Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbine
I think the premise of the idea of The Cove was good; dolphin hunting is a rarity, so a large scale operation should be explored and portrayed to a wider audience, so people can make their own judgements on the controversy. The problem was, The Cove's director went in with the express object of portraying it all as barbaric and wrong, without any unbiased explanation from the other side of the equation.
Not sure what the confusion is over my cow statement. Who is 'they'? Dogsbody called the method of slaughter barbaric, I just wanted to point out that (moral objections over the intellect of dolphins aside) the method is generally no worse than how thousands of other food-crop animals are slaughtered world-wide. We only perceive it as being tangibly 'worse' because it's a very visible slaughter of a relatively non-conventional food animal. That's all the point I was making. I didn't say you had to be anti-cow slaughter as well as anti-dolphin meat. This is not a the value of cows vs the value of dolphins argument.
With all due respect, I don't agree with you but I'm not going to go into the 'resources' part of your post here as it would just de-rail the thread.
|
You've failed to address the point of my post.
I would argue that dolphins possess a level of self awareness that makes it more cruel but for the sake of argument lets just say that both the systematic slaughter of cows and the slaughter of dolphins is cruel.
With both being cruel, why would the objection to one of these acts be diminished by the practice of another from a logical perspective?
For example, you wouldn't dismiss someone who was campaigning to reduce poverty in India just because poverty in Africa exists would you?