Ship Simulator
English forum => Small talk => Topic started by: captain qwerty on October 28, 2009, 19:10:23
-
??? ??? ??? what do you rthink about it- post your ideas here
-
Hello
There's an ongoing arguement discussion already at http://www.shipsim.com/ShipSimForum/index.php/topic,16153.msg211288.html#msg211288
Maybe it's best to join in the fight there. ::)
-
Cheers :2thumbs:
-
Voted for "I am hungry" as the time comes to my dinner. ;D
-
I am always hungry
-
I am always hungry
Tape worm?
-
???
-
Don't we already have a topic discussing this?
The Japanese are whaling in a whale sanctuary, disregarding international whaling rules.
-
You could look it up on google or wikipedia...
It's a little worm that lives in old VHS cassette tapes... very nutritious ::)
Don't we already have a topic discussing this?
Well spotted AgentA... I can't imagine why I didn't point this out already. ::) ::)
-
THIS TOPIC IS NOT JUST ABOUT WHALE WARS ( I do support them)
-
Ohhh My ears hurts again!
-
Well, no one else whales illegally, so then why is this topic here again?
-
THIS TOPIC IS NOT JUST ABOUT WHALE WARS ( I do support them)
You mean you support whales or support whale wars?
Ohhh My ears hurts again!
Shall we all type in large letters to help you ;D
-
Shall we all type in large letters to help you ;D
Then I'll have nothing else to do than joining you & type in capitals as well, otherwise I won't be able to hear what I'm saying. ;D
-
Then I'll have nothing else to do than joining you & type in capitals as well, otherwise I won't be able to hear what I'm saying. ;D
Type in capitals?
Like London, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Lisbon... ;D A long way to travel just to print a few posts.
-
Well, no one else whales illegally, so then why is this topic here again?
It depends on what you class as illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Modern_whaling
-
It depends on what you class as illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Modern_whaling
They don't whale in an whale sanctuary. They also stick to a maximum quota, and don't harvest VERY endangered species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Japan_2
-
They don't whale in an whale sanctuary. They also stick to a maximum quota, and don't harvest VERY endangered species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Japan_2
I know, but as a fellow Sea Shepherd supporter then you should know that the Japanese aren't the only ones Sea Shepherd class as illegal whalers. They also class Iceland and Norway as using scientific research as a disguise for commercial whaling.
Currently Norway has a hunting quota for 1,052 Minke Whales a year, and Iceland has a very small quota for 30 Minke Whales and 9 Fin Whales.
Sea Shepherd have focused more on the Japanese in recent years over the fact they hunt in a whaling sanctuary, as you rightly said. But they have in the past sunk half the Icelandic whaling fleet and two Norwegian whaling ships.
http://www.seashepherd.org/whales/
-
But who, prey tell, has been declared the king of the planet and can tell other sovereign states what they can and can not do in international waters?
I am no whaling fan at all. It is an evil from a bygone era, but that does not mean that I can enforce my opinion on others.
This is like objecting to someone smoking in your house- which is a fair enough complaint and then objecting to them smoking 9 miles away, whilst standing in a field miles from you- or worse case scenario in their own home.
As I said, I am against whale hunting but you need to come up with some very good reasons before you start trying to tell a sovereign state what to do, much less ram its legally operating ships.
-
But who, prey tell, has been declared the king of the planet and can tell other sovereign states what they can and can not do in international waters?
I am no whaling fan at all. It is an evil from a bygone era, but that does not mean that I can enforce my opinion on others.
This is like objecting to someone smoking in your house- which is a fair enough complaint and then objecting to them smoking 9 miles away, whilst standing in a field miles from you- or worse case scenario in their own home.
As I said, I am against whale hunting but you need to come up with some very good reasons before you start trying to tell a sovereign state what to do, much less ram its legally operating ships.
This is their reasoning.
In 1986, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) enacted a moratorium on all commercial whaling. Since then, three nations - Iceland, Norway, and Japan - have brutally slaughtered over 25,000 whales under the guise of scientific research and for commercial purposes. The IWC does not have the capacity to enforce the moratorium. Sea Shepherd, guided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature, is the only organization whose mission is to enforce these international conservation regulations on the high seas.
-
It is a moratorium- effectively a 'gentlemans agreement'. It is not legally binding.
Just because most countries want something, you can not force it on the rest unless you declare war, which is quite frankly a bit of an overkill.
You can stop them whaling in your own terratorial water and probably make it very difficult near to it (especially if 2 countries nearby agree) but it is a different matter in deep international water.
Let me give you an example. Assuming you are not a vegetarian. I, as a veggymuncher decide unilaterally that you are not to eat meat as it's wrong and so many veggies have signed a moratorium. I then break into your house, steal your dinner, beat you up in the process (sounds harsh, but compare to ramming a ship) and my basis for this is that me and some mates met up in a pub and declared not only meat illegal in our own homes, but in your own home too- and that includes the kebab on Friday night after the pub.
It is laudable that you support the anti-whaling movement, although perhaps not with sea shephard mob. All I ask is that you try to argue your point with the pen rather than support people whom I'd consider as pirates...
Incidentally, am I correct in thinking that under international agreement- the same system as being used to support the anti-hunting mob- that a captain of a ship can use deadly force to prevent piracy? I wonder if purposefully ramming a ship or preventing it going about its business is classed as piracy.
-
Stuart I can see your point, but let me show you mine, and it's a bit more harsh than your vegetable comparison.
Lets compare whale hunting, and the ignorance towards what's going on, with the Holocaust. If both Europe and North America ignored the events going on in concentration camps with thousands (perhaps millions I can't exactly remember) of Jews being murdered, what would our world be like today if the world ignored the holocaust?
Now my point compared to yours is that, if people hadn't taken action to something that wasn't their country's business then more innocent people would've died, so if the world doesn't take action to Japan's business then more innocent whales will die.
Now, after the war the United Nations was formed am I right? And under United Nations laws in which Sea Shepherd crew are part of countries participating in these international laws, and so are Japan. Sea Shepherd are protecting the whales under the United Nations World Charter for Nature, which Japan are obliged to obey to. Nevermind the IWC, that is as you say, just a group that not everyone has to obey to.
-
Jammy, you make a good point. That's all I wanted- for people to give a reasoned and rational arguement and I have to say, even if I'm not totally convinced of the comparison, that this is a good arguement.
Do you therefore think (and I am asking, not provoking or judging) that in this case what amounts to piracy is acceptabl? I reiterate that I am not judging or provoking you there.
To others: See what can happen with reasoned debate? Two opposing views can come together to a degree of concensus.
-
Well it depends on what you define as piracy, Sea Shepherd don't gain anything out of "harrassing" the whalers, and no whalers are properly harmed in the process. The whalers just lose out of what they want. So it is a protest, because the effects that Sea Shepherd have is slowing down what they are protesting about, nothing else.
What Sea Shepherd have done in the past is piracy, yes I admit that. Scuttling half the Icelandic whaling fleet and two Norwegian whaling ships. But this conflict with the Japanese in the southern ocean isn't piracy from what I've seen so far, the closest being boarding one of the vessels but of course handing a letter to the captain and being tied and beaten up in the process isn't what I would call a pirate do you?
My personal view is that if there's no military action being taken to something illegal by UN law then Sea Shepherd have a right to at least confront and harass the whalers as long as nobody is harmed in the process. I know ramming isn't a good way of going about it, as that breaks Colreg regulations and is therefore illegal (I think) but I wouldn't class it as piracy.
-
The wikipedia entry for piracy is
Piracy is a war-like act committed by private parties (not affiliated with any government) that engaged in acts of robbery and/or criminal violence at sea. The term can include acts committed in other major bodies of water or on a shore.
I would add that I wouldn't normally accept an entry from Wiki but in this case, I happen to think it is about right.
-
So would you say Sea Shepherd commit either robbery or criminal violence?
Robbery = Never stolen anything from the ships.
Criminal Violence = Sea Shepherd have never hurt any of the whalers, in fact it has been the other way round in which Sea Shepherd crew have been tied up and punched and kicked repeatedly in the chest.
-
Criminal damage for sure- ramming ships... As for the violence, I suppose that depends on which crew boards the others ship.
If SS crew has boarded the whaler and been beaten (within reason) then I suspect that international 'law' would side with the whalers.
I'm damned sure if I was a captain and this lot boarded my vessel without permission, I would order the crew to use 'whatever force necessary'.
I think this is really going around in circles (a bit like the S.S. trying to keep straight!) and we need to agree to disagree. I DO agree with your opinion of their motives, just not their competence. Anyway, can we just agree on that point?
I very much respect your opinions on this (even if they are wrong ;D) but I fear that others will join it who do not distinguish between objective and subjective reasoning.
-
Criminal damage, okay I agree with, but Wikipedia said nothing about that in your quote. ;)
But I don't see how international law should side with the whalers, when Sea Shepherd warned the whalers they would board the vessel and hand the Captain a letter and got no reply from the whalers, boarded the vessel with letter in the air, and did not cause any physical damage to the crew. Yes the Sea Shepherd crew don't have any jurisdiction to board the vessel, but that gives no rights to the whalers to use unnecessary aggression on the Sea Shepherd crew.
You don't see cargo vessels using this kind of force against Somali pirates do you? No you see them using a water hose. The whalers always seem to use water hoses on Sea Shepherd when Sea Shepherd aren't even trying to board the ship.
And I don't see that this debate is going in circles, we're just developing new points with each post. And my opinions aren't wrong, most of yours aren't either, we're entitled to our own opinions on matters, I'm just trying to prove to you that Sea Shepherd's methods actually work compared to what everyone wants them to be like.
-
OK. As long as you agree that we cease if any of the argue-merchants jump in!
If you were driving your car and stopped at lights and I warned you that I was going to jump in and give you a letter and- especially if I had a reputation for causing fights :angel: then your reaction would be A)Say OK, and can I buy you a pint at the next pub B)You'd (try to) batter hell out of me.
I don't see that the whalers are using un-necessary aggression at all. Water cannons? I think good luck to them.
GOT to go now. Will come back to this fight discussion later, if that's OK.
-
Stu, You can't jump high enough to get in my truck, so that is fine.
But then again, my truck might not fit in london.
-
Stu, You can't jump high enough to get in my truck, so that is fine.
Yeah, right. Thanks for that worthwhile input.
-
But your point there, I don't understand. Driving a car around isn't going to earn me an immoral reputation that deserves being protested about is it? If your a chav (as you're British too you will know how troublesome their sub-culture is) and your sole intention is to torment my life for no reason whatsoever then aggressive force is needed in order to protect my dignity.
But for whalers, they lost their dignity as soon as they killed their first whale. Sorry that comment doesn't help my argument here, my point is that what Sea Shepherd did could not be seen as a threat, as there was a warning, and their intentions were made clear once they boarded.
If you were an absolute horrible neighbour, and your next-door neighbour personally delivered a letter to give you warning about eviction would you tie him to a tree and beat him until the police came to take him off your property?
And Agent Austin, that is rather a pointless comment that does not help the debate in any way.
-
I want to make a point here, but I am concerned this will possibly upset some people, so I ask if anyone who is so inclined can see the point I'm making and not take it the wrong way.
Osama Bin Laden wanted to make a point to the West, but I'm sure as an honourable bloke you wouldn't agree with his actions 11th September 2001.
Yet, the people of Iraqistan (fictitious name of a geographic region to avoid bringing real wars into it) had some really genuine grevience against the West.
My concern is that, ignoring the scale, the principle is the same; if you don't achieve your aims through dialogue, you resort to physical aggression.
If anyone is offended by this comparison, can I please ask you to make a reasoned response. I am in NO way at all condoning terrorism. Nor am I suggesting S.S. are terrorists, per se.
-
I don't exactly see what you mean there, are you suggesting Sea Shepherd up their game? Or are you saying physical aggression had to be used when it would've been over in ten minutes as Sea Shepherd would've left once they delivered the letter. If physical aggression hadn't been used then it would not of become a 3 day hostage situation.
And considering your comparison involving Osama Bin Laden, if Nato hadn't protested against this immoral act then they would be getting away with committing it repeatedly. Nato has the full side of the law on their side, which unfortunately Sea Shepherd does not.
-
Just got word that the Steve Irwin will be leaving port December 19th.
But is heading towards the Gold Coast to protest netting sharks.
Please Come join us on yet another whale saving crusade.
This event has been created to protest against the use of shark nets on gold coast beaches.
These shark nets are a potentially fatal hazard for all marine life, in particular Whales calves as they migrate south along the east coast of Australia.
*This is a peaceful form of protest and is meant to be a fun way to get our point across
hope to see you all there and enjoy the day :D
Time 12 midday out the front of KURRAWA surfclub (Broadbeach)
-
Jammy once was arguing with Marty regarding the earning of ranks for completing the missions... No wonder that our Mission Expert had to close the topic as it was unbearably to continue in that temp.
So, good luck with your fight, Stu. ;D
-
Jammy once was arguing with Marty regarding the earning of ranks for completing the missions... No wonder that our Mission Expert had to close the topic as it was unbearably to continue in that temp.
So, good luck with your fight, Stu. ;D
That was an argument that I didn't start, in which I was rudely spoken to. This is a sensible debate, I don't have a problem with Stuart and he doesn't have a problem with me I hope.
-
No, I don't have a problem with you at all Jammy. And I think this topic illustrates my point quite well.
Through learned discourse we have managed to keep this all civilised, without offence being taken- even though your ridiculous opinions are wrong ;D
I was actually comparing the PRINCIPLE between osama bin laden and sea shepherd. But you could use the IRA or ETA, etc. If any time an organisation can't get its own way it resorts to physical aggression, then we have the makings of a global civil war.
You could listen to the proponents of any 'terrorist' organisation (and yes I am classing SS as such, although with the intent of finding a better word) and find their cause is justified (I can think of one or two organisations whose aims are VERY justified, provided they reach their goals by peaceful means and NOT terrorism).
So, it comes back to one real point Is physical aggression (I avoid 'terrorism') ever justifiable? If so, to what end... If I can put a real extreme point- if SS or similar held a group of people hostage and said "stop whaling or they all die" (and I am NOT suggesting they have/are/will) whould you think it a fair and reasonable means of making their point? Would you if your friends/family were the hostages?
My (long) point is once you cross the lines from peaceful demonstration to physical agression, it is only a slippery slope to extremes.
-
But you've just switched the whalers for Sea Shepherd, we were originally talking about the whalers using physical aggression when Sea Shepherd peacefully boarded one of their vessels. Sea Shepherd has never taken anyone hostage, as that is indeed against maritime law, and I'm sure they don't ever intend to do so either.
So considering your points on terrorism basically being physical aggression and hostage taking then whalers are the terrorists, considering they are the ones taking people hostage and physically abusing them. Now I don't see whalers as terrorists, but that's what your definitions of the word are that you just explained.
But I understand where you're coming from, you're basically saying that Sea Shepherd's tactics make them terrorists because they are still physically aggressive in some respect. But I don't see that it makes them terrorists, would you say that the US Military are terrorists for their aggressive tactics in Iraq? The Iraqi civilians might, but I don't think the rest of the world will as they see the US Military fighting for a good cause.
Now again I'm going to bring chavs into this debate, and as you're also British you will know fully what they are. If two chavs are assaulting a harmless Spambot who has just done their shopping, and lets bring Boris Johnson into this with his lovely bike, would you say the best course of action is to just hold a sign peacefully nearby saying "please stop hurting people"? No, you would say the best course of action is to charge at them with a metal bar on your bike thank you Mayor of London.
My point is that some physical aggression is needed in order to stop immoral actions in the world, yes I agree with it. Now Sea Shepherd don't have bikes and metal bars to charge at the whalers with, nor do they have fighter jets to call in air strikes. But they have stink bombs, and they have their right to intimidate. And I think that's still a good tactic to use compared to attempted peaceful negotiations.
-
The damned annoying thing is that I'm normally the one in the position you are now- that is I would hang chavs for mugging an elderly Spambot for her pension.
So what you are really saying is two wrongs DO make a right? In normal circumstances I do agree, but it is just the lack of professionalism with the SS crew that makes stunts like these so damned dangerous.
Had this been a crew of professional marine conservationists then I would probably have not taken this stance, but they aren't and I have.
I am troubled by your Iraq comparison though. Being British, you undoubtedly have heard of Churchill's 'you can always take one with you'= meaning if an invading German soldier is going for you, if you can kill him into the bargain, then so much the better (NOTE: This is a historic reference and NOT my own opinion of Germans) So in what way does this differ from Iraq, if you take the view that US/GB/ETC are invaders in a sovereign land. To free the Iraqi people from a tyrant? Laudable, perhaps... Legal, ahem. The point being that you can not enforce your will on other sovereign nations or their legally registered vessels.
I'm afraid that I might be appearing to defend terrorists or whalers etc. I am most certainly not. I am standing up for the rule of law. My concern is if you say it is OK for you to take arms because of what you believe in, then its OK for others to do likewise.
-
I never suggested you were defending terrorists or whalers, I know you're just trying to point out the flaws of Sea Shepherd.
And my Iraq comparison wasn't THAT great, but I'm not going to go all political about that war, lets just say I didn't even agree with my own point either but from the majorities point of view was what I was referring to, especially from a diplomatics.
Your views on the professionalism of Sea Shepherd however, I disagree with. Your opinions on Paul Watson might differ, but Peter Hammarstedt and Pedro Monteiro are absolutely professional in every way. Peter is an amazing navigator, and very organised with everything that goes on. Pedro joins in the middle of season 2 after thankfully Peter Brown left, Pedro immediately pointed out several flaws in the way the ship was ran and made the boat loading procedure very efficient. You cannot say they aren't professional, and they're the first and second officers.
You may be sticking up for the law, but in a way Sea Shepherd are enforcing the law on what most of the world considers illegal whaling in a whale sanctuary. The Whalers are like poachers, would you say it is wrong for people to stop poachers killing innocent lions, rhinos and elephants in Africa by any means possible?
-
Rhino hunting in Africa? It depends. If an African goes and defends an animal in his country then that is one thing. If I as British (or a Frenchman, German etc) were to do it on THEIR land, then I don't think it is right to interfere.
It IS a problem when it's in international water, of course. Personally, I think that XYZ countries should jointly declare sovereignty over the area as protector and send the navy to torpedo the whalers for illegal whaling in their territory- at least that's an official response. but it will never happen.
Remember how the ivory trade was (almost) stopped- educating people not to buy ivory. So all we have to do is persuade people not to buy whale tusks and problem is solved. No customers=no whalers= no SS captain faking being shot.
-
Yes Australia and New Zealand should take action, but unfortunately they're not doing so. The most they do is send in a customs ship to "monitor" the whalers. So Sea Shepherd have taken action, and enforcing UN law they are doing the most they can under maritime law to hinder the whalers operations. If their maritime "bosses" tell them a certain tactic they're using is wrong they will acknowledge that, for example as they're under the Dutch flag they obeyed Dutch maritime officials when they were warned throwing stink bombs off the Steve Irwin is illegal, despite the fact it's a stupid rule anyway.
And educating people to stop buying whaling goods isn't going to work. As it's only the Japanese that buy the goods from the whaling campaigns in Antarctica, and the Japanese government fully support the whaling so it's a business they don't want to ruin with education.
The best way to stop the whalers is not with education, or morally (like Greenpeace are doing), it is economically. And Sea Shepherd are managing to do this by making it harder for the Japanese to work in conditions which are "stink bombed". I find this tactic to be very effective, even though you do not.
-
The leaders of Iraqistan want ALL the world to adopt Sharia law. Do they have the right to enforce that opinion on us, who in the West view it with either disdain or contempt?
-
The leaders of Iraqistan want ALL the world to adopt Sharia law. Do they have the right to enforce that opinion on us, who in the West view it with either disdain or contempt?
No because that's immoral, (no offence to those who follow Islam) because those laws are absurd. What the Whalers are doing is not only immoral but also against UN law, therefore Sea Shepherd have the right to not only enforce their opinion, but also the law.
-
WHY is it immoral? Who are WE to judge them and tell them what to do?
-
What the Whalers are doing is not only immoral but also against UN law, therefore Sea Shepherd have the right to not only enforce their opinion, but also the law.
Actually, they do it in such a way that stays within the regions of the law, by keeping to a quota that still can be put down to research. Sure it's wrong, but killing a whale and killing a cow, both for our own benefit, is moraly the same issue.. The fact that whale's are almost extinct does not ethically change anything, I don't see people going out to save certain insects that are going extinct because we de-forest places to make expensive furniture or create more living space either. Sure, they protest about trees (even though more than the full 100% of forest now harvested for our daily use is replanted in tree farms, but environmentalist have a hard time doing actual research), but the insects? who cares.. yet.. by the same logic they should be just as valuable, as living creatures on this planet.. Or else all the bold statements I hear the Sea Shepard crew make about saving species mean nothing.
And even if it was 100% against the law, then Sea Shepard still is a private organisation, not responsible for enforcing the law in any way or form. They are not a police force or militairy unit.. They have no right to put people in danger for the protection of animals... that goes against their own theory of protecting valuable species, once again.
What they do is piracy. Period. It's for a good cause, and their hearts might be in the right place, but it's still not right to play judge, jury and executioner. Two wrongs don't make a right.
They should fight the lawmakers and actual enforcers instead, to get THEM to take responsibility where they should. Hindering ships so they cannot whale, in a non violent way, is fine by me.. but ramming, or putting very inexperienced crew members, out of false loyalty, into dangerous places and situations like that, is just silly. 'Oh yeah, let's go right past the bow of a big whaler in our small RIB, with 6 inexperienced people on board, in a freezing ocean.. why not.. and let's do it so far from the ship, that we lose contact and might be dead before anyone comes to rescue us.. '
Any professional mariner will question Watson's methods and crew.. it's a bunch of chest beating and feelgood stuff, more for their own fullfillment than for the actual whales, as I see it.. And they only show the 'good stuff' on TV, trust me.. There's much more that they won't or can't show, even.. That would be bad publicity... But if you took the time to read proper - non sea shepard written - articles and documents to do with numerous investigations into their affairs, you kinda lose a lot of respect. It's a bunch of kids, high fiving each other, seeking thrills, thinking it's for the whales, but actually it's for them.. and no one else. So they can feel good.. ::)
I think whaling is a bad thing, mainly because we don't need it. People won't starve when they stop whaling. On the other hand, whalers don't do the job cause they like it.. some people are desperately poor, and need to make money somehow.. They don't go after salmon fishing, yet some species of salmon are near extinction too, and dolphins get stuck in salmon nets too.. so..when is a creature to be saved, and when isn't it?
Besides.. what did the Whales ever do for us?
Just my 2 cents.. :)
-
And very well put it was, Fred. Very well argued indeed.
The annoying thing is that morally I agree with Jammy, but objectvely it isn't right, as you say.
Perhaps they should start hunting Marmite-haters instead of whales?
-
Perhaps they should start hunting Marmite-haters instead of whales?
Get the campaign started!
-
Get the campaign started!
Don't tempt me!
-
I voted darn stupid but i am kinda hungry