Discussion » Film & TV » Dolphin bay of island! How to prevent the Japanese

  • Mew Gull
    Mew Gull wrote:
    Dolphin bay of island!
  • Thomas Primdahl
    How to prevent the Japanese horror happens
  • Joakim Berg Solum
    Umm... excuse me?

    Or should I say: "nigga what the fuck is you talkin about?"
  • Thomas Primdahl
    http://www.takepart.com/thecove
  • Joakim Berg Solum
    OK, now you tell me:

    Based on "Dolphin bay of island! How to prevent the Japanese horror happens," how the fuck is anyone supposed to know what you are talking about?

    Seriously, I try not to pick on people for English mistakes because I know it's a second language for you all. But this isn't an English Fail. This is just good plain old fashioned Intelligence Fail.

    I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and Googled for Dolphin Bay Island Japan and there is nothing remotely related to what you are now showing us in your link, unless I am the one suffering from Intelligence Fail.

    Sorry for being cranky. Not looking forward to 14 hours of layovers coming up soon...
  • TonyDice
    TonyDice wrote:
    Presumably you are referring to recent documentary The Cove, which depicted the wholesale slaughter of dolphins by some batshit Japs in an ultra-secret seaside town in Nippon?


  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Secret towns, batshit Japanese people and slaughter are all cool.

    Do these guys accept applications? If so, I'm all in.
  • Joakim Berg Solum
    Yep, the link he posted did make up for it since I am not familiar with the subject matter at hand. Still, a big WTF to the original post.
  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:
    are there any restaurants in beijing that serve baby dolphin? i hear it's delicious!
  • Minger
    Minger wrote:
    It is a good documentary. I met the director when they screened it in Beijing.
    Since its airing they stopped killing dolphins in that town, by the way. They are still killing whales and Chinese people though.
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    should just stop blattering, get armed on small interception ship and go shoot on any fracking japs boats, seriously, whales and dolphins are among the oldest animals on earth they know things we don't despise our intelligence and they too are among the most intelligent species on earth, and all of you guys have to say is oh oh oh oh it's funny , let's watch the film ohohooh deep shit
  • pommie
    pommie wrote:
    >> whales and dolphins are among the oldest animals on earth they know things we don't

    lol.... What does a dolphin know that I don't? Other than how to fk a bro in the blowhole.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    If more people watch the film, it is a good thing because it will raise public awareness and for some, lead to action.

    And stop using the racial slur "japs." Both of you. It's in the same category as the "N-Word" and has no place on this website.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:
    I believe he is saying that he thinks people shouldn't murder whales.
    While I agree and I think whales and dolphins may be among the smartest of animals, I don't know how to evaluate the value of their intelligence against that of a tiger, a bonobo, a 4 year old human, a mentally retarded 40 year old human, and a cow.

    I don't know if there is a fair standard by which to say we should murder some animals and not others. It doesn't seem proper to say we should kill moose but not dolphin. I think maybe to say we shouldn't kill any mammals is a good starting point?

    If anyone responds to this by saying "...i didn't climb to the top of the food chain in order to eat vegetables..." I'm going to find them and fuck them in the face with a sledge hammer. ;-p
  • pommie
    pommie wrote:
    Dolphins are like the J*ps of the animal kingdom anyway. Anal, blowhole, interspecies … they’re up for anything.

    If BP were serious about plugging that oil leak they’d just show a dolphin the hole.
  • 哎呀
    哎呀 wrote:
    I know this is shallow, but if I had to decide who's gonna live between a cow and a dolphin, I'd definitely choose cute dolphin without any doubt, although I know they both have equal rights of survival.:-)

    If you are cockroach, you will face death by fire, water, magazines and slippers;

    If you are white mouse, you will spend your lifetime on labs;

    If you are panda, you will have nice home, sufficient food, and arranged sex partners.

    Humans not only make themselves unequal, but also animals.:-)
  • Erik Aleksander Aas
    @Thorstan,

    Refer to my post in "Things that don't make sense here" thread.
  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:
    Japs should stop killing dolphins, we should tell them the truth now: it is chicken and cows that nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

    (sorry, I should've said "Japanese")
  • Annie Ann
    Annie Ann wrote:
    @Maria: very funny and so true.
  • Erik Aleksander Aas
    Easy on the Jap word people. I mean imagine the uprising if everyone started using nigger, chink, gook, brownie, teapot, honky etc.

    That's just not right.
  • Minger
    Minger wrote:
    Maria,
    What if it was a cow that you knew versus a dolphin that you'd just met. Maybe a cow that you raised from a calf?
    Well, I would be more likely to protect a dolphin than a cow too. In fact, I might be more likely to protect a dolphin than a person I didn't know.
    I'm a little strange though. Anyway, I think there are bigger problems to be faced than than people murdering dolphins. While I certainly like dolphins better than pigs, I think outlawing pig killing would be among the top positive things people could do for themselves. It would do a lot to sort out the food shortage, water shortage, water pollution, and methane gas contributions to climate change. (as long as we stopped breeding them. It wouldn't help much to keep breeding them and not kill them).
    Pigs, cows, and cars. Those would probably be the top things to get rid of. I'll worry about those adorable dolphins after that.
  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:
    I already told you guys very long time ago, the ultimate solution of the "killing, global warming, polluting" problem is the introduction of FUSION POWER and SYNTHESISED FOOD. No more killing, no more agriculture, no more fossil fuel, every thing we eat is synthesised in factory with carbon dioxide and water, using electricity, all energy we need is also provided by controlled nuclear fusion :)
  • Rebecca Dreiling
    The Cove pretty much effed up my entire day. I was bawling my eyes out for a solid 2+ hours. I can't believe that's even happening over there.
  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:
    @Thorstan, it's a sci-fi in 1973, but I'm not daydreaming or joking now. Our technology will be suffice to do so in near future, and I think it's a great idea.
  • 哎呀
    哎呀 wrote:
    莫明,here is my sequence of "who will live list" :

    The cow that I raised from a calf, dolphin, panda, white mouse, cockroach, pig, 莫明.

    Don't be upset, that's only because Jon is not on the list.:-)

    Da Fan, I'm still working on the idea of "synthesized food". I know it's great for the environment and species living in this world, but still prefer to eat my steak from a cow that's not my acquaintance instead of from quirky labs:D
  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:
    Hey Maria, how about the "synthesized" steak is made EXACTLY or almost the same with flesh cutting off from a cow, like the two pieces have EXACTLY the same nutrition component, structure and taste? I think it's not a big deal technologically~
  • 哎呀
    哎呀 wrote:
    Da Fan, I think I'm an outdated stubborn person towards many technology innovation.:-(

    My first step is to overcome my fear to all transgene food.
  • Da Fan
    Da Fan wrote:
    heihei, I can imagine, and it's quite common among people, don't worry~

    As to transgene food, umm, you know, basically, we are all "transgene" mutants ;)
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Bought the movie last night, will watch over the weekend.

    Look for weliveinthecove.com if all goes as planned.
  • Minger
    Minger wrote:
    Maria, hahah, it's smart to kill me first. I do believe I would punch anyone who dared to kill a cute little mouse in front of me... possibly even a girl.
    I'll kill the little roaches that run around Beijing, but last time I was in Macao and there were those mouse-sized cockroaches with high IQs, I just had to ask them to please leave my room. It feels wrong for me to kill anything that big which is possibly more intelligent than I am.......Except for mosquitoes. If they were that big, I'd kill them with baseball bats.

    Little piglets can actually be a little bit cute and are quite intelligent, but the way they're mass-produced is too destructive to the environment.

    Also, anyone who thinks the way they kill dolphins is cruel should go to a slaughter house. Or turn on your wall jumper and watch this video of people putting baby chickens in a blender
  • Joakim Berg Solum
    Life is cheap. Animal life is cheaper.

    @Da Fan, it looks like we share the same views on what would make for a perfect future world... Nukes and perfect synthetic meat. If there was an economical way to synthesize meat, I would definitely go for it.

    Only problem I see is that it would highly reduce the variety of meat that we eat. Right now, a cow gives you dozens of different qualities of meats. You have the tender filet and ribeyes, down to the tripe and testicles. If we were to synthesize meat, I'm pretty sure no one would be cooking up bulls balls in the lab.

    @Maria, how the heck did I get dragged into this discussion?
  • Joakim Berg Solum
    I would just like to say that if it were socially acceptable and delicious, I would eat people.

    Besides, biting your nails is a form of self-cannibalism anyways right?
  • Joakim Berg Solum
    Erm... let me rephrase by saying that I would eat deliciously prepared and commercialized human steaks if they were available.

    Not talking about something like this.
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    well in some islands in south like tahiti fisherman work together with dolphins to catch fish and it's a well know fact, i don't think a 4 year old child or a tiger can learn to work with human and share the prizes!

    you can eat meat but only if the meat is sufficient but whales and dolphins are endangered species unlike cows or sheep!
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    bitting your nails is different because it's not meat and i'm sure as soon as you touch the skin you stop bitting!

    why loosing time posting useless comments!? there is so many
  • pommie
    pommie wrote:
    >> why loosing time posting useless comments!? there is so many

    True, but at least we've got you here writing enough sense to make up for the others.
  • pommie
    pommie wrote:
    >> Do they "share the prizes"? I don't know, because I have no fucking idea what that means.

    Ask a dolphin. They know tons of shit we don't.
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    well and your are proud not to be a part of theone that make sense, well great thinking of yours!

    i don't think someone ask your opinion about going to school when you are 4 years old
    and i don't think either they ask the tiger to be a part of the circus, and i don't think they've been asked!

    share a prizes mean the dolphins understand that if they help human to catch fish the fishermens in return would guive them a share of their catch, this is the beauty of nature, something you too guys seems to ignorant to realize.

    i've pity of you and your thinkless post
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    is that all you guys have to say all day long:
    ''i have no fucking ideas what that means''
    well just take two minutea and makes you brain work!
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    man if you don't believe me it's fine but just check on internet, i'm sure you will find it.
    i saw it twice, once on you tube and even on the news!
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    it is a amazing place, there is many islands in pacific south where they do that, and it's so far from the rest of the world that people overthere seem like living in a different world, those islands are situated between Australia and South America
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    A dolphin will have an average IQ of about 75 whereas a human is about 100
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    One of the problems with such a rigid ranking is that we don't really have a single, good definition for what constitutes intelligence in an animal, let alone a reliable, quantifiable metric for measuring it.

    "Intelligence" as we know it, actually consists of several different factors, including memory, cognitive ability, problem solving, communication ability, and social interaction. Because we humans are high in all of those traits we tend to lump them all together as 'smartness' - but it's quite possible for a critter (such as a cat) to be very high in cognitive ability, but low in social interactivity.

    In such cases, it's hard to determine relative ranks of smartness. If a critter like an octopus has fantastic problem solving abilities, but doesn't have the same amount of long term memory as a humpback whale, which one is smarter?

    Most of the critters others have mentioned would definitely be high up there on most of the traits we consider markers for intelligence.

    The whales, particularily the Delphinids (dolphins, porpoise, orca) are probably high in almost all of the intelligence traits, followed closely by the other great apes (chimps, gorilla).

    I would score most of the Cercopithecoid primates (macaques, guenons, geladas, babboons, langurs) pretty high on the list, and certainly higher than pigs.

    The procyonids, especially raccoons, but also coatis would be high on the list, and certainly above dogs or cats.

    Octopus, ravens and parrots are ones that are hard to measure - they score very high in some categories, and quite low in others. They are all certainly clever animals, but their combined scores may not give them the same "IQ" as the primates.
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    It has been proven that dolphins and whales are highly sentient beings, with complex social structures and family bonds. They are self-aware, they use language –complete with different dialects based on locality and family bonds–and they pass their culture on from one generation to the next.

    While all life is sacred, and we should be treading as respectfully and lightly on this ocean-dominated planet as we can, it seems to me that cetaceans in particular merit special consideration.

    Our arrogance in thinking that humans are uniquely “intelligent” is a hold-over from the time when all animals were viewed as nothing more than limitless sources of income. This anthropocentrism was the reason why, one by one, whale populations were brought to the brink of extinction by whalers intent on profit. It is also the reason why the Baiji river dolphin has gone extinct in our lifetime as human greed led to insurmountable environmental and acoustic degradation of the their habitat.

    Whales and dolphins should not be hunted, and they should not be held captive in tanks that are cruelly small. They deserve far better than what we humans have so far shown them, and we should respect their right to be, and celebrate their uniqueness.

  • ****
    **** wrote:
    Unfortunately the human arrogance that assumes the entire earth and everything on it exists for our exclusive benefit regardless is deeply entrenched and is not based entirely on economics. It is also reinforced culturally not least by many religions, more particularly those that were born in societies where earnings in excess of that needed for comfort developed.

    Ultimately it is of course economic in the sense that exploitation provides income but its also about power and keeping that power (and money) in as few hands as possible.

    We are but a small part of the greater whole and it shames us all that this question even needs to be asked.

  • ****
    **** wrote:
    Cetaceans have *earned* special rights from humans by acts of compassion to humans throughout history. As far back as humans have gotten in trouble at-sea, dolphins have been saving humans’ lives, towing them to shore, protecting them from sharks… Of course they have intelligence and self-awareness, but this is incidental to the issue – They display acts of kindness and heroism to members of our species, yet we have whole industries dedicated to killing them for profit. They aren’t just smart, they’re better than we are in the ways that truly matter, displaying decency as few humans do these days.

  • ****
    **** wrote:
    and dolphins should get “human rights” to life and liberty because of mounting evidence of their intelligence, a group of conservationists and experts in philosophy, law and ethics said on
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    The body shape is fusiform and the modified forelimbs, or fins, are paddle-shaped. The end of the tail is composed of two flukes, which propel the animal by vertical movement, as opposed to the horizontal movement of a fish tail. Although whales do not possess fully developed hind limbs, some (such as sperm whales and baleen whales) possess discrete rudimentary appendages, which may even have feet and digits. Most species have a dorsal fin.

    look i got that in wikipedia they even may have feets!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    Socialization
    Whales are known to teach, learn, cooperate, scheme, and even grieve
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    Sleep
    Unlike most animals, whales are conscious breathers. All mammals sleep, but whales cannot afford to become unconscious for long because they may drown. It is thought that only one hemisphere of the whale's brain sleeps at a time, so they rest but are never completely asleep
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    Lifespan
    Whale lifespans vary among species and are not well characterized. Whaling left few older individuals to observe directly. R.M. Nowak of John Hopkins University estimated that humpback whales may live as long as 77 years.[15] In 2007, a 19th century lance fragment was found in a bowhead whale off Alaska, suggesting the individual could be between 115 and 130 years old.[16] Aspartic acid racemization in the whale eye, combined with a harpoon fragment, indicated an age of 211 years for another male, which, if true would make bowheads the longest-lived extant mammal species.[17][18] The accuracy of this technique has been questioned because racemization did not correlate well with other dating methods.[19]
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    i really hope that all those post will make the people reading them more humble and make them stop joking around. i hope those people will start making their brain work and maybe realize that whales are a lot older than we are and because they live in ocean which occupied 70% of the surface of the earth makes their understanding of the earth more important than us humans with our wars, pollutions and many others vices.
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    Brain size
    Brain size is widely believed to be an indicator of the intelligence of an animal[citation needed]. However, many other factors also affect intelligence and recent discoveries in the field of bird intelligence cast more light on the usefulness of brain size as an indicator.[dubious – discuss][citation needed] Since most of the brain is used for maintaining bodily functions,[citation needed] higher ratios of brain to body mass may increase the amount of brain mass available for more complex cognitive tasks.[1][unreliable source?] [2] Allometric analysis indicates that mammalian brain size scales at approximately the 2/3 or 3/4 power of the body mass.[3] Comparison of a particular animal's brain size with the expected brain size based on such allometric analysis provides an encephalization quotient (EQ) that can be used as another indication of the animal's intelligence.

    Sperm Whales (Physeter macrocephalus) have the largest brain mass of any extant animal, averaging 7.8 kg in mature males.[4]
    Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) have an absolute brain mass of 1500-1700 grams. This is slightly greater than that of humans (1300-1400 grams) and about four times that of chimpanzees (400 grams).[5]
    The brain to body mass ratio in dolphins is less than half that of humans: 0.9% versus 2.1%. This comparison appears more favorable if the large amount of blubber (15-20% of mass) that dolphins require for insulation is left out. Humans have the highest brain-to-body ratio but there is debate whether dolphins or the treeshrew[6] have the highest non-human mammal brain-to-body ratio.
    The encephalization quotient varies widely between species. The Orca/Killer whale has an EQ of 2.57[7] whereas the Bottlenose dolphin has the highest EQ of 5.31. This is below the human EQ of 7.44, but above chimpanzees at 2.49, dogs at 1.17, cats at 1.00, and mice at 0.50.[8]
    At birth, Bottlenose dolphins have a brain mass 42.5% that of an adult dolphin, in comparison with 25% for human newborns. By eighteen months, the brain mass of a Bottlenose Dolphin is roughly 80% of that of an adult. Human beings generally do not achieve this figure until the age of three or four.
    The discovery of spindle cells in 2006 however injects new possibilities into the discussion. Spindle cells were previously believed to be found only in humans and the large apes. [citation needed]

    [edit] Brain structure
    Comparing a land-based species and water-based species introduces a further complication because their habitats make hugely differing demands and their brain evolution has diverged from land mammals quite a long time ago.[9]

    For example, dolphins' cerebral cortex is 40% larger than human beings', with sulci and gyri ("wrinkles") of near equivalent complexity[10] with a similarly developed frontal lobe (ibid) however, for example, "no patterns of cellular distribution, nuclear subdivision, or cellular morphology indicate specialization of the LC (coeruleus complex)" despite the large absolute brain size and unihemispheric sleep phenomenology of cetaceans.[11] Moreover, it is generally agreed that the growth of the neocortex, both absolutely and relative to the rest of the brain, during human evolution, has been responsible for the evolution of intelligence, however defined. In most mammals the neocortex has six layers, and its different functional areas (vision, hearing, etc.) are sharply differentiated. The cetacean neocortex, on the other hand, has only five layers,[12] and there is little differentiation of outer layers according to function. The neocortex of the cetacean brain has a highly developed layer I and VI, which is a pattern that has been labeled "archaic" or phylogenetically primitive and superficially similar to that of hedgehogs.[citation needed] Therefore the evolutionary development of the cetacean brain has taken a different route than that of terrestrial ones.

  • ****
    **** wrote:
    All sleeping mammals, including dolphins, go through a stage known as REM sleep.[13] Unlike terrestrial mammals, dolphin brains contain a paralimbic lobe, which may possibly be used for sensory processing. The dolphin is a voluntary breather, even in sleep, with the result that veterinary anaesthesia of dolphins is impossible, as it would result in asphyxiation.[citation needed] Ridgway reports that EEGs show alternating hemispheric asymmetry in slow waves during sleep, with occasional sleep-like waves from both hemispheres.[citation needed] This result has been interpreted to mean that dolphins sleep only one hemisphere of their brain at a time, possibly to control their voluntary respiration system or to be vigilant for predators. This is also given as explanation for the large size of their brains.[citation needed]

    Dolphin brain stem transmission time is faster than that normally found in humans, and is roughly equivalent to the speed found in rats. As echo-location is the dolphin's primary means of sensing its environment – analogous to eyes in primates – and since sound travels four and a half times faster in water than in air, scientists[who?] speculate that the faster brain stem transmission time, and perhaps the paralimbic lobe as well, support speedy processing of sound. The dolphin's dependence on speedy sound processing is evident in the structure of its brain: its neural area devoted to visual imaging is only about one-tenth that of the human brain, while the area devoted to acoustical imaging is about 10 times that of the human brain. (This is unsurprising: primate brains devote far more volume to visual processing than those of almost any other animal, and human brains more than other primates.) Sensory experiments suggest a high degree of cross-modal integration in the processing of shapes between echolocative and visual areas of the brain. Unlike the case of the human brain, the cetacean optic chiasm is completely crossed, and there is behavioral evidence for hemispheric dominance for vision.

    [edit] Problem-solving ability
    Some research shows that dolphins are able to recognise self by mirror and understand concepts such as more or less in term of numerical continuity (but not necessarily count).[14]. Dolphins have also been recently discovered to be capable of discriminating between numbers [15]. However, the same researcher suggested that "It may involve mimicry," he said, "as dolphins are unsurpassed in imitative abilities among nonhuman animals."

    Moreover, a commonly used definition of intelligence is "the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience." This definition is separate from social/communicative traits or the ability to learn tricks (which can be done through conditioning), which is often mistaken for intelligence.

    Several research observing animals' ability to learn set formation tend to rank dolphins about the level of elephants in "intelligence" tests and show that dolphins does not have any unusual talent with problem solving compared with the other animals classed with very high intelligence[16]. Macphail in his "Brain and intelligence in vertebrates"[17] compared data from studies regarding learning set formation of animals. The result show that dolphins are skilled at problem solving but not the most adept and nowhere as "intelligent" as human.

    Species Score %
    Langur 98
    Mink 95
    Ferret 90
    Bottlenose dolphin 87
    Rhesus monkey 86
    Cat 70
    Rat 60
    Squirrel 60

    [edit] Behavior
    See also: Ethology and Whale behavior
    In his foreword for his book Instinct and Intelligence, Jacques-Ives Cousteau wrote:

    Among the denizens of the sea the gladitor orca is about the ultimate in beauty and efficiency. Orca is the proud marine mammal that inspired fear in sailors and whalers and was
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    Pod characteristics
    Dolphin group sizes vary quite dramatically. River dolphins usually congregate in fairly small groups from 6 to 12 in number or, in some species, singly or in pairs. Researchers believe that the individuals in these small groups may well know and recognise one another.[citation needed] Other species such as the oceanic Pantropical Spotted Dolphin, Heaviside's Dolphin and Spinner Dolphin travel in large groups of hundreds of individuals. It is unknown whether every member of the group is acquainted with every other. However, there is no doubt that such large packs can act as a single cohesive unit - observations show that if an unexpected disturbance, such as a shark approach, occurs from the flank or from beneath the group, the group moves in near-unison to avoid the threat. This means that the dolphins must be aware not only of their next-door neighbors but also of other individuals nearby - in a similar manner to which humans perform "Audience waves". This is achieved by sight, and possibly also echolocation. One speculative hypothesis proposed by Jerison (1986) is that members of a pack of dolphins are able to share echolocation results with each other to create a better understanding of their surroundings.[citation needed]

    Resident orcas living in British Columbia, Canada, and Washington, United States live in extremely stable family groups. The basis of this social structure is the matriline, consisting of a mother and her offspring, who travel with her for life. Male orcas never leave their mother's pod, while female offspring may branch off to form their own matriline if they have many offspring of their own. Males have a particularly strong bond with their mother, and travel with them their entire lives, which can exceed 50 years. It is interesting behavior, as it may seem that there would be no benefit from this except perhaps in hunting techniques, although they could join other groups to hunt. There are two interesting examples of this familial bond in males. Two male sons, identified as A38 and A39, constantly accompany their mother A30, despite that she needs no protection and they can all hunt by themselves, and rarely leave her side. Researchers have noted that if one son does wander off, one always remains with the mother. Another example are the brothers A32, A37 and A46, whose mother (A36) died. Instead of the family disbanding, the three brothers remain constantly together.

    Relationships in the orca population can be discovered through their vocalizations. Matrilines who share a common ancestor from only a few generations back share mostly the same dialect, making up a pod. Pods who share some calls indicate a common ancestor from many generations back, and make up a clan. Interestingly, the orcas use these dialects to avoid in-breeding. They mate outside the clan, which is determined by the different vocalizations. On one occasion, an orca's mother and father were determined to be in the same clan, although in different pods. There is evidence that other species of dolphins may also have dialects.[19][20]

    In bottlenose dolphin studies by Wells in Sarasota, Florida, and Smolker in Shark Bay, Australia, females in a community are all linked either directly or through a mutual association in an overall social structure known as fission-fusion. Groups of the strongest association are known as "bands", and their composition can remain stable over years. There is some genetic evidence that band members may be related, but these bands are not necessarily limited to a single matrilineal line. There is no evidence that bands compete with each other. In the same research areas, as well as in Moray Firth, Scotland, males form strong associations of two to three individuals, with a coefficient of association between 70 and 100. These groups of males are known as "alliances", and members often display synchronous behaviors such as respiration, jum
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    Complex play
    Dolphins are known to engage in complex play behavior, which includes such things as producing stable underwater toroidal air-core vortex rings or "bubble rings".[21] There are two main methods of bubble ring production: rapid puffing of a burst of air into the water and allowing it to rise to the surface, forming a ring; or swimming repeatedly in a circle and then stopping to inject air into the helical vortex currents thus formed. The dolphin will often then examine its creation visually and with sonar. They also appear to enjoy biting the vortex-rings they've created, so that they burst into many separate normal bubbles and then rise quickly to the surface.[22] Certain whales are also known to produce bubble rings, or even bubble-nets for the purpose of foraging. Many dolphin species are also known for playing by riding in waves, whether natural waves near the shoreline in a method akin to human "body-surfing", or within the waves induced by the bow of a moving boat in a behavior known as bow-riding.

    [edit] Cross-species cooperation
    There have been instances in captivity of various species of dolphin and porpoise helping and interacting across species. Including helping beached whales.[23] Another example is of a dolphin helping in the birth of another species by using its mouth to pull the infant out of the birth canal.[citation needed] Also they have been known to live alongside Resident (fish eating) Orca Whales for limited times.[citation needed]

    [edit] Creative behavior
    Aside from having exhibited the ability to learn complex tricks, dolphins have also demonstrated the ability to produce creative responses. This was studied by Karen Pryor in the mid-sixties at Sea Life Park in Hawaii, and was published as "The Creative Porpoise: Training for Novel Behavior" in 1969. The two test subjects were two rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis), called Malia (a regular show performer at Sea Life Park) and Hou (a research subject at adjacent Oceanic Institute). The experiment tested when and whether the dolphins would identify that they were being rewarded (by fish) for originality in behavior and was highly successful. However, since only two dolphins were involved in the experiment, the study is difficult to generalize.

    Starting with the dolphin named Malia, the methodology of the experiment was to choose a particular behavior exhibited by her each day and reward each display of that behavior throughout the day's session. At the start of each new day Malia would present the prior day's behavior, but only when a new behavior was exhibited was a reward given. All behaviors exhibited were, at least for a time, known behaviors of dolphins. At approximately the two week mark Malia apparently exhausted "normal" behaviors and began to repeat performances. This was met without reward.[24]

    According to Pryor the dolphin became almost despondent. However, at the sixteenth session following no novel behavior, the researchers were presented with a flip they had never seen before. This was reinforced.[24] As related by Pryor, following the new display: "instead of offering that again she offered a tail swipe we'd never seen; we reinforced that. She began offering us all kinds of behavior that we hadn't seen in such a mad flurry that finally we could hardly choose what to throw fish at..."[24]

    The second test subject, Hou, took thirty-three sessions to reach the same stage. On each occasion the experiment was stopped when the variability of dolphin behavior became too complex to make further positive reinforcement meaningful.

    The same experiment was repeated with humans, and it took the volunteers about the same length of time to figure out what was being asked of them. After an initial period of frustration or anger, the humans realised they were being rewarded for novel behavior. In dolphins this realisation produced excite
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    Use of tools
    Further information: Tool use by animals
    As of 2005[update], scientists have observed limited groups of bottlenose dolphins around the Australian Pacific using a basic tool. When searching for food on the sea floor, many of these dolphins were seen tearing off pieces of sponge and wrapping them around their "bottle nose" to prevent abrasions.[27]

    [edit] Communication
    Dolphins emit two distinct kinds of acoustic signals, which are called whistles and clicks.

    Clicks - quick broadband burst pulses - are used for echolocation, although some lower-frequency broadband vocalizabetions may serve a non-echolocative purpose such as communication; for example, the pulsed calls of Orcas. Pulses in a click train are emitted at intervals of ~35-50 milliseconds, and in general these inter-click intervals are slightly greater than the round-trip time of sound to the target.
    Whistles - narrow-band frequency modulated (FM) signals - are used for communicative purposes, such as contact calls, the pod-specific dialects of resident Orcas, or the signature whistle of bottlenose dolphins.
    There is strong evidence that some specific whistles, called signature whistles, are used by dolphins to identify and/or call each other; dolphins have been observed emitting both other specimens' signature whistles, and their own. A unique signature whistle develops quite early in a dolphin's life, and it appears to be created in an imitation of the signature whistle of the dolphin's mother.[28]

    Xitco reported the ability of dolphins to passively eavesdrop on the active echolocative inspection of an object by another dolphin. Herman calls this effect the "acoustic flashlight" hypothesis, and may be related to findings by both Herman and Xitco on the comprehension of variations on the pointing gesture, including human pointing, dolphin postural pointing, and human gaze, in the sense of a redirection of another individual's attention, an ability which may require theory of mind.

    The environment where dolphins live makes experiments much more expensive and complicated than for other species; additionally, the fact that cetaceans can emit and hear sounds (which are believed to be their main means of communication) in a range of frequencies much wider than that of humans means that sophisticated equipment, which was scarcely available in the past, is needed to record and analyse them. For example, clicks can contain significant energy in frequencies greater than 110 kHz (for comparison, it is unusual for a human to be able to hear sounds above 20 kHz), requiring that equipment have a sampling rates of at least 220 kHz; MHz-capable hardware is often used.

    In addition to the acoustic communication channel, the visual modality is also significant. The contrasting pigmentation of the body may be used, for example with "flashes" of the hypopigmented ventral area of some species, as can the production of bubble streams during signature whistling. Also, much of the synchronous and cooperative behaviors, as described in the Behavior section of this entry, as well as cooperative foraging methods, likely are managed at least in part through visual means.

    While there is little evidence for dolphin language, experiments have shown that they can learn human sign language. Akeakamai, a bottlenose dolphin, was able to understand both individual words and basic sentences like "touch the frisbee with your tail and then jump over it" (Herman, Richards, & Wolz 1984). Dolphins have also exhibited the ability to understand the significance of the ordering of each set of tasks in one sentence.

    [edit] Self-awareness
    Self-awareness is seen, by some, to be a sign of highly-developed, abstract thinking. Self-awareness, though not well-defined scientifically, is believed to be the precursor to more advanced processes like meta-cognitive reasoning (thinking about thinking)
  • pommie
    pommie wrote:
    Stop copy and pasting stuff you haven't even read and say some more retarded stuff about dolphins so we can all have a laugh.

    Please.
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    i'm sorry to put so much and i wish you could read it all but there will be no more, i think i put enough to prove a point. whales and dolphins are specials species that she should love,protect and respect
  • pommie
    pommie wrote:
    You did a lot of good today Alban.

    Have a biscuit.

  • ****
    **** wrote:
    what do you know if i read it or not, retarded.

    don't be angry because you don't understand it, maybe you IQ is lower than i expected ahahaha go back to shcool or maybe you should go in specialized institute for simple
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    pomegranate, what you said is really low, whouahh you remember me of those villains in France we call ''racaille'' and who are like vermine, they don't think it give them headache.

    refusing to learn and think just make a cokoroache, trying to survive, probably will get a shitty life, end up the same it begins and forgot soon after death
  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:
    I don't know about you guys, but all this makes me very hungry for a nice juicy baby whale steak, with a side of fresh dolphin brain.
  • pommie
    pommie wrote:
    They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning
    No one you see, is smarter than he.
    And we know Flipper lives in a world full of wonder
    Flying there-under, under the sea!
  • pommie
    pommie wrote:
    >> whales ... live in ocean which occupied 70% of the surface of the earth makes their understanding of the earth more important than us humans with our wars, pollutions and many others vices.

    Dolphins also fight in wars.

    During the Vietnam War dolphins fought for the US Navy against the Viet Cong! You didn't see that on M*A*S*H did you?

    Dolphins also love: torture, rape, infanticide and they murder for fun.
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    that's right dolphins never did those thinghs, only asshole with no brains like you ahah.
    and yes everything on earth live a trace, and you don't know all the things that ocean can give us to learn because we are not yet able to explore it fully, that's what i mean.
    whales can, and i bet they will take on the earth when we won't be around anymore but that's a possibility among many others, the problem with you guys is that you are not open, can 't imagine.

    say what you want, who give a shit anyway, not me ahah
  • Thomas Primdahl
    thank everybody , by the way, I like Japanese girl very much.
  • Rebecca Dreiling
    @ Thorstan: Totally not an overreaction. You should have seen me after "Into The Wild"...that must have been a good 4+ hours of crying. What can I say, I'm a cry baby. I cry over everything. Even when I'm happy!

    @ Pete: I look forward to the launch of www.weliveinthecove.com! hahaha

    @ Alban: You should change your name to "SirSPAMaLot"

    @ Mew: This was all just a ploy to get a cute Japanese girl, wasn't it?
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Pomegranate
    That biscuit zinger was one of the funniest things I've ever seen on this website. Good job!

    Alban
    Ok, we get it: dolphins are smart. Awesome. And I'm willing to bet that some individual dolphins are a lot smarter than some of the members of this community. Double-awesome.

    You should join an animal rights group here in Beijing or something.



  • Minger
    Minger wrote:
    I'll stop eating dolphin if more people start eating human.
  • Åse Marie Strand
    @ 莫明

    I know I am probably taking this out of context, but I need to ask what your argument is.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    I watched "the Cove" last night.

    Initial thoughts:

    - Who funded these American filmmakers and their crew (flights, expensive equipment, etc)?

    - What gives Americans the right to illegally operate in another country? Having a "just and moral cause" does not give you the right to break the laws of a sovereign nation. (Sound familiar?)

    - The documentary is biased and does not present interviews with fisherman, town locals or historians. The discussions that are in Japanese are not translated.

    - 2300 dolphins killed per year is about 6 per day, which is hardly a genocide.

    - Arguing that dolphins are intelligent and shouldn't be killed is an appeal to emotion -- not logic.

    I'm actually going to contact Taiji officials to try and go there this summer and write a more balanced dispatch.

    To be clear:
    The Americans featured in this documentary are absolutely anti-capitalist terrorists and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Sure, the film is powerful, but the spin is nauseating.

    I find that activists who appeal to emotion and not facts to justify their crusades are just as bad as bomb-throwing Islamic terrorists.

    In both cases, you can't appeal to reason. Other perspectives don't matter. Other people and their lives don't matter.

    Blinded by fanaticism.
  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:
    [....]Arguing that dolphins are intelligent and shouldn't be killed is an appeal to emotion -- not logic.

    why the people sell his soul to the bitch of the mind, the logic? be logical , be logical, be logical,.... be logical programming, doing maths....., only in some ambits the bitch is a queen, out of them, you can do whatever you want with her, disguising your real motivations, like all fucking theologians in the middle age very very logical and they only said bullshits.

    ok, the shitty gross (should be using predicate logic) logic form of the argument of the anti-killer-dolphins:

    H=A
    If H then B
    C = A
    --------------
    IF C THEN B

    ALSO, we have C=A (fucking funny conclusion, our brothers the dolphins)

    A is rational animal, and usually people uses this definition when they want to make a diference between animals and humans. So, in this context rational animal is the definition of Human being (H). so by definition (yeah, this the moment of the will, and the limits of the logic), the people consider that A=H
    B can be - don´t be cruel, don´t kill with them-
    C is dolphin.

    Is a fact that dolphins are intelligent (at least like human infants and adults with certain forms of disability, and also some teachers in the university)

    so the problem is in the first premise, If A then B,

    a) animal rational is not the diference between animals and humans, then WTF is human being???

    or

    b) why motherfucker you are cruel with this kind of animals and not with the humans infants and adults with disability, be logic AND COHERENT !!!!!!! The next time logic-man u should kick one baby in the face (or whatever you want), or eat them..... Berkley, a coherent anglo-dick, kicked his pregnat dog, he was a coherent and logical man.


    All this, is for the people that put the diference between animals and humans in the ability to reason.
    If you are not one of them, good for you.


    Berkley was a cruel anglo-dick, but not all anglo-dicks are cruel, here we have the famous quote by Bentham (anglo-dick):

    -The day has been, I am sad to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly upon the same footing, as, in England for example, the inferior races of animals are still. The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

    TOCK!!! TOCK!!! this issue don´t have logic solution, this is not a problem of maths, is not like: hey guys! come on! seat down and here we go to calculate the solution

    Is a problem of confrontation of wills and interests, the solution is by the use of force or negotation.

  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    It would be logical if these individuals said "We have to stop killing dolphins because the killing of all animals is wrong," and not "Stop killing dolphins because they're smart and cute and stuff. But killing cows and pigs and stuff is okay because they're dumb."

    That appeal to emotion is inconsistent, cherry-picked, opportunistic and disingenuous.

    If you go back and re-read my comments, I didn't offer an opinion on if I believe that dolphins should be killed or not, so please, spare the appeal to my heartstrings.

    Maybe I agree with you completely. Who knows?

    But I still believe that citizens of one country who go another with the sole purpose to disrupt, stop and otherwise negatively-impact their economic activity are agents of terrorism.
  • TonyDice
    TonyDice wrote:
    Huh?

    Would that apply to... let's say... Greenpeace and Japanese whaling or the Red Cross/ Amnesty and the arms trade in Sierra Leone/ human trafficking in Balkan States?
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Greenpeace and Amnesty International (the Red Cross is not a unified organization) are NGOs -- not lone wolf crack commando units operating under the cloak of darkness with inchoate ideologies.

    Should charges of terrorism be leveled against those institutions? No. But the individual actions of some operating their auspices very well could be.
  • 王望魍
    王望魍 wrote:
    @pete

    "inchoate ideologies"

    pray tell, what exactly is 'inchoate' about recognizing that the methodical slaughter of mammalian life (as depicted in The Cove) is barbaric to the point of anachronism? no. that was a fanatical appeal to emotion. i apologize.

    maybe by 'inchoate ideology' you mean a person of a mindset that would, oh i don't know, compare animal rights activists (who actively seek to stop what they see as a senseless loss of life) to violently militant religious extremists (those who actively seek to maim and kill as much life as they can get their hands on)?

    or are you really not sure what you're saying?

    "The Americans featured in this documentary are absolutely anti-capitalist terrorists and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. "

    so they're terrorists and should be prosecuted, but should they shouldn't be charged with anything?

    wait, now i'm not sure what 'inchoate' is supposed to mean. but if i ever need to borrow a brownshirt, i guess i know who to ask.

    oh, and: "I'm actually going to contact Taiji officials to try and go there this summer and write a more balanced dispatch. "

    i look forward to reading about what it was like when you finally managed to drive your spear into the eye of a dolphin.

    if you take a camera, be sure to really get in close to capture the last moments of a momma dolphin's dying, flopping breath and you high-five-ing all your new fishing pals.
  • Minger
    Minger wrote:
    @ Laura, Expecting me to have a coherent argument is generally thinking too much of me.
    Well, despite that I think people shouldn't capture and kill dolphins, I think the same about deer, pigs etc, and I can't think of any reason why people should only stop eating dolphins. If the argument is their higher intelligence, then I'll only accept it if people start eating lower intelligence humans.

    @ Peter, under what definition of the word terrorist did you find these filmmakers to be terrorists? Although this is almost always a biased term used for the purpose of propaganda, it generally requires some kind of fear mongering in the form of violence. I don't recall any violence being used on behalf of the film makers. Still, at least your consistent in your argument of non-interference, since it's the same logic that allows you to run the second most heavily censored website in Beijing (first being China Daily I guess).
    And yes, I agree that it's an illogical, emotion based argument to say that we should stop killing dolphins while not saying that we should stop killing other animals. It's not a bad argument though. People won't accept the more relevant argument, so why not use emotion and claims of "they're self aware (implying that some other animals aren't?) as tools in fighting idiots?
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    I will! I'll include HD video, too! Just look for the guy with the brown shirt.

    *rolls eyes*
  • 王望魍
    王望魍 wrote:
    is that really your response? the affected attitude of a 15-year-old?

    *taps pen against desk*
  • DonkeyTonk
    DonkeyTonk wrote:
    Pete I see what your saying about appeal to emotions but if the people love a certain animal (Dogs, Seal Puppies, Flippers, Free Willies etc) then it's difficult to argue with that emotion. I'm sure it must be hitting that same spot of the brain when we discuss, Religion, Politics and Nationalism.

    I love my pet dog. I wouldn't wanna see him killed and eaten. But then again I also wouldn't want to see another dog similar to him killed, even if the other dog has nothing to do with me. I'm too emotionally attached to dogs.

    Unfortunately we aren't rational creatures and are led by our emotions.

    I haven't watched the documentary but I can only imagine that the real argument would be if the animals were killed in a cruel way compared to other animals such as pigs etc or if these animals were facing extinction.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    莫明
    Regarding censorship, we're in communication with the authorities about what content is and isn't acceptable. As I've explained to you many times before -- probably more than any other member -- we err on the side of caution. And we like living here! We don't have an agenda and feel no need to rock the proverbial boat. If you don't like our policies, feel free to utilize another platform. It's not that complicated.

    Regarding the definition of terrorism, the international community hasn't yet agreed on a universal definition. But to use the definition set forth by scholar Bruce Hoffman:

    * ineluctably political in aims and motives

    * violent – or, equally important, threatens violence

    * designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target

    * conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia)

    * perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity

    The group and some of the individuals portrayed in the film, prima facie, appears to fit within most of those parameters.

    (And yes, I consider cutting nets and things like that to be considered violence.)

    No need to get hostile with me. It's just my opinion and I'm open to amending it. But it ain't gonna happen when people launch ad hominem attacks and get hot and bothered over an exchange of ideas.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    岑麟艺
    Nah. Just a bit of sarcasm.
  • TonyDice
    TonyDice wrote:
    OK, you said "citizens of one country who go another with the sole purpose to disrupt, stop and otherwise negatively-impact their economic activity "... so how about the US diplomatic visits to pressure China into re-evaluating the yuan? Just for starters!

    I think you just mean, gonzo activists right? They should just sit back and let (what some would call) 'evil' prosper, by doing nothing?

    Dolphin-killing is as cultural abhorrent to the West as it is to a lot of Japanese citizens. What that film showed was a massacre - the dolphins were just hacked at until they died, there wasn't a trace of humanity or "professionalism" that one could possibly ascribe to (proscribed) regulated abattoir practice.

    It was grim. And who the fuck eats dolphins? Fucking no one. Besides, one fact that was unassailable in that documentary was the high mercury content that make the practice of eating their chronically unhealthy.

    The whole practice is just a massive refusal to lose face. they're up to it again this year, bribing the Marshall Islands this year, apparently, to vote for them in the International Whaling Commission.

    Anyway, pigs aren't dumb, they just hang out in shit so we don't like them (as usual). Admit, it, dM, you're trolling
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Richard
    Yeah, I can see that. Thanks for your rational response.
  • 王望魍
    王望魍 wrote:
    @pete

    "Nah. Just a bit of sarcasm."

    you sir, are truly an expert at redefining the actual definition of words.

    i look forward to our next non-debate that you slink away from. cheers!
  • DonkeyTonk
    DonkeyTonk wrote:
    A rational response straight from the heart of a vegetarian ;)
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    I'm really not trolling, TonyDice.

    They are just my initial opinions after watching the film last night.

    And again, there is a big difference between an American economic delegation and a group of amateur commandos who roll into Japan under the cloak of darkness with hi-tech spy equipment hidden in rocks and shit like that.

    For the sake of argument, say I retract my statement labeling them as terrorists. I can see how that can be polarizing and upsetting to many people.

    But I still think that it's unfair that the documentary didn't bother to interview town locals, the fishermen themselves and otherwise examine the deeply-embedded culture of whaling in that village and why people cling to it.

    I also find questionable the attempted disruption of an entire village economy by foreign nationals. And I'd feel the same way if a team of Japanese rolled into where I grew up and took a stand against, I don't know, where it was that old-timers did there to make a buck.

    岑麟艺
    I'm not slinking away from debate, but accusing me of going to Taiji and murdering dolphins while wearing a fucking Nazi uniform is a bit over the top, don't ya think?

    Give me a fucking break. And grow up.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Oh, and I'm also a vegetarian.

    Who would've thunk it, huh?
  • 王望魍
    王望魍 wrote:
    @pete

    sweet, i actually wasn't expecting a response.

    again, if by 'over the top' you mean putting a strawman you in the shoes of what it would take to write that article you described, you know, to the get the other side of the argument i thought you were talking about, i guess the only thing i'd be able to apologize for there would be being consistent.

    also, ok, fair enough, you haven't gone anywhere, here you are, so let's have debate. here's my question for you:

    how do you rationalize being a vegetarian with apparently sympathizing with the dolphin-skewering fishermen depicted in The Cove?

    or should i be asking you: What do you mean when you call yourself a 'vegetarian'?

    an eater of all things non-meat that doesn't sympathize with the dolphins (as seen being hunted in The Cove)?
  • DonkeyTonk
    DonkeyTonk wrote:
    I'm a vegitarean too.

    I suspect what these dolphins go through isn't much worse than you would find in a chinese slaughter house for pigs, cattle, sheep etc.

    I don't agree with it, but people need to look closer to home and realise the hypocrisy of these guys and the people who support them.

    What if some Japanese "Activists" started spying on Chinese villages where dog eating is still common then released a film on it? What would be the response from an average Chinese person? How about the Chinese authorities?
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    岑麟艺
    Alright. I don't usually enjoy debating people who are overly-hostile, enjoy launching personal attacks and have a long trail of passive-aggressive behavior on this website, but I'll humor you.

    How do I rationalize being a vegetarian...
    I don't eat meat due to any lofty, philosophical reasons, but rather for issues of personal health: Eating veggies makes me feel healthy! Tomatoes and broccoli are awesome. They taste good. I lost my taste for meat: it's not palatable.

    Pretty simple, huh?

    I'm not sure why you're asking me what my definition of vegetarianism is: no meat, no fish. And if you're insinuating that part of being a vegetarian is spreading activist lifestyle philosophies, then I'm sorry, but that's just silly.

    And I do sympathize with the fishermen because I come from a working-class background and I know that these dudes are just trying to make a honest living. I can imagine what it must be like to have a motley crew of foreign nationals always on your ass, hounding you, with lofty notions of animal rights and such.

    Rolling into their place of work and being disruptive isn't going to change anything: It's just going to cause grievance to the dudes who occupy the bottom of the food chain and are not decision makers.

    It's only going to aggravate the authorities, leading them away from finding mutually-beneficial solutions.

    Read: Bad conflict-resolution skills.

    There is a time and place for everything. Working through acceptable international channels to mediate problems in a legal way is good. Doing so through illegal means is bad.

    It also turns my stomach when privileged Americans jetset around the world with their pet causes: I feel the same way, for the most part, about foreign policy issues and the meddling of certain groups within the internal affairs of this here country.

    Read: Non-interventionist.

    I don't agree with the slaughter of dolphins (I never said that I did, by the way), but the filmmaker's approach to solving the problem really made it difficult for me to empathize with their cause.

    I hope that makes sense.

    I'm not going to launch any personal attacks towards you -- it just ain't my style -- but insinuating that I'm going to stab dolphins in the eye with my new fisherman homeboys is a bit juvenile; it doesn't really inspire me to justify my arguments to someone with such a toxic demeanor.

    Got it?
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    By the way, 岑麟艺, otherwise known as one Robert Powers:

    You know damn well that you wouldn't act like such a hostile child to my face. You have never done so before, and writing online shouldn't give you a green light to assume such an antagonistic stance.

    Grow up, dude. Or at least post under your real name so that we're both on the record.
  • 王望魍
    王望魍 wrote:
    what i've got:

    you don't agree with the slaughter of dolphins, but take issue with a non-violent means of publicly exposing an apparently black market trade in dolphin meat, and, from the looks of things, inhuman dolphin trade. or maybe you disagree with the film’s sappy editing, hard to say.

    i also got that you’re from a blue collar background but can’t stomach the thought of blue-collaring it up with these new fishing pals of your (though to be fair, I doubt most intentionally aim for the eyes). but oh wait. you’re already assuming I’m ad hominem-ing, or something, so let’s move on to…

    …what I love best about these exchanges, little contradiction sandwiches like these:

    “I'm not going to launch any personal attacks towards you -- it just ain't my style -- but insinuating that I'm going to stab dolphins in the eye with my new fisherman homeboys is a bit juvenile; it doesn't really inspire me to justify my arguments to someone with such a toxic demeanor.”

    so it’s not your style to personally attack people, but i have a toxic demeanor? i'm ‘overly-hostile’ and ‘enjoy launching personal attacks’ and ‘have a long trail of passive-aggressive behavior’ (what exactly is your definition of “passive aggressive” btw?) and i’m also apparently deserving of your ‘humor,’ of which, I am not sure… is what.

    to be perfectly frank, i felt compelled to not shutup in this thread because i found the statements you were making all over the place (prior to taking back the ‘terrorist’ tag) re: sanctity of dolphin life and labeling aggressive investigative journalism as ‘terrorism’ as egregiously offensive.

    but maybe that was me being ‘passive aggressive’ and taking your words at face value, inchoately, diaphanously, whatever you want to call it. i just want to hear your reasoning behind a statement like this:

    "The Americans featured in this documentary are absolutely anti-capitalist [redacted] and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. "
  • 王望魍
    王望魍 wrote:
    pete, we're both on the record insomuch as this is how much information about myself i choose to present myself to the public. if you really want me to get into the specifics, it's why i deleted my facebook profile, let my myspace wither with erroneous personal info, something something friendster -- i think i was on that site for like a week before it got old -- basically i didn't like the idea of a power-drunk Mark Zuckerburg-like figure with control of my personal info at the touch of his mealy little fingertips.

    i'm sitting here in my cubicle, thinking of ways to continue this conversation, and i'm finding it incredibly difficult to engage you on any level that isn't personal.

    'grow up'? 'hostile child'?

    what are you talking about?

  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Yeah, Powers:

    I sincerely do think you have a toxic and passive-aggressive demeanor, which you have illustrated many times via your comments on this website and in your anonymous gossip columns in the Global Times.

    It's sad, actually, because of the hundreds of people I know here in Beijing, you're the only one who is out for my blood for reasons that I cannot discern.

    But beyond that:

    "I am actually going to contact Taiji officials to try and go there this summer and write a more balanced dispatch" does not sound like "aggressive investigative journalism" to me.

    Does it? Sounds quite neutral, I think.

    Regarding "the Americans featured in this documentary are absolutely anti-capitalist terrorists and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law," it's simple:

    While I'll backtrack and admit that it was preemptive for me to label them as terrorists (I can admit when my language has been too harsh) they are interfering with the free market using disruptive (and illegal) methods.

    They should be prosecuted, for having a "just cause" does not make one immune from the legal system.

    Oh, I forgot to include the word "tried in a court of law." Sorry about that.

    That's about it, I guess. I think I've explained everything and don't really have anything else to add. I've got to get started on other projects, anyhow.

    Take care of yourself. Seriously.
  • 王望魍
    王望魍 wrote:
    dude, my GF calls me Powers.

    and if you're going to keep calling me toxic and passive aggressive, i'm going to have to call you a pig-headed and clueless boor that writes like high schooler.

    by "aggressive investigative journalism" i was referring to The Cove. and if by 'out for blood' you mean a frank sharing of my own convictions with the rest of whoever's reading this, then i agree.

    but come on, man! are you serious?: "they are interfering with the free market using disruptive (and illegal) methods"

    the free market of illicit dolphin meat and dolphin captivity? i'm sure the economies of san diego and all the other cities with a Sea World would be devastated if sensible limits were on the hunting and slaughtering of whales and dolphins.

    and, dude, i'd buy you a veggie burger if you ever wanted to hang out and talk about this in person. you're probably right about me not being able to let any of this out face-to-face: i've got a mean stutter and feel more comfortable behind a keyboard than a orator's platform.

    i've also got to get back to work, i'm sure i'll see you around, eventually.








  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Yeah. We can continue this conversation offline over a tasty veggie burger.

    Never noticed the stutter. Huh. See you around.
  • Minger
    Minger wrote:
    Pete
    "...As I've explained to you many times before -- probably more than any other member -- we err on the side of caution. And we like living here! We don't have an agenda and feel no need to rock the proverbial boat. If you don't like our policies, feel free to utilize another platform. It's not that complicated...."
    I was actually being sincere, if somewhat critical, over your consistency. I in fact do not believe it is any national's business to go breaking the law in other countries telling people what they should and shouldn't be doing, when there are things to clean up in their own countries.

    And you must admit that you've enjoyed reading every one of my posts at least as much as you've enjoyed deleting them :-D Besides, I haven't ever really taken issue with you over deleting them, have I? Nothing I write on here would be deleted on Renrenwang, but you've got to do what you've got to do as long as you're lacking a powerful government sponsor.

    "Regarding the definition of terrorism..."
    Well, you've already recanted that, so I guess I've got nothing to say on that regard. I have to add that the definition is shite though. It's a nonsense term that lets the thugs in charge of countries murder whoever they want without being technically "terrorists" (because they're in uniform), while classifying the (equally appalling) murders committed by their opposition as terrorism. Is there really logic in the American Air Force's firebombing of Tokyo not being terrorism, but the world trade center bombing being terrorism? Does Hamas stop being terrorists because they're legitimately elected to govern a country? Can other groups label any given state as a non-country just so they can keep calling its military acts terrorism?
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    莫明
    Good points in regards to the ambiguity regarding the phrase "terrorism." I don't have anything to add, really.

    Apologies if I snapped about the sensitivity thing.

    Long. Fucking. Day.
  • Erik Aleksander Aas

    Cage Fight!

    Cage Fight!

    Cage Fight!
  • Joakim Berg Solum
    I assume you have exceptions to your belief of non-interventionist policies, for example stopping drug trade and human trafficking and child prostitution, despite the fact that entire countries' economies are built on such practices? Oh and of course WMD's, and Cuban tobacco is right out... hahaha

    Anyways, agreed with you on most parts. Whether or not they have a point, the sensationalism sounds about on par with pro-lifers and PETA as far as throwing shock value out there and using demagoguery to scare people into feeling extreme outrage to the point of ignoring logic.
  • Minger
    Minger wrote:
    Jon, do we actually have a difference of opinion on something?
    I am fully in support of stopping the drug trade, human trafficking, and child prostitution, but not by intervention in other countries.
    I would suggest legalizing heroin and marijuana as a solution to the drug trade and related "terrorist" acts.
    I don't know how to solve the human trade / child sex slave problem, but since LA is a major market for that sort of thing, I don't think that intervention in other countries' shit is going to solve it. Asking Mexicans to stop kidnapping 4 year old girls is just like asking Americans to stop raping those same 4 year old girls once they're sold into Socal. One will stop when the other does.
    I would suggest however that any European or American man over the age of 40 traveling to Cambodia, Thailand, the Philippines, or Laos be automatically red-flagged as a pedophile, and that the burden of proof be on the accused to show that they're not.
    I would really like for Chaoxian not to have nuclear weapons. I would also really like for PRC and USA not to have them. I can't form a logical argument why no one should be allowed to have them but me.....maybe I'll be able to once I'm high on my legalized heroin.
  • Rebecca Dreiling
    Pete

    You're quite the debater. :) Thank you for clearing some things up for me about this topic. I totally see your points and I appreciate the appeal to logic, not emotion.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Thanks, Rebecca.

    For what it's worth:

    Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument.
  • Rebecca Dreiling
    Yeah, the first thing my Writing 101 teacher talked about was Pathos and Logos and the history behind (literally) "moving an audience"...also the importance of writing/speaking/arguing/debating from a place of logic, being very careful when (if ever) using anything emotional to appeal to your readers/listeners. All his points were then reiterated by my Philosophy teacher later on in the semester.

    Needless to say, those teachers changed my life. Unfortunately, I still have traces of Euthyphro in my personality make-up, but I'm working on it with the help of like minded people such as yourself. So, thanks.
  • Joakim Berg Solum
    Fallacy or not, emotional appeal is how demagogues are made and how nations rise and fall. Despite the ever increasing spread of information and supposed increase in education level in the world, I think the old adage of "win their hearts, not their minds" is still a pretty effective way to convey a message... regardless of how wrong or logically incorrect that message might be.

    Hell, look at nuclear power in the US. We haven't had a new plant built in decades despite the impeccable safety record (at least in America) and despite the fact that nuke plants actually emit less radioactive materials from their smokestacks than coal fired plants. With properly regulated disposal of the waste material, it's the cleanest energy source we have that can actually provide enough power to cities. Blame those nutcase environmentalists... we need em to save a lot of endangered animals and jungles from blatant exploitation but sometimes I think they are way off the mark.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Completely agree, Rebecca and Jon

    I often forget that all people do not respond equally to logic: the shouting of angry phrases and false accusations is easier and less work than constructing a valid and rational argument.

    And that's why the world is such a shithole.

    Completely agree with you on the environmentalists. I'm not going to go into too much detail lest I get labeled a Nazi again, but I took a few classes in college -- "The History of Non-Violent Protests" was one -- that sketched out the modern environmentalist movement and walked away with a rather disagreeable impression.

    I think one of the biggest roadblocks is the inability for environmentalists to look at the situation from a local resident's point of view.

    It is very easy to analyze something on paper -- or to construct an ideology after watching graphic videos that appeal to emotion -- but without a solid understanding (and a sense of empathy) of how the erasure of these issues and/or practices effect the local economy, there will always be people like me who will refrain from getting on their side.

    And there are lots of us.

    My father has a summer home in the Adirondack Mountains (Upstate NY) and this is an ongoing issue: well-to-do radicals (but good-hearted, I guess) who do not reside in the area have enough pull to influence legislation that dictates how residents can zone their land and obtain building permits, among other quality of life issues that determine the financial stability of both the area as a whole and individual local residents.

    Too complex to go into here. But it's food for thought.
  • Minger
    Minger wrote:
    Hmm, I'm not a hippie environmentalist, but I don't see the logic in looking at environmental issues from any viewpoint except that of the greater collective good of everyone affected (which in environmental cases usually means everyone). Sure I can see why a guy living in Shanxi should both have the right to mine his private property for coal and use the local river to cool his power plant, but I'd err on the side of the billion people living to the south who would rather not get an increased chance of cancer from it.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    莫明
    People in Texas aren't affected by tracts of undeveloped land in Upstate NY -- nor are Long Islanders, Georgians or San Diegans.

    In addition, land development and pollution are not mutually-exclusive. But I do agree with your example: A private citizen probably shouldn't engage in commerce (on his land) that will break environmental laws, negatively impacting other citizens below the food chain.

    But like anything else, life doesn't always fall into neat little parameters. If anything, the underlying issue in this thread is one of law and order:

    Is it okay to break the law for a just cause?

    Thorstan
    Ain't he cute? Funny, because this guy is very obsequious and fawning in real life. You probably wouldn't suspect that he enjoys hate-fucking people (badly, I might add) on the Internet under pseudonyms.
  • Minger
    Minger wrote:
    Pete
    I don't disagree; I think we're talking about different situations, since I don't know what the development situation is in the Adirondack Mountains. If the development there isn't harmful, I say for it.

    As to the question "Is it okay to break the law for a just cause?" the answer of course is abso-fucking-lutely. Although, I must qualify that by saying it would be better to abolish the unjust law than just to break it.
    If the only reason you can think of not to do something is "because it's illegal", there's stupidity at work.

    Ex: Jon Gu has a right to have guns in the States because there's a law that says he has that right. (Stupid)
    OR
    Jon Gu has a right to have guns in the States in order to protect himself and his family in the event the government turns into a fascist dictatorship and tries to drag him away in the middle of the night, in case a foreign attack necessitates the quick mobilization of a local militia that is capable of defending itself, and because shooting shit is fucking fun. (Not stupid)

    Thorstan Fries
    Yes, Pete write good. He can rap too!
    I certainly haven't done any decent writing since I've switched my language of preference to one made of stupid little pictures, and my English vocabulary has degraded to that of... well, the average high schooler.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    莫明
    If the development isn't harmful, I say go for it.
    Abso-fucking-lutely. Thing is, many don't see it that way. Glad to get that distinction out of the way.

    Agree with you, for the most part, on your example: blind obedience is dangerous.

    But the main point that I was trying to illustrate above was that I don't think activists have the right to break laws simply because they find them unjust.

    I find many things unjust, but like most other people, grin and bear it -- for now -- and will probably start lobbying Congress in the future -- like most others -- after obtaining the necessary wealth and connections.

    That makes me "square" and part of the dreaded establishment, I guess.
  • ****
    **** wrote:
    biscuit is the most funny ever, whouah what a low sense of humor, you can are pretty bored or what?

    anyway, cow is cute too, but no relations with human and they are far from extinction on the contrary the marine mammals are. if there was as many dolphins and whales as there is cows or sheeps , i would have less problems with killing them
  • TonyDice
    TonyDice wrote:
    I see you're off the rag today Pete

    Glad you you took back the misconceived 'terrorist' epithet and also realized your remarks had an overarching meaning that really couldn't be wholly sustained as a viewpoint even you agreed with.

    "But the main point that I was trying to illustrate above was that I don't think activists have the right to break laws simply because they find them unjust."

    Well, they don't really, do they? That's why two Greenpeace activists are on trial in japan right now for interfering in whaling practices. And if those guys in the Cove had been caught they would have been soundly beaten and/or arrested for their troubles, and that would have been well within legal rights.

    Does the US not constitutionally protect those who break the law (such as newspapers publishing state secrets) for a higher legal or moral purpose (to uncover corruption, for example)?

    Let's split it into two and ask, do you think activists should NOT have a moral (or legal?) right to interfere
    OR
    Is your objection to FOREIGN activist activate outside the jurisdiction of their own countries.

    Your objection seems to be muddied by this. For example, was gay rights activist Peter Tatchell right or wrong to attempt a citizen's arrest of Robert Mugabe for human rights violations while in London? If he was right, would he have been wrong to attempt it in France...

    We have to distinguish between the likes of Simon Mann gunning into Equitorial New Guinea on a 'Dogs of War' mission and people speaking up for those who can't or won't in foreign countries.

    Why on earth should morality or justice have borders? Isn't that why the INTERNATIONAL court of human rights exists?
  • 哎呀
    哎呀 wrote:
    After watching this documentary, I still don’t know why people in Taiji kill dolphins in such a large scale.

    1) For food? Japanese people may have a tradition to eat whales, but not dolphin. The film crew interviewed several people in Tokyo and none of them admitted that they had tasted dolphin meat before and expressed no desire to try it one day. You can’t find dolphin meat in Japanese supermarket, but the crew suspect that much whale meat sold there is actually dolphin meat made in Taiji. (They don’t give any convincing evidence to prove their suspicion)

    2) For money? One main crew offered a solution to those fishermen : “We give you guys money to compensate on the economic loss of giving up dolphin slaughter. ” But they refused.

    3) For pest control? Some fishermen complained that whales and dolphins eat too much fish, and that’s why they have to kill them in order to have enough fish to sell.

    4) For nationalism? One scholar mentioned that they kind of feel it’s because Japanese people are so tired of western people telling them what to do, what not to do, so they just insist on capturing whales and dolphin to show disobedience and spirit to outside world.

    In my view, this documentary failed to find real reasons behind this slaughter phenomena happening in this small Japanese town and likewise failed to find a feasible solution to the existing problem.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    I wasn't on the rag yesterday, Mr. Dice.

    Let's split it into two and ask, do you think activists should NOT have a moral (or legal?) right to interfere
    OR
    Is your objection to FOREIGN activist activate outside the jurisdiction of their own countries.


    I agree with the latter. But regarding the former, activists should work within the legal system to affect change.

    Period. It's not that complex -- and that pretty much sums up my argument:

    Law and order. Affect change through legal means.

    "Moral rights" are ambiguous. Anything could be spun to be construed as a "moral right."

    As a tangent, if by "International Court of Human Rights" you are referring to the "European Court of Human Rights," then that is coincidentally where I had an internship in early-2004.

    In a word, they're toothless and cannot do much except issue recommendations for compliance. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand.
  • Erik Aleksander Aas
    "The Americans featured in this documentary are absolutely anti-capitalist and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

    Well firstly; Justice and the Law. It is enforced on the powerless and decided by the powerful! In every social movement throughout history, people have broken the law. Take Apartheid in South Africa; people close to me broke "the law" to oppose it, some people who freed slaves in the US were breaking the "law", in the women’s movement in the US there have been people who have broken "the law" (the suffragettes chaining themselves to the gates and the railings to demand the vote). If none of these so called laws were broken, where would we be today?

    (On a lighter note if someone who has a stressful working life and wishes to smoke a little grass after work in the privacy of his/her own home is harming no one, should he be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?)

    I have no problem with the fact that sometimes when pushed, someone will make the moral decision that there is something more important to do than to stick to the letter of the law. It’s not really for me to say what is right for an individual to do, because they know in their heart that if it were their child; if it were their husband; if it were their dolphin, what they would do, how far they would go.

    (And that can even be you illegally breaking a window in order to get a dog out who is dying in a hot car in a parking lot. Things like that that have to be done)

    There is a thin line between what is moral and what is legal. Sometimes what's legal isn't moral and what's moral isn't legal... but I'm all for doing what's moral even if it may break the law. You have to realize that some of those laws were made ages ago. Times have changed in so many ways. I believe that there will always be times when the laws should be broken, because there’s a moral imperative to break a law. Yes. It's illegal for me to enter my neighbor's house without permission. So if the house is burning (or she's being beaten to a pulp and stabbed in the eye by her husband) and I run in to rescue her, that is technically still illegal.

    "Legally" (I think, I'm not a lawyer) it is OK to break the law sometimes but you better have a very good reason. It is called a "justification" defense. It comes up rarely but is theoretically possible. So where do we separate "justified" and "not justified"?

    If George W. Bush was justified, he asserted that illegally spying on Americans in an effort to track down terrorists was "maybe ... part of the job" of the president of the United States - What's wrong with a little "fishing out" to save these amazing mammals?
  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:
    @Alban,
    Do you speak dolphinese?

    No?

    Then how the hell do you surmise that dolphins' average IQ is 75?

    BTW, average human IQ is 100. Period. Full stop. Not "around 100". IQ means intelligence quotient. It relies on statistical comparisons to every other person who took the test. A psychologist doesn't jam a magic stick in your ass to guesstimate yer learninz.

    l2science


    ...


    I'm loathe to express solidarity with hippies who go veg "because killing animals is wrong" instead of relying on rational arguments about wasting resources or despoiling the environment.

    But what's this about elevating property rights above any other kind of right? In the end, the right of ownership is every bit as ambiguous and ephemeral as any other except for basic human rights--the only ones which matter, in my opinion. But there is a point at which the issue affects humans, when it becomes an environmental issue. I think questioning the sustainability of producing and consuming animal products is quite valid and rational.

    But still not good enough to make me think twice before I shove a half kilogram of animal flesh down my throat every day OMNOMNOMNOM.

    Most of the rights we enjoy nowadays were won by people who broke the law a long time ago. American abolitionists were reviled even by slaves. Organizing labor unions and striking used to be illegal. I'm definitely one of those folks who thinks the ends justify the means, because I am a dirty communist. It's just unfortunate that people only pay attention to dolphins and whales, while it's ugly pigs and cows what are farting us to death. In the end, hippies have to package and market their radical ideas for mass consumption just like everyone else. But don't blame them because they only seem to care about the cute critters. Blame consumers for being so fucking apathetic that the only way to get their attention is to show them pictures of baby seals.

    BTW, Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules." It literally means "against the rulers". Developed legal systems offer the powerless some tools for resisting oppression non-violently. But in the absence of legal means, sometimes you've got to break some eggs to make an omelette.

    But yeah fuck the charismatic megafauna. Animals have a right to be delicious.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Thanks, Thor.

    I was referring to acting within the legal framework of contemporary society. But you're right in the sense that I am not going to entertain every possible "what if" scenario, because it's not worth it.
  • Minger
    Minger wrote:
    Troll soup is delicious, but trolls are both endangered and highly intelligent. Much more so than humans in fact. Is it ok to kill a few humans to save a troll? If so, can I pick which ones?
  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:
    @Thor,
    The first definition is spot on. The other two are pejorative and don't really have anything to do with what was at one time a very practical political ideology, and not just a word to describe a lack thereof.

    Ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchía) < ἀν- (an-), “‘not’”), + ἀρχός (archos), “‘ruler, authority’”)

    I think this point is worth nitpicking on. In the early 20th century, anarchists were an unironically organized political force. It's unfortunate that modern anarchists are just angsty teens who listen to shitty punk and eat food from dumpsters. Don't even get me started on the anarcho-primitivists. My own beardliness notwithstanding, those guys are fucking clownshoes.

    Similarly, the etymology of the word "radical" has nothing to do with its pejorative use by Fox News pundits; it actually means "to the root of something".

    That's not to say that dead anarchists or other radicals would approve of bleeding heart hippies organizing boycotts or shooting professional documentaries. None of that bullshit really constitutes direct action as it was historically practised. Unfortunately, those are the tools available at this moment in history.

    I hate the appeals to emotion as much as anyone else, but that doesn't mean we should overlook the rational reasons for not killing dolphins. They're tacitly understated because rational arguments make for boring documentaries. To wit: dolphin meat isn't exactly a delicacy and the meat sold in Japanese supermarkets contains high levels of mercury and other heavy metals.

    Believe it or not, gentleman, this speaks to a serious structural flaw in late-capitalist society in that earnest political reformers have to compete with entertainers and other noise in order to get our attention. No wonder they get frustrated and throw bombs.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Dando

    We approve this message:



  • 哎呀
    哎呀 wrote:
    Wow, they are so cute!!!!!!! I want to marry them!
  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:
    @Maria,
    If I ever get around to establishing a micronation, that could be legal! And since I'm a reverend of the Universal Life Church of Modesto California, I could even consecrate your union.

    And now, from the bowels of Internet 1.0: Mating with dolphins FAQ.
  • 哎呀
    哎呀 wrote:
    Dando, I would like to have a platonic relationship with my future husband:-)

    FYI, your donation to my future wedding ceremony would be much obliged!
  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:
    @Maria,
    "I would like to have a platonic relationship with my future husband:-)"

    Oh. Well in that case, you should probably ask a Protestant.
  • Minger
    Minger wrote:
    ba-da-ching!

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc