Founder of Sea Shepherd Arrested in Germany

[Wildy]

Why do you think people don't have just as much of a problem with whaling when Icelanders and Norwegians do it?

I'm asking Furcifer to clarify because it seems that he's of the opinion that only Japan are doing this commercially whereas everyone else is doing this small scale.

I've got just as much of a problem whoever is doing it.

Which does seem to be the more logically consistent position to take.

This seems a weird topic to harp on.

Probably because it's discussing a viewpoint that you don't hold.

 

[lionking]

I'm asking Furcifer to clarify because it seems that he's of the opinion that only Japan are doing this commercially whereas everyone else is doing this small scale.

Indigenous Australians in Northern Queensland are allowed to kill dugongs and sea turtles. What do you feel about this?

 

[Seismosaurus]

A wonderfully naive sentiment, but sometimes the laws don't change just because we don't like them, sometimes you've got to smash up an offshore or two. If you're lucky, sometimes it takes an all out civil war.

Laws DO change just because we don't like them... as long as we dislike them enough. The problems come when somebody wants them changed and doesn't carry the necessary social momentum. In which case you just keep plugging away at it - or accept that you're not going to get your way on this one.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Laws DO change just because we don't like them... as long as we dislike them enough. The problems come when somebody wants them changed and doesn't carry the necessary social momentum. In which case you just keep plugging away at it - or accept that you're not going to get your way on this one.

So, something like causing a commotion to bring some media attention, getting a TV show, making sure the world knows about your cause, that sort of thing? Good to know you approve. Why didn't you say so earlier?

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

My own perception of this is that there are several indiginous peoples who have an exemption that allows them to retain an aspect of their culture, and they're openly doing some small scale whaling, using indiginous tools, as an ongoing living history reenactment. They're being honest about it being a cultural and living history thing. What the japanese are doing is pretending that there's some pressing critical reason they need to know the average body weight of a minke whale to the ninth decimal place, and thus calling weighing out the whale steaks 'research', while clearly doing the whole thing because whale steak is expensive and therefore profitable.

 

[Primus]

So, something like causing a commotion to bring some media attention, getting a TV show, making sure the world knows about your cause, that sort of thing? Good to know you approve. Why didn't you say so earlier?

Only really works if said TV show doesn't turn people against your cause in droves. So yes a well done publicity campaign with a TV show could probably do a lot of good. A bunch of maritime bellends ramming things in a speedboat, not so much.

 

[Furcifer]

So the Icelanders and Norwegians aren't undertaking commercial hunts?

Which is why I've said the only difference is scale.

So the Japanese can't hunt whales in a sustainable manner?

No they aren't.

And the difference in scale is almost the definition of commercial fishing, farming, air travel etc. It's the capacity that allows you to sell your product that defines it and not becuase you sell it or trade it for denim jeans.

Yes they can, and they do. They have traditional hunts along coastal waters carried out by villagers that have been going on for centuries. It's the fleet of commercial whaling vessels using international waters that isn't sustainable.

 

[Furcifer]

It is my understanding that the Allies were killing people to stop them from taking control of land; so no hypocrisy.

It is my understanding that the existence and extent of the Holocaust (if that's what you're referring to) was not generally known until close to the end of the war.

No I was referring to war in general. There are plenty examples of people breaking laws to stop people from breaking laws so I think it's a moot point.

 

[Wildy]

Indigenous Australians in Northern Queensland are allowed to kill dugongs and sea turtles. What do you feel about this?

Well to start, I didn't actually know that they did that so I'm really only responding based on what I've just read. I don't really see a problem with it as long as it's sustainable, and given that both the Green Sea Turtle and the Dugong are threatened species I would support the Indigenous population choosing to scale back on the numbers taken or stopping the hunt whether temporary or permanently as a few tribes chose to do last year at least to allow the species to recover for a bit.

Having said that I don't think that it's up to us to force them to stop because they are permitted to do so under Native Title.

No they aren't.

So even though Norway caught 468 minke whales last year they aren't commercial, but Japan's capture of 445 minke whales is?

Or is it still a commercial activity simply because Japan has caught more whales in the past compared to Norway?

And the difference in scale is almost the definition of commercial fishing, farming, air travel etc. It's the capacity that allows you to sell your product that defines it and not becuase you sell it or trade it for denim jeans.

So what criteria are you using to determine whether something is commercial or not?

Yes they can, and they do. They have traditional hunts along coastal waters carried out by villagers that have been going on for centuries.

So as long as they keep to their EEZ it's okay then?

It's the fleet of commercial whaling vessels using international waters that isn't sustainable.

Evidence?

 

[NoahFence]

So, something like causing a commotion to bring some media attention, getting a TV show, making sure the world knows about your cause, that sort of thing? Good to know you approve. Why didn't you say so earlier?

They were down there protecting whales LONG before the camera's arrived.

 

[Furcifer]

So even though Norway caught 468 minke whales last year they aren't commercial, but Japan's capture of 445 minke whales is?

Or is it still a commercial activity simply because Japan has caught more whales in the past compared to Norway?


So what criteria are you using to determine whether something is commercial or not?

So as long as they keep to their EEZ it's okay then?

Evidence?

Sorry for the formatting, I can't find the square brackets to close quotes on my keypad.

Yes, if you're a commercial fisherman and you catch 1 fish you're still a commercial fisherman. It has nothing to do with how many you catch but how you catch it. Are you not understanding what's meant by capacity within the context of the discussion?

And again, the Japanese are raping international waters it's my understanding the Norwegians aren't.

Commercialism is defined by the equipement and the capacity that equipement has to catch fish. It's a very universal concept in ag.

I'm not sure what EEZ is, but the Japanese should be able to operate any vessels they like within their borders and without interference from activists like the SS.

Evidence? The bloody boat is evidence Japan's whaling operation within their borders isn't sustainable. But what I'm really talking about every country using the same methods as the Japanese, that isn't sustainable. Just do the math.

 

[Checkmite]

You did, albeit in weaselly language.

I'm sorry that you didn't like the way I said it.

Such foolish inconsistencies are the hobgoblins of small minds. Labeling others hypocrites absolves you from moral introspection. Anyway, those nasty civil rights protestors broke laws while proposing new ones. They clearly had no respect for the government.

Those nasty civil rights protesters broke laws they considered unjust, in order to bring attention to those laws and have them changed. The Sea Shepherds do not want to change any laws; they want Japan prosecuted (or something) under what they claim are existing laws, whilst avoiding being prosecuted themselves for the laws they break.

We should probably take a poll of the unblinded-by-history people here. (And of course there were reformers who thought slavery should be tolerated but favored stricter enforcement for "Masters" who sadistically beat their men, people who argued Civil Unions are a useful alternative to the sacred institution of "marriage," and those who didn't mind Hitler so long as kept to more traditional borders).

It would be interesting. However I would suggest a different thread.

 

[Checkmite]

No I was referring to war in general. There are plenty examples of people breaking laws to stop people from breaking laws so I think it's a moot point.

War in general is not necessarily illegal; and no matter how many examples there are of people breaking laws to stop people from breaking laws, it remains self-inconsistent and in my opinion eligible for derision whenever it happens.

 

[Furcifer]

Laws DO change just because we don't like them... as long as we dislike them enough. The problems come when somebody wants them changed and doesn't carry the necessary social momentum. In which case you just keep plugging away at it - or accept that you're not going to get your way on this one.

And how often historically has that come without some sort of civil disobendience?

 

[Furcifer]

War in general is not necessarily illegal; and no matter how many examples there are of people breaking laws to stop people from breaking laws, it remains self-inconsistent and in my opinion eligible for derision whenever it happens.

Isn't this just blind idealism though? Historically what changes have come about without some sort of "illegal" activity? That runs the gambit from unlawful assembly to World wars.

 

[Checkmite]

"Changes" is nonspecific. I'm talking about the very specific case of breaking laws to stop other people from breaking laws.

ETA: When I watch Sea Shepherds do things like ram a ship into a fishing structure in the middle of the ocean that people are walking on, see to me what I see is road rage. I see a person tailgating another car, attempting to sideswipe it, force it off the road and/or beat the other driver because the guy broke a traffic law a few miles back and there were no cops around to see. The justification is that the other driver is a "menace" and "something needs to be done"; but the act of pursuing and "bringing justice" is just as much a threat to life and limb.

 

[Damien Evans]

Isn't this just blind idealism though? Historically what changes have come about without some sort of "illegal" activity? That runs the gambit from unlawful assembly to World wars.

The Australian Native Title Act following Mabo vs Queensland, and The Wik Decision and Native Title Amendment Act, probably the biggest legal changes in Australia since the ending of the White Australia Policy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Mabo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Queensland_(No_1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Queensland_(No_2)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/nta1993147/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wik_Peoples_v_Queensland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Amendment_Act_1998

 

[Wildy]

Yes, if you're a commercial fisherman and you catch 1 fish you're still a commercial fisherman.

Except when you say they aren't.

I am interested in knowing what you would consider Hvalur hf given that they commercially hunt whales and export to Japan since you've declared that they are not commercial, but the Japanese fleet, which are officially a research fleet, are.

It has nothing to do with how many you catch but how you catch it. Are you not understanding what's meant by capacity within the context of the discussion?

It's not so much what's meant by capacity, but what you consider the line to be regarding commercial/non-commercial. From what you've said so far:

Country|Commercial status|Mode of capture (IWC def)
Japan|Commercial|Research
Norway|Non-commercial|Objection
Iceland| Non-commercial|Objection
Indonesia|Non-commercial|Aboriginal

While I sort of understand Indonesia's status, I don't understand what delineates Norway and Iceland, countries that hunt under objection to the commission, and Japan which hunts under the nominal designation of "research".

And again, the Japanese are raping international waters it's my understanding the Norwegians aren't.

So Japan isn't allowed issue research permits that allow scientific whaling?
What do you believe should happen to the whales after they are killed?

Commercialism is defined by the equipement and the capacity that equipement has to catch fish. It's a very universal concept in ag.

Care to prove a source?

I'm not sure what EEZ is, but the Japanese should be able to operate any vessels they like within their borders and without interference from activists like the SS.

EEZ. But you've more or less described what an EEZ is in this comment.

Evidence? The bloody boat is evidence Japan's whaling operation within their borders isn't sustainable. But what I'm really talking about every country using the same methods as the Japanese, that isn't sustainable. Just do the math.

That's some mighty fine conjecture you've got there. Any chance for some actual evidence?

 

[Xulld]

I have been on the fence on this one for a while. The more I think about it, the more I learn about whales and the potential for higher cognitive function, the less I feel they should be hunted at all.

 

[Furcifer]

The Australian Native Title Act following Mabo vs Queensland, and The Wik Decision and Native Title Amendment Act, probably the biggest legal changes in Australia since the ending of the White Australia Policy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Mabo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Queensland_(No_1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Queensland_(No_2)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/nta1993147/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wik_Peoples_v_Queensland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Amendment_Act_1998

Sounds to me like your boy Mabo was living on Crown Land. He was at the very least claiming ownership and transfering title of Crown Land, which here in Canada would be considered fraud. He was breaking the law until it was changed so Mabo is a big fat hypocrite right?