Whale wars

[IFocus]

My mistake. I thought the moral high ground was to use a food resource in a sustainable manner. Or is it not my mistake but yours after all. Is it moral to deny another alternative food source in a world where many are starving?.

What feeds the masses is agriculture, it builds civilizations, not hunting, BTW people stave because of corrupt / selfish / tribalism and dysfunctional governments and war.

Africa is a very good case study

What sustains agriculture is good environment practices that produces fertile soils, clean air and potable water.

 

[GumbyLearner]

I'm all for whale safe beer. Go Singo!

 

[IFocus]

Mr Garrett has provided a timely example of what happens when environmentalists assume they what they set as the moral high ground can work in the real world. While he was giving priority to whales and reptiles, he completely forgot that he had been given a real job which he neglected with disastrous results.

Completely disagree with this "While he was giving priority to whales and reptiles"

Garret is a complete waste of space and should be sacked after being drawn and quartered. The insulation fiasco is an insight to how stupid and incompetent a minister he is.

He has achieved nothing for the environment while a minister and never will.

Ironically under Howard Robert Hill (liberal) was the last real environmental minister Australia had.

 

[Calliope]

Completely disagree with this "While he was giving priority to whales and reptiles"

Yes, I forgot to mention that he was also giving priority to knocking back Traveston Dam on grounds of "national environmental significance', one of which was a bum-breathing turtle. He thus ensured that S.E Queensland , in times of water shortage, would be dependent on desalination plants, which are an environmental disgrace.

 

[Sdajii]

Yes, I forgot to mention that he was also giving priority to knocking back Traveston Dam on grounds of "national environmental significance', one of which was a bum-breathing turtle. He thus ensured that S.E Queensland , in times of water shortage, would be dependent on desalination plants, which are an environmental disgrace.

The Traveston dam would have been an environmental disgrace. Even as an herpetologist the turtle didn't excite me much, but pointing out one of the least important things in the dam doesn't seem objective if you're ignoring the lung fish, one of the most biologically unique and medically important species in the world. It's like saying it wasn't a big tragedy that those building were knocked down because not much was destroyed, I mean, some of the coffee cups in the tea rooms needed replacing soon anyway, so who cares if they were destroyed? Even aside from the environmental issues, the dam wasn't going to be very effective anyway.

Knocking back the Traveston dam was one of only two good things of much significance I can think of him having done though, among a whole mess of stuff ups. I grew up listening to Midnight Oil, as a teenager I went to a concert and was chosen from the crowd by Peter Garrett to come up on stage, it was pretty exciting at the time, but now it's pretty disappointing to see him having become one of the politicians he used to complain so much about.

Whaling... let's just accept that it comes down to one side thinking it's okay to kill whales to provide food for people, another side thinking they're too cute/special/fluffy/intelligent for it to be ethical to kill them, and we're not going to agree.

None of us would want to see them hunted to the point of endangering any particular whale species, and if you want to consider Japan to the invading into Australia waters, just hope that it goes to court so that we can get a ruling. Of course, you're going to be disappointed when it becomes official that Australia has no claim to those waters, and the 1% of the world who currently recognises those claims will join the 99% who currently don't.

 

[Calliope]

Even as an herpetologist the turtle didn't excite me much, but pointing out one of the least important things in the dam doesn't seem objective if you're ignoring the lung fish, one of the most biologically unique and medically important species in the world.

Right. Except that they do quite nicely in reservoirs.

Of course, you're going to be disappointed when it becomes official that Australia has no claim to those waters, and the 1% of the world who currently recognises those claims will join the 99% who currently don't.

I won't be disappointed. That's my viewpoint exactly.

 

[Sdajii]

Right. Except that they do quite nicely in reservoirs.



I won't be disappointed. That's my viewpoint exactly.

They do quite nicely in reservoirs? Only if by "nicely" you mean "rapid vanishing act".

The whale bit wasn't directed at you, more the entire futile to and fro of the thread thing. Both sides would probably like to see the issue go to court. The fuzzy lovers will probably be deluded into thinking that it will go well for them, and the pro whalers will know that it will probably kill Australia's claim to territory. However, it's possible that if the 'scientific' aspect was examined in court they may have to come up with a new story. I suppose all they would need to do would be to actually run a few token science experiments or collect some data and publish it in some shonky journal.

 

[Ageo]

How come no1 is protesting about the killing of cockroaches? or ants? is it because the numbers are much higher? or is it because they show zero emotion unlike large creatures? whats makes whales more important than say flys?

If hunting whales in a "sustainable (meaning they will live forever) way" then whats the problem??

Is it the killing method? 1 would think an explosive harpoon is much more humane then a poison spray which kills little creatures slowly and perhaps painfully.

Is it the gore? i know much people can stand a squashed fly but cant stand the site of blood pouring out of a whale?

You see this is the problem with animal libbers and all other greenies, when they become "emotionally" attached all hell breaks as they focus purely on their emotional agenda and dont care what goes on around them.

Murderers walk free all the time, our rights of individuals are being stripped day by day and you guys are worried about fkn whales?

I wonder why we are going backwards...............

 

[Macquack]

Apparently if they are anti-whaling, Australia and NZ will not only condone any terrorist activities by the eco-terrorists, but will provide port facilities. In my opinion Japan has a good case to take to the International Court regarding these two countries aiding and abetting terrorists.

Dream on Calliope. You would not be saying such utter tripe if the Liberal Party were in power.

I haven't seen any Japanese whalers get slaughter yet by the Sea Sherpard crew. So far, the Japanese whalers have sunk one Sea Sherpard craft, while the Japanese whaling fleet are intact.

 

[Macquack]

How come no1 is protesting about the killing of cockroaches? or ants?

You can not be serious?

You see this is the problem with animal libbers and all other greenies, when they become "emotionally" attached all hell breaks as they focus purely on their emotional agenda and dont care what goes on around them.

You obviously do not own any pets?

 

[IFocus]

One for the Japanese fan club here

Japans policy is to.........screw every one nothing new.

"Japan says it might ignore a ban on commercial bluefin tuna fishing if it is passed at an international convention next month."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/23/2827820.htm?section=world

Here is some history

Bluefin tuna plundering catches up with Japan

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1765413.htm

People you can trust

"The article reports that Japan has stolen $2 billion worth of southern bluefin tuna"

"Australian Fisheries Management Authority managing director, Richard McLoughlin. McLoughlin adds that an investigation into the fishery found Japanese fishers and suppliers from other countries caught up to three times tile Japanese quota each year for the past 20 years and hid it."

http://www.britannica.com/bps/addit...n-steals-southern-bluefin-tuna-worth-billions

 

[Calliope]

I haven't seen any Japanese whalers get slaughter yet by the Sea Sherpard crew. So far, the Japanese whalers have sunk one Sea Sherpard craft, while the Japanese whaling fleet are intact.

That just shows, like all hoons, how stupid these juvenile Sea Shepherd clowns whom you admire, are to play chicken with Japanese.

 

[Ageo]

You can not be serious?


You obviously do not own any pets?

I cant be serious? um please explain how whales have more importance than insects? id like to hear your side.

And yes i have owned many pets including goats, dogs etc....

Macquack you sure your not the lead skipper of the sea shepperd?

 

[Sdajii]

So far, the Japanese whalers have sunk one Sea Sherpard craft, while the Japanese whaling fleet are intact.

If someone threw themselves under my car as I was driving in protest of me driving a car, it would be a little misleading to imply that I had wanted to kill that person. The whalers do not follow Sea Shepherd around, the whalers do not try to put themselves into the path of other vessels. The whalers would much prefer to be left alone out there, they are not the ones causing conflict. If you believe someone is doing something illegal, the ethical way to take action is to take legal action or passive protest, not cause violent conflict.

 

[Macquack]

If you believe someone is doing something illegal, the ethical way to take action is to take legal action or passive protest, not cause violent conflict.

Harden up Sdajii, the Sea Shepherd's actions are hardly what I would call "violent". The Sea Shepherd stategically tries to maximise its "inconvenience" of the Japanese whalers and provides a visible presence against illegal Japanese whaling.

Going the passive path has proven fruitless and the Sea Shepherd crew are venturing to the coal face to take some tangible action instead of just "taking the talk".

 

[gordon2007]

the Sea Shepherd's actions are hardly what I would call "violent". The Sea Shepherd stategically tries to maximise its "inconvenience" of the Japanese whalers and provides a visible presence against illegal Japanese whaling.

What a ridiculous lie Mac. Why don't you ask the japanese sailors who's skin has been burned and required medical treatment just how "non violent" the people from the sea shepard have been.

I believe that is where you and the rest of the anti whaling fleet are losing public support. Lies, lies and more lies. A lie by omission is still very much a lie.

 

[IFocus]

What a ridiculous lie Mac. Why don't you ask the japanese sailors who's skin has been burned and required medical treatment just how "non violent" the people from the sea shepard have been.

I believe that is where you and the rest of the anti whaling fleet are losing public support. Lies, lies and more lies. A lie by omission is still very much a lie.

Your completely missing the point Mac makes

If you look at the thread poll it's contrary to your view.

If fact the position of both side's of politics confirms that. The Liberals in fact have previously defended the anti Whaling stance quite strongly.

As for the lies I take it you haven't read about Japans history concerning the worlds fishery's.

 

[Calliope]

Harden up Sdajii, the Sea Shepherd's actions are hardly what I would call "violent". The Sea Shepherd stategically tries to maximise its "inconvenience" of the Japanese whalers and provides a visible presence against illegal Japanese whaling.

Going the passive path has proven fruitless and the Sea Shepherd crew are venturing to the coal face to take some tangible action instead of just "taking the talk".

Dream on Macquack. What a load of tripe. These rich, well funded sea hoons are harassing the Japanese just because they get a kick out of it. They dont give a stuff about the whales. I see racist overtones in their actions.

 

[Sdajii]

Harden up Sdajii, the Sea Shepherd's actions are hardly what I would call "violent". The Sea Shepherd stategically tries to maximise its "inconvenience" of the Japanese whalers and provides a visible presence against illegal Japanese whaling.

Going the passive path has proven fruitless and the Sea Shepherd crew are venturing to the coal face to take some tangible action instead of just "taking the talk".

Harden up? If they want to take illegal and offensive action, they are the ones who need to harden up rather than complain about one of their vessels sinking. If they were merely being an inconvenience rather than being dangerous, they would not have sunk one of their vessels.

If I was going out hunting pigs and you decided you would try to drive your car in front of mine on my way there, or stand between me and the pig while I took aim, do you think it might be a little more irresponsible and idiotic than simply being an inconvenience? Would you have any reason to complain if your car was destroyed by mine or you were shot? No, but sadly the law would still likely take your side. This sort of thing would be especially stupid if I was acting within the law.

Vigilantism is illegal with good reason, and when Sea Shepherd steps over the line and goes too far, they ligitimise what the other side is doing to some extent. One side carries very little credibility when crying foul of the other, when that side has equal reason to cry foul in return.

 

[IFocus]

Dream on Macquack. What a load of tripe. These rich, well funded sea hoons are harassing the Japanese just because they get a kick out of it. They dont give a stuff about the whales. I see racist overtones in their actions.

I take it from your continued aggressive posture that you hate the Shepard crew and Captain based on extensive research of.............

Exactly what is your position on Whaling and its effects on Australian business's involved with the tourist industry?