Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JOACH1M on June 01, 2011, 05:39:44 PM
-
Whale Wars new season! :rofl with the sea shepherds aka "the worlds biggest p u s s I e s"
Lmao I can't help but laugh at them! :rofl
-
Check the news. They actually won last season, that's why the show is back.
-
Check the news. They actually won last season, that's why the show is back.
Or they sued them for busting their boat! :bolt:
-
Google goes a long way.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/japanese-whaling-fleet-gives-up-the-hunt-20110216-1awnd.html
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the fat man and his band of stinky crusaders. They are a danger to navigation and should be removed from the seas. However, it appears that they were obnoxious enough to discourage the whaling fleet.
Of course economics being what they are... :bolt:
-
Google goes a long way.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/japanese-whaling-fleet-gives-up-the-hunt-20110216-1awnd.html
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the fat man and his band of stinky crusaders. They are a danger to navigation and should be removed from the seas. However, it appears that they were obnoxious enough to discourage the whaling fleet.
Of course economics being what they are... :bolt:
They actually did something?!! Lol!
I think the Japanese is gonna go all out...pull out early act as if there done but then BAM!
-
Hey man, at least they are trying to do something. It takes balls to go out there and fight people anyway. They may no be getting anything much accomplished, but they are trying.
-
Hey man, at least they are trying to do something. It takes balls to go out there and fight people anyway. They may no be getting anything much accomplished, but they are trying.
They are also wasting money :old:
-
They are also wasting money :old:
People can spend money how they want :aok
-
People can spend money how they want :aok
It's the truth.
-
People can spend money how they want :aok
Ok, sorry, but I find it redicukes they spend millions of dollars to just go about te arctic and sit in their thumbs! They ran that speed boat thing into their huge boat! How much more idiotic could they get! The japanese took a way more aggressive approach with that Lrad thingy an all the sea shepherds did was throw stinky butter at them! :rolleyes: :lol
-
Ok, ill buy you a plane ticket to Alaska. Why don't you bring a gun and start shooting at them. Ill make sure the police are there when you get back safley into the harbor.
P.S. If you hate the show, then why do you know so much about it?
-
Ok, ill buy you a plane ticket to Alaska. Why don't you bring a gun and start shooting at them. Ill make sure the police are there when you get back safley into the harbor.
P.S. If you hate the show, then why do you know so much about it?
well if they want to stop whaling, then would they do ANYTHING to stop it?
I don't hate it only because it's very fun to make fun of!
-
hehehe I thought you would say that. They are activists, do you see how long it takes to get things going to make an international law, specially when it has been a tradition and way of life for many people for decades?
It's their belief to go and do something that matters, maybe pioneer future legislation or groups.
When you say that "they aren't really doing anything" it is completely wrong. They are finding a legal way to defend the whales. If they went in with guns and shot the place up, they wouldn't even make it to the harbor.
-
i never watched the show but this idea of defending the whales the way they do is really interesting, i hope they keep up the good work.
-
Does anybody know where I can order some whale meat? I figure if so many people hate it, it's gotta be tasty.
-
hehehe I thought you would say that. They are activists, do you see how long it takes to get things going to make an international law, specially when it has been a tradition and way of life for many people for decades?
It's their belief to go and do something that matters, maybe pioneer future legislation or groups.
When you say that "they aren't really doing anything" it is completely wrong. They are finding a legal way to defend the whales. If they went in with guns and shot the place up, they wouldn't even make it to the harbor.
Ok you win, but why couldn't they cut back in whaling allowing the population to grow and they can go out again...
-
Oooooh I think I found some. Alas, I don't speak Japanese.
Any Japanese speakers wann help a fella out and translate this for me? Whale eating party at Melvin's!!!
http://www.rakuten.ne.jp/gold/kuziran/
-
The show is entertaining in how utterly incompetent most of them seem to be. Lack of discipline, barely practice doing basic tasks which makes them barely competent to do the basic tasks. Its amazing that no one has gotten themselves killed yet. Unsurprisingly the helicopter pilot seems to be the only one to take anything with the seriousness it deserves. All that said, they have gotten somewhat better at actually doing stuff, in last season, but then they collided with other boats, twice, resulting in the loss of their speedboat. If you're the speedboat, how you can get caught out of fuel like that is inexcusable (if the Sea Shepherd point of view is believed, if they actually were under power and got rammed that's even worse). They should have never been in any position to get hit in the first place, just by being much much faster.
Now what I'm going to find interesting in this season is how they take the Japanese earthquake/tsunami disaster into consideration. Some Sea Shepherds were in Japan when it happened and helped with humanitarian relief there. I found that strange after they routinely paint the Japanese as a people as immoral for their acceptance of whale hunting and eating whale meat. Why were they in Japan? Were they not afraid of being arrested? Were they preaching vegan diets or anti-whaling? Just vacationing among the enemy? On the other hand, how much did they assist in rescue operations? There's no black and white goods and bads here, and could make the show interesting. I'll be watching.
-
Ok, sorry, but I find it redicukes they spend millions of dollars to just go about te arctic and sit in their thumbs! They ran that speed boat thing into their huge boat! How much more idiotic could they get! The japanese took a way more aggressive approach with that Lrad thingy an all the sea shepherds did was throw stinky butter at them! :rolleyes: :lol
I agree, I was just annoyed how people complain about wasting money when they had nothing to do with how it was spent. The only reason I watch that show is because I get bored sometimes. :lol
-
leave the whales alone or that big cigar looking spaceship will attach earth like it did on the star trek movie :bolt:
-
Yes, they are incompetent, but they're doing more to save those whales than most people on this planet. If you want to call them incompetent, go out into the Arctic ice and do a better job. The cynicism people show here is sickening.
Keep going Sea Sheperd! :rock
-Penguin
-
They're gonna need a bigger boat.
-
correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't the interference of a commercial vessel's lawfull actions (especially when that interference isn't backed by any government mandate) basically modern day piracy? These sea going hippies may be doing what they think is right, but they are also causing problems for people who are just doing their jobs and trying to make a living; and doing it in such a way that is dangerous for themselves and the people/companies/vessels they target. I would bet that if one of the workers on a whaling ship was severely injured in some way by their "save the whales" actions they would all rejoice and call it a righteous victory for the whales. It just makes them world class d-bags in my opinion.
-
correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't the interference of a commercial vessel's lawfull actions (especially when that interference isn't backed by any government mandate) basically modern day piracy? These sea going hippies may be doing what they think is right, but they are also causing problems for people who are just doing their jobs and trying to make a living; and doing it in such a way that is dangerous for themselves and the people/companies/vessels they target. I would bet that if one of the workers on a whaling ship was severely injured in some way by their "save the whales" actions they would all rejoice and call it a righteous victory for the whales. It just makes them world class d-bags in my opinion.
Thank you! :aok
-
correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't the interference of a commercial vessel's lawfull actions (especially when that interference isn't backed by any government mandate) basically modern day piracy? These sea going hippies may be doing what they think is right, but they are also causing problems for people who are just doing their jobs and trying to make a living; and doing it in such a way that is dangerous for themselves and the people/companies/vessels they target. I would bet that if one of the workers on a whaling ship was severely injured in some way by their "save the whales" actions they would all rejoice and call it a righteous victory for the whales. It just makes them world class d-bags in my opinion.
I haven't seen the show but I've been thinking the same exact thing. I almost have to believe the entire show is staged! Heck, just from watching the previews alone I see multiple counts of illegal actions - on both criminal and civil levels.. I don't see how these activists (And the Discovery Network) wouldn't be prosecuted or at the very least sued for their actions! ESPECIALLY considering that it's all captured on film.
I just can't be quite convinced that it's real. Kind of like Tru Tv's shows.. especially "Operation Repo". Entertaining? Yes. Real? NO! It even says at the beginning "The stories that are portrayed in this program are based on real events." I wonder if Discovery has that kind of disclaimer somewhere as well...
-
Oh man, don't get me started on "operation repo". My dad and uncle use to repo for a living, no real auto repo man would EVER pull up to a car and sit there aurguing and fighting with the deliquint owner. A good auto repo man waits untill the car owner isn't around backs up the truck untill he can hook under one bumper then raises the car and pulls away (done in less than a minute, all without getting out of the truck) took hook up the car properly farther down the road. It leaves the delinquint owner with a real "WTF!?!?" moment when they realize the car is gone.
-
correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't the interference of a commercial vessel's lawfull actions (especially when that interference isn't backed by any government mandate) basically modern day piracy? These sea going hippies may be doing what they think is right, but they are also causing problems for people who are just doing their jobs and trying to make a living; and doing it in such a way that is dangerous for themselves and the people/companies/vessels they target. I would bet that if one of the workers on a whaling ship was severely injured in some way by their "save the whales" actions they would all rejoice and call it a righteous victory for the whales. It just makes them world class d-bags in my opinion.
The Japanese fleet in the arctic ocean contained no commercial vessels. International law has banned commercial whaling in the southern ocean. The Japanese have been getting around this by doing "research" which killed the whales and processed their meat for consumption in Japan. Now the claim that it has been research is the cause of conflict, how many biologist studying a species kill 10,000 and collect their meat?
In the international law, there is a clause stating that if the ban on whaling was violated, and no acting nation stepped in to regulate this, that a third party could act independently to enforce the ban.
So in a nutshell, the Japaneses were breaking an international ban on whaling, the Sea Sheppherd has been trying to draw attention to this and stop the whaling. What most people find amusing about the show is how incompetent the crew of activists has been. Legality has been on both party's side from time to time.
-
Ok, so what your saying is that even though the Japanese aren't doing anything illegal or in violation of the international law, they are still somehow violating the law. Yeah its a loophole, but loopholes are plugged with addendum's to the law, not with acts of piracy. Personally I can't force myself to watch anymore than the commercials for the show, so I have no idea how competent these people are. What I do know is that lawful, responsible hunting isn't a bad thing when it is done for a reason, such as a food source. Is what the Japanese are doing responsible? dunno, not my decision; is it lawful? absolutely. The same can't be said for what the crew on the sea shepard are doing.
-
correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't the interference of a commercial vessel's lawfull actions (especially when that interference isn't backed by any government mandate) basically modern day piracy?
Yes, it may very well be a form of piracy. But even though the actions of the whalers may be 'lawful', if there is a valid reason why the whalers' actions are immoral, then I'd say they have a right to be interfered with (i.e. there is a moral justification for trying to throw a spanner in the works of the whalers. However, the catch in this is that what you consider 'moral' may very well clash with what someone else considers 'moral' - so you'd better be damn sure that your logic about why your morals are correct is flawless, before you go out and criticise/obstruct someone else for doing what they consider to be moral) . Morality trumps legality any day of the week.
These sea going hippies may be doing what they think is right, but they are also causing problems for people who are just doing their jobs and trying to make a living; and doing it in such a way that is dangerous for themselves and the people/companies/vessels they target.
Valid point about posing a danger to the people, but just because some peoples' livelihoods come off the whaling doesn't mean they should not be accountable for their actions.
I would bet that if one of the workers on a whaling ship was severely injured in some way by their "save the whales" actions they would all rejoice and call it a righteous victory for the whales. It just makes them world class d-bags in my opinion.
You're judging the activists by making an assumption about how they would react if something were to happen. Unless you've got a previous example of them reacting to a similar situation in this way, then this is groundless and unfair (and if you do, why didn't you just mention that example instead of some hypothetical situation).
-
Yup, it was a hypothetical example to illustrate my opinion of these pirates. That is why that sentence started with "I would bet..." and the next sentence ended with "...in my opinion."
Morality does trump legality, until you're in court for your moral actions. There are plenty of moral actions through out history that are horrible acts against humanity. (just helping illustrate your point about moral decisions/actions being subjective)
"Valid point about posing a danger to the people, but just because some peoples' livelihoods come off the whaling doesn't mean they should not be accountable for their actions."
Does this mean that you think coal miners should be looked down upon or suffer some kind of punishment for what they do because some people believe the burning of fossil fuels is destroying the environment? Or that loggers should be held accountable for the impact their jobs have on the world?
Please keep in mind here guys that I am not trying to pick a fight or make anybody look stupid. I am just really enjoying a decent debate with people who have a different point of view than mine and can make valid and respectful counter points. Keep it up Yoss, I'm having fun here. :aok
-
Hunting them will likely always be reserved as a niche specialty for extremely rare materials that are difficult or impossible to synthicate (ie: the small amount of whale oil used in the Huble space teliscope), cultural delicacys or historical heritage. Until such a time that mankind nolonger sees the value in those things outweighing the life of a few whales, there is little to no viable alternatives that most of the world hasn't already considred or adopted.
I think the Sea Shepperd is a bunch of incompitent extremists, but to be fair they're targeting an industry serving those paying top-dollar for a luxurious cultural delicacy. Culture and heritage is an important comodety to most of mankind, however I do not see most japanesse people withdrawing from their culture and heritage anymore than another individual over weather or not being able to afford a cultural experience/deilcacy that only the richest and powerful in their culture can afford endulging in.
-
Yup, it was a hypothetical example to illustrate my opinion of these pirates. That is why that sentence started with "I would bet..." and the next sentence ended with "...in my opinion."
But you also said "It makes me thing...", which led me to believe that you were judging them based on a hypothetical. That said, I suspect from what you just said that you were referring to an earlier sentence, which I don't really disagree with.
Morality does trump legality, until you're in court for your moral actions. There are plenty of moral actions through out history that are horrible acts against humanity. (just helping illustrate your point about moral decisions/actions being subjective)
I'd argue that many of those actions (one that's in my head atm is bombing civilians in wartime - moral evil, or immoral and therefore wrong, I guess?) can probably be judged by certain 'rules' of morality. I think the difficulty comes in when you try and determine what those 'rules' are: personally, I try and think about things from a starting point of certain ideas/values which I would consider to be absolute (i.e. killing is justified when done in self-defense [which can be extended to defense of a society, or defense of another person, or defense of another society - but unless done in direct self-defense should probably be examined extremely carefully, if only because of the immense cost of making a mistake - e.g. in declaring war], and that everyone has certain unalienable rights [unalienable because I think the consequences are too 'messy' when you start saying "you have these innate rights, however you will no longer have these rights if you commit act X, however if you commit act X in way Y, then you may still be allowed to retain these rights" which I don't think is simple enough to considered the basis for any basic rules of morality and also I see no reason why a person/group of people/government should be able to deny someone else these rights, and also unalienable because I see no reason why committing an action should allow you to lose these rights]). However, not everyone will consider those things to be truths - a minority of those people might say 'everyone is evil and deserves to die' - I'd call them psychopaths, some might say 'people can lose these rights if they kill someone' - fair point, but I've never worked out precisely why murder means you lose the right to life (i.e. I can't think of any logical path from murder==>death penalty) (and in this case, I've heard people say 'it protects others', and 'they deserve to die' - but for the former, I'd say that's debatable, and there are more desirable alternatives, and in the latter I'd ask why). And then, some people come up with different views on morality which haven't ever occurred to me, and which often lead to interesting debates. And in case anyone thinks I'm overusing morality and logic here, and that I should just get on with my life: the latter's probably correct, but logic is well...logical, and if something isn't logical, it's probably wrong.
(just realised this has turned into a wall of text with overuse of brackets and probably weird phrasing - apologies! :))
"Valid point about posing a danger to the people, but just because some peoples' livelihoods come off the whaling doesn't mean they should not be accountable for their actions."
Does this mean that you think coal miners should be looked down upon or suffer some kind of punishment for what they do because some people believe the burning of fossil fuels is destroying the environment? Or that loggers should be held accountable for the impact their jobs have on the world?
I think that there are several things to consider here - first is whether coal mining or logging is actually immoral. I think two arguments need to be made, one being 'coal mining (and the by-products of coal use) harms the world/environment, and the other that coal plays a vital role in producing electricity, and sustaining society. From that, I'd say that provided the coal-mining/use doesn't go out of control, the latter argument is more important, and that the current advantages of coal-mining outweigh the disadvantages (however, some would disagree), and so they're ultimately helping people overall. However, by the nature of how companies work, if there were no need for coal, they probably wouldn't be mining it.
Please keep in mind here guys that I am not trying to pick a fight or make anybody look stupid. I am just really enjoying a decent debate with people who have a different point of view than mine and can make valid and respectful counter points. Keep it up Yoss, I'm having fun here. :aok
Will do - I'm having fun too ;)
-
Whales are not worth dying over, its complete BS to think a humans life is worth less than a whales. :furious
-
Whales are not worth dying over, its complete BS to think a humans life is worth less than a whales. :furious
Who's dying over whales?
-
Who's dying over whales?
They say the whales are worth people's lives to save. He basically said you can die trying to save the whales and it would be okay.
-
They say the whales are worth people's lives to save. He basically said you can die trying to save the whales and it would be okay.
Provided they're only talking about their own lives, then fine. It's their decision to make whether a cause is worth dying for or not. Some people are going to think that a country is always worth dying for, some will disagree. In the same way, some will think that maintaining biodiversity (or some other 'thing' on this planet) is worth dying for, and some will disagree. Until you've thought about the issues at hand, what you think they're worth, and ultimately whether you think the issue deserves your life, I'd say it's best not to make a judgement about it.
-
But you also said "It makes me thing...", which led me to believe that you were judging them based on a hypothetical. That said, I suspect from what you just said that you were referring to an earlier sentence, which I don't really disagree with.
Yeah, I was judging them based on that hypothetical, and that isn't really fair. whoops *insert wrist slap here* But I do still see them as "world class d-bags" just based on what I have seen in the commercials and what has been discussed here and on other forums i frequent. I am having trouble finding my line of text saying "It makes me think..." that you are referencing though, can you help a guy out?
Morality is such a complicated and subjective thing that it makes discussions like these almost impossible to resolve for everybody.
Your point about coal mining
"I think two arguments need to be made, one being 'coal mining (and the by-products of coal use) harms the world/environment, and the other that coal plays a vital role in producing electricity, and sustaining society. From that, I'd say that provided the coal-mining/use doesn't go out of control, the latter argument is more important, and that the current advantages of coal-mining outweigh the disadvantages (however, some would disagree), and so they're ultimately helping people overall."
can be applied to whaling as well. Who makes the decision about advantages and disadvantages of whaling? The Japanese obviously think that the advantages out weigh the disadvantages and the crew on the sea sheppard are of the opposite persuasion.
That is why we have laws (not a perfect solution, but it is the one we have to work with) and I just keep coming back to my previous statement that the whalers are not doing anything unlawful (sleazy, maybe. but that is just opinion), and the actions taken by the sea sheppard sure seem to be in direct disregard of the law. When people start thinking they are above the law because of a higher moral authority, it will normally lead to bad things that often times are worse than what these people where ignoring the law to combat in the first place. For example what happens if/when some one aboard the sea sheppard or one of the whaling vessels dies as a direct result of the actions taken by the sea Sheppard crew? Is it ok to write off that person's life because the whale activists feel they were answering to a higher moral authority?
BTW, well put on your reply to F22 Yoss
-
All I know is that if I were operating a fishing vessel legally (whether it was due to a legal loophole or not I feel is not the point here) and some activists came up to my boat and tried to set it on fire, tried to ram me... tried to otherwise harm my property and my crew... well they would have hell to pay.
And then if I found out that it was all TAPED AND BROADCAST ON CABLE TV I would be consulting a lawyer so quick to sue the pants out of that network! The fact that hasn't yet happened tells me that one of the following must be true...
1> Everything is staged
2> Discovery Channel "paid off" the company operating these Whaling vessels
3> The company that operates these Whaling vessels DID sue and they settled for a undisclosed monetary amount (essentially the same as #2)
I'm not saying that I'm on the side of the Whalers here.. I'm just saying that something doesn't seem quite right about it all which makes me thing that everything is staged, just like all of the other so called "reality" shows on TV are these days...
-
All I know is that if I were operating a fishing vessel legally (whether it was due to a legal loophole or not I feel is not the point here) and some activists came up to my boat and tried to set it on fire, tried to ram me... tried to otherwise harm my property and my crew... well they would have hell to pay.
And then if I found out that it was all TAPED AND BROADCAST ON CABLE TV I would be consulting a lawyer so quick to sue the pants out of that network! The fact that hasn't yet happened tells me that one of the following must be true...
1> Everything is staged
2> Discovery Channel "paid off" the company operating these Whaling vessels
3> The company that operates these Whaling vessels DID sue and they settled for a undisclosed monetary amount (essentially the same as #2)
I'm not saying that I'm on the side of the Whalers here.. I'm just saying that something doesn't seem quite right about it all which makes me thing that everything is staged, just like all of the other so called "reality" shows on TV are these days...
Or you could be completely wrong and it all is in fact real.
In before "What is real?" (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071011072749/illogicopedia/images/a/ab/Morpheus.jpg).
More seriously, if it was staged, we would know. Bear Grillis staged some parts of Man vs. Wild in order to demonstrate survival techniques. And even though his show is far less controversial, it was a big deal that the show didn't sufficiently state that the scenario was set up in advance for demonstration purposes. With a show as controversial as Whale Wars, which has a much higher number of people involved, if anything was staged like you are suggesting we would know about it. Its real, excepting the Paul Watson shooting incident, that was completely fake, but he put it over on Discovery and they had to "cover" it.
As for the legality, there is no law enforcement agency willing to take action. Its the wild wild west. A boat was sunk and nothing came of it. Until someone dies both sides can do whatever the hell they want with practically no consequences. Might makes right.
-
Or you could be completely wrong and it all is in fact real.
In before "What is real?" (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071011072749/illogicopedia/images/a/ab/Morpheus.jpg).
More seriously, if it was staged, we would know. Bear Grillis staged some parts of Man vs. Wild in order to demonstrate survival techniques. And even though his show is far less controversial, it was a big deal that the show didn't sufficiently state that the scenario was set up in advance for demonstration purposes. With a show as controversial as Whale Wars, which has a much higher number of people involved, if anything was staged like you are suggesting we would know about it. Its real, excepting the Paul Watson shooting incident, that was completely fake, but he put it over on Discovery and they had to "cover" it.
As for the legality, there is no law enforcement agency willing to take action. Its the wild wild west. A boat was sunk and nothing came of it. Until someone dies both sides can do whatever the hell they want with practically no consequences. Might makes right.
So you're saying, eventualy, it's all going to boil down to a reality TV show about two real fleets in the Antartic Ocean, in the 21st century, going at it with broadsides?
My bet's on the Whaler's fleet or whoever shows up with a 16th-century man-o-war in their mercenary fleet first.
-
leave the whales alone or that big cigar looking spaceship will attach earth like it did on the star trek movie :bolt:
Easy solution. Go around the sun at max warp in a Klingon bird of prey to go back in time to get some more.
-
Check the news. They actually won last season, that's why the show is back.
Nothing to do with the drop in demand for whale meat in japan, or the excessive stockpiles they have of whalemeat, combined with a recession.... yeah right.
In fact from what I heard sea shepherd prolonged the japanese whaling operations (japanese psyche thing about not wanting to be seen to back down).