209 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 02 March 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

Is this because we're staying out of it because it is not of our concern?



Once again, Yam, you're making **** up. I haven't said or even implied that there is a pro-whaling movement in New Zealand. This is more or less about you sticking your nose into a topic about something that's happening on the other side of the world and claiming to know something about it through "profound" one liners like some tired Hollywood actor.



Paul Watson said so himself. Can't really argue with words straight from the horse's mouth.



Of course not. SS is all about being media whores. When you disown members of your own organisation when they do end up in court, it just goes to show what these people are. Two-faced pieces of ****.



I'm surprised it's that high. Maybe you could ask your God to perform some sort of miracle.

The oceans are everyone's concern.  They're dying in our time and someone living on an island more reliant on the oceans than anyone ought to be among the first to figure that out for your own sake.   I'm glad that I was correct to inform you how against your own countrymen you are now that I know that there is no pro-whaling movement in New Zealand.   Paul Watson has lived a marine life and fought and won against whalers for decades.  What comes out of his mouth is expertise nobody else has.  Its the "exper" in experience that's unmatched.  Sea Shepherd masterfully manipulates the media because it understands how those talking heads work. Want to draw attention to an issue?   Get Pamela Anderson or Brigitte Bardot to expose an issue and millions end up hearing about it.   Ignorance never solved any problem.  Only knowledge did that.  What problem will you solve?  What have you done?   What God is my God?   You know nothing about me, obviously.   Go find something positive in the world to spend your time doing instead of insulting strangers on the internet.

[the-Unexpected-Soul]

japan must eat whale, must eat now

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 03 March 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

The oceans are everyone's concern.

Only if their government has sovereignty over them or when trade is at risk. And we all know how you love sovereignty and trade, do you not?

Quote

They're dying in our time and someone living on an island more reliant on the oceans than anyone ought to be among the first to figure that out for your own sake.

First thing's first: NZ relies on it's agriculture more than it relies on its oceans. Granted, New Zealand's fishing industry is quite large, but we are dealing with environmental issues (and some worker related issues too) in our own way.

Quote

I'm glad that I was correct to inform you how against your own countrymen you are now that I know that there is no pro-whaling movement in New Zealand.

Because you correctly informing me of something you completely made up of your own accord is making you look better? Interesting logic this.

Quote

Paul Watson has lived a marine life and fought and won against whalers for decades.

So he lives the life of a pirate then, given the amount of ships he has sunk (or claimed to have).

Quote

What comes out of his mouth is expertise nobody else has.

On piracy, yes. On actual conservation? Not quite.

Quote

Sea Shepherd masterfully manipulates the media because it understands how those talking heads work. Want to draw attention to an issue?   Get Pamela Anderson or Brigitte Bardot to expose an issue and millions end up hearing about it.

So in other words, it goes in provoking fights and then b****es about it when the other person strikes back? For media attention that everyone really doesn't give a **** about because it's some fat b****** getting all piggy about trying to save whales that are being harpooned before his very eyes?

Oh yes, very effective. It'd be like you aiming a gun at a cop and them complaining when he shoots you.

Quote

What problem will you solve?

Whatever problems I need to solve.

Quote

What have you done?

Whatever I think that needs to be done in my part. In my case, nothing. I don't support either side, less so Sea Shepherds. Why? Firstly, because their methods are winning them nothing but undeserved media attention. Secondly, they accomplish absolutely nothing. Thirdly, you support them. I have the added bonus of my ability to push your buttons and watching you wriggle around on the ground like a worm. It's very entertaining.

Quote

What have you done?

Laugh very loudly at your expense. Laugh very loudly at Sea Shepherd. That's doing something is it not?

Quote

Go find something positive in the world to spend your time doing instead of insulting strangers on the internet.

I am. I'm doing it right now. Exposing people's underbelly and then disemboweling them when they try to attack. It's very effective.

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 03 March 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Only if their government has sovereignty over them or when trade is at risk. And we all know how you love sovereignty and trade, do you not?



First thing's first: NZ relies on it's agriculture more than it relies on its oceans. Granted, New Zealand's fishing industry is quite large, but we are dealing with environmental issues (and some worker related issues too) in our own way.



Because you correctly informing me of something you completely made up of your own accord is making you look better? Interesting logic this.



So he lives the life of a pirate then, given the amount of ships he has sunk (or claimed to have).



On piracy, yes. On actual conservation? Not quite.



So in other words, it goes in provoking fights and then b****es about it when the other person strikes back? For media attention that everyone really doesn't give a **** about because it's some fat b****** getting all piggy about trying to save whales that are being harpooned before his very eyes?

Oh yes, very effective. It'd be like you aiming a gun at a cop and them complaining when he shoots you.



Whatever problems I need to solve.



Whatever I think that needs to be done in my part. In my case, nothing. I don't support either side, less so Sea Shepherds. Why? Firstly, because their methods are winning them nothing but undeserved media attention. Secondly, they accomplish absolutely nothing. Thirdly, you support them. I have the added bonus of my ability to push your buttons and watching you wriggle around on the ground like a worm. It's very entertaining.



Laugh very loudly at your expense. Laugh very loudly at Sea Shepherd. That's doing something is it not?



I am. I'm doing it right now. Exposing people's underbelly and then disemboweling them when they try to attack. It's very effective.

Sea Shepherd is owning a government-subsidized poaching organization with a fraction of their annual budget doing damage orders of magnitude greater than that budget.   They're probably the most effective private enterprise on the planet when doing the math.   It's pretty hard to deny that every day the Japanese aren't killing whales is another day that Japanese aren't killing whales, but there will be those weird cases that come along where people will try to deny that.   Sea Shepherd obviously isn't denying they're pirates (see their flag), but they're unabashedly pirates of compassion who are defeating pirates of profit.   It's pretty easy to pick sides in this battle when one side's benefits are subsidized whale meat going to a few old Japanese people who still have a taste for whale meat in their mouths due to Hirohito's whale meat feeding people their daily dose of heavy metals in WW2.   Australia has an EEZ and Japan will be made to respect it one way or the other.   Sea Shepherd will continue to take a painful bite out of Japan's illegal whaling operation in the meantime.  The Japanese whalers went running back to Japan with their tails between their legs in 2011 and cited Sea Shepherd as the reason why.   Pretty lame when one with hundreds of times the resources surrenders to a tiny non-profit like Sea Shepherd, even more lame for them after they admitted it.

[Sakari]

Quote

The oceans are everyone's concern.

MichaelW, on 03 March 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Only if their government has sovereignty over them or when trade is at risk. And we all know how you love sovereignty and trade, do you not?

If you really do not understand ( by facts and science ) that OUR Oceans are EVERYONES concerns, and that the Oceans are the staple of life, you have a severe issue with educating yourself.

Opinions about things are fine, but when there are facts galore that are the opposite of your opinion, it is time to admit you are wrong.

[tipotep]

Yamato, on 03 March 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

Sea Shepherd is owning a government-subsidized poaching organization with a fraction of their annual budget doing damage orders of magnitude greater than that budget.   They're probably the most effective private enterprise on the planet when doing the math.   It's pretty hard to deny that every day the Japanese aren't killing whales is another day that Japanese aren't killing whales, but there will be those weird cases that come along where people will try to deny that.   Sea Shepherd obviously isn't denying they're pirates (see their flag), but they're unabashedly pirates of compassion who are defeating pirates of profit.   It's pretty easy to pick sides in this battle when one side's benefits are subsidized whale meat going to a few old Japanese people who still have a taste for whale meat in their mouths due to Hirohito's whale meat feeding people their daily dose of heavy metals in WW2.   Australia has an EEZ and Japan will be made to respect it one way or the other.   Sea Shepherd will continue to take a painful bite out of Japan's illegal whaling operation in the meantime.  The Japanese whalers went running back to Japan with their tails between their legs in 2011 and cited Sea Shepherd as the reason why.   Pretty lame when one with hundreds of times the resources surrenders to a tiny non-profit like Sea Shepherd, even more lame for them after they admitted it.

I know we have not agreed on all issues in the past here at UM but I can honestly say I agree with you 100% on this one  !

Who would be keeping tabs on the Japanese whale ships if the SS wans't ?  How would we know if they were taking their limit or not?

I don't usually have anything nice to say about the Australian government but I will admit that the stand we take when it comes to whaling makes me proud to be an Aussie , they are a magnificent creature and keeping them safe should be a prority to EVERY country .

TiP

Edited by tipotep, 04 March 2013 - 12:01 AM.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 03 March 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

Sea Shepherd is owning a government-subsidized poaching organization with a fraction of their annual budget doing damage orders of magnitude greater than that budget.

I don't see how they're "owning" anyone when they haven't prevented any whales from being culled. If your precious little organisation devoted as much time to protecting whales as they do being media whores, I'm sure we could see some results.

Quote

They're probably the most effective private enterprise on the planet when doing the math.

Not really. Sea Shepherd aren't an actual business. The pirates of Somalia are more effective and operate on a much smaller budget. They actually get money in the end.

Quote

It's pretty hard to deny that every day the Japanese aren't killing whales is another day that Japanese aren't killing whales.

Of course. But in saying that, every time they kill a whale with Sea Shepherd in tow is a failure on the SS's part.  

Quote

Sea Shepherd obviously isn't denying they're pirates (see their flag), but they're unabashedly pirates of compassion who are defeating pirates of profit.

Hang on, didn't you say that the SS were a profitable organisation?

Quote

The Japanese whalers went running back to Japan with their tails between their legs in 2011 and cited Sea Shepherd as the reason why.

Weren't they returning to Japan with a prisoner on board? One who attempted to arrest the captain of the whaling ship who was then completely disowned by the SS? What was his name? Pete Bethune? Was that the "Japanese defeat" you crow about?

[MichaelW]

Sakari, on 03 March 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

If you really do not understand ( by facts and science ) that OUR Oceans are EVERYONES concerns, and that the Oceans are the staple of life, you have a severe issue with educating yourself.

I don't have a serious issue with educating myself. I routinely do so on many occasions. You on the other hand, well, let's just say your post is just full of constructive opinions.

Quote

Opinions about things are fine, but when there are facts galore that are the opposite of your opinion, it is time to admit you are wrong.

Now, I will admit when I am wrong if someone actually points it out for me. Until then, you may continue to fling feces.

Also, facts? Since when has there been "facts" in anything Yammy-wammy posted? Although I did enjoy the "defeat" of the Japanese whaling fleet that had sunk an SS boat and had taken one of their captains prisoner. That was entertaining.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Sometimes the only victory is being defeated in a way of your choosing MichealW.
SS stopping refueling time and again - victory.
SS recording international law violations - victory.
Not stopping whales from being culled - not a victory.
Not stopping the ships from coming- not a victory.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Now, I will admit when I am wrong if someone actually points it out for me. Until then, you may continue to fling feces.

Admitting your wrong is fine. Its a sign of mature debate when you can concede when you have erred in your opinion/fact finding...flinging feces along the way will get you put in a padded cell in most countries.

LONG LIVE THE WHALE MAMMAL !!

[Frank Merton]

We don't know anywhere near enough about these beings to be out there killing them, particularly when their deaths are necessarily gruesome and extended and the product is of little or no value that can't be had other ways.

We do know that their brains are as large vis-a-vis their bodies as ours, and every bit as convoluted and complex.  That must be a clue that they are intelligent.  We also know that they are highly social animals demonstrating regard for each other and for human beings in trouble.  In captivity they demonstrate intelligence beyond that of other animals.

In short, although there are moral questions involved in killing any sentient being, the moral questions here are much stronger.

[MichaelW]

Wearer of Hats, on 04 March 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

Sometimes the only victory is being defeated in a way of your choosing MichealW.
SS stopping refueling time and again - victory.
SS recording international law violations - victory.
Not stopping whales from being culled - not a victory.
Not stopping the ships from coming- not a victory.

Nope. A loss is a loss.

Frank Merton, on 04 March 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

We don't know anywhere near enough about these beings to be out there killing them, particularly when their deaths are necessarily gruesome and extended and the product is of little or no value that can't be had other ways.

We do know that their brains are as large vis-a-vis their bodies as ours, and every bit as convoluted and complex.  That must be a clue that they are intelligent.  We also know that they are highly social animals demonstrating regard for each other and for human beings in trouble.  In captivity they demonstrate intelligence beyond that of other animals.

In short, although there are moral questions involved in killing any sentient being, the moral questions here are much stronger.

Thing is, you can relate that to any animal that has some form of intelligence beyond what one would expect from other animals. Pigs, for example, are considered to be reasonably intelligent creatures and you only hear militant vegans calling for an end to people consuming pork, ham and bacon.

So, should we stop the farming and killing of pigs and the culling of wild ones also for the sake of the species?

[AsteroidX]

Quote

militant vegans calling for an end to people consuming pork, ham and bacon

I believe there is 1.6b+ muslims that also do not consume pork but I believe there reasoning is different then intelligence of the animal.

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 04 March 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

So, should we stop the farming and killing of pigs and the culling of wild ones also for the sake of the species?

You're not listening to what's already been discussed.   Pigs aren't comparable to whales since pigs are farmed.   There are two billion pigs in the world on farms at a time to meet global demand for pork.   If killing a pig is equivalent to killing a whale, then there will be two billion whales raised in farms for our consumption.

MichaelW, on 04 March 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

I don't see how they're "owning" anyone when they haven't prevented any whales from being culled. If your precious little organisation devoted as much time to protecting whales as they do being media whores, I'm sure we could see some results.

When they're preventing whales from being poached, whales aren't being poached.   The evidence that you're looking for is the proof that you're seeing.   Japan reports their deplorable poach statistics vs their own poaching quota.  Either they're extremely incompetent at what they do, or they're otherwise competent and Sea Shepherd shuts them down.

MichaelW, on 04 March 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

Not really. Sea Shepherd aren't an actual business. The pirates of Somalia are more effective and operate on a much smaller budget. They actually get money in the end.

They're the best kind of business.  A fiscally responsible non-profit that receives its funds voluntarily, not by govt force.

MichaelW, on 04 March 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

Of course. But in saying that, every time they kill a whale with Sea Shepherd in tow is a failure on the SS's part.  

I'm not sure having a 100% market share is necessary to be deemed a success in the for-profit world so there's no need for such a double standard here just because the name of the game is saving lives.

MichaelW, on 04 March 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

Hang on, didn't you say that the SS were a profitable organisation?

Time to consult the dictionary.   The first definition of Profit is a valuable return.   Non-profit organization is a common noun with a different definition.
http://en.wikipedia....it_organization

MichaelW, on 04 March 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

Weren't they returning to Japan with a prisoner on board? One who attempted to arrest the captain of the whaling ship who was then completely disowned by the SS? What was his name? Pete Bethune? Was that the "Japanese defeat" you crow about?

Coming that short of their quota looking at the money they have to spend to keep this bankrupt operation afloat, in financial terms it was a devastating loss.  Without bilking the Japanese taxpayers the whaling fleet would have been sunk economically years ago. Yes, they were running away when the whaling season was half over with a prisoner on board.   Whatever got them to run away with their tails between their legs, they admitted themselves that Sea Shepherd was the reason why.   Now either the Japanese whalers are liars as well as cowards, or I'm right.

[Frank Merton]

Any killing of any animal -- indeed any killing at all, which would include vegetarians and even treating infectious diseases, is an offense, an "evil."

That is almost silly, but it is true if one takes the idea that all evils are equal evils -- that there is such a thing as "sin."

We want to avoid evils -- because they are evils, and if that is not enough reason because they tend to do harm, ultimately harm that circles back on us.  But there are evils and there are evils and sometimes it is unavoidable to prevent a greater evil.  Killing is necessary for life.

Avoidance of pork is a good idea.  The meat is not healthy except for certain vitamins that it is hard to get otherwise, the animal is an omnivore so great care is needed to prevent infection with parasites in its meat, and it is a genuinely intelligent animal.  Still, if the animal is raised humanely and killed humanely, and lives a better life than it would have in nature, the evil is greatly mitigated, and there is good nutrition.

The way whales and other cetaceans are killed is an outrage, and there is no offsetting good except some profit for the whalers, and these are genuinely smart animals.