Both parties were stupid. Greenpeace is stupid for getting that close to ships underway in open ocean. Japan is stupid for allowing whaling to exist in this day and age.
Dumbass Japanese and Greenpeace ramming in Australian waters!!
- Thread starter TheMasterOfOrion
- Start date
The idea of protecting whales is sound. Their methods are careless and radical.
It's not Greenpeace. It's Sea Shepherd. They are not affiliated and Greenpeace does not approve of their actions.
I don't know if anyone else has seen the Cove, but Japan is second to China in fish catching, accounting for 15%. They haven't "bled their oceans dry."
If you were not a mod I'd put you on my block list for that.
Seriously I'm p*ssed off with some of those people and their stalking
I once followed the show - a long, long time ago
Liked it, then disliked it and I became a very vocal critic until certain fans harassed me and started sending me abusive PM's and coming on my facebook...that was the last straw for me
I literally had to start shotgun blasting with my block button putting dozens of people here on the bbs on my blocklist, you can be sure 95% are nutty fanatics to that certain show are blocked.
I stopped watching it, stopped writing about it
They still stalk me today.
I just got in sh*t today, an infraction from Spaceman for telling another nutter fan he's getting blocked
Imagine that almost suspended over some online "drama" dating back to posts from years ago
Why do I say they "stalk"
I haven't made a thread specifically titled to that show since February 2009? or was it December 2008? Anyway its a long, long time!
I haven't posted in the shows sub forum in a long, long time
and they still harass. Short of giving up my email and registering a second user name I don't see how I will ever ditch these trolls
As far as I'm concerned what's said in that BSG subforum way back in 2008
stays in that BSG sub forum
Locutus of Bored
What some fanatic said about me. I don't see how it would be any of your business, unless you want to get off your butt and start reprimanding some of these people btw I was deadly serious when I PM'ed you saying any disagreement we have between us I'm willing to go to a higher authority
easy... whaling.
as for what the sea shepherds are up to... when they are not harassing the japanese they seem to help teach "What not to do when you captain a ship."
So, you got a warning for telling someone you're putting them on your ignore list, and then the same day, you tell someone you would put them on your ignore list again. Lesson learned obviously.
Well, the first half of that might be true. The second half certainly isn't. These are just a few examples:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3548741&postcount=65
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3486647&postcount=23
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2754393&postcount=33
Those aren't my forums to reprimand anyone in. And even if they were, no one was or is "stalking" you. You make insulting (to the fans who are members of the board), inaccurate, longwinded, one-trick-pony which you then proceed to beat to death rants and people react to it.
Do you ever think maybe you get the reaction you do because of the completely over-the-top irrational way you fly off the handle about well, everything? It doesn't matter if it's this whaling topic or BSG or something else, it seems like you start ranting before you've even fully thought out what you're going to say or before you do any research into the matter.
What? You mean the thread two months ago where you got an infraction for calling someone a troll and an idiot? You still think that warning was unjustified?
I had forgotten about it completely and had to dig back a couple of pages in my PMs to find it once you mentioned it, so obviously it's a high priority issue when I didn't even recall being PMed by you.
You need to just relax a bit, man. You'll feel better.
I'd buy tickets to see that.
One of these days, a ship that's being targeted by these terrorists (which is exactly what they are) is gonna start SHOOTING BACK. And that will be entirely justifiable.
The current Australian government made promises about doing something about Japanese whaling but it's turned out to be all noise.
The Japanese really don't give a fuck about anyone's laws when it comes to fishing - Australian Blue Fin tuna fishers are having a major problems with deplented stocks and while they're pulling boats out of the water, the Japanese stroll in without a by you leave.
Some-one should point out to the Japanese that if whaling is such a big part of their culture they should be doing in animal skin canoes in their own waters. Maybe they should also eat what's in storage first before adding to the stock pile (which would also reduce the amount going to pet food because it's not going for human consumption).
You really don't seem to have a clue on things - please do some reading on the matter first.
I could show pictures of the US that included as much concrete.
Japan is one of the most urbanized nations on earth. Outside of the cities there are vast tracts of land that are utilized primarily for agriculture.
Yes and yes. If you think that the people who invented agriculture had any conception of the fact that an species even COULD be driven to extinction you need to crack an ancient history text.
As have American salmon stocks and the Canadian cod fisheries. Where is your outrage against the fishermen of New England?
If true, that would be a bad thing. Let me know if/when they are prosecuted for this alleged violation of international law. Until then it is an allegation, nothing more.
I'm not a Japanophile, but I am bullshitophobic.
While they certainly have been called terrorists by governments and whalers before, that's really stretching the term, since I doubt anyone is actually terrified of them or motivated to change their practices out of fear of being killed.
They've never actually hurt or killed anyone, though the potential exists when they're playing chicken with other boats at sea. Though the vessels they go up against are almost always considerably larger and more durable than theirs, so the risk of them sinking an opposing vessel at sea or seriously harming the opposing crew is pretty slim. Also, the opposing vessel often rams them, as happened here.
At worst their operations have involved scuttling ships (while they lay unoccupied in port) that were themselves engaged in illegal activities which the international community simply will not enforce. So, vigilantes and vandals I could buy, but terrorists? Not so much.
But then, what do you call the whalers? They're killing these possibly sapient and self-aware creatures against international law. Just because no one seems willing to step up to enforce it doesn't mean they're in the right on this issue either, which your post seems to imply by giving them the right to open fire on the Sea Shepherd boats. So, vigilantism is okay with you in that case? Purposely intending to kill the Sea Shepherd crews, which takes things a step beyond what they've ever done since they don't try to kill anyone, is fine?
Neither side is in the right, both sides are committing illegal activities and ramming/sinking boats (but only one side is killing whales), and yet somehow you've worked it out the the poor whalers should be able to defend themselves by murdering the Sea Shepherd crews? Is this another situation where you've arbitrarily broken things down into a black and white issue because that's all you feel like dealing with, even though it's pretty clearly gray?
The whalers may be breaking the law by whaling, but anyone has the right to defend themselves if attacked.
Driving a small boat up next to a big boat to prevent them from whaling is enough of an "attack" to justify murder to you? Did you watch the video? It was the huge Japanese whaler firing water cannons and ramming the tiny Sea Shepherd boat, not the other way around. The smaller vessel posed no real threat to them, except the threat of not being able to conduct their illegal whaling operations.
Even if the whaling boats that were scuttled (in port, with no crew aboard) were from the same whaling companies, which I doubt, that still does not justify murdering the Sea Shepherd crew. If someone sets your empty car on fire and you see them six months later you can't shoot them for it.
Even if the whaling boats that were scuttled (in port, with no crew aboard) were from the same whaling companies, which I doubt, that still does not justify murdering the Sea Shepherd crew. If someone sets your empty car on fire and you see them six months later you can't shoot them for it.
^ Excuse me, where did I ever mention murder? I said the whalers are going to start returning fire. I didn't say they should kill anyone. You can sink a boat without killing its crew. Don't these sea shepherds have, well, LIFEBOATS?
Yet.
You don't think they'd try?
Edit: I see they already have. Linky
Specifically:
So much for non-violence, eh?
Quite. Because I'd already have shot them six *minutes* later.
Yet.
You don't think they'd try?
Edit: I see they already have. Linky
Specifically:
So much for non-violence, eh?
Quite. Because I'd already have shot them six *minutes* later.
Last edited:
Return what fire? It's not Trafalgar, for Christ's sake, it's a couple of boats circling each other. The Sea Shepherd crews aren't shooting at them, and the whalers use water cannons. Bringing firearms and actual artillery into the mix on a private whaling vessel is an insane escalation.
Have you seen the boats? They're small, high tech Batmobile-looking speed boats, not large craft with a separate life boats. At best they'd have a raft strapped to the aft hull. Usually there's another Sea Shepherd craft nearby filming the confrontation that can pick them up though if the ship gets sunk, but still, ramming a small vessel with a giant whaler is incredibly dangerous, especially in cold, high seas as you'd find in the Southern Ocean.
If and when they do start trying to kill people, then we can discuss shooting at them. Until then, any talk of opening fire is crazy.
Which would still be murder, because killing someone over your empty car being burned when you're not in danger is not self-defense. So yay for you.Quite. Because I'd already have shot them six *minutes* later.
I really don't see the moral equivalence between the Japanese and the Sea Shepherds here.
One party is flagrantly violating international law to make a buck. The other party is engaged in vigilante activities because no one will enforce said law.
I know whose side I'm gonna take on that one.
One party is flagrantly violating international law to make a buck. The other party is engaged in vigilante activities because no one will enforce said law.
I know whose side I'm gonna take on that one.
Somehow I don't think it'll be crazy for much longer. If somebody did get killed, I doubt Sea Shepherd would care (unless it was one of their guys, of course).
Here's a thought: If the fact that whaling is illegal means that Sea Shepherd is justified in doing whatever they do, does this mean that if I suspect my neighbor is getting free cable TV illegally, I can go and rip the box off the back of his house? If I find out that a coworker is downloading free MP3's illegally, can I smash his iPod right in front of him? If a customer tries to pass me a bad check, can I burn his wallet? You see where this is leading. Just because a particular entity might be doing something illegal, doesn't justify breaking the law against *them*.
It's not their place to enforce the law. Are they the military? The police? The courts? No? Then screw them.
Given that you called them terrorists and given the usual modus operandi of terrorists is to create terror by killing i.e murdering people you did indeed mention murder albiet not directly.
