What's new

Japan, please stop whale hunting!

Xtina

後輩
26 Oct 2004
1
0
11
Why do Japan cannot stop whale hunting??? What if our beautiful whale extinct!!! Why do Japan people eat whale meat??



As you Can see, Japan is increasing their whale hunt!!! :?
This is really sad since thay don't know that whale are a really good creature and people are still killing them! Don't they have a heart? :?

_40168166_minke203-1.jpg


Poor Minke whale!!!

The Japanese whalers aiming to harpoon 150 minke whales, 50 sei whales, 50 Bryde's whales and 10 sperm whales. They have already killed 440 minke whales in a recent hunt in the Southern Ocean sanctuary!!! :(

Japan also kills 20,000 dolphins!!! :(



Do you know Dolphin is a really good friend and they have amazing healing powers? Here, Nick from BSB kiss a dolphin.(Or maybe it's the dolphin!)



Japan claimed that they hunt whale for reseacrh. They are only using a weak reasosn to continue whale hunting, just beacuse they want to eat whale!!!

They said Minke whale eat too much fish that human have none. This is not true!! Minke whale don't eat fish!!! They are suspension feeders, they eat krills!

Plus whale meat not hood for you health at all.

So Remeber if you want to



Do not eat whale meat too!!!
 
I invite you to read some of the other threads in this section. Seeing how controversial this topic is, more debate is always welcome.




PS- Whale meat actually tastes pretty good. (Just my opinion!)
 
i think i tried whale meat once. it wasn't too bad. but i'm not a fan of killing more whales than need to be killed, so i think i'll pass on it next time.

Xtina, how is killing whales any different for killing cows? or pigs? or sheep, or tuna, or chicken, kangaroo? you seem very passionate about the whale issue, but not the others.
 
Why do Japan people eat whale meat??

I just happened to talked to one of my older neighbors about this today. He's an older gentleman (in his mid-70s) and has lived in Wakayama all his life. Taiji, the celebrated place of Japan's best known whale and dolphin hunts, is in the southern end of the prefecture. When I asked him about whale meat, he told me as a child he used to eat it every week. Why? At the time, whale meat was cheap and readily available. Today, eating whale meat for him is hardly an issue. Given how expensive and rare it is now, he might eat it only once or twice a year. I don't think it's my neighbor's intention to cruelly wipe out a cetacean species, but it doesn't change the facts. What should we do about it? Increased education would help raise awareness, but this also raises another touchy issue, cultural relativsim. How do we go about it? By telling a bunch of senior citizens that eating whale once and awhile is a cardinal sin? Again, as it's been raised on these boards before, how do you go into someone else's culture and tell them what's right and wrong? If you have to, do it very carefully and respectfully.

Personally, I see too many things wrong in my own culture that stand for correction before I see the need to correct other's. But this is a global issue that affects us all. Where do we draw the line?
 
okaeri_man said:
Xtina, how is killing whales any different for killing cows? or pigs? or sheep, or tuna, or chicken, kangaroo? you seem very passionate about the whale issue, but not the others.
Well of course it is different to all of those, in various different ways.

cows, pigs, sheep, chicken
Biggest difference is that these are all raised commercially to be killed for food and none of them are in danger of extinction.

I think kangaroo meat is generally taken from kangaroos culled from 'over populated' areas.

tuna is probably the best comparison as fish stocks often reach threateningly low levels. The biggest difference here is the aspects of relative intelligence and cruelty of the way they are caught and killed.
 
Poor whales... :(
I have never tasted whale - and would NEVER like to due to obvious reasons: against whale-hunting.

I like this picture Xtina:
 
PaulTB said:
Well of course it is different to all of those, in various different ways.

cows, pigs, sheep, chicken
Biggest difference is that these are all raised commercially to be killed for food and none of them are in danger of extinction.

I think kangaroo meat is generally taken from kangaroos culled from 'over populated' areas.

tuna is probably the best comparison as fish stocks often reach threateningly low levels. The biggest difference here is the aspects of relative intelligence and cruelty of the way they are caught and killed.
you realise all these reasons would make a vegetarian shake their head in disbelief and/or make them want to throw something at you...

killing commercially raised animals is ok since they're not in danger of extinction? and yet in your tuna argument you say it's ok since it's not as cruel. well not that i've been in a cage too small to walk in and pumped full of drugs to make me unnaturally fat, but i'm sure the factory grown chickens are having the times of their lives.

ok to kill kangaroos in 'over populated' areas...? yep, i'm sure that was exactly what the september 11 terrorists thought when they killed off a few new yorkers. too many people in new york, nobody will care if we kill a few.

the issue of intelligence always gets the vegetarians stirring. "if something is dumb then it's ok to kill it." well, let's hope you all pass your exams everyone, otherwise you will be killed for being stupid. not to mention all those disabled people as well, they're not helping the human race. bloody retards, kill them all.

well i'm not a vegetarian, but my friend is vegan and i have to put with this stuff quite often.
 
Ha! Sounds like your vegan friend is doing a good job of teaching you how to think as opposed to just imitating everybody else in society who are sitting down to their dinner slicing up dead animals and thinking it is all right.

If the majority of people had to watch an animal being slaughtered so they could eat it we would have far more vegetarians and I daresay vegans than we have now.

So we really do need slaughterhouses with glass walls to solve this problem of ignoring/ignorance.

I love Xtina's plea to Japan to stop whaling - so much heart in her. The photo of Nick "kissing" the dolphin is so beautiful. Thanks for sharing. I wish more people inside Japan felt like her but it doesn't look like it from what I have been reading.
 
earthangel said:
If the majority of people had to watch an animal being slaughtered so they could eat it we would have far more vegetarians and I daresay vegans than we have now.
Well, the majority of people in past centuries saw (if not doing it themselves) animals being slaughtered for food. They didn't have much of a doubt to eat the meat afterwards. It's usually just this overly romanticised view of "nature" in the West nowadays that leads people to "empathise" with slaughtered animals.
 
With due regard for the subject of whale protection, let us all pause here for a moment to consider one simple and important animal group, the fish.
70% of the major fish reserve in the seas have been hunted and consumed by us humans.
It's time to push the standards of mild vegetarianism to include the fish stock on our "eat with moderation" list.
Besides, the tuna you are getting have more mercury than a century ago.
Live and let live!
Kill the vegetables, not the fish!
Fish have feelings, too!
Please read Uncle Frank's "Do fish have personalities?" thread. :gohan:Aquarium Fish Owners ???
 
I'm an omnivore, dammnit.

Eating something to extinction = bad idea.
Not eating something because you pity it = personal ideology.
 
Another view could be that some of the human race is actually spiritually evolving beyond anthropocentric views - and is having compassion not just for other people in our family, our country, our earth but all species.

As Albert Schweitzer so beautifully phrased it:
Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace. (more of his sayings at History of Vegetarianism - Dr Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) )

He was not the only great thinker who was an ethical vegetarian. Read more here:-

International Vegetarian Union - Famous Vegetarians and International Vegetarian Union - Museum of Vegetarianism
International Vegetarian Union - Quotations and Poetry - Food Choices

Even modern celebrities are now outspoken against meat eating

http://www.famousveggie.com/peoplenew.cfm (and see quotes there too)
http://www.ivu.org/hkvegan/gb/famous.html

Since Japan is a predominantly Buddhist country, perhaps it would be good to follow the Buddha's injunctions?

The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion.
Mahaparinirvana (Buddhist)
 
mad pierrot said:
Did you know siddhartha died from eating a bad piece of pork?

:p
Uhmmmm...really?
What shocking news! 🍜
I went a buddhist junior high school for three years, and that's not what I heard. According to the reverand the story goes;

One day, Siddhartha Buddha received several pieces of rice-cake (in my lanugage, Korean, that was the word...we didn't have the lesson in Pali.) collected for alms that day. But upon finishing his meal, felt some discomfort. His digestive condition grew worse and he eventually died.

So it probably wasn't bad pork (unless as a side dish) that did it. Hmmm...but you never know; the enlightened ones (acording to the Mahayana school) don't necessarily have to deny anything per se. Still Siddharta came before Dharma....

Well what follows is even more interesting. He knew that his deciples would miss him greatly, so he promises them. "If you feel really desperate to see me as I leave, then I will give you a sign to show that I know you."

And at the funeral, the disciples wept bitterly, and guess what? Siddhartha's two feet appeared on the side of his coffin which calmed the disciples greatly. So even to this day, if you go to a Buddhist temple, you will often find the symbol of great compassion; Siddhartha's two feet! :)
 
Last edited:
@lexico

I guess it's up for debate. (The version I heard came from some profs in America and a couple of Mongolians.)

I did a quick search and found THIS.

The idea then that Buddha died of eating pork is
wholly absent from the Chinese Canon, and can never
have entered the head of any Far Eastern Buddhist
till the Pali scriptures began to be studied at the
end of the 19th century.

Some other random thoughts on the buddha's death:

mesenteric infarction?

even more over-analysis

There seems to be a TON of stuff on this floating around the net....

:p
 
earthangel said:
Another view could be that some of the human race is actually spiritually evolving beyond anthropocentric views - and is having compassion not just for other people in our family, our country, our earth but all species.
But your compassion does not go out to the common cauliflower? Shame on you! It's alive, too. :p

I don't see why it should be convincing anyone to try vegetarianism just because some celebs do.
 
I'm working on it, Mad Pierrot.

mad pierrot said:
I guess it's up for debate. (The version I heard came from some profs in America and a couple of Mongolians.)
I did a quick search and found THIS.
Some other random thoughts on the buddha's death:
mesenteric infarction?
even more over-analysis
There seems to be a TON of stuff on this floating around the net....
:p
My hats off to you, Mad Pierrot!
I got a free ride again after the Hoshi no ouji; I read your first two links (identical) with much interest, and as for the third, I'm savoring it, biting off one chunk at a time.

I did a quick check on your point about vegetarianism.
My next door neighbor is a devout Buddhist, and she tells me verbatim;

"As for Buddha dying from eating pork, I doubt it.
But it should be known that abstaining from eating meat is not entirely correct.
If the meat was already prepared, a monk can eat it and be fine with the regulations, which states that as long as the monk does not actively engage in the slaughter, or witnesses the slaughter, eating meat is permissilbe."

So the common impression, which I also shared, that the Mahayana school strictly prohibits meat without exception turned out to be false.

It appears that the Buddhist's main concern is the agony of death rather than the death itself. It is agony in the sense that just before death, when the intention of murderous thought becomes evident, and that thought is put into action, there is no merciful thought, no sense of coexistence, no communal bond, but only the absolute separation between sole and isolated beings. Have you heard of cows and calves shedding tears, and sheep bleating before the slaughter house?

Why is it so harmful to the monk or Buddhist? It is the perception of another's pain and isolation that becomes the cause of his/her own agony. Because humans are intelligent beings, the hurt is transmitted by empathy. Whether someone is empathic or not is really not the issue. It just happens by having the senses.

As for a proper response, let me first finish the reading, and properly arrange the ideas in perpective. :haihai:
 
It appears that the Buddhist's main concern is the agony of death rather than the death itself. It is agony in the sense that just before death, when the intention of murderous thought becomes evident, and that thought is put into action, there is no merciful thought, no sense of coexistence, no communal bond, but only the absolute separation between sole and isolated beings. Have you heard of cows and calves shedding tears, and sheep bleating before the slaughter house?

I understand, and can definately sympathize! As for my original comment, I only meant it to be taken lightly. Honestly, I don't think the Buddha's cause of death is really that important. His philosophy should be our main concern.

:sorry:
 
Was the Pork Legend Missing in the Sankrit/Tibetan Canon or Purged?

mad pierrot said:
I understand, and can definately sympathize! As for my original comment, I only meant it to be taken lightly. Honestly, I don't think the Buddha's cause of death is really that important. His philosophy should be our main concern.
I appreciate you sympathy for the beasts. And no worries, just some things that I realized after taking an interest. I do believe it was the whales, then the fish, and then Syakamuni Buddha and the pork. We should be ready to track back when we have adequately discussed the pork legend, and its significance to Buddhism in general. It's light, and it's serious at the same time. But learning and thinking about new things that I wasn't aware of is quite valuable.
mad pierrot said:
The version I heard came from some ......a couple of Mongolians.
I failed to notice this piece of information last time.
As far as I recall the Mongolian canon Ganjur derives from the Tibetan canon, again from the Sanskrit original. The pork legend missing in the Chinese Tripitaka could have been due to its omission in the Sanskrit original and hence in the Tibetan translations of it.

But the fact that Mongolian lamas (or lay Buddhists ?) were aware of the pork legend could mean that the legend may have been from a lost/suppressed Sanskrit/Tibetan text that we do not have any more.
Do you have any information or thoughts in that line?
 
Last edited:
Vegetariarism

mad pierrot said:
I'm an omnivore, dammnit.

Eating something to extinction = bad idea.
Not eating something because you pity it = personal ideology.

I agree with you. Humans are an omnivore. Despite what various vegetarian people will say, we need meat to gain all the protein in our diet. The only plant that can give all the proteins is Soya, which is why a lot of fake meat is made from it. Even our closest living relatives, chimps, will activily hunt and eat monkeys. The point I am trying to make is that as humans we have the ability to choose what we eat because we have the wide choice of diet to be able to do this. Our caveman ancestors didn't have the choice and ate what was available, and put anybody in a survival situation they would eat meat, if the diet was limited.
To much meat is bad for you, but then again too much of anything is bad for you.
Some people say that meat is murder. Just remember Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian
'There are three types of vegetarian
1. Those who don't eat meat because of ethical or personal reason. Fair enough
2. Those who don't eat meat because they've seen the movie Babe
3. Those who don't eat meat, except for Fish and Chicken...'
-Jack Dee

'Hardcore vegans. Won't drive through town with the word Ham in it...'
-Bill Bailey
 
Specifically on Cannibalsim...

Mycernius said:
Even our closest living relatives, chimps, will activily hunt and eat monkeys. The point I am trying to make is that as humans we have the ability to choose what we eat because we have the wide choice of diet to be able to do this. Our caveman ancestors didn't have the choice and ate what was available, and put anybody in a survival situation they would eat meat, if the diet was limited.
Chimpanzee cannibalism is news to me. Do you happen to have a source?

I've read about Pekin Man (Zhoukoudian variety of homo sapiens) practicing cannibalism, but that has been discredited. These relatives of Neanderthal man are also known to have practiced burial rites of red coloring for religious reasons and to give flowers to the dead.

The known anthropological cases of cannibalism were all temporary, such as in a war situation or in extreme cases of prolonged food shortage. The Australian/New Zealand cases of Kuru, an early precursor of modern mad cow disease, were casused by cannibalism of the brain matter by close family members, but this was a modern development arising from prolonged hunger.

We have seen such isolated cases in many instances of extreme hunger; China during the Great Leap Forward, the air crash survivors in the Andes, and historical documents of China, Korea, and Japan all record cannibalism in times of extended famine. But never as a stable and long-term source of diet.

What I am trying to say is that due to the mysterious connection of brain matter consumption and BSE type neural diseases, cannibalism could not have been a steady food source. Which makes me doubt the validity of long tern "chimpanzee cannibalism."

But if the chimps are indeed long-term cannibalistic and have immunity to BSE-type diseases, then chimps may hold a key to solving the BSE mystery.
 
lexico said:
Chimpanzee cannibalism is news to me. Do you happen to have a source?
What Mycernius said was "chimps, will activily hunt and eat monkeys." Cannibalism would mean chimps eating chimps, not monkeys (chimpanzees are apes, BTW).
Cannibalism among chimps also occurs occasionally, but hunting monkeys for meat is quite common. Usually the males are the hunters, but the prey is divided among the group (though not equally to all individuals) afterwards.

What also occurs among chimps is a kind of border warfare. Small groups of chimpanzees patrol the borders of their territory, whenever they encounter single individuals of a neighbouring group they attack & try to kill.

If you want to know more:
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html


Edit:
BTW, human cannibalism was probably not as rare as you seem to think:
Cannibalism Normal For Early Humans?

Quote:
"Genetic markers commonly found in modern humans all over the world could be evidence that our earliest ancestors were cannibals, according to new research. Scientists suggest that even today many of us carry a gene that evolved as protection against brain diseases that can be spread by eating human flesh."
 
As far as I recall the Mongolian canon Ganjur derives from the Tibetan canon, again from the Sanskrit original. The pork legend missing in the Chinese Tripitaka could have been due to its omission in the Sanskrit original and hence in the Tibetan translations of it.
But the fact that Mongolian lamas (or lay Buddhists ?) were aware of the pork legend could mean that the legend may have been from a lost/suppressed Sanskrit/Tibetan text that we do not have any more.
Do you have any information or thoughts in that line?

Yes, as far as I can also recall, Mongolian Buddhism is derived from Tibetan Buddhism. As for reasons to why they mentioned the Buddha ate pork, I have no idea!

:p

I do know that Buddhism in Mongolia has suffered a great deal this past century. Most unfortunately, Communist radicals very nearly wiped out its existence in the early 1930's, resulting in a massive loss of life and knowledge.

Check this quick link History

A friend of mine, Mark, runs a cultural restoration project in Mongolia and Nepal. Check out his website HERE.
 
bossel said:
What Mycernius said was "chimps, will activily hunt and eat monkeys." Cannibalism would mean chimps eating chimps, not monkeys (chimpanzees are apes, BTW).
Cannibalism among chimps also occurs occasionally, but hunting monkeys for meat is quite common. Usually the males are the hunters, but the prey is divided among the group (though not equally to all individuals) afterwards.

What also occurs among chimps is a kind of border warfare. Small groups of chimpanzees patrol the borders of their territory, whenever they encounter single individuals of a neighbouring group they attack & try to kill.

If you want to know more:
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html
Thanks, Bossel for the link and pointing out my loose reading again.😌
If chimpanzees only engage in the seasonal hunting and the consumption of the Colobus monkeys, and not cannibalistic practices, then my question for Mycernius is void. But in a way you've answered my question. Thanks. 👍
bossel said:
Edit:
BTW, human cannibalism was probably not as rare as you seem to think:
Cannibalism Normal For Early Humans?

Quote:
"Genetic markers commonly found in modern humans all over the world could be evidence that our earliest ancestors were cannibals, according to new research. Scientists suggest that even today many of us carry a gene that evolved as protection against brain diseases that can be spread by eating human flesh."
This part is interesting because the April 11, 2003, National Geographics News article you quoted (on an Sceince contributor Simon Mead, a co-author of the study Cannibalism Normal For Early Humans? from the Medical Research Center with University College, London) is based on only one theory (the older one presented by Stanley Prusiner) of pathogenesis of the Creuztfeldt-Jakob Disease/Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy aka Mad Cow Disease.

It is significant to note that Prusiner himself had afterwards announced that the presence of the malformed protein prion is only one effect of the disease, not the pathogen itself.

Although the National Geographics News article is aimed at the general public, its use of such loose a statement as 'CJD is inherited through the transmission of genetic material' (paraphrase) is ample cause to doubt its scientific seriousness.

When the relationship between CJD and prion is all but sketchy, any scientific research based on this weak assumption that they are indeed related in a causal realtionship becomes controversial, and hence the thesis based on malformed prion inducing gene analysis loses ground as supporting evicence of widespead cannibalistic practices in our species in the past.

Nevetheless I reserve making a firm statement until I've had a good read of Tim White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley, an expert on the study of human cannibalism, who said "the genetic link to cannibalism 'is permissible given the wide body of evidence for prehistoric human cannibalism.'" I just happen to doubt the validity of the gentic link assumed as a valid support of his theory.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom