Watson threatens to ram Jap whalers. - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

MattLarson · #46 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

I didn't read the article, but previously these interactions haven't resulted in any deaths.

Effectively, the Japanese usually withdraw without being rammed, and it gives the whales a chance to get away.

But our friend Moon isn't suggesting that. Moon is looking for an actual ramming:

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

Still, a good ramming might have to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

Of course there is a risk, but from what I've seen in the past, both sides want to avoid casualties.

Perhaps, but moon seems eager for casualties. A "good ramming" and all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

The protest is highly effective - and it is probably more important with an increase in the no of whales.

For us its important - whale watching is a big industry here - and Japanese tourists love going out on the boats and seeing the whales as much as anyone else.

To be perfectly honest I think Oz's interest is more about economics - although I do know there are some - even politicians - who genuinely are horrified at the cruelty of whaling.

Whales do appear to be highly intelligent. They are very curious about human beings and like to look at faces.

I don't see how people can be comfortable with such a species being killed in the way they are in the whaling industry.

I'm not defending the whaling industry. Frankly, I support the ban on commercial whaling.

What I am opposed to here in this thread is the notion advanced by moon and Andrewl that murder is a viable response to whaling.

Matt

daisym · #47 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

What I am opposed to here in this thread is the notion advanced by moon and Andrewl that murder is a viable response to whaling.

Matt

OK - well I'm sorry Matt, but I didn't actually see them advocating murder. That may be because I didn't read the thread properly - if you have time to find the quotes where this was what they say that would be great, if not, thats OK - I'll look tomorrow (its after midnight - so I'm leaving the ball ... but I'll be back)

moon · #48 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

Quote:

Moon is looking for an actual ramming:

Rofl. No harm in baiting one's hook.

Quote:

So daisy, how do you feel about the OP's call for ramming the whaling ships and potentially killing the crew?

Matt

The OP actually called for a whale-friendly sonic warning system, but that sort of call doesn't suit Larson's frantic agenda, eh Larson ? Lol.
As regards ramming, Moby Dick got away with it .

Si modo · #49 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

....
The OP actually called for a whale-friendly sonic warning system, but that sort of call doesn't suit Larson's frantic agenda, eh Larson ? Lol.
As regards ramming, Moby Dick got away with it .

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

....
Still, a good ramming might have to do.

MattLarson · #50 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

Rofl. No harm in baiting one's hook.

The OP actually called for a whale-friendly sonic warning system, but that sort of call doesn't suit Larson's frantic agenda, eh Larson ? Lol.
As regards ramming, Moby Dick got away with it .

Er, no, the OP called for a "good ramming".

Matt

MattLarson · #51 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

OK - well I'm sorry Matt, but I didn't actually see them advocating murder. That may be because I didn't read the thread properly - if you have time to find the quotes where this was what they say that would be great, if not, thats OK - I'll look tomorrow (its after midnight - so I'm leaving the ball ... but I'll be back)

What, pray tell, do you think might happen if a ship were rammed at se in arctic waters?

Will the crew walk home?

Please, be serious.

As for Andrew, well, he's been very candid that he holds that killing a human is the same as killing a whale, and the former is an acceptable way to prevent the latter.

Matt

moon · #52 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

Quote:

Er, no, the OP called for a "good ramming".

Matt

Preposterous, Larson. The OP calls for a sonic warning system. Read it again. Apologies accepted until 12 noon Christmas eve.

Miscreantgnomie · #53 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

nothing wrong with hunting fishing whaling cattle raising sheep herding chicken farming.

if it tastes good eat it.

MattLarson · #54 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

Preposterous, Larson. The OP calls for a sonic warning system. Read it again. Apologies accepted until 12 noon Christmas eve.

Nice try, but no sale. You've called for a "good ramming":

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

I'm wondering if whales can be alerted by means of underwater sonics. There has been that much study of their language that surely somebody has identified whalish for 'scarper....it's the Japs' ?

Still, a good ramming might have to do.

Your dishonest attempts to distance yourself from your written word is doomed to fail. But keep at it if you like.

Matt

moon · #55 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

It's perfectly clear to anybody with even a mediocre talent for language that the 'ramming' mentioned in the OP is secondary to the call for a sonic device to repel whales.

Continue to appear dumb, Si modo and Larson, as the desire takes you.

However, that's not to say that I wouldn't applaud any ramming oriented activity on the part of Watson which didn't actually kill any nasty little Jap harpooneers. Given the opportunity I'd help crew his boat.

Si modo · #56 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

It's perfectly clear to anybody with even a mediocre talent for language that the 'ramming' mentioned in the OP is secondary to the call for a sonic device to repel whales.

Continue to appear dumb, Si modo and Larson, as the desire takes you....

That's pretty rich as you applaud a ramming in the next line. I don't know if it's funny or pathetic. I may get back to you on that (or I may not).

Quote:

.... However, that's not to say that I wouldn't applaud any ramming oriented activity on the part of Watson which didn't actually kill any nasty little Jap harpooneers. Given the opportunity I'd help crew his boat.

Andrewl · #57 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

As for Andrew, well, he's been very candid that he holds that killing a human is the same as killing a whale, and the former is an acceptable way to prevent the latter.

Matt

So disingenuous and shallow of you Matt. You could at least represent my position accurately, which is that i think the industrial slaughter of whales is equivalent to the industrial slaughter of humans. I.e., both are wrong. Only then does it follow that killing one to prevent the other, is acceptable.

Its annoying the way you misrepresent people all the time.

Andrew

Andrewl · #58 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

There seems to be a misguided American belief in the 'right' to kill anything anywhere one chooses.

International waters belong to everybody. Having one or two arsehole States bloodying them to everybody else's loss is immoral. It ranks with atmospheric nuke testing. I'm alright, Jack.

Or to be as extreme as Thorhammer, and think that the extinction of whales is not a problem at all....

Andrew

Andrewl · #59 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

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.

No its not. All involved are prepared for this potentiality. There are precedents for these events. There is still a risk, but it is quite small indeed. The risk to the whales is absolutely guaranteed though.

Andrew

MattLarson · #60 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

So disingenuous and shallow of you Matt. You could at least represent my position accurately, which is that i think the industrial slaughter of whales is equivalent to the industrial slaughter of humans. I.e., both are wrong. Only then does it follow that killing one to prevent the other, is acceptable.

Its annoying the way you misrepresent people all the time.

Andrew

Go back and read what you wrote in post #15 in this thread, well before you attempted to qualify it with the "industrial" label.

Matt

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode