Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Jul 17, 2011 11:14 PM

bmah wrote:

Maybe it's because it's an opinion, and you are trying to make it off as fact? Where the 2 persons are those that agreed with you, in general. I see what you are trying to get at, but I simply must disagree.

no, it's not that i'm trying to pass off an opinion as fact. i'll admit looking back that yes i was doing that but that's not why i said that. it's the genuine fact that he wasn't understanding what i was saying. i was making points that either he deemed irrelevant, or just went right over his head, and that's what happened on the other board, too. to prove it, i asked for clarification (not here, but there) and the people who "disagreed" with "me" thought i was saying something else that was completely retarded.

people are allowed to disagree with me, but only when they understand what they're disagreeing with. misunderstanding =/= disagreeing.

bmah · Jul 17, 2011 11:36 PM

@ontels: Yes, but consider this: seal hunting is common in the far north, where Inuits hunt seal for their livelihoods. However, European nations are banning seal meat because of this. Methods of killing aside, seals are a staple for the Inuits, and they wouldn't live without them. To foreigners, their killing of the seals would appear to be torture, but in actuality is just a normal part of their life.

Merriam dictionary:

1
a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain

2
: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

In this case, 2 gives a purpose in the definition. This is applicable in the example we're talking about. So I'd use "torture" when it's of a more sadistic, meaningless purpose. Looking at a utilitarian point of view, it's far better to have the Inuits hunt seals for their livelihood as opposed to animal rights advocates prohibiting the hunting.

A different story for animals in keychain pouches: I don't think it is very useful at all to have animals in these keychains except as a marketing ploy in the Asian markets. It wouldn't have even been a practical marketing strategy in Western markets, because those things would be so hotly debated, they'd be taken off the shelves.

Ultimately, I don't know if I'd call this "torture", but I will certainly not advocate for those products.

@IStillLikeSpyro: likewise, the other people were probably ad hominem against you, just like you did in other cases.

Swaffy · Jul 18, 2011 12:58 AM

[Age of the Earth]

[Carbon Dating, Potassium Argon, etc.]

Please read all of it. Don't be stubborn and skim through it.

[Edit] Please take not that the two web pages use: external sources
including real videos/books/articles, in-text citations, images and graphs,
etc. The web pages are not just from one person's perspective, they are
from many different people, some being neutral on the subject.

SpyroGirl101 · Jul 18, 2011 1:25 AM

Wow... this really went way off topic...

Stormy · Jul 18, 2011 3:28 AM

Guys. Topic. Please. I'm going to have to lock this if you can't stay on topic.

How about we all answer the question: is this okay or not? At what point does human use of animals stop being okay?

bmah · Jul 18, 2011 3:58 AM

Stormy wrote:

At what point does human use of animals stop being okay?

I think it becomes too far when animals are harmfully treated without a decent purpose, the purpose being one that is useful enough to society. How "useful" a purpose is is up to you, but in my case, it'd be something like shooting for sport - if the animal is endangered. The product of trophy shooting is, hmm, perhaps some money, and mostly pride. Overall, I don't think it contributes very much to society, or even to yourself. (see my previous post in regards to utilitarian aspects)

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Jul 18, 2011 4:45 AM

.

Last edited by 36IStillLikeSpyro36 (Nov 16, 2016 6:10 AM)

ontels · Jul 18, 2011 8:00 AM

bmah wrote:

@ontels: Yes, but consider this: seal hunting is common in the far north, where Inuits hunt seal for their livelihoods. However, European nations are banning seal meat because of this. Methods of killing aside, seals are a staple for the Inuits, and they wouldn't live without them. To foreigners, their killing of the seals would appear to be torture, but in actuality is just a normal part of their life.
Merriam dictionary:
1
a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain

2
: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
In this case, 2 gives a purpose in the definition. This is applicable in the example we're talking about. So I'd use "torture" when it's of a more sadistic, meaningless purpose. Looking at a utilitarian point of view, it's far better to have the Inuits hunt seals for their livelihood as opposed to animal rights advocates prohibiting the hunting.
A different story for animals in keychain pouches: I don't think it is very useful at all to have animals in these keychains except as a marketing ploy in the Asian markets. It wouldn't have even been a practical marketing strategy in Western markets, because those things would be so hotly debated, they'd be taken off the shelves.
Ultimately, I don't know if I'd call this "torture", but I will certainly not advocate for those products.

@IStillLikeSpyro: likewise, the other people were probably ad hominem against you, just like you did in other cases.

Actually I was talking about serving sushi while the fish is still alive, seal hunting isn’t torture it's killing.

Clock-la · Jul 18, 2011 8:55 AM

Stormy wrote:

Guys. Topic. Please. I'm going to have to lock this if you can't stay on topic.
How about we all answer the question: is this okay or not? At what point does human use of animals stop being okay?

food is fine IMO, basicly thats the circle of life, but for key chains and "medicen" I think no hmm its just a waiste...

Aceedwin · Jul 18, 2011 10:10 AM

bmah wrote:

@ontels: Yes, but consider this: seal hunting is common in the far north, where Inuits hunt seal for their livelihoods. However, European nations are banning seal meat because of this. Methods of killing aside, seals are a staple for the Inuits, and they wouldn't live without them. To foreigners, their killing of the seals would appear to be torture, but in actuality is just a normal part of their life.

Cultural acceptance is no base for morality. Or do you also intend to accept domestic violence, slavery, and murder as perfectly fine practices?

Just because we see something in China that is accepted by the Chinese, doesn't mean it is not wrong. Same with the Inuit (although in that case, hunting for food and such, I'm cool with that). Morality is morality, it changes only if you let it. And you shouldn't compromise your morality based on the beliefs of those around you, only what is real. And in China, I can't see the social acceptance, but I can see a turtle in a lot of pain.

To the big question, how far are we allowed to use other animals for human ends, well I believe the world would have many of its problems solved if we didn't eat meat, so maybe I should assume the vegetarian stance hypocritically. Yeah, why not.

ontels · Jul 18, 2011 12:14 PM

I allso think that no one should eat meat...yet I eat meat...I'm like a drunk telling some kids that walk by not to start drinking.

Latias fan · Jul 18, 2011 1:29 PM

ontels wrote:

I allso think that no one should eat meat...yet I eat meat...I'm like a drunk telling some kids that walk by not to start drinking.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds to a lot of people.

MaxwellTheScribblenaut · Jul 18, 2011 1:55 PM

Latias fan wrote:

ontels wrote:
I allso think that no one should eat meat...yet I eat meat...I'm like a drunk telling some kids that walk by not to start drinking.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds to a lot of people.

Clearly considering the fact that we've been trying to save animals the past year and I don't know why, to quote from The End of Ze World, that weird flash animation on YouTube, why can't we just decide

that one day those Chinese sons of a *bleep*s are going down.

Clock-la · Jul 18, 2011 1:58 PM

^ i recomend you stop there befor you say somthing that crosses the line...

MaxwellTheScribblenaut · Jul 18, 2011 2:07 PM

Clock-la wrote:

^ i recomend you stop there befor you say somthing that crosses the line...

But Clock-la, China doing this is *puppy eyes* a discrimination of nature and it's harmless properties.

Clock-la · Jul 18, 2011 5:35 PM

MaxwellTheScribblenaut wrote:

Clock-la wrote:
^ i recomend you stop there befor you say somthing that crosses the line...
But Clock-la, China doing this is *puppy eyes* a discrimination of nature and it's harmless properties.

Im just saying, that dos'nt represent the people of that country as a whole, you said china will pay, its better to say the people envloved will pay.

Neotyguy40 · Jul 18, 2011 8:28 PM

Solved:

bmah · Jul 18, 2011 9:43 PM

^
That's what I've been saying. So yes Aceedwin, while it may seem perfectly logical that some cultural practices that seem wrong doesn't make those practices any more acceptable, there aren't universal parameters to morality itself.
Hence, swimming fish in water-filled keychain pouches is going to get variable reception. A Western mindset (N. America, Europe) will garner a different reaction to those products than those in Asia.
Of course though, I still think there are a few things about morality that can be widely agreed upon.

ontels wrote:

Actually I was talking about serving sushi while the fish is still alive

Oh, in that case, I've yet to see that in real life. However, in cooking/travel channels, I've seen a live octopus being cut up and served almost "live". In actuality, the nerves/muscles still work, so the chef serve the tentacles while they're still moving.

@below: More specifically Clock-la, it's what the Western mindset has classified as wrong.

Clock-la · Jul 18, 2011 9:45 PM

It depends realy, as i said eating animals IMO is not wrong at all, and just because your eating a dog, it dos'nt suddenly mean "OMFG THERE EVIL EATING A DOG!!!!!111" i mean personaly i would'nt eat a dog, but i don't think its wrong to eat one, affter all i do eat lamb and beef, why should eating dogs be classed as been wrong?

Neotyguy40 · Jul 18, 2011 11:01 PM

Not to mention most shellfish and some crustaceans (not to mention crabs and lobsters) are all cooked alive.

And another example of animal "cruelty" is fishing. Putting a hook into a fish's mouth sounds really painful. Especially if (like most people), you just plan on releasing it anyways. However, this is very acceptable in western society.

ontels · Jul 19, 2011 10:06 AM

I don't do ither of those things, why do people find it so hard to understand that animals can feel things?

Aceedwin · Jul 19, 2011 10:25 AM

bmah wrote:

^
That's what I've been saying. So yes Aceedwin, while it may seem perfectly logical that some cultural practices that seem wrong doesn't make those practices any more acceptable, there aren't universal parameters to morality itself.
Hence, swimming fish in water-filled keychain pouches is going to get variable reception. A Western mindset (N. America, Europe) will garner a different reaction to those products than those in Asia.
Of course though, I still think there are a few things about morality that can be widely agreed upon.

Oh yes, people in other countries might have tweaked moralities to mine, and so would react differently to animal cruelty, but you seemed to give it as an excuse for the people there. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but my point is that if one has a set of morals, one should not abandon them simply because other people might disagree.

If we saw that turtle in a Western supermarket, I'm sure a good few of us would be outraged, and we'd give the staff a good tongue-lashing after we had them euthanise the turtle. That's what I'd do anyway, and it'd be wrong in an existientialist kind of way for me to go back on that simply because the staff might not see it my way.

Clock-la · Jul 19, 2011 6:08 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

Not to mention most shellfish and some crustaceans (not to mention crabs and lobsters) are all cooked alive.
And another example of animal "cruelty" is fishing. Putting a hook into a fish's mouth sounds really painful. Especially if (like most people), you just plan on releasing it anyways. However, this is very acceptable in western society.

I rest my case, anyway half of people who are vegiterians still eat fish...so there not realy vegiterians

bmah · Jul 19, 2011 6:41 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but my point is that if one has a set of morals, one should not abandon them simply because other people might disagree.
If we saw that turtle in a Western supermarket, I'm sure a good few of us would be outraged, and we'd give the staff a good tongue-lashing after we had them euthanise the turtle. That's what I'd do anyway, and it'd be wrong in an existientialist kind of way for me to go back on that simply because the staff might not see it my way.

Oh no, I'm not suggesting you to fit into their codes of morality. We have our own and we're going to stand by them. If you see it as wrong, I don't expect you to change your mind.

I'm just pointing out how people in other countries play the rules differently. It is easy to mistakenly assume that Western ideology is universal.

Swaffy · Jul 19, 2011 7:05 PM

Okay, I have come to this conclusion:

In the Chinese culture, it's okay for them to keep living [but dying] animals
in tiny little bags to be used as keychains.

Our culture should make it okay to use Chinese people as keychains.

Problem solved.

#101 Jul 17, 2011 11:14 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#102 Jul 17, 2011 11:36 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#103 Jul 18, 2011 12:58 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#104 Jul 18, 2011 1:25 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#105 Jul 18, 2011 3:28 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#106 Jul 18, 2011 3:58 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#107 Jul 18, 2011 4:45 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#108 Jul 18, 2011 8:00 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#109 Jul 18, 2011 8:55 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#110 Jul 18, 2011 10:10 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#111 Jul 18, 2011 12:14 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#112 Jul 18, 2011 1:29 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#113 Jul 18, 2011 1:55 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#114 Jul 18, 2011 1:58 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#115 Jul 18, 2011 2:07 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#116 Jul 18, 2011 5:35 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#117 Jul 18, 2011 8:28 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#118 Jul 18, 2011 9:43 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#119 Jul 18, 2011 9:45 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#120 Jul 18, 2011 11:01 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#121 Jul 19, 2011 10:06 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#122 Jul 19, 2011 10:25 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#123 Jul 19, 2011 6:08 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#124 Jul 19, 2011 6:41 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#125 Jul 19, 2011 7:05 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

Board footer