What is OmniNerd?

Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by you, the reader. Through voting and moderation we strive to highlight the nerdiest of what's around and provide content that's a little more thought provoking than other sites.

Submit New Content

Voting Booth

Choosing Sarah Palin as a Vice Presidential running mate was?

View Results, All Polls
42 votes, 9 comments
1
Nerd-It
+ -

RE: Sea Shepherd

Comment comment by NomadSoul on 04 March 2008

While I don't necessarily agree with the methods, the reasoning is sound--it's not a matter of property, but a matter of life. The life in this case happens to be non-human, but it is life nonetheless. Just because nobody actually owns the whales, doesn't mean they shouldn't be defended (perhaps, defended from being owned).

On the other hand, whether or not it's appropriate to take life to defend life seems questionable. Sinking or damaging whaling ships is one thing, but taking lives is another.

I find it hard to believe that eco-terrorism will earn the environmental movement anything but more bad press.

You are a viewing a subset of a larger discussion.
View Full Discussion
Star This to Save in Your Profile Favorite
Thread parent sort order:
Highest Voted : Lowest Voted : Oldest : Newest
Thread verbosity:
Expand All : Minimize Replies to Comments
1 Nerd-It - +
RE: Sea Shepherd by LordDilly :: NR8

Here's where my morals get ... fuzzy. In certain instances, I feel it is justified to use violence against, for example, poachers who are killing endangered animals, such as the very rare highland gorillas and black rhino (at one point traders of rhino horn where holding on to them in order to drive the animal to extinction to make a bigger profit) but I have a hard time justifying the killing of whalers to myself. While I deplore the practice, and could condone the disabling of a whaling ship, sinking one seems unreasonably excessive and I can't really define why I feel like I do.

Posted 04 March 2008, Hide, Parent, Reply