Comments by "Roy Sinar" (@roysinar8238) on "Motherboard" channel.

  1. +avion ellivi so it doesn't kill you then.
    1
  2. +avion ellivi http://www.shortlist.com/food-drink/is-this-burger-going-to-kill-you
    1
  3. +avion ellivi Just like the other links I have provided you, they show that eating red meat is less harmful to us than eating whale meat. You carry on about it being worse but you are wrong. Stop spreading misleading information. At least I have some links which seem to include opinions from experts, you appear not to have anything to support your point of view. Not even some dubious local rag. Sorry I don't read such magazines, maybe you can enlighten me on their opinions.
    1
  4. avion ellivi Along with the one I linked earlier in this thread they happen to show that, comparing recommended daily intake, red meat is around 27 times less bad for you than pilot whale. Does that help? At least they are links and have the opinions of experts on them and cover the subject. Teen magazine is unlikely to cover the toxicity of red meat or that of whale meat I would guess. I wouldn't know for sure as I don't read it. Maybe you can enlighten me on it.
    1
  5. +avion ellivi why do you disagree with an Assistant Professor of Medicine on this subject? Lets play "who has the best reference links". I've gone first, now your turn to back up your absurd claim.
    1
  6. +avion ellivi So you missed the other article earlier. Fair enough I guess the mercury does that.
    1
  7. +avion ellivi Then maybe you should start buying local. Support your local farmers and you can help cut down on the amount of industrialised food that is out there.
    1
  8. +avion ellivi Really. Which city might that be. Just because you don't know them doesn't mean they are not there.
    1
  9. +Ruel Martinez why? Simple enough question. If you were to defend the grind against the considerable opposition to it, why would you do that? What is it about it that you think is right? Is there anything about it that you think is wrong or could be done better? It is not a trick question, I would just like to find out what you know about it and why you, as an outsider like me would have your view.
    1
  10. avion ellivi Name the city and lets find out.
    1
  11. asbjørn poulsen There is thought that it may have prevented earlier acute symptoms because the meat is high in carnitine. The presence of it in the meat does not cure the genetic disease. It may have prolonged the lives of some people who have this disease. It does not mean that it hasn't caused a number of other issues in otherwise healthy members of the population. I don't think you can convince anyone that eating something that is inherently toxic to you is great as it can stave off the symptoms of a rare genetic disease. Good effort though.
    1
  12. asbjørn poulsen Do add a link to the doctors accounts. The whales are significantly more toxic than chickens, cows or pigs and we have been through that and I have given you evidence to that end and so far you have nothing other than you saying so to claim the whale meat is not toxic, so forgive me if I ignore your last comment as just being pointless and inaccurate. So unless you have the doctors accounts to provide, we have nothing more to discuss.
    1
  13. Christian Sverri but if you are killing and eating whales that are bad for your health, despite knowing they are toxic, then yes it kind of is your fault. We have already covered the fact the whale meat is not actually needed. So, realistically, you are doing yourself harm because you are failing to look past "we have always done it" and "we will do it because we wont be told what to do". Despite it being short sighted it is no better than a kid in a playground throwing a tantrum, only this is on a bigger scale.
    1
  14. asbjørn poulsen No. I suggest you read it again.
    1
  15. asbjørn poulsen you stick to that and keep telling yourself that. :)
    1
  16. +Christian Sverri thanks for the view from the thinking section. Now you know how I feel each time someone doesn't read the thread and starts spouting on this subject. Maybe that's why the pro-grind people give up and harass others they think they might be able to argue against.
    1
  17. Dreck the Sea Shepherd group associated with the Grind protest are from the EU generally, but they do attract the odd American. Generally the homicide rate is calculated per 100,000 population. In this case if you had 1 homicide in a year the islands would rate as a 2 on the list, which is higher than Denmark but lower than the US. Either way I don't think Sea Shepherd care much about people killing each other, doesn't appear to be part of their remit. A more interesting point would have been to question how many mass species slaughter events they have in the US against the relative abundance of that species. That way you could compare apples and apples and determine if Americans commenting here are indeed being hypocritical, unless of course they protest about those as well in which case your argument/comment would be relatively irrelevant.
    1
  18. Christian Sverri I was going on you saying that someone was killed a few weeks ago. If that is wrong then fair enough I could go check, it's unusual for me not to double check those comments made by grind supporters. Not saying they are generally false so much as less than reputable.
    1
  19. Christian Sverri you should give up altogether. You never seem to win.
    1
  20. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has only one mention relating to animals, and killing them is not mentioned. It does talk about resources though which is fairly ambiguous and could be considered to cover animals as a resource. The list of indigenous peoples is very long with a great many who used to hunt whales. A more practical argument would be along the lines of Aboriginal Subsistence whaling as presented by the IWC, although the Faroes do not feature on the list of allowed hunts within that. Slavery is not a term related to animals. The Grind is not illegal. Doesn't stop it being unnecessary or questionable on sustainability grounds. It certainly isn't great as far as health is concerned. I see a lot of spam about rights to this and rights to that and references to various charters and such. At the same time I also see a lot of denial of the medical research and evidence, much of it from the Faroes themselves, that says eating these whales is bad for humans. Sometimes you can't reason with people when they feel wronged. No amount of pointing out the obvious will stop them defending the indefensible.
    1
  21. Wow, someone who actually takes the time to check what they are writing. You would be a first among the Grind supporters then. Well at least you agree with me on slavery and the legality of the matter. So lets deal with the other matters. With regards to the rights of indigenous peoples, it specifically doesn't mention hunting and i would guess that it is for a reason. Such a reason would be the killing of animals that is not sustainable or for the sole purpose of tradition. Those hunts specified by the IWC are not indiscriminate and are allowed for subsistence. In the case of the Grind neither can be considered to be the case. It would be foolish, given the numbers, to suggest otherwise. The document "Cohort studies of Faroese children concerning potential adverse health effects after the mothers’ exposure to marine contaminants during pregnancy", which I have referenced many times already within the various threads on this matter, do not suggest a reduction in the contamination. They suggest a serious link to various diseases for those ingesting pilot whale meat or blubber. The Seychelles Child Development Study was around the impact of a diet where eating ocean fish (considered high in methylmercury) was prevalent. Now I don't need to point out to you that this cannot be considered as valid in the case of pilot whale meat/blubber. That would include the further studies you mention and for the same reason. Recommended reading for you: Dietary selenium's protective effects against methylmercury toxicity. While I have not suggested any crisis, the medical advice and the intense medical research around this subject and the focus of it on the islands would suggest someone is worried enough. I quote from that first article "It is ironic the this remote archipelago, which is not responsible for any significant mercury pollution, must now give up a traditional food source". It is a shame in some ways although with the additional information around the various sub-species of pilot whales coming to light, it is probably for the best in relation to the sustainability of the various populations of the pilot whale.
    1
  22. As the Faroes are not really covered by the IWC then yes it is irrelevant other than providing an example (as it was being used as such) of indigenous people hunting whales. In that case it is relevant as an example. It is important to be accurate when you claimed that the amount of contamination was reducing. It was reducing because those Faroese women were abstaining from eating whale meat and blubber. If anything that backs the point that really the Grind is unnecessary. In 2013, 1104 whales or 8302 skinns were harvested from pilot whales in the Faroes. That would be just over half a tonne a whale on average. Baring in mind that the study you mentioned was in 2012, who was eating all of this whale meat and blubber on an island of 50,000. You can run through the numbers yourself and realise that it is highly unlikely that it was all or even the majority of it, being eaten by the locals. Certainly not a portion of the women or children. Pilot whale meat also contains PCBs and it was found that the amount of selenium in the diet could not offset the methylmercury of both the fish and the whale meat. Now I would point out the obvious. "Probably sustainable"? The list says they are "data deficient" as there is not enough information to accurately determine the actual population to a statistically safe point. In fact NAMMCO says this "a decline appears to have taken place over the twenty year period. However, because of the high degree of uncertainty within survey estimates, this apparent decline is not statistically significant". I wouldn't pin my hopes on surveys when they have a high degree of uncertainty. NAMMCO goes on to say that genetic research suggests each pod could well be a genetically different population of pilot whales and therefore the population unit could well be quite small. Given that and the fact they also say that pilot whale meat is not fit for human consumption, it calls into doubt the sustainability of a hunt where a large portion of an individual pod is wiped out in one instance and also the point of doing such a hunt. Consider this, the general medical advice is that a maximum of 3.5g of pilot whale meat can be safely eaten per day for an adult of 70KG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417701/ So if all 50,000 people are adults of 70KG they would need 170KG of pilot whale meat a day to be eating the maximum allowed. That equates to 63875KG of whale meat per year. That is 63.875 tonnes of meat per year to feed 50,000 adults. That would be around 127 pilot whales. Not all 50,000 people are adults and not all of them are 70KG.
    1
  23. I would never suggest the Faroes are populated by mercury zombies. My point is that it does no harm to anyone to consider stopping the Grind and doing what most other cultures have done and replace it with a less objectionable symbolic tradition. The main reason for the stubborn stance on this is almost certainly the actions of Sea Shepherd. No one likes being told to stop something or what to do. They stop hunting the whales and no one is going to starve to death for want of a bit of whale. Each year this goes on it is pointless to try and defend it as it is too easy for anyone willing to read a bit to dismiss pretty much all support for it.
    1
  24. They are already living quite well but your point is valid. The money that could be made from whale and dolphin watching would more than subsidise the economy for what is a small sacrifice.
    1
  25. Please point out where I have suggested pregnant Faroese women are responsible for the majority of the whale meat consumption. My point was the complete opposite. Non sequitur my arse. I understand English may not be your normal spoken/written language so I would urge you to check your statement about that as it is wrong. I have also stated that no one can stop this, frankly pointless, tradition other than the Faroese. So that has dealt with your first 3 paragraphs. I haven't mentioned the IUCN, why bring them up? The fact remains that even NAMMCO, an organisation sympathetic to the Faroes, say numbers are likely reducing and that population units may be smaller than previously thought due to genetic research. All of my previous statements in regards to that are correct and accurate. Regarding consumption, lets assume I am correct, and that pregnant females are not eating whale meat and blubber. Let us also assume the guy in the video isn't lying and that the children are also not consuming whale meat or blubber. Out of a population of 50,000, how many do you reasonably assume are adult males over 70KG? Baring in mind that even if all 50,000 were adult males of at least 70KG they could easily hit their daily recommended maximum whale consumption with 127 whales. So why do you argue about the calculations I have made when it is fairly obvious that killing up to and over 1000 whales is wasteful in the extreme. In fact why are you even debating these points? What would be the problem in finding a less questionable form of celebrating the Faroese whaling tradition?
    1
  26. Not being an expert on eco-tourism and whaling in coexistence I would probably defer to those cruise lines that have dropped the Faroes from their itinerary due to concerns over passengers breaking the law by not reporting whale sightings in case they cause the destruction of a pod (and possibly a population) of whales. "oh look at the majestic whales" followed by "Oh look at the majestic whales being butchered on the shoreline" are unlikely phrases to hear from eco-tourists. It has a trunk and big ears, it would appear to be the elephant in the room.
    1
  27. Is that not just a matter of perspective? Therefore it is pointless to argue that point. Thanks for the useless Sea Shepherd time line. I'm not sure you are making a point at the moment, you certainly seem to avoid addressing the points and observations I have made. We shall just assume that I am right then and crack on.
    1
  28. At last. In this thread you will find links to you tube videos showing discarded whale meat etc. in the sea. So far not one of those from the Faroes I have asked has been able to account for the mismatch in the numbers or for where all that meat went. Although they all claim none of it was wasted and yet none of them claim to really eat any of it. (I even got some recipes) You can fit the entire population in a single half decent sports stadium, that is hardly a "considerable" amount of people. Even so the numbers still stack against the consumption of all of those whales. Sorry I hadn't checked where your quote on it being "probably sustainable" came from. I know I hadn't used them for a quote. the NAMMCO data does suggest that there are questions about sustainability and does say that more research is required to establish population numbers and units. While there are questions relating to sustainability it seems careless to just carry on killing them. What law compelling people to consume processed meats? Did I suggest that? Right cruise lines,: http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2015/08/articles/cruelty-murder-of-animals/stop-the-grind-boycott-cruise-lines-that-cruise-to-faroe-islands/ http://www.cruiselawnews.com/tags/faroe-islands/ http://www.dw.com/en/faroe-islands-cruise-boycott-hits-tourism/a-19397715 Have a bang on those.
    1
  29. There was a backlash against Sea Shepherd. Until they got involved the amount of whale being consumed was reducing. Since they got involved it has increased again. At least that is what I have been told by those I have questioned on this subject. It is a natural reaction and therefore I see no reason to dispute it. Are you disputing it?
    1
  30. Where exactly in that sentence am I saying that you suggested something about a "law compelling people to consume processed meats" ? - Then why bring it up? I have not said anything about the grind being illegal, I am suggesting that it is fairly pointless and that it would be better replaced as a tradition and that only the Faroese can decide that. You asked for evidence about the cruise lines and the impact on the tourism trade in the Faroes, there you go I gave you some. If you don't like the wording then take that up with the author. Some cruise lines still go there but some have stopped, supports my point so that is sorted then. By all means share your videos, I believe there are ones showing bones as well if you go look. either way it has no impact on the accuracy of my point regarding the amount of meat/blubber not being consumed or consumed. Again you are avoiding the point. I'm not interested in your musing on the ethical nature of cruise lines and their various decisions.
    1
  31. asbjørn poulsen that's a bit harsh, she is on the same side of the debate as you. Understandably biased when it is something you are born into and brought up with.
    1
  32. Heri Debes maybe you can answer a question that has been running through the threads of this video. Roughly how much and how often do you or your family eat whale meat and or blubber.
    1
  33. asbjørn poulsen that wasn't my question. I'll wait for the answer from the person I asked. It's not a trick question or that I'm trying to catch anyone out. I am genuinely interested as it helps me understand the whole thing better. My opinions are never set in stone. Only an idiot would stick to an opinion in the light of new information learned. So the more I learn the better informed my opinion will be.
    1
  34. asbjørn poulsen thanks for repeating the same stuff as before.
    1
  35. asbjørn poulsen nothing as my question was to someone else.
    1
  36. That just doesn't make sense. I think you got the wrong thread.
    1
  37. How much of the meat and blubber do you consume on a daily basis would you say?
    1
  38. Interestingly there is some stuff out there to support your claim: http://www.dagens.dk/krimi/p%C3%A6dofili-tre-gange-flere-b%C3%B8rn-misbruges-p%C3%A5-f%C3%A6r%C3%B8erne-end-i-danmark While the figures suggested may be skewed by the population for the islands being so low, someone is concerned. It is off message on these threads though.
    1
  39. You are only wrong by 1500 years. Good effort though. And that is comparing global whale hunting against northern European farming. Obviously if it was global farming against global whale hunting it would be a much bigger number of years between the two with farming starting around 12,000 BC and whaling only 3000 BC. I have covered off which is more dangerous to eat before and it was definitely pilot whale. I believe it came in at 27 times more dangerous to eat than farmed red meat. Maybe that is why your supermarket likes to stock a lot of red meat.
    1
  40. asbjørn poulsen No one is suggesting that whale hunting was wrong all the time. Now you are not stupid so don't try and pretend you have forgotten that my point is that it has no place now. Partly due to the toxicity of the meat and blubber and partly as it is no longer needed as a food source. Personally I don't poison any animals and I get most my meat from a local farmer. I certainly don't feed my kids on dangerously toxic food. Modern farming methods are not always the best but 27 times less toxic is better than 27 times more toxic.
    1
  41. But we have had this conversation many times. You cannot say the Pilot Whales you kill are not endangered. We cannot say they are because it depends on research based in the Faroes among other nations. Wriggle a little and writhe a bit each time is your way. You still can't front up to me and you know it. I got spiders in my house more honest.
    1
  42. Bother me when you have something to add to this. Otherwise be beaten like you are.
    1
  43. asbjørn poulsen and you have no answers to any points made other than we can do it so we will. An unfortunate lack of imagination or willingness to even contemplate having a rational discussion on the subject.
    1
  44. asbjørn poulsen there we go again suggesting I support Sea Shepherd. Pity for you I don't. Doing well at being wrong. Again.
    1
  45. asbjørn poulsen at least you are consistent.
    1
  46. I don't believe what they say any more than I believe what you say. And no I have never been to the Faroes. It is not on my list of places to visit either. I have been aware of the Grind for a good many years and have read widely around the subject and have formed my own opinions from the various sources. I have collected a fair bit of data from a number of fairly reliable sources. I tend to avoid obviously biased information where I can as it hardly stands any scrutiny. That may go some way to explaining why you seem to have no joy in dealing with my points and comments. In fact like many others you seem to avoid dealing with them and use distraction techniques like the comments and question above.
    1
  47. That is not what I said.
    1
  48. You believe what you like. You don't seem to let facts get in the way of your beliefs previously, so why start now. Maybe that is why you are so bad at this.
    1
  49. To be fair you are right about his reasoning skills. The problem is that the Faroese like Asbjorn, are very much stuck in the mindset that you are either with them or you are a Sea Shepherd supporter. The idea that an independent thinker can make their own mind up seems to be very much alien to their way of thinking. It is tough to look at something that has been done for ages and for various reasons and something you have grown up with as normal and realise that it actually doesn't belong in this day and age and is no longer required. It is normal to rebel against outside pressure to change and entrench a ridiculous position that is utterly indefensible. In many ways I have a lot of sympathy for the Faroese as it is inevitable that this throw-back tradition will at some point in the near future, have to be allowed to drop into past where it belongs.
    1
  50. asbjørn poulsen didn't realise they sold sheep fish in your supermarket. Maybe that is just the Burger King that sells it. Mad as a box of frogs.
    1