|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 26, 2011 16:27:44 GMT -5
Okay Shane, let me ask you a question. This is a hypothetical. Let's say a company is doing some shady business deals. Let's say a group delivers low-grade explosives to the building, constantly defaces it, nearly kills several people working for said company, and broadcasts it all on television while saying that they're going to keep doing it until the company stops its shady business deals. Would you consider said group getting arrested an injustice? Bearing in mind that what legally happens to said company is irrelevant, I'm focusing on the group itself. That would only be an equal hypothetical if the bombing group also had their people hurt like the Sea Shepherd has had their people hurt. Also, you said arrest. Simple arrest. That isn't on the same scale as this. If you're going to give me a hypothetical of humans against humans with explosives at least put it on the same scale as this instance. If however you had said that each person involved in the bombing group had all of their cars impounded with let us say... $250K on each car (and we'll say the group has 4 people which brings it up to about the same as Steve Irwin's impound charge) then yes, it would be an inflated charge and I would consider it unjust. Especially when this group does not in a million years have the proper funds to get their vehicles back. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 26, 2011 16:29:49 GMT -5
You like how whale meat tastes? Fine. But the whales need to have their population supported. You know that all whaling countries have yearly quotas in place, right? It's not like they have their fleets harvest everything they can find. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 26, 2011 16:32:38 GMT -5
What happened to justice being blind? Remember, justice being blind means that it judges each case on its own merit. Sea Shepherd has committed terrorist acts, and thus, action has been taken against them. Justice has been accomplished. . Yes, and you know what? Cases have been brought forward. They are still pending too. (If I recall Sea Shepherd put in a case for Fish and Fish and it was ignored and nothing further said of it by the proper authorities). |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 26, 2011 16:33:29 GMT -5
You like how whale meat tastes? Fine. But the whales need to have their population supported. You know that all whaling countries have yearly quotas in place, right? It's not like they have their fleets harvest everything they can find. Yes, those magical quotas we magically expect people to follow to the letter and then forget to check in on them to make sure they're following. I know that they are there. The question is... are we making sure they're being followed? ETA- Really, the thing I'm most mad about? Is how quick it was to do this to Sea Shepherd yet investigations into the corporations drag on or never reach court. That's the one thing I can't help getting pissed off about. Yes, Sea Shepherd broke the law. But maybe when they try to give you tips and ask you investigate that you do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 26, 2011 17:04:08 GMT -5
st mad about? Is how quick it was to do this to Sea Shepherd How long has the show been running? I wouldn't call that quick. I'd call it just as painfully slow as the investigations into the whaling companies is going. Sorry Shane, you want justice against the whaling companies, then you had better accept justice against Sea Shepherd. otherwise, you are encouraging crime to fight crime, and last I checked, that was only acceptable in the world of comic books. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 26, 2011 17:30:57 GMT -5
st mad about? Is how quick it was to do this to Sea Shepherd How long has the show been running? I wouldn't call that quick. I'd call it just as painfully slow as the investigations into the whaling companies is going. Sorry Shane, you want justice against the whaling companies, then you had better accept justice against Sea Shepherd. otherwise, you are encouraging crime to fight crime, and last I checked, that was only acceptable in the world of comic books. It took one year from the act that they were arrested for and the actual arrest and impounding. That seem a little quick to me. For something like this anyways when the ship has been moving all over the world. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 17:35:52 GMT -5
I dunno... I've seen footage of what they do, seems they make life considerably more difficult for whalers. Any saved whale is a victory, in my opinion. But then, I consider them fellow sentients, and believe killing them is literally murder. In all honesty, it really doesn't. They've got, what, one boat? They can only hinder one whaler at a time. Hindering one whaler isn't hindering all of them. No, they have several The whalers, however, are not being hunted to extinction with incredibly inhumane harpoon guns. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 26, 2011 17:41:45 GMT -5
There's one thing I don't understand here. Why do so many people seem to think whales are somehow sacred or untouchable? I can certainly understand wanting to keep their population at a reasonable level, but what is up with the idea that whaling is inherently immoral (especially when it comes from non-vegans)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 26, 2011 17:44:32 GMT -5
There's one thing I don't understand here. Why do so many people seem to think whales are somehow sacred or untouchable? I can certainly understand wanting to keep their population at a reasonable level, but what is up with the idea that whaling is inherently immoral (especially when it comes from non-vegans)? We have guns and harpoons and they don't? And in some cultures they are sacred (but that is besides the point). It's the same reasons we find animal abuse bad. Yeah, the animals have teeth but we're bigger and we have the weapons and the larger brains. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 26, 2011 17:48:32 GMT -5
We have guns and harpoons and they don't? And in some cultures they are sacred (but that is besides the point). And why is that line of thinking only applied to whales (and sometimes seals)? Deer, bears, kangaroos, ducks, geese, rabbits, fish and foxes don't have guns and harpoons either, yet the majority opinion is hunting those guys is a-ok, even when it's just for fun rather than food. It's the same reasons we find animal abuse bad. Yeah, the animals have teeth but we're bigger and we have the weapons and the larger brains. Hunting =/= animal abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 26, 2011 18:20:16 GMT -5
Why do I get the sense that if most people in this thread agreed more with Sea Shepherd that they'd be in favor of a lowered fine, them getting their boat back, and investigations made against Fish and Fish along with the other companies Sea Shepherd has terrorized? It's easy enough to be in favor of injustice when it's being used against people you disagree with. There is no reason why this should happen. Justice should be blind. Of course, "Justice" keeps turning a blind eye to them in the first place. I can't speak for everyone, but I most certainly do support the concept of not hunting whales in some bullshit "science" claim. Whales are big money, which is why they do it. If agreeing with them means "supporting violent means to illegally threaten and obstruct people," then I think it's every bit as ethical as the asshoels who harrass women at abortion clinics and explicitly do not agree with them. I empathise with the cause, but have trouble thinking more than "oh, that's terrible..Technically." |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 26, 2011 18:44:19 GMT -5
Shane, you can't selectively support justice. You can't support justice against the whalers without supporting justice against Sea Shepherd. It's counter-productive.
There were many things Sea Shepherd could have done that were not illegal. They are not blameless in this, and to act like they are is disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 19:01:06 GMT -5
There's one thing I don't understand here. Why do so many people seem to think whales are somehow sacred or untouchable? I can certainly understand wanting to keep their population at a reasonable level, but what is up with the idea that whaling is inherently immoral (especially when it comes from non-vegans)? For me, it comes from the belief that whales are fellow sentients. Hunting whales for food is, essentuially, the same as hunting people for food. IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 26, 2011 19:05:16 GMT -5
Hunting =/= animal abuse. Indeed, it does not, if the hunter is an ethical hunter. And ethical hunters do NOT jam one of these fuckers into you  and then either let you bleed to death, or drag you into a factory ship by the wound, and then commence hacking pieces off you with saws while you are still alive. Out of interest, google image search for harpoon produces this young lady, who recently featured in another thread. Synchronicity! t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkymPrpgglGIrovbXjk7uqG8R0Z4Y50FmDw_Nzvh_RatOyjkLCLg |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 26, 2011 19:16:38 GMT -5
Shane, you can't selectively support justice. You can't support justice against the whalers without supporting justice against Sea Shepherd. It's counter-productive. There were many things Sea Shepherd could have done that were not illegal. They are not blameless in this, and to act like they are is disingenuous. I think you're missing the part where I would have agreed with arrests and lowered fines (or I just did a lousy job of making it clear. For that I apologize). I'm not saying they get off scot free. I'm saying they get fines and/or jail time that fit the one crime they were arrested for. |
|
