NationStates

TFF wrote:

Dyakovo wrote: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.

I'll take that little tantrum as an admission that you realize that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Free Soviets wrote: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.

ok, are you incapable of having a discussion of ethics or do you just not want to engage in one?

Willynillya wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Nope.

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

You might want to read something other than anti-whaling propaganda.

Free Soviets wrote: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?

No, because humans are given human rights. Humans are given human rights because humans make the rules and value other humans more highly than other non-humans.

TFF wrote:

Dyakovo wrote: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.

Who do you think gave them the permits to conduct the research?

Free Soviets wrote:

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

ok, are you incapable of having a discussion of ethics or do you just not want to engage in one?

according to you, incapable. I do not see the difference, morally speaking, between killing and eating a cow, and killing and eating a whale, or killing or eating a sardine. THey are all living creatures that are trying to do their best to live fufilling lives being whatever the hell they are. You have no more right to take the life of a innocent sardine than you do any other non human creature. If you see a sliding scale i would suggest you have the ethical problem, not I.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Free Soviets wrote: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?

No, because humans are given human rights. Humans are given human rights because humans make the rules and value other humans more highly than other non-humans.

so when the rules allow the killing of those fuckers across the river, that is actually fine and not a poor set of rules that should be improved?

Ethel mermania wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:ok, are you incapable of having a discussion of ethics or do you just not want to engage in one?

according to you, incapable. I do not see the difference, morally speaking, between killing and eating a cow, and killing and eating a whale, or killing or eating a sardine. THey are all living creatures that are trying to do their best to live fufilling lives being whatever the hell they are. You have no more right to take the life of a innocent sardine than you do any other non human creature. If you see a sliding scale i would suggest you have the ethical problem, not I.

you haven't offered a way to legitimately make that 'non-human' distinction, either. and as the intelligent alien example shows, there wouldn't appear to be one. or, if you don't like that one, how about if we clone neandertals? erectus? habilis? australopithicus? at what point in human ancestry are they 'non-human' and therefore huntable? and how do you make that call?

Dyakovo wrote:

TFF wrote:
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.

I'll take that little tantrum as an admission that you realize that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

More LOL! Do yourself a favor and stay on topic without attempting to flame people. Your 345th run-tell THREAD in the moderation forum whining about someone "attacking" you again was epic fail and number 346 ain't looking good either.

Free Soviets wrote:so when the rules allow the killing of those fuckers across the river, that is actually fine and not a poor set of rules that should be improved?

But the rules don't allow it.

If you can show a reason not to kill those fuckers across the river that this side of the river agrees with, go ahead. Make your case.

I know, rather that use these ridiculous tactics, why not find actual evidence that these ships aren't doing research, document it, and then bring the case to court or have the research allowance removed. Problem solved.

TFF wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:I'll take that little tantrum as an admission that you realize that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

More LOL! Do yourself a favor and stay on topic without attempting to flame people. Your 345th run-tell THREAD in the moderation forum whining about someone "attacking" you again was epic fail and number 346 ain't looking good either.

So you've still got nothing? Kthanxbai.
Come back when you have a clue as to what we're talking about here.

Neutraligon wrote:I know, rather that use these ridiculous tactics, why not find actual evidence that these ships aren't doing research, document it, and then bring the case to court or have the research allowance removed. Problem solved.

Technically, the Japanese are actually doing research and taking samples. Whatever's left is sold as meat.

Mosasauria wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:I know, rather that use these ridiculous tactics, why not find actual evidence that these ships aren't doing research, document it, and then bring the case to court or have the research allowance removed. Problem solved.

Technically, the Japanese are actually doing research and taking samples. Whatever's left is sold as meat.

Then the SS have nothing to stand on. They are preventing a research organization from performing a legal action. Once they manage to prove that the intent to the whaling is commercial rather than research, then they can actually do something. Otherwise I can't see how what they are doing is legal.

Neutraligon wrote:

Mosasauria wrote:Technically, the Japanese are actually doing research and taking samples. Whatever's left is sold as meat.

Then the SS have nothing to stand on. They are preventing a research organization from performing a legal action. Once they manage to prove that the intent to the whaling is commercial rather than research, then they can actually do something. Otherwise I can't see how what they are doing is legal.

Precisely. The only reasonable action they can take is to remove the loophole in the IWC statues.
Like change it to "Research must be performed non-lethally" or something else like that.

Mosasauria wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
Then the SS have nothing to stand on. They are preventing a research organization from performing a legal action. Once they manage to prove that the intent to the whaling is commercial rather than research, then they can actually do something. Otherwise I can't see how what they are doing is legal.

Precisely. The only reasonable action they can take is to remove the loophole in the IWC statues.
Like change it to "Research must be performed non-lethally" or something else like that.

Problem is lethality studies can be useful, maybe a cap instead.

Dyakovo wrote:

TFF wrote:
More LOL! Do yourself a favor and stay on topic without attempting to flame people. Your 345th run-tell THREAD in the moderation forum whining about someone "attacking" you again was epic fail and number 346 ain't looking good either.

So you've still got nothing? Kthanxbai.
Come back when you have a clue as to what we're talking about here.

More LOL! Sweetie, you aren't a former Sea Shepherd "fighter" nor a former member of Japans whaling industry nor a member of the ICW. By your own admission you're a kid who drives a broke down truck. State your opinion on the thread subject and refrain from telling others what they do or don't know. mkay?

ps. nice job running and reporting me for flamebaiting you. Congrats on your 346th "Run-Tell" thread!

TFF wrote:More LOL! Sweetie, you aren't a former Sea Shepherd "fighter" nor a former member of Japans whaling industry nor a member of the ICW. By your own admission you're a kid who drives a broke down truck. State your opinion on the thread subject and refrain from telling others what thy do or don't know. mkay?

ps. nice job running and reporting me for flamebaiting you. Congrats on your 346th "Run-Tell" thread!

Dyakovo a kid? Well, that sort of shifts the paradigm a little bit. We have a selection of fine wines here at NSG. Dyakovo is getting to be one of them.

Mosasauria wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:I know, rather that use these ridiculous tactics, why not find actual evidence that these ships aren't doing research, document it, and then bring the case to court or have the research allowance removed. Problem solved.

Technically, the Japanese are actually doing research and taking samples. Whatever's left is sold as meat.

Technically, how many samples would you say should be required for their undocumented and unproven and unreleased..."research"? Just looking for a number.

TFF wrote:

Mosasauria wrote:Technically, the Japanese are actually doing research and taking samples. Whatever's left is sold as meat.

Technically, how many samples would you say should be required for their undocumented and unproven and unreleased..."research"? Just looking for a number.

According to the Japanese roughly 800 or 900 per year.

Free Soviets wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
according to you, incapable. I do not see the difference, morally speaking, between killing and eating a cow, and killing and eating a whale, or killing or eating a sardine. THey are all living creatures that are trying to do their best to live fufilling lives being whatever the hell they are. You have no more right to take the life of a innocent sardine than you do any other non human creature. If you see a sliding scale i would suggest you have the ethical problem, not I.

you haven't offered a way to legitimately make that 'non-human' distinction, either. and as the intelligent alien example shows, there wouldn't appear to be one. or, if you don't like that one, how about if we clone neandertals? erectus? habilis? australopithicus? at what point in human ancestry are they 'non-human' and therefore huntable? and how do you make that call?

Human no eat, everything else, unless endangered, on the table.
Since we are unlikely to meet a neanderthal, except on my bowling team, it is not a distinction I have to make.

As to your alien, if evolutionary biology is any guide, the first thing they are going to test is how we go with a nice barbeque sauce and a beer.

Good. Sea Shepherd is bad.

greed and death wrote:

TFF wrote:
Technically, how many samples would you say should be required for their undocumented and unproven and unreleased..."research"? Just looking for a number.

According to the Japanese roughly 800 or 900 per year.

Also according to the Japanese over half of those whales were pregnant females. That number seem incredibily high to anyone else?

Velociraptors wrote:Good. Sea Shepherd is bad.

Indeed? Why are you of that opinion?

greed and death wrote:

TFF wrote:
Technically, how many samples would you say should be required for their undocumented and unproven and unreleased..."research"? Just looking for a number.

According to the Japanese roughly 800 or 900 per year.

And they'd have no motive whatsoever to grossly exaggerate the figures...