|
5
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by Some environmentalist sects have turned increasingly towards violence and terrorist actions in order to make themselves heard. In Washington, a domestic sect of a group called the Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility for arson that burned down multi-million dollar estates accused of "not being green." ELF are not the only ones causing trouble. A similarly named activist group supporting animals is responsible for more than $40 million in arson damages themselves. Meanwhile at sea, Sea Shepard continues to attack Japanese whaling vessels having just been reported to use acid against the crew.
Add a Comment (5)
Email This
Message Author
RSS
Sea Shepherd by galton :: NR4 :: on 04 March 2008
The press have widely fallen for the Japanese whale killers' announcement that 'acid' was thrown onto their killing ships. In fact, the substance thrown onto the Nisshin Maru was nothing more than rancid butter - a constituent of which is indeed butyric acid, but which is harmless to humans, and far from conforming to the stereotype that the Japanese wished to evoke by using the emotive word 'acid'.
My personal opinion is that the Sea Shepherd people are quite justified in taking *any* form of direct action that prevents whaling, even where this results in the loss of whalers' lives. As most of you are logically bound to agree, as it seems you voted overwhelmingly for the "Using full, lethal force..." options in the recent "Castle Doctrine should limit one to..?" poll - or does the right to self-defence in one's home apply only to bipedal primates?
RE: Sea Shepherd by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 04 March 2008
Just FYI - although not in this case, the Sea Sheperd group actually sink the whaling vessels using a ship designed just for that purpose. There's a difference between defending life/liberty/happiness of your personal property (Castle Doctrine) and attacking other people for your ideals - like, I don't like Nikes so I'm going to stab you and throw your shoes in the trash.
RE: Sea Shepherd by NomadSoul :: NR5 :: 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.
RE: Sea Shepherd by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 04 March 2008
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.
RE: Sea Shepherd by anikochan :: NR3 :: on 04 March 2008
I like whales. I think they are intelligent, and I really don't like the idea that people who have no survival imperative to do so kill them for market. That's what cows and chickens are for, vegetarians and PETA be damned.
I think that it's lame when the media distorts something with the full intent to make a party more odious or pleasant than it is.
However.
You think these people are "justified" in endangering the lives of whalers or directly attacking with lethal force? For most of those guys, this is a *job*, not something they do to make a statement to anyone. Now, if the whales themselves destroy a ship, that's life. You try to kill something, and yes, it may kill you first. But claiming that what the SS people do is *self-defense* is stretching it a bit. It's not. I might love a whale, but I'm not going to be able to say much in court to defend myself if I shoot someone to prevent harm to befall it. What next, you're going to kill wild orcas that prey on young whales?
Now, if they're chasing them into protected waters and they're caught in the act, they deserve to be treated like any poacher to the fullest extent of the law.