Fail: Sea Shepherd

[avgas]

Sorry kwaka_crasher........but I still don't see how what japan is doing is not wrong.
lets say i changed the scenario.
Say I set up a committee, and we called ourselves "International Kiwi-meat Committee". Would what I say be found to be legitimate in an international law?
As far as I can see SS and IWC both do not have a leg to stand on. And both are lying about it.
Show me something that has a true international basis for Japans supposed whalling operation.
As far as I can see the IWC only really looks after whalling..........which means the board fails rule no.1 : Is there Conflict?
If something like this can be created this unbalanced from nothing.........what is stopping it happening to everything?

[imdying]

The plastic boat could have avoided the incident, so it's their fault, end of story.

Surely they have maritime laws regarding how close you're allowed to sail to another vessel without permission in any case?

[kwaka_crasher]

Sorry kwaka_crasher........but I still don't see how what japan is doing is not wrong.

I don't believe I've said anywhere that is isn't wrong, although that is my personal belief. I have absolutely no problem with sustainable whaling - let's get that straight.

What I have said is what the Japanese are doing is lawful. And to go about doing unlawful things as Sea Shithead have done in an attempt to stop the Japanese doing something that is entirely lawful is both unlawful AND wrong. How would you like it if in order to stop you motorcycling, motorcycle protesters threw Z-nails on the road as they saw you coming and you were at a distance where you simply couldn't avoid them?

They're welcome to go and protest. I even believe exercising that is as much an obligation as a right. However, I certainly don't agree with their tactics and outright lies. I would not begrudge even that fuckwit professional protestor Minto the unalienble right of peaceful protest even as much as I think he should be shot with a ball of his own shit.

lets say i changed the scenario.
Say I set up a committee, and we called ourselves "International Kiwi-meat Committee". Would what I say be found to be legitimate in an international law?

Your scenario is not appropriate because Kiwi are actually endangered (presuming you mean the bird...) and oceans are international - Kiwis are found only here, in our soverign territory. Incidently, I would have no objection to Kiwi being farmed and sold for meat - that will guarantee their survival as opposed to this piecemeal conservation bullshit. But that's an argument for another time...

As far as I can see SS and IWC both do not have a leg to stand on. And both are lying about it.

In what way are the IWC lieing about anything? Membership is entirely voluntary - Japan could just tell them to get fucked and withdraw. Obviously, Japan is looking after it's own interests, but who doesn't? The fact they're willing to be bound by the IWC says a lot. SS are clearly lieing by saying the whaling is illegal. They know it isn't but they know their emotive rantings will be unquestionably accepted by their target audience who will deny it's a lie even in the face of clear evidence, as we've seen here.

Show me something that has a true international basis for Japans supposed whalling operation.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

As far as I can see the IWC only really looks after whalling..........which means the board fails rule no.1 : Is there Conflict?

Of course it looks after whaling, but not solely the interests of the whaling nations.

If something like this can be created this unbalanced from nothing.........what is stopping it happening to everything?

What imbalance?

[Hinny]

The plastic boat could have avoided the incident, so it's their fault, end of story.

No wonder eye witness evidence is given so little weight in law.
How you could come to that conclusion defies imagination.

[Hinny]

What I have said is what the Japanese are doing is lawful.

Still don't believe you.

[kwaka_crasher]

Still don't believe you.

Then you either haven't read the links I provided to the IWC webstie or you're just plain stupid and pig-headed like that other clown who pretended he didn't care once he was shown to be talking shit...

[Hinny]

I read the links.
The idea that you can make something 'legal' by giving yourself permission is errant nonsense.
Surely you can see that.

It is noteworthy, to me at least, that those that espouse right wing claptrap almost all resort to name calling.
'Sea Shitheads' is one of yours.I find that really interesting. No doubt there are many and varied explanations as to why that should be so.
I remenber heariing something about it along the lines of making it easier to demonise the target and thereby give some sort of validity to your view of that target.
In this case 'Shitheads' sounds bad ... so they must be bad.
All rather purile in my opinion.

[kwaka_crasher]

I read the links.
The idea that you can make something 'legal' by giving yourself permission is errant nonsense.
Surely you can see that.

Clearly you didn't read them well. The Japanese government has issued permits, as they are lawfully entitled to do. They're not breaking any laws. No laws broken = not illegal.

It is noteworthy, to me at least, that those that espouse right wing claptrap almost all resort to name calling.
'Sea Shitheads' is one of yours.I find that really interesting. No doubt there are many and varied explanations as to why that should be so.
I remenber heariing something about it along the lines of making it easier to demonise the target and thereby give some sort of validity to your view of that target.
In this case 'Shitheads' sounds bad ... so they must be bad.
All rather purile in my opinion.

What's worse... a little name calling or the blatant xenophobia displayed by some of the pro-Sea Shithead posters in this thread? Go back, have a look. I note your silence on that is deafening - a bit of cherry-picking going on here...

Personally, I find arguing a point of view that has been thoroughly refuted such as the foolish claim that the Japanese activity is 'illegal' when it clearly isn't, to be far more purile and very childish.

[terbang]

Yeah but we all know the japs don't give a fuck about the rules. And don't even need to play by them.
I sprung a jap vessel slaughtering whales not far off Sydney. In Aussie water... To all those sunning themselves on Coogee beach life was perfect, but just over the horizon... Took all the images, footage ETC which got Aussie AQIS and the greenies all jumping with rage, yet nothing happened. Too many good deals on Jap machinery I guess.

[JimO]

Yeah but we all know the japs don't give a fuck about the rules.

that makes both sides then

[Hinny]

Clearly you didn't read them well. The Japanese government has issued permits, as they are lawfully entitled to do. They're not breaking any laws. No laws broken = not illegal.

Personally, I find arguing a point of view that has been thoroughly refuted such as the foolish claim that the Japanese activity is 'illegal' when it clearly isn't, to be far more purile and very childish.

You don't seem to get that your arguement is equivalent to arguing that David Bain is innocent. Because of the outcome of one court case, acquitted, therefor he must be innocent.

[Pascal]

You don't seem to get that your arguement is equivalent to arguing that David Bain is innocent. Because of the outcome of one court case, acquitted, therefor he must be innocent.

Would it be fair to turn around and say your arguments are equivalent to vigilante justice?

[imdying]

How you could come to that conclusion

Ahhh, that would be because they were two boats in a million square miles of Southern Ocean, and the plastic boat still managed to get struck by the larger vessel.

The only way that they could have come into contact like that is if they were sailing to close to one another. There was absolutely no reason for them to be so close to the larger vessel that it could have hit them. Therefore, given they could have easily avoided the entire incident, and that it seems unlikely that the larger boat was chasing the smaller boat around a million square miles of ocean, it's their fault.

Tell us, people playing chicken with cars and then getting hit, I suppose you think that's the drivers fault too hmmm?

[pzkpfw]

Still don't believe you.

Turn it around - can you show it to be illegal?

[kwaka_crasher]

Yeah but we all know the japs don't give a fuck about the rules. And don't even need to play by them.

And yet here they are playing by the rules...

You don't seem to get that your arguement is equivalent to arguing that David Bain is innocent. Because of the outcome of one court case, acquitted, therefor he must be innocent.

What a pathetic attempt at an analogy.

Turn it around - can you show it to be illegal?

Of course he can't. The anti-whaling position is entirely emotional and in some cases just thinly disguised xenophobia. They just know, like Goebbels, that repeat the lie (of illegality in this instance) often enogh and the minions will eventually believe it.