Japanese Whalers.....
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Friday, June 12, 2026 18:00
VIEWED: 19782
PAGE 14 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let's take 'Hero's' argument into everyday life.
Several youths are sauntering down the street strung across all lanes, in a slow-motion jive-ass stroll. They are interefering with traffic, yelling at and flipping-off drivers, creating potential distractions, and occassionally kicking at cars and potentially causing dents. And of course they are jaywalking.
That give me the right to run them down.
Right 'Hero' ?
Your example does not reflect what happened. I note for the record that your example would likely result in the arrest and prosecution of the 'youths' since a passing motorist would stop and call the police, an option not available to the whalers.
If several youths were seeking to interfere with traffic by running across the road in front of car stringing wire in hopes of stopping, damaging, or delaying them...perhaps seeking to leap onto moving vehicles, using their own vehicles to ram the passing cars, then running alongside the moving cars placing themselves in the roadway so as to partially obstruct the road resulting in a collision, then your example would be more correct.
In both examples the driver could use the defense that they were in legal use of the roadway as a defense. In the case of deliberate action your example describes, the Defense would hopefully fail, in the more accurate example I provided, there would be no need because the youths would be the only ones on trial.
My advice for the future would be for the whaling fleet to have a military escort to warn off the protest ships and seize them if necessary. In fact this would be a reasonable solution since the military (especially from a neutral power)could provide an unbiased account of what happens (including an account of whaling activities). Its clear things have gotten out of hand, some nation needs to step up and sort this business out. Piracy, even for a good cause, is still piracy.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm pretty sure he's just Lawful Neutral though, because even though he sometimes punishes people for ticking him off and wasting his time, he doesn't seem to be in the profession for selfish reasons. That's generally where I draw the line, and I actually think there are lawyers out there on far shakier ground than Hero.
I dunno, I've always taken him for Lawful Stupid.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid
With a side order of Knight Templar.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar
The latter being kind of ironic since it was actually being more TOLERANT of other faiths and less hardcore pricks than the rest of the church that landed the Knights Templar in trouble in the first place, but I digress...
To me, it's even simpler though - you know that Philip Pullman quote I am so fond of, and how I point out which side I am on ?
Well, I am a captain of one side - and Hero is a captain of the other.
It's not personal, but it *IS* due to the very diametric opposition of our viewpoints that anything less than antagonism is unthinkable.
Which is why even being in the slightest agreement with him on this makes me nauseous..
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Your example does not reflect what happened."
It doesn't ? In my example I had people interfering with activity, breaking minor laws (jaywalking), getting in the way of cars, and acting in a way that could POTENTIALLY cause damage though no ACTUAL damage was in evidence.
And I had people being run down as a result.
It seems quite equivalent to me.
"I note for the record ..."
Something you are CLAIMING as fact, which may not actually be one.
"... that your example would likely result in the arrest and prosecution of the 'youths' since a passing motorist would stop and call the police, an option not available to the whalers."
And if the motorist decided to run down the youths, would that not also be a crime leading to arrest and prosecution ? Which one of those crimes do YOU think would result in a greater sentence ? Which one of those crimes would YOU focus on for persecution ? I mean prosecution ?
"... using their own vehicles to ram the passing cars ..."
And if their vehicles were, comparatively a skateboard or bicycle ? And they were 'ramming' Hummers ?
"... then running alongside the moving cars placing themselves in the roadway so as to partially obstruct the road resulting in a collision, then your example would be more correct."
Only if you are correct - which you are not.
AND - we have to get back to the intentional ramming and sinking of a small boat by a far larger - and visibly undamaged - whaler.
It STILL comes down to small v large infractions - something you need to be focusing on.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I like that Pullman Quote, because those books are freaking amazing. It's a shame that The Golden Compass underperformed so much at the box office, while Narnia gets to go on and have numerous sequels. All because of a campaign those exact same representatives of the authority put together to turn popular opinion against it. But I guess what it comes down to is which message the public thinks is more important, ANOTHER allegory of the Bible in a fantasy setting, or being told to think for themselves.
We were talking about Hero though. Hero is kind of your anti-Frem. I'm pretty sure you're neutral chaotic. I want to put you in chaotic good, because everything you're doing, you doing because it helps people on both the individual and large scale levels, and you've sacrificed a lot to do it. That suggests a good alignment, but it's pretty blurry, and you like it that way, because it gives you more room to maneuver and do some kind of iffy stuff. Anyway.
The thing is, I think you're also actually a lot more neutral on the sliding scale of chaotic versus lawful than you think you are, because you know those arguments you have with other anarchists? Where they're so anti-authority bias that they don't care if there's suffering or death afterwards, they just want to bring down whatever structure they can see (rather than gradually dismantle)? You're not like that. Which is another indication that you might actually fall on the good side of the line, though damn if you don't make it hard to tell.
The reason I didn't score Hero low is because, I mean, think of YOUR lawyer, the man you describe as The Devil Incarnate? It doesn't seem to me like Hero does what he does just because he sees a profit or smells blood in the water. Hero thinks he's doing the right thing, and he thinks his country is doing the right thing, because it's all legal. Also, I don't see that Hero has ever really used any of the people he's gone up against, jailed them, sure, punished them, sure, and yeah, it all pads his reputation as a prosecutor, but I've never seen him say that's his motive. He gives very simple terms to describe his motives, like justice and the law, and in such a way that I think those actually ARE his motives.
Also, a lot of what Hero posts about him messing with people/suspects/opposition I think is him actually trying to get a rise out of the people on the board he sees as "soft-hearted liberals, boo-hooing over the poor criminals."
I think his style of thinking, beliefs, and actions have consequences and that they represent something about our society, but I don't think he's evil. He's just very, very different ideologically speaking than most of the rest of us here. You don't see too many lawful alignments who like Firefly. He's a right wing authoritarian, but clearly he's a human too, and apparently he's got good taste.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And Hero, what about those "automatic" sprayers? No reckless endangerment there?
Last time I checked, I couldn't shoot someone in the leg for punching me in the arm...
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And Hero, what about those "automatic" sprayers? No reckless endangerment there?
Last time I checked, I couldn't shoot someone in the leg for punching me in the arm...
As noted earlier, the sprayers are extremely short ranged, the video is very good at demonstrating this. They are commonly used aboard cargo ships for pirate defense (since cargo ships can't carry weapons).
So while you can't shoot someone for punching you, you probably could spray them with a squirt gun, or use pepper spray, which would seem to be very similar (extremely short range, non lethal, not always effective against a determined or prepared individual).
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A better analogy would be something POTENTIALLY lethal, like a bunch of compressed air for cleaning computers at short range.
Originally posted by Hero:
So while you can't shoot someone for punching you, you probably could spray them with a squirt gun, or use pepper spray,
And WTF can't you shoot someone for punching you???
"Any of you primates... even TOUCHES me..."
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It doesn't seem to me like Hero does what he does just because he sees a profit or smells blood in the water.
I like to get paid. I'm a professional. Plus its a living, a job. I've got loans to pay like everybody else. The money is good, but lets face it, its govt work. I could make more working in private practice. Heck, my City is in a budget crisis, that means no raise this year, mandatory furlough days, a 2% pay cut.
Quote:
He gives very simple terms to describe his motives, like justice and the law, and in such a way that I think those actually ARE his motives.
I love my job. My biggest perk is the part where I address a Jury and say "I represent the State of Ohio". That means I'm the only person in the room speaking for everyone in the room, including the Defendant. Don't tell anybody...but I'd do it for free if I could figure out how I'd get by.
Adams is my hero, John not Sam (unless I'm drinking). When he says "I am for the law"...I get that. I'd be there to represent the British accused in the Boston Massacre, I'd be there arguing for independence from Britain.
In many ways Sam and John are two sides of our own argument. Sam the radical revolutionary, John the conservative. Sam demands the change, but found himself left behind when John makes the legal argument for independence and builds the new world Sam dreamed of. Sam the rebel, John the revolutionary...liberal and conservative, two sides of the same coin. You can see it repeated over and over again in American history.
In this case...its people like these protestors that fight whaling...its people like me that eliminate whaling. Its when you get folks like me on your side that the change happens...you liberals are fighting the wrong battle and forgetting we are on the same side.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nicely put Hero, but extralegal measures are a recognized & approved method dating back to, oh, the founding of our nation-? Don't forget the backing of the Contras-? The invasion of Iraq-? The "enhanced interrogation" of detainees at Gitmo, & the TORTURE of same out of country (we can call it that if it's not US doing it)-?
Originally posted by Hero:
you liberals are fighting the wrong battle and forgetting we are on the same side.
I believe in law, but it must apply to EVERYONE, or it means nothing, do you understand!?
*whoah, a near "Kirk" rant there...*
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For what it's worth, Byte - the Archbishop of Canterbury thought Pullmans work a fine tale, full of vital lessons about the dangers of unquestioned dogma no matter who's it is... alas this was not the reaction of less reasonable elements, which in my opinion just proves Pullman all that much more correct about those dangers.
As for the rest, it's actually simpler than that...
Just remove the good/evil equation and look at it straight across.
We're diametrically opposed melodramatic overlord types, Law and Chaos, as a cause, and thus utterly unable NOT to stick pins in each other every bloody chance we get - and this is where I mention his 'hero' (pun intended) John Adams was also responsible for our first stab a "Patriot Act", the Feudo-Fascist-Federalist bastard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
But I digress, it's not so much personal so much as we are utterly opposed to all the other represents, is all.
Although for mine own, I am very well aware of the dichotomy there, without chaos there is no creation, only deterioration, but without order there is no lasting improvement or structure to be improved - to tip the balance too far to either side beckons disaster.
Our primary disagreement is WHICH side it's leaning too far towards, as we shove it towards the other with all our might.
And it's not like we don't both cheat, neither, leastways I happen to be honest enough to friggin admit it.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME