Founder of Sea Shepherd Arrested in Germany - Page 12

Wildy · 21st May 2012, 10:58 AM

I'd said earlier that I think he'd jump bail, but he hasn't so far.

By the way, thanks Eligbak for linking to IMDB. The discussion board for the show is pretty interesting as well.

Furcifer · 21st May 2012, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Korren

While it's true that Japan is exploiting a loophole and can be said to be "gaming the system", it should be pointed out that they're using said loophole to get around another loophole and that the system was already gamed by the other side.

In short: a temporary moratorium on all commercial whaling was enacted back in the eighties until the IWC's scientific committee could finish some revisions on the new management procedures. This work was finished about two decades ago, but -- in contradiction of IWC's charter -- anti-whaling nations have blocked the formal adoption of this work in order to extend the moratorium on this technicality.

It was only after this underhand tactic came into use that Norway opted to use its reservation, Iceland left the IWC (and later rejoined with a post-dated reservation) and Japan began exploiting the loophole of scientific whaling being (in essence) outside the remit of the IWC.

Be glad there was this loophole for Japan to take advantage of, because the realistic alternative is not Japan doing no whaling, but Japan leaving the IWC and doing whaling outside of any international body at all.

Not true. Some species and some populations of whales were brought to the brink of extinction (but the actual moratorium came about years and decades after this had actually happened), other species and populations were reduced to the point where they were threatened, but some species and populations were never in any danger at all.

There exists a large body of research -- accepted and conducted by the IWC's scientific council, in particular the body of work related to the Revised Management Procedure -- which shows the exact opposite.

Indeed, the whales that weren't hunted weren't driven to the point of extinction.

I'd like to see the IWC research you're talking about. Of course commercial whaling is sustainable, just limit the catch to 1 whale per species per country. I don't think you need very much research to know that. The real question is what happens when every country decides they're going to allow 300 foot commercial boats to cruise the seas taking 1000 whales. Some countries won't but then there's no law prohibiting Japan or Norway from registering vessels in other countries and then counting the catch towards that countries fisheries quota. What specifically has the IWC shown in the revised management procedure?

Checkmite · 21st May 2012, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Some countries won't but then there's no law prohibiting Japan or Norway from registering vessels in other countries and then counting the catch towards that countries fisheries quota.

If the host country is okay with it, why is this a problem?

The point of quotas is to limit the overall number of whales taken, then the point is still served; no more whales are taken than the total limit. The Bahamas for instance has absolutely no interest in whaling; why shouldn't they be able donate their share of the quota in exchange for taxes?

Wildy · 21st May 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

If the host country is okay with it, why is this a problem?

Because in Furcifer's world there shouldn't be any whaling at all unless it's done by "primitives" for "personal use".

Furcifer · 21st May 2012, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

If the host country is okay with it, why is this a problem?

The point of quotas is to limit the overall number of whales taken, then the point is still served; no more whales are taken than the total limit. The Bahamas for instance has absolutely no interest in whaling; why shouldn't they be able donate their share of the quota in exchange for taxes?

None, this would work fine IMO. The problem right now is Japan has made their own quotas that don't take this into account. Japan should probably already be paying North Korea for fishing rights but that's another topic.

Furcifer · 21st May 2012, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Wildy

Because in Furcifer's world there shouldn't be any whaling at all unless it's done by "primitives" for "personal use".

Nope, you're not reading for comprehension. There's no reason whales coudln't be fished commercially IMO. But there has to be an agreement between interested parties.

Grizzly Adams · 21st May 2012, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by halides1

IMO, the Japanese vessel that ran into the Ady Gil (discussed upthread) was more probably than not trying to ram it.

Let's assume you're right. The captain of Shonan Maru deliberately attempted to ram Ady Gil.

SO WHAT?

Sea Shepherd is a group that openly admits it tries to sink other ships. Watch me not give two ***** when one of their targets tries to sink them.

Grizzly Adams · 21st May 2012, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

That's it. I really can't understand the fuss about whales. Minke whales are the cows of the sea.

And they are just as tasty*.

*this is a 100% factual statement; tastes like roast beef, with maybe an ever-so-slight fishy aftertaste - it's like surf & turf in one convenient package

shuize · 21st May 2012, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Let's assume you're right. The captain of Shonan Maru deliberately attempted to ram Ady Gil.

SO WHAT?

Sea Shepherd is a group that openly admits it tries to sink other ships. Watch me not give two ***** when one of their targets tries to sink them.

I agree. I don't think it's at all clear that the Japanese purposely tried to sink the Ady Gil. But, even if they did, it's the least Sea Shepherd deserves when they fly a pirate flag and ram other ships in the Southern Ocean.

theprestige · 21st May 2012, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by shuize

I agree. I don't think it's at all clear that the Japanese purposely tried to sink the Ady Gil. But, even if they did, it's the least Sea Shepherd deserves when they fly a pirate flag and ram other ships in the Southern Ocean.

Seriously, this.

Noah Fence, they fly a pirate flag. How can you possibly be butthurt about any treatment they receive on the high seas?

Wildy · 21st May 2012, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Nope, you're not reading for comprehension.

*facepalm*

Quote:

There's no reason whales coudln't be fished commercially IMO.

Except that according to you commercial whaling is unsustainable.

Quote:

But there has to be an agreement between interested parties.

And who are the interested parties?

Foolmewunz · 22nd May 2012, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by shuize

Goodbye Ady Gil.

Too bad your captain was an idiot.

Sorry if this has been addressed (I haven't finished the last few pages)...

"Captain"? Or Admiral? Bethune was the Captain of the Ady Gil. Watson as the Sea Shepherd folk describe him is Admiral of the Fleet (I kid you not).

shuize · 22nd May 2012, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Sorry if this has been addressed (I haven't finished the last few pages)...

"Captain"? Or Admiral? Bethune was the Captain of the Ady Gil. Watson as the Sea Shepherd folk describe him is Admiral of the Fleet (I kid you not).

Yes, I know the guy on the Ady Gil and the guy arrested in Germany are not the same, if that's what you're getting at.

I made that comment with respect to the controversy surrounding its sinking. Given the relative difference in mass between ships, I think that the "captain" of the Ady Gil was an idiot for putting his vessel in harms way, regardless of whether or not the Japanese captain intentionally tried to hit it (which I doubt).

Foolmewunz · 22nd May 2012, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

If Iceland and Norway are using commercial boats like the Japanese I'd like you to prove it. I've never seen any.

All the other points have been covered.

They're most definitely commercial boats - they stay out for weeks on end and process the whales on board. As Ryokan pointed out, the Norwegians enjoy whale meat, but if you counted up all the Norwegians and their consumption of whale meat from last year, it would not equal the "catch". The government approved EXPORT to..... guess where? If you answered "Japan", you would be correct. They re-implemented trading with Japan in whale meat a few years ago.

Norway is an anomaly. They do not need the industry - without the export, it's dying on its own. I'd be curious to hear from Ryokan or others... Is it a stubborn pride thing? Or is there some huge political donor who has a lot invested in whaling. (It became an election issue a few times, IIRC.)

ETA: Not that it'll necessarily dissuade you from slicing and dicing the available information to suit your own purposes, but in case the above is too subtle.... SELLING WHALE MEAT FOR EXPORT WOULD SEEM TO BE THE VERY DEFINITION OF "COMMERCIAL". Norway is probably the richest country in Europe. They are not suffering for income.

Foolmewunz · 22nd May 2012, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by shuize

Yes, I know the guy on the Ady Gil and the guy arrested in Germany are not the same, if that's what you're getting at.

I made that comment with respect to the controversy surrounding its sinking. Given the relative difference in mass between ships, I think that the "captain" of the Ady Gil was an idiot for putting his vessel in harms way, regardless of whether or not the Japanese captain intentionally tried to hit it (which I doubt).

Nope... just wanted to be clear. After the dust-up with Watson after the incident and his incarceration in Japan, I kinda like Bethune. I certainly find him more credible than Watson.

Checkmite · 22nd May 2012, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Watson as the Sea Shepherd folk describe him is Admiral of the Fleet (I kid you not).

(giggle)

Rear Admiral, surely.

Sam.I.Am · 22nd May 2012, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

(giggle)

Rear Admiral, surely.

Lower half... Perhaps aft.

Furcifer · 22nd May 2012, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

They're most definitely commercial boats - they stay out for weeks on end and process the whales on board. As Ryokan pointed out, the Norwegians enjoy whale meat, but if you counted up all the Norwegians and their consumption of whale meat from last year, it would not equal the "catch". The government approved EXPORT to..... guess where? If you answered "Japan", you would be correct. They re-implemented trading with Japan in whale meat a few years ago.

Norway is an anomaly. They do not need the industry - without the export, it's dying on its own. I'd be curious to hear from Ryokan or others... Is it a stubborn pride thing? Or is there some huge political donor who has a lot invested in whaling. (It became an election issue a few times, IIRC.)

ETA: Not that it'll necessarily dissuade you from slicing and dicing the available information to suit your own purposes, but in case the above is too subtle.... SELLING WHALE MEAT FOR EXPORT WOULD SEEM TO BE THE VERY DEFINITION OF "COMMERCIAL". Norway is probably the richest country in Europe. They are not suffering for income.

Indeed, I was mistaken about the operations in Norway and Iceland. The only thing I would add is that the operation in Japan is a level of sophistication another level beyond them, but no more commercial.
The question is is this sustainable? Or is it only sustainable if every other country on the planet continues to honour the moratorium? History suggests at least the traditional hunts are.

Foolmewunz · 22nd May 2012, 07:09 AM

Thanks, Furcifer - sorry for the snark, as I was on my way out to go shop hunting and in a rush.

Below will be a long rambling post. I kept wanting to interject, but when I found the time to post something, the thread had gone ahead another fifty posts. I decided this afternoon to just respond where I felt I should. The rest of the story....

Next up:
The politics of the IWC. Simply put, the original International Whaling Commission (or its predecessor) was made up of whaling nations. Some of those (USA, Australia, NZ - notably) have actually turned away from whaling for ecological reasons and because there just wasn't any great demand for the products and byproducts, IMHO.
The anti-whaling coalition (if it was that) realized it was never going to get the a majority of the whaling nations to go for a moratorium or ban, so began a process of lobbying to get non-whaling even landlocked nations onto the commission. Once that happened and you could have Liechtenstein, Switzerland Mongolia, etc... in there, the question became... "What do we do with these new members?" Simple, if you listen to Japan and their supporters. You buy their votes with other favors (I think the USA is accused of buying China's votes with a trade deal of some sort, can't remember the details).
And that's how you got a large group of non-whaling nations who call themselves the Int'l Whaling Commission to vote against the actual whaling nations. Only in the past decade did Japan realize how neatly this worked and started offering massive foreign aid to countries who have no whaling interests,.... in exchange for... you guessed it... supporting votes on the commission.

The whole situation is rife with politics. Rife? Contaminated, festering,... you name it.

Sustainability? Hard to say. The anti-whaling coalition accuses Japan and Norway of both miscounting (or misusing the counts of others in the case of Japan) the Minke population so that they can harvest more. The pro-whaling nations (and their stooges voting with them) accuse the anti-whalers and the IWC of lowering the Minke count, changing it from month to month to suit their own purposes, and then stalling and delaying year after year so they couldn't come to any sort of numerical conclusion as to what might be a viable number to extract yet still sustain a viable population of the species. That, I believe, was when Norway and Iceland upped the ante and said, "Hey, we object originally. We're now formally exercising that objection and you can go suck an egg."

Both sides are probably both right. Festering with politics, indeed.

Meh? I like whales. I want them alive and well and their population growing. I can't see any real need to give Ryokan his whale steak when the process seems so damned unnecessary. (Nothing against Ryokan - Mr. Nagura in Osaka could be substituted if you wish. Ryokan just happened to speak up, here.)

But that's the gist of my stand on this. I will take the emotional argument and I'm entitled to do so, opinions being opinions and all that. But I will not pretend that I think the "science" backs me fully, nor will I come down on the side of the total banners who try to base it on doomsday scare tactics. I feel that if they're just simply against killing whales,.... just say so. Quit trying to couch it in other terms.

And Paul Watson is a jerk. Eco-terrorism is not something I can support. And while Bethune is every bit as radical in his approach to the topic, he seems to have made some serious points against Watson in their battles, particularly that Watson is a liar and manipulator. (See "Bows and Arrows" for one.)
When Watson published their email exchange I find it notable that he didn't refute or debunk anything Bethune claimed. He merely kept calling him a stool pigeon and turncoat. I suggest reading Bethune first (it's lower on the page) and while he sounds a bit petty and more than a bit paranoid, he makes some very specific accusations. Watson responded within three hours but made no effort to refute those specific accusations. I'm quite surprised he thinks this makes him look good.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-...this-drama-127

Ady Gil (there is a person of that name - a major donor to Sea Shepherd) is on record as believing Bethune. Bethune, himself, has not turned pro-whaling nor changed his radical approach. His stand is that they are so right that there's no need to manipulate the truth or lie about things. Bethune, to any who are totally pro-whaling, is far from a saint. And, to be honest, I have to say I have my misgiving, too. While apparently everyone at Sea Shepherd signed on to it, the bows-and-arrows were apparently his idea. That's some pretty dirty pool, right there and it gives me pause as to whether his comments about lying and manipulating are quite so sincere.

tyr_13 · 22nd May 2012, 07:50 AM

Good posts.

Locknar · 22nd May 2012, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

I like whales. I want them alive and well and their population growing.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Eco-terrorism is not something I can support.

That pretty much sums up how I feel about it all.

Whaling exists for two primary reasons; economics and heritage. Focusing on economics, making whaling cost prohibitive would reduce the industry. Watson and his crew have had little (to no) impact, and IMO think the money they are spending could be better used.

TheAntiV · 22nd May 2012, 11:50 AM

After spending enough time arguing with Sea Shepherd supporters, I can honestly say they are the most childish individuals on the fave of the planet.

Here's the main problem:

1. They think they're conserving wild life but they have a very limited and ignorant understanding of how conservation works.

2. They constantly bash religion and tradition yet they present themselves as moral absolutists.

3. They paint their actions to make it seem they are all about conservation but the fact is that their views are completely ideological in nature.

4. They attack peoples traditions without trying to understand why they hunt whale and ethnocentrically paint people as "primitive" and "barbaric" just because they're hunting something they see as cute.

Furcifer · 22nd May 2012, 02:22 PM

Thanks FW, some good info.

The way I see it despite Watson being a goof he's the only one out there doing something. If anyone thinks they can do better grab a boat and send me your PayPal info. Feel free to start a signature list if you think that will help, but forgive me if I don't think it will do much.

As for the whaling, I personally don't think they should be hunted but I can respect "tradition". At the same time I'm not going to mix words, this tradition is primitive. If you want to say "Hey but eating meat is primitive" I'm not going to argue it. I am going to point out that at least we've domesticated cows and now we don't have to worry about eating them into extinction. If people don't see the difference, well whatever, I see the difference.
This is 2012 and the fact is if someone in Turkey decides they're interested in hunting whales the previous limitations which made it unfeasible don't exist. Do they have equal claim to the catch as the US with many times the people? Or does Canada have more claim than the US because of the extensive coastline? Beats me, but that seems like something that should be ironed out before the hunt. As far as I can tell that hasn't happened.
Long story short it's a political cluster bleep and as long as it goes on I don't have any problem with a cluster bleep of an activist running interference.

theprestige · 22nd May 2012, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

The way I see it despite Watson being a goof he's the only one out there doing something... Long story short it's a political cluster bleep and as long as it goes on I don't have any problem with a cluster bleep of an activist running interference.

Something should be done. This is something. Therefore, this should be done.

I'm all for people applying solutions to problems. But I don't think that if there's no solution being applied, it's ever a good idea to apply a problem to a problem instead.

The Sea Shepherd folks are a tragicomic hybrid of frothing incompetents and confrontation junkies. They're not really a "good enough" solution that we should welcome while we wait for something better to come along.

Furcifer · 22nd May 2012, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Something should be done. This is something. Therefore, this should be done.

I'm all for people applying solutions to problems. But I don't think that if there's no solution being applied, it's ever a good idea to apply a problem to a problem instead.

The Sea Shepherd folks are a tragicomic hybrid of frothing incompetents and confrontation junkies. They're not really a "good enough" solution that we should welcome while we wait for something better to come along.

It's all relative, hyperbole aside we're talking about a few gallons of fuel and an offshore or two vs. the lives of some marine mammals. If we were talking about getting the city to change a sign to a stop light it would be a different story.

Checkmite · 22nd May 2012, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Something should be done. This is something. Therefore, this should be done.

I'm all for people applying solutions to problems. But I don't think that if there's no solution being applied, it's ever a good idea to apply a problem to a problem instead.

The Sea Shepherd folks are a tragicomic hybrid of frothing incompetents and confrontation junkies. They're not really a "good enough" solution that we should welcome while we wait for something better to come along.

I think anyone who applies some forward thinking to the problem will realize that whatever the real solution to the "whaling problem" will be, it won't involve getting on a boat.

However, despite things like the statements posted in this very thread from the government of Australia for instance regarding measures they're pursuing, people will continue to justify the actions of Sea Shepherds by claiming that "nobody else is doing anything".

RandFan · 22nd May 2012, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

...it won't involve getting on a boat.

Not that there is anything wrong with being on a boat.

Furcifer · 22nd May 2012, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I think anyone who applies some forward thinking to the problem will realize that whatever the real solution to the "whaling problem" will be, it won't involve getting on a boat.

However, despite things like the statements posted in this very thread from the government of Australia for instance regarding measures they're pursuing, people will continue to justify the actions of Sea Shepherds by claiming that "nobody else is doing anything".

I updated my Facebook status to "saving the whales", change is on the wind.

The point is Watson isn't a nuisance, he's a public nuisance. That may be more effective than an International stalemate with a country many rely on for trade. The Japanese have taken hostages and started to kill them, seems like the right time to pull the negotiator and send in the sniper.

AlaskaBushPilot · 22nd May 2012, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Strawman. Nobody said the size of the boat was the only factor.
You're right of course, what the boat is used for plays a significant role in whether or not it's considered a commercial or recreational vessel.

Pfft. Telling a commercial fisherman what a commercial fisherman is.

This has been the most amusing thread watching you twist yourself into knots instead of just being honest that you are a moral absolutist about whales. They're sacred to you. So what? Cows are sacred to many Indians. White bears were sacred to the peoples in that vicinity of British Columbia where they are common.

At least all those people are honest. There isn't anything to argue about.

and this:

Quote:

The way I see it despite Watson being a goof he's the only one out there doing something

More intellectual dishonesty. He is the only saboteur. But since you can't bring yourself to be honest about what you stand for, you have to speak in code-words. If you aren't a saboteur, you aren't "doing anything".

Andrew Wiggin · 23rd May 2012, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

I understand he was then banned for being too extreme in his methods.

You can just as easily spin that as 'left of his own free will after becoming frustrated with the slow pace and caution of the organization' which IIRC is how he has said he saw it.

Andrew Wiggin · 23rd May 2012, 03:01 AM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Curious; he seems to be the only one who recalls him being a founder.

Ah, Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia anyone can edit. It's such a definitive resource for the life history of controversial people.

Furcifer · 23rd May 2012, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Pfft. Telling a commercial fisherman what a commercial fisherman is.

This has been the most amusing thread watching you twist yourself into knots instead of just being honest that you are a moral absolutist about whales. They're sacred to you. So what? Cows are sacred to many Indians. White bears were sacred to the peoples in that vicinity of British Columbia where they are common.

At least all those people are honest. There isn't anything to argue about.

and this:

More intellectual dishonesty. He is the only saboteur. But since you can't bring yourself to be honest about what you stand for, you have to speak in code-words. If you aren't a saboteur, you aren't "doing anything".

"Commecial fisherman", that's just another word for professional liar

You should know full well the sale of fish has almost nothing to do with being commercial. It's really about capacity and once the fisheries have determined your capacity exceeds that of "sport" you're pretty much commercial and require additional licensing.

But you know that. Everyone knows that and now we're just splitting hairs in an attempt to apologize for what the Japanese, and yes a few other countries are doing. Shameful.

I've also said numerous times I don't care if whales are hunted so long as it's sustainable. I don't know what purpose it serves to continue to suggest otherwise? I've admitted as much your pleading won't change that.

Marduk · 23rd May 2012, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

This has been the most amusing thread watching you twist yourself into knots instead of just being honest that you are a moral absolutist about whales. .

I've been amused by your complete and utter lack of integrity.
great to see you once again attacking other people because you don't agree with their opinion and because you haven't actually paid any attention to a word theyve posted, are you perhaps a politician

Wildy · 23rd May 2012, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

You should know full well the sale of fish has almost nothing to do with being commercial. It's really about capacity and once the fisheries have determined your capacity exceeds that of "sport" you're pretty much commercial and require additional licensing.

So how many whales do you have to catch before your operation becomes commercial?

NoahFence · 23rd May 2012, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Seriously, this.

Noah Fence, they fly a pirate flag. How can you possibly be butthurt about any treatment they receive on the high seas?

Who said i was butthurt?

I simply stated a fact that the Shonan deliberately rammed them. no more, no less.

AlaskaBushPilot · 23rd May 2012, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Furcifer

You should know full well the sale of fish has almost nothing to do with being commercial.

Priceless! Thanks!

No better proof of living in your own fantasy world.

AlaskaBushPilot · 23rd May 2012, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

I've been amused by your complete and utter lack of integrity.
great to see you once again attacking other people because you don't agree with their opinion and because you haven't actually paid any attention to a word theyve posted, are you perhaps a politician

I'm not going to put you on ignore because I am enjoying watching the steam come out of your ears.

NoahFence · 23rd May 2012, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Priceless! Thanks!

No better proof of living in your own fantasy world.

So this is the part where you tell someone he's wrong, without actually telling him why?

I suppose those of us not privvy to the inner workings of the fishing industry will just have to guess.

Checkmite · 23rd May 2012, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

Ah, Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia anyone can edit. It's such a definitive resource for the life history of controversial people.

HAHAHAHAHA really?

Okay, fair objection.

Let's say this instead: nobody but him seems to remember him being a founder.

Furcifer · 23rd May 2012, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Wildy

So how many whales do you have to catch before your operation becomes commercial?

*sigh

"How many" is a quantity. Quantity is not the same as capacity. I thought I gave some simple examples but apparently this is a complicated concept.

A man with a fishing pole and a lure can catch 1 fish at a time. He is considered a sport fisherman. Even if he catches 10 fish.
The same man with a net could catch 10 maybe 100 fish in a net. His capacity to catch fish with a net is greater than with a pole, even if he catches the same quantity of fish.

This is why using a net usually requires a commercial fishing license. Even if you never sold a single fish, if you want to use a net you need a commercial license.

This is why a couple guys on a 25 foot boat with some spears could very well be considered sport fishing and not commercial. This is why the "traditional" hunts aren't anything like what the Japanese are doing.

The irony of you trolling this thread about fishing has not been lost on me. At least I hope you're trolling.

21st May 2012, 10:58 AM	#441
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field. Posts: 9,923	I'd said earlier that I think he'd jump bail, but he hasn't so far. By the way, thanks Eligbak for linking to IMDB. The discussion board for the show is pretty interesting as well.
	__________________ Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+ More Atheism+ stuff

21st May 2012, 11:44 AM	#443
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,886	Originally Posted by Furcifer Some countries won't but then there's no law prohibiting Japan or Norway from registering vessels in other countries and then counting the catch towards that countries fisheries quota. If the host country is okay with it, why is this a problem? The point of quotas is to limit the overall number of whales taken, then the point is still served; no more whales are taken than the total limit. The Bahamas for instance has absolutely no interest in whaling; why shouldn't they be able donate their share of the quota in exchange for taxes?
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

21st May 2012, 11:51 AM	#444
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field. Posts: 9,923	Originally Posted by Checkmite If the host country is okay with it, why is this a problem? Because in Furcifer's world there shouldn't be any whaling at all unless it's done by "primitives" for "personal use".
	__________________ Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+ More Atheism+ stuff

21st May 2012, 10:00 PM	#447
Grizzly Adams Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 993	Originally Posted by halides1 IMO, the Japanese vessel that ran into the Ady Gil (discussed upthread) was more probably than not trying to ram it. Let's assume you're right. The captain of Shonan Maru deliberately attempted to ram Ady Gil. SO WHAT? Sea Shepherd is a group that openly admits it tries to sink other ships. Watch me not give two ***** when one of their targets tries to sink them.
Grizzly Adams Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 993

21st May 2012, 10:11 PM	#448
Grizzly Adams Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 993	Originally Posted by lionking That's it. I really can't understand the fuss about whales. Minke whales are the cows of the sea. And they are just as tasty. this is a 100% factual statement; tastes like roast beef, with maybe an ever-so-slight fishy aftertaste - it's like surf & turf in one convenient package
Grizzly Adams Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 993

21st May 2012, 11:10 AM	#442
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Korren While it's true that Japan is exploiting a loophole and can be said to be "gaming the system", it should be pointed out that they're using said loophole to get around another loophole and that the system was already gamed by the other side. In short: a temporary moratorium on all commercial whaling was enacted back in the eighties until the IWC's scientific committee could finish some revisions on the new management procedures. This work was finished about two decades ago, but -- in contradiction of IWC's charter -- anti-whaling nations have blocked the formal adoption of this work in order to extend the moratorium on this technicality. It was only after this underhand tactic came into use that Norway opted to use its reservation, Iceland left the IWC (and later rejoined with a post-dated reservation) and Japan began exploiting the loophole of scientific whaling being (in essence) outside the remit of the IWC. Be glad there was this loophole for Japan to take advantage of, because the realistic alternative is not Japan doing no whaling, but Japan leaving the IWC and doing whaling outside of any international body at all. Not true. Some species and some populations of whales were brought to the brink of extinction (but the actual moratorium came about years and decades after this had actually happened), other species and populations were reduced to the point where they were threatened, but some species and populations were never in any danger at all. There exists a large body of research -- accepted and conducted by the IWC's scientific council, in particular the body of work related to the Revised Management Procedure -- which shows the exact opposite. Indeed, the whales that weren't hunted weren't driven to the point of extinction. I'd like to see the IWC research you're talking about. Of course commercial whaling is sustainable, just limit the catch to 1 whale per species per country. I don't think you need very much research to know that. The real question is what happens when every country decides they're going to allow 300 foot commercial boats to cruise the seas taking 1000 whales. Some countries won't but then there's no law prohibiting Japan or Norway from registering vessels in other countries and then counting the catch towards that countries fisheries quota. What specifically has the IWC shown in the revised management procedure?

21st May 2012, 12:07 PM	#445
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Checkmite If the host country is okay with it, why is this a problem? The point of quotas is to limit the overall number of whales taken, then the point is still served; no more whales are taken than the total limit. The Bahamas for instance has absolutely no interest in whaling; why shouldn't they be able donate their share of the quota in exchange for taxes? None, this would work fine IMO. The problem right now is Japan has made their own quotas that don't take this into account. Japan should probably already be paying North Korea for fishing rights but that's another topic.

21st May 2012, 12:13 PM	#446
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Wildy Because in Furcifer's world there shouldn't be any whaling at all unless it's done by "primitives" for "personal use". Nope, you're not reading for comprehension. There's no reason whales coudln't be fished commercially IMO. But there has to be an agreement between interested parties.

21st May 2012, 10:31 PM	#449
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Japan Posts: 2,311	Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams Let's assume you're right. The captain of Shonan Maru deliberately attempted to ram Ady Gil. SO WHAT? Sea Shepherd is a group that openly admits it tries to sink other ships. Watch me not give two ***** when one of their targets tries to sink them. I agree. I don't think it's at all clear that the Japanese purposely tried to sink the Ady Gil. But, even if they did, it's the least Sea Shepherd deserves when they fly a pirate flag and ram other ships in the Southern Ocean.

21st May 2012, 10:41 PM	#450
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,616	Originally Posted by shuize I agree. I don't think it's at all clear that the Japanese purposely tried to sink the Ady Gil. But, even if they did, it's the least Sea Shepherd deserves when they fly a pirate flag and ram other ships in the Southern Ocean. Seriously, this. Noah Fence, they fly a pirate flag. How can you possibly be butthurt about any treatment they receive on the high seas?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,616

21st May 2012, 11:36 PM	#451
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field. Posts: 9,923	Originally Posted by Furcifer Nope, you're not reading for comprehension. facepalm Quote: There's no reason whales coudln't be fished commercially IMO. Except that according to you commercial whaling is unsustainable. Quote: But there has to be an agreement between interested parties. And who are the interested parties?
	__________________ Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+ More Atheism+ stuff

22nd May 2012, 12:41 AM	#452
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,520	Originally Posted by shuize Goodbye Ady Gil. Too bad your captain was an idiot. Sorry if this has been addressed (I haven't finished the last few pages)... "Captain"? Or Admiral? Bethune was the Captain of the Ady Gil. Watson as the Sea Shepherd folk describe him is Admiral of the Fleet (I kid you not).
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

22nd May 2012, 12:57 AM	#453
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Japan Posts: 2,311	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Sorry if this has been addressed (I haven't finished the last few pages)... "Captain"? Or Admiral? Bethune was the Captain of the Ady Gil. Watson as the Sea Shepherd folk describe him is Admiral of the Fleet (I kid you not). Yes, I know the guy on the Ady Gil and the guy arrested in Germany are not the same, if that's what you're getting at. I made that comment with respect to the controversy surrounding its sinking. Given the relative difference in mass between ships, I think that the "captain" of the Ady Gil was an idiot for putting his vessel in harms way, regardless of whether or not the Japanese captain intentionally tried to hit it (which I doubt).

22nd May 2012, 01:01 AM	#454
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,520	Originally Posted by Furcifer If Iceland and Norway are using commercial boats like the Japanese I'd like you to prove it. I've never seen any. All the other points have been covered. They're most definitely commercial boats - they stay out for weeks on end and process the whales on board. As Ryokan pointed out, the Norwegians enjoy whale meat, but if you counted up all the Norwegians and their consumption of whale meat from last year, it would not equal the "catch". The government approved EXPORT to..... guess where? If you answered "Japan", you would be correct. They re-implemented trading with Japan in whale meat a few years ago. Norway is an anomaly. They do not need the industry - without the export, it's dying on its own. I'd be curious to hear from Ryokan or others... Is it a stubborn pride thing? Or is there some huge political donor who has a lot invested in whaling. (It became an election issue a few times, IIRC.) ETA: Not that it'll necessarily dissuade you from slicing and dicing the available information to suit your own purposes, but in case the above is too subtle.... SELLING WHALE MEAT FOR EXPORT WOULD SEEM TO BE THE VERY DEFINITION OF "COMMERCIAL". Norway is probably the richest country in Europe. They are not suffering for income.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i] Last edited by Foolmewunz; 22nd May 2012 at 01:27 AM.

22nd May 2012, 01:32 AM	#455
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,520	Originally Posted by shuize Yes, I know the guy on the Ady Gil and the guy arrested in Germany are not the same, if that's what you're getting at. I made that comment with respect to the controversy surrounding its sinking. Given the relative difference in mass between ships, I think that the "captain" of the Ady Gil was an idiot for putting his vessel in harms way, regardless of whether or not the Japanese captain intentionally tried to hit it (which I doubt). Nope... just wanted to be clear. After the dust-up with Watson after the incident and his incarceration in Japan, I kinda like Bethune. I certainly find him more credible than Watson.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

22nd May 2012, 01:42 AM	#456
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,886	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Watson as the Sea Shepherd folk describe him is Admiral of the Fleet (I kid you not). (giggle) Rear Admiral, surely.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

22nd May 2012, 03:34 AM	#457
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,154	Originally Posted by Checkmite (giggle) Rear Admiral, surely. Lower half... Perhaps aft.
	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

22nd May 2012, 04:24 AM	#458
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz They're most definitely commercial boats - they stay out for weeks on end and process the whales on board. As Ryokan pointed out, the Norwegians enjoy whale meat, but if you counted up all the Norwegians and their consumption of whale meat from last year, it would not equal the "catch". The government approved EXPORT to..... guess where? If you answered "Japan", you would be correct. They re-implemented trading with Japan in whale meat a few years ago. Norway is an anomaly. They do not need the industry - without the export, it's dying on its own. I'd be curious to hear from Ryokan or others... Is it a stubborn pride thing? Or is there some huge political donor who has a lot invested in whaling. (It became an election issue a few times, IIRC.) ETA: Not that it'll necessarily dissuade you from slicing and dicing the available information to suit your own purposes, but in case the above is too subtle.... SELLING WHALE MEAT FOR EXPORT WOULD SEEM TO BE THE VERY DEFINITION OF "COMMERCIAL". Norway is probably the richest country in Europe. They are not suffering for income. Indeed, I was mistaken about the operations in Norway and Iceland. The only thing I would add is that the operation in Japan is a level of sophistication another level beyond them, but no more commercial. The question is is this sustainable? Or is it only sustainable if every other country on the planet continues to honour the moratorium? History suggests at least the traditional hunts are.

22nd May 2012, 07:09 AM	#459
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,520	Thanks, Furcifer - sorry for the snark, as I was on my way out to go shop hunting and in a rush. Below will be a long rambling post. I kept wanting to interject, but when I found the time to post something, the thread had gone ahead another fifty posts. I decided this afternoon to just respond where I felt I should. The rest of the story.... Next up: The politics of the IWC. Simply put, the original International Whaling Commission (or its predecessor) was made up of whaling nations. Some of those (USA, Australia, NZ - notably) have actually turned away from whaling for ecological reasons and because there just wasn't any great demand for the products and byproducts, IMHO. The anti-whaling coalition (if it was that) realized it was never going to get the a majority of the whaling nations to go for a moratorium or ban, so began a process of lobbying to get non-whaling even landlocked nations onto the commission. Once that happened and you could have Liechtenstein, Switzerland Mongolia, etc... in there, the question became... "What do we do with these new members?" Simple, if you listen to Japan and their supporters. You buy their votes with other favors (I think the USA is accused of buying China's votes with a trade deal of some sort, can't remember the details). And that's how you got a large group of non-whaling nations who call themselves the Int'l Whaling Commission to vote against the actual whaling nations. Only in the past decade did Japan realize how neatly this worked and started offering massive foreign aid to countries who have no whaling interests,.... in exchange for... you guessed it... supporting votes on the commission. The whole situation is rife with politics. Rife? Contaminated, festering,... you name it. Sustainability? Hard to say. The anti-whaling coalition accuses Japan and Norway of both miscounting (or misusing the counts of others in the case of Japan) the Minke population so that they can harvest more. The pro-whaling nations (and their stooges voting with them) accuse the anti-whalers and the IWC of lowering the Minke count, changing it from month to month to suit their own purposes, and then stalling and delaying year after year so they couldn't come to any sort of numerical conclusion as to what might be a viable number to extract yet still sustain a viable population of the species. That, I believe, was when Norway and Iceland upped the ante and said, "Hey, we object originally. We're now formally exercising that objection and you can go suck an egg." Both sides are probably both right. Festering with politics, indeed. Meh? I like whales. I want them alive and well and their population growing. I can't see any real need to give Ryokan his whale steak when the process seems so damned unnecessary. (Nothing against Ryokan - Mr. Nagura in Osaka could be substituted if you wish. Ryokan just happened to speak up, here.) But that's the gist of my stand on this. I will take the emotional argument and I'm entitled to do so, opinions being opinions and all that. But I will not pretend that I think the "science" backs me fully, nor will I come down on the side of the total banners who try to base it on doomsday scare tactics. I feel that if they're just simply against killing whales,.... just say so. Quit trying to couch it in other terms. And Paul Watson is a jerk. Eco-terrorism is not something I can support. And while Bethune is every bit as radical in his approach to the topic, he seems to have made some serious points against Watson in their battles, particularly that Watson is a liar and manipulator. (See "Bows and Arrows" for one.) When Watson published their email exchange I find it notable that he didn't refute or debunk anything Bethune claimed. He merely kept calling him a stool pigeon and turncoat. I suggest reading Bethune first (it's lower on the page) and while he sounds a bit petty and more than a bit paranoid, he makes some very specific accusations. Watson responded within three hours but made no effort to refute those specific accusations. I'm quite surprised he thinks this makes him look good. http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-...this-drama-127 Ady Gil (there is a person of that name - a major donor to Sea Shepherd) is on record as believing Bethune. Bethune, himself, has not turned pro-whaling nor changed his radical approach. His stand is that they are so right that there's no need to manipulate the truth or lie about things. Bethune, to any who are totally pro-whaling, is far from a saint. And, to be honest, I have to say I have my misgiving, too. While apparently everyone at Sea Shepherd signed on to it, the bows-and-arrows were apparently his idea. That's some pretty dirty pool, right there and it gives me pause as to whether his comments about lying and manipulating are quite so sincere.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

22nd May 2012, 07:50 AM	#460
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,668	Good posts.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

22nd May 2012, 09:31 AM	#461
Locknar Sum of all evils ^tm Deputy Admin Join Date: May 2007 Location: 25.50 N, 77.54 W Posts: 14,243	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz I like whales. I want them alive and well and their population growing. Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Eco-terrorism is not something I can support. That pretty much sums up how I feel about it all. Whaling exists for two primary reasons; economics and heritage. Focusing on economics, making whaling cost prohibitive would reduce the industry. Watson and his crew have had little (to no) impact, and IMO think the money they are spending could be better used.
	__________________ Member Simpson 15 and Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al. \| StopSylvia.com \| JREF Forum Twitter Last edited by Locknar; 22nd May 2012 at 09:57 AM.

22nd May 2012, 11:50 AM	#462
TheAntiV Scholar Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 68	After spending enough time arguing with Sea Shepherd supporters, I can honestly say they are the most childish individuals on the fave of the planet. Here's the main problem: 1. They think they're conserving wild life but they have a very limited and ignorant understanding of how conservation works. 2. They constantly bash religion and tradition yet they present themselves as moral absolutists. 3. They paint their actions to make it seem they are all about conservation but the fact is that their views are completely ideological in nature. 4. They attack peoples traditions without trying to understand why they hunt whale and ethnocentrically paint people as "primitive" and "barbaric" just because they're hunting something they see as cute.

22nd May 2012, 02:22 PM	#463
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Thanks FW, some good info. The way I see it despite Watson being a goof he's the only one out there doing something. If anyone thinks they can do better grab a boat and send me your PayPal info. Feel free to start a signature list if you think that will help, but forgive me if I don't think it will do much. As for the whaling, I personally don't think they should be hunted but I can respect "tradition". At the same time I'm not going to mix words, this tradition is primitive. If you want to say "Hey but eating meat is primitive" I'm not going to argue it. I am going to point out that at least we've domesticated cows and now we don't have to worry about eating them into extinction. If people don't see the difference, well whatever, I see the difference. This is 2012 and the fact is if someone in Turkey decides they're interested in hunting whales the previous limitations which made it unfeasible don't exist. Do they have equal claim to the catch as the US with many times the people? Or does Canada have more claim than the US because of the extensive coastline? Beats me, but that seems like something that should be ironed out before the hunt. As far as I can tell that hasn't happened. Long story short it's a political cluster bleep and as long as it goes on I don't have any problem with a cluster bleep of an activist running interference.

22nd May 2012, 03:04 PM	#464
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,616	Originally Posted by Furcifer The way I see it despite Watson being a goof he's the only one out there doing something... Long story short it's a political cluster bleep and as long as it goes on I don't have any problem with a cluster bleep of an activist running interference. Something should be done. This is something. Therefore, this should be done. I'm all for people applying solutions to problems. But I don't think that if there's no solution being applied, it's ever a good idea to apply a problem to a problem instead. The Sea Shepherd folks are a tragicomic hybrid of frothing incompetents and confrontation junkies. They're not really a "good enough" solution that we should welcome while we wait for something better to come along.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,616

22nd May 2012, 03:50 PM	#465
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by theprestige Something should be done. This is something. Therefore, this should be done. I'm all for people applying solutions to problems. But I don't think that if there's no solution being applied, it's ever a good idea to apply a problem to a problem instead. The Sea Shepherd folks are a tragicomic hybrid of frothing incompetents and confrontation junkies. They're not really a "good enough" solution that we should welcome while we wait for something better to come along. It's all relative, hyperbole aside we're talking about a few gallons of fuel and an offshore or two vs. the lives of some marine mammals. If we were talking about getting the city to change a sign to a stop light it would be a different story.

22nd May 2012, 03:58 PM	#466
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,886	Originally Posted by theprestige Something should be done. This is something. Therefore, this should be done. I'm all for people applying solutions to problems. But I don't think that if there's no solution being applied, it's ever a good idea to apply a problem to a problem instead. The Sea Shepherd folks are a tragicomic hybrid of frothing incompetents and confrontation junkies. They're not really a "good enough" solution that we should welcome while we wait for something better to come along. I think anyone who applies some forward thinking to the problem will realize that whatever the real solution to the "whaling problem" will be, it won't involve getting on a boat. However, despite things like the statements posted in this very thread from the government of Australia for instance regarding measures they're pursuing, people will continue to justify the actions of Sea Shepherds by claiming that "nobody else is doing anything".
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

22nd May 2012, 04:03 PM	#467
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,293	Originally Posted by Checkmite ...it won't involve getting on a boat. Not that there is anything wrong with being on a boat.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

22nd May 2012, 05:33 PM	#468
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by Checkmite I think anyone who applies some forward thinking to the problem will realize that whatever the real solution to the "whaling problem" will be, it won't involve getting on a boat. However, despite things like the statements posted in this very thread from the government of Australia for instance regarding measures they're pursuing, people will continue to justify the actions of Sea Shepherds by claiming that "nobody else is doing anything". I updated my Facebook status to "saving the whales", change is on the wind. The point is Watson isn't a nuisance, he's a public nuisance. That may be more effective than an International stalemate with a country many rely on for trade. The Japanese have taken hostages and started to kill them, seems like the right time to pull the negotiator and send in the sniper.

22nd May 2012, 10:16 PM	#469
AlaskaBushPilot Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,609	Originally Posted by Furcifer Strawman. Nobody said the size of the boat was the only factor. You're right of course, what the boat is used for plays a significant role in whether or not it's considered a commercial or recreational vessel. Pfft. Telling a commercial fisherman what a commercial fisherman is. This has been the most amusing thread watching you twist yourself into knots instead of just being honest that you are a moral absolutist about whales. They're sacred to you. So what? Cows are sacred to many Indians. White bears were sacred to the peoples in that vicinity of British Columbia where they are common. At least all those people are honest. There isn't anything to argue about. and this: Quote: The way I see it despite Watson being a goof he's the only one out there doing something More intellectual dishonesty. He is the only saboteur. But since you can't bring yourself to be honest about what you stand for, you have to speak in code-words. If you aren't a saboteur, you aren't "doing anything".

23rd May 2012, 02:56 AM	#470
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Originally Posted by alfaniner I understand he was then banned for being too extreme in his methods. You can just as easily spin that as 'left of his own free will after becoming frustrated with the slow pace and caution of the organization' which IIRC is how he has said he saw it.
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

23rd May 2012, 03:01 AM	#471
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Originally Posted by Checkmite Curious; he seems to be the only one who recalls him being a founder. Ah, Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia anyone can edit. It's such a definitive resource for the life history of controversial people.
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

23rd May 2012, 04:28 AM	#472
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot Pfft. Telling a commercial fisherman what a commercial fisherman is. This has been the most amusing thread watching you twist yourself into knots instead of just being honest that you are a moral absolutist about whales. They're sacred to you. So what? Cows are sacred to many Indians. White bears were sacred to the peoples in that vicinity of British Columbia where they are common. At least all those people are honest. There isn't anything to argue about. and this: More intellectual dishonesty. He is the only saboteur. But since you can't bring yourself to be honest about what you stand for, you have to speak in code-words. If you aren't a saboteur, you aren't "doing anything". "Commecial fisherman", that's just another word for professional liar You should know full well the sale of fish has almost nothing to do with being commercial. It's really about capacity and once the fisheries have determined your capacity exceeds that of "sport" you're pretty much commercial and require additional licensing. But you know that. Everyone knows that and now we're just splitting hairs in an attempt to apologize for what the Japanese, and yes a few other countries are doing. Shameful. I've also said numerous times I don't care if whales are hunted so long as it's sustainable. I don't know what purpose it serves to continue to suggest otherwise? I've admitted as much your pleading won't change that.

23rd May 2012, 04:39 AM	#473
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot This has been the most amusing thread watching you twist yourself into knots instead of just being honest that you are a moral absolutist about whales. . I've been amused by your complete and utter lack of integrity. great to see you once again attacking other people because you don't agree with their opinion and because you haven't actually paid any attention to a word theyve posted, are you perhaps a politician
	Last edited by Marduk; 23rd May 2012 at 04:41 AM.

23rd May 2012, 04:51 AM	#474
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field. Posts: 9,923	Originally Posted by Furcifer You should know full well the sale of fish has almost nothing to do with being commercial. It's really about capacity and once the fisheries have determined your capacity exceeds that of "sport" you're pretty much commercial and require additional licensing. So how many whales do you have to catch before your operation becomes commercial?
	__________________ Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+ More Atheism+ stuff

23rd May 2012, 10:25 AM	#475
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,322	Originally Posted by theprestige Seriously, this. Noah Fence, they fly a pirate flag. How can you possibly be butthurt about any treatment they receive on the high seas? Who said i was butthurt? I simply stated a fact that the Shonan deliberately rammed them. no more, no less.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau