• 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
Partisan said:
I'm gonna go with "You can't deliberately cause a collision", under any circumstances, especially in open sea.....;)
If it were a narrow navigable channel, the larger ship would have right of way, not the case here....
As far as whales, are they really needed as a foodstuff?......:confused:
It's one of those things that should be regulated enough to not make it economically viable, IMO.....;)
Click to expand...
not true. a ship engaged in fishing has the right of way.
 
bioplankton.jpg


Indeed.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes. Murder & unnecessary violence. Nice try.
Click to expand...

What about the tactics of the anti-whaling group?Are these things okay just as long as it is the anti-whaling groups doing those things?

ramming other ships
blocking and preventing access
sabotaged
shooting water canons
throwing stink bombs
trespassing
chaining themselves to property
intimidation

Hatuey said:
Wasn't it you who supported murdering an abortion provider to stop him from conducting his business? Does that make you a loon?
Click to expand...
Nice try but stopping someone for killing something that is basically a cheeseburger is a lot different that killing someone who deliberately takes innocent human life. I have no problem to saying I am glad when someone takes the life of someone who kills innocent human beings.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
What about the tactics of the anti-whaling group?Are these things okay just as long as it is the anti-whaling groups doing those things?

ramming other ships
Click to expand...

No.
blocking and preventing access
Click to expand...

Yes.

sabotaged
Click to expand...

No.

shooting water canons
Click to expand...

No.

throwing stink bombs
Click to expand...

Sure.

trespassing
Click to expand...

No.

chaining themselves to property
Click to expand...

Sure.

intimidation
Click to expand...

Too encompassing.

Nice try but stopping someone for getting rid of slabs of meat that are basically parasites is a lot different that killing someone who deliberately takes innocent animal life. I have no problem to saying I am glad when someone takes the life of someone who kills innocent animals.
Click to expand...

:2wave: Yes. You are indeed a loon.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
When the pirates are busy trying to damage their vessel?

Hardly.
Click to expand...

Pirates??? ..LOL

They're protesters ..not pirates ..not terrorists ..not any other inflammatory label people use when they disagree with the politics of the protesting group.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Unless you're some of Obama's terrorist friends, bank robbing is about the money, not the politics.
Click to expand...

According to the definition provided earlier in this thread, politics isn't a required motive.
 
Crunch said:
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

I'd do arrows and circles if I could. :roll:
Click to expand...

I don't doubt the especially part, but especially doesn't mean it's required. There can be other motives. Note the difference.
Click to expand...
 
I like whales, dolphins and sharks etc. Probably because I am a professional level diver. I love the ocean. The Japanese are out of control and hunting certain sea animals into extinction.

Being a diver I have no respect for a fishing fleet that catches sharks, cuts off the fins and throws the rest of the animal back to slowly drown.

If they all got blown up tomorrow, the world would be better off.

As for the OP, yes the Japanese fishermen are correct to defend themselves.

No, hunting whales is so unnecessary.
 
liblady said:
not true. a ship engaged in fishing has the right of way.
Click to expand...

He might have the right of way, ( You are correct, he does), however, it is superceded by "You must avoid all collisions, if possible".....;)
Purposely ramming, is not acceptable, that captain is damn lucky there was no loss of life.....:roll:
That does not condone the BS tactics of the smaller ship....:roll:
 
Partisan said:
He might have the right of way, ( You are correct, he does), however, it is superceded by "You must avoid all collisions, if possible".....;)
Purposely ramming, is not acceptable, that captain is damn lucky there was no loss of life.....:roll:
That does not condone the BS tactics of the smaller ship....:roll:
Click to expand...





The smaller boat was the agressor, firing prop foulers and stink bombs at the ship. The ship has every right to defend itself...


too bad none of those idiots drowned.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
The smaller boat was the agressor, firing prop foulers and stink bombs at the ship. The ship has every right to defend itself...


too bad none of those idiots drowned.
Click to expand...

What you feel & what is the law are two different things.....;)
A larger ship that is not in danger does not have the right to cause a collision under any circumstances....;)
If there were loss of life, the captain of the larger vessel would have neen charged with manslaughter at the very least.....;)
EDIT.....:roll:
 
Partisan said:
What you feel & what is the law are two different things.....;)
A larger ship that is not in danger does not have the right to cause a collision under any circumstances....;)
If there were loss of life, the captain of the larger vessel would have neen charged with manslaughter at the very least.....;)
EDIT.....:roll:
Click to expand...




Ship was in danger. They can use that idiotic show as evidence of agression.
 
Partisan said:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Ship was in danger. They can use that idiotic show as evidence of agression.[/QUOTE]

That will not be enough to justify it in court.....;)
The ramming ship was never in danger, & is clealy, "at fault".....;)
Click to expand...




Did you see the pic?


If I saw that being aimed at my ship, I'd open fire. A clear threat


image6061015g.jpg



Ships Collide In Antarctic Whaling Clash - CBS News

"The Institute of Cetacean Research, the non-profit organization that conducts the hunt, said the Ady Gil came "within collision distance" of the Nisshin Maru's bow and repeatedly dangled a rope in the water that could have entangled the ship's rudder and propeller.

The Ady Gil's crew lobbed small projectiles designed to release a foul smell, and the whalers responded by firing high-powered hoses to keep the Sea Shepherd vessels away, the institute said in a statement. "



clearly the Japanese ship was in the right to ram those assholes. To bad they didn't drown.
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
Wasn't it you who supported murdering an abortion provider to stop him from conducting his business? Does that make you a loon?
Click to expand...

Terminating an abortionist saves possibly thousands of lives.

It's no different than killing a mugger attacking a little old lady, unless that old lady voted for Obama.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Pirates??? ..LOL

They're protesters ..not pirates ..not terrorists ..not any other inflammatory label people use when they disagree with the politics of the protesting group.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not normal pirates, but I've seen the show and a couple of those activists are definitely butt pirates.
 
Partisan said:
I'm gonna go with "You can't deliberately cause a collision", under any circumstances, especially in open sea.....;)
If it were a narrow navigable channel, the larger ship would have right of way, not the case here....
As far as whales, are they really needed as a foodstuff?......:confused:
It's one of those things that should be regulated enough to not make it economically viable, IMO.....;)
Click to expand...

Yes, the operator of the smaller more agile craft is under legal obligation to avoid placing his vessel in position to collide with the larger vessel. That's as true in the open sea as it is in narrow navigable channels.

When I sail to Catalina, I don't dawdle in the shipping lanes. They're "open ocean", but the damn freighters:

a) Can't see me.
b) Aren't looking for me.
c) Won't know if they've hit me
d) Forget about the freighters, it will hurt.

All I can say about this Ady Gil crew is that if they're going to insist on starting fights, they can't expect any sympathy when they lose them. I'm not going to feel sorry for terrorists, ever.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Pirates??? ..LOL

They're protesters ..not pirates ..not terrorists ..not any other inflammatory label people use when they disagree with the politics of the protesting group.
Click to expand...

They're terrorists and pirates.

You're failure to use words correctly isn't our concern.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
According to the definition provided earlier in this thread, politics isn't a required motive.
Click to expand...

That's nice.

Acts of terrorism are commited to primarily infuence the behavior and opinion of another group of people. Terrorists, unlike robbers, are motivated by something besides self-aggrandizement.

Unless you're saying the Sea Shepherd terrorists are trying to steal whalemeat from the whalers, they're actions are consistent with the defintion of terrorists, not bank robbers.

However, if you want to insist that bank robbers are also terrorists, then you can't claim the Sea Shepherd people are not terrorists.

You're not used to logical thought, I see.
 
Blackdog said:
I like whales, dolphins and sharks etc. Probably because I am a professional level diver. I love the ocean. The Japanese are out of control and hunting certain sea animals into extinction.

Being a diver I have no respect for a fishing fleet that catches sharks, cuts off the fins and throws the rest of the animal back to slowly drown.

If they all got blown up tomorrow, the world would be better off.

As for the OP, yes the Japanese fishermen are correct to defend themselves.

No, hunting whales is so unnecessary.
Click to expand...

And there's a post I can agree with 100%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom