Animal Rights Dummies On Whales Wars

[Cyrus]

Raw whale fat and fermented blubber oil... The things that guy is willing to eat. :yuck:

It looked pretty darn tasty to me. Fat contains all the flavor in meats. Why would you find that distasteful?

 

[Cyrus]

So what are your principles? That it's always ok to kill or hurt animals??

Talking about bumbling morons...

Says nrqed to the PhD biologist that does Animal Surgery.

I think the people that should be allowed to kill/eat whales are the Islanders in Alaska because its part of their heritage for hundreds of years.

 

[D H]

PETA has moved from whales to smaller fry. They want to save the fish. Oops, I should have said http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/", now that Obama has shown that he too can be cruel to little animals.

 

[GCT]

The Japanese have been whaling for years so when these no-life nutjob animal rights activists insist that they abandon the tradition purely on the basis of a spontaneous whim of what is right and wrong on their part ... it seems infantile to the people of Japan ... these people on the Irwin are morons and they are going to cause trouble for their own country and as eager as these people seem to play war and cause trouble , they are really not going to like any kind of an official conflict with Japan.

Whaling is pretty much " wrong " however they're completely ignoring the human aspect of the issue here...

 

[chroot]

Ah, yes, people should respect other cultures, right? Should we give the same respect to the martyrdom of radical Muslims? It's a very deeply-ingrained part of their culture, after all.

People who do "wrong" things should be stopped, regardless of whether or not they are part of their culture. I don't support the Sea Shepherd's actions (which are at best vigilantism, at worst terrorism), but I certainly don't support the Japanese assertion that they should be able to hunt endangered whales, in defiance of international laws, because it's part of their "culture."

- Warren

 

[GCT]

Ah, yes, people should respect other cultures, right? Should we give the same respect to the martyrdom of radical Muslims? It's a very deeply-ingrained part of their culture, after all.

People who do "wrong" things should be stopped, regardless of whether or not they are part of their culture. I don't support the Sea Shepherd's actions (which are at best vigilantism, at worst terrorism), but I certainly don't support the Japanese assertion that they should be able to hunt endangered whales, in defiance of international laws, because it's part of their "culture."

- Warren

I'm not supporting whaling here , my assertion here is simply that under no circumstances whatsoever does any particular nation , regardless of the " righteousness " of their beliefs or how deluded they are , have the right to meddle in an other nation's intrinsic affairs especially if the incentive isn't directly related to self preservation or self defense. The issue with Muslim Jihaad is directly pertinent to the issue of self defense. In addition , Jihaad is not Muslim culture.

Bottom line - different parts of the world has , for a while , existed in and of itself ... we have our own world here and they have theirs ... it's not about the philosophical notion of " respecting other's cultures " ... Not meddling in another person's space is absolutely fundamental , there is no way around this. You have the right to respect or not respect another culture's way of doing things however it's another thing to actually go over there - once you do you've crossed the line and crossing the line is war. Whaling is just wrong ... but do not cross the line.

 

[chroot]

Not meddling in another person's space is absolutely fundamental

The Japanese are not in their "own space." They're in an internationally-declared whale sanctuary near Antarctica!

- Warren

 

[GCT]

The Japanese are not in their "own space." They're in an internationally-declared whale sanctuary near Antarctica!

- Warren

Yeah , I guess this is where things get a little fuzzy ... you're right something needs to be done to protect the whales to some extent ... if the Japanese had it their way the whales would become extinct however it's not damning that they fish to some degree because , face it , animals get killed all around the world. Killing anything is wrong , yet it has to be done , whether it's your choice of cows , deers , kangaroos , whales.

I would still consider getting that close to the Japanese ships as crossing the line. Something bad is going to happen.

 

[Nesrin]

If what they are doing is completely legal, then why do I keep hearing they are wanted on felony charges by three countries? I know one of them is Costa Rica. Do you have any further information about those warrents? I'll see what I can come up with.

Edit:
http://swindlemagazine.com/news/the-eco-pirate-captain-paul-watson/



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watson Covers the same incidents and mentions he was kicked out of Iceland.

Ooh interesting question, I had to investigate. (I highlighted the names of countries so you'd be able to find the parts most relevant to your question) It seems the majority of the websites with information on his criminal record are pretty biased. It's either coming directly from Sea Shepherd and Paul Watson himself or someone interested in comparing the organization to Islamic terrorists... But I did manage to find two articles with tons of information:

1.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/51...-fighting-to-stop-whaling-and-seal-hunts.html
2.http://rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=236753&D=2008-04-14&SO=Great"

Paul Watson was voted off the Greenpeace board of directors in 1977 for refusing to apologize for an incident where he grabbed a club and pelts away from a sealer and threw them into the sea. Sea Shepherd was founded later that year and claims to have sunk 10 illegal whaling ships in the time since without any injury, loss of life, or the conviction of a crime.

Paul Watson attempted to sink a pirate whaling vessel in 1979 called the Sierra off the coast of Portugal. After ramming it twice, the vessel did not sink and Sea Shepherd was ordered to return to port in Portugal by a naval ship. Sea Shepherd was then court ordered to turn over their ship to the whalers in reparation for the damaged Sierra, but crew managed to sneak back on board and sink it. The Sierra was eventually repaired by the whalers, but was sunk when an unknown individual, assumed to be a Sea Shepherd member, blew a hole in the bottom of the ship using a limpet mine.

In 1981 Paul Watson sank the whaling ships Hvalur 6 and Hvalur 7 in Reykjavik Harbor in Iceland. He subsequently turned himself into the Icelandic police and was asked to leave the country.

In 1983 amidst the Canadian seal hunt, Watson used his ship to block the port at St John's, Newfoundland and threatened to ram sealing ships leaving the harbor. When told authorities were considering boarding his ship, he threatened to sink it and create a barrier. The incident cost the sealing industry millions of dollars and he left the port later under the cover of fog.

Paul Watson was arrested in 1997 in connection to the scuttling of a Norwegian whaling ship called Nybraena in 1992. He was arrested in Amsterdam and spent 60 days in prison, but Dutch authorities refused to hand him over to Norwegian authorities and he was released. He was arrested on the same warrant three days before in Germany but was released that same day because of "major discrepancies" in the warrant and court documents.

In 2002 Costa Rica filed 7 counts of attempted murder charges against Paul Watson for an incident where he rammed a 13 foot Costa Rican fishing boat poaching sharks off the coast of Guatemala. The charges were dropped after prosecutors were shown a film of the incident shot by a team making a documentary, called Sharkwater, about Sea Shepherd. Watson fled the country.

According to Paul Watson when asked why he has not been convicted of a crime, "Because all those vessels were operating illegally and criminals do not generally want to go to court, and because we have the legal authority to do what we do. The United Nations World Charter for Nature, section 21, empowers any nongovernmental organization or individual to uphold international conservation law in areas beyond national jurisdiction and specifically on the high seas."

 

[chroot]

Well, after having watched a few more episodes of the first season, I've grown to believe the Sea Shepherds really are "eco-terrorists," and their behavior really is unacceptable. Boarding other ships while they are attempting to run away, and then claiming the boarders are being kept hostage? Give me a break...

Still, interesting television.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

There's a Whale Wars marathon on Animal Planet right now and it has me hooked. I'm spellbound by the stupidity. It's hypnotic. In addition to more demonstrations of poor seamanship that almost resulted in the Sea Shepherd getting cut in half by a factory ship, the Sea Shepherd purposely rammed a whaling ship. Here's a youtube shot from the whaling ship:

The funniest part of the episode is when after the collision, the "captain" of the Sea Shepherd says something to the effect of 'someone go check for damage'. Huh? Ya want to be a little more specific than that? A couple of people go up to the bow and look over the side, concluding that their anchor took the brunt of the impact. Everyone is happy...

...later, someone happens to be below-decks, forward, and notices several large holes in the hull and water sloshing around. So...after a collision, no one (captain?!?) thought to check that immediately? Anyway, the damage was above the waterline and so it was only a little water sloshing-in, but it could have been serious if the water was rougher - one of the lacerations was pretty big.

I will give them one thing, though: weddings don't get to be much cooler than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEp5M-wTAog&feature=related

 

[russ_watters]

In addition to more demonstrations of poor seamanship that almost resulted in the Sea Shepherd getting cut in half by a factory ship...

Explanation:

The SS is stalking a factory ship with whaling ships pulling up behind it to unload whales. The goal is to block the whalers from getting to the back of the factory ship. The SS is astern and slightly to the starboard (about 5 o'clock) of the factory ship, when the captain leaves the bridge to do a media interview (!), leaving the ship in the hands of his doe-eyed, bearded (not fooling anyone: he's like 25) first mate, with orders to hold station. Apparently capable of steering, but not controlling speed, first mate, with a deer-in-the-headlights look, let's the Sea Shepherd drift up alongside the factory ship when it slows down. When the captain comes back on to his bridge (!), he's not thrilled, but decides the proper way to get back into position is to speed-up and loop around in front of the factory ship, doing a 360 to get back behind it. Doing this maneuver when both ships are moving is a little tricky, since if you turn too fast and position your ship perpendicular to the ship you're "crossing the T" on, it is moving toward you, but you are no longer moving along the same line of bearing: All your motion is perpendicular it and it closes on you.

They avoided a collision by (they estimate) 10-15 feet.

...saw another little clip of the SS hitting an iceberg softly, but hard enough to bend-in the hull. Almost punctured it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

killing whales is a dispicable practice , especially when you kill them and immediately package them up right away through an onboard ship factory line.

Why does immediate packaging make it worse?

 

[Galteeth]

It is interesting to me how people's perception of the relative legitimacy of authority influences their moral judgments.

Consider for example, the following hypothetical situation, which I will call example 1. The Japanese whalers are breaking the law by whaling in an established whale sanctuary. The law is enforced by an American Naval ship, empowered by the UN. The Naval ship encounters a Japanese whaler, and orders them to surrender. The US Navy proceeds to board the ship, and with guns drawn, take the whalers prisoner. Attempted resistance is of course met with severe force.

Example 2. The Japanese whalers are breaking the law by whaling in an established whale sanctuary. The law empowers any group to enforce the law, so a bunch of incompetent hippies follow the boats around and throw stink bombs.

Obviously, one tactic is much more effective. But does that effect the morality of the action? If the Sea Shepard were more competent and more effective, would people's moral feeling be different?

I'm not sure how I feel personally about the sea shepard's actions. But it is interesting that the crew, who do not fit the image of conventional authority, but are apparently legally empowered as authorities in a sense, are sternly condemned by many on the board. How would these posters feel about example 1? Does the nature of the authority and tactics change the morality of the action, even if both are technically legally empowered authorities? And if throwing stink bombs and such other tactics are wrong, by what reasoning would much more severe actions be right?

Just something to think about.
Recall the Milgram experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 

[D H]

Consider for example, the following hypothetical situation, which I will call example 1. The Japanese whalers are breaking the law by whaling in an established whale sanctuary. The law is enforced by an American Naval ship, empowered by the UN. The Naval ship encounters a Japanese whaler, and orders them to surrender. The US Navy proceeds to board the ship, and with guns drawn, take the whalers prisoner. Attempted resistance is of course met with severe force.

Several things are wrong here. First off, the International Whaling Commission has no teeth. Japan does not recognize the legality of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. By the IWC's own rules, Japan is doing nothing wrong.

Secondly, there is another name for this example: Declaration of War. Do you really think the US would declare war against Japan over whaling?

 

[apeiron]

Personally, I have no love of whaling. But an essential point here is that the minke whale population is large enough that it could be sustainably harvested - according to the standard fishery models by which we fish down other marine stocks. So the argument for international community action rests purely on moral views about the right to kill large marine mammals, not on the idea that the Japanese are endangering a species.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is interesting to me how people's perception of the relative legitimacy of authority influences their moral judgments.

In the US anyone could theoretically "arrest" someone for committing a crime though it is generally frowned upon. Despite popular "literature" which depicts vigilantism most people would probably be put off by strange people in tights and capes acting irresponsibly and recklessly in the name of "justice".

 

[cesiumfrog]

if the Japanese had it their way the whales would become extinct however it's not damning that they fish to some degree because , face it , animals get killed all around the world. Killing anything is wrong , yet it has to be done , whether it's your choice of cows , deers , kangaroos , whales

Kangaroo meat can be obtained just by culling wild populations before they start to die of from starvation, there is understood to be no threat to the ecosystem as a whole and comparatively minimal disturbance or suffering to the individual. Intensive farming of cows here is in a rather different league to that.

Did you know that banishing fishers from reserves, and completely prohibiting certain forms of fishing, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/enric_sala.html"?

Several things are wrong here. First off, the International Whaling Commission has no teeth. Japan does not recognize the legality of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. By the IWC's own rules, Japan is doing nothing wrong.

Regardless of the framework enacted by states, people still have to stand for what they think is right. Perhaps even more so if they know nobody else will. Just a shame they haven't figured out a more effective and peaceful means of accomplishing it.

But really, claiming to whale for "scientific research purposes"?

Personally, I have no love of whaling. But an essential point here is that the minke whale population is large enough that it could be sustainably harvested - according to the standard fishery models by which we fish down other marine stocks. So the argument for international community action rests purely on moral views about the right to kill large marine mammals, not on the idea that the Japanese are endangering a species.

It isn't some ancient cultural tradition for the Japanese to be canning whales down around Antarctica. If the populations were allowed to recover to natural levels, Japan's whalers wouldn't need to venture away from Japan's coastal waters.

I think people underestimate the http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jeremy_jackson.html".

 

[russ_watters]

Example 2. The Japanese whalers are breaking the law by whaling in an established whale sanctuary. The law empowers any group to enforce the law, so a bunch of incompetent hippies follow the boats around and throw stink bombs.

Obviously, one tactic is much more effective. But does that effect the morality of the action? If the Sea Shepard were more competent and more effective, would people's moral feeling be different?

Third, I'm not aware of anything in the law that empowers anyone other than recognized authorities to enforce the law.

Though I say this, I'm not really all that interested in the moral implications here - I just love watching good slapstick comedy.

 

[apeiron]

It isn't some ancient cultural tradition for the Japanese to be canning whales down around Antarctica. If the populations were allowed to recover to natural levels, the Japanese whalers wouldn't need to venture away from Japan's coastal waters.

Where you have differences of opinion, you have to step back to some broader principles that can be agreed.

Which species humans decide to kill and eat (or just kill because killing seems fun) is obviously a local cultural choice.

What is universal is all humans have to kill something to eat (even if it is just lettuces).

What is also universal is that all humans have some longterm interest in the survival of their kind.

So it seems clear that the rational starting point for discussion is that anything can be killed for eating as long as it is overall sustainable. Or even just killed for fun.

Of course I would agree that the oceans are being over-fished and a lot of the fishery sustainability models are very suspect.

If we are talking Antarctic waters, what about the toothfish (so-called Patagonia sea bass)? Which is what marine biologists are actually saying.

The minke get all the attention due to this animal rights grandstanding but are not actually threatened. Whereas the trade in a high priced delicacy continues in New York and Paris with official CAMLR blessing at the moment.

The parallels are all the more striking as the Ross Sea toothfishery is also being done under the banner of exploratory science.

 

[luma]

Killing whales is as atrocious as murdering chimpanzees. We search desperately on other worlds for intelligent life while condemn the other intelligent life on earth. How would we explain our stewardship of the planet to an alien observer? How would we look? Would we be welcome in an intergalactic community based on our behaviour?

Whaling is wrong. Killing dolphins is even more abhorrent. Especially considering that dolphins save human lives. Fisherman in Brazil even cooperatively catch fish with them.

Part of their culture? Part of my culture is hunting Japanese...

 

[rescue]

I really don't understand why the japanese need to kill so many whales ...

Some whale species are endangered so why hunt them? What will they do when whales are extinct and there's nowhere left to hunt them?