Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Sea Shepherd Launches Operation Leviathan

I see sinking ships on the same level as burning buildings in the context of environmentalism. There are better ways to fight this problem, and ramming and sinking ships is NOT one of them.




*goes for a drive to the largest Whaling Museum in the US*
 
Dutch13, I'm curious as to your level of involvement with Sea Shepherd. Are you a volunteer on board their ship? Do you donate money to the cause? Are you a casual supporter? I'd like to know more about your position, if you don't mind sharing.

Dutch13 said:
However, your view is somewhat typical of the pro sealing Labrador folk who violently oppose the Sea Shepherd because they have been effective in focusing global attention on the barbarism of the seal hunt.
Click to expand...

Though you aren't responding to anything I said here, you'd best be more careful about what you attack and use as an analogy. I am a Newfoundlander, now living in New Brunswick for university, and I bet I know a heck of a lot more about the sealing situation than you do. The seal hunt controversy was popularized by the WWF's fluffy white-coat (which are illegal to hunt, by the way), who took it completely out of context. I'd like to point out that there is far more barbarism in the modern meat industry than there is in the seal hunt. The seal hunt also has advantages besides creating jobs, and providing fur to rich people and seal flipper pies to Newfoundlanders.

I specifically remember you mentioning the DFO scandal, "when the DFO hid behind "science" to justify cod fishing". The DFO didn't hide behind science. There was no science behind which to hide! They suppressed the research conclusions of dozens of leading scientists in an effort to play down the dramatic consequences of overfishing. They didn't want to believe that the ocean could actually "run out of cod". Unfortunately for Newfoundland and its cod-dependent economy, it did.

The moratorium on the cod fishery in Newfoundland happened in 1992, and by that time cod levels were so low that they were in serious danger of disappearing altogether from the shores of Atlantic Canada. Now here's the kicker...seals eat cod! And lots of them too! To make matters worse, since a large percentage of Newfoundland's population depended on the now non-existent fishery, they needed work. ANY work. Seal hunt, anyone? I really don't think you have any sort of understanding as to just how dire the employment situation was in Newfoundland after the cod moratorium.

If Sea Shepherd is so concerned about the well-being of all sentient mammals, why not open the gates on some slaughter houses? I attest that it's far more "inhumane" to hold animals in cells for their entire lives only to slaughter them once ripe, than it is to let animals live a happy and free life in the wild before killing them.

I'm a vegetarian, but a practical one at that.

By the way, I feel that I should point out that I don't necessarily condone the seal hunt. In fact, I would prefer if it were stopped. But I also recognize that there are benefits from it and that terrorizing hunters who are only trying to make a living isn't the way to go about stopping the hunt. ANY sort of hunt, that is.
 
Actually I had a very strict definition of terrorism, you are the one who blew it up to include everything under the sun (George Washington was in a war remember, during which nothing can be terrorism based upon your own UN derived definition). As far as the boats in Iceland, that does sound as if they took precautions. But you will haven't convinced me that ramming a boat is 100% safe and could never hurt someone. As experienced as any one can be, accidents and mistakes happen. They may not have hurt anyone yet, but that doesn't mean it is risk free.

But all that still doesn't address the idea of taking "vigilante style" destructive action. I again point out that where does one draw the line? If sinking and stealing boats is ok, why isn't burning down an unihabited house? And if why not a house, why not an empty laboratory? And if we are going to burn a laboratory, why not just send death threats to researchers. It is much easier and less chance of getting caught. But still, no actually gets hurt right? And if the threats don't work, maybe a little prank-like demonstration is called for. Razor blades in envelopes or a little arson. But that kind of escalation of tactics could never happen could it?
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Premise_History/1999_Chronicle_of_Direct_Actions.htm
http://www.nbc4.tv/news/9508973/detail.html

Also, I don't see how I took his quotes out of context. The first quote is his response to a question about "eco-terrorism," I only excluded the begining where he says corporations are the "eco-terrorists" and he is a "counterterrorist" and after the part I quoted where he says he draws a line between violence against objects and people. At no time does he say he disaproves of other groups using violence, just that he doesn't considers destruction of property violence. Which actually reinforces my point since he says he won't oppose violenct tactics, but only considers hurting living things violence. In fact he states that violence is needed, see the first and second quotes. Since we know he opposes violence against animals and plants, the only other possibility is people. The third quote is his own out of the blue statement with little relevant context surrounding it. No one asked him about human rights or people suffering, he was responding to a question about post 9-11 labels as a terrorist and how it affects him and he segued into that on his own.

Edit: I forgot to mention that it appears the article you linked to (and I quoted) is only a republishing of an interview conducted by Bite Back, the magazine of the Animal Liberation Front. The ALF are without a doubt a violent organization who operate in total secrecy. In fact my first link here is to their claimed attacks (their own page).
 
Dutch13 said:
...
Click to expand...

I'll say this again. I support the protection of animals. I do not support straw man arguments, violence, and destruction.

So far all of your statements have been full of straw man arguments, childish analogies, and illogical rants. You can't expect us to take you seriously in any capacity when you ask us to support a group that uses violence as a means to and end. It's unreasonable, foolish, and extremist. The comparison of your group to terrorism is an apropos one, in my view.
 
elfin buddy said:
I am a Newfoundlander, now living in New Brunswick for university
Click to expand...
It's nice to hear a Newfoundlander aware of the mismanagement of the DFO, but I guess no amount of spin could hide their deception of the public when cod fishermen started to come home empty. Therefore, I am surprised that you are buying into their latest tale that seals are eating too many cod and should be killed. According to Dr. David Lavigne, an authority on the species, only 3% of the harp seal's diet consists of cod. What is significant is that many of the other fish that comprise the remaining 97% of the seal's diet also eat cod. So by removing the seal from the food chain, any potential recovery of cod may be retarded as a result of the increase in cod predators. You may also be interested to note that recent findings suggest the seal slaughter may promote bacterial growth on the ocean floor that leads to hypoxia--a loss of dissolved oxygen in patches of the ocean which render those areas incapable of supporting cod or any marine life.
The seal hunt industry is just a make-work welfare project to appease disgruntled fishermen. "...they needed work"...is that any reason to hunt a species to collapse? --a distinct possibility under DFO management. And if that happens, then what will all of the unemployed ex-cod-fishermen-now-seal-hunters do? You're right, I'm sure you have a better understanding of the unemployment situation in Newfoundland than I do. As an outsider, what I see is that they created that problem themselves by not listening to the conservationists who warned them a decade earlier (Paul Watson being one of them). Now the same pattern is being repeated with the seals, so I find it difficult to feel sorry for that sad lot. Furthermore, this sad lot is comprised of only about 6,000 people who claim to receive income from the hunt (according to the Canadian govt). That amounts to an average income of $2,700 CAN per sealer. Big whoop--it's a negligible industry that can be done away with. It would cost Canada less in loss revenue due to boycotting and existing subsidies, if they would just pay the fishermen to stop hunting. It is also worth noting that every year it is the sealers whom I see attacking Sea Shepherd or HSUS crew with their fists and hakapiks and not the other way around.

Finally, I do agree with you that factory farming is a barbaric problem. However, the existence of one injustice cannot be used to justify another injustice. Sea Shepherd is an organization that focuses on marine life. I don't think this reflects a lack of concern for terrestrial life. In order to be effective, an organization has to have a point of focus. Sea Shepherd participates in the factory farming movement to the extent that they are all vegan. And you should be glad to know that there are organizations many times larger than Sea Shepherd working to end factory farming.
 
Hi Frogurt,
Yes, most things are not 100%. Science is not 100%. Direct action is not 100%. Even waking up and stepping out the door is not 100%. If you really need 100%, I doubt you would even get out of bed. Wait...I can give you a 100% --without Sea Shepherd intervention, the Japanese will go down to Antarctica in a few months and kill over 1000 whales including endangered humpback and fin whales. There you go, no silly hypotheticals there.

I've lost track of whether or not you care about the environment, but I hope you do. I hope that you also have some compassion for non-human animals. It is clear you do not share Capt Watson's views, and that is your right. Then I would suggest you do things like write your political leaders, think critically, continue to educate yourself and be open to new ideas, sign a petition, go vegan, or take part in a boycott. And remember, any social movement (and the fight for life and the earth is a social movement) needs activism on many fronts. Find one you are comfortable with within the spectrum and participate, and recognize the role others play to reach the same end.

OnceUGoMac,
Heard you the first time dude. Name calling does not advance debate or discussion.
 
elfin buddy said:
only to slaughter them once ripe
Click to expand...
I find this hilarious, as I have never heard the term "ripe" used in reference to animals before. 😀
Dutch13 said:
Then I would suggest you do things like write your political leaders, think critically, continue to educate yourself and be open to new ideas, sign a petition, go vegan, or take part in a boycott.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, what you have us do with cows and other domesticated livestock grown mostly for food in the off chance everyone went veggie? Most of them are a little big to be kept as pets...
 
Dutch13 said:
It is also worth noting that every year it is the sealers whom I see attacking Sea Shepherd or HSUS crew with their fists and hakapiks and not the other way around.
Click to expand...


Gee I wonder why? If someone was following me around, ramming my car, blocking my door in the morning to try and keep me from getting to work, telling me I was a barbarian, or destroying my property, I'd be inclined to hit them too. You can't use violence as a means to an end. Wouldn't the millions that Sea Shepherd raise be better put to find alternatives for these fishermen, not destroy their ships and leave them with massive debts and cripple their livelihood? Maybe you should talk to them and negotiate new sources of income? If you are so convinced that there is research that furthers your manifesto, then why don't you take that research to the fishermen, or their children. Start school programs in Newfoundland to teach kids, then you'll have a reduction in the hunt in the next generation. Not only would such programs be more productive and grassroots, it would create a respected organization that would then be able to effectively negotiate with government and industry, instead of being viewed as extremists.

Never mind, maybe I'm the crazy one, I just don't see the benefit in losing your credibility just to forcefully take down a couple ships that will only affect a small percentage of the hunt in the first place.
 
kwajo.com said:
...I'd be inclined to hit them too. You can't use violence as a means to an end. ...be more productive and grassroots, it would create a respected organization that would then be able to effectively negotiate with government and industry
Click to expand...
You value grassroots yet aspire to be legitimized by traditional power structures. You say we shouldn't use violence as a means to an end, yet you can understand wanting to hit someone. You say you care about the environment but your primary concern appears to be to provide work for fishermen.

From your comments, my guess is that you are still in college and well intentioned but somewhat limited in experience and naive. I challenge you to dare to think outside the box created by your local media, industry, and government. Recognize your anthropocentrism and question it. Recognize that true change only comes about as a result of a diversity of ideas, actions, and tactics. In the words of Goethe, the world only goes forward because of those who oppose it.

You and others have been quick to empathize with the fishermen and whalers--those who are doing the killing. Question why you cannot empathize with the whales or seals.

Sea Shepherd is an organization with a biocentric view. Many are threatened by this and cannot understand it. Sea Shepherd works for the animals--not people who want jobs or governments that want power or industries that want profit. Their history has shown that they are effective in protecting their clients, the animals.
 
I don't think that a man's opinions are less valid because he is in college, which for your information I am not. Young children often have the best ideas in the world, but according to your hierarchy of validity, they shoudl count for nothing. Firstly, saying that I would be inclined to fight to defend my way of life is not the same as saying that violence is a good means to an end. If a man was blocking my way to work every morning, and I fought back, I would have no illusions that I would be automatically victorious, it would merely be an act of self-defense. For all I know the act might cause me more harm than good, thus meaning I have no pretense of it being a means to an end, as you seem to.

As for “thinking outside the box,” if you knew me, you’d know I am one of the most insane people in my city because I am never lacking for creativity, but one must realize that while creative ideas are one thing, there is a bureaucracy in our world that must be dealt with to get things accomplished. It’s not a matter of me only thinking inside “the box created by your local media, industry, and government,” it is a matter of thinking outside it, so you can better understand how the box works and how to manipulate it. I might easily accuse you of thinking only within the box created by cliché pseudo-intellectuals that think quoting the words of a well-known philosopher will impress people and make their points more valid. But I will not.

I can empathize quite well with seals and whales, as I said I have worked for an environmental organization for years to protect fish habitats, and deal with urban air issues, amongst other things. But you don’t seem to empathize with the other side. There are multiple sides my friend, you need to consider all of them, not just the ones you feel inclined to. Not everything is black and white, not everything is a matter of right or wrong. Neither of us is wrong in this, but we have different opinions on how to best achieve change.

People, just like biodiversity, are incredibly complex. Just because I feel a movement should be respected and legitimized within society, yet I would fight back when attacked, doesn’t mean I am naïve, it just means that life is complex and each situation can result in different outcomes.





As a final note, I don't think that a man's opinions are less valid because he is in college, which for your information I am not. Young children often have the best ideas in the world, but according to your hierarchy of validity, their ideas should count for nothing.
If you want invalid opinions, try teenagers 😉
 
I didn't mean to offend you with my comment above. It was just an observation (not a judgment) based on your earlier posts. I only know you through what you write, so if you live creatively and critically I am glad and applaud you for it. In any event, that is just my opinion and as such it carries no more weight than any other person's, be they old, young, or infantile. I do appreciate your explanations of your opinions. That is what can provoke further thought.

I understand your argument justifying self defense. In this case what is threatened is your "way to work" or your means of making money which is valuable to you. Now imagine from the Sea Shepherd's view. What is valuable to them are the lives of the whales--in their opinion marvelous sentient beings deserving of life. Imagine that you care deeply about these lives that are threatened, and you have a biocentric view, seeing yourself as an interdependent part of the natural world. Can you not see their actions as a sort of self-defense? (rhetorical, btw)

I understand your argument for grassroots efforts and the programs you mentioned. There is a place for that and I would point out that there are existing organizations that work along those lines. Sea Shepherd has chosen the tactic of direct action, and I believe there is a place for that, especially since they have a history of success in their actions. Also, as alluded to earlier in this thread, history supports the notion that direct action is vital to the success of a movement along with more mainstream actions--(examples ranging from the American revolution, the civil rights movement, the suffrage movement, the abolition of slavery, and the independence movements of India, Ireland, and Israel)

Anyway, that's about all I have to say. Best of luck to you. 🙂
 
I'll just say this: I see a place for both types of organizations. You need extremists to push the envelope, and then you need moderate groups to say "Okay this is the ideal, but what can we get all parties to agree to in the next 5 years." The balance of the two allows for things to progress, while not alienating people at the same time.
 
iGary said:
The Japanese are by far the biggest rapists of the sea.

We used to watch them sit outside the offshore fishing limit and sneak in after sunset when I was doing a lot of sailing off the U.S. East Coast.
Click to expand...



more like the rapists of the enviroment😀
 
Just a little update: so far they have raised about 40% of their target for the campaign. Thanks to all who contributed.
 
kwajo.com said:
Gee I wonder why? If someone was following me around, ramming my car, blocking my door in the morning to try and keep me from getting to work, telling me I was a barbarian, or destroying my property, I'd be inclined to hit them too. You can't use violence as a means to an end. Wouldn't the millions that Sea Shepherd raise be better put to find alternatives for these fishermen, not destroy their ships and leave them with massive debts and cripple their livelihood? Maybe you should talk to them and negotiate new sources of income? If you are so convinced that there is research that furthers your manifesto, then why don't you take that research to the fishermen, or their children. Start school programs in Newfoundland to teach kids, then you'll have a reduction in the hunt in the next generation. Not only would such programs be more productive and grassroots, it would create a respected organization that would then be able to effectively negotiate with government and industry, instead of being viewed as extremists.

Never mind, maybe I'm the crazy one, I just don't see the benefit in losing your credibility just to forcefully take down a couple ships that will only affect a small percentage of the hunt in the first place.
Click to expand...

Great, I love this part: "to find alternatives for these fishermen, not destroy their ships and leave them with massive debts and cripple their livelihood?" - please keep in mind that the people Sea Shepherd fights are VIOLATING and BREACHING International LAW and AGREED CHARTERS!

So whoever "profits" or "makes their livelihood" through ILLEGAL means and violating international law deserves an alternative income source?! Give me a break. In the meantime, Sea Shepherd gets my regular (financial and moral) support. In a few years time, I hope to be on-location and be able to help with actions. Sitting down and chatting has not helped much in the last 20 years. Wishful thinking, that's all. Please keep in mind they are not killing people, Sea Shepherd teams destroy the tools these illegal whalers use to kill animals for profit (and those whalers are no poor "fisherrman", they are breaching international law! Enough said for justification of criminals (the whalers!, in case someone is still confused).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back