update on whales and the andy gil collision

[DrunkenMonkey]

One man's gandhi is another man's bin laden.

I want to be sure to make it clear what I mean, because my last post was so short as to possibly be misunderstood. Colt, I'm not sure exactly what you meant by your remark, but here's what I think you meant; correct me if I'm wrong. You meant that since one man's hero is another man's criminal, you have no problem with the post I was complaining about. After all, if someone wants to advocate for the murder of a political activist, well, why shouldn't they be free to do so?

But you chose as an analogy a political activist who was actually murdered. So what I get, by way of your analogy, is that if someone were to make posts here advocating for the murder of Ghandi, then that's fine.

[Colt45]

Anyway, that's what I meant by disgusting.

I was not referring to that aspect of the discussion, so I really never thought of making that kind of connection. It is my simplistic way of saying perhaps it's

simply a matter of perspective or maybe beliefs. Some might feel the activists heroic, the whalers might consider them kooks or eco-terrorists.

Somewhere in the thread, Ken mentioned that some may think of Watson as similar to Gandhi, Mandela, or King. Is it not possible or unthinkable that there

could be those who might feel him closer to Jim Jones or such? (or the pied piper of your choice)

On a side note, with regards to the killing aspect, I sometimes wonder how many people would really be willing to "pull the trigger" so to speak if they sat back

and fully considered all the possible consequences......

[Ken Gargett]

Somewhere in the thread, Ken mentioned that some may think of Watson as similar to Gandhi, Mandela, or King. Is it not possible or unthinkable that there

could be those who might feel him closer to Jim Jones or such? (or the pied piper of your choice)

that was along the lines of the point i was trying to make tho to be honest, jones would have been well beyond what i would have tought the most extreme anti-sea shepherd view could be. but perhaps not.

for me, i think the bloke is a hero, granted a flawed hero but thank god someone is doing something.

[Colt45]

KG, at the risk of sounding like I'm trying to give you crap, allow me to make this example. In your report on your recent trip to Italy, you mentioned that

you had horse for lunch one day. I could never, ever, knowingly eat horse - I am far too fond of the animals.

And superficially at least, I do not hold horse eaters in the highest regard. But, having read the whale rider threads, and really thought about it, I've come

to the conclusion that if the opportunity ever presented itself, more likely than not, I'd probably try whale - even though I'm against the practice of whaling

(which I haven't mentioned up to this point).

Come to think of it, had you not brought up the subject to begin with, I'd probably have never given eating whale a thought......

[SmokinLightning]

On a side note, with regards to the killing aspect, I sometimes wonder how many people would really be willing to "pull the trigger" so to speak if they sat back

and fully considered all the possible consequences......

Obviously I'm not a murderous savage bent on executing eco-terrorists, my "rant" was merely a wildly over-the-top expression of my dislike for the man and his methods. I would hope that most people would have been able to grasp that, if not I apologize for kicking anyones puppy, and the subsequent nightmares it may have caused.

That being said... at sea there is very little room for error. Anyone who runs huge ships close together, attempts to foul props and disable them or launches slippery material all over the already hazardous deck of any work boat I happen to be on, would most certainly enable me to "pull the trigger" without a smidge of regret.

I find what the whalers are doing distasteful, even immoral... but the fact is they are operating within the law and I'm surprised they haven't started arming these ships already, if only for the safety of the crews.

[nocsious]

No one has answered my question yet. Everyone just dances around it and so I'll ask again my hypothetical question for a last time and then give up.

Assuming a sustainable harvest is possible, should it be allowed??????

Many "feel" a certain way, but forget about your feelings and focus on the question and answer it. Yes or no.

It is not equitable to treat certain groups with special status differently than Japan. The illegality of whaling by Japan is inconsequential if the law is unjust. Many laws are unjust especially if implemented by authority or regimes that have no dominion over the governed.

I propose that a multinational group of scientists from a truly diverse set of cultures and viewpoints actually study the question with methods that are as non-lethal as possible. Let the data speak after rigorous scientific review. I will concede that Japan independently conducting and filtering the results of their harvest does not offer much chance acceptance or validity, thus my proposal.

What do you guys think about Norway's practice of whaling? It appears that their practices are not illegal, while one could successfully claim Japan does violate international law.

[khomeinist]

Good points regarding crew safety. Not too concerned about the legal argument though. Goes without saying that plenty of historical atrocities were done under the aegis of 'legal acceptibilty.'

I am all for hunting, carnivorism, etc. Do not support any harvesting of this group of species. Call it an 'intelligence threshold' if you like.

Colt's relativistic concerns are legit. One culture's impending cheeseburger is another's sacred object.

I respect whales. Therefore I support those who try to save them. Others can have their own causes. Horses are nice too.

[Ken Gargett]

i put money on the horses about once a decade and that idiotic day just happened to fall for this decade, last saturday.

eating that nag would be too good for it and you'd have no trouble catching it.

as to others issued raised, try and get back to them when i have a mo.

[Ken Gargett]

guys, whatever view you hold, we do need to keep this civil. otherwise the fun police will shut this thread down as well.

(the fun police currently in transit and expected back soon so don't give him the opportunity).

[Ken Gargett]

At least we can get an insight as to some of the peoples real attitudes that post on this site. Makes you wonder.....

you'll find a wide range of views on this site, which is one of the great things about it.

i see we had a couple of posts 'deleted', i assume by the postees. very wise and appreciated.

[Fuzz AI]

No one has answered my question yet. Everyone just dances around it and so I'll ask again my hypothetical question for a last time and then give up.

Assuming a sustainable harvest is possible, should it be allowed??????

I'll take a shot at answering your hypothetical. My answer is not just no, but an emphatic no. Just because a sustainable harvest is possible, doesn't mean it should be allowed.

Let's change this around. Regardless of sustainability, why should we let whaling continue? With many other food resources available, why should we continue to hunt whales?

[mazolaman]

It's no doubt factual that whales are being harvested. But again, to my ears, personal beliefs are playing a large part in how this discussion has been presented.

Just about everything is informed by personal belief.

I also find it hard to believe that anyone would have the belief that we should eliminate species entirely,which we are currently doing,ie Bluefin tuna etc etc.

Therefore people like the seashepheard are acting in the majority interest.

I'm sure all our nations had agood go at exterminating the whale species in the past,I know ours did.

I,personally,don't think they should be hunted at all.

Horses are farmed,whales aren't.

The other forgotten aspect of this discussion is that the whalers have violated international boundaries,and appear not to care at all,or appear to have no punishment for this.

[Warren]

We have an island resort about an hours boat ride from Brisbane. Tangalooma is it's name.

It's a lovely place but once upon a time it was a whaling station where hundreds of whales were killed for what we needed at the time.

Things like oil for heating and lamps but to name a few.

These days we don't use whale oil, we have found other more efficient methods for heating and light.

Today I believe there are very few good reasons to hunt and kill whales and I can't believe that whaling is a cost effective way to feed people either.

I think what we are really dealing with here is a very stubborn intention to stick to an age old custom that has no relevance in today's society.

[Colt45]

Obviously I'm not a murderous savage bent on executing eco-terrorists......

Just to clarify, my question was not aimed at anyone in particular. I mentioned a torpedo boat, so I'll use myself as an example: I'm on one side or the

other (take your pick). I have the ability to destroy the opponent's ship, which would include killing all on board. The cavalier me might say "by any means

possible". But what if I step back and really think about it. There's the possible legal consequences. Morality / spirituality - if I believe in a god and some

kind of afterlife, what will this mean? How will the families and friends be affected? Would I still "pull the trigger"?

[frenchkiwi]

Just in case anyone had the mistaken idea that the Jap whalers didn't ram the anti-whalers...

here are all 3 video angles:

no "accident" here!

they deliberately turned and rammed the stationary small boat out of the water... in australian waters. shiver me timbers!

now how the "ICR" can still pretend it was the other way round, and some of the world media can still speak of it as a "collision" without further qualification, is just beyond me.

maybe they were just trying to play stock cars with boats?

[Warren]

When you look at that video it leaves you with absolutely no doubt that it was an act of aggression by the Japanese.

To come from that far away with sirens blaring and to then alter course to come straight at the Addy Gill you can only draw one conclusion.

You can see that the Japanese fire their water cannon at the Addy Gill to blind them and then run straight over the top of them. Then as they pass they hit them with the water cannon again just for good measure and probably to also try to wash the survivors overboard.

This is piracy on the high seas, an act of attempted murder clear and simple.

[Ken Gargett]

i really think that warren's point about being stubborn is relevant. one assumes that someone must be making money from this practice, though you'd think investing in a cattle ranch or a turnip farm would provide cheaper food. but i'm sure that there is an element of bloodymindedness to this. the japanese, like anyone, don't like being told not to do something. their economy has taken some big hits over the last decade or so and the restrictions on their military are well known. here is a chance they see to say 'up yours' to everyone and get away with it. because we let them.

if rudd says a word about protecting the whales next election, i hope someone puts a harpoon in him (tho as i've said, don't expect any better from abbott).

and re the sustainability issue, the farmed v wild aspect is relevant to me, to a degree. i would prefer to see nothing killed that doesn't have to die and i don't believe that whales do need to die. the 'delicacy' crap has been shown to be nonsense. apparently pre war, whales were basic food that was largely used by poorer groups because they could not afford the better types of food.

as for the various, and i've moved away from japan here, native groups that claim it is traditional for them to hunt whales, why then are they not hunting whales in the traditional method? now they use modern machine guns/harpoons etc instead of the 'traditional' spears.

[El Presidente]

Devils Advocate.

We have always hunted whales. We believe that sustainable harvesting is appropriate. We believe that we are being attacked on the premise of western cultural cringe that is 1. hypocritical and 2. elitist.

We have the legal right to harvest some 1500 whales a year. We will do so and in doing so protect our legal rights.

Bugger off.

[Ken Gargett]

Devils Advocate.

We have always hunted whales. We believe that sustainable harvesting is appropriate. We believe that we are being attacked on the premise of western cultural cringe that is 1. hypocritical and 2. elitist.

We have the legal right to harvest some 1500 whales a year. We will do so and in doing so protect our legal rights.

Bugger off.

and the germans had the legal right to elect hitler. that worked out well.

[El Presidente]

and the germans had the legal right to elect hitler. that worked out well.

In my best japanese...."Sticks and stones...

[Ken Gargett]

In my best japanese...."Sticks and stones...

what is that? what the germans used to beat half of europe to death?

[khomeinist]

Lol. Definitely NOT what the Japanese used at Pearl Harbor, Manchuria, Peilou, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, PNG, etc., etc.

Japanese arrogance not my favorite topic. But then again, neither is American arrogance.

Whales don't have passports.

[mazolaman]

For me,it doesn't matter if it's a whale or a pig or a tiger(3000 left),it's about the stupidity of killing all till they are gone,then crying crocodile tears and pretending to learn lessons....bollocks.

There is a good documentary called "the end of the line" which details the way we have ruined the seas with this "take all" philosophy.

Replete with FACTS,not opinnion,or supposition,ie we have taken 80% of the fish from the sea...frightening.

In the light of this,I think the sea sheapheard is right to do as they please.

[groza]

and the germans had the legal right to elect hitler. that worked out well.

He was not elected, his party didn't even get a majority. He was designated chancellor by the senile president but he was not elected democratically.

[khomeinist]

For me,it doesn't matter if it's a whale or a pig or a tiger(3000 left),it's about the stupidity of killing all till they are gone,then crying crocodile tears and pretending to learn lessons....bollocks.

There is a good documentary called "the end of the line" which details the way we have ruined the seas with this "take all" philosophy.

Replete with FACTS,not opinnion,or supposition,ie we have taken 80% of the fish from the sea...frightening.

In the light of this,I think the sea sheapheard is right to do as they please.

I agree with your assessment of the human cocktail.... equal parts arrogance and ignorance with a dash of superficial sanitizer.....fantastic recipe. shake well for maximum flavor and effect

I will look for that documentary.