It's not questionable. That's pretty obvious. Humans have actually died from the types of mistakes and actions that SS has engaged in, even though the specific acts of SS haven't happened to result in any human deaths yet.
Exactly. Which is why you need to feign skepticism about them having saved any whales, ever, in order to have anything resembling a sensible argument. No humans dead, lots of whales probably saved, sounds like a good deal even if the lives of some humans were risked.
No, only if one considers that to the people bombing the clinics they are, then the analogy is apt. To them, they are saving human lives so rather than go through the legal work they commit acts of violence, just like the SS people. No need to equate the desire to eat a specific meat. No analogy is equivalent in every way. Utterly idiotic would be to expect otherwise.
To the SS people, saving some whales in a violent manner is more important than the wishes of the whalers. To me, saving humans from the sex trade or murder by their dictators is worth that tactic.
The people bombing abortion clinics think they are heroes, sure. Sea Shepherd think they are heroes, sure. However unless you subscribe to some nutty form of moral relativism then what those groups think about themselves is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that's important is what rational, moral agents think about them.
Since I already explained to you why rational people should see abortion clinic bombers differently to Sea Shepherd, this argument of yours is nonsensical.
Poisoning the well is more childish than what you accuse me of.
If you don't like juvenile arguments being pointed out, don't bring "the ends don't justify the means!" to a grown-up discussion.
Drivel. Appeal to the positions and opinions of other experts and advocates in the same field, not to popularity and certainly not to stupidity.
Since when are unspecified "people" a source of moral authority? If there is a sensible argument to be made you can make it without trying to claim that the view is held by unspecified "people". If not, then appealing to the authority of unspecified "people" is vacuous.
No, from a skeptical perspective a 'limit' is the max, not the goal. From a skeptical perspective other possible causes must be considered before declaring an element causal. From a skeptical perspective there are other forces at work that could be confounding factors such as the pressure from other groups than the assclowns at SS.
Any time you have relevant evidence instead of uninformed, armchair skepticism just post it right here.
Until then it looks like they are achieving morally valuable ends using risks that are proportional to and acceptable given the cause. Whereas the whalers put human lives at risk in a far more immediate and direct manner so that they could go on whaling, which puts them on a far, far lower moral level than Sea Shepherd.
