Re: Sea Sheperd jerks blame Japanese ship for their actions

**WhiskeySix** · 01-14-2010, 03:08 PM

What if they are actually doing useful research? Is that even a possibility?

**WhiskeySix** · 01-14-2010, 03:12 PM

also - after watching the video in the OP again, I'd say the whaling 'security ship' probably turned into the batboat. At first you can't see the side of the whaling vessel, but then you can.

It's possible that this perception-change could arise if the 3rd, filming ship was moving perpendicularly to the camera's line of sight, but that's unlikely: as it's a fair distance away, it seems it'd have to be moving unreasonably fast to change the angle that much.

**snooggums** · 01-14-2010, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

If we encountered a new species that was cognitively superior to humans and provided some useful natural resource when dead (food, oil, cure for cancer), would it be ok to hunt it mercilessly? What about hunting a species cognitively superior to the lower end of human intelligence? If it's ok to hunt such a species, should it also be ok to hunt or farm low-intelligence humans?

We've had similar questions in the Avatar movie thread and the abortion thread. (Fetuses provide cells very useful in medical research and treatments.)

We can hunt and eat them as long as they are tasty.

The real reason we don't eat other humans (for the most part) is that it is not beneficial to most societies to eat our own, including it takes a long time to replenish human stocks compared to other animals. Pigs are widely eaten because they grow and replenish stocks at a very high rate. Pigs are highly intelligent. The Japanese also eat dolphin, who are also highly intelligent. Both would probably fall into the 'lower end of human intelligence' category.

The practical dividing line is human vs non-human when it comes to eating intelligent life forms. Since I support the whole idea that all humans are 'created equal' in the sense that as a human we have equivalent rights I would be opposed to eating people against their will or farming humanity for food. I am not opposed to eating human flesh on it's own, but an established system would be ripe for exploitation of the mentally unfit (retardation, depression and other issues).

The medical uses stem cells don't require a fetus to be intentionally destroyed for that purpose. The uses that require death would easily be supplied by miscarriages even if intentional abortions were not included. It is like using a dead guys eyes for a transplant when used this way.

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

What if they are actually doing useful research? Is that even a possibility?

No, they are hunting. Of course they are doing so in international waters and are only using the scientific angle to try to make themselves credible although they don't have to.

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

also - after watching the video in the OP again, I'd say the whaling 'security ship' probably turned into the batboat. At first you can't see the side of the whaling vessel, but then you can.

It's possible that this perception-change could arise if the 3rd, filming ship was moving perpendicularly to the camera's line of sight, but that's unlikely: as it's a fair distance away, it seems it'd have to be moving unreasonably fast to change the angle that much.

The small boat is one of the fastest boats in the world. If it didn't want to get run over by the security vessel they just had to give it some gas. In the video they moved forward to get in front of the larger ship, and as noted earlier in the thread they give that as an example of their tactics. They wanted to make the big boat stop, and it didn't so they got run over. The idea that the smaller and more maneuverable boat yields right of way to a larger and slower vessel is pretty sound.

**ScratchMonkey** · 01-14-2010, 06:20 PM

Well, then, let's slaughter those Na'vi like pigs and take their unobtainium without guilt!

**WhiskeySix** · 01-14-2010, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

In the video they moved forward to get in front of the larger ship,

It looks like that from relative to the whaling ship's camera... since the reference is the railing and you can see the slight wash behind the batmobile. But from the '3rd ship' perspective, I think it's pretty clear that the whaling ship turned into them.

Also - let's not overestimate the ability of the pilot of the batmobile. This isn't a SEAL boat driver. It's a hippie activist that probably doesn't have more than 20hrs-30hrs at the helm of that super-boat

If you look at the 3rd-boat footage, you can see that the batmobile does end up in reverse - just as the boat collides, it starts to backup.

Here's my take of what really happened:

1) Batmobile tries to get close and 'scare' big boat. Pilot cuts throttle to idle (which doesn't totally stop batmobile or its props - picture leaving your car in 'D' but with foot off pedal) before his superboat is actually in path of big boat... anticipating whalers would turn away.j

2) Whaler says 'FU terrorhippies' and turns slightly towards the batmobile, knowing they have the right of way.

3) Ecoterror-pilot doesn't realize the whaler's going to hit in time, fumbles for reverse, but doesn't find it until it's too late.

**snooggums** · 01-14-2010, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

It looks like that from relative to the whaling ship's camera... since the reference is the railing and you can see the slight wash behind the batmobile. But from the '3rd ship' perspective, I think it's pretty clear that the whaling ship turned into them.

Also - let's not overestimate the ability of the pilot of the batmobile. This isn't a SEAL boat driver. It's a hippie activist that probably doesn't have more than 20hrs-30hrs at the helm of that super-boat

If you look at the 3rd-boat footage, you can see that the batmobile does end up in reverse - just as the boat collides, it starts to backup.

Here's my take of what really happened:

1) Batmobile tries to get close and 'scare' big boat. Pilot cuts throttle to idle (which doesn't totally stop batmobile or its props - picture leaving your car in 'D' but with foot off pedal) before his superboat is actually in path of big boat... anticipating whalers would turn away.j

2) Whaler says 'FU terrorhippies' and turns slightly towards the batmobile, knowing they have the right of way.

3) Ecoterror-pilot doesn't realize the whaler's going to hit in time, fumbles for reverse, but doesn't find it until it's too late.

Stupidity is not an excuse for who was at fault.

If I was driving a small car, and I intentionally pulled in front of a semi who was traveling down the highway, then failed to get out of the way before he hit me because I stalled the car I am still the one who screwed up because the semi cannot react as fast as I can and i'm the one who put myself in front of the semi intentionally.

I highlighted all the parts that make the small boat stupid and in the wrong. The larger boat cannot be blamed even if they tried to hit the small boat intentionally, especially since the smaller boat was obviously attempting to harass the larger boat because that is what they were there to do.

**Ferris Bueller** · 01-14-2010, 07:11 PM

You two are arguing the exact point I made earlier in this thread. It's the law of gross tonnage. As snoogs said, stupidity isnt an excuse.

To quote the great Lazarus Long:

Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.

**Morganan** · 01-14-2010, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

Science:
You can reduce a whale species by over hunting. They can be made extinct by doing this too much. If so, other species will fill the gap.
You can reduce the spread of a strain of the flu through vaccination and safety procedures. Let's assume this strain can be wiped out with a certain procedure.

Morals:
Causing a while species to go extinct is wrong because it lowers biodiversity.
Wiping out a flu strain is ok because it saves people's lives.

I don't even think it's that cut and dry. It's impossible to accurately predict the outcomes. What if causing that species to go extinct allows another species to thrive that not only fills the whales role in the ecosystem, but also fills other roles?
What if wiping oiut a flu strain doesn't allow for antibodies to be formed today that helps fight a new strain in 10 years that is even more lethal?

As usual, Sordavie's posts in this thread are excellent.

**WhiskeySix** · 01-14-2010, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

Stupidity is not an excuse for who was at fault.

If I was driving a small car, and I intentionally pulled in front of a semi who was traveling down the highway, then failed to get out of the way before he hit me because I stalled the car I am still the one who screwed up because the semi cannot react as fast as I can
and i'm the one who put myself in front of the semi intentionally.

Except I don't think they did this. I think they pulled into the slow lane and the larger ship cut across 2 lanes to hit them. Intentionally. Which is attempted murder in my my book. It'd bee the same as a semi intentionally running down a motorcyclist that was dropping nails in the road in front of him. Niether is right, nor safe, but there is a big difference.

... The larger boat cannot be blamed even if they tried to hit the small boat intentionally,

If they maintained course, they would have slipped by. They turned and ran them into the antarctic sea. (Imo)

Also.. those harpoon ships are faster and more agile than you might think... which is why they needed the batmobile in the first place. They DEFINITELY could have avoided them.

**machowner** · 01-14-2010, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

Stupidity is not an excuse for who was at fault.

If I was driving a small car, and I intentionally pulled in front of a semi who was traveling down the highway, then failed to get out of the way before he hit me because I stalled the car I am still the one who screwed up because the semi cannot react as fast as I can and i'm the one who put myself in front of the semi intentionally.

I highlighted all the parts that make the small boat stupid and in the wrong. The larger boat cannot be blamed even if they tried to hit the small boat intentionally, especially since the smaller boat was obviously attempting to harass the larger boat because that is what they were there to do.

I tend to agree with this. Getting that close was the first mistake, what happened afterward was just a continuation of the inexperienced and foolish.

**BigGaayAl** · 01-14-2010, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by sordavie

Do we have good evidence that the existence of whales in particular is necessary to our survival? How about the number of other species that humans have caused the extinction of? Were they not necessary to our survival? Were they then okay to have hunted out of existence?

It's also of note that were this argument good, it wouldn't be an argument for whaling in general.

I agree. I always have. No single species is needed. But I didn't say we need to protect whales to save ourselves. As I said severral times now, but you seem to want to ignore it:

It's the biodiversity fool. (Not saying you are a fool but paraphrasing bill clinton)

So protecting whales is YES usefull, but only as a part of the greater goal of protecting more then one species; the biodiversity we need to get food and air. It's really very simple tbh. I can't see why this debate isn't settled yet.

*Save one species with cute eyes---> useless and meaningless emo-talk

*Save enough species so we can preserve the ecosystem that is our life support---> obvious best way to go.

**sordavie** · 01-15-2010, 12:44 AM

So then what is so evil about the Japanese whaling?

**BigGaayAl** · 01-15-2010, 03:59 AM

They are putting profit over this diversity. By doing that one by one we will lose enough to perhaps lose the ecosystem that is feeding us. These compagnies will exhaust our environment until we all die, for short term profit. These people are so incredibly selfish that I wouldn't mind seeing thier boats torpedoed. They more than diserve that.

It would only be smart to stop hunting species that are almost extinct. It is insanity not to do so. Evil? Why not call it that yeah. Selfish to the grave is what they are.

**sordavie** · 01-15-2010, 05:42 AM

No no, that's clearly a version of the slippery slope fallacy you're making then.

If people keep whaling then whales will go out of existence. Then they will hunt some other species. Then that will go out of existence. Then another. And soon enough there won't be enough biodiversity. And they're just doing this for profit. And anyone who does that is evil. The Japanese do that. Therefore, the Japanese are evil for caring only about profit over biodiversity.

You began with a relatively small step that you reason will inevitably lead to some chain of events culminating in some significant consequence. This type of fallacious reasoning is highly prevalent in bad political reasoning. For instance: If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons. This might sound like an appealing argument to some people - perhaps because they are against such a ban - but it's a poor argument. It does not present a good reason against banning fully-automatic weapons.

It's a misapplication of the rule of transitivity. Transitivity states that if A entails B and B entails C, then A entails C. So someone making the slippery slope fallacy reasons: A leads to B. B leads to C. C leads to D. Therefore, A must lead to D. But this notion of "leads to" is quite different than the notion of entailment. If A entails B, then A could not possibly happen without B also happening. In other words, A's happening necessarily gaurentees B's happening. But this is not so with "leads to" or related ideas like "causes." These concepts are not transitive. Consider the following argument:

If you bring life in to the world then you cause someone to exist. Conceiving of a child causes existing causes the child to come in to existence. Their being in existence causes them to be alive. Their being alive causes them to be mortal. Their mortality causes them to eventually die. Therefore conceiving of children is causing individuals to die. To cause the death of an individual in this way (not through self defense or proper warfare or the like) is murder. Therefore all mothers and fathers are murderers.

That's clearly a bad argument. The reason? 'Causes' is not a transitive term. One cannot infer from A causes B, B causes C, and C causes D to A causes D. But that's exactly what you're doing with your argument that the Japanese whalers are evil.

**sordavie** · 01-15-2010, 06:08 AM

Moreover, you don't just call people evil as part of the conclusion of your argument unless you have good reasons to back the claim up. Inserting the term 'evil' because "why not call it that?" or "perhaps it'll make my argument sound stronger than it is" or otherwise to merely receive emotional cache are not good reasons.

Thread Tools

Display