Sea Shepherd Supported Activists arrested by Japan Whaler

[Natapoc]

The Sea Shepherds are nothing but terrorists anyway.

Paul Watson recently said, regarding such silly comments, "arrest me or shut up"

I think it's good advice. If you have information that you believe the governments do not have I suggest you forward it to an appropriate law enforcement agency. Otherwise admit you're full of it and/or just stop making claims like this.

[Natapoc]

If your beliefs are irrelevant then why does your stated belief that some international court of law must first prove that it's not research first? Is that not a belief of yours also? Why is it any less irrelevant than your belief about the legitimacy of their excuse that they are somehow engaging in "research"?

Also... extremist groups? The extremists are the ones who are engaging in violence against sentient beings and pillaging the ocean, namely the whalers.

The extremists must be stopped. The whalers must be prevented from causing such wanton destruction of life. Those who attempt to prevent such violence are true heroes.

The Sea Shepherds are extremists by your own definition. They are engaging in violence against sentient beings, namely the whalers. Also, their letting the Ady Gil sink instead of towing it back to a port, and their use of diesel engines is causing damage to the ocean.

Not at all. Sea Shepherd is not at all engaging in wanton destruction of life nor are they pillaging the ocean.

[Natapoc]

of course. whales are intelligent, self-aware creatures. we are not driven to hunt them by necessity nor do they pose any threat to us. assuming meat eating and hunting are morally legitimate activities (and i think they are), whales are quite obviously not the sort of things we can legitimately hunt. likewise for the great apes. any standard broad enough to protect those humans we deem most deserving of special protection will necessarily cover other beings such as whales.

i was under the impression the reason bonobos and other apes were not hunted weren't because they necessarily highly intelligent, but primarily because they were related to humans.

That would be a silly reason to hunt one species and not another since all animals are related to humans via a common ancestor.

[Natapoc]

Protected international waters established by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1994 as a safe haven for whales and which the japanese continue to ignore and commercially whale ...even though its prohibited.

Sorry, but they're operating under IWC approved permits. In other words, what the whalers are doing is perfectly legal... Unlike what the activists are doing...

If the activists are doing something illegal you should inform their respective government law enforcement agencies. For you to be able to back up your claim you would need to be in possession of evidence unavailable to governments of the world including the united states, Canada, the UK, and Australia.

But if you don't have any information other than the trash you read online or see on your TV then I see no reason why anyone should take what you say seriously.

[Willynillya]

Protected international waters established by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1994 as a safe haven for whales and which the japanese continue to ignore and commercially whale ...even though its prohibited.

Sorry, but they're operating under IWC approved permits. In other words, what the whalers are doing is perfectly legal... Unlike what the activists are doing...

LOL.....You just googled that didn't you?

[Natapoc]

Well, that's fair enough. I have no problem with people thinking they're misguided and a bit thick (which they could well be), just with thinking they're evil in some way. Or with thinking 'who cares about whales let 'em die,' but I'm going to assume that's not your position.

They try to kill people to get ratings for a TV show.
Sounds evil to me.

They are doing nothing of the sort. They take great lengths to ensure no one is killed and to minimize the risk of any injury.

[TFF]

Protected international waters established by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1994 as a safe haven for whales and which the japanese continue to ignore and commercially whale ...even though its prohibited.

Sorry, but they're operating under IWC approved permits. In other words, what the whalers are doing is perfectly legal... Unlike what the activists are doing...

Sorry, but IWC is the one who banned all commercial whaling in the area. Japan claims to be "researching" as they commercially harvest and kill hundreds of whales from this area under the pretense of research.

There are plenty of non-lethal means to research whales. Japan refuses to utilize these means because it prevents them from commercially killing, harvesting and profiting from the sale of their "researched" whale meat.

[Natapoc]

I never said that.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=8123174#p8123174

Given the context of the quote, it's reasonable to suggest that if there were a choice between the whalers and the whales, you wouldn't pick the human life.

Well, you are right about that. But not for the reason you think...

The idea that I would somehow ever be in a situation where I had to make the choice of if the whale lived or if the whaler lived is absurd.

The question is similar to: If there were a choice between your son dying or your daughter dying what would you choose? It's a false ethical problem that attempts to trap the one answering into saying something he or she wishes not to say.

I would not be party to murder either of humans or of whales.

I have another question: If you had to choose, would you murder your mom or your dad?

If your mom, why do you devalue the life of your mother so much?
If your dad, Why do you devalue the life of your dad so much?

[Dyakovo]

Sorry, but they're operating under IWC approved permits. In other words, what the whalers are doing is perfectly legal... Unlike what the activists are doing...

LOL.....You just googled that didn't you?

Nope.

[Dyakovo]

Sorry, but they're operating under IWC approved permits. In other words, what the whalers are doing is perfectly legal... Unlike what the activists are doing...

Sorry, but IWC is the one who banned all commercial whaling in the area. Japan claims to be "researching" as they commercially harvest and kill hundreds of whales from this area under the pretense of research.

There are plenty of non-lethal means to research whales. Japan refuses to utilize these means because it prevents them from commercially killing, harvesting and profiting from the sale of their "researched" whale meat.

Why am I not surprised that you don't know what you're talking about?

[Willynillya]

LOL.....You just googled that didn't you?

Nope.

You might want to read more than one paragraph or dig a little deeper than Wikipedia for your Google debate.

[Free Soviets]

of course. whales are intelligent, self-aware creatures. we are not driven to hunt them by necessity nor do they pose any threat to us. assuming meat eating and hunting are morally legitimate activities (and i think they are), whales are quite obviously not the sort of things we can legitimately hunt. likewise for the great apes. any standard broad enough to protect those humans we deem most deserving of special protection will necessarily cover other beings such as whales.

i was under the impression the reason bonobos and other apes were not hunted weren't because they necessarily highly intelligent, but primarily because they were related to humans.

imagine that in the future we leave this rock using generation ships. eventually we encounter intelligent alien life at a technological level below ours. since they are less related to us than algae, it would follow from your premise that hunting them is a-ok. and that seems obviously wrong. whatever the standard for moral obligation is, clearly relatedness has little purchase (beyond, perhaps, special obligations to family). intelligent self-awareness seems trivially in, though.

[Free Soviets]

not at all. whales have an obvious moral right to not be hunted - you don't even need to buy into any particularly strong claims about animal rights or even utilitariansim or anything. the only moral theory that could possibly allow permit whaling is a nakedly speciesist one that nobody actually buys. we have a moral obligation to protect whales from those that would wrong them. if we can't stop them before the boats go out, we have to do so after.

Why doesn't that same moral right extend to cows, or deer, or tuna?

well, it is possible that it does. or, more likely, that we have an obligation to minimize their suffering or the like. but whales have mental capacities significantly above that of the cow. capacities at a level which make it impossible to reconcile with hunting them without running into some rather sticky moral problems.

[Ethel mermania]

They try to kill people to get ratings for a TV show.
Sounds evil to me.

They are doing nothing of the sort. They take great lengths to ensure no one is killed and to minimize the risk of any injury.

They do nothing of the sort, they take great risks, with their own lives as well as the life of a whalers.

[TFF]

Sorry, but IWC is the one who banned all commercial whaling in the area. Japan claims to be "researching" as they commercially harvest and kill hundreds of whales from this area under the pretense of research.

There are plenty of non-lethal means to research whales. Japan refuses to utilize these means because it prevents them from commercially killing, harvesting and profiting from the sale of their "researched" whale meat.

Why am I not surprised that you don't know what you're talking about?

LOL. Let it go little boy. You were shut down the last time you tried trolling me and I'll have you shut down again. Don't start snding me "I'm sorry telegrams" again either.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

i was under the impression the reason bonobos and other apes were not hunted weren't because they necessarily highly intelligent, but primarily because they were related to humans.

imagine that in the future we leave this rock using generation ships. eventually we encounter intelligent alien life at a technological level below ours. since they are less related to us than algae, it would follow from your premise that hunting them is a-ok. and that seems obviously wrong. whatever the standard for moral obligation is, clearly relatedness has little purchase (beyond, perhaps, special obligations to family). intelligent self-awareness seems trivially in, though.

They're not human, they really don't deserve human rights.

[Buffett and Colbert]

The Sea Shepherds are nothing but terrorists anyway.

Paul Watson recently said, regarding such silly comments, "arrest me or shut up"

I think it's good advice. If you have information that you believe the governments do not have I suggest you forward it to an appropriate law enforcement agency. Otherwise admit you're full of it and/or just stop making claims like this.

Nata, this is a debate and discussion forum. This is what is expected from here. We talk about capitalism vs. communism. But do most of us make our own businesses or form communes no. Nor do we all perform abortions/bomb an abortion clinic or give a sermons/vandalize churches. You know?

[Ethel mermania]

Why doesn't that same moral right extend to cows, or deer, or tuna?

well, it is possible that it does. or, more likely, that we have an obligation to minimize their suffering or the like. but whales have mental capacities significantly above that of the cow. capacities at a level which make it impossible to reconcile with hunting them without running into some rather sticky moral problems.

Agree about minimizing suffering.

Cow's are smarter than you think, ever been to a dairy farm? The cows pretty much hook themselves up to the machinery and milk themselves. Evolutionarily speaking whales come from cows.

I do not see any moral problem hunting whales, intelligence is no reason to, or not to eat anything. By what moral authority do the smart have more rights than to stupid? Every living creature feels pain, every living creature has the same right to life as the next one. If they were killing the whales and not using it as food, I would have an issue with it, but they are not.

[Free Soviets]

imagine that in the future we leave this rock using generation ships. eventually we encounter intelligent alien life at a technological level below ours. since they are less related to us than algae, it would follow from your premise that hunting them is a-ok. and that seems obviously wrong. whatever the standard for moral obligation is, clearly relatedness has little purchase (beyond, perhaps, special obligations to family). intelligent self-awareness seems trivially in, though.

They're not human, they really don't deserve human rights.

that's both irrelevant to my argument and wrong.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Why am I not surprised that you don't know what you're talking about?

LOL. Let it go little boy. You were shut down the last time you tried trolling me and I'll have you shut down again. Don't start snding me "I'm sorry telegrams" again either.

lolololol

But anyway:

Recognizing that in the course of achieving these objectives, whaling operations should be confined to those species best able to sustain exploitation in order to give an interval for recovery to certain species of whales now depleted in numbers;

That can be found just in the preamble it doesn't seem like a ban to me.

Furthermore:

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted.
2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.

That is extremely broad and even leaves open the possibility for processing after the research is conducted.

[Free Soviets]

I do not see any moral problem hunting whales, intelligence is no reason to, or not to eat anything. By what moral authority do the smart have more rights than to stupid? Every living creature feels pain, every living creature has the same right to life as the next one. If they were killing the whales and not using it as food, I would have an issue with it, but they are not.

is hunting humans legitimate? presume that the hunter intends to make full use of the human - eating the meat and making a lampshade with the skin, etc. why or why not?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Good. Those pirates need to be behind bars.

Pirates? What are Japanese whalers (and security vessels) doing in Australian waters?

Hunting whales? What else. I don't really blame the Japanese since they will do whatever the law permits them. Nations usually do that (and beyond what the law stipulates). I blame the weakness of regulations created by the IWC and other UN subsidiary bodies.

EDIT- And like Dya said. They're not in Australian waters. So your point is moot.

[Mike the Progressive]

I always wished the Japanese navy would just sink these assholes. Problem is bad publicity, San Francisco would freak and go over there in drones.

[Ethel mermania]

I do not see any moral problem hunting whales, intelligence is no reason to, or not to eat anything. By what moral authority do the smart have more rights than to stupid? Every living creature feels pain, every living creature has the same right to life as the next one. If they were killing the whales and not using it as food, I would have an issue with it, but they are not.

is hunting humans legitimate? presume that the hunter intends to make full use of the human - eating the meat and making a lampshade with the skin, etc. why or why not?

humans do not equal whales. There is no moral equivalence. Whales are big sea cows, not mermaids.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Good. Those pirates need to be behind bars.

Really? Pirates? Not like you to resort to ludicrous emotional bullshit.

I used the term specifically and intentionally. They meet the requisites for being considered pirates under the Law of the Sea.