Here are the main points I made, but you might wanna read the liberal’s posts as well.
I cannot see the logic in telling people to stop eating somthing that is unique to their culture. But, according to the liberals I am selfish for not wanting to stop the Japanese…
This is kind of like a “should the U.S. attack Iran” question. You’ll have to identify “the West”.
If it’s more of a generic question, and you want to know if “anyone” should “put pressure” on “the Japanese” to stop hunting dolphins, then you’d have to define those terms as well.
I’m not sure how this is supposed to be a compelling argument. It’s not about the “Asian’s hungry stomach.” Most Japanese don’t even know what’s going on…they don’t know how the dolphins are killed or where the meat comes from…let alone how contaminated it is. (Not unlike Americans and the poultry, meat, and other things they eat…although the dolphin meat is way more dangerous.)
You act like this is just a case of some ignorant American projecting their own idea of “civility” onto another culture, but I’m afraid you know a lot less about this particular issue than you think.
There are people who do that.
Define “they”. (Surely you’re not lumping the entire population of the country of Japan into a single entity that “likes” the slaughter and consumption of dolphins…are you?)
Um. What country do you live in? There are Americans all over the place who protest exactly that. There’s a documentary about the “poor” and “unethical” treatment of animals of every single kind put out at least every other year…with particular attention paid to farm animals raised for the food industry. I have no idea where this is coming from. You’re saying all this as if no one is going around speaking out against this kind of thing.
There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who are vegetarians and vegans specifically because they don’t agree with the treatment animals harvested for food.
Theydon’t “sell it, buy it, eat it, etc.” So again I have no idea why this is supposed to be a very damning argument.
a) Dolphins don’t exist “everywhere in the world”…they only exist in “particular regions.”
b) What difference does it make?
c) Laws are different in different regions.
You’d have to define “clash culture.” I don’t see what is wrong with voicing one’s opinion about a specific practice, and urging others to refrain from it.
If there is something inherently immoral or unlibertarian about such a thing, I’d be interested to hear your explanation.
Perhaps this person cannot see the logic in telling people to stop telling others to stop eating something that is (allegedly) unique to their culture.
How is it you are any more in the right than they are?
Lol I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the name of this thread.
Anyway, screw animal rights activists, no one really takes them seriously as far as I can tell, it’s hard enough to enforce human rights, who sees a massive part of the world’s current culture and food supply being banned soon because we don’t want these dumb creatures to suffer. There’s no way to argue against animal rights activism because you cannot prove that someone’s value is stupid. At the base level you shouldn’t kill humans because there might be directly negative effects on you (retaliation) or indirect negative effects (how people treat you in future or on a mass scale economic problems). This does not apply to animals so there’s not even a rational reason to believe this.
Animal rights activists and the arguments they make are exactly the “empathy for empathy’s sake” arguments that people caricature liberals as making.
And with all this said… I’d still rather people didn’t eat dolphins. I love those crazy water mammals
Half of your post is worthless criticism of my semantics.
Read Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” if you need this kind of thing spelled out for you. It is hugely respected among US academic and policy circles. If you knew anything about geopolitics outside of the LvMI you’d know exactly what it means to “clash civilizations” or “cultures” (Huntington defines those rather ambiguously, but more or less they both represent the amalgam of a particular body of interactions and norms).
I know people protest KFC, but that’s not what this is about. I used that angle to point out that they are actively trying to depress another society, when the same atrocities are being committed on their dinner table. This was pushed at me on the internet (I NEVER see anti Tyson postings or signs around town or campus…) I pointed out that it is characteristic of a culture (ours) that thinks they can demand others change their traditions to conform to the Western ideal. Again, if you need “The West” defined look at a god damn globe. It is EUROPE and NORTH AMERICA.
I’m afraid you don’t even have the prerequisite understanding of the history of your own culture (evidenced by your ignorance of the basic terminology) to even try to criticize me for nit picking some liberal activists on the internet. Your condescension bites your own ass.
your (a) point is incorrect. And it wouldn’t matter even if it wasn’t as dolphins can still exist in places where they aren’t hunted. I even use the example of an Atlantic bottlenose. They exist in a region where they aren’t hunted… (0.o) …because it is illegal to do so in the US system. Aaand (b) and (c) aren’t worth it. Endangering the existence of a species is different than feeling sorry for them and hating the people that eat them. Indians don’t boycott the US over our cruelty to the bovine.
the Americans are ignorant. They are doing exactly what you said, projecting their own idea of “civility” onto another culture." The rest of that quote is incorrect, at least from you it is. Now, a marine biologist could come on here and I’d believe them, but not a forum troll.
Have you been to Japan? Do you know Japanese people that have told you that? Do you converse with the Japanese food safety regulators? Or are you just using “google”??
…Because you also said that dolphins are in specific regions of the world (which is wrong)…unless you meant water. They are exclusive to water covered regions of the Earth or water filled tanks…
When did “libertarian” come into this? Can you take those goggles off? I’m saying that it is unreasonable to think that you can tell others what is right. So, the goal of the anti-dolphin hunting campaign is for the US to boycott Japan? Why not boycott China for eating dogs? or Brazil for not killing all of the cannibals? Or Australia, or South Africa, or Laos, or Thailand (they sell kids over there!)?? It is completely arbitrary and instigates cultural chasm. I also happen to think it is immoral to denounce a cultural trend and demand its abolition based on your judgment of their culinary habits. And especially so, when the Tyson, KFC thing is…still a thing.
Plus, the implications (from Huntington’s work in this context) are that politics will matter less and less in the future and that wars will come about by cultural discrepancies. This is just a part of what he was talking about. We think that certain foods should be banned due to some kind of animalistic altruism (“They think like things with brains do, don’t kill them!!”), but this will only chide our leaders into doing something about it…
I care less and less about “libertarianism” everyday. (I deleted this section to avoid flame). It is unrealistic and has a history of lack of success. I’ll stay in favor of it personally, but pragmatically, or when discussing politics outside of a theoretical manner, it is useless.
I’m afraid you don’t even have the prerequisite understanding of the history of your own culture (evidenced by your ignorance of the basic terminology) to even try to criticize me for nit picking some liberal activists on the internet. Your condescension bites your own ass."
Wow… This is gonna get really ugly really quickly.
Huntington, however, is a retard and his attempt of division of the world moronic.
My point exactly.
No, the West is a construct primarily of the French and Anglo-Saxon intelligentsia for the purpose of appropriating for Western Europe and its extensions in the New World the sole ownership of all of the achievements of the much larger Christian world, and even of a number barely related and relatable pre-Christian civilizations.
Did I make claims otherwise? Huntington is still discussed in academia, your opinion notwithstanding. Also, why don’t you point out your criticisms of it/him? I have my own, as I do with most mainstream writers, but am curious why you’d state this with no supporting evidence, as if your opinion stands on some kind of “internet forum, duh” merit. Further, your criticism, apparently, seems rather inconsequential as you say his “division of the world” is “moronic.” Do you have published writings I could investigate that counter his claims and observations? Or did you read the “criticism” section of the link I provided, then make a comment based on it? Anything that brings something fresh to the table?
Well, it’s not exactly your point is it? It is other figures in the US academic and policy circles that have criticized him…not you…
You need to use your commas correctly, bro. This is what you meant, right?
Yeah, where did Christianity really rise to fame? It was Papua New Guinea, wasn’t it? Why was Latin so important to Rome and the Church? What created the intelligensia other than the state and church of Rome? You refer to the intelligentsia as if they aren’t synomous with cultural activities… And you even explicitly state “appropriation for western europe.” The “intelligentsia” (first of all is too vague as you provide no time period) you refer to would be nothing without the Greeks and Romans (unless you think the tribes in Gaul were somehow uber influential in the rise of the Latin language within the Church). Italy has more to do with the cultural development of the West than France. By far. Trade and religion brought “the West” together under the Roman Empire. Roman intelligentsia wouldn’t have been anything without the Greeks (Roman philosophy, art, and statues are pathetic compared to the Greeks). Do you see where I am going with this? I’d suggest you take a look at the link (it’s just a wiki)…and rethink what I stated.
Also, if you are talking about the medieval time period or just after it, but before the 19th century, then “the West” is even more Eurocentric. Recently, “the West” has engulfed parts of about every continent even though some cultures have resisted its influence while others readily accept it. (See: Charles Maier, Among Empires)
You didn’t need to. You brought him up as suggested reading. Or do you make a habbit of bringing up as suggested reading books you think suck?
Oh so now figures in the US academic and policy circles have criticized him. But before I said he was a moron you were making an appeal to authority by pointing out he was hugely respected among US academic and policy circles.
So what now? You’re so “critical” of Huntington you’re going to rehash his drivel for me?
Not everyone agrees with Plato’s conclusions in the Crito, but people still read it because it makes points. Not everyone agreed with the Federalist letters, but people still read them and people still took concepts away from them. Not everyone thinks Justine is a “good book,” but people still read it. Do we all “like” The Prince? Or did we read it because it has had influence? Just cause you can’t buy it at the LvMI store doesn’t mean it isn’t worth reading. This is why I’m starting to despise libertarians; so much disrespect for the Establishment that they forget what the Establishment even says…
But, that is what? moronic and not useful? You don’t have any criticisms. I was right on when I said you read the criticisms on the link I posted then made a comment based soley on what you read there. That is why you red herring in this last post… You had probably never heard of Huntington before today and you probably don’t have any real idea why I would use his terminology (because it has shaped the last decade of WESTERN POLICY; NATO and the US). You’re just as far off base as JJ was and you are throwing fallacies to get out of it.
Tell me, what does what is posted in your quote of me have to do with Huntington? Where does Hungtington discuss those particular things? Hmm?What does it even have to do with him?
I don’t remember stating my criticims of him and they aren’t what you said…that his “division of the world” was “moronic.” His division of society gets awwry only around the language barriers (which I stress and he puts less emphasis on) and religion; religions and languages tend to stick together. I merely think he is an Islamophobe and places a lot of weight on religious struggle between Xmas and Islam. His paper gave a lot of esteem to the NeoCons…that is my criticism. Not that he is a “moron.” There are simliar, but still mutually exclusive, examinations of the things he brings up (Jihad vs. McWorld by Barber, and THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS: AN ISLAMICIST’S CRITIQUE by Roy P. Mottahedeh). The running theme in academia is simply that the Islamic world deserves the most attention…
At least JJ, just stopped posting. You’re about to troll fallacies to try and look like you have relevant things to say when it is so obvious that you don’t.
Marko litteras nescivit, non potuit dictare. Et cum magno conatu nugas…
I really find amusing (yes, amusing) there’s so much uproar over the Japanese whaling industry but little (if any) about other nation’s.
You hear little about Norway, Russia or Iceland, the darling of the liberal world. You hear nothing about the Peruvian government turning a blind eye on dolphin hunting (officially banned, actually practiced as nothing happened). It’s all about Japan.
I cannot see the logic in telling people to stop eating somthing that is unique to their culture. But, according to the liberals I am selfish for not wanting to stop the Japanese…
The logic is they got in the way of relevant people and relevant custom at the wrong place and wrong time. If this is the case, and these liberal protests are succesful, they are obviously closer to some point of reality than the opposing side. If so, see how western pop stars, tweets, and vegan college activists are going to be more powerful and have a much more “irresistable grace” than some “age old unique” reactionary cultural quirk.
Us libertarian-liberals should embrace progressive-liberals as much as possible and only nitpick with them on technical points. We’re probably roughly the same breed. I don’t see them as so much “bleeding hearts”, as I see them as JS Mill type utilitarians or holding a form of scientism. It would probably be best to just show them the folly of these thought lines (as well as economic consequences) - while showing the “progressive” nature of the market mentality. Less “clinging to guns and religion” as Obama said.
Some of it may bother me. I know I’ll miss Chick-Fil-A if it gets shut down in my town, but that’s the simple consequence for having asocial reactionary views - you end up “in the dustbin of history”.
# “The falseness of an opinion is not, for us, any objection to it. The question is how far it is life furthering, life preserving, species preserving and perhaps species creating.”
Well which is it? Were you just not serious or did you just not pick the right words?
I didn’t ask what is “hugely respected among US academic and policy circles”. I’m not even sure what that is supposed to mean in this context. I can’t say I’ve ever really heard of a term being “hugely respected”.
I said you’ll have to offer what you mean when you use that term. People use ambiguous terms like that all the time. “We”, “the West”, “the Japanese”, “put pressure on”…“obscene”, “growth”, “wealth”, “property”, “mental illness”, “power”…every single one of these terms is used all the time and has an easily sourced definition from a dictionary or encyclopedia. In your language you might say they are “hugely respected among US academic and policy circles” (but I’m just guessing, as I’m not quite sure what that is supposed to mean.)
But as I would have thought someone at least of your experience would understand, being “hugely respected?” doesn’t exactly mean you can throw those terms around without having to define them. I’m sorry if this is news to you. It’s possible I made too much of an assumption about your level of intellectual understanding.
See those links for examples in which those seemingly simply, supposedly easily understood, and probably “well respected” terms are requested to be defined.
Sure seemed like that’s what it was about.
And as I said, how exactly is it that you know “the same atrocities are being committed on their dinner table?” Have you been to all their houses? Do you know “bleeding hearts” that have told you that? Do you converse with the “bleeding hearts” who happen to be food safety regulators? Or are you just using “google”?? Or your ass?
I’ve never in my life heard of a continent demanding something. I was under the impression that only individuals act. But I’m open to learning new things.
Please share the resources which document “EUROPE and NORTH AMERICA” making demands.
Never heard of a culture demanding things either.
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with anything. It appears to me that you have simply anthropomorphized a cardinal direction to make a grossly generalized statement about an entire hemisphere(?) of human beings…lumping literally billions of people into a single group that all hold this one characteristic that you wish to ascribe to them.
Sounds more like simple laziness on your part than anything else. But feel free to attack me if it makes you feel better I guess.
Sure is a lot of white and gray space on that map.
Isn’t (c) exactly the “legal” thing you just said in the sentence before?
Okay. Because of course no one is killing endangered whales and dolphins.
And?
Again, lot of white and gray space on that map. Quite a bit of it in the oceans.
Would it make a difference? Would you still not come back and say “well that’s just your experience…you don’t know all the Japanese people”. Would it make a difference if I showed you video of regular Japanese on the street being shown footage of dolphin drive hunting and their reaction of shock and disgust? Would it make a difference if I showed you interviews of Japanese scientists stopped eating tuna and dolphin from the grocery stores after they tested it and themselves for mercury levels? How about city councilmen explaining why they stuck their necks out to try and get dolphin meat removed from school lunches?
I assume you’d just tell me the videos were “Photoshopped”?
Again, lot of white space on that map.
“Everywhere in the world”, “everywhere there is water” etc…but your own source proves you wrong. It’s actually quite comical how proud you are of this point. This is literally the third time you’ve brought it up in this one post alone.
What goggles? You’re bitching because someone is voicing their opinion that dolphins shouldn’t be slaughtered and fed to people. You make it sound like there is something wrong with that.
I’m just asking what exactly is wrong about it.
I thought they were saying it was immoral and/or unethical? Are you suggesting it is unreasonable to think you can tell others what is immoral and/or unethical? Are you moral relativist now?
I can’t say exactly what the goal of those protesters is. You’d have to ask each of them. But I would assume their goal would be to have dolphin slaughter and consumption end.
But hey I could be wrong. Stranger things have happpened.
That’s an interesting invocation of morality. (Especially considering what you were likely implying about the subject only a few lines above. Are you bloomj31?) I’m also still not clear on how exactly urging people to stop slaughtering and eating dolphins is immoral simply because chickens are slaughtered and eaten too.
I don’t quite follow the logic there. You’re saying that if these people didn’t protest the dolphins and only focused their efforts on the poultry first…and then turned their attention to the dolphins after chicken slaughter ceased…then it wouldn’t be immoral?
What is it exactly that makes the order in which their efforts are focused moral or immoral? And how exactly is that determined? And what if these people are consistent across the board…vegans who protest the slaughter of all animals? Literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions of these people exist. I fail to see where the “immorality” comes in in their protest.
Perhaps you could enlighten us all. Jacob Spinney would be incredibly interested to hear why exactly he’s an immoral person, I’m sure.
Ahh, JJ posted a whole bunch of nothing. “Could you define ‘respect’ please? You aren’t an intellectual.” hahaha
Respect (the way I used it) is that thing that calls your attention for being influential or esteemed (among other things) where you don’t have to agree with it.
A lot of white on that map…good one. Shave off “worldwide” from the dopheeen’s habitable zone and you can question things…about the sea of blue where the waters aren’t icy…every continent has dolphins, kid. (oope, except antarctica…but it doesn’t have much and I’m not even sure if we know for sure that there is land under all of the ice…so i’ll make the exception there.
Yeah, why wouldn’t you think that? Because all of my posts accuse people of that…or similar things to it.
Your response to my questions were answered with “Google.” So, fucking what if there are videos on the net of bystanders…if there wasn’t DEMAND for the product…it wouldn’t get made (or hunted w/e). So, fuck off with this pedestrian evidence shit. I could find any dimwit on the street and ask them about the little asian kids that make their clothes or cell phone, but when the conversation is over they won’t remember or think anything of it they’ll itch there collar and text a friend.
It’s like having slaves, then telling other countries to knock off the slavery…It’s like being fat and calling other people’s diets wrong…It’s like allowing your culture to mercilessly torture and kill pigs, cows, and chickens, but then getting upset when another culture does the same thing to a different animal. They are trying to force change on someone else that they won’t even force upon themselves. Get it? It’s one of those things where until your bed is made you don’t bitch at strangers for having a messy bedroom.
Scoff! How dare I?!? Could you define moral relativist? You could mean so many things by that…
Is a moral relativist where you stick up for other cultural traditions besides your own? Or where you get sick of hearing bleeding hearts who latch onto something then hold it up as if it is the paragon of political causes?
I love this part too.
Awww, so you really are sad to see someone you don’t even like turn away from the Church of Scient…I mean libertarianism.
“Subjective this. Subjective that. I win. Libertarianism only makes sense. All else is void.”
Again, I’m going to say it. The NAP is inappropriate under conditions of oppression. It is, in fact, willful submission to the oppressors to swear of violence AND destruction of property. The Sons of Liberty burned down merchant ships; they destroyed property…they didn’t lick the boots of the police when push comes to shove (cough Ron Paul cough).
Where is Marko? Is he reading his Huntington so he can actually criticize something?
So give a reason. Then, set limits. If it is because they feel pain or are cute then we all need to be vegetarians…because you can’t say stop killing dolphins, but continue torturing chickens or swine. There needs to be a logical reason.
Honestly, the only logical reason is if they are becoming endangered, but dolphins and whales aren’t. Now, having said that I am aware there are certain types of both are threatened and I think they should be preserved, but who are we to tell them to stop hunting?
Well, I’m vegetarian (need to get back into veganism), but my reasons have nothing to do with dietary ethics. Dolphins and whales are highly intelligent creatures that their own intricate social and cultural webs, and in the process of aimlessly killing them it’s showing who in the end really stands as the “higher” being, so to speak. It’s simply pointless and we are losing a great bit of knowledge by killing them instead of studying them.
