Founder of Sea Shepherd Arrested in Germany

[tomwaits]

It's a logical flow of conversation; Paul Watson's supporters claim his reckless and dangerous tactics are justified because whaling is just that wrong that such tactics are okay - except in the case of so-called "primitive" whaling, which is permissible because the products of whales harvested by such whalers are only sold sometimes, which...makes the harvested whales feel better about being killed? I don't know.

Who cares about "primitive" whaling? Paul Watson is against what Japan is doing, which is not "primitive" whaling, whatever that means. If you are arguing that other countries engage in whaling, so what? Watson can't engage them all at once. Japan is a major offender, and that's all that matters. A protest has to have focus to be effective, after all.

 

[Wildy]

What's retarded is comparing the Indonesian whaling to the Japanese and not being able to see the obvious difference.

That one side is catching more whales then the other? Or that one side is apparently catching for "personal use" while the other one is "commercial" but your point of reference is the Japanese?

I don't see how anyone can be this intellectually dishonest.

I think Damien was trying to post an image about irony based on this statement. Coming from you this is pretty ironic.

If your buddy offered to fly you to where you were going for gas money would you say he was operating a commercial airline?

Well the answer using the Furcifer Criteria would be "That depends on where we are in the world except when it doesn't".

In reality the answer is that it's dependent on where we are. If this person was offering to fly me from Adelaide to Melbourne then no, no he isn't because I can compare what he's doing to what all the airlines are doing.

But in another extreme we may be on a remote Pacific island or a far-away community in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in a situation like that he could be a commercial pilot.

I will admit that this example is a little simplistic because it ignores the existence of charter airlines. (ETA: Also, what the law says about this issue)

This is also the crux of the issue. What you're doing is the equivalent of comparing that guy who services such a location with the larger airlines that fly from Adelaide to Melbourne and declaring that he's not doing anything commercial.

The strange thing is that you seem to understand that such a comparison is invalid, but you refuse to apply it to whaling.

 

[Wildy]

I'm sorry, I just kind of jumped in here at the last minute, but WTF does Indonesia have to do with it? So what if Indonesia is engaging in commercial whaling? I though the thread was about Paul Watson and Japanese whaling.

As Checkmite already said it's something of a flow of conversation. You might want to read the thread, starting from (IMO) post #222 to see how the discussion has unfolded.

If you want to be really technical the thread is supposed to be about Paul Watson and an incident involving his ship and a Costa Rican fishing vessel. There technically isn't anything to do with whaling at all in why Watson was arrested.

 

[Furcifer]

That one side is catching more whales then the other? Or that one side is apparently catching for "personal use" while the other one is "commercial" but your point of reference is the Japanese?



I think Damien was trying to post an image about irony based on this statement. Coming from you this is pretty ironic.



Well the answer using the Furcifer Criteria would be "That depends on where we are in the world except when it doesn't".

In reality the answer is that it's dependent on where we are. If this person was offering to fly me from Adelaide to Melbourne then no, no he isn't because I can compare what he's doing to what all the airlines are doing.

But in another extreme we may be on a remote Pacific island or a far-away community in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in a situation like that he could be a commercial pilot.

I will admit that this example is a little simplistic because it ignores the existence of charter airlines. (ETA: Also, what the law says about this issue)

This is also the crux of the issue. What you're doing is the equivalent of comparing that guy who services such a location with the larger airlines that fly from Adelaide to Melbourne and declaring that he's not doing anything commercial.

The strange thing is that you seem to understand that such a comparison is invalid, but you refuse to apply it to whaling.

Indeed, the Japanese fleet is a good reference point for what is commercial whaling.
Claims otherwise are obscenely absurd.

 

[Furcifer]

Who cares about "primitive" whaling? Paul Watson is against what Japan is doing, which is not "primitive" whaling, whatever that means. If you are arguing that other countries engage in whaling, so what? Watson can't engage them all at once. Japan is a major offender, and that's all that matters. A protest has to have focus to be effective, after all.

Read the thread. The so called "skeptics" are trying to maintain what the Japanese are doing with 300 foot whale killing machines is the same as a few Indonesians in a canoe. Why? Because the Indonesians try to sell some of the blubber they harvest to the odd tourist.

 

[Korren]

Indeed, the Japanese fleet is a good reference point for what is commercial whaling.

You'd make a more consistent argument if you focused on the Japanese whaling industrial nature rather than charging it as being more commercial than other forms of whaling.

 

[theprestige]

Who cares about "primitive" whaling? Paul Watson is against what Japan is doing, which is not "primitive" whaling, whatever that means. If you are arguing that other countries engage in whaling, so what? Watson can't engage them all at once. Japan is a major offender, and that's all that matters. A protest has to have focus to be effective, after all.

It sounds like you might have a good argument, in favor of Sea Shepherd selecting a specific focus for their protest. You might want to consider making your own argument, rather than defending Furcifer's argument before you've had a chance to read through it properly.

 

[Checkmite]

No, what the Japanese are doing under the guise of "research" is just as primitive. Let's face it, if you're eating whale meat you're missing a chromosome or two.

eta: unless the alternative is starving to death of course.

As far as I am aware, no one on Earth is at risk of starving to death if they don't hunt whales. No one at all, anywhere.

 

[Checkmite]

Who cares about "primitive" whaling? Paul Watson is against what Japan is doing, which is not "primitive" whaling, whatever that means. If you are arguing that other countries engage in whaling, so what? Watson can't engage them all at once. Japan is a major offender, and that's all that matters. A protest has to have focus to be effective, after all.

The argument wasn't about Paul Watson's choice of targets; it was a tangent over posters' claims that "primitive" whaling was acceptable as opposed to what the Japanese are doing.

I can't tell you who first brought up the fact of others besides the Japanese hunting whales; but it was quite a while ago and is fully part of the conversation now.

 

[theprestige]

No, what the Japanese are doing under the guise of "research" is just as primitive.

Not that there's anything wrong with primitive whaling, according to you. So where's the problem?

Let's face it, if you're eating whale meat you're missing a chromosome or two.

Evidence? Or is "missing a chromosome or two" really just another way of saying, "Furcifer really, really, really thinks you're a jerk"?

Have you tried writing a letter to Japan, emphasizing how important your opinion is, and how urgent it is for Japan to do whatever it takes to stop you thinking they're a jerk?

eta: unless the alternative is starving to death of course.

Of course? Of course? How dare you? How dare you? Obviously, killing and eating a whale to avoid starvation is just as horrible as killing and eating a human being to avoid starvation! You disgust me.

 

[portlandatheist]

Who cares about "primitive" whaling? Paul Watson is against what Japan is doing, which is not "primitive" whaling, whatever that means. If you are arguing that other countries engage in whaling, so what? Watson can't engage them all at once. Japan is a major offender, and that's all that matters. A protest has to have focus to be effective, after all.

If the actual purpose was to save the lives of whales, then the Inuit of Alaska would be a far easier and more effective target than the Japanese whalers.

 

[Marduk]

If the actual purpose was to save the lives of whales, then the Inuit of Alaska would be a far easier and more effective target than the Japanese whalers.

I'd love to see an episode of "Whale wars" set in Alaska

"ram them Nanook"

it'd be total carnage and Paul Watson would probably get speared
or at least pretend he was

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Don't forget they got a TV show out of it. That's got to be worth something, right?

Not only that, but we're talking about it. Not everyone is a fan, but we're talking about them. No such thing as bad publicity, as long as they spell your name right, and all that.

 

[Wildy]

Read the thread. The so called "skeptics" are trying to maintain what the Japanese are doing with 300 foot whale killing machines is the same as a few Indonesians in a canoe. Why? Because the Indonesians try to sell some of the blubber they harvest to the odd tourist.

It's not that they try to sell some of the blubber to the odd tourist, it's that these people are selling about half their catch to the other villages on their respective islands. I guess you're deliberately trying to downplay this trade because you want to believe that the meat never leaves the village.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So in other words, the accomplishments of Sea Shepherds' whale-saving efforts include:

1. Japan doubling its whaling limit, and

2. Japan's average yearly take remaining about the same for almost the last decade.

Nice job, guys. Really inspiring.

But since the increased quota they don't catch as near the quota anymore.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So in 2002 the quota was about 400 a year, and they were taking slightly more than quota. Sea Shepards start operation and the whaling fleet takes around 200 whales a year for a couple of years, so way below quota. Then they ramp the quota way way up to 1000 in 2005, and that year take a lot more whales, 800 or so. Sea Shepards ramp up their activity too, and again the whale harvest falls way off, to somewhere just over 500 in 2010 That looks like an effective antiwhaling campaign to me. Unless someone wants to argue that the reason they were only able to harvest 800 whales that one year was because they overfished and depleted the population.

Post hock ergo proptor hock

When the quota was increased they caught more whales, then later less. It could well be they crashed the market for whale meat and so didn't catch as much later waiting for the market to recover.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's a logical flow of conversation; Paul Watson's supporters claim his reckless and dangerous tactics are justified because whaling is just that wrong that such tactics are okay - except in the case of so-called "primitive" whaling, which is permissible because the products of whales harvested by such whalers are only sold sometimes, which...makes the harvested whales feel better about being killed? I don't know.

I think it might have to do with how well the coast guard would put up with this behavior.

 

[theprestige]

Not only that, but we're talking about it. Not everyone is a fan, but we're talking about them. No such thing as bad publicity, as long as they spell your name right, and all that.

I dunno... I think that principle only applies to professional celebrities. If your whole job is simply to be noticed and talked about, then any publicity will do.

If that's Captain Watson's whole job--to be a celebrity--then sure, negative chatter is still chatter, and still meets the job's core need for publicity.

But if Captain Watson's job is actually something else, and the publicity is incidental, then bad publicity can actually be bad for his job. For example, if his job is to attract people to the anti-whaling cause, then negative publicity can actually harm his work.

Remember that PR guy for the game console controller company, who insulted one of the company's customers? His abuse of the customer went viral, and soon he was getting publicity from some of the industry's biggest media outlets. That publicity cost him his job, and negatively impacted the company's sales.

Or consider the President's "kill list". These are guys who are studied in depth by hundreds of senior intelligence and military officials. They are debated at length every Tuesday by the President of the United States. That's some pretty epic-level attention-getting right there! But it's not necessarily a good thing.

 

[Checkmite]

But since the increased quota they don't catch as near the quota anymore.

I guess we can find a silver lining in every dark cloud.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Post hock ergo proptor hock

When the quota was increased they caught more whales, then later less. It could well be they crashed the market for whale meat and so didn't catch as much later waiting for the market to recover.

In the real world, causality is multifactorial. 'Post hoc, ergo propter hoc' is a great concept to apply to simple cause and effect, things like 'I kicked it, therefore it broke' but not so applicable to things like how much of a certain meat product sells in a certain year which depend on thousands of interrelated (and unrelated) factors. For Watson, the question is not if he's the direct cause, but rather if he can plausibly claim to be part of the cause. Since he's TRYING to be part of the cause, and there was an effect, I'm more likely to give him some credit.