31 Comments

1. jazz says:

   Sep 1st, 2010 at 22:28

   Whale Wars’ Captain Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd’s Steve Roest talk about Obama, whales, and the BP oil spill: http://bit.ly/99QTIG
2. morality says:

   Jul 14th, 2010 at 02:26

   MSK,
   I’ll ignore the rest of your continued BS (you are the definition of obtuse) and just respnd on two points:
   I won’t follow your link, suffice it to say we’re also fighting whaling in/by Iceland, Norway, the Faroes, the Solomons, and others.
   The idea that Japan would respect a whale sanctuary… Ha! Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary – look it up. If you little bastards weren’t hunting down there, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
3. Ti says:

   Jul 13th, 2010 at 21:12

   @MSK
   Again, you just seem to be shooting out examples of how others do worse, just because there are worse things out there doesn’t make japanese whaling alright. You think that the lives of all animals are equal? Then what in the world do you think gives humans the right to thoughtessly kill whales, sustainable or not, for nothing but money? People don’t need the whale meat, they need it even less than they need meat from livestock. The population of whales may not be endangered, but can you really make the fact that so much pain and suffering is caused by greed alone sound remotely civilised? Is it really worth so much death for things like profits that, when it comes down to it, aren’t anywhere near as real or as beautiful as life?
4. MSK says:

   Jul 13th, 2010 at 16:57

   @morality
   Japanese whaling is conducted under the IWC’s special permit. Norway and Iceland, on the other hand, do not care about the rules of the international body. Which nation is “operating in isolation whenever it chooses”? I don’t know the definition of industrializing of whaling that you say, but how about this one?
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuufPnC4UOE
   They use powerboats, firearms, and even bulldozers to hunt and slaughter the whales. And it is their tradition, they say.

   @WRS
   Comparison of whales and livestock is referred to only when anti-whaling people ridiculously claim that value of the marine mammals’ lives weigh more than others creatures. I say the value of animal’s life is equal. Whales, cattle, or whatever. Sure, you can raise cattle, but so what? How many kangaroos do Australians raise for slaughter? How many red stags do New Zealanders raise for trophies? Do you raise squids? Sardines? How about fox hunting? Swan hunting? Do we raise mice in our houses before killing the pest? We can raise up human children, and that means we can kill them? The point is not whether we can raise it or not. We should just focus on whether the hunt is sustainable or not, right?
   Your country is free to set a sanctuary in its own waters. But in the high seas, principle of the freedom must be respected.
5. WRS says:

   Jul 12th, 2010 at 06:56

   MSK,
   If a country wants to consider killing cattle to killing wild whales, they are logically wrong in addition to morally wrong. How many whales does Japan raise for slaughter? ZERO. All cattle are raised and continue due to human activity. Whales are not raised by humans. They are wild animals that reproduce slowly and are no match for the technology of the whalers.

   If Japan wants to kill whales, they should start raising them in pens. They have no right to kill free whales in ‘protected sanctuaries’.
6. morality says:

   Jul 11th, 2010 at 22:32

   MSK,

   Whales don’t just live in Japan, or in whichever waters Japan presumes to target. They exist in several, intermingled global communites, such that whales (and the concept of whales) in California are affected by the hunting of populations throughout the Pacific. Whaling is not a purely national interest, for any country. The preponderence of international entities have policies that reflect my ethics, to some extent, on the killing of whales – if only because that is an issue that matters to their constituents. Your nation is not free to operate in isolation whenever it chooses.

   Japan is singled out because you have industrialized this genocide, and that makes you the preeminent threat, to the welfare of whales, and to the hearts and minds of those that care about them.
7. MSK says:

   Jul 11th, 2010 at 20:23

   @morality
   Aha, I see. You must be a member of PETA. Now how can you scale such vague things as “ethics” or “morals”? In Italy, laying live lobsters on ice was claimed to be animal cruelty. But it is not the case in Japan. Whaling may be considered to be a moral wrong in your country, but it is not the case in Japan. There is no world-wide regulation about how and what we should eat or not, at least from the viewpoint of a ethic or a moral. Also I can speak out many morally wrong things that your country is doing, but I won’t bother myself stating one by one. Because it’s your business, not mine. Understand?
   “Two wrongs cannot make a right”? You mean, killing livestock is a wrong thing? Sorry, I don’t think so. Your government allows you to slaughter animals, and so does Japan. And our government also gives whalers the permission to do whaling. So there’s nothing wrong on either side.
   You don’t have to come over to Hawaii to defend whales, but why not going to Washington State or Alaska? Your country IS a whaling country. Why are you ignoring the whaling which have been taken place just beside yourself? I’m not a whaler, so I don’t have to individually defend any right of whaling from you. I just trust our government, and believe that inter-governmental debate is the only solution for this issue. What difference can we make if we have a private battle? Nonsense.
8. Foxxx says:

   Jul 10th, 2010 at 09:08

   There is only one way to look at this whole thing:
   The Sea Sheperds are and will continue to be nothing more than pirates that do nothing to stop or even slow down the Japanese whalers. They can do nothing, they can say nothing to stop it, no matter what they do the Japanese will continue to whale and as long as the international community lets them, then all the “life loving, hypocritical hippies” that say don’t kill whales or any of the pretty animal but dont care about the ugly tasty animal will just be the whiners of the world. Paul Watson is a joke, his crew is a joke, and anyone who really believes he is making a difference is a joke.
9. morality says:

   Jul 9th, 2010 at 22:50

   MSK,
   Because nobody else has challenged a couple of your BS statements:
   “Emotive” – it is not an emotional stance, it is an ethical one. It is a moral wrong for peaceful, intelligent beings to be hunted in their remote paradise, especially for profit in a faraway land, where it serves no real need, and to be killed with violent modern weapons of war (including explosives). This presents an ethical responsibility – to prevent/stop it in any way we can.

   I agree with Ti, on livestock, that two wrongs cannot make a right.

   Lion v. mMan – intrinsic value of each being (near) equal, they cancel out. So, I wouldn’t make a value judgement on intervening. Further, there is no weaponry or other unnatural advantage for either side, so no ethical requirement, either. If I had a connection to the person, or it were me, or it would affect my tribe’s interest, I would have the right/choice to harm the lion in defense, but that is it. Easy.

   Re qhat’s to be done. I’m in San Diego, you’re in Japan, let’s meet in Hawaii – katana? We won’t need a whole war, just to have our battle. I will defend these creatures with my life, will you defend your right to kill them with yours?
10. Ti says:

    Jul 7th, 2010 at 19:42

    Well, though I’ll never agree wthat humans are worth anything more than other living beings, that other things don’t feel pain just as astutely as we do, or that whaling is anything other than gross and unnecessary (probably even more so than killing livestock, as there is rather less demand), I will not try to make you change your opinion. It is good to know that Japan is, at least, making some effort to ensure that whale populations do not fall, and that therefore the slaughter will have little effect on the ecosystem and the sea as whole, which is what matters most.
    Beautiful and amazing as cetaceans are, they are no more so than anything else, and so it seems as though the battle against whaling, however sustainable it may be, is one that ought to be fought later, when the survival of other creatures such as sharks, fish, and many others can be ensured.
    (Also, MSK, if you’re thinking of another sarcastic “whale wars” comment, I didn’t mean battle in a thoroughly literal way.”
11. MSK says:

    Jul 7th, 2010 at 18:35

    @Dana
    “Right to live”? What is that all about? Don’t you understand that the concept of so-called “right to life” can be applied only in human societies? If you were alone in front of a hungry lion, would you insist on the “right to live” to the predator? You are just trying to make an emotive story personifying the whales. Ask your grandparents how they felt when they killed the whales. Yeah, I’m sure your country used to be a whaling country as well. Because you needed whale oil, right? That’s why most of the great whales once became almost extinct. Oh wait. At that time, whales were much less than now. If whale poop is really necessary for the breeding of small fish, fish must have decreased as much as whales. But I have never heard of such a report. Can you explain why? And as I said right before, Japan is just longing to do SUSTAINABLE whaling. It’s totally different for the worldwide overwhaling in the past. Why are you talking as if all the whales were going to disappear? It doesn’t make sense at all.
12. Dana says:

    Jul 7th, 2010 at 14:00

    I cannot believe some of the raving idiocy I have just read concerning killing our precious whales. These creatures are beautiful gentle giants that have as much right to live as we do. How dare anyone think it is oK to maim and slaughter them just because they apparently eat too much fish. Yes , apart from the so called scientific killing that is the oficial reason the Japanese kill whales!
    Everyone should also understand that without the whale poop that povides the nutrients and iron needed for the breeding of small fish which is the food for all other larger fish – there would be no fish at all. Apart from the moral reasons it is pure biodiversity that they a part of greater chain that produces food for humans. That is why the whaling needs to stop.
    Would you like to see your mother or father or sister or brother or son or daughter screaming in pain from being speared in front of you and horrifficly dragged abord a ship to be sliced up in front of you. That is
    why the whaling needs to stop.
13. MSK says:

    Jul 6th, 2010 at 20:42

    @Ti
    I think you’re much better than the anti-whalers who claim that whaling should be banned just because whale/dolphin is something special/intelligent. But you’ve a little misunderstood my intentions. I’m not saying “You do horrid things to animals as well” as an excuse, since I don’t actually think it such “horrid” to kill livestock or whales. Yes, it looks bloody indeed to kill and slaughter animals, however, it has been a part of living activities of human beings for hundreds of thousands of years. Of course you can personally refuse to eat meat as a newest Homo Sapiens, but how can you force it on other people? “Ahimsa” is a religious thought, which is originally of Buddhism. If you try to force people to believe it, you’re going to deny freedom of religion. By the way, Dalai Lama must be against whaling, but why nobody ask him whether or not he’s against cattle slaughter as well?
    Anyway, you may believe that “Japan isn’t doing much to defend whales”, but actually only Japan has been doing steady research on the whale populations in the oceans. Leaving the whales alone is not the sole method of conservation. There is a way of sustainable whaling. And if you think such sustainable whaling is impossible, let’s have some statistical and scientific debates, shall we? There are more than 400,000 of Antarctic minke whales in the Southern Ocean. How could it cause a damage on the continuance of the species to take a thousand out of them? Is their birth rate less than 0.3%? No, it isn’t. Now you can see why most of the anti-whaling people and countries need to appeal to your emotion. And I say such emotional argument backfires themselves.
    Any vogue standards such as “intelligence”, “humanity”,or “morality” should not be applied to the whaling issue. That is my point. Oh, one more thing to say. Eating whale meat is perfectly legal in Japan. Though smoking marijuana is legal in Amsterdam, would you like to attack the Dutch for it?
14. Ti says:

    Jul 5th, 2010 at 23:57

    I’m not going to try and defend the way western countries exploit nature, and especially the seas. I believe that the murder of fish, sharks, or any creature, from the sea or land is no better than that of a human or cetacean. But really MSK, are you going to continue on with this “But YOU kill livestock” mantra? Just because what we do is also terrible does not make whaling alright in any way, and you know, maybe we wouldn’t get on your case so much about what you kill and eat if it wasn’t for the fact that killing whales to eat isn’t actually legal, is it?
    The mass slaughter of livestock, and really of fish as well, is a problem mainly due to overpopulation, and not one of the sole desire for money (not that that doesn’t play a huge part in it.) It’s one that will probably improve in time, and as morality said, there are many things being done about it, from within our own nations, however, to my knowledge, Japan isn’t doing much to defend whales.
    And also MSK, yes, you’re right, whale watching can be an intrusion of privacy, I agree, but there are restrictions put in place to ensure that the whales aren’t harassed by boats. But I’m fairly sure that you aren’t saying that because the harassment of whales bothers you in any way, seeing as you just seem to be spewing lots of the same thing, namely “You do horrid things to animals as well.” Great, that’s an attitude that’s going to improve the state of things, makes the idea of “loving peace” sound just brilliant.
15. Ron McMoerna says:

    Jul 5th, 2010 at 21:40

    Doesn’t sound like an epic fail at all. A compromise was reached with everyone involved agreeing. It’s only a fail to people who aren’t interested in compromise or making peace on earth. And anti-peace should fail.
16. ednakano says:

    Jul 4th, 2010 at 11:07

    Here is just histeric anti-whaling people. Whale is not human being but some people using morally wrong as much as cannibalism. I know the reason. Those people thinking Whale is more valiable than colored. Therefore colored whaling is upset of hierarchy. Those peole have potential discrimination principle.
17. MSK says:

    Jul 3rd, 2010 at 09:57

    @morality
    “I’m sure you won’t see it that way, because that doesn’t help your argument, but I don’t care.”
    Wow, totally the same as what I’m thinking about you! I think we’ve at last come to the same conclusion. However, the big difference here between you and I is that I don’t force my views on others, but actually you do so much. The Japanese don’t care what you kill and eat, but you do care what they kill and eat. Maybe because you’re arrogant enough to believe your standards are the world’s standards, you can’t help doing so, can you. Are you singing (nobody but) we are the world? Most of the Japanese believe every animal has its sentience. Saying that “most livestock animals have a very dim spark indeed” is an unacceptable mindset. But I don’t care. You can keep breeding livestock on a farm land where you robbed from wild animals, and continue killing them in your “cruelty-free” way, and enjoy eating juicy beef, pork and chicken not to starve your nation. Yeah, because it doesn’t affect the precious wild nature of the oceans at all. Now we let you do whatever you want to do, so please do not interfere with us. Is that hard to do for you? Because your “justice” wouldn’t allow that? Sorry, we have our justice as well as you have. Now what are we going to do? Wars? Sorry again, the Japanese love peace. Please play war games just within your country. Whale WARS?, Dolphin WARRIORS? HA-HA, whatever.
18. No compromise says:

    Jul 3rd, 2010 at 01:30

    Whaling need to stop because it’s morally wrong as much as cannibalism or slavery, or shooting tigers in a jungle. I couldn’t care less if Watson is a captain or not, he is a Hero, risking his life while you just produce cheap talk with your fat ass sitting behind a screen. And remember law and justice are not equal, there was a law on slavery and a law to exterminate jews. These laws about whaling are based upon profit and corruption by those japanise bastards, and no comprimise in defence of our planet is due. I’ll support Sea shepherd as well as the ELF or the Alf until I can, always on the side of the helpless and defenceless while all your big talk is only a curtain to hide greed and violence, killing for money innocent creatures, you all have blood on your hands and sooner or later this planet will retaliate.
19. morality says:

    Jul 2nd, 2010 at 18:58

    Erik,
    If I’m wrong, but we do as I say, humans behave less violently than we absolutely need to – oh what a loss! Right? If you’re wrong, we’re committing moral crimes on an industrial scale. That places the burden on you to prove they’re NOT sentient.
20. morality says:

    Jul 2nd, 2010 at 18:53

    MSK,

    I am not trying to dodge livestock. I am against slaughter which is not necessary – stopping all meat-eating would mean starvation for humans, which is not my goal, but I think we should limit it as much as possible as it is a bloody stain on our society. I absolutely demand that livestock treatment be as cruelty-free as possible, and, further, most livestock animals have a very dim spark indeed, and don’t understand what is being done to them. You are right that we have much work to do here, and we are! Whaling, however, is unnecessary and agonizingly cruel, and whales do, despite any bullshit to the contrary, have a real spark. Further, unlike with agriculture, there is a real chance to make it stop, which makes it a moral imperative.

    Dogs also have my protection wherever I can – see ASPCA et al. Re: peeping, you realy are a moron. Peaceful interaction with something is hardly as offensive as MURDERING it.

    There is also a big difference between the human-corrupted environments of an agricultural area, where livestock are kept, and those last-remaining wildernesses where whaling and other hunting occurs. Just as there is a difference between livestock animals and nature’s most beautiful WILD creatiures that have yet to be modified, tainted and tamed by man’s greed. These things need to be protected. Livestock is a sad problem, but a different problem. I’m sure you won’t see it that way, because that doesn’t help your argument, but I don’t care. We may just have to meet in battle someday over this. I am for another war at this point.

    For now, I am done arguing with people who desire more killing and suiffering in the world, rather than less. I am secure in the knowledge that I understand morality, and you do not.

    Enjoy your worhtless lives.
21. MSK says:

    Jul 2nd, 2010 at 18:31

    @morality
    I think I do understand what you’re trying to say, however, it doesn’t sound moving at all. Because you’re, intentionally or not, avoiding any topics of livestock. You may feel somewhat guilty about the past whaling, but don’t you feel sorry for killing land animals, such as cattle and swine? How can you say those land animals are less “innocent” than whales? That’s what I asked you, and you didn’t answer it. Sentient animals? Apes, whales, humans, and what else? How about pigs? They’re really smart. How about crows? They can even create tools by themselves. How about dogs? They can express their joy, pain, fear, happiness and sadness. Why humans are killing them, and why only marine mammals should be protected because of their “sentient”? Please give me your answer.
    By the way, if you really believe that “There IS NO DIFFERENCE between a whale and a man”, you must be opposed to whale watching, right? That is a peeping act. We shouldn’t invade whale’s privacy. And of course whales should be given the vote to elect the leader of your country. I’ll support you if you’re trying to realize the first “whale” president in your country. I mean it.
22. morality says:

    Jul 2nd, 2010 at 07:10

    Dear MSK:
    Yes, I’m the fool. I’m not the one who refuses to see that which is clear to those who are open to the world: Please hear what I’m trying to say: There IS NO DIFFERENCE between a whale and a man, at least not in the qualities that truly count. These creatures are aware of self, aware of other, recognize music, display empathy and other complex emotions, and have culture. These are qualities that, in the past, we close-mindedly attributed only to humans (perhaps because only humans go to industrial lengths to destroy their habitat, and that’s what really sets us apart?). In any case, that past was a shameful and arrogant time, and it must come to an end. Even hard-nosed scientists are beginning to understand that the distinction between man and animal is arbitrary. Sentience is the thing, and it’s a continuum, from the smallest mote to the complex minds of apes, whales, humans and others.

    I’m open to my intuitive, unfiltered, natural sense of empathy, and don’t blindly close my heart when the subject is not a human. These are beings, sir, with a spark that is very like a soul. That is my point. Speaking of whaling is no different than speaking of mass murder, except perhaps, that whaling is worse because the victims are entirely innocent of our violent ways.
23. Erik says:

    Jul 2nd, 2010 at 06:54

    @morality…

    what a joke…
    you too need to produce research validating your assertions of “sentience”
    Specifically SENTIENCE in any of the great whales. You do not get to use papers done on the bottlenose dolphin and extrapolate. Sorry pookie, REAL SCIENTISTS have shown it can’t even be applied to other DOLPHIN species, let alone any of the great whales.
    Your posting has just shown you to be ANOTHER ill informed, koolaid drunk, power hungry wanna-be watsonite..

    go back to him…
24. Erik says:

    Jul 2nd, 2010 at 06:48

    Phillips, you sure provided more than just a moments levity with your remarks.
    1. Watson is NOT a qualified and registered ANYTHING…. let alone “captain” Decades of experience at sea only count if one LEARNS and APPLIES the learning. Based on filmed evidence HE provides us with via his “show” he fails on that point too.
    2. Repeat after me… IN TER NATION AL waters… INTERNATIONAL: Not belonging to, or coming under the legal jurisdiction of any nation. Read the Antarctic treaty bozo… no EEZ for the continent of Antarctica. Not for Australia, not for NZ, not for ANY of the five nations that try to claim it.
    3. Sanctuary ? you mean the IWC sanctuary that allows research whaling inside it ? or do you mean the sanctuary that Australia claims in INTERNATIONAL waters?
    4. Produce some research…ANY RESEARCH validating your claim of intelligence in the great whales… ANY. And then once you have FAILED at that, tell us why the slaughter of pigs is ok.

    You;ve shown you are just an IGNORANT mouthpiece for the sewage that watson produces.

    @hazz… grow up dimwit.
    Noone is driving ANY of the southern ocean whales into ANYTHING. Quit parroting sewage you don’t understand. Your opinion of not killing because it’s not there year round is one of the STUPIDEST feats of non-mental activity I’ve observed in dimwits such as yourself.
25. Romika3 says:

    Jul 2nd, 2010 at 00:55

    Paul Watson does not have his captian’s ticket. There is a clear need to deal with issues facing the fishery, however Paul Watson and SSCS is a terrorist, his methods are violent and he and SSCS have preyed upon the common fisherman and set up manyk incidents.
26. MSK says:

    Jul 1st, 2010 at 20:08

    What a fool. First, do I have to tell you the difference between humans and other creatures? Second, you don’t have to eat the Japanese but just eat your neighbors if only it’s legal in your country. And if it’s illegal to eat humans in your country, don’t do the act to the Japanese either. How simple.

    “Morality,” hmm, sounds good. So you want to give up talking about the conservation of whales, but just keep on emotional claims. That’s all you can do now, right? Tell me, if you’re against killing whales/dolphins, why you don’t oppose slaughtering livestock? Oh, you do? Are you vegan? Then you have much more important things to do first within your own country, I guess.
27. morality says:

    Jul 1st, 2010 at 17:24

    MSK, you’re right, we should just kill what we want, and be grateful, with no concern for the SENTIENCE of the subject. I think I will go kill and eat some Japanese people – I bet you taste great! I have some islander blood, so cannibalism is my tradition. There’s nothing wrong with that as long as I am thankful for the sacrifice of the “long pigs” I will be eating. YUM. I think I will make the violence last for at least 30 minutes before killing my new livestock, too, as whales suffer for at least that long and maybe it makes the meat better, or something. No need to think twice about the fact that my violent actions cause fear, pain and suffering in a creature that is AWARE of how I have wronged him/her. No need to think about the society that sees my actions as horrific, because I am reverent. Right? Protein is protein. Right?
28. MSK says:

    Jul 1st, 2010 at 14:26

    Like whales and dolphins, salmons do not permanently live in a certain country’s coastal waters. So we should stop hunting salmons? And “why killing intelligent mammals is wrong”? Then tell me, why killing stupid mammals is right. Any kind of killing animals is brutal and cruel, however, that’s the way humans have lived for thousands years. Food is Life. So we must have respect for all the food we have, which means expressing our gratitude to the plants and the animals we harvest for their life. We thank whales, cattle, pigs, chickens, and everything. That’s the Japanese way of thanksgiving, and also why it sounds hypocritical for the Japanese to regard only whales/dolphins as special.

    Now, can you state exactly what species of whale you think Japan is driving into extinction? Antarctic minke whales? Fin whales? Humpback whales? You should know how many and what whales are hunted, and also what the population of each species is estimated to be. Otherwise it’s impossible to have a rational debate.
29. Hazz says:

    Jul 1st, 2010 at 12:20

    Ok ill explain why the whaling needs to stop, your killing species that are becoming increasingly rare… Nice, your driving an animal into extinction, doesnt that feel great? Oh, and by the way, mayb making small species extinct doesnt have a massive impact on us, but when u wipe out one of the largest species on earth, it does, congratulations. By the way, in my opinion, an animal like a whale/dolphin that doesnt permanently live in a certain country’s coastal waters shouldnt be allowed to be killed, because it is in another place for half or more of the year.
    Oh and just because a wild animal is present on planet earth doesnt mean u have the right to kill and eat it…
30. Mr Philips says:

    Jul 1st, 2010 at 11:54

    Paul Watson is a fully qualified and and registered captain, with decades of experience at sea. So we will refer to him as one. If you lack the basic intelligence and morality to work out why killing intelligent mammals is wrong, then I suggest you refer to Shinto and Zen Buddhism, the original foundations of Japanese culture. If you cannot understand the basic principles of your own culture, perhaps you can respect the territory and rules of another culture by refraining from entering the territory of Australia, and breaking Australian law in slaughtering protected mammals in an established sanctuary.
31. Hideyoshi Toyotomi says:

    Jul 1st, 2010 at 06:38

    Paul Watson is not a registered captain. Therefore, do not refer to him as one.

    Also, please explain why the whaling needs to stop.