Sea Shepherd Supported Activists arrested by Japan Whaler

[Dyakovo]

By the same right, those who escalate the conflict into a life threatening one can't complain when it's their lives which become the most threatened.

They can though. Let's say one person embarks on a killing spree (victims represent whales). 2nd person, a police officer or armed bystander, steps in to defend the helpless victims with force(this person represents the SS). Is person one in the right if they they respond with deadly force to person 2? Of course not. Two wrongs and a wrong that is unfortunately necessary don't make three rights (but three rights make a left).

The sea shepherds aren't even remotely equivalent to police officers nor are they the equivalent of armed bystanders.
What the whalers are doing is legal.

[Ovisterra]

They can though. Let's say one person embarks on a killing spree (victims represent whales). 2nd person, a police officer or armed bystander, steps in to defend the helpless victims with force(this person represents the SS). Is person one in the right if they they respond with deadly force to person 2? Of course not. Two wrongs and a wrong that is unfortunately necessary don't make three rights (but three rights make a left).

The sea shepherds aren't even remotely equivalent to police officers nor are they the equivalent of armed bystanders.
What the whalers are doing is legal.

But immoral. If the law can't protect whales, it is not a good set of laws.

[Shinjitai]

By the same right, those who escalate the conflict into a life threatening one can't complain when it's their lives which become the most threatened.

They can though. Let's say one person embarks on a killing spree (victims represent whales). 2nd person, a police officer or armed bystander, steps in to defend the helpless victims with force(this person represents the SS). Is person one in the right if they they respond with deadly force to person 2? Of course not. Two wrongs and a wrong that is unfortunately necessary don't make three rights (but three rights make a left).

Japanese mainly hunt minke whale, which aren't endangered.
Lemme redirect you to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acnebe31RIo I hope everyone watches this video. So the Japanese legally hunt whales and that^ is their response? setting fire to japanese ships, throwing bombs and flares onto the ship, snarling the engine propellers, driving infront of them and ramming their ships, shooting guns and lasers etc..
The SS are terrorists. Simple as.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

By the same right, those who escalate the conflict into a life threatening one can't complain when it's their lives which become the most threatened.

They can though. Let's say one person embarks on a killing spree (victims represent whales). 2nd person, a police officer or armed bystander, steps in to defend the helpless victims with force(this person represents the SS). Is person one in the right if they they respond with deadly force to person 2? Of course not. Two wrongs and a wrong that is unfortunately necessary don't make three rights (but three rights make a left).

Let's say one person tries to hunt a deer, with proper permits and tags. You shoot at him because you disagree with his moral positions.

You are now a criminal. Deal with it.

One wrong doesn't make a right, and hunting whales is not wrong. It is legal and morally justifiable.

The sea shepherds aren't even remotely equivalent to police officers nor are they the equivalent of armed bystanders.
What the whalers are doing is legal.

But immoral. If the law can't protect whales, it is not a good set of laws.

Okay, now this has to be satire.

Good show, sir. Good show. You had me thinking you were serious.

[Conserative Morality]

But immoral. If the law can't protect whales, it is not a good set of laws.

I contend that bacteria are not properly protected by our set of modern 'laws', thus, they are immoral.

Or it could be that the purpose of the law is not to protect whales.

[Ovisterra]

They can though. Let's say one person embarks on a killing spree (victims represent whales). 2nd person, a police officer or armed bystander, steps in to defend the helpless victims with force(this person represents the SS). Is person one in the right if they they respond with deadly force to person 2? Of course not. Two wrongs and a wrong that is unfortunately necessary don't make three rights (but three rights make a left).

Japanese hunt minke whale, which aren't endangered.
Lemme redirect you to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acnebe31RIo I hope everyone watches this video. So the Japanese legally hunt whales and that^ is their response? setting fire to japanese ships, throwing bombs and flares onto the ship, snarling the engine propellers, driving infront of them and ramming their ships, shooting guns and lasers etc..
The SS are terrorists. Simple as.

Terrorists, or freedom fighters? Neither? Both? Terrorist is a nasty way of saying freedom fighters. The reverse is also true.

But I digress. The Japanese Minke Whale (technically just a Minke Whale) may not be endangered, but they are still being needlessly slaughtered. For what? What good has come of their slaughter?

[Gun Manufacturers]

This is even worse... Look how they're flying the pirate flag.

First one is likely accidental. Why would an experienced captain do something so stupid? It does just as much damage to his own ship.

Second seems to contain no collision.

There was an obvious collision in the second video, at around 1:14 in.

[Ovisterra]

But immoral. If the law can't protect whales, it is not a good set of laws.

I contend that bacteria are not properly protected by our set of modern 'laws', thus, they are immoral.

Or it could be that the purpose of the law is not to protect whales.

It should be, from where I stand.

One of the many reasons I am not in parliament.

[Conserative Morality]

Terrorists, or freedom fighters? Neither? Both? Terrorist is a nasty way of saying freedom fighters. The reverse is also true.

No.

A Freedom Fighter may be a terrorist, but he doesn't have to be a terrorist. Likewise, a Terrorist may be a freedom fighter, but more oft than not, he isn't.

[Ovisterra]

First one is likely accidental. Why would an experienced captain do something so stupid? It does just as much damage to his own ship.

Second seems to contain no collision.

There was an obvious collision in the second video, at around 1:14 in.

Yeah, I accidentally skipped over that. We've acknowledged that I'm either blind, stupid or both and moved along.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Japanese hunt minke whale, which aren't endangered.
Lemme redirect you to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acnebe31RIo I hope everyone watches this video. So the Japanese legally hunt whales and that^ is their response? setting fire to japanese ships, throwing bombs and flares onto the ship, snarling the engine propellers, driving infront of them and ramming their ships, shooting guns and lasers etc..
The SS are terrorists. Simple as.

Terrorists, or freedom fighters? Neither? Both? Terrorist is a nasty way of saying freedom fighters. The reverse is also true.

But I digress. The Japanese Minke Whale (technically just a Minke Whale) may not be endangered, but they are still being needlessly slaughtered. For what? What good has come of their slaughter?

Money, and people get to eat them.

That's really reason enough.

[Ovisterra]

Terrorists, or freedom fighters? Neither? Both? Terrorist is a nasty way of saying freedom fighters. The reverse is also true.

No.

A Freedom Fighter may be a terrorist, but he doesn't have to be a terrorist. Likewise, a Terrorist may be a freedom fighter, but more oft than not, he isn't.

Ah, but who defines who is either?

[Dyakovo]

The sea shepherds aren't even remotely equivalent to police officers nor are they the equivalent of armed bystanders.
What the whalers are doing is legal.

But immoral. If the law can't protect whales, it is not a good set of laws.

Prove that your moral code is the right one.

[Conserative Morality]

It should be, from where I stand.

One of the many reasons I am not in parliament.

I'm quite grateful for that.

[Sorratsin]

The sea shepherds aren't even remotely equivalent to police officers nor are they the equivalent of armed bystanders.
What the whalers are doing is legal.

But immoral. If the law can't protect whales, it is not a good set of laws.

Tell me, how do you expect civil society to function when people can ignore laws they don't like and enforce non-existing laws arbitrarily?

[Ovisterra]

But immoral. If the law can't protect whales, it is not a good set of laws.

Prove that your moral code is the right one.

I have no proof. There is no right one. There is no wrong one. Bad and Good, Right and Wrong, they're all subjective.

In the absence of any true moral code, I shall proceed according to the only one I am able to: My one.

You people use yours, but you are free to borrow mine if you need or want it.

[Shinjitai]

Japanese hunt minke whale, which aren't endangered.
Lemme redirect you to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acnebe31RIo I hope everyone watches this video. So the Japanese legally hunt whales and that^ is their response? setting fire to japanese ships, throwing bombs and flares onto the ship, snarling the engine propellers, driving infront of them and ramming their ships, shooting guns and lasers etc..
The SS are terrorists. Simple as.

Terrorists, or freedom fighters? Neither? Both? Terrorist is a nasty way of saying freedom fighters. The reverse is also true.

But I digress. The Japanese Minke Whale (technically just a Minke Whale) may not be endangered, but they are still being needlessly slaughtered. For what? What good has come of their slaughter?

Food, materials, research....

How many are killed? couple hundred a year...

Whereas in the west, how many chickens pigs and cows are killed a year? Hundreds of millions, dare i even say billion? what good has come from that?

[Ovisterra]

But immoral. If the law can't protect whales, it is not a good set of laws.

Tell me, how do you expect civil society to function when people can ignore laws they don't like and enforce non-existing laws arbitrarily?

It probably won't function. Call me a pessimist, but humans rarely do anything right.

I guess that makes me an anarchist.

[Buffett and Colbert]

1. Stuff can and will go wrong on boats a lot, especially when two are close together like that.

And why would they be close together like that, hmm? An "experienced sailor" like Watson would surely know that approaching a large vessel like that in the first place is a Very Bad Idea.^TM Besides, they mark their ships with symbols of the whaling vessels they've attacked. Were those all accidents too?

2. I've said it before and I'll say it again. It doesn't make sense. No one who knew anything about anything would do such a thing. It's risky to your own boat, whether or not you give a toss about the other.

Which is probably why Watson and his crew are complete maniacs.

[Ovisterra]

Terrorists, or freedom fighters? Neither? Both? Terrorist is a nasty way of saying freedom fighters. The reverse is also true.

But I digress. The Japanese Minke Whale (technically just a Minke Whale) may not be endangered, but they are still being needlessly slaughtered. For what? What good has come of their slaughter?

Food, materials, research....

Ah, so you admit that it is not simply research, and by extension, that the Japanese whalers blatantly lied to us?

[Goober Kingdom]

For boarding another vessel = ILLEGALLY = they should be arrested. Just because these... "activists" (more like extremists, honestly) have a reasonable cause to protest something that is totally legal in Japan, doesn't mean that they should get any leniency.

[Ovisterra]

1. Stuff can and will go wrong on boats a lot, especially when two are close together like that.

And why would they be close together like that, hmm? An "experienced sailor" like Watson would surely know that approaching a large vessel like that in the first place is a Very Bad Idea.^TM Besides, they mark their ships with symbols of the whaling vessels they've attacked. Were those all accidents too?

2. I've said it before and I'll say it again. It doesn't make sense. No one who knew anything about anything would do such a thing. It's risky to your own boat, whether or not you give a toss about the other.

Which is probably why Watson and his crew are complete maniacs.

Indeed. As you may or may not know though, I admitted they ram things every so often, and we've moved on to bashing my principles because they make no sense.

[Buffett and Colbert]

And why would they be close together like that, hmm? An "experienced sailor" like Watson would surely know that approaching a large vessel like that in the first place is a Very Bad Idea.^TM Besides, they mark their ships with symbols of the whaling vessels they've attacked. Were those all accidents too?

Which is probably why Watson and his crew are complete maniacs.

Indeed. As you may or may not know though, I admitted they ram things every so often, and we've moved on to bashing my principles because they make no sense.

Well it would follow that Watson is a horrible seafarer as you yourself admitted that no one in his right mind would do such a thing.

[Conserative Morality]

Ah, but who defines who is either?

Find definition of terrorism (There are a few).

Apply to all individuals and groups in question.

Some will come out as purely Freedom Fighters (Ahmad Shah Massoud), others as terrorists and freedom fighters (Most Mujahideen), others as solely terrorists (The Taliban).

[Ovisterra]

Ah, but who defines who is either?

Find definition of terrorism (There are a few).

Apply to all individuals and groups in question.

Some will come out as purely Freedom Fighters (Ahmad Shah Massoud), others as terrorists and freedom fighters (Most Mujahideen), others as solely terrorists (The Taliban).

What is this definition? I found:

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Hmm. Now that is interesting. That means most governments are terrorist organizations.