What is a valid reason not to hunt whales for meat?

[strongvoicesforward]

Sorry. I just had to post this:

Least Harm Principle

The least harm principle is flawed because if one were to choose to eat meat in order to decrease plant consumption and hence decrease harvesting acreage (i.e. meaning less field animals or forest displaced animals from dying), one would then have to increase meat consumption and production.

It takes more acreage of land to harvest for food(grain etc...) to raise animals with for a few number of people to benefit from that meat than if that plant food were to go directly to the cosumers. Value added along the lines of production causes less efficiency and therefore more energy input to create. Therefore, more land is required to raise beef and therefore more animals are killed in the fields.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Although I don't include vegetarians with vegans, because they do not moralise their eating habbits, they are so often brow-beaten by vegans to "go all the way", in order to facilitate some sort of mock-ethical goal.

I`m a vegetarian and have never been "brow beaten" by vegans I know. There are a lot of vegetarians who have become so out of moral reasons, which I have done. But I am guessing that most who do so out of moral reasons do slowly slide into becoming vegans. I am doing so.

I think very few vegans start out as vegans. Most slide along the spectrum starting at vegetarianism.

 

[Mycernius]

But, have we already evolved away from that being our optimal source of food? Remember, all carnvores create their own vitamin C. We do not.

How many times have I mentioned that we are omnivores. I never mentioned humans are carnivores. Sure we don't process vitamin C because we are not carnivores, but as I mentioned we don't process celluose very well either because we are not true vegetarians. I will say this one more time to see if we finally get it and then I will leave you to your vague arguments. Our natural diet is omnivorous, plant and meat.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

How many times have I mentioned that we are omnivores. I never mentioned humans are carnivores. Sure we don't process vitamin C because we are not carnivores, but as I mentioned we don't process celluose very well either because we are not true vegetarians. I will say this one more time to see if we finally get it and then I will leave you to your vague arguments. Our natural diet is omnivorous, plant and meat.

I havn`t said we weren`t omnivores. I stated that there are enough reasons to consider that we may not have been originally designed to eat meat, but that we evolved to do so, and that now we may already be designed or have, or are evolving into a being whose optimal diet is not one of eating meat.

Have you "finally" got it? ;-)

 

[yukio_michael]

I havn`t said we weren`t omnivores. I stated that there are enough reasons to consider that we may not have been originally designed to eat meat, but that we evolved to do so, and that now we may already be designed or have, or are evolving into a being whose optimal diet is not one of eating meat.

Have you "finally" got it? ;-)

I'm also done with this argument as well, but I just would like to point out your (and most vegans) fatal flaw--- in that people DO NOT evolve over a period of thousands of years, some vegans say, oh "well your stomach forgets how to digest meat", (as if that knowledge were lost forever), but wrong again--- Your stomach may grow acustomed to melba toast and vegetables and then yes, eating a porterhouse steak may upset it, but the same types of things happen to people who are on IV diets in the hospital, or people who are anorexic, or have been starved, they simply need to gradualy change their diets.

Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with why some people choose to eat a tofu burger in the modern age. Evolution of all species happens over a period of millions and millions of years by a process that dictates that animals who are best adapted to an environment survive, and those who are not, die out.

Lastly, evolution happens because of some action, say if a certain animal was pre-determined to run in traffic, that animal would die out--- saying that, the action of eating meat or not eating meat would dictate the 'so-called' evolution if it were even feasible to measure (which it isn't), since only 2% of the population (at best in some places) are not meat eaters, your argument actually supports eating meat for survival, as that is the predominant action, and humans are thriving.

edit: Personally I don't care WHAT people eat, just don't tell me what to eat and use a moral argument to support your statement. Thanks.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I'm also done with this argument as well, but I just would like to point out your (and most vegans) fatal flaw--- in that people DO NOT evolve over a period of thousands of years, some vegans say, oh "well your stomach forgets how to digest meat", (as if that knowledge were lost forever), but wrong again--- Your stomach may grow acustomed to melba toast and vegetables and then yes, eating a porterhouse steak may upset it, but the same types of things happen to people who are on IV diets in the hospital, or people who are anorexic, or have been starved, they simply need to gradualy change their diets.

Why are you basing your whole argument on whether we are evolving away from eating meat on the stomach? Why don`t you look at your puny stubby little canine teeth? Why don`t you take into account we cannot create our own vitamin C? How about the rather long length of our intestines?
You might want to add a little more aresenal to your counterargument.

edit: Personally I don't care WHAT people eat, just don't tell me what to eat and use a moral argument to support your statement. Thanks.

Care or desire is not based on reason -- let alone absolutely based on morals and ethics, which however you may wish decsisions of right or wrong come about, are taken into account to decide what actions should be permitted by civilized socieities.

Would the reason and logic of your construct hold up under more scrutiny? You only need change the variables to see. Look:

Personally I don't care WHAT people treat slaves like, just don't tell me what to treat my slaves like and use a moral argument to support your statement. Thanks.

You`re welcome.

 

[Clawn]

I agree with eating whale meat, as I agree with eating most meat. But, I disagree with eating the meat of a whale that is an endangered species.

 

[bossel]

Why are you basing your whole argument on whether we are evolving away from eating meat on the stomach? Why don`t you look at your puny stubby little canine teeth? Why don`t you take into account we cannot create our own vitamin C? How about the rather long length of our intestines?

What would that prove? Only that homo sapiens is omnivore, but capable of living on meat-only, mixed or non-meat diets.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

What would that prove? Only that homo sapiens is omnivore, but capable of living on meat-only, mixed or non-meat diets.

Bossel, do you have any data that show humans are capable of living on meat "only"? If I were a betting man, someone trying to do so would soon find their bodies wrecked.

Scurvey on ships during long ocean voyages in the past was not the result of just not having food or having run out of meat. It appeard due to no vitamin C, which is what is found in fruit.

What do you think would happen if you ate meat only and got no vitamin C?

Or, perhaps I am wrong on the matter -- can you get vitamin C from a meat only diet? You tell me.

Besides, I haven`t denied we were omnivores. But, I would suggest our meat intake in nature as it was when we ventured out of the trees and onto the savannahs was one of opportunity as scavengers. Sure, that probably or may have jumpstarted our bodies into adapting to eat meat even more efficiently -- but, as I stated, there are some physical characteristics which may give a hint to the possibility that we are moving physiologically towards a body more optimally built for being vegetarian.

My argument is one of movement on the spectrum -- not static on the spectrum.

 

[Revenant]

In the natural world of foods, where would one get Vitamin B12 from a strict vegetarian diet?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

In the natural world of foods, where would one get Vitamin B12 from a strict vegetarian diet?

If you mean strict vegetarian in the terms of the vegan diet, you would not be able to. I concede that you could not.

But, a vegetarian diet that still allows for milk intake would suffice. While a cow would still be oppressed for obtaining this source of B12, it would not mean that the cows life would be sacrificed as a result. Eggs obtained from free range chickens would also provide B12.

If a chicken is in a free range environment that takes into the needs of its species, cruelty would be very limited.

 

[bossel]

Bossel, do you have any data that show humans are capable of living on meat "only"? If I were a betting man, someone trying to do so would soon find their bodies wrecked.

Eskimos. They may live for months (earlier on maybe years) from meat only.

Scurvey on ships during long ocean voyages in the past was not the result of just not having food or having run out of meat. It appeard due to no vitamin C, which is what is found in fruit.

...or blood.

as I stated, there are some physical characteristics which may give a hint to the possibility that we are moving physiologically towards a body more optimally built for being vegetarian.

Which movement? For evolution you need selection, but there is virtually no selective pressure for homo sapiens anymore.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Eskimos. They may live for months (earlier on maybe years) from meat only.

And Eskimos have a lower life expectancy than others on average (I`ll have to find the source and study I had read about their high fat content and the results of that kind of diet).

Bossel, I wouldn`t deny people could live entirely off meat. Perhaps they could but I would much rather go on a vegetarian (not vegan) diet rather than a whole meat diet. The latter would probably be much more dangerous.

...or blood.[/blood]

lol. Hmmm...I would rather eat an orange and feel much sager making a decision on the texture and color of the skin as to the safeness of it, rather than wondering about the origin of the blood placed in front of me in a glass or in the meat tissue of rare food.

Question -- is the vitamin C damaged during the cooking process of the food to well done level?

I just don`t think many people would find it too appealing chomping into a blood soaked piece of meat. In today`s slaughterhouses and factory farms, one might not want to trust the many ex-convicts working there for cleanliness to such an extent to want to eat meat butchered from them.

Which movement? For evolution you need selection, but there is virtually no selective pressure for homo sapiens anymore.

Agreed. Mutations however can still impact change.

Just look at us. We are not well designed for catching our own food. We are meat eaters of opportunity -- much like scavengers. Our canines are nubs. Our back teeth are flat for grinding like all herbivores. Our intestines are quite long. We have no claws, retractable or otherwise, our fingers are soft for reaching out and grasping, we couldn`t catch many more things than a turtle, sloth, or babie animals we come upon in dens or nests. Sure, we are omnivores in the sense we can consume both. But, I would never make meat the base of my food pyramid.

As for the choice of my diet, I do so out of ethical considerations -- not one based on what my ancestors did a few few hundred thousand years ago, and definitely not just because agri-corporations have found a way to make meat so cheep that it requires animals to live miserable lives in factory farms and then savagely slaughtered for a society of gluttons.

But, as you can see this thread is getting dragged off from Valid Reasons to Hunt whales into a thread debating vegetarianism, and part of that is my fault. I will soon try to start a thread on the topic. Perhaps one already exists and I just have not seen it. I think if we want to continue this topic we should move it.

As for the time being now, I am pretty much involved in the religion discussion/debates.

 

[Sensuikan San]

And Eskimos have a lower life expectancy than others on average (I`ll have to find the source and study I had read about their high fat content and the results of that kind of diet).

Ever been up to the Far North SVF? I have.
I'm not surprised that their lfe expectancy is lower than some. Life is bloody cruel up there! Not just climate, but also so many of the historical/social issues that exist there, such as heavy drinking, drug taking, atrocious living conditions in a quasi-modern society etc. etc.
Do them a favor and go up there and show them how to grow vegetables in their backyards!

Bossel, I wouldn`t deny people could live entirely off meat. Perhaps they could but I would much rather go on a vegetarian (not vegan) diet rather than a whole meat diet. The latter would probably be much more dangerous.

What you say is quite true - but is anyone really suggesting a 100% meat diet? I think not in all seriousness.

I just don`t think many people would find it too appealing chomping into a blood soaked piece of meat.

That too is just, possibly true ... just. Personally ... I love steak tartare! So sue me!

In today`s slaughterhouses and factory farms, one might not want to trust the many ex-convicts working there for cleanliness to such an extent to want to eat meat butchered from them.

They probably wouldn't be too impressed at the criminal conditions in Chinese prisons where convicts are treated like slave labor to grow and harvest tea, or in many other countries where cheap immigrant (or cheap local) labour is exploited and (ab)used to pick cabbages, fruit, and other vegetables for ten cents on the dollar ... or wish to know about the cheap, suspect and even toxic chemicals that are daily sprayed on fruit and vegetable farms in many countries of the world, countries whose produce is imported regularly into the U.S. (Hell- they use cheap Mexican labor themselves!), Canada (Hell - so do we!), Australia, Europe - you name it!

Just look at us. We are not well designed for catching our own food. We are meat eaters of opportunity -- much like scavengers. Our canines are nubs. Our back teeth are flat for grinding like all herbivores. Our intestines are quite long. We have no claws, retractable or otherwise, our fingers are soft for reaching out and grasping, we couldn`t catch many more things than a turtle, sloth, or babie animals we come upon in dens or nests.

Well, bigfellah! That's just brilliant!
I have to give it to you - you're a campaigner! And a good one! But ... as a zoologist ..... I wouldn't give you fifty bucks a year!
How in hell do you think we got to be so high in the food chain anyway?
Homo sapiens is almost the perfect hunter!
We are naked. We sweat. We can run at 20+ miles per hour (for up to about a mile - not too bad!) We have binocular vision. We stand upright. We can climb. We can swim. We can communicate - even abstract ideas. We work in groups ... very effectively. And we have a very adaptable brain! We can make weapons: bows, slings, clubs, knives, axes ... we can chuck rocks!
We are very able hunters. that's why we're here!

Sure, we are omnivores in the sense we can consume both. But, I would never make meat the base of my food pyramid.

I don't think we do. With the exception of the peoples of the Arctic regions (for obvious reasons) that is, I submit not the case. Surely, just by looking around the world, there are two staples in the diets of most cultural groups. Grains/Rice. That's why they are called "staple" diets.

As for the choice of my diet, I do so out of ethical considerations -- not one based on what my ancestors did a few few hundred thousand years ago, and definitely not just because agri-corporations have found a way to make meat so cheep that it requires animals to live miserable lives in factory farms and then savagely slaughtered for a society of gluttons.

Good for you! And possibly a reason we should all take more into consideration.

But, as you can see this thread is getting dragged off from Valid Reasons to Hunt whales into a thread debating vegetarianism, and part of that is my fault. I will soon try to start a thread on the topic. Perhaps one already exists and I just have not seen it. I think if we want to continue this topic we should move it.
As for the time being now, I am pretty much involved in the religion discussion/debates.

OH!
... and just who the hell are you!
Are the rumours true? Are you just so damned important that you let everybody know when you've had enough of a thread .. and that's it?
You think we should move this thread? You think we should move this thread?
Your arrogance leaves me completey overawed. I bow to you.
I also will do you the favour of returning to topic.
I'm not in favor of whale hunting. They're too rare now, poor things. And plenty of synthetic products render (sic) their body parts redundant to us.
Plus - I tried the meat once, as a child just after WWII. It's all we could get without using ration coupons.
It tasted bloody awful!
ﾆ淡ﾆ停?｡ﾆ停?

 

[yukio_michael]

But, I would suggest our meat intake in nature as it was when we ventured out of the trees and onto the savannahs was one of opportunity as scavengers.

Popular theory actually suggests that we evolved most directly from fish and then landwalking fish/reptiles--- not directly from primates. I believe that was a different evolutionary path. Though I think we may have diverged from primates. I can't seem to find any complete source for this as the majority of posts when you look up evolution are all flooded by religious people trying to tell you it doesn't exist.

Also, I'm re-iterating what Sensuikan San had mentioned, one of the primary drives towards human dominance over other species was our physiological makeup, a large brain was thought necissary to evolve before bipedal movement--- Young huamns also have better learning an co-operative skills than other animals due to the nature of their brains.

I think it's obvious that humans were extremely well adapted to hunting animals which would have been quite capable of killing them otherwise. I don't think they took up the practice of hunting 'on a whim'...

The fact that you say that you are leaving this argument seems almost like you are giving up simply because nobody can see just how correct you feel your opinions are. Your modus operandi in all of these responses (and similar to many vegans) has been simply to argue moreso--- Part of reasonable discourse is sometimes conceding certain points to the other person, that is unless you simply refuse to admit you may be wrong on any of your points, in which case, you've wasted everyones time because there is absolutely no point in debating someone who will by no means concede that anything they say might possibly be wrong.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Ever been up to the Far North SVF? I have. ...
Do them a favor and go up there and show them how to grow vegetables in their backyards!

John, we can`t confirm anything about our private lives here. Why should I believe you have been to the far North? Are you going to supply me with your personal information and resume` and ways for me to confirm it? If not, then why should I take that assertion into account?

What you say is quite true - but is anyone really suggesting a 100% meat diet? I think not in all seriousness.

I think I was referring to a particular "absolute" comment made by someone above, wasn`t I? Please correct me if I am wrong and I will admit it.

That too is just, possibly true ... just. Personally ... I love steak tartare! So sue me!

lol. Just because I am a vegetarian doesn`t mean I don`t love steak. I just reframe from supporting an industry that causes paine and misery even if that means I forego some pleasure to my taste senses. I would hope that people, with our advanced conceptions of ethics, could reason that if survival did not hinge on consuming that which causes misery -- we could be strong enough to decline that activity.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Well, bigfellah! That's just brilliant!
I have to give it to you - you're a campaigner! And a good one! But ... as a zoologist ..... I wouldn't give you fifty bucks a year!

lol. Well, John -- I have no need for your "fifty bucks" so it will not be missed.

Could you please post all your personal data so we can confirm your assertion that you are a zoologist. Are you standing on your laurels or the strengths of your argument?

Homo sapiens is almost the perfect hunter!

Yes, and we are also the perfect species destroyer and environmental destroyer. Being naturally perfect at something does not mean that the behaviour which is causing misery and harm should be continued. Why do you think is should?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

... and just who the hell are you!

John, why are you asking when you are not going to post your personal information? Is your question rhettorical and just meant to hang out there with indignation?

Are the rumours true? Are you just so damned important that you let everybody know when you've had enough of a thread .. and that's it?

Believe me, John, I would love to write about many topics here on the forums. But, please grant me the courtesy that I just can`t get all the time I would like to to do so. No reason to feel slighted or ignored. Please, don`t concern yourself with my importance. I assure you I am not important to you or the forum -- as you are not to me.

You think we should move this thread? You think we should move this thread?
Your arrogance leaves me completey overawed. I bow to you.

It was just a suggestion. No need to follow it -- as there is no need to be "overawed" or "bow" to me.

 

[Sensuikan San]

John, we can`t confirm anything about our private lives here. Why should I believe you have been to the far North? Are you going to supply me with your personal information and resume` and ways for me to confirm it? If not, then why should I take that assertion into account?

Actually we can, if we so wish. It's entirely up to us, if we so choose.
I think you may find a relatively comprehensive summary of myself with just a few mouse clicks on this very forum, and the ability therein to find out even more. I have no secrets, I am quite open ... and although I use my "nom de plume" (as it were), for posting ... my own real name and even a photograph of myself are freely available should you take a few minutes to search.
As for proving to you my "assertion" that I have been to the Far North, on your demand .... that is something I confess to finding mildly offensive. I therefore ask you directly (not rhetorically) ... are you calling me a liar?
As it happens - I was in the position of having to make at least two visits to the James Bay area and to the delightful (?) settlement of Kuujuarapik in the late 1980's on Engineering business. Not the most pleasant trips of my life, but quite enlightening and most interesting. Will that do? Or would you like to do a name trace with Air Canada through Toronto, Montreal, Val D'Or and La Grande , Quebec? I'm afraid I no longer have the ticket stubs.
Conversely ... your own cloak of anonymity is complete! What can I say? By your own rationale ...should I assume that you even exist?

I think I was referring to a particular "absolute" comment made by someone above, wasn`t I? Please correct me if I am wrong and I will admit it.

Yes, you were. I stand corrected.

lol. Just because I am a vegetarian doesn`t mean I don`t love steak.

Then - stop torturing yourself, man!

I just reframe from supporting an industry that causes paine and misery even if that means I forego some pleasure to my taste senses. I would hope that people, with our advanced conceptions of ethics, could reason that if survival did not hinge on consuming that which causes misery -- we could be strong enough to decline that activity.[/FONT]

Then I would give strong consideration towards not wearing imported clothing made by child-labor in several countries of this great world of ours!

lol. Well, John -- I have no need for your "fifty bucks" so it will not be missed.

C'mon! Everybody can use an extra fifty!

Could you please post all your personal data so we can confirm your assertion that you are a zoologist. Are you standing on your laurels or the strengths of your argument?

This is where I can't be sure wether you're playing with my words, or simply misread an admittedly badly constructed sentence.
I believe I wrote: "I have to give it to you - you're a campaigner! And a good one! But ... as a zoologist ..... I wouldn't give you fifty bucks a year!"
By this - I should probably have written "If you were a zoologist - you wouldn't be worth fifty bucks a year!" (Based on your analysis of the hunting capabilities of homosapiens.)
As pointed out in my first paragraph ... my background is quite clear, and freely available to all. Any claim that I may have been trying to assert that I am what I am not is simply wrong. And pompous demands for accreditation to suit your whim .... surely, are approaching the preposterous.

... and just who the hell are you!

John, why are you asking when you are not going to post your personal information? Is your question rhettorical and just meant to hang out there with indignation?

That's a good one! Here you have not only assumed that I would not give out personal information - you haven't even bothered to find out that I already have made personal information available!
And no, the question is not rhetorical(sic) ... but again, I admit, badly put. Obviously you don't want us to know who you are, that is quite clear. For me to demand to know who you are, and to ask for your credentials, your resume, etc. etc. would be presumptuous and impertinent of me. I should have asked:
"Who the hell do you think you are?"
And what, in heaven's name, is your real agenda?
Cordially,
ﾆ淡ﾆ停?｡ﾆ停?

 

[sabro]

I eat meat, but mostly poultry and fish. Whales don't seem like a good addition to my diet and they are for the most part endangered.

The evolution argument is intriguing: Primates have canines and almost all primates are omnivores. The proportion of meat to plants is rather small, but we seem to have evolved in a line that will eat just about anything if given the chance. Also the arrangement of our sense organs- binocular vision and bilateral hearing is more common among hunters, not strict herbivores and the adaptation to be able to eat this amount of meat- given the digestive enzymes and micronutrient requirements we now have has to be a recent development. I'm sure this proves nothing, but it is interesting.

Raising animals for meat does consume an inordinate amount of fresh water and agricultural produce. You could reasonably raise the world's food and water supply by cutting back on meat production or eliminating it entirely. (Then the population would swell and we would all die of starvation and disease all over again.)

I would one day like a steak or a burger. Not today. But one day when my stomach isn't busy.

I know who I am. I don't hide- and all my information is there. My screen name is my first name. Foster is my last and I live in Arrowbear, CA. I love visitors. On issues of zoology and evolution I will defer to the actual zoologist as I am merely a high school administrator.

 

[bossel]

And Eskimos have a lower life expectancy than others on average (I`ll have to find the source and study I had read about their high fat content and the results of that kind of diet).

Sorry, but the current low life expectancy of Eskimos is probably mostly due to civilisation "advances": smoking, drinking, etc. I don't know about their earlier life expectancy, but if it was lower than in industrial nations, that's only to be expected: counts for pretty much all traditional (primitive if you like) societies.
Their traditional nutrition was actually pretty well adapted to their environment (regarding fat & such). What's more, in research done in the 70's it was found that Greenland Eskimos had the best results for elevated blood lipids (don't know if that's the correct translation of German Blutfett). They virtually didn't have any cardiovascular disease.

Bossel, I wouldn`t deny people could live entirely off meat.

Earlier on in this thread you didn't seem quite so convinced.

Perhaps they could but I would much rather go on a vegetarian (not vegan) diet rather than a whole meat diet. The latter would probably be much more dangerous.

Nope, it always depends.

Question -- is the vitamin C damaged during the cooking process of the food to well done level?

Don't know. Eskimos regularly ate (a lot still do so, I think) raw meat. Massai still drink blood mixed with milk.

Just look at us. We are not well designed for catching our own food. We are meat eaters of opportunity -- much like scavengers.

Even if humans started as scavengers, that doesn't say anything about their original meat intake. Mind you, there are species living almost entirely of carrion.

Our canines are nubs.

Never understood this argument. Have you ever looked at Gorilla canines?

Also the arrangement of our sense organs- binocular vision and bilateral hearing is more common among hunters,

Actually, the eyes more probably adapted to life in trees rather than hunting.

 

[Sensuikan San]

Just for everybody's information ...

Just one small note to everybody ...
"Eskimo" is not really the correct term for the people under discussion.
While it is in no way as offensive as the "N" word ... we should really be referring to them as "Inuit" or "the Inuit people".
Sorry to be (for once) so politically correct! But I think it's fair to point out.
As you were, dudes, carry on ... !
ﾆ淡ﾆ停?｡ﾆ停?

 

[bossel]

Nah, I prefer Eskimos because I grew up with it. Anyway, Inuit is discriminating.

It implies that they are human & I am not. BTW, I don't see, why Eskimo should be considered inappropriate.

 

[Sensuikan San]

LOL! Yeah, I know what you mean ...!
ﾆ淡ﾆ停?｡ﾆ停?

 

[Mycernius]

Just to add to the fact that humans are excellent hunters. I think I mentioned it on another thread, but I might as well repeat myself. Humans have one very good hunting technique that is still used by some African tribes, and that is walking its prey to death. Two legs is a more efficient form of locomotion than four legs as it uses less energy. A human can follow large four legged prey in africa and the prey will constantly try to stay ahead. As it is using more energy and the fact it is in a heightened state of anxiety it wears the animal down until it can either go no further, making it easy for a human to kill it with his bear hands, or just drops dead of exhaustion. Our teeth maybe small compared to most carnivores, but they are still able to tear raw meat and our fingers are nimble enough to purchase weak area and rip them apart.