Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

**mp40x** · 01-08-2010 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

Do you opposed the Orkin man?

No reponse is needed for this statement.

Originally Posted by snooggums

then your justification is simply opinion.

Of course my statement is opinion. But, your ENTIRE original post was littered with opinion. I kind of get the idea that something is based on opinion when I read things like this:

Originally Posted by snooggums

but these guys are just attention whoring douche bags.

Now you want to accuse my stance on the topic of your thread of being opinion based?

Originally Posted by snooggums

Because if you are picking and choosing the animals that deserve to be saved on anything other than threat of extinction (or one that would threaten another species' extinction)

So if wild animals are not threatened with extinction, then its fine if they are needlessly slaughtered?

Originally Posted by snooggums

The Sea Shepard guys are actively assaulting other countries vessels on the open sea, while the Japanese ships are simply using a technicality to get past an international agreement that they aren't even required to follow.

Then the Japanese Navy should move to defend their merchant vessels. Right? Or is advocating the mass murdering of innocent whales for profit not really something the Japanese goverment wants to 'run up the flagpole'.

Originally Posted by snooggums

The SS guys are like the people who throw paint on people wearing fur, assaulting someone following a legal action that they oppose.

The activists -and I use that term loosely- that throw paint are actually destroying property and assaulting people. Wich is against the law and should be prosecuted. It's also possible that the The Sea Shepard group may be breaking some international maritime laws by harrasing the whalers as well. But, I don't think the two situations can be properly compared as they fall under different sets of laws.

**sordavie** · 01-08-2010 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by mp40x

But, slaughtering innocent wild animals for profit is just morally wrong, especially whales wich are magnificent creatures.

What's the difference between innocent wild animals and innocent domestic animals? Do you think it's morally permissible to slaughter domestic cattle for profit? Are the domestic cattle not innocent? Less innocent?

I don't think, as humans, there's anything wrong with hunting animals generally - even for gain. There may be moral reasons not to hunt endangered species or species that have higher moral status (perhaps due to their cognitive abilities or the like). But I don't see what kind of plausible argument you'd have that killing animals for profit is generally morally wrong.

By the way, I do think the Japanese should stop whaling - though I would be hard pressed to give an argument that whaling is immoral. I'm not sure I can think of any highly plausible ones. But, I also think the Sea Shepherd people are douches. I can't stand watching that show. They're just so dumb.

**mp40x** · 01-08-2010 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by sordavie

What's the difference between innocent wild animals and innocent domestic animals?

Domestic animals are raised for the sole purpose of food supply wich is perfectly fine with me.

Originally Posted by sordavie

Do you think it's morally permissible to slaughter domestic cattle for profit?

Absolutely. The animals are privately owned and do not live in the wild as part of an ecosystem.

Originally Posted by sordavie

I don't think, as humans, there's anything wrong with hunting animals generally - even for gain. There may be moral reasons not to hunt endangered species or species that have higher moral status (perhaps due to their cognitive abilities or the like). But I don't see what kind of plausible argument you'd have that killing animals for profit is generally morally wrong.

Nothing wrong with hunting at all, because it is regulated by the federal, state, and local authorities to ensure the pratice does not permanently damage the species. The National Park Service did not even really have modern wildlife conservation techniques until shortly after 1927 when George Melendez Wright brought the practice of implementing science into the equation. Since then the policies have not been without controversy, but overall I'm satisfied, as having no regulation would be terrible for the wildlife.

**sordavie** · 01-09-2010 05:25 AM

You should make a distinction between morality and legality then. If the only difference is that there are conventionalized legal standards for hunting wild animals versus slaughter of domestic animals, then you don't have a strong argument for the immorality of hunting whales. Arguments from legality to morality, like X is illegal so thus immoral, are generally very weak.

**Gill** · 01-09-2010 09:10 AM

Personally, I'm not opposed to the idea of whale hunting. Animals are animals, and animals usually are quite tasty and pleasing to my stunted human canines (though I've never had whatever they make from whales).

Unfortunately, the Japanese tend to drain the life force out of whatever body of water they float their ships of doom into. Their coastal fisheries are depleted, basically... although that's a common occurrence in Southeast Asian countries. It's tough to teach a country the principles of not overfishing their stocks when basically all they eat is stuff that comes out of the water. I suppose another problem is that things that come from the water are mostly easy to catch in gigantic quantities.

**CingularDuality** · 01-09-2010 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Gill

Personally, I'm not opposed to the idea of whale hunting. Animals are animals, and animals usually are quite tasty and pleasing to my stunted human canines (though I've never had whatever they make from whales).

Unfortunately, the Japanese tend to drain the life force out of whatever body of water they float their ships of doom into. Their coastal fisheries are depleted, basically... although that's a common occurrence in Southeast Asian countries. It's tough to teach a country the principles of not overfishing their stocks when basically all they eat is stuff that comes out of the water. I suppose another problem is that things that come from the water are mostly easy to catch in gigantic quantities.

Bingo.

I don't care much about any one animal, but when an entire species or an entire ecological area is threatened, that's just too far.

**Mech__Warrior** · 01-09-2010 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

The point isnt the activity the japanese are engaging in. Sure, its wrong. I absolutely support activism to stop it. But activism and what the sea shepherd guys are doing are completely different things. It's one thing to promote awareness of an issue and try to stop it through legal and honest means, but putting people's lives in jeopardy (on both sides of the equation) is just stupid.

Thats exactly what happened here. The guys committed a dangerous and irresponsible act by pulling their faster and more maneuverable small craft in front of a much larger ship that had no chance to evade a collision. As I pointed out, this is an example of the law of gross tonnage. Greenpeace has tried the same tactic in the past against US Naval vessels, most notoriously against an aircraft carrier in the 1980s in san diego bay. The greenpeace guys expected the carrier to be able to stop, which is obviously impossible, and as a result, a collision occurred and there were several people injured (luckily no fatalities). Guess who was found to be at fault? I'll give you a hint: it wasnt the navy.

I completely agree with you. In fact, several other groups pull stuff similar to this. I wish that they would stop with all the ridiculousness and be more civilized.

**ScratchMonkey** · 01-09-2010 01:37 PM

Recall that a lot of folk don't see this as an animal rights issue, but consider cetaceans to be people. (See my link above in reply #8.) It's similar to those who object to abortion because they consider it infanticide. So risking one's life in this endeavor isn't that different from someone risking his life to save innocents in, say, Iraq. Would you risk your life to save kids with Downs Syndrome?

**BigGaayAl** · 01-12-2010 09:18 PM

This hits close to home. My ex actually knows this guy from sea sheaperd, and almost went on the boat with them. I wrote the previous to indicate that I have HUUUUGGE inclination to hate the **** **** *** *** ** ****** **** * ****** *****- out of them.

In the end though, with the hilarious south park in mind, whatever their tactics are... THey are doing a stellar thing that has been needed for so long. Maybe they could do better. But the EVIL evil evil Japanese fishermen are going to sell the last whale for the most profit. And if they can't be stopped, this will happen.

And then the Japs are also about to exterminate the last Tuna, and a host of other fish. They turned their own seas into a cesspool of death with nothing alive but jellyfish, and now they are devouring anything they can get their hands on in international waters.

They may be far from perfect, but imo, they are about as close to modern-day heroes as you can get. +Their boat is so small it must be scary as hell. I actually wish someone would just torpedo the damn whalers and tuna fishers and be done with it. Just blow them out of the water!

@ferris. It may be very dumb, but the Japanese are taking advantage of international waters, in a legal framework that is terribly inadequate to stop the dying of our oceans. Without these fools, it would not be talked about now would it. This is different than with greenpeace furthermore. The state of the fish in the ocean is much much worse. Eating most kinds of fish these days is basically VERY stupid. I'm not an alarmist on these topics, but the oceans are dying at break-neck speed. Certain kinds of Tuna, Cod, Salmon and other fish are basically a crime to eat now imo. Well not a crime, just a very stupid thing to do. It is better to eat industrially grown chicken or beef then. I don't eat any meat myself.

@scratchmonkey. A typical stupidity of animal lover organisation, as you correctly point out is framing it as an animal rights issue. That is the dumbest thing they ever did. It's about our own survival that is all, and if the green boys were smart, they would STFU about their new age feelings, and get a lot more people to see the problem. What a missed chance eh, showing sad seal pics....

**sordavie** · 01-12-2010 09:54 PM

"The Japs"? I know you're from Belgium, but for a forum with mostly Americans/Canadians/UKers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jap

Anyway, why single out the Japanese? Norway and Iceland hunt whales too. Is it racism that makes us think the Japanese whalers are especially evil? The Norwegians take about the same amount of whales that the Japanese do each year.

The Japanese mostly take Minke whales, which are not endangered. Not all species of Whale are considered by wild life conservationists to be endangered.

If the argument is that one shouldn't hunt a species into extinction, then one needs to look at how international legal quotas are set up, whether they are sustainable, and whether the Japanese, Norwegians, Icelandians, Native Americans, and other groups are following the laws. I think this is a plausible argument against overhunting of whales, and it's an argument for action against the Japanese if they aren't following the legal standards. But it is not an argument against whaling in general.

If the argument is that whales are more special than any other kind of animal that we hunt, then I need to hear the details of how that argument goes. I can't think of a plausible argument that whales have a moral status such that it would be impermissible to hunt them. Perhaps if I found out that they were as, or nearly as, intelligent, conscious, emotive, and things like that to us, I'd find the argument plausible. But I'm not aware of any evidence that this is true. The smartest apes aside from humans are quite smart, but not nearly as smart as humans - we're constantly amazed at how much smarter they are than we thought, but it's clear they're not even close. But if you showed me some hidden whale civilization where they thousands of years of philosophy and culture and what not, I'd not hesitate to accord them equal moral status with humans.

**WhiskeySix** · 01-12-2010 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

I agree that whaling is a horrible and evil industry, but the Sea Shepherds are a bunch of incompetent buffoons. They really should get some better "pirates."

bingo... we watched most of last season off the DVR and they really are incompetent... it's laughable at times how poor their judgment is and how ineffective they are xD

(Getting run over in a $2,000,000 speedboat is just another case in point)

**BigGaayAl** · 01-12-2010 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by sordavie

"The Japs"? I know you're from Belgium, but for a forum with mostly Americans/Canadians/UKers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jap

Anyway, why single out the Japanese? Norway and Iceland hunt whales too. Is it racism that makes us think the Japanese whalers are especially evil? The Norwegians take about the same amount of whales that the Japanese do each year.

The Japanese mostly take Minke whales, which are not endangered. Not all species of Whale are considered by wild life conservationists to be endangered.

...

If the argument is that whales are more special than any other kind of animal that we hunt, then I need to hear the details of how that argument goes. I can't think of a plausible argument that whales have a moral status such that it would be impermissible to hunt them. Perhaps if I found out that they were as, or nearly as, intelligent, conscious, emotive, and things like that to us, I'd find the argument plausible. But I'm not aware of any evidence that this is true. The smartest apes aside from humans are quite smart, but not nearly as smart as humans - we're constantly amazed at how much smarter they are than we thought, but it's clear they're not even close. But if you showed me some hidden whale civilization where they thousands of years of philosophy and culture and what not, I'd not hesitate to accord them equal moral status with humans.

For whaling you are right that The Norwegians and a few other countries are just as bad. I thought of putting that in my post but I didn't for brevity. The Japanese companies are a bit special though because they are doing the most evil things all over the world with respect to illegal overfishing. The Chinese are very bad too, especially their illegal activities in the territorial waters of some Powerless African countries.

Whether the Japs are 'mostly' catching a certain whale, I'm not sure, but its really irrelevant, since they are catching [b]some[/] highly endangered whale species. There isn't an issue on whether one animal is more important, only in the mind of lightheaded environmentalists. The issue is biodiversity, and the survival of the human species.

The Japanese seas now have only... Jellyfish. They stupidly killed their whole sea, and instead of learning the lesson, these companies won't stop until all the seas are dead, and then all the hoomins. Business...profit... these diserve no compassion. It's an evil thing and anyone fighting them has my support.

If the argument is that one shouldn't hunt a species into extinction, then one needs to look at how international legal quotas are set up, whether they are sustainable, and whether the Japanese, Norwegians, Icelandians, Native Americans, and other groups are following the laws. I think this is a plausible argument against overhunting of whales, and it's an argument for action against the Japanese if they aren't following the legal standards. But it is not an argument against whaling in general.

The quota are an utter joke. They are ineffective and will never work because
-They are broken every single time
-No one will or can enforce them because of the concept of 'international waters and the fact that there is no international organisation that has the power or funding to check and enforce the quota.
Legal issues are mostly irrelevant here. By the time international rules and organisations will -if ever- be organised so that they can effectively deal with the problems it will be way too late. Just the thought of changing the whole concept of international waters... That won't happen within the next 50 years, and the last fish will have already been sold.

Japanese fishing compagnies are actually stacking huge freezer facilities with the endangered Tuna species as speculation; so that when that Tuna is extinct, they can exclusively sell you extinct species sushi! That should be in the guinness book of records for evilness! Have some dodo mcnuggets!

PS Japs offensive? It's just an abbreviation. It's not like calling Germans Nazi's. Some people's toes are just too long and I suggest they buy iron-tipped shoes. I have always loved many aspects of Jap culture, am a Manga/Anime fan for over 15 years, I am probably a buddhist or close to it... Nothing foul was intended so I reserve the right to use that word until TG's language filter crosses it out.

**sordavie** · 01-13-2010 12:59 AM

In some sense all ethnic slurs are just strings of syllables. Still, when used within a language community to mean something derogatory, it can still be hurtful - whatever the word's etymology is, even if it was originally an abbreviation. Many ethnic slurs derive from abbreviations.

The term 'Nazi' itself began as an abbreviation for 'Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei'. But of course in many, including our, language communities, the term has developed additional connotations - especially during and after WWII. (The term 'Jap' simultaneously developed its derogatory connotation at the same time, especially in the US.) No German, I don't think, is a member of the Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei today. It would just be false if called a German a member of the Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei. But if I called a German a Nazi, I doubt she would respond, "Sorry, but I'm not a member of the Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei. I'm actually a member of the Social Democratic Party. I'm not even sure that the Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei exists today." Calling Germans Nazis can be taken as offensive even if the word originated as an abbreviation for a political party.

I'm not one to be PC for the sake of being PC. But there is a difference between being PC and choosing the words you use, given general knowledge of their conventional connotations. To be articulate is to understand the intricacies of how one's language works as well as the fine grained distinctions in the meanings of the language's terms.

If you didn't mean it as a slur, that's fine. I was just letting you know that in America, Canada, and the UK, the term 'Jap' is used as an ethnic slur. Now that you have the knowledge that the term contains such a connotation for those English language communities, hopefully you can be more articulate whilst conversing with them.

**Morganan** · 01-13-2010 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by sordavie

If the argument is that one shouldn't hunt a species into extinction, then one needs to look at how international legal quotas are set up, whether they are sustainable, and whether the Japanese, Norwegians, Icelandians, Native Americans, and other groups are following the laws. I think this is a plausible argument against overhunting of whales, and it's an argument for action against the Japanese if they aren't following the legal standards. But it is not an argument against whaling in general.

There is no legal standard. The IWC is totally toothless and honestly a great example of a waste of money.

IWC is a voluntary international organisation and is not backed up by treaty. Therefore, the IWC, in essence, is a voluntary organisation which has substantial practical limitations on its authority. First, any member countries are free to simply leave the organisation and declare themselves not bound by it if they so wish. Second, any member state may opt out of any specific IWC regulation by lodging a formal objection to it within 90 days of the regulation coming into force (such provisions are common in international agreements, on the logic that it is preferable to have parties remain within the agreements than opt out altogether). Third, the IWC has no ability to enforce any of its decisions through penalty imposition.

The only law the Japanese might be breaking is the Australian environmental protection act (depending on exactly where they are hunting of course), but that would only matter if you agree the exclusive economic zone they hold over the antarctic territories (the whale sanctuary in particular where the Japanese like to go and hunt) actually exists (which the Japanese don't of course as it's a special dispensation out past the internationally accepted 200 nautical mile limit). Since the Aussies aren't sending their navy out to stop the whalers, they mustn't care to much. Beyond that, any court that isn't pushing a personal agenda is going to, based on the pertinent laws, find the sea scammers in the wrong every time they try and block a nationally flagged ship from exercising it's freedom of the seas in international waters.

**sordavie** · 01-13-2010 06:12 PM

Okay, so then what are the arguments? So far the two that have been made most explicit are, roughly:

1. Hunting whales to extinction would be morally bad (from various posters).
2. It's illegal to hunt them (from mp40x).

Apparently 2 is not a sound argument, since there is no legal standards and thus whaling is not illegal. And even if it were sound, it wouldn't be a moral argument against whaling but a legal one.

1 is no moral argument against hunting whales in general - though I agree it's certainly an argument against unsustainable hunting, supposing causing the extinction of them is morally bad.

Other arguments?

Thread: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Thread Tools

Display

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions