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.....