OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

msolga, excellent news!

How very sad. You are applauding a man who once respected human life and rejected the notion of aggression being used against humans and putting human lives in danger to forward the cause of whales when he decides aggression is now appropriate.

I can understand the passion but when your feelings about whales begins to lead you to begin to justify physical aggression against humans it's gone to disgustingly ridiculous lengths.

Shame on you.

Hear hear.

Hey! Don't agree with me. I'll be guilty by association. I object to your fringe position as much as the others. ;-)

I suppose the world needs extremists on each side to balance each other out, but only because there are always going to be extremists. I favor more moderate reason.

What is my "fringe" position?

Come now cjhsa, I thought you wore it on your sleeve (I don't even think you'd be offended): gun nut.

It's a bit too extreme for my tastes, and I don't like the goading of animal lovers but agree with you on some of your positions and I wish you'd find more common ground and empathy with those who don't exactly share yours.

I'm only a "gun nut" on A2K where everyone fears guns.

I don't own a harpoon.

Nor am I a pirate.

One does not need to "fear" guns to support gun control. They may just believe (and you are, of course, free to think they are wrong) that gun control works and is the best path for their society (if you'd like to discuss gun control we should probably take it elsewhere to respect the topic). I like guns but also believe gun control can work if you can starve the market of guns. I don't happen to think that's possible in the US right now and thusly don't campaign for gun control in America but it's worked elsewhere.

And in a nutshell that's why I feel my position is different from yours. I understand that very intelligent people can disagree with me without it ruining my day and I understand that there are often some good points in an opponents argument. I may be wrong but I don't think you understand this or at least don't remember it enough. I think it's a disservice to your position to approach it too dogmatically because it's harder to accept dogma than reason even if its right and owing to the nature of dogma it often isn't.

You must have a lot of dogs.

Just one. But you must be referring to my habit of repeating certain phrases (did I repeat dogma to much?) and that happens because of the way I write.

I usually am writing over 5 things simultaneously and end up repeating myself when I come back to a text and don't notice I already said something. I then proceed to say it a few more different ways at times.

In this case, I actually cut out 4 paragraphs from the above reply when I noticed I was repeating myself but I won't ever catch it all because of my scatterbrained haste.

Did I mention I repeat myself a lot? ;-)

Exactly what tactics do you think this man now espouses that would "put human lives in danger", other than his own, and, I suppose, anyone else in his zodiac who also chose to be there?

It depends on your perspective, Robert. In this case we see someone who, a past minister for the environment of this country & participated in the IWC process & came to the conclusion that the existing processes weren't working. I think it's fair to say that he was as well informed as just about anyone about the efforts being made by various bodies to protect whales & came to a conclusion based on that knowledge. And had little hope of working within the existing avenues. I suspect he still respects human life. :wink: It is possible, you know, to respect both animal & human life on this planet & come to the conclusion that some creatures require protection from the activities of humans.

The humans working for Sea Shepherd & other conservation groups do so as a result of their own free choice. If they put their own lives at risk it is a result of their convictions, the strength of their beliefs. The aim, I believe, is not to "physically target humans", but to protect whales when other approaches clearly aren't working. You may not agree with their approach & believe that market forces (in the form of falling demand for whale flesh, over time) will resolve the problem, but others may not share your view, or even find it a satisfactory one. Of course, we can, & probably will, continue to discuss our differences on these things, hopefully in a respectful way.
I sincerely doubt Stradee's response to Ian Campbell's decision was based purely on passion & feeling. I know, from my association with her over the life of this thread, that she is extremely well informed on environmental issues. She certainly is a lot more informed that I am. I have been grateful to her contribution in expanding my knowledge in this area. So I feel aggrieved on her behalf by your comment: "I can understand the passion but when your feelings about whales begins to lead you to begin to justify physical aggression against humans it's gone to disgustingly ridiculous lengths. Shame on you." I could argue that that comment is an emotive response based on your opinions. Certainly an overreaction to a :wink:. I also think this sort of response discourages people from participating openly in this discussion, which I'd really regret.

His own word is "aggression". The "tactics" he once condemned include physically ramming whaling ships, putting lives at danger on both sides. It's absolutely irresponsible and absolutely illegal and precisely the fringe lunacy I spoke about that shows a deficit of respect for human life while at the same time harming whales by bringing this kind of piracy to the debate.

He has said (and this is right in the article posted on the last page): "I was worried about his tactics because Paul was making comments to the effect that he was prepared to lay his life on the line and I just don't think anyone should ever go to sea and seek to hurt someone else."

So now it's OK to go to sea to seek to hurt someone else? And this should be applauded?

These guys aren't Greenpeace, who protest peacefully and place themselves in danger. These are vigilante hoodlums whose actions place others in danger.

Aha...I just looked up Sea Shepherd, and you are right, if highly emotive.

I had assumed tactics of coming between whales and hunters, and assumed this was the aggression being described. I had read the article, but not noticed the part of the sentence you quote.


Msolga...here is some info:

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


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/05/071105fa_fact_khatchadourian

That is your opinion, Robert. Others might define the work of Sea Shepherd differently. I think (not being an expert on Sea Shepherd's history) their stance is one that developed over time as a result of extreme frustration at lack of progress through official & "respectable" avenues, over years. Sure, they're at the "fringe" of the environmental movement & there is debate within the environmental movement about Sea Shepherd's tactics. But you know, it could just as easily be argued (from the other side) that the unnecessary (as a result of inadequate market demand) & cruel slaughter of whales (because IWC loopholes make it "legal") is a "hoodlum" act. If others here want to engage in a discussion about what sort of tactics are most appropriate for the protection of whales in the light of the failure of existing "respectable" avenues ... & which they find acceptable or not, that's fine. So long as it is conducted with mutual respect.

Thanks for the links to Wikipedia, Deb. I've already been there, though.

Fair enough.....I am looking at their own sites right now...and I'll check the New Yorker article I posted when I get home. The second link is not to Wikipedia, but to a New Yorker article.


I have great empathy for their feelings, but I would have to come down on the side of their tactics being quite unacceptable.


Do you agree with their having rammed a whaling boat? And sinking fishing boats (in harbour as far as I can tell) and having thrown nasty chemicals onto a ship? (They say it was the equivalent to rancid butter, but other sources say it was caustic and could do harm.)


Thing is, even if you can make a case for being aggressive to those making the decision to whale, I think doing that stuff to workers on a boat, and to fisher folk who are just trying to make a living, is not ok.


The next question is whether such tactics are effective.


I'm not trying to pick at you...I am really interested in discussion on this.

Regardless of the conclusion that the existing process isn't working, supporting aggression against the whalers is morally and legally wrong.

It's like deciding that because someone doesn't agree with you in debate you should start punching them. It's thuggish behavior that the Japanese call "terrorism" and does nothing to help the cause of the whales.



I don't doubt his credentials and knowledge but maintain that his conclusion is morally reprehensible given his very clear understanding and previous admissions that it is wrong.



When said protection involved physical assault against other humans I maintain that not nearly enough respect for humans is involved.



And when they ram boats as you've already seen them do in a YouTube video on the last thread? And when they "go to sea and seek to hurt someone else"?

I'm all for them killing themselves for their beliefs if they choose, but they have absolutely no right to follow a path of "aggression" (their words, not mine) against the whalers.



No, they aim pretty accurately at the humans when they ram their boats and attack the whalers.

Australian Environment Minister Ian Campbell even alerted the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General to take action because "There appears to be a prima facie case that they may be setting out to break the law. I think there is a very good distance between this and the generally positive approach by Greenpeace. I think Greenpeace what has been doing is a service to the cause."



I'm well aware that some people think this kind of thuggery is appropriate, that's why I'm taking the time to say it's a morally bankrupt position.



I'm being as respectful as I can. My initial participation in this thread was due to a Japanese friend's complaints that the "racism" on your last thread offended her and you made the very valid point that you should not always temper your criticisms for fear of offending people.

With that in mind I, as respectfully as the situation allows, call this thuggery and the support for it morally bankrupt at worst and merely ignorant at best.



I was actually referring to this quote in the article:

"I like his aggression. I like his passion. I like his dedication. I don't want to temper that."

I understand the passion, and the desire for aggression. I think deciding to carry it out is criminal and so does your government and the Japanese government.



Sorry, that part of the post uses a confusing generic you (replace it with "one" and you'll see a more awkward sentence but with clearer meaning). I condemn people like Watson and find their actions bad (trying to use a weaker adjective here). I am only sad that people like Stradee applaud him because I am fairly certain people like Stradee wouldn't attack others over enviromental beliefs.

I don't have as much empathy for Watson who has invoked Pearl Harbor when saying he intends to "attack" the Japanese. When Australian authorities were alerted he defended this by saying "the word attack does not necessarily mean damage, it means we are going into a confrontation".

What nonsense! The Japanese whalers are now carrying firearms because of him and ramming them at sea runs a dangerous risk of getting someone killed.



I'd agree. But I'd also add that it's an entirely appropriate one. Civilization is maintained with the understanding that no one man's opinion on morality is above the law. Physical aggression in the name of this cause is as illegal as it is counter-productive and I have no shame in saying Watson's a thug whose actions makes me angry. He thinks his opinion places him above the law. Everyone's entitled to their opinions and resultant emotions but no one is entitled to place themselves and their own morality above the collective morality of society.

If Watson doesn't like the pace of progress that's his opinion that he's entitled to. He's not entitled to engage in acts of war against another nation and disregard his law and international maritime law. But he seems to think so:





I feel bad about that, especially given that the more compassionate whale advocates are likely less willing to partake in confrontational discourse than most others (especially the hunting fans) but after thinking long and hard about it (a couple hours over breakfast) I decided to run the risk of offending people to put what I see as some needed perspective and disagreement into the mix.

In the previous thread you raised a valid point in that you can't temper your opinions solely to avoid offending Japanese. And I agree. I originally joined this thread due to a Japanese friend complaining to me about the cartoons. She wasn't comfortable joining to post her opinions so I did.

It's regretful that elements of disagreement in this debate are going to offend people but I agree with you in that it can't be the reason to be silent.

With that being said, I do have a lot of respect for nearly every one of the participants in the whale threads that I've read, and if I get out of line feel free to let me know. I can recognize at least that my use of the word "disgusting" is unnecessary but I don't think my (necessary IMO) replacement of "morally bankrupt" in reference to Watson's ilk is much less so.

And if I offend I sincerely apologize. It's not my objective but something I feel is unavoidable without just leaving certain sides of the debate unsaid. And I feel one part that needs to be expressed is that Watson in his misguided, if understandable, passion is one of the whales biggest enemies and a big reason the Australians and Japanese can't find more common ground.

Yup, but they are wrong. There is nothing subjective about the fact that Sea Shepherd has committed criminal acts as an organization. When the Australian government raises legal objections to their plans they call them "pussies" and state their intent to ignore the law.

The country where I live right now (Costa Rica) filed attempted murder charges against Paul Watson (though they were later dropped and I could not get the precise details) and he's been jailed by other countries.

His defenders are either blind to his actions or just don't care but he is a criminal and it bothers me to have such parties in the conservationist fold much more than it would to have them on the opposing parties fold because of the damage it does to the cause.

This isn't some zealous activism, it's violence and piracy.



Being as much of an expert on Sea Shepherd's history as one can be (I've read every word he's written that I could find and have been on his mailing lists) I can tell you what their stance, as stated by Paul Watson, is: "confrontation and aggression".



Only if they are willing to place their own morality above rule of law. It is perfectly legal for Japan to whale. It is perfectly illegal for Paul Watson to ram their ships.



I promise to try my best. Let me know when I fail. ;-)

Well, I'm going to leave a discussion on Sea Shepherd's tactics for now. I'm hoping that others, with a more comprehensive knowledge might want to do that. I just know I am not the right person to be defending their cause. What I do know I have learned from mainly the Australian media & the internet. There is a lot of sympathy for their stance here in Australia & I must admit (coming from a position of extreme frustration over the whaling issue) that I personally do have some sympathy for the efforts they have made during the whaling season in the Southern Ocean. There honestly is nothing I have seen, during the time that I have been monitoring the issue via the Australia media, that I have found objectionable.

On the Japanese perspective of the issue: I do accept something that you said earlier - that even if the intention of many of the posts here (articles, comments, cartoons, etc) was not racist (& sincerely,on my part, it hasn't been. You'll have to trust me on that) I can see how Japanese people could find it so. I have become more sensitive to this as a result of your arguments. The problem, I guess, is that this thread has been posted largely from an Australian perspective. Many/most of the articles are from the Australian media, simply because I started the thread because I was interested in developments (from an Australian perspective) in the IWC. If it was a general thread about the protection of whales, world-wide, there really would not have been quite such an emphasis on Japan's involvement, I think. Another cause of frustration is that I haven't managed to find very much at all from a Japanese perspective online. I have looked & most of the pro-whaling arguments have been from the perspective of the Japanese government & the whaling industry (some of whose information was really very contentious.) Interestingly, some time ago, satt (Japanese A2Ker) said that he had been following this thread for information about what was occurring, because there was so little information in the Japanese media then. I don't know if that's changed recently or not. So it's frustrating. I would love to know more about what ordinary Japanese people think about this issue. It is very elusive. Anyway ...

About the "emotive" arguments, issue. Could I say this?
You've posted a helluva lot in a short time, Robert. I confess, (possibly because the sheer volume of material) that, at times, I've had trouble following & keeping up. Yet (being the obliging person that I am :wink: ) I sometimes felt obliged to respond, basically because no one else was & I felt some one should. Then to discover that you'd taken issue with some aspect of my response, so then I felt the need to respond to that, & so on & so on .... To be honest, at times it felt like I was responding to what felt trick questions. True story: the other day in sweltering heat here, in obliging response mode , I posted a response to to something you'd posted. Which I then felt was quoted selectively. Feeling rather offended, I said so. Followed by a post in which you felt that the "selective quote" was justified because my answer wasn't substantial enough (as I best recall.) At which point ......
Tell you what Robert, I hate this sort of discourse. It makes me very uncomfortable. From my perspective it didn't achieve much & it became a sort of game to see who would "win" or who was "right". I'm steering clear of this sort of exchange in the future. :wink: