|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 26, 2011 11:50:57 GMT -5
Good. However just your cause might be, pathetically ineffective activism like this does nothing apart from give the protagonists an overinflated sense of self-importance. Illegal whaling is an issue to be sorted out by grownups, not a bunch of chinless wonders in a boat. Ahh so it's ok to give special treatment and abuse the law if it happens to someone you dont' like? Ya know, sometimes when someone is deemed enough of a threat, they impose a higher bail. Same case. This prevents Watson from heading out to do more damage till the case is over |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Jul 26, 2011 12:16:56 GMT -5
Ahh so it's ok to give special treatment and abuse the law if it happens to someone you dont' like? Ya know, sometimes when someone is deemed enough of a threat, they impose a higher bail. Same case. This prevents Watson from heading out to do more damage till the case is over Threat is too nebulous a term. It adds nothing to the discussion. Otherwise, one could justify harsher punishments for any form of civil disobedience based on how "threatened" the target felt. Indeed, violence against even totally peaceful protesters has been justified under the idea that these people were a "Threat" who could do great action in the future. Either one has equality under the law or one doesn't. And yes even if that means one has to protect the rights of people one doesn't like. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 26, 2011 12:20:40 GMT -5
Hasn't Sea Shepherd tried to sabotage Japanese whaling vessels with potentially serious consequences before? I'm not sure "threat"needs to be in quotes here. I agree that there are some ridiculous "threats." Bin Laden was a threat. Quakers getting on airplanes were a "threat." But does misuse of a word completely devalue it within its original context? We're talking about some guys who have done some pretty violent shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Jul 26, 2011 12:28:19 GMT -5
Threat is too nebulous a term. It adds nothing to the discussion. Otherwise, one could justify harsher punishments for any form of civil disobedience based on how "threatened" the target felt. Indeed, violence against even totally peaceful protesters has been justified under the idea that these people were a "Threat" who could do great action in the future. Either one has equality under the law or one doesn't. And yes even if that means one has to protect the rights of people one doesn't like. How about, "Bunch of self-righteous twats who filmed illegal activities of their own and broad casted them on TV"? Does that add to the discussion? They didn't accomplish much(which I also hold against them), but they still destroyed private property on a number of occasions and threatened far more than that. They're as protected as any other repeat offender. Particularly those who televise their activities. Half of the reason I don't like them is how remarkably ineffective they've been. Oh look, we annoyed them, or we cost them some minor amount of money that will set them back a few hours. We're bad ass!. No, your sea hippies. Attention whoring ones at that. If we want to start talking about abuse of the law, we can start with people who don't actually break it regularly and are now complaining because the ship they use to do so is now being held due to their own actions. |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Jul 26, 2011 12:30:38 GMT -5
Hasn't Sea Shepherd tried to sabotage Japanese whaling vessels with potentially serious consequences before? ... then get them for that. Dont' just bend the law and cheer it because one doesn't like them. Personally it's seems weird since others who did were brought in by the authorities and put on trial. That the people on Sea Shepard still roam free even though the countries they dock in have extradition treaties with the countries with a beef against them implies this isnt' so simple. Though in any case it's not relevant. I have no interest in defending their actions (since even Sea Shepard admits they engage in sabotage) but if you can bend the law for them then why not for everyone else? |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Jul 26, 2011 12:37:31 GMT -5
.... How about, "Bunch of self-righteous twats who filmed illegal activities of their own and broad casted them on TV"? Does that add to the discussion? As you well know and obviously intended ,it does not. It does show however that you have no idea what I was saying. Which means it's going to be another one of "those" conversations again where I state my case, you or someone else responds with straw men and I then fruitlessly re-state what I said so you can respond with more straw men. no one is denying that. Even the captain of the ship isn't. That wasn't the point. It's whether the Sea Shepard was given a higher penalty simply because some dont' liek what they do. One can argue that the fine is normal (though fishing vessels have cut lines for different reasons and haven't been fined so much) But you aren't doing that. You're entire argument is that you don't like them and therefore anything that's done to them is ok. You not liking them is not relevant. And since you aren't going to bother to even consider what I said, I am going to leave it at that. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 12:47:27 GMT -5
Fuck those guys! I dontated them money, and the bad-arse  sticker they promised me in exchange, NEVER CAME! Nor did they take my obvious suggestion to sell Daryl Hannah porn as a fundraiser! Nor did this lying, treacherous sack of shit even bother to reply when I suggested the Australian Navy should be utilised to support Sea Shepherd operations. That's kind of irrelevent to the OP, but it pissed me off too. Well, see, Watson knows that the Aussies and the Kiwi navy can't get involved because one, this isn't happening in their territory/jurisdiction, and two, it's not illegal. The Japanese are whaling under the rules of the IWC, which Watson used to claim he was acting in defense of till the IWC booted the SS and declared them a menace. You seem to know more than me, but I was under the impression the Japanese whalers were actually operating in the Australian Antarctic territory, and thus the RAN could indeed be legally utilised to stop them. Further, I don't really see why the RAN couldn't be used in international waters... protection of national interests on the high seas is sort of, you know, why we have navies, I thought. What's the SS? If you mean Sea Shepherd... how were they part of the IWC? I thought that was countries only? I'm not sending them any more until I get my damn sticker! Worst bit is, I've seen such stickers elsewhere, so I know they send them to some people, just not me! This is the worst kind of discrimination! (i.e. the kind that effects me) |
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on Jul 26, 2011 12:59:46 GMT -5
I believe in this context, the SS is the Sea Sheperd organization.
And while I agree that illegal whaling needs to be stopped, this organization just comes off as a a bunch of really dumb pseudo-terrorists. Yeah, sink your expensive boat by purposefully crashing it into another one. And then put it on television. Brilliant strategy!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Jul 26, 2011 13:25:22 GMT -5
Threat is too nebulous a term. It adds nothing to the discussion. How about "organization that repeatedly, publicly, and unashamedly resorts to illegal tactics to further their cause and can reasonably expected to continue doing so if their boat is returned to them"? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 13:26:12 GMT -5
I believe in this context, the SS is the Sea Sheperd organization. And while I agree that illegal whaling needs to be stopped, this organization just comes off as a a bunch of really dumb pseudo-terrorists. Yeah, sink your expensive boat by purposefully crashing it into another one. And then put it on television. Brilliant strategy! Better to light a candle than curse the darkness, and all that. |
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Jul 26, 2011 13:46:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 26, 2011 14:58:56 GMT -5
They're getting off light, in my opinion.
Terrorists, plain and simple. I'm against whaling, too, but these people do far more harm because of their illegal measures and dangerous, murderous tendencies.
I don't care if Sea Shepard needs help, I hope it never gets it.
This is not the way you end whaling. This is the way you ensure it keeps happening. They're a stain on animal rights activists everywhere.
And what's worse, they've tainted Steve Irwin's name. I hope they never get their boat back, ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 15:02:15 GMT -5
I'm against whaling, too, but these people do far more harm because of their illegal measures and dangerous, murderous tendencies. Not to the whales. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 26, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
I'm against whaling, too, but these people do far more harm because of their illegal measures and dangerous, murderous tendencies. Not to the whales. Considering that they've done nothing to actually significantly stop whaling and have just weakened the argument against allowing this to continue... in the long term, yes. Even to the whales. Though I was speaking more of overall harm. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 26, 2011 15:20:56 GMT -5
Half of the reason I don't like them is how remarkably ineffective they've been. Oh look, we annoyed them, or we cost them some minor amount of money that will set them back a few hours. We're bad ass!. No, your sea hippies. Attention whoring ones at that. Gotta agree with you on that one. If you must go the sabotage route, then throwing "acid" (i.e. rancid butter) and "ramming" ships with force enough to slightly scratch the paint work is rather pathetic. Try throwing an acid that's actually, you know, corrosive or ramming ships in a way that can put holes below the waterline and then we'll talk about taking you seriously. But seriously, I'm not too fussed about this. Hell, if the pro-whaling crowd would just admit they're in it for profit and drop this "research" bullshit, then I'd be pro-whaling, assuming the quotas are sustainable. |
|
