Hero Hayden Wanted in Japan

[Roxie]

Heroes' Hayden Panettiere Speaks Out About Animal Activism

Friday, November 9, 2007
Last updated 12:00 a.m. PT

By MARY MURPHY
TV GUIDE
What looked like a scene from a Hollywood thriller turned out to be a real-life episode in the life of teenage Heroes' star Hayden Panettiere. There she was in tears and putting her life in danger last month as she surfed the waters off the coast of Japan trying to stop the slaughter of dolphins with a group of activists called Sea Shepherd. (See news story (http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-News-Blog/Todays-News/Emotional-Heroes-Star/800026415).)

"I risked my life," Panettiere told TV Guide. "A lot of people in this world will say they are involved in causes and organizations, but they don't actually do something. It was a great feeling to be there physically, making a difference."

In the video of the event, which is now making the Internet rounds (watch it here (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=843_1193927344)), the attacks on pilot whales by Japanese fishermen are so violent that the ocean water turns into a red sea. "It is hard for me to look at," Panettiere says. "I wasn't concerned about risking my life at the moment. The resulting footage created such tremendous awareness, it made it all worth it."

Panettiere and the other activists tried to form a barrier between the fishermen and the dolphins. They were in the area working on a documentary called Secret Dolphin Cove, which will be in theaters next summer. Some of the footage from them event was so bloody that it could not be shown on television.

"For the future I am going to continue to be involved and active until the problem is solved," Panettiere says. "The response has been incredible. By virtue of television, the Internet and word of mouth, it has gotten to the eyes and ears of people who would never have known about the problem otherwise."
Now there's a warrant out for her arrest.

Hayden joined a Save the Whales group on 30th October to confront Japanese fisherman over a dolphin hunt. The Heroes star was almost stabbed by fishing hooks aimed at the group but says “I’d do it again. Very possibly, might do it again.”

She told E! News yesterday: “I [have] learned that I have an arrest warrant out for me in Japan because of what I did for Save the Whales.”

“Obviously this issue has generated defensive behavior on the part of both the Japanese Authorities and Fishermen. I have grown up hearing – and adhering to - this phrase: ‘condemnation without investigation dooms one to everlasting ignorance.’”

“We must unite as a world to solve our increasing international environmental crises. We can no longer hide behinid out-dated, senseless cultural traditions and lazy, bad habits that are resulting in the annihilation of our planet’s resources and the extinction of our species.”

She added that there is a possibility that she could face jail over the incident “but I doubt it… I guess they could come here and get us, but probably not.”

“[But] I was very excited that people were interested in what we did. In [Hollywood], you tend to only get publicity for not wearing underwear or going to rehab.”

[rl*united]

If there`s market for dolphin meat and a government quota for hunting dolphins then snipping nets ain`t gonna do much good. Good for them for getting the problem the publicity it needs.

But as I said you either educate the byers on how horrible it is to kill dolphins for meat or you start a law suit against the government. Unless she can do one of those sobbing movie-star girl ain`t gonna move me.

Cause frankly the world doesn`t run on people with strong emotions. If you for whatever reason fail to convince people that you`re right then your opinion ain`t worth the time.

I also think the fishermen are in their right to protect their source of income. They`re the last who should get attacked at if there`s a good market for the product they`re producing.

[SlickWilly440]

I really don't see the problem with slaughtering whales and dolphins. It's just like slaughtering cattle. Those protesters are just getting in the way of those hard working fisher man who depend on the job to earn an honest living. Besides they are getting killed as means of consumption, not some type of sport.

I bet that chick on Hero's is going to get written off the show next season for pulling a stunt like that and ruining the reputation of the show.

I hope she gets put in jail and gets gang banged by a bunch of middle aged Japanese men.

I have eaten both dolphin and whale before and I've got to say they tastes way better then any steak that I've ever eaten, and the high price is well worth it.

As long as the dolphins and whales aren't hunted to the point of extinction, I don't care.

(The above does not express the true thoughts and opinions of SlickWilly440, but are used as a means to start debate and controversy.)

[rl*united]

I really don't see the problem with slaughtering whales and dolphins. It's just like slaughtering cattle. Those protesters are just getting in the way of those hard working fisher man who depend on the job to earn an honest living. Besides they are getting killed as means of consumption, not some type of sport.

I bet that chick on Hero's is going to get written off the show next season for pulling a stunt like that and ruining the reputation of the show.

I hope she gets put in jail and gets gang banged by a bunch of middle aged Japanese men.

I have eaten both dolphin and whale before and I've got to say they tastes way better then any steak that I've ever eaten, and the high price is well worth it.

(The above does not express the true thoughts and opinions of SlickWilly440, but are used as a means to start debate and controversy.)

(A person to my taste.) But you still suck as a human being.

It`s subjective to say which species should be killed for food or whatever other reason and which shouldn`t. Hunting deer for meat of course is allowed but there are strict quotas and high prices paid on every bullet shot kill or no kill. Organised hunting is paid by the bullet and the kills. First you pay a hefty tax for every shot you take and then you pay for every animal you kill.

It`s reasonable to say dolphins shouldn`t be available on the mass market as a delicacy because that`s not much different than using cheetahs for clothing. You can use a cow hide to make a leather jacket. You can also use tuna to make a decent meal.

It`s all about how far are you willing to go to indulge yourself.

[Chuckles]

Only reason anyone gives a shit is because dolphins are cute.

[rl*united]

Only reason anyone gives a shit is because dolphins are cute.

So true. But it`s mostly because they`re believed to be highly intelligent and they also have sex for pleasure much like us. ;)

People often call hypocrisy on pursuing the murdering of one kind of animal or another but truth is if you want to make a difference you have to start somewhere.

[SlickWilly440]

Well here in the U.S. the only conditions to hunt deer are: have to be the right season, have a hunting permit, have a gun license, and you can go out and kill as many deer as you want within the legal limit.

If you want to hunt the illegal way, you can hunt out of season, and just drive you truck around until the see a deer, get out, and start shooting away.

Well some country who's main religion is Hinduism could say America is evil because we kill so many cows and eat them. And they could also start some protest agains killing cows.

Only reason anyone gives a shit is because dolphins are cute.

Yeah those activists just pick and choose which animals shouldn't be kill just because they have some similarities to us humans. They should be focused on saving the cockroach, because they are so cute, sweet, and soft to the touch; and these exterminators and killing them off by the thousands.

(The above does not express the true thoughts and opinions of SlickWilly440, but are used as a means to start debate and controversy.)

[Citizen]

I don't have much of an opinion on this either way, as I don't care about dolphins and whales being slaughtered, but also wouldn't mind seeing it stopped. I just like how much spin was put into that article.

(The above does not express the true thoughts and opinions of SlickWilly440, but are used as a means to start debate and controversy.)

That's really stupid.

[Roxie]

Yeah. I looked through a few articles in Google News, but damn if they weren't all bias heavy. I think this is mostly b/c they were all entertainment news sites. I couldn't seem to find a news news site reporting on it. Which is kinda awesome.

[Black Dog]

I hope she gets put in jail and gets gang banged by a bunch of middle aged Japanese men.

But......Japanese men have small penis, so small penis. what can they do with such small penis ?

My Mom's childhood friend got ganged raped by five Black guys in prison.

cattle and Dolphins are different. Cattle is raised to be slaughtered, Dolphins are not. In our culture they are not viewed as a food source. Hence, the negative reaction. Canadians like to club baby seals. Like or not, in this world the strong eat the weak.

She is an idiot and should use ways to get her message arcross, but maybe she become martyer!

[Karthak]

Only reason anyone gives a shit is because dolphins are cute.
Have you seen the way they kill whales and dolphins? It's not like the way cattle are slaughtered(at least not like how we do it in finnish farms). Cows are given a headshot, instant death, while whales die slowly and painfully. Also, dolphins and whales are individuals and sentient. Killing one is committing murder in my opinion.

Oh, and to those japanese fishermen who say that trying to stop this brutal mass murder is an attack on japanese culture: Fuck japanese culture. In the arse.

And I present to you this image of a murdered dolphin:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bottlenoseconvulsion.jpg

They slit it's throat and let it bleed to death. What kind of mindless fucking savages do that?

[MEGA SATAN 3000]

Also, dolphins and whales are sentient.

Evidence?

[Chuckles]

Cattle aren't sentient? Each cow isn't an individual? You make it sound like they don't have any opinion at all on whether or not they are killed. I guess all animals that don't show human-like behavior are just mindless drones that have brains incapable of processing any thought not related to eating and fucking.

The reality of it is that we all have been groomed to have ideas on what is ok to eat and what isn't. Her being self-righteous and interfering with a fisherman's livelihood when his society (and many others around the world) don't mind it is stupid, I wish he had harpooned her.

If she wanted to change whether or not it was legal to hunt them, trying to screw with hunters isn't the way to go about it. Being the stereotypical westerner that goes overseas and tries to force everyone to adapt to their mores doesn't help either. The cowboy "I don't think it's right so you should stop it because I said so" mentality is why 9/11 happened. Her basically saying that she doesn't give a shit about the laws and culture of another country (hell... continent) certainly doesn't help her gain any sympathy points.

[Micah the Great]

Also, dolphins and whales are individuals and sentient. Killing one is committing murder in my opinion.

lolwut?

[Swede]

Cattle aren't sentient? Each cow isn't an individual? You make it sound like they don't have any opinion at all on whether or not they are killed. I guess all animals that don't show human-like behavior are just mindless drones that have brains incapable of processing any thought not related to eating and fucking.

The reality of it is that we all have been groomed to have ideas on what is ok to eat and what isn't. Her being self-righteous and interfering with a fisherman's livelihood when his society (and many others around the world) don't mind it is stupid, I wish he had harpooned her.

If she wanted to change whether or not it was legal to hunt them, trying to screw with hunters isn't the way to go about it. Being the stereotypical westerner that goes overseas and tries to force everyone to adapt to their mores doesn't help either. The cowboy "I don't think it's right so you should stop it because I said so" mentality is why 9/11 happened. Her basically saying that she doesn't give a shit about the laws and culture of another country (hell... continent) certainly doesn't help her gain any sympathy points.


End of thread.:clap:

[PopCulturePooka]

SlickWilly, stop trolling the thread.

While Karthaks sentient comment is dumb, his comment about ways of slaughter are correct.

The other big argument against whaling and dolphining is that the meats are unpopular and under consumed in Japan. To the point where the meat is being stockpiled en masse in warehouses.

[PiccoloNamek]

I guess all animals that don't show human-like behavior are just mindless drones that have brains incapable of processing any thought not related to eating and fucking.

Pretty much. If sentient in this context is actually taken to mean "sapient", that is, self-aware, then most animals are not. They are aware of their bodies and sensory input, but they are not aware of their awareness, so to speak.

Comparing cattle to dolphins (or rather, certain types of dolphins) is, in my opinion, flawed. A dolphin's brain is far more advanced than a cow's brain, and they are far superior from a cognitive standpoint. There is evidence that they may very well be self-aware beings, or at least extremely close to it. (Self-aware meaning not only aware of sensory impressions, but aware of the fact that they exist.)

The jury is still out on whether or not dolphins are truly sapient, but if they are indeed, then in my opinion killing them is certainly murder.

Pooka also makes a good point about dolphin and whale meats. Almost nobody likes the stuff! When it comes right down to it, all of these animals (many of them already endangered) are being killed solely in the name of "culture" and "tradition".

Here are some references concerning dolphin intelligence research:

http://planet-hawaii.com/earthtrust/delbook.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002433B-A643-1C5E-B882809EC588ED9F
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/10/5937.pdf
http://www.jhu.edu/~newslett/05-3-01/Science/2.html
http://tursiops.org/dolfin/guide/smart.html

I thought this was very interesting and also a little amusing:

Dolphin researcher Pieter Arend Folkens tells this story: "Since trash can be dangerous to dolphins if ingested, some of the animals at Marine World Africa USA were trained to retrieve the trash and return it to the trainer for a reinforcement reward.

"A trainer would come out onto the floating stage and a dolphin would perform a tail stand with a piece of trash in its mouth. The trainer would then reward the dolphin with a bit of fish.

"One day the lead trainer went through the routine only to notice that the dolphin kept coming back with a piece of trash even though the tank appeared clean. The trainer asked a colleague to go below to the engineer's port to observe what the dolphin was doing when a trainer came out on the float. The trainer came out on the float and sure enough, the dolphin quickly showed up with a piece of trash and got his reward.

"The scam was revealed! This dolphin had established a savings account of sorts. He collected all the trash and stuffed it in a bag wedged in a corner of the tank near the intake of the filtering system. In there was paper, rope, and all sorts of trash. The amazing thing is that when he went to the bank he did not simply take a piece, rather he would tear a bit off to maximize the return.

"This behavior is particularly interesting because it shows that the dolphin had a sense of the future and delayed gratification. He had enough presence to realize that a big piece of trash got the same reward as a small piece, so why not deliver only small pieces to keep the extra food coming? He in effect had trained the humans."

[Excel-2008]

Plants are as much living things as animals and killing them in lieu of animals for sustenance is hypocrisy as far as I'm concerned. That's all I have to say about this kind of thing.

[rl*united]

Actually if a cow can choose from two equally big heaps of grass it shows it`s pretty aware of itself.

The application of free will is something that requires not only motor functions and reflex chains but some kind of intelligence. If you think of it this way there are distinguished parts of the brain that function to control different processes. For example the spinal cord, cerebellum, bridge and middle brain are known to control all motor and reflectory functions as well as all automated bodily functions, the innervation of internal organs etc...

So for what you are saying the central brain lobes are left completely empty and devoid of function. Tell me how do you explain that?

Anyhow you can`t claim that animals don`t feel pain or greef because they aren`t aware of themselves. Even if their brains are underdeveloped compared to us they still posses all the structures that make up our brains. The fact that even as it is we can`t define what exactly in the physiology of our brains makes us sentient and aware of awareness itself doesn`t support your claims too.


Plants are as much living things as animals and killing them in lieu of animals for sustenance is hypocrisy as far as I'm concerned. That's all I have to say about this kind of thing.

A slow painful death from malnutrition. Feel free to do it. Heck post picks while you`re at it.

[Noel]

I would've thought the major difference between dolphins and cattle is that dolphins are not bred. These are wild dolphins and hunting them will affect the ecosystem. I know there are supposedly UN limits on how many you can hunt, but am I wrong in thinking that the fishermen do not really give a damn?

Cause frankly the world doesn`t run on people with strong emotions.

It absolutely does. The most passionate people fight for what they believe in and they get their way. All the individuals who changed the world felt very strongly about their cause.

[Swede]

In any case, what she did was stupid. If you are against the hunting of dolphins, protest, fight to get laws changed, etc. Don't be a dumb bitch and go cutting up some nets interfering with some guy who's just trying to make a living. Its stuff like this that slows down these types of movements more than anything else.

[SlickWilly440]

SlickWilly, stop trolling the thread.

Okay I will stop, out of respect for the moderators.

P.S. I had wiki what the word "trolling" meant.

[jindojim]

No, but the world does run on law and orderly conduct. What she has done is gone over to another country, broken their laws because she thinks fighting for a "noble cause" grants her immunity, and conducted herself in an entirely inappropriate and disorderly manner. She may be passionate about what she believes in, but she will definitely NOT get her way via this route. All she did is end up inconveniencing people trying to work. And, in addition, when someone ignores another country's customs and laws and tries to impose their own, that's pretty much how wars get started. If she really wants to get whaling banned, she needs to go about that respectfully and through the proper channels.

I don't think trying to arrest her will help though, since it seems a bit too harsh for a silly teenager. They should probably just remind her that being an actress on a TV show doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

[Roxie]

Hayden's not JUST a t.v. actress! She was in "Bring it On Revolutions Omnibus"!

[MurphBurger]

that made me lol

[SlickWilly440]

Hayden's not JUST a t.v. actress! She was in "Bring it On Revolutions Omnibus"!

She was also in that movie: "Remember the Titians." Remember the white coaches' little blond headed daughter? That's here!

[jindojim]

She was also in that movie: "Remember the Titians." Remember the white coaches' little blond headed daughter? That's here!
So she was in a porn movie...:watson: Hmm...that makes me want to take her more seriously as an actress...

[Saitou Hajime]

They should probably just remind her that being an actress on a TV show doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

Yeah, because everyone else that did it as well were TV stars huh?

[Kyletherealninja]

As long as animals eat each other, I'm going to keep eating animals. Man was not made to live on plants alone.

That being said, killing dolphins does seem a bit uneccessary, and I suspect there are more human ways of doing it.

[SlickWilly440]

She was also in that movie: "Remember the Titians." Remember the white coaches' little blond headed daughter? That's here!So she was in a porn movie...:watson: Hmm...that makes me want to take her more seriously as an actress...

Okay, I made a spelling mistake. It's called "Remember the Titans"

[jindojim]

Yeah, because everyone else that did it as well were TV stars huh?
No, but no one cares what they do in the first place.

[MNJetter]

Just to remind people, that thing about slitting the dolphins' throats is technically illegal. Or at least, according to the thread dedicated to it last year. There are videos out showcasing the horrible, cruel deaths of dolphins being slaughtered in Japan, but most of them are more than 10 years old.

[Digital Masta]

I think another issue is that with cows we breed them and then eat them so we always make more cows. As far as I know people don't do that with dolphins or whales so eventually they could just end up gone.

[MNJetter]

There are a lot of carnivores out there in nature, and they don't raise their prey in captivity either. If you keep an eye on the population numbers and make sure to enforce laws after something goes endangered, there shouldn't be too much of a risk of eating something to extinction. The reason we raise cattle is because we eat so much beef that if we hunted them, we would hunt them to extinction. But we don't eat enough dolphin to endanger them simply for that reason.

[Jetsetlemming]

Going out and fucking with the fishermen, who, popularity of the meat or your personal feelings on all the cute little fishies aside, are still there for their livelihood, rather than any sort of actual useful protest or effort to get laws changed rather than just fucking with the little guy, is bad.

So is wishing the protester who acts like this gets raped, and I hope someone hits you very hard in the face in the near future, willy.

[mawande]

Does she really have an arrest warrant out on her? Because that sounds fictional.

[Karthak]

Being the stereotypical westerner that goes overseas and tries to force everyone to adapt to their mores doesn't help either. The cowboy "I don't think it's right so you should stop it because I said so" mentality is why 9/11 happened. Her basically saying that she doesn't give a shit about the laws and culture of another country (hell... continent) certainly doesn't help her gain any sympathy points.

Please, westerners aren't the only ones who do this. Wasn't it exactly that the japanese did before and during world war 2? Go and force people to submit to japanese "inherent superiority"?

[MNJetter]

Just because westerners weren't the only ones to do it doesn't make it right. Chuckles made no mention of the Japanese being free of historical guilt for doing stuff like this. Just said that Americans did/do it....which is true.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Anyone who says that what she did isn't likely to have an effect is pretty short-sighted.

Yes, her actions will not cause the Japanese government to immediately change policies. However, her actions will bring the attention of millions of people to what's going on, and that has a chance of changing how things are done by Japan if there is enough outrage and foreign pressure.

A problem, no matter how severe, is going to be ignored by the powers that be so long as it isn't visible by enough people. Bringing the attention of people to a problem is a way of raising support and pushing for change, and will likely have a far far FAR greater effect than of her becoming a Japanese citizen and voting for it.

[rl*united]

Please, westerners aren't the only ones who do this. Wasn't it exactly that the japanese did before and during world war 2? Go and force people to submit to japanese "inherent superiority"?

That was the personal death wish of the period militaristic elite. Even the emperor was more of a pose figure compared to generals and their ideas for Japanese supremacy. Ordinary Japanese citizens had better things to do with their lives like building beautiful wooden houses and stylish gardens and arranging the flower pots based on the general energy background of the room. Anyhow they`ve never been a threat to anyone with their local wars until westerners landed the place.

[MNJetter]

That was the personal death wish of the period militaristic elite. Even the emperor was more of a pose figure compared to generals and their ideas for Japanese supremacy. Ordinary Japanese citizens had better things to do with their lives like building beautiful wooden houses and stylish gardens and arranging the flower pots based on the general energy background of the room. Anyhow they`ve never been a threat to anyone with their local wars until westerners landed the place.
The actions might have been military, but the idea of Japanese as the superior race was pervasive, and continues to this day in the minds of a lot of "ordinary Japanese citizens."

If you're going to talk of action and not mindset as being the indicator of ethnocentrism, then most Americans aren't guilty of it either. You shouldn't hold a double standard, you know.

[Roxie]

Does she really have an arrest warrant out on her? Because that sounds fictional.
It's true.

[MNJetter]

I wonder if they're going to stop airing Heroes in Japan because of this. I wouldn't put it past the government to do something like that. And they waited so long before finally starting to air it this year, too.

[japanat]

Have you seen the way they kill whales and dolphins? It's not like the way cattle are slaughtered(at least not like how we do it in finnish farms). Cows are given a headshot, instant death, while whales die slowly and painfully. ... ...They slit it's throat and let it bleed to death. What kind of mindless fucking savages do that?People who eat kosher and people who eat according to the laws of the Koran. Many religions emphasize killing the sacrificial animal by slitting its throat and allowing it to bleed out.

Do you eat fish? Do you kill the fish as soon as you pull it out of the water? Do you think the fishermen do? Nope. They leave them flopping around on deck or in the hold until they asphyxiate.

I don't like the killing of the dolphins, and many Japanese object to the killing of the dolphins, too. There are reports on Japanese TV every year when it happens. But the fishermen feel that they are just getting rid of pests who reduce their catches, and eat or sell the meat rather than let it rot.

[amg]

http://vonnegutsasshole.blogspot.com/2007/01/dolphins-rapists-of-sea.html

On dolphins and feminism.

[MNJetter]

What does gang-rape have to do with feminism? o.O

Or am I just not reading far enough down the page?

[ミュー]

She should be extradited. Taking a stand and breaking the law are two different concepts. I don't agree or disagree with fishing of any sort, but to keep a tradesman from doing his or her job is not a 'kind' thing. To support the rights of a beast while disregarding those of your fellow man is despicable.

[Roxie]

extradited? really?

They didn't achieve their goal. The fisherman got their dolphin.

[RandomPasserby]

People who eat kosher and people who eat according to the laws of the Koran. Many religions emphasize killing the sacrificial animal by slitting its throat and allowing it to bleed out.

Do you eat fish? Do you kill the fish as soon as you pull it out of the water? Do you think the fishermen do? Nope. They leave them flopping around on deck or in the hold until they asphyxiate.

I don't like the killing of the dolphins, and many Japanese object to the killing of the dolphins, too. There are reports on Japanese TV every year when it happens. But the fishermen feel that they are just getting rid of pests who reduce their catches, and eat or sell the meat rather than let it rot.
Kosher&Halal butchering are illegal here in Karthak's land. Also comparing dolphins and whales to fishes is a worse analogy than comparing puppies and babies.

[Chrome Newfie]

Canadians like to club baby seals.
Excuse me? :bored:

She is an idiot and should use ways to get her message arcross, but maybe she become martyer!
Apparently she's not the only one.

[Shishio]

Anyone who says that what she did isn't likely to have an effect is pretty short-sighted.

Yes, her actions will not cause the Japanese government to immediately change policies. However, her actions will bring the attention of millions of people to what's going on, and that has a chance of changing how things are done by Japan if there is enough outrage and foreign pressure.

A problem, no matter how severe, is going to be ignored by the powers that be so long as it isn't visible by enough people. Bringing the attention of people to a problem is a way of raising support and pushing for change, and will likely have a far far FAR greater effect than of her becoming a Japanese citizen and voting for it.

I concur 100%.

People who eat kosher and people who eat according to the laws of the Koran. Many religions emphasize killing the sacrificial animal by slitting its throat and allowing it to bleed out.

That doesn't make it OK. I probably wouldn't go so far as to call them mindless fucking savages, but personally, I think using religion to justify animal torture is pretty fucking stupid.

Not that I'm trying to call you stupid. You strike me as an intelligent person, and I'm sure you're just trying to give Karthak some perspective, not justify animal torture. But still, I felt compelled to say something.

Anyways.

I don't like the idea of killing dolphins either, but I cannot argue with the people who would say that this is just some bleeding heart bullshit because I identify with dolphins on a subcoscious level. Because I'm sure they're 100% right.

So personally, I wouldn't try to stop people from killing dolphins unless dolphins were endangered. I think it's stupid to tell people to place animals above themselves. We have needs that must be met, and we have the resources to meet those needs, so my opinion is that we should meet our needs but take care to not deplete the resources that meet our needs.

Basically, eat/use what you have to, just don't hunt it to extinction. And as far as animals are concerned, if you have to kill them, give them a quick, painless death. Seems pretty simple to me.

[mawande]

I wonder if they're going to stop airing Heroes in Japan because of this. I wouldn't put it past the government to do something like that. And they waited so long before finally starting to air it this year, too.

Since I typically don't get to see shows from America here in Japan until more than two years after they've aired in the U.S. I'd putting out that Heroes (and Lost) got here quickly.

[MNJetter]

True, but still....it would be a waste if they quit airing it halfway through the first season because one of the stars got a bit overzealous in her quest to save cute animals.

[Roxie]

torrent, none?

[MNJetter]

I prefer to avoid violating copyright laws. I did a little bit in college, but just couldn't reconcile it with my personal sense of integrity. It was either my conscience or my illegal music downloads, and I went with my conscience.

[Roxie]

Fair enough :)
Too bad y'all can't watch it online (on the website)

[japanat]

That doesn't make it OK. I probably wouldn't go so far as to call them mindless fucking savages, but personally, I think using religion to justify animal torture is pretty fucking stupid.

Not that I'm trying to call you stupid. You strike me as an intelligent person, and I'm sure you're just trying to give Karthak some perspective, not justify animal torture. But still, I felt compelled to say something.
Actually, I happen to agree with you. I love dolphins and think they are sentient. I was just playing Devil's Advocate, and trying to get the point across that, while the killings are abhorrent to me, they aren't exactly rare. Prey animals are killed, and death isn't pretty, even when it's fast. My friend worked in a slaughterhouse, btw, and he told me how many times the 22.cal to the head was not enough. And in many places they use shock sticks to knock the animal out, then string it up and bleed it out (as in, it isn't dead, yet).

Basically, eat/use what you have to, just don't hunt it to extinction. And as far as animals are concerned, if you have to kill them, give them a quick, painless death. Seems pretty simple to me.Again, I agree, but how would Taro Fisherman do that? He has no economic reason to invest in equipment he'll only use 1X/year or less.

[Shishio]

I love dolphins and think they are sentient.

I avoided getting into whether dolphins are sentient or not, since I don't know a whole lot about that. But frankly, from what little I do know, it seems to me that dolphins, not humans, are the intellectual superiors on this planet.

Again, I agree, but how would Taro Fisherman do that? He has no economic reason to invest in equipment he'll only use 1X/year or less.

I wish I had an answer for this, but I guess it doesn't matter, since hardly anyone would care anyway.

[Psychochink]

I avoided getting into whether dolphins are sentient or not, since I don't know a whole lot about that. But frankly, from what little I do know, it seems to me that dolphins, not humans, are the intellectual superiors on this planet.

C'mon, you can't make a statement like that and just leave it at that.

Whether dolphins are sentient/sapient is an argument that I believe has some merit. My liking of Douglas Adams' work aside, trying to claim that they are more intelligent than humans, on the other hand...

I'd like to hear your reasoning.

[MNJetter]

Does it even matter whether or not dolphins are sentient? Carnivores and omnivores eat meat. In nature, they don't care about sentience, as long as the meat is generally of another species. Heck, chimpanzees aren't above snacking on the occassional human. If somebody wants to eat dolphins, the question of sentience doesn't seem to come into play for the rest of nature (sharks), so why should it come into play for us humans? We're animals too. And omnivores at that. That means we should eat everything. :watson:

[Shishio]

I was half-joking...

My comment was meant to be a humourous insult against humanity rather than a serious claim that dolphins are possessed of superior intellects.

But I say "half" because, well, people are REALLY fucking stupid. By and large, I mean.

MNJetter, it does matter to most people, and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) is why.

From a moral standpoint, people are no better than animals, but most think they are. Many people see undomesticated animals as objects more than living beings, so they have no problems using/eating them.

But of course, it's wrong to kill people, because without order, there would be anarchy. Although the official line is that we're possessed of superior intelligence which grants our lives have an inherent sanctity that must be respected.

(Personally, I think ideals such as this are born out of our instincts for self-preservation, as opposed to superior intelligence or moral standing. Hobbes, Locke, and Rosseau have said as much themselves. But society has rationalized the reason for the existence of the social contract to make people seem less self-interested, because most people refuse to believe they're not "good").

So if other animals also have the same level of intellect that give our lives that sanctity, than killing them would be akin to committing murder.

[Micah the Great]

I disagree. Because i believe humans have a "soul" or "spirit". But that's because i'm a theist. Whatever. The fact that we would even question whether we are just animals or are otherwise shows that there is at least something there to investigate.

My general thought is that we were created for a purpose and meaning, and given something different (soul) to make that a reality. On the other hand, if we're just animals evolved from other creatures made of atoms, then why would anyone give two shits whether or not dolphins are dying. They don't sit around and contemplate when and how they are going to die.

But if we ARE just purely animals and only much more evolved than others, as MNJ said, we're just animals eating other animals. That would be logical that way then. Whatever ridiculous way you could come up with to decide which animals are sentience or not wouldn't matter.... because we'd still be hungry.

At any rate, i see no need to "torture" animals and whatnot. That's stupid. Quick and painless (as possible) should be the way it's done.

[Karthak]

I disagree. Because i believe humans have a "soul" or "spirit". But that's because i'm a theist. Whatever. The fact that we would even question whether we are just animals or are otherwise shows that there is at least something there to investigate.

My general thought is that we were created for a purpose and meaning, and given something different (soul) to make that a reality. On the other hand, if we're just animals evolved from other creatures made of atoms, then why would anyone give two shits whether or not dolphins are dying. They don't sit around and contemplate when and how they are going to die.

But if we ARE just purely animals and only much more evolved than others, as MNJ said, we're just animals eating other animals. That would be logical that way then. Whatever ridiculous way you could come up with to decide which animals are sentience or not wouldn't matter.... because we'd still be hungry.

At any rate, i see no need to "torture" animals and whatnot. That's stupid. Quick and painless (as possible) should be the way it's done.

I don't think there is such a thing as a soul. When we die, we all rot equally. But I still give a shit, because I'm not a heartless bastard. You can have morals without believing in super-natural powers.

[Micah the Great]

...because I'm not a heartless bastard...
The "soul" is very often times synonymous with the "heart." Yeah, i guess you could possibly still have morals without having a soul and whatnot... but it wouldn't be in your "heart." It would be groupings of experiences and ideas in your brain.

You should read the lyrics for the songs "Parabol" and "Parabola" (it's pretty much on song split) by Tool. It has some interesting things to say about the existence of the relationship between the body and soul.

Anyway, i'd be curious as how one would define another being as sentient.

[Chuckles]

Yeah, i guess you could possibly still have morals without having a soul and whatnot... but it wouldn't be in your "heart." It would be groupings of experiences and ideas in your brain.

Wut? Not to insult or anything, but that sounds like the most pompous post I have read in a long while. I may be misreading it, but it seems like you're surprised at the idea that someone who doesn't believe in the human soul could possibly be a compassionate person...

The second sentence is almost as bad. You say that someone without a "soul" could be a moral person, but it wouldn't be in their "heart"? What the hell is "heart"? Regardless of whether or not you realize it, people who don't follow a religion aren't really that different when it comes to morals... Everyone creates a moral code based on experiences they've had and ideas that they believe to be true, the only difference is where those experiences and ideas come from. Everyone gathers their morals in a similar fashion, often the main differences are the books they did/didn't read while growing up :p

Again, sorry if I'm misreading your post here (too much turkey, lulz), but it almost seems like you're trying to differentiate your emotions from someone else's just because they have different views on spirituality.

[Micah the Great]

Wut? Not to insult or anything, but that sounds like the most pompous post I have read in a long while.
I didn't know stating facts was pompous. He was making a statement about people not having souls and there not being supernatural beings with a statement that I consider to be related to just that. So i talked about it.

Everyone creates a moral code based on experiences they've had and ideas that they believe to be true, the only difference is where those experiences and ideas come from. Everyone gathers their morals in a similar fashion, often the main differences are the books they did/didn't read while growing up :p
I thought that's what i said. My problem is when people mix together all kinds of random aspects of theology, religion, morals, ethics, etc. Look, either God or some supernatural being exists or it doesn't. It has to be one or the other. There are plenty of people and religions that believe there is said "being" and relate much of their morals to that. I'm sure there are plenty of religions and ideas that think this "being" just created existence in whatever way and doesn't care about it's creation of people (or creation of matter that evolved into people). There are also plenty that believe that this "being" created existence (and humans specifically) for a purpose, ..that he set them apart.

Christianity follows the latter because it believes God created humans in his image, including aspects of justice and good (morals).

If we weren't created for a purpose or to not have meaning... then it's exactly that: we are obviously existing without a higher purpose or meaning.

So if one claims to not believe in ANY of that, i think my previous statement makes sense. We are just matter existing here, at this moment, for no reason. A sense of justice, love, or meaning cannot be pre-instilled into us without a higher being, thus our morals are just based on facts we have experienced. We are simply matter. Anything we consider moral is just some electrons moving throughout out brains across many sets of memories and ideas to form a specific theoretical "goodness" or "wrongness" of the matter at hand.

I do know how this is pompous. This is reality. I also never said a person who believed in the latter argument could do any less good for the world with their set of morals, or be any less "compassionate."

Again, sorry if I'm misreading your post here (too much turkey, lulz), but it almost seems like you're trying to differentiate your emotions from someone else's just because they have different views on spirituality.
I'm not sure how this wouldn't be true. He has a different set of views and ideas from me, so it's obvious our emotions would have a different drive or reasoning behind them. It seems you thought i was trying to be condescending by showing they were different... but again, i was just stating what was an obvious fact.

[Chuckles]

I don't think that any morals are "pre-instilled" in anyone, but that's really a completely different discussion. I'm not trying to get into a big debate about religion or anything :p The only thing I had an issue with was the wording of your post, I was getting the vibe that you thought that religiously-driven ethics were somehow more valid than those that weren't based in theism. As I said, it was a stretch.


In any case, I must take issue with the idea that an individual needs to believe in a higher purpose to believe that they have a meaning in life. If you wanted you could go to the core of animal instincts : Preservation of the species (or preservation of local populations, be it on the national or family level... or hell preservation of the individual.)

I'm sure that plenty of people would argue that anything at the core of a person's belief system is an attempt at self-preservation, and anything else they believe is just determined by those little electrons moving throughout our brains.

[MNJetter]

MNJetter, it does matter to most people, and this is why.
I know that it matters to most people. I disagree with you that Social Contract theory is the reason behind it, but I still know that it matters. My point is that it shouldn't matter. Even if social contract theory is true, it has only been used in the past to describe intra-species behavior, most typically humans. The first half of the wiki article (too long to read for an OP9 discussion - if you want to make a point from a specific part of the article, please quote or point out a specific section of it) didn't say anything about applying the theory to any other species, sentient or not. I'm sure that other sentient species, if they exist, have their own social contract, with themselves. I doubt they would agree to have one with us. If they were carnivores, I'm sure they'd see us as a viable food source, the same way we view them.

I, personally, do believe in the supernatural. I believe that all living creatures have a soul, or something resembling thereof. But while I view human beings as having the most advanced souls out of all the other species by far, I don't view them as something completely separate from the rest of the world. If a lion won't hesitate to eat a gazelle, I don't see why it's wrong for a human to eat pretty much anything it is capable of.

Yes, I see the point behind social contract theory. I see it as a rationalization of the reason why most species eat other species instead of just munching on each other. But it doesn't just apply to human beings, behaviorally. Wolves submit themselves to a very strict pack hierarchy, and yet they still eat other animals. Heck, the species that this whole thread is about, dolphins, form families and communities and give specific jobs to specific community members. And yet the sharks eat them, regardless of whether they are sentient or not, and the dolphins eat tuna and mackeral and all sorts of other fish.

I believe that humans are the superior species. But I still don't see why that means we have an obligation to be picky about our diet. Avoid eating them because doing so would lead them to extinction, yes. That ensures that we will be able to eat them in the future. Avoid eating them because doing so would lead to ecological disaster, yes. That ensures that the ecology that we share with them will continue to provide us with life-supporting oxygen and nutrients. But avoid eating them because they might be slightly smarter than other animals that we have no problem eating? I find that hypocritical, and a pointless attempt to separate ourselves from the biological niche that we should be proud to embrace. We were built to be able to eat nearly any plant or animal. Whether we evolved that way, or God(s) made us that way, why shouldn't we use what we were given?

[MEGA SATAN 3000]

Anything we consider moral is just some electrons moving throughout out brains across many sets of memories and ideas to form a specific theoretical "goodness" or "wrongness" of the matter at hand.

This is what I guess could be called a "mental existent". They exist only as electrons whizzing around in our heads, but we perceive and relate to them on an entirely different level. A cosmic being looking down on us might just see electrons, but we're not cosmic beings, so I think that makes our concepts of morality, even if they're "just" based in reality, to be just as meaningful (if not moreso) than anything seen to be handed down from higher up.

[Micah the Great]

The only thing I had an issue with was the wording of your post, I was getting the vibe that you thought that religiously-driven ethics were somehow more valid than those that weren't based in theism. As I said, it was a stretch.
Religiously-driven ethics are more valid... to me. I already said why. As i am assuming you and Karthak believe otherwise, that belief is more (or at least) equally valid to you. I don't see the problem or a "stretch." People not thinking what they believe in is valid is a paradox. If we didn't believe our beliefs were valid, we wouldn't' be here talking about them.

It's interesting you shot down "pre-instilled" morals in the beginning, and by the end you are talking about instinct. So animals (if we as humans are only animals) can't have an innate sense of justice and goodness, but we can have all other properties of "instinct" innate within us.

This seems to be a contradiction. You're claiming each of our individual systems of morals come from our innate animal instincts, yet we can't have innate morals. You're saying everything is innate instinct, and we can create morals with that animal instinct, but yet we can't have innate morals. See the problem?

I'm sure that plenty of people would argue that anything at the core of a person's belief system is an attempt at self-preservation, and anything else they believe is just determined by those little electrons moving throughout our brains.
If "anything else" is just determined by those little electrons moving throughout our brains, why isn't the "core of a person's belief system is an attempt at self-preservation." It has to all be one way or the other. If it's all not randomly evolved matter making intelligent decisions based on life experiences, then what? Is it magical? ...or supernatural? ...or what? If it exists, then it has to be something.

[Micah the Great]

This is what I guess could be called a "mental existent". They exist only as electrons whizzing around in our heads, but we perceive and relate to them on an entirely different level. A cosmic being looking down on us might just see electrons, but we're not cosmic beings, so I think that makes our concepts of morality, even if they're "just" based in reality, to be just as meaningful (if not moreso) than anything seen to be handed down from higher up.
As i said earlier, i'm sure there's plenty of religions and ideas that believe a cosmic being made as, and maybe even gave us some code of morals, but that "they" are not necessarily concerned about the totality of our lives and current moral standpoints. By that reasoning, what you said makes quite a bit of sense.

But from my standpoint of theology and creation, that would not be true. The "creator" made it a certain way, and that way is perfect and right. Electrons jumping over synapses becomes moot at that point anyway. Just because we supposedly became aware of our views of experiences becoming thoughts, and our thoughts becoming ideas, and our ideas becoming morals... doesn't mean we entered some magically realm of mentality. You can "say" that's happening, but it in itself is just one of those "ideas." You can't prove it. (just like i can't prove anything i'm saying.. LULZ...)

[Chuckles]

Well first of all, morals =/= instincts. There's a very clear distinction between the two... that is, however, completely irrelevant. I never said that I adhered to the theory that all actions come from self-preservation.

And of course, you may find religiously-driven ethics more valid (somehow...). That is your right, and really, I don't give a shit if you do. I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong. The problem here is when you start tossing those ideas around as "fact". There are plenty of theories on the subject, acting as if the one you adhere to is fact and having a "my-morals-are-better-than-your-morals" attitude just makes you seem like you should be riding on the bus with the WBC.

[Micah the Great]

What i'm throwing around here are my "thoughts." I don't know where i said any of my beliefs were "fact." The only times i used the word "fact" was when talking about whether or not someone had said something in a post, and when talking about using facts in your brain for a basis of decisions. I obviously don't expect you to believe my spiritual beliefs as fact just because i was discussing them. So i don't understand your problem.

I don't see why you being unsure in your own morals or having an inability to explain them sufficiently, and me being secure and sure in mine makes you upset. I'm sure that statement will bother you for whatever reason i can't understand. That's your problem, not mine. I'm just saying what i think, and you keep commenting on it. Then you say what you think, and i comment. It's a discussion. Why someone has to get upset or claim others have a bad attitude is beyond me.

If morals =/= instincts, and "that is, however, completely irrelevant", then why did you talk about them in you post?

Anyway, the way you were making you case, it seemed to me that you were saying we couldn't have innate morals, but can have instincts. What i'm saying is, if we don't have innate morals, then all our morals come from something else... experiences, or even our instincts (as you said). If it's from innate biological instinct, then the origin of the morals are actually innate. It's saying God can't give humans innate morals, but morals can come from processing innate characteristics of our instinct (wherever that came from). That doesn't make sense to me because it seems to contradict itself. However, i could just be an idiot and not understand it. Or.. i could be wrong. Imagine that.

[Chuckles]

The instincts bit was only brought up in reference to a person having a life purpose! I was trying to show an example where someone had a meaning in life (instinctual survival) that wasn't handed down from above. The bit about morals was just tossed in to show how it could relate to the individuals development of an ethical code.

As for the facts bit :

Step by step analysis!
1. You said : "Yeah, i guess you could possibly still have morals without having a soul and whatnot... but it wouldn't be in your "heart." It would be groupings of experiences and ideas in your brain."

2. I said that I thought that was pompous.

3. You said that you didn't think that stating facts was pompous.

All that leads me to believe that you were stating the sentence in question as a fact :/ (However, I could be wrong too ;p Go figure indeed!) I was challenging the idea that any morals held for any reason other than god wouldn't be in your "heart".

And really, I don't have a problem (not in that sense, at least... I probably could have used a much better term there... Issue doesn't really seem much better...)! I agree, this is a very good discussion! What is a discussion forum good for if not discussion. I think a lot of semantics has really turned this discussion into something more than it should have, but meh, it happens.

As for this : I don't see why you being unsure in your own morals or having an inability to explain them sufficiently, and me being secure and sure in mine makes you upset. bothering me... only slightly. Doesn't really bother me, but I would like to point out that I've never said I was unsure in my own beliefs... I'm fairly set on my belief that you don't need religion to have a good reason to be a good person, and you don't need a reason to help people :p. However, I do understand what you mean. It does look an awful lot like I'm attacking you for being set in your religion, and I really don't mean to.

[rl*united]

Wow this is getting big with lots of existential stuff and subjective opinions in general. I promise I`m gonna spark off a huge argument as soon as i`m available on-line :)

[MNJetter]

^
It had gotten big at one point, but the two major arguers are now apologizing to each other and pretending that the argument was mainly a misunderstanding. You missed the point where it was "getting" big. ;)

[Micah the Great]

Oh, now i see. Yeah, that's confusing. My bad. My first response to Karthak was about why he was talking about the heart and i was talking about the soul. I made a statement about that those 2 things were related in many religious ideas. What i was saying was a fact was that i stated and i believed that. What i thought you were trying to say was that what i was saying wasn't what me and Karthak were actually talking about, even tho we WERE talking about.

I was just saying it was a fact that i did state something, and it's a fact that's what i believe, and that was the discrepancy of the comment i made about his post. You said you might have been confused, so i was trying to clear it up by saying i in fact said what i was trying to say.... didn't work. CONFUSING! ..and dumb.. my fault i guess.

I didn't mean for it to sound like i this:
"Yeah, i guess you could possibly still have morals without having a soul and whatnot... but it wouldn't be in your "heart." It would be groupings of experiences and ideas in your brain."
was an undeniable fact. Hence "i guess" and "possibly." The second sentence isn't even about beliefs, it's about biology.

Anyway, i still don't think biological instincts are grounds for a "purpose" or "meaning" in life. But that's just me, and i don't think we can get any farther on that.

EDIT:
^
It had gotten big at one point, but the two major arguers are now apologizing to each other and pretending that the argument was mainly a misunderstanding. You missed the point where it was "getting" big. ;)
Holy crap, how did you make such an accurate statement, and squeeze it in 2 minutes before my post! But, a lot of the argument was started on a misunderstanding, so we aren't pretending anything, we're just stating what did happen. So MAINLY, it was still a good discussion.

[MNJetter]

I like talking about theology and stuff, so I've been paying pretty close attention to this thread since it went in this direction.

And yeah, I know you aren't pretending. But it's still funny to see the way forum arguments end. After big long posts and lots and lots of information and side-taking, it's almost always one person taking a step back and going "hey, wait....this argument was all because of [insert misunderstanding]?? Sorry, I didn't really mean it that way," that brings the discussion to a halt. I recognized it right away, because that's how I usually end my forum arguments too. :D

[rl*united]

lol

[ab5tr4kt]

Save the dolphins!








...but nuke the whales.

[Gorlam]

Perhaps I could interest you in some delicious pizza bites (http://babypizza.ytmnd.com/)?

In all seriousness though, its not the fact that the kill Dolphins that bothers me, its that they gut them alive. (http://www.glumbert.com/media/dolphin)

[Karthak]

In all seriousness though, its not the fact that the kill Dolphins that bothers me, its that they gut them alive. (http://www.glumbert.com/media/dolphin)
Looks like I was correct when I called them mindless fucking savages.

[Chuckles]

That was pretty much why I apologized before I even started the discussion. I was well aware that I could be misinterpreting everything, but I felt that it would still be a good discussion to bring up. The purpose of life is pretty much central to this topic (the original topic, not the side-tracked bit), any discussion on what people believe offers a lot of insight into it.

Edit : And the entire discussion was nowhere near getting big. We both knew exactly where the discussion was heading (the same place every discussion involving religion heads, lol) and we both knew when we needed to choose our words and be clear before anyone stepped on anyone else's feelings. This was miles away from becoming personal.