Sea Shepherd vs Whalers battle goes high tech

[NERVUN]

Natapoc, since you apparently missed this in a previous post, here's a quick question. How do you feel about the Sea Shepherds attempting to cause injuries on the whaling ships by throwing powdered cellulose at the whalers (causing the decks to become extremely slippery, and hazardous to work on)?

He won't answer you. Natapoc is all for killing other people, and calling failed attempts as "harmless" while any retaliation or just plain obstruction as "oppression". That's the sort of person he is.

Non Aligned States, I asked you guys to cool it, and Czardas also had previously asked you to stop baiting Natapoc. Since asking doesn't seem to have gotten the message across, we're going to tap a bit harder. Take a day off. *** One day ban for flamebaiting ***

[Gun Manufacturers]

Natapoc, since you apparently missed this in a previous post, here's a quick question. How do you feel about the Sea Shepherds attempting to cause injuries on the whaling ships by throwing powdered cellulose at the whalers (causing the decks to become extremely slippery, and hazardous to work on)?

Hi yes I did miss that question. Sorry. I don't read the forums as much as I used to (although I have been today )

Honestly I don't like it if it is intended to cause injury. Has it ever caused injury when they do that? This is a really difficult situation because of the limitations they have in enforcing the whaling ban in the whale sanctuary of the southern ocean. On one hand I can see the argument that sometimes such a risk may be necessary.

I hope they can find a better way to stop the whalers but I'm not going to really criticize someone who is trying to do something about the problem who has not hurt anyone. If it stops a whale from being killed it is worth it (I guess that probably sounds a bit cold hearted). I guess the only question then is: did it stop a whale from being killed without killing anyone? Then I agree with it.

From what I've seen on the Whale Wars show, they throw it wherever they can hit. Sometimes it appears that the packets of powdered cellulose land near railings, which could cause serious injury/death to whaling crew members if they fall overboard or over the rail onto a lower deck. As far as if any whalers have been injured, the show is pretty one-sided, so I don't know. But a question to ask is, if the Sea Shepherds aren't trying creating a slippery deck designed to injure whalers, then why are they throwing the powdered cellulose in the first place?

[Mean Feat]

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.

You need to actually read it. I'll put it in different words for you.

I considered two cases: the person standing their ground on their own property (where I am sure you would agree, they are at no legal or ethical fault), and a person trespassing on someone else's property, where they are at fault of trespass but do not thereby deserve responsibility for the criminal negligence of the 'dozer driver who sees them ahead an makes no attempt to stop or turn.

In both of those cases, the bulldozer driver is at fault. Whether or not the protestor is at fault in the same or in some other way.

Now, this is the part you missed I think. If the same thing occurs on nobody's property, say on public land where both the protester and the driver have a legal right to be, it can't fall outside those two cases. What is true for both cases, must be true when there is no factor of "whose land is it?"

And what is true for both cases is that the bulldozer driver who sees a person ahead of them and makes no attempt to stop or turn (it being safe to do so, I must add) is both criminally and ethically wrong.

This was YOUR chosen analogy. Please try to get your head around it.

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

And since the Tiannamen Square protestors had been explicitly warned about the consequences of staying where they were, it was their fault that the army was ordered to shoot them, and killed hundreds of them.

I don't believe that. I don't think you do either. I'm just trying to illustrate that every resort to analogy is a step away from clear understanding of the issue at hand. Your analogy took the scenario half way to absurdity and irrelevance. It only takes one more 'analogy on an analogy' to reach a conclusion which neither of us believes. That is: complete absurdity and complete irrelevance.

Or perhaps you do accept that conclusion from analogy. The Tiannamen Square protestors were to blame for getting fired apon. Hmm?

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.

IF, I said. Yes, I changed the parameters to make it more accurate as an analogy. If I can defeat the more accurate analogy, I consider the less accurate analogy defeated with room to spare.

You introduced a third party to a debate about the faults of two parties (and if the fault of one excuses the fault of the other) and that makes the analogy less apt. Surely you can see that?

Translate your analogy back to the collision event, to see how it is less accurate than my revised version:

Sea Shepherd tie up a third party (say, an Australian Navy diver who popped up from a submarine) and place them in the ocean ahead of the oncoming whaling boat.

Yes, I must agree that Sea Shepherd would be grievously at fault there. I would continue to insist that the whaler captain who sees the innocent party in the water and makes no attempt to avoid them is ALSO at fault.

So if I argue according to your inaccurate analogy, and try to defend the endangerment of an unwilling participant, I will lose. That unwilling participant was a fabrication of yours, introduced in the analogy but not present in the actual event we're discussing.

You call me dishonest! I will not return the accusation. "Never explain with malice what can be put down to stupidity."

*snip*

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.

Often when a matter on which suit was brought is settled out of court, the sum is not disclosed. If that happens, rather than have a tiresome argument about whether the undisclosed settlement was probably more, or probably less, than the replacement value of the Ady Gil ... the bet will be a "scratching." The bet will be off. Neither of us have to give up any of our precious internet cookies.

I think that's a quite likely outcome, actually.

But if a settlement is made, and disclosed, and it is less than the 2 million which Sea Shepherd has claimed for the value of the Ady Gil, I will gladly give up my cookie. Likewise if an award is made in the court and not appealed, which is less than that, I will concede the bet the day the matter is legally finished, whether or not payment ever happens.

If a finding of damages at or exceeding the current claim of value of the Ady Gil is made in whatever court the matter is brought to, and not appealed, you will owe me one cookie. (Note that this favors you: the value will probably be inflated in the claim for damages. $2 million US is more likely than 3 or whatever.)

If an out of court settlement (statement of intention to pay, not actual payment) is made public and exceeds that $2 million, you will likewise owe me a delicious virtual cookie, which I will have put into an inert-gas display case to preserve it for the day I can proudly present it to my grandchildren!

Sea Shepherd states that the Ady Gil's replacement value (before it was sunk) was "more than two million dollars." I'm willing to take that estimate without the "more than." US $2 million.

Bet?

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.

I addressed this in the first section of this post. That the high seas are not anyone's property is a FAULT in the analogy you offered. Any "oncoming bulldozer" scenario involves property on which the event happens. Who owns the property on which it happens does affect the liability of both parties.

I allowed for that inaccuracy. I excluded it by the "bracketing" argument you failed to follow. I excluded the element of "on whose property?" because it was a spurious element introduced in YOUR analogy, which you may or may not have been aware of.

I think I deserve an apology from you. I was not dishonest.

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

Finding the significant difference between this analogy, and harm done by two parties to each other in a collision event ... I will leave to you. Like the quiz at the end of the chapter in a textbook, you won't be marked on it. But you should do it anyway, to check for yourself that you have learned the lessons I have taught you on the use of analogy.

(Yes, that is terribly patronizing. I can make you angry just as you can do to me. Both of our arguments will only be the weaker for that.)

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.

For some of those crimes they have been. Compensation has been awarded in court against the organization, and criminal charges brought and proven against individuals. They're considered a terrorist organization in Japan, and can't use their ports ... in fact, they'd probably be arrested and their ship impounded if they tried.

I've made it very clear that I don't support Sea Shepherd in endangering anyone but their own volunteers or employees.

As I said to Ifreann, if even one crew-member of the Ady Gil wants charges pressed against the captain for endangering them in this collision incident, that should be done and would hopefully succeed. And in the long-term it's actually quite likely ... it's a minority of activist hotheads who don't get disenchanted with their cause inside seven years, which I'm guessing would be the statute of limitations for bringing charges.

*snip another personal attack*

Shark! Mmmm, tasty.

FIRST EDIT: Fixed broken quote. SECOND EDIT: Took content out while NAS on 1-day ban. THIRD EDIT: Content replaced unchanged.

[Mean Feat]

Natapoc, since you apparently missed this in a previous post, here's a quick question. How do you feel about the Sea Shepherds attempting to cause injuries on the whaling ships by throwing powdered cellulose at the whalers (causing the decks to become extremely slippery, and hazardous to work on)?

He won't answer you. Natapoc is all for killing other people, and calling failed attempts as "harmless" while any retaliation or just plain obstruction as "oppression". That's the sort of person he is.

Non Aligned States, I asked you guys to cool it, and Czardas also had previously asked you to stop baiting Natapoc. Since asking doesn't seem to have gotten the message across, we're going to tap a bit harder. Take a day off. *** One day ban for flamebaiting ***

I see this now.

I wouldn't have posted my long reply to NAS if I knew that he can't reply for 24 hours. So I'm taking the content out, and I'll put it back when NAS returns. I may post it again in 24 hours too, if the thread is still active.

I'm not sure if replying to a post of a user on a ban is frowned apon. It seems a bit wrong, anyway. So I'll undo it.

[Lackadaisical2]

Reply deleted until NAS returns from one-day ban. TG'd.

Holy shit, that was a long post! hehe, caught it all, but TL;DR version, please?

New postby Mean Feat » Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:43 am

Non Aligned States wrote:

Mean Feat wrote: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.



You need to actually read it. I'll put it in different words for you.

I considered two cases: the person standing their ground on their own property (where I am sure you would agree, they are at no legal or ethical fault), and a person trespassing on someone else's property, where they are at fault of trespass but do not thereby deserve responsibility for the criminal negligence of the 'dozer driver who sees them ahead an makes no attempt to stop or turn.

In both of those cases, the bulldozer driver is at fault. Whether or not the protestor is at fault in the same or in some other way.

Now, this is the part you missed I think. If the same thing occurs on nobody's property, say on public land where both the protester and the driver have a legal right to be, it can't fall outside those two cases. What is true for both cases, must be true when there is no factor of "whose land is it?"

And what is true for both cases is that the bulldozer driver who sees a person ahead of them and makes no attempt to stop or turn (it being safe to do so, I must add) is both criminally and ethically wrong.

This was YOUR chosen analogy. Please try to get your head around it.

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



And since the Tiannamen Square protestors had been explicitly warned about the consequences of staying where they were, it was their fault that the army was ordered to shoot them, and killed hundreds of them.

I don't believe that. I don't think you do either. I'm just trying to illustrate that every resort to analogy is a step away from clear understanding of the issue at hand. Your analogy took the scenario half way to absurdity and irrelevance. It only takes one more 'analogy on an analogy' to reach a conclusion which neither of us believes. That is: complete absurdity and complete irrelevance.

Or perhaps you do accept that conclusion from analogy. The Tiannamen Square protestors were to blame for getting fired apon. Hmm?

Mean Feat wrote: 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.



IF, I said. Yes, I changed the parameters to make it more accurate as an analogy. If I can defeat the more accurate analogy, I consider the less accurate analogy defeated with room to spare.

You introduced a third party to a debate about the faults of two parties (and if the fault of one excuses the fault of the other) and that makes the analogy less apt. Surely you can see that?

Translate your analogy back to the collision event, to see how it is less accurate than my revised version:

Sea Shepherd tie up a third party (say, an Australian Navy diver who popped up from a submarine) and place them in the ocean ahead of the oncoming whaling boat.

Yes, I must agree that Sea Shepherd would be grievously at fault there. I would continue to insist that the whaler captain who sees the innocent party in the water and makes no attempt to avoid them is ALSO at fault.

So if I argue according to your inaccurate analogy, and try to defend the endangerment of an unwilling participant, I will lose. That unwilling participant was a fabrication of yours, introduced in the analogy but not present in the actual event we're discussing.

You call me dishonest! I will not return the accusation. "Never explain with malice what can be put down to stupidity."

*snip*



Mean Feat wrote: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.[/quote]

Often when a matter on which suit was brought is settled out of court, the sum is not disclosed. If that happens, rather than have a tiresome argument about whether the undisclosed settlement was probably more, or probably less, than the replacement value of the Ady Gil ... the bet will be a "scratching." The bet will be off. Neither of us have to give up any of our precious internet cookies.

I think that's a quite likely outcome, actually.

But if a settlement is made, and disclosed, and it is less than the 2 million which Sea Shepherd has claimed for the value of the Ady Gil, I will gladly give up my cookie. Likewise if an award is made in the court and not appealed, which is less than that, I will concede the bet the day the matter is legally finished, whether or not payment ever happens.

If a finding of damages at or exceeding the current claim of value of the Ady Gil is made in whatever court the matter is brought to, and not appealed, you will owe me one cookie. (Note that this favors you: the value will probably be inflated in the claim for damages. $2 million US is more likely than 3 or whatever.)

If an out of court settlement (statement of intention to pay, not actual payment) is made public and exceeds that $2 million, you will likewise owe me a delicious virtual cookie, which I will have put into an inert-gas display case to preserve it for the day I can proudly present it to my grandchildren!

Sea Shepherd states that the Ady Gil's replacement value (before it was sunk) was "more than two million dollars." I'm willing to take that estimate without the "more than." US $2 million.

Bet?

Mean Feat wrote: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.



I addressed this in the first section of this post. That the high seas are not anyone's property is a FAULT in the analogy you offered. Any "oncoming bulldozer" scenario involves property on which the event happens. Who owns the property on which it happens does affect the liability of both parties.

I allowed for that inaccuracy. I excluded it by the "bracketing" argument you failed to follow. I excluded the element of "on whose property?" because it was a spurious element introduced in YOUR analogy, which you may or may not have been aware of.

I think I deserve an apology from you. I was not dishonest.


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



Finding the significant difference between this analogy, and harm done by two parties to each other in a collision event ... I will leave to you. Like the quiz at the end of the chapter in a textbook, you won't be marked on it. But you should do it anyway, to check for yourself that you have learned the lessons I have taught you on the use of analogy.

(Yes, that is terribly patronizing. I can make you angry just as you can do to me. Both of our arguments will only be the weaker for that.)



Mean Feat wrote: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.



For some of those crimes they have been. Compensation has been awarded in court against the organization, and criminal charges brought and proven against individuals. They're considered a terrorist organization in Japan, and can't use their ports ... in fact, they'd probably be arrested and their ship impounded if they tried.

I've made it very clear that I don't support Sea Shepherd in endangering anyone but their own volunteers or employees.

As I said to Ifreann, if even one crew-member of the Ady Gil wants charges pressed against the captain for endangering them in this collision incident, that should be done and would hopefully succeed. And in the long-term it's actually quite likely ... it's a minority of activist hotheads who don't get disenchanted with their cause inside seven years, which I'm guessing would be the statute of limitations for bringing charges.

*snip another personal attack*



Shark! Mmmm, tasty.

[NERVUN]

Natapoc, since you apparently missed this in a previous post, here's a quick question. How do you feel about the Sea Shepherds attempting to cause injuries on the whaling ships by throwing powdered cellulose at the whalers (causing the decks to become extremely slippery, and hazardous to work on)?

He won't answer you. Natapoc is all for killing other people, and calling failed attempts as "harmless" while any retaliation or just plain obstruction as "oppression". That's the sort of person he is.

Non Aligned States, I asked you guys to cool it, and Czardas also had previously asked you to stop baiting Natapoc. Since asking doesn't seem to have gotten the message across, we're going to tap a bit harder. Take a day off. *** One day ban for flamebaiting ***

I see this now.

I wouldn't have posted my long reply to NAS if I knew that he can't reply for 24 hours. So I'm taking the content out, and I'll put it back when NAS returns. I may post it again in 24 hours too, if the thread is still active.

I'm not sure if replying to a post of a user on a ban is frowned apon. It seems a bit wrong, anyway. So I'll undo it.

No, it is not frowned upon. However, just be aware that he cannot respond untill tomorrow.

[Daistallia 2104]

An interesting development...

Sea Shepherd sues Japanese whaling ship crew

Saturday 09th January, 05:33 AM JST

BRUSSELS —

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society on Friday filed a complaint of piracy with a Dutch court against the crew of the Japanese whaling vessel Shonan Maru No. 2, lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld for the anti-whaling group told Dutch press agency ANP.

‘‘Violence was used on purpose (by the Shonan Maru No. 2) to prevent the Sea Shepherd from carry out protest actions,’’ Zegveld said. The group’s powerboat, the Ady Gil, sank in waters off Antarctica after it was damaged in a skirmish with Japanese whalers earlier this week.

According to Zegveld, the Netherlands has the power to convict the crew of the Shonan Maru No. 2 for piracy. ‘‘One of the victims on the Ady Gil was the Dutchman Laurens de Groot,’’ she explained.

The mother ship of the Sea Shepherd fleet is registered in the Netherlands, she added. Zegveld thinks the complaint should result in the conviction of the Japanese ship’s crew.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/nati ... -ship-crew

[Natapoc]

An interesting development...

Sea Shepherd sues Japanese whaling ship crew

Saturday 09th January, 05:33 AM JST

BRUSSELS —

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society on Friday filed a complaint of piracy with a Dutch court against the crew of the Japanese whaling vessel Shonan Maru No. 2, lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld for the anti-whaling group told Dutch press agency ANP.

‘‘Violence was used on purpose (by the Shonan Maru No. 2) to prevent the Sea Shepherd from carry out protest actions,’’ Zegveld said. The group’s powerboat, the Ady Gil, sank in waters off Antarctica after it was damaged in a skirmish with Japanese whalers earlier this week.

According to Zegveld, the Netherlands has the power to convict the crew of the Shonan Maru No. 2 for piracy. ‘‘One of the victims on the Ady Gil was the Dutchman Laurens de Groot,’’ she explained.

The mother ship of the Sea Shepherd fleet is registered in the Netherlands, she added. Zegveld thinks the complaint should result in the conviction of the Japanese ship’s crew.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/nati ... -ship-crew

I hope the attackers have to pay for rebuilding a new boat. The Ady Gil (earthrace) was awesome and should continue to conduct patrols to prevent poaching, whaling, ect.

[Greed and Death]

An interesting development...

Sea Shepherd sues Japanese whaling ship crew

Saturday 09th January, 05:33 AM JST

BRUSSELS —

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society on Friday filed a complaint of piracy with a Dutch court against the crew of the Japanese whaling vessel Shonan Maru No. 2, lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld for the anti-whaling group told Dutch press agency ANP.

‘‘Violence was used on purpose (by the Shonan Maru No. 2) to prevent the Sea Shepherd from carry out protest actions,’’ Zegveld said. The group’s powerboat, the Ady Gil, sank in waters off Antarctica after it was damaged in a skirmish with Japanese whalers earlier this week.

According to Zegveld, the Netherlands has the power to convict the crew of the Shonan Maru No. 2 for piracy. ‘‘One of the victims on the Ady Gil was the Dutchman Laurens de Groot,’’ she explained.

The mother ship of the Sea Shepherd fleet is registered in the Netherlands, she added. Zegveld thinks the complaint should result in the conviction of the Japanese ship’s crew.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/nati ... -ship-crew

Japan will likely ignore whatever ruling dutch courts make and convict the sea Shepard crew of Piracy as a return favor.

[Non Aligned States]

An interesting development...

Double standards by the SS (and their supporters) claiming that it's piracy when other people do it them, but never when they do it others. No one is shocked.

Incidentally, SS proudly admits to sinking ships in their own history and putting bounties on ships.

[Soratsin]

An interesting development...

Wow, they couldn't get more hypocritical...

[Traxa]

An interesting development...

Wow, they couldn't get more hypocritical...

'
The SS captain should be arrested. Having his crew that close to other vessels, having his crew board other ships illegally from small launch craft while moving.

SS has called themselves Pirates in several of their support/recruit videos. They should be treated as such.

In that they should be shot by a US navy sniper on a Sunday while at sea.