Logic 101, (F). Must learn to think logically and understand
clearly the definitions of terms used. For
example, consider the few sentences: "Humans are predominantly omnivores. We eat meat, therefore we must kill animals. "

We are all omnivores ... which means we are able to
live on a wide variety of diets. Being omnivorous does not mean
we must eat meat, but it implies that we can. The sentence "We eat meat" is simply a false generalisation and is followed
by a false implication. There are plenty of meat eating
animals which don't kill, so either way, the logic flaws
just keep flowing.

The advent of synthetic B12, frees us entirely from any need for
animal products or soil bacteria in our food, in much the
same way that antibiotics reduce the
natural human death rate from infectious diseases. Of course, if
you want to be entirely "natural", you will choose neither. The
US Institute of Medicine recommends ALL people over 50 take b12
supplements ... it doesn't have many of the absorption problems
of the natural product.

The remaining numerous errors in logic are left as an
exercise for other readers.

On the issue of the "cuteness" factor, it's notable that one of the celebrity activists in this campaign obviously doesn't think baby moo-calves are as cute as Flipper, which is why she helped design, and promotes the "Hayden Bag", a calfskin handbag sold by Dooney & Burke.

For a vegetarian who's regularly praised by PeTA, she also has a slightly hypocritical taste for sushi and promoting beauty products tested on animals.

Anyway, I wonder if everyone would think dolphins are so cute if they knew that they're violent sexual predators into pack rape, infanticide and the senseless murder of other species like porpoises?

Clownfish, that's only the muslim and pagan dolphins. The Christian ones don't do that sort of thing apparently.

Geoff is absolutely correct - I did make a logical leap in connecting the actual killing of animals with our insatiable appetite for meat.

Please accept my unreserved apology.

But as I'm not too fond of synthetic B12 or other supplements, could someone please explain where we can find billions of chicken, pigs, cows, goats, fish, crustaceans and other meat forms that have died of natural causes so that we might be able to feed the world without actually killing anything?

That is all.

You are wrong about toxins. Dolphins are predatory animals at the top of the food chain and are therefore much more susceptible to having high levels of toxin buildup than your average fish.

You say that there is no alternative to the current cruel slaughter but you are wrong. People dont "have" to eat dolphins it is a choice they make. The alternative to the current slaughter is to stop eating dolphins.

If there was no humane way to slaughter cows and sheep etc would you still eat them even though they had to suffer greatly for your eating pleasure? It is not like vegans, vegos etc die from lack of meat so your argument that we "need" meat is also wrong.

Your article reads like spin from the Japanese whalemeat industry.

We slaughter our unborn and then complain about cruelty to dolphins in Japan. Women's rights we say but the Japanese should not have any. What a sick view of life our secularist portray.

Mikk, I think you will find that one doesn't have to be at the "top of the food chain" to have toxicity issues. Mussels and oysters being a good case in point.

Also one needs to be careful about only seeing a 'food chain' when it is more appropriately a 'food web' with much interconnectedness.

However there are plenty of seafood sources that are also at the top of the food web, including tuna, mackerel, squid, octopus and shark. Dolphins are not alone in this realm.

The main point that I was making is that in the absence of a better (broad context) alternative to the method of herding and culling dolphins, we must deal with what we have if some cultures are to see them as a food source. If you argue for them not be a food source without a valid reason, then you must argue for all animals to be treated the same, thus depriving the world population of valuable protein.

Would I eat animal meat if there was no way to humanely kill it? Yes. Would I kill it myself. Yes, if I had to do so. Would I hesitate - of course.

To say that we "do not need meat" is like saying we "do not need fresh fruit and veges" because we can rely on synthetic supplements. Bring on the Soylent!

I do not intend to ever become a vegan and, as I concluded, I know where my meat comes from and I'm OK with that

I haven't seen The Cove, but I've seen the review in 'At the Movies' with David and Margaret and I've seen a sickening video at YouTube. If that wouldn't be enough to cause me never to want to eat dolphin, the 'cuteness' factor definitely would be. Sorry, I know it's an emotional argument but dolphins are for me closer to pets than say pigs, cows or chicken. That said, I try to eat as little meat as possible and I mainly stick to beef, as I hope that at least the cows are being killed in the least painful way available. As to pork, I only eat free range and I try to stick to the same principle when it comes to chicken.

About the dolphins: I was unaware of their aggressive behaviour as mentioned in one of the posts above. Still, in their enthusiasm dolphins are to me like little children that put their trust in you; they follow the fishermen to the cove, fully trusting them, only to be slaughtered and yes: that happens in a most gruesome way. The images I saw on the video were absolutely sickening. Everyone has the right to blame me of hypocrisy for the 'cuteness' element, but to see those animals struggling on the ground while blood gulps out of them is simply too much. In the video it takes some time before they die. Honestly, there must be a more 'humane' way to kill them.

So what you are saying Col is that cruelty and suffering do not matter when it comes to your food. You would be fine with torturing animals to death so you could eat them. Why would you "hesitate"? Could it be that even your humanity shows through, no matter how hard you try to suppress it, when it actually comes to the act of killing?

You say it is "cultural" that the Japanese eat dolphins.
Some cultures practiced cannibalism or human/animal sacrifices. Does that make it ok? Is it ok to throw virgins into volcanoes because "some cultures" practise/d such things?

How does saying no to dolphin eating extend to all other animals? It is not the eating of them we object to it is the cruel, sadistic and painful way they are slaughtered that is the problem. Most people have no problem with eating meat obtained humanly and without cruelty and if dolphins/whales could be killed humanely I for one would have no problem with it.

If saying we dont need meat is so wrong then please explain to me how and why vegetarians and vegans dont die from their lack of meat.

There are reasons why we have anti cruelty laws and I am totally in agreement with the sentiment of them. You should not inflict cruelty and suffering on any animal for any reason. If we killed pigs or sheep the same way the Japanese kill dolphins there would be an outcry

*We slaughter our unborn and then complain about cruelty to dolphins in Japan.*

Yeah, we know runner. Every time you have some impure thoughts,
you cruely murder a few more hundreds of millions of your sperms
and send them down life's toilet, to a cruel death.

Shame on you runner!

What I most strongly object to is the clear and totally unwarranted connection between the words 'human' and 'humane'. I think the evidence before us clearly suggests 'Humanity' or 'Humaneness' is something we should all strive for; rather than something which is our natural birthright.
Because very few animals are capable of the inhumanity that so many humans exhibit; and the idea that if there are such animals, then it is perfectly permissible to just as inhumane as they are, is really stupid.
Humaneness is defined as the quality of compassion or consideration for others (people or animals).
I stopped eating meat not because I believe killing is wrong, -everything kills something, in order to live- but because I object to the inhumanity involved in the whole process. Not just physical cruelty or caging, but the stress the animals have to go through in even getting to the abattoir should be unacceptable to any 'Human'.
For these reasons I personally am more comfortable with eating kangaroo (cleanly shot in the paddock, all unaware) than eating beef.
As the world gets more and more crowded, and more and more (over a billion) people are malnourished, it becomes less and less justifiable to feed so much grain to animals and then eat the animal, instead of just eating the grain.