Real World Event Discussions

Japanese Whalers.....

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Friday, June 12, 2026 18:00
VIEWED: 19782
PAGE 7 of 24

KWICKO

Friday, January 8, 2010 9:45 PM

I wonder if the Japanese could take them prisoner, and hold them as "enemy combatants"...

Of course, I'm sure we'd hear plenty of talk about how "they're AMERICANS, DAMMIT!" and "they have AMERICAN RIGHTS!" - even though they're in international waters far, far away from American soil and jurisdiction...

And Frem, thanks for jumping in. I've been wondering what your take on it would be, and on the Jolly Roger bit, I'm right there with ya. If you're going out with the specific intention of disobeying the laws of the high seas, then for the love of all that's right and holy, DON'T COME BITCHING ABOUT IT WHEN SOMEONE ELSE DISOBEYS THOSE SAME LAWS AND SINKS YOUR ASS! Honestly, it's not that they're mad at being sunk - they're just mad because they got sunk FIRST, and they got sunk before they were done filming.

And that's the part that rooks ME, really - they're not doing it because it's anything they profoundly believe in, I don't think; they're doing it FOR A FUCKING REALITY SHOW. For ratings. For money. And they're bitching about the whalers whom they say are only in it for money.

Seems disingenuous, is all.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NIKI2

Friday, January 8, 2010 9:50 PM

And here I'll insert a remark from the "Animal Intelligence" thread, just 'cuz: Isn't it amazing how gentle and compassionate almost all whale and dolphin species are, in return, to man (well, not counting killer whales, but they DO mostly only attack men when they mistake a wetsuit for a seal)? Even going out of their way numerous times to save them? Wolves almost never attack humans, yet we go after them like crazy! Which is the more compassionate species? (rhetorical question, obviously!)

Just to keep things even: The people who go out in the Sea Shepherd know perfectly well the danger they are in and they accept that danger. It's totally predictable for them to make hay in the media over the Japanese boat's action...everyone does. Simple as that.

Quote:
it's not that they're mad at being sunk - they're just mad because they got sunk FIRST, and they got sunk before they were done filming.

I cry bullshit--unless you're just snarking--otherwise, are you seriously saying you know what their full intent was and what's in their minds?? By the way, they've never "sunk" another ship, but irregardless of that, I take issue with your assumption. Like I said, they'll use the media, and this was a prime way to get coverage and rile people up against the Japanese whalers. Working pretty good, too, from what I see on the internet and news. No doubt, except for Faux Noise.

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 8, 2010 9:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
at any time during which you have prominently displayed, or especially, raised on the mast, the Jolly Roger...
Do *NOT* go whining to the law about anything that happens during that period, it's fucking disrespectful and insulting - if you're gonna go outlaw have the damned balls to stand behind it.

Absolutely agree, matey.

The laughing Chrisisall

NIKI2

Friday, January 8, 2010 9:59 PM

I may not have read everything on the matter, but did they go whining to the "law"? I thought they just broadcast the incident and used it for media coverage; there literally IS no law to run to out there, is there? Just as the Japanese couldn't get them to stop harrassing them, they can't look to anyone else to keep them safe from the Japanese, isn't that so? Also, if you want to be totally accurate about it, the Japanese whalers are doing something against the "law" in the first place...except there's no law against THEM, either.

I'm not arguing in favor of the Sea Shepherd, by the way, despite my heart being with them; I'm trying to keep things even, because I believe they ARE. Both are performing actions which should be illegal, neither one has my sympathy or support when they do.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 8, 2010 9:59 PM

Very much so, which is what struck me raw as well.

Reason it pushed a personal button is that in my youth we did raise the Jolly Roger over something we pulled against one of the companies dumping toxins in the Patapsco river, and because not one of us would confess the "authorities" couldn't build a case against us over it.

Thinkin back on it, I woulda never guessed I'd be sittin here one day with a real pegleg, eyepatch*, and a cat flopped on my shoulders...

Yarr?!

-F

*Nothin serious, just that one eye going off on it's own, so we're hoping this'll help fix it, but it's screwing with my depth perception something awful and it's all I can do not to hurl the thing in frustration right now.

NIKI2

Friday, January 8, 2010 10:02 PM

Mmmm, a bit of trouble with that one, Frem. You say YOU utilized the Jolly Roger to make a statement, yet you couldn't be caught and punished because nobody would cop to it. Ergo, you understand the reason for using it.

Then, despite the button-pushing issue, how can you be so vehement against the Sea Shepherd doing the same? THEY can't run away and not be caught and held responsible for the action, like you and your helpers could...eh?

KWICKO

Friday, January 8, 2010 10:13 PM

Quote:
THEY can't run away and not be caught and held responsible for the action, like you and your helpers could...eh?

Well, they CAN'T run away, because their boat's been sunk. They COULD HAVE run away BEFORE their boat was sunk, but they chose not to.

And yes, at this point I'm just playing. I'm trying to inject a little levity into the situation.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

KWICKO

Friday, January 8, 2010 10:27 PM

Quote:
I cry bullshit--unless you're just snarking--otherwise, are you seriously saying you know what their full intent was and what's in their minds?? By the way, they've never "sunk" another ship, but irregardless of that, I take issue with your assumption. Like I said, they'll use the media, and this was a prime way to get coverage and rile people up against the Japanese whalers.

Please don't cry. You should KNOW I'm just snarking. I've never been completely serious about anything in my life, Niki. I was the guy laying on the gurney in the E.R. with more than a dozen broken bones and a team of doctors telling my parents that I was almost certainly going to lose my leg, and I was the one cracking jokes and telling the staff, "Don't worry - I'm sure there's absolutely nothing wrong with me that a series of expensive operations can't prolong."

I learned a long, long time ago that you have to find the humor in bad situations, because if you start crying about the all the tragedy in the world, you'll never stop.

And no, I don't know exactly what their motives and intents were towards the other ship. But at the same time, none of you here know with any certainty what the intentions of the Japanese were towards the Sea Shepherds. That hasn't stopped several people here from saying that the whalers "clearly" and "violently" "attacked" the Sea Shepherds, despite having no real evidence to back any of those claims.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 8, 2010 10:28 PM

Cause not only did they admit it, they went on to try to morally justify it, which they might have a point with and all, but my issue is that if you're gonna raise that particular banner over an act, you absolutely, totally, should not be claiming any moral superiority whatever - it's an admission of sorts that you are knowingly doing something criminal... I dunno how to explain it, call it a code, if you like, but once you put the banner in the air, any pretense to moral high ground is gone.

They actually did "catch" us, but without an admission they didn't have enough evidence to charge us - besides which, I doubt the company in question would want it on record in open court exactly what was comin outta them pipes we stopped up.

I'm not all that much against what they did, mind you - just that they strike me as playing a victim/martyrhood mentality which ill suits their actions and comes off as kind of weaselish, yes ?

Aw hell, I probably ain't gettin it across so well, but leastways I tried.

-F

RUE

Friday, January 8, 2010 10:34 PM

"If you're going out with the specific intention of disobeying the laws of the high seas ..."

Well, there are a few navigation laws, along with who has authority (ie the captain). (Coastal and high seas navigation - that's another thing I studied up on, aside from helicopter ground school and a few other odd things - ADD has its benefits, sometimes. Anyway ...) A smaller ship doesn't cut into the path of a larger ship. Two ships meeting in that configuration must both move to (their) starboard. It doesn't look as if the smaller ship was actively cutting into the path of the larger ship. BOTH vessels should have moved to starboard. By aiming at the smaller vessel, the captain of the larger ship was in violation.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.