IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Costa Rica incidents , environmental activists , paul watson , protest incidents

Reply
Old 23rd May 2012, 02:01 PM   #481
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
I updated my Facebook status to "saving the whales", change is on the wind.

The point is Watson isn't a nuisance, he's a public nuisance. That may be more effective than an International stalemate with a country many rely on for trade.
Except that it isn't. I agree that apathy is something you generally want to overcome, but when what you're doing is turning people against you, you're doing it wrong.

It may not have the Everybody Look At Me, the Whale Messiah flair of what Sea Shepherds do, but if Japan ever stops or even seriously cuts back on whaling, it will be because of the actions of governments like Australia and not Sea Shepherds.

I can't help but wonder what your motivations really are in regards to "saving whales" when you so cavalierly dismiss the serious work and pressure of so many national governments as of equal value to changing a Facebook status. Yeah, the IWC may not be completely shutting down Japan or Norway; but what if there were never an IWC? How many whales would be getting hunted then by however many nations that never decided to stop? The IWC is responsible for the very continued survival of a few whale species. The fact of their existence has saved incalculable numbers of whales. And this is nothing? This is "setting a Facebook status" to you?

Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
The Japanese have taken hostages and started to kill them, seems like the right time to pull the negotiator and send in the sniper.
"Taken hostages" like coalition warships are taking Somali hostages in the Gulf of Aden.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 02:12 PM   #482
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
Priceless! Thanks!

No better proof of living in your own fantasy world.
You obviously don't know very much about commercial fishing if you don't understand this. Selling your catch does not make you a commercial fisherman, how you catch the fish does. It's based on capacity to catch fish and not the exchange of goods or money.
Is it more complicated than that? Certainly, but this is a fundamental concept around the world. Is it universal? Not exactly, using a net is some countries isn't considered commercial, but typically these are countries where there is little or no regulation. In countries like Japan, where there is a fisheries, it's about the capacity to catch fish that makes it commercial.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 02:24 PM   #483
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Except that it isn't. I agree that apathy is something you generally want to overcome, but when what you're doing is turning people against you, you're doing it wrong.

It may not have the Everybody Look At Me, the Whale Messiah flair of what Sea Shepherds do, but if Japan ever stops or even seriously cuts back on whaling, it will be because of the actions of governments like Australia and not Sea Shepherds.

I can't help but wonder what your motivations really are in regards to "saving whales" when you so cavalierly dismiss the serious work and pressure of so many national governments as of equal value to changing a Facebook status. Yeah, the IWC may not be completely shutting down Japan or Norway; but what if there were never an IWC? How many whales would be getting hunted then by however many nations that never decided to stop? The IWC is responsible for the very continued survival of a few whale species. The fact of their existence has saved incalculable numbers of whales. And this is nothing? This is "setting a Facebook status" to you?



"Taken hostages" like coalition warships are taking Somali hostages in the Gulf of Aden.
Except all the talking in the World hasn't been as successful as Watson creating an international incident by getting run down by a whaling boat. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

As for the turning people away I simple don't buy what posters on IMDB think. It's like declaring people support suicide from listening to the people on the ground yelling "jump" to a guy on a ledge.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 03:18 PM   #484
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
Except all the talking in the World hasn't been as successful as Watson creating an international incident by getting run down by a whaling boat. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

As for the turning people away I simple don't buy what posters on IMDB think. It's like declaring people support suicide from listening to the people on the ground yelling "jump" to a guy on a ledge.
So, Watson "created" the incident?
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 03:30 PM   #485
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
Except all the talking in the World hasn't been as successful as Watson creating an international incident by getting run down by a whaling boat. The proof is in the pudding as they say.
That's nonsense. How long has it been since Russia has taken ANY whales commercially? Canada? The United States? New Zealand? You're going to tell me that Watson's "incident" (which half the viewers laughed at and nobody who doesn't watch the show even cares about) "saved" more whales than the formation of the IWC?

"Proof" indeed.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 03:44 PM   #486
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
That's nonsense. How long has it been since Russia has taken ANY whales commercially? Canada? The United States? New Zealand? You're going to tell me that Watson's "incident" (which half the viewers laughed at and nobody who doesn't watch the show even cares about) "saved" more whales than the formation of the IWC?

"Proof" indeed.
That's not the claim though, the claim is he saved more whales from illegal commercial whaling than the IWC.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 03:49 PM   #487
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
So, Watson "created" the incident?
Pretty much, the odds of getting rammed by a Japanese whaling boat randomly in the middle of the ocean have to be almost non-existent.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 03:57 PM   #488
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
How many viewers are there, how many laughed and how exactly do you know this???
You seriously aren't going to use your best guesstimate from reading IMDB are you? You've been around long enough to know this claim is laughable without "evidence".
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 04:07 PM   #489
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
That's not the claim though, the claim is he saved more whales from illegal commercial whaling than the IWC.
Japan's whaling is not illegal. We've been over this already. If it were illegal, the IWC could impose sanctions or maybe even expel them. Either of these could lead to Japan dispensing with their "scientific limit" and declaring open season on whales and nobody could do anything about it. So yes, by allowing them their "scientific" exemption, the IWC is most certainly saving any number of whales from illegal harpoons.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 04:07 PM   #490
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,781
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
That's nonsense. How long has it been since Russia has taken ANY whales commercially? Canada? The United States? New Zealand? You're going to tell me that Watson's "incident" (which half the viewers laughed at and nobody who doesn't watch the show even cares about) "saved" more whales than the formation of the IWC?

"Proof" indeed.
I don't have any love for the Sea Shepards either, but their actions do have a large effect on Japanese whaling operations. Not from any particular incident, but from continuous harassment of the factory ship preventing onloading of whales from the whale boats.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 05:39 PM   #491
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
You obviously don't know very much about commercial fishing if you don't understand this. Selling your catch does not make you a commercial fisherman, how you catch the fish does. It's based on capacity to catch fish and not the exchange of goods or money.
Just keep banging that drum. Because the more you bang, the crazier you look.

Here's the commercial fisheries website for Alaska Department of Fish and Game:

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...ommercial.main

You just go ahead and show me where the capacity to catch fish has anything to do with the definition of commercial fishing:

Quote:
Alaska’s commercial fisheries are diverse, valuable, harvest a variety of finfish and shellfish species, and include both large and small vessels. Catcher processors over 300 feet in length operate in the Bering Sea pollock fishery while open skiffs of 20 feet fish for salmon, herring, and halibut close to shore. In between all sizes and configurations of vessels work their respective fishing grounds.
Whether you are 20 ft. or 300 ft. the only question is whether you are engaged in commerce.

But feel free to actually use a source that enforces commercial fishing regulations to demonstrate that commerce is something other than selling something. There may actually be a country that defines it that way. But we sure don't.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 05:46 PM   #492
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Japan's whaling is not illegal. We've been over this already. If it were illegal, the IWC could impose sanctions or maybe even expel them. Either of these could lead to Japan dispensing with their "scientific limit" and declaring open season on whales and nobody could do anything about it. So yes, by allowing them their "scientific" exemption, the IWC is most certainly saving any number of whales from illegal harpoons.
Just becuase they haven't been prosecuted doesn't mean what they are doing is legal. They're conducting commercial whaling, which isn't legal. The fact they claim otherwise doesn't change that.

There's plenty that could be done if the Japanese declared open season on whales. I don't think even the Japanese would be dumb enough to make that threat, let alone carry it out. That's why they cowardly paint their boats with "Research" on the side and continue with sophistry.

Personally I think more people saw the "research" on the side of the Japanese boats and turned on them while think "Grow a set". They just aren't as vocal because most people are too PC to say "The Japanese are a bunch of pussies for allowing this to continue and we're all a bunch of pussies for allowing them". Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 06:04 PM   #493
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,135
It's seems bizarre that a commercial activity would not be commercial. But I guess there is some basis for it. What would you call fishing for commerce that is not commercial?

Originally Posted by All At Sea
source No longer can the definition of commercial fishing be limited to multi-nation factory ships plying the deep waters of the world’s oceans. The devastation of deep water and inshore fish populations as well as the destruction of coral reefs that are the spawning grounds and protectors of so many fish species should no longer be attributed to any one enterprise.

For the purposes of this series on commercial fishing, we have chosen to include a broadened definition of commercial fishing. Therefore, commercial fishing will include all fisheries wherein the fishermen take fish and other seafood for monetary gain.
Originally Posted by wiki
Commercial fishing is the activity of catching fish and other seafood for commercial profit, mostly from wild fisheries.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 06:33 PM   #494
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
Just becuase they haven't been prosecuted doesn't mean what they are doing is legal. They're conducting commercial whaling, which isn't legal. The fact they claim otherwise doesn't change that.
No; actually it is legal for nations to whale for "scientific" reasons and there's no restriction forbidding the products of such whales from being sold. Japan is following the letter of the law, as it were.

Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
There's plenty that could be done if the Japanese declared open season on whales. I don't think even the Japanese would be dumb enough to make that threat, let alone carry it out.
Why? In case you hadn't noticed, that's precisely what Norway, Iceland, and the indigenous Alaskans have done, and they're not suffering any consequences.

Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
That's why they cowardly paint their boats with "Research" on the side and continue with sophistry.
Exactly! They do that because if they do that, they avoid technically breaking the rules, which means they don't have to worry about legal consequences. Which is what I said the first time.

This whole "I'm going to disagree with you, and then rebut by basically reiterating what you said as if it's a different argument" thing always confuzzles me when I encounter it in these forums.

Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
Personally I think more people saw the "research" on the side of the Japanese boats and turned on them while think "Grow a set". They just aren't as vocal because most people are too PC to say "The Japanese are a bunch of pussies for allowing this to continue and we're all a bunch of pussies for allowing them". Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
I don't need any evidence to the contrary; you, however, do need evidence to the affirmative.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 06:42 PM   #495
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
Just keep banging that drum. Because the more you bang, the crazier you look.

Here's the commercial fisheries website for Alaska Department of Fish and Game:

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...ommercial.main

You just go ahead and show me where the capacity to catch fish has anything to do with the definition of commercial fishing:



Whether you are 20 ft. or 300 ft. the only question is whether you are engaged in commerce.

But feel free to actually use a source that enforces commercial fishing regulations to demonstrate that commerce is something other than selling something. There may actually be a country that defines it that way. But we sure don't.
The problem with reporting ad homs is the mods delete them. They really should stand as a testament to how weak the argument is.

Unfortunately you don't understand causality, or you're just doing so to avoid the irrefutable truth. The fisheries assume if you have the capacity ie; the gear, the boat, the facilities to catch and process the large quantities of fish you are no longer doing so for personal use or sport, you're doing so for commerce. The actual exchange of goods and services for the fish is completely and utterly irrelevant. It is assumed and doesn't have to be proven.

I realize this isn't a black and white issue. I'm sure there are many examples of where commercialism isn't defined by the capacity to catch fish but soley the sale. For the most part however the difference between sport fishing and commercial fishing is defined this way. This is the difference between most of these traditional hunts and what the Japanese are doing with these "research" boats.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 07:03 PM   #496
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Why? In case you hadn't noticed, that's precisely what Norway, Iceland, and the indigenous Alaskans have done, and they're not suffering any consequences.

Exactly! They do that because if they do that, they avoid technically breaking the rules, which means they don't have to worry about legal consequences. Which is what I said the first time.

This whole "I'm going to disagree with you, and then rebut by basically reiterating what you said as if it's a different argument" thing always confuzzles me when I encounter it in these forums.

I don't need any evidence to the contrary; you, however, do need evidence to the affirmative.
Meh, you say "legal" I say "the law just hasn't caught up to them". I think you're just making the same mistake potheads did. They claimed they were selling "tobbacco" products and claimed it was legal. Then the cops busted them. Of course they're back, now they're selling legal "bath salts". We'll see if that's legal too I suppose.

I'm afraid you do need evidence and counting "likes" on YouTube videos from obnoxious users doesn't cut it.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 07:11 PM   #497
Korren
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
Except all the talking in the World hasn't been as successful as Watson creating an international incident by getting run down by a whaling boat.
Oh please. Watson has been performing this same schtick for decades -- this is hardly the first time he's struck another ship and lied about being rammed. Norway is still whaling. Japan is still whaling. Iceland is, one again, whaling. Aboriginal whaling continues.

The only thing the Sea Shepherds have managed to do is to firmly entrench the populations of those countries in the pro-whaling camp and, one must assume as they're still farting about, raise money for themselves. They have not had any adverse effect on overall whaling at all.

Greenpeace has at least managed to influence the IWC towards it current log-jam. While one can debate the long-term wisdom of that, and deplore the tactics and politics involved in that, at least it has clearly had an adverse effect.

The Sea Sheperds are not taken serious by anyone but themselves. They're clowns, and inept clowns at that.
Korren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 07:16 PM   #498
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Who said i was butthurt?

I simply stated a fact that the Shonan deliberately rammed them. no more, no less.
Well, you stated an interpretation, and called it a fact. But let's leave that aside for now.

The Sea Shepherds fly a pirate flag. Why shouldn't they get rammed by any and every ship able to do so, anywhere they are encountered on the high seas?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 07:18 PM   #499
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post

I realize this isn't a black and white issue. I'm sure there are many examples of where commercialism isn't defined by the capacity to catch fish but soley the sale. For the most part however the difference between sport fishing and commercial fishing is defined this way. This is the difference between most of these traditional hunts and what the Japanese are doing with these "research" boats.
The indigenous hunters do in fact sell the meat; the fiction about their hunts having anything to do with "tradition" has already been exposed; and "sustainability" may matter to you but not the indigenous hunters - the only reason what they do is "sustainable" is because there aren't enough of them left in the world to have an impact on global whale populations.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 07:23 PM   #500
Korren
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
No; actually it is legal for nations to whale for "scientific" reasons and there's no restriction forbidding the products of such whales from being sold. Japan is following the letter of the law, as it were.
Actually, the IWC does pose a restriction on what should be done with whales killed for research (or, in the case of the current Japanese hunt, "research"): "[i]Article 8, section 2: Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.[i/]"

In other words: whales killed for research should, as far as practicable, explicitly be processed and sold and not wasted.
Korren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 07:36 PM   #501
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
Meh, you say "legal" I say "the law just hasn't caught up to them". I think you're just making the same mistake potheads did. They claimed they were selling "tobbacco" products and claimed it was legal. Then the cops busted them. Of course they're back, now they're selling legal "bath salts". We'll see if that's legal too I suppose.
You're missing two things:

1. "Bath salts" were not illegal until they were; which is why nobody who sold "bath salts" before it was made illegal is in jail.

2. The only people who can make "research" whaling no longer legal are the national governments that are members of the IWC. It just so happens that a number of member governments are working on that right this moment. It also just so happens that nothing Sea Shepherds is doing can have any effect on that process; they can't "make it go faster". In fact going into other countries' territorial waters and aggressively threatening their fishing fleets might easy have the opposite effect, as this piratical behavior can de-legitimize the issue or at the very least deflect governmental attention away from the people who are allegedly "breaking the law" and onto these folks who are obviously breaking the law instead.

Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
I'm afraid you do need evidence and counting "likes" on YouTube videos from obnoxious users doesn't cut it.
Evidence that people are not doing something?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 07:37 PM   #502
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Korren View Post
Oh please. Watson has been performing this same schtick for decades -- this is hardly the first time he's struck another ship and lied about being rammed. Norway is still whaling. Japan is still whaling. Iceland is, one again, whaling. Aboriginal whaling continues.

The only thing the Sea Shepherds have managed to do is to firmly entrench the populations of those countries in the pro-whaling camp and, one must assume as they're still farting about, raise money for themselves. They have not had any adverse effect on overall whaling at all.

Greenpeace has at least managed to influence the IWC towards it current log-jam. While one can debate the long-term wisdom of that, and deplore the tactics and politics involved in that, at least it has clearly had an adverse effect.

The Sea Sheperds are not taken serious by anyone but themselves. They're clowns, and inept clowns at that.
So far this is just an unsupported claim. If he's "entrenching" people there should be proof. I can prove his wackiness has led to the Japanese calling their season short.

Love em or hate em clowns still draw people to the circus.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 07:44 PM   #503
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
You're missing two things:

1. "Bath salts" were not illegal until they were; which is why nobody who sold "bath salts" before it was made illegal is in jail.

2. The only people who can make "research" whaling no longer legal are the national governments that are members of the IWC. It just so happens that a number of member governments are working on that right this moment. It also just so happens that nothing Sea Shepherds is doing can have any effect on that process; they can't "make it go faster". In fact going into other countries' territorial waters and aggressively threatening their fishing fleets might easy have the opposite effect, as this piratical behavior can de-legitimize the issue or at the very least deflect governmental attention away from the people who are allegedly "breaking the law" and onto these folks who are obviously breaking the law instead.



Evidence that people are not doing something?

I think you're missing the point, not illegal doesn't necessarily imply legal. Yes it's sophistry but it's an important distinction when we're talking about something so politically motivated.

Yes, I'll show you how. If 6 out of 10 people are doing something, guess how many are not?
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 08:01 PM   #504
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
I think you're missing the point, not illegal doesn't necessarily imply legal. Yes it's sophistry but it's an important distinction when we're talking about something so politically motivated.
But "research whaling" isn't merely "not illegal"; the IWC explicitly permits it, and permits the sale of the products of whales taken for research. It is positively legal. Expressly legal.

Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
Yes, I'll show you how. If 6 out of 10 people are doing something, guess how many are not?
I'll get right on organizing and funding a properly vetted and representative survey to counter your throwaway rhetoric in a post on an Internet forum.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 08:04 PM   #505
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
The question I have Checkmite is can you really say you're following the letter of the law when you're lying?

I just don't believe most people can look at this a see 1 crazy man and a nation of liars and then say the real problem is the 1 crazy man. Talk about an issue of scale.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 08:10 PM   #506
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I'll get right on organizing and funding a properly vetted and representative survey to counter your throwaway rhetoric in a post on an Internet forum.
I'll keep on being skeptical of unsupported claims on teh interwebz.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 08:20 PM   #507
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
The question I have Checkmite is can you really say you're following the letter of the law when you're lying?
See, now that's a step in the right direction. If Sea Shepherds were putting effort into proving the Japenese whalers weren't actually doing any scientific research, that might yield information that could actually be useful to the IWC. Instead all we get is "well it's obvious", which IIRC is Pig Latin for "No, we don't have any actual evidence".

The law says nations can grant permits for groups to take whales for research purposes. It does not set standards that research must meet; it leaves that to individual governments. Yes, a government can invoke this power in bad faith. Unfortunately, nothing in the law yet provides a remedy.

The various national governments on the IWC are working to fix that.

Sea Shepherds is not.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 11:18 PM   #508
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,857
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
"How many" is a quantity. Quantity is not the same as capacity. I thought I gave some simple examples but apparently this is a complicated concept.
To give you something to complain about instead of discussing something more relevant I would like to point out that at times capacity can be the same as quantity.

Quote:
A man with a fishing pole and a lure can catch 1 fish at a time. He is considered a sport fisherman. Even if he catches 10 fish.
Is this definition consistent everywhere in the world?

Quote:
The same man with a net could catch 10 maybe 100 fish in a net. His capacity to catch fish with a net is greater than with a pole, even if he catches the same quantity of fish.

This is why using a net usually requires a commercial fishing license. Even if you never sold a single fish, if you want to use a net you need a commercial license.
And in the eyes of the law that would mean that you are a commercial fisherman.

Quote:
This is why a couple guys on a 25 foot boat with some spears could very well be considered sport fishing and not commercial.
I don't know, I'm going to have to get you to compare a bunch of fishing boats based on those factors you gave me when you told me to do it with whaling boats.

Quote:
This is why the "traditional" hunts aren't anything like what the Japanese are doing.
So does that mean that you would want to remove the Aboriginal whaling quotas for Greenland because their hunts are, in general, far more similar to Japanese/Norwegian whaling than it is to Indonesian/US whaling?

By the way did you find the Canadian definition of "traditional" that you said you were going to provide?
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2012, 11:31 PM   #509
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
The fisheries assume if you have the capacity ie; the gear, the boat, the facilities to catch and process the large quantities of fish you are no longer doing so for personal use or sport, you're doing so for commerce. The actual exchange of goods and services for the fish is completely and utterly irrelevant. It is assumed and doesn't have to be proven.
The second part is an interesting convolution - that since it is for commerce, it isn't for commerce.

But you just ignored the fact I did commercial fishing on one day and personal use fishing with exactly the same gear the next day. You have no idea how common this is. And it is in the tons. Because they are feeding dog lots with chum salmon, which is why it is called dog salmon. A big lot can be 200 dogs. All along the Yukon are large fish processing camps that have been operating for years, and they aren't commercial. Fish and game will convict them though if they sell just one fish egg for profit.

That's what happened to the eight-time North American sled dog racing champion Charles Attla. The Huslia Hustler. He wasn't alone, either. That's just the biggest name ever charged with selling personal use fish products commercially. The Japanese will pay a lot for the roe, so this is a constant temptation to personal use fishermen.

Why can't you just show some strength of conviction instead of this bizarre, irrational floundering? People can respect that. But I guess it is just copying the behavior of your hero - since lying, sabatoge, and other antisocial behavior is embraced by him then he is a model for others to follow.

Which is the reason the kind of damage that someone can do is far more than just his personal crimes: teaching others to emulate.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2012, 12:22 AM   #510
Pantaz
Muse
 
Pantaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 982
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
... A man with a fishing pole and a lure can catch 1 fish at a time. He is considered a sport fisherman. Even if he catches 10 fish. ...
Hmm...
Pantaz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2012, 01:14 AM   #511
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,857
Look at all the fish those sport fisherman have caught.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2012, 07:28 AM   #512
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
 
Locknar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 25.8333° N, 77.9000° W
Posts: 25,168
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
I can prove his wackiness has led to the Japanese calling their season short.
Please do so; from what I've read it seems to be the opposite - they caught ~266 in the shortened 2012 season - 95 more then in 2011 and have never come close to the yearly quota of ~1000/year (set in what, 2004?). The only issue the SSA seems to pose is one of safety; given they fly the pirate flag that is easy enough to solve.

However, whale consumption seems to be on the decline in Japan and the industry is now faced with an existing stockpile and issues wrt embezzlement within the Government subsidized industry.


Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
Look at all the fish those sport fisherman have caught.
But in the next shot, the sport fisherman are throwing them all back
__________________
He's back!

Last edited by Locknar; 24th May 2012 at 07:47 AM.
Locknar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2012, 12:56 PM   #513
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
Our friend does not understand personal use fisheries at all, either. He seems to think the only things you can do are sport fishing and commercial.

We'll be going to Chitna in about ten days as we do almost every year to nab 40 salmon with dipnets. We watch the sonar count at the mouth of the Copper and use the water level to estimate when they're running through the canyon. We pass by people lining the tributaries, where the sportfish rules allow two salmon, and they have to use a flyrod. That isn't my idea of fishing. I haven't picked up a rod in years.

You can also set up fishwheels if you want industrial scale harvesting - in the hundreds of fish. Set nets are allowed on the Yukon, Tanana, Kuskokwim, etc. and that is going to be in the thousands of fish if you are serious. This is not commercial. It is personal use.

Right now reds are selling cheap at about $7 a pound in the store. Kings are about twice that. One red is over fifty bucks in value, and a king is in the high hundreds. So it is in the thousands of dollars to do dipnetting, and way more for fishwheels or set-netting. You'd have to make 30% more than that in pre-tax wages to buy meat in the store, and I know this is the same kind of economics at work in places where the Sea Shepherd was harassing those whalers. In remote Alaska it is way more important.

People are so casual about saying they could just buy the meat in the store instead of harvesting their whales or whatever it is. If someone came to them and casually said "hand over five thousand dollars cash" as if it were no imposition, they would think of such a person as a vicious sociopath.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2012, 01:52 PM   #514
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
See, now that's a step in the right direction. If Sea Shepherds were putting effort into proving the Japenese whalers weren't actually doing any scientific research, that might yield information that could actually be useful to the IWC. Instead all we get is "well it's obvious", which IIRC is Pig Latin for "No, we don't have any actual evidence".

The law says nations can grant permits for groups to take whales for research purposes. It does not set standards that research must meet; it leaves that to individual governments. Yes, a government can invoke this power in bad faith. Unfortunately, nothing in the law yet provides a remedy.

The various national governments on the IWC are working to fix that.

Sea Shepherds is not.
Sometimes private citizens can accomplish more than all the governments in the world. Sometimes you need Seal Team 6. There are limitations to lobbying.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2012, 02:11 PM   #515
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
To give you something to complain about instead of discussing something more relevant I would like to point out that at times capacity can be the same as quantity.

Is this definition consistent everywhere in the world?

And in the eyes of the law that would mean that you are a commercial fisherman.



I don't know, I'm going to have to get you to compare a bunch of fishing boats based on those factors you gave me when you told me to do it with whaling boats.



So does that mean that you would want to remove the Aboriginal whaling quotas for Greenland because their hunts are, in general, far more similar to Japanese/Norwegian whaling than it is to Indonesian/US whaling?

By the way did you find the Canadian definition of "traditional" that you said you were going to provide?
Yes, capacity can be quantity. Compare and discuss the capacity and quantity of an Indonesia vessel vs. the Maru.

No. It varies from country to country and from species to species.

Why, becuase you don't understand the difference between minimums and maximums, upper and lower limits? Because some nutjob in Alaska wants to license his dinghy as a commercial boat, and it would be allowed, what's being done in Indonesia is no different from what's being done in Japan???

I think it depends on what the capacity of the ships is, what facilities they have onboard, whether the boats are registered as commercial or not, whether the catch is kept for domestic use or if it's exported and whether or not the fish coastal or international waters.

No I can't, not until I get a computer. You could search the fisheries Canada site or even look at YouTube videos and compare them in the interim.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2012, 02:26 PM   #516
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Pantaz View Post
lol, indeed 100 years ago things were different. If the Japanese want to hire a bunch of fools to try and catch whales on a fishing pole who are we to stop this commercial operation!
Capacity to catch whales in the above picture= 0, obviously not a commercial whaling operation.
Thanks for the laugh though
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2012, 02:30 PM   #517
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
Sometimes private citizens can accomplish more than all the governments in the world.

Sometimes.

Not this time. It's just not happening.

Sea Shepherds are tools. Worse, they are comfortable with bending and/or breaking certain rules in the furtherance of what they consider to be a justifiable goal, which is kind of what they accuse the Japanese of doing.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2012, 02:30 PM   #518
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Locknar View Post
Please do so; from what I've read it seems to be the opposite - they caught ~266 in the shortened 2012 season - 95 more then in 2011 and have never come close to the yearly quota of ~1000/year (set in what, 2004?). The only issue the SSA seems to pose is one of safety; given they fly the pirate flag that is easy enough to solve.

However, whale consumption seems to be on the decline in Japan and the industry is now faced with an existing stockpile and issues wrt embezzlement within the Government subsidized industry.


But in the next shot, the sport fisherman are throwing them all back
I guess you'd have to look at the catch before the SS and after. Anyone know what it was?
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2012, 02:37 PM   #519
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
 
Locknar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 25.8333° N, 77.9000° W
Posts: 25,168
Originally Posted by Furcifer View Post
I guess you'd have to look at the catch before the SS and after. Anyone know what it was?
This is not the proof you said you could provide.

According to this site (http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=5894) more whales have been killed on the Sea Shepherd's "watch" then before they started.
__________________
He's back!
Locknar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2012, 04:55 PM   #520
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,797
Originally Posted by Locknar View Post
This is not the proof you said you could provide.

According to this site (http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=5894) more whales have been killed on the Sea Shepherd's "watch" then before they started.
What proof did I say I could provide?

I'm backtracking a bit becuase I realize showing the SS running interference and then the Japanese calling it quits is just going to meet with "skepticism". I also realize the Japanese are obvious liars and if they said they ran out of fuel and that's why they called it quits many people here would believe it.

I can't open the link but I can safely say the Japanese killed millions of whales off the SS watch, and not nearly as many on their watch so the website is wrong.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.