Sea Shepherd spots whaling fleet 1000 miles away from sanctuary using Drones. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Stronts;33928632]As far as I am aware they are: 1. A lot more intelligent than pigs, and are killed in a much MUCH more inhumane way. being dragged up the back of a ship and killed with exploding harpoons with deaths lasting over an hour irrc? 2. Whaling was never some great Japanese tradition as far as I am aware, and only became widely done after food shortages caused by world war 2. 3. It's illegal, unnecessary and from what I know a lot of the meat goes to waste anyway. My biggest problem with it though is the inhumane killing of an intelligent animal, if you can't do it humanely then just don't do it.[/QUOTE] You forgot number 4: Whale tastes like arse. Or more specifically, like a mixture of bad beefsteak and cod liver oil.

No matter your stance on the actions of Sea Shepherd, you can't deny that their sea camo cruisers are effing sweet. Edit: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/xk137.png[/IMG] Doesn't that just spell out "Hi, I'm Steve Irwin and I'm here to fuck your shit up"? Re-Edit: My god, only now did I notice the camo is pretty much entirely Estonian flag-stripes all over that thing. Fuck yeah! >:3 Our ships need this camo, like, now!

I remembered more about the whole Steve Irwin being impounded in the port in town here. [url]http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2011/07/20/anti-whale-slaughter-protesters-must-raise-1-4m-bond-to-free-steve-irwin-following-lawsuit[/url] Back in July, it was impounded in Lerwick on a $1.4 million release bond. It was banished from the main port as well.

[QUOTE=DarkCisco;33929869][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Hvalur_sinkings[/url] mmhmm. Peaceful my ass.[/QUOTE] That was in god damn 1986, that's hardly a representation of their current operations. [editline]28th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=gamefreek76;33928486]Ok, but that still doesn't explain why whaling should be illegal? Just because they are cute?[/QUOTE] All the reason Stronts posted pretty much. And the whaling process is incredibly inhumane, there would probably be uproar if cows, pigs and other farm animals were killed the way whales are, yet because they live in the ocean apparently it's perfectly fine.

[b]Sea Shepherd Ship Severely Damaged by Rogue Wave Steve Irwin Responding to Distress Call from the Brigitte Bardot[/b] [release][b]While fighting heavy seas in pursuit of the Japanese whaling fleet, the Sea Shepherd scout vessel Brigitte Bardot was struck by a rogue wave that has cracked the hull and severely damaged one of the pontoons on the vessel.[/b] Captain Paul Watson, onboard the Sea Shepherd flagship Steve Irwin, reports that they are [b]fighting heavy seas to reach the position of the Brigitte Bardot some 240 miles to the southeast. It is expected to take twenty hours to reach the damaged vessel.[/b] The Brigitte Bardot is at 51 degrees 42 minutes South and 99 Degrees 21 minutes East, or 1500 miles southwest of Fremantle, Western Australia. Brigitte Bardot Captain Jonathan Miles Renecle of South Africa was pursuing the Japanese factory ship Nisshin Maru in six meter swells when the wave slammed into the port side of the vessel cracking the hull. [b]The crack has been getting wider as the seas continue to pound the vessel.[/b] [b]Captain Renecle is confident that the ship will stay afloat until the Steve Irwin arrives.[/b] The Brigitte Bardot has a crew of ten: three British, three American, one Australian, one Canadian, one Belgian and one South African. [b]The Sea Shepherd ship Bob Barker will continue in pursuit of the whaling fleet. The Steve Irwin will assist the Brigitte Bardot, first to see to the safety of the crew, and then to escort the vessel to Fremantle for repairs.[/b] “This is disappointing but these are hostile seas and we have always been prepared for situations like this,” Said Captain Paul Watson from the Steve Irwin. [b]“Right now the safety of my crew on the Brigitte Bardot is our priority and we intend to reach the crew and then do what we can to save our ship.”[/b][/release][img]http://i.imgur.com/d5teh.jpg[/img][img]http://i.imgur.com/FnNDH.jpg[/img] Well that sucks. I hope they can get it back to Fremantle in time. That article was posted 11 hours ago, so they still got about 9 hours until they get there.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33935985]That was in god damn 1986, that's hardly a representation of their current operations.[/QUOTE] Paul Watson and his crew of pretend animal crusaders are still a terrorist group.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;33944993]Paul Watson and his crew of pretend animal crusaders are still a terrorist group.[/QUOTE] lol in what way are they "pretend"? I would say they are pretty much the definition of concrete action for this cause.

Donated $100 to them this year because one of my friends maintains the boats. Seriously, they are such a great cause, greenpeace turned to bigot crap a few years ago.

What kind of bigot crap? <--genuinely interested

Whale meat really does taste good, it's nothing quite like it.

[QUOTE=TH89;33945665]What kind of bigot crap? <--genuinely interested[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2011/12/12/greenpeace-should-address-its-own-disgraceful-behavior-498[/url] [quote]“Sato should look to his own organization when it comes to questioning credibility over this issue. They raise some $40 million dollars a year on their anti-whaling campaigns and all they do is produce mail-outs asking for funds. They have not sent a ship to the Southern Ocean to hang banners for years. The Japanese whaling fleet will pass right by the Greenpeace ship Esperanza, now in Palau, and Greenpeace will not confront them. This is also a disgrace. The raising of money from the public to pretend to be saving whales and at the same time attacking the only organization that has saved whales in the Southern Ocean,” said Captain Watson. “I have asked Greenpeace to join us in a common cause to oppose the whaling fleet and they have refused. I have no idea what they do with the millions of dollars they raise to save whales but I do know the funds are not used for saving whales. As for credibility, Sea Shepherd saved 863 whales last year from the harpoons and Greenpeace saved none. That is the only credibility which we are concerned with.”[/quote] In fact, according to Wikipedia, Greenpeace makes around 200 million dollars a year in total. Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd have never gotten along. [editline]29th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=just-a-boy;33935565]No matter your stance on the actions of Sea Shepherd, you can't deny that their sea camo cruisers are effing sweet. Edit: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/xk137.png[/IMG] Doesn't that just spell out "Hi, I'm Steve Irwin and I'm here to fuck your shit up"? Re-Edit: My dod, only now did I notice the camo is pretty much entirely Estonian flag-stripes all over that thing. Fuck yeah! >:3 Our ships need this camo, like, now![/QUOTE] Fun fact: Thats the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy flag. All ships need to be registered under a flag. After the Canadians revoked their registry, Sea Shepherds flagship was flagless. The Mohawks gave them that flag and registered the ship under the Iroquois Confederacy. [img]http://i.imgur.com/dUa4G.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/8nXTg.jpg[/img] [quote]In presenting the flags to Captain Watson, Stuart Myiow of the Mohawks said, "Sea Shepherd is protecting our mother earth and we decided we should support their efforts and give them the protection of our flag."[/quote] Though I think the registry is symbolic and is not recognized. They also had a Buddha attached to the top of their mast, which was given to them by the dalai lama. [img]http://i.imgur.com/vRQHJ.jpg[/img] The Buddha now sits in the bridge because it was getting too weathered. [editline]29th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=dcalde78;33935817]I remembered more about the whole Steve Irwin being impounded in the port in town here. [url]http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2011/07/20/anti-whale-slaughter-protesters-must-raise-1-4m-bond-to-free-steve-irwin-following-lawsuit[/url] Back in July, it was impounded in Lerwick on a $1.4 million release bond. It was banished from the main port as well.[/QUOTE] It was impounded because of some fishing lawsuit they were in. They raised the 1.4 million in under a month and got it back. Not sure how the case is going but I'm pretty sure it holds no water.

[QUOTE=just-a-boy;33935565]No matter your stance on the actions of Sea Shepherd, you can't deny that their sea camo cruisers are effing sweet. Edit: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/xk137.png[/IMG] Doesn't that just spell out "Hi, I'm Steve Irwin and I'm here to fuck your shit up"? Re-Edit: My dod, only now did I notice the camo is pretty much entirely Estonian flag-stripes all over that thing. Fuck yeah! >:3 Our ships need this camo, like, now![/QUOTE] to me it spells out "we spent money on a stupid looking paint job rather than using the money for something productive that would help the whales" [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Sz8uH0k-Q[/media] this man is a true hero the japanese whaling is horrible but paul watson is an absolute fool, and the sea shepherd operation would be much better off without him

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33946085]to me it spells out "we spent money on a stupid looking paint job rather than using the money for something productive that would help the whales" [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Sz8uH0k-Q[/media] this man is a true hero the japanese whaling is horrible but paul watson is an absolute fool, and the sea shepherd operation would be much better off without him[/QUOTE] You have to periodically repaint the hull of a ship because it gets damaged by weathering and if you don't replace the rust coat you'll take years off the life of an already 30 year old ship. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29i6P_n99Uw&feature=relmfu[/media] Rubbing up the antarctic ice damages the paint so they have to keep it coated in fresh paint. I think they painted it every year, they just changed up the color scheme this time.

Only just saw this now. [QUOTE=catbarf;33898442]And it just so happens that what they 'see as illegal' is actually legal- loophole or not.[/quote] That's awfully simplistic. I - and plenty of other people - would argue that because Japan isn't using the whales for what they claim they're using them for (and under which their killing is legal), then what they're doing is, in fact, illegal. You speak of it as though it's a domestic issue. It's not. It's a third world issue. Whales do not belong to a single country, and Japan's actions effect the rest of the world. The overfishing of all sea creatures has a profoundly negative impact on the world. The extinction of whales (particularly for such a bullshit use as food) will have a supremely negative effect on the world. Unfortunately, third world issues cannot be negotiated easily. But saying 'it's legal' is complete shit in this argument, because it really doesn't matter. I wouldn't agree with whaling even if it was legal in Japan. [QUOTE=catbarf;33898442]Insurance companies use legal loopholes to defraud people out of money, sometimes even costing them their lives, but that sure as hell doesn't give me license to go shoot up an office building. Vigilantism is illegal, and 'vigilantism' where you're acting entirely contrary to existing laws and punishing legal behavior is even more illegal.[/quote] Cool, except that Sea Shepherd have never killed anyone, so comparing their actions to shooting up an office building is fallacious. I already explained why their actions don't count as vigilantism. If you didn't read it, you can go search upthread. [QUOTE=catbarf;33898442]I'm against whaling. I think what the Japanese whalers are doing is despicable. But I'll be damned if I'm going to cheer on a bunch of terrorists. Laws exist because raw morality is too flexible and too subjective to be a basis for enforcing punishment, and if we start adopting the position that illegal wanton destruction is okay when it's directed at things we don't like, it will only come back to bite us.[/quote] Why are they terrorists, according to your definition? [QUOTE=catbarf;33898442]What an excellent example. Who do we remember as heroes- the protestors led by Martin Luther King Jr. and others who conducted civil disobedience, with rallies and marches, or the revolutionary groups who used violent acts of terrorism to get the point across? One of these two methodologies worked [i]within the law[/i] where possible, calling attention to how they were being unjustly oppressed, and so faced the problem in a way that led to increased public support and eventually changes to the law. The other violated the law in the name of vigilante justice with violent acts against police, making the movement seem like a bunch of criminals, and the people responsible for this are now almost universally condemned.[/quote] Ahaha, oh god. You do realize that if the civil rights movement were occurring right now, that Martin Luther King Jr and all of the famous African Americans who bravely led the fight against discrimination - they would all be labeled as terrorists. At the time, what they were doing was illegal, because - guess what? Laws aren't always right. Those fights certainly were violent. Yes, Martin Luther King Jr. did espouse non-violent civil disobedience, and some African Americans agreed with that. But Malcolm X and plenty of other civil rights leaders were in favour of violence. He's certainly not 'universally condemned'. Even those who were non-violent were still seen as a 'bunch of criminals' at the time. Have you ever read some of the laws that were around at that time? Rosa Parks was certainly condemned as a criminal, but we rightly look back now and say what she did wasn't wrong. The law - and the people in power - at the time said she was. You keep comparing this to Sea Shepherd as if they were physically harming people. They're not. Stop using fallacious arguments. [QUOTE=catbarf;33898442]The moral of the story is that if you have a problem with the law, and it's not so unjust and insurmountable that overthrowing the government outright is necessary, the responsible thing to do is to work within the law to get it changed. Deciding you're going to outright ignore the law and harm others because it doesn't happen to exactly correspond to your moral beliefs is incredibly petty.[/quote] Again with the harming people. Is this all you can do - make up false statements to try to back up your bullshit arguments? And no. I don't always agree that the 'responsible thing to do' is to work within the law. As I have stated a million times (but something you seem to be unable to grasp): the laws are created by people in power. It is not an objective thing; it does not exist independently. It is not something that is always right, and, as such, is not something that should always be followed. [QUOTE=catbarf;33898442]The reason Sea Shepherd is using for attacking Japanese whaling- that while technically legal, it is morally wrong and should be opposed- is the [i]exact same reasoning[/i] that right-wing extremist groups use to justify firebombing abortion clinics, or pro-animal rights groups use to raid research labs. Such a subjective distinction is not a legally or morally justifiable basis on which to be making decisions that will harm other people.[/quote] RE: above your massive overuse of the word 'harm'. [QUOTE=catbarf;33898442]And this isn't even going into the fact that the whales the Japanese are hunting, almost exclusively minke whales, aren't considered endangered, threatened, or even protected. Nor did I mention that the founder and leader of Sea Shepherd is currently wanted by Interpol for various crimes. Or that the 'Australian Antarctic Territory' is only recognized as a legitimate maritime claim by 4 out of 194 countries- and Japan isn't one of the four. Or how Sea Shepherd illegally interferes in the 100% legal seal hunts in Canada and elsewhere, which a couple years ago led to several members being arrested by Canadian police. Basically it's a lot less black-and-white than the portrayal of 'evil Japanese whalers hunting endangered animals using a loophole to evade the law, while volunteer vigilantes non-violently oppose their industry'.[/quote] Oh for fuck's sake, you just go on and on, don't you. Again: if you acknowledge the fact that laws can be wrong, being arrested for preventing them is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't know why you're using their arrests as examples of how they're supposedly wrong. You say you hold Martin Luther King Jr. in high regard, and he was arrested. That's not proof of any wrongdoing in and of itself. You claim to not see this in black-and-white, but you seem to hold an incredibly simplistic view of the law and people who disobey it. As for the rest of it, I've already discussed why I disagree with you, so your repeating it ad nauseum isn't actually contributing to your argument. [QUOTE=catbarf;33898442]Sea Shepherd has a colorful history of sinking ships, mostly through ramming, occasionally with the use of limpet mines and improvised weapons, and sometimes with intentional scuttling onboard. Stranding sailors in freezing water by destroying their ship is far more harmful than rancid butter. In fact, Paul Watson, the founder of Sea Shepherd, was expelled from the leadership of Greenpeace because his methods were too violent and outright illegal. Greenpeace, an organization dedicated to non-violence, has had very public disagreements more than once with Sea Shepherd over their methods. I'm just going to leave this quote from Greenpeace's website because it speaks for itself:[/QUOTE] If you think Greenpeace is actually doing any good, I can't argue with you. OvB has touched on why Greenpeace is full of shit; show me something concrete that they've produced. Your method of fighting within the law means nothing here, and is completely ineffectual, because the whole system is broken. I don't see how Watson not getting on with them is evidence that he's a bad person. I know that you see things a little too simplistically to understand this, but different circumstances require different measures. Some laws can be changed within the legal framework, and that's great. Others can't be.

[QUOTE=OvB;33945782][url]http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2011/12/12/greenpeace-should-address-its-own-disgraceful-behavior-498[/url] In fact, according to Wikipedia, Greenpeace makes around 200 million dollars a year in total. Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd have never gotten along.[/QUOTE] That's pretty interesting but I'm not sure how that's bigoted?

I hate legal formalism so much Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is immoral Nelson Mandela was imprisoned because he was part of a violent group. I'd like you to tell him that ending apartheid was wrong, because Apartheid was the law. How about you criticize your government, considering the American revolution was a violent one. If you had any kind of legitimacy in your argument at all, the States should still be a British colony. Honestly mate, learn to think a bit harder about things before coming in here and spewing your shit all over the place.

[QUOTE=Contag;33946406]I hate legal formalism so much Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is immoral Nelson Mandela was imprisoned because he was part of a violent group. I'd like you to tell him that ending apartheid was wrong, because Apartheid was the law. How about you criticize your government, considering the American revolution was a violent one. If you had any kind of legitimacy in your argument at all, the States should still be a British colony. Honestly mate, learn to think a bit harder about things before coming in here and spewing your shit all over the place.[/QUOTE] People like catbarf who subscribe to the theory of black letter of law are impossible to argue with, because you can't get more willfully ignorant than that. In his/her opinion, it would appear that we can condemn segregation, for example, only because it's not legal in the US right now.