Dolphin Massacre(warning: very graphic!)

[WanderingKnight]

Then, before ignoring the information in others' post, find that high-assed text stating numbers and post it here to discredit the information posted by another.

You seem not to understand the obligation of a person to provide backing to his or her statements

Yes, and as long as it can be provided using other means (fishing, for instance)

Not reading what I write?

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

But you're still inhumanly killing fishes!

[/sarcasm]

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Not reading what I write?

If you had read what I wrote in those last few pages, you wouldn't have the need to ask for my reply to your question in your previous post.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

You seem not to understand the obligation of a person to provide backing to his or her statements

I do, and if a person forgets to include the source link, it is also expected for the other person to gently ask for the source link, before ignoring it completely, if that person could have taken the discussion seriously rather than just wanting to have some fun with it. Since it seems, what you are doing is "completely" for fun, I can safely ignore the comments in your posts, cause I don't need to waste my time for another's extra fun.

[WanderingKnight]

If you had read what I wrote in those last few pages, you wouldn't have the need to ask for my reply to your question in your previous post.

Then why don't you show an attitude higher than mine (according to you) and reply to what I posted?

I do, and if a person forgets to include the source link, it is also expected for the other person to gently ask for the source link, before ignoring it completely

No. If you are the one forgetting to provide backing, you deserve the bashing.

I'm still waiting for that link

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Then why don't you show an attitude higher than mine (according to you) and reply to what I posted?

For you?

I'm still waiting for that link

Since, it seems you cannot put the quote to google for search and enter the first resulting web page, yourself, I have put the link there for you.

[WanderingKnight]

For you?

Yeah, for me, if you don't want to be seen as an arrogant self-centered fool.

And that article seems quite outdated (March 2005). Besides, I have already replied to that article in this post:

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

But anyways, it doesn't matter to them as long it puts money on the table, which does. Even if it's a small amount of people in a village in the middle of nowhere -note to self: a village doesn't equate to an entire province-, for those people, sealing is the only way of surviving, even if they get don't get proportionately rewarded for it -another note to self: in a capitalist society most activities aren't proportionately rewarded-. So the actual volume of money it moves doesn't really matter to the sealers, because the only thing they want is to have a bit of it. And that is perfectly understandable in my opinion.

You're stupidly ignoring all of my replies, focusing only in a couple of words instead of replying to the consistent part of my argumentation. I'm getting quite tired with this, but I'll repeat again: as long as killing animals puts food on the table, I'll support it all the way.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

You're stupidly ignoring all of my replies...

That is what you desired, hence, deserved, anyways...

[WanderingKnight]

That is what you desired, hence, deserved, anyways...

Okay, so you finally decided to stay as the arrogant, self-centered fool you've been proving to be all throughout the topic. Congratulations!

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Okay, so you finally decided to stay as the arrogant, self-centered fool you've been proving to be all throughout the topic. Congratulations!

Thank you. It is an honor to be considered like that by the likes of you!!!

Lastly, I have already ended my discussion with you, although I seriously doubt that you know the meaning of that, considering your baiting. Anyways, I made my duty of reminding that to you one last time.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Then pray, DO tell me what is this closed, balanced, cyclic system of yours which engenders unstable elements within itself! Unless, of course, it's a part of your subjective, alternate universe, in which case I'd be completely hopeless when trying to understand it.

Okay, but consider that my last word on that matter.

The system will always try to reach an equilibrium, if some component aletered it. The equilibrium however, is existent for only a very short time (one could meassure that time only virtually, in reallity thats the smallest time step possible in the universe. If the smallest time step was defined by the tiniest change in the universe... I think I need to explain that for you: If there was nothing changing in the universe (not even the smallest parts of it would move, or not do whatever they usually do), then the whole universe stood still. Since we are part of that universe, for an out of the system observer, there could pass millions of years, but time for us would stand still. Because we measure time by the rate our local environment (which includes ourselves) is changing. E.g. counting the transition of cesium-133.)

Why does it fall back into a state of equilibrium after it got altered? Well, the system is driven by internal and external (e.g. radiation from space) influences. The system tries to dampen every alteration in an evolutionary process. That is because most of the system's components are dependend on each other. That means if one component becomes too strong - choose other appropriate terms here if you like - it will weaken other components which its own strength depends on, thus becoming weak again in this process. That can work like a damped spring, because there is delayed feedback in the system. However, to be not dependend on anything in the system, a component had to be fully autarkic from the system. There is however no component, that we consider to be among the components that feature life, which is fully autarkic. Thus every living component is bound to the process of returning to an equilibrium with other components in the system one way or the other (there is only one way I can think of, which allows such a component to be totally out of that system... extinction/erasement or complete autarkicity. Once a component doesn't belong to the system any longer, it is not affected by the system).

Each time a component is altered or gone extinct/erased in the system, the whole system needs to adapt to it. For some components the changes can be minimal and do not "harm" them very much, for other components the influence might be of a much greater extent. Maybe even that much, that it leads to the extinction/erasement of that component too. The problem here is, that most components are linked with each other. They are directly and indirectly dependend on each other (to a certain extent). Now when such a system goes into a state of chaos, even a small cause may have huge consequences for some of the components (in the compononent net - not chain, because it is rather a multi dimensional net - ).
The component human doesn't really know (cannot reliably predict), which alterations (causes) trigger which consequences. Therefore humanity should try to keep the alterations moderate, in order to have moderate, possibly bad feedback of the system (bad, like bad for humanity, the system itself doesn't care... it just tries to go back into a state of equilibrium/balance.. how many components become extinct/erased in the process isn't important for the system).

In reality the system tries constantly to go back into the state of equilibrium, yet is constantly driven by alteration. Basically the rule seems to be, more alteration means more evolution, since the components have to adapt more to the alterations, and alterations themselves can be a consequence of evolutionary triggered alterations itself (like a system of closed loops). But that only applies if evolution is understood as permanent alteration of the system. Evolution does not always have to mean the components advance some way or the other. In the context of the system, it can mean, the component either become advanced , or the components become regressed, or the components stop to exist, or new components start to exist or a combination of it.

I already mentioned, that feedback is often delayed, that means a component can alter the system while it still is able to exist in the system, yet may stop to exist, once the delayed feedback for the alterations "hits" it too hard, to be able to adapt to it. I have a very simple yet fictive scenario to explain this... if species A is dependend on species B, because species B is the only food, species A can consume, there is a very strong dependence. If species A was able to eat all the individuums of species B before Species A starts to become affected by the loss of its food foundation, then species A will stop to exist like species B that became eaten entirely. Now in the real world system, things are not that extreme most of the time (thats also because feedback in e.g. food-chains is quite fast). Though humanity is one of the components that can do something like this, because it is not too dependend on a certain other components. At least humanity can rely on different components equally, which enables it to evade dependencies of special components.

Though the whole system is quite complex. That means sometimes a chaotic reaction occurs. If a component drives/alters the system a lot (quantitative), it will likely trigger such a chaotic reaction. Then a small/moderate (qualitative) alteration (cause) will have huge consequences, and heavy alteration (cause), might have fatal consequences (fatal, like fatal for the component/species).

I already mentioned, that a similar problem can arise with alterations, that have a long term delay (such alterations should even handled more cautious then).

I do hope its understandable this time

btw. every person only knows a subjective, alternate version of the real objective universe, since there is nobody who is able to understand the universe entirely (thus objective). I don't know why you emphasise that point so much. Are you trying to be polemic again?

[WanderingKnight]

btw. every person only knows a subjective, alternate version of the real objective universe, since there is nobody who is able to understand the universe entirely (thus objective). I don't know why you emphasise that point so much. Are you trying to be polemic again?

No, I was just exaggerating it to show how futile a discussion can get if one resorts to those kind of "you won't understand it because it's subjective" arguments

I never indulged full knowledge of the system itself. In fact, the main reason why I think the "OMG MOTHA NATURE IS GOOD AND WE ARE BAD OMG" argument sucks hard is because it believes to have figured out the system on its entirety, and sees humans as an outsider in a supposedly perfect system (which is as unstable as it may come, because species have been appearing and disappearing for ages and ages). I started to argue with you because you jumped into the side of the "nature is a good girl" guys, but from what you type you're not actually defending that position. Perhaps this is all a misconception on the usage of the word "cycle". The "OMG NATURE IS GOOD WE ARE BAD" people think everything in nature outside human beings works perfectly (see my first quoted argument on the subject and you'll get what I mean), calling it "the natural cycle of the world" or some shit like that. I agree with you, everything tends to a balance, but we must see that we are part of nature, too, and if we want to keep on living, of course we will need to do something about it, but not for the sake of balance, for the sake of our own existence.

In fact, it's all about randomness, because natural selection is all about the randomness of genetic mutations. Were genetic mutations not to be so random as to give us an opposable thumb, we might have not reached this state of our existence. If some day in the future a new species is born possessing a critical advantage over any other species in the planet, it'll have an impact on the world comparable to the one we had. And will the naturalists be able to bash it as not being nature then? I don't think so.

[iamtheSOUND]

That shit is fucking disgusting. I couldn't watch past the 1:45 mark when that guy slit the Dolphin like it was a potato. I don't even like killing a damn cockroach so to see something like this makes me mad as hell. What's even worse is that there's nothing we can do about this shit. Bastards.

[Spectacular_Insanity]

I finally took the time to watch this video, and I was horrified!!! I think the mere fact that they kill them in the first place is bad enough, but they gut and butcher them while they are still alive?!?!?! I mean, they could at least put the poor creatures out of their misery before they start slicing them up. I couldn't even watch past 1:51.

Why haven't animal rights people from the international community done anything about this?

This video thouroughly disgusted me.