|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jul 8, 2010 11:39:42 GMT
Unrelated to climate, but showing that honesty isn't part of the leftist-green strategy. (Which we well know) Whatever one's position on whaling, the simple fact is that Sea Shepard told the Japanese one thing & then changed their tune as soon as Bethune was released. I somehow don't think the Japanese Judges will be impressed, and future courts may not be a lenient. Quotes: "Meanwhile, the Sea Shepherd group said it had banned Bethune from its Antarctic anti-whaling missions as part of a "legal strategy" during his trial, and the New Zealand activist was welcome to join the group on future trips. "I knew that the Japanese judges would be hesitant to release Pete back if they knew that he was going to be back in the Southern Ocean," Sea Shepherd captain Paul Watson told Radio New Zealand today." www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/bethune-still-seeking-justice-20100708-101o5.html |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 8, 2010 14:15:25 GMT
You're so pure and high-minded Kiwistonewall. Presumably, lying about "scientific whale research" so you can tuck into delicious whale blubber is OK  |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 8, 2010 15:34:57 GMT
You're so pure and high-minded Kiwistonewall.Presumably, lying about "scientific whale research" so you can tuck into delicious whale blubber is OK Who ever said motivation for doing research was a qualifier for bona fide research? Is enjoying diving on a tropical reef in Paradise a disqualifier for bonafide research on corals? Fish researchers very often eat the flesh after extracting the samples they need for research. You are so pure and high-minded Steve. I personally think we should leave the whales alone but I am not so presumptive to think my moral attitudes should be forced on other cultures. If what they do is sustainable and allows for healthy populations of whales what right do I have to complain? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 8, 2010 15:55:08 GMT
Who ever said motivation for doing research was a qualifier for bona fide research? If what they do is sustainable and allows for healthy populations of whales what right do I have to complain? Everyone says motivation is the primary qualification for research. Research is ALWAYS done in the least destructive fashion possible. Whale counts is about the only scientifically valuable data, and that can be done better with tagging. I suppose they weigh the whale meat. Killing whales and weighing the resulting meat doesn't sound terribly scientific to me. I like the whale watching industry. Killing whales degrades the industry two ways. First, there are fewer whales to watch. Second, it imparts fear of man. "Scientific research" is just a bogus cover story for what is actually commercial whaling. Since commercial whaling is against the law, the Japanese are breaking the law. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 8, 2010 16:11:54 GMT
Who ever said motivation for doing research was a qualifier for bona fide research? If what they do is sustainable and allows for healthy populations of whales what right do I have to complain? Everyone says motivation is the primary qualification for research. Research is ALWAYS done in the least destructive fashion possible. Whale counts is about the only scientifically valuable data, and that can be done better with tagging. I suppose they weigh the whale meat. Killing whales and weighing the resulting meat doesn't sound terribly scientific to me. I like the whale watching industry. Killing whales degrades the industry two ways. First, there are fewer whales to watch. Second, it imparts fear of man. "Scientific research" is just a bogus cover story for what is actually commercial whaling. Since commercial whaling is against the law, the Japanese are breaking the law. I would have to agree on that one. Nor do I believe it is sustainable. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 8, 2010 16:17:30 GMT
the simple fact is that Sea Shepard told the Japanese one thing & then changed their tune as soon as Bethune was released. I agree. That was bad. They're too much into "war mode" where such action is expected. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 8, 2010 16:54:59 GMT
Who ever said motivation for doing research was a qualifier for bona fide research? If what they do is sustainable and allows for healthy populations of whales what right do I have to complain? Everyone says motivation is the primary qualification for research. Research is ALWAYS done in the least destructive fashion possible. Whale counts is about the only scientifically valuable data, and that can be done better with tagging. I suppose they weigh the whale meat. Killing whales and weighing the resulting meat doesn't sound terribly scientific to me. I like the whale watching industry. Killing whales degrades the industry two ways. First, there are fewer whales to watch. Second, it imparts fear of man. "Scientific research" is just a bogus cover story for what is actually commercial whaling. Since commercial whaling is against the law, the Japanese are breaking the law. The law allows for the Japanese harvest which specifically provides an exception for lethal research. So right out of the box you are demonstrating your ignorance of the law. And it is also an ignorant statement that research is always done in the least destructive way possible. In fact, it is most often done in the most economic way possible. That might be a surprise to the naive but that is the way most things work. If the sale of whale blubber returns money for research that would not otherwise be done it might actually be better than not doing the research. And from a cultural point of view doing the research is almost always better than letting a bunch of cultural nuts do the research. . . . .as we can see was the result of not paying much attention to what Al Gore was doing. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 8, 2010 17:17:50 GMT
The law allows for the Japanese harvest which specifically provides an exception for lethal research. And it is also an ignorant statement that research is always done in the least destructive way possible. In fact, it is most often done in the most economic way possible. That might be a surprise to the naive but that is the way most things work. If the sale of whale blubber returns money for research that would not otherwise be done it might actually be better than not doing the research. And from a cultural point of view doing the research is almost always better than letting a bunch of cultural nuts do the research. . . . .as we can see was the result of not paying much attention to what Al Gore was doing. Calling it "lethal research" doesn't magically change things. It's a scientifically worthless commercial whaling industry. You are absolutely right that none of this "research" would be done without the sale of whale products. Economics plays a large role in research, but ethics plays a larger role. Did you read about the three-legged dog research that is aimed at building robots which are capable of functioning after sustaining damage? The economic technique would be to get a bunch of pound puppies and slice off some legs. Instead, they sought out pre-injured pets. We are talking about killing huge, highly intelligent animals. There had better be a large scientific return for that kind of damage to the biosphere. The only way to justify the killing is by the sale of whale products. That makes it commercial whaling. |
|
|
|
Post by greenlandexile on Jul 8, 2010 17:36:09 GMT
One of the primary manuals for progressives is Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals". In this book he wrote that one of the principal tenants of progressivism is that "The ends justify the means". For a progressive that takes Alinsky to heart, and truly believes in AGW as a worthy cause, they are freed up to do or say what they like as long as it furthers their cause.
This begs the question of any Alinskyite AGW believer, why wouldn't they be lying, if the lie furthers their cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 8, 2010 17:50:35 GMT
This begs the question of any Alinskyite AGW believer, why wouldn't they be lying, if the lie furthers their cause. In this case lying hurt their cause. There was no need to lie for the cause. Bethune in prison serves as a martyr just fine. The problem with Alinskyites is that the lies narrow their perspective. Reputation is more important than a single skirmish. |
|
|
|
Post by w7psk on Jul 8, 2010 17:52:04 GMT
I dont agree with the japanese whaling, but its legal even though I know its not ethical
But WHAT the Sea Shepherd group is doing is both Un-Ethical and I dare say ILLEGAL. Trying to disable and ruin equipment would be considered Piracy in the non-PC world and would garner a 5" shell amidships.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenlandexile on Jul 8, 2010 18:58:35 GMT
One of the first major examples of Alinsky tactics that I witnessed was conducted by Greenpeace 15 years ago. In 1995, while I was living in the UK, Shell oil co. needed to dispose of an obsolete storage buoy called the Brent Spar. Shell determined that the safest and most efficient way to dispose of the Brent Spar was to sink it in the deep Atlantic. Shell estimated that there was only a small amount residual oil in the onboard storage tank that would have minimal impact on the deep ocean abyssal plain, and the UK Government agreed with this plan. Then Greenpeace got involved and publicly stated that there was 10 times the amount of residual oil that Shell estimated, and that it would have a significant impact if the Spar was sank. The Spar ended up sitting in a Norwegian Fjord for almost a year until a third party firm finally conducted a detailed physical inspection of the Spar and concluded that Shell's estimate was pretty much correct, and Greenpeace's claims were completely wrong. When the press questioned Greenpeace about their statements, they unapologetically stated that they exaggerated the oil estimates because their goal was to prevent the Spar from being sunk by whatever means. So Matt (at least in this case), Greenpeace did not seem to mind tainting their reputation as long as they got what they wanted. sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2636-2005.68.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 8, 2010 19:58:33 GMT
Ah, the discussion seems to have turned to the real ethical!
I agree with Matt stooping to low brow ethics does not help any cause.
I am old enough to have been in the midst of the US civil disobedience movement of the 60's. Sit ins and passive tactics are the legitimate methods of civil disobedience. Resorting to violence or even threatened violence, destruction of property, and lies is where you go over the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 9, 2010 1:55:08 GMT
[Snip] I am old enough to have been in the midst of the US civil disobedience movement of the 60's. [Snip] Good to see that you can still wheel yourself over to the keyboard .... |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 9, 2010 4:07:13 GMT
[Snip] I am old enough to have been in the midst of the US civil disobedience movement of the 60's. [Snip] Good to see that you can still wheel yourself over to the keyboard ....  |
|
