13
   

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

 
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 08:42 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
The fishing can be ignored, and was, I believe, until you began a digression about it, because this is a thread about whaling.


Review the postings since I came in and fair minded bunny that you are, you'll find that's not quite as clear cut as you make it out to be. The fishing issue was continually raised by folks who wanted to take a big jab at Japan. I merely showed that the info was spurious.

The other aspects that discussed "fishing" pointed to the duplicity of the anti-whaling hypocrites. As I said, had someone dealt with the USA in that same underhanded fashion, there would have been a war or an 20 year embargo.

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 08:45 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
As I said, over-fishing is a digression on this thread, and I think JTT has just brought it up to try to browbeat Msolga.


Do you really think that, Dlowan?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 08:52 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
I know as much as you know at this stage (via the media reports I've posted.)


I don't believe that's possible, MsOlga. By your own admission this is a big deal for you. It hasn't been for me.

I find it hard to believe that in all these years, neither Rudd nor Howard has laid out the alleged illegalities. Do they have some particular aversion to facts in their efforts to whip up the populace?

I'll admit that I haven't read the whole thread, nor the first one but from what I've seen laid out here so far, I think that Australia would be the laughingstock of the world.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 01:01 am
@JTT,
Quote:
I don't believe that's possible, MsOlga. By your own admission this is a big deal for you.


Indeed it is. The whole issue of whale conservation is, actually.

Quote:
It hasn't been for me.


Yep, that's the conclusion I came to, too.
So why are you asking me to comment further, then?
You have consumed quite a deal of my time already on this thread.
I would be much happier to oblige if I thought you were genuinely interested in what you're asking of me. But it seems rather a waste of my time, really.
Anyone else, of course, is welcome to comment further on this point if they choose to.


msolga
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 01:18 am
Quote:
Greenpeace makes waves over whaling plan
By environment reporter Sarah Clarke/ABC news online
Updated 1 hour 21 minutes ago
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200912/r484912_2488484.jpg
Greenpeace says the IWC whaling proposal will validate Japanese whaling (Australian Customs Service, file photo)

Greenpeace has slammed a radical proposal put forward by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) that could see commercial whaling reintroduced in the Southern Ocean.

A small group of IWC nations, including Australia, has released draft recommendations which include bringing scientific whaling under the commission's watch, reducing catches from current levels, establishing caps on whale takes over a 10-year period, and improving the animal welfare aspects of whaling.

The recommendations are part of a compromise plan that would bring Japan's whaling program under the IWC's watch, and it comes just days after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd demanded that Japan end its Southern Ocean scientific whaling program by November.

Mr Rudd is threatening Japan with a lawsuit in the International Court of Justice if it does not accept his ultimatum.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific chief executive Linda Selvey says the IWC's proposal to overturn the 28-year-old whaling ban is a disaster, adding it would legitimise Japan's whaling program.

"We condemn the proposal because it will allow the return of commercial whaling and legitimises the whaling that Japan has been undertaking over the last 20 or so years," she said.

"Previously Japan was using a loophole in the International Whaling Commission's moratorium on commercial whaling by calling whaling 'scientific whaling'.

"What this proposal does is to bring all of the whaling efforts under the umbrella of the International Whaling Commission, thereby legitimising the whaling activities of Japan and other nations."

Quota system flawed

One of the recommendations suggests the IWC can put a quota on the number of whales the pro-whaling nations can take, but Ms Selvey says the cap is flawed and zero whaling should be the goal.

"The devil is in the detail," she said.

"At the moment there is no quota proposed particularly for ... the large-scale whaling that occurs in the Antarctic and the northern Pacific areas.

"And it is also a concern that the proposal talks about how these quotas would be set - that they would potentially be based on arbitrary figures, not by any scientific peer review population estimates.

"So without knowing what the quotas are, it is very difficult to know if this is an improvement on the current state of affairs.

"But basically allowing any whaling in the Southern Ocean, any large-scale whaling anywhere in the world, is not acceptable, particularly given that we don't know a lot about some whale populations."

Consensus needed

Ms Selvey says the Australian Government's response to the proposal could determine whether it is agreed upon.

"What the proposal makes very clear is that there is not full consensus of this working group, and so it is difficult to know what Australia's position in that working group was," she said.

"But we would strongly call on the Australian Government to oppose this proposal and to demand the phase-out of whaling in the Southern Ocean.

"Consensus is required and therefore Australia plays a really important role in this working group to make sure that ... the proposal that comes forward means the phasing out of whaling."

Ms Selvey says if the proposal is approved, it would undermine Mr Rudd's threat to take Japan to court.

"This proposal would legitimise whaling and therefore make legal action unlikely to succeed," she said.

"Therefore this makes a mockery of Kevin Rudd's announcement last week that Australia would take legal action against Japanese whaling in November, because by November it would be clear that such legal action would not be successful on the basis of this proposal."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/23/2828112.htm
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 01:31 am
@msolga,
Ya know, much as I hate whaling, that looks like the beginnings of some sort of workable compromise to me...although I have not yet looked at the details.

dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 01:40 am
@georgeob1,
Well, boats get seized and destroyed and catches are impounded, and nobody has protested that that is done illegally, so I assume that the countries poaching fish take it as a fair cop.

I think the Japanese are to be taken to court over the enormous amount they have taken illegally, so I suppose that will be adjudicated.


By the way......these quotas are having a truly devastating effect on loval fisherfolk.

It was announced today that Australia's last tuna cannery is closing. That's in the local town of Port Lincoln, which is now facing economic ruin.


Australia is (gasp) operationalising tuna quotas set by a (gasp again) international body to which it belongs, and which has reduced the allowed catch for us by 25% in an attempt to regain sustainable tuna stocks.

Shocking, isn't it, that we should be adhering to decisions made by some foreigners just because we signed on as members of the relevant body?

Must be racism. Poor us.

By the way, Oz is not, to my knowledge claiming that the Japanese are killing whales in our territorial waters. I imagine the navy would act if they were.

The claim is that they are whaling in an international whale sanctuary.

msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 01:40 am
@msolga,
Yes, I heard a little about this "phasing out over time" (as I understood it) proposal on the ABC on Sunday night, but it hasn't reappeared till now.

Off the top of my head, & while waiting for more details to emerge, it appears to be a compromise between the proposed court action & the IWC's current position on whaling. Perhaps this is what the "diplomacy" process between Australia & Japan is all about? Anyway, that's my best hunch at this point in time.

It will be very interesting, on the Oz domestic political front, to see what the reaction of the Greens (left) & the Liberal Party (right of Oz politics) will be. Both have far stronger positions on whaling than Rudd's Labor Party. The Labor Party, as I've already mentioned, has taken quite a deal of flack over it's perceived weak stance on whaling, by both sides.

I'll post more as the details emerge.

msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 01:41 am
@dlowan,
Quote:
although I have not yet looked at the details


There are no published details yet.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 01:46 am
Could I please ask again that the issue of over-fishing be the subject of a new thread? Which I will be most happy to participate in, because I'm very interested. There is obviously a significant amount of interest. The focus of this thread is becoming rather confused, and as the IWC conference looms & so many other developments are occurring fast, I really want us to be discussing what this thread was actually intended to do without the distractions.
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 01:51 am
@msolga,
It looks better to me than butting heads and getting more and more pumped up on both sides, and having the Japanese feel more and more boxed into a corner. Soon, if this keeps up, I would predict that whale meat is going to become an almost universally accepted symbol of Japanese pride, with it being the sacred duty of all good Japanese to eat the bloody meat, no matter whether the cost puts them on the street and they are allergic to it, and they then are expected to die for their country in glorious anaphylactic shock technicolour which is televised to the entire country in a ritual orgy of death!

Whilom decent Australians and New Zilluners and all people who oppose whaling tie themselves to extremely annoyed whales, clutching their goddam flag, and drown in droves, while the unfortunate whales to which they are attached die from the germs of their decaying carcases.

That'd likely amuse JTT, but that is probably not a sufficient reason to do it.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 01:52 am
@msolga,
Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 01:56 am
@dlowan,
Quote:
Soon, if this keeps up, I would predict that whale meat is going to become a symbol of Japanese pride, with it being the sacred duty of all good Japanese to eat the bloody meat


Been there & done that.

A few years ago, when there was so much stock-piled whale meat in Japan, as a result of the hefty "scientific" catches.

Whale meat was reintroduced to school lunches amongst other things.

New & fascinating contemporary uses of whale meat were marketed.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 01:59 am
@dlowan,
Not to worry, possum. <pat, pat>

I just had a thought, though.

It'd be great if you started this new thread, which is obviously in pretty strong demand! You obviously have quite an interest. Wink

No, I'm quite serious.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 02:13 am
@msolga,
I do and I don't. Want to start a thread.

Frankly, I don't think it would get much traffic.

Although it is one of THE most important planet-wide issues, I think such threads are generally avoided in droves by hordes of weary A2kers....unless there is some way of making them become a vicious Manichean duel between the usual suspects about the usual fault lines.

Look at what happened to Robert's whaling ethics thread? Congo thread?


Many of my and numerous others' threads about serious issues?

If it's not a blood sport, it's a pain.

I am serious about thinking that JTT, for instance, just wants to bait you. He clearly doesn't give a fabulous flying **** about conservation.

Dys thinks it's some sort of Bircher plot.

Would either of them bother with a serious thread about the topic?

I doubt it.

A bunch would read and be fascinated, but not comment.

A few would make it a bun-fight as usual.

And it would die. I am tired of things that I find interesting that just die.

Rob tried to make this thread a genuine exchange of views, and it was enormously exciting to me, because I learned heaps, and it made me really think about the issues.

But that kind of turned to custard for reasons that I can well understand and empathise with.

And why not let serious threads die?

I think we all feel kind of powerless and hopeless about the huge issues facing the planet.

It's too hard.

What do you think?

msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 02:16 am
@dlowan,
Well then, I really wish one of the others who are keen to talk about over-fishing would do it, then. Seems to me there is considerable interest. And yes, it involves work, as I can testify as a result of my own experience, here.

All I want if for this thread to do what it was set up to do, without other side issues going on at the same time, as well. Nothing more than that.





dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 02:25 am
@msolga,
Then you need to ignore the people whose contributions you do not consider relevant.

You really do not need to respond to them.

I know you don't ignore, but thumb the damn posts down if you cannot scroll past.

I think it is your enormous kindness in responding whether you want to or not that keeps people responding back.

You keep posting in response, and so they respond right back...round and round and round and round.

msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 02:36 am
@dlowan,
Quote:

I think it is your enormous kindness in responding whether you want to or not that keeps people responding back.


I think we were sort of trained to do that by the Abuzz experience, Deb?

That is, you started the thread, you take responsibility for it's progress. That approach has lead to some of the most interesting interactions I've come across here & on other forums, whatever the subject, because it sort of keeps it focused.

I genuinely loath the notion of ignoring anyone. But you can reach the point with some posters that you cannot go on & on, responding over & over to the same point, without losing a few marbles. Also, rudeness & unnecessary provocation, when you are clearly trying to be polite, is.. well .. not exactly considerate.
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 03:24 am
@msolga,
Well, I guess I have unlearned that then.

It's hard, but if something consistently does not work for you, I can't see the point of continuing to do it. And I learned the hard, and to others, bloody ridiculous way.

I know very well what you are talking about and how intense the need to respond feels.

I have been a lone voice on threads (especially about torture in the early days of the "war against terror") and felt highly distressed and deserted by those I knew shared my views. I know the distress.

Thing is, I think it's genuinely very hard for people to respond here on this thread.


Generally, this is a debate site.

People see a thread, and often come to to enjoy testing and developing their understanding by arguing about something.


To most, the debates between you and a number of participants (especially Rob, I think) was a genuinely high point of debate and illumination on the net.

Some people come to debate with no ill intent, and with enjoyment....and your brilliant and researched and measured responses invite more.

From experience on the other thread, I am aware that this is likely not your experience of what is happening, and I see you expressing tiredness and a desire that others come in and join the discussion. And I know from the experience of a relentless opponent!!!!!

Others come because they like to bait people with a passionate and honest view.

Much as I hate whaling, I cannot in all reason agree with your position. I hope it will become the obvious position, and not just for whales ( just as antislavery has become the default position, at least in the west) as humans evolve in our empathy and understanding.

But, it seems debate is not what this thread is intended for, and not what you want to occur on this thread.

So, I don't (just as one example) quite know what to say here, and I am reluctant to say anything because of this. But I hate seeing you arguing all alone, sometimes against some people who are just being obstreperous, as far as I can tell, when you have all the baggage of a passionately held belief.



Perhaps if you were to say exactly what you want here, and respond only to what you see as meeting this criteria?

The happy arguers would continue, or go elsewhere.

The baiters would get tired.

But....suggesting things to other folk is always an easy thing to do, as opposed to doing it oneself!!!

I think, personally, that the debate has been enormously useful for your cause, and will likely continue to affect those who read it for A2k's time in the sun, however long that is.










msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 03:50 am
@dlowan,
Quote:
But, it seems debate is not what this thread is intended for, and not what you want to occur on this thread.


I disagree with that, Deb.

Yes, it is mostly a partisan information thread, I'll grant you. But then if information wasn't provided as it happens, there probably wouldn't be much to discuss, would there?

And I see no problem with anyone coming here & saying they disagree. It is how they express that disagreement which sometimes offends. If we can discuss civilly from our side, why not from the other? What if I don't want to fight, but to discuss?

And also the going over & over the same point relentlessly, as if this constitutes some sort of "debate". It doesn't & it gets really boring after a few pages. Then, when asked if they can move on in the discussion to some other point, to be told they're being censured. Freedom of speech issue!

Quote:
Thing is, I think it's genuinely very hard for people to respond here on this thread.


Why do you think that is?

I think, whatever the reason might be, what's wrong with a discussion, especially if they've just discovered the issue, rather than the need for a full on debate? You can disagree in a discussion, too. And you might even learn a few things you didn't already know.







0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.01 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 05:44:16