Activist boat 'sliced in two' by Japanese whalers

[adam_grif]

It's their government employers who ought to be held responsible, not the whalers. Is this even up for dispute? They're just fishermen doing the job they're paid to do. They're not the ones making the decisions, they're the one carrying decisions out. It's like blaming an individual soldier for killing someone that their government gave them a direct order to kill. The whalers don't deserve to be punished for doing their jobs.

[Formless]

Yes, but no one complains when you shoot at soldiers. If no one with legitimate authority is going to go after the employers, and if you accept the notion that what they are doing is wrong (as Wong and the Sea Sheppards obviously believe) then what are you supposed to do? Just stand by and let an atrocity happen because you were too afraid of hurting the poor saps who actually do the dirty work? They should have known better then to become whalers in the first place.

[Chardok]

This whole tirade smacks of the "Contractors on the Death Star" argument from Clerks. (Clerks 2?)

[adam_grif]

Should have known better than to be whalers?

Whaling has a very long history of tradition in Japan. It's not the same there as it is here, where everybody is opposed to doing it. It's a popular dish. It'd be like if foreigners started forcing us to sign treaties banning the use of cows as food, us finding a loophole that allows it to continue, then civilians from the foreign country suddenly start performing sabotage on the industry and demanding that cow farmers be punished for this.

If people have issues with it, and they are powerless to persuade the government to stop, that does not give them permission to start actively sabotaging it. It's been established in this thread that they're not endangering any species of whale by doing it, their harvests are extremely conservative of late. But the Sea Shepards demanding that the thing stop completely is just them trying to force their worldview onto a culture that doesn't share it.

[Formless]

Yes, they should have known better than to be whalers. I don't give a damn if it is a cultural tradition. Slavery was a cultural tradition in this society, but only the morally bankrupt would defend it on those grounds.

Also, comparing whaling to the slaughter of cattle is laughable. Cattle are a domestic species, so there is no danger of them going extinct. Whaling on the other hand once threatened to do exactly that once upon a time. What makes you think that can't happen again?

Oh, and it bears mentioning, but whales are much smarter than cattle. You could actually make the argument that the suffering of whales actually matters. Cattle, not so much.

[Axis Kast]

Yes, but no one complains when you shoot at soldiers. If no one with legitimate authority is going to go after the employers, and if you accept the notion that what they are doing is wrong (as Wong and the Sea Sheppards obviously believe) then what are you supposed to do? Just stand by and let an atrocity happen because you were too afraid of hurting the poor saps who actually do the dirty work? They should have known better then to become whalers in the first place.

By that standard, you have endorsed chaos, for each man can claim that he is, in fact, the ultimate legitimate authority, and everybody else ought to have "known better" than to do what is "wrong."

If I fear that somebody is breaking the law, I notify the police. I do not proceed to pursue the alleged law-breakers and engage in assault and vandalism.

Also, comparing whaling to the slaughter of cattle is laughable. Cattle are a domestic species, so there is no danger of them going extinct. Whaling on the other hand once threatened to do exactly that once upon a time. What makes you think that can't happen again?

\

Are the whales which are hunted by the Japanese fleet in danger of extinction? If not, you are engaging in a slippery slope fallacy -- particularly because the rest of the world has effectively given up whaling.

[adam_grif]

The suffering of cattle doesn't matter? Now who's taking a morally reprehensible position man. Whales are only in danger if you over-fish them. My guess is with all that science research the Japanese are doing, they'll be world experts on keeping the whaling down to a sustainable level

This argument is boiling down to "is it ok for us to force our morals on people from other cultures"? Why is the suffering of moderately intelligent creatures (whales) more important than the suffering of less intelligent but still quite intelligent creatures (cows)? Why is it ok to kill octopus' for food? They're possibly the single most intelligent invertebrates ever to exist.

[Formless]

Yes, but no one complains when you shoot at soldiers. If no one with legitimate authority is going to go after the employers, and if you accept the notion that what they are doing is wrong (as Wong and the Sea Sheppards obviously believe) then what are you supposed to do? Just stand by and let an atrocity happen because you were too afraid of hurting the poor saps who actually do the dirty work? They should have known better then to become whalers in the first place.

By that standard, you have endorsed chaos, for each man can claim that he is, in fact, the ultimate legitimate authority, and everybody else ought to have "known better" than to do what is "wrong."

If I fear that somebody is breaking the law, I notify the police. I do not proceed to pursue the alleged law-breakers and engage in assault and vandalism.

And what do you do when the police tell you to go fuck yourself? Or if they are the one's committing the crimes? Or if there is in fact NO police I can call? I'm not advocating anarchy and chaos, you moron, I'm saying that in an anarchy like international water (or in war) the only person you can rely upon to do what is right is yourself. You guys on the other hand are advocating apathy.

Also, comparing whaling to the slaughter of cattle is laughable. Cattle are a domestic species, so there is no danger of them going extinct. Whaling on the other hand once threatened to do exactly that once upon a time. What makes you think that can't happen again?

Are the whales which are hunted by the Japanese fleet in danger of extinction? If not, you are engaging in a slippery slope fallacy -- particularly because the rest of the world has effectively given up whaling.

Humanity has proven that it is quite capable of fishing a species to the brink of extinction in a very short time frame with modern industrial fishing methods. I want evidence that the whaling the Japanese are conducting is ion fact sustainable. And no, I don't trust the Japanese when they claim it is-- the words "conflict of interest" come to mind.

[Axis Kast]

And what do you do when the police tell you to go fuck yourself? Or if they are the one's committing the crimes? Or if there is in fact NO police I can call? I'm not advocating anarchy and chaos, you moron, I'm saying that in an anarchy like international water (or in war) the only person you can rely upon to do what is right is yourself. You guys on the other hand are advocating apathy.

States are in anarchy. People are not. Entering international waters does not lift one from a state of peace and place them suddenly in a state of war.

I am, in fact, advocating a course of action which does not end in the exchange of acid-filled projectiles or the playing of 'chicken' with large moving objects. I don't consider whaling equivalent to the murder or harm of human beings.

Humanity has proven that it is quite capable of fishing a species to the brink of extinction in a very short time frame with modern industrial fishing methods. I want evidence that the whaling the Japanese are conducting is ion fact sustainable. And no, I don't trust the Japanese when they claim it is-- the words "conflict of interest" come to mind.

Humanity has also proven capable of slaughtering animals as efficiently.

A quick look at Wikipedia -- I'm no whaling expert myself -- indicates that the Japanese killed something like .2% of the total number of minke whaltes, according to the International Whaling Commission's estimates of the minke whale population.

[Formless]

The suffering of cattle doesn't matter? Now who's taking a morally reprehensible position man.

Not as much as the suffering of whales. Obviously we don't object as much to the suffering of other animals that aren't as intelligent as ourselves, but at what point do we draw the line and say "this is intelligent enough to matter"?

Note that this is more of a devils advocate argument than anything else.

Whales are only in danger if you over-fish them. My guess is with all that science research the Japanese are doing, they'll be world experts on keeping the whaling down to a sustainable level

Except that it has already been shown that there is precious little science that can be done with their methods. I don't trust that they are doing this in a sustainable manner. I would like to see some reliable evidence that they are.

This argument is boiling down to "is it ok for us to force our morals on people from other cultures"?

We don't have much choice. Morals may have a subjective quality, but if we wish to be consistent, that is exactly what we must do. It may be true that morals are relative, but its pointless to point that out. Its also true that man needs some kind of morality (or at least ethics, for those people who consider them to be different) to have stable societies. At some point, our societies are going to clash, and sooner or later we're going to have to reconcile them whether we like it or not.

Why is the suffering of moderately intelligent creatures (whales) more important than the suffering of less intelligent but still quite intelligent creatures (cows)? Why is it ok to kill octopus' for food? They're possibly the single most intelligent invertebrates ever to exist.

Again, this is more of a devils advocate argument, but many people's ethics rest on the assumption that intelligent creatures inherently deserve to be treated humanely. Maybe we shouldn't eat octopus. Consider: we don't eat great apes, and we look down on those that do. Why is that?

[Formless]

And what do you do when the police tell you to go fuck yourself? Or if they are the one's committing the crimes? Or if there is in fact NO police I can call? I'm not advocating anarchy and chaos, you moron, I'm saying that in an anarchy like international water (or in war) the only person you can rely upon to do what is right is yourself. You guys on the other hand are advocating apathy.

States are in anarchy. People are not. Entering international waters does not lift one from a state of peace and place them suddenly in a state of war.

But it does remove you from the protections of any state.

I am, in fact, advocating a course of action which does not end in the exchange of acid-filled projectiles or the playing of 'chicken' with large moving objects. I don't consider whaling equivalent to the murder or harm of human beings.

And what course of action is that? Remember, at this point in time neither Japan nor Australia is willing to do anything about the problem. How do you propose to change that?

A quick look at Wikipedia -- I'm no whaling expert myself -- indicates that the Japanese killed something like .2% of the total number of minke whaltes, according to the International Whaling Commission's estimates of the minke whale population.

Very well. They aren't in danger of making the minks go away any time soon. However, that does come back to a point I made earlier: if they can't actually use that meat, and they aren't actually doing much in the way of research, then can it not still be claimed that the practice is wasteful?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Popular? it's not even eaten outside of students who have no choice. Now if you were talking the Inuit, the Norwegens, or others you could claim it's part of their culture. No, Japan picked that habit up later, when food and other resouces were scarce.

[mr friendly guy]

Just one point I want to query. People have stated that Sea Shepherd doesn't make a diffence to whaling. IIRC last year when they harassed the Japanese whalers didn't Japan admit it failed to reach its quota. Now given that they plan to do this every year, eventually it will reduce the number of whales caught and hence help them replenish their numbers.

[Axis Kast]

But it does remove you from the protections of any state.

Not so. If I am set upon in international waters, the likelihood of rescue is low, but authorities would still respond, if available. Attempts are made to punish piracy, for instance.

And what course of action is that? Remember, at this point in time neither Japan nor Australia is willing to do anything about the problem. How do you propose to change that?

Peaceful means. I am not convinced of that violence is suitable in this instance. Even if you were to argue that the existence of a species would justify violence, you yourself admit that the Japanese whalers do not threaten then minke whale population.

Also, the Sea Shepherd would be out there even if Japan were not blatantly violating the spirit of the law. Their interest is in forcing a value on others. You happy to agree with that value, but is it worth blood?

[Sea Skimmer]

And what do you do when the police tell you to go fuck yourself? Or if they are the one's committing the crimes? Or if there is in fact NO police I can call? I'm not advocating anarchy and chaos, you moron, I'm saying that in an anarchy like international water (or in war) the only person you can rely upon to do what is right is yourself. You guys on the other hand are advocating apathy.

Wow yeah. If war is lawless anarchy, then please explain how the concept of war crimes can exist to me. Likewise if international waters are anarchy, then why do UN conventions on the laws of the seas exist, and why does the IRCW, the text of which is the entire issue of this dispute exist?

In fact laws cover war and they cover international waters and whaling. If Japan didn’t want to be a part of them, then they could quite freely withdrawal from the convention and deliberately harvest whales to extinction and the rest of the world would have no legal recourse against them whatsoever. But that isn’t the case.

What you support is vigilantism at best, and that is a very dangerous concept. No one does anything about it because Sea Sheppard is quite ineffective at its self proclaimed job, and no one really gives a fuck in general.

Humanity has proven that it is quite capable of fishing a species to the brink of extinction in a very short time frame with modern industrial fishing methods. I want evidence that the whaling the Japanese are conducting is ion fact sustainable. And no, I don't trust the Japanese when they claim it is-- the words "conflict of interest" come to mind.

Minke whales number a minimal of 300,000, but many estimates are around 750,000. Japan harvests about 1,000 a year. The things breed once every two years…and even if we assume only 1/3rd of the female population is capable of breeding that would still mean at least 25,000 new whales born a year and possibly several times that. Sounds sustainable to me even if 23 out of 25 whales died before breeding and one of the remaining two was eaten. Most whale species nearly went extinct because we used whale oil and other whale products for mass industrial purposes, not because people wanted to eat a thousand of them a year.

[Formless]

Wow yeah. If war is lawless anarchy, then please explain how the concept of war crimes can exist to me. Likewise if international waters are anarchy, then why do UN conventions on the laws of the seas exist, and why does the IRCW, the text of which is the entire issue of this dispute exist?

But it does remove you from the protections of any state.

Not so. If I am set upon in international waters, the likelihood of rescue is low, but authorities would still respond, if available. Attempts are made to punish piracy, for instance.

Fine, I'll concede that point. Its not like its important overall-- after all, adam_grif was originally trying to prove that we can't hold the individual whalers who actually work on those ships responsible for the actions of the entire whaling outfit by comparing them to soldiers, when in fact we do hold individual soldiers accountable when they commit war crimes. So I hope you can see why I was unimpressed by that analogy.

And what course of action is that? Remember, at this point in time neither Japan nor Australia is willing to do anything about the problem. How do you propose to change that?

Peaceful means. I am not convinced of that violence is suitable in this instance. Even if you were to argue that the existence of a species would justify violence, you yourself admit that the Japanese whalers do not threaten then minke whale population.

Which means are those? I grew up with a peace protester in my family, I have seen first hand how effective the traditional methods of protest are. I.E. not very.

Also, the Sea Shepherd would be out there even if Japan were not blatantly violating the spirit of the law. Their interest is in forcing a value on others. You happy to agree with that value, but is it worth blood?

Maybe or maybe not. But until someone can come up with a more effective way of slowing whaling that is peaceful, I can't condemn them either. At least they are out there trying to do something rather than sitting on their asses in apathy.

[Archaic`]

Looks like Sea Shepherd are going to get an all new ship to replace the one they lost. They've certainly come out on top here from a financial and public relations perspective.

Ady Gil promises to rebuild Sea Shepherd's boat

Ady Gil promises to rebuild Sea Shepherd's boat
By Ben Packham and Alison Rehn From: Herald Sun January 09, 2010 8:52am 40 comments

Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research says this photo proves the Ady Gil is still afloat and leaking fuel.

Ady Gil "will raise money" for new boat
Japanese scared of boat, says Watson
Sea Shepherd lodges piracy charge
SEA Shepherd has vowed to build a new Ady Gil by December after the wrecked protest boat sank off Antarctica.

And California animal lover Ady Gil, after whom it was named, told the Herald Sun he'd raise the money to pay for the rebuilding.

Mr Gil said he was saddened by the loss of the sleek trimaran, holed in a collision with a Japanese whaler.

"My little boat was just sitting there," he said from the US.

"It wasn't a collision - it was like running a cement truck into a motorcycle that was parked."

The Australian Government yesterday urged Japan to conduct its own investigation into the collision between the Ady Gil and the Shonan Maru No. 2.

Japan's Government said it was conducting "appropriate inquiries" to discover how the collision occurred, but accused Sea Shepherd protesters of deliberately risking lives.

"The repeated and reckless disruptive actions by the Sea Shepherd against Japanese vessels are totally inexcusable, as they place the lives of crew in extreme danger," Japan's ambassador to Australia, Taka-aki Kojima, said.

The Ady Gil sank about 4am on Friday when it filled with water during a salvage attempt.

Sea Shepherd spokesman Captain Paul Watson said a new version of the high-speed protest boat would be on the water within the year.

"We have the designs, we have the mould, and Peter Bethune, who designed and built the boat, is quite prepared to rebuild it," he said.

Capt Watson accused the whalers of intentionally ramming the boat because of its ability to get between their harpoons and the whales.

"I think the Japanese saw the potential of the vessel and deliberately took it out," he said.

Greens senator Bob Brown yesterday mailed a $2 million bill for the vessel to the Japanese ambassador.

[Beowulf]

Just one point I want to query. People have stated that Sea Shepherd doesn't make a diffence to whaling. IIRC last year when they harassed the Japanese whalers didn't Japan admit it failed to reach its quota. Now given that they plan to do this every year, eventually it will reduce the number of whales caught and hence help them replenish their numbers.

Quotas, by they very nature, are maximum limits on the hunting. Actually reaching a quota would be a rare event.

[Darth Wong]

When the fuck did I say that? I'm not actually advocating violence; I just said I wouldn't cry for them if it happened.

Do you honestly think people bear no guilt whatsoever for their own actions as long as somebody is paying them to do it?

Hate the game, not the player. The legal loopholes are to blame here, not the people doing the whaling. It's as honest a job as killing pigs or cows for food. The problem here is the powerless whaling crews are the ones getting rammed and having shit thrown at them, instead of the people who can actually do something about it in the long term.

In other words, your ethical code is legalism, and nothing more.

[Knife]

Just one point I want to query. People have stated that Sea Shepherd doesn't make a diffence to whaling. IIRC last year when they harassed the Japanese whalers didn't Japan admit it failed to reach its quota. Now given that they plan to do this every year, eventually it will reduce the number of whales caught and hence help them replenish their numbers.

Or the Japanese will put a little more money into it, have more gear and tactics to repel the Sea Shepards. Sorry, but for all the Sea Shepard's try to do; they got totally punked last season by the Japanese having nets and pre-arranged maneuvers to get whales aboard the factory ship.

[Gramzamber]

Sea Shepherd's antics are idiotic, and while I don't condone attacking crewmembers of a stricken ship, that's the kind of animosity they've bought themselves with their stupidity.
If they absolutely must be out there, I would think that a better strategy would be to concentrate 100% on scaring whales away. If they are successful and the Japanese complain, they can claim that they're undertaking "cetacean research".

[adam_grif]

In other words, your ethical code is legalism, and nothing more.

Were you going to add anything to that? Apparently your ethical code involves punishing everybody involved with an ethical transgression, instead of the ones who deserve it.

[bobalot]

In other words, your ethical code is legalism, and nothing more.

Were you going to add anything to that? Apparently your ethical code involves punishing everybody involved with an ethical transgression, instead of the ones who deserve it.

And the people who physically carry out this transgression don't deserve it?

[Gramzamber]

In other words, your ethical code is legalism, and nothing more.

Were you going to add anything to that? Apparently your ethical code involves punishing everybody involved with an ethical transgression, instead of the ones who deserve it.

And the people who physically carry out this transgression don't deserve it?

Because clearly we must answer the taking of whale lives with the taking of human ones. Brilliant!

[Spin Echo]

Does anyone actually have an solid figures from a non-biased source on whale meat consumption in Japan? I've spoken with Norwegians and they say they hear the same thing in the media about the Norwegian whale meat demand. The Norwegian whaling industry is quite small, only about a dozen boats, so the catch is quite random and doesn't always go up to the quota every year. The years it doesn't make quota, people start going on about loss of demand of whale meat in Norway. Meanwhile, it still shows up regularly in restaurants, the cafeteria at work, wedding parties...

It just seems a little strange that the Japanese would be trying to import whale meat from Norway if they only wanted it for dogfood.