Advocate the death penalty for violating this ban, do you?

You're saying it is OK to kill to enforce the ban. What's the difference?

So you hope his attempt at murder is unsuccessful. But you support the attempt.

Yes, good luck to the would-be mass murderer. Three cheers! Hip-Hip-Hooray!



Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Did Japan sign on with that ban? Either way, they are a sovreign nation, and that trumps any 'international law' or, in this case, ban.

If the welfare of their citizens and property is in danger, yes.

Irrelevant. They don't have to justify their hunt to me or anyone else.

I agree, if Watson does carry through I hope no one is hurt. Then again, I won't shed a single tear if he gets himself or some of his crew killed.

Again, Japan is a sovreign nation. If they want to allow their people the option to whale, then so be it. That is their right. If they choose to go along with the ban, then so be it. Again, that is their right. Nothing can stop them either way.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

I never said it was ethically wrong to kill whales in all cases without exception. Hundreds or thousands of years ago when it was a sustainable subsistence practice amongst ancient japanese (to fulfill hunger and survival, rather than profit), then such is the way of things. One animal or plant dies and another eats, that is the rhythm of the ecosystem.

What is ethically wrong is the industrial level, unsustainable slaughter of entire species for the goal of profit.

I respect those who resist this practice using whatever means necessary to protect the viability and diversity of the ecosystem we all call home.

And yes, all life forms are equal in any intrinsic sense, with respect to the universe. Exploiting whales for profit is no different than exploiting humans for profit. Using violence to stop industrial level whaling is as ethically and morally sound as using violence to stop the industrial level trade of human flesh for the purpose of labor and profit.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Japan has honored the ban since it was introduced, they now believe there is enough whales to begin the slaughter anew. The whales are mostly killed in international waters, not in japanese waters. Issues of sovereignty are irrelevant.


What about the welfare of the whales and what their presence means to ocean life, and the health of the ocean, as a whole. Who defends that?



I disagree. And so does the Japanese government, who have been busy attempting to justify the hunt through various arguments.

I would find it sad and unfortunateif any human or whale was killed. Not having any personal relationships with any person or whale involved, i would not shed a tear in any case.

Yes. Activists can stop them. And i hope they do. And in international waters the IC, if it cared, could easily stop them without much incident at all.

Its fucked up that you would care so much about the profit of a few Japanese, rather than the continued existence and health of the whale populations of our oceans. That seems very shallow to me.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Sovereignty is very relevant. Japan has the sovereign right to whale whenever it chooses, and then stop whenever it chooses. The fact that this happens in international waters makes them even more in the right.

Irrelevant. Plenty of animals that played vital roles in their environment have come and gone, and yet everything is still functioning.

My point was that the Japanese government is under no obligation to explain anything.

I could care less about them making a profit off of the hunt.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

I never said anything about the death penalty. WTF are you talking about? Killing as punishment is at best useless, at worst it is barbaric.
In the act of defending the whales, if somebody gets killed, it is unfortunate, but the consequences of not protecting the whales are even more tragic, to all of our lives.

That's just cheap hyperbole. Its sad that you don't really take any effort to understand the stakes involved Matt.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

You support Watson attempting to murder the whaling crews for violating the whaling ban.

Those two paragraphs back to back are perfect.

No need for me to reply to that, you've covered it quite well.

Now having said that, let me say that I don't support commercial whaling, and I wish the Japanese would comply with the ban.

My SOLE objection is to the notion that murdering the whalers is in any way an acceptable act.

Moon proposed attempting to kill the whalers. You seem to agree with that approach.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Are you by any chance a vegetarian?

Can you support this assertion with documentation? And if you are right then i fully support violating Japaneses sovereignty in this case. Sovereignty is not absolute.


Then you don't really understand the issue; the mounting toll we are exacting on the ecosystem. Its not just one species, its dozens, hundreds. And eventually there is a tipping point when the ecosystem in places collapses. There is a point when we can no longer exploit everything on the earth at the rate we do. Its simple math, it just cannot work. I absolutely in no uncertain terms support resistance against this practice in any and all nations, regardless of borders, laws, or sovereignty. The consequences of not resisting this are suicide of the entire human species.


They disagree with you. So do I.

Odd that you would choose sides then.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

You still don't get it. I don;t support capturing the whalers and making them walk the plank to their death for punishment as whalers.

But if the IC refuses to step in, the whalers should be prepared to deal with resistance. If one of them dies, it is tragic. Albeit the risk is small.

This is in no way the same as saying i support an deliberate attempt to kill the whalers. The attempt and the intent is only to stop them from whaling.

You and others have made the same argument justifying collateral damage im sure. And if the consequences of not taking action are worse than the collateral damage it is justified. Right?

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

There is NO such thing as a small risk during a collision at sea, especially in frigid waters. Saying the risk is small is silly.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

No, but you so appear to support Watson's threat to ram the ships, which could very easily result in loss of life. Perhaps several lives.

Does, for example, the ship's cook on a whaler deserve to die just because he's aboard a whaling ship?

No, sorry, if one of them dies at the hands of Watson or his crew, it's premeditated murder.

Ramming the vessel at sea is an attempt to kill them. Do you think they can just walk home if their ship sinks in arctic waters?



Please, let's not try to shift the topic to Iraq because you find yourself defending an untenable position.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

In international waters ships are under the jurisdiction of the state whose flag they fly. In the case of piracy, or slave trade, any nation has jurisdiction. Feel free to check against the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or the Admiralty law. Whaling is not mentioned in either.

Any violation of sovereignty in international waters is an act of war.

I understand it just as well as you, I am simply drawing a different conclusion.

how do you know that not resisting whaling is suicide? Do you have a crystal ball? Can you see into the future?

They do not disagree. They simply have decided to voice their resoning. They know they are perfectly within their right not to.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Humans as a species are predators, we eat other animals. But of course in our minds we have a tendency to have empathy for the victims of our carnivorous nature.

On one hand we want to kill and devour them, but on the other hand we care about them enough to want to ensure their survival in order to make sure there is lots of them around to kill and devour. They make our bloodthirst wantonly satisfied, and the nourishment garnered from their corpses makes us physically strong and powerful and mentally intelligent and wise. That is why there is a horned skull hanging on the wall in my home. The dual horns represent this duality of mankind's nature. They are a reminder that recognises the conflict and underscores the importance of balance in life.

In my view, any time you eat another animal you should remember that it's life was sacrificed for the specific purpose of letting you and those sharing that meal with you live. Anytime you put on that leather jacket, remember who's soul you are wearing to help keep you warm.

And be grateful for that sacrifice and do not take it for granted. Always say grace before a meal in recognition of the dead, for we are animals too. Recognize that another living being, another living, caring and feeling being that is a mother, father, sister or brother or child has died so that you and yours may live.

That is why I always insist that we say grace at the dinner table.

__________________
... ......