Founder of Sea Shepherd Arrested in Germany

[tomwaits]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It's a logical flow of conversation; Paul Watson's supporters claim his reckless and dangerous tactics are justified because whaling is just that wrong that such tactics are okay - except in the case of so-called "primitive" whaling, which is permissible because the products of whales harvested by such whalers are only sold sometimes, which...makes the harvested whales feel better about being killed? I don't know.

Who cares about "primitive" whaling? Paul Watson is against what Japan is doing, which is not "primitive" whaling, whatever that means. If you are arguing that other countries engage in whaling, so what? Watson can't engage them all at once. Japan is a major offender, and that's all that matters. A protest has to have focus to be effective, after all.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

What's retarded is comparing the Indonesian whaling to the Japanese and not being able to see the obvious difference.

That one side is catching more whales then the other? Or that one side is apparently catching for "personal use" while the other one is "commercial" but your point of reference is the Japanese?

Quote:

I don't see how anyone can be this intellectually dishonest.

I think Damien was trying to post an image about irony based on this statement. Coming from you this is pretty ironic.

Quote:

If your buddy offered to fly you to where you were going for gas money would you say he was operating a commercial airline?

Well the answer using the Furcifer Criteria would be "That depends on where we are in the world except when it doesn't".

In reality the answer is that it's dependent on where we are. If this person was offering to fly me from Adelaide to Melbourne then no, no he isn't because I can compare what he's doing to what all the airlines are doing.

But in another extreme we may be on a remote Pacific island or a far-away community in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in a situation like that he could be a commercial pilot.

I will admit that this example is a little simplistic because it ignores the existence of charter airlines. (ETA: Also, what the law says about this issue)

This is also the crux of the issue. What you're doing is the equivalent of comparing that guy who services such a location with the larger airlines that fly from Adelaide to Melbourne and declaring that he's not doing anything commercial.

The strange thing is that you seem to understand that such a comparison is invalid, but you refuse to apply it to whaling.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

I'm sorry, I just kind of jumped in here at the last minute, but WTF does Indonesia have to do with it? So what if Indonesia is engaging in commercial whaling? I though the thread was about Paul Watson and Japanese whaling.

As Checkmite already said it's something of a flow of conversation. You might want to read the thread, starting from (IMO) post #222 to see how the discussion has unfolded.

If you want to be really technical the thread is supposed to be about Paul Watson and an incident involving his ship and a Costa Rican fishing vessel. There technically isn't anything to do with whaling at all in why Watson was arrested.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Wildy

That one side is catching more whales then the other? Or that one side is apparently catching for "personal use" while the other one is "commercial" but your point of reference is the Japanese?



I think Damien was trying to post an image about irony based on this statement. Coming from you this is pretty ironic.



Well the answer using the Furcifer Criteria would be "That depends on where we are in the world except when it doesn't".

In reality the answer is that it's dependent on where we are. If this person was offering to fly me from Adelaide to Melbourne then no, no he isn't because I can compare what he's doing to what all the airlines are doing.

But in another extreme we may be on a remote Pacific island or a far-away community in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in a situation like that he could be a commercial pilot.

I will admit that this example is a little simplistic because it ignores the existence of charter airlines. (ETA: Also, what the law says about this issue)

This is also the crux of the issue. What you're doing is the equivalent of comparing that guy who services such a location with the larger airlines that fly from Adelaide to Melbourne and declaring that he's not doing anything commercial.

The strange thing is that you seem to understand that such a comparison is invalid, but you refuse to apply it to whaling.

Indeed, the Japanese fleet is a good reference point for what is commercial whaling.
Claims otherwise are obscenely absurd.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

Who cares about "primitive" whaling? Paul Watson is against what Japan is doing, which is not "primitive" whaling, whatever that means. If you are arguing that other countries engage in whaling, so what? Watson can't engage them all at once. Japan is a major offender, and that's all that matters. A protest has to have focus to be effective, after all.

Read the thread. The so called "skeptics" are trying to maintain what the Japanese are doing with 300 foot whale killing machines is the same as a few Indonesians in a canoe. Why? Because the Indonesians try to sell some of the blubber they harvest to the odd tourist.

[Korren]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Indeed, the Japanese fleet is a good reference point for what is commercial whaling.

You'd make a more consistent argument if you focused on the Japanese whaling industrial nature rather than charging it as being more commercial than other forms of whaling.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

Who cares about "primitive" whaling? Paul Watson is against what Japan is doing, which is not "primitive" whaling, whatever that means. If you are arguing that other countries engage in whaling, so what? Watson can't engage them all at once. Japan is a major offender, and that's all that matters. A protest has to have focus to be effective, after all.

It sounds like you might have a good argument, in favor of Sea Shepherd selecting a specific focus for their protest. You might want to consider making your own argument, rather than defending Furcifer's argument before you've had a chance to read through it properly.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

No, what the Japanese are doing under the guise of "research" is just as primitive. Let's face it, if you're eating whale meat you're missing a chromosome or two.

eta: unless the alternative is starving to death of course.

As far as I am aware, no one on Earth is at risk of starving to death if they don't hunt whales. No one at all, anywhere.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

Who cares about "primitive" whaling? Paul Watson is against what Japan is doing, which is not "primitive" whaling, whatever that means. If you are arguing that other countries engage in whaling, so what? Watson can't engage them all at once. Japan is a major offender, and that's all that matters. A protest has to have focus to be effective, after all.

The argument wasn't about Paul Watson's choice of targets; it was a tangent over posters' claims that "primitive" whaling was acceptable as opposed to what the Japanese are doing.

I can't tell you who first brought up the fact of others besides the Japanese hunting whales; but it was quite a while ago and is fully part of the conversation now.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

No, what the Japanese are doing under the guise of "research" is just as primitive.

Not that there's anything wrong with primitive whaling, according to you. So where's the problem?

Quote:

Let's face it, if you're eating whale meat you're missing a chromosome or two.

Evidence? Or is "missing a chromosome or two" really just another way of saying, "Furcifer really, really, really thinks you're a jerk"?

Have you tried writing a letter to Japan, emphasizing how important your opinion is, and how urgent it is for Japan to do whatever it takes to stop you thinking they're a jerk?

Quote:

eta: unless the alternative is starving to death of course.

Of course? Of course? How dare you? How dare you? Obviously, killing and eating a whale to avoid starvation is just as horrible as killing and eating a human being to avoid starvation! You disgust me.

[portlandatheist]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

Who cares about "primitive" whaling? Paul Watson is against what Japan is doing, which is not "primitive" whaling, whatever that means. If you are arguing that other countries engage in whaling, so what? Watson can't engage them all at once. Japan is a major offender, and that's all that matters. A protest has to have focus to be effective, after all.

If the actual purpose was to save the lives of whales, then the Inuit of Alaska would be a far easier and more effective target than the Japanese whalers.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

If the actual purpose was to save the lives of whales, then the Inuit of Alaska would be a far easier and more effective target than the Japanese whalers.

I'd love to see an episode of "Whale wars" set in Alaska

"ram them Nanook"

it'd be total carnage and Paul Watson would probably get speared
or at least pretend he was

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Don't forget they got a TV show out of it. That's got to be worth something, right?

Not only that, but we're talking about it. Not everyone is a fan, but we're talking about them. No such thing as bad publicity, as long as they spell your name right, and all that.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Read the thread. The so called "skeptics" are trying to maintain what the Japanese are doing with 300 foot whale killing machines is the same as a few Indonesians in a canoe. Why? Because the Indonesians try to sell some of the blubber they harvest to the odd tourist.

It's not that they try to sell some of the blubber to the odd tourist, it's that these people are selling about half their catch to the other villages on their respective islands. I guess you're deliberately trying to downplay this trade because you want to believe that the meat never leaves the village.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

So in other words, the accomplishments of Sea Shepherds' whale-saving efforts include:

1. Japan doubling its whaling limit, and

2. Japan's average yearly take remaining about the same for almost the last decade.

Nice job, guys. Really inspiring.

But since the increased quota they don't catch as near the quota anymore.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

So in 2002 the quota was about 400 a year, and they were taking slightly more than quota. Sea Shepards start operation and the whaling fleet takes around 200 whales a year for a couple of years, so way below quota. Then they ramp the quota way way up to 1000 in 2005, and that year take a lot more whales, 800 or so. Sea Shepards ramp up their activity too, and again the whale harvest falls way off, to somewhere just over 500 in 2010 That looks like an effective antiwhaling campaign to me. Unless someone wants to argue that the reason they were only able to harvest 800 whales that one year was because they overfished and depleted the population.

Post hock ergo proptor hock

When the quota was increased they caught more whales, then later less. It could well be they crashed the market for whale meat and so didn't catch as much later waiting for the market to recover.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It's a logical flow of conversation; Paul Watson's supporters claim his reckless and dangerous tactics are justified because whaling is just that wrong that such tactics are okay - except in the case of so-called "primitive" whaling, which is permissible because the products of whales harvested by such whalers are only sold sometimes, which...makes the harvested whales feel better about being killed? I don't know.

I think it might have to do with how well the coast guard would put up with this behavior.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

Not only that, but we're talking about it. Not everyone is a fan, but we're talking about them. No such thing as bad publicity, as long as they spell your name right, and all that.

I dunno... I think that principle only applies to professional celebrities. If your whole job is simply to be noticed and talked about, then any publicity will do.

If that's Captain Watson's whole job--to be a celebrity--then sure, negative chatter is still chatter, and still meets the job's core need for publicity.

But if Captain Watson's job is actually something else, and the publicity is incidental, then bad publicity can actually be bad for his job. For example, if his job is to attract people to the anti-whaling cause, then negative publicity can actually harm his work.

Remember that PR guy for the game console controller company, who insulted one of the company's customers? His abuse of the customer went viral, and soon he was getting publicity from some of the industry's biggest media outlets. That publicity cost him his job, and negatively impacted the company's sales.

Or consider the President's "kill list". These are guys who are studied in depth by hundreds of senior intelligence and military officials. They are debated at length every Tuesday by the President of the United States. That's some pretty epic-level attention-getting right there! But it's not necessarily a good thing.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

But since the increased quota they don't catch as near the quota anymore.

I guess we can find a silver lining in every dark cloud.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Post hock ergo proptor hock

When the quota was increased they caught more whales, then later less. It could well be they crashed the market for whale meat and so didn't catch as much later waiting for the market to recover.

In the real world, causality is multifactorial. 'Post hoc, ergo propter hoc' is a great concept to apply to simple cause and effect, things like 'I kicked it, therefore it broke' but not so applicable to things like how much of a certain meat product sells in a certain year which depend on thousands of interrelated (and unrelated) factors. For Watson, the question is not if he's the direct cause, but rather if he can plausibly claim to be part of the cause. Since he's TRYING to be part of the cause, and there was an effect, I'm more likely to give him some credit.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

In the real world, causality is multifactorial. 'Post hoc, ergo propter hoc' is a great concept to apply to simple cause and effect, things like 'I kicked it, therefore it broke' but not so applicable to things like how much of a certain meat product sells in a certain year which depend on thousands of interrelated (and unrelated) factors. For Watson, the question is not if he's the direct cause, but rather if he can plausibly claim to be part of the cause. Since he's TRYING to be part of the cause, and there was an effect, I'm more likely to give him some credit.

So the main effect was that they can claim responsibility for the doubling of the quota, but now they don't reach it?

[Andrew Wiggin]

If you find the need to reduce a complicated situation to a sound-bite then go right ahead and construct that narrative from the facts. That's not the narrative I'd personally construct but whatever winds your clock.

I'd personally look at it as the sea shepards reduced the whale harvest from 400ish to 200ish for a couple of years, causing the whaling fleet to increase their quota and work a lot harder. Even so, they only succeed in increasing whale harvest briefly, before it fell back to its previous levels regardless of the increased quota and effort. To me that looks like a recipe for whale meat getting expensive, which is fine by me.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

But since the increased quota they don't catch as near the quota anymore.

Its almost as if the Japanese have been influenced by someone other than sea shepherd isn't it

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

If you find the need to reduce a complicated situation to a sound-bite then go right ahead and construct that narrative from the facts. That's not the narrative I'd personally construct but whatever winds your clock.

I'd personally look at it as the sea shepards reduced the whale harvest from 400ish to 200ish for a couple of years, causing the whaling fleet to increase their quota and work a lot harder. Even so, they only succeed in increasing whale harvest briefly, before it fell back to its previous levels regardless of the increased quota and effort. To me that looks like a recipe for whale meat getting expensive, which is fine by me.

And the end result is no change. Averaged out they have had no effect. Two low years a surge to cover pent up demand and the recovering from a glut on the market.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

I'd personally look at it as the sea shepards reduced the whale harvest from 400ish to 200ish for a couple of years.

A moment ago you were saying that causality was multifactorial, and that it was improper to reduce complex questions to simplistic sound-bites.

Now you're crediting SSA with a 50% decrease in harvest!

Do you have any details on which factors carry more or less weight, when determining multifactorial causality in this real-world scenario?

Because it sure seems to me like you're crediting SSA with having an impact simply because a) they were there, b) they claim to have an impact, and c) you want them to be right. And at the same time, you're defending the lack of actual data supporting their claim, by saying causality is complex and multifactorial.

So how much impact do you really think SSA has had? Can you quantify for us your model, the one that credits them with a 50% decrease in harvest?

[Andrew Wiggin]

Causality IS multifactorial, but if that's not enough to stop folks from creating a narrative that denigrates the sea shepards' contribution, just because they don't like the organization, then it's not enough to stop me from creating a similar narrative that DOES give them credit. See?

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by Furcifer

Let's face it, if you're eating whale meat you're missing a chromosome or two.

Given that I have stated earlier in this thread I have consumed whale meat (knowingly, intentionally, and thought it quite tasty), is this a personal attack?

Furthermore, there's nothing inherently wrong with eating whales, just as there's nothing inherently wrong with eating cows. In fact, there's a fair likelihood that in the next 72 hours I will be doing it again. It'll be minke whale, the cows of the sea.

And no, I'm not missing any chromosomes.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

Causality IS multifactorial, but if that's not enough to stop folks from creating a narrative that denigrates the sea shepards' contribution, just because they don't like the organization, then it's not enough to stop me from creating a similar narrative that DOES give them credit. See?

I see. I thought you were arguing for a better, more accurate narrative. You're actually just arguing for a different narrative. Carry on!

[halides1]

The Economist reported on a meeting where the question of whether or not whales and the like had rights was discussed: "The proposition that whales have rights is founded on the idea that they have a high degree of intelligence, and also have self-awareness of the sort that humans do. That is a controversial suggestion, but there is evidence to support it. Lori Marino of Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, reviewed this evidence."

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by halides1

The Economist reported on a meeting where the question of whether or not whales and the like had rights was discussed: "The proposition that whales have rights is founded on the idea that they have a high degree of intelligence, and also have self-awareness of the sort that humans do. That is a controversial suggestion, but there is evidence to support it. Lori Marino of Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, reviewed this evidence."

Interesting, however IMHO intelligence is not enough. The capability to interact in society and follow rules is also a key factor is the ability to express rights. Protection is not always the same as the ability to express rights.

Quote:

For the reasons outlined by Dr Marino, he claimed, cetaceans do indeed count as persons and therefore have moral rights—though ones appropriate to their species, which may therefore differ from those that would be accorded a human (for example, the right not to be removed from their natural environment).

Seems like it addresses my angle, if not the specifics.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Xulld

The capability to interact in society and follow rules is also a key factor is [sic] the ability to express rights

Now I'm starting to wonder if SSA have rights!

[Marcus]

There is something I am wondering, in the current season the Japanese are successfully preventing the Shepherds from finding the factory ship by following them and keeping the factory appraised of their position so they can evade detection.

Why is this an issue? Shouldn't the Shepherds (and the Japanese for that matter) be able to locate vessels they are interested in by utilizing satellite resources?

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

As far as I am aware, no one on Earth is at risk of starving to death if they don't hunt whales. No one at all, anywhere.

That goes for quite a lot of animals that we hunt and eat.

Anyway, Watson isn't just hunting Japanese ships. I don't know if he has sunk any Japanese ones, but he has sunk several Norwegian whaling ships.

[Macgyver1968]

Originally Posted by Marcus

There is something I am wondering, in the current season the Japanese are successfully preventing the Shepherds from finding the factory ship by following them and keeping the factory appraised of their position so they can evade detection.

Why is this an issue? Shouldn't the Shepherds (and the Japanese for that matter) be able to locate vessels they are interested in by utilizing satellite resources?

In order to do that you would need a GPS reciever attached to a sat phone...and sneak it aboard the other vessel. SS tried this a couple years ago. They attached a GPS transponder on the side of one of the whaling ships. I think it was a refueling ship. They got data from the unit for about 12 hours...and it either fell off the hull of the ship...or the Japanese found it, and knocked it off. I'm not sure if they ever tried that again.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by Marcus

There is something I am wondering, in the current season the Japanese are successfully preventing the Shepherds from finding the factory ship by following them and keeping the factory appraised of their position so they can evade detection.

Why is this an issue? Shouldn't the Shepherds (and the Japanese for that matter) be able to locate vessels they are interested in by utilizing satellite resources?

Real time satellite surveillance of a large swathe of the antarctic ocean? The Sea Shepherds don't have a fraction of the necessary resources - hell, the US government would have to mount a major effort to even try and do that. Even today, finding a ship somewhere on the surface of the ocean is a difficult task, especially when that ship is trying to avoid being found.

Their best bet would probably be to follow the factory ship out of port and stay with it; they presumably know the thing's home port, and learning when it was coming out wouldn't be too hard. But even that wouldn't be easy - some ports are heavily trafficked, and picking one ship out of many isn't a simple thing. Nor is sitting off the coast for long periods just waiting - eats fuel, eats stores, wears the machinery, wears the crew. Sitting in port waiting is easy, but involves being in a Japanese port, which I imagine wouldn't go well for them either.

[Marcus]

That explains it I guess. They weren't able to wait outside the japanese port but it looked like they might get an early catch when they deployed their ships along their probable route around Australia. Probably would have had more luck if there were more competent seamen in the whale whacko ranks. It didn't help when they had to break off the search to rescue their flimsy fiberglass trimaran.

[Stacko]

Has anyone heard any updates on the case?

[Macgyver1968]

Originally Posted by Stacko

Has anyone heard any updates on the case?

Looks like the Walrus jumped bail...surprise surprise

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ashepherd.html

Quote:

FRANKFURT, Germany —

A German court has ordered environmental activist Paul Watson of the group Sea Shepherd re-arrested, saying Wednesday that he skipped bail and apparently left the country.

The 61-year-old Canadian was first arrested May 13 at Frankfurt Airport on a Costa Rican warrant that claimed he had endangered the crew of a fishing vessel a decade ago. Watson was released days later on a (EURO)250,000 ($320,000) bond and ordered to report regularly to authorities while Costa Rica's extradition request was considered.

"His attorney now says that his client informed him by telephone that he has left Germany for an unknown destination," the Hesse regional court in a statement, noting that Watson had failed to report to authorities since Sunday.

[Monza]

Forget a reality show that pits the Sea Shepards against the Deadliest Catch guys. What we need is Dog the Bounty Hunter in a speed boat.

[Macgyver1968]

Originally Posted by Monza

Forget a reality show that pits the Sea Shepards against the Deadliest Catch guys. What we need is Dog the Bounty Hunter in a speed boat.

Oh hell ya. I want to see Dog's wife...with the super huge titties running after the mouth breather and tackling the **** out of him.