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

[Guest Vino de Jerez]

^haha its okay. woah! you are brave! I cant see this kinda stuff. Cos i get a little freaked out. I cant be a doc ))):

[Guest pandoras0nymph]

^haha its okay. woah! you are brave! I cant see this kinda stuff. Cos i get a little freaked out. I cant be a doc ))):

hahaha its not gross.. i just felt my hearts crushed. and i felt that if i had the money and fame hayden has i would do my best to be a supporter of foundations dedicated to children with these diseases and other children with deformities. it makes you feel sad for them... im a nursing student and once you're in the hospital you'll see all sorts of grossness.. sizes and shapes of vaggies and diff kinds of wounds.. duh...we clean them!

[Guest Vino de Jerez]

hahaha its not gross.. i just felt my hearts crushed. and i felt that if i had the money and fame hayden has i would do my best to be a supporter of foundations dedicated to children with these diseases and other children with deformities. it makes you feel sad for them... im a nursing student and once you're in the hospital you'll see all sorts of grossness.. sizes and shapes of vaggies and diff kinds of wounds.. duh...we clean them!

yeah true. you are so kind hearted!! I really like you!! Yeah, I swear if i really had the money, I too, will help them. The people who are suffering. But I cant. ): I dont have the cash and ability. ):

[Guest silent.whistle]

-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.

That is based on looking at the conservation of whales and marine mammals from all perspectives, whats factors contribute to the decreasing numbers and which method would have the least impact on the global population. If you like the facts, sure enough

At the 59th IWC meeting 2007 in Alaska a majority of nations voted FOR the protection of whales (that is NO commercial whaling is permitted).

Forty nations were FOR the protection of whales while 34 were against.

That is a clear majority against commercial whaling - nations and the citizens do not need to support commercial whaling unless they have some gain (profit) from or reason for it.

Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/as...wcleaguetable07

Slaughtering is slaughtering and of course the most harmless (?) method should be used and for what purpose. The Japanese officials and fisheries constantly claim consumption of whales is a part of Japanese culture and tradition - however:

"The only historical, 'traditional, whaling in Japan, was the lancing of stranded whales and a limited form of 'net whaling', which came to an end around 1901 when Norwegian catcher boats and Norwegian harpooners were hired to increase the profitability of the Japanese coastal industrial whaling operations. Japan's whaling policy has from this point on has been inherently linked to commercial expansion. Its claim to be traditional small-type whaling is fabrication given the commercial interdependency of Japan's small whaling companies and their bigger parent and brother companies. 'Traditional whaling' was finally eliminated under the weight of competition from the new foreign technology and stopped in 1905." - WDCS

-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.

Exactly, for our basic survival. What environmentalists are fighting for isn't the ULTIMATE end of whaling and killing of marine mammals and other species for basic survival, but rather for profit. We are clearly against COMMERCIAL whaling and slaughtering of marine mammals. Under the IWC there are two forms of legal whaling, they are:

01. The Scientific Research Exception:

Pursuant to Article VIII, paragraph 1 of the Convention, any country that wishes to conduct scientific research on whales may invoke the scientific research provision as an exception to an IWC regulation.

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention, any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that nation to kill, take, and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit and the kill, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of the Convention."

02. Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Exception:

The IWC says that aboriginal subsistence whaling "is of a different nature to commercial whaling. This is reflected in the different objectives for the two. For aboriginal subsistence whaling these are to:

* ensure risks of extinction not seriously increased (highest priority);

* enable harvests in perpetuity appropriate to cultural and nutritional requirements;

* maintain stocks at highest net recruitment level and if below that ensure they move towards it."

In order for a country to carry out a hunt under the aboriginal group clause, the nation must provide the IWC with evidence of "the cultural and subsistence needs of their people." In particular the hunt is not intended for commercial purposes and the caught meat cannot be exported.

People, in particular environmentalists are aware that whaling for human consumption is a crucial part of living and basic survival for certain communities, hence the "Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Exception". Blindly stopping whaling altogether is inconsiderate towards the communities who rely on whale meat for consumption and survival, therefore we are not against it despite the fact that the decreasing population of whales. On the other hand, Japan doesn't need to rely on whales for survival - its all about PROFIT.

Therefore of course it is crucial about HOW we slaughter and hunt for whales and marine mammals, but more importantly, the REASON for hunting.

If, you did as you said and read my posts, I did state that its part of the basic food chain for us to hunt and kill for food, however there is also the need to RESPECT and MAINTAIN the natural resources. The Japanese officials and fisheries for commercial whaling are clearly not respectful and its also not a part of their cultural tradition - because if it was why would you criticize your own culturally vital source of "survival".

Masyuku Komatsu (Japanese Fisheries Industry- Executive Director) stated "I believe that the minke whale is a cockroach in the oceans". - ABC 2001

On the side note, there are also speculations that Japan is providing financial aid for the fishing economy of "poorer nations" in order to buy their votes - voting against whale protection.

Also, the Japanese officials doesn't even acknowledge the decreasing population of whales:

Joji Morishita (Japanese Fishing Industry) stated: "There are no scientific grounds, no legal grounds to prohibit whaling and only emotional reasons and political reasons". - ABC 2001

-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.

Actually, opinionated abnormality initiates from believing "WE ARE BUILT TO BE", because if an individual is different from such "social expectations" then he/she is instantly labeled as "different", "abnormal", "weird" or "left of centre". I am not denying that there are expectations in society, but "WE ARE BUILT TO BE" means we are to be A one specific way and any other is abnormal. If it was to say "scientifically we are built to be" then I would acknowledge and to some degree agree to such comment, however it would still be irrational to state "scientifically we are built to be" omnivores, because there are individuals allergic to certain food, food groups, chemicals, substances, etc - in such case they are also "scientifically built to be" a certain way other than that "one specific way". I never stated sexual preferences and food habits are random attributes, however there are both scientific and environmental factors which defines such qualities and attributes in individuals. Even if sexuality was a random attribute, what makes you believe that it would be roughly 50/50 heterosexuals and homosexuals? Opinionated and scientific forms of the statement "WE ARE BUILT TO BE" are not considerate of individuals, because we are all different from each other and shouldn't be judged and labeled as abnormal and different based on society's expectations. If we were to use sexual preferences to argue this case, then I would say opinionated and scientific forms of "WE ARE BUILT TO BE" are generalizations and stereotypical images, it would be alright to state "I was built to be" because both scientifically and environmentally you were built to be that certain way fit for you individually. However by stating "WE WERE BUILT TO BE" as a means of justifying the majority of society's expectations and characteristics is total exclusion of homosexuals and bisexuals simply because a majority of the population are heterosexuals. There are both environmental and scientific reasons for sexual preference (inc. homosexuality) and therefore it would only be fair to state "I am built to be" and NEVER "we are built to be" because that is the denial of the scientific (biological) and environmental effects and differences between every individual.

-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.

Hayden's statement "Do you know how ignorant Japan appears to the world" can be interpreted in many different ways, one can say its offensive, another can simply look at it as a personal opinion while another can see that statement as an indirect depiction of the truth. I acknowledge that the statement may be harsh, however I see it as the truth, because based on the statistics of the Japanese population (Commercial whaling: 77% against/ neutral vs. 11% for), the decision of the nations at the IWC meeting and the citizens of those nations - a majority of people are against commercial whaling, hence Japan does appear ignorant to the (majority) of the world and are ignorant for disregarding the statistics. I agree that source of the statistics may be biased, then if that is the case, Hayden cannot be blamed because she was misled into believing so.

However after doing some research, I believe the statistics used by Hayden are more reliable in comparison to the one conducted by the Japanese government.

The statistics:

"In November 2006, Internet giant Yahoo Japan held an online poll that showed 90 percent public support for a return to commercial whaling. In the recent poll, 21,221 people cast a vote, with 19,001 agreeing with sustainable commercial whaling and 2220 opposed."

ICR Director General Hiroshi Hatanaka

In Japanese only: http://polls.dailynews.yahoo.co.jp/quiz/qu...&typeFlag=1

^Highly unreliable because a blogger pointed out two faults:

1. The poll was conducted between the 18th to 24th of October and not in November (Such error can raise from such neccessary detail - hence the lack of attention and possibly further "mishaps" throughout the released article)

2. The question asked was whether people supported Iceland’s unilateral resumption of commercial whaling and NOT commercial whaling conducted by Japanese fisheries.

Also, its is rather "stupid" to say 90% of the public supports commercial whaling when only 19001/21221 agreed and the total number of people who voted is less than 1% of the total population (127 million). Since its an online poll, only those who have access to the internet are able to cast their vote and coincidentally, the two wealthiest Japanese cities are the main consumers of whale meat (see below).

----------

Two sources supporting the statistics used by Hayden in the letter:

"A public opinion survey, commissioned by WDCS in 1991, showed that 80% of the Japanese public thought that it was unnecessary for them to eat whale meat. The only true commercial demand was for raw meat, from the wealthy Kanto and Kansai regions (Tokyo and Osaka)." - WDCS 1991 (Rather old )

(The last sentence stated there isn't an opinion, but rather a "fact" because it was also mentioned by Masayuki Komatsu (Japanese Fisheries Industry - Executive Director: "The Japanese people, not just in whaling towns but in Tokyo and Osaka where many consumers are based, really appreciate whale meat as part of the riches from the oceans.").

"Less than 10 percent of the Japanese public eat whale products due to health concerns" - CDNN 2004

^High levels of mercury and fat.

Anyway, I am totally against commercial whaling and slaughtering of marine mammals - once again we should STOP all forms of whaling and slaughtering of marine mammals for commercial trade. I don't want to sound racist because I'm not, but the Japanese fishing industry and the officials are really poor at maintaining natural resources and CDNN agrees with me (or vice versa): "For a dying fishing industry that has virtually self-destructed after overfishing every edible fish stock off Japan's coast, whaling is seen as an opportunity to get back into business and coastal fishing villages throughout Japan are lining up to get government approval for dolphin and whale hunts". Hence that is why Japanese harpoons need to travel to Antarctic waters and Southern Oceans for whaling

P.S. Its 01:31am EST... Me so tired and hungry

(Need to lose weight - why must it be summer? )

EDIT::

Do you realize how ignorant Japan looks to the rest of the world? Please be advised that we are telling all consumers to not purchase any Japanese made products until Japan stops killing dolphins and whales and we will be vigilant in this regard. We are determined to end Japan’s brutally cruel and needless slaughter of dolphins and whales and I will do everything within my power to ensure this.

^Yeah, found something that supports that notion as well - so for those who say its "stupid" and "immature", well.. this is the reason why such notion was suggested:

"It's probably a bit radical to actually work, but imagine if we could all boycott buying Japanese products and force them to take notice of the rest of the world and how we all feel." - Weekly Gripe

So.. lets stop buying Japanese-made electronics (greatest source of income). We can always buy LG electronics, Motorola mobiles and stop upgrading computer hardware for a while...

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!

LOL, my younger sister was eating a bag of chips she left lying around for a while and when she went back to it she found a cockroach inside - after eating a few handfuls muahahahaha

Since its summer in Australia now lots of cockroaches start roaming around, earlier last month there was a flying cockroach the length of my thumb - I'm serious, can you imagine a cockroach that is 6-7cm long flying around the house at night

And you are so cute, telling rictos16 for editing the pictures lol

[Guest Vino de Jerez]

LOL, my younger sister was eating a bag of chips she left lying around for a while and when she went back to it she found a cockroach inside - after eating a few handfuls muahahahaha

Since its summer in Australia now lots of cockroaches start roaming around, earlier last month there was a flying cockroach the length of my thumb - I'm serious, can you imagine a cockroach that is 6-7cm long flying around the house at night

And you are so cute, telling rictos16 for editing the pictures lol

Oh gosh! That was NASTY!! To both the chips and the flying roach. Ahhh!!! I cant believe these creatures actually exist!! They freak me out big time, but I always tell myself that I will come to like them someday. Which I dont reckon will happen soon.

Oh, as for the pictures, I have a heart that is a little too weak. Seriously.

I shall go continue reading your replies now (:

[Guest silent.whistle]

^Hahaha, at least someone is reading them

It'll be hard to try to like cockroaches - my fear of insects is so big that I even find butterflies ugly (I'm serious).

I keep coming back to this topic.. lol I really need to stop reading the articles, because so much information "pop-up".

Anyway, for those who used "What about the poor fishermen hunting and slaughtering dolphins for a living?" as a justified reason for slaughtering dolphins, there are in fact only:

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

Hence only the fittest are allowed to directly capture and hunt dolphins - therefore by ending the slaughtering of dolphins for commercial trade will not result in a large number of financially devastated families and it wouldn't be hard for them to seek employment because they are the "best" fishermen in the fishing industry.

[Guest Vino de Jerez]

^haha yeah. I read them! Gosh, I am actually proud of myself for sth. I think butterflies are pretty okay. But I just dislike stuff that are too mini, tend to find them disgusting.

I am really glad that Japan has already banned the cruel methods of how dolphins used to be hunted down by. It was really bad, the different ways they actually tortured the dolphins before killing the.

Honestly, I am doing this whaling book for literature. This anti-whaling book. "The Whale Rider" by Witi Ihimaera. That book is really ANTI whaling and slaughtering of fishes, ever since then, I have this strong urge to join a campaign to stop slaughtering. Even my teachers hate harpooning of whales.

[Guest Mr.Saturday]

You're all making it so serious.

It's not that serious. I mean come on, you know Japanese people even eat Sharks.

It's not a biggy over there, so leave them alone? They don't think like American people?

What? America's gonna put their government in Japan now? Is that what they're trying to do?

I mean think about it. America is already owning Iraq and Afghanistan.

What's the point of getting Japan to stop eating Dolphins?

They're gonna secretly eat Dolphins anyways, so why stop them?

[Guest silent.whistle]

^Simple. The population of dolphins is decreasing.

We want them to live on and we want our future generations to see them in oceans and not only in museums and books.

We want the ecosystem and food-chain to stay healthy and alive.

Its not about which country dominating the other, but oceans and marine life doesn't belong to a certain country - so they shouldn't have the right to exploit it.

Southern Bluefin Tuna are endangered and Japanese fishing industry are still allowed to fish for them but within the quota (though they went over the quota by 25% last year :tongue2:).

We know people eat sharks, not only in Japan - Asians just love shark fin (even though it taste like rice noodles to me O_O), thats why sharks are also endangered and many scientists and researchers are working hard to maintain and increase the current population. Why? Even though people fear shark attacks, we still want to see them in documentaries, in aquariums, our kids drawing them during art class and the movie "Jaws" will always be a possible reality. Essential and vital animals in keeping the ecosystem and food chain healthy and alive.

[Guest precious4e]

^

^ lol secretly eat dolphins.....that's funny.

If this thread was about whether or not Japanese people should be eating dolphins I wouldn't care as much. I think every nation has a right to eat whatever the heck it wants. The deeper issue here is the hunting of whales/dolphins that are leading to their extinction.

oh regarding the "built to be" issue. Don't take it personally. Every animal is built to do something and if you turn on any animal show on discovery planet you will hear things like "the snake's jaw is built so that it can open it's mouth the engulf large prey" or "the cheetah's legs are built so that they can reach speeds of 100 mph" or whatever. Looking at our teeth humans are built to be able to break down both meat and plants therefore we are built to be omnivores. I'm not saying there aren't deviations, and i'm perfectly fine with deviations, but just because we are cognitively aware of our choices it doesn't change the inherent functions of our physiology (and this is strictly looking at the anatomical aspect. Ex: you can't deny that our legs are built for us to walk or that our eyes are built so that we can see) Psychology, sociology, etc... are different areas.

[Guest silent.whistle]

^How about humans and babies? Cannibalism is fine? Eat whatever we want to eat.

Yes true, extinction is what we fear most.

[Guest precious4e]

You ever watch the show Taboo? "What's Taboo is one culture is normal in another."

I personally wouldn't want to eat humans. But I can't deny the fact that there are tribes out there that do that. (I would just stay they hell outta that area). Native Americans once ate their enemies after battle. Some other species are cannibalistic too....praying mantis and spiders eat their mates.

[Guest apple920]

LOL this is probably the longest reply i've ever gotten for a post and i seriously thank you for going through all this information and i actually have a lot to comment on the things you have written and why i do NOT agree with you. actually, i agree with you in specific cases and disagree with you on a lot of general things especially your statements against my 'built to be'. it is arguments such as yours that actually lead to a lot of discrimination. because a lot of people take up the idea that because we ARE influenced by environment (which we are to an extent) that things can be changed (ie sexual preference). i do not deny environment plays a large part in what we become (ie in our beliefs such as if we want to be vegetarian or not) but it does not change certain inherent features (such as our sexuality, whether it is hetero or homo). the problem is distinguishing what can be changed and what cannot. simply because you CHOOSE to be a vegetarian does NOT mean you were BUILT to be a vegetarian. i think you completely misread my original statement. what i meant with the random variable was, if ALL things were the same (environment, other factors), people will be more leaning towards certain things such as eating meat (because naturally we are omnivores since biologically our bodies require nutrients that can be found both in vegetables AND meat). i never denied the existence of extraneous factors that can affect a person's upbringing. and as to your allergic example it is kind of irrelevent because i know of just as many cases that are allergic to all sorts of things (including peanut, hay, plants, etc. from these observations should we say plants in general is bad for us?)! abnormalities does NOT mean that it's wrong. once again i never said that, i said deviations does not mean that they are flawed, it just means they deviate from the norm.

but anyway i have an exam coming up and even though i find discussing this issue a LOT more interesting, i do have to worry about my marks. so when i have time i'll make another post. but i have to make one more statement, i still think Hayden is ignorant and offensive in her statements. simply because you can support what she says AFTER the fact does not make her initial reaction any less ridiculous. if she had taken the time out to do the kind of research you did and stated it in a matter of fact tone, i may have given her more credit. but from her letter it is obvious, she was simply stating an opinion she holds which i find extremely wrong because it encompasses an entire nation. true, it is just ONE letter but consider how much debate we have here on soompi just because of it, shows the kind of influence and attention she gets because of her celebrity status. if she is going to use it to make aware of an issue, then she has a bigger responsibility to make sure whatever information she gives and in whatever manner she does it, is educational, relevent, and most of all respectful for all involved (including those she target and those she hope to influence). this is the same as throwing a person into jail only on the belief he is guilty without any proof, then afterwards you find evidence he IS guilty. simply because you find evidence afterwards does not justify your actions beforehand (hopefully this analogy makes sense to you). okay, gotta study now.

ps i find it funny that you had a problem with the fact that i said 'we are built to be' instead of 'scientifically..' and yet here you are trying to defend why people may get the wrong idea about hayden's letter but they shouldn't be so harsh on her because of the way she wrote things. rather contradictory no?

Actually, opinionated abnormality initiates from believing "WE ARE BUILT TO BE", because if an individual is different from such "social expectations" then he/she is instantly labeled as "different", "abnormal", "weird" or "left of centre". I am not denying that there are expectations in society, but "WE ARE BUILT TO BE" means we are to be A one specific way and any other is abnormal. If it was to say "scientifically we are built to be" then I would acknowledge and to some degree agree to such comment, however it would still be irrational to state "scientifically we are built to be" omnivores, because there are individuals allergic to certain food, food groups, chemicals, substances, etc - in such case they are also "scientifically built to be" a certain way other than that "one specific way". I never stated sexual preferences and food habits are random attributes, however there are both scientific and environmental factors which defines such qualities and attributes in individuals. Even if sexuality was a random attribute, what makes you believe that it would be roughly 50/50 heterosexuals and homosexuals? Opinionated and scientific forms of the statement "WE ARE BUILT TO BE" are not considerate of individuals, because we are all different from each other and shouldn't be judged and labeled as abnormal and different based on society's expectations. If we were to use sexual preferences to argue this case, then I would say opinionated and scientific forms of "WE ARE BUILT TO BE" are generalizations and stereotypical images, it would be alright to state "I was built to be" because both scientifically and environmentally you were built to be that certain way fit for you individually. However by stating "WE WERE BUILT TO BE" as a means of justifying the majority of society's expectations and characteristics is total exclusion of homosexuals and bisexuals simply because a majority of the population are heterosexuals. There are both environmental and scientific reasons for sexual preference (inc. homosexuality) and therefore it would only be fair to state "I am built to be" and NEVER "we are built to be" because that is the denial of the scientific (biological) and environmental effects and differences between every individual.

[Guest Carrieke]

I finally asked around a little bit about "dolphin eating" in Japan. This is what my professor (kandai uni) said:

Dolphin meat is still being considered a delicacy, although it's hard to be found and a lot of times very expensive unless maybe in places like taiji.A lot of Japanese don't even know it's still buy able in japan because it's price is far out of the lower/middle class's price league. However for fishermen around those areas where dolphins are being hunted, it's a great pride to hunt them. It's considered more "glamorous" to be a dolphin/whale hunter than an ordinary fisherman. The rough estimate of marine mammals being captured is about 20000 each year. because the number of dolphins being caught exceeds the number of dolphins actually used to eat, their meat is sometimes mislabeled as whale meat or other...mmm this is what he roughly said...

...roaches...brrr, there's always this whole bunch of them in this guys dorm i know. they just pick them up and throw them away (>_<) they're so filthy...

[Guest silent.whistle]

your statements against my 'built to be'. it is arguments such as yours that actually lead to a lot of discrimination. because a lot of people take up the idea that because we ARE influenced by environment (which we are to an extent) that things can be changed (ie sexual preference). i do not deny environment plays a large part in what we become (ie in our beliefs such as if we want to be vegetarian or not) but it does not change certain inherent features (such as our sexuality, whether it is hetero or homo). the problem is distinguishing what can be changed and what cannot. simply because you CHOOSE to be a vegetarian does NOT mean you were BUILT to be a vegetarian.

Maybe we have been misunderstanding each other? I never said meat or such products are bad for us and that vegetables are the only form of healthy food. However, by stating "We are built to be" still initiates the expectations of society which are all opinions and how are my arguments against such statement factors that have led to discrimination? In my argument (maybe you need to go back and read it again), I stated that there are two forms of factors that make us individually - environmental influences and science (genes, etc). Also I didn't deny the role science plays in creating and shaping anindividual - because sexual preferences are a result of both - and I do know that we can't change the biological making of us. People DO take up the idea that we are influenced by the environment, because we ARE and you know that too - but it would be unfair and you did from above, generalized by saying people who take up the idea that the environment is influential also take up the idea that "biological factors" can be changed (your example, sexual preferences).

Exactly, simply because I choose to be a vegetarian it doesn't mean I am built to be, however, some can say they are built to be vegetarian or to live according to a certain diet that is not "built to be" - based on your opinion and my interpretation of it - humans are built to be omnivores (such diet would therefore include food that others are "biologically / scientifically allergic to). Rather, your generalization of people who adapt the idea of environmental factors are also those who believe there are no scientific explanation of sexual preferences, is the cause of discrimination - generalization based on opinion and majority of society's characteristics. Therefore just because you choose to be an omnivore (following particular diet and eating certain food) it doesn't mean WE are built to be an omnivore who can eat the same food as others (scientifically and environmentally).

[Guest apple920]

^

OMG!! that was damn long! lol, okay i think we're going to keep debating this issue and once again, you brought up some very good points. so i will try to make this short.

onto the whole science/environment context of how people are. i agree with you that everyone is unique, and when i use the word 'we' it is to say that a majority of the people are this way. am i stating anything wrong? no. am i being biased? no. there ARE a majority of people in this world who are omnivores. simply because i am stating a 'we' does not imply i am saying that every single person on this planet will be so. it is true that the use of certain words can lead people to interpret things in a wrong light but unfortunately language, like everything that's human, is flawed. when i wrote anything relating to trends, i have always claimed it's a trend, not an absolute. and as in a trend, since i am part of a majority (which is funny because i am contradicting myself since to say so i would have to survey every person on this planet so i will say that, to the best of my knowledge, 'most people are omnivores'), i have to use the word 'we' because it encompasses me and a trend. even if i was part of a minority i would also use the word 'we' and (un)fortunately this time i am part of a more common trend. the only reason why i brought this up in the first place was because i disagreed with how you disagreed that people are made to be a certain way. because while environmentally, people can change from what their genetics may have given them to a point, the thing is, if everyone was raised within a certain environment so that ONLY genetics would cause differences, in general people will be geared towards a certain lifestyle (not sexuality i have to make this distinction). however, because humans are given a much greater cognitive ability than the rest of the animal kingdom, we can choose not to follow what we are born to do (ie choosing to be vegetarian). my argument is that to say we are not born with certain attributes is completely misleading as well as saying we are all dispositioned to be ONE way. either extreme of this argument is dangerous even if one is highly conservative (encompassing everyone) and the other is highly liberal (encompassing no one). you added a bunch of other great points in your argument that i totally agree with such as how certain uses of terms may generalize everyone so that it appears we are all equal when we are not. and i never said anything about being equal (once again, not trying to be redundant i am only pointing at a trend and a trend is by no ways a means of equalizing things).

and with the whole Hayden being immature, i agree that there has been some celebrity bashing but i find in general, people think she's bratty because of her tone of voice in writing this letter, NOT because she thinks she's a celebrity and can get away with anything (at least for many of the posts i read). so thinking she's bratty is another interpretation of her letter, which i agree with. and my point was not that her letter didn't contain truth, but the fact is that she ASSUMED what she said was the truth because she believed in it, and the organization that she is a part of said so. like in my analogy simply because you ASSUME something, does not give you a right to do as you please (nothing is guilty until actually proven so). so even if you found evidence to support her statements, i doubt she went through the same process. so her statements (before you gave support) are reckless, childish, and extremely offensive. i am not attacking her as a person i am attacking the way she has chosen to respond to this one incident, and i do not think she went about it in the correct manner. if she was just a regular person, i could care less if she told all of japan to rot in hell but the fact is that with her celebrity status, she DOES have a responsibility to be more careful of what she says and how she presents things.

and as to your other super long reply i had a bunch of stuff i wanted to say, but i think we have both exhausted this topic and i'm sure the topic starter did not think such long discussion would come out of just a letter. so i'm just going to say i highly respect your opinion and i really enjoyed reading your thoughts as well as all the evidence you gave, but i see things in a completely different light. and no matter how we both debate this issue, we will see differences.

the thing with commercial whaling is that i have no problems with it as i have no problems with how we harvest a lot of our resources. the only thing i always had a problem with is the way in which we are going about doing all this. we are killing a planet that should have given us everything in abundance that we never have to worry about how much pollution we are putting into our water, air, soil, or when the next species is going to go extinct but unfortunately all of that IS happening and that is a damn shame. and i completely applaud those who try to go out there and make changes. however, to make people change their ways, you educate them not attack their culture, their government and an entire nation. not only is this counterintuitive, you will get more backlashing than actually doing any good. if anything, seeing a lot of the replies on this thread, people are actually siding MORE with the whalers than Hayden and that is because it shows that simply because your intentions are good does not mean that any methods to get this idea across is good.

[Guest Vino de Jerez]

You're all making it so serious.

It's not that serious. I mean come on, you know Japanese people even eat Sharks.

It's not a biggy over there, so leave them alone? They don't think like American people?

What? America's gonna put their government in Japan now? Is that what they're trying to do?

I mean think about it. America is already owning Iraq and Afghanistan.

What's the point of getting Japan to stop eating Dolphins?

They're gonna secretly eat Dolphins anyways, so why stop them?

Gosh! This IS serious!

What are you thinking about? Yes the japanese eat Sharks, the Chinese eats Sharks, the Singaporeans eats Sharks (Fins).

Its a big deal! I love sharks fins, till years ago. That I realize how the Sharks Fins are taken from, the just cut out the fins and throw those poor things back down the water for it to drown and die! ITS JUST CRUEL!

Image people cutting of all your limbs and not let you walk and crawl about and just leave you home to starve and die. How cruel is it not?

This is a big deal! Yes, not that they dont not think like the Americans, these 2 different races have completely different culture. Thats why we cant judge from that they dont think alike.

The fact that their Government is putting reps in so many countries is going a little outta hand, but what can we do? This is already a gov to gov war. There is not much we can do to help.

If the japanese Gov is really STRICT enough to stop them. Of course they will let those 10 or 20 dolphins just slip away and be eaten, and not the hundreds and thousands of dolphins that are eaten - based on the current statistics.

So our point is not really to STOP them completely, its just to decrease the current no. of dolphins that are being hunted down and eaten by.

onto the whole science/environment context of how people are. i agree with you that everyone is unique, and when i use the word 'we' it is to say that a majority of the people are this way. am i stating anything wrong? no. am i being biased? no. there ARE a majority of people in this world who are omnivores. simply because i am stating a 'we' does not imply i am saying that every single person on this planet will be so. it is true that the use of certain words can lead people to interpret things in a wrong light but unfortunately language, like everything that's human, is flawed. when i wrote anything relating to trends, i have always claimed it's a trend, not an absolute. and as in a trend, since i am part of a majority (which is funny because i am contradicting myself since to say so i would have to survey every person on this planet so i will say that, to the best of my knowledge, 'most people are omnivores'), i have to use the word 'we' because it encompasses me and a trend. even if i was part of a minority i would also use the word 'we' and (un)fortunately this time i am part of a more common trend. the only reason why i brought this up in the first place was because i disagreed with how you disagreed that people are made to be a certain way. because while environmentally, people can change from what their genetics may have given them to a point, the thing is, if everyone was raised within a certain environment so that ONLY genetics would cause differences, in general people will be geared towards a certain lifestyle (not sexuality i have to make this distinction). however, because humans are given a much greater cognitive ability than the rest of the animal kingdom, we can choose not to follow what we are born to do (ie choosing to be vegetarian). my argument is that to say we are not born with certain attributes is completely misleading as well as saying we are all dispositioned to be ONE way. either extreme of this argument is dangerous even if one is highly conservative (encompassing everyone) and the other is highly liberal (encompassing no one). you added a bunch of other great points in your argument that i totally agree with such as how certain uses of terms may generalize everyone so that it appears we are all equal when we are not. and i never said anything about being equal (once again, not trying to be redundant i am only pointing at a trend and a trend is by no ways a means of equalizing things).

the part about omnivores, i think what you meant is like 4 outta the 10 of us are omnivores. haha, so to make it short, its sth like 40% of the total Earths population. But cos some countries have more and some has less, its pretty hard to give the exact numerical figure huh. (:

[seafood]

wow I must say, I give thumb up for silent.whistle, that what I call a bebater =]

even though i disagreed with you, but i do see a lot of good points. ( I am really bad at BEBATING)

so i keep it short muahah =]

hmm... from what I read from the letters I think she should choose her words wisely.

Finish ... =]

and about the cockroaches be able to live without their head for 7-10 days? EWWWWW!!!! gross gross.

[Guest pandoras0nymph]

i think, if you want to make the population happy you should help eradicate the thing that causes problems to people.. POVERTY.. most people dont care about whales and stuff. if you're hungry, sick and desperate would you care about whales? sure not right? being raised in a country full of beggars and sick people on the street i would see them everyday asking for money. if you make a survey to people (i did this. during our community duty) what the people wants is financial aid. and i know there are good people out there who could help but few. if i had the money and the power i would help. whaling is i guess a few people do that coz not all people eat whale meat. mostly fish...

thanks sherry!hehehe you know what, in our course were not just immersed on hospitals. we also go to the community.. like visit slum areas, its called public health nursing. we ask people what are the probs on their areas. we dont give dole outs. but we think of ways to help people help themselves. coz were not rich, were just students.. i guess in that way we also give help to the people who are needy. coz most people there are jobless, have poor water supply and no medicines. like, i had a patient that has gangrene on her foot but she didnt bothered asking for medical help coz no ones giving them free meds. really sorry, so off topic here! heehe silent whistler you're an environmentalist while im a poor philantropist... haah not sure of the term really..

[Guest polaris]

i respect her advocacy

but i think this is taking this way too far..

and isnt it weird that she ended the letter with saying "how ignorant japan looks to the rest of the world"

when her first paragraph was:

I don't think she meant the Japanese public. She means that this behavior (by a small minority) is putting a bad light on Japan as a whole.

Also although it may sound harsh.......it is true that some many of the "scientists" (not all) for the study of marine life are paid to make bogus data to cover up whatever they are doing there with dolphins and other cetaceans.