No, the fact that it is endangered doesn't change what has been traditionally done, however when a tradition starts to infringe on the rights or safety and longevity of another culture or animal, the followers of said tradition are eventually going to have to adapt and modify their tradition to work around the changing world.

If the numbers were in the 100,000 range... They might be endangered now, but not before :p

You might as well shove a bag of MSG in your mouth.

^
I disagree. It's not MSG, at least not at the good places...
When you're talking $30+ per bowl, it's really freaking damned good.
Except, it's not the sharkfin that makes it good, it's because of the chicken broth.
I think culinarily speaking, the chicken broth they create is freaking amazing.

But I just want to point out that culinary use of sharkfin is probably a 2/10.
Sure it gives an interesting texture and is fairly unique, but it's not what makes sharkfin soup taste good.


Culture_Vulture, I'd like to hear your response to my previous post. I'm interested in how you are approaching this subject from the opposite perspective.

I really had no intention of replying, seeing as this thread has already died down so much. But here goes.


The first half of your post illustrates a clear and rather important point: an evolution (a "change over time", let's say instead) of morality does exist.
Realize that I did not outwardly deny this though: I just have a different understanding of what this process of evolution constituted (and consequently the incentives and significance behind it). I won't go into that again this post, because that would not be answering your question.

Most, if not all of the below quotes from my previous posts are either attempts at 'just-so' explanations or at establishing a theoretical framework to illustrate this event (because frankly, I'm just bad at talking in situationals/what-ifs--I find it impractical).

In essence, rather than dealing with this situation in a sensibly realistic way (because it's fucking religion), I resorted to a philosophical approach.
But since you have brought to the table a pragmatic approach, then yes, I can't deny the fact that some individuals are (for the lack of a better term) "morally superior". And then there are those who haven't quite "seen the big picture" yet.

BUT...there is stark difference between recognizing these fundamental differences in moral understandings as an inevitable and real fact, and addressing them as having something to do with some type of cognitive underdevelopment (if you will), as so many people in the international community/in this thread so aptly suggested.
The reason why I'm against this is because it justifies all sorts of retardation from those who ironically, see themselves are (morally) superior based on one botched and highly debatable criteria.
From "smiting ignorant retards" to calling them "primitive", "inhuman", or to suggest we "stop sending aid" to a country where people are dying from hunger, ALL BECAUSE they did something not-so-agreeable by our standards (and who knows, the western community may be alone in this: there hasn't been an outrage in Africa or in East Asia about this event)--none of this has any bearing whatsoever with the topic at hand.


If you are suggesting that Bangladesh is analogous to that retarded brother who is always that one step behind, then the rest of these people advocating derogatory categorizations are in fact, effectively implying that you should just leave him to play in traffic because he'll always be a retard dipshit anyways.

Furthermore (and this is a big one): your retarded brother may need your guidance and warnings to not make the same mistakes you did, but where is the evidence that these people are in any way "retarded" (so to speak) compared to those who have a clearer moral understanding of how things ought to be? Are we somehow implying that they're incapable (as opposed to unwilling) of understanding what we are advocating? And if so, that makes them ultimately subhuman?
I take it that most people in this thread take (what I was originally arguing to be western) "morality" to be something embedded cognitively, like some sort of divine natural law. We can logically infer then, that what these people are saying is, because Hindus don't share these same sets of moral guidelines, they are cognitively retarded. And I do mean that in the worst possible way.

Well, weren't we, having gone through the same thing in the past, cognitively retarded too, then?
I was never "putting morality aside". Quite plain and simple, what made me irate in this thread was frankly not the fact that Hindus would disregard the ecosystem in the way they did (for whatever reason), but the responses by the international community/in this thread that condemned them of it. What's the saying? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Or whatever the shit it is.

Religion has invoked people to do unspeakable atrocities to HUMANS for HUNDREDS of years, and CONTINUES to do so even today. Things that would make you SICK. And everything in between, from genocide to rape to mere intolerance.

So who the fuck cares about some fucking TURTLES.

So these particular people don't adhere to YOUR morals. Too bad, there is a lot worse things to worry about in life.

Priorities man.
Posted via RS Mobile

communism/dictatorships > religion

Cool.

:fulloffuck:

Nevermind that a lot of dictators spawn from religion-heavy states.

democide.

I'm not getting in this argument again.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20T...RTACRACIES.GIF