Sea Shepherd vs Whalers battle goes high tech

[Soratsin]

The Ady Gil is stationary in the video... the Japanese vessel is turning to port to intercept... Had the Japanese vessel not changed course she would have passed with the Ady Gil's stern to the port of the Japanese vessel... Indeed if there was a collision issue the Japanese helm would have turned starboard to open the distance... whereas the Japanese vessel is clearly turning to port (closing the distance)... Either the Japanese intentionally rammed the Ady Gil, or their captain and helmsman are complete fucking morons who have no business on the bridge of a ship...

Irrelevant really, it's a lumbering Japanese whaling ship vs. a light speedboat that can go 46 mph, if the Ady Gil wanted to avoid a collision, it could have.

This is like a Ferrari owner complaining that his car got run over by a train because he decided to park it on the tracks and refused to move.

[Greed and Death]

The Ady Gil is stationary in the video... the Japanese vessel is turning to port to intercept... Had the Japanese vessel not changed course she would have passed with the Ady Gil's stern to the port of the Japanese vessel... Indeed if there was a collision issue the Japanese helm would have turned starboard to open the distance... whereas the Japanese vessel is clearly turning to port (closing the distance)... Either the Japanese intentionally rammed the Ady Gil, or their captain and helmsman are complete fucking morons who have no business on the bridge of a ship...

Irrelevant really, it's a lumbering Japanese whaling ship vs. a light speedboat that can go 46 mph, if the Ady Gil wanted to avoid a collision, it could have.

This is like a Ferrari owner complaining that his car got run over by a train because he decided to park it on the tracks and refused to move.

Don't forget the Ferrari owner was blinding the train driver with lasers.
http://gizmodo.com/5437598/crew-uses-cr ... se-whalers

[Non Aligned States]

The Ady Gil is stationary in the video... the Japanese vessel is turning to port to intercept... Had the Japanese vessel not changed course she would have passed with the Ady Gil's stern to the port of the Japanese vessel... Indeed if there was a collision issue the Japanese helm would have turned starboard to open the distance... whereas the Japanese vessel is clearly turning to port (closing the distance)... Either the Japanese intentionally rammed the Ady Gil, or their captain and helmsman are complete fucking morons who have no business on the bridge of a ship...

Irrelevant really, it's a lumbering Japanese whaling ship vs. a light speedboat that can go 46 mph, if the Ady Gil wanted to avoid a collision, it could have.

This is like a Ferrari owner complaining that his car got run over by a train because he decided to park it on the tracks and refused to move.

Don't forget the Ferrari owner was blinding the train driver with lasers.
http://gizmodo.com/5437598/crew-uses-cr ... se-whalers

And has a history of parking their Ferrari on the tracks

[Tekania]

If he turned the other direction the Japanese vessel would have side swiped the andy gil which would have been more damaging to the Japanese vessel.

(Had they not changed course to intercept in the first place)... See, I really do not care on this issue... My point about the Japanese captain and helmsman being too stupid was merely me being facetious... I don't think they were stupid... I know for a fact that the movements taken by the Japanese were the actions of a knowledgeable helmsman and skipper who were intending to and carrying out an intercept to ram action... The Japanese vessel made several course corrections prior to the collision to zero the Ady Gil's relative bearing rate... If you look at the video from the Bob Barker you can see that the Japanese vessel started with the Ady Gil having a relative starboard bearing drift... The Shonan Maru 2 then turns to starboard zeroing the bearing rate (if she had kept her starboard turn she would have passed to aft of the Ady Gil, if she remained on course she would have cut the Ady Gil in half), she then shortly before point of impact turns to port to glance the Ady Gil along her starboard side..... Clearly in intent was to keep the Ady Gil in the arc of the Shonan Maru 2'a water canons, effecting the Ady Gil's crew visibility, and collide with her in such a way to damage her while minimizing the damage upon the Shonan Maru 2 herself... Quite a capable Japanese skipper and helm there...

[Callisdrun]

I think their methods are a bit weird, but I side more with the Sea Shepherd dudes than the whalers. I don't see anyone else doing something about it, so, whatever, go them. I don't think its humanity's right to hunt other species to extinction.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

I don't think its humanity's right to hunt other species to extinction.

And since they're animals we can't use "liberating them" as an excuse.

[Mean Feat]

Power driven vessels are supposed to give way to a vessel engaged in fishing (according to section 2, rule 18 of the International Regulations for Avoiding Collisions at Sea). I guess the captain of the Ady Gil is at fault after all.

From the third section "General Terms":

(d) The term "vessel engaged in fishing" means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls, or other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manageability.

Unless the whaling boat had a whale on a line, "vessel engaged in fishing" does not apply.

[Mean Feat]

The Ady Gil is stationary in the video... the Japanese vessel is turning to port to intercept... Had the Japanese vessel not changed course she would have passed with the Ady Gil's stern to the port of the Japanese vessel... Indeed if there was a collision issue the Japanese helm would have turned starboard to open the distance... whereas the Japanese vessel is clearly turning to port (closing the distance)... Either the Japanese intentionally rammed the Ady Gil, or their captain and helmsman are complete fucking morons who have no business on the bridge of a ship...

Irrelevant really, it's a lumbering Japanese whaling ship vs. a light speedboat that can go 46 mph, if the Ady Gil wanted to avoid a collision, it could have.

This is like a Ferrari owner complaining that his car got run over by a train because he decided to park it on the tracks and refused to move.

There are tracks that these boat things run on?

I really didn't know that. I thought they just sort of floated, and went left or right according to how the rudder was pointed. Clearly, I'm getting boats and trains confused.

[Non Aligned States]

There are tracks that these boat things run on?

I really didn't know that. I thought they just sort of floated, and went left or right according to how the rudder was pointed. Clearly, I'm getting boats and trains confused.

The bigger the ship, the bigger the turning radius and the longer it takes to turn. If you see a bulldozer coming down your way at 60kp/h and you're on foot, do you expect it to get out of your way?

[Dagnia]

This is one place where I would actually like to watch the Japanese kick American ass. Whalers, Ganbatte!

[Mean Feat]

There are tracks that these boat things run on?

I really didn't know that. I thought they just sort of floated, and went left or right according to how the rudder was pointed. Clearly, I'm getting boats and trains confused.

The bigger the ship, the bigger the turning radius and the longer it takes to turn. If you see a bulldozer coming down your way at 60kp/h and you're on foot, do you expect it to get out of your way?

Enough with the stupid analogies. Please!

The Ady Gil did what logging protestors do to bulldozers, and what Tianamen Square democracy protestors did to tanks. Placed itself in their way.

And I think they did it pretty well. The whalers will be paying them compensation, and they'll use the money to buy an even more expensive and ridiculous boat and do it all over again.

Good strategy to make whaling uneconomical, without physically harming any crew on the Nissan Maru 2.

Here's where you whine about "loss of livelihood." Give it your best shot!

[Non Aligned States]

Enough with the stupid analogies. Please!

When the analogies fit perfectly fine, you have no reasonable excuse to demand that they stop being used. The Ady Gil and her captain are at fault here.

The Ady Gil did what logging protestors do to bulldozers, and what Tianamen Square democracy protestors did to tanks. Placed itself in their way.

And it's their fault if they suffered losses or got run over. Maybe I should tie you up and put you on a train tracks and you'll say it's the trains fault for running you over.

And I think they did it pretty well. The whalers will be paying them compensation, and they'll use the money to buy an even more expensive and ridiculous boat and do it all over again.

Not unless they can prove to a court that it was the whalers and not their own stupidity that got them sunk. I hope it goes to court. Then we will see how effective activist wailing is when put against regulatory laws.

Here's where you whine about "loss of livelihood." Give it your best shot!

Here's where you try to come up with some kind of whining about how I didn't stick to your planned straw man. So sorry, but you're swimming with sharks here.

[Mean Feat]

I'll tell you how I see it. The whaling industry in Japan is quite insignificant as a source of food for the country, and the Japanese public are quite divided on the cultural value of whaling.

What this is about is maintaining a "right of usufruct" to the Pacific Ocean. And the Antarctic Ocean. Japan wants more say in the regulation of fisheries (including future artificial shallow-water fisheries outside maritime zones.) Whaling is a high-profile form of fishery, which has and will continue to generate many statements and enforced policies from concerned nations, which will establish by precedent that Japan has 'fishing' rights which other nations have voluntarily renounced.

But there's more to it than that. Japanese whalers could take whales from outside of the Antarctic Protection Zone (which they do not recognize by treaty, so is not binding on them) but instead go into this scientifically-recognized breeding zone for whales of all types.

There is a huge shit-fight brewing about the use of Antarctica, the prodigious quantities of fresh water stored there in the form of ice, resources in its landmass, and the potential arable land there if global warming takes a very bad turn. Look at a map. That's a big continent, and it belongs to nobody. If all the tropics become deserts, and the temperate latitudes stinking hot without the benefit of equatorial monsoons, Greenland and Antarctica become the Earth's prime real estate. Siberia and Alaska look good, too.

You don't have to accept that this worst case scenario will actually happen, to see a national interest for Japan in establishing a right of usufruct in the Antarctic Ocean. It's a sound investment, a hedge perhaps but with enormous returns if the unlikely happens.

Whether global warming hits its straps or fizzles out or is contained by a change in human activity, there is still a shitfight brewing over Antarctica. Australia claims a ludicrously large proportion of it as a protectorate, and they're going to lose most of that. If they're smart, they'll sell it (responsibly, by international law, not just to the highest bidder) and if they're dumb, they'll have it taken off them by force majeure.

[New Ziedrich]

And has a history of parking their Ferrari on the tracks

YouTube comments, Jesus. Love the one who says that whalers' children deserve to die.

Oh, somebody's called him out on that as I was typing. Nice to see a decent person on the 'Tube for once.

[Non Aligned States]

Incidentally, has anyone thought about how close it was between the launch of the ship and its sinking? Launched on the 28th of December 2009, sunk on 5th January 2010 by wreckless endangerment from the captain. Why does anyone even think these guys are a good investment again?

[New Ziedrich]

Incidentally, has anyone thought about how close it was between the launch of the ship and its sinking? Launched on the 28th of December 2009, sunk on 5th January 2010 by wreckless endangerment from the captain. Why does anyone even think these guys are a good investment again?

It's not the money, it's the mission, and the message. That's what they'll say as they pry open their wallets.

[Lacadaemon]

Incidentally, has anyone thought about how close it was between the launch of the ship and its sinking? Launched on the 28th of December 2009, sunk on 5th January 2010 by wreckless endangerment from the captain. Why does anyone even think these guys are a good investment again?

The Japanese are nothing, if not efficient.

As I have said before, these people would be better advised taking the money they are spending on maintaining their little Armada in the southern ocean, and using it to establish educational/awareness foundations (or whatever the japanese equivalent is) in Japan. They can have all the high seas drama they want, but as long as the Japanese government thinks this is okay and there is no public pressure in Japan, they will keep on doing it.

[Non Aligned States]

It's not the money, it's the mission, and the message. That's what they'll say as they pry open their wallets.

And what's the message? That these guys are like that drunk dude who takes your Ferrari out for a spin and is asking for the keys to the Lamborghini now that he's wrecked it?

The Japanese are nothing, if not efficient.

As I have said before, these people would be better advised taking the money they are spending on maintaining their little Armada in the southern ocean, and using it to establish educational/awareness foundations (or whatever the japanese equivalent is) in Japan. They can have all the high seas drama they want, but as long as the Japanese government thinks this is okay and there is no public pressure in Japan, they will keep on doing it.

Apparently doing things on the legal side, with better chances of success, isn't on their agenda. There's good money riding on the idea that these guys are nothing more than thrill monkeys with a load of ego and not a lot of sense.

[Mean Feat]

Enough with the stupid analogies. Please!

When the analogies fit perfectly fine, you have no reasonable excuse to demand that they stop being used. The Ady Gil and her captain are at fault here.

OK, I will use your stupid analogy. I see a bulldozer coming at me at 60 km/h.

Consider two cases:

(a) I am on my legally-owned property, and the bulldozer is deliberately heading into it. Yes, it is stupid of me to stand there and be run over, but am I "at fault"? Am I doing anything wrong, or illegal? Of course not!

(b) Now consider the more usual "stand in front of the bulldozers" protest action. I am probably trespassing (not a capital offence) on someone elses property, though I may be on public land. I may be doing something wrong (trespass) but that does not justify the bulldozer driver running me over when they had the option to stop (and clearly the NM2 had the option to turn away but did not.)

On the high seas, the situation is somewhere between "the bulldozer ran me over on my property" and "the bulldozer ran me over on property owned by the bulldozer driver." NEITHER absolves the bulldozer driver from reckless disregard for human life, a crime more serious than trespass.

Two cases which bracket the event in question. In neither is the "bulldozer driver" absolved of responsibility, therefore the median case (where the property is the high seas, not the property of either party) is likewise.

The Ady Gil did what logging protestors do to bulldozers, and what Tianamen Square democracy protestors did to tanks. Placed itself in their way.

And it's their fault if they suffered losses or got run over. Maybe I should tie you up and put you on a train tracks and you'll say it's the trains fault for running you over.

But not if my psychic told me that aliens used a mind-control ray to make you do it. Then it would be the Easter Bunny's fault.

If you were to tie yourself up, and put yourself on the train tracks, I would say that it is the train driver's fault for running you over if they saw you there in time to stop.

There would be liability too for you (assuming you survived.) You delayed the train deliberately, affecting all the passengers. By your action, you probably required police attendance to establish fault, required ambulance officers to collect your feet and head, and sanitation officers to clean your blood off the underside of the train so it doesn't smell funny and inconvenience future passengers.

Liability isn't a zero-sum game! It's not "one side is at fault or the other is." Bad things happen even when no-body is at fault!

People get hit by lightning, you know. It doesn't mean someone has to hang for it. And sometimes no bad consequences follow from an action, and yet the perpetrator is and should be jailed for actions intended to cause a bad thing.

And I think they did it pretty well. The whalers will be paying them compensation, and they'll use the money to buy an even more expensive and ridiculous boat and do it all over again.

Not unless they can prove to a court that it was the whalers and not their own stupidity that got them sunk. I hope it goes to court. Then we will see how effective activist wailing is when put against regulatory laws.

Oh, I agree! And I'm not joking. The real test of this is in court.

Would you like to take a bet? I'll stake my internet cookie against your internet cookie.

Sea Shepherd will get the full value of the Ady Gil, probably out of court. That's my bet.

Undisclosed settlement (SS dropping charges) is a scratching.

Are you going to put your cookie where your mouth is?

Here's where you whine about "loss of livelihood." Give it your best shot!

Here's where you try to come up with some kind of whining about how I didn't stick to your planned straw man. So sorry, but you're swimming with sharks here.

Sharks are short-sighted. And they drown if they can't keep moving.

Absent a property law on the high seas, which would make sense of your "oncoming bulldozer" ... er, argument ... and absent any threat to life or property in the Ady Gil's actions, I can't see how you will establish harm done except by the livelihood argument. Whalers out of work, random harpoonings on the streets of Tokyo. Think of those poor whaler's families! Think of the starving Japanese children, deprived of their daily whale!

Really, don't discard the livelihood argument just yet. You're going to need it.

[Lacadaemon]

Now that I think about it, they should probably take all those millions of dollars and make a cartoon about the evils of whaling. That might get through to the Japanese. I mean, for god's sake, cartoons convinced them that people in Paris are polite, so apparently you can convince them of anything if it is delivered in the right format.

[Mean Feat]

Incidentally, has anyone thought about how close it was between the launch of the ship and its sinking? Launched on the 28th of December 2009, sunk on 5th January 2010 by wreckless endangerment from the captain. Why does anyone even think these guys are a good investment again?

"Wreckless" isn't a word. Anyway.

Reckless endangerment is a crime, but the endangerment is of others. "Reckless endangerment of self" isn't a crime, though it might be grounds for protective arrest or forced psychiatric treatment.

I think the Ady Gil was deliberately chosen and fitted-out to look scary but be in fact harmless. The way it's prow broke off so easily shows that the whaling ship was in no danger from being rammed by it. If the collision was the other way around, Sea Shepherd would be liable for the cost of a few litres of anti-fouling paint.

[Non Aligned States]

On the high seas, the situation is somewhere between "the bulldozer ran me over on my property" and "the bulldozer ran me over on property owned by the bulldozer driver." NEITHER absolves the bulldozer driver from reckless disregard for human life, a crime more serious than trespass.

Except you can't show that the bulldozer driver was reckless in his driving. And open sea lanes are considered common property. There's no "This is my sea lane, you can't use it".

Your argument collapses before it even begins.

And since you crossed into the bulldozers path anyway, it's you at fault.

But not if my psychic told me that aliens used a mind-control ray to make you do it. Then it would be the Easter Bunny's fault.

If you were to tie yourself up, and put yourself on the train tracks, I would say that it is the train driver's fault for running you over if they saw you there in time to stop.

Changing the parameters now are we? How dishonest.

Liability isn't a zero-sum game! It's not "one side is at fault or the other is." Bad things happen even when no-body is at fault!

Liability CAN be a zero-sum game. It can most certainly be "only this side is at fault". That's why liability lawsuits happen. You don't see companies suing the consumer because they found a finger in their bowl of chili. Pretending otherwise is just plain daft.

Oh, I agree! And I'm not joking. The real test of this is in court.

Would you like to take a bet? I'll stake my internet cookie against your internet cookie.

Sea Shepherd will get the full value of the Ady Gil, probably out of court. That's my bet.

Undisclosed settlement (SS dropping charges) is a scratching.

Are you going to put your cookie where your mouth is?

Elaborate on the bolded, and we'll see. I don't take bets without the full terms explained.

Sharks are short-sighted. And they drown if they can't keep moving.

Absent a property law on the high seas, which would make sense of your "oncoming bulldozer"

No property beyond the ships can be considered, and the sea lanes are considered common use items and cannot be claimed as property. Demanding that there is a property law to determine liability is retarded stupid.

Maybe you'd say that airlines have no liability if their planes crash from lack of maintenance while over international waters too hmm?

and absent any threat to life or property in the Ady Gil's actions, I can't see how you will establish harm done except by the livelihood

Butyric acid attacks, rudder attacks, a minimum of class II lasers being used to damage optical nerves in the whaling crew, a past history of the same organization ramming whaling ships with larger vessels, flying the jolly roger, recognized as the international sign of pirates, as their identifying flag. Several criminal convictions for sinking vessels in the past.

These are all very compelling pieces of evidence to consider not only the Aby Gil, but every last member of the Sea Shepherds as a criminal member of a criminal organization and should be tried and convicted of their crimes.

Really, don't discard the livelihood argument just yet. You're going to need it.

Your sad sorry strawman is going to go cold and unloved. I'll put it in your bed.

Have you been taking Natapoc lessons incidentally? You seem to favor his tactic of pulling out completely unrelated things and pretending it's some kind of valid argument.

[Traxa]

I think their methods are a bit weird, but I side more with the Sea Shepherd dudes than the whalers. I don't see anyone else doing something about it, so, whatever, go them. I don't think its humanity's right to hunt other species to extinction.

We aren't, they are hunting the Minke whale, which is not protected, or considered endangered.

[Traxa]

There are tracks that these boat things run on?

I really didn't know that. I thought they just sort of floated, and went left or right according to how the rudder was pointed. Clearly, I'm getting boats and trains confused.

The bigger the ship, the bigger the turning radius and the longer it takes to turn. If you see a bulldozer coming down your way at 60kp/h and you're on foot, do you expect it to get out of your way?

Enough with the stupid analogies. Please!

The Ady Gil did what logging protestors do to bulldozers, and what Tianamen Square democracy protestors did to tanks. Placed itself in their way.

And I think they did it pretty well. The whalers will be paying them compensation, and they'll use the money to buy an even more expensive and ridiculous boat and do it all over again.

Good strategy to make whaling uneconomical, without physically harming any crew on the Nissan Maru 2.

Here's where you whine about "loss of livelihood." Give it your best shot!

''

Please don't compare these Sea Shepard nuts to the Tienanmen square protesters, its insulting.

[Post-Unity Terra]

I don't think its humanity's right to hunt other species to extinction.

And since they're animals we can't use "liberating them" as an excuse.

All well and good, but the whales that are hunted aren't endangered.