Sea Shepherd Supported Activists arrested by Japan Whaler

[Sorratsin]

And where here did I claim that anyone who harms whales deserves to die? I'll answer: I never did. I never said that anyone deserved to die.

You support Sea Shepherd, an organization that has threatened to kill people and attempted to do so. Natapoc supports SS's actions->SS's actions include endangering people's lives because they kill whales->Natapoc supports the endangerment of human life provided those humans kill whales.

Also even if I did believe that, why would it necessarily fall under a religious belief? Can only religious people believe that there exists at least one action for which a person deserves to die?

Of course not, but that mentality falls so far outside the bounds of conventional philosophy I could come up with no other classification for it.

[Natapoc]

If they are then they are not nearly as "fucked" as the morals of the whalers.

You really do not value human life at all, do you?

I very much value human life. I also value whale life.

[Tubbsalot]

I wonder who the smoke bombs were aimed at? The harpoons?

Throwing smoke bombs which cause physical discomfort is violent. The intent is to hurt someone.

(I actually didn't see the mention of smoke bombs somehow - you're right that it's actually the most violent thing mentioned. Thanks a lot, eyes.)

Pretty sure the intent of smoke bombs is to obscure vision, and presumably hamper operations on the ship. You could make the case it's unjustified and unlawful, but I think you'd struggle to argue that smoke bombs caused any problem to the crew apart from "we can't see." It's not like smoke bombs contain pepper dust.

To play devil's advocate (although I'm pretty sure you're not meant to mention you're being a devil's advocate really), he only advocated their sinking, not like - leaving crew to float around in lifeboats until they die.

And if the crewmen who are below deck can't get out in time?

Yeah, that would be the main problem, wouldn't it? I have no idea how you'd ensure that, although really you should be able to hole the ship progressively so that the breach occurs well before the flooding overtakes the pumps.

Not that I'd encourage sinking a ship anyway, crew or no crew.

[Sorratsin]

You really do not value human life at all, do you?

I very much value human life. I also value whale life.

Then why support an organization that endangers humans and barely does anything to prevent whaling?

Why not support legal efforts to close the loopholes in the legislation that whalers exploit?

[Sorratsin]

Yeah, that would be the main problem, wouldn't it? I have no idea how you'd ensure that, although really you should be able to hole the ship progressively so that the breach occurs well before the flooding overtakes the pumps.

Not that I'd encourage sinking a ship anyway, crew or no crew.

When Sea Shepherd sinks ships they usually do so by either ramming it or bombing it, no way to insure a slow sink, actually counter-productive to that aim.

[Dyakovo]

I stand corrected, I did not know that.






Knowingly engaging in maneuvers that stand to put the lives of both your own and another group's vessel into extreme danger is incompetence. Then again, they know that what they're doing hasn't had much effect on the whaling and they know the maneuvers stand to plunge both crews into frezing waters. Yes they continue to do it, on second thought that's not incompetencet, that's just plain stupidity.

now your just being deliberately obtuse. I suppose admiral yamamoto was an incompetent since he sank all those ships at pearl harbour?

You're funny.

[Natapoc]

I wonder who the smoke bombs were aimed at? The harpoons?

Throwing smoke bombs which cause physical discomfort is violent. The intent is to hurt someone.

(I actually didn't see the mention of smoke bombs somehow - you're right that it's actually the most violent thing mentioned. Thanks a lot, eyes.)

Pretty sure the intent of smoke bombs is to obscure vision, and presumably hamper operations on the ship. You could make the case it's unjustified and unlawful, but I think you'd struggle to argue that smoke bombs caused any problem to the crew apart from "we can't see." It's not like smoke bombs contain pepper dust.

And if the crewmen who are below deck can't get out in time?

Yeah, that would be the main problem, wouldn't it? I have no idea how you'd ensure that, although really you should be able to hole the ship progressively so that the breach occurs well before the flooding overtakes the pumps.

Not that I'd encourage sinking a ship anyway, crew or no crew.

Paul Watson by the way has said that he has no intention of sinking a whaling ship in the arctic whale sanctuary. One of the major reasons given is that he feels it would be an ecological disaster to do so.

[Saint Jade IV]

You really do not value human life at all, do you?

I very much value human life. I also value whale life.

So humans who kill whales deserve to die in order to protect the whales?

[Natapoc]

I very much value human life. I also value whale life.

So humans who kill whales deserve to die in order to protect the whales?

I never said that.

[Tubbsalot]

Yeah, that would be the main problem, wouldn't it? I have no idea how you'd ensure that, although really you should be able to hole the ship progressively so that the breach occurs well before the flooding overtakes the pumps.

Not that I'd encourage sinking a ship anyway, crew or no crew.

When Sea Shepherd sinks ships they usually do so by either ramming it or bombing it, no way to insure a slow sink, actually counter-productive to that aim.

What in Christ's name are you talking about?

The only ships which have been sunk in this vendetta are Sea Shepherd's. As a result of being 'rammed,' so they say, by a whaler. You can't take down a whaling ship with a little boat like they have, nor could you damage it with anything short of proper explosives.

[Dyakovo]

Look at it this. Sea Shepards has this annoying habit of trying to put their boats in the way of the Whaler's vessels, then bitch about how a large ship with little maneuverability and minimal breaking power hit them. Its fairly obvious the Whalers want to keep their fleet well away from the Sea Shepherds and to do that it helps to know where they are. Having a ship tail them is the easiest way to do that.

for its size a whaling vessel is very manuverable. it has to hunt whales for god sake. it would take all day if it couldn't turn quickly.

It does "take all day" and then some...

[Saint Jade IV]

I wonder who the smoke bombs were aimed at? The harpoons?

Throwing smoke bombs which cause physical discomfort is violent. The intent is to hurt someone.

(I actually didn't see the mention of smoke bombs somehow - you're right that it's actually the most violent thing mentioned. Thanks a lot, eyes.)

Pretty sure the intent of smoke bombs is to obscure vision, and presumably hamper operations on the ship. You could make the case it's unjustified and unlawful, but I think you'd struggle to argue that smoke bombs caused any problem to the crew apart from "we can't see." It's not like smoke bombs contain pepper dust.

I can imagine, just from being around fires, flares and smoke machines, that it is quite uncomfortable, and even could be painful. It is also dangerous, since the crew may have respiratory conditions which mean that their lives are endangered.

[Natapoc]

(I actually didn't see the mention of smoke bombs somehow - you're right that it's actually the most violent thing mentioned. Thanks a lot, eyes.)

Pretty sure the intent of smoke bombs is to obscure vision, and presumably hamper operations on the ship. You could make the case it's unjustified and unlawful, but I think you'd struggle to argue that smoke bombs caused any problem to the crew apart from "we can't see." It's not like smoke bombs contain pepper dust.

I can imagine, just from being around fires, flares and smoke machines, that it is quite uncomfortable, and even could be painful. It is also dangerous, since the crew may have respiratory conditions which mean that their lives are endangered.

The whalers have not managed to show any validated incidents of ill health or injury arising from sea shepherds actions.

[Saint Jade IV]

So humans who kill whales deserve to die in order to protect the whales?

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.

[Dyakovo]

yes, hence fast for a civilian ship of its size.

How does it's speed prove anything?

Obviously being fast in a straight line also means that it is extremely maneuverable as well...
*nods*

[Sorratsin]

When Sea Shepherd sinks ships they usually do so by either ramming it or bombing it, no way to insure a slow sink, actually counter-productive to that aim.

What in Christ's name are you talking about?

The only ships which have been sunk in this vendetta are Sea Shepherd's. As a result of being 'rammed,' so they say, by a whaler. You can't take down a whaling ship with a little boat like they have, nor could you damage it with anything short of proper explosives.

Sea Shepherd was around long before they had a TV show, they've sunk many ships, including the Sierra, which was bombed in Lisbon Harbor in the early 80s. They've also shot at police officers, threatened fishing vessels with guns, Scott Trimmingham, one of the founders and president, left the organization due to Watson's tactics becoming too violent.

Watson has said: “The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a law abiding organization. We rigidly adhere to and respect the laws of nature or lex natura. We hold the position that the laws of ecology take precedence over the laws designed by nation states to protect corporate interests … the smell of guilt is already a stench in the nostrils of God.”

Sure sounds like human safety and legal rights take a back seat to the whales doesn't it?

[Saint Jade IV]

I can imagine, just from being around fires, flares and smoke machines, that it is quite uncomfortable, and even could be painful. It is also dangerous, since the crew may have respiratory conditions which mean that their lives are endangered.

The whalers have not managed to show any validated incidents of ill health or injury arising from sea shepherds actions.

I've been punched in the face before. I had no "validated incidents of ill health or injury." Does that mean the person who assaulted me did not commit a violent act?

The fact that they were apparently unharmed is either due to luck or bad aim.

[Tubbsalot]

I can imagine, just from being around fires, flares and smoke machines, that it is quite uncomfortable, and even could be painful. It is also dangerous, since the crew may have respiratory conditions which mean that their lives are endangered.

As I said to CM, that's a pretty weak case. I'll grant you it's not without risk (although we're both just speculating wildly here), but if the most you can say is 'well maybe someone has a breathing problem and they could die from it,' it's pretty clear there's no intent to do anything other than disable the ship - much as you can't look at a buffet and say 'there are peanuts in here, what if someone has an allergy? they could die! this buffet was meant to kill people!'

Given the fact that SS are addressing a legitimate issue, I find the minimal risk inherent to the use of smoke bombs to be reasonably justified.

Also - SS? I never realised those were their initials before now. Not making it too difficult for their opponents, are they?

Sea Shepherd has been active for a long time, they've sunk many ships, including the Sierra, which was bombed in Lisbon Harbor in the early 80s. They've also shot at police officers, threatened fishing vessels with guns, Scott Trimmingham, one of the founders and president, left the organization due to Watson's tactics becoming too violent.

Watson has said: “The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a law abiding organization. We rigidly adhere to and respect the laws of nature or lex natura. We hold the position that the laws of ecology take precedence over the laws designed by nation states to protect corporate interests … the smell of guilt is already a stench in the nostrils of God.”

The 80's, huh. I remember that, actually, I read about it once.

It happened thirty years ago.

How many people from then are still in the organisation? How many of them are dead, for that matter? And why does that matter when they've clearly not been too focused on bombing shit lately?

[Dyakovo]

Yes it actually does matter if it's actually for research or not. And IWC does not grant the permission. The Japanese government grants permission.

Until you can prove that, then no it doesn't matter the least.

The IWC permits whaling for research. That's granting permission in my book.

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.

\

Deliberately ramming ships isn't violent? So blatant hypocrisy is okay as long as it supports your cause, right?

That is indeed Nata's position from what I've seen over the years...

[Dyakovo]

Putting a speedboat into the path of an oncoming whaler which they know can't stop in time is dangerous and seriously risking life in a freezing ocean.
Deliberately ramming another vessel, which sea shepherd has done several times, is an act of pure aggression.

Sea Shepherd has proved it has no regard for the life of Japanese whalers or even it's own members and seems far more focused on getting dramatic footage for whale wars instead of actually stopping the hunt.

If Sea Shepherd had no regard for the life of Japanese whalers they would take the advice of the people who frequently suggest simply firebombing them (or using other explosives)

Your claims are false. Sea Shepherd has, as one of it's core philosophies, a dedication to non violence.

Great care is taken to prevent injury. As far as getting dramatic footage for whale wars, the whale wars show is not really representative. It's a TV show.

Sea Shepherd existed long before the show and hopefully will continue to exist long after.

Sea Shepherd's actions have been more effective in stopping the massacre of whiles than any other action taken by any other organization (government or non)

Bullshit.

[Saint Jade IV]

I can imagine, just from being around fires, flares and smoke machines, that it is quite uncomfortable, and even could be painful. It is also dangerous, since the crew may have respiratory conditions which mean that their lives are endangered.

As I said to CM, that's a pretty weak case. I'll grant you it's not without risk (although we're both just speculating wildly here), but if the most you can say is 'well maybe someone has a breathing problem and they could die from it,' it's pretty clear there's no intent to do anything other than disable the ship - much as you can't look at a buffet and say 'there are peanuts in here, what if someone has an allergy? they could die! this buffet was meant to kill people!'

Given the fact that SS are addressing a legitimate issue, I find the minimal risk inherent to the use of smoke bombs to be reasonably justified.

Also - SS? I never realised those were their initials before now. Not making it too difficult for their opponents, are they?

I don't. I think their tactics are childish and take legitimacy from their cause.

[Natapoc]

As I said to CM, that's a pretty weak case. I'll grant you it's not without risk (although we're both just speculating wildly here), but if the most you can say is 'well maybe someone has a breathing problem and they could die from it,' it's pretty clear there's no intent to do anything other than disable the ship - much as you can't look at a buffet and say 'there are peanuts in here, what if someone has an allergy? they could die! this buffet was meant to kill people!'

Given the fact that SS are addressing a legitimate issue, I find the minimal risk inherent to the use of smoke bombs to be reasonably justified.

Also - SS? I never realised those were their initials before now. Not making it too difficult for their opponents, are they?

I don't. I think their tactics are childish and take legitimacy from their cause.

If any other organization is able to be more effective I'll support them instead.

[Sorratsin]

How many people from then are still in the organisation? How many of them are dead, for that matter? And why does that matter when they've clearly not been too focused on bombing shit lately?

Uh, Watson is still there, you know, they guy who runs the organization.

And since when is "It happened a long time ago" been an excuse for hurting people and damaging their property?

[Tubbsalot]

I don't. I think their tactics are childish and take legitimacy from their cause.

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.

Uh, Watson is still there, you know, they guy who runs the organization.

And since when is "It happened a long time ago" been an excuse for hurting people and damaging their property?

Oh okay, nevermind that then - that is a bit worrying, but at the same time, as I mentioned, it hasn't happened for thirty years - which isn't any sort of excuse, but it suggests the days of bombing are pretty much over, wouldn't you agree? And I'd also imagine that the people responsible for the bombing were held accountable by the law...

[Sorratsin]

I don't. I think their tactics are childish and take legitimacy from their cause.

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.