Sea Shepherd’s high-tech speedboat heavily damaged after collision with Japanese whaling ship

Flonk, so, you are opposing whaling without any reason.

Or put it in another way, you oppose whaling because it is injustice and that is because you think it is injustice.

NOT “If there were people getting hurt, maybe I could agree.”

But “If the whalers were getting people hurt, maybe I could agree with you.”

Don’t forget to update your definition of “dictionary” and/or “definition” before doing so!

Max you’re wrong. Notice that this takes place in a STATE UNIVERSITY of 25,000, which I believe is publicly funded. What if one day in Japan say i.e. Hitostubashi University, a Japanese professor tells Australian students to GTFO of his class because he believes Australia is an eco-terrorist nation? Is he simply one eccentric professor? Chances are Australians would be outraged and gaijin media won’t think twice to trumpet that Japan is racist and xenophobic. This is an clearly an example of anti-whaling crossing the line of discrimination and racism, nothing more, nothing less. “Racism is everywhere so we ain’t all bad…” Really now, isn’t that a bit too convenient?

Quoting HamachiMan (BTW thanks dude, you sum it up very well)

“General rule of thumb is, if even ONE Japanese person DARE say or do anything considered ‘racist,’ then it is fair game to indict the entire nation and its people.
BUT, if a person of any other race, ethnicity, or country commits, states, or in any way acts in a racist manner, then by gosh there are racists everywhere, one bad apple doesn’t ruin the bunch, etc. etc. etc.”

It’s racist to be against commercial whaling because it is an illegal activity undertaken only by Japan, Norway and Iceland, therefore all Australians, Americans and all other anti-whaling nations and environmentalist and industrial groups are racist because they wish for international LAW to be upheld and for ALL nations to agree to an INTERNATIONAL agreement?

Very creative logic, with some nice sweeping generalisations too…

Again, what makes Japan, Norway and Iceland so special that they don’t need to get along with the rest of the world?

I’d like to see where these dirty hippies are calling upon Japan to be nuked – seems pretty damn extreme to me, and pretty damn insensitive.

How about this for an explanation for the reported alleged statements by the professor – there are idiots everywhere, japanobserver. You don’t need to look very far to find them…

Evie,

… because they wish for international LAW to be upheld and for ALL nations to agree to an INTERNATIONAL agreement?

So, which law and/or agreement is Japan (and Norway and Iceland) violating specifically?

Maybe I should save that phrase in a text file so I can copy-paste it any time someone says something that warrants this response.

It’s racist to be against commercial whaling because it is an illegal activity undertaken only by Japan, Norway and Iceland, therefore all Australians, Americans and all other anti-whaling nations and environmentalist and industrial groups are racist because they wish for international LAW to be upheld and for ALL nations to agree to an INTERNATIONAL agreement?

Very creative logic, with some nice sweeping generalisations too…

What’s your definition of “legality” and “agreement”? Are you really not understanding it’s you who are actually doing “sweeping generalisations” in some way, or making a false statement about opponent’s opinion, here? LAW! ALL! INTERNATIONAL! CAPITALIZATION! YEEEEEAAAAH! HEEEEEEEEEHAW!

Again, what makes Japan, Norway and Iceland so special that they don’t need to get along with the rest of the world?

Again, a person who can not recognize that the world is diverse clearly has a racist tendency…

…there are idiots everywhere…

Like a vegan living in the Antarctic Continent!

The Rainbow Warrior was also registered to New Zealand… Does this make New Zealanders racist against the French for protesting against nuclear testing, and deserved to be destroyed too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

Maybe French testing in the pacific was also a demonstration of cultural diversity too?

Anti-whaling groups and countries are racist, while pro-whaling countries are “diverse” and have cultural sensibilities… Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Obviously my cultural sensibilities which find exploding harpoons abhorrant shows my racist tendancies…

Here are the protocols for the IWC, which was signed by Japan.

http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm

20 million people? Who are they? Are they all Sea Shepherd members, its supporters, or your friends? Why do you try to hide yourself behind unrelated people? You answer nothing but merely insist the same thing repeatedly.

Evie, try reading what you post. Do you understand the meaning of paragraphs 4 through 6 of the IWC Convention, which Australia, New Zealand, America and other nations openly opposed to ever allowing commercial whaling to restart have signed?

“Recognizing that the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources;

Recognizing that it is in the common interest to achieve the optimum level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible without causing widespread economic and nutritional distress;

Recognizing that in the course of achieving these objectives, whaling operations should be confined to those species best able to sustain exploitation in order to give an interval for recovery to certain species of whales now depleted in numbers;”

Note also that the Convention does not “allow” nations that take whales for research purposes to sell the meat, it specifies that they shall do so, as part of the conditions for allowing whaling. Note also that the Convention requires documentation on research conducted to be submitted, which Japan always faithfully does in accordance with the Convention.

If there are nations violating the Convention and abusing the IWC, it is nations such as Australia, New Zealand, the US and others who have made it very clear through their actions and public statements that their goal is to ban all commercial whaling, permanently. That is not the purpose of the IWC. The IWC was set up to allow sustainable commercial whaling, it is right there in black-and-white in the Convention, which all these countries agreed to when they signed it. They are the ones in breach of the Convention, not Japan, Norway and Iceland. They are the ones offering foreign aid to third-world nations on the condition that those nations then join the IWC as anti-whaling members. This is all a matter of public record – as it is that Japan also uses foreign aid to try to buy pro-whaling votes. But then, I suppose bribery is just fine with you as long as it is used for “good”, right?

Finally, as for your “no one in Japan buys whale meat anyway” – sure. I suppose that is why everywhere I have ever lived in over 15 years in Japan has had whale meat readily available in the supermarkets, fresh, canned, and as “bacon”. Because private businesses just love buying stock and putting it on their shelves for decoration, then throwing it in the dumpster and taking a loss. That’s also why there are restaurants that specialize exclusively in whale meat the way others specialize in chicken or eel – because their owners love running a business with no customers and nothing but red ink.

Not that I expect any of this will change your mind – I have noted people who are emotionally opposed to whaling tend to not let inconvenient things like “facts” cloud their judgment.

Also, here’s some info which outlines the popularity of whale meat consumption in Japan. It may shed some light on my earlier statements:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Japanese-urged-to-consume-whale-meat/2006/06/13/1149964509128.html

“Get along with the rest of the world” means to peacefully adhere to the current stipulated course of action specified by the IWC, (both Norway and Iceland have received recent objections due to their commercial whaling activities), to which Japan is a member, and also to adhere to their own guidelines concerning animals used for scientific experimentation – which is Japan’s justification for whaling.

NZ, US, Russia, UK and Australia, amongst many many other countries, have had very strong traditions of whaling as well over many centuries, using whale meat for food, blubber for practically everything, and bones for tools, and artworks of cultural significance. These whaling industries died, not out of concern for conservation, but because whales became too scarce to hunt. Thus the IWC was born.

Are you saying that Japan, Norway and Iceland are the only three countries in the world that have some sort of moral justification to continue whaling OVER all other ex-whaling nations, in order to promote diversity? And should anyone question this inequality, they are racist?

So, you don’t oppose whaling if whales are not scarce to hunt. However, you would never admit that…

Are you saying that Japan, Norway and Iceland are the only three countries in the world that have some sort of moral justification to continue whaling OVER all other ex-whaling nations, in order to promote diversity? And should anyone question this inequality, they are racist?

What? Whaling in order to promote diversity? No, whaling in order to eat whales. It’s about attitude when you discuss something with others. You should first accept that there are many people who might have very different opinion, custom, etc. than you as the world is so diverse, not limited to the human’s world. And then you sometimes should try to understand others by, for examples, finding the reason for and making an effort to interprete rationally such differences.

Your logic is basically that whaling can’t be allowed since all other ex-whaling nations are no longer doing it. And you seem to be talking with assumption that Japan just try to cheat others. Please repeat it forever!

Evie,

I agree with your conditions, but your annotations on some of them seem inaccurate.

Point 1 is a valid concern. I googled the statistics on the rate of instantaneous death, and average time to death in case of failure to instantly kill, and I am no expert but it seems could be worked on a bit more.
Electrical harpoons seemed promising in the 1950′s onward, but was banned because the electrical levels needed to assure instant kills exceeded safe levels that could be handled by people on ships, and lower currents were just essentially tazing the whales. Technological advances could solve this.

Point 2 is just false.
Nobody has proven that whaling is inherently unsustainable, though it certainly is if conducted in the manner that it was in the past.
Some whale species are indeed currently endangered and should not be hunted while populations are low, but others aren’t endangered at all, Like the Minke whale, for example.

Point 3, I don’t get why you mention this.
I’m going to assume you are referring to the Tragedy of the Commons, but that’s exactly why the IWC exists in the first place. Whaling was conducted in an unsustainable manner in the past, so the IWC is now there to provide rules and quotas to keep whaling sustainable. And it’s in the best interest of whalers to have a sustainable source of income, after all.

Point 4 is a valid concern … maybe in a broad sense.
Safety is certainly important, but your concern is more of a hypothetical for an imaginary situation with belligerent and warlike whalers being cast in it.
If you’re using the sinking of the Ady Gil as proof of the aggressiveness of whalers, you still to be aware of the fact that SS had been harassing the Japanese whaling fleet with methods meant to cause injury and death for a long time before the Japanese ship finally pushed back with more than verbal warnings, water hoses, and acoustic devices.