• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who's at fault?

is whaling wrong?


  • Total voters
    38
Whaling is not wrong.

Whaling to the point of driving a species extinct is not wise.
 
Then the protesters should have notified the Australian authorities, and waited for the Aussie Navy and/or coast guard folks to show up and handle their business. They also could attempt to keep their boats between the whales and the whalers. And, they should have used their cameras and recorders to document the law violations that they observed for the use of the relevant government authorities. I do not consider vandals and vigilantes to be helpful to the cause of protecting vulnerable wildlife populations. When all is said and done, they're criminals like the criminals they're ostensibly fighting.

The end DOES NOT justify engaging in criminal tactics.

No, the Japanese whalers refuse to take the hint that they aren't welcome in Australian waters, the Australian govt. are too intimidated to take action, and so the protestors try to run them out instead. Besides, wouldn't the coast guard also use "assault tactics" (i.e. force) to put a stop to it?
 
Last edited:
What do you define as passive?
Preventing access?
Yes

Chaining yourself to property?
Yes

I am in favor, for instance, of the tactics that were utilized by civil rights protesters during the 1960s...lunch counter sit-ins, bus boycotts, refusing to move, and marches.

Intimidation?
No. However, the term "intimidation" is subjective. I am not in favor, for instance, of the limits that have been put in place specifically on abortion protesters, because of the argument that their presence was "intimidating" to patients. I consider that bollocks.
 
No, the Japanese whalers refuse to take the hint that they aren't welcome in Australian waters, the Australian govt. are to intimidated to take action, and so the protestors try to run them out instead. Besides, wouldn't the coast guard also use "assault tactics" (i.e. force) to put a stop to it?

The coast guard is the legally invested authority in the waters per the Australian people. Vigilantes are not. Surely you understand the difference?
 
So the Sea Shepherd pirates finally get the collision they've been trying to cause for years now.

They should be sued for interfering with the lawful activities of a vessel.
 
this is ridiculous. why they were hunting the whales, in this case, makes no difference.


So you are admitting that it doesn't matter if it is for research or for food?

neither group is in the right here. we were not discussing the things should be, but the way they are.
You have no evidence that these people where hunting for food instead of research. The fact that whale meat wind up in a supermarket does not disprove that they were hunting for research. What? You think they are just going to toss thousands of pounds of meat into the trash bin after they are done dissecting and running tests on it?
 
So you are admitting that it doesn't matter if it is for research or for food?


You have no evidence that these people where hunting for food instead of research. The fact that whale meat wind up in a supermarket does not disprove that they were hunting for research. What? You think they are just going to toss thousands of pounds of meat into the trash bin after they are done dissecting and running tests on it?
forget it, james.
 
the thing about that is whaling for food is illegal, and most whale species are endangered already

Irrelevant.

The Sea Shepherd pirates are taking the law into their own hands and deserve whatever happens to them.

Do you cry when an arsonist sets himself on fire in the act of trying to burn down a building?

I don't.
 

So if Feminist blocked access to a strip joint or themed family restaurant such as Hooters you would think it was civil disobedience

I am in favor, for instance, of the tactics that were utilized by civil rights protesters during the 1960s...lunch counter sit-ins, bus boycotts, refusing to move, and marches.
Does it depend where they chain themselves like for example to the doors of businesses?
No. However, the term "intimidation" is subjective. I am not in favor, for instance, of the limits that have been put in place specifically on abortion protesters, because of the argument that their presence was "intimidating" to patients. I consider that bollocks.

I think those limits have been struck down. I could be wrong.
 
So you are admitting that it doesn't matter if it is for research or for food?


You have no evidence that these people where hunting for food instead of research. The fact that whale meat wind up in a supermarket does not disprove that they were hunting for research. What? You think they are just going to toss thousands of pounds of meat into the trash bin after they are done dissecting and running tests on it?

Oh, I think it's pretty obvious that the Japs are killing whales for food, not research.

So what? That's a matter for the international courts and the law, not pirates.

In other words, it's irrelevant.
 
I would have sympathy for the Sea Shepherd pirates if their actions where aimed at making Japan's harvesting of whales unprofitable by making the whales leave the vicinity of the whaling vessel.

But since they choose to engage in piracy instead, they get what they deserve.
 
The coast guard is the legally invested authority in the waters per the Australian people. Vigilantes are not. Surely you understand the difference?

Well it is not illegal in Australia to make a citizen's arrest if there are reasonable grounds of suspicion that someone is breaking the law. Why shouldn't it follow that citizen's can't enforce a law (which is presumably invested by them) that their government refuses to enforce?

And if the whalers didn't want their vessels vandalized they shouldn't have been breaking the law in the first place. In my view they got what was coming to them, and I should hope that appropriate legal action is taken against them.
 
Was I somehow unclear? I thought "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" was pretty specific.

:2wave:
That was me admitting I didn't pay attention to the qualifier.:doh
 
Oh, I think it's pretty obvious that the Japs are killing whales for food, not research.

Do you have any evidence or are you just going by the word animal rights wackos.

So what? That's a matter for the international courts and the law, not pirates.

I thought you did not support the UN or some other global organization telling countries what they can or can't door was that some one else?
 
Do you have any evidence or are you just going by the word animal rights wackos.

They insist on killing the whales, rather than chosing non-lethal methods. This suggests that they are killing/selling them for food.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any evidence or are you just going by the word animal rights wackos.



I thought you did not support the UN or some other global organization telling countries what they can or can't door was that some one else?

Japan signed the international agreement, take it up with them.

I'm against surrendering sovereignity to international bodies. If someone's foolish enough to do it, tough luck to them.

If the international agreement includes an obvious loop hole like "y'all can't kill whales unless you study them, but do what you like with the carcass", don't blame the people wanting to sell whale meat to people who want to eat whale meat to ignore it.

And don't support terrorists, no matter what. And the Sea Shepherd pirates are eco-terrorists, no different from ELF or Earth-First assholes who burn Hummer dealerships and ski lodges.
 
Sounds like most violent crime. Should bank robbers and kidnappers be tried on charges of terrorism, since the penalties are stiffer?

Unless you're some of Obama's terrorist friends, bank robbing is about the money, not the politics.
 
Charges could be laid over whaling clash

who do you believe is in the wrong

and what is your opinion on whaling

The anti-whaling group is in the wrong because there is nothing to protest unless whaling is being abused.

They went out there looking for a fight, and they found one. Push the Japanese to far and they'll fly their **** right into your ships and kill themselves just to get to you.
 
So if Feminist blocked access to a strip joint or themed family restaurant such as Hooters you would think it was civil disobedience

Absolutely.

Does it depend where they chain themselves like for example to the doors of businesses?

Not particularly, no. Though some places are likely to get them arrested for trespassing.

I think those limits have been struck down. I could be wrong.

If they haven't been, they should be, they are completely un-constitutional.
 
Well it is not illegal in Australia to make a citizen's arrest if there are reasonable grounds of suspicion that someone is breaking the law. Why shouldn't it follow that citizen's can't enforce a law (which is presumably invested by them) that their government refuses to enforce?

If they can do the former, great, but inability to make a citizen's arrest does not equate to being able to take it upon yourself to enforce the law. That puts you just as much outside the law as the law-breaker you are attempting to bring to justice. FAIL.
 
This was almost certainly an accident caused by the incompetence of the sea shepherd's. They are made of volunteer's without any nautical experience at all. Compounded on that, they undertake maneuvers that would be dangerous even with capable crews. Furthermore, the Japanese ship is far larger and thus less maneuverable. Its unlikely they could deliberately ram the smaller vessel even if they tried. I would suggest that the most likely scenario is shepherds pulled some stupid maneuver right in front of the whaling ship and the Japanese couldn't get out of the way in time.
 
Back
Top Bottom