200 Dolphins Await Slaughter In Japan's Taiji Cove 628
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the but-we've-always-stabbed-them dept.
from the but-we've-always-stabbed-them dept.
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "CNN reports that more than 200 bottlenose dolphins remain penned in a cove by Japanese fishermen, many of them stressed and bloodied from their attempts to escape before fishermen start to slaughter them for meat. Until now, the fishermen have focused on selecting dolphins to be sold into captivity at marine parks and aquariums in Japan and overseas as twenty-five dolphins, including a rare albino calf, were taken on Saturday 'to a lifetime of imprisonment,' and another 12 on Sunday. 'Many of the 200+ Bottlenose dolphins who are in still the cove are visibly bloody & injured from their attempts to escape the killers,' one update says. Although the hunting of dolphins is widely condemned in the west, Japanese defend the practice as a local custom — and say it is no different to the slaughter of other animals for meat. The Wakayama Prefecture, where Taiji is located condemns the criticism as biased and unfair to the fishermen. 'Taiji dolphin fishermen are just conducting a legal fishing activity in their traditional way in full accordance with regulations and rules under the supervision of both the national and the prefectural governments. Therefore, we believe there are no reasons to criticize the Taiji dolphin fishery.' Meanwhile the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society describes how about 40 to 60 local fishermen work with nets to divide up the pod, whose initial numbers were estimated by the group at more than 250. 'They tighten up the nets to bring each sub-group together then the skiffs push them toward the tarps. Under the tarps in the shallows is where the trainers work with the killers to select the "prettiest" dolphins which will sell and make the best pay day for the hunters,' the group says. The fishermen will 'kill the "undesirable" dolphins (those with nicks and scars) under the tarps to hide from our cameras when that time comes.'"
That doesn't seem right. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That doesn't seem right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That doesn't seem right. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's tempting to think that. But the top 3 animals for intelligence after man are the dolphin, the chimp and the pig, with the exact order open to debate. Yet people are quite happy to kill and eat pigs.
Cats and dogs are much lower on the intelligence scale, but most cultures find it unacceptable to kill them for sport or food.
Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against killing dolphins too.
But the list of what animals we will kill for what purposes is somewhat arbitrary.
Re:That doesn't seem right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to say dolphins and pigs aren't intelligent, but I think there's a couple of other apes (e.g. bonobos) in there too...
Re:That doesn't seem right. (Score:5, Funny)
Some zoo keeper once said something like, "give a chimp a screwdriver and it will use it for everything but its intended purpose. Give a Gorilla a screwdriver and first he'll show fear, then try to eat it. An Orangutan will show disinterest, hide the screwdriver and later when no one is looking, disassemble his cage"
Re:That doesn't seem right. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, I've seen research that indicates the extreme intelligence attributed to dolphins is largely myth based on brain size. And most of the larger dolphin brain is simply focuses on their echolocation. The speed of sound is much greater underwater, and processing all that information requires much more brain devoted to it than our own sense of hearing.
In most intelligence tests dealing with items such as problem solving and the like, dolphins are not only far below humans, but below many animals people wouldn't think of, such as several species of birds, and I believe ferrets. But my memory as to the exact rankings is a little fuzzy.
Re: (Score:3)
And most of the larger dolphin brain is simply focuses on their echolocation.
That doesn't sound right to me, some bats have a brain smaller than a pea and yet they can perform similar echolocation feats as the big brained Dolphin. Relative brain size is normally associated with social complexity and Dolphins are socially complex animals.
Also any ranking of intelligence depends on how you define "intelligent", problem solving alone is too limited since an Octopus can work out how to open a screw top lid much faster than any other animal. You simply can't compare such alien intelli
Re: (Score:3)
With the bats, don't forget that the speed of sound is four times greater in water than in air. I'm not expert, and only reporting what I read, but the claim was that handling this increased data resulting from the effect required a significantly enlarged and specialized section of the brain. And yes, it largely does come down to how you define intelligence how the rankings go.
Still, no matter what metric you use, I think you'll be surprised by how many animals not thought of as especially intelligent in th
Re: (Score:3)
I am not an animal like any other. I can record my objections for posterity.
Re: (Score:3)
If someone were to kill you for food, even if they were genuinely starving, you can bet that person would be considered a murderer, despite the fact that you are an animal like any other.
That's probably not true. Recent examples are scarce, but historical examples show us that those people would be thought of as having gone crazy. There's no mens rea for murder in your example. In most if not all true 'kill or be killed' situations, juries acquit.
Otherwise, your standard is too low to be useful. You're killing millions of living right this very second just through metabolic practices. Is not 'kingdom' just as 'arbitrary' as 'intelligent'? Your world view would allow for the murder of
Re: (Score:3)
Is there anything more arbitrary than the line drawn between "human" and "animal"?
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone creates arbitrary lines (Score:5, Insightful)
Vegetarianism is about the minimization of cruelty and suffering.
Plant life does not factor into it because they can not suffer. They can’t suffer because they have no nervous system with which to think. They also have no physical mechanisms with which to feel pain. And even if they did, they have no thoughts, so the pain would mean nothing. They have no fear, panic, or sadness. They live, but they live without consciousness. So you can not torture a plant or make it suffer.
On the animal spectrum, not all animals are the same since some animals have small brains and simple thoughts and other animals have complex brains and complex thoughts. At the top of the animal spectrum you have humans with the most complex brains and abstract thoughts and intense sensations of fear. Humans have a high capacity to suffer. On the other end of the spectrum you have animals like spiders with comparatively simple nervous systems and simple thoughts. They have a much smaller capacity to suffer. That’s why it would feel more painful to watch someone rip the legs off a spider than watch someone rip the legs off a cat or horse or chimpanzee. So there’s a spectrum of animals ordered by how self-aware they are and how complex their thinking is: spiders, fish, chickens, ravens, octopus, cats, dogs, pigs, cows, horses, dolphins, gorillas, chimpanzees, humans... roughly something like that. Everyone draws a line on the spectrum, whether consciously or unconsciously, what they are comfortable with. Some people are fine eating fish and chicken, but not pigs and cows. Other people are fine eating pigs and cows, but not chimpanzees, who are almost human. Some people are even fine eating chimpanzees and feel no empathy when they shout and panic. Almost everyone at least agrees that it’s not ok to eat humans. But some people even do that. A vegetarian draws the line at it being not ok to eat any animal.
Some people argue that oysters, despite being animals, are vegetarian. They aren’t, by definition of the word vegetarian, but it is true that the argument for plants applies to oysters. Oysters do not have a central nervous system, no consciousness, and no thoughts. So they can not suffer.
Not all vegetarians are vegetarian for the same reasons. Some people have a spiritual belief that all life is sacred and equal, but that’s not my belief and not something that’s supported by any facts I’ve seen. What I outlined above, though, is simple fact and simple reasoning.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm here -- I chose to draw that line at only eating animals not having a neo-cortex, although I do give octopi honorary mammal status. It's somewhat arbitrary of course, but eating other mammals feels sort of broadly cannibalistic.
I've been eating this way for about nine or ten years and I don't miss anything about eating mammals.
Re:Everyone creates arbitrary lines (Score:5, Informative)
While I mostly agree with you, please consider being more open about some concepts, like consciousness. You simply assume that plants are unconscious, because "they have no nervous system". Actually they have, although one very dissimilar to our own [1]. How can you affirm that their subjective interpretation of bodily damage is not similar to e.g. a fish's one?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology) [wikipedia.org]
Re:Everyone creates arbitrary lines (Score:5, Informative)
Plant life does not factor into it because they can not suffer.
according to your definition of "suffer".
They can’t suffer because they have no nervous system with which to think.
Why is thinking a necessary criterion for suffering?
They also have no physical mechanisms with which to feel pain.
Their mechanisms are different from those of animals, to be sure. No nerves, etc. But plants DO have mechanisms for registering and even communicating physical damage and distress.
http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/0187702-mechanism-for-biosynthesis-release-and-detection-of-volatile-chemical-in-plant-insect-interactions.html [usda.gov]
And even if they did, they have no thoughts, so the pain would mean nothing.
Yes. Thoughts have "meaning" to us human beings. We have no idea what meaning (if any) thoughts have for animals. And we have no idea of a plant's experience, and whether there is anything which has any "meaning". In this completely anthrocentric view - why is "meaning" of thought, more important than "meaninglessness" of plants? In fact, human suffering and thought, and meaning, when viewed in certain contexts, can shrink to almost nothing. Imagine stubbing your toe. Now imagine the meaning of that thought, 1,000,000 years from now. Not so much meaning to that, is there?
They have no fear, panic, or sadness. They live, but they live without consciousness.
Why is a plant's existence any less meaningful than an animals? Why does consciousness preclude suffering?
There is an argument about meat-eaters, that since they eat cows and pigs, but not dogs or cats, that this is really an argument of "survival of the cutest". Dogs and cats are the most human-like, and they are cute, so we don't eat them. But they are not human, so it's really no different if we ate dogs or cats. (some cultures eat dogs, of course). But if we can extend our humanity to dogs and cats because they "feel pain" or "have conscious thought" - then we can really extend that to most of the mammals, and many higher animals. And if dogs and cats have thoughts and feelings (though, clearly they're different from human thoughts and feelings) - why would we place value on those, and not the thoughts and feelings of cows and pigs - which are clearly even more different. And if we can conceive of an existence of cows and pigs being sacred - then why is not all life (even plant life) sacred? Where do you draw the line, and why do you draw one? What is "complex" enough to merit not being eaten? It's either a biological argument, or it's an argument of empathy. And even the biological argument is empathic. We draw our lines of distinction at the classification boundary between the plant and animal kingdom?
Re:Everyone creates arbitrary lines (Score:5, Insightful)
If a thought has no meaning to us, as humans, then it is hard to develop any sympathy for that thought. Since sympathy is essentially the basis for treating intelligent animals "humanely," it is pretty hard to swallow that we should give the same deference to seaweed as chimps.
But, you can argue for any mode of thought. Perhaps oxygen molecules don't like being inhaled, and we should just let ourselves die from suffocation. It's kind of silly to approach life that way, though. A better approach might be to preserve that which we think is worth being preserved. There isn't really any way to do that other than a selfish point of view (from the point of the species, the region, or the individual). If there is no value in saving the life of all seaweed, then we don't do it. If there is a value in keeping dolphins alive, then we do it.
Re: (Score:3)
> I don't think animal life is worth preserving. So now what?
So, you don't do anything to preserve that life. Others may disagree.
I was just saying, the idea of preserving species based on our idea of what they think or feel doesn't really allow us to do the same for plants. Plants are so different from humans that we are unlikely to ever have much sympathy or empathy for their "thoughts" or "feelings," which from the human perspective don't really even exist.
I don't disagree that preservation of plant
Re: (Score:3)
I was just saying, the idea of preserving species based on our idea of what they think or feel doesn't really allow us to do the same for plants. Plants are so different from humans that we are unlikely to ever have much sympathy or empathy for their "thoughts" or "feelings," which from the human perspective don't really even exist.
Please realize that your view is only your own personal experience, in this instance. You cannot just state this as if it were an objective argument. My personal experience with tending plants, and those of many gardeners I know, says otherwise.
I did a lot of gardening when I was younger, and I'm gradually getting back into it. I have, over the years, also had a large supply of houseplants -- usually given to me, rather than something I sought out.
But even if you spend only limited time "taking care
Re: (Score:3)
An interesting line of thought. By that reasoning you'd expect a venn diagram of vegetarians and abortion proponents to be two separate circles in all but the earliest term abortions. Based strictly on the average political affiliation of the two groups though, I doubt this would be the case.
Re:Everyone creates arbitrary lines (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, Veganism is about minimizing cruelty and suffering. Vegetarianism is just a form of diet. I know plenty of vegetarian with leather handbags and leather upholstered car interiors.
I do eat meat but I am a bit uncomfortable with the whole classifying living things into how complex they are according to human definitions. It goes without saying, life is essential to every living being regardless of their CNS complexity. Just because something doesn't feel what humans perceive to "pain" does not mean that they do not feel "pain." Everyday we learn something new about our environment and our fellow Earth cohabitants. The old thinking that crustaceans do not feel pain is being dispelled by new research data.
Re: (Score:3)
Veganism is about minimizing cruelty and suffering
Not entirely. If you were to milk a Jersey cow that happily lives in a field and drink that milk, you're not a vegan but you're also not encouraging pain and suffering. Ditto frying up some eggs laid by chickens clucking around in your barn. Again, not vegan but not encouraging cruelty and suffering. Now granted there are horrible dairy and chicken farms that are immensely cruel, but it's not difficult to eat "cruelty free" eggs and dairy, it's just m
Re: (Score:3)
Vegetarianism is about the minimization of cruelty and suffering.
No, it's not. Every vegetarian I know would not, for example, eat a deer that had been hit by a car, or had died of some other cause. The deer is already dead, there is no more suffering by eating it, but most vegetarians would not eat it.
Plant life does not factor into it because they can not suffer. They can’t suffer because they have no nervous system with which to think. They also have no physical mechanisms with which to feel p
Dolphins not so smart: (Score:2, Interesting)
Dolphins aren’t as special as you think [salon.com]
Their intelligence, like all intelligence, is a complex matter, but basically, they are not as smart as their reputation suggests; although, stating that they are as smart (dumb) as chickens also overstates things.
Re: (Score:2)
Their intelligence, like all intelligence, is a complex matter, but basically, they are not as smart as their reputation suggests; although, stating that they are as smart (dumb) as chickens also overstates things.
But I hear they taste like chicken.
Re:That doesn't seem right. (Score:5, Funny)
Bender: Who wants dolphin?
Leela: Dolphin? But dolphins are intelligent.
Bender: Not this one. He blew all his money on instant lottery tickets.
Fry: OK.
Leela: Oh, OK.
Amy: That's different.
Farnsworth: Good, good.
Leela: Pass the blowhole.
Amy: Can I have a fluke?
Hermes: Hey, quit hogging the bottle-nose.
Farnsworth: Toss me the speech centre of the brain!
Re:That doesn't seem right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That doesn't seem right. (Score:5, Funny)
that may not be true, you only hear about the ones that were playfully pushing humans toward shore. you didn't hear about the other 70% of times they playfully pushed a screaming human into the open sea to drown.
Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
That sort of escalated rather quickly.
Re:That doesn't seem right. (Score:5, Funny)
He's saying that you're not intelligent.
Re:That doesn't seem right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That doesn't seem right. (Score:5, Informative)
The ability to do so was also limited - not every Jew is an Einstein, and many countries had restrictive immigration policies in that time period (e.g. US had a quota system under the "National Origins Formula" in that time period, and Australia restricted immigration to whites).
It should also be noted that the restriction on Jewish rights under the Nazis was also gradual. Early on, many people felt, not unreasonably so, that the risk and expenses inherent in a move (especially overseas) far outweigh the inconveniences. By the time the full extent of the danger was realized, they were already significantly curtailed in their ability to move. Even so, in 1938, there was an international conference [wikipedia.org] devoted to the question of Jewish immigration from Nazi Germany, and Hitler himself said that he'd be happy to get rid of any Jews willing to leave so long as some other country is willing to take them. All other Western countries have declined, some in quite racist terms - e.g. Australian representative saying that "as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one". The only country that extended an invitation to a considerable number of refugees was Dominican Republic, and that, ironically, was because Trujillo was trying to "whiten" the population of the country, and considered Jews as white for that purpose.
Then, of course, only some places proved to be safe to flee to, like US or UK. But who in 1938, much less 1933, would expect that France - the same France that was part of the winning coalition of WW1, and contributed significantly to German defeat - could not hold its own? At the same time it was a more attractive destination for German Jews, seeing how it is an adjacent country, making the move logistics easier.
Re: (Score:3)
They may not have written history, but they certainly pass skills on from generation to generation.
They could hunt people if they wanted. But other than the occasional long imprisoned orca that goes mad and drowns a captor, they much prefer to make friends.
Is this a cuteness thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, dolphins are cuter than cows and pigs ... is harvesting one worse than the other?
How many million cows are slaughtered every year? How many pigs? How many chickens?
This sounds like one set of animals has better PR than another.
Re:Is this a cuteness thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a personal opinion of mine, just one hypothesis for the reaction.
Re: Is this a cuteness thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny that you chose chickens out of that list. How about pigs? Pretty well known to be one of the smarter mammals around. At least, they've never launched a pointless war to my knowledge.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Wild pigs are in an eternal state of war, if you see one make sure you know where the nearest tree is!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Is this a cuteness thing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a dolphin is demonstrably smarter than a chicken and because of that people feel it is more likely to experience pain and suffering during this "fishing".
Not a personal opinion of mine, just one hypothesis for the reaction.
I noticed that out of the 3 choices you picked the chicken. The "demonstrably smarter" doesn't really hold very well when
you compare dolphin to pig instead. A pig is right up there probably falling somewhere above dog and below dolphin.
I like pork but I still think it is an important debate. Would farm-raised dolphins be acceptable? If not, why not?
Why is eating dogs and horses frowned upon in alot of areas? Should we let animals live out their natural lives in
comfort before harvesting them? What criteria do we as a society use to decide what should and should not be be eaten
and when and how it is humane to harvest it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, dolphins are much smarter than cows or pigs. They have advanced abstract thinking, language skills, and social structure. They also share a reciprocal recognition of intelligence with humans, and come to visit and view humans in boats or on beaches in a similar way to how humans will be excited to see a dolphin.
A dolphin might even save you from a shark, is a wild pig going to save you from anything? Is a wild pig going to look you in the eye, recognize your intelligence, and respect you? What about an
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, dolphins are cuter than cows and pigs ... is harvesting one worse than the other?
How many million cows are slaughtered every year? How many pigs? How many chickens?
This sounds like one set of animals has better PR than another.
If we had dolphin farms with millions of animals, then maybe your argument would me more valid. But I guess the point is that dolphin farms just wouldn't work. There are some animals like pigs and cows that can be herded and bred easily -- they hardly try to escape, and they reproduce in captivity easily and in large numbers. You can basically just catch a few of them in the wild and build a fence around them, and provide food and water, and they'll be content until the day you kill them. So we use them as
Re:Is this a cuteness thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
I like killing and eating geese and pheasants; I call it hunting. I would not torture one for several days before I killed it. That would be wicked and cruel.
Re:Is this a cuteness thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pigs and chickens aren't going extinct precisely because we like to eat them.
Re:Is this a cuteness thing? (Score:5, Informative)
As a species the bottlenose dolphin is not endangered. There are well over half a million bottlenose dolphins swimming all over the world, and their population numbers ARE stable.
Re:Is this a cuteness thing? (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottlenose_dolphin#Conservation [wikipedia.org]
http://www.marybio.org/en/MM-Bott_Dolp-conservation.html [marybio.org]
Re:Is this a cuteness thing? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, no. I'm a carnivore but there should be a line somewhere in terms of intelligence.
Careful with that. You don't want to end up with Sarah Palin on your plate just because of some arbitrarily low line.
Re:Is this a cuteness thing? (Score:4)
I'd eat that.
Re:Is this a cuteness thing? (Score:5, Informative)
Why can't we communicate with them? We can, just not very effectively. That's understandable, they are more alien to us than the average hollywood extraterrestrial. Just look at the environment they are evolved for, living in water their entire life, relying on sonar, having to return to the air layer on a regular basis. Decidedly not the same as a terrestrial life.
And here's a biggie for you. They've been trying to decipher the dolphin language for a long time. They don't know much about it, but they have found out some very interesting things. Dolphins share knowledge and instructions. They also gossip. Of course, to gossip you need individual names to reference the individual you are talking about. They do. They've clearly tracked unique sound identifiers that are apparently being used with regards to specific individuals, in other words, personal names.
When was the last time you heard about pigs sharing instructions verbally or using personal names?
Is it right to eat another sentient being? Most people would say no.
It's part of the reason why they wanted to study E.T. and not BBQ him.
Re:Is this a cuteness thing? (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory Far Side. [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't seen me go at a Combo Bargain bucket after a few beers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, anything that has more perceived intelligence or rarity has that trait. Can't herd gorillas, chimps, dolphins, elephants or humans for slaughter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust [wikipedia.org]
Why is this even on /.? (Score:4, Informative)
Really, this isn't the news I would expect for this site.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to "dice holdings" where it's no longer news for nerds, but facebook lite, with a tossing of twitter.
Nice to be at the top of the food chain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about cows. They may be highly intelligent, but they don't show it - they have been selectively bred to be quite passive and docile, for easier handling. Content to just stand around in a field, eating grass and remaining quite unresponsive to the world.
Re:Nice to be at the top of the food chain (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
We're still working on getting them cable.
Re: (Score:2)
Cows and especially pigs are highly intelligent animals.
Pigs, yes. Cows, no.
But really, the discussion of the morality of eating animals is a slippery slope to veganism. If you like flesh for dinner, you just have to get over it. Obviously (for Westerners, at least), primates are out. But there's a long distance between primates and cows. And I wonder why it's OK to eat pork but not dolphin, pigs are possibly the smartest "farm animal", known to be quite intelligent.
By the way, horse meat is delicious. In the 70's, due to certain economic factors effecting feed
Re: (Score:2)
News flash. Animals that are shown to be useful as working animals are generally perceived as non-food animals. When working animals can no longer work or keeping them is too expensive for their return they will be discarded.
Re: (Score:2)
So? (Score:2, Insightful)
This just sounds like one big emotional summary about fishing. Heavily one-sided as well, which doesn't surprise me considering it's Sea Shepard.
Cry me a river.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically this is more mammaling than fishing.
So if this dolphin is canned... (Score:4, Funny)
...will they be able to certify it as tuna-safe [wikipedia.org] ?
click-bait? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is not clickbait.
Normal, mentally-healthy humans have a lot of empathy - otherwise we're psychopaths. Sure, the amount of empathy varies - mainly as a function of whether the animal in question tends to act human-like. We should embrace this, not cynically write it off - empathy *IS* humanity.
Yes, that also means that anyone who is intelligent and reflective will be uncomfortable with eating meat, concerned how the animal died, and of course what kind of animal it was. This is basically orthogonal to issues of environmental or ecological impact.
Re:click-bait? (Score:5, Insightful)
Empathy clashes with survivalist instinct. I can gnaw on the bones of a cow and feel empathy for it, but that doesn't mean im going to stop eating meat. At the base level, our brains see nothing wrong with killing these animals for food. We are the stronger species, we win. Empathy is evolutionarily expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think anyone who is intelligent and reflective will be uncomfortable with eating meat. While I do agree that there is a part of humanity who is not really reflective, I do think that somebody intelligent can reach the conclusion that: while we should work towards reducing suffering on other animals (regardless of animal), and preferably skip the animal (as a being) part altogether (and thus grow the muscle tissue directly, as long as it keeps a good taste, of course), the benefits (it tastes good, i
Nothing like some tech news! (Score:4, Funny)
How does this matter to a nerd? Will it affect the release of a stable btrfs?
Please REPEAT (Score:3, Informative)
This is NOT tech news.
Re:Please REPEAT (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a nerd site, not a tech site. Non-human intelligence, sentience, and the rights of those possessing it seems like a reasonably nerdy subject to me. Plenty of sci-fi books and shows have examined those themes.
Dolphin Terroists (Score:2, Insightful)
let us not forget that one time dolphins were trained to assassinate the president of the united states. and they would have succeeded too, if it werent for the meddling of human interlopers.
see here for a documentary film about these terrorists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Dolphin [wikipedia.org]
Dolphins vs Syrians? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dolphins vs Syrians? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that some people seem to care more about the death of 200 dolphins than the death of 200,000 Syrians?
Why is it that some people care more about the death of 200,000 Syrians than the death of over a million jews during WWII?
See? I can find a bigger problem too.
It might have something to do with WWII ending in the 1940's while the dolphin 'slaughter' and the Syrian conflict are current.
Go after the buyers of dolphin meat. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Might be tasty!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nice subjectivity (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a biased piece at all. Never would have thought so with ''slaughter'' in the headline /s
I don't see evidence of bias in the word choice. "Slaughter" is the normal English word to describe the killing of animals for food. Pigs and cows are "slaughtered" routinely, in buildings clearly labelled as "slaughterhouses."
What other word would you have them use?
Re:Nice subjectivity (Score:5, Funny)
"200 yummy dolphins await being turned into delicious food"
Re: (Score:3)
Japanese scientists still trying to assess whether every sea creature can be turned into sashimi.
Re: (Score:3)
What other word would you have them use?
I agree, "slaughter" should not have been used in the headline. Considering the intelligence of dolphins compared to cows, pigs, chickens, or fish, "murder" or "massacre" would have been more appropriate terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, slaughter is still probably sugar coating it, since I hope most slaughterhouses are more experienced and efficient at it than I was/am...
(note to any crazy animal rights activists, I'm not talking about dolphins or any other mammal here.)
Re: (Score:3)
You can't spell Slaughter without Laughter.
Re:Nice subjectivity (Score:4, Informative)
Slaughter implies butchering and the headline makes it sound as if the animals were to be butchered in the cove.... Slaughtering in the cove sounds unsanitary.
I suppose I don't know how sanitary it is, but they really do perform the slaughter right there in the cove.
eg:
http://digitaljournal.com/image/102641 [digitaljournal.com]
http://unleashed.org.au/images/blogs/The-cove.jpg [unleashed.org.au]
Re: (Score:2)
If you see the horror of slaughter, then perhaps you are closer than you realize to seeing that we should only slaughter other animals when we must, and not casually. There are too many humans for that, we will slaughter the whole world.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
More importantly for /. how is this news for nerds? Is Dice this intent on turning Slashdot into a political discussion site for people who "like technology"?
Slashdot doesn't really have "glory days", but I'd prefer the goatse trolls and page wideners and GNAA trolls of old - all of whom could at least be modded down - to blatant click-trolling in the story submissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not a biased piece at all. Never would have thought so with ''slaughter'' in the headline /s
Without commenting on the bias, what word should they use? (I'm assuming that's /sarcasm at the end there)
The dolphins will be killed for meat. The word for killing animals for food is "slaughter". In fact, using that word makes it very clear that they are just animals: the reason it's a strong word when used about human violence is that its meaning then becomes "killed like mere animals".
Re: (Score:2)
"200 mercury powered dolphins about to launch a devastating suicide poison attack on unsuspecting pig-like human hybrids"
(I apologise to porcines everywhere for that joke)
Re: (Score:2)
While the liberals tend to live in a fantasy world where nature is paradise and every animal yearns to live free.
Liberals, conservatives... those who pick a side on such simplistic classification may not be the brightest of individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that's not true, there's quite a campaign going for sharks. Gordon Ramsay is one name that comes to mind who has actually done work on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but not *nearly* so much. Why do you think the mascot for all endangered animals is the panda? It's cute.
Re: (Score:2)
Definition of murder is killing another of the same species. Since dolphins are not human, it's not murder if a human does it.
Summary didn't say whether bottlenose dolphins are rare or endangered. If they are, they should be protected from fishermen. Otherwise I don't see a problem with harvesting a small percentage for their meat.
logic (Score:3)
If you don't decide what your ethics are based on then how can you decide what is logical???? If you believe #2 then killing dolphins is ok. If you believe #1 then you s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Three things:
1. All of your examples included humans, this story isn't about humans. It's about dolphins. (Also, how is this Tech news at all?)
2. Even if our morals do change to include all animals in the category of "no eating", that time is not now. If people look back in horror at this, so what? I'm not them, they're not me.
3. Kind of related to #2: Animals will continue eating other animals (and I would like to point out that none of your examples occur to the general animal populace either, strange dis
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we can't infringe on tradition, especially if there's money involved. Better go tell those plantation owners they can have their slaves back.
Re: (Score:2)
In one hundred years we'll look back at the practice of eating meat with the same horror that we look upon slavery now.
If not because of the ethics at least because of the greenhouse effects which will still be around [lovinghut.us].
At least if that vegan restaurant's ads are to be believed. Which I'm kind of skeptical of, though that might just be me wanting to not feel bad about all the cheeseburgers I eat.
Re: (Score:2)
In one hundred years we'll look back at the practice of eating meat with the same horror that we look upon slavery now.
In one hundred years, 99.999% of meat will come from vats.
Re: (Score:2)
The same could be said of humans.
Re:Local customs can change. (Score:5, Insightful)