Whale Wars television will be great next year I bet!

[Agorism]

Japanese whalers, activists clash off Antarctica


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40867148/ns/world_news-asiapacific/



SYDNEY — Japanese whalers shot water cannons at anti-whaling activists on Saturday, the conservationist group's founder claimed, hours after the activists tracked down the hunting fleet in the remote and icy seas off Antarctica.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is chasing the fleet in the hopes of interrupting Japan's annual whale hunt, which kills up to 1,000 whales a year. The two sides have clashed violently in the past, including last year, when a Sea Shepherd boat was sunk after its bow was sheared off in a collision with a whaling ship.
On Saturday, Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson was talking to The Associated Press by telephone from his ship when he said the whalers suddenly began blasting one of his group's inflatable boats with a water cannon.
"They just turned their cannons on our Zodiac," Watson told The AP. "Right at this moment."
New Zealand-based Glenn Inwood, spokesman for Japan's Tokyo-based Institute of Cetacean Research, which sponsors the whale hunt, said he had no comment.
Every year, Japan and Sea Shepherd make claims of aggression against each other, but the accounts are generally impossible to verify. Their skirmishes take place in an extremely remote part of the ocean off Antarctica.
The Japanese are allowed to harvest a quota of whales under a ruling by the International Whaling Commission, as long as the mammals are caught for research and not commercial purposes. Whale meat not used for study is sold for consumption in Japan, which critics say is the real reason for the hunts. Each hunting season runs from about December through February.
Japan's whaling fleet set out for Antarctic waters in December. Sea Shepherd has been searching for them since, and spotted the first whaling vessel on Friday, Watson said. By Saturday, the group had tracked down three of the fleet's ships in an area about 1,700 nautical miles (3,200 kilometers) southeast of New Zealand, he said.
"We got them before they started whaling and now that we're on them, we're hoping to make sure they don't kill any whales for this season," Watson said.

Anyone else watched this show before?

[pacelli]

I've watched Whale Wars before, and find the show fascinating because both sides are asking each other for trouble. The water cannon thing is fairly common, so is the protesters throwing acid on the whaling boats to ruin the whale meat. In an area of the world where there is no real law enforcement, it is interesting to see how things play out. I do have to wonder how in the hell the Sea Shepard Activists can afford to run a fleet of ships with no apparent income.

http://www.treehugger.com/20100219-sea-shepherd-attacks-whaler.jpg

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200802/r221875_874069.jpg

http://www.ecorazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/water_cannons.jpg

http://www.jeremysuttonhibbert.com/gallery/large/20011216-TISSUE.jpg

[Kludge]

Bob Barker's $5,000,000 donation probably helps. (There's even a ship named after him now. Imagine being hunted by The Bob Barker!)

[Koz]

I'm sure they get millions in donations. I watch the show once in a while. These guys are crazy and do some pretty dangerous stuff.

[robertwerden]

I agree with what the guys are doing to stop the whalers. The number of whales killed is tragic and clearly not for science. In all these years their is little left to research to justify killing whales. In my opinion the only people who should be allowed to hunt whales are the eskimos who rely on the meat for food to live and have access to little other food sources.

I hope the world courts ban whaling as it is a majestic animal that is no threat to people. I would even go so far as to say the eskimos should probably not even need to hunt them since cargo can reach their remote locations today easier than in the past.

[Agorism]

Maybe history channel gives them some $$

[teacherone]

I agree with what the guys are doing to stop the whalers. The number of whales killed is tragic and clearly not for science. In all these years their is little left to research to justify killing whales. In my opinion the only people who should be allowed to hunt whales are the eskimos who rely on the meat for food to live and have access to little other food sources.

I hope the world courts ban whaling as it is a majestic animal that is no threat to people. I would even go so far as to say the eskimos should probably not even need to hunt them since cargo can reach their remote locations today easier than in the past.


http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/shbokjlc.jpeg

[BamaAla]

I agree with what the guys are doing to stop the whalers. The number of whales killed is tragic and clearly not for science. In all these years their is little left to research to justify killing whales. In my opinion the only people who should be allowed to hunt whales are the eskimos who rely on the meat for food to live and have access to little other food sources.

I hope the world courts ban whaling as it is a majestic animal that is no threat to people. I would even go so far as to say the eskimos should probably not even need to hunt them since cargo can reach their remote locations today easier than in the past.

Damn.

[Anti Federalist]

Back in the 80s, I made a trip to the Norwegian consulate in NYC to attempt to get a berth on a Norwegian whaling vessel.

I was willing to take any position, all the way down to OS.

They turned me down.

Drag. I've worked and lived in a number of ways that are no longer possible, that have become prohibited in just in my lifetime, here in the waning days of freedom on planet earth. That was one I missed.

[specsaregood]

I just watched this series on netflix and after considering the sides I have decided that I firmly side with the japanese. And I lol'd my ass off when the japanese rammed the fiberglass pirate boat and cut it in half -- esp. after they were just mocking them seconds before.

I'd love to have a whale steak at some point in my life.

[Rothbardian Girl]

I personally find killing whales or any sort of wildlife at an unsustainable rate to be unacceptable. I would agree with robertwerden's post, except that it goes into all that world policing mumbo-jumbo, which isn't likely to solve the problem, just as the EPA is usually never effective at stopping or punishing people who pollute. Honestly, I am really not sure how to deal with environmental or conservation concerns such as this. I would be more than willing to bet that some of these whaling companies are giant multinational enterprises that have no compunctions about overfishing. The businesses that engage in this kind of practice make me sympathize with the environmentalists who don't necessarily put all their faith into the government to take care of very real problems like overfishing and pollution.

It is kind of dumb that the anti-whalers ruin the meat, though... it all gets wasted then. I'm not sure that not ruining the meat would stop the companies from overfishing anyway, but still, it doesn't exactly lend credence to their cause.

[Anti Federalist]

I just watched this series on netflix and after considering the sides I have decided that I firmly side with the japanese. And I lol'd my ass off when the japanese rammed the fiberglass pirate boat and cut it in half -- esp. after they were just mocking them seconds before.

I'd love to have a whale steak at some point in my life.

I'm wondering what sort of special legal status they (the anti whalers) have.

I know, as master of a similar sized vessel, that if I did the things they do, I'd have my documents revoked, I'd be personally sued, and more than likely criminally charged as well, regardless of where it happened on the sea.

[Vessol]

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fwNvIM2W9Aw/0.jpg

[specsaregood]

I personally find killing whales or any sort of wildlife at an unsustainable rate to be unacceptable.
They have a maximum quota of 1000 Minke whales per year. There are an estimated over 700k. I'd venture that is a more than sustainable rate.

[specsaregood]

I'm wondering what sort of special legal status they (the anti whalers) have.
I know, as master of a similar sized vessel, that if I did the things they do, I'd have my documents revoked, I'd be personally sued, and more than likely criminally charged as well, regardless of where it happened on the sea.

I don't think they have one. I think they get away with it, because the Australian govt has decreed the area they work in a "whale sanctuary"...independent of other countries. The japanese on the otherhand are obeying international law. One of these years the japanese are gonna get serious and just straight take the sea shepherds ships out.

And while I'm on the subject, if the sea shepherds were serious about it, they wouldn't be f*cking around with this tomboy foolery of shooting paint or stink balls, etc. They
d be planting explosives and sending the whaling vessels to the ocean floor.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't think they have one. I think they get away with it, because the Australian govt has decreed the area they work in a "whale sanctuary"...independent of other countries. The japanese on the otherhand are obeying international law. One of these years the japanese are gonna get serious and just straight take the sea shepherds ships out.

And while I'm on the subject, if the sea shepherds were serious about it, they wouldn't be f*cking around with this tomboy foolery of shooting paint or stink balls, etc. They
d be planting explosives and sending the whaling vessels to the ocean floor.

Or ramming them.

Wouldn't take but a couple of weeks at the shipyard to rig up a pretty fair battering/puncturing spike on the bow.

Start taking on water through a 10 inch hole below the waterline, that will get people's attention right quick.

I'm still flummoxed over who is sitting on their hands here, from a legal standpoint.

[Maximus]

I love the show. I sympathize with the anti-Whalers. They are just mind numbingly dumb sometimes.

I checked out their website to see what it would take to get involved. No pay, no health insurance. No thank you.

[sharpsteve2003]

Japan suspends its annual whale hunt.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/374546/february-16-2011/tip-wag---colbuffington-re-post--repo-games---whale-fail?xrs=share_copy

Japan has suspended its annual Antarctic whale hunt following protests from a campaign group.

Activists from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a US-based environmental group, have been chasing the Japanese fleet's mother ship.

An official at the country's fisheries agency said whaling had been halted "for now" because of safety concerns.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12477398

[Anti Federalist]

I love the show. I sympathize with the anti-Whalers. They are just mind numbingly dumb sometimes.

I checked out their website to see what it would take to get involved. No pay, no health insurance. No thank you.

Go catch crabs off Alaska.

You'll get just as cold, just as seasick and just as beat up, but at least you'll make a decent dollar.

[JK/SEA]

If you're really interested in gaining some info, you need to go to the International Whaling Commission web site. It appears the sanctuary status of the Antarctic has not been voted on or updated. Sea Shepherd is going under the presumption the Antarctic Sanctuary guidelines are still in effect, and giving them the legal high ground, and the right to police the area.

In answer to the spoiling of the Japanese harvest with buteric acid and/or preventing harpoon boats from transfering kills onto the process boat is a tactic to financially ruin the whalers. It appears the strategy worked.

Sea Shepherd is based in the San Juan Island area in Washington State. As a former activist for Sea Shepherd, i will be going there when the fleet comes in, and celebrating with them . I have been when able, been sending them money for diesel. Usually enough for 100 gal.

Congrats Capt. Paul Watson, and crew.

[justinc.1089]

I can't believe a forum of libertarians is missing the obvious significance behind this...


which is working more effectively right now to prevent overfishing of whales, the government, or the free market making lots of money off of a show about preventing whaling???


These activists used to only have 1 boat when this show began, and now after being on tv they have 3 although one got smashed in half lol. Obviously their funds have dramatically increased thanks to the show Whale Wars.

The free market is NOT destroying whales. The Japanese government is destroying whales by saying its ok to kill 1000 whales.

The free market is SAVING whales by creating a profit incentive to go protect the whales!

Do you guys realize the implications of this show??? Its proving free market capitalism saves the environment while government socialist central planning destroys the environment!



Edit:

Now about the show. I'm a fan of it, although I haven't watched it in quite awhile. I thought it may have been cancelled or something so I'm glad to hear its still on. I do find it hilarious usually, however.

As for the people saying if the activists were serious they would sink the boats, I guess you aren't serious about protecting liberty either since you're not either running for office or blowing up government offices near you. Or at least refusing to pay taxes or something. Get my point? Those people are doing what they can just like us.

They actually rammed a whaling ship one year and some of them ended up in jail over it as soon as they got back. There were serious legal consequences from them ramming a ship. There's only so much they can do really. I mean a lot of them do end up in jail for different reasons every year or two.

[Mini-Me]

I'm happy about the numbers in specsaregood's post: With an estimated 700,000 whales, 1,000 a year appears perfectly sustainable.

I'm still with Rothbardian Girl, Maximus, and JK/SEA though, in that I have sympathy for Sea Shepherd and the anti-whalers. I have a soft spot for any animal smart enough to recognize its own reflection in a mirror. ;) robertwerden, however...takes it, uh...a bit too far. :p

Also, justinc.1089 is dead-on about the significance of this show. :D

[Kregisen]

I've seen a few episodes of the show, but really it's just a ship of whiny pussies lol. "Oh my god they sprayed us with water cannons".

They can't really do much legally it seems, so every episode is exactly the same. Get in the small boats, throw acid on the deck, get sprayed with water, return to mothership, talk about how you'll do the same thing tomorrow, end credits.

It's still interesting to watch late at night I guess...

[JK/SEA]

I've seen a few episodes of the show, but really it's just a ship of whiny pussies lol. "Oh my god they sprayed us with water cannons".

They can't really do much legally it seems, so every episode is exactly the same. Get in the small boats, throw acid on the deck, get sprayed with water, return to mothership, talk about how you'll do the same thing tomorrow, end credits.

It's still interesting to watch late at night I guess...

Sea Shepherd has a strategy...and it worked. Not sure what you're saying here. Pussies?...hardly. that water is lethal, the Japanese were violent. They stopped the Japanese without guns, bombs, or killing any whalers. Excellent tactics and all done on the moral high ground.

[justinc.1089]

I'm happy about the numbers in specsaregood's post: With an estimated 700,000 whales, 1,000 a year appears perfectly sustainable.

I'm still with Rothbardian Girl, Maximus, and JK/SEA though, in that I have sympathy for Sea Shepherd and the anti-whalers. I have a soft spot for any animal smart enough to recognize its own reflection in a mirror. ;) robertwerden, however...takes it, uh...a bit too far. :p

Also, justinc.1089 is dead-on about the significance of this show. :D

Well the numbers would be a lot higher if it wasn't for activists like those people, in my opinion. I think we can easily accidently push some slower-reproducing species near to extinction, such as some kinds of whales, if we're not careful.

I wouldn't agree with totally outlawing whaling IF it really is at a sustainable level, but I still support activists strongly discouraging whaling because its so repulsive to me. I look at it the same as marijuana. I don't smoke and know its terrible for people, but I don't support outlawing it. I still do support people discouraging kids strongly from smoking though. Its a sad aspect of humanity in my opinion, but you're not free unless you're free to make both right and wrong choices.

[Anti Federalist]

They actually rammed a whaling ship one year and some of them ended up in jail over it as soon as they got back. There were serious legal consequences from them ramming a ship. There's only so much they can do really. I mean a lot of them do end up in jail for different reasons every year or two.

The deliberate close quarter maneuvering and collisions are a serious breach of the "rules of the road" and would open up any other vessel's master to serious legal, civil and regulatory consequences.

And is destruction of property a just and moral way in which to make your point?

[JK/SEA]

The deliberate close quarter maneuvering and collisions are a serious breach of the "rules of the road" and would open up any other vessel's master to serious legal, civil and regulatory consequences.

And is destruction of property a just and moral way in which to make your point?

I don't know. Ask the British about all that tea that was dumped in Boston Harbor.

My understanding is that in the southern ocean, especially the antarctic, the rules don't apply. Sea Shepherd managed to get a crew member onboard the harpoon boat that sank one of the Shepherds boat to serve an arrest warrant on the captain for that deed.

[justinc.1089]

The deliberate close quarter maneuvering and collisions are a serious breach of the "rules of the road" and would open up any other vessel's master to serious legal, civil and regulatory consequences.

And is destruction of property a just and moral way in which to make your point?

I didn't say they should have. I would say they shouldn't. It wasn't clear in the show if they did it intentionally or not, however. The show portrayed it as being an accident caused by both sides, but the Japanese said in court it was intentional, and a few people went to jail over it I think.

I was just pointing out the things they do are serious, not trivial and of no consequence because someone said they don't really do anything, and that they should sink the whaling ships if they're serious. (Which I don't agree with anyway).

[Anti Federalist]

I don't know. Ask the British about all that tea that was dumped in Boston Harbor.

My understanding is that in the southern ocean, especially the antarctic, the rules don't apply. Sea Shepherd managed to get a crew member onboard the harpoon boat that sank one of the Shepherds boat to serve an arrest warrant on the captain for that deed.

LoL, hey, don't look to hang me, I'll be the first to admit that there is a time and place for the tar and feathers or a well placed Molotav.

I'm just trying to flesh out some answers, and see if the poster I was responding to is a follower of the NAP.

And I've been around the world by sea, more than once.

There is nothing in the rules that indicate that in certain areas of the ocean, these rules do not apply.

These vessels are flagged in nations that are signatories to the IMO treaty, they are also classification society certified as well.

All that means is the same rules apply to them that apply to me, anywhere in the world, and, like I said, if I tried a stunt like that, I'd go to jail the second I hit the dock.

So somebody, somewhere, is "wink wink, nudge nudging" on the rules.

I'd like to know who.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

That whale is clean cut, looks like they are preparing sushi.

I find those environmentalists obnoxious. I'm surprised the Japanese don't just shoot them.

[Anti Federalist]

If you're really interested in gaining some info, you need to go to the International Whaling Commission web site. It appears the sanctuary status of the Antarctic has not been voted on or updated. Sea Shepherd is going under the presumption the Antarctic Sanctuary guidelines are still in effect, and giving them the legal high ground, and the right to police the area.

Then they would have the right of arrest I presume.


In answer to the spoiling of the Japanese harvest with buteric acid and/or preventing harpoon boats from transfering kills onto the process boat is a tactic to financially ruin the whalers. It appears the strategy worked.

I missed this before, so then, just to be clear, destruction of property and imposing financial ruin on somebody is OK in some circumstances.

[JK/SEA]

That whale is clean cut, looks like they are preparing sushi.

I find those environmentalists obnoxious. I'm surprised the Japanese don't just shoot them.

Yeah, i wish they would. This tactic would end whaling forever. By everyone.

[Mini-Me]

Then they would have the right of arrest I presume.



I missed this before, so then, just to be clear, destruction of property and imposing financial ruin on somebody is OK in some circumstances.

I'm not sure. However, I do know one thing: If I were to say yes, I would say so only for vigilantes who do it because they believe so strongly in it that they're willing to act at their own risk, knowing they may be tried by a jury of their peers. I believe that if people are willing to break the law as rogue individuals and face the potential consequences of that, it's a hell of a lot more honorable than some appointed agent of the state being given a priori carte blanche to act with immunity, impunity, and no accountability.

That's basically how I feel about capital punishment:
Do some people deserve to die? Absolutely, but I find it disgusting for agents of the state to execute someone with no fear or risk, knowing they can also spread the deed amongst each other so nobody feels culpable...and if it turns out they murdered an innocent person after all, "Whoops, our bad," isn't good enough for me. There should be another murder trial.

The same goes for torture: I find it barbaric, but what if - what IF - someone really knows the location of a nuclear bomb they set, which is about to explode in ten minutes? In that case, I can sympathize with a rogue CIA guy doing anything and everything he can to get the information out of him (even if he's smart enough to know torture doesn't really work)...but only if he's acting alone, as an individual, and as a rogue, knowing full well he will face accountability for his actions in front of a jury of his peers. If someone thinks it's really that damn important that they do it, they should be willing to put their own ass, life, and job on the line and face full judgment for it...and if it was really so damn important, then maybe, just maybe, the jury will let them off.

Basically, in rare circumstances, the initiation of violence and destruction might actually be warranted...but institutionalizing it is just BEGGING for psychopaths to seek positions of immunity from which they can abuse their power.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not sure. However, I do know one thing: If I were to say yes, I would say so only for vigilantes who do it because they believe so strongly in it that they're willing to act at their own risk, knowing they may be tried by a jury of their peers. I believe that if people are willing to break the law as rogue individuals and face the potential consequences of that, it's a hell of a lot more honorable than some appointed agent of the state being given a priori carte blanche to act with immunity, impunity, and no accountability.

John Brown's actions are more noble and justified than your average cop's actions?

I agree.

ETA - this thread has gone in a fun direction.

[JK/SEA]

Then they would have the right of arrest I presume.

They tried. As i said, a crew member managed to get onboard the vessel that sank that high speed boat, and served the Captain an arrest warrant. Of course this member was taken to Japan and charged, but released after some jail time.



I missed this before, so then, just to be clear, destruction of property and imposing financial ruin on somebody is OK in some circumstances.

In this case...my opinion is in the affirmative. Why not?.....fuck those bastards.

[Mini-Me]

John Brown's actions are more noble and justified than your average cop's actions?

I agree.

ETA - this thread has gone in a fun direction.

If you think that was fun, read my edit. ;)

[Anti Federalist]

In this case...my opinion is in the affirmative. Why not?.....fuck those bastards.

An interesting commentary on violence and how it works, people and how they work, developed in this exchange.

You and I, not knowing each other, can agree on liberty, we've posted back and forth here for years now, and AFAIK are in pretty general agreement on things.

Yet, we both have backgrounds where we both could have conceivably been placed in a position to kill each other, quite literally, over a whale.

Strange, how that works, isn't it?

[Mini-Me]

An interesting commentary on violence and how it works, people and how they work, developed in this thread.

You and I, not knowing each other, can agree on liberty, we've posted back and forth here for years now, and AFAIK are in pretty general agreement on things.

Yet, we both have backgrounds where we both could have conceivably been placed in a position to kill each other, quite literally, over a whale.

Strange, how that works, isn't it?

Killing each other over the whale would be escalating the situation a bit...far, don't you think? ;) If we apply castle doctrine to ships, it might legally allow you to kill the intruder sabotaging your wares, and that's necessary to prevent second-guessing of people who actually felt endangered and that lethal force was necessary. However, the moral question remains, "Would you really take it that far and escalate the situation so high, when you know it's really not that serious yet? Or would you just kick his ass, Seabass? (And/or press charges later. :p)"

It's the difference between doing what you have to and using your knowledge of the law's precise boundaries as an excuse to use as much violence as you can get away with.

[Anti Federalist]

If you think that was fun, read my edit. ;)

This was great:


Basically, in rare circumstances, the initiation of violence and destruction might actually be warranted...but institutionalizing it is just BEGGING for psychopaths to seek positions of immunity from which they can abuse their power

My personal stance is that only defensive force is ever justified.

But, the definition of defense and who was the first aggressor, can get really really really murky, really quick.

[justinc.1089]

You guys need to get on Whale Wars!!!!!!

I think you guys could REALLY take that show up to the next level! They should make each of you commadors of each of the fleets, and upgrade the fleets to battleships!!!!!

[Mini-Me]

This was great:



My personal stance is that only defensive force is ever justified.

But, the definition of defense and who was the first aggressor, can get really really really murky, really quick.

That's a good point, and when I stop and reflect, I actually agree that this is where the difference lies. In both of my hypothetical examples, the "victim" was actually the initiator, and the actions against him were proportional to his crime (and as such, potentially just). Executing an actual murderer would be justice to the murderer (though not to the victim), if not self-defense, and torturing the nuke-planter would actually be self-defense (but again, institutionalizing it practically guarantees it will almost never be self-defense, but instead it will be atrocious cruelty...and even when it is self-defense, it will probably be over the line). However, as you said, it's not always so apparent. IMO, that's what juries are for. :)

[Anti Federalist]

Killing each other over the whale would be escalating the situation a bit...far, don't you think? ;)

Well sure, it's wildly hypothetical and I'm not even saying that personal violence against each other would be the outcome.

But stranger things have happened.

I made it a point to apply for work on a Norwegian whaler.

JK/SEA has made it clear he supports the Sea Shepard organization, and I'm assuming he has seafaring background like me.

So, here we are, out in the middle of the ocean somewhere. He is feels justified in his position and I in mine. I'm not leaving a good harvest, fuck those green assholes. He's not leaving a bunch of bloodthirsty bastards alone to continue killing an endangered animal, fuck those bloody assholes.

He launches his boats and I hang over the side dousing him with the fire hoses, and in the middle of all get to fighting and tugging and both go overboard and drown.

Or maybe end up fighting it out with dirks on the deck.

When you unleash the whoop ass between two people committed to their cause, there's no telling what will happen next...

Upon further reflection, that is why I am anti war, because there usually is no good outcome when that whoop ass gets opened up.

I can defend myself and I carry arms, but I will do everything in my power to not ever have to use them.

[Mini-Me]

Well sure, it's wildly hypothetical and I'm not even saying that personal violence against each other would be the outcome.

But stranger things have happened.

I made it a point to apply for work on a Norwegian whaler.

JK/SEA has made it clear he supports the Sea Shepard organization, and I'm assuming he has seafaring background like me.

So, here we are, out in the middle of the ocean somewhere. He is feels justified in his position and I in mine. I'm not leaving a good harvest, fuck those green assholes. He's not leaving a bunch of bloodthirsty bastards alone to continue killing an endangered animal, fuck those bloody assholes.

He launches his boats and I hang over the side dousing him with the fire hoses, and in the middle of all get to fighting and tugging and both go overboard and drown.

Or maybe end up fighting it out with dirks on the deck.

When you unleash the whoop ass between two people committed to their cause, there's no telling what will happen next.

Yup, that's pretty messy. You know, there are lots of video game situations that are messy like that: Let's say you're Mario, and you're busting into Koopa's castle to save the princess. Now all of his goomba and turtle body guards are just throwing themselves at you in hoards to defend their workplace, and you're squashing them like grapes and kicking them into the lava. The question is...did they know they were working for the bad guy, or did the clockpunch villains think they were just hired help saving Bowser from a psychotic plumber after his blood? ;)

Seriously though, it's pretty ubiquitous. It happens all the time during war. My overly simple litmus test is asking, "Am I fighting on my home turf? If so, I'm probably one of the good guys. If not, I'm probably one of the bad guys." That's not always the case though; for instance, imagine a German soldier fighting IN Germany during World War II, trying to keep the "aggressors" out. He's not exactly a good guy, but not exactly a bad guy, just an idiot. (Whenever I think about this issue, I always think of World War I and the Christmas truce. I just read your comment about being anti-war, and I wholeheartedly agree.)

[justinc.1089]

If you're only killing a reasonable number of whales, while kind of unnecessary and repugnant, it is alright. So it is wrong to try to ruin your whale meat because that's destroying your property, like stealing the whale meat.

But if you're killing too many its not alright. I don't believe anyone has a natural human right to push a species to the verge of extinction, so I disagree with overfishing and other things that can kill too many animals of the same species. So in that case, destroying your whale meat would be alright because its not actually your property since you don't have a right to every single whale in the ocean.

It would be nice if it was that simple of course. Reality brings up questions like how many whales can be killed, how many should be alive in the ocean, and so on.

[Anti Federalist]

Yup, that's pretty messy. You know, there are lots of video game situations that are messy like that: Let's say you're Mario, and you're busting into Koopa's castle to save the princess. Now all of his goomba and turtle body guards are just throwing themselves at you in hoards to defend their workplace, and you're squashing them like grapes and kicking them into the lava. The question is...did they know they were working for the bad guy, or did the clockpunch villains think they were just hired help saving Bowser from a psychotic plumber after his blood?

Which is why I support OathKeepers.

That way the turtle body guards will keep a grounded idea of which side they are working for.

On that note, good night all, that was enjoyable, thanks for participating.

[Anti Federalist]

If you're only killing a reasonable number of whales, while kind of unnecessary and repugnant, it is alright. So it is wrong to try to ruin your whale meat because that's destroying your property, like stealing the whale meat.

But if you're killing too many its not alright. I don't believe anyone has a natural human right to push a species to the verge of extinction, so I disagree with overfishing and other things that can kill too many animals of the same species. So in that case, destroying your whale meat would be alright because its not actually your property since you don't have a right to every single whale in the ocean.

It would be nice if it was that simple of course. Reality brings up questions like how many whales can be killed, how many should be alive in the ocean, and so on.

If that is the case, then you have to agree on some level of global governance, regulation and police to set, monitor and enforce those limits.

[Mini-Me]

If you're only killing a reasonable number of whales, while kind of unnecessary and repugnant, it is alright. So it is wrong to try to ruin your whale meat because that's destroying your property, like stealing the whale meat.

But if you're killing too many its not alright. I don't believe anyone has a natural human right to push a species to the verge of extinction, so I disagree with overfishing and other things that can kill too many animals of the same species. So in that case, destroying your whale meat would be alright because its not actually your property since you don't have a right to every single whale in the ocean.

It would be nice if it was that simple of course. Reality brings up questions like how many whales can be killed, how many should be alive in the ocean, and so on.

So what you're saying is that when it comes to whales, you're a collectivist? The individual whales mean nothing, but the survival of the group does? ;) (Just ribbing, but it's something to consider. :p)

AF has a good point though: If the free market or vigilantes were unable to stop this (which this incident disproves, but hypothetically speaking), what lengths are you willing to go to, to prevent it? For instance, would it be worth setting up a tyrannical one-world government? I'm sure you recognize the danger, but that's really the thing. Some people are just so tunnel-visioned that they don't care how global power is structured (or how dangerous centralization is), as long as they have the power to have their way on a pet issue. It's how people are convinced to accept gigantic government in the first place.

Nearly everyone probably has a pet issue where they can see the usefulness of government and have difficulties finding alternatives. The difference is, some people are willing to let it go if it means having liberty...and some people are not, and end up supporting however big of a government they need to, to ensure they get their way on their issue. Big government is built one power at a time. A perfect world is impossible, and being able to let it go can basically mean the difference between liberty and tyranny.


Which is why I support OathKeepers.

That way the turtle body guards will keep a grounded idea of which side they are working for.

On that note, good night all, that was enjoyable, thanks for participating.

Night!

[WorldonaString]

I've seen a few episodes and have a buddy who is a big fan. This thread made for a great read...lots of interesting points made throughout. I was gonna pss this thread onto my buddy, buttttt as informative as this thread has been, I'm not so sure this is the thread that will convert him to voting for Ron Paul. haha

[JK/SEA]

As an aside here, i would like to address AF on his assuming: 1. that i am a seasoned seafarer. No, i am not BUT i have a 20 foot Seaswirl that i use to salmon and crab fish with in Puget Sound. It does take a little knowledge to navigate the sound, and one should have depth finders and a marine band radio. Weather and wind on the sound can bite you in the ass if you're not prepared. 2. I WOULD NEVER EVER KILL or hurt ANOTHER HUMAN BEING intentionally OVER A WHALE..NEVER. Sea Shepherd made it their number one priority to refrain from hurting OR killing a whaler. These people feel whales are sentient beings...truly, and are very passionate in that belief, as am i, although i'm not active in the movement any longer, i still feel the same.

My mom, now gone, used to wear a T-shirt that said...''.everyone has to believe in something... AND i believe i'll have another bloody mary.''..i know..not relevant to this discussion, but i thought a little levity was in order, as i love all you guys in here, and don't want the ugly face of animosity to set in. With that, i leave this thread...thanks for the talk guys...... RON PAUL 2012...DAMMIT!

[specsaregood]

The free market is NOT destroying whales. The Japanese government is destroying whales by saying its ok to kill 1000 whales.

The free market is SAVING whales by creating a profit incentive to go protect the whales!

Do you guys realize the implications of this show??? Its proving free market capitalism saves the environment while government socialist central planning destroys the environment!

I wish that was true and could be said, but it simply isn't. The only reason it worked is that there is only a single country that does the whaling down there and most other countries don't allow whaling or whale products to be imported/sold. Also, that single japanese fleet obeyed laws and international agreements, if they didn't they would have blown the sea shepherds out of the water. So simply: the whalers were hindered by govt and the anti-whalers ignored all that.

[Maximus]

Some people posted about rules of the oceans and stuff. I'm pretty sure (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Sea Shepherd fleet sails under the flag of Denmark, which has given them some rights, rather than just being pirates out there.

[JK/SEA]

I wish that was true and could be said, but it simply isn't. The only reason it worked is that there is only a single country that does the whaling down there and most other countries don't allow whaling or whale products to be imported/sold. Also, that single japanese fleet obeyed laws and international agreements, if they didn't they would have blown the sea shepherds out of the water. So simply: the whalers were hindered by govt and the anti-whalers ignored all that.

Sigh...one last time on this...

This is a Whale sanctuary and the Japanese 'created' their own loophole by stating the whaling they perform is for...Research...everyone but the Japanese whalers know this is bullshit, but thats what it is...now i read that this whale meat they get sits rotting. The idea of selling this meat apparently is being met with disdain by the citizens of Japan, thereby making this 'phony' free market idea a bad idea...

[specsaregood]

Sigh...one last time on this...

This is a Whale sanctuary and the Japanese 'created' their own loophole by stating the whaling they perform is for...Research...everyone but the Japanese whalers know this is bullshit, but thats what it is...now i read that this whale meat they get sits rotting. The idea of selling this meat apparently is being met with disdain by the citizens of Japan, thereby making this 'phony' free market idea a bad idea...

So you are agreeing with me yes? It wasn't killed off by the free market.

[specsaregood]

With an estimated 700,000 whales, 1,000 a year appears perfectly sustainable.

I didn't get impression it was about sustainability, but rather about not allowing people to eat whale. These people won't be happy until we are all eating nothing but tofu and soylent green.

[JK/SEA]

So you are agreeing with me yes? It wasn't killed off by the free market.

Putting it differently, Sea Shepherd forced the issue for sure. Hard to say with certainty if the Shepherds were a factor. Would the market dry up sooner or later?...the young people of Japan do not feel the same way as the elders do concerning whales, and dolphin meat. The culture is changing. It appears Sea Shepherd sped up the process by their activism, and negative publicity directed at Japan in regards to this issue. Just my take on it.