No misuse whatsoever. Whale is food...and "fare" game.

I find this thread hilarious. Animals, mammals, fish, ect go extinct everyday. New species are found everyday. People need to be thinking about people and their relationships with others. Specifically fellow humans. We need to address that instead of some blubber floating around the oceans.

It's interesting we can't kill something that looks cute. But if it dosent. Fair game. How come other society's can eat cats and dogs and other " domesticated" animals. It's just food

So, their narrow view of what the world should look like is correct, because they're forcing others to comply with it?

Ther-in lies the difference in political philosophies:
ome folks tend to focus on how THEY should live their lives, while those on the left tend to focus on what EVERYONE ELSE should do.

Guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.

yet we will spare no expense, and publicize the the genocide of a family of virus or bacterium

Glad ya liked it but I can't take full credit, it's paraphrased from a movie.

How are you any different? You're on here every day, seemingly with nothing better to do then tell other people that you're right, they're wrong, and your way is the right way. :confused:

Surely you can see that some acts are indefensible and SHOULD be stopped, violently if necessary, the most obvious being nazi germany, though any number of historical events fall into this category. What if nobody had the balls to stand up to Hitler?

But in the end, if you believe what the Japanese are doing is defensible, then yes, we'll have to disagree.

Are we now comparing Japanese whalers to Nazis? Not that long ago, we (Americans) were doing quite a bit of whale hunting ourselves. What the Japanese are doing is perhaps antiquated, but not "eee-vile" per se. If a starving Chinese person living in a remote village kills and wants to eat a Panda, is that bad? If I kill an American buffalo or a Pismo clam, am I a bad person who should be stopped with violence? Really, are we that hysterical?

I'm not comparing whalers to nazis at all. I'm simply using that as an extreme example of when indefensible acts should be stopped, even at a personal cost, to explain the point to someone who clearly doesn't understand it.

The point is, you're being extreme and over the top. How are you to be taken seriously?

How many whales were killed last year, one? Go to Chicago and ram your boat into the gang members killing unarmed children just about every day.

Man -this is one 'heated-up polemic'

I reread my post and really don't see it as being extreme and over the top. The point I'm trying to make is quite reasonable, that it's people who have the courage to stand up for their convictions that make the world a better place. I don't think that's an extreme viewpoint at all.

It is "extreme" when they take tactics in their own hands, irrespective of the rule of law.

They are pirates and should be treated as such.

ok fine. what you are doing is called a "straw man" argument. You are invoking "Hitler", which on interwebz forums right away makes you one of those intellectually disingenous mind-in-neutral types. Then You say that if someone disagrees with the hippies, they are like the pacifists who let Hitler rise to power.

Your post: "some acts are indefensible and SHOULD be stopped, violently if necessary, the most obvious being nazi germany, though any number of historical events fall into this category. What if nobody had the balls to stand up to Hitler?"

And here's reality, offered by Judge Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit: "When you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid, drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders, launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks, and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.”

And to illustrate how you advocate criminal activity: He said this ran afoul of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which prohibits “violence ... against another ship” and “violence ... against persons or property.” ...And damaging Cetacean’s ships could cause them to sink or become stranded in glacier-filled, Antarctic waters, jeopardizing the safety of the crew.

"The activities that Cetacean alleges Sea Shepherd has engaged in are clear instances of violent acts for private ends, the very embodiment of piracy.

By violating UNCLOS and other conventions Sea Shepherd was at loggerheads with the public interest of the United States and all other seafaring nations in safe navigation of the high seas, Judge Kozinski says.

Enjoining piracy sends no message about whaling: “It sends the message that we will not tolerate piracy,” the judge says.

“This is hardly a controversial view, as evidenced by a joint statement from the United States, Australia, the Netherlands and New Zealand condemning dangerous activities in the Southern Oceans.”

Refusing the Cetacean injunction, Judge Koxinski says “sends a far more troublesome message that we condone violent vigilantism by US nationals in international waters”.*


Christien:Your view is naive at best, criminal at worst, and simply uninformed, emotional and extreme in the most likely case.

*Source:http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/anti-whalers-just-gang-violent-pirates-ja-136496

..

Christien, I feel that what you wrote was a valid point. I think Rusnak seems to be extrapolating a lot of information from what was a simple comparison. Edmond Burke wrote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing", this stood true during Hitler's atrocities, and stands true on the subject matter of illegal Japanese whaling. The Japanese are not whaling from necessity, there is no food shortage driving them to hunt a species to extinction. A whaling ban is in place to allow proliferation of the species, and like many many other species, once the population has been re-established discorse on whaling rights can be re-opened.
What we are talking about is simply abuse of a resource against the better interests of the majority of the world. The Japanese could carry out this "research" in their own territorial waters or in international waters and the situation for the SSCS would be a lot less tenable from a media perspective. This seems to be the Japanese committing these crimes merely to show the world that they can.

You've got to be kidding me. First of all, there is no parallel between these hippies and the Allied forces of WWII. That's just ridiculous - beyond ridiculous. I think you guys need to go read some history.

Second, you're advocating criminal acts. God forbid I want to go eat some buffalo meat or go out and get some wild Pismo clams. I might be killed, but that's alright because you're fighting atrocities?
And this is while you condemn others for "illegal Japanese whaling". Nice. Who's the criminal? The one who the law is siding with, or the one committing the crime?

Lastly, if you want to talk about media perspective, the only one that matters is the Japanese home media. If they really were so righteous, they'd be appealing more to the Japanese home market, and doing ad buys there to eventually sway public opinion. How do you think their arrogant American tactics are playing out in Japan? I mean...talk about hypocracy and the very height of arrogant lawlesness. They are less about saving whales than they are about indulging their own enjoyment of breaking the law and feeling like they can get away with rebelliousness because they are out on the open ocean. Guess that's not true, and they will be stopped by a court of law yet again.

Standing up for a cause, fine. Break the law, not fine. Break the law and say you're standing on priciple, not only not fine, but damn stupid.

Just can't see how anyone can compare whaling with "Hitler's atrocities." Really jumps the shark.

He at no point compared the whaling with Hitlers attrocities. He was merely proposing a theoretical situation wherein all sat by to watch the atrocities instead of act on them, which is a very apt comparison in this situation.
I read it again and again, and can't see where he makes that comparison.

It's called a "Straw Man Argument", gordner. Association by comparison. And I thought American schools were bad.....

I know what a straw man argument is, thanks for that. However, it certainly does not apply here, unless you are referring to your actions of using Christiens post to pull this discourse away from the subject matter.
"A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues."

You are misrepresenting a simple comparison made by Christien to try to state that he feels killing whales is aking to attempted genocide. At not point did he say anything like that, he simply pointed out that to say staying on the sidelines and not acting on your principles is how evil comes to triumph, as it would have had the world not stood against Hitler's actions.

And association by comparison is not what a straw man argument refers to, perhaps you were correct in your thinking that American schools are bad.

Some facts from the web. (Oxymoron?)

The Japanese whalers are reported to be hunting Minke whales. The northern Minke is listed as "least concerned" according to the IUCN red list of threatened species. The Antarctic Minke is data deficient.

"Although there is no accepted estimate of current abundance, the population size is clearly in the hundreds of thousands. The data analysed by standard methods suggest a reduction of approximately 60% between the 1978–91 period and the 1991–2004 period. However, alternative hypotheses to explain the apparent decline are still under investigation. If the decline is real, its extent and causes are currently unknown, and it may still be continuing. The corresponding population reduction thresholds (criterion A2) are 30% for Vulnerable and 50% for Endangered, measured over a 3-generation time window, which in this case is estimated to be approximately 66 years (22 years per generation). If the decline proves to be largely or mainly an artefact, or proves to have been transient in the light of analyses of more recent data, the species would qualify as Least Concern. If it were real, the species would qualify as Endangered. Pending resolution of the uncertainties relating to the apparent decline, however, the species is listed as Data Deficient (DD)."

Balaenoptera bonaerensis (Antarctic Minke Whale)

According to Cetacean Requiem: How Many Whales Are Killed By the Whaling Industry Each Year? | Britannica Blog, 1400-1500 whales have been killed by harpoon in recent years.

gordner, you are being intellectually lazy as well as Christien.

You are mischaracterising my statements in order to "win" your point.

I am saying that Christien is making the comparison of inaction against whaling to that of appeasing Hitler, and going on to say that if no one opposed Hitler, an entire race would be destroyed. He's using a Straw Man (Hitler) to make the point that the evil Japanese whalers must be resisted "with force", just as Hitler was. He's borrowing the legitimacy of WWII in order to make a point that is indefensible: that the hippies actions are a legitimate and defensible cause.

If you want to support Christien's point, then you ought to simply make your own argument on it's own merits. You are deflecting attention away from the deficits inherent in the original statement.

two reasons why this is different from just "killing an animal"

1. many whale species are in danger of extinction

2. whales are highly intelligent, more so than a dog (which are protected from killing or abuse)

then there is the issue that the Japanese whalers are acting illegally while in Aust. waters - that brings up the question of when (and what kind) of illegal act is morally allowed to stop them

Rusnak, I wonder if it is possible for you to make a rebuttal that does not contain an insult of some kind. I have not mischaracterized your statement at all, you have mischaracterized Christien's. I disagree with your assesment of Christien's statement, and do not believe it would constitute a straw man argument. Is it not possible in that case to make any comparison, as that would be erecting your "straw man" or is it simply because he chose Hitler as his parralel that you feel it is not a fair point? He is stating, and eloquently I think, that inaction is not right in and of itself and that people have historically had to fight for their beliefs, as the SSCS does here. I in fact do not personally agree with the actions of the Sea Sheppards, they are tatamount to vigilanteism, and they are putting innocent people at risk in order to further their argument. However, I also feel I have the right to speak up and defend what I feel was a valid post.
This is obviously a polarizing issue, I just think that people should argue the merits of their position, and not engage in personal attack to attempt to distract from the argument.
And I don't believe there will be any "winner" or "loser here, it is just an internet discussion of a subject matter that I doubt any one posting has any direct involvement in.
Christien made, in my opinion, a valid comparison. You may feel that is not the case, and are welcome to make your point, however I would be impressed if you could do so without insult.

whales are evolved from ancient dog spices-
they were the smart ones that left the dumb ones on land-

gordner, you are free to join the actual conversation any time.

I'm not the one speaking for Christien. You might also want to put on your man pants if you want to make a habit of posting on internet forums.

I am not so much speaking for Christien, as against the idea of his post being a straw man argument. I did in fact post on the subject last, if you would care to read it.
I see nothing relevant to the argument in your post? Just another lazy personal attack of no merit. If there is a person here who needs to pull up some big boy pants, I think you may be able to find him in the mirror. I am not sure why some people feel that any argument, internet or otherwise, is furthered by irrelevant personal attack.
The actions of the SSCS are inapropriate in my opinion because they put people in danger. The Japanese should be stopped as per international law, the unfortunate reality is that is unlikely to happen as it should, on an inter-government level. I find the passion and commitment of the SSCS personnel to be laudable, though misdirected. The seamen on the Japanese vessels are just doing a job, they are not directly the issue. Putting those people, and themselves, at real risk of harm cannot be justified.
It surprises me, given the nature of whale communications, that some sort of sound device cannot be deployed at a safe distance from the whalers to drive the prey away without risk of harm. I am not by any means a subject matter expert, but I am willing to bet the SSCS are knowingly choosing to deploy less effective, but more sensational, tactics in order to bring media attention.

gordner, I said you were being "intellectually lazy" which you are.

Now you want to cry and piss and moan that I'm using a "Personal Attack".

whatever.

Then your rambling post about whales communications, blah dee blah blah....I'm not going to try to weed through your post to discern what your point is. If you can't marshal facts into an argument, then you're not relevant to the discussion.

ah there, the little lady speaks again, still looking for your man pants? hope you can read this post through your evident tears, maybe sometime you can return to the subject at hand?

there you go, start with an "intellectually vigorous" personal attack, i do so hope I gain the support of an internet super hero like rusnak!

"It surprises me, given the nature of whale communications, that some sort of sound device cannot be deployed at a safe distance from the whalers to drive the prey away without risk of harm."

They wouldn't have a TV show to make money with if they did that.

We are poor stewards of this planet.

+1

Some people think that just because we are human it's ok to do whatever we want. Kill all this, destroy all that or pollute whatever and it's just fine because we're superior humans and might makes right.

Yep! One should be able to get a whalewhich at the McDonald's drive up.

+1

Yes.

Im surprised at two aspects of this debate. One is, beyond disapproval of their actions and methods, the real venom directed at Sea Shepherd. The other is the tectonic divide in the debate, and its absolute pattern to party lines.

+1
And its boring as hell :(

Just funny to see guys that encourage killing Americsn citizens without trial...cheering for other Americans who are trying to kill Japanese for fishing.

Talk about fishing!