Real World Event Discussions

Japanese Whalers.....

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Friday, June 12, 2026 18:00
VIEWED: 19782
PAGE 15 of 24

PERFESSERGEE

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
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.

I've missed the last part of this debate because I have a job and a small child, but I have to weigh in on "Hero's" stupidity and hypocrisy. Gorram it "Hero" did you learn no processes of logic in law school? I know from several friends that they actually do teach such things in law school, but you seem to have completely managed to evade them (much like Jayne - if he'd wanted schooling, he'd have gone to school).

What is wrong with you that you can't recognize that the whaling ship continued to FIRE ON a clearly disabled ship on the high seas (note that I am using capital letters in case you have literacy issues, which appears to be the case). This was a life-threatening situation in an extremely dangerous, cold-water environment, and you defend criminal behavior because it fits your personal views.

I ask again: Have you no decency sir? No decency whatsoever?

As best I can tell, the answer is NO. Well, better put, it's HELL NO.

perfessergee

PERFESSERGEE

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:17 AM

damn double post! sorry......

PERFESSERGEE

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Since the Protest boat was breaking the law and endangering both craft, any death's would have been on the protest boat Captain and crew and possibly the head of the protest group. Its the Felony Murder Rule, if a person dies during the commission of a Felony, then the suspect can be tried for murder.

You make it sound like they rammed the boat, turned around passed it again to spray more water on the boat. The video shows the boat approaching the ship, the ship had its automatic sprayers on. The boat is sprayed by the bow sprayers as they pass by, the boat is struck, the aft sprayers hit it as the ship continues on, this is all over the course of seconds, not minutes. AND the boat had already been sprayed during other close approaches. Those water cannons don't shoot far...its extremely close range.

I really try to avoid ad hominem, but you make it imposslibe at times. YOU EFFING IDIOT!! Are you really so stupid as to not notice the size disparity between the vessels? Or that the whalers were physically attacking a vessel that had only approached them? (And yes, I do recognize that they were trying to interfere, and I even disagree with them - that doesn't allow the whalers to attack them). Does your obviously limited education and vocabulary not understand that such attacks are internationally recognized as piracy? And apparently you think it would be OK for me to shoot you with a .22 pistol - after all, it doesn't have much range. And if you think that's different than spraying zero-degree seawater on a human body, then you are even more ignorant than I already think (and to clarify for your ignorance, I'm using Celsius temperature, like everyone but ignorant Americans). I thank the gods my students are so much more capable of thinking than you are. It gives me some hope for the future. You certainly do not...............

perfessergee

KWICKO

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:20 PM

Quote:
...and you defend criminal behavior because it fits your personal views.

There seems to be plenty of that on both sides of this issue, if we're being brutally honest.

Mike

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

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:47 PM

Quote:
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.

Yeah, I know, that's a wincing point for me too, and I don't really believe the HBO whitewashing of it that the other Federalists were pushing him. But it's probably just a belief in the legend of the founding fathers that we Americans have built up. If trying to change minds, it's probably about as useful to call out the human failings and mistakes of the founding fathers as it is to argue that the Biblical God is an entirely human creation. To anyone who believes, merely questioning such sanctified figures immediately destroys any credibility you might have.

That's not to say you can't discuss things from another angle, where they might be more receptive.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
...and you defend criminal behavior because it fits your personal views.

There seems to be plenty of that on both sides of this issue, if we're being brutally honest.

I can concur. The difference I see is, SOME of us are avoiding certain facts ENTIRELY.

The laughing Chrisisall

HERO

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
What is wrong with you that you can't recognize that the whaling ship continued to FIRE ON a clearly disabled ship on the high seas (note that I am using capital letters in case you have literacy issues, which appears to be the case). This was a life-threatening situation in an extremely dangerous, cold-water environment, and you defend criminal behavior because it fits your personal views.

One, it was not "fire on" it was spray. Non-lethal seawater commonly used by ships to repel pirates who come extremely close.

Second, the video speaks for itself. The ship is in the process of passing the boat, the sprayers are on, the boat is sprayed by the bow sprayers, hit by the ship and then catches the aft aft sprayers as the ship passes by. This is all a matter of seconds, not minutes. There is no turn, no second pass, just a continuation of the first pass. Given the speed of the events and the disparity in the size of the two ships it is likely the whaler, or at least the Captain, could be certain the ship struck the boat or if it did strike there was no way to no the extent of the damage. Again, even if the knowledge was there, then the order to turn off the sprayers would have to be given and the sprayers turned off (likely some kind of big wheel, not merely pressing a button). This would also take time, something the video shows they clearly do not have.

There is also nothing wrong with continuing to spray a pirate ship until you are certain the threat has abated. While these pirates may not have been armed with weapons, they were seeking to disable the whaler and perhaps board her for whatever reason (like they had done or attempt on other occaisons).

And some people have asked about the failure to render aid. The ship has a lot of momentum, so stopping on a dime is not going to happed. The video reflects that they turned and stood by ready to lend aid, but the boat was not sinking fast and Bob Barker was right there to help them out.

You should all watch a Discover channel show about a Mersk cargo ship's journey from Asia to Spain. That's how I learned about sprayers and navigational problems with large ships vs. small ones. Plus, its just damned interesting.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

HERO

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
And apparently you think it would be OK for me to shoot you with a .22 pistol - after all, it doesn't have much range.

If I commit an illegal act such as trying to impede you, seize you, or run into you...then a water pistol would likely be ok, even in cold weather.

Quote:

And if you think that's different than spraying zero-degree seawater on a human body, then you are even more ignorant than I already think (and to clarify for your ignorance, I'm using Celsius temperature, like everyone but ignorant Americans).

Perhaps if we look at the video...yep, they were already sprayed (when the approached the ship prior to the collision). If you look close you'll notice the cold weather gear all the boat's crew is wearing. You'll also see them all standing outside to get sprayed rather then taking cover.

You claim the whaler was attacking them. They had a fracking speed boat...all they had to do was move away. Whalers are slow, ponderous to turn. Speed boats are fast...especially one the set a fracking speed record. If they got run down...its because they let it happen or the made it happen. It'd be different if they didn't see the ship coming or they could not move out of the way. That is not the case here.

The whalers turn the sprayers on when the boat gets too close. Why? I wonder what could possibly happen when two ships get close to one another? And why would they assume a boat is hostile just because of a few prior attempts to board, disable, or ram them?

This was political piracy and should be prosecuted as such.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Second, the video speaks for itself. The ship is in the process of passing the boat, the sprayers are on, the boat is sprayed by the bow sprayers, hit by the ship and then catches the aft aft sprayers as the ship passes by.

Yes, the video speaks, but you will not hear. Let's say the sprayers WEREN'T manned (tho it looks like the aiming changed at certain points)- the Japanese ship is CLEARLY not traveling in a straight line.
Is THAT something that escapes your poor vision or something?? The little boat was drifting forward (or powering forward) SLOWLY, and the big ship veers INTO its path. A veer in the opposite direction would have avoided collision. Ah, but they WANTED to teach the whale-huggers a lesson, eh?

The laughing Chrisisall

HERO

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 8:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
the Japanese ship is CLEARLY not traveling in a straight line.

The video does not reflect that. I think your confusing the turn of the camera as it pans to follow the boat with the turning of the ship. If the ship turned, it would be reflected in it wake. Also the ship cannot veer so nimbly as you describe.

You admit it yourself, the boat was drifting foreward, toward the oncoming ship. Likely they were hoping for another close pass, perhaps to deploy their cable to disable the ship, use their laser, or attempt to board the ship and likely misjudged their approach resulting.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.