Does the world need to regulate whaling

Australian Federal, State and Local Politics
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Post Reply
User avatar
boxy
Posts: 6748
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:59 pm

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Post by boxy » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:19 pm

mantra wrote:How many animals suffer a slow and agonising death to make tofu?
Plenty of rodents are poisoned to protect the tofu. Do you know how rat bait works? It's worse than a harpoon.
mantra wrote:The anti whaling mob believe the Sea Shepherd acted rationally and courageously
Then they are ignorant fools. The Sea Shepherd project is built exclusively on lying and intimidation.
"But you will run your fluffy bunny mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."

User avatar
mantra
Posts: 9132
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:45 am

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Post by mantra » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:23 pm

boxy wrote:[
mantra wrote:The anti whaling mob believe the Sea Shepherd acted rationally and courageously
Then they are ignorant fools. The Sea Shepherd project is built exclusively on lying and intimidation.
Then they are on a par with the Japanese government and our politicians. To those who believed the Sea Shepherd played dirty - what do you say about the ploys used by the Japanese whalers and the lies told to us by our ineffectual and gutless governments - past and current?

Outlaw Yogi

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Post by Outlaw Yogi » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:53 pm

mantra wrote:
freediver wrote:
If the whales are needed for food - fine, but the Japanese don't need them.
They don't need tofu either. Is that a good excuse for banning it?
How many animals suffer a slow and agonising death to make tofu?
If starvation is considered a slow and agonising death, it would depend on how much forest is cleared to plant soy bean crops.
Animal rights veg nazis claim the Amazon forests are cleared for the sake of McDonald's (and the like) hamburger patties.
Once upon a time that was true, but for over a decade now, the vast majority of Amazon forests cleared is soley for growing soy beans.

Soy beans are good for 2 things, 1 is putting nitrogen into soil, and the other is for poisoning undesirable creatures.
For example in SE Qld the Fire Ant Erradification program uses corn kernels soaked in soy oil to sterylise the pests, and soy flour (an additive in most breads these days) has been used as an effective poison for rabbits and possums in NZ since 1993.

User avatar
mantra
Posts: 9132
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:45 am

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Post by mantra » Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:10 pm

Outlaw Yogi wrote:If starvation is considered a slow and agonising death, it would depend on how much forest is cleared to plant soy bean crops.
Animal rights veg nazis claim the Amazon forests are cleared for the sake of McDonald's (and the like) hamburger patties.
Once upon a time that was true, but for over a decade now, the vast majority of Amazon forests cleared is soley for growing soy beans.

Soy beans are good for 2 things, 1 is putting nitrogen into soil, and the other is for poisoning undesirable creatures.
For example in SE Qld the Fire Ant Erradification program uses corn kernels soaked in soy oil to sterylise the pests, and soy flour (an additive in most breads these days) has been used as an effective poison for rabbits and possums in NZ since 1993.
I hate soy - not only is the taste disgusting, but the health benefits are exaggerated, if not false altogether. If they use soy oil to sterilise pests and flour as poison for small animals - what's soy doing to us?

Obviously no matter what food products we consume - animals suffer as a result of it, but it's easier to see a rat die from poisoning than it is a whale die from a harpoon.
Contrary to popular belief that soy is a health food, evidence reveals that soy consumption has been linked to numerous disorders, including infertility, increased cancer and infantile leukemia, Type1 diabetes, and precocious puberty in children fed soy formula. Hundreds of epidemiological, clinical and laboratory studies link soy to malnutrition, digestive distress, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, reproductive disorders, cognitive, immune system breakdown, and even heart disease and cancer.

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/soy.htm#a

User avatar
HIGHERBEAM
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:51 pm

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Post by HIGHERBEAM » Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:31 pm

mantra wrote:
United States of America are hypocritical to say to Japan to stop whaling yet allow their own people to hunt whale as they are traditional rights to hunt whale,so the traditions of Japan should be allowed to follow the lead of America and hunt whale the traditional way.
I didn't even know that the US still hunted whales.
It is so important to the Makah, that in 1855 when the Makah ceded thousands of acres of land to the government of the United States, they explicitly reserved their right to whale within the Treaty of Neah Bay.
Will the Board survive under this Admin? Yes

Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes.
Confucius


ut operor nos ban monachus

Outlaw Yogi

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Post by Outlaw Yogi » Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:38 pm

mantra wrote:
I hate soy - not only is the taste disgusting, but the health benefits are exaggerated, if not false altogether.
IMO the so called health benefits are all false.
mantra wrote: If they use soy oil to sterilise pests and flour as poison for small animals - what's soy doing to us?
Depends on sensitivity of the individual. For many it just reduces fertility, but for many others it causes sexual and reproductive dysfunction, a range of illnesses and cancers ... stomach cancer, cervical cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, advanced sexual developement of girls, retarded sexual and mental developement of boys, penis deformities in male newborns, thyroid dysfunction, pancreatic disfunction ... the list goes on and on.

User avatar
freediver
Posts: 3487
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Post by freediver » Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:49 pm

Outlaw Yogi wrote:
freediver wrote:The risk of parasitic infection depends on how closely related or how similar the biology of the animal is. That is why pig is so dangerous and must be thoroughly cooked (and why so many religions ban it), whereas fish can be safely eaten raw, if it is fresh.
According to Qld Dept of Primary Industries and Fisheries, it is unsafe to eat Ciguatera infected fish raw or cooked, as cooking does not kill the toxins produced by the parasite, and Ciguatera infected fish are quite common.

On the topic of eating raw fish per se, and the plethora of fish parasites in existence, the wiki reckons ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_disea ... g_raw_fish
Though not a health concern in thoroughly cooked fish, parasites are a concern when human consumers eat raw or lightly preserved fish such as sashimi, sushi, ceviche, and gravlax. The popularity of such raw fish dishes makes it important for consumers to be aware of this risk. Raw fish should be frozen to an internal temperature of −20°C (−4°F) for at least 7 days to kill parasites. It is important to be aware that home freezers may not be cold enough to kill parasites.[42][43]
Fish diseases and parasites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_disea ... _parasites
You left out the bit where they put it in perspective:

Traditionally, fish that live all or part of their lives in fresh water were considered unsuitable for sashimi due to the possibility of parasites (see Sashimi article). Parasitic infections from freshwater fish are a serious problem in some parts of the world, particularly Southeast Asia. Fish that spend part of their life cycle in brackish or freshwater, like salmon are a particular problem. A study in Seattle, Washington showed that 100% of wild salmon had roundworm larvae capable of infecting people. In the same study farm raised salmon did not have any roundworm larvae.[44]

Parasite infection by raw fish is rare in the developed world (fewer than 40[37] cases per year in the U.S.), and involves mainly three kinds of parasites: Clonorchis sinensis (a trematode/fluke), Anisakis (a nematode/roundworm) and Diphyllobothrium (a cestode/tapeworm).[37] Infection risk of anisakis is particularly higher in fishes which may live in a river such as salmon (shake) in Salmonidae, mackerel (saba). Such parasite infections can generally be avoided by boiling, burning, preserving in salt or vinegar, or freezing overnight. Even Japanese people never eat raw salmon and ikura, and even if they seem raw, these foods are not raw but are frozen overnight to prevent infections from parasites, particularly anisakis.

Outlaw Yogi

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Post by Outlaw Yogi » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:34 pm

Not out of perspective at all, but I reckon you claims were very much so. I took it for granted we were mainly concerned with salt water fish. While it seems fresh water fish pose far greater risk, it doesn't alter the fact heaps of salt water fish also carry dangerous parasites, and so not as you originally claimed, safe to eat raw if fresh.... unless as stated frozen to -20 degrees C for 7 days ... which you failed to mention.

Personally I like Flathead and shark, but restrict my shark consumption due to murcury accumulation.
Salmon and tuna are also said to be potentially high in murcury, but my salmon consumption is really only restricted by the price/cost, and my tuna consumption is zero because I don't like it.... catfood.

User avatar
freediver
Posts: 3487
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Post by freediver » Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:16 pm

How many animals suffer a slow and agonising death to make tofu?
Far more than for whale meat. That is why some animal welfare groups turned up to anti whaling meatings and distributed pamphlets encouraging people to eat whale instead of other food like chicken.
The anti whaling mob believe the Sea Shepherd acted rationally and courageously
There is a fine line between courage and stupidity. Sea Shepherd have managed to make it a distant one. In any case, the fact that Sea Shepherd does something is no indication of what is right or wrong.
Those who were against the actions of the Sea Shepherd would be a minority.
You sure about that? Even Greenpeace is against them. In any case, even if they had majority support that is no substitute for a rational argument.
Minke whales are still classified as endangered.
Wrong. Unless you are talking about ignorant hippies doing the classification.
Half the global population is overfed - the other half underfed, yet it is the gluttons who slaughter animals for sport - not food.
Minkes are not slaughtered for sport.

User avatar
IQS.RLOW
Posts: 19345
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:15 pm
Location: Quote Aussie: nigger

Re: Does the world need to regulate whaling

Post by IQS.RLOW » Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:48 pm

Wrong. Unless you are talking about ignorant hippies doing the classification.
Minkes are not slaughtered for sport.
Mantra is either a liar or an ignoramus on a mightily consistent basis.
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and just assume she is fucking stupid
Quote by Aussie: I was a long term dead beat, wife abusing, drunk, black Muslim, on the dole for decades prison escapee having been convicted of paedophilia

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests