Aren't these things protected by the Marine Mammal and Endangered Species Acts? Pretty sure you aren't supposed to get within a certain radius. I'm also pretty sure he's within that radius.

Sharks are apex predators. Last time I checked, geese were not.>> ^legacy0100:

Mind you that I have never tried shark fin soup, but I must point out that Ramsey again puts himself in the shoes of an extremist. I've seen the documentaries of Ramsay and he is not this intense egomaniac he presents himself in front of Cameras. So I'm not sure how much he believes in the things he's preaches in this video.
But my main concern of this video is this ridiculous Hypocracy that's going on in this video. He has yet again taken this role as a very ethnocentric typical westerner judging and criticizing cultures that are different from his own for the sake of entertaining television. In the video he is arguing that harvesting fins from sharks are bad because:
1. Sharks are endangered species
2. The rest of the shark meat is being wasted.
3. The fins doesn't taste that good.
4. Sharks are killed inhumanely.

Then I've compared it with a delicacy from western tradition: Foie gra. http://www.aprl.org/sdcitybeat.php
1. Foie Gras Geese are Specially bred species that will not survive out in the wild. They are specialized to live ina mechanized farm to yield maximum production.
2. Goose meat is generally gamier and intensely flavored, and considered a 'delicacy'. Translation= People would rather eat chicken.
3. A lot of Easteners do not like the taste of Foie Gras, as they consider it to be too rich and fatty.
4. Geese are force-fed against their will, and killed as any farm animal would.
The only difference between these two delicacies is that western chefs are 'taught' to be comfortable with process of making Foie Gras. They are 'taught' to think it's okay to force-feed the Goose, that they're physiologically different from us, and that shoving metal tubes down their throat doesn't hurt them as much as we imagine it to be, so it's okay to do it.
So as long as we are used to the idea, it's perfectly normal. After all, western chefs make good money off of serving Foie Gras. But Shark fins? No western customer has ever came in demanding those. So it's pretty useless in his/her eyes.
The only argument the western Foie Gras' got going for is that the Goose species isn't endangered, since it's bred in a mass farm, in a cramped space, being force-fed periodically.
Yea, I find this video very hypocritical. Oh and then there's the problem of Eurpoean fisheries over farming the fish and devastating local ecology. Oh and then there's western demand for large fish, which has created this monster of a shrimp farming economy in Southeast Asia that's basically creating the most disgusting thing you can put in your mouth, yet westerners still buy them up.
Yea. So... Why is Ramsay, someone who's openly endorsing these products by constantly releasing recipes using Foie Gras and other unethical shit, hosting this video?

>> ^legacy0100:

Please carefully read over my comments again and also read over your response as well.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^legacy0100
So your argument is that it's ok for one ethnic group to wastefully kill an endangered species for an over-priced, tasteless status symbol because another ethnic group force feeds birds to make an over-priced status symbol?
Ah, the old "two wrongs make a right" argument! Ramsay's an ass. He's an ass that can cook, but he's still an ass. He can barely interact with other humans let alone animals (if my boss swore at me or called me "big boy", I'd quit so fast he wouldn't know what hit him. And I'd probably hit him). But that doesn't mean he's wrong about this or right about foie gras.



I read your post again. Ramsay's a hypocrite, I get it. It's irrelevant. He's still right about shark fin soup.

Please carefully read over my comments again and also read over your response as well.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^legacy0100
So your argument is that it's ok for one ethnic group to wastefully kill an endangered species for an over-priced, tasteless status symbol because another ethnic group force feeds birds to make an over-priced status symbol?
Ah, the old "two wrongs make a right" argument! Ramsay's an ass. He's an ass that can cook, but he's still an ass. He can barely interact with other humans let alone animals (if my boss swore at me or called me "big boy", I'd quit so fast he wouldn't know what hit him. And I'd probably hit him). But that doesn't mean he's wrong about this or right about foie gras.

>> ^legacy0100:

Mind you that I have never tried shark fin soup, but I must point out that Ramsey again puts himself in the shoes of an extremist. I've seen the documentaries of Ramsay and he is not this intense egomaniac he presents himself in front of Cameras. So I'm not sure how much he believes in the things he's preaches in this video.
But my main concern of this video is this ridiculous Hypocracy that's going on in this video. He has yet again taken this role as a very ethnocentric typical westerner judging and criticizing cultures that are different from his own for the sake of entertaining television. In the video he is arguing that harvesting fins from sharks are bad because:
1. Sharks are endangered species
2. The rest of the shark meat is being wasted.
3. The fins doesn't taste that good.
4. Sharks are killed inhumanely.

Then I've compared it with a delicacy from western tradition: Foie gra. http://www.foodreference.com/html/artgoose.html
1. Foie Gras Geese are Specially bred species that will not survive out in the wild. They are specialized to live ina mechanized farm to yield maximum production.
2. Goose meat is generally gamier and intensely flavored, and considered a 'delicacy'. Translation= People would rather eat chicken.
3. A lot of Easteners do not like the taste of Foie Gras, as they consider it to be too rich and fatty.
4. Geese are force-fed against their will, and killed as any farm animal would.
The only difference between these two delicacies is that western chefs are 'taught' to be comfortable with process of making Foie Gras. They are 'taught' to think it's okay to force-feed the Goose, that they're physiologically different from us, and that shoving metal tubes down their throat doesn't hurt them as much as we imagine it to be, so it's okay to do it.
So as long as we are used to the idea, it's perfectly normal. After all, western chefs make good money off of serving Foie Gras. But Shark fins? No western customer has ever came in demanding those. So it's pretty useless in his/her eyes.
The only argument the western Foie Gras' got going for is that the Goose species isn't endangered, since it's bred in a mass farm, in a cramped space, being force-fed periodically.
Yea, I find this video very hypocritical. Oh and then there's the problem of Eurpoean fisheries over farming the fish and devastating local ecology. Oh and then there's western demand for large fish, which has created this monster of a shrimp farming economy in Southeast Asia that's basically creating the most disgusting thing you can put in your mouth, yet westerners still buy them up.
Yea. So... Why is Ramsay, someone who's openly endorsing these products by constantly releasing recipes using Foie Gras and other unethical shit, hosting this video?


So your argument is that it's ok for one ethnic group to wastefully kill an endangered species for an over-priced, tasteless status symbol because another ethnic group force feeds birds to make an over-priced status symbol?

Ah, the old "two wrongs make a right" argument! Ramsay's an ass. He's an ass that can cook, but he's still an ass. He can barely interact with other humans let alone animals (if my boss swore at me or called me "big boy", I'd quit so fast he wouldn't know what hit him. And I'd probably hit him). But that doesn't mean he's wrong about this or right about foie gras.

Mind you that I have never tried shark fin soup, but I must point out that Ramsey again puts himself in the shoes of an extremist. I've seen the documentaries of Ramsay and he is not this intense egomaniac he presents himself in front of Cameras. So I'm not sure how much he believes in the things he's preaches in this video.

But my main concern of this video is this ridiculous Hypocracy that's going on in this video. He has yet again taken this role as a very ethnocentric typical westerner judging and criticizing cultures that are different from his own for the sake of entertaining television. In the video he is arguing that harvesting fins from sharks are bad because:

1. Sharks are endangered species
2. The rest of the shark meat is being wasted.
3. The fins doesn't taste that good.
4. Sharks are killed inhumanely.


Then I've compared it with a delicacy from western tradition: Foie gra. http://www.aprl.org/sdcitybeat.php

1. Foie Gras Geese are Specially bred species that will not survive out in the wild. They are specialized to live ina mechanized farm to yield maximum production.
2. Goose meat is generally gamier and intensely flavored, and considered a 'delicacy'. Translation= People would rather eat chicken.
3. A lot of Easteners do not like the taste of Foie Gras, as they consider it to be too rich and fatty.
4. Geese are force-fed against their will, and killed as any farm animal would.

The only difference between these two delicacies is that western chefs are 'taught' to be comfortable with process of making Foie Gras. They are 'taught' to think it's okay to force-feed the Goose, that they're physiologically different from us, and that shoving metal tubes down their throat doesn't hurt them as much as we imagine it to be, so it's okay to do it.

So as long as we are used to the idea, it's perfectly normal. After all, western chefs make good money off of serving Foie Gras. But Shark fins? No western customer has ever came in demanding those. So it's pretty useless in his/her eyes.

The only argument the western Foie Gras' got going for is that the Goose species isn't endangered, since it's bred in a mass farm, in a cramped space, being force-fed periodically.

Yea, I find this video very hypocritical. Oh and then there's the problem of Eurpoean fisheries over farming the fish and devastating local ecology. Oh and then there's western demand for large prawns, which has created this monster of a shrimp farming economy in Southeast Asia that's basically creating the most disgusting thing you can put in your mouth, yet westerners still buy them up.

Yea. So... Why is Ramsay, someone who's openly endorsing these products by constantly releasing recipes using Foie Gras and other unethical shit, hosting this video?

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

I'm sorry, but Chinese (the modern culture, not the race) are horrible people. Flame me all you want. I know first generation Chinese who came over 30-40 years ago who are kind, decent, hardworking people, but the more recent immigrants, who were really brainwashed under communism are mostly self-centred assholes, who would honestly keep eating shark-fin soup if it meant some random person in the third world would be executed for every bowl, because it's a good way to show everyone how rich they are. The Chinese people I know who have been here for over 30 years hate the new generation of Chinese more than anyone else. They represent a perversion of the culture by Mao, who admitted hating Chinese culture and did his best to destroy it.
Obviously this does not apply to all individuals, but the culture as a whole is sick.


Ok, speaking as someone who has very recently been to china for an extendad stay, and i've met and had extensive experience with young and middle aged chinese;

How did you get the impression they were horrible people? Every single person i met in china was generous and selfless and went a long way out of their way to make sure i had a good time and to make sure i was completely taken care of. Their culture almost DEMANDS them to be respectful and polite to strangers. Self centred is a word which i could not apply to a single one of the several hundred chinese people that i've met.

Show off their wealth? Do you realise that the chinese people are extremely poor? The government may be fucking rich but the people certainly aren't. They work their fucking arse off in a shit job they get given and they get paid pennies, PENNIES, and they work fucking hard at it and fucking long hours because guess what they'd get if they didn't? Fuck all. I have never met a more humble and polite people, the chinese people seem to me like the british were 60 years ago (of which i am proud and sad we're not like that anymore).

I must remind you, with my limited knowledge, of the Cultural Revolution and other periods in chinese history where the people were so poor and desperate that they would eat more or less anything to survive. I was told that diverse foods were more common in the south (i was in beijing and xian) and that they are also very poor there.

I don't know what modern china is a representation of, but i suspect you know less than you claim to about modern china.

I do not promote the eating of endangered species, and i do not know the ins and outs of the shark fin stuff, but i don't need to for the point i am making, because i address solely your retarded opinion that modern chinese are "horrible people".

If anything, i would probably rate the chinese people as being the nicest i've met. Least proportion of assholes to nice guys; i didn't meet a single asshole in china. No one even rudely bumped into me or in front of me, literally not a single chinese person gave me cause to be offended or upset in any way in the entire time i was having dealings with them. The chinese are amazing, the government isn't, and i hope the chinese will soon notice that.

You're an ass and i think you're quoting some shite that you've heard on some government-funded war-mongering tv show.

>> ^Mcboinkens:
Yes, prisons and zoos are the same for all comparative purposes.
In terms of not.


True. Prison inmates have usually done something to deserve to be there.

I know a lot of zoos do good work with breeding programs for endangered species, and rehabilitating sick or injured animals, but they are still a bit of a relic from the days when we couldn't see animals doing humorous things on the internet.

The metaphor of an endangered species of duck is still apt.


No. It is not an apt comparison, you should stop using it, thinking in these brackets and stop listening to whomever told you this crap:


1. Human beings are at the top of the food chain, intelligent, social and able to make babies with one another, as previously stated.

2. Ducks can be saved by humans because humans can save ducks because: point 1. Ducks cannot form eco-departments of duck governments to save other ducks. Because they are fucking ducks. Certain species of ducks cannot breed with other species of ducks. Because they are actually different in more ways than colour. So saving a certain species of duck makes sense for biodiversity and etc. Also, plants and whatnot.

3. Now: Human beings of whatever colour, culture or other dividing feature your racist brain cooks up, are NOT DUCKS. They are all equally human. All. Equally. Let it sink in. Aaaalll. Eeeequaally. Not one single person is above another.

The above considered, I plead that because a particular civilization finds itself below replacement level it is in a perilous state and merits attention. This is a conclusion that, again, assumes an overreaching, unfettered respect for diversity.


There it is again, the racism. See point 3 for physical racism. Now to your cultural racism: "Civilisations," cultures, religions are NOT DUCKS. They are collective constructs. They diminish, they go inert. You can look at them in museums. Because there are almost always remnants and relics. But cultures are never dead. They are not murdered, driven away by evil muslims, outbred or dying off.

Cultures go on in the following cultures. They are absorbed. They are mixed. They are in flux. As I mentioned before. Cultures change. It is inevitable. A few hundred years ago, German was spoken on the British isles. It mingled with Scandinavian, Celtic and french languages and cultures --> English.

You must extend your own desire to protect a unique given species to the right of a nation to maintain its own identifying characteristics. Realize that the desire for prosperity and sustained existence of a nation does not by definition mandate the impingement on another.

Bullshit. Any nation's "identifying characteristics" did not exist 200 years ago and will not exist in 200 years time. It doesn't even need an outside influence to do it. It happens. "Nations" do not have a right to maintain characteristics. Those which tried, failed. We live in a globally connected world now in which ideas, culture, science and knowledge can be shared freely. Look at yourself being lectured at by a post-racial, post-fascist human being on the internet. Whatever culture you belong to, it changed a lot and it will keep changing a lot. This is called progress. Otherwise we'd all be talking a babylonian language.


On the other hand, if like GenjiKilpatrick you harbour a sense that "whites" deserve to be eradicated because of who they are... you're barely human.

As far as I can see here, he never said such a thing. This is your irrational fearful racist mind at work. Try to look outside your head. I guess you misread this: Not to mention - Adult White Males have been the most privileged, self-entitled, killin' & manipulating "lesser" cultures type homo sapiens on the planet for a few centuries now, at least.
He says that white men were basically "in charge." Nowhere does he call for an eradication.

And again you are calling a fiction of your own "barely human". I do not think it, Genji does not think it. This is your racist mind creating fictions you can lash out at. Try to see how your own fears are all without merit. Group B will not destroy anyone's culture. They will enhance it. As they have done before. And Group A will enhance them. As they have done before. In fact, there are no group A or B. Just humans with interchanging, intermingling cultures. Stop thinking in black and white. In every aspect.

You've presented a thoughtful and considerate reply, DerHasisttot. Thank you.

The most basic argument I have presented is the erosion and eventual fading out of a particular population, and this is the crux of what I would like to focus on. The premise can be applied to any element of biodiversity.

The metaphor of an endangered species of duck is still apt.

My assumption was correct in that you, as most people, would find justification for mobilizing efforts in ensuring this particular population is given a chance to exist. For whatever reason, you have deemed this species of duck worth your concern and you do not hesitate to voice your consternation. Another assumption I will make is that the same can be said of any population that contributes to the precious diversity of our world and faces existential challenges. Whether it be a rare beetle, some exotic bush or the giant panda.

I like to think a noble feature of humanity is our desire for fairness and that we should not stand by while something is endangered. We both probably share this in common.

The above considered, I plead that because a particular civilization finds itself below replacement level it is in a perilous state and merits attention. This is a conclusion that, again, assumes an overreaching, unfettered respect for diversity.

Just as you should care for a particular duck, it would not negate your concern for other types of mallards, waterfowl or any other species. Your sense of justice would be shared equally.

You must extend your own desire to protect a unique given species to the right of a nation to maintain its own identifying characteristics. Realize that the desire for prosperity and sustained existence of a nation does not by definition mandate the impingement on another.

If you can not grasp this sympathy you display for a bird and apply it to another context, you are intellectually dishonest.

On the other hand, if like GenjiKilpatrick you harbour a sense that "whites" deserve to be eradicated because of who they are... you're barely human.

Ugh. Ok:



Population group A has a lower than replacement level reproduction rate.
Population group B has a higher than replacement level reproduction rate and benefits from an unlimited external source of replenishment.
The outcome is that over time, group A will cease to exist.
As it happens, some individuals in group A may be displeased about their upcoming extinction.


Human beings of whatever colour of skin can make babies with one another. Therefore: AB+A+B , not either A or B. This is not how it works. Also your group B cannot have unlimited external source of replenishment. Even with a huge outside source of replenishment, it will all work out as a nice intercultural mix, as it is right now: the letters we use are latin, the numerals arabic. Cultures are all already mixed.
It is not "us" versus "them", It is "us" with "them." What your ideological fear of a "civilisation going extinct" implies, is that you are a racist. Maybe just a cultural racist, but a racist nonetheless. Now to the really stupid stuff:

Unlike most media sources who immediately suspected Muslim involvement, I waited for more facts to emerge before making assumptions. That is not the action of a "racist" as you would define one.

Very good, had nothing to do with why I called you a racist, and you are right, it would not be a reason to call you a racist. But it does not negate your racist comments of basically agreeing with a mass-murderer that Muslims, or group B as you like to call them, will end our "civilisation."


My admission is that his reasoning is sound, his concerns legitimate and his motivations worthy of study.

His reasoning is not sound, his concerns are bonkers and his motivation is worthy of study for psychiatrists. If you like, present one of his mad theories you agree with and watch it being ripped apart by every kind of reasonable person (non-fascists and non-racists) there is. Now for the best bit:

As for DerHasisttot's logical pretzel. I'm sure he is the type of fellow that would mobilize government in defense of an endangered species of duck, but yet finds the mild concept that a civilization wishes to maintain its existence is morally wrong. Shame on him.


Let's reverse the roles ad absurdum and relish in the brilliant irony of your preface "logical pretzel": "I'm sure pprt is the type of person X, who would rather Z than Y! Shame on him!." So, you assume I am a specific type of person, assume how I would act in a certain situation, then assume how I would act in a different type of situation that goes against your ideology; and you follow with the (in your mind logical) conclusion that shame should be thrust upon me. Dude, you are shaming your own fiction.

But: Yes I would ask the nature conservatory of my government to protect an endangered species. The second part of your assumptional assault is of course: bonkers. I do not think it is ethnically wrong for anyone to remain alive. And I am not against museums, where one can look at relics of previous "civilisations." But: Cultures are in flux. Cultures are NOT static. Even North Korean culture cannot resist every western influence. In 200 years, no culture we know today will still exist. They will not have been killed by muslims like you want to believe in your racist mind. They will just evolve, move on, adapt and MIX. Every culture is mixed and NOT a homogenous entity.

>> ^Pprt:

"Racist" is nothing more than silly name-calling. Its only effect is making the accuser seem unoriginal and intellectually lazy. Congratulations to anyone who uses that word for employing the debating tactics of a five year old.
Before Breivik's name was out there I expressed caution in not blaming anyone for the attacks. Unlike most media sources who immediately suspected Muslim involvement, I waited for more facts to emerge before making assumptions. That is not the action of a "racist" as you would define one.
Further, it is impossible to condone the recent events in Norway, nor would any sensible person defend these assassinations as a reasonable act. My admission is that his reasoning is sound, his concerns legitimate and his motivations worthy of study.
As for DerHasisttot's logical pretzel. I'm sure he is the type of fellow that would mobilize government in defense of an endangered species of duck, but yet finds the mild concept that a civilization wishes to maintain its existence is morally wrong. Shame on him.


It is not name calling if it is a true description. If you want to know the exact moment when libel ceased to be libel if the libelous statement was demonstrably true, look here.

"Racist" is nothing more than silly name-calling. Its only effect is making the accuser seem unoriginal and intellectually lazy. Congratulations to anyone who uses that word for employing the debating tactics of a five year old.

Before Breivik's name was out there I expressed caution in not blaming anyone for the attacks. Unlike most media sources who immediately suspected Muslim involvement, I waited for more facts to emerge before making assumptions. That is not the action of a "racist" as you would define one.

Further, it is impossible to condone the recent events in Norway, nor would any sensible person defend these assassinations as a reasonable act. My admission is that his reasoning is sound, his concerns legitimate and his motivations worthy of study.

As for DerHasisttot's logical pretzel. I'm sure he is the type of fellow that would mobilize government in defense of an endangered species of duck, but yet finds the mild concept that a civilization wishes to maintain its existence is morally wrong. Shame on him.

>> ^imstellar28:

I'd be interested to hear an explanation of the moral differences between poaching and hunting, specifically why one is okay and the other is deserving of death.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Looks like fucking poachers to me.
Totally deserved to all get killed.



Hunting involves killing an animal with the permission of both the land owner and national law. Poaching involves breaking either or in this case both those requirements.

Hunting lions is almost universally illegal as they are largely recognized by national governments as an endangered species. Similarly, most anywhere you CAN find lions these days is in government owned reserves of land, where once again you don't get permission to go hunting there.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Given your bullet reply I will do likewise...


I) I agree that culture may influence hypotheses that have a strong influence on popular ideas of the day. When considering your example, it was the church that was the main player on the opposing side, and ideas that go against the church doctrine, well... we all know what happens then. Climate change has similar implications, as it is rooted in politics and lifestyle - it may be influenced by culture. However, the supporting hypotheses are not largely influenced by culture because they are largely scientific in nature and do not have a direct influence on laymen. For example, the ecological hypothesis to which I eluded earlier concerning altitude and species' ranges is not debated on CNN or FOX. It's fairly obvious why. MOST (I'd wager 99%) scientific ideas are similar to this latter example.

a) I can agree with your point somewhat.. I agree that most people (including scientists) are subject to culture and view their world through the influence of it. However, just because this may be true, does not invalidate peer review. This is linked to my former point, if strong contrary data were to arise, it would greatly behoove a scientist to publish those data, not bow to the pressure of culture and hide it. Reviewers would be forced to view the evidence as it stands, in its raw naked truth, regardless of culture or influence - the editors, co-editors, and colleagues of the authors would demand it.
To your point about trends in science, I can also agree, yet climate change has more to do with the pressing nature of the matter then to a trend. This contrasts greatly with your example of Einstein and Newtonian theory. Climate change is "trending" at the moment, because we are forced to confront it - much like we were forced to confront the depletion of the ozone layer, we are confronting the loss of biodiversity in rainforests, the endangered species act, etc.

b) Indeed, I agree with you that it would not necessarily be "bad". However, you questioned if climate change would even be environmental in its effect. With the examples I provided, I hoped to show you that, indeed, it would be. Some ranges would increase, some would decrease, of course. However, as you surely know, evolution of unique taxonomic macroorganisms can take millions upon millions of years. It is not the increasing ranges with which we are concerned, it is the decreasing ones. Once they are gone, biodiversity decreases, even though it may increase for others. The health and environmental ramifications of that I surely do not need to explain.

c1) See my first point (I) - same argument, really.

c2) You're right and that is my fault - I misspoke (mistyped?). I meant that nobody has yet developed any strong evidence to the contrary. However, you have also committed a scientific falsity, which is one never "proves" anything in science. Therefore, a naysayer would never have to 'prove' that climate change is not occurring, but merely present his/her evidence of such to the contrary. He/She would then address the current models and present opposing ones (as many have done). The theory would quickly unravel, as many theories have done (e.g. Clemons vs. Gleason over the forest climax / succession model is a classic ecological theoretical battle that occurred in the early to mid 1900s. Clemons' theory was accepted for decades until a new hypothesis emerged from Gleason. The latter eventually racked up more evidence and is not generally accepted by the scientific community. [one more theory we never heard about in the papers, with practically no cultural influence]).