Hayden Panettiere's Letter To Japanese Fishing Agency Abt Dolphins & Slaughtering

[Guest precious4e]

People, especially environmentalists are extremely upset about whaling the killing of marine mammals because they are closely related to us (we are all mammals) but also its because the species are dying out extremely fast. Whaling and slaughtering marine mammals for commercial use isn't the only reason why they are dying, its also because of global warming, ozone depletion, water pollution and over-fishing. From this, the ultimate reason why marine mammals are dying is because of the actions of humanity and the easiest method that would make a majority of the global population happy is to end whaling and slaughtering of marine mammals for commercial use. Of course we would also want to end fishing, but then the world would be outraged if they didn't have ANY fish to eat, we can also end water pollution, gas emissions and other forms of air pollution and toxins but then companies, factory workers, the global economy and the everyday living of people would be affected and as a result further outrage. Therefore, environmentalists are already being fair and do try to satisfy the majority of people - we are doing so much to marine life - can we, humanity just end one of the many cruel things we are doing?

As much as I love the whales, ending whaling will not make a majority of the global population happy. I'm sure ending poverty, hunger, war, AIDS, and other plagues would make the majority of the world happier. Realistically, only people like us who are living comfortably in industrialized countries have enough free time to worry about the whales. Other people are fighting everyday to survive. But that is purely human selfishness so I will put that issue aside and focus on the environment.

I would say ending over consumption and pollution would be a bigger issue than whaling just for the fact of the greater impact it has on the environment as a whole. We are losing natural resources, homes for animals, and countless species are becoming extinct as we speak because we are polluting, over populating and destroying. Not to mention we poison ourselves by depriving areas of fresh water and safe food sources. And I could care less about companies being upset. I know reducing emissions would mean higher prices for us consumers. But imo we're a wasteful bunch anyways. This could be a good wakeup call for people to start conservation practices. People won't change unless you make them change. And we can't wait until everything dies off before we realize we care more about $$ than earth. Increased pricing would definitely catch people's attention. I would say whaling is just a small part of a larger set of problems BUT everyone loves whales so they get a lot of attention.

I usually tend to care more about conservation and preservation campaigns than single tracked causes like 'save the whales'. These efforts tend to save animals, land and also help provide local economic support by allowing the locals to have land to work with. But I support all causes that want to promote a better environment for all species.

And I wouldn't want to end fishing because we can eat fish. I just want sustainable harvesting. I don't plan on going vegan either because I believe there's nothing wrong with being omnivorous. We're built to be. I don't object to vegans though.

btw I do like your posts because I think that these issues are worth talking about

[Guest saysjessi]

She sounds like an ignorant, xenophobic, and spoiled child. I love how her facts come from scientists that work for her organization and how EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG!

And I love how she says Japan looks like an idiot... when she herself said the MAJORITY of Japan is against it, yet she chooses to punish the whole country by boycotting EVERYTHING from there. She probably only has Japanese electronics.

as a researcher, i'm gonna be picky here...when you're stating statistics or anything numerical, always say the source...otherwise it sounds like you're pulling things outta your butt just to support your claims. and yes, i agree, she sounds very ignorant in her letter, i did not read it and then feel proud of her at all.

is she even a vegetarian?

i'm not saying what hayden's doing is pointless, i think it's nice that she is brave enough to take a stand and speak out, but i think she was incredibly immature going about it.

[Guest silent.whistle]

As much as I love the whales, ending whaling will not make a majority of the global population happy. I'm sure ending poverty, hunger, war, AIDS, and other plagues would make the majority of the world happier. Realistically, only people like us who are living comfortably in industrialized countries have enough free time to worry about the whales. Other people are fighting everyday to survive. But that is purely human selfishness so I will put that issue aside and focus on the environment.

In terms of attempting to save whales and marine mammals, the easiest solution and once again would make a majority of the population happy (in terms of saving the marine environment) is to end whaling and the slaughtering of marine mammals for consumption. We are damaging their habitats, stealing their food (over-fishing) and from that the easiest solution is to end the commercial trade of marine mammals. Maybe you misunderstood me, saving humanity will of course make people happy, but in terms of saving the environment and in particular marine mammals the most accepted solution is to end commercial trade.

I would say ending over consumption and pollution would be a bigger issue than whaling just for the fact of the greater impact it has on the environment as a whole. We are losing natural resources, homes for animals, and countless species are becoming extinct as we speak because we are polluting, over populating and destroying. Not to mention we poison ourselves by depriving areas of fresh water and safe food sources. And I could care less about companies being upset. I know reducing emissions would mean higher prices for us consumers. But imo we're a wasteful bunch anyways. This could be a good wakeup call for people to start conservation practices. People won't change unless you make them change. And we can't wait until everything dies off before we realize we care more about $$ than earth. Increased pricing would definitely catch people's attention. I would say whaling is just a small part of a larger set of problems BUT everyone loves whales so they get a lot of attention.

No-one is calling an end to fishing, even though we are over-fishing there are some attempt to breed fishes in captivity. "Save The Whales" isn't just about saving the whales because it will benefit the whole ecosystem and you need to target a specific issue to make a change. Its not about going out and jumping into a boat and stopping every single person who touches a marine animal. Its about taking a step at a time, when a group of people are doing something against the environment then that "specific" action must be stopped. For example when saving children in the third world, its impossible to just go to every single location and start 'saving' - it takes time, people working together and after helping a community out and get back on track, its time to move on and help the others. Just like wounds on a human body, you don't treat it all at an instant - one by one you sterilize and bandage it, then you move onto the next wound.

"Save the Whales" is equivalent to campaigns like "Tsunami victims in X area", its not about prioritizing but to start as soon as possible before the matter worsens.

When people say "Saving The Whales" is not looking at the big picture and its because they are cute, its the same as saying "Tsunami Victims" or "AIDs Victims" are more important than saving those who live in poverty in the third world. There are groups and organizations dealing with every matter and issue, we can't expect it to be broad casted on TV everyday nor can we say which is more significant - because in the long run, its a benefit to all.

Therefore causes always benefit and promote a better environment for all species, its just about taking a step at a time - you can't just be at the end of a race without having to run it - in order to reach your goal you must take a step at a time.

And I wouldn't want to end fishing because we can eat fish. I just want sustainable harvesting. I don't plan on going vegan either because I believe there's nothing wrong with being omnivorous. We're built to be. I don't object to vegans though.

No-one is calling an end to fishing, because a majority of the population consume animal products and just like you, vegetarians and vegans do not discriminate those who consume animal products. But just asking for respect when consuming animals, its not like what the Japanese harpoons do, they slaughter whales even though they are pregnant - that treatment is far worse than a hen. At least hens are separated - ones who lay eggs for consumption and the others that give birth - but to the Japanese harpoons - as long as its a whale who cares about the stage or state its in.

Its a fact of nature that different living species will always kill to survive and satisfy themselves, but doing it with the respect that they aren't made for us to eat and slaughter, but rather a species that I should thank for keeping me satisfied, happy and alive.

I don't want to have another debate over whether "we're built to be", but its because of this attitude that there are other issues in the world. Vegetarians, vegans and other rational forms of diets people take do not result in death, so "we're built to be" implies that other diets are an incorrect way of living. Just like how "we're built to be" attracted to the opposite sex and as a result homosexuals and bisexuals are discriminated and unfortunately it is still not accepted by every single person.

These are just expectations.

EDIT::

btw I do like your posts because I think that these issues are worth talking about

Thankyou, its great that we are sharing opinions regarding this issue - I'm sure it would continue to stay friendly if people focused more on the environmental issue than Hayden. I need people to talk to about whaling and the slaughtering of marine mammals. I've only ever had one discussion about an issue I was genuinely interested in and that was on animal testing - such a long time ago. Feminism and anything gender related was once great topics to discuss, but now it seems too many women are already satisfied with the "power" they have in society

Its sad, because this is practically the only place where I have people who do form strong opinions regarding this issue, because when I walk out of my room and straight into society, I would have to talk about boys, love, sex, TV, the weather, gossip and if I'm lucky that day - maybe we'll come across arts and culture.

as a researcher, i'm gonna be picky here...when you're stating statistics or anything numerical, always say the source...otherwise it sounds like you're pulling things outta your butt just to support your claims. and yes, i agree, she sounds very ignorant in her letter, i did not read it and then feel proud of her at all.

is she even a vegetarian?

i'm not saying what hayden's doing is pointless, i think it's nice that she is brave enough to take a stand and speak out, but i think she was incredibly immature going about it.

Maturity is based on personal opinion - some call Greenpeace activists stupid for trying to save whales in small boats when the harpoons are in large ships with weapons, yet there are those who look up to them and congratulate them for their bravery and courage.

Just because she wants to save whales it doesn't mean she has to be a vegetarian to do so.

Those who find other animals sacred are not vegetarians but a belief.

People squeal when they see dogs being consumed but they are not vegetarians? People oppose to animal fur but they are not vegetarians and they may even be wearing leather and using leather products.

Just like how people believe murdering a person is wrong but capital punishment is fair. Drug trafficking can be seen as light to heavy in terms of punishment, people can be sentenced to jail or pay a hefty fine, while others are sentenced to death.

I do see where people are coming from when they say she is "immature" in her letter - but calling her ignorant is unfair unless you also acknowledge the ignorance of the Japanese officials and harpoons.

[Guest Mr.Saturday]

Well, basically what she is doing is that she's famous now.

So no matter how airhead she is, she's gonna randomly get people's attention for doing anything way stupid.

[Guest silent.whistle]

^True, but thankfully its a benefit to the environment and unlike other "airheads" cruising around getting wasted on alcohols and filming sex tapes.

[Guest saysjessi]

Just because she wants to save whales it doesn't mean she has to be a vegetarian to do so.

Those who find other animals sacred are not vegetarians but a belief.

People squeal when they see dogs being consumed but they are not vegetarians? People oppose to animal fur but they are not vegetarians and they may even be wearing leather and using leather products.

Just like how people believe murdering a person is wrong but capital punishment is fair. Drug trafficking can be seen as light to heavy in terms of punishment, people can be sentenced to jail or pay a hefty fine, while others are sentenced to death.

i wasn't criticizing that she is/isn't a vegetarian, i really was curious to know i am a vegetarian, myself, and choosing to not eat meat sort of naturally leads to a heightened interest in animal rights, so i was wondering if she was one, too.

[Guest precious4e]

as a researcher, i'm gonna be picky here...when you're stating statistics or anything numerical, always say the source...otherwise it sounds like you're pulling things outta your butt just to support your claims.

lol. I was thinking the same thing. I read a lot of research papers and it's all about the credibility and references.

When people say "Saving The Whales" is not looking at the big picture and its because they are cute, its the same as saying "Tsunami Victims" or "AIDs Victims" are more important than saving those who live in poverty in the third world. There are groups and organizations dealing with every matter and issue, we can't expect it to be broad casted on TV everyday nor can we say which is more significant - because in the long run, its a benefit to all.

Therefore causes always benefit and promote a better environment for all species, its just about taking a step at a time

I agree that environmental accomplishments are long and exhausting tasks. Anything helps that's why I support most campaigns though I have my own preferences. I do think saving whales is great. Environmental battles really are a step at a time with a big picture in mind, but do many people care what that is? I think people take things like "Save the Whales" with a grain of salt because everyone likes to pay attention to the animals that have public adoration and not others. Seldom do I see celebrities supporting "save the blue fin tuna" or "stop illegal logging" campaigns. I guess these issues don't pull on the heart strings as much. People may even think they're crazy. I remember seeing Pink being asked at the PETA anniversary party why she supports PETA and she answered "Because I like animals." I laughed. It just seemed so superficial. I'm hoping that the attention that one person brings to an issue can shed light on more universal issues. For me this Hayden issue draws more attention to her than the cause. But to be fair, it may also be the media that chooses to talk more about her than the issue because it sells more. That's why I like going to the WWF (or greenpeace) webpage. They have a whole array of issues that are worth being aware of in addition the the ones that get media attention.

[Guest silent.whistle]

i wasn't criticizing that she is/isn't a vegetarian, i really was curious to know i am a vegetarian, myself, and choosing to not eat meat sort of naturally leads to a heightened interest in animal rights, so i was wondering if she was one, too.

Sorry

Its because you asked the question with the word "even" in it and from that I thought you were implying only vegetarians have the right to stop whaling, etc.

I agree that environmental accomplishments are long and exhausting tasks. Anything helps that's why I support most campaigns though I have my own preferences. I do think saving whales is great. Environmental battles really are a step at a time with a big picture in mind, but do many people care what that is? I think people take things like "Save the Whales" with a grain of salt because everyone likes to pay attention to the animals that have public adoration and not others. Seldom do I see celebrities supporting "save the blue fin tuna" or "stop illegal logging" campaigns. I guess these issues don't pull on the heart strings as much. People may even think they're crazy. I remember seeing Pink being asked at the PETA anniversary party why she supports PETA and she answered "Because I like animals." I laughed. It just seemed so superficial. I'm hoping that the attention that one person brings to an issue can shed light on more universal issues. For me this Hayden issue draws more attention to her than the cause. But to be fair, it may also be the media that chooses to talk more about her than the issue because it sells more. That's why I like going to the WWF (or greenpeace) webpage. They have a whole array of issues that are worth being aware of in addition the the ones that get media attention.

I do agree with you. Many skeptics, media critics, politicians and just everyday citizens criticize campaigns and organizations like Greenpeace- calling them attention seekers because "whales are a bigger media issue than blue fin tuna".

(Criticism which is extremely unfair IMO, because the media has the power to broad-cast whatever information and detail they like - if we could choose, I rather watch environmental issues all day than Entertainment Tonight)

Its different ideologies, celebrities, just like many other average people would rather save mammals because they are warm-blooded and closely related to humanity, on the hand "cold-blooded" animals are slowly being recognized by the general public as equally important (e.g. Grey Nurse Sharks, etc) and unfortunately logging would never come to an end if the government of nations are so easily bribed by large businesses

Its all about the media and not Hayden because environmental organizations don't gain as much "attention" despite working on a daily basis to save our planet. Hence, celebrities are often used as a spokesperson because that is the easiest way to gain media coverage and raise awareness. Sadly, most people focus on the "celebrity" rather than the actual cause and environmental issue.

Especially now that we live in a society where information is so rich, yet people just don't know how to utilize it (relying on a single source as their daily feed of the world) - they bash "celebrities" because they dislike them even if they are doing a good cause or at least are coming from a positive start. Its important for everyone to start reading other sources of information, news and affairs. We know how bias a person can be and those who own the media source are people who will always include opinions of their own, support politicians and certain issues because of personal benefits.

Initially I thought this thread would be more about "Whaling and Slaughtering Marine Mammals: Right or Wrong?", through this people would comment on Hayden's involvement in this issue, how wrong was I.

I realized that so many people criticized Hayden because they simply dislike her as a person - as a result the environmental issue behind this was no longer important. After all this is a celebrity thread, but people just jump to conclusions all the time. They criticize her for trying to save marine mammals because they are cute and is doing nothing to help humanity and say there is nothing heroic about her. If people did some reading other than reading the first post and her letter, people would realize that there were other people at the confrontation as well - Australian actress Isabel Lucas was also in the waters. Many people are unaware that the Japanese fishermen used the propellers of the boat to stop them and struck at the activists with a hook. Why do they need to resort to such violence? It would be a different case if Hayden wasn't involved, perhaps people would agree that the Japanese fishermen were inhumane in this situation and also environmental activists are indeed courageous people.

People blindly insult and criticize Hayden, I'm not a fan of her but I always do some research before I insult someone - she is saving marine mammals, how about humanity? Well, her father is a fire-fighter. Father and daughter saving both humanity and the environment.

[hakune]

concerning the not killing doplhins and whales.

hmm

why not?

because they're cute? that's just discrimination!

think about all those pigs that get killed, or cows.

should that be ok just because they're not as cute as dolphins? or not as intelligent? hehe sry I just find it stupid..

if one should not kill dolhins, one should not kill sheeps, snakes, spiders, mice, goats, cows, horses, whales, dogs, cats, chickens, lions, elephants, salmon, cod, crockodiles, moose, deer, shark, reindeer, bear, seal, +++

if not it's just discrimination ^_~

[Guest pandoras0nymph]

silent whistle you're from peta?? the people's posts here are too long........... my eyes are really getting teary from reading.(computer exposed..hahaha )

[Guest silent.whistle]

concerning the not killing doplhins and whales.

hmm

why not?

because they're cute? that's just discrimination!

think about all those pigs that get killed, or cows.

should that be ok just because they're not as cute as dolphins? or not as intelligent? hehe sry I just find it stupid..

if one should not kill dolhins, one should not kill sheeps, snakes, spiders, mice, goats, cows, horses, whales, dogs, cats, chickens, lions, elephants, salmon, cod, crockodiles, moose, deer, shark, reindeer, bear, seal, +++

if not it's just discrimination ^_~

That is true, but the major concern of killing marine mammals for commercial trade is because that will only add further burden to the species, the population is decreasing as a result of other environmental issues such as over-fishing, ozone depletion and global warming. Many whales are listed as endangered but despite this, harpoons continue to slaughter whales for commercial trade and there is a need for us to stand up and stop them before marine mammals are extinct. People do also care about sharks, and in many countries eg. Australia there are scientists and researchers working hard to keep them alive and increase the population - e.g. The Grey Nurse Shark in Sydney

In the past the teeth of elephants were sold for profit and fortunately that now now illegal.

Its not about discriminating certain species of animals because of their appearance, but trying to allow the population of them to grow before its too late. Even without the help of environmentalists, the population of animals such as dogs and cats are not decreasing because there are pe

ople on a global scale, constantly breeding them for commercial trade (for sale in pet shops) and not consumption. Other animal products that humans consume on a daily basis are not endangered like marine mammals because there are farmers all over the world breeding them.

Its not about saving the cute animals, but rather keeping ALL species of animals alive - look at it from the most basic point - we all hate cockroaches, yet we don't wipe out the entire population because they are an essential part of the ecosystem and environment (also, they breed at a rate must faster than marine mammals). Marine mammals (dolphins, whales) are like humans, therefore the rate of birth is slow, hence they cannot make up for the lost numbers and its

because people don't breed them like farmers do with hens, cows and pigs.

So, saving whales and dolphins is not about being childish and fantasized by their adorable image, its because they are endangered and we don't want fossils and photographs to be the only evidence of their existence.

silent whistle you're from peta?? the people's posts here are too long........... my eyes are really getting teary from reading.(computer exposed..hahaha )

I'm from PETA

LOL, I'm not from PETA.

I simply have an interest and passion in keeping all species of life alive and I believe if humans can't respect the natural beauty of mother nature we will never be able to live in an environmental sanctuary.

I once did a research assignment on PETA and animal testing, along with the stories I saw on TV, read in newspapers and on the internet throughout a number of years- so thats how I know a bit about the issue and as a result formulated a strong opinion

P.S. I admit my posts are long - it didn't seem long when I was typing it, so it kinda got out of hand

[Guest Vino de Jerez]

That is true, but the major concern of killing marine mammals for commercial trade is because that will only add further burden to the species, the population is decreasing as a result of other environmental issues such as over-fishing, ozone depletion and global warming. Many whales are listed as endangered but despite this, harpoons continue to slaughter whales for commercial trade and there is a need for us to stand up and stop them before marine mammals are extinct. People do also care about sharks, and in many countries eg. Australia there are scientists and researchers working hard to keep them alive and increase the population - e.g. The Grey Nurse Shark in Sydney

In the past the teeth of elephants were sold for profit and fortunately that now now illegal.

Its not about discriminating certain species of animals because of their appearance, but trying to allow the population of them to grow before its too late. Even without the help of environmentalists, the population of animals such as dogs and cats are not decreasing because there are pe

ople on a global scale, constantly breeding them for commercial trade (for sale in pet shops) and not consumption. Other animal products that humans consume on a daily basis are not endangered like marine mammals because there are farmers all over the world breeding them.

Its not about saving the cute animals, but rather keeping ALL species of animals alive - look at it from the most basic point - we all hate cockroaches, yet we don't wipe out the entire population because they are an essential part of the ecosystem and environment (also, they breed at a rate must faster than marine mammals). Marine mammals (dolphins, whales) are like humans, therefore the rate of birth is slow, hence they cannot make up for the lost numbers and its

because people don't breed them like farmers do with hens, cows and pigs.

So, saving whales and dolphins is not about being childish and fantasized by their adorable image, its because they are endangered and we don't want fossils and photographs to be the only evidence of their existence.

just to let you know, I HATE COCKROACHES!! HAHAHA!! Ahhh!! Gah!! I cant wait to let them extinct!! & also, I dont think we can wipe out the entire cockroach population, cos they are born on a LARGE SCALE.

[Guest silent.whistle]

^I know what you mean - I feel much more relief to see a large cockroach than a small one because the smaller ones can grow faster, give birth and have lots of siblings.. YUCK!

(I am so afraid of them that I started sleeping with cockroach spray beside my bed since the age of 14 )

Hence my childhood dream of wiping them out ended pretty early.

Fact:: cockroaches can live up to another 7-10 days without a head - now thats gross.

But insects are the largest species of animals on Earth, so wiping them out would kill birds, etc..

When I was young, god, how I wanted them all gone - but now I'll just let them live as long as they don't enter my home hahaha. Thankfully my sister ain't afraid of them - she just picks them up with tissue or brush them into a container and set them free.

Cockroaches eat ants, so if there were no cockroaches the ant population would INVADE, on the other hand, ants eat dead cockroaches (revenge?) so if they didn't have that source of food, then the ecosystem would collapse. Every animal no matter how small is still an essential part of the environment.

[Guest chocopocky]

hey, at least she's fighting for something she believes in!

her honesty is very awesome.

[Guest apple920]

In terms of attempting to save whales and marine mammals, the easiest solution and once again would make a majority of the population happy (in terms of saving the marine environment) is to end whaling and the slaughtering of marine mammals for consumption. We are damaging their habitats, stealing their food (over-fishing) and from that the easiest solution is to end the commercial trade of marine mammals. Maybe you misunderstood me, saving humanity will of course make people happy, but in terms of saving the environment and in particular marine mammals the most accepted solution is to end commercial trade.

-this is a flawed argument because where are you getting the fact the stopping of killing whales/marine mammals will make the majority of the population happy? as in Hayden's letter, she said that 77% of Japanese people disagree to the slaughter of these mammals. but let's say, on top of informing people this is going on, they are given information on WHY it is happening (creation of jobs, sustaining livelihood of those involved, food preference-since we can assume this is going on because it IS a demand, etc), more people will probably disagree with the WAY these animals are killed vs the fact that they are being killed. the problem with such statistics is that depending on who is running them, certain crucial issues or facts may be omitted so that the people being surveyed will only be given a slanted view of the matter. and another flaw to this argument is WHO are the majority of the population who will be happy from the removal of such action? people like yourself who support such causes, or certain geographical areas? unless you survey the entire population of the world, you cannot say that the 'majority' would be happy by this behaviour.

No-one is calling an end to fishing, because a majority of the population consume animal products and just like you, vegetarians and vegans do not discriminate those who consume animal products. But just asking for respect when consuming animals, its not like what the Japanese harpoons do, they slaughter whales even though they are pregnant - that treatment is far worse than a hen. At least hens are separated - ones who lay eggs for consumption and the others that give birth - but to the Japanese harpoons - as long as its a whale who cares about the stage or state its in.

Its a fact of nature that different living species will always kill to survive and satisfy themselves, but doing it with the respect that they aren't made for us to eat and slaughter, but rather a species that I should thank for keeping me satisfied, happy and alive.

-in a lot of your posts you have mentioned why we should stop the killing of such mammals all together, but to be honest, the only problems i see with the current issue is the way in which these animals are killed (inhumanely and in a way that may lead to the total depletion of such animals). and another thing to note that even within the animal kingdom, animals kill animals, if you are so big against the killing of animals, then you should be against the natural order of the entire animal kingdom. but you're not, so obviously to say that humans should stop the killing of animals is flawed because we ARE animals. what should be stopped is the way in which we go about doing these killings and the way in which we are depleting practically everything because we are wasteful creatures. the only time when i say humans are acting outside of natural laws is when we kill animals for trophy reasons (ie simply for their fur, tusks), because you don't see a lion showing off its new fur coat. if we are going to take a life, it should be because we are going to use it for our basic survival.

I don't want to have another debate over whether "we're built to be", but its because of this attitude that there are other issues in the world. Vegetarians, vegans and other rational forms of diets people take do not result in death, so "we're built to be" implies that other diets are an incorrect way of living. Just like how "we're built to be" attracted to the opposite sex and as a result homosexuals and bisexuals are discriminated and unfortunately it is still not accepted by every single person.

These are just expectations.

-we ARE built to be a certain way, this by no means mean that deviations are somehow wrong. to say that we aren't predisposed to certain characteristics is kind of being in denial. since statistically, if preferences such as sexuality and consumption habits are random attritubes, we would be seeing a similar proportion of people being each kind (ie ~ 50% hetereosexuals 50% homosexuals). but this is not the case, there is a heavy leaning toward being heterosexual as there is a heavy leaning toward being omnivore. does this mean that anything besides these attributes are wrong? no, otherwise we would be seeing 99% (or some random high percentage) of the above situations and can say that anything that deviates from it mean an abnormality.

I do see where people are coming from when they say she is "immature" in her letter - but calling her ignorant is unfair unless you also acknowledge the ignorance of the Japanese officials and harpoons.

-i do think she does sound ignorant in her letter because she does not see beyond her beliefs and does not even bother to research beyond what she thinks is right. even in science, regardless of how a researcher hopes their hypothesis is correct, they will experiment in ways that can both support AND refute their claims. the fact is that, while the letter shows points that clearly contradict the Japanese statements, i highly doubt Hayden did much research to see how the Japanese gov't/scientists may have gotten those results (or even if those results are actually real). with her throwing out only contradictions and facts that she probably got through the organization (which can be highly biased-i am not saying they're not correct but when an organization funds a research, it WILL find answers that support the organization), is no different from the Japanese government throwing out 'scientific' findings that support their cause. i agree, in this case both the Japanese officials and Hayden are ignorant. but the thing is, Hayden did insult the entire country by saying 'do you know how ignorant this makes Japan in the eyes of the world' or something like that (too lazy to go back and read her letter). so on top of being ignorant, she is being immature and extremely offensive.

[Guest amydien]

I admire her trying to protect the dolphins, but Im not impressed in her letter.

It sounds like a child whining. I understand her frustration, but the way she wrote the letter just sounds like she's attacking the whole country.

Maybe it's just my interpretation but I really felt like being personally attacked on her letter even though Im not Japanese.

She could have re-worded her sentences, especially at the later part. The beginning started okay, but then it went in the middle until th end of her letter.

Her intentions are good, but her letter approach is wrong.

[Guest Vino de Jerez]

^I know what you mean - I feel much more relief to see a large cockroach than a small one because the smaller ones can grow faster, give birth and have lots of siblings.. YUCK!

(I am so afraid of them that I started sleeping with cockroach spray beside my bed since the age of 14 )

Hence my childhood dream of wiping them out ended pretty early.

Fact:: cockroaches can live up to another 7-10 days without a head - now thats gross.

But insects are the largest species of animals on Earth, so wiping them out would kill birds, etc..

When I was young, god, how I wanted them all gone - but now I'll just let them live as long as they don't enter my home hahaha. Thankfully my sister ain't afraid of them - she just picks them up with tissue or brush them into a container and set them free.

Cockroaches eat ants, so if there were no cockroaches the ant population would INVADE, on the other hand, ants eat dead cockroaches (revenge?) so if they didn't have that source of food, then the ecosystem would collapse. Every animal no matter how small is still an essential part of the environment.

haha nice post! I love your comments!! Yeah, i really hate them. I used to find a dead cockroach on this pillow on my sofa and its covered in ants!! DISGUSTING HUH!! and mummy had to clean it up for me. I was tooooo freaked out. I just screamed and ran all around the house!

[Guest pandoras0nymph]

if i was rich like hayden i would rather help these poor children

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y276/rict...rain/fp_one.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y276/rict...rain/fp-two.jpg

Noma (cancrum oris) is an acute and ravaging gangrenous infection affecting the face. The victims of Noma are mainly young children caught in a vicious circle of extreme poverty and chronic malnutrition...

what makes me scared of roaches are the reason that they carry tons of bacteria and diseases... yuck!

[Guest Vino de Jerez]

^hey, can you put links to those pictures instead. im sorry, but these pictures are really pretty disturbing. We really empathize them them, but yeah, can u not?

[Guest pandoras0nymph]

hehe sorry sherry..got carried away.. but i dont think its gross.. nursing student here