Problem is that the proper channels have been tried. The Japanse just say "fuck you" and continue their hunting under the guise of "scientific research" - except most research doesn't end up directly on resturant tables - to get around the ban on commerical whaling.
Dumbass Japanese and Greenpeace ramming in Australian waters!!
- Thread starter TheMasterOfOrion
- Start date
Problem is that the proper channels have been tried. The Japanse just say "fuck you" and continue their hunting under the guise of "scientific research" - except most research doesn't end up directly on resturant tables - to get around the ban on commerical whaling.
And how can you be sure of that?
Oh, don't be ridiculous. You could say that about anything.
Which is the big problem I have with these aliens that keep doing research on our cattle and then just leave them there. If they at least dropped them off at restaurants they wouldn't be wasted.
That they don't want to kill anyone? Because it would be counterproductive to their cause, and because they haven't killed or tried to kill anyone in 33 years of being active, despite having the means and numerous opportunities to do so. You keep saying shit like "they haven't killed anyone yet" but they've been operating since 1977, so how long do you keep getting to hang that over their heads like they're just biding their time, waiting to kill someone?
That they don't consider whales superior to humans? That's logical supposition based on things like the fact that they have no problem trying to trick the whales into being frightened away from a hunting party (whereas someone considering them superior might find tricking them offensive even if it was for a good cause), and they don't consider humans (either themselves or whalers) expendable to the cause or else they'd use suicide tactics or actively try to kill whalers.
The problem is that you guys seem completely incapable of dealing with shades of gray, and are instead making everything black and white. Not to Godwin the thread or anything, and I'm not comparing either side to these people, but just because you fight on Stalin's side against Hitler doesn't mean you're all "Yay, Stalin's a great guy!" Difficult times often create strange allies and protagonists.
By the same token, I can think the Sea Shepherd guys are somewhat crazy, often incompetent at seamanship, and are wrong to practice vigilantism and vandalism, but at least their hearts are in the right place and they're actively trying to stop a terrible, illegal practice.
Let's balance the books here:
Sea Shepherd:
- Vandalism and sinking of ships: Check
- Infrequent minor injuries to opposing crew: Check
- Lying and playing the victim: Check
- Violating international law: Check
- Trying to save whales: Check
- Mass slaughter of whales: _____
Whalers:
- Vandalism and sinking of ships: Check
- Infrequent minor injuries to opposing crew: Check
- Lying and playing the victim: Check
- Violating international law: Check
- Trying to save whales: _____
- Mass slaughter of whales: Check
Boy, and it was so close up until that last couple of categories too (but only because I left off a lot of shit that would further indict the whalers). I guess the cruel and illegal practice of mass slaughtering intelligent and feeling creatures is going to have to be the deciding factor between the two. Hmmm, let me ponder that one for a while before making my choice...
Sea Shepherd may be doing something illegal, but at least they're doing it for a noble cause and because all other options have failed, been circumvented with lies by the whaling companies, or have shamefully not been enforced by those with the legal authority to do so. When governments and international agencies fail to perform their duties, do you just pack it in and do nothing while the wrong continues, or do you take action?
True, but it's still supposition. Which is of course what I'm doing as well. But if you can do it, then so can I.
Don't you know me well enough by now? Of course that's what I do.
And that Paul Watson is an egotistical jackass.
That doesn't make it right.
True, but it's still supposition. Which is of course what I'm doing as well. But if you can do it, then so can I.
But I'm basing mine on a logical progression from known facts. You are basing yours on assumptions you have made with no basis in anything that's actually happened.
Even though I've managed to go 36 years without killing anyone you could still say the potential exists and use that as a reason not to trust me. But would that be a fair judgment of me given my track record so far? How would I ever be able to overcome that judgment until the day I die?
It's not a virtue that should be bragged about repeatedly though. You wear being inflexible and unwilling to consider viewpoints outside a very narrow focus like a badge of honor and constantly say "that's what I do." Well, try not doing it for a change and see how that works out.Don't you know me well enough by now? Of course that's what I do.
I don't watch the 'Whale Wars' show, so I'll have to take your word for it. Doesn't change the fact that in my book, when balanced against the whalers he still comes out on top.
So, if an injustice is being repeatedly committed and the legal authorities refuse to act (or they take part in or sanction that injustice), you would never take the law into your own hands to try and stop it? There's nothing "right" about that at all, and its that kind of blind obedience to those in power over doing the right thing that has allowed many injustices to go on too long without being challenged.
No. I'm neither a vigilante nor a revolutionary. I'm just not wired that way. Fighting is not in my nature.
john titor
Captain
I like hippies, I don't like conservatives bashing hippies however lame they are, because the plaid chino wearing suburbanites have got their trousers on the wrong way around.
Based on their statements and actions. They've intentionally aimed away from people on a consistent basis. Of course, if you took my statement in context, you would know that, since the original question was basically why they didn't do real damage by trying to harm human life. My response was that. Clearly, if they wanted to harm human life, they would have done it by now. There was also an instance where they could have attacked the whaling fleet while looking for a man overboard and chose not to.
BTW, the Japanese, on the other hand, seem unconcerned about human life (and I'm not talking about this ramming incident, I'm talking about other deliberate actions which could only result in injury).
Well, it's on the Dutch registry of merchant vessels. I'm not sure if the Japanese navy wants to be shown intentionally sinking a vessel with the Dutch flag.
Well look at the uproad when a U.S sub accidently sank a Japanese research vessel a few years back.
A video has been posted on YouTube which it's claim is unedited and shows that the Ady Gil was deliberately rammed by the Japanse Whaling vessel. Prior to the collision the Ady Gill had been with the MV Bob Barker.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...y-gil-was-rammed/story-fn3dxity-1225818004128
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...y-gil-was-rammed/story-fn3dxity-1225818004128
So we have two sides, two conflicting stories and two very well edited/carefully crafted video recordings depicting what happened. Anyone else see a problem here?
The Japanese no doubt were breaking international law illegally whaling but that's nothing new. They've been doing it since it was banned. That their whalers are villified and constantly harassed and threatened probably does not put them in an agreeable mood so I wouldn't be surprised they took little or no effort to avoid the Sea Shepard's stupid act of distraction.
The animal rights groups might have the right intention but the most asinine way of executing it. To back them up on this is no better than to back up the Japanese whalers hitting them. It's obvious the Sea Shepard's intent is to gain publicity however possible in the name of their cause and in doing so have put themselves at great risk deliberately to gain it. The fact is this time they did horribly miscalculate the attitude and position of that Japanese whaler and got hit.
The short of it is both are at fault but you're an idiot to support either side in this debacle. Both are wrong and both should be punished but clearly some people will side with the animal rights groups out of some misguided thinking it's them who are righteous and the Japanese are just evil. It's not so simple as that but no one is changing any minds on a message board.
The Japanese no doubt were breaking international law illegally whaling but that's nothing new. They've been doing it since it was banned. That their whalers are villified and constantly harassed and threatened probably does not put them in an agreeable mood so I wouldn't be surprised they took little or no effort to avoid the Sea Shepard's stupid act of distraction.
The animal rights groups might have the right intention but the most asinine way of executing it. To back them up on this is no better than to back up the Japanese whalers hitting them. It's obvious the Sea Shepard's intent is to gain publicity however possible in the name of their cause and in doing so have put themselves at great risk deliberately to gain it. The fact is this time they did horribly miscalculate the attitude and position of that Japanese whaler and got hit.
The short of it is both are at fault but you're an idiot to support either side in this debacle. Both are wrong and both should be punished but clearly some people will side with the animal rights groups out of some misguided thinking it's them who are righteous and the Japanese are just evil. It's not so simple as that but no one is changing any minds on a message board.
No, because the two videos (the CNN one and the Sea Shepherd one) weren't well-edited or crafted to conceal the truth and both show the same thing: The Japanese whaler turning toward and ramming the Sea Shepherd boat which was floating unpowered at the time.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/01/06/lah.japan.whaling.ship.collision.cnn
http://tools.themercury.com.au/video/video_popup.php?vid=2991
One side is killing whales and sometimes has no problem intentionally taking action with a very high potential to harm people as well (as in this case), the other side isn't. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. The fact that Sea Shepherd engages in other stupid and illegal activities that I don't approve of doesn't make it more difficult for me to still consider them "better" than the whalers.
No shit. That's the whole point.
Well, I can't tell you how I really feel about this comment here, so you'll just have to use your imagination.
I gave my reasons why I consider the Sea Shepherds wrong on their own but still the better of the two by comparison multiple times. It was nothing so simple as just siding with the animal rights group automatically.
If you don't believe anyone's mind can be changed online even with a good argument, I guess you just said this to be, what, rude then? Well, thanks for your worthless contribution!
Thanks for proving my point. I can make a well crafted argument and you'll still side with those morons who flit around breaking international law, yes the ones in the "save the whales" boat are just as guilty but since they happen to support your cause, it's okay for them to do something illegal. You can forgive them for that and take whatever video you want for granted as an unaltered fact, especially if it happens to show your "side" is in the "right." Never mind they have freely admitted to doing the very thing that got them hit in the first place on purpose several times in the past.
Actually, you missed the point entirely (well, you didn't miss it, you just chose to ignore it). Instead of cherry picking the last sentence, respond to the rest of it. Did you watch the videos? Is there anything in them that suggested they were edited to conceal something that wasn't a deliberate ramming by the Whalers?
How does it prove your point? You didn't even try to make a well-crafted argument, because you had already concluded that doing so would have been pointless according to your own words. And lo and behold, when you come in acting smug and dismissive, calling people idiots, and choosing not to address any of the points they raised throughout the thread, they rejected what you had to say. In your warped view this justifies not making a decent argument in the first place and proves you right somehow.
I never said it was okay for them to do something illegal. You would have known this had you bothered to read the entirety of any of my posts including the one in response to you where I specifically said "I don't approve of their illegal actions." I guess you were just in a rush to get to that last paragraph and impress us all with how much better you are as an outside observer disgusted with this whole thing and anyone who would dare to not see this is purely black and white terms where both sides are equally wrong. Well, they're not. Both sides have done wrong, yes, but I don't believe they're equally wrong for the reasons I've laid out before. If you disagree, feel free to refute what I said. Otherwise, I will continue to find your contributions to the discussion so far pretty worthless.
What part of the two videos appears to be edited in a way to make the Sea Shepherd's look better? Please, explain to me where the editing takes place and how they made the Japanese whaler appear to rapidly turn into the Sea Shepherd vessel? Frankly, to reverse your own accusation, I don't even think you've watched either of the videos, but just decided to draw a conclusion that it must be altered to fit their narrative because you already had your mind made up that that's what happens in these situations.
