Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 3 votes

Sea Shepherd announces Operation Relentless


  • Please log in to reply
134 replies to this topic

#46    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,681 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:18 AM

Intimidation, harassment, media-manipulation, physically blocking poachers from doing their jobs, and destroying poaching equipment are all non-violent ways of interfering with criminals committing their crimes.  

Looks like Paul Watson uses the dictionary unlike some people.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#47    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 12,538 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:29 AM

Destroying poaching equipment doesn't exactly sound "non-violent" to me.

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

#48    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,637 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 June 2013 - 01:25 PM

Don't be silly, Hats.  Next thing you'll be saying is that intentionally ramming your ship against another ship and hurling bottles at them is violent.


#49    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,637 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 June 2013 - 02:06 PM

View PostYamato, on 03 June 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

And yet my position remains is as clear as crystal.

Absolutely!  It's wrong. :lol:

Quote

It's the World Charter for Nature, the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, the Australian Antarctic Territory, the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone, the Antarctic Treaty, physically blocking these slaughters on the high seas and taking the criminal Japanese whale poachers to court.  

Except that it isn't and it doesn't, and I already showed how, and I even showed an example of what something that does actually provide enforcement power (are you really trying to word your way out of referring to legal authority?) to show what real authorization looks like.  In plain English.

Quote

Finding an op-ed about the World Charter for Nature

Yeah...Speeches to the United Nations General Assembly introducing something as wide-ranging and politically influencial as The World Charter for Nature are generally considered a bit more authoritative than "op-ed".

And, wow, that was the most blatant attempt to dismiss something I have seen in a while!

The only parts of your argument that I have bothered to respond to are the claim that the pirates have Authorization of Law Enforcement *cue trumpet fanfare* and that utter insult to logic about it being okay to risk a fuel spill by ramming a fuel tanker in the process of an at sea refueling, as long as you are trying to save the environment.

Quote

It isn't binding TO ANYONE, such that if you don't enforce it, you won't be in any trouble for not enforcing it.

Yamato, really now, I already said it, and in a much better way.  You don't need to repeat after me.

Quote

Enforcement is voluntary.   The claim you're making is that Sea Shepherd can't volunteer to enforce the law because it is a "soft law".

No, the claim that I am making is that the Charter makes absolutely no mention, at all, anywhere, of physical Law Enforcement (*fanfare*).  It does specify exactly what can be enforced, and it even mentions and gives examples of the level of enforcement, and not a single one rises above the level of a polite suggestion.

In other words, even if it was a formal legal charter with the power to grant authorization, it still would not give anyone, particularly the Sea Shepherd pirates, the right to enforce the law.  The World Charter for Nature contains absolutely no articles regarding physical law enforcemnt.

Quote

What's the other component of your pro-whaling opinion?

Who said I was pro-whaling?

Quote

That Sea Shepherd could cause an oil spill!

Well, fuel spill, but yes.  Those asshats are a bigger danger to the environment than the Japanese whalers ever were.

Quote

Every ship on the ocean risks that, somehow that risk is only brought up when Sea Shepherd encounters Japanese poachers.

No, Yamato, Pretty much every ship at sea goes to great measure to avoid spilling fuel.  The Sea Shepherd, on the other hand, goes out of its way to increase the risk.

Quote

That's no choice at all.  It's either fighting a non-violent war against criminals at the scene of the crime, or it's sitting in a chair flapping against it.

The Sea Shepherd pirates are criminals.  The point has already been made.  The point has not been countered.  Further attempts to subvert reality will be ignored.

There is no law allowing physical violence to enforce non-existent laws about poaching.

Quote

I can arrest you and put you in chains until some government agent comes and picks you up and takes you off of my lawn.  I can beat you severely until you're completely subdued, and then watch you off to jail in your bloody clothes.

At which point you will be arrested for breaking the law, and away to jail you will go.  I have no idea why you think vigilantees have a carte blanche license to operate, but I don't suggest you try it in the real world.  You don't have a very good record at being able to tell what a law actually is.

*removed redundant and pointless repetition of non-supported opinion*

Quote

If they're "terrorists" then Australia and at least 15 other countries of the world are aiding and abetting terrorists.   If they're "terrorists" then everyone donating to Sea Shepherd is a terrorist too.  This word is so overused in the 21st century by hypersensitive politically correct statists of all stripes, it doesn't even have any meaning anymore.  We're all "terrorists" now for some political opinion we have, because the word is meaningless.

Then why do you keep using it?  You are the only one in this thread who has used the word.


#50    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,681 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 June 2013 - 04:14 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 03 June 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

Absolutely!  It's wrong. :lol:



Except that it isn't and it doesn't, and I already showed how, and I even showed an example of what something that does actually provide enforcement power (are you really trying to word your way out of referring to legal authority?) to show what real authorization looks like.  In plain English.



Yeah...Speeches to the United Nations General Assembly introducing something as wide-ranging and politically influencial as The World Charter for Nature are generally considered a bit more authoritative than "op-ed".

And, wow, that was the most blatant attempt to dismiss something I have seen in a while!

The only parts of your argument that I have bothered to respond to are the claim that the pirates have Authorization of Law Enforcement *cue trumpet fanfare* and that utter insult to logic about it being okay to risk a fuel spill by ramming a fuel tanker in the process of an at sea refueling, as long as you are trying to save the environment.



Yamato, really now, I already said it, and in a much better way.  You don't need to repeat after me.



No, the claim that I am making is that the Charter makes absolutely no mention, at all, anywhere, of physical Law Enforcement (*fanfare*).  It does specify exactly what can be enforced, and it even mentions and gives examples of the level of enforcement, and not a single one rises above the level of a polite suggestion.

In other words, even if it was a formal legal charter with the power to grant authorization, it still would not give anyone, particularly the Sea Shepherd pirates, the right to enforce the law.  The World Charter for Nature contains absolutely no articles regarding physical law enforcemnt.



Who said I was pro-whaling?



Well, fuel spill, but yes.  Those asshats are a bigger danger to the environment than the Japanese whalers ever were.



No, Yamato, Pretty much every ship at sea goes to great measure to avoid spilling fuel.  The Sea Shepherd, on the other hand, goes out of its way to increase the risk.



The Sea Shepherd pirates are criminals.  The point has already been made.  The point has not been countered.  Further attempts to subvert reality will be ignored.

There is no law allowing physical violence to enforce non-existent laws about poaching.



At which point you will be arrested for breaking the law, and away to jail you will go.  I have no idea why you think vigilantees have a carte blanche license to operate, but I don't suggest you try it in the real world.  You don't have a very good record at being able to tell what a law actually is.

*removed redundant and pointless repetition of non-supported opinion*



Then why do you keep using it?  You are the only one in this thread who has used the word.
Not cart blanch, but room to operate, yes.  Even without Charters explicitly stating they do.   I have the power to enforce the law whether you think I do or not.  At the bare minimum, I'm responsible for myself and I'm no victim.

So you agree with me that they're not terrorists then?  Excellent!

I don't see Sea Shepherd intending to spill fuel, sorry.  More personal imagination or bs on a whaler blog?

View PostSir Wearer of Hats, on 03 June 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

Destroying poaching equipment doesn't exactly sound "non-violent" to me.
Well if you actually think that you can commit violence against inanimate objects, then we will agree to disagree.   The dictionary is a clear resource on our word definitions, Wearer.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#51    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,681 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 June 2013 - 04:16 PM

The World Charter designates individuals, groups and corporations to act to safeguard and secure nature.  It doesn't say that this is invalid just because someone is breaking the law.  Japan's illegality confers them no immunity to this law.  Just because those actions that safeguard and secure nature have a law-enforcement quality doesn't mean they're illegal.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#52    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,681 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 June 2013 - 04:24 PM

Let's flesh out the tactics a little more.

Obstruction, Intimidation, Harassment, media-manipulation, physically blocking poachers from doing their jobs, and destroying poaching equipment are all non-violent ways of interfering with criminals committing their crimes.   Anyone complaining about the people Sea Shepherd never killed or injured is a non-issue built with rhetoric and little else.   If we're really going to whine about poaching equipment then maybe we should whine about taking knives from murderers, date rape drugs from rapists, and crowbars from burglars.   When the victims of bloody violence are human we can understand the process.  The difference is that these are whales and some people can't apply a single standard for whales, despite the fact that humans number in the billions and some species of whales in the tens of thousands.   Doing that, plus doing nothing else to help, is pro-whaling to me.  Those who choose to sit around and wait for extinction of species and ecosystems will be happy with their results.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#53    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 34,355 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 04 June 2013 - 12:49 AM

View PostYamato, on 03 June 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

Intimidation, harassment, media-manipulation, physically blocking poachers from doing their jobs, and destroying poaching equipment are all non-violent ways of interfering with criminals committing their crimes.  

Looks like Paul Watson uses the dictionary unlike some people.

Non violent?

From my previous post:
  • A Sea Shepherd vessel rams the whaling vessel “Sierra”,
  • The IWC at its meeting in Brighton, United Kingdom, assigns high-level protection to two Canadian Government delegates after Watson threatened to kill them for voting against a moratorium on sperm whales.
  • The “Sierra” is sunk in Lisbon harbour. Sea Shepherd claims responsibility. Investigation shows limpet mines used to blow up the vessel.
  • Sea Shepherd claims responsibility for the sinking of the two whaling vessels, Ibsa I and Ibsa II, in the Spanish harbour of Viga.
  • In retaliation for Watson’s arrest by Canadian police, animal rights extremists slash car tires and spray paint slogans on walls of buildings in the inner city of Quebec.
  • ea Shepherd claims responsibility for the sinking of two whaling vessels in Reykjavik, Iceland, and for malicious damage to a whaling station Charges included use of an explosive device, theft and arson.
  • A US crew member on a Mexican fishing vessel, reports that Sea Shepherd, some of whose crew were armed with rifles, rammed his vessel causing considerable damage
  • In a written complaint to the local authorities the fishermen report that the Sea Shepherd crew shot at them with bullets containing a red substance, hitting two of them and causing them great pain.
  • Sea Shepherd makes unsuccessful attempt at scuttling the whaling and fishing vessel “Nybræna” at her moorings in the Lofoten Islands
  • Sea Shepherd vessel “Whales Forever” collides with Norwegian Coast Guard vessel “Andenes” on July 4. Charges against Paul Watson include negligent navigation, refusal to leaveNorwegian waters on orders of the Coast Guard and transmitting false distress signals. (Tape supplied)
  • Paul Watson orders the crew on board the Sea Shepherd vessel “Edward Abbey” (formerly US Navy) to open cannon fire at a Japanese fishing vessel. Sea Shepherd crew do not carry out the order, but instead fire a shot across the bow of the Japanese vessel.
  • Federal Grand Jury in Michigan State hands down five-count indictment against Coronado for illegal use of explosives, extortion, threats to interfere with interstate commerce and interstate transportation, to commit arson, theft and destruction of government property and for receiving stolen property.
  • Paul Watson tells Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet on January 26 that former US navy “Seal” commandos took part in attack on the Senet. “Certainly these men are trained to kill, but they are also well disciplined and respect my orders,” he told the newspaper.
You have got to be kidding me.
Flesh that out.

Edited by psyche101, 04 June 2013 - 12:50 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#54    MacsMom

MacsMom

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 491 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:South Dixie

  • Random crap that no one reads anyway

Posted 04 June 2013 - 02:11 AM

While I don't always agree with their tactics, I do admire the fact that they are trying to do SOMETHING.   Illegal whaling should be stopped but I don't know if Sea Shepherd is gonna accomplish that.  But yagotta admit they bring attention to the matter.a

Time is a wheel in constant motion always rolling us along.  Tell me who wants to look back on their years and wonder where those years have gone?

#55    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,637 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 June 2013 - 03:16 AM

View PostYamato, on 03 June 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

Not cart blanch, but room to operate, yes.  Even without Charters explicitly stating they do.   I have the power to enforce the law whether you think I do or not.  At the bare minimum, I'm responsible for myself and I'm no victim.

But we aren't talking about power, are we, Yamato?  Anyone who can force someone else to do something has power, just like the bully on the playground has power because he can beat up smaller kids, and the Sea Shepherd has power because they can freely attack the whalers in the safety of knowing the whalers will not attack back at the same level.

No, we are talking about authority, despite your many blatant attempts to try to move the goalposts.  And yes, you do have the right to enforce certain laws, and you even have a bit of room to operate within specific limits, as decided by a jury of your peers; the mistake you are making is in confusing the "right" with the "power".  Whether you have the power to or not, the only reason you have the right is because there is a legal document outlining specifically what those rights are, what the limits of the rights are, and who has specifically what authority to do what.  There is nothing about you yourself that gives you any right to enforce anything on anyone using violence, especially not some moral code you subscribe to.  You do not have the right to make someone into your victim.

Quote

So you agree with me that they're not terrorists then?  Excellent!

I am not sure if you don't see this, or if you know this and are just trolling, but you are very transparent.  The above isn't an invisible bait-and-switch, it isn't a clever "Gotcha!" resulting from witty wordplay.  It is an extremely obvious (if done subconsciously), or extremely amateurish (if done intentionally), twisting of a position, to the point that it is all, but a complete fabrication.  In all honesty, I do tend towards the latter, because we have already seen examples of you fabricating arguments, such as complaining about everyone saying "terrorist", and calling me a pro-whaler.

As I clearly, and without the slightest ambiguity, stated, absolutely no one in this thread has even introduced the word "terrorist", let alone accused the Sea Shepherd of it.  You are the only person to have brought it up.

There is no possible way in the English language to translate the above to: "So you agree with me that they're not terrorists then?"  It's such an extreme twisting it reaches the point of being an outright misrepresention.

That I don't consider the Sea Shepherd to be terrorists is actually beside the point.  Frankly, I consider it laughable that anyone could use the word 'terror' in any form in relation to these imbecils.  My personal views, however, do not, in any way, give you permission to twist any of my statements around to anything other than what I use them to claim.

Quote

I don't see Sea Shepherd intending to spill fuel, sorry.  More personal imagination or bs on a whaler blog?

No, Yamato, see, most ships at sea go out of their way to avoid spilling fuel.  The Sea Shepherd, on the other hand, actively plows straight into a fuel tanker, repeatedly, while the tanker is in the process of an at sea replenishment.  The Sea Shepherd intentionally risks a major fuel spill (notice the actual claim, as opposed to your version of the claim) in their fanatical counter-productive obsession to save the very environment they are putting at risk.  The phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.

Quote

Well if you actually think that you can commit violence against inanimate objects, then we will agree to disagree.   The dictionary is a clear resource on our word definitions, Wearer.

And the dictionary disagrees with you, Yamato, as I pointed out to you before.  In a classic display of true cognitive bias, in order to support your point that violence cannot be done towards inanimate objects, you use a definition not from a dictionary, as you pretend, but from the World Health Organization, an agency notoriously known for its utter disregard for the health of inanimate objects.

Heck, let's go ahead and define "sex" as being ONLY between husband and wife, and support it with a definition from the Vatican.  They wouldn't be biased at all.

No, real dictionaries, the kind you willingly steal credibility from but don't actually bother to consult, define "violence" the same way pretty much all law enforcement agencies define violence.


vi·o·lence
noun \ˈvī-lən(t)s, ˈvī-ə-\


Marriam-Webster


Quote

VIOLENCE


1a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)  b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

2: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage

3a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm>  
b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling
c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance

4: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)


In the very first definition, we have absolutely no mention of violence being limited to the living.  In fact, we have an example that specifically mentions violence done to an inanimate object.

Maybe it's a typo?  Let's double-check and verify our assumptions before publically saying something that may make us look foolish:



Oxford Dictionary

Quote

violence
1--behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something:violence erupted in protest marches domestic violence against women the fear of physical violence screen violence
  • Law--the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.
2--strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force:the violence of her own feelings

Wow...not only do we confirm that violence can indeed be done against "things", we even have a specific clarification of the word in a Legal sense (the kind that we are actually discussing), which tells us that Legally, violence isn't just physical force, even the display of the force (i.e. intimidation) is also considered violent.

So much for your position that violence is defined as "someone's dead".  Good thing we have this huge thing called a Legal Code, that specifies (man, you really live in a world where anyone can legally do anything that pops into their little minds) all the various different levels and categories that violence comes in, as well as the appropriate actions to be taken and the appropropriate punishment to be dispensed.

View PostYamato, on 03 June 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Let's flesh out the tactics a little more.

"Act like d****."

"Any questions?"

Quote

Obstruction, Intimidation, Harassment, media-manipulation, physically blocking poachers from doing their jobs, and destroying poaching equipment are all non-violent ways of interfering with criminals committing their crimes.

Well, at least according to the Sea Shepherd and not, you know...Law Enforcement Agencies.

Physically and intentionally ramming a ship into another, however, is violent and criminal in every single country out there.

Quote

Anyone complaining about the people Sea Shepherd never killed or injured is a non-issue built with rhetoric and little else.

Anyone complaining about the people not killed by the Sea Shepherd?  No one?  Oh, wait, there's a hand...Sea Shepherd, put your hand down!  You already complained about the people you haven't killed when you rammed your boat into theirs, and threw those bottles of butyric acid onto their decks!

Good thing no one's been injured though...Oh, hi you three Japanese whalers who suffered from chemical burns.  You're okay, right?  Two of you just have the second degree burns, but otherwise good to go?  Where'd you get that cut?  Oh, from the glass bottle the acid was in?  Huh. What about whaler number three...lost a season of work?  Ouch.

What's that, Sea Shepherd?  You deny on national TV that you threw glass bottles of butyric acid at the whaling ships?  But Sea Shepherd...you've posted videos of you doing just that on your website...

Well, at least you assure us that Butyric acid is non-toxic...I'm sorry, seems we have a message from CDC saying..."substance is corrosive to the eyes, the skin, and the respiratory tract"?  ahh...but it is non-toxic, right?  

Oh, some extra notes:  "Do NOT let this chemical enter the environment. (Extra personal protection: complete protective clothing including self-contained breathing apparatus)".  That...doesn't sound...non-toxic..."The substance is harmful to aquatic organisms" Wait, like aquatic organisms like whales?  And the Sea Shepherd is chunking this stuff out in the Antarctic?  Surely the CDC must be exagerra--OSHA, NIOSH, CEC, IPCS, PELs, and IPC?

Huh...Well, I got nothing...

Quote

If we're really going to whine about poaching equipment then maybe we should whine about taking knives from murderers, date rape drugs from rapists, and crowbars from burglars

Wait...Because we object to one type of violent crime, we...shouldn't...object to other types of violent crime?  That it would be hypocritical of us to whine about taking away the knives from murderers, the drugs from rapists, and the crowbars from burglars?

To the best of my knowledge, the people who "whine" (i.e. support their position with specific examples, points, and citations and don't continually attempt to justify their long, protracted complaint or protest using childish arguments, such as twisting words or playing ignor...wait...)

Anyhow, to the best of my knowledge, the people who complain about the Sea Shepherd's tactics are usually more concerned about the lives and safety of the people onboard and of the danger posed to the environment, rather than the equipment, but even at that...I don't really know of anyone on this side of the discussion who has a problem with removing the weapons of any criminal from the hands of the criminals.


#56    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,637 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 June 2013 - 03:25 AM

View PostMacsMom, on 04 June 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

While I don't always agree with their tactics, I do admire the fact that they are trying to do SOMETHING.

Ehhh...honestly, I can't really give credit to people who justify violence by claiming that otherwise, nothing is getting done.  The simple truth of the matter is that real, honest-to-goodness, non-violent, legal action, has successfully reduced whaling to a fraction of what it used to be, whereas the actions of the Sea Shepherd have actually resulted in peaceful negotiations being halted.

In other words, their actions have resulted in more damage to ceasing whaling than any actual good.

Quote

Illegal whaling should be stopped but I don't know if Sea Shepherd is gonna accomplish that.  But yagotta admit they bring attention to the matter.a

The wrong kind, unfortunately.  The big problem is that they aren't going after illegal whalers.  They are going after whalers who have reported their intentions, verified that they have the legal right, and secured the approval of, the IWC, to do what they do (which, incidentally, is why no government was too eager to take Japan to court).  This, added to the actual illegal actions of the Sea Shepherd, brings the same kind of attention to whaling that Organized Crime brings to Las Vegas casinos.

Hey, welcome to the forums. :tu:   Hope to see you posting regularly!  Feel free to contact the mod team if you have any questions, or please ask if there's anything we can help you with.


#57    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,681 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 June 2013 - 04:05 AM

Let's flesh out the tactics even further then.   Obstruction, intimidation, harassment, media-manipulation, physically blocking poachers from doing their jobs, and destroying (errr "committing violence to") poaching equipment are all non-violent ways of interfering with criminals committing their crimes.   I think "destroying" was the stronger verb already in use.  The illegal Japanese whaling fleet should be more than sunk economically, they should be physically sunk the same way the whaler Sierra was.  As with the destruction of any other poaching equipment, that's justice. The only difference here is these poachers are rich and have theoretically infinite amounts of money to continue their racket and dupe people into defending their actions.   If law enforcement wasn't law en-force-ment, there would be no laws getting enforced anywhere.  If we're going to whine about force being exerted on inanimate objects here as our best effort at argument, I am not impressed.

Crying over "violence" against equipment; is that what the poachers who are 932 whales short of their quota this year are complaining about?   No.  And why not?  Because they'll have billions of someone else's Yen right off the central bank printing press to fix their equipment so they can waste more taxpayer money breaking the law next year.

If ramming is violent I've never seen Sea Shepherd T-Bone another vessel at high speed splitting a ship with all aboard in two, but that's going to be excused by aquatus/psyche too because the rich welfare-laden whale poachers are above the law.

The Japanese criminals invoke the wrath of the world having the audacity to poach endangered whales.   These are criminals and there must be consequences to breaking the law or else we are a lawless world.   Having this much problem with mere enforcement simply because it's not a government agency doing it is proof that one only thinks that government force is legitimate.  Government is chronically the most illegitimate institution on the planet based on its track record.  Japan must be stopped and I no longer care to rank order our personal preferences as to how stopping them with force is going to go down.  At this late hour, it's time for the kitchen sink, before it's too late.

In the interest of being fair and balanced, here's how serious marine conservation is to people who prioritize Japanese pride/nationalism.  Incidentally this is who I hear whenever I read posts by aquatus/psyche:


Edited by Yamato, 04 June 2013 - 04:30 AM.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#58    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 34,355 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 04 June 2013 - 04:44 AM

View PostMacsMom, on 04 June 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

While I don't always agree with their tactics, I do admire the fact that they are trying to do SOMETHING.   Illegal whaling should be stopped but I don't know if Sea Shepherd is gonna accomplish that.  But yagotta admit they bring attention to the matter.a


I used to think so to, then I spoke to some marine biologists who showed me they do more harm than good. I argued like Yam there, but the difference being I saw the logic in the argument, and realised I had been championing the wrong people. It was rather embarrassing at the time, hard to say "Heck, I have been completely wrong here" not everyone can do so, as we can see, but facts are facts and that wins every time with me.

They have been on the water for decades, all they do is aggravate the Japanese so they have some fiery situations for the TV show. You would think if the were getting someplace that the whaling would not still be an issue, bit Japan is more determined than ever, thanks to Watson.

But I think the worst part is how underhanded he is. Even the people who donate to his cause are seen as fools by Watson:
From my previous link:

1978: Watson admits to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) programme As It Happens that his work is aimed at raising funds for his organisation, Sea Shepherd.
Watson:You see, the seal is very easy to exploit as an image. We have posters, we have buttons; we have shirts … all of which portray the head of the baby seal with tears coming out of its eyes. Baby seals are always crying because the salt tears keep their eyes from freezing. But they have this image of ... they are baby animals; they are beautiful. And because of that, coupled with the horror of the sealer hitting them over the head with a club, it is an image which just goes right to the heart of animal lovers all over North America.”


Sigh, such a deep loving person huh! LOL.

Edited by psyche101, 04 June 2013 - 04:45 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#59    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 34,355 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 04 June 2013 - 05:03 AM

View PostYamato, on 04 June 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

If ramming is violent I've never seen Sea Shepherd T-Bone another vessel at high speed splitting a ship with all aboard in two, but that's going to be excused by aquatus/psyche too because the rich welfare-laden whale poachers are above the law.


You "tube" link does not work for me, are you talking about the Ady Gill?

Which would be this Ady Gil I take it?


Bethune says Ady Gil's sinking a publicity stunt

Mr Bethune labelled the Sea Shepherd's leadership "morally bankrupt" for allegedly ordering the hi-tech trimaran Ady Gil to be scuttled after it collided with a Japanese whaler in the Southern Ocean in January.
Mr Bethune was the Ady Gil's captain at the time and says Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson ordered the ship be sunk to "garner sympathy with the public and to create better TV" in the publicity battle against Japan's Antarctic whaling program.


Which is confirmed at this link?

Pete Bethune Says Sea Shepherd Deliberately Sunk Its Own Ship to 'Garner Sympathy'


You Don't Need to Lie to Get People to Support the Cause
Concluding his concerns, Bethune says, "What really concerns me is the apparent moral bankruptcy of senior SSCS personnel... The organization does not need to lie or be deceptive to sell its message. The public will support the cause of stopping whaling, however they will not support SSCS if they become aware of the many lies the organization increasingly propagates through media."

Ady Gil: There is a chance that the boat is still there. It is a very light construction, so even full of water it is probably still there. Despite what Sea Shepherd is saying, that I was the “Owner” of the boat, the entire deal was a mechanism for them to obtain it and keep it. People think that I wanted to own “Earthrace” later to be named “Ady Gil”. The fact is that Sea Shepherd was not sure if New Zealand will let them keep the flag on the boat, and whether or not they would have to pay 15% sales tax if they bought it. They had my $1,000,000 for about 5 weeks. To facilitate the deal I came up with what now appears to be a really stupid idea for me. I will buy Earthrace Limited NZ, then charter the boat to Sea Shepherd for $1. I did not ask them for insurance and had no right to name the crew. $1 for a $1.5 Million is a gift.
Now all of a sudden it is my boat. So, yes, technically it is, and if I find it I can probably retain it. But the fact is, that if I do, you will see how Sea Shepherd will claim that it is their boat. We really need to be honorable in life. The basic deal was: “Put my name on the boat and I will give you $1,000,000” As we all say, “No good deed goes unpunished” I have done so many good deeds, and never had that kind of a punishment as I got from Sea Shepherd.

But I rather like this statement by Ady Gil.


Ady Gil: The only way to make a change in Japan is to have the Japanese people want a change. We can not come here to their country and TELL them what to do. As horrible as the dolphin hunt is, and I have seen it with my own eyes, it is what they do. No different than factory farming in the US. If there was a culture of “Cow Loving”, if we thought that cows are “cute”, if cows played with balls and hoops, we would feel the same about cow slaughter.
LINK

Edited by psyche101, 04 June 2013 - 05:04 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#60    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 34,355 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 04 June 2013 - 05:26 AM

View PostYamato, on 03 June 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Let's flesh out the tactics a little more.

Obstruction, Intimidation, Harassment, media-manipulation, physically blocking poachers from doing their jobs, and destroying poaching equipment are all non-violent ways of interfering with criminals committing their crimes.   Anyone complaining about the people Sea Shepherd never killed or injured is a non-issue built with rhetoric and little else.   If we're really going to whine about poaching equipment then maybe we should whine about taking knives from murderers, date rape drugs from rapists, and crowbars from burglars.   When the victims of bloody violence are human we can understand the process.  The difference is that these are whales and some people can't apply a single standard for whales, despite the fact that humans number in the billions and some species of whales in the tens of thousands.   Doing that, plus doing nothing else to help, is pro-whaling to me.  Those who choose to sit around and wait for extinction of species and ecosystems will be happy with their results.


We do whine about date rape, drug and weapons. We don't have guns anymore down here.

There are more than tens of thousand of whales, but nobody knows the exact number. These are the actual statistics.

Facts and figures

The statistics say it all. The blue whales of the Antarctic are at less than 1 percent of their original abundance, despite 40 years of complete protection. Some populations of whales are recovering but some are not.

Only one population, the East Pacific grey whale, is thought to have recovered to its original abundance, but the closely related West Pacific grey whale population is the most endangered in the world. It hovers on the edge of extinction with just over 100 remaining.

Recent DNA evidence shows that the impact of commercial whaling may be even worse than previously thought.

Most estimates of historic whale population size have been extrapolated from old whaling figures, but this method is often very inaccurate, according to marine biologist Steve Palumbi of Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station in California, USA.

In 2003 Palumbi and his colleagues used DNA samples to estimate that humpback whales could have numbered 1.5 million prior to the onset of commercial whaling in the 1800s.

That number dwarfs the figure of 100,000 previously accepted by the IWC based on 19th century whaling records. Humpback whales currently number only 20,000.

Japanese delegates to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) constantly refer to a 1990 estimate of the Antarctic minke population of 760,000. But that figure was withdrawn by the IWC in 2000 because recent surveys found far fewer minkes than the older ones.

The new estimates are half the old in every area that has been resurveyed. The IWC's scientists do not understand the reasons for this and so far have not been able to agree a new estimate.



LINK


Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users