they fell in the lake?
Poor cows :( And all that wasted beef :(

So, no other Nihonjin have found this thread. Guess I have to do this.

*puts on Kamikaze headband*

So we should condone this for the sake of diversity, preservation of their culture, or whatever?

You know, Japanese people have conformed to Western culture enough. I don't like what these 27 fishermen do, but I'm all of a sudden starting to sympathize with them. Culture probably doesn't go hand in hand with "whatever," in Taiji. 400-year old traditions don't just keel over and die.

Did you say You were half asian or full asian or something, right?

What does it matter? I'm sure there are Chinese, Taiwanese, Koreans, Filipinos, Indonesians, Malaysians, Burmese, Vietnamese, Laotians, and Khmers protesting about the 27 fishermen killing dolphins. There's one thing about Asians, especially when it comes to the Nihon: We don't stick up for our neighbors. So get race out of this thread and stick with culture.

If memory serves, this is one small village in Japan. I don't agree with it, but it is hardly a nationwide thing.

This guy has it right. People in Tokyo, Fukuoka, Osaka, Sapporo, etc. don't eat dolphin, unless McDonald's started serving that, which I doubt, manufacturing plastic "patties" in Kaohsiung is much easier.

And one last thing; those petitions? I can see they sure love Japan and its government. Barbarizing an entire country for a few villages. Kami.

This guy has it right. People in Tokyo, Fukuoka, Osaka, Sapporo, etc. don't eat dolphin, unless McDonald's started serving that, which I doubt, manufacturing plastic "patties" in Kaohsiung is much easier.
Nope, still enjoying shrimp burgers right now, thank you very much. ;)

Anyone happen to notice the poll is just a bit biased. I can think of a dozen reasons to say no that do not care about the cultural aspect and a dozen to say yes but do not include savagery.

Every time you masturbate, a Japanese man kills a baby dolphin. :(
Please, think of the baby dolphins!

Heres a thought:
We are all over here up in arms about people killing dolphins [ i am too]
People over in India are probably all horrifed that we kill and eat the holy cow, and the Inda NSG pobably has threads about the great cow massacare in a America. So it really is a matter of culture.

I like eating cows, and i think killing dolphins is wrong, but it makes you think, huh?

Every time you masturbate, a Japanese man kills a baby dolphin. :(
Please, think of the baby dolphins!
LOL, sig-ed. or whatever.

Who cares? Here in the states we hunt deer, bear, squirrel, pigs, birds, fish, turtles, wild cats, and pretty much anything that has meat and a pulse.

The people who are really pushing for this are the PETA/ELF people. Screw em'.

Who cares? Here in the states we hunt deer, bear, squirrel, pigs, birds, fish, turtles, wild cats, and pretty much anything that has meat and a pulse.

The people who are really pushing for this are the PETA/ELF people. Screw em'.
Dolphins are endandgerd, i think. Actully i have no idea. Im jsut guessing.
Would you hunt a condor?

Dolphins are endandgerd, i think. Actully i have no idea. Im jsut guessing.
Would you hunt a condor?

Don't they serve those up at KFC?

Maybe. Are they turkey size? I'm not picky.

LOL, sig-ed. or whatever.
OMG I'M IN A SIG!! :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: This is huge!! I've never been in one before! :)

You know when you're trying to convince people you aren't a racist, it probably doesn't help to constantly try to bring up everyone's race as if it's a part of the argument. If you actually want people to start addressing your arguments and stop trying to put you in a little box, perhaps you should set the example by addressing their arguments and stop trying to put everyone in the race box.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. You are free to believe whatever you please...

just go fishing for fish, not mammals!

Many people seems to be unable to comprehend this simple logic. There are enough fish on the sea. No need to hunt whales or dolphins or other mammels in sea...

The fact that no alternatives are present or are being suggested by the protestors (at least it seem's so), means that they hardly have a logical reason to stop either, even if it is against the law. As the article suggests, they don't know any other means of living.

It's hard to empathize with dolphins or endangered species when they are all that's keeping the rice bowl from going empty.

Japan is a wealthy hi-tech country. I'm sure they can get by without massacring dolphins...

Many people seems to be unable to comprehend this simple logic. There are enough fish on the sea. No need to hunt whales or dolphins or other mammels in sea...Actually, that "logic" is what seems to be behind overfishing.

Japan is a wealthy hi-tech country. I'm sure they can get by without massacring dolphins...
You fail at knowing Japan.

Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, the major cities are wealthy and hi-tech. Out in inaka... not so much, if at all.

You also ignore that this is ONE village, not the nation of Japan.

So, no other Nihonjin have found this thread. Guess I have to do this.

*puts on Kamikaze headband*



You know, Japanese people have conformed to Western culture enough. I don't like what these 27 fishermen do, but I'm all of a sudden starting to sympathize with them. Culture probably doesn't go hand in hand with "whatever," in Taiji. 400-year old traditions don't just keel over and die.



What does it matter? I'm sure there are Chinese, Taiwanese, Koreans, Filipinos, Indonesians, Malaysians, Burmese, Vietnamese, Laotians, and Khmers protesting about the 27 fishermen killing dolphins. There's one thing about Asians, especially when it comes to the Nihon: We don't stick up for our neighbors. So get race out of this thread and stick with culture.



This guy has it right. People in Tokyo, Fukuoka, Osaka, Sapporo, etc. don't eat dolphin, unless McDonald's started serving that, which I doubt, manufacturing plastic "patties" in Kaohsiung is much easier.

And one last thing; those petitions? I can see they sure love Japan and its government. Barbarizing an entire country for a few villages. Kami.

Ah...pride getting in the way of doing the right thing? I thought it was only 3rd world countries and USA who cant handle simple criticism...

I think they should just respect the amount fixed by the goverment.

Even as I do not agree with the slaughter of dolphins, that I consider marvelous animals, sadly they are still considered animals, and as such, able to be hunted and eaten.

For the rest, as long as they do it according to a preservation act, it's ok, I guess.

Many people seems to be unable to comprehend this simple logic. There are enough fish on the sea. No need to hunt whales or dolphins or other mammels in sea...


Yeah but what if they taste nice? I mean if they are not endagered, and if the Japanesse have at least some sort of resource control, then why not?

A lot of people can't seem to comprehend this piece of logic. We are at the top of the food chain, we can eat whatever we can catch.

Would you expect to see a troop of chimps chase down and kill a smaller monkey for one of them to turn around and say, "you know chaps that's really not on you know, we shouldn't be eating these"

Heres a thought:
We are all over here up in arms about people killing dolphins [ i am too]
People over in India are probably all horrifed that we kill and eat the holy cow, and the Inda NSG pobably has threads about the great cow massacare in a America. So it really is a matter of culture.

I like eating cows, and i think killing dolphins is wrong, but it makes you think, huh?

When cows learn sign language and solve complex problems, we'll discuss your "point".

Ah...pride getting in the way of doing the right thing? I thought it was only 3rd world countries and USA who cant handle simple criticism...
I do find this halarious as you do know Norway is a whaling country and the only one to ignore the ban, right?

Who cares? Here in the states we hunt deer, bear, squirrel, pigs, birds, fish, turtles, wild cats, and pretty much anything that has meat and a pulse.

The people who are really pushing for this are the PETA/ELF people. Screw em'.

USA is hardly a country to be used as a reference of morality or civility...

Actually, that "logic" is what seems to be behind overfishing.


Heh damn right I forgot all abut that one.

On a serious note, if you live in Britian , and you like your fish and still want to be able to eat cod in say 10 years or so, then for fucks sake stop eating it now, better still boycott it, make your mates do the same, and then whinge like shit to the goverment. Umm please.

You fail at knowing Japan.

Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, the major cities are wealthy and hi-tech. Out in inaka... not so much, if at all.

You also ignore that this is ONE village, not the nation of Japan.

I dont care if it's a one village or half a village. They killed 668,393 dolphins. That's unacceptable...And Japaneese goverment allows this so not only one village is reponsible for this....

Yeah but what if they taste nice? I mean if they are not endagered, and if the Japanesse have at least some sort of resource control, then why not?

A lot of people can't seem to comprehend this piece of logic. We are at the top of the food chain, we can eat whatever we can catch.

Would you expect to see a troop of chimps chase down and kill a smaller monkey for one of them to turn around and say, "you know chaps that's really not on you know, we shouldn't be eating these"

How old are you?

Bah, what about Norway, Sweden, or Denmark then?

If the japanese went over the accepted quota, then of course they should be punished, but if their culture is to kill several dolphins a year you cannot hold nothing against them.

I do find this halarious as you do know Norway is a whaling country and the only one to ignore the ban, right?

I dont agree with that neither. I stated that couple times in this forum. But the point is our goverment makes lots of crap for it and none of the people argue for whale hunting because "foreigners told us otherwise". And I dont get offended when someone describes it as savagery...

I dont care if it's a one village or half a village. They killed 668,393 dolphins. That's unacceptable...And Japaneese goverment allows this so not only one village is reponsible for this....
From 1969 to 1999. And how many did Norway kill during those years?

How many whales?

And your attempt to pin this on the whole of Japan makes no sense. It is just ONE damn village in Japan. The nation isn't having a massive orgy of dolphin feeding.

I dont agree with that neither. I stated that couple times in this forum. But the point is our goverment makes lots of crap for it and none of the people argue for whale hunting because "foreigners told us otherwise". And I dont get offended when someone describes it as savagery...
I've yet to hear the Japanese state they do it because someone told them to.

They very carefully point out it is part of the culture (That claim has its own problems, but that's beside the point).

Bah, what about Norway, Sweden, or Denmark then?

If the japanese went over the accepted quota, then of course they should be punished, but if their culture is to kill several dolphins a year you cannot hold nothing against them.

Some people's culture in Africa is to kill and eat other people. Maybe you should go there and "respect" their culture...

How old are you?


Shit why? What differance does that make? Does it make my words anymore or any less true? And you first.

I've yet to hear the Japanese state they do it because someone told them to.

They very carefully point out it is part of the culture (That claim has its own problems, but that's beside the point).

Iranians claim that beating women and repressing them is part of Iranian/Islamic culture.

I've yet to hear the Japanese state they do it because someone told them to.


You just told us that you were sympathising with them because others told them not to do it...

Some people's culture in Africa is to kill and eat other people. Maybe you should go there and "respect" their culture...


If they stick to their quota...


I don't see anybody protesting against that, to be honest. Oh, and did you know the cannibalism isn't even illegal in a number of Western countries?

Some people's culture in Africa is to kill and eat other people. Maybe you should go there and "respect" their culture...

Used to, used to, in the past.

Shit why? What differance does that make? Does it make my words anymore or any less true? And you first.

You can look at my profile for my age. And it matters to me because I try to ignore 16- and 35+

You can look at my profile for my age. And it matters to me because I try to ignore 16- and 35+

...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Look everyone! He's not only racist, but ageist too!

You can look at my profile for my age. And it matters to me because I try to ignore 16- and 35+

And to think that right to this minute I thought the conecpt of "ageism" was made up by overly political correct groups... I stand corrected.

*lol If you are trying to remove all credibility from your opinions and posts, you're on the best way there, Ny Nordland.

You can look at my profile for my age. And it matters to me because I try to ignore 16- and 35+


Ohh can I ask why?

If they are overfishing and damaging the populations, that is an issue. Otherwise, they are simply hunting. Why become emotional over a few hundred dolphins, when Western countries slay thousands of chicken, pigs, cows and sheep every day?


Word.

Ohh can I ask why?

Because people below 16 dont know/care much and their opinions and the way of their thinking will change a lot. I think very differently than I used to 3 or 4 years ago. Old people are just rigid and takes too much effort to make them think differently...

Because people below 16 dont know/care much and their opinions and the way of their thinking will change a lot. I think very differently than I used to 3 or 4 years ago. Old people are just rigid and takes too much effort to make them think differently...
hahahahahahahahahahah...*catches breath*... hahahahahahaha!
What a load of BS!

Some people's culture in Africa is to kill and eat other people. Maybe you should go there and "respect" their culture...

Thinking faster, I was expecting EXACTLY this answer from you.

Regrettably, your argument fails by the fact that actually killing and eating people is against the international law.

Killing and eating dolphins is not, at least yet.

Please, instead of arguing here in the forums, (with yet a valid point. I have already stated that I am against, personally, this slaying of such a marvelous animals by thousands) join a investigation to demonstrate that dolphins are as sentient as humans, or go to international instances and try to pass an international law against the hunt and eating of dolphins. If you need signatures, I'll add mine.

Once you start this project, please mail me or pm me. I willl even help you with all the media coverage I can muster.

But for now, it's part of their culture, and it's legal as long they respect the amounts stated by law.

Because people below 16 dont know/care much and their opinions and the way of their thinking will change a lot. I think very differently than I used to 3 or 4 years ago. Old people are just rigid and takes too much effort to make them think differently...


Hahahhahahah and you say this as a World wise 19 year old? Hehhhehhe
Okay then for the record I am an old 37, so I geuss my ummffghh, my ummhfgh hahahah no sorry I can't actualy finish the sentance.... hahhahhhahhahah.

Okay so I guess then my mind is stuck in a rigid state and my thought process are bound to stay the way they are even if I live to be 99? Mummpghhhhf ahhehhahhahhahhhahhahhooh oohhh ohhh my giddy heart!:D

Sheesh thanks though for one of the best laughs I have had all day.

Iranians claim that beating women and repressing them is part of Iranian/Islamic culture.
:rolleyes:

You just told us that you were sympathising with them because others told them not to do it...
I did? This is news to me. Could you point out just where I said this?

Thinking faster, I was expecting EXACTLY this answer from you.

Regrettably, your argument fails by the fact that actually killing and eating people is against the international law.

Killing and eating dolphins is not, at least yet.

Please, instead of arguing here in the forums, (with yet a valid point. I have already stated that I am against, personally, this slaying of such a marvelous animals by thousands) join a investigation to demonstrate that dolphins are as sentient as humans, or go to international instances and try to pass an international law against the hunt and eating of dolphins. If you need signatures, I'll add mine.

Once you start this project, please mail me or pm me. I willl even help you with all the media coverage I can muster.

But for now, it's part of their culture, and it's legal as long they respect the amounts stated by law.

It can not be against the law if Japan continues it, pulling a veto or something in UN, can it? And the point was cultural arguments were irrevelant, because you can justify lots of primitiveness by "culture" (look at the iraninan example)
There are links in the 1st page to organisations that tries to save dolphins...

:rolleyes:


I did? This is news to me. Could you point out just where I said this?

Oh I confused you with someone else....


You know, Japanese people have conformed to Western culture enough. I don't like what these 27 fishermen do, but I'm all of a sudden starting to sympathize with them. Culture probably doesn't go hand in hand with "whatever," in Taiji. 400-year old traditions don't just keel over and die.

It can not be against the law if Japan continues it, pulling a veto or something in UN, can it?
You really, really, really know nothing of or about Japan, do you?

You really, really, really know nothing of or about Japan, do you?

I didnt mean UN Security Council obviously...

This may interest some of you. Dolphins are one of the only mammals aside from humans that have true self-awareness.

Thus, according to many modern bioethical theories, from this fact alone it may actually be more justifiable to kill a human fetus (abortion) than to kill a dolphin. Self-awareness and the ability to value the self are part of the criteria for 'personhood' in these theories. This is why modern bioethics has a virtual concensus on the ethicity of abortion and taking the brain dead off life support.

So, when viewed in a modern bioethical context, a dolphin may actually be more valuable, more of a 'person', than an invalid human or a human fetus.

I didnt mean UN Security Council obviously...
So where will Japan veto international law then, as it carries no veto athority in the General Assembly (which doesn't even HAVE veto athority)?

I didnt mean UN Security Council obviously...There aren't that many bodies in the UN whose members have veto powers. Not that the UN is the institution that would create international law for this case...

It can not be against the law if Japan continues it, pulling a veto or something in UN, can it? And the point was cultural arguments were irrevelant, because you can justify lots of primitiveness by "culture" (look at the iraninan example)
There are links in the 1st page to organisations that tries to save dolphins...

cultural arguments as long they are legal according to international law.

Beating women is against international law.

Killing people for sustenance is against international law.

Killing and eating dolphins is not. (Although I would like to see someone proving definitevely that dolphins are sentients, thus helping the outlawing of such practice)

that's my point

This may interest some of you. Dolphins are one of the only mammals aside from humans that have true self-awareness.

Thus, according to many modern bioethical theories, from this fact alone it may actually be more justifiable to kill a human fetus (abortion) than to kill a dolphin. Self-awareness and the ability to value the self are part of the criteria for 'personhood' in these theories. This is why modern bioethics has a virtual concensus on the ethicity of abortion and taking the brain dead off life support.

So, when viewed in a modern bioethical context, a dolphin may actually be more valuable, more of a 'person', than an invalid human or a human fetus.


That is actualy quite untrue, most(if not all)animals, have self awareness. Look at two gerbils playing and tell me if they are both automatons or do they have differant 'personalities'?

Cows, and pigs and lambs, can all sense something up when they turn up at the abitior, and in a very real sense get upset, this is self awareness, and I would say that all mamals had it at the very least.

So then it becomes a question of not is it right or wrong to kill and eat these things, but hwo as an individual do you feel about it. I feel fine about it, but some people turn veggie. For both sorts though the choice is an individual one, and really in the grand sceme of things can we say if either choice is absolutle right or wrong?

That is actualy quite untrue, most(if not all)animals, have self awareness. Look at two gerbils playing and tell me if they are both automatons or do they have differant 'personalities'?

You can't measure self-awarness by observation in that fashion. Its measured by various other tests, such as how they react to a mirror. So far, only primates and dolphins have been demonstrated to realize that it is their reflection in the mirror rather than that of another animal.

And yes, I know some dog owners are going to be like "OMG, my dogs see themselves in the mirror!" Well yes, they see a reflection. They don't have the awareness to know that it is themselves.

In the same respect, self-awareness requires the level of intelligence necessary to know and value the self. Animals have instincts of preservation, but only primates and dolphins have demonstrated that they have the brain capacity, the level of intelligence, necessary for the abstract thought necessary for self-actualization and the value of the self. No other animals have a true concept of "self."

You can't measure self-awarness by observation in that fashion. Its measured by various other tests, such as how they react to a mirror. So far, only primates and dolphins have been demonstrated to realize that it is their reflection in the mirror rather than that of another animal.

And yes, I know some dog owners are going to be like "OMG, my dogs see themselves in the mirror!" Well yes, they see a reflection. They don't have the awareness to know that it is themselves.

In the same respect, self-awareness requires the level of intelligence necessary to know and value the self. Animals have instincts of preservation, but only primates and dolphins have demonstrated that they have the brain capacity, the level of intelligence, necessary for the abstract thought necessary for self-actualization and the value of the self. No other animals have a true concept of "self."


I would argue against that, and isn't our science based on observation?

How can we as humans show a pig a mirror and then hope to interpret it's actions correctly? Any interpretation we can make is soley based on our understanding of what it means for us to be self aware, in short we can only measure it subjectivly and biased towards the human animal.

How can we then measure any other animals level of self awareness? Do you deny that a pig is at least as smart as a dog, or that dogs and cats for that matter have what we can clearly define as seperate personalities?

If an animal can have a distinct personality then how is it not self aware?

I would argue against that, and isn't our science based on observation?

How can we as humans show a pig a mirror and then hope to interpret it's actions correctly? Any interpretation we can make is soley based on our understanding of what it means for us to be self aware, in short we can only measure it subjectivly and biased towards the human animal.

Our science is based on observation, but not subjective observation. Looking at two gerbils and ascribing human characteristics to them like 'personality' isn't objective observation. Its actually a form of anthromorphization.

And, I'm not a scientist, I don't know the details of the studies done to determine that we only know of dolphins and some primates having self-awareness. But, ethics is a large part of my field, and I am familiar with how that fact relates to bioethics. A lot of bioethical principles are founded on the fact that virtually no animals have self-awareness.

How can we then measure any other animals level of self awareness? Do you deny that a pig is at least as smart as a dog, or that dogs and cats for that matter have what we can clearly define as seperate personalities?

Just to reiterate, I'm not familiar with how exactly we measure self-awareness. I know using a mirror was one method it was done, and that brain mass and development is another method. Some animals simply lack the brain capacity for that type of thought. Yet another way is by language - only creatures with languages that have the concept of 'self' in them can value the self. That excludes virtually everything except primates and dolphins. Reptiles, birds, and non-mammals especially. All I am familiar with is the ethical theories as they relate to scientific facts presented.

And a pig could be as smart as a dog, I don't know for sure. And housepets certainly do appear to have personalities. A lot of that is due to human conditioning and the natural tendency of humans to anthromorphize animals. But having a personality and being aware of an abstract concept called the self are two different ballparks.

Our science is based on observation, but not subjective observation. Looking at two gerbils and ascribing human characteristics to them like 'personality' isn't objective observation. Its actually a form of anthromorphization.

And, I'm not a scientist, I don't know the details of the studies done to determine that we only know of dolphins and some primates having self-awareness. But, ethics is a large part of my field, and I am familiar with how that fact relates to bioethics. A lot of bioethical principles are founded on the fact that virtually no animals have self-awareness.



Just to reiterate, I'm not familiar with how exactly we measure self-awareness. I know using a mirror was one method it was done, and that brain mass and development is another method. Some animals simply lack the brain capacity for that type of thought. Yet another way is by language - only creatures with languages that have the concept of 'self' in them can value the self. That excludes virtually everything except primates and dolphins. Reptiles, birds, and non-mammals especially. All I am familiar with is the ethical theories as they relate to scientific facts presented.

And a pig could be as smart as a dog, I don't know for sure. And housepets certainly do appear to have personalities. A lot of that is due to human conditioning and the natural tendency of humans to anthromorphize animals. But having a personality and being aware of an abstract concept called the self are two different ballparks.

I understand all that you have said and yet I still find myself disagreeing with you.

Science all of our sciences are subjective, if nothing else it is based on our human perceptions and senses. It is not anthromorphising if we look at two gerbils and note that one plays with the bedding more than the other and say that they have differing personalities, it is though if we try to explain away these traits without taking into account normal gerbil behaviour.

You say that 'a lot of bioethical principles are founded on the fact that virtually no animals have self-awareness' I would ask then who done these studies, are they not biased, and how old are these studies, can you bee 1005 sure of your sources regarding this?

You suggest that birds especaily have no concept of self based on the fact that their language does not have a concept of self.

When young birds encounter danger, two things happen.

They first reconise that they are in danger, which at least shows a sense of Self preservation, and then they call for mum or dad, which does suggest a sense of others, and not only others but they know who can protect them.

I know a lot of people will likely say ohhh yeah but this is instinct and not really proof of a sense of self, but the problem with that is we don't know that we can't know that not until we experiment on their brains and MRI scanners.

I will not deny that we do like to anthromorphise our pets, and things like squrriels etc, yes we do that, but that in and of itself does not mean that these beast do not have a sense of self. In fact perhaps we do it because we as creatures with self sense, emphtasis with others of the same?

Science all of our sciences are subjective, if nothing else it is based on our human perceptions and senses. It is not anthromorphising if we look at two gerbils and note that one plays with the bedding more than the other and say that they have differing personalities, it is though if we try to explain away these traits without taking into account normal gerbil behaviour.

Well, this is partially correct. Some scientific observations are subjective, this is called qualitative data. We observe, then draw systematic conclusions. Others are more objective, and this would be quantitative data. We can measure this without any subjective bias whatsoever. Observing gerbils, at best, could be considered a way to gain qualitative data.

But, we can't conclude from the fact one rat plays with wood chips more than the other that it has a concept of the 'self.'

You say that 'a lot of bioethical principles are founded on the fact that virtually no animals have self-awareness' I would ask then who done these studies, are they not biased, and how old are these studies, can you bee 1005 sure of your sources regarding this?

Since these are the principles many bioethical theories are founded on, I don't think the studies are in question. Bias is checked for, as they go through the process of peer-review. The same process is often used to weed out outdated findings. But, as I'm not involved in 'hard sciences' I usually don't do this type of research or comb the hard data myself. I take what is established as fact in the scientific community and then apply it. And I can say I feel at least 95% sure of my sources regarding this, becauses it has a virutal concensus in the scientific community.

You suggest that birds especaily have no concept of self based on the fact that their language does not have a concept of self.

When young birds encounter danger, two things happen.

They first reconise that they are in danger, which at least shows a sense of Self preservation, and then they call for mum or dad, which does suggest a sense of others, and not only others but they know who can protect them.

I know a lot of people will likely say ohhh yeah but this is instinct and not really proof of a sense of self, but the problem with that is we don't know that we can't know that not until we experiment on their brains and MRI scanners.

Well, you're right that it is instinct. :D

And actually we can experiment on their brains. As I wrote in the previous post, this is one of the ways we know that most animals do not have a concept of self - their brains are not developed enough for abstract reasoning skills and complex language. Both criteria are necessary for a true abstract concept of the self.

I will not deny that we do like to anthromorphise our pets, and things like squrriels etc, yes we do that, but that in and of itself does not mean that these beast do not have a sense of self. In fact perhaps we do it because we as creatures with self sense, emphtasis with others of the same?

I think we do it because we're ethno, or species-centric. As human beings, we view the world in a human context. We are animals, just advanced animals, and we condition other animals such as our pets to behave like us. That reinforces our perception that they are complex little people. But in reality, a lot of it is learned response, just like the Pavlov dog. But instead of conditioning them to salivate, we condition them to act in ways we can relate to as human beings.

Ah...pride getting in the way of doing the right thing? I thought it was only 3rd world countries and USA who cant handle simple criticism...

Don't even start with me about pride, Adolf. You have this idea that every country outside of Europe is wandering tribes of cavemen, and it disgusts me. Third-world countries? You're judging two thirds of the world right there. Don't think I haven't seen those threads where you either lead up to or just say outright that immigrants and muslims are somehow inferior and shouldn't be in your precious Europe.

Don't even start with me about pride, Adolf. You have this idea that every country outside of Europe is wandering tribes of cavemen, and it disgusts me. Third-world countries? You're judging two thirds of the world right there. Don't think I haven't seen those threads where you either lead up to or just say outright that immigrants and muslims are somehow inferior and shouldn't be in your precious Europe.


You know, Japanese people have conformed to Western culture enough. I don't like what these 27 fishermen do, but I'm all of a sudden starting to sympathize with them. Culture probably doesn't go hand in hand with "whatever," in Taiji. 400-year old traditions don't just keel over and die.


My point was: Not killing dolphins isnt a western "value". It's universal. It's stupid to "sympathize" with dolphin murderers just because you cant handle criticism...

I cant' remember, are dolphins endangered?

If not then it's the same as hunting any other animal, if you're going to piss and moan about hunting the dolphins, then go piss and moan about slaughtering cattle, as though that's any more humane.

Well, this is partially correct. Some scientific observations are subjective, this is called qualitative data. We observe, then draw systematic conclusions. Others are more objective, and this would be quantitative data. We can measure this without any subjective bias whatsoever. Observing gerbils, at best, could be considered a way to gain qualitative data.

But, we can't conclude from the fact one rat plays with wood chips more than the other that it has a concept of the 'self.'

True but it does mean we have to ask why does it do that, and the other dosen't, where is the differance, and why?


Since these are the principles many bioethical theories are founded on, I don't think the studies are in question. Bias is checked for, as they go through the process of peer-review. The same process is often used to weed out outdated findings. But, as I'm not involved in 'hard sciences' I usually don't do this type of research or comb the hard data myself. I take what is established as fact in the scientific community and then apply it. And I can say I feel at least 95% sure of my sources regarding this, becauses it has a virutal concensus in the scientific community.

Well that didn't really answer anything :), but thats fine. I only ask because if you work in a field that some would see as distastefull I.E. animal experimentation, then I can see how using biased research can make both you feel more comfatable, and be used to reasure others. For the record, I'm all for vivisection, like I said we are at the top of the food chain, it is a perfectly natural thing for us to be doing.

However I still find what you say to be difficault to belive.



Well, you're right that it is instinct. :D

And actually we can experiment on their brains. As I wrote in the previous post, this is one of the ways we know that most animals do not have a concept of self - their brains are not developed enough for abstract reasoning skills and complex language. Both criteria are necessary for a true abstract concept of the self.

I think you misunderstand me, yeah of course no animal baring us is capable of such abstract thought, but really a sense of self is abstract?

Take sea birds crowding in their thousands on a cliff, each knows where it's nest is, and which chicks belong to it. Each will protect both it's nest and it's young. Then where does this come from, how do the birds not only know which nest is theirs but which chicks? If they had no sense of self, how do their know which chicks they should be protecting? What about albertrouse who mate for life, and have been shown to pine when one dies?

You'll note I'm delibratly chosing birds as acording to your statement there is now way that birds can have a sense of self.

I think we do it because we're ethno, or species-centric. As human beings, we view the world in a human context. We are animals, just advanced animals, and we condition other animals such as our pets to behave like us. That reinforces our perception that they are complex little people. But in reality, a lot of it is learned response, just like the Pavlov dog. But instead of conditioning them to salivate, we condition them to act in ways we can relate to as human beings.

No I think you are wrong there. We can train a dog to sit, or beg or play or whatever you want. We don't train them to have differant personalites, much as in humans, these develop as they grow. We also don't condition pets to behave like us, and if we could does that then not suggest a higher brain function than what you suggest, I mean for a dog to copy a human, what level of understanding of the subject is required?

As to learnt response, then what is their to learn with? I mean that if a dog is not self aware then how can it learn anything. Like I said you can teach a dog tricks, but they won't just do it.

You need a reward, what sort of sentinant creature without self awarness is going to reconise much less want a reward?

Try beating a doog every day with a stick, and see if it does not change it's behaviour around you, give your freind the task of feeding it everyday and note the response to your friedn also.

So how can the dog tell the differance between the two of you, without at least some sense of self?

My point was: Not killing dolphins isnt a western "value". It's universal. It's stupid to "sympathize" with dolphin murderers just because you cant handle criticism...

I never said that I agreed with what they're doing. I'm "sypmathizing" with them because they, a little village in Japan that most people can't point out on a map, are all of a sudden being invaded by foreigners, who they've probably never seen, that want to destroy their 400-year old way of life. I'm not "sympathizing" with them because I "can't handle criticism."

Hows about cultural massacre?

Exacly my feeling.
We should respect their culture for being the reason and still oppose it.
I don't like it and I am against it but I must respect their culture.
We can't just stop considering cultural forces just becouse an conflict.
We can't go around saying we are better than other cultures
just becouse we hate them or whatever.

And it's nothing wrong with hating a cultural tradition
but you must respect the culture.

It's like saying I must scream at the hunters evil savages
and harass them.
That would only make them more prone to defend their tradition.

You can't change them if you can't talk with them(respect and understanding).
You can't use or abuse them either without understanding their culture either.

I do think animals have consciousness.

I don't think I have to dabate science becouse science isn't an unified concept.
It's just a word and it's subjective.
It would be to talk to an authorithy figure that that only base his opinions on what he believes is agreed upon by others.
References to semantics and to what others have decieded is worthless and booring to read.

I prefere arguments, mathematics and logics.

Animals react differently and have an will.
And humans doesn't have much of self-consciousness to speak of.
Ask an random human who he really is and will most likely fail.
Most human beings are stupid and they depend on rules and preprogramed habits just becouse they are usually incapable of rational though or creativity.

I not against meat eating or killing humans but I do have an soft spot for dolpins becouse there are better animals to kill.

I think that dolphin reflect more on its surrounding than a cow.

If animals have largue memores equal to their need and only reaction according to need then dolpins due to living area and life situations as well
capability to invent actions on it's own.
They play meaning they invent new ideas.
The cow doesn't usually play and it doesn't move around much.
The cow is dumb. Kill that or the severe autist but not the dolphin.
I wouldn't mind killing the dumbest of the dolphins to clean the genepool
but don't kill the healthy dolphin.
(Also I am an autist so I know what I am talking about and I'm not racist)

I love math and logics, but I still think they are subjective and that no objective facts exists.
Nor do I say that I excel at these.

I voted for porn

My point was: Not killing dolphins isnt a western "value". It's universal. It's stupid to "sympathize" with dolphin murderers just because you cant handle criticism...
A 'universal' value?

Please. You haven't a shred of evidence to back up that ridiculous claim.

Concept of self is an moral invention.
Have you ever heard of existensialism?
What is a true concept of self.
Something people doesn't have.
People identify themselves with moralities or emotions.

Humans also have instinct of self preserversion.

What grounds are there to really put a value on human being nothing.
Just poinless morality.
That would mean that everytime someone is depressed you fail to realise your value due to failuire in intelligence?
Of course there are no value of self. It just feels like you don't want to die and you call that an value but it is the same as instinct of self preservation..

An totally worthless stupid and deformed person may feel he has a value
but in fact he doesn't becouse he can't work, is socially inept and is no good in conversation.
Value means purpose.

Only an philosopher would have purpose other than the animal.
It's just an minority of mankind that is different from the animals.
And mankind is no different from animals becouse animal is a group of races that are all unique.

And how many people are not depressed any point in their lives?
Appearently very few people are that intelligent and self-aware.

Cultural thing.

Dolphins are cool and all that....and I would never eat one, but as long as they're not an endangered species or being hunted for sport...if someone else wants to eat them, well...what can you do? Why do we afford dolphins special treatment over other mammals? Because they are cute, or something? It'd be hypocrisy to say otherwise, unless you're vegetarian - you've probably eaten lamb or veal before.

I understand all that you have said and yet I still find myself disagreeing with you.

Science all of our sciences are subjective, if nothing else it is based on our human perceptions and senses. It is not anthromorphising if we look at two gerbils and note that one plays with the bedding more than the other and say that they have differing personalities, it is though if we try to explain away these traits without taking into account normal gerbil behaviour.

You say that 'a lot of bioethical principles are founded on the fact that virtually no animals have self-awareness' I would ask then who done these studies, are they not biased, and how old are these studies, can you bee 1005 sure of your sources regarding this?

You suggest that birds especaily have no concept of self based on the fact that their language does not have a concept of self.

When young birds encounter danger, two things happen.

They first reconise that they are in danger, which at least shows a sense of Self preservation, and then they call for mum or dad, which does suggest a sense of others, and not only others but they know who can protect them.

I know a lot of people will likely say ohhh yeah but this is instinct and not really proof of a sense of self, but the problem with that is we don't know that we can't know that not until we experiment on their brains and MRI scanners.

I will not deny that we do like to anthromorphise our pets, and things like squrriels etc, yes we do that, but that in and of itself does not mean that these beast do not have a sense of self. In fact perhaps we do it because we as creatures with self sense, emphtasis with others of the same?

You're arguing from ignorance. You assumed how this kind of studying was done and decided it cannot be accurate. Self-awareness has nothing to do with having a distinct personality.

Self-awareness tests with mirrors for example are done by looking to see if an animal reacts to an image of itself as if it is another animal or itself. Bottle-nosed dolphins and apes are the only creatures we have seen perform in a manner that might indicate self-awareness. If there is an issue with credibility it would more likely be with the animals we HAVE classified as self-aware as the tests leans toward inclusiveness.

What evidence do you have that they have a sense of self. It's also possible that 'these beasts' have the ability to travel through time, but in the absense of evidence it would be fairly silly to treat it as a likelihood.

This may interest some of you. Dolphins are one of the only mammals aside from humans that have true self-awareness.

Thus, according to many modern bioethical theories, from this fact alone it may actually be more justifiable to kill a human fetus (abortion) than to kill a dolphin. Self-awareness and the ability to value the self are part of the criteria for 'personhood' in these theories. This is why modern bioethics has a virtual concensus on the ethicity of abortion and taking the brain dead off life support.

So, when viewed in a modern bioethical context, a dolphin may actually be more valuable, more of a 'person', than an invalid human or a human fetus.

Bottle-nosed dolphins only.

You can look at my profile for my age. And it matters to me because I try to ignore 16- and 35+

Okay, and why do you ask what race everyone is? Same reason, no?

My point was: Not killing dolphins isnt a western "value". It's universal. It's stupid to "sympathize" with dolphin murderers just because you cant handle criticism...

Murderers? I'll take a little bran with that hyperbole, if you don't mind. I always find hyperbole a bit hard to digest.

Yes, but only cause dolphins pass the mirror test.

I say let them kill all the dolphins they want.
They don't even need a reason.

Who cares if there sentient or not? the more important issue here would be are they tasty. This isn't exactly a sport hunt, its a food hunt. I get the same crap every time i mention to a horse lover that the beast there riding tastes excelent with a good red wine souce.

Sentience isn't really all that big of an issue for me. If they aren't going to die out i say eat 'em. Personaly i'm a big fan of 'a modest proposal' it would solve a good deal of the worlds overpopulation issues.