Sea Shepherd Launches Operation Reef Defense Campaign in Hawaii

I have no idea how this thread transitioned from the Sea Shepherd and ecoterrorism to vegan-ness, but let's get back on track.
 
Because the plant vs animal thing at least has debatable concepts. :lmao:

There is at least something to ground in fact. The Sea Shepherd thing ends with the basic concept that they are nut jobs. Hyper-moralists who believe anyone who disagrees with them is evil. slapshot and Riona can disagree with each other, but they still believe the other person has a right to exist. Sea Shepherd has indicated in the past that they consider hurting, or even putting a person's life in danger, is an act of non-violent protest. Basically Sea Shepherd feels it is okay to hurt anyone who is doing an act they disagree with.


Personally, I don't care where my food comes from. But I don't disagree with other people caring. I don't disagree with people who feel it is wrong to eat animals. I disagree with people who think they are being morally superior because they feel a certain way. That is the problem with Sea Shepherd and the other moral activists. They don't come up with arguments for why they feel the way they do. They simply define their own morality and then demand the world bend to conform to it. The animal vs plant thing (wasn't really trying to start a debate there, but at least it stayed civil) is the perfect example of how these things should be. People who argue their viewpoint but don't instantly right off the other side as being evil. Sea Shepherd's own language makes this type of thing impossible. Anyone in the pet trade is instantly evil to them and not worth listening too. Just like anyone on a Japanese whaling vessel is evil, so they can justify putting those people's lives in danger as an act of "non-violence". And then they hide behind their "non-violent" ways when the other side responds. They call it aggressive and cry about how the other side is putting lives in danger. They are quite clearly insane.
 
Before we get back to the fish, I would like to reiterate this:
mcginnisandrew said:
Also for the purpose of simplicity I did not mention all of the ecological and moral costs of producing vegetarian food. Recognize that I only pointed out that meat production has hundreds MORE costs associated with it than plant production, for the sole reason that you must first produce plants (and a great deal of them) in order to produce meat. I don't believe that I assumed that producing plants doesn't have its own costs, and if my statements led you to believe that I made that assumption, then please forgive me for not being more explicit.
.
Click to expand...



slapshot said:
I am mearly pointing out that you are choosing a false choice. Yes, animals suffer for us to eat meat. But there is another side. OK, for example, the grass the cow eats that you keep bringing up as being so ecologically costly also provides oxygen to our environment and many other good things while it is there. The very cow you are discussing would not even know life, as it would not be here were it not for meat production. What of the millions of animals that live in their environment?

When the cow eats he does not kill thousands of animals that feel pain in the way you think they do. I have no illusions, a slaughter house is a very unpleasant place no doubt. But neither is a wheat bin. Trust me I have seen them. I just want you to see the hypocracy in your argument. You choose to believe a plant feels no pain, you choose to ignore the pain and death harvesting plants causes yet make a moral judgement about people who eat meat for the very same choice. That's all. Recognize that the meatless choice is not necessarily a morally superior one. You are free to eat what you chose, and I admire you choice, but it is not morally superior. Something dies for us to live, and it isn't pretty. We get the honor and the pain of choosing what that is.
Click to expand...

I don't know what source you get your meat from, but most of the animals grown for food in the united states are raised on grain (not grass) and are raised and slaughtered in extremely inhumane ways. Thousands waste away from disease before finally dying a miserable death on feed lots and "farms". So no, most meat production is not as humane as you make it out to be in the united states. Also since most livestock is raised on grain, by consuming that livestock you have already caused ALL of the problems associated producing that grain, and all of the death that goes along with it (e.g. animals getting torn up in grain hoppers). As i stated before, I am not under the delusion that producing plants for food has no moral costs (like the death of an animal, or the destruction of an ecosystem), but i do know that a diet consisting of meat will almost always cause more death of sentient animals than a plant based diet (at least in the united states, with the way our food system is). Of course there may be some exceptions (such as a person that only eats livestock rasied on grass and killed in "humane" ways versus a person who eats grain grown from large commercial farms).
That said, you have already assumed that the source of my food is large commercial farms when in fact i grow some of my own food and much of the rest is locally sourced from smaller organic farms, which i like to think don't cause as MUCH harm to living animals as do large commercial farms.

Some other points: the enormous dead zone in the gulf (and many others all over the world) is caused by nutrient runoff from feedlots and large commercial farms. Yes, a system where cows are raised on grass may be more ecologically sound, but that is not how most of our food system works. Also I don't like the argument that we are doing these animals "good" by bringing them life. They would not have to suffer through life in the way we have forced them to if we didn't raise so many of them.

Essentially all I am saying is that, no matter how you look at it, as long as a diet consists of meat, it can cause more ecological and moral harm than a diet consisting of only plants (even though this isn't always true).
 
Essentially all I am saying is that, no matter how you look at it, as long as a diet consists of meat, it can cause more ecological and moral harm than a diet consisting of only plants (even though this isn't always true).
Click to expand...

As does a life utilizing indoor plumbing, electricity, modern transportation, computers, the internet, and your fish tank. You may choose to feel morally superior for your food choices but it does not negate the hypocrisy of your argument when applied to your existence.

Can we please get back on topic.
 
mcginnisandrew said:
Before we get back to the fish, I would like to reiterate this:






I don't know what source you get your meat from, but most of the animals grown for food in the united states are raised on grain (not grass) and are raised and slaughtered in extremely inhumane ways. Thousands waste away from disease before finally dying a miserable death on feed lots and "farms". So no, most meat production is not as humane as you make it out to be in the united states. Also since most livestock is raised on grain, by consuming that livestock you have already caused ALL of the problems associated producing that grain, and all of the death that goes along with it (e.g. animals getting torn up in grain hoppers). As i stated before, I am not under the delusion that producing plants for food has no moral costs (like the death of an animal, or the destruction of an ecosystem), but i do know that a diet consisting of meat will almost always cause more death of sentient animals than a plant based diet (at least in the united states, with the way our food system is). Of course there may be some exceptions (such as a person that only eats livestock rasied on grass and killed in "humane" ways versus a person who eats grain grown from large commercial farms).
That said, you have already assumed that the source of my food is large commercial farms when in fact i grow some of my own food and much of the rest is locally sourced from smaller organic farms, which i like to think don't cause as MUCH harm to living animals as do large commercial farms.

Some other points: the enormous dead zone in the gulf (and many others all over the world) is caused by nutrient runoff from feedlots and large commercial farms. Yes, a system where cows are raised on grass may be more ecologically sound, but that is not how most of our food system works. Also I don't like the argument that we are doing these animals "good" by bringing them life. They would not have to suffer through life in the way we have forced them to if we didn't raise so many of them.

Essentially all I am saying is that, no matter how you look at it, as long as a diet consists of meat, it can cause more ecological and moral harm than a diet consisting of only plants (even though this isn't always true).
Click to expand...

I will end our little discussion by just simply telling you you are not entirely wrong but you are far from right. Most if not all cattle are fed by pasture for the great majority of their lives. They are "finished" in the feed lot for a few weeks to maybe two months. It simply is not be economical to feed grain their entire life. The feed lots while not spacious are not what chicken endure by any means. The sick animals you are talking about is not the "norm," not even close. Those are a product of our dairy industry and are not even used for human consumption. I understand and agree with your emotions. I don't agree with putting one form of life over the other to make myself "feel good"

I have seen these processes first hand....have you? First hand, not some video made who knows where, who knows when. Seriously, I admit you are right on most of your points and even conceded the slaughter house is no place to be if you did not have to. You are simply wrong thinking switching our society from meat to plant would even begin to stop pollution, it would in fact increase it. That it would end cruel death of other animals, it would not. I will state my point as clear as I can. Eating anything kills and destroys another life. It is sad, even unthinkable, but you hold no moral ground to me than a meat eater. I have seen first hand the death and know the truth. You clearly have not. Lastly, you are assuming I eat meat.
 
A rambling: A typical late-night discussion on board the now-useless Sea Shepherd:

"Hey brah, pass the bong...OK, I have a question for you:
If you saw Al Gore harpooning a whale, would you:
A) Ignore it in deference to Al's climate change film?
B) Politely ask him to stop?
C) Harpoon him?

OK, OK, I got a better one:
Would you kill a person to save a whale's life? What if it was your own mother? Would you kill your mother to save a whale's life?"

I bet they one-up each other on the force of their will to save the whales...
 
All this talk about meat and veggies is making me hungry.... Im going to go snack on some acropora branches.... Oh yah what about The GREAT Sea Shepard show, and that is what it is a show.... Poor one at that too. The Whales have lost there ratings lets move onto coral trade.
 
Wow Sea Shepard what a bunch of BS! I guess the funds are running out, so they had to come up with a new scheme!
 
Personal witness may be compelling in some ways but it certainly isn't enough to make generalizations about the entire food system. Go look up "CAFO". There is a reason these things are not easily accessible. There simply isn't enough space to produce all of the meat this country consumes by giving each cow all of the grazing space that it would need to feed istelf. That is why we have these highly intensive food growing systems (which are not sustainable). Any college level class in ecology or environmental studies will clearly lay this out.
Go read something by Peter Singer (Animal Liberation, maybe). He spells out my argument very clearly.

I don't understand how it makes any sense that directly eating animals somehow kills an equal number of animals as directly eating plants. Your logic does not follow. Even if you measure this by "number of animals killed" or "amount of biomass consumed", a vegetarian diet is lower in both counts. I do agree that plants hold tremendous moral value as well (this is something you seem to believe), but even so, if you believe an animal holds the same value as a plant, eating a meat based diet causes the death of more living things than a plant based diet. This is extremely basic to ecology. Vegetarians are lower on "the food chain". Look up the 10% rule. Understand that more and more organisms are required to sustain life as you move up trophic levels.

I haven't even gotten into intrinsic value of plant life. But essentially a plant based diet is the "best" way to cause the least amount of death of living organisms.

I don't deny that there are many aspects of my life that are immoral or can be perceived as immoral. I am not claiming moral superiority to anybody. I am making a utilitarian argument; we ought to strive to do the least amount of harm possible if we have the means to.

I'm sorry if i have come across as arrogant or hateful, I am simply trying to explain my logic. Obviously we are not going to come to a consensus so lets agree to disagree.

lastly, slapshot, i'm curious. If you don't mind me asking, Do you eat meat? It won't change anything I have already said, I am simply curious.

Jerpa, in order to help us get back on to the topic of complaining about the Sea Sheperds, I'll offer this: We ought to strive to minimize our negative impact on the oceans wherever possible. There may be "some" truth to their claims that our hobby does damage to the oceans, but taking the position of "well commercial fishing is worse" isn't going to help. A better defense is to either show the benefits we have brought to the ocean/world (in conservation, aquaculture, etc), or to work towards even MORE sustainable practices. There is always room for improvement.
 
Last edited:
mcginnisandrew said:
slapshot I "assume there is no pain" because if a plant were to experience pain in the way I understand pain to be, I would expect it to react in a way similar to how I react to pain (and also have a nervous system capable of processing that pain). So yes I guess I am biased towards what I recognize to be pain. That said, I have a great deal of respect for all life. I do in fact believe that moral consideration goes beyond sentience (i.e. the ability to suffer and experience pleasure as humans understand it). Meaning that other things besides sentient animals have value in their own right. You are right, i can't know what exactly a plant "feels" but there is a good amount of evidence that plants do not "feel" in the same way that humans and most animals do. Of course, I prefer to do as little harm as possible, but that still requires that i harm some life, and I understand that.

Plants don't have a nervous system and don't(at my present awareness) have any way to consciously feel or experience things, so as far as I am concerned, they don't feel pain. Even if they do feel pain, i recognize that I am not perfect, and would need to survive by causing them pain. Causing animals pain in the form of slaughtering them to actively fulfill our desire for meat, on the other hand, is entirely unnecessary. We can survive without causing animals such immense pain and suffering. Since we know that animals can suffer, by killing them you are admitting that you believe that your interest in eating their flesh is more morally important than their interest in experiencing pleasure and not experiencing pain (and as far as we know, they experience pain on the same level that we as humans do). As Peter Singer would say, once you understand this you are showing a bias for your own species (unless of course you also eat human flesh) that is akin to racism. I on the other hand, am not, because as far as I am concerned plants do not feel pain.


Also for the purpose of simplicity I did not mention all of the ecological and moral costs of producing vegetarian food. Recognize that I only pointed out that meat production has hundreds MORE costs associated with it than plant production, for the sole reason that you must first produce plants (and a great deal of them) in order to produce meat. I don't believe that I assumed that producing plants doesn't have its own costs, and if my statements led you to believe that I made that assumption, then please forgive me for not being more explicit.

Hope that makes sense. I don't intend to call anyone immoral or claim that I am somehow "better" than anybody. I only intend to point out my logic.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with we shall agree to disagree statement.

I do wonder how this statement can even begin to make any sense when discussing eating meat vs. plants. There is a huge difference between racism and "œshowing a bias for your own species". This bias is found throughout the animal kingdom and from your points you seem to believe that we are part of nature instead of being excluded from it due to technology like some.

It sounds like Peter Singer is confusing racism with altrusim because I am concerned about the welfare of my family in regards to diet. Yes I do care about my family much more than I do other people too. I suppose the question must be asked is why do we eat meat? Is it because bacon tastes good? Yes. Is it because it allowed our ancestors to have more free time and got us out of caves? Yes. Is it because our teeth have different shapes and the amount of enamel we have is much less compared to a herbivore? Yes.

You keep stating that this should not be a moral issue yet you keep making points that it should be considered one.

Lastly one area that many fail when trying to convince others of their point of view is they alienate others at the beginning and then devote their remaining energy on trying to get their audience on board.

Even if Singer was 100% correct I have a very hard giving him the time for a moment's thought to his side of the argument because according to him, because I show bias towards my own species and therefore I am a racist.

Few people would consider being called a racist acceptable especially when one does not think that way.

For example if you think about it the SS has made a "œmoral" choice to save the reefs. I bet if we took a poll and asked the question, "œIs saving the environment/reefs important to you?" we would get a majority response of yes and on RC we would probably get 95+%. But if we asked the question, "œDo you support the tactics of the SS and other similar organizations to save the environment/reefs?" I bet the percentages would be much lower. The ultimate goal is the same but why the difference?

Some would argue that they have taken a moral and ethical purpose and twisted it around for their own gain and therefore their ultimate goal is not to save anything but to make a name for themselves and to increase their bank accounts.

To this day I don't understand how they were never sunk and the Japanese did not put their military on these ships and claim they thought terrorists were trying to gain access therefore they had to use force to protect the citizens. FYI I am against whaling 100% and think that is is total bs that whaling countries conduct "œscientificstudies" on whale populations by taking.

Yes life is all about moral choices but I don't need someone telling me that according to their views my choices are wrong and I am immoral because of that.

Why would I?
 
rlpardue said:
LOL, read this excerpt. It's discussing why the sea shepherd folks don't care about sustainability:

"œSustainability ignores the ethical issue," Wintner responds. And that's when I get it.

Debating whether or not the marine aquarium fishery is sustainable is not an option with Wintner because he doesn't agree to use the accepted language of fisheries management when it comes to marine aquarium fishes. For him, this is not about sustainability"”it is about morality. As our conversation continues, Wintner won't even discuss the marine aquarium fishery as a fishery.

"œWe don't use the "˜f word," he says, referring to fishing. "œThis isn't fishing. Fishing is about sustenance. This is wildlife trafficking for the pet trade, and people shouldn't keep wild animals. This is a crime against nature being committed in Hawaii," he says. "œI am here because I have a relationship with fish"¦It's a moral issue."
Click to expand...


I hope that idiot gets eaten by a Kraken.
 
AMG go to the lounge and argue veganess, stop trying to hijack a thread to talk about something unrelated to the hobby.

While we are here tho, open your mouth. Stick your finger in. Feel those sharp points? They are for meat. Feel those flat grinding stone areas? Those are for plants.

If you still dont understand. Bite your damn fingers off and stop arguing on forums
 
This isn't the forum for debating vegan/etc etc. Let's move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AquariumFisheries
New publication out on Florida's marine aquarium fishery
Replies
1
Views
522
shred5
shred5
AquariumFisheries
TAKE ACTION on Hawaii's Aquarium Fishery
Replies
1
Views
526
AquariumFisheries
AquariumFisheries
Oceanavekid
Back in the hobby Red Sea Max E 260 build
Replies
5
Views
578
Oceanavekid
Oceanavekid
Reef Kinetics
Maintaining Optimal Nutrient Levels in Your Reef Aquarium
Replies
0
Views
184
Reef Kinetics
Reef Kinetics
L
Red sea Reef Mat in a trigger sump?
Replies
0
Views
488
little_fish
L
Back
Top